Post by The Doctor on Apr 15, 2016 13:37:55 GMT -5
In hopes to remove confusion, rather than causing it, I'd like to point out something interesting.
Everyone uses all of the cognitive functions to varying degrees. Everyone. All of them.
This has long been the assumption of Jung, and others who have followed him, even Beebe and the Socionics developers. What is interesting about the Cognitive Types approach is that we're now seeing a manifestation of this in subjects. Watch close enough, and you will see signals for every function in every subject. The signals might be extremely rare and brief, but, they will manifest eventually.
The reason I mention this is because I've noticed a tendency to get tripped up over seeing a signal. It often leads to the following mistake: "Subject exhibits clear <function set> right here (for a split second) and again here (for another split second), therefore subject cannot be <opposed function set>."
The reading should be taken in volume if it is to be accurate. The functions most exhibited are the ones to be considered prominent for the purposes of determining type.
For example, I exhibit clear Fe and Se very often. I exhibit Ni and Ti fairly often. I also exhibit Ne and Fi signals on occasion, and at times exhibit Te and Si signals. The frequency of my signals appears to be Fe, Se, Ni, Ti, Ne, Fi, Te, Si. Interestingly enough, this is very similar to my scores from self assessment tests that attempt to measure cognitive function preferences: Fe, Ni, Se, Ti, Fi, Ne, Te, Si.
Therefore, this system operates fairly effectively as a 'proof' for other methods of assessing cognitive function use, when applied properly, as well as evidence that the Beebe and Socionics models are not a rigid hierarchy, but instead a generality.
Last Edit: Apr 15, 2016 13:42:39 GMT -5 by The Doctor
Disclaimer: Everything I say here is my OPINION. Please keep that in mind.
Post by ayoungspirit on Apr 16, 2016 17:20:36 GMT -5
From the get go, I agree that getting fixated on an isolated "signal" can be counter-productive to the overall typing practice. In the absence of material, it can point toward a direction, but it is important to disclaim, and it may certainly be better to rely on the most frequent input, especially when some of it comes to be disruptive.
However, the discrete meaning of factual "outliers" is not quite settled in my opinion. In a somewhat similar endeavor, Dario Nardi has pointed the significant difference between using a similar region of the brain and manifesting the whole pattern relating to a function, for example between using F7 "imaginative mimic", which applies to anyone, and manifesting the "Christmas tree" pattern, which applies to the Ne-user. I do not know the full extent of this, perhaps there is a hint of these whole patterns in every individual after all, but from my current understanding, I might consider "outlier" signals, which are most often only partially readable, as indicative of a more general human experience. I certainly am not confident in deriving a complete "process" from their presence.
Beside, setting the line between particular elements correlated with a function and the essential "process" could ultimately prove quite subtle and susceptible to overlaps. What it is exactly which allows us to differentiate the Fi process from an exacerbated sensibility after all, if we are to take our guess only from facial tension or airy voice ?
My guess is that type is more apparent through the coordination of basic human experiences, and thus the whole should be prioritized over the part, except if we are willing to extend our notion of "development". On another note, this could also help consider a process to its full extent, instead of creating somewhat arbitrary divides, like getting back some "associative imagination" toward Se, or considering the blunt side and thoughtful side of both Fe and Te for instance.
I think it would have to wait till the strong signals have been properly associated with brain activity via whatever imaging device gets the job done. Once that bridge is past, it could be cross-checked with outlier signals to see if, indeed, the outliers are representing the brain dabbling in other functions. If so, I would hazard a guess at the beebe model of unconscious function integration.
Personally, I need to focus on seeing strong signals first >,>