Thread: Cognitive functions - HOW??

I keep scratching my head in confusion. Lately I've dug into Jungian psychology and I can't get things straight.

OK, a person has several ways of perceiving and acting in reality. According to Jung, these are the cognitive "functions" we use:

Se - extraverted Sensing
Experiencing the immediate context; noticing changes and opportunities for action; being drawn to act on the physical world; accumulating experiences; scanning for visible reactions and relevant data; recognizing “what is”.

Si - introverted Sensing
Reviewing past experiences; “what is” evoking “what was”; seeking detailed information and links to what is known; recalling stored impressions; accumulating data; recognizing the way things have always been.

Ne - extraverted iNtuiting
Interpreting situations and relationships; picking up meanings and interconnections; being drawn to change “what is” for “what could possibly be”; noticing what is not said and threads of meaning emerging across multiple contexts.

Ni - introverted iNtuiting
Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data; realizing “what will be”; conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations; getting an image of profound meaning or far-reaching symbols.

Te - extraverted Thinking
Ordering; organizing for efficiency; systematizing; applying logic; structuring; checking for consequences; monitoring for standards or specifications being met; setting boundaries, guidelines, and parameters; deciding if something is working or not.

Ti - introverted Thinking
Analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision.

Fe - extraverted Feeling
Connecting; considering others and the group—organizing to meet their needs and honor their values and feelings; maintaining societal, organizational, or group values; adjusting and accommodating others; deciding if something is appropriate or acceptable to others.

Fi - introverted Feeling
Valuing; considering importance and worth; reviewing for incongruity; evaluating something based on the truths on which it is based; clarifying values to achieve accord; deciding if something is of significance and worth standing up for.



Different personalities have different ways of combining the use of these functions. But I'm having trouble putting these abstract concepts into a practical context.

Is anyone able to give some practical examples of the abovementioned function types?

Thanks!

/Eric

Ruzz, I never got around to reading any Jung. I found your summary of his cognitive functions very interesting. They seem logical at first glance. How practical or meaningful they are is another matter.

I don't know if this will help, but here is a rough breakdown of how some of these functions were engaged as I read your post.

Initially I was in an Se function, simply taking on board what was written.
I then switched to Fe, extraverted feeling, noting that as a new member you merited encouragement in the form of a reasonably detailed reply.

I then switched to Ti, introverted thinking, to begin the assimilation of what was written, comparing it with my current thinking in this area, looking for matches and conflicts.

I then switched to Si, introverted sensing, to consider what I already new of Jungian theory, which isn't much, and a brief nostalgic recollection of reading Freud's Interpretation of Dreams when I was fifteen.

Then I began to write the post, largely using Te, extraverted thinking.

All the early stages took far less time to engage than to write about.

I hope that helps somewhat. Incidentally, welcome to The Science Forum.

Thanks Ophiolite. It's always great to get some outside perspective on a subject you're dealing with, it's like trying to locate a point in a three-dimensional cube; the more angles you get the surer you can be about the location.

Some follow-up theories made by modern jungian analysts put these eight cognitive functions into a pattern that is unique for every different personality type (sixteen personality types are defined, derived from four basic temperaments; apollonian, dionysian, epimethean and promethean). So if your personality is ESTJ, for example, your cognitive functions would line up as follows:

Primary functions Shadow functions

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
ESTJ — Te Si Ne Fi Ti Se Ni Fe

The primary functions are the ones we are most likely to use in our everyday lives. The shadow is our "dark side" and often manifests in dreams or in self-destructive or anti-social behavior (maybe this is familiar from Freud's theories?).

So, theoretically, if you know your personality, and understand how these cognitive functions work, you'll be more mindful about how you act, what you do. We tend to develop our primary function the most, leaving the others behind. It goes without saying that developing a balanced set of functions would enable you to grow as a person (now of course there are easier ways of doing THAT, but who wants the easy, practical way when there's a big theory to work from ).

The division of personality types is interesting and, I believe, can be helpful in many situations, personal and business. The downside is if one works on the presumption that such categories are real, rather than simply convenient.

You may be familiar with Maslow's Heirarchy of needs, which envisages we are motivated by increasingly more elevated concerns: physiological, safety, belonging, esteem, self-actualisation. Each of the lower needs must be satisfied before the others can come into play.
I have observed many people (including ones who really should have known better) present this as if an individual spent an extended period at any one level. In practice one can move rapidly from one level to another. Anyone who doubts this need only refrain from urinating for twenty four hours before a vitally important meeting or exam. :wink:

As long as the meeting or exam doesn't entail a peeing contest?
(You're on it Oph. Just wished to remind that there's exceptions to most every rule. And, you'd probly win most peeing contests, anyway?)

Maslow has been shown to be incorrect, in many examples. I fear they are but simplistic models that do not take in account the great depth of human behaviour.

If we look at breathing, eating, sleeping, other base needs, these are regulated by rather different parts of our brains (evolutionary earlier (in most cases)), whilst social needs are regulated by yet another part. All these needs act as hundreds different inputs - sometimes unconsciously - to form our daily behaviour.

Saying "I'm going to the kitchen to have a bite to eat" is not always the complete description. It may include other facts. "this conversation was getting boring", "the air is not so good in here", et cetera. Indeed, sometimes the prime drive is hidden from us.

Indeed, the main aim behind the hierarchy, that the reason so much human potential is not obtained is hardly functioning. Some people, when given food and game will not go to that 'higher' level. They'll just become lazy and complacent.

As for Jung, I suspect that too to be a too simplistic overview. Yes, it covers a lot of base, but how can it speak of an immensely complex personality.

Ophiolite, regarding businesses. Research (no link, sorry) has shown that (good!) managers generally recognise which personality patterns function on what places and which do not. They have the potential in an job-interview to select those traits that an individual needs for a certain job.
I mean to say, the manual to personality traits may only serve managers who don't have this naturally, and in that case, do we really need more 'incompetent' managers?
I think there are plenty of businesses that would function a lot better without those kind of managers.

Mr U