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

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

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 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; Okay. Basically I have seen a lot of threads here where people say stuff like "Well, I am an ENTP ...

  1. #1

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

    Okay. Basically I have seen a lot of threads here where people say stuff like "Well, I am an ENTP with dominant Ni. What does this mean?"

    Usually, the reason for this is that someone took a function strength test and ended up delusional - because that's not how it works. Certain functions require certain other functions in order to function (yeah.) and the popular function strength tests are seriously messing up peoples understanding of this system.

    I'll now proceed to explain something that is pretty much evident if you do some research on the functions, but which might be too evident to be noticed by most.

    Functions work in pairs only.

    This is my basic thesis. You'll never, for example, encounter Ni without Se because they require eachother in order to function. One pair of reverse functions is basically the smallest practically applicable unit of psyche.

    So to elaborate on this, I will tour you through the four irreducible units that can be combined to build types:

    First out are the percieving function pairs, Se-Ni and Si-Ne. Let's call these paradigms. These are the only two possible combinations of percieving functions. There are no other options, and I'll explain why.

    First off, sensing and intuition differ from eachother in that sensing presents a single output, while intuition presents several different sets of output.

    We'll begin with Se-Ni. Regardless of other involved functions, Se-Ni by itself has a certain dynamic:

    Se absorbs information from the outer world in real time. It is a here-and-now function that's focused only on the tangible hard facts of the present experience. For a Se-Ni-type, this Se experience is the axiom. It's undeniable and self evidently real, and when something appears to be false, it has to be tested in Se space in order to be accepted as valid.

    Ni, in turn, uses this input and forms a series of interpretations that apply to the present time experience. The forest fire can be interpreted as a horrible catastrophe. It can also be interpreted as a part of a natural pattern that is necessary for the renewal of the forest. It can also be interpreted as a great opportunity for the media to fill an otherwise eventless day with a great scoop. It depends on the perspective, it depends on what you choose to see. Ni aknowledges that, and Ni does not take sides. It just observes the multitude of different possible viewpoints that can be applied to the same single event.

    This combination is irreducible. Ne-Ni is impossible, because there are no axioms to interpret, no anchors to reality and no test-space. Se-Si is also impossible, because there are no options, no differing viewpoints, and no possibilities for anything.

    Si-Ne is an entirely different paradigm.

    Ne sees the external world as full of different alternatives for action. Every single point in real time has a multitude of possible opportunities attached to it. This can be done, or that, or that. While Se sees the present as a singular axiomatic point, Ne sees the many possibilities inherent in every situation.

    Si, in turn, is the axiom of Si-Ne types. It records the personal experience of the user into a database of trustworthy axioms. In order to see if a Ne-idea is good or not, the idea is compared to previously established Si. The difference from Ni is that Si saves only the personal interpretation of every event. It results in one singular world view, in contrast to the wider interpretative space of Ni.

    So, in short:

    Ni-Se results in One external reality as the axiom, and many possible personal interpretations of every situation. Ni-Se types are experiencer-interpreters.

    Ne-Si results in Many external possibilities, and one personal interpretation of every situation. Si-Ne-types are hypothesiser-axiomatics.

    On top of these two possible paradigms are the value systems - the Judging functions.

    There are really only two possibilities here as well: Fe-Ti and Te-Fi. No other combinations are possible. The Ji function acts as an internal compass, and the Je-function as a way to handle the external world.

    The first combination is Te-Fi:

    Te: Extraverted thinking cares about one thing: External measurement based on previously established criteria. A Te-judgment can be reduced to this form:

    if (criteria is fulfilled) do X, else, do Y

    Usually the judgments are more complex, and have several separate criteria with different consequences, but that's the basic form. The formulation of the criteria is a combination between all applicable functions, but Te alone sees if the criteria are fulfilled. It's very binary, black and white and absolute.

    Since Te is an external judgment system it drives to apply itself to the external world in one way or another. This might be in the form of a organisational system, the formulation of a scientific theory or a set of legal rules. One can recognize the influence of Te by checking for clearly established, measurable criteria as the basis for one judgment or another. The legal system is a clear example, as well as the scientific method.

    Fi, in turn, works in tandem with Te. It's an internal value system that checks for ethical inconsistencies in ones own actions. The ethical judgment is internal, personal and it does not need to be applied to the world. Since it's an internal judging function it has no need for external validation or evidence. It knows that it's right. One has to be responsible for ones own actions before oneself.

    Fi sees so that Te states criteria that are ethically correct, according to ones own values.

    The second possible combination of functions is Fe-Ti. This combination differs hugely from Te-Fi. (I am a Te-Fi user myself, so forgive me if my Fe-Ti-description is lacking)

    Fe, like Te wants to apply itself to the external world. The difference between the two is that Fe wants to establish common ethical values, while Te wants to externalize common systems of criteria and consequence. If Te wants to establish uniform systems of organization to be followed by many, Fe wants to establish uniform systems of values and ethics to be followed by many.

    Ti wants to understand the structure of a system. By itself it cares about logical consistency and little else. It can see if something makes sense. Ti users search for logical consequence, and want to establish singular definitions of everything in order to structure their understanding of reality. These singular definitions are necessary in order to be able to follow unbroken chains of reasoning to the very foundations of a system. If Te is induction, Ti is deduction. It reasons it's way to the baseline - what HAS to be the absolute truth in this?

    A stereotypical application of the combination of Ti and Fe is the ethical system. Logical systems for externalizing ethics, like Kant's categorical imperative are no doubt a result of this combination of functions.

    So, to recap once again:

    Te-Fi results in application of rationality to the external world, in combination with an internal ethical compass.

    Ti-Fe results in application of common values to the external world, in combination with internal logical reasoning.

    This gives us four basic building blocks: Two perceptual paradigms, and two systems of judgment.

    To restructure the temperament system a bit, I would like to firstly divide the types according to the perceptual paradigms:

    NJs and SPs are Experiencer-Interpreters. (Have Ni-Se)
    SJs and NPs are Hypothesiser-Axiomatics. (Have Si-Ne)

    and then according to judgment systems:

    TJs and FPs use Te-Fi.
    FJs and TPs use Ti-Fe.

    A result of this is that there are basically four possible combinations of functions in any type, before function order is established:

    Ni:Se:Ti:Fe (NFJ, STP) Experiencer-interpreters with external values and internal logic.
    Ni:Se:Te:Fi (NTJ, SFP) Experiencer-interpreters with external pragmatism and internal values.
    Ne:Si:Ti:Fe (NTP, SFJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external values and internal logic.
    Ne:Si:Te:Fi (NFP, STJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external pragmatism and internal values.

    I believe that these are the four basic worldviews. Function order only determine priorities, but these four combinations dictate what perspective one takes on the world.

    This is why I say other combinations of functions are impossible, and that function strength tests are only throwing wrenches into our understanding of this system.

    Discuss.
    Inky, OrangeAppled, firedell and 173 others thanked this post.



  2. #2

    Thank you so much for writing this. It was very clear and concise, and helped me to understand the function pairings better.

  3. #3

    Learning a lot from this. Thanks for the write up. Please check out the child development thread.

    A few questions and comments:

    1) Te strives to formulate plans of action, where as Ti strives to find logical consistency/ inconsistency?

    But when I actually move my hand to say pick up a pencil, that isnt necessarily Te in action, it is just from Te planning to a very low degree. That is just me in action, perhaps even off in my own world, barely sensing the movement if they are already habitualized; is this correct?

    2) "The difference from Ni is that Si saves only the personal interpretation of every event. It results in one singular world view, in contrast to the wider interpretative space of Ni."

    This threw me off a bit. The actual interpretation, is a result of the judging function correct? As data comes in, chosen by Si for example, it is then interpreted by the F T functions.

    3) "Se absorbs information from the outer world in real time. It is a here-and-now function that's focused only on the tangible hard facts of the present experience."

    Having retained a lot of information from my 17th century British Empiricism class, I can help this definition somewhat using Locke, where the starting of Emperical thought with the functions of the mind began. We sense, but when we "perceive" what is important to us, that is where Se is involved.

    The reason this distinction might be necessary, is because we can be "sensing" in Lockian terms, without perceiving anything (Sensing in Jungian terms).

    A further example of how this awareness is used is with the metaphor of a flashlight. Either the awareness can be spread out, or it can be focused in to a single point.

    We only direct our focus in on something when it "stands out" as important or interesting etc...
    Last edited by Up and Away; 03-15-2011 at 12:07 PM.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4

    I don't disagree with this basic concept & don't mean to nitpick, but the definitions of the functions need some clarification, IMO.

    Se IS aware of possibilities - tangible/literal ones immediately available. This is important to note, as many Se-dom mistype as Ne-dom. Many descriptions imply the one-ness Se types can have with a physical element, and the ability to manipulate it, because of their mental focus on what is immediately possible, and that is not always singular. "Opportunities" may be a better word, but they are possibilities nonetheless.

    Ne is aware of possibilities in terms of concepts, theories, etc - the intangible. Possibilities can have no concrete tie to the present, which is what makes Ne types seem to pull stuff out of nowhere. It's more of "whatever you can imagine is possible" attitude vs. REAL possibilities.

    Also, while the Fi description is not wrong at all, it's good to note that Fi is like Ti in the sense that it checks for a consistency - in Fi's case, one of value - based on an internal framework/model. Fi wants things to make sense from the standpoint of what is significant and what is not in order to fit an ideal. A Fi-dom understands the structure of moral & aesthetic systems - measuring whether they are sound according to the Fi-er's inner model of the ideal. It's personal in that it does not tend to impose and is more conceptual than action-oriented regarding others (in contrast to Fe), but it has a "universal" aspect where it does measure the integrity of everything, not just the individual's own actions.

    I'm not sure I would classify these as "worldviews" either. The mindset of, say, an ENTJ and ISFP are still worlds apart, despite sharing the same thought processes. I personally can't even fathom the ESTJ mindset - it's the most foreign to me. I mean, even if an ENFJ prefers FeNi & I prefer FiNe, we both prefer to judge in terms of value & to perceive the intangible sides of things , which can make our worldviews & conclusions more similar than an ESTJ and me.
    Inky, Aßbiscuits, SVALP and 34 others thanked this post.

  6. #5

    Quote Originally Posted by Souled In View Post
    Learning a lot from this. Thanks for the write up. Please check out the child development thread.

    A few questions and comments:

    1) Te strives to formulate plans of action, where as Ti strives to find logical consistency/ inconsistency?

    But when I actually move my hand to say pick up a pencil, that isnt necessarily Te in action, it is just from Te planning to a very low degree. That is just me in action, perhaps even off in my own world, barely sensing the movement if they are already habitualized; is this correct?
    My interpretation is that actions are not function based. Acting in the real world is not bound to a single function, because even if people don't display Te as a part of their normal psyche, they can move about and do stuff. It's the reasons for doing things that are function based, so to say. If you pick up the pen in order to write down a crazy idea of yours, then that could be said to be Ne in action. If I pick up the pen in order to outline a strategy, then that's Te.

    2) "The difference from Ni is that Si saves only the personal interpretation of every event. It results in one singular world view, in contrast to the wider interpretative space of Ni."

    This threw me off a bit. The actual interpretation, is a result of the judging function correct? As data comes in, chosen by Si for example, it is then interpreted by the F T functions.
    My interpretation is that Pe decides what kind of data you percieve - either opportunities and possibilities - or hard facts. Pi, in turn, together with the judging functions, decide how you look at that data. For a Si-user, the interpretation is given. It's automatic - just like external Se-perception of real time data. A Ni-user, on the other hand has a freedom of interpretation, just like a Ne-Si-user has an external freedom of opportunity: The meaning of a perception is not automatic.

    We see a multitude of possible interpretations (Ni) of a single situation (Se). As I wrote in a different thread, if my company goes bankrupt and I end up in debt, I might choose to see that as a student loan or as a personal failure - and both ways of seeing it would be equally honest. I pick freely among the possible interpretations just like a Ne user picks freely among the external possibilities. For a Si user, the interpretation would be automatic, and trying to replace the interpretation with another one would feel like lying.

    My understanding is that the J-functions make their decisions after both Pe (Data intake) and Pi (Interpretation). I might be wrong, but making decisions based on data that is not yet interpreted by the Pi worldview seem strange.


    3) "Se absorbs information from the outer world in real time. It is a here-and-now function that's focused only on the tangible hard facts of the present experience."

    Having retained a lot of information from my 17th century British Empiricism class, I can help this definition somewhat using Locke, where the starting of Emperical thought with the functions of the mind began. We sense, but when we "perceive" what is important to us, that is where Se is involved.

    The reason this distinction might be necessary, is because we can be "sensing" in Lockian terms, without perceiving anything (Sensing in Jungian terms).

    A further example of how this awareness is used is with the metaphor of a flashlight. Either the awareness can be spread out, or it can be focused in to a single point.

    We only direct our focus in on something when it "stands out" as important or interesting etc...
    If I understood you correctly, I agree. We "sense" pretty much everything that happens to us, but Se/Ne is the focus of our perception. We are talking about cognitive functions here, and not sensory stimuli or bodily reactions. Se and Ne happen in the mind, after the Lockian sensory perception.

    Sensory functions work like filters. They eliminate what does not fit, and let only some of the information pass through. Intuitive functions work like prisms, parting one single beams into a spectrum of options (External options = Ne, internal options = Ni). Judging functions select one of these beams according to certain criteria and goals that are specific for each J-function.
    OrangeAppled, Sweetish, lirulin and 37 others thanked this post.

  7. #6

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    I don't disagree with this basic concept & don't mean to nitpick, but the definitions of the functions need some clarification, IMO.

    Se IS aware of possibilities - tangible/literal ones immediately available. This is important to note, as many Se-dom mistype as Ne-dom. Many descriptions imply the one-ness Se types can have with a physical element, and the ability to manipulate it, because of their mental focus on what is immediately possible, and that is not always singular. "Opportunities" may be a better word, but they are possibilities nonetheless.

    Ne is aware of possibilities in terms of concepts, theories, etc - the intangible. Possibilities can have no concrete tie to the present, which is what makes Ne types seem to pull stuff out of nowhere. It's more of "whatever you can imagine is possible" attitude vs. REAL possibilities.

    Also, while the Fi description is not wrong at all, it's good to note that Fi is like Ti in the sense that it checks for a consistency - in Fi's case, one of value - based on an internal framework/model. Fi wants things to make sense from the standpoint of what is significant and what is not in order to fit an ideal. A Fi-dom understands the structure of moral & aesthetic systems - measuring whether they are sound according to the Fi-er's inner model of the ideal. It's personal in that it does not tend to impose and is more conceptual than action-oriented regarding others (in contrast to Fe), but it has a "universal" aspect where it does measure the integrity of everything, not just the individual's own actions.

    I'm not sure I would classify these as "worldviews" either. The mindset of, say, an ENTJ and ISFP are still worlds apart, despite sharing the same thought processes. I personally can't even fathom the ESTJ mindset - it's the most foreign to me. I mean, even if an ENFJ prefers FeNi & I prefer FiNe, we both prefer to judge in terms of value & to perceive the intangible sides of things , which can make our worldviews & conclusions more similar than an ESTJ and me.
    These are all good points, and I agree. I might have been a bit too binary in my descriptions. I also have quite a hard time grasping Ne, so I didn't have a good idea of how to describe it.

    And when it comes to worldviews:

    I have an INTP friend, and on the surface, we think very much alike. We are both quite logical and rational people, even though we don't share a single function. When we start discussing deep matters, though, it always feels like we are speaking totally different languages.

    I feel that he's nitpicky and silly when he says the external world is just a well grounded hypothesis since the only thing one can know for sure is that one has a perception. He calls my reasoning slippery when I refuse to accept his axioms, since he can't give me a good reason to accept them instead of the millions of other axioms I could base my arguments on instead. We do reach the same practical conclusions, but from different directions, and through completely different methods. It is difficult for me, if not impossible, to put myself in his headspace, even though we are both intuitive thinkers.

    I have a much easier time understanding an ISFP. We have completely different priorities and outlooks on life, but at least we use the same tools. We do not have the problem of perpetual misunderstanding - Only disagreement. And that's a major difference.
    OrangeAppled, Sweetish, spifffo and 11 others thanked this post.

  8. #7

    Kick butt stuff man. This keeps getting better and better. : ) A few more comments.

    "My understanding is that the J-functions make their decisions after both Pe (Data intake) and Pi (Interpretation). I might be wrong, but making decisions based on data that is not yet interpreted by the Pi worldview seem strange."

    I'm confused.

    Environment (5 senses filter) => (Pe Filter 1) => (Pi Filter 2) => (Je Filter 1) => (Ji Filter 2)=> Adjustment ?


    "Sensory functions work like filters. They eliminate what does not fit, and let only some of the information pass through. Intuitive functions work like prisms, parting one single beams into a spectrum of options (External options = Ne, internal options = Ni). Judging functions select one of these beams according to certain criteria and goals that are specific for each J-function."

    Haha thats awesome. Thanks.

    "Ni:Se:Ti:Fe (NFJ, STP) Experiencer-interpreters with external values and internal logic.
    Ni:Se:Te:Fi (NTJ, SFP) Experiencer-interpreters with external pragmatism and internal values.
    Ne:Si:Ti:Fe (NTP, SFJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external values and internal logic.
    Ne:Si:Te:Fi (NFP, STJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external pragmatism and internal values."

    So the world views are made up only of T an J right? Our S an N is just our ability to work with those views.

    Lastly, I have a problem with Se and Te. When we "perceive" something, we have what Locke refers to as a Simple Thought, for example when we see red, we might have a thought of red. Later, we form a complex thought, or simple mode, a general idea of red, from combing multiple simple thought memories of red together.

    Would you call this Se or Te?

    Further, we might one day associate red with blood, and then another day, associate blood with the complex idea of "justice," or "war."






    "Se IS aware of possibilities - tangible/literal ones immediately available. This is important to note, as many Se-dom mistype as Ne-dom. Many descriptions imply the one-ness Se types can have with a physical element, and the ability to manipulate it, because of their mental focus on what is immediately possible, and that is not always singular. "Opportunities" may be a better word, but they are possibilities nonetheless.

    Ne is aware of possibilities in terms of concepts, theories, etc - the intangible. Possibilities can have no concrete tie to the present, which is what makes Ne types seem to pull stuff out of nowhere. It's more of "whatever you can imagine is possible" attitude vs. REAL possibilities. "

    I like this a lot as well.
    AimfortheBrain thanked this post.

  9. #8

    Quote Originally Posted by Souled In View Post
    Kick butt stuff man. This keeps getting better and better. : ) A few more comments.

    "My understanding is that the J-functions make their decisions after both Pe (Data intake) and Pi (Interpretation). I might be wrong, but making decisions based on data that is not yet interpreted by the Pi worldview seem strange."

    I'm confused.

    Environment (5 senses filter) => (Pe Filter 1) => (Pi Filter 2) => (Je Filter 1) => (Ji Filter 2)=> Adjustment ?
    Environment: => Physical sensory input => Pe (Ne spectrum or Se filter) => Pi (Si filter or Ni spectrum) => Ji & Je balancing eachothers wills => Action => Result => Adjustment of P function filters / spectra and J-judgments according to result (or defense mechanisms like casting blame or projecting if one has problems modifying ones world view)

    Basically, a Ne-Si type will first percieve a lot of spaced out theories, opportunities and options through the Ne-prism, and then the Si-filter sets in and eliminates those that are incompatible with their accumulated experience. J-functions pick and choose between the remaining options.

    A Ne dominant has a weak Si filter, so a lot of the spaced out stuff is still there after elimination. A Si dominant has a weak Ne-spectrum, and will only let through a few reliable options.

    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.

    A Se dominant has a weak Ni. They will see more nuances of the direct Se experience, but they have fewer options for perspective shifting. A Ni dominant will filter out everything but the most obvious Se-input, but then they expand on this in every direction using the Ni-spectrum.

    "Ni:Se:Ti:Fe (NFJ, STP) Experiencer-interpreters with external values and internal logic.
    Ni:Se:Te:Fi (NTJ, SFP) Experiencer-interpreters with external pragmatism and internal values.
    Ne:Si:Ti:Fe (NTP, SFJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external values and internal logic.
    Ne:Si:Te:Fi (NFP, STJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external pragmatism and internal values."

    So the world views are made up only of T an J right? Our S an N is just our ability to work with those views.
    I don't understand what you mean by this. Will you elaborate?

    Lastly, I have a problem with Se and Te. When we "perceive" something, we have what Locke refers to as a Simple Thought, for example when we see red, we might have a thought of red. Later, we form a complex thought, or simple mode, a general idea of red, from combing multiple simple thought memories of red together.

    Would you call this Se or Te?

    Further, we might one day associate red with blood, and then another day, associate blood with the complex idea of "justice," or "war."
    I'd call what you name a "simple thought" a piece of Se data.

    I'd call the "general idea of red" that is built of several previous experiences of red a Si axiom.

    When we associate "red" with justice or blood, I'd still say that's a Si axiom, since the associations are fixed. When we always associate red with justice or blood or whatever - then that's Ne associations generating and expanding a Si axiom.

    If you associate "red" in this particular context to justice, but "red" in that particular context to revolution, this particular time only, because that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to you in this moment, then it's Se-Ni at work.

    Am I too vague, or do I make sense? I don't know anymore.
    Donovan, lirulin, Catfish and 37 others thanked this post.

  10. #9

    Quote Originally Posted by NiDBiLD View Post
    Environment: => Physical sensory input => Pe (Ne spectrum or Se filter) => Pi (Si filter or Ni spectrum) => Ji & Je balancing eachothers wills => Action => Result => Adjustment of P function filters / spectra and J-judgments according to result (or defense mechanisms like casting blame or projecting if one has problems modifying ones world view)

    Basically, a Ne-Si type will first percieve a lot of spaced out theories, opportunities and options through the Ne-prism, and then the Si-filter sets in and eliminates those that are incompatible with their accumulated experience. J-functions pick and choose between the remaining options.

    A Ne dominant has a weak Si filter, so a lot of the spaced out stuff is still there after elimination. A Si dominant has a weak Ne-spectrum, and will only let through a few reliable options.

    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.

    A Se dominant has a weak Ni. They will see more nuances of the direct Se experience, but they have fewer options for perspective shifting. A Ni dominant will filter out everything but the most obvious Se-input, but then they expand on this in every direction using the Ni-spectrum.



    I don't understand what you mean by this. Will you elaborate?



    I'd call what you name a "simple thought" a piece of Se data.

    I'd call the "general idea of red" that is built of several previous experiences of red a Si axiom.

    When we associate "red" with justice or blood, I'd still say that's a Si axiom, since the associations are fixed. When we always associate red with justice or blood or whatever - then that's Ne associations generating and expanding a Si axiom.

    If you associate "red" in this particular context to justice, but "red" in that particular context to revolution, this particular time only, because that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to you in this moment, then it's Se-Ni at work.

    Am I too vague, or do I make sense? I don't know anymore.
    Thank you so much once again. I need to seriously digest the first part. It might take me a day or two. And I will hold off my elaboration on the second part until then to, since I might have to rethink it entirely.

    I will comment on one thing now: The act of extending towards the possibilities of the connections between blood and justice, would be as you say, but once the connection is formed, then it becomes just another fixed Si Axiom I suppose. Which, just as a nerd, I find very very cool. I'm sure that connection, being the most complex, and needing the most ideas (Se data) to form the complex connected thoughts (Si Axiom), will be the least stable. As in, our neuroreceptors would have traveled that fixed path the least amount of time, therefore being the one that is easiest to shift. Anyway, I think I digress a bit. Surely interesting though is it not?

    I will need some time to consider the rest though. Happy thoughts!
    Catfish thanked this post.

  11. #10

    Ni:Se:Ti:Fe (NFJ, STP) Experiencer-interpreters with external values and internal logic.
    Ni:Se:Te:Fi (NTJ, SFP) Experiencer-interpreters with external pragmatism and internal values.
    Ne:Si:Ti:Fe (NTP, SFJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external values and internal logic.
    Ne:Si:Te:Fi (NFP, STJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external pragmatism and internal values.
    Do you think this is why people and their opposite type are supposed to get along? opposite function order, but same way of experiencing life?

    edit: I just read through the other replies and you mentioned that you have an easier time relating to an isfp than an intp because of what is written above.
    Nymma, Up and Away and JungyesMBTIno thanked this post.


     
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... 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 04:09 AM.
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