# Why can't cognitive functions shift over time?



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

When I was still relatively new to the concept of MBTI, I had asked someone why it was that people's types couldn't change over time. That person had kindly tried to explain to me that it was because it wasn't simply based on the individual letters, but rather the underlying cognitive functions. I didn't understand at the time, so I looked into this concept of cognitive functions.

Yet, having read much on the subject, given time to process the information, I find myself asking the question over and over even still. While most of the discussion on cognitive functions provides a very detailed synchronic view (picture frozen in time), what would happen if we viewed them through a more diachronic lens (moving through time)?

I can understand that each function relies on each other to create a working balance. So the shifting of one function would in turn cause the rest to move accordingly. Much like in language change when a single vowel shifts within a language - the other vowels would have to move in order to compensate, followed by consonants, morphemes, stress, prosody, syllabification, etc.

I suppose what I'm getting at is... why can't a person's cognitive functions shift over time?

Please don't get me wrong! I'm actually asking out of sheer curiosity and have no intention whatsoever of being argumentative. ><


----------



## Scruffy (Aug 17, 2009)

If cognitive functions are the window through which you view and process the world through, changing that process would be going backwards on biology and nurture. Rewiring essentially.


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

So if the cognitive processes are like different windows of the house through which you interact with the world, you can't physically move the windows (rewiring). That makes sense.

Though, you can change which window you frequent. But I'm supposing that wouldn't necessarily change any hierarchy of functions.


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

I'm having a hard time understanding your question, what exactly do you mean by 'shifting' cognitive functions over time? You mean like going from being a dominant Te to Fe?


----------



## Scruffy (Aug 17, 2009)

I think in terms of functional "sets", I don't see the need to use other functions than the 4 you already have. Considering that the pairs of Ti/Fi, Ne/Se, Si/Ni, and Te/Fe do the same thing essentially (function in the same manner [introverted perception, extraverted judging, etc]).

Personal interpretation of the theory, and I'm sure someone else views it in a different way; I just don't need any other functions than Ne-Ti-Fe-Si to work.


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> I'm having a hard time understanding your question, what exactly do you mean by 'shifting' cognitive functions over time? You mean like going from being a dominant Te to Fe?


Oh, well, I apologize. I hadn't really puzzled out the mechanics of it. Rather I was just wondering whether or not it was possible. So I'll do my best to put up a more illustrative example (though I must admit I'm thinking about this on the spot so I can't say that it'll be all that good):

An ISFJ has Si > Fe > Ti > Ne (Shadow functions Se > Fi > Te > Ni) according to this link.

So I suppose, would it be possible to shift the dominant functions Fe > Si > Ne > Ti (ESFJ). I admit it would be a very difficult and gradual process if it was at all possible.

I've just been looking at language constraints for my research and language contact and change, so I guess my curiosity came from looking at the similarities between language constraint sets and cognitive functions. (Though I acknowledge that there are many differences as well.) Even now as I'm talking about it, I'm wondering if it would just be that the hierarchy isn't changing but it's just the other, less frequently used functions coming out.


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

erasinglines said:


> Oh, well, I apologize. I hadn't really puzzled out the mechanics of it. Rather I was just wondering whether or not it was possible. So I'll do my best to put up a more illustrative example (though I must admit I'm thinking about this on the spot so I can't say that it'll be all that good):
> 
> An ISFJ has Si > Fe > Ti > Ne (Shadow functions Se > Fi > Te > Ni) according to this link.
> 
> ...


Sorry, not a linguist major here so I can't really help you with this relationship between language and cognitive functions.

However, I don't really think you can shift from being an ISFJ to ESFJ. You'll always be an ISFJ no matter how good you get in using your other functions. I'm an INFJ myself, but I'm getting better and better in using the Si and Te functions even to the point of scoring ISTJ on the tests. At the core, though, I will always know that I'm an INFJ but that doesn't stop me from using my other functions, even my shadow functions.

So I wouldn't call it a shift, but rather a transcendence of cognitive functions.


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

Scruffy said:


> I think in terms of functional "sets", I don't see the need to use other functions than the 4 you already have. Considering that the pairs of Ti/Fi, Ne/Se, Si/Ni, and Te/Fe do the same thing essentially (function in the same manner [introverted perception, extraverted judging, etc]).
> 
> Personal interpretation of the theory, and I'm sure someone else views it in a different way; I just don't need any other functions than Ne-Ti-Fe-Si to work.


Well, I think that makes a lot of sense. Since the functions work together, those four would certainly be sufficient. And I have read about some people under stress bringing out the less frequently used functions which are their Shadow functions. Maybe that's enough to explain everything.


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> Sorry, not a linguist major here so I can't really help you with this relationship between language and cognitive functions.
> 
> However, I don't really think you can shift from being an ISFJ to ESFJ. You'll always be an ISFJ no matter how good you get in using your other functions. I'm an INFJ myself, but I'm getting better and better in using the Si and Te functions even to the point of scoring ISTJ on the tests. At the core, though, I will always know that I'm an INFJ but that doesn't stop me from using my other functions, even my shadow functions.
> 
> So I wouldn't call it a shift, but rather a transcendence of cognitive functions.


No worries! I'm actually just looking at language contact and pronunciation rules. It was just curiosity that got me thinking about MBTI cognitive functions~! :3

So... it's more like people have their own hierarchy and that gives them all the tools they need to deal with the world. It's just that unusual or particularly stressful situations might bring out the less frequent functions, but they will have the same hierarchy nonetheless.

I'm guessing?


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

erasinglines said:


> So... it's more like people have their own hierarchy and that gives them all the tools they need to deal with the world. It's just that unusual or particularly stressful situations might bring out the less frequent functions, but they will have the same hierarchy nonetheless.
> 
> I'm guessing?


Jung calls the dominant and secondary function the 'hero' and the 'parent' because the former function is what makes you feel confident and comfortable and the latter is the one that helps the dominant function reach its goals. The third and the fourth functions are the childish and clumsy archetypes, one being overly immature and the other making you feel like crap when you use it.

For example, if you are an INFP, Fi and Ne are your heroic and parent functions. With Fi you feel confident and know how to use it. Ne helps Fi by keeping it motivated and supporting the Fi's ideals. However, when an INFP finds itself using Si and Te, Si will make the INFP feel very unsure of itself and doubtful because the INFP would not be sure how to take control of it. The same with Te(INFP's inferior function), you will feel very clumsy with it since it's the arch-enemy of Fi. Fi will think of Te as too constricting and overwhelming, that's why it's inferior.

So in a way, it's like you say: it's a hierarchy of sorts. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that you will not use your functions linearly(although ideally that would be nice), since sometimes you can find yourself dealing with your inferior and even shadow functions which can bring to you lots of pain and embarrassment, on the other hand, your inferior and shadow functions can also be a great source of growth and enlightment, it just depends on how you look at it.


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> Jung calls the dominant and secondary function the 'hero' and the 'parent' because the former function is what makes you feel confident and comfortable and the latter is the one that helps the dominant function reach its goals. The third and the fourth functions are the childish and clumsy archetypes, one being overly immature and the other making you feel like crap when you use it.
> 
> For example, if you are an INFP, Fi and Ne are your heroic and parent functions. With Fi you feel confident and know how to use it. Ne helps Fi by keeping it motivated and supporting the Fi's ideals. However, when an INFP finds itself using Si and Te, Si will make the INFP feel very unsure of itself and doubtful because the INFP would not be sure how to take control of it. The same with Te(INFP's inferior function), you will feel very clumsy with it since it's the arch-enemy of Fi. Fi will think of Te as too constricting and overwhelming, that's why it's inferior.
> 
> So in a way, it's like you say: it's a hierarchy of sorts. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that you will not use your functions linearly(although ideally that would be nice), since sometimes you can find yourself dealing with your inferior and even shadow functions which can bring to you lots of pain and embarrassment, on the other hand, your inferior and shadow functions can also be a great source of growth and enlightment, it just depends on how you look at it.


Oh! That's what all the hero, parent, child things were! I was having trouble figuring out where those fit into the whole scheme of things so it was just flying completely over my head.

I'm thinking it's starting to make sense now. Thank you all very much.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

The functions are a hierarchy and you cant change them no. But as Scruffy said, you don't really need to; you have everything you need to function built into you. Once you have developed your lower functions this is especially true (just because a function has a low rank does not mean one cannot become proficient at using it).


----------



## SyndiCat (Oct 2, 2010)

Because you can't change the past, nor can you change your inherence. 
Everything you need to process information is in your primary four cognitive functions.


Edit: 

- Si relies on Ne for information to place in its slot.
- Se is information relying on Ni to string it together.

If we can pretend that Si and Ne together makes a puzzle,
then this is the best method I have to explain how Ni works with Se.










This method is called Thaumatrope.

Adding layers upon layers of information is how Ni and Se works together, piecing information together and making sense of it, having judging functions evaluate it in the process.






If these functions were somehow to collide with functions it was not supposed to have (E.g. Ni and Ne together) then it would most likely create a paradox to the individual, making the individual autistic, schizophrenic, or perhaps even braindead, because the individual's mental faculty would seize to function. Cognitive functions simply exist as clockwork in ones mental faculty, which means if one of the gears were to move in the opposite direction of what it was supposed to then the entire clock would seize to function, or break. The information would have no way to process information. "But why can't ones functions be exchanged?" you asked. Instead you should ask yourself; How do you exchange these gears without killing the clock first? 

And this is why limiting personality traits to functions are kind of ridiculous, because functions do not have personalities of their own.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

I still consider myself a noob with this, however I'd like to chime in here.

I want to start by building off of SyndiCat's post.

The clock, would perhaps stop ticking, just as a heart would if we did a heart transplant, however, if we were to do this with our cognitive functions, the brain would stop "focusing," yet never stop being aware, like a flashlight spread out over the distance, it would simply cease in the moment of transition, to focus on something particular, except perhaps the transition its self, much like one can focus on breathing or words in mantra meditation.

That being said, I feel we can "rewire" most of our cognitive functioning, but never completely. The reason for this is because I feel if we can go back in time and relive our memories, we can deconstruct how we made our value system in the first place, and therefore change our empirical evidence for ethical behavior, and the way of perceiving the world attached to it, however, the reason I don't think we could ever do this completely, is because before age three we can't remember the memories.

We simply can't get to that wiring.

Houses often have wiring leftover though, and who goes in the attic anyway often times. New wiring in the brain can be ran, as long as it becomes habit.

However, since we don't always act logical, we don't simply wire our brain however we want.

Jung talks about a sun reaching its apex at the top, shining over all of the land, knowing no bounds, and being responsible for all of our dreams before we have given up on them due to some kind of societal constraint.

I feel it is these dreams we can not escape from, which create the habit of using certain wiring and windows over and over again.

...so the act of going back into memories for the sake of rewiring and learning with new neurological pathways, would have to coincide with _the dreams_.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

erasinglines said:


> When I was still relatively new to the concept of MBTI, I had asked someone why it was that people's types couldn't change over time. That person had kindly tried to explain to me that it was because it wasn't simply based on the individual letters, but rather the underlying cognitive functions. I didn't understand at the time, so I looked into this concept of cognitive functions.
> 
> Yet, having read much on the subject, given time to process the information, I find myself asking the question over and over even still. While most of the discussion on cognitive functions provides a very detailed synchronic view (picture frozen in time), what would happen if we viewed them through a more diachronic lens (moving through time)?
> 
> ...


I am not sure this will answer your question but unlike the four-letter codes ISFJ which are static, the function-attitudes are dynamic. The Si-Fe-Ti-Ne will be used on command as circumstances arise. The other four functions as already mentioned are not as easy for someone preferring ISFJ, to use.

This reminds me of the spoon bender in the Matrix, who encourages Neo to see the spoon bend from a different perspective. The same principle lies here. Your function-attitudes do not change. You simply use the function necessary at the moment. As for the functions moving accordingly, the answer is yes to a point. Keep in mind the opposite of (using the example of ISFJ) Si is not Ne. Instead they’re compensatory functions. Therefore the more you use Si, the less you use Ne. The less you use Si, the more you are able to use Ne. Also the less you introvert, the more you extravert, allowing the Fe to be used. 

In essence, one’s type doesn’t change, the use and development of another function becomes more apparent. You do not go from being an introverting type to an extraverting type simply because you are now using your Fe more since the Si will always be the most differentiated function-attitude. There are times I question whether I am ESTP or ISTP, but my Ti always dominates.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

The way I understand the function hierarchy (may not be profound) is that the primary, secondary and tertiary function are all interacting well together, while the forth, the inferior function truly is your most un-used function. Meaning that while there is a hierarchy your shadow functions will not rank behind your inferior function, but anywhere between your secondary and inferior in a random order dependent on how trained they are.

As for your core question; A simple example may be helping you here. In theory it's possible that you re-wire and re-adjust your being to become some one else, this however means completely throwing away who you currently are. Trashing all your experiences, trashing who you are, trashing what you're comfortable with, trashing your priority - throwing yourself completely out of the window. Now ask yourself, could you do that?

I for one can definitely claim I could never.

Perhaps some sudden trauma and/or accidents or other diseases that make the brain malfunctioning can cause a personality change, other than that however, I doubt anyone is capable of throwing oneself away just to rebuild from a scratch.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Erbse said:


> The way I understand the function hierarchy (may not be profound) is that the primary, secondary and tertiary function are all interacting well together, while the forth, the inferior function truly is your most un-used function. Meaning that while there is a hierarchy your shadow functions will not rank behind your inferior function, but anywhere between your secondary and inferior in a random order dependent on how trained they are.


Mmm...not sure here. I'm not that bad at using Fe in RL, and I can't use Te well at all.


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

Wow, thank you all so much for your comments. Having things explained in so many different ways and coming from different angles really helps to focus in on the main point! 

As for whether or not someone could willingly rewire their cognitive functions, I agree that this is a very dangerous thing to suggest, and I apologize if it seems like I had been suggesting that. Even the thought of such a thing is frightening because it would imply that we cannot accept ourselves and others for the way that we are currently at this moment. Not only is it not fair to cognitive functions and the people who use them, but it's simply not appropriate. I love the great and wonderful variety of individual differences we have, and I would want to accept these things about people, even if sometimes it takes up my time and patience to do so.

Having said that, it seems like if such a thing were possible of happening, it would require a great amount of trauma or messing with by some disease or something to have such rewiring take place. And under such circumstances, I can only imagine that it must be extremely difficult for those people and their loved ones.


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

SyndiCat said:


> - Si relies on Ne for information to place in its slot.
> - Se is information relying on Ni to string it together.
> 
> If we can pretend that Si and Ne together makes a puzzle,
> then this is the best method I have to explain how Ni works with Se.


So... things that seem the opposite aren't opposite at all, but function together as one entity? Like shadow and light, where the presence of one immediately requires the presence of the other. They seem opposites, but truly they are the very same existence giving a push and pull of more light and less shadow or more shadow and less light. Maybe?


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

nevermore said:


> Mmm...not sure here. I'm not that bad at using Fe in RL, and I can't use Te well at all.


Well, I just based that statement on my test result (Key2Cognition) and my Fe ranked un-used with around 5ish points, so it made sense to me - no other function was nearly as rock bottom. :tongue:


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

erasinglines said:


> So... things that seem the opposite aren't opposite at all, but function together as one entity? Like shadow and light, where the presence of one immediately requires the presence of the other. They seem opposites, but truly they are the very same existence giving a push and pull of more light and less shadow or more shadow and less light. Maybe?


I think you know more than what you give yourself credit for :wink:


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> I think you know more than what you give yourself credit for :wink:


Aww, thanks! Though it certainly helps a lot to be pointed in the right direction. Otherwise, I have a tendency to run through a lot of mental walls I thought weren't there. XD


----------



## SyndiCat (Oct 2, 2010)

erasinglines said:


> So... things that seem the opposite aren't opposite at all, but function together as one entity? Like shadow and light, where the presence of one immediately requires the presence of the other. They seem opposites, but truly they are the very same existence giving a push and pull of more light and less shadow or more shadow and less light. Maybe?


That is well said. Yes.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Erbse said:


> Well, I just based that statement on my test result (Key2Cognition) and my Fe ranked un-used with around 5ish points, so it made sense to me - no other function was nearly as rock bottom. :tongue:


Lots of people score this way, but scores aren't functional orders. I scored highest on Ti and second-highest on Ne, but it all fell apart after that. Overlap between Ni and Ne makes me score higher on Ni than I should. I do actually score very high on my Fe - higher than Si - and seem to exhibit more of it in RL than most ITP's, but a lot of that is due to wanting people to get along so I won't have to deal with drama. A Ti-dom might score high on Fi because it is associated with "doing what is important to you", but Ti is concerned with that basic type of thing as well. Basically the only way you can get accurate results is introspection, and you'll find that even if you don't act on it you'll be aware of that Fe pull hovering close to the unconscious, and not truly aware of any of the unconscious function for more than a brief period of time. Each of the function types (like Pe for example) has a different role and roles can only be filled by one function. Having, say, Se and Ne in the same mind doing the same thing just isn't viable.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

They don't shift, because type is really just two functions, the dominant and auxiliary, and the other six are really but "reflections" and/or shadows of the others. This should give you an idea how the concept works:










The only way to change it would be to change the dominant and auxiliary, but these are basically set, as the ego finds them more suitable, and so makes them its main perspectives. The others then follow in light of the main ones, and what we can do is become more conscious of them, but it's not about changing any "order".


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

Eric B said:


> They don't shift, because type is really just two functions, the dominant and auxiliary, and the other six are really but "reflections" and/or shadows of the others. This should give you an idea how the concept works:
> 
> ...
> 
> The only way to change it would be to change the dominant and auxiliary, but these are basically set, as the ego finds them more suitable, and so makes them its main perspectives. The others then follow in light of the main ones, and what we can do is become more conscious of them, but it's not about changing any "order".


Oh, thank you so much for this picture~! (I only took it out just to keep from possible over-repetition.) It seems quite simple, and yet now I can understand so much that I had trouble putting into place before.

Also, a temporary shift in using auxiliary functions over dominant functions does not constitute a shift in the position of 'dominant' or 'auxiliary.'

I think maybe I'm getting the hang of this. :3


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Eric B said:


> They don't shift, because type is really just two functions, the dominant and auxiliary, and the other six are really but "reflections" and/or shadows of the others. This should give you an idea how the concept works:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wait, so my tertiary Si is the same as a Childish Ne, and my seventh function is the opposite of Ne, which is Ni, which is like a demonic Child intent on posing as something but really with the intent of tricking? Is it posing as Ne? Man this is confusing.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

No, no, no. Not "the same"; but just "_reflections_" of each other. Ne is parent, and in favoring iNtuition, Sensing is initially suppressed, and in being a parent (authority position), a dependent position is suppressed. If you're an authority, you're the one leading, not looking up to someone else. These both collect in this opposite space as a childish complex that forms around Sensing. It also takes the dominant attitude (i).

The 7th function is just the shadow of the tertiary. It is a negative child suppressed from the good child complex. Thus, it also takes the suppressed opposite attitude. (Se). Ni is connected with the negative parent complex of the _6th_ function. This, of course, is the shadow of the good parent, Ne.


----------



## Bluedog (Mar 29, 2011)

erasinglines said:


> When I was still relatively new to the concept of MBTI, I had asked someone why it was that people's types couldn't change over time. That person had kindly tried to explain to me that it was because it wasn't simply based on the individual letters, but rather the underlying cognitive functions. I didn't understand at the time, so I looked into this concept of cognitive functions.
> 
> Yet, having read much on the subject, given time to process the information, I find myself asking the question over and over even still. While most of the discussion on cognitive functions provides a very detailed synchronic view (picture frozen in time), what would happen if we viewed them through a more diachronic lens (moving through time)?
> 
> ...


Ask yourself this simple question, "How can I "unlearn" what I have learned?" Cognitive process..i.e., cognition is simply the BASE or root process of your thoughts and how you process the information that surrounds you in order to make a decision. Just like a computer, you are hardwired by the original data that has been fed into your brain (computer)....but, unlike the computer, you simply cannot "reboot" your system to change the information that is fed into the system as you cannot erase your hard drive...you are what you learn, and for better or worse you are stuck with the format. Sure, some people might become infected with a virus that interferes with the process, we call these viruses Mental Issues...some people simply cannot accept the concept of empathy and thus have no feelings of remorse when their actions bring pain and suffering to other life forms, we call these individuals psychos..i.e., suffering from the mental disease of having a sociopathic personality.


----------



## justcritic (Mar 26, 2011)

Haha, I first read this as "Why can't cognitive functions SHIT over time".


----------

