# 4 Letters vs Cognitive Functions: Which is the Superior Method?



## Mysteryman (Apr 21, 2012)

Title says it all.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

I don't think either method is necessarily superior of its own accord; in theory, at least, both methods have something worthwhile to say about how it is that human personality works. As presented, however, I find it hard not to see distinct flaws in the rigid structures that most all cognitive functions theories present, models that would preclude certain possibilities, and terms lacking in clear and meaningful definition (the latter is true also of the dichotomies side of the theory, but I would argue to a lesser extent). So I think, at present, the value of the "dichotomies" approach to type is greater than that of any of the cognitive functions theories I've come across.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

The four letters give no value to the fact that everyone uses all functions. With the four letters you might be conflicted as to whether you are an T or F because you think and feel. In the cognitive functions this is made a lot more clear.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

As far as labeling goes, the four-letter system is a lot more simplified and easier to understand.

At the same time, the 4-letter system relies too heavily on type descriptions and is very far-removed from anything tangible or relatable, which is why cognitive functions shine and have caught on so strongly. Because they add reasoning behind the descriptions, something the 4-letter system fails to do.

Overall the cognitive function system seems superior. But clearly it needs work because it leads to many people holding misunderstandings about it.

In effect, they are quite the same system.

"TJ" in the four-letter system is simply called "Te" in the cognitive function system.
"TP" in the four-letter system is simply called "Ti" in the cognitive function system.
"NP" in the four-letter system is simply called "Ne" in the cognitive function system.
"NJ" in the four-letter system is simply called "Ni" in the cognitive function system.
.
.
.

So, as you can see, they are very much the exact same system. However one is easier to understand for a mainstream, casual MBTI enthusiast, while the other system provides much more clarification and understanding.


Though, as the poster above me mentioned, the 4-letter system creates quite a bit of confusion as it relies too heavily on the idea that there are dichotomies. Which few people can relate to.

So this leads to rampant mistyping and inability to type oneself.

Something the cognitive function system solves for most people.

One problem people frequently mention about the 4-letter system is that many of the descriptions seem equally-relatable.

When compared to the cognitive functions, few are unable to determine between Fe/Fi, Te/Ti, Ne/Ni because they are so incredibly different. They are exact opposite ways of doing things.

In the 4-letter system, you see many INFPs being unable to decide between INFJ and INFP because the descriptions of these types are nearly identical. When cognitive functions come into play, it becomes very clear what the differences are.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

I really struggle to comprehend the above viewpoints. The "dichotomies" theory is, I think, quite explicit about the notion of preference, and of each being present in a person but with some preferred over others. For a person to see solely the fact that they "both think and feel" as complicating T/F would be directly misinterpreting this notion of preference. Yet the vast majority of cognitive functions theories do lead to similar complications as this precisely because they prevent people who see themselves as "doing both" from finding type - how does a model that only allows each function to have one attitude account for any individual who perceives both concrete and abstract information in a subjective fashion (i.e., Si and Ni), for instance? This limiting aspect to many cognitive functions theories seems to me a major drawback that inhibits their ability to accurately classify people as much as they really ought to (given each type is, supposedly, so distinct).

[@Ninjaws; @emberfly]


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

I'd prefer 5 letters of the BIG5


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> I really struggle to comprehend the above viewpoints. The "dichotomies" theory is, I think, quite explicit about the notion of preference, and of each being present in a person but with some preferred over others. For a person to see solely the fact that they "both think and feel" as complicating T/F would be directly misinterpreting this notion of preference. Yet the vast majority of cognitive functions theories do lead to similar complications as this precisely because they prevent people who see themselves as "doing both" from finding type - how does a model that only allows each function to have one attitude account for any individual who perceives both concrete and abstract information in a subjective fashion (i.e., Si and Ni), for instance? This limiting aspect to many cognitive functions theories seems to me a major drawback that inhibits their ability to accurately classify people as much as they really ought to (given each type is, supposedly, so distinct).
> 
> [@Ninjaws; @emberfly]


Si is not concrete. That's Se.
A person with Se also has Ni.
Si is just as abstract and weird as Ni.
Ne is just as concrete and real as Se.

When you learn about the functions, you realize that everyone is actually doing the same things, just flipped around.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Cesspool said:


> Si is not concrete. That's Se.
> A person with Se also has Ni.
> Si is just as abstract and weird as Ni.
> Ne is just as concrete and real as Se.
> ...


What do you make the S/N divide to be, then, if you're shifting concrete/abstract onto the I/E attitude instead, and ascribing realness to Ne and weirdness to Si in equal measure with their Se and Ni counterparts? I've seen both dimensions - i/e, and S/N - described as presenting a concrete/abstract divide, and the general response when this seeming overlap is pointed out is to say that the "concrete" nature of extraverted functions is better termed "objective", and the "abstract" nature of introverted functions better termed "subjective", so that's the perspective I'm working from.

Either way, I think the problem I presented still persists, to the extent that the theory you adhere to involves inferring the orientation and order of preference of other functions on the basis solely of having found evidence for one function. So yes, I'd be interested to know what you make the S/N divide to be...


----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

I don't believe in typing via letters.

Just saying this because I happened to be an INFJ with a well-developed Ti. If I were to type myself via those letters I would have been a thinking type rather than a feeling type. 

I think cognitive functions is a much more accurate way to type people, in my opinion.


----------



## Slagasauras (Jun 26, 2013)

The cognitive functions; you aren't going to be an INFP if you don't have Fi-Ne-Si-Te in that order, just as well as any other type.


----------



## Runemarks (Jul 23, 2012)

Cognitive functions. I'm INFP, and I often feel more similar to, say, ESFPs, than to INFJs.


----------



## Cbyermen (Nov 28, 2014)

I always thought of the four letter codes as a representation of the cognitive functions stack. Each letter (introvert, sensing, thinking, perceiving, etc.) is like a general gist of how a person works, but cognitive functions always seemed to be the underlying meaning of letter by letter typing.


----------



## Clare_Bare (Apr 6, 2015)

I voted the Cognitive Functions - they are far more specific.


----------

