Cognitive/Communication dissonance with MBTI typing

[Gaze]

Cognitive/Communication dissonance with MBTI typing

I've been wondering for a while how actual interaction compares with cognitive functions. I've always had an issue with the supposition, at least in the way i've seen MBTI explained, that we act according to our cognitive functions. Clearly, we don't in many cases.

Just as an example, i'd say i think more like an INTJ, but my actions or behavior are more like an ENFJ (at work or in casual conversation).

I guess what i'm hinting at is that beyond the obvious point that we don't necessarily behave or act based on the way we think, it's problematic to argue that someone is a type based entirely on what they think. It's like writing. You don't necessarily write what comes to mind; we tend to clean it up so that it's in a more "acceptable" or accessible form. If i perceive that how i think may not be appreciated by you, of course i would shape it up so that it's not offensive or at least more acceptable.

In other words, typing is based on how we think about things, not just what we think. For example, I can think one thing, but think about it in many different ways depending on how i want to approach a situation.

Which is why i'll always have difficulty with the idea that we're one thing or another. It's not that black and white. So, i'd like to stay out of the box, plz and ty. *peaks at Indy*

So, what are your thoughts on my weakly developed MBTI cognitive/communication dissonance theory?

 

[KazeCraven]

Hence the falsification of type.

I mostly agree, with the caveat that some modes of thought are unhealthy for someone to use for an extended period of time. However, I would also add that, related to the first point, we usually choose less than optimal modes of thought for a reason and would default to our natural in the absence of outside pressure.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I see the cognitive function as how we think. Its a purely internal process despite the introverted and extroverted names. Its how information in all forms is taken in, synthesiszed, and reasoned.

The reason cognitive functions, and MBTI tests exist, is there is a strong enough corralation between these internal processes, and how we express ourselves in the external world. Thus there are inate prefrences. If this were not the case the theory would have no testabillity at all. However, not everyone sticks to the classic model rigidly (it's rare infact). Thus it is hard for people to pidgeonhole themselves to a single type and be completely confortable with it. That is why there are a lot of testing errors.

Types certainly do exist, and if it were possible for a computer to scan us it would easily be able to catagorize every single one of us into a type. It's just very diffucult for us individuals to measure ourselves because everyone manifests this processing in different ways, and the patterns are just weak enough to call it useful, but unreliable.