• 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.

This is how the MBTI types and the real cognitive functions match

Akhromant

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
8
Hi :)

This is probably going to be my one and only post here (I've registered just for this). I won't reply to comments here. If anyone wants to read about this, and then maybe ask/comment, you can find me at akhromant.tumblr.com (you don't need an account to send messages there), but first make sure to check the index, read the texts/links carefully (even several times), and think things over, please. This requires some time (not just a few hours) because most people are too used to the widespread misconceptions, and the needed reevaluation is not easy (also, many people make a living out of them, or have their sense of "identity" built around them, so they basically can't/won't ever admit that they have been wrong all this time). Some important posts are #01, #13, #19 and #25 (but also #24, #31, #35, #59, etc). There are also lists, tables (including the Socionics correlation), and even some memes :)

This is a very brief summary of the problem: what the famous (but nonexistent) e-i-e-i/i-e-i-e "stacks" call "functions" are not what Jung discovered and described in his book. They are not functions, but behavioral traits that correspond to different pairs of letters:

Their "Te" is not the real extraverted thinking, but a mix of TJ-traits.
Their "Fe" is not the real extraverted feeling, but a mix of FJ-traits.
Their "Se" is not the real extraverted sensation, but a mix of SP-traits.
Their "Ne" is not the real extraverted intuition, but a mix of NP-traits.
Their "Ti" is not the real introverted thinking, but a mix of TP-traits.
Their "Fi" is not the real introverted feeling, but a mix of FP-traits.
Their "Si" is not the real introverted sensation, but a mix of SJ-traits.
Their "Ni" is not the real introverted intuition, but a mix of NJ-traits.

The real cognitive functions are different (for example: Fi is not about "emotions", Si is not "memory", Ni is not about "the future", etc). There is a second group of people that have a sense of what [some of] the functions are, somehow, but they use those same mistaken "stacks", so they mistype everybody (I talked about this in post #58). They should be using the correct function arrangements of the types, which are as follows:

ESTJ is Te-Se-Ni-Fi
ENTJ is Te-Ne-Si-Fi
ESFJ is Fe-Se-Ni-Ti
ENFJ is Fe-Ne-Si-Ti
ESTP is Se-Te-Fi-Ni
ESFP is Se-Fe-Ti-Ni
ENTP is Ne-Te-Fi-Si
ENFP is Ne-Fe-Ti-Si
ISTJ is Ti-Si-Ne-Fe
INTJ is Ti-Ni-Se-Fe
ISFJ is Fi-Si-Ne-Te
INFJ is Fi-Ni-Se-Te
ISTP is Si-Ti-Fe-Ne
ISFP is Si-Fi-Te-Ne
INTP is Ni-Ti-Fe-Se
INFP is Ni-Fi-Te-Se


Most people are going to reject this, I know, but that's how the types and the real functions match. That's how everything fits.

There is a third group of people (the smallest in number of the three, of course) that have found this, usually by themselves, after reading and thinking a lot about these things. Maybe you can be one of them :)
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
INFJ is Fi-Ni-Se-Te
This is not correct. I'm an N-dom, not an F-dom. And I'm much more Ti than Te.

In reality, people's function strengths probably don't necessarily correlate with certain four-letter types in any consistent fashion. But if they do, it certainly isn't in the way you have outlined in your post.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
775
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
-
The OP sounds to be overconfident.
The pairing between judging function and perception function seems not to follow Jung.
J and P is a behavioral tendency that was introduced by Isabel Briggs Myers. Jung himself did not explain about J and P.
Jung finished only in the cognitive functions nature and consciousness and unconsciousness dynamics and the pairing problem in Psychological Types. Following Jung, psychological functions nature is not available or accessible to sensory observations. When an introverted judging function primary or auxiliary paired with extroverted perception function primary or auxiliary, the empirically observable behavior of the spesific person with the function combination will naturally be perceiver or a perception producer, not a judgmental one. The letter P at the end of four letter MBTI type is abbreviated of perceiver or preceptor. The perception resulted depends on the pairing perceptive functions. If the pairing perceptive function is Ne, the perception produced by the perceiver or perceptor is naturally an intuitive one. If the pairing perceptive function is Se, the person will naturally behaviorally producing sensation perception.
The J is abbreviated of judger, will be a behavioral tendency shown by someone with Extroverted Judging function at their primary or auxiliary at their stack. Te paired with Si behave judgementally. They judges objective realities by thinking and based on what is perceptible by their sensory senses. They habitually tend not to produce perception like the perceiver.
Isabel Briggs Myers research mostly explain the primary and auxiliary function empirically, but seem not to discuss also the tertiary and inferior function, probably for the reason that both of them are unconscious. It is implied that according to Myers, most people that she found only use two function combination although they actually have four at their stack.
Isabel Briggs Myers research findings tells me, from Jungian standpoint that most people that under Myers samples only are one sided; they only use two cognitive functions although each type has four.
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
I had a look at your blog. Fun read.
Im with the alternative way of seeing things folks, specially on this subject, however...
As [MENTION=39708]typologyenthusiast[/MENTION] stated, you seem overconfident on your position, and I would take that fine if I had not detected that, at the end of the day, you may use some of the same argument as followers of Harold-Grant Cognitive Function Stack use (tests are bad and nothing can prove I am wrong, which auto-implys Im right) and that you seems overconfident with pretty no evidence and without any expectations of giving evidence with given opportunity. Carl Jung does not holds the ultimate truth, just because Carl Jung says something that doesnt auto-imply it is true (or false). Carl Jung is on a sea of psycologhysts, where the most famous is Freud, I think. I could be wrong, but for Freud there are two unconscious (Super Ego and ID), where in Jung there is just one. Jung does a lot of statements about the unconscious, but I dont think that the psycologist´s "scientifical community" really does have a clear, all-accepted and one-visioned definition of what the unconscious is and how it/her/him truly works.

Although you criticize Myers a lot, Myers happened to get her own dichotomy dimensions with full testability and a good (perhaps a little modest) reproductibility/reliability. If Myers says she is INFP on a method with good reproduction, I dont think me and you would be really the ones to tell her wrong specially considering that the info we might have about her should be mostly related with the design of MBTI itself and not mostly personal. With little doubt, Jung concepts of I/E and Myers concepts of I/E are different and it is likely that J/P Jung and J/P on Myers are different too (and that might be where the J/P on socionics switch, I should read about socionics someday), so perhaps Myers is INFJ on a J/P Jung scale, but she is P on her own.

I know cognitive functions are deep, and that means the approach is complicated. IThe argument "the truth is the simplest way" you use in one of your posts with different words but the same meaning doesnt hold true on our complexity-rich world, if you say that to physics (specially the ones the modern ones, the post-Einstein ones) you would be laughed at that and compared to flat-earthers. As you already read and noticed, the test doenst match any fixed cognitive at all, not just the one we all know, but all of ones. It needs a deep approach and/or a loose approach.

You really need to watch the function pairing of yours, because it seems to my own lookings that there is actually a function pairing effect (effect, not fixed) that it is more in agreeing with the Fi-Ne, Ni-Te, etc... than yours, but I am not proving you wrong or stating your are surely wrong on that, I just would not be so sure of it and I am giving somehow of a warning.

Sorry if I was harsh, it was a fun read, but, as long as you dont actually has plenty of backup you shouldnt be really sure that you already have everything figured out and should work, perhaps, on alternative conceptions (as I do).
 

crustydemon

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Messages
28
MBTI Type
estp
Hi :) This is probably going to be my one and only post here (I've registered just for this). I won't reply to comments here. If anyone wants to read about this, and then maybe ask/comment, you can find me at akhromant.tumblr.com (you don't need an account to send messages there), but first make sure to check the index, read the texts/links carefully (even several times), and think things over, please. This requires some time (not just a few hours) because most people are too used to the widespread misconceptions, and the needed reevaluation is not easy (also, many people make a living out of them, or have their sense of "identity" built around them, so they basically can't/won't ever admit that they have been wrong all this time). Some important posts are #01, #13, #19 and #25 (but also #24, #31, #35, #59, etc). There are also lists, tables (including the Socionics correlation), and even some memes :) This is a very brief summary of the problem: what the famous (but nonexistent) e-i-e-i/i-e-i-e "stacks" call "functions" are not what Jung discovered and described in his book. They are not functions, but behavioral traits that correspond to different pairs of letters: Their "Te" is not the real extraverted thinking, but a mix of TJ-traits. Their "Fe" is not the real extraverted feeling, but a mix of FJ-traits. Their "Se" is not the real extraverted sensation, but a mix of SP-traits. Their "Ne" is not the real extraverted intuition, but a mix of NP-traits. Their "Ti" is not the real introverted thinking, but a mix of TP-traits. Their "Fi" is not the real introverted feeling, but a mix of FP-traits. Their "Si" is not the real introverted sensation, but a mix of SJ-traits. Their "Ni" is not the real introverted intuition, but a mix of NJ-traits. The real cognitive functions are different (for example: Fi is not about "emotions", Si is not "memory", Ni is not about "the future", etc). There is a second group of people that have a sense of what [some of] the functions are, somehow, but they use those same mistaken "stacks", so they mistype everybody (I talked about this in post #58). They should be using the correct function arrangements of the types, which are as follows: ESTJ is Te-Se-Ni-Fi ENTJ is Te-Ne-Si-Fi ESFJ is Fe-Se-Ni-Ti ENFJ is Fe-Ne-Si-Ti ESTP is Se-Te-Fi-Ni ESFP is Se-Fe-Ti-Ni ENTP is Ne-Te-Fi-Si ENFP is Ne-Fe-Ti-Si ISTJ is Ti-Si-Ne-Fe INTJ is Ti-Ni-Se-Fe ISFJ is Fi-Si-Ne-Te INFJ is Fi-Ni-Se-Te ISTP is Si-Ti-Fe-Ne ISFP is Si-Fi-Te-Ne INTP is Ni-Ti-Fe-Se INFP is Ni-Fi-Te-Se Most people are going to reject this, I know, but that's how the types and the real functions match. That's how everything fits. There is a third group of people (the smallest in number of the three, of course) that have found this, usually by themselves, after reading and thinking a lot about these things. Maybe you can be one of them :)
Oh boy. I won't go too long about this but this is the issue when people read Psychological Types - ch.10 and stop there.
Jung lectured about the functional stack and even gave some direct examples as did his associates the he taught and worked with. They all made it clear that the functions have to E-I-E-I.Otherwise, one would be driven mad if not mad, already.

I-I-E-E or vice versa would eventuallt result in mental health issues. The auxiliary function is used to help people not go over board with their dom. There are plenty of resources online. Google search could solve these types of things for a lot of people.
 
Last edited:
Top