# What function causes an inability to decide what's true?



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

I'm trying to work out my types (mainly Enneagram at the moment, but I'm not 100% on my MBTI either) and was wondering if there is any function that causes an inability to decide things. I can read a description of a function or even a huge profile of a personality type and happily nod along and accept that what is in front of me is a perfectly viable explanation for my whole life or just something I did yesterday (while observing myself) but can find many ways to explain everything I do and even after months of introspection cannot decide what the true motivation behind my actions or behavior is. I also struggle to decide on an interpretation of lyrics in songs, art or the actions of others - I easily come up with multiple explanations but cannot settle on one as the "truth". 

Is this a function or just a sign of a deep distrust in my own abilities?


----------



## RyRyMini (Apr 12, 2010)

Sounds to me like Ni - the ability to see anything that could be. Which you believe the possibilities to be true or not probably has to do with your judging function.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Probably too much Ni who likes to see things from different points of view.


----------



## Random Ness (Oct 13, 2010)

Hey, I guessed right, it is Ni! Yay for the indecisive!


----------



## WildWinds (Mar 9, 2010)

Maybe because there rarely is an objective truth when it comes to things like that? Some art and songs are intended to be vague so the observers can create their own meanings to ponder. You'll never know whats going through a human's mind when they do something unless you ask. Sometimes I don't know exactly why I do things either.


----------



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

Great, another confirmation that I'm in a loop and have useless Fe :frustrating:


----------



## AirMarionette (Mar 13, 2010)

Errr, Ne makes it difficult to come up with decisions and it is VERY open-minded because it considers several possibilities, as well as Ti, which allows you to detach and analyze from multiple perspectives. Both conjecture inconclusively and agree to more than one explicative option. What you're describing sounds like a loop of uncertainty and verity, where you receive information and check whether these things are true (in this case, for you), yet consider whether there might be other explanations based on your past experiences? That sounds like an INP thing, I think (most NPs are far from resolute).

Ni tends to LEAD to decisive action or thought after a sudden realization... but I don't fully understand it yet.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

asmit127 said:


> Great, another confirmation that I'm in a loop and have useless Fe :frustrating:


It does sound familiar... Yes, it does sound like a loop to me. Do you have any social context to make sense of what you are thinking about in?


----------



## Imightbecrazy (Oct 1, 2010)

asmit127 said:


> I'm trying to work out my types (mainly Enneagram at the moment, but I'm not 100% on my MBTI either) and was wondering if there is any function that causes an inability to decide things. I can read a description of a function or even a huge profile of a personality type and happily nod along and accept that what is in front of me is a perfectly viable explanation for my whole life or just something I did yesterday (while observing myself) but can find many ways to explain everything I do and even after months of introspection cannot decide what the true motivation behind my actions or behavior is. I also struggle to decide on an interpretation of lyrics in songs, art or the actions of others - I easily come up with multiple explanations but cannot settle on one as the "truth".
> 
> Is this a function or just a sign of a deep distrust in my own abilities?


Mainly your intuition, and intelligence. The process your describing is called "stalking your mind". This process, if you bend all your will to it, can result in profound observances. It can also lead to psychosis, depending on how far you go-be careful. You are in the middle of trying to "wake up". Observing one's self is very valuable in this process-you said "while observing myself". The term for this is disassociation. There is no guidebook for this type of "traveling" and "seeking". Go slowly and take absolutely nothing for granted, most things are very far from what they seem to be. Most people don't have the courage or fortitude required for this kind of thinking. But no matter what, feel no fear, it will destroy your efforts. As was said in the movie dune (someone has a sig saying this). Fear is the MIND KILLER. Killing your "self" is the most important tool in your arsenal-that is, your pride, ego, and sense of self (identity). This is how you provide detachment (disassociation) and thereby enabling your sense of "sight".

I've thought about writing an article on this subject, but frankly, most wouldn't understand what I'm plainly saying-and would think me crazy. Pm if you like.

I will not respond to any replies to my ramblings in open forum.


----------



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

AiraMarionette said:


> Errr, Ne makes it difficult to come up with decisions and it is VERY open-minded because it considers several possibilities, as well as Ti, which allows you to detach and analyze from multiple perspectives.


This is the question regarding my MBTI - either I'm an INTP who puts great value in Fe (while being useless at using it as it's tertiary) or I'm an INFJ stuck in a Ni-Ti loop (due to having useless Fe). No amount of reading or self analysis is helping to make this distinction.



penchant said:


> Do you have any social context to make sense of what you are thinking about in?


Eh... what? Social implies interaction and the loop I think I'm in pretty much defines social isolation. Maybe an example answer would clarify what you were hoping I would say?

Imightbecrazy: You will have a PM sometime, though I've no idea what it should say!


----------



## AirMarionette (Mar 13, 2010)

asmit127 said:


> This is the question regarding my MBTI - either I'm an INTP who puts great value in Fe (while being useless at using it as it's tertiary) or I'm an INFJ stuck in a Ni-Ti loop (due to having useless Fe). No amount of reading or self analysis is helping to make this distinction.


Well, for what it's worth, INTPs are most definitely capable of highly valuing Fe. In fact, assuming it's relatively developed, it works in tandem with Ti. Ti wants to help others by making sense out of their situations, impartially analyzing the issue at hand. Sometimes the primary and inferior functions team up like this, which is why we're huge upholders of harmony in a social context and value others' desires and wishes. It makes INTPs fairly amicable NTs. 

The question of whether you use Ni or Ti more kind of lies on you. On your OP, you indicated that you value truth and are unsure whether singular verities are possible, which is pretty Ti-like. 

Also, keep in mind MBTI is really just a logical framework for the infinitely complex human brain, so it's not like you have to adjust or define your mind to the system - actually, it should be the other way around. Why do you have "useless" Fe?


----------



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

AirMarionette said:


> The question of whether you use Ni or Ti more kind of lies on you


It's Ni or Ne that's the deal breaker, Ti and Fe are definites and always seeing many options is N. Both Ss aren't me at all...

I'm actually a strange case when it comes to development in that I had amnesia at age 13 so in effect never had a childhood and having spoken to my mum this had a major impact on my personality. In light of this I doubt my inferior function would show so soon (I spent much of my time at uni helping others starting with the most distressed rather than those with the greatest practical need, and this was after only 6 years, although I have never been approached by anyone with an emotional need it's always practical), which is why I'm leaning towards INFJ at the moment. But given how few amnesiacs there are around not much has been written - maybe we develop quicker out of "starting" life in a more complicated world compared to that of a child?



AirMarionette said:


> Also, keep in mind MBTI is really just a logical framework for the infinitely complex human brain, so it's not like you have to adjust or define your mind to the system - actually, it should be the other way around.


Oh yes, it's just a label. I'm actually struggling with my Enneagram at the moment as this actually has a path of improvement attached, but I can't decide which path I should take. 4 or 5 if that means anything to you.



> The process of extraverted Feeling often involves a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure. The “social graces,” such as being polite, being nice, being friendly, being considerate, and being appropriate, often revolve around the process of extraverted Feeling. Keeping in touch, laughing at jokes when others laugh, and trying to get people to act kindly to each other also involve extraverted Feeling. Using this process, we respond according to expressed or even unexpressed wants and needs of others. We may ask people what they want or need or self-disclose to prompt them to talk more about themselves. This often sparks conversation and lets us know more about them so we can better adjust our behavior to them. Often with this process, we feel pulled to be responsible and take care of others’ feelings, sometimes to the point of not separating our feelings from theirs. We may recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.


So why is my Fe rubbish? I have the desire to connect yet in 12 years have only found a couple of people who I do, all but one online where expressions of warmth are near impossible. Social graces aren't me as I come off cold and uncaring even when I really do care and want to help and I'm terrible keeping in touch even when there is no more effort involved than a couple of clicks. If you were a friend who moved away you'd may as well have died, I'm not going to contact you to see how your new life is. Though the only "real life" person I did connect with lived not five minutes from here and I never contact her either... Those I do connect with I over self disclose and make them uncomfortable, where I would hope a developed function would have self control.

I think that covers it?


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

asmit127 said:


> Eh... what? Social implies interaction and the loop I think I'm in pretty much defines social isolation. Maybe an example answer would clarify what you were hoping I would say?


Ok. I wasn't very clear on what I was thinking...

What I know from how I function myself, is that I tend to end up in this Ni-Ti loop when I have no possibility to relate my thoughts to the external world in any way. It could be straightforward problem solving, relations, ideas, future plans, really anything. But when I can't do something outside of my head to connect to what I'm thinking, that's when I get stuck. So talking to people would help me, if I'm working on a specific situation, actually getting more hands-on gets me out of my head, or anything that relate reality my my thought process. I was asking about the social context, because what I most often find lacking when I get stuck in the loop is people to talk about and try out my ideas on.

I guess my point was that isolated introverting, would pretty much guarantee a loop sooner or later... Do I make sense this time? :crazy:


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

I would argue that Ne can be more indecisive than Ni because Ne is coming up with several different ideas where Ni comes up with one solution that appears to be the best based on that "full picture" vision.

If I fully trust in my Ni, it is ALWAYS decisive and 9 times out of 10 it is right. It is only when I allow other factors to get in the way that I am then indecisive... so if I allow my Fe or Ti to get in the way.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

asmit127 said:


> I'm trying to work out my types (mainly Enneagram at the moment, but I'm not 100% on my MBTI either) and was wondering if there is any function that causes an inability to decide things. I can read a description of a function or even a huge profile of a personality type and happily nod along and accept that what is in front of me is a perfectly viable explanation for my whole life or just something I did yesterday (while observing myself) but can find many ways to explain everything I do and even after months of introspection cannot decide what the true motivation behind my actions or behavior is. I also struggle to decide on an interpretation of lyrics in songs, art or the actions of others - I easily come up with multiple explanations but cannot settle on one as the "truth".
> 
> Is this a function or just a sign of a deep distrust in my own abilities?


Intuition yes, Ni no. You're focusing on an object outside of the Self, therefore it will have to be an extraverting function, hence:


> *Extraverted iNtuition (Ne)- Inferring relationships, noticing threads of meaning, and scanning for what could be. Extraverted iNtuiting involves seeing things "as if" with various possible ways of representing reality. Using this process, we can hold many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our minds at once with the possibility that they are all true. This is like weaving themes and "threads" together. We don't know the weave until a thought thread appears or is drawn out in the interaction with a previous one. Thus there is often an emergent quality to using this process. A strategy or concept emerges based on the here-and-now interactions, not appearing as a whole beforehand. Extraverted iNtuiting involves realizing that there is always another view. An example is when you listen to one friend tell about an argument and understand perfectly and then listen to another friend tell a contradictory story and understand that view also. Then you wonder what the real story is because there are always so many different possible meanings.*





thegirlcandance said:


> I would argue that Ne can be more indecisive than Ni because Ne is coming up with several different ideas where Ni comes up with one solution that appears to be the best based on that "full picture" vision.
> 
> If I fully trust in my Ni, it is ALWAYS decisive and 9 times out of 10 it is right. It is only when I allow other factors to get in the way that I am then indecisive... so if I allow my Fe or Ti to get in the way.


Agreed, like Si Ni is a linear function that sees a beginning - middle - end. Ne and Se both are simultaneous using a shotgun effect in seeing everything at once. Some of you seem to be getting caught up in the use of the word introspection. Myers-Briggs claimed that Ni types are introspective which is a fallacy. All introverting functions are introspective:


> in·tro·spec·tion
> /ˌɪntrəˈspɛkʃən/ Show Spelled[in-truh-spek-shuhn]
> –noun
> 1.
> ...


Ti will introspect on principles of how the object works, Fi will introspect on values or how they feel about the object. Ni will introspect on the meaning of the object and how they can envision it's use. Si will introspect on how they understand the object based on what they have always understood it to be. But all of these functions must do this in lieu of the object, not while focusing on it.


----------



## Filigeedreamer (Sep 4, 2010)

asmit127 said:


> So why is my Fe rubbish? I have the desire to connect yet in 12 years have only found a couple of people who I do, all but one online where expressions of warmth are near impossible. Social graces aren't me as I come off cold and uncaring even when I really do care and want to help and I'm terrible keeping in touch even when there is no more effort involved than a couple of clicks. If you were a friend who moved away you'd may as well have died, I'm not going to contact you to see how your new life is. Though the only "real life" person I did connect with lived not five minutes from here and I never contact her either... Those I do connect with I over self disclose and make them uncomfortable, where I would hope a developed function would have self control.


Doesn't mean your Fe is rubbish...

Here is an idea, define for us, and as sucinctly as possible, what you think each function does. You might just not fully understand them, and that is why you are confused. (which is my suspicion, and was my own problem with typing)

However, to anwser the origional question,not having Ti might make typing harder as Ti recognises subtale differences between things. Also not having developed Si to help you reflect, or conversly, over developed Si so you can see examples of _all_ the functions in you.

If you don't use Fi much, that means you may have a less developed self understanding, and so a less developed understanding of your thought process. 

Or...as I say, you don't entirly understand the functions, and need some more tangible examples of them in action, not just abstractions or basic definitions.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

asmit127 said:


> Great, another confirmation that I'm in a loop and have useless Fe :frustrating:


Correct, but only if you subscribe to Myers-Briggs’ theory. Simulated’s theory works if you limit your belief of how functions work to two principles. First there can only be 16 types; and second the auxiliary function must always be in use to balance out a type. Jung did not subscribe to either theory, instead said that he only gave a description of the types using the purest form of their dominant function. But Jung says it’s rare for someone to be a pure type and that if he had to begin writing descriptions for each type using his functions, there would be a minimum of over two hundred types. 

I am unsure how Jung came to such a high number, but I can say there will be at least 48 types. Is it no wonder that most people say they cannot discern their type in others? It is because at least from my experience and understanding of the theory, there will be at least three sub-types for every type. Jung only refers to the the dominant function having complete control:


> This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first.


So for example an INFJ can use Ni-Fe, but that is not a given and only Myers-Briggs theorizes that it does. Again Jung only says of the auxiliary function that:


> 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]


This function only differentiates INFJ (Ni-Fe) from INTJ (Ni-Te), but it does not mean there cannot be other INFJ types. I theorize that in addition to Ni-Fe INFJs, there are also Ni-Ti types, and even Ni-Se types. Where the Ni-Fe may appear more typical of the traditional INFJ, the Ni-Ti type will also have all of the attributes of the INFJ, except as we have read from posters and some descriptions, this type will use their Fe defensively to ward off external influences. This is not an unhealthy loop, it’s a natural process of preferring Ti to Fe since Jung says even the Fe is unconscious. Once again going back to his theory:


> 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. This peculiarity, however, is of interest only for one who is concerned with the practical psychological treatment of such cases. But for such a man it is important to know about it.


Again this implies that the only constant must be the dominant function in combination with an unconscious function and Jung says the dominantn function will always be differentiated. 

That leads me to what we call the inferior (4th) function which I consider a misnomer since it’s only inferior in proposed hierarchies to the three preceding functions. However for an INFJ Se will be more dominant than Ne-Fi-Te and Si. Se has to be present, otherwise the INJ will only use Ni which is what creates the imbalance. Fe can’t balance out Ni, that can only be done by it's opposite function (in this case Se). Fe can only be a workhorse in however Ni chooses to use it. But back to the fourth function, Dario Nardi says the tandem can work this way:


> We might try out various tangible experiences and activities to catalyze realizations for growth. The more varied and undigested experiences one has, the more material there is for the unconscious to draw upon. We might look inward to envision how we can transform something, then gather data and take actions to realize that goal—to make real what is envisioned. For example, we might visualize how people will one day journey into space, and then take the actions necessary to design and build a spaceship to accomplish that goal. This might take many years of action, including activities to sustain the vision. Another tandem relationship involves engaging in a physical activity so that body, mind, and environment merge to become one, perhaps experiencing a great sense of calm or energy.


The point is a lack of Fe does not create some form of unhealthy loop. It’s as natural a process for an INFJ to prefer Ni-Ti to preferring Ni-Fe. As an ISTP, I am not going to appear like other ISTPs who prefer Ti-Se since I naturally prefer Ti-Ni. Based on discussions with some ISTPs, I have observed their preference for Ti-Fe, but we all must have Se present to appreciate the core values of having the SP temperament.

As for the discussion of Ne vs Fe, Berens says the two types can appear as look a-likes since Ne and Fe often focus on people and their interactions. With Ne, it is the meanings and inferences that come to mind relative to people and their interactions. With Fe, it is the actions that keep people connected or disconnected that matter. Sorry for the long post.

*Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4*


----------



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

Wow, that's a lot of information and questions - thanks!


penchant said:


> What I know from how I function myself, is that I tend to end up in this Ni-Ti loop when I have no possibility to relate my thoughts to the external world in any way. ... I was asking about the social context, because what I most often find lacking when I get stuck in the loop is people to talk about and try out my ideas on.


That is much clearer and I completely agree. It's hard to find people to bounce ideas why you're a loner off, for some reason people get scared and when there aren't many around to start with it's a risky game to play :crazy: Analysing my motivations for isolation is entirely internal and there really isn't any other way.



thegirlcandance said:


> If I fully trust in my Ni, it is ALWAYS decisive and 9 times out of 10 it is right. It is only when I allow other factors to get in the way that I am then indecisive...


In the moment I'm decisive, but when trying to analyse something it must be logically correct - Ti would be one very good explanation for this. 



Filigeedreamer said:


> Doesn't mean your Fe is rubbish...


Really? 



Filigeedreamer said:


> Here is an idea, define for us, and as sucinctly as possible, what you think each function does.


I'd love to, but I'm really not in MBTI mode having been cramming Enneagram for the past fourtnight. It is safe to say my knowledge of the functions could be better, I just thought this would be a quick answer rather than re-opening my type question but why not! 



Filigeedreamer said:


> Or...as I say, you don't entirly understand the functions, and need some more tangible examples of them in action, not just abstractions or basic definitions.


Couldn't do any harm... The function descriptions are kinda like my writing at times - a few big and precise words where 20 smaller ones would make for a clearer picture to someone with limited knowledge in the subject area.



Functionanalyst said:


> Intuition yes, Ni no. You're focusing on an object outside of the Self, therefore it will have to be an extraverting function


Focusing on my analysis of my own behaviour is an object outside the self? 



Functionanalyst said:


> Simulated’s theory works if you limit your belief of how functions work to two principles.


It seems to work because I really think I'm schizoid, but if you're right and I'm using Ne his theory takes a dent. Unlike typing/functions disorders are detailed in the action rather than the motivation - I have no problem seeing what I'm doing, it's just the why.



Functionanalyst said:


> The point is a lack of Fe does not create some form of unhealthy loop.


Well whatever the cause I'm not healthy, and it's down to a lack of external input and desire/ability to find said input. If I'm following correctly the only deciding factor in finding my type is to work out my dominant function which could then be supported by either of the opposing functions. i.e Ni-Fe/Ti or Ti-Ne/Si or maybe even Ne-Fe/Ti. *wondering what an isolated ENTP would be like*



Functionanalyst said:


> Sorry for the long post.


You're apologising for trying to help?! I don't know how to respond to that :tongue:


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Could the inability to decide what is true be related to the extroverted judging functions Te or Fe? I was wondering if those functions are based on other people's ideas and so since often there are so many opinions out there, it's hard to know what is true.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

asmit127 said:


> Focusing on my analysis of my own behaviour is an object outside the self?


I was referring to your OP when you said, "....if there is any function that causes an inability to decide things. *I can read a description of a function or even a huge profile of a personality type and happily nod along and accept that what is in front of me* is a perfectly viable explanation for my whole life or just something I did yesterday (while observing myself) but can find many ways to explain everything I do and even after months of introspection cannot decide what the true motivation behind my actions or behavior is..... *I easily come up with multiple explanations but cannot settle on one as the "truth"*. The impetus for you doing this is not your analysis, it's triggered by reading the description, ergo extraverting and focusing on an object. Ne not Ni.


asmit127 said:


> It seems to work because I really think I'm schizoid, but if you're right and I'm using Ne his theory takes a dent. Unlike typing/functions disorders are detailed in the action rather than the motivation - I have no problem seeing what I'm doing, it's just the why.


I never said you use Ne, I said what you described in your opening is Ne. It can’t be anything else but. For the rest of your statement, it really pisses me off that anyone should be referring to personality disorders and correlating them with type. There is no evidence that any type correlates with a particular disorder. Even Dave Kelley has toned it down and makes sure it’s understood his P-types refer to Oldham. Two things, if you are that ill to have a medical diagnosis then you should not be attempting to type yourself. Clearly it will be skewed either because you are ill or because any treatment would change your personality I would think. Secondly if you have not been medically diagnosed, (and for god sakes anyone on this forum without M.D. or D.O. behind their name stop the bullshit correlations of types and DSM disorders) but merely saying you do not match the healthiness of an MBTI type, …. well duh stand it line because no one does. Myers describes someone using the perfect balance of dominant + auxiliary functions. 

But that is merely theoretical and there are no pure or perfect types. the problem is it's not applicable in real life and does not coincide with Jung's theory. He never said the auxiliary function must be the second most used function and he never said it must be developed for one to have a healthy type. Besides again the belief that the dominant and auxiliary functions must come into play limits us to 16 types and Jung definitely thought there are many sub-types for each of the 16 as we know them.


asmit127 said:


> Well whatever the cause I'm not healthy, and it's down to a lack of external input and desire/ability to find said input. If I'm following correctly the only deciding factor in finding my type is to work out my dominant function which could then be supported by either of the opposing functions. i.e Ni-Fe/Ti or Ti-Ne/Si or maybe even Ne-Fe/Ti. *wondering what an isolated ENTP would be like*


If you know your dominant function, you can only be one of two types, and that can be worked out by discovering your temperament preference. No two types using the same dominant function will have the same temperament.


----------



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

Functionanalyst said:


> if you are that ill to have a medical diagnosis then you should not be attempting to type yourself. Clearly it will be skewed either because you are ill or because any treatment would change your personality I would think.


I don't have a diagnosis yet but will soon (or will be told I'm a hypochondriac...) but I'm not going to take any mind altering drugs either way. I'm unsure if I want to be certified healthy and return to this mess or to arm myself with another excuse for being a social retard.

Thanks to all for your thoughts, please feel free to continue discussing the original question but leave typing me out of it :crazy:


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

asmit127 said:


> I don't have a diagnosis yet but will soon (or will be told I'm a hypochondriac...) but I'm not going to take any mind altering drugs either way. I'm unsure if I want to be certified healthy and return to this mess or to arm myself with another excuse for being a social retard.
> 
> Thanks to all for your thoughts, please feel free to continue discussing the original question but leave typing me out of it :crazy:


I don't think anyone should be attempting to type you Asmit, I know that I was not. Typing others is virtually impossible since even if we know a particular function being used, we do not necessarily know if it is the typee's make-up or in what order. We use all 8 function attitudes. But my responses were to your inquiry of what would go with with what you described in your original post. Clearly it matches up with Berens definition of Ne which I provided. Whether Ne is in your make-up was not anything remotely close to what I claimed. 

My rant was not directed toward you, but towards anyone wanting to correlate such a serious matter as personality disorder, with type. It's as irresponsible as claiming to be able to type others. Anyone can and should be able to determine a disorder from Dave Kelley's web page, and just because you show some symptoms does not mean you have a full blown disorder. Otherwise I could claim schizoid, compensatory narcissism and a whole host of disorders on any given day.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> If you know your dominant function, you can only be one of two types, and that can be worked out by *discovering your temperament preference*. No two types using the same dominant function will have the same temperament.



Is this a reference to Keirsey's test/ideology? (Googling temperament preference yielded results that were all over the map.)


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

niss63 said:


> Is this a reference to Keirsey's test/ideology? (Googling temperament preference yielded results that were all over the map.)


Absolutely not. Tests are only as good as the person taking them, although I do like *this one* I have posted some descriptions and break downs on the respective sub-forums for each temperament. 

The point being made here is that if someone knows their dominant function, generally they can discern between the two types that have the same dominant function, except as I write this I just realized ISJs have the same temperament so they would have to figure out their auxiliary function.


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

AirMarionette said:


> Well, for what it's worth, INTPs are most definitely capable of highly valuing Fe. In fact, assuming it's relatively developed, it works in tandem with Ti. Ti wants to help others by making sense out of their situations, impartially analyzing the issue at hand. Sometimes the primary and inferior functions team up like this, which is why we're huge upholders of harmony in a social context and value others' desires and wishes. It makes INTPs fairly amicable NTs.
> 
> The question of whether you use Ni or Ti more kind of lies on you. On your OP, you indicated that you value truth and are unsure whether singular verities are possible, which is pretty Ti-like.
> 
> Also, keep in mind MBTI is really just a logical framework for the infinitely complex human brain, so it's not like you have to adjust or define your mind to the system - actually, it should be the other way around. Why do you have "useless" Fe?


You can't develop your inferior function. Think about it for a moment. Fe is the exact opposite of Ti. As von Franz said, you can't bring the inferior function up without tearing the primary function down. And the primary function just won't have that. It will go to great lengths to kill any threats to it's supremacy.

To answer the original question, consider the wording. It contains both judging words (decide) and perceiving words (what's true). My thought on the subject is that it's a bit more complex than narrowing it down to just one function. Anytime you have a lack of a perceiving function or judging function, you experience this.

For example, undeveloped INTJs can be very hardcore conspiracy theorists. They have the perceiving abilities necessary to take in the truth, but they don't have any rational basis for determining what is and isn't true. An undeveloped INTP can be very wishy washy. They have judging abilities, but they always feel starved for information.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

amnorvend said:


> You can't develop your inferior function. Think about it for a moment. Fe is the exact opposite of Ti. As von Franz said, you can't bring the inferior function up without tearing the primary function down. And the primary function just won't have that. It will go to great lengths to kill any threats to it's supremacy.
> 
> To answer the original question, consider the wording. It contains both judging words (decide) and perceiving words (what's true). My thought on the subject is that it's a bit more complex than narrowing it down to just one function. Anytime you have a lack of a perceiving function or judging function, you experience this.
> 
> For example, undeveloped INTJs can be very hardcore conspiracy theorists. They have the perceiving abilities necessary to take in the truth, but they don't have any rational basis for determining what is and isn't true. An undeveloped INTP can be very wishy washy. They have judging abilities, but they always feel starved for information.


That's a fallacy. Not only can you develop it, you must develop it because it's the only function-attitude that can negate too much use of your dominant function. Ne has no ability to neutralize Ti. It takes another judging function of opposite attitude and purpose. The only function that can do that is Fe. Inferior is a misnomer it is one of the top four functions for ITP types. If you don't as you say, tear down the dominant function, it begins to completely control every aspect of your life rendering *this* or more specific for INTP:


> *The INTP gets "stuck in a rut" and only does those things that are known and comfortable to the INTP.
> ·	The INTP resists and rejects anything that doesn't support their own experiential understanding of the world. If they perceive that something is not logical, they reject it as unimportant.
> ·	They reject people who think or live differently than themselves.
> ·	They may be extremely caustic and insulting to others.
> ...


Myers-Briggs enthusiasts take a rudimentary approach claiming that it is the auxiliary function that neutralizes the dominant, however Jung says that the auxiliary function only has a secondary purpose. Air Marionette is completely correct, based on Jung.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> The point is a lack of Fe does not create some form of unhealthy loop. It’s as natural a process for an INFJ to prefer Ni-Ti to preferring Ni-Fe. As an ISTP, I am not going to appear like other ISTPs who prefer Ti-Se since I naturally prefer Ti-Ni. Based on discussions with some ISTPs, I have observed their preference for Ti-Fe, but we all must have Se present to appreciate the core values of having the SP temperament.


Where can I read up on this?


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> That's a fallacy. Not only can you develop it,


1. It's not a fallacy. You just disagree with me.
2. Marie-Louise von Franz (one of Jung's closest students) would disagree:



> A mistake that some people make is that they think they can pull up the inferior function to the level of the other conscious functions. I can only say: "Well, if you wish to do so, try. But you can try forever!" It is absolutely impossible to pull up - like a fisherman with his rod - the inferior function, and all such attempts as, for instance speeding it up or educating it to come up at the right moment prove failures. One can try to force it to function in an exam or certain situations in life, but this succeeds only to a certain extent and only only by bringing in conventional, borrowed material. One cannot bring up the fourth function, because it insists on remaining below. It is contaminated with the unconscious and remains in that condition. Trying to fish it up would be like trying to bring up the whole of the collective unconscious, which one cannot do. The fish will be too big for the rod. So what does one do? Cut it off again? This is a regression. But if you don't give in, the fish will pull you into the water! At this moment comes the great conflict, which means for the thinking type, for instance, the famous sacrificium intellectus, or for the feeling type, the sacrificium of his feeling. It is having the humility to go down with one's functions to that lower level.





> you must develop it because it's the only function-attitude that can negate too much use of your dominant function. Ne has no ability to neutralize Ti. It takes another judging function of opposite attitude and purpose. The only function that can do that is Fe.


You're thinking about this backwards. You don't develop your inferior function. It develops you. Yes, the inferior function plays a huge role in development. But you can't really "develop" it like you would the first three.



> Inferior is a misnomer it is one of the top four functions for ITP types. If you don't as you say, tear down the dominant function, it begins to completely control every aspect of your life rendering *this* or more specific for INTP:Myers-Briggs enthusiasts take a rudimentary approach claiming that it is the auxiliary function that neutralizes the dominant, however Jung says that the auxiliary function only has a secondary purpose. Air Marionette is completely correct, based on Jung.


Jung did write a lot of things and changed his stance on some things as time went by, so it's possible that we're both right based on Jung. But what I've seen seems to back what I'm saying. The way to develop yourself isn't to bring the unconscious up. It's for the ego to descend into the unconscious for a while.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

amnorvend said:


> 1. It's not a fallacy. You just disagree with me.
> 2. Marie-Louise von Franz (one of Jung's closest students) would disagree:
> 
> You're thinking about this backwards. You don't develop your inferior function. It develops you. Yes, the inferior function plays a huge role in development. But you can't really "develop" it like you would the first three.
> ...


Well silly of us to take the interpretation of a student when we can simply go direct to the source. Jung claims that all functions are inferior to the most differentiated function, but he also says.:


> The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality.....


Notice he says that the other functions are a counter balance to Ti? Going back to Marie Louise von Franz, I admit I am not that familiar with her work, but didn’t she also define inferior functions merely by the function without the attitude? She never said Fe was inferior to Ti. She said feeling was inferior to thinking. Doesn’t that coincide with Beebe’s eight-model theory that the inferior function for Ti will be Fi, not Fe? Speaking of which, was it not von Franz and Hillman that inspired the four-function model used by Myers-Briggs? I think Jung gives all indication that we can and do use all eight function-attitudes, which again coincides with Beebe’s model.

As for whether Jung changed his mind, I never heard that. What I have heard is people interpreting his words to coincide with their own agendas. Granted Jung says that extraverting functions will be inferior to one an introverting differentiated type and vice-versa, but it was Myers-Briggs not Jung who laid claim that Fe was the inferior function. All one has to do is read his definition of Fe to determine that we do use it.


> This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre, to concerts, or to Church, and what is more, with correctly adjusted positive feelings. Fashions, too, owe their existence to it, and, what is far more valuable, the whole positive and wide-spread support of social, philanthropic, and such like cultural enterprises. In such matters, extraverted feeling proves itself a creative factor. Without this feeling, for instance, a beautiful and harmonious sociability would be unthinkable. So far extraverted feeling is just as beneficent and rationally effective as extraverted thinking.


Again I admit I am not versed in von Franz work, but did she not also say that although a certain function has a hard time using it's opposite, it will have even a harder time using the same function of the opposite attitude? We must use Ti or Fi, Se or Ne, Te or Fe and Si or Ni because they are all used for the same respective purposes. When we have to judge the outer world we use Fe, not Te.


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Well silly of us to take the interpretation of a student when we can simply go direct to the source. Jung claims that all functions are inferior to the most differentiated function, but specifically says all extraverted functions are inferior to an introverted dominant type and vice-versa.:Notice he says that the other functions are a counter balance to Ti?


It seems you're misreading Jung somehow. From psychological types, paragraph 670:



> I have frequently observed how an analyst, when confronted by a terrific thinking type, for instance, will do the utmost to develop the feeling function out of the unconscious. Such an attempt is foredoomed to failure, because it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint.


Von Franz also makes it clear that Jung was insistent that analysts never try to bring out thinking in a feeling type (but I don't feel like getting the exact quote at the moment). 




> Going back to Marie Louise von Franz, I admit I am not that familiar with her work, but didn’t she define inferior functions merely by the function without the attitude?


Nope. The section of "The Inferior Function" in "Lectures on Jung's typology" that deals with Ti is called "The Introverted Thinking Type: Inferior Extraverted Feeling". If you haven't read this work, I highly recommend it. She has some interesting insights into how the various functions work.



> She never said Fe was inferior to Ti. She said feeling was inferior to thinking. Doesn’t that coincide with Beebe’s eight-model theory that the inferior function for Ti will be Fi, not Fe? Speaking of which, was it not von Franz and Hillman that inspired the four-function model used by Myers-Briggs? I think Jung gives all indication that we can and do use all eight function-attitudes, which again coincides with Beebe’s model.


You have to be a bit careful with some of Beebe's work: the semantics can be tricky. Beebe said that you have an inferior function and a shadow inferior function. With dominant Ti, Fe is inferior and Fi is the shadow inferior function.


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

> Again I admit I am not versed in von Franz work, but did she not also say that although a certain function has a hard time using it's opposite, it will have even a harder time using the same function of the opposite attitude? We must use Ti or Fi, Se or Ne, Te or Fe and Si or Ni because they are all used for the same respective purposes. When we have to judge the outer world we use Fe, not Te.


You also have to be careful with von Franz's semantics as well. This one threw me for a loop at first too. I don't know what text you're referring to, but chances are she was referring to the inferior *attitude* rather than the inferior function.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Whoa..... whoa..... whoa. Sorry but I mistook myself for INTP longer than you have claim to have been one so I know the drill. Instead of getting into a debate over this, where in the end all you can show is that it was all your opinion, let's cut to the chase. I did not misread Jung and it's in my post 17, source 1 for all to review and make up their own minds. The problem with Ti-ne types are that they easily confuse their interpretation or theory with reality. If you are referring to von Franz, just point us in the direction you want us to go to look up the information or at least paste the specific information you are referring to where she claims we do not use Fe. Otherwise, this is simply your interpretation of an interpretation with no facts to back you up.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

when people say they can develop Fe for example I have a feeling that what they really mean is a skillset normally associated with using Fe but this skillset does not have to do anything with Fe mindset itself

as for being able to "develop a function" I have some questions about this - this phrase gets thrown around a lot as people seem to think that they can develop their cognitive functions, but what does this really mean in its essence? what does actually happen when you "develop a function"? to what sort of changes does it correspond? how can I measure if I am developing my inferior? if I am developing skills prescribed to this function am I really developing the function itself?


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Whoa..... whoa..... whoa. Sorry but I mistook myself for INTP longer than you have claim to have been one so I know the drill. Instead of getting into a debate over this, where in the end all you can show is that it was all your opinion, let's cut to the chase. I did not misread Jung and it's in my post 17, source 1 for all to review and make up their own minds. The problem with Ti-ne types are that they easily confuse their interpretation or theory with reality. If you are referring to von Franz, just point us in the direction you want us to go to look up the information or at least paste the specific information you are referring to where she claims we do not use Fe. Otherwise, this is simply your interpretation of an interpretation with no facts to back you up.


Excuse me? I posted a very concrete quote from Jung's psychological types (and even gave the paragraph number) that said very plainly that you can't develop the inferior function. It seems pretty hard to misinterpret, but if I did, I'm willing to listen to reason. I'm not going to listen to arguments against my type though. I honestly find that shallow and offensive.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

vel said:


> when people say they can develop Fe for example I have a feeling that what they really mean is a skillset normally associated with using Fe but this skillset does not have to do anything with Fe mindset itself
> 
> as for being able to "develop a function" I have some questions about this - this phrase gets thrown around a lot as people seem to think that they can develop their cognitive functions, but what does this really mean in its essence? what does actually happen when you "develop a function"? to what sort of changes does it correspond? how can I measure if I am developing my inferior? if I am developing skills prescribed to this function am I really developing the function itself?


Very good point, indeed!


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

amnorvend said:


> Excuse me? I posted a very concrete quote from Jung's psychological types (and even gave the paragraph number) that said very plainly that you can't develop the inferior function. It seems pretty hard to misinterpret, but if I did, I'm willing to listen to reason. I'm not going to listen to arguments against my type though. I honestly find that shallow and offensive.


Your argument if needed to be reminded is that von Franz claims we do not develop our inferior function. As for what you quote as Jung, what he says verbatim is:


> For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician,* in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint.* Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference' which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation robs the patient of a standpoint -- his physician becomes his standpoint. But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of itself, and with more adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development is via the secondary function-thus in the case of a rational type by way of the irrational function. For this lends the conscious standpoint such a range and prospect over what is possible and imminent that consciousness gains an adequate protection against the destructive effect of the unconscious. Conversely, an irrational type demands a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function [p. 517] represented in consciousness, in order to be sufficiently prepared to receive the impact of the unconscious.


Not only does Jung not say what you alleged anywhere in his Chapter, he refers to intellectual subjects and he does not say Fe can’t be developed, he says it will lead to grief . Not because Fe cannot be developed, but because there can only be one differentiated function. You did not even quote him correctly. Nevertheless Jung claims all functions subsequent to the most differentiated function (or dominant function) are considered inferior. Are you claiming that we can’t develop any of them?


vel said:


> when people say they can develop Fe for example I have a feeling that what they really mean is a skillset normally associated with using Fe but this skillset does not have to do anything with Fe mindset itself
> 
> as for being able to "develop a function" I have some questions about this - this phrase gets thrown around a lot as people seem to think that they can develop their cognitive functions, but what does this really mean in its essence? what does actually happen when you "develop a function"? to what sort of changes does it correspond? how can I measure if I am developing my inferior? if I am developing skills prescribed to this function am I really developing the function itself?


First there are no skills sets in type, it’s all cognitive therefore a mindset. Secondly there are plenty of books on the subject, but the best I have read so far is *Dario Nardi*.


madhatter said:


> Where can I read up on this?


Sorry that I did not respond Mad. If I recall, it was not reading it was a segment of his last interview. I will have to check and get back to you.


----------



## SuperunknownVortex (Dec 4, 2009)

AirMarionette said:


> ...as well as Ti, which allows you to detach and analyze from multiple perspectives. Both conjecture inconclusively and agree to more than one explicative option. ...


I would agree with this phrase. 



AirMarionette said:


> Ni tends to LEAD to decisive action or thought after a sudden realization... but I don't fully understand it yet.


I, again, agree here. I've noticed that once I had that 'a-ha!' realization (such a stereotype for Ni, I know...) I feel so convicted that I feel compelled to act upon it.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Sorry that I did not respond Mad. If I recall, it was not reading it was a segment of his last interview. I will have to check and get back to you.


Thanks! Take your time.


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Your argument if needed to be reminded is that von Franz claims we do not develop our inferior function. As for what you quote as Jung, what he says verbatim is:Not only does Jung not say what you alleged anywhere in his Chapter, he refers to intellectual subjects and he does not say Fe can’t be developed, he says it will lead to grief . Not because Fe cannot be developed, but because there can only be one differentiated function. You did not even quote him correctly.


Well, let's see. There are two possibilities:

1. I quoted him incorrectly.
2. Jung's work was originally written in Swiss and has multiple translations.

Could it be 2? Nah, it has to be that I'm wrong. Of course I could pin this on the ISTP's inability to see anything that isn't right in front of their face, but that would be unfair. Just like it's unfair to say that an INTP always bends reality to meet their theory.

At any rate, for your reference here's the full quote (from RFC Hull's revision of HG Baynes's translation):



> I have frequently observed how an analyst, when confronted by a terrific thinking type, for instance, will do the utmost to develop the feeling function out of the unconscious. Such an attempt is foredoomed to failure, because it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should the violation nevertheless be successful, a really compulsive dependence of the patient on the analyst ensues, a transference that can only be brutally terminated, because, having been left without a standpoint, the patient has made his standpoint the analyst. But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of its own accord, and with adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development proceeds via the auxiliary functions. This gives the patient a broader view of what is possible, so that his consciousness is sufficiently protected against the inroads of the unconscious. Conversely, in order to cushion the impact of the unconscious, an irrational type needs a stronger development of of the rational auxiliary function present in consciousness.


Now, I admit that he doesn't literally come out and say "extraverted feeling can't be developed in an introverted thinking type". But it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to see that this is in fact a generalization of that claim. Any thinking type can't develop any feeling function. 

This interpretation is backed by his 1923 paper which is also called "Psychological Types" (which is included in the appendix of my copy of Psychological Types - I'm quoting from paragraph 905):



> The thinking type, for instance, must necessarily repress and exclude feeling as much as possible, since nothing disturbs thinking so much as feeling, and the feeling type represses thinking since nothing is more injurious to feeling than thinking. Repressed functions lapse into the unconscious.


This is what Jung meant by "develop feeling out of the unconscious".

Jung goes on to say that these functions come out completely against the will of the unconscious. Of course, only one function is completely conscious. However, the primary function's opposite is wholly unconscious. It has to be because it opposes everything the primary function stands for.

So my argument if needed to be reminded is that von Franz claims that the inferior function can't be developed like the others can and that there is support for this in Jung's work.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

amnorvend said:


> Well, let's see. There are two possibilities:
> 
> 1. I quoted him incorrectly.
> 2. Jung's work was originally written in Swiss and has multiple translations.
> ...


 Again *here* is my reference point, and it's not that I don't trust you, I don't trust Ne so where can we read this work by Hull? It sounds a whole lot like you're interpreting an interpretation and oh by the way we still have not forgotten that you initially claimed it was von Franz who said it. How are you coming with that? Claiming points can be missed due to flaws of translation is a bit odd don't you think, since every piece of literature we hold important was translated? But that doesn't matter in your case since you have yet to provide us a reference site to read what is being said, and it sounds like you're merely interpreting someone who is interpreting.


amnorvend said:


> Now, I admit that he doesn't literally come out and say "extraverted feeling can't be developed in an introverted thinking type". But it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to see that this is in fact a generalization of that claim. Any thinking type can't develop any feeling function.


 But this is exactly what you’re doing. You’re making a leap when there is no evidence to support your claim and no need for the leap. No one ever said Ti dominant types can’t and don’t use Fe. What Jung does say about function-attitudes is:


> In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced.


 Now here's my one leap. If he says pure types do not occur with frequency, can it not be inferred that someone using Ti will not use it at 100% capacity, ergo Se and Ne can't neutralize Ti it’s opposite. You never hear Jung say sensing suppresses thinking, he says feeling suppresses thinking. But suppressed does not equate to being absent altogether. The less Ti I use, the more Fe I use. That should be indicative any time you take a forced choice assessment. In fact Jung makes many accounts of Te and Ti users using feeling:


> Since feelings are the first to oppose and contradict [p. 438] the rigid intellectual formula, they are affected first this conscious inhibition, and upon them the most intense repression falls. *No function can be entirely eliminated -- it can only be greatly distorted. In so far as feelings allow themselves to be arbitrarily shaped and subordinated, they have to support the intellectual conscious attitude and adapt themselves to its aims.* Only to a certain degree, however, is this possible; a part of the feeling remains insubordinate, and therefore must be repressed. Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a subconscious activity, which runs counter to conscious aims, even producing effects whose causation is a complete enigma to the individual. For example, conscious altruism, often of an extremely high order, may be crossed by a secret self-seeking, of which the individual is wholly unaware, and which impresses intrinsically unselfish actions with the stamp of selfishness. Purely ethical aims may lead the individual into critical situations, which sometimes have more than a semblance of being decided by quite other than ethical motives. There are guardians of public morals or voluntary rescue-workers who suddenly find themselves in deplorably compromising situations, or in dire need of rescue. Their resolve to save often leads them to employ means which only tend to precipitate what they most desire to avoid.





> There is also, however -- and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect -- an entirely different kind of thinking, to which the term I "thinking" can hardly be denied: it is a kind that is neither orientated by the immediate objective experience nor is it concerned with general and objectively derived ideas. I reach this other kind of thinking in the following way. When my thoughts are engaged with a concrete object or general idea in such a way that the course of my thinking eventually leads me back again to my object, this intellectual process is not the only psychic proceeding taking place in me at the moment. [*I will disregard all those possible sensations and feelings which become noticeable as a more or less disturbing accompaniment to my train of thought, merely emphasizing the fact that this very thinking process which proceeds from objective data and strives again towards the object stands also in a constant relation to the subject.*





> Jung makes countless references that for the dominant function to become paramount the opposite function must to a large extent be suppressed……
> 
> 
> amnorvend said:
> ...


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

penchant said:


> It does sound familiar... Yes, it does sound like a loop to me. Do you have any social context to make sense of what you are thinking about in?


What is a loop?
It happened with me a lot too...my results changed almost every time i took the MBTI quiz. then i had to take a cognitive test to find out my functions. and now im decidedly an ISFP. i think.:bored:


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

dizzygirl said:


> What is a loop?
> It happened with me a lot too...my results changed almost every time i took the MBTI quiz. then i had to take a cognitive test to find out my functions. and now im decidedly an ISFP. i think.:bored:


This: http://personalitycafe.com/articles/25205-dominant-tertiary-loops-common-personality-disorders.html

But having a hard time finding your type is not always due to a Dominant-Tertiary Loop. It happens to a lot of people anyway.


----------



## dorareever (Jan 2, 2010)

For me is Ne.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

dorareever said:


> For me is Ne.


Actually Ne does not decide anything as well as Se. They're both irrational types that do not use reasoned judgment but mere perception. In fact the only functions that can decide if something is true will be judging functions (Te,Fe,Ti,Fi), hence the name judging types.


----------



## dorareever (Jan 2, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Actually Ne does not decide anything as well as Se. They're both irrational types that do not use reasoned judgment but mere perception. In fact the only functions that can decide if something is true will be judging functions (Te,Fe,Ti,Fi), hence the name judging types.


exactly it doesn't decide, just opens endless possibilities. I use my Fi to settle on a decision I guess.


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

asmit127 said:


> I'm trying to work out my types (mainly Enneagram at the moment, but I'm not 100% on my MBTI either) and was wondering if there is any function that causes an inability to decide things. I can read a description of a function or even a huge profile of a personality type and happily nod along and accept that what is in front of me is a perfectly viable explanation for my whole life or just something I did yesterday (while observing myself) but can find many ways to explain everything I do and even after months of introspection cannot decide what the true motivation behind my actions or behavior is. I also struggle to decide on an interpretation of lyrics in songs, art or the actions of others - I easily come up with multiple explanations but cannot settle on one as the "truth".
> 
> Is this a function or just a sign of a deep distrust in my own abilities?


Easy answer = none. It is simply just due to lack of truly understanding the description. Do more research on the functions and rather than sitting and doing introspection just watch yourself in what you NATURALLY do without any conscious thought about it. This is when you can really see what type you are.


----------



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

thegirlcandance said:


> Do more research on the functions and rather than sitting and doing introspection just watch yourself in what you NATURALLY do without any conscious thought about it.


Do WITHOUT thinking first?! That happens so rarely... I'm constantly aware of how my past words/actions hurt people that I censor virtually everything yet still land up putting my foot in it occasionally. Like going off on a rant about how people who go off work with stress should get a job they can cope with as it's not fair on the rest of their team having to cover them, completely forgetting that the girl sat next to me only came back this week after being off with stress. This seems Fe - concern for those who will struggle - but I can't help kicking myself for my insensitivity even though I firmly believe what I said.

But what was the cause of my rant, the thinking behind it? The need to express truth? To gain affirmation from others? The desire to show off my pattern analysis? Or was I just subconsciously winding up the girl next door as I so often do on smaller things... I just don't know :mellow:


----------



## SyndiCat (Oct 2, 2010)

asmit127 said:


> I'm trying to work out my types (mainly Enneagram at the moment, but I'm not 100% on my MBTI either) and was wondering if there is any function that causes an inability to decide things. I can read a description of a function or even a huge profile of a personality type and happily nod along and accept that what is in front of me is a perfectly viable explanation for my whole life or just something I did yesterday (while observing myself) but can find many ways to explain everything I do and even after months of introspection cannot decide what the true motivation behind my actions or behavior is. I also struggle to decide on an interpretation of lyrics in songs, art or the actions of others - I easily come up with multiple explanations but cannot settle on one as the "truth".
> 
> Is this a function or just a sign of a deep distrust in my own abilities?





RyRyMini said:


> Sounds to me like Ni - the ability to see anything that could be. Which you believe the possibilities to be true or not probably has to do with your judging function.





pc3000 said:


> Probably too much Ni who likes to see things from different points of view.





Random Ness said:


> Hey, I guessed right, it is Ni! Yay for the indecisive!


In which case, I must have a hella lot of Ni, as my previous cognitive test seemed to show (not the one currently in my signature).


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

pc3000 said:


> Probably too much Ni who likes to see things from different points of view.


Ok so I no longer think it is Ni. I'm thinking that if my Ni was developed, by being able to see all sides of the problem and what it all means and how everything is related, maybe I would be able to know the truth.

But I often find it hard to decide what is true. It's like I have a piece of S stuff here and a piece of S stuff there and so much information which conflicts a lot of the time so I don't know what is true or not. I say something but then lo and behold I get some more information that goes against what I say and then I'm not so sure again. I'm thinking about blaming my Ti for that...


----------

