# Are the Cognitive Functions Even Real ? (Serious Topic)



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

*Does anyone knows what the cognitive functions are ?*

Lately, I've noticed many people confused about the cognitive functions on PerC. And I'm one of them, I have this loop called "I get the functions - no I don't get them" but then I realised I never really got them. This could be either due to the lack of experts on PerC _(which considering it's the biggest MBTI forum it doesn't explain)_ or that the cognitive functions are fake. Yes, the cognitive functions can be nothing more than fakes I just said that. And here are my arguments:

*1) Nobody can define the cognitive functions are, all they can say is what they do -* This is the reason for so much conflicting information and confusion about the functions. The way I wanted to learn the cognitive functions was Ti is A; Te is B; Fi is C; Fe is D and so on. But instead of a specific definition all you get is some examples or an explaination of what it does. What it does =/= What it is. Some people could argue that you can't explain the cognitive functions because they care cognition you can't see them, but everything that "is" exists, and everything that exists "is". If the cognitive functions exist you have to be able to describe what they "are", not _assume_ what they do.

*2) There is no sciencifical evidence for them -* I won't go deeper into this one, look for it.

*3) Nobody can make an objective definition of the cognitive functions -* Supporting my first argument, lots of cognitive functions descriptions on the internet are based on personal interpretation. And it doesn't stop here. There was a study were some people took 31 MBTI certificated experts, gave them 151 adjectives and asked them to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 how much those abjectives represent each cognitive functions. For Ni, there were 27 adjectives rated as representing Introverted Intuition and out of these 27 adjectives the 31 type experts only agreed with 2 "mystical" _(which was also somewhat representing Fi) _and "Trust the unconscious" _(which was also somewat representing Ne and Fe)_. What can we say from this ? That nobody really knows what Ni is, they just make up their own interpretations.

*4) They just don't fit with the way a human works -* Based on MBTI theory we only use 4 of these functions, so we don't use the other 4 therefore finding our type is pretty easy. That is the theory, here is the practice:

I know I'm an INTP based on my study of preferences not of congnitive functions

Quote from: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/85534-functions-how-they-work.html



> _This is for me to see if my understanding of what is meant by different cognitive functions is right. I'm a Te user, so I like to have a system of understanding things that everyone can agree upon as being right. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Perceiving Functions
> 
> ...


I colored in blue everything that it's true for me and in red everything that is false for me. Those that only describes me sometimes _(something that the cognitive functions's theroy is never talking about)_ or those I can't say for sure aren't colored. Based on this a Ne-Si will never notice details _''Se notices the details'_, a Fe user would never _'make judgements based on personal ideas of what has value and what does not'_, a Te user would never make personal decisions 'Decisions are made based on impersonal standards' and so on. There are not just description, these are *LIMITATIONS!*. Limiations on areas where where we don't have limitations, we clearly have limitations as humans, nobody can imagine a new color, but the ones mentioned above are not the kinds of limitations we have, yet this explaination of the functions implies that we have these limitations. But I've seem people, including myself who would sometimes try to agree to someone else's values for harmony while some other times would keep to his guns or their ideas of what is right, are those the Fi+Fe type ? Aliens ? Some other people who would consider both theories as possibly being true and facts as something you can't deny. Ti + Te ? Mutants ? Or just people being objective ? *"You're such a type biggot!", please, think about it, and look at the description.*

*5) Conflicting Information -* Ne is brainstorming, Te is brainstorming. Ni is building systems, Ti is building systems. Fe is laid-back and relaxed, Se is laid-back and relaxed. Ne is vision, Ni is vision. Ne has bigs Ideas, Ni has bigs ideas. _*(Yes I actually found this on various descriptions) *_, Fi is selfish _(John Lennon INFP ?)_, Fe is such a good person _(Adolf Hitler ?)_.

*6) What happens if you think you're some other type ? -* What if you think that you're an INTP and you start using logic all the time because your dominant function is Ti, or so you know cause you might actually be an INFP. Then you'll start using logic more, be more logical as an INTP, what would that make you ? why can't you do that ? "You won't be as good" I say I will be, it's my word agains yours, how do you know I won't be as good ? "Pretending you're some other type is like wearing a mask" And this is supposed to drain me but what if I feel confortable with it ? How do I notice this drains me ? I can see how extroversion - introversion does but I've never heard nor every experienced think kind of thing from a cognitive function, if that thing really exist.

*6) It feels like I'm Dealing with Religion -* The problem with MBTI is they are nice, the theories are nice, the cognitive functions are nice, what I mean by nice is pleasant to people, and people will always get emotionally attached to that. By dismissing Ti that is "Abosute Godlike Logic" I would dismiss the Ti in another INTP, so it would be like telling the INTP "you might as well not as logical as your supposed description says you are". Will they take that personal ? I don't know, they could take that personal as something similar to "you're stupid". Does taking that personal makes sense ? No, because I'm acussing the theory not the person, if the theory is wrong that doesn't mean the person's self perception is wrong, it's just not something that is part of this theory. And I've yet to see the evidence for which all INTPs are Ti > Ne > Si > Fe _(if that order even exists)_, and even if I weren't something else, I agreed with a lot of things in the descriptions, I can't be all of that. But if I were something different than INTP how would that work with the preferences which tells me I'm an INTP ? _(No, I didn't just took some tests)_.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

The archetypes are stories that we tell each other and ourselves because many people find them helpful to explain differences in how people operate. They are real not because they are scientifically proven, but because they are descriptive. Which is not to say that every theory concerning how they work is accurate. I really don't think we understand yet what to do with function stacks, for example.

But it's a nice improvement over TV Tropes :tongue: As long as we keep in mind that the functions are descriptive, not proscriptive. Because at least for now, it's theoretical.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

If you wanted to learn physics how would you go about it?
If you wanted to learn calculus how would you go about it?
If you wanted to learn astronomy how would you go about it?
If you wanted to learn a foreign language how would you go about it? 
If you wanted to learn symbolic logic how would you go about it?

Cognitive functions are no different, treat it like you would the subjects above. Don't create impressions, don't create ideas, don't make up theories about them. *Learn* them first just like you would any other subject. I don't expect anyone to go to some second hand source to learn any of the subjects above, so I don't see why all of a sudden everybody is going to MBTI/socionics to learn about cognitive functions. Yes, they are supplementary, but they are not the study of cognitive functions, and to study cognitive functions there is only *one* source for that, which is Jung. 

If you haven't read every single chapter in psychological types then that's where the problem is. Listening to a whole bunch of people who have also not studied the book in its entirety is the other problem, why would you trust a group of people who don't know what cognitive functions are themselves or have a psyche that leads them to *interpret* functions different from others. 

If you want to understand better, then buy psychological types and read the whole book, not just chapter 10 like 99% of PerC users (the ones who have the book) mistakenly do. Then after reading the book, every time you come across someone's personal definition, or some second source information then reference it back to psychological types. If it doesn't fit then the second hand source *interpreted* Jung wrong.

Don't forget everything after Jung is dependent on Jung because in order to even talk or discuss about cognitive functions, one needs to have Jungian knowledge, since the only source of them stem from his work. So knowledge on cognitive functions without Jungian reference, is just a flawed interpretation, at best.

I'm not going to say if they are real or not, but I will say that most people don't have the psyche to understand them objectively without letting their subjective impressions or interpretations to get in the way, therefore misinterpretations is a very common sight whenever cognitive functions are brought up. For example, all of these so called Ni users who have no clue what it is or how to define it but only say "It just comes to me and I know with no explanation", this has no reference to Jung, nor did Jung ever describe Ni as some " just knowing" function. Instead he would've defined it as apperception which is this:



> .5. APPERCEPTION is a psychic process by which a new content is articulated with similar, already existing contents* in such a way that it becomes understood, apprehended, or “clear.” *9 We distinguish active from passive apperception. The first is a process by which the subject, of his own accord and from his own motives, consciously apprehends a new content with attention and assimilates it to other contents already constellated; *the second is a process by which a new content forces itself upon consciousness either from without (through the senses) or from within (from the unconscious) and, as it were, compels attention and enforces apprehension. In the first case the activity lies with the ego (q.v.); in the second, with the self-enforcing new content.*


My biggest advice is to never listen to an individual who can't reference their knowledge to a source, no matter how much something makes sense to you, because something making sense doesn't mean its right or consistently accurate with the source.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

I can't answer your poll because I believe that unfortunately cognitive functions can be 'partly real'. I think most descriptions are not just real or not, but they have a weird relation to the reality of what is really going on.

A big problem is also this (Jung: Psychological Types, Chapter 11, Definitions):


> _* Function*_: By psychological function I understand a certain form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances. From the energic standpoint a function is a phenomenal form of libido (_q.v.)_ which theoretically remains constant, in much the same way as physical force can be considered as the form or momentary manifestation of physical energy. I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational -- viz. _thinking_ and _feeling, sensation_ and _intuition_. *I can give no a priori reason for selecting just these four as basic functions; I can only point to the fact that this conception has shaped itself out of many years' experience.*


To examine the 'realness' of the cognitive functions in a theoretical way I think one should directly tackle the roots of the whole conception:
- are these functions really 'basic' ? (and what does basic mean)
- do these functions cover all basic activities/processes, are there some important activities left out?
- is the division in rational/judgement and irrational/perception realistic or rather artificial, is this difference really discrete or are there gray areas?
- even if the division in F,T,S,N is 'legit', is it good? The task of coming up with cognitive functions is similar to Cluster Analysis (just read the first sentence to see what I mean by 'good').
- are there better ways to group psychic activities?
- [...]


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

From my perspective, yes. We all consider sensing data. We all make intuitive connections. We do think, I hope. And we do all feel. These words might be subjective words for stuffs happening in our heads but still real. I do not need science to prove that just ask an other human being if they feel stuffs and sense stuff. Much of this "social science" might be not sciencey accepted connections between phenomenon and perhaps the cognitives do not connect in the way we think but that is what this always-going-on foruming debatting is about. We could do science and ask people but since it is kinda subjective we must work with statistic I guess. But that would not be anything near proof.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Guess it is possible to break down human cognitive in a different way, like 20+ different cognitives which work in synchronize in a way that is way to complex to understand. But I feel the soul disappears and we can not really find understanding with that.


----------



## Palefina (Jan 22, 2015)

Shadow Logic said:


> If you wanted to learn physics how would you go about it?
> If you wanted to learn calculus how would you go about it?
> If you wanted to learn astronomy how would you go about it?
> If you wanted to learn a foreign language how would you go about it?
> ...


This.

Also, you have to note that psychology is a fairly difficult discipline to study empirically because it is not directly observable, especially the realm of personality testing. One reason why ample scientific evidence is lacking is because we have not yet developed an (scientifically) adequate way to test the concepts we're looking at. Not only is it not as easy as say, an accelerated heart rate or reaction time, but you are relying on self-reports which makes them inherently unreliable by an objective, scientific standard. The MBTI is just a theory--it is not an all-encompassing truth by any means. There are many, many theories to personality, and many with it's own merit. But that doesn't mean they all have a nice, over-arching law and many may even contradict each other. Are they useful in allowing for categorization, explanation, and further exploration? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's written in stone. It's science. Nothing is.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Alright, I haven't read everything, but I think a nice way to learn is to stuff yourself with a lot of information, drop it, and meet real people. Then you will know how it works better. That works for me, at least.

Maybe there's no "cognitive functions," but there are ways how people's brains work. It's like a process, so what it does = what it is. Say, there exist the action of running across the street, so what is running? Running, or an action. This is probably stupid, but.

As far as I know, Jung and some other people made the definitions of cognitive function, which is an objective fact. If you treat cognitive functions as a theory, then the "objective" definitions would be those made by Jung, thus the things we refer to. Not sure if I am making sense... Then Jungian cognitive functions would be a way to interpret the way our brains work.



Dezir said:


> *3) Nobody can make an objective definition of the cognitive functions -* Supporting my first argument, lots of cognitive functions descriptions on the internet are based on personal interpretation. And it doesn't stop here. There was a study were some people took 31 MBTI certificated experts, gave them 151 adjectives and asked them to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 how much those abjectives represent each cognitive functions. For Ni, there were 27 adjectives rated as representing Introverted Intuition and out of these 27 adjectives the 31 type experts only agreed with 2 "mystical" _(which was also somewhat representing Fi) _and "Trust the unconscious" _(which was also somewat representing Ne and Fe)_. What can we say from this ? That nobody really knows what Ni is, they just make up their own interpretations.


If it is true, and probably is, then so are you not able to. Every definition made is a kind of personal interpretation.

I think when you say Se notice all the details and Si relates things back to their personal experience, you are making it very specific and it becomes hard not to create personality traits and then stereotypes. There are bad things about stereotypes and they are not of discussion here. But at the end, why not? I mean, a theory describes and creates a system; a personality theory describes personality and type in its own way. It is what it does, and if a theory doesn't theorize, what's the point? It's not some ultimate truth to the universe. Why don't you just take what you want and need from the theory, simply get something out of it and put it to your life as you see fit?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Dezir said:


> *3) Nobody can make an objective definition of the cognitive functions -* Supporting my first argument, lots of cognitive functions descriptions on the internet are based on personal interpretation. And it doesn't stop here. There was a study were some people took 31 MBTI certificated experts, gave them 151 adjectives and asked them to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 how much those abjectives represent each cognitive functions. For Ni, there were 27 adjectives rated as representing Introverted Intuition and out of these 27 adjectives the 31 type experts only agreed with 2 "mystical" _(which was also somewhat representing Fi) _and "Trust the unconscious" _(which was also somewat representing Ne and Fe)_. What can we say from this ? That nobody really knows what Ni is, they just make up their own interpretations.


For those interested, this is the study being referred to (it was split into two):
http://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol72_01_0912.pdf
http://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol72_1212.pdf

I definitely think there are issues with cognitive functions theory. I wouldn't go so far as to assert that they don't exist/aren't real (except in the sense that they're an explanatory construct, in the same way that gravity "isn't real"), but there's a lack of both clarity and precision when it comes to defining the functions, as well as a host of strange "rules" that supposedly preclude particular function-order possibilities, that are decidedly questionable. What is it that _must_ be true of an Se user, but can't ever be true of an Si user?


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

I look forward to seeing cognitive functions making some more convincing connections with brain/neuroscience one day.. What we achieved so far in this area (eg. Lenore Thomson) doesn't seem enough to be considered "mad real" for me - well, conceptually, they make sense.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

goamare said:


> I look forward to seeing cognitive functions making some more convincing connections with brain/neuroscience one day.. What we achieved so far in this area (eg. Lenore Thomson) doesn't seem enough to be considered "mad real" for me - well, conceptually, they make sense.


You should take a look at Nardi instead.

http://www.amazon.ca/Neuroscience-Personality-Brain-Insights-People/dp/0979868475

http://www.pdx.edu/sysc/sites/www.pdx.edu.sysc/files/neuro-systems.pdf


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Dezir said:


> *Does anyone knows what the cognitive functions are ?*


I like to think that I do. Though I suppose everyone thinks that. 



> *
> 1) Nobody can define the cognitive functions are, all they can say is what they do -* This is the reason for so much conflicting information and confusion about the functions. The way I wanted to learn the cognitive functions was Ti is A; Te is B; Fi is C; Fe is D and so on. But instead of a specific definition all you get is some examples or an explaination of what it does. What it does =/= What it is. Some people could argue that you can't explain the cognitive functions because they care cognition you can't see them, but everything that "is" exists, and everything that exists "is". If the cognitive functions exist you have to be able to describe what they "are", not _assume_ what they do.


Jung did... No one seems to care what his definitions were.



> *2) There is no sciencifical evidence for them -* I won't go deeper into this one, look for it.


There's some debate. MBTI has years of data and research behind it (dichotomies not "cognitive functions). There is Nardi's stuff. Regardless, I don't need science to tell me that people sense, feel, think, or intuit. I also don't think it's so much of a stretch to think that many people tend to prefer one or more over others.



> *3) Nobody can make an objective definition of the cognitive functions -* Supporting my first argument, lots of cognitive functions descriptions on the internet are based on personal interpretation. And it doesn't stop here. There was a study were some people took 31 MBTI certificated experts, gave them 151 adjectives and asked them to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 how much those abjectives represent each cognitive functions. For Ni, there were 27 adjectives rated as representing Introverted Intuition and out of these 27 adjectives the 31 type experts only agreed with 2 "mystical" _(which was also somewhat representing Fi) _and "Trust the unconscious" _(which was also somewat representing Ne and Fe)_. What can we say from this ? That nobody really knows what Ni is, they just make up their own interpretations.


Source? Also, how is point 3 different from point 1?



> *4) They just don't fit with the way a human works -* Based on MBTI theory we only use 4 of these functions, so we don't use the other 4 therefore finding our type is pretty easy. That is the theory, here is the practice:
> 
> I know I'm an INTP based on my study of preferences not of congnitive functions
> 
> Quote from: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/85534-functions-how-they-work.html


There is a misconception about "functions." There are only four. There are eight function-attitude types, but only four functions.

Here is a conceptualization that I think is more congruent with Jung and other of his analysts/students.





> *5) Conflicting Information -* Ne is brainstorming, Te is brainstorming. Ni is building systems, Ti is building systems. Fe is laid-back and relaxed, Se is laid-back and relaxed. Ne is vision, Ni is vision. Ne has bigs Ideas, Ni has bigs ideas. _*(Yes I actually found this on various descriptions) *_, Fi is selfish _(John Lennon INFP ?)_, Fe is such a good person _(Adolf Hitler ?)_.


That's why I started looking at the source where all this crap on the Internet comes from. I looked at Psychological Types and other works by Jung to understand his perspective better. I also looked at Gifts Differing by Isabel Briggs-Myers and became an MBTI certified practitioner to better understand and utilize MBTI's perspective.



> *6) What happens if you think you're some other type ? -* What if you think that you're an INTP and you start using logic all the time because your dominant function is Ti, or so you know cause you might actually be an INFP. Then you'll start using logic more, be more logical as an INTP, what would that make you ? why can't you do that ? "You won't be as good" I say I will be, it's my word agains yours, how do you know I won't be as good ? "Pretending you're some other type is like wearing a mask" And this is supposed to drain me but what if I feel confortable with it ? How do I notice this drains me ? I can see how extroversion - introversion does but I've never heard nor every experienced think kind of thing from a cognitive function, if that thing really exist.


Attitude =/= attitude. It's not about what you can or cannot do or what you are necessarily good and bad at, but what your habitual tendencies are.



> *6) It feels like I'm Dealing with Religion -* The problem with MBTI is they are nice, the theories are nice, the cognitive functions are nice, what I mean by nice is pleasant to people, and people will always get emotionally attached to that. By dismissing Ti that is "Abosute Godlike Logic" I would dismiss the Ti in another INTP, so it would be like telling the INTP "you might as well not as logical as your supposed description says you are". Will they take that personal ? I don't know, they could take that personal as something similar to "you're stupid". Does taking that personal makes sense ? No, because I'm acussing the theory not the person, if the theory is wrong that doesn't mean the person's self perception is wrong, it's just not something that is part of this theory. And I've yet to see the evidence for which all INTPs are Ti > Ne > Si > Fe _(if that order even exists)_, and even if I weren't something else, I agreed with a lot of things in the descriptions, I can't be all of that. But if I were something different than INTP how would that work with the preferences which tells me I'm an INTP ? _(No, I didn't just took some tests)_.


Maybe this is what REM sang about when "losing my religion?"


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> You should take a look at Nardi instead.
> 
> http://www.amazon.ca/Neuroscience-Personality-Brain-Insights-People/dp/0979868475
> 
> http://www.pdx.edu/sysc/sites/www.pdx.edu.sysc/files/neuro-systems.pdf


Thanks, I actually did come across this once before. Interesting that it has some different brain lateralization from that of Lenore Thomson. It seems more detailed, but just not enough. I'd like to see some concrete and tangible explanation of what "functions" really are, accompanied by what kind of biochemical actions are directly related, and how specifically different they are between each functions.


----------



## Gurpy (Aug 8, 2014)

My type and functions seem to define me well


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

They are a framework of what seems to happen. How do you deny the existence of a framework? It was built in the mind and what happens in the mind is well known unlike other things. It's as if it falls into the category of the only things that we could say are real.


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

They're concepts, designed to help explain and understand how the human mind works; what kinds of data are taken into consideration and how one reaches the conclusions they do. In this way, I'd say they're no less real than the various emotions and "good and evil", but I may be overestimating.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm going with: "Yes, and I have a rationale, but I'm not going into it too deeply right now." 

Suffice to say, they are a framework, a set of tools, a way of looking at things, in order to make MBTI processes more comprehensible.


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

since there is no hard evidence with which to actually prove their physical reality via neuroscience, we cannot say they are 'real'. 

it's a way with which we can help interpret and explain the way individuals function and to a certain degree, behave. we can use these functions as tools with which to address certain behaviors that we have in common with others. 

there's so much theory in psychology; and theory, going by the scientific method is great. it means hypotheses have been tested time and time again; it's possible to repeat experiments etc. but the results are qualitative rather than quantitative, so they can't always translate across. 

so I don't think asking if they're real is necessarily the best way to go about this. instead: 

are they a useful way of categorizing behaviors? yeah, they are. 
are they proven? nope, no they're not.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

So if we say they are faulty and doesnt exist. Does that mean that all the hours people have spend trying to figure them out a waste?


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> So if we say they are faulty and doesnt exist. Does that mean that all the hours people have spend trying to figure them out a waste?


Without knowing whether faulty or not, I am certain that for me a big part of the time was ...maybe not a total waste but hardly beneficial. The first time was good: new points of view were introduced to my understanding, how does a human perceive, process information or judge and decide compared with others, the idea to separate between E/I, T/F and so on. But after some time exactly the same thing had a negative effect: it became circular and it is difficult to describe and categorize people in *other* ways or categorize perception for example in other ways than in terms of S and N. When you explain something by the functions it sometimes seems that it is not wrong to to so but it artificially emphasizes irrelevant parts and neglects important part of what you could observe and describe. And because of the lack of evidence and consensus you don't know how far-fetched the predictions are that function and type theories offer. And maybe you are too biased to judge it yourself.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> If you wanted to learn physics how would you go about it?
> If you wanted to learn calculus how would you go about it?
> If you wanted to learn astronomy how would you go about it?
> If you wanted to learn a foreign language how would you go about it?
> ...


Thank you for your advice, I looked over jungian typology and now everything makes sense. I've yet to see in reality if those things are real but considering Jung and how many people appeal to it I tend to believe they are right.

About people struggling with Introverted Intuition or Extroverted Intuition I made some pictures below based on my understanding. I'm still learning jungian typology but there pictures show how they are opposites in attitude to each other, you can't get that wrong. Those people on the internet trying to explain Ni vs Ne as one being time related and the other bla, bla, bla.... I feel they don't really get the functions, because if they would, they wouldn't have problems explaining them. They wouldn't need 500 words and indirect comparisons to do that.

The only accurate descriptions I've found on the internet is that Ne is somewhat like a "supernova" or "fireworks", always generating stuff, while Ni is like a "Black Hole" or "Gravity Center" always taking in stuff. Anyway, these are the pictures, try to think the starting idea as something like "Dogs are cute" for a better representation. PS: Now I know why the INTPs are said to break things apart and then make sense of the every piece to see how it fits into the whole._(Ti+Ne)_.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

The system of the cognitive functions seems a little bit too neat.

Se and Si are fine (I understand them as seeing/hearing and imagining), but what is supposed to be the difference between Fi and Fe? It is obvious you need to feel something before you express your feelings. So how can Fe exist without Fi? The same with Ti and Te, thinking is always done within your brain.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Blazkovitz said:


> The system of the cognitive functions seems a little bit too neat.
> 
> Se and Si are fine (I understand them as seeing/hearing and imagining), but what is supposed to be the difference between Fi and Fe? It is obvious you need to feel something before you express your feelings. So how can Fe exist without Fi? The same with Ti and Te, thinking is always done within your brain.


its just if you reference it from external values or internal values. The emotion is the same


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> its just if you reference it from external values or internal values. The emotion is the same


So, when I don't want to wear something because people will laugh at me = Fe
...because it contradicts my inner sense of style = Fi
?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Blazkovitz said:


> So, when I don't want to wear something because people will laugh at me = Fe
> ...because it contradicts my inner sense of style = Fi
> ?


Perhaps Fe wont wear it if it provoke wrong kind of feeling to the environment (and people in it), or do so to provoke that feeling. Fi do the same process but reference from what feeling it will essentially provoke in self.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

It sounds to me like you're finding it difficult to define the functions as tightly as you'd like to. I've had the same problem. The thing to remember is that we're human. Our ability to understand things is limited and our ability to explain things is much the same. By attempting to understand what the cognitive functions are we're attempting to use a limited intellect to understand something expressed through limited means. There are going to be conflicting explanations and descriptions because everything gets warped by the subjective interpretations of the torrents of people who've input and output that information already. 

Additionally, what is real in this sense? There's nothing tangible about them. They're more like methodologies inherent to certain groups of people discernible only through pattern recognition.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Blazkovitz said:


> The system of the cognitive functions seems a little bit too neat.
> 
> Se and Si are fine (I understand them as seeing/hearing and imagining), but what is supposed to be the difference between Fi and Fe? It is obvious you need to feel something before you express your feelings. So how can Fe exist without Fi? The same with Ti and Te, thinking is always done within your brain.


The difference is in whose ruler you are measuring by.

In essence:

Fe determines "whether it is agreeable or not" through feeling tones based on external standards.
Fi determines "whether it is agreeable or not" through feeling tones based on internal standards.
Te determines "what it is" through logic based on external standards.
Ti determines "what it is" through logic based on internal standards.




Captain Mclain said:


> Perhaps Fe wont wear it if it provoke wrong kind of feeling to the environment (and people in it), or do so to provoke that feeling. Fi do the same process but reference from what feeling it will essentially provoke in self.


Interestingly, Jung says this about Feeling:



> The more concrete the feeling, the more subjective and personal the value it confers; but the more abstract it is, the more general and objective is the value it bestows.


----------



## wolvent42 (Jun 17, 2013)

its a very subjective topic. the main reason its not as valid as the big 5 is that to test it would require the participants to know themselves on a very deep level. to a point they can "see" themselves using certain functions more than others.

yes its not scientifically proven, but I can say "Ni" (abstract and future based) flows through my mind really easy. In contrast, "Si" (concrete and past focused) literally halts my minds state of flow which leads to serious effort to process what their seeing.

So why is it that two different people are mentally going two different directions mentally in time day after day.. 

We dont really know technically, but it fits in somewhat well with Jungs perceptions. 

The theory may seem basic with four broad processes, but what else do people do mentally other than think, feel, intuit and sense. Try and come up with something that doesnt come under one of those four things, its really hard.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

To be honest, I don't exactly really see cognitive functions as actually being real. I think of them more as a heuristic that one can make about a person, about how they evaluate things and whatnot. Only Introversion and Extroversion have any actual scientific data to back them up, and even then I question the validity of those claims as they seem to focus more on how social a person is, rather than trying to gauge whether or not their evaluations are based more on trying to gauge out the world at face-value or trying to imbue their own will onto the world.


----------



## Vayne (Nov 6, 2014)

No. It's something made to explain. Not something that's being explained.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Gotta love threads like this! Lovely 



Dezir said:


> ...*1) Nobody can define the cognitive functions are, all they can say is what they do -* This is the reason for so much conflicting information and confusion about the functions. The way I wanted to learn the cognitive functions was Ti is A; Te is B; Fi is C; Fe is D and so on. But instead of a specific definition all you get is some examples or an explaination of what it does. What it does =/= What it is. Some people could argue that you can't explain the cognitive functions because they care cognition you can't see them, but everything that "is" exists, and everything that exists "is". If the cognitive functions exist you have to be able to describe what they "are", not _assume_ what they do.


That's psychology in a nutshell - people are complicated creatures and one can not define exactly how cognitive functions should act out. For example, can you define sadness? There is no one and only definition of sadness, but everyone knows people can be sad, and also, sad people do not behave in a same way when they are sad, but yet, what can be said is that THEY ARE ALL SAD. 

If you like clear definitions of observations, you should maybe turn to some other field such as biology, physics, math or chemistry. Or even justice or law departments.

*



2) There is no sciencifical evidence for them -

Click to expand...

*


> I won't go deeper into this one, look for it.


Everybody knows that, because there is no objective way to prove that CF exist, unless someone could locate where in human brain exactly exists the use of Ne, Fi or whatever. Missing scientifical evidence is not a big deal, because many things in life that aid people in self-development and understanding people do not have scientific backings (for example, most meditation methods and eastern practices of self-development).

*



3) Nobody can make an objective definition of the cognitive functions -

Click to expand...

*


> Supporting my first argument, lots of cognitive functions descriptions on the internet are based on personal interpretation. And it doesn't stop here. There was a study were some people took 31 MBTI certificated experts, gave them 151 adjectives and asked them to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 how much those abjectives represent each cognitive functions. For Ni, there were 27 adjectives rated as representing Introverted Intuition and out of these 27 adjectives the 31 type experts only agreed with 2 "mystical" _(which was also somewhat representing Fi) _and "Trust the unconscious" _(which was also somewat representing Ne and Fe)_. What can we say from this ? That nobody really knows what Ni is, they just make up their own interpretations.


Ask people what happiness means, and you get as many answers as there are answerers, but that does not disprove that happiness exists.

Also, I have said it before millon times - type descriptions are huge BS, one must gain their own understanding of CF.

*



4) They just don't fit with the way a human works -

Click to expand...

*


> Based on MBTI theory we only use 4 of these functions, so we don't use the other 4 therefore finding our type is pretty easy. That is the theory, here is the practice:
> 
> I know I'm an INTP based on my study of preferences not of congnitive functions
> 
> ...


*

*All that stems from understanding of the theory on a very superficial level. Cognitive functions are not personality traits or superpowers that you can use or not use, they are psychological preferences that guide your perception and decision making. 

*



5) Conflicting Information -

Click to expand...

*


> Ne is brainstorming, Te is brainstorming. Ni is building systems, Ti is building systems. Fe is laid-back and relaxed, Se is laid-back and relaxed. Ne is vision, Ni is vision. Ne has bigs Ideas, Ni has bigs ideas. _*(Yes I actually found this on various descriptions) *_, Fi is selfish _(John Lennon INFP ?)_, Fe is such a good person _(Adolf Hitler ?)_.


That's typism, a.k.a. anti-sensor bias. Cognitive functions can not be described in such a manner at all.

*



6) What happens if you think you're some other type ? -

Click to expand...

*


> What if you think that you're an INTP and you start using logic all the time because your dominant function is Ti, or so you know cause you might actually be an INFP. Then you'll start using logic more, be more logical as an INTP, what would that make you ? why can't you do that ? "You won't be as good" I say I will be, it's my word agains yours, how do you know I won't be as good ? "Pretending you're some other type is like wearing a mask" And this is supposed to drain me but what if I feel confortable with it ? How do I notice this drains me ? I can see how extroversion - introversion does but I've never heard nor every experienced think kind of thing from a cognitive function, if that thing really exist.


Cognitive functions =/= caste system in india. And Ti is not all about "math, science and logic", because these abilities are not that strictly connected to Ti. More correct way of saying would be that Ti is the appreciation of symmetric beauty and systematic approach, but those two things may not always lead to logical conclusions, if the systematic approach or symmetric beauty are not the most important qualities required for the process.

The misconception that Ti=Logic comes from the common observation that the qualities valued by Ti often lead xxTP types to solving problems in fields of life that require the use of logical approach, but that is not always the case. Ti-type can be very proficient as singers, song-writers, playing instruments, creating art, leading projects etc. For example, there is a very smart astrophysicist named Michio Kaku, who is commonly typed as being ENFP, the type which has Ti in place of least resistance, which does not stop him for being a great thinker and scientist of our time.


*



6) It feels like I'm Dealing with Religion -

Click to expand...

*


> The problem with MBTI is they are nice, the theories are nice, the cognitive functions are nice, what I mean by nice is pleasant to people, and people will always get emotionally attached to that. By dismissing Ti that is "Abosute Godlike Logic" I would dismiss the Ti in another INTP, so it would be like telling the INTP "you might as well not as logical as your supposed description says you are". Will they take that personal ? I don't know, they could take that personal as something similar to "you're stupid". Does taking that personal makes sense ? No, because I'm acussing the theory not the person, if the theory is wrong that doesn't mean the person's self perception is wrong, it's just not something that is part of this theory. And I've yet to see the evidence for which all INTPs are Ti > Ne > Si > Fe _(if that order even exists)_, and even if I weren't something else, I agreed with a lot of things in the descriptions, I can't be all of that. But if I were something different than INTP how would that work with the preferences which tells me I'm an INTP ? _(No, I didn't just took some tests)_.


There is a non-MBTI related reason to why some people take certain things more personally than others would. Usually people who turn to ad hominem in debates are rather insecure in their understanding of theory, and when they take debates as insult to their understanding, then they are not worth your time. People should always remain calm, objective and open for discussion when enjoying their stay at posting in PerC. The people who fail to do so and start to attack the debater's type, personality or life choices should be left alone and isolated, until they learn to behave properly without flipping the hell out.

It's a common sense that people get emotionally attatched to anything they devote a copious amounts of effort and time to. That is why people do not take it lightly when somebody makes a thread that dismisses a huge part of the MBTI or socionics theory. You wouldn't go to the right-wing tea party gathering and say that poor people deserve an equal chance to gain access to success without expecting to be shitstormed the hell out of you, wouldn't you?

It may seem like conflicting, but actually, there's a difference between debate and debate. When somebody is well-argumented, good-intentioned and approaches the community which values the theories and derivative theories of Jung with points that raise valid doubts, questions or points of clarifications, then as a general rule the commentary should reflect that tone, and the discussion will remain productive. However, questioning the whole theory and (deritative) works of Jung is not all that relevant in this community, since it's a question that pops up every week and gets discussed to bits so many times that it becomes tedious at some point. There are many bitter goofballs who make 100-point rebuttals and debunkings of MBTI and (deritative) works of Jung but yet nobody realizes that this type of behavior is egoistic rage and refusal to gain understanding. Nobody forces you to accept this theory, so why the butthurt? Just live your own life and stop preaching that MBTI is flawed to people who are not interested in that conversation. 

As I said before, MBTI is a tool that really helps some people in understanding themselves and the others, but it may not be for everybody. 

Difference between MBTI and Religion is also there - MBTI promotes general interest in human psychology, philosophy and broadens curiosity in people, their behavior, their personalities and their places in society. Religion is different, since religion is all-compassing and tends to shelter people much more. Not saying that religion is bad, but what I do dare to say is that religion can not be used as tool, but rather it is a way of life one must accept or adapt to.

Anyway, glad we could clear up something here. Cheers mate :tongue:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Twrankt said:


> Only Introversion and Extroversion have any actual scientific data to back them up. ...


Actually, all four of the MBTI dichotomies can make respectable claims to scientific validity, based on decades of studies, as further discussed in this post — which includes links that point to quite a lot of scientific support for the MBTI.

It's the eight "cognitive functions" that have almost no scientific support. As noted in the linked post, the few attempts to test/validate the functions — and in particular, the functions model most often discussed on internet forums (where INTJ = Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTP = Ti-Ne-Si-Fe) — have not led to a respectable body of supporting results.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Gotta love threads like this! Lovely
> 
> That's psychology in a nutshell - people are complicated creatures and one can not define exactly how cognitive functions should act out. For example, can you define sadness? There is no one and only definition of sadness, but everyone knows people can be sad, and also, sad people do not behave in a same way when they are sad, but yet, what can be said is that THEY ARE ALL SAD.
> 
> If you like clear definitions of observations, you should maybe turn to some other field such as biology, physics, math or chemistry. Or even justice or law departments.


It's easy to say 'it's complicated' and leave it as that, spares you a lot of work. But is the same thing as saying "I'm lazy, I don't have to do that", being lazy is not a real limitation you have, as long as you are physically able to do it you can be hard working. Same thing is valid for complicated things, is being complicated an excuse for having a superifical understanding of it ? are quantum physics complicated ? yes, yet people still get them.

Everything that exists can be measured or explained, including the things that are complicated. The fact that we still have no idea how the universe started doesn't mean that the universe doesn't have a cause, only that we don't know it yet.

Everything that exists has proprieties, everything that has proprieties can be defined by his proprieties, if cognitive functions have no proprieties then the cogntitive functions don't exist, if you can't define the cognitive functions' proprieties then you don't know what the cognitive functions are. You can't just say "Oh, they exist but nobody can tell what they are", is the same thing as saying "Oh, flying 3 headed spagetti unicorns exist but nobody can tell where they are.".

Sadness = Emotional condition generated in an individual by the amygdala _(part of brain)_ when the individual doesn't have his needs meet.

_That's psychology in a nutshell - people are complicated creatures and one can not define exactly how cognitive functions should act out._ Well, I belive we don't have cognitive functions, I belive there's a flying spagetti monster that controls all our minds and that's how everything that you describe as the effect of cognitive functions happens, prove me wrong.

We had like decades of MBTI, if people were able to define exactly how cognitive functions should act out they would've done it by now. If they can't it's not because cognitive functions are "too complicated" but because they don't understand them well enough, or because they might not even exist.

Sorry for having such a sciencific approach, but that's the truth.




KraChZiMan said:


> Everybody knows that, because there is no objective way to prove that CF exist, unless someone could locate where in human brain exactly exists the use of Ne, Fi or whatever. Missing scientifical evidence is not a big deal, because many things in life that aid people in self-development and understanding people do not have scientific backings (for example, most meditation methods and eastern practices of self-development).


Well, I didn't know that. Well, we have brain scanners, for more than a decade now, if those MBTI experts were so experts don't you think they would've been able to make some experiments ? Dario Nardi made some experiments, but all he proved was that people can fit into the 16 boxes which we already know as being true based on the difference in pereference in those dichotomies in people, but the brain wasn't spread in 8 different parts as the cognitive functions would suggest. The CF my not be real in a way that we don't really use only 8 things in our brain, but are their descriptions accurate ? and *HERE IS THE PROBLEM* where are their descriptions, where is their universal description ? Jung said one think, Myers other things, everybody's got their own cognitive function's definition, they might be related but they're not the same. And sometimes different function's descriptions ovelap each other, and this is not some internet thing.





KraChZiMan said:


> Ask people what happiness means, and you get as many answers as there are answerers, but that does not disprove that happiness exists.
> 
> Also, I have said it before millon times - type descriptions are huge BS, one must gain their own understanding of CF.
> 
> All that stems from understanding of the theory on a very superficial level. Cognitive functions are not personality traits or superpowers that you can use or not use, they are psychological preferences that guide your perception and decision making.


Happiness = Pleasant emotion generated by the brain from having one's needs meet.

Yes you can go deeper "What is an emotion ?" , "How does the brain generates happiness ?" , "What's 'one needs' ?" , "How does the brain recognises he have needs ?" that's what science is about, understanding and explaining stuff. But so far we know that happiness is a pleasant emotion that happens when you have you needs meet. We don't know why but we know it happens. As for the cognitive functions, when do they know that they happen ? or perhaps a better question would be: how do we know when to we know that they happen when we can't even universally agree what the cognitive functions are ? .. is the same thing as saying "when do we know that unicorns happen ?"

Well, if you've gained your own understanding over CF please explain me what the cognitive functions are, their proprieties not what they do _(usually people describe cognitive funcions as some examples of what they are supposed to do, such as logic, people value. I can also describe a vehicle as 'transport' and 'moving thing' but that won't make you understand what a vehicle is)_ and also explain me why and whether personality page, celebrity types, 16 personality types and other sites' cognitive functions descriptions are right or wrong. If you can't, it's because "If you can't explain it simple, you don't understand it well enough", and deep down you know this too. I'm just being too rationally correct for all this typology, or internet typology at least because I haven't meet any real MBTI practitioner yet, for some reason they don't hang out on the internet.





KraChZiMan said:


> That's typism, a.k.a. anti-sensor bias. Cognitive functions can not be described in such a manner at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Beautiful example, and explaination.



KraChZiMan said:


> But that is an ideal case. What if the case is not ideal (for example, a math problem that stems from real-life observation), and there exists a mystery factor that changes the whole deal? Then the problem in question can not be solved primarily by systematic approach and appreciation of symmetry, but involves other factors, such as finding abstract links, thinking "outside the box", imagination, philosophical ponderings, redefining the whole understanding of the problem and it's magnitude and many other.
> 
> That's why Einstein is a genius, but the kid who can calculate numbers super fast may not be. Because Einstein combined associative thinking and imagination with systematic approach and symmetry, while kid who calculates like a champ devotes all their energy on the one single aspect of mathematics and will struggle hard in understanding the bigger picture.


And I believe MBTI would describe something that _"can not be solved primarily by systematic approach and appreciation of symmetry, but involves other factors, such as finding abstract links, thinking "outside the box", imagination, philosophical ponderings, redefining the whole understanding of the problem and it's magnitude and many other."_ as Ne without really saying anything about Ne. But then what is Ni because Ni also tends to have similar descriptions like this.



KraChZiMan said:


> That's why there's this: List of unsolved problems in mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The misconception that Ti=Logic comes from the common observation that the qualities valued by Ti often lead xxTP types to solving problems in fields of life that require the use of logical approach, but that is not always the case. Ti-type can be very proficient as singers, song-writers, playing instruments, creating art, leading projects etc. For example, there is a very smart astrophysicist named Michio Kaku, who is commonly typed as being ENFP, the type which has Ti in place of least resistance, which does not stop him for being a great thinker and scientist of our time.







KraChZiMan said:


> There is a non-MBTI related reason to why some people take certain things more personally than others would. Usually *people who turn to ad hominem in debates are rather insecure in their understanding of theory, and when they take debates as insult to their understanding*, then they are not worth your time. People should always remain calm, objective and open for discussion when enjoying their stay at posting in PerC. The people who fail to do so and start to attack the debater's type, personality or life choices should be left alone and isolated, until they learn to behave properly without flipping the hell out.


It's a common sense that people get emotionally attatched to anything they devote a copious amounts of effort and time to. That is why people do not take it lightly when somebody makes a thread that dismisses a huge part of the MBTI or socionics theory. You wouldn't go to the right-wing tea party gathering and say that poor people deserve an equal chance to gain access to success without expecting to be shitstormed the hell out of you, wouldn't you ? [/QUOTE]

Yes, but if I knew well MBTI I would be able to explain the OP why he is wrong. I also wouldn't take it personally because as you said, _"people who turn to ad hominem in debates are rather insecure in their understanding of theory, and when they take debates as insult to their understanding"_. I belive a lot of people here are insecure about their understanding of the cognitive functions, or even of their type.



KraChZiMan said:


> It may seem like conflicting, but actually, there's a difference between debate and debate. *When somebody is well-argumented, good-intentioned and approaches the community which values the theories and derivative theories of Jung with points that raise valid doubts, questions or points of clarifications, then as a general rule the commentary should reflect that tone, and the discussion will remain productive.* However, questioning the whole theory and (deritative) works of Jung is not all that relevant in this community, since it's a question that pops up every week and gets discussed to bits so many times that it becomes tedious at some point. There are many bitter goofballs who make 100-point rebuttals and debunkings of MBTI and (deritative) works of Jung but yet nobody realizes that this type of behavior is egoistic rage and refusal to gain understanding. Nobody forces you to accept this theory, so why the butthurt? Just live your own life and stop preaching that MBTI is flawed to people who are not interested in that conversation.


Well, you can't define 2 different things as "debate", or at least you can't put them in a statement without explaining which is which because "debate =/= debate" makes no sense, it's like saying car =/= car. Instead say what you mean in both cases by 'debate' such as apple _(the fruit)_ =/= apple _(the company)_. I'm sorry, I have no intention of being harsh, I'm just calling them as I see them.]

I see your point, but I don't try to accept this theory or not. I'm only trying to understand it. If I understand the theory and the theory makes sense and has real interpretation in reality then I would accept the theory as being true. But I see some flaws in it, and instead of dismissing it entierly, I tried to make a post asking people whether the CF are true or not, also with my arguments for which I belive the CF aren't real. I'm trying to be objective about this. My objective is not to discredit the theory but to understand the truth.



KraChZiMan said:


> As I said before, MBTI is a tool that really helps some people in understanding themselves and the others, but it may not be for everybody.
> 
> Difference between MBTI and Religion is also there - MBTI promotes general interest in human psychology, philosophy and broadens curiosity in people, their behavior, their personalities and their places in society. Religion is different, since religion is all-compassing and tends to shelter people much more. Not saying that religion is bad, but what I do dare to say is that religion can not be used as tool, but rather it is a way of life one must accept or adapt to.
> 
> Anyway, glad we could clear up something here. Cheers mate :tongue:


If MBTI is a tool that helps you accurately understand people, then it must be correct. Then how do you do that ? understanding people based on MBTI. If the whole theory would be wrong at least some parts of it _(which may or may not include the CF, or anything else, depends)_ must be ture since you're able to correctly understand people. 

By MBTI is like religion I meant that MBTI seems to be as something that people believe in just because they like that idea. I'm a Christian, I believe in God, but I'm also aware that my belief is based on faith not on evidence. Otherwise I would be able to prove every atheist why he is wrong. For the record, this is not say 'atheists are wrong', this is, in case I would have had concrete evidence that God is real then atheism would be wrong because that would imply claiming that something that's actually proven as real is not real. 

This topic is way too serious :tongue:


----------



## Alette (May 31, 2014)

You can never know what is happening in the brain though. I do think that the functions are real because psychology provides us with perception and sensing and that happens inside the brain.


----------



## WittyWildDog127 (Mar 26, 2021)

Dezir said:


> *Does anyone knows what the cognitive functions are ?*
> 
> Lately, I've noticed many people confused about the cognitive functions on PerC. And I'm one of them, I have this loop called "I get the functions - no I don't get them" but then I realised I never really got them. This could be either due to the lack of experts on PerC _(which considering it's the biggest MBTI forum it doesn't explain)_ or that the cognitive functions are fake. Yes, the cognitive functions can be nothing more than fakes I just said that. And here are my arguments:
> 
> ...


Yeah like I am an INFP and I was looking into my functions, Te people can take emotion out of things and have extroverted logic, that makes no sense because INFP's are people who can't take value and emotion out of decisions. And just because we have Fi doesn't mean we are selfish. They are apparently 2 separate theories merged into one and that is why they contradict each other so much. People always talk about the cognitive functions instead of the type themselves. Functions are claimed to be scientific but aren't, you don't need evidence to be a type because that is just personality but these functions are widely used and don't make any sense.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

Yes they are real, but they're not some physical thing you can point to. They are abstractions of a collection of brain processes that we don't fully understand yet. 

What the cognitive functions do is tell us that there are consistent patterns to how we make decisions and how we interact with the world around us. They are groupings of variables that seem relatively consistent across all humans. 

I agree that it's really hard to define them, since they are only two aspects of a jumble of different variables that define us as humans and all of them interact. 

Let's take Fi as an example. If you have dominant Fi it just tells you that the first step in your decision process is deciding how you feel about something. If we take an INFP with a safe upbringing and compare them to an INFP who was abused during their childhood, their Fi will come to radically different conclusions about how trustworthy other people are. It's the same mental process, but with vastly different results. 
This makes it really difficult to test for cognitive functions, especially given that most people have trouble reflecting on how their own cognition works. 

But yes, I have seen enough consistency in how people think that I don't doubt that cognitive functions are real. What they are exactly and how they can be recognized in people are big questions that we will have to answer. 

I'm also a believer in the idea that as we learn more about the human brain, we will naturally see more and more evidence of these variables come up and eventually people will realize that we can group decision-making for people in two groups and we can group the way we interact with the world in two groups and science will inevitably reconstruct the MBTI theory when they learn how the brain operates. Obviously MBTI is horribly incomplete and science will find more factors to add to it when they see evidence for them.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

*



Are the Cognitive Functions Even Real ? (Serious Topic)

Click to expand...

*No, they are just someone's interpretation on how humans function. A way to structure and classify humans in a neat package as a means to understand them better. Cognitive functions are not part of reality, but instead someone's personal truth.
There is no proof that eight cognitive functions exists, only conjecture. Perhaps there are nine, ten, eleven, etc.
If you want to be meta with it, it's basically a Ti's interpretation on humans. If you understand Ti then you understand why Cognitive function exists.
If you know much about Carl Jung, about his history, about what he was trying to achieve in life, then you'll understand why this thing exists in the first place.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Reality and being alive is raw nature. Cognitive functions are a map, a guide to notice aspects of yours and others existence. When you use a map you know it is not the actual territory. It is a guide that will get you somewhere and represent the real territory.
When you use cognitive functions as a map, it's undeniable that this map is really pointing something legit.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Yes, by virtue of the fact that they're somewhat vaguely defined.
Jung seems to have defined cognitive functions as being involved in either the perception of reality or the general basis for making decisions based on the information gathered.
It makes sense the pretty much every will either take in reality in a way that focuses on the tangible realities, or take in reality in a way that focuses on the patterns that emerge.
It also makes sense that people would make decisions based on what they value or make decisions based on logic and fact.
Lastly, it makes sense that people would either focus on the objective or the subjective.
Beyond this, I don't think there's any real hard evidence for or against structured models of cognitive function ordering, such as presented in the MBTI. The problem I've often had with MBTI is that it's a bit too limiting. It tries to take typology and convert into an individual identity, a nice little peg each person or set of people that everyone should fit rather neatly into. No wonder so many MBTI enthusiasts are into Zodiac. It's really not that far in terms of taking a cluster of people and saying: "this is the kind of person you are", or "this is the kind of job you should seek" or "this is the type you should be seeking as a mate." That aspect of typology is nothing more that pseudoscience.


----------



## LonelySpaceEmperor (Jan 4, 2018)

The Cognitive Functions are just a model. So is the MBTI, and all of Carl Jung's claims. Now, "are those accurate models?" is a better question (to which the answer imo (in order as introduced) is: No, somewhat, outdated.).


----------



## Tsurukaze (May 11, 2015)

The cognitive functions in MBTI are hard to apply to real life because the system assigns an introverted perceiving function as the main function to someone who is primarily an introverted judger, and vice versa. Common sense tells us that, for instance, if one is an INFJ, then her primary function should be an introverted, feeling, and judging function, because she herself is primarily introverted, feeling, and judging. However, contrary to common sense, Isabel Briggs-Myers somehow decided that an INFJ's primary function should be Ni. This is why Socionics has more accurate cognitive functions. In Socionics, an INFj has the base and creative functions Fi and Ne, as makes way more sense based on the letters. For what it's worth, this is also how I see it play out in real life.


----------

