# Weird Cognitive Function Percentages



## RubyFiligree (Sep 15, 2012)

So I took the following cognitive functions test, http://similarminds.com/cgi-bin/cog_jung.pl , and got these results...

*Te (Extroverted Thinking)* (25%) 
your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods
*Ti (Introverted Thinking)* (45%) 
your valuation of / adherence to your own internally devised logic/rational
*Ne (Extroverted Intuition)* (70%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards free association and creating with external stimuli
*Ni (Introverted Intuition)* (70%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards internal/original free association and creativity
*Se (Extroverted Sensing)* (60%) 
your valuation of / tendency to fully experience the world unfiltered, in the moment
*Si (Introverted Sensing)* (45%) 
your valuation of / focus on internal sensations and reliving past moments
*Fe (Extroverted Feeling)* (35%) 
your valuation of / adherence to external morals, ethics, traditions, customs, groups
*Fi (Introverted Feeling)* (65%) 
your valuation of / adherence to the sanctity of your own feelings / ideals / sentiment
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
based on your results your type is likely - *unclear
*
I found it strange that Ne and Ni are my highest cognitive functions AND that I scored equally on both. I also find it strange that my Se is so high given how high my Ni and Ne are. Maybe the way I view myself is distorted or my cognitive functions are out of the ordinary. Is there anyone who can help me differentiate Ne vs. Ni and Se vs. Ne?I usually test as INFP and I identify most with it's description but I've also tested as ISFP, ENFP, and ESFP. I have taken other cognitive function tests before and I usually come up with the same result (equal Ni/Ne first, Fi second, and Se third with Te always being my lowest.

Feel free to ask me any questions or direct me to other resources. 
Thanks, in advance, for your time and help.


----------



## Luanne (Jul 6, 2012)

First of all, are you under any mental stress now or were you at the time of the first test? That can affect it a lot apparently.
Secondly, as far as I'm aware, the dominant function can appear in both introverted and extraverted forms as top on the test. But those are pretty odd for an INFP I guess... I score higher on Ne than Fi though, but maybe... I've heard a theory that people often seem to value their auxiliary function more than their dominant, because their dominant function affects their entire world view, and thus they're less aware of it and seem to place less importance on it consciously. So it would make sense for an INxP to score highest in Ne, and thus Ni. 
Well... N is taking in information through abstract... patterns? So Ne would look to the outside world for these patterns, and Ni would look for them internally. Apparently Ne is like seeing many things in one pattern, and Ni is seeing many patterns for one thing. I think. Like, Ne jumps from idea to idea, and Ni is more focused. And Ne vs Se... I think Ne deals with the abstract and intangible, and Se deals with the real and tangible. Err... That's the best I can do. @arkigos helped explain to me the difference between Se and Ne (sorry for bringing you into this, you were just so helpful). 
But I'd advise not worrying too much about the results of this test, they're not the most accurate, reliable or helpful on the internet. And they certainly aren't worth paying attention to, really.


----------



## Mind Swirl (Sep 7, 2011)

Out of curiosity, I took the test and got (Ne)(Ni=Fi)(Te=Ti)(Fe)(Si)(Se) and it suggested ENFP which.. is a result I've never received before. This test seems to have a lot of cross-over with Te and Ti.. and Ni and Ne, (perhaps)? I had two "tied" percentages. However, it's fairly "accurate" to other tests I've taken in that Ni, Ne, Fi, and Te are the top four. These tests just sort of _suggest_ what functions you _may_ use as a starting point. 
Have you tried the Keys2Cognition test (If you're interested in tests)? It might be worth a try to compare results, just to see how you score, and then study on from there. 
Here's the link to the test:
Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

RubyFiligree said:


> I found it strange that Ne and Ni are my highest cognitive functions AND that I scored equally on both. I also find it strange that my Se is so high given how high my Ni and Ne are. Maybe the way I view myself is distorted or my cognitive functions are out of the ordinary. Is there anyone who can help me differentiate Ne vs. Ni and Se vs. Ne?I usually test as INFP and I identify most with it's description but I've also tested as ISFP, ENFP, and ESFP. I have taken other cognitive function tests before and I usually come up with the same result (equal Ni/Ne first, Fi second, and Se third with Te always being my lowest.


This test is faulty because it doesn't take into account the very basic functional dichotomies that lie at the heart of the MBTI, so it tends to confuse beginners. I would say don't pay much attention to these results and instead do some reading on the fundamentals of MBTI and the cognitive functions associated with types:

Understanding the MBTI and Personality Types
Lenore Thomson's functions
MBTI functions


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

For somebody trying to type themselves based on test results — and especially if they have four reasonably well-defined MBTI preferences — I think a decent dichotomy-based test is significantly more likely to give them the correct result than a cognitive functions test. People's results on cognitive functions tests are often very different from what they've been led to expect — e.g., an INFP getting high Ne _and high Ni_ rather than high Ne and low Ni.

For more, see this post.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

In other words, the strict function hierarchy of the MBTI system is bullshit.


----------



## RubyFiligree (Sep 15, 2012)

Mind Swirl said:


> Out of curiosity, I took the test and got (Ne)(Ni=Fi)(Te=Ti)(Fe)(Si)(Se) and it suggested ENFP which.. is a result I've never received before. This test seems to have a lot of cross-over with Te and Ti.. and Ni and Ne, (perhaps)? I had two "tied" percentages. However, it's fairly "accurate" to other tests I've taken in that Ni, Ne, Fi, and Te are the top four. These tests just sort of _suggest_ what functions you _may_ use as a starting point.
> Have you tried the Keys2Cognition test (If you're interested in tests)? It might be worth a try to compare results, just to see how you score, and then study on from there.
> Here's the link to the test:
> Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes



*Cognitive Process**Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)*extraverted Sensing (Se) ****************************** (30)
average useintroverted Sensing (Si) *********************** (23.6)
limited useextraverted Intuiting (Ne) **************************************** (40.2)
excellent useintroverted Intuiting (Ni) *************************************** (39.9)
excellent useextraverted Thinking (Te) ***************** (17.6)
limited useintroverted Thinking (Ti) ********************* (21)
limited useextraverted Feeling (Fe) ************************ (24.9)
average useintroverted Feeling (Fi) ******************************************* (43.2)
excellent use

Thanks for the link. I came up as more Fi than Ne on this one. My Ne is slightly higher than my Ni. This makes sense in light of what Luanne said about Ne jumping from idea to idea rather than being focused. 

The more I read and take tests, it becomes increasingly clear that I'm really an INFP. roud:


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

RubyFiligree said:


> So I took the following cognitive functions test, http://similarminds.com/cgi-bin/cog_jung.pl , and got these results...
> 
> *Te (Extroverted Thinking)* (25%)
> your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods
> ...


Having a rogue function isn't that abnormal. I took that very test and got:

Ti > Fe > Ne > Ni >> Fi = Si > Se

Note the Ni close to Ne and the rogue Fe. It still typed me an INTP correctly.

Getting both Ne and Ni high is pretty common, I think, for N types... since the descriptions blur. Also, N is N and Ne and Ni have a lot in common at least in the way we perceive them.

In reality they are pretty different. I approach the world very differently from my Ni friends. The idea is that Ni is about determining which abstract concept is best and owning it in an internalized way... and Ne is about experiencing as many random concepts as possible.

The same is true of Si vs Se ... Si is determining which experience is best and doing that ... and Se is about exploring all sorts of experiences. 

Ne vs Se can be difficult to explain... and because our culture sometimes idealizes N personas (Gandhi, Einstein, Lennon, etc) - SP types especially, being incredible chameleons, can sometimes make themselves into N caricatures or over-emphasize N qualities in themselves. As a result I tend to have an 'S until proven guilty' rule. I've been fooled more than once.

Ne is about concepts and abstractions... and can sometimes be high-minded, given to intellectualism, come across as a geek or intellectual, even as elitist... and also given to hyperbole or idealism and can be sometimes fairly idealistic or 'untethered' in their views... sometimes straying far from how society views things (like Gandhi, Einstein, Lennon). They are also generally disinclined to desire small talk about people and things ... preferring to devolve conversations into concepts or ideals. Ne types often describe feeling stifled or uncomfortable in the S world and many times find that meeting other N types for the first time to be a huge experience... they also tend to find discovering their MBTI descriptions to be a huge revelation and very empowering... having lived as a misfit and sometimes not being able to understand why. Even I, raised in a N dominant home, had such an experience. N types in general are also prone to elitism after discovering the nature of the N/S divide... and may struggle to reconcile with S types conceptually. Not all of this is true, but a lot of it should be if you are an N.

Youth is also a factor as the younger you are the more likely your environment will affect you and skew results. Older people can also type oddly due to being more well-rounded. 

Additionally, FP types (which you seem very likely to be) are very subjective in their interpretation of information and experiences. That is the very reason FP types are the best artists/poets/manipulators/chameleons of all the types. (E)SFP types especially can put on many masks. I assume that it is this tendency that causes your skewed results... though that is a very tentative assumption.

Very low Je (Fe/Te) hints heavily that you are a P type. High Ni is thus likely just the result of general N preference. You should be either an xNFP with a strong positive S influence (positive or very overwhelming S family or friend experiences dominating your life... more common for ENFPs to be susceptible to) or an xSFP who is chameleoning N for some reason... again probably due to some influence.

Do you think of yourself as an introvert or extrovert? In what situations? Why?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

LeaT said:


> In other words, the strict function hierarchy of the MBTI system is bullshit.


I'd say that depends on what you mean by "the MBTI system."

As further described in the spoiler in this post, the official MBTI has essentially been about the dichotomies since the beginning. After paying some largely disingenuous lip service to Jung's functions in the first half of Myers' Gifts Differing, the book all but abandons them. The 1985 version of the MBTI Manual (which Myers co-authored) cited around 1,500 MBTI-related studies, virtually all of them focused on the dichotomies (and various non-function-related dichotomy combinations). More recently, the official "Step II" MBTI report that an ENFJ (for example) receives includes lots of dichotomy-based analysis (including five subscales for each dichotomy) while barely mentioning "extraverted feeling" or "introverted intuition." What's more, the report's descriptions of the ENFJ's N (not Ni) and F (not Fe) are the _same descriptions_ of N and F (and the five subscales) that ENFPs receive in their reports — notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are allegedly Fe-Ni types and ENFPs are allegedly Ne-Fi types.

If you're looking for personality analysis that's centered around an INFP being Fi-Ne-Si-Te, your best bet isn't official MBTI sources, but rather a small group of independent theorists (e.g., Beebe, Thomson and Nardi) and, of course, internet forums. But it's worth noting (1) that, as further explained in this post, the more respectable functions-centric sources avoid the mistake of treating the dichotomies as if they're just letter codes to lead you to the all-important functions, and (2) that _none of the more functions-centric theorists_, to my knowledge, has been able to design a test that even reliably identifies the supposed "dominant function," much less puts four (or even two) functions in the expected hierarchical order.

I'm more inclined to suspect that it's the cognitive functions themselves that are "bullshit," rather than any particular "strict hierarchy" of them — and, as further discussed in the first linked post, that's what the existing data suggests. I'm told that, unlike the 1985 MBTI Manual (which, like Gifts Differing, paid some limited lip service to the functions), the more recent Step II Manual has virtually no discussion of "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions) and, if I had to bet, I'd bet that the cognitive functions don't have a bright future ahead of them.

So I'm not misunderstood, I certainly think (along with Myers, Keirsey and many others) that there are plenty of meaningful things to be said about various dichotomy combinations — including (but hardly limited to) the combinations associated with the eight functions. But I think it's probably a "category mistake" (to quote the Reynierse article mentioned in the first linked post) to treat the function-related combinations as the fundamental components of personality, much less to try to put them in any kind of hierarchical order ("strict" or otherwise).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> I'd say that depends on what you mean by "the MBTI system."
> 
> As further described in the spoiler in this post, the official MBTI has essentially been about the dichotomies since the beginning. After paying some largely disingenuous lip service to Jung's functions in the first half of Myers' Gifts Differing, the book all but abandons them. The 1985 version of the MBTI Manual (which Myers co-authored) cited around 1,500 MBTI-related studies, virtually all of them focused on the dichotomies (and various non-function-related dichotomy combinations). More recently, the official "Step II" MBTI report that an ENFJ (for example) receives includes lots of dichotomy-based analysis (including five subscales for each dichotomy) while barely mentioning "extraverted feeling" or "introverted intuition." What's more, the report's descriptions of the ENFJ's N (not Ni) and F (not Fe) are the _same descriptions_ of N and F (and the five subscales) that ENFPs receive in their reports — notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are allegedly Fe-Ni types and ENFPs are allegedly Ne-Fi types.
> 
> ...


By MBTI I mean exactly that - the dichotomies, the function hierarchies it proposes and everything else that came after including Keirsey, Berens and Beebe and others. I just had a weird flash of deja vu when I started to think of the biggest critique I have against Claude Lévi-Straus and his theory that humans are hard-wired to think in dichotomies. Sometimes it is extremely limiting because it forces the foci on the differences rather than similarities, and sometimes it might even create a divide that simply isn't there at all. Ni and Si are functions that are more similar than I think most people care to admit, and games goes for Ti and Fi, Fe and Te and Ne and Se as well. So what gives?

If anything, I've started to scoff at the entire MBTI "culture".

I do think Jung has a point when he designed his function theory, but the more I understand about it and the more I see people actually applying this in practice, the more I just feel a stronger and stronger distain, I'm repulsed. People have this extreme issue of not being able to take it all literarily. It is not even a matter of people taking it too seriously if one can do such a thing; no, it's just that the entire "MBTI culture" is syringed with this attitude that functions and everything that comes with it is written in law and that it can explain the totality of a person.

I do agree with you that there's a grain of truth in it but I think we tend to over-emphasize this truth in favor for looking at the big picture which is why I find that the theories proposed by say Beebe are ultimately self-defeating. It's built on an originally flawed model which means everything else will be flawed.

I am slowly moving towards a theory of the human psyche not as two-dimensional as a dichotomy theory would suggest, but three-dimensional, maybe even multi-dimensional. Because that's how complex the human psyche actually is. This is why I can't look at these theories anymore and take it seriously and why it irks to me to no end when people do. Somehow it seems to fundamentally miss the entire mark of what being human is about and what it means to explain this experience into something that can be applied to all of us.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

LeaT said:


> In other words, the strict function hierarchy of the MBTI system is bullshit.


Exactly, but having to list off all of your functions in order from most used function to least used would just create a clusterfuck though.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

LeaT said:


> By MBTI I mean exactly that - the dichotomies, the function hierarchies it proposes and everything else that came after including Keirsey, Berens and Beebe and others. I just had a weird flash of deja vu when I started to think of the biggest critique I have against Claude Lévi-Straus and his theory that humans are hard-wired to think in dichotomies. Sometimes it is extremely limiting because it forces the foci on the differences rather than similarities, and sometimes it might even create a divide that simply isn't there at all. Ni and Si are functions that are more similar than I think most people care to admit, and games goes for Ti and Fi, Fe and Te and Ne and Se as well. So what gives? ...


As the old saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. :tongue:

I'm inclined to agree that the human mind seems to be somewhat designed to think in dichotomies, and that a (maybe) natural tendency to find "two kinds of people in the world" may often lead people to see "divides" where the reality is more like a continuous spectrum (or otherwise more messy/complicated).

But neither that, nor the fact that there's now quite a bit of data (including Big Five data) that suggests that the MBTI dimensions exhibit something like a normal distribution, necessarily means that there isn't something meaningfully _dichotomy-like_ about at least three (if not all four) of those dimensions — if, by "dichotomy-like," you don't mean a bimodal distribution but rather the fact that the spectrum involves two poles that mirror each other in ways that make people who _aren't_ in (or very near) the middle "opposites of each other" in significant ways.

(I say "three (if not all four)" because I think T/F's a mess in multiple ways, and I'm especially open to the idea that it may be a mistake to try to frame that particular dimension in terms of a dichotomy whose poles significantly mirror each other.)


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

LeaT said:


> By MBTI I mean exactly that - the dichotomies, the function hierarchies it proposes and everything else that came after including Keirsey, Berens and Beebe and others. I just had a weird flash of deja vu when I started to think of the biggest critique I have against Claude Lévi-Straus and his theory that humans are hard-wired to think in dichotomies. Sometimes it is extremely limiting because it forces the foci on the differences rather than similarities, and sometimes it might even create a divide that simply isn't there at all. Ni and Si are functions that are more similar than I think most people care to admit, and games goes for Ti and Fi, Fe and Te and Ne and Se as well. So what gives?
> 
> If anything, I've started to scoff at the entire MBTI "culture".
> 
> ...


Very much agreed. ^_^ I don't necessarily hate on MBTI exactly. I find it far too simple, though. Perhaps "simple" isn't the best word. It's just not as layered as humans are. Jung's theory gives more room for humans to be humans. Things are not so set in stone, and I like it that way. I find that stuff like Jung and the Enneagram and other such theories should not be totally leaned on. They've all got flaws. Some great insights can come out of them and provide a person with a way to better see themselves and communicate with others. Or perhaps give that person a new theory to think about and play with.  

But none of these things can ever truly and accurately categorize people.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> As the old saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. :tongue:
> 
> I'm inclined to agree that the human mind seems to be somewhat designed to think in dichotomies, and that a (maybe) natural tendency to find "two kinds of people in the world" may often lead people to see "divides" where the reality is more like a continuous spectrum (or otherwise more messy/complicated).
> 
> ...


I notice the same tendency in every response you've written to me about this and it's clear that we're arguing from different perspectives. I never said no useful knowledge can be taken from the MBTI or Jung, that's missing the entire point of my argument. My point is how the system is unnecessarily rigid which by itself makes it a flawed system for the reason Julia Bell points out below. 

With that said, I am not even arguing for two poles or even four poles like you can see in a lot of international relations charts, e.g. the political divide that got 4 axes. I am arguing for something even greater than this, not two dimensions (that even the model used when explaining politics suggests) but truly three dimensions. It lacks _depth_. As to how this would be achieved I've yet to figure out, but a big step forward would be to stop understanding the conscious-unconscious divide as something linear.



Julia Bell said:


> Very much agreed. ^_^ I don't necessarily hate on MBTI exactly. I find it far too simple, though. Perhaps "simple" isn't the best word. It's just not as layered as humans are. Jung's theory gives more room for humans to be humans. Things are not so set in stone, and I like it that way. I find that stuff like Jung and the Enneagram and other such theories should not be totally leaned on. They've all got flaws. Some great insights can come out of them and provide a person with a way to better see themselves and communicate with others. Or perhaps give that person a new theory to think about and play with.
> 
> But none of these things can ever truly and accurately categorize people.


Agree. It's simplistic and lacks fluidity. In a way I do find that enneagram is the most successful out of all personality theories I've encountered thus far in this regard, especially tritype.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I notice the same tendency in every response you've written to me about this and it's clear that we're arguing from different perspectives. I never said no useful knowledge can be taken from the MBTI or Jung, that's missing the entire point of my argument. My point is how the system is unnecessarily rigid which by itself makes it a flawed system for the reason Julia Bell points out below.
> 
> With that said, I am not even arguing for two poles or even four poles like you can see in a lot of international relations charts, e.g. the political divide that got 4 axes. I am arguing for something even greater than this, not two dimensions (that even the model used when explaining politics suggests) but truly three dimensions. It lacks _depth_. As to how this would be achieved I've yet to figure out, but a big step forward would be to stop understanding the conscious-unconscious divide as something linear.
> 
> ...


I think my fear of a heavily 'fluid' system is my problem with personality systems in general... they are often just parrots:

A: "Are you outgoing or reserved?"
B: "Outgoing"
A: "That makes you a Yellow!"
B: "Cool. Okay, I'm a Yellow... tell me about myself!"
A: "Well, Yellows are very outgoing...."
B: "Whoa! You know me better than I know myself! Incredible!"

A useful personality test does more than just parrot. It should be able to tell you much more about yourself than you tell it. At the very least it should emphasize something other than just categorizing us. This is one of the reasons I like Keirsey so much... he has an agenda in his books beyond just parroting our personalities (and interactions) back to us. This means that Enneagram is a good personality system... but, there is something more to be considered along this vein. 

I just did a quick calculation of all possible tritypes in Enneagram. Presuming they can be in any order, but cannot repeat, there are a full 504 possible tritypes. I'll agree that is a great deal more 'fluid' than 16 MBTI types... and if you are judging on sheer permutations, tritype 'wins' soundly. I personally think this is a bad thing.... but regardless of preference, it doesn't matter, because: 

As an INTP I can tell you how easy it is to devise a complex system of organization. I could imagine making a list of general human archetypes (very abstract and high level, no need to be too specific)... let's say 9. I could then allow people to choose their top three, in order, which should handle every possible situation (504 situations at least) and then do a decade or two of study to flesh out interesting tendencies and details. Have I uncovered anything? No, it would have been completely workable but completely arbitrary. It would be a great parrot system and by doing research I could even force the system to be insightful.

I personally feel that Jung broke this mold when he was able to determine cognitive functions. He did more than parrot and in doing so was able to discover something about people that is not arbitrary. As Keirsey points out, Jungs cognitive functions are not observable in and of themselves. However, like any true theory that uncovers invisible truths (like general relativity, for example), the precepts are indirectly provable and consistent. I have personally met maybe 3 people I could not easily type ... and psychological issues were always a factor. Additionally, I met an INFJ the other day and informed her of her type and it was a massive revelation that will impact her life. I suspect that if I told her her tritype she'd say "yep, that's me!" as I did when I determined mine. That is a stark contrast to the essentially religious experience I had upon discovering that I am an INTP... and for her (and her family) that she is an INFJ. 

Nevertheless, I see value in enneagram, as a very sane and thorough system of categorization with great insights into interactions. It's valuable in a wholly different way from Jung... 

Also, Jung is somewhat like religion in that it doesn't matter if it's too rigid or not fluid or x or y or z... debating semantics is irrelevant to the real question. Is it true or isn't it? It's rigid enough of a theory that either it is wrong or you are. As I see it, tritype is just Unitarian Universalism - you can't argue it's correctness in context of accepting the larger premise because it is broad, generalized, and arbitrary. It's cheating!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I think my fear of a heavily 'fluid' system is my problem with personality systems in general... they are often just parrots:
> 
> A: "Are you outgoing or reserved?"
> B: "Outgoing"
> ...


You need to look more into tritype theory to see the depth it offers when understanding people's motivations, especially once you toss instincts in there as well. Tritype and instincts explain my behavior and thinking much better than socionics and MBTI combined.


----------



## RubyFiligree (Sep 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Having a rogue function isn't that abnormal. I took that very test and got:
> 
> Ti > Fe > Ne > Ni >> Fi = Si > Se
> 
> ...


I see myself as an introvert for many reasons. First of all, I tend to avoid large groups and small talk. I like to be with people on a one-on-one basis or in small groups. I actually feel socially awkward because I often want to talk about things that have a lot emotional depth (purpose of life, personal experiences, opinions on this versus that). Second, I tend to be more inwardly focused. I'm usually caught up in my own world, my own feelings, thoughts, experiences, ideas, etc). Perhaps that sounds egotistical, and maybe that's the ADD or the depression talking (even though I have them well managed). Third, I tend to be more of a listener than a talker. I take what people say and process it to form new ideas and thoughts (often bouncing from one thought to another). I tend to be like this in all situations but there are times I contradict myself. Sometimes, I like to be in the spotlight (like karaoke) and have the energy of several people around me (like a gym class). Sometimes, I will talk your head off (if it's something I am interested in, have experience in, or find very important). Sometimes, even when I don't want to, I feel other's pain and see things from their point of view (even if it's contrary to my own).


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

RubyFiligree said:


> So I took the following cognitive functions test,
> 
> http://similarminds.com/cgi-bin/cog_jung.pl , and got these results...
> 
> ...


Two big, important things.

1) This is an internet quiz. Made by someone who probably is not a research psychologist like Meyers or Briggs. Keep in mind that it is probably flawed. 
2) Functions don't correlate to types for all people. MBTI doesn't have a classification for a percentage of the population.

I don't think the issue is #2. The quiz might be in development, but you probably shouldn't put too much stock into it.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

function tests are crap and 8 function model is invalid, case solved


----------



## Cristy0505 (Oct 8, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I am slowly moving towards a theory of the human psyche not as two-dimensional as a dichotomy theory would suggest, but three-dimensional, maybe even multi-dimensional. Because that's how complex the human psyche actually is. This is why I can't look at these theories anymore and take it seriously and why it irks to me to no end when people do. Somehow it seems to fundamentally miss the entire mark of what being human is about and what it means to explain this experience into something that can be applied to all of us.


For almost 2 months since you and a few people tried to help me out typing... 

Since begin I had that idea which I came with after reading your people arguments about these 8 letters that either it's not so accurate or not everyone can be perfectly typed. I had that idea that MAJORITY of people do fit into these descriptions at most but NOT everyone will fit into because it depends of each one experiences, way of seeing things, culture and many other factors that have high influence over human psychological It's far more complex than just MBTI. 

Now we talking same language 

After all that theory isn't perfect I think it wasn't meant to be neither.

*edit* another thing I would like to mention once again is the fact I have never met two identical persons by the way of view things, act, react to things, way of think, etc. Every each person I have met until today were different of each other and alot.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Cristy0505 said:


> For almost 2 months since you and a few people tried to help me out typing...
> 
> Since begin I had that idea which I came with after reading your people arguments about these 8 letters that either it's not so accurate or not everyone can be perfectly typed. I had that idea that MAJORITY of people do fit into these descriptions at most but NOT everyone will fit into because it depends of each one experiences, way of seeing things, culture and many other factors that have high influence over human psychological It's far more complex than just MBTI.
> 
> ...


from the function % on your signature, i think it looks like an INTP. high "Ni" is fake Ti+Ne, high Si could be you having(or having had in the past) some problems in your life that forced you to behave more Si like, maybe you are so sensitive towards external world, that you developed whats more comfortable to you, another introverted function. "Fi" > Fe is quite typical for INTPs, because its natural for them to suppress Fe by analyzing it with Ti and making it look like "Fi". relatively high "Se" is probably the cause of having such a powerful Si in comparison to Ne.

when analyzing these 8 function model results, you need to understand that there is actually just 4 functions which are either I or E, not both Ti and Te for example. then you need to realize how these functions relate to each others and might make it seem as if you were using Se for example, when its just really high Si with moderate Ne. i wanted to include the analysis, so that you can get an idea of whats going on in the 8 function tests and maybe if you feel like INTP isnt the right type for you, you can do an analysis of your own in similar fashion, but find out the real fake/illusionary functions, which are actually function combinations with opposite attitude showing(due to the interaction between E and I function). for example this fake Fi in INTP would come off when Fe is unconsciously guiding where Ti is analyzing(removing irrelevant data based on logic) and making the analyzing in the framework of Fe. So Fe gives an template from which to take parts away based on logic and the end result could look like Fi, since the decision was focused on F values and was introverted, but the F values were E and introverting was done via T.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Naama said:


> from the function % on your signature, i think it looks like an INTP. high "Ni" is fake Ti+Ne, high Si could be you having(or having had in the past) some problems in your life that forced you to behave more Si like, maybe you are so sensitive towards external world, that you developed whats more comfortable to you, another introverted function. "Fi" > Fe is quite typical for INTPs, because its natural for them to suppress Fe by analyzing it with Ti and making it look like "Fi". relatively high "Se" is probably the cause of having such a powerful Si in comparison to Ne.
> 
> when analyzing these 8 function model results, you need to understand that there is actually just 4 functions which are either I or E, not both Ti and Te for example. then you need to realize how these functions relate to each others and might make it seem as if you were using Se for example, when its just really high Si with moderate Ne. i wanted to include the analysis, so that you can get an idea of whats going on in the 8 function tests and maybe if you feel like INTP isnt the right type for you, you can do an analysis of your own in similar fashion, but find out the real fake/illusionary functions, which are actually function combinations with opposite attitude showing(due to the interaction between E and I function). for example this fake Fi in INTP would come off when Fe is unconsciously guiding where Ti is analyzing(removing irrelevant data based on logic) and making the analyzing in the framework of Fe. So Fe gives an template from which to take parts away based on logic and the end result could look like Fi, since the decision was focused on F values and was introverted, but the F values were E and introverting was done via T.


Completely disagree with this and many models out there disagree with you as well. Sure, what you describe here can occur but to say that I do not for example am incapable to reason with Fi is just right-out false. Being less likely to do it doesn't mean I can't do it.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Completely disagree with this and many models out there disagree with you as well. Sure, what you describe here can occur but to say that I do not for example am incapable to reason with Fi is just right-out false. Being less likely to do it doesn't mean I can't do it.


jungs model is in favor of what i said:



http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/a said:


> *Archaic *
> Primal or original. (See also participation mystique.)
> 
> 
> ...





> *Concretism *
> A way of thinking or feeling that is archaic and undifferentiated, based entirely on perception through sensation. (Compare abstraction.)
> 
> 
> ...





Psychological types; extraverted thinking said:


> Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education. The criterion of judgment, therefore, as to whether or no a thinking is extraverted, hangs directly upon the question: by which standard is its judgment governed—is it furnished from without, or is its origin subjective? A further criterion is afforded by the direction of the thinker's conclusion, namely, whether or no the thinking has a preferential direction outwards. It is no proof of its extraverted nature that it is preoccupied with concrete objects, since I may be engaging my thoughts with a concrete object, either because I am abstracting my thought from it_(i.e Ti'ing)_ or because I am concretizing my thought with it_(i.e Te'ing)_. Even if I engage my thinking with concrete things, and to that extent could be described as extraverted, it yet remains both questionable and characteristic as regards the direction my thinking will take; namely, whether in its further course it leads back again to objective data, external facts, and generally accepted ideas, or not.


why do you disagree?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Naama said:


> from the function % on your signature, i think it looks like an INTP. high "Ni" is fake Ti+Ne, high Si could be you having(or having had in the past) some problems in your life that forced you to behave more Si like, maybe you are so sensitive towards external world, that you developed whats more comfortable to you, another introverted function. "Fi" > Fe is quite typical for INTPs, because its natural for them to suppress Fe by analyzing it with Ti and making it look like "Fi". relatively high "Se" is probably the cause of having such a powerful Si in comparison to Ne.
> 
> when analyzing these 8 function model results, you need to understand that there is actually just 4 functions which are either I or E, not both Ti and Te for example. then you need to realize how these functions relate to each others and might make it seem as if you were using Se for example, when its just really high Si with moderate Ne. i wanted to include the analysis, so that you can get an idea of whats going on in the 8 function tests and maybe if you feel like INTP isnt the right type for you, you can do an analysis of your own in similar fashion, but find out the real fake/illusionary functions, which are actually function combinations with opposite attitude showing(due to the interaction between E and I function). for example this fake Fi in INTP would come off when Fe is unconsciously guiding where Ti is analyzing(removing irrelevant data based on logic) and making the analyzing in the framework of Fe. So Fe gives an template from which to take parts away based on logic and the end result could look like Fi, since the decision was focused on F values and was introverted, but the F values were E and introverting was done via T.


I like the analysis (INTP dogpile thread hijack!) but I think it's just as likely that the high Si a phantom from Ni + Se. I have an ISTP friend who would undoubtedly have such a relic appear in his function test. I was verbally testing him and asked him a lot of Se vs Si questions and he answered Si a lot... but he is unquestionably an ISTP (like, a poster boy). It turns out it was a well-developed Ni triggering on things he believed strongly in... and thus might unnaturally suppress Se reporting.

For @Cristy0505 I broke that tie just via observing that she seemed more like an ISTP generally than an INTP from her 'type me' thread.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Naama said:


> jungs model is in favor of what i said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look into Beebe and socionics and see why they disagree with you. I personally disagree with those models too but I think they are at least closer to reality than saying that people can only exhibit 4 functions of their type. That's ridiculous if you ask me, and paints humans into one-dimensional beings. There's much more complexity to people and even functions than what your model allows.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Look into Beebe and socionics and see why they disagree with you. I personally disagree with those models too but I think they are at least closer to reality than saying that people can only exhibit 4 functions of their type. That's ridiculous if you ask me, and paints humans into one-dimensional beings. There's much more complexity to people and even functions than what your model allows.


i have looked into beebes model in much depth, also i used to think that it was true, but my personal experiences, experiences i heard from others and jung give much better explanation on function dynamics. so no, looking into those models doesent give any good arguments against my view, they just say "this is how it goes" and the way they describe how it goes is in great contradiction with my and jungs view. im not even going to talk about the ridiculousness of assigning archetypes to function positions in beebes model.

your argument about one-sidedness of jungs model, just shows that you are not very familiar with it, as its much more dynamic than beebes model. if you view functions in beebean way, its quite understandable that you would see the four function model as one-sided, because 8 function model simplifies the functions quite a lot and doesent take into account function interactions.

for example what jung said about concretistic thinking not being an an indication about Te, but can be any T+S, for example Ti+Si, Se+Ti, Si+Te, Se+Te or just Te.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

arkigos said:


> I like the analysis (INTP dogpile thread hijack!) but I think it's just as likely that the high Si a phantom from Ni + Se. I have an ISTP friend who would undoubtedly have such a relic appear in his function test. I was verbally testing him and asked him a lot of Se vs Si questions and he answered Si a lot... but he is unquestionably an ISTP (like, a poster boy). It turns out it was a well-developed Ni triggering on things he believed strongly in... and thus might unnaturally suppress Se reporting.
> 
> For I broke that tie just via observing that she seemed more like an ISTP generally than an INTP from her 'type me' thread.


yea, it could be NiSe as well, INTP was just an suggestion, thats why i gave more in depth analysis as an example for her to think about her type by herself.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Naama said:


> i have looked into beebes model in much depth, also i used to think that it was true, but my personal experiences, experiences i heard from others and jung give much better explanation on function dynamics. so no, looking into those models doesent give any good arguments against my view, they just say "this is how it goes" and the way they describe how it goes is in great contradiction with my and jungs view. im not even going to talk about the ridiculousness of assigning archetypes to function positions in beebes model.
> 
> your argument about one-sidedness of jungs model, just shows that you are not very familiar with it, as its much more dynamic than beebes model. if you view functions in beebean way, its quite understandable that you would see the four function model as one-sided, because 8 function model simplifies the functions quite a lot and doesent take into account function interactions.
> 
> for example what jung said about concretistic thinking not being an an indication about Te, but can be any T+S, for example Ti+Si, Se+Ti, Si+Te, Se+Te or just Te.


And I don't think of things at all so... I don't care about that stuff really. As I said, I don't agree with Beebe's archetypes, but I DO agree with that we use all functions to varying degrees. Any cognitive test result suggests as much. If you absolutely do not understand how a different function operates it would be impossible for Jung to even have written Psychological Types to begin with considering that according to you, he could only use and thus only "get" 4 functions.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

LeaT said:


> And I don't think of things at all so... I don't care about that stuff really. As I said, I don't agree with Beebe's archetypes, but I DO agree with that we use all functions to varying degrees. Any cognitive test result suggests as much. If you absolutely do not understand how a different function operates it would be impossible for Jung to even have written Psychological Types to begin with considering that according to you, he could only use and thus only "get" 4 functions.


your arguments are clearly based on false premise and false assumptions about how personality tests operate. im really not in the mood for teaching you different views on typology. i suggest that you go pick up a book called psychological types, read some articles from different angles to typology(and i dont mean some blogger or perc member telling their opinions, but someone with a phd and training on jungian psychology), then we can start to discuss about this matter. also, i think its a good idea to look how brains operate on physical level, especially the pathways between different areas of cerebral cortex(and their functions) and how they connect to areas which modulate conscious decision making and create awareness, and see how all this physiological brain stuff relates to different views on typology.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I see in these two tests below that I have plenty of Ne and Se. Is this a good combination to have? Why or why not?
I think that I'll start an Ne/Se thread, too.

Here is the similar minds listing for me. 
*Te (Extroverted Thinking)* (35%) 
your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods 
*Ti (Introverted Thinking)* (50%) 
your valuation of / adherence to your own internally devised logic/rational 
*Ne (Extroverted Intuition)* (80%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards free association and creating with external stimuli 
*Ni (Introverted Intuition)* (60%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards internal/original free association and creativity 
*Se (Extroverted Sensing)* (90%) 
your valuation of / tendency to fully experience the world unfiltered, in the moment 
*Si (Introverted Sensing)* (45%) 
your valuation of / focus on internal sensations and reliving past moments 
*Fe (Extroverted Feeling)* (65%) 
your valuation of / adherence to external morals, ethics, traditions, customs, groups
*Fi (Introverted Feeling)* (60%) 
your valuation of / adherence to the sanctity of your own feelings / ideals / sentiment 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
based on your results your type is likely - *esfp

Keys 2 Cognition test
*
*Cognitive Process**Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)*extraverted Sensing (Se) ************************************ (36.6)
excellent useintroverted Sensing (Si) ******************** (20)
limited useextraverted Intuiting (Ne) ************************************ (36.4)
excellent useintroverted Intuiting (Ni) ******************************** (32.3)
good useextraverted Thinking (Te) ********************** (22.1)
limited useintroverted Thinking (Ti) ************************* (25.4)
average useextraverted Feeling (Fe) ******************************* (31.2)
good useintroverted Feeling (Fi) ************************************ (36.6)
excellent use
*Summary Analysis of Profile*
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: *ESFP*
*Lead (Dominant) Process*
*Extraverted Sensing (Se):* Immersing in the present context. Responding naturally to everything tangible you detect through your senses. Checking with what your gut instincts say. Testing limits and take risks for big rewards.

*Support (Auxilliary) Process*
*Introverted Feeling (Fi):* Staying true to who you really are. Paying close attention to your personal identity, values and beliefs. Checking with your conscience. Choosing behavior congruent with what is important to you.
​If these cognitive processes don't fit well then consider these types: *ISFP*, or *ENFP*


----------



## Unforeseen Challenges (Nov 12, 2012)

*This is a tad lengthy*

I took two different cognitive tests and got this:
*Introverted Thinking (Ti) |||||||||||||||||||||||||| 12.31
Introverted Intuition (Ni) ||||||||||||||||||||||||| 11.925
Extroverted Thinking (Te) |||||||||||| 5.31
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) ||||||||| 3.935
Introverted Sensation (Si) ||||| 1.7
Extroverted Sensation (Se) ||||| 1.57
Introverted Feeling (Fi) || -1.38
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) |||||| -4.25

Te (Extroverted Thinking) (50%) 
your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods
Ti (Introverted Thinking) (75%) 
your valuation of / adherence to your own internally devised logic/rational
Ne (Extroverted Intuition) (55%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards free association and creating with external stimuli
Ni (Introverted Intuition) (90%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards internal/original free association and creativity
Se (Extroverted Sensing) (10%) 
your valuation of / tendency to fully experience the world unfiltered, in the moment
Si (Introverted Sensing) (40%) 
your valuation of / focus on internal sensations and reliving past moments
Fe (Extroverted Feeling) (5%) 
your valuation of / adherence to external morals, ethics, traditions, customs, groups
Fi (Introverted Feeling) (50%) 
your valuation of / adherence to the sanctity of your own feelings / ideals / sentiment

*
*Cognitive Process**Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)*extraverted Sensing (Se) ******************* (19.2)
limited useintroverted Sensing (Si) ************************************** (38.4)
excellent useextraverted Intuiting (Ne) ********************************************** (46.1)
excellent useintroverted Intuiting (Ni) ********************************* (33)
good useextraverted Thinking (Te) ******************************* (31.2)
good useintroverted Thinking (Ti) **************************************** (40.4)
excellent useextraverted Feeling (Fe) ************** (14.2)
unusedintroverted Feeling (Fi) **************** (16.9)
limited use
*Summary Analysis of Profile*
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: *INTP**Lead (Dominant) Process*
*Introverted Thinking (Ti):* Gaining leverage (influence) using a framework. Detaching to study a situation from different angles and fit it to a theory, framework or principle. Checking for accuracy. Using leverage to solve the problem.

*Support (Auxilliary) Process*
*Extraverted Intuiting (Ne):* Exploring the emerging patterns. Wondering about patterns of interaction across various situations. Checking what hypotheses and meanings fit best. Trusting what emerges as you shift a situation’s dynamics.​


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Naama said:


> jungs model is in favor of what i said:
> 
> ...
> 
> ...





Naama said:


> for example what jung said about concretistic thinking not being an an indication about Te, but can be any T+S, for example Ti+Si, Se+Ti, Si+Te, Se+Te or just Te.


I've corrected you on this same issue before (here and here) and you still don't get it.

Jung emphatically did _not_ view "concretistic" thinking as characteristic of _any_ T/S combination. He viewed it as characteristic of Te — and decidedly uncharacteristic of Ti.

As Jung saw it, a Ti's ideas came from the primordial images in the collective unconscious, which "are irrepresentable because they lack content ... and accordingly they seek something to fill them out. They draw the stuff of experience into their empty forms, representing themselves in facts rather than representing facts. They clothe themselves with facts, as it were. Hence they are not, in themselves, a known _point d'appui_, as is the empirical fact in concrete thinking, but become experienceable only through the unconscious shaping of the stuff of experience. The empiricist [— i.e., the Te-dom—], too, can organize this material and give it shape, but he models it as far as possible on a concrete idea he has built up on the basis of past experience."

You've misunderstood that sentence you underlined in Jung's Te description in two different ways. First, the phrase "preoccupied with a concrete object" doesn't indicate _concretistic_ thinking. On the contrary, the whole point of the sentence is that the fact that a thinker, at any given moment, is "preoccupied with concrete objects" does _not_ tell you whether the actual thinking going on is extraverted (and hence concretistic) or introverted. To figure out whether the focus on concrete objects is part of extraverted thinking or introverted thinking, you have to know _why_ the thinker is paying attention to those objects. And that leads to the second way you've misunderstood the sentence. You added "(i.e., Ti'ing)" after "abstracting my thought from it" and you added "(i.e., Te'ing)" after "concretizing my thought through it" — and that's backwards. It's the extraverted ("concretistic") thinker whose thought is abstracted _from_ concrete objects. That is, the source of the extraverted thinker's ideas is abstraction from observations of concrete reality. And maybe you're sitting there saying, "Aha! Abstraction! Abstract, not concrete!" — but what you need to understand is that what's going on wouldn't really be differentiated "thinking" at all if it didn't involve _some_ level of conceptual abstraction. What made a Te-dom's thinking "concretistic," in Jung's view, wasn't that it didn't involve _any_ abstraction, but rather that its abstractions tended to be too closely tied down by the facts. Jung said Te tends to "draw conclusions only with [the facts'] consent" and suffer from "a certain lack of freedom, of occasional short-sightedness" and described the tendency for the Te's "purely empirical accumulation of facts [to] paralyze thought and smother their meaning." And meanwhile, it's the _introverted_ thinker who Jung is describing in your underlined sentence as "concretizing" his thought with the concrete object. That's not "concretistic thinking"; that's the Ti-dom — whose "thought" sprang from unconscious sources — "clothing" his ideas with facts, as described in the quote in my last paragraph.

Lots of passages in Psychological Types are murky to various degrees and allow room for reasonable people to disagree about exactly what Jung meant. But this is not one of those. Here, you're just _wrong_.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Naama said:


> your arguments are clearly based on false premise and false assumptions about how personality tests operate. im really not in the mood for teaching you different views on typology. i suggest that you go pick up a book called psychological types, read some articles from different angles to typology(and i dont mean some blogger or perc member telling their opinions, but someone with a phd and training on jungian psychology), then we can start to discuss about this matter. also, i think its a good idea to look how brains operate on physical level, especially the pathways between different areas of cerebral cortex(and their functions) and how they connect to areas which modulate conscious decision making and create awareness, and see how all this physiological brain stuff relates to different views on typology.


Not interested in doing any of those things. My understanding of Jung and the functions are derived from studying how people perceive the functions (and I study knowledgeable people first and foremost, and how they depict things), I see how this applies in practice and voila, I have my own models. 

I understand how cognitive function models operate very well. I find it highly arrogant of you claiming I don't say, get Ni or Fi, even when I've done conscious shifting in my own thinking to achieve Ni insights. The way I changed my thinking was so obvious to my conscious psyche that I noticed it was very different to how I normally think. To claim this was some concotion of Ne-Ti is thus simply false. This to anything actually shows to me a clear lack of understanding of the actual depth of the functions. Perhaps you're one of those few people who cannot access more than your natural function stack for your type, but I am certainly not such a person. 

Don't try to make me fit into your little theory when I don't. I decide where I fit.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> I've corrected you on this same issue before (here and here) and you still don't get it.
> 
> Jung emphatically did _not_ view "concretistic" thinking as characteristic of _any_ T/S combination. He viewed it as characteristic of Te — and decidedly uncharacteristic of Ti.
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

reckful said:


> I've corrected you on this same issue before (here and here) and you still don't get it.
> 
> Jung emphatically did _not_ view "concretistic" thinking as characteristic of _any_ T/S combination. He viewed it as characteristic of Te — and decidedly uncharacteristic of Ti.
> 
> ...


cba to read all because its all the same bullshit again, i outlined the part of jung book where he said that concreistic thinking can be extraverted thinking, but can as well be thinking in abstract attitude(Ti) that has its source of perception(which it judged by abstracting via thinking) from sensation.

you are again just saying that what i say is wrong, give me an example where jung says this; "It's the extraverted ("concretistic") thinker whose thought is abstracted _from_ concrete objects.", because its quite the opposite of what he says in describing extraversion as "Means an outward-turning of the libido (q.v.). With this concept I denote a manifest relatedness of subject to object in the sense of a positive movement of subjective interest towards the object." and introversion; " Introversion is active, when the subject wills a certain seclusion in face of the object"



"Abstraction, therefore, is that form of mental activity which releases the essential content or fact from its connection with irrelevant elements; it distinguishes it from them, or, in other words, differentiates it. (v. Differentiation). In its wider sense, everything is abstract that is separated from its connection with non-appertaining elements.

Abstracting-thinking brings into relief a content that is distinguished from other irrelevant elements by its intellectual, logical qualities."

"Abstraction 
A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, similar to the process of differentiation. (Compare empathy.)


Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions in general. There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values . . . . Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation, and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 678.]

Jung related abstraction to introversion (analogous to empathy and extraversion).

I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido.[Ibid., par. 679.]

To the extent that its purpose is to break the object’s hold on the subject, abstraction is an attempt to rise above the primitive state of participation mystique."

here i debunked what you said like fifteenths time and still i doubt that you get and and just say that you are right and i am wrong..


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Not interested in doing any of those things. My understanding of Jung and the functions are derived from studying how people perceive the functions (and I study knowledgeable people first and foremost, and how they depict things), I see how this applies in practice and voila, I have my own models.
> 
> I understand how cognitive function models operate very well. I find it highly arrogant of you claiming I don't say, get Ni or Fi, even when I've done conscious shifting in my own thinking to achieve Ni insights. The way I changed my thinking was so obvious to my conscious psyche that I noticed it was very different to how I normally think. To claim this was some concotion of Ne-Ti is thus simply false. This to anything actually shows to me a clear lack of understanding of the actual depth of the functions. Perhaps you're one of those few people who cannot access more than your natural function stack for your type, but I am certainly not such a person.
> 
> Don't try to make me fit into your little theory when I don't. I decide where I fit.


i started writing a lengthy post providing evidence for 4 function model based on how brains work, but if you arent interested in educating yourself above your current level, thats your loss and i cba to finish that post, since its pretty time consuming to find all sources and try to write complicated shit in a way that people who havent studied the subject could understand.

anyways heres what i wrote thus far if you are interested, its missing the points on repression(thus on dom-inferior interactions) and how it relates to different brain hemispheres connecting to limbic system but what ever. also it might be bit confusing since i didnt have the time to do any finishing up on it, also i was going to expand on nardis work with T5 and Fp1 bit further and show that his model is bit simplistic, still worth reviewing.



> ill give you one argument on why jungs model makes more sense on the physiological perspective. ill use Fe as an example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ps. according to 8 function model, i was using heavy Te when writing that, even tho its clearly TiNeSi with a hint of frustrated in your face james type of Fe if you understand function interactions inside a type. and what comes to 8 function tests, according to them, im strong at(besides Ti and Ne) on Ni, Si, Fi and Te.

and yes, i get frustrated with some 2012 spawns arguing about stupid shit, is that Fi or Fe?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

I got this:

*Te (Extroverted Thinking)* (25%) 
your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods
*Ti (Introverted Thinking)* (90%) 
your valuation of / adherence to your own internally devised logic/rational
*Ne (Extroverted Intuition)* (80%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards free association and creating with external stimuli
*Ni (Introverted Intuition)* (85%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards internal/original free association and creativity
*Se (Extroverted Sensing)* (25%) 
your valuation of / tendency to fully experience the world unfiltered, in the moment
*Si (Introverted Sensing)* (55%) 
your valuation of / focus on internal sensations and reliving past moments
*Fe (Extroverted Feeling)* (60%) 
your valuation of / adherence to external morals, ethics, traditions, customs, groups
*Fi (Introverted Feeling)* (45%) 
your valuation of / adherence to the sanctity of your own feelings / ideals / sentiment
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
based on your results your type is likely - *intp
*
I learned the following:

1) That test blows.
2) It's really easy to false-positive on crappy tests. I am not an Ni type in the least and yet it put me there with it's wording. I knew which questions were gonna score me Ni but I had to answer affirmatively because they were true of me.
3) Terrible test.

Nevertheless, if you take off Ni, my top 4 are Ti Ne Fe Si ... with the last two being fairly equal... so, not too shabby for me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@_Naama_, I refer to Nardi's reserach that I think is much more legit than anything else you can throw at me e.g. Thompson et al. By the way, the feeling function is located on both the left and right side of the brain according to Nardi's research who has, compared to your sketchy models, actually shown tangible results thanks to his brain activity scans. 

Here are some of his images for reference that I copy-pasted from the pdf available online on his website:

















































Pictures speak for themselves. While there's a bit of a correlation between some areas between types that could point towards functions (Nardi for example says that xNFPs and xSTJs use the same areas but inverted) it's sketchy at best until we know more.

If your little theory would be correct at all it would suggest that humans are utterly incapable of using any other brain area than their preferred areas which is again, bogus. The brain is a muscle which can be trained and we can practice certain areas of the brain by engaging in activities that activate that area. Nardi even says so himself in the Google Talk where he spoke about how one person scored high on certain areas because they had practiced that area since they were small e.g. playing football or whatever. 

Unless you're suggesting a combination of brain areas can mimick a different combination of areas, I have to say... it seems utterly retarded. Seriously, the way you limit human growth and understanding is just mindboggling. Nardi even goes so far as to say that you can even change type by firing an electric impulse at the right place, again suggesting that we indeed have access to use and use the entire brain but since the brain is a muscle, we will be better at performing tasks we are good at because we're good at it and it will be more enjoyable to perform these tasks. You get stuck in a feedback system. 

We engage with all 8 functions every day just like we engage every part of our brain every day, but we use some areas more, others less, and some areas are more developed (have more connections and increased blood flow) than others. That's about it.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

LeaT said:


> @Naama, I refer to Nardi's reserach that I think is much more legit than anything else you can throw at me e.g. Thompson et al. By the way, the feeling function is located on both the left and right side of the brain according to Nardi's research who has, compared to your sketchy models, actually shown tangible results thanks to his brain activity scans.
> 
> Here are some of his images for reference that I copy-pasted from the pdf available online on his website:
> 
> ...


if you look at the pictures, there is no T5 + Fp1 on any of the strong Fe users XD(and only strong Fe type has both T5Fp1), just proving my point of what i was saying to you. also you clearly havent looked much into nardis work, he used far too little small group size(and even admitted it in his google talk and described his work as a long prestudy) to have any sort of scientific validity. thats why all my references about brain areas and how they function are from wiki. lenores work on brain type is just lol.

i dont think its a good idea for you try to to argue about me on this subject as i am pretty knowledge about cognitive neuropsychology(and their research methods and what sort of studies are required for scientifically valid research) and have compared it to typology for about three years pretty intensively.

just read my half of a long ass reply about the subject and you might understand whats it really about(its far more complex than what nardi presents it as, since nardi is first of all using eeg and is trying to explain it to general public, not to doctors)

ps. i even included 4 of those pictures you gave about nardis work on my previous reply and explained them to some degree, which you clearly didnt even read


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Naama said:


> if you look at the pictures, there is no T5 + Fp1 on any of the strong Fe users XD(and only strong Fe type has both T5Fp1), just proving my point of what i was saying to you. also you clearly havent looked much into nardis work, he used far too little small group size(and even admitted it in his google talk and described his work as a long prestudy) to have any sort of scientific validity. thats why all my references about brain areas and how they function are from wiki. lenores work on brain type is just lol.
> 
> i dont think its a good idea for you try to to argue about me on this subject as i am pretty knowledge about cognitive neuropsychology(and their research methods and what sort of studies are required for scientifically valid research) and have compared it to typology for about three years pretty intensively.
> 
> ...


Yeah, and then look at ESTJ and INTJ that both share Te! Where's the similarity? None besides two areas that in both types are quite weak that have nothing to do with Te from what we can understand. I asked Nardi if he had more brain scans he could provide with but the sample here is clearly too small. Whatever correlation you see it's something you've made up but it's not foolproof. And the brain scans are also generalizations based on several people and the sample size itself is small and flawed (same age category for most of the part etc.). So again, no, it's not sufficient for you to draw such conclusions based on sketchy and incomplete data.


----------

