This is a discussion on Using cognitive functions in an order that doesn't fit an MBTI type within the Cognitive Functions forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; Originally Posted by LiquidLight It's not that all personality tests are subjective. Big 5 for example has boatloads of scientific ...
@Intricate Mystic have you read Lenore's stuff?
You see, I agree mostly with the standard theories' definitions of the functions themselves, and the order of the top two, as well as the descriptions of what happens when you mix other functions together, but what I don't like is what many of these theories are saying about what order we use our functions in.
That might be true for the average person, but the second you introduce an abnormal person, with an abnormal history into the mix, you can light that shit on fire, throw it in the toilet, **** on it, flush it, go retrieve it from the sewer system, and make sure a rat doesn't try and read it in case they evolve and start spreading it as gospel.
I use Fi, Ne, Fe as my top three.
One easy way to understand this is because I am attempting to match my internal values with the outside world.
One commone way to misinterpret that statement is because you say that makes me Fe, where as, on the contrary, I don't plan on becoming one with the group, I plan on leading the group.
Essentially, if the world mirrors my inner world, Then Fi and Fe have the same values, except one is inner and one is outer.
Thank you @Intricate Mystic for thinking outside the box.
And someone saying it is a very Fi thing to do, I think is missing the point entirely.
Brilliant people make mistakes all the time.
There is a quote from Einstein or somebody that says something like "I've made 10,000 mistakes, learning through trial and error, and now they call me brilliant."
Certainly there is a general intelligence that helps, but as culture evolves, so do ideas.
And some theories can be shown to be more accurate than others in different situations.
And that is what I believe should be done when it comes to function ordering with abnormal people.
What you're doing is just applying an overly narrow definition to Fi, implying that Fi takes no notice of the outside world. Creating these overly narrow definitions of the "functions" -- whereas Jung used the term "function" to apply to feeling itself, not extraverted feeling or introverted feeling -- is what causes us to attach unnecessary overimportance to the "shadow functions," effectively destroying MBTI. If Fi had zero concern for anything outside of yourself, then you would be correct. And then MBTI would make no sense. But I think that is just a bad definition.Originally Posted by Souled In
If you say Fi is completely internal, then it still sees all the data brought in from the external function.
If you say Fi is capable of being external, as opposed to just looking at information processed by an external function, then I think that destroyes the MBTI, or at least our ability to use 8 functions.
I was using an 8 function model there though, and certainly don't always rely on 8, and often go with just the 4 dichotomies.
To summarize: Just because Fi is internal and not seeing the external world, doesn't mean it doesn't see all the information brought in from our external function that sees the external world.
I am open to change that viewpoint of mine, if you can do so within 8 function theory.
Jung doesn't talk about eight functions. He talks about four functions.
If we can only see the outer world through external "functions," then what good are the internal ones? Because I use Si, I have no capability to process sensory data from my surroundings?
Creating eight functions destroys MBTI because it requires the use of shadow functions, which are not MBTI and effectively dismantle the function-order established by MBTI theory. Under MBTI, you could just say that feeling is your top function and that it operates according to the introverted "attitude," meaning that it is oriented away from societal feelings, but can still coincide with societal feelings to some degree. Fi and Fe are the same function but with different attitudes, requiring at least some overlap. But instead, by saying that Fi has no overlap with Fe, you are having to destroy MBTI by saying that you have the function order Fi-Ne-Fe -- which is contrary to MBTI.
Anyway, I dont buy the shadow function stuff. It is theoretically based on the average person, but the second you get an abnormal person, you get an abnormal usage of the functions, and therefore there might not be a very concrete shadow function, or tertiary, or bla bla the rest of the crap.
Now what u thinkin
Yea you have to consider it as eight functions (even if people only use four of the eight). What Jung is saying is that the functions can be split into four basic categories, Feeling, Intuition, Sensing and Thinking. But Introverted Feeling and Extraverted Feeling are not two sides of the same coin. That's a misinterpretation. The opposite of Ne for example is Si. Not Ni. So have to really consider them as eight mindsets not four even if they fit four basic categories.
What I'm thinking is that if you reject the shadow function concept, that means each person should have four and not eight. And if each person has four, then when you an INFP relate to societal feelings, you are not using Fe. You are just using your Fi in an external way so as to resemble Fe.Originally Posted by Souled In
It's similar to the shadow function theory, except more elegant and more practical. It's more practical because the shadow idea requires you to strictly distinguish between what is Ti and what is Te. If I express formal logic based on facts, then under the strict formula many would say that I am using Te. I think that's just silly. When Jung described the introverted and extraverted attitudes, he was describing orientations or tendencies, not saying that an Fi can never make outward feeling judgments. If Te is completely distinct from Ti, then you start having people coming onto the forums and arguing over "Well when I perform mental action X, am I using Ti or Te? It must be one or the other!" Then it becomes impossible to specifically define which function is really which, and if people do activities that are associated with both Ti and Te then they start saying they have both Te and Ti -- which is stupid.
Yes but these people don't understand the more fundamental issue of these functions not being mental actions in that regard. Ti and Te are entire mindsets built around external or internal conceptual frameworks, not just specific instances of thinking about facts or trying to mine essential qualities.you start having people coming onto the forums and arguing over "Well when I perform mental action X, am I using Ti or Te? It must be one or the other!"
I do agree that it is probably worth positing that people have all eight function attitudes as Beebe proposes with four being unconscious simply because it makes sense that, for example, under stress the unconscious might manifest a negative version of Ne in an Ni-dom for example. I think its also problematic to say a Se type has no introverted sensing mindset. What Jung would likely argue is that it really doesn't matter what the attitudes are if they're unconscious processes. It really doesn't matter whether or not you use shadow Fe or demon Si because its all being rejected by the ego anyway. Anything that bubbles up from the unconscious without conscious effort (this excludes normal Intuition) is shadow. It really doesn't accomplish much, other than more categorization, to label the aspects of the shadow with functional counterparts. This would be like trying to say "I had a bad dream last night about being critical to people so therefore it must've been shadow Fe." How can one know? The unconscious doesn't speak a language we can readily understand.