Personality Cafe banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is it possible for someone to have function preferences that don't line up with any type? For example, an extroverted judging function as the dominant with extroverted perception as the auxiliary, or an introverted judging function with introverted perception? And don't mean a dominant-tertiary loop, which would imply that's not their true preference but just a temporary phase.

Could it be that functions in the auxiliary position work differently than they would in the dominant position, meaning they can seem like a different function? For example, auxiliary Si appearing like Se or auxiliary Ne resembling Ni more than Ne.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
Is it possible for someone to have function preferences that don't line up with any type? For example, an extroverted judging function as the dominant with extroverted perception as the auxiliary, or an introverted judging function with introverted perception? And don't mean a dominant-tertiary loop, which would imply that's not their true preference but just a temporary phase.

Could it be that functions in the auxiliary position work differently than they would in the dominant position, meaning they can seem like a different function? For example, auxiliary Si appearing like Se or auxiliary Ne resembling Ni more than Ne.
In theory, no. Though displayed behavior may make it appear otherwise, the theory indicates the extroverted functions need to balanced with introverted ones and vise-versa.
I think this makes sense in practice since, for example, if I were to practice the gathering of information for its immediate application in the real world in order to satisfy a need/want in an efficient way, this would eventually necessitate my brain to create patterns of thinking that correspond to Te-Ni-Se-Fi. The judging axis Te-Fi making me act according to a powerful motivation found within, Fi helping me ground the WANT (of either the environment or me) so that Te is motivated to act as Ni (or Si) gives it the info it needs. Ne would seriously not be too good with Te, as Te needs to be grounded on something in order to go forward, whereas Ne is perfect for analytical, introverted judging functions that focus on the exploration (and really, not the application) of something more grandiose than what is plainly seen. I think if a person used Ne-Te continuously, it would maybe create weaker version of Batman's Joker, while Te-Ne would be an ENTP on cocaine. There's no logical grounding. It would be a disaster, all actions having no coherence but still being applied for no reason.
Our brains are actually pretty efficient themselves at creating the super highways that eventually make our cognitive functions what they are.

 
HOWEVER!
I love what you're bringing up, and I am actually putting into practice. It's something I've thought about.
No, not using the functions out of order, such as Ne-Te, but using functions that actually don't make sense with my type.

The first thing I'm actually trying to develop is the judging functions axis I don't use: Fi and Te.
The way I'm attempting to develop Fi first is by visiting my own emotions and sorting them out, which requires feeling them again. I do this by listening to songs and meditating on what they're trying to communicate, FEELING what they're expressing. Crying if I need to, feeling empowered to feel something as they play. I'm also taking pictures and videos of my face more often, drawing it a lot, even, become more familiarized with who I am and the value of myself, whether it be negative or positive.
Is it working? I'm not sure, but it's really, REALLY interesting and fun.

I think no personality type has any excuse to lazily stick to whatever functions they have preferred all their lives, and being aware of what them is actually what can help us all develop them more and becoming more amazing people overall.

So, while I don't think Ne is ever going to be auxiliaring Te (though I would like to know how that would hypothetically occur) on a regular basis, I think that a person that doesn't use such could develop them so that it may seem so.
I think that topic, however, deserves its own thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,196 Posts
Not only is it possible, most people are probably this way.

Having an introverted preference for perceiving doesn't mean that you can't do extraverted perceiving. It just means you do more introverted perceiving than extraverted perceiving. Once you stop seeing everything as so binary (either you are totally introverted or totally extraverted in perceiving for example) then it should be pretty obvious why introverts could be healthily introverted in both perceiving and judging, and the same with extraverts only the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Recede

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,106 Posts
Not only is it possible, most people are probably this way.

Having an introverted preference for perceiving doesn't mean that you can't do extraverted perceiving. It just means you do more introverted perceiving than extraverted perceiving. Once you stop seeing everything as so binary (either you are totally introverted or totally extraverted in perceiving for example) then it should be pretty obvious why introverts could be healthily introverted in both perceiving and judging, and the same with extraverts only the other way around.
It is possible if you ignore how the theory works and start making interpretation based on your own, new theory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,196 Posts

It is possible if you ignore how the theory works and start making interpretation based on your own, new theory.
Well yeah but I believe my theory is based in reality rather than Myers who seemed to just want everyone to feel nice and balanced. At least Jung based his theory on observations and he seems much closer to my view on the situation.

If you made a test that tested for E/I divided into two categories: E/I for perceiving, and E/I for judging, what do you think the distribution of results would look like?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
Well yeah but I believe my theory is based in reality rather than Myers who seemed to just want everyone to feel nice and balanced. At least Jung based his theory on observations and he seems much closer to my view on the situation.

If you made a test that tested for E/I divided into two categories: E/I for perceiving, and E/I for judging, what do you think the distribution of results would look like?
You should take a look at Dari Nardi's work. He's doing actual research on this stuff based on brain imaging. His results seem to match up with a lot of the theory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,196 Posts
You should take a look at Dari Nardi's work. He's doing actual research on this stuff based on brain imaging. His results seem to match up with a lot of the theory.
More like he explains his results (very low sample size) through the lens of theory. And of course he's stuck relying on non-scientists to talk about how his results are evidence of anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
More like he explains his results (very low sample size) through the lens of theory. And of course he's stuck relying on non-scientists to talk about how his results are evidence of anything.
1: In 2012 his sample size was low, that is true. He has been working on this since though and he has well over 300 samples. His results have remained consistent in the meantime.
2: If you've actually read his research you know that he goes by results first and theory second. For example: he has found consistent patterns of brain organization and activity among groups of people, regardless of what theory you use for it. People just use their brains differently. The brain pattern that has historically been labelled as 'trans-contextual thinking' for example occurs most often with people that identify with the ENxP-types. You can call that a coincidence or 'fitting the facts to the theory' as you like, but if there's a correllation that's as strong as this one, it's worth it to delve into what's the actual cause for that correllation. (yes I know correllation isn't causation, that's why I didn't say that)
3: I've never heard him say that his findings were evidence of anything. He's just saying that he's finding consistent results in brain imaging and that it's worth looking at this kind of data if we want to find out more about how our brains work.

It's okay to be skeptical, even good. But don't brush it off until you've done the research on the topic. I'm not saying you should just trust me on this, but I am saying that just repeating something you read off of a 5-year old post on the internet might not be the most scientific way to go about this (not saying you did that, but your arguments do echo a lot of posts I've seen from 2012. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I love to be wrong about stuff. Means there's more to learn)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,196 Posts
@Drecon yeah, he observed brain patterns, but not functions. Where's his 16 neat clusters? I was part of a group that looked at his stuff. I'll admit I was one of the lazier ones, but none of us found anything supportive of functions. And there are definitely things that correlate with types, but that's already known. There's tons of research on how the letters correlate with stuff in much larger sample sizes, but I just don't see letter zealots jumping all over that research and suggesting it demonstrates the existence of letters beyond a psychometric result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drecon

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
@Drecon yeah, he observed brain patterns, but not functions. Where's his 16 neat clusters? I was part of a group that looked at his stuff. I'll admit I was one of the lazier ones, but none of us found anything supportive of functions. And there are definitely things that correlate with types, but that's already known. There's tons of research on how the letters correlate with stuff in much larger sample sizes, but I just don't see letter zealots jumping all over that research and suggesting it demonstrates the existence of letters beyond a psychometric result.
If you've actually analyzed his data and don't agree with his conclusions I definitely understand your position. In that case I won't bother you with it anymore.

I'll take your words under advisement. I'm far from convinced yet, but it's good to hear another sound on this from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
 

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
Having two dominant introverted or extroverted functions is essentially like having a car with a steering wheel at the front and at the back, so no, it's impossible.

As far as ''Can this function be more like this one?'' That's people misinterpreting functions and attributing the characteristics they want to them. Often people who don't like certain ways their type operates so they crap on the theory and insist that in their case, they are some super unique and different kind of hybrid type.

I said it many times and I'll say it again. You either believe in function theory and abide by its logic or you don't. But you can't make it your own and pretend you're some kind of pioneer who found a new code. Not saying that's what you're doing, just speaking in general terms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
In that case, is it at least possible for Si to just be Sensing and not have any of that emphasis on memory, past, nostalgia, comparing past and present, and disliking change or trying new things? That's literally the only way I see this working at all. If I'm an Fe type, why should I have to either care about the past or have hunches?
 

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
Se interprets sensory data objectively, Si interprets it subjectively. that's pretty much all there is to it. Saying that one is memory and the other one is excitement or something, is just attributes people have attached to them to better tell them apart and explain how they work differently. But yeah, Sensing is sensing, it can be experienced differently or explained differently by individuals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Se interprets sensory data objectively, Si interprets it subjectively. that's pretty much all there is to it. Saying that one is memory and the other one is excitement or something, is just attributes people have attached to them to better tell them apart and explain how they work differently. But yeah, Sensing is sensing, it can be experienced differently or explained differently by individuals.
I could never make sense of how Si is supposed to be subjective, it seems to contradict the definition of Sensing, which sees things as they are.
 

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
Yes, but everything seen and experienced has different meanings, undertones and personal connotations to it. Whereas Se just experiences. It was fun or lame, good or bad, usually doesn't go any further than that, they're eagerly awaiting the next experience.

Both Si and Ne use immediate reality to come up with multi-faceted interpretations. With Si. it filters it down to a bottom line, with Ne it blows it up for infinite fleeting data.

Se and Ni are quite different. Se simply deals with what is, while Ni retracts in the users head and comes up with personal imagery and meaning free from sensory data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Yes, but everything seen and experienced has different meanings, undertones and personal connotations to it. Whereas Se just experiences. It was fun or lame, good or bad, usually doesn't go any further than that, they're eagerly awaiting the next experience.

Both Si and Ne use immediate reality to come up with multi-faceted interpretations. With Si. it filters it down to a bottom line, with Ne it blows it up for infinite fleeting data.

Se and Ni are quite different. Se simply deals with what is, while Ni retracts in the users head and comes up with personal imagery and meaning free from sensory data.
Sure, things have different connotations for different people. But what would one even do with that? I'm looking at the bottle of water on my desk right now, trying to think of what personal meaning it has to me. I guess the personal meaning is that I've always drank bottled water since I was a kid? But so what? I don't know, I just don't think my perception is subjective. Which puts me at Fe and Se/Ne. And I'm an introvert.

Also I'm thinking about someone I know who I'm pretty sure is Fi and Ni. She has hunches and gut feelings all the time, and is very sensitive and focused on her own feelings. She does care about harmony, like an Fe type, but it's different. She is far more focused on how things are affecting her than how her than on the kind of outward, tactful focus on how one might affect others. (I focus on my own feelings all the time too, but it's different. There's no personal process involved in it, it's more like I just observe and experience my mood.) She shows no sign of Se or Ne.

I want my type and others' typings to match what's really, actually there. If I called the person who uses Fi and Ni an INFJ, INFP, or ISFP, none of those would be accurate. She is Fi-Ni. Not Ni-Fe, not Fi-Ne, and not Fi-Se. Why should I compromise and call her something she is not? Because MBTI says so? Theory does not trump reality.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top