# Which function do you think the world could do the most without, and why?



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

_*Which function do you think the world could do the most without, and why?*_
I mean this in terms of functions available to both individuals and to types themselves.

For instance, if you got rid of Ni, naturally Se would follow suit, and probably all instances of Ni would be converted into Si and all instances of Se would get converted to Ne in this hypothetical experiment to see how well the world would continue to manage.

If you are up to the challenge, propose the change and explain your choice.

But as always, if you will regret posting your ideas for whatever reason, perhaps you should not unless you are prepared to live with doing so. In other words, try not to directly or inadvertently bash anyone.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

The world could do without any one of the functions. It just wouldn't be the same balance that we have now.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

I think the world could do without all the functions, as humans tend to overate themselves both in terms of benefit and detriment. But that is a tad beyond the scope of this question.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

It's an interesting thought.

The human species collective mind is made of the 8 functions and they are what caused us to get where we are on the species ladder, they are what makes the human mind different to other animals.

To remove a function or function pairing from the species would be removing the circulatory system from a body, or the skeleton, or the skin, rather than merely a single limb that would allow it to struggle on. If you remove one function you may as well remove them all, because as a body of work we are either wholly operational or totally ineffective.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well lets look at this from the standpoint of four functions not eight, because its get really silly at that point. Can the world do without sensation? Probably not. Can the world do without thinking? Probably not. Could you have a people that had no ability to evaluate? Probably not. And could the world do without intuition, well that's one of the things that makes humans humans and separates us from the animal kingdom. So probably not.

So i'm not sure what you're getting at. 



> I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational—viz. _thinking_ and _feeling_, _sensation_ and _intuition_. I can give no a priori reason for selecting just these four as basic functions; I can only point to the fact that this conception has shaped itself out of many years' experience.
> 
> *I differentiate these functions from one another, because they are neither mutually relatable nor mutually reducible.* The principle of thinking, for instance, is absolutely different from the principle of feeling, and so forth.
> 
> Jung


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

Stereotypically, Fi types tend to be the most selfish people and I don't tend to get along with them so I'd go ahead and choose Fi (and by extention, Te. Because Te types try to stomp on me and that's something I can do without as well.)

Everyone is probably going to beat to death the whole "but we couldn't live without all the functions" thing, so I'm just going from a boring shallow standpoint. Te and Fi bug me more than other functions, so I would choose them.


----------



## Ninjatea (Mar 8, 2013)

bobdaduck said:


> Stereotypically, Fi types tend to be the most selfish people and I don't tend to get along with them so I'd go ahead and choose Fi (and by extention, Te. Because Te types try to stomp on me and that's something I can do without as well.)
> 
> Everyone is probably going to beat to death the whole "but we couldn't live without all the functions" thing, so I'm just going from a boring shallow standpoint. Te and Fi bug me more than other functions, so I would choose them.


Thinking that Fi makes someone selfish is a common misconception. Fi doesn't come hand-in-hand with arrogance, or being full of yourself. However, it is not as self-less as Fe. Although everything you said does come from a grain of truth, you should really re-consider it before jumping to any conclusions.


----------



## hallrann (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm not exactly sure why if the world population goes without one function it necessarily goes without its mirror? (referring to your Ni-Se argument) Personally, I always thought that the reason Ni is so rare is because those people are not as aware of their surroundings and it becomes their detriment. The hypothetical example I'd give is that an Ni would be able to think if what kind of world it would be like if we could prevent deaths by taming/catching sabertooth tigers--all while one sneaks up on the poor Ni-user/dinner-to-be. As much as I rely on my Ni to keep me safe/on the right path/etc I can be totally oblivious to walls. Seriously, walls. And end up hurting myself: not very conducive to healthy offspring.

Now, I suppose you are asking in the time-sense of today. I think more of us are better able to recognize the advantages of different ways of thinking (Yay! Less witch-burning!) and can accept them. This way of thinking (pro-acceptance) can make it difficult to chose, more due to an attitude than to facts (or the interpretation thereof.) I thanked @bobdaduck for his input because I personally find it very difficult to interact with Te-users myself, as my argument of considering other people tends to fall on deaf ears, but I recognize the value in thinking that way, though I could not name it specifically. (Yay using the Ni function...)


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

bobdaduck said:


> Stereotypically, Fi types tend to be the most selfish people and I don't tend to get along with them so I'd go ahead and choose Fi (and by extention, Te. Because Te types try to stomp on me and that's something I can do without as well.)
> 
> Everyone is probably going to beat to death the whole "but we couldn't live without all the functions" thing, so I'm just going from a boring shallow standpoint. Te and Fi bug me more than other functions, so I would choose them.


But if you get rid of Fi, you get rid of 8 types of people o_0
I assume that you are talking about Fi-dom only?

No I don't think you can get rid of even the Fi-dom, in fact none of them can be eliminated.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

uncertain said:


> But if you get rid of Fi, you get rid of 8 types of people o_0
> I assume that you are talking about Fi-dom only?
> 
> No I don't think you can get rid of even the Fi-dom, in fact none of them can be eliminated.


The question was get rid of one cognitive function, not one type.

I tend to get along with Fi types the least, so I would choose Fi. 

I said in my first post: I'm approaching this from a shallow generalization level on purpose. I know not all Fi people are tunnel visioned on themselves, but a selfish Fi user usually bugs me more than a selfish Fe user, so I choose Fi.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

bobdaduck said:


> Stereotypically, Fi types tend to be the most selfish people and I don't tend to get along with them so I'd go ahead and choose Fi (and by extention, Te. Because Te types try to stomp on me and that's something I can do without as well.)
> 
> Everyone is probably going to beat to death the whole "but we couldn't live without all the functions" thing, so I'm just going from a boring shallow standpoint. Te and Fi bug me more than other functions, so I would choose them.


Speaking of being selfish:

quote: 
_"I tend to get along with Fi types the least, so I would choose Fi._" *shakes head* you're such a hypocrite. 

Without Fi you wouldn't have a justice system xD

Ps. I love you too.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

bobdaduck said:


> The question was get rid of one cognitive function, not one type.
> 
> I tend to get along with Fi types the least, so I would choose Fi.
> 
> I said in my first post: I'm approaching this from a shallow generalization level on purpose. I know not all Fi people are tunnel visioned on themselves, but a selfish Fi user usually bugs me more than a selfish Fe user, so I choose Fi.


Hmm.. I am just gonna ask why you don't get along with Fi types, since Fi-dom are said to be one of the nicest/ kindest/ most easy-going types. Sounds like you have met quite a lot of them. Do you mean Fi-dom and Fi-aux?

I think I'm selfish, too, quite frankly. I'm not saying that nice people are selfless. It's just that when they are nice and easy going, it's kind of hard to imagine how they can be so unlikable. It sounds to me that to you it doesn't matter if they are nice or not, but if they are secretly selfish, then they are fake and... disgusting? IDK that word might be too strong though.

It's kind of sad.

I'm curious how a selfish Fi behaves differently from a selfish Fe


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> Without Fi you wouldn't have a justice system xD
> 
> Ps. I love you too.


That sounds so great and so true.

You are not saying that to me, but anyway I love you too. Haha.

(This is a Fi-dom)


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

None. Impossible - they're all necessary for survival to "do" things that are relevant to the world at large - that's the basic aspect of functions, not related to Jung's theory.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

bobdaduck said:


> Stereotypically, Fi types tend to be the most selfish people and I don't tend to get along with them so I'd go ahead and choose Fi (and by extention, Te. Because Te types try to stomp on me and that's something I can do without as well.)
> 
> Everyone is probably going to beat to death the whole "but we couldn't live without all the functions" thing, so I'm just going from a boring shallow standpoint. Te and Fi bug me more than other functions, so I would choose them.


Well, you're probably projecting, even though your projections probably represent your identity correctly. Fi isn't selfish though - not if it's effective in getting results that DO in fact help the world around them. A conscious Fi type will not use it counterproductively (if it's contaminated by the unconscious, then yea, I'm sure it will be kind of immature and self-centered in your type or other Fe types).


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, you're probably projecting, even though your projections probably represent your identity correctly.* Fi isn't selfish though - not if it's effective in getting results that DO in fact help the world around them. A conscious Fi type will not use it counterproductively* (if it's contaminated by the unconscious, then yea, I'm sure it will be kind of immature and self-centered in your type or other Fe types).


Bold is so true.

I think if a Fi understands and is able to adopt certain wisdom/ virtue such as putting himself in someone else' shoes, he will be more capable and determinant than anyone else to do so.

And how a Fi define what kind of behaviors or attitudes as productive or counterproductive has a very significant influence on his general values and attitudes toward the world.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

So, a million Fi types read my post, decided it was a personal attack, and got offended.

I maintain my choice.

People, I have nothing against Fi types, nor do I believe Fi to be selfish. From experience, I get along with them the least, and they TEND to be selfish/self-focused/however-I-need-to-word-it.

@*uncertain: *Fe vs Fi selfishness. **disclamer:**None of this is rooted in theory, or in the function process themselves. 
Fi types tend to be selfish in a more "I can only see my own point of view" sort of way, which is something that bothers me because I usually try fairly hard to understand where other people are coming from. 
Fe types tend to be selfish in a more "people should be more considerate of me because I'm considerate of them" kind of way, which I've probably demonstrated.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

bobdaduck said:


> So, a million Fi types read my post, decided it was a personal attack, and got offended.
> 
> I choose Fi.
> 
> ...


Calm down, we were just messing with you a bit 

Fi _can _be selfish indeed whereas Fe _can _be manipulative. But it really depends on the mental state of that person. I can/want to set aside my emotions for the well-being of the common good so to speak but this is also related to my enneagram type.

Fi is btw not about "I can only see my point of view". It's just introverted reasoning and therefore subjective but I am willing to listen and trying to understand other people point's of view. I might not be able to relate to it all the time perhaps because it could collide with my reasoning, values or ethics.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I think Te is the least useful, but perhaps that is because I don't personally use it much.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

bobdaduck said:


> So, a million Fi types read my post, decided it was a personal attack, and got offended.
> 
> I choose Fi.
> 
> ...


"So, a million Fi types read my post, decided it was a personal attack, and got offended. I choose Fi."

Oh..no.. Whatever I say probably won't help. :S

It is probably _my problem_, that I see you contradicting yourself in your self-defence to earlier posts.

But I agree with you that Fi are self-focus, which is probably another way of expressing the definition of "Fi feeling turning inward." No I don't think the "selfishness" rooted in theory. I have never said that.

Many of us tend to take things personal. I guess that's why. But no I don't see everyone of us here takes it as a personal attack. They are two separate matters. In my case, I take it more as an attack on Fi type in general than specifically on me, although I feel a bit sad because I'm a Fi

Your two explanations of how Fi and Fe being selfish in different ways here sound interesting. Again maybe that's my problem, but I don't see any of them really have anything to do with being selfish... idk.

That "I can only see my own point of view" doesn't mean that an Fi won't try to "understand where other people are coming from." It can be that after a while of consideration, I still fail to see other's point of view. Not to mention whether or not such thing being introverted reasoning and subjective and thus not unique to a Fi, as @_All in Twilight_ points out.

"People should be more considerate of me because I'm considerate of them" make perfect sense to me. You deserve to be considered. However if you are considerate of others because you want to be considered more, then it can start to become a selfish thing, but I see my judgment here as fairly harsh as well, because it is a basic human need of being cared/ consideration/ compassion/ love.

So it is perfectly understandable and forgivable if you are trying to get warmth and consideration from the others by considering them more. In fact if someone do that to me and I know that, I will be his friend immediately and show my appreciation to him, and probably question myself why I have not been more considerate before, to the point that this person is doing such a thing to get my consideration, or that sort of self-questioning.

Sorry if I'm contradicting myself, but both are valid to me.


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

St Vual said:


> ...Ne doms generally hate to sit still and would abandon projects to start new projects.


I thought that that was Pe-dominants in general?


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

QrivaN said:


> I thought that that was Pe-dominants in general?


I guess, but Jung said that about Ne doms specifically.


----------



## Tulkas (Feb 2, 2013)

NM


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> First of all, "Si" is not a function, it is a function attitude.
> 
> "Sensation" is a function. Thinking is a function. Intuition is a function. Feeling is a function.
> 
> And that's it.


"For we find in his unconscious a compensatory* extraverted sensation function*of an archaic character."

- Carl G Jung, Chapter X, Psychological Types (1921), 9. The Introverted Intuitive Type

:dry:

Don't bother replying to this post or trying to get my attention, given what I know of you from our history I don't want to hear from you.


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

I hope I don't get sucked into an argument. I'm not sure I can handle it! 

But I say Ne and Si (to be bold). Ne in my opinion is entertaining but ridiculous and Si is okay but Se is better.

I love Fi doms and Fe doms both, though I obviously tend to prefer the Fi (using it myself and most of my loved ones do as well). I am always super jealous of Ti and I think it is brilliant, so I would hate to rid the world of it and by extension Fe. 
If I was to choose from the four...I suppose I would strike intuition, but I must be biased as a hardcore sensing dom.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

default settings said:


> "For we find in his unconscious a compensatory* extraverted sensation function*of an archaic character."
> 
> - Carl G Jung, Chapter X, Psychological Types (1921), 9. The Introverted Intuitive Type
> 
> ...


"Function

By psychological function I understand a certain form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances. From the energic standpoint a function is a phenomenal form of libido (q.v.) which theoretically remains constant, in much the same way as physical force can be considered as the form or momentary manifestation of physical energy. *I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational—viz. thinking and feeling, sensation and intuition.* I can give no a priori reason for selecting just these four as basic functions; I can only point to the fact that this conception has shaped itself out of many years' experience.

I differentiate these functions from one another, because they are neither mutually relatable nor mutually reducible. The principle of thinking, for instance, is absolutely different from the principle of feeling, and so forth. I make a capital distinction between this concept of function and phantasy-activity, or reverie, because, to my mind, phantasying is a peculiar form of activity which can manifest itself in all the four functions."


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> "Function
> 
> By psychological function I understand a certain form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances. From the energic standpoint a function is a phenomenal form of libido (q.v.) which theoretically remains constant, in much the same way as physical force can be considered as the form or momentary manifestation of physical energy. *I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational—viz. thinking and feeling, sensation and intuition.* I can give no a priori reason for selecting just these four as basic functions; I can only point to the fact that this conception has shaped itself out of many years' experience.
> 
> I differentiate these functions from one another, because they are neither mutually relatable nor mutually reducible. The principle of thinking, for instance, is absolutely different from the principle of feeling, and so forth. I make a capital distinction between this concept of function and phantasy-activity, or reverie, because, to my mind, phantasying is a peculiar form of activity which can manifest itself in all the four functions."


Thinking = Basic Function
Extroverted thinking = Function with a more specific description due to a use of an adjective.
Extroverted = Attitude describing the nature of the function

Sort of like how putting 'fluffy' before 'dog' doesn't make the 'fluffy dog' any less of a 'dog'. An function with an attitude isn't an attitude, it is still a description of a function with a particular nature, although it remains less general in its description.

This is more like basic English than any sort of meaningful discourse on Jungian studies. Perhaps learn to crawl before you try to walk or run. I don't advise taking a shortcut, but you are free to try to take them.

The Myers Briggs Foundation counts eight functions.

In my last post I already showed you where Jung called an attitude-function a function rather than an attitude, and have outlined the basic reasoning in this post.


----------

