Type(s) most likely to believe in function magic

[Shadow Play]

By "function magic", I refer to the so-called cognitive functions.

 

[Zhaylin]

I don't know what function magic is.
As an INFP, I strongly believed in magic as a kid into my early 20's. By magic, I mean beliefs which are similar to Wicca; though I leaned more towards magical thinking.

 

[Shadow Play]

I don't know what function magic is.
As an INFP, I strongly believed in magic as a kid into my early 20's. By magic, I mean beliefs which are similar to Wicca; though I leaned more towards magical thinking.

Function magic is a term to define the use of functions within an MBTI framework. That is to say, one where NP = Ne and FP = Fi. Things get even crazier when NP = Ne/Si and FP = Fi/Te.

Apparently, NFPs are more likely to flirt with magical thinking.

 

[Amberiat]

Very subtle.

 

[Population: 1]

I don't know what function magic is.

BEHOLD!

 

[Zhaylin]

[MENTION=33707]Population: 1[/MENTION] You mean like this

I love that thing and only wear it out if it's 30 degrees (F) or lower )
[MENTION=38365]Shadow Play[/MENTION] Thank you for the explanation. I'll have to look into that some more. I'm completely unfamiliar with it. It sounds very confusing (I can barely remember that, as an INFP, I'm a FiNe SiTe

 

[Population: 1]

[MENTION=33707]Population: 1[/MENTION] You mean like this

I love that thing and only wear it out if it's 30 degrees (F) or lower )

[MENTION=38365]Shadow Play[/MENTION] Thank you for the explanation. I'll have to look into that some more. I'm completely unfamiliar with it. It sounds very confusing (I can barely remember that, as an INFP, I'm a FiNe SiTe

By Jove, you’ve got it!

 

[Luminous]

*sees magical thinking*

 

[Shadow Play]

wot in tarnation

 

[Shadow Play]

*sees magical thinking*

Which magical thinking? I don't see any beliefs that one's thoughts can influence events in the material world.

 

[Luminous]

Apparently, NFPs are more likely to flirt with magical thinking.

Which magical thinking? I don't see any beliefs that one's thoughts can influence events in the material world.

I was just being silly.

Wanna explain why you think cognitive functions are bunk? (trying to aid in conversation, not being argumentative)

 

[Red Memories]

As an Fi user and NFP I'd like to formally proclaim that I am totally into magical thinking with you guys! GET ME MY ROBE.

 

[Shadow Play]

I was just being silly.

Wanna explain why you think cognitive functions are bunk? (trying to aid in conversation, not being argumentative)

To clarify on the apparent inconsistency between those quotes: I mean that sincerely believing in magic and Wicca could be considered magical thinking, but making a throwaway comment about self-identifying NFPs tending towards magical thinking is not magical thinking. But eh, never mind.

The basis for a belief in functions stems from a viewpoint which stipulates that, when learning, forming values, and making decisions, each individual will rely upon or prefer some mental processes more so than others. I, for one, suspect there's possibly some truth to that. Neuroscience is a field in its infancy, but with sufficient advances both in technology and psychology, I could envision maybe the development of a chart or grid system where each neural activity is classified using a label. Individuals who demonstrate more of one kind of neural activity can be labelled a certain label, if they show consistent preferences for a given activity. This could be thought of as loosely analogous to functions.

However, it would be erroneous to assume that neural activities would operate like polar opposites, where one process necessarily has a corresponding opposite which is somehow repressed when used. The brain is not a magnet which has positive and negative charges at opposite ends. It also would be erroneous to assume that neural preferences will somehow cluster in a static hierarchy, let alone one ranked in a four function or eight function model (such as Beebe's eight function model for an INTP of Ti-Ne-Si-Fe-Te-Ni-Se-Fi). Neural activity is in a state of flux as the brain responds to changes from both the environment and within other parts of the body. And it's completely bonkers to assume that an INTJ would somehow be cognitively introverted in their perceptions while extraverted in their judgements, or that they will somehow be internally disorganised while being externally organised. If anything, external organisation is likely a byproduct of internal organisation.

None of the current typology models are adequate for the purposes of mapping out one's cognition. That's because the methodology involved in any typology system - be it a soft science such as the Big Five or a pseudoscience such as the Zodiac - consists of inferring temperamental differences from observable differences between people, based on the premise that temperaments reflect in how we respond to things. It's the equivalent of observing the wind based on which way it's blowing. Many forumites take issue with this, claiming that somehow makes the MBTI dichotomies shallow, but function theory is no different in that respect, because descriptions of functions are invariably inductions based on observed behaviours in people. To give one example, Fe is generally characterised as conforming to group values, reciprocating emotions, seeking harmony, etc. Do you really think any of the functions theorists hooked test subjects up to a computer first, before reaching such a conclusion about what Fe is supposedly like? No, because function theory emerged from observations about how people respond in a given situation. Jung was no different, because he developed his types through observing the patients that came to see him over the years.

What makes a pseudoscience a pseudoscience depends on its falsifiability. It's not enough just to make a claim something will happen, but instead, you have to set up a repeatable scenario for the purposes of testing a specific claim. So, a Horoscope entry in a newspaper might claim "if you're a Scorpio, you will be lucky today". "Lucky" is a deliberately ambiguous term which allows one to frame anything as good fortune, thus allowing them to twist reality to fit inside a box. Hell, even being hit by a car could be considered "lucky" if you don't sustain any life threatening injuries. A falsifiable claim would be "if you're a Scorpio, you will find a ten-dollar bill lying on the pavement before 20:00 on the day the newspaper is published". If at least 50% of Scorpios experience something like this happening on the same day, while less than 1% of individuals from the other eleven signs do not, that would be promising, but it's almost certainly never going to happen.

In order for cognitive functions to have validity, they must be falsifiable. Instead of being empirically developed to map out neuroactivity, they're an appendage tagged onto the MBTI dichotomies to pander to Jung fanboys who would've otherwise scoffed at Myer's research, hence why Ti = TP even though Jung's Introverted Thinking type would've been a Neurotic INT. Thus, the belief in the existence of cognitive functions - at least functions the way they're characterised on typology forums - has as its prerequisite a belief in the validity of the MBTI in some shape or form. I am ambivalent about the validity of the MBTI. I acknowledge its relative merits over some other typology models, but at the same time, I consider it to possess a number of shortcomings. Nevertheless, whatever validity the MBTI can claim for itself is dependant on the validity of the dichotomies, and if the dichotomies are invalid, so are the functions by association. Yet even then, proving their validity wouldn't necessarily prove the validity of the functions themselves, and I have little else to say about the statistical validity (or lack thereof) of the functions that [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] hasn't already said in his numerous copypastas.

 

[Jaguar]

I'll just quote you from another thread so people know exactly what your position is:

I firmly believe that functions are a category mistake, and any validity functions such as Ti and Ne can claim is piggy-backed to their respective dichotomy combinations, such as TP and NP. Type dynamics (the so called "function axes") never reflect in statistical data in such a way where you have TP/FJ and NP/SJ or TJ/FP and NJ/SP clustered together. More importantly, I don't believe it makes any sense to limit one's understanding of a type to just two dichotomy combinations, either. The full MBTI model for, say, an INTP is not merely ITP + NP, but instead I + N + T + P + IN + IT + TP + NT + NP + TP + INT + INP + ITP + NTP + INTP.

Frankly, I think you need more plus signs. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[Shadow Play]

I'll just quote you from another thread so people know exactly what your position is:




Frankly, I think you need more plus signs. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Damn, I just noticed I repeated TP twice and omitted IP.

Um, thanks?

 

[Zhaylin]

I'm very new to all of this, plus I'm lazy and my concentration isn't worth squat nowadays, so I don't know how deeply I'll ever truly dive into all of this.
I belong to a FB group that linked a YT interview. A lot of it went over my head, but it seemed to me that: Eric was arrogant and too sure of himself. He doesn't seem to want to reinvent the wheel, as it was. Dave spoke in circles, but was more humble and seemed willing to listen and learn. He seems to want to rewrite the whole system.

I felt myself gravitating more toward Eric even though he rubbed me the wrong way, for the most part. It's hard enough, for someone like me, to grasp MBTI as it now is without adding 500+ new categories (if I understand correctly).

MBTI is far from perfect. Brain mapping sounds intriguing but, I agree, that the doodad should be worn for an entire day or week or month for accuracy. Not just for the duration of a test. Once mapping has been worked out, then I could see reinventing what's already here. Until then, it just seems too lofty and circuitous.

Here's the interview. It was the first time I've ever seen or heard from either of them, so perhaps I misread the whole thing.
This thread made me think of the video, lol. Being so far removed perhaps I'm misunderstanding this as well though?

 

[Shadow Play]

I'm very new to all of this, plus I'm lazy and my concentration isn't worth squat nowadays, so I don't know how deeply I'll ever truly dive into all of this.
I belong to a FB group that linked a YT interview. A lot of it went over my head, but it seemed to me that: Eric was arrogant and too sure of himself. He doesn't seem to want to reinvent the wheel, as it was. Dave spoke in circles, but was more humble and seemed willing to listen and learn. He seems to want to rewrite the whole system.

I felt myself gravitating more toward Eric even though he rubbed me the wrong way, for the most part. It's hard enough, for someone like me, to grasp MBTI as it now is without adding 500+ new categories (if I understand correctly).

MBTI is far from perfect. Brain mapping sounds intriguing but, I agree, that the doodad should be worn for an entire day or week or month for accuracy. Not just for the duration of a test. Once mapping has been worked out, then I could see reinventing what's already here. Until then, it just seems too lofty and circuitous.

Here's the interview. It was the first time I've ever seen or heard from either of them, so perhaps I misread the whole thing.
This thread made me think of the video, lol. Being so far removed perhaps I'm misunderstanding this as well though?

I didn't watch the interview because it was 38 minutes long, but I will say I'm familiar with Dave because of his DaveSuperPowers videos.

Dave Powers is an associate of this fringe project called ObjectivePersonality, which aims to implement function theory in an empirical format. ObjectivePersonality defines functions based on how they match up to their assigned corresponding dichotomies. Their function model is based on Harold Grant's work. Much like with the MBTI, IJs have a dominant irrational function and IPs have a dominant rational function. Pe functions favour gathering, Pi functions favour organising, Je functions are tribe-oriented, and Ji functions are self-oriented. One key adaptation is the use of "animals" to refer to the role functions play in the stack, such as "savior" and "demon" functions. From there, the team would train a bunch of volunteers on how to type within their framework. If someone speaks in facts and specifics, they prefer S. If someone speaks in ideas and generalisations detached from the here and now, they prefer N. If someone evaluates using values, they prefer F. If someone evaluates using reasons, they prefer T. The aim is to have an average of at least 90% of volunteers reaching the same conclusion of a person's type, using the same definitions and methodology. Volunteers type subjects independently in an attempt at some sort of "double-blind" methodology, and subjects are given little output of their type until a consensus has been reached. Once enough people have been processed into their database, they might present their body of work for scientific peer review.

If you think this is an endorsement of their work, don't. This is very much a case of the emperor wearing no clothes.
1. ObjectivePersonality claims to put Jungian type theory to the test, but their system is anything but Jungian. The auxiliary has the opposite orientation of the dominant, while the tertiary shares the same orientation. IJs and IPs have dominant functions opposite to their J/P letter. The functions definitions are different from Jung's type portraits. It's disingenuous to claim to test Jung's original theory despite being much the same as other amateur functions models on the internet. Also, I take issue with their treatment of the tertiary function. For example, you could have both a Ti-Ne and a Ti-Ni type, but the Ni of the Ti-Ni is in fact the "savior" tertiary function elevated to an auxiliary position. It's calling an obvious auxiliary function a tertiary function. Grant stacks and function loops can't be done right.
2. Even though ObjectivePersonality loves to throw around terminology such as "double-blind" to appear all scientificky, their system is still fundamentally a pseudoscience because it isn't falsifiable. The aim is to obtain consistent results while typing within that system, yet the functions model is assumed to be valid before it is put to use. Whether or not it achieves an average of 90% or more consistent types is futile if the system hasn't been proven first.
3. ObjectivePersonality aims to separate itself from the wider typology community through its methodology, but I don't see what makes them different from the system they aim to overturn. The MBTI infers temperamental differences through observing differences in people. ObjectivePersonality does much the same thing, except instead of giving subjects a test to answer themselves, they use an interview format or observe video footage. Also, for a system that aims at getting to the core of cognition, it deals heavily in stereotypes. This is made evident in their association of SF/ST/NT/NF with Popular/Reporter/Nerd/Hippy. And I thought Keirsey's temperaments were stereotypical.
4. I really hate how ObjectivePersonality runs roughshod over the subjective experiences of the very people they set out to type. Nope, your thoughts and perspectives are irrelevant, because somehow you just don't know yourself well enough to provide any meaningful input on your own type. The methodology renders its subjects into automatons. Don't get me started on that smug "you got fooled!" video.
5. ObjectivePersonality requires payment to sign up for training. If they really were committed to their mission, shouldn't they be happy to sign up anyone who wants to partake in their project, free of charge? This honestly smacks of a scam.