False dichotomy in MBTI

[k9b4]

What is thinking and feeling in MBTI? In my mind, thinking is logic and feeling is emotion.

What is sensing and intuition in MBTI? In my mind, intuition is introversion and sensing is extroversion.

According to these definitions, MBTI theory assumes that logic is opposite to emotion and introversion is opposite to extroversion, which I believe is incorrect.

I can feel emotions and think logically at the same time, it's just that as I use more of one I don't have any 'attention' left to assign to the other.

If logic and emotion are opposite because of the above paragraph, then logic and introversion must also be opposite, for the same reason. I can think both logically and 'conceptually' (introversion), but as I use more of one I don't have any 'attention' left to assign to the other.

 

[redbaron]

From the MBTI website:

Focus on the outer world or on your own inner world? This is called Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I).

Focus on the basic information you take in or do you prefer to interpret and add meaning? This is called Sensing (S) or Intuition (N).

Prefer first look at logic and consistency or first look at the people and special circumstances? This is called Thinking (T) or Feeling (F).

Prefer to get things decided or do you prefer to stay open to new information and options? This is called Judging (J) or Perceiving (P).

In contrast with your definitions:

thinking is logic and feeling is emotion.

intuition is introversion and sensing is extroversion.

I think I found the false dichotomy.

 

[k9b4]

I think I found the false dichotomy.

I never stated any dichotomy.

I think you mean that you think my definitions are inconsistent with MBTI's definitions. That is not a dichotomy, a dichotomy between two things means those two things are opposite.

I believe that at the fundamental level, MBTI thinking is logic and MBTI feeling is emotions.

 

[redbaron]

Um. First of all a false dichotomy isn't reliant on opposites. It refers to limited consideration of outcomes. Oppositional claims are the most common way they occur but it's not the rule.

You said sensing is extroversion and intuition is introversion. Since sensing and intuition can both be either one and more, but by your definition you're limiting their scope to just these things - it's a false dichotomy.

I do find MBTI rather shitty for numerous reasons though this isn't one of them.

 

[k9b4]

Um. First of all a false dichotomy isn't reliant on opposites. It refers to limited consideration of outcomes. Oppositional claims are the most common way they occur but it's not the rule.

You said sensing is extroversion and intuition is introversion. Since sensing and intuition can both be either one and more, but by your definition you're limiting their scope to just these things - it's a false dichotomy.

Not sure exactly what you mean.

I don't believe that function orientations are at all correct. I think that function orientations are just an unnecessary complication. IMO the difference between introverted function orientations and extroverted function orientations is simply a matter of development, a quantitative difference. Ni and Ne are the same thing, Ni is just a more developed intuition than Ne.

 

[redbaron]

Okay.

 

[k9b4]

Okay.

Lol, let me copy and paste two paragraphs from my OP to get back on topic:

I can feel emotions and think logically at the same time, it's just that as I use more of one I don't have any 'attention' left to assign to the other.

If logic and emotion are opposite because of the above paragraph, then logic and introversion must also be opposite, for the same reason. I can think both logically and 'conceptually' (introversion), but as I use more of one I don't have any 'attention' left to assign to the other.

 

[TheManBeyond]

I'm not sure of this but if Si leads on socionics are supposed to avoid disconfort, why are them not inferior Se users at the same time, since Se inferior is about not achieving goals becuz of the disconnection from the physical world. Right, that is becuz if you want to achieve something you have to escape confort most of time. Does Ni lead also mean some kind of confort and lazyness on the world of ideas? How you differentiate ideas from sensory subjective experience (Si) if you are taking pleasure from both? what is "sensory", i mean, fuck it. It seems like Nis leads want but can't while Sis can but don't want?

 

[Fukyo]

You conflated your colloquial definitions that you associate with MBTI terms with how MBTI (typology) defines those terms, so unsurprisingly you reached the wrong conclusions.

 

[k9b4]

You conflated your colloquial definitions that you associate with MBTI terms with how MBTI (typology) defines those terms, so unsurprisingly you reached the wrong conclusions.

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.htm

"When I make a decision, I like to find the basic truth or principle to be applied, regardless of the specific situation involved. I like to analyze pros and cons, and then be consistent and logical in deciding. I try to be impersonal, so I won't let my personal wishes--or other people's wishes--influence me."

This is logic.

"I believe I can make the best decisions by weighing what people care about and the points-of-view of persons involved in a situation. I am concerned with values and what is the best for the people involved. I like to do whatever will establish or maintain harmony. In my relationships, I appear caring, warm, and tactful."

This is emotion.

TheManBeyond stop trolling.

 

[Fukyo]

You make a lot of these threads asking questions about your very half baked theories/thoughts.

I suggest you read more about Jungian Typology, specifically cognitive functions, without lingering only on material concerning the MBTI instrument, as it is simplified and misleading, which your current confusion about logic/emotion would support. You'll probably find that useful.

Feeling is not emotion and Thinking is not logic, and the two do not exclude each other within the cognitive framework as defined by MBTI/typology in how a person functions, this becomes obvious once you study cognitive functions more.

 

[k9b4]

You make a lot of these threads asking questions about your very half baked theories/thoughts.

I suggest you read more about Jungian Typology, specifically cognitive functions, without lingering only on material concerning the MBTI instrument, as it is simplified and misleading, which your current confusion about logic/emotion would support. You'll probably find that useful.

Feeling is not emotion and Thinking is not logic, and the two do not exclude each other within the cognitive framework as defined by MBTI/typology in how a person functions, this becomes obvious once you study cognitive functions more.

Thinking and feeling in MBTI are whatever you want them to be, they are not precisely defined.

Do you agree that logic is not opposite to emotion, disregarding MBTI completely?

 

[Grayman]

Thinking and feeling in MBTI are whatever you want them to be, they are not precisely defined.

Do you agree that logic is not opposite to emotion, disregarding MBTI completely?

Feeling in mbti has nothing to do with emotion.

 

[k9b4]

Feeling in mbti has nothing to do with emotion.

Of course it does. That's what feeling in MBTI is. Anyway, moving on, since we know that MBTI is a stupid theory with inconsistent definitions, the main point in my OP still remains:

I can feel emotions and think logically at the same time, it's just that as I use more of one I don't have any 'attention' left to assign to the other.

If logic and emotion are opposite because of the above paragraph, then logic and introversion must also be opposite, for the same reason. I can think both logically and 'conceptually' (introversion), but as I use more of one I don't have any 'attention' left to assign to the other.

 

[Fukyo]

Thinking and feeling in MBTI are whatever you want them to be, they are not precisely defined.

Do you agree that logic is not opposite to emotion, disregarding MBTI completely?

All that makes MBTI utterly meaningless and by extension this discussion too.

Get educated on the basic points of what you're talking about.

By definition each type has 4 cognitive functions, one Sensing, one Intuiting, one Feeling and one Thinking. The 4 letter code merely highlights which functions and which E/I orientation have priority in the psyche, it does not mean that Thinking excludes Feeling or vice versa.

 

[k9b4]

All that makes MBTI utterly meaningless and by extension this discussion too.

It doesn't make MBTI completely meaningless. I believe MBTI still has some meaning, but MBTI terms are not well defined and everybody interprets MBTI terms to mean a bunch of different things.

Do you agree that logic is not opposite to emotion, disregarding MBTI completely?

The 4 letter code merely highlights which functions and which E/I orientation have priority in the psyche, it does not mean that Thinking excludes Feeling or vice versa.

Then you must agree that it is possible for a person's two strongest functions to be thinking and feeling?

 

[ddspada]

You make a lot of these threads asking questions about your very half baked theories/thoughts.

I suggest you read more about Jungian Typology, specifically cognitive functions, without lingering only on material concerning the MBTI instrument, as it is simplified and misleading, which your current confusion about logic/emotion would support. You'll probably find that useful.

Feeling is not emotion and Thinking is not logic, and the two do not exclude each other within the cognitive framework as defined by MBTI/typology in how a person functions, this becomes obvious once you study cognitive functions more.

I second this verbatim.

 

[Fukyo]

Do you agree that logic is not opposite to emotion, disregarding MBTI completely?

No, of course they are not opposite.

Then you must agree that it is possible for a person's two strongest functions to be thinking and feeling?

This is not possible in the Jungian framework, because types and their cognitive functions are defined. If you feel like you have have both strong Feeling and Thinking, it's quite possible you are a type that has its Thinking and Feeling functions in a tertiary or secondary relationship within the type, for example ENFP = Ne Fi Te Si

 

[k9b4]

This is not possible in the Jungian framework, because types and their cognitive functions are defined. If you feel like you have have both strong Feeling and Thinking, it's quite possible you are a type that has its Thinking and Feeling functions in a tertiary or secondary relationship within the type, for example ENFP = Ne Fi Te Si

Or it is also possible that the Jungian framework is incorrect in this respect, and both my thinking and feeling are stronger than my intuition and sensing.

 

[Grayman]

Of course it does. That's what feeling in MBTI is. Anyway, moving on, since we know that MBTI is a stupid theory with inconsistent definitions, the main point in my OP still remains:

I can feel emotions and think logically at the same time, it's just that as I use more of one I don't have any 'attention' left to assign to the other.

If logic and emotion are opposite because of the above paragraph, then logic and introversion must also be opposite, for the same reason. I can think both logically and 'conceptually' (introversion), but as I use more of one I don't have any 'attention' left to assign to the other.

Feeling has more to do with values your connection with them.
Thinking is more about the path in obtaining them.

 

[Fukyo]

Or it is also possible that the Jungian framework is incorrect in this respect, and both my thinking and feeling are stronger than my intuition and sensing.

Look, I don't give MBTI much credit anymore but the system is what it is, you can't modify it to fit your snowflake perception of yourself.

 

[k9b4]

Feeling has more to do with values your connection with them.
Thinking is more about the path in obtaining them.

Or in other words, emotion and logic.

Look, I don't give MBTI much credit anymore but the system is what it is, you can't modify it to fit your snowflake perception of yourself.

The system is what it is, and it is incorrect in this particular instance.

Lol of course I can modify it if I think it's wrong. I think MBTI is a pretty good base to build your own ideas off of, but not so good by itself.

 

[redbaron]

The spirit of Chad lives on.

 

[Grayman]

Or in other words, emotion and logic.

The system is what it is, and it is incorrect in this particular instance.

Lol of course I can modify it if I think it's wrong. I think MBTI is a pretty good base to build your own ideas off of, but not so good by itself.

The mind can reduce a thing for better understanding but usually at the cost of failing to reflect reality. There is no 'in other words'. If you refuse to acknowledge complexity you refuse reality.

 

[k9b4]

The mind can reduce a thing for better understanding but usually at the cost of failing to reflect reality. There is no 'in other words'. If you refuse to acknowledge complexity you refuse reality.

Really? Analyzing a thing usually makes it less accurate? Is that what you're saying?

Does that mean that it's less accurate to say that a chair is composed of a large number of atoms than it is to say that a chair is composed of wood?

If MBTI terms cannot be analyzed and broken down into more fundamental terms, then I am very sorry to inform you that MBTI theory is a big pile of steaming horse shit, similar to horoscopes and astrology.

However I believe that MBTI does have some value, at least the idea that we possess cognitive 'processes', and that the relative usage or preference of these processes is what makes us who we are.

 

[Grayman]

Really? Analyzing a thing usually makes it less accurate? Is that what you're saying?

I am saying that your attempt to reduce a concept down into such a simple terms causes the whole thing to lose it's real meaning. Reality is complex, not simple.

 

[k9b4]

I am saying that your attempt to reduce a concept down into such a simple terms causes the whole thing to lose it's real meaning. Reality is complex, not simple.

Au contraire, my friend. Reality is very simple. It is only idiots who make it complicated.

 

[Grayman]

Au contraire, my friend. Reality is very simple. It is only idiots who make it complicated.

Most people are sensible within their own reality. Not everyone's reality is simple.

 

[k9b4]

Most people are sensible within their own reality. Not everyone's reality is simple.

What you mean is: not everyone's conception of reality is simple.

A person with stronger logic will be able to break down reality into more fundamental processes, thus their conception of reality will be 'simpler', relative to a person with weaker logic.

 

[redbaron]

Au contraire, my friend. Reality is very simple. It is only idiots who make it complicated.

You mean like idiots who reduce already easy to understand systems to the point of redundancy and then point out false dichotomies within their own self-made redundant systems?

 

[Jennywocky]

Boy, I'm glad all this passion is being directed at something useful, like saving the world. ...

It might help to think of it as attached and detached, vs feeling and thinking. Emotions can be useful in recognizing values, but are not equivalent to values.

 

[Grayman]

What you mean is: not everyone's conception of reality is simple.

A person with stronger logic will be able to break down reality into more fundamental processes, thus their conception of reality will be 'simpler', relative to a person with weaker logic.

You didn't 'break it down' into more fundamental processes. You put it together into a simple concept that could fit your understanding losing any fundamental understanding that could have been gained.

 

[StevenM]

Feeling is not emotion and Thinking is not logic

And yet, k9b4 has found at least one instance on an MBTI site where the description of thinking seems similar to the definition of logic. The description of feeling seems more in tune to morality or ethics, but these such things do have associations with emotion.

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.htm

"When I make a decision, I like to find the basic truth or principle to be applied, regardless of the specific situation involved. I like to analyze pros and cons, and then be consistent and logical in deciding. I try to be impersonal, so I won't let my personal wishes--or other people's wishes--influence me."

This is logic.

"I believe I can make the best decisions by weighing what people care about and the points-of-view of persons involved in a situation. I am concerned with values and what is the best for the people involved. I like to do whatever will establish or maintain harmony. In my relationships, I appear caring, warm, and tactful."

This is emotion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it does not mean that Thinking excludes Feeling or vice versa.

No, of course they (logic and emotion) are not opposite.

But in the framework of MBTI, it is defined that if one function is dominant, the other is inferior, and thus, thinking and feeling functions do seem to have an oppositional nature. They are placed in an opposite state.

However, I may agree that logic and emotion may not be opposite. In some cases, emotion can hinder sound reasoning. And also, sound reasoning can sometimes inhibit emotion, but this may not necessarily mean they are opposites.

I'm confused why there is a debate of the associations between Thinking and logic, Feeling and emotion.

I think it's also easy to misinterpret that some users are stating that the MBTI system did not put thinking and feeling in opposite states.

 

[Reluctantly]

What you mean is: not everyone's conception of reality is simple.

A person with stronger logic will be able to break down reality into more fundamental processes, thus their conception of reality will be 'simpler', relative to a person with weaker logic.

I don't know. I've noticed Ti tends to omit or generalize details. To some people that's oversimplifying reality; to others it's simplifying. Which one is true? I guess they both are.

 

[k9b4]

But in the framework of MBTI, it is defined that if one function is dominant, the other is inferior, and thus, thinking and feeling functions do seem to have an oppositional nature. They are placed in an opposite state.

Indeed.

This is the root of my confusion. If thinking and feeling are not opposite, then a person's function order should be able to be: T, F, N, S

Also, why does there have to be an order at all? Why can't someone's relative preference for functions be equal? Why can't someone prefer to use all the functions in equal amounts?

You mean like idiots who reduce already easy to understand systems to the point of redundancy and then point out false dichotomies within their own self-made redundant systems?

Yes, those kind of idiots.

Easy to understand, but less accurate.

 

[Grayman]

.

I'm confused why there is a debate of the associations between Thinking and logic, Feeling and emotion.

In legal documents they sometimes define terms or words used within the contract. This is important to interepreting the meaning in the document because the common meanings behind those terms could be misleading.

Thinking and Feeling are defined terms within MBTI and defined by MBTI and if we don't use the terms as defined by MBTI we will not understand the MBTI concept. After the concept is understood we can then see how it fits with the real world but we cannot do this by using common understanding of these terms.

 

[Black Rose]

The emotion of thinking and feeling is the same but the content is not. If I feel some way about some thing and use that as the criteria to make my judgement it would exclude thinking because thinking has a criteria of which the content is not connected to the affect of the body but stands on its own either empirically or logically.

 

[k9b4]

Thinking and Feeling are defined terms within MBTI and defined by MBTI

Thinking and feeling are most certainly not precisely defined in MBTI.

If they were you would be able to tell me exactly what thinking and feeling are, but you cannot. You can only use a bunch of vague words which could mean a bunch of different things.

Just like in horoscopes and astrology.

The emotion of thinking and feeling is the same but the content is not. If I feel some way about some thing and use that as the criteria to make my judgement it would exclude thinking because thinking has a criteria of which the content is not connected to the affect of the body but stands on its own either empirically or logically.

In other words, emotion and logic.

Emotion is subjective, logic is objective.
Feeling is subjective, thinking is objective.

Emotion concerns people and ethics, logic concerns precision and accuracy.
Feeling concerns people and ethics, thinking concerns precision and accuracy.

 

[Grayman]

Thinking and feeling are most certainly not precisely defined in MBTI.

If they were you would be able to tell me exactly what thinking and feeling are, but you cannot. You can only use a bunch of vague words which could mean a bunch of different things.

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.htm

I am currently reading this next link to its full extent but the main point of what I wanted to show you in this webpage is quoted right below the link.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/273-MBTI-Closer-Examination-of-Feeling-and-Thinking

“What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on. Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect, which is, as the words convey, an involuntary manifestation. Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterize an emotion. Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)”
-Carl Jung, Psychological Types

 

[k9b4]

“What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on. Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect, which is, as the words convey, an involuntary manifestation. Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterize an emotion. Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)”
-Carl Jung, Psychological Types

Fair point. By this definition, feeling is making decisions based upon your emotions, do you agree?

 

[Black Rose]

Happy angry sad and afraid are base emotions but more so i just call it energy in motion is not specifically one mode of cognition. More specifically thinking and feeling has content that is manipulated you can think about your emotions or feel them but you cannot say feeling is only about emotion as thinking is energy intensive also. Thinking about the body is what i would say feeling is not because objects not of the body is mostly the content of thinking is not felt where objects affect people is Feeling is felt. Spatial awareness is used in both thinking and feeling is nonlinear unlike logic.

 

[Grayman]

Fair point. By this definition, feeling is making decisions based upon your emotions, do you agree?

The statement specifically says that feeling is based on value and not emotion.

A value is having meaning in something.

You can value an individual and many emotions can result from this value depending on circumstance.

If the individual dies you feel sad. If the individual enters your life you feel happy. If this individual is attacked you feel angry. etc...

Our emotions are a product of our values and in perceived situations. values are not a product of our emotions. Value build upon themselves regardless of emotions using our judgment systems. I value my life so I also value my health. I then think certain foods are important because they better my health. Spending time and effort in these foods then gives those foods importance of their own. A thinker would build this system of values with concious reason while a Feeler would do so through impulses defined by 'good bad', "It is important to take care of my health", "It is good to eat these foods.". etc...

Feeling as defined by MBTI is about your connection with your value systems. It has little to do with emotion. Emotions exist outside the MBTI concept.

 

[RaBind]

here you go, this might help you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDoSV4CZgOo

 

[crippli]

T/F

Spoiler

All T aspects here is based on theory. Theory is the past. The F aspects are based on what is happening in the present. From the present the past is created. If we look at these modes as learned tools of cognition, both seems to fit situations and is controlled by ones environment. I’m quite sure most all people could do both if they wanted to. MBTI only proposes most will have a preference. White walls and steady artificial lightening to fuel the T, or a vivid alive scenery to fuel the F. I don’t see why most people can't prefer one over the other. With a preference comes also a resistance to change. When the scenery is changing, the preferences may not. The F in the white room creates problems. Similarly the T at the love scene may find the act stressful, maybe especially if one live in a highly populated area.

So to me these tools, are not appropriate in similar situations. Or rather, a strong preference will confine one in a box. And hopefully not in the wrong box at least.

Maybe I am idealistic and believe people are more liberated and adaptable then they are. It’s very good if MBTI is not valid. Unfortunately for many it may be valid. Boxed in and non adaptable.

N/S

Spoiler

What directs ones focus.
Few of these are opposites. But doing both at the exact same time may prove challenging. Yet opposites? Hardly. One comes from the other. Every tradition have started with originality. So they are the same, only separated by time. Trapped in time, or the present again.

 

[nanook]

thinking and feeling are exactly the same in so far as they are mostly defined by past conditioning, however extroversion deals superficially with the whole complexity of the present moment/situation and introversion is preoccupied with the general implications (future/past) that a specific aspect of the present moment would have for the involved subjects, while overlooking other aspects.

therefore Te and Fi or Fe and Ti differ in that regard.

likewise someone who uses Ni and Se might assume by mistake that intuition is an introverted trait and sensation is an extroverted trait.

or if someone uses N for the purposes of Ti or Fi only, and to contrast Si, he might still feel that N is generally introverted.

people seem to get confused about the general nature of functions because they are too impressed by the (i/e)version of their own function, or by the role the function plays in their mind (i.e. my thinking/feeling is inferior, therefore thinking/feeling is generally inferior).

looking inside alone is not enough to understand typology.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I am saying that your attempt to reduce a concept down into such a simple terms causes the whole thing to lose it's real meaning. Reality is complex, not simple.

complexity is simple, not messy

 

[Jennywocky]

Also, why does there have to be an order at all? Why can't someone's relative preference for functions be equal? Why can't someone prefer to use all the functions in equal amounts?

well, two questions to toss out for discussion:

Would you truly be able to prefer all the functions in exactly equal amounts? Or would there always be a slight leaning towards one or another? (They all might be in the ballpark, but exactly equal enough for the term to have significance?)

We're talking about how people process and act upon data. If all functions were exactly equal and you lacked the ability to prioritize, would you actually be able to make any decisions?

 

[nanook]

the amount of the functions S, N, T + F is 25% + 25% + 25% + 25%, the functions create our reality, without them there would be a hole in it. and typology has nothing to do with measuring the amount of the function, also it has very little to do with measuring the conscious (reflectively noted, labeled) amount which is like 'the tip of an iceberg' to the total amount. typology is about the logic of the story that is unfolding within this dimensional quartet of possibilities. the dominant function is like the leader of a sports team, he is still just one guy and he isn't bigger than the other guys and he doesn't even always get his way, he has to be sort of democratic about the strategy, but he get's to define the purpose and goal of the game. every function is both a realm of possibilities and the events that occur in it. those events are like jobs, like positions in the team. but they are different for every type. the position of thinking isn't just thinking. for infp it's back up, defense and justice. for entj it's attack, management, leadership. for entp it's scheming, for infj it's exploring, hunting. (not saying the functions are reduced to these jobs, but the emphasis on such agendas, that have meaning relative to the movement of the whole team, is how they differ from type to type)

honestly, some people appear to have holes in their reality.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

the amount of the functions S, N, T + F is 25% + 25% + 25% + 25%, the functions create our reality, without them there would be a hole in it. and typology has nothing to do with measuring the amount of the function, also it has very little to do with measuring the conscious (reflectively noted, labeled) amount which is like 'the tip of an iceberg' to the total amount. typology is about the logic of the story that is unfolding within this dimensional quartet of possibilities. the dominant function is like the leader of a sports team, he is still just one guy and he isn't bigger than the other guys and he doesn't even always get his way, he has to be sort of democratic about the strategy, but he get's to define the purpose and goal of the game. every function is both a realm of possibilities and the events that occur in it. those events are like jobs, like positions in the team. but they are different for every type. the position of thinking isn't just thinking. for infp it's back up, defense and justice. for entj it's attack, management, leadership. for entp it's scheming, for infj it's exploring, hunting. (not saying the functions are reduced to these jobs, but the emphasis on such agendas, that have meaning relative to the movement of the whole team, is how they differ from type to type)

honestly, some people appear to have holes in their reality.

That was very lucid. It's mostly just re-reinforcing how I already interpret the functions but if you wanted to continue on the various function positions I would appreciate it.

 

[k9b4]

the dominant function is like the leader of a sports team, he is still just one guy and he isn't bigger than the other guys

One interpretation of MBTI could be that the dominant function is the most developed of all the functions.

Another, as you say, could be that the dominant function is simply the function which you consciously choose to use more than the others.