Trouble understanding Cognitive Functions ordering and Typing

[Yaru]

So.
I am not really good at explaining things, and I guess I´ve made a bit of confusion inside my head.

From what I understood:

-The dominant function is our strongest and what makes the 90% of our personalities, it is evident since we are young, and once you figure it out is easier to type someone. And depending if its introverted of extroverted it will give the I or E in the MBTI lettering. It is also paired with the opposite function which becomes the inferior one, Right? (like Ne+Si?)
-The auxiliary function is the second most important function and works as a ''helper'' of the dominant. So if the dominant is extraverted, the auxiliary will be introverted. Same with judging and perceiving functions.
-The tertiary function is the hardest to figure out because develops later in your life. You can figure it out more easily by pairing it with the auxiliary function.
-The inferior one is weak and more noticeable when we get angry or are stressed out.
+Shadow functions

What I didnt understand:
Why are extraverted and intraverted functions always paired?
Why is this structured like this?
Why there aren't any exceptions? There have always to be some kind of exceptions.
Why our cognitive function order is never in the exact order of our type?

Like I am sure than my Ne and Ni are stronger than my Fi. And even if Ni should be my shadow function is still stronger than other functions.
So if I am either Ne or Ni-dom does this make me an INFJ or ENFP?
How can I tell apart my auxiliary fuction from my dominant function?

 

[reckful]

"Extraverted and introverted functions" are "always paired" only if you subscribe to the goofy Harold Grant function stack — a model that has no respectable validity, wasn't Jung's or Myers' function model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

Just in case you're open to some reality-based deprogramming, you could pick a December day when you've got some time to spare, have a cup of coffee, and work your way through (1) this post, (2) this two-part post, (3) this post, and (4) the long INTJforum post linked to at the end of that first linked post.

The so-called "cognitive functions" are what James Reynierse (in an article I talk about in that INTJforum post) has rightly called a "category mistake" — and are also, in the form that you generally encounter them at MBTI forums (including that Grant function stack), a long way from being Jungian. The only "validity" (as the psychometricians say) that the functions have ever been able to point to is the piggybacked validity they get from the corresponding dichotomies — e.g., if you forget about Jung's function descriptions and jerry-rig an "Si" description made up of things that MBTI SJs tend to have in common (like Berens and Nardi do), then your purported "Si function" will have "validity" to the extent of — surprise! — matching up reasonably well with MBTI SJs. But as noted in the third linked post, the idea that INFPs have "tertiary Si" that "pairs" with their "auxiliary Ne" doesn't even have any piggybacked validity. It has no validity at all.

As noted in the first linked post, assuming you have reasonably well-defined preferences, I think you're more likely to correctly type yourself using dichotomy-based tests and analysis than tests or analysis based on the functions. That post has a link to the official "Step I" MBTI, and I suspect you'll come out INFP, and I suspect that's because you're an INFP, and that you're just causing yourself gratuitous confusion by pondering things like whether you "use Ne" more than you "use Ni," or "use" either one of those phony "functions" more than you "use Fi."

 

[Pionart]

The auxiliary isn't just a helper of the dominant, the two are intricately linked and cannot work without each other.

For me, my Te is a means of connecting together different concepts/words into relations between those words, but my Si means that these relations are stored in a direct, manner of fact way, like a collection.

So, when I write something, I am writing in a Thinking way. I am putting concepts together. But these relations are coming from relations I have put together previously. So what I say is really thoughts I have already had before, I am just putting them together.

When I am introverting, I am drawing things back into these previously help to relations. Without Te, I would be drawing things back into nothing. The drawing back process has to draw back to something.

When I am extroverting, I am placing my previously formed relations onto the environment. Without Si, there would be no storing mechanism for the Te to come from. The thing placed onto has to come from somewhere.


This is just what I've been thinking today. I still have to form an understanding of how the other functions work, so I'll get back to you on that.


I will also point out, that I am currently subscribing to the socionics function model, where 1st function Si has 3rd function (also conscious) Ni etc. whereas Ne is the 5th (unconscious) function. I suspect this will make it much harder for me to grasp the "P" type functions.


Oh and I don't think I really answered your questions, I just said what I'd been thinking about. Sorry about that.

 

[Yaru]

The auxiliary isn't just a helper of the dominant, the two are intricately linked and cannot work without each other.

For me, my Te is a means of connecting together different concepts/words into relations between those words, but my Si means that these relations are stored in a direct, manner of fact way, like a collection.

So, when I write something, I am writing in a Thinking way. I am putting concepts together. But these relations are coming from relations I have put together previously. So what I say is really thoughts I have already had before, I am just putting them together.

When I am introverting, I am drawing things back into these previously help to relations. Without Te, I would be drawing things back into nothing. The drawing back process has to draw back to something.

When I am extroverting, I am placing my previously formed relations onto the environment. Without Si, there would be no storing mechanism for the Te to come from. The thing placed onto has to come from somewhere.


This is just what I've been thinking today. I still have to form an understanding of how the other functions work, so I'll get back to you on that.


I will also point out, that I am currently subscribing to the socionics function model, where 1st function Si has 3rd function (also conscious) Ni etc. whereas Ne is the 5th (unconscious) function. I suspect this will make it much harder for me to grasp the "P" type functions.


Oh and I don't think I really answered your questions, I just said what I'd been thinking about. Sorry about that.

No, of course personal thoughts and opinions are welcomed!

I think is helpful and interesting to compare thoughts with different people.
Yeah. that introverted/extraverted explanation made sense.
What I can't still find sense into are the Shadow functions. I mean. I thought e had those 4 strongest functions and then the other were weaker, but that they are instead the ''dark'' side of our functions I cannot understand. I am able to use Introverted Thinking without being a crazy person, I am just not too good at it like other people is.
I thought Ni-Ne Fi-Fe Ti-Te Si-Se worked together also.
Like I can have a stronger Fi but Fe is still present somewhere when I use Fi, I can feel that. But I don't think it has a negative effect on me.

Maybe I misunderstood the concept though.

 

[Yaru]

"Extraverted and introverted functions" are "always paired" only if you subscribe to the goofy Harold Grant function stack — a model that has no respectable validity, wasn't Jung's or Myers' function model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

Just in case you're open to some reality-based deprogramming, you could pick a December day when you've got some time to spare, have a cup of coffee, and work your way through (1) this post, (2) this two-part post, (3) this post, and (4) the long INTJforum post linked to at the end of that first linked post.

The so-called "cognitive functions" are what James Reynierse (in an article I talk about in that INTJforum post) has rightly called a "category mistake" — and are also, in the form that you generally encounter them at MBTI forums (including that Grant function stack), a long way from being Jungian. The only "validity" (as the psychometricians say) that the functions have ever been able to point to is the piggybacked validity they get from the corresponding dichotomies — e.g., if you forget about Jung's function descriptions and jerry-rig an "Si" description made up of things that MBTI SJs tend to have in common (like Berens and Nardi do), then your purported "Si function" will have "validity" to the extent of — surprise! — matching up reasonably well with MBTI SJs. But as noted in the third linked post, the idea that INFPs have "tertiary Si" that "pairs" with their "auxiliary Ne" doesn't even have any piggybacked validity. It has no validity at all.

As noted in the first linked post, assuming you have reasonably well-defined preferences, I think you're more likely to correctly type yourself using dichotomy-based tests and analysis than tests or analysis based on the functions. That post has a link to the official "Step I" MBTI, and I suspect you'll come out INFP, and I suspect that's because you're an INFP, and that you're just causing yourself gratuitous confusion by pondering things like whether you "use Ne" more than you "use Ni," or "use" either one of those phony "functions" more than you "use Fi."

Thank you for all the information. Everything about functions and dichotomies seem to be extremely controversial. It will take a while to me to fully get everything and have my own opinion on both theories.
Anyways yes, I have almost no doubts on the fact I am an INFP.

 

[rebeccasofia]

Thank you for this information, I too am somewhat confused by it all

 

[Pionart]

No, of course personal thoughts and opinions are welcomed!

I think is helpful and interesting to compare thoughts with different people.
Yeah. that introverted/extraverted explanation made sense.
What I can't still find sense into are the Shadow functions. I mean. I thought e had those 4 strongest functions and then the other were weaker, but that they are instead the ''dark'' side of our functions I cannot understand. I am able to use Introverted Thinking without being a crazy person, I am just not too good at it like other people is.
I thought Ni-Ne Fi-Fe Ti-Te Si-Se worked together also.
Like I can have a stronger Fi but Fe is still present somewhere when I use Fi, I can feel that. But I don't think it has a negative effect on me.

Maybe I misunderstood the concept though.

Well, when you use Ti, you are disengaging from Fi. It will therefore feel unnatural to use but you can still use it. I think it is when you start to use it so much that you forget who you are that it becomes a problem. When I go neurotic I would say I am switching from my normal way of seeing things, into a world where everything is uncertain and I am basing things off of "hunches".

The Ni and Fe functions are considered "strong" in an INFj in socionics, but are also considered to be used in an unconscious way. But you can still infer that you are using them by the way you transform information (this is what I see a function as - a way to transform information).

I don't know about those functions working together, but Jung says introverted functions go from subject to object to subject, whereas extroverted functions go from object to subject to object. I don't have quite an understanding of what this means, but it does seem to suggest that Fi and Fe would both be similar since they both have an objective and subjective part.

 

[21%]

What I didnt understand:
Why are extraverted and intraverted functions always paired?
Why is this structured like this?
Why there aren't any exceptions? There have always to be some kind of exceptions.
Why our cognitive function order is never in the exact order of our type?

Like I am sure than my Ne and Ni are stronger than my Fi. And even if Ni should be my shadow function is still stronger than other functions.
So if I am either Ne or Ni-dom does this make me an INFJ or ENFP?
How can I tell apart my auxiliary fuction from my dominant function?

I wondered the same thing, and I found one answer that satisfied me to a certain extent -- that you need both orientations to balance each other out: you cannot function properly from purely subjective or purely objective standpoints (or you'd become neurotic).

So, you need one judging function and one perceiving function as the dominant and auxiliary. I believe that both functions actually develop at the same time but you will tend to 'lean' towards one function (whether it's a judging or perceiving function), making you either an extrovert or an introvert. Ne>Fi would be ENFP and Fi>Ne would be INFP, etc.

I also think that Ni and Ne (and Si and Se -- all perceiving functions) are usually very poorly defined, leading people to believe that they use both functions. My INFP boyfriend still believes he uses Ni and Fe sometimes, which I don't think is the case.

Feelers are always going to feel feeler-y, and Fi may appear like Fe sometimes, but actually I think it comes from a completely different place. At the beginning I even wondered if was INFP, but after some more research I realized that I could never be an INFP. Most of the time I think judging functions are easier to tell apart, because they 'judge'. Perceiving functions are a bit trickier, because it's harder to define how you perceive things differently.

As for the last question: Why our cognitive function order is never in the exact order of our type? I'm not sure what you mean, but maybe you are wondering why introverts have their 'judging/perceiving' letter reversed.

ENFJ: Fe-Ni (dominant function is a judging function, hence ENFJ)
INFJ: Ni-Fe (dominant function is a perceiving function, but it's INFJ - why?)
ENFP: Ne-Fi (dominant function is a perceiving function, hence ENFP)
INFP: Fi-Ne (dominant function is a judging function, but it's INFP - why?)

Right?

This is why socionics have it the 'normal' way and INFPs are usually socionics INFjs. But I agree with the MBTI dichotomies and there is really a 'judginess' in the behavior of all J-types, like preferring more rigid plans. The most common explanation is that you 'deal with the world' with your extraverted function, so how your behaviors 'in the world' will be determined only by your extraverted function.

For extroverts (EXXXs), this is not a problem, because their dominant function is an extraverted function. For introverts, however, their auxiliary function is an extraverted function, so despite being an introvert (IXXX), they are called 'judging' or 'perceiving' based on the 'extraverted' auxiliary.

Of course, it's only a matter of what you want to call it, really.

Hope this makes sense. Some people might disagree with this, but that's what I believe and what works for me in understanding other people.

 

[lunalum]

Introversion and extraversion are opposites. Why is peanut butter paired with jelly? Or purple paired with yellow? Why is good paired with bad? The I/E dimension seems to be a fundamental and well-understood aspect of our minds so that is why it is given so much weight. There isn't really an exception to introversion being the opposite of extraversion, or vice versa. Our function order is symbolic of the order it weighs and rules in our minds, not the percentage point estimates that various quizzes happen to give.

 

[lunalum]

Like I am sure than my Ne and Ni are stronger than my Fi. And even if Ni should be my shadow function is still stronger than other functions.
So if I am either Ne or Ni-dom does this make me an INFJ or ENFP?
How can I tell apart my auxiliary fuction from my dominant function?

Or ENTP or INTJ, but it looks like you ruled out a thinking type.

The dominant function is actually pretty different from the auxiliary, at least in theory. It is the ruler of your whole head, the summary of your whole cognitive deal and stuff. The auxiliary can also be very influential but influential in that it gives a very distinct flavor to the dominant. In practice, you know, minds are pretty muddy things sometimes. Or at least puzzling. Through enough study and getting quality information the answer tends to pop up though.

 

[Yaru]

Or ENTP or INTJ, but it looks like you ruled out a thinking type.

The dominant function is actually pretty different from the auxiliary, at least in theory. It is the ruler of your whole head, the summary of your whole cognitive deal and stuff. The auxiliary can also be very influential but influential in that it gives a very distinct flavor to the dominant. In practice, you know, minds are pretty muddy things sometimes. Or at least puzzling. Through enough study and getting quality information the answer tends to pop up though.

Thank you for your answer. Though I am now beginning to doubt functions more an more.
It seems a really good theory without any clear/ evident application in real life.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Thank you for your answer. Though I am now beginning to doubt functions more an more.
It seems a really good theory without any clear/ evident application in real life.

Not so fast on the Fi there. You need more data. You need more Ne and time.

 

[Yaru]

Not so fast on the Fi there. You need more data. You need more Ne and time.

Yes, you are right, I will keep researching. Even though I ask myself how can I prove this works?
The more I research the more I feel confused. I started dreaming about seeing myself divided in 3 different parts, and those dreams are making me go crazy. I don´t know.
Maybe studying the functions isn´t the answer I´m looking for.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Yes, you are right, I will keep researching. Even though I ask myself how can I prove this works?
The more I research the more I feel confused. I started dreaming about seeing myself divided in 3 different parts, and those dreams are making me go crazy. I don´t know.
Maybe studying the functions isn´t the answer I´m looking for.

Watch people. Feel their patterns. Read Jung. Correlate functions to what you see and sense. Evaluate the fit over time.

 

[Yaru]

Watch people. Feel their patterns. Read Jung. Correlate functions to what you see and sense. Evaluate the fit over time.

Thank you. I know this is off topic, but today someone on PerC told me I am an obvious SEI, and I must be blind because I didn't see it. I don;t know about that type, but I feel really upset and I don't know why.
I wanted to know myself better but it seems that I am always farther from that. I guess it may be depression.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Thank you. I know this is off topic, but today someone on PerC told me I am an obvious SEI, and I must be blind because I didn't see it. I don;t know about that type, but I feel really upset and I don't know why.
I wanted to know myself better but it seems that I am always farther from that. I guess it may be depression.

Knowing yourself is something that takes a long time, and it's a process, not a destination, so - always learning. Let the opinions of others inform your own, investigate, but ultimately, you get to decide. Don't let yourself feel too shaken when something threatens your self-perception, that feeling is a signal to dig deeper. So, dig! Not a race though, so take time.

 

[reckful]

I know this is off topic, but today someone on PerC told me I am an obvious SEI, and I must be blind because I didn't see it.

There are a handful of self-appointed "typing assistants" at PerC that make a habit of trying to convince N's that they're really S's.

I'd be curious to see your scores on the official "Step I" MBTI, which I (indirectly) linked you to in my first post.

The first spoiler in this post has an "S/N introduction" (including quotes from Myers and Keirsey), in case that's helpful.

 

[Yaru]

There are a handful of self-appointed "typing assistants" at PerC that make a habit of trying to convince N's that they're really S's.

I'd be curious to see your scores on the official "Step I" MBTI, which I (indirectly) linked you to in my first post.

The first spoiler in this post has an "S/N introduction" (including quotes from Myers and Keirsey), in case that's helpful.

I don't remember what test was. I made one linking through your links but I am not thinking clearly right now. I think is this one:

 

[Yaru]

Anyway [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION]

Keirsey also notes that an N child "may be difficult to handle. He always seems to have a core of 'being his own person' which adults sometimes find objectionable and offensive. ...

This describes my childhood.
As a child I hated to be considered '' the child of...''
I couldn't respect the idea of the adult parent as I saw a lot of flaws in their ''adult'' speeches. For me it was a shame to be considered their daughter.
I didn't have as many feelings as I do now, and my ideas were way more clear and secure than now. I rejected my family and got reassured by the thought that they are just a group of people I will get rid of as soon as I grow up.

I consider the youngest version of me smarter than my current person for some reason.

 

[reckful]

I don't remember what test was. I made one linking through your links but I am not thinking clearly right now. I think is this one:

Yep, that's the official "Step I" MBTI. And your N result is as clear as it could possibly be.

And it's maybe worth mentioning that all of the items on the official MBTI got there by a process of elimination that started decades ago and has involved hundreds of tested items, with the survivors being items that have been found to cluster, to a substantial degree (based on thousands of tests and the psychometric standards applicable in the personality typology field) with the other items being scored for the same preference. I've noted before that I think it's not that uncommon for INFs (especially if the F preference is mild) to test as INT on the test — but not vice versa.

Given that you came out INFP, and with scores like that, I'd say it's unlikely you're anything but an INFP.

Just in case they're useful to you, I've put online profile roundups for the eight introverted types in the spoiler, and I'm guessing you'll find (if you look at them) that the INFP descriptions fit you the best.

INTJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

INTP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

INFJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

INFP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ISTJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ISTP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ISFJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

ISFP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers