How Cognitive Functions Grow

[VH]

Dominant Function = Red
Secondary Function = Green
Tertiary Function = Blue
Inferior Function = Purple

Early Development: Very little function overlap. Dominant Function is most developed and most preferred. Functions do not work in tandem well.

View attachment 5057

Middle Development: Functions are widening in development and increasing in preference. Learning to use functions in tandem, especially dominant and secondary. However, while tertiary and inferior functions are still poorly developed and less able to work in tandem, they are becoming more preferred.

View attachment 5058

Late Development: Functions continue to widen in development and increase preference. All functions are being integrated into tandem usage. However, notice that the development of each function is consecutively narrower as they move toward inferior, even though preferences are becoming very similar. This illustrates the scope of these functions.

View attachment 5059

Final Development: Functions continue to widen in development, and preference becomes very indistinguishable. Tandem use is now very fluent. While the preferences are almost identical, notice the mass of the dominant function vs. the mass of the inferior. This represents the actual usage.

View attachment 5060

 

[MikeA]

Estimated
Dominant function: 6-11 years old
Auxiliary function: 12-19 years old
Tertiary function: 20-34 years old
Inferior function: 35+ years old

But it's always a bit more dynamic than that:
Depending on the environment we grow in.

Dominant function: 4-15 years old
Auxiliary function: 10-25 years old
Tertiary function: 16-40 years old
Inferior function: 30+ years old

 

[VH]

All of the functions are in use at all times. I think it would be much more correct to estimate the bands as the following, depending on the individual.

Early Develoment: 0-11 years old (A snapshot point corresponding to the graph average around age 6)
Middle Develoment: 6-22 years old (A snapshot point corresponding to the graph average around age 12)
Late Develoment: 12-44 years old (A snapshot point corresponding to the graph average around age 24)
Final Develoment: 18-66+ years old (A snapshot point corresponding to the graph average around age 48)

I don't think it's possible for a person to hit middle development before age 6, Late before age 12, or Final before 18. However, unless there is some manner of impairment few people are going to be in Early development past age 11, middle development past age 22, late development past age 44 (assuming they don't stop growing), and obviously Final development really has no limit.

 

[Arsal]

Something inspired by this thread, and the article on personae on wikipedia.

 

[MikeA]

All of the functions are in use at all times. I think it would be much more correct to estimate

Early Develoment: 6-11 years old
Middle Develoment: 12-19 years old
Late Develoment: 20-34 years old
Final Develoment: 35+ years old

Yes, from birth we have a set of four primary functions that has a certain equilibrium until we begin to develop each and every one of the four primary functions. During years of development, as we have both mentioned, we begin to put more pressure on 'a' function. While focusing on 'that' function the counter opposite function will be limited. That does not mean that we cannot use them both within a certain time-span, but what is certain is that we cannot use them simultaneously, because they are counter opposites..

Most often when we refer to functions in personality descriptions we do not take into account as said personality is in their home, alone with their own thoughts, but instead while communicating with other people. This is essentially why it can become difficult for some to establish a connection to their personality profile. If we were to go by how we are when we are alone, basically everyone would be an Introverted and an Intuitive type (I and N), as most people believe themselves to be anyway in these Typology communities, when they are in fact not.

Anyway, regarding how we communicate with other people. Communicating with other people, face to face, that is when we focus on the primary two functions. Primarily because we are most adequate with them in comparison to our tertiary and inferior function. Only when we get pushed to our limit in e.g. a conversation while communicating with someone face to face, may we potentially stress forth our tertiary and inferior function. And this is quite funny, actually, people seem to think stress in this regard means "Oh, I have so much to do," or "This guy on the other side of the globe through the internet is stressing me out," or "I am having a bad day," which is absolutely not how we achieve these stress points mentioned in each personality description.

There are way too many misconceptions about the types, the functions, the cognitive process, and people believe in each and every one of them, which is one of the many reasons why I gave up trying to further study cognitive functions and possible personality behavior inclinations or disturbances that may arrive from them. It has struck me as odd how extremely limited some intuitive minds are, and the exact opposite for sensors.

 

[VH]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I wanted to clarify a few things.

That does not mean that we cannot use them both within a certain time-span, but what is certain is that we cannot use them simultaneously, because they are counter opposites..

We cannot use one function without its counter opposite. Ni can't operate without the information Se takes in. Se can't make sense of the information it takes in without Ni. Ti can't make definitions without Fe. Fe can't make distinctions without Ti. etc.

I'm quite certain that disorders like autism are rooted in people having their natural pairs disrupted. For example, autistics have Ni paired with Si - which causes them to spot tiny details and see the patterns, but leaves them unable to percieve on a macro scale.

If we were to go by how we are when we are alone, basically everyone would be an Introverted and an Intuitive type (I and N), as most people believe themselves to be anyway in these Typology communities, when they are in fact not.

Is it possible that of the billions of people on the planet, the several thousand who gravitate toward Typology Communities tend to be INxx types?

Out of the people I know in real life, the only ones who've ended up becoming especially interested have been predominantly INxx types. Very few of the S types or Extroverts that I know have any interest in this stuff, and of the ones that do, even fewer of them have any inclination to interact in this medium. I think the populations in these communities are rather accurately representing what I've seen in real life.

It has struck me as odd how extremely limited some intuitive minds are, and the exact opposite for sensors.

Intelligence is not a product of cognitive functions, nor are many factors associted with personality. Cognitive functions simply indicate how a mind is wired, not how well it operates, what it is motivated to do, nor whether or not someone has the capacity to perform in any given manner.

Most of the intuitives (INxx types) that frequent these communities are drawn to this stuff out of natural curiosity. Therefore, you're going to be getting a larger sampling of the population - smart, dumb, and everything in between. The sensors who come to these communities are more likely exceptions to their populations. It's an effect much like how most foriegners you meet are exceptions, who had the drive to leave their homes and start somewhere else.

 

[MikeA]

We cannot use one function without its counter opposite. Ni can't operate without the information Se takes in. Se can't make sense of the information it takes in without Ni. Ti can't make definitions without Fe. Fe can't make distinctions without Ti. etc.

Absolutely, and it is a good thing that you brought it up, as I seem to have forgotten about this entirely when I wrote my post.

I'm quite certain that disorders like autism are rooted in people having their natural pairs disrupted. For example, autistics have Ni paired with Si - which causes them to spot tiny details and see the patterns, but leaves them unable to percieve on a macro scale.

This is the sort of thing that made me interested in cognitive functions to begin with.

Is it possible that of the billions of people on the planet, the several thousand who gravitate toward Typology Communities tend to be INxx types?

Possibilities are always there, but I find some of them, like this one, far fetched. I believe certain Introverted Sensors may decline invitations to study Typology because they may know from experience that they will be drawn to it for extended periods of time if they find it interesting (E.g. WoW addicts), sort of how obsessive compulsion has been mentioned a common trait among Extraverted Sensors. In my closest circle the majority are Extraverted Sensors, and they seem to have little if no difficulty keeping an open mind about the subject, or any subject for that matter. Their interest in Typology, however, declines after a certain period of time because of either a lack of interest or pursuit of new interests.

I may also have my closest circle of friends entirely mistyped. As stated, possibilities are always there.

And as a Sensor myself, I find it interesting how I am one of few out of the supposed many, who find Typology interesting, and furthermore, find the Enneagram more useful for personal growth than JCF/MBTI/Socionics.

 

[VH]

Possibilities are always there, but I find some of them, like this one, far fetched. I believe certain Introverted Sensors may decline invitations to study Typology because they may know from experience that they will be drawn to it for extended periods of time if they find it interesting (E.g. WoW addicts), sort of how obsessive compulsion has been mentioned a common trait among Extraverted Sensors. In my closest circle the majority are Extraverted Sensors, and they seem to have little if no difficulty keeping an open mind about the subject, or any subject for that matter. Their interest in Typology, however, declines after a certain period of time because of either a lack of interest or pursuit of new interests.

I blame this more on people misunderstanding the functions - as you mentioned. There is a lot of conjecture surrounding this stuff, and almost none of it has any 'scientific validity'. No control groups, blind tests, validation, etc. It's mostly opinion in a "feel your way around" field. There's starting to be some real attempts at science with respect to this theory, but as with anything in the field of psychology, theories have to 'stand the test of time' before they garner enough respect to warrant serious investigation. I think we're on the cusp of that now.

I may also have my closest circle of friends entirely mistyped. As stated, possibilities are always there.

Just keep in mind that anyone's circle of friends is a micro sample, but one that has bias. People of certain types are likely to attract certain types. That's really the primary function of MBTI, to describe perspective and predict tendencies in interaction. MBTI isn't really designed for personal growth other than validation for those of us who are not SJs living in an SJ world, which allows those of us the vindication to move forward as ourselves.

And as a Sensor myself, I find it interesting how I am one of few out of the supposed many, who find Typology interesting, and furthermore, find the Enneagram more useful for personal growth than JCF/MBTI/Socionics.

Yes, Enneagram is designed around accessing our motivations, rather than simple perspective, which allows it to be much better suited to personal growth suggestions.

MBTI was never intended for that, and I suspect that its primary benefits are going to be found in the areas of better understanding of cerebral geography and assistance with cognition based disorders, like the autism and schizoaffective spectrums.

 

[grt$5vb]

I have an easier time typing people by their Enneagram types. It is simplistic & condensed, in my opinion, not unlike, how I view the Tao as a more concise version of the Bible. They work well in tandem. In reality, though. One is just easier for me to grasp, because I get lost in great volumes of information.

 

[hk427f3]

We cannot use one function without its counter opposite.

I thought that (optimal) function pairs are one perceiving and one judging, with opposite attitudes.

As with the rest of JCF stuff, I'm not sure why, but...

 

[VH]

I thought that (optimal) function pairs are one perceiving and one judging, with opposite attitudes.

As with the rest of JCF stuff, I'm not sure why, but...

According to Jung's original theories, a personality type is made up of one perceiving and one judging, with opposite attitudes. The addition of the opposite functions came later once it was apparent that these functions had logical pairs. A person who was Ti, Ne according to Jung's models would also logically have to have a measure of Fe, Si.

The functions themselves come in pairs. If somone has Se, they will also have Ni. There are only 4 pairs, which is why there are only 16 personality types.

Ni + Se
Ne + Si
Te + Fi
Ti + Fe

Mix and match, but they're always occurring together unless someone has an abnormal condition, which will be obvious to others. Some people have very poor use of some functions, but that doesn't mean those functions are absent.

 

[Orion]

Early Development: Very little function overlap. Dominant Function is most developed and most preferred. Functions do not work in tandem well.

Middle Development: Functions are widening in development and increasing in preference. Learning to use functions in tandem, especially dominant and secondary.

I would have to say, I disagree. Using myself as an example here, I have analysed myself as a child to death and I know that I was a strong Ni dominant child, right from the get go. I was also extremely sensitive, right from the beginning. Easily hurt, offended and traumatised by social stigma and embarrassment. Ni+Fe to me, working in tandem form the beginning.

Yes, from birth we have a set of four primary functions that has a certain equilibrium until we begin to develop each and every one of the four primary functions.

MikeA, can you tell me why you believe this? From personal experience or from sources? Can you tell me your sources? Because everyone seems to assume this but I've never found it to be necessarily true.

During years of development, as we have both mentioned, we begin to put more pressure on 'a' function. While focusing on 'that' function the counter opposite function will be limited. That does not mean that we cannot use them both within a certain time-span, but what is certain is that we cannot use them simultaneously, because they are counter opposites..

It's much more then that. Taking Jung's theory of the Psyche into consideration, then it's not that easy to just use any function you want. The Psyche has a conscious preference and anything that contradicts that (Say Fe compared to Te) is completely unacceptable to the psyche. The point is, Te is deeply buried in the unconscious and that, for the most part, is negative, child like level of development that is shunned for a reason.

Saying that you can use any function as long as it's not at the same time is not true. Also, how do you use a function? Consider the context: for an Fe dominant to use Te, their sense of self must be stressed so much that their unconscious is pushing out in a behaviourally palpable way. Last i heard the unconscious will act out in defence mechanisms and neurosis but never in a normal acceptable, operative way. In other words Te can never be used but may manifest itself it unconscious urges and desires, but even that is rare.

 

[Orion]

I have an easier time typing people by their Enneagram types. It is simplistic & condensed, in my opinion, not unlike, how I view the Tao as a more concise version of the Bible. They work well in tandem. In reality, though. One is just easier for me to grasp, because I get lost in great volumes of information.

What makes you think that an area of study that looks into how the human mind works will be easy? That it won't require a significant investment of time, effort and money (if you read the books)?

 

[VH]

I would have to say, I disagree. Using myself as an example here, I have analysed myself as a child to death and I know that I was a strong Ni dominant child, right from the get go. I was also extremely sensitive, right from the beginning. Easily hurt, offended and traumatised by social stigma and embarrassment. Ni+Fe to me, working in tandem form the beginning.

The model is a generalization of 'normal' conditions. As with all psychological models, exceptions are going to be common as external factors can so easily cause reactions. I'm personally an exception to this model as well. I developed a lot of Se early in life, even though I was a textbook Ni dominant child. Later in life, once my Fe stage kicked in, it went into overdrive through my 20s. Everyone is different.

However, it's important to make the distinction between using all of the functions, and using them in tandem. Everyone uses all of their functions at all times from the moment we are born. That's not in question. But, it's not until we develop some degree of mastery with those functions that we can use them together to create something greater than the sum of its parts.

Using Ni dominant and Fe secondary at the same time is as simple as noticing patterns in people, then acting on the feelings that are invoked (even if it is only to make an internal choice). To make a visual analogy of Boxing, it's like using Ni to block and Fe to punch. Any fighter naturally blocks with one hand and punches with the other. It's also natural to reflexively go Block (Ni), Block (Ni), Block (Ni), Punch (Fe) when you are Ni dominant. An Fe dominant would be the opposite style, and reflexively Punch (Fe), Punch (Fe), Block (Ni), Punch (Fe).

Using Ni and Fe in tandem is an art that most of us develop as our Fe blossoms. To continue the analogy, this is where we begin to learn how to Block with Fe and Punch with Ni. Once we are confortable using each function in either role, the ability to Block or Punch from either side allows us to develop the ability to control the fight better - and most importantly make openings rather than wait for them... instead of blocking until one presents itself.

Meanwhile, we've been working on our Balance (Ti) and Footing (Se). We've been using these things from day one, just like the Blocks and Punches, and the development of these things don't seem as obvious to us. However, once we've started to master Blocking or Punching from either Ni or Fe, we begin to see just how important our Balance and Footing are in helping us control fights, but most importantly we realize just how much Balance (Ti) and Footing (Se) help us Block (Ni or Fe) better and Punch (Fe or Ni) harder especially once we learn how to use Se for Balance and Ti for Footing - giving us the freedom to augment our tandem use of Ni and Fe from either direction.

But, that's the standard approach, and the combination of your natural aptitudes (IQ and genetic predisposition toward certain functions), coaching style (Enneagram motivations), and the opponents you spar with will (Life experiences) cause each fighter to develop these elements in their own ways.

 

[Orion]

That's cool, I see what you mean now.

To continue the analogy, this is where we begin to learn how to Block with Fe and Punch with Ni. Once we are confortable using each function in either role, the ability to Block or Punch from either side allows us to develop the ability to control the fight better - and most importantly make openings rather than wait for them... instead of blocking until one presents itself.

It kind of sounds like you're saying that Fe and Ni can be used interchangeably. I know that you are constantly swaying between being an ENFJ or INFJ but it's not the same for most other INFJs. It sound as if you're saying that learning to use Fe in a dominant way, is the path to being better. It's almost like you're saying "being ENFJ is like the better version of INFJ", which i have seen people say. As if to say that a well developed INFJ looks like an ENFJ which is a bit of an unfair stereotype. I can see that behaviourally they might be similar on the surface but both have entirely different sets of issues and motivations.

 

[VH]

It kind of sounds like you're saying that Fe and Ni can be used interchangeably. I know that you are constantly swaying between being an ENFJ or INFJ but it's not the same for most other INFJs. It sound as if you're saying that learning to use Fe in a dominant way, is the path to being better. It's almost like you're saying "being ENFJ is like the better version of INFJ", which i have seen people say. As if to say that a well developed INFJ looks like an ENFJ which is a bit of an unfair stereotype. I can see that behaviourally they might be similar on the surface but both have entirely different sets of issues and motivations.

Not exactly.

An INFJ will always reflexively be an INFJ. This ENFJ adaptation is an additional temporary effect that can be applied when needed - in situations that being a pure INFJ isn't solid enough. Effectively, what I'm describing is INFJ+ENFJ, not a literal switch to ENFJ, and if you can develop this ability you will clearly feeling yourself "turning it on" when you ise it. My anology also contained INFJ+ISTP (another feeling of deliberate shifting modes) and INFJ+ESTP (very much a shift of modes reaching into our instinctive core) as additional temporary layers that we can add to ourselves for versatility.

A right handed person will always be right handed, but they can learn to use their left hand very well, and eventually learn to use both hands interchangibly as situations demand. They're still right handed and will be more comfortable using their right hand, even though they could use their left just as well if it's more advantageous. In a lot of ways this person may seem to have become ambidextrous, but they are in fact still right handed. They've just managed to develop skill with their left.

A person can spend their whole life metaphorically only ever using "one hand" cognitively, but it is very helpful for us to develop the ability to use "all four" of our cognitive hands as well as we can.