Well done, Harry. You've expressed what many have experienced: the further you go into Jungian typology, the more one can be confused about one's own type or that of others. Perhaps the best simplification of the cognitive personality system I've seen online.
@@CognitivePersonalityis it possible to type young or teenagers mbti type I'm 16 can I type myself let me know if yes then can u plz tell me how to spot ur 4 dominant functions becoz I'm not able to type myself!
Highly satisfying to see pertinent critique of the development and apparent application of MBTI as a system, based on online content. Why on earth are there not more experts (using the term loosely here) communicating to their audience about the grave risks to MBTI as a system posed by issues such as cognition vs behavior fallacies, simplified stereotypes, and other ‘popular’ biases and misinterpretations?
I watched this video to ground myself. 30 minutes ago I wanted to scream at the internet for the very reason you mentioned in this video. In fact, it was almost creepy that you addressed my exact thoughts in a time when I probably needed it most. Your lack of bull compared to mbti sources and your objective and analytical approach to cognition is refreshing. Thank you. I thoroughly look forward to your upcoming videos.
Cognitive Personality Theory I look forward to them. My thirst for understanding may have begun to be quenched. So long overdue. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
When you mentioned about the blending of cognitive functions and of behavior in MBTI, I can't help but think of how Personality Database defines Introverted Feeling by it's behavior rather than it's actual cognitive properties.
I always had a feeling that each function never worked without the other. I believe there are certain behaviors that indicate type, but they stem from overarching cognition. No one man is the same as another, it dosen't matter how much merit a stereotype gets. It all depends on the ordering and development of each function that determines the *cognition,* not necessarily behaviors. *looking at you, socionics*
I find CPTs definition makes things easier. it has a certain elegance, but it also lets space for interpretations. I really wish one could unify all interpretations of the cognitive functions into one theory that gets accepted by everyone. Because it's very difficult to get a sense out of all the differences. I totally understand why you made your own system. And maybe it gets known as the one that united them all.
Agreed, it can be difficult to entirely remove all vagueries, especially alongside an implication of fluidity! A major reason for the creation of CPT was to remove superfluous metaphor and streamline definitions - I do believe in both the system and its potential to bring typology back into the scientific limelight, but I also know such things take time and it is very much a journey!
I just love how well researched your content is and straight to the point. You are the only one I watch without having to speed up the video to skip through their stories of how their mother in law forgot to feed her cat.
Wow, you are really good at breaking down the functions and explaining the different ways they are assessed. I appreciate you wanting to make typing and how the brain works a little less woo woo.
"Everyone and thier mother thinking they are holier than thou" is *one* of several reasons I have chosen to distance myself more from the typology community lately. To me, there are more important things to concentrate on, and sadly, many of these people will not be there to have your back when the rubber means the road anyway. Many would rather stay in this world of arguing and bickering over what a certain function means when we have so many other more important social causes we should be concentrating on. I find this urguing over and chasing after every theory under the sun annoying. I am a huge believer in self-growth and development, but as you stated, if hardly anyone can agree upon how the functions should even be defined, at the end of the day, it kind of just shoots its own self in the foot anyway. There are deep people and there are more surface level people. There are introspective people that enjoy thier own company more, and there are those that don't reflect or look back much and always want to be socially stimulated and process things very quickly. Some people are mechanical or "handy" and some are more artistic. Some feel down to the depths of their souls, and others cannot seem to understand that. We are all effected by our own intersectionality when it meets with our own personal inner working of our own minds, and to me, it is our responsibility to figure our own deals out in a way that allows us to grow as people. All this bickering over functions, systems and types though -- for me anyway, is just getting old. People need to work on thier own deal before they can really go help anyone else. To me, there is a lot of blind worship out there in this community because so many feel lost and are just looking to be "filled up" in some way. I end up becoming very concerned about this to the point I had to step away and just not be so close to it. As a line in the Neverending story stated, "people who have lost thier hopes are easy to control, and whomever has the control has the power". We have to be careful who we go searching for hope in, because much of the time it is not true hope, and hope deferred makes the heart sick.
I agree with so much of this. All of this, in fact. I particularly like your correlation between desperation and fervour/blind faith - this is a very real hole that people employing frameworks in a journey of self understanding can fall into. The typological community certainly has many dark corners, and the daylight of pop psychology is in some ways even more toxic. I do appreciate the many balanced and objective individuals I get to interact with on this channel and it is my hope CPT can become a place for people to discuss typology openly without fear of judgement.
@@CognitivePersonality Thank you for making me feel as though I can express these views without thinking it will retroactively come back to bite me. Hey Harry, is it ok if I design some artwork around that term "emotional scientist" you used a while back? My U term is over and I need a project, but didn't want to use it without asking.
Two things: 1) People can do more than one thing at a time. They can work on multiple social causes *and* on personality theory, as well as any number of other things. If you’ve lost interest in type theory and want to do something else, great, but it’s not a sufficient reason for everyone to abandon it. 2) Disagreement over terms, definition, and meaning, argued among interested parties over time, are how consensus is reached. Type theory (for that matter, psychology itself) is still in its infancy relative to other disciplines. People are going to contend for their position. It’s how we learn and develop the foundation for further study. If that’s not your bag, then fine, but it’s no reason to poo-poo the whole endeavor.
@@teebahn Not poo-pooing the whole endeavor, simply taking a step back for a while. That was my point-- people need to eventually stand for something, instead of chasing after one theory after another. I still enjoy typology, but largely am taking a step back from a lot of it for a while. I agree with you, people should be interested in social causes *and* type theory simultaneously. Sadly, many don't want to voice thier social or political concerns on their channel out of fear of even more bickering. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand this, it's just an unfortunate situation, and as Harry eluded to, one that can be toxic. As with everything, boundaries are key though.
I can’t get myself to put faith in the cognitive functions. The stacks are too rigid, too black and white. I see them as elements of the personality, but the manifestation of the elements is too chaotic to fit in a system like the MBTI. It is a neat model of archetypes, similar to the Zodiac, but described with modern concepts instead of ancient symbology. The models helps one to understand reality through abstraction, something that is evolutionary engrained in our thought processes. I stick with the ancient archetypes personally, I keep it simple. Also I find it useful to use religious symbology to recognize dominant sub personalities within others. The MBTI is not scientific in my estimation, while the Big five is more practical for the scientific folk.
@@CognitivePersonality thank you. I respect your work, it is very useful and aplicable. Your videos helped me confirm my personal type (INTJ). It was good to find more clarity on this subject through your videos. Cheers.
If this is the person who hands me information, I will gladly study CFT like Evolutionary Psychology unlike the jibber jabber of some who just based on observation on friends then making a conclusion.
After having studied a bit the history of Jung's typology and MBTI, I see that most of the issues with the different systems come from the misunderstanding of how Jung defined the attitude of adaptation. He didn't see it as changing from perception to judgment because it was a trait of the psyche that was sorta standalone like any function. An auxiliary in a different attitude is fundamentally conflicting to the dominant, it can't support it. If you are object-oriented (E) like an ENP is, then your judging function directly responds to that data in the same attitude. A change in attitude of the auxiliary can certainly happen but it's more like a last resort thing, when one's defensiveness is triggered. But usually for an ENP this shouldn't last long and brain wants to go back to consider all data and change one's emotions or systems, or both if necessary. Overall, I find the prescriptiveness of the alternating function stack to be unrealistic.
Absolutely. I've never understood this idea of an auxiliary being of the opposing attitude - as useful as the function might be, how can something with a clearly antagonistic role be labelled 'auxiliary'? It is as you say - perception and judgement occur simultaneously within the same attitude!
its what bugging me up until i found CPT, what is the relationtship between dominant and auxillary, why they should be in different direction? the "dominant rational then aux irrational, vice versa" thing is i could understand, but why they must be in opposite direction? but then i got the answer from CPT, that it was actually "covergence vs divergence" things, the first convergent, commonly understood as "dominant", is the active use and what it does was "observing, abiding," to the more passive and static first divergent, commonly understood as "aux", it really make much better sense that way, thats how the "aux" help "the dominance" by giving it something to abide by, and when you see the description of each 16 types, its actually make it clear as day, NOW i could see better HOW and WHY ENTJ and INTJ operates differently even though they have similar functions in the first and second, just switched, and with the second convergent commonly undestood as "tertiary", which in CPT treated as the "true" helper/aux, that has similar attitude/direction with the dominant, its really make much better sense that it would help DIRECTLY and ACTIVELY, in a way that they "attach" to dominant function because they are in similar direction then its clear as day how the second and third function helped the first/dominant so i personally think that they both are considiered as "helper" or "aux" if people prefered it that way, just different in how they help the dominant
For people who honestly really wanted to understand the way they and others think and thereby work better together, its absolutely heart wrecking to see it used for everything and anything else. 😭
I think, if Carl Jung had known the impact his idea would have in the future, he might have fleshed his theory out more and dedicated more time an effort to its study. As it is, he more or less introduced the idea and brushed over it and now we are essentially taking bits and pieces of a theory and trying to bring it to a deeper understanding and trying to create an entire system as a branch of psychology and understanding of the human psyche from a different perspective. It’s a work in progress, but I think it may become a commonly accepted soft science and welcomed into the psychology field and maybe even introduced in the classrooms as part of the psychological study. It might, perhaps even end up being a career field itself within the next 50 years. We will have to wait and see
I don't speak much English, sorry if there's a mistake. I think that may happen in the future, but as a psychology student very little is said about Carl Jung. It's always about Sigmund Freud 🤦🤦😪. I'm even sure they don't know about cognitive functions. Some of the professors are more focused on things like Neuropsychology, psychophysiology, cognitive behavioral therapy.
Thank you for the truth. Someone was egging me on to explain my reasoning for why I think someone is a particular type but I was not engaging... why? Because there is no point. There is no consistency in typing and standardization of defined terms. Plus, I was aware we could be sharing arguments from different schools of thought. It was a waste of time.
Excellent breakdown of both a) the nature of the problem and b) stronger rudimentary leveragepoints that a person can use towards getting a more robust handle of what this Jungian framework is truly all about!
Hi harry, I enjoyed your book and appreciate the fluidity your system uses. It offers a more holistic and nuanced approach to each individual’s personality, acknowledging that there are as many personality types as there are people. This ring truer to me than the blunt instruments employed by behavioral typologists for quick and easy answers. I appreciate your hard work and look forward to future videos!
Thanks Max, I really appreciate your words here! Exactly, perfectly put - personality types are entirely individualised in reality, and while there are trends no two people of the same type code will be the same as the other (both cognitively and otherwise). Cheers!
I come back to your videos and it always helps me better receive and apply what various other places are saying. Every time I feel confident in what type I am, I’m almost as quickly unsure of it. I see how others have similar but differing views on how this all works. I do hope someday that we as humans can agree on how it works, how it’s defined, because I do agree with some, that learning how others are viewing the world through their own functions could actually save us. If we understand each other better, how to better nurture each other, would we still have such issues? I feel like many issues come down to merely not understanding each other.
I have the same hope! If we can all boil it down to the quintessential essence then anything built on top of that baserock can be universally applied :)
This video is probably the absolute best of this channel. Wisdom wise, essentiality wise. Very eye opening, especially the fortress and the departure from cognitive as schools start doing their thing more
I wish I could like this video more than once. It is so important for the community at large to recognize how you can’t be assigning rational agendas to irrational functions- this is a RAMPANT problem that seems to be getting worse. As an Se dom, I can’t tell you how often I read things about how “Se likes nice things” and how “Se needs sex” and etc etc etc. Grinds my gears! 😝
THIS IS THE VIDEO I NEEDED!!! 16:05 "because every cognitive function interacts with one another" This is what i was questioning while watching videos about the shadow funtions, because i didnt ubderstand why i had certain function (Se) as the most inferior (the demon function ot the 8th function) if i feel like i use it and i use it well (what i have unferstood (i may be wrong) is said that you only use your shadow functions in a toxic way and the 8th one only in moments of extreme stress). I dont know how to explain it, but i just simply cant understand how i can lack certain functions that other people have, if i am just as human as them and i am obligated to use it in some point of my experience with life. I get that i may be less prone to use them, but i do. All my doubts and questioning of the mbti classification came with this descovery of the "shadow functions" (which i still do not get). But this video really helped me, i dont feel dumb anymore kskdkñk, thank you. I wanna highlight that i really liked what you said that all cognitive functions interact with each other, you put my abstract thoughts into words to explain it in a way i would've never been able to. I still have a lot to clarify, and i will definetly be watching this video at least 4 times, to understand it welk, but I am developing a more critical thinking about all this thanks to you. So thank you very much!!
I appreciate this position on the functions and how they operate within your system. There are too many associations with the functions individually that lack a universal dictionary definition to them so as to minimize confusion on the matter within these systems of understanding. I have had conversations many times in the comment sections of various videos about how certain descriptions don't work. If sensing is being associated with memory and thereby all sensors have a stronger memory than all other types, then what does that imply of those who are not heavily influenced by this way of processing? That just was nonsense. There are people in and outside of typology associating intuition with a gut instinct and that's not correct either. Additionally, individuals are taking the 16 types and trivializing them based on behavior, like you've stated in several videos. So guess what happens when you "act out of character" for what they expect an INFJ (behavioral) to be like and you claim to be an INFJ based on cognition? People say you're mistyped and go on this crusade to get you to become highly agreeable and to bend to their way of seeing you while acting victimized all because they didn't like your comment or the fact that they are faced with an opposing perspective. I literally have told some people that your use of __ term is incorrect according to the dictionary; we are not even talking about the same thing in question in our use of even the terms encompassing the supposed understanding of the functions. Their response? They still choose to double down on their own interpretation. So I find myself fascinated, disinterested, confused, and repulsed by typology to varying degrees due to the inconsistencies.
very poignant as always, Harry ^_^ I would have liked to see a mic drop, though! XD Keep up the great work, my friend-- you really are one of the best Typists out there, and i have been learning so much from you! THANK YOU :D
This was certainly interesting to watch. It did clear up a lot of my issues that I was coming across. The idea with lens function completely shattered my original understanding of it and I see your point of view and to be honest it does make sense can't refute that ahaha I must say you are swaying me in your direction. you do appear to be someone whose knows what he's doing for sure. I admire your ability to convincingly and cohesively sprout all this information effortlessly😂. That is one of my weaknesses for sure. Typing it is one thing but in person does prove to be more difficult I like your way of thinking with the looseness of the system and the fact it's not as rigid as some other systems. All in all this was a thoroughly enjoyable video
Finally someone who uses their brains properly. This one of the channels that uses their brains as it should like AsuraPsych. One of the stupidest descriptions I ever read is Ni being a function that deals with universal truths. It's just a perceiving function and has nothing to do with assessment, judging what is universal or what is true because those are the faculties of a rational function. Also Si being described as compare/contrast to past experience. Si is simply a perceiving function Comparison/contrasting is a faculty of a rational function that breaks the information apart and does not apply to sensation itself. Sensation and intuition operates under the faculty of being irrational, absorbing information as a whole and not fragmenting it. Idk why other people use their head backwards and skip the basics that Jung already proposed. Perhaps hopping into the bandwagon of pop psychology is much easier than actually reading proper sources lol.
Two great interests of mine are typology and horses, but on UA-cam I am far more involved in typology because people get along with each other better in that field, lol! Great video as always - I do find it disorienting (at best) that so many different systems have their own priority of interpretation without seeming to want to acknowledge any other system, but I also love how multi-dimentional and inter-connected the cognitive functions can be. Fascinating stuff!
Hah, interesting! It certainly isn't always the case but do agree there is a lot of good will in this community. That's a good attitude towards the chaos! At the very least it is interesting to see how many different interpretations and subsequent applications a single term can yield!
Thanks for making this video, man. I want to truly know what Jung created this to be, so I will do more research (perhaps read his book). I'll watch your video explaining the functions with these objective, absolute meanings.
My interpretation is that perception functions do assign value in a primitive irrational manner. Such as your attention being drawn to motion. Its a flag system that has no deterministic consideration. I like the Cognitive typology theory and definitions for perception functions ie Se perceives what is real in the environment to construct a potential worldview (ni) Ne Perceives what could be in the abstract to construct a real worldview (si) From what I can determine The assignment of values For Pe is “intrest/disinterest” while Pi assigns (order/disorder) along the lines of dealing with the unknown (Pe functions) and known (Pi functions) A very simple linear example Object in environment (real or abstract) gets flagged as source of interest by Pe>Can trigger primitive emotional responses> Fed in to J functions to determine usefulness and response> Modification of emotional response with positive or negative feedback>Action + data gets fed back to Pi to be incorporated into the worldview. (Good for Si or part of Ni) I’m definitely in favour of 8 function usage model so I think I need to study up on your theories more.
Interesting points! Jung's perspective was closer to what you are stating here, for sure - within CPT lenses do not even have a primitive agenda, but it could very much be argued the distinguishment between concrete and abstract is a manner of value assignment. This assignment would certainly not be to the extent of distinguishing, say, pleasure from pain, however. Your explanation definitely works within an 8 function paradigm!
Very interesting. I'll have to watch this a few times. Currently awaiting a Kindle Fire so I can read your book on CPT (I bought it and then found out it won't work on my Paperwhite). Law is my thing, so my picture of what you are saying goes like this: The lens function is the "eyes and ears," and the codec is the "brain." Thus...With no sensory input, there is no data to which to assign any kind of value. It's very simplified, but its a useful mnemonic for me.
Brilliant! Thank you! I had always understood it as, ENTP for eg, perceives irrationally Ne, judges that data Ti, and comprehends how it affects people Fe, and concludes in rules/principles Si. I assume the above is true is some part? I'm now seeing NeFe working together to essentially to understand people and systems of conceptually and then Ti and Si building an internal system of known conclusions like an INTP. Absurdly simplistic and limited. But is that the gist? Book bought, looking forward to it.
In part, for sure! Ne-Fe pre-rationalises limbic data alongside a sub-perception of Ne-Te, and all information is refined within Si-Ti before being employed through the dominant :) I hope you enjoy the book!
Hey interesting video. It's funny to notice that all of what you are saying is reflective of your own cognitive disposition of Ni dom. You want to turn away from the more symptomatic but more concrete behavorial aspects (Si/Se) to be more singular in the aspect that you've perceived as the more conductive (maybe with Fe ?) here the more science reductible cognitive interpretation. Remove and ignore other Ne angles like metaphorical approaches and other. As an INTP I love every and all those aspects you have described, but I can see that it's also my unique cognition that allows me to correctly interpret and arrange those different aspects for what they are. So I guess yours is a call for pragmatism or critical need for reduction as a way to benefit more people by making everything more concice and to the point ? I have two critiques I hope constructive to make. One is I am really not sure we are done ideating and understanding every thing as well as benefiting from concrete anecdotal data, especially when it comes to intertype dynamics. Second is and it has to do with agreeing with the godfather Carl Jung and his position on science(tism) as an wholly insufficient vehicule for humanity moving forward. I don't mean to be antagonistic in any way I find your pursuit to be very noble in any case. I would love further explanations! And best of luck.
Thank you! My intention is to refine the function definitions so that they are no longer open to interpretation - your Ne may very well be suited to understanding current forms of understanding, but this understanding will be your own and not necessarily the same as another INFP :) I wouldn't necessarily say concision is the end goal, but I do believe it is necessary for establishing the fundemental components a more complex system is going to work with. Very interesting critiques! I would certainly not place all my faith on science (which only exists in its current form thanks to theoretical abstractions in the first place), but I do consider it important to keep up with it :) I appreciate the insightful comment!
@@CognitivePersonality Ah a most exciting and valuable enterprise. I am currently doing the same with two collegue friends (ESTP, ISTJ and INTP, uncommon union where they constantly poop on both my Ne and my Ni). I'll be sure to scrutinize your every move for comparative value. A calculated move on my part, you being my beneficiary and having the psychological ascendency in understanding why things are not conductive to bringing the people together. My Ne definitly helps me to understand and harmonize disparate points and extract their interconnectedness value. Its amusing you mention INFPs but I have to take offense on their behalf as I think those guys are way crazier and creative than both you and me. Their goal being to never define anything too much
When I red Jung's Psychological Types, with all that philosophical approach in the book till the very end; when he takes on a more explicit focus, I ended up more confused about almost everything :s. I enjoyed his deepen into the more abstract core, but I dare to say that he repeats himself a lot: I think that this is part of the interpretation problematic of the cognitive functions; he himself is swimming among reflections almost the entire book.
@@CognitivePersonality Yeah! I believe though that is fascinating the treatmemt he does to symbols and their play in society and individual development; through literature archetypes selection and great minds refine study. Also to mention that I found quite interesting things like for example the development of the cognitive functions during human history, and how, for example, in the early human tribes, he states that an introverted sensor/intuitive dominant could see the future through actual vivid images! Hehe
Thank you for your opinion, I wish i had seen it before learning CF I learned about them and got more confused. Then I realized don't use the stack order, and debates are intense only to adapt the reality to the model instead model to reality Also, if you go to statistics based on MBTI is clear that dichotomies works sometimes. But CF never does In addition, I think MBTI needs a fix to reflect the neutral preference or fluid preference
If I followed your reasoning near the end there accurately, then I think the driving point here (and I am putting this in my own words, not your polite and accommodating way of putting it :P) is that the "function stack" as people call it, is a bunch of BS because to navigate the word in any realistic capacity; to even exist and be a self-aware being as we are, you need to have both external irrational and rational function working in tandem, and internal irrational and rational function working in tandem, not as a ranked system of individual processes. And so to me, that leads to: if there is any reasonable attempt to talk about the cognitive functions as processes, they need to be understood as they appear in a working relationship, both external pairing and internal pairing, with cognitive attention moving back and forth between them toward some direction. So, for example, instead of trying to say "here is what Se dominant looks like," saying "here is what the Se-Te pairing and the Ni-Fi pairing look like when working in tandem." In this sense, individual names of functions is almost a red herring and what's important is the relationships themselves. Like trying to describe how a phone's running computer works without ever referencing how the battery (electrical power) factors into it; the battery has an inextricable relationship with the running computer function and how it's designed, so it would be silly to try to talk about it as if the battery is not part of it. But people (including myself many times in the past) try to do that type of thing all the time with the so-called cognitive functions. We can't really not bring into play the relationship as a whole, but we still try to isolate, so in the end, it comes out as a garbled description of the relationship under the guise of an isolated "cognitive function." And so it's no wonder we are confused; we are talking about different "cognitive function" relationships as they manifest in tandem, but trying to stuff them under the same isolated single function umbrella. Oof.
Very well put! I like your phone analogy I am increasingly moving towards referring to pairings themselves as functions, and Ni, for example, as one constituent part of a function. Eventually this may move on to referring to function networks (NiTi, SeFe for example) also. Understanding things from a network science perspective is invaluable when we get into such complex systems as humankind
@@CognitivePersonality Hey, thanks. :) Good to hear from you. That's awesome you're looking at referring to these things in a more relationship way. I greatly appreciate your insights and look forward to seeing what you come up with in the future. This insight alone I feel has done leaps and bounds for cutting through issues I've had with cognitive functions in my time in the MBTI space and I've already started trying to apply it to some stuff and see where it clarifies with some subtle indications so far I can't quite put into words yet that it's making a lot more sense than the purely isolated way of talking about these processes. I think there is something really promising here, in other words, and I have your video to thank for that. Take care and good luck with further developments in personality theory!
Thanks for this man. I'm feelin it, and makes me think in a good way 🤙🏼 I actually agree with everything you said, or at least processing the stuff I didn't understand yet. I want to be able to agree and keep MBTI around. It's super helpful. I'm curious your thoughts on if people can grow and shape their MBTI over time? I am wondering if growing up in a situation where I needed to care for my parent made me act as an ENTP, and then learning about MBTI helped me identify some internal cognitive dissonance, where I was acting against my natural preferences? Perhaps from my self awareness... perhaps I was able to nurture myself and move towards behaving more like an ESFP? Not sure honestly what type I feel the most myself. Yet...I seem to be able to catch myself in the moment now, and sort of able to adapt to difficult work meetings and various social situations too. Honestly, just missing some sleep or food, smoking lots of weed...might affect how I behave too 😅 I also sense that my written text here itself is open to interpretation. Super interesting stuff man, hope my comments are helpful, and let me know if theres a better way to get in touch, if you wanna discuss anything :)
Thank you - yes, the system can absolutely be useful when employed wisely! Different life experiences can cause us to identify more with some 'function expressions' than we otherwise would - the cognitive stack wouldn't change per se, but certain axis might be more fluid as a result of the different ego distribution :)
great videos, and I love the research you bring to your videos. I don't wanna seem like I'm nitpicking, but sometimes there's these pauses in your speech that I find kind of jarring and confusing. I'm not sure whether they're meant to be cues for post recording editing, or if they're intended as rhetorical pauses, but to me they don't seem natural to listen to and I find them distracting. sorry to nitpick
alright, I've just finished this video. there's a lot of dense terms that come at me pretty fast, but after a bunch of rewinding I think I understand the gist of it. I appreciate the demonstration that any particular approach has it's intrinsic flaws, but I'm unsure if you're saying that this cognitive approach you're explaining, where 2 pairs of lens&codecs must work together to create experience, if you're saying that this has no intrinsic use to be employed as a model just like the other psych models. I have to presume that there is some use, but I've either missed something or that was left implied. in any case, I think it would benefit us to have more explicit examples showcasing why one might use this model over another. at times, it seems like you're arguing that this cognitive approach is simply the more accurate model, which I'm willing to go along with, but if you're saying that 'this model is true therefore merely understanding it will yield results' then I can't accept that without an examination of this model's application and comparing the quality of insights gained compared to those of any other model. or put simply, why ( and how) should I use this model over another, as I am admitting I'm interested in it
Exactly. If these were not called cognitive function but e.g. value orientations, I'd be somewhat ok with MBTI although with some objections. Since they are called cognitive function, I have to dismiss the system all togheter. Until MBTI fans are able to stop building on this most basic flaw, there's nothing to talk about.
I'm still a bit confused on what you mean. If you take a more fluid approach rather than a systematic one, it would seem that each cognitive function would have less meaning and they all kind of morph together. At that point, it'd would all kind of morph into one and you'd just be talking about how to brain works rather than cognitive functions. I'm probably just misinterpreting what your saying. I'll definitely have to read your book one day to understand, haha.
The purpose of CPT is to use cognitive functions in order to do exactly that - that is to say, employing cognitive functions as continuums rather than set points within it. For example , Extraverted Thinking is on a spectrum with both Introverted Thinking and Extraverted Feeling, and as such is fluidly changing all the time - Te is less a binary value, and more the degree to which a person is oriented towards their external objective world more than internal objective and external subjective :) I believe cognitive functions are still valid within a fluid model, but more as undulating positions on a cognitive spectrum than set values in their own right. The book is a nice balance between fluid and static and I really think you'll enjoy it!
Cool video. You are awesome. I've been trying to understand people in my life using typology for the past several months. Your videos have always been so insightful. Thanks. I am curious about one thing.. How does one measure/observe or identify the lenses and codecs in themselves and others? If these are even possible to see? It seems that mbti or typology has a notion of potential to be learnable by anyone and applied by anyone.. maybe thats why there are so many uncertainties and misunderstandings too. What is the motive of CPT ... do you think it has the potential to be available to be understood and applied universally aswell? From this video emerges a really fundamental and simplified skeleton model, void of anecdotal fluff, which is great. Like you flattened the playing field to start fresh. But now when wanting to apply the theory, as opposed to physical science, to me, people's inner worlds seems super unobservable...
Thank you for this comment! There isn't a huge overlap between cognitive functions and behaviour, so while cues can be used they are not entirely reliable. In my type service, as a pertinent example, the emphasis as much on the way a person answers a question as the answer itself - these two things combined allow for an insight into the actual inner workings of an individual. Ideally, true understanding of a person's mind takes prolonged exposure and interaction, so I do not believe any instrument absent such time investment will ever be an infallible determinant of type. This all being said, a combination of cues, Q&A and observation of mental process can produce good results :)
So how do the pairs of both lens/codecs sets interact? How does the pair of extroverted lens/codec interact with the pair of introverted lens/codec? Wouldn’t the extraverted pair have to exert some influence on the introverted pair? For example, take an ENTP. They have an extraverted intuition lens, and I guess use extraverted feeling to navigate their external reality? So, does what they experience somehow get coded by Si (as opposed to Ni) and then they use their Ti to parse through such data and assign values? So, the frameworks they come up with would certainly have an extraverted intuition and extraverted feeling bent to it, but the extraverted intuition/feeling was not directly interacting with their Ti? It would only be present as a sort of watermark? Another example is INFP, they have an extroverted intuition lens (broad/plethorc), and see things in the outer world in a mechanical way due to using extraverted thinking to assign values. Then, similarly to the ENTP, this information gets coded by Si (I shouldn’t say “coded” probably, but I mean that the user will look back on such stored information with an Si lens), and then they use their Fi to form some sort of attachment or detachment with those external, broad, mechanical frameworks/things?
In short, the default flow of cognition is thus: Extraverted lens-codec intake - Introverted lens-codec reflection - Extraverted lens-codec expungement. There are two modes of cognition here that operate interchangeably - one uses the default stack (e.g. ENTP - Ne-Fe - Si-Tie - Ne-Fe) and the other is predicated upon a supression of the oppositional (e.g. ENTP - Ne-Fe Ni-Ti Ne-Te) - in this latter instance, the oppositional is still doing a comparable amount of work to one which is not supressed, but consciousness largely bypasses it. The degree to which an extraverted pair influences an introverted pair has more to do with attitudes - divergent functions (say Se-Fe in this instance within an INFJ) essentially set the regulations of the convergent functions, which otherwise operate according to their own whims. So, yes, extraverted functions absolutely have their own agenda. The ENTP's experience largely intakes Ne-Fe and a portion of Ne-Te, and is codified by Si upon Ti frameworks. Fi in this type is often unconsciously employed through Ni, but can be more consciously activated through Si-Fi - often this activation uses Ti to 'dip' into Fi. And, yes, Ni-Fi within the ENTP forms a strong attachment to the mechanical. The INFP intakes information primarily through Te-Ne, but it is important to mention the secondary intake of Fe-Se :)
How can lens functions not assign values or make associations? You compared Ni to peripheral vision, yet how can peripheral vision be of any use whatsoever if it doesn't differentiate between objects, based on some useful criteria? edit: n/m, you're saying that no function operates independently
I was interested in buying your e-book, but I got a bit confused. When the description said e-book I expected it to be something you buy online and get to download and listen to on your electronic device or something. Not something you physically order. How does it work?
The eBook is a book to be read digitally - just as with the comment you are reading here :) There is no physical copy (yet!) and the purchase takes you to a download link to multiple formats - all of these formats are text-based and, in the case of EPUB and Kindle, readable on various other devices. There's no audio version :)
I agree with your critique of the cognitive functions; they’ve essentially become a Tower of Babel. However, you lost me at the explanation of CPT. How is your theory any more grounded than these other theories?
I agree that much of what you are saying is an accurate lay of the land. But there's one nit I want to pick here. And it is that I think your association of the concept of association with codec functions is conflationary. I very much disagree that association is judgment-oriented as a matter of essence. Associations are simply observable phenomena, links between nodes. Association is lens. Just your friendly neighborhood INFP here to criticize that Ni of yours for treating my Ne like a nemesis.
Hehe, I appreciate it! :) I would argue that association is predicated upon value assignment - if there is no value assigned to data, one component can not be in any way related to or distinguished from another. As such, the act of perception coincides with the act of rationalisation.
@@CognitivePersonality I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what it means to "associate" and what it means to "assign values". But yes, functions do work simultaneously.
@@CognitivePersonality The thing is, solving this problem in typological schools is something of a Holy Grail, a carrot tied to the end of a stick fastened to your neck, a Tower of Babel project, Mario will never scale the endless stairs, shepard's tones.
@@FlagrantVagrant I feel we need to define what a value is in its purest form - to differentiate between colours; to distinguish pleasure from pain; to predict the trajectory of a moving object. These are all calculations requiring even at the most fundamental level the assignment of value. A codec cannot associate any more than a lens can - association is the active relationship between perception and thought.
Your definition isn't any more scientific because it's seems like just as unfalsifiable. It consists of proclamations, but it doesn't attempt to prove in any way that these axes and connections exist or have any relation to reality. Being scientific means just one person should be able to completely destroy your system if they don't adhere to it. What would such impossible person be? What are traits and behaviors that can't exist? How would you know that your definition of Fe or Ti is incorrect based on some particular person who uses those functions? People use examples of cognitive functions to convey actual meaning, to make the other person understand. I think t's more honest because this way lets go of outward fake semblance of a scientific method, and just presents things as they truly are. Just because you're not doing the same doesn't mean that people wil actually understand your system better, rather you're imposing a system that they can shoehorn themselves into without actually describing who THEY really are. Without a vast amount of down to earth precise real world examples of who they are and aren't it's simply much easier for them to imagine whatever they want on top of your system, and removes all ability to check your system with reality.
The system is more scientific for the very reason you mention - it allows for cognitive fluidity to occur without the system subsequently collapsing as a result. This is my point in the video. Taking the functions out of boxes allows them to have the uses you are here and now prescribing them. You talk about using examples of functions to convey meaning - what if every person assigns to these functions a conflicting meaning? There must be some level of agreement as to what these functions mean, and the more fluid a system the less such semantic entanglement will occur. CPT is designed to free people from the shoehorning the use of cognitive functions results in. But, based upon your comments, I would assume you do not ascribe to the entirely less fluid systems such as MBTI too?
Out of curiosity though, I'd be interested to hear what caused this particularly critical assessment of the arguments I make within this video? Perhaps my manner could have been less prescriptive?
For me, the fluid approach offered by Cognitive Personality Theory actually makes a bit more sense than the rigid systems that just put people into boxes based on conventionally "objective" methods. Sometimes someone can even be typed in a seemingly contradictory way by two different rigid systems, as if each captures some element of the person but doesn't tell the whole story somehow. It's like a mirror symbolically shattered and it's up to a more fluid system to put the pieces together and actually get the overall picture of the person. Of course, there could be definitional differences too, but I feel like there's more than that.
@@AmyMarie1992 the thing about MBTI, CPT or any other such system is that they aren't based on real research, observations, science or facts - they are made up, none of them are supposed to be taken literally, so rigidity of dogmas doesn't matter much - all of them are just someone's opinion, one of many mindsets. But MBTI has an undisputable strength in categorizing similar people and connecting them with each other due to its popularity - and every single MBTI clone completely loses it by making themselves incompatible with MBTI, replacing communities of real complex people and their actual human traits with more fantasy ideas and made up generalizations. Replacing one made up theory with another similarly made up theory doesn't really address the core issues at the heart of MBTI, but it does muddle the landscape by reusing MBTI terms and redefining them to piggyback on MBTI's popularity instead of going the honest road of creating new ones where they don't completely align.
@@CognitivePersonality I've been reading quite a few MBTI communities and the rigid assignment of functions to types is more of a meme than something majority of people actually do :) the system doesn't collapse because people generally understand that any typology is absurd, that everyone uses all functions, and this understanding promotes independent freeform thinking and valuing real people and real interactions with people over anyone's ideas, and using these systems merely as limited tools, not as an overarching framework of thought. To make it scientific one has to actually base their system on peer reviewed research or at least on real data. It doesn't become more scientific if functions are defined abstractly without any proof, it merely becomes more unprovable and completely orthogonal to science in its fundamental approach. There is nothing to test here and nothing that can be checked or reviewed at all - functions are defined as they are defined, and there can be infinite number of other similarly unprovable systems of similar validity defining the same (or any amount of new) functions in their own way.
I really want to listen to you, but ... ... your cadence is really throwing me off. The long pauses in the middle of a sentence in combination with that soul-stabbing stare are really unsettling for me.
Well done, Harry. You've expressed what many have experienced: the further you go into Jungian typology, the more one can be confused about one's own type or that of others. Perhaps the best simplification of the cognitive personality system I've seen online.
Thanks Paul :)
Absolutely! Your expression is mine as well. It’s all in the wording.
@@CognitivePersonalityis it possible to type young or teenagers mbti type I'm 16 can I type myself let me know if yes then can u plz tell me how to spot ur 4 dominant functions becoz I'm not able to type myself!
Highly satisfying to see pertinent critique of the development and apparent application of MBTI as a system, based on online content. Why on earth are there not more experts (using the term loosely here) communicating to their audience about the grave risks to MBTI as a system posed by issues such as cognition vs behavior fallacies, simplified stereotypes, and other ‘popular’ biases and misinterpretations?
Classic lines Harry says: "You can not I say you absolutely can not" 😂 it's funnier everytime I hear it.
Haha :D Was definitely going theatrical for this one!
@@CognitivePersonality all good Harry embrace all 4 of your functions freely my friend. You mean well 😂
I watched this video to ground myself. 30 minutes ago I wanted to scream at the internet for the very reason you mentioned in this video. In fact, it was almost creepy that you addressed my exact thoughts in a time when I probably needed it most. Your lack of bull compared to mbti sources and your objective and analytical approach to cognition is refreshing. Thank you. I thoroughly look forward to your upcoming videos.
And I thoroughly appreciate your comment!
Haha, glad to know I'm not alone in these frustrations; cheers, I hope you enjoy the upcoming videos :)
Cognitive Personality Theory I look forward to them. My thirst for understanding may have begun to be quenched. So long overdue. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
When you mentioned about the blending of cognitive functions and of behavior in MBTI, I can't help but think of how Personality Database defines Introverted Feeling by it's behavior rather than it's actual cognitive properties.
I always had a feeling that each function never worked without the other. I believe there are certain behaviors that indicate type, but they stem from overarching cognition. No one man is the same as another, it dosen't matter how much merit a stereotype gets. It all depends on the ordering and development of each function that determines the *cognition,* not necessarily behaviors.
*looking at you, socionics*
Perfectly put!
Wise man: "Life goes by in a blink of an eye"
This guy: "I'm immortal"
I find CPTs definition makes things easier. it has a certain elegance, but it also lets space for interpretations.
I really wish one could unify all interpretations of the cognitive functions into one theory that gets accepted by everyone. Because it's very difficult to get a sense out of all the differences.
I totally understand why you made your own system.
And maybe it gets known as the one that united them all.
Agreed, it can be difficult to entirely remove all vagueries, especially alongside an implication of fluidity!
A major reason for the creation of CPT was to remove superfluous metaphor and streamline definitions - I do believe in both the system and its potential to bring typology back into the scientific limelight, but I also know such things take time and it is very much a journey!
I just love how well researched your content is and straight to the point. You are the only one I watch without having to speed up the video to skip through their stories of how their mother in law forgot to feed her cat.
Haha, thank you so much!!
Wow, you are really good at breaking down the functions and explaining the different ways they are assessed. I appreciate you wanting to make typing and how the brain works a little less woo woo.
Thank you - introducing a more scientific approach to Jungian typology is one of the central aims of the channel so I appreciate you saying this!
"Everyone and thier mother thinking they are holier than thou" is *one* of several reasons I have chosen to distance myself more from the typology community lately.
To me, there are more important things to concentrate on, and sadly, many of these people will not be there to have your back when the rubber means the road anyway. Many would rather stay in this world of arguing and bickering over what a certain function means when we have so many other more important social causes we should be concentrating on. I find this urguing over and chasing after every theory under the sun annoying.
I am a huge believer in self-growth and development, but as you stated, if hardly anyone can agree upon how the functions should even be defined, at the end of the day, it kind of just shoots its own self in the foot anyway.
There are deep people and there are more surface level people. There are introspective people that enjoy thier own company more, and there are those that don't reflect or look back much and always want to be socially stimulated and process things very quickly. Some people are mechanical or "handy" and some are more artistic. Some feel down to the depths of their souls, and others cannot seem to understand that. We are all effected by our own intersectionality when it meets with our own personal inner working of our own minds, and to me, it is our responsibility to figure our own deals out in a way that allows us to grow as people. All this bickering over functions, systems and types though -- for me anyway, is just getting old.
People need to work on thier own deal before they can really go help anyone else. To me, there is a lot of blind worship out there in this community because so many feel lost and are just looking to be "filled up" in some way. I end up becoming very concerned about this to the point I had to step away and just not be so close to it.
As a line in the Neverending story stated, "people who have lost thier hopes are easy to control, and whomever has the control has the power". We have to be careful who we go searching for hope in, because much of the time it is not true hope, and hope deferred makes the heart sick.
I agree with so much of this. All of this, in fact. I particularly like your correlation between desperation and fervour/blind faith - this is a very real hole that people employing frameworks in a journey of self understanding can fall into.
The typological community certainly has many dark corners, and the daylight of pop psychology is in some ways even more toxic. I do appreciate the many balanced and objective individuals I get to interact with on this channel and it is my hope CPT can become a place for people to discuss typology openly without fear of judgement.
@@CognitivePersonality Thank you for making me feel as though I can express these views without thinking it will retroactively come back to bite me.
Hey Harry, is it ok if I design some artwork around that term "emotional scientist" you used a while back? My U term is over and I need a project, but didn't want to use it without asking.
Two things:
1) People can do more than one thing at a time. They can work on multiple social causes *and* on personality theory, as well as any number of other things. If you’ve lost interest in type theory and want to do something else, great, but it’s not a sufficient reason for everyone to abandon it.
2) Disagreement over terms, definition, and meaning, argued among interested parties over time, are how consensus is reached. Type theory (for that matter, psychology itself) is still in its infancy relative to other disciplines. People are going to contend for their position. It’s how we learn and develop the foundation for further study. If that’s not your bag, then fine, but it’s no reason to poo-poo the whole endeavor.
@@teebahn Not poo-pooing the whole endeavor, simply taking a step back for a while. That was my point-- people need to eventually stand for something, instead of chasing after one theory after another. I still enjoy typology, but largely am taking a step back from a lot of it for a while. I agree with you, people should be interested in social causes *and* type theory simultaneously. Sadly, many don't want to voice thier social or political concerns on their channel out of fear of even more bickering. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand this, it's just an unfortunate situation, and as Harry eluded to, one that can be toxic. As with everything, boundaries are key though.
@@melbeth79 My pleasure, I appreciate you sharing!
Re: the design - yes! I was hoping you would, in fact!
I can’t get myself to put faith in the cognitive functions. The stacks are too rigid, too black and white. I see them as elements of the personality, but the manifestation of the elements is too chaotic to fit in a system like the MBTI. It is a neat model of archetypes, similar to the Zodiac, but described with modern concepts instead of ancient symbology. The models helps one to understand reality through abstraction, something that is evolutionary engrained in our thought processes. I stick with the ancient archetypes personally, I keep it simple. Also I find it useful to use religious symbology to recognize dominant sub personalities within others. The MBTI is not scientific in my estimation, while the Big five is more practical for the scientific folk.
I respect your approach!
@@CognitivePersonality thank you. I respect your work, it is very useful and aplicable. Your videos helped me confirm my personal type (INTJ). It was good to find more clarity on this subject through your videos. Cheers.
If this is the person who hands me information, I will gladly study CFT like Evolutionary Psychology unlike the jibber jabber of some who just based on observation on friends then making a conclusion.
Thank you :)
After having studied a bit the history of Jung's typology and MBTI, I see that most of the issues with the different systems come from the misunderstanding of how Jung defined the attitude of adaptation. He didn't see it as changing from perception to judgment because it was a trait of the psyche that was sorta standalone like any function. An auxiliary in a different attitude is fundamentally conflicting to the dominant, it can't support it. If you are object-oriented (E) like an ENP is, then your judging function directly responds to that data in the same attitude. A change in attitude of the auxiliary can certainly happen but it's more like a last resort thing, when one's defensiveness is triggered. But usually for an ENP this shouldn't last long and brain wants to go back to consider all data and change one's emotions or systems, or both if necessary. Overall, I find the prescriptiveness of the alternating function stack to be unrealistic.
Absolutely. I've never understood this idea of an auxiliary being of the opposing attitude - as useful as the function might be, how can something with a clearly antagonistic role be labelled 'auxiliary'? It is as you say - perception and judgement occur simultaneously within the same attitude!
its what bugging me up until i found CPT, what is the relationtship between dominant and auxillary, why they should be in different direction? the "dominant rational then aux irrational, vice versa" thing is i could understand, but why they must be in opposite direction?
but then i got the answer from CPT, that it was actually "covergence vs divergence" things, the first convergent, commonly understood as "dominant", is the active use and what it does was "observing, abiding," to the more passive and static first divergent, commonly understood as "aux", it really make much better sense that way, thats how the "aux" help "the dominance" by giving it something to abide by, and when you see the description of each 16 types, its actually make it clear as day, NOW i could see better HOW and WHY ENTJ and INTJ operates differently even though they have similar functions in the first and second, just switched,
and with the second convergent commonly undestood as "tertiary", which in CPT treated as the "true" helper/aux, that has similar attitude/direction with the dominant, its really make much better sense that it would help DIRECTLY and ACTIVELY, in a way that they "attach" to dominant function because they are in similar direction
then its clear as day how the second and third function helped the first/dominant
so i personally think that they both are considiered as "helper" or "aux" if people prefered it that way, just different in how they help the dominant
For people who honestly really wanted to understand the way they and others think and thereby work better together, its absolutely heart wrecking to see it used for everything and anything else. 😭
I think, if Carl Jung had known the impact his idea would have in the future, he might have fleshed his theory out more and dedicated more time an effort to its study. As it is, he more or less introduced the idea and brushed over it and now we are essentially taking bits and pieces of a theory and trying to bring it to a deeper understanding and trying to create an entire system as a branch of psychology and understanding of the human psyche from a different perspective. It’s a work in progress, but I think it may become a commonly accepted soft science and welcomed into the psychology field and maybe even introduced in the classrooms as part of the psychological study. It might, perhaps even end up being a career field itself within the next 50 years. We will have to wait and see
I don't speak much English, sorry if there's a mistake.
I think that may happen in the future, but as a psychology student very little is said about Carl Jung. It's always about Sigmund Freud 🤦🤦😪. I'm even sure they don't know about cognitive functions.
Some of the professors are more focused on things like Neuropsychology, psychophysiology, cognitive behavioral therapy.
Thank you for the truth. Someone was egging me on to explain my reasoning for why I think someone is a particular type but I was not engaging... why? Because there is no point. There is no consistency in typing and standardization of defined terms. Plus, I was aware we could be sharing arguments from different schools of thought. It was a waste of time.
Exactly this! My pleasure :)
Excellent breakdown of both a) the nature of the problem and b) stronger rudimentary leveragepoints that a person can use towards getting a more robust handle of what this Jungian framework is truly all about!
Exactly my intentions - thank you so much!
@@CognitivePersonality With pleasure! Really well done!
Hi harry, I enjoyed your book and appreciate the fluidity your system uses. It offers a more holistic and nuanced approach to each individual’s personality, acknowledging that there are as many personality types as there are people. This ring truer to me than the blunt instruments employed by behavioral typologists for quick and easy answers. I appreciate your hard work and look forward to future videos!
Thanks Max, I really appreciate your words here!
Exactly, perfectly put - personality types are entirely individualised in reality, and while there are trends no two people of the same type code will be the same as the other (both cognitively and otherwise). Cheers!
I come back to your videos and it always helps me better receive and apply what various other places are saying. Every time I feel confident in what type I am, I’m almost as quickly unsure of it. I see how others have similar but differing views on how this all works. I do hope someday that we as humans can agree on how it works, how it’s defined, because I do agree with some, that learning how others are viewing the world through their own functions could actually save us. If we understand each other better, how to better nurture each other, would we still have such issues? I feel like many issues come down to merely not understanding each other.
I have the same hope! If we can all boil it down to the quintessential essence then anything built on top of that baserock can be universally applied :)
This video is probably the absolute best of this channel. Wisdom wise, essentiality wise. Very eye opening, especially the fortress and the departure from cognitive as schools start doing their thing more
Thank you very much :)
I wish I could like this video more than once. It is so important for the community at large to recognize how you can’t be assigning rational agendas to irrational functions- this is a RAMPANT problem that seems to be getting worse. As an Se dom, I can’t tell you how often I read things about how “Se likes nice things” and how “Se needs sex” and etc etc etc. Grinds my gears! 😝
THIS IS THE VIDEO I NEEDED!!!
16:05 "because every cognitive function interacts with one another"
This is what i was questioning while watching videos about the shadow funtions, because i didnt ubderstand why i had certain function (Se) as the most inferior (the demon function ot the 8th function) if i feel like i use it and i use it well (what i have unferstood (i may be wrong) is said that you only use your shadow functions in a toxic way and the 8th one only in moments of extreme stress).
I dont know how to explain it, but i just simply cant understand how i can lack certain functions that other people have, if i am just as human as them and i am obligated to use it in some point of my experience with life. I get that i may be less prone to use them, but i do.
All my doubts and questioning of the mbti classification came with this descovery of the "shadow functions" (which i still do not get). But this video really helped me, i dont feel dumb anymore kskdkñk, thank you.
I wanna highlight that i really liked what you said that all cognitive functions interact with each other, you put my abstract thoughts into words to explain it in a way i would've never been able to.
I still have a lot to clarify, and i will definetly be watching this video at least 4 times, to understand it welk, but I am developing a more critical thinking about all this thanks to you.
So thank you very much!!
I appreciate this position on the functions and how they operate within your system. There are too many associations with the functions individually that lack a universal dictionary definition to them so as to minimize confusion on the matter within these systems of understanding. I have had conversations many times in the comment sections of various videos about how certain descriptions don't work. If sensing is being associated with memory and thereby all sensors have a stronger memory than all other types, then what does that imply of those who are not heavily influenced by this way of processing? That just was nonsense. There are people in and outside of typology associating intuition with a gut instinct and that's not correct either. Additionally, individuals are taking the 16 types and trivializing them based on behavior, like you've stated in several videos. So guess what happens when you "act out of character" for what they expect an INFJ (behavioral) to be like and you claim to be an INFJ based on cognition? People say you're mistyped and go on this crusade to get you to become highly agreeable and to bend to their way of seeing you while acting victimized all because they didn't like your comment or the fact that they are faced with an opposing perspective. I literally have told some people that your use of __ term is incorrect according to the dictionary; we are not even talking about the same thing in question in our use of even the terms encompassing the supposed understanding of the functions. Their response? They still choose to double down on their own interpretation. So I find myself fascinated, disinterested, confused, and repulsed by typology to varying degrees due to the inconsistencies.
I notice the same thing between the types of astrology-tropical vs. Vedic/Indian astrology.
Heh you visited pdb didnt you, place is a pit of chaos
Thank you Harry. Your scope , research, verbalizing concepts and creativity is absolutely fantastic. Greetings from the Netherlands
very poignant as always, Harry ^_^ I would have liked to see a mic drop, though! XD Keep up the great work, my friend-- you really are one of the best Typists out there, and i have been learning so much from you! THANK YOU :D
Ahaha, one day it will happen! Thank you my friend :)
This was certainly interesting to watch. It did clear up a lot of my issues that I was coming across. The idea with lens function completely shattered my original understanding of it and I see your point of view and to be honest it does make sense can't refute that ahaha
I must say you are swaying me in your direction. you do appear to be someone whose knows what he's doing for sure. I admire your ability to convincingly and cohesively sprout all this information effortlessly😂. That is one of my weaknesses for sure. Typing it is one thing but in person does prove to be more difficult
I like your way of thinking with the looseness of the system and the fact it's not as rigid as some other systems.
All in all this was a thoroughly enjoyable video
Ahh, this is great to hear! Thank you as per usual :)
Finally someone who uses their brains properly. This one of the channels that uses their brains as it should like AsuraPsych. One of the stupidest descriptions I ever read is Ni being a function that deals with universal truths. It's just a perceiving function and has nothing to do with assessment, judging what is universal or what is true because those are the faculties of a rational function. Also Si being described as compare/contrast to past experience. Si is simply a perceiving function
Comparison/contrasting is a faculty of a rational function that breaks the information apart and does not apply to sensation itself. Sensation and intuition operates under the faculty of being irrational, absorbing information as a whole and not fragmenting it. Idk why other people use their head backwards and skip the basics that Jung already proposed. Perhaps hopping into the bandwagon of pop psychology is much easier than actually reading proper sources lol.
Two great interests of mine are typology and horses, but on UA-cam I am far more involved in typology because people get along with each other better in that field, lol! Great video as always - I do find it disorienting (at best) that so many different systems have their own priority of interpretation without seeming to want to acknowledge any other system, but I also love how multi-dimentional and inter-connected the cognitive functions can be. Fascinating stuff!
Hah, interesting! It certainly isn't always the case but do agree there is a lot of good will in this community.
That's a good attitude towards the chaos! At the very least it is interesting to see how many different interpretations and subsequent applications a single term can yield!
@@CognitivePersonality Absolutely!
Thanks for making this video, man. I want to truly know what Jung created this to be, so I will do more research (perhaps read his book). I'll watch your video explaining the functions with these objective, absolute meanings.
My interpretation is that perception functions do assign value in a primitive irrational manner. Such as your attention being drawn to motion. Its a flag system that has no deterministic consideration. I like the Cognitive typology theory and definitions for perception functions ie Se perceives what is real in the environment to construct a potential worldview (ni)
Ne Perceives what could be in the abstract to construct a real worldview (si)
From what I can determine The assignment of values For Pe is “intrest/disinterest” while Pi assigns (order/disorder) along the lines of dealing with the unknown (Pe functions) and known (Pi functions)
A very simple linear example
Object in environment (real or abstract) gets flagged as source of interest by Pe>Can trigger primitive emotional responses> Fed in to J functions to determine usefulness and response> Modification of emotional response with positive or negative feedback>Action + data gets fed back to Pi to be incorporated into the worldview. (Good for Si or part of Ni)
I’m definitely in favour of 8 function usage model so I think I need to study up on your theories more.
Interesting points! Jung's perspective was closer to what you are stating here, for sure - within CPT lenses do not even have a primitive agenda, but it could very much be argued the distinguishment between concrete and abstract is a manner of value assignment. This assignment would certainly not be to the extent of distinguishing, say, pleasure from pain, however.
Your explanation definitely works within an 8 function paradigm!
Very interesting. I'll have to watch this a few times. Currently awaiting a Kindle Fire so I can read your book on CPT (I bought it and then found out it won't work on my Paperwhite).
Law is my thing, so my picture of what you are saying goes like this: The lens function is the "eyes and ears," and the codec is the "brain." Thus...With no sensory input, there is no data to which to assign any kind of value. It's very simplified, but its a useful mnemonic for me.
Brilliant! Thank you!
I had always understood it as, ENTP for eg, perceives irrationally Ne, judges that data Ti, and comprehends how it affects people Fe, and concludes in rules/principles Si.
I assume the above is true is some part? I'm now seeing NeFe working together to essentially to understand people and systems of conceptually and then Ti and Si building an internal system of known conclusions like an INTP. Absurdly simplistic and limited. But is that the gist?
Book bought, looking forward to it.
In part, for sure! Ne-Fe pre-rationalises limbic data alongside a sub-perception of Ne-Te, and all information is refined within Si-Ti before being employed through the dominant :)
I hope you enjoy the book!
Hey interesting video. It's funny to notice that all of what you are saying is reflective of your own cognitive disposition of Ni dom. You want to turn away from the more symptomatic but more concrete behavorial aspects (Si/Se) to be more singular in the aspect that you've perceived as the more conductive (maybe with Fe ?) here the more science reductible cognitive interpretation. Remove and ignore other Ne angles like metaphorical approaches and other.
As an INTP I love every and all those aspects you have described, but I can see that it's also my unique cognition that allows me to correctly interpret and arrange those different aspects for what they are.
So I guess yours is a call for pragmatism or critical need for reduction as a way to benefit more people by making everything more concice and to the point ?
I have two critiques I hope constructive to make. One is I am really not sure we are done ideating and understanding every thing as well as benefiting from concrete anecdotal data, especially when it comes to intertype dynamics. Second is and it has to do with agreeing with the godfather Carl Jung and his position on science(tism) as an wholly insufficient vehicule for humanity moving forward. I don't mean to be antagonistic in any way I find your pursuit to be very noble in any case. I would love further explanations! And best of luck.
Thank you! My intention is to refine the function definitions so that they are no longer open to interpretation - your Ne may very well be suited to understanding current forms of understanding, but this understanding will be your own and not necessarily the same as another INFP :)
I wouldn't necessarily say concision is the end goal, but I do believe it is necessary for establishing the fundemental components a more complex system is going to work with.
Very interesting critiques! I would certainly not place all my faith on science (which only exists in its current form thanks to theoretical abstractions in the first place), but I do consider it important to keep up with it :)
I appreciate the insightful comment!
@@CognitivePersonality Ah a most exciting and valuable enterprise. I am currently doing the same with two collegue friends (ESTP, ISTJ and INTP, uncommon union where they constantly poop on both my Ne and my Ni).
I'll be sure to scrutinize your every move for comparative value. A calculated move on my part, you being my beneficiary and having the psychological ascendency in understanding why things are not conductive to bringing the people together.
My Ne definitly helps me to understand and harmonize disparate points and extract their interconnectedness value. Its amusing you mention INFPs but I have to take offense on their behalf as I think those guys are way crazier and creative than both you and me. Their goal being to never define anything too much
This has definitely been illuminating. Thank you!
This is great! Much less woo woo then the other methods.
Thank you!!
Very well said. Thank you for this enlightening video!
This is absolutely brilliant!!! I love this!
When I red Jung's Psychological Types, with all that philosophical approach in the book till the very end; when he takes on a more explicit focus, I ended up more confused about almost everything :s. I enjoyed his deepen into the more abstract core, but I dare to say that he repeats himself a lot: I think that this is part of the interpretation problematic of the cognitive functions; he himself is swimming among reflections almost the entire book.
Hah, yes Jung did tend to meander a lot!
@@CognitivePersonality Yeah! I believe though that is fascinating the treatmemt he does to symbols and their play in society and individual development; through literature archetypes selection and great minds refine study. Also to mention that I found quite interesting things like for example the development of the cognitive functions during human history, and how, for example, in the early human tribes, he states that an introverted sensor/intuitive dominant could see the future through actual vivid images! Hehe
❤️ Genius.
Thank you for your opinion, I wish i had seen it before learning CF
I learned about them and got more confused. Then I realized don't use the stack order, and debates are intense only to adapt the reality to the model instead model to reality
Also, if you go to statistics based on MBTI is clear that dichotomies works sometimes. But CF never does
In addition, I think MBTI needs a fix to reflect the neutral preference or fluid preference
Thank you Harry! I would like more information about your ebook please.
Cool video! Can you make an intp vs istp video? It would be great.
Yes, definitely!
Cognitive Personality Theory May I ask for enfp vs infp also...
Why must Ti pair only with Si or Ni, and not Ne or Se? Isn't there an in-between between purely external and purely internal?
If I followed your reasoning near the end there accurately, then I think the driving point here (and I am putting this in my own words, not your polite and accommodating way of putting it :P) is that the "function stack" as people call it, is a bunch of BS because to navigate the word in any realistic capacity; to even exist and be a self-aware being as we are, you need to have both external irrational and rational function working in tandem, and internal irrational and rational function working in tandem, not as a ranked system of individual processes. And so to me, that leads to: if there is any reasonable attempt to talk about the cognitive functions as processes, they need to be understood as they appear in a working relationship, both external pairing and internal pairing, with cognitive attention moving back and forth between them toward some direction. So, for example, instead of trying to say "here is what Se dominant looks like," saying "here is what the Se-Te pairing and the Ni-Fi pairing look like when working in tandem."
In this sense, individual names of functions is almost a red herring and what's important is the relationships themselves. Like trying to describe how a phone's running computer works without ever referencing how the battery (electrical power) factors into it; the battery has an inextricable relationship with the running computer function and how it's designed, so it would be silly to try to talk about it as if the battery is not part of it. But people (including myself many times in the past) try to do that type of thing all the time with the so-called cognitive functions. We can't really not bring into play the relationship as a whole, but we still try to isolate, so in the end, it comes out as a garbled description of the relationship under the guise of an isolated "cognitive function." And so it's no wonder we are confused; we are talking about different "cognitive function" relationships as they manifest in tandem, but trying to stuff them under the same isolated single function umbrella. Oof.
Very well put! I like your phone analogy
I am increasingly moving towards referring to pairings themselves as functions, and Ni, for example, as one constituent part of a function. Eventually this may move on to referring to function networks (NiTi, SeFe for example) also.
Understanding things from a network science perspective is invaluable when we get into such complex systems as humankind
@@CognitivePersonality Hey, thanks. :) Good to hear from you. That's awesome you're looking at referring to these things in a more relationship way. I greatly appreciate your insights and look forward to seeing what you come up with in the future. This insight alone I feel has done leaps and bounds for cutting through issues I've had with cognitive functions in my time in the MBTI space and I've already started trying to apply it to some stuff and see where it clarifies with some subtle indications so far I can't quite put into words yet that it's making a lot more sense than the purely isolated way of talking about these processes. I think there is something really promising here, in other words, and I have your video to thank for that.
Take care and good luck with further developments in personality theory!
Very well thought out.
Cheers :)
Thanks for this man. I'm feelin it, and makes me think in a good way 🤙🏼 I actually agree with everything you said, or at least processing the stuff I didn't understand yet. I want to be able to agree and keep MBTI around. It's super helpful.
I'm curious your thoughts on if people can grow and shape their MBTI over time? I am wondering if growing up in a situation where I needed to care for my parent made me act as an ENTP, and then learning about MBTI helped me identify some internal cognitive dissonance, where I was acting against my natural preferences? Perhaps from my self awareness... perhaps I was able to nurture myself and move towards behaving more like an ESFP? Not sure honestly what type I feel the most myself. Yet...I seem to be able to catch myself in the moment now, and sort of able to adapt to difficult work meetings and various social situations too. Honestly, just missing some sleep or food, smoking lots of weed...might affect how I behave too 😅 I also sense that my written text here itself is open to interpretation.
Super interesting stuff man, hope my comments are helpful, and let me know if theres a better way to get in touch, if you wanna discuss anything :)
Thank you - yes, the system can absolutely be useful when employed wisely!
Different life experiences can cause us to identify more with some 'function expressions' than we otherwise would - the cognitive stack wouldn't change per se, but certain axis might be more fluid as a result of the different ego distribution :)
That is what Jung discovered.
八维的核心思想在于，每个功能它在意识中的地位，地位的不同而区分了人格
Dis's Jung with a book with Jung in large letters in the back 😏
great videos, and I love the research you bring to your videos.
I don't wanna seem like I'm nitpicking, but sometimes there's these pauses in your speech that I find kind of jarring and confusing. I'm not sure whether they're meant to be cues for post recording editing, or if they're intended as rhetorical pauses, but to me they don't seem natural to listen to and I find them distracting. sorry to nitpick
alright, I've just finished this video. there's a lot of dense terms that come at me pretty fast, but after a bunch of rewinding I think I understand the gist of it.
I appreciate the demonstration that any particular approach has it's intrinsic flaws, but I'm unsure if you're saying that this cognitive approach you're explaining, where 2 pairs of lens&codecs must work together to create experience, if you're saying that this has no intrinsic use to be employed as a model just like the other psych models. I have to presume that there is some use, but I've either missed something or that was left implied. in any case, I think it would benefit us to have more explicit examples showcasing why one might use this model over another.
at times, it seems like you're arguing that this cognitive approach is simply the more accurate model, which I'm willing to go along with, but if you're saying that 'this model is true therefore merely understanding it will yield results' then I can't accept that without an examination of this model's application and comparing the quality of insights gained compared to those of any other model. or put simply, why ( and how) should I use this model over another, as I am admitting I'm interested in it
Exactly. If these were not called cognitive function but e.g. value orientations, I'd be somewhat ok with MBTI although with some objections. Since they are called cognitive function, I have to dismiss the system all togheter. Until MBTI fans are able to stop building on this most basic flaw, there's nothing to talk about.
I love this guy, bros
I'm still a bit confused on what you mean. If you take a more fluid approach rather than a systematic one, it would seem that each cognitive function would have less meaning and they all kind of morph together. At that point, it'd would all kind of morph into one and you'd just be talking about how to brain works rather than cognitive functions.
I'm probably just misinterpreting what your saying. I'll definitely have to read your book one day to understand, haha.
The purpose of CPT is to use cognitive functions in order to do exactly that - that is to say, employing cognitive functions as continuums rather than set points within it. For example , Extraverted Thinking is on a spectrum with both Introverted Thinking and Extraverted Feeling, and as such is fluidly changing all the time - Te is less a binary value, and more the degree to which a person is oriented towards their external objective world more than internal objective and external subjective :)
I believe cognitive functions are still valid within a fluid model, but more as undulating positions on a cognitive spectrum than set values in their own right.
The book is a nice balance between fluid and static and I really think you'll enjoy it!
@@CognitivePersonality Thanks for the detailed reply! I'll definite be buying the book! :D
Cool video. You are awesome. I've been trying to understand people in my life using typology for the past several months. Your videos have always been so insightful. Thanks. I am curious about one thing..
How does one measure/observe or identify the lenses and codecs in themselves and others? If these are even possible to see? It seems that mbti or typology has a notion of potential to be learnable by anyone and applied by anyone.. maybe thats why there are so many uncertainties and misunderstandings too. What is the motive of CPT ... do you think it has the potential to be available to be understood and applied universally aswell? From this video emerges a really fundamental and simplified skeleton model, void of anecdotal fluff, which is great. Like you flattened the playing field to start fresh. But now when wanting to apply the theory, as opposed to physical science, to me, people's inner worlds seems super unobservable...
Thank you for this comment!
There isn't a huge overlap between cognitive functions and behaviour, so while cues can be used they are not entirely reliable. In my type service, as a pertinent example, the emphasis as much on the way a person answers a question as the answer itself - these two things combined allow for an insight into the actual inner workings of an individual.
Ideally, true understanding of a person's mind takes prolonged exposure and interaction, so I do not believe any instrument absent such time investment will ever be an infallible determinant of type.
This all being said, a combination of cues, Q&A and observation of mental process can produce good results :)
So how do the pairs of both lens/codecs sets interact? How does the pair of extroverted lens/codec interact with the pair of introverted lens/codec? Wouldn’t the extraverted pair have to exert some influence on the introverted pair? For example, take an ENTP. They have an extraverted intuition lens, and I guess use extraverted feeling to navigate their external reality? So, does what they experience somehow get coded by Si (as opposed to Ni) and then they use their Ti to parse through such data and assign values? So, the frameworks they come up with would certainly have an extraverted intuition and extraverted feeling bent to it, but the extraverted intuition/feeling was not directly interacting with their Ti? It would only be present as a sort of watermark? Another example is INFP, they have an extroverted intuition lens (broad/plethorc), and see things in the outer world in a mechanical way due to using extraverted thinking to assign values. Then, similarly to the ENTP, this information gets coded by Si (I shouldn’t say “coded” probably, but I mean that the user will look back on such stored information with an Si lens), and then they use their Fi to form some sort of attachment or detachment with those external, broad, mechanical frameworks/things?
In short, the default flow of cognition is thus:
Extraverted lens-codec intake - Introverted lens-codec reflection - Extraverted lens-codec expungement. There are two modes of cognition here that operate interchangeably - one uses the default stack (e.g. ENTP - Ne-Fe - Si-Tie - Ne-Fe) and the other is predicated upon a supression of the oppositional (e.g. ENTP - Ne-Fe Ni-Ti Ne-Te) - in this latter instance, the oppositional is still doing a comparable amount of work to one which is not supressed, but consciousness largely bypasses it.
The degree to which an extraverted pair influences an introverted pair has more to do with attitudes - divergent functions (say Se-Fe in this instance within an INFJ) essentially set the regulations of the convergent functions, which otherwise operate according to their own whims. So, yes, extraverted functions absolutely have their own agenda.
The ENTP's experience largely intakes Ne-Fe and a portion of Ne-Te, and is codified by Si upon Ti frameworks. Fi in this type is often unconsciously employed through Ni, but can be more consciously activated through Si-Fi - often this activation uses Ti to 'dip' into Fi. And, yes, Ni-Fi within the ENTP forms a strong attachment to the mechanical.
The INFP intakes information primarily through Te-Ne, but it is important to mention the secondary intake of Fe-Se :)
* blinks *
Hah
How can lens functions not assign values or make associations? You compared Ni to peripheral vision, yet how can peripheral vision be of any use whatsoever if it doesn't differentiate between objects, based on some useful criteria?
edit: n/m, you're saying that no function operates independently
Exactly :)
What are your thoughts on the Objective Personality System?
I was interested in buying your e-book, but I got a bit confused. When the description said e-book I expected it to be something you buy online and get to download and listen to on your electronic device or something. Not something you physically order. How does it work?
The eBook is a book to be read digitally - just as with the comment you are reading here :)
There is no physical copy (yet!) and the purchase takes you to a download link to multiple formats - all of these formats are text-based and, in the case of EPUB and Kindle, readable on various other devices. There's no audio version :)
@@CognitivePersonality oh I see. Thank you!
I agree with your critique of the cognitive functions; they’ve essentially become a Tower of Babel. However, you lost me at the explanation of CPT. How is your theory any more grounded than these other theories?
Love the content. Just work on the weird pauses.
I agree that much of what you are saying is an accurate lay of the land. But there's one nit I want to pick here. And it is that I think your association of the concept of association with codec functions is conflationary. I very much disagree that association is judgment-oriented as a matter of essence. Associations are simply observable phenomena, links between nodes. Association is lens.
Just your friendly neighborhood INFP here to criticize that Ni of yours for treating my Ne like a nemesis.
Hehe, I appreciate it! :)
I would argue that association is predicated upon value assignment - if there is no value assigned to data, one component can not be in any way related to or distinguished from another. As such, the act of perception coincides with the act of rationalisation.
@@CognitivePersonality I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what it means to "associate" and what it means to "assign values". But yes, functions do work simultaneously.
@@CognitivePersonality The thing is, solving this problem in typological schools is something of a Holy Grail, a carrot tied to the end of a stick fastened to your neck, a Tower of Babel project, Mario will never scale the endless stairs, shepard's tones.
Association is lens.
@@FlagrantVagrant I feel we need to define what a value is in its purest form - to differentiate between colours; to distinguish pleasure from pain; to predict the trajectory of a moving object. These are all calculations requiring even at the most fundamental level the assignment of value. A codec cannot associate any more than a lens can - association is the active relationship between perception and thought.
How was the experience of making yourself say that we are awesome for making to the end :p
Surprisingly more intuitive than I thought it would be!
Your expectations disappoint me then 😂
Your definition isn't any more scientific because it's seems like just as unfalsifiable. It consists of proclamations, but it doesn't attempt to prove in any way that these axes and connections exist or have any relation to reality. Being scientific means just one person should be able to completely destroy your system if they don't adhere to it. What would such impossible person be? What are traits and behaviors that can't exist? How would you know that your definition of Fe or Ti is incorrect based on some particular person who uses those functions?
People use examples of cognitive functions to convey actual meaning, to make the other person understand. I think t's more honest because this way lets go of outward fake semblance of a scientific method, and just presents things as they truly are. Just because you're not doing the same doesn't mean that people wil actually understand your system better, rather you're imposing a system that they can shoehorn themselves into without actually describing who THEY really are. Without a vast amount of down to earth precise real world examples of who they are and aren't it's simply much easier for them to imagine whatever they want on top of your system, and removes all ability to check your system with reality.
The system is more scientific for the very reason you mention - it allows for cognitive fluidity to occur without the system subsequently collapsing as a result. This is my point in the video.
Taking the functions out of boxes allows them to have the uses you are here and now prescribing them. You talk about using examples of functions to convey meaning - what if every person assigns to these functions a conflicting meaning? There must be some level of agreement as to what these functions mean, and the more fluid a system the less such semantic entanglement will occur.
CPT is designed to free people from the shoehorning the use of cognitive functions results in. But, based upon your comments, I would assume you do not ascribe to the entirely less fluid systems such as MBTI too?
Out of curiosity though, I'd be interested to hear what caused this particularly critical assessment of the arguments I make within this video? Perhaps my manner could have been less prescriptive?
For me, the fluid approach offered by Cognitive Personality Theory actually makes a bit more sense than the rigid systems that just put people into boxes based on conventionally "objective" methods. Sometimes someone can even be typed in a seemingly contradictory way by two different rigid systems, as if each captures some element of the person but doesn't tell the whole story somehow. It's like a mirror symbolically shattered and it's up to a more fluid system to put the pieces together and actually get the overall picture of the person. Of course, there could be definitional differences too, but I feel like there's more than that.
@@AmyMarie1992 the thing about MBTI, CPT or any other such system is that they aren't based on real research, observations, science or facts - they are made up, none of them are supposed to be taken literally, so rigidity of dogmas doesn't matter much - all of them are just someone's opinion, one of many mindsets.
But MBTI has an undisputable strength in categorizing similar people and connecting them with each other due to its popularity - and every single MBTI clone completely loses it by making themselves incompatible with MBTI, replacing communities of real complex people and their actual human traits with more fantasy ideas and made up generalizations.
Replacing one made up theory with another similarly made up theory doesn't really address the core issues at the heart of MBTI, but it does muddle the landscape by reusing MBTI terms and redefining them to piggyback on MBTI's popularity instead of going the honest road of creating new ones where they don't completely align.
@@CognitivePersonality I've been reading quite a few MBTI communities and the rigid assignment of functions to types is more of a meme than something majority of people actually do :) the system doesn't collapse because people generally understand that any typology is absurd, that everyone uses all functions, and this understanding promotes independent freeform thinking and valuing real people and real interactions with people over anyone's ideas, and using these systems merely as limited tools, not as an overarching framework of thought.
To make it scientific one has to actually base their system on peer reviewed research or at least on real data. It doesn't become more scientific if functions are defined abstractly without any proof, it merely becomes more unprovable and completely orthogonal to science in its fundamental approach. There is nothing to test here and nothing that can be checked or reviewed at all - functions are defined as they are defined, and there can be infinite number of other similarly unprovable systems of similar validity defining the same (or any amount of new) functions in their own way.
I really want to listen to you, but ...
... your cadence is really throwing me off.
The long pauses in the middle of a sentence in combination with that soul-stabbing stare are really unsettling for me.
No need for such a convoluted drawn out explanation. Your terminology needs some work as does your rather patronising presentation.
Perhaps, but even if your criticism is valid it does not change the reality of the issue I presented :)
That being said, I would love to hear in what way you consider the terminology flawed?