Post by viremic on Sept 30, 2017 0:05:13 GMT -5
So, it's occurred to me that the idea that people have these fundamentally different possible types, i.e. that there is a (mostly) dichotomies relationship between, say, I use Fe and Ti or I use Fi and Te, seems highly unlikely.
The more likely interpretation would be, in my view, that we use basically the same processes as each other, but perhaps in varying degrees, and that it may be consistent across a long timespan which processes we're using.
So what CT seems to be claiming (using the example of Ti):
- there are various signals of physiology associated with the Ti function
- all of these signals can be effectively interpreted as being introverted and "thinking" in nature
- these signals correlate, i.e. the presence of one Ti signal implies that it is likely that we will see another given Ti signal
- these signals also correlate, although more moderately with the signals associated with Fe
- these signals anti-correlate with the signals associated with Fi and Te
- these signals will correlate with EITHER Ne or Se, i.e. implies a significant presence of one of those but not the other
Then we could add more claims like: showing a high presence of Ti at one time, means that it is likely they will show a high presence of Ti signals at any time in their life.
Ok, so I take it that these assumptions have been verified as holding true in the majority of cases? (I know there are some cases where contradictory signals were both present)
So then, this would imply some kind of consistent use of certain modes of thinking, which can allow for one person to be said to process information in much the same way, or in a fundamentally different way, to someone else.
I'm highly skeptical though of the idea that we just don't use the other modes of thinking, e.g. that someone who shows a high presence of Ti just doesn't use Fi/Te or has it in the "unconscious", but the idea that we tend to rely on certain modes of thinking does at least sound plausible.
Still though, I think there is a general lack of rigour in what is being done, or at least I can't make sense of the proof of all of this. Are people really that different? Do we really rely exclusively on certain modes of thinking to the exclusion of certain others, in a predictable way? Is this really consistent across one's lifetime?
I'm very familiar with the manner in which type can be "seen" in oneself when it actually was never there to begin with, however if there is an objective data pool forming that suggests that type is legitimate, then that would have to be addressed explicitly in terms of the data, and the possibility that the conclusions generated are misled, rather than hypotheticals about whether there is or isn't such thing as type.
For now though, I'm just not convinced.
Like, for one, these descriptions I'm reading on the site about what this function and that function are like just sound so... vague and unrelatable. It comes across to me as being too abstract to really apply to people, but I guess that's the problem with attempting to describe something as elusive as human mental processes.
Maybe I'll come to understand better what is being claimed about these so-called cognitive functions? :S
The more likely interpretation would be, in my view, that we use basically the same processes as each other, but perhaps in varying degrees, and that it may be consistent across a long timespan which processes we're using.
So what CT seems to be claiming (using the example of Ti):
- there are various signals of physiology associated with the Ti function
- all of these signals can be effectively interpreted as being introverted and "thinking" in nature
- these signals correlate, i.e. the presence of one Ti signal implies that it is likely that we will see another given Ti signal
- these signals also correlate, although more moderately with the signals associated with Fe
- these signals anti-correlate with the signals associated with Fi and Te
- these signals will correlate with EITHER Ne or Se, i.e. implies a significant presence of one of those but not the other
Then we could add more claims like: showing a high presence of Ti at one time, means that it is likely they will show a high presence of Ti signals at any time in their life.
Ok, so I take it that these assumptions have been verified as holding true in the majority of cases? (I know there are some cases where contradictory signals were both present)
So then, this would imply some kind of consistent use of certain modes of thinking, which can allow for one person to be said to process information in much the same way, or in a fundamentally different way, to someone else.
I'm highly skeptical though of the idea that we just don't use the other modes of thinking, e.g. that someone who shows a high presence of Ti just doesn't use Fi/Te or has it in the "unconscious", but the idea that we tend to rely on certain modes of thinking does at least sound plausible.
Still though, I think there is a general lack of rigour in what is being done, or at least I can't make sense of the proof of all of this. Are people really that different? Do we really rely exclusively on certain modes of thinking to the exclusion of certain others, in a predictable way? Is this really consistent across one's lifetime?
I'm very familiar with the manner in which type can be "seen" in oneself when it actually was never there to begin with, however if there is an objective data pool forming that suggests that type is legitimate, then that would have to be addressed explicitly in terms of the data, and the possibility that the conclusions generated are misled, rather than hypotheticals about whether there is or isn't such thing as type.
For now though, I'm just not convinced.
Like, for one, these descriptions I'm reading on the site about what this function and that function are like just sound so... vague and unrelatable. It comes across to me as being too abstract to really apply to people, but I guess that's the problem with attempting to describe something as elusive as human mental processes.
Maybe I'll come to understand better what is being claimed about these so-called cognitive functions? :S