Real MBTI Cognitive Function Differences vs Stereotypes

Real MBTI Cognitive Function Differences vs Stereotypes

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Thank Tree5Thanks
  • 1 Post By Dezir
  • 2 Post By Engelsstaub
  • 1 Post By Catwalk
  • 1 Post By Engelsstaub

This is a discussion on Real MBTI Cognitive Function Differences vs Stereotypes within the Cognitive Functions forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; This was probably asked a lot of times but, the internet is full of cognitive function descriptions, some are more ...

  1. #1
    Unknown

    Real MBTI Cognitive Function Differences vs Stereotypes

    This was probably asked a lot of times but, the internet is full of cognitive function descriptions, some are more accurate than others.

    According to you, what's the difference between real cognitive functionz and stereotypes or oversimplifications for each cognitive function?

    How would you describe each particular type without making a blunt generalization that would fit all cognitive functions, but without making a stereotypes that's mostly wrong or simply not an essential part of that cognitive function?
    Pensive Fine thanked this post.



  2. #2

    What does an "accurate" cognitive function description mean to you? Accurate at what?

  3. #3

    One wrong thing is that they are purported to represent something real, some functional blocks like modules in a machine.

    I understand them purely as a language of speaking about human mind, a convention which, as any other conventions differentiating between phenomena, is a limited resolution picture of reality. To some extent, to some point it works well and lets us get somewhere, but one must be aware that intuition, thinking, feeling, sensing refer to same thing: electrical impulses running across your brain.
    Ocean Helm and baitedcrow thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4

    Observing real-life examples has been the best aid in learning about type and functions in my case. The problem is correctly identifying them in the first place, especially assuming most people around you and in your family are Sensors (rookie mistake).

    As for online descriptions, imo, the closer they come to the very essence of each function and/or type (and thus are more archetypal or archaic in nature), the easier it is for me to grasp what their role and purpose (most likely) is. 1-3 key words per function, a bit more for type, that reflect their very heart and core, that's great. I've read or heard a few such descriptions, some coming from hmm alternative sources. One that perc users could actually (eventually, partially) stomach would be the cognitivetype site, where I really liked the Si and Ti descriptions (https://cognitivetype.com/si-behaviorism-mythology/ and https://cognitivetype.com/ti-behaviorism-mythology/).

    Observing actual people and how they work (provided you get their type right) is the most fun, though, albeit time- and energy-consuming.

  6. #5

    Typology is basically a "big book of generalizations" that don't tell us anything; depending on what you are looking for. This is only problematic if these 'simplifications' have no use. 'Simplifications' are just short hands to greater things, like definitions. The generalization "all cheetahs move faster than sloths" is a useful one to make. The generalization that perceptive functions (all work a certain way distinct from non-perceptive functions) i.e., in comparison to the logical functions is useful. Not that informative, because it tells us nothing of the functions themselves, but not necessarily wrong just because.

    The generalizations in (Typologies case) may or may not be wrong, they do not tell us much, and in that regard are likely useless, depending on if you what a more in depth analysis beyond the surface. If you enjoy reading dictionaries and encyclopedias, Typology is satisfying enough in that sense. When people want 'more' they [typically] go to the original source and/or academia.
    Last edited by Catwalk; 05-16-2019 at 05:25 PM.
    Pensive Fine thanked this post.

  7. #6

    Quote Originally Posted by Catwalk
    Typology is basically a "big book of generalizations" that don't tell us anything; depending on what you are looking for. This is only problematic if these 'simplifications' have no use.
    In some way the entire language we use, including the simplest terms like "true" and "false" is just a set of such categorizations, a low resolution picture of reality which is just too complex for our minds to comprehend. We create words, terms, concepts to categorize things and make sense of them. From time to time our picture starts looking more and more absurd, its shortcomings prevent it from being functional so it falls apart to get replaced by a different one.

    Stereotypes and categorizations such, yet we cannot live without them.

    Typologies themselves aren't bad as long as one realizes their limitations. One easy to imagine example is with a potential partner. Here we can easily imagine that the devil's in the details and within each type you'll find great potential partners and others you don't want to have anything to do with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catwalk
    The generalizations in (Typologies case) may or may not be wrong, they do not tell us much, and in that regard are likely useless, depending on if you what a more in depth analysis beyond the surface. If you enjoy reading dictionaries and encyclopedias, Typology is satisfying enough in that sense. When people want 'more' they [typically] go to the original source and/or academia.
    There's a great demand for something that just cannot be fully satisfied. It makes it easier to talk about some stuff. Instead of writing an entire paragraph you can write "Johnny is ENTP" and if it's accurate enough, it's ok for casual applications.

    Typology though has that unique appeal that makes it look like a theory, it has its own jargon and I guess this makes people assume too much and overextend its use.
    Last edited by Engelsstaub; 05-16-2019 at 11:59 PM.
    Pensive Fine thanked this post.


     

Similar Threads

  1. Real MBTI Type Differences vs Stereotypes
    By Dezir in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-16-2019, 03:43 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-16-2018, 12:50 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-28-2016, 12:54 AM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-29-2014, 08:12 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:32 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0