Personality Cafe banner

Theory of function alternation

1K views 21 replies 6 participants last post by  The red spirit 
#1 ·
I have been thinking about cognitive function, stacks and main function. I have a long history of not being able to find my own type and I came up with theory for that.

It's a known thing, that we all have 8 cognitive functions and that they have names like auxiliary, tertiary, inferior, shadow and etc. There are different methods to name them (spine, trickster, hero...), but always the difference between them seems to be their strength, how natural they are and which one you prefer to use. Here was a problem.

People in different situations tend to behave a little bit different, not only that, but some people seem to even change their behavior in same conditions. Many young people don't seem to know themselves well. Some people, when choosing careers, don't really know what they are, what they will like and some people even leave reserve for situation called "what if I don't even know I will like this".

So, in cognitive function theory this behaviour could only be explained as mostly not knowing your main function and being outside of it. It should be draining and sometimes that's true, but not always it is. In fact, big part of it is considered to be delightful, sometimes educating or fun. This is where this theory starts. Basically, I just speculate, that our function strength may alternate and that even a function in shadow can become delightful and not energy sucking, at the same time our main function can become very draining and pain in the ass to use it.

It's no secret, that our brains develop all the time and that we all develop our personality over time, as well as other regions of our brain. This knowledge and the fact, that brains have thing called plasticity may imply, that we can change ourselves and may be doing very often.

In the past, there were many development ideas, schools. Let's take a look at ancient Japan. There were samurais and their masters. A samurai always had to obey rules, which were called bushido. Often, those rules were against human's instincts, against simple survival needs. They were often opposing normal human behaviour, in some ways their primal personality, but samurais over time learned to obey them (not all of them) and change their personality, even if temporarily. In Europe we had knights, they also had some rules, which they had to obey and they learned to do so. In south Asia, there are monks, gurus and all they do all the time, is learning wisdom and how to become wise. They have to overcome many of their initial personality blocks and learn taught truths, therefore become someone with different cognition to some extent or at the very least, have no problems with quickly alternating between their primal selves and learned selves.

Many people would agree, that they shouldn't stay the same all their life and that they should learn how to become better people, therefore to develop themselves and in terms of personality, it means learning how to alternate functions, but in such way, that it doesn't drain too much energy or is too inconvenient to use. So, people shall learn how to use their lower functions effectively, to alternate them.

Yet people, still in some ways remain the same. Certain aspects of cognition don't change much or are generally enjoyable to use, this is what main function is. Our main function is a part of our ID (Freudian term), yet it isn't the only one. It's just fragment and most likely just as meaningful as all others (the rest of our functions).

In the past we had theory of basic human needs. The creator of this theory, A.Maslow, created a pyramid of basic human needs and claimed, that every human being must fulfill the needs of one tier, to start caring about other tier needs, but later J.Fraser suggested, that such views were incorrect and that our needs are often fulfilled not in sequence, but as what person in question thinks is more important (so those needs are basically are equal in their worth). And Fraser was correct. My own theory suggests similar concept, just applied to cognitive functions, but there's a small exception. When person in question is very tired, exhausted, then that person will be more likely to use main function as it is the path of least resistance or during periods of the most frustration in your life. When you just want to get rid of everything and come back to your safer state.

Neurologically this theory could be explained, that regions of main function are the most developed, they may have the most neural connections and that's why they are dominant, just that human often values something else and will work hard to develop another regions as well.

If person always had just one personality type, then shouldn't such person's cognition always be very similar and therefore products of cognition very similar? Imagine doing something very similar for the rest of your life. For example, if you always hated certain concepts in Youtube videos, you wouldn't change over time. Many people "grow out" such behavior and tend to change such views (they alternate their cognitive functions to gain more wisdom).

There's also something called crystallized IQ and fluid intelligence. Very often it changes over time. Most people, when they are kids, they have higher fluid IQ than crystallized IQ and later in life there's a flip, which happens during early adulthood (before early adulthood most people don't know their personality well, perhaps my theory is related to this flip and after the flip, many of us start to already know what we are) , so after that flip, most people have lower fluid IQ than crystallized IQ (crystallized IQ grew) and late in people's life both IQs tend to drop a bit (there was a rapid growth until mid adulthood). Pretty much the whole existence of fluid IQ may suggest, that we need to always learn to change and the existence of crystallized IQ suggests, that we also need to remember how certain stuff was learned. These two IQs in their nature are actually close to brain plasticity concept and if we combine all of them together and my theory, then it kinda makes sense, that our cognitive function can alternate and change in their enjoyableness and in mental energy drainage factors. Therefore, slightly opposing current views, that anything below first two functions will never be very enjoyable or energy generating.

What do you think about this theory?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
This is close to how I view MBTI and Neuroscience.when I put what I know about the two together. Of course there is a lot more for me to know, but humans are made to adapt and grow new neurons.

The Si, Se, Ni or Ne functions are actually how we learn.

You need to look into Dario Nardi’s work on MBTI and Neuroscience— trust me on that. It’s mind-blowing when you add the knowledge of type flow states to MBTI knowledge.
 
#3 ·
This is close to how I view MBTI and Neuroscience. When I put what I know about the two together. Of course there is a lot more for me to know, but humans are made to adapt and grow new neurons.
I wouldn't be so sure about growing neurons. Only recent studies show, that this can happen and before that it was believed, that once they die, it's permanent. Just like limbs or wounds. Let's just say, that we don't know much about that yet, but at least we know, that they can lose and make connections.

You need to look into Dario Nardi’s work on MBTI and Neuroscience— trust me on that. It’s mind-blowing when you add the knowledge of type flow states to MBTI knowledge.
I read the results posted here about his research and I don't know if I should trust, what he did (I would like to trust him). One problem is that his sampling sizes were erratic and generally small, another problem is his questionable knowledge of cognitive functions and third problem is that he used a test to assign types to people. It's cool, that he did that, but all his work is questionable. Oh and he didn't use accurate equipment for that. Also it's kinda weird, that he didn't post his research paper somewhere online and wrote a book instead.
 
#8 ·
My opinion is that the eight faux-Jungian functions that are much discussed at internet forums have been aptly characterized — by James Reynierse, in a series of articles published in the official MBTI journal — as a "category mistake," and that there's nothing any more fundamental about the dichotomy combinations that are purportedly associated with "cognitive functions" (e.g., FP) than with the other combinations (e.g., NF).

And that's a lot more consistent with where Myers (and the official MBTI) ended up than many forumites are led to believe.

And anyone who's up for a long discussion of what I call the Real MBTI Model (and why I refer to it that way) can find it in this TC post and the posts it links to.

The final link at the end of that linked post is no longer functional (since the owner has taken INTJforum private), but you can find a long replacement excerpt from the INTJforum post — describing the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI — in the spoiler in this PerC post.
 
#9 ·
I feel very differently from both of you because I think we have very different expectations of research and also questions. 60 is a substantial sample size for preliminary research. EEGs can show consistent correlations and are kind of what we’ve got, really. Consistent correlations of the top of the brain are still consistent correlations even when we don’t understand deeper. Nardi needed only good research methods and good neuroscience analysis in order to make correlations between MBTI type and the brain scans he was seeing. It’s not like we need to reinvent the MBTI test. As for the method of MBTI testing, the subjects were sent a MBTI test and their results and they were supposed to take 10 weeks thinking about if they thought the results were correct. So basically this is all exactly what you need to find consistent patterns in people who MBTI test as certain types.

And the patterns are what we need to expand our understanding.

Nardi doesn’t even have to be half way interested in MBTI to make a good study. Many scientists start out with a null hypothesis and actually that’s what Nardi started out with. He didn’t think that there would be a correlation, but there was— a very strong one. And to me the applications for helping facilitate learning are huge. Personality can definitely move to a neuroscience area and out of psychology— psychologists mostly have never accepted Jung or MBTI anyway. And then back to psychology when psychology is better informed from the neuroscience.

So the important thing is to realize the implications and ask more questions and hopefully get someone to study them. Yes, just for correlations would work for now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allana
#11 ·
For instance @reckful Ni dom was found to reach flow state in all the top areas of the brain very quickly when given new information, but to do so they needed sensory stimuli to be as little as possible. Sensory input threw you guys off. So ideal conditions for Ni to learn are quiet without outside noise or disruption so that you can go into flow state easily. Pretty much the opposite is true for Se doms, they learn much better when able to look out a window or be outside and probably movement and other sensory stimulation would be good. For Ne we have to suppress our own inner "noise" and outside noise doesn't matter. In fact it usually helps to have some kind of music or movie running in my background. Si needs repetition and the more repetition the better and more fully they learn.
 
#12 ·
@The red spirit Thank you for explaining your thoughts on the Dario Nardi's work. That helped me understand where people are coming from.

I think one of your coolest questions for me was "Don't you think neuroscience is replacing psychology?" It might.
I think your theory really helps to put many different fields together-- just the kind of thing we should be doing, imo. Since truth from any field would have to be truth no matter what field you're in. Thank you for your thread! I'm sorry if I de-railed it a bit, but only to explore your ideas and mine a bit more!
 
#13 ·
I think your theory really helps to put many different fields together-- just the kind of thing we should be doing, imo. Since truth from any field would have to be truth no matter what field you're in.
That's why I don't feel much difference between chemistry and physics.

Thank you for your thread! I'm sorry if I de-railed it a bit, but only to explore your ideas and mine a bit more!
Don't worry about that.
 
#14 · (Edited)
@Llyralen

I just wanted to inform you that Dario Nardi himself said that he made a mistake in publishing that book, that it was put out prematurely and he took back all that he postulated in that book. I believe I heard this first from @Dissymetry (not trying to force you to interact here, but just thought you might be a better source for explaining this than me) who provided me with sources I have since lost. I believe the pivotal fallacy is that the subjects that were scanned for research were very small in number and gave a self-reported type. They were not tested by the same instrument, so there was no way to measure whether or not the person truly was the type he corresponded them to.

A better way of testing his theory would have been to study the brain "blind", not knowing anyone's type and then, let each person take the same personality test. Afterwards, the different brains would be assorted to type - but not known to the research scientist. All the areas of the brain which are more active in those subjects would then be analysed and a percentage of how strong the correlation between brain activity and type would have been provided. At the END only would the research team then find out which type corresponded to what.

Nardi claims to be an INTJ. Of course he's going to talk up Ni. It's a classic case of research bias. I greatly admire him for admitting to it, though. So don't think I'm trashing him. It's just the material in the book is really inconclusive.

I'm very familiar with the various areas of the brain he described. One thing I find very strange about his attempts is that he described each brain area as corresponding to the names of the electrodes lol rather than the names of the actual parts of the brain. I found that very neurosciency (opposed to neurobiology or cognitive neuroscience). I am not specialised nor do I work in neurology, but I have a penchant for it and took many classes in University on Neurobiology.

As for cognitive functions and their "stacking", Jung's is the one that makes the most sense to me.

Jung: II/EE or EE/II
Myers: IE/EE or EI/II
Grant: IE/IE or EI/EI

When applying it to myself, I identify as what he calls the Ni type and I believe I use Ni+T. I think that puts me most aligned with MBTI INTJ, especially since I prefer I to E, N to S, T to F, and J to P (though that last one is only slight). I do not really care to contemplate in which direction my thinking function goes. I know my intuition is introverted and that's my dominant function-in-attitude. So that's all I really care about. Other people are free to use what makes sense to them, of course. I find the Grant stack the most perplexing, but whatever.
 
#15 ·
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
@<b><a href="https://www.personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=486618" target="_blank">Llyralen</a></b>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->

I just wanted to inform you that Dario Nardi himself said that he made a mistake in publishing that book, that it was put out prematurely and he took back all that he postulated in that book. I believe I heard this first from <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
@<b><a href="https://www.personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=546247" target="_blank">Dissymetry</a></b>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> (not trying to force you to interact here, but just thought you might be a better source for explaining this than me) who provided me with sources I have since lost. I believe the pivotal fallacy is that the subjects that were scanned for research were very small in number and gave a self-reported type. They were not tested by the same instrument, so there was no way to measure whether or not the person truly was the type he corresponded them to.

A better way of testing his theory would have been to study the brain "blind", not knowing anyone's type and then, let each person take the same personality test. Afterwards, the different brains would be assorted to type - but not known to the research scientist. All the areas of the brain which are more active in those subjects would then be analysed and a percentage of how strong the correlation between brain activity and type would have been provided. At the END only would the research team then find out which type corresponded to what.

Nardi claims to be an INTJ. Of course he's going to talk up Ni. It's a classic case of research bias. I greatly admire him for admitting to it, though. So don't think I'm trashing him. It's just the material in the book is really inconclusive.

I'm very familiar with the various areas of the brain he described. One thing I find very strange about his attempts is that he described each brain area as corresponding to the names of the electrodes lol rather than the names of the actual parts of the brain. I found that very neurosciency (opposed to neurobiology or cognitive neuroscience). I am not specialised nor do I work in neurology, but I have a penchant for it and took many classes in University on Neurobiology.

As for cognitive functions and their "stacking", Jung's is the one that makes the most sense to me.

Jung: II/EE or EE/II
Myers: IE/EE or EI/II
Grant: IE/IE or EI/EI

When applying it to myself, I identify as what he calls the Ni type and I believe I use Ni+T. I think that puts me most aligned with MBTI INTJ, especially since I prefer I to E, N to S, T to F, and J to P (though that last one is only slight). I do not really care to contemplate in which direction my thinking function goes. I know my intuition is introverted and that's my dominant function-in-attitude. So that's all I really care about. Other people are free to use what makes sense to them, of course. I find the Grant stack the most perplexing, but whatever.
Nardi is still talking about what he is learning with MBTI. I don't think whatever quote was read or heard by Dissymetry means that Nardi thought that there was nothing to his own research. I've listened to almost everything he's got out there by way of presentations, although I have not read the book. I completely agree with your study set-up, it's exactly what I would say and I think he would also say (or anyone who knows how to study correlations) to do, but he didn't do it too differently in actuality as far as I've heard him describe, except that it wasn't blind. He sent out MBTI tests to participants (because the correlation being tested was MBTI and brain) and gave them 10 weeks to decide if their results from MBTI seemed to fit them is what he said in an interview.
Anyway, in a Q and A at the end of this webinar
https://res.matrixinsights.com/webinars/neuro-secrets-of-nps-with-dario-nardi-ph-d/
he says that culture is stronger than MBTI type. He said if people were going to have him bet on whether he could tell if someone was from India then he could guess by their brain scan correctly, but he says he doesn't think he could with MBTI types.
The age of participants would also be very important since with his experience with older MBTI types then their brains start to develop other areas--- he finds that they develop according to the Grant stack. INFJs look more like ISTPs in older age with what their brains are doing and what they are interested in as they more strongly develop their Ti, for instance.

Anyway, I don't need this research tossed out--- I need it developed and repeated. I wish that many people did the study you are talking about, but I bet besides there being pretty consistent flow states in the same dominant types in people in their early 20's, then other than that I wonder what kind of correlation we'd get. I think Dario Nardi saying that he can't tell from scans is quite telling. Still, he obviously is still learning a lot about MBTI types by using EEGs on more and more people and different age groups. When seeing people in flow state from different activities these seem obvious at least to him. For instance, in a recent interview he said that he studied a ESTJ (he didn't say how he was tested or self-identified) who was trained as a shaman and he said he looked typical ESTJ until asked to do a shamanic ritual and looked INFJ in functions during that moment. Maybe that sounds suspicious, but to me it also seems obvious that we can be trained to use all sorts of different functions. This is just one example that he gave that caught my hear. His research, especially on flow states of the perceiving functions (Ni, Ne, Si, Se) has strongly influenced the way I view Jungian functions and MBTI. I feel like it gives answers to questions that I wouldn't find elsewhere or would have kept wondering about but now I feel more rounded about how I view MBTI and the brain.

A while back I started reading a bunch of Neuroscience studies and the ones most interesting to me were about empathy or compassion with different parts of the brain being utilized... one of them was described as "put yourself into someone's situation. What would you feel in this situation" v.s. "listen to what the person is communicating and saying and have compassion" or something close to that that for me screamed "Fi" or "Fe", although they weren't studying MBTI. They taught all participants to do both empathy and compassion and sure enough the different parts of their brain were lit up. Then they did a cross-study. The researchers concluded that empathizing directly was "Better because it encouraged more extroverted behaviors and both partners expressed more satisfaction with the interchange afterwards." This was appalling to me. The advantage of Jung seems to me that he felt all the functions were equal and to be appreciated. At least that is the feeling I got and this is for certain the attitude and point of the MBTI specifically. Lets see if I can find that study: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(14)00770-2
I don't think this is it, but close. If you look up empathy and compassion and neuroscience you find a book called "Against Empathy" by Paul Bloom https://www.learningandthebrain.com...ase-for-rational-compassion-by-paul-bloom/and I believe the person heading up a lot of empathy and compassion research is Tania Singer.

Well, the thing is, I identify with using specifically Fi (and Te incidentally-- me personally, anyway). And I feel like I have asked so many questions of Fe users (specifically INFJs) to pin-point the differences between Fe and Fi and our feeling functions seem very very different. I'm not sure why there should just be a generalist 2nd function since different parts of the brain are being used most likely for Fi and Fe. My husband is an INFP, I don't feel like my feeling function is very far off from his, and it is not different in approach from my husband's as far as I can tell, but is very different from that of INFJs and this is when we try to isolate F specifically and I've asked some Fe doms and INFJ and Fe dom feeling functions seem alike, in other words I don't feel like I just use F. I use Fi. The studies on empathy vs compassion are actually a bit horrifying to me since although I KNOW I can learn to use Fe, it isn't my natural (I believe that I trained myself to feel Fe for a short time and it matched descriptions and the understanding that I'd heard from those identifying as Fe users and it did NOT work for me on a day to day basis. In order to "feel Fe" as I was experiencing it, I felt like I needed a different approach to my job and to handling people and handling myself. I did this last year. Because it was so difficult at work, I focused on my own emotions and the Fe that I'd trained myself to feel faded which helped me feel more in balance and like I could use my normal approach and discernment. Okay, so my points? Through learning about all this I'm quite personally decided that:
1. People can develop all of the functions to one degree or another and especially for certain tasks.
2. I support the Grant stacks--- although for someone else they might use a different function often in their job. I used to use some Ti when analyzing studies, I believe, and when I learned a 2nd language, actually---- although in general I do think my 3rd used function is specifically Te.
3. It's okay if other people don't agree with me on any of this, but I'm not sure why people don't want these hypotheses studied further.
4. If a Jungian more "different but equal" approach isn't going to get started in neurobiology then I can see lots of future possibilities that I'm not sure that I like. After I read the above study my mind thought of a story where in the future everyone took pills that essentially made them more ESTJ-ish to save them from depression, etc. etc. etc. Except for one INFP whose parents were "cruel enough" to not give her the pills. Fun. lol.
5. Dario Nardi is just a guy asking questions and hooking up EEGs--- but I sure wish he and others would do so even more.

Here's a recent (and local @Respect is a PerC-citizen) interview with Dario Nardi. I personally learn a lot from him. At any rate, I want these correlations pursued.
 
#16 ·
@Llyralen

I admire your passion and loyalty to Nardi. I'm aware that he is refining his research methods but, unfortunately, the scientific community at large will need to be able to accept that his research is valid for it to make a big enough impact on the theory itself.

I find it interesting that you are drawn to empathy and compassion and the correlations it has to different brain areas. I assume you are very familiar with the limbic system and the amygdala. What is interesting to me about it is that I have a similar draw in the opposite direction. I'm very interested in the psychopathic brain. I'm interested in it because I don't understand it and I'm also interested in it from an evolutionary point of view. Please understand (I only say this for anyone reading) that a psychopathic brain is not the same thing as a psychopathic killer or a sadist. The Psychopathic brain is simply incapable of processing the same range of emotion that the general public can.

Anyway, I personally don't like Nardi. There's something about him that rubs me the wrong way and I cannot quite place what it is.

I have read the book "Against Empathy". I personally found Bloom's book to be trash, but that was my estimation. I felt that it muddied rather than clarified what exactly empathy is. But then, I have a very simple definition of empathy: two humans sharing the same emotion. The ability to theoretically empathise, for example, isn't at all the same as actual empathy. I feel that his book cheapens the simple definition I have of empathy.

Anyway, you clearly know your stuff and clearly have a really strong pull toward certain research and such. And I know a lot of people really like Nardi and a lot of people like that "Against Empathy" book. I happen not to, but I don't as a matter of personal preference more than a matter of finding their concepts completely baseless (though, some aspects of both are lol).

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I appreciate it.

btw, that @Respect guy spams the INTJ forums with OP bs. Cool that he interviewed Nardi, I guess, but I don't trust that guy lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llyralen
#17 ·
Thank you as well. I am also enjoying the exchange of thought. I don't feel like I'm loyal to Nardi the man, specifically---although he's either got something to study or is a charlatan but he is in good standing as professor at UCLA. I don't know if I'd like him or not as a person-- not really my point. I feel I'm loyal to what I personally see in real life paired with neuroscience research that has the possibilities to hopefully give hard data and that this info could potentially be very useful to us as humans. The main reason I feel this way is due to the applications that I see this info presenting. For instance, catering to different MBTI learning styles. Along with the many threads I've created about Fi and Fe aux are really where this information has synergized for me into a kind of world-view about MBTI and neuroscience and what I think they can accomplish that I am loyal to and passionate about, until I get new info or info that to me actually disproves what I think..

That book by Bloom, I have not read it. I used it to illustrate my point that in the Neuroscience community I believe they are pushing Fe over Fi (although not calling it anything close to a MBTI function) and I find that alarming. It's probably not wise to use a book I haven't read, but there was a synopsis that concerned me. I really do want people seeing MBTI functions as equal and if being studied even without the Jungian names, I think the personalities involved should be seen as equal. Otherwise INFPs are less healthy versions of ENFJs? Those kind of ideas whether using Jung or not are pretty horrifying. But the thing is that from all of this neuroscience study I actually think of the cognitive functions as actual usual brain coordination is all. To me MBTI is either brain function or it's all crap, I guess. I don't feel that about Enneagram which I think actually is more psychology-- basically it's the way we conceptualize and deal with our fear and pain.

It sounds like you identify with a generalist "F" for feeling and "T"?. You don't see a Te or Fi specification? I think you've got your husband's Ti for comparison, but that's a bit different in your mind, maybe, since Jung would describe Ti in dominant position as actually being Ti.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brightflashes
#20 · (Edited)
@Llyralen , @brightflashes
The issue with Nardi and Jung is that they use kinda different definitions to begin with. Nardi is not addressing the theory part of typology as much, but he's also admitted to not seeing hard evidence for functions stacks. There are some brain patterns that can point to functions, but most of the stuff he captures are behavioralistic skills and not psychological functions, hence why culture shapes his findings so much.

The problem with this is that by taking the Grant Stack as fact, he ends up defining things according to it to begin with. It's how he ends up saying that Fi types are great listeners, when those two categories are contradictory at their premises.

Jung defined E and I as adaptation strategies regarding the dynamic and relationship between subject and object. Simplistically, they can be boiled down to E as being object->subject and I as subject->object. In my experience, usually P types follow the E pattern and J types the I pattern preferentially. This is also why the attitude is not an accessory to a single function but a general preference of the personality by which functions can be expressed.
After all these decades of misleading away from these definitions by applying the Grant Stack prescriptively, there has been a lot of redefining of functions which muddies the waters by adding behaviors to them after the fact, in order to keep them consistent with observations about actual people. "He likes to control people, which means he acts on the world, which means he must have Te because you can't act on the world without extraversion!" etc etc. when controlling is an aspect of introversion as initially defined, for example.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top