All Cognitive Functions Not Born Equal

[Radiantshadow]

Something I noted while watching my mother interact:

many consider cognitive functions to be to be dead-set,
static (hence many stereotypes that pop up, unfortunately).
I do not believe this is the case; in fact, I believe types use
functions differently. My mother is an ENFJ and I am INFJ,
we use our Fe and Ni differently. She wants people to feel
welcome and comforted with her Fe, I want people to feel
at peace and able to grow. Her Ni is used to reinforce her
Fe image of what is "welcoming and comforting", my Ni is used
to project the routes to peace and growth I emphasize with Fe.

Neither approach is invalid, of course, and perhaps I did not
phrase the difference properly (for that, I apologize). Yet,
the relationships between functions in any type define the
type itself more than the functions' mere existence in a person.
Perhaps this is obvious? I have not read anything by Jung, so
it might be common knowledge I was not yet privy to.

Functions are flowing, ever-changing - not static and eternal.

(Aside: Ni users are HSP; dominant Ni (detached nature) demands
inferior Se, the hallmark of HSP from what I've read)

 

[MikeA]

Is it just me, or does it seem like every time someone manage to get along with someone or considers them open minded in any form of they are immediately labeled N? And if someone is a little more outspoken or outgoing than another the individual in question is immediately labeled E?

One thing that must be clarified about MBTI is that MBTI has nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to do with our motivations or standards-- and what you're mentioning-- seems to be exactly that.

When we explain an individuals cognitive functions where the dominant is "higher" than the auxiliary, and the auxiliary is "higher" than, etc, it is to explain two things, and two things only; function preference, and function development, nothing more.

Yes, our functions are dynamic (Non-Static, as you said), but we do not change our type because our influence or perception adapts somewhat to the people around us.

 

[AUM]

One thing that must be clarified about MBTI is that MBTI has nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to do with our motivations or standards-- and what you're mentioning-- seems to be exactly that.

Well to be fair, MBTI does just that. You take the test, and immediately presents you descriptions of what each type is motivated to do, and how they behave by presenting them with stereotypical pictures of the stuff each type is better at doing.

I do agree with you, though. It shouldn't be like that.

 

[MikeA]

When they mention preferences like that they are talking about cognitive personalities or cognitive functions in a working environment, not in a social environment. As soon as typology websites such as this, and many like it, began with their fantasy theories about MBTI, that MBTI had the same meaning to it in a social environment as it did a working environment, the whole system of MBTI collapsed, and was rendered useless.

If people want to study the social aspects of Typology they should check out the Enneagram and Socionics, not MBTI. MBTI should be used strictly to describe ones working personality AT work.

For instance, Se is efficiency focused, prefer to work hands on to test the product they are developing. As soon as Se has modified something on the product they are developing-- they want to see the result of their modification. They modify a little something, then they check it out, and then they can continue. Ni doesn't work that way at all, it prefers planning to and ahead of the product, and care little for what is actually happening to the product as it is being developed. Ni will develop the product from start to finish, and then check how it turned out at the end of its development (No matter how large the development is). Of course, if the product then fails for the Ni (at the end its development), the Ni will have to start all over again. And this is why there are hardly any Ni dominants in this universe, because most people when they go through the development phase at an early age, realize that working this way has severe consequences, but of course everyone is Ni dominant.

 

[Radiantshadow]

I agree - one's "type" is static and develops itself according to functional fluidity. I am exhausted and don't wish to (be) misinterpret(ed): by "MBTI has nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to do with our motivations or standards-- and what you're mentioning-- seems to be exactly that" did you mean 1) MBTI has nothing to do with motivations and standards, 2) my observations are not parallel to the same, 3) observations are outside MBTI and valid, 4) observations made are outside MBTI and invalid due to the nature of the observations? Or something else?

Personality and behavior are holistic, the sum - and then some - of their parts. The point I was trying to make was that type is defined by the interactions between functions and, cutting a finer edge, the roles of functions vary accordingly. Same idea of being left or right-handed; the preference is natural and blooms when given reign.

MBTI itself is crap, the test requires one to know themselves objectively in order to get an accurate reading. This defeats the purpose of the test. One's "E" or "I" just tells the direction of the dominant function, not sociability. One's "N" or "S" states one's preferred mode of data interpretation. Myself as an example: I'm an INFJ with well-developed Ni and Fe (and Ti, but that's irrelevant at the moment); therefore, I prefer to work with internal models of the world, but I enjoy comforting and being around others. Preferences are not absolute, I don't understand how this gets messed up - MBTI =/= instruction manual for life.

Morals, character, beliefs, whatever are personal choices not things watered down by typology - they clarified and defined by it, an unrefined jewel cut and polished according to the subject's tools.

Apologies for grammatical errors or rambles, or unconnected and impertinent statements; haven't slept in 83-ish hours.

 

[MikeA]

I agree - one's "type" is static and develops itself according to functional fluidity. I am exhausted and don't wish to (be) misinterpret(ed): by "MBTI has nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to do with our motivations or standards-- and what you're mentioning-- seems to be exactly that" did you mean 1) MBTI has nothing to do with motivations and standards, 2) my observations are not parallel to the same, 3) observations are outside MBTI and valid, 4) observations made are outside MBTI and invalid due to the nature of the observations? Or something else?

Personality and behavior are holistic, the sum - and then some - of their parts. The point I was trying to make was that type is defined by the interactions between functions and, cutting a finer edge, the roles of functions vary accordingly. Same idea of being left or right-handed; the preference is natural and blooms when given reign.

MBTI itself is crap, the test requires one to know themselves objectively in order to get an accurate reading. This defeats the purpose of the test. One's "E" or "I" just tells the direction of the dominant function, not sociability. One's "N" or "S" states one's preferred mode of data interpretation. Myself as an example: I'm an INFJ with well-developed Ni and Fe (and Ti, but that's irrelevant at the moment); therefore, I prefer to work with internal models of the world, but I enjoy comforting and being around others. Preferences are not absolute, I don't understand how this gets messed up - MBTI =/= instruction manual for life.

Morals, character, beliefs, whatever are personal choices not things watered down by typology - they clarified and defined by it, an unrefined jewel cut and polished according to the subject's tools.

Apologies for grammatical errors or rambles, or unconnected and impertinent statements; haven't slept in 83-ish hours.

What I replied to was basically: "She wants people to feel welcome and comforted with her Fe, I want people to feel at peace and able to grow." I don't limit myself to judge the intentions behind your choice of words, but what you wrote "seems" like motivations and standards, in a social environment.

And no need to apologize about your grammar or anything similar. If something is difficult to read I'll ask, and if I've already misinterpreted something then I should've asked. It is 5:14am on this side of the planet anyway, and I'm still going strong. Gonna stretch my legs in two hours, to buy myself a milkshake, yeah.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Ah, right.

By that I was basically commenting on functions' roles according to hierarchy. Of course, function X doesn't necessitate that one act in Y mode. They are just tools, after all. Mother uses secondary Ni to support her dominant Fe, so her dynamic is different than my secondary Fe feeding off of my dominant Ni. I could've said "she wants people to revile themselves and is emotionally manipulative because of abusive Fe focused with stagnant Ni" or something similar about myself - it would make no difference. Motivation and such are products of experience being filtered through the psyche, not being filters themselves for psyche. I think. Maybe.

 

[Arsal]

When they mention preferences like that they are talking about cognitive personalities or cognitive functions in a working environment, not in a social environment. As soon as typology websites such as this, and many like it, began with their fantasy theories about MBTI, that MBTI had the same meaning to it in a social environment as it did a working environment, the whole system of MBTI collapsed, and was rendered useless.

Really? I didn't notice it.

 

[InvisibleJim]

in fact, I believe types use
functions differently

This is entirely true.

Review the IxTJ type... hang on... why do you keep showing of your internal ethics and why do you hate muddying them with shared compromises...

That's right your Fi is in the tertiary position and Fe is your point of least resistance and thus you loathe it.



Hang on INFP, why do you require your environment to be entirely non-aggressive even though this 'same' Fi which refuses compromise in the INTJ is in the dominant position? Because you share it with equality and sharing of ideas 'Ne' as it's parent (and thus its manager).

That's right, functions are entirely different based upon their arrangement in the psyche.

 

[Orion]

many consider cognitive functions to be to be dead-set,
static (hence many stereotypes that pop up, unfortunately).
I do not believe this is the case; in fact, I believe types use
functions differently. My mother is an ENFJ and I am INFJ,
we use our Fe and Ni differently. She wants people to feel
welcome and comforted with her Fe, I want people to feel
at peace and able to grow. Her Ni is used to reinforce her
Fe image of what is "welcoming and comforting", my Ni is used
to project the routes to peace and growth I emphasize with Fe.

Well... of course. She is Fe dominant, you are Ni dominant.

Neither approach is invalid, of course, and perhaps I did not
phrase the difference properly (for that, I apologize). Yet,
the relationships between functions in any type define the
type itself more than the functions' mere existence in a person.
Perhaps this is obvious? I have not read anything by Jung, so
it might be common knowledge I was not yet privy to.

Yes this is obvious.

(Aside: Ni users are HSP; dominant Ni (detached nature) demands
inferior Se, the hallmark of HSP from what I've read)

There is a correlation but I wouldn't say all "Ni doms are HSP". From what I've read, neurosis derived from hypersensitivity is down to child hood trauma. So I guess a hyper sensitive person could grow to be non or only mildly neurotic, if they grew up in an environment that was conducive and healthy to who they were. In INFJ cases, that is rare.

 

[Orion]

I'd just want to state first that I don't consider anything that we discuss about functions as the MBTI. I consider it analytical psychology or psychoanalysis or JCF.

When they mention preferences like that they are talking about cognitive personalities or cognitive functions in a working environment, not in a social environment. As soon as typology websites such as this, and many like it, began with their fantasy theories about MBTI, that MBTI had the same meaning to it in a social environment as it did a working environment, the whole system of MBTI collapsed, and was rendered useless.

Uh, not really. When I got into the MBTI I read three books: Gifts Differing, Type Talk and I'm not crazy I'm just not you, before I moved away from it. These books are all about the MBTI and using it to understand yourself and others. They were not used in a specifically work related environment and were more about personal growth.

Yeah the MBTI had it's origins in matching people's personality to suitable work environments and jobs but I think the relationship stops there. Yes it is used in corporate environments from what I've heard but to say that the MBTI is all about how we "work"? I don't see that in any of literature I've read on it.

 

[enfp can be shy]

I love contemplating. I contemplate love. -- roughly the difference between NiFe and FeNi; thus, what you get on the surface is quite different, indeed, but still we could argue the existence of what is called functions, in ideal sense.

However, I agree it's preferable to look at the types themselves, when possible, than speculating about the functions, because one is visible and the other is a black box theoretical model.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I love contemplating. I contemplate love. -- roughly the difference between NiFe and FeNi; thus, what you get on the surface is quite different, indeed, but still we could argue the existence of what is called functions, in ideal sense.

However, I agree it's preferable to look at the types themselves, when possible, than speculating about the functions, because one is visible and the other is a black box theoretical model.

Or as Ni likes to say about Ne 'These people need to learn how to differentiate between enjoy and love; they do entirely different things'.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Given dynamic function relationships, what of inter-mingling between types? For example: an ENTJ pairing wonderfully with an INTP in a business setting because of dominant Ti perfection the logical systems/organization of Te, or an INFP's dominant Fi being "neglected" by an ENTJ's dominant Te. It would follow that certain types mesh better than others (producing different relationships) - though not based on assumed type behavioral stereotypes. Something like "typological chemistry", perhaps? As with any groupings of elements, different this's adding to that's produce X in yonder situation, etc. . .

I do not usually consider MBTI/typology, hence my limited understanding and obvious "aha!" moments. Treat the above as a ramble.

 

[VH]

Is it just me, or does it seem like every time someone manage to get along with someone or considers them open minded in any form of they are immediately labeled N?

I have many friends who are S types, though most of them are STPs. I have met several astonishingly open minded ESTJs, as well as open minded versions of all the S types in between.

However, when I assume someone is an N type because they are 'open minded' ...what I'm saying is that they are open minded to my random thinking approach. Most S types are not inclined to want to follow my train of thought because it tends to be very N. There is a difference between someone being open minded and someone being open minded to me.

And if someone is a little more outspoken or outgoing than another the individual in question is immediately labeled E?

True. It's easy for people to assume that social attitude equates to mental perspective, because there is often correlation.

One thing that must be clarified about MBTI is that MBTI has nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to do with our motivations or standards-- and what you're mentioning-- seems to be exactly that.

Yes, motivations are much more governed by Enneagram type. There is often a correlation between MBTI and Enneagram, but the distinctions are very interesting. An INFJ 4 is different than an INFJ 1 is different than an INFJ 6, etc. and each of these combinations manifest their functions to support their distinct motivations.

It sounds to me like the OP is an INFJ 9 (possibly 6), and the mother is an ENFJ 2, and they're more picking up on the differences between 9's (6's) and 2's.

When we explain an individuals cognitive functions where the dominant is "higher" than the auxiliary, and the auxiliary is "higher" than, etc, it is to explain two things, and two things only; function preference, and function development, nothing more.

Yes, our functions are dynamic (Non-Static, as you said), but we do not change our type because our influence or perception adapts somewhat to the people around us.

Agreed, especially if you're an Fe user.

 

[MikeA]

Uh, not really. When I got into the MBTI I read three books: Gifts Differing, Type Talk and I'm not crazy I'm just not you, before I moved away from it. These books are all about the MBTI and using it to understand yourself and others. They were not used in a specifically work related environment and were more about personal growth.

So instead of trying to find the right corner stones to MBTI yourself, and perhaps even turning these stones for the better, you choose to walk away from the logical framework I've represented and tell me you've been reading books written by imbeciles and fools, which you whole-heartedly believe in (Saying that they are imbeciles and fools, not that you are). Anyone can write a book and anyone can publish them, motivations, standards and personal growth, however, has nothing to do with MBTI, they never have and they never will.

They may never have written it in their literature, but they should. As MBTI stands now there is nothing fundamental for it to grow on, and people are bound to create misconceptions because of it. It is almost as if they made us a huge bucket of vanilla ice cream, and handed us the flavors to do with as we please, which of course makes all the kiddies cry because no one cares to take the ice cream out of the bucket first before they flavor it.

 

[enfp can be shy]

Or as Ni likes to say about Ne 'These people need to learn how to differentiate between enjoy and love; they do entirely different things'.

That's your Te, not your Ni. Your Ni should look past the formal example, as it is about the functional relation (get A using B vs get B using A) more than about subjectively defined words, such as love.