Cognition outside of the 8 cognitive functions?

[Artsu Tharaz]

Since being able to identify which cognitive function I am using at a given time, I have been quite shocked to find out that, pretty much all the time, I am using one of the 8 functions. This leads me to ask the question:

What kinds of cognition can not be put under the banner of one of the 8 cognitive functions?

Yes there are many aspects of cognition that works outside of specific functions, for example a single train of thought moves through, say, 4 cognitive functions, or all 8, and this train of thought has its own characterisation, and there is for example, the observing mind which is always there - but nonetheless, while this train of thought is operating, it is at any time implementing a given cognitive function.

Even during meditation, the functions are cycling, but they are in a more subdued form.

What cannot be characterised by a cognitive function? Any known answers/speculations?

 

[Black Rose]

I would say that functions are consistent and not really 8 cycles. The reason is: My sister is ESFP and so is Pinkiepie and I don't think she has all 8 functions but only the four she has. It is very hard to go opposite directions in you cognitive style. Pinkie Pie is Se and Applejack is Si (ESTJ). It would be very hard for Pinkie Pie to be like Apple Jack.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I would say that functions are consistent and not really 8 cycles. The reason is: My sister is ESFP and so is Pinkiepie and I don't think she has all 8 functions but only the four she has. It is very hard to go opposite directions in you cognitive style. Pinkie Pie is Se and Applejack is Si (ESTJ). It would be very hard for Pinkie Pie to be like Apple Jack.

Hmm, yes there is debate about whether we consciously use 4 or all 8 functions, although I believe it to be all 8, however we usually use the function order associated with our primary type.

What I say about using all 8 functions doesn't mean anyone can be like anyone. If we were to suppose that people of the same type are basically similar (whether or not this is the case), then they differ from people of a different type because it is not just which function it is used, but where it rests in a hierarchy of 4/8 functions - so Se inferior in INFJ will be experienced very differently to Se dominant in an ESFP, but there will be undeniable similarities between the two.

--

Relating more to the original topic... I believe there might be some kind of thought style associated with psychosis that transcends the 8 functions, but I haven't been able to locate it thus far.

I guess what would be important, is being able to know that I have found something outside of the 8 functions when I do find it. How would we know if we weren't using a cognitive function?

 

[Black Rose]

I guess what would be important, is being able to know that I have found something outside of the 8 functions when I do find it. How would we know if we weren't using a cognitive function?

If I and E are always in and out then I don't think you can have any mental activity that is not going in and out. Where would it go if not in or out? Psychosis makes you a vegetable.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

If I and E are always in and out then I don't think you can have any mental activity that is not going in and out. Where would it go if not in or out? Psychosis makes you a vegetable.

We may have different views on what psychosis is. Actually, when I speak to my case worker it is as if we mean completely unrelated things by the term.

That's a good way to look at it - if I and E represent 2 perspectives where either one must be applicable, and we could say the 4 base functions represent another such division, then we could say that all cognition necessarily rests under one of the 2x4=8; however, I don't believe that cognition is necessarily discretely characterisable in such a fashion, even if much of the time it is able to; I have heard in several places mentioned about a "transcendent" function, a 9th, which goes beyond any dichotomies.

 

[Black Rose]

I have heard in several places mentioned about a "transcendent" function, a 9th, which goes beyond any dichotomies.

How would you distinguish it from the other 8? Have you encountered people with it?

 

[QuickTwist]

There are no CF that have to do with instinct or emotion. The closest it gets to that is Ni for instinct and Fi for emotion, but these are not synonymous with the criteria. To compound this error, instinct and emotion make up a gigantic portion of our personality. How someone reacts to an emergency or critical event either through instinct or emotionally is not given. Ni deals with how deep you consider something and Fi deals with what you value, but in a crisis situation, people either jump into action to help or to run. This is a blind spot of MBTI/Jungian and shows that the people behind the ideas of this system are grossly out of touch with our survival instincts of automatic responses and how emotions play a role in who we are.

In short, Typology is all armchair philosophy with little actual psychological conclusions when it really matters.

 

[Black Rose]

There are no CF that have to do with instinct or emotion. The closest it gets to that is Ni for instinct and Fi for emotion, but these are not synonymous with the criteria. To compound this error, instinct and emotion make up a gigantic portion of our personality. How someone reacts to an emergency or critical event either through instinct or emotionally is not given. Ni deals with how deep you consider something and Fi deals with what you value, but in a crisis situation, people either jump into action to help or to run. This is a blind spot of MBTI/Jungian and shows that the people behind the ideas of this system are grossly out of touch with our survival instincts of automatic responses and how emotions play a role in who we are.

In short, Typology is all armchair philosophy with little actual psychological conclusions when it really matters.

I think that would be covered by the S function.
Jung said that introverted S sees the world as a primitive animal would.
Extroverted S is hyper-awareness that animals seem to have.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

How would you distinguish it from the other 8? Have you encountered people with it?

I don't know enough about it, to me it's so far just a hypothetical.

There are no CF that have to do with instinct or emotion. The closest it gets to that is Ni for instinct and Fi for emotion, but these are not synonymous with the criteria. To compound this error, instinct and emotion make up a gigantic portion of our personality. How someone reacts to an emergency or critical event either through instinct or emotionally is not given. Ni deals with how deep you consider something and Fi deals with what you value, but in a crisis situation, people either jump into action to help or to run. This is a blind spot of MBTI/Jungian and shows that the people behind the ideas of this system are grossly out of touch with our survival instincts of automatic responses and how emotions play a role in who we are.

In short, Typology is all armchair philosophy with little actual psychological conclusions when it really matters.

Crisis situations are associated, by Nardi, with extroverted sensing.

Now, I'm not saying that there's not all kinds of stuff that can't be categorised under a function, but what I mean is:

at any given time are we using cognition of a particular cognitive function, or are there times when we are not using any of them?

When I observe my mind working, I can generally place my cognition under a function, and when I'm not sure which one it is, this is just a weakness in my ability to identify it. I don't know how to be sure if I am just having trouble identifying which function I am using, or if there really are times when I break out of the cycle.

But what I am fairly sure of, is that to not be using any of the functions... would not feel normal, it should be clear that something strange is going on.

 

[QuickTwist]

There is nothing that really talks about whether someone will jump into action to face the danger to help in a crisis situation or whether they will run. There would have to be a method to describe how Se functions in everyone to determine what they will do in a crisis situation. The difficulty here is that you would have to have a 100% correct correlation rate for it to mean anything, otherwise it gets extremely ambiguous and frankly, I can't take that blind leap of faith that it would be true that depending on the type determines how someone operates in a crisis situation.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

There is nothing that really talks about whether someone will jump into action to face the danger to help in a crisis situation or whether they will run. There would have to be a method to describe how Se functions in everyone to determine what they will do in a crisis situation. The difficulty here is that you would have to have a 100% correct correlation rate for it to mean anything, otherwise it gets extremely ambiguous and frankly, I can't take that blind leap of faith that it would be true that depending on the type determines how someone operates in a crisis situation.

Well it was never meant to be a 100% behavioural predictor, but that's not the point of the thread.

 

[QuickTwist]

Well it was never meant to be a 100% behavioural predictor, but that's not the point of the thread.

Pretty sure I am staying on topic with the OP:

What kinds of cognition can not be put under the banner of one of the 8 cognitive functions?

What cannot be characterised by a cognitive function? Any known answers/speculations?

 

[Pizzabeak]

All cognition are functions but some are basic human behaviors and patterns that occur rhythmically and can be adapted. The functions can appear the same through similar or the same processes but because of the person, it's the function that it is. You could have a choice to use say Ti in multiple ways but eventually it becomes Fi, or used to satisfy other S or perceptual changes. You could get bored and use other functions but it's still your functions stack, and not say ESTP mode or using a function that's typically not in the first four of your type's stack, or using inferior ones more than dominant ones. It's not that big of a deal but can be described as normal for certain people going through certain stages, may, or just everyday stuff.

The reality is, a real person of a type always uses the exact functions that are defined. This means you might not be the type that you are because of function fluctuations. It should be easy to identify which function is in use during activities but ideally you'd want to use it all the time or as much as possible. If that doesn't happen there could be various things wrong with what the type could be. In that way all the functions are more realistically used but in various strengths that are healthy or not for the individual.

It's unfortunate this has to be the case. But I can save this argument by giving an example, the INTP's stack is Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi. It's the shadow stack which is different from the normal one. The extraverted pattern continues, but it's just reverse of what the normal one is although not in the same way ESFJ is considered the reverse. The functions are connected because there would be an internal one and an external one, used to whatever degree based on the individual. Jung said the first function would really be the only one that's being used, but since it can be expressed as "Fe", they are all connected and the same thing so you're really using whichever one to a degree based off the situation. However, it's ideal to just use whichever one is best for you. That couldn't be hard to tell but there might be other functions that are tempting to use.

This is just a rudimentary explanation, nothing too deep or even related to what the thread is about. During the times you aren't using them it's about the bigger picture and the overall situation. For example I didn't really use any functions typing this. And I'm not using any right now. It's not 100% armchair philosophy but most of philosophy is useless to discuss except for maybe one or two ideas. Fi is relating to yourself and others. Fe is trying to relate to others. That therein affects how others see his self. Ti is just trying to solve a puzzle. It's way different from Fe, because it can't rely on others that much in others for its satisfaction. It happens to be an internal process and thinking so it is rarely expressed for others except when used by another function. But Te is easily relatable to Fi in how others are affected in the outside world. One can easily just get a job and it's said to be "Te". It's world building and other people are involved. But again there are different strengths so it's all differentiated in the mind.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

For example I didn't really use any functions typing this. And I'm not using any right now

That's where you're wrong - unless you have some out of this world mind that doesn't operate on the functions like everyone else does, you were using cognitive functions the entire time. I didn't parse the text for which ones you were expressing, but I don't need to to know that you were.

Spoiler

note: I could have been a dick and just said "yeah, I can tell"

 

[AndyC]

I'm not ready to directly contrubute to this discussion but I would argue there is no F and T. Empathy actually involves removing yourself from your own emotions to analyse others, that's why smarter people normally have a greater EQ. The smartest Fs I know are incredible at switching between T and F depending on the task. People with a low understanding of their own emotions will tend to stay at T. People with a great connection to their feelings but lack the ability to separate themselves from them will tend to stay at F. People with a greater emotional awareness, but can separate themselves from such are intelligent, i.e. high EQ, high IQ. You can have a high IQ but low EQ following a poor relation to emotions. So people who may think they are a T, could have the potential to be an F. Something important to remember is that some individuals may not have the exposure to situations which bring about the need for rationalisation, these people as Fs may in fact be intelligent enough to switch to T. This is a scenario in which 'personas' aren't fully under control, and if you realise that some highly intelligent people can experience this, it further ambiguates the disposition of F and T in highly intelligent people.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I'm not ready to directly contrubute to this discussion but I would argue there is no F and T. Empathy actually involves removing yourself from your own emotions to analyse others, that's why smarter people normally have a greater EQ. The smartest Fs I know are incredible at switching between T and F depending on the task. People with a low understanding of their own emotions will tend to stay at T. People with a great connection to their feelings but lack the ability to separate themselves from them will tend to stay at F. People with a greater emotional awareness, but can separate themselves from such are intelligent, i.e. high EQ, high IQ. You can have a high IQ but low EQ following a poor relation to emotions. So people who may think they are a T, could have the potential to be an F. Something important to remember is that some individuals may not have the exposure to situations which bring about the need for rationalisation, these people as Fs may in fact be intelligent enough to switch to T. This is a scenario in which 'personas' aren't fully under control, and if you realise that some highly intelligent people can experience this, it further ambiguates the disposition of F and T in highly intelligent people.

I think you're viewing F and T in terms which aren't inherently related to the function themselves. It can be observed that the 8 functions really operate, in the order that is usually described. F and T are reasoning processes - the 4 judgement functions are divided by personal/impersonal and internal/external focus.

 

[AndyC]

Let function use follow F and T personas