Need input: Are the lower functions "slaved" to the dominant or are they independent?

[Inquisitor]

So...a recent discussion prompted me to post a new thread about this topic...There are two things I'm trying to clarify...

My starting assumption is that all people have all 8 of the cognitive functions, but only one function is highly conscious, and all the rest are less so, with one being least conscious (actually unconscious to be precise). So for an INTP, the extended functional stack per Lenore Thomson would be:

Dominant: Ti
Auxiliary: Ne
Right-Brain Alternatives: Fi, Se
Left-Brain Double Agents: Ni, Te
Tertiary: Si
Inferior: Fe

1) Gatekeeper Model:Is a person's behavior and thoughts always the result of a string of functions where each of the lower functions always "supports" at least one other function, likely one position above it? It also seems likely in this case that the functions operating in tandem would be located in the same brain hemisphere as firing across hemispheres is harder than on the same side. (It would be neat if this could be proven observationally using PET or fMRI.) For example, this would mean INTPs always experience Ti-Ne in tandem or Fe-Si. Less likely but also possible would be Fe-Ne or Si-Ne.

The point is, in this model the dominant almost always predominates in everything starting in utero, and if the other functions seem to manifest in thoughts/behavior, it is only because they have already been filtered through the the dominant. In this way, we can think of the dominant as being the information gatekeeper/bottleneck through which all data both external and internal must first pass before manifesting outwardly in behavior.

If not,

2) Independent Model:Can instances of behavior or thought be the result of using a single function independent of all the others?

Ironing this "little detail" out has important implications I think for understanding one's own growth and development. I like thinking back on my experiences as a child and interpreting them in a new light with typology. For instance, I want to gain a better understanding of why I had certain hobbies as a child which I later gave up on. It would be instructive to know if those hobbies were simply the result of a single function asserting itself or if it was always a string of them operating in tandem.

My current hypothesis, based on the ideas of others, is that in every human being, one part of the brain is wired in such a way that it's energy consumption/electrical resistivity is significantly lower than all the others. This happens as the brain is developing in utero.

The result is that due to the extraordinary demands of growth and adaption to the external environment that occurs after birth, we end up preferentially using the most energy efficient functions because these are least taxing to the organism as a whole, and so the least efficient functions get relegated to the unconscious, and those neural pathways are mostly pruned off compared to the efficient pathways, which probably increase in complexity. If this theory is accurate, then very early on, it seems conceivable that we are actually at our most "integrated" or "balanced" state because we haven't yet gone through the "pruning" process. So at least in theory, we may have acted and thought in ways that seem very contradictory to our current type now. For example, I used to enjoy drawing colorful pictures of all sorts of things as a child, knights in armor, superheroes, airplanes, submarines, warships, even horrific self-portraits and landscapes. Now, I can't even remember the last time I tried to draw something purely artistic for its own sake.

Anyway...what do you guys think?

 

[dark+matters]

If this theory is accurate, then very early on, it seems conceivable that we are actually at our most "integrated" or "balanced" state because we haven't yet gone through the "pruning" process. So at least in theory, we may have acted and thought in ways that seem very contradictory to our current type now. For example, I used to enjoy drawing colorful pictures of all sorts of things as a child, knights in armor, superheroes, airplanes, submarines, warships, even horrific self-portraits and landscapes. Now, I can't even remember the last time I tried to draw something purely artistic for its own sake.

I agree that we end up acting in whatever way ends up being most efficient for us, and that we are organisms with wiring that differs a little bit from person to person (I strongly question free will), but although the above is a conceivable conclusion, I don't think it's likely that our personalities are at our most integrated in childhood if integrated here means that we can tap into all of the Meyers-Briggs cognitive functions the most evenly at childhood. Many psychologists suggest that personality, or a person's distinctive characteristics, become less pronounced with age. It is one oft-cited reason for why some personality disorders tend to die down with age (although I tend to think psychologists don't at all know what they're doing in personality studies or most studies).

Personally, I did my hat-trying out when I was a teenager and young adult and not when I was a child. My personality was unusually stable as a child- far more stable than my current personality. I acted like many different types when I was in the hat-changing phase, but I was pretty solidly INTP-ish when I put myself back into my 3-12 age range. I regularly avoided recess so I could go into a quiet corner and read a book. I adored reading about science and drawing pictures to reflect my studies. I preferred adult books. I found Sesame Street condescending and enjoyed math. I was highly unempathetic, had a grossly exaggerated sense of my own abilities and felt compelled to push myself to be a top-contender, I was contrarian, blunt, sarcastic and almost completely out-of-touch with my emotions. Emotions were these very, very odd, incomprehensible, totally useless things to me, although I was capable of recognizing other kids' emotions without any difficulty* EDIT (No... no, I couldn't recognize their emotions either. What am I talking about? That didn't come until I was about 14). As an adult, of course, there's no way I could get away with being so immature! And I've tried on plenty of hats by now, so I know of many different ways with which I, as a member of the human collective, can navigate the world. I expect this changing of hats and broadening of viewpoints to continue into old age.

I can totally see this pruning going into effect in young adulthood or even middle age when we have more and more continually being piled our plates and major physical changes have slowed dramatically (I believe I'm going through that process right now) but I don't think this particular way of looking at the idea of pruning can necessarily be applied at childhood. I was not an extroverted child, I was not a child with a tremendous capacity for handling my or others' feelings, I loathed gym with a ferocious stubbornness, and I was completely disorganized and unwilling to budget my time to an extreme that I can't at all identify with today (thank goodness! LOL).

 

[Inquisitor]

Spoiler

I agree that we end up acting in whatever way ends up being most efficient for us, and that we are organisms with wiring that differs a little bit from person to person (I strongly question free will), but although the above is a conceivable conclusion, I don't think it's likely that our personalities are at our most integrated in childhood if integrated here means that we can tap into all of the Meyers-Briggs cognitive functions the most evenly at childhood. Many psychologists suggest that personality, or a person's distinctive characteristics, become less pronounced with age. It is one oft-cited reason for why some personality disorders tend to die down with age (although I tend to think psychologists don't at all know what they're doing in personality studies or most studies).

Personally, I did my hat-trying out when I was a teenager and young adult and not when I was a child. My personality was unusually stable as a child- far more stable than my current personality. I acted like many different types when I was in the hat-changing phase, but I was pretty solidly INTP-ish when I put myself back into my 3-12 age range. I regularly avoided recess so I could go into a quiet corner and read a book. I adored reading about science and drawing pictures to reflect my studies. I preferred adult books. I found Sesame Street condescending and enjoyed math. I was highly unempathetic, had a grossly exaggerated sense of my own abilities and felt compelled to push myself to be a top-contender, I was contrarian, blunt, sarcastic and almost completely out-of-touch with my emotions. Emotions were these very, very odd, incomprehensible, totally useless things to me, although I was capable of recognizing other kids' emotions without any difficulty* EDIT (No... no, I couldn't recognize their emotions either. What am I talking about? That didn't come until I was about 14). As an adult, of course, there's no way I could get away with being so immature! And I've tried on plenty of hats by now, so I know of many different ways with which I, as a member of the human collective, can navigate the world. I expect this changing of hats and broadening of viewpoints to continue into old age.

I can totally see this pruning going into effect in young adulthood or even middle age when we have more and more continually being piled our plates and major physical changes have slowed dramatically (I believe I'm going through that process right now) but I don't think this particular way of looking at the idea of pruning can necessarily be applied at childhood. I was not an extroverted child, I was not a child with a tremendous capacity for handling my or others' feelings, I loathed gym with a ferocious stubbornness, and I was completely disorganized and unwilling to budget my time to an extreme that I can't at all identify with today (thank goodness! LOL).

Interesting. I remember being more extroverted as a child. I liked playing soccer with my friends at school. I enjoyed "project time" where I could make starships with little wooden blocks. I also enjoyed reading a great deal. Math came fairly naturally to me, as did learning to read. I was a "dreamer." Head off in the clouds. But the drawing thing specifically, which thinking about it now, loads of kids like drawing, may be a more universal part of growth and development. Idk. Still seems to me that the personality of children is not as well-defined as that of adults. To me that says that the functions, while definitely not equal in preference are somehow on more of an even keel that at any other point in life.

I always thought the reason things get difficult for people during adolescence is that by this time, the lower functions have been relatively neglected for a sufficiently long period of time that they start to exert a nefarious influence, resulting in a sort of tug-of-war between the dominant and inferior. I understand what you mean by your "hat-changing" phase, but my interpretation of that is you went through the teenage angst like we all did as a result of this inner conflict between top and bottom functions. I think in middle age you are correct, personality becomes less sharply defined. My interpretation is there is a kind of "reconciliation" between the dom-inf. This doesn't mean that the inferior suddenly becomes as well-developed as the dom, but somehow maybe the person stops going from one pole to the other because of past experience and they know that nothing good can result from this back-and-forth swing.

 

[Spirit]

pointing to being a kid and saying I played outside as a sign of being extroverted is too simplistic. Kids will explore their environment in many ways. Talking about extroversion without discussing

Extroverted Sensing, intuition, feeling or thinking is a pointless non efficient exercise

Extroverted sensing I am a kid that enjoys the smell of fresh grass, I love to roll in down the hill and I laugh when I my hair gets messy.

Extroverted intuition I roll down the hill because I want I know it's possible to do it. I just rolled my broccoli off the table during lunch. I can roll my toy car off the side of my couch. My dad drove his car down the hill.

Extroverted feeling - I want to roll down the hill because my brother rolled down the hill and didn't let me do it with him. I want to be part of the gang but my mom said I was too small.

Extroverted thinking - OK I have drawn a map of all of the hills in the neighborhood. This hill is the steepest hill. Based on the math, it will take this long to get to the bottom. What kind of safety precautions do I need to have? There are three friends with me and it will take us 10 second per turn. Did everyone check the area to make sure there are no pieces of glass. We will return home at this time. When we finish I can improve our time spent to get the most fun at the hill.

All are ways extroversion can happen.

 

[Inquisitor]

Spoiler

pointing to being a kid and saying I played outside as a sign of being extroverted is too simplistic. Kids will explore their environment in many ways. Talking about extroversion without discussing

Extroverted Sensing, intuition, feeling or thinking is a pointless non efficient exercise

Extroverted sensing I am a kid that enjoys the smell of fresh grass, I love to roll in down the hill and I laugh when I my hair gets messy.

Extroverted intuition I roll down the hill because I want I know it's possible to do it. I just rolled my broccoli off the table during lunch. I can roll my toy car off the side of my couch. My dad drove his car down the hill.

Extroverted feeling - I want to roll down the hill because my brother rolled down the hill and didn't let me do it with him. I want to be part of the gang but my mom said I was too small.

Extroverted thinking - OK I have drawn a map of all of the hills in the neighborhood. This hill is the steepest hill. Based on the math, it will take this long to get to the bottom. What kind of safety precautions do I need to have? There are three friends with me and it will take us 10 second per turn. Did everyone check the area to make sure there are no pieces of glass. We will return home at this time. When we finish I can improve our time spent to get the most fun at the hill.

All are ways extroversion can happen.

That's pretty much the way I think of it. You just described instances of the same behavior motivated by 4 different functions. But I think I get your drift that looking at a single behavior is inconclusive in and of itself. You have to get an idea of the motivation behind the behavior to glimpse what function is operating. So do you also believe then that each function can operate independently of the dominant? Or are those examples you mentioned all dominant functions in kids? Do you think the behavior of INTPs as children can be motivated by all of those above functions? That's what I want to clarify for myself. Beyond my own personal reasons, I have a younger (apparently) INTP cousin. The more I know, the more I can understand him as well and give him the support he needs.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Need input: Are the lower functions "slaved" to the dominant or are they independent?

I feel like they're slaves to the dominant. I think that when you're a child or when you're in your adolescence the functions fluctuate because of your need to try out various things in life (relationships, school, work) but once you've gotten comfortable with your own skin, most of what you do is geared towards your dominant.

For example if I were to go to some people get-together and if I felt a little uppity, I'd probably go on an ENTP mode; meaning I'd go Ne-Ti/Fe-Si. I'd probably throw in a few Ne jokes with a little Ti sprinkled in it, with my Fe keeping it in check so that my remarks aren't overtly insensitive or too flattery-like. On the other hand, if taking in the visionary element of the ENTP, my Ne would seek what the other person's idea or goal is, reflect on its merit and tell him or what what he or she needs in order to improve on whatever they're trying to achieve.

I don't think I've really gotten to the point where I had used my Si to support my Ne-Ti-Fe... it'd probably look something like "I had a similar experience where.." and so on. The reflection would help to serve the NeTiFe.

If I was at a study group or some discussion session I'd probably go INTP, Ti-Ne/Si-Fe. My actions would be focused on gathering information and to organize them, (Ti). My Ne would probably serve to clarify definitions and to see how the subject being talked about at hand would relate to other subjects, in order to provide context and to envision how the topics are interconnected. My Si would probably draw on the past to see inconsistency in any theory I think up of (or what someone represents). The Fe would serve to seek harmony so I can keep on absorbing information (Ti).

 

[Spirit]

Yes all functions are slave to the dominant. It has the most neurological connections. That is why it's the easiest function to use. The farther you move away from the dominant, the more a dominant in the cognitive function will see you as a fraud in using that function.

Fi is the worst function for an istp. If I am focusing on making all my decision on what I value, I'm really going to be stressed out in a hurry. If I even listen to conversation where people are going on and on about their personal values, I get really annoyed. My body gets annoyed.

Don't get me wrong, there are some times I do think about what I value but it is in small short spurts.

I firmly do NOT agree that other type preferences can turn into other types at will. The brain pathways have a pattern and the strength of cognitive abilities are much stronger than what happens when you have a habit that has been ingrained since birth.

 

[Architect]

Yes all functions are slave to the dominant.

No they do not. Is the inferior a slave to the dominant? As if! The literature on this is quite clear, the inferior acts in opposition to the dominant. This is why you see inferior grip experiences and the like.

I'm not sure why there's a lot of discussion on this topic, the answer is quite clear. It also makes the (I think) mistaken assumption that functions are somehow little gears or machines in the head. I don't think they are, I believe they are just basic motivations that we have at a very low level. The exist (I believe) from how the cortex processes information from the environment. That is, a Se dominant is one with a high tolerance for sensory data.

 

[Anktark]

Neither, in my opinion. I think personality can be abstracted and the functions individualized, but they don't work in a serial and separate manner. It's like asking whether carbon is master of all other atoms in your body. For the sake of simplification, we can say that human body contains 40kg of oxygen, 6 kg of carbon and so on, but if we atomize a human and sort the atoms into separate piles, there will be no human body. More so, a lot of information and potential attributes will be lost together with removal of bonds between the atoms. In a sense, carbon in compounds in human body should be thought about a little differently than elemental carbon in a vacuum.

Thus, saying "Ti based that" or "Ne induced this" also means "disregarding a lot of things and focusing just on these specifics in order to simplify and abstract". At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Spirit]

I reviewed my thoughts and the functions are not slaves to the others.

 

[Inquisitor]

No they do not. Is the inferior a slave to the dominant? As if! The literature on this is quite clear, the inferior acts in opposition to the dominant. This is why you see inferior grip experiences and the like.

I'm not sure why there's a lot of discussion on this topic, the answer is quite clear. It also makes the (I think) mistaken assumption that functions are somehow little gears or machines in the head. I don't think they are, I believe they are just basic motivations that we have at a very low level. The exist (I believe) from how the cortex processes information from the environment. That is, a Se dominant is one with a high tolerance for sensory data.

I think this was the missing piece of the puzzle for me. But please correct me if I'm wrong. Functions = motivations, not actual cognitive capabilities. I think that's what I was confusing. Actually I still am confused about what the boundary is (if any) between a person's intellectual capabilities and his/her functional stack. IOW, what's the relationship between the two? The word "function" seems to imply a cognitive process.

So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is each function simply describes a way of approaching the world, but fundamentally and depending on where it is located in the functional stack, a lone function may independently motivate us to approach the world in a certain way that is not our preferred (dominant) approach?

Apologies if this topic has already been covered in other threads.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Archie are you talking about the inferior function as in the 4th one or of all of them in general? I get that the inf acts in opposition to the dom (e.g. Ti-Fe conflict) but couldn't that be more of a temporary thing? Once we get our bearings of how Fe works, we'd probably work it out well with our Ti.

On the other hand our use of our aux/tertiary seem to naturally wire back to the dom. Like our Ne serves to seek and feed info to our Ti while the Si checks it up with things from the past. I guess terming it as 'being slaves' to the dom is somewhat offsetting but they seem to route back imo

 

[Architect]

Functions = motivations, not actual cognitive capabilities. I think that's what I was confusing. Actually I still am confused about what the boundary is (if any) between a person's intellectual capabilities and his/her functional stack. IOW, what's the relationship between the two? The word "function" seems to imply a cognitive process.

So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is each function simply describes a way of approaching the world, but fundamentally and depending on where it is located in the functional stack, a lone function may independently motivate us to approach the world in a certain way that is not our preferred (dominant) approach?

I think that Type is based in the cortex (the pre-mammalian brain), and so is hardwired. Only the neocortex which was invented with the mammals can learn. Lizards and such can only act on instinct, individuals are incapable of learning, which any mammal can. This hypothesis comes from the fact that everybody agrees that Type doesn't change.

So, if it's in the cortex, it's likely to be low level. While the cortex is involved in some cognitive thinking, it can't be that intelligent as no non-mammal displays anything we'd call intelligent. Therefore Functions aren't cognitive capabilities (which occurs in the neocortex), but something else. I made an intuitive leap here from observing that functions are actually low level things. Take Se.

S - oriented toward sensations and e, oriented outwards. So my hypothesis is that Se is an information stream (the cortex mostly processes data from the world I believe). We can deduce that a person with a high ability to process external sensory data would be Se. A person with a low degree of this ability (e.g. an INTP) is a low Se.

Fe - an affinity for processing interactions with others. Fi, an affinity for processing self feelings. This shows that the preferences simply have an orientation, outward or inward.

Ti, Te, Si, Se, Fi, Fe, Ni, Ne. Really it's that N is a lack of ability to process S, and T is a lack of ability to process F. And the orient inwards or outwards.

Now these things 'reflect' themselves up into the learning neocortex. So the personality, which resides in the neocortex, will 'conform' or reflect these patterns too. So in a sense, yes, the functions are like little programs - but it's not the functions, but the personality which is mimicking the underlying function.

Archie are you talking about the inferior function as in the 4th one or of all of them in general? I

Jung conceived of the psyche as a thing in opposition. The inferior is opposite the dominant, the aux and the tert. It's a war actually. There's a term for this, I forget, used in economics, game theory and science. Anyhow the idea is that you can competitive elements that taken as a whole cooperate, even thought they are independent and work against each other. But while the dominant does dominate, it doesn't control.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Jung conceived of the psyche as a thing in opposition. The inferior is opposite the dominant, the aux and the tert. It's a war actually. There's a term for this, I forget, used in economics, game theory and science. Anyhow the idea is that you can competitive elements that taken as a whole cooperate, even thought they are independent and work against each other. But while the dominant does dominate, it doesn't control.

Yeah I agree that the dom doesn't control, in the sense that it's some power hungry cognitive-entity trying to take control of your brain or something. (lol) The functions are probably more malleable and dynamic than that.

Do you think they route back to the dom though? Like in most cases. I mean I guess it depends on what the task is at the moment, but for the discussion at hand, like normally.

 

[Architect]

Do you think they route back to the dom though? Like in most cases. I mean I guess it depends on what the task is at the moment, but for the discussion at hand, like normally.

I think most people make Type more complicated than it is, so 'no' to answer your question. The confusion comes from the fact that our neocortex personality actually is more complicated, and yes can 'route the other functions to the dominant' - whatever that may mean, in the Personality. But I don't believe that canonical Type is like that at all. I think that at root, Type is just different 'information channels' in the cortex - that is all. On top of that our neocortex builds in more complication, but it's not Type at that point but Personality.

Think about it, I was watching a Google IO developer conference talk about Udacity yesterday. It was enjoyable, I was learning and taking in information about a subject I don't directly work in (Ne) and processing it (Ti). During the Q&A, various women came up and got all emotional at the microphone about how it changed their life, blah blah (Fe). I immediately recoiled from that - instinctually I turned the volume down and turned away from the computer (to another one), hoping it would Just Stop.

Obviously I have a low tolerance for Fe data.

 

[Inquisitor]

I think that Type is based in the cortex (the pre-mammalian brain), and so is hardwired. Only the neocortex which was invented with the mammals can learn. Lizards and such can only act on instinct, individuals are incapable of learning, which any mammal can. This hypothesis comes from the fact that everybody agrees that Type doesn't change.

So, if it's in the cortex, it's likely to be low level. While the cortex is involved in some cognitive thinking, it can't be that intelligent as no non-mammal displays anything we'd call intelligent. Therefore Functions aren't cognitive capabilities (which occurs in the neocortex), but something else. I made an intuitive leap here from observing that functions are actually low level things. Take Se.

S - oriented toward sensations and e, oriented outwards. So my hypothesis is that Se is an information stream (the cortex mostly processes data from the world I believe). We can deduce that a person with a high ability to process external sensory data would be Se. A person with a low degree of this ability (e.g. an INTP) is a low Se.

Fe - an affinity for processing interactions with others. Fi, an affinity for processing self feelings. This shows that the preferences simply have an orientation, outward or inward.

Ti, Te, Si, Se, Fi, Fe, Ni, Ne. Really it's that N is a lack of ability to process S, and T is a lack of ability to process F. And the orient inwards or outwards.

Now these things 'reflect' themselves up into the learning neocortex. So the personality, which resides in the neocortex, will 'conform' or reflect these patterns too. So in a sense, yes, the functions are like little programs - but it's not the functions, but the personality which is mimicking the underlying function.

Clarity at last. I can't find a flaw in that line of reasoning. Using your framework as a guide, I find it fairly easy to grasp how external streams of information (great way to put it) from the environment flow into the cortex for processing. The senses are always pouring in a constant flow of data into the nervous system, but only a small part ever rises to conscious awareness. This must mean that only part of it is processed by the cortex, if your theory is correct.

What is harder to grasp is where "internal" information streams originate. IOW, when Ti is active, where is it receiving data from? Is it the neocortex, the external environment, both? Many times I find that when I'm problem solving, I'm not actually reading or listening to anything, just staring off into space (blank face as you said), so in this case, I'm guessing that the data the cortex processes must originate in memory. I'm wondering if this is actually the basic process for both "internal" and "external" information streams, since all of them ultimately have to end up in memory first before they can be fed through the cortex for "channeling/processing."

 

[8151147]

Well, I really don't understand why you guys have to seek for the clarity so much. If something works then that's how it work, we really don't need to care the details how it work, once it has done the work for us.

If one think one function work alone, or the order just expresses the intensity of four functions, then one can say INTPs is just a weaker version of ENTPs and vice versa. Because ENTP and INTP both have four same functions, right? Just different order. The same to INTPs and ESFJs. But of course we don't see things like that. The order of four functions expresses their different roles, not only the intensity, and because of the roles they work together. What they can do independent is just part of the processing, and we will never ever see that part as a behavior or habit...v.v.v. Maybe a tiny action like playing with hair though, but it's too small to say something.

ENTPs and INTPs are very different as each type in 16 types as different to each other. The word "slave" may be not a correct word, but I think it's acceptable word to express the important roles of Dominant function, and four functions.

 

[Inquisitor]

Well, I really don't understand why you guys have to seek for the clarity so much. If something works then that's how it work, we really don't need to care the details how it work, once it has done the work for us.

You're so fixated on one point of view it's preventing you from exploring typology further. This is not an easy subject to master, as you seem to think, even for an INTP that excels at navigating theoretical frameworks. Aren't you interested in reading Jung's Collected Works, or learning how to accurately type people just by interacting with them? I know I am. It's often very difficult to discern someone's underlying type, yet what bothers me is that you speak as if you're already an expert. This is pretty subtle stuff. It took Jung years to develop his ideas, and in order for me to fully grasp and apply his ideas is going to take years. People frequently don't behave in a manner that completely corresponds to their underlying type. That's why it's so important to understand how behavior is motivated by the individual functions. I'll give you a clear example straight from Psychological Types which discusses how Ne manifests as an inferior function in Si dominant types.

His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which consequently acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition is possessed of a singular resourcefulness, a "good nose" for objectively real possibilities, this archaicized intuition has an amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background. The real and conscious intentions of the object mean nothing to it; instead, it sniffs out every conceivable archaic motive underlying such an intention. It therefore has a dangerous and destructive quality that contrasts glaringly with the well-meaning innocuousness of the conscious attitude. So long as the individual does not hold too aloof from the object, his unconscious intuition has a salutary compensating effect on the rather fantastic and overcredulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic, the archaic intuitions come to the surface and exert their pernicious influence, forcing themselves on the individual and producing compulsive ideas of the most perverse kind. The result is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical features are masked by symptoms of exhaustion.

This is conclusive proof for you that the inferior function can become so powerful that it motivates people to think and act in ways that actually make them sick. I recognize the Ne-motivated behavior of my ISTJ father in this description. Every time I went out by myself or wanted to go traveling somewhere or did anything that might be remotely unsafe, he would immediately be against it. The thought of me going out into the world by myself triggered horrible fear in his mind of what could happen to me. It was clearly an emotional and unconscious response, but it then motivated him to start telling me about all the bad things that might happen (realistic or not), interspersed with copious amounts of "I don't like you doing X." It was like he had lost the ability to think rationally, and normally, he's a very cogent thinker.

So...go read some Jung!

 

[Architect]

Clarity at last. I can't find a flaw in that line of reasoning.

Best compliment I've ever been paid, thank you. To fill out the theory here's the rest

Primary Information Streams

• Sensation - physical sensory data, sight, sound, taste, etc. A Sensor is then somebody with a high tolerance for this kind of information.
• Feeling - originates as hormonal response to sensory data. A Feeler is someone with a high tolerance for this kind of information.

Thus Feeling is already a higher order processing from Sensory data, as it's probably an instinctual response to the world. From evolutionary standpoint first there was Sensory data, then evolved Feeling responses to the data (e.g. a sense that something is watching you). Feeling is thus probably the second form of intelligence, but I group it as a sibling to Sensory as a primary information stream as that seems to be how it evolved. That leaves the opposites of Sensory and Feeling

Oppositional Information Streams

• Intuition Literally the opposite of Sensation. The mind craves information, so if a person has a low tolerance for Sensory data, the mind seeks it elsewhere, i.e. the unconscious, thus an Intuitive.
• Thinking The opposite of Feeling. A person with a low tolerance for Feeling information finds it elsewhere, that is cognition and causal thinking.

Orientation and Affinity

• Extroversion/Introversion These information streams (S/N, F/T) must have an orientation, either outwards or inwards (E or I)
• Judging/Perceiving These information streams appear to have Affinities, either ordered (judging) or unordered (perceiving).

Thus, a Ti dominant is a person with a low ability to process Feeling data. The brain therefore pulls from cognition, and is oriented inwards. This process (by it's nature perhaps) prefers organized information. So a Ti dominant creates hierarchical data structures and theories, and an older individual will have a neocortex that has behaviors that reflect this. This Ti will then be a "Ti user", but of the Ti behaviors developed in the neocortex, not the Ti Function which is probably hardwired into the cortex.*

Well, I really don't understand why you guys have to seek for the clarity so much.

Apparently you're not an INTP.

* tl/dr

Spoiler

Evidence for this isn't hard to find, just look around you. In my song Se nephews, when we're together these kids will move from one sensory experience to another. My ESFP nephew will come to the kitchen to Taste some food (note he's probably not hungry), go play a few minutes of a video game, check his phone for anything from friends, go shoot a hoop or two, then repeat the process. As a low sensory information processor I couldn't (or wouldn't) do this kind of thing.

In contrast, compare a INFJ (Se inferior), nephew (Se dominant) and me (non Se) at a basketball game. The ENFP was mildly aroused, the INFJ got a hit out of it (but crashed after a few hours), and the INTP folded after about five minutes and wanted to crawl into a hole. Obviously this is a story from my experience, after those five minutes I literally shut down from the sensory overload, which helped contribute to this theory as I later attempted to explain why.

Now, to answer your other question

What is harder to grasp is where "internal" information streams originate.

Yes it's a little mysterious, but that's the nature of intuition and thinking to some degree. Intuition comes from the "unconscious", something I haven't pinned down. Thinking at least is a little clearer apparently, this is what the neocortex mostly does, along with the cortex a bit. I think of both as being in a sensory deprivation tank. What happens? The mind makes stuff up. This is what I think happens with T and N. But if you go further, isn't that what F is? Feelings are really an interpretation of sensory data as I said above. And finally, S actually isn't raw data. The optic nerve behind the eye breaks out visual data into 12 information streams, for example.

This all gets back to the 'brain in a box' thought experiment going back to Plato. I think each of the primary Preferences is an abstraction attempt to process the world, just to differing degrees. Thus, I'd say there are actually four intelligences, S, N, T and F. They all are ways of interpreting the world.

 

[8151147]

You're so fixated on one point of view it's preventing you from exploring typology further. This is not an easy subject to master, as you seem to think, even for an INTP that excels at navigating theoretical frameworks. Aren't you interested in reading Jung's Collected Works, or learning how to accurately type people just by interacting with them? I know I am. It's often very difficult to discern someone's underlying type, yet what bothers me is that you speak as if you're already an expert. This is pretty subtle stuff. It took Jung years to develop his ideas, and in order for me to fully grasp and apply his ideas is going to take years. People frequently don't behave in a manner that completely corresponds to their underlying type. That's why it's so important to understand how behavior is motivated by the individual functions. I'll give you a clear example straight from Psychological Types which discusses how Ne manifests as an inferior function in Si dominant types.

Nope. What I mean is don't seek for the clarity/accuracy of ideas/theories without a certain purpose, in other words when you doing something for certain purpose, you won't need the clarity/accuracy. This is a INTP's critical problem: naturally too perfectionism in theory. If we seek for the clarity without a leader, sooner or later we will "backstab" the "truth" we protect and seek at the first place, unconsciously. INTPs will be like a blind wise man, they think they are seeking for the truth, but they already were blind at the first place.

This is conclusive proof for you that the inferior function can become so powerful that it motivates people to think and act in ways that actually make them sick. I recognize the Ne-motivated behavior of my ISTJ father in this description. Every time I went out by myself or wanted to go traveling somewhere or did anything that might be remotely unsafe, he would immediately be against it. The thought of me going out into the world by myself triggered horrible fear in his mind of what could happen to me. It was clearly an emotional and unconscious response, but it then motivated him to start telling me about all the bad things that might happen (realistic or not), interspersed with copious amounts of "I don't like you doing X." It was like he had lost the ability to think rationally, and normally, he's a very cogent thinker.

So...go read some Jung!

Where and when I against the bold? I've never said or claim infer can't become powerful. What I against is the statement that infer become powerful without Dominant and other functions, or when it become powerful when it supposed to not be developed(in childhood), as you already stated it.

Simply there are two problems here:

1. Every functions don't work alone. If they work alone then in situations that lower functions is used mainly rather than the Dominant, they "will be" other type(??) have the Dom corresponding that lower function.

For example say INTP mainly use Fe in a situation. If that Fe worked alone then that INTP was no longer INTP but ExFJ. It must work with other, or somehow have related to each other, it simply can't solo to get the work done. Everything connected here. The order of other functions express their corresponding intensity of impact to that Fe. Ti must be the most influence to that Fe, then Ne, then Si. That Fe will never ever a Fe of xxFJs but a Fe being affected from Ti.

2. The order of all four functions expresses their timeline starting develop in one person's life. In normal condition, all of four function have their "root" when we was born, but each type develop with age of development. Dom develop first and usually is well developed(meet the standard) around in childhood time. Aux usually in adolescent, Ter usually late around above middle age and Infer in very late, when we around 60-70 I assumed. Some people develop faster than other same type, some slower... We can see there are a huge gap between Aux and Ter here, it's because Dom and Aux are a stack function and it's enough for a person to live for a certain time, and also enough to discern people's type. But only when we develop fully the last function, we are the complete person and a something kinda "human".

Lower function can't develop prior to higher functions and be stronger than them. That's mean you can't use your Si when you are in teenage, how your Si dare to develop while your Ne haven't develop fully yet? The reason it must wait Ne develop well enough to start developing is when Ne is well developed, till to certain time it (and Ti) can't be enough to help us survive, so Si develop to help. And it's a long time because Si is supposed to "replace" the Ne, but over all it help all functions.

I can use Bill Gates and Einstein as a notable example as they are two famous INTPs. All of their "will" in late life toward to server the social, it's how Fe work.
Einstein has a quote: "Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile". We can see obviously the Fe manifestation here, and he said this when he was too old. Imagine when he was a child and heard that quote from someone, he will be like heard of disgusting thing because his Ti can't tolerate it. However it's not a solo Fe. An ExFJ won't usually say such things, they would act rather than say. That's because their Fe is the Dom. And I don't mean Einstein only say without actions. He and Bill Gates have many actions manifested the Si-Fe in their late life, but that Fe was affected strongly by Ti, Ne, Si. After all, the Dominant function Ti appears in every actions/situation that we used mainly other lower functions. That's why it's the Dom.

 

[Yellow]

This all gets back to the 'brain in a box' thought experiment going back to Plato. I think each of the primary Preferences is an abstraction attempt to process the world, just to differing degrees. Thus, I'd say there are actually four intelligences, S, N, T and F. They all are ways of interpreting the world.

I'm fond of Gardner's theory, but I find it a bit arbitrary. However, if you look at it through this lens, you can see where the two concepts overlap a little.

Perhaps if someone tried to fuse the two with elements of newness (if needed), we could have something simultaneously more comprehensive and more flexible!

I'm on it! Remind me in a month because I'll forget about it after about 4 days!

 

[Inquisitor]

Spoiler

Best compliment I've ever been paid, thank you. To fill out the theory here's the rest

Primary Information Streams

• Sensation - physical sensory data, sight, sound, taste, etc. A Sensor is then somebody with a high tolerance for this kind of information.
• Feeling - originates as hormonal response to sensory data. A Feeler is someone with a high tolerance for this kind of information.

Thus Feeling is already a higher order processing from Sensory data, as it's probably an instinctual response to the world. From evolutionary standpoint first there was Sensory data, then evolved Feeling responses to the data (e.g. a sense that something is watching you). Feeling is thus probably the second form of intelligence, but I group it as a sibling to Sensory as a primary information stream as that seems to be how it evolved. That leaves the opposites of Sensory and Feeling

Oppositional Information Streams

• Intuition Literally the opposite of Sensation. The mind craves information, so if a person has a low tolerance for Sensory data, the mind seeks it elsewhere, i.e. the unconscious, thus an Intuitive.
• Thinking The opposite of Feeling. A person with a low tolerance for Feeling information finds it elsewhere, that is cognition and causal thinking.

Orientation and Affinity

• Extroversion/Introversion These information streams (S/N, F/T) must have an orientation, either outwards or inwards (E or I)
• Judging/Perceiving These information streams appear to have Affinities, either ordered (judging) or unordered (perceiving).

Thus, a Ti dominant is a person with a low ability to process Feeling data. The brain therefore pulls from cognition, and is oriented inwards. This process (by it's nature perhaps) prefers organized information. So a Ti dominant creates hierarchical data structures and theories, and an older individual will have a neocortex that has behaviors that reflect this. This Ti will then be a "Ti user", but of the Ti behaviors developed in the neocortex, not the Ti Function which is probably hardwired into the cortex.*



Apparently you're not an INTP.

* tl/dr

Spoiler

Evidence for this isn't hard to find, just look around you. In my song Se nephews, when we're together these kids will move from one sensory experience to another. My ESFP nephew will come to the kitchen to Taste some food (note he's probably not hungry), go play a few minutes of a video game, check his phone for anything from friends, go shoot a hoop or two, then repeat the process. As a low sensory information processor I couldn't (or wouldn't) do this kind of thing.

In contrast, compare a INFJ (Se inferior), nephew (Se dominant) and me (non Se) at a basketball game. The ENFP was mildly aroused, the INFJ got a hit out of it (but crashed after a few hours), and the INTP folded after about five minutes and wanted to crawl into a hole. Obviously this is a story from my experience, after those five minutes I literally shut down from the sensory overload, which helped contribute to this theory as I later attempted to explain why.

Now, to answer your other question


Yes it's a little mysterious, but that's the nature of intuition and thinking to some degree. Intuition comes from the "unconscious", something I haven't pinned down. Thinking at least is a little clearer apparently, this is what the neocortex mostly does, along with the cortex a bit. I think of both as being in a sensory deprivation tank. What happens? The mind makes stuff up. This is what I think happens with T and N. But if you go further, isn't that what F is? Feelings are really an interpretation of sensory data as I said above. And finally, S actually isn't raw data. The optic nerve behind the eye breaks out visual data into 12 information streams, for example.

This all gets back to the 'brain in a box' thought experiment going back to Plato. I think each of the primary Preferences is an abstraction attempt to process the world, just to differing degrees. Thus, I'd say there are actually four intelligences, S, N, T and F. They all are ways of interpreting the world.

Thank you for this. It's going to take me some to fully digest what you said. I'll let you know when I'm done processing.

 

[Inquisitor]

Nope. What I mean is don't seek for the clarity/accuracy of ideas/theories without a certain purpose, in other words when you doing something for certain purpose, you won't need the clarity/accuracy. This is a INTP's critical problem: naturally too perfectionism in theory. If we seek for the clarity without a leader, sooner or later we will "backstab" the "truth" we protect and seek at the first place, unconsciously. INTPs will be like a blind wise man, they think they are seeking for the truth, but they already were blind at the first place.

Your profile says you are ESFP. Is this true?

Where and when I against the bold? I've never said or claim infer can't become powerful. What I against is the statement that infer become powerful without Dominant and other functions, or when it become powerful when it supposed to not be developed(in childhood), as you already stated it.

Ok. I never made that statement. Just read the damn book.

Simply there are two problems here:

1. Every functions don't work alone. If they work alone then in situations that lower functions is used mainly rather than the Dominant, they "will be" other type(??) have the Dom corresponding that lower function.

For example say INTP mainly use Fe in a situation. If that Fe worked alone then that INTP was no longer INTP but ExFJ. It must work with other, or somehow have related to each other, it simply can't solo to get the work done. Everything connected here. The order of other functions express their corresponding intensity of impact to that Fe. Ti must be the most influence to that Fe, then Ne, then Si. That Fe will never ever a Fe of xxFJs but a Fe being affected from Ti.

First off, functions can only be used individually, never at the same time. If you actually examine what happens in your own mind, you can see this. Even though solving a problem may require using all the functions, you can't explore new ideas (Ne) and choose the best one (Ti) at exactly the same instant in time. First you brainstorm, then once you have some possibilities, you can narrow them down. The time scale on this may be very small, but the mind can only consciously focus on one thing at a time.

Second, just because you use a lower function, does not mean that you suddenly become a totally different type. I don't know why you keep repeating that. I never even mentioned that anywhere. If I use Si, that doesn't mean that I will act exactly the same as an ISTJ, but it does mean that I might be motivated to briefly process information in a similar way, for example comparing past experience to present (like you said) or even engage in nostalgia or excessively berating myself for mistakes I committed in the past.

During growth and development, as far as I'm concerned it's anyone's guess exactly how often and how much each function is used. Generally over the course of childhood the dom/aux will predominate as they always do, but beyond that, the aux may be used more often, and there will be times when the tert is also used (maybe the neocortex is growing in a new direction and tolerance for certain functions increases temporarily?) You've raised some good objections about this, and I'm not interested in rehashing the same argument but I don't think it's entirely clear what is happening. The brain is undergoing extremely rapid change at this time. The whole process is probably at least somewhat haphazard and contingent on environment. That's all I have to say about that.

2. The order of all four functions expresses their timeline starting develop in one person's life. In normal condition, all of four function have their "root" when we was born, but each type develop with age of development. Dom develop first and usually is well developed(meet the standard) around in childhood time. Aux usually in adolescent, Ter usually late around above middle age and Infer in very late, when we around 60-70 I assumed. Some people develop faster than other same type, some slower... We can see there are a huge gap between Aux and Ter here, it's because Dom and Aux are a stack function and it's enough for a person to live for a certain time, and also enough to discern people's type. But only when we develop fully the last function, we are the complete person and a something kinda "human".

Lower function can't develop prior to higher functions and be stronger than them. That's mean you can't use your Si when you are in teenage, how your Si dare to develop while your Ne haven't develop fully yet? The reason it must wait Ne develop well enough to start developing is when Ne is well developed, till to certain time it (and Ti) can't be enough to help us survive, so Si develop to help. And it's a long time because Si is supposed to "replace" the Ne, but over all it help all functions.

Interesting theory...but fairly inaccurate. Read the bold/underlined part. You're making assertions that are not backed up by the literature. But you refuse to admit this. Again, go read Jung. Go read some Drenth. Then think about whether or not your theory has merit. Inferior manifests in adolescence, not 60s-70s. The only thing that changes is we learn to recognize how it operates and then consciously choose to function more authentically instead by mainly using our top two functions. This does not mean that I have to wait until middle age to start using my Si.

I can use Bill Gates and Einstein as a notable example as they are two famous INTPs. All of their "will" in late life toward to server the social, it's how Fe work.
Einstein has a quote: "Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile". We can see obviously the Fe manifestation here, and he said this when he was too old. Imagine when he was a child and heard that quote from someone, he will be like heard of disgusting thing because his Ti can't tolerate it. However it's not a solo Fe. An ExFJ won't usually say such things, they would act rather than say. That's because their Fe is the Dom. And I don't mean Einstein only say without actions. He and Bill Gates have many actions manifested the Si-Fe in their late life, but that Fe was affected strongly by Ti, Ne, Si. After all, the Dominant function Ti appears in every actions/situation that we used mainly other lower functions. That's why it's the Dom.

Just no. You don't understand how the functions actually manifest. INTP inferior Fe leads them to want to help humanity when they are adolescents. In fact, this desire can be so strong that it leads them to choose careers in the humanities and basically try to act like ENFJs. That's the story of my life. I'm a teacher, and I want out. I'm taking Calculus now, and even though I kind of have to grit my teeth and push myself to do the homework, once I'm in the zone, time flies, and I feel great after having finished the problem set. You might even say I feel refreshed. But teaching? I feel exhausted after the fact.

I'm not going to speculate with you as to how much each function is used at different points in life.

 

[8151147]

Your profile says you are ESFP. Is this true?

Does it relate whether if it true or not? So? Another form of ad hominem? Just because someone is ESFP or XXXX type so he can't give a point or his opinion is less value than other types? What kind of rational is that?

Ok. I never made that statement. Just read the damn book.

So who state that Dom is not always develop first? Why I have to go read book, is it relevant? If you think something support your opinion against mine just quote the important parts or summarize your damn book you read so other can understand it simply. What kind of reasoning that telling other read book?

First off, functions can only be used individually, never at the same time. If you actually examine what happens in your own mind, you can see this. Even though solving a problem may require using all the functions, you can't explore new ideas (Ne) and choose the best one (Ti) at exactly the same instant in time. First you brainstorm, then once you have some possibilities, you can narrow them down. The time scale on this may be very small, but the mind can only consciously focus on one thing at a time.

Second, just because you use a lower function, does not mean that you suddenly become a totally different type. I don't know why you keep repeating that. I never even mentioned that anywhere. If I use Si, that doesn't mean that I will act exactly the same as an ISTJ, but it does mean that I might be motivated to briefly process information in a similar way, for example comparing past experience to present (like you said) or even engage in nostalgia or excessively berating myself for mistakes I committed in the past.

During growth and development, as far as I'm concerned it's anyone's guess exactly how often and how much each function is used. Generally over the course of childhood the dom/aux will predominate as they always do, but beyond that, the aux may be used more often, and there will be times when the tert is also used (maybe the neocortex is growing in a new direction and tolerance for certain functions increases temporarily?) You've raised some good objections about this, and I'm not interested in rehashing the same argument but I don't think it's entirely clear what is happening. The brain is undergoing extremely rapid change at this time. The whole process is probably at least somewhat haphazard and contingent on environment. That's all I have to say about that.



Interesting theory...but fairly inaccurate. Read the bold/underlined part. You're making assertions that are not backed up by the literature. But you refuse to admit this. Again, go read Jung. Go read some Drenth. Then think about whether or not your theory has merit. Inferior manifests in adolescence, not 60s-70s. The only thing that changes is we learn to recognize how it operates and then consciously choose to function more authentically instead by mainly using our top two functions. This does not mean that I have to wait until middle age to start using my Si.



Just no. You don't understand how the functions actually manifest. INTP inferior Fe leads them to want to help humanity when they are adolescents. In fact, this desire can be so strong that it leads them to choose careers in the humanities and basically try to act like ENFJs. That's the story of my life. I'm a teacher, and I want out. I'm taking Calculus now, and even though I kind of have to grit my teeth and push myself to do the homework, once I'm in the zone, time flies, and I feel great after having finished the problem set. You might even say I feel refreshed. But teaching? I feel exhausted after the fact.

I'm not going to speculate with you as to how much each function is used at different points in life.

It's not a theory god damn it. It's just basic stuff.
You said you read so many Jung book or advanced book but you even didn't understand the basic stuff. It doesn't relate to the advanced stuff as long as what I state is based on something understandable and basis.

Read the bold/underlined part. You're making assertions that are not backed up by the literature.

omg what I assumed here is age number around old age or above middle age, not assumed the age of development. You really misunderstood it by intent or training to intend?

At the most basic level, type development is the process of gaining comfort and command of your preferred way of taking in information, and your preferred way of coming to conclusions. Developing a function involves consciously differentiating it from the others, exercising it, and becoming more skilled with it.

Jung believed that all the functions are largely unconscious and undeveloped in infants. As we grow and develop, the different functions develop. The timing of this development has been the subject of considerable study. It is generally believed that the dominant generally develops up to age 7, the auxiliary up to age 20, the tertiary in the 30s and 40s and the inferior or fourth function at midlife or later.

As you develop your type, the way you see the world and the way you behave tends to change and broaden. Comfort with your dominant and auxiliary functions forms the basis for much of your self-esteem.

If the use of your dominant and auxiliary functions is not supported by your environment, it will still press to reach the surface, like a beach ball held under water. When a function is never allowed to develop naturally, a person can experience stress and frustration.

As you develop your tertiary and least-preferred functions later in life, the range of behaviors available to you opens up even further. But the dominant and auxiliary functions will always be the core functions of your conscious personality.

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...i-type-dynamics/lifelong-type-development.htm

Look at this basis. What it has that is opposite my meaning? What I stated were not something advanced stuff or theory, it's just basis from Jung. You just didn't understand the basis so you seek for the clarity and the "advanced", that's it.

 

[Inquisitor]

Does it relate whether if it true or not? So? Another form of ad hominem? Just because someone is ESFP or XXXX type so he can't give a point or his opinion is less value than other types? What kind of rational is that?

No rationale. But it would explain why we're not seeing eye-to-eye about this.

So who state that Dom is not always develop first? Why I have to go read book, is it relevant? If you think something support your opinion against mine just quote the important parts or summarize your damn book you read so other can understand it simply. What kind of reasoning that telling other read book?

Dude, you're an ESFP in an INTP forum. INTPs want to know how stuff works. You have a limited understanding of typology. Reading a few websites is not enough for you to become a typology expert, to assert that you know what you're talking about, and that you know how everything develops for all types. If you're not interested in further investigation, fine, but don't tell people they're "confused" and have "misunderstandings" when you yourself are relatively clueless.

I said that the Dom does not always develop first, and I stand by that statement. The conversation was about behavior, and many very young INTP children do not always act in a way that seems congruent with their dominant function. Here's a website that describes in more detail the MBTI page you referenced. From age 0-6 years, children are apparently "trying on a bunch of different hats." That's exactly the time period that I remember engaging in those behaviors I mentioned in an earlier post.(Type Development) I don't exactly know why I did those things. I suggested a theory about Si. You disagree. That's fine. But don't tell me I'm confused.

It's not a theory god damn it. It's just basic stuff.
You said you read so many Jung book or advanced book but you even didn't understand the basic stuff. It doesn't relate to the advanced stuff as long as what I state is based on something understandable and basis.
omg what I assumed here is age number around old age or above middle age, not assumed the age of development. You really misunderstood it by intent or training to intend?

It's not basic stuff. Go and see for yourself by reading the original source.

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...i-type-dynamics/lifelong-type-development.htm

Look at this basis. What it has that is opposite my meaning? What I stated were not something advanced stuff or theory, it's just basis from Jung. You just didn't understand the basis so you seek for the clarity and the "advanced", that's it.

I see where you're getting your information from. It's way simplified, and I disagree with it. Runs counter to my own experience. In my opinion the functions are all pretty much set as soon as the brain stops growing, which is around age 22. After that, we either think and behave in accordance with our type or we don't. What changes is life experience. We understand what gives us satisfaction and what makes us suffer. With that understanding, we act more in line with our type and in doing so, derive greater well-being. When we're happy, we become more open to the world. Then it may be possible that the lower functions manifest in a more positive, less neurotic way. This isn't as easy as you make it out to be. But then again, you're ESFP so maybe you don't give a sh*t and just want the basic stuff and don't care about learning everything you can about this.

I don't think it's possible for anyone to fully develop all of their functions. Even given 70 years. My father (70) is still an ISTJ to his core. His inferior Ne is just as nefarious now as it's always been, but he's getting his needs met because he's using his top two functions regularly as a physician, so mentally, he's a pretty healthy, happy guy. My mother is an ISFP (72) who has not lived her life in line with her type. Her inferior Te has caught her in its pincers, resulting in a kind of inability to move on with her life because she recoils from this idea that she has a "responsibility" to be more productive and change her life. That's inferior Te in action.

I believe it is possible to function "authentically" by using mostly the top two functions and in doing so, to enjoy greater fulfilment and become more at peace with oneself. That's why I'm learning how this whole damn thing works.

 

[Black Rose]

development means growth
any function can grow but one function grows faster than the others
early in life the growth rate is more even but one dominates in the end
exclusively growth rate does not need to be a fixed proportion(some INTP's grow Fe faster than other INTP's)
this gives them more adaptation skills(Fe tasks are less stressful) and they don't become neurotic

 

[8151147]

No rationale. But it would explain why we're not seeing eye-to-eye about this.

Dude, you're an ESFP in an INTP forum. INTPs want to know how stuff works. You have a limited understanding of typology. Reading a few websites is not enough for you to become a typology expert, to assert that you know what you're talking about, and that you know how everything develops for all types. If you're not interested in further investigation, fine, but don't tell people they're "confused" and have "misunderstandings" when you yourself are relatively clueless.

I don't give a single shit about your type man, doesn't matter you are S, N, T or F. Your bullshit is that you claim because you are INTP and someone is not same type as you so they have a limited understanding of typology, while INTPs want to know how stuff work so you have better understanding than them, hence you conclude your opinion is more value or better than them(??). It's so fucking irrelevant in this argument.

I said that the Dom does not always develop first, and I stand by that statement. The conversation was about behavior, and many very young INTP children do not always act in a way that seems congruent with their dominant function. Here's a website that describes in more detail the MBTI page you referenced. From age 0-6 years, children are apparently "trying on a bunch of different hats." That's exactly the time period that I remember engaging in those behaviors I mentioned in an earlier post.(Type Development) I don't exactly know why I did those things. I suggested a theory about Si. You disagree. That's fine. But don't tell me I'm confused.

I've read most popular sites we can google on internet, included the site you gave, what make you coming up so fast that I've not read it yet? And the bold: it's against the order of four functions.

I summarized our opposite opinions here:
- You states lower functions can develop before the Dom, for example Ter or Infer before Dom.
- This is so wrong from what I read about cognitive functions, very literally basis. This is simply what we argue at the first place.

Here are my supports for it.

Together the dominant and auxiliary describe about 90% of us. By age ~20, both of these functions are normally well developed.
Thus if you know someone's dominant and auxiliary function you can predict many things about their behavior and their preferences.
This is the key to understanding people who are different than us.
The 3rd and 4th function develop later in life and tend to represent areas where we are challenged. Areas where you might be weak or troubled can be predicted by knowing your 3rd and 4th function.

http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/Cognitive-Functions/

From 12 - 20 years
The auxiliary function asserts itself as a powerful support to the dominant function.
[...]
From 20 - 35 years
We begin to use our tertiary function more frequently and with better success.

http://www.personalitypage.com/development.html

• Our Dominant in our early years, six to twelve years of age
• Our Auxiliary in our teen years, thirteen to twenty
• Our Tertiary, opposite of the Auxiliary in our twenties and early thirties
• Our Inferior (opposite of our Dominant) in our late thirties through our fifties.

http://www.bestfittype.com/Models/FunctionsOfType.cfm

I had point out your misconception that you think lower function can develop before the higher. No. Lower functions only being focused and developed after the the next higher is fully/well/meet the standard developed first. How Ter dare to develop before the Aux when the Aux not strong enough to support the Dom? And the age of development generally can be visualized through biology. Relatively, Dom is well developed in childhood, Aux when teenage or adolescent, Ter when mid age and Infer in late life.

When we talking about "develop" here, it mean the tendency we use our functions, we use it strongly, frequently, naturally so it is developed. Thus state lower functions develop before(that's mean it also stronger) higher functions is incorrect, or a misconception.

It's not basic stuff. Go and see for yourself by reading the original source.

I see where you're getting your information from. It's way simplified, and I disagree with it. Runs counter to my own experience. In my opinion the functions are all pretty much set as soon as the brain stops growing, which is around age 22. After that, we either think and behave in accordance with our type or we don't. What changes is life experience. We understand what gives us satisfaction and what makes us suffer. With that understanding, we act more in line with our type and in doing so, derive greater well-being. When we're happy, we become more open to the world. Then it may be possible that the lower functions manifest in a more positive, less neurotic way. This isn't as easy as you make it out to be. But then again, you're ESFP so maybe you don't give a sh*t and just want the basic stuff and don't care about learning everything you can about this.

I don't think it's possible for anyone to fully develop all of their functions. Even given 70 years. My father (70) is still an ISTJ to his core. His inferior Ne is just as nefarious now as it's always been, but he's getting his needs met because he's using his top two functions regularly as a physician, so mentally, he's a pretty healthy, happy guy. My mother is an ISFP (72) who has not lived her life in line with her type. Her inferior Te has caught her in its pincers, resulting in a kind of inability to move on with her life because she recoils from this idea that she has a "responsibility" to be more productive and change her life. That's inferior Te in action.

I believe it is possible to function "authentically" by using mostly the top two functions and in doing so, to enjoy greater fulfilment and become more at peace with oneself. That's why I'm learning how this whole damn thing works.

The second problem, is the supports. I've expected the advanced book, or the "original source" you said, but you didn't quote it. I've actually admitted that most source I read is basic and popular sites which can easily found everywhere on internet. It's because it's too basic and is basis, I didn't bother quote. So I'm ready to see what "advanced" or original stuff you claiming but you didn't do it. If you've read something more correct just put the important parts support your opinions here. What kind of reasoning telling other go read book but can't simply put the summary here so other can understand it? All your supports are just your personal story or your relative people's story.

I really didn't expect this have gone so far like this. Although I can understand your meaning, my bad grammar may confused you so you didn't get my point at the first place. But seriously this is too basic. What I need to clarify my point is done, the further is just repeating it, if you still don't get it then the continuous argument is just pointless.

 

[Brontosaurie]

jung isn't the ultima of typology. he just started the cf framework. personally i find that description of Ne rather shallow and uncritical. what are "objectively real possibilities"? aren't many Ne users plagued by a maddening inability to put their ideas to real fruition, due to people's unwillingness to have their mental rut questioned? (i know commercials in my country today have the same silly jargon as i did and was perceived goofy for as a 10 yo kid for example, is that murky and sordid or is it real? maybe even both, who knows?) and since when are people's "conscious intentions" the chief medium of Ne, the challenger archetype?

he's just describing a certain narrow charicature of the succesful entrepreneur in that passage. a product of his time. sometimes jung just likes his own literary voice when he plods along his work day. it's Ni unhinged i suppose just wants to describe what he sees, but people take it as gospel. one must crtically observe the distinctions and dichotomies he establishes.

Ne can produce compulsions in a dominant position too. they may be described as an inferior Si thing, a mal-function of habit just as well as a mal-function of possibility-scanning. it's a loop that way. but INFJ get compulsions, ENTJ too. all of which may be described in the loose terms jung offers for inferior Ne. so what does it really say? he demands a great deal of charity from the reader for his analysis to make sense. once you get the picture there's no need to refer back to jung.

 

[Inquisitor]

I don't give a single shit about your type man, doesn't matter you are S, N, T or F. Your bullshit is that you claim because you are INTP and someone is not same type as you so they have a limited understanding of typology, while INTPs want to know how stuff work so you have better understanding than them, hence you conclude your opinion is more value or better than them(??). It's so fucking irrelevant in this argument.

If you are ESFP, you will approach typology in a different way. We have a different approach to life, a different dominant. I never made any of those judgments either in writing or thinking. You're getting angry for no reason.

I am curious as to why you are on an INTP forum...Are you trying to learn more about how INTPs think and act? There are ESFP forums online after all. Are they not good enough? I'm just curious, not trying to be an asshole to you. You're free to do whatever you want. In my opinion though, it just seems like there is a big disconnect between the way we think. This whole argument started because you told me I was "confused." Do you understand how that can be a very condescending thing to say to someone? You told someone else, a newcomer, they were lying. You speak as if you have all the answers and are an authoritative source, yet you have done very little reading on the topic. For you it seems like what you read is ironclad, and you're not even interested in investigating it to see if it's valid. You need to learn how to be a little more moderate, "I disagree," "I don't think..." "In my opinion," etc. You took everything I said as an ad hominem attack instead of using it as an opportunity to deepen your own understanding. I don't think I would have had such a long argument with another INTP. I find talking with you is very hard, very abrasive, very disagreeable. You're so unwilling to modify/change your views.

I summarized our opposite opinions here:
- You states lower functions can develop before the Dom, for example Ter or Infer before Dom.

I made clear that "develop" = "appear in behavior." I also said this was my opinion. I am not confused about how MBTI works. I knew about the MBTI order of development before you told me. Incidentally, my opinion seems to actually be validated by MBTI ("trying out many hats" from 0-6 years) Contrary to what you might believe, development of type is not 100% set in stone. I think that's a very uncomfortable idea for you. Actually, according to Jung, he basically says that if things get too theoretical/abstract, ESFP will not feel comfortable with that.

continuous argument is just pointless.

You're right about that.

 

[Jennywocky]

Ti, Te, Si, Se, Fi, Fe, Ni, Ne. Really it's that N is a lack of ability to process S, and T is a lack of ability to process F. And the orient inwards or outwards...

Ah, nifty... I need to think about that one for awhile...

Still, it would mean that these streams are paired up.. or maybe not a pair if the pairs are just opposite ends of the same continuum, and "development" means you're capable to shifting the slider one or another regardless of where your "natural" slider happens to originate at and drift back towards without effort. [Specifically, it's not S or N, it's "Perception" where the endpoints are S and N and you happen to have a natural default in there somewhere.]

Think about it, I was watching a Google IO developer conference talk about Udacity yesterday. It was enjoyable, I was learning and taking in information about a subject I don't directly work in (Ne) and processing it (Ti). During the Q&A, various women came up and got all emotional at the microphone about how it changed their life, blah blah (Fe). I immediately recoiled from that - instinctually I turned the volume down and turned away from the computer (to another one), hoping it would Just Stop. Obviously I have a low tolerance for Fe data.

Kind of laughing at that picture.

I usually have to shift gears and can manage to momentarily listen to those things, but I'm usually thinking, "Okay, can we move ahead now?" after a bit of it. i.e., I guess I've learned to see what they're seeing and tolerate it, just not for long periods of time.

 

[8151147]

^
Have ever heard of fallacies?

Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):

attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
In a argument, the object need to be analyzed is the opinions themselves, not the man who gave that opinion. Judging based on the opinion itself and supports for it like reasoning, evidences and the most important one is the ability to sense the purpose of the argument, regardless of disputant's gender, social status, personalities, MBTI types...

I made clear that "develop" = "appear in behavior." I also said this was my opinion. I am not confused about how MBTI works. I knew about the MBTI order of development before you told me.

According to english dictionary:

1. to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state: to develop natural resources; to develop one's musical talent.

2. to cause to grow or expand: to develop one's muscles.


3. to elaborate or expand in detail: to develop a theory.


4. to bring into being or activity; generate; evolve.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/develop

We can see the MBTI source I've used as my opinion's supports above use that "develop" meaning, as it's similar the most to that meaning. I can't see any relevant of your definition that "develop" = "appear in behavior" to the definition above. You've stated higher functions not always develop first. And now your rectification is that your "develop" meaning is different with the "develop" which those MBTI sites used. So it's your fault that use personal/specific "meaning" and caused confusing at the first place right? And sorry I really didn't notice any phrases that you explain your specific meaning in your opinion.

Even when I think about your definition I still consider it bullshit.

 

[Brontosaurie]

If you are ESFP, you will approach typology in a different way. We have a different approach to life, a different dominant. I never made any of those judgments either in writing or thinking. You're getting angry for no reason.

I am curious as to why you are on an INTP forum...Are you trying to learn more about how INTPs think and act? There are ESFP forums online after all. Are they not good enough? I'm just curious, not trying to be an asshole to you. You're free to do whatever you want. In my opinion though, it just seems like there is a big disconnect between the way we think. This whole argument started because you told me I was "confused." Do you understand how that can be a very condescending thing to say to someone? You told someone else, a newcomer, they were lying. You speak as if you have all the answers and are an authoritative source, yet you have done very little reading on the topic. For you it seems like what you read is ironclad, and you're not even interested in investigating it to see if it's valid. You need to learn how to be a little more moderate, "I disagree," "I don't think..." "In my opinion," etc. You took everything I said as an ad hominem attack instead of using it as an opportunity to deepen your own understanding. I don't think I would have had such a long argument with another INTP. I find talking with you is very hard, very abrasive, very disagreeable. You're so unwilling to modify/change your views.



I made clear that "develop" = "appear in behavior." I also said this was my opinion. I am not confused about how MBTI works. I knew about the MBTI order of development before you told me. Incidentally, my opinion seems to actually be validated by MBTI ("trying out many hats" from 0-6 years) Contrary to what you might believe, development of type is not 100% set in stone. I think that's a very uncomfortable idea for you. Actually, according to Jung, he basically says that if things get too theoretical/abstract, ESFP will not feel comfortable with that.



You're right about that.

you're treating him/her as some kid just because of the odd english...?

i see 8151147 being the most Ti here. both of you are referring to books and stuff but 815117 is also insisting on a simple, clear, axiomatic understanding of key concepts. that's not the same as being "uncomfortable with theory" or whatever, it's just a no-bullshit attitude and lax treatment of data. and you're the one complaining about tone which is a move foreign to Ti in heated debate action. rather Ti would be pleased throwing around some curses, fashioning itself to be light-hearted, direct and honest about the state of fervent theoretical disagreement, avoiding manipulative flattery or rhetoric detours and being quite oblivious to the actual emotional effects of these evil words and belligerence.

strange how you mention that your opponent should read up on drenth (who's a lousy theorist and a complete charlatan btw) and then you directly oppose the views put forth by 8151147, in agreement with drenth.

 

[Inquisitor]

jung isn't the ultima of typology. he just started the cf framework.

Who's the Optimus Prime of typology then? Please tell me so I can go read that person's stuff...not being sarcastic at all here. I really do want to know.

personally i find that description of Ne rather shallow and uncritical. what are "objectively real possibilities"? aren't many Ne users plagued by a maddening inability to put their ideas to real fruition, due to people's unwillingness to have their mental rut questioned? (i know commercials in my country today have the same silly jargon as i did and was perceived goofy for as a 10 yo kid for example, is that murky and sordid or is it real? maybe even both, who knows?) and since when are people's "conscious intentions" the chief medium of Ne, the challenger archetype?

I'm reading Psychological Types right now. Your interpretation is not what I'm getting when I read about the Extraverted Intuitive Type on page 368. According to him, they have no problem starting lots of projects, but they have real trouble finishing them. The "objectively real possibilities" means they excel at coming up with solutions to external problems (like how to creatively problem-solve a business problem) as opposed to more internal problems. At least that's my take. Not familiar with the bold part. Jung mentions several archetypes but Ne is not one of them.

he's just describing a certain narrow charicature of the succesful entrepreneur in that passage. a product of his time. sometimes jung just likes his own literary voice when he plods along his work day. it's Ni unhinged i suppose just wants to describe what he sees, but people take it as gospel. one must crtically observe the distinctions and dichotomies he establishes.

The bold part is true. It's inevitable to some extent. But the essence is what counts. I don't know where Ni comes into the picture. Jung was an INTP. I'm not against critiquing Jung's ideas, but I'm not an expert by any stretch on his work. I don't think anyone should pass judgment on him until they finish reading everything he wrote and have an idea of how it all fits together. The Collected Works is massive. I just managed to find the whole thing in a digital file. It's going to take me years to read through it all.

Ne can produce compulsions in a dominant position too. they may be described as an inferior Si thing, a mal-function of habit just as well as a mal-function of possibility-scanning. it's a loop that way. but INFJ get compulsions, ENTJ too. all of which may be described in the loose terms jung offers for inferior Ne. so what does it really say? he demands a great deal of charity from the reader for his analysis to make sense. once you get the picture there's no need to refer back to jung.

Yes lots of types can be said to get "compulsions," but not all. Therefore the presence of a compulsion is a useful clue in the overall diagnosis.

you're treating him/her as some kid just because of the odd english...?

i see 8151147 being the most Ti here. both of you are referring to books and stuff but 815117 is also insisting on a simple, clear, axiomatic understanding of key concepts. that's not the same as being "uncomfortable with theory" or whatever, it's just a no-bullshit attitude and lax treatment of data. and you're the one complaining about tone which is a move foreign to Ti in heated debate action. rather Ti would be pleased throwing around some curses, fashioning itself to be light-hearted, direct and honest about the state of fervent theoretical disagreement, avoiding manipulative flattery or rhetoric detours and being quite oblivious to the actual emotional effects of these evil words and belligerence.

strange how you mention that your opponent should read up on drenth (who's a lousy theorist and a complete charlatan btw) and then you directly oppose the views put forth by 8151147, in agreement with drenth.

I would advise you to stay out of this. You're only seeing a small part of our argument on this thread. This has been going on for far too long now...I criticized his manner of speaking. I never criticized his English fluency. Please. I teach ESL for a living remember?

I'd like to see you write a better book about typology...I'll bet everything I own and will ever earn in my life that if you tried to write a typology book now, it would be pure drivel next to him. "Lousy theorist and a complete charlatan" my ass. The guy's brilliant. And he's spent decades pondering this stuff. Drenth has made a valuable contribution to the study of typology. Maybe not formally, but I've certainly derived massive value from reading his stuff. All of it. Cover-to-cover.

 

[Inquisitor]

^
Have ever heard of fallacies?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
In a argument, the object need to be analyzed is the opinions themselves, not the man who gave that opinion. Judging based on the opinion itself and supports for it like reasoning, evidences and the most important one is the ability to sense the purpose of the argument, regardless of disputant's gender, social status, personalities, MBTI types...

Since the start, you've basically just been implying that I'm an idiot who doesn't understand what he's talking about, and you've taken it upon yourself to talk down to me and "educate" me. Considering your own relative lack of experience/knowledge of this domain, I take issue with the way you speak to me and to others. Instead of just saying you disagree with me and being done with it, you insist on trying to prove that I'm in the wrong.

According to english dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/develop

We can see the MBTI source I've used as my opinion's supports above use that "develop" meaning, as it's similar the most to that meaning. I can't see any relevant of your definition that "develop" = "appear in behavior" to the definition above. You've stated higher functions not always develop first. And now your rectification is that your "develop" meaning is different with the "develop" which those MBTI sites used. So it's your fault that use personal/specific "meaning" and caused confusing at the first place right? And sorry I really didn't notice any phrases that you explain your specific meaning in your opinion.

Already explained myself in the other thread. If you don't understand, not my fault. Never said any of the lower functions develop more strongly than the dom, just that they might appear in manifested behavior earlier, and that when that happens, it would be temporary.

Even when I think about your definition I still consider it bullshit.

Why didn't you just say that to begin with? I never would have fought you on that. Saying "I consider X to be bullshit" is a much more moderate and agreeable statement than "You're confused, and you don't understand the basis of typology." The former is an opinion, the latter is pure, unjustified arrogance.

Here's what Jung thinks about Se:

Spoiler

The Extraverted Sensation Type
No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. His life is an accumulation of actual experiences of concrete objects, and the more pronounced his type, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain cases the events in his life hardly deserve the name "experience" at all. What he experiences serves at most as a guide to fresh sensations; anything new that comes within his range of interest is acquired by way of sensation and has to serve its ends. Since one is inclined to regard a highly developed reality-sense as a sign of rationality, such people will be esteemed as very rational. But in actual fact this is not the case, since they are just as much at the mercy of their sensations in the face of irrational, chance happenings as they are in the face of rational ones. This type¬the majority appear to be men-naturally does not think he is at the "mercy" of sensation. He would ridicule this view as quite beside the point, because sensation for him is a concrete expression of life-it is simply real life lived to the full. His whole aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is oriented accordingly. Indeed, true enjoyment has its own special morality, its own moderation and lawfulness, its own unselfishness and willingness to make sacrifices. It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of aesthetic purity without ever deviating from his principle of concrete sensation however abstract his sensations may be. Wul£en's Der Genussmensch: ein Cicerone im rucksichtslosen Lebensgenuss3 is the unvarnished confession of a type of this sort, and the book seems to me worth reading on that account alone.
On the lower levels, this type is the lover of tangible reality, with little inclination for reflection and no desire to dominate. To feel the object, to have sensations and if possible enjoy them-that is his constant aim. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, his lively capacity for enjoyment makes him very good company; he is usually a jolly fellow, and sometimes a refined aesthete. In the former case the great problems of life hang on a good or indifferent dinner; in the latter, it's all a question of good taste. Once an object has given him a sensation, nothing more remains to be said or done about it. It cannot be anything except concrete and real; conjectures that go beyond the concrete are admitted only on condition that they enhance sensation. The intensification does not necessarily have to be pleasurable, for this type need not be a common voluptuary; he is merely desirous of the strongest sensations, and these, by his very nature, he can receive only from outside. What comes from inside seems to him morbid and suspect. He always reduces his thoughts and feelings to objective causes, to influences emanating from objects, quite unperturbed by the most glaring violations of logic. Once he can get back to tangible reality in any form he can breathe again. In this respect he is surprisingly credulous. He will unhesitatingly connect a psychogenic symptom with a drop in the barometer, while on the other hand the existence of a psychic conflict seems to him morbid imagination. His love is unquestionably rooted in the physical attractions of its object. If normal, he is conspicuously well adjusted to reality. That is his ideal, and it even makes him considerate of others. As he has no ideals connected with ideas, he has no reason to act in any way contrary to the reality of things as they are. This manifests itself in all the externals of his life .. He dresses well, as befits the occasion; he keeps a good table with plenty of drink for his friends, making them feel very grand, or at least giving them to understand that his refined taste entitles hIm to make a few demands of them. He may even convince them that certain sacrifices are decidedly worth while for the sake of style.
The more sensation predominates, however, so that the subject disappears behind the sensation, the less agreeable does this type become. He develops into a crude pleasure-seeker, or else degenerates into an unscrupulous, effete aesthete. Although the object has become quite indispensable to him, yet, as something existing in its own right, it is none the less devalued. It is ruthlessly exploited and squeezed dry, since now its sole use is to stimulate sensation. The bondage to the object is carried to the extreme limit. In consequence, the unconscious is forced out of its compensatory role into open opposition. Above all, the repressed intuitions begin to assert themselves in the form of projections. The wildest suspicions arise; if the object is a sexual one, jealous fantasies and anxiety states gain the upper hand. More acute cases develop every sort of phobia, and, in particular, compulsion symptoms. The pathological contents have a markedly unreal character, with a frequent moral or religious streak. A pettifogging captiousness follows, or a grotesquely punctilious morality combined with primitive, "magical" superstitions that fall back on abstruse rites. All these things have their source in the repressed inferior functions which have been driven into harsh opposition to the conscious attitude, and they appear in a guise that is all the more striking because they rest on the most absurd assumptions, in complete contrast to the conscious sense of reality The whole structure of thought and feeling seems, in this second personality, to be twisted into a pathological parody; reason turns into hair-splitting pedantry, morality into dreary moralizing and blatant Pharisaism, religion into ridiculous superstition, and intuition, the noblest gift of man, into meddlesome officiousness, poking into every corner; instead of gazing into the far distance, it descends to the lowest level of human meanness.
The specifically compulsive character of the neurotic symptoms is the unconscious counterpart of the easy-going attitude of the pure sensation type, who, from the standpoint of rational judgment, accepts indiscriminately everything that happens. Although this does not by any means imply an absolute lawlessness and lack of restraint, it nevertheless deprives ~im of the essential restraining power of judgment. But rational judgment is a conscious coercion which the rational type appears to impose on himself of his own free will. This coercion overtakes the sensation type from the unconscious, in the form of compulsion. Moreover, the very existence of a judgment means that the rational type's relation to the object will never become an absolute tie, as it is in the case of the sensa¬tion type. When his attitude attains an abnormal degree of one-sidedness, therefore, he is in danger of being overpowered by the unconscious in the same measure as he is consciously in the grip of the object. If he should become neurotic, it is much harder to treat him by rational means because the functions which the analyst must turn to are in a relatively undifferentiated state, and little or no reliance can be placed on them. Special techniques for bringing emotional pressure to bear are often needed in order to make him at all conscious.

Just from our conversation, I believe you have typed yourself accurately as an ESFP. The underlined parts are what struck me from our discussion.

Jung also says about why introverts and extroverts sometimes don't get along:

Spoiler

Sad though it is, the two types are inclined to speak very
badly of one another. This fact will immediately strike anyone who investigates the problem. And the reason is that the psychic values have a diametrically opposite localization for the two types. The introvert sees everything that is in any way valuable for him in the subject; the extravert sees it in the object. This dependence on the object seems to the introvert a mark of the greatest inferiority, while to the extravert the preoccupation with the subject seems nothing but infantile autoeroticism. So it is not surprising that the two types often come into conflict.

 

[Inquisitor]

development means growth
any function can grow but one function grows faster than the others
early in life the growth rate is more even but one dominates in the end
exclusively growth rate does not need to be a fixed proportion(some INTP's grow Fe faster than other INTP's)
this gives them more adaptation skills(Fe tasks are less stressful) and they don't become neurotic

Well put.

 

[Architect]

Still, it would mean that these streams are paired up.. or maybe not a pair if the pairs are just opposite ends of the same continuum, and "development" means you're capable to shifting the slider one or another regardless of where your "natural" slider happens to originate at and drift back towards without effort.

Yes, partially. Again we need Type and Personality. I believe Type is just the cortex processing information in a balanced way. The balance comes from having opposition, such as dominant against inferior. At root, we all recoil from Fe, while craving it.

Type development then really means Personality development. We figure out behaviors to align with our Type. I can act like all sorts of types, and if not careful can fool myself too, but the cortex is too stupid to be fooled. Since behavior is mostly from the neocortex, 'going between functions' is engaging learned behaviors that mimic functions.

Really we need two terms, Functions and ur-Functions perhaps.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think most people make Type more complicated than it is, so 'no' to answer your question. The confusion comes from the fact that our neocortex personality actually is more complicated, and yes can 'route the other functions to the dominant' - whatever that may mean, in the Personality. But I don't believe that canonical Type is like that at all. I think that at root, Type is just different 'information channels' in the cortex - that is all. On top of that our neocortex builds in more complication, but it's not Type at that point but Personality.

Hmmm I see. Answered my question, thanks ^^

Think about it, I was watching a Google IO developer conference talk about Udacity yesterday. It was enjoyable, I was learning and taking in information about a subject I don't directly work in (Ne) and processing it (Ti). During the Q&A, various women came up and got all emotional at the microphone about how it changed their life, blah blah (Fe). I immediately recoiled from that - instinctually I turned the volume down and turned away from the computer (to another one), hoping it would Just Stop.

Obviously I have a low tolerance for Fe data.

Haha, for me I usually try to imagine why that person is acting like that and just sort of smile, I mean what's so bad about what they're feeling? People could be like that. I do get a little uneasy sometimes if it's too much though, so I get what you're saying.

Spoiler

I think that Type is based in the cortex (the pre-mammalian brain), and so is hardwired. Only the neocortex which was invented with the mammals can learn. Lizards and such can only act on instinct, individuals are incapable of learning, which any mammal can. This hypothesis comes from the fact that everybody agrees that Type doesn't change.

So, if it's in the cortex, it's likely to be low level. While the cortex is involved in some cognitive thinking, it can't be that intelligent as no non-mammal displays anything we'd call intelligent. Therefore Functions aren't cognitive capabilities (which occurs in the neocortex), but something else. I made an intuitive leap here from observing that functions are actually low level things. Take Se.

S - oriented toward sensations and e, oriented outwards. So my hypothesis is that Se is an information stream (the cortex mostly processes data from the world I believe). We can deduce that a person with a high ability to process external sensory data would be Se. A person with a low degree of this ability (e.g. an INTP) is a low Se.

Fe - an affinity for processing interactions with others. Fi, an affinity for processing self feelings. This shows that the preferences simply have an orientation, outward or inward.

Ti, Te, Si, Se, Fi, Fe, Ni, Ne. Really it's that N is a lack of ability to process S, and T is a lack of ability to process F. And the orient inwards or outwards.

Hmm maybe it's more like it's an evolutionary thing? What I mean is that I don't think N is the lack of ability to process S, but it's more like the ability to intuitively process what will come about; well, basically what it itself means, by intuition. Maybe it's the calculus of sensory experience that allows intuition, N, to happen(?). We need a bunch of sensory data to develop a sense of intuition, right? hm..

So it would be the same for T in juxtaposed to F. T would be sort of a calculus of 'feeling' experiences maybe? But then again mechanical, metaphysical and logical systems would be left out of that system... uhh..

Spoiler

Best compliment I've ever been paid, thank you. To fill out the theory here's the rest

Primary Information Streams

• Sensation - physical sensory data, sight, sound, taste, etc. A Sensor is then somebody with a high tolerance for this kind of information.
• Feeling - originates as hormonal response to sensory data. A Feeler is someone with a high tolerance for this kind of information.

Thus Feeling is already a higher order processing from Sensory data, as it's probably an instinctual response to the world. From evolutionary standpoint first there was Sensory data, then evolved Feeling responses to the data (e.g. a sense that something is watching you). Feeling is thus probably the second form of intelligence, but I group it as a sibling to Sensory as a primary information stream as that seems to be how it evolved. That leaves the opposites of Sensory and Feeling

Oppositional Information Streams

• Intuition Literally the opposite of Sensation. The mind craves information, so if a person has a low tolerance for Sensory data, the mind seeks it elsewhere, i.e. the unconscious, thus an Intuitive.
• Thinking The opposite of Feeling. A person with a low tolerance for Feeling information finds it elsewhere, that is cognition and causal thinking.

Orientation and Affinity

• Extroversion/Introversion These information streams (S/N, F/T) must have an orientation, either outwards or inwards (E or I)
• Judging/Perceiving These information streams appear to have Affinities, either ordered (judging) or unordered (perceiving).

Thus, a Ti dominant is a person with a low ability to process Feeling data. The brain therefore pulls from cognition, and is oriented inwards. This process (by it's nature perhaps) prefers organized information. So a Ti dominant creates hierarchical data structures and theories, and an older individual will have a neocortex that has behaviors that reflect this. This Ti will then be a "Ti user", but of the Ti behaviors developed in the neocortex, not the Ti Function which is probably hardwired into the cortex.*

I really like this stuff. I'm gonna go out on a limb and theorize a bit:

Maybe S, N, F, T aren't just merely different ways to interpreting the world but actually a result of a evolutionary order of things(?). You can't have intuition without sensory data (to create the sense of intuition), and you can't have feeling without institution (feeling is a result of intuition most of the time).

So basically S creates N, while N creates F. Without F, you wouldn't have T either (a calculus understanding of what F can lead to can develop ones T, feelings lead to a certain action so T will develop, in readiness for it). But sometimes we forgo F and go straight to T, meaing:

S -> N -> T. But in normal cases we'd have
S -> N -> F -> T. Or we can simply end at feeling, which makes it
S -> N -> F.

So basically N is an evolution of S, while F is an evolution of N. T would be an evolution on F.

My approach is more of a linear understanding of the functions while the one you're espousing is a more confrontational model (S/F in confrontation with N/T)

Am I making things too complicated again?

 

[Architect]

What I mean is that I don't think N is the lack of ability to process S, but it's more like the ability to intuitively process what will come about

That implies that S does not process what will come about which isn't the case. A fundamental early development of evolution is linear extrapolation. Example, a baseball is flying towards you, instantly you extrapolate it's trajectory. Is this N or S? If N, then why do high S users make such good ball athletes? Clearly then S can process what comes about.

I prefer defining S as being about what is and N is about what is not. This jives with those that define S as a preference for the concrete, and N for abstraction. Further, Jung defines Typology as a theory of opposition, so whatever S is, N has to be the opposite.

So basically N is an evolution of S, while F is an evolution of N. T would be an evolution on F.

If you like. You can define N as a deficiency of S, or as a higher evolution of S, depending on how generous your feeling. All of those have connotations I don't want to add, at this point I say these things just exist.

 

[Polaris]

The moderation team strongly discourages the use of typology ad hominems as they contribute nothing to the discussion topic. A member's hypothetical or true type should not be used as basis for invalidating that member's argument.

If anyone wishes to be typed or would like to challenge someone to opt in to be typed - please use the Official Witch-Hunt Thread: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=17153

 

[Inquisitor]

The moderation team strongly discourages the use of typology ad hominems as they contribute nothing to the discussion topic. A member's hypothetical or true type should not be used as basis for invalidating that member's argument.

If anyone wishes to be typed or would like to challenge someone to opt in to be typed - please use the Official Witch-Hunt Thread: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=17153

Understood. Language difference resulted in several misunderstandings on this one. I never made any ad hominem attacks based on typology if you look at the thread nor would I ever do that. I raised the issue of type difference to illustrate differences in how two people might approach/discuss the same topic. There was no ill intent.

 

[ENTP lurker]

I think that Ne seeks Si and Ti seeks Fe.

If we look at Ne and Ti it tries to build framework of understanding of the universe while Fe and Si seeks to bring pleasurable living conditions. If we look at it this way they certainly complement each other. It is pretty cosmic to think about it. It is rather appreciation than being a slave towards it. We are rather slaves to our top two functions where their complementary functions gives the meaning and freedom.

 

[Spirit]

I think that Ne seeks Si and Ti seeks Fe.

If we look at Ne and Ti it tries to build framework of understanding of the universe while Fe and Si seeks to bring pleasurable living conditions. If we look at it this way they certainly complement each other. It is pretty cosmic to think about it. It is rather appreciation than being a slave towards it. We are rather slaves to our top two functions where their complementary functions gives the meaning and freedom.

If your model is correct how does an enfp exist?

 

[Inquisitor]

I think that Ne seeks Si and Ti seeks Fe.

If we look at Ne and Ti it tries to build framework of understanding of the universe while Fe and Si seeks to bring pleasurable living conditions. If we look at it this way they certainly complement each other. It is pretty cosmic to think about it. It is rather appreciation than being a slave towards it. We are rather slaves to our top two functions where their complementary functions gives the meaning and freedom.

I think you're right about the bolded part. However, most typology books I've read have taken pretty negative views of the inferior, calling it either "trickster," "troublemaker," "deceiver," and the like. It's the source of much psychological conflict and therefore also much suffering if we're unaware of how it operates. At its best, it motivates us to help humanity in general and as long as we're using our top two functions, that's all fine and good. At its worst, it leads us down paths that ultimately make us suffer. The tertiary has been described as "opportunistic" by Lenore Thomson. When we're thriving it's mostly benign, sometimes helpful. When we're miserable, it will find ways to drag us down even further by reminding us of all our past shortcomings/miseries/mistakes. At least for INTPs, I bet that's the case for most.