# Using cognitive functions in an order that doesn't fit an MBTI type



## Intricate Mystic (Apr 3, 2010)

I just realized, in another thread, that I may sometimes use my cognitive functions in an order that doesn't fit any of the 16 personality types (Ni Se Fe Ti). Does anyone else do that? It seems that it should be theoretically possible to have many more personality types than 16, because the number of possible function combinations is way more than that. I think it's 24 x 16= 384 possible different cognitive function combinations.


----------



## Third Engine (Dec 28, 2009)

No one else does, and you don't either. Cognitive functions don't work that way--they are _attitudes_, not abilities. When I remember something, I'm not using Si, I'm just remembering something, and it's the same with all the rest. Each function needs its "opposite" in order to function; otherwise, you would be probably be clinically insane. For example, my dominant function is Ne; therefore, I MUST have Si. They operate on a continuum, where one necessarily needs the other. However, Si is my least developed attitude, so far. 

It works the same way for judgment functions. EVERYONE has a Pe, Je, Pi, and Ji function in their "top four". That's just the way the theory works.

Extremely short, but there are other articles about this on the website.


----------



## Intricate Mystic (Apr 3, 2010)

Third Engine said:


> No one else does, and you don't either. Cognitive functions don't work that way--they are _attitudes_, not abilities. When I remember something, I'm not using Si, I'm just remembering something, and it's the same with all the rest. Each function needs its "opposite" in order to function; otherwise, you would be probably be clinically insane. For example, my dominant function is Ne; therefore, I MUST have Si. They operate on a continuum, where one necessarily needs the other. However, Si is my least developed attitude, so far.
> 
> It works the same way for judgment functions. EVERYONE has a Pe, Je, Pi, and Ji function in their "top four". That's just the way the theory works.
> 
> Extremely short, but there are other articles about this on the website.


What about the whole "dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior" order of functions? Is that approach no longer relevant?


----------



## Zefera (May 31, 2011)

I think it's important to remember that this is a _theory. _One that may never be proven, or disproven. (Not addressing any one person, just stating a fact.) Everyone uses all 8 of the functions at various times and in varying way, depending on the structure of their personality. It's not logical to say that the functions work independently of each other. Its the way that they work together that creates a viable personality type, IMO at least. The functions have theoretically been linked with various attributes, Ni with vision, Fi with morality etc. But every human possesses these attributes to varied degrees. It's these variations that distinguish personality types from each other. (How many forms of the word vary can YOU use in one paragraph! ;p)


----------



## Third Engine (Dec 28, 2009)

Intricate Mystic said:


> What about the whole "dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior" order of functions? Is that approach no longer relevant?


What do you mean? Of course it is--it's the way any certain type's functions are laid out.


----------



## Intricate Mystic (Apr 3, 2010)

Third Engine said:


> What do you mean? Of course it is--it's the way any certain type's functions are laid out.


If you agree that each type has certain functions laid out in a specific order, then doesn't it seem possible that someone could use their cognitive functions in a particular order _routinely_ that isn't characteristic of one of the existing 16 types? Just thinking out of the box here.....


----------



## B-Con (Dec 24, 2010)

Third Engine said:


> No one else does, and you don't either. Cognitive functions don't work that way--they are _attitudes_, not abilities. When I remember something, I'm not using Si, I'm just remembering something, and it's the same with all the rest.


Strictly speaking, everyone uses all 8 functions, the only question is in which order. Myres-Briggs simply only allows for certain configurations of those 8 functions because they "make sense".



Third Engine said:


> Each function needs its "opposite" in order to function; otherwise, you would be probably be clinically insane. For example, my dominant function is Ne; therefore, I MUST have Si. They operate on a continuum, where one necessarily needs the other. However, Si is my least developed attitude, so far.


That is the theory, yes, but it's good to remember that it's all conjecture. There's nothing to say that an alternative model of arraigning the functions wouldn't be better, it's just that MB doesn't allow for it and the people who've thought about it a lot like this way. Remember that Jung didn't agree on the tertiary function.

I like the establishment of 8 functions, the establishment of the dominant perceiving and judging functions, and the establishment of the dominant one from those two. The farther away from those you get, the more speculative it is. Frankly, I am not yet convinced that the inferior function is properly decided.



Intricate Mystic said:


> What about the whole "dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior" order of functions? Is that approach no longer relevant?


Myres-Briggs changed how Jung used the inferior function, but it's definitely a part of the theory.


----------



## B-Con (Dec 24, 2010)

Intricate Mystic said:


> If you agree that each type has certain functions laid out in a specific order, then doesn't it seem possible that someone could use their cognitive functions in a particular order _routinely_ that isn't characteristic of one of the existing 16 types? Just thinking out of the box here.....


Right. That's what I alluded to above. If you accept the 8 functions (T, F, S, and N each in I or E mode), M-B theorizes that everyone has all of those functions, but that only certain combinations makes sense. It does seem somewhat obvious about how the primary and secondary functions work. But are other combinations valid? I haven't studied it enough to know what the arguments are that the 16 M-B personalities are the only valid ones, but it certainly seems arbitrary that the bottom 4 couldn't be swapped around.

It is just theory. We don't have to resort accepting every single combination since it does seem that the 16 proposed ones cover all the bases, but I don't know enough about how the inferior function and the rest of them were decided.

Just remember that what it feels like what you are using isn't necessarily what you are using. Since they are natural preferences, you may not realized how often you use something.


----------



## Third Engine (Dec 28, 2009)

Intricate Mystic said:


> If you agree that each type has certain functions laid out in a specific order, then doesn't it seem possible that someone could use their cognitive functions in a particular order _routinely_ that isn't characteristic of one of the existing 16 types? Just thinking out of the box here.....


Well, this assumes that cognitive functions are actions, which they are not. You cannot "use" Ne, Se, Ni, or whatever; rather, it's more of a worldview. For example, you are an INFJ. Your first and strongest function is Ni. You value this attitude the most highly. In order to make sense of what you perceive, you need an attitude of how to judge things. Since your dominant trait is inward, your secondary must be outward (extroverted) in order for you to be a psychologically healthy human being. Therefore, you tend to make your decisions along the lines of the values of the group you are a part of (Fe).


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Function order and function strength (I assume that's what you mean by use) are not the same thing. Just because you scored higher use on one function than the other on the test does not make that your dominant function. In fact, the test is only as accurate about you as how much you know yourself, so don't bet anything on it unless you're ridiculously self aware.

In plainer terms: You can score 50 points on Ni and 60 on Fe, but still use Ni as your dominant function because A) the test was wrong, or B) you spend more time focusing on other people than yourself. If you take the test again when you are focused more on yourself, your introverted functions will appear higher. If you take it when you're devoting everything to the people around you, chances are your extroverted functions and feeling functions will be higher. You can't expect everyone to use their eight functions in the exact same way every given hour of every day. Your MBTI type tells you your core personality, but in order to measure function use we have to look at your actions, which are not the same thing. Who you are is an INFJ (Ni Fe Ti Se). That doesn't change. The reason your functions are appearing at different strengths is due to how you use them in your daily life.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

Sorry, posted on the wrong thread so I removed my post. Someone had posted a link to this thread so I read it through and posted here rather than on the original thread. :blushed: So here it is, if anyone is interested in a similar topic. :tongue: :happy:

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/73912-mbti-binary-oppositions.html


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Intricate Mystic said:


> I just realized, in another thread, that I may sometimes use my cognitive functions in an order that doesn't fit any of the 16 personality types (Ni Se Fe Ti). Does anyone else do that? It seems that it should be theoretically possible to have many more personality types than 16, because the number of possible function combinations is way more than that. I think it's 24 x 16= 384 possible different cognitive function combinations.


Well they don’t make up a type since there is a natural procession as to how Jung says they must work. However sure you can use the cognitive functions you mentioned in that way as described *here* by Dario Nardi:


> *Ni-Se* - We might try out various tangible experiences and activities to catalyze realizations for growth. The more varied and undigested experiences one has, the more material there is for the unconscious to draw upon. We might look inward to envision how we can transform something, then gather data and take actions to realize that goal—to make real what is envisioned. For example, we might visualize how people will one day journey into space, and then take the actions necessary to design and build a spaceship to accomplish that goal. This might take many years of action, including activities to sustain the vision. Another tandem relationship involves engaging in a physical activity so that body, mind, and environment merge to become one, perhaps experiencing a great sense of calm or energy.
> 
> *Fe-Ti* - We can connect with others by following guidelines about appropriate behavior. We may follow principles of fair play or the Golden Rule—a general framework for all our transactions with others. We might locate leverage points in a situation to help everyone get what they need in the most affirming and fair way possible, or leverage our range of social contacts to get help or to interact with someone we wouldn’t normally have access to. Or we might mediate a dispute between two parties: we observe from multiple angles to fully see every side and give a fair hearing as we fit their claims with a framework to arrive at a decision.


----------



## Intricate Mystic (Apr 3, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Well they don’t make up a type since there is a natural procession as to how Jung says they must work. However sure you can use the cognitive functions you mentioned in that way as described *here* by Dario Nardi:


The info you posted is interesting. However, I'm confused about the "Cognitive process level of development" test results that people frequently post. That particular test indicates it measures "Preference, Skill, [and] Frequency of Use", yet the test results may show the top functions as some odd combination like Fe, Ni, Ne, and Ti. There's no MBTI type that correlates with that combination of functions. I can understand that in this particular case Se/Si tested low because Sensing isn't being used much by the person. However, someone getting almost equal scores for Ni and Ne implies they use both almost equally. There seems to be a disconnect between these results and the matching up of unique cognitive function combinations with MBTI type.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

MBTI is based on Jung's cognitive functions, but the two systems don't always line up because it wasn't intended to do so. There are some flaws in the Jungian design; mainly, many people report having combinations that just don't seem possible under Jung's theory and there is no adequate response to that other than "well, the theory says it." I like the idea of the cognitive functions, but rigid ordering schemes don't seem to have a basis in reality for me.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Have you read any of the Jungian analysts like Beebe or Lenore Thompson? Dom/Tert loops? Shadow functions?

It can explain things why an SP might seem more N than they're "supposed to" by the MBTI/Keirsey models, or why an NT might seem more F. 

Also, a lot of those cognitive functions tests are crap. There are some that equate all kindness or consideration with others with Fe, so I guess if you have Fi you can't care about other people? Look out for things like that.

I advise reading and research for best-fit type so that you really understand the functions.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Intricate Mystic said:


> The info you posted is interesting. However, I'm confused about the "Cognitive process level of development" test results that people frequently post. That particular test indicates it measures "Preference, Skill, [and] Frequency of Use", yet the test results may show the top functions as some odd combination like Fe, Ni, Ne, and Ti. There's no MBTI type that correlates with that combination of functions. I can understand that in this particular case Se/Si tested low because Sensing isn't being used much by the person. However, someone getting almost equal scores for Ni and Ne implies they use both almost equally. There seems to be a disconnect between these results and the matching up of unique cognitive function combinations with MBTI type.


The test you allude to merely indicate what cognitive functions that you may be using at the time of taking the test. As I have said before on this forum, if you take the test in a month, your order changes, two months it changes again and so on. Rarely are the results consistent since our cognitive function usage changes with circumstances.


----------



## Intricate Mystic (Apr 3, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> The test you allude to merely indicate what cognitive functions that you may be using at the time of taking the test. As I have said before on this forum, if you take the test in a month, your order changes, two months it changes again and so on. Rarely are the results consistent since our cognitive function usage changes with circumstances.


Well, if that's the case it makes those tests rather useless!


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Intricate Mystic said:


> Well, if that's the case it makes those tests rather useless!


Yes and this should be posted on the front page of every personality forum. Internet tests are USELESS. Junk in, junk out. Period.

Unless you are taking an actual MBTI instrument or understand how the functions work _relative_ to MBTI (and Jungian) theory this entire exercise is useless. You can go on believing that you have both Se and Ne in the same conscious function group if you want (and you might be right) but that's not what the theory says. In _theory_ these two would counteract and contradict one another. Similar to Te+Fe. So you can't really have it both ways. 

Now all this MBTI and JCF stuff is at heart a way to nail down something that is amorphous. Personality is like fog, its there but you can't necessarily grasp it tangibly or test it empirically. So all you have, as others have stated, are theories. So if you're of the MBTI/JCF/Socionics persuasion you are signing up to accept these conclusions for what they are (flawed as they might be, who can know?) But I'm of the belief if you are going to abide by a theory (declaring your type is XXXX) then you can't also make up the rules because you don't feel they suit you (that's a very Fi way of doing business), otherwise MBTI and any attempted study of personality is meaningless. MBTI is an attempt at an objective measure of something inherently subjective.

It's kinda like a movie. Of course an old man is not going to be able inflate a million balloons overnight and carry his house (with a missing child) all the way to South America. And toasters and automobiles don't transform into giant robots. But within the world of that movie, its perfectly logical for these things to happen and you have to judge those things based on the world of the movie not our own experiences. In my life light sabres or warp speed don't exist. In _Star Trek/Star Wars _its perfectly acceptable. 

MBTI is kinda the same way. It may be that there is no such thing as Fe, Ti, Se, Ni or functions at all in reality. It might just be some sort of neuro-chemical response but for now there is no way to prove otherwise. Its just that in Jung's world this is how he attempts to explain how personality works. It's his ideology and MBTI for various social reasons came along (along with JCF, etc) to simplify and objectify his theories (albiet so simplified it makes the whole thing more suspect than anything else).. SLOAN and Enneagram and Freud have very different measures and rules of their respective worlds that have to be adhered to.


----------



## Intricate Mystic (Apr 3, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Now all this MBTI and JCF stuff is at heart a way to nail down something that is amorphous. Personality is like fog, its there but you can't necessarily grasp it tangibly or test it empirically. So all you have, as others have stated, are theories. So if you're of the MBTI/JCF/Socionics persuasion you are signing up to accept these conclusions for what they are (flawed as they might be, who can know?) But I'm of the belief if you are going to abide by a theory (declaring your type is XXXX) then you can't also make up the rules because you don't feel they suit you (that's a very Fi way of doing business), otherwise MBTI and any attempted study of personality is meaningless. *MBTI is an attempt at an objective measure of something inherently subjective.*


This is the problem I have with these personality theories. As you point out, they are subjective to start with. People then get into serious, intense discussions about the details and stretch the theories in new directions that are never validated by empirical testing.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Intricate Mystic said:


> This is the problem I have with these personality theories. As you point out, they are subjective to start with. People then get into serious, intense discussions about the details and stretch the theories in new directions that are never validated by empirical testing.


It's not that all personality tests are subjective. Big 5 for example has boatloads of scientific data behind it. You'll find tons of peer-reviewed thesis on Big 5 as well. In terms of empirical science Big 5 is the most accepted evaluation of personality.

What separates Big 5 from Jung is that Big 5 only identifies what's actually consciously there. It doesn't care about the why. MBTI/JCF/Socionics seek to establish a theory that explains what is going on behind-the-scenes in a person's mind (like where do you get your values from, or are you a person who is more impressionistic than concrete). From a scientific standpoint this level of subjectivity is troubling because it really can't be proven by accepted processes. But the substratum of MBTI is to seek to at least come up with an explanation for personality observations (judging vs perception, etc) - something the SLOAN/Big 5 measures don't care about. 

Big 5 calls it as it sees it and as such doesn't really work in terms of typology (personality can't be fixed in SLOAN) because arguably measures of personality might change over time or every time you take the test. SLOAN/OCEAN/Big 5 tests are more like a snapshot (albiet fairly accurate) of who you are at a given moment in time.


----------

