WIKIPEDIA SUCKS

[Kurt.Is.God]

(at cognitive functions)

This article doesn't explain how the functions are ordered too well, and the functions themselves aren't even explained. Do any of you want to get together to work on making it better?

 

[gmanyo]

You should rename this thread something way more interesting, like "Wikipedia Sucks (at cognitive functions)" or " "Wikipedia Corpsefuck". The current name sounds like a school project.

But I agree. That article needs fixed.

 

[Kurt.Is.God]

There.

 

[skylights]

http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/

 

[gmanyo]

http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/

Yeah, we know, but the problem is that the Wikipedia article needs to be improved. And we could do that.

 

[gmanyo]

That's a good resource. Not sure if it'd be citable, though.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Wikipedia rules.

*old enough to remember writing papers before internet research was common*

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I think I tried doing that a couple years ago on here: Making a library of better cog functions definitions based on forum consensus.

Like start a thread for each cog function and keep only the descriptors that most agree upon.


Then update wiki with them, or publish something by Type C.

 

[skylights]

Yeah, we know, but the problem is that the Wikipedia article needs to be improved. And we could do that.

Well yes, I know that, but seeing as I don't really feel like spending my day updating the Wiki article, I figured it would be at least helpful to leave a resource.

 

[garbage]

This article clearly states that MBTI, Jung, Beebe, et al. disagree on the roles and differentiation of the cognitive functions--that there's not yet a consensus.

So, if anything, that article ought to be required reading by our forum members.

 

[INTP]

you do realize that if you write your own stuff there, you cant put them under the category of jungian cognitive functions(as they then are technically curt.is.gods cognitive functions), you need to write about the functions as they were defined in jungs work and reference to jungs work about the stuff you write about.

its better that there is nothing about the functions except links rather than false/misleading info about the functions

 

[cascadeco]

This article clearly states that MBTI, Jung, Beebe, et al. disagree on the roles and differentiation of the cognitive functions--that there's not yet a consensus.

So, if anything, that article ought to be required reading by our forum members.

+1

Of course it sucks! And it's accurate in its suckiness! We can't even get consensus on anything within this very forum! It's kind of the nature of mbti/cog functions at this juncture. Different people reference different definitions, authorities, theories, etc.

 

[Totenkindly]

Wikipedia rules.

*old enough to remember writing papers before internet research was common*

"When i was a kid, we used these slabs of dried and flattened cellulose pulp smeared with resins and solvents to communicate ideas. We called them 'books' and they were housed in large tree mortuaries called libraries... Oh, those were the days!"

you do realize that if you write your own stuff there, you cant put them under the category of jungian cognitive functions(as they then are technically curt.is.gods cognitive functions), you need to write about the functions as they were defined in jungs work and reference to jungs work about the stuff you write about.

its better that there is nothing about the functions except links rather than false/misleading info about the functions

I don't think it's an issue as long as everything is properly labeled... most of that thread is filed under other names and describes the function descriptions they developed based on Jung's work. But you just can't file under things underneath Jung in the article, as long as it doesn't describe Jung's actual thoughts.

 

[Cellmold]

You should rename this thread something way more interesting, like "Wikipedia Sucks (at cognitive functions)" or " "Wikipedia Corpsefuck". The current name sounds like a school project.

But I agree. That article needs fixed.

Or Suckapedia, this age's great disaster?

Not that im against wikipedia but I wondered if that would fit.

 

[Rasofy]

Fwiw, the wikipedia pages of the specific mbti types contain descriptions of the functions.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTP#Cognitive_functions

WIKIPEDIA SUCKS

 

[Kurt.Is.God]

you do realize that if you write your own stuff there, you cant put them under the category of jungian cognitive functions(as they then are technically curt.is.gods cognitive functions), you need to write about the functions as they were defined in jungs work and reference to jungs work about the stuff you write about.

its better that there is nothing about the functions except links rather than false/misleading info about the functions

I don't plan on us doing that. I plan on us defining the functions as they were defined in Jung's work (and perhaps some other notable works). Isn't that better than nothing and false/misleading info?

+1

Of course it sucks! And it's accurate in its suckiness! We can't even get consensus on anything within this very forum! It's kind of the nature of mbti/cog functions at this juncture. Different people reference different definitions, authorities, theories, etc.

We're not trying to get consensus. We're trying to summarize these different people's definitions/theories.

Fwiw, the wikipedia pages of the specific mbti types contain descriptions of the functions.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTP#Cognitive_functions

Yeah, I was aware.

 

[gmanyo]

It needs to actually describe the functions according to different people, not just say that there is no consensus. It's odd that they're described for each type, but not on the article.