Immanuel Kant ~ Sakinorva Databank

The Sakinorva Databank

Immanuel Kant

Philosopher

in Philosophy, Psychology, and Social Sciences

Immanuel Kant ~ Sakinorva Databank

Immanuel Kant

Philosopher

Philosophy, Psychology, and Social Sciences

e

i

n

s

f

t

p

j

function

ennea

variant

socio

psyche

INTP 10

ISTJ 2

INFJ 2

INTJ 1

1w9 14

5w6 1

sp/so 7

so/sp 1

LII 14

LVEF 2

VLEF 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

h

e

x

a

c

o

total votes 79

18

15

15

8

9

14

3

Click to toggle markup guide.

bold	bold
italic	italic
hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"	[hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"](https://sakinorva.net/library/contextualizing_functions)
	(i){https://i.imgur.com/g0oL9CB.png}

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2019/01/23 (Wed) 23:29:21 #4782
	There's this notion floating around with Myers-Briggs that wants the four-letter types to mean something so much more than what they really represent, and it's all about the way brains function or the deeper, invariable side of personality. The original theorists liked talking about their theory as though it were a be-all-end-all solution to defining personality and imposed rules that logically don't make much sense to uphold now, but we can still use the framework they provided us and apply it in ways that can still be perfectly within reason. The "cognitive functions" kind of romanticize the fixedness with which Myers et al. referred to her own theory as occasionally, and it started creating distinctions that people wouldn't really be able to realistically distinguish: behavior and true personality suddenly find themselves divorced from each other, and everything is already laid out in a way that's "indefinite and variable," but it does a good job of obscuring that by layering it with thoughts presented as hunches, pure intuition, feelings, and all that jazz. It's non-falsifiable in a very frustrating way, I think, just because of that. I think that's the wrong way to look at all this as a "no-functions" philosophy. It's more just like Myers-Briggs is one thing, and cognitive functions are another thing. They overlap to the point where people very often confuse the two things together, and it's really only ever in name: cognitive function types share names with Myers-Briggs types and it makes people think that Myers-Briggs has to do with the cognitive functions and vice versa. Who really knows how people's minds function? I think the enamoring thing about the cognitive functions is that it proposes that it has answers, but it doesn't really provide them itself—it's all just made up by anyone as they go. You can take it or leave it, but anything that's really Myers-Briggs branded tends to be more so based on observable behavior than "how a person's mind functions." It's not really consistent, though. MBTI I/E is very behavioral, but T/F is gauged more abstractly. I find that the more behaviorally-based questions work better in studies and are easier to define personality preferences in, but everything kind of meshes together in the end. I feel like it's unfair to separate behavior and "true mental preferences" because everything we do is a product of our heads. And I think because we can at least access the behavioral side of our personalities more easily, we don't need to guess so much. I think that's the nice thing about Myers-Briggs: it's certainly prone to move around a lot, but it's very accessible. Any typology system that tries to hint at mental workings and the like is generally deceptive in its presentation and is probably akin to something like a "complicated-sounding guess to describe simple things we do," and I feel like that does a disservice to how truly complicated our brains are. I don't know how deep you are into the functions stuff, but something I'd encourage is looking at typology as a set of incomplete frameworks that try to describe something that's honestly too complicated to boil down into distinct categories. Maybe one system incorporates ideas that another one completely overlooks, or maybe another system accounts for a factor that isn't often looked at. It's all valuable in a sense because they frame things in different ways, but I'm personally kind of bored with how samey they are at this stage. Like where's the system that talks about different social environments and how you engage with them?

Editing post #4782 by strawberry crisis <p>There's this notion floating around with Myers-Briggs that wants the four-letter types to mean something so much more than what they really represent, and it's all about <em>the way brains function</em> or the <em>deeper, invariable side</em> of personality. The original theorists liked talking about their theory as though it were a be-all-end-all solution to defining personality and imposed rules that logically don't make much sense to uphold now, but we can still use the framework they provided us and apply it in ways that can still be perfectly within reason.<br /> <br /> The "cognitive functions" kind of romanticize the fixedness with which Myers et al. referred to her own theory as occasionally, and it started creating distinctions that people wouldn't really be able to realistically distinguish: <em>behavior</em> and <em>true personality</em> suddenly find themselves divorced from each other, and everything is already laid out in a way that's "indefinite and variable," but it does a good job of obscuring that by layering it with thoughts presented as hunches, pure intuition, feelings, and all that jazz. It's non-falsifiable in a very frustrating way, I think, just because of that.<br /> <br /> I think that's the wrong way to look at all this as a "no-functions" philosophy. It's more just like Myers-Briggs is one thing, and cognitive functions are another thing. They overlap to the point where people very often confuse the two things together, and it's really only ever in name: cognitive function types share names with Myers-Briggs types and it makes people think that Myers-Briggs has to do with the cognitive functions and vice versa.<br /> <br /> Who really knows how people's minds function? I think the enamoring thing about the cognitive functions is that it proposes that it has answers, but it doesn't really provide them itself—it's all just made up by anyone as they go.<br /> <br /> You can take it or leave it, but anything that's really Myers-Briggs branded tends to be more so based on observable behavior than "how a person's mind functions." It's not really consistent, though. MBTI I/E is very behavioral, but T/F is gauged more abstractly. I find that the more behaviorally-based questions work better in studies and are easier to define personality preferences in, but everything kind of meshes together in the end. I feel like it's unfair to separate behavior and "true mental preferences" because everything we do is a product of our heads. And I think because we can at least access the behavioral side of our personalities more easily, we don't need to guess so much. I think that's the nice thing about Myers-Briggs: it's certainly prone to move around a lot, but it's very accessible.<br /> <br /> Any typology system that tries to hint at mental workings and the like is generally deceptive in its presentation and is probably akin to something like a "complicated-sounding guess to describe simple things we do," and I feel like that does a disservice to how truly complicated our brains are.<br /> <br /> I don't know how deep you are into the functions stuff, but something I'd encourage is looking at typology as a set of incomplete frameworks that try to describe something that's honestly too complicated to boil down into distinct categories. Maybe one system incorporates ideas that another one completely overlooks, or maybe another system accounts for a factor that isn't often looked at. It's all valuable in a sense because they frame things in different ways, but I'm personally kind of bored with how samey they are at this stage. Like where's the system that talks about different social environments and how you engage with them?</p>
Replying to post #4782 by strawberry crisis

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2019/01/23 (Wed) 18:30:40 #4779
	Both Jung and Myers saw him as an ITP. Along with Aquinas and Descartes, he's probably the clearest example of an Introverted Thinking type there is. The biggest flaw in the no-functions philosophy that dominates this site is that it ultimately makes MBTI types indefinite and variable. Behavior does not always reflect personality or, more importantly, the way a person's mind functions. Just because a person has a strict schedule does not necessarily make them a J, just because a person is an extreme individualist does not make them a P, and so forth.

Editing post #4779 by Jacobus <p>Both Jung and Myers saw him as an ITP. Along with Aquinas and Descartes, he's probably the clearest example of an Introverted Thinking type there is.</p> <p>The biggest flaw in the no-functions philosophy that dominates this site is that it ultimately makes MBTI types indefinite and variable. Behavior does not always reflect personality or, more importantly, the way a person's mind functions. Just because a person has a strict schedule does not necessarily make them a J, just because a person is an extreme individualist does not make them a P, and so forth.</p>
Replying to post #4779 by Jacobus

	LVNA 2018/12/07 (Fri) 19:38:13 #4178
	I feel that response really brings in a question about the nature of introversion. Kant seems like he was very introverted to me, but that he brought his internal ideals in line with a squarely social outlook about human life and used that to create situations he felt comfortable in...a tranquil dinner party with friends where everything went along the lines of a specific plan etc. if anything that would just seem to show a difference between J and P, where his J allowed him to find ways to become more social. But does that really make him less I or just an introvert who found it easy to meld into certain social contexts because of his quite rigid but clear thoughts and ideas about the world? his cognitive introversion still seems strong to me is the gist and I wouldn't be surprised if he still came across as pretty I even if behaviorally he created and adapted to a more E world. The stimulus for that action seems pretty internal with him, not like someone who wants to access and influence the world strongly (think the LSI stereotype) who has to be more E because they derive their sense of self more from that world and how they are entangled in it.

Editing post #4178 by LVNA <p>I feel that response really brings in a question about the nature of introversion. Kant seems like he was very introverted to me, but that he brought his internal ideals in line with a squarely social outlook about human life and used that to create situations he felt comfortable in...a tranquil dinner party with friends where everything went along the lines of a specific plan etc. if anything that would just seem to show a difference between J and P, where his J allowed him to find ways to become more social. But does that really make him less I or just an introvert who found it easy to meld into certain social contexts because of his quite rigid but clear thoughts and ideas about the world? his cognitive introversion still seems strong to me is the gist and I wouldn't be surprised if he still came across as pretty I even if behaviorally he created and adapted to a more E world. The stimulus for that action seems pretty internal with him, not like someone who wants to access and influence the world strongly (think the LSI stereotype) who has to be more E because they derive their sense of self more from that world and how they are entangled in it.</p>
Replying to post #4178 by LVNA

date	username	vote
21/11/26 16:11	Reinek	INTJ
21/01/02 07:38	Helvetica	INTJ
20/10/21 00:11	Darkstar	INTP
20/08/29 23:32	Thyssen	INTJ
20/05/21 13:08	bibliology	INTJ
20/01/17 18:54	Jacobus	INTJ
19/07/06 23:25	Taco110	INTJ
19/01/01 14:21	kawaii	INTJ
21/11/28 12:40	Tman	INTJ
18/12/08 00:41	fg	INTJ
18/12/07 19:38	LVNA	INTJ
18/12/07 07:40	edza	INTJ
18/11/29 02:56	twinpinks	INTP
18/10/31 21:03	tch	INTJ
18/08/07 09:36	Zeego	INTJ
20/01/12 08:39	Diobono	INTJ
18/06/13 05:48	EON	INTJ

date	username	vote
25/07/02 19:47	nicotineseries	INTP
22/03/24 22:49	Woll Smoth	INTP
21/11/26 16:12	Reinek	INTP
21/01/02 07:38	Helvetica	INTP
20/10/21 00:11	Darkstar	INTP
20/09/12 13:02	Flower-like	INTP
20/08/29 23:32	Thyssen	INFJ
20/01/17 18:54	Jacobus	INTP
19/07/06 23:25	Taco110	INFJ
19/04/14 19:50	tman	INTP
19/02/06 14:29	kawaii	INTJ
19/01/30 14:10	tch	ISTJ
18/08/07 09:36	Zeego	INTP
19/07/23 10:22	Diobono	INTP
18/06/14 05:21	fg	ISTJ

date	username	vote
25/08/07 05:31	nicotineseries	1w9
25/08/06 17:58	Woll Smoth	1w9
21/01/02 07:38	Helvetica	1w9
20/10/21 03:06	Flower-like	1w9
20/10/21 00:11	Darkstar	5w6
20/08/29 23:32	Thyssen	1w9
20/05/21 13:08	bibliology	1w9
21/06/30 10:32	Tman	1w9
20/01/17 18:54	Jacobus	1w9
19/07/06 23:25	Taco110	1w9
19/01/01 14:23	kawaii	1w9
18/10/31 21:03	tch	1w9
18/06/13 05:48	EON	1w9
19/07/23 10:17	Diobono	1w9
18/05/20 04:55	fg	1w9

date	username	vote
21/01/02 07:38	Helvetica	sp/so
20/10/21 03:06	Flower-like	sp/so
20/10/21 00:11	Darkstar	so/sp
20/08/29 23:32	Thyssen	sp/so
20/05/21 13:08	bibliology	sp/so
19/09/05 21:02	Tman	sp/so
19/07/06 23:25	Taco110	sp/so
18/05/20 04:55	fg	sp/so

date	username	vote
25/08/07 05:32	nicotineseries	152
25/08/06 17:58	Woll Smoth	152
22/04/04 11:49	Tman	152
21/01/02 07:38	Helvetica	152
20/10/21 00:11	Darkstar	513
20/08/29 23:32	Thyssen	152
20/01/12 08:46	Diobono	152
19/07/06 23:25	Taco110	152
19/02/17 23:41	ResoluteSoul	451

date	username	vote
25/08/07 05:31	nicotineseries	LII
22/03/30 13:27	woll smoth	LII
21/01/02 07:38	Helvetica	LII
20/10/21 00:11	Darkstar	LII
20/08/29 23:32	Thyssen	LII
20/07/19 07:58	Flower-like	LII
20/01/19 19:39	zazu	LII
20/01/17 18:54	Jacobus	LII
19/07/06 23:25	Taco110	LII
19/05/06 20:20	Avalonia	LII
19/07/04 18:59	tman	LII
19/02/03 16:02	tch	LII
18/11/13 05:57	echidna1000	LII
18/05/20 04:55	fg	LII

date	username	vote
20/01/11 10:31	fg	LVEF
20/01/09 15:24	Diobono	VLEF
20/02/28 22:42	Tman	LVEF