# Type Dynamics = False?



## purrmonsterr (Jul 21, 2013)

I found an interesting site that questions the validity of cognitive functions and type dynamics, here:

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

I've just recently started learning about cognitive functions and type dynamics and would like to know what you all think of this.


Edit: I'm including the intro and first few points of the argument...

'Many of us are familiar with the cognitive functions (Fe, Fi, Te, Ti, Se, Si, Ne, Ni) and how they are ordered for each type, i.e. type dynamics. 

But questions have been raised over whether cognitive functions and type dynamics actually exist. Researchers have pointed out the following:

1. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of type dynamics, which were described by Myers in 1962. Type dynamics are still purely anecdotal after all these decades. Why?

2. Almost no research has been done on whether or not there is such as thing as a tertiary or inferior function. Who knows if they exist, or what they might be? At this point their existence is purely speculative, and while there are three different models explaining them, none them have any proof.

3. Cognitive functions appear to rest mainly upon the authority of Myers' original writings, which were based on the authority of Jung's original writings. Although the writings have taken on the status of canon, this does not mean that Jung was right to begin with. In addition, what he wrote was different from what Myers came up with. Historical precedent does not constitute proof of the cognitive functions' existence any more than it can prove that the Earth is flat. The fact that everyone has always believed something does not make it correct.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

The website you linked to is a good summary of the available research regarding the MBTI vs. cognitive functions. Despite the fact that type dynamics is a failure, allegiance to "function talk" still persists here online. It's a shame, really.


----------



## purrmonsterr (Jul 21, 2013)

Teybo said:


> The website you linked to is a good summary of the available research regarding the MBTI vs. cognitive functions. Despite the fact that type dynamics is a failure, allegiance to "function talk" still persists here online. It's a shame, really.


Are you saying that you think that "function talk" is incorrect? 

I've heard people here say the only way to determine type is by the arrangement or combination of functions but if cognitive functions or type dynamics aren't accurate then doesn't that negate a lot of the information posted here? 

I don't mean to be overly critical but I'd like to understand the process if I'm going to give it value.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

purrmonsterr said:


> Are you saying that you think that "function talk" is incorrect?


I prefer "dimension talk" to "function talk", if you're asking for my personal opinion.



purrmonsterr said:


> I've heard people here say the only way to determine type is by the arrangement or combination of functions but if cognitive functions or type dynamics aren't accurate then doesn't that negate a lot of the information posted here?


Yes, you are correct, it does negate the usefulness of much of what gets posted online about personality type. A lot of people here believe things and say things that have little to no basis in fact. If you were asking earlier if "function talk" is incorrect in the sense of "not matching up with what we know, scientifically, about human personality" then the answer is yes, function talk is incorrect.


----------



## Unproductive (Jan 14, 2013)

I'll agree that many parts of the theory are unproven (e.g. the idea of having 4 main functions and 4 shadow functions, the link with MBTI). However, do take a look at this thread. I found it thought provoking.

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/128709-nueroscience-personality-dario-nardi.html


Bardo said:


> He found that the cognitive functions talked about in MBTI circles are present in the brain as distinct patterns of activity, giving people a natural inclination towards certain skills and behaviors.







The cognitive functions, as a set of preferences, do therefore appear to exist (and he links them to type in his experiment if I remember correctly) as shown by Dario Nardi and his brain scans. This may give the cognitive function theory a little support.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I think a lot of this information applies only to MBTI, but not to socionics.

While MBTI drifted away from Jung's depictions of cognitive functions and substantiated the existence of it's four dichotomies with decades of empirical research, it also substantially modified the definitions of the dichotomies themselves in a way that no longer resembles Jung's original work. This is fine, because theories ought to be modified to suit facts.

Which is precisely what Socionics did with the functions themselves. What MBTI did with the dichotomies, it appears Socionics has done with the functions. If you study Socionics you will notice that the modern definition of each "information element" as they are called, do not bear much resemblance to Jung's original conceptions of the functions. For example, although some of his sentiments are echoed, the definition of "introverted thinking" under Socionics departs a great deal from what Jung described it to be, and this is to reflect decades of it's own research that Socionics has undergone in Russia. Every single one of the Socionics function definitions has been greatly modified to reflect what has been empirically observed in people.

I would highly recommend everyone keep this in mind, and note that while it is clear that the type dynamics described by MBTI is almost certainly false, that does not necessarily mean that the type dynamics described by Socionics is false.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Unproductive

Nardi has not shown any proof that "cognitive functions" are real. I addressed this the last time this article popped up on PerC, here.


----------



## Lurianar (Apr 17, 2013)

Unless you can analyse the human brain through very powerful electronic material, you will never be able to get any proof that cognitive functions are real. 

*They are only deemed as right for the time being as they are the most accurate prototype given for personality overall.
*
To say that MBTI cognitive functions is bullshit would be exactly the same as saying that the big bang theory is false. We don't have any proof about it, and we don't have the tools to check it. But it is the one that is the most accurate and realistic, given the tools that we have at the moment.

To sum this up: Can the MBTI be wrong? Absolutely. Does it mean it is wrong? No. Does it mean that the whole MBTI is crap? Absolutely not.

One interesting point you brought up is intriguing. You say (and it is true) that "There is no empirical evidence for the existence of type dynamics, which were described by Myers in 1962. Type dynamics are still purely anecdotal after all these decades. Why?". It is simple. We don't have the tool to confirm it. For now, we'll have to stick with a purely anecdotal and abstract system that the MBTI is, because it is (for both good and bad sides) the best out there, given the knowledge we have.

"Almost no research has been done on whether or not there is such as thing as a tertiary or inferior function. Who knows if they exist, or what they might be? At this point their existence is purely speculative, and while there are three different models explaining them, none them have any proof." It is, once again, deductive logic and not empirical data. Some might claim that there are only 2 functions or none at all. By my own experience, we have 4 and they all work differently when put in a certain order.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Lurianar said:


> Unless you can analyse the human brain through very powerful electronic material, you will never be able to get any proof that cognitive functions are real.


This isn't necessarily true either though.

Psychology doesn't need to meet the same rigorous standards of something like physics in order to prove substantial or useful. We can show, via statistical representations, that within a _reasonable degree of certainty_ something is "true" or not. To that extent, extensive data points collected that involve written testing of a very large random sample over an extended period of time which is designed to systematically remove the potential for bias can be extremely indicative of the existence of something at work in human cognition.

That exact kind of research is in fact what substantiates the existence of the four MBTI dichotomies, as well as the Big 5 dimensions. Nobody has really done any brain scans, because nobody needs to. It's fairly obvious from statistical data points that these dimensions exist.


----------



## Lurianar (Apr 17, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> This isn't necessarily true either though.
> 
> Psychology doesn't need to meet the same rigorous standards of something like physics in order to prove substantial or useful. We can show, via statistical representations, that within a _reasonable degree of certainty_ something is "true" or not. To that extent, extensive data points collected that involve written testing of a very large random sample over an extended period of time which is designed to systematically remove the potential for bias can be extremely indicative of the existence of something at work in human cognition.
> 
> That exact kind of research is in fact what substantiates the existence of the four MBTI dichotomies, as well as the Big 5 dimensions. Nobody has really done any brain scans, because nobody needs to. It's fairly obvious from statistical data points that these dimensions exist.


It doesn't change the fact that it would still be guesses. You cannot say they are true or false as long as you don't have any scientific proofs, no matter the amount of data, as we are entirely subjective as human beings. Unless you have a magic wand, I fear that none of what has been said here can be confirmed or declared as false. As thus, I believe the best is to go with what you believe, through your understanding and your criteria, is the best.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Lurianar said:


> It doesn't change the fact that it would still be guesses. You cannot say they are true or false as long as you don't have any scientific proofs, no matter the amount of data, as we are entirely subjective as human beings. Unless you have a magic wand, I fear that none of what has been said here can be confirmed or declared as false. As thus, I believe the best is to go with what you believe, through your understanding and your criteria, is the best.


1) There's a big difference between a "guess" and decades of statistical evidence that all seem to indicate something exists. The dichotomies of MBTI and the dimensions of the Big 5 are not just wild hunches. They are empirical theories grounded in over 50 years of accumulated facts and data points.

2) Scientific proof varies depending on the field of research. Within the field of psychology, substantial statistical evidence counts as scientific proof that something is true.

I'm just repeating what I already said, and I apologize, but you didn't really address the main point I was making with your response. You seem to be particularly invested into your beliefs, and I as well into mine, and we appear to find ourselves on opposite sides of a fence here. It may be best if we just agree to disagree, because I can tell you I am not really going to budge, and I doubt you are going to either. I used to think the same thing as you, but I got over it when I decided to learn more about the standards of science in practice, versus my own philosophical-epistemological instincts about what made sense to me or what ought to make sense to others.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Most of these arguments with this article by James Hillman that puts all this nonsense into perspective. The idea of type was never supposed to be empirical in the first place. So if you're trying to prove something as empriical that was meant to be a representation you're going to run into problems. I can understand why certain people are more dichotomies guys because that can be more easily corroborated with other metrics, cognitive functions are an idea. A heuristic and as such were never meant to be turned into this madness. The MBTI should not exist in the first place (at least not with respect to cognitive functions in an explicit way).

http://www.compilerpress.ca/Competitiveness/Anno/Anno Hillman Egal 1.htm


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Two points on this:

*Point 1:* Dario Nardi didn't intend his experiment to "prove" the cognitive functions in a concrete way. I have been using his word "triangulate" a lot to describe how to deal with the shortcomings of single type theories - it's a philosophy that claims that the best way to understand type doesn't depend on strict mechanics of a single system. Instead, you look at many systems and find a common denominator across them, and align bits and pieces from each to form a cohesive frame of the person's general personality. Not all type systems are 100% relevant at all times.

For an example, you may prefer Fi Ne Si and Te, be an ENFP in MBTI because you are more talkative than the INFP descriptions, and even test CF strengths as Fi Ni Fe Ne Si Te Se. It's someone who fits the ENFP description more, but feels they "have more Fi" and "definitely uses Ni." This is what you see frequently on type fora. 


*Point 2: *Do you see the issue with the above example? 

Nobody here is so stupid as to think that a single type theory will ever be enough to explain every trait of the some 7.1 billion people on earth, but the very point of type theory is modularization of the pre-eminent. It isn't a buffet line where you pick and choose what you want and design your own type - type isn't about choice. You already are the person you are, and type is designed to track what already is. It doesn't create a new persona for you on demand. 

Is it possible that someone prefers a function stack that isn't the same as one of MBTI's types? Sure. Does that mean that it's a good idea for everyone to toss existing structure out the window every time they notice something they do fits a non-traditional type? No. Why not? Because it is much more subtle point in development to realize when you are wildly associating description to behavior, and _actually noticing real patterns.


_In a sentence, sure, type dynamics isn't set in stone - but most anecdotal evidence against it isn't necessarily well-grounded itself.


----------



## purrmonsterr (Jul 21, 2013)

I'm glad to read a lot of differing input on this, I can see it's a controversial topic. 

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion but all the comments here have piqued my interest.


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

I don't know if anyone shares this sentiment, but:










To be fair, I also agree that type dynamics, as it is considered - a strict model where a type is defined by the functions it has in a very specific way - isn't quite effective at helping people understand themselves and it gives margin to that shadow functions nonsense, which simply seems to create more confusion.

However, I don't think we should burn all the functions to the ground. I mean, being a "Introverted Sensing type with auxiliary thinking" opens up a whole new dimension on how I deal with my strenghts and shortcomings. It allows the understanding of the relationship with the neglected aspect of the ego, the inferior aspect of the type. And in my opinion, it has somewhat more value than being an "Introverted Sensor Thinker Judger".

I don't call out the merits of this way of typing. I definitely fall into what constitutes an "Introverted Sensor Thinker Judger".


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Just to kind of beat the drum a little bit, I would like to repeat that a lot of the objections in this thread to the type dynamics of *MBTI* do not necessarily apply to _Socionics._ While there is almost no reason to believe that the functions _as described by Jung and MBTI_ exist or operate in the ways proposed by MBTI, it is for that very reason that Socionics researchers in Russia have substantially modified the definitions of each of Jung's functions into something which barely resembles their original Jungian conceptions. There may or may not be a great deal of unbiased statistical research in Russia to demonstrate the existence of the _*information elements*_ that make up the type dynamics of Socionics.

Unfortunately, I do not speak Russian, so I have not been able to confirm or deny this. I'm just throwing it out there for the consideration of any readers who may not understand the very significant differences between these two systems, or even be aware of them.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

Teybo said:


> The website you linked to is a good summary of the available research regarding the MBTI vs. cognitive functions. Despite the fact that type dynamics is a failure, allegiance to "function talk" still persists here online. It's a shame, really.


What research exactly proves cognitive function theory to be a "faiure" ? Of course we shouldn't take Dario nardi's findings as 100% proof they exist, but who's to say they don't exist ? I mean all personality theories are speculation as far as I know.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

One point I want to make before replying to some specific things that have been said is that if you've got a good model (of anything), then it shouldn't be too difficult to see indicators of that model emerge even when you're not creating ideal conditions. This is the case with the Five Factor Model (and thus, to some extent, dimensional MBTI as well). Psychologists have gone back through the literature, found research that was done way before the Five Factor Model (FFM or "Big 5") was understood, and see that the results can be explained by the Big 5 model. This is evidence of the robustness of the Big 5 and dimensional MBTI. In contrast, function models of personality are hard to validate even when the research is being performed to do just that.

@Abraxas

In terms of objective evidence, the MBTI and Five Factor Model have literally decades of support, internally and externally, showing that they are good models of human personality. Repeated investigation consistently shows that basic human tendencies fall within about 5 underlying dimensions. This is the consensus among scientists familiar with the research. To summarize for MBTI/FFM: Lots of research done, lots of supporting evidence.

Jungian "MBTI-ish" function models on the other hand have had relatively little scientific investigation, and what little investigation has been done has essentially never supported the function model hypotheses, and often, a simpler dimension-based model ends up being a better explanation than a function model. To summarize for cognitive function models: Little data, most of it is evidence against rather than for function models.

To some extent, Socionics falls somewhere between "MBTI-ish" function models and the Enneagram in terms of its objective support. Basically no rigorous research has been done with Socionics, which I imagine is primarily due to language barriers, but secondarily due to the lack of any sort of agreed upon, established "Socionics instrument", or even something more basic that could be used as some sort of measuring tool.

However, to the extent that Socionics attempts to model human personality by way of discrete elements arranged in hierarchical format according to a broader interaction of preferences (i.e., the inflection of a preference, such as S/N, with another preference, I/E), then it is very reasonable to expect Socionics to be an inferior model to the MBTI (interpreted as preference multidimensionality rather than functions) and the FFM. We have lots of evidence that human personality consists of traits that exist along continuous, normally distributed dimensions, not discrete bimodal ones, and we have plenty of evidence that the I/E factor is independent from other personality factors.

Again, there's basically no peer-reviewed research available on Socionics, but given what we *do* know about human personality, Socionics seems like a long shot.

@chaoticbrain

A good starting point in your readings on the topic of empirical support for function models is Reynierse, 2009. If you're looking for more, you can branch out to other articles in the Journal of Psychological Type. Reynierse and his colleagues have a number of studies showing that function models are inferior to dimension models. Robert McPeek and Charles Martin have a pair of papers (2012a, 2012b) addressing cognitive functions.

Of course, you could always go to Google Scholar and start searching for more published, peer-reviewed research. This notable article (McCrae and Costa, 1989) finds no evidence for a function-based interpretation of the MBTI, for example.

To interested readers wondering what comes next for the MBTI if we throw out the functions, I recommend the latest paper by Reynierse in the Journal of Psychological Type. He gives a very brief re-cap of previous findings and then goes on to outline a model that is empirically sound, biologically plausible, and can incorporate situational dynamics. This thread kind of turned into a discussion of his ideas and Preference Multidimensionality.

If you are interested more generally in the history behind the FFM and scientific investigation into personality, this article is a decent introduction.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Teybo said:


> In terms of objective evidence, the MBTI and Five Factor Model have literally decades of support, internally and externally, showing that they are good models of human personality. Repeated investigation consistently shows that basic human tendencies fall within about 5 underlying dimensions. This is the consensus among scientists familiar with the research. To summarize for MBTI/FFM: Lots of research done, lots of supporting evidence.


http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/156603-type-dynamics-false-2.html#post3991962



> 1) There's a big difference between a "guess" and decades of statistical evidence that all seem to indicate something exists. The dichotomies of MBTI and the dimensions of the Big 5 are not just wild hunches. They are empirical theories grounded in over 50 years of accumulated facts and data points.



If you're going to try and teach me something I don't already know, I would appreciate you read the posts I make on the _same page of the thread_ as you.

I'm calling you out because I get this like five times a day and it's really getting irritating.

And frankly, you know who I am, Teybo, considering our previous interactions in private, and other discussions we've both participated in involving other users discussing the same thing over and over, such as Reckful. We're at least on the same level here and you ought to know it, so there's no need for you to be condescending and talk down to me like I'm some kind of amateur so you can show off to everyone reading this thread and sound like a smart guy. In fact, I believe I know more about the subject than you do, and have been studying it longer than you as well.

However, I have no intention of going into this with you, as it's becoming a broken record. It really doesn't matter to me. People will, in the end, believe whatever they want anyway - as they should. All I can say is, good luck. No hard feelings.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

OK in so much as it seems clear Jung didn't intend to form a classification typological system of the form of MBTI or socionics that really pegs people as certain things in a well-defined rigid scheme, any vague offshoot of Jung the MBTI researchers made might as well be viewed in a similar regard -- not a rigid system but certain rules of thumb. This in place, I'm not even sure what is trying to be established in the first place when people say "type dynamics is false" or not. 
First off, if it's false, one needs a way to measure the falsehood, which precisely seems to be lacking because that's the exact issue -- it's hard to measure these things systematically.

I'm sure people can quote me tons of evidence of various things, but I'm less inclined to click through all that if there aren't a few clear points made which really tell me something that might surprise me, which I am yet to see. 

The main thing I gathered from reckful at least is that people pervert their understanding of type by trying to say things such as an INTJ has "nearly nothing in common with an INTP" because the functions differ, and an "ISFP is dramatically more similar", and I fully agree these are self-fulfilling prophecies created by certain narrow viewpoints as to what Fi-Se and this and that look like.
This tells me something I would have expected from the very start. Which is that when you know that the type dynamics model was one possible model for what an INTJ or INTP is supposed to look at, and you know P v. J scores can be similar rather than different, you're kidding yourself cold and ridiculously if you don't acknowledge the resulting type dynamics should _also_ reflect this ambiguity. Reckful himself says that you might be an INxJ, or at least, that may not be the most unreasonable conclusion to draw because data seems to support the x being somewhat shaky to really determine and pin down -- not being a strong T, or strong F, or whatever. 

It really is all in how you look at it.

As for attempts to make things scientific, we just have to judge them on a case by case basis.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

reckful said:


> The MBTI folks have an umpteen-thousand-respondent database that establishes that the people who choose the introverted side of any of the following E/I questions (among many others)




Fair. So if this is a means (if there are other means, I'd be all ears of course, but I'm satisfied with this) of validating the MBTI dimensions, what are the means used to validate the 8 functions you refer to:




> The few attempts to test/validate the eight "cognitive functions"




Obviously I am hoping for more along the lines of _response_-based tests, not neuroscientific scans.



It is my impression that the MBTI tests _do not even ask_ questions which directly test for the 8 functions. If anything, as you've explained to me in the past, there was speculation by those who wanted to make the MBTI go somewhat more back to Jung, that the types _as measured by the dichotomies results_ follow that typical model (e.g. Ni-Te-Fi-Se for INTJ).
There as far as I'm informed to date, _are not _official MBTI attempts to offer similar response-based tests which test for the cognitive functions. 

How, then, did they attempt to test for the 8 functions? I would expect that only a theory founded on the 8 functions fundamentally, like socionics, could conduct such a test and have the extensive data needed to conclude in one direction or the other, that the 8 functions (as they define them) seem to be grounded in data, or not. That is assuming socionics has an official test based on their functions, which I'd hope they do of course.

To be clear, there are a lot of problems I have with socionics as well, but what I am trying to ask is how it's even feasible to get data on whether the MBTI cognitive functions model works when the MBTI instrument (both Step I and II) seems not to be based on cognitive functions.



One would have to propose definitions for the functions which purport to correlate well with what the MBTI instrument deems to be INFJ, INTJ, etc _by the dichotomies_ (i.e., definitions of Ni, Te, Fi, Se that one can test people's preference for, and preference for which seems to correlate with the INTJ dichotomy result), and then test whether indeed such a correlation exists.

The problem I'd think is there are definitions, but no test, for the 8 cognitive functions, that can correlate the numerous data points representing dichotomy-based results, with functions-based results.




as a small edit - if there indeed are tests to test for the functions in any official way by the MBTI, I'm curious if you have a sample of such a test. It would be interesting to see what results I and others get on it, even if the validity is not accepted by professionals in the MBTI world.


----------



## GranChi (Jun 16, 2013)

I'm glad the first few posters brought up this point. I'm no expert on the work of Jung or any other psychologist, and I can't say I have a strong opinion on whether the cognitive functions idea has much validity - but I do know that it's just a theory without much real evidence. And while descriptions of Fi, Ne, etc. certainly describe things that people's minds do, it doesn't really ring true to me that everything our minds do is determined by a set stack of functions that we're limited to following. So it annoys me when people treat the theory as fact, and say things like "the only way to know your real type is to study the functions" or "INFP is just short for Fi Ne Si Te". In its simplest and most indisputable form, MBTI is a set of four preferences - no one can really dispute that people tend to be either more extroverted or introverted, reality-focused or idea-focused (S vs. N, etc.). So if you think the cognitive functions exist and you look at MBTI through the lens of them, that's fine, but you shouldn't tell people that they definitely exist and that they're the only thing MBTI is about.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Teybo said:


> It annoys me that any time empirical criticisms of function models are posted here on PerC, there are always people who say "It's all just ~~speculation~~ anyway" as if that were some deep, insightful statement that justifies (or perhaps is premised on, and then circularly justifies) ignoring decades of actual data on the topic. I'm really sick of hearing it, primarily because it's a self-serving way for people to hold on to their cognitive biases, and secondarily because it reveals a fundamental ignorance about what science, including psychology, is.
> 
> And now back on to the topic of psychology and philosophy of science:
> 
> ...


Somebody is _*REALLY *_desperate for their theories to be accepted as facts. As we have already discussed, you can go into as much detail as you want and reason it all you want and believe it all you want, but at the end of the day they still won't be facts, and at the end of the day psychology is still a "new" science that still is not completely understood and still largely relies on subjectivity. Indeed, it is also possible for two conflicting theories to both have equal or near-equal validity and evidence supporting them. That's why there's something called "debate" and "opinion" rather than "This is just the way it is and that's all there is to it." Moreover, there are fundamental problems with the dichotomies-only model: Namely, the fact that they are far too simple and lead to too many potential contradictions. There are *4 *traits the model measures for. 4. All of them are pretty vague. (How then is this more scientific than horoscopes? Statistics alone aren't gonna do it - the fact is that by its very nature, the dichotomies-only model is highly subjective and far too vague.) And it's all based on self-reporting. One can read the descriptions of "introverts" and "extroverts" for example and see how both could equally apply to him in varying situations. Basically, all the MBTI tests do is estimate which of these is most probably the "more dominant" element of his personality, but there is still far too wide a margin of error left over for me to be satisfied. Where do you think all these people who think they are some combination of "XXXX" because they are confused and do not understand how such an oversimplified theory and so few dichotomies could possibly adequately explain every aspect of their personality? The functions eliminate this problem by expanding on the theory and providing a reasonable explanation for *why *and *how *the system works. The need to oversimplify is one some people have; others like myself will not be satisfied unless everything is reasonably explained and margin of error is narrowed as much as possible.


----------



## GranChi (Jun 16, 2013)

As a follow-up to that, I can think of a way to sort of test whether cognitive functions do exist. There could be a test that determines people's MBTI preferences, and then tests if they identify with traits usually assigned to the corresponding cognitive funtions. For example, if the test determines that someone has an S and J preference, it could ask them questions like "do you have a good memory for details" and "do you prefer doing things they way you always have" to see if they have what we call Si.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Debaser

I'm not interested in engaging with you until you A) can show that you can have a civil discussion without making things personal and B) have bothered to read my posts in this very thread (at least, jeez) and C) can respond to what I've actually said and not what you wish I said or some other straw man argument.

If all you want to do is argue, then you'll need to find someone else to argue with. I'm here to promote understanding, not fulfill someone's need for debate.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Teybo said:


> @_Debaser_
> 
> I'm not interested in engaging with you until you *A) can show that you can have a civil discussion without making things personal and *B) have bothered to read my posts in this very thread (at least, jeez) and C) can respond to what I've actually said and not what you wish I said or some other straw man argument.
> 
> If all you want to do is argue, then you'll need to find someone else to argue with. I'm here to promote understanding, not fulfill someone's need for debate.


A. How did I make things personal? Except for the fact that you are trying to push your opinions as fact, which you cannot deny, nothing else I said was personal.

B. I've read (most of) what you've said, but it's still possible to *gasp* disagree with it! I know, your opinions are not facts that everyone readily accepts without challenge or reason. Frustrating, isn't it?

C. Strawman argument? I am responding to the general view that the 4-letter MBTI dichotomy code is superior to the functions. You believe this, no? Therefore I am responding to what you have actually said. All I'm saying is that no matter what you say, no matter what statistics you cite, I'm not buying it until I get an adequate and reasonable explanation that covers the serious flaws I pointed out. I'm not saying that the theory is totally wrong or worthless, but I am extremely skeptical of the viewpoint you are pushing which claims that it is significantly superior to the function theory, considering that you have not provided sufficient logical reasoning to explain this and how the flaws in the system can be eliminated without the functions, and how it can avoid being oversimplistic and leaving too much margin for error. The margin of error must be eliminated, or all the studies and statistics in the world aren't gonna solve the problem. There have been plenty of illogical theories that have been "proven" before by (usually biased and poorly done) studies and statistics, but that doesn't mean they hold up under pressure if there isn't an adequate logical explanation for them and how they actually work.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bearotter said:


> Fair. So if this is a means (if there are other means, I'd be all ears of course, but I'm satisfied with this) of validating the MBTI dimensions, what are the means used to validate the 8 functions you refer to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just so I'm not misunderstood, I'm not asserting that the cognitive functions have been _disproven_ in any definitive way. My point is that there have been few tests of them and that, as I understand it, what results there are — viewed overall — have not been encouraging.

McCrae and Costa are probably the most well-known Big Five scientists and they they long ago concluded (1) that the MBTI is essentially tapping into four of the Big Five dimensions, (2) that there was a respectable body of scientific data in support of the MBTI dichotomies, and (3) that what they called "Jung's largely untested speculations" (including Jung's conceptions of the nature of the functions) were not supported — and to at least some extent were contradicted — by the existing data.

This more recent (2009) assessment by James Reynierse notes that there have been _very few_ studies done based on the standard functions model, and that those that have been done have not exactly led to promising results.

In that same article, Reynierse also presents data from his own studies and makes what I'd say is a respectable argument that his data is _substantially inconsistent_ with the standard cognitive functions model. Again, though, what evidence there may currently be _against_ the cognitive functions is superfluous in terms of the point I was making in response to thor odinson and LiquidLight. My point is simply that the MBTI dichotomies really do have quite a substantial body of studies behind them at this point — which is not to say that there isn't still plenty of room for improvement — and the cognitive functions don't. And accordingly, I disagree with the perspective that "the MBTI" — in both its dichotomy-centric and function-centric versions — is pretty much just a _theory_ that has yet to really be put to the test in any respectable way, or deals with a phenomenon (as LiquidLight seemed to be suggesting) that really doesn't lend itself to empirical study.

Your edit asked about cognitive functions tests — and not only is there no such test (as far as I know) by the MBTI owners, but I’m not aware of any functions test (online or off) where, for example, INTJs tend to get high Ni and Te scores and low Ne and Ti scores and INTPs tend to get high Ti and Ne scores and low Te and Ni scores. And it's not for lack of trying, right? Nardi and others have put tests together, but nobody's ever been able to point me to one whose results seem consistent with the standard model even if all you focus on is the dominant and auxiliary functions.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Debaser said:


> A. How did I make things personal?


Let me refresh your memory of what you've posted in this thread, including the time you admitted to making it personal ("nothing *else* I said was personal"). 



Debaser said:


> Sounds like Si to me. Which, as an INFJ, you of course should not use.





Debaser said:


> Only the last part was at all "personal."





Debaser said:


> Somebody is _*REALLY *_desperate for their theories to be accepted as facts.


If you want to discuss the theory, discuss the theory, not me.



Debaser said:


> B. I've read (most of) what you've said, but it's still possible to *gasp* disagree with it! I know, your opinions are not facts that everyone readily accepts without challenge or reason. Frustrating, isn't it?
> 
> C. Strawman argument? I am responding to the general view that the 4-letter MBTI dichotomy code is superior to the functions. You believe this, no? Therefore I am responding to what you have actually said.


This is exactly how I know you did not read enough. While I do believe that a 4-letter MBTI dichotomy code is superior to function models, this is only because the dichotomy code is a closer approximation to preference multidimensionality than function models. I do not believe that a 4-letter MBTI dichotomy code is superior to preference multidimensionality. If you had read my posts, you would know this. Let me quote myself to make a point:



Teybo said:


> ...
> 
> We have lots of evidence that human personality consists of traits that exist along continuous, normally distributed dimensions, not discrete bimodal ones, and we have plenty of evidence that the I/E factor is independent from other personality factors.
> 
> ...


If you don't know what preference multi-dimensionality is, then you do not understand "my opinions" nor their basis in fact, and you are responding to what you imagine my position is rather than what my position actually is, and what you imagine the current state of research is about the MBTI and the FFM, rather than what it actually is. Please go back and read my posts, including the linked articles/threads as appropriate.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Teybo said:


> Let me refresh your memory of what you've posted in this thread, including the time you admitted to making it personal ("nothing *else* I said was personal").
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 @Teybo More blah blah blah blah blah. You misunderstand. I'm not even saying you are wrong. I'm basically only saying two things, so I'll break it down and make it simple:


1. Your theories and views are not the end-all, be-all on the subject. Your opinions are not facts. Psychology is not as easily proven by statistical study and research as you seem to think it is. Sure, it is useful, but at the end of the day there will always be some subjectivity left over to fill in the gaps, always a certain degree of uncertainty and room for potential margin of error.


2. None of this adequately explains the significant logical holes in your theory or the fact that it is too simple. You must accept that it is, *gasp*, flawed! Like all the theories are. You are free to believe it is the best and use it, you are free to explain why, you are free to cite evidence, but you cannot expect everyone to immediately say "That's it! Teybo my man you are a genius! This is the final, definitive, concrete understanding on the subject and there's no need to question it further." It's that closed mindset that irks me. Again, you may very well be right, but I'm not gonna just accept that regardless of statistics and studies. I take everything in this area with a grain of salt, and I need to see some hard logical reasoning before changing my views. I am aware of multidimensional theory, but I do not see what makes it more valid than functions, and I still see major room for error in the simple self-reporting of MBTI dichotomies in the first place. And no sorry, but I am not gonna jump around reading every wall of text you have ever written and every study you've cited on the subject. I could just as easily cite things contradicting your claims. All I ask is for some basic logical reasoning that fills in the holes I mentioned. And I have my doubts that you will be able to adequately do it so there is still no room for doubt.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Teybo said:


> I think the real the lesson is this: Never dismiss an idea, no matter how inane, in front of an NTP. Doing so is like stomping on puppies and kittens.


 @Debaser

So you don't like that I'm dismissive of function theory. Learn to manage your desire to be a champion for underdog ideas, and stop harassing me about it.

Also, if you want me to address your concerns, but you don't want to read my posts and the research I link to, you're shit outta luck. Make up your damn mind.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

reckful said:


> (3) that what they called "Jung's largely untested speculations" (including Jung's conceptions of the nature of the functions) were not supported — and to at least some extent were contradicted — by the existing data.




What is the claim of contradiction, however? I'd be most comfortable if we just all agreed that the nature of his claims as to there being a trend he sees in many where a dominant type and auxiliary develop according to his stipulations is untested in the way MBTI has been tested, rather than contradicted _even to a slight extent_. Because the way I see it, we can't compare apples and oranges. Yes there are similarities among Jung's or the type-dynamics-model's or socionics's conception of the notions of feeling, thinking, intuition and sensation. But there are too many differences to use a measure designed around one model to gain evidence for or against another.

I personally have found in my own observations that his rules of thumb are very helpful, and to the extent of someone actually going with the intent of that theory, and looking for a dominant type, they seem to make philosophical sense. 
If someone doesn't "believe in a dominant type" then this is becoming like the God question -- the notion of dominant type _is_ subjective until an objective measurement of what it means is clearly stipulated, and one can disprove a phantom, but one has disproved nothing _meaningful _until the phantom is linked straight up to the claims of the text, and there are no meaningful philosophical arguments (again, meaningful is subjective) that the measurements are not really measuring what the text is stating.

Truth is, enthusiasts of that stuff (cognitive functions and/or type dynamics) can't really produce objective evidence of its existence because there isn't a system like the MBTI designed around it that I know of. Some claim socionics is, but I don't think that is totally true.

Furthermore, I don't think the original writings on the dom/aux really purport to limit the number of types, so any measurements conducted would have to take that into account. It might be best to opt for measuring the functions _independent_ of a typological scheme designed to assign an actual type to a person, before one determines whether, in a reasonable frequency, they tend to appear in individuals with the stipulated patterns of dom/aux, etc.

Part of the reason may be that it doesn't seem likely the ideas of a dominant type are created around what remains stable in a person, but rather what, by habituation, people often tend towards, leading to potentially destructive outcomes until the various ignored, repressed contents of the psyche are actually reconciled with. 




To be clear, I agree with all you are saying in so much as I think type dynamics as a replacement to dichotomies is a terrible idea, because of various issues such as a) Je not being directly measured in any reasonable sense by the J dimension of MBTI, which has its own meaning, and b) outrageous claims that an INTJ is more similar to an ESFP because they're both Fi-Te, than to an INTP... if one wants to organize around valued function perspectives, go study socionics, which indeed would make a claim that the SEE is in the same _quadra_
as the ILI. If at all someone subscribes to type dynamics, it should be used as a separate definition of the types, because the implication dichotomy-INTJ => Ni-Te-etc does not seem to hold.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bearotter said:


> What is the claim of contradiction, however? I'd be most comfortable if we just all agreed that the nature of his claims as to there being a trend he sees in many where a dominant type and auxiliary develop according to his stipulations is untested in the way MBTI has been tested, rather than contradicted _even to a slight extent_.


When Jung or anyone else says there's a such-and-such "type" and they're characterized by P, Q, R, S and T, and then data is gathered that shows that there's _no statistically significant correlation_ between, e.g., P, R and T, then that data _contradicts_ the theorized "type." As McCrae & Costa noted in that linked article:



McCrae & Costa said:


> Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters" (p 330), but also as morally conventional (p 334) and tough-minded in James's sense (p 307). Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor (Guilford, 1977, Guilford & Guilford, 1934).


Similarly, Jung said introverts were abstract and extraverts were concrete but, as further discussed in this post and the posts it links to, decades of data have established that, not only are there abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), but there's really no significant statistical correlation at all between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

reckful said:


> then data is gathered that shows that there's _no statistically significant correlation between, e.g., P, R and T, then that data contradicts the theorized "type."_


Very much gree. What I was wondering was, if there are no MBTI instruments to measure Jung's 8 functions, then no meaningful attempt has been made to isolate if there are certain P, Q, R, S, and T characterizing an extroverted intuitive type for instance, which exhibit a correlation as desired? Closest I know is Keys2Cognition, and it's a fair attempt, but there are clear holes I can see.



reckful said:


> and the posts it links to, decades of data have established that, not only are there abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs),




I do not know that Jung's N and the N you refer to in "EN" are the same. The latter is measured using an instrument whose questions to select for N vs S directly include questions asking to the preference of abstract v. concrete, so it seems to presume such a thing characterizes N vs S. 

Whereas I think Jung would say, well, a guy can have a hunch which is...totally concrete. Like that your neighbor is going to give you sweets today. That's still intuition to him.

Jung's interview in which he describes an introvert who described herself to have a snake in her abdomen vaguely illustrates the nature of this "abstraction" -- when asked, she said, no no, I do not mean _literally_ a snake in my abdomen. The data she presented was "abstract" in the sense that it was barely linked to any tangible objective phenomenon. By which I mean _what the hell is a snake_
to her is unclear. It is just so grounded in subjectivity. 

One can study "abstract" insights pertaining, to say, physics presumably without being "abstract" in the form suggested by that example, meaning one can study patterns within tangible objective data, suggesting various things about how the contents measured could objectively evolve.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@bearotter

To the extent that a person has a dominant preference, that dominance should show up in one of the 4 dimensions as an independently high-value preference. Preference multidimensionality explicitly supports the notion that a person can have one or even two traits that dominate their personality. In this sense, Jung's observation that *some* people seemed to have a "dominant function" seems to be supported by the data, so long as we don't use Jung's definition of functions, but instead allow for the possibility that someone can have a very high preference for Perceiving, a moderate preference for Introversion, a weak preference for iNtuition, and a borderline preference for Thinking, we could say that the person is a PINT type. It seems that @Abraxas has taken preference multidimensionality and flipped it back into a discrete functional viewpoint, as he might describe this person as a Perceiving dominant with auxiliary Introversion (and maybe even auxiliary iNtuition). While such a description would certainly be more accurate than "Ti-Ne", I prefer to just stick with the dimensions as they are and say that the person is a PINT.

However, it's worth pointing out that while, as you say, Jung's theory has had very little empirical testing due to difficulties in operationalization and standardization, when most people talk about Jungian Cognitive Functions, they are actually referring to what could be called Jung-Myers Cognitive Functions, which bear a passing resemblance to the functions Jung outlined in Psychological Type. These Jung-Myers functions have been the subject of at least some direct research, and have not fared well as a model compared to dimensional explanations.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> Similarly, Jung said introverts were abstract and extraverts were concrete but, as further discussed in this post and the posts it links to, decades of data have established that, not only are there abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), but there's really no significant statistical correlation at all between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N.


I'd just like to point out that there is a difference in meanings when talking about abstraction and concretism in regards to attitudes and functions. Se and Si deal with tangible concrete objects, but Si is an abstraction of that impression. For example a red, juicy apple. Red is concrete and observable by all. 'Juicy' is an abstraction of the concrete object because you cannot literally see, hear, taste, touch, or smell 'juicy' and subject to the individual's experience. Si is still abstract, even though it's concerned with the tangible. Ne is concrete as it deals with the conceptual patterns tied to the object, but are not observed by the senses. Because Ne is not necessarily concerned with the literal tangible object itself, as it is more of a launching point, it is an abstraction in the colloquial sense, but still concrete as it is still tied to the object. Ni is completely abstract and the furthest removed from reality (not necessarily far-fetched).

Personally, I do not see the distinction as clearly as others between the Jung functions and MBTI. I see it more as looking at the same thing in different ways.


I am also curious, of those who deem MBTI and/or function type theories false, I ask of you, which part(s) do you disagree with? Rather than nitpicking the scientific validity, I'd rather discuss the perceived shortcomings of the theories. Is it the profiles? The letters or functions? What about it doesn't make sense or hold true?


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

@_Teybo_

I like that quote! I guess some of us just have different priorities: Us NTPs are far more hesitant to say anything with definitive certainty, and I guess it is merely up to one's own philosophical views to determine whether or not that is a good thing. I strongly believe it is, because I hate the idea of closing myself off to anything: My view is the maximum possible certainty for almost anything is 99%. Pretty much nothing can get up to 100%, even the existence of reality itself. After all, we could all be in The Matrix or something right? Even that cannot be disproven with 100% certainty.

Anyway, it's not all that relevant because I would not really call it an "underdog idea" and certainly not "inane," considering it is still the most widely accepted theory. Overthrowing the most widely accepted theory requires not only a certain amount of statistical evidence and research, but the theory itself must also make as much or more logical sense than the previous theory, must explain as much or more as the previous theory, and must offer a highly adequate explanation for how it works while leaving few significant holes behind. Otherwise it does not render the other theory obsolete or cancel it out.



> There are fundamental problems with the dichotomies-only model: Namely, the fact that they are far too simple and lead to too many potential contradictions. There are 4 traits the model measures for. 4. All of them are pretty vague. (How then is this more scientific than horoscopes? Statistics alone aren't gonna do it - the fact is that by its very nature, the dichotomies-only model is highly subjective and far too vague.) And it's all based on self-reporting. One can read the descriptions of "introverts" and "extroverts" for example and see how both could equally apply to him in varying situations. Basically, all the MBTI tests do is estimate which of these is most probably the "more dominant" element of his personality, but there is still far too wide a margin of error left over for me to be satisfied. Where do you think all these people who think they are some combination of "XXXX" because they are confused and do not understand how such an oversimplified theory and so few dichotomies could possibly adequately explain every aspect of their personality? The functions eliminate this problem by expanding on the theory and providing a reasonable explanation for why and how the system works. The need to oversimplify is one some people have; others like myself will not be satisfied unless everything is reasonably explained and margin of error is narrowed as much as possible.


I fail to see how your posts adequately address all of these concerns *and *still leave behind a system that is *more *reliable than the functions. The more complex the system, the more it explains *and *the harder it is to prove. And you yourself readily admit that there hasn't been a whole lot of research into the functions. Who are you then to say that they would necessarily be found less valid? Especially when one considers that, despite your insistence that your "five dimension" theory has enough "scientific evidence" to prove it, the reality is that each "dimension" is still basically a human construct and in that sense there is still an awful lot of subjectivity that goes into each investigation. It's not as simple as cutting open the brain and finding "Agreeableness" and "Extraversion" printed on it in big bold letters. 

And though, yes, there is good reason to believe in the validity of the five dimensions, I fail to see how they necessarily contradict function theory. The fact is that the "big five" do not explain every aspect of human personality satisfactorily; they are still too limited in scope, there is still too much uncertainty, and it is still too difficult to measure them accurately. And therein lies the biggest problem: Even taken together, both the five dimensions and the 4-letter MBTI dichotomies are still far, far too limited in scope and far, far too oversimplified and far, far too subjective in their measurement and rely far, far too much on base-level observations. They don't delve as deep into the human psyche as the functions. They merely grasp a general feel for easily observable aspects of personality.

The functions are less simplified and at least attempt to explain the other areas of personality not covered by your method. Like I said, yes this makes it harder to prove, but at least we have a tentative grasp of "how" it all might all gel together and it covers things that the other methods do not. And in an area as young, subjective and speculative as this, that might just be good enough for the time being at least, until a truly superior method is established.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Teybo said:


> To the extent that a person has a dominant preference, that dominance should show up in one of the 4 dimensions as an independently high-value preference. Preference multidimensionality explicitly supports the notion that a person can have one or even two traits that dominant their personality.




And indeed, I think the Jungian analysts would agree that the auxiliary can be so prevalent that it's hard to tell what the dominant function is. 

Socionics itself, which tried to found a theory based on "the functions", wound up having to make all sorts of exceptions, like "contact and inert" subtypes, which signal over-use of the "creative" which is the best approximation in that theory I can think of to an auxiliary, which leads to very big differences in the type. 




> In this sense, Jung's observation that *some *


Yes, I'd bold that word too for emphasis. 

It's hard to draw conclusions expressly from the MBTI data of course, because while they I think have the multidimensionality thing correct, I don't think their definitions quite link up with how Jung would've conceived of things. Which isn't to say I consider one more useful than the other in an absolute sense. I think it's all up to oneself to figure that out.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bearotter said:


> Very much gree. What I was wondering was, if there are no MBTI instruments to measure Jung's 8 functions, then no meaningful attempt has been made to isolate if there are certain P, Q, R, S, and T characterizing an extroverted intuitive type for instance, which exhibit a correlation as desired? Closest I know is Keys2Cognition, and it's a fair attempt, but there are clear holes I can see.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know that Jung's N and the N you refer to in "EN" are the same. The latter is measured using an instrument whose questions to select for N vs S directly include questions asking to the preference of abstract v. concrete, so it seems to presume such a thing characterizes N vs S.




I totally agree that Jung's N and the N I refer to in "EN" (the MBTI N) aren't the same. That's the point. Abstract and concrete went to the heart of I/E for Jung, and those posts I linked you to in my last post include lots of discussion (including lots of Jung quotes) of what Jung meant by abstraction (as he associated it with introversion) and concretism (as he associated it with extraversion) — and, contrary to Jung, an introvert is no more likely to be abstract (in that sense) than an extravert, nor is an extravert more likely to be concretistic (in that sense) than an introvert.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I'd also like to add that personality theory in psychology is still open to debate. There are different schools of thought on it. The Big Five is only one theory of many (though probably the most popular). Here is a wiki article describing them:

Personality psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Debaser

I encourage you to do the hard work of reading the literature for yourself so that, well, I guess not for you to come to a conclusion because you seem to be allergic to conclusions, but so that you can at least be informed about what is being talked about. I'm not interested in spoon feeding you, especially when you've stated you aren't going to listen to me. So go, be free, explore on your own.

On a broader note, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that so far Debaser has been quite understating the complexity of the Five Factor Model or preference multidimensionality. Here's a picture from McCrae (2011):



As you can see, the five factors are a piece of a larger puzzle, and similarly, Reynierse explained in his 2012 paper that models of personality should be able to account for situational dynamics and other external factors as variables in predicting preference expression and behavior.

You, dear reader, can read the articles themselves for a full explanation (but I know Debaser won't... :tongue.


----------

