[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Introverted Intuition not Introverted thinking the primary\dominant function of INTPs

[simulatedworld]

I see that you feel Ni and Si are mutually exclusive functions. But I don't really think it would need to be difficult at all, if the person had some organic proclivity for using both. I could see that perhaps when engaged more with objects or the world, Si might be preferred; and when engaged in an abstract way, Ni might be preferred. I don't think it would be conscious at all, nor difficult.

Not necessarily mutual exclusive, no--just that one is clearly preferred to the other and used more effectively and more often.

Can you give some examples of people you believe to use Ni and Si in equal proportion and explain how you concluded that? I just don't really observe anyone like this in practice. Again I really don't mean this in an insulting way, but you might be confused as to what attitudes and values the function attitudes really represent--if you think you're seeing someone constantly switching easily and adeptly between Si and Ni, you're probably making specious associations between certain actions and functional dispositions.

Do you feel the same about different attitudes of the same preference? Ni and Ne, for example? Or is that a more comfortable notion for you because it's the same preference? I see people all the time on here who have reported this, admittedly from those crappy functions tests. I use Ni and Ne. I take in patterns (Ne) here on type c. I notice who does what, whose posted where, who's coming, who's going, certain threads where certain people are, who's said what to whom, who's intimated things, who's flirting, etc. All very easily. I can tell I don't do it like an Ne dom does it, nor an Ne aux; but my point is that it doesn't hurt or cause me any confliction. I simply use it because I need to, Ni doesn't work for that stuff. And I've also learned I do it pretty well. Which would belie a simple shadow spot for my Ne.

Taking in patterns is not Ne. What you've just described I would consider more Fe--you're recognizing relationships between people and how they fulfill different roles:

Extraverted Feeling is the attitude of viewing everything in terms of what role it defines for people to play in regard to each other. When you say "How are you?" to someone, you are playing a role. It's a role that is intrinsically connected to other people's social roles; you can't play it by yourself. When the other person says, "Oh, not too bad. How about yourself?", they are playing out the complementary role. From an Fe perspective, by definition, every act is a declaration of what role you would like to play in the social setting.

Ne is more like this:

Extraverted Intuition (Ne) is the attitude that what is manifest (apparent, observable) is a reflection of a greater reality. The dinosaur bone hints at the dinosaur, the cloud hints at the coming thunderstorm, the thunderstorm is a reflection of the rotation of the Earth within its atmosphere. Whatever you find, there is something more to find: a broader context, a whole, which will change your understanding of the part.

Extraverted Intuition (Ne) is the attitude that the unknown is filled with wonderful things. To make use of them, you must be flexible in your goals. If you try to set things up so that only something known to be good can happen, you close your eyes to the zillions of opportunities that you can't know or define in terms of what you know now. As more of the unknown becomes clear, the more it changes your understanding of the (currently) known.

To live, then, you need to continuously welcome the unknown, by always being ready to adjust in unanticipatable ways. What seems like a mistake is not a mistake when viewed in a larger pattern--and it's your job to find that larger pattern.

When I see people saying things like "oh well I use Ne and Ni equally well all the time!", I can't help but feel that they don't understand what those terms mean well enough to make that distinction. Their justification is almost invariably, "Well the function test said so!!!", which is all but meaningless.

I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I suggest you check out some more of the literature on this topic. The function attitudes are pretty convoluted at times and quite difficult to discern in practice. They don't represent individual actions but prevailing attitudes that lead us toward all of our perceptions and judgments of reality. "I noticed a pattern" doesn't mean "I used Ne." What you described above doesn't really constitute Ne at all.

I don't think it's impossible for Ni users to use Ne and vice versa, just that it doesn't happen very often and takes a lot more effort than people think it does. It requires breaking out of your perceptual mold and looking at things from a standpoint that you're not used to. Most people who think they're adept at all the functions simply don't understand the function attitudes well enough to know the difference.

I'm sorry. I just don't like the term shadow. Because it's defined as being used under duress, or scantily. And that's just not how I know for our non primary, non aux functions to be used, much of the time. I guess until I come up with a better term, shadow it will be.

Evidently you have some theoretical holes in your understanding of the functions which leads you to incorrectly associate certain actions with "uses" of certain functions. I'm not sure how to say that without sounding condescending, but I think it's the case. What books have you read on this topic?

The best thing I can advise you to do is look at why people do what they do instead of worrying about the surface action. Keep trying to reduce every action/belief in others further and further until you arrive at axiomatic principles the person considers fundamental to how life should be understood, interpreted and dealt with.

"I noticed a pattern in something" could be any function depending on context and the motivations and values of the person in question.

I would respond as I did above. Theoretically, using current function theory as a guide, I could see drawing that conclusion. I just really don't see it in practice, honestly. Perhaps if the utilization concept was changed to "if and when it's needed" instead of "in stressful circumstances" it would be a better fit, and jive more with reality.

The problem with this is that you can navigate most life circumstances just fine without really depending on shadow functions. The reason for the "stressful circumstances" explanation is that using shadow functions actually requires you to break out of your preferred worldview and see things from a perspective that is unnatural and uncomfortable to you.

It's not just using some other skill--it's actually changing the way you interpret and deal with yourself and your surroundings, and that's not easily done.

Where am I getting this? I've just made mental note of people's cognitive function tests on here, which I know suck, but it's all we really have; and I've noticed that people tend to be very good at both attitudes of the same preference. Perhaps that is test bias. Who knows. I don't think it's necessarily a test foible, because I've seen it occur in people irl, haven't you? But I also have the Functions of Type book by the Hartzlers, and I've explored it in depth, testing and retesting, and contemplating people I know. It's got good descriptions of the functions, but the tests are barely comprehensive, with many only having 8 questions.

Please, if you want to move forward with this, just disregard tests entirely. This is a concept that lacks empirical evidence to the point that it can't be tested reliably at all. If you really want to know people's types, you have no choice but to study the functions and the value systems they most commonly associate with. Tests are not going to help you do anything more than get a very rough idea of which type categories to focus your personal studies on so that you can start figuring out which ones you identify most closely with. Tests are a sketchy and frequently inaccurate shortcut.

Tests are not all we really have. Your observation that most people tend to be very good at both attitudes of the same preference is rooted in an error in your understanding of the different attitudes. (I don't mean any offense by this.)

To give you a real life example, look at the way TJs tend to disregard anything that can't be understood and tested according to universally applicable empirical standards. Te requires that everyone be able to apply the same test in the same way and get the same consistent, measurable result.

In order to "use Ti", the Te user has to temporarily abandon Te's need for measurable, empirical evidence and accept an impersonal judgment purely on its own internal merits. This is very hard to most TJs to do, and I must strongly disagree that most of them are good at it.

"If you can't measure something, you can't predict its behavior, and hence it isn't real."

This is sharply in contrast with the way TPs tend to build and interpret logic systems. Any way of organizing and looking at information that helps our understanding of how to navigate situations as they unfold is useful, as long as its rules are internally consistent with themselves. Ti doesn't really mind if its rules and judgments can't be demonstrated empirically or validated by external means.

In order for the Ti user to "use Te", he has to temporarily abandon his personal, situational understanding of the dynamics of a situation and trust externally imposed standards over his own direct experiential understanding of how something is supposed to work. This is very hard to do and I disagree that most Ti users are good at it.

"As a right-brain function, Introverted Thinking is not conceptual and linear. It's body-based and wholistic. It operates by way of visual, tactile, or spatial cues, inclining us to reason experientially rather than analytically."

You see, using a different function is not just performing a different surface action. It's actually warping the attitude with which we approach interpreting and responding to ourselves and the world around us. That is a very big change. It's literally breaking your bubble about how to conceptualize reality.

If an Fi user wants to "use Fe", for instance, he has to set aside his own subjective values in favor of integrating into the social and cultural standards of whatever group he's part of. That's very hard for Fi-ers to do--it often feels like they're not being true to who they really are. It takes some serious maturity and concern for the perspectives of others--it's not something that happens all the time.

I am sketchy on this myself. Does a person inherit a preference or a function? I would guess a preference, then that preference would meld to the attitude it needed to acquire to fall into the overall personality make-up. So, if a person had N parents, I would guess that person to have better usage of Ni and Ne, simply because he has more N and less S. If a person inherits N/S, then I would guess they'd both convert to the dominant attitude and share tasks as I stated in the first paragraph. I realize this is far-fetched. It is just my nature to reach, but it also just makes a lot of sense to me, as if it were true. (i don't know if that is a good thing, or bad thing).

You still seem to be associating function use with particular actions. e.g., I saw a pattern so I must have used Ne, or I made an impersonal decision so I must have used Ti, etc...the functions don't represent singular actions. They represent the most fundamental starting points from which people build their entire conceptions of reality.

You might very well be good at some individual skill that many Ne users are good at, but that doesn't mean you're necessarily using Ne to do it. "Using Ne" doesn't just mean "performing some action that Ne people tend to be good at"; it implies approaching and understanding reality from a certain perspective.

Well, I use Ne as I've stated, as do maaannny others, I'm sure; and I doubt it's as apocolyptic as you think.

Again I will suggest that you read more material on what the function attitudes actually imply about the most fundamental ways people conceptualize reality. Based on your earlier description of your "Ne use", you don't seem to have a firm grasp on what "Ne use" actually is.

I'm not saying you never use Ne, just that it's not nearly as natural or commonplace as you think. Your criticisms that the current functional theories are inadequate are based largely in gaps in your understanding of the nature of cognitive functions themselves.

I know this is true for me with Te. School, college, more school, homeschooling, mothering, etc., have forced me to become very good with Te. I'm not 'supposed' to be inherently good at Te, according to function theory.

Getting things done doesn't constitute Te use. Going to school and mothering don't force you to be good at Te. These tasks can be accomplished just as well from the perspectives of lots of other functional attitudes (although the most closely related one is Fe, which is probably the case for you.)

However, interestingly (for myself), I distinctely remember when I began using Ne and it was in my childhood/teenage years. I've considered that this meant, to fit it into neat function theory, that I'm infp, and that it was the normal development time for my Ne. But I'm no infp. I remember even telling someone about how I loved to look for patterns in things, and see what was missing in patterns in things, and how asymmetry drove me crazy. Eric B told me before this might have been a manifestation of developing Ti. But it sounds an awful lot like Ne to me. I see children I know who do this too. I don't think it's as rare as we think.

Finding patterns =/= using Ne.

Why do you think that it's better to be less threatening to the dom/aux? I would intuit that it would be better to be closer to his preferred way of doing something. You know what I'm going to say. I'm going to say that it would depend on what he inherently more of, N/N or N/S. If it's the N/N, it would be the former, N/S, the latter, although I don't really like the concept of 'shadow' as you know.

I think your issue with the shadow thing is rooted in the way you're conceptualizing functions as singular, particular actions instead of overarching, widely encompassing attitudes. You seem to think, "Ne is finding patterns, and I find patterns, so I must use Ne when I do that!", but it's a lot more complicated than that.

My specific example is that my INTJ does the latter. He's better at Si and Fe, than Ti and Ne (i think Ne anyway). But I've seen your proposition work too. It's just all a crapshoot.

What exactly does being "good at" a function mean? It doesn't mean that you're good at tasks people strong in that function are usually good at; it means the way that function leads you to conceptualize reality comprises a larger part of your total worldview than other functional attitudes.

I think you're taking issue with being told your type isn't good at Ne or Te or whatever because you think you're being told you can't find patterns or plan and organize or whatever other common actions you associate with those functions. But those functions represent attitudes about how to consider yourself and your relationship to reality, not particular actions.

When someone says something on the forum, for instance, and others say, "Wow that was totally Si" or whatnot, they're not saying "The act itself of saying that was use of Si"; they're saying, "I believe the value that motivated you to say/do that was rooted in the worldview represented by Si." That's a BIG difference.

It would be nice to have some decent tests though, so people can know more what functions they use well, which ones need work, and to correlate it all in to archetypes, possibly refining them.

It would be nice to have neat little 20-minute questionnaires that solve the problem of identity for you; unfortunately that's never really going to happen because the tests can't get enough in-depth information to say much of anything meaningful. You cannot use tests to determine which of your functions are strong or weak or need improvement.

Think of it this way--imagine you've never heard any music and you want to know what kind of music you would like. Somebody points you to a 70-question internet quiz that will ask you about the types of sounds you find pleasing and then tell you which kind of music is your favorite. This will probably give you a decent starting point for your personal study of music, but does it actually necessitate that, once you go and listen to a lot of different kinds of music, your favorite will be the one the test told you? No, it doesn't, because there's no shortcut to figuring out what kind of music really suits you without listening to a lot of different music and figuring it out through direct experience and gradually developing a working understanding of the relationships between different approaches to music and how they relate to you. The same applies to understanding different approaches to cognition.

The only way to do this is to identify people who are heavily influenced by those functional attitudes and talk to them about the ways they understand themselves and their environments and try to discover how they differ from yours. What basic assumptions about the nature of life, the universe and everything does this person make that lead him to think and behave the way he does, and what can you learn from them?

Yeah, hard to know. I've gotten to where I like to find out a person's parents' types because I find the inheritence factor fascinating and just really fun. Like you have all these preferences between two people and it really does pan out that kids get a mix of the parents, as well as grandparents, etc., weaker the farther you go back.

It's interesting to see how the values of one's parents influence his own. Sometimes you'll find a belief that seems out of place in that person's value system, and find that it's been ingrained by upbringing...I tend to think personal circumstances play a bigger part than nature in the determining of type, but that doesn't mean people will tend to grow up like their parents. Often kids will actively rebel against their parents' beliefs and come out quite different...just depends on a lot of different factors.

 

[Heart&Brain]

Ne-dom just passing by to make a short derail of INTP-discussion (sorry ):

Afrodite, I keep getting a vibe that you are more S than N. Maybe ISFJ?

I'm ignorant about your true personality of course, and probably also about the nuances of function analysis, so caveats all around, but I see a lot of Si-Fe motivations in your self-descriptions: identifying systems in terms of them 'missing' some elements or being asymmetrical (aka 'not as they should be'), having great interpersonal awareness, plus you seem highly sensual, nurturing and like you enjoy being in charge of nest-making with your ISTJ (ISTJ and ISFJ appear to be a match made in heaven...). On TypoC you may also be entertaining your relief-function when discussing in Ti. Many of us +30's seem to let the tertiary out to play here.

Would ISFJ be totally impossible in your eyes?

 

[Salomé]

This thread makes me glad I'm Ti-dom.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Not necessarily mutual exclusive, no--just that one is clearly preferred to the other and used more effectively and more often.

Can you give some examples of people you believe to use Ni and Si in equal proportion and explain how you concluded that? I just don't really observe anyone like this in practice. Again I really don't mean this in an insulting way, but you might be confused as to what attitudes and values the function attitudes really represent--if you think you're seeing someone constantly switching easily and adeptly between Si and Ni, you're probably making specious associations between certain actions and functional dispositions.

I never said EQUAL proportion. I don't believe that. And, yeah, I could give some specific examples of some on this forum, but I won't now.

Taking in patterns is not Ne. What you've just described I would consider more Fe--you're recognizing relationships between people and how they fulfill different roles:



Ne is more like this:



When I see people saying things like "oh well I use Ne and Ni equally well all the time!", I can't help but feel that they don't understand what those terms mean well enough to make that distinction. Their justification is almost invariably, "Well the function test said so!!!", which is all but meaningless.

I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I suggest you check out some more of the literature on this topic. The function attitudes are pretty convoluted at times and quite difficult to discern in practice. They don't represent individual actions but prevailing attitudes that lead us toward all of our perceptions and judgments of reality. "I noticed a pattern" doesn't mean "I used Ne." What you described above doesn't really constitute Ne at all.

I don't think it's impossible for Ni users to use Ne and vice versa, just that it doesn't happen very often and takes a lot more effort than people think it does. It requires breaking out of your perceptual mold and looking at things from a standpoint that you're not used to. Most people who think they're adept at all the functions simply don't understand the function attitudes well enough to know the difference.



Evidently you have some theoretical holes in your understanding of the functions which leads you to incorrectly associate certain actions with "uses" of certain functions. I'm not sure how to say that without sounding condescending, but I think it's the case. What books have you read on this topic?

The best thing I can advise you to do is look at why people do what they do instead of worrying about the surface action. Keep trying to reduce every action/belief in others further and further until you arrive at axiomatic principles the person considers fundamental to how life should be understood, interpreted and dealt with.

"I noticed a pattern in something" could be any function depending on context and the motivations and values of the person in question.



The problem with this is that you can navigate most life circumstances just fine without really depending on shadow functions. The reason for the "stressful circumstances" explanation is that using shadow functions actually requires you to break out of your preferred worldview and see things from a perspective that is unnatural and uncomfortable to you.

It's not just using some other skill--it's actually changing the way you interpret and deal with yourself and your surroundings, and that's not easily done.



Please, if you want to move forward with this, just disregard tests entirely. This is a concept that lacks empirical evidence to the point that it can't be tested reliably at all. If you really want to know people's types, you have no choice but to study the functions and the value systems they most commonly associate with. Tests are not going to help you do anything more than get a very rough idea of which type categories to focus your personal studies on so that you can start figuring out which ones you identify most closely with. Tests are a sketchy and frequently inaccurate shortcut.

Tests are not all we really have. Your observation that most people tend to be very good at both attitudes of the same preference is rooted in an error in your understanding of the different attitudes. (I don't mean any offense by this.)

To give you a real life example, look at the way TJs tend to disregard anything that can't be understood and tested according to universally applicable empirical standards. Te requires that everyone be able to apply the same test in the same way and get the same consistent, measurable result.

In order to "use Ti", the Te user has to temporarily abandon Te's need for measurable, empirical evidence and accept an impersonal judgment purely on its own internal merits. This is very hard to most TJs to do, and I must strongly disagree that most of them are good at it.



This is sharply in contrast with the way TPs tend to build and interpret logic systems. Any way of organizing and looking at information that helps our understanding of how to navigate situations as they unfold is useful, as long as its rules are internally consistent with themselves. Ti doesn't really mind if its rules and judgments can't be demonstrated empirically or validated by external means.

In order for the Ti user to "use Te", he has to temporarily abandon his personal, situational understanding of the dynamics of a situation and trust externally imposed standards over his own direct experiential understanding of how something is supposed to work. This is very hard to do and I disagree that most Ti users are good at it.



You see, using a different function is not just performing a different surface action. It's actually warping the attitude with which we approach interpreting and responding to ourselves and the world around us. That is a very big change. It's literally breaking your bubble about how to conceptualize reality.

If an Fi user wants to "use Fe", for instance, he has to set aside his own subjective values in favor of integrating into the social and cultural standards of whatever group he's part of. That's very hard for Fi-ers to do--it often feels like they're not being true to who they really are. It takes some serious maturity and concern for the perspectives of others--it's not something that happens all the time.




You still seem to be associating function use with particular actions. e.g., I saw a pattern so I must have used Ne, or I made an impersonal decision so I must have used Ti, etc...the functions don't represent singular actions. They represent the most fundamental starting points from which people build their entire conceptions of reality.

You might very well be good at some individual skill that many Ne users are good at, but that doesn't mean you're necessarily using Ne to do it. "Using Ne" doesn't just mean "performing some action that Ne people tend to be good at"; it implies approaching and understanding reality from a certain perspective.



Again I will suggest that you read more material on what the function attitudes actually imply about the most fundamental ways people conceptualize reality. Based on your earlier description of your "Ne use", you don't seem to have a firm grasp on what "Ne use" actually is.

I'm not saying you never use Ne, just that it's not nearly as natural or commonplace as you think. Your criticisms that the current functional theories are inadequate are based largely in gaps in your understanding of the nature of cognitive functions themselves.



Getting things done doesn't constitute Te use. Going to school and mothering don't force you to be good at Te. These tasks can be accomplished just as well from the perspectives of lots of other functional attitudes (although the most closely related one is Fe, which is probably the case for you.)



Finding patterns =/= using Ne.



I think your issue with the shadow thing is rooted in the way you're conceptualizing functions as singular, particular actions instead of overarching, widely encompassing attitudes. You seem to think, "Ne is finding patterns, and I find patterns, so I must use Ne when I do that!", but it's a lot more complicated than that.



What exactly does being "good at" a function mean? It doesn't mean that you're good at tasks people strong in that function are usually good at; it means the way that function leads you to conceptualize reality comprises a larger part of your total worldview than other functional attitudes.

I think you're taking issue with being told your type isn't good at Ne or Te or whatever because you think you're being told you can't find patterns or plan and organize or whatever other common actions you associate with those functions. But those functions represent attitudes about how to consider yourself and your relationship to reality, not particular actions.

When someone says something on the forum, for instance, and others say, "Wow that was totally Si" or whatnot, they're not saying "The act itself of saying that was use of Si"; they're saying, "I believe the value that motivated you to say/do that was rooted in the worldview represented by Si." That's a BIG difference.



It would be nice to have neat little 20-minute questionnaires that solve the problem of identity for you; unfortunately that's never really going to happen because the tests can't get enough in-depth information to say much of anything meaningful. You cannot use tests to determine which of your functions are strong or weak or need improvement.

Think of it this way--imagine you've never heard any music and you want to know what kind of music you would like. Somebody points you to a 70-question internet quiz that will ask you about the types of sounds you find pleasing and then tell you which kind of music is your favorite. This will probably give you a decent starting point for your personal study of music, but does it actually necessitate that, once you go and listen to a lot of different kinds of music, your favorite will be the one the test told you? No, it doesn't, because there's no shortcut to figuring out what kind of music really suits you without listening to a lot of different music and figuring it out through direct experience and gradually developing a working understanding of the relationships between different approaches to music and how they relate to you. The same applies to understanding different approaches to cognition.

The only way to do this is to identify people who are heavily influenced by those functional attitudes and talk to them about the ways they understand themselves and their environments and try to discover how they differ from yours. What basic assumptions about the nature of life, the universe and everything does this person make that lead him to think and behave the way he does, and what can you learn from them?

I pretty much disagree with everything you say here, except for the condescending part. We just don't see the same things. You telling me to read more or telling me I don't understand something is condescening, fyi. Who knows who is right?

Ne-dom just passing by to make a short derail of INTP-discussion (sorry ):

Afrodite, I keep getting a vibe that you are more S than N. Maybe ISFJ?

I'm ignorant about your true personality of course, and probably also about the nuances of function analysis, so caveats all around, but I see a lot of Si-Fe motivations in your self-descriptions: identifying systems in terms of them 'missing' some elements or being asymmetrical (aka 'not as they should be'), having great interpersonal awareness, plus you seem highly sensual, nurturing and like you enjoy being in charge of nest-making with your ISTJ (ISTJ and ISFJ appear to be a match made in heaven...). On TypoC you may also be entertaining your relief-function when discussing in Ti. Many of us +30's seem to let the tertiary out to play here.

Would ISFJ be totally impossible in your eyes?

Well, thank you. I know many isfjs and, you are right. They can make awesome mothers. The difference I've noticed in some that I'm close to is that they are more likely to enforce their agenda on their children in more of an you-need-to-do-things-this-way-because-that-is-the-best/right-way-to-have-integrity-in-our-world-way. Infj mothers are controlling in our own ways, but more in an Fe way, like we-have-to-live-together-so-this-is-how-it-will-best-work way.

Our MBTI label is just a best fit deal. It's my way of giving y'all an idea of who I am by way of being an Ni/Fe dom/aux and preferring to use N and F over T and S. If you don't see that, then that's fine. Obviously, I know myself better than you do, and have thought a lot about it, so I probably won't be changing it.

I think it's interesting the conclusions you drew about Si and stuff. Hmm. I am better at Si than Se, yet I am very sensual. I live with an ISTP, not ISTJ (unless you are referring to my daughter, and she and I are like oil and water, and always have been). As for the rest, well, it just doesn't jive with me.

 

[InvisibleJim]

It has probably been said before; but that is the way that socionics views it. The INTJs in MBTI are often INTps in socionics as the leading function is perceptive; not judging. MBTI views it as the 'visible' function (Te) as judging. or something like that...

 

[Heart&Brain]

Our MBTI label is just a best fit deal. It's my way of giving y'all an idea of who I am by way of being an Ni/Fe dom/aux and preferring to use N and F over T and S. If you don't see that, then that's fine. Obviously, I know myself better than you do, and have thought a lot about it, so I probably won't be changing it.

I think it's interesting the conclusions you drew about Si and stuff. Hmm. I am better at Si than Se, yet I am very sensual. I live with an ISTP, not ISTJ (unless you are referring to my daughter, and she and I are like oil and water, and always have been). As for the rest, well, it just doesn't jive with me.

Cool!

 

[simulatedworld]

I pretty much disagree with everything you say here, except for the condescending part. We just don't see the same things. You telling me to read more or telling me I don't understand something is condescening, fyi. Who knows who is right?

Well, my interpretation of functions as underlying attitudes rather than specific actions is based primarily on Jung and Thomson.

I'm afraid I don't know how to make this point without sounding condescending, and for that I'm sorry. Your entire conception of the nature of functions is out of sync with all of the popular authors on this topic--that's where the "stressful circumstances" explanation of shadow functions comes from.

It's difficult to learn to harness them because using them doesn't just mean performing a different action; it means temporarily changing the basic attitude with which you conceptualize a type of cognition. That's why it's so hard.

If using a different function were as simple as performing a different task, why would all of the primary typology authors describe it as such a difficult/unusual process? Because functions are attitudes, not actions. It's easy to change your actions; it's not so easy to change your attitude.

What source are you using for your interpretation of functions as single actions?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Well, my interpretation of functions as underlying attitudes rather than specific actions is based primarily on Jung and Thomson.

I'm afraid I don't know how to make this point without sounding condescending, and for that I'm sorry. Your entire conception of the nature of functions is out of sync with all of the popular authors on this topic--that's where the "stressful circumstances" explanation of shadow functions comes from.

I think they aren't looking at it the right way. I think they are building fledgling theories on faulty foundations. I think they are missing pertinent data.

It's difficult to learn to harness them because using them doesn't just mean performing a different action; it means temporarily changing the basic attitude with which you conceptualize a type of cognition. That's why it's so hard.

If using a different function were as simple as performing a different task, why would all of the primary typology authors describe it as such a difficult/unusual process? Because functions are attitudes, not actions. It's easy to change your actions; it's not so easy to change your attitude.

Definition of attitude:

An attitude is a hypothetical construct that represents an individual's degree of like or dislike for an item. Attitudes are generally positive or negative views of a person, place, thing, or event-- this is often referred to as the attitude object. People can also be conflicted or ambivalent toward an object, meaning that they simultaneously possess both positive and negative attitudes toward the item in question.
Attitudes are judgments. They develop on the ABC model (affect, behavior, and cognition). The affective response is an emotional response that expresses an individual's degree of preference for an entity. The behavioral intention is a verbal indication or typical behavioral tendency of an individual. The cognitive response is a cognitive evaluation of the entity that constitutes an individual's beliefs about the object. Most attitudes are the result of either direct experience or observational learning from the environment.

I think it's subconsciously, not consciously done. I think the brain CAN handle it, and I don't believe it's an uncomforable judgmental process like you do.

What source are you using for your interpretation of functions as single actions?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by Lenore Thomson, in reference to Te
"If you can't measure something, you can't predict its behavior, and hence it isn't real."

I don't agree with that statement.
It certainly isn't something an intuitive person would say.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

There is no real known gene for a particular traits... and the real consensus is that an organism and its behavior is an interactive process between a variety of factors (genetics, physiology, environment, upbringing, social pressures, etc.)

There is some correlation between neural patterns and introversion/extroversion (it seems based on neural stimulation/wiring, which results from genetics and how the neural system develops early on)... but what you seem to be asking for seems far more complicated than even a "gay gene" concept... which has never been shown to exist. There have been isolation of some combinations for a handful of traits, but it's hard for it to be descriptive except in the grossest sense (i.e., "these people who show <this behavior> have a larger brain structure or gene combo than these other people who do not as often show that pattern of behavior")... but it's very very hard to tell what is derived directly from something else. There are just way too many factors involved.

These personality theories seem to be done in the reverse. Behavior is analyzed, theories are made based on the behaviors, then people try to tie it back to biology in some way... which seems to have perils of its own.

I appreciate your posts, Jennifer. I got busy answering Sim and forgot about yours. I wasn't necessarily saying we have to trace the genes responsible for personality traits, just acknowledge the general idea that genes ARE responsible for our personality to a large degree; Nature. Then nurture has something to do with it as well. I am not aware if any personality guru has stated that, or studied that at all. Are you? I don't know about tying back to biology. I believe it stems from biology, but the only way we can get close to testing that now (unless there is some genetic tests I don't know about) is to study behavior as it relates to cognitive functions.

 

[Heart&Brain]

It's been a while since I've read anything about it, but researcher Helen Fisher has linked four temperaments to four hormones.

Her four temperaments seems translatable to Keirsey's four groups, but apparently she doesn't mention neither him, Jung or MBTI.


From Wikipedia:

Fisher distinguishes between four personality types each of which she associates with a body chemical. The corresponding Platonic term - as Fisher identified the types herself - and the resulting corresponding Keirsey temperament (according to the speculation of some readers, not Fisher herself) can be seen in parentheses. However, Fisher's system allows for 12 combinations, not 16 types like Keirsey, meaning that there cannot be a perfect correspondence between them:

* explorer (artistic, Artisan temperament, orange) - dopamine
* negotiator (intuitive, Idealist temperament, blue) - estrogen
* director (reasoning, Rational temperament, green) - testosterone
* builder (sensible, Guardian temperament, gold) - serotonin.

 

[Heart&Brain]

Relationship-wise Helen Fisher has found that Builders (SJ) mate well with other Builders and Explorers (SP) with other Explorers, while Negotiators (NF) and Directors (NT) apparently are the best mates for each other. Have we heard that somewhere before?

 

[simulatedworld]

I don't agree with that statement.
It certainly isn't something an intuitive person would say.

Personally, I figured it wasn't something an intuitive person would take literally. I kinda figured an intuitive person would, you know, intuit that it's a theoretical exaggeration for the purpose of illustrating a point, and that it's clearly not meant to be taken literally.

But what do I know?

I think they aren't looking at it the right way. I think they are building fledgling theories on faulty foundations. I think they are missing pertinent data.

How should we go about collecting the missing data?

Definition of attitude:

An attitude is a hypothetical construct that represents an individual's degree of like or dislike for an item. Attitudes are generally positive or negative views of a person, place, thing, or event-- this is often referred to as the attitude object. People can also be conflicted or ambivalent toward an object, meaning that they simultaneously possess both positive and negative attitudes toward the item in question.
Attitudes are judgments. They develop on the ABC model (affect, behavior, and cognition). The affective response is an emotional response that expresses an individual's degree of preference for an entity. The behavioral intention is a verbal indication or typical behavioral tendency of an individual. The cognitive response is a cognitive evaluation of the entity that constitutes an individual's beliefs about the object. Most attitudes are the result of either direct experience or observational learning from the environment.

I think it's subconsciously, not consciously done. I think the brain CAN handle it, and I don't believe it's an uncomfortable judgmental process like you do.

–noun
1.
manner, disposition, feeling, position, etc., with regard to a person or thing; tendency or orientation, esp. of the mind: a negative attitude; group attitudes.

The word "attitude" is used in the bolded sense here. An attitude need not necessarily imply a judgment, except in the sense that people with any given attitude tend to believe it superior to opposing attitudes.

So I guess in this way, an orientation of the mind toward Ne would in a way constitute an unconscious judgment that Ne is the most effective method of perception, but that's not really using the word "judgment" in the same context that typology authors use it.

Anyway, the point is you don't really use functions in the sense that word would seem to imply--you are simply driven by functions toward unconscious preferences for certain types of attitudes over others. "Using Se" means seeing the world from an Se perspective--which entails a number of perceptual tendencies significantly more involved than "I looked up and saw something."

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Your qualms with functional theory presume that every time you perform any action you are "using" a particular function--that every action is "performed by" a certain function. "I remembered something? I used Si! I organized my living room? I used Te! I told someone how I feel? I used Fi!"

Unfortunately this is a really oversimplified way of looking at functions. It simply picks actions that people with those functions commonly perform and then assumes that every time we do those things, we are "using" those functions.

But that is not consistent with what any of the prevailing theories actually say a cognitive function is:

Jung also posited that the functions formed a hierarchy within a person's personality...These models do not claim that people are only capable of applying the function in question in that attitude, but rather that operating in the opposite attitude requires the expenditure of "energy" (or rather, emotional resources, enthusiasm, and so on) whilst operating in the person's natural attitude replenishes that same energy.

There's where we get the stressful circumstances idea--because using a non-preferred functional attitude isn't just performing some other meaningless task; it's actually changing the way you interpret the situation and your relationship to it. Obviously, everyone finds patterns, changes perspectives, remembers things, and notices things around him; everyone has values, builds some mental frameworks, gets things organized, and blends in with his culture.

So you realize this and you think, "Gosh, the current function models are awfully flawed! I can do all of those things easily and without stressing out! Those silly typology authors must think everyone is awfully incompetent!"

Don't you think the authors of these theories realize that everyone is easily capable of performing the above listed actions? Don't you think you might be missing something about what "using a function" actually means, since you've "discovered" such obvious glaring holes in the theory that you think have somehow eluded everyone who's written on the topic?

Here's an Ni-ish suggestion to keep you occupied: Consider that it's not the theory that has a problem, but the way you're looking at it. (Of course, changing your perspective on this isn't "using Ni"--Ni is just an attitude that would you encourage you to be aware of numerous conceptual interpretations.)

Cognitive function theory is not interested in what people do; it's interested in why they do it. Functions represent cognitive tendencies that lead people to adopt certain types of values by interpreting and organizing information from different perspectives. "Using" a function means interpreting the world and your relationship to it from the perspective of the associated attitude.

I want to know where you came up with the idea that "using a function" means "performing x action." It's just not that simple. Of course you find patterns, change perspectives, remember things, notices things around you, have personal values, build some mental frameworks, get things organized, and blend in with your culture--duh. None of those things represent "using" any functions...your functional makeup is determined by why you did them, what perspectives led you to perceive and judge the way you do.

 

[Jaguar]

Personally, I figured it wasn't something an intuitive person would take literally. I kinda figured an intuitive person would, you know, intuit that it's a theoretical exaggeration for the purpose of illustrating a point, and that it's clearly not meant to be taken literally.

If you continue to twist other people's words, Sim, while exhibiting no regard for the truth,
you will receive the same amount of respect as Pee Wee Herman jerking off in a movie theater.

Like I said elsewhere, if all we had for a source of information was Lenore's book, I would never choose ENTJ as my type.
Get it through your head, you can't just read one book-one person's perspective- and think you know all.

I'm tired of you ripping off Lenore Thomson's thoughts, and passing them off as your own.
Worse still, is thinking that Lenore Thomson has the last word when it comes to anything involving typology.

Man up.
Learn to think for yourself.

But what do I know?

Not much.

 

[paintmuffin]

* director (reasoning, Rational temperament, green) - testosterone

if testosterone facilitates logical reasoning, everything I thought I knew about biology is wrong.

 

[Totenkindly]

No biggie, aga...you guys were just focused on that interaction for awhile.

... Then nurture has something to do with it as well. I am not aware if any personality guru has stated that, or studied that at all. Are you? I don't know about tying back to biology. I believe it stems from biology, but the only way we can get close to testing that now (unless there is some genetic tests I don't know about) is to study behavior as it relates to cognitive functions.

I can't really speak from a "personality" perspective as much as just science.

A lot of my early reading in life, environment was credited with a great deal, so that seemed to be the synopsis to me and I believed much behavior was learned.

Starting in the mid-80's, though, I began to realize there had been a big shift in the science community toward embrace the impact of biology and realizing that human beings were not blank slates. The research had also shifted more in that direction, and we were beginning to sequence species' DNA, etc; the tech/science improves gave us the ability to really start exploring how much all levels of biology might be involved.

Naturally, my thinking then shifted more into exploring a biological basis for many things, and that was the sort of writing that began to dominate in the industry. I have always felt that both nature and nurture worked in tandem but had a large swing into the "nature" territory. Not to an extreme but probably seeing it in some ways as larger.

In the last few years, however, I've had that belief challenged by books I've read. (It shows the importance when it comes to science in reading reading reading...!) Right now I'm trying to get through "Sexing the Body" by Anne Fausto Sterling, and realizing it still is not clear-cut and nurture has more impact on bio than I was giving it, and some of the claims I had believed might not be necessarily true. So I need to remain open and keep reading... because if there's one thing I hate, it's having wrong information or building wrong conclusions because my information was wrong.

if testosterone facilitates logical reasoning, everything I thought I knew about biology is wrong.

I am thinking (and hoping) she meant something more than that, since such a broad and shallow connection seems ridiculous to common-sense readers. It's worth seeing and understand the basis by which she categorized her types before drawing conclusions like this.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

How should we go about collecting the missing data?

Well, the first step is to realize we can only conjecture so far. And we've gone far beyond what we should have done already. Unless the gurus looked at large numbers of n that I don't know about (which could be possible) and drew conclusions for their function conceptual models from that, they shouldn't really have wasted so much time on all that. Once you hypothesize something, you need to start collecting data, lots of data, to support your hypothesis. Then see how your hypothesis falls out. You know all this.

My only idea right now is to develop more comprehensive, innovative functions tests. To do for functions what MBTI is doing with archetypes with their Step I and Step II and Step III. Combining functions tests with demographic data could eventually lead to some pattern recognition. And with pattern recognition would come archetypes. Like, for example, an INTJ that prefers Ni/Te/Fe vs over an INTJ that prefers Ni/Te/Fi. We could guess how these two might look differently, but we can't know without really looking to people irl.

Anyway, the point is you don't really use functions in the sense that word would seem to imply--you are simply driven by functions toward unconscious preferences for certain types of attitudes over others. "Using Se" means seeing the world from an Se perspective--which entails a number of perceptual tendencies significantly more involved than "I looked up and saw something."

Totally agree.

Your qualms with functional theory presume that every time you perform any action you are "using" a particular function--that every action is "performed by" a certain function. "I remembered something? I used Si! I organized my living room? I used Te! I told someone how I feel? I used Fi!"

Unfortunately this is a really oversimplified way of looking at functions. It simply picks actions that people with those functions commonly perform and then assumes that every time we do those things, we are "using" those functions.

I think of cognitive functions at this point in time for myself as an umbrella of preferences and experiences; the Mind. Some types of situations and thinking fall under one part of the umbrella and others fall under another part of the umbrella.

But that is not consistent with what any of the prevailing theories actually say a cognitive function is:


Originally Posted by wikipedia on "Jungian Cognitive Functions"
Jung also posited that the functions formed a hierarchy within a person's personality...These models do not claim that people are only capable of applying the function in question in that attitude, but rather that operating in the opposite attitude requires the expenditure of "energy" (or rather, emotional resources, enthusiasm, and so on) whilst operating in the person's natural attitude replenishes that same energy.


There's where we get the stressful circumstances idea--because using a non-preferred functional attitude isn't just performing some other meaningless task; it's actually changing the way you interpret the situation and your relationship to it. Obviously, everyone finds patterns, changes perspectives, remembers things, and notices things around him; everyone has values, builds some mental frameworks, gets things organized, and blends in with his culture.

But what I'm saying that's evidently different than what others are saying is this: We can carry with us, all to a unique degree, cognitive functions that work in combination with each other, but that might be masked or behind the scenes from our majority functions. So, that if a person carries some Ni and Si inherently, from a genetic basis, that person will exist in the "replenish energy" realm, until he exceeds his innate ability with that function, and thereby enters more of an "expend energy" realm. My understanding is that Jung and others only ascribed a function heirarchy for a few set functions.

But consider the flip side of this. A person might have a more limited preferred cognitive function than even Jung realized, because they might carry a masked (NINJA) function with them, so we could have been assuming an INTJ would have a lot more Ni than he really might have had "energy replenishing" access to because it might share the roll with a masked (non-preferred) Si or even Ne. Capiche?

So you realize this and you think, "Gosh, the current function models are awfully flawed! I can do all of those things easily and without stressing out! Those silly typology authors must think everyone is awfully incompetent!"

Don't you think the authors of these theories realize that everyone is easily capable of performing the above listed actions? Don't you think you might be missing something about what "using a function" actually means, since you've "discovered" such obvious glaring holes in the theory that you think have somehow eluded everyone who's written on the topic?

I know. It's incredibly ballsy, isn't it? Ni makes me ballsy, I'm Ni's bitch. What's your point here?

Here's an Ni-ish suggestion to keep you occupied: Consider that it's not the theory that has a problem, but the way you're looking at it. (Of course, changing your perspective on this isn't "using Ni"--Ni is just an attitude that would you encourage you to be aware of numerous conceptual interpretations.)

Cognitive function theory is not interested in what people do; it's interested in why they do it. Functions represent cognitive tendencies that lead people to adopt certain types of values by interpreting and organizing information from different perspectives. "Using" a function means interpreting the world and your relationship to it from the perspective of the associated attitude.

I want to know where you came up with the idea that "using a function" means "performing x action." It's just not that simple. Of course you find patterns, change perspectives, remember things, notices things around you, have personal values, build some mental frameworks, get things organized, and blend in with your culture--duh. None of those things represent "using" any functions...your functional makeup is determined by why you did them, what perspectives led you to perceive and judge the way you do.

I'm not really following you here. As I understand it, we perceive and we judge. Our Mind uses cognitive functions in a preferential way to do this. My beef all along with function theory has been that we might have good usage of functions that are non-preferred, or masked, yet not necessarily undifferentiated or unused, although those undoubtedly exist in the inexperienced person.

 

[simulatedworld]

Well, the first step is to realize we can only conjecture so far. And we've gone far beyond what we should have done already. Unless the gurus looked at large numbers of n that I don't know about (which could be possible) and drew conclusions for their function conceptual models from that, they shouldn't really have wasted so much time on all that. Once you hypothesize something, you need to start collecting data, lots of data, to support your hypothesis. Then see how your hypothesis falls out. You know all this.

Typology itself is pure conjecture. It can't be tested because Jung's ideas of cognitive functions are just arbitrary, subjective interpretations of biological processes we don't yet have the science to understand fully.

If you want to test the nature of cognition, you need to go study psychology and make some significant advances in brain scanning and neurological imaging techniques. The inherently subjective, nebulous nature of functional theory makes it impossible to pin down empirically or test accurately, ever. You're not going to get accurate tests about psychological type until science advances far enough to render Jung's theories totally obsolete anyway.

So trying to test an untestable idea based purely on philosophical conjecture is a waste of time. The only way to collect data on this topic is to study the values of others in relation to your own, talk to others about it and try to make sense of it for yourself. This can't be translated into externally objective terms.

My only idea right now is to develop more comprehensive, innovative functions tests. To do for functions what MBTI is doing with archetypes with their Step I and Step II and Step III. Combining functions tests with demographic data could eventually lead to some pattern recognition. And with pattern recognition would come archetypes. Like, for example, an INTJ that prefers Ni/Te/Fe vs over an INTJ that prefers Ni/Te/Fi. We could guess how these two might look differently, but we can't know without really looking to people irl.

How do you plan to deal with the fact that no question you write can ever be shown to accurately represent any real functional attitudes? You might design a question thinking, "Ok, if he answers this way then that's a point for Fi, but if he answers that way it's a point for Ti instead!"

The problem? You have no idea if Ti people will actually choose the answer you arbitrarily decided represents Ti. This (along with the myriad problems with self-report evaluation) is why you'll never be able to build a working test for Jungian functions. The concepts themselves are too abstract and subjective to be accurately measurable.

Totally agree.

Really? So...you don't think "I saw a pattern" indicates Ne use, either? Perhaps you could explain why you believe you "use Ne" frequently and effortlessly, then?

I think of cognitive functions at this point in time for myself as an umbrella of preferences and experiences; the Mind. Some types of situations and thinking fall under one part of the umbrella and others fall under another part of the umbrella.

That's not a bad analogy. But over a period of years, getting into the habit of listening to one part of the umbrella builds up psychological resistance to listening to certain other parts of the umbrella that conflict with it. This is why Jung described the shadow functions as "suppressed" parts of our consciousness...their influence shows up sometimes, but we can't just run along merrily swapping between wholly contradictory attitudes on ourselves, the universe and all the relationships therein whenever we feel like it and utilize both conflicting attitudes with equal efficacy. Simply by listening to some functions more often than others, the mind builds up significant barriers against the non-preferred forms of cognition. You don't just flip a switch and totally invert your entire worldview at will. The human mind simply doesn't work that way.

Your claim that you use all functions frequently and easily is like claiming that you switch between theism and atheism all the time. Functions represent deeply ingrained patterns in the way we conceptualize humanity, life, meaning, purpose, the nature of the universe and cognition itself--you don't just swap to an attitude that contradicts your preferred one and back hundreds of times per day. To claim that you do is to pretend that you are wholly immune to the effects of perceptual bias, which is awfully arrogant (and, incidentally, a typical Ni-dominant mistake.)

But what I'm saying that's evidently different than what others are saying is this: We can carry with us, all to a unique degree, cognitive functions that work in combination with each other, but that might be masked or behind the scenes from our majority functions. So, that if a person carries some Ni and Si inherently, from a genetic basis, that person will exist in the "replenish energy" realm, until he exceeds his innate ability with that function, and thereby enters more of an "expend energy" realm. My understanding is that Jung and others only ascribed a function heirarchy for a few set functions.

Jung defined the functions such that each individual will prefer one orientation for each one, and have difficulty operating from the other orientations because they require him to break from his normally preferred perspective.

Seeing the world from all eight functional attitudes with perfect ease all the time would require extraordinary perceptual flexibility and near total immunity to any perceptual bias at all. It's simply unrealistic. (Of course, overconfidence in one's ability to see every perspective and remove oneself from perceptual bias is in itself typical of Ni doms!)

But consider the flip side of this. A person might have a more limited preferred cognitive function than even Jung realized, because they might carry a masked (NINJA) function with them, so we could have been assuming an INTJ would have a lot more Ni than he really might have had "energy replenishing" access to because it might share the roll with a masked (non-preferred) Si or even Ne. Capiche?

While I can't rule this out entirely, it doesn't really make much sense because this "masked ninja function" would contradict one or more of the INTJ's preferred attitudes and therefore require a difficult perceptual shift to access. It would not just pop up whenever convenient and constantly offer pertinent and well-reasoned advice.

Ni and Si are not mutually exclusive, but they do clash with each other's approaches enough that breaking out of the preference for whichever one you prefer and trusting the other one is difficult to do and requires expending a lot more energy.

You see, Ni and Si don't just represent different types of mental tasks; they represent fundamentally different approaches to cognition that can't operate simultaneously. You have to tune one out to listen to the other because they lead you in opposite directions regarding how to interpret meaning.

Ni: "I won't commit to one particular way of interpreting things because that limits my perspective--I want to avoid this kind of bias at all costs."
Si: "Of course I'm biased toward a particular way of interpreting meaning--based on what I've experienced and discovered before. Anything less would leave me at the mercy of an inherently chaotic and unpredictable universe!"

You think the eight functions just run along acting in completely different realms and you don't see any reason any function should preclude any other function from operating simultaneously--this is the biggest problem with your approach. There is so much more conflict between opposing function attitudes than you seem to realize.

I know. It's incredibly ballsy, isn't it? Ni makes me ballsy, I'm Ni's bitch. What's your point here?

Ever notice how every type is overconfident in his own dominant function? Ever notice, also, how Ni doms often think they see every possible perspective on everything because Ni as an attitude leads you to value seeing all possible perspectives (and to be threatened by the idea that there are any you can't see readily)?

I think you don't like the idea of there being perspectives out there that you can't directly experience and operate from easily and routinely, because Ni hates the feeling that there's some angle it's unable to see from. I think your attempt to debunk the idea that you have real attitudinal biases stems from dominant Ni's insistence on seeing everything from an outside perspective:

Ni: Until I can separate myself from its built-in interpretations and see it from the outside, in terms of a framework that is independent of everything about it, I refuse to relate to it. You can't make me look--at least, not your way.

The problem is that your lofty goal of completely separating yourself from built-in interpretations is impossible. As a human, you will always have perceptual biases that you can't escape and that's an inescapable fact, uncomfortable though it may be for Ni.

Look at you, demonstrating this right now--your insistence on deconstructing the system's map and removing your own experiential bias from the picture directly contradicts Si's attitude. Your very insistence on avoiding definitive interpretations of meaning here violates the spirit of Si's worldview.

It's hard for you to use Si because you have to turn off Ni temporarily to do that!

Ni: We should try to see every possible angle and avoid committing to one definite interpretation. Having a clearly defined map of meanings limits our perceptive abilities, and is therefore to be avoided.

as opposed to...

Si: We should use our stored impressions of past memories and facts to associate all new information with something we already know directly. Having a clearly defined map of meanings is necessary in order to avoid getting lost in the utter chaos of reality.

But noooo, your dominant Ni is so certain that it's immune to unconscious bias, that it can see every angle, that it sees through the smoke and mirrors to the real meaning, that no perspective is out of reach, that it leads you to arrogant overestimation of your own ability to operate from every possible perspective any human brain can offer. Eventually you just have to accept that some people really do have perspectives that you can't see, understand or utilize easily, no matter how annoying that is to Ni.

I'm not really following you here. As I understand it, we perceive and we judge. Our Mind uses cognitive functions in a preferential way to do this. My beef all along with function theory has been that we might have good usage of functions that are non-preferred, or masked, yet not necessarily undifferentiated or unused, although those undoubtedly exist in the inexperienced person.

And function theory doesn't really say you can never orient from the perspective of non-preferred attitudes. It just says the non-preferred attitudes are more difficult, less common and much harder to orient from because they require breaking away from the attitudes you've built deeply ingrained preferences for over years and years of life experience.

The more you get in the habit of orienting by Ni, the harder it is for you to stop doing that and temporarily orient by Si. It can be done, but it's not easy or commonplace, no matter how much you want to believe that your perspective is effortlessly all-encompassing.

 

[Jaguar]

My only idea right now is to develop more comprehensive, innovative functions tests.

It was done many years ago.

Two Jungian analysts named June Singer and Mary Loomis created the Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality. It's current form is the SL-TDI.
What they did was exactly what I wanted to do - test Jung's assumption that the dichotomies actually existed.

For example, let's say someone assumes that in order to have highly developed Ni, one must have underdeveloped Se.
How can they create that illusion? Easy. Forced-choice testing.
If you are looking for what is true, you don't force someone to make it true.

How do we find out what is true ? Dismantle the dichotomy and test each function independently.
By doing it that way, it allows someone to see if in fact the assumption was ever true to begin with.
What Singer and Loomis found was, the assumption of dichotomies did not hold true.

If you want to read about Singer and Loomis and the SL-TDI, go here:
Index

Also, download this pdf file. Singer-Loomis: The Next Generation of Type.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...3_C3Dw&usg=AFQjCNFHxUfwkkSUuQpI8dC6ah1RITnFxA

For even more info, Google: Singer Loomis Inventory of Personality.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

It was done many years ago.

Two Jungian analysts named June Singer and Mary Loomis created the Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality. It's current form is the SL-TDI.
What they did was exactly what I wanted to do - test Jung's assumption that the dichotomies actually existed.

For example, let's say someone assumes that in order to have highly developed Ni, one must have underdeveloped Se.
How can they create that illusion? Easy. Forced-choice testing.
If you are looking for what is true, you don't force someone to make it true.

How do we find out what is true ? Dismantle the dichotomy and test each function independently.
By doing it that way, it allows someone to see if in fact the assumption was ever true to begin with.
What Singer and Loomis found was, the assumption of dichotomies did not hold true.

If you want to read about Singer and Loomis and the SL-TDI, go here:
Index

Also, download this pdf file. Singer-Loomis: The Next Generation of Type.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...3_C3Dw&usg=AFQjCNFHxUfwkkSUuQpI8dC6ah1RITnFxA

For even more info, Google: Singer Loomis Inventory of Personality.

So you have been here/done that with functions, so now you just sit back in your tree and amusedly and watch us scittle around. Thanks for those links. I will read them in their entirety when I have time later.

I haven't delved deeply but what i saw was they have 'millions' of personality options with which you can identify yourself. So I'm wondering if they've just said, "okay, let's take the 8 cognitive functions (that we know of thus far from Jung and others [there could be more of course] and factor that there can be "8 to the 8th" number of personality profiles in the world, therefore leading to 'millions' of personality types.......? Then they would test with functions tests to get a line up of a person's function usage. Is this where there are at or am I inferring something incorrectly?

If so, that is helpful in the way that then you would know specifically what your function strenths and weaknesses are. However, being so individualistic isn't helpful when you want to understand others so much. You need archetypes; and information whittled down in order to do that; to ascertain patterns and use those patterns to develop algorithms, and conceptual models. That's why MBTI is so loved by so many; because you can identify with the archetypes, which helps us understand each other better, not just know ourselves.

That's my feeling anyway. However, I'd LOVE To see their tests. Have you seen their cog functions tests?