Why function strength tests are $@(#@ - a guide to understanding function theory - Page 2

Why function strength tests are [email protected](#@ - a guide to understanding function theory

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 67
Thank Tree336Thanks

This is a discussion on Why function strength tests are [email protected](#@ - a guide to understanding function theory within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; ^^Well, someone can choose their external values to be external pragmatism (correct me if Ive messed up the definitions before ...

  1. #11

    ^^Well, someone can choose their external values to be external pragmatism (correct me if Ive messed up the definitions before I understand it completely). Though, pragmatism must allow for private beliefs that differ from the "meshed together conglomerate of societys believe" otherwise pragmatism can easily end up being fascism. So it probably comes down to some kind of maturity, would you say?

  2. #12

    Quote Originally Posted by Souled In View Post
    ^^Well, someone can choose their external values to be external pragmatism (correct me if Ive messed up the definitions before I understand it completely). Though, pragmatism must allow for private beliefs that differ from the "meshed together conglomerate of societys believe" otherwise pragmatism can easily end up being fascism. So it probably comes down to some kind of maturity, would you say?
    That's an interesting proposal, but I'd say it's impossible to make Fe behave like Te.

    Fe is the application of ethical values to the external world. Te is the application of a practical solution.

    A Fe-user might form an ethical system that says that it's good to solve problems in practical, pragmatical ways. And he/she might get other people to agree that it's good to do so. It's still a set of ethics, seeing things on a good-bad scale.

    Te in itself is amoral. It does not say that pragmatic solutions are ethically sound. It does not say solving problems in a pragmatic manner is good or bad. It does not care about that. It's not part of the script. Te just takes the different facts into consideration and outputs a practical solution.

    A Fe-user with an ethical system that supports pragmatism might say this Te-solution is "good". Te does not. Te does not care. It just solves problems in amoral, practical ways.

    A Te-user's ethics arrive from Fi. Fi can say that a certain Te-action is "right" or "wrong", and if a certain solution is considered wrong by Fi, it is (in most cases) not acted upon by the person.

    A Fe-Ti-user, on the other hand, will attempt to apply an ethical framework to the external world - Fe wants to declare things as either "right" or "wrong" for every individual, and for society as a whole. Ti backs up and modifies the Fe ethical rules so that they make sense and follow logical consequence.

    The output of Fe-Ti types is "This is right" or "this is wrong". The arguments backing up these ethical conclusions are formulated by Ti.

    The output of Te-Fi types is "This will work" or "this will not work". If these solutions are acted upon or not is decided by the personal Fi ethics.

  3. #13

    And it is on this level where function order starts to set in.

    A Te-preferent (TJs) will primarily set (practical) Te-based goals, and use Te-methods in order to reach them. Fi is used to check each decision against personal ethics, so that the individual does not do anything that's morally unjustifiable.

    A Fi-preferent (FPs) will primarily set Fi-based ideals, and use Te-methods in order to reach them. Fi sets personal goals based on personal ethics, and then Te-methods are used to reach those goals.

    A Ti-preferent (TPs) will primarily be interested in the exploration of logical systems, and simple Fe-ethics backed up by heavy Ti is used to handle the external world.

    A Fe-preferent (FJs) will primarily want to involve people in their value systems, by forming groups, changing people's opinions and such. Ti is used to support their ethics and ideals, giving a logical base for their arguments and opinions.
    Seamaid, lirulin, pieceofpaper and 13 others thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #14

    Ok I finally digested this. Let me test my clarity.

    "A Ni-Se type will observe a few tangible options through the Se filter, and then they will expand on those by changing their perception with their Ni-spectrum. The J-functions then pick a fitting perspective as a basis for decision."

    If say, all my sense are shut off. I can not hear, see, taste, fee, or touch. I am left with my memories only. This changes nothing correct? If I am inside reliving past memories, I am in effect, still capable of using Se. I will just be going through the process again, much like re reading a book, possibly finding something I missed before even.

    Now, I would say that a pair is equal in both its parts as far as function strength. Even if we say someone is Ti Se dominant, should we not say (Ti,Fe) (Se,Ni) Dominant? Te, and Fi, will be auxiliary, but would work on conjunction with Ti and Fe, since they are already dominant, and Si and Ne inferior. These inferior pairs will likely never work together, being an inferior pair, since each of the functions that are not of the dominant two, will function with the aready dominant pair, simply adding to the current perceiving or judging function.

    Bit wordy, but I think Im starting to get it.
    NiDBiLD thanked this post.

  6. #15

    The way I have come to frame these things:

    Te: judges technical relationships according to an external standard (in the objects themselves)
    Ti: judges technical relationships according to an internal standard (the subject's chosen frameworks, variables in a situation)
    Fe: judges personal relationships by an external standard (agreed upon behaviors)
    Fi: judges personal relationships by an internal standard (experiential identification)

    For the perception functions:

    Se: perceives concrete data from an external (emergent) source
    Si: perceives concrete data from an internal (stored) source
    Ne: abstracts external, emergent data
    Ni: abstracts internally stored data

    So yes, the diametric opposites end up working in tandem, because all of this is a sort of "mirror" dynamic, where the ego prefers one perspective and orientation, and the opposite is used to back it up.
    NiDBiLD, Nymma, AimfortheBrain and 4 others thanked this post.

  7. #16

    From my understanding the OP hypothesis is more or less correct - function strength tests are misleading. I understand it a little different though. From what I understand everyone has all 8 cognitive functions and use them to different degrees, in different ways. Here's where the confusion comes in, a dominant or primary function is not the same as having a strong function. An ENTP, for example, could be good at using Ni, but that doesn't make it their dominant function. Everyone of the same type will have the same primary processes in the same order, but different people will use each function with a different degree of success.

    Here's how I understand it. I will use ENTP because it's my type, and ISFJ because it my opposite, for examples.

    Your lead role will always be your first response, or primary instinct. Your first extroverted (lead or support) function will be your end game or goal. Your first introverted (lead or support) function will be how you arrive at that end game. For example as an ENTP (Ne Ti) my first instinct when approaching anything is to cycle it through Ne (scan for possibilities). I will then utilize Ti (analyze known data) to filter everything gathered from Ne in order to realize (or enact) those Ne possibilities. An ISFJ (Si Fe) would approach something by running through Si (compare to known experiences). (S)he would then use that Si comparison to come to an Fe (consensual value) decision.

    Your tertiary function is used as clean up and to get the dust to settle. An ENTP would use Fe (consensual value) to smooth things over with the people around us after throwing our insane chaos of an Ne Ti loop at everyone and driving them all insane. An ISFJ will utilize Ti (known logical data) to look for logical inconsistencies with their Fe (consensual value) decision that they are forcing on to everyone.

    Your inferior function is your last ditch effort to make sense of something. As an ENTP if something isn't working the way I envision it with Ne Ti, and I can't smooth it over with Fe, then my brain goes into Si (compare to known experiences) and says Oh $#^!, what did I miss?!?! For an ISFJ if something isn't working the way they decided it should via Si Fe, and the Ti can't make sense of it, their brain goes into Ne (scan for possibilities) mode and braces for impending DOOM!

    The shadow functions are just that, shadows. They run in the background like an anti-virus or a task manager. Now, you may be good at making a Hail Mary pass (inferior function), but you're not ever going to use it unless you absolutely have to. You could also have a really good anti-virus, but you're not going to ever sit and watch it run, you'll just have it lingering in the background. An ENTP could be very good at Ni (connecting intricate possibilities) processes, maybe even better than they are at Ne although not likely, but they're not going to use it like they do with their primary functions.

    Anyway, from what I've read, that's how I understand the cognitive functions. So like the OP stated an ENTP can not be Ni dominant, even if they do test high Ni on a process strength test.
    MilkyWay132, Up and Away, OpRise and 5 others thanked this post.

  8. #17

    The op for sure now has me thinking I'm on the wrong team. I don't get si... At all. Se makes sense, it's very much a part of my extroversion. And when you put ne that way... Not as much. Not to mention the ni is also a very familiar function.

  9. #18

    I think I see the problem.

    We keep giving perceiving functions too much ability.

    Se knows what information to look for, because our judging functions, or instincts, have told it.

    But Si is just reliving Se through memory. You can't say that "Si" is attempting to put it into a logical framework.

    The S and N functions, perceiving functions as a whole, relate to storing memory, but that is a "memory function," which has nothing to do with "perceiving and judging functions."

    The only reason memory is associated with S, is because S is more stimulating than N. N lacks hard data from the 5 senses. That is the only reason why. Memory is related, not a part of the function.

    Se or Si isnt trying to establish any kind of network, that just happens via memory, but unclear. Those memory blocks arent ordered until we sort through them with guess what.

    Well its obvious enough. Fi and Ti.

    Fe and Te are simply the extroverted functions of what we do with those memory blocks, and what kind of logical framework we put them in.

    You cant get to Te or Fe without starting at Fi and Ti, however, once you establish Fe and Te, you dont necessarily need to use Fi and Ti again, theoretically.

    T is impersonal.

    F is personal. This is simply when you "care" about something. If you dont care about something, you are using T. They are both logical calculating decision makers. Just like any math problem, there are a couple ways to solve the problem. Thats all.

    I guess I'm not very clear on the difference between Te and Fe. If we say Fe constructs and attempts to do something with ethical structures, then how is that different than Te?

    Te can easily do that, because it can be measured.
    NiDBiLD, MilkyWay132, JungyesMBTIno and 1 others thanked this post.

  10. #19

    Quote Originally Posted by Souled In View Post
    I think I see the problem.

    We keep giving perceiving functions too much ability.

    Se knows what information to look for, because our judging functions, or instincts, have told it.

    But Si is just reliving Se through memory. You can't say that "Si" is attempting to put it into a logical framework.

    The S and N functions, perceiving functions as a whole, relate to storing memory, but that is a "memory function," which has nothing to do with "perceiving and judging functions."

    The only reason memory is associated with S, is because S is more stimulating than N. N lacks hard data from the 5 senses. That is the only reason why. Memory is related, not a part of the function.
    I think you can use only either Se-Ni or Si-Ne. Because the two paradigms contradict eachother. They are impossible to combine without having to go into details and add exceptions and what-ifs everywhere. I also want to limit the span of function theory to only the cognitive processes preceding a decision. Everything else is outside of the span of at least my thesis on this subject. I can explain how I think about this and why:

    All humans can percieve the details of the tangible here-and-now, but only Se-types use it as a major factor in their decision-making. That's why they are Se-types. Likewise, all humans have some degree of memory. This does not mean that they use Si as a basis for decision making. Everyone can solve a practical problem in an objective manner, but this does not mean they use Te for decision making. I think what cognitive functions theory does is that it elaborates on certain aspects of the psyche, and it explains how these might be combined in order to form different decision making processes and priorities.

    Si relies on a single storehouse of data gathered over time. Events percieved as similar to each other by the subject (by use of judging functions) are put in the same array. An "average" - in the mathematical sense - of events in the same array is then used as an axiom for decision making. This means that this average is sent to a judging function when it's decision-time. I guess the decision-making process of a Si-Ne-type could be described something like this:

    "Oh, I am in this kind (Si) of situation now. This means that I have these options (Ne) for action. What am I going to do (Je), and why am I doing it (Ji)?"

    Se does it differently. It does not look at average of similar situations as a basis for judgment. It does not rely on previously established axioms. It looks at the emergent tangible data in the present moment, and sees what can be done in just this particular moment. A Se-type might have memories of similar situations in the past, but that information is not used for decision-making and the type is therefore not a Si-user.

    A decision making process for a Se-Ni-type would look something like this:

    "So this is the available data in this particular situation (Se) and these are the interpretations of the data that make sense to me right now (Ni). What am I going to do (Je) and why am I going to do it (Ji)?"

    One can't use both these sets. They are mutually incompatible world views.

    I guess I'm not very clear on the difference between Te and Fe. If we say Fe constructs and attempts to do something with ethical structures, then how is that different than Te?

    Te can easily do that, because it can be measured.
    I am not clear on exactly what you mean here, but if I have interpreted you correctly, then this is my answer:

    There is a great difference between Te-pragmatism and Fe-ethics, and the two are also mutually exclusive, because there is a conflict of values and priorities inherent in the difference between the two.

    A Fe-user would want to establish common ground with people in order to make agreed-upon-by-all decisions, because in Fe-space, what makes a decision justified is that everyone can agree it's a good idea. It is a political function, so to say. It is ready to compromise and change because of differing opinions and feelings. The best possible decision in Fe-space is the decision that has the most people believing it is good. It does not matter if the solutions proposed are horribly inefficient - as long as everyone likes the idea, it's all good.

    Fe wants to make decisions that are agreed upon and that pleases people in one way or another. The reactions of other people is the basic measurement unit for deciding if a decision is good or bad.

    Te is practically the total opposite.

    Te only cares about the opinions of others if these opinions have practical implications to the decision. A Te-solution does not usually take people into account, except as numbers in a risk management calculation - Because opinions are irrelevant to the Te-mind.

    Te cares nothing about the wills and wants of the self or others. It is not an ethical system - it's just as amoral as building a functioning machine. Either a machine works or it does not - only the measurable efficiency of the construct is the basis for decisions. More efficient = good. Less efficient = bad - regardless of people's opinions, because people's opinions can change no measurements. Measurements are objective and therefore they stand above opinions. They are facts, and facts are real. A solution works in reality, or it doesn't. That's what's important for Te-judgment.

    Do you understand the difference?

    And also, how do you measure an ethical structure?
    lirulin, pieceofpaper, MilkyWay132 and 6 others thanked this post.

  11. #20

    Ah. Thank you again. I think I have a solid basis in the perceiving functions now. Awesome job.

    Quote Originally Posted by NiDBiLD View Post
    How do you measure an ethical structure?
    I think I see where I went wrong when it comes to the judging functions and also why I was wrong about measuring an ethical structure in this context. Say I have an ethical goal, to be non biased and appreciate cultural relativism and variety more, a democratic pragmatism in a way, (Fe), then I will also have other goals and plans formulated to meet that goal. (Te)

    I think I was confusing the "means" (Te) including the possibility of measurement, with the ethical goal its self.

    So I believe we are on track now then. And if this thread doesn't answer someone's questions, I'm really not sure what will, :).
    NiDBiLD and JungyesMBTIno thanked this post.


     
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 194
    Last Post: 11-04-2017, 08:27 PM
  2. Function Order Models Guide
    By Fanille in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-10-2013, 06:14 PM
  3. Replies: 105
    Last Post: 09-26-2010, 02:38 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-14-2010, 11:09 PM
  5. Cognitive Function Tests
    By murkrow in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-07-2009, 02:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:01 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0