# Functions are fine but can we PLEEEEASE drop the stacks?



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

They make no sense, they don't fit most people and people come up with dumb reasons to type people as certain things. I.e "You have inferior Fe" or whatever. Really the 1st and 2nd function are the only ones that matter when determining type. I'm tired of this stupid crap. Watch an INFP and INTJ coffee video. It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life. That's another thing. Can we stop using these stupid little observations to type people? Yes, some behaviors indicate certain functions but people seriously overthink it. "I must have Ne cause I always have multiple tabs open at once" stupid shit like that.


----------



## Rydori (Aug 7, 2017)

I believe people should stop focusing on the middle part of functions and rather their dominant and inferior function. Basically the two functions which feel they best fit them and the function that don't best fit them. Then after finding the dominant (whether it is T/F or S/N) they should focus on what supports their dominant. 

*The Tertiary Function should never be used to determines one type simply because of the lack of explanation of it*


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

^ literally how my two question cognitive function test worked.
And produced 100% accurate results.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

I sympathize with your frustration, but I cannot believe you'd discredit the inferior. If you accept that one function is dominant, does it not logically follow that the other is inferior to it, hm?

Anyway, once you use more than one function you end up with a "stack" regardless... so the analysis of that is not entirely futile... it may just not be the stack a certain type is "supposed" to have, which is also understandable, since those are mainly theoretical models that attempt to "balance" something that is already imbalanced i.e. "type".


----------



## Doom_Knight (Apr 17, 2017)

I agree wholeheartedly.

Instead of trying to fit people in a presumed system, it would be better to build the system around data collected from the people. Or is it too much sensing for the theorists?

I mean the stacks were made even before one survey was made. And I doubt anyone ever tested them. And no ,'I tested them in my head' does not count. It is rather bizarre that they are treated as gospel.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> I sympathize with your frustration, but I cannot believe you'd discredit the inferior. If you accept that one function is dominant, does it not logically follow that the other is inferior to it, hm?
> 
> Anyway, once you use more than one function you end up with a "stack" regardless... so the analysis of that is not entirely futile... it may just not be the stack a certain type is "supposed" to have, which is also understandable, since those are mainly theoretical models that attempt to "balance" something that is already imbalanced i.e. "type".


That's a really good point actually. If someone relates most to Ti for example than they should logically relate to Fe absolutely last since they're the most dissimilar. Doesn't seem to be the case for many people but if there were function stacks that looked something like this Ti>Se>Te>Si>Ne>Fi>Ni>Fe it would at least make logical sense.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Turi said:


> And produced 100% accurate results.


ROFL! _Citation needed._



Doom_Knight said:


> Instead of trying to fit people in a presumed system, it would be better to build the system around data collected from the people. Or is it too much sensing for the theorists?


Isn't that precisely where the idea of inferior functions came from? A professional psychologist observing his patients over several decades? Jung said he noticed over-preference for one function, and under-preference for other functions, depending on how contrary they were to the main preference. That's where dichotomies and types originate.



Aluminum Frost said:


> if there were function stacks that looked something like this Ti>Se>Te>Si>Ne>Fi>Ni>Fe it would at least make logical sense.


The original function theory never had 8 functions. There were only four. I/E was a separate distinction.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> They make no sense, they don't fit most people and people come up with dumb reasons to type people as certain things. I.e "You have inferior Fe" or whatever. Really the 1st and 2nd function are the only ones that matter when determining type. I'm tired of this stupid crap. Watch an INFP and INTJ coffee video. It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life. That's another thing. Can we stop using these stupid little observations to type people? Yes, some behaviors indicate certain functions but people seriously overthink it. "I must have Ne cause I always have multiple tabs open at once" stupid shit like that.


So I agree there is a lot of subjective, anecdotal nonsense in MBTI. I think I've seen it all at this stage. People typing everyone they don't like as sensers, and everyone they do like as intuitives. People who link 'writing a diary' to particular types. Or school performance. Or they type all CEOs as ENTJs. All scientists as intuitive. Or whatever other nonsense. After four years of being on this forum, I've lost track of just how much manure is out there.

But why are you blaming that issue on stacks specifically?


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Turi said:


> ^ literally how my two question cognitive function test worked.
> And produced 100% accurate results.


You're gonna destroy this whole forum with your stupid game.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> They make no sense, they don't fit most people and people come up with dumb reasons to type people as certain things. I.e "You have inferior Fe" or whatever. Really the 1st and 2nd function are the only ones that matter when determining type. I'm tired of this stupid crap. Watch an INFP and INTJ coffee video. It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life. That's another thing. Can we stop using these stupid little observations to type people? Yes, some behaviors indicate certain functions but people seriously overthink it. "I must have Ne cause I always have multiple tabs open at once" stupid shit like that.


Maybe you hate it because it nails it. Inferior Fe all over this post.


----------



## Liove (Sep 16, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> They make no sense, they don't fit most people and people come up with dumb reasons to type people as certain things. I.e "You have inferior Fe" or whatever. Really the 1st and 2nd function are the only ones that matter when determining type. I'm tired of this stupid crap. Watch an INFP and INTJ coffee video. It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life. That's another thing. Can we stop using these stupid little observations to type people? Yes, some behaviors indicate certain functions but people seriously overthink it. "I must have Ne cause I always have multiple tabs open at once" stupid shit like that.
> 
> 
> jetser said:
> ...


Would you mind explaining how his post is indicative of Inferior Fe?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

jetser said:


> You're gonna destroy this whole forum with your stupid game.


?


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Liove said:


> Would you mind explaining how his post is indicative of Inferior Fe?


Rebelling against common sense.
Can _WE_ drop the stacks? (referring to everyone as WE)
_"Watch an INFP and INTJ coffee video. It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life."_ having a strong distrust of two people conversing and having fun
"_Can we stop using these stupid little observations to type people? Yes, some behaviors indicate certain functions but people seriously overthink it._" hating that behaviour sometimes is indicative of type

What an inferior Fe really hates is that he can't calculate his own behaviour, he doesn't know how others see him and that's why he's angry at it.
It also goes against his logic.

etc..


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> That's a really good point actually. If someone relates most to Ti for example than they should logically relate to Fe absolutely last since they're the most dissimilar. Doesn't seem to be the case for many people but if there were function stacks that looked something like this Ti>Se>Te>Si>Ne>Fi>Ni>Fe it would at least make logical sense.


I do relate to Ne the least.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

AZH said:


> So I agree there is a lot of subjective, anecdotal nonsense in MBTI. I think I've seen it all at this stage. People typing everyone they don't like as sensers, and everyone they do like as intuitives. People who link 'writing a diary' to particular types. Or school performance. Or they type all CEOs as ENTJs. All scientists as intuitive. Or whatever other nonsense. After four years of being on this forum, I've lost track of just how much manure is out there.
> 
> But why are you blaming that issue on stacks specifically?


Because people will say things like "You can't be INTP, you must be ISTP because you have Ti and Ni, with weak Se"


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

jetser said:


> Rebelling against common sense.
> Can _WE_ drop the stacks? (referring to everyone as WE)
> _"Watch an INFP and INTJ coffee video. It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life."_ having a strong distrust of two people conversing and having fun
> "_Can we stop using these stupid little observations to type people? Yes, some behaviors indicate certain functions but people seriously overthink it._" hating that behaviour sometimes is indicative of type
> ...


What does common sense have to do with Fe? And who said I wasn't inferior in it? My function stack looks something like this Ti>Se>Ni=Si>Fe>Ne=Te>Fi. I don't hate them for having fun, I hate them cause they say stupid things that don't make any sense. I don't care how others see me, I could just ask if I really wanted anyways. My behavior I don't have a problem understanding really. My emotions (Fi) I have trouble understanding. Your argument is just one big ad hominem.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

You're absolutely right when you say the top two functions alone determine a person's type... so for typing, yes those two are the only relevant ones. 

But really, it's interesting how the rest of the functions manifest. Even your shadow functions.


----------



## Rydori (Aug 7, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Because people will say things like "You can't be INTP, you must be ISTP because you have Ti and Ni, with weak Se"


People who use the first and third function with little regard to the second function as an alibi are idiots. I have strong Fe and Se, does that suddenly make me an ENFJ when I displayed no Ni? Nope. Infact N is my lowest part in where I always score a CONSIDERABLY HIGH AMOUNT of S over N. Hell my F/T are much more balanced

I get people here typing me ENFJ because of 'HURR DURR FE-SE'. Seriously pisses me off


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Rydori said:


> People who use the first and third function with little regard to the second function as an alibi are idiots. I have strong Fe and Se, does that suddenly make me an ENFJ when I displayed no Ni? Nope. Infact N is my lowest part in where I always score a CONSIDERABLY HIGH AMOUNT of S over N. Hell my F/T are much more balanced
> 
> I get people here typing me ENFJ because of 'HURR DURR FE-SE'. Seriously pisses me off


Hehe when I first came to this forum people saw me as a Fe/Ne type, therefore typed either as ENTP or ESFJ. No other options available lol. All the while there has been maybe just one person on this forum who may have actually been "looping" between two extroverted functions. Nobody really does that but it adds to the hilarious misconceptions some people here have of extroverts.


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

I believe an individual uses four functions, so a "stack", rarely touching on the realm of the other four, the often called shadow functions. So, no, I see no reason to drop stacks.



TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> You're absolutely right when you say the top two functions alone determine a person's type... so for typing, yes those two are the only relevant ones.


The inferior function is just as relevant and ignoring the tertiary is nonsense. Of course, you are free to believe in nonsense if you want.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

Reila said:


> I believe an individual uses four functions, so a "stack", rarely touching on the realm of the other four, the often called shadow functions. So, no, I see no reason to drop stacks.
> 
> 
> The inferior function is just as relevant and ignoring the tertiary is nonsense. Of course, you are free to believe in nonsense if you want.


I said only for typing a person can you simplify the system to the first two functions preferred. Each type is essentially defined by the order of the first two functions preferred. Si-Fe is ISFJ, Ni-Te is INTJ, and so on (albeit there are subtypes, referring to which of these two functions is more embraced). 

I just think that it's much more straightforward to look for those two functions, rather then analyze what may or may not be an inferior function. Who knows, it can actually be a strong shadow function. And I disagree with you when you say an individual "rarely" uses the other four shadow functions. For example, I more often use and am stronger at Se than Ne, but I prefer Ne. To find the order of strength of the shadow functions for any type, you just switch the J/P. So for me, an ISFP's order would also apply and would be Fi, Se, Ni, Te, and I relate to that in terms of how these functions manifest in me.


----------



## Rydori (Aug 7, 2017)

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> I said only for typing a person can you simplify the system to the first two functions preferred. Each type is essentially defined by the order of the first two functions preferred. Si-Fe is ISFJ, Ni-Te is INTJ, and so on (albeit there are subtypes, referring to which of these two functions is more embraced).
> 
> I just think that it's much more straightforward to look for those two functions, rather then analyze what may or may not be an inferior function. Who knows, it can actually be a strong shadow function. And I disagree with you when you say an individual "rarely" uses the other four shadow functions. For example, I more often use and am stronger at Se than Ne, but I prefer Ne. To find the order of strength of the shadow functions for any type, you just switch the J/P. So for me, an ISFP's order would also apply and would be Fi, Se, Ni, Te, and I relate to that in terms of how these functions manifest in me.


I think shadow functions are bullshit, we use every function and their strength depends on our stack. In this case an ISFJ would be S>F>T>N.

Its better to identify which is your strong point then determine whether you get it from your inner world or from the external world. I believe that any type would relate to both their introverted and extroverted parts of their function, but they prefer to either use it innerly or externally. Like an ENTP uses both Ni and Ne, but they chose to trust their external N rather than their internal N so therefore they display Ne, but Ni is still strong in an ENTP because it's N.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

Rydori said:


> I think shadow functions are bullshit, we use every function and their strength depends on our stack. In this case an ISFJ would be S>F>T>N.
> 
> Its better to identify which is your strong point then determine whether you get it from your inner world or from the external world. I believe that any type would relate to both their introverted and extroverted parts of their function, but they prefer to either use it innerly or externally. Like an ENTP uses both Ni and Ne, but they chose to trust their external N rather than their internal N so therefore they display Ne, but Ni is still strong in an ENTP because it's N.


Yeah exactly. 

According to socionics, my strengths are (with Preferred / Non-preferred):

Si / Fi
Fe / Se
Ti / Ni
Ne / Te 

That makes sense. Sensors are stronger at the sensing functions, intuitives are stronger at the intuiting functions, thinkers at the thinking functions, and feelers at the feeling functions. But it's important to remember that some functions we play cautious with (like our creative functions), while others we're much more blunt with. Like I am very blunt with Ni (my role function), even though I don't prefer it or am not particularly strong with it. But I play the "role" of Ni, and like people to think that I exhibit it. I also believe that your subtype determines which functions you are potentially given a boost (or downgrade). For an Si subtype (which I am), that would be Si, Ti, Se, and Te. Basically, we are all using all the functions, we just prefer half of the functions over the others, and in a probably more fluid and subtle way than MBTI or even socionics suggests.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Rydori said:


> I think shadow functions are bullshit, we use every function and their strength depends on our stack. In this case an ISFJ would be S>F>T>N.
> 
> Its better to identify which is your strong point then determine whether you get it from your inner world or from the external world. I believe that any type would relate to both their introverted and extroverted parts of their function, but they prefer to either use it innerly or externally. Like an ENTP uses both Ni and Ne, but they chose to trust their external N rather than their internal N so therefore they display Ne, but Ni is still strong in an ENTP because it's N.


You practically just outlined Jung's view. Was that on purpose?



TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> That makes sense. Sensors are stronger at the sensing functions, intuitives are stronger at the intuiting functions, thinkers at the thinking functions, and feelers at the feeling functions.


And introverts are stronger at introverted functions. Hence the Si-Fi-Fe-Se, rather than Si-Fe-Fi-Se.


----------



## Rydori (Aug 7, 2017)

AZH said:


> You practically just outlined Jung's view. Was that on purpose?
> 
> 
> And introverts are stronger at introverted functions. Hence the Si-Fi-Fe-Se, rather than Si-Fe-Fi-Se.


maybe


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

AZH said:


> And introverts are stronger at introverted functions. Hence the Si-Fi-Fe-Se, rather than Si-Fe-Fi-Se.


Well yes, but that depends on the function. For example, an introverted sensor will be stronger at extraverted sensing than introverted intuiting. Generally though, that's true, your two strongest functions will be introverted if you're an introvert. The next two strongest will be extraverted functions. And then introverted functions again. And finally extraverted functions.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

AZH said:


> You practically just outlined Jung's view. Was that on purpose?
> 
> 
> And introverts are stronger at introverted functions. Hence the Si-Fi-Fe-Se, rather than Si-Fe-Fi-Se.


Not really, that's true of my T and N functions but not my S or F functions. I don't know anybody who relates more to all introverted functions over all extroverted ones and vice-versa. It being introverted doesn't mean you would or should relate to it more. There's more to it. That's being too literal.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> Well yes, but that depends on the function. For example, an introverted sensor will be stronger at extraverted sensing than introverted intuiting. Generally though, that's true, your two strongest functions will be introverted if you're an introvert. The next two strongest will be extraverted functions. And then introverted functions again. And finally extraverted functions.


I was referring to the fact that Introverts have all their introverted functions stronger than their extroverted counterparts in Socionics. I misinterpreted your post slightly.


----------



## casepag (Feb 28, 2017)

jetser said:


> You're gonna destroy this whole forum with your stupid game.


lmao. I like you already man.


----------



## Daiz (Jan 4, 2017)

I'm inclined to continue considering the third and fourth function when trying to type people. While I do focus on the first two, the third and fourth are useful for double-checking I've got them "right".


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> What does common sense have to do with Fe? And who said I wasn't inferior in it? My function stack looks something like this Ti>Se>Ni=Si>Fe>Ne=Te>Fi. I don't hate them for having fun, I hate them cause they say stupid things that don't make any sense. I don't care how others see me, I could just ask if I really wanted anyways. My behavior I don't have a problem understanding really. My emotions (Fi) I have trouble understanding. Your argument is just one big ad hominem.


"I don't care how others see me" = inferior Fe
"What does common sense have to do with Fe?" - common sense (in this case) = common belief (something we all - most of us - share)
_"I don't hate them for having fun, I hate them cause they say stupid things that don't make any sense"_ - to you.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

jetser said:


> "I don't care how others see me" = inferior Fe
> "What does common sense have to do with Fe?" - common sense (in this case) = common belief (something we all - most of us - share)
> _"I don't hate them for having fun, I hate them cause they say stupid things that don't make any sense"_ - to you.


Common sense is something that's commonly known and is true, it's not an ad populum fallacy.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Common sense is something that's commonly known and is true, it's not an ad populum fallacy.


I referred common sense in this case something that is _shared_ by most everyone.
It is a shared value, a belief system if you like. Rebelling against that is typically an inferior Fe move.

And munching on words like that is a typically Ti.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> My emotions (Fi) I have trouble understanding.


Why are you linking Fi to emotions? Fe and Fi both process values. Someone with inferior Fi is oblivious to their personal values - their opinions, their likes/dislikes, who they personally respect and all their favourite everythings. You don't come across oblivious to those things.

That'd probably be why you see yourself having a bizarre stack.


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

Well, by recognizing the dominant, you have an inferior by default..


----------



## Birbsofafeather (May 18, 2017)

Totally disagree. Seeing how Ni relies on Se to function and Ne-Si, that's very important. My method of typing involves figuring out both the judging and perceiving axes and _then_ the order. I find it easier to detect the presence of the functions and then figure out their strength. 

Not to mention that for some people, it is difficult to distinguish Ne from Se based on their writing, so Si vs Ni might be easier. ALSO, many INFPs with high social instincts are prone to mistaking it for Fe, so the Ti/Te argument is often more clear. It is easy to mistake one function for another based on bias, but mistaking two functions on an axis for an entirely other axis is much more difficult. 

Besides, if I was trying to say, figure out if someone is an INFJ or INTJ, wouldn't I have to consider that for INFJ's, Ti>Te?


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Birbsofafeather said:


> Totally disagree. Seeing how Ni relies on Se to function and Ne-Si, that's very important. My method of typing involves figuring out both the judging and perceiving axes and _then_ the order. I find it easier to detect the presence of the functions and then figure out their strength.
> 
> Not to mention that for some people, it is difficult to distinguish Ne from Se based on their writing, so Si vs Ni might be easier. ALSO, many INFPs with high social instincts are prone to mistaking it for Fe, so the Ti/Te argument is often more clear. It is easy to mistake one function for another based on bias, but mistaking two functions on an axis for an entirely other axis is much more difficult.
> 
> Besides, if I was trying to say, figure out if someone is an INFJ or INTJ, wouldn't I have to consider that for INFJ's, Ti>Te?


My problem with this is that it's hard to see which function's expression something is and everyone has bits of all 8 functions. I often find it easier to tell the function dichotomies.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Birbsofafeather said:


> Seeing how Ni relies on Se to function and Ne-Si, that's very important.


Circular reasoning.
What proof is there that Ni relies on Se?
There's none. That's what. There's literally no proof to support the validity of the functions in the first place, yet alone any specific order of preference in ones 'stack'.

Considering the above, it makes it very difficult, nigh-impossible - for me to accept the validity of the celebrity-types (now IDRlabs) function 'axis' and with all of the above in mind, I can absolutely strike 'dom-tert' loops out as they are a byproduct of this illegitimate theory.

I do understand the theory of the introverted intuitive type (INxx) having inferior extraverted sensing (ESxx) traits, and I believe this plays out time and time again - though to view introverted intuitive types as leading with 'Ni' and therefore being INxJs however is a mistake, imo.



> Besides, if I was trying to say, figure out if someone is an INFJ or INTJ, wouldn't I have to consider that for INFJ's, Ti>Te?


Why would you? 
The official stance regarding the 'tertiary' function is that it is in the opposite direction to the dominant function*, therefore if we are to consider 'functions' at all, we need to view INFJs as using 'Te' - albeit poorly, as it's 'tertiary'.

*table 3.3, latest MBTI Manual.


----------



## SpaceMan (Dec 11, 2014)

Turi said:


> Circular reasoning.
> What proof is there that Ni relies on Se?
> There's none. That's what. There's literally no proof to support the validity of the functions in the first place, yet alone any specific order of preference in ones 'stack'.


ahh, you're getting ahead of yourself.

Jung's cognitive functions do appear in some scientific journals. The question is the validity of those certain theories (models) + method of approach, such as Harold Grant, Model A etc. It's not fair to discredit the entirety of the cognitive function theory since there also does not exist proof to prove that there "aren't" cognitive functions.

Artificial intelligence may catch up one day, and when it does - it would be interesting to see if it does develop these "functions". But for now, saying that since there is no hard evidence the theory is false, is not fair. 

We haven't found Gravitons yet, and yet we still think gravity is real. We know people think, it wouldn't be too absurd to think that there are certain general modes of cognition that can be categorized aka. cognitive functions, that everyone possesses.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

SpaceMan said:


> Jung's cognitive functions do appear in some scientific journals.


Which ones? Links?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> I'm aware of the relationship between the dominant function and the inferior function - as a typing method however, simply thinking you're X dominant doesn't work - doesn't work for trying to type other people.
> Need to cross-reference the inferior function with the dominant function, to make sure said dominant function, is actually the dominant function.
> 
> For instance how would you know someone is a Te *dominant*?
> ...


I agree that it is not about “using” a function, because then it could be said we all "use" all of them. That's precisely why I've derived the notion that it's the complexes that determine the type and its stack. 
Like trying to determine the inferior can pose the same problem, if you just look at what you “use” more or less. Like if a person hasn't really developed their tertiary, then you're right back to the problem of whether it's the one creating the biggest “imbalance” or not.
So an ENTP will also still prioritize their own reasoning over group values.

With me, it seemed evident that Feeling was the least mature, and also, Si had developed much earlier, so your method helped in my case. But it was still hard to tell, since Feeling is often associated with emotions, so it still seemed “used” a lot. (This made it difficult years ago, when some people tried to suggest I was really an F). That's why I eventually learned to place the actual differentiation of functions as type-specific “Xy” elements on the complexes. So the way to check the imbalance of the dominant and inferior is to look at the ego and inferior complexes that align with them. But this starts with the ego or dominant, which will have taken its functional standpoint first, at an early age. 



Turi said:


> .
> Say they're faced with a problem they need to solve - the INTP is going to be driven by their own reasoning in order to solve the problem - that's their MO.
> The ENTP on the other hand is going to be asking for more and more information.
> 
> ...


 That “difference” right there is telling you what's dominant. So they may both tick both boxes, but they will be more “driven” to one of them. You can then look at the imbalance of the opposite function, and if you're so “driven” to one, then the opposite would likely be the weakest. Still, this is not necessarily what you're saying here:



> If you think you know, well you also need to cross-reference it with the inferior function and make sure the possible ENTP guy actually demonstrates a pattern of not wanting to organize observable information, and the possible INTP guy demonstrates a pattern of disregarding social norms.
> 
> To drill that home, inferior Si does not want to organize observable information - because the person is a dominant Ne type and wants to gather more and more and more and more abstract information.
> Inferior Fe does not want to accommodate for social norms and see what is accepted amongst others i.e check with the group, because they are governed by their own subjective reasoning.
> ...


 I don't think it's necessarily so such about “Not wanting” to do something; but rather being UNAWARE of it. The thing about the inferior is that the further down the stack you go, the further away from consciousness you are getting. The inferior, in the eight function models borders on the Shadow, and in the four function models actually IS the Shadow. This is why it's harder to type from lower functions.

So the inferior is something we may not be aware of, but then the lower shadows will be the same way. So again, what will distinguish them is to determine the associated complexes. The inferior is considered “aspirational”. Even though we ignore it, we still 'aspire' to it, because it comes from such a place of feelings of inadequacy. That's what makes it “inferior”. It reflects the “superiority” of the dominant. So it's not really “don't want to”; it's blowing it off from feeling inferior. When we mature, then we well begin to address it more (and then, it may become less easier to tell from the tertiary, which carries a similar vulnerability from connecting with a “Child” complex, but was closer to conscoiusness for longer).



Turi said:


> Something I still sort of don't get is why can't an ENFP be say, Ne-Fi and/or Ne-Fe, maybe two types of ENFP for instance.
> Or more.
> 
> I mean I don't see why, exactly, someone who likes to gather lots of information in the form of abstract patterns etc (Ne) _must _ then be preferring to make their decisions:
> ...


 This is what happens from not looking at the functions through the lens of complexes, and instead trying to deal with them directly as discrete “things”; so they end up being treated like “gears”. “Why can't we 'use' any combination of gears?” is the natural question that follows.

This is why it's better to then move next to the auxiliary, rather than the inferior. Establishing the dom./inf. tandem, will outline what's called the “spine“ of type, but leave open the “arms” (based on the aux. and tert.), and this is what's getting mixed up in this question. 
But if you look at a complex, called the “caretaker” or “Parent”, part of whose goal is balancing the dominant ego perspective, then it will make sense that it will choose both the opposite attitude and opposite rationality (j/p) of function from the dominant. The opposite rationality, but same attitude function must then be the tertiary, whoch hooks up with the “Child” complex which tries to maintain the ego's dominant attitude. (Jung often treated them as “two auxiliaries”).


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

what I do is determine which function axis fits the person best. so I go for dom-inferior first...

example:

Ni/Se, Fi/Te, etc.

then from there I determine the aux/tertiary. and that's it, really.

I have done the dom/aux first method before and I wasn't satisfied.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> That's not what I'm saying though. What I'm saying is they should be able to have either so long as Ne is their dominant. I think it's ridiculous to say someone who is Ne>Fe is ENTP rather than ENFP.


What they should or shouldn't be able to do is irrelevant, because realistically, there is a pattern of preferences people share, outside of what you may believe they should be. Rather if you think it's ridiculous or not, there are people who can articulate their thoughts in a manner while keeping the atmosphere light-hearted and there are people who believe in being true to themselves more than caring about the atmosphere. You're being too literal.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Xcopy said:


> What they should or shouldn't be able to do is irrelevant, because realistically, there is a pattern of preferences people share, outside of what you may believe they should be. Rather if you think it's ridiculous or not, there are people who can articulate their thoughts in a manner while keeping the atmosphere light-hearted and there are people who believe in being true to themselves more than caring about the atmosphere. You're being too literal.


Nope, the stacks haven't been proven and most people don't fit them. Why would a thinker have a stronger feeling preference? Then they're not thinkers


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Nope, the stacks haven't been proven and most people don't fit them. Why would a thinker have a stronger feeling preference? Then they're not thinkers


Yeah there's also the whole "there are people who can articulate their thoughts in a manner while keeping the atmosphere light-hearted" thing, I mean what does that even mean?

I know what it's trying to say - there are people with a stereotypically T trait (articulating their thoughts) who also have a stereotypical F trait (want to keep the atmosphere 'light hearted') but IMO, these are stereotypes and mean sweet fuck all, literally have nothing to do with 'functions'.

It's as bad as those people who say "Te is blunt, direct, gets things *done*, action-oriented" etc and none of that has anything to do with what Te is, which is a decision making process that prioritizes _group reasoning_ over _self-reasoning_ (Ti) and at the expense of _self-values_ (Fi).

Te wants to make decisions that are the best for everyone involved, and you should be able to cross-reference this with seeing a pattern of a person doing _this_, at the expense of their own self-identity/values.

Blunt, direct, BS this, BS that, spare me, fuck all to do with anything, why can't an Fe dom be blunt or direct?
Or an Fi dom? Or an Se dom? Or an Ne dom? etc etc


If we're going to play the functions game we should play it right and remove that kind of crap from the vernacular because we can't prove functions, if we're using stereotypes like that that simply fall to shit in real life because these BS adjectives and stereotypes apply to both sides of the coin.

Which is exactly what we have to _remove _to prove functions are a thing.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Nope, the stacks haven't been proven and most people don't fit them. Why would a thinker have a stronger feeling preference? Then they're not thinkers


Because they don't. Which is proven by none of those feeling function being in the upper sections of the stack. Really, it's no better nor any worst than doing away with them in general and starting back from square one where people can make half-assed assessments using dichotomy that was exactly what lead to the snowball's roll of problems people come across in the first place. Essentially, we are both complaining for different yet similar reasons. We're not even discussing the functions, or the dichotomy, but how people are using them. Which people should be able to use them more accurately, instead of inventing new ways to avoid implementing them accurately to recreate them to fit your own specific purposes. 

Something you and @Turi have a bad habit of doing, I notice.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

No, you don't notice that at all, what you notice is people not wanting horseshit stereotypes and non-falsifiable descriptors as part of typology.

If we're going to use functions we should use them properly and try to remove subjective bias and interpretation from the whole thing.

My Te should be your Te and that should be the real Te and then we're all on same god damn page and can all identify Te the same way, cross-check it with inferior Fi and away we go.

Every idiot having their own "opinion" on what each function is messes everything up and completely discredits the typology community insofar as functions are concerned.

This is part of the reason dichotomy destroys it at the moment, it's consistent and able to be tracked and has been tracked for the last 50+ years.

We need to do _that_ with the functions and it starts be everyone being in the same page with regards to what the functions are and removing stereotypes etc from their definitions.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Xcopy said:


> Because they don't. Which is proven by none of those feeling function being in the upper sections of the stack. Really, it's no better nor any worst than doing away with them in general and starting back from square one where people can make half-assed assessments using dichotomy that was exactly what lead to the snowball's roll of problems people come across in the first place. Essentially, we are both complaining for different yet similar reasons. We're not even discussing the functions, or the dichotomy, but how people are using them. Which people should be able to use them more accurately, instead of inventing new ways to avoid implementing them accurately to recreate them to fit your own specific purposes.
> 
> Something you and @Turi have a bad habit of doing, I notice.


I agree with functions, not stacks. Except when it comes to E and I. Dichotomies fuck up what S and N are. F and T to an extent as well. People are too rigid with functions though and it makes it impossible to type.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I agree with functions, not stacks. Except when it comes to E and I. Dichotomies fuck up what S and N are. F and T to an extent as well. People are too rigid with functions though and it makes it impossible to type.


Especially Se, Se gets massively rooted. Winds up being 'facts and evidence, present moment' which okay, yeah, that's Se but since it's extraverted, it wants to gather more and more facts and evidence which winds up as new information, seeking out new experiences, new data, new inputs - this is a direct clash with the S/N stereotypes where N = open-minded and S = narrow-minded, because narrow = introversion, smaller scale.

The version of Se that is 'fun, outgoing, likes to be outdoors, likes playing with things physically' is a version that should be deleted.
How's this:

"You probably move gracefully and with ease. You might even have quick reflexes." - is this implying that people without Se in dominant or auxiliary position _don't _move gracefully or with ease, or _don't _have quick reflexes?

"You might also be physically adept in some way. Good at dancing, martial arts or physical sports." - is this implying that people without dominant or auxiliary Se _aren't _good at dancing, martial arts or physical sports?

"People with Se as their dominant cognitive function know what is going on around them at all times. They can sense any change in physical movement in the room." - so people without dominant Se _don't _know what's going on around them at all times? They _can't _sense changes in the physical environment?


..all that horseshit needs to be deleted from history.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Especially Se, Se gets massively rooted. Winds up being 'facts and evidence, present moment' which okay, yeah, that's Se but since it's extraverted, it wants to gather more and more facts and evidence which winds up as new information, seeking out new experiences, new data, new inputs - this is a direct clash with the S/N stereotypes where N = open-minded and S = narrow-minded, because narrow = introversion, smaller scale.
> 
> The version of Se that is 'fun, outgoing, likes to be outdoors, likes playing with things physically' is a version that should be deleted.
> How's this:
> ...


No, the fun-loving, being aware of your surroundings thing, etc stuff is accurate.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> No, the fun-loving, being aware of your surroundings thing, etc stuff is accurate.


Whether it is or isn't depends on the person, those stereotypes aren't related to the actual function that is Extraverted Sensation.
Se is an information gathering process, and it gathers observable information as opposed to abstract (Ne).

Fun-loving.. aware of surroundings.. I mean, aware of surroundings can kinda be related, but it's indirect and using those terms as descriptors for Se means that non-Se dominants must _not _be fun-loving or are _not _aware of their surroundings, otherwise how does using those terms help separate Se dominants from non-Se dominants?

Those kinds of descriptors are nonsense.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I agree with functions, not stacks. Except when it comes to E and I. Dichotomies fuck up what S and N are. F and T to an extent as well. People are too rigid with functions though and it makes it impossible to type.


This is true, and I cannot fault you for this. Out of all the letters, N and S is probably the one where a higher amount of priority should be devoted. F and T are the ones that annoy me in particular the most, because of the phrasing people use when describing them. The lack of the word *prefer* ridiculously makes it seem as if whenever someone considers a Thinker, they expect an unfeeling android machine able to dispense logic, and any show of feeling immediately makes you a feeler. Because those two things are incapable of existing cohesively apparently. 

Similarly, there are functions that people tend to mess up easily, and give poor explanations, like saying "Se is the action function! It means action and a being physical-" No. It's a perceiving function that helps you be aware. Many of people I know who lack it, are far less aware. It's just not something that runs through their minds. They're also far more careful than I would be to an extent. I'm aware of my environment to some level, just enough to not get hurt. It doesn't really give you super reaction powers. On topic, there was something you said that I found confusing, you mentioned that you did not believe a thinker should have a stronger feeling function than a Feeler. Why do you believe that Introverted Feeling is weaker than Extroverted Feeling?


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Turi said:


> Whether it is or isn't depends on the person, those stereotypes aren't related to the actual function that is Extraverted Sensation.
> Se is an information gathering process, and it gathers observable information as opposed to abstract (Ne).
> 
> Fun-loving.. aware of surroundings.. I mean, aware of surroundings can kinda be related, but it's indirect and using those terms as descriptors for Se means that non-Se dominants must _not _be fun-loving or are _not _aware of their surroundings, otherwise how does using those terms help separate Se dominants from non-Se dominants?
> ...



I think the problem is that people speak in absolutes when it comes to functions and forget that everyone possess every function and people simply PREFER certain ones over others. So yes ISTPs have Ne they just prefer not to use it compared to other functions they possess


anyone can be fun loving but I would say that extroverted perceiving functions are more equipped to be fun loving. Does it guarantee it? Of course not


----------



## Westy365 (Jun 21, 2012)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Because people will say things like "You can't be INTP, you must be ISTP because you have Ti and Ni, with weak Se"


I can totally understand how that would get annoying. I believe the functions are a valuable part of understanding MBTI, and offer further depth to the theory. That being said, unless someone knows you super well, they shouldn't say that to you unless you ask for it. And saying "you can't be..." sounds presumptuous—I'd never say that to someone, even a close friend. Some careful re-wording with more openly subjective terminology would be better (i.e. "I personally think you give off more X vibes than Y ones because I see you doing A&B more often than C&D.") But again, that should be invited, not just unwelcomely dumped on someone.
Maybe that's too feely for some people, but there's no denying that it's more polite. :wink:


----------



## goodthankyou (Mar 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> That's a really good point actually. If someone relates most to Ti for example than they should logically relate to Fe absolutely last since they're the most dissimilar. Doesn't seem to be the case for many people but if there were function stacks that looked something like this Ti>Se>Te>Si>Ne>Fi>Ni>Fe it would at least make logical sense.


Yes yes! This makes complete logical sense! I've been thinking about it. In socionics, they have this 'strength of function' thing, where 4D is your strongest function, and 1D is your weakest. So your dominant is 4D, aux is 3D, tert is 2D, and inferior is 1D -BUT your shadow functions also have function strength from 4D to 1D. This means, that your inferior function IS your weakest function out of the 8, and the arrangement of function strength isn't as linear as we thought it was.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@goodthankyou PoLR/vulnerable is overall the most problematic in Socionics, but it makes sense to me what @Aluminum Frost said in an MBTI context. The PoLR function of ISTp in Socionics is Fe, which is the dominant in ExFj. ISTp and ExFj share zero letters in common. Same with ISTP in MBTI for which Fe is inferior, and dominant in ExFJ. Zero letters in common.

If you take an extravert like ESTp for example, PoLR is Fi which is different than the Ni of MBTI ESTP but the dominant Fi types in Socionics are IxFj (zero letters in common with ESTp). MBTI INxJ is Ni dominant which also has zero letters in common with ESTP. There's no one information element that is dominant in INxj though in Socionics (it's either Ti or Fi).

The most obvious reason behind why it works like that is the functions are flipped around in MBTI to fit the idea of the auxiliary function being most visible in introverts, contrary to Socionics/Jung.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

spaceynyc said:


> I think the problem is that people speak in absolutes when it comes to functions and forget that everyone possess every function and people simply PREFER certain ones over others.


Yeah, this is why people need to cross-check possible dominant functions with inferior functions etc.

But there's more to it.
If you observe someone and notice they generally tend to prefer gathering information as opposed to organizing it, then you know they're an extroverted perceiver.
Then you need to identify if they prefer gathering information via abstract patterns (Ne) or observable facts and data (Se).

Of course we cal all do everything, like you said - but if someone consistently demonstrates this preference for gathering information as opposed to organizing it and that information is generally in the form of observable data as opposed to abstract patterns and concepts, then we know we're likely looking at someone who prefers Extraverted Sensing as their perceiving function.

Even here, though, you need to cross-check Se with inferior Ni - you need to identify a pattern of somebody disliking organizing this information, they need to consistently display an aversion to synthesizing the information they have into simulations of reality using their imagination.

If you can't cross-check that preference for Se as outlined above - with inferior Ni - then the Se you identify _isn't _their dominant function.


People do need to accept 'preference' as an important method of typing people, because we can all do what everyone else does, the Se guy can do what the Ni guy does, so can the Ne dom, the Te dom, the Fe dom, we can all do everything.
Need to hone in on natural preferences to identify possible functions and then cross-check them with the opposing function to make sure you've got the position correct.


Using the above, if you can definitely identify Se in somebody, but not inferior Ni - then you would need to start looking for Ti and Fi - and cross-check those with inferior Fe and Te.

This is why somebody who appears to be an Se type and is 'fun loving' might not be an ESxP type, if you can't line up inferior Ni and actually find you can line up dominant Fi and inferior Te, for example.

Horseshit adjectives like 'fun-loving' and whatnot don't help at all.
I mean, why are they 'fun-loving'? Because they're being allowed to do what they want (Ti/Fi)?, in an stimulating environment that is feeding them lots of information (Se/Ne)?, being given enough time to organize information in their heads (Si/Ni)? Because their values and/or reasoning is being accepted by others (Fe/Te)?

Crap like 'fun-loving' and 'likes outdoors' 'likes mechanics' needs to be removed from typology history.


----------



## goodthankyou (Mar 25, 2016)

@Ocean Helm

Sorry! I got totally confused! I don't think I want to pursue this line of thought, though, I am aware that MBTI ISTP is socionics ISTj, both have inferior/suggestive Fe, and both have polr Ne.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

goodthankyou said:


> @Ocean Helm
> 
> Sorry! I got totally confused! I don't think I want to pursue this line of thought, though, I am aware that MBTI ISTP is socionics ISTj


No it's not...


> both have inferior/suggestive Fe


The concept of "inferior" doesn't exist in Socionics but the closest to being an analog is Vulnerable/PoLR.

The concept of suggestive doesn't exist in MBTI.


> and both have polr Ne.


PoLR doesn't exist in MBTI. You can only have PoLR Ne in Socionics.

I wouldn't want to pursue this line of thought either :bored:


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

It seems like everyone's mixing Socionics (and Enneagram as well) with MBTI. The main eight-function model for MBTI is Beebe, and I have seen some very loose parallels between the archetypes and the Socionics concepts:
https://erictb.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/socionicsbeebe-correlation/


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

socionics is too open for interpretation, i fit perfectly into the INTp (INTJ) and ENTP types (ENTP)


----------

