• 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.

Does anyone else reject the cognitive functions?

Studmuffin23

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
170
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9
I'm just curious. Are there any other MBTI enthusiasts out there who think that the cognitive functions are malarkey? I reject them for several reasons

1) Easily projected onto yourself and others

2) No one can seem to agree on their definitions of them (I mean, unless you want to accept the "Fi-users are independent; stay true to their selves" "Fe-users are submissive; incapable of being their own person" set of definitions.)

3) They're unobservable and subjective

4) In spite of being a non-behaviorist attempt to understand personality, they're used and interpreted in a behavioristic way.

5) They have no verifiable existence outside of Carl Jung's imagination (artificial constructs which he, Myers, and her followers read into the personalities of other people, much as Marx and his followers interpreted human history to support their philosophy)

I just stick with the MBTI preferences. They're simple, straightforward, and more compatible with my common-sense and life experience
 

BadOctopus

Suave y Fuerte
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
3,232
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Aren't cognitive functions part of MBTI?
 

Studmuffin23

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
170
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9
Aren't cognitive functions part of MBTI?

Very good question. I was going to address that objection in the OP, but decided to stay on topic.

The answer is both yes and no. While MBTI was inspired by Jungian typology, it places a stronger emphasis what is observable. Myers' distinction in "Gifts Differing" between judgers/perceivers and how they navigate the world is a great example.

Considered by themselves, the MBTI preferences just represent common-sense truths about personality. Some people are reserved, others are outgoing; some people are structured, others are spontaneous; some people are concerned (feelers), others are objective (thinkers). You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who denies this.

Keirsey, as much as I disagree with some of his ideas, proves my point. The surprising accuracies and insights of "Please Understand Me II" show that MBTI can be understood apart from the Jungian functions, if not even better.

(I'm not a Keirseyan by any stretch of the imagination. But in comparison with other MBTI authors, I think he probably had the most accurate understanding of how it applies to real people.)
 

Cygnus

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
1,594
Aren't cognitive functions part of MBTI?

Correction: all of MBTI.



Typing by letters alone is the most dangerous mistake you could make. For example, you could easily mistake J/P for certain Reinin dichotomies such as Rational/Irrational, Judicious/Decisive, or Strategic/Tactical; confusions such as these can not only lead you to mistype yourself and others, but misattribute traits to types and functions to which they don't at all belong.
 

Studmuffin23

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
170
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9
Correction: all of MBTI.



Typing by letters alone is the most dangerous mistake you could make. For example, you could easily mistake J/P for certain Reinin dichotomies such as Rational/Irrational, Judicious/Decisive, or Strategic/Tactical; confusions such as these can not only lead you to mistype yourself and others, but misattribute traits to types and functions to which they don't at all belong.

My experience is the reverse of that.

You're helping me make a good point here, however. Jungian typology and MBTI typology are not the same thing; they're incompatible systems. One focuses on how you prefer to navigate the world, and the other on how the world looks from your point of view (something impossible to observe or define).
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
1) Easily projected onto yourself and others

Its not the fault of the theory, but someone who doesent understand it trying to use it.


2) No one can seem to agree on their definitions of them (I mean, unless you want to accept the "Fi-users are independent; stay true to their selves" "Fe-users are submissive; incapable of being their own person" set of definitions.)

Jung gave his definitions which are the "official" definitions, some people have tried to create their own definitions, but if they differ from jungs definitions, they are not jungian/mbti, but something else


3) They're unobservable and subjective

You can observe them in people, I agree that there should be more research done on them with brain scanners to verify them or to create more accurate definitions which can be measured with brain scanners.


4) In spite of being a non-behaviorist attempt to understand personality, they're used and interpreted in a behavioristic way.

Jung or MBTI doesent do this, but its obvious that certain ways of thinking leads to similar outcomes in behavior. I dont see whats the problem with this.


5) They have no verifiable existence outside of Carl Jung's imagination (artificial constructs which he, Myers, and her followers read into the personalities of other people, much as Marx and his followers interpreted human history to support their philosophy)

There havent been much research on them at all, because research is expensive and academia hates jung and MBTI and likes big 5.


I just stick with the MBTI preferences. They're simple, straightforward, and more compatible with my common-sense and life experience

You can do that, but you you only gain like 5% of total understanding about the subject.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm just curious. Are there any other MBTI enthusiasts out there who think that the cognitive functions are malarkey? I reject them for several reasons

2) No one can seem to agree on their definitions of them (I mean, unless you want to accept the "Fi-users are independent; stay true to their selves" "Fe-users are submissive; incapable of being their own person" set of definitions.)..

What's the issue there, with picking an obviously pro-Fi/anti-Fe definition of JCF? I'd have issues with those types of descriptions as well, if some functions are promoted as "best of" and others are isolated in order to be disparaged.

Do you think some of the functions get the shaft in JCF?
 

Studmuffin23

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
170
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9
What's the issue there, with picking an obviously pro-Fi/anti-Fe definition of JCF? I'd have issues with those types of descriptions as well, if some functions are promoted as "best of" and others are isolated in order to be disparaged.

Do you think some of the functions get the shaft in JCF?

Well, actually I was going to show how both Fe and Fi are misrepresented, but then I realized that someone would accuse me of misrepresenting function descriptions.

The content of my quotes, quite surprisingly, can be found in most function descriptions regarding Fe and Fi (it's subtly stated, to be fair); even in Gifts Differing.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, actually I was going to show how both Fe and Fi are misrepresented, but then I realized that someone would accuse me of misrepresenting function descriptions.

The content of my quotes, quite surprisingly, can be found in most function descriptions regarding Fe and Fi (it's subtly stated, to be fair); even in Gifts Differing.

Yeah, the difference in the way you expressed it was so unsubtle that I felt a need to call it out and see what you intended.

I don't remember how Gifts Differing handled it, I haven't looked at that book for some years. I expect there to be some subtle bias by nature in everything, though, since humans are human; it's when there's a gross disparity that I look more closely.

My definitions of Fi and Fe (and other pairs) would contain both strengths and weaknesses.

My own view on typology is that they are all like lenses through which to view the world, and each is looking at something different, so it depends on what your needs are that determines what lens you use. (Of course, some lenses can have larger imperfections and scratches than other lenses.)

SO I do find JCF useful. However, a problem is that it isolates a piece of the psyche and looks at it in context of itself, wheras functions would actually all be operating in relation to each other. So you get some more clarity in regards to how that isolated piece isolates, whereas in MBTI or Keirsey temperament (which isn't MBTI either), you are getting more tandem understanding of how they work together as a unit.

Really, it got popular in the last few years because MBTI had gotten so damned muddy once it really got sucked into the public vernacular.
 

Studmuffin23

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
170
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9
You can do that, but you you only gain like 5% of total understanding about the subject.

It's ok, I'm not interested in reading anyone's mind. That's a shrink's job.

I should probably add that my objection regarding behaviorism is an issue that plagues cognitive psychology as a whole; I was just simplifying things for the subject at hand.
 

Bush

cute lil war dog
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
5,182
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
For the most part, I do.
2) No one can seem to agree on their definitions of them (I mean, unless you want to accept the "Fi-users are independent; stay true to their selves" "Fe-users are submissive; incapable of being their own person" set of definitions.)
[...]
4) In spite of being a non-behaviorist attempt to understand personality, they're used and interpreted in a behavioristic way.
Chief among the reasons for me.

While it's not the system's fault if it's used outside of its scope (e.g. to describe behavior), its actual scope limits its actual usefulness. Misinterpretation and hilarious misattributions of behaviors to cognitive functions are just icing.
 

Cygnus

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
1,594
My experience is the reverse of that.

You're helping me make a good point here, however. Jungian typology and MBTI typology are not the same thing; they're incompatible systems. One focuses on how you prefer to navigate the world, and the other on how the world looks from your point of view (something impossible to observe or define).

All your assertion says is that JCF is incompatible with an MBTI form that mixes traits solely based on preferences for E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P.
That does not at all imply that JCF is incorrect. If you understand JCF, you could just as easily stack the functions atop each other and create 16 personalities that act based on these functions. That's how MBTI was made.
Boiling down each of the 16 types to four binary letter dichotomies based on extremely vaguely-defined traits for convenience's sake is Keirsey, not true MBTI.



Much easier to gauge four expressed dichotomies in a person than eight complicated, specific functions.

 

Studmuffin23

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
170
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9
All your assertion says is that JCF is incompatible with an MBTI form that mixes traits solely based on preferences for E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P.
That does not at all imply that JCF is incorrect. If you understand JCF, you could just as easily stack the functions atop each other and create 16 personalities that act based on these functions. That's how MBTI was made.
Boiling down each of the 16 types to four binary letter dichotomies based on extremely vaguely-defined traits for convenience's sake is Keirsey, not true MBTI.



Much easier to gauge four expressed dichotomies in a person than eight complicated, specific functions.


Precisely my point. JCF astronomically over-complicates things; it's like using physics to repair A/C units. (I think that they're purely fictional constructs projected onto people, but that's just my opinion.)

MBTI is four-letter preference codes. JCF is sets of mental functions. Keirsey is a very important figure within the subject because he proved that the MBTI codes can be understood and applied independently of JCF, regardless of historical chronology.

Call it non-MBTI if you want; I call it realistic.
 

big sexy

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2014
Messages
70
MBTI Type
INfP
I was actually thinking about making a thread about this topic. I've come to greatly dislike the functions for all the reasons you've listed (seriously, every single definition of the functions I've ever read is so vague as to be useless, not to mention the fact everyone seems to have hilariously different conceptions of what each function is). The idea of being able to categorize people's cognitive processes is utterly absurd to me. Categorizing and understanding personality is hard enough, with all its complexities and nuances, and no personality system (no matter how thorough) can possibly cover every aspect of personality. Trying to do the same with "cognitive functions" is a fool's errand.
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't think that cognitive functions are a thing, and pretty much buy into Reynierse's arguments against type dynamics .

Still, one can recover part of what the functions are getting out, by realizing that they are descriptions of combinations of preferences (where Te = T + J and a little E). That view opens up the door to other combinations of preferences being descriptive (like Kiersey's temperaments), and to being able to tease out how much of the Te description (for example) is T+J, and how much is informed by actual extraversion.

Such an approach only works (even then, only if you squint) for the "dominant" and "auxiliary" functions (although which "function" has more effect depends upon strength of preference)... the rest of type dynamics is hard to work back towards empirically.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to talk about Fe and Fi (for example) and mentally translate as needed. I still listen when people talk about the tertiary and inferior functions, but I don't find that maps well to my personal subjective experience. I remain open to ways it could still make sense, since clearly others find those aspects useful.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
No, too much subjective experience that directly aligns with the functions. It is ignorance and/or delusion to deny the cognitive functions.

:mad:
 

Studmuffin23

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
170
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9
I was actually thinking about making a thread about this topic. I've come to greatly dislike the functions for all the reasons you've listed (seriously, every single definition of the functions I've ever read is so vague as to be useless, not to mention the fact everyone seems to have hilariously different conceptions of what each function is). The idea of being able to categorize people's cognitive processes is utterly absurd to me. Categorizing and understanding personality is hard enough, with all its complexities and nuances, and no personality system (no matter how thorough) can possibly cover every aspect of personality. Trying to do the same with "cognitive functions" is a fool's errand.

Digital high-five.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
When it comes to the dichotomies vs. functions issue, I'm definitely a dichotomies guy, and anybody who wants quite a bit of my perspective on that could pick a day when they've got some time to spare, have a cup of coffee, and work their way through (1) this post, (2) this post, and (3) 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, a long way from being Jungian. The Harold Grant function stack (the one that says INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe) is 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.

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 second 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.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
But as noted in the second 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.

It has validity to me, because when I analysed a pattern in what I think about that has been growing over the past couple years, it seems to match up really well with Fi, which I take to be considering what is important to you, in my case in terms of what I "should" be doing with my time - e.g. I should be studying, reading, writing, exercising, meditating. I'm ISTJ, so Fi would be my tertiary and I think I have read that the tertiary develops around the 20s? However, this is my own interpretation of Fi, and may not really refer to what is commonly regarded as Fi. I never quite understood any of this stuff apart from what I could "see" on my own.

I also recall reading that Nardi identified the "christmas-tree pattern" of Ne in types that had Ne as a tertiary/inferior, and also noted that as a type ages they start to look more like the type with their tertiary/inferior as dominant/auxiliary in terms of how they use their brains, e.g. ISTJ and INFP start to look similar.
 
Top