The process of functions in reasoning.

[QuickTwist]

Do you (all) think the functions (primary or shadow or both) all contribute to the reasoning process? I am wondering if by definition the functions are in a way cyclical and how one goes about their behavior must first go though the paces of the strongest "felt" functions down to the very least of the functions and back again. Do you think the functions are cyclical in nature?

 

[Words]

I think it's dependent on the person and the history of the person's usage of their functions. You have INTPs who are more familiar with Ne and INTPs who are more familiar with Si. It also relates to and is dependent on the environment. An INTP placed in an Fe environment will be pressured to use more Fe. I'm not sure how that relates to "reasoning process." I don't think it's cyclical as different scenarios require different function usage.

I'm juggling with the idea that shadow functions can be brought about by the "mixing" of functions. Ti--(Te)--(Ni)---Ne--(Ni)---(Se)--Si. More Ti + Less Ne = Te or something like that.

 

[clockwork]

The 3rd & 4th function of MBTI function ordering are simply the shadow of the 1st and the 2nd.

Example of how the Fe shadow of Ti can be seen:
Ti can warn someone else for logical flaws he is about to make
Ti does this purely with the intent of getting rid of flawed logic. not because it wants to help
But it can look like the logical warning of Ti cares/helps/supports like the Fe function.

Thus a Ti-dom will leave traces of Fe in his act. It was never the intent to act Fe (help/support/care), but it looks like that. Thats the shadow effect!

To have dominating Ti, as in an INTP, the person MUST have repressed Fe. As Ti can only be stronger if Fe gets weaker. (This is Jung's definition, they guy who defined the functions you are talking about. You should know what you are talking about).

So Fe should have been defined in MBTI as the last function actually, like on position 8. Then it would have been more Jung-compatible.
But MBTI has just put the shadow of 1&2 in 3&4 because these functions can be observed (as a shadow effect, not with real intent) more than function 5-8. Thus they appear as they are the 3rd and 4th most common functions of that person. There is something to say about that ,as these functions 3&4 can really be observed more powerfully, so their deviation from Jung might have been beneficial in typing people, especially since most people have no clue about the shadow.
But in real Jung language: you do not have a 3rd and 4th function. They are just after-effects (shadow) of your real 1st and 2nd function intent.

The shadow is just something that "happens to a person" without the person ever having had the intent for it.

So INTPs, now you know why others confuse your Ti-warnings for Fe-help: Because the outsider has no simple way of telling what the intent was, both Fe and Ti look pretty similar in a person's outer act. It is only the actor itself that knows the original intent (Fe or Ti), while this intent is a black box (unknowable) for the observer .

 

[clockwork]

The shadow for Ne = Si. I will also explain this.

Lets say you save this page to your favorites/bookmarks because of your Ne intent:

Ne does that because it sees possibilities in what is said here, you might be able to do something with this IN THE FUTURE.

It can look like Si:
Si could save the page, because it was such a nice page, to be able to remember this experience which was IN THE PAST.


Ne's can save junk in their home, because of supposed future projects with the junk
Si's can save junk in their home, because of remembering/repeating that nice past experience related to the junk.

Same thing again: behavior of both opposite functions look the same for an outer observer.

 

[clockwork]

About functions being cyclical in nature, functions are just points in a spectrum of all human intent, which is cyclical in multiple dimensions. Functions are points of reference for the spectrum of human intent like the equator and the poles are points of reference for the earth. The fixed points of reference are neccessary for GPS. But the earth is still round.

 

[ElvenVeil]

Do you (all) think the functions (primary or shadow or both) all contribute to the reasoning process? I am wondering if by definition the functions are in a way cyclical and how one goes about their behavior must first go though the paces of the strongest "felt" functions down to the very least of the functions and back again. Do you think the functions are cyclical in nature?

I think it is a very good question.. Also very difficult to answer.

I don't think people cycle through functions as I have never seen that. I think people would often stick to the use of 1 or 2 functions depending on the setting. Most often their first two functions.

After taking some more moments giving thought to your question, I think that people reason mostly, either through rational arguments or logic. The reason why I say it like this is that I have seen this question before that people wonder "what do people do when they aren't T people". I know many feelers who are perfectly capable of being rational and logical.

So to me everyone are able to use these methods, and I suspect that we have a bias being thinkers, when asking such a question. I think the bias lies in believing that rational thinking and logic are a subset of thinking functions. It might give a much clearer picture, if you turn it around so to speak, so that reasoning and logic are not something that belongs to thinking, but rather tools that thinkers very often apply in their interaction with the world around them. If we stick to this way of looking at things we at least attempt to open up for a more broad understanding, that allow other types to perfrom the same kind of mental exercises.

This at least will be my first answer to this question, but I will probably be spending time going over this question in my head and do more observations, until I feel satisfied with the answer

 

[BigApplePi]

Supportive functions in reasoning.

Do you (all) think the functions (primary or shadow or both) all contribute to the reasoning process? I am wondering if by definition the functions are in a way cyclical and how one goes about their behavior must first go though the paces of the strongest "felt" functions down to the very least of the functions and back again. Do you think the functions are cyclical in nature?

How about this?* Thinking is about putting things in order whether that's in the external or internal world.** One can work at getting the external world straight or internal theory straight. Logic and order ain't enough. Need data. Use intuition***** to scan broadly for data input. Use sensory data***** for specifics and to check whether the order is consistent. There has to be motives behind this. For Ti is desirable to get external approval*** else the Ti is for naught. For Te it's desirable to get one's own approval**** else fooling around with the outside ain't worth a damn.

*An Fe question. This message is a Ti/Fe duality.
**The entire paragraph is a Ti proposed theory.
***Fe. Note there is no Fi because those feelings are unconscious.
****Fi. Note there is no Fe because those feelings are unconscious.
*****This can be expanded further.

 

[Lindsay1]

I'm juggling with the idea that shadow functions can be brought about by the "mixing" of functions. Ti--(Te)--(Ni)---Ne--(Ni)---(Se)--Si. More Ti + Less Ne = Te or something like that.

I've often wondered about this too, especially in the context of why so many INTPs score high on Fi on cognitive function tests. Maybe it's a case of Ti--(Fi)--Fe? Is it that when INTPs use Fe, it's filtered through the Ti and as a result appears as more of an individualized this-is-what-I-believe-is-right response? Clockwork also has an interesting point, the current theory about the order of cognitive functions might not be right .

 

[clockwork]

when INTPs use Fe, it's filtered through the Ti

You are saying that you can use 2 opposite functions at the same time or in the same developed/mature person? But in Jungian theory thats not possible!
You can't use 2 opposite functions at the same time, because they void each other. (which in turn, although not possible to do such on demand, but lets say it would: then it would make your Ne pop out as first function if you are an INTP able to void your Ti with Fe)
You can only use one of the opposites to the detriment/repression of the other.
The more you use one side, the more you repress the other side.

But if you use one side, it looks as if you use the other side as well, as a shadow effect:
Seeing the act of Ti/Fe (or whatever opposite) is like seeing a trail in the sky, made by a plane that you can't see, either going from left to right (Fe), or right to left (Ti). The direction of the plane would be the unknown underlying intent of the signal in the sky. Only after longer/closer examination would you be able to see in which direction the line goes…. Same with typing a person

 

[clockwork]

Clockwork also has an interesting point, the current theory about the order of cognitive functions might not be right .

MBTI function ordering is ordered in the way you can see the functions in outer behavior. "As the shadow pops up in outer behavior", even though the actor never had any intent of these shadow signals popping up.

So MBTI is right from the observer point of view, but its not right way to describe the actor's intent if you consider how shadow functions work. Because for the actor the shadow functions do not exist (as an intent).

Translating MBTI outer behavior to inner intent of the actor is like this; The actor basically only has f1 & f2, which cause f3 & f4 "by mistake / as a shadow". And then f5 & f6 would be real functions, but more far in the background, and then f7 & f8 are shadows of f5 & f6.
(and as a side note; forget about f5-f8 because they are too hard to type anyway)

 

[Lindsay1]

I'm just playing with ideas here, I know this does not follow Jung' theory. Yes, he came up with the cognitive functions, but his is not the only theory out there. Heck, some people think that cognitive functions don't exist at all. I know I'm probably wrong, I'm just getting the ideas out.

 

[QuickTwist]

You (all) are very hard to understand. My theory supposed that each function must go through a sort of checklist in order for a behavior to occur.

 

[scorpiomover]

Do you (all) think the functions (primary or shadow or both) all contribute to the reasoning process? I am wondering if by definition the functions are in a way cyclical and how one goes about their behavior must first go though the paces of the strongest "felt" functions down to the very least of the functions and back again. Do you think the functions are cyclical in nature?

Yes. They kind of have to be. You can't really get a full idea just with Ti, except possibly by years of thinking. But as Words pointed out, that doesn't mean that everyone uses all the functions all that much. That's why Jung said that many people who have not developed their auxiliary function have a very primitive way of thinking. We need them all. Ideally, we should use them all a lot. But that doesn't mean everyone does.