Guide to functions mimicking other functions

[BigApplePi]

we are never truly functioning like any other type but our own, no matter how much of our inferior and tertiary functions we show.

When I talked about the professor's INTP wife playing with her baby and talking to other women with baby carriages, I just made that up. I don't know how natural for a real INTP woman that would be. I was proposing she had a very special development of Fe and Si in just this case for her.

So let me change the question Adymus.

I assume we can agree an ESFJ's dominant and auxiliary functions are Fe and Si. So anytime we observe an ESFJ we would not be surprised to observe a lot of Fe and Si. Now suppose we observe this hypothetical professor's INTP wife with the well developed Fe and Si. How would her Fe and Si differ from the ESFJ's Fe and Si? Assume we are observing for only a minute or so and that's all the chance we get. Would there be any observable difference?

 

[Adymus]

Yes there would be observable differences, I'll leave Si out of this because while it is somewhat noticeable on an ESFJ, it wouldn't be noticeable on an INTP using Fe.

First of all the ESFJ has a far greater range of emotional expression than we do, their faces are actually built to express, and ours, even though we are capable of doing it, are not built to or used to being very expressive. The ESFJ (and Fe dominant) use of Fe takes up the entire face, and the INTP use of Fe almost always does not rise above the mouth, or the midline of the face.

Secondly there is the factor of the ESFJ feeding off of this experience and the INTP modulating with their inferior function to just to do it. For an ESFJ the Fe comes up into their face, and stays into their face until the pull it back with their inferior Ti, and even then it rarely if ever goes as cold an INTP's Ti neutral expression. For an INTP Fe will be in bursts; face warms up, and goes cold a moment later, face warms up, and goes cold a moment later, and so on. No matter how much Fe the INTP uses, it always neutralizes fast as soon as we let go of Fe.

For an ESFJ, it is not a matter of letting go of Fe, it is more of a matter of them letting go of Ti, so their faces are naturally expressive.

It is not even a subtle difference, it is blatantly obvious unless you have no ability to read emotional expressiveness what so ever.

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm happy with that response. It shows how to tell an ESFJ Fe from an INTP Fe if I may put it that way. Now to get back to something I was after some time ago:

When an INTP momentarily indulges in Fe, even though their Ti has given them permission (did it?), have they in an instant abandoned their Ti? I'm ready to ignore what they think of themselves having just prominently used their Fe, but have they abandoned their Ti (we could say lost their reason) temporarily?

 

[Adymus]

Even though when we use Fe, our Ti is dimmed somewhat (This is what always happens to one function when we use the opposite), however we never completely silence our dominant functions.

It would not be fair or even accurate to suggest that when Fe is used, all reason is lost, because as I said dominant Ti is never entirely extinguished, and because Fe is in itself reasonable. It just uses a different kind of reasoning that Ti does not; values based instead of logic based.

The worst cases would be in extremely stressful situations that would cause an INTP to have an outburst of angry Fe emotionalism while in the grip of their inferior function. While this might look like a "Dr.Jekyll & Mr.Hyde" experience to a person who has never seen this side of you, it is not impossible to listen to your Ti and snap out of it.

 

[BigApplePi]

I agree that when Fe is used Ti is not entirely lost but I've always thought this is not so simple. Fe is not Fe and Ti is not Ti. By that I mean there is more than one kind of Ti. Ti is a sophisticated function and there are all kinds. As you say at one extreme is objective logic (subjectively applied); at the other is values.

Here is one of the more worserest worst cases illustrated in the 1930 film, "Blue Angel." Have you seen it? The professor (I wonder if he can be typed?) is at the top of respected society in Germany. He is admired by a circus girl (Marlene Dietrich -- what type is she?) but unfortunately when he pays the circus a visit he falls for her. When she has to leave with the circus, he's stuck. The only thing he can do (reason by passion) is to follow her. In the circus his professorship is worthless. All he can do is be a stooge at the very bottom of circus life.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020697/

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010928/REVIEWS/109280301/1023

I admit I assume the professor was Ti dominant and when he fell for Dietrich that was Fe.

 

[Adymus]

I agree that when Fe is used Ti is not entirely lost but I've always thought this is not so simple. Fe is not Fe and Ti is not Ti. By that I mean there is more than one kind of Ti. Ti is a sophisticated function and there are all kinds. As you say at one extreme is objective logic (subjectively applied); at the other is values.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this statement, so you'll have to explain what you mean by there being more than one kind of Ti.

Here is one of the more worserest worst cases illustrated in the 1930 film, "Blue Angel." Have you seen it? The professor (I wonder if he can be typed?) is at the top of respected society in Germany. He is admired by a circus girl (Marlene Dietrich -- what type is she?) but unfortunately when he pays the circus a visit he falls for her. When she has to leave with the circus, he's stuck. The only thing he can do (reason by passion) is to follow her. In the circus his professorship is worthless. All he can do is be a stooge at the very bottom of circus life.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020697/

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010928/REVIEWS/109280301/1023

I admit I assume the professor was Ti dominant and when he fell for Dietrich that was Fe.

Never seen the movie, but you're right, you are assuming he is a Ti dom. Just by your description it sounds like the same kind of INFJ meets ENFP love story
you see all over the place. What makes you think passion was not his natural drive?

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this statement, so you'll have to explain what you mean by there being more than one kind of Ti.

It depends on how one looks at introverted thinking. There are all sorts of subjects. Two INTPs can differ on a theory. There are lots of topics for thinking. Unless one is a Renaissance Man, one is confined to a finite number of areas. Two Ti people can completely fail to understand one another.

Never seen the movie, but you're right, you are assuming he is a Ti dom. Just by your description it sounds like the same kind of INFJ meets ENFP love story
you see all over the place. What makes you think passion was not his natural drive?

Well I may have seen the film as long as thirty years ago. My fading memory says he was shy, never expressing much of a position. We didn't get to know him -- his ideas on anything. Just that he was "professorial", stodgy, unemotional. It was assumed he fell for her by his behavior not his words. Anyway, does it matter? Are you Adymus so committed to INTP cool that you believe no true INTP could ever fall for a girl who had all the things he lacked?

 

[Adymus]

It depends on how one looks at introverted thinking. There are all sorts of subjects. Two INTPs can differ on a theory. There are lots of topics for thinking. Unless one is a Renaissance Man, one is confined to a finite number of areas. Two Ti people can completely fail to understand one another.

Then I disagree, your knowledge, use of, and/or nature of your personal Ti is completely irrelevant to it's functionality. An INTP's Ti is still wired like any other INTP's Ti, regardless of what they know.

Well I may have seen the film as long as thirty years ago. My fading memory says he was shy, never expressing much of a position. We didn't get to know him -- his ideas on anything. Just that he was "professorial", stodgy, unemotional. It was assumed he fell for her by his behavior not his words. Anyway, does it matter? Are you Adymus so committed to INTP cool that you believe no true INTP could ever fall for a girl who had all the things he lacked?

*sigh*

At what point did I say we are incapable of falling for a girl that has all the thing he lacks? Are you seriously suggesting that Falling in love is extinguishing our Ti? Really!? We ultimately always have both our Fe and our Ti, sometimes we listen to our Fe, sometimes we listen to our Ti, Sometimes they reach a compromise, and sometimes both of them align perfectly. The fact is, neither of them is ever entirely without their say (Even though an inferior Fe's say can be very silent at times), ESPECIALLY Ti's say, if our Ti is dominant.

Look, if I met someone that made me more happy than anything else in the world, it would be my Ti telling me to be with her, not just my Fe. In fact, it has almost always been my Ti that tells me to go with what I am passionate about more than what I should be doing for financial reasons. My Ti does not see any logic in living a life that is not spent in enjoyment.

 

[Words]

My Ti does not see any logic in living a life that is not spent in enjoyment.

This leads me to questioning about the difference between Fi and Ti. (1)Where did the existence of "logic" come from?

It seems that Ti determines values as much as any other judgment function. So (2)where is the determining difference?

Ti (Introverted Thinking):


Clarification: Ti involves clarifying definitions to get more precision. This often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using Ti is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it.

The function of synthesizing definitions.

Principle Understanding: Ti involves figuring out the principles on which something works and then evaluating according to these principles and whether something fits the framework or model. Ti ponders the apparent chaos of the world in order to extract from it the universal truths and principles that can be counted on. These principles, once extracted, will provide the logical structure on which to build strategies.

The function of synthesizing principles.

Situational Logic: Ti is not conceptual and linear. It’s body based and holistic, and it operates by way of visual, tactile, or spatial cues, inclining us to reason experientially rather than analytically. Ti, with its all-at-once approach to life, doesn’t require exact predictability before it takes action. Its decisions are based on the probabilities and it leaves room for the random and unexpected. Ti uses hands-on experience to recognize, in the midst of action, which variables are best taken into account and which are irrelevant to our goal. Thus, Ti always involves perceptual skills. Ti is not just a matter of responding to immediate perceptual stimuli. It’s a decision-making process. When one is thinking in an introverted way, they are coordinating their behaviors with the variables in a situation related to our intended effect. Ti helps to understand what it means to be I harmony with the parts of a situation that are still in flux. When we’re involved in something that interests us, we don’t distinguish our thoughts form the tacit level of information we’re relying on. We’re part of the process, changing its nature by changing ourselves.

The function of adaptable synthesizing.

Dispassion: Ti types are usually level-headed, objective, impersonal, yet intensely involved in problem solving. They are rigorous with their thoughts and analysis, choosing the exact words that convey precisely what is meant. Ti types maintain the utmost objectivity. They approach people and events as dispassionate observers, with the goal of arriving at the most comprehensive truth possible. Ti types typically do not take constructive criticism and disagreement personally. They often welcome tough, unrelenting critique as an aid to achieving the highest levels of accuracy and objectivity.

The function of adaptable synthesizing.

Situational Analysis: Ti is analyzing and categorizing; this involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis also involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a “leverage point” that will fix problem with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to analyze situations, find root causes and foresee consequences. They are curious and capable of explaining complex political, economical or technological problems, Taking great pleasure in explaining all the factors and intricacies.

The function of synthesizing "main problem".

Suppression: Ti and Fe have a suppressive relationship. While one must withdraw and be dispassionate of the feelings of others in order to use their subjective personal logic, Fe ignores the personal one’s personal logic and focuses on the feelings and needs of others.

(3)What "logic" are we talking about here? (4)Doesn't Fe have logic as well?

(5)Why is the definition scattered? (6)Did this definition take into consideration the effect of the rest of the functions?

Is INTP's Ti different from ISTP's Ti/ESFJ's and others? What are the differences? What are the similarities? (6)Can Ti be defined independently without the rest of the functions it plays its role with?

Fi (Introverted Feeling):


Essence Reading: Fi is considering importance and worth. It allows one to decide if something is of significance and worth standing up for. It serves as a filter for information that matches what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in. There can be a continual weighing of the situational worth or importance of everything and patient balancing of the core issues of peace and conflict in life’s situations. It helps Fi types know when people are being fake or insincere or if they are basically good. It is like having an internal sense of the “essence” of a person or a project and reading fine distinctions among feeling tones.

The function of synthesizing value and motivations. (8)What is the definition of "importance and worth"?

Moral Compass: Fi is clarifying values to achieve accord. Fi types have high personal moral standards and are particularly sensitive to inconsistencies in their environment between what is being said and what is being done. Empty promises of adhering to something they value set off an inner alarm and they may transform themselves into a powerful crusading force.

The function of synthesizing morality.

Suppression: Fi and Te have a suppressive relationship. Te is the protocol that everyone must abide by, and it ignores the values of the individual. Te suppresses Fi in that it makes no acceptation for anyone and holds everyone to the same standard. While Fi ignores structural protocol and puts their values first.

(9)What is "value"? Doesn't Ti place value as well?

------

Here is how I currently see Judgment Functions:


------J-----
The "constitution"(government) of cognition.

(10)Where is Ji from? Does "human" mean being automatically given "conscience"? Do you think it is related to this->Tabula Rasa?

----Ji vs. Je-----

Ji - Internal and external directed judgment but inward conformity of judgement.

"I am not following to my known principles."
"They are not following to my known principles."

Where is this "independent constitution" from?

Je
-Internal and external directed judgement but outward conformity of judgement.


"I am not following to the known protocols."
"They are not following to the known protocols."

----T vs. F-----
Logic vs. Emotion

Definition of "Logic": Unknown

Definition of "Emotion": Unknown


----Ti------

T + Ji = Ti.
Logic + Inward conformity = Inward conformity of logic.

(11)How does result into information synthesis? (12)and the rest of the quoted definitions?


----Fi-----
F + Ji = Fi
Emotion + Inward conformity = Inward conformity of emotion.


----Fe-----
F + Je = Fe
Emotion + Outward conformity = outward conformity of emotion.

(13)How is "emotion" related to social protocol? (14)How much is it related?

(15)How would a "Tarzan" or a person ignorant of any community define Je?

----Te-----
T + Je = Te
Logic + Outward conformity = outward conformity of logic.

 

[BigApplePi]

Then I disagree, your knowledge, use of, and/or nature of your personal Ti is completely irrelevant to it's functionality. An INTP's Ti is still wired like any other INTP's Ti, regardless of what they know.

Not sure where or even if we do disagree. Fe is extroverted feeling and Ti is introverted thinking. I believe what I wanted to say is one person's Ti may say, "Those feelings I had made me feel awkward and uncomfortable"; another person's Ti may say, "Those feelings I had fit right in and I was happy."

At what point did I say we are incapable of falling for a girl that has all the thing he lacks? Are you seriously suggesting that Falling in love is extinguishing our Ti? Really!? We ultimately always have both our Fe and our Ti, sometimes we listen to our Fe, sometimes we listen to our Ti, Sometimes they reach a compromise, and sometimes both of them align perfectly. The fact is, neither of them is ever entirely without their say (Even though an inferior Fe's say can be very silent at times), ESPECIALLY Ti's say, if our Ti is dominant.

Look, if I met someone that made me more happy than anything else in the world, it would be my Ti telling me to be with her, not just my Fe. In fact, it has almost always been my Ti that tells me to go with what I am passionate about more than what I should be doing for financial reasons. My Ti does not see any logic in living a life that is not spent in enjoyment.

We are familiar with the concept "development" used in regard to the use of the cognitive functions -- or "lack of development." Suppose we try the terms, maturity and immaturity. A mature use of a CF would be where one knows how to handle it in many situations. An immature use would be where one's inexperience or some other lack of development causes one not to be able to handle a CF.

An INTP may fall in love and know exactly what they're doing and give it full approval. Alternately, an INTP may fall in love only to discover their Ti can't handle it and they become the victim of their emotions, their Fe. For the latter person both their Ti and their Fe is the problem.

Now here comes a dilemma. A mature INTP may live for their Ti and be comfortable with their Fe. But an immature INTP with immature Ti and Fe may experience those two at war with each other. The result may be the dominant Ti in an effort to win the war, doesn't like their weak Fe, suppresses it, ignores it and gets into potential trouble with it.

This could have been the case with the German professor who fell for the circus girl. Perhaps originally his Ti told him his honor and prestige was enough for him to carry the day with the circus girl. His Ti dominated. His Ti in his case was inadequate to let him know he was going to get into trouble abandoning his professional skills and running off with the circus. He let his Fe dominate. His Ti failed to realize the respect the circus girl had for him (his Ti) as a visitor would not carry over to the circus where Ti was just about useless.

 

[Adymus]

All you are doing is demonstrating that an INTP sometimes makes rash decisions with Fe, yes this is true, but that does not mean Fe suddenly became your dominant function and completely suppressed your Ti. Anytime we act and put any plan into action, it is through Fe, this is not a bad thing, this is a normal part of how we function. However, we might rush Fe and take action before taking the time to completely think things out with Ti.

Now if that is what you are referring to when you say "Falling victim to their emotions", then we are technically falling victim to our emotions anytime we make any kind of dynamic decision at all, because implementation is always through Fe. How fast your Fe is telling you action must be taken, and how much time you allow your Ti to think things through, will determine how you approach this action, and the more rash the action more sloppy it will be.

Now then, you seem to be confusing making poorly thought out decisions by rushing Fe with having a different dominant function. When we say "Dominant function" we are not just referring to the function that is used the most and has the highest priority, it is the function that determines how all other functions, conscious thought, sense of identity, etc, rolls out. It is not just something that randomly changes just because you are using a lot of a lower function. It would be ridiculous to say that you are forgoing all rational thought just because you made a rash Fe decision, sure it was probably not very well thought out, but that does not mean you have now turned into a completely different person, devoid of logical thinking. Even if your Fe acted too hastily, you are still an INTP using an INTP apparatus, as soon as you made the move and saw what a poor decision it was, you're Ti will note this and tell you what went wrong, you won't just be stuck in Fe zombie mode like you seem to be suggesting.

PS: And I'm not even going to touch your movie example, 1.) we don't even know if this guy is an INTP, 2.) he is a fictional character 3.) You are making a huge leap and assumption by suggesting that decision to be with the circus girl was falling victim to rushed Fe. If that were the case, he wouldn't be staying with he circus girl very long, now would he?

 

[BigApplePi]

PS: And I'm not even going to touch your movie example, 1.) we don't even know if this guy is an INTP, 2.) he is a fictional character 3.) You are making a huge leap and assumption by suggesting that decision to be with the circus girl was falling victim to rushed Fe. If that were the case, he wouldn't be staying with he circus girl very long, now would he?

Ouch! Seems like you touched this example at a full three places.

1 .Must he be an INTP? He could be and if he could be, let him be for the example.

2. I am not fictional (as of a recent check) character. When I was in my early twenties I fell for a girl I had no idea how to approach with my feelings. I was a virgin. If I recall I wrote up some long confessional something, drove twenty miles to her mailbox and dropped in it.

When I was in my early thirties I fell for another girl whose body I craved, whom I wanted to "save", who used me, whom I couldn't resist and all this was my own fault -- in some sense I've not fully ever thought out.

3. Re: circus girl. Did I say "rushed Fe"? The guy fell in love with the wrong person. Is that Fe or not? If Fe, this is supposed to be an example of the power of emotions and their subjugation of reason. I don't know how long he stayed with the circus. Doesn't matter. Long enough to marry the girl. Long enough to make the point a grown man can be brought down by passion. Here was a professor whose Ti failed him. If it failed me (I survived and profited), but not for the guy in the movie.

 

[BigApplePi]

This leads me to questioning about the difference between Fi and Ti. (1)Where did the existence of "logic" come from?

It seems that Ti determines values as much as any other judgment function. So (2)where is the determining difference?

I think of Ti as dealing with observations. Impartial as to importance while observing. Fi takes whatever it's dealing with and evaluates according to importance. It's like, "this is a rock" versus "this rock is great."

(8)What is the definition of "importance and worth"?

The definition would involve usage. "This is a rock" is an observation. It says nothing about its value. "This is a great rock" says deal with or choose this rock over other rocks or over other things.

(9)What is "value"? Doesn't Ti place value as well?

I suppose so, but then one could say everything must have had value if you choose it. Mere observing doesn't place a value on the object but the act of observing is a value as someone made a choice to observe.

 

[Adymus]

I'm having trouble seeing what the point you are even trying to make is.

If your whole premise is, sometimes INTPs take a chance on passion, then yeah, I'd agree.

But it sounds like you are trying to say that these circumstancing complete alter our functionality, which is just not true. If it were true then it would effect every single thing you thing you did, not just how you were with these women.

3. Re: circus girl. Did I say "rushed Fe"? The guy fell in love with the wrong person. Is that Fe or not? If Fe, this is supposed to be an example of the power of emotions and their subjugation of reason. I don't know how long he stayed with the circus. Doesn't matter. Long enough to marry the girl. Long enough to make the point a grown man can be brought down by passion. Here was a professor whose Ti failed him. If it failed me (I survived and profited), but not for the guy in the movie.

Sure, it's partly Fe, but it is not only Fe, the functions are not isolated, everything is always involved in some way. Why do you keep saying he was brought down by passion? You are making Fe sound like it is a terrible kryptonite-like force that ruins good men.
Our Ti is not supposed to always keep us cold and emotionless, we wouldn't have Fe in the first place if that is all we were meant to be.


Anyway, you are missing what I have been trying to say this whole time, so I'll say it once more and that is all:

No matter how much in love you are, your Ti will never be entirely suppressed, it will always have it's say in every matter. You are always in control, so if you choose to take action without listening to it, then that's on you. You could have, but you didn't.

 

[Words]

I think of Ti as dealing with observations. Impartial as to importance while observing. Fi takes whatever it's dealing with and evaluates according to importance. It's like, "this is a rock" versus "this rock is great."

Where did "this rock is great" come from? Where is the origin of Fi judgments?

The definition would involve usage. "This is a rock" is an observation. It says nothing about its value. "This is a great rock" says deal with or choose this rock over other rocks or over other things.

I see.

I suppose so, but then one could say everything must have had value if you choose it. Mere observing doesn't place a value on the object but the act of observing is a value as someone made a choice to observe.

What about the "reason to observe"? The purpose of observing? Isn't that an origin centered on value?

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm having trouble seeing what the point you are even trying to make is.

That is a good point. I am having trouble getting across what I have in mind. I keep trying. I'm thinking I'm using misleading words that cause you to believe I'm trying to blow your model. I'm not. It's something like throwing a spear. I know what I want to hit but keep missing. Another analogy. It's like jazz. If you don't like it it can't be explained but I will try to explain anyway.

But it sounds like you are trying to say that these circumstancing complete alter our functionality, which is just not true. If it were true then it would effect every single thing you thing you did, not just how you were with these women.

I'm still assuming the model of 16 temperaments is true, they are modular, they are fixed and there are 8 CF's. I feel the need of a possibly new subordinate language and haven't found it as yet.

Sure, it's partly Fe, but it is not only Fe, the functions are not isolated, everything is always involved in some way. Why do you keep saying he was brought down by passion? You are making Fe sound like it is a terrible kryptonite-like force that ruins good men.
Our Ti is not supposed to always keep us cold and emotionless, we wouldn't have Fe in the first place if that is all we were meant to be.

Yes we use all four functions at once: feeling, sensing, thinking and intuition. Your model refers to dominating preferences. Yes kryptonite. In spite of our dominating functions, any of the other can trip us up or weaken us like kryptonite. I think what I'm after is to point out that there is another model -- a model, so far undefined, that shows how inferior functions operate.

No. Not that ruins good men. Rather that finds our weaknesses and that weakness can bring us down unless we know them and are protected. Are you familiar with Shakespeare? His plays are filled with the flaws of strong people who are brought down or at least challenged by encountering their weaknesses. Want examples?

No matter how much in love you are, your Ti will never be entirely suppressed, it will always have it's say in every matter. You are always in control, so if you choose to take action without listening to it, then that's on you. You could have, but you didn't.

Yes Ti will be there. No. One can lose control. One can keep it, but one can lose it. Speaking for human beings (nervy!), one is subject to losing control if one is immature. But always trying to keep control is not a good thing either. That's no fun. We have both Ti and Fe as you have pointed out.

 

[Adymus]

Yes we use all four functions at once: feeling, sensing, thinking and intuition. Your model refers to dominating preferences. Yes kryptonite. In spite of our dominating functions, any of the other can trip us up or weaken us like kryptonite. I think what I'm after is to point out that there is another model -- a model, so far undefined, that shows how inferior functions operate.

It's really not a separate model though, nor is it even uncharted terrain... What we have been talking about is pretty basic stuff.

And I find your understanding of Fe rather off putting, it is as if you are encouraging that we suppress it. It is actually very important to the growth of a personality that we allow ourselves to become more familiar with our inferior functions, in preferably positive and stimulating ways. Inferior functions should not be seen as kryptonite, because it is necessary for them to be as sensitive as they are. It doesn't make us weak, it makes us human, it makes us organic. Without it, we would be emotionless robots, completely unresponsive to any outside human dynamics at all, so it is necessary for it to be able to modulate our Ti with Fe. If this relationship did not exist, we would not be fit to exist in a collective based species such as mankind.
Lower functions are not there to trip us up, they are there to refine us. They can trip us up if over used, but their purpose is not to do this.

And yes, Immaturity can mean a person will be unfamiliar with the inferior side of their psyche and be less competent in their ability to reconcile it. This is actually not lack of control, but lack of knowledge of how it should be controlled. They will have problems being able to modulate between the two opposing functions, which could mean flat out suppressing Fe, or perhaps even using it too rashly. However, it is your experience (good or bad) that adds this refinement of how you use your functions in the future.

 

[Jennywocky]

Where did "this rock is great" come from? Where is the origin of Fi judgments?

The self, I would guess.

There is some internal state of switches that is experienced through inner balance/harmony/rightness, and the object is evaluated in terms of worth to the self.

Ti tends to lower the importance of the self to that of everything else -- the infamous NT detachment from self -- and so evaluation occurs by some impersonal means... value to the world? But it's why Ti people in the same environment will agree on the broad universal truths, where there is far more variety in Fi value codes.

What about the "reason to observe"? The purpose of observing? Isn't that an origin centered on value?

Value defined broadly enough is inescapable. We do not focus on anything or do anything we do not value to some degree. The point is more what the value of the object is derived from. For the Fi, putting the "me" in the value judgment is essential, while for Ti, removing "me" from the judgment is essential.

 

[Words]

The self, I would guess.

There is some internal state of switches that is experienced through inner balance/harmony/rightness, and the object is evaluated in terms of worth to the self.

But where is "self" evaluated from? (something external?)

Ti tends to lower the importance of the self to that of everything else -- the infamous NT detachment from self -- and so evaluation occurs by some impersonal means... value to the world? But it's why Ti people in the same environment will agree on the broad universal truths, where there is far more variety in Fi value codes.

So the only difference between the two Ji functions is that Ti values less than Fi? Can Fi also "not" value something?

Value defined broadly enough is inescapable. We do not focus on anything or do anything we do not value to some degree. The point is more what the value of the object is derived from. For the Fi, putting the "me" in the value judgment is essential, while for Ti, removing "me" from the judgment is essential.

But the "me" can never be removed. Ti's values may not be directly related to the judgment but it is indirectly.

Do you know how Fi can benefit in logic?

 

[KazeCraven]

Where did "this rock is great" come from? Where is the origin of Fi judgments?

If I understand that question right, that's also something I really want to know, though I doubt anyone has a straightforward answer to that. Anyway, just to put it in my own words (or show that I'm actually thinkin of something different):

How do we come up with a system for making value judgements anyway? Is value judging a part of Ti (Ji) or Fe (Fx) (I'm guessing Ti, because Fe seems to be about dynamics). Are we just born with a brain that says "I value M, D, Q, Y, and V"?

 

[Irishpenguin]

Okay, I saw this gap of logic in this thread (at least that's what I saw it as) a couple of days ago and was just too lazy to respond to it up until now, so sorry for tracking back about fifteen days.

In theory, I don't think it would work. If Ti Ne are stimulating functions for the INTP and Si and Fe for the ISFJ, both would only bore and get tired of each other, cognitive-wise. (which could result into hate which could also result into fights)

Okay, let me first just state that I don't even totally agree with aproaching things like this in a totally "Cognitive-wise" way of thinking, but even if we were to approach it like this, the gap of logic is still there.

Basically Words, you are only factoring in the fact that the INTP and ISFJ get stimulated by what the other one gets drained by, but that works two ways.

Lets just take your example (one of them, anyways, since you had like 3 of them...god-damn, man )

For example:

1. A Theory(NT) is presented by an INTP.
2. The ISFJ is drained and responds mainly with Si Fe.
3. The INTP is also drained and responds mainly with Ti Ne.
= they drain each other.

Okay, yes, they would drain each other, but they also are continuously gaining the energy back when they go to use there primary functions (when the ISFJ responds "mainly with Si Fe" they gain energy, and when the INTP responds "Mainly with Ti Ne" they too, gain energy)

so what you would really get in this cognitive based conversation is more of a constant trade off of energy between the two people. Going something like

1. INTP gains energy (Ti Ne), then loses energy (Si Fe)
2. ISFJ loses energy (Ti Ne), then gains energy (Si Fe)
3. Repeat

See, instead of just constantly draining each other until their all dried up, they are basically giving them the other person energy by listening and giving feedback to them (Well, it's more like their allowing each other to gain their own energy by listening and giving feedback)

I'm just doing this to show that MooCow having an ISFJ best friend is completely plausible, even when using the method that you used.

Of course, by this explanation, it is neither a guarantee that any ole' INTP is going to be able to have everlasting conversations with any ole' ISFJ, it's just showing that it is totally possible (though it's also totally possible that they will just end up hating each other since they could be bad at giving feedback). In order for the relationship to flourish, both parties would have to be intrigued by what the other has to say, regardless of whether or not the topic would drain them (i.e. the ISFJ's Ti Ne would have to be intrigued enough by what the INTP's Ti Ne is saying in order for it to be a fun and worthwhile ride...errrr conversation)

I know an ISFJ and we talk quite well with each other. She is *sometimes* interested by the things I'm interested in but will always revert back to her "thing". I never show any interest in her "thing". She's my sister and it's only rare that we talk with each other. We don't hate each other, we just don't "connect". Actually, we do connect but only on the rare occasions where she's strangely interested in my "thing".

This is a very good example. One could conclude that most of the time Your Ti Ne isn't appealing enough for your sister to hang around, but sometimes (The "Rare occasions") it peaks her interest enough for you two to "connect". But don't worry, I'm not a big fan of Concluding things

I think it's all "well" but you can't expect a 5-hour long discussion.

Okay, you just had to go and make me re-write how a conversation would go

1. INTP gains energy (Ti Ne), then loses energy (Si Fe)
2. ISFJ loses energy (Ti Ne), then gains energy (Si Fe)
3. Repeat OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL DISCUSSION LAST 5 HOURS OR MORE, THUS DISPROVING WORDS AND HIS EXPECTATIONS!!!

 

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Words
Where did "this rock is great" come from? Where is the origin of Fi judgments?

and

If I understand that question right, that's also something I really want to know, though I doubt anyone has a straightforward answer to that. Anyway, just to put it in my own words (or show that I'm actually thinkin of something different):

How do we come up with a system for making value judgements anyway? Is value judging a part of Ti (Ji) or Fe (Fx) (I'm guessing Ti, because Fe seems to be about dynamics). Are we just born with a brain that says "I value M, D, Q, Y, and V"?

Let's try a straightforward approach:
Since human beings have values they must have come from somewhere. Suppose we assume it all started with perception. That is, data is collected. Some may wish to collect more data without selection while others may express preferences from what they've got. What would distinguish? It could be pure chance. It could depend both on the data collected and our interpretation of it.

This is all very abstract so far, so let's get concrete so we can perceive and see if we want to evaluate. Suppose we come across a field of rocks. One of us experiences them, takes an interest, has no special preference of one over the other and so proceeded to classify them according to some preconceived standard. Fine. He can go on classifying for some time. But what if he comes across a diamond? He can note it has special properties of hardness, reflection, beauty that say to him he might like to look for more. Or he can have a preconceived notion that diamonds have value and take advantage of his finding to look for more. The INTP might ignore all that. The INTP might have a greater interest in degrees of hardness, qualities of reflection, sand vs boulders, soil versus water repellents, coloration, chemical reactions, melting ice -- that kind of thing.

 

[Words]

If I understand that question right, that's also something I really want to know, though I doubt anyone has a straightforward answer to that. Anyway, just to put it in my own words (or show that I'm actually thinkin of something different):

How do we come up with a system for making value judgements anyway? Is value judging a part of Ti (Ji) or Fe (Fx) (I'm guessing Ti, because Fe seems to be about dynamics). Are we just born with a brain that says "I value M, D, Q, Y, and V"?

The inherent "conscience". I hear Carl Jung believed this.

Basically Words, you are only factoring in the fact that the INTP and ISFJ get stimulated by what the other one gets drained by, but that works two ways.

Lets just take your example (one of them, anyways, since you had like 3 of them...god-damn, man )




Okay, yes, they would drain each other, but they also are continuously gaining the energy back when they go to use there primary functions (when the ISFJ responds "mainly with Si Fe" they gain energy, and when the INTP responds "Mainly with Ti Ne" they too, gain energy)

so what you would really get in this cognitive based conversation is more of a constant trade off of energy between the two people. Going something like

1. INTP gains energy (Ti Ne), then loses energy (Si Fe)
2. ISFJ loses energy (Ti Ne), then gains energy (Si Fe)
3. Repeat

See, instead of just constantly draining each other until their all dried up, they are basically giving them the other person energy by listening and giving feedback to them (Well, it's more like their allowing each other to gain their own energy by listening and giving feedback)

I'm just doing this to show that MooCow having an ISFJ best friend is completely plausible, even when using the method that you used.

Okay, you just had to go and make me re-write how a conversation would go

1. INTP gains energy (Ti Ne), then loses energy (Si Fe)
2. ISFJ loses energy (Ti Ne), then gains energy (Si Fe)
3. Repeat OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL DISCUSSION LAST 5 HOURS OR MORE, THUS DISPROVING WORDS AND HIS EXPECTATIONS!!!

I'm thinking like this:

1. INTP gains energy (Ti Ne) *talks*
2. ISFJ loses energy (Ti Ne) *listens*
3. End discussion.

1. ISFJ gains energy (Si Fe) *talks*
2. INTP loses energy (Si Fe) *listens*
3. End discussion.

Because if we look at the nature of discussions, Ti Ne attracts Ti Ne. Philosophy will be about Philosophy. Human Relationships will be about Human Relationships. And It takes two people interested in the same topic to let the conversation "flow". Otherwise, the above happens.

and
Let's try a straightforward approach:
Since human beings have values they must have come from somewhere. Suppose we assume it all started with perception. That is, data is collected. Some may wish to collect more data without selection while others may express preferences from what they've got. What would distinguish? It could be pure chance. It could depend both on the data collected and our interpretation of it.

This is all very abstract so far, so let's get concrete so we can perceive and see if we want to evaluate. Suppose we come across a field of rocks. One of us experiences them, takes an interest, has no special preference of one over the other and so proceeded to classify them according to some preconceived standard. Fine. He can go on classifying for some time. But what if he comes across a diamond? He can note it has special properties of hardness, reflection, beauty that say to him he might like to look for more. Or he can have a preconceived notion that diamonds have value and take advantage of his finding to look for more. The INTP might ignore all that. The INTP might have a greater interest in degrees of hardness, qualities of reflection, sand vs boulders, soil versus water repellents, coloration, chemical reactions, melting ice -- that kind of thing.

I don't understand. You are saying that Ji judgments rely on the external?

I think the question can be simplified in this way: "Where is subjectivity from?". Is that possible to answer?

 

[Irishpenguin]

I'm thinking like this:

1. INTP gains energy (Ti Ne) *talks*
2. ISFJ loses energy (Ti Ne) *listens*
3. End discussion.

1. ISFJ gains energy (Si Fe) *talks*
2. INTP loses energy (Si Fe) *listens*
3. End discussion.

Umm, I don't really understand how a conversation would just "End" so abruptly. But, to keep things more simple, I'll just continue on.

Because if we look at the nature of discussions, Ti Ne attracts Ti Ne. Philosophy will be about Philosophy. Human Relationships will be about Human Relationships. And It takes two people interested in the same topic to let the conversation "flow". Otherwise, the above happens

Yes. I aggree, and what I was pretty much saying is that it is totally possible for an ISFJ to be interested in a topic presented by an INTP and vise-versa, regardless of whether or not the topic and/or discussion will call upon their lower functions and drain them, they could still totally be up for discussion with each other.

 

[Words]

Yes. I aggree, and what I was pretty much saying is that it is totally possible for an ISFJ to be interested in a topic presented by an INTP and vise-versa, regardless of whether or not the topic and/or discussion will call upon their lower functions and drain them, they could still totally be up for discussion with each other.

The "change in topic" creates the intervals in discussion. The lack of connections between the topics lessens the tendency for a long 5 hour discussion. Besides, who would talk to a non-stimulating person when there are other stimulating people around? The understanding of the lack of information compatibility will also tend to prevents initiations.

Possibility1
1. INTP (Ti Ne) gains
2. ISFJ (Ti Ne) drains.
(end discussion)
(separate discussion)
1. ISFJ (Si Fe) gains.
2. INTP (Si Fe) drains.
(end discussion)
(separate discussion)
1. ISFJ(Si Fe) gains.
2. INTP(Ti Ne) drains.
end

or
Possibility2
1. ISFJ keeps talking about SiFe and keeps gaining.
2. INTP keeps draining.

or

1. INTP keeps talking TiNe and keeps gaining.
2. ISFJ keeps draining.



There is no overall "stimulation" for both. It's either an equal distribution of 0 stimulation for both(Possibility #1) or an unbalanced situation that could create an extreme of +50 for one and -50 for the other(possibility2).


...but for some reason, I am thinking "stimulation" is harder to achieve than "drainage"....

 

[Irishpenguin]

The "change in topic" creates the intervals in discussion. The lack of connections between the topics lessens the tendency for a long 5 hour discussion. Besides, who would talk to a non-stimulating person when there are other stimulating people around? The understanding of the lack of information compatibility will also tend to prevents initiations.

Possibility1
1. INTP (Ti Ne) gains
2. ISFJ (Ti Ne) drains.
(end discussion)
(separate discussion)
1. ISFJ (Si Fe) gains.
2. INTP (Si Fe) drains.
(end discussion)
(separate discussion)
1. ISFJ(Si Fe) gains.
2. INTP(Ti Ne) drains.
end

Okay, it's a little weird how it seems that you believe when a person is having a conversation with another person, they tend are always isolate their two dominant functions and only communicate through only the two of them.

Let's move the examples...again

or
Possibility2
1. ISFJ keeps talking about SiFe and keeps gaining.
2. INTP keeps draining.

Okay come on...there's no way that ISFJ is going to just be spewing out pure SiFe at the INTP until the INTP is fully drained, I mean, the ISFJ will have to go into his TiNe during the conversation at one time or another, it is a this point that the ISFJ will drain his/herself and thus energize the INTP, allowing for the INTP to get a word in, which will use Fe, and in doing this, the INTPs Fe will Drain the INTP but energize the ISFJ. Like an energy loop.

or

1. INTP keeps talking TiNe and keeps gaining.
2. ISFJ keeps draining.

Same concept as the last last, and it's kind of funny how you say the INTP would keep "talking" and yet only be using TiNe, since as far as I know things, usually when INTPs have to "talk" we are inherently using Fe, and since Fe is attached to Si (according to Adymus here) then Si will be along for the ride. And that will give the ISFJ a good dose of energy for their dominant functions to feed on...mmMMmm...Tasty Energy!


This is all under the same basic concept: You are always using all of your functions at all times, just not equally, as in, sometimes one of the functions is getting more attention than the others. However, during a conversation it would seem that your cognitive functions would be constantly hitting it off with one another.

There is no overall "stimulation" for both. It's either an equal distribution of 0 stimulation for both(Possibility #1) or an unbalanced situation that could create an extreme of +50 for one and -50 for the other(possibility2).

I still don't see why you see it like this, it is also weird how you have seemed to change up the conversation possibilities to where one of the participants is just forcing the other into a corner and not letting them get a word in, which would indeed drain all of the listeners energy, but most conversations are, y'know, a two-way thing, not just one person talking, the other listening. That's more of a lecture...with no questions

...but for some reason, I am thinking "stimulation" is harder to achieve than "drainage"....

Oh, haha, I always sort of thought that it was easier to get stimulated rather than drained. But then again, stimulation (for me) comes in short, energy filled bursts, and the draining process is much more gradual. I guess the whole Stimulation/Drain process can greatly differ from person to person of the same type.

 

[Maverick]

Yes there would be observable differences, I'll leave Si out of this because while it is somewhat noticeable on an ESFJ, it wouldn't be noticeable on an INTP using Fe.

First of all the ESFJ has a far greater range of emotional expression than we do, their faces are actually built to express, and ours, even though we are capable of doing it, are not built to or used to being very expressive. The ESFJ (and Fe dominant) use of Fe takes up the entire face, and the INTP use of Fe almost always does not rise above the mouth, or the midline of the face.

Secondly there is the factor of the ESFJ feeding off of this experience and the INTP modulating with their inferior function to just to do it. For an ESFJ the Fe comes up into their face, and stays into their face until the pull it back with their inferior Ti, and even then it rarely if ever goes as cold an INTP's Ti neutral expression. For an INTP Fe will be in bursts; face warms up, and goes cold a moment later, face warms up, and goes cold a moment later, and so on. No matter how much Fe the INTP uses, it always neutralizes fast as soon as we let go of Fe.

For an ESFJ, it is not a matter of letting go of Fe, it is more of a matter of them letting go of Ti, so their faces are naturally expressive.

It is not even a subtle difference, it is blatantly obvious unless you have no ability to read emotional expressiveness what so ever.

I think you got caught up in your theory about typing in real-time. Though most parts of it can be stood up to, you wouldn't need to mix things up. for your sake of credibility and for MBTI being a whole. So PLEASE keep 'em apart.

 

[cheese]

IrishPenguin,
I think the difference is that the ISFJ would always try to bring things back to pushing a concrete, fact-based worldview (SiFe) and an INTP would always try to bring things back to speculating and analysing (TiNe). Dominant Si is not interested in speculating, so the INTP's conversation would eventually become tiring/seem nonsensical and irrelevant to the real world. Likewise, the ISFJ's rigidity and adherence to individual facts rather than holistic models would eventually chafe and feel constricting to the INTP.

All functions are used in service to the dominant. While ISFJs share the same functions as INTPs, their dominants are more or less opposed to each other, which means the functions will be playing different roles in each type. With ISFJs, TiNe is used to support/verify an already formed worldview, with very little interest in considering alternative viewpoints (Ne as inferior). They may have Ti and Ne, but they won't be using them the way we do, when they use them at all. Many ISFJs will be content to rely on their personal narrative of life that has proven reliable thus far. The focus is on pushing their people-oriented worldview through interaction with others. Likewise, with INTPs SiFe is used to help support/verify a variety of theoretical models. We are not using them to push a fact-based worldview that has already been decided on, we are using them to test our models of understanding for external viability (by checking against facts and by communicating with others for feedback). Again, this is when we use them at all - many INTPs are content to remain in their mental lab, testing for the most logically coherent model for understanding the world, without much concern for external application of their ideas. This is why we're in danger of being full of shit, because we may not be in touch with the real world.

This is why an INTP is more likely to get along with an ENTP than an ISFJ, because both are interested in the same modes of thought: speculation-analysis. SiFe is there to keep us at least a little grounded, and for an ISFJ, TiNe is there to keep them from being too rigid. They are safety nets, corrective measures, not our happy places, so it will be difficult for us to sympathise with people who experience the opposite.

I think your energy-loop model is pretty cool, and on paper it makes sense, but I think it also ignores the strength of the dominant imperative and the very real frustration that can result from someone continually attempting to push the conversation somewhere you don't want it to go. The ISFJ is going to keep trying to ground things to one spot and the INTP is going to keep trying to fly away to everywhere. So you may get stimulated when you get to say your bit, but eventually you'll get irritated that the other person just doesn't seem to 'get it'. I don't think you can reduce it to a simple energy formula. You may not walk away feeling particularly drained, but you probably won't walk away thinking "I really enjoyed that" either. I'm not saying it's impossible for the two to have good conversations, or even that it's very rare - but the default is likely to be superficial conversations at best (that may well be very enjoyable for both parties). They may work well as a team in some cases, but as conversational partners, for pure enjoyment, I don't think they're optimal. Although the ENTP-ISFJ pairing would probably be worse.

*edit
What I'm doing now is Si-Feing this shit. I think this post was probably most useful for me - organising my thoughts and getting them out - but this way hopefully I find out if I'm on the right track.

 

[Words]

Okay, it's a little weird how it seems that you believe when a person is having a conversation with another person, they tend are always isolate their two dominant functions and only communicate through only the two of them.

Let's move the examples...again

I was simplifying. Even if we added the rest of the functions, the result would be the same.

Okay come on...there's no way that ISFJ is going to just be spewing out pure SiFe at the INTP until the INTP is fully drained, I mean, the ISFJ will have to go into his TiNe during the conversation at one time or another, it is a this point that the ISFJ will drain his/herself and thus energize the INTP, allowing for the INTP to get a word in, which will use Fe, and in doing this, the INTPs Fe will Drain the INTP but energize the ISFJ. Like an energy loop.

It's a possibility. My mother, sister and other SF's have already been doing this to me. They keep asking and talking about concrete, value-based topics. Most of the time, I keep my mouth shut unless asked about more concrete value based topics. Sometimes I say, "Oh wait! What if you do x on that?". They laugh and often would say "Don't think about those" and continue with their SF's. Sometimes they do respond theoretically but it usually pushes the conversation to a halt.

It depends entirely on how "energy greedy" the two conversationalists are and who is more. And I am thinking, due to "supposed" dominance of SF population and the tradition as a result, the usual trend is: (SF)2 - (NT)1 = 1(SF) = -1(NT).


And with the realization of differing information preference, "I want to talk about this but this person is simply going to get bored", less conversation happens.

Same concept as the last last, and it's kind of funny how you say the INTP would keep "talking" and yet only be using TiNe, since as far as I know things, usually when INTPs have to "talk" we are inherently using Fe, and since Fe is attached to Si (according to Adymus here) then Si will be along for the ride. And that will give the ISFJ a good dose of energy for their dominant functions to feed on...mmMMmm...Tasty Energy!

But If articulation was used to simply display Ti Ne, Si Fe would only be "decorations". I don't think articulation automatically dictates significant Fe.

This is all under the same basic concept: You are always using all of your functions at all times, just not equally, as in, sometimes one of the functions is getting more attention than the others. However, during a conversation it would seem that your cognitive functions would be constantly hitting it off with one another.

It's a possible neutralization(which I believe is unlikely due to differing affinity of conversation) but also a possible drain and a possible gain for one.

I still don't see why you see it like this, it is also weird how you have seemed to change up the conversation possibilities to where one of the participants is just forcing the other into a corner and not letting them get a word in, which would indeed drain all of the listeners energy, but most conversations are, y'know, a two-way thing, not just one person talking, the other listening. That's more of a lecture...with no questions

When someone talks about concrete value based topics, you are forced in the same arena.

Oh, haha, I always sort of thought that it was easier to get stimulated rather than drained. But then again, stimulation (for me) comes in short, energy filled bursts, and the draining process is much more gradual. I guess the whole Stimulation/Drain process can greatly differ from person to person of the same type.

Perhaps. But maybe information preference can also vary by persons? I mean, maybe one NT is extremely NT and one SF is extremely SF? And NT is not so NT and SF is slightly NT?

I think your energy-loop model is pretty cool, and on paper it makes sense, but I think it also ignores the strength of the dominant imperative and the very real frustration that can result from someone continually attempting to push the conversation somewhere you don't want it to go. The ISFJ is going to keep trying to ground things to one spot and the INTP is going to keep trying to fly away to everywhere. So you may get stimulated when you get to say your bit, but eventually you'll get irritated that the other person just doesn't seem to 'get it'. I don't think you can reduce it to a simple energy formula. You may not walk away feeling particularly drained, but you probably won't walk away thinking "I really enjoyed that" either.

SiFe and TiNe are two opposing "roads" and doing a "U-turn" irritates the driver(s)?

I'm not saying it's impossible for the two to have good conversations, or even that it's very rare - but the default is likely to be superficial conversations at best (that may well be very enjoyable for both parties).

In my case and my standards(based on experience), it has been very rare [after I reached a certain age].

 

[Adymus]

I think you got caught up in your theory about typing in real-time. Though most parts of it can be stood up to, you wouldn't need to mix things up. for your sake of credibility and for MBTI being a whole. So PLEASE keep 'em apart.

No, I'm afraid I can't do that Maverick. The two cannot and should not be separated. This theory runs far deeper than you realize.

I couldn't care less for MBTI, I don't even support the theory.

 

[Maverick]

No, I'm afraid I can't do that Maverick. The two cannot and should not be separated. This theory runs far deeper than you realize.

I couldn't care less for MBTI, I don't even support the theory.

Firstly, renaming a pre-existing theory doesn't make a new one. It would be sort of exegesis.

Your posts happen to be in an MBTI forum.
Although it would be the only differentiating part, I don't see a line (signature or a permanent sentence) stating that you speak a different theory (that would be useful if the theory doesn't speak for itself). People using such forums mostly discuss MBTI.

Don't you think it's kind of exploitation?

 

[BigApplePi]

I couldn't care less for MBTI, I don't even support the theory.

Adymus. Can you elaborate? What part of MBTI don't you support? I'm not sure what is meant by "MBTI theory."

Are you referring to its emphasis on dominant and auxiliary functions and its failure to take into account tertiary and inferior functions or something else? Or have I over simplified it?

 

[Adymus]

Firstly, renaming a pre-existing theory doesn't make a new one. It would be sort of exegesis.

Your posts happen to be in an MBTI forum.
Although it would be the only differentiating part, I don't see a line (signature or a permanent sentence) stating that you speak a different theory (that would be useful if the theory doesn't speak for itself). People using such forums mostly discuss MBTI.

Don't you think it's kind of exploitation?

By that logic Chemistry is still Alchemy, it is a model that is far bigger than the pre-existing theory. It covers the same ground more accurately and continues much further, it is not simply an extension.

I don't have it in my sig, but I have always been open about the fact that what I talk about is mainly Pod'lair theory, although I translate what I can into Jungian/MBTI terminology for easier digestion. (Come to think of it, Cegorach removed that reference from Cognitive Functions 100 when he revised it. Well, I've still been open about it though.)

No, I don't think it is exploitation, I'm giving people new insights that correlate with a model they are all interested in. What our model offers is a much deeper look into something many people here are already looking into, if it is wrong to do this, then I guess it must be wrong to propose any independently thought insights at all.

 

[Adymus]

Adymus. Can you elaborate? What part of MBTI don't you support? I'm not sure what is meant by "MBTI theory."

Are you referring to its emphasis on dominant and auxiliary functions and its failure to take into account tertiary and inferior functions or something else? Or have I over simplified it?

Nothing in particular, just the model as a whole. I think it is very incompetently implemented, too vague, too much emphasis on the test (which is terrible), too much emphasis on the descriptions (Which are inaccurate), there is no real attempt to really turn any of it into a working model. I would say anyone that wants to shed some light into this field of study is better off detaching from it. It has already tainted people's perceptions of what the types are.

 

[KazeCraven]

Oh.

I knew you were working on a new theory, but I didn't realize the "MBTI theory" itself was so dependent on the type descriptions. Nonetheless, yours tastes better.

 

[Irishpenguin]

Sorry for the delay

@ Words and Cheese

You both have very valid points in what you said, and I will admit that when I was thinking about that energy loop I wasn't fully embracing that an ISFJ is usually using the same cognitive functions in completely different ways (and yes cheese, what you was actually pretty helpful )

However, even looking back at it with my newly formed eyes, I still think it is quite possible for and ISFJ and INTP to interaction as very good friends. It would seem that all it would take is for the two of them not to be greedy about energy as well as have their lower fuctions developed enough to not be hesitant in using them for more than their normal default action. As in, the ISFJ could use their Ti Ne for more than just double checking their facts. Or the INTP could use their Si Fe for more than just articulation and backup information. I guess that basically for a good friendship to work the two of them would have to be well developed and probably use their lower cognitive fuctnions like the other would be using the same (ISFJ use Ne to bounce off ideas, and the INTP could use Fe to...like... well I guess just use his Fe more like an ISFJ would, I don't exactly know how the ISFJ's do their "thing" with Fe). And I can see how this could very well make it unlikely for a friendship to occur, BUT NOT UNPOSSIBLE!

and, just for the record, the reason that I went on about this was really just because of the stance that Words seemed to take with MooCow and how he seemingly believed it to be literally Impossible (or damn close) for an INTP and ISFJ to interact without inevitably irritating each other cognitive wise. I was just never in that much disbelief in the first place. And sure, there is the possibility that MooCow's friend was mistyped somehow, but I didn't want to hop onto that conclusion just because a first glance look at this theory would make the typing of an ISFJ friend seem ridiculous

 

[cheese]

Sorry for the delay

@ Words and Cheese

You both have very valid points in what you said, and I will admit that when I was thinking about that energy loop I wasn't fully embracing that an ISFJ is usually using the same cognitive functions in completely different ways (and yes cheese, what you was actually pretty helpful )

However, even looking back at it with my newly formed eyes, I still think it is quite possible for and ISFJ and INTP to interaction as very good friends. It would seem that all it would take is for the two of them not to be greedy about energy as well as have their lower fuctions developed enough to not be hesitant in using them for more than their normal default action. As in, the ISFJ could use their Ti Ne for more than just double checking their facts. Or the INTP could use their Si Fe for more than just articulation and backup information. I guess that basically for a good friendship to work the two of them would have to be well developed and probably use their lower cognitive fuctnions like the other would be using the same (ISFJ use Ne to bounce off ideas, and the INTP could use Fe to...like... well I guess just use his Fe more like an ISFJ would, I don't exactly know how the ISFJ's do their "thing" with Fe). And I can see how this could very well make it unlikely for a friendship to occur, BUT NOT UNPOSSIBLE!

and, just for the record, the reason that I went on about this was really just because of the stance that Words seemed to take with MooCow and how he seemingly believed it to be literally Impossible (or damn close) for an INTP and ISFJ to interact without inevitably irritating each other cognitive wise. I was just never in that much disbelief in the first place. And sure, there is the possibility that MooCow's friend was mistyped somehow, but I didn't want to hop onto that conclusion just because a first glance look at this theory would make the typing of an ISFJ friend seem ridiculous

Oh yeah, I'd definitely agree with that (I think). I know a great ISFJ, one of the best people I know, and she tries to stay open-minded while still being very sensible and factual. She's tolerant, logical, fair, etc while still having one of the biggest hearts I've ever come across. Well-developed I'd say. It's definitely not unpossible and is quite rewarding I think.

I would say it's easier to be good friends with one than in a relationship with one though. Certain levels of proximity simply work much better with more compatible modes of thought.

But yeah, in general - nice, mature people can get along with other nice, mature people.

 

[Words]

Sorry for the delay

@ Words and Cheese

You both have very valid points in what you said, and I will admit that when I was thinking about that energy loop I wasn't fully embracing that an ISFJ is usually using the same cognitive functions in completely different ways (and yes cheese, what you was actually pretty helpful )

However, even looking back at it with my newly formed eyes, I still think it is quite possible for and ISFJ and INTP to interaction as very good friends. It would seem that all it would take is for the two of them not to be greedy about energy as well as have their lower fuctions developed enough to not be hesitant in using them for more than their normal default action. As in, the ISFJ could use their Ti Ne for more than just double checking their facts. Or the INTP could use their Si Fe for more than just articulation and backup information. I guess that basically for a good friendship to work the two of them would have to be well developed and probably use their lower cognitive fuctnions like the other would be using the same (ISFJ use Ne to bounce off ideas, and the INTP could use Fe to...like... well I guess just use his Fe more like an ISFJ would, I don't exactly know how the ISFJ's do their "thing" with Fe). And I can see how this could very well make it unlikely for a friendship to occur, BUT NOT UNPOSSIBLE!

and, just for the record, the reason that I went on about this was really just because of the stance that Words seemed to take with MooCow and how he seemingly believed it to be literally Impossible (or damn close) for an INTP and ISFJ to interact without inevitably irritating each other cognitive wise. I was just never in that much disbelief in the first place. And sure, there is the possibility that MooCow's friend was mistyped somehow, but I didn't want to hop onto that conclusion just because a first glance look at this theory would make the typing of an ISFJ friend seem ridiculous

My opinion is that INTP's and ISFJ's can be "well friends" but not friends who can happily talk for five hours or more.

Why:

1. Because that would mean continuously creating different topics to energize each of them, which would mean that one of them is going to run out of things to start talking about.

One major reason why humans talk is because they're interested in the sole subject and not another. Because they want to keep talking about "one" thing they're currently "feel" like talking about, they will get annoyed if the subject is changed. If, the "other" person does not contribute to the topic presented, that person will have to look for another topic.

2. The goal is to keep yourself interested and stimulated and "0"[or the "loop theory" you presented] is not stimulation.

Stimulation is acceleration not speed.

1. INTP talks NT +1
2. INTJ listens NT +1
3. INTJ talks NT +2
4. INTP listens NT +2
5. +3
6. +15
7. +50
8. +100
9. +1000
10. +10, 000
= 5 hour long discussion

Not speed

1. INTP talks NT +1
2. ISFJ listens NT -1
3. ISFJ talks SF +1
4. INTP listens -1
5. 0
6. 0
7. 0
= X < 5 hours

Oh yeah, I'd definitely agree with that (I think). I know a great ISFJ, one of the best people I know, and she tries to stay open-minded while still being very sensible and factual. She's tolerant, logical, fair, etc while still having one of the biggest hearts I've ever come across. Well-developed I'd say. It's definitely not unpossible and is quite rewarding I think.


But yeah, in general - nice, mature people can get along with other nice, mature people.

It can be "swell", I agree. But it can't be "awesome".

I would say it's easier to be good friends with one than in a relationship with one though. Certain levels of proximity simply work much better with more compatible modes of thought.

In general, I agree.

There are several factors to consider[health, development, culture etc.] but in general, I think relationship psychologically works best if "communication medium" is the same.

That means:
1. P(N or S) > J(T or F)
2. Pe:Pe>Pe:Pi
3. Pe Ji:Pe Ji > Pe Ji: Pi Je

4. INTP: INTP > INTJ: INTP....wait, I think this is wrong...