# Being Bad At Your Dominant Function



## mp2 (Dec 18, 2016)

I haven't been able to find much info on this recently in researching MBTI and function theory, but I've been wondering to what extent one's ability/skill with the dominant functions varies between types or how someone that's terrible at their dominant function would look like, depending on the function. 

Descriptions of both functions and types appear to emphasize individuals that are good at using their dominant and auxiliary functions, but it's hard to find information on types that are bad at their functions. To me, it looks like every description is biased towards individuals that are good at using their dominant function or at least average, while ignoring everyone else. 

I think there would easily be many, many people of each type that are bad at their dominant fundtion, but still prefer it and are better at it relative to their other functions. 

Often times, it seems this is chalked up to being unhealthy or something, but it seems like this is a very important, overlooked thing that can lead to many mistypes. If someone becomes interested in MBTI and looks into functions, they could easily miss their type if they're bad at using their dominant function and assume they're something else regardless of health. 

I could easily see how this could lead to confusion between different functions, where a dominant Ti user things they're Fi because they're not as good at logic or accuracy as other Ti dominants or an Fi dominant mistyping as a Ti dominate if they're not great at knowing how they're feeling or an Fe dominant mistyping as Te because they're not as good at Fe and so on. 

I don't mean only a person mistyping themselves when trying to figure it out, but also outsiders mistyping them as well, or the person coming across as another type to an outsider due to how bad they are at their dominant function. 

So, I'm wondering, to what degree does dominant function ability vary? What does it look like when someone is terrible at using their dominant function? Does it always lead to an unhealthy state, and if it doesn't, how do they differ from others that have better use of the dominant function?


----------



## Krayfish (Nov 3, 2015)

mp2 said:


> So, I'm wondering, to what degree does dominant function ability vary? What does it look like when someone is terrible at using their dominant function? Does it always lead to an unhealthy state, and if it doesn't, how do they differ from others that have better use of the dominant function?


According to the theory itself, the dominant function will be the function that you use the most, so by extension since you use and practice it a lot, it should be the function that you have to most control over. In healthy/decently developed individuals, the highest quality abilities would be attributed to the dominant function. Of course, there are people who misfire frequently with their dominant function, but those people also wouldn't have a good grasp on their other functions either. Perhaps this would occur in incidents of trauma, perhaps in people who do not like the core values/traits associated with their dominant function, most commonly in people under the age of 20 just because they are still developing. I cannot imagine it being healthy for adults, but certainly possible. I think this person, Mbti-Notes does a really good job at explaining misfires and such regarding the dominant function and generally development (yeah I know it's tumblr and usually I wouldn't provide it as a recource, but this one's actually really good).


----------



## Daiz (Jan 4, 2017)

I'm a Ni-dom and my future-predicting skills are traaasshhhh


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> Being Bad At Your Dominant Function


If you're bad at it then it's not your dominant function, in a sense you can fail with your dominant function time to time, but if you are consistently bad with this function then it is not your dominant function.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

When you over use the usage of your dominant function, and it's not backed up my your aux you tend to go over your inferior function.. 

So in that sense, you wasn't able to utilize your dom function.. But using your inferior function in a state of depression


----------



## psyche (Jan 5, 2011)

Well I think you'd have to use a function most naturally in order for it to be your dominant function... If you're bad at it, how could you refer to it as coming naturally to you? But I guess I could see it being less apparent if, say, you were in a bad place and... a) you were overemphasizing your auxiliary to compensate, or b) you were in a dominant-teritary loop, or c) you were trying to utilize your inferior in a shadowy kind of way that felt reactive or forced... Eg I can relate to all of those, like with the first one, when I was at my most codependent I was ignoring my fi for the purpose of consolidating people around me by overemphasizing my ne, and first I came off way too...go-with-the-flow-ish and eventually I came off like I had dissociative identity disorder or something, I was so all over the place. With the second one, occasionally I'll get super isolated and just introspect, getting lazy and comfortable about it like reading on my couch forever (fi-si I mean...)... and then with the third one occasionally I'll explode in anger and come off really bossy like a stressed te user but it's always emotionally charged like a fi user would, I guess.

Another thing is age... I've definitely seen young t's come off as f's because, well, being young is difficult and emotionally charged...somehow I could still tell they were t's, though, almost like there was this dryness or hardness there that was not present in me when I was growing up.

Blah, anyway I'm just suggesting there are a number of different scenarios when other functions might overshadow your dominant one and such but, ultimately, I think your dominant function is always going to show up or you are going to experience it somehow, pretty intensely.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

I agree with narcissistic. I think a person can make poor decisions or over-rely on/ignore their dominant function due to stress, immaturity, and other extenuating circumstances, but ultimately the dominant function has to be the most developed, otherwise it isn't dominant.


----------



## mp2 (Dec 18, 2016)

I agree with all the responses here, that the dominant function is always going to be the most developed, but I don't know if I'm missing something in the theory by thinking this, because I can't find much info on it, but it seems like a person's dominant function being the most developed and preferred function doesn't necessarily make them good at using this function, that it could just mean that they're only better at it than their lower functions and could still be consistently bad at their dominant function. 

Am I just misinterpreting the theory completely? That would probably explain why I can't find much information on this. :blushed: 

If you could rank function skills on a scale of 1-15, from 1 = terrible grasp/use of a function and 15 = perfect, could this be case:

Take an ISTJ that's very good at Si, 

Si = 14, Te =11 , Fi = 7, Ne = 4 

and a second ISTJ, 

Si = 10, Te = 7, Fi = 3, Ne = 1

Then, an ESTJ, 

Te = 14, Si = 11, Ne = 7, Fi = 1

In each case, there's a clear dominant function compared to the other functions, but the first ISTJ is much better at using Si than the second ISTJ, and the ESTJ is better at Si than the second ISTJ, even though both ISTJs have Si as a dominant function. 

I know this is an arbitrary ranking I just came up with and you really can't rank function use in this way, but I'm wondering in this case if the second ISTJ would always be unhealthy, or if they could be healthy but still naturally have a more limited use of Si compared to the average ISTJ. 

Or do most or all healthy individuals have roughly the same skill set and ability with their dominant function?


----------



## Krayfish (Nov 3, 2015)

mp2 said:


> I agree with all the responses here, that the dominant function is always going to be the most developed, but I don't know if I'm missing something in the theory by thinking this, because I can't find much info on it, but it seems like a person's dominant function being the most developed and preferred function doesn't necessarily make them good at using this function, that it could just mean that they're only better at it than their lower functions and could still be consistently bad at their dominant function.
> 
> Am I just misinterpreting the theory completely? That would probably explain why I can't find much information on this. :blushed:
> 
> ...


Oh this is what you meant. Yeah, that just has to do with development, ISTJ two can be just as healthy as ISTJ one, one is just at a higher level of development.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

mp2 said:


> If you could rank function skills on a scale of 1-15, from 1 = terrible grasp/use of a function and 15 = perfect, could this be case:
> 
> Take an ISTJ that's very good at Si,


What would it mean to be "good at Si"?


----------



## mp2 (Dec 18, 2016)

Krayfish said:


> Oh this is what you meant. Yeah, that just has to do with development, ISTJ two can be just as healthy as ISTJ one, one is just at a higher level of development.


That makes sense, thanks! 



Nymphetic Neurosis said:


> What would it mean to be "good at Si"?


Based mostly on what I've read about it, I would think being good at Si would mean being able to recall and relate previous experiences to present situations quickly and effectively, building an internal database of previous experiences and internal sensations for reference, easily noticing details and understanding how details change, and easily recognizing and understanding internal sensations including hunger, illness etc. 

These all appear to be common traits attributed to Si users, with descriptions emphasizing higher Si users as good at these traits and lower Si users as worse at these traits.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Nymphetic Neurosis said:


> What would it mean to be "good at Si"?


something like having a good sense of what makes the Si-dom comfortable and being able to marshall the other functions to help create and maintain such a happy state--ie, the happy Si-dom is an effective control-freak


----------



## SpaceMan (Dec 11, 2014)

I don't think you can be bad at using your dominant function. The auxiliary function may be underdeveloped causing you to assess and/or evaluate based on poor judgment/perspective. Not the other way around.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Being "bad" at your dominant function aka. Others not liking how you use it results in them calling you "unhealthy" because you know, they have sufficient expertise to estimate your mental health...

If you are bad at it functionally however - it is consistently weak, one-sided, low-dimensional, maladapted - it is probably not your dominant function. You can always go from strong and differentiated "stage" to weak and archaic one, but not the other way around. 

Along these lines:

http://www.darionardi.com/functions.html


> Stage
> The experience and response to a function-attitude
> 
> 0
> ...


Ni-dom will still have moments of mysticism, but mostly they will be using intuition as a cognitive tool and a catalyst for growth. They however need to go through all the other stages to get there and everything sort of culminates there. They can also switch between stages.

I suppose, not having a high dimensional, adapted function also means you do not have a type. But it being your preferred function would also mean that your other functions are even worse so... how would you even comprehend and process information?

You would have to have at least some functions at stage 2 to be able to function in a society... and some at stage 3 to have an independent, personal view on something... Guess stage 4 isn't necessary tho


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

I think intelligence also might have something to do with it. I see a lot of very intelligent people that have a good grasp of even their lower functions. I even have this pet theory that intelligence is the part of you that allows you to actually develop your functions. 

I also think that part of having a well-developed function is developing its couterpart. For Ni for example that means that you don't develop tunnel-vision but actually use your Se to find proof for or against your theories. Without that, a theory can be quite useless. (for example: I'm pretty sure there are loads of INFJ's and INTJ's out there, developing conspiracy theories and hiding from aliens and the government. Never making the effort to try and disprove their own ideas). 
The same would go for Si, holding on to what you know without daring to explore new ideas (Ne), Fi ruminating on its own feelings and values without using Te to act on it or Ti puzzling out solutions to non-existent problems without using Fe to check if there are actually problems out there that can use this solution. 

In a way, developing your lower functions is like developing part of your higher functions too.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

This pseudo discussion is shit. The original question is shit. You cannot by definition be bad at your dominant function. Measure results of your effort/work which is real and measurable.

_ - Crap at math? Learn math._


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

The functions are not skills.
They are directions of attitude.
Think of it like a compass.
Either you are turned in that direction or not.
Once you are turned, there is no skill element involved.
Like Si for example, 
there is no way to be better at perceiving your inner subjective experience of sensation.
Either you do it or you do not, if it is a chronic pattern that take up most of your time,
*then you are a Si dom.
*My guess is that people who think of skill, is using some arbitrary activity(s), 
that could be greatly helped by Si.
Then they measure their skill in that/those and give themselves a score on level of skill.

This is not how it works.
INTJs like me don't have to be "masterminds" or "scientist" 
or whatever other profession/stereotype you have in mind, 
we can be complete loser bums as can all the rest of the types.
Maybe all that Ni is channeled into useless activities 
like predicting who will win in some lame reality TV show.
It is still Ni, but people may from the outside call it Si 
as they are just lounging around seeming pretty dumb.
In other words they will attach a stereotype to it.
Most people can't type shit, I know because I'm a half-decent typist.
Half-decent, because I seldom bother to use good methodology (Te).
I'm lazy as fuck, and still get a good result due to my Ni.
When I do turn towards Te and actually focus on the typing methodology,
I'm probably among an elite few that can nail type every time.
This does not mean that everything else in my life is handled.
Cause I've been a lazy bum in many other areas.
I really didn't bother with methodology and structure in many of those, and it really shows.
Same with Si doms like ISTJs, they can just sit there and enjoy the different nuances of weed.
Or they can turn towards Te and apply some methodology to their Si.
This doesn't mean that the result will be good, INTJs and ISTJs can adopt terrible methodologies.
Just because someone turns towards Te is not a guarantee for success.
It is a start for sure, a good compensation.
If they get in touch with their inferior it is even better, 
that is usually where they can detect if their efforts are actually paying off,
or if it is just a dead end.


----------



## mp2 (Dec 18, 2016)

pwowq said:


> This pseudo discussion is shit. The original question is shit. You cannot by definition be bad at your dominant function. Measure results of your effort/work which is real and measurable.
> 
> _ - Crap at math? Learn math._


You're probably right. Wouldn't be the first shit question I've asked. :laughing:


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

mp2 said:


> I agree with all the responses here, that the dominant function is always going to be the most developed, but I don't know if I'm missing something in the theory by thinking this, because I can't find much info on it, but it seems like a person's dominant function being the most developed and preferred function doesn't necessarily make them good at using this function, that it could just mean that they're only better at it than their lower functions and could still be consistently bad at their dominant function.
> 
> Am I just misinterpreting the theory completely? That would probably explain why I can't find much information on this. :blushed:


Skills or abilities don't define your type. That's a misconception or assumption if it happens. If you need resource to back it up, then look at Beebe's stuff. He wrote about that and clearly separated skills/abilities from type.

Here's a link:
Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)

About your specific topic info is in the intro. The problem is that he also wrote "When we use a function that is destined to become "preferred", we feel an emotional investment in what we're doing, and we feel in control of our emotional life, so we keep on doing it", that makes things bit more complicated to comprehend. Also, John found that information somewhere and wrote his stuff as analysis. From here he found that is unknown to me.


You can also look at this: http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-1.html


----------



## Westy365 (Jun 21, 2012)

My wife is an INFJ, but growing up with 2 strict sensor parents, she wasn't able to develop her Introverted Intuition very much. 
As a result, she was very confused when she felt her Ni, didn't know what was going on, and had very little sense of self.
She was very depressed and in her own little world, and to this day can't account for a lot of her childhood.

My guess is that people who don't have their dominant function developed are either depressed and/or neurotic, with little understanding of who they are.


----------



## Kaioken (Mar 4, 2017)

I think Ne is my dominant function, I identify it more easily than Ti. I've never been sure whether I was INTP or ENTP, I settled for the latter.
I'm not that great at logic, I tend to live in my head, but I think I mostly ook outward than inward.

Yet I don't think I'm that good at generating good and original ideas. I'm not that bad for stupid jokes but thats it.


----------



## BranchMonkey (Feb 23, 2017)

*Problem Wouldn't Be Being Bad at Dominant But Using All Other Functions To Serve It.*



mp2 said:


> I haven't been able to find much info on this recently in researching MBTI and function theory, but I've been wondering to what extent one's ability/skill with the dominant functions varies between types or how someone that's terrible at their dominant function would look like, depending on the function.
> 
> Descriptions of both functions and types appear to emphasize individuals that are good at using their dominant and auxiliary functions, but it's hard to find information on types that are bad at their functions. To me, it looks like every description is biased towards individuals that are good at using their dominant function or at least average, while ignoring everyone else.
> 
> ...


Not possible for a reasonably intelligent, reasonably sane, reasonably stable person to be 'bad' at using the dominant function.

The problem would more likely be caused by someone using all other functions to serve the dominant one, which would lead to an extreme imbalance in over-all reasoning and therefore functioning effectively.

So, if, say for an INFJ, all functions are used to serve Ni, then the particular INFJ could look as though he or she were a different type, or an incompetent, e.g. an INFJ who has used, say, Fe energy/focus on Ni exclusively (or close enough) would seem uncaring, rigid, obsessed with some perfect adherence to a cause at the expense of caring for real individuals who make up the target for the INFJ's cause.

Again, using INFJ as an example, if the person is using up all his or her energy on gathering information, seeing all possibilities, unable to make a decision--too busy gathering, no harvesting--then others might view that INFJ as a 'lazy' INTP or 'a flaky' INFP, or one of those 'can't pay attention for more than a few seconds' ENFPs. And even, oh no! a sensor who can't succeed until his or her type is recognized.  

Just extrapolate this to all other types, one by one, i.e. imagine any MBTI type using all other functions to serve the dominant one, and tease out what that might look like.

It will become apparent that any type would seem like either a mistype, stupid or otherwise incompetent, rather than someone who--for whatever reason--needs to spread the focus around, building up auxiliary, tertiary, and especially inferior function.

With the inferior function, however, one shouldn't focus 'too much' there either lest a massive energy drain occur so that yet again, a seeming mistype or 'don't care' type is perceived by others rather than the actual type in a lopsided state--to an extreme degree, while over-using rather than 'being bad' at using the dominant function.


----------



## Davidkal (Jul 19, 2017)

Red Magician said:


> The functions are not skills.
> They are directions of attitude.
> Think of it like a compass.
> Either you are turned in that direction or not.
> ...


Completely agree


----------



## HolyMoony (Mar 11, 2021)

Daiz said:


> I'm a Ni-dom and my future-predicting skills are traaasshhhh


How are you a Ni-dom then?


----------



## HolyMoony (Mar 11, 2021)

mp2 said:


> I haven't been able to find much info on this recently in researching MBTI and function theory, but I've been wondering to what extent one's ability/skill with the dominant functions varies between types or how someone that's terrible at their dominant function would look like, depending on the function.
> 
> Descriptions of both functions and types appear to emphasize individuals that are good at using their dominant and auxiliary functions, but it's hard to find information on types that are bad at their functions. To me, it looks like every description is biased towards individuals that are good at using their dominant function or at least average, while ignoring everyone else.
> 
> ...


If that's your worst function that's not your dom function. But there are cases where dom function can be immature or unhealthy. For example, if you are a Fi dom with BPD you likely have more unstable sense of self compared to other healthy Fi doms but it will still be your most used function. A Fi dom can have corrupt moral framework or a Ti dom can have bizarre logical framework (mostly seen in schizotypal personality disorder) that makes no sense to other people but only makes sense to the individual. Ni dom can become disconnected from reality and become bizarre conspiracy theorists which no one else believes.


----------



## HolyMoony (Mar 11, 2021)

Saiyed Handsome **** said:


> I agree with narcissistic. I think a person can make poor decisions or over-rely on/ignore their dominant function due to stress, immaturity, and other extenuating circumstances, but ultimately the dominant function has to be the most developed, otherwise it isn't dominant.


I think the dominant function can be underdeveloped under 20 years of age but after 20 if it's still underdeveloped the chances are that whether it's not your dominant function or you suffer from severe dissociative disorder and spent most of your life in a dissociated state of mind unconscious of your identity.


----------

