Cognitive Functions are Incompatible with 4-Letter Codes

Simpson17866 · Apr 21, 2015

The fact that there are 8 components of the Cognitive Functions system (Se, Si, Ne…) means that there are 40,320 ways of organizing them from strongest to weakest in any given person’s thought process (8 possibilities for the strongest * 7 possibilities for the second strongest * 6 possibilities for the third strongest * … * 2 possibilities for the second weakest * 1 possibility for the weakest). I personally go from

Ne: 48.5
Fi: 43.2
Ti: 40.3
Ni: 33.9
Te: 32
Si: 17.8
Se: 14
Fe: 10.7

If each Myers-Briggs-styled 4-letter code (ISFJ, ISTP...) is assigned a specific order of the 8 functions (for example, INFP = [strongest] Fi, Ne, Si, Te, Fe, Ni, Se, Ti [weakest]), then there is only a 16/40,320 chance (≈0.04%) that a person’s personality type will be one of the orders with a type associated.

If, and this is more common, we say that only 4 of the cognitive functions are used by any one person (for example, INFP = [strongest] Fi – Ne – Si – Te [weakest], Fe/Ni/Se/Ti [nonexistent]), then we run into new trouble of the categories not applying to anybody. For example, if Si is defined as “comparing external stimuli to past experiences of similar stimuli” against defining Se as “experiencing external stimuli completely as they are happening,” then it’s physically impossible for a person’s brain not to do both.

If you start with a construct, declare that “ISTPs do not have Si in their function stack, they have Se” according to said construct, and test real people to see which one they are capable of, then you would find that everybody experiences present stimuli and remembers past stimuli.

This construct only works if you adjust the data (how do people think) to support the construct’s assumptions (how the functions are supposed to be ordered), which is the opposite of what can be described as scientific.

**

Now perhaps this is too extreme, perhaps instead the “function stack” is simply the strongest of each pair (Se vs. Si, etc…). In this case, ISTP would go from (strongest) Ti – Se – Ni – Fe, and then some order of Te/Si/Ne/Fi that we don’t care about because all 4 are weaker than their opposing function.

This is an extremely fair point: on the MBTI, I am not 100% INTP, rather am 93% Introverted, 92% iNtuiting, 68.5% Thinking, and 84.5% Perceiving. If others say “Myers-Briggs doesn’t work because people aren’t 100% anything” and if I’m then going to defend MBTI by pointing out that it’s a set of spectra, rather than of binary choices, then I should absolutely accept that Function stacks could work in exactly the same way. In this case, ISTP would mean:

1) Se is the strongest S, Ni is the strongest N, Ti is the strongest T, Fe is the strongest F

and 2) the strongest T (Ti) is stronger than the strongest S (Se) which is stronger than the strongest N (Ni) which is stronger than the strongest F (Fe).

We’ve now narrowed down the number of possible stacks down to 384 (8 possibilities for the first * 6 possibilities for the second * 4 possibilities for the third * 2 possibilities for the fourth), of which mine is Ne – Fi – Ti – Si. However, the main advantage for using 8 functions instead of 4 axes is supposed to be the greater depth of measurement, and “streamlining” my function stack erased the fact that Fe is my weakest function instead of Ni, Te, or Se.

Moreover, this still doesn’t change the fact that only 16/384 ≈ 4.167% of the potential function stacks work according to the system that’s been set up for assigning 4-letter codes to said stacks.

In my case, Ne and Fi being my “strongest” types would make me an ENFP, which would then follow that my Si must be stronger than my Se and that my Te must be stronger than my Ti in order for my data to fit the theory.

Even with all of the fudging that I have tried to allow for (narrowing the 40,320 possible results down to 384), I still end up with data (my stack is Ne – Fi – Ti – Si) that conflicts with the theoretical construct (“a stack starting with Ne – Fi must finish with Te – Si because functions are supposed to balance out”).

Suppose we narrow the possibilities down even further to say that only the strongest Judgment and strongest Perception matter (for example: if the strongest Perception is Se, the strongest Judgment is Fi, and the Fi comes first, then the 4-letter code is ISFP). This still leaves 4 groups of “unacceptable” combinations in addition to the 4 groups of “acceptable” options:

Pi – Je (IxxP), Pe – Ji (ExxP), Je – Pi (ExxJ), Ji – Pe (IxxJ)
Pe – Je (????), Pi – Ji (????), Ji – Pi (????), Je – Pe (????)

We started out with 40,320 combinations of functions, each reasonable and informative on their own but which were incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code in 99.96% of cases. Some creative negligence of important data later (sacrificing the original relevance), we narrowed down the possibilities to 384 families of reasonably similar combinations that can be treated as identical, but again, 96% of these groups were still incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code. Finally, after deleting almost all of the information of the original system, we arrive at 8 basic groups, and still 50% of them are incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code.

The only way for every single Cognitive Function stack to be attached to a 4-letter code under the present construct would be to take the strongest function (perhaps a Pe) and go all of the way through the list until you find the strongest opposite (in this case, whichever Ji is strongest).

For example, if somebody’s functions went from (strongest) Fe – Ne – Ti – Te – Fi – Se – Ni – Si (weakest), then Fe being strongest means that we want to know which Pi is stronger than the other. In this case, Ni is stronger than Si, and Fe – Ni gives us ENFJ.

All that was required to reach this conclusion (the 4-letter code for this person’s cognitive functions is ENFJ) to was for us to ignore all of the real world data (Ni was one of the person’s weakest functions while Ne, Te and Fi were among the strongest) which conflicted with our desire for this specific conclusion (Cognitive Function stacks are assigned 4-letter codes where N/S and T/F tell you which functions are the strongest and I/E and J/P tell you the order and direction of the strongest functions).

**

The orders of functions which provide useful information cannot be typed according to 4-letter codes (there are mathematically too many for only 16 possible 4-letter codes to reveal all of the information), and attempting to type the orders of functions with 4-letter codes destroys the most useful information (The “ENFJ” in the previous example had a far stronger Ne, Te, and Ni then the construct would suggest).

In order to be considered scientific, theories must be adapted to fit the evidence rather than the other way around. As such, it doesn’t make any sense for questions about Cognitive Functions to be answered with 4-letter codes (“I have functions Fi – Si – Te – Ne, is my type ISFP or ISFJ?”) or vice versa (“How could you possibly confuse INTP with INTJ? Their function stacks don’t have anything in common”).

Lists of cognitive functions (which is your strongest, which is your second strongest…) are useful.

4-letter codes for Myers-Briggs axes (are you mostly introverted or extraverted, are you mostly intuitive or sensory…) are useful.

4-letter codes for lists of cognitive functions (are you IxxP = Ji first & Pe second or are you …) are nonsense.

StunnedFox · Apr 22, 2015

The notable issue with the analysis you present is the assumption that relevant data can be obtained about relative cognitive function "strengths" - something which I'm sure most who are enamoured with functions-based theories would dispute. I think it's fair to say that without some accepted method of obtaining data, the theory is ultimately too speculative and prone to subjective biases to be meaningful, but I still think this point stands. Some of the other aspects of the analysis are questionable as a result of working from this data (a lot of the argument here rests upon every theoretical possibility attainable on purported tests being a possible configuration that a person could actually have, for instance)...

With that said, I think the point is largely a fair one. There are simply too many unjustified assumptions inbuilt into functions-based theories for them to be viable; unlike the "four-letter" approach (where dividing each of four dimensions in half justifiably results in sixteen possibilities), most functions theories require the acceptance of a number of notions without good reason to "justify" limiting the possibilities to just sixteen combinations. To the extent that these presuppositions don't stand up to scrutiny (either because objective evidence demonstrates that they're incorrect, or, more commonly with type theory, because they are wilfully presented in a manner not amenable to objective evaluation), theories incorporating those presuppositions are flawed.

There is definitely a disconnect between the four-letter approach to type and the functions approach, even if, by some means, functions theories could be supported - this being particularly prominent with J/P, since it's treated as having two distinct roles (one as a dimension pertaining to preferences for structure vs. flexibility - to put it incredibly simplistically - and one to say which of two completely distinct function stacks a person supposedly has), but also present with the other three dimensions to varying degrees. So even if none of the various issues with functions theories were present, such that we could theoretically have two parallel theories of type running alongside one another, the claim that functions are incompatible with "four-letter" type would still hold to the extent that both theories, in their separate operation, come to differing conclusions (e.g., if a person could demonstrably be shown to be an ISFJ under the "letter"-based theory but an ISFP under functions-based theories).

Valtire · Apr 22, 2015

Why do you trust a list of ambiguous questions to correctly evaluate your cognitive functions?

You wrote all this on the blind trust of a test, rather than reading the theory, which clearly explains why there can only be 16 personalities.

The fact that you scored highly on Fi and Ti; two completely contrary functions, should have proven to you that the tests don't work.

StunnedFox · Apr 22, 2015

Surely the idea that one should discount data because of what the theory states (here, by concluding that the tests are flawed because they don't reflect the theory) is precisely the idea @Simpson17866 is railing against? As I pointed out above, the idea that data from online tests reflects function strength is open to dispute (as you've done here), but all that does is leave us without any data from which we can actually evaluate the theory's veracity at all. Again as pointed out by the OP, when meaningful definitions are actually provided for each function, there tends not to be any evident reason why a person couldn't use two functions that are supposedly contrary to each other.

I'd like to know how the theory "clearly explains" why there can only be sixteen myself - and, by that, I mean in a meaningful sense, not in the sense that it asserts a slew of unjustified restrictions on what is and isn't possible.

Cesspool · Apr 22, 2015

You could have just said 8!

Kynx · Apr 22, 2015

Functions can't be measured by tests, only indicated by them.

Opposing functions can't exist together in consciousness. They are 'psychological aims' or 'direction'. The development of one function perspective suppresses the development of it's opposite function perspective. Our mind can't simultaneously place highest importance on two completely opposite perspectives.

Simpson17866 · Apr 22, 2015

Neverontime said:
Functions can't be measured by tests, only indicated by them.

Then what's the point?

Opposing functions can't exist together in consciousness. They are 'psychological aims' or 'direction'. The development of one function perspective suppresses the development of it's opposite function perspective. Our mind can't simultaneously place highest importance on two completely opposite perspectives.

That's like saying that "opposing muscles can't exist together in limbs (biceps vs. triceps, quadriceps vs. hamstrings...)"

Telepathis Goosus · Apr 22, 2015

The tests are incompatible with the actual Jung studies, and the cognitive functions. The MBTI type indicator is literal crap.
The simple answer to this is that you should not place any value on the tests at all, as they do not correlate with the rest of the study.

And, the four letter codes have their purpose. Each letter has a useful purpose associated with the cognitive functions.

For example, you are an INTP:

I - Indicates your dominant function is introverted
N- Indicates you prefer your intuiting function over your sensing function.
T- Indicates you prefer your thinking function over your feeling function.
P - Indicates you use extroverted perceiving and introverted judging.

The 4 letter codes do not correlate with the specific functions themselves, yes, and that is because they are a code. A simple way of summarizing the type. They have their place, as far as I'm concerned and they are useful.

However, I'm interested to see your argument against their use, so please elaborate.

Simpson17866 · Apr 22, 2015

TelepathicGoose said:
P - Indicates you use extroverted perceiving and introverted judging.

And J is supposed to mean that I would mostly use Extraverted Judging and Introverted Perceiving.

What about somebody whose primary Judgements and Perceptions are both Extraverted? Or both Introverted?

lookslikeiwin · Apr 23, 2015

The way I see it, you would be insane if you used both Fi and Ti. Not only would you be using too many judging functions, but also too many introverted functions. The only way this could work is if a person was perfectly balanced.

I do think a person can be xNTP or something, because all that means is your top two functions would be balanced (Ne/Ti), and so would your inferior and tertiary (Fe/Si).

But nothing else works that way. Barring psychological disorders, people need to have good use of a judging function and use of a good perceiving function so you can both perceive and judge. Furthermore, you need good use of an introverted function and an extroverted function, so you can interact and retreat. I do not believe you can use two perceiving functions or two judging functions at the same time, but Ne requires Si to support it and vice versa, like all the other function pairs. Therefore, you need a Pe/Ji pair to use, or a Je/Pi pair to use.

With that in mind, you can only create the 16 personality types, but some people may get into loops, or utilize functions in such a way that they resemble other functions.

I tested high on a cognitive functions test for Ni, Si, Ti and Fi, which is ridiculous. Actually, the only stuff I tested low on were Se and Te. I appear to use Ni because I use a Ti/Ne combo in such a way that it looks like it. I appear to use Fi because I spend a lot of time analyzing spirituality with my Ti. I appear to utilize a lot of Si because I am an HSP, and I was raised to appreciate it. I utilize a lot of Ti because I am an INTP.

The tests are inaccurate and the only way you can really tell what someone is, is with accurate observation. I was able to tell I used a lot of Ne because I talk a lot and out loud, and I relate to and share my ideas and excitement like other NPs. My mind trails the way other NPs minds trail. Se was also more opposite to me than Si (I thought I was an INFJ). I also discerned eventually that I am simply not as friendly as I thought I was. Nor am I as good at handling myself. And I'm more thought out than I expected, just bad at expressing my opinions.

Also, there is some evidence that the functions can actually be detected by observation of eye movements. I found this really fascinating. I've noticed SPs and NPs are extremely different in how they get distracted already, and a friend of mine once pointed out the way NJs look when using their Ni.
http://personalityjunkie.com/06/cognitive-type-functions-eye-movements-ni-ne-fi-ti-se-si-fe-te/

Simpson17866 · Apr 23, 2015

lookslikeiwin said:
The way I see it, you would be insane if you used both Fi and Ti. Not only would you be using too many judging functions, but also too many introverted functions. The only way this could work is if a person was perfectly balanced.

Let's not worry about the labels for a second, let's just worry about what they refer to: "Fi" means that you care more about personal morals than about social standards, "Ti" means that you care more about logically figuring out the world as is than about organizing the world more efficiently.

If you started with the data and formed a model around it (much like Kepler's Elliptical Model), then the process would go:

A1) We are going to look at preferences for: personal morals, social standards, logical understanding, efficient organization
A2) We are going to label a preference for personal morals "Fi" ...

B) lookslikeiwin and Simpson17866 care about personal morals more than about social standards and about logical understanding more than about efficient organization.

Conclusion) lookslikeiwin and Simpson17866 use Fi and Ti.

As opposed to the far less scientific (much like Kepler's Platonic Model):

A1) We are going to look at preferences for: personal morals, social standards, logical understanding, efficient organization
A2) We are going to label a preference for personal morals "Fi" ...

B) we don't want the label "Fi" to go with the label "Ti"

Conclusion) people who care about personal morals more than about social standards must care about efficient organization more than about logical understanding and vice-versa

Psychopomp · Apr 23, 2015

@reckful - Nope, not incorrect. I stated that the author did not call cognitive functions a 'category mistake' but rather the act of deriving an interpretation or description of them from MBTI. That is all that I said and it was correct. The author was good enough to clarify this himself by pointing his attacks at 'type dynamics' specifically and not the ambiguous and oft-useless term 'cognitive functions' generally - since Jung's descriptions in Chapter X of Psychological Types are not mentioned, and a third option is not available for or worth considering.

For example, Jung's 'cognitive functions' (which do indeed exist, though he never named them such... you are welcome to call them or insist they be called whatever you like [though Jung does use the word 'function' in reference to them]) could not have been a category mistake because they were not derived from MBTI... obviously. Well, I suppose they could be by some other reasoning, but not by any offered so far.

I am sure Reynierse utterly disagrees with Chapter X of Psychological Types and the delineations therein, but that has nothing to do with 'category mistakes'. Does it? Jung certainly wasn't comparing apples with oranges. If I am somehow mistaken, I am as always eager to be corrected.

----

Also, typical disclaimer on my interactions with you. Please reply to what I just wrote, and don't inject into it. Your last post injected an enormous amount into what I was saying. Read what I wrote and reply to what I wrote. Don't muck up and distract the conversation with inferences and assumptions.

goamare · Apr 23, 2015

Simpson17866 said:
If, and this is more common, we say that only 4 of the cognitive functions are used by any one person (for example, INFP = [strongest] Fi – Ne – Si – Te [weakest], Fe/Ni/Se/Ti [nonexistent]), then we run into new trouble of the categories not applying to anybody. For example, if Si is defined as “comparing external stimuli to past experiences of similar stimuli” against defining Se as “experiencing external stimuli completely as they are happening,” then it’s physically impossible for a person’s brain not to do both.

The "function stack" is not in the order of strongest to weakest. This is a common misconception.

I mean, your inferior function is your 4th most developed function? NO.

It is important to understand what "tertiary function" and "inferior function" MEAN, in relation to the dominant and the auxiliary.

More on this if you're interested:

http://personalitycafe.com/intp-forum-thinkers/448754-do-intps-tend-relate-fi-descriptions-4.html#post14351282

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/449482-function-order-completely-arbitrary-3.html#post14375386

Fried Eggz said:
The fact that you scored highly on Fi and Ti; two completely contrary functions, should have proven to you that the tests don't work.

lookslikeiwin said:
The way I see it, you would be insane if you used both Fi and Ti. Not only would you be using too many judging functions, but also too many introverted functions. The only way this could work is if a person was perfectly balanced.

I would one can easily score high on both Fi and Ti on those tests, if he has introverted judging attitude in general. They're not completely contrary, and can be quite contributing at times.

Mac The Knife · Apr 23, 2015

Whelp, I feel dumb I just quite literally started a thread stating my frustration here with my results as an INFP consistently showing up pretty much like this all the time: Fi>Ni>Ne>Si>Ti>Fe>Se>Te

Abraxas · Apr 23, 2015

@Simpson17866,

Mathematics aside (sorry my brain got really fuzzy trying to process all that part of your post), if I'm not mistaken, your bottom line is that MBTI and the proposed cognitive function "stacks" that we get with them (according to the literature) actually make no sense at all, and that if we instead take a look at the functions (particularly the one most consciously develop and the one least consciously developed) we get a lot more useful information about a personality type - and as well, if we look at the dichotomies on their own (which are supported by a large body of evidence), we get a lot of useful information about a personality type.

I essentially agree with that (if I'm not misrepresenting you here), and the point you're making. The mathematics is interesting of course, but where the rubber-meets-the-road, I've slowly come around to the side of the fence that cognitive functions are gradually being phased out by contemporary research and newer more applicable, useful, valid models supported by decades of research. I, of all people, beat the drum for cognitive functions for years, but I can't honestly in good conscience ignore the information I've read provided by individuals like @reckful that shows where the basic assumptions of cognitive functions just doesn't stand supported by real-world data, and even in the cases where it does, as he said earlier in this thread, it tends to "piggyback" onto research that validates the dichotomies.

All of that aside, even in terms of just practical explanations to people as I've been working with new acquaintances of mine lately, new friends, family, co-workers, I find that it is tremendously easier to give a concise and accurate description of a type to someone based on the confirmed research on dichotomies.

For example, it is far easier for me to explain to someone the difference between S and N, or IN and TJ, or ENP, or SFP - or whatever - than it is to explain to someone how functions work and stacks and such things. I've largely just given up. I can't be arsed to do it anymore, frankly. It feels like the hard road, and it ends up in the same place, so... I really just don't see the point of it.

Right now, basically, if I'm engaging in a discussion of functions I go with the more "modernized" adapted definitions that correlate with empirical studies and are what I like to call "updated" jungian functions. Some of them are barely Jungian at all anymore, again as reckful mentioned. But I find discussions relating to the interplay of various dichotomies in a person's type - such as, how someone with NTJ might interact with say, an EFP, far more compelling and reasonable, than arguments around whether Fi and Fe can co-exist in a person's cognition, or whether one follows the other, or whatever.

Simpson17866 · Apr 23, 2015

Abraxas said:
@Simpson17866,

Mathematics aside (sorry my brain got really fuzzy trying to process all that part of your post),

TLDR: don't worry, all of the math boils down to "There are 16 different 4-letter codes, there are tons of different Cognitive Function orders, and you have to gut a lot of the most important information before you can simplify the possible Cognitive Function stacks into only 16 categories in the specific way that people normally try to do so."

if I'm not mistaken, your bottom line is that MBTI and the proposed cognitive function "stacks" that we get with them (according to the literature) actually make no sense at all, and that if we instead take a look at the functions (particularly the one most consciously develop and the one least consciously developed) we get a lot more useful information about a personality type - and as well, if we look at the dichotomies on their own (which are supported by a large body of evidence), we get a lot of useful information about a personality type.

Pretty much, yes.

Cognitive function stacks make sense on their own, and MBTI 4-letter codes makes sense one their own. I just want people to realize that these have to be seen as two different systems (and that they have far less correlation than they're given credit for).

Simpson17866 · May 1, 2015

TuesdaysChild said:
A distinction without a difference, my friend. The MBTI letters are merely a lexicon directing you to Jungian functions. There's no such thing as a Jungian INFP vs MeyersBriggs INFP.

If somebody's strongest Cognitive Functions are Fi-Ne-Si-Te, but s/he is social, abstract, sensitive, and organized, then s/he is a Jungian INFP and a MyersBriggs ENFJ.

If somebody is self-contained, abstract, sensitive, and disorganized, but his/her strongest Cognitive Functions are Si-Ni-Fe-Ti, then s/he is a MyersBriggs INFP and a Jungian ≈ISFJ-ish (none of the four letter codes make perfect sense here, but ISFJ makes the least nonsense).

TuesdaysChild · May 1, 2015

I understand what you're saying. The crux, though, is that it is a correct interpretation based on an incorrect interpretation promulgated by the uninhibited misunderstanding that abounds on the internet of what MBTI is.

From the Myers-Briggs Foundation:
The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people's lives.

What you're referencing as a Jungian INFP versus an MyersBriggs ENFJ is based on a faulty understanding of MBTI that has been cultivated by multiple reincarnations of free online tests, personality descriptions, function descriptions, type write-ups and other information that has been posted and re-posted online by anyone with an internet connection who have based their incorrect assumptions on other people's incorrect assumptions who also had an internet connection and were bored enough to publish something on the internet about it.

Online personality tests are laughably inaccurate and most of the questions have nothing to do with the theory behind MBTI. The questions designed to identify type are directly correlated to the misunderstandings that you have laid out above, such as abstract, sensitive and disorganized being a decisive indicator of true MBTI type.

So what one has to do, then, is go back to the fork in the road where all of these misunderstandings began to pervade the underlying theory. The example you gave earlier of an ISTP presumably not being able to remember and recall past stimuli as well as an ISTJ, while I realize you're saying the presumption is incorrect, the fact of the matter is that because it's incorrect, it has created the faulty logic that you're trying to prove wrong. It was already wrong to begin with. The faulty logic that it's conveying is based on the idea that personality relates to ability, skill, intelligence, etc. A correct interpretation is that it indicates a person's mindset and approach to decision-making. Therefore, if you give the same task to an ISTP and an ISTJ, an ISTJ, with Si-Te, will approach it from the angle of past experience. How did I do this before? Was it efficient? That is how I will do it. The ISTP, on the other hand, while perfectly able to recall how they did it before, will look at it through the lens of Ti-Se. Is there a better way to do it? What if I try it this way?

All this to say, if your MBTI letters don't correspond to the cognitive functions for that MBTI type, you are the wrong MBTI type. You've either taken a crap test that was probably posted by a bored teenager or you're just lying to yourself because these answers sound cooler than these answers. And TBH, there's a lot of that going on as well.

UnicornRainbowLove · May 2, 2015

To me the interesting part of typology has always been to figure out how much of it is actually true because it could be fascinating if it were.

Boldly stating that functional stacking is true due to internal logic is among the more "yuck"-inducing things to read in here, and it saddens me when defending functions starts to be akin to religious apologetics and they are placed in the category of untestable quantities like souls and gods.
It must be possible at least in theory to test something real, (unless if something like an uncertainty principle is somehow present), or else there's no sense of claiming any reality of it.

TuesdaysChild · May 2, 2015

I can agree with you on that. My limited point is merely that the MBTI letters are meant to denote a certain preference related to Jungian functions. Whether the system/functions themselves are infallible or superior/inferior to another system is debatable. But to have any semblance of a standardized measure on how to test them, the parameters have to be defined. You can't measure one system against another if one of them is a moving target. So in order to compare mbti against another personality theory, the theory of mbti first must be defined. It's no use proving a theory wrong when the baseline is already incorrect. The results would be unreliable.

Abraxas · May 2, 2015

How the MBTI dichotomies relate to Jung's conceptions of the functions has changed a great deal over time due to considerable research. To put it bluntly, Jung did not get it right on his first try. Even Einstein revised his theories over and over, and rejected quantum mechanics entirely - a field of theoretical research that now stands as one of the most empirical fields outside of the DNA theory of heredity.

Just to put this to an example, there is a lot of evidence in recent years to show that extraversion and introversion are psychological factors even in other species - even in very "simple" species in fact. Jung spent most of Psychological Types talking about E/I for a reason - there's a lot of evidence for it in nature. Without going too far into it, you can see it in the survival strategy of a species. In complicated species (such as us), you see very diverse manifestations of introverted and extraverted tendencies. You can look at E/I in a very abstract way and see it influencing practically every aspect of human behavior.

The point being, if you throw around terms like E/I - and you know what you're talking about - you're probably not far off the mark. But, these other aspects of the theory, like intution/sensation, thinking/feeling, judging/perceiving - or even if we look at other models, like the Big 5, and we start to discuss Neuroticism, or Openness, or whatever - you should always keep in the back of your mind the fact that those are marginally less well-founded. They're still under review. Which isn't to say you should go around telling people they don't exist either - because then you'd have to prove that they can't exist, and that's often just as hard to do as proving they must exist.

So imagine then how it must be for cognitive functions, which have even less to back up their existence than these other models and these other factors. It's not that they can't exist at all - it's just that they can't exist as described. We know for a fact - or at least, we have good reason to believe - that if functions really exist at all, they can't exist as described, because it would contradict evidence supporting the dichotomies. And precisely due to that fact, you will see a lot of contemporaries, in their discussions of functions, presenting a different version of the functions than what Jung originally conceived of them to be. This is because someone, somewhere, needs to go to the hard work of building a strong case for the functions that would present a better argument than what we have already for the Big 5, or for something like introversion and extraversion.

maust · May 4, 2015

If nothing else, I can tell you the INTP OP happily spent pages debating this, and the ENTJ (that would be me) skimmed, decided this whole thing was definitely being overthought, and then came here to comment. Te vs Ti. Seems pretty useful to me.

On a more direct note, I test Ni/Te - Se, so my functions pretty much line up. I've also found that when I'm stuck in an emotional loop, going somewhere new and doing new things is one of the only ways to break me out of a slump- drawing "everyone hates me" from lots of tiny interactions and getting more and more withdrawn because of it. I fit this into the theory as "Ni-Fi withdrawn freakout gets broken up by Se experiences", but I could be wrong.

And yeah, the tests are crap, but they're a good starting point. It's like a diagnostic for a class- you want to see where you're at, and if it sounds/is wrong, you go study it.

Simpson17866 · May 14, 2015

maust said:
If nothing else, I can tell you the INTP OP happily spent pages debating this, and the ENTJ (that would be me) skimmed, decided this whole thing was definitely being overthought, and then came here to comment. Te vs Ti. Seems pretty useful to me.

That is a true statement :tongue:

On a more direct note, I test Ni/Te - Se, so my functions pretty much line up.

Lucky you :wink:

And yeah, the tests are crap, but they're a good starting point. It's like a diagnostic for a class- you want to see where you're at, and if it sounds/is wrong, you go study it.

Exactly: hypotheses and data are more useful than one or the other.

Erbse · May 5, 2015

Tests:

1. Tests are only ever as accurate as their algorithm, which may be bad.

2. Tests are only ever as accurate as the person taking it has a realistic picture of him/herself and answers in correspondence to reality and not wishful thinking.

3. Tests only sort by likelihood - Being Ti dom merely means that you're likely to use Ti the most. It does however not evaluate strength whatsoever. Being Ti dominant != being proficient at it.

4. There's a whole theory and principles behind the idea of MBTI. These principles are more or less laws and eliminate a lot of playing room.

5. MBTI is limited and should only be used and seen for what it is good at. Using a tool for something it's not meant or intended to be will never yield the desired results.

Simpson17866 · May 14, 2015

alittlebear said:
(Correct me if I'm wrong!)

Nope, you got it.

Blue Soul said:
I'm not really familiar with Cognitive Functions (is this another theory or what?). I was kind of hoping someone would correct/educate me. ^^

Like how sometimes I'll test as LIE (ENTj) in socionics with ILI (INTp) 97% as likely, and that makes sense because they run on the same cognitive functions. On the other hand, for instance being Ni-Te-Fi-Se in one system and being Ne-Ti-Fe-Si wouldn't make much sense at all though, right? To me that would be a sign of mistyping in some way, get my point?

It's not "one order of cognitive functions in one system, a different order of functions in another" so much as "orders of cognitive functions are a single system that doesn't work as well with other systems as they're given credit for."

Blue Soul said:
I don't see why someone would want to do that though, other than making it slightly more pronouncable when talking about the different types. The dichotomies are just oversimplifications of the cognitive functions anyway.

Simplifications, not oversimplifications :wink:

Looking at dichotomies gives me one set of information: I'm primarily self-contained (I), abstracting (N), cool-headed (T), and spontaneous (P).

Looking at orders of functions gives me a different set of information: I'm primarily interested in playing with as many ideas as possible (Ne), secondarily in developing a personal sense of values (Fi), tertiarily in making logical sense of the world around me (Ti), ... very little interest in the physical world around me or my relationships with the people in it (Fe + Se).

Trying to discount possible combinations:

"if you're self-contained, abstracting, cool-headed, and spontaneous (INTP), then you must care primarily about making sense of the world, secondarily about playing with tons of different ideas, tertiarily about cataloging information about the world around you, quaternarily about your relationships with the people around you (Ti-Ne-Si-Fe)"

"if you care primarily about playing with tons of different ideas and secondarily about developing a personal sense of values and morals (Ne-Fi), then you must be an outgoing, abstracting, touchy-feeley, spontaneous person (ENFP) who cares more about making the world more efficient than about making it make more sense (Ne-Fi-Te instead of Ne-Fi-Ti)"

doesn't make sense to me.

Blue Soul · May 14, 2015

@Simpson17866

How do you deal with the J/P issue in MBTI then? P in an extrovert means a different thing from P in an introvert.

StunnedFox · May 14, 2015

Not when J/P is seen solely as a dichotomy; when that's the case, both J and P have the same meaning regardless of whether the person in question is introverted or extraverted. Even with the functions model assumed, they arguably mean the same thing (in that J and P describe which of the two preferred functions - one each of S/N and T/F - is extraverted), although obviously that's where the distinction between introverts and extraverts does come into it (for extraverts, J/P described the dominant, whilst for introverts, it's the auxiliary). But yeah, J/P viewed solely as a dichotomy (which seems to me to be how @Simpson17866 is treating it) doesn't differ in meaning relative to I/E, so I'm not sure what issue this is supposed to refer to...

Blue Soul · May 14, 2015

@StunnedFox and @PaladinX Thank you both for your perspectives. I know I'm not exactly being clear in my knowledge of things, but that makes it so much easier to let you guys work that Ti (to be fair you do it much better anyway).

So are you saying that S/N and T/F (perhaps E/I too to a lesser degree) are connected to the functions, but J/P aren't?

StunnedFox · May 14, 2015

I think it helps to separate the two theories entirely, at least initially, since the major issue (as the thread title alludes to) is their incompatibility. What I mean is, it helps to start by viewing all of the dichotomies as independent scales, not attaching to any functions model at all. Whether the concepts embodied in that part of the theory comfortably match up to the concepts as presented if you view functions models in isolation is hard to say, but there seems to me to be too much disconnect and blurring of lines for it to work for any of them - for instance, Te could match to a T preference, an E preference, an S preference (descriptions for both Te and S often emphasis an interest in "facts"), &c. So the best answer is probably that it's unclear.

(Worth noting, I guess, that S, N, T and F are "functions" in the MBTI nomenclature, and I, E, J and P are "attitudes" - it depends where you look, but I've seen Se, Fi, &c., referred to as "function-attitudes", which provides some indication of what the purported link is supposed to be.)

Recede · May 14, 2015

@Simpson17866

I'm jumping into this thread from the 9th page and haven't read the rest, so apologies if what I say has already been said or isn't useful at this point.

The best advice I can give is to start with the roots and ignore everything else. Don't bother with tests or descriptions. Start with Jung's definitions:

Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation.

With this, you now have the answer key for determining what is actually Intuition, Thinking, etc. and what is merely resembling descriptions of it. For instance, buzzwords like "possibilities", "potential", "ideas", etc. -- these are not always going to be coming from actual Intuition.

First, Ne: I love that different people can be extremely different. - Not Intuition, therefore it cannot be Ne.

Second, Fi: I don't like it when people are told that somebody else's construct of what the person is "supposed to be like" is more important than what the first person is actually like. - Might possibly be a value derived from Sensation. But it isn't necessarily Fi. There is no reason an Fe type can't value reality and that which is actually present. Or perhaps you simply value freedom.

Jung's definitions of Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, and Intuition are the bridge between functions and dichotomies. So you can probably see how trying to identify functions without understanding these definitions will lead to a lot of confusion and seeming incompatibility. But if you understand both the dichotomies and functions as being necessarily rooted in these definitions, then there is no way an INTP would not prefer Thinking and Intuition functions.

reptilian · May 14, 2015

I have a similar view on how MBTi or socionics isnt quite finalized. Tbh I havent grasped the whole detailed concept yet, so my thinking could be a total waist of time but that wont stop me from trying to understand myself.

To keep it short:

I avoid Fi, I dont want to use it, I replace it with Ti's logic web. My mother INFP was an extreme Fi user, neurotic and chaotic now depressed. I used to use Fi a lot when young. I had to stop, it made me weird. Now Im repulsed by strong Fi users, cant help it. Also, I was in a chaotic environment as a child, analyzing started to develop early to battle stress.

While I think I am a strong Ni user as well as Ne, the Ni might manifests itself from the unconscious as the best "shortcut" or the most optimal choice when making a decision. Since I was young I was always looking for the quickest/shortest route, now I seek the least energy consuming, time wasting and money saving options when deciding on which option to pick. I dont want to go grocery shopping, if it is the only thing I need to do, so I wait until I have to go pay the bills or go to the pharmacy etc to make it convenient...
I use Te when talking to Fi users or someone that didnt understand my Ti logic, I try to present the facts as short and simple as possible.

I would say my functions usually stack: Ne/Ni-Ti-Fe : x-x-Si/Fi
Though I dont believe myself or understand what im talking about, there is lots of confusion.

It also depends on what kind of drugs I take or the general mood im in. I havent met a more charismatic person than myself, too bad it happens once per month, if lucky.

So many possibilities of how things interact with each other.
MBTI is not science for a reason.

lemoncake · Jun 2, 2015

http*//www*oddlydevelopedtypes*com/content/cognitive-functions-and-type-dynamics-failed-theory

Replace the stars with periods, as I'm sure you will be able to figure out. This was written by an INTP.

Every single person I know who knew their type before taking a cognitive functions test has not received the dominant their type is supposed to have. Just because you already know about the cognitive functions and are trying to Pygmalion yourself into what you think your type should be does not mean that that is accurate. Also, I find this passage from the above link especially helpful:

"One study asked non-type-saavy observers to describe types that had, for example, Thinking as their dominant function, by choosing adjectives from a pool of 300 words. Researchers compared the top 10 and lowest 10 adjectives chosen to describe all types who shared Thinking as their dominant. The results? There was little overlap between the sets of adjectives, meaning that little similarity was noticed. The researchers also compared adjectives for types who shared one of the following: Auxiliary Thinking, dominant Feeling, auxiliary Feeling, dominant Intuition, and auxiliary Intuition. The same results held true for these functions--little to no overlap between the descriptive adjectives chosen. From these results we can either conclude that a.) too many adjectives were used, offering too much variety and too little chance for any overlap to appear, or b.) Nobody sees type dynamics except those who already expect to see them. The latter may indicate a simple case of observer bias on the part of psychologists. And remember, it's all anecdotal at this point, and anecdotes frequently walk hand in hand with observer bias.
Effects which are often attributed to type dynamics can just as easily be attributed to other things, i.e. a person who is quiet, logical, and thoughtful can be described equally well as a dominant introverted Thinker with auxiliary extraverted Intuition or as an Introvert and an Intuitive and a Thinker (an INT). There is no reason why one explanation is intrinsically superior."

Just because you are actively looking for cognitive functions does not mean they exist. People generally see what they want to see, no matter how open-minded they think they are being

Point me out if I'm wrong in any of this! Thanks!

Simpson17866 · Jun 5, 2015

HrMx13 said:
Yeah cause of course Jung's cognitive functions and MBTI are ABSOLUTELY UNRELATED.
And what letters are hers in the Simpson bullshit typology ?

While I would love to take the credit for coming up with the systems, the MBTI originally belongs to Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabella Meyers from their work during the 1910s through 1940s, while the most popular Cognitive Functions system was invented by Harold Grant in the 1960s, which means that we cannot name either system after myself.

HrMx13 · Jun 5, 2015

Yeah but I thought there was another one. is there ?
Thanks to you I know I'm probably an ENTP and, why not, an ESFJ, maybe in another kind of typology I could be INFJ ou ISTJ ? Could you search for another 14 ways to type, so that we could all have all types ?

HrMx13 · Jun 5, 2015

Science ? Wait, you mean actual science ? Did you find anything related to something else than empirical studies in MBTI, Jung and others ?
So, you're 3 people believing that you can type people both INTP and ENFP in the same time. You'll admit that it's not really an impressive crowd.
So, my opinion is that when you come toward people not really used to MBTI, you should have the intellectual honesty to say that the way you do is a very, very marginal one. Not to make em confused. It's also a question of respect toward them.
And for people who "don't think cognitive functions work at all" : most of people who don't use them here don't even know them.

HrMx13 · Jun 5, 2015

Another 3 things :

1/ I strongly dislike the way you quoted my sentence in your topic with the obvious purpose to make it look popular while it's just a dumb topic from someone who obviously doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's talking about ;
2/ The way you use "MBTI without functions" is really laughable as CJ's stuff (and by the way MB's) is all about how we perceive and treat the data, it's not supposed to be a female magazine's test like "are you sociable or not ? If yes, then you're first letter is a E ! If not, it's a I !". I mean, come on. COME - ON.
3/ Then I'm done with this topic and with you. Don't like to waste my time.

StunnedFox · Jun 6, 2015

HrMx13 said:
The way you use "MBTI without functions" is really laughable as CJ's stuff (and by the way MB's) is all about how we perceive and treat the data, it's not supposed to be a female magazine's test like "are you sociable or not ? If yes, then you're first letter is a E ! If not, it's a I !". I mean, come on. COME - ON.

The dimensions in the MBTI are nowhere near as simplistic as that, and they capably address the issues of "how we perceive and treat the data" without the need for recourse to type dynamics. Treating it as though all I/E means without functions behind it is "are you sociable or not?" is unreasonable, and not a fair representation of what is being claimed.

Simpson17866 said:
That's 2 people who definitely agree with me and 3 who I might have accidentally taken out of context but who I still think sound like they agreeing with me.

So your conception of a separate cognitive functions theory is that, using some testing resource, we can determine an ordering of the eight functions as discrete concepts, and then attempt to locate the most applicable "type" (meaning here a pre-set function order, or maybe orders since you seem open to XYYY in your own Ne-Fi-Ti-Si stack)? I'm not convinced that theory has much merit to it, but it's not internally inconsistent; it's certainly capable of simultaneous operation alongside a dichotomy-only take on the MBTI, if nothing else. Whether this counts as agreeing depends upon what exactly the scope of the agreement is, I guess. [What would you make of Ti>Si>(Te,Ne,Fi)>Fe>Ni>Se? My test scores end up roughly there, with the three in parentheses all roughly equal...]

The Dude · Jun 24, 2015

From MBTI’s website: “The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people's lives.” They are so much non-sense that they had to be watered down for the masses to understand. It isn't a problem of the functions, but the system.The functions fit the MBTI system of 16 types (2*2*2*2)...there are only 40,320 combos if they went to my Ne wet dream system of random function order in a hierarchy within the system of Beebe/Berens, which I believe is the true form of a Jungian psychological type personality.

The MBTI axis is a joke. MBTI states it is about preferences, and we all know those change not only with age, but by situation and mood. Everybody is in a grey zone when you go by a preference from one of the dichotomies. It is part of the reason people are confused about their type. I wouldn't be shocked if most people subconsciously pick their type based on how they view themselves (the Forer Effect) or they take one of the this or that vague absolutism test, read the functions, they don't match, and then they go on about how the functions are stupid.

StunnedFox · Jun 25, 2015

"Everybody is in a grey zone when you go by a preference" - that only holds if you (wrongly) assume that to have a preference requires the exclusion of the opposite preference. "Preference" is not about what you consciously desire or have a taste for; the metaphor often used is handedness, and the sense in which, whilst people can and do use both of their hands, one feels comfortable and natural to use, and the other uncomfortable and awkward. Situational variance is possible - the general guideline that people should eschew their "work selves", &c., when taking the Myers-Briggs instrument seems to acknowledge this, and asks people to consider, essentially, their overarching self rather than what they are like in specific situations. So I don't see that your point re: preferences holds.

There are 40,320 possible combinations of the eight functions. To suggest that any of them are not possible requires justification, and said justification requires that we have a set idea of what exactly each function is and how they relate. Merely positing that, say, Ti-dominance requires an extraverted perceiving function to be auxiliary is not a justification, and doesn't logically follow from what little we have in terms of specific definition of functions. Indeed, the fact scholars can dispute what orientation Jung saw the auxiliary as having would suggest that such assertions lack clear foundation. Regardless of what the MBTI intends to achieve in relation to Jungian theory, the question is whether it stands as a theory in its own right - and the answer to that, as far as empirical justification goes, seems to be that the dichotomies are justified but type dynamics is not.

I don't doubt that biases can and do affect the way people approach typology, and the Forer Effect is a noted example of this. Said possibility is precisely why finding some objective grounding for the claims each theory makes is imperative; without that, and dealing wholly with individuals' subjective impressions of self, bias has far more scope to operate.

I think it's been acknowledged in this thread that the primary issue is with type dynamics, and the link it draws between the dichotomies and the functions. I happen to also think there are significant issues with trying to get the cognitive functions to stand alone - lack of clear definition leads to a lack of clear justification for any of the strictures imposed upon type; various different models are advanced (XXYY interpretation of Jung, Myers' XYYY stack, Grant's XYXY, Beebe/Berens eight-function model, the MBTI's XY?Y stance...) with none having any greater justification than the others; lack of objective evidence to support the concepts being employed to begin with - but theoretically, a better-developed functions system could stand alongside a dichotomy-based MBTI (which is what @Simpson17866 is trying to do by using online functions tests as an objective measure, but I'm personally not convinced that affords the functions much credibility). To treat it as though arguments like the ones in this thread stem from knee-jerk responses to "vague absolutism" in tests is a misconception of the issue, and it would perhaps pay to engage with the arguments people make and show how they are flawed rather than simply asserting a contrary position.

Cognitive Functions are Incompatible with 4-Letter Codes

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities