# Why the cognitive functions should not be used for ex post facto explanation



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

proto said:


> You're wrong and your logic is wrong. Stating that type is imaginary doesn't make the functions go away. I can still predict your behaviours based off knowing the cognitive functions you use.


Nice . . . I can predict behaviours better than most, but it isn't because cfs are real. It's because they are just basically a trick to save us the mental effort of thinking of the appropriate adjectives and analogies every time we evaluate someone.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> This^.
> 
> Individuals thinking that things they don't understand must not be true is always fallacious. Cognitive functions is a set of patterns that are defined, the lack of understanding said patterns doesn't get rid of the existence of said patterns. Once the patterns are understood then it becomes a great tool to use to type others and understand types because it's the cognitive functions that types are based on. No cognitive functions=no Jungian type.


Not necessarily. If we were talking about a real science, then yes. But this isn't that. It's a series of mental shortcuts to describing people which is especially useful to people who have a strongish inclination to systematize people or a weakish ability to read them non-systematized, or both. 

IxTP and INxJ are the big typologists, and I think it is for a reason.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

It's very simple. Cognitive functions are a map of a territory.

You wouldn't call the map the territory. It's just a subjective approximation.

To that extent, a map can be artistic and creative. It can have embellishments or depart wildly from what the landscape actually looks like. It could paint an idyllic picture or a dark one, or a neutral one, or it could be written in a strange code, or it could be really convoluted, requiring complicated steps to decipher what it shows you.

In the end, it is just a map. It might not be a very good one, but that's also partly a factor depending on the skill and/or talent of the individual reading the map. Some people are really good at cartography and reading maps. They might also be good at cryptography, and so they can decipher the map really fast.

This analogy is how I look at cognitive functions. They are a map, and no matter how convoluted or out-of-touch with objective reality they may be, their purpose can and is still served if one can decipher and make use of them in order to get from where they are in life (in terms of self-development) and where they want to be.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kollinhausin said:


> Not necessarily. If we were talking about a real science, then yes. But this isn't that. It's a series of mental shortcuts to describing people which is especially useful to people who have a strongish inclination to systematize people or a weakish ability to read them non-systematized, or both.
> 
> IxTP and INxJ are the big typologists, and I think it is for a reason.


Systems are built off of patterns, systemized thinking is categorizing patterns. Technically every definition to ever exist is a pattern that was captured by definition. Cognitive functions are no different, they are definitions of patterns noticed by a person sho could put them in a systematic format. As said before, just because some people can't read systems doesn't make the system wrong or flawed. Those who can understand it know it's worth and how to utilize it in an efficient manner.


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2012)

Kollinhausin said:


> Apples are real. Cog functions are not.
> 
> Chess is not real, but it's a fun game.
> 
> ...


Chess is very much real. The rules are invented and arbitrary, and the coherent body the rules give rise to is what _chess_ is. Chess is real, _because_ it is a game, and games _have *no* reality to consider_. Rules that are meant to explain inherent and non-arbitrary "rules" are not allowed to be invented and arbitrary because _they have a reality to consider_. And if such rules fail to describe reality they are not rules.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

proto said:


> You're wrong and your logic is wrong. Stating that type is imaginary doesn't make the functions go away. I can still predict your behaviours based off knowing the cognitive functions you use.


He's not wrong, nor is his logic. You're wrong. 

Stating that type is real doesn't make functions exist.

It is one thing to predict, but yet another to be accurate.

See how easy that was? 
@Kollinhausin,

One of the weaknesses of typology is its necessary link to observed behavior. The "why" of an observed behavior is much more complex than a cognitive process which we've labeled.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

They are mental constructs. There's no empirical evidence to prove that they exist in an observable sense. But that doesn't make them useless, by that logic, mathematics is useless, it's just an articulated mental construct as well. It's the merits behind it that determine its usefulness. Most tests are considered inaccurate from MBTI and the resulting idea is just a refined framework in a person's mind. Same as any other theory.


----------



## rainrunner (Jul 15, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> They are mental constructs. There's no empirical evidence to prove that they exist in an observable sense. But that doesn't make them useless, by that logic, mathematics is useless, it's just an articulated mental construct as well. It's the merits behind it that determine its usefulness. Most tests are considered inaccurate from MBTI and the resulting idea is just a refined framework in a person's mind. Same as any other theory.


I see a very subtle flaw in your logic though but I will point it out anyway just for the sake of debate (and logic). Mathematics is different from MBTI in that it allows detailed descriptions explanations of universe in many disciplines. In that sense, one can argue that mathematics is observable. A lot of theoretical sciences (especially theoretical physics) are, in essence, mathematics. The fact that mathematics is derived from fundamental logical axioms and that you are using logic in your argument further confirms that mathematics is more than a mere mental construct.

Jungian functions on the other hand, is a limited psychological model that was meant to explain core personality types and not our behavior in very specific instances, or behavior that was conditioned as a result of past experiences. The fact that people are misapplying Jungian functions to subjectively explain anecdotal and personal aspects of social psychology that it was not designed to describe has made it seem like useless pseudoscience.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

rainrunner said:


> Not the OP, but I agree completely with the OP (at least what he means, not necessarily how he worded it). I think his point is that Jungian functions are just simplified models of the human psyche. They are not the neurons and electrical signals in our brain. Don't confuse models with the real thing is his message.
> 
> An analogy would be equations that describe how a system behaves. Plug that into a computer and you simulate results different from reality. The weather is complicated which is why we still can't predict it. The human mind is complicated. You can come up with whatever personality or psychological theory you want, but in the end, you're likely to be wrong about something. Additionally, Jungian functions are inherently subjective and can be twisted, shaped, and molded like clay to represent whatever behavior you want to model. Jung has been misinterpreted in so many ways that he is rolling in his grave.


Thanks, but I understand the OP. 

I literally wanted to know what his intended meaning was for associating functions with games. But I'm bored with that now, so moving on... 

@_Abraxas_

That analogy makes way more sense to me. I like it. A map won't necessarily show you every nook and cranny in the environment, but it will show you the general layout and you can make educated assumptions based on that. I'm ok with it not being perfect. Certainty is an asymptote. 

(Click the quote in my sig for super fun times!!)




rainrunner said:


> Jungian functions on the other hand, is a limited psychological model that was meant to explain core personality types and* not our behavior in very specific instances*, or behavior that was conditioned as a result of past experiences.The fact that people are misapplying Jungian functions to subjectively explain anecdotal and personal aspects of social psychology that it was not designed to describe has made it seem like useless pseudoscience.


Meh. People are free to play with ideas as they see fit (bah @_Kollinhausin_ you got me using 'game' terms now, you sly fox.  ). If they misunderstand it, that's fine. No skin off my back. Personally, rather than make threads like these I prefer to either ignore them, provide information or alternative possibilities, or argue their points. I don't think making big statements like this will have any significant impact. I totally understand if it's simply venting though.

I definitely agree with the bolded part. I think it speaks to a key ingredient that people are missing, which is the difference between an occurrence and a habit (as in habitual attitude).

Can you please explain the connection between people misapplying and misunderstanding the functions on an Internet forum and how it looks like a pseudoscience?


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> Systems are built off of patterns, systemized thinking is categorizing patterns. Technically every definition to ever exist is a pattern that was captured by definition. Cognitive functions are no different, they are definitions of patterns noticed by a person sho could put them in a systematic format. As said before, just because some people can't read systems doesn't make the system wrong or flawed. Those who can understand it know it's worth and how to utilize it in an efficient manner.


This is insightful, but there is at least one major flaw: the subjectivity of the application by the individual typologist. This to me is the only value in typing of celebrities; it helps somewhat to tie together the parallel personal systems each typologist erects. No one system is the same; the celebrity debates show this clearly. Is it really true that so many people are 'wrong', or is it more likely that each has a slightly different mental system for type? And this plays out in different typings of celebrities?

Of course, there is some overlap, but also much divergence. 

Because it is a personal system doesn't make it wrong; it just means that that is what it is, a subjective personal system. The use of the cognitive functions is basically to structure the real life personal observations that are the bread and butter of comparison analysis, the true heart of typology in practice.

The cognitive functions are far less accurate than you think; your own mind does a great deal of the filling in as soon as it has a rough sketch of four dichotomies.

Sorry for word vomit here . . .


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Madman said:


> Chess is very much real. The rules are invented and arbitrary, and the coherent body the rules give rise to is what _chess_ is. Chess is real, _because_ it is a game, and games _have *no* reality to consider_. Rules that are meant to explain inherent and non-arbitrary "rules" are not allowed to be invented and arbitrary because _they have a reality to consider_. And if such rules fail to describe reality they are not rules.


See my post above in response to another person. Whatever the intent behind jcfs, they function much more as a framework to structure subjective and variable mental generalizations than as 'rules' of any kind. When people do try to use them as 'rules' of a prescriptive kind, they have to erect impossibly complex theories of function interactions that can explain anything and therefore explain nothing.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kollinhausin said:


> This is insightful, but there is at least one major flaw: the subjectivity of the application by the individual typologist. This to me is the only value in typing of celebrities; it helps somewhat to tie together the parallel personal systems each typologist erects. No one system is the same; the celebrity debates show this clearly. *Is it really true that so many people are 'wrong', or is it more likely that each has a slightly different mental system for type?* And this plays out in different typings of celebrities?
> 
> Of course, there is some overlap, but also much divergence.
> 
> ...


Bold: My whole life I have noticed people, a not not just a few, I am talking about the majority of people talk about subjects that they themselves have never studied in depth. So consequentially those people tend to be wrong when they talk about those subjects and they tend to get corrected by people who actually study the subject. Not only that but every subject is its own system but not everyo me thinks in a systematic fashion. Therefore by logic alone those people who lack a systematic thinking pattern will have a harder time understanding systems including subjects. The more complex the system, the more trouble the majority of people have with it. The problem is that everyone wants to believe they are an expert at thiNs that they are not, so when something comes across that they can't comprehend it becomes easier for them to downplay the system instead of their understanding of it, which I suspect is part of the egos defense mechanism. This problem is a bias, and is fallacious every time it is used. So yes the situation is that most people are wrong, I mean history has proven that time and time again. Not everyone is an expert on a subject or even have the capacity to be an expert on such a subject. There's many more examples on how often the majority of people are wrong, such as the common misuse of political terms (ex: liberal), not knowing what their political party stands for, sun revolving around earth, and so on. I'm sorry but it just needs to be accepted that the majority of people will for the most part be wrong and it will always take those few individuals to go and correct those who tend to be wrong.

Now I admit Jungs system is a personal syetm, and as you said it doesn't detract from the validity of the system. In order to understand Jungs system, you need to understand Jungs mind as an individual and where these concepts come from. Jung wasnot the first to use these terms, other philooper and mathematicians before him already defined many of the terms he used. All he did was integrate their systems into his personal system to better define the social constructs of humans and their mental reasoning. 

You see how you state that the cognitive functions are far leas accurate than I think, well that is stating thatbyou know how I see the cognitive functions and that I'm wrong while you know everything there is to know about them. That is fallacious to assume what holes my mind is filling in instead of thinking that I may understand something that youre missing. You're not a psychic so to assume that what you don't know must be wrong and everyone else is filling in some holes to make it valid is wrong way to go about it. On the contrary I studied Jungs system, I see what his system is derived from, I understand the logic of his system, and I see it in every individual I have ever come across because whether some people believe it or not humans are different as individuals with a different set of patterns that separate them from others. Maybe they don't explain everything but they're not suppose to, theyre only to explain their patterns which Jung does a good job of doing, but some people have a hard time understanding systematic thouht processes and instead take their lack of understanding as a flaw of the system to escape damaging the ego.

Edit: Math, Physics, And computer science are all subjects that was made from someones personal outlook on life but they are not fundamentally flawed, so stating because the system comes from an individual it is flawed is another fallacious argument. ThingThings are wrong because they don't make logical sense by the rules of logic not the mindsets of individuals who lack understanding.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

@Shadow Logic :

I apologize if I sounded patronizing; that was not my intent.

In a self-selected forum like PersonalityCafe, it seems unlikely that we have a general cross-section of the population. On the contrary, it would be pretty surprising if people remained in a league out of their perception of their depth for a long period of time. And people's perceptions usually are right in the long run.

It is possible you have a more well-developed system that I do. Mine is fairly well developed, but I certainly haven't completely finished it. Regardless, I think it is fair to assume that there are a number of typologists here who are as experienced as you are. Correct if I'm wrong, but don't you still sometimes disagree with them?


----------



## Reticence (Aug 10, 2014)

Kollinhausin said:


> It's because they are just basically a trick to save us the mental effort of thinking of the appropriate adjectives and analogies every time we evaluate someone.


I would just like to note that essentially, you just said that they're real:
[Cognitive functions are adjectives capable of quickly describing human behavior/thought]

So, the person's behavior or thought patterns are perfectly real, and cognitive functions are simply the way that we (or one?) has chosen to observe them, neatly sifting the behaviors into personally defined functions. It is not their lack of "real"ness that's the issue, it's their lack of defined boundaries within the community that uses them, causing a massive flux of interpretation. 

Unless you're implying that "adjectives" aren't real, which is a completely new realm of discussion.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kollinhausin said:


> @Shadow Logic :
> 
> I apologize if I sounded patronizing; that was not my intent.
> 
> ...


I do disagree with them at tmies but based on logic, not my lack of understanding, that's the reason I choose to debate to help clarify what the problem is and then to rectify the situation. My logic could be faulty ddue to lack of information which is another reason I debate to find out if the other person has knowledge that I lack. What is not logical ever is the statement "because I and others don't understand it, it must be wrong or faulty". That's not logic because you arent analyzing the system for the system itself, instead you're seeing the systems relation to the reactions of others towards it. You see how that pushes away from the system, it puts the focus on peoples reactions of the system, instead of looking at and aanalyzing the sys tem for itself.

If the argument was "Well the system is flawed because intuition is not the polar opposite of sensing based on "so and so information" therefore intuition doesn't repress sensing and vice versa". That would be an argument of logic, because you are focused on the aspects of the system itself not in relation to anything else. In that case we can debate your logic and why you think that they are not polar opposites which would be a debate focused on interpreting the logic of the system and if it's logic prevails. 

How can you say peoples perceptions are usually right? If that was the case people wold be having non stressful livs but instead people assume and their assumptions are usually wrong causing them to have higher stress. End world prophecies have been wrong but people still flip out over them. People stating the earth was flat was wrong. People assume things, assumptuous are for the most part erong. Those who are right are the ones who take the time to understand situitions/subjects, who do not assume but instead test their hypothesis with either logic or extraverted tools, those who care to actually find the source instead of jumping to conclusions. People aren't psychics, at the majority definitely isnt, and because they can't predict the future they tend to assume the future based off of personal sentiments instead of the relation of objects which would take looking at objects in an impersonal way and not letting personal sentiments cloud judgement which is what the majority does.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Reticence said:


> I would just like to note that essentially, you just said that they're real:
> [Cognitive functions are adjectives capable of quickly describing human behavior/thought]
> 
> So, the person's behavior or thought patterns are perfectly real, and cognitive functions are simply the way that we (or one?) has chosen to observe them, neatly sifting the behaviors into personally defined functions. It is not their lack of "real"ness that's the issue, it's their lack of defined boundaries within the community that uses them, causing a massive flux of interpretation.
> ...


I am not using "real" to mean "exist", I'm using it in the honorific sense (The "truth" vs. the "real truth").

Theories with some kind of objective correspondence to reality are "real". Descriptive words applied via mental shortcuts to people are not "real" on that same kind of level. 

Yes, the terminology confusion is my fault.


----------



## rainrunner (Jul 15, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Can you please explain the connection between people misapplying and misunderstanding the functions on an Internet forum and how it looks like a pseudoscience?


I got a bit caught up there with my poorly written lawyerly sounding sentences written to be defended against those who would tear apart my logic (which was fun in its own twisted way), but yeah it was a rant, but I'm kind of bored already and lost track of whatever I was trying to argue for or against (sorry, it happens in every thread where I just happen to randomly jump into a debate and then lose interest)  ... so disregard what I wrote if it doesn't make sense since I might have changed my position since.

I'm not going to give specific examples from this forum at the risk of offending and singling out any specific members, so I will make some up. An example I would give is in typing threads where well intentioned users would attribute certain actions, thoughts, and beliefs to specific functions, which I do not think is right since functions are different depending on their order and the person's type. Also, there are certain cases where it makes more sense to explain a person's actions through his past experiences, motivations, fears, etc., than Jungian functions. I haven't read Jung in a while and I don't claim to deeply understand what he wrote. I'm probably explaining it very poorly, but, in essence, it just _feels_ like pseudoscience because certain people are treating it like science when a) they are misapplying Jung's models and/or b) Jung was wrong.


----------



## Reticence (Aug 10, 2014)

Kollinhausin said:


> I am not using "real" to mean "exist", I'm using it in the honorific sense (The "truth" vs. the "real truth").
> 
> Theories with some kind of objective correspondence to reality are "real". Descriptive words applied via mental shortcuts to people are not "real" on that same kind of level.
> 
> Yes, the terminology confusion is my fault.


You're arguing the subjective nature of definition for cognitive functions, not the tendencies in human behavior/thought frequently applied to them. As a result, would you agree this could all be fixed if there were definite guidelines, or can they not be established?


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Reticence said:


> You're arguing the subjective nature of definition for cognitive functions, not the tendencies in human behavior/thought frequently applied to them. As a result, would you agree this could all be fixed if there were definite guidelines, or can they not be established?


No, they cannot be established IMO.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

Also because this: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/379474-function-would-most-likely-cause-someone-bipolar.html


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

My two cents.
Most people try to stretch the functions to cover more than they actually do.
Most people have never practiced reading the types systematically IRL as a skill.
Most people have no real observational skills.
Most people only have the function theory to go by, variance due to other factors confuse them.
Most people have never read psychological types or any other of Jungs books.
Most people use the types as an identity wheelchair, due to a severely disabled sense of self.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

hornet said:


> Most people use the types as an identity wheelchair, due to a severely disabled sense of self.


That's what got me into this stuff. Poor self-concept most likely due to developmental issues (Asperger's Syndrome). 

Not that I form an identity based on type though. I just use it to give myself a greater conceptual understanding in general.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> That's what got me into this stuff.


Me too, pretty much. I've really found that I lean on personality psychology less and less, the more I grow as a person.

It's still an interesting system to me and probably always will be, but I don't crutch on it so much anymore.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

The problem as I see it with giving too much importance to personality is that it reinforces the fundamental attribution error cognitive bias, which already doesn't need much reinforcement. I mean, intuitively I would make the leap to say that I think that's what draws so many people to the theory of personality to begin with. It's just in our nature to force patterns into chaos and start inventing reliable heuristic devices to reinforce them.

But on the other side of the coin, life as we know it would be impossible without those very same heuristic devices. So really, it's finding the middle ground between recognizing that there is some truth to the theories, without over-applying them and being lazy when you really should be out learning what _other_ more contextually appropriate and productive heuristics exist to help compartmentalize the dissonance between what you already know and the other unknown facets of life you're still struggling with.

It's like saying (to borrow my own map analogy), here I have this map of China that I really like. I've gotten used to the nuances of it and (out of familiarity mostly) I can get around China a lot better with this map than I do with some other more technically precise scientific map of China (because I'm already used to this one and it works just fine). But a map of China isn't going to tell me how to get around Russia. Russia and China might even appear to me to have a lot in common, but where the rubber-meets-the-road they vary enough that I'm either going to have to adapt my map or just find a new one.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

PaladinX said:


> That's what got me into this stuff. Poor self-concept most likely due to developmental issues (Asperger's Syndrome).
> 
> Not that I form an identity based on type though. I just use it to give myself a greater conceptual understanding in general.


Trouble with having a crutch is that you can get so dependent on them that you never let it go.
The asbergers label is an interesting one.
Should take this as a cue to study it more.

There is indeed a fine line between using the label and being the label.
That goes for all labels including asbergers.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

hornet said:


> My two cents.
> Most people try to stretch the functions to cover more than they actually do.
> *Most people have never practiced reading the types systematically IRL as a skill.
> Most people have no real observational skills.*
> ...


Those two are the biggest. I test this stuff everyday. How do Ne and Ni interact? I test that. I push it hard, and see what Ne does. To random people. That is how you learn, from other people. Like I already know my INTP buddy inside out. Who really knows an INTP male inside out? I get men to open up. And I know my best friend has INTP qualities that always surface in INTP. I am always adding and refining every type. I have my own system.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Those two are the biggest. I test this stuff everyday. How do Ne and Ni interact? I test that. I push it hard, and see what Ne does. To random people. That is how you learn, from other people. Like I already know my INTP buddy inside out. Who really knows an INTP male inside out? I get men to open up. And I know my best friend has INTP qualities that always surface in INTP. I am always adding and refining every type. I have my own system.


They are most important for the average Joe who have only read online type profiles yes.
The others only apply if you try to become more serious about the whole thing.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Those two are the biggest. I test this stuff everyday. How do Ne and Ni interact? I test that. I push it hard, and see what Ne does. To random people. That is how you learn, from other people. Like I already know my INTP buddy inside out. Who really knows an INTP male inside out? I get men to open up. And I know my best friend has INTP qualities that always surface in INTP. I am always adding and refining every type. I have my own system.


Unless I'm not understanding you, I think this is still trying to objectify the functions.

The problem is that what you are doing is just a round-about kind of confirmation bias.

You don't need to change a theory to suit facts any more than you need to alter facts to fit a theory.

Take ghosts for example. You're not "proving" ghosts exist if you just change the definition of a ghost to something that we already know objectively exists. That's just semantics. You can leave the definition of a ghost alone, and leave the burden of proof upon the one claiming they exist to pony up the evidence.

Likewise, there's no need to base the definition of a cognitive function on anything real. We can arbitrarily define a function to mean whatever we imagine it to be, and if we can't find any evidence of our arbitrary functions really existing, then maybe they don't.


----------



## scenefinale (May 26, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> You don't need to change a theory to suit facts any more than you need to alter facts to fit a theory.


Actually that's one of the goals of theory, to modify it to fit all the facts.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

scenefinale said:


> Actually that's one of the goals of theory, to modify it to fit all the facts.


Did you just ignore what I said?




> Take ghosts for example. You're not "proving" ghosts exist if you just change the definition of a ghost to something that we already know objectively exists. That's just semantics. You can leave the definition of a ghost alone, and leave the burden of proof upon the one claiming they exist to pony up the evidence.
> 
> Likewise, there's no need to base the definition of a cognitive function on anything real. We can arbitrarily define a function to mean whatever we imagine it to be, and if we can't find any evidence of our arbitrary functions really existing, then maybe they don't.


And actually that's not the goal of theory.

Even Albert Einstein, your famous INTP mascot, didn't approach science that way at all.




> Einstein says: “Theory determines what we observe.”
> 
> This is contrary to many people’s understanding of what a theory is; they think in terms of collect data and then form a theory to match that data.
> 
> ...



But I dunno, maybe he was wrong. He was wrong about a lot of things.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> Unless I'm not understanding you, I think this is still trying to objectify the functions.
> 
> The problem is that what you are doing is just a round-about kind of confirmation bias.
> 
> ...


I have said before that I am basically a String Theorist. The science has stalled, and we are in math now. It is theoretical physics that can be reduced to experiment. It is my own system.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I have said before that I am basically a String Theorist. The science has stalled, and we are in math now. It is theoretical physics that can be reduced to experiment. It is my own system.


Alright, fair enough. I think I understand you now, I just I wasn't sure what your perspective was.


----------



## scenefinale (May 26, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> He was wrong about a lot of things.


Who isn't? 
"Fall seven times, stand up eight."
"If you want to increase your success rate, double your failure rate."
Being wrong every now and then is nothing to be ashamed of, in my opinion.

Look mate, not trying to pick a fight here! Just want to point out that geocentric model was pretty darn good but not great. The theory was changed to make the Sun the center of our solar system so it would fit the facts and describe more precisely what we observe. That is all. I've noticed that typically, I agree with more than 95% of what you say, I just happened to want to clarify one point, that's all. Please don't take it personally (I'm not saying you have, I'm just asking you not to).


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

Kollinhausin said:


> Type is imaginary to begin with, but okay. That's one degree removed from the data, and it can be a useful sorting tool.
> 
> Cognitive functions are two degrees removed, and so far from the data that they are far more imaginary and far less useful than people might think.


Explain what you mean by "degrees" and why they are in this order.

P.S. Your post is imaginary.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

scenefinale said:


> Who isn't?
> "Fall seven times, stand up eight."
> "If you want to increase your success rate, double your failure rate."
> Being wrong every now and then is nothing to be ashamed of, in my opinion.
> ...


I'm not taking it personally, I'm just saying you're not looking at theory and science from the perspective I am (and Einstein did).

When Einstein famously stated, "if facts don't fit theories, change the facts," a lot of people really miss the point Einstein is making.

First of all, how exactly does one "change facts"? A fact is a fact by virtue of it's basis in reality. To think that facts can be "changed" is to really not even understand what a fact actually is. The only way you could conceivably "change" a fact is if you somehow actually brought about a change in reality, for it is reality that establishes facts, not the other way around.

Therefore, what Einstein is really doing here is challenging one to go out and change reality until it conforms to the idea. In the end, this is not really at all that hard to understand, and I find it inspiring. He is very cleverly trying to remind us that just as reality can shape our thoughts about it, so can our thoughts about reality shape it, when one takes it upon themselves to change the world.

It's a very profound statement. One I imagine deeply resonates with INTPs, hence also why I imagine he is typically regarded as the iconic example of an INTP.

I merely make mention of this perspective because I so often see people shill the whole "change theories to fit facts" routine, and it's a particular pet peeve of mine.

My very signature on this forum puts it succinctly, taken from the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas,

"Truth is the conformity of the intellect with the things."

The misconception is to read that and read it only one way, instead of seeing that it implies a double-perspective. All that matters is the conformity, the relationship, of objects to ideas. It doesn't matter how that relationship gets established. Either by changing ideas, or by altering the foundations of reality, as long as the relationship holds, then it is true, and that is the basis of what become facts.


----------



## corgitoergosum (Oct 28, 2014)

I understand the idea of this topic. As a story about an artist who said that drawing a monster is much easier than drawing a horse: he can draw the monster anyhow he wants (because no one had really seen a monster).

Taxonomy is measuarable when it can be authenticated in reality, through specific datas. For example, where are the common biological characteristics of the people who have the same functions - maybe we should start from this point.



> Einstein tells us: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."


Some quotes must not be taken literally. People do not "change facts", they change "the number of facts", they change "their perception about facts" or simply they find more facts and remove unsuitable ones, but they can not change the fact itself. A fact is a fact. Regardless of what people do, it still exists, at a time, in a environment. A fact is an element of reality. People can not change reality. Otherwise, everything that we have done is also contained in reality. 

And to "fit the theory", people must have a theory. Einstein did not mention the defines of theory in his quotation. I personally believed that Einstein tried to teld us to change the set of facts and therefore, our perception about facts, to have a broad perspective und understand a (proven) theory better. That is a thing that everyone should do, whether scientist or not. 

And return to the main problem of this topic. What people should do is finding more facts to prove the judiciousness of the cognitive functions theory, or just creat a new one. Before that, everyone may have their own defines which fit their environment and help them handling situations. Do not need to discuss the right/wrong property.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Abraxas The map analogy is really good. I think the biggest problem is not reality of functions but use of words and wording for something that happens at least partly without words (perceiving).

We have the content of someones life - not function related.
We have IQ - not function related
We have goals and interests which may be more about content and situation or context more than functions.

What we are trying to do is walk around inside somebody else's head which we can't actually do but we can look at a map.

Then we have definition of words difficulties - *Dictionary*, *Cinical* meaning and at what point in history, or *Common* *use* definitions loaded with emotional and cultural associations?

@Kollinhausin one tricky part of this is defining what is even meant by real. Just because people use the concept of functions to support their own bias or explain personal issues - doesn't mean something real hasn't been pointed to at the core of the concept. Part of Jung's studies leading up to Psychological Types, were his references to culture art, and myth. We know myth is not "real" but reoccurring themes throughout history, across cultures, tells us something real is being pointed to about human nature.

I don't see how any of this is a crutch, If someone uses it that way then the point would be to figure out why that person wants or needs to use crutches.

about Einstein - if the universe does not have a logical basis at the core, then what would be the point of study for any of it? Therefore when what we assume is real defies logic - we have to check our assumptions. Even our eyeballs or sense of touch is based on assumptions made by our brain so then isn't logic more trustworthy?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> I'm not taking it personally, I'm just saying you're not looking at theory and science from the perspective I am (and Einstein did).
> 
> When Einstein famously stated, "if facts don't fit theories, change the facts," a lot of people really miss the point Einstein is making.
> 
> ...


He did do that. My INTP buddy does the same too. Einstein did not want to believe in the Big Bang or Quantum Mechanics. He told the guy who came up with the Big Bang, he was wrong, but never went into detail. He wanted the universe to be a certain way. 

I was saying that Einstein vs Newton can be seen as some type thing. Maybe Fe vs Fi. Everything is connected. Water. We are all in water. That is all spacetime is. Einstein just thought of that. It is heuristics. Richard Dawkins does the same. He takes scientific facts and elevates them to an abstract sphere, where he has more freedom. It is actually quite brilliant, and how progress is made. Newton did something similar. It is all about seeing things differently. Newton with the apple. Everybody knows that apples fall and other objects do. Why doesn't the moon fall like the apple? Now you are onto something. Now you can create imagery in your head how how the moon and apple fit into some larger framework. So it is basically just Newton's vs Einstein's heuristics. Newton also though the universe had to be a certain way too. Those two show some kind of battle between type/function. Not sure what.

Those old school guys think ideas have power. It affects them. Plato. Or God. God has influence on people. That idea does. It is an interesting debate. Nominalism vs realism. Jung tackled this head on in Psychological Types:

The ontological argument is neither argument nor proof, but merely the psychological verification of the fact that there is a class of men for whom a definite idea has efficacy and reality -- a reality which practically rivals the world of perception

Lee talked about this. Probably because of Se. 

The Western approach to reality is mostly through theory, and theory begins by denying reality — to talk about reality, to go around reality, to catch anything that attracts our sense-intellect and abstract it away from reality itself. Thus philosophy begins by saying that the outside world is not a basic fact, that its existence can be doubted and that every proposition in which the reality of the outside world is affirmed is not an evident proposition but one that needs to be divided, dissected and analyzed. It is to stand consciously aside and try to square a circle.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

No, Einstein is challenging what gets accepted as fact. Theory being more real - like math, more reliable than what we believe we know through our senses, and what we believe has been proved. 

Most of what is accepted as fact by most people- is something they have been taught. Think about that! It means we believe what we believe other people believe! - How stupid is that? This displays his preference for Ti; If you can't mentally walk through it and see logic applied in your own mind, how do you know it's not just hear-say or an illusion or a screw up in documentation? How do you know you won't make a discovery that sheds a whole new light on one thing that changes everything.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> No, Einstein is challenging what gets accepted as fact. Theory being more real - like math, more reliable than what we believe we know through our senses, and what we believe has been proved.
> 
> Most of what is accepted as fact by most people- is something they have been taught. Think about that! It means we believe what we believe other people believe! - How stupid is that? This displays his preference for Ti; If you can't mentally walk through it and see logic applied in your own mind, how do you know it's not just hear-say or an illusion or a screw up in documentation? How do you know you won't make a discovery that sheds a whole new light on one thing that changes everything.


I just wish people would use the term "Fact" wit the correct definition. So many people think fact is "what is generally accepted" when thats far from the truth. Facts don't need acceptance because facts have always been and will always be. 



> fact
> fakt/Submit
> noun
> a thing that is indisputably the case.





> fact Translate Button
> [fakt]
> noun
> 1.
> ...


So many people think facts have to do with some relation between humans and reality. No, instead facts are simply reality, it has nothing to do with humans relation to it. Facts are the case of a thing, nothing less and nothing more.


----------

