Where cognitive processes can look alike

[OrangeAppled]

Sooo, I've been putting together some potential function look-a-likes. It's pretty rough, but I think the main ideas come across.

Where cognitive processes can look alike.

This describes ways in which cognitive processes might be confused. This is NOT describing functions in whole, just aspects where they might be confused for another one. These are certainly not the only ways functions can be confused either. I think these examples are pertinent in P/J confusion though (ie. determining if you're TiSe or SiTe).

Se + Te
Similarities = both focus on external data, facts, information
Differences = Te is a judging process, focused on categorizing these things logically, using external measures. Te thinking focuses on applying systematized knowledge. Se is a perceiving process, and does not reason, but is aware, focused on finding more & more sensory & factual data to experience. Se thinking is focused on their reactions to these experiences, and these are pursued for their own sake. Negative experience/information may even be sought out, just to see what it is like.

Silly illustration (which personifies the functions): The Te-dom categorizes the sky as blue in color, according to what blue & color are defined as. Se notes the sky is blue & focuses on their immediate instinctive reaction to it.

Ne + Fe
Similarities = both seek to affect people, to get reactions from them
Differences = Fe seeks to affect people to create consensus, to promote harmony or unity of feelings. Fe is a reasoning process, which generally evaluates according to how something affects external relationships. The desire to affect is to keep things in line with their values, values which they determine according to external measures. Fe will generally seek positive reactions, but will take a negative one over nothing, as it may, for example, at least draw attention to their purpose & eventually get people on board.

Ne seeks to affect people so as to impress their ideas on them, to stir the pot, to get a reaction for its own sake, even if negative. Ne is not a rational thought process, but perceives intangible external relationships which imply possibilities, so their thinking is focused on pursuing these ideas, not on creating common value systems or stabilizing relationships. It's a kind of experimentation: how would people respond if I do X?

Silly illustration: Fe believes that the blue sky indicates clean air, and wants to promote the importance of this as it affects the well-being of people. Ne wants to explore the possibility that the sky is not blue, and may say something outrageous to get other people to play along.

Ti & Si
Similarities = similar to Te/Se similarities but introverted. Both deal with facts, knowledge & systems in relation to the inner world.
Differences = Ti is a judging process which creates concepts of what is logical according to an internal measure, using facts & knowledge to create/refine these internal systems. Si is a process which does not reason, but is aware. It collects & stores facts, knowledge & sensory experience according to the impression it leaves on the individual, and that impression is then compared to any future info taken in. Si notes differences, is aware of them, but it does not judge them. Ti judges irregularities to or within their system.


Silly illustration: Ti judges the sky as blue because it is consistent with a color theory they've developed, aided by taking in info (Pe) about color & the sky, etc. Si sees the sky as blue because it appears similar in shade to other things called blue they've seen before OR it sees the sky as "pleasant" because the color implies good weather & clean air (such judgments being very Je), based on their past experience & knowledge of these things.

Fi & Ni
Similarities = both have "visions" amounting to ideals (concepts from the imagination) & deal with the nature of the inner life
Differences = Fi is a reasoning process which evaluates according to an inner ideal, or vision of perfection. These conclusions are viewed by the Fi-dom as personal & used to determine their own needs/preferences, focusing on their individual inner life; how these relate to others is often an aspect of Pe. Fi judges what should be the essence of perfection, creating models of the ideal.

Ni is a perceiving process which becomes aware of concepts & sees how they should or will develop. These ideals are often viewed as objective in the sense that the Ni type does not relate them to him/herself, not focusing on their personal inner life, but the inner nature of things in general. The Ni type may see these ideals as having the universal validity of truth. Ni sees the model essence of all things, viewing them reduced to their most basic concept & then seeing how they relate to one another.

Silly illustration: Fi judges the color of the sky as it relates to their pleasure & needs, and sometimes, by extension, the pleasure & needs of humanity. A grey sky is sometimes pleasing because it reflects an introspective mood Fi enjoys. Ni sees the color blue as a symbol of freedom & tranquility (or whatever), because blue is the color of the sky & the sky implies these qualities.

 

[Andy]

You are right, functions can often seem similar, but I don't agree with the way you defining the functions. You are talking about the functions as if they are ways of reaching conclusions, which is a very common misconception. They are more indicative of how people prioritise and decide what is important to them. For example, both Te and Se might create an urge to rebuild a wall that was fallen down, but the reasons would be diffferent. Te is about responding to what is seen as a practical or pragmatic necessity or opportunity. The wall served a function, therefor it needs to be repair so that it can do it's job once more. The Se user is also keen to partipate, but Se is an experience seeking function. The SP wants to rebuild the wall because it's something that they have never done before.

 

[Little_Sticks]

You are right, functions can often seem similar, but I don't agree with the way you defining the functions. You are talking about the functions as if they are ways of reaching conclusions, which is a very common misconception. They are more indicative of how people prioritise and decide what is important to them. For example, both Te and Se might create an urge to rebuild a wall that was fallen down, but the reasons would be diffferent. Te is about responding to what is seen as a practical or pragmatic necessity or opportunity. The wall served a function, therefor it needs to be repair so that it can do it's job once more. The Se user is also keen to partipate, but Se is an experience seeking function. The SP wants to rebuild the wall because it's something that they have never done before.

I think she's taking a more realistic approach though in compiling empirical evidence for the functions. Cause what we deem rational might be irrational to another. It wouldn't seem ludicrous to think there might be more empirical commonalities between them when comparing how people reach their functional conclusions.

 

[OrangeAppled]

You are right, functions can often seem similar, but I don't agree with the way you defining the functions. You are talking about the functions as if they are ways of reaching conclusions, which is a very common misconception. They are more indicative of how people prioritise and decide what is important to them. For example, both Te and Se might create an urge to rebuild a wall that was fallen down, but the reasons would be diffferent. Te is about responding to what is seen as a practical or pragmatic necessity or opportunity. The wall served a function, therefor it needs to be repair so that it can do it's job once more. The Se user is also keen to partipate, but Se is an experience seeking function. The SP wants to rebuild the wall because it's something that they have never done before.

Aren't those conclusions being reached? And isn't the "how people do X" pretty much just a different phrasing of "the way people do X"?
A decision about what is important or a priority IS a conclusion, and the way you reach it, the "how", is the process to get there.

In fact, that's pretty much what I am noting here....that there are different reasons behind behavior or views that can look similar. I don't really see the difference in what you're saying & what I'm saying at all.

 

[Southern Kross]

Questions!

1. How do you account for the similarities? Are the coincidental or is there a more inherent reason with regards to the makeup of the functions?

2. What do you think about the idea that is sometimes touted around here that when certain functions are combined they can mimic another function entirely? (eg. Ni + Fe= Fi)

3. Do you think this could explain the similarities and affinities between certain types despite having no functions in common? (For example, INFPs & INFJs share no common functions yet they are both described as: perfectionistic, introspective, empathetic, sensitive, idealistic, creative, value-driven, deeply concerned with the human condition, protective of inner self etc, etc)

I suppose these similarities could also explain some confusions between certain types. People could feel another person was on their same wave length which could lead them to mistakenly think that their thinking is aligned. However when they take those approaches to different ends, misinterpretations would result.

 

[Andy]

I think she's taking a more realistic approach though in compiling empirical evidence for the functions. Cause what we deem rational might be irrational to another. It wouldn't seem ludicrous to think there might be more empirical commonalities between them when comparing how people reach their functional conclusions.

Indeed it might, but what has that got to do with what I said? I never said that two people of the same type have to have the same opinions. I was driving towards the notion that functions indicate the type of things that might be of interest or importance to us, but do not dictate an exact subject area or conclusion.

Aren't those conclusions being reached? And isn't the "how people do X" pretty much just a different phrasing of "the way people do X"?
A decision about what is important or a priority IS a conclusion, and the way you reach it, the "how", is the process to get there.

In fact, that's pretty much what I am noting here....that there are different reasons behind behavior or views that can look similar. I don't really see the difference in what you're saying & what I'm saying at all.

It is just a rephrasing, but that wasn't what I said. You were talking about ways of reasoning, such as listing Te as categorising and using systemetised knowledge. Your description of the functions gives no indication of what a person might use such techniques for. My descriptions is about what a person my want to solve or respond to, but gives no indication of how they might go about it. Going back to the example of the wall, I said that the Te might wish to restore the functionality of the wall, but not how they would do it. They might draw up a plan, figuring out how many bricks they might need and how motar, then use their diary to find good time schedules for buying the components and doing the construction. Or they might just pick up the phone and hire a builder to do it for them. Or they might decide to just wander out, grab some cement out the shed and use it to stick the fallen bricks back together right there and then, because they don't really care what the wall looks like, just as long it is there. All these responses come from the Te drive to "restore the walls functionality", the theory says little as to which response the TJ might pick.

 

[uumlau]

Questions!

1. How do you account for the similarities? Are the coincidental or is there a more inherent reason with regards to the makeup of the functions?

2. What do you think about the idea that is sometimes touted around here that when certain functions are combined they can mimic another function entirely? (eg. Ni + Fe= Fi)

3. Do you think this could explain the similarities and affinities between certain types despite having no functions in common? (For example, INFPs & INFJs share no common functions yet they are both described as: perfectionistic, introspective, empathetic, sensitive, idealistic, creative, value-driven, deeply concerned with the human condition, protective of inner self etc, etc)

I suppose these similarities could also explain some confusions between certain types. People could feel another person was on their same wave length which could lead them to mistakenly think that their thinking is aligned. However when they take those approaches to different ends, misinterpretations would result.

The pattern behind the similarities are kind of obvious, once one abstracts the functions (beyond their current level of abstraction!). Both S and T are concrete, while N and F are "fuzzy". e vs i is obvious.

I've long regarded Fi as the "judgey" version of Ni. It would follow that Te is the "judgey" version of Se, Ti is the "judgey" version of Si, and Fe is the "judgey" version of Ne.

With respect to your (2) and (3), I believe that "mimicking" is a matter of skill sets. The functions are different "meta-reasons" to adopt any particular skill set. ENFPs and INFJs are remarkably adept at analyzing and evaluating people in a psychological sense, but their means of doing so are remarkably different. They'll arrive at similar conclusions via completely different thought-paths. INTJs and INTPs seem equally introspective and logical, but they can have a difficult time coming to terms with each others' version of technical argumentation.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Indeed it might, but what has that got to do with what I said? I never said that two people of the same type have to have the same opinions. I was driving towards the notion that functions indicate the type of things that might be of interest or importance to us, but do not dictate an exact subject area or conclusion.

What did you think I was saying?

It is just a rephrasing, but that wasn't what I said.

What?

You were talking about ways of reasoning, such as listing Te as categorising and using systemetised knowledge. Your description of the functions gives no indication of what a person might use such techniques for.

As I said, I was not describing the functions in full, only where they might appear to "overlap", but also how they actually greatly differ.

My descriptions is about what a person my want to solve or respond to, but gives no indication of how they might go about it.

If this is about my illustrations, I said they're just rough examples. They're not meant to encompass a whole function, but to illustrate differences, that's all.
I'm mainly distinguishing where one type perceives & the other judges when they both may be drawn to similar things.

Going back to the example of the wall, I said that the Te might wish to restore the functionality of the wall, but not how they would do it.

I suppose I'm considering how process leads them to decide they need/want to restore the wall to begin with. Because again, any type may want to restore a wall for functionality - but what leads them to make even that decision? Why might, say, a Fi type decide functionality needs to be restored? They'll likely connect it to some principle they hold involving people - maybe safety issues or something like that.

I think we're going circles here....

 

[OrangeAppled]

1. How do you account for the similarities? Are the coincidental or is there a more inherent reason with regards to the makeup of the functions?

I think Uumlau summed it up. I think even beyond the functions operating within real people, the descriptions of them sometimes are not clear enough, &/or they're overly narrow, which could lead a person to conclude they are preferring a "look-a-like" function.

This is obviously not a new concept, but I chose these ones to discuss because I hadn't seen them discussed elsewhere just yet; whereas I have seen Ne+Se confusion discussed (both being Pe), as well as other function look-a-likes. Well, actually, I typed this up partly for myself also, just to clarify my own ideas to myself .

2. What do you think about the idea that is sometimes touted around here that when certain functions are combined they can mimic another function entirely? (eg. Ni + Fe= Fi)

Again, I will agree with Uumlau, as I assume people simply mean mimicking in terms of appearance as opposed to two functions actually "acting" like another function. So you may see similar results in conclusions or abilities or behaviors even.

That's kind of what I'm getting at with this...if you combine these look-a-like functions, then you can easily see how people's behavior, skills, views, etc, can mimic those highly associated with another function or type. This can cause type confusion. I think it also removes limitations people like to put on types/functions.

3. Do you think this could explain the similarities and affinities between certain types despite having no functions in common? (For example, INFPs & INFJs share no common functions yet they are both described as: perfectionistic, introspective, empathetic, sensitive, idealistic, creative, value-driven, deeply concerned with the human condition, protective of inner self etc, etc)

That's partly what I'm getting at above...
However, I think this is also due to both types preferring Feeling to judge (judging in terms of value) and iNtuition to perceive. It's two very different personalities & ways of thinking operating in the same sphere, or their spheres overlap in ways. That's where I might give a little credit to Keirsey in noting these visible similarities with his temperament groupings; but you could group types in many ways depending on where you want to note "overlaps" (ie. why some advocate NP, NJ, SP, SJ groupings, etc).

I suppose these similarities could also explain some confusions between certain types. People could feel another person was on their same wave length which could lead them to mistakenly think that their thinking is aligned. However when they take those approaches to different ends, misinterpretations would result.

Yeah, well, I've certainly been there .