# You don't "USE" Functions



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

This is not a grammar lockdown, it is a critical misunderstanding of the way in which cognitive function theory can be seen as "real." 

You do not *use *cognitive functions. You *prefer *cognitive functions over others. A function is not a tool, and it is not a choice. It may not even be a real action. It is a concept that describes a preference towards certain kinds of information being brought in, therefore processed, therefore communicated outward. 

This issue is critical because understanding a function as something to be "used" means that there is a possibility of intentionally shifting one's preferences willfully, or an understanding that the functions are a separate part of your way of engaging with the world around you. Neither of these are the case within functional theory, and type is thought to be innate from birth, as well as a tendency to a personal norm of center.


It is helpful to consider which emphases you and others tend to default to in everyday communication if you are trying to type yourself or someone else. Compare what you notice you tend to pay closer attention to with the places in which descriptions and anecdotes on each function coincide. The underlying pattern will be a more accurate depiction of which functions you or someone else prefers. You will notice that people are not "using" functions - they are defaulting to them as filters and focusing on them as they engage with their world.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

If someone is defaulting to a function as a filter and focusing on it as they engage with the world, isn't 'using' a shorter, better way of describing just that?

Surely a judgement function is specifically not a filter, and used? Perception functions even I wouldn't describe as filters, but a judgement function as a filter...they sort the information and actions generated by the perception functions, it seems odd.

You should look into Dario Nardi's nueroscientific research into type and functions if you want to see the realest description of functions operating.


----------



## Wartime Consigliere (Feb 8, 2011)

There are tools you use that aren't optional though? Ie - lungs for breathing. Should I be substituting different words here maybe?

Also, the conscious decision to direct your attention towards anything that your dom/aux function might make sense of more easily (like programming for an INTP) could be in a sense considered 'using' your functions couldn't it? Or at the very least, 'using the function preference order' [to your advantage].. Though I agree you cannot utilize these functions individually in the sense of turning a function on/off in regard to whatever task is at hand.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

l ''preferred'' my eyeballs to read this thread.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Well I've run into this problem on the forums, too. I think this summarizes it well



> You will notice that people are not "using" functions - they are _defaulting to them as filters and focusing on them as they engage with their world_.




One instance where this distinction appears clear to me is Fe vs. Te. When one is performing objectively directed reasoning, there is an easy tendency to think one is switching rapidly back and forth between Fe and Te depending on whether the focus is on pleasing someone or on just getting business done. That isn't quite it, as far as I'd endorse at least. The distinction is more like, what is my entire general orientation to objective reasoning -- is it to ask what the value is, in terms of goods and bads, pleasing or not, or is it more natural to think of it in terms of say, raw functionality, efficiency, or some such thing more apt to characterize an algorithm governing an external process. Note: yes good is a point of view, and indeed, F can have a sophisticated understanding of all such points of view, and take them into account and the person needn't be attached to any specific interpretation. 
And the thing is, ultimately you're not really going to ignore raw functionality questions when extroverted judging is engaged, even if you're a feeler. But for sure, feeling judgments will creep in to help you conceptualize what's going on. Even if you know at the end of the day, there are people who simply don't think of it that way, you may conceptualize it that way in order to even meet the needs of a thinker (say, while performing a task that needs a thinker's approval), if that's what is natural to one as a feeler. The real key is not being so utterly unaware of and rejecting of the other perspective as to become delusional when one encounters it, and start mis-interpretting things, but of course, that's exactly what tends to happen.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I would also argue that you "use" the functions; however, "prefer" is more meaningful when determining one's type. A lot of people seem confused because they might see how they use all or most functions, but focusing on preference of usage will help narrow down one's type.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

> however, "prefer" is more meaningful




Yes, what is most natural, rather than whether they are utterly unable to see the other point of view.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Figure said:


> This is not a grammar lockdown, it is a critical misunderstanding of the way in which cognitive function theory can be seen as "real."
> 
> You do not *use *cognitive functions. You *prefer *cognitive functions over others. A function is not a tool, and it is not a choice. It may not even be a real action. It is a concept that describes a preference towards certain kinds of information being brought in, therefore processed, therefore communicated outward.


Prefer doesn't work for me in certain descriptions. I have a patterned cycle in which different cognitive functions come up at different points to do different things. I've tried to avoid the word use because I've seen this argument before. But prefer doesn't work for the descriptions. I can get around it by making the functions into the agents ("Ti comes up and does X at this point").

My patterned cycle maps to Ni-Fe-Ti-(Se). I don't see it as a choice on my part, it's just what occurs.

As much as I would like to support this "never say use" approach, it seems to remove accuracy of description for my own experiences in certain contexts, and when it comes down to it, I prefer accuracy of lived experience over the needs of theoretical models.



> This issue is critical because understanding a function as something to be "used" means that there is a possibility of intentionally shifting one's preferences willfully, or an understanding that the functions are a separate part of your way of engaging with the world around you. Neither of these are the case within functional theory, and type is thought to be innate from birth, as well as a tendency to a personal norm of center.


For me, cognitive functions are not innate from birth, but the underlying core that my functions "assist" is innate from birth. Ni as my landscape (and Se in a very different way) was there from the start as part of what I am. Se-inf in its true inferior form locked in due to a traumatic physical event. Fe developed in response to the external cultural environment and need to be able to interact in certain ways with those around me in the context of Ni-dom/Se-inf. Ti emerged as a corrective to Fe given the Ni landscape.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

I agree in principle, mostly to combat the notion that the 8 functions are a toolbox from which you grab any old function you want to use at will. This is not at all the case. It bothers me to no end when people talk about how they used Ni here to do this part of their project, then Ti, then Ne, then Si. That's one jumbled mess of personality there, and viewing personality in that way seems to defeat the point of Jungian typology in the first place. If we can't apply systematic analysis to types, in such a way to clearly delineate cognitive styles, what's the point? Have we gained any understanding whatsoever? I would argue, definitively, no.

In some ways this is why I prefer Socionics, which calls functions information elements. In this way IE's are viewed not as tools so much as 8 categories of information that influence the psyche. Ne is one information aspect that types with the Ne information element in a strong position are especially attuned to, for instance. Ne, as an information element, is not "used", because it represents a certain proclivity in the conscious cognitive processes of the mind. This allows discourse in Socionics to be more centered around how these information preferences systematically influence type behavior between types and within types, and I think that's a better direction than what a lot of Western MBTI writing and discussion has taken.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Figure said:


> You do not *use *cognitive functions. You *prefer *cognitive functions over others. A function is not a tool, and it is not a choice.
> It may not even be a real action. It is a concept that describes a preference towards certain kinds of information being brought in, therefore processed, therefore communicated outward.
> 
> This issue is critical because understanding a function as something to be "used" means that there is a possibility of intentionally shifting one's preferences willfully, or an understanding that the functions are a separate part of your way of engaging with the world around you. Neither of these are the case within functional theory, and type is thought to be innate from birth, as well as a tendency to a personal norm of center.


I fundamentally disagree with the notion that cognitive functions are not tools. It has been my experience that cognitive functions are tools, with the specific purpose of discerning reality, and they can be utilized both consciously and unconsciously. 

I do agree that type is likely innate at birth, and I think that in the developing years it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for one to consciously recognize their use of a cognitive function. But I do not agree that one cannot later become aware of one's preference and use of cognitive functions and then choose to actively "use" a specific function. But that isn't to say it's easy to choose to "use" a function, nor that because it is theoretically possible that it will happen in reality. 

For instance: as an INTJ I use Ni all the time, it's inherent to my nature and it feels quite natural. I'm aware of my Ni and I am conscious of my preference for it, but it's completely unconscious in the sense that I cannot actively engage Ni. It's a passive trait that persists through my experiences and its use can only be observed in hindsight. But I do "use" Ni. It's the core of my perception and I fully recognize its prominence. Te, Fi, and to a lesser extent Se, are also recognizable, and their usage is measurable(at least to myself) and using these functions feels natural to me. However when I try use a function not innate to my type, I run into considerable difficulties. 

I.e. when I try to use Ne, not only do I feel extremely uncomfortable and disoriented, but I tend to be very defective in my use of the function. It's like the feeling when learning to ride a bike or writing with your non-dominant hand. And Ne is the only function outside of the four that are innate to INTJs that I can consciously choose to use. I suppose I it would be possible for me to try to use Fe at some point. But to use Ti or Si is absolutely unfathomable to me.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

@_Bardo_

Nardi's work does not map functions to the brain. It draws a correlation between MBTI types and regions on the brain that lit up when certain tasks were performed. There were overall patterns with MBTI types and lit patterns, but it was not an effort to decisively map each function to a pattern. Even if there was, it would not be "using" a function. It would be defaulting to one.

@Aquarian @JSRS01 and everyone else saying that you do "use" functions:

What, exactly, are you using? 

Almost all of you have said in some way that you catch yourself "using" your dominant function, and that you have very little to no control over your preference stacking. If you want to think of that as "using" your dominant function even though you have little to no control over whether or not you can "use" it or not, understand that to "use" something still implies that you have the choice as to whether or not you want to do so in a given situation. 

I can pick up a jackhammer right now and *use* it. I may not have an option as to whether or not I will use it, but I still pick it up and go. As you all have noted, you cannot "use" functions outside of your stack, but you do not have an option as to whether or not you "use" your dominant. That's because you are not using any functions to begin with. You are simply defaulting to them, to varying extents, which is the* exact reason why* they seem prominent or not - there's nothing that comes before the "use" to say "use this one." You simply do it. 

To say that you use a function is to say that you have a choice as to whether or not it is part of your engagement with the outside, and as you have agreed, you do not have that choice. It makes no sense to say you "use" a function when you would default to the function you prefer regardless of how you have mapped which functions you "use."


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

A differentiated function means that it comes under the control of the will. "Control of the will," implies "using."


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

To play devil's advocate... which function did you use to decide to use a given function? Which function did you use to make that choice? Which before that...?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

@Figure —

On the one hand, I feel your pain in terms of having a similar reaction when somebody describes some activity and says, "and then I used my Se to do X, and then grabbed my Ti to do that," and so on. But then, I'm not really a "functions" person at all.

On the other hand, for a reader who subscribes to the cognitive functions, your OP is misleading to the extent that it implies that your own "don't say USE" perspective fairly characterizes "functions theory" — if by that you mean the views of most functions theorists.

Jung himself discussed the functions in terms of processes people "use" to accomplish various tasks, and said that, at least with respect to their conscious, differentiated functions, people had some capacity to choose when and how they put them to use. As he explained:



Jung said:


> For complete orientation all four functions should contribute equally: thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is important or unimportant for us; sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the background, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation.





Jung said:


> Since every man, as a relatively stable being, possesses all the basic psychological functions, it would be a psychological necessity with a view to perfect adaptation that he should also *employ them in equal measure*. For there must be a reason why there are different modes of psychological adaptation: evidently one alone is not enough, since the object seems to be only partly comprehended when, for example, it is something that is merely thought or merely felt.





Jung said:


> I would like to add a word about the effects regularly produced on the other functions when preference is given to one function. We know that a man can never be everything at once, never quite complete. He always develops certain qualities at the expense of others, and wholeness is never attained. But what happens to those functions which are not *consciously brought into daily use and are not developed by exercise*? They remain in a more or less primitive and infantile state, often only half conscious, or even quite unconscious.





Jung said:


> The products of all functions can be conscious, but we speak of the "consciousness" of a function only when *its use is under the control of the will* and, at the same time, its governing principle is the decisive one for the orientation of consciousness.





Jung said:


> Just as the lion strikes down his enemy or his prey with his fore-paw, in which his specific strength resides, and not with his tail like the crocodile, so our habitual mode of reaction is normally characterized by *the use of our most reliable and efficient function*, which is an expression of our particular strength. However, this does not prevent us from reacting occasionally in a way that reveals our specific weakness. ... An intelligent man will adapt to the world through his intelligence, and not like a sixth-rate pugilist, even though now and then, in a fit of rage, he may make use of his fists. In the struggle for existence and adaptation everyone instinctively uses his most developed function, which thus becomes the criterion of his habitual mode of reaction.


You mentioned Nardi, and Nardi also talks about the functions as things that we can choose to "use," and use with varying degrees of skill. He says:



Nardi said:


> Almost everyone can engage each process in some basic way. Beyond this, you will engage some cognitive processes in a more sophisticated, developed way. This is usually the result of innate preference plus lifelong growth and practice, which equals development. ...
> 
> According to Jung, development is more than basic or developed use of processes in isolation. Excellent use of a cognitive process involves both basic and advanced use as appropriate, and ability to deploy other processes in its service. Average to good use usually means we can use the process in limited situations or use it well but only with the aid of other processes. Poor use means basic use at most. Finally, we may get ourselves into trouble when we don't use a process at all.


The introductory instructions to Nardi's online cognitive functions test say this:



Nardi said:


> Please read carefully each of the 48 phrases below. For each phrase:
> • Indicate how often you do skillfully what the phrase describes. ...
> 
> This is a serious questionnaire to help you discover what cognitive processes you use well.


Berens also talks in terms of "using" different functions for different purposes, and Thomson goes on at length about the idea that an overly one-sided person should learn to develop and use their less preferred functions in the appropriate situations, rather than try to use their dominant function for all purposes.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> To play devil's advocate... which function did you use to decide to use a given function? Which function did you use to make that choice? Which before that...?


All that leads to is the point that we're talking about a model, not reality directly. 

@_reckful_

Thanks for aggregating that, but my point here is not to debate the language use. As far as the language goes, I stand by not "using" functions and think other people need to consider it too. Just because nobody ever calls out Thompson, Berens, Nardi, Jung others on overextending the theory to reality doesn't mean that they don't do it. Beside the point. My point is very much, again, this:



> This issue is critical because understanding a function as something to be "used" means that there is a possibility of intentionally shifting one's preferences willfully


Most people here do not know what their functions are, and most people think that if you can map it, you use it. If anyone here believes that someone has seen themselves "using" Ne, Se, Ti, Fi in that order (and I have seen it), they are fundamentally misunderstanding type, and they are fundamentally spreading bullshit. I'm done seeing it spread publicly.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

@Figure, you didn't read my post with enough comprehension for me to reply as if this is a dialogue.

To my perception, you're so narrowly and rigidly focused on making your theoretical argument that you are incapable of actual human dialogue toward grounded accuracy. For that, you would need to actually do the internet equivalent of listening so that you have a basic understanding, rather than seeking keywords and going off into a monologue about your argument.

To repeat: You didn't comprehend my post. Hope it's useful to you (and others who will continue to follow this thread) for you to engage in argumentative monologues.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

In mother Russia...functions *prefer* to *use* YOU!


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

@_Aquarian_ no, your responses to the following will help greatly, as they are in contrast. 



> Prefer doesn't work for me in certain descriptions. I have a patterned cycle in which different cognitive functions come up at different points to do different things. I've tried to avoid the word use because I've seen this argument before. But prefer doesn't work for the descriptions. I can get around it by making the functions into the agents ("Ti comes up and does X at this point").


Response: why does "prefer" not work, even in response to your last paragraph about type not being innate? Or more to the point, how are you envisioning "prefer?"



> My patterned cycle maps to Ni-Fe-Ti-(Se). I don't see it as a choice on my part, it's just what occurs.
> 
> As much as I would like to support this "never say use" approach, it seems to remove accuracy of description for my own experiences in certain contexts, and when it comes down to it, I prefer accuracy of lived experience over the needs of theoretical models.


Response: we agree that patterned cycles "just occur," and that they are not a choice. Do you have a specific scenario in which to not say "use" would significantly hinder your perception of your experience?



> For me, cognitive functions are not innate from birth, but the underlying core that my functions "assist" is innate from birth. Ni as my landscape (and Se in a very different way) was there from the start as part of what I am. Se-inf in its true inferior form locked in due to a traumatic physical event. Fe developed in response to the external cultural environment and need to be able to interact in certain ways with those around me in the context of Ni-dom/Se-inf. Ti emerged as a corrective to Fe given the Ni landscape.


Response: how did you come up with this theory? I understand that Jung has proposed the idea of "complexes" - is this the source? If what you're saying is the case, then functions are not innate, and can be selected to meet certain needs of the individual through life. Testing the validity of this would be insane - I don't think it's possible, it would be a question to raise to Jung himself. But if there is a pattern among people who believe that their life scenarios shape the functions they "use" later, then that's a very interesting contrast.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Figure said:


> What, exactly, are you using?


When I say "use" I'm referring to the engagement of a specific cognitive process.



> Almost all of you have said in some way that you catch yourself "using" your dominant function, and that you have very little to no control over your preference stacking. If you want to think of that as "using" your dominant function even though you have little to no control over whether or not you can "use" it or not, understand that to "use" something still implies that you have the choice as to whether or not you want to do so in a given situation.
> 
> I can pick up a jackhammer right now and *use* it. I may not have an option as to whether or not I will use it, but I still pick it up and go. As you all have noted, you cannot "use" functions outside of your stack, but you do not have an option as to whether or not you "use" your dominant. That's because you are not using any functions to begin with. You are simply defaulting to them, to varying extents, which is the* exact reason why* they seem prominent or not - there's nothing that comes before the "use" to say "use this one." You simply do it.
> 
> To say that you use a function is to say that you have a choice as to whether or not it is part of your engagement with the outside, and as you have agreed, you do not have that choice. It makes no sense to say you "use" a function when you would default to the function you prefer regardless of how you have mapped which functions you "use."


While we may not have an outright choice in the functions that dominate our psyche (due to our infantile state when they are developed), if we are consciously aware of our use of the functions we can choose to actively engage functions not part of our dominant preference. 

And as some have pointed out, it's quite possible to use something without consciously choosing to use it. Organs like the heart, lungs, and the brain are all used regardless of our conscious choice or preference. And we do to some extent control our use of these things, like one has the choice to not breathe if they want to pass out and die but one does not have the choice to not breathe if they want to live. 

So relating what I just said to functions: I may not have a conscious choice in my use of Ni, but I do have the choice to actively engage Te and Ne; which is ultimately because cognitive functions are mental processes and all 8 processes are present in every individual's psyche.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I think, unless I am mistaken, this is the essential point that @_Figure_ is trying to make:


We don't say, "I am using hammering." We say, "I am using a hammer."

We don't use "hammering" we use "hammers" _for the purpose_ of hammering. Just as the function we call "intuition" is using one thing (archetypes) _for the purpose_ of doing something (creating/generating insight), so is the function we call "hammering" using one thing (a hammer) for the purpose of doing something (driving nails).

It's a fundamental misconception to say "use" a function, because a function isn't a "thing" in the sense of being something static like a hammer waiting in a drawer that you can just grab when you need it and bang on nails.

A "function" is quite literally exactly what we think of a "function" to be in common sense, common language. It is a _*process*_ that takes place _when we use something_ and _because we are using something_ - but we don't "use" the function _itself_. The "function" _just is_ the process _of_ using something in a particular way, at a particular time, in a particular context.

In this sense, a function is best understood and defined as the _relationship_ between a "thing" and a "purpose." It is something that emerges out of the combination of subjective _*intentionality*_ and material _*objectivity*_

You don't "use" a relationship. That's confusing the map for the territory. You use your _brain_ for the purpose of forming a _thought._ That _process_ is called _thinking._ The "function" of "thinking" is to produce "thought." Again, you don't use a "thinking function" to produce thoughts/decisions/rationalizations. You use a _*brain*_ and a _*language*_ to do that.

I know this may all sound like a pointless exercise in semantics, but I sympathize with Figure. I get what he is trying to say here, and what he is saying makes sense. It's semantic, but it is _important_ semantics. The way we think in language about things _really_ matters.

Just because Jung said it, and everyone who followed in his footsteps, doesn't make it correct. Figure may just be the voice of one man crying out in the wilderness, but I for one hear what he is saying and agree with it. 

Do bear in mind, that Jung himself came up with his theory to try and describe nature. As long as Figure's description only assists Jung's theory in doing precisely that but in a slightly better way, then I think it has merit.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> l ''preferred'' my eyeballs to read this thread.


Clearly you actually used your Se to read this thread, because you extraverted your senses and stuff....


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Because we can't use what we prefer.

I prefer to wear clothes when it is cold. 

Ergo it looks like the cops are going to have to arrest me because I can't use them. 

Public indecency and all that jazz.

Thanks figure.


----------



## Senexx (Oct 19, 2012)

I suppose rather than using any of those terms you could call it a default frame of reference to the issue.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

I'm more inclined to find the word "function" problematic. As I've said before, I think the word "perspective" is more appropriate to describe the ideas we're talking about here.

The idea that we can use a "function" implies that cognition is composed of discrete, static processing states that are the same regardless of input. Cognition does not work like algebra, though, and it is really inappropriate to treat "Feeling" or "Sensing" as having the same type of input --> output mapping as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and so on.

The use of the word "perspective" shifts our way of thinking about these ideas in several ways. It sounds weird and silly to ask if you are using a perspective when you do a task (like petting a cat or reading a book). A perspective is a state of mind, not a tool. It also allows us to step away from the discretist, concretist, reified conceptualization of cognition that the word function implies. The word function seems to make claims about biology that are unsupported, but the word perspective does not.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

default settings said:


> Because we can't use what we prefer.
> 
> I prefer to wear clothes when it is cold.
> 
> ...


Except that you use *clothes.* The "function" of clothes is to keep you warm and maintain decency.

You just throw on a damn jacket and some pants. You don't "use" the *"clothing function."*

That's just stupid and anyone who said it like that to me in person I would correct on the spot.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

JSRS01 said:


> When I say "use" I'm referring to the engagement of a specific cognitive process.
> 
> While we may not have an outright choice in the functions that dominate our psyche (due to our infantile state when they are developed), if we are consciously aware of our use of the functions we can choose to actively engage functions not part of our dominant preference.


You are probably not selecting a mental process to use and using it. Like many people who use the CFs theory to track their mental position, you are mapping a cognitive model to your mental phenomena and making observations as to which function from the theory you are "using" at a given point.



Teybo said:


> The word function seems to make claims about biology that are unsupported, but the word perspective does not.


That's an interesting POV. It returns to the question of defining a function, which is another can of worms. One issue would be "perspective" as a loose way of getting others to identify their defaults, as a "perspective" can change very quickly, at least in Thinker-ese.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Figure

I'm not sure I follow your objection. Could you explain further?


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Q: How do you use Ne?
A: inferior Si uses me!


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Figure said:


> You are probably not selecting a mental process to use and using it. Like many people who use the CFs theory to track their mental position, you are mapping a cognitive model to your mental phenomena and making observations as to which function from the theory you are "using" at a given point.


Sure. I didn't select, nor can I select, to use Ni to perceive reality. It simply does so without my conscious choice and that's ultimately because it's innate to my psyche; it's the basis of how I think. But just because I don't have a choice in the matter doesn't mean I don't use it.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Wut?
Just for the lulz... Can I not prefer to use a function?

Anyway...



> This issue is critical because understanding a function as something to be "used" means that there is a possibility of intentionally shifting one's preferences willfully


Nope, changing diction from "use" to "prefer" does not in anyway indicate this at all. For example, "I use Ni as my dominant function" makes more sense than "I prefer Ni as my dominant function." In fact the latter phrasing suggests a possibility of shifting preferences, especially when worded like that.



> or an understanding that the functions are a separate part of your way of engaging with the world around you.


Again, no. "I understand the world around me using Ni, my dominant function." This suggests that I, in my entirety, am using this function to engage with the world.

Yeah, unless I misunderstood you, I don't follow your OP at all. It doesn't make much sense, use makes more sense than prefer in both examples.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

They're just archetypal descriptions at best - they do not have a non-metaphysical existence. They're a matter of recognizing the "direction" of a person's sensation, intuition, etc. with reference to how a person cognitively goes about their business. For instance, a Te type might express their thoughts outwardly with reference to the outside world and objective fact and consider this a normal, productive way to go about business, while an Fe type will make evaluating their experiences their business (experience is extraversion, btw). They are only indicators of extraversion/introversion, which was at the heart of Jung's psychological doctrine. Alone, they might give someone's personality an archetypal flavor of sorts that fits with their general psychological profile, but you cannot really classify this in 16 types without it becoming cartoon stereotypes that do not apply to reality accurately (MBTI - tsk).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Identifying type is honestly a lot easier than MBTI spin-offs make it in terms of functions (actually knowing your dominant, etc. is much harder and in most cases, most people will probably not be able to get a handle on this without a professional psychologist's help). If you want to subscribe to MBTI, I recommend not using it to classify your dominant, etc. It's probably best for just identifying direction of functions (I mean, when it comes down to Ti vs. Te, it's clear that by understanding that introversion is removed from the real world, you'll get the Ti type who focuses more on their own subjective understanding of something without reference to real facts, while the Te type focuses more on how ideas line up with the world of real facts and outer doctrine). Orientation is not that important when it comes to type (I mean, a thinking type is a thinking type, an intuitive type is an intuitive type, etc.). The most difference it makes is in terms of interest. The Ti type is not interested in any kind of intellectual consensus of ideas with the outer world. The Te type is. They want their ideas recognized against what already exists, is supposed, etc. The Ti type is more interested in what novelty against what already exists their thoughts may provide. And then you get the Fi vs. Fe types. Fi types are more interested in what novelty against values, opinions, beliefs, evaluations, etc. that already exist their feelings may provide. Fe types want their feelings recognized against what already exists, is considered of interest or important to many people, regardless of the subject matter, etc. Jung said no one is a pure type, but type is a matter of what is played up toward a conscious representation of the ego and what exists as shadow that accounts for getting classified as a type. I think there's a tendency for Fi types to find Fe types very hard to understand, because Fi is largely the person (I don't care if it's their dom or not, btw, that doesn't change the orientation) who rationalizes their evaluations from a personal standpoint - sort of just plain old generic evaluation (I like this, meh, that could be better, etc.), while the Fe type is more interested in how something holds up from a collective standpoint, but doesn't really make the personal experience of their feelings count in how they rationalize (it doesn't mean either type doesn't do the other's thing, but it's how they express their evaluations that differs, based on their ego interests). I don't think Fi types are interested in outward issues of feeling, like behavior of others and themselves, etc. Te doms (inferior Fi types) are often notoriously disinterested in their own behavioral expressions. Fi might make a person seem eccentric or unconventional - at the same time, I think these types tend to have a healthier self-focus than Fe types - they tend to pay attention to what's in their best interest more when it comes to defending themselves - but with Fe types, they have the upper hand in social interaction and getting people to open up. I think Te types are the better conversationalists when it comes to important issues though (think political talkers, etc.) - they're more focused on real facts and not those facts as a kind of ideological position - Fi though, in that case, might make these come off like they're on a secret agenda of sorts that is not available in how they reference objective facts (it becomes a question of why they do it and what could be anyone's guess).


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@JungyesMBTIno,

Dude, paragraphs. :frustrating:


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> If you want to subscribe to MBTI, I recommend not using it to classify your dominant, etc. It's probably best for just identifying direction of functions




Generally very much my analysis as well, although when it does come to orientation, isn't the dominant type where orientation is clearest? If one is seriously coming to the decision of whether one is an introvert or not, I think sometimes the act of attempting to determine a dominant type can be helpful.

(very vaguely related note: I am also one of those who doesn't subscribe to {edit - _necessarily_} focusing on determining a core enneagram type prior to determining the elements of tritype because the direction in which one is enlightened varies hugely there..)


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Dude, paragraphs.




I'm also guilty of the no-paragraphs thing at times; when I do include them, they are completely and utterly haphazard in where the cuts are made. One of many skills which might forever elude...


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@bearotter

Your declared type is changing so fast, I think it's giving me a seizure.


----------

