# Is there any research at all to support the validity of the cognitive functions?



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

The functions just make more logical sense to me so I believe in them. It actually explains cognition and there's more room for error as opposed to if you use letters or Big 5.

1. If we go by letters than your personality type changes constantly. With functions you're always the same type and there's an actual explanation as to why you'd act differently in any given situation. 

2. Also it is pretty stupid to say that an ISTJ is just a more organized ISTP and things of that nature. Especially when it's proven to not be true. The two act much more dissimilar and it can't be explained by letters. But it can by functions.

3. Even if there's a very high correlation between certain personality traits that doesn't mean you can just link them together. Which is why intuition shouldn't be determined by how open you are. The whole openness thing is extremely faulty in general. It being on a continuum doesn't work.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> The functions just make more logical sense to me so I believe in them. It actually explains cognition and there's more room for error as opposed to if you use letters or Big 5.
> 
> 1. If we go by letters than your personality type changes constantly. With functions you're always the same type and there's an actual explanation as to why you'd act differently in any given situation.
> 
> ...


I think you're talking clean out your arse on every point, and would place money on you not being able to support a single thing you just posted with any kind of supporting evidence i.e research/studies etc.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> The functions just make more logical sense to me so I believe in them. It actually explains cognition and there's more room for error as opposed to if you use letters or Big 5.


Purporting to explain cognition and actually explaining cognition are two different things. While it's easy to appreciate the ambition of certain believers in cognitive functions, they still haven't given us any reason to take their word.


> 1. If we go by letters than your personality type changes constantly. With functions you're always the same type and there's an actual explanation as to why you'd act differently in any given situation.


Yes, right now I am 9 different types (as defined by Grant stacks), or at least I can argue that. I could make a case for most of them being my one lifetime type (if such a thing was to actually exist), using the support of divergent Internet resources. We have a problem regarding extrapolations, when I can feel like my lifetime type could be any one of those. When using the functions for guidance or whatever, which stack do I choose, when so many could be my true stack?


> 2. Also it is pretty stupid to say that an ISTJ is just a more organized ISTP and things of that nature. Especially when it's proven to not be true. The two act much more dissimilar and it can't be explained by letters. But it can by functions.


Are you using "proven" lightly? Or do you actually have proof? I'd like to see it.


> 3. Even if there's a very high correlation between certain personality traits that doesn't mean you can just link them together. Which is why intuition shouldn't be determined by how open you are. The whole openness thing is extremely faulty in general. It being on a continuum doesn't work.


I don't see anyone linking them together as you imagine. The correlation is incomplete.

Why doesn't being on a continuum work?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Red Panda Here's one resource: The Science of Extraversion and Introversion
> 
> If we truly are searching for a direct connection between cognition and biology, then we should be better off starting from scratch with neuroscience, seeing where it takes us and building our models from that, rather than specifically trying to fit neuroscience into the parameters of cognitive functions.


That's a fair point but doesn't that already happen though? Nardi and whoever else are just using the neuroscience tools already in existence to see if there's something to the 8 function theory. It's like a hypothesis that you set out to confirm or eliminate, but such research takes time and funds so perhaps in the future we'll know more. 

I read the article but it's only about I/E, what about S,N,F,T and the dichotomies? The closest to that I'm aware of is Nardi's research


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Red Panda it's hard to find thing specifically for MBTI because Big 5 is used more often in research. However, the same kind of things that are demonstrable in Big 5 should also be demonstrable using MBTI, as it is a personality inventory that asks similar questions. Things like this: Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five


----------



## Rydori (Aug 7, 2017)

Ok lets have this, the four acid theory, we had Lavoiser who discovered that acids contained oxygen in them, while it was true at parts it was not accurate as many acids had substances that contained no oxygen and there were basic molecules that contained oxygen so the theory was disproved, we had Davy who believed acids were substances that contained hydrogen were easily replaced with metallic molecules, later disproved as acidic substances failed to react with silver, then we have Arrehenius who believed acids were molecules that ionised in solution and produced hydrogen ions, later disproved because of how it ignored the role of solvents in where hydrogen ions were not ionised in solvents (polar and non-polar sunbstances). Our latest theory is Bronsted theory in where acids are proton donors and bases are proton are proton acceptors. 

Ok lets compare this to psychological personality, yes different and much more diverse topic, the thing is, while the MBTI and functions do have some credibility and some relevancy, it isn't scientifically funded because several flaws it has to the theory. It'd be like saying here in the acid theory, today we fun Davy's theory in where acids contained hydrogen and were easily replaced by metals, while it did explain a basis of acids, it had some quite flaws. For example there were a few hydrogen containing compounds that did not qualify as an acid.

The current scientifically accepted being the Big 5 could be equivalent to Arrehenius in where it was more provable than Davy's theory but not equivalent enough, and that there could be a better explanation. What my point is here, yes while the whole personality tests of different types are all theories, its just that cognitive functions aren't that moderately acceptable to be scientifically included, I mean did it have a a decent basis? yes! However there is a better basis from the Big 5 test rather than the cognitive functions, so it'd be efficient to fund a stronger theory


----------



## CultOfPersonality (Sep 12, 2017)

Snowdori said:


> Ok lets have this, the four acid theory, we had Lavoiser who discovered that acids contained oxygen in them, while it was true at parts it was not accurate as many acids had substances that contained no oxygen and there were basic molecules that contained oxygen so the theory was disproved, we had Davy who believed acids were substances that contained hydrogen were easily replaced with metallic molecules, later disproved as acidic substances failed to react with silver, then we have Arrehenius who believed acids were molecules that ionised in solution and produced hydrogen ions, later disproved because of how it ignored the role of solvents in where hydrogen ions were not ionised in solvents (polar and non-polar sunbstances). Our latest theory is Bronsted theory in where acids are proton donors and bases are proton are proton acceptors.
> 
> Ok lets compare this to psychological personality, yes different and much more diverse topic, the thing is, while the MBTI and functions do have some credibility and some relevancy, it isn't scientifically funded because several flaws it has to the theory. It'd be like saying here in the acid theory, today we fun Davy's theory in where acids contained hydrogen and were easily replaced by metals, while it did explain a basis of acids, it had some quite flaws. For example there were a few hydrogen containing compounds that did not qualify as an acid.
> 
> The current scientifically accepted being the Big 5 could be equivalent to Arrehenius in where it was more provable than Davy's theory but not equivalent enough, and that there could be a better explanation. What my point is here, yes while the whole personality tests of different types are all theories, its just that cognitive functions aren't that moderately acceptable to be scientifically included, I mean did it have a a decent basis? yes! However there is a better basis from the Big 5 test rather than the cognitive functions, so it'd be efficient to fund a stronger theory



read what Snowdori wrote while listening to this :







( sorry i've taken it from you Ben )


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I think you're talking clean out your arse on every point, and would place money on you not being able to support a single thing you just posted with any kind of supporting evidence i.e research/studies etc.


If you didn't want an open discussion than why did you post this? Was it just to start a circle-jerk? Seems that way, especially with Ocean and you liking each of each-others posts every second. I state my opinion and you react with such hostility. You seem to already be convinced you're right. Calm down dude jeez. Most of those don't even require research/studies so I'm not sure you're even paying attention. 

1. I need proof for this? Do you know how to think logically? Behavior and thought process determines type, yes? So if you act differently in a given situation than going by letters you'd be a different type. With functions this isn't the case, it says you're one type .

2. There's not many studies and I'm having trouble finding them (I'll get back to it later) but the jobs the types pick, things the types value, crime statistics, enneagram types they are, etc aren't explained by letters. Functions do a better job at explaining it. You can argue people noticing the same things about the types is anecdotal, people generally coming to the same conclusions about a persons type but you'd also be arguing that it's just one big coincidence.

3. I need studies/research to debunk assumptions that the test is predicated on? Why...?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> Purporting to explain cognition and actually explaining cognition are two different things. While it's easy to appreciate the ambition of certain believers in cognitive functions, they still haven't given us any reason to take their word.
> 
> Yes, right now I am 9 different types (as defined by Grant stacks), or at least I can argue that. I could make a case for most of them being my one lifetime type (if such a thing was to actually exist), using the support of divergent Internet resources. We have a problem regarding extrapolations, when I can feel like my lifetime type could be any one of those. When using the functions for guidance or whatever, which stack do I choose, when so many could be my true stack?
> 
> ...


1. Can cognition actually be proven?

2. I can do that with letters too, what's your point? You've basically just created a straw-man, the functions are much more in depth. All you did was pick one trait for each function and say you're that type. I don't personally believe in stacks, just functions. there's no logical reason that they'd have to be so finite. And we use all the functions.

3. I'll get back to you on that.

4. -It assumes that thinking more abstractly would necessitate you being more open to experience and ideas.

-It assumes if you think in a more concrete manner you'll be more conventional in your behavior and opinions on things, and vice-versa. 

-It assumes that if you're more traditional that you lack creativity. One is behavioral, openness just seems to be more about interests. The two aren't at odds with one-another, not a contradiction so I don't see why they're on a continuum.

-It doesn't take the way you process information into consideration it seems, only the end result i.e Being more liberal therefore means being more abstract. 

-Se is an S function, but going by how Big 5 describes openness an S would score higher on it than not. When openness is supposed to describe intuition.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. Can cognition actually be proven?


No, but you can study how people use different parts of their brain to do the same task and study how their actual brain process is different as it appears from the outside. How it happens from the inside is at the moment very unprovable, but we can make guesses based on outside observations of the brain, or at least incorporate these observations into models like how some people are doing with hypostatic models. This is opposite to how Nardi starts from his function models and tries to cram his brain observations into those models.


> 2. I can do that with letters too, what's your point? You've basically just created a straw-man, the functions are much more in depth. All you did was pick one trait for each function and say you're that type. I don't personally believe in stacks, just functions. there's no logical reason that they'd have to be so finite. And we use all the functions.


Yes, in their muddled complexity (I call them blobs because they can take so many different forms) you sacrifice clarity and precision for flexibility. I just gave a glimpse as to one case where this flexibility is harmful. Function descriptions in general are written so that a large percentage of people can identify with them (Barnum effect).

I can relate to these functions based on entire descriptions I read, but I figured I’d just express where I identify with them as simple important points, rather than linking entire definitions. Do you really think I want to write entire essays on why I can identify with 9 different types? It’s not intended as a reduction or straw man.


> 4. -It assumes that thinking more abstractly would necessitate you being more open to experience and ideas.


No it doesn’t. The key word is “necessitate” which is never the word that should be used for *incomplete** correlation*.


> -It assumes if you think in a more concrete manner you'll be more conventional in your behavior and opinions on things, and vice-versa.
> -It assumes that if you're more traditional that you lack creativity. One is behavioral, openness just seems to be more about interests. The two aren't at odds with one-another, not a contradiction so I don't see why they're on a continuum.
> -It doesn't take the way you process information into consideration it seems, only the end result. I.e Being more liberal therefore means being more abstract.


As with things that correlate incompletely these are trends, not rules. And certain things will have lower correlation than others. To test how, and and to what degree these things correlate, people conduct studies. It seems like you don’t grasp the concept of correlation at all. It’s not saying “if you are liberal, you are N”. It’s saying “if you are liberal, you are more likely to be N than if you are not”. Which is probably true but I don’t know how much that has been studied in particular. There are obviously strongly N conservatives and strongly S liberals. When you insinuate that people like me don’t accept that fact, that is a straw man, good friend.


> -Se is an S function, but going by how Big 5 describes openness an S would score higher on it than not. When openness is supposed to describe intuition.


It depends on the Se definition. Some Se descriptions focus more on experiencing a variety of things which would infer a positive correlation with Openness. Some Se descriptions focus more on being focused on the concrete reality rather than possibilities, which would infer a negative correlation with Openness. S, as a MBTI test result, correlates negatively with Openness, to a higher degree than P correlates positively with Openness. So SPs in MBTI (the testing instrument) will on average be lower than average in Openness, but not to the degree of SJs.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

reckful said:


> What is this silly typology of which you speak?
> 
> It certainly isn't the MBTI.
> 
> ...


I'm talking about the general 16 types consensus (ISTJ, INTJ, ESTP, etc). It depends on how much you want to "open up" each type to the possibilities and flexibility of where each "letter" falls on the spectrum, what limitations there are and what exceptions there are. However, if you're going to open it up like that, you're also facing the possibility that everything is up to interpretation. Which is fine, but then there isn't consistency and less structure. To me, without consistency and structure, not sure if there is any truth to it.



Ocean Helm said:


> Can you elaborate on this further (@ANAXEL too if you agree)? I strongly disagree with this.
> 
> I feel the main reason why MBTI types (letters) seem less "stable" is because they force you into going with your best-fit type, while you can make a better argument for you fitting one function stack your whole life. But the reason why that is possible with function stacks, is not because that one function stack is actually your best fit your whole life, but that function stacks themselves can be bent so easily to fit you.
> 
> ...


You know, the funny thing is I see pretty much the exact opposite of what you're saying lol. I actually feel the same way about using dichotomy. It's so vast and open ended, so "accommodating" of exceptions that I actually think it can be bent to easily fit how you are one day, and the next, one year, and the next, so on and so forth. "I'm an emotional thinker", "I'm a concrete intuitive", "I like to plan but I don't really like to commit", etc. Alright, where does that really get you? It lacks structure and consistency in my opinion.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Bunniculla said:


> You know, the funny thing is I see pretty much the exact opposite of what you're saying lol. I actually feel the same way about using dichotomy. It's so vast and open ended, so "accommodating" of exceptions that I actually think it can be bent to easily fit how you are one day, and the next, one year, and the next, so on and so forth. "I'm an emotional thinker", "I'm a concrete intuitive", "I like to plan but I don't really like to commit", etc. Alright, where does that really get you? It lacks structure and consistency in my opinion.


Maybe you'd be more satisfied with MBTI Step II which allows for more options in expressing your preferences.









Anyway, even outside of Step II, you don't have to say either you are one letter or another and treat it as some sort of binary deal, like you almost have to when it comes to choosing function axes. A lot of people are in the middle. But who is to stop you from saying that you are on the borderline of two letters and explaining why? Nobody. Yet when I try to say my top 2 functions are both introverted, or I prefer Ni and Ne, heads explode.

And if you want a rigid, unbendable type, then use your test result. Yes, too much awareness of what the questions are asking for can lead to bias, but it's on the test-taker to answer the questions honestly.

And people's personalities do change and thankfully there is no MBTI law that says they can't. Thankfully, MBTI itself doesn't try to impose rules which aren't backed up by reality, such as static types or type dynamics. Look at the official MBTI Form M Manual Supplement (link), Form M being the major MBTI test. It's full of real, empirically observed information, rather than baseless theory.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> No, but you can study how people use different parts of their brain to do the same task and study how their actual brain process is different as it appears from the outside. How it happens from the inside is at the moment very unprovable, but we can make guesses based on outside observations of the brain, or at least incorporate these observations into models like how some people are doing with hypostatic models. This is opposite to how Nardi starts from his function models and tries to cram his brain observations into those models.
> 
> Yes, in their muddled complexity (I call them blobs because they can take so many different forms) you sacrifice clarity and precision for flexibility. I just gave a glimpse as to one case where this flexibility is harmful. Function descriptions in general are written so that a large percentage of people can identify with them (Barnum effect).
> 
> ...


1. The functions are a byproduct of observations, not vice-versa. So you just described functions.

2. They descriptions don't contradict one-another and you're desperately trying to make the descriptions out to be much more vague than they actually are. The traits of each seem to be pretty interrelated, unlike zodiac signs and the type 6 description which repeatedly contradict themselves and don't have traits that are interrelated. The way you make it seem is like a description of Te can be mistaken for what's describing Fi. Some functions I relate to heavily, others not at all. Can't say the same with zodiac signs. 

3. Yeah, I'm not saying if you're liberal that you're N so you can stop straw-manning lol. What I'm saying is being liberal increases your score in openness. That's the issue with it. It assumes processes by behavior. And you didn't tell me how these two things should be on a continuum. 

4. They describe both in pretty much all descriptions but whatever. Regardless it's an S function. But according to Big 5 they'd be intuitives. Is intuition about thinking abstractly or about being unconventional in your behavior?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

*snip*


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Here's the results of a recent Facebook study that further adds to the evidence against the "cognitive functions":

It's in relation to what iNtUiTiVe types feel "most vulnerable" in asking for help:










Size was 124 participants.

What mystifies me, is I commented on the results suggesting it proves, again, no correlations are to be drawn between "cognitive functions" and type - and the person who conducted the research and produced the results actually disagreed with me for reasons I can't even comprehend right now, and literally asked me if I get "mocked" for my stance against the cognitive functions.

She also told me the cognitive function stack is a "logical system".

I tried to tell her that her results are brilliant and useful - they add to the massive pile of research that destroys the credibility of the cognitive functions but she won't have a bar of it, lol.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Turi said:


> Here's the results of a recent Facebook study that further adds to the evidence against the "cognitive functions":
> 
> It's in relation to what iNtUiTiVe types feel "most vulnerable" in asking for help:
> 
> ...


There is definitely something to dichotomies. I experience a certain brotherhood with other INTJs, ENTPs, and INTPs that I do not with ISFPs. I suspect that there is ultimately validity to cognitive functions, but people take it too far when they have to ask how one tells INTJs from ISFPs as one recent topic did or completely dismiss the validity of dichotomies in understanding MBTI typology.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

PiT said:


> There is definitely something to dichotomies. I experience a certain brotherhood with other INTJs, ENTPs, and INTPs that I do not with ISFPs. I suspect that there is ultimately validity to cognitive functions, but people take it too far when they have to ask how one tells INTJs from ISFPs as one recent topic did or completely dismiss the validity of dichotomies in understanding MBTI typology.


I agree except I don't think there is validity in the "cognitive functions", as far as I'm concerned they're completely disproven at this point.

They just don't withstand any kind of research.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> Here's the results of a recent Facebook study that further adds to the evidence against the "cognitive functions":
> 
> It's in relation to what iNtUiTiVe types feel "most vulnerable" in asking for help:
> 
> ...


I can see why the person who conducted the research may have disagreed with your conclusion.

And another thing, wouldn't disproving the existence of cognitive functions (N/S/F/T respectively) ultimately invalidate the use of N/S and F/T dichtomies as well?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. The functions are a byproduct of observations, not vice-versa. So you just described functions.


Huh? If you mean that Myers or Grant stacks were arranged as they were because reality dictated, as far as I know that was not the case at all. Myers created the dom-aux pairs with one introverted and one extraverted function to project the idea of balance with a two-function model. In a four-function model, even if some kind of balancing mechanism between introverted and extraverted functions is your goal, it is no longer necessary to have the first two functions pointing in opposite directions. Jung understood this, and if you click on the thread linked in my signature it is a thread I made about Jung's possible stacks.


> 2. They descriptions don't contradict one-another and you're desperately trying to make the descriptions out to be much more vague than they actually are. The traits of each seem to be pretty interrelated, unlike zodiac signs and the type 6 description which repeatedly contradict themselves and don't have traits that are interrelated. The way you make it seem is like a description of Te can be mistaken for what's describing Fi. Some functions I relate to heavily, others not at all. Can't say the same with zodiac signs.


An obvious example: for introverted functions, those based in Jung (including Socionics) are quite different than those meant to fit MBTI in the sense of Myers and Grant stacks. And people insistent on using parts to build models in a way that wasn’t intended (such as inserting Jungian function definitions into Grant stacks) end up creating a big mess because the stacks actually start opposing the J/P letters.


> 3. Yeah, I'm not saying if you're liberal that you're N so you can stop straw-manning lol.


Uh I never said that at all. I felt like you were accusing Big 5 or MBTI fans of believing that.


> What I'm saying is being liberal increases your score in openness. That's the issue with it.


Are there actual questions related to being liberal? Even if there are, I doubt they impact the score very much because the 5 factors are built from answer patterns that correlate with one another.


> It assumes processes by behavior. And you didn't tell me how these two things should be on a continuum.


Big 5 isn’t about modelling “processes”. It assumes no processes whatsoever. It is just a test score which can be checked for correlation with stuff.


> 4. They describe both in pretty much all descriptions but whatever. Regardless it's an S function. But according to Big 5 they'd be intuitives.


Huh? You mean according to Big 5 they’d be Open? Some people who relate to Se descriptions would be above average on Openness, sure. Some wouldn’t. Depending on the specific function descriptions you are using to type people, the actual correlation statistics with Big 5 would differ.


> Is intuition about thinking abstractly or about being unconventional in your behavior?


Intuition as a MBTI factor is about a bunch of things which tend to correlate with one another, such as thinking abstractly and behaving unconventionally. People who have a balance of N and S traits will just be in the middle between N and S.


----------



## shinedowness (Dec 11, 2017)

Bunniculla said:


> I find it very hard to seriously believe billions of humans fall into 16 neat little categories though. I tend to notice intuitives believe in this more, despite lack of “evidence”.


Hello, Bunniculla. Intuitive over here. I actually do not agree that everyone will be the same as they are in the past, present, or future completely depending on their situations. Which is why I find the personality typology test to be not a reliable resource to understand who you really will be in the future. And I find there are not enough questions in personality typology test websites to begin with.

I only find the MBTI "useful" when wanting to know what you are like NOW, not in the distant FUTURE. Even then, some people may have a hard time deciding what they are like or find indifference in taking a test to figure themselves out. What will be will be. Sometimes the best thing is only that time will tell what will be will. You are appreciative of MTBI's value whereas I am somewhat appreciative and somewhat unappreciative of it from the pros and cons that it has. Perhaps in the future people will better figure themselves out with advanced technology. Though, some people like the mystery instead of the certainty.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

shinedowness said:


> Hello, Bunniculla. Intuitive over here. I actually do not agree that everyone will be the same as they are in the past, present, or future completely depending on their situations. Which is why I find the personality typology test to be not a reliable resource to understand who you really will be in the future. And I find there are not enough questions in personality typology test websites to begin with.
> 
> I only find the MBTI "useful" when wanting to know what you are like NOW, not in the distant FUTURE. Even then, some people may have a hard time deciding what they are like or find indifference in taking a test to figure themselves out. What will be will be. Sometimes the best thing is only that time will tell what will be will. You are appreciative of MTBI's value whereas I am somewhat appreciative and somewhat unappreciative of it from the pros and cons that it has. Perhaps in the future people will better figure themselves out with advanced technology. Though, some people like the mystery instead of the certainty.


Hi! Yeah, I don't like the tests either. Too situational and gives room for bias/overthinking to a point of answering untruthfully but unintentionally. You would have to be very self aware and understand the point of the question very well in order to avoid this wrong usage of the test. Not sure if practical enough to be realistically applied in terms of getting true value out of it.

That's true, for some people, the whole point and fun is the mystery of the theory and them getting to self satisfaction on their own time and terms, not letting some textbook dictate who they see themselves to be. I can see the importance and value in that. No matter how many textbooks or articles you read, if you do not truly believe in it, or keep doubting it anyway, then you have not reached true self awareness and acceptance based on those books. Also, for some this is all for researching and learning more about their hobby or interest, so there isn't any definite goal to meet there either. I guess MBTI can be used for many different purposes, doesn't have to have a "right answer".


----------



## shinedowness (Dec 11, 2017)

Bunniculla said:


> learning more about their... interest...


I am interested in your profile picture for forum posts, which has nothing to do with what we were talking about.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

shinedowness said:


> I am interested in your profile picture for forum posts, which has nothing to do with what we were talking about.


Here you go. I'm quite handsome, they say.


----------



## shinedowness (Dec 11, 2017)

Bunniculla said:


>


Hm. Is it a real picture of you? Or is it not? Questions in a world of blue.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Here's the results of a recent Facebook study that further adds to the evidence against the "cognitive functions":
> 
> It's in relation to what iNtUiTiVe types feel "most vulnerable" in asking for help:
> 
> ...


How do you think this disproves cognitive functions?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> How do you think this disproves cognitive functions?


I figured this was obvious.

Just look - top 2 types that feel most vulnerable asking for help are INFP and INFJ

These types apparently share no cognitive functions together, ergo, completely different types.
Which they're clearly not.

Bottom two - ENTJ and ENTP, same argument as above haha

Even INTJ and INTP are super close. Again, same argument.


----------



## HumanBeing (May 28, 2014)

I'm surprised no one mentioned the work of John Beebe yet, it's obviously not the kind of quantitative research you're looking for, but it does go beyond the typical crude view of "cognitive functions". A decent summary can be found here.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> I figured this was obvious.
> 
> Just look - top 2 types that feel most vulnerable asking for help are INFP and INFJ
> 
> ...



*The two top types who feel most vulnerable are the INTP and ENTJ, it's the x axis with the ENTJ being the no 1.*

Yes but that's assuming the study was conducted in a way that excludes other confounding factors AND that the people are tested correctly, preferably with the same instrument. And then we have to wonder if the question is actually related to functions when it might not be, in the first place. It'd be interesting to see the sensors in this too, it would give a much clearer image.

For example you can also see that cumulatively the extroverts have the least trouble, but then ENTJ is an exception, why that is you think, why is the ENTP so far behind to the ENTJ *and* the INTP?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I figured this was obvious.
> 
> Just look - top 2 types that feel most vulnerable asking for help are INFP and INFJ
> 
> ...


You surveyed 124 random self-typed people (incredibly small sample size btw) over the internet and claim that this disproves cognitive functions when the question had nothing to even do with cognitive functions in the first place. Good job...?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You surveyed 124 random self-typed people (incredibly small sample size btw) over the internet and claim that this disproves cognitive functions when the question had nothing to even do with cognitive functions in the first place. Good job...?


it wouldn't necessarily be useless with 124 people IF the study was actually designed as a proper one and not just a poll


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> *The two top types who feel most vulnerable are the INTP and ENTJ, it's the x axis with the ENTJ being the no 1.*
> 
> Yes but that's assuming the study was conducted in a way that excludes other confounding factors AND that the people are tested correctly, preferably with the same instrument. And then we have to wonder if the question is actually related to functions when it might not be, in the first place. It'd be interesting to see the sensors in this too, it would give a much clearer image.
> 
> For example you can also see that cumulatively the extroverts have the less trouble, but then ENTJ is an exception, why that is you think, why is the ENTP so far behind to the ENTJ and the INTP?


*zooms in on pic*
Well shit.

Funnily enough my point is still valid, lol.

The types that feel most vulnerable are INTP and ENTJ - these types share literally nothing in common functionally and in fact are basically complete shadow types - every function in the same spot, but opposite attitudes.
So it still proves my point even though I fucked up, at first.

My INFJ and INFP point is still completely intact - they're just not the types that feel most vulnerable - fact is they're still right next to each other here re: feeling most vulnerable - how can this be if they share no functions in common?

We have ENFP and ENFJ as feeling least vulnerable when asking for help.. my argument is still completely intact, these types share no functions in common yet are still being shown to be so similar - results like this occur time and time again - the "functions" simply don't stand up to any kind of research or studies, they fall flat on their arse - all correlations and drawn between dichotomy preferences and temperaments.

IMO the ENTJ result is the only anomaly there, wouldn't have a clue and don't actually think it matters considering the rest of the information.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You surveyed 124 random self-typed people (incredibly small sample size btw) over the internet and claim that this disproves cognitive functions when the question had nothing to even do with cognitive functions in the first place. Good job...?


Motherfucker I didn't survey shit.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> *zooms in on pic*
> Well shit.
> 
> Funnily enough my point is still valid, lol.
> ...


But there may be no connection to the cognitive functions because it may not be correlated at all, psychologically! 

You'd have to design a proper study where the confounding factors such as psychological makeup, anxieties, upbringing, etc are taken in consideration AND make sure these people are actually properly typed AND have sensors in there too to actually see ALL the types. Oh and have a proper questionnaire.

This poll isn't in support of dichotomies either, because of the ENTJ being an 'anomaly' when the rest of the ENs have such a huge gap. Why is the ENFP and INFP so far apart? Why is the ENTP and INTP so far apart? Or INFJ and ENFJ? If extroversion is such a big determinant why is the ENTJ FIRST? 

I'd say this poll is just not good enough to draw conclusions, for anything other than the specific group of people, and you trying to do so is clear confirmation bias.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

also, calm down pls

oh and perhaps to make it clear

If you don't have a properly designed study, you cannot extrapolate its results to the general population, what you find is strictly confined within the group. This is a statistical methodology thing, it's math based and used in all population study sciences, called confidence interval. A poorly designed study will not make it past the cut-off point for generalizing it to the population and even those who do may be up to more statistical scrutiny to make sure it's correct.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> But there may be no connection to the cognitive functions because it may not be correlated at all, psychologically!
> 
> You'd have to design a proper study where the confounding factors such as psychological makeup, anxieties, upbringing, etc are taken in consideration AND make sure these people are actually properly typed AND have sensors in there too to actually see ALL the types. Oh and have a proper questionnaire.
> 
> ...


Outside of ENTP there are *clear* temperament groupings.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> Outside of ENTP there are *clear* temperament groupings.


It's not just the ENTP, it's more dichotomies than that. And it's likely because it was just a poll.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> Huh? If you mean that Myers or Grant stacks were arranged as they were because reality dictated, as far as I know that was not the case at all. Myers created the dom-aux pairs with one introverted and one extraverted function to project the idea of balance with a two-function model. In a four-function model, even if some kind of balancing mechanism between introverted and extraverted functions is your goal, it is no longer necessary to have the first two functions pointing in opposite directions. Jung understood this, and if you click on the thread linked in my signature it is a thread I made about Jung's possible stacks.
> 
> An obvious example: for introverted functions, those based in Jung (including Socionics) are quite different than those meant to fit MBTI in the sense of Myers and Grant stacks. And people insistent on using parts to build models in a way that wasn’t intended (such as inserting Jungian function definitions into Grant stacks) end up creating a big mess because the stacks actually start opposing the J/P letters.
> 
> ...


1. Ok, I clearly said functions, not stacks. You've done this like 3 times already.

2. This isn't socionics and J and P by functions don't mean the same as by letters, for the last time.

3. You just said I didn't understand correlation and then proceeded to explain this to me. Seems you were claiming that's what I meant but I digress.

4. Not sure but it is in the description of openness. They shouldn't impact the score at all is the point I'm making. The fact that it does means that it assumes cognition by behavior.

5. Why should they be on a continuum?

6. Again, trying to separate them. Most describe Se in both ways, not just 1. And can an S type even score higher than not on openness? Or would the act of doing so make them N?

7. Again, how does being traditional and being abstract contradict? Why is that a continuum?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Red Panda it's hard to find thing specifically for MBTI because Big 5 is used more often in research. However, the same kind of things that are demonstrable in Big 5 should also be demonstrable using MBTI, as it is a personality inventory that asks similar questions. Things like this: Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five


Okay but "should be" means we don't really know


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> How do you think this disproves cognitive functions?


Yeah I really don't get it either.

Just seems like he's grabbing randomly and shouting "look here's proof!"

I'm half expecting him to post a picture of his favourite food next, and tell us that disproves cognitive functions.


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

It seems like these days this whole Cognitive Functions forums shouldn’t even exist no more as most people’s attitudes here are that they are no longer valid anymore and everyone is trying to prove why they don’t work or exist. Also a lot of people make the cognitive functions a lot more complicated than they need to be and as a result confusing everyone in the process.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

AZH said:


> Yeah I really don't get it either.
> 
> Just seems like he's grabbing randomly and shouting "look here's proof!"
> 
> I'm half expecting him to post a picture of his favourite food next, and tell us that disproves cognitive functions.


I think you guys are taking it way more seriously than I am.
I just found something I figured shows more correlations to be made re: dichotomy than "cognitive functions" lol.

That's literally all there is to it.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. Ok, I clearly said functions, not stacks. You've done this like 3 times already.


Myers stack means ISTP = Dominant Ti, Auxiliary Se. Is this not what you fit people to in order to type them?


> 2. This isn't socionics and J and P by functions don't mean the same as by letters, for the last time.


The point is that people contaminate the Myers and Grant model meant for MBTI with function definitions that don't fit in them. These people generally import concepts from Socionics and Jung. And as a result, Ti and Fi take on "J" qualities, and Ni and Si take on "P" qualities. This differs from MBTI® sanctioned function definitions which are meant to fit the MBTI model. The model of a person's personality differs depending on what building blocks you use to illustrate it. I'm just using the P/J letters here as an adjective to show an obvious way that different definitions for the same functions differ.


> 4. Not sure but it is in the description of openness. They shouldn't impact the score at all is the point I'm making. The fact that it does means that it assumes cognition by behavior.


Big 5 isn't about typing by descriptions, or assuming any kind of cognition. What you are describing here shows a total misunderstanding of why Big 5 is used, and what it is used for.


> 5. Why should they be on a continuum?


Say on Extraversion, someone gets 0%, someone gets 50%, and someone else gets 100%. Would you expect all three of these people to be different, with regards to the amount of Extraversion they display? I would, and a continuum gives me the freedom to not have to shove the 50% person in a box with the 0% person or the 100% person.


> 6. Again, trying to separate them. Most describe Se in both ways, not just 1.


Maybe that's true. And in that case Se would be combining things that would be high openness (the P-ish stuff) as well as things that would be low openness (the S-ish stuff). Again I am using letters as adjectives, but those letters are shown to correlate with Big 5 Openness in the way that I said.


> And can an S type even score higher than not on openness?


Of course they can. As I have said many times, the correlation is incomplete meaning the data doesn't fit the trend in a way that one thing necessitates the other.


> Or would the act of doing so make them N?


No, why would it?


> 7. Again, how does being traditional and being abstract contradict? Why is that a continuum?


It's a continuum precisely for reasons like people being traditional and abstract, or people being neither. And they don't contradict, it's just that people who are abstract are less likely to be traditional than those that aren't.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> I think you guys are taking it way more seriously than I am.
> I just found something I figured shows more correlations to be made re: dichotomy than "cognitive functions" lol.
> 
> That's literally all there is to it.


The problem is that function typers say that FP for example doesn't actually mean F + P, and as far as I know, only trivial hobbyist research exists which groups people by identification to cognitive functions. So it's very hard to pop the bubble of true believers, because the data isn't actually there. True believers generally don't even believe the _cognitive function_ tests are sufficient for typing people.

Function believers reject MBTI, type by something else, and call that MBTI. And they all have their own personal beliefs which cover quite a wide spectrum. I don't mean to infringe on that too hard except for when it gets into prejudice, but it just isn't MBTI.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

All "F+P" is, is that the person is a Feeler (tends to judge based on more "personal" or human-affecting means), and then exhibits certain preferences associated with what's called "Perceiving", which is not the generic "perception" (taking in information by either S or N), but rather a perspective defined as that perception tending to be drawn from the environment (rather than an individual storehouse of data), which according to the theory, is accompanied by a preference for the judging function having an individual rather than environmental standard. 
So when reading the type code, it's assumed that Feeling is what's individually oriented (i.e. "introverted"; and the perception, whatever it is, is environmentally oriented; i.e. "extraverted". And of course, whichever one matches E/I is assumed to be the "dominant"). 

Really, so much is being made of dichotomies vs functions, but it's really just two different ways of looking at the same things! The FP's "F" will be different from the FJ's "F" (to answer that question raised from p2), because in the latter case, the F is mixed with preferences associated with what's called "Judging", indicating the judgment function has a more environmental standard. That's all it is.


----------



## HumanBeing (May 28, 2014)

@Eric B

So you are the mysterious Eric who makes summaries of Beebe's work, lol


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Eric B said:


> Really, so much is being made of dichotomies vs functions, but it's really just two different ways of looking at the same things! The FP's "F" will be different from the FJ's "F" (to answer that question raised from p2), because in the latter case, the F is mixed with preferences associated with what's called "Judging", indicating the judgment function has a more environmental standard. That's all it is.


Give me a break, Eric. You know better than that. Why are you pretending that you don't?

What I like to call the Real MBTI Model — cuz it's the only one with any _validity_ support — for an INFP and an ESTJ looks like this:

INFP = I + N + F + P + IN + IF + IP + NF + NP + FP + INF + INP + IFP + NFP + INFP.

ESTJ = E + S + T + J + ES + ET + EJ + ST + SJ + TJ + EST + ESJ + ETJ + STJ + ESTJ.

So... the Real MBTI Model says that INFPs and ESTJs have _no MBTI-related aspects in personality in common_. And that's because they not only have opposite tugs when it comes to E-vs.-I stuff and S-vs.-N stuff and T-vs.-F stuff and J-vs.-P stuff, but also have opposite tugs with respect to every aspect of personality that results from a combination of those preferences (e.g., FP-vs.-TJ).

And the Real MBTI Model, besides being the only one with a respectable amount of validity support behind it — was also essentially Myers' model, to a much greater degree than many MBTI forumites realize.

By contrast, the HaroldGrantian functionistas in what I like to call the MBTI Clown Car say that INFPs and ESTJs actually have quite a lot of MBTI-related aspects of personality in common. And that's because, when it comes to _judging_, they're both Fi-Te types — which makes them similar to each other, and different from the Fe-Ti types, when it comes to all that Fe/Fi and Te/Ti stuff. And it's also because, when it comes to _perceiving_, they're both Ne-Si types — which makes them similar to each other, and different from the Se-Ni types, when it comes to all that Ne/Ni and Se/Si stuff.

Either INFPs and ESTJs have substantial aspects of MBTI-related personality in common or they don't, Eric. And for you to say that those two very different assertions are "really just two different ways of looking at the same things" is ridiculous.

Those two assertions _conflict_ with each other, Eric. And what's more, the competition should probably be viewed as finished at this point, and Harold Grant and his feckless followers declared the losers. Because over 50 years of MBTI data pools, correlating the types with everything under the sun, have demonstrated that if whatever you're correlating with MBTI type is something where the INFPs are notably out toward one end of the correlational spectrum, you can reliably expect to find the ESTJs _out toward the other end._

To which somebody who's been bamboozled by the HaroldGrantians might exclaim, "WTF?!" Where, they might wonder, are the data pools where the questionnaire item or interest or behavioral trait or whatever else is being correlated with the types is mainly an "Ne" thing, or an "Si" thing, or an "Fi" thing, or a "Te" thing — with the result that the INFPs and ESTJs are on one side of the spectrum, and the INFJs and ESTPs (both supposedly "Fe/Ti" and "Ni/Se" types) are on the other side? And if that's what they're wondering, reckful is here to tell them that those data pools are on the same island where they keep the unicorns and the munchkins.

As I'm forever pointing out (and as further discussed in this post and the posts it links to), the Harold Grant function stack is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks, and as already noted, has about the same level of respectable empirical support as the zodiac.

And that doesn't mean you can't keep believing in it if you want to, Eric. But you should certainly stop making posts (and this is hardly the first) where you tell your fellow forumites that the Real MBTI Model and the Harold Grant function stack aren't really in conflict cuz they're just "two different ways of looking at the same things!"


----------



## HumanBeing (May 28, 2014)

@reckful

Is there any writing about this real MBTI model?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@HumanBeing This is from the 1998 MBTI Manual:


----------



## HumanBeing (May 28, 2014)

@Ocean Helm

What is that table showing?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

HumanBeing said:


> @Ocean Helm
> 
> What is that table showing?


For the "2-Way Interaction": Wikipedia - 2-Way ANOVA


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

HumanBeing said:


> @reckful
> 
> Is there any writing about this real MBTI model?


Well, the main answer to that is that, notwithstanding some Jungian lip service, the Real MBTI Model essentially reflects Myers' perspective on type, and it's the one that was reflected in the 1985 MBTI Manual, and in _most_ of the 1998 MBTI Manual — although Naomi Quenk is a functionista who, alas, co-authored the 1998 Manual, and did what thought she could get away with in terms of adding more _type dynamics_ stuff — and in most official MBTI publications.

For a potentially eye-opening discussion of the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI, see the spoiler in this post.

And on top of what's described in that post, it may interest you to know that this is the official MBTI source (Form M Manual Supplement) backing up the validity and reliability of the MBTI typology in its Step I incarnation. It refers (directly and indirectly) to a large number of studies providing scientific support for the MBTI, and displays lots of the correlations and other relevant data. And there isn't _a single mention_ in that source of any "cognitive function."

And it may also interest you to know that the early history of the MBTI was sufficiently dichotomy-centric that that forum-famous HaroldGrantian Linda Berens, writing in 1999, lamented that "most practitioners" seemed to have _forgotten_ — or "never even understood" (her words) — all that functiontastic goodness that was (in Berens' goofball view) "what the type code really stood for." "The dichotomies took on a life of their own," she complained.

This was in Dynamics of Personality Type, and she went on to describe a function model (the Grant stack) that, on top of its lack of validity, and as previously noted in this thread, is also inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

But readers of Dynamics of Personality Type were kept in the dark about all that. The alternative version of the MBTI that Berens served up was described as if it essentially reflected Jung's original typology, and as if pretty much all dear Isabel had done, God bless her, was find a convenient way to test for those Jungian functions.

How could everybody have forgotten that, eh? How lucky we all are that Linda Berens came along in 1999 (following in Lenore Thomson's 1998 footsteps) and let the world know that the dichotomy-centric districts of the MBTI — i.e., the _respectable_ districts — were filled with folks ("most practioners") who were missing the boat when it came to "what the type code really stood for."

And speaking of Naomi Quenk, that James Reynierse article that I'm always linking to ("The Case Against Type Dynamics") called out Quenk by name for her lapses in the psychometric standards department, rightly referred to the functions as a "category mistake," and noted that the 1998 MBTI Manual (again, co-authored by Quenk) cited a grand total of _eight studies_ involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — and Reynierse summarizes them as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

As a side note, one significant distinction between Linda Berens and Naomi Quenk that probably bears mentioning is that unlike Berens, Quenk has been wise enough not to jump onto the Harold Grant train — so the 1998 MBTI Manual at least remained essentially untainted by descriptions of _Fi/Te types_ and the rest of that _function axes_ nonsense.

Anyway, you asked whether there was "any writing" about the "real MBTI model," and again, the main thing to stress is that it's largely been the perspective reflected in the respectable districts of the MBTI since the beginning — so if you steer clear of the HaroldGrantians (especially), most respectable writings on the MBTI, from official materials to _Gifts Differing_ to Keirsey (for example) essentially reflect the Real MBTI Model.

That Reynierse article is a good discussion of why the Real MBTI Model is, well, the "real" MBTI model, although it's not an easy read.

And this post (already linked earlier in this thread) is my own (shorter and easier-to-read) summary discussion of the same issues.


----------



## HumanBeing (May 28, 2014)

@reckful

The manual supplement link is dead.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

You're saying the same stuff over and over, and we (including, now Dr. Nardi himself) have answered it, and you just refuse to see it as a possibly legitimate way of seeing things.


I liked this comment:


ANAXEL said:


> I don't think the cognitive function are this malignant tool that is misleading in any way. They are *suggestions*. They are *"think of it this way"* scenarios. I do believe understanding cognitive functions is MUCH better than the dichotomies (I believe THOSE are misleading).
> *Studying them is an invitation to think about it deeper. All these theories, that's what they are*. As a matter of fact, I think they could all be used depending on the scenario since they're all more indications of what's most likely happening inside people's mind, what they're going through, what they'll go through, how they'll be viewing us, etc.
> 
> Combining it with any research in neuroscience is tremendously useful and provides much insight, at least in my experience.
> ...



You are failing to recognize SYMMETRIES; that *a DOUBLE NEGATIVE produces a "POSITIVE"*, so two things that look in every way opposite can have something in common. 
Take an item; put a mirror in front of it, and you'll get an image reversed back/forth (but still the same left/right). Now put another mirror to the left of it, and you'll get an image with the same back/forth, yet left is now right. Both of these mirror images are reversed from the original. Yet, where those two mirrors meet, you can see either mirror in the other mirror, and what you'll see is another reflection of the original item, that is now reversed in both back/forth AND left right. This image has NOTHING in common with the original, right? It's facing the other way in TWO dimensions! 
But in fact, it ends up IDENTICAL to the original item, where the other two images, sharing one dimension in common, are reversed from the original. The two differences are being rotated 180°. But the shape is exactly the same.

THAT's how an INFP and ESTJ can be opposite in two dimensions, and yet have something in common. That's the KEY to the whole thing, that you just refuse to even consider. And of course, this is abstract theory, and not tangible object, so it's not as clear cut as the example I gave. But it is how any kind of symmetry of polarities (tangible or mental) works. (And you slip in the qualifier "_MBTI-related aspects_", but who really said "MBTI-related"? The commonality lies in the functions, which the MBTI is not measuring, so this is a red-herring. And you forget Quenk's other book, _Was That Really Me?_ which is on the "inferior grip", which is about what else, but a "_function-axis_" (dominant-inferior; which she has as having opposite attitudes, and will be different for those with opposite J/P). That would have no meaning otherwise. She only left the tertiary up for grabs). 


I've explained to you time and time again, how this whole debate is actually a great illustration of the functions, because we both prefer I, N and T, but clearly, both the N and T are completely different. As an introverted iNtuitive dominant, you start with an [unconscious] sense that functions are JUST NONSENSE (not even a possibility, or a possibility that these things are diferent ways of lookign at the same things), and that's IT! Nothing else will even allow you to accept that others see them as true. This is ego's whole world-view that you "heroically" fight to the finish for. So then, to verify the logic of your peception; i.e. the truth of your view, and the error, you turn to the external standards of Reynierse, the MBTI studies, "validity support", etc. and authoritatively preach this stuff to us over and over and over again.
My ego is geared to stuff like these symmetries, where what's "true" or correct" are the universal "principles" (such as mirror symmetry), which I myself individually observe from nature. I then try to "parent" the conclusions as an "_idea_" where I see it "could" be a valid way of looking at it. It fits the logical data, and seems to match experience (such as what I'm point out here), which further confirms to me "True!", even if I don't have the amount of "objective" data you try to appeal to. 
So then this is what shapes the "openness/closure" aspect of the J/P dichotomy we differ in. 

I can use both functions and dichotomies, while you shut one COMPLETELY out ("ALL or NOTHING"; and things are rarly that "black and white" in real life), and then thunder this out like that by itself makes you the open minded one. That goes beyond the different perspectives by themselves; it looks to me like an _overdriven_ dominant perspective, that refuses to allow anything else, and then passes itself off as a "rational" judgment of truth, when it's really just a vision of what "must" be real.

Seeing how you went directly at Nardi like that on TypoC, in addition to how you've been going on and on this way for at least three years; I just don't understand what the problem is. So now, it's a "Clown Car"! And you seem to be getting more and more aggressive with the snark (you'd think you would at least be happy, that you have people being apparently swayed by your posts and going to "the Real MBTI side", but that doesn't mean what you're saying is true; people are often swayed by authoritative-sounding fervent arguments). 
Something looks not right about this. However much "truth" or "validity" you may think you have, you are not being objective about this at all. What is your ego-investment in this? 

And that's what all this stuff is about. Ego investment and different perspectives. Dichotomies alone doesn't really get into that. I wonder if that's one reason you're so against functions; it would show you are too much onto your dominant perspective, where you have a "vision" of what's real (again, dichotomies by themselves would have no way of articulating this); so you pitch it as some universal "truth", like gravity, that all us silly "clown car" riders are just too ignorant to just throw everything else away and adopt. But Jung's theory cuts through such inflation; everyone has a limited ego, with a "Shadow", of things are unconscious of, and often don't want to be conscious of, because it will challenge our ego's investments. I think that's why so many people (including in academia, religion, etc). hate it so much.


So just cool it, already. Again; we've all heard you time and time and time again. This stuff is meant to try to understand human interaction, not yet something else (on top of everything else in life) to become such a bone of contention.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

HumanBeing said:


> @reckful
> 
> The manual supplement link is dead.


Fixed.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Eric B said:


> You're saying the same stuff over and over, and we (including, now Dr. Nardi himself) have answered it, and you just refuse to see it as a possibly legitimate way of seeing things.
> 
> 
> I liked this comment:
> ...


You can blather on about "SYMMETRIES" and "DOUBLE NEGATIVE" and mirrors and rotations and other scroodlyicious theoretical psychodynamics until the proverbial cows come home, Eric. But at the end of the day, if one or more of the type groupings that result from your theoretical models turn out to be people that, down here on Planet Reality, have _nothing in common_ (when it comes to those aspects of personality), then it's time to say, oops, it looks like my theory needs to be adjusted — or discarded, as the case may be.

Having that attitude toward the relationship between theories and evidence goes to the heart of what differentiates somebody who's operating by the standards applicable in the respectable districts of personality psychology from, well... other people. And that's true regardless of the theorist's type, Eric — and regardless of what the theorist's "ego investments" might be.

Typological groups that only exist according to somebody's _theory_, and have never been shown to actually exhibit characteristics in common in terms of correlations (in suitable-sized samples) between the groups and _any_ personality-related things, are appropriately viewed as in the same category as zodiac-based typological groups. And that's true regardless of the theorist's type, Eric — and regardless of what the theorist's "ego investments" might be.

And you're free to believe in the zodiac if you like, and you're free to believe in the Harold Grant stack and its _function axes_ if you like, and you're free to decide that whether typological groupings can point to empirical support for their validity doesn't really matter to you.

But the reason the MBTI has ended up finding the success that it has, and has as much to say about real people of different types as it does, is that Isabel Myers was operating by a more respectable set of standards.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I think you guys are taking it way more seriously than I am.
> I just found something I figured shows more correlations to be made re: dichotomy than "cognitive functions" lol.
> 
> That's literally all there is to it.


You're telling people what to believe, claiming it's a "scam" and that the "wool is being pulled over our eyes" you reacted with hostility towards me and reckful is throwing a temper-tantrum as usual. Stop projecting.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Let's just post function tests and see what types score higher and lower in what. Let's see how consistent it is. Since you're claiming functions are nonsense and that there's only correlation when it comes to letters.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You're telling people what to believe, claiming it's a "scam" and that the "wool is being pulled over our eyes" you reacted with hostility towards me and reckful is throwing a temper-tantrum as usual. Stop projecting.


I'll react with hostility if you'd like, haven't shown any yet.

The functions test idea unfortunately only disproves the correlations between functions and dichotomy even more, Ni doms pull high Ne results, Ti with Te so on and so forth.

The one that's actually separate from my observations is Fi and Fe - I notice people actually have a pretty large gap here.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

spaceynyc said:


> It seems like these days this whole Cognitive Functions forums shouldn’t even exist no more as most people’s attitudes here are that they are no longer valid anymore and everyone is trying to prove why they don’t work or exist. Also a lot of people make the cognitive functions a lot more complicated than they need to be and as a result confusing everyone in the process.


Idk. I feel like the people who "disbelieve" CFs are doing nothing but trying to proselytize their viewpoint in a place where it's not applicable in the least. It's not that this subforum shouldn't exist, it's that *this isn't the place to debate about them.* If you don't believe in CFs, then post in the MBTI forum, that's why it's there.

"Getting rid of the CF forum" is like saying "Lol the Enneagram is crap, why does that subforum exist?" If you don't like it, don't use it. The people who want to use it can, simple as.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I'll react with hostility if you'd like, haven't shown any yet.
> 
> The functions test idea unfortunately only disproves the correlations between functions and dichotomy even more, Ni doms pull high Ne results, Ti with Te so on and so forth.
> 
> The one that's actually separate from my observations is Fi and Fe - I notice people actually have a pretty large gap here.


Yes you have.

Not always and this isn't about finite stacks. But if INTPs consistently score high in Ti and Ne with Te and Ni close behind that still indicates they're INTP. Vice-versa for INTJs. If it's about letters than the scores should look identical. i.e INTJs not scoring higher in Ni and Te than they do in Ti and Ne if INTPs don't. And if we go by letters than shouldn't these types score higher in all N and T functions and lower in all S and F functions?

Kinda supports functions...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Aluminum Frost said:


> But if INTPs consistently score high in Ti and Ne with Te and Ni close behind that still indicates they're INTP. Vice-versa for INTJs. If it's about letters than the scores should look identical. i.e INTJs not scoring higher in Ni and Te than they do in Ti and Ne if INTPs don't. And if we go by letters than shouldn't these types score higher in all N and T functions and lower in all S and F functions?
> 
> Kinda supports functions...


Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you may know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test but, as further discussed in the spoiler in this post (reviewing the posted results in a 350-post INTJforum thread), INTJs typically get high Ni scores _and high Ne scores_ (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test, and the T functions tend to be somewhat favored over the N functions (even though INTJs are supposedly N-doms).


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Without them the whole idea of there being any "types" is completely lost. Many descriptions you find online are totally reliant on there being cognitive functions, all of the intricacies are lost without them. The functions tie it all together to create a type. Realistically, you could walk away saying I types gain their energy from being alone, etc. You could probably say INTP, likes to be alone, likes to think outside the box, tries to make logical decisions without concern for personal sentiment, and so on. But there is no way in heck that you could continue saying, INTPs don't always like to try new things because their Si function this, etc. All of the distinctions made between Si and Se and any others are completely lost. People will gladly throw away the functions but keep these descriptions. Not to say you shouldn't throw away something that is unscientific gibberish, but if you do that then throw all of it away. If you want descriptions that are not dictated then do some testing, conduct surveys. Find certain things out empirically. Otherwise, instead of having a weak, dictated background, you just have nothing to stand on when it comes to many of these descriptions of types.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Yes you have.
> 
> Not always and this isn't about finite stacks. But if INTPs consistently score high in Ti and Ne with Te and Ni close behind that still indicates they're INTP. Vice-versa for INTJs. If it's about letters than the scores should look identical. i.e INTJs not scoring higher in Ni and Te than they do in Ti and Ne if INTPs don't. And if we go by letters than shouldn't these types score higher in all N and T functions and lower in all S and F functions?
> 
> Kinda supports functions...


I've shown no hostility. 

Your argument is terrible, INTJs should score jack all on functions tests if they don't have Ti and Ne up the top, but, they don't, so.. that's that?

Go conduct a survey and you'll see.
Happens every time.

Shit I'll show mine right now:


* *













Yes, high Ti and low Fe.
However - higher Si than Se.
Higher Ni than Ne.
Higher Fi than Fe.

Higher Ni than Se.

I selected "not me" on every question was even slightly hesitant about as well so these results aren't skewed by someone thinking "oh maybe yeah kinda sounds like me" and then pressing "Absofuckinglutely me to a T".

I just don't see the functions correlating to the dichotomy very well here.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I've shown no hostility.
> 
> Your argument is terrible, INTJs should score jack all on functions tests if they don't have Ti and Ne up the top, but, they don't, so.. that's that?
> 
> ...


You accused me of being full of shit cause I didn't kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear.

Says the guy that polls 124 people about something that has nothing to do with functions and claims that it debunks functions cause INTJ and INTP have similarities. Your reasoning skills are trash.

I didn't say they should score jack, but if type is determined by letters than they should all score high on T and N functions and LOWER (not necessarily jack) on S and F functions. 

Not in my experience.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

reckful said:


> Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you may know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test but, as further discussed in the spoiler in this post (reviewing the posted results in a 350-post INTJforum thread), INTJs typically get high Ni scores _and high Ne scores_ (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test, and the T functions tend to be somewhat favored over the N functions (even though INTJs are supposedly N-doms).


And how do INTPs do on the test?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You accused me of being full of shit cause I didn't kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear.
> 
> Says the guy that polls 124 people about something that has nothing to do with functions and claims that it debunks functions cause INTJ and INTP have similarities. Your reasoning skills are trash.
> 
> ...


I still think you're full of shit, I don't say this with hostility, though, lol. It's just a fact (Se). lol.

I didn't poll anything. Don't make me say this again. lol. FFS.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I still think you're full of shit, I don't say this with hostility, though, lol. It's just a fact (Se). lol.
> 
> I didn't poll anything. Don't make me say this again. lol. FFS.


You have no reason to think that, I've explained everything. You thought I was full of shit from the get-go. Stop being petty now.

Ok, what does it matter who polls it? You're still using the results as a basis for your argument, grasping at straws


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You have no reason to think that, I've explained everything. You thought I was full of shit from the get-go. Stop being petty now.
> 
> Ok, what does it matter who polls it? You're still using the results as a basis for your argument, grasping at straws


I don't feel like you've explained anything, coherently.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I don't feel like you've explained anything, coherently.


Facts don't care how you feel and that's not an argument.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Facts don't care how you feel and that's not an argument.


Better than no argument.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Better than no argument.


I posted multiple, saying "not an argument" doesn't nullify it lol


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I posted multiple, saying "not an argument" doesn't nullify it lol


Consider it nullified.

Tbh I'm over this.
I don't get the point in bitching at each other, it's stupid.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Consider it nullified.
> 
> Tbh I'm over this.
> I don't get the point in bitching at each other, it's stupid.


Once you give me a reason to, otherwise no, try again.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> And how do INTPs do on the test?


I'd be interested in this too. I get Te the highest.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I'd be interested in this too. I get Te the highest.


This doesn't surprise me.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Aluminum Frost said:


> And how do INTPs do on the test?


It's an INTJforum thread, so there were many more INTJ responses than INTP responses, and I don't know that I even kept a tally of INTP scores (in terms of the N and T functions) as I was tallying the INTJ scores. In any event, if I did, I don't have that tally now.

I do remember that _all_ the IN types tended to favor Fi over Fe, for what that's worth.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Once you give me a reason to, otherwise no, try again.


You're wrong tho.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> You're wrong tho.


Prove it, you've yet to do so. And I thought you were done arguing? Did you just want the last word?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Prove it, you've yet to do so. And I thought you were done arguing? Did you just want the last word?


yes


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

reckful said:


> You can blather on about "SYMMETRIES" and "DOUBLE NEGATIVE" and mirrors and rotations and other scroodlyicious theoretical psychodynamics until the proverbial cows come home, Eric. But at the end of the day, if one or more of the type groupings that result from your theoretical models turn out to be people that, down here on Planet Reality, have _nothing in common_ (when it comes to those aspects of personality), then it's time to say, oops, it looks like my theory needs to be adjusted — or discarded, as the case may be.
> 
> Having that attitude toward the relationship between theories and evidence goes to the heart of what differentiates somebody who's operating by the standards applicable in the respectable districts of personality psychology from, well... other people. And that's true regardless of the theorist's type, Eric — and regardless of what the theorist's "ego investments" might be.
> 
> ...


Nardi summed up your whole approach well:



> Interview With Dario Nardi! - Page 14
> Let me suggest that you've created what's called in psychotherapy a double-bind.
> -- If I respond in detail to you, you've already made up your mind, and *my lack of convincing you will reinforce what you already believe* (and it's a belief)
> -- If I don't respond in the detail you want, you take that also as evidence that you are correct


I explain how people (or anything else) who _appear _to "have nothing in common" can in fact end up having something [else] in common, and from a "_real-world_" tangible example, and yet it's just "blathering" about "scroodlyicious theoretical psychodynamics", because "down here on Planet Reality, these people have _nothing in common_". You see how your argument is totally cyclical? You have your mind made up (from the unconscious perception of an introverted intuition, backed up by the _extraverted_ logic [as Socionics calls it) of these authorities and their "standards"; not all Thinking is like that; but even then, it's totally out of balance, the way you're talking here).


You put way too much stock in people, with these "standards", and "respectable districts of personality psychology". All that is, is a _consensus_ of _people_, who found something useful in certain methods or theories, and they're not always right. Science changes when new information is added; which is what sets it apart from religion, (and you've clearly made a religion out of your "Real MBTI"), but there will be people holding onto the "old guard" who resist the new information, at least at first. When you're dealing with people; _any_ people, there's always all sorts of biases involved, and ego-investments that DO skew things, and even politics. There's no master class of people who have infallible beliefs. You act as if God thundered this down, and as I've said before, people say the same things about MBTI, and liken it to the zodiac as well. You say it isn't, and someone else says it is. Who do we believe? The consensus? The majority will say MBTI is nonsense, and perhaps accept only the Big Five (and as Nardi said, why don't you just go to that system, then? He even pointed out over there some in science who are more open to some of these things when I addressed that). 

I still don't understand what your investment in this is. Who exactly are you? Are you a mainstream psychologist, who feels threatened somehow by what you see as an "unorthodox" view of personality? (i.e. "we all devoted all our lives to studying mainstream psychology, and these hacks are coming in with their unsubstantiated functions", or something like that?) You're trying to put yourself out there as 100% "objective", but it's becoming more and more clear that you're not. You can argue anything, and argue it strongly, but it doesn't mean there's really anything to it.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

The example I gave WAS changing two different things. (I even once created a topic, trying to represent the type dichotomies by actual space and time dimensions). One mirror flip changes one dimension, so that you have an image that's "reverse" in one dimension. A second mirror placed perpendicular to that one, reversing its image, reverses the OTHER _*DIMENSION*_, so that you end up with an image that's identical to the original thing being reflected, except for being rotated 180°.


So to complete your "three strikes", you split two arguments, as you start off arguing that Grant's "double flip" shouldn't be able to produce anything in common, because two dichotomies are opposite, so the type should be all the more opposite in every way (-1 + -1 = -2; I'm arguing -1 × -1 = +1). So now, you're saying it's "counterintuitive" (seemingly impossible), but you didn't mean it was necessarily wrong, but the issue is the lack of evidence in the real world, which is your "strike three". And yet your strike 2 serves as the tool to dismiss my example as it's answer. Or; one of its answers. See how cyclical your arguments?


The other real world example is right here; which I've said before that your INTJ perspective is more than simply I + N + T + J; because I'm I + N + T also, but there a bit more that differs than simply J/P having me being more "open" and you being more "closed", or however you define J/P. Its also changed the *STANDARD* of the N and T. Your STANDARD of logic (what's "correct") is clearly "the real-world"; (it's even your term), "scientific standards", "validity" (as determined by a CONSENSUS of researchers and "official" theorists), and the "evidence-backed districts of the MBTI". It's all EXTERNAL. 
That's all the "function" of Te means. My standard is simply anything that fits an INTERNAL sense of logic, which would include stuff like the symmetries I mention. This is considered "subjective"; and sure enough, that's exactly how you see it. To you, the logic of the theories should be all "objective". 


But the whole point of the theory is that we see things differently (and you're essentially telling me to think like you, because that's the RIGHT way, and that's one of the things this theory is supposed to help us resolve); and remember, Grant didn't invent the functions, Jung did. All Grant did was specify that the tertiary was the same attitude as the dominant. This apparenty does have some real world basis, as many of us can testify to out tertiary being the same attitude as the sominant (an internally-focused Sensing for me).


And then our iNtuition is different as well, because mine looks at an OBJECT like the Grant/Beebe model, and says "this COULD be true", let's toss around the idea and make it work conceptually (with the internal Thinking deciding if it's "correct" or not); THEN let's go and try to find more real world evidence. You start out just against the idea; "KNOWing" Berens and the others will "never" find the "counterintuitive" evidence you want; so it's just trash and should NEVER even be entertained. This "knowing" is an iNtuition coming from the "subject", and then you use that external Thinking to determine it is INcorrect. 
Again, that's all the different attitudes of the functions is! And you prove it in your posts every time.


Two different ways of seeing this stuff, matching the idea perfectly. What else do you want? For the scientific consensus to accept the evidence, and then you'll say it has validity. (But oh, you already said it never will!) They have their own bias; and they won't accept your "Real MBTI" either, as I've said the umpteenth time. Nothing associated with Jung or Myers they will accept, they always say it has no empirical evidence, so whatever evidence you're holding up they just will not accept, like you won't accept what I'm saying. That, to me, is why I say you can only go by them but so much.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Paradigm said:


> You can change the amount of posts on each page in the forum settings, so we probably see different page counts since mine has more per page than the default. And dates aren't usually the first thing on my mind, frankly.
> 
> To me, saying "nobody said ... proved" is a bit too close to semantics, as when I look back briefly, some were talking about how different types score and how it doesn't always fit what a type's stacking claim to be. Those are _really_ close in concepts, IMO. But it might be different for you.


I can't resist responding here. This is an elementary logic error that you're trying to downplay as being related to semantics. It's only "close in concepts" to those who willingly defend their own wrongness, or have no grasp of the concepts. So go keep beating up on those straw men, but there'd be nothing to beat up on if you were actually directly addressing the comments themselves.



Eric B said:


> The other real world example is right here; which I've said before that your INTJ perspective is more than simply I + N + T + J; because I'm I + N + T also, but there a bit more that differs than simply J/P having me being more "open" and you being more "closed", or however you define J/P. Its also changed the *STANDARD* of the N and T. Your STANDARD of logic (what's "correct") is clearly "the real-world"; (it's even your term), "scientific standards", "validity" (as determined by a CONSENSUS of researchers and "official" theorists), and the "evidence-backed districts of the MBTI". It's all EXTERNAL.
> That's all the "function" of Te means. My standard is simply anything that fits an INTERNAL sense of logic, which would include stuff like the symmetries I mention. This is considered "subjective"; and sure enough, that's exactly how you see it. To you, the logic of the theories should be all "objective".


Plenty of people who would even be identified as INTP and strongly Ti, such as myself, also care about the kind of stuff that reckful cites. Yes, my understanding of things is primarily internal but in order to refine my internal understanding I focus on perceiving the truthiness of things based on how well they match with the logic and empirical observations of the real world.

Meanwhile I see tons of self-identified INTJs here who don't seem to care one bit about external stuff, trying to cram reality into theory. Think of Dario Nardi as a real world example.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

All that means is that the external conclusions or authorities pass your internal standard, OR; once you've arrived at the internal conclusion, you try to back it up with the external standard (5th place Te "backs up" dominant Ti).
If INTJ's don't care about external stuff, that's them letting their dominant iNtuition rule, where they have an internal (and likely or at least possibly unconscious) vision of what's real, and shut out any other "possibilities" (save for the purely external logical standard they use to determine it is correct), which is precisely what we see here.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Eric B said:


> All that means is that the external conclusions or authorities pass your internal standard, OR; once you've arrived at the internal conclusion, you try to back it up with the external standard (5th place Te "backs up" dominant Ti).


"Internal standard" sounds too static. I assess case-by-case and try to adjust my confidence accordingly.


> If INTJ's don't care about external stuff, that's them letting their dominant iNtuition rule


If INTJs actually are dominant in iNtuition (especially of an introverted variety), why is it that you seem to identify them by their focus on external systems? Shouldn't dominant intuitives not be systems-focused?


> , where they have an internal (and likely or at least possibly unconscious) vision of what's real, and shut out any other "possibilities" (save for the purely external logical standard they use to determine it is correct), which is precisely what we see here.


So you just call it a "vision" rather than a "standard"? What's the difference?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Because the extraverted function (especially judgment) ends up most visible, in interaction with others (which is why Myers made J/P refer to preferred extraverted function to begin with).

No real difference. "Vision" I used to refer to an iNtuitive product, and I do generally use "standard" with judgments more (because the word coveys more of a rationality), but it can [loosely] refer to perception as well.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Eric B said:


> Because the extraverted function (especially judgment) ends up most visible, in interaction with others (which is why Myers made J/P refer to preferred extraverted function to begin with).
> 
> No real difference. "Vision" I used to refer to an iNtuitive product, and I do generally use "standard" with judgments more (because the word coveys more of a rationality), but it can [loosely] refer to perception as well.


Why would people either have a combination of introverted perception and extraverted judging, or introverted judging and extraverted perception? It seems like Myers only assigned those in her two-function model because:
a) it was a two-function model, probably for simplicity's purpose
b) it was "balanced" and she wanted to be positive

So then due to this stack presumably built with the goals of being simple and nice, people start thinking that introverts who display a preference for J/P functions externally actually are the opposite in P/J preference at their core. Why?

Why were 4 function models built off of the Myers "simple and nice" model, rather than by trying to build models based off empirical observations? The 4 function "Jung types" I link to in my signature have balance between functions of extraverted and introverted attitude, but in typical form, the top two functions have the same attitude. By taking away the constraint of a 2 function model, balancing forces can be illustrated using a function model where the top two functions are introverted. Not like I actually agree with the approach, but at least it's not saying something like that introverts who primarily show Judging are Perceivers because of their hidden Perceiving core.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Ocean Helm said:


> I can't resist responding here. This is an elementary logic error that you're trying to downplay as being related to semantics. It's only "close in concepts" to those who willingly defend their own wrongness, or have no grasp of the concepts. So go keep beating up on those straw men, but there'd be nothing to beat up on if you were actually directly addressing the comments themselves.


Sure, why not. You win; congrats. 

Have fun with the rest of this logic contest.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

If I'm an introverted perceiver, wouldn't it make sense that I'm also an introverted judger?
I mean doesn't it make sense that someone who pays most attention to their inner world, would therefore be making decisions based on this inner world?

I'm not talking about bypassing some "extraverted" judging function, I'm talking direct from introverted perceiving to introverted judging, no extraversion required.

I understand everybody needs some extraversion - but what doesn't click for me, doesn't fit, is that this requirement - this extraverted function - would be way high up as some 'dominant' or 'auxiliary' function.

I'm not an extravert, so why would the way I 'extravert' myself to the world be 'dominant' or 'auxiliary'?

Introverts extraversion, would be inferior. 

I.E an INFJ type extraverting themselves to the world via inferior Se - rather than 'Fe' - this just fits better, to me.
Of course, shifting the 'stack' to fit - Ni-Fi-T-Se, would then make an INFJ *really* an INFP due to leading with a perceiving 'function' - but doesn't this make way more sense?

I feel like this is more realistic.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Ocean Helm said:


> Why would people either have a combination of introverted perception and extraverted judging, or introverted judging and extraverted perception? It seems like Myers only assigned those in her two-function model because:
> a) it was a two-function model, probably for simplicity's purpose
> b) it was "balanced" and she wanted to be positive
> 
> ...


Even though neither Jung nor Myers articulated a why (and following that link, and to others, and seeing the old discussions on which attitude the other three functions have), I believe Beebe's model completes it all by showing how complexes (usually called “archetypes”, but complexes are more personalized) are what take on the function, and assign the attitude. Complexem are really lesser senses of “I” in the psyche, so while the ego chooses one function and attitude (and the others are initially unconscious [undifferentiated], which is what those old debates were on), it's the complexes that differentiate them.
So a complex called the “Caretaker” or “Parent”; (a very strong, primeval archetype, which is in part about “balance”), chooses a function “in every way different” (i.e. both rationality and attitude) from the dominant. This then ends up as the “auxiliary” function and usually the second “strongest”, which is then picked up as our other “preference”. The rest of the four or eight function “stack” is basically a reflection of these first two.

Also, Myers defined J/P as extraverted preferred function, so an IP or IJ is not a “judger” or “perceiver” in the same way as an EJ ore EP (or Socionics Ij or Ip). Myers wasn't speaking of the “core” at that point, but rather the surface; what they show to the world.

When I first learned about this and began trying it on, it made sense, as I'm Ti dominant, and an intuitive, but it's not introverted iNtuition, but extraverted. Others give their own typological experiences, and it matches. All this talk about “empirical”; that's technically “empirical observations”, but it seems what is being demanded here is some “official” decree of consesnus from “on high”, but I don't feel the need to wait for that to believe this model makes sense.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Eric B said:


> Even though neither Jung nor Myers articulated a why


Jung certainly wouldn't have articulated "why" people's judgments and perceptions are an E/I mix since, as explained at length here, Jung thought your dominant and auxiliary function would have the _same attitude_ — which he referred to as your "conscious attitude," and hence the attitude of the two functions he referred to as the "conscious functions."

Jung's function stack for a typical Ni-dom with a T-aux (for example) was Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.

As Jung explained:

If we wish to define the psychological peculiarity of a man in terms that will satisfy not only our own subjective judgment but also the object judged, we must take as our criterion that state or attitude which is felt by the object to be *the conscious, normal condition*. Accordingly, we shall make *his conscious motives* our first concern, while eliminating as far as possible our own arbitrary interpretations.

Proceeding thus we shall discover, after a time, that in spite of the great variety of conscious motives and tendencies, certain groups of individuals can be distinguished who are characterized by a striking conformity of motivation. For example, we shall come upon *individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force*, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."​
He characterizes extraverts as people "who in all their *judgments, perceptions*, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force." _Judgments and perceptions both_.

There are definitely aspects of Jung's writings where reasonable people can disagree about what he meant, but I would respectfully suggest that there's no reasonable way to reconcile that passage (from Chapter X of Psychological Types) with the notion that Jung's model called for an extravert to either be extraverted in their judgments and introverted in their perceptions or _vice versa._

And that linked post has a lot more reasons why the notion that Jung viewed the auxiliary as having the opposite attitude to the dominant is essentially unsupportable.

And so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not endorsing Jung's stack, because I don't endorse any "function stack" model. I'm just correcting the record on Jung's model.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> If I'm an introverted perceiver, wouldn't it make sense that I'm also an introverted judger?
> I mean doesn't it make sense that someone who pays most attention to their inner world, would therefore be making decisions based on this inner world?
> 
> I'm not talking about bypassing some "extraverted" judging function, I'm talking direct from introverted perceiving to introverted judging, no extraversion required.
> ...


"The system is wrong cause I don't like how it works" This is like when people try to say that objective morality exists. I mean how could it not? X must be right and Y must be wrong cause muh feels.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Eric B, @Turi made a very good post above yours which basically sums up how I feel. My top 2 functions on most tests are usually Ni and Ti which gives me INxJ as a result, and I relate most to function-oriented descriptions for INTP written by MBTI® people like Naomi Quenk, as well as ILI/INTp written by Socionics people that you can read on Wikisocion. But if you actually look at the kind of "perceiving" that is described in INTP MBTI stacks, it often talks about stuff like active imagination and daydreaming which seems very internal, even though it's "Ne". It's not really "extraverted intuition", it's more like "intuition for perceivers who are introverts and intuitive". Likewise in Socionics, the descriptions of Ti and Te in the ILI Model A stack don't imply "Te" in the MBTI sense. If you were to figure out what kind of judging that ILIs do by these descriptions, it would be internally focused. Socionics people may say it's guided by the Ni, but regardless of the proposed mechanism, it's still subjective and internal. So with MBTI INTP and Socionics INTp you end up with descriptions which essentially describe people who use Intuition that is introverted, and Thinking which is introverted.

Anyway, that's my personal story. I see a ton of people with similar experiences as me and they even type themselves differently (INTP/INTJ/INFJ/ISTP mainly), people who don't relate to a Ti/Ne or Ni/Te combination but rather Ti/Ni. Anyway, these anecdotal observations are essentially worthless, but I just felt like bringing them up because I see people like Eric say that "it matches" outside observations, which I believe is not only made possible by confirmation bias but also a filtering mechanism where people who don't fit any particular stacks generally don't get too deeply into "the community". I actually got drawn into this because I find it fascinating watching people totally get into this stuff, and looking at reality in such a distorted view. It's really illuminating on human psychology as a whole, especially from the perspective of someone like myself who prioritizes having a balanced, unbiased thought process to be used to interact with the world. But most people probably get repelled more than attracted to function-based typology if they don't identify with any function stack, and thus self-filter themselves out of the community. This is just another reason not to trust what you observe in places like this forum, although maybe not as compelling as cognitive bias.

Eric, you mentioned this Beebe theory about Caretaker and Parent, but where's any data to back it up? It seems like a completely baseless theory.

Regarding Myers, if you're Ti-Ne in a Myers stack, it's implied that Ti is your core (it's "dominant") even if that's not what Myers intended. And this implication is what seems especially foolish because it implies that if you're an introvert, you display the opposite P/J preference than you actually have internally. And I'm pretty sure she liked those stacks because they were "simple and nice" but I don't remember the source and even if not, I see other people in MBTI literature back up the stacks for being nice (as in they make people feel nice because they are balanced between E and I).


----------



## Insentient (Sep 22, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> Eric, you mentioned this Beebe theory about Caretaker and Parent, but where's any data to back it up? It seems like a completely baseless theory.


Asking about specific data, when the whole thing is not based on any objective data, does give credit to your statement that "we shouldn't trust what we observe in places like this forum."

No one should get stuck on who interpreted Jung's writings in what way, be it Myers, Socionics founder Baltic lady or Naomi Quenk. It doesn't matter what functions are named in the end. The real question in all of this is, can you apply what is laid out to your own and others' lives and can you get positive results from those conclusions.

No one should be concerned about what people use all of this for as well, people will always go after what makes them "feel nice". The whole point of psychology is about finding out how people behave and what can one do to make people's lives better. Having resentment about what other people do or feel will lead to clouded judgements. None of this is based on the scientific method, so looking for an "absolute truth" will only lead to misunderstandings.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Insentient said:


> Asking about specific data, when the whole thing is not based on any objective data, does give credit to your statement that "we shouldn't trust what we observe in places like this forum."
> ...
> None of this is based on the scientific method, so looking for an "absolute truth" will only lead to misunderstandings.


There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences. And unlike astrology, temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.

Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with modern psychometric standards. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that _identical twins raised in separate households_ are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs — which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to _real_, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality that were presumably selected for by evolution (just as Jung presumed), for reasons we may never fully understand. Anyone who thinks they're just arbitrary theoretical categories is misinformed.

If you're interested, you can read more about the scientific respectability of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Insentient I don't know why you are bringing up "absolute truth" because I am not talking of anything of that nature being demonstrated.

Anyway, part of function theory is that it barely even qualifies as theory. It's sort of just like a loose framework that gives people freedom to write whatever they like about it. Hell, a lot of people probably wouldn't even agree with "one's strongest two function-attitude pairs are one introverted and one extraverted".

Without theories/hypotheses you basically just have a "topic of conversation", and these kind of things usually just inspire new thoughts which may help, may hurt, or may do nothing. People have been helped by all kinds of religions in an observable way outside of any sort of supernatural theories involving an afterlife or whatnot. Regardless of their inherent "truth" (it's impossible for a lot of these religions to simulaneously be "true"), people can be observed being helped by something other than discovering "truth". Even just by feeling like they discover truth, they can have positive effects.

Anyway, when things reach beyond topics of conversation into actual theory (such as the "one's strongest two function-attitude pairs are one introverted and one extraverted" idea that I already mentioned), one can usually hypothesize external manifestations that can be harvested as empirical data in an experiment. Yet none of this stuff has ever shown up in any sense based on anything I've seen. And given how easy it is to make these personality models, why should we stick with something which to this day hasn't had any derived theories being backed up by reality? Why not explore others of essentially unlimited possibilities? When the beaten path is an empirical dead-end, isn't that a motivation to try exploring other paths?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> Anyway, part of function theory is that it barely even qualifies as theory. It's sort of just like a loose framework that gives people freedom to write whatever they like about it. Hell, a lot of people probably wouldn't even agree with "one's strongest two function-attitude pairs are one introverted and one extraverted".


I sure as hell wouldn't agree with this, and to be honest - on Facebook groups etc, I _constantly_ see people post up 'cognitive functions' test results where they've got between 2-4 introverted functions as their strongest, and people basically just 'wing' responses to these posts to make sense of them - even if their 5th strongest function is the first extraverted one - i.e Ti-Ni-Si-Fi-Se.. people will be like, oh you ISTP then, and you "in a loop".

That kind of thing is all over FB groups re: function results - when, even looking at that - why couldn't we say that's an INTJ?

Ti-Ni is clearly NT temperament, leading with a judging function = dominant judger = xNTJ, since it's a dominant introverted judging function (regardless of whether the next function is introverted or extraverted) - I'd suggest I.

Ergo, INTJ is accurate type for that stack. Even thought the first extraverted 'function' is in the 5th position.

It just makes sense to me.


----------



## Insentient (Sep 22, 2016)

reckful said:


> There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences. And unlike astrology, temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.
> 
> Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with modern psychometric standards. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that _identical twins raised in separate households_ are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs — which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to _real_, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality that were presumably selected for by evolution (just as Jung presumed), for reasons we may never fully understand. Anyone who thinks they're just arbitrary theoretical categories is misinformed.
> 
> If you're interested, you can read more about the scientific respectability of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post.


I don't care about MBTI or any other names mentioned, I'm capable of reaching my own conclusions from the data presented, if there's room for interpretation. The only things that cannot be scientifically debunked are the things that cannot be proven wrong after extensive, reliable and thorough scientific (both empirical and in any other method one can think of) probing (and I mean "extensive"). The source of all this, who is Jung, whom I have utmost respect for, can be _wrong_ for all we scientifically know.

The reason why Jungian Typology is so important is that no one else have come so close to understanding what human condition is really like. And his approach is an intuitive one born from his experience with thousands of psych patients and his extensive knowledge about human history, not a scientific one. This doesn't diminish him or his work's value. It is just wrong to look at all this from a scientific perspective until we really understand what's going on with the human brain. We don't know shit about the human brain (we only just started looking at it), and until we do, Jung is the best reference point we have. And by the way, everything Jung has named is arbitrary, and only a person not educated in the scientific method would call them scientific.

I'd also like to add that The Big Five is a useless pile of steaming shit. I don't care about what people are like at the time of testing. I don't care about "people's traits" or "emotional states". I care about the _mechanics_ that underlie human nature, and what that understanding can do for me or humanity in general. Only Jungian Typology can give me that.

And finally, this whole thread is a product of childish Ti, which doesn't know what it's talking about, so it is kind of pointless to debate what is scientific about something that's not based in science but intuition, which I value more in the absence of solid data.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Insentient said:


> I don't care about MBTI or any other names mentioned, I'm capable of reaching my own conclusions from the data presented, if there's room for interpretation. The only things that cannot be scientifically debunked are the things that cannot be proven wrong after extensive, reliable and thorough scientific (both empirical and in any other method one can think of) probing (and I mean "extensive"). The source of all this, who is Jung, whom I have utmost respect for, can be _wrong_ for all we scientifically know.
> 
> The reason why Jungian Typology is so important is that no one else have come so close to understanding what human condition is really like. And his approach is an intuitive one born from his experience with thousands of psych patients and his extensive knowledge about human history, not a scientific one. This doesn't diminish him or his work's value. It is just wrong to look at all this from a scientific perspective until we really understand what's going on with the human brain. We don't know shit about the human brain (we only just started looking at it), and until we do, Jung is the best reference point we have. And by the way, everything Jung has named is arbitrary, and only a person not educated in the scientific method would call them scientific.
> 
> ...


lol, ok


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

> The only things that cannot be scientifically debunked are the things that cannot be proven wrong after extensive, reliable and thorough scientific (both empirical and in any other method one can think of) probing (and I mean "extensive").


There's a practically infinite amount of unfalsifiable models. The kind of thinking displayed in this post is offensive to brains.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Insentient said:


> The reason why Jungian Typology is so important is that no one else have come so close to understanding what human condition is really like. ...
> 
> I care about the _mechanics_ that underlie human nature, and what that understanding can do for me or humanity in general. Only Jungian Typology can give me that.


Isabel Myers made a lot of much-needed corrections to Jung's original concepts/categories, some of them pretty major. And believe it or not, it's actually _non-Jungian_ to ignore them, as explained in the spoiler in this post.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> This describes dominant Se and dominant Se alone, it literally takes nothing else into consideration -_-


That's not what I asked.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Aluminum Frost said:


> This describes dominant Se and dominant Se alone, it literally takes nothing else into consideration -_-


Would a real dominant Se have no Fi or Ti backup?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> That's not what I asked.


Some of it is accurate, other parts aren't. Seems like a loaded question, what's your point?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> Would a real dominant Se have no Fi or Ti backup?


No


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> I was serious (which I not alway am). Is there anything you'd like to discuss? If not, that's okay.


Okay, then why can't people prefer "object focused" functions in some situations and "subject focused" functions in others? Say person A prefers Te in situation X, while person B prefers Ti in situation subset X, while person A prefers Ti and person B prefers Te in situation subset Y. And when you look them overall they use a balanced combination of "subjective" and "objective" thinking. You wouldn't be able to comfortably put one each on both sides of the e/i side of the line for the attitude of their Thinking function, unless you arbitrarily picked some sort of deciding factor, and these people do prefer subjective/objective thinking in different situations so it's not like they are always simultaneously using both in equal amounts. I see this kind of stuff all the time, where it's hard to predict what attitude someone will use and this is part of what makes people interesting to me. They are unpredictable and diverse, and even though you said something about balanced people lacking a personality, it couldn't be further from the truth. They just lack one clear personality type as defined by binary dichotomies.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

reckful said:


> Jung certainly wouldn't have articulated "why" people's judgments and perceptions are an E/I mix since, as explained at length here, Jung thought your dominant and auxiliary function would have the _same attitude_ — which he referred to as your "conscious attitude," and hence the attitude of the two functions he referred to as the "conscious functions."
> 
> Jung's function stack for a typical Ni-dom with a T-aux (for example) was Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.
> 
> ...


If that's the case, then his stack would be Ni-Ti-Si-Fi. Apparently, either something is not being interpreted correctly, or Jung was just unclear.

I think he's talking about _*generic*_ "judgments and perceptions"; especially when he includes the other processes; "*feelings*, affects, actions". Those aren't "the functions" as we discuss them. 
And that's one of the big problems with Jung, and why it's hard to read him and understand what he's saying; he uses words that can mean different things, or have different contexts ("concrete/abstract", "objective/subjective", and even "conscious/unconscious" are the most common ones) without clarifying what exactly they're referring to in each instance. So (much like the Bible, you even quoted from somewhere), he ends up subject to these different interpretations that can't seemingly be resolved. There was also the "different in every way" statement, which to us sounds more clear than what you cited. 

I take "all his perceptions, judgments, feelings, affects and actions" as the default position of *consciousness,* of the ego's world view; so it's all the stuff being filtered through the *dominant* function _only_. The other functions are "*undifferentiated*", meaning _*mixed together*_ in those generic products. The auxiliary and below are [initially] the _*un*_conscious range; and it's the different complexes that attach to the functions and assign the attitudes. 
In following the links to your older posts from years ago, I saw where you dismissed the notion that Myers "improved" upon Jung; but clearly, his presentation needed improving upon! 



Ocean Helm said:


> @*Eric B*, @*Turi* made a very good post above yours which basically sums up how I feel. My top 2 functions on most tests are usually Ni and Ti which gives me INxJ as a result, and I relate most to function-oriented descriptions for INTP written by MBTI® people like Naomi Quenk, as well as ILI/INTp written by Socionics people that you can read on Wikisocion. But if you actually look at the kind of "perceiving" that is described in INTP MBTI stacks, it often talks about stuff like active imagination and daydreaming which seems very internal, even though it's "Ne". It's not really "extraverted intuition", it's more like "intuition for perceivers who are introverts and intuitive". Likewise in Socionics, the descriptions of Ti and Te in the ILI Model A stack don't imply "Te" in the MBTI sense. If you were to figure out what kind of judging that ILIs do by these descriptions, it would be internally focused. Socionics people may say it's guided by the Ni, but regardless of the proposed mechanism, it's still subjective and internal. So with MBTI INTP and Socionics INTp you end up with descriptions which essentially describe people who use Intuition that is introverted, and Thinking which is introverted.
> 
> Anyway, that's my personal story. I see a ton of people with similar experiences as me and they even type themselves differently (INTP/INTJ/INFJ/ISTP mainly), people who don't relate to a Ti/Ne or Ni/Te combination but rather Ti/Ni. Anyway, these anecdotal observations are essentially worthless, but I just felt like bringing them up because I see people like Eric say that "it matches" outside observations, which I believe is not only made possible by confirmation bias but also a filtering mechanism where people who don't fit any particular stacks generally don't get too deeply into "the community". I actually got drawn into this because I find it fascinating watching people totally get into this stuff, and looking at reality in such a distorted view. It's really illuminating on human psychology as a whole, especially from the perspective of someone like myself who prioritizes having a balanced, unbiased thought process to be used to interact with the world. But most people probably get repelled more than attracted to function-based typology if they don't identify with any function stack, and thus self-filter themselves out of the community. This is just another reason not to trust what you observe in places like this forum, although maybe not as compelling as cognitive bias.


Most people who get NiTi are taking that test someone put up here. So I wouldn't go by that. The Keys2Cognition is calibrated in a way where that occurs less. Both (and Socionics too) really are treating function-attitudes as "things" you "use", but it's not that neat or clear cut. They are perspectives where we divide reality. (I've heard of the "INTP=INTp"/TiNe vs NiTe claim before, and that was when I quit taking Socionics that seriously. That and "VR", or whatever they call that "bone structure indicates type" theory). 
All of this is why I came up with this recent thread http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/1190066-good-way-tell-dominant-auxiliary.html where toward the bottom of the OP, I try to break down the confusion between "internal" and "external", since all data really starts outside of us, but is processed inside. (More of the clarification that Jung needed).

So the tests are not perfect, and neither is our own clarity of our preference (which is actually what the MBTI scores are, not function or dichotomy "strengths"). Those tests can blur the line between one attitude or the other does, because both attitudes can do the same things, but using behavior traits to define the functions, certain behaviors will be associated with one attitude specifically. Like "considering others and responding to them" being "Fe". But Fi can do that too. The difference is whether the needs are drawn directly from the "object" (another person), or inferred from within. 
iNtuition is in itself difficult to really pin down, and so the attitudes particularly hard to really distinguish. (Especially, as you pointed out, since both are technically "in the head"). 

And again, the tests mix up the attitudes by assigning specific behaviors to them. This whole argument against functions started with "NT's who get NiTi on the function tests", but this is not something to reject functions based on. 
Other reasons people could get that are being an INFJ or ISTP with a strong tertiary they respond to more in the questions than their Fe or Se. It's really not so much about "top two"; though we assume the dominant and auxiliary will fall into that place. The whole notions of "strengths" are relative.



> Eric, you mentioned this Beebe theory about Caretaker and Parent, but where's any data to back it up? It seems like a completely baseless theory.
> 
> Regarding Myers, if you're Ti-Ne in a Myers stack, it's implied that Ti is your core (it's "dominant") even if that's not what Myers intended. And this implication is what seems especially foolish because it implies that if you're an introvert, you display the opposite P/J preference than you actually have internally. And I'm pretty sure she liked those stacks because they were "simple and nice" but I don't remember the source and even if not, I see other people in MBTI literature back up the stacks for being nice (as in they make people feel nice because they are balanced between E and I).


 Beebe is a Jungian analyst, and derived his theory from his own work, and running his own experience through it as well. again, this may not be some official study by institutional science, but to TiNe, it looks viable.

Yes, Ti is the "core", and is a judgment, but as I just said, Myers' J/P is not about the core; it's about the *surface*; or what's _outside_ of us as we interact with other people. That was MBTI's focus (And this is why the dichotomy ended up so instrumental in mapping the temperament and Interaction styles groups).
The problem was in Myers using the initials for "judgment" and "perception" (and then Socionics taking them and reverting them back to Jung's dominant function definition). So an IP is not a "perceiver" at the core; only on the outside, and an IJ is not a judger at the core; only on the outside, and it's not the "opposite" preference; it's really a completely different dichotomy altogether.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Ocean Helm said:


> Okay, then why can't people prefer "object focused" functions in some situations and "subject focused" functions in others? Say person A prefers Te in situation X, while person B prefers Ti in situation subset X, while person A prefers Ti and person B prefers Te in situation subset Y. And when you look them overall they use a balanced combination of "subjective" and "objective" thinking. You wouldn't be able to comfortably put one each on both sides of the e/i side of the line for the attitude of their Thinking function, unless you arbitrarily picked some sort of deciding factor, and these people do prefer subjective/objective thinking in different situations so it's not like they are always simultaneously using both in equal amounts. I see this kind of stuff all the time, where it's hard to predict what attitude someone will use and this is part of what makes people interesting to me. They are unpredictable and diverse, and even though you said something about balanced people lacking a personality, it couldn't be further from the truth. They just lack one clear personality type as defined by binary dichotomies.


Let me see if I can repeat what you just said in different language and see if you agree. To keep it simpler, let the two parties be introverts. The behavior in the first case for A is classical INTJ = Ni Te. The behavior in the 2nd case for A is INTP = Ti Ne. Now notice the difference. Te is more careful about the outside world while sloppy and non-judgmental inside. Ti is more careful about the inside world while non-judgmental about the outside. You say those are possibilities because situations X and Y are different. I grant you that. Now my question is, which is preferred? Which would you rather be and do? The answer is suppose to reveal the real personality. Would you agree?

I admit one case doesn't prove anything yet if we are talking theory, special cases should apply. Look at us. We are labelled both as INTPs. Look at this exchange. It's thinking about theory: Ti. No objective proof. It's all about internal conjecture. You give external possibilities: Ne. I think and tell you more of a possibility. More Ti and Ne. 

An INTJ would be different. They would openly say Te and Ti are in balance and both are used as the occasion warrants: Te. That would be their intuition overall: Ni. Me? I refuse to draw a conclusion until all the evidence from a broad survey is in. In fact, I can see flaws or omissions in my own logic right here. That makes me more comfortable with Ti. I'm not fond of Te because I don't trust it until I've covered every base and covering every base is not easily had. Yet if forced to act, I can weakly give in to peer pressure. You want it badly enough? I'll say okay ... I'll give it to you, but reluctantly.

See the difference? Sure I can be INTP and act like INTJ. I like INTJs but don't want to behave like them.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@BigApplePi the point of giving a hypothetical counterexample is not for you to modify it into something that isn't a counterexample and then analyze that.

@Eric B I'm a perceiver at the core, a perceiver on the outside, and an introvert. What is my Beebe stack?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Eric B said:


> If that's the case, then his stack would be Ni-Ti-Si-Fi. Apparently, either something is not being interpreted correctly, or Jung was just unclear.


You are correct, Eric: "something is not being interpreted correctly."

Jung referred to the dom and aux as someone's "conscious functions," and the tert and inf as the "unconscious functions."

Now go back to that Jung quote about an extravert's extraverted judgments _and_ perceptions, and you'll see that he repeatedly emphasizes that extraverts should be typed as extraverted based on their _conscious_ judgments and perceptions (among other conscious things), and _not_ their unconscious stuff — which Jung believed would be characterized by what he called their "unconscious attitude" (i.e., introversion).

Jung starts off by emphasizing that if you want to type an extravert or introvert correctly, it's important to focus on their _conscious_ stuff (including their "perceptions" and "judgments") precisely _because_ their unconscious stuff is oriented in the opposite direction.

And as I noted earlier, that quote is just one of the _many_ reasons (with more to be found in that long post I linked to) why the notion that Jung believed in opposite-attitude dom/aux functions is really not reasonably supportable.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@*Carl Jung*, @ *Eric B.*

Hi Carl. I wanted to comment on what you said realizing you are past replying and not a member of PerC.

(Jung's function stack for a typical Ni-dom with a T-aux (for example) was Ni-Ti-Fe-Se)

As Jung explainedIf we wish to define the psychological peculiarity of a man in terms that will satisfy not only our own subjective judgment but also the object judged, we must take as our criterion that state or attitude which is felt by the object to be *the conscious, normal condition*. Accordingly, we shall make *his conscious motives* our first concern, while eliminating as far as possible our own arbitrary interpretations.
I hope their unconscious motives count for something.

Proceeding thus we shall discover, after a time, that in spite of the great variety of conscious motives and tendencies, certain groups of individuals can be distinguished who are characterized by a striking conformity of motivation. For example, we shall come upon *individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force*, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean.
Carl, here at PerC we often go into detail breaking up into external and internal forces. I want to thank you for being the inspiration behind all this.

St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "
There are several premises here. Mr. Augustine took the Catholic Church as authority because of Fe. He wanted to get along. The music appreciator did the same to be part of the group: Fe. Perhaps he did find something beautiful (Se) but that went into his subconscious. The marrier also went Fe to get along with parents. Apparently he suppressed his own wishes (Fi), keeping them out of mind. I predict he will regret this later as Fi will out and he will go neurotic. I will send him to you for treatment.

One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."
No one enjoys humiliation which is in front of other people. However shame sounds like an Fi thing to me. Shame is felt privately. Sounds like other functions need developing. You call that "differentiation", don't you?​


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Ocean Helm said:


> @*BigApplePi* the point of giving a hypothetical counterexample is not for you to modify it into something that isn't a counterexample and then analyze that.


Good point. I wouldn't won't to misuse what you called a counterexample. Here is what you said and I want to point out something.



Ocean Helm said:


> Okay, then why can't people prefer "object focused" functions in some situations and "subject focused" functions in others? Say person A prefers Te in situation X, while person B prefers Ti in situation subset X, while person A prefers Ti and person B prefers Te in situation subset Y. And when you look them overall they use a balanced combination of "subjective" and "objective" thinking. You wouldn't be able to comfortably put one each on both sides of the e/i side of the line for the attitude of their Thinking function, unless you arbitrarily picked some sort of deciding factor, and these people do prefer subjective/objective thinking in different situations so it's not like they are always simultaneously using both in equal amounts. I see this kind of stuff all the time, where it's hard to predict what attitude someone will use and this is part of what makes people interesting to me. They are unpredictable and diverse, and even though you said something about balanced people lacking a personality, it couldn't be further from the truth. They just lack one clear personality type as defined by binary dichotomies.


In the paragraph above you give situations and refer in each case to "preference." How do you know such preferences consciously exist? Preference is Fi and INTPs (you and I) are not good at Fi supposedly. I know you've said, "I see this kind of stuff all the time." I'm not convinced that's what you see. To see it you must use Se and draw the correct conclusions with Te. Using your Ne is not good enough. *We need an INTJ to look at this.* INTJs are good at looking at the external world.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

BigApplePi said:


> In the paragraph above you give situations and refer in each case to "preference." How do you know such preferences consciously exist? Preference is Fi and INTPs (you and I) are not good at Fi supposedly. I know you've said, "I see this kind of stuff all the time." I'm not convinced that's what you see. To see it you must use Se and draw the correct conclusions with Te. Using your Ne is not good enough. *We need an INTJ to look at this.* INTJs are good at looking at the external world.


Huh? Who said INTJs are better at Fi than INTPs? I usually get Fi high on function tests anyway, and my INTP type is not meant as a "I relate to being weak at Fi", because I don't.

Anyway, how do I know anything exists with regards to the functions? I don't even know what they are really. For example, your description of Ti not jumping to conclusions (that you gave in your previous post) seems to oppose Jung's description of his Introverted Thinking type, which when not balanced enough by extraverted thinking can get caught up in its own conclusions to the degree that it ignores reality because it is so attached to its subjective conclusions.

People in this thread seem to like function models. I don't. I don't know to what degree these preferences exist. It's all in the abstract but in the specific thing I said in the end, I am talking about what people see in themselves so it is not my judgment really factoring into this at all. I am one of these people though. My function order usually ends up being something like (in tiers) although it depends on the descriptions/tests (for instance in Keys2Cognition I am Te or Ne first):
Very strong: Ni,Ti
Strong: Fi
Average: Ne,Te
Weak: Si
Very weak: Fe,Se


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Has anybody here got Table 3.3 from the current MBTI Manual?

I ask, after receiving this response from the official MBTI folks when I asked them what the official stance on the direction on the 'tertiary function' is:



> Hi xxx - This is what one of our type experts, (name removed), said when I sent him your question: "Regarding the latest research, I defer to (name removed 2)’s team. Regarding the attitude of the tertiary, there is still some debate about what it is. The current Manual (table 3.3) lists it as being the same attitude as the auxiliary and inferior. As far as I know, Myers believed the auxiliary, tertiary and inferior needed to be used in the same attitude to serve as a counter balance to the dominant which is in the opposite attitude. In the certification program and in ITT we leave the attitude off and let participants decide for themselves. "
> 
> (name removed 2) is our director of research who I've passed the question on to but who won't be back online until January 8th because of the holidays. Let me know if that helps answer your question! It's a little beyond my MBTI type understanding so I'm not sure if it answers your question in not. Thanks


Hope I'm allowed to post that up, there's nothing personal in it, probably didn't even need to remove the names.

The official stance at the moment is pretty clearly that the tertiary function is in the opposite direction of the dominant - why they let participants "decide for themselves" is beyond me.

I'm eagerly awaiting a response from the Director of Research sometime after January 8.


If the official stance is that the 'functions' are in this direction, i.e Ni-Fe-Te-Se - why on Earth, are people jumping on to the Harold Grant stack, then?
For the 'function stack' to be able to claim any credibility, at all, _surely_ it should be the one that is _officially endorsed_.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Turi








I still don't know why they do it this way in particular (that is, flipping P/J from Jung and making the auxiliary in the opposite direction) if they are taking the rest from Jung. It's like the Myers-Jung frankenstack. Or was it Myers who proposed this exact stack? In that case it'd make sense.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

reckful said:


> You are correct, Eric: "something is not being interpreted correctly."
> 
> Jung referred to the dom and aux as someone's "conscious functions," and the tert and inf as the "unconscious functions."
> 
> ...


But "conscious stuff (including 'perceptions' and 'judgments')" look like a description of _generic_ processes. The dominant function uses the products of the undifferentiated functions in its associated attitude. This is another reason why INT's might seem to have "NiTi". 
That's the _products_; which are the generic "judgments and perceptions" of "feelings", "thoughts", "sensations", etc. we all do all the time regardless of type. (like seeing/hearing/touching something, "feeling" good or bad, using logic, having an "intuition"). So Ti will analyze products associated with N, S and even F, all in its internal assessment, and it's all still falling under the Ti perspective. The other functional _perspectives_ are what's "undifferentiated" in the unconscious, in the opposite attitude, until the complexes reorient the tertiary and others into the same attitude.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

*Comments on the Original Post*



Turi said:


> I'm not even just talking about the Harold Grant stack everyone uses, which I know has no research behind it - I just mean, the 'cognitive functions' in general.
> 
> i.e, Ni, Ne, Si, Se, Fi, Fe, Ti, Te
> 
> ...


Asking * Is there any research at all to support the validity of the cognitive functions? *is a question about the external world. I have no expertise on this. My interest is theory so if the former is what you're after, then you may skip this post.

All theories require assumptions. Here are some of mine.
1. If we are are talking cognitive functions, they need definitions. You may find them on PerC or elsewhere.
2. Definitions need not be precise. They are something to work with.
3. I'm fond of there being the eight you mention.
4. The motivation to inquire into this is it helps to tell who we are, oneself and others.
5. That there is a primary function is an assumption. Look to experience to validate or invalidate this. 
6. We put together personalities with cognitive functions. There are a number of theories on how to do this.
7. We can theoretically use all eight functions in any order and with any intensity and frequency.

Astrology is a personality theory at one extreme without any science to speak of. Yet it when we dig into it, it helps with #4.
I'm fond of Myers-Briggs. I see these assumptions which doesn't mean they are valid.
A. There is a primary. There are organizations which try to validate this.
B. There is a secondary with the opposite world (internal/external) of A. The reason is the primary world needs support to maximize its outlook on reality.
C. Any of the eight functions may be highly developed or non-existent in consciousness.
D. All eight exist in the unconscious but we don't call them "cognitive."
E. The tertiary is the opposite world of the secondary and is there for further support.
F. The fourth function must be the opposite of the primary to compensate for its overpowering yet flawed nature.
G. Eight is a lot of functions. An important and neglected dimension is development. The Myers-Briggs theory applies to healthy development ... whatever that means. When functions in expected positions are not developed, it throws everything out of whack. 
H. Myers-Briggs defines the top four functions. The other four don't get much press by the individual. They do get press when people interact making for complexity.

Deductions or rephrasings.
a. Judgmental and perceptive functions alternate. Good judgment requires data. Good data asks for justification.
INFJ example. INFJ = Ni Fe Ti Se. Ni is the primary. The Ni person loves to look at how inner things are. If those inner things are values, they need justification with external values. Ti supports this. Ni needs further support beyond Fe. That is Se hard reality. Check out INFJs. See how well they do with Ne Fi Te and Si. If the theory is any good they will excel and fail at the sited cognitive functions.

b. ISTP and ISTJ. ISTP = Ti Se Ni Fe while ISTJ = Si Te Fi Ne. While they don't have functions in common, they can have topics in common. One can talk about external world things (Se) while the other can talk about memories of those same things (Si) and how they should go (Te,Fi).

This is all theory. How it goes in practice is for you to check out.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Might be a silly question - but is 'unconscious' referred to as _the_ unconscious i.e subconscious, or is it a reference to _level of awareness_?

I read something from Eve DeLunas, I believe it was - that said Jungs.. assistant.. or something.. suggested the conscious/unconscious was in reference to 'aware' and 'unaware'. 
Or something. I can't remember it exactly.

What's the general consensus, here, about that?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Turi said:


> Might be a silly question - but is 'unconscious' referred to as _the_ unconscious i.e subconscious, or is it a reference to _level of awareness_?
> 
> I read something from Eve DeLunas, I believe it was - that said Jungs.. assistant.. or something.. suggested the conscious/unconscious was in reference to 'aware' and 'unaware'.
> Or something. I can't remember it exactly.
> ...


Awareness is a measure of focus on what is going on around you. I see various levels of awareness. Unconscious has no path to awareness. Subconscious has little or no awareness but is right at the surface at the ready. Consciousness is like awareness but has various intensities of focus. There is central and peripheral awareness/consciousness ... as experienced while driving.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> Awareness is a measure of focus on what is going on around you. I see various levels of awareness. Unconscious has no path to awareness. Subconscious has little or no awareness but is right at the surface at the ready. Consciousness is like awareness but has various intensities of focus. There is central and peripheral awareness/consciousness ... as experienced while driving.


Yeah, but I'm talking in direct relation to 'cognitive functions'.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

*Cognitive Functions & Unconscious*



Turi said:


> Yeah, but I'm talking in direct relation to 'cognitive functions'.


Same difference. 

I'm INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe ... if you accept that ... which you don't have to. That means low ability on Se. I was driving along a country road trying to follow lots of directions on how to get there. No matter how I tried my mind kept wandering, thinking about irrelevant things. I was a little bored with these directions and scared I wouldn't find where I had to go. I tried to concentrate on the directions but couldn't. The last step was "if you reached xxxxx you had gone too far. I looked up and there I was at xxxxx. 

A person skilled with Se wouldn't have made this mistake. I do it all the time because if my mind is busy I don't give a shit about Se. Could I learn Se and make it conscious? Of course. Se is used by everyone all the time.

Let me go further with this example. When I reached xxxxx I was scared. That is Fi isn't it? <-- if I have this wrong, correct me. I admit I was aware of Fi (fear is painful), yet still I don't pay attention to it. My main purpose was to get there on time for an agreeable meeting (Fe). That was more conscious and I didn't want to be late. I'll call that Fe ... and again feel free to correct me if I'm getting this wrong.

Just to complete the story, I left out two unconscious functions, Te and Ni. Was I experiencing either of those? I don't remember those details now (Si), yet I remember this story (Si). The question of what cognitive functions are conscious and what are not even eligible to be conscious is not easy.
--------

@*Turi*. Do you still want to know about research on cognitive function validity? Got satisfactory answers yet? I can still speak to that but gotta go now ...


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

Turi said:


> I'm not even just talking about the Harold Grant stack everyone uses, which I know has no research behind it - I just mean, the 'cognitive functions' in general.
> 
> i.e, Ni, Ne, Si, Se, Fi, Fe, Ti, Te
> 
> ...


Well something that you might think about is Jung thought the cognitive functions were inherently a totality. Not to say we shouldn't seek evidence, but if conceptually you can't think of anything beyond it, that is also its own form of evidence(not enough to prove it, but enough to perhaps warrant thought) much like logic is truth regardless of the lack of statistics to back it up. You're also asking for evidence for something that the entire field of psychology has had difficulty with.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

Bunniculla said:


> Why are we so obsessed with MBTI? Even the most logical and practical of us here. Why are we so obsessed?


Speaking logically, if you understand yourself completely you will never have another problem in your life.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

Bhathaway said:


> Speaking logically, if you understand yourself completely you will never have another problem in your life.


I think that's true, however impossible it may be. Personally, I continue this process to understand myself and others better. It does alleviate a lot of stress when I am better suited to put myself in other's shoes and understand the thought processes and motivations behind their words and actions. It prevents a lot of misunderstandings as well.


----------



## Elduria (Feb 28, 2017)

I'm not sure if this had been said before, my apologies if I'm repeating something. But there was a recent neuroscience study using EEG (electroencephalogram) to measure the activity of different brain regions and relate it to the people's MBTI types. So... The study is very new, I'm not entirely sure about the results but I think they confirmed the existence of functions, at least it is known that each brain region serves another purpose and that people use different brain regions.... 
Maybe you'll find more on that topic if you search the Internet for Dr. Nardi (the dude who made the study), MBTI and the UCLA (the university where the study took place)..


----------



## inregardstomyself (Mar 21, 2014)

My problem with throwing away cognitive functions and sticking purely to dichotomies is...

What happens to those of us who don't fit?

I get it, I get it. No one's going to fit exactly, but go with your overall "line of best fit" --> "which of these categories do you prefer?"

Very broad, except when I do that, I find that I _just barely_ prefer one over the other, and my preferences change as my environmental demands change. But ok fine, no worries, as long as we keep a very _loose_ interpretation of these categories in reference to explaining/defining your overall personality.

Except no one does that. Suddenly I am assigned very specific traits and characteristics based on a _*very loose*_ preference for some random categories.

Moreover, as someone mentioned (I forget who) what I _prefer_ may not correlate with what I _enjoy_ or _value_, which again causes dissonance when ascribing to me characteristics based on these so called "preferences".

At least with cognitive functions (and socionics), I am allowed nuance and flexibility, which I find actually more helpful with better understanding myself and others than just the four categories. Personally, I would rather go with the system that better fits my experiential database, and actually gives me some useful insights to my life.

EDIT: Another grouse I have - what is the difference between a feeler who utilizes and values objective logical thinking daily (either due to personal enjoyment, or the type of environment they found themselves in) and a thinker who cares about the emotional environment they surround themselves in? The point of having categories is that they should be _somewhat_ mutually exclusive, or else how else can you ascribe meaningful characteristics to them (that's the whole point of categories -- that they have distinctly different characteristics from each other). But if people can possess qualities of both categories (the counterpoint everyone uses towards me -- "Of course sensors can also think abstractly! Everyone can do both sensing and intuiting!"), then doesn't separating people into categories lose its value?

If I am the aforementioned feeler (and I have met plenty), possessing traits of both "thinking" and "feeling", then what's the point of relegating me exclusively to the "feeling" category? If anything, doesn't it actually just short change me?

And before someone starts attacking me -- I'm merely raising questions, not looking to pick a fight.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

inregardstomyself said:


> My problem with throwing away cognitive functions and sticking purely to dichotomies is...
> 
> What happens to those of us who don't fit?
> 
> ...


Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together — but he _also_ said that more people were essentially _in the middle_ on E/I than were extraverted or introverted. And Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions.

In at least one of the early versions of the MBTI, it was possible to get an "x" on any of the dimensions. The current version assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension, but that's a very different thing from saying that it _isn't possible_ for someone not to have a preference — and the MBTI Manual specifically notes that someone with a score near the middle is someone who has essentially "split the vote" rather than offered much evidence of a preference. What's more, as you may know, the recent "Step II" version of the MBTI has five subscales for each dimension, and it's possible to come out on the T side (for example) of some of them and the F side of the rest.

If you think what I call the Real MBTI Model — i.e., the dichotomy-centric framing that actually has decades of data in support of its validity — is somehow less accommodating of _variable preference strengths_ (and/or middleness, and/or mixedness) than a function-centric framing, I assume you must be thinking about a straw-man version of the dichotomy-centric framing.

Contrary to the notion that a function-centric perspective offers more richness and depth than a (properly framed) dichotomy-centric perspective, and as James Reynierse has rightly pointed out in that article I'm always linking to (including in my linked post), it's actually the dichotomy-centric perspective that's richer and more flexible.

And likewise, and similarly, "sticking purely to dichotomies" (and all the possible dichotomy combinations) certainly doesn't entail assigning someone "very specific traits and characteristic" (as you put it). That's just more _functionista_ propaganda.

You say you object to being labeled T or F because you think that "relegates you exclusively" to the stuff in one of those categories, but that's ridiculous. Not only isn't that what _any_ respectable MBTI source says, but in my experience, you're more likely to encounter that kind of _exclusive relegation_ stuff in function-centric sources that explain that INFJs and INFPs are waaaay different _deep down inside_ because (for example) one uses "Fe" to make judgments, while the other uses "Fi" to make judgments.

You ask, "What happens to those of us who don't fit?" And again, see the middleness discussion above. But also: if it's been your forum experience that people have more trouble deciding whether they have a _clear fit_ on four dichotomies (again, in terms of "preferences"; _not_ "exclusive relegation") than whether they have a _clear fit_ on four functions in a stack, then your forum experience has certainly been different from mine.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

reckful said:


> In at least one of the early versions of the MBTI, it was possible to get an "x" on any of the dimensions. The current version assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension, but that's a very different thing from saying that it _isn't possible_ for someone not to have a preference — and the MBTI Manual specifically notes that someone with a score near the middle is someone who has essentially "split the vote" rather than offered much evidence of a preference. What's more, as you may know, the recent "Step II" version of the MBTI has five subscales for each dimension, and it's possible to come out on the T side (for example) of some of them and the F side of the rest.
> 
> If you think what I call the Real MBTI Model — i.e., the dichotomy-centric framing that actually has decades of data in support of its validity — is somehow less accommodating of _variable preference strengths_ (and/or middleness, and/or mixedness) than a function-centric framing, I assume you must be thinking about a straw-man version of the dichotomy-centric framing.


Err. This was part of what I asked you recently in the mistyped Intuitives/Sensors-thread we had -- so you do agree with a sliding scale resp. "middleness" in dichotomies, after all?

I don't quite see how, then, the cut-off point between S and N (or any other pair) isn't basically arbitrary, and what significance such a label would have, if you separate (for example) close-to-the-middle-S and close-to-the-middle-N, but group close-to-the-middle-N and far-out-N. It stands to reason that persons of the former variant would be more similar than persons of the latter variant. And if indeed a lot of people clustered in the middle, the question of mistypes becomes very much relevant -- not only because of the arbitrary cut-off, but also because the close proximity to that line leaves the test vulnerable (in the extreme case) to one or two questions that essentially flip the letter one way or the other.

Basically, a test that is supposed to sort into two categories, but produces lots of in-betweens may work kinda-sorta, but not nearly reliably enough to make it useful for all the practical purposes it's evidently used for.

(And as far as statistics go, beyond accounting for skewed samples like I described in the other thread, the statistics of types now also have to be questioned regarding the above issue, as a random distribution of mistypes that ultimately averages out can't be a priori assumed.)


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Northern Lights said:


> Err. This was part of what I asked you recently in the mistyped Intuitives/Sensors-thread we had -- so you do agree with a sliding scale resp. "middleness" in dichotomies, after all?
> 
> I don't quite see how, then, the cut-off point between S and N (or any other pair) isn't basically arbitrary, and what significance such a label would have, if you separate (for example) close-to-the-middle-S and close-to-the-middle-N, but group close-to-the-middle-N and far-out-N. It stands to reason that persons of the former variant would be more similar than persons of the latter variant. And if indeed a lot of people clustered in the middle, the question of mistypes becomes very much relevant -- not only because of the arbitrary cut-off, but also because the close proximity to that line leaves the test vulnerable (in the extreme case) to one or two questions that essentially flip the letter one way or the other.
> 
> ...


To somewhat oversimplify, personality typologies like the MBTI and Big Five establish their validity by way of studies where the types of subjects in a suitably large sample are found to correlate significantly with various other things. As one rather dramatic example, here are the self-selection ratios that Myers reported for a study involving 705 Cal Tech science majors:

INTJ 3.88
INFJ 2.95
INTP 2.92
INFP 1.97
ENTJ 1.56
ENTP 1.42
ENFP 1.09
ENFJ 1.08
ISTJ 0.68
ISTP 0.50
ISFP 0.49
ISFJ 0.43
ESTP 0.22
ESFJ 0.18
ESTJ 0.12
ESFP 0.02

Stat spectrums that orderly — not to mention that dramatically lopsided — are what you call a personality psychologist's dream. What they indicate (and the sample size was pretty large, at 705) is that the MBTI factor that has the greatest influence on somebody's tendency to become a Cal Tech science major is an N preference, and the MBTI factor that has the second greatest influence is introversion, with the result that the spectrum tidily lines up (from top to bottom) IN-EN-IS-ES.

McCrae & Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists (creators of the NEO-PI-R), and that's the kind of data they were referring to over 20 years ago when they praised the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature," and specifically noted that studies like those could "provide valuable replications" of Big Five studies relating to the four dimensions of personality that the MBTI and Big Five share.

Keeping in mind that twin studies indicate that those four dimensions of personality are substantially genetic, the results of that sample suggest that there are relatively hardwired dimensions of personality that can make a person of one type (e.g., an INTJ) something like _30 times more likely_ than another type (an ESTJ) to end up as a science major at Cal Tech.

So... whatever _middleness_ may rightly be said to apply to some people's S/N preferences, and whatever _arbitrariness_ you might be concerned about in terms of where the official MBTI indicator draws the line between S and N (for example), both the neatness and the lopsidedness of data pools like that one suggest that a large percentage of people have a significant preference, _and_ that the official MBTI indicator appears to do a pretty good job of assigning those people to the right categories, _and_ that those significant preferences can end up having a dramatic impact on what kinds of interests people are likely to have.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Northern Lights said:


> Err. This was part of what I asked you recently in the mistyped Intuitives/Sensors-thread we had -- so you do agree with a sliding scale resp. "middleness" in dichotomies, after all?
> 
> I don't quite see how, then, the cut-off point between S and N (or any other pair) isn't basically arbitrary, and what significance such a label would have, if you separate (for example) close-to-the-middle-S and close-to-the-middle-N, but group close-to-the-middle-N and far-out-N. It stands to reason that persons of the former variant would be more similar than persons of the latter variant. And if indeed a lot of people clustered in the middle, the question of mistypes becomes very much relevant -- not only because of the arbitrary cut-off, but also because the close proximity to that line leaves the test vulnerable (in the extreme case) to one or two questions that essentially flip the letter one way or the other.
> 
> ...




..maybe I'm missing the point.. but, there is _definitely_ a sliding scale, re: dichotomy preferences - it's literally part of the results when you do the official MBTI test:










Note that there is no 'middle' - even a slight preference either way, would put one into either J or P.

My scores were:
Very clear I. Clear N. Moderate F. Clear J.

So, it makes sense, that I would resonate and be more similar to someone with a _Slight_ T preference, over somebody with a _Very clear_ F preference, for instance - this wouldn't break any 'rules' etc, the dichotomy allows for this flexibility and embraces it.
People who think it isn't flexible, haven't done the official test and don't have a solid grasp on it.

It makes sense, and you can imagine it on that sliding scale - that someone with a _Slight _preference for S, will be more similar to someone with a _Moderate _preference for N, rather than someone with a _Very clear_ preference for S - they're literally closer together, on that sliding scale - even though it shifts from S to N.

It absolutely does _not_ force you into one or the other exclusively, and in explaining your results it places continuous emphasis on this fact - as does practically any dichotomy based resource you can find - the dichotomy is far less rigid than 'functions', far more open - it's about 'preferences' rather than strict definitions and 'strength'.


I believe there's a sliding scale for all 5 facets, for each dichotomy preference, in the Step II model as well.
Which means the dichotomy kicks the living shit out of the 'functions' with regards to flexibility and individuality.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

It should be pointed out, that on the modern MBTI Form M, the "numeral associated with a preference" is known as the "Preference CLARITY Index", and the reasons for changing the term from simply "score" include that PCI "better indicates the real meaning of the number", and that "score" implies a trait approach that is inappropriate for a type indicator" (_MBTI Manual_, 1985, p.148. Hence, the Step II was brought in, which was more trait-based).
So it's not picking up how "much" the person prefers one pole or the other; it's picking up his clarity, defined as "showing how consistently the person answered the questions on that scale compared with the maximum possible score achievable on that scale (i.e. the score that would result if the person answered _all_ the items on that scale in the keyed direction)"

So I would say this would offer, at best, a clue of how [hypothetically] "strong" a preference, and the stronger the preference, the more clarity they will have on it, and the more affirmatively they will answer the questions in that regard. (but there are many other factors int he person that can affect this as well). But it can not seriously be used to discuss "in between" types or anything like that.


----------

