o_19kdfsn0q18e31dfraas1esh19vta.pdf

Appendix 1: Why Didn't You Include the Cognitive Functions?
Those of you who are well versed in type theory may be surprised to note that book does not cover
“cognitive functions” or "type dynamics," i.e. the introversion or extraversion of one’s Intuition,
Sensing, Feeling, and Thinking preferences. The reason cognitive functions have been left out is
that this portion of the MBTI theory rests on some pretty shaky ground.
Briefly, the problems are these:
1. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of cognitive functions, which were
described by Myers in 1962. Type dynamics are still purely anecdotal after half a century. 318
2. Almost no research has been done on whether or not there is such as thing as a tertiary or
inferior function. Who knows if they exist, or what they might be? At this point their
existence is purely speculative, and while there are three different models explaining them,
none them have any proof.
3. Cognitive functions appear to rest mainly upon the authority of Myers' original writings,
which were based on the authority of Jung's original writings. Although the writings have
taken on the status of canon, this does not mean that Jung was right to begin with. In
addition, what he wrote was different from what Myers came up with. Historical precedent
does not constitute proof of the cognitive functions' existence any more than it can prove
that the Earth is flat. The fact that everyone has always believed something does not make it
correct.
4. There is not yet any study showing that different functions emerge over the course of one's
lifespan, or that the development of these functions leads to a midlife crisis. Therefore these
ideas cannot constitute proof for the existence of type dynamics.
5. There have been—and still are—multiple theories about how the cognitive functions are
actually arranged, which ones are dominant, how many dominants and auxiliaries there are,
and which attitudes are preferred and nonpreferred. The best known model is simply the one
that made its way into the official MBTI manual. However, what evidence there is suggests
a random arrangement unique to each person—i.e. there appears to be no such thing as
dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior. For example, the evidence supports the conclusion
318 Reynierse & Harker, 2008a; Reynierse & Harker, 2008b