It seems important to make a distinction between cognitive functions that are strong/weak versus cognitive functions that are valued/devalued in any given Myers-Briggs type.
Hitherto, many Myers-Briggs writers typically refer to the so-called “functional stack” to assess how strong or weak a cognitive function is for any given Myers-Briggs type.
Here’s one such chart to show you the functional stacks for all 16 Myers-Briggs types.
I feel this is an incorrect and misleading model/method of understanding (assessing) the strength of any given cognitive function in a MB type.
I contend that the functional stack is not a measure of how strong or weak a cognitive function is in descending order of strength from 1 to 4. While there is some truth in this, it is, like I said, misleading.
For one thing, the functional stack of any given Myers-Briggs type is only accounting for 4 out of a possible 8 cognitive functions. It’s as if these other functions don’t exist at all for the type in question.
This would probably be mostly OK if not for the gross error of overlooking what I call the id function, which is more commonly known as “the 6th function”. The omission of this function certainly leads to massive errors in typing because this 6th function is, in some ways, THE STRONGEST FUNCTION of all in any MB type.
For example, the 6th function is “stronger” than the auxiliary function, the latter of which is considered 2nd in strength for any type.
Now, MB writers also use the word “preferences” to describe the cognitive functions that a MB type uses.
“Users” is another term that is heavily used to describe function-usage, as in Fe-users or Fi users, for example.
“User” is another misleading term.
Anyway, here’s what I’m getting at.
Since “the functional stack” term/terminology exists, here’s what I propose:
The functional stack for any given Myers-Briggs type is telling you which cognitive functions the type “values”, “prefers”, or, more simply, “likes”, regardless of how strong or weak any of those functions are.
This is true even if those functions aren’t “used”, as the inferior, and quite often, the auxiliary functions aren’t.
By turns, as I just said, the 6th function (id function) is strong, and “used”, whether the type in question wishes to use it or not. However, its usage is not “valued” by the user of this function.
Another way of saying it is that the cognitive functions in the function stack are “positive” functions for the type in question and so should be valued by the user of them, either in actual usage by them, or by positive receptivity of the usage of these functions by other people.
This positive receptivity of usage by other people is especially true of the inferior function, which cannot be used by the type (at least, consistently or reliably), but which, however, presents the prospect of strong positive psychological integration and well-being to that type, ie, it has strong “value” to that type.
Any of the 4 functions which lie outside of this functional stack could correctly be termed “devalued” or “negative” functions in varying degrees of magnitude, with the exception of the 5th function, which I would term “neutral”, neither valued nor devalued. Neither negative, nor positive.
Actually, come to think of it, the same is true of the 1st function in the functional stack, the all-important DOMINANT FUNCTION.
The dominant function is really “neutral” in terms of value, or strength, for that matter. It is more accurate to say that the dominant function is a contextualizing function. Without it, there can be no talk of these other things.
So, the functional stack is not really a functional stack. It’s more of a valuing stack.
It does not determine strength, order/priority of usage, or usage at all, of a cognitive function.
However, the functional stack is useful as a model because it is telling us the cognitive functions that a type will value, should value, and have a positive orientation to.
And it’s still a stack.
So, not too bad.
This is helpful–thanks. But a bit confused at the end here: “However, the functional stack is useful as a model because it is telling us the cognitive functions that a type will value, should value, and have a positive orientation to.”
Why do you say *should* value?
I think he means ‘should value’ because an individual can use any of the eight cognitive functions. However, the four functions listed for a type are what compromise the positive psychological framework. With the remaining four functions being received or delivered in a more negative or limiting fashion.
Why do you say *should* value?
What Luke said. Good answer. And yeah, if for some reason, you’re not valuing those 4 functions, I’m just saying there is good reason to. They are essentially all positive in orientation from the perspective of leading you on to positive psychological integration, which is what Jung’s psychology was really all about. That doesn’t mean that they will automatically. For example, the tertiary function is notorious for being a source of trouble for a type because they use it too much. However, it is a “positive” source of trouble, say, compared to the id function (6th function) which I would term as “negative” trouble. Any function can be problematic in overusage (or underusage, for that matter). They are all necessary in some degree and that’s another thing I’m getting at. A type doesn’t just use those 4 functions in the functional stack. However, since this functional stack thingie exists, I merely sought to point out that what the functions in that stack have in common is that they are valued, preferred, and positive functions. So, if we’re gonna go on using that stack or model, let’s be clear about what it denotes.
For example, the functional stack does not denote the functions that will be used or the strongest functions in a type in a greater to less than order. I know that’s neat and compact and all, but it’s misleading and leads to typing errors.
So, I’m just trying to clear some of this stuff up. Think of me as Damage Control.
Okay… I’ve noticed that INFJs, for example, will often function better when they deliberately choose to become self-oriented and act on their own interests first (this seems very valuing of 6th function Fi)–that it actually opens them up to bring out the best of their functional stack. I don’t know if this is true across types, but if so, wouldn’t it make sense for an individual to deliberately *value* their 6th function?
Hi Damage Control, is the owl reconsidering the stack while upside down? Guess it would still be a stack.
Who?
More of a stalactite owl than a stalagmite. Two distinct species. Opposite stacking abilities.
It’s also possible the owl temporarily thought it was a bat.
Hi Damage Control, is the owl reconsidering the stack while upside down?
Obviowlsly
The owl is starting to feel used….
And maybe confused too…
It’s alright, I explained everything thoroughly to him from the get go.
And frankly, he was appalled.
No worries. He was paid in voles.
Joke’s on him though. He doesn’t have the proper equipment to swallow from that position.
Yous are cute:)
I’m glad for yous.
Great peeps.
Nice article, makes sense. Neutral relationship to fifth function is interesting and very true for me, (Ne Dom, Ni fifth function).
Inert, I might describe it as. Not combustible. Not a source of great trouble and not a source of imagined unhinged awesome death in fireball of doing all the things like the 6th function/id feels to me.
Glad you liked it johno boy!
Interesting article. Thanks for posting it. What do you think of Beebe’s model of relating each functional position to an archetypal role? Does it fit in with your conception at all?
I think relating each functional position to an archetypal role is a natural process but I don’t agree with Beebe’s interpretations in this regard, at least not completely, or close to completely. For example, calling the tertiary function The Puer (eternal child) has some truth in it, but is far from the complete story on it. In summation, I find most interpretations of Myers-Briggs related things to be shallow, if not necessarily completely untrue. Beebe would be a good example of this. I see what he’s getting at and there is some truth there, but it’s too shallow for my taste.
How would an Se ID play out in someone’s personality?
Brick wall assertion. Stonewalling. There’s kind of a flavor of it in my ESTJ article. ESxJ Se comes off as heavy, dumb, and dense. It’s particularly dumb Se. I think of American football (ESTJ archtype more than ESFJ though). That gives some flavor of the Se id, but more with Te. There’s a lot of Te in football too. The whole game and the way its talked about gives me an ESTJ vibe. Dumb. Yet, goal-oriented. Strategic. Gridiron. Etc.
The whole game comes down to smashing other players. At least, that seems to be the sensationalism side of it. Dumb, blocky, brute force.
And so that aspect is reflected in the ESTJ personality.
ESFJs are softer but there is still that dumb, blocky aspect deep down in them. One might say…ungainly.
Intriguing. And what about baseball?
Well, baseball is the All-American game and so what type did I say America was? There you shall find your answer.
Ask and you shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened unto you.
Ah, yes.