(Copyed from PerC) Inconsistent understanding of the Cognitive Functions

[Voygazer]

Copyed from Personality Cafe forums, a thread I have made: Inconsistency of the Cognitive Functions


Succeded from my post in this thread: I don't buy into the functions anymore, here's why - Page 13

I think it is neccesary to create a separate thread, so the pointed issues will get more attention.


So the first thing that a new user when It is introduced to the MBTI personality theory, he would first of all start determining his personality by reading what dichotomies he/she would relate to more:

Now, a person would be confused at first, he might relate to some, but he would be confused between N or S say, so he comes to this forums, and the first thing they respond with is

"Oh dude, ignore dichotomies, use Cognitive Functions instead cuz more accurate!".

As this video easily explains it each dichotomy section, the watched/reader can easily type themselves by what they see more fit, it makes simple, easy and flexible typing method.

As the video states;

I or E is if you are stimulated by your inner world or by the external world. (It's not if you love or hate people)

N or S is either taking facts by what you see, or using intuition by 'feeling' the room.

T vs F is your decision making Functions, you either follow your heart, emotinal decision or make your decision by weighting Pros and Cons to consider the personaly best decision choice.

P and J is either you prefer spontaneity, freewilled or planning and/or organising your enviroment.

Pretty simple and flexible Personality system.

Now getting to the Cognitive functions, they somehow pretty much dictate the way you are behaving and acting. Thinkers are supposedly impersonal people, devoid of emotions and identity; Feelers are emotional, incapable of using logic and facts, and especialy FP types are 'Selfish' because Fi is so 'Selfish'.

I just find it very inconsistent. Fi is the function for personal values and morals based from one's emotions and the concern of the self; it is indeed the fact of boxing his/her personality into a cognitive functions or MBTI type rather than viewing him/her as an individual that has emotions and personal preferences. It's weird, because it does not make one an 'unique' individual, it rather alienating the individual, and It's also viewing Thinking types as robots devoid of having emotions and making personal choices or having personal preferences, as they are 'Selfless', since Ti/Te Cognitive functions described as 'Impersonal' for some reason.

So, It's not "Uh, this dude described himself UnIQueLY with an iDEnTiTY, ITS sO INFP!" - as the PerC forum mentality suggests, the MBTI types only describe your mental preferences, it does not describe how you do things or how do you behave and interact with others, Thinking types can easily be offended and get emotional and sensitive in certain situations, Thinkers are also capable of making personal 'Selfsih' choices, and vice versa for Feelers.

 

[Vendrah]

Best advice I could give you and the thread poster?
Two:
1) Forget the popular version of "the stack".
2) Be aware that most realistic and good developed process of thinking includes multiple cognitive functions. One alone isnt really of much use.

Also:

As a final note, and speaking of Jung and the MBTI, your references to the tertiary function make it clear that you're a subscriber to the Harold Grant function stack, and just in case you're not aware, that model is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — and for good reason: namely, that unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it, and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point. In 50 years of correlating the types with countless personality-related things (both internal and external), the patterns associated with those HaroldGrantian function axes have stubbornly failed to show up.

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."

https://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf

There is more about that on Typology wiki if you search it.

There is also one of my alternative theories:
A new vision of MBTI and function stacks: Open function stack

And my personal A, realistically the pairs seem reasonable as long as a person isnt way too much extraverted or way too much introverted AND a person doesnt have a clear preference in Jung J/P (Jung J are the judging functions, Fi, Fe, Te and Ti; Jung P are the perceveing functions, Ne, Ni, Se and Si). However, realistically people use multiple tertiarys and the achile heels is unreliable but frequent (test results show stuff like ISFP with low Ti instead). And the best fit I found for a tertiary isnt the same as we know.