Cognitive functions

[no_name]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I tried to dumb it down instead of screaming into the void like I did the last 3 times I talked about this. So much for ease of communication

What are you approximating here by the Normal distribution? What are your variables? 

[Raptorsin7]

@no_name How does understanding cognitive functions lead to healing?

I think IFS therapy is the best approach to psychological healing. There's a clear logic to why it's so effective, but I think you need quality practitioners to get the full experience.

[no_name]

13 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

@no_name How does understanding cognitive functions lead to healing?

I think IFS therapy is the best approach to psychological healing. There's a clear logic to why it's so effective, but I think you need quality practitioners to get the full experience.

I think cognitive functions can be super useful in therapy. For example, there are 4 different ways to perceive/take in information. If the therapist has that knowledge about you (i.e, what is your preferred way to take in information), they could tailor their practice accordingly. Or, for example, I, as a therapist, could only take in clients who are Ni as my practice will correspond best with someone who is an Ni user. There is a reason why certain therapeutic practices work well with some and not the other.

Edited April 15, 2022 by no_name

[Carl-Richard]

56 minutes ago, no_name said:

What are you approximating here by the Normal distribution? What are your variables? 

The binomial probabilities approximated by the normal curve represent a percentage of the population scoring low to high on a trait.

[Max_V]

@Carl-Richard do you think using cognitive functions without forming types would be useful? 

I feel it does get at something real. 

[no_name]

40 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The binomial probabilities approximated by the normal curve represent a percentage of the population scoring low to high on a trait.

That is not what a binomial probability distribution is measuring - it’s a discrete distribution and it’s measuring the number of successes x in n number of trials (or a proportion of successes p in n number of trials). 

[no_name]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Jung didn't use a structured empirical methodology to come up with the functions

This also doesn’t make any sense, it’s like saying Bromine or gravity weren’t discovered using a “structured empirical methodology” so they must be baloney 

Edited April 15, 2022 by no_name

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, no_name said:

That is not what a binomial probability distribution is measuring - it’s a discrete distribution and it’s measuring the number of successes x in n number of trials (or a proportion of successes p in n number of trials). 

Woops. I haven't actually taken "proper" statistics yet ? Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that given a scale of 1-10 of any given personality trait, most people score around a 5, and very few people score on the extremes (e.g. 1 or 9). If instead most people scored either 1 or 9 and almost nobody scored around a 5, then that would make a better case for a typology.

 

1 hour ago, no_name said:

This also doesn’t make any sense, it’s like saying Bromine or gravity weren’t discovered using a “structured empirical methodology” so they must be baloney 

For one thing, it has to do with reproducibility. If you want to make your own Big 5, you can follow the same steps and predictably arrive at the same 5 traits. The Lexical hypothesis is also a very parsimonious starting point: ("any significant individual difference, such as a central personality trait, will be encoded into the natural-language lexicon; that is, there will be a term to describe it in any or all of the languages of the world.") This seems to matter, because it's a model with high predictability. MBTI has no predictability.

[RendHeaven]

https://www.youtube.com/c/MichaelPiercePhilosophy

https://www.idrlabs.com/

[something_else]

13 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Wouldn't matter, as there are too many apps and refinements already made to the Apple and Android ecosystems.  The smarter thing for a competitor to do would be to try to become part of either one, and work to make the existing stuff better.

MBTI is Apple, Socionics is Android, and Big 5 is something no one's ever heard of, and never will, no matter how much money you pumped into the Big 5.  Time and effort would be better spent working for MBTI, and making the thing that everyone already uses better.

It's a mistake putting resources into reinventing the wheel.  Even if you learn Big 5 or something obscure at university, you'll still end up using MBTI at home, and that's what you'll end up mastering without trying.  Learning Big 5 is just a pointless uphill struggle.

This take seems kind of silly. A better analogy is that MBTI is Nokia, better than nothing but far better alternatives have arisen as we’ve advanced. You sound like the people who were saying smartphones were just a fad in 2008 while they clung onto their Nokia brick phones because it was what they were used to

The Big 5 is honestly pretty usable. It’s simpler than MBTI. With MBTI you’ve got 16 types, 8 cognitive functions and 16 different ways to order those cognitive functions to learn.

With Big 5 you just have 5 spectrums which are very clearly labelled and descriptive. When someone says neuroticism or extroversion you know what that means much more implicitly than say ‘introverted sensing’ or ‘judging vs perceiving’ which are totally meaningless without additional information

People just like MBTI because it exploits our desire to identify, label, and categorise, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best system

[no_name]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Woops. I haven't actually taken "proper" statistics yet ? Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that given a scale of 1-10 of any given personality trait, most people score around a 5, and very few people score on the extremes (e.g. 1 or 9). If instead most people scored either 1 or 9 and almost nobody scored around a 5, then that would make a better case for a typology.

 

For one thing, it has to do with reproducibility. If you want to make your own Big 5, you can follow the same steps and predictably arrive at the same 5 traits. The Lexical hypothesis is also a very parsimonious starting point: ("any significant individual difference, such as a central personality trait, will be encoded into the natural-language lexicon; that is, there will be a term to describe it in any or all of the languages of the world.") This seems to matter, because it's a model with high predictability. MBTI has no predictability.

Cognitive functions, thinking/feeling, intuition/sensing are concepts.

Big 5 did not discover the concepts of “openness”, “extraversion”, etc (interestingly, it was actually Carl Jung who discovered the concept of extroversion).  The only thing it did is discover correlations between some words and then group them according to that. The number of groups could also have been different, it’s customizable and uses judgement of whoever is performing the experiment. 

Yea, I suggest taking some stats course to understand all these terms before using them. The kind of stats that is used for behavioural sciences is very basic too, but the course will give you an idea of how statistical experiments are set up.

Edited April 15, 2022 by no_name

[no_name]

@something_else guys I specifically asked not to talk about MBTI, MBTI and cognitive functions are different things 

Edited April 15, 2022 by no_name

[Carl-Richard]

59 minutes ago, no_name said:

@something_else guys I specifically asked not to talk about MBTI, MBTI and cognitive functions are different things 

Did Jung combine the cognitive functions to create some similar typology to MBTI (e.g. "INTP" etc.)? If so, how would you describe the differences between the two? Is there anything known about the predictive utility of such a Jungian typology?

 

1 hour ago, no_name said:

Cognitive functions, thinking/feeling, intuition/sensing are concepts.

Big 5 did not discover the concepts of “openness”, “extraversion”, etc (interestingly, it was actually Carl Jung who discovered the concept of extroversion).  The only thing it did is discover correlations between some words and then group them according to that. The number of groups could also have been different, it’s customizable and uses judgement of whoever is performing the experiment. 

True. But how do you explain how Big 5 has a high predictive utility while for example MBTI has none?

 

1 hour ago, no_name said:

Yea, I suggest taking some stats course to understand all these terms before using them. The kind of stats that is used for behavioural sciences is very basic too, but the course will give you an idea of how statistical experiments are set up.

I can point out what a normal distribution and a bimodal distribution looks like, and that's pretty much it ? Trying to go beyond that understanding was a sophistic move, and I feel ashamed now ? Next semester though

[no_name]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Did Jung combine the cognitive functions to create some similar typology to MBTI (e.g. "INTP" etc.)? If so, how would you describe the differences between the two? Is there anything known about the predictive utility of such a Jungian typology?

No, that is what Myers and Briggs did. Carl Jung just discovered the concepts of 8 cognitive functions Ni/Ne, Ti/Te, Si/Se, and Fi/Fe. 

Myers Brings use different kind of “labeling” even, F vs T, I vs E, N vs S, it completely redefined Carl Jung’s work and created all these categories, INTP, INFP, etc. MBTI doesn’t even mention the cognitive functions. 

19 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

True. But how do you explain how Big 5 has a high predictive utility while for example MBTI has none?

Before we go here, can we first make sure you understand the difference between MBTI and cognitive functions? 

25 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

what a normal distribution and a bimodal distribution

That is grade 9 stuff ?

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, no_name said:

Before we go here, can we first make sure you understand the difference between MBTI and cognitive functions?

I know the differences. It's just confusing when it's used interchangeably all the time (MBTI is based on the functions after all). I'm also starting to think that the word "typology" is used in a different way to describe Jung's functions than MBTI's personality types, which means that some of the criticism in my first post doesn't apply to Jung.

[something_else]

50 minutes ago, no_name said:

Carl Jung just discovered the concepts of 8 cognitive functions Ni/Ne, Ti/Te, Si/Se, and Fi/Fe

Discovered is a strong word. ‘Invented’ is more correct. It’s not like these cognitive functions actually exist in the brain to be discovered, that would be absurd. Sounds like a word play issue but I argue that in this case it is important.

And I’m pretty sure MBTI does have cognitive functions. IIRC each type has a cognitive function stack. I.e INTP is (Ti Ne Si Fe), INFP is (Fi Ne Si Te)

[no_name]

12 minutes ago, something_else said:

Discovered is a strong word. ‘Invented’ is more correct. It’s not like these cognitive functions actually exist in the brain to be discovered, that would be absurd. Sounds like a word play issue but I argue that in this case it is important.

And I’m pretty sure MBTI does have cognitive functions. IIRC each type has a cognitive function stack. I.e INTP is (Ti Ne Si Fe), INFP is (Fi Ne Si Te)

MBTI does not mention the cognitive functions anywhere. The function stack is from typology. All of these are different (yet interrelated) things - Carl Jung’s cognitive functions, typology, MBTI.

“In his 1913 classic, Psychological Types, Carl Jung propounded the basic theoretical framework for what is now the most popular personality system in the world.

Although Jung spoke generally of introverts and extraverts, he eventually delineated eight psychological functions (Ni, Ne, Si, Se, Ti, Te, Fi, Fe) as a more accurate means of understanding the types. More specifically, he focused on identifying an individual’s dominant function, as well as, to a lesser extent, the auxiliary function.

Because Jung never developed a standardized personality assessment tool, his ideas were slow to catch on among the general public. It was not until Isabel Myers and her mother, Katherine Briggs, entered the scene that Jung’s theory began its ascendance toward widespread recognition. Myers and Briggs developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®, or what is commonly known as the MBTI®, as a way of applying and popularizing Jung’s ideas.

While Jung spoke mostly in terms of a type’s preferred functions (e.g. Ni, Se), Myers and Briggs introduced and emphasized the notion of preferences (i.e., E, I, S, N, T, F, J, P). Although still rooted in Jung’s theory, Myers and Briggs likely saw the preferences as more amenable to objective assessment than Jung’s multi-dimensional functions. Despite the different emphases of a preference versus function-based approach, these two approaches can and arguably should be used in tandem.

In many respects, Myers and Briggs were correct in seeing the preference-based approach as more user-friendly, since it is more easily comprehended and requires less background knowledge. However, individuals seeking a deeper understanding of themselves and their personality type must eventually dive into the functions.

More recent advances in type theory have highlighted the importance of understanding the less conscious functions, particularly the inferior function, which we will soon discuss. This can be seen in Marie-Louise Von Franz’s exploration of the inferior function in Jung’s Typology (1971), as well as in Naomi Quenk’s 1993 book, Beside Ourselves, later renamed “Was That Really Me? ”

For the last decade or so, Elaine Schallock and I have continued to refine and advance type theory, including intensive explorations of the preferences, functions, inferior function, function pairs, and functional stack. All of these elements will be enumerated in this book, providing you with the most up-to-date information for accurately identifying and understanding your personality type.”

Edited April 15, 2022 by no_name

[thisintegrated]

3 hours ago, something_else said:

This take seems kind of silly. A better analogy is that MBTI is Nokia, better than nothing but far better alternatives have arisen as we’ve advanced. You sound like the people who were saying smartphones were just a fad in 2008 while they clung onto their Nokia brick phones because it was what they were used to

The Big 5 is honestly pretty usable. It’s simpler than MBTI. With MBTI you’ve got 16 types, 8 cognitive functions and 16 different ways to order those cognitive functions to learn.

With Big 5 you just have 5 spectrums which are very clearly labelled and descriptive. When someone says neuroticism or extroversion you know what that means much more implicitly than say ‘introverted sensing’ or ‘judging vs perceiving’ which are totally meaningless without additional information

People just like MBTI because it exploits our desire to identify, label, and categorise, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best system

Again, you will never see someone making you a list of their percentages.  It was doomed from the start.  Nothing like Nokia.

[something_else]

4 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Again, you will never see someone making you a list of their percentages.  It was doomed from the start.  Nothing like Nokia.

I also see people listing their star signs everywhere, should I take that seriously because it got mass adoption and is extremely easy to share and identify with?

MBTI has its uses but it is also extremely similar in concept to star signs in that it preys heavily on our desire to identify with something, as well as categorise and label things

Your logic seems to be that just because something is popular and easy to use then it’s useful and valid, but that’s absolutely not the case. In fact you could probably make the argument of the opposite

[thisintegrated]

3 minutes ago, something_else said:

I also see people listing their star signs everywhere, should I take that seriously because it got mass adoption and is extremely easy to share and identify with?

MBTI has its uses but it is also extremely similar in concept to star signs in that it preys heavily on our desire to identify with something, as well as categorise and label things

Your logic seems to be that just because something is popular and easy to use then it’s useful and valid, but that’s absolutely not the case. In fact you could probably make the argument of the opposite

Star sign people don't make a list like this https://imgur.com/a/dTqV0Aa

And MBTI is nothing like star signs, which are purely based on dogma.

 

To suggest that people can use introverted logic or extroverted logic isn't dogma.  The only question is how useful these distinctions are, and whether there exist better alternatives.