# David Keirsey's disagreement with the "cognitive functions" hypothesis.



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

David Keirsey is the author of "Please Understand me". Keirsey Temperament Website

This is an excerpt from his book. In it he explains that he doesn't accept it the "cognitive functions" model, saying it's a mere speculation.

I found this interesting, because he discusses the MBTI indicator while rejecting Jungian theory. At first I thought if you accept MBTI as reasonable (and even accurate) then you must also accept Jung's theories, because after all, MBTI is based on Jung's work. But after reading this, I changed my mind.

Jung's theories are based on some observations. We can accept these observations about how people are different in terms introversion/extraversion, sensing/intuiting, thinking/feeling, but we don't have to accept jung's conclusions. Similarily, MBTI is based more on these observations than on Jung's theory. 

It might be interesting to note that Keirsey himself is an INTP (as he says in the book).

Here's the piece from Keirsey's book. (no intention of copyright infringiment ..)

Psychological Functions vs Intelligent Roles
-------------------------------------------------

This idea of defining personality differences by sticking to what can be
observed-words and tools-sets Myers's and my view of personality
rather far apart. Remember that Myers's concept of types was heavily
influenced by Jung's Psychological Types, a book in which he presented
the purely hypothetical notion that there are four "psychological functions":
"sensation," "intuition," "feeling," and "thinking." Positing introversion
and extraversion as the fundamental attitudes that separate personalities,
Jung (with Myers following suit) defined eight types by combining extra-
version and introversion with the four psychological functions, thus creating
four function types-Thinking Types, Feeling Types, Intuiting Types, and
Sensing Types, each with two variants.
I must say I have never found a use for this scheme of psychological
functions, and this is because function typology sets out to define different
people's mental make-up-what's in their heads-something which is not
observable, and which is thus unavoidably subjective, a matter of speculation,
and occasionally of projection. A good example of the difficulties such
guesswork can introduce is the way in which Jung and Myers confound
introversion with intuition, saying that the introverted types are the ones
"interested in ideas and concepts," while the extraverted types are "interested
in people and things." In my view, which is based on close observation of
people's use of words, the intuitives are the ones primarily interested in
ideas and concepts, while the sensing types are those primarily concerned
with concrete things. Indeed, after forty years or so of typewatching, I
have not found any SPs or SJs who were more inclined to discuss conceptual
matters (abstractions) than to discuss factual matters (concretions). The
sensing types are more perceptual than conceptual, while the intuitive
types, NFs and NTs, are more conceptual than perceptual.
To take some of the guesswork out of temperament theory, I base my
type definitions on what people do well, their skilled actions-what I call
their "intelligent roles"-which are observable, and which thus can be
defined more objectively. (For those interested in the specific differences
between Jung's and Myers's function types and my intelligence types, see
note 10 in the Chapter 2 Notes at the end of the book.) Let me point out
that during most of the 20th century intelligence was also thought to be in
the head, defined as "the ability to think abstractly," and of late, as "cognitive
ability." But this has never been a very useful way of defining intelligence.
Common sense tells us that intelligence is being smart in what we do. In
other words it is not how well we think, but how well we act in a given
role. If our behavior is adaptive to circumstances, so that we act effectively
in such circumstances, then we can be said to be intelligent in those
circumstances. Other circumstances are likely to call for different kinds of
action, and hence different intelligent roles.
The reason for Myers's and my differences is that we start from widely
different premises. Myers unwittingly adopted Jung's 19th century 
elementalism, which assumed that personality could be pieced together from
independent elements. On the other hand I was imbued with the 20th
century organismic wholism of men such as Karl Biihler, Kurt Goldstein,
George Hartmann, David Katz, Wolfgang Kohler, Kurt Kofika, Kurt Lewin,
Max Wertheimer, and Raymond Wheeler, to name the more prominent
organismic psychologists. So I have long believed that personality, like
anatomy, comes about not by an integration of elements, but by differenti-
ation within an already integrated whole, emerging gradually as an individ-
uated configuration. I claim an organism never becomes integrated because
it is always integrated. It differentiates by a process of evolution into the
mature form it is meant to become. Thus, in the view of organismic wholism,
traits of character emerge just as cells do, by a process of differentiation,
with the traits clinging together, cohering-not by association, but by a
common origin and a common destiny. The tiny acorn, a fully integrated
organism from the start, looks forward to the stately oak tree it is destined.
to become.


----------



## Van (Dec 28, 2009)

I look at it the other way around: if you accept Jung's cognitive functions, then you're going to have to ditch the MBTI. The MBTI isn't reasonable or accurate to begin with. It uses a self-reporting test and fails to represent Jung's ideas, so you have people running around thinking that they are borderline J/P and telling you how they used to be ESTJ but now they're IxFJ.
I agree that it is not science, but Jung's cognitive functions are an attempt to explain why, rather than simply pointing out 'such and such happened, must be an introvert'. Without the functions, MBTI is just stereotyping. I honestly think that if you're only interested in the descriptive, then the Big 5 is better than the MBTI by another whole dimension.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

Good that somebody posted this. I do not doubt the existence of psychological functions, but they are no doubt guesswork like Keirsey says. His intelligent roles are very well done if you ask me and give a better understanding than any of Jung's or Myers' work.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

My problem with Keirsey is precisely that he focuses on observable behavior. Jung's types are psychological. They are not actions or behaviors or social roles. They are mind sets which color the personality. To me, personality is intangible, but still "visible". I don't need things to be concrete to be aware of them. There are ways to try an determine cognitive processes through clues involving behavior, but I think it can be very misleading if you take it too far. What Keirsey types is something else entirely, IMO.

According to Keirsey, it seems all artists are ISFPs, all scientists INTJs, etc. The level of stereotyping reduces types to caricatures at best. I can't see myself in any of them, because being INFP is not a role I am in, but it's identifying a distinct way of thinking that I can relate to. 

Keirsey seems so focused on what is concrete and observable, I'd type him as ISTP according to Jung's theory. He has that sort of characteristic Se skepticism of needing to see to believe. 

And that's no slight to ISTPs or Se types, okay MBTI police? :tongue:


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

The problem with cognitive functions is, well, 

let's take me as an example, I'm somewhat of a border line T/F (about 60% F). Does that mean my Fi is 60% and Ti is 40%? Is my T introverted or extroverted? I don't know, and in the end it's merely a speculation. And when I interaction with people, am I using my N and F or my N and T or my N and T and F at the same time?

And when someone says "Your Fi is best matched with an Fe", well, now you're taking it too far. Why wouldn't I be best matched with an Fi instead?

an ENFP would have Ne -> Fi, but the problem with this view is that it says his extroversion is intuitive. So does that mean an ENFP deals with people purely on an N basis without any F getting into play? Of course not; they use both.

Having said that, I don't completely agree with Keirsey either. I just think it's an important that one keeps an open mind about these cognitive functions and not stretch them too far.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

I am starting to find that the more I try to categorize myself within Myer's rigid format, the more unreasonably complex it becomes. A system based on four extremities should not have to be broken down into a combination of childhood development, function abnormalities, individual perceptions of each function and all other outside influences. I agree with what Van and OrangeApple have already said, which is that Myer's system seems to be nothing more than personality stereotyping. For those people who fit into that system, it seems to work, and for the rest of us, well, we're just confused or need to try harder to find the right niche. Perhaps if we were focusing on our healthy personal and inter-personal cognitive skills instead of finding our place in the proposed 16-point world, we would actually start to know ourselves better.


----------



## Van (Dec 28, 2009)

hasenj said:


> The problem with cognitive functions is, well,
> 
> let's take me as an example, I'm somewhat of a border line T/F (about 60% F). Does that mean my Fi is 60% and Ti is 40%? Is my T introverted or extroverted? I don't know, and in the end it's merely a speculation. And when I interaction with people, am I using my N and F or my N and T or my N and T and F at the same time?


It isn't the cognitive functions theory that is the problem there, it's the MBTI misrepresenting the cognitive functions as a) being measurable on a sliding scale and b) a set of tools to be picked up and used at will.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

hasenj said:


> The problem with cognitive functions is, well,
> 
> let's take me as an example, I'm somewhat of a border line T/F (about 60% F). Does that mean my Fi is 60% and Ti is 40%? Is my T introverted or extroverted? I don't know, and in the end it's merely a speculation. .


See this is the thing: these percentages are not cognitive functions. It is MBTI that puts percentages on dichtomies. And people think they are "borderline" because MBTI makes everything an either/or scenario, and there are rarely either/or scenarios in real life. 

As an INFP, you cannot be borderline T/F...you are a dominant introverted Feeler. It's what rules your personality (according to the theory). I've heard many INFPs say that they think they're borderline T/F, which according to the theory of cognitive functions is just not possible. I think it's not a problem with their understanding as much as it's the problem with how the MBTI system inaccurately describes Feelers. It confuses people. Again, the stereotypes.

But I don't think Keirsey is much better in this regard. I found his description of the SP temperament extremely stereotypical and in no way accurate. 

(I am a fan of cognitive functions, if my post didn't make that clear. roud


----------



## Ray Mabry (Jun 6, 2010)

What Jung's cognitive functions can be generalized down to is trends in thinking/behavior. Ones thoughts then in turn usually lead to observable behaviors motivated by those trends in thought and of course the trends in thinking had to then be caused by some other reason and one can be lead to believe that it is differences in our own brains which affect the way we asses or judge information.

Once one understands Jung's theory it becomes clear as day.

MBTI gets it partially right but the test is ridiculous in it's current form and quite frankly there are some people that are not self aware enough to take it and come even close to what their actual type is. Socionics on the other hand comes a bit closer to Jung but with translation issues and random sites run by people that have no idea what they're talking about and in turn it has become a bit devalued to some.

All in all though there is no real reason to doubt Jung because his theory makes sense once it is understood as a whole. It's just Myers-Briggs that are a bit off and they were just enthusiasts and not psychologists.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> My problem with Keirsey is precisely that he focuses on observable behavior. Jung's types are psychological. They are not actions or behaviors or social roles. They are mind sets which color the personality. To me, personality is intangible, but still "visible". I don't need things to be concrete to be aware of them. There are ways to try an determine cognitive processes through clues involving behavior, but I think it can be very misleading if you take it too far.


 Yeah, so psychology and behavior are very closely related. So properly understood, they work together, and that's why Berens came and recombined the functions with Keirsey's temperaments. It seems to work, though sometimes descriptions (of rither temperament or functions) can become oversimplified, and I think that's what the problem people are seeing is.


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

> I've heard many INFPs say that they think they're borderline T/F, which according to the theory of cognitive functions is just not possible.


Well, this is really an argument against Jung's theory more than anything else.

If you assume I'm a dominant Fi with no Tx, then you'd stereotype me as "not comfortable with logic", which is not true at all.


----------



## noz (Dec 7, 2009)

I say the cog functions approach is just sheer bull simply on the grounds that NOTHING in nature is ever that ordered, predictable and congruent. NOT EVEN THE PERIODIC TABLE ITSELF HAS THE ORDERLINESS AND CONGRUENCY OF THE COGNITIVE FUNCTION LAYOUT! Stop and think about that for a second, and you will see my gripe and possibly kiersey's. Nothing in nature is ever THAT ordered, nothing. Not atoms, not genes, and certainly not the mechanisms that drive human cognition. To suggest that the complexity of the human brain and the physics that govern it could ACTUALLY yield the perfect, almost geometrical, form seen in the cognitive functions theory is an absurdity and insult to anyone attempting a rational approach to systematizing how human organisms think.


Let me put it this way to you cog function supporters - Why ought we to EXPECT a breakdown of the human macro-organism to have as much order and SYMMETRY as the cognitive functions theory ? Where are the quirks and idiosyncrasies? How could the vast number of combinations involved in all the neuron numbers and their possible connection sites ALWAYS, 100% of the time, boil down to a pattern of predictability seen in a card game and the orderliness of electromagnetic radiation ? I don't see how you can even justify supporting the cognitive function theories, because there's absolutely no logical reason to expect such congruency and symmetry in human beings in the first place. Nature is messier than this.

I blame it all on the overabundance of Js in psych. Get OUT of the psych labs, and learn some natural sciences. Or economics.... something dirty or messy, i don't know!


----------



## jerdol (Jan 4, 2011)

Jung is the best of the three. The problem is that many people misunderstand the theory, and the form of the MBTI exacerbates things.
Kiersey's problem is that he's measuring behavior, and he's measuring skill. Neither of these has anything more than a weak correlation with personality. A person can be introverted yet outgoing, extraverted and shy, and an intuitive who's just bad at coming up with ideas. Intelligent people are often skilled at all 4 cognitive functions; this doesn't make them XXXXs.
Jung had it right when talking about cognitive preference. I can judge deductively and I can judge based on gut feeling, but in every day decisions which am I more comfortable using? That's what makes a thinker or feeler. The MBTI judges based on how closely you fit to the stereotypical behavior, and gives percentages based on how sure they are (NOT how strong the preference is), and Kiersey sees the stereotyped behavior as the ideal. If a person reads enough about MBTI, he can understand his own type 99% of the time, and the similarities between people within a type is evidence of the validity of the breakdown.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

hasenj said:


> Well, this is really an argument against Jung's theory more than anything else.
> 
> If you assume I'm a dominant Fi with no Tx, then you'd stereotype me as "not comfortable with logic", which is not true at all.


If you misunderstood Jung's theory, sure...


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

noz said:


> I say the cog functions approach is just sheer bull simply on the grounds that NOTHING in nature is ever that ordered, predictable and congruent. NOT EVEN THE PERIODIC TABLE ITSELF HAS THE ORDERLINESS AND CONGRUENCY OF THE COGNITIVE FUNCTION LAYOUT! Stop and think about that for a second, and you will see my gripe and possibly kiersey's. Nothing in nature is ever THAT ordered, nothing. Not atoms, not genes, and certainly not the mechanisms that drive human cognition. To suggest that the complexity of the human brain and the physics that govern it could ACTUALLY yield the perfect, almost geometrical, form seen in the cognitive functions theory is an absurdity and insult to anyone attempting a rational approach to systematizing how human organisms think.
> 
> Let me put it this way to you cog function supporters - Why ought we to EXPECT a breakdown of the human macro-organism to have as much order and SYMMETRY as the cognitive functions theory ? Where are the quirks and idiosyncrasies? How could the vast number of combinations involved in all the neuron numbers and their possible connection sites ALWAYS, 100% of the time, boil down to a pattern of predictability seen in a card game and the orderliness of electromagnetic radiation ? I don't see how you can even justify supporting the cognitive function theories, because there's absolutely no logical reason to expect such congruency and symmetry in human beings in the first place. Nature is messier than this.
> 
> I blame it all on the overabundance of Js in psych. Get OUT of the psych labs, and learn some natural sciences. Or economics.... something dirty or messy, i don't know!





jerdol said:


> Jung is the best of the three. The problem is that many people misunderstand the theory, and the form of the MBTI exacerbates things.
> Kiersey's problem is that he's measuring behavior, and he's measuring skill. Neither of these has anything more than a weak correlation with personality. A person can be introverted yet outgoing, extraverted and shy, and an intuitive who's just bad at coming up with ideas. Intelligent people are often skilled at all 4 cognitive functions; this doesn't make them XXXXs.
> Jung had it right when talking about cognitive preference. I can judge deductively and I can judge based on gut feeling, but in every day decisions which am I more comfortable using? That's what makes a thinker or feeler. The MBTI judges based on how closely you fit to the stereotypical behavior, and gives percentages based on how sure they are (NOT how strong the preference is), and Kiersey sees the stereotyped behavior as the ideal. If a person reads enough about MBTI, he can understand his own type 99% of the time, and the similarities between people within a type is evidence of the validity of the breakdown.


I think there is a lot of symmetry in nature, and while they may not be as extensive as this theory, this is because the theory puts together several symmetries. There are a lot of "either/or"s in life, and type theory picks four of them, deemed to shape what is called personality, and puts them together into a type code. Cognitive function theory looks at the same thing through a different perspective. And temperament theory also pairs together different axes, such as how much a person expresses and wants from others; and this happens to correspond (in a rather convoluted, asymmetrical way) to the type system.

So the symmetry is probably not as much in nature as it is in our way of seeing and categorizing things. It's just more convenient that way.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

hasenj said:


> Well, this is really an argument against Jung's theory more than anything else.
> 
> If you assume I'm a dominant Fi with no Tx, then you'd stereotype me as "not comfortable with logic", which is not true at all.


I didn't say you had no T. Since you are a dominant Fi-user, that means that Te is your inferior function. This doesn't mean that you are incapable of thinking logically, but it does mean you can't be "borderline" T/F, no more than I could be borderline T/F, as I am a dominant Thinker. By saying I'm dominant Ti, many people would assume that I have no emotions at all, or not comfortable with emotion. But just because I have and experience emotions, that I feel compassion and that I enjoy serving others, this doesn't make me borderline T/F. To me, by saying that something is "borderline" implies that it is of near-equal strength/influence as something else. As a dominant Fi-user, Te can no way be on the same level as your Fi.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

hziegel said:


> I am starting to find that the more I try to categorize myself within Myer's rigid format, the more unreasonably complex it becomes. A system based on four extremities should not have to be broken down into a combination of childhood development, function abnormalities, individual perceptions of each function and all other outside influences. I agree with what Van and OrangeApple have already said, which is that Myer's system seems to be nothing more than personality stereotyping. For those people who fit into that system, it seems to work, and for the rest of us, well, we're just confused or need to try harder to find the right niche. Perhaps if we were focusing on our healthy personal and inter-personal cognitive skills instead of finding our place in the proposed 16-point world, we would actually start to know ourselves better.


I look at it the opposite way. If you want to type yourself you have to do some introspection. Typology systems alike MBTI provide you with a starting point for this - they provide you with some objective scales to compare your perceptions and behaviors to those other people people. This theoretically should lead you to greater understanding of yourself, an understanding of where you are coming from and what do you need, and alongside a better understanding of other people as well. At least this is how it happened for me. I see the four letter label, the process of "fitting myself into a system", as simply a tool, not a goal to achieve in itself.




noz said:


> I say the cog functions approach is just sheer bull simply on the grounds that NOTHING in nature is ever that ordered, predictable and congruent. NOT EVEN THE PERIODIC TABLE ITSELF HAS THE ORDERLINESS AND CONGRUENCY OF THE COGNITIVE FUNCTION LAYOUT!
> ...
> I blame it all on the overabundance of Js in psych. Get OUT of the psych labs, and learn some natural sciences. Or economics.... something dirty or messy, i don't know!


Yes, it is a model, and as all models go it is an incomplete simplified version of what's going on in reality.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

madhatter said:


> See this is the thing: these percentages are not cognitive functions. It is MBTI that puts percentages on dichtomies. And people think they are "borderline" because MBTI makes everything an either/or scenario, and there are rarely either/or scenarios in real life.
> 
> As an INFP, you cannot be borderline T/F...you are a dominant introverted Feeler. It's what rules your personality (according to the theory). I've heard many INFPs say that they think they're borderline T/F, which according to the theory of cognitive functions is just not possible. I think it's not a problem with their understanding as much as it's the problem with how the MBTI system inaccurately describes Feelers. It confuses people. Again, the stereotypes.
> 
> ...


Could they not be developing their thinking function at the moment and feel like they are leaning towards the middle, kind of like me but I know what's likely happening which is a dom-tert. loop?


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

SuPERNaUT said:


> Could they not be developing their thinking function at the moment and feel like they are leaning towards the middle, kind of like me but I know what's likely happening which is a dom-tert. loop?


I'm by no means an expert, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility. But with you, Te is your tertiary function, so it's a slightly different dynamic. But I'm still of the opinion that Fi is just mis-represented and misunderstood in general. Feeling is not about emotion, but about values, which still confuses me sometimes, as well as the diametric difference between Fe and Fi. From what I've seen around the forum, many INFPs don't identify with the over-emotionalized stereotyped descriptions of MBTI and temperament, and dislike the implications of being labelled as illogical, like hasenj mentioned. But I don't believe they are the only victims of this confusion. Like I have mentioned in previous threads, I hate Keirsey's descriptions of the SP temperament, and his representation of SPs confused me about my own type for a long time.

From what I've studied, development of the inferior function depends on several factors, one being age. The development of the inferior comes when you're older, when your other functions are already well-developed (ideally). You can try to develop your inferior function when you're younger, but I've read that it's better to work on your secondary first, and once you have a healthy balance of the dominant and auxiliary function, then the tertiary and inferior will be more supportive and positive on the whole, instead of antagonistic and negative. That's what I've been trying to do in my own personal self-growth. I don't know how successfully though, ha.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

noz said:


> I say the cog functions approach is just sheer bull simply on the grounds that NOTHING in nature is ever that ordered, predictable and congruent. NOT EVEN THE PERIODIC TABLE ITSELF HAS THE ORDERLINESS AND CONGRUENCY OF THE COGNITIVE FUNCTION LAYOUT! Stop and think about that for a second, and you will see my gripe and possibly kiersey's. Nothing in nature is ever THAT ordered, nothing. Not atoms, not genes, and certainly not the mechanisms that drive human cognition. To suggest that the complexity of the human brain and the physics that govern it could ACTUALLY yield the perfect, almost geometrical, form seen in the cognitive functions theory is an absurdity and insult to anyone attempting a rational approach to systematizing how human organisms think.
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way to you cog function supporters - Why ought we to EXPECT a breakdown of the human macro-organism to have as much order and SYMMETRY as the cognitive functions theory ? Where are the quirks and idiosyncrasies? How could the vast number of combinations involved in all the neuron numbers and their possible connection sites ALWAYS, 100% of the time, boil down to a pattern of predictability seen in a card game and the orderliness of electromagnetic radiation ? I don't see how you can even justify supporting the cognitive function theories, because there's absolutely no logical reason to expect such congruency and symmetry in human beings in the first place. Nature is messier than this.
> ...


I do not doubt the complexity of the human mind, but I agree with you. Because something is complex does not mean it is ordered. Too much order... with too much flexibility and neuroplasticity makes the cognitive functions useless. Well said.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

madhatter said:


> I'm by no means an expert, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility. But with you, Te is your tertiary function, so it's a slightly different dynamic. But I'm still of the opinion that Fi is just mis-represented and misunderstood in general. Feeling is not about emotion, but about values, which still confuses me sometimes, as well as the diametric difference between Fe and Fi. From what I've seen around the forum, many INFPs don't identify with the over-emotionalized stereotyped descriptions of MBTI and temperament, and dislike the implications of being labelled as illogical, like hasenj mentioned. But I don't believe they are the only victims of this confusion. Like I have mentioned in previous threads, I hate Keirsey's descriptions of the SP temperament, and his representation of SPs confused me about my own type for a long time.
> 
> From what I've studied, development of the inferior function depends on several factors, one being age. The development of the inferior comes when you're older, when your other functions are already well-developed (ideally). You can try to develop your inferior function when you're younger, but I've read that it's better to work on your secondary first, and once you have a healthy balance of the dominant and auxiliary function, then the tertiary and inferior will be more supportive and positive on the whole, instead of antagonistic and negative. That's what I've been trying to do in my own personal self-growth. I don't know how successfully though, ha.


I'm a mix of 2 in Keirsey's really I can't just pick one because it's impossible just like "interaction styles". I wonder if that's typical?

Off topic but in reply: (I should use this disclaimer all the time :tongue
Yeah I still get the stereotypical Feeling vibe despite all my efforts to change that. I agree with Jung that it should be called something else, but what is there really, Values? I don't identify with most of the stereotypes anywhere, which is one reason it was so hard to figure out my MBTI. They make all Fs seem like mushy, whiney, over sensitive people who crumble under any presence of negativity. SPs are usually equated with creativity and being a visual artist, which I don't see at all in myself either.

MBTI I seem to be a mix of a few but I know which is mine due to functions and development. Having finally found proper sources of definitions (ie: dumbed down :tongue I can now say I am sure of the order and rough times of development and I seem to be on target after all. I'm still in a loop though I think. It's the Fi when only capable of seeing in black/Ni that give me trouble now.

Oh, you should really see this then this would be an accurate depiction of my own and my use of them:happy: :
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...e-your-cognitive-function-set.html#post952087


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

^Yeah, I would say I'm a mix of Keirsey's NT and SP. Problem is, SP is also equated with this daredevil partying persona, and that is not me at all. 

And I'm in love with my introverted functions too much...the vicious circle of Ti-Ni.


----------



## Noxes the Grey (Jan 20, 2011)

Fascinating discussion guys, very pertinent to someone who is just getting started in trying to understand. I'm thinking I need to read more about the Jungian Cognitive Functions and put the MB Sliding Scale behind me before I read too much into the stereotypes. Bias like that is hard to shake once you buy into it.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Let's not miss a key point that we're discussing three different systems. There is Jung's function-attitudes that are followed by Jungian Psychologists and enthusiasts such as Beebe, von Franz, Dick Thompson, etc. These enthusiasts base their theories purely on how the functions interact with one another to create a whole. 

Then there is MBTI that is followed by enthusiasts such as Lenore Thomson, Naomi Quenck.... Although these folks appreciate the function attitudes, they focus on dichotomies E/I, S/N, T/F and J/P. When you begin to reference to forced dichotomies, you're no longer talking of functions. You're referring to an either/or forced dilemma. MBTI enthusiasts believe we use four functions, not eight like Beebe. Also Lenore Thomson has made efforts to consider all eight functions in her lasagna theory, she still places the third and fourth functions in the seventh and eighth position. Jungians see shadow types, MBTI enthusiasts see "grip episodes". 

Then we have Keirsey whose theory is based on Greek physician Hippocrates (460-370 BC) work. Keirsey's work is based on groups of MBTI types. That is indicative when you read the individual descriptions that show a bias toward particular dichotomies of MBTI (SP, SJ, NT, NF). Keirsey focuses on the commonality of the four groups in describing his individual descriptions by using Se, Si, Ni-Te/Ne-Ti, Ni-Fe/Ne-Fi). The problem is Keirsey describes ISPs in an extraverting way to remain consistent with the use of Se. This has been discussed in articles such as *this*. I see the differences this way:

Jung: A focus on very specific part of the personality led by a particular function that dominates the subsequent functions (*Ne-Fi-Te-Si-Ni-Fe-Ti-Se*);

Myers-Briggs: A more general focus of Jung's function-attitudes where dichotomies were created to administer the type indicator (*E*/I-*N*/S-*F*/T-*P*/J);

Keirsey: A very general view of type that is based on classical temperament psychology, referring to only two of Myers-Briggs' dichotomies (E-*N-F*-P) to show a two-letter commonality;

It's the readers, not the authors of these systems, that make attempts to correlate them. Each system has it's benefits and downfalls. But when you appreciate their independent contributions, they are excellent tools to determine your best-fit-type.


----------



## freeeekyyy (Feb 16, 2010)

noz said:


> I say the cog functions approach is just sheer bull simply on the grounds that NOTHING in nature is ever that ordered, predictable and congruent. NOT EVEN THE PERIODIC TABLE ITSELF HAS THE ORDERLINESS AND CONGRUENCY OF THE COGNITIVE FUNCTION LAYOUT! Stop and think about that for a second, and you will see my gripe and possibly kiersey's. Nothing in nature is ever THAT ordered, nothing. Not atoms, not genes, and certainly not the mechanisms that drive human cognition. To suggest that the complexity of the human brain and the physics that govern it could ACTUALLY yield the perfect, almost geometrical, form seen in the cognitive functions theory is an absurdity and insult to anyone attempting a rational approach to systematizing how human organisms think.
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way to you cog function supporters - Why ought we to EXPECT a breakdown of the human macro-organism to have as much order and SYMMETRY as the cognitive functions theory ? Where are the quirks and idiosyncrasies? How could the vast number of combinations involved in all the neuron numbers and their possible connection sites ALWAYS, 100% of the time, boil down to a pattern of predictability seen in a card game and the orderliness of electromagnetic radiation ? I don't see how you can even justify supporting the cognitive function theories, because there's absolutely no logical reason to expect such congruency and symmetry in human beings in the first place. Nature is messier than this.
> ...


 Because the cognitive functions are an abstraction. You can simplify a system and still have it be accurate. Are you also resistant to the terms "id," "superego" and "ego?" Because that too is an abstraction. There is no "id lobe" in the brain. Cognitive functions are symmetrical because that's how the system works. That doesn't make it incorrect, just simplified to a point that the information is actually useful to people.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Then there is MBTI that is followed by enthusiasts such as Lenore Thomson, Naomi Quenck.... Although these folks appreciate the function attitudes, they focus on dichotomies E/I, S/N, T/F and J/P. When you begin to reference to forced dichotomies, you're no longer talking of functions. You're referring to an either/or forced dilemma. MBTI enthusiasts believe we use four functions, not eight like Beebe. Also Lenore Thomson has made efforts to consider all eight functions in her lasagna theory, she still places the third and fourth functions in the seventh and eighth position. Jungians see shadow types, MBTI enthusiasts see "grip episodes".


For what I remember of Lenore Thomson, she uses the dichotomies as labels, but over 3/4 of the book focuses on the cognitive functions.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

I'm reading one of Quenck's books right now and I'm going to be pairing it with a simple functions book when I can, I like to use as many sources as I can and come to my own conclusions sometimes based on what makes sense to me. If that makes sense *cheats: *


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

madhatter said:


> For what I remember of Lenore Thomson, she uses the dichotomies as labels, but over 3/4 of the book focuses on the cognitive functions.


Agreed. She definitely moved away from the dichotomies, but at the time she wrote her book she was an avid MBTI follower. That was indicative of her lasagna theory which is what I wanted to convey in my post. She alludes to using the eight functions, but in a way that coincides with the theory of Myer-Briggs. The problem is Myers-Briggs' theory is based on a four-function model. As such Lenore Thomson claims for example that Fe remains the weakest function-attitude for ISTP, unlike the eight-model theory of Beebe and Berens showing it as Fi. The problem is when she does this, she also moves the tertiary function to 7th place to assure a proper order of the functions. Unfortunately the word tertiary literally means in third place, so our Ni must be that high accordingly. Once you place the tertiary in it's proper place, her lasagna theory becomes muddled.


----------



## str1nger (Sep 24, 2010)

Keirsey/MBTI are ok to get you started. But once you dig a little bit deeper, you realise that it's actually pretty bad, mostly wrong and that cognitive functions make a lot more sense. 

Noone is borderline T/F. If you score like that in one of those tests, it might mean that you have control over both your T and F function. So for me as an INTP, it could mean that I have good Fe supporting my Ti. But I think even that is giving those tests too much credit, as they don't really produce any meaningful results. For example, if you believe you're INFP and you test borderline F/T that doesn't mean that you use Fi 60% of the time and Te 40% of the time. It just means that the test is crap. Reading about functions and trying to understand them will be a much better use of your time if you're trying to figure your type out. 

Another myth these tests produce is weird functional orders, like Ti-Fi-Se-Ne-Ni-Si-Fe-Te. Even if the cognitive functions test tells you that that's your functional order, it isn't. It is more like Fi-Ne-Si-Te (for INFPs). 

And yeah, INFPs seem to be generally confused when it comes to Fi and their type. There are a few 'INTPs' on this forum whom I believe to be INFPs. They think that they are logical, and hence have to be INTPs. That's really just an oversimplified extrapolation of bad profiles and concepts. 

Another problem with the MBTI-approach is typing others. You hear sentences like "He is introverted and very T so he must be IxTx." Wrong. It could be that he's IxFx, but has poor control over or even hides his F-function which makes it seem like he's a T. If you look for concrete functions like Ti or Te, you'll find that your typing skills will improve a lot. But you must first understand what the functions are like.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Agreed. She definitely moved away from the dichotomies, but at the time she wrote her book she was an avid MBTI follower. That was indicative of her lasagna theory which is what I wanted to convey in my post. She alludes to using the eight functions, but in a way that coincides with the theory of Myer-Briggs. The problem is Myers-Briggs' theory is based on a four-function model. As such Lenore Thomson claims for example that Fe remains the weakest function-attitude for ISTP, unlike the eight-model theory of Beebe and Berens showing it as Fi. The problem is when she does this, she also moves the tertiary function to 7th place to assure a proper order of the functions. Unfortunately the word tertiary literally means in third place, so our Ni must be that high accordingly. Once you place the tertiary in it's proper place, her lasagna theory becomes muddled.


 But it's not about strength or weakness, in either Beebe or Lenore's order. It's more about the *roles* the functions play, in both versions.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Agreed. She definitely moved away from the dichotomies, but at the time she wrote her book she was an avid MBTI follower. That was indicative of her lasagna theory which is what I wanted to convey in my post. She alludes to using the eight functions, but in a way that coincides with the theory of Myer-Briggs. The problem is Myers-Briggs' theory is based on a four-function model. As such Lenore Thomson claims for example that Fe remains the weakest function-attitude for ISTP, unlike the eight-model theory of Beebe and Berens showing it as Fi. The problem is when she does this, she also moves the tertiary function to 7th place to assure a proper order of the functions. Unfortunately the word tertiary literally means in third place, so our Ni must be that high accordingly. Once you place the tertiary in it's proper place, her lasagna theory becomes muddled.


Ah yes, I prefer her ship analogy over her lasagna analogy, but even that uses a different ordering of the functions, with the tertiary and inferior at the bottom.


----------



## SoSaysSunny (Oct 24, 2009)

*On Borderline Personalities *giggle**

*KEIRSEY AN INTP?*
 


hasenj said:


> It might be interesting to note that Keirsey himself is an INTP (as he says in the book).





OrangeAppled said:


> Keirsey seems so focused on what is concrete and observable, I'd type him as ISTP according to Jung's theory.


When I first took Keirsey's Temperament Sorter, I tested as an xNxx.* I found my best-fit type (INTP) by reading the profiles.

I often come up as extraverted on personality tests but I am really introverted:


I am friendly and frequently strike up conversations with strangers but I *need* alone time.
I'm incredibly territorial with my time and space (and stuff).
I experience the world as though I were outside, looking in.
I have only a few friends but those are deep relationships.
I think I could be content in 23-hr. solitary confinement if I were in prison.
I decided that there was no way that the person who wrote the test could be an introvert because of the way the questions were worded. His entire focus was social situations ... not the internal world and territoriality.

Keirsey just doesn't get my kind of introvert. Maybe *he* is a socially-awkward introvert.​*PERSONALITY MODELS*



Eric B said:


> So the symmetry is probably not as much in nature as it is in our way of seeing and categorizing things. It's just more convenient that way.





vel said:


> Yes, it is a model, and as all models go it is an incomplete simplified version of what's going on in reality.


Q: What did the physicist say to help the dairy farmer optimize production?
A: "First, let us assume the cows are spherical ..." :crazy:​*BORDERLINE INTP / INFP?*



madhatter said:


> As an INFP, you cannot be borderline T/F...you are a dominant introverted Feeler. It's what rules your personality (according to the theory). I've heard many INFPs say that they think they're borderline T/F, which according to the theory of cognitive functions is just not possible.





str1nger said:


> And yeah, INFPs seem to be generally confused when it comes to Fi and their type. There are a few 'INTPs' on this forum whom I believe to be INFPs. They think that they are logical, and hence have to be INTPs. That's really just an oversimplified extrapolation of bad profiles and concepts.


But I'm the other way around: There's no doubt I'm logical/mathematical/analytical but I am also deeply feeling.*​*INFERIOR FUNCTION SKILLS*



madhatter said:


> From what I've studied, development of the inferior function depends on several factors, one being age.


This is one possibility, but I have always been both Ti and Fi.​*MY FUNCTION HIERARCHY*



str1nger said:


> Another myth these tests produce is weird functional orders, like Ti-Fi-Se-Ne-Ni-Si-Fe-Te. Even if the cognitive functions test tells you that that's your functional order, it isn't. It is more like Fi-Ne-Si-Te (for INFPs).


*Here are my scores* on a cognitive functions test (and true to my experience):*INTP* ... *INFP*​43% Ti. . . 1 . . . . *8 !*
 38% Fi. . . *8 !* . . . 1
 34% Te. . . 5 . . . . 4 
 31% Ne. . . 2 . . . . 2
 29% Se. . . 7 . . . . 7
 26% Ni. . . 6 . . . . 6
 21% Si. . . 3 . . . . 3
 19% Fe. . . 4 . . . . 5​Either way, my top two include what is supposed to be my worst function! Any idea how to make sense of that?​** CONFOUNDING VARIABLES (factors not previously considered)
*There is a confounding variable to consider: Mental Illness.

I am on a medication for depression & OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder). The OCD makes me look more J though I am totally a P. The depression makes me more emotional but I don't think that is enough to explain my INTP/INFP.​


----------



## Apollo Celestio (Mar 10, 2010)

I tend to take what is useful from each of the theories and synthesize it into a unified frame of reference, this includes most of my reading, but including the Cognitive Styles theory by Lane Friesen (Which I and an ENTP friend easily absorbed) and they pretty much expand on the functions mostly, and tell how the "strategies" are used in the real world. It gives personality profiles, but it's so much more than that. In CS, Fe is strongly tied to "Approval Conscience" which goes against Ti's "natural conscience" it's all so very interesting. I use MBTI when introducing it to others, as the simplest model works best when working with people who know nothing...kind of like a gateway crack in the land of personality theory.


----------



## mickey (Jan 7, 2011)

I just think of the MBTI as a name tag that says "Hi, my name is -insert name here-" To me, it doesn't have to be perfect as long as it works enough to be useful (whether or not Jungian psychology meshes with it). No test (or theory) is really going to be able to unlock the mysteries of identity (unless its results are a big as the Bible). Considering this, I think the MBTI is very useful in helping people to connect with others. I mean, look at these forums. Who cares if it doesn't all wash if it helps people to understand themselves just a bit better or explain themselves to others with less difficulty? I swear, I think life would be easier if we were all walking around with name tags on that said (for example) 'Hi, I'm Mickey and I'm an INTJ.' Ha!!!! Well, maybe that's a_ little_ extreme....


----------



## SoSaysSunny (Oct 24, 2009)

*On Personality Name Tags*



mickey said:


> I think life would be easier if we were all walking around with name tags on that said (for example) 'Hi, I'm Mickey and I'm an INTJ.' Ha!!!! Well, maybe that's a_ little_ extreme....


I think it would be lovely ... 

Add gender, age, nationality, and religion and it would be perfect!

(that is so long as folks actually listen to what the other says and not project stereotypes on them)


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

Being "border-line" makes perfect sense to me.

Think of it this way.

TeamTechnology.com likes to draw the cognitive functions this way









(source: INFP Personality Types)

I like to visualize it differently:


```
[===== Fi===||====Ti===]

   [=== Ne ========||= Se =]
```
Or to represent it in circles:

The Top circle is not "feeling" but rather "judgment function", this function is introverted, and it's a blend of F and T to a certain degree.

The second circle, is not "intuition", but rather "perceiving function", it is extroverted, and it's a blend of N and S.

Notice of course it is simply an abstraction ..

It seems to work for me: I totally see in myself elements from Ti and some elements from Se.


----------



## str1nger (Sep 24, 2010)

Either you're one in a billion, or you have yet to fully understand the functions. Or both. But trust me, you don't use both lots of Ti+Fi, lots of Ne+Se. 

Sorry if this post sounds a bit rude, but I'm not sure what to say that hasn't been said yet.

(There's a really good source on functions, but they don't let you post it here.)


----------



## Van (Dec 28, 2009)

hasenj said:


> Being "border-line" makes perfect sense to me.
> 
> Think of it this way.
> 
> ...


Ok. I see what you're saying, but this is no longer MBTI nor cognitive functions as they are generally understood. If we're going to go down that road, then here it is:

[======Fi======][=Te=]
[====Ne====][===Si===]

Fi and Te operate together. Why not Fi/Ti or Te/Fe? Fi and Ti are the same thing at heart, but it can work with either values or principles. Working with both, equally, at the same time is all kinds of dissonant and impossible. The same goes for Te/Fe. Another bad combination is Fi/Fe, as upholding subjective values and objective values at the same time is also impossible. So you can see that Fi and Te are the only two that can tolerate eath other, two sides of the same coin. One must still take precedence over the other - the coin is only stable when one side is face down. A well developed INFP would have access to both Fi and Te, and might be considered borderline in MBTI terms. However, they are still far away from being an INTP, which uses Ti/Fe.

I could go on, but it's only my subjective interpretation of a pre-existing personality theory which makes it next to useless. In order to discuss personality theory with anyone else, I need to refer to the cognitive functions model - keeping in mind that it is _probably not true_. Please don't think that I assume horrible things about people because I like thinking in terms of cognitive functions. In fact, I think I'm less likely to do that than if I preferred MBTI or Keirsey. The only reason Keirsey hasn't found any SPs or SJs who prefer abstractions to concretions are because he would merely label them as NFs or NTs instead.


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

> Fi and Ti are the same thing at heart, but it can work with either values or principles. Working with both, equally, at the same time is all kinds of dissonant and impossible.

Quite the opposite; this makes them pretty much the same thing with some differences, otherwise it wouldn't be a continuum. At least, I view them as a continuum. Every dichotomy in MBTI is a continuum; a dimension.

A way to sorta "prove" that it's a continuum is think about them as abstraction of very complex interactions. It's not like there's a switch inside your brain that says "F" or "T". It's complex entangled processes that interact with each other and manifest as T or F. And I interpret F as really just T + subjective values. You can be an extreme T, which is like T with very little subjectivity, or extreme T, which is like, T with a lot of subjectivity, or you can be somewhere in between, depending on the levels of subjectivity and "personal-ness" that gets incorporated in your T.

On the other hand, Fi and Te are just exact opposites; so are Ne and Si. Just look at how these attitudes annoy each other.


----------



## Van (Dec 28, 2009)

hasenj said:


> Quite the opposite; this makes them pretty much the same thing with some differences, otherwise it wouldn't be a continuum. At least, I view them as a continuum. Every dichotomy in MBTI is a continuum; a dimension.


I don't understand 'otherwise it wouldn't be a continuum'. I've disagreed that there is a continuum in the first place. In the MBTI, there is a T-F continuum. As far as I know, neither Jung nor the MBTI has any Ti-Fi continuum.



hasenj said:


> A way to sorta "prove" that it's a continuum is think about them as abstraction of very complex interactions. It's not like there's a switch inside your brain that says "F" or "T". It's complex entangled processes that interact with each other and manifest as T or F.


Personality theories are naturally abstractions of complex interactions. We could 'prove' anything we wanted. I'm not an expert on how the mind works, but I don't think a person can healthily have what we call Ti and Fi at the same time. Let's say a person does have borderline Ti and Fi: what happens when they disagree? One system gets crushed, and can no longer be trusted as a source of judgement.



hasenj said:


> And I interpret F as really just T + subjective values. You can be an extreme T, which is like T with very little subjectivity, or extreme T, which is like, T with a lot of subjectivity, or you can be somewhere in between, depending on the levels of subjectivity and "personal-ness" that gets incorporated in your T.
> 
> On the other hand, Fi and Te are just exact opposites; so are Ne and Si. Just look at how these attitudes annoy each other


I disagree that F = subjectivity. F is subjective or objective depending on where its values come from. Fi and Te are opposites, but they require each other. You can't have internal subjectivity without external objectivity. I'm sure you already know this, and that's why your belief in subjective F and objective T requires you to also believe that people can be borderline T/F.


----------



## str1nger (Sep 24, 2010)

Ji = Subjectivity
Je = Objectivity

Both Ti and Fi doms are highly subjective which is why Jung called them Irrational types. 

Fi + Te = I feel, we think. Subjective moral values & objective logic. Values are personal, logic is based on an objective standard. The current scientific theory is X, therefore it must be true or at least closer to the truth than anything else. On the other hand, just because noone else cares I have a right to be pissed if you don't close the door because I REALLY HATE IT if people leave it open!

Ti + Fe = I think, we feel. Subjective logic, objective values. As long as I understand the theory, as long as it makes sense to me, I don't care if everyone else has a different opinion because it makes sense for me. But I trust the collective for making moral decisions, if most people think that you shouldn't lie, I feel the same way. 

So INTP and INFP are actually very very different, even though they're both INxP. You strike me as very INTP. The fact that you find no evidence of Pi or Je in you might be an indicator for the fact that you haven't yet developed your tertiary and inferior functions (Si and Fe) very much. That's totally fine, and it's good to find out about it :wink:


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

Your description of Ti fits me, that is:

> As long as I understand the theory, as long as it makes sense to me, I don't care if everyone else has a different opinion because it makes sense for me.

Your description of Fi also fits me:

> On the other hand, just because noone else cares I have a right to be pissed if you don't close the door because I REALLY HATE IT if people leave it open!

BUT, your description of Fe doesn't really fit me:

> But I trust the collective for making moral decisions, if most people think that you shouldn't lie, I feel the same way. 

No, that's not how I base my morals.

Also your Te description:

> The current scientific theory is X, therefore it must be true or at least closer to the truth than anything else. 

Doesn't fit with me at all.

Both my morals (F) and logic (T) stem from within. I don't care if you tell me "this is what everyone says/thinks".

I do fine some elements of Te in me, but it's often negative (being critical of people).

Plus, the Je for the INxP in the current generally accepted interpretation is the inferior function and is not supposed to have much of any manifestation except under pressure, and often in negative ways.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I went through a phase of entirely rejecting cognitive theory because it started to seem equally plausible that I could be ENFP or ISFP...am I forceful and fond of stating things plainly because of tertiary Te, or auxillary Se? Am I an introverted extrovert i.e. ENFP or an extroverted introvert i.e. ISFP (both seem highly likely)? Do I want experience because of Ne or Se? Does my penchant for literary analysis come from an Ne dom, or just a firm command of tertiary Ni? Etc. Etc. 

And even when I take cognitive functions tests though I'm high on Ne, Fi, Ni, and Fe...the strength of my Se begs the question of how much I really am preferring it? Lord knows I've seen someone who is clearly using a buttload of Si and Fe think of herself as INTP when it appears to be the furthest thing from the truth. Is this why some people think I'm ISFP and not ENFP?

So I just said, forget this, I'm going with my dichotemy preferences...but it turns out from taking various dichotomy tests that even those preferences appear to be pretty strongly NFP, though fluctuate on I/E.

It always seem like the stereotypes DO come into play when deciding between two types...well, this person is so opinionated that ENFP seems more likely than ISFP, you know. 

Gah. I'm pretty sure that I'm more NF than SP, though, if we divide the four temperaments.


----------



## str1nger (Sep 24, 2010)

Yeah, balancing Fe is actually extremely important for becoming a healthy INTP but whatever. I feel like you're not trying to actually listen to what I and others are saying on this matter. Instead you just stick to simplified definitions that won't get you any further. Because of that I will stop wasting my time on this matter.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

hasenj said:


> .
> Both my morals (F) and logic (T) stem from within. I don't care if you tell me "this is what everyone says/thinks".


I honestly think you're having tunnel vision in this matter, for whatever reason. Very well, it's fine if you think that way. But if this is truly the case, you must have a very unbalanced personality then. 

Ti and Fi do share certain superficial characteristics, because they both are introverted Judgment functions. But there is really no way they could co-exist as dominant functions in a healthy individual. 

Ti *needs* Fe and Fi *needs* Te. Even though Ti-doms and Fe-doms (or Fi-doms and Te-doms) get on each other's nerves, it's usually because one is strong where the other is weak, but they also complement each other, because of this very reason. 

Ti and Fi don't complement each other; their very natures contradict each other.



hasenj said:


> I do fine some elements of Te in me, but it's often negative (being critical of people).
> 
> Plus, the Je for the INxP in the current generally accepted interpretation is the inferior function and is not supposed to have much of any manifestation except under pressure, and often in negative ways.


As your inferior function, Te will manifest itself negatively, because it's not as developed as your dominant function. This points to Fi being your dominant function. I would encourage you to find a good description and comparison of both Te and Ti. Lenore Thomson, despite her theories about function order, has some really in-depth and helpful descriptions of all the functions in her book. You can read an excerpt here if you wish.

If not, then I have spoken my piece, and that is all. Peace out.


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

Well, I already established that I don't necessarily agree with everything MBTI (or even Jung, for that matter) say about cognitive functions.

Just keep in mind these things are not hard facts, they're ideas; don't take them too literally.

There's a wiki about Lenore Thomson's description of types:

Introverted Thinking

This description of Ti seems very similar to Ne, and I can relate to it quite a lot:

> Introverted Thinking (Ti) is the attitude that beneath the complexity of what is manifest (apparent, observed, experienced) there is an underlying unity: a source or essence that emerges and takes form in different ways depending on circumstances. What is manifest is seen as a manifestation of something.

Where's the Fi definition .. not so much: Introverted Feeling

That doesn't necessarily mean I'm INTP (it could), but it really just means I don't agree with Lenore Thompson's interpretation.

Other descriptions of Fi make more sense to me, and while I use Ti (or something that's best described by it) when devling into science and philosophy (such as right now), my everyday life is better described by Fi.

Introverted Feeling

More specifically, this description: Portrait of an INFP

> INFPs, more than other iNtuitive Feeling types, are focused on making the world a better place for people. Their primary goal is to find out their meaning in life. What is their purpose? How can they best serve humanity in their lives? They are idealists and perfectionists, who drive themselves hard in their quest for achieving the goals they have identified for themselves

This one too, which just confirms (for me anyway) that I'm INFP rather than INTP:

> INFPs do not like conflict, and go to great lengths to avoid it. If they must face it, they will always approach it from the perspective of their feelings. In conflict situations, INFPs place little importance on who is right and who is wrong. They focus on the way that the conflict makes them feel, and indeed don't really care whether or not they're right. They don't want to feel badly.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Have you checked out the descriptions at TypeLogic Home Page? It gives profiles to the personality types, and a function break-down and description for the top four functions (dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior). It kind of gives you an idea how each function affects the whole type, or how they may manifest. Some of the descriptions are very good, while others are, granted, a little vague. It's just another useful resource. I like it in particular for its proposed "type relationships", which give a short snippet how each personality type relates to the other fifteen. 



> Just keep in mind these things are not hard facts, they're ideas; don't take them too literally.


Don't worry, I don't. I'm just a purist when it comes to the functions. It's true that this is merely a psychological theory, and psychology is not a hard science. But, I am discussing the functions within the scope of the theory, and within that scope, what you are proposing is non-canonical. Blame it on my Ti, I can be quite obsessive in correcting people, but it is never personal. I have found however that people don't always appreciate being corrected all the time or being shown the error of their ways wink, so I try to tone it down. Obviously I'm not succeeding very well! :crazy:


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

> Blame it on my Ti, I can be quite obsessive in correcting people,

hehe, I blame it on your S 

Also, obessing on correcting people somehow reminds me of Te. Are you sure you're not STJ?

"This is the accepted theory; you can't argue with it" sounds very STJ-ish to me.

> But, I am discussing the functions within the scope of the theory, and within that scope, what you are proposing is non-canonical.

Well, exactly! I never said any of what I'm saying is canonical. 

Btw, typelogic's descriptions are one of the worst I found.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

> Also, obsessing on correcting people somehow reminds me of Te. Are you sure you're not STJ?


Positive. Ti is about analyzing systems and patterns, and pinpointing and clarifying inconsistencies. It's not so much about the people for me, as it is perfecting the system, the idea. 

Te is also systematic, but not in the same way. It's about sequence and organization and planning, perfecting the order in the outer environment.



> "This is the accepted theory; you can't argue with it" sounds very STJ-ish to me.


You can argue or disagree all you want, I didn't say you couldn't. What you quoted was your interpretation of my words, not the actual ones.

On the contrary, I welcome good discussion. It's not about what is "accepted" for me. It's about what works. This theoretical system is one of balance and symmetry. While every system has its limits, and indeed this cognitive function theory does have its limits, how it set up still makes sense. Granted, this is coming for my personal observations and experience.



> Btw, typelogic's descriptions are one of the worst I found.


Fair enough. I know I don't particularly like the description for ISTP either, but some of the other profiles for some of my family's personality types were better. 
I have an ISTJ sister, and we are very different people, not just in our surface behaviors, but also in our mentalities.


----------

