# Is cognitive function theory all just a pseudoscience?



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

I've been having doubts about my level of investment into typology as a means of understanding people. I'm not even talking about MBTI tests, which are often unreliable, yield inconsistent answers from the same people for the same tests, skewer questions to favour N or T answers, reduce the dichotomy of P and J to things such as "I'm never late for work", and which are largely eschewed by many within personality psychology. Nor am I talking about Keirsey's ridiculous temperaments where he boils down NTs, NFs, SJs, and SPs to being Rationals, Idealists, Guardians, and Artisans, respectively. And nor am I talking about edgelords who self-type as INTJ because it's trendy to think of themselves as "Masterminds". I'm having doubts about Jung's own theory on the cognitive functions.

For starters, it seems a bit arbitrary to assign functions such dichotomies as dominant/inferior or auxiliary/tertiary. It's also arbitrary to assign them as polar opposites determined by introversion or extraversion. Why should an Fi type have Te as their opposite function, and why Te instead of Ti?

I'm aware of Socionics, a system that uses the same functions but with a different position of conscious and unconscious preference, but this same criticism applies to Socionics as well. This isn't my only criticism of Socionics. Jung characterised the inferior function as opposite to the dominant function. This point is basically a given. Socionics, on the other hand, has the inferior function as the bottom function of the shadow type. So if an INFP has inferior Te in a more conventional sense, with Socionics the bottom function of their conscious type is instead Se, and Te is the bottom function of their shadow type. I thought that this arrangement of functions lost sight of Jung's idea of the inferior function being the polar opposite of the dominant function. And since Socionics associates personality with facial structure, that gives me even more reason not to trust this system.

Asides from that, why Thinking and Feeling or Sensing and Intuitive? Why those dichotomies in particular, and why just those two dichotomies?

I think my biggest criticism of this theory is that it has no definite proof from neuroscience so far. I'm aware that one neuroscientist (whose name escapes me) has done some experimental research which suggests some correlation between cognitive functions and a preference for certain mental thought processes, but the results from this research are largely tentative. This theory so far has no real consensus from those within the neuroscience community.

So if this is a theory that has no indisputable evidence through neuroscience or any widespread consensus from experts, why should one be invested in a personality theory that seems to quantify mental processes in an seemingly arbitrary sort of way?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, but I'll try and answer my own question. I think the best answer I can give is that it feels as though it works. Maybe this is all just one big case of the Barnum effect, but I find that I can sort of distinguish between whether someone is allegedly Ti dominant or Fi dominant, and that people who are allegedly Ti dominant or Fi dominant tend to not to be entirely at home with their opposite function. That's not an answer that would hold up against a neuroscientist or a personality psychologist, but that's the best explanation I can give.


----------



## Kaden (Jan 18, 2017)

Yes it's very flawed and not scientific.while there's patterns in human thought I'd much rather trust a neuroscience report over a mbti or cognitive functions.that being said, it's fun to figure out how you think and it has helped me open my mind to other types of processing. I don't take it that seriously and use what I know about a person more than i use the mbti.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> Is cognitive function theory all just a pseudoscience?


Yes, because there is no way to measure or prove of it existing; it is merely a theory to fill in a gap in which other personality theories try to also accomplish.



> For starters, it seems a bit arbitrary to assign such dichotomies as dominant/inferior and auxiliary/tertiary functions as polar opposites that are contrasted by whether one's focus for each function is directed in an introverted or extraverted way. Why should an Fi type have Te as their opposite function, and why Te instead of Ti?


Jung was interested in the philosophy of duality, so he implemented such in his personality theory.



> In fact, I think having what Jung characterised as the inferior function be the bottom function of the shadow type misconstrues his idea on the relationship between the dominant and inferior functions


Incoherent, too many buzz words.



> Asides from that, why Thinking and Feeling or Sensing and Intuitive? Why those dichotomies in particular, and why just those two dichotomies?


Because Jung said "Let there be Se, Ne, Si, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi." and there was Se, Ne, Si, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

narcissistic said:


> Yes, because there is no way to measure or prove of it existing; it is merely a theory to fill in a gap in which other personality theories try to also accomplish.


And what would you say that gap is? Would that gap that's missing in other personality theories be an attempt to systemise the driving factors behind what motivates us?


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Soul Kitchen said:


> And what would you say that gap is?


The gap being a person's personality, it fills that void by systematically categorizing people into types of characters that are meant to represent the general population (that being the world).
The cognition functions are filling the gap between a person's personality type and the intentions/reasoning behind why one thinks/does i.e. John acted angrily towards Susan because she didn't lock the door as they left, cognitive functions are basically saying "Why was John angry? Why is he acting this way?".



> Would that gap that's missing in other personality theories be an attempt to systemise the driving factors behind what motivates us?


No, that is Enneagram.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

narcissistic said:


> Yes, because there is no way to measure or prove of it existing; it is merely a theory to fill in a gap in which other personality theories try to also accomplish.


I guess it's understandable if cognitive function theory does not pretend to be a serious measurement of personality.



> Jung was interested in the philosophy of duality, so he implemented such in his personality theory.


True. One should consider function theory in the context of his framework of ideas.



> Incoherent, too many buzz words.


Point taken; I should have broken this up into sentences. Jung characterised the inferior function as opposite to the dominant function. This point is basically a given. Socionics, on the other hand has the inferior function as the bottom function of the shadow type. So if an INFP has inferior Te in a more conventional sense, with Socionics the bottom function of their conscious type is instead Se, and Te is the bottom function of their shadow type. I thought that this arrangement of functions lost sight of Jung's idea of the inferior function being the polar opposite of the dominant function.



> Because Jung said "Let there be Se, Ne, Si, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, Ti." and there was Se, Ne, Si, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, Ti.


Okay, so it's the way it is because Jung decided that's the way it is.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Point taken; I should have broken this up into sentences. Jung characterised the inferior function as opposite to the dominant function. This point is basically a given. Socionics, on the other hand has the inferior function as the bottom function of the shadow type. So if an INFP has inferior Te in a more conventional sense, with Socionics the bottom function of their conscious type is instead Se, and Te is the bottom function of their shadow type. I thought that this arrangement of functions lost sight of Jung's idea of the inferior function being the polar opposite of the dominant function.


Socionics classifies the function relations differently, technically the Suggestive function is the Inferior function; however Socionics likes to go the extra mile and describe the entirety of the function relations, not just the preferred functions but even the unvalued functions.

To put it short; 
MBTI arranges the functions from strength of preference by; 1 2 3 4 (Ti, Ne, Si, Fe)
Socionics arranges the functions from strength (not only by preference) by; 1 5 2 6 3 8 4 7 (Ti, Ni, Ne, Te, Si, Fi, Fe, Se) however still remaining the same formation when arranged by preference i.e. 1 2 3 4.

Socionics organizes the relation between the functions through several factors (model A system); Accepting, Producing, Strong, Weak, Mental and Vital.
Example for an INTP it would be categorized as such (in no particular order); 
Accepting: Ti, Fi, Fe, Te 
Producing: Ne, Se, Ni, Si
Strong: Ti, Ne, Te, Ni
Weak: Se, Fi, Si, Fe
Mental: Ti, Ne, Se, Fi
Vital: Si, Fe, Te, Ni

Basically to put it at short, Socionics gets the same concept as MBTI, renames a few things and fills in the gaps that MBTI leaves.
You could say Socionics is a more completed version of MBTI, or you could say Socionics is an overly complicated version of MBTI.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Much of psychology sits on shaky ground unfortunately. As it turns out, empirically determining what goes on in people's minds is very difficult, if not impossible in many instances.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

Psychology in general is all pseudoscience. I find Jung theory to be correct, not so much mbti dichotomies (T vs F, N vs S); those descriptions are too stereotyping and are inaccurate to Jung's original theory of cognitive functions. Some might say it is dehumanizing, but I apply Jung theory to how I understand people in the real world and it has helped me understand people a little more.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

PiT said:


> Much of psychology sits on shaky ground unfortunately. As it turns out, empirically determining what goes on in people's minds is very difficult, if not impossible in many instances.


I point to neuroscience as our best measure of empirically verifying a psychological theory. Maybe neuroscience isn't perfect, but it's the method we have at hand to see if our ideas of how people think reflect in our brains. Neuroscience is arguably a field still in its infancy, so it's a field that will become more precise through research and refined techniques.



MusiCago said:


> Psychology in general is all pseudoscience. I find Jung theory to be correct, not so much mbti dichotomies (T vs F, N vs S); those descriptions are too stereotyping and are inaccurate to Jung's original theory of cognitive functions. Some might say it is dehumanizing, but I apply Jung theory to how I understand people in the real world and it has helped me understand people a little more.


I know that cognitive function theory doesn't say "you use thinking/feeling or sensing/intuition" full stop, but it still places emphasis on ranking one function over another. I'm questioning why functions should even be ranked in preference at all. As for MBTI, whether you are a T or F is determined by which one you lean towards more, as no one is completely a T or an F. While I don't put much stock in the MBTI testing system, I can sort of understand how it approaches dichotomies as being not completely binary. But then again I would argue that MBTI falls into the same trap as cognitive function theory in insisting on a preference in the first place.

So what things have you learnt about other people using cognitive functions that you wouldn't have learnt otherwise?

I for one don't find cognitive functions to be so useful in understanding myself or others as I did before. I know that because I have an eye for novelty in ideas or experiences, and because I connect ideas and things together to explore possibilities and find common ideas, these things would make me Ne dominant according to this theory. But when referring to the Barnum effect, I have to ask myself whether I'm looking for these things in myself to affirm my being Ne dominant simply because it's the function I identify with the most? I don't need Jung to tell me I'm Ne dominant to have those kinds of insights about myself, which to me makes cognitive function theory arguably pointless at best. At worst, it can downright harmful if one misinterprets the system to mean "these strengths are innate and don't need developing, and these weaknesses are just not possible to become good at because they're not second nature in me". And if one takes this misinterpretation to stereotype the people around them, that can really skewer their view of other people instead of bringing some sort of clarity.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

Obviously. It makes intuition run wild, makes a person feel like a real psychologist. But there are thousands of books and articles published every month by professionals that dedicate their lives to real psychology. People here are ignorant of that, its forming its own micro collective movements where users can pat each other on the back with likes for repeating what has been said a million times before on this forum and alike.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> I point to neuroscience as our best measure of empirically verifying a psychological theory. Maybe neuroscience isn't perfect, but it's the method we have at hand to see if our ideas of how people think reflect in our brains. Neuroscience is arguably a field still in its infancy, so it's a field that will become more precise through research and refined techniques.


I agree, and that is why I used the word "much". There are parts of psychology that are well-grounded in empirical research, and their explanatory power is improving all the time. Despite that, there are still large parts of the field that are not as rigorous as we would hope.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Soul Kitchen said:


> So if this is a theory that has no solid, indisputable evidence through neuroscience or any widespread consensus from those experts in the neuroscience or personality psychology, why should one be invested in a personality theory that seems to quantify mental processes in an seemingly arbitrary sort of way?


There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences. And unlike astrology (for example), temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.

Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with modern psychometric standards. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s (as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged), she had a typology that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that _identical twins raised in separate households_ are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs — which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to _real_, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality that were presumably selected for by evolution (just as Jung presumed), for reasons we may never fully understand. Anyone who thinks they're just arbitrary theoretical categories is misinformed.

If you're interested, you can read more about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, and how it compares to the Big Five — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post.

That said, tho... it should be noted that the respectable districts of the MBTI are the dichotomy-centric districts, rather than the function-centric (_aka_ "type dynamics") districts. I think the faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" were rightly characterized in 2009 — by James Reynierse, as part of a series of studies published in the official MBTI journal (including "The Case Against Type Dynamics") — as a "category mistake," and if you want to learn more about that, you can find a lot of further discussion in this post and the posts it links to.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

@reckful Your critique of the applications of function theory in MBTI is astute. If the letters really did reflect the supposed functions an ENTP would have, ENTP would be labelled NeTiFeSi instead of E + N + T + P. The very nature of the dichotomies implies that an ENTP would have nothing in common with ISFJs, as a JFSI is still an ISFJ regardless of what order you arrange the letters. I've admittedly been a Jungian purist up until now, so my knowledge of Myers Briggs has been fairly limited. I was wondering that if the combination of the perceiving letter and the judging letter takes precedence, why have SJs and SPs instead of STs and SFs?

My understanding is that Myers Briggs (I'm referring to both women in the same breath) stripped away the more esoteric aspects of Jung's theory - such as the inferior function - in order to better quantify the dichotomies. In the process, they ended up creating a P/J dichotomy. In this case, would it even be accurate to say that T/F is a judging process and S/N is a perceiving process as how Jung originally envisioned those dichotomies?

Other than that, what would your criteria be for an accurate MBTI test? The ones I've taken usually quantify absurd things such as "I'm never late for work" for the P/J distinction or "I like to get along with others" for the T/F distinction, and seem to skewer questions to favour N or T answers.

I'm aware of the correlation between the dichotomies of MBTI and the factors of the Big Five model. E/I goes without saying, N/S is openness, F/T is agreeableness, and J/P is conscientiousness. However, this all hangs on whether the Big Five model holds up as a model of evaluation, as it has been criticised for only measuring parts of the whole personality sphere and for questionable measurement depending on how questions are chosen and worded.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

It is a pseudoscience. It will continue to be a pseudoscience.

A personality type is just that. It is a type. It classifies how individuals are different than the average individual. It does not classify by how much an individual is different than the average individual. The former is direction of differentiation. The latter is weight of differentiation. MBTI in particular conflates direction (type) with weight (rarity) to form it’s “types.” The originators of MBTI created minority types as minority types in an attempt to explain their own minority thoughts and behaviors.

Most people are like most people. The average individual has thoughts and behaviors that are indistinguishable from most other individuals. Personality type theory as it has developed attempts to disregard those who have minority thoughts and behaviors for what they are objectively. They are maladaptive thoughts and behaviors. The personality type theories are and will continue be pseudosciences. They attempt to ignore objective reality and as such engage in circular logic indefinitely as they approach and subsequently continue to reject objective reality.

Twin studies do not support the current personality type theories. They support by evidence the existence of genetic predispositions to maladaptive thoughts and behaviors by contrast of the average human biology. They support by evidence the existence of maladaptive genetic mutations by contrast of the average human biology. Personality type theorists then unwittingly classify this evidence into their personality type theories which they will then eventually reject. Socionics in particular with its view of personality type being determined by birth unknowingly and irrevocably seeks to classify genetic mutations.

The remainder of objective data which is attempted to be classified into personality type theories and which is not covered by genetic predispositions is covered under basic psychology and is well-studied. It comprises minority environmental effects which are objectively synonymous with various cases of forms of abuse, neglect, anxiety, what-have-you. A psychologist well-versed in MBTI can utilize MBTI to have a subject unknowingly divulge both their immediate environmental conditions as well as their environmental history.

Full genome testing is currently offered at $1000 with possible options for health insurance to cover in-part or in-full. Within the coming decades, full genome testing is expected to be within reasonable cost for the average individual. If this had been available during the time of Jung, Isabella, or Ausra, coupled with modern psychology and counseling, none of these systems would have come into existence.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

To answer a small part of your question (namely: why would Fe need Ti ect.): 

I've spent a lot of time on this subject and I think there's actually a lot of merit to the idea. For example: Fe is about fitting in with the group and getting along with other people. This requires insight into systems of rules (Ti). To understand group dynamics you have to use both Fe and Ti. 
On the other hand, you have Te to choose goals and plan for success, which is only possible if you have the drive to succeed and place values on what you want to accomplish (Fi). 

The same holds true for the observing functions: 
Ne expands into possibilities, but can only do so from a solid data point (Si). You have to have a solid framework of information to see what possibilities there are from there. 
Se on the other hand zooms in on the facts of the current situation. Those facts are only viable if there's a bigger picture to fit them into (Ni). Ni provides a high-concept framework for Se to fill in. 

The system is actually very consistent and usable if you completely understand how it all fits together. That doesn't mean it's true per se, but don't write it off on the basis that you don't understand it. 

I'm mostly holding out for more results from Dario Nardi's research (yes, that's the name of the Neurolo Scientist you were searching for). His early findings are consistent with type theory, but that doesn't mean anything in itself. 
Personally I think the theory is probably true, but incomplete. I'm pretty sure the broad strokes are actually correct and usable (and I use MBTI a lot in my daily life, helps me a lot with understanding other people's motivations). 

Of course it doesn't fit in with the current insights of psychology, so even if there is definite proof of the theory, it won't go over smoothly.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

DavidH said:


> The originators of MBTI created minority types as minority types in an attempt to explain their own minority thoughts and behaviors. ...
> 
> Personality type theory as it has developed attempts to disregard those who have minority thoughts and behaviors for what they are objectively. They are maladaptive thoughts and behaviors. ...
> 
> ...


Are you sincerely taking the position that one side of each MBTI and Big Five dimension represents "maladaptive thoughts and behaviors" that mostly result from either unfortunate "genetic mutations" or damaging "environmental effects" such as "abuse, neglect, anxiety, what-have-you"?

Really?

Introverts are best viewed as defective people who simply lack healthy amounts of extraversion?

MBTI S's are best viewed as people whose S-related characteristics pretty much just reflect defects and inadequacies in the N department?

MBTI T's are best viewed as defective people who simply lack healthy amounts of what the Big Five folks call Agreeableness?

MBTI P's are best viewed as defective people who simply lack healthy amounts of what the Big Five folks call Conscientiousness?

Is that really your perspective? And if it is, out of curiosity, can you point us to any reasonably well-known source that also reflects that perspective? If it's really the perspective that's in line with what you call "modern psychology" (including "twin studies"), I wouldn't think that would be too much of a challenge for you.

As a side note, you said, "The originators of MBTI created minority types as minority types in an attempt to explain their own minority thoughts and behaviors." Buuut if I'm understanding your reference to "minority thoughts and behaviors" (and your view of which side of each dimension is the healthy, "majority" one), that would mean that the MBTI type corresponding to the "minority" (unhealthy) side of each dimension would be ISTP. And first of all, Isabel Myers was an INFP (and Briggs was an INFJ). And second, although MBTI statistics suggest that N is indeed a "minority" type (around 30% of the population), you — unless I'm mistaken — view N (i.e., Big Five Openness) as the healthy, positive side of the S/N dimension.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Soul Kitchen said:


> @reckful Your critique of the applications of function theory in MBTI is astute. If the letters really did reflect the supposed functions an ENTP would have, ENTP would be labelled NeTiFeSi instead of E + N + T + P. The very nature of the dichotomies implies that an ENTP would have nothing in common with ISFJs, as a JFSI is still an ISFJ regardless of what order you arrange the letters. I've admittedly been a Jungian purist up until now, so my knowledge of Myers Briggs has been fairly limited. I was wondering that if the combination of the perceiving letter and the judging letter takes precedence, why have SJs and SPs instead of STs and SFs?


The NT/NF/SJ/SP foursome came from David Keirsey, and doesn't reflect the official MBTI. Isabel Myers, for what it's worth, thought that NT/NF/ST/SF was the most meaningful way to group the types into four groups. But just as importantly, and regardless of whether NF/NT/SF/ST or NF/NT/SJ/SP (or some other four-way carve-up) leads to the groups that somehow have the _most in common_ — or whether that's even a very meaningful question — Myers didn't really view her foursome as _fundamental_ in the same way that Keirsey viewed his. Myers thought there were significant things to be said about virtually _every_ preference combination. The 1985 MBTI Manual (which Myers co-authored) included a brief description corresponding to each of the 24 possible two-letter combinations, and Gifts Differing includes lots of references to shared characteristics that tend to be produced by many of the possible two-letter (_and_ three-letter) combinations.

If you're interested, you can find more on that issue — plus some bonus discussion of why I think of INs as a noteworthy group — in this post.



Soul Kitchen said:


> My understanding is that Myers Briggs (I'm referring to both women in the same breath) stripped away the more esoteric aspects of Jung's theory - such as the inferior function - in order to better quantify the dichotomies. In the process, they ended up creating a P/J dichotomy. In this case, would it even be accurate to say that T/F is a judging process and S/N is a perceiving process as how Jung originally envisioned those dichotomies?


I'm forever making reference to Myers' "lip service" to Jung, and the fact that a careful reading of Gifts Differing (together with the 1985 Manual) makes it clear that, to _some_ significant degree, Myers was characterizing the MBTI as more consistent with Jung's model than it really was. But I also think there's little question that Myers sincerely bought into certain aspects of Jung's perspective that she probably would have been wiser to leave behind — and one of those is the notion that S and N are our two modes of "perceiving," and T and F are our two modes of "judging."

That said, tho... anybody who reads official MBTI materials (and other respectable MBTI sources) on what S's and N's and T's and F's are like is likely to notice (if they focus on the issue) that the S/N stuff is hardly limited to _perceptions_, and the T/F stuff is hardly limited to _judgments_.

And the same is true if you read Psychological Types. For example, the view that S and N are pretty much just about passive "perception," which you often hear on internet forums, wasn't really Jung's perspective. Although he characterized the _essence_ of S and N as modes of perception, his descriptions make it clear that he didn't limit them to an "information gathering" role. On the contrary, he said that Ne, for example, had "its own characteristic morality," and described Ne-doms choosing among various possibilities based purely on their N function — while noting that not bringing either of their judging functions to bear could sometimes lead to bad results. As Jung explained: "Just as sensation, when it is the dominant function, is not a mere reactive process of no further significance for the object, but an activity that seizes and shapes its object, so intuition is not mere perception, or vision, but an active, creative process that puts into the object just as much as it takes out." As Jung understood things, P-doms make lots of choices and decisions based on their dominant P function. He viewed their dominant P function as what he called the "supreme motivating force" in their lives, not something limited to passive "perception," dependent on one of the rational "judging" functions to actually be turned into any kind of decision or action.

As for my perspective... not only do I think that it doesn't makes sense to limit your view of the S/N dimension to "perceiving" stuff, or the T/F dimension to "judging" stuff, but I also think that it doesn't really make sense to view human cognition as being divided into those two big categories ("perceiving" and "judging") in the first place.



Soul Kitchen said:


> Other than that, what would your criteria be for an accurate MBTI test? The ones I've taken usually quantify absurd things such as "I'm never late for work" for the P/J distinction or "I like to get along with others" for the T/F distinction, and seem to skewer questions to favour N or T answers.


The official MBTI (here's a copy) is really the only MBTI-related test that has a lot of psychometric support behind it, and FYI, not only don't its items skew people in the N or T directions, but according to stats posted by the official MBTI folks, (1) around 70% of people who take the official MBTI come out S, and (2) around 60% of the people who take the official MBTI come out F.

Some people scoff at various of the items on the official MBTI because they don't really understand what the point of the test is, and if you're interested, you can find a discussion of that issue in this post.



Soul Kitchen said:


> I'm aware of the correlation between the dichotomies of MBTI and the factors of the Big Five model. E/I goes without saying, N/S is openness, F/T is agreeableness, and J/P is conscientiousness. However, this all hangs on whether the Big Five model holds up as a model of evaluation, as it has been criticised for only measuring parts of the whole personality sphere and for questionable measurement depending on how questions are chosen and worded.


The fact that the substantially genetic clusters of personality characteristics that the Big Five and MBTI are tapping into only measure "parts of the whole personality sphere" is not a meaningful criticism. And in fact, it's as it should be. Nobody respectable has ever denied that environmental influences can come into play in a major way in impacting what kind of "personality" someone ends up having, and those are rightly treated as a separate area for psychologists to study. The MBTI and Big Five are focused on a limited set of relatively hardwired influences on personality — and even within the world of (mostly) non-environmental personality influences, respectable personality psychologists don't claim that the Big Five clusters are all-inclusive.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

@reckful

No. My second paragraph was straightforward and did not state anything similar to what you are stating.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

reckful said:


> I'm forever making reference to Myers' "lip service" to Jung, and the fact that a careful reading of Gifts Differing (together with the 1985 Manual) makes it clear that, to _some_ significant degree, Myers was characterizing the MBTI as more consistent with Jung's model than it really was. But I also think there's little question that Myers sincerely bought into certain aspects of Jung's perspective that she probably would have been wiser to leave behind — and one of those is the notion that S and N are our two modes of "perceiving," and T and F are our two modes of "judging."
> 
> That said, tho... anybody who reads official MBTI materials (and other respectable MBTI sources) on what S's and N's and T's and F's are like is likely to notice (if they focus on the issue) that the S/N stuff is hardly limited to _perceptions_, and the T/F stuff is hardly limited to _judgments_.
> 
> ...


For what it's worth, I have read Psychological Types myself instead of going by hearsay on internet forums. I had basically interpreted the label of "perceiving" as what Jung described as "irrational" and "judging" as what Jung had described as "rational", but I realise the analogy is imperfect for the reasons you describe. Sensing is obviously much more than just "using the five senses", and is part of why intuitives are treated as "sensors with an extra layer of intuition". Se as Jung described it is not pointing at an object and saying "that's an object". Si as Jung described it is not just remembering an object. However, functions as Jung conceived them don't exist in a vacuum, but instead work differently depending on the functions they're grouped with. Take this excerpt from the Introverted Intuitive type, for instance.



> Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a* certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this*, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive.


Perhaps this can be interpreted as engaging more with their extraverted rational function through Ni when they make perception a moral problem?

At any rate, I can understand why the Myers Briggs team would pay lip service to Jung's ideas so as to place their work within the canon of his ideas. I can also see how they would consider themselves to be realising Jung's theory through a possibly more empirical lens.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

DavidH said:


> @reckful
> 
> No. My second paragraph was straightforward and did not state anything similar to what you are stating.


Well, in that case I'd still appreciate some clarification. Your second paragraph said, "The originators of MBTI created minority types as minority types in an attempt to explain their own minority thoughts and behaviors." And your post went on to explain that these "minority types" were more appropriately viewed as people who have "maladaptive thoughts and behaviors" — either because of "genetic mutations," or by way of detrimental environmental influences like "abuse" and "neglect."

Which MBTI types are the "minority types" that you're referring to?


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

reckful said:


> Well, in that case I'd still appreciate some clarification. Your second paragraph said, "The originators of MBTI created minority types as minority types in an attempt to explain their own minority thoughts and behaviors." And your post went on to explain that these "minority types" were more appropriately viewed as people who have "maladaptive thoughts and behaviors" — either because of "genetic mutations," or by way of detrimental environmental influences like "abuse" and "neglect."
> 
> Which MBTI types are the "minority types" that you're referring to?


 @reckful

If you do not understand the difference between direction of differentiation and magnitude of differentiation, that is your problem. Not mine.

If you do not understand what magnitude of differentiation determines what level of maladaptive thoughts and behaviors an individual has, that is your problem. Not mine.

If you want to spend the rest of your days in circular logic to reject objective reality, that is your problem. Not mine.

I am not interested in your defensiveness.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

DavidH said:


> @reckful
> 
> If you do not understand the difference between direction of differentiation and magnitude of differentiation, that is your problem. Not mine.
> 
> ...


I'm not the guy being defensive here, amigo. And I'm not the guy refusing to clarify what he was talking about in his initial post.

Is it perhaps your position that the four MBTI dimensions — and presumably the Big Five dimensions as well, right? — all involve aspects of human variation where it's _optimal to be in the middle_ (i.e., "average," as you described it)?

Is what you're saying that the more introverted or extraverted somebody is — or the more S or N, or T or F, or J or P — the more _suboptimal_ their personality is, cuz _average_ is the place to be?

If that's your perspective, are you aware what a rare perspective that is for somebody to be expressing at MBTI forums? And if enlightening us along those lines is what you're here for, then why are you resisting spelling that perspective out more clearly than you did in your initial post?

Also, just FYI, and assuming that's your perspective, that perspective isn't just rare at MBTI forums. I doubt you can point us to a single respectable third-party source that shares it — and yet your initial post suggested that it wasn't some idiosyncratic view of your own, but rather where "modern psychology" (and "twin studies" and so on) had led us.

Setting aside the issue of whether there are various things that at least arguably fall under the "intelligence" umbrella that IQ tests don't measure, it's generally understood that IQ tests measure _some_ significant aspect (or aspects) of the human psyche that are potentially useful for a number of purposes, and where people's scores exhibit something like a normal distribution.

Is it your position that the best IQ to have is an average IQ? If so, can you offer us some further explanation for that highly unusual view? And if not, what is the source of your certainty that the _middle of the bell curve_ must be the _optimal_ place to be when it comes to the distributions of every one of the personality-related clusters that the MBTI and the Big Five are tapping into? Where did you get the idea that "modern psychology" is in a position to rule out the possibility that it might not be better to be some distance from the middle on one or more of the MBTI and Big Five dimensions, rather than average?

And to further complicate the situation, another explanation for type variation that's been offered is that it's advantageous, from the standpoint of the _gene pool_, for there to be significant _variation_ among the individual members of a species. Here's a 2011 N.Y. Times article by Susan Cain that talks about what are (at least arguably) introverted and extraverted fish, and here's part of it:

We even find "introverts" in the animal kingdom, where 15 percent to 20 percent of many species are watchful, slow-to-warm-up types who stick to the sidelines (sometimes called "sitters") while the other 80 percent are "rovers" who sally forth without paying much attention to their surroundings. Sitters and rovers favor different survival strategies, which could be summed up as the sitter’s "Look before you leap" versus the rover’s inclination to "Just do it!" ...

In an illustrative experiment, David Sloan Wilson, a Binghamton evolutionary biologist, dropped metal traps into a pond of pumpkinseed sunfish. The "rover" fish couldn’t help but investigate — and were immediately caught. But the "sitter" fish stayed back, making it impossible for Professor Wilson to capture them. Had Professor Wilson’s traps posed a real threat, only the sitters would have survived. ...

Next, Professor Wilson used fishing nets to catch both types of fish; when he carried them back to his lab, he noted that the rovers quickly acclimated to their new environment and started eating a full five days earlier than their sitter brethren. In this situation, the rovers were the likely survivors. "There is no single best ... [animal] personality," Professor Wilson concludes, ... "but rather a diversity of personalities maintained by natural selection."​
Buuut finally... if this post has pretty much been as beside the point as you say my first post was, because the "minority types" you were talking about in your initial post are _neither_ (1) the people on one side of each of the MBTI/Big Five dimensions, as I suggested you might have meant in my first reply to you, or (2) the people who are some significant _distance from the middle_ on one of those dimensions, as I'm now suggesting you might have meant, then again... who are you pointing to as the "minority types" who suffer from the "maladaptive thoughts and behaviors" you referred to in your first post?


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

My post was clear.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

DavidH said:


> My post was clear.


And assuming my most recent post appropriately characterizes your perspective (i.e., that significant distance from the middle on variable dimensions of personality is "maladaptive"), the reason you're not answering my follow-up questions is...?


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

reckful said:


> And assuming my most recent post appropriately characterizes your perspective (i.e., that significant distance from the middle on variable dimensions of personality is "maladaptive"), the reason you're not answering my follow-up questions is...?


My posts are clear. You simply repeatedly take the least reasonable approach to each. Reasonable.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

@reckful @DavidH And now you guys are arguing about arguing. Wonderful.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

xD


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> @reckful @DavidH And now you guys are arguing about arguing. Wonderful.


It doesn't bother me when people voice their opinions against reason. I just call a duck a duck.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

^ Speaking of ducks...



Soul Kitchen said:


> @reckful @DavidH And now you guys are arguing about arguing. Wonderful.


My take on the situation is that I'm arguing (about substance), and DavidH is — wait for it — _ducking._


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

@Soul Kitchen

Going back to my part in the topic.

Cognitive Function Theory divides human cognition into 8 parts, correct? It then places some of these parts as being highly prevalent in an individual and the other parts being low, correct? This is an imbalance between the parts of human cognition, correct? At what point does anything in society state that being mentally imbalanced is a "good" thing or something to be promoted?

It shows how individuals are imbalanced. It does not say how imbalanced these individuals are directly. No matter how much one tries to inflate the value of the perceived "positive" aspects of the imbalance, it does not change the reality that it is an imbalance and is inherently unhealthy.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

reckful said:


> ^ Speaking of ducks...
> 
> 
> 
> My take on the situation is that I'm arguing (about substance), and DavidH is — wait for it — _ducking._


There's nothing to duck, Reckful. You aren't reasonable. You will continue to take the least reasonable approach to continue to engage in your circular logic.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

DavidH said:


> @Soul Kitchen
> 
> Going back to my part in the topic.
> 
> ...


As noted in my last post, both Jung and various modern personality psychologists have suggested that being significantly to one side of the middle on an MBTI or Big Five dimension may correspond to being psychologically configured to follow a behavioral _niche strategy_ that is significantly different from the niche strategies pursued by the people who are significantly distant from the middle in the other direction. What makes you confident that that perspective is faulty? What sense does it make to just simplemindedly assume that the middle of each dimension _must_ an ideal "balance" point, and that "imbalance" in one direction or the other must be "inherently unhealthy" (as you put it)?

And if your answer is, because the part of the spectrum where evolution put the _most_ people _must_ be the _best_ place to be, why wouldn't that perspective suggest that it must be better to have an average IQ than a higher-than-average IQ?

In any case, opinions are opinions, and facts are facts, and whatever you think of IQ, if middle-must-be-best is really your perspective on the MBTI and Big Five dimensions, then as a _factual_ matter, that puts you in an idiosyncratic minority, rather than any kind of "modern psychology" majority. And that in turn means that it was _factually incorrect_ of you to assert, in your first post, that the MBTI was "pseudoscience" because of its failure to reflect what you mistakenly characterized as the _scientific_ perspective that significant deviations from the middle _must_ correspond to "maladaptive" shortcomings.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Reckful, you are unreasonable. When supplied with any option, you choose the most unreasonable one. The cases you attempt to assert are continuously in opposition to reason. You continuously mistake the opposite of the reasonable approach for the reasonable approach.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

@reckful DavidH was referring to the eight cognitive functions, and not necessarily the MBTI dichotomies that Myers Briggs had standardised. I would agree with him that such a stark mental preference for some processes over others could indicate a mental imbalance.

Of course there's a danger of falling into the balance fallacy here, but it's apples and oranges to compare IQ with preferences for T over F.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> @reckful DavidH was referring to the eight cognitive functions, and not necessarily the MBTI dichotomies that Myers Briggs had standardised. I would agree with him that such a stark mental preference for some processes over others could indicate a mental imbalance.
> 
> Of course there's a danger of falling into the balance fallacy here, but it's apples and oranges to compare IQ with preferences for T over F.


I wasn't going to touch the casual choice you mentioned in your last sentence. Hahahaha.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Soul Kitchen said:


> @reckful DavidH was referring to the eight cognitive functions, and not necessarily the MBTI dichotomies that Myers Briggs had standardised. I would agree with him that such a stark mental preference for some processes over others could indicate a mental imbalance.
> 
> Of course there's a danger of falling into the balance fallacy here, but it's apples and oranges to compare IQ with preferences for T over F.


I wasn't really comparing IQ with T/F. I was pointing to IQ as an example of why it doesn't make sense to simply _assume_ that, with respect to any aspect of human psychology where evolution has put the _most_ people in the middle, that must mean that the middle is the ideal place to be.

T/F _could_ be a dimension where, for one purpose or other, it may turn out that it's best to be at the mid-point, but that's an issue that very much remains to be settled, and where respectable theorists have suggested that the _variation itself_ may serve positive purposes. And it's certainly the case that, when it comes to being the _best_ at various kinds of specific human endeavors, having one or more particular preferences seems to offer advantages.

On the dichotomies-vs.-functions front, I doubt that particular distinction is relevant to DavidH's issue, since his position seems to be that, when it comes to pretty much _any_ aspect of human cognition, favoring one side at the expense of the other results in an inherently unhealthy "imbalance."

If his position is that it's fine to favor T over F or N over S, but not Ti over Fe or Ne over Si, he can obviously correct my misunderstanding.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Just as you've done with the premise of my original post, you start with your subjective impressions and attempt to align them to objectivity, rather than start with objectivity.

Your post begins with multiple conditions already in effect.

Why would you assume that high I.Q. is better? What conditions are you already assuming as true to even make the comparison of being better?


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

To provide my last post with some evidence about the cognitive functions, I am giving some sources from actual neuroscientists to prove that they are indeed not pseudoscience.

Source A: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701135820.htm

Source B (this is a video): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA

I can find some others if you'd like, this is just what I found and put in my notes when I was doing some research.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> To provide my last post with some evidence about the cognitive functions, I am giving some sources from actual neuroscientists to prove that they are indeed not pseudoscience.
> 
> Source A: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701135820.htm
> 
> ...


That proves that they can cornhole objective data into categories based upon their own feelings.

They've been doing this with objective data since inception.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

DavidH said:


> Why would you assume that high I.Q. is better?


Although I don't necessarily assume, with respect to every possible comparative criterion that anyone might ever be able to point to, that it is always and necessarily the case that it's better to have a 120 IQ (for example) than a 100 IQ (or an 80 IQ), I'd say it would be pretty hard to argue with the fact that, when it comes to a wide variety of things that human beings may be called upon to do and where the quality of their performance can be measured, having a 120 IQ has been found to confer substantial advantages over a 100 IQ (or an 80 IQ).

And by contrast, I can't recall ever reading about a study that indicated that, with respect to X, Y or Z kind of performance or achievement, it was advantageous to have a 100 IQ or an 80 IQ (as compared to 120). Can you?

And for that reason, I pointed to IQ as an example of why you shouldn't assume, just because some aspect of people's mental makeup exhibits something like a normal distribution (with the majority in the middle), it must follow from that that the middle represents some kind of _optimal_ state, or that a substantial distance from the middle must be "maladaptive."

And meanwhile, not to lose the forest for the trees...

When it comes to the real issue under discussion here — whether it makes sense to talk in terms of an _optimal position_ (as contrasted with "maladaptive" positions) on the dimensional spectrums that the MBTI and Big Five are tapping into — _I'm_ the agnostic, and _you're_ the dogmatist. I'm open to the idea that it may be better to be (at least somewhat) above-average in Conscientiousness than in-the-middle or below-average (and that seems to be the majority view in BigFiveLand), or best to be in the middle, or no better or worse, on balance, to be anywhere from moderately above-average to moderately below-average.

And I'm also open to the idea that the relationship between position on the spectrum and bestness may not be the same for every personality dimension.

You, on the other hand, came into the thread with the dogmatic assertion that the MBTI should be considered "pseudoscience" largely because, unlike "modern psychology," it has refused to recognize that deviations from the middle "balance" point on personality dimensions represent unhealthy "imbalances."

But that position isn't even where most of the Big Five folks are _leaning_ at this point, as I understand it — and in any case, nobody's really in a position today to respectably state that that issue has been resolved. And until the day comes when we know a lot more than we currently do about the nature of those personality dimensions — including how and why they evolved — the _scientific_ perspective is to say that we _don't know_ whether it's best to be in X position on any personality dimension, rather than making uninformed assertions about what "twin studies" and other evidence from the world of "modern psychology" have supposedly established.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Your arguments are still ridiculous.

Only an illogical person would argue that it is better to be unreasonable.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Here's a critique I've written of my original post using the knowledge I've gained through this discussion and a bit of research on the side.



Soul Kitchen said:


> *Is cognitive function theory all just a pseudoscience?*
> 
> Jung’s original conceptions of the dichotomies as cognitive functions may have been such were it not for his system being more of a hypothesis instead of a fully realised system. As a man of science, Jung would have favoured the further development and systemising of his ideas instead of a static adherence to them. So the question is more whether the attempts of Myers Briggs to systemise Jung’s functions into clean dichotomies as a testing instrument hold weight empirically.
> 
> ...


I don't have any bold, sweeping conclusions I can make entirely in favour of MBTI or entirely against Jung's cognitive functions, but I like to think that my perspective on those things has been broadened.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Soul Kitchen said:


> For starters, it seems a bit arbitrary to assign functions such dichotomies as dominant/inferior or auxiliary/tertiary. It's also arbitrary to assign them as polar opposites determined by introversion or extraversion. Why should an Fi type have Te as their opposite function, and why Te instead of Ti?
> *This is not a restriction of the system Jung laid down. All functions that are not dominant are undifferentiated, meaning not I or E. You are getting the original theory confused with MBTI.*
> 
> 
> ...


Answers to questions in quote...


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

tangosthenes said:


> This is not a restriction of the system Jung laid down. All functions that are not dominant are undifferentiated, meaning not I or E. You are getting the original theory confused with MBTI.


Although I have read Jung's writings about the functions in _Psychological Types_, I admit to having read them after I got into typology - thus explaining the mix up of the interpretations of functions.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

I envision Nardi doing a map of his brain activity, seeing a large area of activity, a secondary area of activity, circling them, saying "I'm _this_ type, so that could only mean," writing a function in both circles, and then saying he has proved cognitive functions.

Each system divides into so many parts. In MBTIs case, it divides into vague, non-distinct notions. Not only will they partially correlate to any similar system, be it big 5, ennea, astrology, tarot, etc. This also means that they are unfalsifiable. You can't disprove a notion. The notion will merely be changed and the change denied.


----------



## Asura (Apr 2, 2016)

I don't have the energy to debate with reckful's opinion on Briggs work--No offense to him, we have just danced that dance too many times before-- but if anyone has any questions about what is or is not published/official MBTI theory I can help( I am professionally certified by the MBTI foundation).

Two small lessons about cognitive functions
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/1048114-mbti-lessons-energy-preferences.html
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/1056410-mbti-lessons-j-p-dominant-aux.html

When it comes to whether or not cognitive functions are "Real" I will mainly mirror what others have said. They show in life but like anything in psychology it is hard to get on paper. 

CPP and the MBTI foundation have both stated having an interest in furthering their cognitive function research in the coming years.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

@Asura

It is still simply a chosen set of divisions with no distinction. Regardless of what objective research is done on human cognition and neuroscience, someone chooses to divide such into the framework of MBTI when the framework itself has no distinct definitions. How does one prove that one thing is equivalent to objective data, when the former is not defined? It is a game of Captain D***head (real game) where the rules which determine the a Captain are themselves not even defined. It is nothing but an emotion as an assertation.


----------



## Asura (Apr 2, 2016)

DavidH said:


> @Asura
> 
> It is still simply a chosen set of divisions with no distinction. Regardless of what objective research is done on human cognition and neuroscience, someone chooses to divide such into the framework of MBTI when the framework itself has no distinct definitions. How does one prove that one thing is equivalent to objective data, when the former is not defined? It is a game of Captain D***head (real game) where the rules which determine the a Captain are themselves not even defined. It is nothing but an emotion as an assertation.


Welcome to the world of psychology. The average human brain has 100 billion(Give or take a few billion) neurons. Each of those neurons forms its own unique pathways and connections with every other neuron in the brain, unique in every way to every single human on the planet, even monozygotic twins with the same DNA. That is a lot of possible ways for the brain to work.

Psychology will always be something we define within limitations we create. Think of psychological disorders such as personality disorders. The causes are usually not the same thing, there is no cut and dry way to say some one will suffer from a problem if a certain thing has happened in their life. Yet we have objective ways to measure the disorders. Does that mean everyone has to believe in them? No, but they are what a majority of people educated in the field believe to be correct. So, until a more accurate way to measure them comes along, that is how we define them.

The same applies to personality and typology. We define things based on how we understand them, just as you say. That does not mean they hold any less merit in the world though should enough people notice these understandings in play.

Maybe one day we will have a perfectly cut and dry understanding of personality. For now though, we work with what we have.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

@Asura

I am referring to criterion.

In the game I mentioned, there are clear rules. The rules set the conditions for who is able to set other rules. If the original rules were undefined, but the subsequent rule of assigning a rule maker continued to exist, there would be no game. It would be individuals creating their own games with no other players.

Psychology has criterion for disorders. These criterion are distinct. If an individual meets the criterion for multiple disorders, they have comorbidity.

There are no criterion in MBTI functions nor Jung's. There are only notions of criterion. An individual decides the criterion from these notions. An individual decides subsequent criterion from those criterion. You cannot prove that something exists when you do not declare what that something is.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

DavidH said:


> There are no criterion in MBTI functions nor Jung's. There are only notions of criterion. An individual decides the criterion from these notions. An individual decides subsequent criterion from those criterion. You cannot prove that something exists when you do not declare what that something is.


When you say, "There are no criterion in MBTI functions nor Jung's," are you distinguishing between the so-called "cognitive functions" and the MBTI _dichotomies_ (and Big Five factors), or are you purporting to lump the entire field of personality typology in the "no criterion" category?


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

@reckful

I personally find many of your posts here and other forums to be very informative and happen to share many of your thoughts on MBTI's cognitive functions. However, arguing with DavidH seems to be a colossal waste of time and his refusal to clarify an actual position says to me that he doesn't have anything of value to share or is just interested in trolling you...


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

DavidH said:


> That proves that they can cornhole objective data into categories based upon their own feelings.
> 
> They've been doing this with objective data since inception.


Lol what? What does any of this have to do with feelings? Did you even look at what I showed? If you want to get technical, objective data is all subjective, theoretically there is no such thing as objective data; facts are just personal beliefs with evidence. I'm not entirely sure if you were trying to say this is all subjective and not authentic, but if so please explain why you think that.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

MBTI is a mixture of cognitive psychology, behaviorism, and barnum effect. 

It's not really a pseudoscience since it has broad applications in the real world, from corporate interviewing process, to counseling pre-testing of clients. There's enough logic and consistency in it to allow it to be a useful tool, but enough inconsistencies to keep it from being used in hard psychology. 

As I always say, MBTI is but one of hundreds of tools to use to understand yourself, others, and the world.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shiver said:


> @reckful
> 
> I personally find many of your posts here and other forums to be very informative and happen to share many of your thoughts on MBTI's cognitive functions. However, arguing with DavidH seems to be a colossal waste of time and his refusal to clarify an actual position says to me that he doesn't have anything of value to share or is just interested in trolling you...


I appreciate your appreciation, and I hear what you're saying. In my defense, tho...

When I'm arguing with another poster in a forum thread, I'm often (in my mind) not so much arguing with that particular poster as I'm participating in a debate on a stage (if you will) in front of a small audience of thread readers, some of whom are not unlikely to be new to the forum and/or new to the MBTI — and many of whom presumably have some interest in hearing other people's opinions on the issue at hand, or they wouldn't have pulled up the thread in the first place.

It's _very_ often the case that I think there's little chance that I'll end up changing the mind of my debate "partner," but that's not a very significant factor to me, much of the time.

And for similar reasons, how _sincere_ my debate partner is won't necessarily make much difference to me. For what it's worth, though, in this particular case, my sense is that DavidH is sincere (for better or worse), rather than some kind of troll.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

reckful said:


> I appreciate your appreciation, and I hear what you're saying. In my defense, tho...
> 
> When I'm arguing with another poster in a forum thread, I'm often (in my mind) not so much arguing with that particular poster as I'm participating in a debate on a stage (if you will) in front of a small audience of thread readers, some of whom are not unlikely to be new to the forum and/or new to the MBTI — and many of whom presumably have some interest in hearing other people's opinions on the issue at hand, or they wouldn't have pulled up the thread in the first place.
> 
> ...





reckful said:


> When you say, "There are no criterion in MBTI functions nor Jung's," are you distinguishing between the so-called "cognitive functions" and the MBTI _dichotomies_ (and Big Five factors), or are you purporting to lump the entire field of personality typology in the "no criterion" category?


At this point, I wonder if you have language difficulties. You have on every post taken the least reasonable comprehension of what I have stated.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

MusiCago said:


> Lol what? What does any of this have to do with feelings? Did you even look at what I showed? If you want to get technical, objective data is all subjective, theoretically there is no such thing as objective data; facts are just personal beliefs with evidence. I'm not entirely sure if you were trying to say this is all subjective and not authentic, but if so please explain why you think that.


They don't want to accept existing, normal answers, so they attempt to create their own, come full circle back to the existing, normal answers, then state that they have achieved something? Spinning around in circles is something young children do. Eventually they gain confidence in their ability to choose their own direction, by understanding that their parents do the same. It's part of the empathy necessary for normal human interaction.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

MusiCago said:


> Lol what? What does any of this have to do with feelings? Did you even look at what I showed? If you want to get technical, *objective data is all subjective*, theoretically there is no such thing as objective data; facts are just personal beliefs with evidence. I'm not entirely sure if you were trying to say this is all subjective and not authentic, but if so please explain why you think that.


Incorrect; me stating that this planet has a Moon is objective data, me stating that I am using a PC to type this is objective data, me stating that my hair colour is Blond is objective data.
These are all objective data that can be gathered through our senses, and is measurable and observable through observation, physical examination, and laboratory and diagnostic testing.

However, what you are talking about is; collective subjectivity that some people say is objective.
To which there is two sides to it;
- Collective subjectivity ought to be objective therefore it is objective.
- This objectivity always refers back to someone's subjectivity therefore it is still subjective.

An example of this is from someone's thread "_Is Art objective or subjective?_" in which these same arguments and principles apply.

Now to be frank, I have no idea what this conversation is about, but;
I came,
I saw,
I corrected.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

narcissistic said:


> Incorrect; me stating that this planet has a Moon is objective data, me stating that I am using a PC to type this is objective data, me stating that my hair colour is Blond is objective data.
> These are all objective data that can be gathered through our senses, and is measurable and observable through observation, physical examination, and laboratory and diagnostic testing.
> 
> However, what you are talking about is; collective subjectivity that some people say is objective.
> ...


Ignoring objectivity, but still feeling objectivity instinctually, so dividing root subjectivity into objectivity and subjectivity.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

DavidH said:


> Ignoring objectivity, but still feeling objectivity instinctually, so dividing root subjectivity into objectivity and subjectivity.


Incoherent, too many buzzwords, try again.


----------

