Personality Cafe banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Delving further into the theory of personality, cognitive functions seem far too constricting, black and whiteish, almost curbing the immensity of variation within the human essence. Peronsality and the brain are far too dense to pin down to simply four functions within us, and even then, it's the dominant and auxilairy functions that mainly represent us. Dichotomy-based ideals give room for greater disparity between the same type, allowing for much more grey where paths lead in various directions that take similar types to much different realms.

So going further, let's say, dichotomy-based, that an individual appeals to extraversion, sensing, thinking, and perceiving, which would make said person ESTP--applying the function stack Se-Ti-Fe-Ni to this individual's personality. However, this particular ESTP feels that Ne is a major part of him/her, yet this function is supposedly nonexistent, or a shadow trait, veiled beneath the ESTP's persona. The individual will question his/her type and continually sit on a fence of doubt, between maybe ENTP and ESTP, even if the individual appeals more to sensing over intuition, but this pesky Ne is present, and not just floating sporadically in his/her thoughts, but something moderately strong, a vital part of this individual's being.

And, let's say, the ESTP is also torn between Fi and Ti as the auxiliary. Said person appeals to T in the dichotomoy-based field, but feels almost equally drawn torwards descriptions of Fi, but how could this be? Now this person is not only wavering between ESTP and ENTP, but also ESFP and ENFP. And this can go further, into the tertiary and inferior functions. Which leads me to this random, spit-ball theory that opens doors to varying possibilities within personality theory, and the density of our brains:

I like to believe in the potential theory that we're all on some sort of bell curve when it comes to cognitive functions, and if you believe you're an Si dom, then you're on an equalizer between Si and Ni, and you could fall somewhere towards the middle and be considered a Si dom but be close to Ni, whereas another Si dom could be towards the edge of Si, quite far from Ni, therefore two ISFJs can be so different from each other they wouldn't in anyway be perceived to be a similar type, where the ISFJ towards the middle of Si and Ni would feel more of a kinship to INFJs and INFJ descriptions.

And it would go further down the stack, so the auxiliary function would be somewhere between Fe and Te, which could be heavily Fe favored in the example of the INFJ-like ISFJ, whereas this same highly Si-type from the example above, could be borderline Te, towards the middle, but still more Fe than Te. So this particular ISFJ would also resonate towards ISTJ descriptions; therefore the two ISFJs, could be so drastically different, one feeling as if he/she is IxFJ with strong Fe, and the other believing themselves to be ISxJ with heavy Si.

Within this theory, it also presents the possibility of someone having a stack of, say, Si-Fe-Fi-Se (again, in theory), where the Thinking function is still there, but Feeling is stronger from both the auxiliary and tertiary position, and obviously intuition still exists, but sensing is stronger from both positions. This section here may seem far-fetched, but it's not that this person would only have sensing and feeling, or that these four functions represent said person, or even that we are constructed by 4 or 8 functions in general--our brains are a nebulousness of cognition, the functions a mixture of--keeping it simple--the 8 functions. So, like a soup, we add the ingredients and mix them all in and blend a flavor of personality, but maybe our top spice is the function represented as Ni, which in this theory is a blending of Ni and Si.

So in the end, after ranting about all this mixed-up jumbling theory, Si-Ni, Te-Fe, Ti-Fi, and Se-Ne can be said to somewhat work together as functions. And within this theory, an INTJ, could still relate, at an extreme degree, to the stereotypical descriptions of what an "INTJ" is, and feel strongly that his/her functions, without a doubt, are Ni-Te-Fi-Se. In this case, on the bell curve, it just so happens that Ni, Te, Fi, and Se fall on the far end of the spectrum, and Si, Fe, Ti, and Ne are suppressed and/or dominated by the other functions.

Well, that's it for now. It's something to think about and these ideas basically stem from a gut-based thinking, hypotheses spewing out from not much more than theorizing for the sake of wonder and curiousity. I'm sure others have similar-based thoughts about the cognitive functions and theory within; whereas others will argue against this possibility with what they deem to be fact-based logic. Hopefully this will generate some good discussions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catwalk

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
I like to believe in the potential theory that we're all on some sort of bell curve when it comes to cognitive functions, and if you believe you're an Si dom, then you're on an equalizer between Si and Ni, and you could fall somewhere towards the middle and be considered a Si dom but be close to Ni, whereas another Si dom could be towards the edge of Si, quite far from Ni, therefore two ISFJs can be so different from each other they wouldn't in anyway be perceived to be a similar type, where the ISFJ towards the middle of Si and Ni would feel more of a kinship to INFJs and INFJ descriptions.

And it would go further down the stack, so the auxiliary function would be somewhere between Fe and Te, which could be heavily Fe favored in the example of the INFJ-like ISFJ, whereas this same highly Si-type from the example above, could be borderline Te, towards the middle, but still more Fe than Te. So this particular ISFJ would also resonate towards ISTJ descriptions; therefore the two ISFJs, could be so drastically different, one feeling as if he/she is IxFJ with strong Fe, and the other believing themselves to be ISxJ with heavy Si.
This actually makes alot of sence to me. I was suprised to find that Ni was not part of my stacking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
The entire basis of cognitive functions is how they are dichotomous. You use Ni, you're ignoring/supressing Se. Dominant suppresses inferior, auxiliary suppresses tertiary. Thus you have function stacks.

Someone who used Te and Fe equally or near-equally would be a simpleton with no type preference (apart from extroversion).

Someone who "feels" like they use a function is over-using subjective reasoning. It's not healthy or mature to reason that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jewl

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
The entire basis of cognitive functions is how they are dichotomous. You use Ni, you're ignoring/supressing Se. Dominant suppresses inferior, auxiliary suppresses tertiary. Thus you have function stacks.

Someone who used Te and Fe equally or near-equally would be a simpleton with no type preference (apart from extroversion).

Someone who "feels" like they use a function is over-using subjective reasoning. It's not healthy or mature to reason that way.
Why would someone be a simpleton if they use Te and Fe near equally? And in no way does this theory take away from the dichotomous relationship between functions. This theory is incorporating the relationship between, say Pi functions, and lending the hypothesis that Ni and Si work in unison, in a way--somewhere on a bell curve, where the user could be a supremely dominant-oriented Ni user, or somewhere down the line closer to Si. So the blending of this function is still dichotomous with the Pe function.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
Dichotomy destroys the absolute shit out of 'cognitive functions' and 'function axis' in every way and completely obliterates it for flexibility and depth when you consider the Step II facets.

I don't know what Step III is but if it gets even more in-depth then I mean, shit, everybody is wasting their time on the 'functions' talk.
So much more depth to the dichotomy. Infinitely more depth.

To top it off, it makes more sense and is easier to get a grasp on right off the bat - so it's got the Harold Grant function stack we all subscribe to for literally no reason beat at every level.
Type aficionados like to believe the dichotomy is simply some letters that decode the 'real deal' or 'the good stuff'.. the 'depth'.. I find this to be so far off the mark it's ridiculous.

Of course 'Ni' and 'Si' (herein referred to simply as N and S) are connected - N-S is literally a facet, a preference, we all fall somewhere on it, some further N than others, some further S. This is literally a dichotomy that has been tested for decades and has empirical research to support its validity.

Look at it more like.. IN vs IS.
Easier to grasp, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knave

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,106 Posts
Cognitive functions seem a lot more reliable than dichotomies to me, but to each their own.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
Everybody needs to read this:

https://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf

Also, here's a review of the book that started the Harold Grant model off:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265204259_Developing_Models_and_Beliefs_Reviewing_Grant_Thompson_Clarke's_Image_to_Likeness_after_20_years_of_life_and_type_Part_II_Type_Dynamics_and_Development

Brilliant read.

IMO the Harold Grant stack doesn't work, doesn't match.

Also, from Peter Geyer (accredited MBTI practitioner since 1989):
http://typeandculture.org/Pages/C_papers06/GeyerAccreditation.pdf

The most rubbery concept in type for me is Harold Grant's model, partly because it presents as being so rigid. You can't teach type dynamics and without knowing something about scientific research into early childhood development and being able to speak about it in some way, as well as being able to explain people's lives according to their experience and their responses without having to say "well, when you were 12, this must have happened."

The associated and currently favoured 8 function model, influenced by John Beebe may be interpreted too literally at this stage. I believe it's inappropriate to teach at the Accreditation level and a less convoluted approach would be more appropriate. This is at least in part to account for people who don't fit in with the framework, which includes me. These people have to be adequately explained, without the implication that something is wrong.
The Harold Grant stack is dodgy AF and it's high time everybody realised this and abandoned ship.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
Everybody needs to read this:

https://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf

Also, here's a review of the book that started the Harold Grant model off:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265204259_Developing_Models_and_Beliefs_Reviewing_Grant_Thompson_Clarke's_Image_to_Likeness_after_20_years_of_life_and_type_Part_II_Type_Dynamics_and_Development

Brilliant read.

IMO the Harold Grant stack doesn't work, doesn't match.

Also, from Peter Geyer (accredited MBTI practitioner since 1989):
http://typeandculture.org/Pages/C_papers06/GeyerAccreditation.pdf



The Harold Grant stack is dodgy AF and it's high time everybody realised this and abandoned ship.
do you believe that there's any kind of stack that should be replacing the Harold Grant one?
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top