User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 59

  1. #21
    You have a choice! 21%'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    In my own experience, learning about the functions have helped me understand myself and other people better, and overcome a lot of communication gaps. I have my own model and I'm happy with it. For me, the MBTI is a self-help tool, not science.
    4w5 sp/sx EII
    Likes GarrotTheThief, Luv Deluxe liked this post

  2. #22
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    If you regard the cognitive functions as descriptions of behaviors, and leave it at that, there really isn't much to reject about them. They describe behaviors that people really do engage in, and being familiar with them enriches your psychological vocabulary. Whether these behaviors interrelate with each other and correspond to the four dichotomies in the way that the MBTI claims they do is a different question. In my own case, there is a strong correlation, but many people report inconsistencies.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]
    Likes Luv Deluxe, Red Herring liked this post

  3. #23
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
    If you regard the cognitive functions as descriptions of behaviors, and leave it at that
    But cognitive functions are supposed to be cognitive. Behaviour stems from cognition (doesn't it?), and surely there is good correlation, but I don't think then identifying a CF with a behaviour makes much sense.
    Likes GarrotTheThief liked this post

  4. #24
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View 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.
    Its been quite a while since i read that article by Reynierse, but its just complete bullshit and it clearly shows that the guy has no idea what he is talking about. What comes to Grants model with the tert, it is actually endorsed by MBTI folks, some of the official guides say that tert is same as dom, others say that aux tert and inferior are opposite to dom, but often tert is left without I or E, because the MBTI folks cant agree which one it is and because its bit unclear.
    What i have observed in myself and in all people i know well enough to type them properly, observing their tert clearly shows its same as dom. I can see this online as well and it makes sense when you know Jungian theory of type(and whole model of psyche) well enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    But cognitive functions are supposed to be cognitive. Behaviour stems from cognition (doesn't it?), and surely there is good correlation, but I don't think then identifying a CF with a behaviour makes much sense.
    Exactly. 2 + 3 = 5, but so is 1 + 4 or 12 - 7, same outcome from different numbers. And this is pretty much why academia has rejected behaviorism ages ago and moved to stuff like what motivates the person or just general descriptions about people like big 5 gives.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  5. #25
    The Green Jolly Robin H.
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Studmuffin23 View Post
    I'm just curious. Are there any other MBTI enthusiasts out there who think that the cognitive functions are malarkey? I reject them for several reasons

    1) Easily projected onto yourself and others

    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.)

    3) They're unobservable and subjective

    4) In spite of being a non-behaviorist attempt to understand personality, they're used and interpreted in a behavioristic way.

    5) They have no verifiable existence outside of Carl Jung's imagination (artificial constructs which he, Myers, and her followers read into the personalities of other people, much as Marx and his followers interpreted human history to support their philosophy)

    I just stick with the MBTI preferences. They're simple, straightforward, and more compatible with my common-sense and life experience
    Cognitive functions are actually biologically rooted as opposed to mbti which is more psuedoscientific (a combination of science and self-observation which is never fundamentally sound nor objective).

    We can map parts of our brains that are used for observation(SE), we can map parts of our brains that trigger deep memories when presented with a stimulous such as a painting(SI), we can map parts of our brains used that build connections between external objections NE, we can map parts of our brains used in imagination or the image making function (NI), etc....etc...

    But we cannot figure out if there is indeed an 8 fold hierarchy. That is speculation but it seems to be true at times.

    What is more plausible is a process/order/frequency theory in which we exhibit some sort of wave function, or series of wave functions according to each. If this is the case then such a theory would provide for an infinite number of permutations regarding the functions and a theory of personality would not be possible until maybe the year 3030.

    EDIT: Cognitive functions are also self evident. We have five fingers and we can see them. It is self evident we observer, sensing, it is self evident we think, it is self evident we have an internal image making function which is developed next to our instincts(intuition), and it is self evident that we develop value systems (feeling function).....

    There is no reason to deny something that is self evident.

    The idea of introversion and extroversion, however, is not a matter of self evidence. Someone can seem extroverted to you, but their attitude may be introverted. The idea of introversion and extroversion is subjective and can never be known to another. It is "your" attitude which governs it and not anything else.
    "i shut the door and in the morning
    it was open
    -the end"




    Olemn slammed his hammer and from the sparks on the metal of his anvil came the spheres of the heavens.

    Sayrah blew life into the spheres and they moved. From her wheel she weaved the names of people in to mystery.
    Likes KarmaButterfly liked this post

  6. #26
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Studmuffin23 View Post
    I'm just curious. Are there any other MBTI enthusiasts out there who think that the cognitive functions are malarkey? I reject them for several reasons
    Since I've learned about functions after joining this site five years ago, I've come to conclude that the functions make more sense to me than the four letter type. They are very concrete.


    Quote Originally Posted by Studmuffin23 View Post
    1) Easily projected onto yourself and others
    Anything can be projected. Not sure what you mean there

    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.)
    As @INTP stated, Jung defined them. If that's too inaccessible for you, there are a number of books and resources out there that provide quite a bit of good detail describing them - Nardi, Beebee, Hartzler, Thompson, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Studmuffin23 View Post
    3) They're unobservable and subjective
    They are very observable. You can see evidence of them in the words that people use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Studmuffin23 View Post
    4) In spite of being a non-behaviorist attempt to understand personality, they're used and interpreted in a behavioristic way.
    There is a lot of that going on with respect to personality type in general. If you think in terms of preferences and tendencies, it is a useful model. I'm not sure how this comment applies to functions more than any other personality typing mechanism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Studmuffin23 View Post
    5) They have no verifiable existence outside of Carl Jung's imagination (artificial constructs which he, Myers, and her followers read into the personalities of other people, much as Marx and his followers interpreted human history to support their philosophy)
    Is it impossible to prove their existence? I'm not sure. I believe the evidence will mount as time progresses but who knows.

    Quote Originally Posted by Studmuffin23 View Post
    I just stick with the MBTI preferences. They're simple, straightforward, and more compatible with my common-sense and life experience
    I used to do this and feel that now, I have a much richer understanding of type. Without understanding and focusing on the functions, you understand things in a lot less depth, so I don't think this is the best way of approaching things.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  7. #27
    The Green Jolly Robin H.
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,683

    Default

    LEt me give you an example of self evident cognitive functioning too...

    You saw (observed, sensed) a man getting hurt by another in public.

    You saw that the two men were fighting and one of them was the aggressor the other defender...because you (thought) an aggressor has these attributes and a defender has those attributes (and you thought or conluded) that one was classified as an aggressor and the other a defender.

    Then you made a value judgement(feeling.) You said that the aggressor was bad, and the defendor was good...which is not logical but rational...because something that is logical is based only on logic and issues of good or bad are based on values...both used to make judgement, in fact a judgement requires both...they are complementary...the product of the opposites in tandem is judgement.

    So then you decided to anticipate (intuition) which way the aggressor would strike and stop his blow....

    And since that day you were a superhero.

    Now did you inherit your values from an external thing? such as a society, family, religion, culture (FE)?
    Or did you inherit your values from some inner reflection and soul searching? (FI)?

    In truth, no one is only FE or FI...FE and FI are opposites too, in that E and I are opposites...and complementary. One cannot be without the other...they are two tracks on the same railway.

    Same with Thinking....TI and TE work together...they modulate...you cannot classify external objects without understanding the system of classification.

    You cannot form your own inner contracted range of possibilities (ni) without considering the external possiblities (ne). For example you may intuitively know how to implement a business plan (NI) based on your companies facts and details(SE) but you cannot do it unless you anticipate the actions of your competitors (NE) based on historical data and your impression on it (SI).
    "i shut the door and in the morning
    it was open
    -the end"




    Olemn slammed his hammer and from the sparks on the metal of his anvil came the spheres of the heavens.

    Sayrah blew life into the spheres and they moved. From her wheel she weaved the names of people in to mystery.
    Likes KarmaButterfly, Bardsandwarriors liked this post

  8. #28
    The Green Jolly Robin H.
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,683

    Default

    the problem with many people and cognitive functions by the way is that personality theory tends to draw self absorbed individuals who like to overcomplicate things.

    If you see something that is sensing.

    If you think something that is logic

    And if you value something that is feeling...

    And if you consider time, possibility, outcome, that is intuition.

    No one function operates in itself...in every action or behavior all four are at work.

    What the theory states, which is unproven, is that one to three of these functions is conscious ( you are aware of it) and the others are submerged.

    That part is entirely religious and unproven if we assume everyone is like that. Someone can be using all 7 functions and only have 1 unconscious for example...no one knows for sure...but based on a Jungian analyst who as been typing people for forty years, and what he told me, is that some people have different models...not everyone has a four fold model...but he said most people do.

    That is the guy who typed me as an ENTJ. The reason I am typed as an entj...is because my value system is based on the social hierachy. My emotions, my equillibrium is entirely contingent on the external environment. I think something is good if it gets me more and better and faster because logically, I know that doing x gets y and that y is good...that is just the way I am to the core....it doesn't matter really...it's not that I am superficial or machivalian....my experience precludes that sort of generalization.

    I know that...money(x) gets healthy food(y) and I know healthy food is good because I reflected on how unhealthy food makes me feel and for me personally, (fi)...I need it to be happy. I am going against the grain of society (FE) because society, at least in the west, loves to eat, drink, and sleep pure sludge hence we have fast food, beer, and other crap to kill yourself with.

    But I am a judger...I think logically and then I say to myself good or bad...then I observe and I re-evaluate...that is HOW I work...only you can know how YOU Work...someone can guide you but no one can ever know what type you are except for yourself.

    You can tell right away if you are a thinker by observing yourself in the morning.
    "i shut the door and in the morning
    it was open
    -the end"




    Olemn slammed his hammer and from the sparks on the metal of his anvil came the spheres of the heavens.

    Sayrah blew life into the spheres and they moved. From her wheel she weaved the names of people in to mystery.
    Likes KarmaButterfly liked this post

  9. #29
    The Green Jolly Robin H.
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,683

    Default

    let me also reiterate how behavioural approach to typing will never work from a scientific point of view. You cannot observe what someone does and say that they are this type or that type.

    Many athletes are mistyped as sensors because they are good at dealing with sensory data, but this is not necessarily a matter of preference....someone could approach boxing as if it were a science. Most boxers in fact are intj's...yet when we think of intj's based on behaviour we don't think that...because we are biased and making a huge mistake and assuming that an action does not incorporate all four functions.

    So we say the boxer with tatooes is an estp...stupidly of course, when in reality, everything he says about himself is intj.

    In order for me to shoot a basketball I have to see, think, feel, and inuit.

    In order for me to do anything I must do all four. There is not way to do anything without using all four equally...the only variable is what I am self aware of....that is where theory comes in and that is something no one can measure and only you can know...

    You can't use language to type people either. Someone may say they feel something when they actually think it. Culture, family, heritage, random happenstance all causes language to diverge from actual meaning. Most of us do not know the true definition of words we use therefore we never use them right.

    I say I saw when I really mean I felt....there are certain cultures that have no words for either, or have 1000 words for one and only 2 for another...giving false examples here to demonstrate a point...the point that the culture preloads the words a person will use so they are no indication of some universal inner state or even outer state...they are rough sketches...

    in one culture the color blues is happiness and in antoher sadness...in one culture feeling means thinking and in another it means thought...no way to tie it all together...and even growing up in a different suburb is enough to completely change everything about the dialogue you use...

    if you were living on the south side of chicago you would have hard time understanding someone from the north side in truth.
    "i shut the door and in the morning
    it was open
    -the end"




    Olemn slammed his hammer and from the sparks on the metal of his anvil came the spheres of the heavens.

    Sayrah blew life into the spheres and they moved. From her wheel she weaved the names of people in to mystery.
    Likes KarmaButterfly, Bardsandwarriors liked this post

  10. #30
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GarrotTheThief View Post
    Cognitive functions are actually biologically rooted as opposed to mbti which is more psuedoscientific (a combination of science and self-observation which is never fundamentally sound nor objective).
    Wow. You have that entirely backwards. The MBTI can actually lay claim to quite a lot of scientific respectability in the reliability and validity departments, but that really only applies to the dichotomy-centric MBTI — and not the "cognitive functions."

    Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

    And on the other hand, and as Reynierse notes in the article with the "category mistake" verdict, the so-called "cognitive functions" have barely even 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.

    Anyone interested in reading about the validity of the dichotomy-centric side of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — will find a lengthy two-post discussion starting here, and further discussion of the scientific respectability of the MBTI in this post (also linked to in the first linked post).
    Likes highlander, Studmuffin23 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