Talk:Jungian cognitive functions

message: *The functions in the grid are in the same order for both extroverted and introverted types;  the order is wrong for the introverted types.  The correct order can be found here, for example:  http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/16Types/16Types.cfm
Liesldiesl (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Some post-cleanup thoughts

message: The article doesn't explain them, just sorts them into tables. 4.245.109.40 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What ''are'' these functions?

message: "Myers interpreted Jung as saying that the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions are always in the opposite attitude of the dominant."
Where does Jung ever discuss a tertiary function? And where does he say that the inferior functions are always in the opposite attitude of the dominant? I'm skeptical here.
M^A^L (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: '...the most developed function is referred to as the "dominant", with the remaining three filling the roles as "auxiliary" and "inferior" functions.'
I count two remaining functions, not three. Let me count them. 
1. auxiliary
2. inferior
Where is the third remaining function in that sentence? M^A^L (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needs Some More Cleaning Up 

message: Should Model A from Socionics be added here, as well?
EPM (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Socionics

message: I inserted the multiple issues template due to the lead being not well formatted as well as other sections, where the formatting is out of place and doesn't follow the Wikipedia MOS at all, like the inline citations and quotes. The lead and other parts of the article, such as Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, have no citations, and the citations that are there seem inconsistently formatted. Loverthehater (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the lead, so I got rid of that banner. It could use expansion, but for now it's alright. Loverthehater (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues template 

message: Okay so the articles states that " Si is said to compare phenomena with past experiences (this has never been said by Jung himself; it is a common internet misconception)" but even though it says that it is a common internet misconception, the person who wrote this never seems to try to end that misconception in this paragraph. They just go on to utilize more internet misconceptions about introverted sensation, instead of actually citing Jung and what he said on the matter. Steph.st (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introverted sensation 

message: First it says "Myers interpreted Jung as saying that the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions are always in the opposite attitude of the dominant."
Which sounds like an Ne-person would have introvertet inferior functions. 
But then in the table for their system the ENTP has Ne-Ti-Fe-Si. The third function there should have been introverted too. 
My guess is that the system was changed later. If so, that should be stated who and why changed that part. (hope I didn't just miss that part)
90.232.176.18 (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The part about how Meyer interpret Jung is unclear.  

message: This section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions#Controversy_over_attitudes
I want to suggest 2 points: 
1. I agree with a suggestion above that this sentence is misleading: 
"Myers interpreted Jung as saying that the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions are always in the opposite attitude of the dominant."
I think it's misleading, b/c, in the types table by Myers quoted in the article, the signs are flipped, not as mentioned in the above sentence. This used to confuse me a lot the first time I read it. (Later, after reading and understanding more about this topic, I realized that this statement is simply inconsistent). 
2. This section's writing style is convoluted 
Initially, I thought that the it wanted to say that Myers' interpretation is incorrect: that the Aux (the 2nd best function) should have the same attitude as the dominant one. 
But at the end of this section, it concludes the opposites: 
"it is clear from his language that the functions are linked to the attitudes in the way that Myers, Beebe and Berens have adopted."
I suggest we remove the following paragraphs entirely: 
Furthermore, the evidence given by Myers[9] for the orientation of the auxiliary function relies on one sentence from Jung:
"For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function."[2]
And in using this phrase to set an opposing attitude for the auxiliary function, Myers disregarded that in Jungian language, functions are separate from their orientation, as orientation is a property of consciousness as a whole, and also disregarded the examples Jung gave immediately afterwards in the text that do not speak of attitude:
"From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgement, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth."[1]
And also disregards the context and language Jung used in speaking of the four functions:
"I distinguish these functions from one another because they cannot be related or reduced to one another. The principle of thinking, for instance, is absolutely different from the principle of feeling, and so forth."[1]
And then update the wording of the following para to connect it to the para before the deleted paras.
Hungh3 (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section about "Controversy over attitudes" needs revisions 

message: The issues are an overreliance on Psychological Types- the large majority of the sources are itself and there is only a single secondary source on the functions and attitudes; entire unreferenced sections- MBTI, different models, "Controversy over attitudes" was OR before I removed a part of it; and most explanations are just quoting the book outright. This article may even be better off merged with Psychological Types. Dege31 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is in a poor state 

message: Okay, I am going to take point on organizing this mess but I need you guys to bear with me. I am currently going through some stuff that requires my real world attention but I will be actively working on this even when there's not evidence to show that. No, I am not going to supersede anyone's work but I will lay out the arguments that I can make as I can make them. Suffice to say I believe this is an important article and that the distinction which distinguishes the functions from modern topology or even just a footnote in Jung's analytical psychology is extant. It's just gonna take some time to sus out. 
Please do not go ahead with efforts to trim or merge this article at this time. I will move the bulk of the uncited data to the talk page as soon as we're in consensus but it's fine to leave it online for now.
I will make an update as soon as I analyze the page. Literate Birb (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you will make an update soon. Dege31 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Future of this article