Personality Cafe banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

This is how the MBTI types and the real cognitive functions match

Tags
cognitive functions cognitive functions meaning mbti
Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 111 Posts

Akhromant

· Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
Hi :)

This is probably going to be my one and only post here (I've registered just for this). I won't reply to comments here, either. If anyone wants to read about this, and then maybe ask/comment, you can find me at akhromant.tumblr.com (you don't need an account to send messages there), but first make sure to check the index, read the texts/links carefully (even several times), and think things over, please. This requires some time (not just a few hours) because most people are too used to the widespread misconceptions, and the needed reevaluation is not easy (also, many people make a living out of them, or have their sense of "identity" built around them, so they basically can't/won't ever admit that they have been wrong all this time). Some important posts are #01, #13, #19 and #25 (but also #24, #31, #35, #59, etc). There are also lists, tables (including the Socionics correlation), and even some memes :)

This is a very brief summary of the problem: what the famous e-i-e-i/i-e-i-e "stacks" call "functions" are not what Jung discovered and described in his book. They are not functions, but behavioral traits that correspond to different pairs of letters:

Their "Te" is not the real extraverted thinking, but a mix of TJ-traits.
Their "Fe" is not the real extraverted feeling, but a mix of FJ-traits.
Their "Se" is not the real extraverted sensation, but a mix of SP-traits.
Their "Ne" is not the real extraverted intuition, but a mix of NP-traits.
Their "Ti" is not the real introverted thinking, but a mix of TP-traits.
Their "Fi" is not the real introverted feeling, but a mix of FP-traits.
Their "Si" is not the real introverted sensation, but a mix of SJ-traits.
Their "Ni" is not the real introverted intuition, but a mix of NJ-traits.

The real cognitive functions are different (for example: Fi is not about "emotions", Si is not "memory", Ni is not about "the future", etc). There is a second group of people that have a sense of what [some of] the functions are, somehow, but they use those same mistaken "stacks", so they mistype everybody (I talked about this in post #58). They should be using the correct function arrangements of the types, which are as follows:

ESTJ is Te-Se-Ni-Fi
ENTJ is Te-Ne-Si-Fi
ESFJ is Fe-Se-Ni-Ti
ENFJ is Fe-Ne-Si-Ti
ESTP is Se-Te-Fi-Ni
ESFP is Se-Fe-Ti-Ni
ENTP is Ne-Te-Fi-Si
ENFP is Ne-Fe-Ti-Si
ISTJ is Ti-Si-Ne-Fe
INTJ is Ti-Ni-Se-Fe
ISFJ is Fi-Si-Ne-Te
INFJ is Fi-Ni-Se-Te
ISTP is Si-Ti-Fe-Ne
ISFP is Si-Fi-Te-Ne
INTP is Ni-Ti-Fe-Se
INFP is Ni-Fi-Te-Se

Most people are going to reject this, I know, but that's how the types and the real functions match. That's how everything fits.

There is a third group of people (the smallest in number of the three, of course) that have found this, usually by themselves, after reading and thinking a lot about these things. Maybe you can be one of them :)
 
#3 ·
Good to see someone who gets it, been trying to explain this here for months and no, most people don't wanna hear it. You've done a lot of work on ur blog I see, gg:wink:

Behaviorally, there are many similarities between MBTI J and Jung's Introversion and P->E respectively so I try to communicate it like that, though it's not a correlation that affects everyone due to the nature of MBTI mixing things a lot.
 
#4 ·
Yes, according to Jung, the introverted feeler with intuition is the socionics INFj and the MB INFJ. But the MB „functions“ are defined in a different way. MB-Fi isn‘t the introverted feeler, like Jung described it. The Neo-Jungian (MBTI) Fi is just a combination of IF+FP. That‘s the reason, why INFJs see themselves as Ni-doms, because the Ni-definition is a combination of IN+NJ.
 
#5 ·
Thank goodness, someone who gets it!

I hate the format of Tumblr though... Wish you had a separate website for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oorspronk, HighlighterGreen, mino and 1 other person
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#6 · (Edited)
This is really intriguing stuff! I've always thought of the functions in the way that most MBTI sites describe them. Never realized how inaccurate I was...

EDIT: Read through OP's Tumblr and found nothing useful on what the "true" definitions on the functions are. I only found a bunch of posts that essentially boil down to the following statement: MBTI and Socionics are wrong; my model, which is my interpretation of the original Jungian theory, is correct and that is absolute fact. Perhaps that's the way it came across to me, but feel free to read for yourself.

Don't get me wrong; I'm still open to the idea, but with no substantial evidence I'm left skeptical of the proposed "stack" in the first post.
 
#7 · (Edited)
Seems very similar to C.S. Joseph's descriptions, based on Dr. John Beebe and Dr. Linda Beren's work.

Except he uses function stacks, but also talks about cognitive axes and introverted-extroverted flow/attractions.

So far, I don't see how what you've posted is any different, other than stating it's all wrong, but then correlating it the same way.

If I'm missing something, I'd love to hear the critique.

**EDIT**
Reading your work is like listening to Global Warming/Cooling alarmists. There's no room for debate - you're right. Everyone else is wrong.

That's not how science works, not even social science.
 
#8 · (Edited)
Jaycen said:
Seems very similar to C.S. Joseph's descriptions, based on Dr. John Beebe and Dr. Linda Beren's work.

Except he uses function stacks, but also talks about cognitive axes and introverted-extroverted flow/attractions.

So far, I don't see how what you've posted is any different, other than stating it's all wrong, but then correlating it the same way.

If I'm missing something, I'd love to hear the critique.
Click to expand...
afaik those people base their models on the typical alternating Grant-Brownsword stack and not Jung's premises as outlined by OP's model, so they're very different.

For example, they claim an ENP type will have their adaptability disrupted by their auxiliary being a different attitude (verbatim by Beebe in an interview), while Jung did not believe that's the case, as the attitude drives the personality and both conscious functions. These conclusions were drawn due to Myers basically changing what the attitude means for the judging functions.
 
#9 ·
I get that he refutes the stack model. Still, assigning a priority and ranking system allows a quick stack creation, so it seems like we're just refusing the translation to an info-graphic and calling it something else.

Per my initial response, explicitly stating the functions are linked on an axis isn't wrong. It maintains OP's assertion. Displaying the alternating functions - to me - helps when considering each as more optimistic or more pesimistic. That doesn't seem to change the original as much as it's a visual and mental aid.

I didn't think Beebe's work was based on Myers' work.
 
#10 ·
Jaycen said:
**EDIT**
Reading your work is like listening to Global Warming/Cooling alarmists. There's no room for debate - you're right. Everyone else is wrong.

That's not how science works, not even social science.
Click to expand...
That's honestly what I had thought as well, as I was looking for in-depth descriptions for the original Jungian functions (or at least the model). Instead I got multiple posts that basically addressed how MBTI and Socionics are invalid and have warped the model into a more inaccurate version. Not what I was hoping for, but still glad that OP made me consider reframing my definitions of the functions.
 
#15 ·
What are the function descriptions in this supposedly 'correct' model?

Because, despite whose theory says what, it's quite obvious from real-life interactions that certain MB types use certain functions.
Every ESTJ I've known clearly uses what would be generally described or known as, Si and not anything even close, to what Ni looks like. Same with all the rest. Look at the number of posts/descriptions from INFP's looping Fi-Si (a strong focus on the past, and anxious focus on the future).

These function combinations just doesn't match up, with what is observable all around us.. unless as you say, the descriptions are wildly different.

Why are you not providing info on how the functions should be defined? And why is your appeal so centered around snowflake-knowledge, drawing those who wish to believe themselves part of some elite group?

I'm open to it.... if there's any..... evidence.
 
#16 ·
Jokers said:
Hi Dissymetry! :laughing:

So we learn that you can not be introverted, thought-driven and use extraverted thinking or IST and extraverted sensation as a preference ...

This guy:laughing: is magical

How to be convinced by this fundamentally poor and illogical post... Start by finding your true type before doing distortion. Jung validated such bullshit? Nobody to put his nose in? And seriously, what is this method... A guru would not do better.

This is about telling the truth.

Ok big wizard...

Now I will explain. He knows that he can not be anything other than INTP ... But now, he doesn't like the Grant Stack for INTP( Yes, even if his blog is Ne-Si as the fuck) ... So he said to himself "ok, the Grant Stack do not please me, so why not change the system all whole that for that I like it "

He started with INTP, ISTP then finish with INFJ and unkwow. But he is obviously not INFJ. So unable to find an answer. Now see how his personnal stack becomes consistent for him ...
Click to expand...
I just had to say that this truly cracked me up. True to your username, I suppose. :wink:
 
#17 ·
Red Panda said:
The why is because Jung's observations and premises on Extraversion and Introversion were changed by Myers and the rest. There's a thread for that in the Jungian Theory forums.
Click to expand...
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

Those are Jungs original writings? I've read the introduction, a good chunk of the introverted/extraverted section, and skimmed several cognitive functions.

It's funny. He calls them functions. He also describes them very similarly to how Chase does, who claims he took the descriptions from Beebe and Berens.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but so far everything Akrhomant rails about seems to be in Chase's work, which would indicate Beebe and Berens get it right. It also contradicts Akrhomant's assertion that Jung doesn't call them functions.

Maybe Myers gets it wrong. Maybe Kiersey does, too. But EVERYONE isn't getting it wrong, and his insistence that you can't represent an ordered list visually, as a stack, and that alternating i-e functions while maintaining function axes connections just seems like a lot of pretentious bunk.

But it's good to have the original data, so I appreciate this thread.👍
 
#18 ·
ReliK said:
What are the function descriptions in this supposedly 'correct' model?

Because, despite whose theory says what, it's quite obvious from real-life interactions that certain MB types use certain functions.

<snip>

These function combinations just doesn't match up, with what is observable all around us.. unless as you say, the descriptions are wildly different.

Why are you not providing info on how the functions should be defined? And why is your appeal so centered around snowflake-knowledge, drawing those who wish to believe themselves part of some elite group?

I'm open to it.... if there's any..... evidence.
Click to expand...
Yes. Every bit of this. Akrhomant conveniently skips all of this.
 
#19 ·
Jaycen said:
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

Those are Jungs original writings? I've read the introduction, a good chunk of the introverted/extraverted section, and skimmed several cognitive functions.

It's funny. He calls them functions. He also describes them very similarly to how Chase does, who claims he took the descriptions from Beebe and Berens.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but so far everything Akrhomant rails about seems to be in Chase's work, which would indicate Beebe and Berens get it right. It also contradicts Akrhomant's assertion that Jung doesn't call them functions.

Maybe Myers gets it wrong. Maybe Kiersey does, too. But EVERYONE isn't getting it wrong, and his insistence that you can't represent an ordered list visually, as a stack, and that alternating i-e functions while maintaining function axes connections just seems like a lot of pretentious bunk.

But it's good to have the original data, so I appreciate this thread.��
Click to expand...
Of course Jung called them functions, you misread the OP if you think anyone claimed that. Beebe and the rest are based on Jung but have a different understanding about his fundamental premises about Extraversion and Introversion. Also the question isn't so much about whether we have or not have a stack, but once we understand what Jung observed and named E/I it makes sense how one of those are truly dominant in the personality. The reason that all those systems seem similar to Jung is because of the J/P axis having a correlation behaviorally to Jung's I/E respectively, so we can observe similar things like the need for control and acting on the environment that Js do, but the idea that their T/F functions are Te/Fe contradicts Jung's original premises, as the E attitude is more like P.

There's actually research done on how the alternating stack has no validity whatsoever, even within its own system that claims it does, you can read it here.
 
#20 ·
Ok this guy is not the one I thought. He is worse! He just doesn't know how to synthesize functions while he speaks himself about interdependence. In addition to having huge bias about the types ... This means that the functions cancel or, on the contrary, multiply the negative or positive effect of a type. He seems totally unable of imagining it. His interpretation stack is just ridiculous because unfunctional. But he is proud to think "he killed the father". In summary his blog:

Image


Lines and lines to say nothing, except metaphors that lead nowhere. By the way, his reference is Reckful. He thinks probably to be original... But again I never had an answer from him ... Why this official nicknames on MBTI Online...

1.INTJ: CONCEPTUAL PLANNER if he doesn't use mainly Ni-(Te-Fi)-Se

People with INTJ preferences are often able to define a compelling, long-range vision


2.INTP: OBJECTIVE ANALYSTE if he dosen'use mainly Ti-(Ne-Si)-Fe

They typically adopt a *detached and concise way of analyzing the world and often uncover new or innovative


3.ISTJ: RESPONSIBLE REALIST if he dosent'use mainly Si-(Te-Fi)-Ne

People ISTJ preferences are often described as dependable and systematic.


4.ISTP :LOGICAL PRAGMATIST if he dosent'use mainly Ti-(Se-Ni)-Fe

People with ISTP preferences like analyzing problems and responding to crises.


Here we talk about descriptions according to metrics. These two guys are just trapped, because they consider the MBTI with a scientific viability, but the functions as meaningless ...

*The "subjectivity" of Jung. But synthesized with the other functions, he becomes objective in his analyzes, since related to the physical details (Si)
 
1 - 20 of 111 Posts
About this Discussion
110 Replies
36 Participants
Last post:
lww23
Personality Cafe
posts
11M
members
172K
Since
2008
A forum community dedicated to all ranges of personality types and people. Come join the discussion about health, behavior, care, testing, personality types, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
INFP Forum - The Idealists INFJ Forum - The Protectors INTP Forum - The Thinkers INTJ Forum - The Scientists Myers Briggs Forum