# Your Ti Is Stronger Than Mine



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

In response to a thread on Se usage, I thought it may be helpful to create this thread. As I explained earlier, dominating with or having a particular function-attitude in one’s make-up does not guarantee a development of use of that function-attitude. Although we all perceive that we have a good use of a particular function-attitude, it is only when we interact with others that we notice our usage of the same function-attitude may be less than the comparative other, although it is placed at a lower level. 

I am reminded of when I originally started to learn about type in the 1990’s I noticed ENTPs and even INFJs that had better developed Ti than I. It was not that my usage was subpar, but merely less developed than those I compared it to. As for my Se, although I have a strong use of it, all I have to do is have a debate with my younger brother who dominates with Se, to know how much I lack in using it. But on those occasions, I also realize how much my Ni is developed. On numerous occasions, many have questioned how I could be anything other than an intuiting type. It’s simple…, our claim to having any developed function-attitude is merely in the “eye-of-the-beholder”. 

So where does that leave us? A false sense of entitlement is paramount when we start believing that since a type dominates with a certain function-attitude, the user claiming that type automatically develops that function-attitude. That is not how the function-attitudes work. We must develop even out most dominant function. As I have repeated quoted Dr. Jung to say:


> The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness.





> This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom two judging or two perceiving functions stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But in such a case, there is merely a relatively undeveloped dominant function.


----------



## iscem42 (Dec 2, 2011)

Yeah, this is definitely a topic I'd really like to explore a lot more. 

To give my own example, I think I'm probably an Ne user not because of any overt strength but because of some indirect reasons. Se seems like the most absolutely alien function to me; I think I understand how it works, but I can only really "access" it by consciously re-arranging my sensory perspective for a bit (which I'm guessing is itself an example of Si use). It takes a lot of effort for me to do this and is incredibly draining to sustain for more than a few seconds. Meanwhile, my own relationship to Si has been a bit too bipolar / insecure for me to think that I use it as a default dominant or auxiliary perspective, and I've only started using it consciously in more recent years, and even then only for areas of expertise as far as I can tell.

But on the other hand, when I look at examples of the cross-contextual thinking that's correlated to Ne, I identify with the examples given (and they do seem to be reflective of how I've always thought), but I'm not as fluent with it as Dario Nardi describes some NPs (from what I gather, mostly ENxPs, though I haven't seen him explicitly state this) as being. Where he says some people can give 10 different uses of the phrases "underwear computer" or "philosophy oven," and then think up of 10 more in the time it takes to say those, I notice that I generally get pretty excited about this type of activity, but mostly just think of 3 or 4 sentences, with maybe a couple more hiding in my subconscious, then come up with a couple more as I say them ... but, I forget several of my original ones in the process. Part of this is me having average-poor short-term memory, but it may also be the effect of having a very rapid, trigger-happy Ti filter for all I know.

In any case, I would like to think that this hints at how type development is a very variable thing, even if the preference order doesn't necessarily change. Actually, it seems pretty refreshing to me that Jung himself looks less dogmatic in his theories on type development than a lot of the random mbti pages tend to be.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Any function can be as strong as the person is in my opinion. I think it merely comes down to how a person feels when using it and how natural it is to them. For instance I imagine a strong introverted judging function can lead to a strong extroverted judging one (Fi-Te/Ti-Fe) as well as the opposite (Fe-Ti/Te-Fi) but ultimately the powerhouse function in charge their is still the dominant function in which the person feels most at home in and feels is the most "them" by association. I think posters have it wrong when they say only one type has strong Ni or strong Se, it's not about that - the strength is not the point, it's the comfort - it's about what is ruling house in the individual and where they spend the majority of their time experiencing the function. The person could be strong utilizing any function but they will never experience the same mindset as someone who uses another dominant function the way in which they use it. You can slip in and out of other functions but you live in the dom function and that dom function shows you how to engage in the other lesser functions. At least that's my thought regarding this topic.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Arrow said:


> Any function can be as strong as the person is in my opinion. I think it merely comes down to how a person feels when using it and how natural it is to them. For instance I imagine a strong introverted judging function can lead to a strong extroverted judging one (Fi-Te/Ti-Fe) as well as the opposite (Fe-Ti/Te-Fi) but ultimately the powerhouse function in charge their is still the dominant function in which the person feels most at home in and feels is the most "them" by association.


Well no need for me to continue to repeat the fact that it is not the function that directs the function-attitude, but the attitude itself. What I will ask as usual is that if you are capable of using the introverted and extraverted function, why have two distinct function-attitudes? In other words like others before you, claiming that someone having a strong use of an introverted function implies they will have a strong use of it’s extraverted cousin as well. Clearly you are not implying that as a dominant Fi type, you have a strong use of Te. Therefore you can only be implying you have a strong use of Fe. Ergo, you are essentially saying there is no need for the attitudes since the user can use one or the other feeling function. This is simply not correct. 


Arrow said:


> I think posters have it wrong when they say only one type has strong Ni or strong Se, it's not about that - the strength is not the point, it's the comfort - it's about what is ruling house in the individual and where they spend the majority of their time experiencing the function. The person could be strong utilizing any function but they will never experience the same mindset as someone who uses another dominant function the way in which they use it. You can slip in and out of other functions but you live in the dom function and that dom function shows you how to engage in the other lesser functions. At least that's my thought regarding this topic.


I agree with this somewhat, except it is not the function they find comfort in, it’s the preference for judging or perceiving in general. But before that, the extraversion/introversion has already developed years before. The specific judging or perceiving function (T-F-S-N) develops later if at all.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Well no need for me to continue to repeat the fact that it is not the function that directs the function-attitude, but the attitude itself. What I will ask as usual is that if you are capable of using the introverted and extraverted function, why have two distinct function-attitudes? In other words like others before you, claiming that someone having a strong use of an introverted function implies they will have a strong use of it’s extraverted cousin as well. Clearly you are not implying that as a dominant Fi type, you have a strong use of Te. Therefore you can only be implying you have a strong use of Fe. Ergo, you are essentially saying there is no need for the attitudes since the user can use one or the other feeling function. This is simply not correct.
> I agree with this somewhat, except it is not the function they find comfort in, it’s the preference for judging or perceiving in general. But before that, the extraversion/introversion has already developed years before. The specific judging or perceiving function (T-F-S-N) develops later if at all.


I can't see this as being correct. The comfort is paramount.. it is what you naturally use to make decisions with most confidently. I doesn't seem that people are immobile on the inside. People can and do change, throughout their lives and throughout the weeks and days. Can your priorities change depending on the situation? Well, yes, they probably should if you want to maximize/minimize the effect of the situation. They do not _have_ to. 

When you say that is simply not correct, I'm guessing you are referring to the fact that it clashes with the system you choose to adopt(MBTI, for example)?

Unless you are talking of a bigger picture, in which there is no room for change or adaptation of functions. I don't think that is accurate of reality however.

You seem to be arguing that people are going to always be slaves to simple processes. I think the simplicity of the processes is deceptive, and depending on the individual, you may find an entire flora of different reactions. 

People are creatures of habit rather than logic. In this case, the logic is the rigid application of type principles. In theory, a person will act according to theory. In practice, they will act according to themselves.

More use of functions is generally preferable over less function use because they are all .... lost my train of thought. Crap. But I'm sure you can put the jargon where it needs to go on your own.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> Clearly you are not implying that as a dominant Fi type, you have a strong use of Te.


Thats actually exactly what I am saying. Except that it simply is a Fi based Te that works for the dominant function. Basically I am saying all the functions are entertwined to the dominant function, and all the functions can be as well defined as the person or individual is. But overall they are still subservient to that main function. 



> Therefore you can only be implying you have a strong use of Fe.


 No that would completely be at cross purposes with Fi.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

tangosthenes said:


> I can't see this as being correct. The comfort is paramount.. it is what you naturally use to make decisions with most confidently. I doesn't seem that people are immobile on the inside. People can and do change, throughout their lives and throughout the weeks and days. Can your priorities change depending on the situation? Well, yes, they probably should if you want to maximize/minimize the effect of the situation. They do not _have_ to.


To make a distinction, comfort is context-specific whereas preference is a universal prior. If for example a math problem is given to solve. One may be more comfortable using a thinking function to establish _what _the parts of the problem are despite a general preference towards say sensation.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

tangosthenes said:


> I can't see this as being correct. The comfort is paramount.. it is what you naturally use to make decisions with most confidently. I doesn't seem that people are immobile on the inside. People can and do change, throughout their lives and throughout the weeks and days. Can your priorities change depending on the situation? Well, yes, they probably should if you want to maximize/minimize the effect of the situation. They do not _have_ to.
> 
> When you say that is simply not correct, I'm guessing you are referring to the fact that it clashes with the system you choose to adopt(MBTI, for example)?
> 
> ...


I lost what you were saying as well, and I am not sure you are referring to psychological type theory or the principles of type. It sounds more like your wholistic view of human nature. So it’s hard for me to follow what you are actually saying. 


Arrow said:


> Thats actually exactly what I am saying. Except that it simply is a Fi based Te that works for the dominant function. Basically I am saying all the functions are entertwined to the dominant function, and all the functions can be as well defined as the person or individual is. But overall they are still subservient to that main function.
> 
> No that would completely be at cross purposes with Fi.


Since there are no pure types, our compensatory function will always be present. So I agree with you. I actually like your phrase Fi based Te since that is what you actually have. But there is a term already in place. It is called undifferentiated. Differentiated simply means that the function-attitude can develop to where it stands alone and independent of any other function-attitude. The only three placements capable of this are the dominant and both auxiliary functions. The inferior can never reach that level because as Dr. Jung says, any function-attitude to work it must suppress its compensatory function. Ergo, Se suppresses Ni, Fi suppresses Te and vice-versa, and so on. So when you describe your Te as “Fi based Te”, I think you are saying what Dr. Jung as already indicated. The Te can never develop to a point of being differentiated.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> I lost what you were saying as well, and I am not sure you are referring to psychological type theory or the principles of type. It sounds more like your wholistic view of human nature. So it’s hard for me to follow what you are actually saying.
> Since there are no pure types, our compensatory function will always be present. So I agree with you. I actually like your phrase Fi based Te since that is what you actually have. But there is a term already in place. It is called undifferentiated. Differentiated simply means that the function-attitude can develop to where it stands alone and independent of any other function-attitude. The only three placements capable of this are the dominant and both auxiliary functions. The inferior can never reach that level because as Dr. Jung says, any function-attitude to work it must suppress its compensatory function. Ergo, Se suppresses Ni, Fi suppresses Te and vice-versa, and so on. So when you describe your Te as “Fi based Te”, I think you are saying what Dr. Jung as already indicated. The Te can never develop to a point of being differentiated.


Shouldn't our view of human nature follow into type theory? I mean that's exactly what it's trying to explain, right?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

tangosthenes said:


> Shouldn't our view of human nature follow into type theory? I mean that's exactly what it's trying to explain, right?


I think Nonaci attempted to convey that it was not in post #7, and I agree with him except the reversal. I think psychological type is more specific and the discussion of human nature or as you continue to refer to comfort.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> I think Nonaci attempted to convey that it was not in post #7, and I agree with him except the reversal. I think psychological type is more specific and the discussion of human nature or as you continue to refer to comfort.


Ok, so let me see. You original post seems to be asserting that for instance, someone is an ISTP. So, in theory, they have Ti-Se-Ni-Fe. But whether the individual chooses to use those functions is dependent on the situation.
How does that disagree with what I was saying?

I was asserting basically what you were, but with a humanistic rather than specifically type-related bent in order to convey the convergence of what you were originally saying with reality. Then I had a brain fart and my train of thought was thrown into oblivion.

I got thrown off in your reply to Arrow because you seemed to be disagreeing with yourself, but I misread. 

So, I agree with your original post, but how does this affect the current methods of discovering type? How can we fit this into, say, a personality test, or an objective conclusion. Because you are right, but in being right you expose the ultimate inapplicability of the entire theory, that is, the function-attitudes are in the eye of the beholder. How do we reconcile this with something clear-cut and apparent to all? If we even can?


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> I think Nonaci attempted to convey that it was not in post #7, and I agree with him except the reversal. I think psychological type is more specific and the discussion of human nature or as you continue to refer to comfort.


I'll further elaborate that what I call comfort is the reaction after placating the disturbances of negative feeling-tones of complexes (a return to normalcy). If I'm eating food for example, I've learned to use sensation to make sure I don't bite myself on the lips (despite having done so recently). The conscious awareness of sensation of food in mouth as I chew now carries with it a feeling of comfort to my psyche (as to not repeat the injury).

I refer to preference as priors for developing specific functions in light of new data in the absence of related complexes. Going back to the math problem example, many paths to the solution exist but why one would chose a path characteristic of say Te-Ni vs another path of Ti-Ne I term preference. It would be unfair to express the first path as more comfortable than the latter as "comfort" entails experiencing a feeling-tone beyond his normal state of consciousness. i.e. Comfort is a result of relieving a disturbance to the psyche.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

tangosthenes said:


> Shouldn't our view of human nature follow into type theory? I mean that's exactly what it's trying to explain, right?


That is like asking why the square peg does not fit into the circle. Show me where psychological type has any correlation with humanistic psychology please. Dr. Jung was an analytical psychologist.


tangosthenes said:


> Ok, so let me see. You original post seems to be asserting that for instance, someone is an ISTP. So, in theory, they have Ti-Se-Ni-Fe. But whether the individual chooses to use those functions is dependent on the situation.
> How does that disagree with what I was saying?
> 
> I was asserting basically what you were, but with a humanistic rather than specifically type-related bent in order to convey the convergence of what you were originally saying with reality. Then I had a brain fart and my train of thought was thrown into oblivion.
> ...


Again, I remain confused on your whole discussion. You start your first post by saying, “I can't see this as being correct. The comfort is paramount..”, so what were you disagreeing with? You do not seem to be disagreeing with me, instead yourself. I still remain unsure what you mean by “comfort”, but since function development is based on habit, then if you are saying one becomes comfortable with habit, I don’t think that was ever discussed in this thread and is a basic principle of type. 

There are plenty of developed threads on the forum to discuss that. As for applying humanistic psychology to an analytical psychology discussion seems apple/orange. So if you believe that thread should be developed on how you believe humanism correlates with psychological type, then I encourage you to start a thread. 

You will also find that no one is implying that an ISTP can only use Ti-Se-Ni-Fe in that order, but it is the hierarchy of that type. I didn’t say it, the creator of the system said it:


> A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> That is like asking why the square peg does not fit into the circle. Show me where psychological type has any correlation with humanistic psychology please. Dr. Jung was an analytical psychologist.
> Again, I remain confused on your whole discussion. You start your first post by saying, “I can't see this as being correct. The comfort is paramount..”, so what were you disagreeing with? You do not seem to be disagreeing with me, instead yourself. I still remain unsure what you mean by “comfort”, but since function development is based on habit, then if you are saying one becomes comfortable with habit, I don’t think that was ever discussed in this thread and is a basic principle of type.
> 
> There are plenty of developed threads on the forum to discuss that. As for applying humanistic psychology to an analytical psychology discussion seems apple/orange. So if you believe that thread should be developed on how you believe humanism correlates with psychological type, then I encourage you to start a thread.
> ...


Comfort:


Arrow said:


> Any function can be as strong as the person is in my opinion. I think it merely comes down to how a person feels when using it and how natural it is to them. For instance I imagine a strong introverted judging function can lead to a strong extroverted judging one (Fi-Te/Ti-Fe) as well as the opposite (Fe-Ti/Te-Fi) but ultimately the powerhouse function in charge their is still the dominant function in which the person feels most at home in and feels is the most "them" by association. I think posters have it wrong when they say only one type has strong Ni or strong Se, it's not about that - the strength is not the point, it's the *comfort - it's about what is ruling house in the individual and where they spend the majority of their time experiencing the function*. The person could be strong utilizing any function but they will never experience the same mindset as someone who uses another dominant function the way in which they use it. You can slip in and out of other functions but you live in the dom function and that dom function shows you how to engage in the other lesser functions. At least that's my thought regarding this topic.


I thought I understood the point of your post; but I suppose I don't. What are you getting at? What are you trying to posit?


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> I thought I understood the point of your post; but I suppose I don't. What are you getting at? What are you trying to posit?


The functions strength isn't the point. the function can be as strong as the individual using it is. The point is how comfortable are you using the function and how comfortable are you in that head space? That is what should be thought about and or measured, not if you are using it "effectively" or using it "strongly." A person could use the function competently or brilliantly but that doesn't matter -- what matter is if the person feels good using it or if they feel comfortable being in that zone or head space. Do they feel as if that function is "them" or not, is it natural? 



Functianalyst said:


> Differentiated simply means that the function-attitude can develop to where it stands alone and independent of any other function-attitude. The only three placements capable of this are the dominant and both auxiliary functions. The inferior can never reach that level because as Dr. Jung says, any function-attitude to work it must suppress its compensatory function.


None of the functions outside of the dominant one can be differentiated. All of the functions are apart of the main dominant one and the dominant function tints our view from the other functions. All of our auxiliary/inferior functions serve the main one either consciously or unconsciously. Even the inferior function aims to assert the goals of the dominant function. The functions are all controlled by the dominant one and the serve merely to fully flesh out the person in other ways by fleshing out the main dominant function. All that matters is the consciousness/unconsciousness the other functions are there merely to guide the main one into doing what it does best. Therefore since all the functions are connected to the dominant one all of the functions can be as strong as the main one is because the main function is the driving force of the person the strength is just being allocated differently to get to the individuals main purpose. The parts can be equal within the person because they are derived from the same source. If the individual is strong all of the functions can becomes strong because the main function powers the other ones.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Arrow said:


> The functions strength isn't the point. the function can be as strong as the individual using it is. The point is how comfortable are you using the function and how comfortable are you in that head space? That is what should be thought about and or measured, not if you are using it "effectively" or using it "strongly." A person could use the function competently or brilliantly but that doesn't matter -- what matter is if the person feels good using it or if they feel comfortable being in that zone or head space. Do they feel as if that function is "them" or not, is it natural?
> 
> 
> 
> None of the functions outside of the dominant one can be differentiated. All of the functions are apart of the main dominant one and the dominant function tints our view from the other functions. All of our auxiliary/inferior functions serve the main one either consciously or unconsciously. Even the inferior function aims to assert the goals of the dominant function. The functions are all controlled by the dominant one and the serve merely to fully flesh out the person in other ways by fleshing out the main dominant function. All that matters is the consciousness/unconsciousness the other functions are there merely to guide the main one into doing what it does best. Therefore since all the functions are connected to the dominant one all of the functions can be as strong as the main one is because the main function is the driving force of the person the strength is just being allocated differently to get to the individuals main purpose. The parts can be equal within the person because they are derived from the same source. If the individual is strong all of the functions can becomes strong because the main function powers the other ones.


Feels good using it? That can be impacted by a perceived stigma on those function-related actions. That would have to mean that people can change type, and would do so based the reactions of themselves or their environment.

As for differentiation, saying that each function is unequal in strength(which you admittedly do not view to be a good measure of a function) implies that they could reach very extreme ends, even appearing to be(but probably not completely) individual of the dominant. It's probably unlikely, but possible. But this is basically what you say with, 
"Therefore since all the functions are connected to the dominant one all of the functions can be as strong as the main one is because the main function is the driving force of the person the strength is just being allocated differently to get to the individuals main purpose."


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Arrow said:


> None of the functions outside of the dominant one can be differentiated.


How do you know? And what is differentiated in actuality? And how do you prove that?


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> Feels good using it? That can be impacted by a perceived stigma on those function-related actions.


Not really. I am talking about the person themselves feeling good/strong/healthy/competent about using that preferred cognitive function for any amount of time. Usually when people use their inferior function they feel unhealthy or badly when they slip into a function that goes against their dominant one. That's why you get all those statements of "I wasn't myself", "was that really me", "I would never have acted that way", etc. The person is not operating at their most optimal level using the frame they would usually use to solve the problem, conflict, adversity or situation. Basically they don't like the way the use that function or that perception. The function is not "them". 



> That would have to mean that people can change type, and would do so based the reactions of themselves or their environment.


Not at all. I don't see where you are getting this from. Your dominant function shows itself in various ways. You can always tell a dominant function based on the dom/inferior complexes. My point was not to say people can defy type (though in some theories they can), my point was to say that the strength of the function or the capability of it doesn't matter as much as the feeling the person gets when they use it and if the person feels comfortable enough with the function being "them" or not. 



> As for differentiation, saying that each function is unequal in strength(which you admittedly do not view to be a good measure of a function) implies that they could reach very extreme ends, even appearing to be(but probably not completely) individual of the dominant.


I again don't see how you got here. The dominant function drives everything, although yes in some cases an individual can look like another type from a far if you measure behavior (Fi doms often look like Ne doms or Te doms in everyday behavioral ways but when you really look inside of them at what they value and how they see the world it's very clear they are Fi types) but that is viewing behavior and not delving into the person themselves. Persona and actual personality are different. Anyone can act like anything else in certain settings, I am more concerned about the true person and how that individual operates daily and what drives them or how they are seeing the world.



saffron said:


> How do you know?


I just don't believe it. The functions don't work as one by one steps. If you look at the typing thread there seems to be an overall commonality all the time. It's clear that someone either has a preference for judging or perceiving and those aspects become paramount to the personality. 

I do believe that all of the functions work in conjunction with each other though, I don't think that can be denied. I don't believe the functions operate unilaterally one at a time completely independent from another. I believe they all bleed together at one point but the dominant function is the one that is controlling the other functions and the other functions simply serve that dominant function. The functions all serve to give some breadth and scope to the personality but the dominant function rules and is most important and vital to the personality. I don't think that can be contested.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Arrow said:


> I just don't believe it. The functions don't work as one by one steps. If you look at the typing thread there seems to be an overall commonality all the time. It's clear that someone either has a preference for judging or perceiving and those aspects become paramount to the personality.
> 
> I do believe that all of the functions work in conjunction with each other though, I don't think that can be denied. I don't believe the functions operate unilaterally one at a time completely independent from another. I believe they all bleed together at one point but the dominant function is the one that is controlling the other functions and the other functions simply serve that dominant function. The functions all serve to give some breadth and scope to the personality but the dominant function rules and is most important and vital to the personality. I don't think that can be contested.


Whose saying the functions work as one by one steps? You stated that only the first function can be differentiated and I asked how do you know this and what does differentiated mean and how do you prove this? 

You're free to your opinions or beliefs, I just don't see how you can state an opinion as fact. I mean you're free to your opinions, but it just messes with peoples minds to state it like it's the truth. Use some qualifiers.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Well of course it's my opinion. Everything I state is my opinion, it would be ridiculous to put that after every thought though. In terms of differentiation I assume we are talking about complete independence or immersion in one function and in that thought I believe (qualifier for those who need it) that only happens with the dominant function and the other functions are thus tints of the dominant one. So Ti in a Se type will have a Se-Ti view of the situation not simply a Ti one. Si in a Fe type will have a Fe-Si tint to the Si instead of a purely Si one and so on and so forth. I do not believe it is possible to gain independence away from your dominant function, even in the grip of the inferior the dominant will still be present, perhaps not in control at that moment but always present.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Arrow said:


> Well of course it's my opinion. Everything I state is my opinion, it would be ridiculous to put that after every thought though. In terms of differentiation I assume we are talking about complete independence or immersion in one function and in that thought I believe (qualifier for those who need it) that only happens with the dominant function and the other functions are thus tints of the dominant one. So Ti in a Se type will have a Se-Ti view of the situation not simply a Ti one. Si in a Fe type will have a Fe-Si tint to the Si instead of a purely Si one and so on and so forth. I do not believe it is possible to gain independence away from your dominant function, even in the grip of the inferior the dominant will still be present, perhaps not in control at that moment but always present.


The point is don't say you do or you don't or you can or you can't regarding personality theory. It's not that hard to say IMO or in my experience. These theories are full of holes and let's all acknowlege that and not make it black and white in any regard.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Of course it's from my experience. It's _*my*_ post. Who's other experience would it be? If you have an opposing view you wish to share or argue by all means please do, that is after all what we are here for. But don't create a meaningless argument around the expression of ones ideas or how a person can choose to expresses themselves. Seriously?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

tangosthenes said:


> Comfort:
> 
> 
> I thought I understood the point of your post; but I suppose I don't. What are you getting at? What are you trying to posit?


The thread is about Psychological Type. I am basing my thread on *the theory that can can located here*. Now if you have something to add based on the theory, let's discuss. Otherwise, if you want to discuss something different create a thread.



Arrow said:


> None of the functions outside of the dominant one can be differentiated. All of the functions are apart of the main dominant one and the dominant function tints our view from the other functions.


So Dr. Jung was wrong, in your opinion, to say:


> Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]


He does not indicate they’re not or cannot be differentiated, only that they will be less differentiated than the dominant function. The dominant function, regardless of how differentiated it may be in the user, may be less differentiated in another person even when that function-attitude is used at a lower level. Again my example was knowing years ago that ENTPs and INFJs that had a better use of Ti than I did as a dominant function. 


Arrow said:


> All of our auxiliary/inferior functions serve the main one either consciously or unconsciously. Even the inferior function aims to assert the goals of the dominant function. The functions are all controlled by the dominant one and the serve merely to fully flesh out the person in other ways by fleshing out the main dominant function. All that matters is the consciousness/unconsciousness the other functions are there merely to guide the main one into doing what it does best. Therefore since all the functions are connected to the dominant one all of the functions can be as strong as the main one is because the main function is the driving force of the person the strength is just being allocated differently to get to the individuals main purpose. The parts can be equal within the person because they are derived from the same source. If the individual is strong all of the functions can becomes strong because the main function powers the other ones.


So again you’re saying that Dr. Jung and his followers were wrong when he said this of himself:


> As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious. You cannot get directly to the inferior function from the superior, it must always be via the auxiliary function. It is as though the unconscious were in such antagonism to the superior function that it allowed no direct attack. The process of working through auxiliary functions goes on somewhat as follows: Suppose you have sensation strongly developed but are not fanatical about it. Then you can admit about every situation a certain aura of possibilities; that is to say, you permit an intuitive element to come in. Sensation as an auxiliary function would allow intuition to exist. But inasmuch as sensation (in the example) is a partisan of the intellect, intuition sides with the feeling, here the inferior function. Therefore the intellect will not agree with intuition, in this case, and will vote for its exclusion. Intellect will not hold together sensation and intuition, rather it will separate them. Such a destructive attempt will be checked by feeling, which backs up intuition.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> The dominant function, regardless of how differentiated it may be in the user, may be less differentiated in another person even when that function-attitude is used at a lower level. Again my example was knowing years ago that ENTPs and INFJs that had a better use of Ti than I did as a dominant function.


I think you are focusing too much on cognitive strength of a certain function in individuals. A person who is healthy and is in full capacity of themselves could have a strong auxiliary function, however it will still be perceived threw the dominant function. For instance the Ti in an INFJ is not raw Ti in the same way it is in an ITP, it is a Ni-Ti based Ti that is working from the view of Ni to do what Ni wants it to do, thus the Ti function is subverted or tinted to the dominant function. It's not raw unadulterated Ti in a Ti-dominant type. 

If the individual is unhealthy or just poor in general they will have poorer functioning functions as a result compared to someone healthy, but Ti in a Ni dominant type or Ne dominant type is not the same as Ti in a Ti dominant type because the way the types are seeing the world are very different. Ni is using or slipping into Ti, it's not living every day threw Ti like a Ti type is. The introverted thinking function for the Ni type is simply a tint or a view used to fill out the needs of the dominant function. The Ni type is not driven by Ti. The Ni type would not feel comfortable using Ti the same way a Ti dominant type would. The same thing goes with any dominant type with any other secondary function. 




> So again you’re saying that Dr. Jung and his followers were wrong when he said this of himself:


The functions can be used, but again the functions are going to have a different spin on them from the primary function. Jung (and any individual) can feel whatever the like about being able to "use a function independently." But their bias concerning their dominant function will eventually show they aren't using those secondary functions like dominant functions. They are not using those functions independently like they would be used in the dominant position.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

iscem42 said:


> Yeah, this is definitely a topic I'd really like to explore a lot more.
> 
> To give my own example, I think I'm probably an Ne user not because of any overt strength but because of some indirect reasons. Se seems like the most absolutely alien function to me; I think I understand how it works, but I can only really "access" it by consciously re-arranging my sensory perspective for a bit (which I'm guessing is itself an example of Si use). It takes a lot of effort for me to do this and is incredibly draining to sustain for more than a few seconds. Meanwhile, my own relationship to Si has been a bit too bipolar / insecure for me to think that I use it as a default dominant or auxiliary perspective, and I've only started using it consciously in more recent years, and even then only for areas of expertise as far as I can tell.
> *
> ...


Relate strongly to what you say here. As a Ti dom I understand Nardi's experiment but it is very hard for me to not allow myself to filter through what Ti perceives as Ne nonsense so I would at best only be able to articulate a couple of these because Ti needs to sort out whether it all "makes sense".

I noticed this very clearly yesterday when observing a somewhat drunk ENFP trying to debate in metaphysics. The logical jumps he did were almost comical at times because he didn't filter it through like I would before I would even begin to articulate my position (and I admit it was kind of cute <.<). It takes a lot of conscious effort for me to not filter through any Ne information using Ti.

I honestly can't measure my Ti very well to others though, but I definitely see the difference between Ne dom and me being Ne aux. I think my Ne is pretty well-developed (I can definitely splur out as much random nonsense an Ne dom can) but it just doesn't compare to Ne doms. Having Ti sorting out Ne nonsense doesn't help me. 

This is a bit of an aside but do you Ne doms experience that you talk very fast in order to keep up with your thought-process? To me it's almost as if I experience that if I slow down I might lose something important in the process as I need to talk as I organize my thoughts. If I organize before I talk it feels as if I'll always forget or overlook some kind of small detail that's important to my viewpoint or argument.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Arrow said:


> Of course it's from my experience. It's _*my*_ post. Who's other experience would it be? If you have an opposing view you wish to share or argue by all means please do, that is after all what we are here for. But don't create a meaningless argument around the expression of ones ideas or how a person can choose to expresses themselves. Seriously?


It's not a meaningless argument. Until something is provable "can't" shouldn't be thrown around in the discussion unless you qualify it with "theoretically." There's a huge difference between stating something as fact or opinion and I don't really understand why that distinction is eluding you. All I have to say is "prove it" and you can't. 

If you're relying on anecdotal experience then fine, but you're going to be hard pressed to have compiled enough anecdotal experience to rival Jung's (he intimately studied people of all types in this regard for years) who stated that not only can you differentiate other functions, but that's the whole point to typology. He wasn't aiming to create a psychological caste system. It's meant to be a tool to help a person evolve and become more balanced and integrated. I have some issue with Jung's descriptions of functions, but overall he left a lot of room for variations and evolution of personality that I find lacking in typology forums.

It's my opinion that my auxiliary functions are differentiated. What I mean by that is I'm capable of orienting myself in Fi or Te consciously for an extended period of time when necessary. Is that my comfort zone? No. Do I even need to do this often? No. But I can when necessary to the situation or challenge and that's what is meant by differentiation in this context. It doesn't mean that it's equally preferred or constantly standing on it's own.

Maybe you just haven't differentiated any other functions than your dominant yet. Or maybe you're looking at the defintions in a way that wasn't intended.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

I already expressed it was my opinion I refuse to go over it any further past this point. Its my view that should have been apparent since I'm the one who said it. 

As to your point I never said that you couldn't use any functions except your dominant one. Anyone can use the function what I was saying is that when you are using the function it's not a pure form of that function the same way it is as another persons dominant function. When you use Fi or Te you are not using it the way Te and Fi doms use it. It does not rule you like it does your dominant function. Your using it through your use of Ne. It's a Ne tinted version of Fi and a Ne tinted version of Te. It's not the pure version of those functions which exist independently from your dominant function. They are extensions from your extroverted perceiving function in order to fill other aspects of your cognitive self. But Ne rules above all and guides all your other functions. You don't use the judging functions in the same way those dominant judgers use them. In my opinion since there is an apparent need for qualifiers.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Arrow said:


> I already expressed it was my opinion I refuse to go over it any further past this point. Its my view that should have been apparent since I'm the one who said it.
> 
> As to your point I never said that you couldn't use any functions except your dominant one. Anyone can use the function what I was saying is that when you are using the function it's not a pure form of that function the same way it is as another persons dominant function. When you use Fi or Te you are not using it the way Te and Fi doms use it. It does not rule you like it does your dominant function. Your using it through your use of Ne. It's a Ne tinted version of Fi and a Ne tinted version of Te. It's not the pure version of those functions which exist independently from your dominant function. They are extensions from your extroverted perceiving function in order to fill other aspects of your cognitive self. But Ne rules above all and guides all your other functions. You don't use the judging functions in the same way those dominant judgers use them. In my opinion since there is an apparent need for qualifiers.


No one is saying that your dominant function doesn't "rule." Can you give me an example of how my Te is tinted by Ne in a way that a dominant Te is not tinted by any of their other functions so as to make an example of pureness of dominant functions? Because I don't believe that there is any such thing and that the influence goes both ways. I also think that the less you are aware of other functions at work (unconscious) the more your dominant function is tainted by way of unconscious influence.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

An example of pure Fi for instance would be judging things purely from an internal subjective stand point and doing that constantly and exclusively. Fi types are always judging against the subjective they gain information from perception functions but they use that information to continue judging against themselves. Judgement types are consistently judging things based on what they mean to that individual or in some cases others. There other functions aid in that judging preference.

Perception types are more about views and looking at things from different view points above all. For instance Ne influenced Fi would be more based on finding the value rather then judging the value. Instead of deciding if the value is good or bad based on the internal belief system Ne would be more focused on finding the view and perception that led to the value instead of instantly judging the value based on internal merit like Fi would. 

Of course you have Fi everyone needs an internal and external judging function. My point is basically that you are not using Fi in a pure way like a Fi type would. Same for your other functions. Ne would also rule over Te similarly. Instead of thinking about pure cost and benefits analysis and making pure decisions based solely on what would impact the world your decision you would be effected by your perceptions or your views. Based on what you are seeing with Ne. Your perception would come first then your judgements. Because the view is more valuable it means more then the judgement. You would not value judging the same way a judgement type would. It would not be prioritized the same way. 

This doesn't mean that you don't have judgements just that they are secondary to your perception functions and living life as a perciever rather then as a judger.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Arrow said:


> An example of pure Fi for instance would be judging things purely from an internal subjective stand point and doing that constantly. Judgement types are consistently judging things based on what they mean to that individual. Perception types are more about views and looking at things from different view points. For instance Ne influenced Fi would be more based on finding the value rather then judging the value. Instead of deciding if the value is good or bad based on the internal belief system Ne would be more focused on finding the view and perception that led to the value instead of instantly judging the value based on internal merit like Fi would. Of course you have Fi everyone needs an internal and external judging function. My point is basically that you are not using Fi in a pure way like a Fi type would. Same for your other functions. Ne would also rule over Te similarly. Instead of thinking about pure cost and benefits and making pure decisions based solely on that you decisions would be effected by your perceptions or your views. Your perception would come first then your judgements. You would value judging the same way a judgement type would. it would not be prioritized the same way. This doesn't mean that you don't have judgements just that they are secondary to your perceptions.


I was a history major and it was crucial that one never stated an opinion as fact. So there's my background in regards to this argument/discusssion. I think we pretty much agree in general, but disagree on some definitions and maybe life experience since I'm likely older than you and may have a different perspective at this point.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Arrow said:


> I think you are focusing too much on cognitive strength of a certain function in individuals. A person who is healthy and is in full capacity of themselves could have a strong auxiliary function, however it will still be perceived threw the dominant function. For instance the Ti in an INFJ is not raw Ti in the same way it is in an ITP, it is a Ni-Ti based Ti that is working from the view of Ni to do what Ni wants it to do, thus the Ti function is subverted or tinted to the dominant function. It's not raw unadulterated Ti in a Ti-dominant type.
> 
> If the individual is unhealthy or just poor in general they will have poorer functioning functions as a result compared to someone healthy, but Ti in a Ni dominant type or Ne dominant type is not the same as Ti in a Ti dominant type because the way the types are seeing the world are very different. Ni is using or slipping into Ti, it's not living every day threw Ti like a Ti type is. The introverted thinking function for the Ni type is simply a tint or a view used to fill out the needs of the dominant function. The Ni type is not driven by Ti. The Ni type would not feel comfortable using Ti the same way a Ti dominant type would. The same thing goes with any dominant type with any other secondary function.


Sorry, I was not writing the thread to discuss the basic use of function-attitudes. Of course in a perfect world we would use the dominant-auxiliary, but as Dr. Jung described, any description written using well balanced hierarchies are simply caricatures and not how people truly use them. It's no different than reading a description of an astrological type as it *could be*. In Psychological Type, what could be is far from what actually is. So again my intent was not to discuss the subject on the rudimentary level you are referring to since, there are plenty of threads throughout the forum that does this.

The intent of this thread was to discuss the strength of someone using their dominant function in comparison to someone else using that same function at a lower level. In that case as an INFP, I am saying there will be EFPs and ITJs that have a better use than yourself. I think you clearly agree with this since you seem to imply you have a good use of Te. That clearly means you cannot have that strong a Fi since those two functions compensate one another. The more Te you use, clearly the less Fi you will use. 



Arrow said:


> The functions can be used, but again the functions are going to have a different spin on them from the primary function. Jung (and any individual) can feel whatever the like about being able to "use a function independently." But their bias concerning their dominant function will eventually show they aren't using those secondary functions like dominant functions. They are not using those functions independently like they would be used in the dominant position.


Again, you still seem to be speaking a rudimentary level. My intent was not to discuss the basics of hierarchy. We all know that someone using Fi at the dominant level will not use Fi the same way at the auxiliary, inferior and lower levels. When I allude to a function-attitude being differentiated, I am referring to it's independence in comparison to the the dominant function. Again in that case an INFJ can appear Ti-ish to others because of a strong use of Ti. I again have been told on more occasions than I can count that I appear more an intuiting type. Part of this is due to the biasness of the readers in how they see sensing types, but I have no doubt that it is also due to the developed Ni which (again the whole point of my thread) may be stronger than many dominant Ni users. So again, we are not speaking of the hierarchy of use as you continue to focus on. We are discussing the differentiation of function-attitudes. If a person knows they are unable to use an auxiliary function without the use of their dominant, then it should indicate they have yet to develop the function to a point of being differentiated. 

Dr. Jung showed in his own type that he was what we could call an ISTP in the 1920's but developed his Ni by the end of life, therefore indicated he showed a greater use of intuition. Most inferred he was claiming to be INTP and his type changed. No, he remained ISTP his whole life and developed his introverted auxiliary function to where he used in more than his Se.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think @Functianalyst is hitting the nail on the head about why most functions other than the dominant/inferior don't matter in a person's type. I swear I've seen Fe tert. types who I've mistaken for Fe dominant types on one too many occasions, but when you look at what they take seriously in terms of living up to, it's a dominant perception function. The dominant perception functions in general tend to have a different kind of impact on the expression of judging functions, I've noticed, where perception being fluid and hard to define can almost cause these types to come off like any type at so many given moments. The dominant judging types tend to be easier for me to discern, since they almost always tend to default to definite tendencies in terms of how they respond/react to events and people, points, etc. The T dominants are the ultimate rationalists in terms of assigning objectives/points to everything (e.g. they can't stand when people aren't doing/saying anything that can be summed up in some way), while the F dominants are the ultimate "If it's not important to me, I don't give a crap about it" people. And note that both have each other's dominants as their shadows, so you'll see both tendencies primarily with both types, but the F dominants have a sloppy, rigid use of the "summing up" mentality that tends to screw them over more often than not if they're not careful, while the T dominants have a sloppy, rigid use of the "if it's not important to me, I don't give a crap about it" mentality that makes them come off as overly judgmental and "judge-a-book-by-its-cover-like" in them. Of course, they won't always be rough with the inferior, but regardless, their conscious ctrl of it is rough.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> In that case as an INFP, I am saying there will be EFPs and ITJs that have a better use than yourself. I think you clearly agree with this since you seem to imply you have a good use of Te. That clearly means you cannot have that strong a Fi since those two functions compensate one another. The more Te you use, clearly the less Fi you will use.


My point was merely to say that the functions in terms of strength can be as strong as the individuals using them. I think you are focusing too much on strength as a measure of who is better at cognitive functions instead of seeing the functions simply as tools to understand information. A person should be able to access all their cognitive functions and use them effectively. If a person is not proficient in their own dominant function then clearly there is something very wrong or very unhealthy about the individual. There should be no reason for a person to be poor in their dominant cognitive function or head space. Although yes it probably can happen, those individuals are unhealthy though and thus aren't accessing their functions which generally would make their process weaker then healthy individuals who are using them in a more effective manner. A person should be able to access all of their functions and use them properly, regardless of type. Also just because one judging function is dominant doesn't mean that the other function is automatically made weaker. It simply is not preferred or not recognized as the ego as being apart of them or their consciousness. It doesn't mean that they are less effective with that function, just that it is unfamiliar to them. 



> I am referring to it's independence in comparison to the the dominant function.


I am saying that this doesn't happen, in my opinion. The other functions are not made independent from the dominant function. It may seem that way, but that is often because the dominant function is so ubiquitous that individuals don't realize that the dominant function is always "on" or is always a part of them when they process information. They relate and are used to strengthen the dominant function so they don't notice it's use when using that function to access another one. Perceptions are used to strengthen judgement in a judgement type. Judgments are used to strengthen perception in a perception type. The supporting functions are used to support the dominant function. They are not independent from them. They can never get away from the dominant function. 



> Again in that case an INFJ can appear Ti-ish to others because of a strong use of Ti.


I think this may just be conjecture based on stereotyping. Again as I said there are Fi types that seem like Te types or Ne types to the external world, but it's clear when you look at what they value and what they look for from the world that they are internal judgement types. Why? Because those functions are viewed externally as being strong or proficient in one function when its more likely that they simply have a strong core which then spreads out to the other functions. But when you see what drives them internally it's clear what their types are. 



> but I have no doubt that it is also due to the developed Ni which (again the whole point of my thread) may be stronger than many dominant Ni users.


My point isn't that you don't have Ni, or that you aren't a proficient Ni user. My point is simply that because you have a strong Ti base you are able to have stronger functions based on that formative base rooted in Ti. You just stated that you believe you are an ISTP because you believe you are Ti dominant -- that's my point. A strong formative base can lead to stronger supporting functions. Again we have access to all of our functions, so a healthy individual should be able to have healthy auxiliaries as well. But my point is that it's Ti based Ni, not pure Ni found in a Ni dom like an INJ. You don't use Ni like an INJ does. Although yes if there are unhealthy INJ's then you could have "better" Ni then them but it wouldn't be pure Ni found in a Ni dominant type and it's use would not be quantifiable in the same way. The strength of the function is relative or contingent to *the person using it*. If the person is not healthy enough to use it properly then of course their functions would be weak in implementing it. 



> then it should indicate they have yet to develop the function to a point of being differentiated.


My point is that differentiation in the way you are speaking about it (complete independence/autonomy from the dominant function) in my opinion doesn't exist.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@_Arrow_

Type isn't determined by quality of use - it's determined by preference and reasoning tendencies. It's perfectly possible for, say, an INTJ to have a better Fi than an INFP - regardless, this doesn't change the reality that the INTJ doesn't operate on a dominant judgement charter, nor cares to. An INFP can be much less impressive with Fi than an INTJ, for instance, but Fi does not dominate the psychology and personality of the INTJ, but does the INFP. After all, type doesn't adhere to standards that exist outside of itself conceptually, since it originates from within - it's not constructed from the outside in. Humans didn't create type standards - type presumably exists and goes beyond out control.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

@_JungyesMBTIno_ I feel like I said that. The functions are only as strong as the individual who is using them. If the individual is poor then there functions will be poor. That being said if the person has bad ability in using their main function then there probably is something wrong with the individual. They shouldn't have poor ability in something they use every day to make decisions or in the way they view the world. What I was saying is if the person in general has poor use of their main function then the individual is probably unhealthy. A healthier individual should have healthier auxiliaries. That was my point.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Arrow said:


> @_JungyesMBTIno_ I feel like I said that. The functions are only as strong as the individual who is using them. If the individual is poor then there functions will be poor. That being said if the person has bad ability in using their main function then there probably is something wrong with the individual. They shouldn't have poor ability in something they use every day to make decisions or in the way they view the world. What I was saying is if the person in general has poor use of their main function then the individual is probably unhealthy. A healthier individual should have healthier auxiliaries. That was my point.


No, the functions are not the individual, nor do they represent the intelligence of the individual necessarily. Just because someone is "worse" than someone else with a function doesn't mean that they have to have "problems" with it - it's just what it appears. And "health" and functions is largely mythical also. What standard of health is there for functions? I don't think there is any. The level of egotism one shows around various functions might suggest potential issues, but e, beyond using them ego syntonically - even that can't be judged beyond the individual. The only real "health" problem with functions would be having adaptation problems with the dom or auxes. and even the inferior to an extent. If you can't adapt your dominant, you're in deep doo doo.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

When I said health I meant if the person is depressed, on medication, going threw pronounced trauma or stress, illness or other special circumstances or otherwise known impairments that could harm the ability to absorb information within the individual. If you do not believe that those things can effect others and their cognitive functions then I simply must disagree with you and leave it there. Those are definitely stressors that I think could effect the use of a function and the individuals ability to use it effectively at it's less then optimal level. But again the function is only as strong as the user who uses it.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Just thought of an interesting math model for how differentiated a function is.

Imagine the dom-inf / aux-tert axis graph and define say a function called "strength" as the distance from origin * min orthogonal distance from any axis. Now define a probability density function called "function preference" over the graph. Split the graph into 8 symmetrical regions about the origin and label them TS/TN/NT/NF/FN/FS/SF/ST. Compute the expected values for "strength" over these regions. Call the differentiation of a cog function the sum of the two EV of regions with the same leading letters, e.g. T contains TS and TN.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I still don't think that the aux/tert is any dichotomy at all - I see them as one in the same, but the reason the dom/inferior aren't is because the auxes help the dominant and don't help the inferior. Regardless, this allows the dom/inferior to work together for the dominant, but the inferior is a neglected perspective, due to not being rationalized. If it is rationalized, it is through the aux, which is of the same orientation and can thus access it, but the overall perspective is ignored. I still can't legitimately see where there's any reason that, say, the aux. and tert. functions of ENFPs and INTJs are going to differ much, other than perhaps the aux. gets more attention as a way to promote the ego, being the opposite orientation to the dom, but then again, the principle behind this is pretty much non-existent also. I mean, thinking of Fi and Te in myself, I don't even know how to discern a difference in egotism between them - they're so interconnected - whatever I want to accomplish via Te, my Fi agrees with it - I don't see any "type conflict" here.


----------

