[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Functions: real or not?

[SearchingforPeace]

Intro (skip if you just want the meat)

I was in the middle of a discussion regarding the use of Fe and Fi in a private blog and something that had been on my mind for awhile struck me and I spent some time trying to flesh out some ideas that been having regarding JCF and MBTI and what we think we know about the functions.

Now I know reckful has been defending the MBTI (in posts like these and clarifying with lots of details and questioning the functions in posts like the ones found in this thread. From reading his stuff, there is a lot of evidence supporting the entire concept of the MBTI, and strong correlations between MBTI and the way people act.

And that there is a lot less evidence for the Jungian Cognitive Functions model, but that seems to be the area where most people here and other personality sites seem to be focused on, with regular debates about Fi and Fe and Te and such.

Now, I watched this video a few months ago:

and I found it very interesting. I still haven't got around to reading Nardi's book, but I found what he presented to seem to bridge the great divide between science and the field of personality typing.

Anyway, yesterday, after reading a discussion of what Fi does around other people that it focuses on, I recognized what seemed to be an identical process that I do myself, and I am definitely a NFJ, not a Fi-user.

Meat
Here are the Nardi composite brain scans for typical ESTJs, ENFJs, INFPs, ESTPs, and ENFPs, highlighting the most used areas he observed in use, followed by the second most used areas.

Nardi stated in his talk that a very high percentage of those that tested as a certain personality typed had near identical brain activity patterns.
As I looked these images, a few things struck me very quickly, but then I took the data to a spreadsheet and things really started to pop.

Fp1 (left side front lobe) is strongly associated with judgers, while Fp2 is associated with perceivers. Except for the INTJ and INFP, who do everything differently (and use both). I had thought that ENFP and INFP might have similar functions, but they really are not that close.

ENFPs have high use of Fp2, F7, T4, and moderate use of F4, F8, C3, T5, and O2.

INFPs have high of Fp1, F8, T3, and T4 and moderate use of Fp2, F7, T6, O1, and O2.

ENFJs share every high use area with INFPs except for regarding values, while the only area that ENFPs and INFPs use to high effect is T4 (tone and effect), which is an area that ENFJs also use to high effect.

ENFPs, interesting enough, use both value areas, F8 which INFPs use, which has been associated with Fi, and T5, which ENFJs use, which is associated with Fe, but to moderate use only.

INTJs show their tertiary Fi with moderate use of F8, while ESTPs show their tertiary Fe with moderate use of T5. ESTjs show their inferior Fi with moderate use of F8.

I do need to get the book to expand the spreadsheet to all 16 types, but I feel there is some basis to the idea of cognitive functions, but perhaps that our current definitions may lack clarity.

I remember reading in Gifts Differing that each type shares similarities at various levels. A INFP would share traits with a I, N, F, P, IN, IF, IP, NF, NP, FP, INF, NFP, IFP, and INP. The functions model would seem to precluded that, as a INFJ and INFP share zero functions, but may indeed share many similar characteristics.

The two ESTs seem to have more similarities than the JCF model would suggest, given that they share no functions. Both use F3 (linearly derive solutions) and O1 (build image) as high use areas, but they use opposite sides of the frontal lobe for judging (J vs. P issue). C3 seems Si related (action routine factual recall) and is used to high amount by the ESTJs, but is also used moderately by ESTPs.

From a personal standpoint, I know that I and my INFJ sister share many similar qualities and act in many ways the same. The main differences are that she is much more reserved and I am much more animated and active. Both of us were that way from early childhood. I have been told by others as well that ENFJs and INFJs seem very similar in many ways and seem to think extremely alike.

I do notice some strong similarities between myself and my ENFP sister, but also substantial differences, making it a close, but not as close situation.

Things like Fi and Fe may be much closer than we assume and the differences focus primarily on the F8 vs. T5 point, with much of the other use of these functions extremely similar. Likewise, the ESTJ and ESTP have some strong similarities in their usage areas, so the primary difference seems to J vs. P rather than a completely different set of functions. The ENFP and INFP seem to be further apart than those two would seem to need to be, but E vs. I is an extremely real divide.

Ultimately, the human body is much more complex than the simplicity of the JCF theory. We may ultimately get some scientific justification for aspects of JCF. But it seems that certain types may be much closer related and think much more alike than their JCF model would suggest.

 

[magpie]

To be honest, I don't think they actually exist and I think it's a bit silly to try and apply them neurologically to the brain.

I see them as symbolic ways to talk about thought processes. I think we run into issues when we apply them literally or categorically or start seeing people as just functions instead of more than the sum of their parts.

 

[highlander]

[MENTION=25377]SearchingforPeace[/MENTION] - very interesting. I do have the book but it's been a while since I've read it. It would be interesting to see that whole spreadsheet. I think that it's better to look at absolute values vs. relative High, Medium, Low. The reason is that it's all relative - what does high mean? What does low mean? You end up setting a score as the dividing line and then one point difference pushes you to high or medium. I don't remember if he communicated that data.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

[MENTION=25377]SearchingforPeace[/MENTION]- very interesting. I do have the book but it's been a while since I've read it. It would be interesting to see that whole spreadsheet. I think that it's better to look at absolute values vs. relative High, Medium, Low. The reason is that it's all relative - what does high mean? What does low mean? You end up setting a score as the dividing line and then one point difference pushes you to high or medium. I don't remember if he communicated that data.

I wonder about his raw data as well.... something about his brain scans from his Google talk hit Ni somehow and it has been doing the Ni bother thing until I got it together. Data does that to me some times, I guess can't figure the question or answers for awhile......

I do need to get his book, but it seems to really demonstrate that JCF is likely a poor short hand for a more complex issue, and that the temperaments model may be more accurate...

 

[RobinSkye]

I'd like to see how INTP compares.

 

[INTP]

When i compare myself to my INTJ friend, its really obvious that he uses NiTeFiSe and i use TiNeSiFe. Similarly when i compare myself to my INFP friend, its really obvious that he uses Fi and i use Fe. Its not just a difference between T and F. And then again we are really similar in our Ne and Si, except that his Si is far more effected by his shadow than mine(i.e. mine is more developed exactly in a way that Jung said functions develop). When i compare myself to my ENTP friend, its obvious that we are really much alike when it comes to the way we think, except he trusts his Ne more readily etc. I can see similar things in pretty much everyone i know.

It seems that when people doubt functions, they more often than not just dont know about the functions.

When it comes to nardis research, its a bit flawed(but still has some merits), due to using eeg and using it in such a large areas, not taking into consideration stuff like which directions actionpotentials flow(like one study on eysencs model of personalitys introversion/extraversion, which is pretty much identical with big5s definition and thus has strong correlation with MBTI as well, showed that extraverts have more flow towards visual cortex from other areas of cerebral cortex and introverts have more coming out of visual cortex, which also supports Jungs view on I/E) etc etc, but even nardi himself admits that its not the best method, but its all they have. Also you left stuff out that support function model. Like the "christmas tree" pattern that ENFPs and ENTPs share, INTPs and INFPs also share, but dont show it as often.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

When i compare myself to my INTJ friend, its really obvious that he uses NiTeFiSe and i use TiNeSiFe. Similarly when i compare myself to my INFP friend, its really obvious that he uses Fi and i use Fe. Its not just a difference between T and F. And then again we are really similar in our Ne and Si, except that his Si is far more effected by his shadow than mine(i.e. mine is more developed exactly in a way that Jung said functions develop). When i compare myself to my ENTP friend, its obvious that we are really much alike when it comes to the way we think, except he trusts his Ne more readily etc. I can see similar things in pretty much everyone i know.

I recognize that we have generalized patterns. There lacks the research justifying JCF, though as reckful has pointed out regularly, unlike Big 5 & MBTI. There is a reason temperaments are used by Kiersey and Meyers in their books.

And the difference in the functions may be more from the combination of them than the standalone version. FiNe is very different from FiSe. SeTi is very different from NeTi.

Add in the left frontal lobe vs right frontal lobe (which is the predominant J P switch), and we get very different results from using similar areas of the brain.

But ultimately, what struck me the most from what I have seen here is that ENFJ and INFP seem closer than ENFP and INFP, with the real difference related here is the values factor (individual vs group). JCF would hold that ENFP and INFP are very similar, with minor differences as to focus, something I have observed with dealing with NFPs on the forum.

When it comes to nardis research, its a bit flawed(but still has some merits), due to using eeg and using it in such a large areas, not taking into consideration stuff like which directions actionpotentials flow(like one study on eysencs model of personalitys introversion/extraversion, which is pretty much identical with big5s definition and thus has strong correlation with MBTI as well, showed that extraverts have more flow towards visual cortex from other areas of cerebral cortex and introverts have more coming out of visual cortex, which also supports Jungs view on I/E) etc etc, but even nardi himself admits that its not the best method, but its all they have. Also you left stuff out that support function model. Like the "christmas tree" pattern that ENFPs and ENTPs share, INTPs and INFPs also share, but dont show it as often.

It is definitely a basis for continuing discussion, but I do wonder if we over emphasize certain differences and rely on functions too much. After all, ISTP, ESTP, ENFJ, and INFJ all share functions in theory, and I admitted that they resemble each other in the grip (been there, done that), but NFJs and STPs don't resemble each other that much temperament wise and NFJs and NFPs are much more similar to each other (even without shared functions) than NFJs are to NFPs. And ESFPs really bare little resemblance to INTJs for all the shared functions.....

 

[INTP]

I recognize that we have generalized patterns. There lacks the research justifying JCF, though as reckful has pointed out regularly, unlike Big 5 & MBTI. There is a reason temperaments are used by Kiersey and Meyers in their books.

And the difference in the functions may be more from the combination of them than the standalone version. FiNe is very different from FiSe. SeTi is very different from NeTi.

Add in the left frontal lobe vs right frontal lobe (which is the predominant J P switch), and we get very different results from using similar areas of the brain.

But ultimately, what struck me the most from what I have seen here is that ENFJ and INFP seem closer than ENFP and INFP, with the real difference related here is the values factor (individual vs group). JCF would hold that ENFP and INFP are very similar, with minor differences as to focus, something I have observed with dealing with NFPs on the forum.



It is definitely a basis for continuing discussion, but I do wonder if we over emphasize certain differences and rely on functions too much. After all, ISTP, ESTP, ENFJ, and INFJ all share functions in theory, and I admitted that they resemble each other in the grip (been there, done that), but NFJs and STPs don't resemble each other that much temperament wise and NFJs and NFPs are much more similar to each other (even without shared functions) than NFJs are to NFPs. And ESFPs really bare little resemblance to INTJs for all the shared functions.....

I also have an ISFP friend and he is very similar to my INFP friend, except he clearly uses Se and has tert Ni. Its very clear that they share a dominant and inferior function, its also very clear that they share Fi and Te with my INTJ friend, but the INTJ has more developed Te and less developed Fi.

Nardi actually says this in one of his papers:
• Ne: Transcontextual thinking (linking contexts), analogizing, mirror others, mental what-if simulation.
• Ni: Project into future, draw upon entire mind to foresee or determine an answer, weight many factors at once.
• Fi: What is of personal value to oneself, listening with the whole mind, tone of voice.
• Fe: Attend to how other people are responding to you, social appropriateness, attend to words.
• Te: Decision-making, explanation, construct visual images, minimal / optimized use of brain (when dominant function), fabricate / lie.
• Ti: Define, categorize, derive solution logically, minimal / optimized use of brain (when dominant function).
• Se: Recall details of recent data with high fidelity, identify objects, smooth body motion, calm in tense situations.
• Si: Access narrative past, use whole mind to review past events, other... (need more data!)
• Most individuals have 1 or 2 low-threshold functions, and 1 or 2 high-threshold functions.

It seems to me that your resources of nardis work is quite limited and you are trying to make too big conclusions based on too little data. And believe me, even if you would have more data from nardi, nardis data is too limited to make any proper conclusions from.

It seems that you dont know what Jung means by functions. Functions are not Ti, Te, Ni, Ne etc, but T, S, N and F(thats a common misconception). Introversion and extraversion of these functions are attitudes in using the functions, not different functions. So NFPs and NFJs actually do share the same functions, all types do share the 4 functions. Some of them just use the functions in different ways, I functions has an abstracting attitude and E functions have concrete attitude. This basically means that E functions relate the functions to sensory information or information coming from external sources like from teachers or books. Introverted functions try to remove what is seen irrelevant according to subjective factor.

But yea, i think NFJs do share things in common with STPs. ENFJs share more common with the sensing aspect of STPs and INFJs share more things with the T aspect of STPs. But the thing is that, especially when you compare ISTP to ENFJ, ENFJ has inferior Ti and ISTP has dom Ti, which basically means that even tho they share Ti, their skills in using it vary greatly, ENFJs usually try to stay away from Ti analysis, while ISTPs try to put Ti analysis to everywhere they can(and even to things that its not really even applicable). But when you look at INFJs rather than ENFJs, you often start to see more Ti usage(but ofc this and pretty much everything i mentioned depends more or less on the individual), thus more similarities with ISTPs and ESTPs when it comes to thinking styles. Similar thing applies to your ESFP-INTJ example as well.

I dont agree that ENFJs are similar to INFPs, they are like complete opposites in everything except sharing NF > ST. They might have some common interests and look similar on the surface(like INTJs and INTPs do for example), but the way they think is really different. One thing i should mention that is even shown in nardis research is that ENFPs use much much more the "mirror others" area of the brain, which makes them seem quite Fe like. But the difference is that Fe users does not need to mirror like that, they judge based on the external world, but the mirroring in ENFPs makes them take in the external world and then judge it with Fi more readily than INFPs do for example, because of less mirroring. INFP needs more things to make it personal for them for them to be empathetic. Like some value about the scenario, or just tell them that its their fault(which makes them cry, while more likely than not still actually not do anything about it because of lack of Te). One good example from last weekend on the difference in my Fe and my INFP friends Fi was that our mutual friends mom was moving far away and needed help on moving. INFP friend was like "i have worked all week and i dont want to do any extra work", while my thought was "ofc i help, its such a big deal to my friends mom that she is moving far away form her kid from a neighbourhood where she grew up her kid etc etc, so me helping her move is not just an help in carrying boxes and furniture to a car, but its a symbolic gesture". I tried to talk the INFP into helping by saying all this stuff and he just went on defence and was like "its not good to say that sort of stuff to someone who worries about stuff too much". Then after we were like 95% done in the moving, he was like "okay ill come", but ofc it was too late for him and he felt bad for it. The bottom line was that it had to be hammered through his head for him to go against his "i have been working 5 days and dont care to do extra" attitude, it had to be made personal, like him thinking that friends mom will be mad at him or something like that(which i didnt imply in any way, but he ofc started to worry and was what turned his head, but ofc too late). This is a prime example of Fi dom vs Fe, but ofc it doesent always have to be taken this far. ENFPs would more readily be like "i like to be helped moving, so ill do that to others", even tho they are Fi users, but thats because of that internalizing through mirroring thing i mentioned.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Nardi actually says this in one of his papers:
• Ne: Transcontextual thinking (linking contexts), analogizing, mirror others, mental what-if simulation.
• Ni: Project into future, draw upon entire mind to foresee or determine an answer, weight many factors at once.
• Fi: What is of personal value to oneself, listening with the whole mind, tone of voice.
• Fe: Attend to how other people are responding to you, social appropriateness, attend to words.
• Te: Decision-making, explanation, construct visual images, minimal / optimized use of brain (when dominant function), fabricate / lie.
• Ti: Define, categorize, derive solution logically, minimal / optimized use of brain (when dominant function).
• Se: Recall details of recent data with high fidelity, identify objects, smooth body motion, calm in tense situations.
• Si: Access narrative past, use whole mind to review past events, other... (need more data!)
• Most individuals have 1 or 2 low-threshold functions, and 1 or 2 high-threshold functions.

It seems to me that your resources of nardis work is quite limited and you are trying to make too big conclusions based on too little data. And believe me, even if you would have more data from nardi, nardis data is too limited to make any proper conclusions from.

My idea is that there is more overlap than we set forth. That the stark Fe Fi and Te Ti and Ne Ni and Se Si differences are exaggerated. That is why the temperament model seems to hold some validity across seeming great divides since NFPs and NFJs hold no common functions under JCF. ISFJs and ISFPs can act in similar fashions as well, after all. And while INTJs and INTPs are thinking differently (J/P switch is significant), they have more similarities than a INTJ to a ESFP. Using functions singular seems to be the problem, but that is just an idea. ESFJs are really not that similar to ENFJs after all.

It seems that you dont know what Jung means by functions. Functions are not Ti, Te, Ni, Ne etc, but T, N and F(thats a common misconception). Introversion and extraversion of these functions are attitudes in using the functions, not different functions. So NFPs and NFJs actually do share the same functions, all types do share the 4 functions. Some of them just use the functions in different ways, I functions has an abstracting attitude and E functions have concrete attitude. This basically means that E functions relate the functions to sensory information or information coming from external sources like from teachers or books. Introverted functions try to remove what is seen irrelevant according to subjective factor.

I am well aware of the theory. And we talk constantly of great differences between Fe and Fi and so forth. But it would seem we exaggerate the I/E switch and that there isn't the stark division between introverted and extroverted functions as we sometimes put.

But yea, i think NFJs do share things in common with STPs. ENFJs share more common with the sensing aspect of STPs and INFJs share more things with the T aspect of STPs. But the thing is that, especially when you compare ISTP to ENFJ, ENFJ has inferior Ti and ISTP has dom Ti, which basically means that even tho they share Ti, their skills in using it vary greatly, ENFJs usually try to stay away from Ti analysis, while ISTPs try to put Ti analysis to everywhere they can(and even to things that its not really even applicable). But when you look at INFJs rather than ENFJs, you often start to see more Ti usage(but ofc this and pretty much everything i mentioned depends more or less on the individual), thus more similarities with ISTPs and ESTPs when it comes to thinking styles. Similar thing applies to your ESFP-INTJ example as well.

I see it as speaking similar lingo, but going far apart temperament. Just so opposite, more than the J/P switch.

I dont agree that ENFJs are similar to INFPs, they are like complete opposites in everything except sharing NF > ST. They might have some common interests and look similar on the surface(like INTJs and INTPs do for example), but the way they think is really different. One thing i should mention that is even shown in nardis research is that ENFPs use much much more the "mirror others" area of the brain, which makes them seem quite Fe like.

They have similar interests, work in similar careers, and have similar temperaments. And their brains look similar.

I have worked in fields and have degrees in areas where there are almost zero STPs. They don't care about what NF usually care about.

And somehow CalTech ended up with lots of INxx people, according to research....And very few ESxx students..

 

[INTP]

My idea is that there is more overlap than we set forth. That the stark Fe Fi and Te Ti and Ne Ni and Se Si differences are exaggerated. That is why the temperament model seems to hold some validity across seeming great divides since NFPs and NFJs hold no common functions under JCF. ISFJs and ISFPs can act in similar fashions as well, after all. And while INTJs and INTPs are thinking differently (J/P switch is significant), they have more similarities than a INTJ to a ESFP. Using functions singular seems to be the problem, but that is just an idea. ESFJs are really not that similar to ENFJs after all.


I am well aware of the theory. And we talk constantly of great differences between Fe and Fi and so forth. But it would seem we exaggerate the I/E switch and that there isn't the stark division between introverted and extroverted functions as we sometimes put.


I see it as speaking similar lingo, but going far apart temperament. Just so opposite, more than the J/P switch.



They have similar interests, work in similar careers, and have similar temperaments. And their brains look similar.

I have worked in fields and have degrees in areas where there are almost zero STPs. They don't care about what NF usually care about.

And somehow CalTech ended up with lots of INxx people, according to research....And very few ESxx students..

This is what defines JFC: Psychological Types - Wikisocion . I highly suggest reading it with time. It doesent really matter what people talk on the internet about jungian functions, since most of those people dont have any idea what they talk about because their view is more often than not based on what people(who dont know what they are talking about) say on the internet.
[MENTION=21221]Paladin-X[/MENTION] made a nice compilation of different things that jung said about the FOUR jungian functions here: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...itive-functions/79812-function-foursomes.html

The link to the chapter of jungs book psychological types i provided also talks about the FOUR functions in extraverted and introverted attitudes and about type(which jung only defined based on dominant function and its I/E). But before going in that stuff, i suggest reading what jung said about the actual functions of thinking, feeling, intuition and sensing.

And yes, i agree that people often think that there is a bigger difference between Ti and Te for example. Thinking basically is just defining thing based on logic.

Psychological types says this about the differences between Ti and Te: "Thinking in general is fed from two sources, firstly from subjective and in the last resort unconscious roots, and secondly from objective data transmitted through sense perceptions[this is the only real difference between Ti and Te, rest of the differences are just derivations from this].
Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. Judgment always presupposes a criterion ; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions, no matter whether this be directly represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally external and objective in origin. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education."
And
"This [introverted] thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour."

These things like interests, preferring a certain career etc are not what defines type and isnt any sort of disproof of the functions. NFs prefer similar things because they prefer to use feeling evaluation and intuitive perception over thinking and sensing. Its like me and my INTJ friend have similar interests(due to preferring T/N over S/F), like science etc, but still his thinking is really different from mine, so is his intuition, and sensing and feeling. His thinking is much more concrete than mine, meaning that his logic is more affected by external facts. But the downside of that sort of thinking is that it doesent go beyond that, going beyond observable facts of objective ideas, he uses his intuition and feeling. Its like he has a datasheet of what is considered as the truth and backed up by logic, then he tries to find truths by removing what doesent fit in his intuitive views or feel right. Mine on the other hand is to get 1000 possibilities in a split second and then weed out the ones that doesent make logical sense(much of the possibilities are filtered even before they fully reach consciousness and its like half a second and i have seen all possibilities and figured out what makes sense). Then i might have like two or three possibilities which i review in more depth. Then after i have one left, i can see that there is no reason why it wouldnt work out and i hold it as, not the only truth there must be(which is more like how INTJs view things), but the most possible answer, and more often than not it holds as true if i have enough confidence on it. Sometimes ofc i might have like 3 different options from which i dont have enough info to determine which is clearly the best solution, so i have one with 20% possibility of being true, one 50% of being true and one 30% of being true. In order to come up with the possibilities of truth like that, i ofc need to figure out the possibilities of info i dont have, like how big of a chance there is for X and how much there is for Y and Z. This sort of method i have seen in ENTPs as well, at least ones with developed Ti. But NTJs dont really do this.

And yes, ESs being sensors dont really care too much about psychology or cognitive sciences, which is often too abstract and thus seen as irrelevant for sensors(except maybe ESFJs who might be in it in order to help other people), but something that would interest NFs and some NTPs more.

Also there isnt enough data on whether or not NF brains look similar, since not only does eeg not measure the whole brain, but there isnt enough people been scanned.