Cognitive Functions 100: Basic Functionality Revised

[Adymus]

On my own experiments, the successful conversations I've made were mainly from my usage of (TiNe). No personal/social "Fe" connections were developed but we are talking about being "comfortable with the inferior function aside from the practice of the function".

Fe is a very "disgusting" function. It should then be paired with a more(most) comfortable function...but I have never tried it. I've done (SiFe) but my voice started to shake and clearly it wasn't effective. "On the spot" is my only thought for now.

That conversation was your use of Fe. We never really only use just two functions, if we only used two functions we wouldn't be able to communicate at all. You don't have to actually connect with a person on a sheer emotional level to use Fe. You are not an ENFJ, pure emotional connections is not your thing, which is why when you do make connections with people it is on the terms of your Ti-Ne.

It is intellectual, but it is indeed an Fe connection.

 

[Words]

That conversation was your use of Fe. We never really only use just two functions, if we only used two functions we wouldn't be able to communicate at all. You don't have to actually connect with a person on a sheer emotional level to use Fe. You are not an ENFJ, pure emotional connections is not your thing, which is why when you do make connections with people it is on the terms of your Ti-Ne.

It is intellectual, but it is indeed an Fe connection.

I see. Then I am very good at Fe.

 

[Adymus]

I see. Then I am very good at Fe.

Well, the ability to communicate and make a connection of some kind doesn't exactly make you "very good" at Fe, but hey, it ain't bad.

 

[Words]

Well, the ability to communicate and make a connection of some kind doesn't exactly make you "very good" at Fe, but hey, it ain't bad.

What's your definition of "very good" Fe? INTPwise.

Words. How is Fe "disgusting"?

I've thought of it mainly as a the continuous repetition of touch without heavy conversation and words that are simply "Oh, You are so nice" blah blah....

That was my perception of sole/heavy Fe.

 

[Adymus]

What's your definition of "very good" Fe? INTPwise.

It is not really something I feel like I could explain, other than saying having a much higher level of control and conscious understanding of how it is effecting you and other people when it is. Being able to articulate smoothly, being able to express yourself well, being able to read into people's cues and gestures and get a reliable idea of how they are feeling, being able to properly filter yourself and refine your Ti to not be so cold and tactless, to be more inviting, to have a conscious understanding of exactly how something you do will be received by others, etc.

 

[Words]

It is not really something I feel like I could explain, other than saying having a much higher level of control and conscious understanding of how it is effecting you and other people when it is. Being able to articulate smoothly, being able to express yourself well, being able to read into people's cues and gestures and get a reliable idea of how they are feeling, being able to properly filter yourself and refine your Ti to not be so cold and tactless, to be more inviting, to have a conscious understanding of exactly how something you do will be received by others, etc.

But that depends on whether you want to be well-received or not. What if you don't? Will that mean you have less developed Fe?

If you were skillful in making people angry, will that mean you have developed Fe?

Is Fe a permanent positive aligned function?

 

[Adymus]

But that depends on whether you want to be well-received or not. What if you don't? Will that mean you have less developed Fe?

If you were skillful in making people angry, will that mean you have developed Fe?

Is Fe a permanent positive aligned function?

Not permanently necessarily, but when healthy it is.

Any Ti dom can be a dick, but it takes a well developed one to be harmonious.

 

[Maverick]

Being uncomfortable using a lower function does not simply come from the fact that it is more draining. It comes from our sensitivity to knowing that it is our least developed, and thus having less confidence in functions. It ends up being a vicious circle, we don't work to develop these functions because we are not confident in them, and we are not confident in using them because we have not developed them enough.

An INTP who is comfortable using a lower function is one who has had experience in their life using and succeeding with said lower function. Thus giving them more confidence, and a stronger use in said lower function.

Now I get it. thanks for detailing.

 

[Maverick]

according to my basic understanding of MBTI, the upper four CFs are consciously used and other four unconsciously used "what's known as shadow" which is one of the archetypes of the unconscious mind.

sometimes I think of Ni and Fi as mere unconscious functions, and wonder how could someone use them consciously.
I wish I could ask someone who uses these functions consciously to help me get insight. But someone must be able to use Ti consciously and as dominant or auxiliary function to figure this out for himself.
(Also I think of Se as more inclined to function consciously)

This drives me crazy and I might end up thinking if I am (supposedly INTP), then I must be considering them that way.
But this itself raises the level of craziness a little bit by begging the question "Is a human brain capable of figuring itself?".

To add more craziness, I'm thinking (while writing this) may be I'm using Ni right now consciously and I can type myself INFJ. you know, this can make sense 'cause Fe then will be obscuring.

 

[BigApplePi]

Words. How is Fe "disgusting"?

Hello words. I, for one, am not skilled at Fe. To me Fe covers a very broad scope. Depends on whom one is talking to, how well one knows them and how well one has "gotten along" with them in the past.

When it comes to speaking with a new or unknown person, everything must be new including Fe. I'm going to assume one can't tell ahead of time how things would turn out.

My experience reading what you inquire about are usually issues of strong interest. In the case where you said, "Fe is a very 'disgusting' function" I didn't think you meant that as a formal fact. It appeared to me more an emotional statement. I was interested though in the formal aspect, not personal, but what there would be about Fe that would actually be abstracted as disgusting. At the same time I didn't want to embarrass you about something you felt. I didn't now how to express my curiosity so I asked you a direct question and kept it short.

Reading ahead:

I've thought of it mainly as a the continuous repetition of touch without heavy conversation and words that are simply "Oh, You are so nice" blah blah.... That was my perception of sole/heavy Fe.

Small talk?

 

[Adymus]

according to my basic understanding of MBTI, the upper four CFs are consciously used and other four unconsciously used "what's known as shadow" which is one of the archetypes of the unconscious mind.

sometimes I think of Ni and Fi as mere unconscious functions, and wonder how could someone use them consciously.
I wish I could ask someone who uses these functions consciously to help me get insight. But someone must be able to use Ti consciously and as dominant or auxiliary function to figure this out for himself.
(Also I think of Se as more inclined to function consciously)

This drives me crazy and I might end up thinking if I am (supposedly INTP), then I must be considering them that way.
But this itself raises the level of craziness a little bit by begging the question "Is a human brain capable of figuring itself?".

To add more craziness, I'm thinking (while writing this) may be I'm using Ni right now consciously and I can type myself INFJ. you know, this can make sense 'cause Fe then will be obscuring.

The top four functions are conscious, the bottom four are unconscious. In MBTI theory the bottom four are commonly known as "Shadow functions" but they actually have nothing to do with the Jungian archetype shadow.* The shadow has mainly to do with your inferior function and your sensitivity to it. It is the part of you, that you do not want to identify with, or see yourself as.

Sidebar: This does not necessarily mean your shadow = ESFJ, even though that is an aspect of it.

Ni and Fi are both conscious functions, an both of them can consciously activate them for their respective purposes. Ni works very similarly to Si, accessed when comparing something to their conceptual framework of how the world works (A worldview), and Fi is activated when weighing something on it's agreeable or disagreeableness based on the person's personal moral compass, it is very much like Ti, only with personal values instead of personal logic.



*Yes, I am aware that John Beebe claims the opposite of this, he was wrong.

 

[Maverick]

The top four functions are conscious, the bottom four are unconscious. In MBTI theory the bottom four are commonly known as "Shadow functions" but they actually have nothing to do with the Jungian archetype shadow.* The shadow has mainly to do with your inferior function and your sensitivity to it. It is the part of you, that you do not want to identify with, or see yourself as.

Adymus, would you please write something about shadow functions and jungian shadow? I know you're busy but try some short notes. please

Sidebar: This does not necessarily mean your shadow = ESFJ, even though that is an aspect of it.

wouldn't be ENTJ? (Te,Ni,Se,Fi)

Ni and Fi are both conscious functions, an both of them can consciously activate them for their respective purposes. Ni works very similarly to Si, accessed when comparing something to their conceptual framework of how the world works (A worldview), and Fi is activated when weighing something on it's agreeable or disagreeableness based on the person's personal moral compass, it is very much like Ti, only with personal values instead of personal logic.

Ok, what about using Se unconsciously? on the other type of perceiving Ne has something to do with hunches, this can be understood.

from wikipedia: (researchers at Columbia University Medical Center have found that fleeting images of fearful faces—images that appear and disappear so quickly that they escape conscious awareness—produce unconscious anxiety that can be detected in the brain with the latest neuroimaging machines.)

is this something to do with using Se as one of the bottom functions?

(*Yes, I am aware that John Beebe claims the opposite of this, he was wrong.)

(about the above line), were you using Ne or Ni?, sorry to ask such a question, but still can't figure it out properly.

 

[Adymus]

Adymus, would you please write something about shadow functions and jungian shadow? I know you're busy but try some short notes. please

Sure.

Shadow functions (Which will here on after no longer by referred to as "shadow functions" because I hate how misleading that name is...) are the bottom functions on your cognitive function hierarchy. We do not have conscious control over any of these functions, and thus do not actually "use" them.
The way we use our cognitive functions is for the purpose of addressing our four priorities (Which I talk about more in the OP):
Dynamics Mover: Fe and Te
Worldview: Si and Ni
Stimulus Reader: Ne and Se
Compass: Ti and Fi

Let's take an INTP for example:

We start with Ti, this gives us three things; A way to engage our inner world, a way to make decisions based on personal criteria (Compass), and a way to make logic based decisions (Thinking).
Next we have Ne which gives us a way to engage the outer world, a way to take in objective information as it is happening (Stimulus), and a way to take in pattern based information (intuition).
Si gives us another way to engage our inner world, it gives us information based on a personal and subjective point of view (worldview), and allows to take in literal and concrete based information (Sensing).
And last we have Fe, which gives us another way to engage the external world, a way to move, manipulate, and interpret an external dynamic (Dynamics), and a way to make values based decisions (Feeling.)

Everything I named is all that I need to have a fully functioning and adaptable conscious mind. So what happened to the other four cognitive functions, you ask?

Within each priority are two cognitive functions, one of these functions cannot exist without the other. For example, external information that occurs in the present is both Se and Ne, the literal details and the patterns within it. However, when an Ne user takes in information, our conscious mind is ignoring the Se and only taking in the Ne. The Se is there, but our mind is registering only Ne. Which is why an Ne user will pick up on patterns that an Se user will not, and an Se user will notice details that an Ne user would not.

All cognitive functions are compositional in this sense, meaning There is a little bit of unconscious Fi in Ti, and there is a little bit of unconscious Si in Ni, etc.

The Bottom four functions also make up what is know as our "Other" which is all that is not our conscious self. The other is actually analogous to the Jungian Anima/animus, in that it is the complementary and completed side of ourselves. The other has the strengths that we are weak in, and the weaknesses that we are strong in. Because of the fact that my dynamics mover, Fe, takes up the least space in my conscious mind, that means that Te will take up the most space in my other's conscious mind, then Ni, then Se, and then Fi since Ti is my strongest function.

The Jungian Shadow archetype is all that is a part of us that we do not want to be. This mainly correlates to our inferior function, because our conscious understanding of our identity is mainly found in our dominant function; and the inferior is the most opposite of our dominant function. So you could say that the shadow of an INTP is an ESFJ, because they use the same functions as we do, in a way that is the opposite of how we use them. However, that is not necessarily the only thing the shadow can be. As you grow you become more and more conscious of your top four functions, and all of them become closer to your identity, so as your conscious self shifts and takes new forms, so does your shadow and even your other. So while your shadow will still have something do with your sensitivity to your Inferior, it may not be your opposite type necessarily. I'll give you an example using myself:
There is a certain kind of mentality that I find myself getting really upset over. It is the mentality of being 100% coldly logical, thinking only about what is good for you, and neglecting the feelings of every one else. This is actually very much a Ti mentality, or rather, an extreme Ti mentality. This is a side of me that I fight, and try really hard not to fall into, it is a part of my shadow. And when I see this in people, I see that side of myself in them that I hate, and project my shadow onto them. Because that "evil" INTP is a strong part of what I don't want to be.

wouldn't be ENTJ? (Te,Ni,Se,Fi)

Nope, the ENTJ is actually inspiring to us, because it is strong in the priorities we are weakest, and it approaches these priorities in a way that is interesting and inspiring to us (Te and Ni... as opposed to Fe and Si)

Ok, what about using Se unconsciously? on the other type of perceiving Ne has something to do with hunches, this can be understood.

We technically are, as I already addressed in the example above.

from wikipedia: (researchers at Columbia University Medical Center have found that fleeting images of fearful faces—images that appear and disappear so quickly that they escape conscious awareness—produce unconscious anxiety that can be detected in the brain with the latest neuroimaging machines.)

is this something to do with using Se as one of the bottom functions?

I highly doubt it.

(about the above line), were you using Ne or Ni?, sorry to ask such a question, but still can't figure it out properly.

Nope, I'm an INTP so I don't use Ni. That is Si you are seeing, my own personal worldview.

 

[ckm]

Adymus,

Interesting post. I had assumed that the shadow is born exclusively from the inferior function, but what you say makes sense because I relate to the rejection of pure Ti. However, why do you think these aversions/aspects of the shadow develop? In my case, I think the attitude I have towards cold logic is the result of my mother and her influence opun me since I was small (she's inferior Te, I think). If this is the result of other people's opinions, isn't it an Fe issue after all? I'm interested in how the shadow develops if it's not related to the inferior function.

 

[Adymus]

Adymus,

Interesting post. I had assumed that the shadow is born exclusively from the inferior function, but what you say makes sense because I relate to the rejection of pure Ti. However, why do you think these aversions/aspects of the shadow develop? In my case, I think the attitude I have towards cold logic is the result of my mother and her influence opun me since I was small (she's inferior Te, I think). If this is the result of other people's opinions, isn't it an Fe issue after all? I'm interested in how the shadow develops if it's not related to the inferior function.

It actually is an issue of Fe, because it comes from our sensitivity to Fe, and our awareness of how much we tend to neglect it. This neglect of Fe is a something we perceive as a weakness of our's that we have worked to correct, which is why it is sometimes projected on to other people when we see this in them.

The same is seen in ESFJs who project their own fear of their incompetence onto other people by criticizing their intelligence or level of competence.

 

[ckm]

In that case, would it be reasonable to say that the shadow is "born" from the inferior function, but doesn't necessarily manifest as it?

Another example from my experience is my strong dislike for some people who flaunt Se (like rough and tumble at school), which, I think, isn't actually an issue with Se - rather, I project Fe onto them (so my interpretation of their behaviour is that they're doing this because they want to uphold the image they've built for themselves).

 

[Adymus]

In that case, would it be reasonable to say that the shadow is "born" from the inferior function, but doesn't necessarily manifest as it?

Another example from my experience is my strong dislike for some people who flaunt Se (like rough and tumble at school), which, I think, isn't actually an issue with Se - rather, I project Fe onto them (so my interpretation of their behaviour is that they're doing this because they want to uphold the image they've built for themselves).

Yes, that is a good way of putting it.

 

[DylanHead]

If introverts are typically subjective, than how come Ti is so objective?

 

[Adymus]

If introverts are typically subjective, than how come Ti is so objective?

It isn't... at all.

Ti is our personal concept of logic, there is nothing objective about it.

 

[DylanHead]

Yet Ti types are objective?

 

[Adymus]

Yet Ti types are objective?

Okay we are talking about two different definitions of objective.

When I say Objective, I am not defining it as: the ability to perceive or describe something without being influenced by personal emotions or prejudices.

I mean Objective as in universal, or: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Ti is not meant to be used by anyone else but us, it cannot be seen by anyone else but us, our Ti is our own and know one elses. Ti is our personal way of making sense of the world, and there are no two Ti's that are alike, they are all subjective to the Ti user.


PS: If you think still think Ti is objective, I invite you to check out what an ESFJ's Ti is like sometime.

 

[BigApplePi]

All cognitive functions are compositional in this sense, meaning There is a little bit of unconscious Fi in Ti, and there is a little bit of unconscious Si in Ni, etc.

Just to see if I understand, for an INTP, could we say a reflection that our thought has value be Fe because such a reflection is objectified?

And noticing that an intuition has a specific content be Si because the noticing is subjective?

 

[Maverick]

insightful post, Adymus

...As you grow you become more and more conscious of your top four functions, and all of them become closer to your identity, so as your conscious self shifts and takes new forms, so does your shadow and even your other. So while your shadow will still have something do with your sensitivity to your Inferior, it may not be your opposite type necessarily...

Do you mean by "all of them become closer to your identity" that you develop all of them and become skillful using them?
if it's true, then (let's take it to the extremity) there will be no or negligible differences between these types:
INTP
ENTP
ESFJ
ISFP


regarding the shadow, it seems the only thing that can affect its 'current form' is the limits of imagination and creativity to explain or reconcile the streak someone abhors in other types to his inferior function.!

 

[Adymus]

insightful post, Adymus



Do you mean by "all of them become closer to your identity" that you develop all of them and become skillful using them?
if it's true, then (let's take it to the extremity) there will be no or negligible differences between these types:
INTP
ENTP
ESFJ
ISFP


regarding the shadow, it seems the only thing that can affect its 'current form' is the limits of imagination and creativity to explain or reconcile the streak someone abhors in other types to his inferior function.!

To some degree this is true, however there will always be certain limitations to how you are using them, as well as different levels of hierarchy.

Your dominant function will always be the closest to your identity, and your inferior function will always be the farthest. It is also crucial to note that you are being stimulated by using your Dominant function, and using it is when people feel the most heroic. That is a relationship you can have with anything but your dominant function. All other functions are essentially working for your dominant function.

The process of becoming more aware of our lower cognitive functions is what brings them closer to our identity. They were already a part of us, but the lower they are, the more subconscious they are used. By becoming more conscious of these functions, you are acknowledging what was already there, and indeed this is also how one can begin to acquire a more skillful use of them.
However, the INTP, ENTP, ESFJ, and ISFJ are all still 4 very different creatures that all have different priorities. When very well developed, you might see a little be of crossover, but you won't see an INTP turning into an ESFJ for instance.

 

[BigApplePi]

but you won't see an INTP turning into an ESFJ for instance.

I have already become an ESFJ with regard to my pets. Does that mean I have to abandon delusions of being an INTP or am I otherwise deluded?

 

[Words]

Hello words. I, for one, am not skilled at Fe. To me Fe covers a very broad scope. Depends on whom one is talking to, how well one knows them and how well one has "gotten along" with them in the past.

When it comes to speaking with a new or unknown person, everything must be new including Fe. I'm going to assume one can't tell ahead of time how things would turn out.

My experience reading what you inquire about are usually issues of strong interest. In the case where you said, "Fe is a very 'disgusting' function" I didn't think you meant that as a formal fact. It appeared to me more an emotional statement. I was interested though in the formal aspect, not personal, but what there would be about Fe that would actually be abstracted as disgusting. At the same time I didn't want to embarrass you about something you felt. I didn't now how to express my curiosity so I asked you a direct question and kept it short.

I apologize, I didn't notice this reply 'til now.

I agree that the quality of a person's usage of "Fe" can rely on who they're talking to and what they're talking about. But I think of this thing as a separate factor outside of Fe and yet connected to it. I think of Fe as the "base" of articulation, as Adymus suggested, and that *familiarity* is only an addition to this base. If I "placed" my Fe in a familiar environment, it would function more appealingly. If I "placed" my Fe in a less familiar environment, it would not. However, if I "placed" my "developed" Fe in the less familiar environment, it *could* function as well as in a familiar environment(if developed enough).

Regardless, my statement of "Fe is disgusting" can be translated into "INTP's general dislike the "hugs", "kisses" and other sorts of affectional 'touches'". In other words, Fe is innately disgusting but then what disgusts is not necessarily irrational. "Urine can possibly be a source for water".

Small talk?

Following Adymus' theory, "Talk" itself is Fe. A "massive" Fe, however, is, in my opinion, "affectionate behavior".

Small Talk and "Big" Talk is conversation, which is a separate type of social communication/understanding.

 

[BigApplePi]

I apologize, I didn't notice this reply 'til now.

I agree that the quality of a person's usage of "Fe" can rely on who they're talking to and what they're talking about. But I think of this thing as a separate factor outside of Fe and yet connected to it. I think of Fe as the "base" of articulation, as Adymus suggested, and that *familiarity* is only an addition to this base. If I "placed" my Fe in a familiar environment, it would function more appealingly. If I "placed" my Fe in a less familiar environment, it would not. However, if I "placed" my "developed" Fe in the less familiar environment, it *could* function as well as in a familiar environment(if developed enough).

Regardless, my statement of "Fe is disgusting" can be translated into "INTP's general dislike the "hugs", "kisses" and other sorts of affectional 'touches'". In other words, Fe is innately disgusting but then what disgusts is not necessarily irrational. "Urine can possibly be a source for water".

Following Adymus' theory, "Talk" itself is Fe. A "massive" Fe, however, is, in my opinion, "affectionate behavior".

Small Talk and "Big" Talk is conversation, which is a separate type of social communication/understanding.

Hi Words. Thanks for the reply. "Better late than never."

I was wondering if you thought Fe was innately disgusting because I didn't understand. Now after your reply, I'd say that it is false intimacy that is the disgusting part of Fe to which you refer. Although Fe is something about socialization, disgust is an emotion of rejection. The hugs and kisses received from a non-intimate come too close. When someone does that with me, I have to think, "that is them." They don't mean I have to be intimate with them. That is just their style.

Here's a try for a technical rephrase:

Fe and Ti have a suppressive relationship. Fe devotes itself to the feelings of the collective, and must ignore one’s personal logic in order to satisfy the customs of the tribe.

There is always a natural conflict between the interests of the individual and that of those outside the individual.

Addition: As I reflect on this, I think of the subject matter of intimacy. This almost deserves a separate thread. Yes it does.

 

[Words]

Hi Words. Thanks for the reply. "Better late than never."

I was wondering if you thought Fe was innately disgusting because I didn't understand. Now after your reply, I'd say that it is false intimacy that is the disgusting part of Fe to which you refer. Although Fe is something about socialization, disgust is an emotion of rejection. The hugs and kisses received from a non-intimate come too close. When someone does that with me, I have to think, "that is them." They don't mean I have to be intimate with them. That is just their style.

Well the problem is that you're forced to conform to their "style" regardless of your true feelings. It's the feeling of social consciousness defeating the other feeling of self-truth.

Have you tried dividing "social" Fe into parts? (e.g. Intimacy, social understanding, ethics etc.)

The totality of Fe includes "Fe articulation", "group social value(includes false intimacy)" and "Fe judgment". All of which "disgusting"...or simply "draining". I didn't mean disgusting in the way you have interpreted it as.

Here's a try for a technical rephrase:

There is always a natural conflict between the interests of the individual and that of those outside the individual.

Addition: As I reflect on this, I think of the subject matter of intimacy. This almost deserves a separate thread. Yes it does.

All right.

 

[Fallenman]

I am particularly starving and everything in my immediate area closes around 2 so i decided i would simply post my questions now, as i assume they were never asked, and read the rest later (I was in the middle of page 3 so I think i got most of everything)

First of all I'm in awe. You seem to know the answer to every question I could have ever wanted to ask and you seem willing to shell them out. I'm excited to say the least.

But before I get too excited, i have questions, which gets to the point of my post. I don't mean to pass judgement, I feel as if your articulation of your position speaks for how knowledgeable you are in the subject matter, but that says very little about its accuracy. One can know everything there is to know about the planet Naboo in Starwars, and it still be true that the planet Naboo does not exist.

So my questions:
HOW?! Lol, how do you know so much? What are your credentials? WHO are you ?!

How accurate do you believe this to be? You've gotten incredibly specific, and the unfortunate truth is that the more complex a theory gets the more it is subject to error. I feel that there is a moderate amount of truth in the personality tests just going off of my personal experiences, but I want to know the methodology. I'd really like to know how many people were studied when the original MBTI was developed and how they were studied, what questions were asked, were they random samples, were they college students, etc etc., but I will settle for your opinion on its accuracy.

Are there any studies tying the cognitive functions to biology? I.e. have they done scans on people when they were clearly using their Ti or Ti-Fe or what have you, and are there differences, in terms of the regions of the brain that are being used, between different types?

How accepted is MBTI amongst other scholars?

Basically what im trying to figure out, before i ask a bajillion questions is, why should I believe you, and why i should believe in the accuracy of the MBTI personality test.

The reason I ask is because I felt like I had had a pretty well developed F function and in fact get 50/50 on most tests, and I do get about a 50/50 for my P/J function, and i only randomly got INTP when I actually bought the book. Every test I had taken before then labeled me INTJ or INFJ. I liked the idea of being an INTJ and I didn't even bother to read the INTP type the one time i got it, but there was something about INTJ's that rubbed me the wrong way, and one day I randomly read the profile for INTP and found that I identified with the INTP a lot more than the INTJ. But before I go and start asking you questions about this I want to know why I should put much stock into this thing to begin with.

I do actually have profound belief in it already, but this is a question i've held in the back of my head for a long time. I feel like you could probably answer it for me (the accuracy of the test), and so I decided I should pose it to you.

All in all.... BRAVO!!!! I admire your work, and hope to continue reading it in future days.

 

[BigApplePi]

Fallenman. I'm with you on most of that but have to get ready for the stock market open just now.

 

[BigApplePi]

There have been many theories throughout history. Some have lasted a long time and are very sturdy but have been of questionable truth. A theory must stand up to time, experience and criticism. Flat earth theory lasted a long time. Newton's physics works pretty well but has flaws under certain circumstances. Astrology is quite robust, enjoys a lot of popularity, is full of ideas, but doesn't stand up to analysis.

So I think about CF100 (Cognitive Function basics). I know I don't have much Si experience of matching people with types, but I do have an inquiring mind. I'm sensitive (Ti/Ne) to inconsistencies.

What have so far:
1. Everyone has T, N, S, F functions - What is their proportion as each is brought to consciousness?

2. Everyone looks at things subjectively (I) and objectively (E) in some measure - How much and in what way do we spend doing this over time?

3. It seems we "choose" or are disposed to one of the four functions to emphasize and pair them with I or E. Whether we stay at ease with this emphasis over time, how and why is subject to question. That makes four times two or eight pairs.

4. Once we identify a paired function (it remains to be seen how reliable that is), since that is uppermost (for example Ti), necessarily its opposite must be lowermost, if only because consciousness requires it. For Ti, that would be Fe.

5. Opposites: I and E, T and F, N and S. Also P and J. Their functional meaning says they are opposites.

6. Once we identify the dominant CF, (Ti as an example), the next one in priority (the auxiliary function) can go only one of two ways and must be the opposite of I or E, whichever one was identified. The reason for the I or E is because to be whole we must operate with subjective and objective functions. In the example that would be Ne or Se. Two possibilities. Eight times two makes 16 CFs. The third CF is whatever is left or Si in the example.

7. If we backtrack to #4, we could ask why can't the opposite of the dominant be tertiary (second from the bottom) instead of the bottom? The partial answer is because it "pushes harder" than the auxiliary.

8. Note the concept of "development." Any of the eight functions can be more developed than the one "naturally" next to it. (We could call this a case of nurture versus nature.) This will tend to mislead the observer who sees here and now rather than development. The owner of the function holds the ultimate answer as to the naturalness of the function. At the same time a skilled observer might see what the owner does not see.

9. There are Four Priorities relating to P and J. I've left out comments as I haven't absorbed it.

I am just about ready to buy off on the priorities of these CFs, because there is rationale behind them. What I am not ready to buy, is the how and the when of identifying the top function.

One can know everything there is to know about the planet Naboo in Starwars, and it still be true that the planet Naboo does not exist.

So my questions:

How accurate do you believe this to be? You've gotten incredibly specific, and the unfortunate truth is that the more complex a theory gets the more it is subject to error. I feel that there is a moderate amount of truth in the personality tests just going off of my personal experiences, but I want to know the methodology.

Are there any studies tying the cognitive functions to biology?

How accepted is MBTI amongst other scholars?

 

[Fallenman]

I actually don't know enough about the symbiotic relationships of all the cognitive functions to give comprehensive criticisms, but i can essentially point out my worry. The cognitive functions have incredibly precise and detailed explanations for their functions, but what concrete evidence is given for these evaluations? How do we know that Fi is responsible for our moral compass, or that INTP's lack Fi altogether? I realize that it seems to be that it has been through the observation of individuals who are then correlated for similarities, but where is the concrete evidence? Or if that is the most concrete evidence we have, how accepted has it been in the scholarly community? I recently started visiting a therapist and he outright dismissed any mention i made of the MBTI personality test as meaningless. What I want to know is was that reaction based on some sort of reasonable background experience in his profession, or just a personal opinion that he himself holds. Likewise, I am often times confronted with similar reactions when ever I bring it up in social settings, and I am at a loss to give any backings as to the validity of the tool itself. Certainly I can describe to them the personality types and how they function but that doesn't necessarily speak towards its validity. One cannot use a theory in order to prove itself. What is more, the tests are not necessarily comprehensive or all encompassing, that is to say there is much to be desired, and they are so subjective to individual moods and so on and so forth at those points in time. This, in it of itself, doesn't refute the validity of those who do accurately take the test and are typed appropriately, but it is enough to leave room for sufficient confusion in its accuracy.

 

[BigApplePi]

I actually don't know enough about the symbiotic relationships of all the cognitive functions to give comprehensive criticisms, but i can essentially point out my worry. The cognitive functions have incredibly precise and detailed explanations for their functions, but what concrete evidence is given for these evaluations? How do we know that Fi is responsible for our moral compass, or that INTP's lack Fi altogether? I realize that it seems to be that it has been through the observation of individuals who are then correlated for similarities, but where is the concrete evidence? Or if that is the most concrete evidence we have, how accepted has it been in the scholarly community? I recently started visiting a therapist and he outright dismissed any mention i made of the MBTI personality test as meaningless. What I want to know is was that reaction based on some sort of reasonable background experience in his profession, or just a personal opinion that he himself holds. Likewise, I am often times confronted with similar reactions when ever I bring it up in social settings, and I am at a loss to give any backings as to the validity of the tool itself. Certainly I can describe to them the personality types and how they function but that doesn't necessarily speak towards its validity. One cannot use a theory in order to prove itself. What is more, the tests are not necessarily comprehensive or all encompassing, that is to say there is much to be desired, and they are so subjective to individual moods and so on and so forth at those points in time. This, in it of itself, doesn't refute the validity of those who do accurately take the test and are typed appropriately, but it is enough to leave room for sufficient confusion in its accuracy.

Once again Fallenman, if we are going to examine this theory, suppose we start with something appearing to be basic: Introversion and Extroversion. Is there ANY validity to this? Are people more or less one or the other or do they vary all over the place? Do people think or feel (one can't do both simulateously) at random or do they lead from one or the other?

I'm strongly in favor of examining the bases of these things as they are the foundation on which the theory stands. They aren't the ONLY foundation though. One can ASSUME the foundations are correct and run with them hoping for validity and reliability.

That could be why Adymus is here. He is testing and checking things out.

 

[echoplex]

PS: If you think still think Ti is objective, I invite you to check out what an ESFJ's Ti is like sometime.

Good point. Even in high-Ti types, I've seen plenty of personal logic that doesn't always translate as logical/objective.

And to your quote, I wonder if the reverse would be true: If you still think Fe is subjective, I invite you to check out what an INTP's Fe is like sometime.

Eh, that probably doesn't work.

 

[Adymus]

HOW?! Lol, how do you know so much? What are your credentials? WHO are you ?!

How accurate do you believe this to be? You've gotten incredibly specific, and the unfortunate truth is that the more complex a theory gets the more it is subject to error. I feel that there is a moderate amount of truth in the personality tests just going off of my personal experiences, but I want to know the methodology. I'd really like to know how many people were studied when the original MBTI was developed and how they were studied, what questions were asked, were they random samples, were they college students, etc etc., but I will settle for your opinion on its accuracy.

Are there any studies tying the cognitive functions to biology? I.e. have they done scans on people when they were clearly using their Ti or Ti-Fe or what have you, and are there differences, in terms of the regions of the brain that are being used, between different types?

How accepted is MBTI amongst other scholars?

Basically what im trying to figure out, before i ask a bajillion questions is, why should I believe you, and why i should believe in the accuracy of the MBTI personality test.

The reason I ask is because I felt like I had had a pretty well developed F function and in fact get 50/50 on most tests, and I do get about a 50/50 for my P/J function, and i only randomly got INTP when I actually bought the book. Every test I had taken before then labeled me INTJ or INFJ. I liked the idea of being an INTJ and I didn't even bother to read the INTP type the one time i got it, but there was something about INTJ's that rubbed me the wrong way, and one day I randomly read the profile for INTP and found that I identified with the INTP a lot more than the INTJ. But before I go and start asking you questions about this I want to know why I should put much stock into this thing to begin with.

I do actually have profound belief in it already, but this is a question i've held in the back of my head for a long time. I feel like you could probably answer it for me (the accuracy of the test), and so I decided I should pose it to you.

All in all.... BRAVO!!!! I admire your work, and hope to continue reading it in future days.

Hello Fallenman, I'm Adymus, and I am a part of developing the next personality model that will in do time supersede MBTI. If you were expecting a lab coat and a shiny badge, I'm afraid I am going to have to let you down. I believe this to be at least 99.99999% accurate, you can't develop a model if you don't actually believe it works (Which is the bane of INTPs).

the unfortunate truth is that the more complex a theory gets the more it is subject to error.

Okay, I suppose that is an accurate statement, but would you rather no progress be made what so ever? Exactly how useful is an extremely vague model? What good does it do for you to find out that you are 62% introvert? Wtf does that even mean?

Let's get one thing straight, I am not an MBTI practitioner, I am not even an MBTI supporter. I think MBTI is the enemy, and I aim to see it outright replaced.
So I'm just going to go ahead and ignore the questions on MBTI validity.

Actually yes, Lenore Thomson documented brain scans of cognitive functions and discovered activity mainly focused in the four quadrants: Front-Right for Ne and Se, Front-Left for Fe and Te, Rear-Right for Ti and Fe, and Rear-Left for Ni and Si. There was activity firing off all over the brain (Which makes sense because our cognitive functions are never really "Off", and always being used even if indirectly.) but the quadrants where crucial to the activity for their respective Cognitive functions.

I am not going to try to sell the skeptics (ie: you) on this theory, not right now anyway, not until we have the backing that we need. But this is a theory that can actually be experienced, you can go outside to any random person and see it happen in real time. You can even look at your own apparatus and actually see it happening (Well... you technically can, but I don't expect you to). I am here to provide information for the people that have already experienced this theory and want to know more about it, that is all.

 

[Adymus]

Good point. Even in high-Ti types, I've seen plenty of personal logic that doesn't always translate as logical/objective.

And to your quote, I wonder if the reverse would be true: If you still think Fe is subjective, I invite you to check out what an INTP's Fe is like sometime.

Eh, that probably doesn't work.

It kind of does work actually, especially if you look at how we Ti doms tend to observe the world of Fe as if we were documenting the behavior of animals.

 

[cheese]

Fallenman, it might help to visit the MBTI resources page
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=6602

Regarding evidence:
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/9648-types-brain-pseudo-science-behind-mbti.html?
http://www.greatlakesapt.org/uploads/media/beebe1.PDF

I found these interesting at least, and helped me understand better where Adymus is coming from with some of his ideas.

 

[Fallenman]

Ok i've sat on this a bit longer, ive digested it and now i have a few general questions comments and concerns.

I was reading a post the other day in which an INTJ was attempting to discredit the whole notion of personality types using certain cognitive functions more so than others, and then adymus ripping her apart for her inaccuracy. It made it more apparent to me that the hierarchy of the cognitive functions plays a significant role in how the personality type perceives the world. In fact it seems to me that if this conception of the cognitive functions is correct that more emphasis should be placed on the cognitive functions themselves instead of the personality types as a whole. For example, people with a Ne dominant cognitive function may have more in common with other Ne dominants, and it might make more sense to categorize people under the Ne dominant function, but then that would neglect the roles that each cognitive function plays on the person as a whole so its interesting. Perhaps the personality types are important but that the profiles should be explained more in terms of the cognitive functions.

Something ive just come to realize, or explicitly verbalize, to myself anyways, is that the Ti cognitive function is rather asocial, goes without saying, but that it is also crucial for interacting with people. I noticed that in the past, when I was younger, people would ask me things and I would go into my Ti mode, and think about it but then it made for awkward silences in which everyone was expecting me to speak and the pressure caused me to blurt out something inane even though I was most likely thinking something more profound, but wasn't given time to give it more flesh and bone. As a result I made it habit to simply suppress my Ti as much as possible in order that I would be quicker to reply, but as a result I often say things without thinking and am typically thought of as lacking common sense. I was wondering which cognitive function should I rely on in conversations, or should I make it a point to on occasion revert back to my Ti to consider what has been said and come up with a relevant response. I was curious how it would look like for a person to use their Ne more actively in their conversation, perhaps if an I looked at ENTP's or something. I dont know, but I do want to know which functions are we using when we are in conversation, and how much should a healthy INTP use their Ti in conversations without being asocial lol.

I suppose I just wanted to rant.... I will try and come up with more specific questions in my next response.

 

[BigApplePi]

Okay people. After being exposed to CF100 for a while and listening to some of the puzzlements people are having I've come up with a new way (new to me anyway) of looking at things. I hope to make things simpler or to explain something but not sure at this point if it makes things worse. Let me sit with it for a while and I may post something this weekend.

I may need your help in checking out whether I'm on the right track. Not sure if it's enough for a new thread or not.

 

[shoeless]

awww, shit. i might be an INFP after all.

 

[Adymus]

How so?

 

[shoeless]

reading the descriptions of Ti and Fi more carefully.
also reading a few other INFP profiles.

i dunno.

 

[Fallenman]

dost thou wish to be an INTP?

 

[shoeless]

i don't wish to be anything in particular.

 

[Fallenman]

lmao strangely enough i've almost come to the conclusion that i am infp too, and i did not make this discovery due to your comment xD, rather i was reading the profile to see if i could type someone else ><.

 

[BigApplePi]

Does this guy have a type? I wonder which? (If the people on the right are too noisy ask make them be quiet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILwOQV32rHg

 

[Words]

^
Dom Je + Intuitive message = ENFJ?

 

[Adymus]

Does this guy have a type? I wonder which? (If the people on the right are too noisy ask make them be quiet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILwOQV32rHg

Everyone has a type.

He is an INTJ

 

[Words]

Everyone has a type.

He is an INTJ

Will you explain your (video-related)reasoning?

 

[BigApplePi]

While we are trying to determine type, I have to get this guy out there before I lose him. I'm willing to bet he is no INTP (careful calculations), but what IS he? If he was the same person and kept a more deadpan face, would he be INTP? Carefully examine his smile (among other things). I have seen just a few INTPs on you tube but this guy doesn't even come close to the standard.


YouTube- Crack make me crazy (Music Video)Gnarls Barkley, Crazy Spoof Youtube