# Questions for the "MBTI is flawed" people and others



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

I have been reading the threads which allege that MBTI is a flawed model basically because Isabelle Myers made a bunch of unwarranted assumptions and messed up Jung's theory by saying everybody fits into 16 types. So, since one of the authors of these challenges a poster to take the cognitive functions test, and since someone else told me to try to understand them, I first got an understanding of what they mean, and then took two of the more reliable looking tests under constant conditions.

So, according to Keys2cognition, my functions are lined up as follows:

Ni 48.8 > Fi 40.4 > Ti 39.6 > Te 31.8 > Ne 29.8 > Si 19.6 >Fe 18.6 > Se 11.2

I took the cognitive functions test on Similarminds.com right afterwards, under the same test conditions, and I got the following stacking:

Fi > Ni > Ti > Fe > Ne > Te > Se & Si 

The big takeaway is that I have Ni, Fi, and Ti as my top three functions, with Fe, Te, and Ne somewhere in the middle, and Si and Se probably at the end.

But isn't that impossible according to Myers-Briggs? I didn't lie on the test; I wouldn't do that because it would be counter-productive to my goal of understanding myself and how I operate.


----------



## The Hungry One (Jan 26, 2011)

Yeah basically the system is flawed. I remember reading on oddlydevelopedtypes (a very great site by the way that uses a hilarious post-apocalyptic premise to explain MBTI) that cognitive functions have not been proven to exist. I suppose if we assume they do, because your top functions are Ni and Fi, and Ti is pretty close to Te, INTJ is still the most correct type. Though I mean, everything else is a mess.

Instead, the author proposes ranking strength of E vs I, N vs S, etc, and forget about cognitive functions. This would yield 384 (?) (ugh math) different types, and I believe would thus be more tailored to the individual... And really gets rid of one of the MBTI's greatest flaws, a focus on absolutes (I or E, N or S) instead of taking into account the degree each trait manifests...

Haven't really done any extensive research though so I will stick around and see what other people have found.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

The Hungry One said:


> Yeah basically the system is flawed. I remember reading on oddlydevelopedtypes (a very great site by the way that uses a hilarious post-apocalyptic premise to explain MBTI) that cognitive functions have not been proven to exist. I suppose if we assume they do, because your top functions are Ni and Fi, and Ti is pretty close to Te, INTJ is still the most correct type. Though I mean, everything else is a mess.
> 
> Instead, the author proposes ranking strength of E vs I, N vs S, etc, and forget about cognitive functions. This would yield 384 (?) (ugh math) different types, and I believe would thus be more tailored to the individual... And really gets rid of one of the MBTI's greatest flaws, a focus on absolutes (I or E, N or S) instead of taking into account the degree each trait manifests...
> 
> Haven't really done any extensive research though so I will stick around and see what other people have found.


Yeah... I took it again allowing for the fact that I have been totally isolated for a week, and came up with a raised Fe and an evaluation of INFJ. I conclude that since MBTI dictates that if I have an introverted dom, my auxiliary must be extroverted, that therefore as soon as Fe passed Te, they handed me off to INFJ. Because that's the difference between INFJ and INTJ, the Fe versus Te, or at least that 's the major difference.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

1.) The cognitive functions tests are indeed flawed. Use the information _only_ as a basepoint at best. 

2.) There exist multiple different theories in regards to cognitive function line-ups:

Examples for an ENTP:
- Standard: Ne-Ti-Fe-Si, loop order: Ne-Fe-Ti-Si (EIEI or IEIE)
- Jungian: Ne-Te-Fi-Si (EEII or IIEE) 
- Myers: Ne-Ti-Fi-Si (EIII or IEEE)
- Aux/Tert Ambiguious: Ne-T-F-Si


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Raawx said:


> 1.) The cognitive functions tests are indeed flawed. Use the information _only_ as a basepoint at best.
> 
> 2.) There exist multiple different theories in regards to cognitive function line-ups:
> 
> ...


This is all so beastly complicated because everything is is dispute, or can be viewed as not definitive! I have only been here two days, but I've run through well over 100 posts trying to get to the bottom of typology fast. 

I want to master this, so even though I won't be able to pay as much attention in the future, I will still get better.

Is there anything which is a settled given in typology?


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Kollenhausen said:


> This is all so beastly complicated because everything is is dispute, or can be viewed as not definitive! I have only been here two days, but I've run through well over 100 posts trying to get to the bottom of typology fast.
> 
> I want to master this, so even though I won't be able to pay as much attention in the future, I will still get better.
> 
> Is there anything which is a settled given in typology?


Good God. I commend you for your valiant effort. 

As far as things set in stone, Find your dominant and inferior functions (1 & 4). Those are largely set in stone, so that way you're at least deliberating between two different types. 

Perhaps look at socionics? I've heard from someone *cough* @Word Dispenser *cough* that it's fairly useful in understanding the self.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

People's distortions are their own worst enemy. The only thing I can say is Myers' official MBTI test dichotomies don't substitute for cognitive functions analysis done independently. 

There _are_ 16 "types" (not formally, but informally) that suggest themselves from Jung. A dom function in 2 different possible attitudes, that makes 8. And tack on an auxiliary that fits them best, and that's 16.

That doesn't mean one HAS to classify into 8 or 16. One could just classify into introverts/extraverted types. Or whatever one wishes. People have clearer preferences on some things than others.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you may know), and his test (the first one you mentioned) is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test — but, as further discussed in this INTJforum post, INTJs typically get high Ni scores _and high Ne scores_ (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test.

As I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs reliably get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs reliably get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model. I'm theoretically an "Ni-dom," but Te and Ti were my two highest scores on Nardi's test.

Assuming you have reasonably well-defined preferences, I think you're more likely to correctly type yourself using dichotomy-based tests than tests (or analysis) based on the "cognitive functions." And if you've got one or more preferences that are in or near the middle, I think dichotomy-based tests are more likely to correctly indicate that situation as well.

If you're interested, you can find out quite a bit more about the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history — and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — in this long INTJforum post.

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that post:

McCrae & Costa article
Reynierse article​


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

> I'm theoretically an "Ni-dom," but Te and Ti were my two highest scores on Nardi's test.




That's to be expected yeah. By my analysis, a lot of "INTJ" scorers in my friend circle are thinking-heavy, and there's no reason to think they lead with intuition, or that it's even their preferred supporting function the way I view things {obviously based on my readings and consistency checks, nothing official}. 

Another comment is that they might not even score that high on sensation if it's used primarily _in support_​ to thinking, because in the tests, all this stuff about "in tune with environment" sounds like an Se-dom, not like someone who makes sense observations to support thinking. Basically the tests offer a limited sample of the kinds of ways a sensing inclination can manifest.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

I believe MBTI is flawed, but not for the reasons discussed above... The bit that I threw out was the notion of 'cognitive functions'.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Snow Leopard said:


> I believe MBTI is flawed, but not for the reasons discussed above... The bit that I threw out was the notion of 'cognitive functions'.


You and Myers. 

What was your rationale? Too difficult to define the cognitive process? They have a tendency to overlap?


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Raawx said:


> What was your rationale? Too difficult to define the cognitive process? They have a tendency to overlap?


In Gifts Differing, Myers still uses some of the notions, for example She'd say (in the section of IxFPs), that 'introverted feelers...'.

I on the other hand look at personality as a whole and don't believe that discrete functions can really be isolated in the way described. The descriptions provided by many on the topic do tend to overlap...


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Snow Leopard said:


> In Gifts Differing, Myers still uses some of the notions, for example She'd say (in the section of IxFPs), that 'introverted feelers...'.
> 
> I on the other hand look at personality as a whole and don't believe that discrete functions can really be isolated in the way described. The descriptions provided by many on the topic do tend to overlap...


Hmph. You've limited yourself to my questions, and they apparently weren't helpful. What do you mean "personality as a whole"? That doesn't make sense. So you just see a person and think, "Oh, that's a xxxx!" but have no rationale to back it up? It simply is? And is this based on your understanding of each of the types and what they look like? Do you believe in the dichotomies? 

Excuse my extensive questions, I'm just can't understand why someone would revert back to dichotomies or some other, more vague, explanation.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Raawx said:


> Hmph. You've limited yourself to my questions, and they apparently weren't helpful. What do you mean "personality as a whole"? That doesn't make sense. So you just see a person and think, "Oh, that's a xxxx!" but have no rationale to back it up? It simply is? And is this based on your understanding of each of the types and what they look like? Do you believe in the dichotomies?


In a word, yes. Typology to me is much more of an art, than a science. I tend to see personalities as a whole and while you could take a few individual behaviours and modes and try to slot them into the Jungian functions, you still need to observe a large number of behaviours of that person to grasp their full personality anyway. I don't really believe that anyone actually performs some sort of explicit calculus of behaviours and cognitive functions when determining someone type. In the end, it is still based on our overall impressions of others, rather than some sort of analytical method.

Oh and questionnaires fall far short (and I am strongly critical of psychological science which relies entirely on self-report questionnaires too). 

Anyway, to me, our experiences in seeing common patterns amongst people of a given 'xxxx' is what makes typology seem useful to us. But what it is really providing is simply a perspective and language to be able to see and describe these patterns.

I guess I should also explain that I became aware of MBTI as a pre-teen and I'm not sure if I fully understood what Myers was writing back then, nor was I aware of the depth of the Jungian theory back then. So my perspective may have evolved differently to those who become aware of all this in a short period of time.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

reckful said:


> Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you may know), and his test (the first one you mentioned) is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test — but, as further discussed in this INTJforum post, INTJs typically get high Ni scores _and high Ne scores_ (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test.
> 
> As I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs reliably get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs reliably get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model. I'm theoretically an "Ni-dom," but Te and Ti were my two highest scores on Nardi's test.
> 
> ...


Fascinating. You made the case against the functions as well as I have heard anyone make the case for them, and then Mcrae & Costa give you some empirical support. Reynierse sends it home for me by pointing out that there is empirical evidence for the sixteen types, and no good evidence at all for 'type dynamics'. 

This is really interesting. Intuitively, it makes sense that the complicated stackings and (Fi and Fe vs. just F) are not supported empirically, at least yet, but at the same time, it doesn't make good sense to me that there would only be sixteen types. It just 'feels' too simplistic. But from what I have seen, you definitely have more evidence on your side right now. 

Get back to me if I wasn't getting to the core of what you were saying.

What makes typology hard is becoming clearer to me now; there are a number of very smart and informed people on the forum with a good understanding of a typology, but many of them are convinced of quite different typology systems. I'm not sure yet how I will deal with that one.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

I don't understand why people trust the function test so much



> _The function test doesn't attempt to rank each of the eight functions in order of how much you use them, it just lists how likely it thinks it is that you use each function. So if it comes back saying
> __
> Ni, Ne, Te, Fe, Si, Fi, Ti, Se
> __
> you should __not interpret that as 'Ni is my strongest function, then Ne is my second strongest function' etc. You either have introverted intuition or extraverted intuition, you don't have both. So how you should interpret it is, the test is saying to you 'I think you are a strong Ni user, but if that doesn't sit right with you, then you are a strong Ne user...but either way you have strong intuition in one form or another'. Also the test is shit anyway._


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Your function test actually DOES reflect INTJ, in my opinion. Ni-Fi, with Te fairly close in strength is a fairly common result for INTJs.

Not that the function test is always perfectly accurate, but it's important to figure out what functions you actually use in some manner.

My own results are Ni-Ti, with Fe as the third strongest... which reflects INFJ. And yes, Fi/Te vs Ti/Fe is the primary difference between INTJ and INFJ. Aside from that, they're both Jung's "Introverted Intuition" types.



> The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle.
> 
> If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man 'gone wrong', a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for 'psychological' novels.
> 
> ...


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

There's the underlying assumption that Jung is correct or superior. "Oh these types and dichotomies are wrong they don't reflect Jung's actual work."


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

sole observer said:


> There's the underlying assumption that Jung is correct or superior. "Oh these types and dichotomies are wrong they don't reflect Jung's actual work."


It's not that they're wrong, per se. It's just that they work a lot better with people who are balanced and well-adjusted. Jung's typology works better for people who might be a little... off. Many of us here on this site just happen to find Jung's less positive, more neurosis-focused descriptions to be helpful in seeing our own nature. Possibly because we're not as balanced as we should be.

If anything, I think the dichotomies are important for organizing the functions and helping to explain the kind of patterns that appear in them. After you discover what your strongest function is... you can figure out what function needs to be used as an auxiliary. The natural function order suggested by one of the 16 types is an excellent roadmap for personal development.



Kollenhausen said:


> What makes typology hard is becoming clearer to me now; there are a number of very smart and informed people on the forum with a good understanding of a typology, but *many of them are convinced of quite different typology systems. I'm not sure yet how I will deal with that one.*


If I were in your position, I would get to know the people who are convinced of various systems. Chances are good that if you don't care for their attitudes and thought processes in general, their opinions on typology aren't a good fit for you either. 

In other words, I'm suggesting that the method that will work best for you, is likely that chosen by people who think the way you do and value the same things. You'll likely regret it if you adopt the methods of a person who doesn't make a lot of sense to you, because you'll eventually come to find typology limiting/unpleasant and not remain engaged with it.

There is a huge subjective element in this sort of thing, it isn't like normal behaviorist psychology. You have to have some degree of faith that self-knowledge and subjective forms of awareness are significant and beneficial. If you don't believe that, you're probably better off with something like the Big 5 tests.


----------



## smallpeas (Oct 17, 2012)

Snow Leopard said:


> In a word, yes. Typology to me is much more of an art, than a science. I tend to see personalities as a whole and while you could take a few individual behaviours and modes and try to slot them into the Jungian functions, you still need to observe a large number of behaviours of that person to grasp their full personality anyway. I don't really believe that anyone actually performs some sort of explicit calculus of behaviours and cognitive functions when determining someone type. In the end, it is still based on our overall impressions of others, rather than some sort of analytical method.
> [...]
> Anyway, to me, our experiences in seeing common patterns amongst people of a given 'xxxx' is what makes typology seem useful to us. But what it is really providing is simply a perspective and language to be able to see and describe these patterns.


I gotta saw @_Raawx_--and I haven't commented on the thread you started yet because I haven't formulated coherence of thought worth articulating, though thanks for the alert!--I'm not unconvinced that N/S T/F dichotomies are any "worse" than the rigid cognitive function schema route.

It seems inefficient to try discussing _cognitive_ functions when there's a lack of consistency of what's being discussed ... outside of these sorts of focused conversations which might come off dry & technical to many. Behavior, traits, & pop psychology have all been colluded in with cognition. And it's understandable--that's the fun stuff for most people: _personality_. *Fi*, for example: personal ethics/standards, i.e. subjective valuation . . . but also apparently _emotions_. ==> The forums keep telling me: inferior/tert Fi = either fewer _emotions_ or not knowing how to handle _emotions_. The entire designation of *Feelers* *vs. Thinkers*--you can't escape the behavioral ideas tied with the presumed meanings of "feeling" & "thinking" or the perceptions that go with those ideas. All of this leads to things like: X type is emotionally repressed/cold => jerks; Y type is "dumb" => bimbos; etc.

I haven't thrown out functions like @_Snow Leopard_. But like SL, I see typology as simply an acknowledgement & way to discuss patterns we notice among people. And _I_ see functions as one conceptual means of discussing that. To me, Type is just an indicator of some broad commonality, not too unlike "Carpenter" or "High-School Teacher." And while overall cognitive processing preferences can lead to general observable attitudinal commonalities, variability of behavior/personality can be significant beyond what you get from X general approach to mode of analysis/focus of valuation. So, I try to take each discussion for what it seems to actually want to discuss.


@_Kollenhausen_, I similarly don't get the predicted schema on cog functions test. But if I took your functions as 4 pairs, (ordering the combined percentages) from the keys2cognition data, I get N T F S + seeming general introversion --> INTJ. 

If we want to interpret cognitive function data to fit the MBTI Schema, we can. We can find ways to make it fit. Or make exceptions. Or say the tests are inaccurate. (Is that provable?) But there are also other options.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Where did you get that deescription? It is the most accurate assessment of my central concern in life that I have read so far in MBTI:

"The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'."

I am certainly the moral intuitive; that describes me perfectly.

I don't know to what extent that has been shaped by growing up and remaining highly religious, but in any event, the moral question is what I am by far most interested in. I have a belief about what I and society should be like, or should become, and the most important thing to me is figuring out the ins and outs of this belief, and then figuring out how to 'do my part' in trying to bring it about. I'm not so out of touch that I think I can succeed, but even though I don't think it will happen, I still have an obligation to bring my whole life in line to it (because otherwise I would be a hypocrite).

I thought that this is more of an Enneagram 1 description than an MBTI issue, though.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Kollenhausen said:


> Where did you get that deescription? It is the most accurate assessment of my central concern in life that I have read so far in MBTI:


Well, it's from Jung, actually.



> I am certainly the moral intuitive; that describes me perfectly.
> 
> I don't know to what extent that has been shaped by growing up and remaining highly religious, but in any event, the moral question is what I am by far most interested in. I have a belief about what I and society should be like, or should become, and the most important thing to me is figuring out the ins and outs of this belief, and then figuring out how to 'do my part' in trying to bring it about. I'm not so out of touch that I think I can succeed, but even though I don't think it will happen, I still have an obligation to bring my whole life in line to it (because otherwise I would be a hypocrite).
> 
> I thought that this is more of an Enneagram 1 description than an MBTI issue, though.


There's a degree of overlap between Enneagram and MBTI, but everyone disagrees on where it is. 

That does sound reasonable to me, I often feel the same way... like I need to live my life as an example to others.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

delphi367 said:


> If I were in your position, I would get to know the people who are convinced of various systems. Chances are good that if you don't care for their attitudes and thought processes in general, their opinions on typology aren't a good fit for you either.
> 
> In other words, I'm suggesting that the method that will work best for you, is likely that chosen by people who think the way you do and value the same things. You'll likely regret it if you adopt the methods of a person who doesn't make a lot of sense to you, because you'll eventually come to find typology limiting/unpleasant and not remain engaged with it.
> 
> There is a huge subjective element in this sort of thing, it isn't like normal behaviorist psychology. You have to have some degree of faith that self-knowledge and subjective forms of awareness are significant and beneficial. If you don't believe that, you're probably better off with something like the Big 5 tests.


Thanks. I absolutely believe it. I can't stand the kind of attitude that says "In thirty years we'll be able to model the human brain, and then questions will arise about what is consciousness..." No, they won't! If these people want to be treated like a calculating machine, then maybe a calculating machine will be able to replace them someday. But the ability to calculate distance and generate languages is not the substance of humanity. 

Anyway, even though I study biology, I'm not one of those people who says "If we can't find it in a study, it can't exist!"


----------



## Tasnim (Jan 26, 2014)

Hey I always get intp as a result but I don't know I think I'm not blending well. 
Is it possible to know my type without taking a test? Like looking at certain traits or actions. 
I really feel uncomfortable with the lazy intp. Plus I'm no good at chess I barely know how to play it :/.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

Tasnim said:


> Hey I always get intp as a result but I don't know I think I'm not blending well.
> Is it possible to know my type without taking a test? Like looking at certain traits or actions.
> I really feel uncomfortable with the lazy intp. Plus I'm no good at chess I barely know how to play it :/.


I had mistyped myself as INTP first, and I could not relate to the passive, emotionally monotone INTP stereotype. Maybe you should look into the functions, not the "types".


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Kollenhausen said:


> Thanks. I absolutely believe it. I can't stand the kind of attitude that says "In thirty years we'll be able to model the human brain, and then questions will arise about what is consciousness..." No, they won't! If these people want to be treated like a calculating machine, then maybe a calculating machine will be able to replace them someday. But the ability to calculate distance and generate languages is not the substance of humanity.
> 
> Anyway, even though I study biology, I'm not one of those people who says "If we can't find it in a study, it can't exist!"


Some of the most fundamental things discovered in neuroscience in the last 10 years and continuing to be discovered is that consciousness is a lie...we edit and update our memories, reconstruct rather than recall our memories, make decisions before we are consciously aware of making the choice (free will illusion) and generally speaking are motivated by our biology in ways that are hidden to our conscious perceptions.

Do you have a good working definition of what it means to be human....because this has been pretty much -the- open question that has been driving philosophy for millennia.

While I think it's naive to assume we could model the human brain in 30 years (generally only computer people think this) that doesn't preclude the possibility that models will elucidate something about what we call perceive as intelligence or consciousness or even the human condition. 

A fundamental assumption of the scientific method is that observable phenomenon are ultimately explainable....and that includes biology.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Every personality theory I have come across is flawed. You just have to find the one that works for you via research.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Another one of them "My cognitive function stack is random, system is flawed" threads.

Of course you use JCF's in a random order, not aligning with your type. Please look into socionics (wikisocion.org) and learn about Ego, Super-Ego, Id and Super-Id to gain explanation for why your function stack is non-linear. Myers-Briggs is too vague to sincerely explain how the function stacks work within the confines of 16 types.

The understanding of the theory can be flawed, but the theory is never flawed. When you mix some socionics into the mix, the theory becomes fuckin perfect.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Kollenhausen said:


> I have been reading the threads which allege that MBTI is a flawed model basically because Isabelle Myers made a bunch of unwarranted assumptions and messed up Jung's theory by saying everybody fits into 16 types. So, since one of the authors of these challenges a poster to take the cognitive functions test, and since someone else told me to try to understand them, I first got an understanding of what they mean, and then took two of the more reliable looking tests under constant conditions.
> 
> So, according to Keys2cognition, my functions are lined up as follows:
> 
> ...


Look in my signature for a long explanation of things that as a sum makes MBTI at least look unrealistic.



KraChZiMan said:


> The understanding of the theory can be flawed, but the theory is never flawed. When you mix some socionics into the mix, the theory becomes fuckin perfect.


Not to be rude, but this is not a flawless statement.
It is rather close minded in fact.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Not to be rude, but this is not a flawless statement.
> It is rather close minded in fact.


In that case, pinpoint me the mistakes in the theory.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

KraChZiMan said:


> In that case, pinpoint me the mistakes in the theory.


Here's some logic for you.
If it was perfect, it would be proven.
If it was proven, it wouldn't be a theory.

To make one example then even Jung stated that he didn't know what introverted intuition actually is, yet 2 entire theoretical systems are based on the idea that he actually did (Jung even stated that he didn't support the use of it as a typology).
Not to forget that there's not even any central definition of the functions, there's just a lot of opinions.

I am however open to critique, I have a link in my signature.
Look at it and tell me why this theory is so flawless.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Here's some logic for you.
> If it was perfect, it would be proven.
> If it was proven, it wouldn't be a theory.
> 
> ...





> Evolution is just a theory?





> Well, so is gravity and I don't see you jumping out of buildings. ~Richard Dawkins




Of course it's only a theory, because you can't really use the scientific method to measure the correctness of psychoanalysis. 

Cognitive functions are too complex to define by central definitions. Even wikisocion.org mostly relies on defining them through keywords and descriptive examples. It's the person reading them who has to read all the different sources and put 1+1 together in their own heads.

Socionics is actually pretty much perfect in it's buildup, once you have the idea of the language in which the different cognitive functions speak in. It is hard for the beginners to begin grasping this, because the true understanding arrives in more abstract form than it does in trying to understand the scientific theories (for example, to gain an idea of what Ni is, you have to meet at least 10 Ni-users in real life and analyse their behavior to unlock the truth behind what Ni truly means).

Examples, comparisons, analysing real-life people who are representatives of different types... that is what generates an understanding. Human psychology is infinitely complex, and explaining it in words will be futile anyway. The initial factors behind the simplest of emotions are numerous. If you manage to gain a perfect theoretical understanding of JCF, MBTI, Socionics and Enneagram, you might be only 5-7% closer to understanding the complexity of a human mind. Even the greatest minds in psychology will at some point surrender to the frustration that studing human mind can generate, in terms of "If you know little, you feel like you know a lot. If you know much, you feel like you don't know anything".

In conclusion, theory is perfect in a sense that it does a splendid job in guiding your minds towards the right direction in terms of what principles apply to psychoanalysis, but in the end, it is you who must come to the understanding. A Psychoanalysis god who manages to provide central definitions and perfect, most precise explanations might never emerge at all. And not because the theory is flawed. Given our current understanding, the theory is perfect. New theories might emerge, but they might not increase our understanding in a human mind as much, as they would just explain what we already know in a different language. 

*Ultimately, if you think the theory isn't perfect, it's because our collective understanding of human mind is not perfect. Any flaw in theory can not be objectively proven, and the perceived mistake can just be a mistake in your understanding of the theory, not the flaw in the theory in itself. Currently, the understanding that we have today in psychology is perfectly projected in the theory.*


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

@KraChZiMan, you at many times point out how complex the human mind is, yet you at the same time believe in a system that divides the psyches into 16 possible categories that follow a specific way of processing information. I find that to be contradictory.
First you say the mind is dynamic, but then it isn't (as if it was, you wouldn't be able to categorize it in the way that these typologies does).
I really would appreciate it tho if you just looked at the link in my signature and give your feedback on that. I have collected all my current arguments against this typology there, so what I say is merely repeating that.
(I don't wish for this not to seem to be the case, but I really respect the way you discuss.)


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

azdahak said:


> Some of the most fundamental things discovered in neuroscience in the last 10 years and continuing to be discovered is that consciousness is a lie...we edit and update our memories, reconstruct rather than recall our memories, make decisions before we are consciously aware of making the choice (free will illusion) and generally speaking are motivated by our biology in ways that are hidden to our conscious perceptions.
> 
> Do you have a good working definition of what it means to be human....because this has been pretty much -the- open question that has been driving philosophy for millennia.
> 
> ...


Yes, but 'ultimately' and 'in thirty years' are not the same statement. There is a tendency to exaggerate the advances made in science; for example, the neuroscience discoveries you are referring to are really only the tip of the iceberg, as far as figuring out the human psyche. We know that free will is an illusion, probably, but we don't know to what extent that consciousness acts as a mirror of the 'inner mind' we can't see. After all, consciousness obviously plays some kind of role; perhaps it is as a kind of mirror, or critiquing feedback-generator for the 'inner mind'. In the end, whether it is biology or 'consciousness' (although it is a fallacy to separate the two, because the one is a product of the other), it is still equally 'us'.

A computer is not 'us'. It may have similar processes if it is highly sophisticated, but it isn't us. I don't have a definition of what makes us 'human', (a biological definition isn't what I am talking about here, I mean a definition to live by), but I think I know what isn't human.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> To make one example then even Jung stated that he didn't know what introverted intuition actually is, yet 2 entire theoretical systems are based on the idea that he actually did (Jung even stated that he didn't support the use of it as a typology).


Can you please cite the source where Jung claims that he does not know what Introverted Intuition is? This is the second time I've heard this and would like to know where it comes from. Thanks!

@KraChZiMan

I believe you mean 'Analytical Psychology.' Psychoanalysis is Freudian.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> @_KraChZiMan_
> 
> I believe you mean 'Analytical Psychology.' Psychoanalysis is Freudian.


Thanks for the pointer! roud:



Acerbusvenator said:


> @_KraChZiMan_, you at many times point out how complex the human mind is, yet you at the same time believe in a system that divides the psyches into 16 possible categories that follow a specific way of processing information. I find that to be contradictory.
> First you say the mind is dynamic, but then it isn't (as if it was, you wouldn't be able to categorize it in the way that these typologies does).
> I really would appreciate it tho if you just looked at the link in my signature and give your feedback on that. I have collected all my current arguments against this typology there, so what I say is merely repeating that.
> (I don't wish for this not to seem to be the case, but I really respect the way you discuss.)


[/QUOTE]

Was the contradiction about that the current theory projects our current understanding in the best manner possible? If so, then it was meant to explain that the current system is perfectly aligned with our current understanding of the human mind, and of course it can never be perfect in a sense of being perfectly complete, because human mind is too complex for a complete psychological theory.

I also read your blog post. The criticism you wrote about is quite spot-on, and it seems you have done your homework. roud:

I can only agree that there is nothing objective, or scientific about MBTI, JCF or Socionics. I would even say everything of this is much closer to being a pseudoscience. I think everyone who researches these theories reaches to this conclusion at some point.

The reason I am not denouncing these theories is that I personally feel that I benefit from them. It helps me to realize my strengths and weaknesses, to understand my personal differences with other people, to estimate which kind of people would co-operate better, and it makes me to look more critically into the behavior and motivations of people. I apply the theory for personal reasons, not for the scientific or "broading the horizons of the mind" kind of reasons, because I am selfish like that. 

That selfishness also means that everything I know about the theory is blended with close personal observations about people I have made throughout my life. If some MBTI enthusiast wanted to define Fi, it would take few sentences, (probably sums down to "Fi user is a stubborn idiot and Fe user is a sly backstabber"). For me, I could write about a single cognitive function for few A4 pages. If there only would be a demand, I would be writing articles and running a blog in no time.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

mbti is not flawed, people's understanding of it is flawed.. it's not _designed_ as a stand-alone theory, it examines how people process information only. it can be helpful for looking at people's personalities for sure, but only if you are aware of what parts of personality it can actually influence. the way it's presented on a lot of sites and things is just really cavalier and lazy.

also those function tests are shocking. i can't believe people put so much onus on them.. it's a very amateurish effort to examine how functions work. at best you should think of them as a fun test just to see.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Can you please cite the source where Jung claims that he does not know what Introverted Intuition is? This is the second time I've heard this and would like to know where it comes from. Thanks!


Well, that would be "hard". He constantly stated that he was confused by the introverted intuitive type etc.
His constant reference to them as being "mystical" is also a sign that he didn't completely grasp them.
So there's no specific statement. At least none I can think of atm.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Tridentus said:


> mbti is not flawed, people's understanding of it is flawed.


This is not correct.
I know both psychological types and MBTI very well (granted, I am not too familiar with socionics, but it is based on psychological types, so yea.) and that is why I criticize it.
Ironically, your comment is among the most common comments said by people within these typologies when confronting critique.
Like I earlier said tho, I am open to feedback, you can look at the link in my signature and tell me where it is flawed and I will fix it. Just as long as you keep an open mind that is.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Well, that would be "hard". He constantly stated that he was confused by the introverted intuitive type etc.
> His constant reference to them as being "mystical" is also a sign that he didn't completely grasp them.
> So there's no specific statement. At least none I can think of atm.


You say that Jung "constantly stated that he was confused by the introverted intuitive type." If that's something he "constantly stated," I'm sure you won't have any trouble providing us with two or three examples.

You also say he "constantly" referred to Ni-doms as being "mystical," but I only know of one reference to Ni-doms as mystical. Can you point us to three?

Also: I fail to see how it follows from Jung's characterization of Ni-doms as "mystical" that he "didn't know what introverted intuition actually is." Unlike his _one_ reference (that I know of) to Ni-doms as "mystical," there are a number of passages in Psychological Types where Jung associates mysticism with _introversion generally_ — and Jung was pretty clearly an introvert himself. He also expressly associated mysticism with _introverted thinking_, and he considered himself a Ti-dom — at least at the time he wrote Psychological Types.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

reckful said:


> You say that Jung "constantly stated that he was confused by the introverted intuitive type." If that's something he "constantly stated," I'm sure you won't have any trouble providing us with two or three examples.
> 
> You also say he "constantly" referred to Ni-doms as being "mystical," but I only know of one reference to Ni-doms as mystical. Can you point us to three?
> 
> Also: I fail to see how it follows from Jung's characterization of Ni-doms as "mystical" that he "didn't know what introverted intuition actually is." Unlike his _one_ reference (that I know of) to Ni-doms as "mystical," there are a number of passages in Psychological Types where Jung associates mysticism with _introversion generally_ — and Jung was pretty clearly an introvert himself. He also expressly associated mysticism with _introverted thinking_, and he considered himself a Ti-dom — at least at the time he wrote Psychological Types.


We've discussed things earlier and it ended up not being a respectful discussion, just like your current tone is not really respectful.

However, read psychological types and look into the context of what he writes instead of word-by-word.

Also, this one: 



When he comes to describing Ni he states "Now, intuition, there is a difficulty. You don't know ordinarily how intuition works. So when a man has a hunch, you can't tell exactly how he got that hunch or where that hunch comes from. It is something funny about intuition, *tells a story of an S-dom who was married to an N-type*".
His entire statement there about intuition points at him not having a solid grasp of it, merely pointing out external "evidence" of the function. He doesn't understand why an N-type would be able to predict something better than someone who carefully observes the world, the N-type just does (referring to the story he told).
He states that intuition is a hard one because you don't (usually) know how it works.

Anyways, that is all. Have a good day.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> He doesn't understand why an N-type would be able to predict something better than someone who carefully observes the world, the N-type just does (referring to the story he told).
> He states that intuition is a hard one because you don't (usually) know how it works.


It would be helpful if you'd tell us at what point in that 80-minute video the relevant discussion takes place.

In any case, though, if you've read Psychological Types, you know that Jung spent quite a lot of time explaining "why an N-type would be able to predict something." He believed that being an N-dom meant a person had a special ability to perceive the contents of the collective unconscious, and that the "primordial images" and other contents of the collective unconscious largely represented the psychic residue of thousands of years of humanity confronting the facts of the real world. So Jung thought the unconscious patterns that N-doms had the best ability to perceive often corresponded to the way events would actually play out in reality. As he put it, "sensation establishes what is actually present, ... and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation."

And again, to get back to the main point you made that kicked off this exchange, I have yet to see a passage in Jung where he said anything to the effect that he was especially "confused by the introverted intuitive type" — which is hardly surprising if you assume, as I do, that Jung thought Ni was his own auxiliary function. If there was a single function that Jung acknowledged having trouble understanding, I'd say it was feeling, not intuition. As he said in a 1931 article, "I freely admit that this problem of feeling has been one that has caused me much brain-racking."


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

reckful said:


> It would be helpful if you'd tell us at what point in that 80-minute video the relevant discussion takes place.
> 
> In any case, though, if you've read Psychological Types, you know that Jung spent quite a lot of time explaining "why an N-type would be able to predict something." He believed that being an N-dom meant a person had a special ability to perceive the contents of the collective unconscious, and that the "primordial images" and other contents of the collective unconscious largely represented the psychic residue of thousands of years of humanity confronting the facts of the real world. So Jung thought the unconscious patterns that N-doms had the best ability to perceive often corresponded to the way events would actually play out in reality. As he put it, "sensation establishes what is actually present, ... and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation."
> 
> And again, to get back to the main point you made that kicked off this exchange, I have yet to see a passage in Jung where he said anything to the effect that he was especially "confused by the introverted intuitive type" — which is hardly surprising if you assume, as I do, that Jung thought Ni was his own auxiliary function. If there was a single function that Jung acknowledged having trouble understanding, I'd say it was feeling, not intuition. As he said in a 1931 article, "I freely admit that this problem of feeling has been one that has caused me much brain-racking."


Point me towards some study claiming that the collective unconscious is a real thing. Until then, that belongs to the mysticism which colors his descriptions of intuition fairly clearly. Giving a mystic answer is btw. not an actual answer in my opinion which may be where we differ. Where you find his mystic descriptions satisfactory, I do not.
But really, you are only nitpicking a single little thing, when I got a huge text linked in my signature.

I dislike discussing with you because I am hyper sensitive to different ways that people express themselves and I have a tendency to mirror what I see from others and what I often sense from your posts is resentment towards people who don't share your opinion.

Last we discussed you were against the cognitive functions and you talked about how unproven they were and you instead tried to prove that the dichotomies where the way to go.

Anyways, I don't like the nitpicking nor the tone.

*poff*


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Point me towards some study claiming that the collective unconscious is a real thing. Until then, that belongs to the mysticism which colors his descriptions of intuition fairly clearly. Giving a mystic answer is btw. not an actual answer in my opinion which may be where we differ. Where you find his mystic descriptions satisfactory, I do not.


I never said the collective unconscious was a real thing, or that I "find Jung's mystic descriptions satisfactory."

The issue is whether Jung himself thought he had difficulty understanding Ni-doms. You said Jung "constantly stated that he was confused by the introverted intuitive type," and that's what I've taken issue with.


----------

