• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[Jungian Cognitive Functions] 50-50 judging/perceiving

Little Linguist

Striving for balance
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
6,880
MBTI Type
xNFP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Although it *should not* be, my demonic is Si...crap, I forget everything, including, but not limited to, the following:

° Where I left my keys, bag, and other random stuff (cell phone, books, etc.)

° Taking my keys (yes, I was the first person to arrive at school - but my ass was saved by luck, as my student was over 30 minutes late that day)

° Going to the gym, getting halfway to the bus station before realizing, CRAP! I forgot my gym bag. (And I'm only leaving to go to the gym)

° Appearing at class, totally forgetting someone's name, praying to the Higher Force that it won't be noticeable, and remember the name the second the class is over (nerves, blackout?)

° Getting to a test and blacking out on all the cool shit I knew off the cuff before. GAHHHH!!! I even know where it is on the page, but damn it, that part is BLANK!

° I *have* a class (thank God for diaries)

° My birthday

° Other people's birthday (including an ex of mine heh)

° My glasses, after realizing they are right in front of me/pushed up on my forehead

° Taking my cell phone with me (that was the braniac thing I did *today*)

° Books for class

° Random chores I hate doing (SHIT, I forgot to pick up laundry detergent and contact lens cleaner - guess I have to go and do that now!!!)
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Which function has more certitude: Ni or Fi ?

The more common idea seems to be the Js are more conclusive and certain, but it is rather unclear to me. I get confused between these two as well. I have heard that the INFP has underlying ethical standards that are more unwavering like "murder is wrong", and that principle is applied to various contexts whereas the Ni-Fe relies more heavily on context to determine the ethics and may find it is more or less ethical depending on circumstance. If that is the case, then it seems like Ni-Fe would be the more flexible system of thought, but that doesn't fit with the J model. For myself I test right in the middle of the J-P most of the time as well. I've also tried to see which group of people I feel more resonance with and find that there is a small group of INFJs I can identify with strongly, but most not at all. It's the ones who are especially analytical and view the world from a distance. I can identify to a lesser degree, but with more consistency with the majority of INFPs. I don't know if that approach would help you or not. It might leave you as confused as it leaves me. Ha.
 
G

garbage

Guest
Although it *should not* be, my demonic is Si...crap, I forget everything, including, but not limited to, the following:

I've got a horrible memory, too.

Lacking Si could be explained by a "demonic" process or by an "inferior" process.. ENFPs have Si as inferior.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
I have no "theory" to back what I'm saying... but based on observation from experience. If we label all the function of a type by numbers... dominant = 1, auxiliary = 2, tertiary = 3, inferior = 4, opposing = 5, witch = 6, trickster = 7, daemon = 8 (note: I hate the descriptor names.)

Then INFJ would be
1 = Ni,
2 = Fe,
3 = Ti,
4 = Se,
5 = Ne,
6 = Fi,
7 = Te,
8 = Si

Surprisingly, mostly people's function preference does not follow 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...

Rather it goes something like 1 > 2 , 3 = or > than 5 > 4 , 7 > 6 >> 8.

What I've also notice is that for most people, it's the 6th (aka witch) that tends to be the most problematic under stress. Not your inferior 4 or the daemon 8.

For INFJs, the 6th is Fi. There's a tendency to feel insecure about the self and abilities/work. Thoughts like "Why aren't I good enough?" "I'll never be able to..." floats around when they're stressed out or depressed.

For INFPs, the 6th is Ni. I have no idea what misbehaving Ni is suppose to be like since it's my dominant... fanciful unrealistic ideas? Some help from INFPs?
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
Rather it goes something like 1 > 2 , 3 = or > than 5 > 4 , 7 > 6 >> 8.
i have zero trust in that test, that you are probably referring to. or maybe its how people answer these tests. can anyone give the "right" answers? anyone who has not downloaded enough of the function ideas to apply patterns on his traits, that are compatible with the tests questions?

i did that test a year ago and got exactly the result that i expected (socionic infp), because i have the according understanding of the patterns...
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
i have zero trust in that test, that you are probably referring to. or maybe its how people answer these tests. can anyone give the "right" answers? anyone who has not downloaded enough of the function ideas to apply patterns on his traits, that are compatible with the tests questions?

i did that test a year ago and got exactly the result that i expected (socionic infp), because i have the according understanding of the patterns...

The bolded statement is what I find interesting.

Wouldn't the test be much more useful and true to life if people took it and answered the questions honestly, without preconceived notions of what they're 'supposed' to be answering said questions as, to fit the pattern they're supposed to adhere to?

All you're doing by taking the test that way is confirming the theory you've already decided as being accurate and true. You first decide the theory is accurate/true and 'understand the patterns'. You then look at your life and focus on everything in your life that fits those patterns, and you ignore everything in your life that doesn't fit those patterns. So you're selectively ignoring aspects of yourself that don't fit what they're supposed to fit into, and building up aspects of yourself that do fit the pattern. A good test should not require prior knowledge of function details. And if test results show people all over the place, not fitting recognizable function orders, then the entire theory should be questioned, the test altered, or definitions/understandings of functions themselves reassessed.

It would be an interesting exercise, but I could probably rationalize myself into any number of types, by focusing on certain traits that I have and ignoring traits that I have that don't fit the type I want to put myself into.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
think about what a test author does, when he asks people. he does not try to trick them intro revealing an unconscious truth, but hopes that people understand the questions. all i do is understanding the questions, the same way they were meant to be understood, and answering truthfully. other people answer randomly, based on misunderstanding the intention of the test-author, like stumbling blindly on a scrapyard. this is pointless and repeating it over the years will repeatedly lead to random test results. the "manipulation" is unconscious, random, rather than intelligently responsible.
results of this particular test proof, that they answer randomly. you can not perform a test, without a testee who knows himself, knows him self in established terms. but they are not established enough. any test that tries to access unconscious truth around a potentially false selfimage would have to be like an intelligence test. such a test has not jet been invented. a test, where you can not answer questions at all, unless you make use of the related functions.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Sure. But what if people DO understand the questions, and DO answer truthfully, but still end up all over the place, not adhering to any of the set function order patterns? That would be the case with most people on this forum, and I don't think it's because they lack self-awareness and aren't answering truthfully.

As for 'potential false self image' - well, that's human nature. That's a given. Which also puts into question the entire testing method, and mbti being a self-assessment to begin with.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
i just doubt, there are that much people who understand functions. most people create understanding of patterns based on the idea that these patterns are either what the have of what they don have. if they have assigned the wrong labels, memes, patters, types functions to them selves in the first place, they will assign correct introspective understanding to the wrong labels, memes, patterns, type, functions.

also the test may be bad.

if both the test and people would get it right, then typology would have been disprove by the test. if this was your point, that i would agree with your logic.

but your point seems to be ... well .... i must be an lying idiot, because, after 5 years, i have arrived at an (still partial) understanding that is consistently not only matching me, but others as well.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think there are two 'patterns' we're talking about here. You seem to be addressing patterns within the individual -- individual behavioral and cognitive patterns and tendencies and trends. That's one thing. That's self-awareness when it comes to your own personality and tendencies.

Then I'm also talking about the cognitive function order patterns that are supposed to be a given for everyone of every type -- i.e. NiFeTiSeNeFiTeSi -- as a pattern set in stone that all INFJ's are supposed to follow.

It's the latter that tests have not proven out as actually being *reality*. Perhaps it's a poor test. Or perhaps the theory itself is totally wrong. Or perhaps there shouldn't be tests at all for cognitive functions, as that's the wrong approach completely.

I still maintain though that the test-taker should NOT have to have an awareness of mbti or cognitive functions before taking the test. In fact, that would be detrimental in my opinion, as he'd be much more biased in his answers if he knew what the questions were really getting at. Again, would be prone to answer as he knows he's 'supposed' to answer. In fact the test questions themselves shouldn't even be alluding to what cognitive function they're trying to get at. And it sounds like that's one thing you and I disagree on -- you think test-takers should have a thorough understanding of the functions before taking the test, I don't think they should. If the questions were good, and actually would point to specific functions, then there would be no need for the user to have prior knowledge.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
look, i am all for inventing an intelligence test, that can not be faked [by mistake OR desire] by people, except by prodigies who truly access all functions.

but there is no in-between.

current tests are not what you wish them to be, and the result of that is millions of people who are not sure about their type, and you can not change that, by wishing or demanding that people should not now anything, because they do.

they do, already to some amount, and it cant be undone and therefore must be owned, used, differentiated to the point where it is no longer a source of error, but a source of correct communication

they do, because it begins with that insane dichotomy, that is pregnant with polemic ethical implications, that holds a huge potential to provoke denial, false self .... judgers are rigid, perceivers are lazy .. there you have the first pattern. cant be deleted.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think things have gotten lost in translation...when did I say people shouldn't know anything? All I said was that the ideal test would have questions such that the test-taker shouldn't HAVE to know anything to take the test and to get *accurate* results. And the more the test-taker does know, the more potential for bias.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just stating my thoughts on the subject. My thoughts just tend to run counter to mbti theory, and I think the majority of the cognitive function stuff is ridiculous. :smile: They are just a nice little 'blueprint' for the specific personality type. But most people don't fully relate to any one mbti type to begin with (although granted: there are a minority who relate to anything and everything about their personality type, so are I would say more 'extreme' in all traits associated with that specific personality type), so obviously aren't going to line up seamlessly with the cognitive processing blueprint either.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
All I said was that the ideal test would have questions such that the test-taker shouldn't HAVE to know anything to take the test and to get *accurate* results.

yeah, i agree with that, except that this test seems to be rather impossible.

until we have automates at the side of the street where you sit in, throw a coin, and get a physiognomical or genetical analysis ...
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
i have zero trust in that test, that you are probably referring to. or maybe its how people answer these tests. can anyone give the "right" answers? anyone who has not downloaded enough of the function ideas to apply patterns on his traits, that are compatible with the tests questions?

i did that test a year ago and got exactly the result that i expected (socionic infp), because i have the according understanding of the patterns...

First of all, this wasn't truly based on that cognitive function test, although the test was the initial starting point. The test placed Ne (6th) highest for me... which simply isn't correct. I derived this mainly from introspection on my part... looking at how forum members describe what each function meant to them. So yes, there is the potential for bias as they tend to look at things that fit the traditional pattern.

HOWEVER, If the traditional pattern is to be correct... then why would you get such an odd pattern? Why wouldn't it be 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 1,2,5,6,3,4,7,8?
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
HOWEVER, If the traditional pattern is to be correct... then why would you get such an odd pattern? Why wouldn't it be 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 1,2,5,6,3,4,7,8?

i think by analyzing your self or what other people say or report you can get a picture of the first four functions, but not even their order. how on earth could you tell anything about 789 .... ? you could assume that a function must be down there, because it is not up here, but thats about all you can say, based on observation.

if you have any fancy idea about how the seventh function has a specific role in life (magic zombie or whatever), you might come to the conclusion, that this role in an particular life is taken by function XY. but how could you proof your idea? maybe the magic zombie is 6.

then why would you get such an odd pattern? Why wouldn't it be 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 1,2,5,6,3,4,7,8

so i will say, because its random! there is currently no reliably methodology (in my mind, and probably in yours) to access the order. maybe a linear order does not even exist. maybe order is the product of differenciation, and only exists in developed individuals.
 

Apollanaut

Senior Mugwump
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
550
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What I've also notice is that for most people, it's the 6th (aka witch) that tends to be the most problematic under stress. Not your inferior 4 or the daemon 8.

For INFJs, the 6th is Fi. There's a tendency to feel insecure about the self and abilities/work. Thoughts like "Why aren't I good enough?" "I'll never be able to..." floats around when they're stressed out or depressed.

Talk about synchronicity! I've just posted about this exact thing on this thread:

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...rices/15117-function-stacks-3.html#post589816

Here's the relevant part of my post:

As for Fi,

I sort of can tell when my Witchy Fi flares up: I start to feel unworthy of my high ideals, become very moody (depressed or angry) and feel very critical of myself and others, but I don't usually express any of this out loud. But Fi is still very murky terrain for me. Again, this makes sense, because according to Beebe, the sixth function is commonly the last one to develop.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
i think by analyzing your self or what other people say or report you can get a picture of the first four functions, but not even their order. how on earth could you tell anything about 789 .... ? you could assume that a function must be down there, because it is not up here, but thats about all you can say, based on observation.

if you have any fancy idea about how the seventh function has a specific role in life (magic zombie or whatever), you might come to the conclusion, that this role in an particular life is taken by function XY. but how could you proof your idea? maybe the magic zombie is 6.
My analyzes is based on aggregate sampling. I'm assuming well balanced individuals will display at least 1, 2, 3... people who're more "pure type" (younger/imbalanced etc) will show a predominance of 1 and a misuse of either the inferior or a shadow function.

I started out looking at INTPs first because 3 years ago MBTIc didn't existed... there's only INTPc. I went by the assumption the thinking style displayed by most INTP there would illustrate dominant Ti. If you cannot go by this assumption... then there's no point in linking typology to cognitive functions. Then I look at selected individuals who shows the most undiluted use of Ti... (I started off with Seawolf/SolitaryWalker in case you're wondering.) Then I switch over to looking at those with auxiliary Ti... since there weren't many ESTPs I used strictly ENTPs. How is their thinking style different than INTP? Then I did tertiary Ti in INFJs... then I finally gotten ISTP samples to compare. I did the same thing for most other functions... Not in this detail of cause but that's my approach.

About the 6th... Here's is my unproven rational behind why it's the 6th that's problematic and not 4,7 or 8. For something to be problematic... we must be aware of it, and use it in some very limited fashion. Which throws 7 (trickster) and to some extent 8 (daemon) out the window, because those two barely register on somebody's radar.

7 is the shadow of your tertiary and is also the direct opposite of your auxiliary... For INFJ 7th is Te... Under most circumstances, Fe automatically makes a decision. Unless you consciously practice overriding Fe with Te... there's no way Te will affect your life. And if it's practiced conscious use... well I suspect it wouldn't flare up unexpectedly.

8 is the shadow of your inferior, which is Si for INFJ. You hear people whine and "complain" about how they had lousy memory... and are total space cadets. But they're never seriously complaining that it's a problem... It's more of an affectionate thing. They don't mind the lack of Si... because their dominant Ni takes care of everything (same direction (internally directed) opposite (N vs S)).

4 is the inferior, Se for INFJs. This one is harder to explain as to why the 6th and not 4th is usually the most problematic... You do see 4 flaring up under stress... but that tends to happen to less balanced individuals. Berens? theory of JP pairs... under normal circumstances, dominant and auxiliary runs everything. Stress happens when dominant and auxiliary can't handle it... and the person is forced to use the ill-equipped 3rd and 4th. Hence function misuse shows up. However most theories don't look at well developed individuals with practiced use of 3rd and shadows... If you see yourself doing something that you don't like... then chances are you'll try to correct it. It doesn't really matter whether they know what specific function it's called or if it's even a function... they practice to improve it so they don't do that stupid thing again. If you're aware of a problem... you're less likely to be caught by surprise... which is why the inferior is rarely the problematic function in a well developed individual.

6 is the shadow of your auxiliary, Fi in INFJs. It's the most problematic in well developed individuals because as Apollanaut said it's one of the last functions for you to develop... it also doesn't have a very strong same direction opposite (i.e. your Ti is only tertiary). This is the function that's most likely to catch you blindsided because it's the least balanced.

Anything else about my approach you need me to explain?

so i will say, because its random! there is currently no reliably methodology (in my mind, and probably in yours) to access the order. maybe a linear order does not even exist. maybe order is the product of differenciation, and only exists in developed individuals.
So patterns can randomly exists? Even when you look into more and more people and the same pattern keeps on popping up? My Ti cannot take that as a coincidence. The foundation of Ni thinking is based upon patterns existing due to some cause. A difference in believes :)




Talk about synchronicity! I've just posted about this exact thing on this thread:

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...rices/15117-function-stacks-3.html#post589816

Here's the relevant part of my post:

As for Fi,

I sort of can tell when my Witchy Fi flares up: I start to feel unworthy of my high ideals, become very moody (depressed or angry) and feel very critical of myself and others, but I don't usually express any of this out loud. But Fi is still very murky terrain for me. Again, this makes sense, because according to Beebe, the sixth function is commonly the last one to develop.
:D Yeah... Ni tends to do that a lot doesn't it? Try to link everything together. I'll reply to this on the other thread. :)
 

Apollanaut

Senior Mugwump
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
550
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Wow, I'm really impressed with your explanations, nightning. I thought I knew a lot about the 8 function approach to type, but your knowledge exceeds even my own.

Before I respond to your specific examples of the functions (thank you for using INFJ as an example) I'd like to clear up a common misunderstanding regarding Ni, when it is used as a well-developed dominant function by INJs.

It does not, as many people seem to believe, pull random ideas and theories out of the unconscious/ether/Astral Plane (or whatever) without reference to external reality. It is much more experiential than that: it takes note of certain recurring patterns or themes that catch its attention in those areas of life which have meaning or significance for the individual INJ. It observes these patterns over time, to check out if they are merely random or if they seem to represent a genuine phenomenon. If Ni concludes that there is something going on, then it will do two things:

1) It will start to formulate a hypothesis to explain what lies behind the observed patterns. Unlike Ti, which seeks to explain, clarify and precisely define its observations, Ni is more concerned with their usefulness as a diagnostic and predictive tool. If something grabs its attention, Ni will leave no stone unturned in its research. It will seek out any and all information it can find that is even vaguely related, for clues and further insights. It will make sure that what it is looking for is new or speculative, if it finds out that it is an already accepted and explained idea, then it will rapidly lose interest.

2) It will start to collect data to either confirm or deny its theory. If the growing body of evidence adds weight to the original idea, then it will start to test it out by making predictions and seeing how accurate they prove to be. If the accuracy rate is sufficiently high, then it will use the results to further refine the theory and improve the success rate. At some point (if ever) it may decide to publish its findings to a wider audience, for peer review and (possibly) a genuine scientific investigation.

This is how Jung devised his ideas about the human psyche. After years and years of working with patients, his Ni noticed recurring themes and patterns which he found he could then use to make accurate diagnoses and predictions to better help his subsequent patients. Although he felt strongly enough to publish his findings and ideas, he did not do so in terms of the modern scientific method. He left that for others to do, or simply didn't care about this, as he was convinced of the validity of his ideas.
 
Top