Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I've always wondered their source axiom. I feel like it would help me debate with the MBTI critics since there is a reason for it, and not just so we can know "what Frozen character we are."


(edit) Function should have been function(s), unless you think of then holistically as one thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Jung viewed extraversion/introversion as the most fundamental division underlying his types, and spent more of Psychological Types talking about the personality characteristics he thought extraverts tended to have in common and introverts tended to have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.

And Jung believed that the ultimate reason there were extraverts and introverts in the first place was that extraversion and introversion represented two competing evolutionary strategies, each successful in its own way. Here's how he described them:

There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists of a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. I must content myself with this broad hint. It is sufficient to note that the peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Blake's intuition did not err when he described the two classes of men as "prolific" and "devouring." Just as, biologically, the two modes of adaptation work equally well and are successful in their own way, so too with the typical attitudes. The one achieves its end by a multiplicity of relationships, the other by a monopoly.​

And the result of those evolutionary machinations was that, in Jung's words, introverts tend to be "reserved, ... rather shy people," with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny"; while extraverts tend to be "open" and "sociable," with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
And Jung believed that the ultimate reason there were extraverts and introverts in the first place was that extraversion and introversion represented two competing evolutionary strategies, each successful in its own way
Sorry for the dumb question, but wouldn't that mean that this is a rather binary thing? I've always felt like there were varying degrees of extraversion. So does that mean ambiverts are actually either outgoing introverts or reserved extraverts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
Rational Wiki calls the MBTI "a horoscope for nerds", which I think is more accurate than a lot of people want to believe.

The cognitive functions aren't really born out of anything but subjective observation, and certainly aren't scientific. They're just one person's elucidations, born out of the very (very) early days of psychology, made accessible and intuitive enough for us to understand them.

It's no more "objective" a way of distinguishing people as the left-right political divide, the Enneagram, or even the Hogwarts houses. There's a real limit to what you can glean from this stuff, no matter how perceptive it seems to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Sorry for the dumb question, but wouldn't that mean that this is a rather binary thing? I've always felt like there were varying degrees of extraversion. So does that mean ambiverts are actually either outgoing introverts or reserved extraverts?
It doesn't seem to me like the notion that any or all of the MBTI preferences evolved to cause individuals within a group to pursue complementary strategies is inconsistent with the notion that preference strengths could fall along a spectrum, with lots of people near the middle.

Jung certainly didn't think there was any inconsistency there, since he said he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Rational Wiki calls the MBTI "a horoscope for nerds", which I think is more accurate than a lot of people want to believe.
Actually, no.

Horoscopes ask "Were you born in January, February... or December" and tell you whether you are outgoing or self-contained.

MBTI asks "Are you outgoing or self-contained" and gives you a label accordingly. Little different ;)

The cognitive functions aren't really born out of anything but subjective observation, and certainly aren't scientific. They're just one person's elucidations, born out of the very (very) early days of psychology, made accessible and intuitive enough for us to understand them.

It's no more "objective" a way of distinguishing people as the left-right political divide, the Enneagram, or even the Hogwarts houses. There's a real limit to what you can glean from this stuff, no matter how perceptive it seems to be.
OK, cognitive functions as you accurately say are completely useless and unscientific, but MyersBriggs on the other hand can be incredibly effective when used correctly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Actually, no.

Horoscopes ask "Were you born in January, February... or December" and tell you whether you are outgoing or self-contained.

MBTI asks "Are you outgoing or self-contained" and gives you a label accordingly. Little different ;)

OK, cognitive functions as you accurately say are completely useless and unscientific, but MyersBriggs on the other hand can be incredibly effective when used correctly.
MBTI wouldn't be accurate if its axiom (cognitive functions) were incorrect. It would be completely fictitious, in that case.


The cognitive functions, though, are real and we could sit here and do everyone of them; I guess their validity is related to whether their are ordered.

I think subconsciously, too, people have been trying to express the categories of personalities every since ancient times (i.e. the temperaments etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
MBTI wouldn't be accurate if its axiom (cognitive functions) were incorrect. It would be completely fictitious, in that case.
Whether somebody prefers very little interaction (I) or very much (E) is useful information about the person.

Whether somebody prefers the abstract (N) or the tangible (S) is useful information about the person.

Whether somebody prefers to act in spite of emotion (T) or because of emotion (F) is useful information about the person.

Whether somebody prefers disorganization (P) or organization (J) is useful information about the person.

The cognitive functions, though, are real and we could sit here and do everyone of them; I guess their validity is related to whether their are ordered.
Are there any scientific studies to back this up?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Are there any scientific studies to back this up?

Probably, but the fact that one can do them, simply, outright is self-evident. It is like asking if their is scientific study to prove people breath; the previous is a limited and truncated epistemological notion of knowledge. People can sense, judge, perceive, intuit, think, and/or feel; the question is are they systematic and varied from person to person—like I said before I think it has been subconsciously attempted to be expressed ever since antiquity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Probably, but the fact that one can do them, simply, outright is self-evident. It is like asking if their is scientific study to prove people breath; the previous is a limited and truncated epistemological notion of knowledge. People can sense, judge, perceive, intuit, think, and/or feel; the question is are they systematic and varied from person to person—like I said before I think it has been subconsciously attempted to be expressed ever since antiquity.
I've tried: my functions line up more closely with ENFP than with anything else. That doesn't change the fact that I'm far more self-contained than I am outgoing (or the fact that other people's function stacks are even messier than mine is).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
born out of the very (very) early days of psychology, made accessible and intuitive enough for us to understand them.
That doesn't supplant their validity. The real question, though, is their principal source and the why—from there real understanding of the MBTI begins. I don't really know where to delve into Jung (or he even does) to research this, that is why I am asking the forum to expand on my previous question.

So principal question to this specific topic no.1 is:
What caused the cognitive functions evolutionarily (beyond just E v I which was discussed already).

No 2 is:
Why are they theoretically ordered in the way they are?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
Cognitive functions aren't 'real' things, they are models describing how people perceive/judge. We do not know how people actually do these things (or if there is a part of the brain we can label as Ni, etc). Cognitive functions are concepts.

I also believe modern function descriptions are taken from the dichotomies, not the functions create the dichotomies. Dichotomies are based on real patterns observable which influence the cognitive function description. (I believe but not certain)


Evolutionary wise, its about variance in the population. This increases the chance of survival of the species if everyone is slightly different and more 'fit' for slightly different environments (as the environment is always changing).
This occurs due to mixing of genes from the two parents, an added step where the genome rearranges itself so a child is never 50% each parent, and how the environment affects gene expression.

Question two, no specific order that is 'true' has been agreed on. It is about ones conscious focus and how it is virtually impossible to mentally focus on every aspect of cognition. Type comes about due to where the mind naturally and easily focuses attention. A person can have an ambiguous type as either they are primarily functioning unconscious/reactively or have increased their awareness to encompass more perspectives/mindsets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Actually, no.

Horoscopes ask "Were you born in January, February... or December" and tell you whether you are outgoing or self-contained.

MBTI asks "Are you outgoing or self-contained" and gives you a label accordingly. Little different ;)

OK, cognitive functions as you accurately say are completely useless and unscientific, but MyersBriggs on the other hand can be incredibly effective when used correctly.
Actually not. Astrology is like a TiNe heaven - so many details, shifting structures and potential...OH MY! And quite complicated at that. And the difference is that MBTI is a far cheaper parlour trick: it literally asks you whether you like talking, mingling etc and then feedbacks that back to you. It isn't nearly like MMPI or the like.

Still fun and useful to find out / sort your preferences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Actually not. Astrology is like a TiNe heaven - so many details, shifting structures and potential...OH MY! And quite complicated at that.
But it's still details about personality that are allegedly based on birthday.

And the difference is that MBTI is a far cheaper parlour trick: it literally asks you whether you like talking, mingling etc and then feedbacks that back to you.
That's not a bug, that's a feature: MMPI is for professional use, MyersBriggs is for person-person use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
But it's still details about personality that are allegedly based on birthday.

That's not a bug, that's a feature: MMPI is for professional use, MyersBriggs is for person-person use.
Fair enough to both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,008 Posts
The nature v. nurture debate is still ongoing. All that is important is that you remember that they're perspectives instead of tools, and I wouldn't worry about any of this too much. The MBTI is mindless entertainment in the worst case scenario and a psychological philosophy in the best case scenario.

As long as you don't get sucked into cultish behavior (i.e. treating it as gospel) and let it define you and your actions it can be a fun way to meet people and or get abstract. You don't want to play into some character created by a description and definitely don't use it as a life guide. Jung himself was against typing, so don't forget that. If you want to take a test that has independent validity and worth taking a little more seriously take the Big 5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Cognitive functions aren't 'real' things, they are models describing how people perceive/judge. We do not know how people actually do these things (or if there is a part of the brain we can label as Ni, etc). Cognitive functions are concepts.

I also believe modern function descriptions are taken from the dichotomies, not the functions create the dichotomies. Dichotomies are based on real patterns observable which influence the cognitive function description. (I believe but not certain)


Evolutionary wise, its about variance in the population. This increases the chance of survival of the species if everyone is slightly different and more 'fit' for slightly different environments (as the environment is always changing).
This occurs due to mixing of genes from the two parents, an added step where the genome rearranges itself so a child is never 50% each parent, and how the environment affects gene expression.

Question two, no specific order that is 'true' has been agreed on. It is about ones conscious focus and how it is virtually impossible to mentally focus on every aspect of cognition. Type comes about due to where the mind naturally and easily focuses attention. A person can have an ambiguous type as either they are primarily functioning unconscious/reactively or have increased their awareness to encompass more perspectives/mindsets.
Thank you. This sort of response is what I was looking for, as it was specific to my questions aiming at elucidating the causality of the the MBTI functions. I don't agree, epistemologically, with the ontology of the functions described, but this is the the general "area" I am trying to go; ideally, as specific as possible to the causal nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
Thank you. This sort of response is what I was looking for, as it was specific to my questions aiming at elucidating the causality of the the MBTI functions. I don't agree, epistemologically, with the ontology of the functions described, but this is the the general "area" I am trying to go; ideally, as specific as possible to the causal nature.
No worries.
I see a question and naturally I provide an answer to the best of my knowledge...even to the rhetoric ones lol.

I'm not sure what you don't agree with. Haven't really come across epistemology or ontology to draw any meaning from what you wrote.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top