Visual Reading of Cognitive Types

[Lady_X]

There busy with writing their book right now, so that's why their not making videos. I am going to suggest that maybe some of us forum members should just make one of these videos.

I can try vreading any of your guys pics or videos if you guys want btw, I've been doing this for about 5 months, so my reads have a decent accuracy at this point .

One thing to keep in mind too, is that this isn't MBTI, we define all of the functions differently than MBTI, and it isn't even the same thing as Jung either. Such systems aren't compatible with what we're seeing the functions as.

who are you? define we please?

 

[chaoticbrain]

who are you? define we please?

The cognitive types group, couldn't you tell from the thread title ? Of course maybe it's odd I'm saying "we" considering it's not like I've had some major contribution to the theory, but I guess that's how I like to phrase things.

 

[Lady_X]

The cognitive types group, couldn't you tell from the thread title ? Of course maybe it's odd I'm saying "we" considering it's not like I've had some major contribution to the theory, but I guess that's how I like to phrase things.

possibly would've made that assumption had it been your thread and you discussed it in the op. out of context nope.

but thanks.

 

[Cellmold]

I'm almost....almost tempted to post some videos of me in here.

 

[chaoticbrain]

Wow. Yes, it definitely is a different system then. Then I agree with [MENTION=13147]senza tema[/MENTION]. Why are you using the same labels if they are going to bear almost no resemblance? If you can have very high use of lower functions, why call them lower functions? Shouldn't the order for a FiNe who uses lots of Te not be termed as FiNe but something else entirely?

And why is it then that certain people you type with your method also are typed the same by cognitive function/MBTI methods? For example-

Andrew Garfield (FiNe/INFP)
Cate Blanchett and Carey Mulligan (NiFe/INFJ)
Katie Couric (SiTe/ISTJ)

Well, one reason might be because those types don't have a high use of lower functions, and therefore they do actually fit MBTI stereotypes. I suppose "SiTe's are going to bare almost no resemblance" is an exaggeration on my part, certain SiTe's who happen to have a onesided-ness in their function pairs will resemble their MBTI pairs. Bill o-reilly would be a TeSi who fits MBTI for instance.

When I said CT is a different system, and I mean that in the same way the MBTI is different than Jung, and socionics is also different from MBTI/Jung.

As far as Ti being a non-empirical process, this is something Jung talked about, he used Charles Darwin as a leading example of Te type, and specifically noted that Ti is a non empirical process. A lot of MBTI websites classify Charles Darwin as a Ti type, and this simply not a correct understanding of Ti. Ti can innovate in science, but even then it's different, and generally not as common.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

I thought it wasn't a new system, but a new theory proposing how the Jungian functions physically manifest.

 

[chaoticbrain]

I thought it wasn't a new system, but a new theory proposing how the Jungian functions physically manifest.

Depends what you mean by new system, a lot of people talk about socionics, kersey, MBTI etc. as different "systems".

 

[Galena]

Depends what you mean by new system, a lot of people talk about socionics, kersey, MBTI etc. as different "systems".

What is the capacity of a type obtained in this VR system for informing about one's type in systems that use similar notation?

If someone obtained the same type in VR and MBTI, would there be a reason? If someone obtained two different types, why could that be?

 

[Stansmith]

I've noticed that I don't do Se lock-ons at all, at least not on tape.

 

[brainheart]

Well, one reason might be because those types don't have a high use of lower functions, and therefore they do actually fit MBTI stereotypes. I suppose "SiTe's are going to bare almost no resemblance" is an exaggeration on my part, certain SiTe's who happen to have a onesided-ness in their function pairs will resemble their MBTI pairs. Bill o-reilly would be a TeSi who fits MBTI for instance.

When I said CT is a different system, and I mean that in the same way the MBTI is different than Jung, and socionics is also different from MBTI/Jung.

As far as Ti being a non-empirical process, this is something Jung talked about, he used Charles Darwin as a leading example of Te type, and specifically noted that Ti is a non empirical process. A lot of MBTI websites classify Charles Darwin as a Ti type, and this simply not a correct understanding of Ti. Ti can innovate in science, but even then it's different, and generally not as common.

Thanks for clarifying. Although I think "MBTI stereotypes" might be a little harsh. How about they fit the traditional/standard model of the type? It seems that this system perhaps considers those with more developed inferior functions to be, er, more developed and thus better- is that the case? If you're following Psychological Types, then wouldn't these lesser functions always be subordinate and to an extent more repressed/primitive/negative/childish? Jung says that if, for example, someone has equally developed thinking and feeling then both are actually rather undeveloped, because they by nature contradict each other. (It brings to mind a sort of Chinese finger trap.) If that's the case, why would a Fi/Ne who has developed Te, as you give in your example, potentially be a brilliant mathematician/scientist? Wouldn't the 'well roundedness' create a more mediocre person rather than a genius? Conversely, the auxiliary function is supposed to be a complementary, yet subordinate function which serves the aims of the dominant function. If that's the case, someone who is more true Fi/Ne would seem to be functioning in a healthier way. Maybe there's something you could link me to that explains this in greater detail.

Yes I realize that Jung describes Ti as a subjective function vs the objectivity of Te. And I agree that people often confuse the two.

Edit: Never mind on giving me a link, or answering all of this, actually. Found the thesis: http://cognitivetype.com/thesis/

 

[brainheart]

Okay... so after reading the thesis and thinking about it for awhile, all I can conclude is that it really isn't any different than Jung. So if you non-visually type yourself (or are typed by others) as a Fi Ne (INFP) or any other standard combination following the cognitive function model, you should be the same type by visual typing. If there is an inconsistency then it is either due to a misunderstanding of the cognitive functions (and therefore being mistyped that way) or some flaws in the visual typing method (and therefore being mistyped that way).

 

[chaoticbrain]

Okay... so after reading the thesis and thinking about it for awhile, all I can conclude is that it really isn't any different than Jung. So if you non-visually type yourself (or are typed by others) as a Fi Ne (INFP) or any other standard combination following the cognitive function model, you should be the same type by visual typing. If there is an inconsistency then it is either due to a misunderstanding of the cognitive functions (and therefore being mistyped that way) or some flaws in the visual typing method (and therefore being mistyped that way).

Or theres a problem with Jung's theory ? Also, you should not talk about Jung using "INFP", those descriptions are not in line with what Jung meant by Fi and Ne at all.

 

[brainheart]

Or theres a problem with Jung's theory ? Also, you should not talk about Jung using "INFP", those descriptions are not in line with what Jung meant by Fi and Ne at all.

All I'm saying is the descriptions of the cognitive functions are consistent with those of Jung and the order of those cognitive functions are those of the INFP- Fi Ne Si Te in the cognitive types method. INFP can be used as shorthand for that series of functions, which is what I was doing.

There is the Fi/Te polarity and tension described in Jung, and there exists a similar, yet not as great polarity in Ne/Si. The cognitive type thesis makes sense to me and is consistent with Jung. It emphasizes that the dominant function remains dominant and the other functions operate more as a method of support when used correctly. In that way I don't see it as something totally different but a system that builds off Jung and subsequent Jung theorists in a perfectly logical way. I like the idea of describing function dynamic as a circle or loop more than something linear. That makes more sense to me, too.

The difference between Jung and the visual typing method is that Jung leaves a lot nebulous which can adjust to personal interpretation. There's a subjectivity to it. The visual typing method strikes me as more of an objectively standardized approach. When it comes to people, there's going to be some irregularities. All I'm saying is that creating a system for 'measuring' the qualities in a person's face is tricky. I agree that there are often physical similarities- vibes- of people who share cognitive functions, and I really like the idea of exploring that. But I don't know how it could become the absolute method of typing someone. I think it could be one of the key factors, but not the sole factor.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I agree there are too many mistypes in their videos to take it seriously. I think it's a sketchy way to type. Too much influence of family, culture, gender, etc, can come into play.

 

[chaoticbrain]

I don't know why you're getting defensive. I didn't mean it in a negative way at all. I'm saying the descriptions of the cognitive functions are consistent with those of Jung and the order of those cognitive functions are those of the INFP- Fi Ne Si Te in the cognitive types method. INFP can be used as shorthand for that series of functions, which is what I was doing.

There is the Fi/Te polarity and tension described in Jung, and there exists a similar, yet not as great polarity in Ne/Si. The cognitive type thesis makes sense to me and is consistent with Jung. It emphasizes that the dominant function remains dominant and the other functions operate more as a method of support when used correctly. In that way I don't see it as something totally different but a system that builds off Jung and subsequent Jung theorists in a perfectly logical way.

I wasn't getting defensive, I thought you were saying that a theory that uses Jungian terms must coincide with Jung completely. And I was just arguing against that idea.

 

[brainheart]

I wasn't getting defensive, I thought you were saying that a theory that uses Jungian terms must coincide with Jung completely. And I was just arguing against that idea.

Ok. It's cool. You probably didn't notice I changed that before I read your response. I do a lot of editing after posting for about twenty minutes- we'll call it my Fi getting balanced by my Te

 

[chaoticbrain]

I've noticed that I don't do Se lock-ons at all, at least not on tape.

Yes, and that's actually why I'd tentatively type you as NeFI right now.

Why did you decide you were ISFP out of curiosity ?

 

[Stansmith]

Yes, and that's actually why I'd tentatively type you as NeFI right now.

Why did you decide you were ISFP out of curiosity ?

It was a unanimous vote.

 

[chaoticbrain]

All I'm saying is the descriptions of the cognitive functions are consistent with those of Jung and the order of those cognitive functions are those of the INFP- Fi Ne Si Te in the cognitive types method. INFP can be used as shorthand for that series of functions, which is what I was doing.

There is the Fi/Te polarity and tension described in Jung, and there exists a similar, yet not as great polarity in Ne/Si. The cognitive type thesis makes sense to me and is consistent with Jung. It emphasizes that the dominant function remains dominant and the other functions operate more as a method of support when used correctly. In that way I don't see it as something totally different but a system that builds off Jung and subsequent Jung theorists in a perfectly logical way. I like the idea of describing function dynamic as a circle or loop more than something linear. That makes more sense to me, too.

The difference between Jung and the visual typing method is that Jung leaves a lot nebulous which can adjust to personal interpretation. There's a subjectivity to it. The visual typing method strikes me as more of an objectively standardized approach. When it comes to people, there's going to be some irregularities. All I'm saying is that creating a system for 'measuring' the qualities in a person's face is tricky. I agree that there are often physical similarities- vibes- of people who share cognitive functions, and I really like the idea of exploring that. But I don't know how it could become the absolute method of typing someone. I think it could be one of the key factors, but not the sole factor.

I think I kind of see what you mean about the "vagueness" which exists within humans, but if one has no objective standard then imo, it can't be that useful in studying trends in humans. I still think CT would be useful even if it's not measuring exactly the functions, because atleast then we can have a non-ambiguous way of measuring someone's type.

 

[brainheart]

I think I kind of see what you mean about the "vagueness" which exists within humans, but if one has no objective standard then imo, it can't be that useful in studying trends in humans. I still think CT would be useful even if it's not measuring exactly the functions, because atleast then we can have a non-ambiguous way of measuring someone's type.

Things like personality theory can also be useful in helping a person gain insight about themselves and others. That's my interest. And the introspection involved in uncovering your type and the type of others I think is one of the most important parts of the process, for it develops a shift in perspective when it comes to understanding the self. I would rather have to dig deeply to figure this all out vs have someone look at me and tell me. What is gained by that?

What type exactly is it measuring, if it's not 'exactly' measuring the functions? How is that non-ambiguous?



Just looking for an opinion of someone who has experience with this. Thanks for answering.