Sub-division of Cognitive Functions into 3 Parts

[Pionart]

Wasn't sure whether to put this in this forum, or in Other Personality Systems, because it's basically a new typing system - I call it the MSCT (Meaning/Structure/Content Typology)

First, to remind you that "cognitive function order" often literally means an order, in the sense that the dominant function goes first, followed by the auxiliary, and so on.

What I have found, is that it may be possible to divide each of these stages into 3 smaller stages.

There is another personality system that I have discovered which has 6 cognitive functions, and when I looked into it, I saw the relation with Jungian cognitive functions as I mentioned above.

The 3 basic functions are: Meaning, Structure, and Content, with there being a Subjective and Objective version of each.

3 of these functions will apply to one's introverted Jungian functions, and the other 3 will apply to the extroverted Jungian functions.

The order the 6 functions can go in are as follows:

The first function can be any of the 6; the second must be different in terms of meaning/structure/content, and different in terms of subjective/objective (thus there are 2 options). The third function will be the remaning one from meaning/structure content, and will have the same subjective/objective orientation as the first function. Then these functions continue to cycle in the same order, for example one possible ordering is: (using M for Meaning, S for Structure, C for content, s for subjective, o for objective)

Mo Cs So - Ms Co Ss - Mo Cs So - Ms Co Ss - Ms Co Ss - Mo Cs So - Ms Co Ss - Mo Cs So

Which could apply to, say, an ISFJ's Si - Fe - Ti - Ne - Se - Fi - Te - Ni. So, for instance, the Te stage will be divided into Ms Co Ss.

I suspect that any of the 16 Jungian types can be any of the 12 MSCT types


So, as for what each of the functions is, Meaning, Structure, and Content basically mean what the words suggest. Objective means to search for more information outside of oneself, whereas Subjective means to deal with things in terms of what is within yourself.

So

Subjective Meaning is about significance: it is what the thing means in the bigger picture
Objective Meaning is about discovery: it is about searching for new and novel approaches
Subjective Structure is about rationality: it is interpreting things through a personal framework
Objective Structure is about empiricism: it is constructing a picture of things through the data
Subjective Content is about habituation: it is using pre-formed characterisations such as well-known phrases
Objective Content is about actualisation: it is the tangible manifestation of the thing

Now, of course these notions correlate with notions from Jungian Typology: Subjective basically means Introverted, and Objective means Extroverted, and Meaning is similar to Intuition, Content is similar to Sensation, and Structure is similar to Judgement. However, as I mentioned any type in one system can be any type in another. Someone can have a subjective Jungian function as their primary function, while simultaneously having an objective MSCT function as their primary function.

This may also remind you of zodiac in the sense that there are 12 types, but the structures are a bit different: this system has 6 functions which can cycle in 2 different directions, whereas zodiac has 12 types which cycle in only one direction. So they are distinct.

I can't give much more detail that what I've already given at this point, as I've only seen this recently, but if what I'm seeing really is there, then the descriptions can in time be made more thorough.

 

[kittenke]

Hmm... cool. I instantly picked out Structure and Content for myself. Both Subjective and Objective for both. It's an eternal question to me anyway: how can one make all content into structure. And I never see a way to do it to all content, some content will remain as just content but my eternal goal is to make it all structure. If that says anything for function order in your system. As for Subjective vs Objective... another eternal question for me could be, can one always use real, objective data to make a subjective, personal framework, never go too far from the real data, but process all real data without keeping the data too superficial (i.e. without applying an interpretation in the personal framework)?

 

[Pionart]

Hmm... cool. I instantly picked out Structure and Content for myself. Both Subjective and Objective for both. It's an eternal question to me anyway: how can one make all content into structure. And I never see a way to do it to all content, some content will remain as just content but my eternal goal is to make it all structure. If that says anything for function order in your system. As for Subjective vs Objective... another eternal question for me could be, can one always use real, objective data to make a subjective, personal framework, never go too far from the real data, but process all real data without keeping the data too superficial (i.e. without applying an interpretation in the personal framework)?

From this post, I would suspect that you are objective content followed by subjective structure, Co-Ss.

Relating it to my method about cognitive functions being generally divided into one paragraph for each - in this system, since 3 of these functions correspond to a single Jungian function, the paragraph is to be divided into 3 parts.

So the reason I typed you as such is because your paragraph reads something like "this is what actually happened/what it is", and then "this is how I personally frame things", and finally "this is an open question for discovery".

 

[Pionart]

I thought I should share a story about how this typology system came to be created.

Well, since I had discovered the way to read function order in forum posts and other similar approaches, I had become skeptical - in the sense that it seemed to explain just a bit too much... everything gets divided into 2/4/8, or at least a surprisingly large amount of things. So I thought, couldn't I divide things up into groups of 3 instead of 4 and still be able to see a pattern emerge? Maybe people are just too driven by the number 4, so it shows up a lot, but I could also create something to do with the number 3, and then that would show up everywhere, too.

So, just as the paragraphs of a forum post generally correspond to the order of a person's functions, I thought that if I wrote a journal entry intentionally with 3, or actually in this case 6, paragraphs, then a different pattern would emerge.

I tried it perhaps a year ago, but I couldn't interpret the results. Then I tried it again fairly recently, and I was able to see a pattern emerge - the same pattern that I outlined in the original post of this thread.

So I thought "great! That really reduces the all-encompassing nature of the 16 type system, because I can choose a different pattern to look for, and create something with a totally different structure!". But I investigated it a bit further, and realised that in things I had written with 8 paragraphs, this 3/6 function system actually showed up by dividing the paragraphs into 3 parts.

So, I hadn't created a competing model to the 16 type system. What I had done though is shown how if you zoom in to a more fine-grained level of analysis, another typology appears.

From this I speculate that an even finer-grained analysis will show even more levels to the analysis - and you can zoom out, too. I believe that there is a 7-function model that occurs on a more macro-scale, in the sense that it takes 7 iterations of the 8 functions until you return to a starting point, thus creating a 7-function system as well, although due to the voluminous nature of the sort of data that would be required to study that system, I haven't so far been able to determine what it would be like.

But here's a nice connection: 8 functions, divided into 3s, which is 24, and there are 24 hours in a day. That's why I think the macro-system would have 7 functions - because there are 7 days in a week. Oh, and I have actually noticed that the 7 day week is biologically valid. Every week, for me it's generally on Sunday, I move from one mode into another. So, 8 weeks show the 8 function cycle, just as every 3 hours of a day do.

Heh, just meh thoughts

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I'm seeing more similarities between your systems and Objective Personality. They break up functions into 4 groups of human needs:

1. Self (Significance) Fi, Ti
2. Tribe (Validation) Fe, Te
3. Gather (Variety) Se, Ne
4. Organize (Structure) Si, Ni

Maybe you should aim to become one of their operators and be on the forefront of this, should you find it valuable/logical.

 

[Pionart]

I'm seeing more similarities between your systems and Objective Personality. They break up functions into 4 groups of human needs:

1. Self (Significance) Fi, Ti
2. Tribe (Validation) Fe, Te
3. Gather (Variety) Se, Ne
4. Organize (Structure) Si, Ni

Maybe you should aim to become one of their operators and be on the forefront of this, should you find it valuable/logical.

There's an overlap in the terminology, but there's only so many words available to describe this sort of thing.

The system I described in this thread is not the same as the 16 types model, it just has overlaps with it.

I'd rather not pay money to be part of Objective Personality. If they release public materials I'll study those.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

There's an overlap in the terminology, but there's only so many words available to describe this sort of thing.

The system I described in this thread is not the same as the 16 types model, it just has overlaps with it.

I'd rather not pay money to be part of Objective Personality. If they release public materials I'll study those.

Fair enough. Their free stuff is available on YouTube, but it doesn't really give a good bigger picture image, just a bunch of little pieces. There's also a lot of self-improvement stuff, which I find a little distracting at times.

Also, I wasn't trying to shit on your originality or creativity, I just see potential in systems that use this sort of approach.

 

[Pionart]

Fair enough. Their free stuff is available on YouTube, but it doesn't really give a good bigger picture image, just a bunch of little pieces. There's also a lot of self-improvement stuff, which I find a little distracting at times.

Also, I wasn't trying to shit on your originality or creativity, I just see potential in systems that use this sort of approach.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were, only that I don't know how similar my approach is to theirs.

 

[Pionart]

I thought about this some more and I don't think I was even onto anything with this...

The read I did on myself basically just displayed "INFJ", but contorted into 6 functions, not some other type warranting a new system.

So, if anyone got their hopes up about this, apologies, there's not a lot to it.

There's still some interesting material, in the sense of considering the way that an 8 function process could be displayed through a different number of functions. It's not entirely empty, it's just not the "gold" I thought it was.

(one interesting sidenote is that a each cognitive function can be divided into multiple cognitive functions, often 4, in a fractal-esque manner. Like I said, not entirely empty)

 

[Norexan]

I finally made schema where you cannot be mistype.

RESULT-MAKE-CAPTURE-STEPS
Now if I write like this you barely can understand what RESULT stands for.
RESULT means that your meaning of life to bring results, wherever is good or bad, this is result.
Now if your life is about RESULT you cannot think about steps, infect doing nothing, thinking is bad for you.
Remember, for you ANY RESULT is better then think about steps what should you do and what you don't.
If you get hurt you will learn from your mistakes and move on.

Same thing is for STEPS, you must think first and wherever your brain think, whenever your brain push RESULT
instead careful think about problem you will end in agony and pain. RESULTS are what you heath you so you must think
for every step you want to make if you want to win.

CAPTURE is all about how you get things from world. It is just photo shot. CAPTURE is opposite to MAKE, it is your ability to see what is in front of you and then
adapt yourself according to circumstances. If your CAPTURE is first your whole body will make opposition to MAKE. Any kind of routine for you pain and agony because routine is MAKE.
You don't have one shot in life, you have arsenal of shots, a lot of things to explore, to sense, so for you waiting is just agony. You don't plan things but CAPTURING things you know how to make goals and get there first.

MAKE is all about visualize things inside, waiting instead doing and because of that it has conflict with CAPTURE. Whatever CAPTURE what to CAPTURE THING, to get the moment, to explorer things, MAKE want to wait, to swim peaceful and watch how situation is going on. If you are MAKE you cannot adapt to things, you are so inflicted with your routines like reading that you often miss what is in front of you. Yes, CAPTURE things is your weak spot so instead going and die you must MAKE things so it will work.

FIRST - VITALITY (This is YOU)
SECOND - GROW (You want to be successful? Ask this function)
THIRD - RESCUE (You stuck in life? Ask this function)
FOURTH - WEAK SPOT (This is what you fear in life because it goes opposite of YOURSELF)

For example

STEPS-CAPTURE-MAKE-RESULT. Very logical mind.

You want STEPS from CAPTURE to MAKE... RESULT. IxxP. Inside ---> Outside
You use CAPTURE to see, to explore things, to sense things so your STEPS can think about them.
If you fail to get RESULT. You will say.... HOLD ON. DON'T CAPTURE MORE THINGS. I am suffocated myself by data so I cannot invent new things.
Solution: Let's see what we have and think how to MAKE things.


RESULT-MAKE-CAPTURE-STEPS
You want RESULT from MAKE CAPTURING STEPS. ExxJ Outside ---> Inside
Read again. You want RESULT from MAKING... Key word. MAKE. You use your knowledge to make things. You prefer to WAIT and analyze things or people.
And if you fail to getting steps you will say HOLD ON. LET'S CAPTURE THINGS. I don't have enough data for getting steps so I will use alternative route.
Solution: Let's explore more things to get RESUTS.

CAPTURE-STEPS-RESULTS-MAKE
You want to CAPTURE things from world to get STEPS so your RESULT can be MADE. ExxP Outside ---> Inside
Confusing brain? Yet it is. You just want to CAPTURE STEPS from world. What will work and what don't? So prefer do DO things and analyze each steps to get there.
And if you fail to MAKE things happen then you will use RESULT and enforce make them. You CAPTURE STEPS and IF you don't see no path to make things happen. Waiting is your weak spot.
Solution: Let's enforce things to get RESULTS.

MAKE-RESULTS-STEPS-CAPTURE
You want to MAKE RESULT so your STEPS will be CAPTURE. IxxJ Inside ---> Outside
MAKE RESULT. Sound perfect when you read. But it is not. You just WAIT and analyze things or people and eventually you will get lost in waiting.
So what will you do? You will fail from CAPTURE things because there is not everything in your books or in your mind. Every man can fail eventually so don't waste your time waiting when you posses a lot of knowledge and ability to MAKE THINGS.
Use it. Think about steps and you will see what was gone wrong.
Solution: Let's MAKE-STEPS instead waiting.

 

[Jaguar]

That is one seriously sloppy diagram.

 

[Norexan]

How diagram can be sloppy? Read all text.

 

[Pionart]

[MENTION=34350]Norexan[/MENTION],

I haven't read the post yet, but from looking at the diagram, one suggestion I would make would be:

as Se vs Ne is about seeing one or many things (which sounds reasonable), Si vs Ni should be about focusing on one or many things.

(perhaps the judgement functions should be viewed in terms of relating to one (T) or many (F) frameworks?)

 

[Norexan]

[MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION]
Se just CAPTURE what it senses.
Ne CAPTURE more then just it sense.

Basically it is question: "When you look at something do you see more then just appearance?"
while Ni and Si: "When you look at something do you just know or you go to read instruction?"

Te and Fe be like: "When you want to get result does others people opinion mean something to you?"
Ti and Fi be like: "When you want to get result what classification do you follow logical (smart/dumb) or emotional (right/wrong)?"

But before you start to answer these questions we must determinate your main type or You: MAKE, CAPTURE, STEPS OR RESULTS.

Here is full.

 

[Jaguar]

.

What do you see? A dozen roses, I'm an N.

What do you see? A single rose, I'm an S.

 

[Norexan]

dom Fi Empathy
aux Fi Autenency
ter Fi Understading
inf Fi Fairness.

dom Fe popularity-driven
aux Fe harmony-driven
ter Fe success-driven
inf Fe peace-driven

 

[Pionart]

[MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION]
Se just CAPTURE what it senses.
Ne CAPTURE more then just it sense.

Basically it is question: "When you look at something do you see more then just appearance?"
while Ni and Si: "When you look at something do you just know or you go to read instruction?"

Te and Fe be like: "When you want to get result does others people opinion mean something to you?"
Ti and Fi be like: "When you want to get result what classification do you follow logical (smart/dumb) or emotional (right/wrong)?"

But before you start to answer these questions we must determinate your main type or You: MAKE, CAPTURE, STEPS OR RESULTS.

Here is full.

Generally agreed regarding Ne/Se (though I'll have to think about this word "capture"), in that it's about what's seen/unseen i.e. sensed/intuited outside oneself.

"Reading instructions" is too specific but is on the right track. Si/Ni deals with a body of information in terms of what is known/unknown. Si will look at what is most certain and try to consolidate, solidify that, whereas Ni will go to the peripheries where things are not clear yet but have the potential for something new to be discovered. So both are good researchers, with Si going over the literature to create a picture of what we know about something, and Ni will do new research in areas showing the most potential.

For Fi/Ti, there's a theme of united vs divided. Ti will often come into play by choosing in an A or B scenario, whereas Fi - I'm less confident regarding what it does - will establish proper distance, unite disparate options, something like that.

Both Feeling functions are more likely than the Thinking functions to think about a person. Fi thinks about the person by weighing up how they feel about that person, whereas Fe is about interacting with the person. Ti and Te deal better when the stimulus is something mechanical - a system which they can tinker with, but which lacks a will of its own.

So Fe keeps in mind the viewpoints of the audience in how it structures its judgements, essentially trying to get others "on board" (or teach them), whereas Te will try as closely as it can to properly match the dynamics at play in the system it is describing. Any individual can use all 8 functions, so Fe, in order to make a clearer argument, may also bring into play the relevant objective facts about something, which may occur if the audience isn't responding as desired. Similarly, Te can engage with the person on their own terms, which may be when the system isn't making sense. Or each can bring in the other side when things are working well in order to add the finishing touches to its argument.

The general difference between the i and e functions, is that i functions are subjective, and e are objective. Subjectivity is about how the subject is representing something, whereas objective is about dealing with something directly.

 

[Norexan]

Generally agreed regarding Ne/Se (though I'll have to think about this word "capture"), in that it's about what's seen/unseen i.e. sensed/intuited outside oneself.

"Reading instructions" is too specific but is on the right track. Si/Ni deals with a body of information in terms of what is known/unknown. Si will look at what is most certain and try to consolidate, solidify that, whereas Ni will go to the peripheries where things are not clear yet but have the potential for something new to be discovered. So both are good researchers, with Si going over the literature to create a picture of what we know about something, and Ni will do new research in areas showing the most potential.

For Fi/Ti, there's a theme of united vs divided. Ti will often come into play by choosing in an A or B scenario, whereas Fi - I'm less confident regarding what it does - will establish proper distance, unite disparate options, something like that.

Both Feeling functions are more likely than the Thinking functions to think about a person. Fi thinks about the person by weighing up how they feel about that person, whereas Fe is about interacting with the person. Ti and Te deal better when the stimulus is something mechanical - a system which they can tinker with, but which lacks a will of its own.

So Fe keeps in mind the viewpoints of the audience in how it structures its judgements, essentially trying to get others "on board" (or teach them), whereas Te will try as closely as it can to properly match the dynamics at play in the system it is describing. Any individual can use all 8 functions, so Fe, in order to make a clearer argument, may also bring into play the relevant objective facts about something, which may occur if the audience isn't responding as desired. Similarly, Te can engage with the person on their own terms, which may be when the system isn't making sense. Or each can bring in the other side when things are working well in order to add the finishing touches to its argument.

The general difference between the i and e functions, is that i functions are subjective, and e are objective. Subjectivity is about how the subject is representing something, whereas objective is about dealing with something directly.

Capture - get the moment, get the image by experiencing the world around you... Now you can get concrete image (reality) or abstract image (possibilities).


One thing Fi never do is adapt his works for the audience. His mind for certain not be like "Hey Mike jump in the well. Is it cool? I wil jump too." He will act naturally. Be him with all his mambo-jambo crap.
dom Fe are very considerate how others people look on them, they want to be popular in the circle while for dom Te (emotions of group - how they would feel about me) is not in their framework. Not any TJ espically NTJ ceres what other people think about them because their Ni ---> Fi knows it is right what they do and for STJ Si has obligation and duty to do what nobody can do.

This is my advice for each type if they fade on their inferior function and get stuck in life.


Fear of ExxJ

ExTJ inf Fi be wrong

Don't let your fear of being incorrect consume you!
Doing anything is better then doing nothing.

ExFJ inf Ti be dumb
You are smart. You are popular. You are wonderful person. You know how to approach people and everybody likes you. Fame is waiting for You.


Fear of ExxP

ENxP inf Si not be prepared for upcoming apocalypse/ascending/future world/job/duh... everything.

Don't read every book about every bullshit. Read only these what you need and you will become your Tony Stark.

ESxP inf Ni not having a goal/be worthless/unsuccessful/crap

Don't do things because of winning. Do things because goals that you made.


Fear of IxxJ

INxJ inf Se be human
If you made some mistakes in life, remember you are just human and sometimes bullshits of reality is stronger then your beautiful mind

ISxJ inf Ne see potentials
If something happen that doesn't mean you have to build Faraday cage around you. Read more. Try harder and next time you will do what you planed to do.

Fear of IxxP

IxTP inf Fe not be appreciated.

To be appreciate by others you need to do things what will work. Think what will work.

IxFP inf Te having results

You do things because you like it but not all things what you like will bring you result. What do you really like?

 

[Jaguar]

ESTPs are masters at getting to the heart of matters. They will appreciate it if you just get on with things. Giving something a try, even a less-than-perfect idea, is better than debating it endlessly or studying it to death. The Sensor (S)motto is, “Doing something is always better than doing nothing.”

Doing anything is better then doing nothing.

I see. And I disagree.

When does an ESTP look like an ENTJ? When does an ENTJ look like an ESTP?

Different temperaments, but much in common. ESTP is a variation of the Improviserâ„¢ pattern and ENTJ is a variation of the Theoristâ„¢ pattern. Improvisers have a core need for having the freedom to choose the next thing they are going to do with a drive to action and to make an impact, whereas Theoristâ„¢ have a core need for mastery, self-control, knowledge and competence.

The Theoristâ„¢ need for competence also resonates with the ESTP. However, for the ENTJ, being competent ahead of doing something is crucial and they will want to understand something completely before they go ahead and act. The ESTP, on the other hand, will be more likely to quickly grasp the essence of something and then go ahead and take action, gaining competence as they go.

When does an ESTP look like an ENTJ? When does an ENTJ look like an ESTP?