User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 37

  1. #11

    Default

    The Myers-Briggs system did make use of Jung, and the concept of cognitive functions remains part of the theory. However, I do think that Jung was using different notions from Myers/Briggs, Beebe, Berens, or Thompson. But I think each of the people who use the cognitive function concept is using it in a slightly different manner.

    Socionics, for instance, is based on a similar history. But I don't think you will find people saying that the Socionics system and the Myers-Briggs system, as we know it, as being part of the same system.

    I believe when people use "JFC", there is an allusion to a more "pure" or originalist view of Jungian functions...as in a return to what Jung actually said, rather than the re-interpretations and modifications that Briggs and Myers added.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #12
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    So you think that a person's JCF type has no relationship to their MBTI type? How would the end result be different? How are they "incompatible"? Don't get it.
    I'd explain it like this--I'd define MBTI to be the results of the test itself and JCF to be the results of applying the theory directly because I think that treating the two as equivalent may muddy the waters.

    If the systems are outright defined differently, then the end results are definitely correlated (and thus do have a relationship) but not outright linked--just like MBTI and Socionics types are correlated but not outright linked together.

    That is, it gives us the freedom to recognize and account for the fact that the end results may be different. We'd avoid oddities such as those we've seen in, say, @Seymour's research threads. For instance, he showed us one telling finding where those who have tested as ESTJ on MBTI don't necessarily test higher in Te (on a separate cognitive function assessment) than those who tested as ISTJ on the MBTI--if we outright stated that MBTI and JCF were equivalent, we'd have a problem; if we didn't, then we.. well, wouldn't.

  3. #13
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post

    Food for thought: If MBTI and Jung are identical, then what's Socionics? Is it a bastardization of Jung, or is it also equivalent to Jung (and therefore also equivalent to MBTI)?
    I would grant Socionics as being closer to Jung, because j/p correspond to Jung's "rational/irrational" as the dominant function rather than the extraverted one.

    Myers' theory should be seen as basically a merger of Jung with classic temperament (which Jung apparently rejected). She started out trying to create yet another four behavioral type system like DISC (Marston) or Adler or Fromm's theories: Spontaneous, Sociable, Executive, and Meditative (Likely Sanguine, Phlegmatic, Choleric and Melancholic, respectively). Only she began trying to match them not only to E/I, but also to Jung's functions.

    If she followed the two factor matrix of classic temperament and the three other systems I mentioned, she would use E/I (expressiveness) with a form of people/task (responsiveness), and it would be:

    Meditative: introvert, task focused
    Sociable: introvert, people focus
    Executive: extravert, task focus
    Spontaneous: extravert, people focus

    Instead; trying to match them with six Jung dichotomies, she ended up with:

    Meditative: introvert in general
    Sociables: Feelers
    Executive: Thinkers
    Spontaneous: both S and N

    J/P then had to be created to distinguish the introverts from the extraverts. (i.e. Spontaneous were most likely SP's and NP's, both of which are Sanguine in one way or another, and the other functions had to be differentiated).
    She ended up making function combinations (ST, SF, NT, NF) as her "four temperament" groups out of the 16 types.

    She was on the right idea, (as Feeling would be more people-focused, and Thinking more task focused, and Perceiving also more people focused, describing one dimension of the types, along with introversion for Meditatives), but really losing the entire structure of temperament theory.

    It would take both Keirsey and later Berens, to reintroduce classic temperament into the system by sorting out the true expressive/responsive groups and thus map out where they more precisely fit: one conative (action and leadership: Keirsey's groups), and one "affective" (social: the Interaction styles), which are based on E/I as expressive, and both T/F and J/P end up fitting people/task.

    Notice how S/N is what she got hung up on (squeezed into one group, requiring it all to be broken down further with a new dichotomy). It fits the conative matrix (where it ties together opposites!), but not the affective matrix, which is what most four temperament systems are based on.

    So that's why I don't care which is truer to Jung. I'm more aligned with classic temperament, and Jung introduced a new perspective of personality and Myers simply expanded upon his theory in a way that made it possible to eventually merge it back with classic temperament. Having a dichotomy that tells us which function is extraverted (rather than dominant) figures more in temperament, because it is giving you a likely indicator of outward interaction, which classic temperament was focused on, and which is good in personal relationships, work teams, etc.
    Socionics ends up creating new "temperament" groups using E/I and j/p, which are largely different from classic temperament groups. (Ej's and Ep's might match two of the social temperament groups).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #14
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    I also think part of the incompatibilities are due to the fact that when we're all discussing typology on here, and typing people, we're assuming each and every person can and will fit neatly into a single type, according to how theory states one is supposed to fit into it. I think there IS a subset of the population who does easily fit into the caricatures/categories; however, I think there's a large subset that isn't clearly typeable in any black-and-white sense. Especially given lack of consensus and clearcut, definitive method of determining type and disproving all other 15 types.

    And I think one could argue there's incompatibility due to the fact that no one on THIS forum can definitively type anyone... everyone uses different methods/ways of determining someones' type, and I think one CAN type differently based on whether one is going by dichotomy methods of typing vs. cog. functions.
    Are you saying that some people's preferences and functional usage do not correspond with one of the established types, or rather that everyone is some specific type, it is just harder to determine type for some people? The somewhat flawed analogy would be: is it hard for me to measure someone's height because they have bushy hair and poor posture, or is their height actually fluctuating in such a way that it is meaningless to describe them by a single height value?

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Why do you think dichotomy-tests are based on cog functions? I'm genuinely confused and would like to know.

    Dichotomy tests (what I thought was being referred to as 'mbti', as opposed to cog. functions) go by E=gets energized by people, S=detail-oriented, J=isn't late for meetings, etc. Nothing to do with cog. functions.
    This is an oversimplification. It's been awhile since I read Gifts Differing, but I recall it discussing each of the four functions, describing them as "processes" or "mental functioning". The attitude of the functions (Ti vs. Te, etc) is expressed in the combination of E/I plus P/J. This makes it seem primarily like a difference in notation rather than substance. Yes, the MBTI questions reference situations like being punctual, enjoying social time, or focusing on the big picture. That is because it is designed to be a measuring tool that can be broadly administered to people who may know nothing about psychological theory, but are very familiar with their own habits and preferences. As a tool it is limited in accuracy, and does not always return the "correct" type of the subject. Direct use of cognitive function theory may provide a more accurate measure, but also requires more knowledge and experience to apply correctly.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  5. #15
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Why do you think dichotomy-tests are based on cog functions? I'm genuinely confused and would like to know.

    Dichotomy tests (what I thought was being referred to as 'mbti', as opposed to cog. functions) go by E=gets energized by people, S=detail-oriented, J=isn't late for meetings, etc. Nothing to do with cog. functions.
    I think this is the crux of all of it because I believe them to be essentially the same thing because the origin of MBTI is with cognitive functions and their ordering. There is a difference with MBTI in that with Step 2, it looks at "facets" which is a completely different dimension. However, I would be quite surprised if the results were not identical between an MBTI step 2 test and good cognitive function test (the only one I know of is Nardi's which I don't think is especially good BTW).

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I believe when people use "JFC", there is an allusion to a more "pure" or originalist view of Jungian functions...as in a return to what Jung actually said, rather than the re-interpretations and modifications that Briggs and Myers added.
    Exactly. I think this is sort of BS though. It's splitting hairs.

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    We'd avoid oddities such as those we've seen in, say, @Seymour's research threads. For instance, he showed us one telling finding where those who have tested as ESTJ on MBTI don't necessarily test higher in Te(on a separate cognitive function assessment) than those who tested as ISTJ on the MBTI--if we outright stated that MBTI and JCF were equivalent, we'd have a problem; if we didn't, then we.. well, wouldn't.
    Re bolded. I don't believe it. Is there evidence to support what you are saying? I do not believe it is possible for an ESTJ to have low Te.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    So that's why I don't care which is truer to Jung. I'm more aligned with classic temperament, and Jung introduced a new perspective of personality and Myers simply expanded upon his theory in a way that made it possible to eventually merge it back with classic temperament. Having a dichotomy that tells us which function is extraverted (rather than dominant) figures more in temperament, because it is giving you a likely indicator of outward interaction, which classic temperament was focused on, and which is good in personal relationships, work teams, etc.
    On temperament - I have only read Kiersey and though I like it, I think it is a bit imaginative and takes liberties.
    Last edited by highlander; 09-09-2012 at 12:18 PM.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  6. #16
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    However when he talks about things, and what I know of him, I honestly can't make heads or tails of what cog. functions he truly uses. I tend to think he's Si-dom, sometimes. Perhaps even ISFJ, even though I think he'd be typed by most as INT, going by dichotomies, tests, and the 16 types' stereotypical caricatures. So while he very well may be Si-dom, he doesn't fit any of the dichotomy questions that would lead to an ISJ typing.

    I also think part of the incompatibilities are due to the fact that when we're all discussing typology on here, and typing people, we're assuming each and every person can and will fit neatly into a single type, according to how theory states one is supposed to fit into it. I think there IS a subset of the population who does easily fit into the caricatures/categories; however, I think there's a large subset that isn't clearly typeable in any black-and-white sense. Especially given lack of consensus and clearcut, definitive method of determining type and disproving all other 15 types.

    And I think one could argue there's incompatibility due to the fact that no one on THIS forum can definitively type anyone... everyone uses different methods/ways of determining someones' type, and I think one CAN type differently based on whether one is going by dichotomy methods of typing vs. cog. functions.
    I also wanted to address the rest of your points because they are important. First, I have done some not insignificant level of work to investigate and learn about this and do believe the best way to ascertain someone's type is to observe the cognitive functions in action. It gives you a clue as to a person's type. Certain functions can be relatively obvious - Te, Ne for example. Introverted functions are much harder to observe - Ni especially. They are only clues however and the bottom line is that it can be very hard for an amateur to definitively assess another person's type. That doesn't mean the system is invalid.

    I do believe there are people that don't seem to fit the system at all. You could test them and they don't fit the characteristics of their type. I have never believed that people fit neatly into these 16 boxes. I have always believed the system to be imperfect and to give you a general sense as to what someone is about.
    Last edited by highlander; 09-09-2012 at 01:45 PM.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  7. #17
    As Long As It Takes.... Redbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    So you think that a person's JCF type has no relationship to their MBTI type? How would the end result be different? How are they "incompatible"? Don't get it.
    Mine doesn't. My JCF type is INTJ. I usually get INTP for my MBTI. I ran across a good article about why these were different. I'll have to dig it up. Off the top of my head, it said something about MBTI using too much of stereotypical SJ behavior to measure J behavior. It pointed out that XNXJ often didn't display the usual 'neat, scheduled, orderly,' etc. There's more but I'm having a hard time typing with a busted wrist. Also having a hard time with the other typing.

  8. #18
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    In our discussion, you didn't indicate INTJ, you seemed to be weighing between INTP and ENFP. So then, using JCF alone, you think you're getting Ni dominant? (I know you're considering Te vs Ti. It should be pointed, that in Socionics, INTj is TiNe and INTp is NiTe, but then, to make things more confusing, the definitions of the function attitudes are changed so that Ni≈Ne, Ti≈Te, etc).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  9. #19
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    No, they are not "incompatible", and that kind of talk is ridiculous and absurd.

    The dichotomies are just a labeling system, and allow for one's "JCF type" (aka, type) to be determined using a dichotomy-based test.

    The tests may or may not suck (someone above mentioned the questions for "Jness" on the dichotomy-based tests correlating with the qualities typically associated with an SJ, which I think is definitely true, and one of the reasons why I only score about a 55% towards J [MBTI's methodology for J/P labeling, while containing part of the truth, also misses out on a different part of the truth that Socionics' methodology for J/P labeling does take account of: that the dominant function is so prevalent a part of our cognition, it should really be the determinant of the j/p label]), which may cause one to score differently on the tests than one's true type, but that doesn't mean one's MBTI type is actually what one scores on the test, and that one's "JCF type" is what one actually is. Your MBTI type and your JCF type ought be the same, regardless of what you get on an MBTI test (granted, there is the alternative idea that Seymour posted in a thread about looking at MBTI as solely dichotomies, but, frankly, I think that methodology is basically just a lesser form of the Big Five [call it the Small Four...], and is largely pushed for by people who have a weak understanding of the cognitive functions and the associated theories [they're probably dirty sensors incapable of abstract thought, too]). (<-- for the feelers in the audience: this last part is a joke [sorta])

    At least wrt Socionics there can be a debate as to whether the functions are the same in the two systems (with the convenient excuse being that the two systems developed on opposite sides of the iron curtain), and thus whether or not someone who has Ni and Te as their first two functions in Jung/MBTI ought have Ni and Te as their first two functions in Socionics or Ti and Ne (and likewise for all the other types [and yes, I understand this is supposedly a greater problem with the Sensors and some other types]), but, even then, I think that's more accurately attributed to just somewhat different interpretations of the functions and/or differences in accent/flavor of the profile/type/function descriptions based on the difference in j/p labeling methodology (i.e., an INFj/ENI will sound more "judgey" in Socionics than an INFP in MBTI because Socionics focuses on the "judginess" of the dominant function, whereas MBTI focuses on the "perceiveriness" of the first extroverted function -- both methods have their merits, and I think you gain more insight into the one underlying reality that both are trying to describe by understanding both systems, and that both systems are just taking a bit of a different cut at things).


  10. #20
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    No, they are not "incompatible", and that kind of talk is ridiculous and absurd.


    I have been mulling this over during the past 24 hours and think there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this entire topic. Gifts Differing by Isabel Briggs Meyers and Peter Meyers describes MBTI. It was published in 1980. The book explains cognitive processes and the existence of a dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior process that each of the 16 types has. These processes are cognitive functions. Each of the 16 types is described in the book, organized by the dominant process. So, INTJs and INFJs are described together. ENTPs and ENFPs are described together, etc. Then what happened was that some well meaning authors came along who were perhaps not well enough informed or attempted to dumb down the content. Otto Kroeger and Janet Thuesen, with their TypeTalk series completely ignored the 8 functions and simplified it to focus on T, F, S, N, etc. So all these people who were not actual practitioners (I was one of them) were lost on the nuances of the cognitive processes that were underlying the system. Then Henry L. Thompson came out with a paper (I think) and published a book in 1996 called Jung's Function-Attitudes Explained. He explained each of the functions in some level of detail and the nuances with the 8 cognitive processes which had gotten lost along the way. Certain elements of the model finally started to become clear.

    So, MBTI is based on cognitive processes or functions. If you read the MBTI Step 2 Manual, on page 9, it explains the function orders for each type. For example, an ENFP is:
    Extraverted Intuition - Dominant
    Introverted Feeling - Auxiliary
    Thinking - Tertiary*
    Introverted Sensing - Inferior

    There is a footnote for the tertiary which reads, "An attitude (extraverted or introverted) is not specified for the tertiary function column, as there are differences of opinion about this issue. See page 30 of the MBTI Manual for more information."

    The point of all of this is that ordering of cognitive functions has always been at the heart of the MBTI system. If the MBTI Step 2 assessment were to give someone a type that was inconsistent with this cognitive function ordering, then it is wrong because that is the purpose of it.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI and Cognitive Functions
    By paradox fox in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-16-2010, 05:45 PM
  2. MBTI and Jungian functions
    By hommefatal in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-25-2009, 09:52 AM
  3. Alcohol and Cognitive Functions
    By locke in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 07:07 PM
  4. Eye Direction and Cognitive Function
    By heart in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-27-2008, 08:02 PM
  5. MBTI and Cognitive Functions
    By RansomedbyFire in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 06:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO