Personality Studies and Wishful Thinking (or Why Cognitive Functions are Bullshit)

[Totenkindly]

Yeah, definitely. Obviously I find it useful or I wouldn't be here; grouping people according to general behavioral attitudes is the whole point. I just think people are taking it too far when they start describing functional priorities of others, or explaining internal motivations for particular actions/behaviors with particular functions and expecting any sort of reliable accuracy.

There's a difference between describing how the "perfect theory" works (when people ask) and actually believing it holds true for all situations at all times.

Reading your post, I realize actually I use the thing in a more generalized sense as well, just as you've described. I've already been making those adjustments and operate more like the poker-player example. I can guess at motivations but there is no concrete certain indicator of everything, it's more a matter of building a complicated mental model in such a way that it's strongest / doesn't fall apart (i.e., conclusion by inference), and usually only general conclusions can be drawn. And new data always trumps theory; the theory has to be strong or broad enough to accommodate new input.

It's also why i shy away from typing people in general or typing public figures. Without extensive knowledge of their behavior + talking to them directly, there's no way to get inside the Black Box of Motivations and really know what drives the observable behavior.

Actually, yeah, I think you're right that they are helpful for the individual, since you can understand the subjective experiences of one person: yourself.

you can?
Congratulations.

I don't even understand myself sometimes.

 

[mlittrell]

exactly. well said miss

 

[redacted]

Cognitive functions really don't do anything. They just allow for a better defined system. But just like with the four spectrums, they can be easily overapplied.

You're using a strawman argument. You're basically misapplying cognitive functions then throwing them out because they're misapplied.

 

[NewEra]

Well, I personally like the four-category generalized MBTI system better too. However, I believe the functions are used to support the MBTI system. For instance, I have narrowed my MBTI type down to ISTJ, and of course many times as you (simulatedworld) know, I was wavering between ISTJ and ISTP, given the general MBTI system.

BUT when I took a look at my cognitives, I realized that the ISTJ cognitive order matches me almost perfectly. I use the top four (Si, Te, Fi, Ne) so much it's not even funny. Plus it's basically in that order too. So I feel there's some accuracy in the cognitive functions and their interpretation. Because it matched me perfectly in to ISTJ.

 

[mlittrell]

i ran into an interesting little situation which may be relevant to the current thread. i was reading a book called "Why Him? Why Her?: Finding Real Love By Understanding Your Personality Type" by Helen Fisher the other day. apparently she came up with her own personality system, without any prior knowledge of MBTI whatsoever. after using her system for a while he ran into MBTI and realized that both sytems where exactly the same.

and in response to Evans comment, not sure if it was directed at me lol, but i understand functions better than i would like and i can see the application quite well. not throwing the out either, just another tool in the toolbox that is needed to help build an understanding of someones personality.

 

[redacted]

and in response to Evans comment, not sure if it was directed at me lol, but i understand functions better than i would like and i can see the application quite well. not throwing the out either, just another tool in the toolbox that is needed to help build an understanding of someones personality.

Not directed at you; I should have made that clear.

It was a response to the OP.

 

[Poki]

Well, I personally like the four-category generalized MBTI system better too. However, I believe the functions are used to support the MBTI system. For instance, I have narrowed my MBTI type down to ISTJ, and of course many times as you (simulatedworld) know, I was wavering between ISTJ and ISTP, given the general MBTI system.

BUT when I took a look at my cognitives, I realized that the ISTJ cognitive order matches me almost perfectly. I use the top four (Si, Te, Fi, Ne) so much it's not even funny. Plus it's basically in that order too. So I feel there's some accuracy in the cognitive functions and their interpretation. Because it matched me perfectly in to ISTJ.

I see alot of mistypes between ISTP and ISTJ because of the descriptions. ISTP is more likely to be confused with an N instead of an S. The Se on an ISTP is purely pulling things in to Ti which drives Ni and comes out as a very quiet and humble INTP.

 

[nightning]

Hi Simulated

I had similar thoughts as you about this topic. MBTI types appears to be artificially created groupings. No scientific studies has ever demonstrated the natural existence of such types. It's not due to lack of trying.

Cognitive functions are along the lines of Freudian theories of Ego, Superego and Id. Due to their inherent natures, they cannot be proven or disproven. Again, not scientific.

So what's left for this "non-existent" artificially made up system? Practical applications. In practice, truth is often irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what works. If the basic terminology given by cognitive functions (Te, Ti, Ni, Ne etc) can be used to describe natural tendencies found in people. And through that it helps facilitate understanding and allows for smoother and more effective interactions, who cares if it's all made-up?

 

[Stanton Moore]

I'm interested in what lies below the level of what is described by MBTI. What basic problem is solved or energy conserved by certain actions or lack there of? Is introversion a response to concept of self? To low self esteem? Is extroversion indicative of better self image?
I know it's just not that simple, but these are the questions I ask myself.

 

[mlittrell]

Not directed at you; I should have made that clear.

It was a response to the OP.

ahh, ignore my post

 

[Thisica]

[after a long time....]
So should we call the cognitive functions a label of our ignorance, or a heurstic to understand how we operate?

 

[Little_Sticks]

There's a difference between describing how the "perfect theory" works (when people ask) and actually believing it holds true for all situations at all times.

Reading your post, I realize actually I use the thing in a more generalized sense as well, just as you've described. I've already been making those adjustments and operate more like the poker-player example. I can guess at motivations but there is no concrete certain indicator of everything, it's more a matter of building a complicated mental model in such a way that it's strongest / doesn't fall apart (i.e., conclusion by inference), and usually only general conclusions can be drawn. And new data always trumps theory; the theory has to be strong or broad enough to accommodate new input.

It's also why i shy away from typing people in general or typing public figures. Without extensive knowledge of their behavior + talking to them directly, there's no way to get inside the Black Box of Motivations and really know what drives the observable behavior.

Jungian Ni.

 

[Octarine]

[after a long time....]
So should we call the cognitive functions a label of our ignorance, or a heuristic to understand how we operate?

Personally, I'd have to be feeling particularly generous to grant the latter.

I don't find MBTI/Keirsey so offensive when they talk about broad behavioural patterns of personality types as a whole, so long as they don't overstate their predictivity. MBTI is mostly useful just as a common language. (Let's be honest, MBTI is mostly 'stamp collecting'). But when you start breaking it down into 'Ne' etc as if these concepts have some sort of theoretical basis. Well it borders on BS for me.

 

[RaptorWizard]

OMG someone who actually shares my theory of Jungian Cognitive Functions being a bullshit theory. Keirsey had it right all the way! Whoever banned him gtfo!

 

[Thalassa]

I think it is FUCK HELL HILARIOUS that Simulated World made this thread. Later he became one of the most knowledgeable people you could ask about Jungian functions on a personality forum.

He must have been discouraged at first.

You know, I saw the most insane theory recently on another forum (not even personality forum, cultural preservation forum) that nearly 50 percent of the population are ENTPs. Supposedly this is based in "brain science." And then the person who started the thread tried to tell me I was an NT.

 

[Rasofy]

You know, I saw the most insane theory recently on another forum (not even personality forum, cultural preservation forum) that nearly 50 percent of the population are ENTPs. Supposedly this is based in "brain science." And then the person who started the thread tried to tell me I was an NT.

No kidding. I can't even tell which theory is the craziest one.

 

[Thalassa]

No kidding. I can't even tell which theory is the craziest one.

I know, right?

According to them, if I was an F, I'd be more agreeable and stupid.

Oh, Internet.

 

[Zarathustra]

OMG someone who actually shares my theory of Jungian Cognitive Functions being a bullshit theory. Keirsey had it right all the way! Whoever banned him gtfo!

Yeah, Raptor, Marm already mentioned it, but the person who started this thread became completely obsessed with cognitive function theory as he learned more about it and completely recanted the position he had previously expressed in this thread.

 

[Ginkgo]

My first tally mark.

Bless his little heart.

 

[Zarathustra]