Book about cognitive functions...

[Tamske]

This is a great idea of Wonkavision!

He proposes to make a book about cognitive functions with illustrations. I want to take it on, but I need some help.

I'm not a specialist on those functions. Everything I know about them comes from this forum. I've even never read a book about them. Who wants to describe the functions? Who wants to edit?

I want to provide:

- illustrations of the functions (I'm working on backgrounds for the judger functions now)
- illustrations of 'character control rooms' - maybe without text, such that they are more clear?
- illustrations like my avatar, with dominant and auxiliary function working together?
- maybe some comics featuring the functions taking a decision (On paper, I've got a nice one where the ESTJ courthouse tackles the difficult question 'Do I love this man?')

What I want from collaborators:
- a DEADLINE!!! Just to force myself to keep working on it instead of beginning new things.
- descriptions of the functions
- general criticism and comments
- maybe some text describing the 'function guys' (somewhat like: this is Si. He gets information from the archive (your memory) to the judging functions...)

 

[Jaguar]

Get yourself Gary Hartzler's book: 'Functions of Type.'
You can order it on Amazon.com.

 

[wren]

This is a great idea of Wonkavision!

He proposes to make a book about cognitive functions with illustrations. I want to take it on, but I need some help.

I'm not a specialist on those functions. Everything I know about them comes from this forum. I've even never read a book about them. Who wants to describe the functions? Who wants to edit?

I want to provide:

- illustrations of the functions (I'm working on backgrounds for the judger functions now)
- illustrations of 'character control rooms' - maybe without text, such that they are more clear?
- illustrations like my avatar, with dominant and auxiliary function working together?
- maybe some comics featuring the functions taking a decision (On paper, I've got a nice one where the ESTJ courthouse tackles the difficult question 'Do I love this man?')

What I want from collaborators:
- a DEADLINE!!! Just to force myself to keep working on it instead of beginning new things.
- descriptions of the functions
- general criticism and comments
- maybe some text describing the 'function guys' (somewhat like: this is Si. He gets information from the archive (your memory) to the judging functions...)

it's a very good idea! you need to find out as much about the individual functions by yourself for yourself and how they play out in the total typology of a person then ask others for input, imho. the illustrations you've drawn are inviting!

 

[Heinel]

When you say cognitive functions, which system are you using? The function system of MBTI, I find, is inconsistent in some ways. For example, the ISTPs are said to primarily use Ti, supported by Se. However, if you look at the type descriptions, and closely observe or question the people who are typed as ISTP, you'll find that most of them actually do not care much about Ti at all (even though they can summon it when they must). Their motivations are, in fact, Si - Te.

On an observational level I guess the difference is usually kept at a minimum. However, if your illustrations are meant to show the internal state of a person, I think it is necessary that you drop the link between the 4 letter label (and the type descriptions associated with it) with the cognitive functions themselves.

 

[VagrantFarce]

When you say cognitive functions, which system are you using? The function system of MBTI, I find, is inconsistent in some ways. For example, the ISTPs are said to primarily use Ti, supported by Se. However, if you look at the type descriptions, and closely observe or question the people who are typed as ISTP, you'll find that most of them actually do not care much about Ti at all (even though they can summon it when they must). Their motivations are, in fact, Si - Te.

This is dumb - you can't criticize a function system because a generalised type description is too vague. If the function attitudes seem vague or inconsistent, then the descriptions you're reading are vague or inconsistent. The functions differ from each other greatly, I can assure you.

And if an ISTP relates more to Si + Te than Ti + Se, why aren't they just an ISTJ? How could you even possibly confuse or correlate the two, they result in completely different ways of processing and dealing with the world.

 

[Heinel]

This is dumb - you can't criticize a function system because of generalised type descriptions that are too vague. If the function attitudes seem vague or inconsistent, then the descriptions you're reading are vague or inconsistent. The functions differ from each other greatly, I can assure you.

And if an ISTP relates more to Si + Te than Ti + Se, why aren't they just an ISTJ? How could you even possibly confuse those two, they result in hugely different behaviours.

Because the description of the type itself (as well as the tests) fundamentally differs from what the functions stand for.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Because the description of the type itself (as well as the tests) fundamentally differs from what the functions stand for.

What descriptions are you reading? How do they differ? If the descriptions differ from the functions, shouldnt you disregard the description? How does one bad description reflect badly on the function system itself?

 

[Heinel]

What descriptions are you reading? How do they differ? If the descriptions differ from the functions, shouldnt you disregard the description? How does one bad description reflect badly on the function system itself?

Type ISTP into google, all of the results in the first page more or less says the same thing. That is however not where I draw my conclusion. I draw my conclusion from the SP forum here.

Most of the ISTP (in fact, all but one or two) currently active on this board are in fact SiTe, not TiSe as the theory describes. Their primary motivations come from sensory perceptions of the inner state. They enjoy creating a welcoming, relaxed atmosphere (Si) but are able of holding logical views and expedient action (Te). Most of them enjoy solitary, physical actions (again Si) and few of them would want anything to do with theories (not Ti). They are also not prone to aggressive tactics in arguments (not Se), unless Si is violated first, and that's a result of Te.

I suppose you can disagree with my abductive analysis, but if you try it yourself you'll start to see more and more problems, and a lot of mistypes. Or rather, I should say, misuse of the functional labels. You start seeing people spewing crap like "I am Ti-dom with Se-aux, when I know I'm right I know I'm right, I don't care about why and I don't care about how that happened."

 

[VagrantFarce]

Type ISTP into google, all of the results in the first page more or less says the same thing. That is however not where I draw my conclusion. I draw my conclusion from the SP forum here.

Most of the ISTP (in fact, all but one or two) currently active on this board are in fact SiTe, not TiSe as the theory describes.

If they're not TiSe, they're not ISTP. The function order determines what type you are. If they're SiTe, they're ISTJ. That's how the system works.

I suppose you can disagree with my abductive analysis, but if you try it yourself you'll start to see more and more problems, and a lot of mistypes.

Mistypes are a result of either test results being wrong, or a lack of understanding for the functions and how they determine type behaviour (either by being led astray by bad or vague descriptions, or simply not taking the time to really understand the system). That doesn't mean the function system itself is inconsistent, because it really isn't.

 

[Heinel]

If they're not TiSe, they're not ISTP.

You tell them.

The function order determines what type you are. If they're SiTe, they're ISTJ. That's how the system works. Mistypes are a result of either test results being wrong, or a lack of understanding for the functions and how they determine type behaviour (either by being led astray by bad or vague descriptions, or simply not taking the time to really understand the system). That doesn't mean the function system itself is inconsistent, because it really isn't.

You just eliminated the part that is inconsistent. We're in agreement. However, that is not reality. As far as I can see most people here are using the wrong tag if you can have your way.

 

[wren]

function descriptions and profile descriptions illustrated might be helpful...might present different people in relationship to their environments, but it's important to distinguish between cognitive functions and overall type. quite an undertaking, though not impossible

 

[VagrantFarce]

You just eliminated the part that is inconsistent. We're in agreement. However, that is not reality. As far as I can see most people here are using the wrong tag if you can have your way.

But you originally suggested that, because MBTI type descriptions are vague or inconsistent, then the function system is as well. I'm telling you that is simply not true; the functions differ massively, and the order they're put in clearly determines one of the 16 types.

It's illogical to say that you're an ISTP that doesn't have dominant-Ti and Auxillary-Se, because then you're not an ISTP! If you then turn around and say that you have Dominant-Si and Auxillary-Te, that makes you an ISTJ! It's like saying that you're an American citizen from birth, before clarifying that you were born and raised in Scotland!

 

[Heinel]

But you originally suggested that, because MBTI type descriptions are vague or inconsistent, then the function system is as well. I'm telling you that is simply not true; the functions differ massively, and the order they're put in clearly determines one of the 16 types.

It's illogical to say that you're an ISTP that doesn't have dominant-Ti and Auxillary-Se, because then you're not an ISTP! If you then turn around and say that you have Dominant-Si and Auxillary-Te, that makes you an ISTJ! It's like saying that you're an American citizen from birth, before clarifying that you were born and raised in Scotland!

Actually I did not say the function system itself is inconsistent. Please re-read post number 4. I think you replied before I put the second paragraph in, which is my conclusion. If the function system itself is inconsistent I wouldn't have agreed to it being a basis for the comics, as it would be pointless.

I can reiterate my point again. The function system itself I do not have a problem with. What I had a problem with was that the functions don't match the 4 letter code people use to identify themselves with. Hence my proposal to separate the two. If that were the case, instead of ISTP, people will be identifying themselves as TiSe. Which I suspect is also what Tamske had picked up anyway, with her avatar.

Edit: Actually now I see where the problem is. Yes, bad wording on my part. This last paragraph is the better version.

 

[Tamske]

Come on... you're forgetting that the descriptions aren't math definitions or something.
They are ideal images. Most people are in the middle.
What if you relate to the description of the ISTP engineer and at the same time to Si-Te? Nothing wrong with that. Why could a Si-Te not be an 'engineer'?
I guess this just indicates the flaws in the system. And the main 'flaw' is: we're working with humans, not with elementary particles. You can expect every electron to behave the same. You just can't expect every ISTP to behave the same.
Humans are too complicated for easy symmetric systems such as this. The problem is that you'd want to over-analyse things. I do this - how does it fit with my type? I use that - how does that fit? Sometimes it DOESN'T fit.

Why am I still interested in MBTI despite it's undecisiveness? Because it's a tool to me - a description tool. Not a declarative one. It doesn't say that you're this or that because of this and that.
You relate to the ISTP description and you're heavy on Si-Te? My mind can already form a picture of you. Even if it's still a very vague one, it's already more detailed than "ISTP" alone or "Si-Te" alone.

 

[Heinel]

Come on... you're forgetting that the descriptions aren't math definitions or something.
They are ideal images. Most people are in the middle.
What if you relate to the description of the ISTP engineer and at the same time to Si-Te? Nothing wrong with that. Why could a Si-Te not be an 'engineer'?
I guess this just indicates the flaws in the system. And the main 'flaw' is: we're working with humans, not with elementary particles. You can expect every electron to behave the same. You just can't expect every ISTP to behave the same.
Humans are too complicated for easy symmetric systems such as this. The problem is that you'd want to over-analyse things. I do this - how does it fit with my type? I use that - how does that fit? Sometimes it DOESN'T fit.

Why am I still interested in MBTI despite it's undecisiveness? Because it's a tool to me - a description tool. Not a declarative one. It doesn't say that you're this or that because of this and that.
You relate to the ISTP description and you're heavy on Si-Te? My mind can already form a picture of you. Even if it's still a very vague one, it's already more detailed than "ISTP" alone or "Si-Te" alone.

Ti is anal retentive about the details. It is part of the type. In fact, the exchange above makes a very good illustration of TiSe (the need to make the theories apply) and TiNe (the need for flawless logical consistency).

 

[Tamske]

^If you take into account the limits of the theory, you can make it consistent.
Even in mathematics there are all sorts of limits and conditions. There are number sets where 2+2 = 0. Still, everybody will say 2+2 = 4 and assume they are working in the "usual" number set of real numbers.
"ISTP <-> TiSe" shows more exceptions than "2+2 = 4" - just take them into account...

The ENTP in my profile (together with the NeTi avatar - both do fit me) is just a crude first approximation of me. There is a big dose of INTP in me, some heaping spoonfuls of ENFP, a dash of INFP and ESTJ,... and a lot of things undescribed by MBTI.

 

[Heinel]

^If you take into account the limits of the theory, you can make it consistent.
Even in mathematics there are all sorts of limits and conditions. There are number sets where 2+2 = 0. Still, everybody will say 2+2 = 4 and assume they are working in the "usual" number set of real numbers.
"ISTP <-> TiSe" shows more exceptions than "2+2 = 4" - just take them into account...

The ENTP in my profile (together with the NeTi avatar - both do fit me) is just a crude first approximation of me. There is a big dose of INTP in me, some heaping spoonfuls of ENFP, a dash of INFP and ESTJ,... and a lot of things undescribed by MBTI.

Ti-doms are harsh judges. Exceptions are bad.

That said, I find the functions, as understood in socionics, has few exceptions.

 

[Eric B]

Socionics is what must be being thought of here, if ISTP (or more accurately, ISTp) is said to be SiTe. Are you sure these "descriptions" you saw were not on Socionics sites, or perhaps even people from here, using Socionics?

 

[Heinel]

Socionics is what must be being thought of here, if ISTP (or more accurately, ISTp) is said to be SiTe. Are you sure these "descriptions" you saw were not on Socionics sites, or perhaps even people from here, using Socionics?

It doesn't matter. The effect is just the same. Some people use one, some use the other. That's where the confusion is, and also why I think Tamske need to make the distinction clear.

 

[Tamske]

I'm sorry, but it is not MY place to make those distinctions clear.
I am not a psychologist.
I'm just an interested party, but I'm a total stranger to socionics.

There are already too many books written by people who think they know something and which annoy the specialists or are even totally wrong. I see lots of nonsense written about string theory. My husband sees even more nonsense written about climate.

I'm not going to make the same mistake. I'm NOT going to write a book about those functions. However, I am willing to provide illustrations!

There is even another problem... MBTI is a trademark. How are you going to write a book about mental functions without mentioning MBTI? Is someone willing to dig out the trademark law and get permission?

All by all, now I'm thinking it was all just a crazy, impossible to realize, idea... ENTPs are bad, ENFPs are bad (Wonka is one) and if you put them together it gets worse still...

Luckily my External Te (my husband) sometimes sets me straight. Bye bye book on mental functions
But... I'm working on my novel again. YES!