Am I the only one that thinks the MBTI types are really just archetypical guides and we use all of the cognitive functions to different extents, which accounts for why people dont always find themselves in the MBTI? Their personalities just dont line up with any of the types or they find that they change preferences over time or they are just not able to fit in with their supposed personality type peers.
I know out there some book says there are only x amount of intuitives, and you cant change type except for a traumatic, life changing experience, and blah blah blah.. and people buy into that dogmatic crap without asking WHY do they say those things. WHERE are those numbers even from? Are they even realistic numbers or something people made up to feel better about themselves?
Personally, I only really find the cognitive functions useful at this time, and feel like sometimes people change type to balance their personalities and lives out.
If all you ever do is intuition, youll lose track of the real world.. so after enough time in the world of the abstract, you might need to pull back and spend some time in the natural world.
This goes for all of the functions.
I really dont think the line-ups are gospel and especially dont think they should be treated as such.
If youd like to argue for type being better than cognitive functions, or about types not changing or intuitives being rare, please list the original sources you found and base your beliefs on so I can decide for myself what I think.
Maybe for some people, cognitive functions are more useful because they find themselves more malleable than a simple type can describe them with. And others use the MBTI as anchors for their identity. Which theres nothing wrong with that, I just think people should be more self-aware if thats what theyre doing instead of labelling EVERYONE as anchored in place. That ID anchoring isnt useful for everyone at every point in time.
I feel like it really gives the MBTI and cognitive functions a reputation for being set in stone when the whole thing is one big theory.
Am I the only one that thinks the cognitive functions are really just archetypical guides and we use all of the letters to different extents, which accounts for why people dont always find themselves in the function stacks? Their personalities just dont line up with any of the stacks or they find that they change function preferences over time or they are just not able to fit in with their supposed personality type peers.
I know out there some book says you are born with One Function Stack, and you cant change type except for a traumatic, life changing experience, and blah blah blah.. and people buy into that dogmatic crap without asking WHY do they say those things. WHERE are those assertions even from? Are they even based in anything real or something people made up to feel better about themselves?
Personally, I only really find the letters useful at this time, and feel like sometimes people change type to balance their personalities and lives out.
If all you ever do is intuition, youll lose track of the real world.. so after enough time in the world of the abstract, you might need to pull back and spend some time in the natural world.
This goes for all of the functions.
I really dont think the line-ups are gospel and especially dont think they should be treated as such.
MBTI letters allow for us to have weak N preference, or moderate J preference or whatever. Cognitive function stacks don't allow us to be "moderate in Ne-Si over Se-Ni preference". They are very dichotomous - either you are one or the other.
So what is actually more adaptable to reality? The letters.
Besides the theory being interesting to study and it does offer some usage in the real world, I don't think we should let cognitive functions dictate our lives. I agree that cognitive function stacks limit and cut us off from who we are and who we can be as a person. For example, it would be detrimental to say I am Si-Te-Fi-Ne and all the other functions are my shadow functions, so therefore, I willfully stunt my growth as a person by boxing myself into those stacks. I think once we start going crazy and obsessive over this stuff, we start to become our function stack instead of using it to understand who we are and why you we the things we do, first and foremost. I think we have preferences for sure, but for many of us, the preferences are very close to each other in terms of percentages. For cases such as this, it is counter productive and just strange to box yourself in with function stacks.
Neither MBTI nor the cognitive functions should be treated as a be-all-end-all identity. I tend to go through phases of being very into typology and very "oh whatever" about it, because I hate to be boxed in.
At the same time, I find there is some validity within the theory. The main reason I'm interested in this personality typology is due to how it aids in self-discovery & and can be a good tool for understanding others more. Also, while MBTI and the usual 4-letter code they give you is fine in itself (as well as more flexible and less restrictive, especially for people like myself who can be stuck between Se vs Si for example) the cognitive functions are also useful, or have been to me anyway. It helps explain why my ESFJ friend is so focused on group harmony, and why I'm not (Fe vs Fi - super simplistic example but yeah) We both have F-S-N-T but they're all oriented in the opposite direction.
Also, I do think there's more N's out there than most statistics show. Idk how equal it is compared to S's, but its just a hunch I have based on how many people I see typing as N. lol
Neither MBTI nor the cognitive functions should be treated as a be-all-end-all identity. I tend to go through phases of being very into typology and very "oh whatever" about it, because I hate to be boxed in.
I agree that the MBTI types are now arcrhetypes which live in the collective conscious for this period of time (who knows if they'll go on to populate the collective unconscious or not later on). I often wonder to what degree stereotypes or science has played into the conjuring of these various archetypes. It is not unsurprising to me that the MBTI types (ST, SF, NT, NF) all correspond to suits in the Tarot, for example, which is based on such an old system of archetypes that I don't even need to elaborate to explain.
Cognitive functions, whether one is basing them in functions-in-attitude (Ni,Ne, Si,Se, Fi...) or functions only (N, S, F, T) are, for me, greatly preferred as well. I also like the more simple 8 Jungian types far better than the 16 MBTI types.
One thing to think about when approaching cognitive functions, however, is what "stacking" to use. There are 4 function models PiJi/JePe or JiPe/PiJe and there are 8 function models, like Beebe's model and the Socionics model.
I prefer the Jungian model just because it's only about the functions and the attitudes reflect the dominant attitude of the individual: the dominant attitude is conscious and the recessive attitude is unconscious or repressed.
It might be easier to do a "quick read" on people using MBTI alone, but it's much more rewarding to use the original theory. It feels more rich to me. At first, the 8 function models felt more rich, but I think I was swayed by the complexity. It seemed as though, since humans are so complex then any model that attempted to describe them must also be complex. Now, I actually think it's the opposite: humans are actually very simple and the complexity is projected onto them or introjected inward as a way to interact with one's own "issues".
Am I the only one that thinks the MBTI types are really just archetypical guides and we use all of the cognitive functions to different extents, which accounts for why people dont always find themselves in the MBTI? Their personalities just dont line up with any of the types or they find that they change preferences over time or they are just not able to fit in with their supposed personality type peers.
I believe the archetypes (which fill up with personal experience to become complexes in each of us, and a complex is an "ego-state" or sense of "I" in the ego structure) are what explain the whole thing. Think of it as the spacetime dimensions, which are always all there, around us, but us being are embedded in spacetime essentially divides it into pairs of directions, and in space, we will be facing only one direction, and its opposite will be completely unconscious, and the perpendicular dimensions will be partly conscious.
So every bit of data we process contains all the products of all the functions (sensory data, intuitive data, impersonal fact [T] and personal affect [F], that can be taken as is from the environment [e] or filtered through individual knowledge ). Type is basically two complexes, that choose two functions (a dominant attitude and function, and the second complex, whose agenda is adaptation to other than the dominant perspective, chooses a function of the opposite rationality, and attitude). The other six possible function-attitudes are basically reflections of those first two, and associated with other complexes.
All the data is still there, it's just these two complexes we tend to filter it through by default, and the complexes will use the data (like we can all "see", which is associated with Se; even if that's not our preferred function; and then we will turn to the other complexes when situations call for them).
So it's not really the "line-ups" being made "gospel", and Beebe is quoted as saying we should not make too much of the order, as it's just for convenience. (It doesn't even indicate relative "strength", necessarily).
If all you ever do is intuition, youll lose track of the real world.. so after enough time in the world of the abstract, you might need to pull back and spend some time in the natural world.
If this is what you think intuitiveness means (it doesn't mean using intuition all the time, by the way), you might want to reconsider the reasons for your dissatisfaction with the theory.
Are you assuming that because Im supposedly a sensor that thats a declarative statement I made and not one of my theories? Are you sneaking in a secret insult to my intelligence?
I agree with most of the comments. There is more than MBTI to consider to explain your behaviour
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Personality Cafe
10.9M posts
165.6K members
Since 2008
A forum community dedicated to all ranges of personality types and people. Come join the discussion about health, behavior, care, testing, personality types, and more!