# A theory on Orientation



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

So, yesterday, I was thinking about dualities and how each partner offers the other partner what they sufficiently lack. They do this regardless of the e/i orientation of the function; we hold true to some degree that people can "offer" functions to each other.

I somehow got to thinking of a model for this, and I came up with this:

Dominant function: Prefers to share/impose (P/J) when orienting outwards; can equally apply to the self
Auxiliary function: Equally able to share/impose and apply to the self
Tertiary function: Follows in the orientation of the function (e = outward, i = inward)
Inferior function: Weak ability to apply the function to the self; requires external input

So, what this looks for ENFP cognition (since I'm an ENFP)

Ne: I have tons of Ne to go around. I can, if need be, apply it to the self, though I do so less.
Fi: I feel comfortable "Fi-ing" with other people and myself.
Te: I feel comfortable getting other people's lives together, organizing other information, etc. (things associated with Te) but not in doing any of that for myself.
Si: I hardly feel comfortable with details, specifics, bodily routine, etc. I need someone else to help me get it together.

Preliminary thoughts? I know, it's a little bit unclear.


----------



## pretense (Jan 2, 2013)

Yes, a little bit unclear.

Could you elaborate on applying a function to the self?


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

pretense said:


> Yes, a little bit unclear.
> 
> Could you elaborate on applying a function to the self?


It's so hard for me to explain, which probably gets at the fact that I don't really know what I'm talking about just yet.

That being said, "applying a function to the self" entails using one of the functions in matters relative to the self. This makes more sense with introverted functions (for obvious reasons) but it can also be done with extraverted functions:

Te: in a lot of ways, Te is correlate with self-discipline and a subjection of personal desires. For me, this is manifested in my difficulty to impose systems of organizations (that I often create) upon myself. 
Ne: usually working hand-in-hand with Fi, Ne observes the outer-world and helps process the observations that I make. (i'm not sure how to isolate this one
Se: i'm not quite so sure. :\
Fe: i suppose this could be Fe's natural inclination to neglect the desires of the self in order to maintain peace, harmony, and positive relations with others? 

I think some good guiding questions to help clarify what I'm even talking about are:

How do each of the functions work with others?
How do each of the functions work for the self?
What is the utility of each function?

I'd like constructive criticism. It's easy to bash ideas. It's harder to work with them and provide solutions.


----------



## TimeWillTell (Jan 14, 2015)

I actually wanted to make a my own thread on this a couple minutes ago, but I resigned and now I m commenting on MY theory on Orientation.

First, it deals more specifically about the E vs I clash.

E needs (read CRAVES please) external validation be it logical (objective fact) or emotional (objective emotion).
I needs (read CRAVES please) internal validation be it logical (subjective theories) or emotional (subjective values).


KABOOM!!!!

I ll sleep on this and may find my way back to develop later


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

And then there's my theory that sper ego is actually the worst relation(provable by facts!) and that there are two types of dualisation: personal and business. Personal dualisation would be better(imo) between the two people that SHARE N/S dichotomy. So, ESI and LSE. When you share your S/N dichotomy, there is just this unspoken understanding. Meanwhile a business dualisation would be your typical dualisation: ESI and LIE. The difference in S and N really maximises productivity, but does impose some barrier within understanding.

as for you @WikiRevolution: Yes, that is true. Why do you think we ESI want Te exactly as a dom.fnct. in our most prominent partners? Because they can validate our internal theories and solve our mess. We, likewise, can externally validate them by focusing them onto the right path(they don't think as much about this). If this is what you had in mind.

As for you @Raawx: lol. funny IEE! I literally don't understand a thing you said. How about you first think about something then post it?


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Ixim said:


> As for you @_Raawx_: lol. funny IEE! I literally don't understand a thing you said. How about you first think about something then post it?


Or how about you try to understand before dismissing? Communication goes both ways~


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Raawx said:


> Or how about you try to understand before dismissing? Communication goes both ways~


But I can't! And it's such an auspicious topic.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Ixim said:


> But I can't! And it's such an auspicious topic.


But you can't. So then don't be so quick to dismiss and insult, is what I'm saying!


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Raawx said:


> But you can't. So then don't be so quick to dismiss and insult, is what I'm saying!


Fair enough.


----------

