[Jungian Cognitive Functions] A new vision of MBTI and function stacks: Open function stack

[Vendrah]

In this thread I am going to show my new hypothesis in MBTI types and cognitive functions, which brings an interesting and different point of view of MBTI and cognitive functions. I have 3 names for it “Free Function Stacking”, “Open Function Stack” or “Vendrah Function Stacking”.

Before that, I would like to explain in philosophical “terms”. The idea here is that each person has a “deep” personality, and that, although the individual may have his type, there is more beyond that. And it is possible to tackle this beyond (partially, I recognize) through cognitive functions analysis, in a way that translate more information about the personality, and also, it is possible to translate a cognitive function stack into a 4-letter MBTI type. This bringes more uniqueness when compared to MBTI.

The Free Function Stacking is not exactly stacking since there is no specific position for cognitive functions, but rather that there are some specific logical relations to be followed by a cognitive function stack in order to correspond to a specific type (this sounds complicated but it wont be when I explain further on this post).

But first, this is what motivated me to create an alternative function stacking: As stated @reckful in the ambiversion topic, the Harold Grant Function Stack is found to fail in scientifical studies (the cognitive stack as we know it, the one that, for example, states that ISTJ cognitive function stack is Si-Te-Fi-Ne). He says:

As part of that linked article, Reynierse points out that the 1998 MBTI Manual (co-authored by Naomi Quenk, who Reynierse specifically calls out for her lack of standards) cited a grand total of eight studies involving type dynamics — which Reynierse aptly summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

The article is an interesting read, and its linked here:
https://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf

This was my motivation, but I would like to please to not discuss about the validity of the cognitive function stacks. Also, my proposal is actually not really stacking, I just couldnt find a better word for it. But here we go:

The Hypothesis: The cognitive functions are free to move without any specific order but they have to obey some restrictions in order to match the personality dimensions preferences (dichotomy).

My idea is that each person has their own cognitive function stacking, that the individual stack does describe the individuality even deeper than the 4-letter code, and that the function stack dont need a very specific arrangement like a specific dominant function, a specific tertiary function, etc... Because of that, there are 8!=40320 different arrengements on personality, and that results as hundreds of possibilitys for different stacking at each personsonality type, or, in other words, a specific personality type can have hundreds of different cognitive functions order.

1st position: 8 possibilites (Se,Si,Ne,Ni,Te,Ti,Fe,Fi)
2nd position: 7 possibilites
3rd position:6 possibilities
4th: 5
5th:4
6th:3
7th:2
8th:1
Total of 8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1=8!=40320 different orders

But in order to be a specific type, there are things to be met. These are the restrictions.

So, explaining by examples, in order to someone to be an intuitive type, this is needed:
Ne+Ni>Se+Si
Or, in other words, if the person has preference for intuition, then the sum of their Ne and Ni in the test must be significantly higher than the sum of their Se and Si. If a non-cognitive functions (dichotomy) MBTI test says that the person has preference for intuition, that should mean that the sum of the persons Ni and Ne is significantly higher than the sum of persons Se and Si.

So, these are relations/restrictions related to N/S and T/F axis:

N vs S (relation NS)
Degree of preference for iNtuition: Ne+Ni
Degree of preference for Sensation/Sensing: Se+Si

Ne+Ni>Se+Si translate as preference for intuition
Ne+Ni<Se+Si translate as preference for sensing
Ne+Ni=Se+Si translate as ambivalence/no preference

T vs F (relation TF)
Degree of preference for Thinking: Te+Ti
Degree of preference for Feeling: Fe+Fi

Te+Ti>Fe+Fi translate as preference for thinking
Te+Ti<Fe+Fi translate as preference for feeling
Te+Ti=Fe+Fi translate as no preference/ambivalence

Once thinking and feeling has been decided (or not, in case where no preference was found), we proceed to I/E and J/P axis. In case where there is no preference between thinking/feeling and intuition/sensing (and for simplification in case of statistic analysis), we proceed to the complete versions of I/E and J/P relations/equations:

I vs E (relation IE)
Degree of preference for Introversion: Si+Ni+Fi+Ti
Degree of preference for Extroversion: Ne+Fe+Se+Te

Si+Ni+Fi+Ti>Ne+Fe+Se+Te translate as preference for introversion
Si+Ni+Fi+Ti<Ne+Fe+Se+Te translate as preference for extroversion
Si+Ni+Fi+Ti=Ne+Fe+Se+Te translate as ambiversion/ambivalence/no preference

J vs P (relation JP)
Provided by @Legion
Degree of preference for Perceveing: Ti+Fi+Se+Ne
Degree of preference for Judgement: Te+Fe+Si+Ni

Ti+Fi+Se+Ne>Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as preference for perceveing
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne<Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as preference for judgement
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne=Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as no preference/ambivalence

In case there is a clear decision in one or two of N/S and T/F axis, there are two possibilites approach. In one of them, we use only cognitive functions related to the preferences and remove the cognitive functions that are not related to the in-case preference (or, instead, do the analysis without that - “complete relations version”). The principle here is that there is no reason into using a cognitive function that is related to a non-preferred trait and this fixed two issues on the experiment topic. For example, if a person has a preference for intuition and feeling, we remove the cognitive functions related to sensing and thinking to evaluate J/P and I/E (the principle for this case transform as “there is no reason into using sensing and thinking cognitive functions for an intuitive-feeler type”), and the relations goes as follow:

I vs E
Degree of preference for Introversion (specific case: NF): Ni+Fi
Degree of preference for Extroversion (specific case: NF): Ne+Fe

Ni+Fi>Ne+Fe translate as preference for introversion
Ni+Fi<Ne+Fe translate as preference for extroversion
Ni+Fi=Ne+Fe translate as ambiversion/ambivalence/no preference

J vs P
Degree of preference for Perceveing(specific case: NF): Fi+Ne
Degree of preference for Judgement(specific case: NF): Fe+Ni

Fi+Ne>Fe+Ni translate as preference for perceveing
Fi+Ne<Fe+Ni translate as preference for judgement
Fi+Ne=Fe+Ni translate as no preference/ambivalence

For clarification: This system do admit types with an X (like, for example, INTX). There are additional analysis that can be done (and sub-typing, lots of sub-typing) by having the persons cognitive function stack. Although not mandatory, I recommend analyse these preferences:

Te vs Ti - Which person prefers the most, Te or Ti and how it impacts on personality.
Fe vs Fi - The same
Ne vs Ni - The same
Se vs Si - The same
I also recommend look for the opposing role function and its strenght (fourth point in the next post).

"There is an experiment topic that helped me to mature the theory (I used an earlier version). On that topic people posted a cognitive function test and a dichotomy test, all done in the same time for the same person. It was possible to compare dichotomy results into cognitive functions results. I was able to draw a correlation between the formulas written VS actual dichotomy result. The people on the topic had a noise correlation: The more intuitive, the more extraverted, but that only was the people characteristics. I2, N2, F2 and P2 are E-I, S-N, T-F and J-P given as the relations (comes from only cognitive functions), where I, N, F, and P are E-I, S-N, T-F and J-P directly from dichotomy tests (only dichotomy, no cognitive functions).

More details in:
["Experiment"] What´s your MBTI and cognitive functions preferences?

In short, the "experiment" successfully correlated strongly N-S, T-F and J-P dichotomy dimensions with cognitive functions, but failed to do so in I-E dimension. The most likely why is explained on that topic and on PART 2 of this post.

This is the basic idea explained.

-----

PART 2 (post 2)

Time to go to some specific interesting observations through the equations (this part is more complicated and less essential).

First, and most important, I am not going to hide any of this model possible weakness. No hiding weakness just to sound precise! There is one weakness that is simple but strong and there was a thing that I thought it was a weakness but I had found a flaw on it and it only deserves a foot note. The simple one will be on this point and the complicated potential weakness will be the last point Ill do on PART 2 (point seven).

The simple weakness is that there is a complete mismatch between what the i-e inside cognitive functions means (example: The i in Fi) and what the I-E on dichotomy means. The original concept of I-E as draw by Jung is highly different between the MBTI concepts we have today. They got so distant between each other that they dont correlate anymore. In a very basic matter, there are at least 3 definitions of extroversion/introversion over MBTI unofficial internet community, and in short they are these:
1) How sociable and outgoing the people is.
2) If gather "energy" from the "inside" or the "outside".
3) Preferency towards the object - if attention is towards the object (external) then its extroversion, if attention is towards self (inside) then its introversion.
Just a quick example, if you are watching the sunset you are doing an introvert activity in 1 and extroverted activity in 2 and 3. So, its possible to be introverted in one and extroverted in another definition, making the person being a quiet extroverted or sociable introvert.
Jung original is related with 3 (3 is a raw simplification of Jung original concept. The original concept has dozens of pages on a book). Number 3 is E-I concepts in cognitive functions. However, I-E dichotomy is done towards 1 and 2 mostly, they correspond to MBTI I-E concepts in a simple description. So, while summing the extroverted cognitive functions and then subtracting the introverted cognitive functions, a I-E in Jung sense is measured, while the I-E in dichotomy tests corresponds to MBTI I-E that has a different meaning."

Second, the relations does provide some tendencies – I repeat, these are tendencies, not laws. If we analyze either the complete equations version or the specific type equations for JP and IE for any specific type (relation NS, relation TF, relation IE, relation JP) we will find that any given specific cognitive function appears in 3 of the 4 equations/relations. And from all 8 functions, one of them will always appear before the > sign, which indicates that this function is the highest of all considering the average of all possible solutions. In the case of the complete relations version, one of them will always appear after the > sign, which indicates that this function is the lowest of all considering the average of all possible solutions (but this tendency is weaker than the former because it only happens while using the complete version of relations/equations that is less reliable). For example, consider the ISFP case:
NS relation: Se+Si>Ne+Ni
TF relation: Fi+Fe>Te+Ti
IE relation: Fi+Si>Fe+Se
JP relation: Fi+Se>Fe+Si
We observe that function Fi is always on the higher side of the equation, which indicates a tendency for higher Fi in the average in all solutions for ISFP. This indicates a tendency, not law, for ISFPs to be what we usually call “Fi-dom”.
In the other hand, using the complete version in the IE and JP relation for ISFP, we have:
NS relation: Se+Si>Ne+Ni
TF relation: Fi+Fe>Te+Ti
IE relation: Fi+Si+Ni+Ti>Te+Fe+Se+Ne
JP relation: Fi+Se+Ne+Ti>Te+Fe+Si+Ni
We observe that Te is always after the > operator, which indicates a tendency for lower Te in average on all solutions for ISFP. This indicates a tendency, not law, for ISFPs to be have what we usually call “low Te” or achile heels Te. Notice that that the Fi-dom tendency appears both in complete and specific version of the relations, while Te-weakness tendency only appears in the complete version of the relations. The complete version of the relations applys in most of the case, but there are specific cases which is complete inappropriate (it fails), and, therefore, the tendency for Fi-dom is stronger and more reliable than the low Te one. Still, there is a trick here. This approach consider that, from all >40 thousand possibilities, all of them happens equally. We know that some cognitive function orders are consider unstable in psycology, for example, a fully introverted function stack (like INFX Fi>Ni>Ti>Si>Fe>Ne>Te>Se) indicates an “irrealistic” amount of introversion. Some solutions appears more frequently than others. Since this dynamic is unknown (and should be quite complex), there is a possibility that we may not find these patterns after analysing several personal cases.

Third, I would like to use the INFX to point how subtypes happens (because its one of the simplest cases). If we use the specific relations, for INFX, we have:
NS relation: Ne+Ni>Se+Si
TF relation: Fe+Fi>Te+Ti
IE relation: Fi+Ni>Fe+Ne
JP relation: Fi+Ne=Fe+Ni
From the JP relation we can generate two different subtypes. First, INFX can happen if Ni=Ne (no preference for Ne or Ni) AND Fi=Fe (no preference for Fi or Fe). The second solution to this case is Fi>Fe AND Ni>Fe. The first case is more like a neutral INFX, whereas the second case is an INFX that is like an INFJ in terms of intuition and is like an INFP in terms of feeling (we could call the second case Fi-Ni INFX). These are two different INFX types. Notice that Fe>Fi with Ne>Ni would be another solution except that it disrupts the IE relation, because it pulls extraversion levels too high for an introverted. Fe>Fi with Ne>Ni actually belongs to an ENFX case. We can extend this example to an X on the JP axis. For other cases, the key thing is to analyse the relations/equations to draw conclusions (and use the complete version or the specific version depending on circumstances). Some of these cases can be quite a headache to analyse (or not be much conclusive).

Fourth, this point maybe is more useful for clarifing than to actually draw a conclusion, I would like to anticipate a point I would do on a search. Some Grant Cognitive Function Stacks do an inversion with a change on the J/P axis. For example, INTJ and INTP has complete different Grant stacking. What actually happens is that the average stack for INTJ and INTP are a lot more alike each other instead of being completely different. For example, a more realistic INTP function stack example could be, Ti>Ne>Ni>Te>Fi>Si>Se>Fe. The 3rd Ni and 4th Te gives an impression that there is some kind of a “sub-INTJ” in this INTP case, like this example INTP has an INTJ wing. This is fake, its just a impression that we have from Grant Stacking (which is where the Ni+Te resembles INTJ comes from). These 3rd and 4th functions appears there not because there is a sub-INTJ, but because they come from a high preference for intuition and a high preference for thinking. The high preference for intuition translate as Ne+Ni>>Se+Si, which means that Ni passes both Se and Si. The high preference for thinking translate as Te+Ti>>Fe+Fi, which means that Te passes both Fe and Fi, which, combined, lead to Te and Ni in 3rd and 4th position. This happens because the INTJ and INTP realistic stacking should not be that different. One random example of INTJ and INTP with clear preference for intuition and clear preference for thinking could look like this:
INTJ: Ni>Te>Ti>Ne>Fi>Si>Fe>Se
INTP: Ti>Ne>Ni>Te>Fi>Si>Se>Fe
There is a fake impression of INTJ having a sub-INTP, but that pattern actually becomes because from the INT (the NT to be more precise) letters. In realistic terms, the cognitive function stacks are a lot more alike each other (because both are INT), specially in the analysis of the average function stack.

Fifth, an useful concept is the opposing-role function. We are familiar as “tertiary function”. The concept of opposing-role function (in Free Function Stacking) is this: “The opposing-role cognitive function is the strongest function that belongs to a non-prefered side of N/S and T/F dimensions.” For example, for ENFP, the non-prefered functions, regarding the N/S and T/F dimensions, are Se, Si, Te and Ti (because Ne/Ni and Fe/Fi are functions related to intuition and feeling, which are in the ENFPs preferences). The strongest of all these four (from the first point we know that there is always one function that is the least likely to be the opposing-role because it tends to be low, which is function Si for the case) is the opposing-role function. We know that the opposing-role function will be ahead from at least 3 other functions in the any given function stack. Looking at the whole cognitive function stack and all its solution, which is too complicated to explain, we can observe that the opposing-role function, in almost all possibilities, can assume the 3rd, 4th and 5th position of the function stack. When it is in the 3rd position, it means a strong opposing-role function, and in this case the opposing-role function will weaken one of the preferences in the N/S or T/F dimensions. In the ENFP example, an ENFP with strong tertiary Se (yes, I really mean Se and not Te for the example, it could be Te or even Ti although) will not have a strong preference for intuition, because in the SN relation, (Ne+Ni>Se+Si) the Se would be too high to build a strong preference for intuition. Going a little off a bit, the ENFP with strong tertiary Se will be more alike an ESFP with strong tertiary Ne than an average ENFP in comparison, and this shows how much a MBTI map is quite complicated (but looking at dichotomy makes this clear… an ENFP with 60% of intuition is closer to an ESFP with 60% sensing than from an ENFP with 90% of intuition). Going back, when it is in the 4th position, it means middle opposing-role function. In the case of 5th position, it is the weak opposing-role function, which will automatically means that at least one of the N/S and T/F dimensions holds a strong preference. In the ENFP example, an ENFP with 5th opposing-role Se wil have, necessarily, a strong preference for Feeling (Fe+Fi>>Te+Ti, because Te and Ti are in the 6th-7th-8th position). Notice that the concept of opposing-role requires that there is no X in the SN (or NS) and FT (or TF) dimensions. In these cases, this concept is no longer useful.

6th, This partially comes from my “weak theorical background”, maybe? But I have a doubt that connects to this… There are 4 MBTI criterias… I-E, N-S, F-T, J-P… Ne, Ni, Se, Si comes from combining N-S and I-E. Fe, Fi, Te, Ti from combining F-T with I-E. Why there is no combination between J-P and why not having Je, Ji, Pe and Pi as cognitive functions? And second thing, why using the I-E axis as a basis and not, for, i dont know, N-S? We could re-write the whole cognitive functions as Intuitive Feeling (Fn), Intuitive Thinking (Tn), Sensative Feeling (Fs), Sensative Thinking (Ts), which corresponds to a combination of T-F with N-S, and intuitive introversion (In), intuitive extroversion (En), sensative introversion (Is), sensative extroversion (Es), I never got why it is made in the specific arrengement we know and not these alternative ones. There are 24 cognitive functions considering all these possibilities, removing the same letters in different orders (for example, Ne=En, Intuitive extroversion=Extraverted Intuition). I know that these are the Jung original frame of view but I never saw any reasonable justification to why this specific way and not the other ones.

And for last, the complicated weakness. The model could state that (and this could be wrong and the possible achile heels of the principle: “The principle here is that there is no reason into using a cognitive function that is related to a non-preferred trait and this fixed two issues on the experiment topic so far.”) that a strong S-N and F-T is a solo condition to determine if the person is P or J (which is fake). And also states it is impossible to have a very high preference in all 4 MBTI dimensions (E-I, S-N, F-N, P-J) (in both complete and reducted PJ and IE relations). This can be best explained by an example. Strong preference for intuition, thinking and perceveing leads to:
SN: Ne+Ni>>Se+Si
TF: Te+Ti>>Fe+Fi
We can re-write this as:
SN: Ne(very high)+Ni(very high)>>Se(very low)+Si(very low)
TF: Te(very high)+Ti(very high)>>Fe(very low)+Fi(very low)
However, when we get to the P-J relation:
JP: Ne+Ti<Ni+Te
Which re-writes as:
PJ: Ne(very high)+Ti(very high)<Ni(very low)+Te(very low) [impossible]
In the complete version, there are very high and very low in the two sides of the expression, which corresponds to open possibilities (since we didnt determinated what exactly is very high or very low, which opens to variations) and the most likely possibility to be non-preference in the PJ axis. But there we get to the point, continuing in the example, a strong relation in the NS and FT dimension should cause a not so strong preference in the JP and IE axis, due to this. Repeating the same example:
SN: Ne(very high)+Ni(very high)>>Se(very low)+Si(very low)
TF: Te(very high)+Ti(very high)>>Fe(very low)+Fi(very low)
Considering these preferences, we have on the JP and EI dimensions:
JP: Te(very high)+Fe(very low)+Ni(very high)+Si(very low)<=>Ti(very high)+Fi(very low)+Se(very low)+Ne(very high)
EI: Te(very high)+Fe(very low)+Se(very low)+Ne(very high)<=>Ti(very high)+Fi(very low)+Si(very low)+Ni(very high)
In other words, the strong preference for Intuition and Thinking should prevent strong preference in the EI and JP axis (which is a false conclusion). We could start with EI equation and we would arrive that it would prevent other equations to get a higher preference.
This weakness may seem to strike the whole model and I thought that on the beggining. But there is one mistake on the "very high" or "very low" approach. This whole theory works towards converting any cognitive function stack into a type result (dichotomy result), however there is the back/reverse operation, which is converting a type result into a cognitive function stack (thanks to @noname3788 to making me spot that and to point its development). As I said before, all possible cognitive function stacks count as 40320, when all possible type results, including the possibility to have Xs (XNFP, INXP, IXXX, etc..), are 81, so there is a loss of information while converting a type result to cognitive function stack (and that leads to some innaccuracys). The equations used for that are:
Ni=I+N+J
Ne=E+N+P
Si=I+S+J
Se=E+S+P
Fi=I+F+P
Fe=E+F+J
Te=E+T+J
Ti=I+T+P
By analysing these equations above, it is possible to notice that its possible to only one cognitive function to reach the maximum value (for example, for INTJ only Ni is at a maximum value). The "very high" values are different than each other. So, when we reach to a relation llike this
SN: Ne(very high)+Ni(very high)>>Se(very low)+Si(very low)
TF: Te(very high)+Ti(very high)>>Fe(very low)+Fi(very low)
PJ: Ne(very high)+Ti(very high)<Ni(very low)+Te(very low) [impossible]
The PJ equation is actually possible since these very low are different and only one of them can be near zero or near maximum (and some of them wont get quite low). For INTP with preferences all close to 100%, Si "very low", Se "very low" and Fi "very low" are higher than Fe "very low", where as for ENTP close to 100%, Se, Fe and Fi "very low" are higher than Si very low. So, throught this points of view, its possible to know that its not possible to have a "very high-->near maximum" and "very low-->near zero" on all cognitive functions, so this weakness is only potential one. I had managed to simulate Te=Ti=Ne=Ni>>Fe=Fi=Se=Si function stack (heavy preference for N and T) on keys2cognition test, however, by analyising my answers I realized that they ignored the I-E and P-J dimensions,and by the line I used to do that ENTP, INTP, INTJ and ENTJ types had all the same answers (because I was ignoring P-J and E-I dimensions).

And, as a final message, it took me a good while to think of this and write this (it was fun and mind changing), so, please, comment so the topic doesnt easily die!

PS: There is an experiment topic that helped me to mature the theory (I used an earlier version) but it contains some good and spontaneous examples (with me doing a quick evaluation focusing on testing the idea):
["Experiment"] What´s your MBTI and cognitive functions preferences?

 

[Luminous]

Wow! I admire how much work, thought, and effort you put into this!

 

[noname3788]

Really interesting ideas. I actually had my own ideas of variants of some types, especially about translating dichotomy results into function strenghts. In my own ideas, I simply took the Grant stacks, adjusted numbers to function strenghts and basically overlapped the stacks based on how much of some type you seem to have, based on dichotomies results. To create a few examples: INFx would be Ni=Fi>Ne=Fe>Ti=Si>Te=Se. If someone leans slightly towards a side, let's say slightly towards P, the stack becomes Fi>Ni>Ne>Fe>Si>Ti>Te>Se. A hypothetical XXXX would have all functions on the same level. The problematic part is the somewhat annoying calculations behind it (which is fine once the script is done), but also reconstruction of type based on function strenghts and order would be extremely difficul. By overlapping all four INxx, you can get a stack Ni>Ti>Fi>Ne>Te>Fe>Si>Se. Another problematic part is that it completely dismissed functions outside of the 4-function model, which contradicts the original idea of more freedom.

To rate your ideas: I think it is intuitive, easy to grasp and makes sense. The contradictions about type with strong preferences in 2 or more dichotomies are certainly a small problem, but there isn't any good fix beside changing definitions again. The original motivation is to create something better than current MBTI, and introducing "custom stacks" may help, and it's probably a better way than focing everyone into 1 of 16 types completely. This certainly increases complexity, but I'm not sure whether it is actually more complicated than having different definitions for the functionsin any of the 4 slots in a stack system. The actual MBTI test avoids some problems by simply making everything work only in one direction (test dichotomies, validate type with a practitioner, give functions as a result of type), since testing methods for functions fail to deliver results similar to the grant stack. This also makes me wonder whether Grant-Stack functions are a suitable base for a new function system. When looking at type frequency, there is a somewhat obvious pattern that S/N and J/P are weakly correlated. NP types are much more common than NJ's, and SJ's are also more common than SP's. Another point: THe correlation factors between MBTI and Big 5 also show some interesting things, beside the J/P - S/N correlation stated before, there's also an influence of E/I on agreableness (strongly correlated to MBTI T/F) and consciontousness (correlated to MBTI J/P).

Was drifting somewhat away... I guess your system is an improvement over current function-based typing, but I'm not sure about it's advantages to dichotomy-typing or trait-based personality descriptions. There's still so much we don't know about human psyche, and I guess we're barely scratching the surface anyway. The main advantage of your system is that it is able to explain function stacking of people who don't fully fit into the type framework, and now that I thought a bit about it... the problem of strong preferences inducing weak preferences elsewhere could be solved if we don't imidiately assign values based on a single dichotomy, but only when looking at a combination. Example: Strong T and J preference effect Te "rating" positively, while simultanous strong I preference decreases Te rating. The maximum value is only assigned if all 3 of E, T, J preferences are present, otherwise the function is weaker. It may be worth giving a shot

 

[Andy]

Sorry Vendrah, can I drag you back a step? You've got a lot of debate about the function order and what it means, but very little discussion of what the functions themselves are. How do you interpret the functions? Without knowing that, this discussion of the function order doesn't mean much. I ask because opinions on what the functions mean vary tremendously, and it can make a huge difference to any more advance aspects of the theory.

 

[Jaguar]

Strict adherence to any particular "order" is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Vendrah]

Really interesting ideas. I actually had my own ideas of variants of some types, especially about translating dichotomy results into function strenghts. In my own ideas, I simply took the Grant stacks, adjusted numbers to function strenghts and basically overlapped the stacks based on how much of some type you seem to have, based on dichotomies results. To create a few examples: INFx would be Ni=Fi>Ne=Fe>Ti=Si>Te=Se. If someone leans slightly towards a side, let's say slightly towards P, the stack becomes Fi>Ni>Ne>Fe>Si>Ti>Te>Se. A hypothetical XXXX would have all functions on the same level. The problematic part is the somewhat annoying calculations behind it (which is fine once the script is done), but also reconstruction of type based on function strenghts and order would be extremely difficul. By overlapping all four INxx, you can get a stack Ni>Ti>Fi>Ne>Te>Fe>Si>Se. Another problematic part is that it completely dismissed functions outside of the 4-function model, which contradicts the original idea of more freedom.

To rate your ideas: I think it is intuitive, easy to grasp and makes sense. The contradictions about type with strong preferences in 2 or more dichotomies are certainly a small problem, but there isn't any good fix beside changing definitions again. The original motivation is to create something better than current MBTI, and introducing "custom stacks" may help, and it's probably a better way than focing everyone into 1 of 16 types completely. This certainly increases complexity, but I'm not sure whether it is actually more complicated than having different definitions for the functionsin any of the 4 slots in a stack system. The actual MBTI test avoids some problems by simply making everything work only in one direction (test dichotomies, validate type with a practitioner, give functions as a result of type), since testing methods for functions fail to deliver results similar to the grant stack. This also makes me wonder whether Grant-Stack functions are a suitable base for a new function system. When looking at type frequency, there is a somewhat obvious pattern that S/N and J/P are weakly correlated. NP types are much more common than NJ's, and SJ's are also more common than SP's. Another point: THe correlation factors between MBTI and Big 5 also show some interesting things, beside the J/P - S/N correlation stated before, there's also an influence of E/I on agreableness (strongly correlated to MBTI T/F) and consciontousness (correlated to MBTI J/P).

Was drifting somewhat away... I guess your system is an improvement over current function-based typing, but I'm not sure about it's advantages to dichotomy-typing or trait-based personality descriptions. There's still so much we don't know about human psyche, and I guess we're barely scratching the surface anyway. The main advantage of your system is that it is able to explain function stacking of people who don't fully fit into the type framework, and now that I thought a bit about it... the problem of strong preferences inducing weak preferences elsewhere could be solved if we don't imidiately assign values based on a single dichotomy, but only when looking at a combination. Example: Strong T and J preference effect Te "rating" positively, while simultanous strong I preference decreases Te rating. The maximum value is only assigned if all 3 of E, T, J preferences are present, otherwise the function is weaker. It may be worth giving a shot

These correlations should be looked at carefully since there is a culture background that might be the inducer of it - and not direct correlations. Data analysis should be carefully done because there is always a risk of the correlations being either a coincidence or dependent on a third variable that is away from the search. And in the S to P/J correlation there is Japan - a country where there are more SPs than SJs, so if these correlation studies where done in Japan, they would look different, in a way that there must be a third thing - which could be culture or genetics or both or maybe even other stuff.

"Translating dichotomy results into function strenghts" - this whole idea is the reverse operation (translating function srenghts into dichotomy results), however I must thank you because I stopped to think about it and found out by extending that thought that there a very likely flaw on the flaw I found on this alternative approah (Im refering to the flaw of 2 or more 100% dichotomies). I got what you said on the ending, and using the reserve calculation made clear that flaw. Just this, for example:
Ne=E+N+P
Ni=I+N+J
Se=E+S+P
Si=I+S+J
In the case of extremely intuitive:
Ne(max)+Ni(max)>>Se(min)+Si(min)
E+N+P+I+N+J>>E+S+P+I+S+J
N>>2
I might misread what the min and max truly means. I took as min. was near zero and had to be near zero, however the reverse approach (dichotomy to cognitive functions) applied on this approach show me thats not the actually case. There are E-I and J-P interference on the calculation, so, for INTJ example that I posted a picture on post 1, Si wont be near zero because there is the I and J factor. However, Si will be at minimum - given the restriction that INTJ example is 100% on both I and J, which will pull Si to values well above zero.
However, that made me question - how I arrived at that result on the picture then? On the day I did that INTJ example I was tired and went to sleep however I should tested an ENTP example (same thing, fictional extreme character at 100% on all preferences) (the why for ENTP and not else is a little bit too complicated). So I went to try the ENTP case today, I had trouble on cognitive test, returned and refined the INTJ example (INTJ was easier): Managed to get something like 55 on Te,Ti,Ne,Ni and 4 or 5 on Fe,Fi,Si,Se, so just to made clear managed to have a Ti=Te=Ne=Ni>Fe=Fi=Se=Si function stack. And then when I returned to try the ENTP example I found out that I would have to make ZERO changes compared to INTJ, and that ENTP, INTP, INTJ and ENTJ on extreme cases have exactly the same answers on keys2cognition cognitive function test. Then I spotted a flaw on my approach, or better, in my interpretation and understanding on the questions. I basically answered all them considering only the N-S and T-F dimensions and ignored the I-E and J-P dimension, and I done that because, the way function stacks are done, you can easily notice N-S and T-F on the questions, but the P-J presence is more subtle and I-E is nearly absent (actually,the concept of introversion and extroversion changes). Just for example, the first affirmation:
"1. Freely follow your gut instincts and exciting physical impulses as they come up."
That scores for function Se. For all extreme intuitives, the answer should be "Not me" (the lowest), since they are no sensors in ANY way, right? That was what I thought when I made the INTJ example but there is a subtle and discussable presence of Perceveing on this. Freely follow things as they come up is related to P? Yes or no changes everything, by saying no and extending that to all questions, there is a complete ignoring of J/P through the questions (and you can arrive close to zero to Si at INTJ and that extreme intuitive and extreme thinkers with ENTJ, ENTP, INTP and INTJ personality has the same answers) or by saying yes Si and other functions get some boost (which is which, the dichotomy to cognitive functions tell). And yes is more defendable then no.
At I-E, I just noticed on the questionarie that the I-E we use on dichotomy is different from the I-E we use inside the cognitive functions. By we I mean the most MBTI community. In that matter, the community is quite divided, there are at least 3 definitions of extroversion/introversion, and in short they are these:
1) How sociable and outgoing the people is.
2) If gather "energy" from the "inside" or the "outside".
3) Preferency towards the object - if attention is towards the object (external) then its extroversion, if attention is towards self (inside) then its introversion.
Dichotomy tests use definition "1" and cognitive function uses definition "3", they are different, depending on the questionarie they will overlap or not. Just a quick example, if you watch the sunset you are doing an introverted activity in 1 (no other people are included) and an extroverted activity in definition 2 and 3, and while there are some overlaps (like in "17. Recognize and usually adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.", where there is extraversion in all 3 definitions), these definitions are different therefore my translation of E-I is flawed because of the definitions. This is how some ambiversion shows up, or introverted extraverted or reclused extraverted people, happens when the person has a good range of activites (and train of thought as well) that is considering introverted on one of the definitions and extroverted in others. Some who claims that these cases doesnt exist, at least from those I read, generally pick up one of these definitions as the ultimate truth and claims it superiority against the others, but, to my approach, I just take as two different definitions as they are equal/different points of view, and I know thats a kind of personal choice.
I pretend to edit the first post later, can I put the resume of your reverse approach and put your name (do you have an account on INTP Complex, INFJ Forum and INFP Forum? Posted in these places as well, would post in an INTJ forum if there was a public one, but INTJ forum is private to INTJs and I respect that). However you could develop the reverse more (I dont know how far you can go although) and post an own topic, if you do mark me, Ill post at least "Cool" in case I get nothing to say.

Sorry Vendrah, can I drag you back a step? You've got a lot of debate about the function order and what it means, but very little discussion of what the functions themselves are. How do you interpret the functions? Without knowing that, this discussion of the function order doesn't mean much. I ask because opinions on what the functions mean vary tremendously, and it can make a huge difference to any more advance aspects of the theory.

Well, in fact my knowledge on these functions arent deep or shallow, but even just a shallow definition is OK for the basic idea for open cognitive function stack at least.
I had an experimentation topic to have a look on more realistic cases (dont answer, I finished analyzing):
["Experiment"] What´s your MBTI and cognitive functions preferences?
Since I havent created any one of these tests, I rely on the definitions that are on the heads of the authors of these tests. Some of cognitive functions tests (and some dichotomy tests) out there on the web are flawed, but I considered as this sites tests, keys2cognition test, 16personalities and truity as decent ones. As long as its decent, its fine, but even if I had my own concepts explained, unless I do a test of my own its the authors of the tests definition that matters, not my concepts. My concepts only matter when I recommend or disrecommend some tests. There is only one important PS here, in the IE part, there is a thing that Im going to put soon on the main post, and that is (just repeating what I said right above to noname3788):
"At I-E, I just noticed on the questionarie that the I-E we use on dichotomy is different from the I-E we use inside the cognitive functions. By we I mean the most MBTI community. In that matter, the community is quite divided, there are at least 3 definitions of extroversion/introversion, and in short they are these:
1) How sociable and outgoing the people is.
2) If gather "energy" from the "inside" or the "outside".
3) Preferency towards the object - if attention is towards the object (external) then its extroversion, if attention is towards self (inside) then its introversion.
Dichotomy tests use definition "1" and cognitive function uses definition "3", they are different, depending on the questionarie they will overlap or not. Just a quick example, if you watch the sunset you are doing an introverted activity in 1 (no other people are included) and an extroverted activity in definition 2 and 3, and while there are some overlaps (like in "17. Recognize and usually adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.", where there is extraversion in all 3 definitions), these definitions are different therefore my translation of E-I is flawed because of the definitions. This is how some ambiversion shows up, or introverted extraverted or reclused extraverted people, happens when the person has a good range of activites (and train of thought as well) that is considering introverted on one of the definitions and extroverted in others. Some who claims that these cases doesnt exist, at least from those I read, generally pick up one of these definitions as the ultimate truth and claims it superiority against the others, but, to my approach, I just take as two different definitions as they are equal/different points of view, and I know thats a kind of personal choice."

 

[typologyenthusiast]

Is factorializing cognitive functions appropriate in discovering personalities type possibilities?

When you factorialize the 8 cognitive functions, what the result will mean? For example one of the factorial result of 40320 different arrangements of the 8 cognitive function is as follow Te,Ti,Fi,Fe,Si,Se,Ni,Ne. What does Te,Ti,Fi,Fe,Si,Se,Ni,Ne mean?.

 

[Vendrah]

[MENTION=39708]typologyenthusiast[/MENTION]
The problem of "factorializing" cognitive functions is that the interpretation has to be done by the person who taken the test (or the person may ask somebody else with a good MBTI knowledge). Its not feasible to write 40320 descriptions!

By the same way that Grant cognitive function stack has meaning (every grant cognitive function stack is one of the 40320 possibilites) so does the others 40304 function stacks left. The same way it is written on websites out there "auxiliary Te","tertiary Fi" for INTJ you can write for any other cognitive function stacks (including all INTJ variants, which are hundreds at least). And as I stated, not all possibilites are healthy or realistic/not super rare and the interpretation is subjective (MBTI sites like truity and 16P uses statistics to create their descriptions however a study using this frame would require milions of responders to get a good result).

I had an experiment topic with a BETA version:
["Experiment"] What´s your MBTI and cognitive functions preferences?

In there created short descriptions by taking parts of "Type in Mind" website descriptions (they describe using GFS cognitive function stack). I take the first cognitive function stack and looked for its description (there are two types to choose from). Then I do the same for auxiliary and tertiary as well, and remove the parts that were context related (for INTJ example, Te is sometimes described in terms with its Ni/Si combo). With that I arrive at a more superficial description (hybrid description, lacking some coesion because I ignored interation between the cognitive functions), because these descriptions can get quite deep.
I also evaluated a comparison between Ne vs Ni, Te vs Ti, Fe vs Fi and Se vs Si, to evaluated if the person has a preference for one of them or no preference between than. These preferences do have a meaning, specially if you evaluate this after you reach a type result. You can even google any of these to find comparisons between them. Just a quick and superficial example, Ne over Ni means the person is more expansive on thoughts, prefers divergent thinking/brainstorming over convergent thinking, have wider and different interests while preference for Ni over Ne means the person is more visionary-like, more prone to try to predict the future (and good skills at it ends up well), being more specialized. Something like that, just a quick example. And there is a middle point between them. So, for INTJ example, a Ni over Ne INTJ is the INTJ we classically know, but the INTJ that prefers Ne will have INTP characteristics in terms of intuition, and that changes the descriptions of the Ne over Ni INTJ compared to the classic INTJs. Inside that we can have INTJs with tertiary Si too (and plenty of INTJs variations), which incorporates some INTP characteristics using the Grant Cognitive Stack INTP (Ti-Ne-Si-Fe). This is possible in multiple dimensions and for any type. Comparing one-self to the role-model (with Harold-Grant Cognitive Stack) is quite useful here, to understand the individuals personality by using comparison between the person and a standard model.

About the specific sequence you gave me, well, I would need the numbers for more accuracy, but it belongs to a XSTJ, with the S, T and J being very close to borderline (it can be XXXX depending on the numbers). The differences of Te vs Ti, Fi vs Fe, Si vs Se, Ni vs Ne arent that much pronounced which compromises the approach I usually take, however I can still use the "hybridizing" approach. Ne and Ni on low values means low preference to detect patterns, in low Ne cases (achile heel Ne) means not coming up with ideas easily (and when do, in simple ways), low Ni means that the approach to see steps ahead and try predicting will be a rare thing. High Te, with slightly support from Si at 5th position, give some ESTJs traits (very slightly although, different than most of experiement topic cases that are a lot less slightly on that). High Te means an effective person that gets things done and being competitive. High Ti, paired with Se, gives some ISTPs traits (very slightly although). High Ti means making decisions using logical frameworks, being able to find flaw on principles, tune ideas to support frameworks, etc.. I could go on with supporting Fi and Fe but my answer is already long.

The case you gave me is very close to XXXX and displays little preferences on Ti-Te,Fi-Fe,Si-Se,Ni-Ne comparisons, which is a case that kind of blow the MBTI model as a whole and harm the threads idea (since we got an ambivalence in almost all criterias), its a hard case (since I am treating a XXXX case) and yet I can still draw a description. Even if you disagree with my definitions of some cognitive functions I described (I admit I dont master their concepts and my understanding of them needs to improve), that doenst matter for my ideas principles (it does if I needed to write descriptions of specific persons although) because of what I said on the post before yours: I havent created any cognitive functions tests or dichotomy tests, so I rely on what the author´s [of the test(s)] understanding of the cognitive functions.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

[MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION]. You took the initiative to approach the cognitive functions arrangement in personality by using the factorial (n!=n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)...*3*2*1) formula. It is you who are supposed to explain your position.

I have criticized the position in the ambiversion topic. This is jung original explanation of function conjunction, primary, auxiliary status.

11. The Principal and* Auxiliary Functions
In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. They are, as it were,
only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the
individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a relatively determining factor. For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate : The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true
when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de 1'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given
case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs,
empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different
orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous
aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden.
This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a
given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act
as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own
principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the samelevel, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped
thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.
Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function: thus, for example,
thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither
intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of
opposite purpose, to thinking for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking but .are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to
thought As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking.
For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one ; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour
of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim
to the autonomy of its own principle. For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function
there is also a relatively* unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known
pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking throughwith intuition, the artistic intuition which selects and
presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition. This peculiarity, however, is of interest only for one who is concerned with the practical psychological treatment of such cases. But for such a man it is important to know about it. For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will, dp his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference* which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation the patient of a standpoint his physician becomes his standpoint But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of itself, and with more adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development is via the secondary function thus in the case of a rational type by way of the irrational function. For this lends the conscious standpoint such a range and prospect over what is possible and imminent that consciousness gains an adequate protection against the destructive effect of the unconscious. Conversely, an irrational type demands a stronger development of the rational auxiliary functionrepresented in consciousness, in order to be sufficiently prepared to receive the impact of the unconscious. The unconscious functions are in an archaic, animal state. Their symbolical appearances in dreams and phantasies usually represent the battle or coming encounter
of two animals or monsters.

Pychological types p 513-517
-----

The Problem with the empirical studies that try to invalidate the cognitive function is that the scientist should have questioned whether collecting scientific data will invalidate or validate the cognitive function stack prior to the actual collection of data. The scientist sounds to assume that the cognitive function depends on availability of empirical data that he managed to find whereas he should question When He did not manage to find any empirical evidence, will the cognitive function become invalid?

 

[Vendrah]

[MENTION=39708]typologyenthusiast[/MENTION] Its impossible that you had criticized my own specific position about this topic (Open function stack) on that topic(ambiversion) because I only formulated the seed of this theory on the last paragraph in post 15, after reckful appearence on the topic (ambiversion), while you made your point on post 9. My point in ambiversion topic was entirely different and used the classic function stack we all know. Also, I already explained myself a lot, the first post on this topic is looong.
My "factorial approach" is just the use of combinatorial analysis to find the number of possibilites you can order the 8 cognitive functions through a stack with 8 positions with no restrains. Not more than that, and my basic idea is that the cognitive functions are free to move and that the persons type dictate the constrains.

Disproving the Grant Cognitive Stack has been reckful campaign for years in at least Typology Central and Personality Cafe at least, and tbh, he is better than me on that. He has plenty of texts explaining on that subject, including the article that I mentioned above. Some of them:
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...ions/91585-mbti-tests-scored.html#post2880709
Exclusive "Te" characteristics - Page 2
Likely there is more.
The cognitive function train you described and quoted has been disproved over the years, even for those who tried to prove it. As reckful stated somewhere, even different variations where disproved (other rigids cognitive function stacks which I dont remember the name). So, in order to "save" the cognitive functions (giving them some use), I had the idea to have a very flexible cognitive function stack where the cognitive functions doesnt need to have an specific order but they had to follow some constrains/rules for each type, and on that frame I had the possibility to tackle more individuality and create hundreds of variations for each type. This approach here is not proven neither disproven, and likely wont be for years, decades, centuries or forever.
And for the final pharagraph, as I discussed on the ambiversion topic, these articles were disproving rigid function stacks, not cognitive function themselves.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

[MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION] What I have criticized is the approach on using factorial formula in cognitive function arrangement. You have stated that even in the ambiversion thread. Because you keep approaching the arrangement of cognitive function using the factorial formula, it is you who are supposed to explain it to us.
You should have answered these questions before approaching 8 cognitive functions with factorial formula in order to find different personalities:
When you factorialize the cognitive functions, what the result will be?
When you factorialize the 8 cognitive functions, will the result become a stack?

About the cognitive function validity, I have critisized reckful also in another thread The point of my critique is still the same.

Testing a validity of psychological functions is another question. I was wondering how come cognitive function could be put into empirical validity testing. Will the scientific evidence collected validate or invalidate the cognitive functions? The "so called scientist" should have argued that they would, before actually performed the data collection, and further interpretation.

P.S sometimes I think that you and reckful are like minded that both of you are in agreement with one another in the same position.

 

[Vendrah]

[MENTION=39708]typologyenthusiast[/MENTION] That PS was funny lol.
Reckful position is to dismiss cognitive functions entirely. He doenst "believe" or "buy" the cognitive functions at all.
My position is to dismiss the cognitive functions STACKS and create a new frame to give cognitive functions some use. I only used stack on the name because I lacked a name - the stack word might mean thats its fixed and in my approach it is not fixed but its still type dynamics (much more dynamic than any other thing on the subject). I still "buy" the cognitive functions.
He doenst completely agree with me, but he cant say that Im empirically wrong in my approach because, different from fixed cognitive function stacks, my approach are neither proven nor disproven. I could be proven dead wrong on studies and Im ok with that, but the few cases I observed seemed to agree with my approach. I quote him a lot (I am even not putting the @ in his name to not annoy him with too much quoting) because my motivation to create this (Open cognitive functions stack/ordering) was that (cognitive function stacks not following empirically).

In case you didnt searched much articles in Google Scholar, MBTI studies with cognitive functions are incredibly rare. They all use dichotomy. I am having my own data collecting about cognitive functions and type in statistics using only internet results (not random and not properly but better than nothing) because I couldnt find anything - at least not anything free - on Google scholar about that.

I am not factorializing the cognitive functions themselves. Their concepts are unchanged in my approach, Se is still Se, Ne is still Ne and so on. Im not reinventing their concepts except at point 6 where I question "why not cognitive functions such as Intuitive Feeling?". Point 6 is not even conclusive at all. I am doing math with cognitive functions but not inside the cognitive functions. The factorial formula I used is to calculate the number of possibilities, it is just there to show how much individualistic my approach can be, the whole thing doesnt depend on that formula. If I remove the formula, everything else remains.

When you factorialize the cognitive functions, what the result will be?
I am not factorializing cognitive functions themselves.
When you factorialize the 8 cognitive functions, will the result become a stack?
The result is one order/set of cognitive functions for a specific person, I guess? That specific order can be (or not be) one of the various cognitive functions stacks. In this approach nothing stops an INTJ to get a cognitive function stack with Ni-Te-Fi-Se(and the other 4 ordering which I forgot how it was) but having that cognitive functions to be an INTJ is not a must. To be INTJ you must follow the equations on the first post to get I, N, T and J on a significant preference (how much significant is up to interpretations). The result is properly read as "you have preference for these cognitive functions, the ones that appears first, you have less of preference of the cognitive functions to appear on 7th and 8th position, and your opposing role function is __", and I dont go beyond that but there is a lot of writing about that subject. I dont have other restrictions such as "if the first function is a thinking function, the second one must not be a feeling function". Although I am open to new restrictions, I am quite afraid to make some claims where exceptions might appear.

 

[Andy]

Well, in fact my knowledge on these functions arent deep or shallow, but even just a shallow definition is OK for the basic idea for open cognitive function stack at least.
I had an experimentation topic to have a look on more realistic cases (dont answer, I finished analyzing):
["Experiment"] What´s your MBTI and cognitive functions preferences?
Since I havent created any one of these tests, I rely on the definitions that are on the heads of the authors of these tests. Some of cognitive functions tests (and some dichotomy tests) out there on the web are flawed, but I considered as this sites tests, keys2cognition test, 16personalities and truity as decent ones. As long as its decent, its fine, but even if I had my own concepts explained, unless I do a test of my own its the authors of the tests definition that matters, not my concepts. My concepts only matter when I recommend or disrecommend some tests. There is only one important PS here, in the IE part, there is a thing that Im going to put soon on the main post, and that is (just repeating what I said right above to noname3788):
"At I-E, I just noticed on the questionarie that the I-E we use on dichotomy is different from the I-E we use inside the cognitive functions. By we I mean the most MBTI community. In that matter, the community is quite divided, there are at least 3 definitions of extroversion/introversion, and in short they are these:
1) How sociable and outgoing the people is.
2) If gather "energy" from the "inside" or the "outside".
3) Preferency towards the object - if attention is towards the object (external) then its extroversion, if attention is towards self (inside) then its introversion.
Dichotomy tests use definition "1" and cognitive function uses definition "3", they are different, depending on the questionarie they will overlap or not. Just a quick example, if you watch the sunset you are doing an introverted activity in 1 (no other people are included) and an extroverted activity in definition 2 and 3, and while there are some overlaps (like in "17. Recognize and usually adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.", where there is extraversion in all 3 definitions), these definitions are different therefore my translation of E-I is flawed because of the definitions. This is how some ambiversion shows up, or introverted extraverted or reclused extraverted people, happens when the person has a good range of activites (and train of thought as well) that is considering introverted on one of the definitions and extroverted in others. Some who claims that these cases doesnt exist, at least from those I read, generally pick up one of these definitions as the ultimate truth and claims it superiority against the others, but, to my approach, I just take as two different definitions as they are equal/different points of view, and I know thats a kind of personal choice."

I'm afraid I must disagree on your approach - without a sound understanding of what the functions are, a function stack is meaningless. I feel like you need to give this fundamental topic more thought, otherwise you are building an intellectual castle on foundations of sand.

 

[Vendrah]

I'm afraid I must disagree on your approach - without a sound understanding of what the functions are, a function stack is meaningless. I feel like you need to give this fundamental topic more thought, otherwise you are building an intellectual castle on foundations of sand.

Im still not getting why - I understand that it is supposed to the reader to know what "high Se" or "low Fi" means. What Im catching maybe be a difficult into giving atributes to a given stack that is not from Grant Function Stack. But what do you suggest to do? I cant just write thousands of descriptions.

 

[Eric B]

The best way to understand functions, rather than as "things" making up 40,320 stack orders, as as perspectives, picked up by different complexes. What we are calling "functions" are divisions of data, comparable to compass directions, where if I'm looking east, then west is totally opposite and invisible, and north and south are partially visible. Looking one direction automatically sets the position of the others.

John Beebe is the one who did the most to popularize a full eight function model in western type, and in his theory, it is clearly about "complexes", though I think he could have emphasized that point more. The term that gets used the most is "archetypes", and this ends up applied to what become eight "stack positions". But the archetypes are ruling patterns (of life) that are experienced by each person, forming "complexes". Now using that term brings it home a bit more. Even better is understanding them as "ego states", or different senses of "I", starting with the ego, the main sense of "I".
And both they and the associated functions are basically reflections of the two that form type: the dominant (the ego's "main achiever"), and auxiliary (which creates balance). These are the most conscious, and will determine (beginning with the dominant) the attitude, and function order. These set the middle two letters of the type, and what has not been carved out of reality by them become the tertiary and inferior functions. (The auxiliary, being less than the dominant, is reflected by the tertiary, which then is not as weak as the inferior, which is the opposite of the dominant). The "other four" are the same as these, but with the unchosen i/e attitude for each.

The problem starts because we think the "stack" is set by relative "strength". or, what else would determine this stack "order"?) But how can you determine which is "Stronger" (beyond the first two or three, perhaps)? By a "cognitive process" test? Those are so imperfect, as is even our responses to them. What would it mean to have a particular function in 6th place, as opposed to 7th, judging by "strength"? Would it ever change? Again, would this accurately be picked up by a test, or how would you know? Ark Hunziker (who has also written on Beebe's theory) cites him as saying "Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to reflect the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four.

The only thing that makes sense is that the stack is based on complexes, and the complexes will tend to be stacked in an order indicating how far they are from the ego. The first basically is the ego, and the second, it's "helper". Third and forth are getting weaker, but still fairly "compatible". the remaining four are now getting into the "Shadow" (unconscious place where we tend to "dump" everything negative), so the four associated complexes will tend to be more negative and reactive the further down you go. Now, it's no longer about relative "strength" at all, for even though those functions might naturally be weaker", from the ego paying less attention to the associated data, the complexes may still erupt a lot, based on our experiences. Each complex has a specific agenda, and if you've been in a lot of situations where that complex was called for, then it will be very "active", and the function will seem "Strong", or "used a lot" (and it's not always about "using" anything; it could be just reacting to the functional data).

So any "40,320" numbering would be a measurement of how comparatively strong each complex is for each person, and I don't think that's something really measurable, and would likely change as time goes on, anyway.

 

[Vendrah]

Eric, blaming the tests is something I already got used to and I accepted that myself for a year or two; However, looking at Google Scholar rare use of cognitive functions, the article I pointed out (with some studies unsucess), reckful arguments and people results in several different cognitive tests - not just Nardi, Typology Central and there are even others, there are no evidence of these perfect fixed stacking (just everything getting otherwise as a result). Cases which the cognitive functions all align perfectly through Grant or Beebe are rare exceptions - the rules are cognitive functions stacks that are incredibly varied. The "this is untestful" argument (just after the tests fails) makes this being close to a matter of faith, or maybe some kind of alternative philosophy where it is better to have an specific organized cognitive function stack because there is a belief that you will be "less primitive" if you do that (with no evidence). It doesnt make this the ultimate truth or the accurate lens of things. It doesnt matter how pretty these texts are if there are a series of counter-evidence against them that doesnt seem to be manipulated or sabotaged, including sources very independent from each other (internet tests and academic articles).

The only thing that makes sense is that the stack is based on complexes, and the complexes will tend to be stacked in an order indicating how far they are from the ego. The first basically is the ego, and the second, it's "helper". Third and forth are getting weaker, but still fairly "compatible". the remaining four are now getting into the "Shadow" (unconscious place where we tend to "dump" everything negative), so the four associated complexes will tend to be more negative and reactive the further down you go. Now, it's no longer about relative "strength" at all, for even though those functions might naturally be weaker", from the ego paying less attention to the associated data, the complexes may still erupt a lot, based on our experiences. Each complex has a specific agenda, and if you've been in a lot of situations where that complex was called for, then it will be very "active", and the function will seem "Strong", or "used a lot" (and it's not always about "using" anything; it could be just reacting to the functional data).

So any "40,320" numbering would be a measurement of how comparatively strong each complex is for each person, and I don't think that's something really measurable, and would likely change as time goes on, anyway.

Now thats one interesting interpertation of ANY function stack in case you havent notice, although I question if these "shadow functions" really belongs to the unconscious; The unconscious is very little known, very little are the safe assumptions to do about it. It is not really a matter of "strengh", but the right word (although sometimes I used the wrong word for it) is preference. Not any test really measures actual skills on cognitive functions, but preferences. MBTI is like that either. And these preferences can change overtime.

About complex, well, a loose approach is way more complicated than fixing cognitive function on a specific order. In case you havent notice, these function stacks makes INTPs being almost all the same people and it dismiss people uniqueness (this is called boxing), this is for any given type, while a loose approach support uniqueness and make them readible (not easy readibly I admit). Any loose approach will be very likely more complicated in comparison to a tight fixed one and any cognitive function fixed stack is simplistic in comparison. I am very open to suggestions to find more rules or patterns and adding more restrictions (that supports near-zero exceptions).

Sorry if I was rude, I dont know if I was; I understand that for some might be tought to change their minds or try a new view after years or many years taking Jung and Grant as the ultimate truth. However, different lens doesnt hurt.

 

[Eric B]

>there are no evidence of these perfect fixed stacking

This is exactly my point. You're not going to get a “perfect stacking” from any test, because the “stacking” is not about anything those tests are measuring. I above cited a quote from Beebe hiimself saying not to make too much of the numbering (the “stack”), because it is more one of convenience. The “bottom four” are just parallels of the “top four”, and the third and fourth are just reflections of the first two. It has nothing to do with any “strength”, which is what the tests are trying to measure. When you realize this, then the “stack” does not “box” people. Their unique experiences will determine which complexes surface more, and therefore, shape which functions may appear to be “stronger” than the stack position would appear to suggest..
The reason why we get stuff like reckful (i.e. Reynierse) arguments is because of all of this misunderstanding of the concepts. We make these things into something they were not really intended to be, and then demand of them accordingly. The functions often get treated as “things” like gears or something, that we “use” more or less, and then can “stack” according to how much they get “used”. So surely, if they are such concrete objects, we can demand 'empirical evidence' for them. And it doesn't look like types with opposite letters are 'using' the same 'gears', does it? (It can't be “proved”!) But it's not about some tool being used, it's abott perspectives, nd the outward behaviors are what will be opposite based on the letters. (Which is why the letters work so well with temperament theory).

>I question if these "shadow functions" really belongs to the unconscious

It's not the functions that “belong to the unconscious” (I know that some teaching on this may have given that impression). Again, it's the complexes that really are in the unconscious, (for the ego is the center of consciousness, and it's just one of many other complexes).

 

[Vendrah]

Still that approach requires a matter of faith or it is just a philosophy at best! There is no other reason to trust about these parallels and reflections unless to believe on them - and even believe blindly to the point of rejecting any other alternatives. Centering your understanding through concepts designed to be "immune" to any real life test - yet they still claim being related to real life - and rejecting alternatives is not smart at best.

"Their unique experiences will determine which complexes surface more, and therefore, shape which functions may appear to be “stronger” than the stack position would appear to suggest.." - Thats one hell of a reason to why everyone from the same type does not have the same function stack!

 

[Eric B]

I don't understand this "matter of faith" objection. It sounds like were talking about religion, which often claim "to be 'immune' to any real life test - yet they still claim being related to real life". They place demands on people's lives, which then become based on fear, as it "could" be true, and you can't prove or disprove it, so you're supposed to live your life according to it and "hope" it's true. (Or reject it, and hope it's not true).

A type model places no such demand on anyone. It's just one possible way of carving out a description of our experience. The more you pay attention to one thing, the less you are paying attention to its opposite. That's what the "parallel" and "reflections" are about. It's not "faith"; again, I use the example of looking in one direction, and it's most visible, its opposite least visible and the perpendicular directions are inbetween. That's a "concrete" (physical, tangible, Sensory) analogy, where typology is more abstract and intangible. But it's still real.

I never said no other alternatives were possible. Just that the model I'm upholding is being misunderstood, and all sorts of objections and modifications being made based on these misunderstandings. People think the "function stack", and thus type itself, is based on relative "strength" of functions, so then, you seem to be asking why we can't have any order of the eight. But the question is misguided, as the order is not based on what you seem to think it's based on. So what you think is an "alternative" being "rejected" really isn't. If you want to believe the 40320 orders of the eight, no one's saying that's impossible; they're just not the types as we're discussing them. What they would be is variations of the types.

 

[Vendrah]

If those parallel and reflections are direct related to the cognitive functions, they are testable then.
Actually, this principle "The more you pay attention to one thing, the less you are paying attention to its opposite" is used to build the function stack, isnt it? Thats how the "4th" function (for INTP its Fe) is determinated in function of the 1st function, Ti, isnt it? The cognitive function opposite table, mirror table, reflection table, is like this:
Fi<--->Te
Fe<--->Ti
Ni<--->Se
Ne<--->Si

Problem is on the 2nd and 3rd function on the stack. If they are opposites, why they are so close? If the function stack was only 4 that was ok, but it has 8 positions besides our 4th cut version. There is this inconsistency in the parallel. If we apply this principle to all positions, cognitive functions should have a this symmetry:
Ti-Ne-__-__-__-__-Si-Fe
With Si and Fe at last positions, because "The more you pay attention to one thing, the less you are paying attention to its opposite".

Although I detect this inconsistency I still give it some use to this principle but not on this topic yet. As I said to typologyenthusiast, Im not actually disproving cognitive functions, Im trying to give them some use despite Reynierse and Reckful, however instead of going with the "this is untestable" route or dismissing all experiments and evidence against it entirely, I am rebuilding the framework in a way that should match evidence. I kind of already did that here, what Ive been doing is digging some data I gathered (a little bit more than 200 cognitive function test results). There is some truth in this "The more you pay attention to one thing, the less you are paying attention to its opposite" and in this "Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. (...)Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function: thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling". But it doesnt work that easy... What I have been finding is that there are indeed attraction and repulses between cognitive functions (which I measured through correlations) but these depends on the "given position" on the stack (its not exactly a matter of position, Im simplifying it). I already had it done using the average values of cognitive functions in every type. However, I created the spreedsheet wrongly, and to analyse correlations between every result I gathered instead of the average values for every type will give me some hard work which Im thinking of doing or not. Im not in a hurry although. Although this seems me drifting, as I said, the correlation analysis shows there are some truths but instead of chained rules I get repulses/attractions through correlations.