Only one function can be in control of consciousness at a time

[Totenkindly]

Well, even type differences (which is like an oroboros devouring its tail).

I mean, there is linear thought/processing vs spatial processing.
People tend to be better at one than the other.

 

[Jaguar]

Well, even type differences (which is like an oroboros devouring its tail).

Ouroboros or Uroborus? Or is it Oroboros?

 

[Totenkindly]

Whichever one allows for the most oroborosity possible.





EDIT: Out of curiositosity, I google'd oroborosity... and it actually showed up in a search.

 

[highlander]

Gender differences could also play a role.

I had this thought as well.

 

[Jaguar]

Because I know them extremely well. There is always a slight possibility that I'm wrong but don't think so.

So, because you think so. Mmkay.

I don't like to type anyone, for many reasons. There is no way to truly discern whether what you are observing in another person is concious or unconscious. In all probability, you are actually seeing more of what is unconscious in the person, than what is conscious. The contents of the unconscious are constantly being mixed with what is conscious. In many cases, the unconscious can come across so strongly, the person is mistaken for a completely different type. To think you can sort it all out, as an observer, is as naive as thinking you can tell me what musical instrument is dominating in an orchestra, while all instruments are playing simultaneously.

As Jung once said, " . . . one has to admit that only too often, a man's unconcious makes a far stronger impression on an observer than his consciousness does,
and that his actions are of considerable more importance than his rational intentions.

Von Franz, Jung's most well-known student and colleague continues,
"It does no good to think of what matters most when discovering one's type, rather ask: What do I habitually do most?"


For example, I can "hear" a particular member's Ti playing. Now, you don't really think I am silly enough to think he's INTP do you? Not a chance. That is the most common behavior I see in this forum where people will pick out a function they "hear", and subsequently slap it in the dominant position. Convenient, but likely to be dead wrong. How do I know what is most habitual for that person? I assure you, I am not toting around a crystal ball like other forum members are. Maybe I should ask them to gaze into their balls for me and let me know what is in fact most habitual for him. Only he has the power to reflect on his life and arrive at an answer. I can't do that for him, nor would I want to.

Finally, not everyone is a clear type. Even in the MBTI practitioner's manual it states not everyone is a type. I could cite case, after case, after case, where psychologists discuss the role of childhood environment, school environment, and career demands, affecting a person's function development so dramatically, again, that they appear to be a completely different type. That's because the demands of the particular evironment may have encouraged, or discouraged, certain function development to such an extent, someone appears to be another type, or a type that doesn't even exist in the group of 16.

 

[highlander]

So, because you think so. Mmkay.

I don't like to type anyone, for many reasons. There is no way to truly discern whether what you are observing in another person is concious or unconscious. In all probability, you are actually seeing more of what is unconscious in the person, than what is conscious. The contents of the unconscious are constantly being mixed with what is conscious. In many cases, the unconscious can come across so strongly, the person is mistaken for a completely different type. To think you can sort it all out, as an observer, is as naive as thinking you can tell me what musical instrument is dominating in an orchestra, while all instruments are playing simultaneously.

As Jung once said, " . . . one has to admit that only too often, a man's unconcious makes a far stronger impression on an observer than his consciousness does,
and that his actions are of considerable more importance than his rational intentions.

Von Franz, Jung's most well-known student and colleague continues,
"It does no good to think of what matters most when discovering one's type, rather ask: What do I habitually do most?"


For example, I can "hear" a particular member's Ti playing. Now, you don't really think I am silly enough to think he's INTP do you? Not a chance. That is the most common behavior I see in this forum where people will pick out a function they "hear", and subsequently slap it in the dominant position. Convenient, but likely to be dead wrong. How do I know what is most habitual for that person? I assure you, I am not toting around a crystal ball like other forum members are. Maybe I should ask them to gaze into their balls for me and let me know what is in fact most habitual for him. Only he has the power to reflect on his life and arrive at an answer. I can't do that for him, nor would I want to.

Finally, not everyone is a clear type. Even in the MBTI practitioner's manual it states not everyone is a type. I could cite case, after case, after case, where psychologists discuss the role of childhood environment, school environment, and career demands, affecting a person's function development so dramatically, again, that they appear to be a completely different type. That's because the demands of the particular evironment may have encouraged, or discouraged, certain function development to such an extent, someone appears to be another type, or a type that doesn't even exist in the group of 16.

The things you bring up all make sense. I recall a debate about a particular forum member - are they INTJ or ENTJ? Really, that person is in the best position to determine it. How do you tell what is dominant and what is auxiliary? I think it can be pretty hard to tell. I also agree with you that there are some people that don't seem to fit any type.

That being said, I do try to type people. Not always but sometimes. I start out with a guess (full or partial). There are several reasons for this. First, it is a technique to attempt to understand people better. Generally, I've found that it does help in that regard. Second, it's useful in conflict situations - to understand how or why people may have a different lens through which they view things. It's a piece of the puzzle, but a valuable one. It's tricky though because you can guess wrong, base too much on it, and make incorrect assumptions which leads to other problems. It is very easy to presume too much.

There are people that I've known for years where I have no idea of their type. My mom is an example. There are others where it is more obvious. I had dinner with an old college friend last weekend. The topic came up in our conversation and I told him about the interest I had in the topic. I'd always wondered what he was. I was pretty sure ISXJ. So, I asked a few questions and guessed ISTJ. He has no idea what this is and so I sent him a profile. He says the description is pretty much dead on and his reaction is "how'd you do that?." Is this important? Not really, but it was a fun diversion.

So, is trying to type others a fools errand? I think it can be but it doesn't have to be.

The point you make about the unconscious making a stronger impression than the conscious is interesting. In practical terms, how do you think that translates into how a person would mistype someone? Are you suggesting, for example, that you could perceive their inferior as their dominant or auxiliary?

 

[Ginkgo]

What does everyone think about this statement?

"Only one function can be in control of consciousness at any single point in time"

For example, I can't be reflecting (introverting) a function at the same time as I'm talkative (extraverting). So, I can't be using my dominant function at the same time as I'm using my auxiliary.

Well, firstly - reflecting and talking aren't part of the I/E dichotomy.

Secondly - Only one function can be in control of consciousness at the same time. This is because functions are dichotomous. They do not overlap or bleed into each other. It is illogical for one to be irrational and rational (in the Jungian sense) simultaneously. It is also illogical for one to be introverting and extroverting simultaneously.

Finally, and most importantly, just because Jungian functions were meant to be mutually exclusive within their respective dichotomies doesn't mean that, for instance, one cannot be both logical and visceral simultaneously. It does not mean that one cannot draw energy from the external world and the internal world simultaneously. In other words, the definitions for the functions don't really follow from the rigid models they were placed in.

Remember, "simultaneously" means "at the exact same time", the span of which isn't defined. It could be less than a nanosecond. The "present", as we know it, is an infinitely small moment. This means that knowing your mind can only occupy one function at a time hardly has any practical value.

So the more you depart from dichotomous thinking when you're applying Jungian typology to yourself or others, the more you're going to open the door for a more holistic and realistic understanding of it.

 

[redacted]

There seems to be some confusion here. The whole point of functions is that THEY DON'T OVERLAP.

Cognition is split into perceiving (unconscious) and judging (conscious). It would be absurd to think you couldn't do conscious cognition at the same time as unconscious cognition. All sorts of stuff is going on up there at the same time. I'm sure you could label a lot of it with different function names in any given instant.

 

[Totenkindly]

There seems to be some confusion here. The whole point of functions is that THEY DON'T OVERLAP.

and

Cognition is split into perceiving (unconscious) and judging (conscious). It would be absurd to think you couldn't do conscious cognition at the same time as unconscious cognition. All sorts of stuff is going on up there at the same time. I'm sure you could label a lot of it with different function names in any given instant.

Are these two paragraphs connected?
They don't seem to be.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I don't really agree with this.

When I think I seem to use both Ti and Ne processes at the same time. They pretty much seem to rely on each other to function. I can't use one or the other.

In fact, Ti seems to always be present for me. Unless I'm really tired. But that aside. I think cognative functions flow with each other and through each other. Ultimately, our cognition is like one single machine. The defined processes are merely just nametags for different parts of the machine, but the machine doesn't function if they're not all used to some point.

So I think in a way, all cognative functions are 'on' all the time. The difference in type is just about which parts of the machine are strongest for you and which are the weakest.

 

[redacted]

Are these two paragraphs connected?
They don't seem to be.

Well yeah kinda, but I admit, the transition was odd.

What I meant was that if you looked for functions in the brain (I know each one would have certain parts all over the place, but imagine you could highlight the areas responsible for each function). There should be no overlap in the areas. So it's not like one being used makes it impossible to use another at that instant.

I guess there is limited processing power overall, so using it someplace makes it harder to use it another place, but it's not like each cognitive unit can be described using one function name.

 

[Totenkindly]

What I meant was that if you looked for functions in the brain (I know each one would have certain parts all over the place, but imagine you could highlight the areas responsible for each function). There should be no overlap in the areas. So it's not like one being used makes it impossible to use another at that instant.

Ah okay, thanks... I follow you now.

 

[onemoretime]

Maybe I should ask them to gaze into their balls for me and let me know what is in fact most habitual for him.

That's a really weird pick-up line.

 

[Jaguar]

The things you bring up all make sense. I recall a debate about a particular forum member - are they INTJ or ENTJ? Really, that person is in the best position to determine it. How do you tell what is dominant and what is auxiliary?

For now, take a look at this link. Then just think about it, and what it can mean for people- as an observer, and as someone looking to type themselves.
It should get you thinking about a lot of possibilities and how what you think you are seeing, just might be something else. The person is the final arbiter, but even we can be blind to what comes natural to us.

Myers Briggs and Personal Growth

 

[highlander]

For now, take a look at this link. Then just think about it, and what it can mean for people- as an observer, and as someone looking to type themselves.
It should get you thinking about a lot of possibilities and how what you think you are seeing, just might be something else. The person is the final arbiter, but even we can be blind to what comes natural to us.

Myers Briggs and Personal Growth

That's a really outstanding link.

Great visuals and examples.

I would give you an award if I could.

 

[Zarathustra]

What does everyone think about this statement?

"Only one function can be in control of consciousness at any single point in time"

For example, I can't be reflecting (introverting) a function at the same time as I'm talkative (extraverting). So, I can't be using my dominant function at the same time as I'm using my auxiliary.

Well, firstly, I'd have to say that I think Jennifer's post is the most accurate and valuable in this thread.

She pretty much nails the issue on the head: if multiple processes can switch from one to another at an extremely fast pace, then is the technical truth that only one process is running at any one moment in time, or the fact that this is more or less effectively like multiple processes running at the same time, the more important, relevant, and valuable truth?

I, personally, take both for what they are, but would tend to side with the latter being the more relevant, important, and valuable of the two, at least in this discussion.

Secondly, to add to the computer analogy (and, honestly, I know next to nothing about computer processing), I remember talking to an old friend of mine who is doing research at UCI on parallel processing, I believe. From my recollection (this conversation took place several years ago), this would be a break from how computers traditionally process information, and would allow more than one thing to be happening at any one time. I could be wrong, but this is what I gathered from that conversation... If I'm correct here, then couldn't the human brain be more like a parallel-processing computer than the computers we normally use? Once again, I don't know much about this topic, so I'm just throwing out a suggestion here.

Thirdly, just looking at your presentation here, Highlander, I have to point out that there would seem to be a significant difference between "one function being in control of consciousness at any single point in time" and "not being able to use more than one function at any given time"... You could easily be using multiple functions at any one time, but only one of them might be "in control of consciousness" at any one time (putting the technical vs non-technical definition of using multiple functions at the same time aside -- and replacing it with the more ambiguous terminology of "being in control of consciousness" -- ha...).

I, personally, think that, technical definition aside, we use multiple functions at the same time a lot of the time.

We might make the distinction that it's more difficult to use introverted functions and extroverted functions at the same time (although, I think something akin to that is possible, as I believe my Ni and Te certainly work in conjunction with each other, and saying that they're working "at the same time" does not seem altogether unacceptable to me) than it is to use two (or more?) functions of the same attitude (extroverted vs. introverted) at the same time, or that it's less likely or more problematic an assertion that we use two perceiving or two judging functions at the same time (although, I think I do tend to try and balance objective, measurable Te-based rationales with Fi "just what feels right and syncs with my personal values" rationales, which could, in my opinion, be rightfully called "using the two at the same time"), but, given the examples I've given of my own cognitive processes, I think it's a bit overreaching and ludicrous to conclude that, technical definitions aside (and maybe those don't even matter, considering the possibilities presented by the parallel-computing example), we absolutely cannot use two functions at the same time...

 

[IZthe411]

I think we use multiples all the time. At the exact same moment? probably not, but our minds are so quick and complex they work better the best computer out there. For me, the switch between Si & Ne is so fast that I don't consciously recognize the transition. Or when my Si/Fi translates into a Te action......

It's possible that we never singularly use a single function.

 

[rav3n]

Not an expert or terribly knowledgeable about Jungian or psychological theory but why can't two processes be working at the same time, where the conscious mind is processing the information the subconscious mind is gathering or the reverse?

 

[Eric B]

The problem stems from treating the functions as like gears we shift from one to the other. But they're better expressed as "perspectives".

This site hits the nail on the head, regarding the problems that arise when trying to categorize every behavior as a distinctly differentiated "process use":
http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Not_Cognitive_Processes

In "cognitive processes" theories, Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi are categories of conscious mental activity, so that nearly everything we do mentally can be fit into one category. Different versions of "cognitive processes" assign pretty different meanings to the same two-letter codes, but here is a sample of how the approach works: memory, or recalling the past, is Si; envisioning future scenarios is Ni; playing sports is Se; having sex is Se; saying something to put people at ease is Fe; expressing your emotions is Fe; keeping your emotions to yourself is Fi; brainstorming is Ne; finding the leverage points that will repair a system is Ti; making and following a schedule is Te; etc.

This leads to questions like:
• "Which cognitive process do I use when stroking my cat? Fi because it's empathic? Fe because it's expressive? Se because it's physical? A combination of those three?"
• "Which cognitive process is recognizing a face? Se because it's visual? Ne because it involves a pattern? Te because it involves putting something into a category? Si because it's recognizing something known from the past?"

Another way to put it is that these theories make Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi into something like gears in a car, and you shift between them just like when driving. For example, "It's time to plan next year's budget. Since that's in the future, I'd better use my Ni."

Hypothesis: Lenore's function attitudes are conflicting forms of mental representation

Lenore Thomson, by contrast, is describing conflicting ways that the brain structures or represents the self and the environment. Each attitude gives you a different view of the same situation, and it's hard to see in terms of more than one of them at the same time, something like a Necker cube. Having many conflicting ways of looking at the same things was Nature's way of giving you extraordinary adaptiveness, many opposite ways of structuring information creating greater stability than committing stiffly to any one form of coherence. Each attitude gives you a different mechanism for orienting yourself in a situation and navigating through life.

 

[Jaguar]

Not this again. Fine. We have 8 "perspectives," and God forbid we have a convo without Lenore and her lasagna. Beam me up some ricotta, Scotty!