Guide to functions mimicking other functions

[calysco]

(Hello everyone. I am Calysco from PersonalityCafe, however, after I saw some of the articles here, I'm rather impressed by how much knowledge some of you have. And so, I'd like to ask for help on the topic of the thread because I'm pretty sure you all would be as interested in this topic as I am.)

I find this topic very interesting, however, though I've seen scattered comments concerning this topic here and there in separate posts on different forums, I have yet to see a specific area in which this topic is actually discussed in detail.

Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with this and would like more input from the rest of you- preferably a set guide with all different types of combination and scenarios.


Format for guide if you wish to contribute:

1. function used most (bold this) + the next function used most = appeared function

in order words: ___>___>___ = ____

if you think there are more than one helper functions, add them in.


2. Explanation.

3. Example set in real-time.


Example:

1. Ne + Ti + Si = Fe

2. Si identifies present scenario as one that has happened before. Ne immediately draws out possible scenarios and solutions. Ti is able to then select the best possible action for a certain situation. And so, the outcome may look like Fe.

3. Many people come to me with problems because I try to look for the best possible way to maintain harmony while solving the issue. They think it's because I'm kind and considerate. What's really going on is, I'm giving them solutions from my experience since I've failed several times in the past and wish to avoid more issues. Basically, nearly all of my kindness comes from my failures- it's not because I care about others, but rather because I know what works and what doesn't work.



...If that sounded completely wrong, please correct me at once.


Why create this guide?

This guide would be extremely useful to spotting false behavior and false types as well as a guide to create an almost non-existing function based off of functions which one already has. Preferably, this guide will have different combination sets for each individual function.

 

[shoeless]

the only problem with that example is that all four of the functions given can exist within the same personality. if it's an INTP, and it looks like he's using Fe, who's to say he isn't, being his inferior function after all?

 

[calysco]

the only problem with that example is that all four of the functions given can exist within the same personality. if it's an INTP, and it looks like he's using Fe, who's to say he isn't, being his inferior function after all?

That may be the case, however, my purpose is to identify the functions which aren't the true functions as they appear to be, but rather, are merely the combination of other functions.

 

[Adymus]

Basically, nearly all of my kindness comes from my failures- it's not because I care about others, but rather because I know what works and what doesn't work.

This is actually a use of Fe.

An INTP's Fe is connected with their Si, similar to how our Ti is connect to our Ne, when we use one, the other goes with it in some way. When you are using Si to check with what works and does not work in human social dynamics is actually you checking your Si perception of how Fe works, what is appropriate and inappropriate according to social rules of etiquette.

 

[calysco]

This is actually a use of Fe.

An INTP's Fe is connected with their Si, similar to how our Ti is connect to our Ne, when we use one, the other goes with it in some way. When you are using Si to check with what works and does not work in human social dynamics is actually you checking your Si perception of how Fe works, what is appropriate and inappropriate according to social rules of etiquette.

Hm, that's interesting.

I do have some question then: those with Fe as their dominant and secondary functions- do they just "know" how others feel and are able to immediately adjust their behavior to them? In other words, is it Fe solely because it is Fe? Or is Fe because of trial and error?

Are cognitive functions, cognitive functions, because they are, or is it because experience has built a person's thinking process and what they exude then, is immediately tagged on the label, Ne, Fe, etc.

Is there material available on how each type links their cognitive processes? (As you just said, INTPs link Ti with Ne and Fe with Si.)

 

[Adymus]

Hm, that's interesting.

I do have some question then: those with Fe as their dominant and secondary functions- do they just "know" how others feel and are able to immediately adjust their behavior to them? In other words, is it Fe solely because it is Fe? Or is Fe because of trial and error?

Are cognitive functions, cognitive functions, because they are, or is it because experience has built a person's thinking process and what they exude then, is immediately tagged on the label, Ne, Fe, etc.

Is there material available on how each type links their cognitive processes? (As you just said, INTPs link Ti with Ne and Fe with Si.)

They don't just "know", They essentially have to read the room and/or read a person, this will strike a certain mood or feeling tone in their Fe, and when that happens their introverted perception function (Si or Ni) will start giving them insights onto what it is in the environment that is causing this, based on their past experience in the case of Si, or their Speculative and conceptual worldview in the case of Ni.
Not sure what you mean by "is it Fe because it is Fe?" but Fe is a function that is used to move and manipulate an objective dynamic of social structure. Trial and error is not necessary most of the time, unless of course you are an INTP who is not very in touch with how social dynamics work on the terms of values based behavior. Although, sometimes trial and error is necessary for even types that have dominant and auxiliary Fe, for instance in that they might say something, and get a response back that looks like it bothered the person, then they might come back with the result of "It might be best to avoid that topic."

And yeah, Cognitive processes are innate, they are not just random things that we pick up.

 

[ckm]

This is actually a use of Fe.

An INTP's Fe is connected with their Si, similar to how our Ti is connect to our Ne, when we use one, the other goes with it in some way. When you are using Si to check with what works and does not work in human social dynamics is actually you checking your Si perception of how Fe works, what is appropriate and inappropriate according to social rules of etiquette.

Are primary and secondary/tertiary and inferior functions always exclusively linked? You are making a lot of statements here, presumably through Si, so can we assume that your other function that is getting a lot of use is Fe? Of course, I'm not trying to suggest that there is no Ti/Ne use here, but that if there is, it is minimal when given the context of your type and the proportion of Si/Fe use.

 

[Adymus]

Are primary and secondary/tertiary and inferior functions always exclusively linked? You are making a lot of statements here, presumably through Si, so can we assume that your other function that is getting a lot of use is Fe? Of course, I'm not trying to suggest that there is no Ti/Ne use here, but that if they are, they are minimal when given the context of your type and the proportion of Si/Fe use.

To the first question, yes, they are.

Second part:
Well yes of course Si-Fe is going into me making this statement, in the same way it is actually going into the statements you are making whether you realize it or not. But no, I would not say that the use is minimal in the least bit, because in order for me to actually grasp and explain these concepts I have to conceptualize and run them through my logical model of how they work. It's quite obvious that I am using Si-Fe under the service of Ti-Ne, this is not ISFJ speak I am using Ckm...

 

[ckm]

To the first question, yes, they are.

Second part:
Well yes of course Si-Fe is going into me making this statement, in the same way it is actually going into the statements you are making whether you realize it or not. But no, I would not say that the use is minimal in the least bit, because in order for me to actually grasp and explain these concepts I have to conceptualize and run them through my logical model of how they work. It's quite obvious that I am using Si-Fe under the service of Ti-Ne, this is not ISFJ speak I am using Ckm...

Ok, I understand. Actually, that provokes the question of how "related" functions are in terms of timespan. You say that you have run these concepts through your logical model, but not when - I'm presuming you meant you did this while typing the original post. I often "test-run" through my "logical model" multiple times before making any SiFe "statements". I'm assuming this is typical INTP behaviour, so would to make the statement while referencing (but not extensively exploring) the past logic be characteristic of an ISFJ?

 

[Adymus]

Ok, I understand. Actually, that provokes the question of how "related" functions are in terms of timespan. You say that you have run these concepts through your logical model, but not when - I'm presuming you meant you did this while typing the original post. I often "test-run" through my "logical model" multiple times before making any SiFe "statements". I'm assuming this is typical INTP behaviour, so would to make the statement while referencing (but not extensively exploring) the past logic be characteristic of an ISFJ?

You know, after putting a little more thought into this, I have a bit more to say on the topic.

You are actually not seeing me use most of my Ti and Ne on this (aside from the technical and logic driven manner of speaking), because I'm using mainly Ti and Ne (Si and Fe too actually) while I am peculating on how I am going to answer this question, but I reach into mainly Si and Fe when I start structuring this into an answer. So yeah.

Not past "logic" for an ISFJ, because since they have Ti-Ne then when using Ti it is to adapt and make sense of their Past/historic world view in a more conceptual and logical way. So it would be Si-Fe for Past worldview/Values-based and Ti-Ne for Logic-based/Conceptual. So it is essentially Ti making sense of what has already been accepted as true by Si. Assuming they get that far...

 

[ckm]

Oh I see; I had it the wrong way around. For an INTP, first comes logic from which he deduces facts. In contrast, for an ISFJ first comes facts from which he creates logic. Right? If so I can see how reasoning with an ISFJ could be difficult: to pick at their logic would be picking either at their "facts" (i.e. the logic that brought them to these facts, which may not exist), or the logic they came to from these facts. In both cases, an INTP would be using Ti-Ne, which would frustrate an ISFJ, who would use Si-Fe to counter, which would in turn irritate an INTP.

As for your functions, yes, that makes sense.

 

[Moocow]

Oh I see; I had it the wrong way around. For an INTP, first comes logic from which he deduces facts. In contrast, for an ISFJ first comes facts from which he creates logic. Right? If so I can see how reasoning with an ISFJ could be difficult: to pick at their logic would be picking either at their "facts" (i.e. the logic that brought them to these facts, which may not exist), or the logic they came to from these facts. In both cases, an INTP would be using Ti-Ne, which would frustrate an ISFJ, who would use Si-Fe to counter, which would in turn irritate an INTP.

As for your functions, yes, that makes sense.

Not in my experience. My ISFJ s.o. and I help each other with our functions. I use Ti-Ne in a way that helps her understand and analyze her Si-Fe past events with her own Ti-Ne, and she helps me with my Si-Fe in a lot of ways... usually she remembers the facts of an event with much more detail than me, and she is MUCH better at maintaining a stable, organized daily life. We use our differences to help and support each other, not to conflict.

I really wish some of the INTPs here would get off their cynical little pedestals about judging other types, especially SJs. If all you can think about is how the types are going to irritate you, you're missing out on a lot of the positive opportunities MBTI offers.

 

[Words]

Not in my experience. My ISFJ s.o. and I help each other with our functions. I use Ti-Ne in a way that helps her understand and analyze her Si-Fe past events with her own Ti-Ne, and she helps me with my Si-Fe in a lot of ways... usually she remembers the facts of an event with much more detail than me, and she is MUCH better at maintaining a stable, organized daily life. We use our differences to help and support each other, not to conflict.

I really wish some of the INTPs here would get off their cynical little pedestals about judging other types, especially SJs. If all you can think about is how the types are going to irritate you, you're missing out on a lot of the positive opportunities MBTI offers.

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)

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.

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".

---

Or Maybe it works like this!

1. The ISFJ presents an idea from Si.
2. The INTP quickly does his "TiNe thing" and expresses in Si Fe.
3. The ISFJ presents more Si and does a little TiNe.
4. The INTP gets drained.
5. The ISFJ gets drained.
6. Discussion over.

Or!!!

1. The ISFJ presents concrete data. "There are sheeps over there!"
2. The INTP does Si (Sheeps are animals etc.)
3. The INTP does Ne. "Maybe a wolf is nearby."
4. The ISFJ does Si. "Nope. No wolf."
5. INTP: Ok.
6. Discussion over.


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

 

[Moocow]

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)

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.

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".

---

Or Maybe it works like this!

1. The ISFJ presents an idea from Si.
2. The INTP quickly does his "TiNe thing" and expresses in Si Fe.
3. The ISFJ presents more Si and does a little TiNe.
4. The INTP gets drained.
5. The ISFJ gets drained.
6. Discussion over.

Or!!!

1. The ISFJ presents concrete data. "There are sheeps over there!"
2. The INTP does Si (Sheeps are animals etc.)
3. The INTP does Ne. "Maybe a wolf is nearby."
4. The ISFJ does Si. "Nope. No wolf."
5. INTP: Ok.
6. Discussion over.


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

We've had practically all-day long discussions about nearly anything. We've been living together for almost 2 years, and there's no one on earth I get along with, or have ever gotten along with, as well as her.
Getting bored of someone is a petty attitude that shows you're so self centered you can't appreciate the complexity of anyone else's lives. People are fascinating and full of interesting experiences and thoughts, and there's so much to appreciate beyond some half-baked prejudices about their theoretical functions.

I'm actually a little bit insulted that you're telling me that the most successful relationship I've ever had wouldn't work simply because of how you've boxed in your own understanding of MBTI and social relationships. For one thing, you structured your "theory" around what looks like two very poorly developed people attempting to make some kind of business deal. Your examples give me the impression that you have very little experience actually conversing with people. Believe it or not, there's more to social intimacy than "maybe this person will listen to me ramble on about obscure topics!" It's especially going to be difficult for you if your first reaction to someone you've lost interest in is to hate them.

In fact, this is exactly what I adore about her Si-Fe. She doesn't rely on speculative nonsense before actually experiencing anything significant to the claims being made. Because of this, I've learned from her to wait for reality to verify or disprove my judgments before I pretend to know what I'm talking about. Very often in the past, she's been correct where I haven't, simply because of how oblivious to reality I can be at times.

I'm on the verge of making a big rant thread about how self-centered and socially blind a lot of INTPs are. Supposed to be so open to possibilities, so clear-minded, yet so closed off and clouded when it comes to dealing with anyone that lives or thinks differently! (I know, I do the same. That's why it bugs me so much.)

 

[Words]

We've had practically all-day long discussions about nearly anything. We've been living together for almost 2 years, and there's no one on earth I get along with, or have ever gotten along with, as well as her.

Fascinating. What does it all mean? My interpretation of CF's is incorrect? Is CF theory incorrect? Or is it some other factor?

Getting bored of someone is a petty attitude that shows you're so self centered you can't appreciate the complexity of anyone else's lives. People are fascinating and full of interesting experiences and thoughts, and there's so much to appreciate beyond some half-baked prejudices about their theoretical functions.

Oh, I certainly appreciate people and all their "complexities". Oh how fun it is to talk about their everyday lives!! Mrs. Merry just told me about her dog the other day!! How FUN! I think I'm going to talk with Mr. Cache about his car next time!

Is it possible to *not* be "self-centered"?

I'm actually a little bit insulted that you're telling me that the most successful relationship I've ever had wouldn't work simply because of how you've boxed in your own understanding of MBTI and social relationships. For one thing, you structured your "theory" around what looks like two very poorly developed people attempting to make some kind of business deal. Your examples give me the impression that you have very little experience actually conversing with people. Believe it or not, there's more to social intimacy than "maybe this person will listen to me ramble on about obscure topics!" It's especially going to be difficult for you if your first reaction to someone you've lost interest in is to hate them.

What? ME???

In fact, this is exactly what I adore about her Si-Fe. She doesn't rely on speculative nonsense before actually experiencing anything significant to the claims being made. Because of this, I've learned from her to wait for reality to verify or disprove my judgments before I pretend to know what I'm talking about.

So you think you are stimulated by her Si Fe?

 

[Moocow]

Fascinating. What does it all mean? My interpretation of CF's is incorrect? Is CF theory incorrect? Or is it some other factor?

I think CF theory is more complicated and dynamic than simply fitting people together like puzzle pieces. There are a lot more factors that play into how the functions interact than just the functions alone.

Oh, I certainly appreciate people and all their "complexities". Oh how fun it is to talk about their everyday lives!! Mrs. Merry just told me about her dog the other day!! How FUN! I think I'm going to talk with Mr. Cache's car the next time!

Is it possible to *not* be "self-centered"?

This is exactly what I mean when I make the bold claim that you don't appear to have enough experience with people to understand them. Superficial conversation is hardly the true depth of someone's personality, but if you never give them even that much credit, you'll never discover it for yourself.

So you think you are stimulated by her Si Fe?

I'm stimulated by learning, understanding, and adapting. Meeting anyone opens up those opportunities, regardless of whether or not they pad your ego with agreement. I'm also stimulated by this thing we used to refer to back in the day called "love" but I guess that's an outdated concept here!

 

[Words]

I think CF theory is more complicated and dynamic than simply fitting people together like puzzle pieces. There are a lot more factors that play into how the functions interact than just the functions alone.

I just don't see a TiNe'er being energized by an SiFe'er. Could you explain how it works?

This is exactly what I mean when I make the bold claim that you don't appear to have enough experience with people to understand them. Superficial conversation is hardly the true depth of someone's personality, but if you never give them even that much credit, you'll never discover it for yourself.

I was only joking. Sure, I like people and I try to accept differences. But I see this as unrelated.

I'm stimulated by learning, understanding, and adapting. Meeting anyone opens up those opportunities, regardless of whether or not they pad your ego with agreement. I'm also stimulated by this thing we used to refer to back in the day called "love" but I guess that's an outdated concept here!

Why would a TiNe be interested in SiFe "things"?

EDIT:

Tell me about your daily interactive experiences? How do you interest each other?

 

[Moocow]

I just don't see a TiNe'er being energized by an SiFe'er. Could you explain how it works?

I was only joking. Sure, I like people and I try to accept differences. But I see this as unrelated.

Why would a TiNe be interested in SiFe "things"?

Predisposing yourself against someone's functions makes you less likely to appreciate what they do have to offer. I'm not exactly willing to explain in detail (with respect for her privacy as well) why it works, but I think you should consider that your two lower functions play a much larger role in personal happiness than you think. It's not all about pleasing the Ti-Ne.

I have to go to my classes for today so I won't be able to reply further or elaborate until tonight.

 

[Words]

I'm not exactly willing to explain in detail (with respect for her privacy as well) why it works, but I think you should consider that your two lower functions play a much larger role in personal happiness than you think.

Well I think they do play a large role, but I do not think they are the main actors.

It's not all about pleasing the Ti-Ne.

But it will be mainly Ti-Ne, yes?

In that case, sufficient Si Fe is sufficient?

----

What I would like to read about is a conversation example between yourself and your partner.

 

[ckm]

Not in my experience. My ISFJ s.o. and I help each other with our functions. I use Ti-Ne in a way that helps her understand and analyze her Si-Fe past events with her own Ti-Ne, and she helps me with my Si-Fe in a lot of ways... usually she remembers the facts of an event with much more detail than me, and she is MUCH better at maintaining a stable, organized daily life. We use our differences to help and support each other, not to conflict.

I really wish some of the INTPs here would get off their cynical little pedestals about judging other types, especially SJs. If all you can think about is how the types are going to irritate you, you're missing out on a lot of the positive opportunities MBTI offers.

Fair enough. However I didn't mean to create a generalisation, rather I wanted to verify my logic (that is, logic leading to facts for INTPs and facts leading to logic for ISFJs, which may still be wrong). I was simply speculating when I said, "I can see how reasoning with an ISFJ could be difficult..." but I can see how that could be interpreted as a general "attack" on ISFJs.

As for the "cynical little pedestals" thing, okay. While I was typing, I was trying to establish a reasoning behind the negative perception of ISFJs in the INTP community, not justify it. I wasn't "judging", I was considering possibilities. I didn't suggest that the conflicts that could arise between an INTP and an ISFJ were the responsibility of the ISFJ. Furthermore, the "INTP" and "ISFJ" used were typical to their model, which not all people of those types are. Someone who is aware of the potential conflicts that could arise with a person of a "reverse" type could be more mindful of how to avoid conflict. Anyway, as unbiased as I'd like to be, I'm not, like you're biased towards ISFJs due to your positive experience with your significant other.

 

[Starfruit M.E.]

Fair enough. However I didn't mean to create a generalisation, rather I wanted to verify my logic (that is, logic leading to facts for INTPs and facts leading to logic for ISFJs, which may still be wrong). I was simply speculating when I said, "I can see how reasoning with an ISFJ could be difficult..." but I can see how that could be interpreted as a general "attack" on ISFJs.

I'm an INFJ, and I don't believe that logic is the answer to everything, although it is a good beginning. But my closest friend is an ISFJ and as much as I love her, and although I am happy to help her with her work, I highly dislike trying to reason with her over math. Just because it "makes sense to her" does not mean that she has the right answer or that she is doing it right... lol So I'm going to have to agree with you that it's not really a general attack. It's just more of something they should work on and realize.

 

[ckm]

I'm an INFJ, and I don't believe that logic is the answer to everything, although it is a good beginning. But my closest friend is an ISFJ and as much as I love her, and although I am happy to help her with her work, I highly dislike trying to reason with her over math. Just because it "makes sense to her" does not mean that she has the right answer or that she is doing it right... lol So I'm going to have to agree with you that it's not really a general attack. It's just more of something they should work on and realize.

I know, but even if what I was speculating is valid and has a grain of truth, the point remains that it isn't an attack, just a general point, i.e. that INTPs and ISFJs may clash due to their contrasting approaches to facts vs. logic.

 

[Starfruit M.E.]

I know, but even if what I was speculating is valid and has a grain of truth, the point remains that it isn't an attack, just a general point, i.e. that INTPs and ISFJs may clash due to their contrasting approaches to facts vs. logic.

I understand that. I was merely agreeing with your speculation and joining your view that it wasn't an attack.

 

[ckm]

I understand that. I was merely agreeing with your speculation and joining your view that it wasn't an attack.

Oh, I see.

 

[BigApplePi]

Happened across this thread. I have an impression at present.

It's hard to follow what's going on because of all the generalizations. Good things may be being brought out. That's good.

To me, as an INTP with Ti, Ne, Si and Fe, I observe this --
My Ti may easily be faulty. No one is perfect. My Ne may be good due to experience or blank due to inexperience. When a fellow INTP makes a generalized statement I can buy it completely. But if there is ANY misconnect, then there is something missing. I need to see how the generalization or abstraction was arrived at. That means Si. Getting this Si may be awkward because it means using Fe. I can't read the other party unless I get lucky. That's tough. The misconnect will remain until I see the Si details

 

[cheese]

Moocow, I'd become an ISFJ for you.

 

[calysco]

Adymus: I'm kinda curious- what do you think about the following?

http://iamnighthawk.tumblr.com/post/488277498/functional-combinations

Especially the following section:

Looking at the functions we can tell that the difference between the functions are Ti|Te & Fe|Fi. Combining Se and Ti can create a fake version of Te. Se notices all the details while Ti organizes in the head. By having Se take the dominate position it forces Ti to organize outside the head and creates a simulated version of Te.
For Introverted Feelings you combine Ti with Fe and add a touch of Ne. The Ti is dominate so that forces Fe to keep all emotions inside. Fe will instinctively look at the emotions and know what another person is feeling. The trick here is that the fake Fi will do the same thing but instead of knowing its not their emotions it will force Fe users to see things as if they were. Ne is used to help find a little more possibility, and Ti is also there to force your thoughts onto the feelings and make you “think” they’re your feelings. A fictitious Fi
Looking at the functions we can tell that the difference between the functions are Ti|Te & Fe|Fi. Combining Se and Ti can create a fake version of Te. Se notices all the details while Ti organizes in the head. By having Se take the dominate position it forces Ti to organize outside the head and creates a simulated version of Te.


For Introverted Feelings you combine Ti with Fe and add a touch of Ne. The Ti is dominate so that forces Fe to keep all emotions inside. Fe will instinctively look at the emotions and know what another person is feeling. The trick here is that the fake Fi will do the same thing but instead of knowing its not their emotions it will force Fe users to see things as if they were. Ne is used to help find a little more possibility, and Ti is also there to force your thoughts onto the feelings and make you “think” they’re your feelings. A fictitious Fi

 

[Adymus]

I don't agree with that.

Every cognitive function serves very specific roles in the psyche. These roles fill a certain priorities such as: Dynamics, Stimulus, Compass, and Worldview (You can find more on the four priorities here.), as well as Interpretive perception (N), Literal perception (S), Values-based Judgment (F), and Logic-Based Judgment (T). It is by having a function that fills each of these roles that we are able to accomplish, pretty much anything we really need to in the world.

For instance an INTP may not have conscious use of Te, but we don't really need it, because we have Fe to be our dynamics mover and implementer, and Ti to be our logic-based judgment. Now I would not call this a combination of functions that creates Te, because it is not Te.
William Nighthawk seems to be defining functions based on the superficial results that they usually produce. For example, Te being defined as planning and organizing. While Te can do all that, that is not what it is nor is it what defines it. Any person of any personality type can plan and organize in a similar way that Te is credited for, whether or not they are a personality that has conscious control of their Te.

So in a way, there is some truth to his model, that all of our functions combine to create versatility, however, it is not even close to being in the way he is describing. Ti Personal logic + Fe collective values =! Fi Personal values, that's just ridiculous, it is a completely different cognitive function with a completely different functionality. Although I understand that he is not claiming it is the same function, but if that is the case, then why call it "Fake Fi" Why not call it Fe being checked by Ti?
Also Se+Ti is not even close to being like Te. They are both adaptive functions, Se takes in presently occurring information, and Ti resonates with how logically agreeable or disagreeable this information is, at no point is anything directed or implemented like Te would do.

So I agree that all of our functions combine to accomplish certain tasks, but they don't combine to create other cognitive functions.

 

[BigApplePi]

Adymus: I'm kinda curious- what do you think about the following?

http://iamnighthawk.tumblr.com/post/488277498/functional-combinations

Especially the following section:

calysco. I think Adymus is saying one doesn't combine any of the 8 CF's to make other CF's because genuine CF's go very deep. Fake CF's are exactly that: fake.

However I do believe an INTP can use one of their inferior functions in a temporary dominant way to temporarily simulate another temperament.

I once posted this:

Adymyus. This is probably the most misleading part of this whole supplement, for these reasons:
There is never a time where we exhibit the behavior of an ESFJ, that is a completely different personality type, and when we use our Fe it is on the terms of our Ti and Ne. When an INTP expresses more Fe, that does not make them like an ESFJ, it makes them like an INTP who is using more Fe.

BigApplePi. I wouldn't want to mislead, but let's see if I have a claim on something:
I am an INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe are the ordered functions. I play with my dog. Thinking goes out the window. Feeling is first, Fe. I'm having fun, an emotion. Sensory experience for me is next, Si. There is little intuition and no thinking to speak of. This is like an ESFJ: Fe, Si, Ne, Ti ordered functions. I'm not saying I cease to be an INTP and become an ESFJ. My temperament doesn't change, but my "mood" does. That mood is ESFJ-like. If you are saying my Ti allows this Fe and Si, okay. But how do you define "allow"? My Fe seems to dominant. (Can you type a two year old future INTP who plays with his puppy?) If so, you are pretty good.

Try this analogy: Temperament is like a movie; mood is like a snapshot.

Adymus did not reply.

 

[Adymus]

Alright Pi, you want a reply? Here you go:

Again, no, I assure you that you are not becoming ESFJ-like regardless of how much Fe you feel like you are showing. ESFJs have their entire Psyche, sense of identity, and apparatus based on that functional hierarchy of theirs. To have Fe as a dominant function causes profound effects in what a person perceives as their own identity, and what they perceive as the antithesis to their identity. But most of all, it is actually stimulating to them, and it takes the highest priority of all in their conscious mind.

This is not something that can just be changed at will, just becuase your dog has cute floppy ears. You would literally, LITERALLY Not superficially, become a completely different person with a completely different mind, if your dominant function are actually changing at will.
And the reason I wouldn't even say the "Mood" is "ESFJ Like" is because like I said before, an ESFJ is an ESFJ, and you're an INTP who is using Fe. No matter how much Fe you show, it is not going to be like an ESFJ, because you are not being stimulated by the act of personal connection, you're being drained by it in fact, and your conscious mind is still one that is mainly Ti-Ne.

 

[BigApplePi]

Alright Pi, you want a reply? Here you go:

Thank you for the reply. It is not ANY ol' reply I'm after but I wish to tie up a loose end. I'm looking to see if there is a point I can make you will agree with. I'm not sure this can be done in one message. It has yet to be determined if we have a disagreement over the way we use language or if there is something more substantial.

Again, no, I assure you that you are not becoming ESFJ-like regardless of how much Fe you feel like you are showing. ESFJs have their entire Psyche, sense of identity, and apparatus based on that functional hierarchy of theirs. To have Fe as a dominant function causes profound effects in what a person perceives as their own identity, and what they perceive as the antithesis to their identity.

Allow me to paint this scenario:
You, Adymus, are strolling through the park. You spy a woman with a baby carriage doting on the contents within. She bills and coos with the baby and you see her smiling from ear to ear. Next thing you know you see her chatting with the woman next to her with her own baby carriage. You move on, not knowing anything else of this woman, wondering if she is a candidate to be an ESFJ. You realize the woman COULD be an INTP with a well-developed Fe and Si but you lack any evidence of that. Later you learn this woman is the wife of your favorite professor, an INTP and the woman herself is also an INTP.

Adymus. Are you saying this ESFJ-like behavior (may I call it that?) in an INTP woman is impossible or at least unlikely? Note that I'm calling it "ESFJ-like", not actual ESFJ. ESFJ-like happens to be the way you accidentally observed her.

But most of all, it is actually stimulating to them, and it takes the highest priority of all in their conscious mind.

This is not something that can just be changed at will. You would literally, LITERALLY Not superficially, become a completely different person with a completely different mind, if your dominant function are actually changing at will.
And the reason I wouldn't even say the "Mood" is "ESFJ Like" is because like I said before, an ESFJ is an ESFJ, and you're an INTP who is using Fe. No matter how much Fe you show, it is not going to be like an ESFJ, because you are not being stimulated by the act of personal connection, you're being drained by it in fact, and your conscious mind is still one that is mainly Ti-Ne.

Like I said, the woman to you, seemed to be stimulated by babies and people interested in babies. You learn much later she withdraws to an inward thinking state when she is away from anything to do with babies.

So I have to ask, do you think I've painted a false scenario?

 

[Adymus]

The problem I have with your model is the emphasis you are putting on superficial appearances and relating everything to personality types instead of the functions they are using.

Why would your woman in question be showing ESFJ like behavior? All it is is Fe, so how is that not INFJ, ENFJ, or ISFJ like behavior? Does that mean when Fe is being done by an ISFJ it is ESFJ like behavior too? Why? Why say they are being "like" another personality type, when their own personality type is perfectly capable of doing what they are doing?

If you were to take an an INTP and an ESFJ and watched both of them use their Fe, you would see a massive difference in appearance and how they use it, we don't just turn into other types when we use our other functions.

To be honest, I wouldn't think that woman in the park was an ESFJ, but that's mainly because I have actually trained to read people, So I know what it looks like when Fe is being done by a person who is actually being stimulated by it.
So maybe if you have absolutely no ability to read people what so ever (including natural ability), then maybe you will think there is no difference. But if you do, you will certainly notice something is off.

Yes INTPs can use Fe, but as I have been repeating over and over, it is going to be very different from Fe being used by an ESFJ.

 

[BigApplePi]

The problem I have with your model is the emphasis you are putting on superficial appearances and relating everything to personality types instead of the functions they are using.

Would you accept "Temporary expression of a function in a stimulated way" instead of "superficial appearance"?
Yes. Better I emphasize the CF. I'm not trained in that so I need just enough description to make my point.

Why would your woman in question be showing ESFJ like behavior? All it is is Fe, so how is that not INFJ, ENFJ, or ISFJ like behavior? Does that mean when Fe is being done by an ISFJ it is ESFJ like behavior too? Why? Why say they are being "like" another personality type, when their own personality type is perfectly capable of doing what they are doing?

Yes the woman could be ANY of those. Suppose I did a better job of describing her CFs. We agree she is using Fe. Make her more Si. Make sure the Fe is dominant and the Si is supportive. Now she could be ESFJ. In your words we have a "superficial appearance" of Fe/Si = ESFJ. Yes an INTP (which is what she is) could do what she is doing, but we don't know yet what she is. All we see is a 30 second observation. I'm not asking what she is underneath. I'm saying it is interesting to see bubble to the surface ESFJ-like behavior. If observing her is our only observation and a knife were held to our throat, we would discard INTP in favor of ESFJ.

If you were to take an an INTP and an ESFJ and watched both of them use their Fe, you would see a massive difference in appearance and how they use it, we don't just turn into other types when we use our other functions.

Now we are getting closer to my point but we aren't there yet. That statement is irrelevant. We are NOT watching and comparing two types. We are watching in ignorance an unknown type.

When thinking types think (you and I), the starting point or premise and logical order are all when coming to proper conclusions.

To be honest, I wouldn't think that woman in the park was an ESFJ, but that's mainly because I have actually trained to read people, So I know what it looks like when Fe is being done by a person who is actually being stimulated by it.
So maybe if you have absolutely no ability to read people what so ever (including natural ability), then maybe you will think there is no difference. But if you do, you will certainly notice something is off.

I am a theoretician. I am relying on your expertise in reading people. My job is to provide a correct scenario. Let me try again with the scenario but this time make it more abstract:

You do not know the woman in the park. Whatever she is, she exhibits a forceful natural Fe supported by a secondary Si. We are not judging whether this is an Fe that an INTP would show or an ESFJ would show because we don't know. Question: if we know nothing else, what type is our best guess (knife at throat)? If you are saying you can tell the difference between an ESFJ's Fe and an INTP's Fe, then I'll give you she is not an ESFJ. I would have to put you to some test before I'd believe that though.

Yes INTPs can use Fe, but as I have been repeating over and over, it is going to be very different from Fe being used by an ESFJ.

True, but irrelevant to this scenario.

 

[Adymus]

First of all Pi, if you can't tell if you are looking at a Ti Dom using Fe, then you certainly would not be able to tell if you are seeing Fe with Si aux. In fact, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between all other 8 types that use Fe. In fact, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between any of the 16 types that use any feeling function at all. So if you had no idea how to read people, then there is really no reason ESFJ should be your first thought, because that would mean you couldn't tell if it was Fe-Si or Fe-Ni.

I'm really not the best person for these scenarios, because I really would know what I am seeing (by all means, go ahead and test me.) It is really that obvious... to me...

So if someone else who was an INTP had no prior knowledge of how each type physically manifests their functions, would they be able to tell the difference? Probably not, although they still would most likely not conclude ESFJ.

But let's say they did, what exactly is your point? Where are you going with all of this?

 

[BigApplePi]

First of all Pi, if you can't tell if you are looking at a Ti Dom using Fe, then you certainly would not be able to tell if you are seeing Fe with Si aux. In fact, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between all other 8 types that use Fe. In fact, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between any of the 16 types that use any feeling function at all. So if you had no idea how to read people, then there is really no reason ESFJ should be your first thought, because that would mean you couldn't tell if it was Fe-Si or Fe-Ni.

I'm really not the best person for these scenarios, because I really would know what I am seeing (by all means, go ahead and test me.) It is really that obvious... to me...

So if someone else who was an INTP had no prior knowledge of how each type physically manifests their functions, would they be able to tell the difference? Probably not, although they still would most likely not conclude ESFJ.

But let's say they did, what exactly is your point? Where are you going with all of this?

Aside from the ability to read people, my point was to try to break into the fixed nature of temperament. I have another abstract way of putting the issue.

Every type has a Tertiary and Inferior function. I believe I hear you saying those two functions are experienced as draining. You are able to pick up on the presence of this draining depending on the data you are presented and type the person correctly.

This may have been answered elsewhere, but I ask it again: May not a temperament develop those Tertiary and Inferior functions to such an extent that it makes it much more difficult for you to type them? If such is the case, I would think an onlooker, you or otherwise, could be deceived or make a mis-judgment. In this case they would be exhibiting a temperament to the onlooker different from their real one.

That is why I presented the professor's wife as a possible ESTJ in the onlooker's eyes -- if she had highly developed Fe/Si in the observed situation.

That is not the only place I wish to go with this. The original place I wanted to go, is regardless of how a person is read and what they are, the APPEARANCE (is persona the correct term?) a person presents gives the personality of that appearance. It doesn't matter if they are read correctly or not. The appearance can be as important as what's underneath.

In the case of the professor's INTP wife, I wanted to present that she could be exhibiting the personality of a caring, emotional, sensually enjoying person typified by the ESFJ that would be not at all like an INTP. You see -- never mind the ability to read or what she really is. Appearance also counts.

 

[Adymus]

Personality types are not personas, they are separate from archetypes.

This is exactly why I disagree with giving the personalities names like "Healer" and "Architect", because it paints them with these archetypes that causes people to only look at that and not what their cognitive function hierarchy is.

So when an INTP is being motherly, this is not an INTP acting like an ESFJ, because that is not what defines the ESFJ in the first place, it is an INTP taking on the nurturer archetype.
When you see an ESFJ being motherly, that is an ESFJ taking on the nurturer archetype.


So if your premise is that all the types have the ability to shift their personas and archetypes (Which very true), Why would you define the types based on personas and archetypes at all, if they are not limited to any of them? This is just a really counter intuitive approach Pi, not to mention it is extremely misleading and directs people down the road of stereotyping which is exactly where I try to lead people away from.

 

[BigApplePi]

Personality types are not personas, they are separate from archetypes.

This is exactly why I disagree with giving the personalities names like "Healer" and "Architect", because it paints them with these archetypes that causes people to only look at that and not what their cognitive function hierarchy is.

So when an INTP is being motherly, this is not an INTP acting like an ESFJ, because that is not what defines the ESFJ in the first place, it is an INTP taking on the nurturer archetype.
When you see an ESFJ being motherly, that is an ESFJ taking on the nurturer archetype.


So if your premise is that all the types have the ability to shift their personas and archetypes (Which very true), Why would you define the types based on personas and archetypes at all, if they are not limited to any of them? This is just a really counter intuitive approach Pi, not to mention it is extremely misleading and directs people down the road of stereotyping which is exactly where I try to lead people away from.

What I see your CF100 model as, is that temperaments among the population are modular. That is we are one and only one of the 16 types. This is quite a discovery as one would think human behavior to be scaled or graded as it is so complex. So your model reflects on the human (maybe animals?) personality as a whole. What I am after is what we see or experience in passing. When you agreed that "all the types have the ability to shift their personas and archetypes", that is like looking through a keyhole. We see an archetype,

Spoiler

Not my favorite word, but what other is there? Mood is not right either as it's too special a condition.

not the whole person. If you are saying that the "cognitive function hierarchy" is far better than the archetype in defining a temperament, then I'll agree. But I don't agree with avoiding terms like "Healer" and "Architect" and here is my reason:

The 16 temperaments capture who we are. They are a view from the inside out. They are supposed to be how we see ourselves. But man is a social animal. We constantly need to judge others so we can learn how to relate to them. Initial impressions are not detailed impressions -- the kind of impression or knowledge we have when we know the person well. Initial or superficial impressions are a view from the outside in. They are our first best guess as to what others are like. At fault is they bring stereotyping and prejudice, but at best they are an invitation to make contact.

That, I suppose, is why I'm interested in what we see when we look through a keyhole. The example is the INTP being motherly. You point out that this is the Fe of an INTP not the Fe of an ESFJ. I don't know how the keyhole Fe of these two differ or even if they do differ. Do they? But doesn't knowing what the ESFJ is like give a clue as to what is going on with the mother at that instant? I say it is important to know she seems to have abandoned her INTP-ness even though she has not. It is important to know that what appears to be ESFJ or whatever is not!

 

[Adymus]

The problem that I have with the fusion of personality types and archetypes (Which is what you get when you name them after archetypes) is that it does not allow you a view from the inside out, but an attempt at the outside in. Which is really not an entrance to the inside at all.

The model you are working with might work for the current environment we are in, an environment that has a reliance on stereotypes and defining personality by archetypes to understand people. A crutch that was worked somewhat well so far, but can only take us so far.

The environment that the model I am working with is designed to create and work in, is one where defining personality via stereotypes is unnecessary, for the same reason that it is unnecessary to have to use stereotypes to know if a person has blond hair. When one is proficient in our methodology, that is, reading people, you will be able to recognize their personality regardless of the archetypes they are projecting. You either are an INTP or you are not, acting like "something else" does not change how your cognitive wiring manifests itself on a physiological level. One you learn to see these patterns, guessing is completely unnecessary, because if you can physically see that a person is using an ESFJ apparatus, then it doesn't matter how unlikely it is for an ESFJ to be a rocket scientist, because they clearly are in this instance. It is designed to understand people in such a way that goes far deeper than their outside personas and projections. This will give us a far greater grasp on not just the personalities themselves, but all of their archetypes and "sub-personalities" within them, as seemingly infinite as they may be.

 

[BigApplePi]

Can we say it this way? Your CF100 model for describing the human temperament is a precise one. It divides one into one of 16 definite types. This is the type one is inherently constructed or built for and the one one is ultimately most comfortable with. At any point in time one may deviate momentarily from this type. But this will exhibit a "false" temperament. This false exhibition may be called an "archetype", or any other name, but whatever it is, it doesn't represent the true basic self.

It is not universally accepted just how precise a given type is. That is, whether or not one type may "bleed" into another adjacent type. Your model does not accept this. Identifying which of the 16 types we are requires a measure of skill. Not everyone has the experience to do it but it can be learned. There are clues, whether it be observing others or examining oneself that can guide us.

 

[Adymus]

Can we say it this way? Your CF100 model for describing the human temperament is a precise one.

Sure, we can say that.

It divides one into one of 16 definite types. This is the type one is inherently constructed or built for and the one one is ultimately most comfortable with.

We can say that too.

At any point in time one may deviate momentarily from this type. But this will exhibit a "false" temperament. This false exhibition may be called an "archetype", or any other name, but whatever it is, it doesn't represent the true basic self.

But we cannot say that. And I am starting to repeat myself quite a bit in this thread so I'll try and spare you. But yeah, it does not matter how you are behaving, it is actually not possible to behave in such a way that is outside of your own personality type. Because if you are doing something, then you are accomplishing it using your cognitive functions, and it is thus something that your type can do. Considering you don't just borrow a new cognitive function hierarchy for the time being. Have you ever heard the argument "Is it possible for anything to be truly unnatural? Because as soon as it occurs, is in not occurring within what nature had created?" it is exactly like that. And the fact still stands, we are never truly functioning like any other type but our own, no matter how much of our inferior and tertiary functions we show.

It is not universally accepted just how precise a given type is. That is, whether or not one type may "bleed" into another adjacent type. Your model does not accept this. Identifying which of the 16 types we are requires a measure of skill. Not everyone has the experience to do it but it can be learned. There are clues, whether it be observing others or examining oneself that can guide us.

The phenomenon you talk about in a general sense is covered by having an understanding of cognitive function theory alone. It seems like you are trying to justify hanging on to type descriptions. You know, figuring out what type you are by asking things like "Do you like wikipedia surfing? Does your room have random piles of things, but you somehow know where every thing is?" and when you don't match up, you are expressing ENTP or ISFJ behavior or something. which is really only a recipe for inaccuracy, and an incompetent model. Because the only way an INTP showing some Fe would come to you as a surprise is if you are still stuck on how we are "supposed" to act in those descriptions. It is not providing clarity at all, it's making an already vague model even more vague.

I don't think I can say anything else that I have not already said, so I'll just stop here.

 

[Maverick]

We've had practically all-day long discussions about nearly anything. We've been living together for almost 2 years, and there's no one on earth I get along with, or have ever gotten along with, as well as her.
Getting bored of someone is a petty attitude that shows you're so self centered you can't appreciate the complexity of anyone else's lives. People are fascinating and full of interesting experiences and thoughts, and there's so much to appreciate beyond some half-baked prejudices about their theoretical functions.

I'm actually a little bit insulted that you're telling me that the most successful relationship I've ever had wouldn't work simply because of how you've boxed in your own understanding of MBTI and social relationships. For one thing, you structured your "theory" around what looks like two very poorly developed people attempting to make some kind of business deal. Your examples give me the impression that you have very little experience actually conversing with people. Believe it or not, there's more to social intimacy than "maybe this person will listen to me ramble on about obscure topics!" It's especially going to be difficult for you if your first reaction to someone you've lost interest in is to hate them.

In fact, this is exactly what I adore about her Si-Fe. She doesn't rely on speculative nonsense before actually experiencing anything significant to the claims being made. Because of this, I've learned from her to wait for reality to verify or disprove my judgments before I pretend to know what I'm talking about. Very often in the past, she's been correct where I haven't, simply because of how oblivious to reality I can be at times.

I'm on the verge of making a big rant thread about how self-centered and socially blind a lot of INTPs are. Supposed to be so open to possibilities, so clear-minded, yet so closed off and clouded when it comes to dealing with anyone that lives or thinks differently! (I know, I do the same. That's why it bugs me so much.)

Though it's easy to similar minds to have a common ground for understanding (some people think other personality is better). I think any two developed personalities can enjoy their life together and figure many ways to connect and reconnect. It's all about intentions and again how developed you're at a given time.

 

[Maverick]

Ok, I understand. Actually, that provokes the question of how "related" functions are in terms of timespan. You say that you have run these concepts through your logical model, but not when - I'm presuming you meant you did this while typing the original post. I often "test-run" through my "logical model" multiple times before making any SiFe "statements". I'm assuming this is typical INTP behaviour, so would to make the statement while referencing (but not extensively exploring) the past logic be characteristic of an ISFJ?

That what makes me often think Adymus is INXJ (INFJ may be).
Ni quickly grasps the idea even guesses the next move (question).
Ni-Fe enthusiastically corrects and reforms.

Adymus, sorry to type the "Typology Guru" regardless of knowing how old or developed are you but you made a post using yourself as example.
It also could be Ne-Ti +/- some Si mimicking Ni (considering the title of the thread).


P.S: INFJ is still appealing 'cause an INFJ would resist rethink his type.

 

[Maverick]

Alright Pi, you want a reply? Here you go:

Again, no, I assure you that you are not becoming ESFJ-like regardless of how much Fe you feel like you are showing. ESFJs have their entire Psyche, sense of identity, and apparatus based on that functional hierarchy of theirs. To have Fe as a dominant function causes profound effects in what a person perceives as their own identity, and what they perceive as the antithesis to their identity. But most of all, it is actually stimulating to them, and it takes the highest priority of all in their conscious mind.

This is not something that can just be changed at will, just becuase your dog has cute floppy ears. You would literally, LITERALLY Not superficially, become a completely different person with a completely different mind, if your dominant function are actually changing at will.
And the reason I wouldn't even say the "Mood" is "ESFJ Like" is because like I said before, an ESFJ is an ESFJ, and you're an INTP who is using Fe. No matter how much Fe you show, it is not going to be like an ESFJ, because you are not being stimulated by the act of personal connection, you're being drained by it in fact, and your conscious mind is still one that is mainly Ti-Ne.

I think you're trying to prove it by keep saying "you're not becoming ESFJ".
Instead I guess, you can add some objectivity, may be, by implementing some methods to check if his behavior was draining or not (or whatever method you can use)
or at least present simple explanation for his behavior instead of his convoluted long turns to the opposite temperament or mood.

 

[Adymus]

Ni-Fe enthusiastically corrects and reforms.

I suppose this is somewhat true, but what other function can you think of that is more known for doing this than Ni-Fe?

Hint: It's the INTP's Dominant function

Adymus, sorry to type the "Typology Guru" regardless of knowing how old or developed are you but you made a post using yourself as example.
It also could be Ne-Ti +/- some Si mimicking Ni (considering the title of the thread).

There is really no mimicking at all, unless you are suggesting that Ni is the only function that is allowed to be a worldview. I would say my Si is act exactly as it is supposed to act.

P.S: INFJ is still appealing 'cause an INFJ would resist rethink his type.

INFJs resist rethinking their type because their worldview (Ni) is strong enough to give them confidence to believe themselves over other perception. Slap that same formula on an INTP, replace Ni with Si, and you will have the same result. It is all a matter of having ground that one can be comfortable standing on, this is something most INTPs don't have when it comes to their type, hence the insecurity. Just because some INTPs are uncomfortable being certain of anything mean we all have to be.

 

[Adymus]

I think you're trying to prove it by keep saying "you're not becoming ESFJ".
Instead I guess, you can add some objectivity, may be, by implementing some methods to check if his behavior was draining or not (or whatever method you can use)
or at least present simple explanation for his behavior instead of his convoluted long turns to the opposite temperament or mood.

I've had several posts worth of supporting arguements, I'm not just using "you're not becoming ESFJ because you are not becoming ESFJ" circular logic.

Let's use a little common sense here: If an INTP was gaining stimulation from using their Fe, how would they be any different from ESFJs? If we all had the exact same kind of incentive to use our functions, how would there be a difference between any type at all?

Don't you think the fact that he is not using Fe all of the time like an ESFJ is, and having to elastically return to Ti telling you something about how he is reacting toward it? Is it even necessary to have to test another person, when I have the exact same cognitive function hierarchy, and I have essentially been my own test subject my whole life?

 

[Maverick]

First of all, I think no one can type someone better than himself given the specific knowledge (which you have) and flexibility to introspect. so this is for the sake of the debate.

I suppose this is somewhat true, but what other function can you think of that is more known for doing this than Ni-Fe?

Hint: It's the INTP's Dominant function

It's true but it's just a temptation to reform most of the time not expressive. Fe is not that comfortable to call every time Ti has something to reform given its suppressive effect (to Ti which makes the call first) and the lowest position.

There is really no mimicking at all, unless you are suggesting that Ni is the only function that is allowed to be a worldview. I would say my Si is act exactly as it is supposed to act.

I think functions position (even if all are developed) would set one's way of behaving. In other words Ti-Ne:Si-Fe will still ponder than push agenda or correct or whatever Si-Fe axis does.

INFJs resist rethinking their type because their worldview (Ni) is strong enough to give them confidence to believe themselves over other perception. Slap that same formula on an INTP, replace Ni with Si, and you will have the same result. It is all a matter of having ground that one can be comfortable standing on, this is something most INTPs don't have when it comes to their type, hence the insecurity. Just because some INTPs are uncomfortable being certain of anything mean we all have to be.

again, same result I agree but not comfortable or with the same frequency.
fully developed (if possible) INTP and ESFJ would look alike but when subjected to scrutiny over time they are expected to engage their different axes at different frequencies.

 

[Adymus]

First of all, I think no one can type someone better than himself given the specific knowledge (which you have) and flexibility to introspect. so this is for the sake of the debate.

Heh, I actually disagree that the self is the best descerner of type.

It's true but it's just a temptation to reform most of the time not expressive. Fe is not that comfortable to call every time Ti has something to reform given its suppressive effect (to Ti which makes the call first) and the lowest position.

You and I are having a discussion, in fact, we're on a forum, we are all here to express ourselves. You know, Fe Auxiliary or above is actually not as comfortable with correcting other people as Ti is, as it can be seen as rude and/or alienating to call a person out especially if it is for something that is negligible. Which is why they will usually avoid it unless they disagree with the other person. Ti Aux and above on the other hand will correct a person even if they agree with the general premise of their argument, just to make their understanding even more precise.

But anyway, Ti is a stimulating thing for me, it generates the energy for me to want to come out and express myself with Fe. Ti is suppressive to Fe in nature, but just because I am using it does not mean I am incapable of expressing it through Fe, that's just ridiculous.

I think functions position (even if all are developed) would set one's way of behaving. In other words Ti-Ne:Si-Fe will still ponder than push agenda or correct or whatever Si-Fe axis does.

Okay, let's think about this:

Let's say you are a doctor or maybe a professor, someone of great knowledge and authority. You know far more than anyone else on a given topic, and you are in the middle of arguing with people that don't actually know as much as you on said topic.

They make a claim, and you disagree with that claim.

You explain to them why their claim is false, and then you give several reasons from your bank of knowledge that supports why their claim is false.

Are you pushing an agenda on them? More importantly, would you sit there pondering and not express your disagreement with them?

Here is probably an even more important question: how could an INTP ever do anything worthwhile if they are constantly pondering and never getting anything done, or having faith in their own ideas?

again, same result I agree but not comfortable or with the same frequency.
fully developed (if possible) INTP and ESFJ would look alike but when subjected to scrutiny over time they are expected to engage their different axes at different frequencies.

I assure you, an well developed INTP and ESFJ don't look alike, and if you seriously think they do, then you are just plain not looking.

You know, what makes you think you have any idea of at what frequency I am using my functions? All you are seeing is my responses to what is going on here in text only, there is a massive step you are not seeing in how I come up with these answers.

 

[KazeCraven]

@Adymus: Okay, let me see if I got this right:

-inferior function use is noticeably not dominant function use because it is filtered through or used in service of a more dominant function; identification with one's dominant cognitive function manifests in behavior, even if people mistakenly believe and claim they are a dominant other type

-unconscious function use (i.e. an INTP using Te) is visibly distinct from conscious function use because it only manifests tangentially (aside from current area of focus) if at all

-"mimicking function use" is only mimicking insofar as it accomplishes the same task as a function someone else uses; an INTP never uses Ni, its combined functions never act like Ni, but it still gets the same stuff done


As an aside, despite my lack of knowledge of typology, I get the sense that you (Adymus) know what you are talking about and most everyone else doesn't (in comparison). Just to relate that here, is there a function I, as an INTP, am using to pick up on this? Or is this just a product of dubious intuition (whatever that comes from).

 

[Adymus]

@Adymus: Okay, let me see if I got this right:

-inferior function use is noticeably not dominant function use because it is filtered through or used in service of a more dominant function; identification with one's dominant cognitive function manifests in behavior, even if people mistakenly believe and claim they are a dominant other type

Yes, so when an INTP uses their Fe to express an idea, it is going through three other functions above it. This is why it does not work like Maverick was suggesting that it did. We are not simply going from Ti to Fe, Ti has no informational content alone anyway, it would Need a perception function for that. It goes from Ti to Ne to Si to Fe.

The hierarchical relationship between your functions determines the level of priority between functions, how much you consciously relate to and identify with your functions, and how they are structured physiologically, this determines how you physically react to functions being used: Are they stimulating, are the draining, what is modulating what, and what function are you constantly returning to.

No matter how you are acting, you can't really escape how your cognitive functions are wired, one of the most noticeable manifestations of this is your relationship to your dominant function. an ESFJ can use their Fe and then stay in Fe, they are being energized by this and it is their dominant function, and INTP will use Fe, and then return to Ti right after, it is a far stretch for an INTP and we must return to our dominant to conserve energy. This is a factor that exists no matter how developed one is.

-unconscious function use (i.e. an INTP using Te) is visibly distinct from conscious function use because it only manifests tangentially (aside from current area of focus) if at all

Yes!

When examining a person, whether it be physically through reading them, or just analyzing their behavior, you will never actually see any of their unconscious functions being expressed. When the unconscious functions do manifest themselves, it is in such a way that it will seem like we are not using anything unfamiliar at all, it will be in the form of insights rather than actually "using" a certain function like our conscious functions are used.

-"mimicking function use" is only mimicking insofar as it accomplishes the same task as a function someone else uses; an INTP never uses Ni, its combined functions never act like Ni, but it still gets the same stuff done

This is a weird one and I still don't feel comfortable saying that any function is truly "mimicking" another.

Yes, the only thing that is mimicked is the specific result that a certain cognitive function is typically noted for being able to produce. Not the cognitive function itself.

You can use a car to get from one place to another, or you can build a bike to do the same task, but that doesn't make the bike a car.

As an aside, despite my lack of knowledge of typology, I get the sense that you (Adymus) know what you are talking about and most everyone else doesn't (in comparison). Just to relate that here, is there a function I, as an INTP, am using to pick up on this? Or is this just a product of dubious intuition (whatever that comes from).

We are never really using specific functions by themselves, so something as complex as this kind of thought proccess would need a conversation between multiple functions. I would say just about all four were present for this: Ti-Ne to recognize the logic and meaning of what we are all saying, and Si-Fe to check your own experience and knowledge for how much you align with what is being said, as well as how you notice everyone is presenting themselves, and what that means based on your own knowledge and experience.

 

[KazeCraven]

Okay good. Maybe I have a better understanding of the theory than I thought.