• 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.

MBTI and Cognitive Functions - Incompatible??

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
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.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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)?

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.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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).
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
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?
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
This paper talks about some of this and is interesting.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.

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.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.

2-6-20101-39-53PM.png


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.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
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.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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?
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
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 :D
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.

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.
 

the state i am in

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,475
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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).
 
Top