User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 21

  1. #11
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Again, I think the problem here is not understanding the holistic nature of these concepts. You're still breaking them down into parts, and then saying one division into parts (dichotomies) is right, and the other (function dynamics) is wrong. But it doesn't work like that. They can all be true at the same time. As I said, they are different angles of looking at the same things.
    ...
    And yet again, dichotomies and function preferences alike are the way the ego splits reality. If I prefer N and P, then both S and F are suppressed, and can be seen as "collecting" in a place lower in consciousness. Your argument and list make it look like I have no access to S and F (or E and J for that matter either), and that ESFJ's have no access to I, N, T and P, precisely as Berens said, above.
    So yes, when an ESFJ needs to access intuitive products, it will tend to be more "open" (emergent), while an ESFP will prefer it more settled.
    ...
    It all works together (dichotomies and dynamics), and is not "either/or".
    I'm not sure whose perspective you think you're addressing, Eric, but it's not mine.

    You say, "Your argument and list make it look like I have no access to S and F (or E and J for that matter either), and that ESFJ's have no access to I, N, T and P, precisely as Berens said, above."

    But I say nothing of the kind. And when Berens says, "Presenting [the dichotomies] as either/or led people to think they could not access the other side of the dichotomy," she's engaging in the same kind of silly straw-manning.

    Type is about what are often referred to as preferences, Eric. I know that, and you know that.

    The MBTI-related aspects of personality that you tend to find in INTJs are the result of the fact that, on four dimensions of personality that the data suggests tend to be somewhat hardwired and relatively stable, INTJs have temperamental tugs that tend to pull them in the direction of (cause them to favor) stuff on the I, N, T and J sides of those dimensions. And not only are there multiple meaningful aspects of personality that each of those four preferences tend to contribute to, but there are also specific aspects of personality that more than one of those preferences can combine to contribute to — with the result that there are meaningful things to be said about typical NJs, and typical NTs, and typical INJs (who the function folks would call "Ni-doms"), and so on.

    That dichotomy-centric perspective leads to the expectation that an INTJ and an ESFP won't have any MBTI-related aspects of personality in common, because every relevant preference contribution — from single preferences and preference combinations both — puts them on opposite sides of the applicable divide. (But that dichotomy-centric perspective most certainly does not say that INTJs have "no access" to E, S, F or P — whatever the heck that's supposed to mean — or that ESFPs have "no access" to I, N, T or J.)

    By contrast, Berens' function-centric perspective, combined with her (non-Jungian) functions model, leads her to the expectation that INTJs and ESFPs will tend to exhibit similar "Cognitive Styles," because she thinks the underlying contributors to their personalities include four "cognitive functions" in common — not in the limited sense of just having "access to" those functions, but in the sense of favoring them in a way that puts INTPs and ESFJs on the other side of the applicable divides.

    And I'm here to tell you that in the real world of, you know, facts and stuff, those contrary expectations can't both be true. INTJs and ESFPs either have MBTI-related personality characteristics in common (that neither shares with INTPs or ESFJs) or they don't. And that's how science works, Eric — and personality psychology is a science (albeit a "soft science"). People come up with theories that lead to contrary expectations and then studies get done that put those expectations to the test.

    And, as further discussed in this long INTJforum post, we now have decades of data that provide respectable levels of support for the validity of the four MBTI dichotomies — including lots of meaningful correlations with various dichotomy combinations. And on the other hand, the so-called "cognitive functions" — which James Reynierse (in a 2009 article described in the linked post) refers to as a "category mistake" — have barely been studied. And the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, according to that Reynierse article, it cites a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

    If it turns out that neither you nor Berens nor anyone else can ever come up with Enhancing™ descriptions that both INTPs and ESFJs relate to (and that INTJs and ESFPs don't), and Orchestrating™ descriptions that both INTJs and ESFPs relate to (and that INTPs and ESFJs don't), then that will be a strong indication that those labels represent a "category mistake." Contrary to your latest post, the assertion that INTJs and ESFPs have no MBTI-related personality characteristics in common (that neither shares with INTPs or ESFJs) and the assertion that INTJs and ESFPs share a "Cognitive Style" that makes them different from INTPs and ESFJs can't both "be true at the same time"; and they are not just "different angles of looking at the same things."

    Saying otherwise isn't being "holistic"; it's being illogical.

    ================================================== =

    Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that long INTJforum post:

    McCrae & Costa article (click on the pic on the right to access the full article)
    Reynierse article

  2. #12
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Your argument IS insuinuating a type has no access to the functions or dichotomies it doesn't prefer, because I keep telling you that commonality with their dichotomy opposites lie in the unpreferred functions (which fall into in the same orientations, where different Cognitive Styles will use the functions in the opposite orientations). You're just not addressing this at all. You're just asserting over and over that because MBTI [dichotomies] says they're total opposites, they can't have anything in common.

    The mistake is that you are making MBTI the source of the theory, as to determine what can or can't "both be true at the same time". As pointed out in the Berens quotes, Jung came first with functions (and attitudes), and MBTI dichotomies were based on this; not the other way around. You'd possibly have a little bit more of a point if MBTI came first, and Berens or someone then contrived the functions from it.
    So what Reynierse must be saying is that Jung made the "category mistake" (being he laid the groundwork for the "categories" to begin with), but Myers and Briggs fixed it. (From what I read, she was actually trying to create another four-temperament system like DISC, and then tried to map Jung to the categories, and then kept reworking it until she got the four dichotomies).

    As for these "studies", I don't think they mean as much as you think they do. Mainstream psychology generally rejects all of this, as lacking any real "empirical" basis (at least according to their criteria) even with the studies (though I hear that FFM has a little bit more respect in the field. Still it doesn't seem to be as accepted or at least talked about as other "sciences").

    There seems to be a lot of biases in the larger field, for whatever reason. Just because they choose to ignore a model doesn't mean you can determine "category mistakes" from this. I question what he even determines the "failure" or "questionability" of studies from (and even "contradictory" can be a matter of interpretation).
    These are concepts, but science doesn't want concepts by themselves (It reflects a heavy S perspective and type theory is very N).
    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

  3. #13
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    559

    Default

    I'm not claiming that the cognitive functions — or Berens' "Cognitive Styles" — have been definitively disproven. I'm just pointing out that those Cognitive Styles categories (especially) are glaringly inconsistent with the dichotomy-centric perspective I've described — which, as explained in that long INTJforum post, was essentially Myers' perspective, notwithstanding her lip service to some of the type-dynamics stuff — and that I'll be surprised if Berens can actually come up with descriptions that, if properly put to the test, would find INTJs and ESFPs together on one side of the divide and INTPs and ESFJs together on the other side.

    From what I know of Berens' past history, I have no reason to expect that she's even going to try to gather any respectable data support for her Cognitive Styles. She may just add them to the ever-growing collection of "lenses" that she offers her paying clients. She and Nardi have been touting the INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe model for 20 years now without (as far as I know) gathering any respectable data support, so why should the Cognitive Styles be any different?

    In any case, though, if and when you get your hands on some actual descriptions by Berens of those aspects of personality she thinks characterize INTJs and ESFPs but not INTPs and ESFJs (and so on), let us know and maybe we can at least gather some anecdotal evidence in the form of responses by the different types in a forum thread.

  4. #14
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    The mistake is that you are making MBTI the source of the theory, as to determine what can or can't "both be true at the same time". As pointed out in the Berens quotes, Jung came first with functions (and attitudes), and MBTI dichotomies were based on this; not the other way around. You'd possibly have a little bit more of a point if MBTI came first, and Berens or someone then contrived the functions from it.
    As a quick supplemental point, the functions model that Berens is basing her Cognitive Styles on is unquestionably one that was "contrived" post-Jung and post-Myers. As further discussed in this two-post extravaganza, both I and (as Myers acknowledged) most Jung scholars believe that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the same attitude as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude, making Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N-aux Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.

    But, setting the more controversial auxiliary function aside, virtually everyone agrees that Jung said the tertiary function would have the opposite attitude to the dominant, and that was also Myers' position. And the official MBTI folks have always refused to take a position on that issue.

    So Berens' position that, as one example, INTPs and INFJs share "Aligning" characteristics by virtue of the fact that they're both "Ti/Fe" types is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and isn't a perspective that's supported by the official MBTI establishment.

  5. #15
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Again, they're only inconsistent if you ignore the suppressed (unpreferred) functions and their attitudes. How does N and T play in an SFP compared to an SFJ? How does S and F play out in an NTP compared to an NTJ? That's what Cognitive Styles is based on. (along with the fact, as I've demonstated, and at least one observer noted in watching this, that the two groups will handle even their preferred N and T or S and F differently from each other).

    Meanwhile, just curious if you say the same things about Socionics, which developed independently of MBTI and the rest of Western typology, and on one hand, many seem to uphold as better and truer to Jung. It already had developed a system, called quadras, which similarly link type groups by function tandems.


    It doesn't even do any good to get into the debate of which attitudes Jung held each function to have, when first of all, Jung was so unclear a lot of times, and we've gone on about this for years, with different interpreters saying different things, and no resolution ever being arrived at. If he's "NiTi", you even had those saying he was ISTP or INFJ, with a strong tertiary. (But then he mentions a definite preference for Thinking and iNtuition, so that calls those into question).
    Then, the notion that he held to a dominant and "two auxiliaries". I actually have begun to see some sense in this, and it goes along well with Beebe's representation of the dominant and inferior as the [vertical] "spine", and the auxiliary and tertiary as the [horizontal] "arms", and you even see the diagram in other sources besides Beebe.

    But second and most importantly, it's really all moot, when your objection is that functions are illegitimate to begin with, and only dichotomies valid.
    I'm actually still working on the other thread I started recently, on function definitions, and I've for a while been seeing it better to separate functions from attitudes, and see the ego choosing one orientation and a dominant function independently (so then the separated functions then are like undivided dichotomies), and then other complexes within the psyche that pair together functions and attitudes.
    So the "auxiliary" is simply the function and orientation chosen by the Parental Complex (or "Caretaker", whose purpose is to support ourselves and others with), which will tend to be the next to develop after the ego's dominant. So that is really the basis of dynamic type theory. The other six remaining function/attitude combinations (which are all reflections of the two identified so far from the ego splitting them off in chosing the first two) will all become connected with other complexes mirroring the first two complexes (i.e. the tertiary is oriented by the "Child" complex, which mirrors the "Parent", and the associated function mirrors the auxiliary, etc.)

    Apart from these complexes (which you can actually think of as miniature senses of "I" alongside the main ego), the functions are undifferentiated. You just have a mixed together mass of data from which an ego structure separates out what it prefers to pay attention to (which is what "concretistic" and "abstracting" originally meant, before Myers and Keirsey lingo associated "concrete" and "abstract" specifically with the Sensing and iNtuition functions).

    So I believe that looking at it in terms of different complexes is the solution to this debate. You can in a way sum up a "type" as an ego/caretaker combination, which covers our relation to self, and to others, the internal and external words, and information gathering and decision-making. That's the purpose of typology. To help us understand ourselves and [our relation to] others.
    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. #16
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Here are some more examples of how these terms come in to play:

    Ne, dealing with stuff not seen right before you like seeing an object, and imagining what could be done with it in terms of changing it (or even through makinng analogies) ends up engaging in more of a trial-and-error process of changing things. Se is not so much trial and error (or necessarily changing systems), because it's about "knowing" what actually can be done, from what's clearly at hand.
    You can see there where the "knowing" part sounds almost like Ni, and of course, the two work together, as "Realizing Awareness", where Ne and Si work together as "Inquiring Awareness" (which "trial and error" is a basically form of)!
    See how these names fit so perfectly?

    Se types "know" from paying more attention to the sensory detail before them, where I, as an Ne type, tend to gloss over things, looking for the overall meaning. So it's totally unconscious, and we may wonder how they do it. I realize this from playing Words With Friends, and my toughest opponents seem to be Realizing types who can easily see what can be done with the letters they have and what's already on the board, where I'm totally lost, (and end up thinking for sure I'm getting gipped with useless letters). I sometimes find there's these good words that I couldn't quite put my finger on, because I'm looking more at the intangible goal of "winning" (or at least catching up), and the multiple unseen possibilities (using the value increasing squares) than what I have in my arsenal.

    Obviously, "Ordering" sounds so perennially Te (And Fi would go along with it), while "Aligning" sounds like what Ti does in refining its judgments (and Fe would go along with that). Even though all judgments technically "order", I guess these terms lean more to the T aspect of it, and Te orders externally and logically, and that's what we come to associate with "ordering".

    If anyone may recall, I once tried to come up with my own names for the tandems, and they didn't work. I tried to call Si/Ne "Circumspective" (to “look around”), since Si is past focused, and Ne looks at alternatives. It had a nice ring to it, but then Ni/Se in comparison was to be "look AT", and I couldn't put together a good name for that. I tried "Aspective "(to look AT: ad “to”, -spect “look”); and does anybody remember "prostatospective"? (to look at what “stands before” you. I think it was Jennifer who understandably said it made you think of a prostate!) Te/Fi was to be "Systemic", and Ti/Fe was to be "Harmonic".
    These new terms capture those same essences of the tandems.
    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. #17
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Here both Berens and her colleague in this new model, Chris Montoya, have an article each on these concepts (Berens' article, from over 10 years ago, is on tandems in general, which is what forms the basis for this. Montoya's article describes the full Cognitive Styles directly, with some examples):

    http://lindaberens.com/wp-content/up...leParts1-2.pdf
    http://chrismontoya.net/wp-content/u...orkMontoya.pdf
    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

  8. #18
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Montoya has put up a mini-course on Cognitive Styles FREE Mini-Course: Intro to Discover Your Cognitive Style
    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

  9. #19
    Senior Member senza tema's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,019

    Default

    I watched (or rather listened) to the videos at work so I can't say I was paying the most attention but it seemed to me, in general, that they were mostly geared towards the Ns in each individual cognitive style group. The Authenticating Mind seemed most inclusive of both its S and N types on the whole: I can see both xNFPs and xSTJs operating on similar basic principles and drives even though they might manifest quite differently.

    The others cognitive styles, on the other hand, don't seem as successful to me. The Enhancing Mind, in particular, seems deeply biased towards describing the NTPs. I don't know if I'd see SFJ in any of that really. Then again, it sounds like absolutely my least preferred style, so maybe I'm missing something that is totally obvious to others.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    All any N type getting high in both attitudes means that they are overall strong in iNtuition (And likely haven't developed their tertiary or inferior), so it seems to "spill over" into both attitudes, and remember, the test is not perfect. It's operating on a set of definitions that do not take into consideration the fact that either attitude can do some of the same things. It just uses general sets of behaviors and assumes they indicate a paticular function-attitude. Like it assumes "considering others and responding to them" is an interpersonal judgment based on an external standard. (So if you select high on that, it will score a point for "Fe").
    But not necessarily! With an internal standard, you can infer a sense of the other person's need, and then "consider and respond to them".
    Exactly. That's why all the Fi-Fe war threads make me laugh. "We're so different!" Oh, really? Not necessarily.
    Edit: I just realized this thread is from 2014. How the hell did I end up in here? Oh, well. My comment still stands.

Similar Threads

  1. 10 musical artists/groups you're *really* into atm
    By disregard in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 170
    Last Post: 12-03-2017, 12:47 AM
  2. Name for Meetup group
    By Lia_kat in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-11-2016, 10:54 AM
  3. Trying to think of names of groups of Enneagram types
    By Zangetshumody in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-04-2011, 11:49 AM
  4. Process Tandem names!
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-04-2009, 08:28 PM
  5. Finally gonna do it.
    By PuddleRiver in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-26-2007, 11:14 PM

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