Cognitive Functions as Polarity Systems

[Anew Leaf]

(For the sake of brevity and my own sanity and the fact that I can only work with what I know, I am focusing on the NFP-STJ system for my examples.)

If we start with the functions at the most basic level, then we have them as points floating in space:

Taken this way, the functions are defined by isolated data points. Fi is about an internal set of values, Ne is about exploring possibilities, Si collects data and relates it to the past, and Te organizes ideas.


This is a very limited way of viewing the system, and so the idea that they must be interconnected appears:

Which brings in mind the idea that these functions are merely a spectrum, and that our abilities fall somewhere along this line... And there they sit.


However, I think a more balanced view of these things would be to consider them as a polarity system. I think we often view our four main functions in terms of what we like and dislike. We love/prefer/embrace our dominant and auxillary functions, and consider our tertiary and inferior functions as our bad/shadow self only. Viewing them in this way makes it seem as if our 3rd/4th functions are a problem that needs to be solved, or a secret that should be swept under the rug. Problems are things that have end points and can actually be solved. Whereas polarities are something that are ongoing and need to be managed.

A simplistic look at a polarity we all have is that of breathing:

It would be detrimental to our health to go too far in either upper quadrant, and so we spend most of our lives mindlessly traversing this path like an ice skater with endless energy.

I think the same concept can be applied to the cognitive function spectrums:

The purple butterfly represents the ideal path of necessary motion that must be undertaken in order to reap the full benefits of cognition and content creation. Problems arise when we want to stay forever up in the quardrant of our choice. What goes up comes down, and eventually we sink into the negative aspects of our preference. This is uncomfortable and is a sign that we need to move over to the opposite pole in order to provide relief.

A Ne dom/aux that has gone too far off into the ocean of possibilities, will have lost sight of the shore of Si. What is often the case is that the island of Si looks like a boring jut of rocks with no trees and no coconuts and should therefore be avoided as long as possible. When the tides inevitably bring the boat to the shore, the positives of such an interaction will be outweighed by the perceived negatives, and the Ne-er leaps out again into the ocean. This action causes further sinking into the negatives of Ne, rather than boosting back into the positives.

In a perfect system, they would start paddling back to the island to verify their information is true before heading out in a new direction. The return to the island would provide real data and a new focus for further exploration. It would also give a chance for rest from constant searching, and the ability to look at the ocean with fresh eyes.

My idea here is that this helps represent why we are supposed to develop and manifest the full spectrum of each function as we get older and work towards having a balanced system. I think there can be a fear that if we embrace that opposite side of ourselves, that we will lose the purity of what we think makes us great. When instead the opposite pole serves primarily to enhance the primary.


This is my short and simple overview. I can, far too easily, expand outward on any of these points if anyone wishes to discuss this with me.

 

[Dr Mobius]

[MENTION=13402]Saturned[/MENTION] I do have some questions, but I want to make sure that I understand what you are saying so I put it into bullet point form, in my own words. Then based my questions on that, if they are wrong feel free to correct them, and not answer the subsequent questions.

Premises

Functions are to be viewed as polar opposites Ne to Si, Fi to Te

Extrapolation

For optimal balance and growth a balanced trajectory is needed.

This trajectory will encompass both positive and negative aspects, essentially centre focused

Dwelling on our primary and auxiliary functions will create unbalanced and unhealthy views

Focusing on developing tertiary and inferior functions will have an even keel effect, clearing the mist and boosting healthy growth.

Questions

Isn’t the grasp for inferior functions a lost cause?
I thought it was considered a visceral function one in which our control is severely limited, one which we jump to in times of stress and anger?

And whether or not the aforementioned statements are true, how would you precede to balance the tertiary and inferior functions?

Was there a reason you used polarity, considering that in electric polarity you are either positive or negative?

 

[jryn1993]

I was kind of under the impression that that was one of the main points of studying personality type in the first place; to give yourself a framework to help you achieve a balanced, well rounded state. I already think of the "opposite" functions as being 2 sides of the same coin. Ne and Si most of all. Seems like pattern recognition would be necessary to develop a baseline to compare things against, and that such a baseline would be required to stereotype things. (Stereotype isn't quite the word I'm looking for, just the closest thing that comes to mind right now)

 

[Anew Leaf]

[MENTION=10550]Trollogo[/MENTION]

Thank you for bullet points. They are a Te-girl's best friend.

Premises

Functions are to be viewed as polar opposites Ne to Si, Fi to Te

Yes.

Extrapolation

For optimal balance and growth a balanced trajectory is needed.

Yes.

This trajectory will encompass both positive and negative aspects, essentially centre focused

Yes to the first, Mmm not quite to the bold.

I am not sure if it would be accurate to say that the centre is the focus so much as the continual movement is the focus. These quadrants of our Dom and Aux are where are strength naturally lies and where we should be. However, we cannot be there to exclusion of all else.

Dwelling on our primary and auxiliary functions will create unbalanced and unhealthy views

*for too long. Yes.

Focusing on developing tertiary and inferior functions will have an even keel effect, clearing the mist and boosting healthy growth.

Yes. Although the focus starts with awareness.

Isn’t the grasp for inferior functions a lost cause?

Is it a lost cause because it is a lost cause or a lost cause because we think it's a lost cause? I shall continue with this thought on the next question/answer.

I thought it was considered a visceral function one in which our control is severely limited, one which we jump to in times of stress and anger?

I think this is part of the issue when we view the tert and inferior functions. Because we experience them primarily when are stressed/angry, then we view them as all negative and ignore the potential positives. And just with any tool/skill, when you first weild it, it can be awkward and strange. It takes practice to get better. Which probably explains how much more well rounded a lot of people can come across as they get older. I think the disconnect occurs in that we are supposed to be integrating the systems, not fighting to stay as close to the top of one pole or another.

And whether or not the aforementioned statements are true, how would you precede to balance the tertiary and inferior functions?

I think it can be done consciously. But one has to be self aware enough to recognize when you're going off the deep end. And there will most likely be some trial and error involved, because it's a scientific process of sorts. I guess for me, when I feel like I am spiraling out of control, I try to put out some stops. It's very easy as a combination of Fi+Ne to just go off the deep end of possibilities and lose track of what is actually known/real. Pulling myself up with detachment and a search for actual data helps to level me off.

Was there a reason you used polarity, considering that in electric polarity you are either positive or negative?

My reason was that I was studying the concept of polarity systems for something completely unrelated to typology, and it struck me that perhaps it could be used to explain the cognitive function systems.

Let me know what else needs clarification. I am trying to be brief instead of writing giant walls of text with examples and charts and graphs and god knows what else.

 

[Anew Leaf]

I was kind of under the impression that that was one of the main points of studying personality type in the first place; to give yourself a framework to help you achieve a balanced, well rounded state. I already think of the "opposite" functions as being 2 sides of the same coin. Ne and Si most of all. Seems like pattern recognition would be necessary to develop a baseline to compare things against, and that such a baseline would be required to stereotype things. (Stereotype isn't quite the word I'm looking for, just the closest thing that comes to mind right now)

Yes. But there are a lot of discussions about these topics that sort of stagnate a bit with two opposing camps instead of realizing how everything is connected. /Cloud Atlas promo.

 

[Kalach]

Actually, the metaphor of toxins might be a good one. Too much of one functional perspective is toxic (to cognition), so swing on back to another quadrant.

I like the purple butterfly too. It seems like it could be a path. In "having" some thought or feeling (in the naive, non-technical sense of the words), we go through some process of cognition. the activity of that cognition seems like it can't possibly be centered in some one function, however close to consciousness that one functional area may be. It seems more likely that handling the "thought" means swinging in and around and through the different functional areas, like tossing it back and forth, building it up. This is a particularly easy image to have for the operation of perception. I wonder if it works for judgment too.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I don't think it should be presented as positive and negative necessarily.

You used breathing which is a nice comparison, but I wonder if comparing it to a negative feedback loop would be more appropriate.*

Another note - I think two graphs would be an easier way to grasp balanced perception vs imbalanced, they are technically opposite, but I don't believe they belong on the same scale.

(*For those who don't know what that is exactly:

The body is designed to be aware of when excess of some chemical is present and when that occurs it stops the production of that chemical. It isn't necessarily "negative" it is specifically to counter-balance this idea of excess.)

 

[Zarathustra]

Too much of one functional perspective is toxic (to cognition), so swing on back to another quadrant.

I've been telling it to him for years, and he's finally starting to get it.

 

[RaptorWizard]

These dang congitive functions are like mathematical secret equations, codes I have yet to crack, and frankly, I don't care to make my brain hurt for it.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Actually, the metaphor of toxins might be a good one. Too much of one functional perspective is toxic (to cognition), so swing on back to another quadrant.

I like the purple butterfly too. It seems like it could be a path. In "having" some thought or feeling (in the naive, non-technical sense of the words), we go through some process of cognition. the activity of that cognition seems like it can't possibly be centered in some one function, however close to consciousness that one functional area may be. It seems more likely that handling the "thought" means swinging in and around and through the different functional areas, like tossing it back and forth, building it up. This is a particularly easy image to have for the operation of perception. I wonder if it works for judgment too.

Yes, the toxins metaphor is a good one... a connection I didn't see at first.

I like the fact that it is based on movement too. Since ideally that is what our relief functions are built for, at least in my mind. The movement also works best because it is incorporating both internal and external data plots which ultimately yields the most accuracy.

I've been contemplating how to showcase the Te/Fi scale but I need to information gather a bit more first. Mentally it holds a different vibe than the perception, which haha is sort of an obvious thing to say, but I am wondering if it is different enough to require a different model.

Hmm, I'll think on this and come up with something that can be tested to ascertain if it has any value or truth to it.

 

[Anew Leaf]

I don't think it should be presented as positive and negative necessarily.

You used breathing which is a nice comparison, but I wonder if comparing it to a negative feedback loop would be more appropriate.*

Another note - I think two graphs would be an easier way to grasp balanced perception vs imbalanced, they are technically opposite, but I don't believe they belong on the same scale.

(*For those who don't know what that is exactly:

The body is designed to be aware of when excess of some chemical is present and when that occurs it stops the production of that chemical. It isn't necessarily "negative" it is specifically to counter-balance this idea of excess.)

I am glad that the breathing example proved useful!

I hadn't considered negative feedback loop. I need to research this... To the Observatory!! (*is in type 5 wing mode*)

Also, are you saying that it would be best to split the SiNE example into two separate graphs for Si and Ne alone?

 

[Kalach]

I've been telling it to him for years, and he's finally starting to get it.

I'm thinking the "swings" would be more of an instantaneous variety. Moving around the purple butterfly is like that whatsit, the locating an electron, or a quark, or whichever one of those jiggers makes certainty of physics in one dimension decrease certainty in another. I suppose if that has to be the metaphor, then we're talking consciousness rather than certainty: increased conscious awareness of one part of the butterfly requires decreased conscious awareness of the opposite part. But for there to be consciousness at all, there has to be spin--a cycle around the butterfly.


/coherence

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I am glad that the breathing example proved useful!

I hadn't considered negative feedback loop. I need to research this... To the Observatory!! (*is in type 5 wing mode*)

Also, are you saying that it would be best to split the SiNE example into two separate graphs for Si and Ne alone?

I think two graphs, one showing imbalance and the other balance would make more sense. Because I don't think unbalance is something to be shown with the same "butterfly" as imbalance still floats towards the positive traits, it is just erratic.

 

[Kalach]

I think balance can't really apply here. The most "balanced" part of the butterfly is the center, where neither aspect of perception is emphasized. But if the butterfly represents change in cognition, then this lack of emphasis is lack of change. The center is where cognition stops, not where some mystical equal awareness pops into being.

Ideally, attention cycles around the quadrants, driven forwards and backwards into that figure eight, by forces of attraction and repulsion that variously increase and decrease as "thought" comes more into existence (aka "moves away from the center").

The forces are two. They are simple, fundamental drives toward an inner zero and an outer infinity. Without both, self consciousness cannot appear. They probably arise as simple results of the existence of memory (and thus a disconnect between outer and inner experience) and the existence of sensation (and thus a connection to the outer).

 

[Anew Leaf]

I think two graphs, one showing unbalance and the other balance would make more sense. Because I don't think unbalance is something to be shown with the same "butterfly" as unbalance still floats towards the positive traits, it is just erratic.

Oh, I see what you are saying.

I actually had given thought to this but never made the graph for it. I am busy today, but I'll work on it tomorrow.

 

[sprinkles]

There's different kinds of balance. Static balance, and dynamic balance.

Static balance is like putting an equal weight on each end of a pivot point. Sure it's balanced, but you can't do anything to it without unbalancing it.

Dynamic balance is like the wings on a plane. If the wings are perfectly rigid, they will snap right off the plane in flight. The wings must be able to flex. If they flex the wrong way, you get resonance and the plane shakes itself apart. If they flex too much you get no lift, or if you pull a high G turn they once again will snap off.

So the balance is to find a wing that is not too weak and not too strong either and is able to withstand a full spectrum of turbulence and forces.

Or even compare to a human standing up. Standing is more of a controlled wobble with your brain doing many adjustments per second that you aren't even aware of. And walking is more like a series of short falls and recoveries.

 

[garbage]

Drive-by posting

Dario's 8 Keys to Self-Leadership has a discussion of synthesizing and using 'opposing' cognitive functions together. It's fairly shallow, but it might be worth a look.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I think balance can't really apply here. The most "balanced" part of the butterfly is the center, where neither aspect of perception is emphasized. But if the butterfly represents change in cognition, then this lack of emphasis is lack of change. The center is where cognition stops, not where some mystical equal awareness pops into being.

Ideally, attention cycles around the quadrants, driven forwards and backwards into that figure eight, by forces of attraction and repulsion that variously increase and decrease as "thought" comes more into existence (aka "moves away from the center").

The forces are two. They are simple, fundamental drives toward an inner zero and an outer infinity. Without both, self consciousness cannot appear. They probably arise as simple results of the existence of memory (and thus a disconnect between outer and inner experience) and the existence of sensation (and thus a connection to the outer).

As well, not every situation requires the same amount of time or effort, or even access to all functions in order to be solved, and balance in this instance would actually be red-tape. These graphs would be fine as a kind of service to brainstorming; which, from the beginning seems like its intention. I see Ne bias.

So, if balance could be equated to this system it isn't based on a time, but on force.

 

[UniqueMixture]

is this using typology to try and approximate metabolism?

 

[uumlau]

This is a very limited way of viewing the system, and so the idea that they must be interconnected appears:

Which brings in mind the idea that these functions are merely a spectrum, and that our abilities fall somewhere along this line... And there they sit.

In my thinking and observations, I've found it easier to make typology explain things by describing the lines you've drawn as entities in and of themselves. Individuals, however, tend to dwell at one pole or another of the entity. Perhaps envision bar magnets:

Each magnet is an entity (Te-Fi, Ne-Si) the individual uses. (Note how the i/e can indicate the polarity of the magnets, such that Fi attracts to Ne, and Te attracts to Si.)

An individual tends to usually have the magnets arranged as in the above picture, focusing on just two of the poles and integrating them. Some rare individuals might be more like "monopoles", ignoring the other entity almost entirely (but never completely).

Jung's concept of integration, then, could be likened to figuring out how to arrange the bar magnets more like this:

Note that both systems are "balanced". Two bar magnets can simply snap into place in either of these arrangements. The first arrangement is more likely, the second arrangement is more stable. The first arrangement snaps in place early in life. The second arrangement snaps into place later, but the snapping itself (in both cases) can be stressful.

I don't think of the mind as "wandering around" in that balanced butterfly path between these. Rather, the mind "is" the arrangement. Perceptions, thoughts, and ideas wander around the magnetic field lines.

Does this align (pun intended) with your concept of a "polarity system"?