Alternative Cognitive Function Models?

[Folderol]

Has anybody here been interested in alternative ways of stacking/defining how type uses each cognitive process? I think this can be espcially helpful for those who feel like the boxes MBTI creates are not entirely applicable. That and it is just plain interesting to see how each system organizes the same things. Is one system better than another? Why or why not? Sometimes this is totally irrelvant though, I just like seeing the different ways they go about incorpating them in their framework.

I just was on Wikipedia and realized there were quite the models available. There's the Jung one, which is the most flexible but less developed (basically defunct) and the MBTI model we all know (ranks functions in terms of strength/weakness, like a percentile), but then I realized there were two other ones: John Beebe, who gives each function equal weight (not a mathematical hierarchy) and "characters" to play, like Witch, Demon, Trickster. From this video too, it sounds like his system is more like "How do you feel you interact with each function?". Linda Berens looks to have a similar system too to this with archtypes. Then there is Lenore Thomson, who incorporates right/left brain ideas into type, differing from all the rest!

I'm also looking at Socionics too. That's really in depth. I think I am most likely an INTP in MBTI, but something about it feels slightly off when I read profiles about them (yes, I know they are not as useful as just knowing all the attitudes and such, but it's worth mentioning too). The whole Ego/Super Ego/Id incorporation and the more "in-depthedness" (Accept/Produce, Weak/Strong, the relationships with the squares, yada, yada) really seems like it's more fine tuned out of the bunch. I was reading the type description on ILI/INTp (MBTI INTJ) there and there are sections of that I agree so much with, it's uncanny. But that is another problem with general descriptions like I said before.

So... does anybody know of any alternate/ground breaking models of the cognitive functions? Anything that sounds interesting or is new? Just exploring this topic.

 

[INTP]

Jungs model covers the largest area of the subject, goes much more depth in it than other models and no, its not the least developed, its clearly the most developed and can be seen as a part of his whole model of the psyche. Other models developed from Jungs model are basically simplified versions of it(Jungs model is too hard to grasp for the most, so someone had to make it easier to understand), while being easier to understood, they lose a great deal of the depth. While the other models are simplified versions of Jungs model, some of them add to it also, for the most part(with some exceptions with few details) what they add doesent really work that well and is added there to make the flawed model(due to oversimplification) to work, at least in theory..

I suggest reading Jung if you want to dig deep, and not just about the typology, but his model of the psyche overall, as it helps to understand how typology works also. If you dont understand such concepts as shadow, anima, complexes, unconscious, ego, collective unconscious, persona(to name a few), you wont be able to fully understand typology either. Also Marie Von Franz(a close friend a colleague of Jungs) has written some good stuff about typology.

Here is a link to podcasts of a Jungian analyst http://www.jungian.ca/jung-podcasts/ , he made 3 episodes about typology aswell, which cover all the essentials of typology really nicely. Some of the other episodes are also really worth listening to.

 

[Evo]

Has anybody here been interested in alternative ways of stacking/defining how type uses each cognitive process? I think this can be espcially helpful for those who feel like the boxes MBTI creates are not entirely applicable. That and it is just plain interesting to see how each system organizes the same things. Is one system better than another? Why or why not? Sometimes this is totally irrelvant though, I just like seeing the different ways they go about incorpating them in their framework.

I just was on Wikipedia and realized there were quite the models available. There's the Jung one, which is the most flexible but less developed (basically defunct) and the MBTI model we all know (ranks functions in terms of strength/weakness, like a percentile), but then I realized there were two other ones: John Beebe, who gives each function equal weight (not a mathematical hierarchy) and "characters" to play, like Witch, Demon, Trickster. From this video too, it sounds like his system is more like "How do you feel you interact with each function?". Linda Berens looks to have a similar system too to this with archtypes. Then there is Lenore Thomson, who incorporates right/left brain ideas into type, differing from all the rest!

I'm also looking at Socionics too. That's really in depth. I think I am most likely an INTP in MBTI, but something about it feels slightly off when I read profiles about them (yes, I know they are not as useful as just knowing all the attitudes and such, but it's worth mentioning too). The whole Ego/Super Ego/Id incorporation and the more "in-depthedness" (Accept/Produce, Weak/Strong, the relationships with the squares, yada, yada) really seems like it's more fine tuned out of the bunch. I was reading the type description on ILI/INTp (MBTI INTJ) there and there are sections of that I agree so much with, it's uncanny. But that is another problem with general descriptions like I said before.

So... does anybody know of any alternate/ground breaking models of the cognitive functions? Anything that sounds interesting or is new? Just exploring this topic.

I have read Lenore. I think it is the best model.

Everyone has a different opinion though. One of the things I see on this site is that a lot of people don't agree on order or models.

I personally think that the ORDER is best explained by Lenore

But the LABELS that you give to the functions are not just Dom, Aux, Tertiary, and Inferior, and then shadows. I like the LABELS Berens gives.


My opinion in the order and labels :

So for example an INTP has:


IN THIS ORDER With the functions labeled as such!

Introverted Thinking - 1st - Leading/Dominant - Dominant
Extraverted Intuition - 2nd - Supporting/Overprotective -Secondary
Introverted Feeling - 3rd - Devilish/Transformative -Right-brain
Extraverted Sensing - 4th - Deceiving/Comedic - alternatives
Introverted Intuition - 5th - Critical/Discovery - Left-brain
Extraverted Thinking - 6th - Opposing/Backup -double agents
Introverted Sensing - 7th - Relief/Unsettling -Tertiary
Extraverted Feeling - 8th - Aspirational/Projective -Inferior


"The Aspirational Role (Inferior)
(sometimes referred to as the 4th function) (I refer it to be the 8th because I go by Lenore)

The aspirational role usually doesn't develop until around midlife.

We often experience it first in its negative aspect of projecting our "shoulds," fears, and negativities onto others.

The qualities of these fears reflect the process that plays this role, and we are more likely to look immature when we engage in the process that plays this role. There is often a fairly high energy cost for using it even when we acquire the skill to do so.

As we learn to trust it and develop it, the aspirational role process provides a bridge to balance in our lives. Often our sense of purpose, inspiration, and ideals have the qualities of the process that plays this role.



The Pattern
The pattern of the processes can be represented by a stick figure.

At the head is the process we lead with, commonly called the Dominant.

At the right hand is the process we use in a supportive way, commonly called the Auxiliary.

At the left hand is the process we use in a relief-giving way, commonly called the Tertiary.

And at the feet is what we aspire to, commonly called the Inferior.

Since this process is what we aspire to be doing well, it is often what “makes our feet go” even when we are unaware of wanting to go in that direction.

Think of the shadow processes as being situated just behind the stick figure to show that they are in the background. Just like a shadow, they are always there, but we are most often not actively using them."

[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] is correct when talking about knowing "such concepts as shadow, anima, complexes, unconscious, ego, collective unconscious, persona(to name a few), you wont be able to fully understand typology either." <----Shadows, ego, and Collective Unconscious (especially) are probably where you want to start a good site that talk about shadows (not specifically MBTI) is: http://kiloby.com/writings.php?writingid=263 <-which when applied to MBTI the shadows would be our "Inferior/Aspirational/Projective Role"

You may already know....but if you don't lol...Socionics is much different than MBTI...that is, if you ask anyone that likes socionics. I personally think that my MBTI type and my Socionics type translate to be the same. However the theory is different. There are many different aspects of Socionics that don't apply to MBTI, i.e. being able to change your type in Socionics. In MBTI you have one type your whole life.

 

[Folderol]

Jungs model covers the largest area of the subject, goes much more depth in it than other models and no, its not the least developed, its clearly the most developed and can be seen as a part of his whole model of the psyche. Other models developed from Jungs model are basically simplified versions of it(Jungs model is too hard to grasp for the most, so someone had to make it easier to understand), while being easier to understood, they lose a great deal of the depth. While the other models are simplified versions of Jungs model, some of them add to it also, for the most part(with some exceptions with few details) what they add doesent really work that well and is added there to make the flawed model(due to oversimplification) to work, at least in theory..

I suggest reading Jung if you want to dig deep, and not just about the typology, but his model of the psyche overall, as it helps to understand how typology works also. If you dont understand such concepts as shadow, anima, complexes, unconscious, ego, collective unconscious, persona(to name a few), you wont be able to fully understand typology either. Also Marie Von Franz(a close friend a colleague of Jungs) has written some good stuff about typology.

Here is a link to podcasts of a Jungian analyst http://www.jungian.ca/jung-podcasts/ , he made 3 episodes about typology aswell, which cover all the essentials of typology really nicely. Some of the other episodes are also really worth listening to.

Interesting! I only said his was the least developed because it didn't have as much of a system (on the surface), based on that Wikipedia link it just defined a base function and that was it. I know there is more to it than that, but I mean based on rules and such like other kinds. I don't really want to dig super deep into something without as many rules just cause I might find that annoying to read about (probably why I am attracted to alternative models), but I will look at those podcasts anyways. Your post is another new approach I didn't consider (this is become a trend when I read your posts!)

I have read Lenore. I think it is the best model.

The only Lenore I've read is the Lenore Thomas Exegesis Wiki (which seems to be crashing 24/7, but is very interesting!). It's not really by Lenore, but more like interpretations of his work and quoting him and etc. Not sure if you have heard about it.
[

My opinion in the order and labels

I think I am most likely INTP (or at least part INTP), so this is extra useful already!

You may already know....but if you don't lol...Socionics is much different than MBTI...that is, if you ask anyone that likes socionics. I personally think that my MBTI type and my Socionics type translate to be the same. However the theory is different. There are many different aspects of Socionics that don't apply to MBTI, i.e. being able to change your type in Socionics. In MBTI you have one type your whole life.

Oh, I do know how it is different in a couple big ways, just I didn't want to lead with a wall of text or anything, just like a quick topic starter. I didn't know that type change differece.

 

[Evo]

The only Lenore I've read is the Lenore Thomas Exegesis Wiki (which seems to be crashing 24/7, but is very interesting!). It's not really by Lenore, but more like interpretations of his work and quoting him and etc. Not sure if you have heard about it.

I had not heard of it. I have only read her book. But I will take a look, thanks.