Joined
·
5,008 Posts
I've had this system presented to me in two psychology classes that I have taken now, and neither has even brought up the functions. Also, why does the Kiersey theory not bring up the functions?
This is a really good question. Why aren't they teaching this in schools? The epic thread of the day award goes to you for this awesome post. *Stands up and starts an epic dramatic clap*I've had this system presented to me in two psychology classes that I have taken now, and neither has even brought up the functions. Also, why does the Kiersey theory not bring up the functions?
Very nice explanation.The functions are complex and it would take probably a whole semester to discuss. I think it would open up a can of worms and lead to too many unanswered questions if cognitive functions were introduced as a mere chapter or as part of a larger psych class. As for Keirsey his system is not type, it's temperament and based on the systems of Socrates, Aristotle, etc. Keirsey merely correlated the four-letter codes created by MB, but the systems are distinctively different.
MBTI is based on Jung's work but is merely the results of an assessment. At best MB refers to the functions of a type, but not it's actual make-up (i.e., T-S-N-F instead of Ti-Se-Ni-Fe) The problem in attempting to apply four-letter codes to everyday life becomes quite noticeable resulting in people thinking their types changed instead of seeing it for the obvious that cognitive functions are quite fluid and there is not pure type. I don't go from ISTP to ESTP simply because I am extraverting more. I am merely using my Se more. I don't change from ISTP to INTJ because I am using my Ni more. It's a natural process for me to use as my tertiary function.
I think that most people find it arduous to understand cognitive functions because they see things to linear 1-2-3 instead of wholistically, and because they have become accustomed to seeing type as a forced dilemma (E or I, S or N, T or F) instead in a fluid manner.
This. To be honest, I doubt the functions myself, and generally don't like to attribute everything to the MBTI, which I see some people doing on this forum. They tend to attribute, say, music tastes to type and even cognitive functions. There's such a thing called false attribution. Music tastes depending on more than internal dispositions; much, much more, and they're ignoring all of that. Cognitive functions are untestable and going by the functions test I did (several times), there's no way I'm INTJ. In fact, it's not even intelligible. I had Ni=Ti>Te>Ne>...Se>Fi>Si>FeBecause, as far as mainstream science is concerned, the functions are unprovable bullshit.
Er... You do realize that the MBTI uses the cognitive functions as a presumption, right? At least Myers talked about it that way in "Gifts Differing."It's untestable, unquantifiable and unprovable, not to mention very poorly defined to be considered halfway scientific, sometimes called psychobabble.
There are two huge problems with MBTI function assignments. First, the dominant functions are wrong for all Introverts. Why Myers decided that Introverted Perceivers should lead with a Judging function is sort of beyond me. Socionics got that right, having Perceivers lead with a Perceiving function. The second huge problem is orientation itself, a carryover of Jung's misconception of the difference between Introverts and Extroverts. Jung was the first to define the difference between these two "classes" of people, but he made false causal conclusions regarding object and subject focus. I/E is just about social interaction, not input/output or focus.I agree that function preference tests can in no way correlate to the MBTI, and I agree with your statement about false attribution coming into play, but I would argue that tossing the cognitive functions completely is an overreaction.
Ah, another Socionics devotee out to convince a website/web forum full of MBTI aficionados of the error of their ways. I wish you luck, good sir. :happy:Socionics got that right...
I do think Socionics is more accurate than MBTI in about every respect, but I'm not a "member of that school." I started my own school that builds on all of them. See my homepage.Ah, another Socionics devotee out to convince a website/web forum full of MBTI aficionados of the error of their ways. I wish you luck, good sir. :happy:
EDMOND ZEDO, now that’s a name from the past (INTrPosr on INTPC back during the beginning of the forum). You’re correct that Socionics got the four-letter codes correct, but that is where I get off their band wagon since we both know the identity crisis that system has gone through Welcome to the forum. Anyone else here from days gone by (before 2005)?There are two huge problems with MBTI function assignments. First, the dominant functions are wrong for all Introverts. Why Myers decided that Introverted Perceivers should lead with a Judging function is sort of beyond me. Socionics got that right, having Perceivers lead with a Perceiving function. The second huge problem is orientation itself, a carryover of Jung's misconception of the difference between Introverts and Extroverts. Jung was the first to define the difference between these two "classes" of people, but he made false causal conclusions regarding object and subject focus. I/E is just about social interaction, not input/output or focus.
The fact that it's a subjective model is not in itself a huge drawback. Models help people understand things in many fields, esp. psychology. Thing is, If you're using a model that doesn't help people understand anything, and refuse to question it no matter what, you're up the creek. That's MBTI.
I don't like socionics, because it tries to make judgements as to a person's personality based on their facial appearance. To me, that's just stupid.I do think Socionics is more accurate than MBTI in about every respect, but I'm not a "member of that school." I started my own school that builds on all of them. See my homepage.
Hi there.EDMOND ZEDO, now that’s a name from the past (INTrPosr on INTPC back during the beginning of the forum). You’re correct that Socionics got the four-letter codes correct, but that is where I get off their band wagon since we both know the identity crisis that system has gone through Welcome to the forum. Anyone else here from days gone by (before 2005)?
If you take the premise that type is an epigenetically controlled system of sociobiological polymorphism similar to ant caste determination, it's not stupid at all, now is it. This is the kind of theoretical work I do. If you'd like to take a look at a VI database I'm working on, here you go: Visual Identification DatabaseI don't like socionics, because it tries to make judgements as to a person's personality based on their facial appearance. To me, that's just stupid.