The problem with MBTI: no clear description of the cognitive functions

[Wanonymous]

Here's the problem that I have with cognitive functions theory: there is no clear definition of these functions that we can all rely on. Most descriptions I have seen from people on forums, websites and blogs are blurred with examples that says something like "people using this function tend to (insert behavior)..". Sure, these examples are good to have when a clear description of how the functions WORK are given, but otherwise they are bothersome. There is no clear source to understand how these functions work at the root level. It's all very subjective, with most claiming that their understanding of the functions is the correct one. I think this is one of the main reasons why typing oneself can be so challenging. If we want to succeed in understanding this theory (and ultimately finding our true type), we must find an objective way of doing so. I don't think most people really know what they are talking about when describing the functions. We must find a clear definition of the mechanism of the functions that we can agree on, and I believe a key step to doing so would be going back to what Jung wrote...

 

[Yara the Corpse]

Pretty much. Even more so with Socionics. At least MBTI is more about judgements/reactions to the world which can be somewhat measured, while Socionics is all about how you SEE the world, which makes it difficult since that's the equivalent of trying to see what color your eyes are without a mirror. Definitions are pretty confusing when they aren't objective or measurable.

The best way for me to type myself is to go by an educated guess rather than strict analysis of definitions, since definitions get me nowhere as there is no good definition to go by.


How does one measure one's use of group values compared to their need to organize their environment? They aren't even fucking related.

 

[Yama]

MBTI is neither objective nor scientific so I don't think widespread accepted definitions are ever going to happen.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Have you read Carl Jung, the person who created the thing mbti was based off of? It is the furthest thing from science, and maybe it's best to keep mbti out of science, and out of the mainstream.

My advice is use mbti to maybe help you (not totally define) describe yourself and maybe help with some differences. Just don't take it too seriously, and have fun with it.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I think you should devote all your free time to MBTI and eat, sleep, and shit functions until you have no clear concept of self.
All the cool kids are doing it.

 

[Wanonymous]

I think you should devote all your free time to MBTI and eat, sleep, and shit functions until you have no clear concept of self. All the cool kids are doing it.

What's your problem? It's comments like these that make me think 90% of the people here are trolls.

 

[Lark]

I would say there are problems rather than a single problem with MBTI, to be honest, like a lot of other ideas in psychology like it I think it all serves as a foil to the discussion, an on going discussion.

Its not perfect and I'm glad its not, while its easy to dismiss Jung as being unscientific, his theories keep re-emerging in some shape or form, consider the whole mandela effect which was popular online a few years ago, I think it was a few years ago, it gave rise to some pretty bad art house movies anyway but it was close to Jung's own representation of the psyche.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

What's your problem? It's comments like these that make me think 90% of the people here are trolls.

It never ceases to amaze me that despite my username and my signature, people STILL take my posts seriously.

English is my second language after sarcasm.

 

[Wanonymous]

Have you read Carl Jung, the person who created the thing mbti was based off of? It is the furthest thing from science, and maybe it's best to keep mbti out of science, and out of the mainstream. My advice is use mbti to maybe help you (not totally define) describe yourself and maybe help with some differences. Just don't take it too seriously, and have fun with it.

No, I haven't read anything of Carl Jung. I've been told it's unscientific before so that's nothing new, but I'm not sure why people say that. Why is it unscientific?
I can't really have fun with something that doesn't make too much sense..I can't do it. It has to explained clearly for me to have fun with it. It's sad, because the idea of cognitive function is something that I really think holds value and it helps explain behaviour and differences in personalities in a new way, but the theory is not good enough. It does have much potential, but it just needs to be clearer.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

No, I haven't read anything of Carl Jung. I've been told it's unscientific before so that's nothing new, but I'm not sure why people say that. Why is it unscientific?
I can't really have fun with something that doesn't make too much sense..I can't do it. It has to explained clearly for me to have fun with it. It's sad, because the idea of cognitive function is something that I really think holds value and it helps explain behaviour and differences in personalities in a new way, but the theory is not good enough. It does have much potential, but it just needs to be clearer.

It's not reliable which is the first test to see if it is accepted by the scientific community. You need to come up with your own understanding of the cog functions through your experience with others.

 

[Forever]

What's your problem? It's comments like these that make me think 90% of the people here are trolls.

People LIE on the internet?!

I can't believe it.

Nope. not for one second.



Well there is the LIE Socionics type after all..

 

[deathwarmedup]

What's your problem? It's comments like these that make me think 90% of the people here are trolls.

I don't think she was taking a dig at you.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I don't think she was taking a dig at you.

I wasn't.

 

[highlander]

Here's the problem that I have with cognitive functions theory: there is no clear definition of these functions that we can all rely on.

I agree this is an issue There have been several books - Hartzler, Thompson, Berens, Nardi. I listened to an 8 hour course on this once and it was good/helpful. Still - I struggle with this issue of consistency and clarity. Maybe a good question for Nardi when he visits

 

[Wanonymous]

I wasn't.

I don't think she was taking a dig at you.

Maybe she wasn't, but her comment still is useless and she comes off as a troll. When someone posts a serious thread, make a serious comment instead of posting something that wastes your time and mine. It's not funny, it's lame. Such comments is not what a forum is for, if you have nothing useful to say, don't comment. You don't always have to try to be funny...just some advice.

 

[Forever]

Maybe she wasn't, but her comment still is useless and she comes off as a troll. When someone posts a serious thread, make a serious comment instead of posting something that wastes your time and mine. It's not funny, it's lame. Such comments is not what a forum is for, if you have nothing useful to say, don't comment. You don't always have to try to be funny...just some advice.

Maybe this isn't the forum for you.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Maybe she wasn't, but her comment still is useless and she comes off as a troll. When someone posts a serious thread, make a serious comment instead of posting something that wastes your time and mine. It's not funny, it's lame. Such comments is not what a forum is for, if you have nothing useful to say, don't comment. You don't always have to try to be funny...just some advice.

Variety is the spice of life.

 

[Wanonymous]

Maybe this isn't the forum for you.

Maybe it isn't...maybe it isn't

 

[meowington]

Here's the problem that I have with cognitive functions theory: there is no clear definition of these functions that we can all rely on.

This may be exactly what you are loathing, but I find these practical examples of cognitive functions to be remarkably accurate :

Cognitive functions and an apple tree

 

[Lily Bart]

Some of the so-called experts that write the descriptions and make up the tests are really bad -- and often in error. I find that very annoying. What I don't find annoying at all is when I type other people -- I just suddenly know that there's no doubt what type that person is -- which I guess proves your point on some level. But Typology is not a matter of a person being 5 feet 8 inches tall with blue eyes and blond hair and wearing a red shirt. You have to be hyper-aware of a person as an individual and be able to make accurate general assessments of their approach to life and to themselves and to other people. I think many people do this naturally without thinking about it and Typology is a nice framework for thinking about it. For other people, it may be like me trying to read Einstein -- I know he was brilliant, I know what he wrote changed the world, but struggle with it as I might, I will never successfully internalize it.