• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

JCF Isn't The Answer

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I came to this forum to discuss personality types, and found there was an agenda preceding me. There has been a push against the MBTI and toward a return to cognitive functions.

I believe there are good, logical reasons to be against the MBTI, and I have stated those reasons here on many occasions - pretty much, every chance I get. But if I have any agenda, it is to use reason in solving problems. Compare reason to the whiny badgering of those who believe they have found the Answer in JCF.

Thinking you have found the Answer is not a problem for me. Everybody has their own answer. But that's just it - it's YOUR answer. I will debate with you logically over the validity of your answer. The fact that I only get one-liners and bigotry in return is evidence that your Answer is neither reasonable nor logical. So I often feel like a pet owner walking into a meeting of animal rights activists.

And really, your Answer is not reasonable. Jung was no scientist, he was some kind of modern "Prophet." Logic, as he employed it, was only a tool of some subconscious "reality." And so he created a religion or dogma of the subconscious that is not established in fact. Jung's logic is coherent enough, but it does not correspond to reality.

The main problem with Jung's theory is that he moved from cognitive functions
to personality types without regard to any scientific study whatsoever. Such a "Genius" as Jung apparently didn't need it, all of his Answers came from "somewhere" - God, taking the form of the collective unconsciousness, who has granted him omniscience by whispering into his subconscious "ear." The information came from some vast pool of collected wisdom hovering around somewhere in the aether, waiting for just the right kind of mind to extract the Truths lying therein. The result is merely a cultish following of those who don't dare question the Master.

But these intellectual fads tend to just come and go.

So far I haven't seen anybody who has spiritually profited from JCF. I've seen some dilettantish types hanging around who barely understand the words they are spouting into their keyboards. All I can say to you is that personality typing is not the same as cognitive function typing. And anyway, JCF is very reductionistic. I also know you don't know or care what that term means or what it implies about your rigid mindset.

Personality typing is about the whole character of the person, not these few cognitive functions you can barely manage to identify, if at all. For us, the clues to personality are always external to the person, not hidden in the secret recesses of their minds.
 

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
True. But it is also the answer. Cognitive functions are the bedrock of MBTI; these are not mutual exclusive. Socionics is better.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So what would be your more specific gripes about JCF?

I've noticed a bunch of underlying assumptions and insinuations in your broad case, but I'd like to hear them clarified so as to be sure what your complaints actually are.

InvisibleJim said:
Cognitive functions are the bedrock of MBTI; these are not mutually exclusive.

I'd agree with that.

I've visited Socionics a few times and will likely do so again. One of my earlier issues was that there was disagreement on what Socionics was and how it worked, so I had set it aside until things settled out a bit. (I had even run across those who felt like Socionics and facial appearance was correlated, which to me was becoming more like phrenology.)
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So what would be your more specific gripes about JCF?

I've noticed a bunch of underlying assumptions and insinuations in your broad case, but I'd like to hear them clarified so as to be sure what your complaints actually are.



I'd agree with that.

I've visited Socionics a few times and will likely do so again. One of my earlier issues was that there was disagreement on what Socionics was and how it worked, so I had set it aside until things settled out a bit. (I had even run across those who felt like Socionics and facial appearance was correlated, which to me was becoming more like phrenology.)

Jim's with the Personality Correct crowd here. I have plonked them all.

I'm looking for simple reason on that side. The fact that there isn't any is, to me, very telling.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
True. But it is also the answer. Cognitive functions are the bedrock of MBTI; these are not mutual exclusive. Socionics is better.

Bedrock? Isn't that just a village in the Flintstones? The MBTI is a patchwork of ideas, JCF theory does not by itself imply any four-letter designations. In fact, I was reading over on PersN that the original theory can be used to form 32 types, not just 16.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I guess that prior post was my way of saying, "I'd like to respond, but can't even tell what specific points I would address, and I'm pretty adaptable at deciphering posts. So unless you clarify better what your actual complaint(s) are, you probably won't get much of a response."

here's all I can see:

Complaint #1: Jung operated from an intuitive/mystic interface. Yeah. Not much else to say about it. Here, he created a theoretical framework correlated to his real life observations, but form probably dictated content to some degree. I don't think he ever claimed his theory was "scientific," though, so how can we judge on that merit?

I'm not sure what your other complaints even are.

I know I incorporate function theory into my current understanding of MBTI, which makes sense to me -- function perspective is useful. But both function and MBTI theory can never really "capture" all of a person, it only captures basic shape and form if that. The entire system is contrived and build on certain assumptions; the biggest flaw seems to be reducing people to a handful of discernable parts. Likewise, you can say a car is comprised of an engine, wheels, and a chassis, which might be true; but a car is more than that, and cars can vary tremendously among each other.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Cognitive faculties and explanations for behavior will never stand their ground in the court of science. That said, theories that endure scrutiny, and theories that resonate with people are those that survive in this field.

Yes, he took a mystical approach. That topic extends into theosophy, theology, and a bunch of other stuff that's completely off the point of JCF.

I can understand mal when he says that he hasn't witnessed anyone undergo significant spiritual growth through JCF. Functions serve as placeholders and rough guides for understanding your individual nature, but of course do not encapsulate it. Jung would say the same, and would advocate that people look deeper than his theories to nourish a better understanding of their own image.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
"The entire system is contrived and build on certain assumptions; the biggest flaw seems to be reducing people to a handful of discernable parts." Reductionism is a bad cognitive habit, and I know that Jung would have disagreed strongly with it. (He called it "nothing-but thinking," as in "you're nothing but a handful of cognitive functions.")

My question for the forum is: how am I supposed to read someone's mind in order to gain knowledge of their cognitive functions?
All we have to go on are externalities: style of clothing, manner of speech (e.g., choosing to say "think" instead of "feel," talking more slowly than quickly), and body language. All the evidence has to be tossed into a pile and carefully sorted through. There is no mind-reading.

I've stated the basic assumption of JCF already: Jung asserted that cognitive functions create a certain character. You can read this for yourself in Personality Types. His discussions of the individual types are divided into two distinct parts. The first part discusses the function itself; the second part analyzes the character produced by this function. All I'm saying is that there is no proof that the first part leads to the second.

The basic assumption of the MBTI is, for example, that "Introverted Sensing with Thinking" means ISTJ. Jung's theory never implied it, and I don't see why he would ever have allowed it.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
My question for the forum is: how am I supposed to read someone's mind in order to gain knowledge of their cognitive functions?

You don't.

Otherwise...

tinfoilhatarea2360993.jpg
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
My question for the forum is: how am I supposed to read someone's mind in order to gain knowledge of their cognitive functions? All we have to go on are externalities: style of clothing, manner of speech (e.g., choosing to say "think" instead of "feel," talking more slowly than quickly), and body language. All the evidence has to be tossed into a pile and carefully sorted through. There is no mind-reading.

All of which is true... but too extreme.

Just because you can't see what is under the surface doesn't mean you can't gather some decent ideas about what is under there, either if it is expressed directly (because sometimes people DO express such things via words, describing their own inner states) or by the way the person moves in the external world.

(You can't see the wind either, but you can guess when it is present by observing the things you can see and seeing them behave in certain ways.

We can also often tell when people are lying because things don't quite add up to the truth on the surface in terms of body language, context, tone of voice, whatever else. I think maybe lie detection is a good one, because there are many people who follow a bunch of contrived rules to somehow determine what is a lie and are typically wrong, whereas others are watching context, how things are expressed, etc., rather than relying on the rules and can sense when something is "off.")
 

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
Bedrock? Isn't that just a village in the Flintstones? The MBTI is a patchwork of ideas, JCF theory does not by itself imply any four-letter designations. In fact, I was reading over on PersN that the original theory can be used to form 32 types, not just 16.

I would go the other way and say it forms 8 types. The rocketscientists at pern haven't got that far yet; although between sending me harassing skype messages simulatedgodoftypology/gambling and losing was willing to countenance it.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I would go the other way and say it forms 8 types. The rocketscientists at pern haven't got that far yet; although between sending me harassing skype messages simulatedgodoftypology/gambling and losing was willing to countenance it.

John Fucgjack, or whatever his name is, also predicted 32 types, once the basic MBTI flaw is removed. And he doesn't hang around these forums.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Consider this. You can categorise human beings as one type. Human beings. Or you can break it down to colour, black, red, yellow and white. Or you can break it down to ethnicity or culture. Or you can break it down to individuals.

You're looking for perfection in an imperfect system where there are no perfect systems.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Consider this. You can categorise human beings as one type. Human beings. Or you can break it down to colour, black, red, yellow and white. Or you can break it down to ethnicity or culture. Or you can break it down to individuals.

You're looking for perfection in an imperfect system where there are no perfect systems.

Actually, I was criticizing dogmatism and a religious attitude regarding typology. So you should be criticizing me for expecting perfection out of people.

But what I'm seeing here is not a "lack of perfection." Everybody makes mistakes. What I am seeing is a perfect lack of reason.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
You're looking for perfection in an imperfect system where there are no perfect systems.

No one is looking for perfection.

A decent level of accuracy, however, is not an unreasonable expectation.
Considering the large number of people who have repeatedly claimed their responses to many test questions would be "both," if allowed to answer truthfully, is enough to create reasonable doubt that a decent level of accuracy exists.
 

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Thinking you have found the Answer is not a problem for me. Everybody has their own answer. But that's just it - it's YOUR answer. I will debate with you logically over the validity of your answer.

Fine by me. :) I already know that we all interpret these personality type systems in different ways. I emphasize the 8 original types, and at the same time I do not care for most of behavior or appearance based typing, but I also know that there are my own biases in this and that this way of looking at it doesn't work for everyone.

The main problem with Jung's theory is that he moved from cognitive functions to personality types without regard to any scientific study whatsoever.

Why is there always the demand for scientific study? Since when are personalities supposed to be easily made scientific? I can't see how personality type could really be made scientific until we are able to read other people's minds over a significant course of their lifetime. Until then, we just have to trust that what they think what they are is correct.

So far I haven't seen anybody who has spiritually profited from JCF.

My aim isn't spiritual profit. It's an interesting thing to study that has been very helpful in understanding me and other people. How much more do I need to get from it?

Personality typing is about the whole character of the person, not these few cognitive functions you can barely manage to identify, if at all.

Yeah, I mostly agree with you there.... there has to be a combination of the holistic and the reductionisitic.

For us, the clues to personality are always external to the person, not hidden in the secret recesses of their minds.

But why does it have to be at either of these two extremes? Why can't it be internal to the person but at the same time in full view to them?


My question for the forum is: how am I supposed to read someone's mind in order to gain knowledge of their cognitive functions?

We can't really read each others minds. It all is sort of a big guessing game based on what people say or represent about how their minds work.

The basic assumption of the MBTI is, for example, that "Introverted Sensing with Thinking" means ISTJ. Jung's theory never implied it, and I don't see why he would ever have allowed it.

Ummm, that's just the way MBTI defined it. It's kind of hard to argue stuff that's just true by definition.

I've stated the basic assumption of JCF already: Jung asserted that cognitive functions create a certain character. You can read this for yourself in Personality Types. His discussions of the individual types are divided into two distinct parts. The first part discusses the function itself; the second part analyzes the character produced by this function. All I'm saying is that there is no proof that the first part leads to the second.

This is interesting though..... I'll have to come back to you on this one.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
No one is looking for perfection.

A decent level of accuracy, however, is not an unreasonable expectation.
Considering the large number of people who have repeatedly claimed their responses to many test questions would be "both," if allowed to answer truthfully, is enough to create reasonable doubt that a decent level of accuracy exists.
Any personality testing is only as accurate as understanding of the questions, validity of the questions, honesty and self-knowledge of the individuals taking them.

I don't consider MBTI or JCF to be the blueprint of people. But I do think it has uses, in its insight into people through categorisation.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Any personality testing is only as accurate as understanding of the questions, validity of the questions, honesty and self-knowledge of the individuals taking them.

I don't consider MBTI or JCF to be the blueprint of people. But I do think it has uses, in its insight into people through categorisation.

There isn't going to be much insight into anyone if they're miscategorized to begin with. It should have been obvious that miscategorization becomes inevitable if people are not permitted to answer questions truthfully. MBTI types are frequently nothing more than an artifact of a forced-choice testing method, rather than a tool yielding any significant level of insight.

If you want insight, try conversing with a person like any rational human being would.
That way you won't be operating on little more than sloppy assumptions.
 
R

ReflecTcelfeR

Guest
The thing that I don't quite understand is why people would want to deal with absolutes in the first place, especially when it comes to theories and even more so physiologically unproven ones like these.

Take what you need and leave the rest. You don't have to accept the theory in its entirety. I don't think anyone could. This same debate comes up time and again and ends in the same way. Let the horse sleep in his grave!
 
Top