Why come a personality type with the following functions Ni, Te, Si, Fe, doesn't exist? It's impossible for those functions to coexist?
bogdan
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
Ne users view the details with unconscious mind, combine them with unconscious function to form the big picture and then that big picture comes to conscious mind. They can go back and view the details after perceiving the big picture, but because their mind is wired to see the details via unconscious, its hard for them to see the details via conscious and they arent that good at it.
Se users how ever view the details via conscious mind from the beginning, and because their conscious mind is filled with details, its harder for them to see the big picture.
My bad. The way I worded the part of my previous reply you guys are referring to (namely, that Se and Ne, for example, can coexist in a single person) was open to a lot of misinterpretation, I should have elaborated more on that. What you both said is certainly right, Se and Ne are by definition opposing functions, hence someone who is Ne-dominant can't be very good at Se too, that's just how it is. What I meant was merely that both functions can and actually do coexist in one way or another; in fact, it's something that MBTI acknowledges, since some descriptions of ENXP types describe their unhealthy side as engaging in lots of compulsive sensation seeking activities. Yes, this Se would be quite a shitty one, but both functions would still coexist on the same person. On the other hand, we can't ignore an important fact about ENXP types: Even though their end purpose differs completely, everything that Ne does, starts with Se.
The same goes for Ti and Te. I agree fully with your descriptions of them, Ray Mabry, they're spot on. But when you say that Te has three steps, 1) looking at the outer object, 2) looking into the subject, and 3) going back to the object... that second step, right there, is Ti. Just as a Ti-dom that orients its energy towards 1) the subject, 2) the object, and 3) the subject again, is using Te in his second step. Sure, this would be a small use of the opposing function, but it shows that everyone, no matter how unilateral they are in the use of one function or another, always uses the remaining 7 functions, no matter how little. So, to make my point, and if we accept what I just said as fact, I don't think we can ever rule out the possibility of someone being good at a function in both its orientations. After all, if Ti has elements of Te and vice versa, why wouldn't someone be able to develop that aspect of themselves? They are already using that other function/orientation of function in some way, after all.
Now, I agree that Jung's and MBTI's theory is extremely useful when it comes to understanding the differences and conflicts between people, as it gives quite a bit of insight into their psychology. However, I'm still strongly against the idea of defining a whole set of functions per type (whether that is 4 functions or 8). I think that order will pretty much always vary between two persons, even if they belong to the same type. In this regard, I like Jung's approach better in his book Psychological Types. He defines each type based solely on their primary function, and leaves it at that. I think he realized that it was pretentious, and (as I think) downright impossible to establish subtypes of his types based on the order of the 8 functions (or, again, even of just 4). He introduces the idea of the auxiliary function, though, as well as the inferior one (which I'm convinced is always the worst function of a given type out of the 8 ones, not the 4th one, like MBTI implies), but that's it. Another beef I have with MBTI is how it just assumed from Jung's book that the auxiliary function has to be in the opposite direction of the primary function's direction. From the way I see it, Jung left open the possibility of the auxiliary being in either the same or the opposite direction, so, personally, I believe it's perfectly possible to be, for example, Ni dominant and Fi auxiliary. MBTI, though, doesn't recognize this hypothetical type. If you're Ni dominant and a feeler, you can only be Fe auxiliary, says MBTI.
Joined
·
3,203 Posts
Ne and Se aren't opposite at all, they are two sides of the same coin. Both Externally focused perceiving functions, the functions in themselves aren't different. Se tends to act upon it's observations (which are filtered through Fi or Ti), while Ne focuses on considering it's actions. Both will build on what they see, these functions are incapable of introspection. Se will follow a clearer pattern in it's manner, but Ne will cover a more varied pattern.
The opposite to Ne would be Si, and the opposite to Se is Ni. Because functions of the same direction (Introverted vs Extroverted) function in the same manner, the order of Ni-Te-Si-Fe is contradictory by nature.
Both Te and Fe, are externally focused systems. One of what would be considered "logical" , while the other focuses on "value". You don't need both to function, because they do the same thing.
Both Ti and Fi, are internally focused systems. Again with the "logical" vs "value".
Ni and Si, are Internally focused perceptions both use information they already have and apply it to the outside world (Through Fe or Te).
You'll find that the four functions of your type are enough to exist perfect, as they are all counters and supporters of each other. I would say conflict arises when your functions don't communicate properly. The biggest difference is I/E in my book. As Introverts take their inner world and apply to the outside, while Extroverts take from their outside would and apply it to their inside.
Functions like Ne-Ti and Ni-Te function in opposite directions, one is trying to take a concrete world and analyze it through a subjective logic, the other a Subjective internal experience brought out through a concrete logical system.
The N/S difference changes the manner in which information is gathered, not much else. They are very similar.
The opposite to Ne would be Si, and the opposite to Se is Ni. Because functions of the same direction (Introverted vs Extroverted) function in the same manner, the order of Ni-Te-Si-Fe is contradictory by nature.
Both Te and Fe, are externally focused systems. One of what would be considered "logical" , while the other focuses on "value". You don't need both to function, because they do the same thing.
Both Ti and Fi, are internally focused systems. Again with the "logical" vs "value".
Ni and Si, are Internally focused perceptions both use information they already have and apply it to the outside world (Through Fe or Te).
You'll find that the four functions of your type are enough to exist perfect, as they are all counters and supporters of each other. I would say conflict arises when your functions don't communicate properly. The biggest difference is I/E in my book. As Introverts take their inner world and apply to the outside, while Extroverts take from their outside would and apply it to their inside.
Functions like Ne-Ti and Ni-Te function in opposite directions, one is trying to take a concrete world and analyze it through a subjective logic, the other a Subjective internal experience brought out through a concrete logical system.
The N/S difference changes the manner in which information is gathered, not much else. They are very similar.
They are two sides of the same coin indeed, but as such, they oppose each other. In our case, sharing the E orientation makes them both look at the external world, so Ne and Se will not oppose each other to the same extreme that Ne and Si oppose each other, for instance, I agree with that too. But they (Se and Ne) still oppose each other; the functions themselves (S and N), regardless of orientation, are always trying to negate each other. As Jung would put it, they use the same "energy".
I would argue that we all need 8 functions. I would get into how the complete lack of even just one of the 8 functions would severely handicap an individual, but I think there's consensus on that everyone uses them all, in one degree or another.
There's also the issue about the inferior function. To MBTI, the inferior function is our weakness. So far, so good. Problem is, it implies that it's the 4th function we use the most. That, I have a beef with. The inferior function (the exact opposite of our dominant), from my point of view, is always the 8th function, the worst of the whole bunch. It still pops up every now and then, and it still does serve a purpose (a balancing one), but being the exact opposite of the function we're most comfortable with, it doesn't come as a surprise that it's usually the one we use the least, the one we are the least comfortable with. For example, MBTI would say that an INTP would use Fe more than Fi, as Fe would be in the type's 4 function set (as the inferior function, of course). Well, I'd argue that the huge majority of INTPs use Fi more than they use Fe. I know some myself, and while they have problems with the overall F function, and thus don't pay much attention to their Fi, what really terrorizes them is to engage in Fe, and thus hardly ever give this function any use. In reality, you'll see most INTPs using their Fi more than their Fe. This is something that you can see every day in people; the huge majority of us tries to repress our inferior function as much as possible (a pointless attempt, since we can't ever repress fully any of the 8 functions). Because of this, I just can't buy the idea that there are functions at which an individual is even worse than at their inferior, which is what MBTI implies.
Regarding that Ni-Te-Si-Fe function set, if we are to assume that the 4th function here is the inferior one, then yes, this set would be impossible in real life, I agree with that. However, the OP (bogdan)'s signature shows that Se is his worst function while being Ni dominant. Which proves exactly what I said in my previous paragraph about the inferior function. Hence, bogdan, if we are to take the Ni-Te-Si-Fe function set as your best 4 functions, I would argue that yes, it's perfectly possible to have that particular function order.
For same reason something cannot be cold and hot at the same time, or black and white. Because they represent two sets of dichotomies: T and F, N and S. You have to understand what each function really means then you can see that they oppose each other.
You don't use all 8 functions at the same time though.
MBTI is not the only system in psychology, there are many more. You can probably interconnect several to each other to build a more complex model of personality. It is like pieces of a puzzle, but since we are here on MBTI forums this is what discuss here. There is no reason to attack the model for its simplicity, that is already apparent.
Functions are attitudes or perceptions. They are not task sets or skill sets.
I disagree. You cannot really adapt to just about anything. Your personality some parameters of which functions measure is yielded by a physical organ - your brain. The brain cannot just change, wire and rewire itself just as you please. Therefore you cannot train up functions and suddenly switch into an attitude that is reverse polar of your natural one.
Sure, as I have stated you can try to combine MBTI with other models in psychology and other knowledge to yield a more complex model.
Yes I like the socionics way better. They have assigned roles to functions rather than just order that people correlate to strength.
Sure, as I have stated you can try to combine MBTI with other models in psychology and other knowledge to yield a more complex model.
Yes, in socionics it is said that the ignored function, one that is the extraverted form of the dominant, produces a sort of by-products in thinking. That indeed people have good understanding of this function but it is kept on a very short leash in favor of the dominant. I have felt Ne poke out several times especially when I have been stressed in life somehow. Normally these functions are repressed but when you are under increased mental or physical stress, the controls loosen and shadow functions peek through. However this does not mean you can use Te and Ti interchangeably at will or at the same time.
I elaborated a bit in my previous replies on what I really meant regarding that.
I don't criticize it solely because of its simplicity, I criticize it because in my opinion it misinterpreted Jung's theory on a few points of importance. I'm not familiar with other personality theories, just with MBTI's and Jung's, and since MBTI's was based almost to its entirety on Jung's, I think a place like this is the ideal one to touch upon these things.
One can't become extroverted if they are introverted, or vice versa, plus I've read articles that suggest a correlation between how our brain is "wired" and certain functions. But in my opinion this only proves that we can't change types. I think I went on a tangent earlier, anyway, I probably implied that we can train our inherent weaknesses even to the point of excelling at them. We certainly can't do that, indeed. The inferior function will pretty much always be our weakness, no matter how much we "train" it. In the hypothetical and extraordinary case of someone who ends up being good at it, that would mean suppressing the one thing they excel at, so it would be quite an unhealthy case.
My point was more in the lines that, if we accept that the inferior function is the worst of the 8 functions of a given type, this individual will be able to develop (just to a certain degree, of course) his "middle" functions. To use the example of the INTP again, I don't think someone of this type can ever excel at Fe, however I'm sure he could develop his Fi until it becomes a fairly strong function of this person (emphasis on "fairly"). While the Fi of this person could never become as strong as either his Ti or as the Fi of an actual Fi-dom, I'm still convinced this hypothetical case is quite possible.
but you see Ne is a function that sees the details via unconscious, combines them unconsciously etc. So when an Se user sees the big picture, it doesent happen via unconscious mind, it happens due to conscious efforts on combining these details. because it happens via conscious mind, it actually isnt Ne whats happening there, even tho its also about combining the details.
cognitive function in mbti is bunch of actual brain functions combined into one, based on how they work with each other in one psychological type. so even tho Ne is about seeing the big picture, its also about seeing it via unconscious. when Se user sees the big picture, he does it via conscious, so its not actually Ne that he is using to see the big picture. i dont know if Se users also see the big picture in some cases via unconscious, so its hard to say if they also use Ne, but seeing the big picture via consciously acknowledged details is not Ne.
also Ne doesent start with Se, because Se is consciously seeing the details and Ne starts with seeing the details via unconscious.
same thing happens with Fe + Ti in some cases for example, those two functions combined might lead to same result as Fi in some situation and it might seem identical on the surface, but it doesent mean that the person is using Fi. i cant say that Fe Ti users use no Fi, because its pretty much impossible to say since Fe Ti looks so similar in some situations on the surface. but i do know that even tho i score high Fi and low Fe in function tests, its actually my high Ti working with my Fe. like with this Fi empathizing thing for example, it works by creating an unconscious simulation of whats happening to other person, putting this simulation onto himself via unconscious and your reactions to this simulation comes to conscious mind. i do this empathizing via conscious mind from the beginning, starting with facts that Fe gives and figuring out how the other person feels using deduction of Ti. this is basically the same thing that Fi does, and i most likely use same parts of my brains that Fi user does, but it doesent mean that it is Fi since the principles for this action are different.
I don't know about all the technicalities of the theories, but I feel like I experience both Ne and Se a lot, but not really Ni and Si, maybe I don't understand them correctly, who knows. When I read the short descriptions those are the ones I feel I identify the most with. I'm not sure about F and T in regards to that.
Joined
·
3,310 Posts
Off-topic question:
I keep seeing discussions of "inexistent" personality types like these:
Ne is perceiving abstract patterns and connections in response to stimuli (either in the external world or in the mind. ) Ne generates new information starting from something existing. Ne focuses on future possibilities.
Ni is the creation of mental imagery independent of outer stimuli. Ni generates abstract structural images of a given problem domain that a person can view from different points of view at will. Ni focuses on the structure of things from a timeless point of view.
Se is indiscriminant awareness of the physical environment. Se prefers to indulge in that which exists in the present moment.
Si is awareness of concrete forms and categories of sensory perception. Si interprets stimuli in terms of the past. Si stores and recalls facts, figures and past situations.
Te is structuring one's interactions with the external world in a systematic fashion, based on logical and impersonal hierarchies and categories.
Ti is judging the validity of perceptions logically. Ti as a mental process is a collection of threads of thought taking concepts or percepts apart or pulling them together based on rules and criteria.
Fe is adapting one's interactions with the external world to the moods and feelings of others. Fe is sensitive to events like changes in people's expressions or other such "soft," hard-to-quantify conditions in the environment.
Fi is judging perceptions emotionally, based on weight of evidence. Fi as a mental process is the flow of judgements on perceptions personal ideals or feeling of right and wrong. Fi strives for integrity and consistency in it's ideals. Fi is higher cognitive refinement personal emotion. Fi enables one to vividly re-experience past feelings.
How do I determine which I have?
I keep seeing discussions of "inexistent" personality types like these:
Ne is perceiving abstract patterns and connections in response to stimuli (either in the external world or in the mind. ) Ne generates new information starting from something existing. Ne focuses on future possibilities.
Ni is the creation of mental imagery independent of outer stimuli. Ni generates abstract structural images of a given problem domain that a person can view from different points of view at will. Ni focuses on the structure of things from a timeless point of view.
Se is indiscriminant awareness of the physical environment. Se prefers to indulge in that which exists in the present moment.
Si is awareness of concrete forms and categories of sensory perception. Si interprets stimuli in terms of the past. Si stores and recalls facts, figures and past situations.
Te is structuring one's interactions with the external world in a systematic fashion, based on logical and impersonal hierarchies and categories.
Ti is judging the validity of perceptions logically. Ti as a mental process is a collection of threads of thought taking concepts or percepts apart or pulling them together based on rules and criteria.
Fe is adapting one's interactions with the external world to the moods and feelings of others. Fe is sensitive to events like changes in people's expressions or other such "soft," hard-to-quantify conditions in the environment.
Fi is judging perceptions emotionally, based on weight of evidence. Fi as a mental process is the flow of judgements on perceptions personal ideals or feeling of right and wrong. Fi strives for integrity and consistency in it's ideals. Fi is higher cognitive refinement personal emotion. Fi enables one to vividly re-experience past feelings.
How do I determine which I have?
You should find out which you find yourself using without making an effort to use it.
Let's say a given person is a Ni dominant. Their inferior is Se, but that doesn't mean that they do not use Se at all - as a matter of fact, to reach Ni they must detach from Se. So, this person will be watching the enviroment in terms of concrete information, until something calls him to detach and then develop from there. That's how those axis work. The strenght of the function just determine how much time we spend using this function. Being an INFJ, I just need a very small detail in the environment to detach and go out for a long period of time to my mind, going into visions and thoughts.
A Se dominant would do the opposite of me, they would be scanning the environment for a longer time, then going back into their minds, having a small vision, which returns to their actual environment for a new focus. A person can't notice 'everything' everytime - there's a need to focus. Like my Se tells to my Ni to detach, their Ni tell their Se to focus on something.
So, when you're dealing with your world, notice how are you perceiving. Don't try to analyze or change your stream of thought, just focus on how are you perceiving the world. By doing that, you may understand how yourself works in terms of functions.
People get these inexistent personality types because of a couple of things: First, sometimes, the descriptions of functions aren't that clear. For instance, Ni users are known to be detached. Ti users also are known to be aloof and detached. However, Ni detach from the real world stimuli (Se), while Ti detach from social norms and expectatives (Fe). So, if you happen to read that Ti or Ni are detached individuals, you would be inclined to agree that you might use either Ni or Ti.
If you also compare Ni to Fi, you'll find some information along the lines of Fi users follow their feelings regarding a matter, they judge things according to how they feel about them, etc. When you read about Ni, you'll see they say that they often have strong intuitions regarding things, and often follow them. Don't they look to awfully similar? If you had to answer a question for that says 'You always do what you believe to be right?' Would you say that they're asking for Fi or Ni?
Secondly, there's also bias of a person. I'd say that 99% of us learned of MBTI by taking the test, then proceeded to learn about the functions and how they work. That's ok, but the MBTI tests are binary, and don't take into account the health of a personality. An ENFP who had to learn to control their drive will be likely to be typed as an INFP. An INTJ who isn't orderly who strong feelings may be typed as INFJ or INFP. This person would start taking this tests information as a possibity of their personality. Then, this INTJ will start to look information to support the fact that they use Fe instead of Te. If they had been typed as INFP, they may start believing they have been using Ne instead of Ni the whole time.
And that's where we see weird function orderings. Think about dominant-tertiary loops: These functions share the same attitude towards the world. So, it's often possible that a person will believe their tertiary is stronger than their auxiliary. Now think about the normal aversion against the inferior function: This person will put this function in the last of their list, believing to have dominance with other functions outside of their preferences.
And after this, the person will need to review their experiences, further messing with that function ordering.
It takes a lot of experience to determine -and the hardest part, accept- your true personality type. And there's even the risk of this person start to fall under the trap of following their type description, ignoring the possiblity to grow as a person by developing their weaknesses.
One of the main faults about MBTI is that it depends on self-assessment. A person's view of themselves may change a lot depending on their life experiences and ongoing psychological challenges. A 15 year old doesn't view themselves the same way they will view them a decade later.
There's a lot of misconceptions regarding the MBTI and JCF, but they are an useful tool to learn about yourself and others.
Let's say a given person is a Ni dominant. Their inferior is Se, but that doesn't mean that they do not use Se at all - as a matter of fact, to reach Ni they must detach from Se. So, this person will be watching the enviroment in terms of concrete information, until something calls him to detach and then develop from there. That's how those axis work. The strenght of the function just determine how much time we spend using this function. Being an INFJ, I just need a very small detail in the environment to detach and go out for a long period of time to my mind, going into visions and thoughts.
A Se dominant would do the opposite of me, they would be scanning the environment for a longer time, then going back into their minds, having a small vision, which returns to their actual environment for a new focus. A person can't notice 'everything' everytime - there's a need to focus. Like my Se tells to my Ni to detach, their Ni tell their Se to focus on something.
So, when you're dealing with your world, notice how are you perceiving. Don't try to analyze or change your stream of thought, just focus on how are you perceiving the world. By doing that, you may understand how yourself works in terms of functions.
People get these inexistent personality types because of a couple of things: First, sometimes, the descriptions of functions aren't that clear. For instance, Ni users are known to be detached. Ti users also are known to be aloof and detached. However, Ni detach from the real world stimuli (Se), while Ti detach from social norms and expectatives (Fe). So, if you happen to read that Ti or Ni are detached individuals, you would be inclined to agree that you might use either Ni or Ti.
If you also compare Ni to Fi, you'll find some information along the lines of Fi users follow their feelings regarding a matter, they judge things according to how they feel about them, etc. When you read about Ni, you'll see they say that they often have strong intuitions regarding things, and often follow them. Don't they look to awfully similar? If you had to answer a question for that says 'You always do what you believe to be right?' Would you say that they're asking for Fi or Ni?
Secondly, there's also bias of a person. I'd say that 99% of us learned of MBTI by taking the test, then proceeded to learn about the functions and how they work. That's ok, but the MBTI tests are binary, and don't take into account the health of a personality. An ENFP who had to learn to control their drive will be likely to be typed as an INFP. An INTJ who isn't orderly who strong feelings may be typed as INFJ or INFP. This person would start taking this tests information as a possibity of their personality. Then, this INTJ will start to look information to support the fact that they use Fe instead of Te. If they had been typed as INFP, they may start believing they have been using Ne instead of Ni the whole time.
And that's where we see weird function orderings. Think about dominant-tertiary loops: These functions share the same attitude towards the world. So, it's often possible that a person will believe their tertiary is stronger than their auxiliary. Now think about the normal aversion against the inferior function: This person will put this function in the last of their list, believing to have dominance with other functions outside of their preferences.
And after this, the person will need to review their experiences, further messing with that function ordering.
It takes a lot of experience to determine -and the hardest part, accept- your true personality type. And there's even the risk of this person start to fall under the trap of following their type description, ignoring the possiblity to grow as a person by developing their weaknesses.
One of the main faults about MBTI is that it depends on self-assessment. A person's view of themselves may change a lot depending on their life experiences and ongoing psychological challenges. A 15 year old doesn't view themselves the same way they will view them a decade later.
There's a lot of misconceptions regarding the MBTI and JCF, but they are an useful tool to learn about yourself and others.
I did not go through all the post, but if this was answered, sorry for the repeat. To answer your question, function types are not truly opposites as in Ni vs Se, Ti vs Fe, etc. These are actually what Jung calls compensatory functions wherein they negate one another to assure balance. The true opposites of one another can be found here, and tandem types can be located here.
You cannot use Ti-Fi, Ni-Si, etc since they are truly opposite types. Theoretically compensatory functions must be present to offset too much use of their compensatory opposites. Referring back to your example, Ni must have Se present, Te must have Fi and so on. The other functions you allude to cannot compensate a balance of the others. Therefore Te and Si will not negate one another and neither will Ni-Fe.
Joined
·
15,049 Posts
According to the last functions test I took I am Ne > Fi > Ni> Fe> Se> Ti> Te > Si
I think it just means I'm very inclined to be in the NF box, and the supposed strength of the Se probably has to do with being an Ne dom. I think some of the Se questions resemble the way Ne approaches life.
I think it just means I'm very inclined to be in the NF box, and the supposed strength of the Se probably has to do with being an Ne dom. I think some of the Se questions resemble the way Ne approaches life.
That test merely indicates the functions that you are currently using. As I have said in the past, take it in two months and those functions will change, in two years they will change as well. They're not how your function make-up is consistently. Besides based on the alignment you allude to, you are acknowledging no means of being grounded, being overly sensitive and incapable of any sort of logic or objectivity.
Joined
·
15,049 Posts
I'm sorry but you must not understand the functions. Fi and Fe don't mean "overly sensitive" and have nothing to do with emotion. INTJs can be extremely sensitive to criticisms of their sense of being right, can react at times in an uncharacteristically emotional way to people who pick at them too much, and they are a logical thinking type. Fi and Fe mean ethics.
Also, I've taken this test many times over the past two years and the only difference I've noticed is that sometimes Ni is higher or Fi is higher.
We're well aware that feeling does not equate to emotion and we're aware that Fi or Fe when balanced with their respective compensatory functions (Te and Ti) do not become overly sensitive. But we're not talking about someone who has a balance when claiming to have a double dose of intuition and feeling. We're talking about a very imbalanced person. INTJs are as sensitive as the next person because they have Fi at their tertiary. What prevents them from being overly sensitive is their Te. You’re claiming to use Ne > Fi > Ni> Fe> Se> Ti> Te > Si which at best it would be an imbalanced ENFP with no means of being objective and an inability to remain grounded since you’re alleging your four primary functions are nothing but intuition and feeling. Those first four functions can’t operate that close in proximity.
Joined
·
15,049 Posts
It's a test, dude. Which is why I explained that the first four functions are merely a manifestation of the fact that I have a strong preference for being an intuitive feeler, not that I really use Ne and Ni that closely. I also think the presence of Se would be "grounding" if it were fifth, but then again I think Se might be high for Ne doms just because of the way the questions are worded...I noticed this on another forum where a bunch of ENFPs listed their results, and most of us had average to good use of Se.
It's a glitch in the form of the test not the actual function use, which I used as example in my original post to tell the person in the OP that NO ONE (seriously no one) tests exactly like they're "supposed to" with those tests in the exact order EX. Ne/Fi/Te/Si...however, most people who have communicated with me a bunch see a lot of Te in my thinking, even more so than Ti, even though the test results say differently.
I know someone who is extremely knowledgeable about function theory who thinks all of those supposed functions tests are crap.
I talked about this earlier, so I will try not to repeat myself too much.
You actually can use that combination of functions, since we all use the 8 functions. The fact that we use them all also takes care of the compensatory issue. I recommend reading Marie-Louise von Franz on the inferior function; there, she's asked whether a Fi-dom can use Ti or if this person's T would only be inferior Te. She replies by saying that anyone can have "all the functions all the ways", only that it would not be such a big problem in life.
I would argue that the inferior function, albeit necessary, is always the one that pops up the least in a person of any type. Why? Well, because it goes completely against the one function this person is most comfortable with. As unreliable as they are, the tests always show that people use their inferior the least. It's not in the 4th place, which is where MBTI theory says it is placed. That doesn't mean the compensatory role of the inferior function is not present, though. The inferior pops up the least, but it does so every now and then, usually in a childish and archaic way. Due to its compensatory nature, it may also prove much more gratifying than other functions. Using the case of the Fi-dom again, this person would be able to use Ti at will (assuming he has "trained" it with time), this function would not present any problem to him. As such, this person would indeed use Ti more than Te. However, Te, despite of its more uncontrollable nature in the case of the Fi-dom, but due to the compensatory role it would play here, would prove "gratifying" to him during the few instances when it pops up, more so than Ti would.
To sum it up:
-ISFPs and INFPs can use and train Ti, and even use it very well, despite of it not being in the four function set of these types. Ti would not present any problem to them, but it would also not prove very gratifying.
-ISFPs and INFPs use Te less than they use Ti. Te would be uncontrollable, manifest itself in childish and archaic ways, but it would be more gratifying than Ti, because Te compensates and "completes" the person.
I look at fourtines's test results, for instance, and not surprisingly, being a Ne-dom, your test says that your worst function is Si. Would you say this is accurate? Do you actually see yourself in real life using Si less than the other 7 functions?
Yep, it does. The Ne user scans the environment in search for objects that can then fuel Ne. It's not a pure, full blown Se, since an actual Se-dom would stay there, in the real world, engaging all his senses in the outer world, interacting with it. However, the process of intuition of the Ne-dom does indeed start with Se; in order to imagine all the possibilities that outer objects contain, one first has to scan the environment, and that role is played by Se.
fourtines for instance, said that she and many other ENFPs have a fairly high Se. I know an ENFP myself, and the same is true for him. It is pretty much a fact that ENFPs (and ENTPs, for that matter) use Se so much (despite of it not being their dominant function), that they are usually mistaken by ESXPs. This should not surprise anyone, as, again, the process of Ne starts with Se.
Of course they’re crap, which is why I always tell people to put more effort in knowing one’s self instead of depending on assessments and descriptions. But going back to my original response, I maintain the point being made was if you claim to be doubling up on the intuition and feeling functions, you are merely claiming an imbalance. The fifth place for Se is useless. Te is my fifth function per the 8-model theory, but it would have to supersede my Fe to be considered. The Se in this case would have to be stronger than your Ne since that is the only function that does the same thing. As I alluded to in the references, Se-Ne, Te-Fe, Ni-Si, Ti-Fi all do the same thing. Jung is explicit in saying:
It should be a given that S-T must be followed by F-N for balance. As for the test, they’re only as dependable as the person taking it is honest and truly knows themselves.
We’re not saying you cannot use combinations of functions which I referenced to in post #31. The fact that we can use all eight is a given. However the function order must be in a way that if healthy you are getting a dose of all four functions and using both attitudes. Otherwise you’re imbalanced. I am glad that you referenced to Marie Louise von Franz’ work since she also said although Fi and Te counter one another, Fi and Fe are antagonistic toward one another even more so. Her theory, in which I am in agreement with, is that Ne-Ni, Se-Si, Te-Ti-, Fe-Fi cannot and do not work in tandem, which goes back to my comments to Fourtines is that Ne-Fi-Fe-Ni cannot work together. There is too much antagonism.
I disagree with the notion that someone dominating with Fi will be able to have a good use of Ti, on so many levels. First you seem to be contradicting yourself if you adhere to an 8 model function that IFP will be able to develop their Ti. Beebe denounces it, as well as Berens. That is their true opposite. Any time those two types attempt to use an introverting judging function, they will by default use their Fi. Ti will never come close. Going back to Jung, he makes it quite clear in saying:
So contrary to your assertion, someone dominating with Fi will never have a good use of Ti since it will negate the use if Fi. IFPs can and do use Te much better than I, but never Ti. In fact from their booklet, “Understanding Yourself And Others: An Introduction to the Personality Type Code”, Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi describes the use of Ti by IFPs this way:
You are taking this out of context. Jung isn't talking here about the 8 functions and their hypothetical order, but about the 4 main functions, regardless of orientation: S, N, F and T. What Jung is saying here is that, if you're first a T and then an S, your order of the 4 main functions will be S-T-F-N. If you are an introverted thinking type then, of course, that T will be mainly Ti instead of Te, and Fe will be your inferior. I'm of the opinion (as I explained earlier) that we can say very little beyond that, though. MBTI tries to establish the order of all of the functions, Jung never did. In my opinion, MBTI is very pretentious for its own good in this regard (which is ironic, because overall it's an oversimplification of Jung's theory). We can't establish the function order of people like MBTI tries to do. The fact that so many people don't have their cognitive functions (according either to them or to tests) in the order that the theory says, is, in my opinion, not an argument against these tests, but an argument against MBTI's very theory.
According to MBTI. I'm of the opinion that the theory is wrong, though. I'm going to focus on the inferior function. According to the theory, the inferior function is a necessary component of each type's set of 4 functions, as it takes care of the balancing of the dominant function. It is correct that it balances the main function, this is the very same thing that Jung said. However, the inferior function, by definition, is the very worst function of them all in a given person/type. It is not the 4th function, but the 8th one; it is the function where a person's very weakness lies; hence, the function that this person will try to avoid the most. It still takes care of balancing the primary function, since the inferior function pops up every now and then, whether its user wants it or not, but it is the very last function of them all, not the 4th one (we see this all the time here, people scoring as Ni dominants, for instance, and scoring the lowest in Se; there's a reason for that, it's not a coincidence). With this I'm implying that a function can take care of that necessary compensatory role by being in the 8th place; in other words, that a function doesn't have to be in the 4 first positions to play a significant role.
That's not exactly true, as von Franz (following Jung's theory) focuses a lot on how the inferior function is always the one that negates (and thus compensates) the dominant function. But I do remember reading something like that. I can see why that would be true... partly. But at the same time, the idea that someone would have a very strong Fi, but no Fe whatsoever (or very little of it) doesn't make much sense to me. The way I see it, if we were to ask a bunch of Fi-doms, half of them would report having very little Fe... while the other half would report giving Fe decent levels of use. It can really go both ways, just as many thinkers focus only on Ti or Te, others give both a lot of use despite of having a clear preference towards one or the other, etc.
Again, my point is that MBTI leaves very little room for variety, for deviations from the "rule". That is a mistake, especially when we're talking about something as unpredictable as us people.
Well, whatever the case, the thing is that a lot of people (in this very forum, for instance) report having both good Fi and good Ti, despite of having a preference for one or the other. I completely disagree with one being "the true opposite" of the other, since the true opposite is the inferior function. It takes a much bigger effort to change the orientation AND the function per se (like going from Fi to Te) than simply changing the actual function while keeping the same orientation (like going from Fi to Ti). This is why lots of people report having these kind of functions, and also why so little people report giving good use to their inferior function. The reason, as I explained earlier, is that the inferior function is by definition our weakness, the function we try to suppress the most.
I remember reading this from the book. I think we could discuss that quote alone for ages, so I'll try to be brief about it. It's definitely true that feeling can't coexist with thinking, as Jung says, but I have my doubts about his implying that no individual can have balanced feeling and thinking. First of all, I think this quote implies one thing: If someone seems to have balanced T and F, that person will most likely have a dominant perceiving function. With that in mind, it's also obvious that this hypothetical person would not have T and F at the same level as a T-dom and a F-dom, respectively. This is pretty much what Jung is saying, however I think he takes it too far; he implies the thinking and feeling of this person would be... well, downright bad. And that's a bit extreme, I think. Let's not forget that Jung has been wrong in the past; he initially associated introverted types with thinking types, and extroverted types with feeling types, a theory that he himself realized didn't have any basis whatsoever before he came up with his final one about the 4 functions.
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
