#cognition vs behavior

[mbti-notes]

It says that Te dom are afraid to be weak. But I've noticed a lot of xxFJ also express that fear. Especially ExFJs, they want to be capable and strong. One of my friend (ENFJ, male) say that they dislike feeling weak and feel shame if they didn't push themselves enough to solve a problem. What could explain that mindset that if FJs don't have Te-Fi? More importantly, is it possible ExFJ mistype themselves as ExTJ for that reason? Bc they see themselves as strong and confrontational?

As far as I can tell, the main problem is that you are oversimplifying. There are two aspects to this problem that often interfere with the type assessment process:

1) The tendency to stereotype and overemphasize superficial characteristics: This is usually a result of not understanding the distinction between cognition and behavior, which is the first major principle covered in the Function Theory Guide.

Two different types can exhibit the same behavior but for different underlying cognitive reasons. For example, there is a common stereotype that portrays ExTJs as leaders/managers due to dominant Te. Yet, in reality, ExFJs are equally likely to gravitate to leadership roles. How are you going to explain this in the absence of Te? Is Te equal to leadership or does Te have a monopoly on leadership? No and no.

"Leadership" is a behavior. A behavior can arise for many possible reasons. Te doms might gravitate to leadership due to a desire for order or control, whereas Fe doms might gravitate to leadership due to a desire to influence and improve group cohesion. The "leadership" behavior may look similar on the surface, but the cognitive reasons/motivations underneath it are vastly different, because Te and Fe are very different functions.

If you don't properly distinguish cognition from behavior, you won't have a deep enough understanding of WHY the behavior exists, and then it's very easy to be led astray by superficial stereotypes during type assessment.

2) Overlooking context and circumstance: This is usually a result of not understanding that human beings are motivated by a multitude of factors, and personality type is only one of them. Most human behavior is multifactorial. Before you try to attribute a behavior to a particular type/function, have you made sure that other external factors/causes have been properly accounted for?

Why is it that, compared to other types, ExTJs are more likely to have this quality of being "afraid to be weak"? It is directly attributable to inferior Fi. However, this doesn't mean there aren't other factors/causes behind it. Another factor that could be at play is general fear of vulnerability, which can afflict anyone of any type. Fear of vulnerability isn't mainly a matter of personality but of negative experiences that hampered ego development, though it might also negatively influence function expression. Most people operate at lower levels of ego development, so fear of vulnerability is a widespread issue, to varying degrees.

In the case of ExFJs, Fe not only encourages one to harmonize with prevailing social norms and customs, it also encourages one to actively maintain and enforce them whenever one observes behaviors that go against the norm. This is one reason why Fe doms can come across as strong-willed, confrontational, even meddling.

However, there can be many other reasons why they come across that way. For instance, ExFJs who have grown up in very harsh or hostile environments might constantly be faulted or shamed for "oversharing", "oversensitivity", or being "overemotional". When healthy dominant function development gets inhibited by powerful environmental factors, it can have a negative impact on how a person expresses all of their functions. People don't only use one function, so Fe isn't the only function to consider.

For example, since environmentally oppressed ExFJs can't really use Fe in a positive way to influence and improve the social environment, they have little choice but to use it in a negative way to conform with the very norms and customs that denigrate their natural Fe strengths. Instead of using Ti in a positive way to encourage healthy boundary setting and reasonable decision making, they have little choice but to use it in a negative way to obsess about "strength", "competence", "independence", or "intelligence", because that is the only means they know of avoiding shame and obtaining validation.

In short, can you tell the difference between natural function expression (positive) and compensatory function behavior (negative)? You won't be able to tell the difference until you understand the complex relationship between personality and environment.

As I wrote in the Function Theory Guide: "To really understand someone, you must contextualize their behavior, by examining all the different forces that might be motivating them." Human psychology is complicated, which means there's always more going on beneath the surface than you realize. If you think type assessment should be a simple process, you're likely to suffer a high error rate.

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote: hello! so, for the longest while, i was convinced that i was an infp. but, very recently, i realised that the struggles that i was going through, the problems that were coming up repeatedly, seemed to be more indicative of ne-te loop. i didn't actually get very far with the function development guide once I'd determined myself to be an infp btw. life kinda got in the way.

anyway, this realisation prompted me to delve back into your type theory guide. for the past week or so, I've been going through it in detail with a clear mind, considering every single type as a possibility and rejecting them one by one according to the evidence I'm typing up. I'm still about midway through the inf functions in the proper procedure that I'm following, but i've skimmed that entire post and others, because there's a couple of questions that's been bugging me throughout.

I've more or less narrowed myself down to an xnfp, although like i said, I'm still open to considering other types as well. what I'm mostly stuck with is the following:

1. how is an enfp's ne-te loop going to look in contrast to an infp's te grip?

2. how is an infp's fi-si loop going to look in contrast to an enfp's si grip?

i understand that, of course, every person is a unique example of their type. but I've been stuck with these two points, since i couldn't find anything on your blog related to how a specific tert function's loop looks in tandem with the type's corresponding dom function. like, i know what te-loop looks like, but i don't know how it would work with ne dom. i suspect where i might have gone wrong with typing myself (if i was mistaken, like i said, i am still going through the theory guide intensively), was misidentifying si grip as fi-si loop.

if you do have any past posts that I've missed, I'd appreciate you redirecting me to them. and i hope my doubt is clear, and that you'll be able to help me out. thank you!

-----------------------

As far as I can tell, there are several issues to address:

1) Overemphasis on how functions "look": This usually means you're too focused on outward behavior (superficial) and not really understanding how functions operate inside the mind (fundamentals). Until you are able to draw a proper distinction between cognition and behavior (which is the first major principle that I teach in the Function Theory guide), your focus will likely be misplaced on the what and then missing the why. Asking "what does my Te look like?" won't get you as far as asking "WHY do I use Te in this way?" Basically, you're not going deep enough.

2) Not accounting for Function Dynamics: Newbies often get stuck on viewing functions in isolation, which exacerbates problem #1 above. Once your learning becomes more advanced, you'll understand that functions are dynamic and intertwined. For instance, tertiary loop and inferior grip are very different because the function interactions that produce them are very different:

- Tertiary loop arises due to a unique relationship to i) dominant dysfunction, specifically dominant immaturity, and ii) auxiliary underdevelopment, specifically auxiliary resistance. Thus, evidence of tertiary loop must also include evidence of those two issues, which I have already included in the guide under the dominant and auxiliary function sections. These three parts must fit together properly.

- Inferior grip arises due to dominant dysfunction, specifically dominant extremes that create a troubling imbalance. One reason people find themselves in dominant extremes is because they're trying to force the function to work in unsuitable ways/situations, which causes escalating problems with stress, to the point of not being able to cope and adapt well. Thus, evidence of inferior grip must include i) evidence of dominant extremes, and ii) eventual loss of healthy dominant functioning, information which is already included in the inferior function section of the guide.

3) Not accounting for Type Dynamics: Type dynamics refers to the theory of the functional stack, of how the whole is more than just the sum of its parts. Each of the four functional stack positions serves a unique and specific purpose in your psychology with regard to what the ego needs and wants, which is briefly explained in the beginning of each stack position section, as well as the type dynamics section of the Type Dev guide.

For example, the proper purpose of the tertiary function is to complement and temper the auxiliary function. However, tertiary loop means that this healthy dynamic is altered and the tertiary function is being misused for a different and more nefarious purpose of propping up a failing dominant function.

This goes back to point #1 above of not grasping the "WHY" - what is the purpose of each function in the mind? It's very important to ask yourself WHY you are using the function in that particular way, in relation to the other functions. To what end or to what purpose is the behavior meant to serve?

.

It looks like all the information you need is already included in the study guides, so perhaps you have only been picking out some superficial points about the "look" of functions and ignoring the more important theoretical concepts that would help you understand WHY functions look a particular way. The problem with not reading the guide all the way through to full understanding before you start doing the hard work of analyzing yourself is that you won't see the bigger picture of how all the parts are meant to fit together.

Psychology is complicated, so function theory isn't exactly easy to learn. There are many levels of comprehension and you're still at the beginner level. It's certainly not a crime to be a beginner, since we all have to start somewhere. However, don't sabotage yourself with poor learning methods such as disorderly/unfocused reading, taking shortcuts, or thinking that the "gist" equals complete knowledge - these are common learning obstacles for NPs.

[mbti-notes]

hi, i've been having some issues with Fi vs Fe, especially when I think of Aang in ATLA. I know he is typed as ENFP including by you. and i can understand the Ne dom view but the Fi is so confusing. I thought Fi was internal moral/values and doing what someone thinks is right according to themselves but in the show Aang kept saying stuff like 'the monks taught me revenge isnt good' etc. it always seems like his morals come from others in this way and not from himself? how does it work?

This confusion is common for newbies. It sounds like you're reciting a simplistic and stereotypical description of Fi that doesn't tell you anything about the many possible ways Fi develops in real people or how it actually operates in response to real world situations. There are several problems to address:

1) Applying imprecise and/or incorrect definitions: Fi is basically using your subjective feelings to make value judgments. That's all. It doesn't determine exactly what your moral beliefs will be or whether your moral belief system is valid. To understand how people come to adopt and justify their moral beliefs, you have to introduce the concept of moral development. Moral development and personality development are separate, though they have a complicated relationship.

In short, you're conflating cognitive functions and moral development because you haven't really understood what cognitive functions are and how to define them properly.

2) Not distinguishing well between cognition and behavior: How old is Aang? Physically and mentally, he's a preteen (10-12). Preteens do not have a well-developed auxiliary function, nor would they be very far along in their ego and moral development. He hasn't had the time and life experience required to develop a sophisticated awareness and nuanced understanding of his feeling life. Thus, with his "primitive" Fi, he only knows when things don't feel right, at best.

On top of immature Fi, a preteen isn't capable of refined moral reasoning, either. He doesn't yet possess the necessary intellectual tools for articulating his moral judgments and decisions. Thus, when pressed, what else can he do but call up some words from his mentors and teachers, as all children do at that stage of moral development? He's picking and choosing their moral arguments as necessary to help explain and justify his own strong but fledgling moral instincts.

Additionally, remember that people fall into inferior grip when they have too much difficulty coping with stress, and he was pretty much under constant pressure to carry out his mission efficiently. He's not repeating what authority figures taught him because he likes to and he takes personal pride in possessing authoritative knowledge (high Si). Rather, he's only doing it during times of moral confusion when he sees no other method of grounding himself (compensatory Si).

Grasping for scraps of old knowledge and/or remnants of one's old self when feeling lost is a sign of inferior Si and it happens when Ne doms are under stress. They easily get tangled up in trying to reconcile the disconnects between past, present, and future. Don't forget that his case is quite extreme because there is a gap of over a hundred years in his knowledge of the world.

In short, you're only looking at what he does (behavior), but you haven't understood WHY he's doing it (cognition). This is a common pitfall in type assessment. You need to understand The Why, otherwise, you run the risk of taking behavior at face value and then getting misled by crude stereotypes.

3) Not accounting for the whole functional stack: The reason he was frozen (in time) for so long was mainly because he was running from his responsibilities. If I recall correctly, this was a recurring theme and related to the developmental challenge he had to meet in order to grow and mature as a character.

Resisting duties and responsibilities aligns perfectly with the ENFP tendency to take dominant Ne to extremes and resist the call to develop auxiliary Fi in adolescence, eventually leading to Te loop and Si grip issues. Other functional stacks wouldn't fit as well. For example, if he was ESFJ, he would be taking Fe to extremes and have difficulty developing Si, eventually leading to Ne loop and Ti grip issues. Is there any evidence to support this reading? Not that I remember.

All of the functions of the stack have to fit properly. Are you using the evidence to discover the right stack, or are you trying to twist and force the evidence to fit the stack you want? Many people prefer to start with a hypothesis and then look for confirming evidence. The problem with this approach is that it tends to overlook better possibilities as well as important counter-evidence. My method of type assessment is more neutral in giving fair consideration to all 16 types at the start, then gradually narrowing it down through examining counter-evidence (see the Type Spotting Guide).

In short, you're trying to isolate and identify a particular function without taking into consideration its exact stack position, how it relates to the other functions in the stack, and how its expression is influenced by individual developmental factors.

[mbti-notes]

Hello! I have recently been thinking about how mental and/or neurological disorders can affect how your personality type presents, and how they can obstruct/make it more difficult for one to find their "true" type. I have searched the "ADHD" tag on your blog because that was the disorder in particular I was curious about, but I was just wondering about how you would get to the crux of someone's personality when ADHD or autism for example, can hinder the organization processes, (p.1) --

[con't: concentration, social behaviors, and overall thinking of someone. For example, I have been speaking to my doctor and likely have ADHD/ADD/a concentration issue of some type, and according to what I know (your blog has been a huge, huge help, tysm) and have spoken to some about, I am an ENFP. I just find it difficult to separate the aspects of: difficulty in finishing tasks, esp. when not too interested, short attention span, and boundless projects/interests, from my personality? Also, thinking about how some INTJ (among a few other type) stereotypes are common among those with social anxiety or to an extent high functioning autism. I know that you have said that these are separate things, but I guess I am just confusing myself as I don't know whether some of my traits are attributed to mind+mood or personality, and I wonder what is the type most diagnosed/attributed with ADHD/ADD, actually... (it likely is ENFP, tbh). Thank you so much]

This question comes up again and again. In a nutshell: You should examine the cognition that produces the behavior. I repeat this idea of "cognition vs behavior" many times in the study guides for a reason. Do you know what a cognitive function is, what the Ne function is, how exactly it works, and how it works in YOU? If not, you are not qualified to do type assessment with functions.

For example: Anyone, Ps and Js alike, can "have difficulty finishing tasks". This is just a superficial description of a common behavioral pattern. But different people experience the problem differently and for different underlying reasons. There are many possible reasons for abandoning a task, aren't there? Perhaps they got bored, they got discouraged, they forgot about it, they had too much on their plate, they were too disorganized, etc etc - totally different thought processes can result in the same behavioral pattern of leaving tasks incomplete. Are all of these underlying reasons indicative of Ne? Certainly not. But this doesn't stop many people from mistyping themselves as Ne dom just because their life happens to be in a mess. A lot of people come across personality quizzes and do them for fun, but they have no idea what cognitive functions actually are or how to identify them.

It is the thought processes behind the behavior that will inform you about type. Simply saying that you "have difficulty completing tasks" doesn't tell me anything about how Ne actually looks and works in your mind, or whether it's even Ne at all. My assessment method aims for certainty, so the burden of proof is quite high. I would not accept "have difficulty finishing tasks" as proof of Ne until I hear a very detailed explanation of HOW the problem arose, HOW exactly the problem plays out in the mind, and WHY the problem persists. If you're not actually the type that you claim to be, you won't be able to give that level of detail about your cognitive functions.

That level of detail about cognition is necessary for determining whether the problem is attributable to Ne, ADHD, or whether the surface symptoms of ADHD are also a manifestation of unhealthy Ne. ADHD presents differently in different personalities. Yes, personality and mental disorder are separate, but they can still be related. Psychology is very complicated because there are so many moving parts to account for. Is it correlation, causation, or a third mediating variable? The devil is in the details!

Many people lack self-awareness, so they have no idea what's happening in their mind. The point of putting yourself through my difficult type assessment method is to dig deeper and try to explain what's really going on with your cognition.

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote: Hello, I appreciate your blog and dedication to informing layman like me about interesting concepts like Jung’s Function Theory. I have read through your function theory and type fundamentals study guides entirely to attempt to type myself. However, I am encountering difficulty understanding some ideas. I have a question for you:

You mentioned that understanding cognition is more important than identifying behaviour in spotting function use. However, (at least from my non-self aware pov), the descriptions you provide for the cognitive functions appear to be observed behaviours of people who have that function, rather than the underlying cognition behind the function.

For example, one of your pointers for dominant Ni is “Immature INxJs suffer the negative aspects of Ni due to living in mere abstractions of the future, with a tendency to become quite unrealistic in their beliefs and expectations, perhaps unable/unwilling to appreciate life as it exists in the here-and-now. They might exhibit problematic traits such as: absentmindedness, detachment, single-mindedness, overseriousness, perfectionism, haughtiness, presumptuousness.”

The only cognition in Ni I can find here appears to be “due to living in mere abstraction of the future” which causes behaviour such as “a tendency to become quite unrealistic in their beliefs and expectations, perhaps unable/unwilling to appreciate life as it exists in the here-and-now. They might exhibit problematic traits such as: absentmindedness, detachment, single-mindedness, overseriousness, perfectionism, haughtiness, presumptuousness.”

If I recall, the cognition of Ni includes more, such as exploring possibilities for the sake of preparation of uncertainties. Is it true that the guide provides behaviour without the corresponding explanations of cognition or am I missing a key idea in differentiating between cognition and behaviour?

I can think of 2 possible causes for this difficulty: the first is I do not understand exactly what is the difference in cognition and behaviour, and whatever that has been provided in the study guide has in fact been cognition, yet I am not self aware enough to realise. If this is the case, may I ask on any tips, advice, or a guide for individuals lacking self-awareness like myself who would still like to learn and understand on how to differentiate thoughts, or actions between cognition and behaviour, or even how to make the link between cognitions and behaviour (such as some criteria for cognition, how a cognition would relate to a behaviour, where do cognition come from), when I observe certain behaviour of my own.

The second reason may be that the guides are really listing behaviours without the corresponding cognition. In that case, may I ask for more details of the types of cognition that each type of function would have, alongside the already listed behaviour in the guides? I believe this would provide clarity for me as an individual lacking self awareness on how each function “computes”, and show more clearly the “orientation” or “bias” of a function to “compute” (undergo some cognitive process to produce an output decision / data) a certain way. This is because, while I may know the cognition in my behaviour, I am unable to tell which function it is coming from, and would benefit tremendously from (at least) the knowledge of how the function speaks in cognition.

Hopefully I haven’t gotten the idea of function theory totally wrong by confusing cognition and behaviour and all. Thank you for your patience and time in reading and hopefully responding to my questions. You have sparked deep thought in me by sharing this delightful theory, and I hope you can share your knowledge on the subject with me to address my confusions. Thank you!

-------------------

There seem to be two issues: 1) not understanding the logical structure of what I wrote (reading comprehension issue), and 2) getting the ideas wrong due to unfamiliarity with technical terms.

Do you understand the difference between a "distinction" and a "separation"? It is not my intent to separate cognition from behavior, but some laypeople misinterpret my writing this way. In real life, cognition and behavior are inextricably linked, and their relationship is complicated and not always easy to understand.

However, one can still make a conceptual distinction between them because doing so is useful for becoming more self-aware. I encourage people to distinguish between cognition and behavior because it helps them understand how the process of thinking leads to or motivates certain behavioral patterns (and, with regard to addressing maladaptive traits, how changing one's thinking can influence one's behavior in positive ways).

I also distinguish between cognition and behavior for the purposes of type assessment. Since different types can appear to behave similarly to onlookers, it's important to make sure that both the cognition and behavior line up as they should. When both align properly, one can feel more confident about having discovered the true type.

As stated in the guide in the most simplified terms I can manage, cognition refers to mental processes for information processing, whereas behavior is observable or measurable characteristics, traits, or actions (that manifest from cognition). If it helps, you can think of cognition as internal and behavior as external. Only you are aware of what happens in your mind, your cognition. Your behavior is how you act upon your thoughts and it should be observable and quantifiable by others. An important part of having good self-awareness is understanding the thought processes that prompted your behavior.

Each dominant function description in the Function Theory Guide follows the same structure and includes references to both cognition and behavior. The first three bullet points refer primarily to cognitive processes, did you see them? Each of the four points afterward link cognitive processes to certain behaviors. I have structured it this way because most people cannot understand what cognition is in the abstract, so I provide them with behavioral patterns to serve as reference points.

And then I provide some questions for doing an assessment. The questions capture common cognitive-behavioral patterns. It is up to the reader to come up with concrete examples to match the pattern. If you are unable to do this, then my method of type assessment will not work for you. In that case, it might be a good idea for you to seek assistance from someone else with a different method.

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote:

hello! firstly, I'd like to thank you for making this blog. it's been really helpful in understanding mbti theory and taking steps to improve myself. i do have 2 questions though:

I'm glad you find my blog helpful, thanks for saying so.

1) is it possible that a person still undergoes tertiary loop in their mid-40s? i have seen evidence of si-ti loop in my mother, but can't really reconcile that with the fact that she should've probably dealt with this earlier. and i don't think she's always been in the loop (as far as i remember, anyways), but has only gotten into it within the last 2 years.

It is more common than uncommon for people to get developmentally stuck. Type development is a very personal or individual process, so, in that sense, there is no "should've". This is explained in the Type Dev Guide, please review it. Every individual is at a different point in development based on their unique circumstances. Anyone can misuse their functions at any time of life for a variety of reasons. If she only started within the last two years, it would be important to understand what circumstances or stressors might have prompted it.

2) i have noticed in myself (an infp) that i tend to re-read books/ re-watch movies that i liked in the past multiple times, usually when I'm feeling a bit out of sorts or stressed. a celebrity that i have been trying to type said the same thing about themself— that they like re-watching a specific movie when they're tired/stressed. i thought that this was an obvious indication of si-tertiary, and that they were also an infp (using other clues about their type, too, of course). however, most other people say that that person is an enfp. (nobody else has typed them as infp). i just wanted to know if my understanding of that specific behaviour being an indication of si-tert was correct or not. I should probably explain why i think that is si-tert. tertiary functions are usually used as a psychological defense to stress. fi-si tends to make a person look to previous sources of comfort in hopes of gaining the same comfort again, usually leading to the person staying in stale comfort zones. what i think is, basically, that a person can also seek comfort in fictional stories (books and movies) that they liked in the past. again, I'm not 100% sure about this, it's just what I've noticed in myself. thank you in advance :)

It is incorrect. The problem is that you haven't understood the difference between cognition and behavior (as well as the fact that the two do not have a perfect 1:1 relationship). Taking your example: Si prompts people to revisit things of their past. This is generally true of Si, so this fact alone is not enough information to tell you the stack position of Si. To identify stack position, you cannot only focus on the behavior (the "what"), you must go far deeper than that to understand the underlying cognitive reasons (the "whys"). The set of reasons for why tertiary Si revisits the past is different from inferior Si (... is different from dominant Si ... is different from auxiliary Si). The functional stack positions are covered in the Function Theory Guide.

Until you've understood the exact underlying cognitive reasons behind the behavior, the most you can claim is that Si is probably in there... somewhere. I say "probably" because this one detail alone isn't even enough to prove Si, since other functions like Ni may also prompt someone to revisit the past, but for very different reasons. You would also need to accumulate more evidence of Si cognition that specifically rules out Ni cognition.

In short: Don't judge a book by its cover. You have to understand exactly why someone is doing what they're doing, rather than just assuming that they're doing it for the same reason as you.