Personality Cafe banner

Cognitive Functions: New Paradigm

42K views 422 replies 55 participants last post by  reybridge 
#1 · (Edited)
First of all, i am from an engineering background, specifically software engineering, though i am not currently working as one and focus on enjoying life. If you feel like you are logically mature, please put a comment. Well, even if you are not, you can still comment anything positive of course. I just find it a hard time to discuss about cognitive function with people who doesn't use logic and rationality in the first place. I prefer to discuss with logicians who can help me formulate how cognitive functions should be described with firm and consistent premises. It doesn't need to be exactly the same as the definition of Jungian cognitive functions, the important thing is the clarity of the system. Please tell me i am wrong only if you think the system won't work, and not because it is not the same as the original definition as this is supposed to be a new paradigm. Don't get me wrong, the original definition was a great achievement of cognitive functions history that has brought us here.

Well, this is the rules i believe is the fundamental of cognitive functions.

Fundamental

1. Judging Function is a function to change or to create an 'Entity'.
2. Perceiving Function is a function to grasp an 'Entity'.
3. Entity refers to absolutely anything.
3.1. Entity can be 'Physical Entity' or 'Conceptual Entity'.
3.2. No 'Physical Entity' is 'Conceptual Entity', and vice versa.
3.3. Physical Entity is a representation of at least 2 Entities.
3.4. Conceptual Entity is a rule of existence of an Entity.

Extrovert and Introvert

4. Extroverted function is all about 'The World'.
4.1. 'The World' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is currently perceived by utilizing the sensing organs.
5. Introverted function is all about 'The Mind'.
5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by utilizing the sensing organs.
6. Extroverted judging function is a Judging Function (see point 1) to change The World (see point 4.1).
6.1. The only way one changes The World (see point 4.1) is by taking an action, therefore extroverted judging function is always an action.
7. Introverted judging function is a Judging Function (see point 1) to change The Mind (see point 5.1).
7.1. The only way one changes The Mind (see point 5.1) is by 'Burning', therefore introverted judging function is always a 'Burning'.
7.2. Burning is a process to change or to create any Entity (see point 3) in The Mind (see point 5.1).
8. Extroverted perceiving function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp information of The World (see point 4.1).
9. Introverted perceiving function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp information of The Mind (see point 5.1).

Feeling and Thinking

10. Feeling function is a Judging Function (see point 1) to change or to create an Entity (see point 3) with 'Trigger'.
10.1. Therefore, extroverted feeling function is any action with 'Trigger',
10.2. And introverted feeling function is any Burning (see point 7.2) with 'Trigger'.
11. Thinking function is a Judging Function (see point 1) to change or to create an Entity (see point 3) with 'Standard'.
11.1. Therefore, extroverted thinking function is any action with 'Standard',
11.2. And introverted thinking function is a Burning (see point 7.2) with 'Standard'.
12. Standard is an Entity (see point 3) to be (or that has been) deducted logically into another Entity (see point 3).
13. Trigger is an Entity (see point 3) to be (or that has been) inducted into another Entity (see point 3).

Sensing and Intuitive

14. Sensing function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Physical Entities (see point 3.3).
14.1. Therefore, extroverted sensing function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Physical Entities (see point 3.3) from The World (see point 4.1),
14.2. And introverted sensing function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Physical Entities (see point 3.3) from The Mind (see point 5.1).
15. Intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Conceptual Entities (see point 3.4).
15.1. Therefore, extroverted intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Conceptual Entities (see point 3.4) from The World (see point 4.1),
15.2. And introverted intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Conceptual Entities (see point 3.4) from The Mind (see point 5.1).
16. How one deciphers an Entity into a Physical Entity or a Conceptual Entity is open for discussion and observation.

That is the rule i hold about cognitive functions. If something is wrong or something is missing, let's discuss it.

Remarkable Edit History:

Sunday, September 19, 2021
Object -> Entity (Suggested by @BigApplePi)
Gather -> Grasp (Suggested by @BigApplePi)
3.3. Physical Entity is representation of connected Entities. -> 3.3. Physical Entity is a representation of at least 2 attached Entities. (By myself)
3.4. Conceptual Object is the connection between Objects. -> 3.4. Conceptual Entity is a rule of existence of an Entity. (By myself)
5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by the sensing organs. -> 5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by utilizing the sensing organs. (By myself)

Wednesday, December 15, 2021
4.1. 'The World' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is currently perceived by the sensing organs. -> 4.1. 'The World' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is currently perceived by utilizing the sensing organs. (By myself)
12. Standard is an Entity (see point 3) to be (or that has been) deducted logically into another Entity (see point 3). Some people may call it a premise. -> 12. Standard is an Entity (see point 3) to be (or that has been) deducted logically into another Entity (see point 3). (By myself)
16. How one deciphers an Entity into a Physical Entity or a Conceptual Entity is unknown. -> 16. How one deciphers an Entity into a Physical Entity or a Conceptual Entity is open for discussion and observation. (By myself)
 
See less See more
#183 ·
I hope you guys realize that extroverted functions was classified as projections
and introverted functions was classified as introjections by Jung.

Hence Se for instance isn't just the sensation, but whatever we project as being out there.
After all vision is just photons interacting with our eyes.
The phontons are not what we see, we see the properties that the photons has from bouncing off the last object.
That is not the object itself, but just a residue stuck on the photon.
From this residue property of the object stuck on the photon our mind constructs an image.
This image we project outwards as if it was there.
Reality is of course not like that at all, but that is what we have to work with.
The object is forever out of reach,
but trough projection we feel that our unconcious subjective evaluation of it is correct.
We percieve this inner originated image to be something outside of ourself.

With Si it is different. Then this sense impression is held at arms lenght.
The ego tries to devalue it and hone in on certain qualities that it can identify with.
Hence one feels that the qualities that one hone in on are in some way a part of oneself.
And that is actually a lot more closer to the truth than the so called objective Se.
Cause after all objectivity is make belief.
It is still a very useful approach to reality, and should in no way be looked down upon,
just because of it's paradoxical nature.
So subjectivity is more real than objectivity.
But objectivity is a noble attempt to deal with reality, and should not be scoffed at.
 
#199 ·
I agree with some of you points. We don't perceive the object itself but the photons it reflects. Even if it is very physical and clear to us, we still can not know how a pencil actually looks like in the eye of the universe itself. We are subjective, and that is why i wrote point 16 in my definition: "How one deciphers an Object into a Physical Object or a Conceptual Object is unknown".
 
#184 ·
I just want to drop this article into the discussion. If one wants a nicely and logically laid-out understanding, this article exemplifies it. He even defines his perspective (local vs global), which few typologists have done (actually, none have). If one were seeking what the originator of this thread purports to be seeking, one could hardly do better than to start here:

Process Vs. Orientation: A Local Formulation of Typology – Open Journal of Jungian Typology

For the record, I have a preference for looking globally at the functions, rather than locally, i.e. orientation vs process, because I believe we all process information in all ways, but it's not until something has a psychological impact on us (causes a reaction that "moves" us) that it becomes functional or related to cognitive functions (or psychological functions as Jung termed them).
 
#197 ·
The guy who wrote this:
Process Vs. Orientation: A Local Formulation of Typology – Open Journal of Jungian Typology
is a man after my own heart. The global vs local approach is the same as a top-down vs bottom-up approach. Either can be used but as he says, the bottom up seems to be neglected. I like the bottom up approach even if I foresee problem of getting to the actual bottom. I wish this Sam Levey were a poster here. I have some objections/ refinements to what he's saying.
====================
====================




He even defines his perspective (local vs global), which few typologists have done (actually, none have). ... For the record, I have a preference for looking globally at the functions, rather than locally, i.e. orientation vs process, because I believe we all process information in all ways, but it's not until something has a psychological impact on us (causes a reaction that "moves" us) that it becomes functional or related to cognitive functions (or psychological functions as Jung termed them).
I am fond of the local vs global concepts and use it here: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/1005265-complexes-how-they-work.html although I'm not any more a typologist than anyone else here. I also used it to explain flat Earth theory but that is off-topic for this thread.
 
#189 ·
I also had second guesses about my own ability to perform up to standard with that title.
I wondered if only post with equations that was correctly solved was the right way to go.
 
#203 ·
9. Introverted perceiving function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers information of The Mind (see point 5.1).

The above makes no sense, your perceiving function gathers information of the mind, what? By this definition, I am born, I perceive my own mind and perceive nothing about the exterior world. I turn 2, I continue to perceive my own mind and perceive nothing about the exterior world, I literally have learned nothing and am equally as clueless as I was when I was born then.
 
#210 ·
Sorry, I just saw your post. Are you serious? You don't use only your dominant functions all the time. The dominant functions are only dominant because they are the most frequent functions you use. So the model allows you to perceive the exterior world whenever it is.
 
#207 · (Edited)
To create such a theory is acceptable. However, unless I'm misunderstanding something, to call it F and T seems like a misnomer. Induction resembles a process of logic. Can you explain what you mean by deduction, flesh out the definition of F and T. Your portrayal of F and T was not adequate enough to understand.

Also it makes it confusing as to which one one uses, since we do both induction and deduction within a large subject matter. Because of that, how can you make an educated typing? Unless you can demonstrate traits of someone sweepingly inducing and not deducing (someone who rationalizes everything well but is uneducated,) while others fail to induce but sweepingly deduce (someone who hypothesizes things into existence and that becomes their reality.) Moreso define what that would look like, what does an F and T type look like overall?

Like I said, creating a new theory such as this is quite tolerable, it just needs questions answered. An important thing to note is, if you don't define Xi and Xe as opposites, one will relate easily to both. For instance, until Te and Ti are defined as opposite values, I will have no choice but to take my Ti thoughts and naturally apply them to Te reality. There will be no major divide there. The best way to create a theory, imo, is to make Xi and Xe opposites, that way we can have quadras. Otherwise functions apply too sloppily to each individual.

For instance, I have no problem with the recurrence in people of "my N is strongest, thus my S is weakest, and my T and F are more equal" thus my type is Ni > Fi=Te > Se (or INTJ.) But once you start getting people to precisely determine "my Te > Ti > Ne > Fi > Se > Si > Fe > Ni," the theory becomes a rather pointless set of facts, as there are no opposite competing types one could be. One can't define a set type around a random function order and expect everyone to fit it.

This is one of the reasons I proposed, what if the two P functions (S and N) are actually opposite sources for perception which can never overlap: external perception (sensing) and internal perception (introspection.) And why I proposed the two J functions (T and F) are opposite reasoning functions that can never overlap: logic (T) and personal values (F.) If you automatically produce a lot of N, you're going to be the weakest at S: with too much inward looking you will have no time for outward looking.

Likewise, if you automatically put all your personal values first, then logic will automatically have no time, because you can't mix your personal judgements with logical ones: they're different subjects, just like N and S are different sources. If however you spend equal time on logic and personal values, then they're not your dominant functions. Thus, one's type is easy to figure out. The function you spend the most time on, your dominant function, has a resulting opposite that gets used the least. Your function theory in the OP however, omits there being any way by which a type can exist, as there doesn't seem to be opposite types or functions.
 
#212 ·
To create such a theory is acceptable. However, unless I'm misunderstanding something, to call it F and T seems like a misnomer. Induction resembles a process of logic. Can you explain what you mean by deduction, flesh out the definition of F and T. Your portrayal of F and T was not adequate enough to understand.

Also it makes it confusing as to which one one uses, since we do both induction and deduction within a large subject matter. Because of that, how can you make an educated typing? Unless you can demonstrate traits of someone sweepingly inducing and not deducing (someone who rationalizes everything well but is uneducated,) while others fail to induce but sweepingly deduce (someone who hypothesizes things into existence and that becomes their reality.) Moreso define what that would look like, what does an F and T type look like overall?

Like I said, creating a new theory such as this is quite tolerable, it just needs questions answered. An important thing to note is, if you don't define Xi and Xe as opposites, one will relate easily to both. For instance, until Te and Ti are defined as opposite values, I will have no choice but to take my Ti thoughts and naturally apply them to Te reality. There will be no major divide there. The best way to create a theory, imo, is to make Xi and Xe opposites, that way we can have quadras. Otherwise functions apply too sloppily to each individual.

For instance, I have no problem with the recurrence in people of "my N is strongest, thus my S is weakest, and my T and F are more equal" thus my type is Ni > Fi=Te > Se (or INTJ.) But once you start getting people to precisely determine "my Te > Ti > Ne > Fi > Se > Si > Fe > Ni," the theory becomes a rather pointless set of facts, as there are no opposite competing types one could be. One can't define a set type around a random function order and expect everyone to fit it.

This is one of the reasons I proposed, what if the two P functions (S and N) are actually opposite sources for perception which can never overlap: external perception (sensing) and internal perception (introspection.) And why I proposed the two J functions (T and F) are opposite reasoning functions that can never overlap: logic (T) and personal values (F.) If you automatically produce a lot of N, you're going to be the weakest at S: with too much inward looking you will have no time for outward looking.

Likewise, if you automatically put all your personal values first, then logic will automatically have no time, because you can't mix your personal judgements with logical ones: they're different subjects, just like N and S are different sources. If however you spend equal time on logic and personal values, then they're not your dominant functions. Thus, one's type is easy to figure out. The function you spend the most time on, your dominant function, has a resulting opposite that gets used the least. Your function theory in the OP however, omits there being any way by which a type can exist, as there doesn't seem to be opposite types or functions.
Which in the rules in the first post said this? I actually agree with you about the balance. It is symmetric. And that is also what i wanted to imply in the rules. You can see that my rules don't mess anything about the cognitive functions stack at all because i agree with it.
 
#224 ·
@Dissymetry

At the risk of being out-logicked I'll take a swing at you.

So the MBTI and Jung are two different systems. Jung only uses the P and J to describe the functions. N & S are P functions while T & F are J functions.

MBTI, however, arbitrarily applies function attitudes after the dichotomies are found.

So, one can be a P in dichotomy but not in function-in-attitude, yeah?

For example, my preferred dichotomy for MBTI is I, N, T, & J. The way MBTI defines the characteristics of the P/J is - to me at least - arbitrary as well and comes from an invention from the mind(s) of Briggs or Myers.

However, I "lead" with a P function (Ni) and this should be obvious from a Jungian point of view.

I fall into the categories that the MBTI needs me to fall into to get a J type - I prefer to plan, I prefer organisation, etc ...

I fall into the category of Perceiving dominance the way Jung describes it - I prefer to keep my options open (I plan also for flexibility), I prefer not to commit until I have all the information and, sometimes, that makes me appear as if I'm a commitment-phobe when I'm really just that serious about what I commit to. I take in information for the sake of taking in information: to play with, to suspend in my mind so I can rearrange it and explore it, but not to make any conclusions about it unless I absolutely must to function in this world.

So ... is this a valid way that one can be an INTJ in the MBTI system and an Ni-T in the Jungian system?

I'm sure you'll be able to find a way to prove me wrong. But I must say I do agree with you. I'm arguing for the sake of arguing mostly because I know there's a fallacy in my reasoning but I don't know what it is and need someone to point it out to me.
 
#226 ·
@Red Panda

Often times reckful is referring to generalities made throughout Jung's entire body of work (something that I admit that I have not read it its entirety), yet in the amount of work I have read, this has not been my experience at all. The "negative" attitude toward the object that Jung refers to in any introverted type is only an illustration of the inferior extraverted attitude which Jung also describes.

So, a Ti dom, as reckful used in his example, would reject the object due to the inferiority of Fe or the Ti dom would not be able to Fe harmonize his or herself to the object. This is because the introverted type prefers to put him or herself above the object (as a hierarchy of importance), not because introverts avoid and "reject" the object.

It is, instead, that any introverted type will not take the object just as the object itself. In other words, its primary essence or that which everyone can objectively agree on is instead distorted and shaped by an introverted mind to fit some sort of subjective reality. This is not the introvert forcefully manipulating the external world. This is, instead, the introvert's preference for "subjectifying" reality.

The introvert is not more "J" than the extravert and this is consistent throughout the works of Jung I, myself, have read. And if it were, Jung would have said so directly. He certainly didn't beat around the bush with any of his assertions. He was, instead, propelled forward by his own passion to record every detail he could possibly write so as to prove to the world "empirically" that his theories could be verified in every instance if one would only seek out the answer.

I can understand the reason why you and reckful would go along these lines based on what you have read of Jung because I see the train of thought there, or how one could at least get on that train. However, I simply think it's inaccurate to what Jung meant by introversion and extraversion. I do not think that introverts are somehow more "J" at all or extraverts are all "P"s.

I don't say this to try to convince you otherwise or to try to dissuade you from your conclusions. I just simply want to provide a counter-point to what you're saying.

That's what I think academically.

Personally, I think that the idea of I=J and E=P is ridiculous. The P/J dichotomy was entirely the invention of Myers. While Jung did mention the way Judging functions operated vs Perceiving functions, he never outright said that J and P were functions nor did he say that I and E were functions. He only provided these functions: F, T, N, & S and these attitudes: I & E. He came up with 8 types, described these types and did not assign any "rules" to many of the things that are passed around as Jungian "rules" around this forum.

These 8 types were then either J types because their most differentiated function was a Judging function or P types because their most differentiated function was a perceiving function. No where did he characterise all Js as Introverts and all Ps as Extraverts. Again, personally, I find that laughable. Academically, I can see where the thinking comes from. That's just not what I have gathered in my own experience.

Now, that said, I also must say that I have in no way read all of Jung's works but I am working my way through them. I have studied Jung in a structured academic setting and devoted a lot of hours to the practice of Jungian psychoanalysis. From my perspective, there isn't enough evidence at all to suggest what you and reckful are saying. Perhaps one or both of you could convince me one day, though. It certainly would be fun and exciting to find out I was wrong this whole time!
 
#227 ·
No where did he characterise all Js as Introverts and all Ps as Extraverts.
And I just want to mention, to underscore my assessment, that had Jung thought that, he would have simply eliminated the Ni, Si, Te, and Fe types all together. Because, by such logic, half of Jung's 8 types wouldn't be able to exist because of this ... "logic" ... that you and reckful speak of.

Again, I could be wrong and I might be. Again, I admit that if I were, it would change my perspective on Jung's work completely.
 
#236 ·
@Red Panda @reckful

I do not see myself as one who typically lacks reading comprehension but I will reread what both of you said in the posts I must have misread with a bit more critical thinking to investigate what I clearly got wrong. I still think there's a fundamental difference between myself and Red Panda on the way we perceive and understand Jung's depiction of introversion and extraversion but I think that difference may not be what I thought that prompted me to respond the way I did to this post.

@reybridge

I do not pretend to be pure logic (or purely logical) and certainly don't want to tread where I don't belong, but I can provide my own subjective understanding. I think that at least in the past few pages, everyone is at least attempting to break things down in a way that makes sense to them and this is all I can really offer here. I'll also look at your original post with a critical eye later on as well and I'll let you know if I have anything additional to add to this thread then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Panda
#252 ·
@BigApplePi

heh. That's cool. I was just explaining where Dissy was coming from. I understand the whole wanting to be "up to date" with things. It's just in my experience, Jung's original theory has been strayed away from by these "updates" that none of them actually align with Jung's theory. So, to me, the theory is still usable since it exists independent from any other system.

I do not say this to convince you of my ideas, but just to highlight the differences and my "why" of sticking to Jung. Perhaps I'm worried you might think I'm silly and I want to convince you of my intelligence.

I didn't say the other things to convince you of taking a Jungian view, but simply to explain what Dissy said. It seemed that you were confused by it so I tried to delineate it for you. : )
 
#259 ·
@reybridge - the "Ti-Ni-Se-Fe" suggestion is not for an ISTP. Following the same idea an ISTP "stack" if such a thing existed and with all due disclaimers, would be "Si-Ti-Fe-Ne". Si = introverted sensation type, since Sensation is perceiving - they get ISxP, and it is supported by Thinking. I explained the reasoning for this earlier. This perspective has exactly the same amount of validity the "function stack" everybody else talks about which is precisely zero. It however does make more sense from a "purely logical" perspective.

Unfortunately, introversion and extroversion do not require each other to survive. They are their own entire temperaments an introvert does not require an extroverted auxiliary function to take in information, introversion can take in information from the outer world, it is quite literally what introversion does, actually. Extroversion of course does not require an introverted function to have access to the inner world either. This idea that each attitude requires the other to function at all is false.

Your suggestion that a person "must prefer an extroverted perceiving function" and could not live with "Ti-Ni" is incorrect. Ti denotes the introverted Thinking type. Introversion is not a completely isolated attitude, it always has a less preferred extroversion attached which means the introverted Thinking type has a form of extroversion built into its type. The person does not "just dwell" in their "memories and imagination and grow with it". This perspective is derived from the faulty understanding of introversion and extroversion that began with Myers/Briggs interpretation of Jung.

Forcing an extroverted auxiliary onto an introverted type does not make sense logically. The MBTI dichotomy is its own system and has no relation to functions-in-attitudes. The way they apply them has no credibility there is nothing to support the validity of an ISTP supposedly possessing a "Ti-Se-Ni-Fe" "function stack" or anything of the sort. All that is actually supported is an ISTP preferring I, S, T and P in dichotomy. This does not say anything with regards to the functions-in-attitudes.
 
#261 · (Edited)
@reybridge - the "Ti-Ni-Se-Fe" suggestion is not for an ISTP. Following the same idea an ISTP "stack" if such a thing existed and with all due disclaimers, would be "Si-Ti-Fe-Ne". Si = introverted sensation type, since Sensation is perceiving - they get ISxP, and it is supported by Thinking. I explained the reasoning for this earlier. This perspective has exactly the same amount of validity the "function stack" everybody else talks about which is precisely zero. It however does make more sense from a "purely logical" perspective.
With your claim that ISTP leads with Si function, then what does Si function do? What is the definition of Si in your system? It is even better if you can define each of the function.

Unfortunately, introversion and extroversion do not require each other to survive. They are their own entire temperaments an introvert does not require an extroverted auxiliary function to take in information, introversion can take in information from the outer world, it is quite literally what introversion does, actually. Extroversion of course does not require an introverted function to have access to the inner world either. This idea that each attitude requires the other to function at all is false.
No. You are an introvert, right? Then you are saying that you prefer to do Ti-Ni forever? Why not? You can close your eyes, leave your computer, don't read and just thinking and dwell into imaginations forever. Those two functions are your preferences, you should prefer that kind of life compared to bouncing between reading this post and think, and read, and think again.

Your suggestion that a person "must prefer an extroverted perceiving function" and could not live with "Ti-Ni" is incorrect. Ti denotes the introverted Thinking type. Introversion is not a completely isolated attitude, it always has a less preferred extroversion attached which means the introverted Thinking type has a form of extroversion built into its type. The person does not "just dwell" in their "memories and imagination and grow with it". This perspective is derived from the faulty understanding of introversion and extroversion that began with Myers/Briggs interpretation of Jung.
Then you prefer to think and imagining forever than to read this post and think and read and think again? I don't believe it.

Forcing an extroverted auxiliary onto an introverted type does not make sense logically. The MBTI dichotomy is its own system and has no relation to functions-in-attitudes. The way they apply them has no credibility there is nothing to support the validity of an ISTP supposedly possessing a "Ti-Se-Ni-Fe" "function stack" or anything of the sort. All that is actually supported is an ISTP preferring I, S, T and P in dichotomy. This does not say anything with regards to the functions-in-attitudes.
It does make sense. No one prefer a life of complete introversion without any information from the outside world, if they are given the opportunity to interact with the outside world. The same argument applies with complete extrovert life. It is practically impossible.
 
#264 · (Edited)
As an afterthought I just wanted to add that it seems that there is this idea on the forum that introversion somehow means = unconscious of anything outside of the self and extroversion means = unconscious of anything inside of the self. This is an absurd definition and clearly not the same thing as introversion and extraversion. That sort of definition tries to make a black and white out of something that really falls on a continuum.

@reybridge I'm not going to fight his battles for him, so I'll let him respond to you, but I know plenty of Introverts who use two introverted functions primarily and live a satisfying life. As far as the quality of the relationship I have with him, he is functional in our friendship and yes, I find it rewarding. But I don't see how my evaluation of his friendship really has anything to do with the legitimacy of the II/EE and EE/II function stack that Jung presents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hornpipe2
#266 ·
@hornpipe2

The intrigue for me is that there is no agreed upon function stack and so all anyone can do is present the function stack they agree with the most and then do their best to explain why they prefer that one. My preference for Jung shouldn't infringe on anyone else's freedom to choose their own. Since I use Jung in my day-to-day life (I believe you just observed me using it for an hour straight with a client), that's the one that makes most sense because I have familiarised myself with it so totally and everything else seems so foreign comparatively.

But it is also dependent on the context. Those who have studied personality psychology know that type theory is only one of many theories of personality. Jung's theory of personality goes way beyond his typology. Typology does affect the way certain personal and collective archetypes present themselves in the psyche, but I believe that's a whole different subject all together.

The best I can say for myself is there are 4 functions:
T & F which are rational (judging) functions and N & S which are irrational (perceiving) functions.

There are 2 function attitudes:
Introversion & Extraversion, which exists for every individual on a continuum

There is one's type:
The function that is most differentiated paired with the preferred attitude.
Which then creates the inferior function as the opposite function and attitude from the most differentiated one.

That's all there is to typology for me.

When it comes to personality, though ... that's when the other function-in-attitudes, personality development, etc... come into play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hornpipe2
#267 ·
I just find it funny because I can picture how this happens: OP comes into personality theory, sees "conflicting" or "unclear" definitions, gets into a few fights about it, and decides "AHA! I see a Problem of disorder, and so I will Solve It by imposing some order!"

So then he throws his "definitions" and is perplexed as to why they aren't simply accepted. "I did the first part, I defined the terms, you're supposed to go use them as I said. Why are you still fighting over the meanings?"

Buddy, if you think you can just wade directly into the midst of a field you know nothing about, and expect to just wing it based on the strength of your "pure logic" (programmers, lol), then you have a rude awakening coming.
 
#276 ·
@reybridge - Where are you sourcing your information? In your latest post you are suggesting Fe is a voice, and that extroverted perceiving (and introverted judging?) are listening. This is not right and does not even work as a metaphor as it is so misleading.
Introverted perceiving and judging functions can be voices without requiring extroverted judging. Extroverted judging can listen and this does not require introverted judging or perceiving. Your perspective is so absolutist, and incorrect.
 
#277 ·
@reybridge - Where are you sourcing your information? In your latest post you are suggesting Fe is a voice, and that extroverted perceiving (and introverted judging?) are listening. This is not right and does not even work as a metaphor as it is so misleading.
Introverted perceiving and judging functions can be voices without requiring extroverted judging. Extroverted judging can listen and this does not require introverted judging or perceiving. Your perspective is so absolutist, and incorrect.
There is no source other than the first post. The rules in the first post were from my thought and refined over time by some people. You can assume what i mean when i talk about functions in this thread refer to the first post rules.

People with extroverted judging function can listen, yes, but it is not their most preferred function. ESFJs have Ne. They use Ne along with Ti (well, maybe sometimes also Fi) so a relationship can forms.

If you found it misleading, please just tell me exactly where it is wrong.
 
#278 ·
@reybridge - okay I guess you are free to just make up whatever you would like then. I did not realize this was a discussion in relation to and only in relation to your subjective perception of "cognitive functions". If I had understood this entire thing had to be framed solely within the boundaries of what you specifically find acceptable, I never would have responded to the thread due to the absurdity of this idea.
 
#280 ·
And yet, you still can not tell what kind of function definition you refer to every time you mention a function, right? Please be introspective and just accept that fact. Whenever you are in a debate with other people anywhere, you will be thankful to the first post of this thread if you accepted it.
 
#279 · (Edited)
I think a problem is that for one to use pure logic, they must at least have the freedom to point out fallacy, if any exist, in other systems of logic. We are all human and prone to fallacy in our thinking. There is no "pure logic". Your requirement for those to expand upon their ideas to essentially prove your logical ideas wrong seems to be arbitrarily applied.

I'm not in any way saying that the way I view cognitive functions is the "most logical", but I can offer that it makes the most sense for me.

And, as hp2 said, the field of psychology does not work as a programming language.

@BigApplePi

lol. I'm pretty much of the same mind at this point. This obsession with the definition of "consciousness" seems misplaced on the INTJ forum. Hardly anyone has bothered to take interest or interact and, honestly, when you said only one person responded to you straight to me in the "INTJs have no empathy pt 67035" thread (referring to Squirt, and then USING this as an argument AGAINST me to prove that INTJs don't have empathy), it actually put me off from responding to you in the first place because I figured what I said wasn't important enough for you to remember the first time, why should I even attempt later on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hornpipe2
#283 ·
I think a problem is that for one to use pure logic, they must at least have the freedom to point out fallacy, if any exist, in other systems of logic. We are all human and prone to fallacy in our thinking. There is no "pure logic". Your requirement for those to expand upon their ideas to essentially prove your logical ideas wrong seems to be arbitrarily applied.

I'm not in any way saying that the way I view cognitive functions is the "most logical", but I can offer that it makes the most sense for me.

And, as hp2 said, the field of psychology does not work as a programming language.
Of course it doesn't. Logic is universal, it applies to programming, science, every technical departments, politics, even to psychology.
 
#302 ·

left dlPFC ("Ti"), right dlPFC ("Ne")

dmPFC ("Ne" i.e. analogy and categorization, "Fi"):

"Based on these findings, it can be speculated that, when two or more competing responses come into conflict, the dmPFC is engaged to search for a new and more appropriate response to resolve the conflict by directing attention to external sensory information from the environment or information available in memory (Cabeza et al., 2002; Horst and Laubach, 2009), which may have little to do with fulfilling the immediate internal needs of the body."
 
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