# Why is the last letter so important!?



## Most Awesome Flyer (Sep 28, 2015)

So wether you are a J or P decides everthing, an entp has completely different functions from an entj. But why are our functions so depend on wether we prefer following a schedule or prefer leaving our options open?


----------



## Agniete (Jun 8, 2015)

It's rather that J/P depends on functions than other way. To extroverted types J/P shows what first function is - judging or perceiving. To introverts it shows second - extroverted function. You better read up, because there might be more that I don't remember now.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Not true at all. They share their primary two functions. They don't share function attitudes. They are a heck of a lot more similar than you seem to think.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Well, I mean, every function decides everything. An INFJ and ENFJ are not the same personality, nor an INFP or INFJ (however, I personally believe the introverted or extroversion preference creates more of a difference than any other letter).

J and P are important, however, not because they decide if you like making schedules or leaving your options open, but because they shape all your functions.

Take Ne and Ni, for instance. If a Ni was P, then the disorder would cause a lot of discomfort and distress for the internal workings of an deeply intuitive thinker. The mind needs order, and it needs everything in place in order to function; thus, someone who uses Ni relies on their J to help do that.

A Ne, however, needs to keep bouncing around and connecting many thoughts together. If they were forced to use J, their thinking would become more ridged and less adaptable. Their P helps them perform these duties. 

That said, it's better to think about it like circuits.

For the light to turn red, switch A must be on; for the light to turn blue, switch B must be on. Meaning, it's impossible for Switch A to be on while the light is blue.

The only way to be dominate Ni is to be a J; it's impossible to be Dom Ni and P.

So, while its not necessarily true that your functions dictate if you use P or J; it also isn't true that being P or J dictates which functions you use. They work in tandem. Can't have one without the other.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

This is why I like MyersBriggs axes better than Grant Cognitive Function stacks:

Grant ISFP is almost exactly the same as Grant ENTJ (and almost exactly the opposite of Grant ISFJ/ENTP)

MyersBriggs ISFP is almost exactly the same as MyersBriggs ISFJ (and almost exactly the opposite of MyersBriggs ENTP/ENTJ)


----------



## GrimKosmo (Jan 9, 2015)

The J or P tells which of your two main functions are extraverted. J means your judging function (T or F) is extraverted, and P means your perceiving (N or S) function is extraverted. 

The way I understand it that an extraverted function is predominantly directed at the world around you, your external environment. An introverted function is directed inwards, for analysis and reflection. 

So if your perceiving function is extraverted (XXXP) then you have a preference to live in the moment, perceiving the world around you as it is. 
Whereas if your judging function is extraverted (XXXJ) then you have a preference to judge and logically order your external environment, i.e. make plans. 


I think it's more useful to understand the eight functions than it is to try and figure out each letter. The four letters are just a shorthand for expressing the functions. 
For example, consider somebody with dominant functions Ne-Fi (the i and e indicate whether the function is extraverted or introverted). So first of all, you know this person is XNFX. 
But their extraverted function is N, so their Perceiving function is extraverted; XNFP. 
Their Ne is also their first function, so that means they have a preference for extraversion; ENFP. 

This article gives a really good explanation of cognitive functions; If You’re Confused About Your Myers-Briggs Personality Type, Read This: An Intro To Cognitive Functions | Thought Catalog


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

GrimKosmo said:


> I think it's more useful to understand the eight functions than it is to try and figure out each letter. The four letters are just a shorthand for expressing the functions.
> ...
> This article gives a really good explanation of cognitive functions; If Youâ€™re Confused About Your Myers-Briggs Personality Type, Read This: An Intro To Cognitive Functions | Thought Catalog


The illustrious Heidi Priebe claims to be describing "your Myers-Briggs type," but the functions model she describes in that article is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

Maybe more importantly, for those who like to take _reality_ into consideration, Priebe's model (the internet-famous _Harold Grant function stack_) has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but _disproven_ at this point.

Except for those problems, though, yeah, that article "gives a really good explanation." :tongue:

For more on the unbearable bogosity of the Harold Grant function stack (among other issues), see this post, this post, and the posts they link to.

You say "the four letters are just a shorthand for expressing the functions" — but what you'll learn if you read those posts is that the "four letters" reflect _real_, psychologically _valid_ (as they say in the psychometrics biz) dimensions of personality, and that the faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" that people like Priebe are peddling are appropriately characterized as a "category mistake."



Most Awesome Flyer said:


> So wether you are a J or P decides everthing, an entp has completely different functions from an entj. But why are our functions so depend on wether we prefer following a schedule or prefer leaving our options open?


In case the links I gave GrimKosmo are more reading than you're up for and you just want to read about why it's silly to think that "J or P decides everything," because ZOMG, "an entp has completely different functions from an entj," see this post.


----------



## GrimKosmo (Jan 9, 2015)

reckful said:


> The illustrious Heidi Priebe claims to be describing "your Myers-Briggs type," but the functions model she describes in that article is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.
> 
> Maybe more importantly, for those who like to take _reality_ into consideration, Priebe's model (the internet-famous _Harold Grant function stack_) has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but _disproven_ at this point.
> 
> Except for those problems, though, yeah, that article "gives a really good explanation." :tongue:


Eeeasy now compadre, I read about personality theory in my spare time and post here for fun; I was merely trying to constructively reply to the original question. 
That said, there are undoubtedly gaps in my knowledge so I do appreciate you so graciously filling them in.:wink:

So now that I'm aware the Grant model is contradicting to Jung and Myers-Briggs, after a bit of research I'm actually having some trouble finding academic papers or anything from reputable sources on Jung or MBTI functional stacking. I'll probably have to loan the relevant books from the library but if you could point me in the direction of anything online I'd appreciate it.

From what I am able to tell, Myers-Briggs only differs from Grant in the attitude of the tertiary function, is that correct?
And so both frameworks would agree on the first two functions?
I only ask because I've found using cognitive functions to be invaluable in accurately guessing and understanding another persons type, and to do this I only use the first two functions. I was never able to using the dichotomies. 



reckful said:


> You say "the four letters are just a shorthand for expressing the functions" — but what you'll learn if you read those posts is that the "four letters" reflect _real_, psychologically _valid_ (as they say in the psychometrics biz) dimensions of personality, and that the faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" that people like Priebe are peddling are appropriately characterized as a "category mistake."


I concede, I do understand that "four letters" are dimensions of personality, and not merely shorthand for the functions. What I should have said is that I personally find it more useful to first understand the functions and then infer the dichotomies from that, rather than the other way around.

Also in some defence of Priebe, this article suggests that Grants functional stack actually came from Myers, as the two collaborated in her final years.
Although there is a lack of evidence, and obviously Grant would benefit from such a claim.
http://www.petergeyer.com.au/library/Grant_et_al_II.pdf

"I discovered later, through various conversations, that Grant apparently claimed his position to have come from Myers herself, which is interesting given the paucity of her written work on the subject. From my reading and research, she seemed more interested in dominant and auxiliary than anything else, rather than the predominantly unconscious functions. This she called shadow, not making a connection between that term and the Jungian archetype. Her apparent later acceptance of or agreement with Grant's position just before her death, has been attested to by Kathy Myers, and I believe it should be taken in the context of her lack of interest in "the dark side", as her son Peter has recently put it (2001)."


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

reckful said:


> You say "the four letters are just a shorthand for expressing the functions" — but what you'll learn if you read those posts is that the "four letters" reflect _real_, psychologically _valid_ (as they say in the psychometrics biz) dimensions of personality, and that the faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" that people like Priebe are peddling are appropriately characterized as a "category mistake."


90% of people are clearly not I/E or P/J. Most people sit clearly in the middle. The dichotomies are vastly inferior to the big 5.

Whereas Carl Jung's functions have a strong practical use in groups, thanks to Aushra Augusta's intertype relations, and obviously Jung used them to treat people's health disorders.



Simpson17866 said:


> Grant ISFP is almost exactly the same as Grant ENTJ (and almost exactly the opposite of Grant ISFJ/ENTP)


To suggest that a workaholic, family neglecting Te-dom is 'almost exactly the same' as the kind and moralising Fi-dom is a joke.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

GrimKosmo said:


> Eeeasy now compadre, I read about personality theory in my spare time and post here for fun; I was merely trying to constructively reply to the original question.
> That said, there are undoubtedly gaps in my knowledge so I do appreciate you so graciously filling them in.:wink:
> 
> So now that I'm aware the Grant model is contradicting to Jung and Myers-Briggs, after a bit of research I'm actually having some trouble finding academic papers or anything from reputable sources on Jung or MBTI functional stacking. I'll probably have to loan the relevant books from the library but if you could point me in the direction of anything online I'd appreciate it.
> ...


You've asked me for "academic papers or anything from reputable sources on Jung or MBTI functional stacking." But as explained in those linked posts, there really aren't any "reputable sources" on "functional stackings," because there aren't any "reputable sources" on the functions, period.

As explained in the first linked post:

It's also worth noting that, contrary to what some of the function aficionados would have you believe, the scientifically respectable side of the MBTI is the dichotomy-centric side — and the dichotomies differ greatly from the so-called "cognitive functions" in that regard. The functions — which James Reynierse (in "The Case Against Type Dynamics") rightly characterizes as a "category mistake" — have barely even been studied, and the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. ...

Although, like Myers, the official MBTI websites continue to give a certain amount of lip service to the cognitive functions, they've never endorsed the Harold Grant function stack and its associated "tandems" — where INFPs are supposedly Fi-Ne-Si-Te, and you're either an "Ni/Se type" or an "Si/Ne" type (for example). And setting aside that function stack (which has no respectable support behind it), the bigger issue is that official MBTI sources also continue to be _heavily_ dichotomy-centric, and to reflect the fact that virtually _all_ the respectable psychometric support for the MBTI is support for the dichotomies and not the functions.​
You've cited Peter Geyer, who says Kathy Myers has been telling people that Isabel Myers said something encouraging to Harold Grant shortly before she died. Well, FYI, Kathy Myers is Isabel Myers' daughter-in-law, and she's a big "cognitive functions" fan, and let's just say that her commentary on the MBTI (which you can find on the internet) hardly makes her sound like a particularly sophisticated or trustworthy source.

By contrast, the second edition of the MBTI Manual, with _Isabel_ Myers credited as co-author, was published in 1985 (five years after Myers' death), and that Manual specifically explained that it was Myers' position that the tertiary had the opposite attitude to the dominant, while noting (in a footnote) that "Some MBTI interpreters (e.g., Grant, Thompson, and Clark, 1983) consider the third function to be in the same attitude as the dominant function."

So... if Isabel changed her mind about the tertiary late in life, it sure looks like she kept it a secret from McCaulley (the Manual's co-author) and all the other MBTI establishment folks, doesn't it?

But there's a bigger point, too. Myers believed in treating personality typology as a _science_ to the extent possible. She ended up (really) basing the MBTI on the four dichotomies because _that's where the data led her_. Those were the _clusters_ that showed up in her psychometric factor-analysis of responses to the multitude of test items that she tried out over the years, and it's _because_ she took the MBTI where the data led her that she ended up effectively tapping into four of the Big Five factors.

Even if she _had_ made some casual remark to Grant about the orientation of the tertiary function (and again, that story is inconsistent with the MBTI Manual), there's no reason to think she would have expected any new "view" of hers along those lines to be taken seriously — i.e., to be translated into an adjustment to the real (psychometrically validated) typology — if it didn't have any respectable data behind it.

Without any further explanation of what Myers may have said to Grant, and in what spirit, and based on what support, and with what expectation in terms of any adjustment to the official MBTI, that "Kathy says Isabel told Harold" story is effectively meaningless.

And on top of all that, the biggest point of all is that _if_ the official MBTI folks truly took the "tertiary function" seriously, and thought it freaking _mattered at all_ whether an INFP's "tertiary function" is Si or Se, they certainly have the data to nail it down. Because those two competing models predict two different patterns when the MBTI is being correlated with something affected by one or more of the functions. In cases where Si (for example) is the main factor influencing the results, the Harold Grant stack predicts that the INFPs (with tertiary Si) will tend to be on the same side of the correlational spectrum with the SJs, while the Myers stack predicts that the INFPs will tend to be on the other side, and the ENFJs (with tertiary Si) will tend to be on the SJ side.

But nobody's nailed it down because _either_ (1) the grownups among the official MBTI folks (like Myers, as noted by Geyer) have never really given an effective fuck about the "tertiary function," or (2) to the extent that the official MBTI folks _have_ taken the tertiary function seriously, it must be the case that neither of those patterns has actually shown up in any respectable body of data pools — because if it had, we would have heard about it, and the orientiation of the tertiary would no longer be a holy mystery.

As a final note: your post suggests that functional analysis is somehow richer than dichotomy-based analysis, and includes aspects of someone's personality that dichotomy-based analysis misses, but the reverse is actually true, and you can read more about that issue in this post.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> 90% of people are clearly not I/E or P/J. Most people sit clearly in the middle. The dichotomies are vastly inferior to the big 5.


Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together — and he _also_ thought that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted. Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four dimensions, and the latest version of the MBTI includes five "facets" for each dimension (with the possibility of being on on one side with respect to some of the facets and the other side with respect to the others). The notion that dichotomy-based MBTI analysis purports to assign everyone to 16 tidy boxes is something you're only likely to hear from people who don't know much about the MBTI.

And if you're interested, you can read more about that issue in the first spoiler in this post.

As for the "vast inferiority" of the MBTI dichotomies to the Big Five, that's also something you're only likely to hear from a poorly-informed source who is either underestimating the MBTI, overestimating the Big Five, or both. And you can read quite a bit more about that in this post and the first post it links to.


----------



## GrimKosmo (Jan 9, 2015)

reckful said:


> As a final note: your post suggests that functional analysis is somehow richer than dichotomy-based analysis, and includes aspects of someone's personality that dichotomy-based analysis misses, but the reverse is actually true, and you can read more about that issue in this post.


No not at all, apologies if it came across that way. I do think that the functions are a great extension of the dichotomies. I also think that it is much easier to type somebody using functions, as you only have to figure out their first two functions and from that you can deduce MBTI. I find that much easier than figuring out all four of the dichotomies, and the complex relationships between them. But, at the end of the day, the dichotomies are fundamental. 

As far as collected data supporting any part of personality theory; while it can provide a good indication of the right direction to head, I wouldn't put a lot of weight in it until somebody thinks up a way to collect meaningful, quantitative, reproducible evidence. I'm not sure if this is even possible without brain scans or DNA sequencing or something like that. I don't see questionnaires cutting it. As incredibly interesting as the topic is, it's not exactly a hard science. 
That being the case, I think the thousands of real people with real personalities that have read about the cognitive functions and thought "Yes, this makes sense to me and I can relate to it", is fairly good indication that the functions might be at least on the right track. 

So as far as I can tell, my initial post was consistent with Myers-Briggs theory, and Priebes article does exactly as it sets out to do. It provides an excellent explanation of the process of using cognitive functions to figure out MBTI. While Priebe does use Grants framework of the functions, it is still used to systematically deduce MBTI. It seems to me the two are not mutually exclusive and in fact are identically for the purposes of determining type, which only requires the first two functions.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Fried Eggz said:


> Not true at all. They share their primary two functions. They don't share function attitudes. They are a heck of a lot more similar than you seem to think.


And you don't think that makes a huge difference?

INTJ: Ni-Te
INTP: Ti-Ne

The difference between those 2 is huge. INTP's and INTJ's have very little in common. INTJ: Generalist and one focus. INTP: Detail nerd and always seeing more options.

INTJ and ENTJ,... Ni-Te vs Te-Ni,.. these 2 have a lot in common. Both are very goal oriented. Only real difference is that ENTJ's have less patience while INTJ's can have too much patience.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Most Awesome Flyer said:


> So wether you are a J or P decides everthing, an entp has completely different functions from an entj. But why are our functions so depend on wether we prefer following a schedule or prefer leaving our options open?


The difference between J and P are a bit bigger than just wanting to follow schedules or leaving options open. That is just a popular way to describe 1 difference between J and P.

The main difference between J and P is whether or not you have an Extrovert Judging function in your dominant or auxiliary function. In other words, the difference is between judging outwardly or inwardly. Which comes out in behaviour as being satisfied being just an observer (P) or having a focus on changing your surroundings towards what you prefer it to be.

So it's related to Extroverted Judging vs. Introverted Judging.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Peter said:


> INTJ and ENTJ,... Ni-Te vs Te-Ni,.. these 2 have a lot in common. Both are very goal oriented. Only real difference is that ENTJ's have less patience while INTJ's can have too much patience.


If you read Jung, you'll discover that introversion to extroversion is the largest difference of all the dichotomies. One reasons objectively and the other reasons subjectively and that is a gigantic divide.



Peter said:


> And you don't think that makes a huge difference?
> 
> INTJ: Ni-Te
> INTP: Ti-Ne


What's not extremely similar about this? They both use the N and T functions and both have an overall preference for subjective reasoning. They spend the majority of their time thinking similar things and coming to similar conclusions; they have the same strengths and the same weaknesses.


----------



## OtterSocks (Sep 24, 2015)

@Peter in support of @Fried Eggz's standpoint I'll toss in this diagram I made, just because I've been wanting to toss it somewhere.

If someone comes in saying the use of the taijitu is not Jungian, they're right, it's an original(?) idea.

http://imgur.com/aHAE7X4


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

OtterSocks said:


> @Peter in support of @Fried Eggz's standpoint I'll toss in this diagram I made, just because I've been wanting to toss it somewhere.
> 
> If someone comes in saying the use of the taijitu is not Jungian, they're right, it's an original(?) idea.
> 
> Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet


 You're right, that's a beautifully artistic diagram of a beautifully artistic idea. So is this:










Beautiful picture ≠ scientific validity


----------



## OtterSocks (Sep 24, 2015)

Simpson17866 said:


> You're right, that's a beautifully artistic diagram of a beautifully artistic idea. So is this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're right, I'm sorry. It's bullshit, just like this:










Oh wait.

It's a model. It's an attempt to represent something invisible and non-tangible based on what we can observe.

What _is_ scientifically valid, in your opinion? Keys2cognition? Something with the empirical backing of a Buzzfeed quiz?


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

OtterSocks said:


> You're right, I'm sorry. It's bullshit, just like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That is a beautifully artistic diagram of an idea which carries scientific weight (in the sense that the idea - how atoms are arranged - reflects how the real world works). "Cognitive functions must stack in specific orders" does not carry scientific weight.



> What _is_ scientifically valid, in your opinion? Keys2cognition? Something with the empirical backing of a Buzzfeed quiz?


 The K2C test isn't perfect, but it's better than guesswork.


----------



## Jippa Jonken (Jul 20, 2015)

Withou las lette everythin look dum.


----------



## OtterSocks (Sep 24, 2015)

Simpson17866 said:


> That is a beautifully artistic diagram of an idea which carries scientific weight (in the sense that the idea - how atoms are arranged - reflects how the real world works). "Cognitive functions must stack in specific orders" does not carry scientific weight.
> 
> The K2C test isn't perfect, but it's better than guesswork.


A) It's the ugliest diagram I've seen in my life.

B) "Cognitive functions must stack in specific orders" carries the weight of decades of clinical psychiatric research by a really stand up guy, and in my experience it DOES reflect how the real world works. "They can go in whatever order" carries the weight of you alone.

C) K2C _is_ guesswork; you have zero way of knowing if the results even point to _anything_ meaningful!


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Fried Eggz said:


> If you read Jung, you'll discover that introversion to extroversion is the largest difference of all the dichotomies. One reasons objectively and the other reasons subjectively and that is a gigantic divide.


ENTJ's and INTJ's both reason and judge objectively. They both judge with Te and they both perceive with Ni. The difference here is not between I and E, but between the preference of first judging or first perceiving.



Fried Eggz said:


> What's not extremely similar about this? They both use the N and T functions and both have an overall preference for subjective reasoning. They spend the majority of their time thinking similar things and coming to similar conclusions; they have the same strengths and the same weaknesses.


There is very little similar here. INTP's judge with Ti,... subjective. INTJ's judge with Te, objective.

It's like you said, the difference between I and E is the largest difference. INTJ's and ENTJ's are much more similar because they use Introversion for N and Extroversion for T...... it's the same,.. not different.

INTP's and INTJ's use he opposites. Ti in INTP and Te in INTJ,... Ne in INTP and Ni in INTJ. Like you said, huge difference.

In the MBTI the difference between I and E may seem big because it's the first letter, but when you look at the functions, they use the same 2, just in opposite order.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

OtterSocks said:


> "Cognitive functions must stack in specific orders" carries the weight of decades of clinical psychiatric research by a really stand up guy.


What on earth are you talking about? Who is this guy, and where can I read about his research?


----------



## OtterSocks (Sep 24, 2015)

reckful said:


> What on earth are you talking about? Who is this guy, and where can I read about his research?


Ok I got my lingo wrong. Replace "research" with "observation" and the guy is Jung.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

OtterSocks said:


> Ok I got my lingo wrong. Replace "research" with "observation" and the guy is Jung.


 No, Carl Jung didn't come up with the Harold Grant Cognitive Function Stacks. Harold Grant did.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

OtterSocks said:


> Ok I got my lingo wrong. Replace "research" with "observation" and the guy is Jung.


Yeah, "observation" is right. And Jung confessed that, up until not long before he published Psychological Types, he'd thought Thinking was part of Introversion and Feeling was part of Extraversion (so all introverts were T's and all extraverts were F's). So... if you're under the impression that Psychological Types was even backed by a large, multi-year collection of consistent "observations," you're overestimating it.

What's more (as explained here), Jung's _observations_ led him to conclude that the "function stack" for a Ti-dom with an N-aux was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. Is that the stack you subscribe to?

In any event, though, and more importantly, anecdotal observations are no substitute for scientifically respectable studies — and Jung agreed with that!

And Isabel Myers put Jung to the test in terms of modern psychometric standards, and she discovered that Jung had gotten quite a lot wrong in terms of the ways in which many of the aspects of personality Jung described actually cluster in real people.

As McCrae and Costa have (rightly) explained:



McCrae & Costa said:


> Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...
> 
> Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices.


Buuut those scientifically respectable "indices" Myers produced were the _dichotomies_, rather than the functions. And notwithstanding a fair amount of lip service to Jung, the official MBTI has always been, and remains, substantially dichotomy-centric.

And to this day, there is no respectable body of support for _any_ "function stack" model, and I don't believe there ever will be — because I think Reynierse has rightly characterized the functions as a "category mistake."


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Simpson17866 said:


> No, Carl Jung didn't come up with the Harold Grant Cognitive Function Stacks. Harold Grant did.


Are you seriously trying to deceive people who know better than you? Carl Jung came up with the Carl Jung cognitive function stack. You bringing up Harold Grant is nothing more than you trolling. You spend all your time pretending that you know things, yet anyone who isn't stupid can see clean through you.



reckful said:


> What's more (as explained here), Jung's _observations_ led him to conclude that the "function stack" for a Ti-dom with an N-aux was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. Is that the stack you subscribe to?


There is no proof in that link. Just some vague ramblings, an appeal to majority and a dismissal of the one complete function stack that Jung gave.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> There is no proof in that link. Just some vague ramblings, an appeal to majority and a dismissal of the one complete function stack that Jung gave.


Just some "vague ramblings," eh, Mr. Eggz? I've pulled up part of that post and put it in the spoiler, for your convenience.


* *




Want more? In 1923 — two years after Psychological Types was published — Jung gave a lecture (separately published in 1925) that's included in the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types. After some opening remarks on the shortcomings of past approaches to typology, here's how he began his discussion of extraverts and introverts:

_f we wish to define the psychological peculiarity of a man in terms that will satisfy not only our own subjective judgment but also the object judged, we must take as our criterion that state or attitude which is felt by the object to be the conscious, normal condition. Accordingly, we shall make his conscious motives our first concern, while eliminating as far as possible our own arbitrary interpretations.

Proceeding thus we shall discover, after a time, that in spite of the great variety of conscious motives and tendencies, certain groups of individuals can be distinguished who are characterized by a striking conformity of motivation. For example, we shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."

[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." Or: "I see that the weather has turned out bad, but in spite of it I shall carry out my plan." This type does not travel for pleasure but to execute a preconceived idea. ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did *not* compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.

This attitude characterizes a group of individuals whose motivations are derived chiefly from the subject, from inner necessity._​_

The first thing to note here is that, in the second sentence of that second paragraph, he characterizes extraverts as people "who in all their *judgments, perceptions*, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force." Judgments and perceptions both. This is clearly inconsistent with the idea that a typical extravert would either be extraverted in their judgments and introverted in their perceptions or vice versa.

And in case you think, well, maybe Jung just slipped up in terms of how he worded that one sentence — although I'd say that would have been a pretty huge slip-up — the second thing to focus on here is the substance of the second and third paragraphs as a whole. They're pretty much all about judgments, right? The second paragraph describes a series of extraverted judgments and the third paragraph describes a series of introverted judgments. And Jung doesn't say those extraverted judgments are characteristic of Je-doms and Pi-doms; he says they're characteristic of all extraverts (Je-doms and Pe-doms alike). And likewise he says the introverted judgments in the third paragraph are characteristic of all introverts (Ji-doms and Pi-doms alike). And again, there is no way that is how he would have described things if his model said that half of extraverted judgers were introverts (the Pi-doms) and half of introverted judgers were extraverts (the Pe-doms)._


_
Perhaps you can explain to the assembled multitudes how those quoted paragraphs — including Jung's clear statement that an extravert was extraverted in his judgments and perceptions both — could possibly be consistent with a function model that says you're either an extraverted judger and introverted perceiver or vice versa.

And as if the spoilered paragraphs weren't enough, and assuming you actually read it, you know that my linked post offers lots of other reasons why it makes little to no sense to believe that Jung thought that someone's dominant and auxiliary functions would have opposite attitudes._


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> Are you seriously trying to deceive people who know better than you? Carl Jung came up with the Carl Jung cognitive function stack. You bringing up Harold Grant is nothing more than you trolling. You spend all your time pretending that you know things, yet anyone who isn't stupid can see clean through you.


 Then what is Harold Grant famous for?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Simpson17866 said:


> Then what is Harold Grant famous for?


I didn't know he was famous. You're the only person I know who ever talks about him.



reckful said:


> including Jung's clear statement that an extravert was extraverted in his judgments and perceptions both


Your argument fails logically. If I interpret it the way you have, then I would be forced to conclude that an extrovert has _zero_ introverted functions. This is where your arguments always fail, because you never take them to their logical conclusion, and the conclusion is always an absurdity. The quote only proves that every function serves the dominant, not that every function is extroverted.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> Your argument fails logically. If I interpret it the way you have, then I would be forced to conclude that an extrovert has _zero_ introverted functions. This is where your arguments always fail, because you never take them to their logical conclusion, and the conclusion is always an absurdity. The quote only proves that every function serves the dominant, not that every function is extroverted.


I'm afraid that fails the laugh test. If a Je-dom's auxiliary is a Pi function, the fact that those perceptions end up _serving_ the dominant function doesn't mean they're not — by definition, for pity's sake — _introverted perceptions_. So that doesn't fall within the reasonable range of interpretations of Jung's assertion that extraverts are extraverted in "all their judgments [and] perceptions."


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

reckful said:


> I'm afraid that fails the laugh test.


Laughing is the best retort you can come up with? Pffft I didn't think you'd be defeated so easily.



reckful said:


> If a Je-dom's auxiliary is a Pi function, the fact that those perceptions end up serving the dominant function doesn't mean they're not — by definition, for pity's sake — introverted perceptions. So that doesn't fall within the reasonable range of interpretations of Jung's assertion that extraverts are extraverted in "all their judgments [and] perceptions."


That's not even what he said. That's your twist on it.

"For example, we shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force"
Now I could interpret it as "all their functions are extroverted, including their inferior Si/Fi/Ni/Ti" or I can interpret it as "all their functions serve their extroverted purpose, whether that's their dominant Te or inferior Fi."

Because, you know, your interpretation does has inferior Fi being extroverted...


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@Most Awesome Flyer

Keep in mind that it's actually a scale, as people are oriented more or less towards the general average of society along the matrices. Within MBTI, the criterion, unfortunately, create several minority groups. Although two people may both be J or both be P, they will display varying degrees of behaviors along such. The more "clearly X" or "clearly Y" a person is, the further they are from the average personality of society along that matrix. Someone who displays no clear, firm traits of being either J or P isn't "hard to type" or "poor at understanding themselves," they're simply an average Joe as far as J/P goes. When you get into the situations of say ENTJ vs ENTP, you are already looking at a small, select minority of the overall population, which will already be highly different than the average person. At this point, it is really just splitting hairs. If someone is hard to tell between ENTJ and ENTP, they should consider themselves grateful for at least maintaining this small bit of normalcy. In cases where the population distributions of VWXy/VWXz are high, it will generally be easier to make a distinction, as you aren't already looking at a small minority group. So, when looking at matters such as J/P, keep in mind what all this is really representing, which is division of the general population along criterion for personality traits, which will be a large multi-dimensional scalar with most of the population being fairly indistinct and MBTI being largely inconsequential for anything.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> Because, you know, your interpretation does has inferior Fi being extroverted...


Um, noooooooooo. Go back and revisit the first quoted paragraph. That's the one where Jung says:



Jung said:


> we must take as our criterion that state or attitude which is felt by the object to be the conscious, normal condition. Accordingly, we shall make his conscious motives our first concern.


So the "judgments" and "perceptions" Jung is referring to in the next paragraph are the _conscious_ judgments and perceptions of the subject — i.e., the ones associated with the two functions (dom and aux) that Jung said were the "conscious functions."



Fried Eggz said:


> "For example, we shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force"
> Now I could interpret it as "all their functions are extroverted, including their inferior Si/Fi/Ni/Ti" or I can interpret it as "all their functions serve their extroverted purpose, whether that's their dominant Te or inferior Fi."


As I also pointed out, Jung then goes on, in the next two paragraphs, to describe a series of sample _judgments_ by extraverts and introverts, and the judgments he ascribes to extraverts all involve _extraverted judging_, and the judgments he ascribes to introverts all involve _introverted judging_. One extravert "finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful." Another extravert "marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests." None of the examples reflect introverted judgments somehow deflected into the service of some _extraverted perception_; and the same is true of the sample introverted judgments that he ascribes to _introverts generally_ — not to Ji-doms and Pe-doms.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> I didn't know he was famous. You're the only person I know who ever talks about him.


 https://www.google.com/#safe=active&q=harold+grant+cognitive+functions


----------



## cipherpixy (Jul 9, 2015)

Most Awesome Flyer said:


> So wether you are a J or P decides everthing, an entp has completely different functions from an entj. But why are our functions so depend on wether we prefer following a schedule or prefer leaving our options open?


Here's what PersonalityJunkie has to say:

"In actuality, the J-P label merely describes whether the first extraverted function in a given type’s functional stack is a Judging function (either Te or Fe) or a Perceiving function (either Ne or Se)."

"The J-P labeling system actually works fine for Extraverts, since their first extraverted function is also their dominant function. Hence, there is no confusion, for instance, in calling an ENFP a Perceiver or an ENTJ a Judger. This very accurately describes the dominant mode of operation for these types."

"For introverted types, however, the J-P label can be a source of great confusion and misunderstanding. This is due to the fact that introverts’ first extraverted function is their auxiliary rather than their dominant function. Because of this, the J-P designation of IPs and IJs fails to describe their dominant mode of functioning. Namely, IPs’ preferred and dominant mode of functioning is Judging (Fi or Ti) and IJs’ is Perceiving (Si or Ni). This is why IPs commonly mistype themselves as IJs and vice-versa. To summarize:

Extraverts: Since their first extraverted function is also their dominant function, the J-P label aptly describes their dominant mode of functioning.

Introverts: Since their first extraverted function is their auxiliary function, the J-P label belies their dominant mode of functioning."

"To better understand these Judging-Perceiving issues, consider the following discussion of the J-P characteristics of the various types:

EPs: EPs might be considered the “purest” Perceivers of all the Myers-Briggs types. Not only do they display Perceiving in their outer behavior and demeanor (e.g., open, adaptable, receptive), but their dominant function (Ne or Se) is also a Perceiving function.

EJs: EJs might be considered the “purest” Judging types. Not only do they display Judging in their outer behavior and demeanor (e.g., assertive, intentional, directive, opinionated), but their dominant function (Te or Fe) is also a Judging function."

"IPs: IPs are a mix of J-P characteristics. Since their dominant function is a Judging function (Ti or Fi), they are inner Judgers. IPs are far more serious inwardly than they appear outwardly. Rather than remaining open to new information like healthy EPs, they feel driven to move toward closure and to have things settled in their minds like EJs. They want to hammer down what they believe in order to have a platform from which to make important decisions about their lives. When their beliefs shaken into state of uncertainty, IPs tend to feel unsettled, aimless, and anxious. This anxiety prompts them to avidly locate answers so they can return to a point of comfortable closure and intentional action.

IPs are also like EJs in that they tend to think in terms of what they should be doing. They like to set goals for themselves (especially INPs), even if they rarely end up sticking to them. They tend to approach life with an agenda or a certain set of expectations. Upon waking, they consciously work to determine what they want to/should do and then initiate the process. At least when it comes to initiating tasks, IPs are as disciplined as any EJ.

It is only after starting a task that IPs can get sidetracked and start looking more like EPs. This is understandable when we examine IPs’ functional stack. They start off with a judgment (Fi or Ti), which impels them to begin work on a task. Once started, however, the next function in their stack is a Perceiving function (Ne or Se), which may lead them to get distracted or sidetracked, even to the point of losing sight of their original purpose (this is why IPs are sometimes said to lack follow-through or staying power.). This can be frustrating for IPs, since the endpoint or “goal” of their functional stack (i.e., their inferior function) is to reach a state of judgment or closure (Fe or Te). This helps to explain why IPs may at times be sloppy or careless in their work, since they are driven by a desire for closure. It also explains why IPs may resist being interrupted in the middle of a project, fearing this could hinder them from reaching a conclusion or endpoint. And since IPs like to be in control of both starting and finishing what their projects, they cannot rightly be considered spontaneous in the way that EPs are, at least not with respect to responding to other people. Just as EJs are sometimes viewed as outer control freaks, IPs have their own inner control freak."

We might summarize IPs’ process in the following way:

J Starting point: Ti or Fi (“I should or want to do…”)

Move into auxiliary (P): Ne or Se (may get sidetracked or distracted here)

Desired J Endpoint: Fe or Te closure

Visually, this process resembles a diamond. IPs start with a specific objective (Ti or Fi), diverge outwardly (Se or Ne), then work to reign in this expansion and bring it toward a point of closure (Fe or Te). A similar process would be seen among EJ types. Also note that the above process is the optimal way for IPs to function. In many cases, they can be in such a hurry to reach closure that they essentially forgo the P process between their two J endpoints. Elaine Schallock has dubbed this “jumping the (functional) stack.”

Like EJs, IPs can also be prone to labeling many Perceiving activities “a waste of time.” This may lead them to consider IJs or EPs as lazy and unproductive. But at some level, IPs, especially when faced with an overwhelming mental “to-do” list, may envy IJs’ and EPs’ ability to just relax and Perceive. Some IPs simply don’t know how to relax or “do nothing.” Their minds are constantly thinking ahead to what they could do next.

In sum, IPs prefer inner closure because it allows them to act with a sense of conviction and intentionality. At times, however, this can lead them to prematurely truncate Perceiving, which can lead to errors in judgment; they are willing to risk some degree of accuracy for the sake of swift closure. This is consistent with the notion of Judging types “jumping to conclusions.”

"IJs: IJs are also a mix of J-P characteristics. Outwardly, they look like Judgers. They can be assertive and opinionated, even resembling EJ types. But since their dominant function is a Perceiving function (Ni or Si), they are inner Perceivers. Indeed, they are dominant Perceivers. So in reality, IJs are far less serious, closed, or judgmental than they may appear outwardly.

While IPs are inwardly controlling, IJs inner world is characterized by openness and allowing. Assuming they are not coerced by outside obligations, IJs are not inclined to impose rules or agendas on themselves. Unlike IPs, who start the day with a Judging mindset (Ti or Fi), IJs prefer a more leisurely and perceptive approach (Ni or Si), allowing their Judging process (Fe or Te) emerge organically or spontaneously rather than intentionally. Therefore, when it comes to initiating the Judging process, IJs may procrastinate as long as EPs.

Once their Judging process is initiated, however, IJs begin to look more like Judging types. They may, for instance, suddenly feel compelled to write a blog post, compose a song, or solve a problem. While IPs’ transition from their dominant to auxiliary function is one of increasing divergence, IJs’ more toward greater convergence (Te or Fe). But unlike IPs, who prefer to finish with closure, IJs hope to end in a state of openness (Se or Ne). Visually, IJs’ process resembles an hourglass moving from openness (P) to closure (J) and back to openness (P):

P Starting point: Ni or Si

Move into J auxiliary: Te or Fe

Desired P Endpoint: Se or Ne

Like EPs, IJs may struggle when it comes to starting tasks or projects. Just as it is difficult for IPs and EJs to artificially initiate Perceiving, it can be hard for IJs and EPs to intentionally jumpstart their Judging process. IJs and EPs commonly experience “dry spells,” periods where they lack the motivation or inspiration to start work on a creative project. For this reason, they may at times envy IPs’ and EJs’ ability to actively initiate their work. While IJs and EPs love to Perceive, there are times when they would love to get something done but end up feeling frustrated because of insufficient motivation to engage their Judging process.

One of the strengths of the IJ approach, however, is its concern for accuracy. Since they don’t experience the same need for closure as IPs do, they are less apt to inwardly jump to conclusions. They prioritize accuracy more than promptness, quality over quantity. In fact, their penchant for accuracy is a chief contributor to their propensity for perfectionism. Perfectionism can compromise IJs’ ability to finish their work in a timely fashion; this is especially true when engaging in creative work. Since IJs can struggle with both starting and finishing projects, it can be all too easy for them to cling to a state of perpetual Perceiving, even if envying types who seem to be “accomplishing” more."


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

@cipherpixy Nobody's saying that the Harold Grant system isn't _internally_ consistent with itself, it absolutely is: the system picks 16 of the possible cognitive function combinations, assigns each combination a MyersBriggs-esque 4-letter code, and clearly explains the rules for turning a single function combination into a single MyersBriggs-esque code and back such that there is no overlap. _Internal_ consistency is not the problem here.

We're saying that the Grant system isn't _externally_ consistent with the real world: the system designates 16 of the possible cognitive function combinations as "correct" and the other thousands of possible combinations as "incorrect," and anybody who is described better by one of the thousands of "incorrect" combinations rather than one of the 16 "correct" combinations is either considered to be mentally ill or to not exist in the first place (or, more commonly, that they were just wrong in how they described themselves).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

cipherpixy said:


> Here's what PersonalityJunkie has to say:...


A.J. Drenth is certainly entitled to his own opinion about what IPs and IJs are like, but when he says...



A.J. Drenth said:


> The J-P indicator ... was added by Myers and Briggs as a sort of short-hand way of labeling the types. Unfortunately, many people are unaware of this and take the J-P label to mean something it does not. In actuality, the J-P label merely describes whether the first extraverted function in a given type’s functional stack is a Judging function (either Te or Fe) or a Perceiving function (either Ne or Se).


... he's wrong on the _facts_ with respect to Myers' view of the J/P dimension.

If you're interested in reading more about that — and about why it's probably a mistake to expect introverts (especially) to be effectively _schizophrenic_ when it comes to "judging" and "perceiving" — you can find a longer discussion here.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> Not true at all. They share their primary two functions. They don't share function attitudes. They are a heck of a lot more similar than you seem to think.





reckful said:


> A.J. Drenth is certainly entitled to his own opinion about what IPs and IJs are like, but when he says...
> ... he's wrong on the _facts_ with respect to Myers' view of the J/P dimension.
> 
> If you're interested in reading more about that — and about why it's probably a mistake to expect introverts (especially) to be effectively _schizophrenic_ when it comes to "judging" and "perceiving" — you can find a longer discussion here.


And yet, reckful, you are invariably an extraverted judger, and this is the sum total of what we observe from you here on this forum. There is nothing in what you say where one could perceive your dominant function (Ni). All we ever observe from you is very strong--forceful, rather--extraverted thinking. In fact, it's almost like a cudgel how you use it. (for instance, in your complaining how people spell extroversion instead of extraversion). If your preferred stack were Ni-Ti, as you seem to be claiming here, then how does one explain this?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> And yet, reckful, you are invariably an extraverted judger, and this is the sum total of what we observe from you here on this forum. There is nothing in what you say where one could perceive your dominant function (Ni). All we ever observe from you is very strong--forceful, rather--extraverted thinking. In fact, it's almost like a cudgel how you use it. (for instance, in your complaining how people spell extroversion instead of extraversion). If your preferred stack were Ni-Ti, as you seem to be claiming here, then how does one explain this?


I don't think my "preferred stack" is Ni-Ti.

If you're interested in my perspective on the dichotomies, the functions, and what I call the "Real MBTI Model" — which was essentially Myers' model, when you get past the Jungian lip service, and which is the only model with any respectable support behind it — you'll find it in this post and the posts it links to.

If you're working with an "Ni" description made up of things that NJs tend to have in common, and a "Te" description made up of things that TJs tend to have in common, and seeing as I'm an INTJ, it's no surprise you're going to find that those descriptions match me reasonably well. But that has nothing to do with whether I'm anything like a J/P _schizophrenic_ in the way Drenth describes, as further explained in the post I previously linked to.


----------

