# Understanding my cognitive functions



## anonymouskaytie (May 6, 2014)

So I've been trying to understand the cognitive functions much more lately (cough or for the first time cough), and after much attempting to read posts about the functions, I have come to the conclusion that I have no clue what I'm doing.

My dominant functions seem to be, in order, Fi, Ti, Ni and Ne. As far as I can tell, that doesn't really work together?? I'm supposed to have two i's and two e's, and only one of each function?

As far as I can tell without getting into cognitive functions, I'm an INFP. However, INFPs are supposed to be dominant in Fi Ne Si Te; does that mean that Ti Ni Se and Fe get left in the dust?

Any attempt to explain would be much appreciated


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

It's frustrating, isn't it?

Well, I've got some good news for you. First, you're in very good company. And second, as further described in the spoiler, the problem isn't with you — it's with the _cognitive functions_.


* *




Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you probably know), and his test (which you may well have taken) is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test — but, as further discussed in this post, 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 INFJs often get Fi scores that are as high or higher than their Fe scores.

As I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs reliably get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs reliably get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model. I'm theoretically an "Ni-dom," but Te and Ti were my two highest scores on Nardi's test.

And what functions model should a good test be matching, anyway? Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars believed (rightly, IMHO) that Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N auxiliary was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. Myers' model was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe — although, as explained in my last linked post (below), Myers, despite some lip service to the contrary, essentially (and to her credit) abandoned the functions for the dichotomies. Harold Grant's model — followed by Berens and Nardi and most of the other modern functions theorists — was Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.

That last model is the one most often subscribed to by internet forumites, which is why you'll often read posts that say that INTJs and INTPs (or INFJs and INFPs) may share three letters but, pfffft, they've got almost nothing in common because, when you go from J to P, it _flips all your functions_! Buuut... I'm here to tell you that "Am I INTJ or INTP?" is by far the most common torn-between-types dilemma encountered in type-me threads at INTJforum. And I often point that out to the function-flipping aficonados, and I say to them, "Listen! If INTJs and INTPs are so freaking different, why is there this endless parade of INTJforum posters who've read up on the MBTI (including the functions), read INTJ and INTP profiles, and ended up concluding (1) that they relate better to INTJ and INTP descriptions than any other types, and (2) that they relate pretty much equally well to INTJ and INTP?"

And nobody ever has a good answer. And sometimes I ask them, "Hey, if INTJs and INTPs have no shared functions and their functions are as different as you say, how about doing what Nardi somehow failed to do and give me some Ni, Ne, Ti and Te descriptions that I can offer those poor type-me-please INTx's as a solution to their confusion. If they relate to your Ni and Te descriptions and don't relate to your Ti and Ne descriptions, we'll know they're INTJs, and if it's the other way around, we'll know they're INTPs."

And guess what? Not one cognitive functions aficionado has even _tried_ to rise to my challenge, although sometimes they stroke their chins and say something like, well, you know, the cognitive functions are incredibly deep and subtle and it's unrealistic to expect somebody to be able to describe them using something as crude as _words_.

Meanwhile, in the land of real people and words and science and stuff...

The four MBTI dichotomies, which substantially line up with four of the Big Five dimensions, now have decades of studies in support of their validity and reliability, while the cognitive functions — which James Reynierse (in a 2009 article linked to below) refers to as a "category mistake" — have barely been studied. And the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. Going all the way back to 1985, the MBTI Manual described or referred to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 MBTI studies and, as I understand it, _not one_ of the many study-based correlations reported in the manual were framed in terms of the functions. And many more dichotomy-based studies have been done in the years since. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, as Reynierse notes in that same article, it cited a grand total of _eight studies_ involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support."

Assuming you have reasonably well-defined preferences, I think you're more likely to correctly type yourself using dichotomy-based tests than tests (or analysis) based on the functions. And if you've got one or more preferences that are in or near the middle, I think dichotomy-based tests are more likely to correctly indicate that situation as well.

If you've never been typed with the official "Step I" MBTI, it's here — but it sounds to me like you may already be pretty sure you're an INFP as far as the _real_ MBTI is concerned.

If you want more from me on 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, you'll find it in this long INTJforum post.

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that post:

McCrae & Costa article
Reynierse article​


----------



## Agg Herbor (Jun 30, 2013)

Not that I'm particularly qualified in the realms of typology, but I just flat-out disagree with typing by dichotomies alone. Typing yourself is hard, because coming into these systems, you just don't know enough about how they work on an emperical plane to accurately do so.

But to imply there's no validity in the cognitive functions (if that is what @_reckful_ is actually doing) is, to me, the definition of having your cake and eating it too. Of the over 10 dichotomy-based tests I've taken, I've been typed correctly ONCE, and I don't think that makes me any less my type. The problem is the TESTS, whether dichotomy or cog functions, because the questions are so narrowly worded, you couldn't expect anyone to be typed correctly. 

Learn the type descriptions, learn the dichotomies, AND learn the cognitive functions. Typing yourself through only one of these means will almost definitely yield you the wrong answer. The J/P dichotomy is the biggest fallacy in Meyers-Briggs, and there rests my sole discrepancy with the aforementioned INTJ vs. INTP example. How does the J/P difference accurately illustrate the real differences between types anymore than someone with no understanding of the functions saying Te is this and Ne is that. 

If we aren't going to have cognitive functions... why even have this website? Typing with JUST dichotomies seems incredibly trivial to me, and I just can't support or recommend it. Though, refutation is welcome.

:happy:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Agg Herbor said:


> The problem is the TESTS, whether dichotomy or cog functions, because the questions are so narrowly worded, you couldn't expect anyone to be typed correctly.
> 
> Learn the type descriptions, learn the dichotomies, AND learn the cognitive functions. Typing yourself through only one of these means will almost definitely yield you the wrong answer. The J/P dichotomy is the biggest fallacy in Meyers-Briggs, and there rests my sole discrepancy with the aforementioned INTJ vs. INTP example. How does the J/P difference accurately illustrate the real differences between types anymore than someone with no understanding of the functions saying Te is this and Ne is that.
> 
> If we aren't going to have cognitive functions... why even have this website? Typing with JUST dichotomies seems incredibly trivial to me, and I just can't support or recommend it. Though, refutation is welcome.


I you took my post to mean that I think typing yourself with _tests_ is better than typing yourself by reading about the typology, you misunderstood me. And I'd say there isn't much reason for someone to type themselves if they're not interested in reading up on the typology.

But the idea that a dichotomy-centric perspective is somehow _limiting_ or _shallow_ is not correct. As further discussed in that long INTJforum post I linked to in my first post, Myers spent quite a lot of Gifts Differing talking about aspects of personality that corresponded to any number of dichotomy _combinations_, including some of the combinations that purportedly correspond to the cognitive functions. But it's worth noting that she didn't treat the function-related combinations as if they had any special significance — and, in fact, Myers thought the most meaningful preference combinations were ST, SF, NT and NF (each of which includes four types with _four different dominant functions_).

In any case, though, any deep, true thing that can be said about a (supposed) Ti-dom, for example, can just as well be said about an I_TP. If you're looking for a _limiting_ framework, give a listen to any of the large number of forumites whose posts indicate that the MBTI "letters" really don't say much about anyone, and that INTJs and INTPs (for example) have almost nothing in common — because I and N and T (and the IN and NT and IT combinations) don't correspond to much in the way of significant aspects of personality. _There's_ the limiting (and impoverished) perspective if you ask me.


----------



## Agg Herbor (Jun 30, 2013)

I really appreciate the response, @reckful , 

After reading your INTJforum post (I admit I previously had not, being at a busier point in the work day... excuses, excuses), I definitely feel like I have a better perspective on where you're coming from. 

I've never actually read any of Jung's or Meyer's work at length (just excerpts and reinterpretations)(further illustrating my lack of deep typological knowledge), so I can't say for certain how much I agree or disagree with your assessment (which seemed mostly objective anyway), but I think we're just slightly talking past each other.

Knowing the temperaments and different kinds of dichotomy pairs is absolutely beneficial. I wouldn't dispute that for a second. The SF, ST, NF, NT pairs do fantastic jobs at grouping types together. My problem, though, is with typing yourself solely on an I vs E, S vs N, T vs F, and J vs P basis. This is for the following reasons...

1. Colloquial introversion vs extroversion is NOT the same thing as is in the Jungian sense and could lead to confusion while typing.
2. Oh, "Intuitive" means deep and "Sensor" means shallow so I better pick the kwl 1 cuz i so smrt!!!
3. Judger Perceiver differences are negligble.
4. To say "I am this" when looking at the dichotomies automatically implies "I am not this." So someone with no typology background might fancy themselves a thinker because they're intelligent, regardless of how emotionally-charged their lives are. 

Now using the temperaments (and the ammended version you mentioned in your INTJforum post), is definitely a different animal. Because they immediately narrow your choices to 4 alike personality types. That's more of quad-chotomy if you will. 
:tongue:. There's less lumping at that point. And typology enthusiasts love to lump. Lumping for everyone.

Now, I look at Jung's functions as a grouping of cognitive behaviors that objectively exist, but are _somewhat_ arbitrarily separated. That is to say, I think what Te defines has to exist. That definitely doesn't mean Te as a whole or as a collection exists, but rather a more pragmatic, externally based, objective form of thinking exists in opposition to a more musing-for-the-sake-of-musing, internal, subjective type. I see all of the functions in that way and am amazed by how often I see them at work in reality. 

I see error and ambiguity in all typological systems so to say "dichotomies are bad, functions are good" would be a gross misstatement. I just have my preference and though you've made a surprisingly well-constructed case against functions and for dichotomies, I still can't say I share your viewpoint. And that mostly stems from my lack of care as to how much scientific verifiability is shown with these systems. The empericism I evoke isn't scientific, but personal (my empirical isn't the right word...)


Sorry to completely derail the point of the OP.


----------



## anonymouskaytie (May 6, 2014)

So... I'm trying to understand the arguments made... But for some reason I'm just not getting it. If I don't understand you folks' explanation of the functions, am I ever going to get it?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

^ As you know if you looked at my linked posts, I think the functions are an erroneous framing of the _real_ (and substantially hardwired) personality dimensions underlying the Jungian/MBTI types.

If you pretty consistently come out INFP on dichotomy-based tests (like the official MBTI that I linked you to), and you feel like you relate more to I, N, F and P when you read respectable descriptions of those dichotomies, and you feel like you relate best to INFP descriptions when you read typical portraits of the 16 types — then I'd say there's no good reason to question your type based on "cognitive functions" descriptions/models that look like they're inconsistent with INFP in one or more respects.

In case it's helpful to you, the spoiler has a roundup of MBTI resources — not excluding the functions — that I recently posted at another forum.


* *






reckful said:


> Russell Rowe's MBTI page
> This is sometimes slow to fully load but will then keep you occupied for a while. It includes introductions to the MBTI dichotomies, introductions to the "cognitive functions," and descriptions of the 16 types.
> 
> Myers-Briggs Introduction (Cory Caplinger)
> ...


----------



## anonymouskaytie (May 6, 2014)

reckful said:


> ^ As you know if you looked at my linked posts, I think the functions are an erroneous framing of the _real_ (and substantially hardwired) personality dimensions underlying the Jungian/MBTI types.
> 
> If you pretty consistently come out INFP on dichotomy-based tests (like the official MBTI that I linked you to), and you feel like you relate more to I, N, F and P when you read respectable descriptions of those dichotomies, and you feel like you relate best to INFP descriptions when you read typical portraits of the 16 types — then I'd say there's no good reason to question your type based on "cognitive functions" descriptions/models that look like they're inconsistent with INFP in one or more respects.
> 
> ...


Thank you, this seems to be exactly what I need


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

As it happens, I'd been thinking about putting together a list of online MBTI resources, so I'll supplement @reckful's list with a few more links, in no particular order:

CAPT.org
There's lots to explore here, including The Journal of Psychological type, this page of career descriptions for the 16 types, and the Type for Life Blog

Odly Developed Types has pages of facts and statistics for each type, links to research articles, a refutation of cognitive functions/type dynamics... and post-apocalyptic survival!

The Myers & Briggs Foundation, especially this area of the site, which includes information on the preferences, brief type descriptions, a section on type dynamics (although not in anywhere as much detail as Berens and Nardi's sites) and advice on choosing your best fit type.

Reckful has already linked to one area of The Keirsey Temperament Website but I want to point out that it has sections dealing with temperament and career, temperament and love and temperament and school.

More descriptions of the temperaments:
http://personalitycafe.com/sjs-temperament-forum-overseers/10480-sj-stabilizers-guardians.html
http://personalitycafe.com/sps-temperament-forum-creators/10478-sp-improvisers-artisans.html
http://personalitycafe.com/nts-temperament-forum-intellects/10600-nt-theorist-rationals.html
http://personalitycafe.com/nfs-temperament-forum-dreamers/10599-nf-catalyst-idealists.html


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@reckful, this probably isn't entirely on topic, but it's a question I've been meaning to ask you for a while and I was thinking about it as I was going through the sites you and I linked to: What, if anything, does the MBTI manual have to say about the relationship between the preferences and type dynamics, and any mismatches between the two in individual cases? For example, if someone gets an INTJ result on the official MBTI test, confirms that's their best fit by reading type/preference descriptions, but then looks into type dynamics and discovers they're not an Ni-dom, would the manual suggest that they should reconsider their INTJ conclusion? If they assume all INTJs are Ni-doms, which they seem to, how would they reconcile that with potential J/P middleness, and the idea that it's possible to be "out of preference" on some of the Step II facets?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I disagree with the sentiment that cognitive functions are not a useful tool for framing personality traits.

However, as I've come to _re-define_ them in my own language, I've been met with tremendous appeals of gratitude and helped tons of people better understand themselves and others.

By contrast, I find the dichotomies to be both less interesting and less applicable to most people I talk to, as well as more likely to result in at least one or more dichotomies being "undecided" upon.

At least with the functions I can _always_ nail the dominant function and conscious attitude of the person, and from just that alone, you gain an overwhelming amount of self-knowledge.

Furthermore, what is a cognitive function but a description of something? If you note Jung's descriptions, although they can seem cryptic or vague at times, I do not for moment find myself of the opinion that he is describing things that don't really exist.

I will, however, say that I believe his descriptions were inadequate, and that a better language is needed to explain them in less archaic and confusing terms. Furthermore, I do not appeal to the MBTI "type dynamics" model. What appeals to me far more is the idea of the psyche as something more dynamic, with cognitive functions each being like a tool in a toolkit, used for some particular thing, and that one has to look at a person's personality as something which is, on the one hand permanent with certain habitual patterns, and on the other hand fluctuating constantly in order to adapt itself and fit into the roles and requirements of the external world.

Taking a limited and narrow view of cognitive functions is throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> @reckful, this probably isn't entirely on topic, but it's a question I've been meaning to ask you for a while and I was thinking about it as I was going through the sites you and I linked to: What, if anything, does the MBTI manual have to say about the relationship between the preferences and type dynamics, and any mismatches between the two in individual cases? For example, if someone gets an INTJ result on the official MBTI test, confirms that's their best fit by reading type/preference descriptions, but then looks into type dynamics and discovers they're not an Ni-dom, would the manual suggest that they should reconsider their INTJ conclusion? If they assume all INTJs are Ni-doms, which they seem to, how would they reconcile that with potential J/P middleness, and the idea that it's possible to be "out of preference" on some of the Step II facets?


I don't have the Step II Manual or the latest (3rd) edition of the Step I Manual, so I can't answer your question with reference to those. The 2nd edition devotes a grand total of 3½ pages to "The Dynamic Interaction of Preferences" and doesn't discuss the possibility of a "mismatch" between the dichotomy preferences and the functions that purportedly correspond to them. And, as I noted in that long INTJforum dichotomies-vs.-functions post I already linked to, that edition of the Manual is full of statistics correlating type with interests, occupations, scholastic achievement, other personality measures, etc., and the reported correlations _almost exclusively_ involve the four dichotomies, the sixteen types and/or dichotomy combinations with no meaningful function correspondence — with the combinations most often included (by a _wide margin_) being ST, SF, NT and NF. (And, as also described in that post, Reynierse has noted that the 3rd edition of the Manual cites a grand total of eight studies relating to the functions, and summarizes them as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support.")

The 2nd edition of the Manual _does_ note, in the "Interpretation of MBTI Scores" section, that anybody who'd been led to expect that people would tend to get higher scores on their supposed "dominant" function than on their supposed "auxiliary" function was in for a shock. As the Manual explains: "According to theory, the dominant function will show a clearer preference than will the auxiliary. [But instead]... scores for the dominant are greater than those for the auxiliary in only about half the types" — i.e., a random result. (And note that the "function" scores being referred to here are just dichotomous S, N, T and F, rather than the eight cognitive functions.)

Finally, on your question about functions vs. Step II facets: According to an MBTI practitioner and author (Nancy Harkey) who's posted at INTJforum, "there is no discussion in the Step II manual of applying type dynamics (dominant, auxiliary etc.) to the overall preferences. I really don't know what that means at the moment, but it is curious."


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I disagree with the sentiment that cognitive functions are not a useful tool for framing personality traits.
> ...
> At least with the functions I can _always_ nail the dominant function and conscious attitude of the person, and from just that alone, you gain an overwhelming amount of self-knowledge.
> ...
> ...


If all you've done with someone is "nail the dominant function and conscious attitude of the person," how does the "self-knowledge" you arrive at by having a portrait in your mind that you associate with, say, Ni-doms exceed the "self-knowledge" you'd arrive at by having that same portrait in your mind and associating it with IN_Js? If you're extricating Ni from the "type dynamics" model that says an INTJ is Ni-Te-Fi-Se, how does your simpler functions framework add anything to a framework that says that IN_Js tend to exhibit characteristics that I's tend to have in common, N's tend to have in common, J's tend to have in common, INs tend to have in common, IJs tend to have in common, NJs tend to have in common and (maybe the shortest list) IN_Js tend to have in common — the latter framework being the one Reynierse likes to call "preference multidimensionality."

As I already noted in this post (earlier in this thread), I see typical function-centric frameworks as being _more_ limited, not _less_ limited, than a framework that says, yes, there are personality characteristics associated with the particular dichotomy combinations that purportedly relate to the eight functions, but there are also personality characteristics (which function-centric descriptions tend to shortchange or ignore) associated with the dichotomies, and with the many dichotomy combinations that _don't_ correspond to the eight functions.

So, as I see it, it's function-centric people, rather than dichotomy-centric people, who are more likely to throw insights out with the bathwater, and whose perspective on type tends to be too "limited and narrow."


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

reckful said:


> If all you've done with someone is "nail the dominant function and conscious attitude of the person,"


Let me stop you right there, chief.

Because the rest of your post would be absolutely right if that was all I've done. But, I've done a lot more than that.

And also, I don't really do any of the things you listed. I don't "extricate" anything from type dynamics. I don't even understand what you're talking about really.

In fact, I never said my framework was simpler either. I literally have no idea who you are crusading against at this point, but I also think I see where this is going so... whatever, let's do this again, and again reckful. However many times it takes.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Let me stop you right there, chief.
> 
> Because the rest of your post would be absolutely right if that was all I've done. But, I've done a lot more than that.
> 
> ...


It sounds like you misunderstood my post. I know you referred to a _something more_ toward the end, but I didn't really understand what it was, which is why I asked you about it.

ETA: When I asked my hypothetical question starting with "If all you've done...", my intent was not to imply that your entire post stopped there.

You _did_ say that you "do not appeal to the MBTI 'type dynamics' model," and that was after you'd also said that "At least with the functions I can _always_ nail the dominant function and conscious attitude of the person, and from just that alone, you gain an overwhelming amount of self-knowledge."

So my questions basically were (and remain):

1. How is it that the "overwhelming amount of self-knowledge" that you "gain" from "nailing the dominant function and conscious attitude" exceeds the self-knowledge you'd have if you had all that same knowledge slotted as "characteristics of IN_Js" rather than "characteristics of Ni-doms"?

2. If you "do not appeal" to "MBTI type dynamics," but your functions framework does indeed involve some kind of multi-function (or something) model that goes beyond just the things associated with the "dominant function and conscious attitude," what model are you talking about, and how do you see it as less limiting than what I described (and Reynierse refers to) as preference multidimensionality?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

reckful said:


> 1. How is it that the "overwhelming amount of self-knowledge" that you "gain" from "nailing the dominant function and conscious attitude" exceeds the self-knowledge you'd have if you had all that same knowledge slotted as "characteristics of IN_Js" rather than "characteristics of Ni-doms"?


Because in cases where you encounter two people who fall into the same dichotomies - and who do in fact match the dichotomy descriptions of their type - you inevitably will find nuanced differences in their personalities which come up quite often, and which are better explained by function preferences. As soon as you look at them through the lens of function preferences, the differences are resolved.



reckful said:


> 2. If you "do not appeal" to "MBTI type dynamics," but your functions framework does indeed involve some kind of multi-function (or something) model that goes beyond just the things associated with the "dominant function and conscious attitude," what model are you talking about, and how do you see it as less limiting than what I described (and Reynierse refers to) as preference multidimensionality?


For the reasons I put forth in my above answer.


----------



## anonymouskaytie (May 6, 2014)

Octavarium said:


> @reckful, this probably isn't entirely on topic, but it's a question I've been meaning to ask you for a while and I was thinking about it as I was going through the sites you and I linked to: What, if anything, does the MBTI manual have to say about the relationship between the preferences and type dynamics, and any mismatches between the two in individual cases? For example, if someone gets an INTJ result on the official MBTI test, confirms that's their best fit by reading type/preference descriptions, but then looks into type dynamics and discovers they're not an Ni-dom, would the manual suggest that they should reconsider their INTJ conclusion? If they assume all INTJs are Ni-doms, which they seem to, how would they reconcile that with potential J/P middleness, and the idea that it's possible to be "out of preference" on some of the Step II facets?


Yes, some clarification on this would be extremely helpful. I definitely identify with the INFP descriptions and have never gotten another result on an MBTI test, however, my cognitive functions are definitely not in the order Fi Ne Si Te.

What I ended up doing was I gave each function a numerical quantity based on my preference to using it; for example, Fi was my preferred judging cognition so I gave it a 1, and Ni was my favorite sensing cognition so I gave it a 1, Fe was (if I remember correctly) my least favorite judging cognition so I gave it a 4, Se was my least favored so I gave it a 4... I think you get the idea. 

What I then did was I listed the supposed cognitions for each typing (well, I've only done a couple of the most likely so far) using the numerical system I devised. So, INFP, with the cognitive functions Fi Ne Si Te, would look like this:

1+3+2+3 = 9

The MBTI type with the lowest score would be my preferred type based on the cognitive functions. 

If you measure my type that way, I actually end up being more of an INTP than an INFP, but I identify so strongly with the INFP descriptions and remarks from other INFPs that I would have to say INFP is my type.


----------



## anonymouskaytie (May 6, 2014)

Oops... I think I just got lost in my own thread. Shows me for using the site on a mobile device... To the computer!


----------

