# Cognitive functions aren't single mental processes



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Sinthemoon said:


> @_LXPilot_
> 
> Didn't read all the responses, but I think your point against saying we don't "use" functions is moot. This is a valid way to say it, just as we could say we use our empathy or intelligence. The fact that they are complex doesn't make them impossible to "use", neither does their vagueness. Just wanted to make it clear so the debate doesn't turn into a witch hunt against colloquialisms...


Appreciated. It's not a bad debate, for the record. If things become heated for the sake of further community knowledge, then I'm happy to host it, as long as nobody plays dirty pool with personal stuff, which I'll attest with experience - shouldn't be an issue with anyone regular in this subforum.

Obviously I disagree with you, but not because what you've said is wrong, rather because what you're saying misses the point of the discussion entirely. This isn't about policing other people about how or when they say "use," it's a speculation on how/how not misunderstandings of Jung may be reduced in light of recent studies that employ technology Jung didn't have in the 1920s. 

My position is that if a cognitive function was a single mental process that is as prominent in a person's functioning as we assume here, it should have shown up in consistent form in the test while the subjects were performing common tasks - and it didn't. So I find it hard to believe that we use a single process for a function. Alternatives include using many processes to form something that resembles a Jungian function, or that Jung saw the end result of these processes, not the process itself (what I think) or, unless I'm misunderstanding @_Teybo_ et al, that you can't make the jump to assume Nardi's patterns to "embody" functions to begin with. 

Clearly more than just a question of "using" or not, as you can see.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> If you believe MBTI to be a model of behavioral patterns and interpersonal interactions, then we have entirely different conceptions of MBTI.


That should have said model of _psyche and cognitive_ _preferences _based on behavior patterns and interpersonal interactions. But the point was less about my personal view of MBTI and more about how there are critical interpretive steps between cortical recordings to models of the psyche.

Like you said, though, it sounds like we're agreeing but putting it in different words.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

LXPilot said:


> A real "function" isn't a single mental process, but rather a collection of more complex processes that give way to a style of information given off in communication that we can observe. When we read descriptions of functions or ask "am I using this function?" we aren't defining a single process, but rather, fishing for a familiar point of reference within this set of processes so as to locate the whole set. Because of this, we need to be mindful to not stereotype an entire function on the basis of this one reference point. There's probably a lot more going on that is part of the way a specific type uses a specific "function" that cannot be observed, and all we get to see is the summation, or the person's application of the process at play. In other words, the process of Te isn't explicitly "using facts," and Fe isn't thinking about "tribal or societal values." That's the cake, not the way the batter is mixed.



THIS. Thank you for finding the words for this. Needs to be posted on the top of this subforum in large, bold, sparkling font.

Or, to be more brief, maybe just the title of this thread.....


----------



## Sinthemoon (Jan 9, 2013)

ElectricSparkle said:


> THIS. Thank you for finding the words for this. Needs to be posted on the top of this subforum in large, bold, sparkling font.
> 
> Or, to be more brief, maybe just the title of this thread.....


The problem with that is that the phrase "mental process" is wide enough that you can also defend the opposite: cognitive functions are a single mental process. They're a higher mental process; and a process is by definition a composite action. I would agree with "cognitive functions aren't a single mental operation", but the word "process" does not represent well what cognitive functions aren't.

mental process - definition of mental process by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## Sinthemoon (Jan 9, 2013)

Also, to those who say that Jung classified cognitive functions according to their results and not what the functions really did or something... Well, maybe that's why he called it a function. A function must be evaluated by its inputs and outputs, it must have a goal. It's not a "thing". Now, Newton's theory of gravity had the function of predicting data reasonably well, but it didn't keep it from being improved by Einstein's theory. It is obvious that Jung's theory can be improved upon, because it's a scientific theory.

So, he called them "cognitive functions". Of course, he didn't have computers, but this is what this ohrase evokes:

Subroutine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would argue that _by definition_, a cognitive function *must* be a single mental process, i.e. a single composite of operations (cf my post above) leading to a particular output from a particular input, and that you're welcome to develope a complementary or alternate theory of judgement and perception; but the thread's title misuses either the words "cognitive functions" or the words "mental process".


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

On another sidenote here, when we discuss function development or at least mental cognitive development, I find that some individuals only seem to truly express "one" function in their thinking, most specifically their judgement. These people that I have noted to express themselves in such a way have also all been judging dominant types. 

This doesn't mean that they only use one kind of process when thinking, but it is interesting how perhaps one could rather see that the end result of this process is far less "diluted" than is observed in other people. When I say this is relevant to mental development I also mean it, because I find that those who only seem to express "undiluted" function use as their final output tend to in general not always appear or behave or act very maturely, and if studying Thomson's function descriptions, they seem to fall on the lower end of the development even if it is their dominant function. 

I also want to stress that this does not mean that these individuals are not necessarily seen as unintelligent, but in light of this discussion, I thought this observation of mine could add some additional insights.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

LeaT said:


> On another sidenote here, when we discuss function development or at least mental cognitive development, I find that some individuals only seem to truly express "one" function in their thinking, most specifically their judgement. These people that I have noted to express themselves in such a way have also all been judging dominant types.
> 
> This doesn't mean that they only use one kind of process when thinking, but it is interesting how perhaps one could rather see that the end result of this process is far less "diluted" than is observed in other people. When I say this is relevant to mental development I also mean it, because I find that those who only seem to express "undiluted" function use as their final output tend to in general not always appear or behave or act very maturely, and if studying Thomson's function descriptions, they seem to fall on the lower end of the development even if it is their dominant function.
> 
> I also want to stress that this does not mean that these individuals are not necessarily seen as unintelligent, but in light of this discussion, I thought this observation of mine could add some additional insights.



I've noticed that I express Te more "purely" when bombarded with new data, because it "speeds up" judgments (which may be related to the ENTJ and ENFJ pattern to make quick decisions) it seems to do this by paying increasingly little attention to details and focusing more on the holistic aspects of something. 

In terms of energy expenditure, our body seems to be inclined towards minimizing energy expenditure for a process, say running a mile. For instance, if you run a mile every day along the same path, your body will find a way to do it more efficiently, in some cases by increasing the effectiveness with which it activates the relevant parts within the process, or by strengthening the leverage points within the process. 

If we buy the premise that using your dominant function drains less energy than using aux, tert or inf because your brain is much more used to utilizing it. Usage of non-dom could lead to more dom expression and usage of dom could lead to more non-dom expression. 

There could also be a "clutter" mechanism in place, since perceivers appear to prefer to integrate data, see if it fits, then check holistically or in parts against data. Whereas judgers seem to want to validate data first, then integrate data and see if it fits.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Nah it depends on how you define "single mental process" could be X could be Y.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Sinthemoon said:


> Well, maybe that's why he called it a function.


Interestingly, my version of _Psychological Types_ does not contain more than two instances of the word "function," and neither say what a function is. Jung seems to refer to "types," not functions, at least from what I can see in _PT_. If "functions" are an MBTI creation, then that's news to me - and if that's the case, then there is an _enormous _amount of information online that assumes that each function "does" a lot of things it doesn't. 



> A function must be evaluated by its inputs and outputs, it must have a goal. It's not a "thing".


The inputs need not be the the same thing as the parts of the process at work. An input would be stimuli from the outside world. A part of the process would include one or more of Nardi's EEG activity patterns, among or alternatively, others we don't know about yet. The function would be the set of verbal descriptors that define what the person/type does in response to the process, that would lead to statements such as this: 



> I have spent many years verifying this scheme. Through observation of clients and others whose types and complexes I have gotten to know well, and through the analysis of films by master filmmakers in which archetypes and function-attitudes are clearly delineated, I have concluded that the relationships between these archetypes and the scheme of differentiation that results for the function-attitudes is not merely personal to me, but is actually universal. - John Beebe, "Evolving the 8 Function Model"


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

That's funny the versions I read does

Types as Jung described while defining Certain functions are not a set in stone type like MBTI, more so as an example of someone with a certain Function that is in Superiority of ones conscious.

To add to this Thread...of course I am not saying I am disagreeing with this thread at all. I find it nice to see how Nardi breaks away the concrete idea people make of in MBTI.


"The premises are always far too simple. The psyche is the starting-point of all human experience, and all the knowledge we have gained eventually leads back to it. The psyche is the beginning and end of all cognition. It is not only the object of its science, but the subject also. This gives psychology a unique place among all the other sciences: on the one hand there is a constant doubt as to the possibility of its being a science at all, while on the other hand psychology acquires the right to state a theoretical problem the solution of which will be one of the most difficult tasks for a future philosophy"
Jung





(exit's thread)


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

> First, that people who were "typed" as having the same dominant function (i.e. ESTJ and ENTJ) did not share prominent brain activities that would be rationally applied to the same dominant function. In other words, if ESTJ and ENTJ both use the same "Te," then the scan should have showed a commonalized, distinctive pattern - and it didn't. In fact, ENTJ showed more commonality with ENFJ with their "quick decision making" ability, and the two share opposing dominant functions according to MBTI.


Didn't Nardi claim that Te types tend to overuse Fp1/Fp2 (depending on whether you're a judger or perceiver Te type), C3, T3, and O1? Moreover, given his delineation of the "functions" of those brain regions, it makes sense that the overuse of those regions would correlate with Extroverted Thinking. In other words, I thought he claimed that there is indeed a pattern between brain area usage and cognitive functions which contradicts the premise of your argument which says the exact opposite. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

childofprodigy said:


> Didn't Nardi claim that Te types tend to overuse Fp1/Fp2 (depending on whether you're a judger or perceiver Te type), C3, T3, and O1? Moreover, given his delineation of the "functions" of those brain regions, it makes sense that the overuse of those regions would correlate with Extroverted Thinking. In other words, I thought he claimed that there is indeed a pattern between brain area usage and cognitive functions which contradicts the premise of your argument which says the exact opposite. Correct me if I'm wrong.


That's not really what @LXPilot is arguing. From the spreadsheet I'm using, J tends to use Fp1 whereas P uses Fp2. The Te doms ENTJ and ESTJ did in fact use C3, but the usage was higher in the ESTJ, whereas use of T3 was higher in the ENTJ, with O1 being equal in both. However, O1 was heavily used by among others INTJ and INFJ and even the ISTJ. 

There are patterns, but it is very hard to nail usage of one area down to a specific function. 

For instance the ESTJ and ESTP both show a tennis-hop pattern. The ENTJ on the other hand show a pattern for quick decisions, but can also enter what appears to be the same zen state as the INTJ when solving novel problems. 

So rather than being able to trace activity to one specific function, it seems to be a combination of them. Of course, it's very hard to tell from pictures as opposed to video of the brain activity.


----------



## Sinthemoon (Jan 9, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> So rather than being able to trace activity to one specific function, it seems to be a combination of them. Of course, it's very hard to tell from pictures as opposed to video of the brain activity.


The only conclusion imo is that he didn't have statistical power to either prove or disprove that functions are single mental processes, but he identified specific areas or interest if anyone would like to test an actual hypothesis. This is what exploratory research does.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Sinthemoon said:


> The only conclusion imo is that he didn't have statistical power to either prove or disprove that functions are single mental processes, but he identified specific areas or interest if anyone would like to test an actual hypothesis. This is what exploratory research does.


Part of the issue that I alluded to, is that if you look at the ENTJ as a base. They have access to the "zen state" of the INTJ, and share a cortical circuit with the ENFJ. 

If you then compare the ESTJ with the ENTJ, who share the same functions but in a different order, the ESTJ shows a tennis-hop pattern, and does not have the cortical circuit that the ENTJ has.

This would allow me to conclude that the cortical circuit is not related to Te, but seems to be related to being a judging dom with Ni. 

The shared "zen state" of the INTJ and ENTJ, would suggest that this is not related to Ni alone, but to Ni+Te as dom and aux. 

On the same note, the "christmas tree" pattern appears in ENTP and ENFP, but also in INTP and INFP. However ENTP and INTP types appear to share a pattern of "dissociative state" where they shut out emotion to enjoy objectivity, whereas ISTP and ESTP show a tennis hop patter. 

This suggests that patterns deals with both the function stack, and the interaction between functions.


----------



## Sinthemoon (Jan 9, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> Part of the issue that I alluded to, is that if you look at the ENTJ as a base. They have access to the "zen state" of the INTJ, and share a cortical circuit with the ENFJ.
> 
> If you then compare the ESTJ with the ENTJ, who share the same functions but in a different order, the ESTJ shows a tennis-hop pattern, and does not have the cortical circuit that the ENTJ has.
> 
> ...


Which is all very interesting, but doesn't lead to the conclusions that cognitive functions aren't single mental processes. It suggests that they can interact together.

There's also the difference between "mental process" and "brain pricess", and while the first one is controlled by the task in experiment, it's the second one that's measured and seems to be dependant upon function stacking.

But I think we're basically arguing the same thing here.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i think anyone doing that would be a great idea man.

though, i don't think nardi's approach is really a bad thing in general--i mean it could very well amount to a shot in the dark, but it could also generate some sort of foothold into the initial process. what he gathers now and the conclusions he comes to may end up being far off, but others may be able to use them as a reference point (kind of like what you're attempting to do or just thinking about doing now). 

at first i thought you were saying that it would be ridiculous to try to map functions to certain behaviors--which i wouldn't agree with--but i think we just mean it differently. if usage of a function--or at least multiple parts of the brain coming together in a way that can be associated with certain patterns correlated with what happens when a person represses a certain aspect of their own psyche--can be found, then it would do more than just validate this theory in a scientific way, it would create a basis on which one could better understand human behavior in general. it would apply to many more fields than just Jungian psychology--and in a way, it would just be a more fleshed out version of what a Jungian therapist would be doing now (if those exist). 

anyhow, it's very interesting and i wish you luck you sir, lol! 

p.s. this would make a very interesting video on pnuemo's type interaction thread. just exploring the idea in general (something to think about :wink.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

LXPilot said:


> Okay. But something is still not adding up if "Se" correlations are not lining up across Se types.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. I don't think Jung or MBTI are worthless - but still, now that we've established that function-esque brain processes occur, isn't it time to consider a new, more technologically-driven cognitive model? Jungian analysis is outdated in a number of ways.


Yes, but what are we going to do, hook people up to machines to see how their brains work?

I consistently, almost ridiculously, test INFP on four dichotomy tests, but I resemble what Nardi describes as the ISFP pattern being quicker to respond or ready to act, not listening as long or as deeply as the INFP.

I don't know if its Se or Te, but something about this being actually verifiable really is great to me; the problem being, though...does Nardi even measure out functions the way we've been taught by analysts such as Beebe, in the Jungian model of Ne being tied to Si and so forth.

And what about those precious middle functions that seem very clear, especially in some types, like someone with a strong tertiary...however, Jung never even mentioned the tertiary.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Scelerat said:


> I don't view it so much as throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I view it as a more of a "drain the tub of the muddy waters currently in it, and fill it with crisp, clear and clean water so that it's possible to see if there is another baby in there drowning".


Great post, man.


----------



## The Alternate (Jan 14, 2013)

I haven't read all the replies in this topic, yet, but I just want to say that Nardi himself even sees brain scans between similar types as being very flexible, and to me this looks like further evidence of "a function is really a set of processes" model. If each function can be utilized in multiple ways in the brain, then it would explain why variations would show up. On page 163, there's a chart entitled "Comparison of aggregate neocortex activity of three ISFPs". I'm not sure if I can post a picture of that or would get in trouble, so I'll just mention some examples instead: for O2 activity, two of the ISFPs rate really low (1-7), and the other ISFP is 26! The same ISFP scores about 12 in P4, something the others didn't even register for. One of the 3 ISFPs also scores much higher on F7 than the two others.


----------



## CaptainWayward (Jun 8, 2012)

The difference between cognitive function and brain function can be seen in how different people perform mathematics differently. One individual will be highly active in the part of the brain concerning language, because they learned via reciting multiplication tables, while another individual will be more involved in the visual cortex. This is why, even amongst INTPs, you'll find individuals claiming to partake in more of a linguistic thought process and others will work from a visual approach.

If anything, I think what manifests these processes, in terms of brain activity, is more complex than what Jung described, but I don't really think the cognitive functions themselves are anything too complex because they're a mapping of the phenomenon and not the mechanism. 

If you really want to link functions to brain activity, you'll need to develop an understanding of the function of each brain structure and determine which brain functions are present during use of specific cognitive function. So, a place to start would be creating a list of brain functions / corresponding region, well that's how I would start it, then work your way back to the cognitive functions. 

Good thread chief.

*edit* removed some derp


----------

