Cognitive Functions Do NOT Determine Skills

One of our followers sent in a question a little while ago that prompted this subject, so I’ve decided to focus an article on it. (As a side note, we are very appreciative of everyone who has emailed in. Beyond obviously appreciating the positive feedback, I also enjoy the conversations, especially since they oftentimes give me inspiration for future articles. But don’t worry… We will never call you out or post your email’s content on the blog without asking permission first.) But anyway, moving on to the article…

Many personality theory enthusiasts have a tendency to mix up symptoms of a function with the function itself. Although, I can’t really blame them. It seems that most of the type descriptions out there are fraught with stereotypes, for instance, to use my own type as an example, ISTPs being mechanics, OR all Se users being athletically gifted. It’s possible that if someone were to gather accurate worldwide statistics, they MIGHT discover that this tends to be true. However, that is not the same as saying it will always be true. Thus, it is merely a symptom of a function, and if you’ve ever been sick, you know that not everyone gets all of the same symptoms. Some friend of mine will share a virus with me (yay), and they’ll end up vomiting while I end up with diarrhea because for some reason I can’t usually vomit. Same sickness, different symptoms. (Lovely example, right? Lol.) Anyway, the point that I’m trying to drive home here is that a cognitive function is not guaranteed to surface the same way in every person. 

I have three main points I want to get across here, which I hope will make sense by the time I’m done.

1. A “skill” is “the ability, coming from one’s knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well:”

Read that definition closely. Skills require knowledge and/or practice. Knowledge is something you have to learn, and practice is doing something over and over again. I will grant you that certain people are born with natural talent. That is a thing. However, first, natural talent means nothing without practice.  One does not typically come out of the womb already knowing how to do something really well. It takes practice, time, and effort. Second, the vast majority of people can get really good at something by practice alone, and not necessarily because of natural talent. In fact, many people who are supposedly born with natural talent confess later that they just practiced… A LOT, and that’s how they got good. Fostering one’s natural aptitude or ability is a choice. So with that said, most things that we choose to do are skills.

Athletics, drawing, writing, social behavior, and etc. are all skills. You don’t have to be an extravert to be comfortable dealing with people. You don’t have to be an Se to enjoy and be good at sports. You don’t have to be an intuitive to think abstract thought and ponder on the meaning of life. If you do something often enough and for long enough, you will usually get good at it. Sure, there are certain things that you may naturally struggle with, and may be unrealistic for you to pursue. For instance, if you’re tone deaf, you’re not going to be able to become a professional singer. But, most people are not limited by some physical hindrance like that. Most people just lazy or scattered, unable to focus themselves on something long enough to get good at it. Those are the types that are prone to using their personality type as an excuse for their character flaws. DO NOT DO THIS. YOU ARE WHO YOU CHOOSE TO BE. DO NOT LET YOUR TYPE BOX YOU IN, DEFINE YOU, OR BE YOUR EXCUSE TO BEHAVE A CERTAIN WAY!

2. Cognitive functions may encourage trends of behavior

Cognitive functions do NOT guarantee that you will develop certain skills, although they may influence your choices. For instance, Se users may be prone to developing athletic ability because of their preference toward the tangible. They might just subconsciously (or consciously) start developing their physical skills early on as a result of their natural Se preference. However, an Ne/Si user could choose to do the exact same thing if they wanted to, or if they grew up in an environment where that was thrust upon them. As mentioned earlier, if someone practices something long enough, they will probably get good at it. You can apply the same idea to writing. Stereotypically, INFPs are the poets, but that doesn’t mean some other type can’t take an interest in writing poetry and end up just as skilled as an INFP.

However, this is where the stereotypes come from. Stereotypes are, essentially, trends. If a certain cognitive function set frequently causes someone to do X, then X becomes a stereotype associated with that personality.  Of course, those who don’t fit into the stereotype end up frustrated because it results in a bunch of mistyping and flawed assumptions. In addition, sometimes stereotypes end up getting broadened and misapplied. For instance, the Se stereotypes are more likely to apply to an Se dominant, rather than to all of the Se users, so the Se aux types get mixed up. Stereotypes can SOMETIMES be useful to help type someone quickly, but they can just as easily cause someone to be accidentally mistyped.

I’m not over here trying to destroy the foundation for establishing someone’s type. As I’ve previously mentioned, the cognitive functions do encourage trends of behavior. For instance, most people know that ENTPs frequently like to argue or debate, and that is usually true. It’s related to both Ne dominance and tertiary Fe. Behavior like that is good to pay attention to, because it can clue you in what their type might be. If you notice enough behavior pointing toward one type and nothing to really contradict it, then you can probably relatively safely declare that person’s type.

3. Cognitive functions determine the way you think, process information, and make decisions.

This is the crux of the matter. Your cognitive functions essentially define the way your mind works, not necessarily what you will choose to do. When you try to type someone (or yourself), the hard evidence that you should be relying on if at all possible is the way someone reasons, speaks, and thinks. Ti users tend to explain things differently than Te users. (As a Ti dominant, I’m usually pretty good at recognizing when someone is using Ti logic, whereas, my cohort Ryan is good at pegging Te.) Of course, you can apply this principle to all of the functions. Ne users will tend to notice different things than Se users. Ni users will describe things differently than Si users. You’re better off focusing on HOW someone is saying something (or doing something), rather than what exactly they’re saying. Essentially, to truly type someone accurately, you need to get a glimpse into their mind, which can be difficult to do, obviously.

In conclusion…

Our functions frequently influence what skills we choose to develop, which is where the trends/stereotypes come from, but that doesn’t mean your type can define what skills you are either good or bad at. You’ll probably just be approaching whatever skill you choose to develop in a different way than other types might. Do not let your personality type define who you choose to become, or allow yourself to view other types in a narrow-minded fashion.