[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Cognitive Functions

[Thalassa]

Would that be more "real" like one's id, ego, or superego? That is, what do most heavy Fi-users view as being themselves? Following their desires? Having control over their behavior? I thought it would be most like someone's superego but now I'm not so sure.

The authenticity would be much more idealistic than merely following one's desires in most cases. I would definitely say ego or superego as opposed to the id, for sure. There is certainly a streak of perfectionism in xNFPs that would never allow them to just follow their desires. However, ESFPs might be more inclined in that direction of id-fueled desire, but only if really unstable.

I can't speak for xSFPs as much, but I know with xNFPs the Fi is driven by a personal ethical philosophy that may or may not match up to the norms of the society around them. Fi is more likely to hold on to it's "inner truth" than to compromise for the sake of the gang. Fi will fight to stand up for what it believes in if that value is threatened in any way.

 

[SciVo]

Maybe it would help if people discussed their definition or perceived purpose of each cognitive function also. I have seen countless descriptions of the functions and most of them are not really satisfactory. Specifically, Ni, Si, and Fi have always sort of intrigued me, even when I am supposedly using them.

What would be a concise but solid description for one or more of the functions?

Ni is a deep, dark, mysterious ocean of unconscious ideas that I dip a line into (and then turn my surface awareness to something else) when the next step isn't obvious enough for Te. I'm deeply grateful to have a Ni so full of idea-fish that I hardly ever have to wait long for a nibble, so that I'm usually effectively able to be inspired at will.

 

[FlamingMask]

The authenticity would be much more idealistic than merely following one's desires in most cases. I would definitely say ego or superego as opposed to the id, for sure. There is certainly a streak of perfectionism in xNFPs that would never allow them to just follow their desires. However, ESFPs might be more inclined in that direction of id-fueled desire, but only if really unstable.

I can't speak for xSFPs as much, but I know with xNFPs the Fi is driven by a personal ethical philosophy that may or may not match up to the norms of the society around them. Fi is more likely to hold on to it's "inner truth" than to compromise for the sake of the gang. Fi will fight to stand up for what it believes in if that value is threatened in any way.

Of all the functions, I think Fi could be the most varied among individuals, especially if what you say is true. Everyone shares some desires, but an internal set of ethics can be easily shaped by circumstance or develop in a unlikely way. What would be the least variable then, Si - which can operate in the communal past?

Ni is a deep, dark, mysterious ocean of unconscious ideas that I dip a line into (and then turn my surface awareness to something else) when the next step isn't obvious enough for Te. I'm deeply grateful to have a Ni so full of idea-fish that I hardly ever have to wait long for a nibble, so that I'm usually effectively able to be inspired at will.

The worst descriptions I have seen are usually of Ni. Websites and experts talk of "synthesizing the paradoxical," but that can be done in so many ways and doesn't stand well on its own. I am fairly familiar with Ni, but mostly through omission of the other possible behaviors I could be involved in. I love your description though. It really captures the chance-oriented and unconscious aspect of Ni - and the metaphor is very N.

 

[Thalassa]

Of all the functions, I think Fi could be the most varied among individuals, especially if what you say is true. Everyone shares some desires, but an internal set of ethics can be easily shaped by circumstance or develop in a unlikely way. What would be the least variable then, Si - which can operate in the communal past?

Yes to both. I think Si would be the least variable and that is why SJs are often stereotyped as being conformists.

 

[FlamingMask]

Is that why a lot of the SJs I know seem to be conservative?

Si - Conservative?
Ti - Libertarian?
Fe - Liberal?

Something like that?

 

[Argus]

(Check out my type calculator for a visual if you want.)

Thats a pretty fancy calculator.

 

[Argus]

Yes. For one thing, the way I construct posts is certainly more slapdash than say the writing I would do for school or work, etc.

Secondly, my ex said that the way that I write comes across so differently from who I am to him IRL that it surprised him.

It's easier, too, to achieve a persona in writing that is different from one's true self because it's more carefully constructed than just opening my mouth and saying blah blah blah, which I admittedly do a lot.

So which one is really you?

 

[Eric B]

Would that be more "real" like one's id, ego, or superego? That is, what do most heavy Fi-users view as being themselves? Following their desires? Having control over their behavior? I thought it would be most like someone's superego but now I'm not so sure.

If you want to see those mapped to the functions, you know Socionics does attempt to do that. Each pair of functions (called a "block") corresponds to one of those. The dom. And aux. Are the "ego" block, of course. To complete four pairs, they add a fourth one called "super-id".
I don't know how true these are to Freud's concepts, however.

Also, if you want a more fundamental definition of the functions, there's Mark Bruzon's "Fundamental Nature of the MBTI (don't have the address right now, but I have posted the link elsewhere. It's "player2000..." something).
That one actually helped me out.

 

[FlamingMask]

If you want to see those mapped to the functions, you know Socionics does attempt to do that. Each pair of functions (called a "block") corresponds to one of those. The dom. And aux. Are the "ego" block, of course. To complete four pairs, they add a fourth one called "super-id".
I don't know how true these are to Freud's concepts, however.

Also, if you want a more fundamental definition of the functions, there's Mark Bruzon's "Fundamental Nature of the MBTI (don't have the address right now, but I have posted the link elsewhere. It's "player2000..." something).
That one actually helped me out.

Well, I might steer clear of Socionics. I've got my hands full of MBTI at the moment, and it seems like Socionics and MBTI clash as much as they promote better a understanding of each other. And anyways, you've recently helped me realize that moving away from Jung is often pretty destructive, because he did know what he was talking about. I am specifically talking about the current lack of emphasis on Introversion/Extroversion.

Thanks for the link! I found it by typing in "Fundamental Nature of the MBTI" into the search engine. For the benefit of others, here it is:

 

[Thalassa]

So which one is really you?

Both, really. Different facets of the same person. I do occasionally feign a persona in writing, though, but not consistently.

I'm very E/I borderline.

 

[Thalassa]

Is that why a lot of the SJs I know seem to be conservative?

Si - Conservative?
Ti - Libertarian?
Fe - Liberal?

Something like that?

I don't think it's that simple. For example, I know Ti liberals who think libertarians are extremely logical people who have made a grave error in their thinking. Or whom even consider Objectivism a form of incurable insanity.

Also, some SJs have prominant Fe, like ESFJs, for example, so they could be Fe dom and SJ. Fe can care about others in a non-liberal sense. I think conservative Fe doms - stereotypically the xSFJs - just focus their sharing and caring in more microcosmic manner within their own tangible community.

There's a stereotype, too, that NFs are liberal.

 

[FlamingMask]

You're right about all that, especially the fact that someone can be Fe-dom and SJ.

However, do you think the NF stereotype is in any way accurate?

 

[Thalassa]

You're right about all that, especially the fact that someone can be Fe-dom and SJ.

However, do you think the NF stereotype is in any way accurate?

I think it might be applied as a generalization, simply because NFs tend to put great emphasis on ethics, relationships with people, and so forth... but of course it isn't always an accurate assumption.

There are conservative NFs and liberal SJs, I'm sure, depending on their individual experience and context of the cultural values in which they live. I think SJs are probably more likely to be liberal when surrounded by a strongly "liberal" community (and remember, what is viewed as "liberal" in the United States could be viewed as moderate or even conservative in another country), liberal parents, etc. but that's just another generalization.

I've encountered quite a few NT liberals so I don't believe that they're all libertarians by any stretch of the imagination, but there seems to be a generalization that they are more likely to be so.

 

[SciVo]

The worst descriptions I have seen are usually of Ni. Websites and experts talk of "synthesizing the paradoxical," but that can be done in so many ways and doesn't stand well on its own. I am fairly familiar with Ni, but mostly through omission of the other possible behaviors I could be involved in. I love your description though. It really captures the chance-oriented and unconscious aspect of Ni - and the metaphor is very N.

Thank you! I figured that I'd better be the one to explain it, since Ni is bad at explaining itself, but Fi/Ne is apparently good at putting things in simple terms, and people who are high in all three seem to be extra-rare.

 

[Llewellyn]

The problem here is that Te and Ti (for example) are not really different functions. It's misleading to think of it that way. The best way I've thought of to conceptualize the system is that there are FOUR functions (Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition) and an Introversion/Extroversion score for each one.

So someone with X amount of thinking would have Y Ti and (X-Y) Te. Any two INTPs could have different X and Y values, which would mean their 8 function order would look different. (Check out my type calculator for a visual if you want.)

I don't think there's such a thing as ambivert thinking (which your position could imply), only polyvert thinking.
Although your type calculator is nice in its result, I find it hard to see Xi and Xe placed in a trade-off relation, as if there is a single total amount of (attitudinal) thinking.

 

[JustHer]

I disagree already.

Most INTPs have sucky Te.
They don't get anything done; they just sit around and dabble in theoretical pursuits.

Please please please don't refer to Te as "getting things done"!! Te is not about doing things at all.

 

[Jaguar]

Please please please don't refer to Te as "getting things done"!! Te is not about doing things at all.

My Te doesn't exactly sit on its ass eating chocolate bon bons.

 

[JustHer]

My Te doesn't exactly sit on its ass eating chocolate bon bons.

MMMMmmm chocolate bon bons.

 

[Jaguar]

MMMMmmm chocolate bon bons.

Merry Christmas

 

[Risen]

One thing that's been bothering me is that most people's cognitive functions don't really seem to fit their Myers Briggs type. While you would expect the norm to be something close to the way they're listed, I usually see a hierarchy of someone who has taken the cognitive functions test that does not fit the profile.

For example, the list for an INTP would go:

Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi

but most INTPs have something like:

Ti Ne Te Si Ni Se Fe Fi

Why is that? Does the list of functions not really work? Does the test look only for preference and not ability, and if so, are they really that different? Am I just seeing a lot of outliers for some reason?

I think you're right. The validity of MBTI, the 4 letter system of describing personality through 4 types/combinations has questionable validity. MBTI and Jung's work would be FAR more useful if they'd focus on the cognitive functions themselves and not on the construct that is the MBTI personality type. The cognitive functions seem to work VERY well for accurately describing specific and definite cognitive processes underlying overall thought patterns in individuals. It's when they try to combine the functions in the MBTI system to try and describe individual personalities that they screw up, because that theory has a lot of flaws in it. That's why the validity of MBTI is so low, because it takes the cognitive functions, makes them into something their not, and tries to stuff people in one of 16 boxes by making false presumptions on how individuals will use their cognitive functions. Unfortunately for MBTI, people can really use their cognitive functions in any number of ways that may often fit one of the 16 patterns, but not enough to give MBTI the kind of validity the scientific community expects.

MBTI personality theory says you're supposed to use your functions in a specific order, but that fundamental assumption is wrong, obviously. Just talk to any number of forum members and you'll see that. There is quite a lot of variability in the ordering and strength of people's functions that MBTI crudely tries to gloss over.