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.
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.
)
