Which cognitive pattern model is correct?

[jackandthebeast]

Which cognitive pattern model is correct?

Ni Fe Si Te Se Ti Ne Fi

or

Ni Fe Ti Se Ne Fi Te Si

I've seen both, and I'm guessing it's the first one, because that seems to make the most sense, especially with regard to Ps having P functions in the mental loop and J functions in the vital loop and vice versa.

However, I find it bizarre that neither site mentioned the existence of the other model or felt the need to explain why that one was the correct one (I've been going off of the second model for months not knowing the first one even existed); and I was looking for someone to definitively set me straight.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Which cognitive pattern model is correct?

Ni Fe Si Te Se Ti Ne Fi

or

Ni Fe Ti Se Ne Fi Te Si

I've seen both, and I'm guessing it's the first one, because that seems to make the most sense, especially with regard to Ps having P functions in the mental loop and J functions in the vital loop and vice versa.

However, I find it bizarre that neither site mentioned the existence of the other model or felt the need to explain why that one was the correct one (I've been going off of the second model for months not knowing the first one even existed); and I was looking for someone to definitively set me straight.

2nd one supposedly

 

[jackandthebeast]

Do you know of any websites that address why that one is correct as opposed to the other one?

 

[VagrantFarce]

I've never even seen the first one

Are we talking about INFJs here?

 

[Jeffster]

(I've been going off of the second model for months not knowing the first one even existed); and I was looking for someone to definitively set me straight.

Going off it for what?

 

[jackandthebeast]

No, I just used the patterns for the INFJ to show both of the models.

 

[jackandthebeast]

Going off it for what?

Because I identify as an IXFX, and I'm trying to get a more concrete understanding of what that means in terms of the functions. But going off of four cognitive patterns simultaneously is indefinite enough without having to wonder if the functional model you're using is the correct one.

 

[VagrantFarce]

seriously, where did you see the first one? I've never seen it, I don't know what it's representing.

 

[Two Point Two]

Is the first one a socionics order, maybe?

 

[jackandthebeast]

I said it was from Wikisocion. Here:
Model A - Wikisocion

Or look at the Model A descriptions of the types, which was what I was looking at.

 

[Eric B]

Hi jack!

There is not complete certainty on how MBTI and Socionics exactly correspond. The j/p actually means something different, especially for introverts. So while the INFp's NiFe will match MBTI's INFJ, the next two functions, SiTe, match MBTI's INFP, and then, since there is a dispute on the interpretation of Jung on the function attitudes (which was JackFlak's premise), there is a claim that Socionics' NiFe "behaves like" Ne and Fi!

So it would be difficult to say which is more accurate, because they are describing things from totally different angles.

To throw another one in the mix, you have Lenore Thomson's similar "lasagna model":

NiFeSiTeFiNeTiSe

Here, the shadows are placed inbetween the preferred functions and the tertiary and inferior. This actually will more closely match many people's actual function strengths.

The second model above, which is Beebe's, is not about strength, but rather a stack of the roles the functions play, or the complexes they are apart of. Dominant is hero, aux. is parent, tertiary is child and inferior is soul. The first four will be the positive versions of these, and the bottom four will be negative versions.

 

[Jeffster]

Because I identify as an IXFX, and I'm trying to get a more concrete understanding of what that means in terms of the functions.

Good luck ever accomplishing that. The "functions" are anything but concrete.

 

[garbage]

I said it was from Wikisocion. Here:
Model A - Wikisocion

Or look at the Model A descriptions of the types, which was what I was looking at.

The function numbers (#1, #2, #3..) in Socionics don't correspond to a ranking of preferences or strengths. In fact, 3 and 4 are usually seen as the weakest.

When you look at four functions, it's easier to rank them. However, when you're looking at all eight, you necessarily have to describe them in terms other than sheer strength of preference--it's just way too nebulous otherwise. I'd recommend that either you look at the first four functions in MBTI, or you look at all eight in Socionics and get a grasp of what each "number" means in Model A.


Functions 6 and 5 are naturally weak, but they're also valued; they're more prone to being "worked on" and can therefore become stronger. And the ordering of Socionics' 1, 2, 6, and 5 just so happens to match up with MBTI's first four function ordering (so long as the first function matches up).

 

[jackandthebeast]

The function numbers (#1, #2, #3..) of the functions in Socionics don't correspond to a ranking of preferences or strengths. In fact, 3 and 4 are seen as the weakest.

I realize that.
I didn't a while ago, and thought you could combine the patterns of different types into a single pattern if you were on the border for a trait.

 

[jackandthebeast]

Thanks, Eric B- I've been looking at Wikisocion's function-in-place descriptions for myself(linked from this page Information elements - Wikisocion if anyone's interested), and using the "Lasagna Model's" function order makes a lot more sense.

 

[Thursday]

either one is correct. individuals vary, ya know.

 

[jackandthebeast]

Of course individuals vary. Two people of the same type can express their cognitive patterns in different ways and be attracted to different things; they can also grow differently according to their circumstances. But with regard to the actual personality models, one has to be consistently and observably correct or it isn't truly a model.

 

[jackandthebeast]

And as someone who has both Ni and Si in places 1,3,5, and 7 among the charts related to IXFX, I can take in information extremely effectively when I use them in tandem and not so much when I don't. I don't see a discrepancy between the interactions between the physical parts of something and the interaction of the ideas involved with something. The literal is figurative and vice versa.
So I need a model to concretize my understanding. The lasagna model fits me better, so I'm going to stick with it until and unless I find something even more characteristic.

 

[Jeffster]

Of course individuals vary. Two people of the same type can express their cognitive patterns in different ways and be attracted to different things; they can also grow differently according to their circumstances. But with regard to the actual personality models, one has to be consistently and observably correct or it isn't truly a model.

It isn't truly a model, then. Because it's certainly not consistently and observably correct.

 

[jackandthebeast]

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?
I haven't observed anything to the contrary yet. I mean, the theory I adopted has changed over time, and in the short term I have been known to jump the boat in favor of a new theory.. but I've only fully adopted a new theory because it made more sense than what I was working with before. No two theories making equal amounts of sense.

As far as my uncertainty towards whether Model A made more sense or less, I had just found it(hadn't fully processed what it connoted), and on a website I had seen as infallibly reliable.
Anyway, my point is that I think I will be able to observe people fitting in with the Lasagna Model of their functions, more so than I've felt twas observable with the other model. So for now I'm going to disagree with you.