# A new cognitive functions relation analysis



## Mark Novbett (Apr 3, 2012)

*A new cognitive function relations analysis*
* by Mark Novbett.*

The theory that we all have a dominant function is not new, neither is the idea behind temperaments. The theory of temperaments have existed through out history since the time of Plato while the idea behind dominant function theory came from Jung and thus Myers. In search of true precision in determining and explaining a character type, we usually test through MBTI and then apply it towards Temperaments. It works, that's what's being used - a variation of MBTI and Temperament theory - out in the present world. However, I started looking at the possibility that we are only working with puzzle pieces that we have not put together in the form of a defined understanding through calculation, yet. There's a lot of things we are presuming and thus comes the discrepencies between the two methods of understanding character types (if you look at certain parts of the definations). 

So, we will look at the equation behind some of the misconceptions of Cognitive Functions and the issue with MBTI's clarification of Character Type function usage. To understand this, we must return to the basics of human understanding. So, let's forget cognitive functions and temperaments for a while. Put them aside. 

Let's look at the word "Fruit". What happens in your mind the moment you "see" the word "fruit"? You picture an image, image of a fruit, or fruit related image. This image can be anything, from Raspberrys to Mangos and anything and everything that is classified as a fruit, by your brain. From here alone, we get to see a glimpse of the vast amount of differenciation a human brain looks for in identifying "something". Anything we do in life, is assembled and understood in our brain, through images. (Research Mind Mapping) In trying to determine whether a fruit is a mango or the fruit is a raspberry, what do you do? You compare the color, size, origin and so on. You "determine" through "comparison". So, keeping that in mind, let's look at a scenario. A scenario where you want to do "something". What happens when you are thinking of doing something? What does your mind do? Let's break down this process of "determining". 1. You determine "what" 2. You determine "why and Why Not" 3. You determine "How".

Jung, thus MBTI theory is that, you do this process through the usage of 1. Dominating Function 2. Secondary Function 3. Tertiary Function 4. Inferior Function. So, the question that is intriguing would be the way this also implies that we do not "use" other functions everytime we do this. 

To compare better, there's a brief description of each cognitive functions below. My description on the 8 functions will not completely match that of Myers' or Jung's.

Ne = Percieving patterns.
Ni = Creation of independent mental imagery.
Se = Awareness of Physical environment - the present.
Si = Awareness of concrete forms. Stores fact, past events, figures.
Te = Structuring interaction in a systematic fashion based on logical and impersonal hierarchies and categories.
Ti = Judging the validity of perception logically.
Fe = Adapting interaction depended on the moods and behavior of others.
Fi = Judging the validity of perception emotionally.

Let's go back to the idea of "determining" now. 

You determine "what" = Want, need (Understanding).
You determine "why and why not" = Benefit and Loss (Reason).
You determine "how" = "Process of Action"

*To determine "What"*

You must be aware of the past events, present, your physical and mental environment.
You must have a mental imagery.

*To determine "Why and why not"*

You must be aware of the past events, present, your physical and mental environment, facts, figures, data.
You must have a mental imagery.
You must be able to judge the validity of your perception - either logically or emotionally.

*To determine "How"*

You must be aware of the past events, present, your physical and mental environment, facts, figures, data.
You must have a mental imagery.
You must be able to judge the validity of your perception - either logically or emotionally.
You must "Act" or "Interact".


Let's categorize and put these steps into a calculation through the usage of the cognitive functions.

To determine "What" = (Se + Si) + (Ni + Ne).
To determine "Why and why not" = (What) + Ti OR Fi
To determine "How" = (What) + (Why and why not) + (Fe OR Te)

So, the entire process of determining = (Se + Si) + (Ne + Ni) + (Ti or Fi) + (Fe or Te)

That's all 8 of the functions at it's barebone. Now, looking at Myers' idea of each character type's cognitive functional usage we can see for example, INTP is described as having: 


Primary Function = Introverted Thinking
Secondary Function = Extraverted Intuition
Tertiary Function = Introverted Sensing 
Inferior Function = Extraverted Feeling



My hypothesis here is that, each function in a perfect world scenario, will communicate with all the other functions, every single time. Why it does not however is due to how that character type is formed. Through Genes and Life experience. Just like a child is open to every idea given to him when they are young and only starts developing his or her own beliefs as implanted through society, environment and family.










So, does that mean that we completely ignore the other functions once our type is formed? Looking back at our process of every day life above, it does not. So, how else can we expand our understanding of these functions then? We can start by presuming due to large threshold of evidence that our dominating function determines everything we do. It however does consult with each and every other function. It does not determine until it can tick off each argument made by each and every other function, including it's opposite. And thus, over time, with practice, we are dominated by one function or another. And that is how, cognitive functions work. Our uniqueness in how we do things come from exactly - THAT factor of "uncertainity" known as "environment, soceity, family". This is however, only the beginning of an idea. You can take it anywhere. Happy exploring.


----------



## Agelaius (Apr 3, 2010)

I don't have time to give it sufficient review of your post, but I do like where your thoughts are going on how all of the functions interact with one another. When I get a chance later I'll go through and try to ask a few questions of my own


----------



## Mark Novbett (Apr 3, 2012)

Perhaps, this is my most descriptive thought. I'm a bit excited. Being an INTP, here's to hoping I do not lose interest.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Some of your descriptions betray your INTPness though. Like "when someone says fruit you get a mental image of a fruit." Not necessarily, this is much more of a Si-thing, because the reference comes from within. (A Se-type may not necessarily jump into some memory of a specific fruit unless that's what's required of the moment). If you instruct someone "think of a red apple," then that might conjure up a memory or some internal representation, but if you are just talking about say some apples you saw up in Washington State, a Si-type may very well conjure up some internal image of apple orchards or whatever, but the Se-type may not. 

The other issue here is that this leans very heavily on MBTI style type dynamics and within that paradigm might be a coherent way to look at function interactions. But the MBTI/JCF type dynamics theory seems to be under some scientific scrutiny lately (from the Analytical Psychology community) suggesting that Jung was more right, that the auxiliary and tertiary function sare not always differentiated out into concrete attitudes (meaning that the way MBTI has created its typology system might be too limiting and two-dimensional, which we all knew anyway) but also that as Jung proposed, the two middle functions are not aux/tert but rather two auxiliaries. One supporting the dominant and one supporting the inferior. https://www.capt.org/JPT/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf

This gets to the greater issue of the Inferior function. The superior function is most certainly the captain of the ship as you point out, but we often ignore (not you per se but MBTI) the influence of the Inferior function. When we look at someone typologically, the most important factor is not whether or not their aux is a T/F aux (if they are a perception type) but rather the interplay of their dominant and inferior functions. They are like yin and yang, two ends of a see-saw that push and pull on each other. This is why the MBTI descriptions are sometimes soo cartoony because they often attribute qualities to one function that are really the result of that function and its opposite.

So you often hear Si-types are wary of change or don't like surprises or such kind of stuff. And MBTI (and others) attribute this to Si. But this is not Si all alone. (SI is just your own perception of the object taking preference over the actual physical qualities of the object). What this is, is really Si+Inferior Ne's throwing out of negative possibilities. It's because of the barrage of negative possibilities, that the Si-dom might be compelled to stick to what they know, not because of Si. Similarly the Thinking types aren't cold because of their Thinking, they're cold and aloof because of their terribly developed Feeling function. 

So the MBTI type dynamics system where the functions are in a hierarchy strongest to weakest isn't quite right. The inferior might be very strong in its influence, but not in consciousness. Meaning its exerting much pull on a person, but the person themselves is largely unaware of it. To Jung, the more unconscious a function was, the more shadow-like it was (because the shadow is, of course, not under conscious control) and thus the Inferior function being the least conscious function would represent the opposite to the dominating function's highly conscious and polished perspective. The Inferior function is Mr. Hyde. 

I would recommend this article by Roger Pearman Personality Type - Third Mental Function | Roger Pearman if you haven't already read it.


----------



## Mark Novbett (Apr 3, 2012)

It's not that I get a mental image of a fruit. I get a mental image, that's the point. First thing I notice is the word "Fruit" - the letters, the word. And then the image forms - whichever I'd like to associate with it. But this happens instantaneously. You can not look at the word fruit and NOT have an image. That's like Nietzsche saying "why do we call trees, trees?" It could be a plate full of cut fruits, basket full of fruits, a single fruit, an orchard full of red apples as you mentioned. But, still fruits. Eventually, you have to logic it down to what it is, a tree and in this example a fruit.

Myers, complied Jung's work with her own spin. So, her being right is out of the question. The theory of primary function complementing and working with inferior function seems like the right path here, however then how to explain our communication or interaction in terms of other cases? Well, supplementing theory to that would be that the functions consult each other. The captain consulting it's crews. But eventually the captain still decides the action.

I believe conscious understanding of the influence of the inferior function as you put it, comes only after you can understand the opposite of your dominant function. I have trouble expressing myself, but I try hard to look at the other side, thus consulting my opposite. I have to consciously direct myself to do so because I understand that, without consulting my opposite, I would not understand the other arguments. So, the same theory might be working here with the primary-inferior relation.

The reason I chose to select MBTI as the guideline is because it is the norm of the world. Every job I know of in the financial field does some sort of testing that resembles MBTI-Keirsey. I have taken several of them through several different companies, here in Canada. So, that is what is being considered as the "norm". But we can also look at my theory from other perspectives as well, if need be.

Thanks for the links.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well MTBI/Kiersey/Big 5 are so popular in the workplace because what they are really measures of are people's personas. How they come off to other people (clearly this is the case if we're going to introduce something like J/P into the mix). Perhaps Kiersey does a decent job of acknowledging the ways in which people might adopt certain social roles and this might be totally appropriate if we're looking at this from a workplace or social angle.

The problem is that its bad psychology. The contents of people's psyches are much, much too complex to be amalgamated down to simple measures like Judging or Perceiving, or to neatly put people into categories like Artisan or Rational as if they were the sum total of a person's psyche. MBTI is not really looking into the psychological aspect of this (and I don't think that was ever the intent) but more of a measure of how Jung's types might manifest outwardly in the real world. Basically character studies. 

The issue then becomes when people try to use the MBTI paradigm to explain their psychology. There's another thread in which I got in to an argument about INFJ's doorslamming and how irresponsible it is to assert that this type of behavior will be common to Introverted Intuitives simply because they are Introverted Intuitives. This makes no sense (it makes no more sense than asserting that all Introverted Intuitives must be J's or like things decided). There are million reasons why a person might behave a certain way, and the MBTI oversimplifies it down, basically to judging and perceiving (ignoring the fact that maybe your uptight behavior is due to your dad beating the hell out of you as a child, or your behavior is consistent with social expectations). So it really depends on where you want to go.

I think for most people MBTI and Kiersey work fine because many of them are not self-aware enough to even challenge its results and a good chunk of people who take the test don't care to really go into depth into their own psychology. So for that reason if MBTI says XXXX, they take it and run off with it. You will find those, like many of the people on this site, for whom that was not enough and want to really go into depth about what that all means, and there they hit brick wall really quickly. To find out that just because I scored I,N,T,P doesn't always mean that I'm actually an Introverted Thinking type, or that I and E don't mean what people think they mean is usually the place where the floor falls out from under MBTI. (For example, looking at your score in your signature, it says INTP, but your Sensation is nonexistent, which would be somewhat odd for a IxTP whose Sensation is the Tertiary or Aux function. As soon as we begin to read between the lines, all of a sudden we realize that MBTI is often not self-coherent. That if the Introverted Thinking type leads with Thinking then we should expect to see Thinking as the dominant preference in results and especially not see much Feeling. But often in many people's cases you'll see them score say 75% E, 65%S, 50%T, 80% J. All this tells us is that the person has a preference for Extraverted Judgment, but we don't know if its Thinking or Feeling. They could just as easily be an ESFJ and of course ESTJ and ESFJ are very different). Now I'm saying this demonstrate a point, not to call you out, but that this is often where people who want to go into more depth on MBTI, based on MBTI, run into big problems quickly. 

So trying to devise a premise of how the functions work together, based on an already superficial premise, the MBTI, is to me an exercise in futility. It's sort of like when you read these statistics that say 50% of the country are ESTJs and stuff, but how would you really know, and how would we know that all those 50% are actually typed correctly and not just ESTJ lookalikes? So then the only thing we have to go by is Jung (who quite frankly devoted his whole adult life to this stuff and built a heuristic model that is far more resistant to the kinds of things Myers' is and much less rigid). And to Jung the only thing that really mattered in terms of typology was the interplay between the dominant and inferior function. The auxiliaries are almost a throw-away chapter in _Psychological Types._ An "oh by the way," to get himself out of the trap that types are pure and will be exhibited in people in a pure way. I think he spends two paragraphs on the role of the auxiliaries. The reason is because Jung took into account the greater issue of the interplay between the conscious sphere, the ego (and its associated personas), and the unconscious sphere centered around the shadow, and thus the dominant function becomes symbolic of the will of the ego, and the inferior function becomes the conscious symbol of the unconscious or repressed. The dominant is who you have chosen to be, the inferior is who you have chosen not to be basically and this interplay is far, far more consequential to your overall psychological makeup than whether or not your aux is Thinking, for instance. Many people may never differentiate their other functions (certainly people with psychological disorders or mental handicaps) yet the get on with life just fine. Some people, according to Von Franz, might actually learn to integrate their Inferior which essentially destroys the need for a functional hierarchy altogether. Such people, she says, might be found in monastaries, but are essentially type less. They can appeal to all four functions without the need for one to predominate (such people are also extremely rare, and its unlikely any of us have ever come across such an individual).


----------



## Mark Novbett (Apr 3, 2012)

Thank you for the well thought out post. To be honest, I could look at this situation from the core of Jung's work. I'm aware of the primary-inferior complex Jung talked of. 

This is how personology (not psychology but it was not differentiated back then. Imo, it's part of the same puzzle) developed this theory of dominant -> Inferior function idea.

-Plato talks of 16 types.
-Aristotle confirms again, later on, in his own way.
-Galen hundred or so years later, says the same thing (black bile and etc older ideas)


Everything else after that has been back and forth - until Jung came about, and then Myers' popularized it again. It really is a 2.5 millennium+ worth of idea. Jung studied all that, and also studied it himself, just like Keirsey. However, Isabel Myers' compiled Jung's work, put her spin, and got it popularized. Briggs, worked with her mother to do the same thing. So, once you know these pieces of information, it was not hard for me to see that, the idea of dominant -> inferior is a thin line. It is very much open to criticism and future exploration.

Jung said: "Dominant -> Inferior" (2 functions, maybe more - reading between the lines): his analogy was that if dominant function exists, then there has to be inferior function which exists as well. And that opposite of each function exists. Common sense, really. However, this implied to me, after seeing Myers' work on Jung's research that, she also believed that just 2 does not make sense. So, she put in more functions in the mix, to make the complexity of humans more apparent. Our mind is the most complex of all things we posses in our body. Neuroscience is still discovering new things about the brain.

So, comes my idea that, it is not 4 functions we use. We use everything. But the idea of Dominant -> Inferior still exists. Here, dominant can be 1, can be per-say: Ne+Ni = 50% while rest 6 = 20%, 10%, 3%, 1%, 5%,10%. It is a fair possibility in my view. Specially if you actually try to differentiate your actions by observing things you do - you will notice there, if you can truly throw away all previous conceptions - that there's more than 4 that you use.

As you pointed out at my signature, my sensation is pretty much non-existent (according to results at least). This would imply problem with expressing my feelings to other people. It does exist - this problem. But not as grave as it should be for a non-existent function. So, that is not the case and I'm very well liked in my life. I can make anyone like me. I worked on that. That does come from understanding character types and learning to manipulate from other character type behavior. Mainly, ENTP. But this reality throws out the solid-on-stone function idea.

So, here again, I came to believe that these dominant -> Inferior idea of only 2 or 4 functions does not hold true. You can truly shape the percentage usage of your other functions through conscious awareness. 

However, the idea behind this theory being published here was that, I get to see other people's point of view and that you have to start by comparing with something. One of the things I predicted right here, was that the idea that people will bring up Jung's 2 functions - no matter if I start with Myers' example or JCF's example. So, I tried to put it through "their" perspective that even through their own conceptions of cognitive function use, their own theory does not hold true.

In fact, the only things we know about intelligence is that it mainly deteriorates as we grow older, and studies have confirmed this, many times. Studies have also confirmed that the more we practice, the better we get at that certain skill and not as good at the ones we do not practice or ignore - very bad in many cases. Skill equaling to practice is the key foundation of human society and ingenuity. There is no reason, in my view that our brain works any different. If anything, it implies that our brain also does the same thing. Our actions ARE controlled by our brain.

I do acknowledge that my dominant functions are Ne+Ni+Te . But I try hard to not let my Ti take over me - but it also has a bigger influence than my Fi. Fi also comes with it's own problems. Se or Si gets used whether I want it or not. And Fe leads to ignorance in my view if used in all situations so I keep that in check as well.

In my opinion, Jung was both right and wrong. Myers' did not even bother much. Keirsey understood all of that, perhaps, that is also why he avoided cognitive functions explanation - to him, it is still incomplete. As I suspect and firmly believe as well.

However, I do believe that the idea of multiple functions dominating or being able to co-exist without pushing each other to oblivion is very slight. As you say, most of us probably have not met such a person. For one, taking decision or determining things would be much, much more difficult if that was the case for all of us. But most of us do make decisions pretty well, so, something wins it's arguments inside. The captain, in my view thus is the key to connecting with all other functions. But we can not ignore the first mate nor the cook. Their existence is significant and a necessity.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Well, there is one issue with the theory of everyone using all functions - mostly that, as Jung clarified, which I agree with, we have a set-in-stone dominant function at all times, that's making the call. Others merely serve.

Now, if we take that as fact and accept it for what it is, this indicates that we cannot truly 'use' any other function. Most certainly not consciously. We can of course lure out some functions by appealing to them specifically, we however will never be able to truly know (or more over understand) what it would mean to experience these functions in actuality.

As a Ti Dom I can of course rationally understand all the functions, but I will *never* make any judgment through Fi. While I understand Fi technically, I'll never experience it in actuality. This applies to all the other 7 functions, too. This means that everyone is limited and sort of put into a cage of their own limitations as a human being - we're slaves of our perception of reality, collectively within the same sphere of dominant function typically.

So we can conclude that all of us, regardless of how much we struggle, are limited to what we're capable of by psychological nature. You can theorize or argue that one might never reaches said limitation, but it's evident that we can't alter our core perception of reality, no matter how far we develop. Of course there's room for perspective to widen and narrow down, but the 360° we'd hope for will never occur and remains unattainable, no matter what. If you think any different chances are you're more of a slave to your own perception than I by stating this. Sort of ironic I s'pose :tongue:

Now, I still think that the other 7 functions, although they're not usable in actuality and even less on demand still contribute at all times. On some other forum the theory was that we'd truly be limited to our 4 functions, that I disagree with, though. Yet however I've no solid theory as to how the other 7 come into play (or the additional 4, the shadow, for that matter) - so while I can't agree with the theory proposed, I can't really argue against it either but with the exception of 'inaccessible' functions leaking into our conscious from the subconsciousness - however would one prove that, let alone what does this even mean in detail, or on a technical level?

From what I read of Jung he at best only ever described Dom - Aux setups, never however any further than that. So back to Socionics, MBTI and others this means they oversimplified or plainly took a false leap when they assigned every type 4 preset functions. I don't disagree with the Dom - Aux definition of most types, but I question the validity of tert and inferior functions. Plus, it only gets messier if we assume that aux to inferior function were in fact interchangeable - generating a lot of intertype subtypes - while such constructs as Ti - Ni (Dom-Ter in an ISTP's case) would then defy Jung in his description of the complementary tandem setup of functions.


----------



## Mark Novbett (Apr 3, 2012)

Observing people's behavior is actually pretty easy. If you can truly do differential analysis. For example, you can compare facebook to real life society. I can see the uses of facebook into everything we do. I can see how it affects people. How it gives them courage or inspiration as well as brings them down. You can look at someone's post in a forum thread and understand how that person communicates - if not how he thinks. There's a comparison going on here - as in everything else we do in life. Perhaps, that is why i'm more lenient of Keirsey. He did determine social personas very well. And to be honest, why he could is simply because you need not understand cognitive functions to understand people. And this implies a great deal more to me again, that cognitive function relations and uses in our brain is quite different than how we presume them to be.


----------



## Mark Novbett (Apr 3, 2012)

Erbse said:


> Well, there is one issue with the theory of everyone using all functions - mostly that, as Jung clarified, which I agree with, we have a set-in-stone dominant function at all times, that's making the call. Others merely serve.
> 
> Now, if we take that as fact and accept it for what it is, this indicates that we cannot truly 'use' any other function. Most certainly not consciously. We can of course lure out some functions by appealing to them specifically, we however will never be able to truly know (or more over understand) what it would mean to experience these functions in actuality.
> 
> ...




That, in my opinion puts a boundary over imagination and exploration. This set-in-stone idea you speak of is something that I explored very well in the above posts. We are not limited. Human brain does not have a "cap" on it. We do not use 10% of our brain, we use all of it - and so on.

And again, here, I can understand through Keirsey why you are inclined to think so. You are a SP, to you, everything just happens. Not to me, my friend. Everything is connected.

Let's not get concerned about where the "end" (what does it mean comment) lies. Just explore. That's the only way you can find things you have not pre-determined.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Mark Novbett said:


> That, in my opinion puts a boundary over imagination and exploration. This set-in-stone idea you speak of is something that I explored very well in the above posts. We are not limited. Human brain does not have a "cap" on it. We do not use 10% of our brain, we use all of it - and so on.
> 
> *And again, here, I can understand through Keirsey why you are inclined to think so. You are a SP, to you, everything just happens. Not to me, my friend. Everything is connected.*
> 
> Let's not get concerned about where the "end" (what does it mean comment) lies. Just explore. That's the only way you can find things you have not pre-determined.


Within there lies the exact problem with Keirsey, or more precisely its believers. You're not only stereotyping but are even being typist on top of it. For as long as you'd give a term such as typism any validity. I do not, so no worries.

Of course 'NT' tend to think otherwise on this matter, but going back to functions, that's the sole irony I've pointed out up above. Ne inherently foresees possibilities and potential - thus this is *your limited* perception and interpretation of reality. It is a principle you cannot think outside of, due to natural, psychological inclination, which is embedded in your very core. Thus again, that is your very limitation, a principle you cannot naturally think outside of, let alone consciously alter.

If you want to claim to be capable of consciously altering your world view or perception of said, be my guest - to me however that only implies a lack of objectively having taken a look onto yourself.

EDIT: Don't misunderstand me, though. I'm not saying Jung had it all figured out. By far not. If anything however, he laid a very solid foundation for further exploration and understanding the of the human psyche - You cannot however deny the accuracy of functions in their dominant description.

Whoever instead seeks out 'understanding' through stereotyping (Big 5, MBTI, Keirsey) at best settles for superficial stuff, that inevitably says absolutely nothing about the individual's psyche but maybe implies what he could be best used for in a work environment and whether or not he's a fit.


----------



## Mark Novbett (Apr 3, 2012)

Perhaps, this picture will explain more than my words can, to you about how I, as an INTP view the world.










There is no such thing as coincidence. It's all intricately connected.

no, I express limited perceptions. There are 200 possibilities and situations attached to walking down from point A to point B that I can think of. However, perceptions are valid only when you can apply logic to it. That, NT breathes. I understand your view, criticism affects you, that I understand too. I'm not however trying to criticize you. There are short comings for all types.


----------



## Mark Novbett (Apr 3, 2012)

Erbse said:


> Within there lies the exact problem with Keirsey, or more precisely its believers. You're not only stereotyping but are even being typist on top of it. For as long as you'd give a term such as typism any validity. I do not, so no worries.
> 
> Of course 'NT' tend to think otherwise on this matter, but going back to functions, that's the sole irony I've pointed out up above. Ne inherently foresees possibilities and potential - thus this is *your limited* perception and interpretation of reality. It is a principle you cannot think outside of, due to natural, psychological inclination, which is embedded in your very core. Thus again, that is your very limitation, a principle you cannot naturally think outside of, let alone consciously alter.
> 
> ...


I think how you need to look at this situation or theory behind "typology" is by looking at it as a tool. Tool to explore further down any direction this may lead to. See if that helps.

If you need objective or subjective goal, how about the possibility of understanding ourselves better by exploring these theories? Understanding each other is the key to harmony. And again, people are not machines. There are factors in everything we do, that shapes us.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Mark Novbett said:


> That, NT breathes. I understand your view, criticism affects you.


Actually you do neither of the two, but just underlining what I've stated.

Getting back to your final conclusion of the OP however;



> My hypothesis here is that, each function in a perfect world scenario, will communicate with all the other functions, every single time. Why it does not however is due to how that character type is formed. Through Genes and Life experience. Just like a child is open to every idea given to him when they are young and only starts developing his or her own beliefs as implanted through society, environment and family.


This cannot be true. Functions that are opposing each other in their attitude violate each other, all the more so than an actual letter divide when the same attitude is shared - You cannot think from a neutral point of view, not even 'pure' babies. Attitude implications already become apparent in toddlers, prior to the age of 2 even. This implies that there isn't much of a conscious process taking place. I do not know nor want to speculate what causes that early attitude development, it could be subconscious intake from the environment, or genetics as you've mentioned.

Since attitude is already defined at that stage in life, it also limits your development options in the same run as there are only two options available down the road. Assuming the toddler showed introverted traits chances are it'd become either an introverted judger, or introverted perceiver - this effectively limits the pool to 4 possible dominant functions that eventually take over the scepter.

I'm certain there are cases where introversion / extroversion gets suppressed due to environmental influences, but these individuals typically suffer from chronic unhappiness without being able to locate its reason or suffer from actual psychological disorders.

EDIT: If your whole point was however to imply that we use more than 4 functions, or more than our dominant, then yes, I'd have to agree. It is however such an obvious blanket statement in my eyes that didn't need a tangent (nor should be regarded to as theory) - I'd rather be interested in a theory how the non natural functions contribute to our conscious decision making.


----------



## Mark Novbett (Apr 3, 2012)

That's Genes + environment - the baby theory you have. And again, it's not as conscious as you seem to think I'm implying here. Conscious understanding comes after you are able to determine each and every side of the argument. Everything you are implying about typology goes against 2,500 years of understanding of human life.

See, I do understand your view. But understanding your view will never make me agree with you. Why should it? There are other such arguments in my head. Whatever you just posted here has already been ticked off in my initial calculation of the theory.
So, there are other arguments, it is not I that can not see the other side here. It is your pre-determined variables that makes you believe the idea of babies not being "conscious", like:
-babies are different in their own ways
-that i'm meaning to say that we all are the same at birth.


Let's forget typology and hypothetical bullshit as you'd rather put it, let's talk science. Science knows, through implicate experiments that human brain does not even fully develop it's muscles until it becomes an adult.

What does it mean here?
-That through out this development process, we constantly change.
-That, we can not defy genes.
-That we still carry our own uniqueness due to the mixture of the parent genes.


There was a scientific experiment done to prove the existence of introverted people and extroverted people. Scientists noticed that those who are predominantly introverted produce more saliva when lime is applied to their tongues than those who are extroverted. The entire concept of introversion in society is wrong. Sure, introversion/extroversion exists. Intricately from birth. But the concept of introversion you speak of, is wrong. 


Attitude is definitely NOT defined at that stage of life. For example, a grown adult - almost all of us - agree and maintain that we were different when we were kids - did a lot of stupid stuff that seemed awesome at that time.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Mark Novbett said:


> That's Genes + environment - the baby theory you have. And again, it's not as conscious as you seem to think I'm implying here.


Actually it's not so much of a theory as something you can observe, plus just confirmed it further down the road anyway.

Still, to get on the some page then and perhaps start over; what exactly was, or is the point of the tangent found in your original post then? I can't seem to extract anything worthwhile from your conclusion that shouldn't have dawned onto all of us the second we signed up on this forum.


----------



## Mark Novbett (Apr 3, 2012)

I believe where we differ is that your theory that it is impossible to be conscious about your other functions. Well, too bad. Evidence says other wise. And I will end it there. If you rather not care to be flexible about views, then there is no discussion between us that may lead to beneficial results.

And to answer your question to the point, my diagram implies 16 numbers equaling to 16 types. I did not talk of this, because my theory on it is still immature. All the lines on my diagram are formed through connecting one function to another. And you can only have 16 variables - no matter how you connect them. Shows the connections between opposites, similars, inferiors, dominant function. Just look.


----------



## Metanoia (Nov 21, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> I would recommend this article by Roger Pearman Personality Type - Third Mental Function | Roger Pearman if you haven't already read it.


Very interesting article. I apologize to the OP, because this is off his original topic, but I have one question for you (or anyone else willing to answer) about this article. 



>


In the above table, what do you make of the two Ni dom types, INFJ and INTJ, scoring fourth and sixth highest, respectively, in Self Control (associated with Si) when Si should be their eighth and last function, according to the stacking in the MBTI/JCF models? I know Si ≠ Self Control 1:1, but the rest seems to line up so nicely (even if it's also noticeable that the score variance from first to last is relatively narrow). The author doesn't even address this glaring anomaly, so I was hoping someone else would give their interpretation of it.

As background for my interest, I'm an INFJ and have always wondered why Si scored somewhere in the middle for me, with average use, instead of it falling very last, which typically is where Se or Te ends up for me.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

metaforge said:


> Very interesting article. I apologize to the OP, because this is off his original topic, but I have one question for you (or anyone else willing to answer) about this article.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well the self-control of Si-doms, to me comes from Si+Extraverted Judgment+Inferior Ne. You have a few different things going on in a particular fashion that lead to this that is unique to Si-doms. 

As for Ni-doms, I would think its Ni+Extraverted judgment + (Ni's wanting to avoid Se). The thing, however about Ni-doms though is that when they do lose control, they really lose control and become a Se-dom caricature. The self-control of a Ni-dom is far, far more tenuous and superficial, they're always on the verge of some sort of physical excess (Von Franz gleefully states that many Introverted Intuitives are fat because they overeat, or engage in all sorts of physically unhealthy behaviors due to their Inferior Se).


----------



## Metanoia (Nov 21, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Well the self-control of Si-doms, to me comes from Si+Extraverted Judgment+Inferior Ne. You have a few different things going on in a particular fashion that lead to this that is unique to Si-doms.
> 
> As for Ni-doms, I would think its Ni+Extraverted judgment + (Ni's wanting to avoid Se). The thing, however about Ni-doms though is that when they do lose control, they really lose control and become a Se-dom caricature. The self-control of a Ni-dom is far, far more tenuous and superficial, they're always on the verge of some sort of physical excess (Von Franz gleefully states that many Introverted Intuitives are fat because they overeat, or engage in all sorts of physically unhealthy behaviors due to their Inferior Se).


I see, great hypothesis. It seems to fit as a good explanation for this case. Like anything that is a sensitive area (inferior function, in this case), it's prone to either being neglected or overcompensated (to make up for feelings of neglect or insincerity). Basically, one extreme or the other.

Other than over-eating (which I do _sometimes_ in a strange compulsion, but don't get fat because I'm not regularly stressed and have good metabolism), would you say other forms of inferior Se expression could be things like... watching too much TV? I've heard that's an Inf. Se expression, because it's a mindless sensory overindulgence.

What about very abrupt, but short-lived, explosions of anger? I notice that if things in my physical environment, the little details I don't want to be dealing with, but am trying to manage under stress, get upset, then I become UPSET. I don't think I have anger issues, I'm usually very placid and even-tempered, but... when those things hit, it's like... a volcano. I shock people with it, I get VERY loud and even physical.


----------

