# Do cognitive functions actually exist?



## wanderingfox (Aug 20, 2015)

Here is the article that got me thinking if using type dynamics and labeling functions as introverted/extroverted or in order actually holds up:

Cognitive Functions and Type Dynamics - A Failed Theory? | Oddly Developed Types

What are you thoughts?

I also just read _Was That Really Me?_, and the author makes the claim that the cognitive functions are either right brain or left brain processes. So perhaps there is something to it. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Anterei (Nov 25, 2015)

I think they don't really need to exist or be proven. It's just a way of describing already existing mental processes, which just happens to be accurate and helpful for understanding. Whether one benefits from learning about them is up to him or her.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

The cognitive functions are a model that helps to explain the pattern that has been observed. A model is a concept, not something that actually physically exists. What physically exists is the brain.

For example we have a model of what an atom 'looks like' and an explanation about how it interacts. The only thing we know exists are the facts, and as more data is accumulated (and more tests conducted) this changes the explanation of the model and what the model looks like. Even so we can not see an atom, so any visual model of one may not even be anywhere near what it actually looks like.

Physics of a ball thrown is a great example. I can use mathematics to model the projectory of a ball being thrown. This however this is only a description of reality based upon approximations. Where the ball actually lands will not necessarily be where the maths predicts and this is what actually exists.

Edit: I think the whole right brain vs left brain thing has been dismissed as myth not fact.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

The functions are abstractions, so "really exist", in this context, must be about whether the concept captures, or at least very closely approximates, the concrete reality that it seeks to explain. The difficulty for function-based theories, I think, is that they're what we might call "outside-in"; for all of the insistence that functions aren't about behaviour, they ultimately are an attempt to posit a common mental process that leads to a specific set of behaviours (hence Jung's insistence that the basis of the theory is observation - it's not as though you can actually directly observe a person's mental process). This isn't necessarily a _wrong_ approach, and it needn't match up with the most neuroscientifically sensible way to split people (the view of the inside from the outside has its uses), but the incredibly theoretical nature of what is proposed makes applying it to reality a little more difficult.

The issue, in my mind, is not the concept of the functions themselves, but rather the rigid and dogmatic claims that are made about how the functions supposedly interact - which is largely what the article in the OP gets at. If a theory purports to explain human personality, then surely it must be able to justify the limitations it places on possible personality permutations - yet the best argument in support of the theory as most commonly advanced is that the auxiliary function must oppose the attitude of the dominant for the sake of "balance", which is an odd conflation of the normative and descriptive, and not really backed up by anything meaningful either normatively _or_ descriptively. To the extent that "cognitive functions"-based theories are framed in a manner that is open to empirical evaluation, their validity has consistently failed to be demonstrated; at "best", such theories are framed as to be unfalsifiable, which is hardly a ringing endorsement of their value. That doesn't discount that there may be some merit in examining oneself through such a lens, or that doing so can't aid in getting at real personality distinctions, but the degree to which the claims are highly suspect can't be dismissed.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

wanderingfox said:


> *Do cognitive functions actually exist?*



Only in your mind.


----------



## Yasminec19 (Sep 16, 2015)

Does reality even exist ?


----------



## Yasminec19 (Sep 16, 2015)

niss said:


> Only in your mind.



Ha ! I like you


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

As James Reynierse has noted in one of the articles discussed at the website linked in the OP, the so-called "cognitive functions" are essentially a _category mistake_.

In the scientifically respectable districts of the personality psychology field, whether the dimensions in a typology "exist" is essentially the issue of the typology's _validity_.

And not only does the MBTI have respectable levels of validity, but both the reliability and validity of the current version of the MBTI have been found to be more or less on a par with the Big Five.

But the version of the MBTI that has validity — what I call the "Real MBTI Model" — is based on the dichotomies, and looks like this:

INTP = I + N + T + P + IN + IT + IP + NT + NP + TP + INT + INP + ITP + NTP + INTP.

INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ.

ESFJ = E + S + F + J + ES + EF + EJ + SF + SJ + FJ + ESF + ESJ + EFJ + SFJ + ESFJ.

So... the Real MBTI says that INTPs and INTJs have a lot of MBTI-related aspects of personality in common — namely, all the aspects of personality that correspond to I, N and T, and to the IN, IT, NT and INT combinations — and that INTPs and ESFJs have _no_ MBTI-related aspects of personality in common.

By contrast, many of the MBTI-related descriptions and discussions you'll find on the internet — based on the goofy Harold Grant function stack, championed by shining lights like Dario Nardi and Linda Berens — reflect the perspective that INTPs and ESFJs have quite a lot of MBTI-related things in common, because they're both "Ti/Fe types" and "Si/Ne types," whereas INTJs and INTPs are more like opposites than cousins, because jeez, they have _no functions in common_.

And as Reynierse has rightly pointed out, over 50 years of MBTI studies and data pools strongly suggest that the Harold Grant function stack, besides being inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, is a steaming pile of horseshit.

Anybody interested in reading more about the Grant function stack (and its associated "tandems"), and about the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, will find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post, this post, and the posts they link to.

Those linked posts add up to a more comprehensive and better-informed debunking of type dynamics than the OP's link, if I do say so myself. :tongue:


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

The functions (or dichotomies) are divisions of reality (a reality that is ultimately undivided, but none of us, immersed in reality, can ever see it that way). 
So "left/right, "up/down", "back/forth" and "past/future" aren't "things" you can touch, or "prove", or even everyone agrees on. But that doesn't mean they aren't "real".


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

wanderingfox said:


> Here is the article that got me thinking if using type dynamics and labeling functions as introverted/extroverted or in order actually holds up:
> 
> Cognitive Functions and Type Dynamics - A Failed Theory? | Oddly Developed Types
> 
> ...


To directly answer your question, no, the functions themselves do not exist. There is no 'Ni' or 'Te' brain structure that is dedicated solely to the use of that function. However, if you look at the work of Dario Nardi, he has noticed patterns in the brain that correspond to the cognitive functions, though his data is not as neat and tidy as most Jungians probably want it to be. He said at some point something along the lines of "people are messy" when asked about strict adherence to Jung's theory.

And that really is a point with Jung; it is just a theory. The functions themselves are theoretical constructs that give a name to specific patterns in human thought. So they don't exist in of themselves, but are a certain combination of mental events that give rise to certain outcomes of thought. What specifically those processes are, I don't know, but I'm sure it could be possible to figure out.

And as far as the whole right/left brain stuff, they're not. Hemisphere dominance isn't really relevant any more.

I have two more things to note about all of this, first about the function order,

While I myself am Ni-Fe (or just Pi-Je in general), I'm not totally sure that the generally accepted function model is necessarily true in all cases. While Ni-Fe-Ti-Se is the typical or 'normal' INFJ, I don't think it's impossible that their function order could be Ni-_Fi_-_Te_-Se. At least, I don't really see why it couldn't be; such a person would have the proper balance of introverted and extraverted functions and they would exist on the appropriate axes, the only difference would be that the dominant block would be entirely introverted and the lower block would be extraverted. Like Nardi says, people are messy, and I think that adhering strictly to the function model as it is might miss a lot of how humans think. Of course, I have no actual studies of this to back it up, so take what I've written here with a grain of salt, my point in writing was to address that on some level a do agree with the writer of the article you linked.

That said, I don't think that Oddly Developed Types is correct in saying that the functions themselves are a failed theory. Much of her argument hinges on there being no empirical evidence for the existence of the functions, which Dario Nardi disproved, at least in part (she doesn't even mention his work). I do, however, think she has a point in saying that the structural models for the functions isn't as rigid in the psyche. Like Nardi said, people are messy.

Anyway, those are my two cents. I'll link to some of Nardi's work to give you a basis for what I've been saying.

Talks at Google: 



His PowerPoint to go along with that talk: https://www.pdx.edu/sysc/sites/www.pdx.edu.sysc/files/neuro-systems.pdf
A Reddit AMA Thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/18gudp/ama_with_typologist_dario_nardi/
Type Tips Interview: 




EDIT: Like @reckful said, the current function model isn't consistent with Jung or Myers. While's Jung's writings are kind of inconsistent in this regard, he doesn't flesh out the lower functions, although he does mentioned at one point that all three of the non-dominant functions are in the opposite attitude of the dominant (INTP would be Ti-Ne-Se-Fe in this model), but both he and Myers never 'officially' go farther than saying INTP = Introverted Thinking with Intuition, Ti-N. In fact, Jung never refers to eight functions like we do today, and, like Nardi says in the Type Tips video, Jung only ever spoke of four functions (N, S, T, F). It's almost like he was saying "this is what it's like when an introvert is a dominant thinker" or "this is what it's like when an extravert is a dominant feeler". He doesn't ever really pair the two together, which seems to implicate that there is a separation between the function and the attitude, and this is reinforced by Jung emphasizing introversion and extraversion being the most important thing to know about a person; the dominant attitude colors the whole psyche.


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

Wait until they find out its all in your head...


----------



## SalvinaZerelda (Aug 26, 2010)

I think they're more of a guide based on individual strengths and weaknesses.
Humans are much more complex than that.


----------

