The cognitive function study which found nobody matched Grant stacks

The cognitive function study which found nobody matched Grant stacks

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 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 believe there were about 500 people who were gauged in cognitive function strength and none of them matched Grant ...

  1. #1

    The cognitive function study which found nobody matched Grant stacks

    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.
    brightflashes thanked this post.



  2. #2

    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.
    Did you see this in a scientific journal or referenced in an article? The reason I ask is that it could save me some time searching the journals if it wasn't in one. But it would save even more time if it is in one.

    In the mean time, I'll look for statistical analyses and see what I can find. Here's one that I found, but probably not the one you're talking about:

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....13164488482018
    Last edited by brightflashes; 07-06-2019 at 06:57 AM.

  3. #3
    INTP - The Thinkers

    The Grant stack isn't about relative "strength". (people believing this is what makes typology so hard to understand). It's about different complexes that operate through the different functional perspectives.

  4. #4
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    The Grant stack isn't about relative "strength". (people believing this is what makes typology so hard to understand). It's about different complexes that operate through the different functional perspectives.
    How do you reconcile this perspective when considering the differentiation of functions?

  5. #5
    INTP - The Thinkers

    The complexes are what "differentiate" the functions to begin with! What we're calling "functions" are really divisions of reality, akin to compass directions or past/future. Reality is really undivided, but a conscious entity placed within spacetime then divides it into poles of opposites, some "directions" conscious, unconscious, and partially conscious.

    "Complexes" or "ego-states" are lesser senses of "I" in the ego-structure (the ego the main sense of "I"). So these are what divide out (differentiate) the data we associate with the functions (tangible, implicational, impersonal or personal awareness, and external or internal orientation).

    Type is really two complexes: the ego itself, which sets the dominant function and attitude (again, carving these perspectives out of reality into what we call "differentiation"), and another complex will support this by choosing a different kind of function (perception if the dominant is judgment, etc.) and the opposite attitude. This then becomes the "auxiliary". The other six possible function-attitude combinations are then picked up by six other complexes that are really reflections of these first two.
    These first two will naturally be the first to "develop", and thus be "strongest", and so the associated functions will generally be "stronger" or "more developed" than the others. But other things can offset this, like being in the grip of one of the other complexes a lot. This might be picked up when one takes a cognitive process "strength" test. And the other six are even less likely to fall into any "strength" order.

    That's why they might not match. So we can't expect relative "strengths" to match the Grant (or especially, extended Beebe) order, and thus don't disprove it. The order is not about strength.
    brightflashes thanked this post.

  6. #6

    Quote Originally Posted by brightflashes View Post
    Did you see this in a scientific journal or referenced in an article? The reason I ask is that it could save me some time searching the journals if it wasn't in one. But it would save even more time if it is in one.

    In the mean time, I'll look for statistical analyses and see what I can find. Here's one that I found, but probably not the one you're talking about:

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....13164488482018
    I believe it was in a scientific journal or at least a pseudoscientific-looking publication. It tested for people to fit the IEEE (Ni-Te-Fe-Se) and IEIE (Ni-Te-Fi-Se) as a ranked order from 1 to 4 of their preferred functions and one person fit the IEEE (aka Myers stack) and zero fit the IEIE (aka Grant stack).
    brightflashes thanked this post.

  7. #7
    INTP - The Thinkers

    The attitude of the tertiary is set by two different complexes (according to Beebe's model). The "Child" (which will orient it as the same attitude as the dominant), and the "Trickster" (which will orient it to the opposite attitude). Beebe says both may actually develop together (because the Trickster protects the Child from stronger complexes in others).

    So that's why the attitude of the tertiary was always ambiguous. (Where the more conscious auxiliary and more suppressed inferior were more definitely the opposite attitude).
    So to list the "shadows" of the four functions, he places them below the inferior, and the Trickster ends up #7. Still, it is really still apart of the tertiary function; just its "shadow". (You can also see the opposite attitude, or "attitude of unconsciousness", as what everything but the dominant defaults to, but then the Child reorients it to the dominant attitude).
    Aridela thanked this post.

  8. #8

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    The Grant stack isn't about relative "strength". (people believing this is what makes typology so hard to understand). It's about different complexes that operate through the different functional perspectives.
    Would the below be a representation of complexes or ego states?

    1)
    The awareness unit
    .../.......\
    TiNi or TiNe


    2)
    The awareness unit
    .../.......\
    NiTi or NiTe


    3)
    The awareness unit
    .../.......\
    TeNe or TiNe


    "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.)"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_type
    Last edited by Catandroid; 07-11-2019 at 08:08 AM.

  9. #9

    I only found something about JH Reynierse "The Case Against Type Dynamics" in Journal of psychological types.
    https://www.capt.org/research/articl...Vol69_0109.pdf

    Good luck to find what you are looking for, could be interesting read !

  10. #10
    INTP - The Thinkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Catandroid View Post
    Would the below be a representation of complexes or ego states?

    1)
    The awareness unit
    .../.......\
    TiNi or TiNe

    2)
    The awareness unit
    .../.......\
    NiTi or NiTe

    3)
    The awareness unit
    .../.......\
    TeNe or TiNe


    "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.)"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_type
    I take it, that's from that “Objective Personality” system that's gained a lot of attention?
    This sort of thing comes about because people don't think in terms of specific complexes setting the order; they think it's just arbitrarily stacked (based on the whims of “the Grantians”), so why can't things be changed up a bit?

    But the complexes take up one function each. What you're showing there would consist of pairs of complexes shown by their associated functions.
    TiNe would be an INTP's ego (or “Hero”) plus “Caretaker” complexes, defining the type.
    TiNi could bi an ISTP's Hero plus Child.
    TeNe could be an ESTJ's Hero plus Child.

    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.


     
Page 1 of 3 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 12:00 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