Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,008 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
557 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*

*starts angry rant about flaws of a topic* I mean why would they do that?! If you're gonna teach students material, cover all of it, not some of it! That'd be like if I taught someone about doing math problems with multiple operations in it but didn't tell them about the PEMDAS system. They may learn on their own how to work through the problems but it'd be difficult. Wouldn't someone have the decency to teach them about the cognitive functions of each MB personality type? Apparently not, because they're just a bunch of assholes who want to see people have to figure it out themselves. This brings my blood to a boil, just thinking about this makes me want to have an anal evacuation. This fucking sucks, it sucking fucks, it's a piece of shit... *calms down* and I don't like it... *ends rant*
 

·
MOTM June 2010
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,532 Posts
Because, as far as mainstream science is concerned, the functions are unprovable bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Loke and Nasmoe

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
I once gave an hour-plus lecture in grad school (counseling track) on MBTI/KTS - including some on the functions. What they are, how they work, how to determine them from type code, etc..

Of 15 people in the class, all but 1-2 peoples' eyes were glazed over after 10 minutes (which mirrors other reactions to personality typology in general - but I digress). The professor, on the other hand (ENTJ), had his "mental wheels" turning very loudly during my lecture. On review, I found that the material he was teaching from regarding the MBTI was apparently from the 70s, and some from Myers' earlier material as well.

So it might not be for lack of trying, just that the people teaching the material aren't following the evolution of the test and related theories as much as some of us do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,008 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
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.
Very nice explanation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
My guess is that they don't bring up the functions because they have only surface knowledge of MBTI, etc. I6-type systems are not prevalent in academia at all.

Now, as for why Keirsey doesn't mention them, my Intuition tells me it's because he, like me, didn't think MBTI functions were important. (I've gone a step further and explained why they're distortions of Jung, incorrect, and useless, why Socionics assignments are more accurate, and why the simpler system I created which removes orientation is more accurate still.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Depends on the school

The university I go to doesn't even teach MBTI, they focus more on Tony Robbins style bs. Psychology is so subjective that it probably depends on the college department teaching them. I would venture to guess that the functions are more or less a continuation of Jung's original theory. I also think that psychology is a trendy subject that gets a lot students in and out so the focus is more on teaching the basic theories and training for clinical settings since most students just want the piece of paper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,195 Posts
Because, as far as mainstream science is concerned, the functions are unprovable bullshit.
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>Fe

The first four are all pretty close, and very high. The last four bounce all the way back to the 30%'s and goes down from there. It's untestable, unquantifiable and unprovable, not to mention very poorly defined to be considered halfway scientific, sometimes called psychobabble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
It's untestable, unquantifiable and unprovable, not to mention very poorly defined to be considered halfway scientific, sometimes called psychobabble.
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."

Extroverts - extrovert their primary function, and introvert their auxiliary.
Introverts - introvert their primary function, and extrovert their auxiliary.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
MOTM June 2010
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
Introspiritual raises a good point, and one that I was going to allude to yesterday. Many of you appear to have little understanding of what a cognitive function, function-attitude, etc is if you are correlating it with MBTI. As Intro says, MB relates very little to cognitive functions in the book "Gifts Differing", except to match the descriptions by dominant cognitive function.

MB assessments have no correlation to cognitive functions and cognitive function assessments that have recently been created cannot determine one's type alone. Don't confuse a dichotomy I-S-T-P with the make-up of a type Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Te-Si-Ne-Fi. If you want to argue whether that is reliable or valid, go for it. But so far most arguing non-scientific and irreliable are not responding to Nate's inquiry of cognitive functions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
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:
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.
 

·
MOTM June 2010
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
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.
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)?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,008 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
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)?
Hi there. :)

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.
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 Database
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,856 Posts
Yeah; since I see you're here now, I was wondering what you thought of Sim and I's description of the functions as "perspectives" or "world-views" rather than behaviors or skills that we "use".

Anyway, to answer the question, the functions, as well as type and temperament in general are too abstract for an academic system that demands concrete, empirical evidence for everything to be considered a valid science. Just listen to the criticisms of it. It wasn't tested enough, or is not testable, or whatever.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top