# JCF and You



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

A lot of people have dedicated countless hours to studying and researching the cognitive functions. What I find interesting is that many people have done their studying, and have looked for proof of theories involving JCF within themselves. Upon reflecting and trying to match up what is proposed in JCF theory, some people come up with their _own_ conclusions that differ from the theory they studied. For those who have spent countless hours chipping away at JCF and trying to make the pieces connect, I have some questions. 


*NOTE* This thread is to be used for discussion. Please, do not criticize people for their opinions. If you have a question as to why someone believes something, ask them that question by all means, but don't talk down to them or disrespect them in any way on this thread. Thank you! 


1. Have you ever become skeptical at material that, in some way, involves JCF? (MBTI, Beebe's model, etc.) 


2. Do you believe all eight functions can surface in an individual? Why/why not?


3. How does what you believe about JCF differ from the model(s) you've studied?


4. What are your thoughts on Beebe's model as a whole?


5. Do you have an opinion on Lenore Thompson's work/descriptions?


6. Is there anything about JCF that just doesn't line up for you?


7. Is there anything you personally want to say in addition to what you've already stated in answering the quesitons above?


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

Great idea for a thread @Ace Face! There are so many differing opinions here on this stuff that it's hard to know who to listen to. Understanding how they came to their interpretations will be helpful.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

I find it interesting that I've had no responses besides the one from @ChanceyRose so far. Everyone seems so quick to jump into "type me" threads to discuss their knowledge on the subject, but when asked directly about their actual studies and what they've come to learn, few have jumped in. ...definitely interesting! 

I think the biggest issue with what people know (or rather, think they know) about the cognitive functions is acquired through sources that aren't reliable. Yes, technically, JCF is a theory, thus is not 100% reliable. I'm not stating that it is. What I'm saying is that a lot of people aren't even reading the original information on the theory to learn about it in its purest explanations. People are instead reading about behaviors and linking them to JCF, not to mention taking other people's word for what the cognitive functions are, what they mean, and what they do. People need to investigate for themselves and actually dig deeper than just taking other peoples' words for it.


----------



## Metanoia (Nov 21, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> I find it interesting that I've had no responses besides the one from @_ChanceyRose_ so far. Everyone seems so quick to jump into "type me" threads to discuss their knowledge on the subject, but when asked directly about their actual studies and what they've come to learn, few have jumped in. ...definitely interesting!


That's some tempting bait.... where are all the biters?!?


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

hhhhmmm.

I see what you're saying. I just don't know I'd expect anyone to jump into this discussion when they know they don't know anything "truthful". I can't even bring myself to say anything useful right now because I know I know almost nothing. At the same time, that's why I talk on here. I can say what I 'feel' like saying about the functions and behavior just because I want someone to see my thoughts and I'd hope that it would encourage debate/discussion.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

This isn't going to be an exhaustive study of my views, but here goes.

1. Have you ever become skeptical at material that, in some way, involves JCF? (MBTI, Beebe's model, etc.)

Yup. After reading Jung, I have a hard time accepting material that doesn't fit with his ideas. I especially take issue with MBTI stereotypes and such, especially when they don't make sense within the context of Jung's original work. 

2. Do you believe all eight functions can surface in an individual? Why/why not?

There are only four functions: Thinking, Feeling, Intuition, and Sensation. Each one can be directed outward or inward, but that doesn't make for two separate functions (e.g., Ti and Te are flip sides of the same coin).

I am open to the idea that your auxiliary and tertiary can go in either direction, but your dominant and inferior functions anchor your conscious and unconscious, respectively. If you're a Ti-dom, then you will repress Te because your introverted conscious turns thinking inward. 

3. How does what you believe about JCF differ from the model(s) you've studied?

Maybe some of what I said in #2. For instance, I don't see why the functions have to be like Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. I'm not convinced that you can't have Ti-Si-Ne-Fe or Ti-Ne-Se-Fe, etc. (QUICK EDIT: Or Ti with auxiliary intuition, or not having a tertiary play a noticeable role, etc.) But I'm still analyzing the issue, so I can't say that I "believe" it.

4. What are your thoughts on Beebe's model as a whole?

I looked into it, but didn't like it very much. I kinda feel like he's taking advantage of people's desire to label everything. Maybe I just missed what's so appealing about it.

5. Do you have an opinion on Lenore Thompson's work/descriptions?

Not really.

6. Is there anything about JCF that just doesn't line up for you?

We're talking about the MBTI-ish JCFs, right? Then yeah: all of the introverted functions. Really, it seems like the extraverted perceiving functions are the most true to Jung's work.

Part of the reason that I turned to Jung is because MBTI doesn't really make sense. For example, take Si. Why is that treated like a judging function with a good, accurate memory?

7. Is there anything you personally want to say in addition to what you've already stated in answering the questions above?

These have been my unfiltered thoughts. I might have more to say later, after mulling it over.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I agree generally with most of what the above poster has said, except for Point 6. Most of the introversion stuff makes sense to me, I think.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I agree generally with most of what the above poster has said, except for Point 6. Most of the introversion stuff makes sense to me, I think.


I'm sorry, I must have said that wrong. I didn't mean that introversion doesn't make sense, I meant that MBTI's definitions of the introverted functions don't make sense and/or aren't true to Jung.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Coyote said:


> I'm sorry, I must have said that wrong. I didn't mean that introversion doesn't make sense, I meant that MBTI's definitions of the introverted functions don't make sense and/or aren't true to Jung.


 Oh I see, I misunderstand.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I agree generally with most of what the above poster has said, except for Point 6. Most of the introversion stuff makes sense to me, I think.


Out of curiosity, was there stuff besides #6 that you disagreed with me on? I'm not trying to trick you into a debate or anything. :tongue: I'm just curious about how my opinions look from the outside and whether they can stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Coyote said:


> Out of curiosity, was there stuff besides #6 that you disagreed with me on? I'm not trying to trick you into a debate or anything. :tongue: I'm just curious about how my opinions look from the outside and whether they can stand up to scrutiny.


 No-o, I actually agreed with the rest of it. I just misread, that's all. I guess one thing I disagree with is your opinion on how functions can be ordered. I don't believe for instance you can have Fi Ti Si Ni or things like that. I always think its funny to see people's sigs and they've ordered it like that.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> No-o, I actually agreed with the rest of it. I just misread, that's all. I guess one thing I disagree with is your opinion on how functions can be ordered. I don't believe for instance you can have Fi Ti Si Ni or things like that. I always think its funny to see people's sigs and they've ordered it like that.


Yeah, that kind of ordering doesn't work, I agree. At the very least, the inferior absolutely has to be the opposite of the dominant. That's a major part of the theory. 

But there's disagreement about the middle two. For example, Jung mentioned Ti-Ne-Se-Fe. And there's a possibility that the aux could be the same direction as the dom. And, obviously, MBTI requires the tertiary to be the same as the dom, with aux opposite. So there's different possibilities within the Ti-X-X-Fe type of rule. And Jung kinda talked about it like Ti + intuition, so maybe the aux doesn't even have to go in one direction. 

Argh! I just realized that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion/debate. Sorry about that! Thanks for giving me your opinion.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Coyote said:


> Yeah, that kind of ordering doesn't work, I agree. At the very least, the inferior absolutely has to be the opposite of the dominant. That's a major part of the theory.
> 
> But there's disagreement about the middle two. For example, Jung mentioned Ti-Ne-Se-Fe. And there's a possibility that the aux could be the same direction as the dom. And, obviously, MBTI requires the tertiary to be the same as the dom, with aux opposite. So there's different possibilities within the Ti-X-X-Fe type of rule. And Jung kinda talked about it like Ti + intuition, so maybe the aux doesn't even have to go in one direction.
> 
> Argh! I just realized that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion/debate. Sorry about that! Thanks for giving me your opinion.


 Hah, this isn't a debate. I actually agree with pretty much everything you've written there, especially seeing as you appear to have done your research.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Hah, this isn't a debate.


Haha, yeah, that's what my prey usually thinks ... until they get dragged into the black pit of Ti-Ne hell. :tongue: 

OK, I'm going to leave you alone for real this time. :wink:

(Sowee. Alcohol haz given me the happees!)


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Coyote said:


> Haha, yeah, that's what my prey usually thinks ... until they get dragged into the black pit of Ti-Ne hell. :tongue:
> 
> OK, I'm going to leave you alone for real this time. :wink:
> 
> (Sowee. Alcohol haz given me the happees!)


 Prey on me eh. Just try it  You'll know if we have a debate. Ha ha ha. No-o, the point is that I just agreed with most of what you said since it meshes with virtually everything everyone else who I've trusted on the matter has said.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Prey on me eh. Just try it  You'll know if we have a debate. Ha ha ha.


Oh noes! A challenge has been extended, and I don't have time to accept it. ::devastated::

But don't worry. One day, when you least expect it, I'll be there. You'll try to resist, but I'll play devil's advocate and taunt you until you succumb to my will. And then -- oh, yes, _and then_ ....

Bwhahaha!


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

*1. Have you ever become skeptical at material that, in some way, involves JCF? (MBTI, Beebe's model, etc.)* 
Almost all of it. First there's the questionable nature of psychological typing itself, then there's the tendency of theories to misinterpret and even bastardize Jung's theory. When I found out about the cognitive functions I sought out to learn about them to leave behind all of the MBTI stereotypes and embrace the actual theory that lays the groundwork for all of these other offshoot theories.

*2. Do you believe all eight functions can surface in an individual? Why/why not?*
I don't believe this in the slightest. The "shadow" functions are deep in the subconscious, and thus do not surface. See my post from another thread that I have quoted at the bottom for explanation.

*3. How does what you believe about JCF differ from the model(s) you've studied?*
It differs from a lot of these models that have shadow functions built in and strange ideas about ordering of functions.

*4. What are your thoughts on Beebe's model as a whole?*
I don't know too much about it, but from what I know it seems a decent theory to describe function relations and how we interact with our unconscious. I will never acknowledge conscious use of shadow functions, but otherwise that sort of eight-function model seems okay to me.

*5. Do you have an opinion on Lenore Thompson's work/descriptions?*
None whatsoever (I don't know anything about it)

*6. Is there anything about JCF that just doesn't line up for you?*
Besides that I am always skeptical about the nature of types in general, not really. As odd as it is for personalities to fit neatly into 16 types, the theory is actually quite congruent with real personalities in addition to being quite internally consistent, and that's why I like it so much. It all seems to fit together really nicely.

*7. Is there anything you personally want to say in addition to what you've already stated in answering the quesitons above?
*Yes, I'd like to quote a post I made on use of shadow functions and alternate interpretation of Jungian theory:


> _Okay... what's all this crazyness with having all eight functions and using them to their fullest potential? What kind of misguided information are we throwing around? To do that would make you quite a lot more capable mentally than the ordinary human being, if you buy any of Jung's theory. If what we're doing is coming up with some wild offshoot of it that uses all of the same names for everything but disregards any of the limitations, then fine, by all means go ahead and do that, but that's not what I believe a great deal of us are here to do._
> 
> _One of the first things to do is to get rid of the idea that each cognitive function is some magical force that you can tap into at any time to produce results. It's the idea that Ti and Te are completely different and that for certain tasks, you have to employ one or the other. The same goes for the other functions. No matter what spin you have on it, __thinking is thinking. Whether it's approached from an objective or subjective standpoint, it's still going through ideas and all of that. And, according to Jungian theory, we each possess a type of thinking that is directed either internally or externally, and is on a certain level of our consciousness. The same is true of the other three types of functions. If you're looking to follow the theory that has been laid out (which is rather internally consistent and often jives well with actual personalities), then you must accept that you have a certain ordering of functions that balances subjective and objective attitudes as well as perceiving and judging traits. That's the makeup of your personality. These functions are not tools that you can grab at and use at your disposal because you're just that amazing (if you intend to follow the theory, again). So, if you're an INTJ, you use your subjectively oriented intuition to process information and your perception of reality, and filter into thought and action with your objectively oriented thinking. You don't use Ti as an automatic process (or if you try, you really really suck at it). You may, however, think in subjective terms, because thinking is thinking. It's not some amazing brand new thing, it's just a way to approach judgments. It's amazing that we can do it, but it's not special when compared to Te.
> 
> As for the shadow function thing in general, I completely agree with DaveSuperPowers, even in a sense beyond just MBTI. Nobody can be everything. Focus on your strengths, the things you are really good at and are interested in, and you'll offer a lot more to the world than you would were you to be mediocre at the many many things you attempt to be. I'd think you'd make your life more fulfilling and interesting that way, too._


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

*1.Have you ever become skeptical at material that, in some way,involves JCF? (MBTI, Beebe's model, etc.) *

One can take any theory and find truth in it. I believe it is important to read, observe and consider as much as possible and thus one will be able to recognize the common thread that goes trough all theories. One thing won't be called the same everywhere but one will recognize it for what it is nonetheless.


But there are things I don't agree with. Socionics, for example.
They argue that in order to be a judging type one's dominant function must be a judging one (Te, Fe, Ti, Fi). At first glance it makes sense:dominant judging function=J, dominant perceiving function=P
But when I think what makes someone J or P, I have to disagree with Socionics.


For me Se/Ne are the functions that gather information, Ni/Si sort it, Ti/Fi make judgments about it and via Fe/Te we take action and put into realization what we have gathered, sorted and decided. Now, depending on the position of Fe/Te the degree of action will vary.
INTPs are deemed to be the ones who come up with theories but are not so much about putting them into practice. Ti is directed inward and if it is the dominant function the subject will be occupied with introspection primarily, which decreases the intensity and prominence of Fe (action) by default.
ExFJ will be driven to act constantly due to their Fe. They rely more on taking action and directing immediately in the external world and that in turn minimizes introverted judgment (Ti), again, by default.


The same goes for Se-Ni and Ne-Si.
Ni goes into depth of the things it observes. If Ni is the dominant function then Se will be minimal. It would be impossible to gather as much physical information as an Se-dom and then sort it like a Ni-dom. The person would go crazy or be some kind of deity. Either one gathers a lot of information and sorts it in minimal ways or one gathers little information and observes it in depth. But Se and Ni cannot coexist with equal strength and intensity. Neither can Ne-Si,Fi-Te or Ti-Fe. The functions condition each other and I find it better to describe how they operate with each other than to define a function in isolation.


That is why I think Isabel made a great job by determining the J and P types according to their extraverted judging function (Fe/Te).
If people have Fe/Te as one of their two top functions they are more likely to finish things they choose to focus on than people who have Fe/Te as one of their bottom two functions.
By that I don't mean how clean or organized one's room or office is. An organized and clean space shouldn't be taken as an indicator of J and P.
If a J focuses on having a clean house he will clean it regularly without much thought and effort but if it doesn't matter to him then his house can be messy.
A P might be focused on having a clean house but he will need much more effort and time than a J to actually start cleaning the house.

*2.Do you believe all eight functions can surface in an individual?Why/why not?*

Yes, I do believe they can and I'd say in a healthy person they do. I believe there are four processes and eight functions. Se/Ne have the same role but they operate on different planes just as Ni/Si, Ti/Fi and Fe/Te do too.

I don't look at Thinking and say there is the extraverted and introverted one. For me it's not Ti/Te or Fi/Fe etc. that should be contrasted and compared,these functions are for different processes.
Ti and Fi have the same role - introverted judgment. They just deal with different criteria. Same with Te/Fe, Se/Ne and Si/Ni.

It is like the focus of a camera. Si zooms in, while Ni zooms out but they both take a picture.
Se collects what is there, Ne collects what is there and adds what isn't there - yet (Life imitates Art). And so on.

I believe that our type is determined from the beginning. The functions that constitute our type are the ones we access naturally. The functions of my type are Ni Fe Ti Se, so the functions that are "not me" are Si Te Fi Ne in no particular order (for now). I will not access these functions consciously but I should be able to understand what criteria is necessary and how they manifest themselves, namely recognizing them in another person of a particular type. I might have a negative reaction to a particular type but I believe I should be able to recognize it rather as a part of me than something alien to me. This leads me to the next question.

*4.What are your thoughts on Beebe's model as a whole?
*
I think Beebe's concept is not bad at all. I just don't agree with the order of the shadow functions. If I am INFJ - Ni Fe Ti Se my shadow functions shouldn't be Ne Fi Te Si, those of an ENFP. I don't see an ENFP as my opposite. The Ne of ExFP provides an insight for my Ni which Se could never give me. I find it stimulating and complementary and not clashing with my type at all.
I get along with ISTJs (Si Te Fi Ne) and although the meekness of most INFPs irritates me at first I find them pretty interesting when I get to know them better.

And then there is ESTJ, Te Si Ne Fi.
People of this type baffle me. They are like a slap in the face, the WTFness that leaves you paralyzed, the blow that destroys everything that is valuable to you. I loathe how little they consider and admire how much they get done. But sometimes when I get really mad and when I look back at those episodes of rage I realize I did things the ESTJ way. It's as if my rage gives me permission or justification for disregarding the people and things I usually consider when dealing with a situation. In those moments I just see what needs to be said and done to solve a problem. I don't care how it affects others. The feeling is great, it's liberating. I'm not really aware of my actions when I'm in such a state but later when I reflected on it I used to beat myself up about it. Nowadays I can deal with it much better, I embrace it. I believe it's important for everyone to embrace their shadow. This will never be my customary way of dealing with things but I can see how it is necessary to be like this sometimes. It helps to find balance. I don't feel bad about it and I recognize that it is a part of who I am too.

*6.Is there anything about JCF that just doesn't line up for you?
*
I don't like the names for the functions, they are misleading. They cause a lot of confusion. There are other things too but this stands out.

*7.Is there anything you personally want to say in addition to whatyou've already stated in answering the quesitons above?
*
I didn't answer some of the questions because I think I covered them in the other answers and I don't have to say a lot about Lenore Thompson as I haven't read much of her work. What else? It'd be great if people stopped typing themselves via E/I S/N J/P. It would be good if people stopped equaling shyness to introversion, talkative people to extraversion etc. Most people socialize and most people need time alone. Some more, some less.
People are not introverts because they are shy or lonely, they are introverts if they prefer introspection, their own thoughts to the external world and vice versa for extraverts.
That's it for now.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> I find it interesting that I've had no responses besides the one from @ChanceyRose so far. Everyone seems so quick to jump into "type me" threads to discuss their knowledge on the subject, but when asked directly about their actual studies and what they've come to learn, few have jumped in. ...definitely interesting!
> 
> I think the biggest issue with what people know (or rather, think they know) about the cognitive functions is acquired through sources that aren't reliable. Yes, technically, JCF is a theory, thus is not 100% reliable. I'm not stating that it is. What I'm saying is that a lot of people aren't even reading the original information on the theory to learn about it in its purest explanations. People are instead reading about behaviors and linking them to JCF, not to mention taking other people's word for what the cognitive functions are, what they mean, and what they do. People need to investigate for themselves and actually dig deeper than just taking other peoples' words for it.


I am struggling to figure out what the point of the thread is. Furthermore, you haven't answered your own questions either.


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> I am struggling to figure out what the point of the thread is.


For me, the point of the thread is to quantify and qualify one's background and research into the theory. Would you want to take advice from someone who heard something from someone who heard it from someone else who read it in a blog written by someone who read an article written by someone who may or may not have read something written by Jung?


----------

