The cognitive function study which found nobody matched Grant stacks - Page 2

The cognitive function study which found nobody matched Grant stacks

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
Thank Tree11Thanks

This is a discussion on The cognitive function study which found nobody matched Grant stacks within the Cognitive Functions forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; I was hoping the complexes would be based on strength or something we could measure. Case number 1) is a ...

  1. #11

    I was hoping the complexes would be based on strength or something we could measure.

    Case number 1) is a standard Myer-Briggs INTP ie. see Blue Wolf test result:
    https://www.personalitycafe.com/cogn...n-test-18.html

    Case number 2) is a standard Myers-Briggs INTJ.


    Case number 3) is unclear and not really acknowledge by the Myer-Briggs as something we can observe. However the standard MBTI test will always give it a name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    As stated before, the Child can appear to become “strong”, and its function thus be picked up as if it were “preferred”. This is what that “OP” system would be calling “jumpers”, which right there is telling, for if Ni could be TI's auxiliary, then what is being “jumped” over?


    Yes, the auxiliary and tertiary, being neither as superior as the dominant, nor as repressed as the inferior, are sort of “inbetween”, and so can seem equal (i.e. “two auxiliaries”), or the tertiary even surpass the auxiliary at times.


    But what makes one “#2”, and the other “#3” is the natural maturity level of the associated archetype (complex), regardless of how “strong” or “weak” the actual functions may seem. Again, “tests” based on “strengths” won't pick this up.
    Interesting, what you are saying here is that there could be a link between this mystical system of John Beebe and the "Jumper" theory.


    The trouble with Myers-Briggs is that 16 is boring now in 2020 and I'll be more interested in being able to observe 32 types instead.

  2. #12
    INTP - The Thinkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Catandroid View Post
    I was hoping the complexes would be based on strength or something we could measure.
    Well, the ego itself is going to be the "strongest", and the caretaker, next strongest (or at least, as I said next in maturity level), and that's what sets type, really. Everything else is just a "reflection" of those first two (both the complexes and the functions. It's all the collection of what was rejected from the first two), so we shouldn't get too hung up in their relative "strengths".
    Case number 1) is a standard Myer-Briggs INTP ie. see Blue Wolf test result:
    https://www.personalitycafe.com/cogn...n-test-18.html

    Case number 2) is a standard Myers-Briggs INTJ.

    Case number 3) is unclear and not really acknowledge by the Myer-Briggs as something we can observe. However the standard MBTI test will always give it a name.
    MBTI is framed around the dichotomies, and so measuring functions can produce those "typologically impossible" results. What happens, is if you're very introverted, then for the INTP, it may seemingly "spread to" (color) his iNtuition on those tests, and for the INTJ, it may "spread to" his Thinking.
    As for "NeTe", MBTI doesn't measure that; it will measure high on E, N and T dichotomies, and "J" will determine, by assumption, that it's TeNi, and "P" will assume "NeTi". There's no way to deduce NeTe, as that would be BOTH J and P at the same time (And getting "50/50" in that dichotomy doesn't mean you're "both"; it means your "clarity of preference" is undecided).
    A type that is "TeNe OR TiNe" could only have gotten that from a "cognitive process test", and that's likely an INTP who likely has a strong auxiliary, and so seems more expressive so that his Thinking appears to come out as extraverted. (Especially if the function is defined as "applied logic", as it often is, misleadingly so).

    I think the functions haven't been well defined in a lot of sources, so they're treated as "things" like polar dichotomies, and attempted to be "measured" as such, and usually expressed in terms of behaviors. But what happens, is that many behaviors can occur with either attitude of a given function.

    Both INTP and INTJ are dominantly internally focused, and are both iNtuitive and Thinking. So both can look like "NiTi/TiNi", and will appear to be "in their heads" as they do both functions But the INTP's Thinking (determination of logical "truth") is his dominant perspective, and the INTJ's is iNtuition (awareness of implications). It's the auxiliary complex that for both is externally focused, but again, it may appear they are completely internal. (That is, until the complex begins "Parenting" others with the function, which will then be pointing others to objective data).

    Interesting, what you are saying here is that there could be a link between this mystical system of John Beebe and the "Jumper" theory.
    Well, yest, that's what I believe that "OP" system is picking up, but trying to make separate "types" out of them.
    The trouble with Myers-Briggs is that 16 is boring now in 2020 and I'll be more interested in being able to observe 32 types instead.
    That seems to be the thinking. But everyone's now tacking Enneagram onto it, and PersonalityHacker has produced a comprehensive set of combos for every MBTI type with every Enneatype, so that would be 144 types. Then add in the wings. And the tritypes. In the system I most believe in, there's a third area of interaction (in addition to the social and leadership areas that I believe correspond to Interaction Styles and Keirsey), so with the five temperaments, make 125 combos (5×5×5). Add in four "moderate" variations, and then another four "compulsive" variations of the temperaments, you can have 2197 or 4913 combinations!

  3. #13

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocean Helm View Post
    I believe there were about 500 people who were gauged in cognitive function strength and none of them matched Grant stacks in order.

    Does anyone know what I'm talking about and can help lead me to this holy grail?

    I know it's out there somewhere but for some reason I can't find it in the sea of stuff online.
    I know I'm not helping this thread, but do you know any file, where Grant wrote about his stacks? I wasn't even able to find that.

    @Eric B maybe you know that?

  4. #14
    INTP - The Thinkers

    It's very hard to find any info on Grant. He's cited in the MBTI Manual, and his books are Comparability of the Gray-Wheelwright Psychological Type Questionnaire and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (1965), Self-description by MBTI types on the Adjective Check List (1966), and (with Thompson, M & Clark, T) From image to likeness: a Jungian path in the gospel journey (1983).
    The latter is what's credited in the Manual (p387, n7) as seeing the tertiary taking the dominant attitude. You can see the whole book here: https://www.amazon.com/Image-Likenes.../dp/0809125528 and he discusses the tertiary p22ff

    The standard order was never even recognized my most of us as "the Grant stack" until fairly recently, and it's the Reynierse camp that's really been highlighting that.
    The red spirit and Catandroid thanked this post.

  5. #15

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    It's very hard to find any info on Grant. He's cited in the MBTI Manual, and his books are Comparability of the Gray-Wheelwright Psychological Type Questionnaire and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (1965), Self-description by MBTI types on the Adjective Check List (1966), and (with Thompson, M & Clark, T) From image to likeness: a Jungian path in the gospel journey (1983).
    The latter is what's credited in the Manual (p387, n7) as seeing the tertiary taking the dominant attitude. You can see the whole book here: https://www.amazon.com/Image-Likenes.../dp/0809125528 and he discusses the tertiary p22ff

    The standard order was never even recognized my most of us as "the Grant stack" until fairly recently, and it's the Reynierse camp that's really been highlighting that.
    Jeez, I know that internet resources have limited lifetime, but really something so well known just vanished. If not you I would have had a hard time to even find Grant's name. It's also mindblowing how such obscure piece of information is so widespread in our community. Make me wonder why and how we even decided to adopt that.

    The only problem is that it's not a whole book there. It says it's copyrighted material, so I can't see it, but I will trust you.

  6. #16
    INTP - The Thinkers

    Forgot to mention, most Google links on "Harold Grant" are about a football player!

  7. #17

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocean Helm View Post
    I believe there were about 500 people who were gauged in cognitive function strength and none of them matched Grant stacks in order.

    Does anyone know what I'm talking about and can help lead me to this holy grail?

    I know it's out there somewhere but for some reason I can't find it in the sea of stuff online.
    I suspect you're thinking of the 2008 Reynierse/Harker study that Reynierse talks about on page 12 of "The Case Against Type Dynamics."

    But really, if the issue you're focusing on is the lack of validity of the Grant function stack, the most important thing for anybody to understand is that, as Reynierse emphasizes, standards-challenged typologists like Berens and Nardi have been peddling it for years now without being able to point to any respectable level of support for it from anybody's studies anywhere.

    Intelligent, knowledgeable people know better than to spend time learning about zodiac-based personality types not because there's a source that definitively proves that there couldn't possibly be any correlations between somebody's zodiac sign and any aspects of personality. That's not the way personality psychology works. Instead, the burden's on whoever's offering up a typology (or typology offshoot) to gather a respectable body of data samples that shows that, yes indeed, the people in one of their type groups tend (on average) to have X, Y and Z aspects of personality in common. And zodiac-based personality typologists have never been able to do that — which is why the respectable districts of personality psychology say that zodiac-based personality typology has no validity.

    And notwithstanding over 50 years of MBTI data pools, correlating the MBTI types with everything under the sun — internal and external both, and including countless aspects of personality as separately measured by lots of other established personality instruments — the correlational patterns associated with the "function axes" have never shown up in any non-random number of data pools.

    Nobody's ever found a single blessed Si-vs.-Se thing where the SJs and NPs favored Si and the SPs and NJs favored Se.

    Nobody's ever found a single blessed Ni-vs.-Ne thing where the NJs and SPs favored Ni and the NPs and SJs favored Ne.

    Nobody's ever found a single blessed Fi-vs.-Fe thing where the FPs and TJs favored Fi and the FJs and TPs favored Fe.

    And nobody's ever found a single blessed Ti-vs.-Te thing where the TPs and FJs favored Ti and the TJs and FPs favored Te.

    And at this point, I think we can be pretty confident that nobody ever will find any of those things, because those goofy "tandem"-based groupings are natives of the same realm as the unicorns and the munchkins.
    Last edited by reckful; 07-11-2019 at 10:56 PM.
    brightflashes, Ocean Helm and Dissymetry thanked this post.

  8. #18

    Quote Originally Posted by Catandroid View Post
    According to Jung the dominant function is supported by two auxiliary functions. (In MBTI publications the first auxiliary is usually called the auxiliary or secondary function and the second auxiliary function is usually called the tertiary function.)
    Unfortunately this statement isn't cited. Does anyone here know if this is true? I have by no means read all of Jung's works, but I'm trying to get them all under my belt and I have yet to read anything like this (or, if I have, I do not remember). @reckful ? You're the only one I can think of who might know what, if anything, this is referencing.

    Also, I think if I could get reckful, Turi, and Eric B alone in a room and just listen to the three of you talk - about anything - my ovaries would explode in 3 minutes.

  9. #19

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    It's very hard to find any info on Grant. He's cited in the MBTI Manual, and his books are Comparability of the Gray-Wheelwright Psychological Type Questionnaire and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (1965), Self-description by MBTI types on the Adjective Check List (1966), and (with Thompson, M & Clark, T) From image to likeness: a Jungian path in the gospel journey (1983).
    The latter is what's credited in the Manual (p387, n7) as seeing the tertiary taking the dominant attitude. You can see the whole book here: https://www.amazon.com/Image-Likenes.../dp/0809125528 and he discusses the tertiary p22ff

    The standard order was never even recognized my most of us as "the Grant stack" until fairly recently, and it's the Reynierse camp that's really been highlighting that.
    It sounds like the Grant stack is simply presented as the Gospel for productivity and it's a tool to believe in for self improvement so I am not dismissing it as such.

    John Bebee came along and justified it with his system and Dario Nardi talks about developing the pattern of a custom function.

    They can be right.
    Last edited by Catandroid; 07-12-2019 at 03:32 AM.

  10. #20

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Forgot to mention, most Google links on "Harold Grant" are about a football player!
    I use Duck Duck Go and still find nothing


     
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The real pattern behind the function stacks
    By Ecchi in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-15-2019, 05:10 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-06-2018, 04:58 AM
  3. The Harold Grant Stack Was A Mistake
    By Abraxas in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 08-04-2018, 07:55 AM
  4. Howard Grant cognitive function stackings?
    By Baerlieber in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 08-20-2015, 10:05 PM
  5. Cognitive Function stacks and me.
    By susugam in forum What's my personality type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-01-2015, 03:05 PM

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 01:30 PM.
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