# Cognitive Function test vs. Myer's Briggs



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

(double post)


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

goamare said:


> You may find Lenore Thomson's stack interesting. For example, If you're an INTP, Fi is your "right-brain alternative," which she described as a function you can readily switch from Ti.
> Wikipedia is a good place to start (if you haven't looked at this), here:
> Jungian_cognitive_functions#Lenore_Thomson


 That's interesting. So even though my cognitive functions line up most closely with ENFP on the Grant (Ne-Fi-Te-Si) and Beebe/Berens models (Ne-Fi-Te-Si - Ni-Fe-Ti-Se), they line up more closely with INTP on the Thomson model (Ti-Ne - Fi-Se-Ni-Te - Si-Fe).

Good to know :happy:


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Simpson17866 said:


> That's interesting. So even though my cognitive functions line up most closely with ENFP on the Grant (Ne-Fi-Te-Si) and Beebe/Berens models (Ne-Fi-Te-Si - Ni-Fe-Ti-Se), they line up more closely with INTP on the Thomson model (Ti-Ne - Fi-Se-Ni-Te - Si-Fe).
> 
> Good to know :happy:


Yup. And they're not supposed to represent a linear order of "strongest to weakest" or something, as opposed to those cognitive functions tests which place funtions in a single row.. very one-dimensional..

Under Thomson's theory, My guess is those with clear P and not-so-clear N/T would use Se/Fi more comfortably than Ni/Te. And those with clear NT and not-so-clear P, it's vice versa. (Seems like a logical assumption to me) You seem to have a very clear P and not-so-clear T, thus high Fi makes sense for you.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

goamare said:


> Yup. *And they're not supposed to represent a linear order of "strongest to weakest" or something, as opposed to those cognitive functions tests which place funtions in a single row.. very one-dimensional..*
> 
> Under Thomson's theory, My guess is those with clear P and not-so-clear N/T would use Se/Fi more comfortably than Ni/Te. And those with clear NT and not-so-clear P, it's vice versa. (Seems like a logical assumption to me) You seem to have a very clear P and not-so-clear T, thus high Fi makes sense for you.


 They can't reasonably mean anything else.

If "Dominant [Se]" and "Tertiary [Se]" are distinct concepts - rather than differing levels of preference for the same concept - then there are *64 different cognitive functions* for people to keep track of instead of just 8. Making people split hairs between 64 different functions would make them *more* - not less - dependent on computer testing to figure out which functions fit them better than others :wink:


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Simpson17866 said:


> They can't reasonably mean anything else.
> 
> If "Dominant [Se]" and "Tertiary [Se]" are distinct concepts - rather than differing levels of preference for the same concept - then there are *64 different cognitive functions* for people to keep track of instead of just 8. Making people split hairs between 64 different functions would make them *more* - not less - dependent on computer testing to figure out which functions fit them better than others :wink:


Hmm. I have to disagree with you on that. Like, I'm sure you know, for instance, "Dominant [Ne]" and "Inferior [Ne]" are different. Well, they're _not totally_ distinct concept of course. "Differing levels of preference" is linear. But then why do you have to place the functions in a *line(1D)*? Can't they be placed on a *plane(2D)*? or in a *space(3D)*?

How about:

　　　Ti
　　　Ne
Fi Se　　Ni Te
　　　Si
　　　Fe


(this may just be a bullxxxx. not claiming anything here, just trying to give you a different way of thinking about it)

Btw, even if "Dominant [Ne]" and "Inferior [Ne]" were fairly distinct concepts, people wouldn't need to keep track of 64 different combinations all individually. They only need to know what Ne is, what Dominant means, and what Inferior means, so on, and just combine them. It is simply a pattern, I'm sure you as an INTP would be more than familiar with following patterns :wink:


----------



## Lelu (Jun 1, 2015)

Simpson17866 said:


> @BirdJewelz The fact that Cognitive Functions tests and MyersBriggs tests consistently give different results means that they are using two different systems. MyersBriggs INTJ ≠ Functions INTJ, the two "INTJ"s are simply homonyms, nothing more.
> 
> Just look at me: MyersBriggs INTP + Cognitive Functions ENFP.


I believe what you say here. The official MyersBriggs will give me ENFJ every time, which seems farfetched when looking at functions.


----------

