The "What is a Function?" thread

[Architect]

If you have other options let me know. For "other" explain in a post.

 

[Architect]

My take.

A function is a psychic motivation. It has to do with how the cortex manages information streams, is programmed into us and can't be changed (because it's the cortex). The personality develops "images" of the functions - skills, behaviors and such that support the motivation in their personality during life. In fact a person can develop any function support they want, but without the psychic motivation they'll never do it as well as they can do their dominant, and to some degree their aux.

The dominant and auxiliary are sometimes called "Superpowers" for this reason. But because it's a motivation it creates a reflection in the behaviors. I'd not really classify those strictly as a function, but it could be done either way. The reason is that I think once you classify learned behaviors as functions then it becomes really hard to use MBTI.

 

[nanook]

I think all attitudes (as carl jung calls function preferences) do in deed start with simple repetitive motion. I think we have S,N,F,T as our generical organ of intelligence, then e/i tension is introduced through tendencies of life and type is the result. Not saying type isn't inborn though. There may be inborn reasons for why tendencies flow or fall more in one direction than another. Looking at me and my sister, it's clear that she is a deviation from my father and i'm a deviation from my mother. On higher levels, objective motion can be interpreted subjectively as motivation.

 

[Hadoblado]

I voted for both, but I'll also add that I think there's room for them to also be a learned motive (acquired taste) and a built in behaviour (instinct, talent, and whatever other innate factors).

Essentially, people are born different to one another and they change over time.

 

[k9b4]

I don't believe in 'innate psychic motivation' exactly. I believe that genetics determines how fast specific brain areas grow, and the speed at which a specific brain area grows relative to other people is what 'innate talent' is.

A newborn human baby cannot use Ti as well as an adult, regardless of 'type'. Ti must be developed. Different amounts of talent for different functions will result in a natural tendency towards a specific 'type' (though possible for someone's relative function talents to be N T S F, which is not accounted for in MBTI theory).

However consider an NT who grows up in a SF household, in which NT style of thinking is shunned. Even though the NT is more talented at NT thinking than he is at SF thinking, his environment develops him against his natural tendencies, making him an SF (though still genetically an NT).

But I think that this genetic NT who is currently an SF will naturally become an NT as he becomes more independent.

 

[Architect]

OK I'll add some questions.

For those who say it is a behavior ...

• How do you distinguish what type a person is if they can be anything?
• What's the value of MBTI in this case? If a function is like clothing one can wear, then why talk about it at all? "Some days I feel like blue, some days green."
• Do you think a person can pick a type and be that for their entire lives?

 

[k9b4]

How do you distinguish what type a person is if they can be anything?

Depends on your definition of type.

If by type you mean the innate talent which is genetic, then type does not change.

If by type you mean the way a person thinks at any one moment in time, then type changes, because people change the way they think all the time.

If a function is like clothing one can wear, then why talk about it at all?

I will answer with an analogy:

If body weight is like clothing one can wear, then why talk about it at all?

Because the body weight you have at any point in time is relevant. Is asking 'how much do you weigh' meaningless just because how much you weigh can change? No, when you ask 'how much do you weigh', you are asking how much you weigh at that specific moment in time.

In the same way, asking 'what mbti type are you', is asking what mbti type you are at that specific moment in time.

Do you think a person can pick a type and be that for their entire lives?

Sure, entirely possible.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that innate talents do naturally incline people towards specific MBTI types. It's just that personality is not purely a result of genetics, environment is a factor also. One can consciously choose to develop their weaknesses and ignore their strengths. Though I think it is in the best interest of people to develop their strengths.

 

[Hadoblado]

OK I'll add some questions.

For those who say it is a behavior ...

• How do you distinguish what type a person is if they can be anything?
• What's the value of MBTI in this case? If a function is like clothing one can wear, then why talk about it at all? "Some days I feel like blue, some days green."
• Do you think a person can pick a type and be that for their entire lives?

How do you distinguish what type a person is if they can be anything?

By what they are. How do you determine a person's occupation if they have the potential to do anything?

What's the value of MBTI in this case? If a function is like clothing one can wear, then why talk about it at all? "Some days I feel like blue, some days green."

MBTI's value... Well, even though people may be able to change (I'm yet to discover a compelling reason why they cannot), they are the sum of their experience and potential, either of which may rule out particular progressions. It's still useful to distinguish between what people are, and this likely correlates strongly with what they have been or will be.

Do you think a person can pick a type and be that for their entire lives?

If someone could do that... well... Their choice would be informed by who they are already. It's unlikely, and when I've seen attempts by people on the forum, it felt more like a gimmick. I think anybody choosing what they are is an illusion, and usually a stressful one at that. I still don't think that rules out personality changing though, it's just difficult to use one set of values to alter those same values into those of another.

 

[TheManBeyond]

I made a thread in PeC who everyone hated and maybe they were right, but i wanted to share it with you:

I was watching this documentary below and suddenly they started talking about explicit memory, which is about recalling facts and implicit memory which is about recalling certain experiences, not the physical background of them but the meaning they hold to us, i see it as something similar to Si right?.
A bit later on the video they talk about how a big part of assessins have faced traumatic experiences and becuz of the weight those experiences put on them they were more likely to show violence, stress, several mental problems, etc.
They also talk about how a baby who is not hold enough in his parents arms is more likely to experience rejection in a more painfull way when adolescent and adult.
So imo sensing is developed from the very beggining then the other functions go higher in the stack or get stuck down there. But everything pretty much works from how the enviourment shapes us, and if this is correct, then Si function must play a big part in it. It could be something else, outside the theory, which gives it a higher importance within it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4Z9WVZddH9w

 

[StevenM]

What is a "Function" (Cognitive)

An abstract concept to analytically describe how the psyche engages and interacts with the self and the external world.

It has been deemed that the psyche utilizes data in four different ways, 2 are perceiving, and 2 are judging. We defined the terms Sensing, Intuiting, Thinking, and Feeling.

Supposedly, all functions work together collaboratively to present a holistic conscious experience.

In actuality, it's just a termed conceptual way of defining characteristics of consciousness and individual temperament.

 

[Reluctantly]

I think a function by itself doesn't represent anything other than possible ways we can orientate ourselves with reality. But how it manifests in different people can be related to genetics and yet also be a response to external demands made by our environment. For example, somebody who is much more reserved, thoughtful, and reflective by nature is already taking an introverted stance compared to someone who is much more engaged, imprudent, and ignorant. But take that same introvert and put them in an environment where their nature is not nurtured; then to survive they must develop more like the extrovert and this becomes part of who they are. We could also look at things in terms of trauma. But I don't really want to get into it now.

That said though, I wouldn't call our nature to be a motivation as much as it is an inclination. But I think often we create motivations because of our inclinations. For example, the often proclaimed INTP motivation to understand everything could be a motivation that results from the inclination to ponder what things mean. How far someone takes this inclination will depend on both their environment and how far the person wants to take it though.

But that said, I don't believe it makes sense to say we can develop any function; mainly because we each have certain inclinations of being that oppose or negate other ways of being. It makes more sense to say that we can develop certain functions, but not others above a completely forced superficial level, because of our inclinations (or nature). Our environment can shape which functions we then develop, but the seed still grows into a particular kind of tree, so to speak... Unless of course, you could change your natural inclinations, but I would argue that by doing so, one loses any sense of a continuity of being, of a self that spans a lifetime. I don't imagine that's desirable for anyone.

So does that make me "both" or "neither" in the poll options? I can't decide...

 

[nanook]

....hey started talking about explicit memory, which is about recalling facts and implicit memory which is about recalling certain experiences, not the physical background of them but the meaning they hold to us, i see it as something similar to Si right?.

carl jung clarifies that memory is not one of the functions and to use Si as a synonym for memory reveals complete cluelessness of those typologists. i know, every one parrots it.

memory encompasses all cognitive events, in principle.

it's just the history and experience of the brain and closer related to what jung calls differentiation than to a particular function.

you collect various kinds of explicit memories to the extend you can produce extroverted cognition and various kinds of implicit memories to the extend you can produce introverted cognition.

your ability to recall collected memories follows associations to the present moment (including current thoughts and the like) and does therefore also depend on the same abilities, this is conditional learning.

(you learn something in one condition, such as a classroom that allows for introversion, then you enter another condition, such as a battle field, that demands extroversion, and the learned knowledge is no longer accessible. this is why i am so retarded on the battle fields of dating.)

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

It's an predisposed ability.
Voted on neither, but if you want you can cout it as "both".

 

[thoughtfully]

A function is a psychic motivation. It has to do with how the cortex manages information streams, is programmed into us and can't be changed (because it's the cortex). The personality develops "images" of the functions - skills, behaviors and such that support the motivation in their personality during life. In fact a person can develop any function support they want, but without the psychic motivation they'll never do it as well as they can do their dominant, and to some degree their aux.

I disagree a function is a motivation. A person gifted with perfect pitch and auditory memory need not care to enter the field of music even if they could be good at it. Why not think a function is behavior assisted by ability as long as the ability is at least average? Thinking is a function. It comes first for an INTP. If an INTP uses thinking why can't they decide to use intuition first? If an INTP wants to think in their life they will use thinking. If they decide they don't need to think for any reason they can use intuition. Why couldn't they grow up either way regardless of brain wiring? Intuition and thinking are different from introversion and extroversion. A person could be disposed toward introversion if extroversion were threatening in their early environment. If the threat were removed they could develop extroverted behavior and be comfortable with it.

 

[scenefinale]

Depends on your definition of type.

If by type you mean the innate talent which is genetic, then type does not change.

If by type you mean the way a person thinks at any one moment in time, then type changes, because people change the way they think all the time.

I will answer with an analogy:

If body weight is like clothing one can wear, then why talk about it at all?

Because the body weight you have at any point in time is relevant. Is asking 'how much do you weigh' meaningless just because how much you weigh can change? No, when you ask 'how much do you weigh', you are asking how much you weigh at that specific moment in time.

In the same way, asking 'what mbti type are you', is asking what mbti type you are at that specific moment in time.

Sure, entirely possible.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that innate talents do naturally incline people towards specific MBTI types. It's just that personality is not purely a result of genetics, environment is a factor also. One can consciously choose to develop their weaknesses and ignore their strengths. Though I think it is in the best interest of people to develop their strengths.

On the question of "which contributes more to personality, nature or nurture?", Donald Hebb said, "which contributes more to the size of a rectangle, its length or its width?"

Your weight analogy is clever, but ultimately flawed.

 

[computerhxr]

I couldn't vote because there was no option to represent my belief.

A function is a many to one relationship. There are many input variables, and one output. The output may have many attributes but this is not to suggest a many-to-many relationship.

A cognitive function is the minds ability to process inputs. Left-brain function is processed in series, while right-brain function is processed in parallel. The right-brain is an abstract model to simplify left-brain functions.

This is an oversimplification because the brain can be broken up into many parts. I would suggest that your skin is an extension of right-brain function. Living entities working together as a system (or function) would also be a cognitive function as well.

Basically, a function is a system to process data that express (communicate) the results to other receptive functions.

E.g. a person would be a dynamic function.

 

[k9b4]

On the question of "which contributes more to personality, nature or nurture?", Donald Hebb said, "which contributes more to the length of a rectangle, its length or its width?"

then donald hebb is a fking retard, because 'which contributes more to personality, nature or nurture' is a reasonable question.

and i believe the answer to that question is nurture

 

[computerhxr]

I would assert that Nurture IS Nature. Think about it...

 

[k9b4]

I would assert that Nurture IS Nature. Think about it...

nurture = environment
nature = genetics

 

[computerhxr]

nurture = environment
nature = genetics

Environment is not nature?

Genetics is natural? That is to say that reproduction is purely a process of natural selection?

 

[k9b4]

Environment is not nature?

Genetics is natural? That is to say that reproduction is purely a process of natural selection?

You are mixing definitions.

I agree that environment is a part of 'nature'.

In this particular context, nature = genetics and nurture = environment (not including genetics)

It's like when you say 'body' as opposed to 'mind'

Even though the mind is a manifestation of the brain which is a part of the body, when people say 'body' they usually mean 'the whole human except for the brain'

It's just a matter of definitions.

 

[computerhxr]

You are mixing definitions.

I agree that environment is a part of 'nature'.

In this particular context, nature = genetics and nurture = environment (not including genetics)

It's like when you say 'body' as opposed to 'mind'

Even though the mind is a manifestation of the brain which is a part of the body, when people say 'body' they usually mean 'the whole human except for the brain'

It's just a matter of definitions.

If nurture does not include genetics, then you would have to exclude parental genetics from the model. Nurture is an abstract model of nature. Left vs right-brain function. Both are valid expressions (or definitions) of cognitive models.

 

[scenefinale]

then donald hebb is a fking retard, because 'which contributes more to personality, nature or nurture' is a reasonable question.

and i believe the answer to that question is nurture

You're looking at the case where length=99 and width=1, and saying "look it's obviously length, there is 99 and only 1 width."

Donald Hebb was one of the most brilliant neuroscientists of his time.

 

[Hadoblado]

On the question of "which contributes more to personality, nature or nurture?", Donald Hebb said, "which contributes more to the length of a rectangle, its length or its width?"

Your weight analogy is clever, but ultimately flawed.

Its length

Luckily that's not what he actually said

 

[scenefinale]

Its length

Luckily that's not what he actually said

lol fixed the typo, thanks.

 

[k9b4]

You're looking at the case where length=99 and width=1, and saying "look it's obviously length, there is 99 and only 1 width."

Yeah? Problem?

99 length and 1 width = length contributes more to the size of the rectangle

Yeah I know you can't have a rectangle without both length and width, the same way you can't have personality without both genetics and an environment to grow up in.

That doesn't mean that either genetics or environment can't have more of an effect on personality.

donald hebb is still dumb as fuck

 

[Architect]

In another thread I posted a proof that a function is a motivation. I don't see any flaws with it but invite you to find any. This precisely sums up my view on the matter, with the addition that the behaviors (usually) naturally adapt themselves to the type. No wonder, with that kind of pressure you'll generally see INTP's act like INTP's.

But as Jung noted when upbringing/behavior differs from type a conflict occurs. On this point I'm dead set as it has a basis in Jung's work, and I've lived it having been raised by an all S family. Further having 'refactored' my behaviors to bring them more in line with that an INTP would have - and the resulting satisfaction further makes the point from my perspective.

If you haven't seen or gone through this process the behavior and the type might seem to be one thing, but they're not.

Ah ha! This is puts a light on the recent discussion about what a function is exactly. We made the mistake of comparing the same function in two different types in two different positions. Better is to compare the same function, with two different types where it's in the same position, namely ISTP and INTP. Now the playing field is more level.

Let's look at one specific trait - analysis, because it's easy to detect and measure in the two types.

Assumptions:

• Propensity to analysis comes from Ti or Te only. Obviously anybody has the cognitive ability to analyze, but only Ti/Te types do it on a regular basis.
• A function is a hidden variable, meaning it's something in the brain. Could be a motivation, a behavior, or something else, we are trying to figure that out.
• A function is a singular "thing". Meaning it's not a collection of behaviors, or motivations, we assume it's something distinct (one behavior or one motivation).
• This implies that a function is essentially the same across types, but may be expressed to various degrees (key assumption)
• The only thing we can measure is behaviors.
• We can extrapolate. We all recognize that if we look at a sample of 10, or 100 of a type and see a characteristic, we assume it holds for the Type as a group, even though there is variability. This simply is the assumption that MBTI is a statistical science.

With that preface let's consider Ti for the INTP and ISTP, I'll put down my observations you can add to

INTP

• INTP Ti prefers large systems thinking (analyzing how an oil refinery works) instead of small systems thinking (analyzing how a watch works)
• INTP Ti prefers modeling (analyzing the problem with a model (blueprint, diagram, etc) versus analyzing by doing (getting your hands dirty and seeing what structure comes out of it).

ISTP

• ISTP Ti prefers small systems thinking (analyzing how a watch works) instead of large systems thinking (analyzing how an oil refinery works)
• ISTP Ti prefers doing (getting your hands dirty and seeing what structure comes out of it) instead of modeling (analyzing the problem with a model (blueprint, diagram, etc).

I picked these examples on purpose because they make the point, a function isn't a behavior, because what we're looking for (the function) results in highly different behaviors in different types.

If you grant the (quite reasonable) assumptions then the conclusion is adequately proven.

 

[scenefinale]

Yeah? Problem?

99 length and 1 width = length contributes more to the size of the rectangle

Yeah I know you can't have a rectangle without both length and width, the same way you can't have personality without both genetics and an environment to grow up in.

That doesn't mean that either genetics or environment can't have more of an effect on personality.

donald hebb is still dumb as fuck

Okay, because you seem to be struggling with the basic, middle-school level math involved here, I'll spell it out for you. The length could be 1,000,000,000,000 and the width 1 and they would both still contribute equal parts to the area. The area will always and forever be equal to LxW they are married in that relationship. If either one is 0, then the rectangle ceases to exist.

 

[scenefinale]

In another thread I posted a proof that a function is a motivation. I don't see any flaws with it but invite you to find any. This precisely sums up my view on the matter, with the addition that the behaviors (usually) naturally adapt themselves to the type. No wonder, with that kind of pressure you'll generally see INTP's act like INTP's.

But as Jung noted when upbringing/behavior differs from type a conflict occurs. On this point I'm dead set as it has a basis in Jung's work, and I've lived it having been raised by an all S family. Further having 'refactored' my behaviors to bring them more in line with that an INTP would have - and the resulting satisfaction further makes the point from my perspective.

If you haven't seen or gone through this process the behavior and the type might seem to be one thing, but they're not.

This is why I am trying to look at the brain as a neuronal network and isolate the cognitive functions by specific properties of the neurons.

In this totally hypothetical example, If Ti always has the property that ideas get "stuck" in replay, perhaps this is telling us that strong Ti is likely to be an emergent property of what happens when specific areas of neurons get "stuck" firing for longer periods of time.

That is a greatly over simplified example, but the point remains. We have a superfluous amount of high-level psychological descriptions of the functions, I would like to get into the low level actually causing this stuff, and I know it can be done because these properties must exist.

 

[nanook]

if i was this nardi guy, i would observe the connection of facial cues (created by muscle tension in the face) and active brain areas. i would divide people into 16 group based on their shared facial cues. it appears entirely possible, although it's not impossible to divide them to 4 times 16 groups. then i would try to interpret what sort of subjective cognition is going on, while this brain area is used and while this muscle tension is produced. i would call it function and describe it accordingly.


i believe what nardi is doing is that he relies on mbti to test people's type, which i consider to be prejudiced. what if he confuses all S types with all N types or all P types with all J types or confuses only the introverted J and P types. then he tries to learn what brain areas they use and declares those to be the functions that are mentioned in this reduced mbti four function only index, which might be entirely unrelated to what is really going on in a brain.

 

[scenefinale]

if i was this nardi guy, i would observe connection of facial cues (created by muscle tension in the face) and activity brain areas. i would divide people into 16 group based on their facial cues. it appears entirely possible, although it's not impossible to divide them to 4 times 16 groups. then i would try to interpret what sort of subjective cognition is going on, while this brain area is used. i would call it function and describe it accordingly.

i believe what nardi is doing is that he relies on mbti to test people's type, which i consider to be prejudiced. what if he confuses all S types with all N types or all P types with all J types. then he tries to learn what brain areas they use and declares those to be the functions that are mentioned in this reduced mbti four function only index, which might be entirely unrelated to what is really going on in a brain.

I do have a problem with Nardi in that I don't trust his ability to type people accurately, which could lead to inaccurate results. Even the official MBTI test is awfully inaccurate.

 

[scorpiomover]

A Jungian function is an equivalence class of thinking, i.e. a collection of certain types of thinking, that as a set, is self-reinforcing. Not completely, as the brain takes in external data, and so is an open system. But with the evolution of species, certain collections of species become dominant, and others less dominant, in a rough hierarchy. In the same way, the self-reinforcing collections establish a rough hierarchy of dominance by the sheer process of evolution.

 

[Architect]

I do have a problem with Nardi in that I don't trust his ability to type people accurately

Well he does know Linda Behrens closely and published a set of popular MBTI books with her. He took her MBTI training class which is where they met. So he's probably as reliable as they come.

My surprise is the shallow conclusions he seems to be making. He is just using an EEG, because it's cheap, but it's crude. Ideally he'd be using fMRI but obviously doesn't have the budget. The EEG though doesn't look very deep into the brain which is the problem. It's the high neocortex. So he see's two ENFP's who use their brain quite differently, then concludes that type is a small part of the equation.

I take that as evidence that type is based lower down in the brain (e.g. the cortex) and hence is a motivation, that leads to different (but related) behaviors.

 

[scenefinale]

Well he does know Linda Behrens closely and published a set of popular MBTI books with her. He took her MBTI training class which is where they met. So he's probably as reliable as they come.

My surprise is the shallow conclusions he seems to be making. He is just using an EEG, because it's cheap, but it's crude. Ideally he'd be using fMRI but obviously doesn't have the budget. The EEG though doesn't look very deep into the brain which is the problem. It's the high neocortex. So he see's two ENFP's who use their brain quite differently, then concludes that type is a small part of the equation.

I take that as evidence that type is based lower down in the brain (e.g. the cortex) and hence is a motivation, that leads to different (but related) behaviors.

Yeah, I mean I'm not saying I think he is totally incompetent. He clearly knows a thing or two about type--more than most, I would wage--but even a lot of so called "experts" are pretty bad at typing people (e.g. celebrity type, lots of "prestigious" college professors, etc.) and the problem is worse than that, they actually think they're good at it!

Also, apparently he has typed himself as an INTJ. And from his video talk at Google, I would say he is a Zeta user (I don't have enough observational data to say INTJ or ISTP or other) and I can say with fair confidence that he is not an INTP.

 

[Teax]

My take.

Strictly speaking, it's neither. Motivation is not "it" but rather a consequence of it.

A P function is like colored glasses, it's a filter. It's a way to perceive, which alters what it sees.

There is a phrase, "to see the world through rose-colored glasses". The wearer of colored glasses doesn't notice how the glasses alter the perception. It's where all the self-mistyping comes from. Hard to see what color glasses you are wearing if you are unable to take them off. What you see as white is not white.

A J function is the (only) generator of values. Without it there would be no opinions. It actively assigns "this is good/bad" to things. As consequence of this, but not strictly 1:1, the "this is what I want/don't want" is formed - the motivation - is usually a close match to the dominant J function and thus often confused with it.