Cognitive Function Ghosting

Recently, I've been developing a theory that I've been referring to as ghosting to describe how some people develop strong capacity in cognitive functions not normally associated with their type. I decided to make some graphics to better clarify.

Below are the graphed results of my past three cognitive function evaluation tests over the past month or so. The blue graph displays the ranges of my Perception functions, while the red graph displays the ranges of my Judging functions. Unto themselves, they seem rather innocuous. My Ni and Se are my strongest Perception functions, as are my Fe and Ti the strongest Judging functions. These are quite typical of an INFJ.



However, take a look at the combined graph, and suddenly, we begin to see how the Perception functions pull the Judging function ranges out into Fi and Te. We also see how the Judging functions pull the Perception function ranges out into Ne and Si.

This phenomenon is what I am referring to when I am mentioning 'ghosting'. The strongest functions pull the weaker functions into better capacity by combining with their partner functions. Ni + Fe can create stronger Fi and Ne. Se + Ti can create stronger Te and Si. Whether or not these effects are inherent due to all cognitive functions being interrelated, or a by product of tandem use of paired functions is the question. However, the answer is less relevent than the fact that this phenomenon exists and is highly common.

Personally, I believe that the explanation is a combination of both hypothesis. The more a function pair works in tandem, the more another function develops on its own because the mind is not compartmentalized internally into 8 distinct areas with walls between them, but rather a gradiant set of areas that blend into one another, most likely resembling the graphs we see below.

This would imply that the MBTI really is valid in that it is simply assessing preference, and not overall function. Some people lean more into one quadrant than another, and are therefore more distinct as a type than others who are closer to the zero point of cognitive balance.

 

Thanks. Photoshop. I scratch built them with layers.

Here is a copy of the graph without any data.

 

Highly possible, and likely another factor for the pull.

If the Ne is an effect of Ni + Se, then the individual will only have their own perception as a meter to measure the effects that the questions are asking. For instance, someone who is red green color blind has no idea they're not seeing red or green as distinct colors if someone shows them a red light and a green light and asks if they can see 'color'. Because cognitive functions are internalized, we can't have someone else ask them '...but do you see these two things as different colors?' without an inherent 'yes' because the Ni may seem quite distinct from Ni+Se to someone who has no Ne.

However, I believe that axis functions (such as Ni + Se or Ne + Si) do not cause as much pull (if any) as paired functions (Ni + Fe or Fi + Ne). Almost all of the pull effects I've seen seem to be the result of the dominant and secondary pair, or the inferior and auxiliary pair. It takes a J and a P function to create pull because one function perceives and then the other takes those perceptions and reasons them into a blend that appears to be another function.

I am inclined to think that all of the possible explanations for this effect are likely valid factors. I'm also inclined to believe that mergers of the functions are actually the other functions. For example, Ni and Fe actually are Ne and Fi. They're made of N, F, i, and e. The individual prefers to use them in Ni and Fe conjunctions, but they have facility with N, F, i, and e, and therefore can infer Ne and Fi. It's just not their preferred method of conjunction. This could explain all of the possibilities as valid, and even explain anomalies like individuals with all i preference over e preference (for example, Fi, Ni, Ti, Si, Fe, Te, Ne, Se). This individual would have a lot of preference toward i function when using F, N, T, and S.

Therefore, the midpoints of each J and P range are actually where the preferences lie for the dominant function pair. The closer to center, the more cognitive balance and less like an MBTI type the individual will be, while the farther from center the less cognitive balance and more like and MBTI type the individual will be. As an example, my J midpoint would fall barely in Fe and my P midpoint would fall barely in Ni. This makes my dominant pair Ni and Fe, with preference on Ni because the midpoint for it is farther from center.

Here is another graph to help clarify even further. I turned the orientation to chart along the standard MBTI axis. Here's where the pull effect becomes very apparent. In the graph below, the dominant pair is Ni + Fe which pulls toward Ne and Fi to a significant degree. The Inferior pair is Ti + Se which pulls toward Te and Si to a lesser degree.

 

Yup. Good work! And it looks like your weights are clearly in the INFJ quadrant.

 

Your P function ranges are extremely circular. Did you score that balanced on the tests' P functions? I'm guessing you might have graphed that incorrectly? If so, that could be throwing the results off.

 

Maybe it means you are well rounded, hehe.

This test scores my Fi pretty high. Another test scores my Ne pretty high.

I think your results on this test just show that you are an INFx leaning toward Fe and Ne. You have more mass in your P function. So you'd be an Ne Fe type according to that. Heh. If other tests lean toward Ni, I'd just evidence this as a pull to Ne from your Fe.

 

All of them, except maybe Fi.

Ti, Ni, Se, Ne, Te, Si, maybe a little Fe.