[MBTI General] Categorical thinking and Jungian functions

[Siúil a Rúin]

Human beings tend strongly towards categorical thinking whether in politics, sports, religion, music, personality analysis, etc. In our current "Age of Information" I can see the necessity of categories because computers require this approach to process and organize large amounts of information. On a personal level there are so many categories to which a person can belong. One can be a Baptist, Democrat, outdoorsman who loves country and rap, but really hates podiatrists, etc.

Is it possible to think without any categories? Which MBTI/Jungian functions tend most towards organizing information in this manner? From what I understand Te has a strength in doing this and perhaps in conjunction with Si to maintain the current external categories? I'd be really curious to hear other ideas because my understanding of those functions might be limited and it may be possible for Ti and Fe to be contenders. Is it the judging functions? All or just certain ones? Could it include perceiving functions as well?

I can respect the necessity of categorization and realize many benefits result from this, but for all the categories thrust upon each one of us throughout life, I find it to be completely at odds with how my brain works. I've moved away from most categories, but claim a couple in my profile for the practicality of interacting here, since typology is also based on that process. My brain fwiw works on continuums and perhaps clusters of concepts or concrete things that tend towards similarities much like moths clustering around a flame, but without any sense of actual boundary on those clusters. Drawing lines between concepts or people to specifically define and divide these is what I am understanding as category. Is it the Thinking functions?

So the questions and discussion here are:
1. Which functions think categorically?
2. How do you personally think and relate to that style of cognition?

 

[cameo]

Interesting topic. I don't think I'm well-versed enough in MBTI/Jungian typology to be able to describe how the interplay of the functions might lend some types to prefer categorical thinking over others, but I would say that I am a person who is inclined to use categories. As you touched on, I think the interplay of Si and Te (my dominant and auxiliary functions, respectively) is a big factor in my preference for categorical thinking. I would have a harder time articulating specifically how I use categories in my everyday thinking, though.

I also think it's important to draw a distinction between ends and means here. That is to say I think that categories are more of an end and that structure is perhaps more of a means. So, ostensibly, one could think methodically or in a structured way and not necessarily conclude by placing things into hard and fast categories; alternatively, one could think in a more free-flowing or associative way and still end up placing things into categories, right? So I think that anyone's specific combination of means and ends (thought processes and conclusions) is probably influenced by type/function stack. But it is beyond my expertise to account for how. haha

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Excellent post, [MENTION=25111]cameo[/MENTION]. I like the distinction you draw between using categories as the individual components for ideas which can be treated in a fluid or rigid manner and then the context of how those components are processed and interrelated.

For the sake of discussion, I'll propose a theory people can reinforce or dispute.

Perhaps it is the judging functions that work categorically with some preference towards the Thinking functions and towards the extroverted functions so that the order of functions most inclined to process information categorically would be: Te, Ti, Fe, and then Fi (which I have doubts about having a categorical nature)

 

[cameo]

If I follow you, I think your theory probably has validity to it. I would agree in saying that judging functions are more prone to be categorical while the perceiving functions are less likely to be. Judging functions are what provide decision-making capabilities so it makes sense that they would, to varying degrees, depend on categories. I think your ranking of them makes sense as well because Fi still probably draws on categories to some extent to define what values are important and why, etc., though it is definitely less rigid than Te in that regard.

 

[cascadeco]

I do agree that the judging functions are most tied to categorizing, though I am hesitant to say the external are more likely to categorize than the internal ones -- I think it's easy to most easily say Te and Fe are most categorical, simply because they are viewable and they ARE external -- so they are more action-oriented, and people can see them/their results directly. I'm not sure that means the internal ones are any less apt to categorize, though, or any less strong -- they just may not be as viewable, and their external counterparts are what brings them to life, so to speak. Maybe? Just a thought.

I think I categorize all of the time (I mean, I for sure have personal likes and dislikes, quite subjective, also my own personal values and choices of what I want to do or not do); categories can provide a 'shorthand' for trends and probabilities. It doesn't mean a single data point will tie into any of them, though. Trends can be useful but I find it important not to rely on them too heavily. In a bind, though, like if I need to make a quick decision, it can be useful - kind of a best-guess scenario for reading a person or situation.

Re thinking without categories, I'm sure it's possible, though it might mean one becomes fairly neutral in thought (which isn't a bad thing per se) and possibly lacking in action.

 

[cameo]

I think that's a good point RE the extroverted functions simply being more visibly categorical. I also think it's probably pretty difficult to think coherently about a lot of things without the use of categories, but I'm obviously pretty biased in favor of categorical thinking because I do it. lol. Being less categorical is probably helpful in terms of trying to brainstorm or be innovative since that tends to be something I struggle with more. But mostly that's conjecture on my part.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I do agree that the judging functions are most tied to categorizing, though I am hesitant to say the external are more likely to categorize than the internal ones -- I think it's easy to most easily say Te and Fe are most categorical, simply because they are viewable and they ARE external -- so they are more action-oriented, and people can see them/their results directly. I'm not sure that means the internal ones are any less apt to categorize, though, or any less strong -- they just may not be as viewable, and their external counterparts are what brings them to life, so to speak. Maybe? Just a thought.

I think I categorize all of the time (I mean, I for sure have personal likes and dislikes, quite subjective, also my own personal values and choices of what I want to do or not do); categories can provide a 'shorthand' for trends and probabilities. It doesn't mean a single data point will tie into any of them, though. Trends can be useful but I find it important not to rely on them too heavily. In a bind, though, like if I need to make a quick decision, it can be useful - kind of a best-guess scenario for reading a person or situation.

Excellent insight!

Re thinking without categories, I'm sure it's possible, though it might mean one becomes fairly neutral in thought (which isn't a bad thing per se) and possibly lacking in action.

That is how I would describe it largely for myself. I think in statistical probabilities, but can't identify with a political party, a religious orientation, musical trend, and even feel a relatively weak connection to identify as a particular MBTI type. Even back in graduate school I was labeled as being "uncomfortable talking about music", in part because I was shy, but also the intellectual systems were very concrete and categorical. For any given piece you would identify its stylistic category, the categories that influenced it, and the eventual categories it influenced. I observe and appreciate the necessity of category, but my own brain's tendency away from it can make me feel almost 'neuro-atypical'.

It does help me be less judgmental overall, although I do have some core feelings and boundaries that when crossed do create clear boundaries of trust or distrust in others. Someone recently crossed an internal boundary and it surprised me how opinionated and certain my response was. It involved behaviors that I do classify as harmful, and even though the boundary crossing was not severe, it did fit a category that implies much more harmful results. That's the only thing that comes to my mind.

I've also been wondering about the nature of Ni, and ironically enough, what my relationship is to the category I identify with as an INFJ. I can see Se and Ne tend to break down category by seeing connections between concepts or objects that others miss because they belong to different established categories. I can see the extroverted perceiving functions as a counterbalance to the judging functions as questioning connections and boundaries and finding new ones. If what you said about the introverted and extroverted functions being equivalent in terms of categorical thinking, then perhaps the introverted and extroverted perceiving functions could be equivalent? In that way could Ni and Si also break down categories just like Ne and Se do?

 

[á´…eparted]

It's quite difficult for me to not think in categories. I label everything. It keeps the world more organized and I can understand disparate things better.

I think everyone uses categorical thinking. We need to. However, some need to less than others. I'd be surprised if there was a pattern to this in regards to the functions. I think it is more of a difference between the ways things are categorized.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

[MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION]
Human beings do all tend to create categories, but let me give you an example to show some issues with categorical boundaries instead of thinking with continuums.

Most musical systems categorize pitches by separating, breaking up the continuum, and then labeling. Even though it is possible to find further relationships and categories between the pitches, it is an abstraction of reality. It overlays a constructed system onto nature. Pitch is a continuum. The same is true of color and the light spectrum. We have a concept of red and can place many things into the "red box", but the true concept of "red" is at a single point on the light spectrum and light rays to either side of that point approximate red to less and less a degree. Still, instead of seeing a color as 70% of the conceptual light wave "red", we take everything from 50% red on either side of that wavelength and define it wholly as "red". This is a lower resolution construct of reality and not actual reality.

I believe that "categorical" definitions are actually conceptual points around which related data gathers to varying degrees, but that nothing perfectly fits any category. The more rigid the boundaries placed on the edge of the category, the more arbitrary and separate from reality the category becomes.

Categorical thinking is not the only way to process information, and not everyone does it to equal degrees. You are a Judging dominant, so it fits with the expectations so far in this discussion that you would prefer categorical thinking over a N-dom or an S-dom. We do have a Si-dom who expressed a decided preference for it as well. I express a decided preference against it.

 

[violet_crown]

As with most things, it comes down to what you're trying to accomplish with the information you're dealing with. Categories are just systems. I don't think anyone thinks in categories strictly for their own sake, even as Je doms. Categories are only useful to me as they pertain to something's functionality. If I'm trying to get X done, then it's useful to be able to discriminate between Y object that meets the necessary specifications needed to accomplish X vs Z object which might not.

Absent that sense of direction, nuance becomes more meaningful. Interpersonal relationships illustrate this fairly well. People I care about have traits and qualities that put them in no other category but themselves. Or art that is particularly poignant, which is best just to be experienced rather than analyzed. Categories, like all models, are abstractions. They take you away from the reality of the thing in order to place them within the context of a larger system. Understanding how things can or might relate to other things just makes them easier to manipulate, but is obviously not that objects sole quality or value.

 

[cameo]

Speaking anecdotally, I think the reason I prefer categorical thinking is because Si itself doesn't really provide me with any meaningful structure. It is highly valuable to me insofar as it enables me to collect and retain vast amounts of information, but I think without the "categorical" benefits of Te, the information I absorbed through Si would probably be totally overwhelming and relatively useless. That's why I think I rely on and appreciate categories, despite not being a Judging dominant. I can't say whether this pattern is true for other Perceiving dominants, though. This is also just my theory as it fits my own personal experience so I don't really know to what it extent it fits in with typical Jungian typology, etc.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Speaking anecdotally, I think the reason I prefer categorical thinking is because Si itself doesn't really provide me with any meaningful structure. It is highly valuable to me insofar as it enables me to collect and retain vast amounts of information, but I think without the "categorical" benefits of Te, the information I absorbed through Si would probably be totally overwhelming and relatively useless. That's why I think I rely on and appreciate categories, despite not being a Judging dominant. I can't say whether this pattern is true for other Perceiving dominants, though. This is also just my theory as it fits my own personal experience so I don't really know to what it extent it fits in with typical Jungian typology, etc.

I find it interesting to relate your comments to my own personal, anecdotal impressions of this because Te and Si are my weakest of the eight functions. The types of information that I retain are really nebulous. I get these impressions about people's emotions and psychology, but they aren't "facts" I can manipulate, but more like specific shades of colors. To use that as a metaphor, I retain information of a vast array of these "psychological shades", and have some tendency to group them like clusters more than categories, but it feels like, okay, what now?

All the data I retain is fluid like watching water or clouds. I see each individual person like a cresting waves on a vast connected ocean. Where are the distinct boundaries between those entities? I can see points of definition, but I can't see conceptual boundaries. I can imagine that Si could provide more bedrock and distinction. In the way that rocks are all part of a larger geological system, it is still easier to pick each one up and say, this entity here is a single rock.

Because that is difficult for me, I tend to reject categorization, but I realize it may be in part because I would be less skilled and accurate with categorical thinking than someone with Te and Si?

 

[cameo]

I find your analogy of the bedrock really interesting because I find it quite appropriate, at least preliminarily. I think that Si allows me to really collect more or less discrete pieces of information, memories, etc. and then I piece them together and build all these distinct things until I have a vast collection to draw upon in conducting myself in any given endeavor. So, at work, for example, I build up a stockpile of things I learn, things I've done wrong, etc. (basically any "piece" of information) until I become increasingly competent by virtue of these pieces of information which I can refer back to. Once I've accumulated enough, then I am able to start making connections between them and so forth, but I require the basic foundation--the bedrock--first. Because all Si allows me to do is collect and catalog, I have to organize it in some fashion, which I think is where Te comes in and lends structure to all of this and enables me to actually use everything I've compiled. Thus the need for categories, to some degree.

I also find your analogy for your method (cresting waves in an ocean) interesting in that I have a hard time really even trying to imagine thinking in that way. It's just so different from my own way of thinking that I can't really even fathom it haha. I mean, I suppose a lot of my memories and such are, in reality, nebulous to some extent, but I dislike the ambiguity and so I certainly try to downplay or reduce it whenever I can. I have a hard time embracing the ambiguity for sure, because in the midst of Si and Te, ambiguity doesn't really have any purpose for me. In fact, it's probably more apt to say the ambiguity is detrimental in regards to Si and Te because it undermines all that they work for for me.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I think I'll bump this thread because it is something I'm still curious about. So, it seems like Te would be the most inclined towards organizing information into categories, but also Ti could do this?

On a related note, which functions would also be inclined towards ranking items? Perhaps also Te and Ti? Or perhaps all the judging functions would but their process would be different?

I'm thinking about recent threads people have started where they rank various SciFi movies, and it's a funny feeling for me because I'd like to participate, I've watched all the movies and enjoy the ideas, but I am completely incapable of manipulating data points either by category or rankings. It's a weird problem, but knowing what functions and also which personality types are most inclined to think this way would help me analyzing my own type by using opposites. I do think in mutually exclusive poles - in opposites, but not rankings. In my mind there is too much information for those questions to figure out a way to organize it. The whole world looks like a fruit bowl to me where there are the proverbial apples and oranges and comparisons have little meaning. I think maybe I see too many differences to figure out how to rank and categorize.