# What's a cognitive function?



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> If we are talking about IDRLabs, I get INFP in INFP vs INTP, and also in INFP vs INFJ. But I get both INTP and INFJ over INTJ.
> 
> It's interesting how the Fi-Te axis thing doesn't seem to come much in play at all or else you'd think I wouldn't get INFP first and INTJ last of the INxx's.
> 
> Multiple people have been convinced that I am INFp in socionics. I find it silly given how I don't relate to the Fe but they are out there.


On the topic of IDRlabs tests, here are my results for comparison.

Personality Type Test: INTJ
E: 27%, I: 73%
S: 18%, N: 82%
T: 91%, F: 9%
P: 36%, J: 64%

I've been getting INTJ on a lot of things, lately. I see that as a reflection of acclimatising to a structured approach towards my travails, but also, I don't have the same wanderlust I used to have as I've gotten older.

Below are my scores from other tests. Overall, these scores suggest INTP, but the first and last of these was very close.

INTP or INFP: INTP 53%, INFP 47%
INTJ or INTP: INTP 65%, INTJ 35%
INTJ or INFJ: INTJ 65%, INFJ 35%
INFP or INFJ: INFP 53%, INFJ 47%

This little gem stood out...

"I could see myself getting really immersed in an outdated system of logic and philosophy which has long since been refuted and which is of mere historical interest now."

Such as typology?

They've made two more INxx tests since then.

INTJ or INFP: INFP 53%, INTJ 47%
INFJ or INTP: INTP 88%, INFJ 12%

I didn't feel strongly about most of the items on the INTJ or INFP test; I found the INTJ ones too tyrannical and the INFP ones too rose-coloured. But with the INFJ or INTP test, I dove straight for the INTP answers in most cases.

So, INTP is my one true type, right? Then I took this test...

ENTP or INTP: ENTP 71%, INTP 29%

That does suggest ILE.

I love how according to IDRlabs, I can be an INTJ, INTP, and an ENTP at the same time.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Interesting. I think I got ENTP above INTP too in that test. I think I got INFP on their letters test last time I took it, but their functions test gives me INxJ. So I guess we are in similar situations.

I think it really depends on the environment I am in with regards to how people see me. Like a forum like this makes me respond in a certain way because my takeaways are of a certain nature. I also type out my posts in Word documents and double check them for accuracy and structure and whatnot so that I am satisfied with my messaging in what essentially become permanent posts. But in regular speech or fast moving text I am sort of "all over the place" in a way that perhaps makes INTP by functions the worst NP fit.


----------



## Ad Gloriam (Feb 25, 2020)




----------



## Ad Gloriam (Feb 25, 2020)

Here, everyone can see that the MBTI use always the two first functions.

MBTI Company website:


----------



## Ad Gloriam (Feb 25, 2020)

I know an ESTP very rooted in their values, and ENTP who furiously love FPS games. Even if I believe in the twinning Ti-Fe Se-Ni etc, I can't confirm a _systematism _as second pair. However the first is always very clear.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Those diagrams are probably mostly based off letters, and I already know that I fit INTP or possibly INFP the best in that regard. It is what I got on the MBTI test.

You can create those words by combining letters. For instance "long range planning" is N (long range) + J (planning).


----------



## Ad Gloriam (Feb 25, 2020)

Yes, you can, but I don't see the problem with the functions since the MBTI rests entirely on it.

They also equate NP and _extraverted intuition_ with tree structure and _introverted sensing_ with details

"_The following examples show the transition from normal high performance state to everyday stress exaggeration through to extreme stress reactions.

ENTP and ENFP Types share the leading Core Character of the Explorer. Under everyday stress, Explorers over-rely on their favoured Extraverted iNtuition, causing them to become frenetic and generate more ideas than they can process. 

Under severe or prolonged stress, the Explorer can become overwhelmed by small details, obsessing irrationally about them. At this point, they are in the grip of Introverted Sensing, the Conserver Core Character – but in an immature, poorly practised and obsessive form, very unlike how this favourite Core Character appears for ISFJ and ISTJ Types. To recover from this state, Explorers may need to be encouraged to say ‘no’ and set boundaries. To decide what should be prioritised, they should consciously access their preferred decision-making function, Thinking or Feeling, to regain perspective. _"


----------



## Ad Gloriam (Feb 25, 2020)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Ni (Myers)7 Introverted Thinking with Intuition


It's rather Ni with Ti, according your logic, not the contrary. (even if I maintain that Jung describes a neurotic vision of the Ni type). The work of conceptual perception of a future situation is above all an imagination working, then the strict temporal logic, extraverted thinking, flies over (INTJ) or non temporal, introverted thinking (INFJ).


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> I think it really depends on the environment I am in with regards to how people see me. Like a forum like this makes me respond in a certain way because my takeaways are of a certain nature. I also type out my posts in Word documents and double check them for accuracy and structure and whatnot so that I am satisfied with my messaging in what essentially become permanent posts. But in regular speech or fast moving text I am sort of "all over the place" in a way that perhaps makes INTP by functions the worst NP fit.


Word is a useful tool for identifying spelling errors or obvious grammatical mistakes, but I find it limited because when I parse over my posts and edit them, what I'm aiming for is precision in semantic meaning of words, as well as the clarity of syntax when conveying the logic of my ideas. Often, I read over posts after posting them and edit them afterwards. For example, I had originally described Fe-Ti as "utilitarian", but I've since changed it to "egalitarian" because that word more precisely stated the idea I wanted to convey.

That's probably true for most people to be more organised in the written word than they are in regular speech. When I'm speaking, I don't always know where I'll end up and I'm continuously adjusting to input on the go, but when writing, I can see what trajectory my train of thought is taking me and adjust my writing accordingly. That in itself isn't something specific to J vs. P (or Conscientiousness), but a case could be made that the differences between mediums can exaggerate the extent of one's organisational tendencies.


----------



## mazmil (Jan 30, 2020)

o I guess what I'd like to know is:
A) What is the utility of using cognitive functions to type? If I "try on" any type and then read stuff about it I will read a lot of stuff that doesn't apply to me depending on where I go so I don't know what I'm supposed to find in choosing from any num


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> Reading your entire post I think it’s evident why we are bound to clash and I don’t know if that will ever change.


We definitely are, but I must confess that I really value our discussions. I always learn things and I've found that it's very important for me to put myself in situations where I get to challenge my preconceptions. My preconceptions are often my biggest hurdle (more on that later  )



> This brings up an interesting question. If you use something (demanding rigor when using classification) to advocate for a goal (essentially rejecting classification), what does that mean on the typology side to you? Is what matters preference inside your own head, or methods used to achieve results?


I think that the only thing that really matters is the process inside your own head. Methods can be learned and be used by anyone. It's true that some methods are statistically more likely to be used by certain types, but that's not a good basis for typing anyone. 
A lot of it depends on context and that's why it's so hard to type other people. Does someone have a goal because their brain is pushing to realize personal ideals, does that person have a goal because they are looking to get an understanding of the world or does that person have a goal because they think it's what's expected from them? 

I do agree that that makes typology vague and hard to use with any of our current tools and methods and it might not even be realistic to type anyone with more than 70% accuracy before we actually understand how our brains really work. 
I think it's a worthwile effort to try to expand on the theory in the mean time though, although I think it's important to stay critical of how certain we can ever be of our conclusions. 



> You seem to be very interested in categorizing brain processes in this “cognitive functions” system, so would that mean that would make you a candidate for being dominant in Ti?


That single factor could make me a candidate. Luckily there's lots more to know about me so that we don't have to type me based on just one single fact. 



> Agreed, I feel like tunnel vision is generally a pathway to stupidity. I see it all the time and I hope that’s not me.


I feel like the biggest hurdle for a lot of Ni-dominants is being aware of their own tunnel-vision and trying to be open to alternatives. I'll be the first to admit that tunnel-vision is my biggest pitfall. 
That's honestly one of the biggest reasons I'm here on the forums. I want to constantly challenge my preconceptions and try to find out what things I'm just assuming that I have no proof of. 



> What you call Ni is a lot of people’s Ti – synthesizing ideas together into a comprehensive framework. But yes I don’t relate to that and usually find people who relate to that strongly to be naïve.


I really want to find better ways to explain and identify Ni and Ti. I have a high-concept idea of them but it's true that I can't really define them in any way that they don't overlap. It's possible that this is because my idea of them is wrong, it's possible that this is because their functions overlap in some ways. I can think of any number of possibilities here. Sadly, I don't have any better definitions at this point. I hope people keep on being critical of my points on this forum so that we can maybe one day have better definitions. 



> Why wouldn’t this be Ti and Te?


I understand these functions in a way that Si builds and fills a database and Ti/Te uses that database. I can't tell you if Ti/Te can actually change the database in any way or if they use Si/Ni to do that... We just don't know enough yet about how memory actually works in the brain. I'm open to suggestions. 



> This seems like mental gymnastics, trying to fit basic attributes into a framework that you’ve already decided on.
> Any time anyone cites an article, it’s “specific”. What is an unspecific article? Yes I do demand specificity when people hide their BS in vagueness but in that case it’s the vagueness shrouding the BS and the goal is just to expose the BS, rather than to fulfill an innate inner need for specificity.
> So you might as well have just said that I cited articles, which I do to inject information into a discussion. I’m sure there’s some people who never do that but linking to things is often just a much more efficient communication and in areas involving things such as history and material truth, it offers credibility.


That's fair enough on all counts. I do tend to do this quite a bit while typing too and I have actually seen cases where I have taken more liberty with this type of stuff than I should have. There are a lot of cases where I should just say that the things I see could fit with any type and I can't really make a determination from the data I've seen. 
I still think there is something in the way you cite articles and posts to get at your type and cognitive functions, but I agree that my approach here wasn't very good. 



> Okay but this just opens the door for typing anyone you want as tert-whatever.


That's actually why I don't tend to use the tertiary function for typing anyone really. It helps if you see evidence that a function exists for someone but how it presents is different enough that I think it's a trap to take any more from that than just stating that someone has that function. 



> So basically it can just be anything. This is why I think it’s important to demand specificity in discussions like this; if you allow so many exceptions then you just allow yourself to see what you want to see and trap yourself in your system.


Yes and no. There are some common threads that pop up, but it's definitely not an air-tight system. Inferior Fe has some very common patterns that it occurs in, but it's true that it's not the same every time. I wouldn't say that you could just interpret anything as inferior Fe though. I don't really see these as exceptions in any way, but I do see them as one are where factors outside of MBTI can modify the way the inferior presents in such a big way that it can make it hard to distinguish anything at that point. 
You could make a good argument that using this as a basis for typing people is not realistic in most cases. I have found though that there are some traits that come up often enough that there does seem to be a pattern for inferior functions in certain types. I haven't gotten enough data on anything yet though to say anything more about it. 



> I feel like you have a tendency to stop observing and even something like a first impression really shapes how you take in subsequent information. For instance, seeing the type I have on my profile and then seeing what I write in accordance with that, reinforcing that and solidifying the belief. It’s this stickiness that I feel compelled to shake up. I guess you could say it’s “Ne” or whatever.


I do have that tendency and it's something I've started to notice in myself more and more as I age. 
How I tend to type is to state a hypothesis for myself and see if things fit that hypothesis or if they support the hpothesis or if they clash with it in some way. In the end, the hypothesis that seems to fit with the most evidence is most likely to be the correct one. 

Now that I actually put that into words I actually think that I could formalize this process in some way. I'll see if I can do that in the future so that people can actually ask critical questions of it. I really need people to see my process so that I can see where the flaws are. 



> Untestable claims can be permanent internally if you don’t know how to clean them out.


Thank you for those words, I do think I need to hear them sometimes.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Drecon said:


> We definitely are, but I must confess that I really value our discussions. I always learn things and I've found that it's very important for me to put myself in situations where I get to challenge my preconceptions. My preconceptions are often my biggest hurdle (more on that later  )


There are ways to practice working on that, maybe covering our weaknesses so to say.


> I think that the only thing that really matters is the process inside your own head. Methods can be learned and be used by anyone. It's true that some methods are statistically more likely to be used by certain types, but that's not a good basis for typing anyone.


Do you really believe that people use distinct methods based on what type they are? I really don't even get why someone would believe that. The lack of support for anything of this nature goes against the idea that something like this exists.


> A lot of it depends on context and that's why it's so hard to type other people. Does someone have a goal because their brain is pushing to realize personal ideals, does that person have a goal because they are looking to get an understanding of the world or does that person have a goal because they think it's what's expected from them?


Most people have goals because of all 3 but yes the ratio can be different. What if it's your personal ideal to understand the world better but that developed mostly because it's your personal ideal to live up to expectations?

Honestly the use of language (buzzwords) here often just seems to seek to delineate and categorize things. You call something a "personal ideal" and it's "Fi". You call something a "goal" and it's Te or Si/Ni or whatever. And you may even convince yourself that your goals aren't really "personal ideals" because you don't "have Fi".


> I do agree that that makes typology vague and hard to use with any of our current tools and methods and it might not even be realistic to type anyone with more than 70% accuracy before we actually understand how our brains really work.


I'd most likely say if we ever do "actually understand how our brains really work" that may be the time when The Functions finally reach their extinction point.


> I think it's a worthwile effort to try to expand on the theory in the mean time though, although I think it's important to stay critical of how certain we can ever be of our conclusions.


Why _this_ theory and not other ones which actually have some evidence behind them?


> That single factor could make me a candidate. Luckily there's lots more to know about me so that we don't have to type me based on just one single fact.


Which is sort of why I made this thread. I've gotten so many different "types" based on different applications of this stuff that I think it's a good exercise to try to come to a conclusion because I am pretty sure that I'll be able to poke some holes in it regardless of what the particular conclusion is. And if not then maybe you can turn me into a believer? :dry:


> I feel like the biggest hurdle for a lot of Ni-dominants is being aware of their own tunnel-vision and trying to be open to alternatives. I'll be the first to admit that tunnel-vision is my biggest pitfall.
> That's honestly one of the biggest reasons I'm here on the forums. I want to constantly challenge my preconceptions and try to find out what things I'm just assuming that I have no proof of.


If it's a pitfall then yes discussions like this can hopefully help out. Also I think you said you were diagnosed with ADD so if you are taking medication for it, that may be causing a lot of the problem.


> I really want to find better ways to explain and identify Ni and Ti. I have a high-concept idea of them but it's true that I can't really define them in any way that they don't overlap. It's possible that this is because my idea of them is wrong, it's possible that this is because their functions overlap in some ways. I can think of any number of possibilities here. Sadly, I don't have any better definitions at this point. I hope people keep on being critical of my points on this forum so that we can maybe one day have better definitions.


I think a lot may have to do with your idea being based on your own experience and thus Ni = You, Ti = Them. So it becomes more of a rough association thing where if you feel a divergence between your identity and someone else you feel that dissonance and just _know_ it's not "Ni".


> I understand these functions in a way that Si builds and fills a database and Ti/Te uses that database. I can't tell you if Ti/Te can actually change the database in any way or if they use Si/Ni to do that... We just don't know enough yet about how memory actually works in the brain. I'm open to suggestions.


My first suggestion would be to think about things without using The Functions. There is no evidence anywhere that I know of that points to them being a good heuristic for memory.


> That's fair enough on all counts. I do tend to do this quite a bit while typing too and I have actually seen cases where I have taken more liberty with this type of stuff than I should have. There are a lot of cases where I should just say that the things I see could fit with any type and I can't really make a determination from the data I've seen.


It's actually something like this which got me into this whole universe.

A friend of mine was so convinced that The Functions were totally great explanations of people and was basically evangelizing his version of MBTI. So he had me take a test and I got INFP.

And then for a long period of time he responded to my ideas differently. It seemed like when I would come up with something he would sort of look down on it, thinking it wasn't logical or realistic or whatever because he "had Ti" and I didn't. I would say they were pretty damn good ideas and defended that I can "use Ti" too and then he linked me to something about Fi vs Fe which somehow meant I couldn't be a Ti user because I don't use Fe.

Eventually he started respecting my ideas on their own merits and then he started suggesting that I actually could be ENTP.

I never thought these damn functions had merit to them but I found the whole thing frustrating, that people really do want to see people as 4 bits and not as unique individuals who have a lot of seemingly paradoxical traits.

"Dehumanizing" might be the right word to some of the visceral repel I feel to typology but I'll play the game in good faith to see if I can help shed light on some of the pitfalls of it.


> I still think there is something in the way you cite articles and posts to get at your type and cognitive functions, but I agree that my approach here wasn't very good.


I think you have an idea, and that idea is wrong but please do elaborate on it. It would be interesting to see what you believe about me, especially when it comes down to falsifiable specifics.  This just seems to get into the "I just feel it" which is probably a result of preconceptions which shape your own lens.


> That's actually why I don't tend to use the tertiary function for typing anyone really. It helps if you see evidence that a function exists for someone but how it presents is different enough that I think it's a trap to take any more from that than just stating that someone has that function.
> Yes and no. There are some common threads that pop up, but it's definitely not an air-tight system. Inferior Fe has some very common patterns that it occurs in, but it's true that it's not the same every time. I wouldn't say that you could just interpret anything as inferior Fe though. I don't really see these as exceptions in any way, but I do see them as one are where factors outside of MBTI can modify the way the inferior presents in such a big way that it can make it hard to distinguish anything at that point.
> You could make a good argument that using this as a basis for typing people is not realistic in most cases. I have found though that there are some traits that come up often enough that there does seem to be a pattern for inferior functions in certain types. I haven't gotten enough data on anything yet though to say anything more about it.


If these things actually were useful you would think there would've been some data picked up in the last 30 years that actually back them up.


> I do have that tendency and it's something I've started to notice in myself more and more as I age.
> How I tend to type is to state a hypothesis for myself and see if things fit that hypothesis or if they support the hpothesis or if they clash with it in some way. In the end, the hypothesis that seems to fit with the most evidence is most likely to be the correct one.


If you distort information through the lens of you own bias you may think the evidence fits the hypothesis even though you are just looking at your _perception_ of the evidence. Look at politics and how people live in their own bubbles where they are so convinced that their side is "right".


> Now that I actually put that into words I actually think that I could formalize this process in some way. I'll see if I can do that in the future so that people can actually ask critical questions of it. I really need people to see my process so that I can see where the flaws are.


That would be very appreciated.


> Thank you for those words, I do think I need to hear them sometimes.


I'll be interested to see how things develop.


----------



## Ad Gloriam (Feb 25, 2020)

@Drecon

Are you a mazochist or something?


----------



## Ad Gloriam (Feb 25, 2020)

Ocean Helm said:


> Do you really believe that people use distinct methods based on what type they are? I really don't even get why someone would believe that. The lack of support for anything of this nature goes against the idea that something like this exists.
> 
> 
> Honestly the use of language (buzzwords) here often just seems to seek to delineate and categorize things. You call something a "personal ideal" and it's "Fi". You call something a "goal" and it's Te or Si/Ni or whatever. And you may even convince yourself that your goals aren't really "personal ideals" because you don't "have Fi".
> ...


Of course, you are a typical arrogant schizoid INTP ashkenazi with a dominant introverted thinking function :wink:

Jung made mistakes, but he also said many truths.




Ocean Helm said:


> You seem to be very interested in categorizing brain processes in this “cognitive functions” system, so would that mean that would make you a candidate for being dominant in Ti?


Just this sentance demonstrate you are perversious.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Ad Gloriam said:


> Of course, you are a typical arrogant schizoid INTP ashkenazi with a dominant introverted thinking function :wink:
> 
> Jung made mistakes, but he also said many truths.
> 
> ...


Did you feed your normal thought process into a Trump tweet generator?


----------



## Ad Gloriam (Feb 25, 2020)

Ocean Helm said:


> Did you feed your normal thought process into a Trump tweet generator?


Rather the Mystery of Intuition....roud:


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Ad Gloriam said:


> Rather the Mystery of Intuition....roud:


Not too mysterious, unlike my anagram, your name is just "To Glory" in an obsolete language.

Maybe you're ISTJ with the ancient language (Si) and the poor attempt at a clever nickname (inferior Ne).


----------



## Ad Gloriam (Feb 25, 2020)

Ocean Helm said:


> Not too mysterious, unlike my anagram, your name is just "To Glory" in an obsolete language.
> 
> Maybe you're ISTJ with the ancient language (Si) and the poor attempt at a clever nickname (inferior Ne).


Your artificial anagram. (damned what a desappointment)


I never had a Latin or Roman education so it is more a reference to a personal mythological ideal, and in a some extent a Western World domination.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

^ Future Overwatch nerd if not one already.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> It's actually something like this which got me into this whole universe.
> 
> A friend of mine was so convinced that The Functions were totally great explanations of people and was basically evangelizing his version of MBTI. So he had me take a test and I got INFP.
> 
> ...


Oh god, someone you know in real life evangelised about the functions. I haven't experienced it myself, but I can only imagine how awkward that must have been to deal with. I thought functionistas were all "tests are stupid, only subjective interpretations of some theory (in the layman's sense of the word) mean anything", so why he would base his initial assessment of you being INFP on a test is beyond me. What did this friend of yours type himself as, by the way? Please tell me it's INFJ.

I can't be the only one to have noticed this, but I've noticed that typology is sometimes used as a means of gaslighting. Like, if you don't agree with someone's garbage, it's not because their arguments are poorly constructed, it's because you're not capable of _getting_ what they're saying since you don't use the same functions as them. I've seen people write at length about how they supposedly just "know" things without being able to explain why, or how they supposedly have an innate ability to understand the inner workings of someone else's mind despite not knowing a person well.

I see what you mean about the seeing people as four bits. That's why I removed my type from my profile, because I didn't want people using "INTP" as the key to understanding who I am, i.e. evaluating things I said according to perceived consistencies or inconsistencies about how that type ought to be. It's not me they're seeing, but the idea or archetype of a person. If you want to truly understand me, you need to put aside all preconceptions you have, and listen to what I have to say without judgement (which includes labels, as they are a form of judgement themselves).

The alternative is to ignore stereotypes and type oneself according to results on the indicator (or 16Personalities or IDRlabs), but even then, my letter results over time have been a mish-mash of INTP, INTJ, and ENTP, so that's at least three different boxes I could be allocated to depending on which aspects of myself I choose to emphasise, and that's without bringing the functions into the equation. Part of the problem lies in an individual's preferences being fluid between situations, which is why people are generally more "J" at work than they are in leisure, regardless of how high their Conscientiousness is.


----------



## Chaerephon (Apr 28, 2013)

Many of the complaints against MBTI, Jungian functions and the people claiming to "prescribe" types (especially with any true degree of accuracy) do seem to have their hearts in the right in place. However, I feel that a major point has been overlooked and is causing a lot of confusion and tension in this thread: The theory itself is metaphysical. From my understanding, it is meant to be philosophy of the mind, not psychology. Jung was saying we can categorize certain things the mind does as X and other stuff as Y. Then ask, do you prefer X or Y? Now, the questions that bring issue to me are: why should we categorize them like that? In what way are these categorizations useful? How can I be sure of what I or another prefers? If you are too focused on "finding evidence" of the functions existence then you may not be correctly assessing the theory as they are names of groups of processes and not the processes themselves. Don't take this as a defense of Jungian functions or an attack on them either (though I am more skeptical of it than accepting myself). I'm trying to re-frame it in a way that, from my understanding, is closer in line with what Jung's propositions were.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Chaerephon the points would stand whether or not you call it "metaphysical". It's not "confusing the issue", we've seen a lot of what people have to say about these so-called "Jungian functions" and 100 years after their origins were birthed they still are essentially at the ground floor of credibility. Anyway the main things I critique are dumb enough that even Jung didn't support that kind of thinking but people are essentially using Jung's name to lend some kind of credibility to total BS even though most of these people have never read Jung or tried to understand the context of his "types". Jung himself even said that people didn't neatly fit into the categories he made.

It is very hard to believe we would not see clusters in two different preference groups of something involving these "function axes" for instance. 







Something bimodal rather than unimodal in distribution.

The persistence with the idea of black-and-white "either you have these functions or you don't" and that everyone has One True Type if only they looked at the right things, is like a parody of human nature at this point.


----------



## Chaerephon (Apr 28, 2013)

I agree, the rigidity to which some people approach it is interesting. In this thread, the theory has seemed to have been discussed as one would a hard, or even social science so far though, and that is why I pointed out the theory is metaphysical (not simply using a semantic trick, but pointing out what looked like mis-categorization that was causing people to talk past each other). Regardless, for all parties interested, this video may give insight into Jung's (also fallible) point-of-view.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Chaerephon said:


> I agree, the rigidity to which some people approach it is interesting. In this thread, the theory has seemed to have been discussed as one would a hard, or even social science so far though, and that is why I pointed out the theory is metaphysical (not simply using a semantic trick, but pointing out what looked like mis-categorization that was causing people to talk past each other).


This is where it can be difficult to call cognitive functions a "pseudoscience", even though it might otherwise fit the dictionary definition of the term. The majority of pseudosciences claim to be evidence-based and replicable, despite not having the rigor necessary to hold up to scrutiny. Self-appointed experts with questionable credentials make a fortune out of writing apologetics defending various pseudosciences. However, with the functions, most people don't even try to defend their value on the basis of validity (save for Nardi, whose attempts at linking the functions to neuroscience possess the same rigor as tasseography). They know it doesn't reflect in the data, but they don't care either because all psychology is "pseudoscience" to them (reflecting an ignorance of how psychology works), or because they're too personally invested in pigeonholing people into their frameworks - not too different from how a small child reacts when the grown-ups try to replace their toys. Hence why it's sometimes impossible to reason with someone so deeply invested in cognitive functions.

As much as functionistas might like to pretend they're not in the same camp as astrologers, the rationale behind why they continue to use those things, despite the lack of any statistical evidence, is the same. "Oh, this _theory_ is metaphysical, meaning it's real because my mind wants it to be real." "It's so deep that it, like, can't be put into words and stuff." "I know it's true because I have seen these things for myself, I just can't show you it." As ridiculous as it might sound to you, I know people who believe they've attained self-discovery from astrology, and sometimes they actually have learnt interesting things about themselves through it. Then again, any system which forces introspection can promote self-discovery, but that doesn't mean that system is _right_.


----------



## Chaerephon (Apr 28, 2013)

Soul Kitchen said:


> This is where it can be difficult to call cognitive functions a "pseudoscience", even though it might otherwise fit the dictionary definition of the term. The majority of pseudosciences claim to be evidence-based and replicable, despite not having the rigor necessary to hold up to scrutiny. Self-appointed experts with questionable credentials make a fortune out of writing apologetics defending various pseudosciences. However, with the functions, most people don't even try to defend their value on the basis of validity (save for Nardi, whose attempts at linking the functions to neuroscience possess the same rigor as tasseography). They know it doesn't reflect in the data, but they don't care either because all psychology is "pseudoscience" to them (reflecting an ignorance of how psychology works), or because they're too personally invested in pigeonholing people into their frameworks - not too different from how a small child reacts when the grown-ups try to replace their toys. Hence why it's sometimes impossible to reason with someone so deeply invested in cognitive functions.
> 
> As much as functionistas might like to pretend they're not in the same camp as astrologers, the rationale behind why they continue to use those things, despite the lack of any statistical evidence, is the same. "Oh, this _theory_ is metaphysical, meaning it's real because my mind wants it to be real." "It's so deep that it, like, can't be put into words and stuff." "I know it's true because I have seen these things for myself, I just can't show you it." As ridiculous as it might sound to you, I know people who believe they've attained self-discovery from astrology, and sometimes they actually have learnt interesting things about themselves through it. Then again, any system which forces introspection can promote self-discovery, but that doesn't mean that system is _right_.


Very well said. You pretty much hit all the points that need to be addressed. I think though, that it is important to point out that metaphysical assertions are not without validity, at least in the context of formal logic; they are without empirical confirmation (making it not science). One uses reason or valid ways of combining reasons to arrive at conclusions about abstract understanding of the natural world. However, that doesn't mean every conclusion regarding metaphysics (or any other abstract branch of knowledge such as epistemology) is true, it just means that instead of using your 5 senses to test hypotheses, you use reasoning capacities to arrive at conclusions. It is in this feature that people get lost. Good reasoning (aka logic) is hard. Because it is hard, clever people can manipulate other people by _appearing_ to present good reasoning. Metaphysics is much more dry than most people would like to imagine, and so when presented with a, for lack of a better term, fun version of it (eg astrology), they become erroneously invested. Of course, as you said, some good can come of it, but likely this same good may have just been as easily pointed to by saying "Hey, maybe do some self-reflection and get to know yourself." I am aware that you likely are aware of this, I just wanted to make sure that point was clear for anyone who may come across this.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Chaerephon said:


> Very well said. You pretty much hit all the points that need to be addressed. I think though, that it is important to point out that metaphysical assertions are not without validity, at least in the context of formal logic; they are without empirical confirmation (making it not science). One uses reason or valid ways of combining reasons to arrive at conclusions about abstract understanding of the natural world. However, that doesn't mean every conclusion regarding metaphysics (or any other abstract branch of knowledge such as epistemology) is true, it just means that instead of using your 5 senses to test hypotheses, you use reasoning capacities to arrive at conclusions. It is in this feature that people get lost. Good reasoning (aka logic) is hard. Because it is hard, clever people can manipulate other people by _appearing_ to present good reasoning. Metaphysics is much more dry than most people would like to imagine, and so when presented with a, for lack of a better term, fun version of it (eg astrology), they become erroneously invested. Of course, as you said, some good can come of it, but likely this same good may have just been as easily pointed to by saying "Hey, maybe do some self-reflection and get to know yourself." I am aware that you likely are aware of this, I just wanted to make sure that point was clear for anyone who may come across this.


I don't really understand the point of metaphysics outside of heuristic. From my encounters (Si!!!), it's been something the wannabe "Ti" big brains love interjecting into conversations in order to appear smart without adding anything of value. Like does it matter if collective unconscious is true or not as long as it illustrates a general phenomenon? And we have no way of really determining its truth value anyway outside of counterexamples (for instance a time period in which people seemed to gravitate toward different archetypes than before and after), in which case we could say it's probably a bad model. But in the end it's really just a framework that can lead to an understanding of an actual empirical phenomenon. And if you already understand the phenomenon as it is, is there any point of adding a fancy illustrative layer?

When it comes to something like The Functions, they aren't even a good model for reality and with the way they are rigidly used, they make people see each other as essentially automatons which are at best a fragment of themselves. One can cling to it being true or valid "metaphysics", but I don't know how that even helps anyone. To some I guess it's important for identity purposes if you don't like yourself as you are, but then it's just a coping mechanism and not a good tool for understanding reality.


----------



## Chaerephon (Apr 28, 2013)

Ocean Helm said:


> I don't really understand the point of metaphysics outside of heuristic. From my encounters (Si!!!), it's been something the wannabe "Ti" big brains love interjecting into conversations in order to appear smart without adding anything of value. Like does it matter if collective unconscious is true or not as long as it illustrates a general phenomenon? And we have no way of really determining its truth value anyway outside of counterexamples (for instance a time period in which people seemed to gravitate toward different archetypes than before and after), in which case we could say it's probably a bad model. But in the end it's really just a framework that can lead to an understanding of an actual empirical phenomenon. And if you already understand the phenomenon as it is, is there any point of adding a fancy illustrative layer?
> 
> When it comes to something like The Functions, they aren't even a good model for reality and with the way they are rigidly used, they make people see each other as essentially automatons which are at best a fragment of themselves. One can cling to it being true or valid "metaphysics", but I don't know how that even helps anyone. To some I guess it's important for identity purposes if you don't like yourself as you are, but then it's just a coping mechanism and not a good tool for understanding reality.


That is a very good question. I can understand why many people are skeptical of metaphysics, it is a word that gets thrown around a lot, has a reputation of being thinking for the sake of thinking, and even called psuedo-science. The idea is though, that to view something, you must have a framework through which you view it. The point of metaphysics as a branch of knowledge throughout history and the value it has added has been to question, re-evaluate and improve the framework to a better understanding more congruent with reality. For example, to think the modern scientific method is valuable, you to some degree must relate your senses and your knowledge. Or in other words, to some degree or another you believe knowledge is derived through the senses. This would be the foundations of knowledge, or how you can know. This is also the claim the scientific method essentially rests upon, which itself is a summation of metaphysical claims, as the scientific method cannot justify itself. At some point, someone had to seriously and formally put the idea for it forth to the academic world (which at many points of history is wrapped in the religious world) in order to better help all other subjects of knowledge, specifically physics, have better foundations to base their conclusions on. They had to say this is _how _we _should_ do physics. By questioning this how, we can find places it doesn't work and improve it. Does this mean I think you should run out and read Aristotle_'s __Metaphysics_. No. I don't. It's hard and long, and has zero-relevance to modern science. Do I think you should acquaint yourself with _your own_ metaphysical beliefs, and question, re-evaluate and improve those? Yes, we all probably should. One way to do that is to see how others in the past have done it and compare and contrast with those, you can also try to do it from just looking at yourself and seeing what you believe or you could also talk to others about it (if you actually find someone willing). It brings context.

I agree though, often times, people can cling to what they think is good reasoning in the face of overwhelming evidence that their reasoning must be flawed. This is one of the hard parts of reasoning I was talking about. There are many easy mistakes to make when reasoning. As for the specific topic of the usefulness of understanding cognition through the functions, I think it is more interesting than relevant. Although promoting getting to know yourself is a good element of it, there is a wacky religiosity with which it is easy for people to find themselves approaching it. I wanted to bring up the distinction of the functions as metaphysical proposition because I believe it brings the ideas to clearer light for examination.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Chaerephon I feel like once we know that we don't really know anything we can sort of just move on and focus on what's most reliable. Like if you drop something it'll probably fall. Do you really "know" that gravity is a thing? It's just a rule that we have observed and not seen broken. And metaphysics just seems like a really elaborate way of talking about how we don't really know anything and making up a lot of ways of looking at it.


----------



## Chaerephon (Apr 28, 2013)

You seem to address several different things here. So I'll kind of break it up by what I see as the different points.



Ocean Helm said:


> @*Chaerephon* I feel like once we know that we don't really know anything we can sort of just move on and focus on what's most reliable.


I'm going to be blunt, I'm not sure exactly how this fits in, but I will address it regardless. Knowing you don't know anything sounds like a paradox. Maybe you meant be aware of what we do not know. Although maybe you did not, because it would be strange to argue, be aware of what you do not know and then move on and act is if you do know it. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, so maybe I am just confused.



Ocean Helm said:


> Like if you drop something it'll probably fall. Do you really "know" that gravity is a thing? It's just a rule that we have observed and not seen broken. And metaphysics just seems like a really elaborate way of talking about how we don't really know anything and making up a lot of ways of looking at it.


Again, I must warn you, what I will say may come off as blunt. If this is what you got out of my post, you have fundamentally misunderstood metaphysics. This could be my fault as I was the one trying to explain and did not do well I guess. What you have sort of described is epistemology. And it isn't about acknowledging we don't know anything, but finding the fundamental justifications for what we can and can not know. I understand you have bias, and presupposition on these topics, or find them silly, but I think you may just be being a little close-minded on this specific topic.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Chaerephon said:


> You seem to address several different things here. So I'll kind of break it up by what I see as the different points.
> 
> 
> I'm going to be blunt, I'm not sure exactly how this fits in, but I will address it regardless. Knowing you don't know anything sounds like a paradox. Maybe you meant be aware of what we do not know. Although maybe you did not, because it would be strange to argue, be aware of what you do not know and then move on and act is if you do know it. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, so maybe I am just confused.
> ...


No I read what metaphysics is, and it's what I think it is. You go continue being "blunt" though, it's cute 

Both metaphysics and epistemology as far as I am concerned are two different sides of the same coin.


----------



## Chaerephon (Apr 28, 2013)

Ocean Helm said:


> No I read what metaphysics is, and it's what I think it is. You go continue being "blunt" though, it's cute
> 
> Both metaphysics and epistemology as far as I am concerned are two different sides of the same coin.


I apologize for speaking harshly. I was frustrated that I had not spoken clearly. I appreciate you looking into the topic, even if you still think lightly of it. I didn't mean to expand so greatly on the topic when I originally posted in this thread (I figured if anything I'd make one extra post). I also did not mean to be something to endure, so I also apologize for that. I do think that the topic is undervalued, and getting that point across isn't easy, so even if I failed in this instance, I appreciate you at least responding. I'm glad you yourself are comfortable with your understanding of metaphysics, so I really don't have much more to add as I previously stated my intent as simply bringing to clarity the category of ideas that functions fall into, unless there is anything you think I should address.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> Do you really believe that people use distinct methods based on what type they are? I really don't even get why someone would believe that. The lack of support for anything of this nature goes against the idea that something like this exists.


I started by saying that I believe that methods are a bad way for typing people because they can just be learned behaviours. 

I have seen patterns for many things though. One of my go-to examples here is learning styles. Si-dominants seem to learn best by reading about it or getting a step-by-step explanation. Se-dominants seem to learn best by trying things and learning things on the fly. Therefore these types tend to employ methods based on those learning styles. 
But I have to say "tend to" there since the way people learn is influenced by lots of things. If you've been trained to learn things from experimentation, that might just be the way you learn things, regardless of type. 

I have helped some of my students in trying new ways of learning. An ISFP student of mine for example was really sticking to a process that seemed optimized for ISTJs. I told him to try out focusing on his passions and just experimenting with trying out different solutions before looking things up. He has since been more confident about his work since then. 

For most people that kind of thinking won't work, but sometimes there are people where they're sticking to methods they have learned rather than finding out what methods work for them. As a teacher, this is a tool I can use to try and help my students do well at the things they are struggling with. 



> Most people have goals because of all 3 but yes the ratio can be different. What if it's your personal ideal to understand the world better but that developed mostly because it's your personal ideal to live up to expectations?


You'd have to drill down and ask questions to try and find out what the factors are exactly here. Human behaviour is complex enough that there is never one specific factor at work but it's a combination of factors. I've found that with people I get to interact with in person I can ask the right questions to find out what the underlying factors are. Over the internet it can be really hard to separate these factors though. 



> Honestly the use of language (buzzwords) here often just seems to seek to delineate and categorize things. You call something a "personal ideal" and it's "Fi". You call something a "goal" and it's Te or Si/Ni or whatever. And you may even convince yourself that your goals aren't really "personal ideals" because you don't "have Fi".


I mean, that's the whole point of personality theory right? Finding the different categories and finding out what the factors are that are different and similar between us all. I do agree that sticking to the terms religiously can make you miss what is really going on and can even make people behave according to their percieved type to the point where they're actually limiting themselves in their functioning or try to change who they are. 
Personality theory is a tool and any tool can be used or abused. That's not necessarily the fault of the tool. 



> I'd most likely say if we ever do "actually understand how our brains really work" that may be the time when The Functions finally reach their extinction point.


If the cognitive functions don't map to anything real, that should of course happen. I'm guessing that there is some process in our brains that corresponds to the cognitive functions in some way. 

I would like to note here that I'm completely aware that there is no actual scientific data that cognitive functions are real and I think skepticism is very important here until we actually get some real data on the matter. I also think that the position that we have no proof that they exist is defensible.



> Why _this_ theory and not other ones which actually have some evidence behind them?


That's a question that has many facets and I can't possibly answer them all, but I'll try. 

For me, this is the first system that I've seen to correspond to how people actually seem to be. It allows me to make predictions about people and understand them in a fundamental way. It has given me years and years of anecdotal reasons to believe that it maps to something real. 

I have seen some other systems and tend to judge them on their own merits. Some examples: 

Mainstream MBTI: I've started out trying to work with it, but the dichotomies give very inconsistent results. I've used it in the past to try and make predictions about people but I was wrong often enough that I noticed I needed to find new things to actually make it useful. The cognitive functions have been useful in this regard. 

Big 5: It seems fine and valid, but it's mostly a system for defining terms. I have not seen people use it as a way to make predictions about how people will act/think. I also have to confess that the standard response of "Big 5 is scientific and MBTI isn't" has kind of turned me off of it, since there is enough to be said about the Big 5. I'm open to it, but the aggression that people have when defending it is just too scary for me to really get into it. 

Enneagram: I've tried to get into it but it is either to vague or I might have not made enough of an effort to really understand it. In any case, the few times I've tried to get into it have been unsuccessful. 

DISC: Is a great system that is very useful in determining communication styles. There are some very interesting factors to it and I think it also seems to map to things that seem to exist for people. I just haven't found it as useful yet in trying to predict people's actions. I think it's just as useful if you really get into it though and a full theory of personality should probably find what the factors are that actually map to specific things. 

Socionics: I've dabbled in a bit and there are some aspects that have helped me understand cognitive functions, but I haven't been able to find things about it that are actionable or useful beyond understanding your own thinking after the fact. Maybe there's something in there, but it hasn't clicked for me yet. 

I can't really think of other systems right now. I'm sure there are other ones that are valid and describe aspects of personality that are useful in making predictions about how people will act and think. I just haven't found any yet that I could use in any way. 



> Which is sort of why I made this thread. I've gotten so many different "types" based on different applications of this stuff that I think it's a good exercise to try to come to a conclusion because I am pretty sure that I'll be able to poke some holes in it regardless of what the particular conclusion is. And if not then maybe you can turn me into a believer? :dry:


I can't promise anything since there are definitely many holes left. I think it would depend on the type of holes that we find what the end result will be. It could be fundamental problems or it could be inconsistencies, both are very different in what conclusions they would support. 

[qupte]If it's a pitfall then yes discussions like this can hopefully help out. Also I think you said you were diagnosed with ADD so if you are taking medication for it, that may be causing a lot of the problem.[/quote]

I am taking medication for my ADHD, but I can't see what that has to do with this. All that does is make me able to direct my attention better. There might be an effect of my ADHD on my functioning when off medication, but I'm skeptical of that being the 'big explanation' for my tendency towards tunnel-vision. I see similar things for my INTJ colleague who does not have ADHD. 



> I think a lot may have to do with your idea being based on your own experience and thus Ni = You, Ti = Them. So it becomes more of a rough association thing where if you feel a divergence between your identity and someone else you feel that dissonance and just _know_ it's not "Ni".


I don't think that's really fair. It's not like I haven't been able to see Ni in other people. I constantly think about the possible cognitive functions of people around me and I see Ni around me regularly. 
I could see that I need to work on the differences between some of the functions but I don't think the idea that I'm the pinnacle of Ni and anyone who isn't like me doesn't use Ni is something I would do. 



> My first suggestion would be to think about things without using The Functions. There is no evidence anywhere that I know of that points to them being a good heuristic for memory.


It's a point that I've gone back and forth on. I have seen some patterns that seem to fit with some effect on memory, but most of the explanations seem to be too specific to work. I'm certainly thinking that memory is such an important part of human cognition that all of the cognitive functions have some connection with it. What exactly those connections are remains to be seen. 

But as I said, there are some patterns that seem to come up. Si-dominants really do seem to use their memory differently from Ni-dominants for example. That doesn't mean that these functions have a direct effect on memory, but it does seem to indicate that there is some connection on some level. 



> It's actually something like this which got me into this whole universe.
> 
> A friend of mine was so convinced that The Functions were totally great explanations of people and was basically evangelizing his version of MBTI. So he had me take a test and I got INFP.
> 
> ...


Just try to remember that everyone here uses the cognitive functions in a slightly different way. The fact that your friend had preconceptions and many people on here do doesn't mean that everyone uses them the same way. Yes, the fact that these differences exist is a problem but that could just mean that most people don't fully understand the theory. 

I often try to remind people that the cognitive functions are just tools to describe how we handle information and how we make decisions and that our personality and cognition consists of many, many more factors. Reducing a person to four factors indeed is dehumanizing and doesn't do justice to who we actually are as people. 
I also see personality descriptions all the time that try to pull all possible factors into the theory that have no business being there at all. That is one of the things that makes it really hard to communicate about all this. 
For example: Perfectionism is a common trait for IxxJs. I would even say that these types are more likely to be perfectionistic than not perfectionistic. That doesn't mean that perfectionism is a trait that is tied to these types. That's the point where people go off the rails with type theory and it's also one of the problems in communicating about it. 

Sadly, we don't have definitive definitions for any of this, which only adds to the confusion on the topic. I can't fault anyone for getting frustrated by all of the different definitions and ideas about all of this. 



> I think you have an idea, and that idea is wrong but please do elaborate on it. It would be interesting to see what you believe about me, especially when it comes down to falsifiable specifics.  This just seems to get into the "I just feel it" which is probably a result of preconceptions which shape your own lens.


This is actually why I only type people from questionnaires. I obviously don't have enough information about you to come to any conclusion on your type. I've basically already run through my material on you. 
I was sucked into this thread mostly on the basis of you asking about the basis of the cognitive functions, not to type you specifically. I can give some pointers based on incomplete information, but I'd need more to go in. 

A while ago I've been in a long PM conversation with someone that I originally typed ESTP. We've spent months going back and forth and eventually we settled on INFP. In my first typing of him I already saw that I didn't have enough information. I can give my best guess, but I'm not going to try and type people just based on a feeling. I do need data for that. 



> If these things actually were useful you would think there would've been some data picked up in the last 30 years that actually back them up.


I think there's a combination of factors at play there. 
1: The Meyers-Briggs foundation isn't very open about their process and there's a big buy-in. That makes it hard for outsiders to check their process and numbers. 

2: Most research that goes into type theory focuses on the dichotomies and not even remotely on the cognitive functions. When the dichotomies don't give any good results most papers just stop and focus on other things. 

3: There aren't any great definitions yet. There exist some vague definitions here and there but there's no consensus to go off of. 

The papers and books that mention the cognitive functions don't actually provide any data, even if they provide data on the other factors of type theory. 

This won't change until there is a good source for any of this. 

Overall, I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of the cognitive functions and I have no problems with people not seeing their worth. Just be sure to interact with the arguments that people actually put forth rather than assuming the arguments that they might have. Far too many people start a discussion just assuming what others might be thinking rather than asking them.


----------



## Ad Gloriam (Feb 25, 2020)

Drecon said:


> Enneagram: I've tried to get into it but it is either to vague or I might have not made enough of an effort to really understand it. In any case, the few times I've tried to get into it have been unsuccessful.


Classified as sectarian tool in France.


----------



## Ad Gloriam (Feb 25, 2020)

The first problem with functions is that some only works with it. I observed this on Persodata. The result is just ridiculous. The totality of them even forget the meaning of introvert and extravert for the MBTI. And the functions makes them very arrogant.

The second is the justification of a type by the lower functions. "_He/She seems intuitive because -Ni- tertiary_" for example... And not just because really intuitive.

The third are type stereotypes. "_Your have not -Se- in your stack, your are not this type_" I really like 16P because they are the only ones who break stereotypes. I learned a lot from them.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Try this on for size. It should help: 

If You’re Confused About Your Myers-Briggs Personality Type, Read This: An Intro To Cognitive Functions

Cognitive Functions - A Simple Explanation 

An Introduction to Cognitive Functions


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Drecon let's put a few things together and see if you can predict my learning style, since this is apparently your expertise and where you have supposedly seen The Functions work.

Maybe this will start a dialogue in which you can help me find my One True Type.


----------



## Milkyboobslover (Mar 4, 2020)

how can i use it?


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Drecon let's put a few things together and see if you can predict my learning style, since this is apparently your expertise and where you have supposedly seen The Functions work.
> 
> Maybe this will start a dialogue in which you can help me find my One True Type.


That sounds like a great start. It's also a great test-case for this idea I've had in my head for a long time but have been unable to put into any kind of concrete form yet. 

Going from the hypothesis that you migth be an INTP I would predict a learning style of understanding the fundamentals of the theory by judging its validity in the abstract and asking critical questions to try and find the inconsistencies. INTPs seek most of all to understand everything about it before forming an opinion on it. 

For example: an INTP when tasked to find out about the causes of the second world war might start from a single narrative and try to find the inconsistencies and gaps in that story. They will quickly find the things they need to know to get more information and find more sources to fill in the blanks, focusing on how much that telling holds up and keeping options open for the 'true narrative' until they feel like they have enough information to trust that they have found an approximation of what actually happened. 
INTPs are known for not accepting anything based on popular opinion but only really trust things that are based on a solid method for finding the truth. 

There are a bunch of differences between the INFP and INTP learning styles although both are slow to reach a conclusion and both prefer to get all of the information on the table before coming to any conclusion. For example: the INFP learning style is much more focused on listening and swapping ideas with others than the INTP learning style. Also, INFPs are much more likely to accept what feels right to them rather than what fits with the facts (although cultural factors and intelligence have a big influence here too). 

Most importantly though, INFPs learn best when they focus on things that are personally meaningful to them, where INTPs are more likely to focus on things that are interesting in a more abstract sense. This trait is one that can make it very hard to keep them apart sometimes though. There are INFPs that value science and the scientific method so much that they can come off as an INTP to someone who looks just at their use of methods. 
A closer inspection should reveal some important differences though. INFPs value one-on-one conversations a lot, where they listen intently to what the other person values while not ending up taking any of those values over for themselves. The INTP on the other hand uses the conversations more as a tool to find out what is true or not, examining both their own and others' points critically. Neither are very likely to end up switching their opinions over any single conversation though. 

Does any of that ring true for you? I've focused on just the INTP and INFP types for now since those are the ones you have mentioned right now. I could compare learning styles for other types as well if that would help here. 

As a note: I've tried to focus on the fundamental parts of how these types learn, but I might have ended up focusing more on some behavioral points as well. When I did, I did try to put in some more context for that too. If there are any problems with the way I've put these ideas to words or important things I've omitted, please let me know because I love any way I can learn about this stuff.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Drecon said:


> That sounds like a great start. It's also a great test-case for this idea I've had in my head for a long time but have been unable to put into any kind of concrete form yet.


Hopefully it will continue to be. 


> Going from the hypothesis that you might be an INTP I would predict a learning style of understanding the fundamentals of the theory by judging its validity in the abstract and asking critical questions to try and find the inconsistencies. INTPs seek most of all to understand everything about it before forming an opinion on it.


I feel like I really don’t care too much about forming opinions on things, until I feel a need to form an opinion on them. I try to be true because the other option is being false (which I don’t like in myself nor in others) and I think at the very least people should be held socially unaccountable for dishonesty or spreading harmful ideas, and if nobody else is going to stop BS spreaders I feel an imperative to stand up against them. 
When it does come to judging things, I am pretty sparing on saying something is wrong until I have ample evidence that it is, and I find it incredibly boring to completely learn things “completely” unless there is something that engages me in the topic and makes me feel like I can turn it into something valuable for me. I generally find myself engaging more in the periphery of topics and doing my own thinking about them rather than doing a “deep dive” into one particular source because without being able to first form a context about that source it’s essentially meaningless and sources that I am likely to agree with I am not even interested in going further with because they already agree with me and thus are predictable and boring.
For something like math I would judge it in the abstract and think about it that way and I think I can pick up things well through remembering them as abstract logic. Often times the only remnant of a topic is sort of just this vague idea of how it “adds up”. It is sort of like this imprint left behind by the pattern of the data, rather than the data itself which typically gets replaced by new data. I hate the typical school method of memorization because it avoids that kind of core learning which avoids the critical thinking process of actually understanding the core principles behind something. Once I understand something well I tend to be good at doing stuff with that ability. I was always good at math for that reason. I’d just sort of “get” how things were oriented and then improvise a solution by figuring out what made sense.


> For example: an INTP when tasked to find out about the causes of the second world war might start from a single narrative and try to find the inconsistencies and gaps in that story. They will quickly find the things they need to know to get more information and find more sources to fill in the blanks, focusing on how much that telling holds up and keeping options open for the 'true narrative' until they feel like they have enough information to trust that they have found an approximation of what actually happened.


I definitely would not start with a single narrative and going deeper into a single source would only be something that I would attempt to do when I felt like I had a good contextualization.
For something like WWII, I don’t really know much about it but it bothers me how it is used for war propaganda and I see a lot of evidence that the winners of wars write their own stories and it becomes “history”. So I feel compelled to look more into the unpopular side because there’s already so many people sucked into a particular narrative.



> INTPs are known for not accepting anything based on popular opinion but only really trust things that are based on a solid method for finding the truth.


I agree that popular opinion is BS which I already basically covered. Even when popular opinion seems right I generally just keep my mouth shut because there’s enough people promoting that opinion that I don’t need to get involved.
If something seems solidly true and it’s against the popular opinion that is generally where I will join a conversation, to help people see what they are missing with their own blinders. I’m generally seen as a contrarian/devil’s advocate due to how disagreeable I am with giving into social pressure in areas of truth. For example, poking fun at “conspiracy theorists” without actually putting in the effort to disprove them.


> There are a bunch of differences between the INFP and INTP learning styles although both are slow to reach a conclusion and both prefer to get all of the information on the table before coming to any conclusion. For example: the INFP learning style is much more focused on listening and swapping ideas with others than the INTP learning style. Also, INFPs are much more likely to accept what feels right to them rather than what fits with the facts (although cultural factors and intelligence have a big influence here too).


I don’t see the point of “accepting what feels right” in the face of conflicting facts. I guess you can say being true is one of my values even, and I care a lot about not being manipulated by stupid brain waves.
However, facts leave a big empty hole on questions of value. I will typically find my own value in things on my own terms, and even take a sort of pride in it and hate when others try to pressure me to be like them in which case I just withdraw. I feel like personal value is the sort of thing that transcends all else because even when it comes to something like “facts” or “truth”, if I don’t see value in knowing it then it’ll just leave me feeling empty.


> Most importantly though, INFPs learn best when they focus on things that are personally meaningful to them, where INTPs are more likely to focus on things that are interesting in a more abstract sense. This trait is one that can make it very hard to keep them apart sometimes though. There are INFPs that value science and the scientific method so much that they can come off as an INTP to someone who looks just at their use of methods.
> A closer inspection should reveal some important differences though. INFPs value one-on-one conversations a lot, where they listen intently to what the other person values while not ending up taking any of those values over for themselves. The INTP on the other hand uses the conversations more as a tool to find out what is true or not, examining both their own and others' points critically. Neither are very likely to end up switching their opinions over any single conversation though.


I feel generally analytically capable and if I see a way I can use these capabilities to fill in a void, I can become extremely technically minded. I have often been told that I do things technically in ways that others would not have thought possible, when it comes to things like computer programming. I can be very perfectionistic about my work as I seek to make it optimal and sort of a step above the expected. The process of discovery and figuring out something can be very uplifting.
When it comes to conversations, I love being challenged and seeing where other people are coming from. I generally am not that critical until I feel like I can offer a helpful critique. However I can get very frustrated when people have a corrupted thought process or can’t see the obvious truth behind something, but it’s mainly when it concerns things of personal importance.


> Does any of that ring true for you? I've focused on just the INTP and INFP types for now since those are the ones you have mentioned right now. I could compare learning styles for other types as well if that would help here.


If you’re going by The Functions, I rarely get INTP on tests. It’s usually INTJ or INFP. But I’m pretty sure that I fit more on the I, N, T, and P sides with the T part being the murkiest because a lot depends on how I interpret the questions. Like I feel feelings sort of guide everyone, only some people pretend they don’t? I try to be cognizant of that but also being apathetic about everything is not a place I would like to be. So I don’t try to suppress my internal passion about something but I don’t want it to interfere in logical thought. However logic can only solve limited things and I like applying logic within those applications but not outside of them.


> As a note: I've tried to focus on the fundamental parts of how these types learn, but I might have ended up focusing more on some behavioral points as well. When I did, I did try to put in some more context for that too. If there are any problems with the way I've put these ideas to words or important things I've omitted, please let me know because I love any way I can learn about this stuff.


It’s up to you to describe these learning styles as you see fit with your belief in The Functions. I can just describe how I am and I don’t hold any belief that there is a “right” way to use them. I can evaluate how consistent your view of functions is within a framework (for instance Jung’s) but that doesn’t mean I actually like any of them.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

I was going to give my two cents on the post @Drecon wrote, but Ocean Helm mostly said something more or less similar to what I would've said.



Ocean Helm said:


> If you’re going by The Functions, I rarely get INTP on tests. It’s usually INTJ or INFP. But I’m pretty sure that I fit more on the I, N, T, and P sides with the T part being the murkiest because a lot depends on how I interpret the questions. Like I feel feelings sort of guide everyone, only some people pretend they don’t? I try to be cognizant of that but also being apathetic about everything is not a place I would like to be. So I don’t try to suppress my internal passion about something but I don’t want it to interfere in logical thought. However logic can only solve limited things and I like applying logic within those applications but not outside of them.


One of the problems with the MBTI inventory is many of its items do not constitute logical opposites. The intention behind the responses, as stated in the MBTI Manual, is for them to be psychologically opposed, but even then, I find that I don't have a clear preference for a number of items because I see them as either fundamentally intertwined or up to interpretation.



> #6 Do you more often let
> *F your heart rule your head
> *T your head rule your heart


How am I supposed to respond to this? Anatomically speaking, the heart is a muscle pumping blood. Without your brain regulating your body's movements, it wouldn't do squat. Obviously, I'm supposed to interpret this item figuratively, but then I am forced to unpack its figurative meaning. I generally try to avoid acting on my feelings in the present moment, because doing so leads to rash actions with terrible consequences, so from that standpoint I prefer the latter. However, what if we're talking about life decisions? If so, then I do take into consideration how my choices will affect my long term happiness, which could suggest the former of those two responses were it not for my attempting to maintain a balance between the head and the heart.



> #38
> *F sensitive
> *T just


Both of these choices can potentially suck, depending on the situation. The former suggests that I take things too personally, while the latter suggests that I might seek "an eye for an eye" retribution if I am wronged... which would suggest I am too quick to lash out over my hurts instead of dealing with situations rationally.



> #39
> *T convincing
> *F touching


It depends on the context. Were I to read an essay attempting to win me over on a given issue, I would expect an impartial argument based on research and logic, but what about art? When I'm listening to music or watching a film, I'm most strongly affected when the artist stirs an emotional response. That's why I'm generally indifferent towards political lyrics in music.



> #45
> *F compassion
> *T foresight


It takes foresight to know whether or not your actions will have good consequences for those you care about.



> #52
> *T objective
> *F passionate


This smacks of tone policing; criticising others based on emotional expression at the expense of engaging their message.



> #64 Is it a higher compliment to be called
> *F a person of real feeling, or
> *T a consistently reasonable person?


Being a good listener requires that you both be reasonable and empathetic. It's not reasonable to tell someone how they ought to feel about something, not least because a person's feelings aren't usually determined by logical analysis (although they can be understood through logical analysis).



> #69 Which is a higher compliment, to be called
> *T competent, or
> *F compassionate


You can be competent at exploitation or mass murder. You can act with the best of intentions, all the while causing more harm than good because of your incompetence.



> #75 Would you rather work under a boss (or teacher) who is
> *F good-natured but often inconsistent, or
> *T sharp-tongued but always logical?


It depends. With the former, I wouldn't know what to expect from them, but too much of the latter, and I might have to work for a boss with ridiculously high standards, ready to fire people for the slightest of errors.



> #89
> *T strong-willed
> *F tenderhearted


So strong-willed that you run roughshod over everyone else, or so tenderhearted that you become a pushover?



> #91
> *F devoted
> *T determined


I choose the latter since I don't hold allegiances to persons or causes, but determination often follows devotion.

I almost always produce T results. I mean, if forced to choose between saying I prefer a logical approach or saying I base decisions on my emotions, I would have to say a logical approach because emotions can only add value to something, not inform you about a situation or provide insight into the cause-and-effect of something.

Setting aside my issues with why one ought to use labels to define their identity, I don't particularly identify with the INTP label because it's portrayed as being this robot logician who is completely out of touch with the personal element. Then there's that silly Star Trek meme floating around about INTJ being the "coldest human" and INTP being the "warmest machine". Gosh, I guess that makes me an INTJ, right?



MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.) said:


> INTPs may rely so much on logical thinking that they overlook what other people care about and what they themselves care about. They may decide that something is not important, just because it isn't logical to care about it. If INTPs always let their logic suppress their feeling values, their feeling may build up pressure until it is expressed in inappropriate ways.


I know better than to lose sight of what I value. I mean, isn't it logical to pursue something that you're passionate about and which brings meaning to you, rather than pursue something in which you aren't willing to invest the necessary time and effort?


----------

