# Common mistakes people make when studying MBTI/Cognitive Functions.



## GnothiSeauton (Sep 11, 2011)

10 characters


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

*Misconceptions about **Si and SJ types:*

Si has nothing to do with memory, it deals with the subjective side of sensory perception in general, how something looks TO US and how it influences our thoughts and emotions.

SJs are not a bunch of close-minded idiots. Most of the negative traits attributed to SJs are actually traits of unhealthy Te doms.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

TaylorS said:


> *Misconceptions about **Si and SJ types:*
> 
> Si has nothing to do with memory, it deals with the subjective side of sensory perception in general, how something looks TO US and how it influences our thoughts and emotions.
> 
> SJs are not a bunch of close-minded idiots. Most of the negative traits attributed to SJs are actually traits of unhealthy Te doms.


...or Fi-doms projecting their insecurities onto Te-doms.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

So, these negative traits could ultimately stem from Fi doms using inferior Te poorly. I could swear that most of the Te-dom type descriptions out there are written by Fi-doms who project their insecurities onto Te doms.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> So, these negative traits could ultimately stem from Fi doms using inferior Te poorly. I could swear that most of the Te-dom type descriptions out there are written by Fi-doms who project their insecurities onto Te doms.


Probably the more negative ones I'd imagine. I personally don't know why Te has to be such a bad word around places like this most Te-types I know personally are decent enough people. Many less prone to the histrionics and drama of Feeling types.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

TaylorS said:


> *Misconceptions about **Si and SJ types:*
> 
> Si has nothing to do with memory, it deals with the subjective side of sensory perception in general, how something looks TO US and how it influences our thoughts and emotions.
> 
> SJs are not a bunch of close-minded idiots. Most of the negative traits attributed to SJs are actually traits of unhealthy Te doms.


This. You have no idea how many INFP's and INFJ's are actually ISFJ's.



LiquidLight said:


> ...or Fi-doms projecting their insecurities onto Te-doms.


This too. As as user of both, they can definitely peacefully coexist. Fi: Realize personal values + Te: Act on them to get result = Win.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Spades said:


> This. You have no idea how many INFP's and INFJ's are actually ISFJ's.


:O yupp, you won't believe how much I relate to ISFJ description lolz! <.< the only ways I can tell them apart is through my unhealthy descriptions, functions and stress (also I like to take things and ideas apart ^^ to see what makes them work/tick) <---butcher lol. *_* yosssh! This needs more analysis later on!


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> So, these negative traits could ultimately stem from Fi doms using inferior Te poorly. I could swear that most of the Te-dom type descriptions out there are written by Fi-doms who project their insecurities onto Te doms.


I think part of it stems from Jung's own biases. he disliked "scientism" and "materialism" and saw it as the result of too much Te.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Rim said:


> :O yupp, you won't believe how much I relate to ISFJ description lolz! <.< the only ways I can tell them apart is through my unhealthy descriptions, functions and stress (*also I like to take things and ideas apart ^^ to see what makes them work/tick*) <---butcher lol. *_* yosssh! This needs more analysis later on!


You mean just like...Tertiary Ti?! =P ISFJ's totally do that. Except you claim to be very intuitive so I'll trust you on that one ^_^


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Spades said:


> You mean just like...Tertiary Ti?! =P ISFJ's totally do that. Except you claim to be very intuitive so I'll trust you on that one ^_^


I like taking machines apart to see how they work( from desktops to laptops, to phones to cars etc.) o.o is that really related to Ti? ^^; even pulled my video card apart to experimentally bake it back to life in the oven. It had graphics errors and other oddities, warranty was off, so I jumped at the chance to try and bake it.

Been baking it every 3 mounts or so :\...keeps getting the errors (imo some connection problem or problems)


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Rim said:


> I like taking machines apart to see how they work( from desktops to laptops, to phones to cars etc.) o.o is that really related to Ti? ^^;


Sir, that is the definition of Ti:


> Ti (Introverted Thinking):
> 
> *Principle Understanding*: Ti involves figuring out the principles on which something works and then evaluating according to these principles and whether something fits the framework or model. Ti ponders the apparent chaos of the world in order to extract from it the universal truths and principles that can be counted on. These principles, once extracted, will provide the logical structure on which to build strategies.
> 
> *Situational Analysis*: Ti is analyzing and categorizing; this involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis also involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a “leverage point” that will fix problem with the least amount of effort or damage to the system.


Another:


> *Introverted Thinking:* Analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision.


Normally, it is said that Ne-Ti users take concepts apart and Se-Ti users take physical things apart, but that's not necessarily true: The process of Ti is to understand how all the components of something make it work. As an Ni-user, I only see the bottom line, and the details of how it works are vague (but I have a high Ti use due to my academic background).


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Spades said:


> Sir, that is the definition of Ti:
> 
> 
> Another:
> ...


Details=boring. I also don't keep stuff like that in mind unless I absolutely have to, even so if I can't attach it to something that I value -.- details get forgotten. ^^; I still like taking things apart so I understand the principle behind them. Have to agree with the "bottom line" thou. This is my approach to psychology for example: "Wtf is the bottom line, why are we doing this again? -.- oh god more unnecessary details and ramblings about unusable theories. Teach....just plz tell me what the end goal is, I don't understand why we have to learn all these damn dates and names or why we study theories and history that can not be put to use?". 

I like having the "Why" and if the answer seems like fun  I'll take it apart and put it back together/dissect it until I understand. Moving forward without "the bottom line" or the bigger picture in mind...I can't do that. It is too uninteresting and seems like a bother. Why dig a hole when you don't know the reason for it? Might as well be your own grave .


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Rim said:


> Details=boring. I also don't keep stuff like that in mind unless I absolutely have to, even so if I can't attach it to something that I value -.- details get forgotten. ^^; I still like taking things apart so I understand the principle behind them. Have to agree with the "bottom line" thou. This is my approach to psychology for example: *"Wtf is the bottom line, why are we doing this again?* -.- *oh god more* *unnecessary details and ramblings about unusable theories.* *Teach....just plz tell me what the end goal is*, I don't understand why we have to learn all these damn dates and names or why we study theories and history that can not be put to use?".
> 
> I like having the "Why" and if the answer seems like fun  I'll take it apart and put it back together/dissect it until I understand. Moving forward without "the bottom line" or the bigger picture in mind...I can't do that. It is too uninteresting and seems like a bother. Why dig a hole when you don't know the reason for it? Might as well be your own grave .


Actually, most of what you said here sounds like pretty pure Te, not Ti, since Ti is actually a mental logic model in the user's head, while Te would involve creating *external* *parametric references* (not a *model* of logic) without *preconceived logical parameters* in mind in order to actually find *logical* _*progression*_ in an idea, facts, etc. (e.g. logically seeing how something ties into something else). Ti is more about finding *logical* _*consistency*_, which depends upon the internal Ti model they "use," so to speak. (e.g. their internal logic models check themselves against the logic of the idea, fact, etc. and can hit or miss the consistency of the logic used within the system behind the idea, fact, etc.). The three parts of your original statement that I bolded in the quote above is what I found to be the most Te. I also don't really understand why this liking to take things apart to understand them is necessarily Ti over Te, so an explanation from a Ti user on this would be great. I hope my cheesy textbook-style bold/italicsized highlighting made some sense...


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Actually, most of what you said here sounds like pretty pure Te, not Ti, since Ti is actually a mental logic model in the user's head, while Te would involve creating *external* *parametric references* (not a *model* of logic) without *preconceived logical parameters* in mind in order to actually find *logical* _*progression*_ in an idea, facts, etc. (e.g. logically seeing how something ties into something else). Ti is more about finding *logical* _*consistency*_, which depends upon the internal Ti model they "use," so to speak. (e.g. their internal logic models check themselves against the logic of the idea, fact, etc. and can hit or miss the consistency of the logic used within the system behind the idea, fact, etc.). The three parts of your original statement that I bolded in the quote above is what I found to be the most Te. I also don't really understand why this liking to take things apart to understand them is necessarily Ti over Te, so an explanation from a Ti user on this would be great. I hope my cheesy textbook-style bold/italicsized highlighting made some sense...


Yes, I do prefer external logic to internal. I need to back up theories with proof which is considered valid in general. "Why does x and y happen? Because *insert me paraphrasing someone who figured it out*. The question is always "Does it work and for what can I use it?". Thou I can see how Ti user's approach would be more "revolutionary" I guess, dissecting the problem and coming up with subjective logic explanations until a breakthrough is achieved (one that works) <--this can be something new (discovery).

I guess the "curiosity" is what would drive a Ti user to "dissect" ideas and things. To see for themselves how it works, to build the logic behind it themselves. It s not about what they already know, but the stuff that they don't know and can "build" theories around based on internal logic until it makes sense and becomes accepted.

Personally I'm uneasy and doubtful when it comes to me giving explanations such as this one, there is not much I can link it to on the outside that would suggest validity, its a bit unnerving tbh. (doubting my own thoughts...searching for some on the outside that I can use).

Thou I don't see why Te users wouldn't be able to do the same thing just from a different perspective, through a different kind of processing. Anyways we use all functions, this stuff is just preference and doesn't tell anything about ability.

(btw  got lost forgot the point I wanted to make :\ hmm)


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> I guess the "curiosity" is what would drive a Ti user to "dissect" ideas and things. To see for themselves how it works, to build the logic behind it themselves. It s not about what they already know, but the stuff that they don't know and can "build" theories around based on internal logic until it makes sense and becomes accepted.


Yeah, sort of, I guess, although, based on all of the Ti doms I know, it's mainly around pretty selective interests, from which they analyze what they know and what they don't know. It's likely the most analytical function. Not all of the ones I know are particularly fond of theorizing, but analyzing is the common denominator they all share (analyzing is my twin sister's ultimate source of entertainment).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

@*Stephen* this is a great thread! can this be made sticky for new members to read?

ok that didn't work, trying again
@Stephen


----------



## NingenExp (Apr 4, 2011)

Sometimes MBTI can be confusing because of the dichotomies thing. I guess the correct thing is to place cognitive functions in the correct order. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think I use Ni and Ti constantly. Taking this into consideration I have Se and Fe somewhere in my behavior. That leaves me with ISTP (Ti>Se>Ni>Fe), ESTP (Se>Ti>Fe>Ni), INFJ (Ni>Fe>Ti>Se) and ENFJ (Fe>Ni>Se>Ti). I believe I'm introverted first, but I don't know if I'm INFJ or ISTP. 

Even if I'm not always that empathetic, I think my Fe comes out when I'm incredibly tolerant (I prefer the word considerate) with people and when I'm looking for a lot of moral validation from people around me. I'm also interested in psychology and ethics. I feel there's some sort of good and bad in everyone. I can merge into a crowd easily and I even like it. I can mimic others' feelings too. Well, my Se comes out when I'm really aware of my environment. I crave, even if I do not go for it inquisitively, for physical pleasure and for adventure. I want to feel the world and touch it with both hands. I think there's nothing as having experience in something. I can be quite practical sometimes. 

I think Fe and Se are not as developed as my Ti and Ni, maybe because I use them a lot in maths (I love maths). I can be seen as INTP and I certainly feel I'm more of a thinker than a protector or a mechanic, but I know INTP (Ti>Ne>Si>Fe) use a lot of Ne and believe me, I suck at Ne. Talking about maths, honestly, I think I'm good at maths because when I'm facing a problem I start playing with it immediately. I'm not watching paths to solve it before acting just like I think a Ne will do. I put my hands on it. If there appears a moment of insight and an a-ha feeling, that will take me to the solution. There I visualize it entirely and then I can, watching the path, focus on it completely. I feel that that is more of Ni than Ne. I can say I suck at Ne too because I'm not good at creating things from nowhere, for example writing. I need a starting point. I can be in front of a Word document for over two, three, four hours without having any result or idea about it. I think that that talks us more about Ni than Ne. 

There's no such thing as Ni/Ti>Fe/Se, I know. That's why I'm leaving ISTP and INFJ as my only remaining options. The questions are: Am I more Ni and Fe or I'm more Ti and Se? Am I understanding it finely or I'm not getting it?


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

TaylorS said:


> *Misconceptions about **Si and SJ types:*
> 
> Si has nothing to do with memory, it deals with the subjective side of sensory perception in general, how something looks TO US and how it influences our thoughts and emotions.


I've never read a description of Si so that was so concise and easy to understand. Thank you!


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Wow, I never thought I'd see the day I'd say this, but I am really starting to see a lot of issues with peoples' cognitive function interpretations as well for one giant umbrella reason - the specific nature of the functions gets divorced from the _functionality_ of the functions under their more basic T, F, S, and N designations, ironically. For instance, I'll here the barrage of "Fi is really similar to Ti," etc., but truthfully, this would completely depend on the context of discussion - their only fundamental similarity is that they are both Ji functions, and thus, operate under the parameters of being Ji functions. Otherwise, the fact that one is a T function and one is an F function makes them occupiers of two totally incompatible realms. Same would go for the Je, Pi, and Pe functions. I think the word "subjective" throws people off, especially subjective logic. Also, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the fundamental differences between Ne and Se, due to them both being heavily rooted in the stereotypes of "spontaneity" and "weirdness," which really doesn't have to be the case at all (this is more a reflection of a person's persona than anything). The fundamental differences between them lies in that Ne basically subverts Se and considers possibilities all outside of the realm of one's direct present experiences (so, Si in Ne types helps them conjure possibilities based on their impressions of experience, so not even highly literal details) - it's the function that tends to analogize things that are not discreetly related via observation, while Se is highly literal, in-the-moment, direct perception that doesn't make any connections between objects other than exactly what is there (e.g. this apple is red and this chair is red), while having Ni backing it up, it will avoid making analogies and seeking what it could be and instead break down what it sees to what might be behind it (e.g. these are both red, so this gives them some underlying meaning that universally unites them (keep in mind that Ni is subjective, so it's about what it means to the person, rather than any objectively producible connection that Ne can create between them, such as making the apple and chair into something new that represents some Si detail impression of it that they have).


----------



## cotti (Aug 24, 2014)

yaintj said:


> I think the problem is that introversion/extroversion is mostly tested by their side effects, meaning social behaviour, which they are not about.
> 
> 
> Yes, that's right. That's why typing people is not as simple as sometimes we believe


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

luzluna said:


> The basic understanding I've reached after studying resources online is that the top 4 functions are accessible to the consciousness. The dominant requires the least amount of mental energy to use and the inferior function requires the most energy out of the four conscious functions, because this function is seen as the "bridge" between consciousness and unconsciousness.
> 
> ...
> 
> The other 4 functions are in your unconsciousness, or "shadow", and are thus called "shadow functions" by some. These functions do not consciously aid in perception and decision-making, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not there or that you can't use them.


So instead of trying to "strengthen" our tertiary and inferior functions, would a better goal be to "detoxify" them? (As well as the shadow functions, depending on the model?)


----------

