User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 59

  1. #11
    Senior Member Studmuffin23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post

    You can do that, but you you only gain like 5% of total understanding about the subject.
    It's ok, I'm not interested in reading anyone's mind. That's a shrink's job.

    I should probably add that my objection regarding behaviorism is an issue that plagues cognitive psychology as a whole; I was just simplifying things for the subject at hand.

  2. #12
    Google "chemtrails" Bush Did 9/11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    eNtp
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    γ Ni
    Posts
    4,196

    Default

    For the most part, I do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Studmuffin23 View Post
    2) No one can seem to agree on their definitions of them (I mean, unless you want to accept the "Fi-users are independent; stay true to their selves" "Fe-users are submissive; incapable of being their own person" set of definitions.)
    [...]
    4) In spite of being a non-behaviorist attempt to understand personality, they're used and interpreted in a behavioristic way.
    Chief among the reasons for me.

    While it's not the system's fault if it's used outside of its scope (e.g. to describe behavior), its actual scope limits its actual usefulness. Misinterpretation and hilarious misattributions of behaviors to cognitive functions are just icing.
    J. Scott Crothers
    aka "Bush Did 9/11"
    Founder, Truthtology, est. 1952
    Prophet and Channel, God Almighty
    Author, the Holy scripture Elevenetics

    "Just as jet fuel cannot melt steel beams, so too cannot the unshakeable pillars of Truthtology ever be shaken, whether by man, nature, or evidence."
    - Elevenetics
    Likes Studmuffin23 liked this post

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Studmuffin23 View Post
    My experience is the reverse of that.

    You're helping me make a good point here, however. Jungian typology and MBTI typology are not the same thing; they're incompatible systems. One focuses on how you prefer to navigate the world, and the other on how the world looks from your point of view (something impossible to observe or define).
    All your assertion says is that JCF is incompatible with an MBTI form that mixes traits solely based on preferences for E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P.
    That does not at all imply that JCF is incorrect. If you understand JCF, you could just as easily stack the functions atop each other and create 16 personalities that act based on these functions. That's how MBTI was made.
    Boiling down each of the 16 types to four binary letter dichotomies based on extremely vaguely-defined traits for convenience's sake is Keirsey, not true MBTI.



    Much easier to gauge four expressed dichotomies in a person than eight complicated, specific functions.

    Likes Studmuffin23 liked this post

  4. #14
    Senior Member Studmuffin23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus View Post
    All your assertion says is that JCF is incompatible with an MBTI form that mixes traits solely based on preferences for E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P.
    That does not at all imply that JCF is incorrect. If you understand JCF, you could just as easily stack the functions atop each other and create 16 personalities that act based on these functions. That's how MBTI was made.
    Boiling down each of the 16 types to four binary letter dichotomies based on extremely vaguely-defined traits for convenience's sake is Keirsey, not true MBTI.



    Much easier to gauge four expressed dichotomies in a person than eight complicated, specific functions.

    Precisely my point. JCF astronomically over-complicates things; it's like using physics to repair A/C units. (I think that they're purely fictional constructs projected onto people, but that's just my opinion.)

    MBTI is four-letter preference codes. JCF is sets of mental functions. Keirsey is a very important figure within the subject because he proved that the MBTI codes can be understood and applied independently of JCF, regardless of historical chronology.

    Call it non-MBTI if you want; I call it realistic.

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    INfP
    Posts
    70

    Default

    I was actually thinking about making a thread about this topic. I've come to greatly dislike the functions for all the reasons you've listed (seriously, every single definition of the functions I've ever read is so vague as to be useless, not to mention the fact everyone seems to have hilariously different conceptions of what each function is). The idea of being able to categorize people's cognitive processes is utterly absurd to me. Categorizing and understanding personality is hard enough, with all its complexities and nuances, and no personality system (no matter how thorough) can possibly cover every aspect of personality. Trying to do the same with "cognitive functions" is a fool's errand.
    Likes Studmuffin23 liked this post

  6. #16
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    I don't think that cognitive functions are a thing, and pretty much buy into Reynierse's arguments against type dynamics .

    Still, one can recover part of what the functions are getting out, by realizing that they are descriptions of combinations of preferences (where Te = T + J and a little E). That view opens up the door to other combinations of preferences being descriptive (like Kiersey's temperaments), and to being able to tease out how much of the Te description (for example) is T+J, and how much is informed by actual extraversion.

    Such an approach only works (even then, only if you squint) for the "dominant" and "auxiliary" functions (although which "function" has more effect depends upon strength of preference)... the rest of type dynamics is hard to work back towards empirically.

    Meanwhile, I'm happy to talk about Fe and Fi (for example) and mentally translate as needed. I still listen when people talk about the tertiary and inferior functions, but I don't find that maps well to my personal subjective experience. I remain open to ways it could still make sense, since clearly others find those aspects useful.

  7. #17
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,862

    Default

    No, too much subjective experience that directly aligns with the functions. It is ignorance and/or delusion to deny the cognitive functions.

    Likes KarmaButterfly liked this post

  8. #18
    Senior Member Studmuffin23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by big sexy View Post
    I was actually thinking about making a thread about this topic. I've come to greatly dislike the functions for all the reasons you've listed (seriously, every single definition of the functions I've ever read is so vague as to be useless, not to mention the fact everyone seems to have hilariously different conceptions of what each function is). The idea of being able to categorize people's cognitive processes is utterly absurd to me. Categorizing and understanding personality is hard enough, with all its complexities and nuances, and no personality system (no matter how thorough) can possibly cover every aspect of personality. Trying to do the same with "cognitive functions" is a fool's errand.
    Digital high-five.

  9. #19
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    566

    Default

    When it comes to the dichotomies vs. functions issue, I'm definitely a dichotomies guy, and anybody who wants quite a bit of my perspective on that could pick a day when they've got some time to spare, have a cup of coffee, and work their way through (1) this post, (2) this post, and (3) the long INTJforum post linked to at the end of that first linked post.

    The so-called "cognitive functions" are what James Reynierse (in an article I talk about in that INTJforum post) has rightly called a "category mistake" — and are also, in the form that you generally encounter them at MBTI forums, a long way from being Jungian. The Harold Grant function stack (the one that says INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe) is a model that has no respectable validity, wasn't Jung's or Myers' function model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

    The only validity (as the psychometricians say) that the functions have ever been able to point to is the piggybacked validity they get from the corresponding dichotomies — e.g., if you forget about Jung's function descriptions and jerry-rig an "Si" description made up of things that MBTI SJs tend to have in common (like Berens and Nardi do), then your purported "Si function" will have "validity" to the extent of (surprise!) matching up reasonably well with MBTI SJs. But as noted in the second linked post, the idea that INFPs have "tertiary Si" that "pairs" with their "auxiliary Ne" doesn't even have any piggybacked validity. It has no validity at all.
    Likes Studmuffin23, Bardsandwarriors liked this post

  10. #20
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    But as noted in the second linked post, the idea that INFPs have "tertiary Si" that "pairs" with their "auxiliary Ne" doesn't even have any piggybacked validity. It has no validity at all.
    It has validity to me, because when I analysed a pattern in what I think about that has been growing over the past couple years, it seems to match up really well with Fi, which I take to be considering what is important to you, in my case in terms of what I "should" be doing with my time - e.g. I should be studying, reading, writing, exercising, meditating. I'm ISTJ, so Fi would be my tertiary and I think I have read that the tertiary develops around the 20s? However, this is my own interpretation of Fi, and may not really refer to what is commonly regarded as Fi. I never quite understood any of this stuff apart from what I could "see" on my own.

    I also recall reading that Nardi identified the "christmas-tree pattern" of Ne in types that had Ne as a tertiary/inferior, and also noted that as a type ages they start to look more like the type with their tertiary/inferior as dominant/auxiliary in terms of how they use their brains, e.g. ISTJ and INFP start to look similar.
    Likes Bardsandwarriors liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Does anyone else's personality change with the seasons?
    By badger055 in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-31-2013, 04:38 PM
  2. Explain the cognitive functions to me
    By Colors in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-31-2012, 10:40 PM
  3. does anyone else make up a lot of ideas for computer games?
    By Zergling in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-27-2008, 04:46 PM
  4. Images of the Cognitive Functions
    By Mort Belfry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-21-2008, 07:15 AM
  5. Does anyone else visit this site?
    By The Ü™ in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 10:23 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