[Jungian Cognitive Functions] What makes you put stock into this theory?

[Jellyfish1234]

What makes you put stock into a personality theory, specifically the Jungian Cognitive Functions (though opinions on other theories are welcome too please)?

From what I've seen, quite a lot of people appear to use this system and others as if it's fact, or near-fact, and that everyone does have a certain 'type' within them, with cognitive functions associated with that type, and this is how the world works. But what makes you, as an individual, come to that conclusion, if you ever have done? Are there certain criteria it checks for you? Does it just make sense in terms of your experiences of yourself or of other people? Is there a study you found that suggests its reliability? Or maybe some other reason entirely?

I'd love to hear as many people's perspectives on this as possible please, just out of curiosity, really.

Thanks in advance for any replies!

- Jellyfish1234

 

[Andy]

I mostly just believe in function theory, a subject on which many contradictory views can be found online, many of them rather dubious. I spent about a year or so going through them in my head, rejecting most of them and filtering out the ones that made sense to me, with each other and with the world around me. Those are the ones I have confidence in, as I feel I understand where they come from and far they extend.

I tend to regard the functions as just a way to describe the way the world works. They don't have any existence beyond that.

 

[LucieCat]

Cognitive functions to me are a theory and a tool that can help explain how things works and help me reach a place where I can understand what is potentially going on in a person's mind. It's not a law, it's a theory, which is important to remember. I don't use it as fact, but as a useful tool to explore other people and navigate social dynamics. I find that it's actually very useful in this regard.

My dominant and auxiliary cognitive functions are just the ones that feel most natural to me. I can't really explain it but they just really resonate with me.

I don't believe any evidence (that I have encountered) has ever suggested that cognitive functions are a scientific fact. However, just because something is not tangible, it is not necessarily useless.

 

[Eric B]

It's a symmetrical framework of personality that seems to explains us, fitting what I've seen in myself and others. So it is something that seems very useful if given a chance.

 

[Jellyfish1234]

It's a symmetrical framework of personality that seems to explains us, fitting what I've seen in myself and others. So it is something that seems very useful if given a chance.

Do you ever worry that the theory has misled you into believing false information about yourself and other people, rather than genuinely helped you to understand them?

 

[Zeego]

I used to believe in it wholeheartedly, now I'm mainly interested in how exactly I got to believe in something based on claims alone despite not being a "religious" person.

 

[Metis]

What makes you put stock into a personality theory (...) and this is how the world works

I don't believe that personality theories describe how the world works, but I think there's some utility in using them as a framework, like a language. Similar to the way English or any language isn't how the world works, but it's useful anyway and gives you a framework that makes it more possible to think about the world, and to try to understand certain phenomena.

Do you ever worry that the theory has misled you into believing false information about yourself and other people, rather than genuinely helped you to understand them?

Yes, I think it can be as much a self-fulfilling prophecy as a helpful tool in understanding oneself, and in dealing with other people, it can blind you to possible interpretations and actions just as much as it can open your eyes to different ones.

 

[Eric B]

Do you ever worry that the theory has misled you into believing false information about yourself and other people, rather than genuinely helped you to understand them?

With TiNe, it makes logical sense, and seems a plausible idea, (and even right there it explains my perspective). So the functional perspective "Trusts" its perception and judgment, and it doesn't change what happens with other people, but helps to realize that they're just who they are, and not being simply dumb or whatever, because they don't think like me. It also makes me seem less wrong, for not fitting in with others better, because it shows where different preferences make up a majority of society, and so it's like "that explains it!"

 

[Dashy CVII]

I'm mostly into function theory, because (a) I don't think understanding type as 4 preferences is as deep and focused enough as studying type through 8 functions, each with a primary "home" function. (b) Function theory seems to fit the preferences of people I know. For instance, I easily fit INxJ because we are N > T/F > S, and so intuitively know I'm Ni dom based on how my mind operates. Even without knowing the exact definition of Ni, we can come to understand Ni as an after fact of how Ni primaries think. This seems to apply to many people I know, ie. N is switched all on, S is turned way down, T and F are more equal. (c) I got a lot out of function theory from reading Lenore Thomson's book and fit into NiTe.

[MENTION=8554]Andy[/MENTION] Which function theory do you subscribe to? Can you post a link or description. I'm curious.

 

[Andy]

I'm mostly into function theory, because (a) I don't think understanding type as 4 preferences is as deep and focused enough as studying type through 8 functions, each with a primary "home" function. (b) Function theory seems to fit the preferences of people I know. For instance, I easily fit INxJ because we are N > T/F > S, and so intuitively know I'm Ni dom based on how my mind operates. Even without knowing the exact definition of Ni, we can come to understand Ni as an after fact of how Ni primaries think. This seems to apply to many people I know, ie. N is switched all on, S is turned way down, T and F are more equal. (c) I got a lot out of function theory from reading Lenore Thomson's book and fit into NiTe.

[MENTION=8554]Andy[/MENTION] Which function theory do you subscribe to? Can you post a link or description. I'm curious.

I wrote a rather long description of what I believe about function theory a while back. It's here if you are curious.

Function theory

 

[ducks]

I like it as a tool for reflection. But it doesn't always work or make sense or apply. But when it applicable, it's kind of nice because it helps frame people a bit better than having no framework at all. It helps put a lot of things in perspective.