• 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.

Cognitive Dysfunctions?

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I have found that lately it's been necessary for me to think of cognitive 'functions' only as cognitive 'types,' meaning that they are defined by an overall character or style of the person, and the sorts of things that bring them energy vs. the things they simply don't acknowledge as much because in the end it just doesn't have that certain energy boost.

Problem is, I've picked up from the people here that the cognitive function model as things that actually function in them actually fits them. So perhaps cognitive types and cognitive functions can go together after all.

But then why is it that certain things that certain things that are part of my cognitive type don't appear to function in me?

And what keeps occuring to me is that to have cognitive functions that one has to be cognitively functional in the first place.

What happens when a Ne type doesn't have the mental energy to summon tons of possibilities?

Or a Ti type cannot focus enough to work out the miniscule inconsistencies?

Or a Fe type who loses track of social nuances?

Or an Si type cannot remember the standards?

Or an Ni type that can't quite reach that moment of convergence?

Or a Te type who is constantly forgetting which step goes next?

Or a Fi type who cannot quite grasp how they feel?

Or an Se type whose ability to create that immediate impact is lacking?


Does it make sense to call someone an Se user because they are attentive to the environment and its details but blank in thought most of the time rather than able to think of 50 fanciful things at once, even if such person is a Ne type because of a preference/energy boost from such fanciful things at the rare times it happens and wanting the environment and current details of reality to just leave them alone? Is this person really classified best as an xSxP?

Seems pretty ridiculous, especially since it makes this seem like Se is a sort of lack of cognitive process, but then I hear on the forum a lot of the time from xNxPs being unaware of their surroundings and being able to think of tons of things at once, and even associate it with 'mental quickness'. But can these things really have to do with type if there is a certain cognitive dysfunction at work where the person is involuntarily blank for long periods of time?

Consequence: when I take the quizzes about how much I 'use' a certain process, I can't answer that part at all, particularly with Ne and Ti. I still strongly relate to them somehow, but usage? And then of course when I hear of people on here constantly associating the type with thinking of so many things and so quickly, and so deeply, it's kind of disorienting.

But then I still get some sense of relation in what remains of my thoughts that is still a sort of dysfunction, like how it is almost impossible for me to keep this topic on the same thing that I had in mind when I started out typing it :laugh: My hands and mind are far too lazy to actually describe 95% of what comes to me on this topic. The topic just keeps coming back and I wonder if it's valid for me to stick to the cognitive type technique to not get so wrapped up in the messy reality of cognitive capacities. Or perhaps find a way to assess type by patterns only in their dysfunction?

Can preference and function really be fully united?
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I have found that lately it's been necessary for me to think of cognitive 'functions' only as cognitive 'types,' meaning that they are defined by an overall character or style of the person, and the sorts of things that bring them energy vs. the things they simply don't acknowledge as much because in the end it just doesn't have that certain energy boost.

Problem is, I've picked up from the people here that the cognitive function model as things that actually function in them actually fits them. So perhaps cognitive types and cognitive functions can go together after all.

But then why is it that certain things that certain things that are part of my cognitive type don't appear to function in me?

And what keeps occuring to me is that to have cognitive functions that one has to be cognitively functional in the first place.

What happens when a Ne type doesn't have the mental energy to summon tons of possibilities?

Or a Ti type cannot focus enough to work out the miniscule inconsistencies?

Or a Fe type who loses track of social nuances?

Or an Si type cannot remember the standards?

Or an Ni type that can't quite reach that moment of convergence?

Or a Te type who is constantly forgetting which step goes next?

Or a Fi type who cannot quite grasp how they feel?

Or an Se type whose ability to create that immediate impact is lacking?


Does it make sense to call someone an Se user because they are attentive to the environment and its details but blank in thought most of the time rather than able to think of 50 fanciful things at once, even if such person is a Ne type because of a preference/energy boost from such fanciful things at the rare times it happens and wanting the environment and current details of reality to just leave them alone? Is this person really classified best as an xSxP?

Seems pretty ridiculous, especially since it makes this seem like Se is a sort of lack of cognitive process, but then I hear on the forum a lot of the time from xNxPs being unaware of their surroundings and being able to think of tons of things at once, and even associate it with 'mental quickness'. But can these things really have to do with type if there is a certain cognitive dysfunction at work where the person is involuntarily blank for long periods of time?

Consequence: when I take the quizzes about how much I 'use' a certain process, I can't answer that part at all, particularly with Ne and Ti. I still strongly relate to them somehow, but usage? And then of course when I hear of people on here constantly associating the type with thinking of so many things and so quickly, and so deeply, it's kind of disorienting.

But then I still get some sense of relation in what remains of my thoughts that is still a sort of dysfunction, like how it is almost impossible for me to keep this topic on the same thing that I had in mind when I started out typing it :laugh: My hands and mind are far too lazy to actually describe 95% of what comes to me on this topic. The topic just keeps coming back and I wonder if it's valid for me to stick to the cognitive type technique to not get so wrapped up in the messy reality of cognitive capacities. Or perhaps find a way to assess type by patterns only in their dysfunction?

Can preference and function really be fully united?

You sound like you are stuck in an Si-Ni/Ti loop? I say Si more so because you seem caught up in trying to make it fit some preconceived notion of a theory instead of trying to explore how people use functions and why.

Do you demand much of yourself? Because you seem caught up in knowing this perfectly, and I don't think that's possible, which is why I eschew function line-ups beyond, say, 3 preferred functions. If you are well-rounded, perhaps you have many functions you use well! I don't think of the dominant as always needing to be 'on call.' It's just usually preferred...I think of it as the gatekeeper function (which is controversial with dom irrational function theory). Sometimes I don't choose to go through the gate though, and I do something different or lazy or crazy. :smile:

Your post sounds pretty Ne to me, esp at the end. And as for the bolded, I think that's what proponents of 'shadow function' theory support.
 

CuriousFeeling

From the Undertow
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,937
MBTI Type
INfJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Can't reach the moment of convergence... hmmmm I've had this quite a few times when a puzzle or problem baffles me to the point I can't see the forest for the trees. Getting so focused on minute details because I think each section of the system at play are important, but it's a matter of breaking it down. Perhaps the best instance I can think up of is when I was taking organic chemistry. :shock: :laugh:
 

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
You sound like you are stuck in an Si-Ni/Ti loop? I say Si more so because you seem caught up in trying to make it fit some preconceived notion of a theory instead of trying to explore how people use functions and why.

Yeah I think you're right about that. But I see it more like parental Ti is on my shoulder shooting me with a squirt gun when I come across this sort of inconsistency between type and function, and Si is by my feet threatening to stomp on my toes if I don't read the classics and at least try to play along with their theories before smashing them with a hammer. And Fe says that getting all reclusive like this is not good for my health ;)

It was exploring how people say they use functions and seeing glitches in my own usage that prompted me to ask the audience in the first place.

Why people use certain functions? I have my own theories on that but that's for another thread :D

Do you demand much of yourself? Because you seem caught up in knowing this perfectly, and I don't think that's possible

I just want to understand it... I don't need perfect knowledge but I want to find out from others if they have similar confusion and/or dysfunction and at least not be alone in it if I can't solve it :laugh:

I demand that I'm awesomely good at stuff, and take over the world. You know, standard NTness...

Your post sounds pretty Ne to me, esp at the end.

Sounds. That's kind of part of my point. That perhaps typing could be done purely on the basis of an overall character/style. I think it's that overall type that the "sounds" and "seems" and 'looks like" come from. It's a little less measurable than thinking of these things as functions, but I bet you and/or someone very experienced with this stuff could at least point out some specific traits of my posts that make it "sound pretty Ne"

And if we can do that, then what's up with making these things have to be functions (things that depend on measurable usage) too?

I think that's what proponents of 'shadow function' theory support.

Which shadow function theory? Isn't there two of them?
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yeah I think you're right about that. But I see it more like parental Ti is on my shoulder shooting me with a squirt gun when I come across this sort of inconsistency between type and function, and Si is by my feet threatening to stomp on my toes if I don't read the classics and at least try to play along with their theories before smashing them with a hammer. And Fe says that getting all reclusive like this is not good for my health ;)

It was exploring how people say they use functions and seeing glitches in my own usage that prompted me to ask the audience in the first place.

Why people use certain functions? I have my own theories on that but that's for another thread :D



I just want to understand it... I don't need perfect knowledge but I want to find out from others if they have similar confusion and/or dysfunction and at least not be alone in it if I can't solve it :laugh:

I demand that I'm awesomely good at stuff, and take over the world. You know, standard NTness...



Sounds. That's kind of part of my point. That perhaps typing could be done purely on the basis of an overall character/style. I think it's that overall type that the "sounds" and "seems" and 'looks like" come from. It's a little less measurable than thinking of these things as functions, but I bet you and/or someone very experienced with this stuff could at least point out some specific traits of my posts that make it "sound pretty Ne"

And if we can do that, then what's up with making these things have to be functions (things that depend on measurable usage) too?



Which shadow function theory? Isn't there two of them?

I'm not very experienced. I just dig it and have my own theories about it. I'm good at judging, not really creating when it comes to type. Like I don't go around typing everyone I see (tho it does cross my mind perhaps, one or two preferences they seem to have). But Jung was a pretty cool cat and he observed people all the time. Lots of people. Then Katharine Briggs came along and added to it (after developing her own personality theory, but choosing Jung's because it was better).

Then there is enneagram. And this, I believe, tells one the ego state of where one prefers to hang around at, when healthy and when unhealthy. So, to me that covers environment affect on personality. Is there something else we can add that we haven't discovered yet?

I don't know why I see Ne in your post...I think because there are the origins of lots of ideas of "why," then those sort of branch out........Then when you try to ponder them, that becomes Ni...and Si.?
 
G

Glycerine

Guest
[MENTION=5857]LunaLuminosity[/MENTION]: you seem really bouncy and random from the few times we've interacted (real time, vent). It always takes me awhile come up w/ something "witty" but you come up with it in a snap. I say that's the closest thing to Ne as one can get.
 

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
[MENTION=5109]Glycerine[/MENTION]: so this means you are with me in shattering cognitive function theory as we currently know it, right? ;)
 
G

Glycerine

Guest
[MENTION=5109]Glycerine[/MENTION]: so this means you are with me in shattering cognitive function theory as we currently know it, right? ;)
yes..... the when an extrovert goes into an introverted loop, it's sometimes equates to masturbation of the mind (or that's how I see it). :laugh:
 
Top