Best basic guide to Cognitive Functions

[highlander]

I personally like these the most

http://www.amazon.com/Jungs-Functio...&sr=1-1&keywords=function+attitudes+explained

http://www.amazon.com/Functions-Type-Activities-Developing-Jungian/dp/0974375160/ref=pd_sim_b_6

 

[valaki]

Thats why i said personality, not functions.

Okay.

Though I don't believe Jung was right about everything, either. More sensible than basic MBTI, of course.

You said that MBTI model is wrong, if you make that claim, you should be able to tell whats wrong with it and why. You know i hear new people coming up with their crazy ideas all the time about the organization of functions and none of them were any good. So excuse my pessimism towards your ideas before you actually explain your ideas.

Yes I'm able to tell you by citing psychology books... However I will not do that in one single forum post. Will not fit in one post. If you're interested, go read psychology books. I do call BS on some specific ideas when I run into them and I do often like to mention other psychology research in those cases.

You have not read my post very carefully; don't try to pigeonhole me if you only skim my posts. I already said I don't really have ideas on function organization, I only have observations of contradictions. I do not wish to build a new theory on functions or anything because I believe it's the wrong framework ultimately. What I have ideas about is not MBTI, it's more general cognitive stuff beyond MBTI, which would of course be contradicting MBTI on several points.

Well what does it say about the I/E of tert function there?

Do you disagree with it or what?

 

[INTP]

Okay.

Though I don't believe Jung was right about everything, either. More sensible than basic MBTI, of course.

Wel if we are talking about some ultimate right answers, there is no other correct answers than human anatomy and physics(both classical and quantum).

Yes I'm able to tell you by citing psychology books... However I will not do that in one single forum post. Will not fit in one post. If you're interested, go read psychology books. I do call BS on some specific ideas when I run into them and I do often like to mention other psychology research in those cases.

I have read quite a lot of psychology(personality, developmental, cognitive, research methods, neuro-, psychiatry, analytical, alchemy, buddhism, psychology of religion etc etc).

You have not read my post very carefully; don't try to pigeonhole me if you only skim my posts. I already said I don't really have ideas, I only have observations of contradictions. I do not wish to build a new theory on functions or anything because I believe it's the wrong framework ultimately.

You havent showed that you understand the existing models, therefore i cant know if you see contradictions due to not understanding the systems or why -> those words are empty and mean nothing.

Do you disagree with it or what?

I couldnt find what the page says about the orientation of tert. And there is a reason why i chose that subject, i just wanted to see if you could pick up the reasons for "why orientation of tert question"

 

[WALMART]

Why is it that, according to this, Fi just seems like a crudely specialized version of Ne?

The Fi one is one I am not happy with. The same could be said of the Se one and the Fe one.

Though I'm not sure what different I would conclude...

No time for thinking at the moment.

And I don't know, [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION]. You know as much or more about this than I do, you tell us.

 

[valaki]

Wel if we are talking about some ultimate right answers, there is no other correct answers than human anatomy and physics(both classical and quantum).

When researching the brain, it's not just anatomy however. But yes I'm a reductionist, meaning I need to see the connection from the most basic physical level to the highest mental level.

I have read quite a lot of psychology(personality, developmental, cognitive, research methods, neuro-, psychiatry, analytical, alchemy, buddhism, psychology of religion etc etc).

And have you not noticed any contradictions between these theories and MBTI even without making observations?

By the way, alchemy and buddhism are not part of the science of psychology.

You havent showed that you understand the existing models, therefore i cant know if you see contradictions due to not understanding the systems or why -> those words are empty and mean nothing.

So you have never ever seen any issues during your MBTI related observations? Seriously?

I couldnt find what the page says about the orientation of tert. And there is a reason why i chose that subject, i just wanted to see if you could pick up the reasons for "why orientation of tert question"

You also cannot find what it says about the orientation of the inferior.

It does mention the orientation of the auxiliary and when considering that you will then enter a can of worms

Another can of worms will be opened when considering this: http://www.myersbriggs.org/type-use-for-everyday-life/mbti-type-at-work/

 

[valaki]

[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION]

I think I forgot to clarify this sentence from earlier:

"I was more implying that the processes are not only complex but organized in a different way than assumed by most MBTI fans including the creator of MBTI"

By "processes" I just meant mental processes in general. Not necessarily the eight jungian or MBTI functions.

 

[INTP]

When researching the brain, it's not just anatomy however. But yes I'm a reductionist, meaning I need to see the connection from the most basic physical level to the highest mental level.

Well there are two point of views to human psyche, the subjective point of view(which can be divided into two, conscious and unconscious) and the objective point of view(anatomy). Both point of views are true, but the subjective view to psyche is only a part of the truth and the objective point of view is not complete(and i dont think that humans will be ever able to grasp the subjective experiences completely just by looking at the anatomy, but nevertheless the complete truth lies within anatomy).

And have you not noticed any contradictions between these theories and MBTI even without making observations?

MBTI is a reductonistic model of the personality, it doesent even try to sum up all personality, it just looks at what is useful for its use. What comes to contradictions, its really just about definitions and different systems use different definitions. Also the field of MBTI is quite divided and some of them are in contradiction with a lot of stuff. CPP has pretty good model(which is the official model) tho and i dont really see much major contradictions with their model and other stuff and even if i saw some, how could it be possible to determine which model is the flawed one? And yes i could look up some studies, but there isnt enough good studies about MBTI. But it correlates with learning styles, big 5 and many other stuff that has been accepted by the scientific world(cuz they have enough research done to them).

Also one major flaw in MBTI is that there isnt any tests that could determine the type. MBTI is not even trying to do that, its just offering a possible type, which should be verified by professionals and the person taking the test, but this doesent caunt as science cuz subjective.

By the way, alchemy and buddhism are not part of the science of psychology.

A lot of psychology isnt "real science", take freud or most of jungs work for example. What comes to alchemy or buddhism, they do have stuff that qualify as psychology as much as freuds theories do. Here is one example about alchemy http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...iew-individuation-learning-use-functions.html . When it comes to buddhism, ill use their ways of meditation as an example, this is basically an process aiming to better ones psyche and it has been proven to work according to scientific method.

So you have never ever seen any issues during your MBTI related observations? Seriously?

Ofc i have(and i have intentionally trying to dodge the question since my opinion is not relevant on trying to understand your opinions), but its mostly related to stuff like issues in testing type, people having weird theories about MBTI(that doesent go hand in hand with CPPs model or try to add to it) etc.

You also cannot find what it says about the orientation of the inferior.

It does mention the orientation of the auxiliary and when considering that you will then enter a can of worms

Another can of worms will be opened when considering this: http://www.myersbriggs.org/type-use-for-everyday-life/mbti-type-at-work/

Originally MBTI said INTP would be TiNeSeFe(and other types follow similar pattern), later many practitioners have started to doubt the orientation of the tert and now tert is often left without I or E(TiNeSFe), some use the TiNeSiFe model and some still use the TiNeSeFe model.

 

[INTP]

The Fi one is one I am not happy with. The same could be said of the Se one and the Fe one.

Though I'm not sure what different I would conclude...

No time for thinking at the moment.

And I don't know, INTP. You know as much or more about this than I do, you tell us.

I think the whole building the fence thing is pretty stupid.

 

[WALMART]

I think the whole building the fence thing is pretty stupid.

Existence without borders, I love it. When can you start?

 

[valaki]

Well there are two point of views to human psyche, the subjective point of view(which can be divided into two, conscious and unconscious) and the objective point of view(anatomy). Both point of views are true, but the subjective view to psyche is only a part of the truth and the objective point of view is not complete(and i dont think that humans will be ever able to grasp the subjective experiences completely just by looking at the anatomy, but nevertheless the complete truth lies within anatomy).

My view is different but I already explained that where I talked about my reductionism. Though it's kind of compatible with what you say here. Only kind of, because I do believe that the analysis done on the high level isn't always that correct and can be made better by checking the low level workings, and the analysis done on the low level is not really possible without taking into account a high level view of things.

MBTI is a reductonistic model of the personality, it doesent even try to sum up all personality, it just looks at what is useful for its use. What comes to contradictions, its really just about definitions and different systems use different definitions. Also the field of MBTI is quite divided and some of them are in contradiction with a lot of stuff. CPP has pretty good model(which is the official model) tho and i dont really see much major contradictions with their model and other stuff and even if i saw some, how could it be possible to determine which model is the flawed one? And yes i could look up some studies, but there isnt enough good studies about MBTI. But it correlates with learning styles, big 5 and many other stuff that has been accepted by the scientific world(cuz they have enough research done to them).

How you determine which model is better, easy, by observation, experimenting, all that. Sure, easier said than done and after all, all models are flawed to a degree.

As for learning styles, it's not that great, the correlations. I'm rather picky about what's a strong enough correlation.

Also one major flaw in MBTI is that there isnt any tests that could determine the type. MBTI is not even trying to do that, its just offering a possible type, which should be verified by professionals and the person taking the test, but this doesent caunt as science cuz subjective.

That's a convenient way for MBTI fans to excuse the theory from the requirement of testing it and developing it further or - GOD FORBID! - discarding it.

A lot of psychology isnt "real science", take freud or most of jungs work for example. What comes to alchemy or buddhism, they do have stuff that qualify as psychology as much as freuds theories do. Here is one example about alchemy http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...iew-individuation-learning-use-functions.html . When it comes to buddhism, ill use their ways of meditation as an example, this is basically an process aiming to better ones psyche and it has been proven to work according to scientific method.

Yeah applied psychology.

Ofc i have(and i have intentionally trying to dodge the question since my opinion is not relevant on trying to understand your opinions), but its mostly related to stuff like issues in testing type, people having weird theories about MBTI(that doesent go hand in hand with CPPs model or try to add to it) etc.

Haha I guessed you were dodging it ;p

I see problems with some official stuff too :/

But I totally agree with you on one point, I'm sick of those random theories floating all over the internet. When I see a post going into details on that sort of guessing around, I will admit that yep, I just skip reading those parts. If it's not going into it too deep, meaning I did read it after all, I will criticize.

Originally MBTI said INTP would be TiNeSeFe(and other types follow similar pattern), later many practitioners have started to doubt the orientation of the tert and now tert is often left without I or E(TiNeSFe), some use the TiNeSiFe model and some still use the TiNeSeFe model.

Yeah uh, apparently official site uses TiNe...something.

Jung supposedly said TiNiSeFe though.

Yep as I said can of worms

 

[fghw]

My general guide:

Do you prefer to:
Understand everything(Ni)
The meaning of life is...
or
Have anything be possible(Ne)
But could it also mean...?

Remember everything(Si)
Eggs are disgusting
or
Sense everything(Se)
But what about that one?

Remain true to sense of right and wrong(Fi)
People should...because it is right
or
Use whatever ethical code necessary to guide/keep up with Ti(Fe)
People should...because it makes most sense to be fair to everyone

Remain true to logical principles(Ti)
It is logical to...because it makes sense
or
Use whatever logic necessary to guide/keep up with Fi(Te)
It is logical to...because it is right

 

[fghw]

[MENTION=20622]valaki[/MENTION]

The fence building problem was one websites approach to define how each function would act when approached with the task of building a fence. It goes like this:


Ne - I want to design the fence

Ni - Why do they want to do this and what is the deal with fences anyway? Is this necessary?

Se - I want to decorate the fence and make sure that it looks stylish and appealing

Si - I’ll take care of looking at the instructions and making sure that we follow the established guidelines

Te - Is doing this cost effective? Will it be useful?

Ti - I want to analyze the structure and placement of the fence

Fe - How will it affect the neighborhood, and what will the neighbors think?

Fi - I want it to be my own special fence that I can share with others over time


Reading over it today I think there are some errors they've made in the simplification of the functions - namely, this is one cause why I never identified with Se and so strongly with Ne. But merh. If I care so badly for people to get "right" information I should host my own material

True

Hilariously true

Overall, badly thought out, stereotypical, shows a lack of understanding, not applicable to other systems, etc.