Not convinced by some aspects of the 8 cognitive functions hypothesis

[AdamK]

Hi. I want to "Throw this out there" and see what other people have to say, even if it's "You couldn't be more wrong." I freely admit I'm not a psychologist, so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm not fully convinced that the 8 cognitive functions (Ne, Ni etc...) must go in opposing pairs for everyone. To take myself as an example (although I doubt I'm the only one who has experienced this), hypothetically my Fe should be easier to use and more effective than my Ti. I think the opposite is true. In fact, I think my Ti developed earlier than my Fe, and I identify as much with Si as with Se. To make it a little less personal, there are probably very introverted types who tend to use their introverted child function more than their extroverted parent function, because introverted functions probably feel easier. Same with extroverted types and their extroverted functions. So, instead of functions always being in opposing pairs, wouldn't it make sense to re-order them as an individual, so that they reflect how well-developed your functions are? So, an INTJ might actually be more of an Ni, Fi, Te, Se in rare cases, to give one possible example.

 

[SensEye]

Just for the record, I agree with you.

I don't even have any expertise on the cognitive functions theory. I can recall when I first discovered MBTI that I thought the 16 type descriptions were reasonably accurate and in general, when somebody was typed in a category, they exhibited the characteristics of the type as far as I could assess.

I was specifically interested in my own type (INTP) and how it applied to me since I know myself rather intimately. The INTP classification fit me really well (although in many aspects so does the INTJ classification, but not as well as INTP).

Later, when I looked into the 8 cognitive functions, almost right away I found the further information about behavior characteristics provided therein did not fit me very well. Myself being the best person who's behavior I can reliably assess. As such, I dismissed the cognitive function theory right away, even though I don't feel I am qualified to really speak to it.

I tend to say I find MBTI categorizations very accurate in the general sense, but not that good in the specific. So it puts people into their silos fairly well, but when it comes to explaining differences with the silos, it doesn't give you all that much to go on. Which makes sense, in that 16 categories is not going to even come close to addressing all the variances in individual personalities. I believe the cognitive function theory is an attempt to provide more granularity, but it doesn't seem valid (or it didn't at first glance, and then I lost interest).

 

[AdamK]

I agree that everyone can use all 8 functions, but they have a tendency to use some strongly, and some less efficiently. The problem comes when you try to put a formal structure on it. It's a useful thing to do in some ways, but the structure(s) we currently use don't account for individuals, they try to put everyone into broad patterns. Fine, but they also say "Everyone must fit into these patterns" (which might have been part of the point you were making, but I'm not sure I 100% followed what you were trying to say.)

 

[AdamK]

Ok. Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry, but you lost me with the math stuff. Maybe it should be its own separate post. Perhaps us not knowing how personality is shaped is the problem. I think what I'm going to take from this, if it's ok with you, is that there are different systems and different ways of expressing one's personality, all of which are valid. Also, perhaps this is because of my poor understanding, but isn't this numerology in some sense?

 

[AdamK]

I would not call it numerology. Math is measurement.

In the pictures you see numbers of parts in the 8 cognitive function you have eight parts. Mechanics is involved. Switching is involved. one hole can be divided into three lots of 33.3333 and so on.

As an example, 3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3 = 24 you may sit back and say hog dig that's some mity fine number counting going on right there. But I think of twenty-four fields.

Anyway, I did not want to post it I posted it on my FitchenFlys number pattern page. My point was we don't know what hosts mind we know the brain is obviously involved. I sheared something I just posted one day ago in the enneagram section and reposted it hear because within the number pattern the eight cognitive functions and three instincts works within the number pattern and the hole brain four quadrant model. I would have thought that is interesting.

But you think it is crap not worth thinking about. I say keep thinking about your eight cognitive functions, it's interesting and enjoyable. But don't bother thinking any deeper because you may have to be creative, and you are much to respectable to be seen to be thinking creatively. Unless of course you are going to utilise the arts to enrich you readers understanding by walking us though how the 8 cognitive functions are illuminating great understanding within a great piece of performance art. Maybe you could write a play entitled An ally Cat Call Joan. About a homosexual man trapped in a female's body who finds inner peace by identifying as a cat and dedicates its focus to leading a great woke marches to literate western universities from the oppressions of logic.

That would entertain me.

I didn't mean to cause you offence. I'm sure what you've written is interesting. The truth is I simply didn't understand it. You're really talking to the wrong person here, which is nobody's fault. I'm more of a humanities person than a STEM person, and I haven't looked at this level of Maths or science since high school, over 20 years ago. I apologise if my calling it numerology offended you, or if I gave you the impression that I understood but dismissed your ideas out of hand. You're clearly very excited to share them. I'm just not the right person to share them with. I honestly think you're over-reacting here. There's no need to be sarcastic.

 

[AdamK]

Thanks. That makes me feel better. Environment make sense. Sometimes I feel like my Fe is caused by childhood trauma, not because it's a part of my true self.

 

[The Cat]

If I were to hazard a guess, and AdamK can confirm or deny as it applies to them, but it occurs to me that one who grew up with trauma might be a little more tuned into the temperature of the room by reflex.

 

[AdamK]

That's what I meant The Cat. I became afraid of not keeping people happy because of my childhood experiences, so I engaged in what I used to think were Fe activities. It's a defence mechanism. It's also hard to maintain because it doesn't feel honest sometimes.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

During Dario Nardi's AMA here a few years ago, I asked him about the impact on trauma on type. He noted that traumatic childhoods, in particular, could cause altered function development.

Additionally, I like using Quenk's "Was that really me?" She found through her many years of working and researching and analyzing and testing for the Official MBTI that people could dwell inside their inferior, being in the grip, thereby distorting type.

The example that stayed with me was a woman Quenk knew to be a ENFP from earlier testing appeared a decade later to be a mal developed ESTJ. She out the woman had moved to a very stressful management position and so got caught in the grip of inferior Te.

 

[AdamK]

Thanks. This is useful, but I don't want this thread to be about my own problems. As grateful as I am for any advice people give me, I'd rather people posted things about what they think of the order of the functions. Of course, you're free to write what you want, but I'm going through therapy, so I will deal with these problems. Or, if this thread is now over, because there's nothing else to say, that's fine too.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I read and thought about type development quite a bit a few years ago. One theorist I read had the dominant function as something we do automatically and develop without thinking about. While our secondary begins to develop, we are more aware about that, so it gets confusing.
Then as we get closer to young adulthood, our inferior comes into play and we need to integrate that with our dominant, long before we get too involved with the tertiary. This may be partially why teenagers can suddenly act out and struggle. ExTJs get freaked out by their Fi and such.
By the mid 20s, this is mostly done.
But then we have our shadow.
Shadow work is challenging. It comes against our nature. A FJ exploring Fi or an FP exploring Fe is not easy. The inverse of our dominant function may be just as very strong, just difficult to address and mostly subconscious. Upon development, it may become as strong as our secondary function and even conscious.
As I noted before, trauma disrupts everything. It can trap someone in their inferior or even in their shadow. Being trapped puts at our worst, because we don't access or develop our most powerful and easy to use functions.

 

[GavinElster]

I think there are two aspects to this -- one is whether there is a sense in which an extraverted function opposes introverted versions of the same function, and two is what exact model the functions fit into.

Regarding the latter, it's safe to say that there have been many, many models that don't agree with one another and that are made by people we would have to call of some authority on the subject. For example, Jung's original way of doing things is probably most compatible with supposing one's top two functions are in the same attitude (both introverted or both extraverted), at least in the normal person with two developed functions; basically, he'd say the functions one has developed would be in the dominant attitude, and the others would be in the inferior/not preferred attitude. Myers, on the other hand, thought the auxiliary is in the opposite attitude of the dominant.
What all this means is that people too quick to say that, if you deviate from a model, that you misunderstand it, are probably coming at this stuff a bit naively.

Regarding the former, I think sometimes the descriptions of function-attitudes are fairly poorly done, and don't make it clear why one should oppose the other. But basically, it's obvious that introversion and extraversion are at two opposing ends, and so I do think a good description of function-attitudes should make it clear that the E and I versions of the same function opposes in some way (but having something in common, namely being deployments of the same function).
Similarly for, say, function-attitudes that oppose -- Te being at the farthest extreme from Fi.

My personal way of doing things is to focus on the fundamentals: a robust conceptual understanding of each function-attitudes should help one get a sense of how they oppose, complement, etc in oneself, and I'd use their positions in a model as rules of thumb, not final requirements.

 

[GavinElster]

I'd also note that things like functions and so on are not the part of the MBTI that are validated by empirical testing -- they are founded more on conceptual, philosophical grounds.
So I'd take any claims that a certain model "just works" based on pure brute fact as very suspicious. This stuff is not on the same empirical footing as, say, the Big 5.

But at the same time, the Big 5 and similar such tools are not purely scientific by any means -- they are decidedly soft scientific, whence there is a conceptual side AND an empirical side to them. If one wants pure hard science, take physics, say. Big 5 is about observing statistically meaningful patterns in data that has a useful conceptual interpretation in terms of 5 umbrella ideas. Someone had to come up with the conceptual side, and that involves having useful vocabulary for describing personality.

I'd think of the functions as on the side of developing a vocabulary -- a language that is good for talking about certain things. I'd be more cautious with making more empirical claims -- stuff of the form "these functions almost always occur in the following order in a way we can tell by looking at massively many people"

It is fine to intuitively identify more with some types than others, and it can even be useful to oneself personally (or, for that matter, just intellectually a pretty fun game to play). But just being clear about what I think is the status.

The MBTI's dichotomies are sensible enough as empirical tools...if one stops seeing them as dichotomies and seems them as more continuous dimensions.