User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 37

  1. #21
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    On the other hand upon reading "Psychological Types" I can see how they came to their conclusions, although many have wondered why they put so much emphasis on the auxiliary and lesser functions given that Jung spent barely two pages on it. It being mentioned almost in passing.
    Yes, this is my frustration with MBTI.

    Jung attempted to give an archetypal (cognitive) understanding of human nature. Its emphasis was on the dominant and inferior function.
    MBTI took that and mutated it into a full fledged two-function model where the creative function becomes important in explaining a person, so important even that one of its dichotomies is based on it.

    Unfortunately, Highlander, because of this, often times the JCF gets mutated to an MBTI type, blurring the lines between J and P and displaying JCF inaccurately, misleading people. Even when JCF is applied directly from Jung, there is still a resulting disconnect in J and P. If one is a dichotomous J in MBTI, Jung's eight cognitive functions would consider a rational function as their leading, Ti, Fi, Fe, or Te, but MBTI would say otherwise, despite that the creative function isn't supposed to be that important. It's frustrating to try and explain this to someone and it's even worse to notice someone who identifies as a P or J explaining functions that they really don't have/use.

    In other words, they are contradictory, but they attempt to explain the same phenomenon. So the debates will never end.

  2. #22
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    Yes, this is my frustration with MBTI.

    Jung attempted to give an archetypal (cognitive) understanding of human nature. Its emphasis was on the dominant and inferior function.
    MBTI took that and mutated it into a full fledged two-function model where the creative function becomes important in explaining a person, so important even that one of its dichotomies is based on it.

    Unfortunately, Highlander, because of this, often times the JCF gets mutated to an MBTI type, blurring the lines between J and P and displaying JCF inaccurately, misleading people. Even when JCF is applied directly from Jung, there is still a resulting disconnect in J and P. If one is a dichotomous J in MBTI, Jung's eight cognitive functions would consider a rational function as their leading, Ti, Fi, Fe, or Te, but MBTI would say otherwise, despite that the creative function isn't supposed to be that important. It's frustrating to try and explain this to someone and it's even worse to notice someone who identifies as a P or J explaining functions that they really don't have/use.

    In other words, they are contradictory, but they attempt to explain the same phenomenon. So the debates will never end.
    What do you mean by "creative function"? Also, I don't know what you mean by "blurring the lines between judging and perceiving, displaying JCF inaccurately." Can you provide an example? I think you tried to explain this but I'm not following you.

    What MBTI did do is take the functions identified by Jung and narrow it down to the 16 types based on a predetermined ordering of them. It's a derivation of Jung. I guess my question is what would a "JCF type" even be? Do I just say someone is an Ni dom and leave it at that or do I have 8 functions in order of preference with that ordering being random (or more than 16 variations)?

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    On the other hand upon reading "Psychological Types" I can see how they came to their conclusions, although many have wondered why they put so much emphasis on the auxiliary and lesser functions given that Jung spent barely two pages on it. It being mentioned almost in passing.
    Who really cares though? Jung invented this way of characterizing people and then there were enhancements or derivations of the system that developed over time. Early automobiles were primitive. They were enhanced to be faster, protect the occupants in the event of a crash, etc. The fact that someone came up with some ideas doesn't mean those ideas can't be enhanced. It's progress.

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

    Tri-type 639

  3. #23
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    What do you mean by "creative function"?
    I didn't know that either. Even searched through Psychological Types. Actually, it's what Socionics calls the auxiliary function.
    I guess my question is what would a "JCF type" even be? Do I just say someone is an Ni dom and leave it at that or do I have 8 functions in order of preference with that ordering being random (or more than 16 variations)?
    Yes, the Jung types were the dominant function and attitude, so there were only eight. The auxiliary created a variation of the type, but was not considered a separate type.
    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. #24
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I didn't know that either. Even searched through Psychological Types. Actually, it's what Socionics calls the auxiliary function.Yes, the Jung types were the dominant function and attitude, so there were only eight. The auxiliary created a variation of the type, but was not considered a separate type.
    So the only difference as far as assigning a JCF type then is that for MBTI, there is the addition of an auxiliary function which combined with the dominant function, determines a person's type. The difference is that I'm calling it a different type instead of a "variation" of a type. Is that right? If it is, I don't see how that is inconsistent or wholly different at all.

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

    Tri-type 639

  5. #25
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    It's not different or inconsistent. It seems criticisms of MBTI come from the questioning of the J/P dichotomy (in contrast to "rational" or "irrational" dominant function), and also, for some, definitions of function attitudes (Socionics and "Jack Flak" system), and the alternation of attitudes. (Like some will argue that there should be a TiNi type. MBTI would explain that using the notion of a strong tertiary).
    MBTI more precisely organizes or formulates Jung's concepts, and some think this creates something too rigid as to be unworkable. (Like I can compare it to the scriptural notion of God as Father, Son and Spirit. The Church later formulated this as "three equal persons sharing one substance", and this allowed them to stand up more clearly to erroneous concepts, such as Christ being less than God, or not distinct from the Father; but it also created a lot of confusion with terms such as "equal", "person" and "substance", which gave impressions of tritheism).
    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

  6. #26
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,883

    Default

    I copied in the wrong link earlier on in the thread. This is the one I meant to copy in that explains the different "systems" and how they are based on cognitive functions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian...tive_functions

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

    Tri-type 639

  7. #27
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    What do you mean by "creative function"?
    Oh, I meant "auxiliary". Socionics uses "creative", I think. Word slip.

    Also, I don't know what you mean by "blurring the lines between judging and perceiving, displaying JCF inaccurately." Can you provide an example? I think you tried to explain this but I'm not following you.
    I don't know if I can provide an example, but there's a lot of stuff that doesn't mesh well that maybe I can use to explain what I mean.

    In Jung, summarizing, Tx/Fx are rational functions, Nx/Sx are irrational functions, extroversion is objective, but only in the sense of what it "aims" to do - change/influence/titillate the external world, not that it has a completely objective understanding of reality as some believe, introversion is subjective in that it deals with and constructs an internal orientation about the world, but not that it is a completely subjective understanding of reality either as some believe (a lot of the abstract systems that govern our way of life are based on introversion, but they are very real, like government, money, economics, etc.), the inferior function has an unconscious influence over the dominant function, a second function is of lesser importance/use and is a slave of the rationality or irrationality of the dominant function, and the only temperaments are then NT, ST, SF, and NF and J/P really doesn't exist.

    In MBTI, summarizing what surrounds it, rationality is whether or not you are a T (rational) or F (irrational); what is objective is T and what is subjective is F; F has to do then with subjective values, while T has to do with objective logic. Ne is possibilities and being open-minded, whereas Ni is knowing "the truth". Si is being a stupid traditionalist git and Se is almost the equivalent of being a self-indulgent whore or animalistic. Fe is being social and influencing people with ease, while Te is getting "shit done". J/P was added and it was applied to the less important auxiliary function, yet it remains an important defining line between your type and thus Jung's rationality and irrationality and what functions you use, either Ni+Te or Ti+Ne in the case of INTP and INTJ.

    Folowing from the previous paragraph:
    Someone who then sees their auxiliary function as important starts to explain their dominant function as relating to it, defining their dominant function hugely by their auxiliary. For example, someone who is Jungian Ni dominant may not see Te or Fe to be all that useful or important and may find their heavy introversion relates more to Ti+Ne, since Ne is explained away as considering possibilities despite that they aren't really extroverting Ne the way Jung outlined (and Ti is rational and critical and objective in MBTI, even though that has literally nothing to do with it, except being rational). The second function wasn't supposed to have so much weight. This is where MBTI screws up because even when people use JCF they often find it hard to get past all the bs and incorporate it in many ways into JCF, anyway. If they believe the second function holds a lot of weight, all efforts will go to that aim, even if it muddles the epistemological logical basis for Jung's types.
    But let's say someone does use JCF correctly. There's still a problem. Because the introverted functions aren't objective (in the Jungian sense), it then tends to be easy to misinterpret aspects of a type for an observer. More truthfully, it is usually the external observer not understanding the self-reporting of the internal observer that creates a problem in the first place. Given that there are four temperaments to Jung's types - SF, NF, NT, ST, would it be absurd to find them sometimes explained in terms of what the observer sees as rather dumbed down and negative qualities, sometimes forcing JCF to describe a type as if in a shadow state? At least this is what I've found, especially among the feeling type descriptions. The shittiest JCF descriptions seem to hinge on describing Beebe's Opposing and Witch shadow in describing the motivations and orientation of the type. It's ironic because it's still technically accurate and still talking about the type, although contradictory to what their functions really are supposed to be.
    Of course, I can't really provide proof of this, since it would require hacking apart things people have said in various places, which you probably wouldn't find to be conclusive, but it is what I came to realize without any forethought about the idea, at some point. It's also why I think they are somewhat contradictory, but attempt to explain the same phenomenon.

    What MBTI did do is take the functions identified by Jung and narrow it down to the 16 types based on a predetermined ordering of them. It's a derivation of Jung. I guess my question is what would a "JCF type" even be? Do I just say someone is an Ni dom and leave it at that or do I have 8 functions in order of preference with that ordering being random (or more than 16 variations)?
    If you add another function, then there is another unconscious element to explain, one that has much less impact on someone than the dominant function would and one that would be more open to interpretation and contradiction over time because of this - too changeable to make general assumptions on. Considering a lot of thought is/was put into tertiary-dom loops and developing the tertiary and such and what it should all mean and whether it really makes any sense... well that's probably a sign, right?

  8. #28
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,883

    Default

    This paper talks about some of this and is interesting.

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

    Tri-type 639

  9. #29
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    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?
    I am saying some people do not fit cleanly into a type. I believe the established types are a good roadmap for what I will call 'extreme' patterns, or blueprints - all 16 types provide 16 different general modes of personality. But I think many can skirt more than one type, whether minimally or more pronounced. As an example, my mother is what I will call an 'extreme' ISTJ, as she has almost zero intuitive ability/doesn't view the world at all through any sort of N lens. She's a pretty clearcut ISTJ. But there are many ISTJ's who are much less 'extreme' and can bounce between modes more readily and such. I think Types can be viewed in more of a gradient sense.

    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.
    Yes, I was oversimplifying, but I was trying to get at the fact that Dichotomy/mbti tests don't specifically test for cognitive function usage itself - i.e. the questions aren't determining whether one uses Ni or Si, or Ni or Ne, or Fe or Fi, or Te or Fe, and so on. So that is why I view the mbti tests as essentially a different system; the questions and means of determining type are not directly based on cog. functions or determining ones functions. I think what other people are saying in this thread is that the mbti tests are based on functions, but I think that is different than the questions actually focusing on functions - because they aren't.

    I agree that the mbti tests are structured so as to be most accessible by the most people; and these dichotomy tests are what are used by some corporations, schools, etc. But I still think the way these tests determine type is quite different from cog. functions, so I still don't think it's a valid assumption to think mbti testing/methodology and cog. function analysis will yield the same results, all the time. There can be incompatibility.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  10. #30
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    In Jung, summarizing, Tx/Fx are rational functions, Nx/Sx are irrational functions, extroversion is objective, but only in the sense of what it "aims" to do - change/influence/titillate the external world, not that it has a completely objective understanding of reality as some believe, introversion is subjective in that it deals with and constructs an internal orientation about the world, but not that it is a completely subjective understanding of reality either as some believe (a lot of the abstract systems that govern our way of life are based on introversion, but they are very real, like government, money, economics, etc.), the inferior function has an unconscious influence over the dominant function, a second function is of lesser importance/use and is a slave of the rationality or irrationality of the dominant function, and the only temperaments are then NT, ST, SF, and NF and J/P really doesn't exist.

    In MBTI, summarizing what surrounds it, rationality is whether or not you are a T (rational) or F (irrational); what is objective is T and what is subjective is F; F has to do then with subjective values, while T has to do with objective logic. Ne is possibilities and being open-minded, whereas Ni is knowing "the truth". Si is being a stupid traditionalist git and Se is almost the equivalent of being a self-indulgent whore or animalistic. Fe is being social and influencing people with ease, while Te is getting "shit done". J/P was added and it was applied to the less important auxiliary function, yet it remains an important defining line between your type and thus Jung's rationality and irrationality and what functions you use, either Ni+Te or Ti+Ne in the case of INTP and INTJ.
    On the bolded part, I don't ever recall anywhere it being said that T is objective and F is subjective. I guess you are kidding about Si and Se but I don't ascribe to the view that a lot of people seem to have on sensing descriptions being bad or negative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    The second function wasn't supposed to have so much weight. This is where MBTI screws up because even when people use JCF they often find it hard to get past all the bs and incorporate it in many ways into JCF, anyway. If they believe the second function holds a lot of weight, all efforts will go to that aim, even if it muddles the epistemological logical basis for Jung's types.
    Re bolded. I think I understand this now. The thing is that MBTI is intended to operationalize Jung's theories. You could argue that it doesn't do a good job of it or is not a "pure" interpretation or derivation of Jung but that's what it is intended to do. If the JCF type is just the dominant function then MBTI just goes further and lists another 3.

    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