Which cognitive pattern model is correct?

[edcoaching]

Since there are very few public figures whose types we actually know (as opposed to people guessing from external behaviors which always involve public personas) that could easily be a dead end.

There's definite debate among type researchers of the order of development past the first two functions. Some reason that the tandem functions actually develop more closely together than the cited models (i.e. a dominant Ni would be developing Ne much faster than any T or S functions). This is an ongoing topic of research.

I do think that past the first two functions, family, education, work, etc. have an influence on what happens next. For example, I've been married to my opposite for countless years, giving me ample opportunity to work on Se. That doesn't happen for all Ni's

 

[Seymour]

[...]

There's definite debate among type researchers of the order of development past the first two functions. Some reason that the tandem functions actually develop more closely together than the cited models (i.e. a dominant Ni would be developing Ne much faster than any T or S functions). This is an ongoing topic of research.

I do think that past the first two functions, family, education, work, etc. have an influence on what happens next. For example, I've been married to my opposite for countless years, giving me ample opportunity to work on Se. That doesn't happen for all Ni's

I haven't seen any formal research on this topic (although I do hope there is some going on), but the closest I've seen in Hartzler & Hartzler (whom I cover in my Topological Survey & Mini Reviews posting:

Type development involves developing skills relative to the eight psychological functions. [...] The development of the other six functions is not so clear. Two patterns are emerging from our research: The same functions as the dominant and auxiliary in the opposite attitudes are the third and fourth most developed. [...] The only ordering that appears in the bottom four is that frequently the inferior function is last, that is, if the dominant is Fe than Ti would be the least developed. [...] Remember that there are frequent variations in the last four functions, so the fifth could be the seventh or the seventh could be the sixth. What is constant is that the bottom four functions are seen as being less developed than the top four.

Which seems similar to Solitary Walker's stated ordering (which he mentions in another thread). Hartzler & Hartzler claim to be researching the functional ordering question, but I haven't see anything formal other than the above. (Not that I spend my time scouring psych journals, so I might just be ignorant.)

I'm still personally partial to Thomson's lasagna ordering (after all, who doesn't love lasagna?), but that may be due to personal quirks rather than general applicability.

 

[edcoaching]

Yes there's formal research going on. Is Thomson the one that says James T Kirk prefers ENFJ? It's one book I haven't read...

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Yes there's formal research going on. Is Thomson the one that says James T Kirk prefers ENFJ? It's one book I haven't read...

Thomson mentions Star Trek a lot, but I believe she quite differently says Kirk is ENTP. I think she said Bones is INFJ.

 

[edcoaching]

Thomson mentions Star Trek a lot, but I believe she quite differently says Kirk is ENTP. I think she said Bones is INFJ.

Good. Kirk IS ENTP. Especially in the new movie. Bones...I don't get quite that emotional...I've always pegged him as ENFJ

 

[Jeffster]

Do you have counter-examples(of the patterns of public figures) that support one of the other models that I could look at? To demonstrate that the cognitive patterns are inconsistent, and thus, the models aren't really models?

As I said, you don't have to look any farther than this forum. Read any of the topics where people posted the results of their "cognitive processes" tests. The overwhelming majority are not in the "set order" that they are "supposed" to be in. Now, strict proponents of the set function order argued that these tests did not prove strength of function, only preference at a particular point in time, but I have yet to be convinced that there are solid examples of the "correct order" being true more often than not in anything but cases using circular logic and confirmation bias.

 

[edcoaching]

As I said, you don't have to look any farther than this forum. Read any of the topics where people posted the results of their "cognitive processes" tests. The overwhelming majority are not in the "set order" that they are "supposed" to be in. Now, strict proponents of the set function order argued that these tests did not prove strength of function, only preference at a particular point in time, but I have yet to be convinced that there are solid examples of the "correct order" being true more often than not in anything but cases using circular logic and confirmation bias.

Yeah...research should show that the first two functions develop in that order, since the type codes were actually developed to reflect that, i.e., you're probably a different type if you disagree, according to the theory. But beyond that I'm expecting a lot of variation. There's a debate on whether case studies would actually be more accurate in determining this than any psychometrics but of course personal reflection on development is fraught with peril as well...

 

[jackandthebeast]

As I said, you don't have to look any farther than this forum. Read any of the topics where people posted the results of their "cognitive processes" tests. The overwhelming majority are not in the "set order" that they are "supposed" to be in. Now, strict proponents of the set function order argued that these tests did not prove strength of function, only preference at a particular point in time, but I have yet to be convinced that there are solid examples of the "correct order" being true more often than not in anything but cases using circular logic and confirmation bias.

1. Because of the subjectivity inherent in questionnaires they don't necessarily measure what they're supposed to. I have trouble taking them specifically because I feel everything is open to interpretation, and therefore, that the answers are arbitrary. I don't really trust generalizations (excessive introvert)- I would need people to actually get a sense of and to see if their observable traits and behaviors match the descriptions for functions in the different placements. Yes, I realize there's also interpretation in that, but it's a method I understand enough to validate, unlike vague questionnaires) and interpretation only goes so far if there are enough negative examples.
2. There's a huge discrepancy between strength of preference and the cognitive model, specifically because the cognitive model order doesn't go from strongest to weakest. In addition, the functions that are bold(I functions for Is, E functions for Es) also can end up getting used more often than functions that are more valued but are cautious functions, so it's not even just the order itself but qualities of functions in certain places that dictate preference. I don't even think there's a way to legitimately construct a model from function order.
3. Any tests that would collect cognitive preference orders as data for a specific type are limited in that they only use two letter designations for each trait, rather than allowing for the possibility for a person to be borderline on a trait. I am borderline on two traits and I know other people who have X-personality types, so I know that is a possibility(if you don't believe me and want me to construct an argument for that I will, but this weekend). It matters because if someone's an IXTP and they're labelled as an INTP, then having a strong Se preference will be seen as an aberration rather than fitting in with their cognitive pattern.
4. I'm not arguing that there are no possibilities outside of a single model, only that I have not seen what I consider definitive proof that there are other possibilities; and I am not willing to discard what I consider the only concrete basis for understanding type that I have(the use of a specific model) on the mere possibility that it doesn't work in all cases.

 

[jackandthebeast]

Qualification: if a test was set up that was specifically geared to place functions in one OR MORE (to account for X types) blocks, I might consider that quantifiable if it was effective.

 

[edcoaching]

Well, you've got the whole issue that type doesn't involve traits at all. It involves preferences. Traits are like lights on a dimmer switch--more or less light. Types are categorical. You have the preferences and then develop skills with the others...a lot of the misunderstanding comes when scores are interpreted using the idea of traits.

 

[jackandthebeast]

Well, you've got the whole issue that type doesn't involve traits at all. It involves preferences. Traits are like lights on a dimmer switch--more or less light. Types are categorical. You have the preferences and then develop skills with the others...a lot of the misunderstanding comes when scores are interpreted using the idea of traits.

I was using traits to describe what each of the four letters are called. I also used preferences to describe the designations.