This essay presents a critical examination of the "cognitive functions" concept prevalent in online personality typology communities. It argues that the modern understanding of cognitive functions is a misinformed and logically flawed evolution of Isabel Myers' "type dynamics," which was itself a significant and often misrepresented departure from Carl Jung's original psychological theories. The text traces the concept's history, highlighting the shift from Myers' original model to the now-dominant Grant model, the mischaracterization of Jungian concepts, and the conflation of separate theories by later authors. The central critique demonstrates how function-based type profiles often contradict the foundational Myers-Briggs (MBTI) dichotomies they claim to represent. The author concludes that "cognitive functions" are not a unified, empirically valid system but a collection of subjective, anecdotal theories, and advocates for treating various personality theories as distinct, isolated frameworks rather than components of a single "true" system.
Deconstructing 'Cognitive Functions': A Historical and Critical Analysis
Introduction: A Misunderstood Concept: The author begins by highlighting the widespread confusion, misinformation, and conflicting information surrounding the cognitive functions. The essay aims to provide a clear perspective by tracing the concept's origins and evolution.
Chapter 1: The Historical Roots of a Flawed Concept:
Origin in "Type Dynamics": The concept began not with Carl Jung, but with Isabel Myers' "type dynamics," an attempt to explain the interaction between MBTI preferences.
Departure from Jung: Myers' model significantly strayed from Jung's original work. She introduced the Judging/Perceiving axis and focused on the direction (introverted/extraverted) of functions in a way Jung did not, creating a conceptually different system.
The Grant Model's Rise: A model proposed by Harold Grant in 1983 (e.g., INFP = Fi-Ne-Si-Te) became more popular than Myers' original model, despite lacking a clear rationale for its structure. This model is the basis for most modern "function stacks."
Misinterpreted Definitions: Myers' own descriptions of the functions were more aligned with her four dichotomies (e.g., Introverted Sensing as storing facts and details) than with Jung's complex and subjective original concepts.
Chapter 2: Contradicting the MBTI Framework:
Key Argument - A Fundamental Inconsistency: The essay argues that type dynamics, and by extension cognitive functions, create profiles that logically contradict the very MBTI codes they claim to represent.
Example (INFJ vs. INFP): An analysis of author Alan Brownsword's profiles shows his "perceiving-dominant" INFJ description aligns more with a Perceiver (P-type) preference for open-endedness, while his "judging-dominant" INFP contains strong Judger (J-type) elements. This reveals a core conflict with the MBTI's J/P dichotomy.
Chapter 3: The Internet and the Rise of "Cognitive Functions":
Popularization and Rebranding: Figures like Linda Berens were key in promoting type dynamics online, rebranding them first as "Jung's cognitive processes" and later, simply "cognitive functions."
A Categorical Error: This popularization was based on the flawed assumption that Jung's, Myers', and other theorists' works were all part of a single, unified "One True Type" theory, rather than distinct and sometimes conflicting systems.
Chapter 4 & Conclusion: A Liberating Perspective:
Key Takeaway - Not a Unified Theory: The author concludes that modern "cognitive functions" are not a single, coherent, or empirically validated theory. They are a collection of conflicting, subjective, and anecdotal ideas stemming from decades of historical misunderstandings.
Personality is Not a Formula: The essay posits that human personality is too complex to be rigidly defined by a function stack. Viewing personality through this single, flawed lens is limiting, not enlightening.
The Recommended Approach: Treat personality theories (Jung, Myers-Briggs, Grant, etc.) as separate, isolated tools. Instead of trying to synthesize them into a single "correct" type, one should understand them on their own terms, which is presented as a more intellectually honest and liberating approach to self-discovery.