User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 37 of 37

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    If what you people are trying to get at is that say an ISTP who has really strong Ti and Si is really an INTP in a TiSi loop under Jungian functions though in reality they are a clear sensor means that the 2 systems in many cases can be incompatible and hence we need a complete redefinition of the entire theory for it to even hold any validity.

    Also consider the example of an INTJ who specializes in TiNe though in reality they are a clear judger is another sign of the fallibilities of typology.

    edit - I am not saying these examples apply to me though they may apply to others.

  2. #32
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    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.
    I believe you are right - the questions are not designed to test for those cognitive functions. It doesn't matter though. Having taken a lot of these things, I strongly believe Step II is by far the best instrument out there. It uses 20 "facets" with opposing poles to come up with the four letter type (like abstract vs. concrete or traditional vs. original or reasonable vs. compassionate). These are my results.



    I guess I don't care if I'm assessing someone's type based on their gestures, their cognitive functions illustrated in the way they communicate, facets or the kind of shoes they wear . All I care about is whether or not it works.

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

    Tri-type 639

  3. #33
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    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.
    Actually I understood it to be more that the dominant is the king so to speak, who looks down upon his subjects who are the lesser functions.

    This means that if someone leads with Ni then the aux is Te but the Te is not going to be exerting the same influence as the Te of a Te dominant type. It's going to be subordinate to the intuitions of Ni.

    I can easily see how they got this from jung when he writes:

    Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function exists of secondary importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.
    However to clarify my point above here is another excerpt from that same page on auxiliaries concerning the dominant:

    This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, because the equally independant intervention of another function would necessarily produce a different orientation which, partially at least contradict the first.
    There is also a bit more information that could help in showing how they might have come to their conclusions:


    Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonisitc to, the primary function. Thus, thinking as the primary function can readily pair with intuition as the auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling.
    However he does give an interesting bit of information that could easily have been stretched out into the MBTI theory of functions...IE: the top four:

    "For all types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious primary function there is a relatively unsconsious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function. The resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensations, speculative thinking forging ahead with intuition, artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on.
    So already we have a template of archetypes which they may have worked from, alongside his descriptions of the types.

    Finally the most important little paragraph I think in explaining how they could have formed their theory:

    The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus. the correlative of conscious, practical thinking, may be an unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition.
    I bolded the word 'functions' because the pluralisation is important if we wish to work out their methods and how they nderstood the theory. But that whole paragraph, not only outlines how, but also presents an example of what could be called the MBTI type ESTJ.

    With the functions grouped: Te-Si-Ne-Fi. However the nature and attitudes of the thinking and other functions is not really mentioned, so it could also be an ISTP.

    It's flimsy and I dont necessarily agree with it, but I can see how they did theorise the way they did.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  4. #34
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    Actually I understood it to be more that the dominant is the king so to speak, who looks down upon his subjects who are the lesser functions.

    This means that if someone leads with Ni then the aux is Te but the Te is not going to be exerting the same influence as the Te of a Te dominant type. It's going to be subordinate to the intuitions of Ni.

    I can easily see how they got this from jung when he writes:



    However to clarify my point above here is another excerpt from that same page on auxiliaries concerning the dominant:



    There is also a bit more information that could help in showing how they might have come to their conclusions:



    However he does give an interesting bit of information that could easily have been stretched out into the MBTI theory of functions...IE: the top four:



    So already we have a template of archetypes which they may have worked from, alongside his descriptions of the types.

    Finally the most important little paragraph I think in explaining how they could have formed their theory:



    I bolded the word 'functions' because the pluralisation is important if we wish to work out their methods and how they nderstood the theory. But that whole paragraph, not only outlines how, but also presents an example of what could be called the MBTI type ESTJ.

    With the functions grouped: Te-Si-Ne-Fi. However the nature and attitudes of the thinking and other functions is not really mentioned, so it could also be an ISTP.

    It's flimsy and I dont necessarily agree with it, but I can see how they did theorise the way they did.
    Excellent post. Why is flimsy though?

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

    Tri-type 639

  5. #35
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Excellent post. Why is flimsy though?
    Only because Jung's actual types are quite removed from those of the MBTI. His idea of a dominant Si type for example...was actually someone who experienced their senses as archetypal material, to the point that it took on a mythic quality.

    Si doms in MBTI are...often portrayed as downplayed enforcers of tradition, but I believe this is a mistake and more likely to be found in ESJ types more so than ISJ types.

    On the other hand me using the word flimsy could just be my....lack of confidence in asserting myself? As in im subtly trying to appeal to the MBTI nay-sayer crowd?

    This is probably a fault of trying to be objective with my post, but still being unable to escape the influence of personalised values.

    /feeler
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  6. #36
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    Actually I understood it to be more that the dominant is the king so to speak, who looks down upon his subjects who are the lesser functions.

    This means that if someone leads with Ni then the aux is Te but the Te is not going to be exerting the same influence as the Te of a Te dominant type. It's going to be subordinate to the intuitions of Ni.
    I had heard of a "king" analogy of Jung, and the dominant is the king ad the auxiliary, in the interpretation I heard, was the "translator" speaking to the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    Only because Jung's actual types are quite removed from those of the MBTI. His idea of a dominant Si type for example...was actually someone who experienced their senses as archetypal material, to the point that it took on a mythic quality.

    Si doms in MBTI are...often portrayed as downplayed enforcers of tradition, but I believe this is a mistake and more likely to be found in ESJ types more so than ISJ types.
    Beebe sheds light on that, as ESJ's (who have Si as auxiliary) will tend to "parent" with the function (That's the archetype that aligns with the auxiliary). Si doms will "lead" with it, but since it is introverted to begin with, they will not be as [initially] expressive toward others with it. It is primarily for the ego, and their ego focuses inward. What they "parent" with will be the Je, which, will be even more visible from being extraverted.
    So again, that's why J/P as indicating extraverted function makes a lot of sense.
    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

  7. #37
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    to attach to descriptions rather than the intended conceptual referents seems to be the main issue. to me, there is simply no level of behavior, neuro included, that we can safely regard as a foundation, so we're still left in the ether at this point. jung's ether (the land of Ni).

    i've found the process of differentiating levels of description when regarding the cognitive functions to be enormously helpful at better grasping their essence. the Se description in socionics still seems to me to be the best one i've seen. to simply be awake in space and able to monitor the changes in an environment. it better gets at the semantic/episodic split along j/p lines than simply presuming that information could simply be introverted or extroverted and causing us to make awkward arguments involving reductionistic stories of perception based on cognitive function labels (when in fact the neurological system is massively parallel).

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