# Why are so many people's understanding on functions so dense?



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Because nobody can actually give simple answers without it turning into a pages long argument about what function definitions are "correct." So those with casual interest naturally turn to "cartoon" definitions because it's the easiest way to understand the functions through all of the Jung this and Myers that back-and-forth.

We create the problem ourselves by doing so much hemming, hawing, and debating about what a function is at all.


----------



## Blindspots (Jan 27, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> Because nobody can actually give simple answers without it turning into a pages long argument about what function definitions are "correct." So those with casual interest naturally turn to "cartoon" definitions because it's the easiest way to understand the functions through all of the Jung this and Myers that back-and-forth.


Agreeing with the tendency to caricaturize the functions (or the MBTI types, or the Socionics definitions, or the enneagram points, etc.) in order to make them easier to digest. One-shot replies and "rules of thumb" answers usually lead to these.

After that, the asker realizes the caricature doesn't match a person the asker originally associated it to, so it leads to more threads using the same rather crude premise.

(I don't have anyone particularly in mind when describing this; almost everyone starts out like that in typology, and it's up to them as the stay in the forum whether to continue with caricatures or use different approaches, such as analyzing definitions by authors. This is just my general observation of how things go.)



> We create the problem ourselves by doing so much hemming, hawing, and debating about what a function is at all.


True. The typology forums would be very barren if it weren't for these recurring threads, methinks


----------



## SalvinaZerelda (Aug 26, 2010)

because that's the closest we can come to understanding and explaining something that is unexplainable. =.=


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Rune said:


> because that's the closest we can come to understanding and explaining something that is unexplainable. =.=


Nothing is unexplainable my dear, but we may suffer from a lack of a concept to help us explain what is currently unexplained, but with enough effort and time all things that exist exist whether tangible or intangiblbe explained, but that doesn't mean we have the right tools to derive the perfect explanation at our disposable at the current time.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Thymic said:


> Agreeing with the tendency to caricaturize the functions (or the MBTI types, or the Socionics definitions, or the enneagram points, etc.) in order to make them easier to digest. One-shot replies and "rules of thumb" answers usually lead to these.
> 
> After that, the asker realizes the caricature doesn't match a person the asker originally associated it to, so it leads to more threads using the same rather crude premise.
> 
> ...


Yes, that's right that one shot answers lead to caricatures, it doesn't leave room for elaboration. I just think it is not treated very holistically and often spoken of in too much technical language which is okay but typology is a human based subject and discussions can miss that human element in the language used to convey meanings. Even the word 'function' is mechanistic. And often very simple definitions have a mechanistic quality about them. Is all.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

mushr00m said:


> The best analogy I can use to describe the axis example is using the positivity and negativity in a battery( + and -) Or the yin yang symbol in the way of explaining how two opposites are opposites because their relationship between each other is directly oppositional in both attitude direction and area of focus in judgement(thinking and feeling) e.g Fe and Ti rather than Fi and Ti which although deal with opposite domains, judge in the same direction so I don't see how Fi and Ti can be both concious and opposite functions altogether in someone's functional stack to be considered the nature of the axis. Like I say though, this topic is really more about the focus on the importance of researched sources than amateur sources that break down any form of structure which breaks down the point of personality typing to begin with for the sake of breaking it down and often in many of these cases, they say Fi and Ti are something they equally relate to and yet very often, their understanding of the nature of a function in the first place and what the particular meaning of that function is misunderstood which leads to resorting to finding other modes or explanations that break out of the structure, the functions wern't meant to be understood in static form but as a dynamic means of understanding any topic but it the colour of the function we see from. We may differ in schools of thought which is fine and it's good that conversations revolve around questionning the premise of such frameworks but again, it's about encouraging others to go to sources _in the first place_ rather than depend on the abundance of absurdly false information, it doesn't take long to come across such claims such as correlating functions to skill sets and traits which is whole level of crazy. Can I just ask what you make of traits commomly associated with jungian type or function, the structure of traits has always seemed more compatible with other personality theories than say with functions, the structure of a trait and the structure of a function actually look quite different.


I personally am a person who is very fond of dichotomies and such approaches.
However one should be careful, which I'm sure you know, is that the relationship between one end and the other is always different. Some are clearly opposites, some are complementary, some are more individual etc.

That said, it is a bit of a generalization to state that all these functions deal in "opposite" domain which ALWAYS NEED the other in order to operate.

Like I said, every dichotomy is different. And if you want to argue that one really HAS to work in tandem with the "opposite," you'll need to explain why this specific dichotomy is an inextricable one, without relating it to stuff like yin/yang.

By the way, I suspect that a lot of people here give way too much attention to so-called "axes" - like Fe-Ti axis (which I don't completely disagree with) - caused from a false understanding of the function stack. And I think this is where the whole discussion like this is coming from.

When people first see the "function stack" of a certain type, it is very easy to assume that the auxiliary is the "2nd strongest" and the tertiary is "3rd strongest" because they are right next to each other, and start to wonder how the functions that are seemingly opposite are both included the stack, and right next to each other. Then they start to look at the theories like those "axes" and end up subscribing to it (not saying you're necessarily one of them)

My understanding of this is that the auxiliary function is basically another dominant function to a lesser extent.
Similarly, the tertiary function is basically another inferior function to a lesser extent. Tell me how this is wrong.

Also, I would understand these "axes" dichotomy more as an "action-reaction," which in fact the fundamental character of how they function is different in direction, as opposed to "action-action" kind of understanding, which leads people to think that these opposite functions somehow work in the same direction, side-by-side.

Do you really think INFPs and ESTJs really share something significant (because they have the same "axes" - Fi/Te and Ne/Si), or are they more total opposite?



Ixim said:


> No, you're wrong. Energy that produces light(photons etc) works with or without light/dark present. Without light, there can be no dark. The same can be applied to law/chaos, good/evil, right/wrong, beautiful/ugly, heavy/light etc. Precise measurement is an action of measurement of a given thing against the basic unit of that dimension. So, when you have 60kg, you are EXACTLY 60 times the weight of that 90Pt-10Ir cyllinder in Paris(IPK yeah). 2,5m is exactly 2,5 times the iron(I think) bar from the exact same museum.
> 
> So without darkness, there would be no brightness. There'd be energy and illumination, yes. But without either, we wouldn't know how to measure it see.


I don't think you got my point.
Without good, there can be no evil, true. But that doesn't mean that when a person does "good," he must do "bad" at the same time, because they are on the same axis. Right? Similarly, It may be true that Ti is called Ti because there is Fe. However when Ti functions in one's own head, as a cognitive process, it does not require Fe to function in tandem with it.

Although I think one could make an argument that Fe can be superficially utilized to tune down an in-your-face Ti, as an effort to balance oneself out at least on how it looks. But I don't think neither of you really mean this.


----------



## Blindspots (Jan 27, 2014)

Rune said:


> because that's the closest we can come to understanding and explaining something that is unexplainable. =.=


They may be ultimately elusive, but we could at least _attempt_ to express these ideas in more universal terms. 

Yes, we should be disciplined enough to realize where theory is not applicable and where its difficult to describe with the framework to describe a "just human" thing, but while we are here, rather than dismiss it right away as unexplainable, why not try its limits?


While I do find it annoying to starting the same discussions, with all the perpetuated stereotypes and shortcuts, there's the possibility of someone formulating elegant conclusions or new viewpoints to consider, which is what I look forward to stumbling upon.


----------



## ConspiracyTheory (Apr 13, 2014)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> Odd question, he surely meant what he is stating. I'm not really understanding the problem here, if I state something to you then I would expect you to take what I state for what it is, there's no need to further ask why I chose to a specific word choice unless you aren't satisfied with that choice if words. If it is you that happens to not be satisfied with anothers word choice, then that would shine the fault on your part for not accepting anothers word choice to describe what it is they are defining.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


???
I don't have any questions. I was talking about problems I've seen OTHER people mention, like wanting clarification on words and concepts. Are you really saying people can't want to clarify?
I was answering why everyone is dense at the functions, to answer the question of the thread. 
I go by what Jung says, not what society connotes to the term "feeling". I already said that and gave an example.. No quoted needed:. I already go by what Jung says. thanks anyway.
You seem in the grip of an archetype, since you continually misinterpret what people are saying in this thread. Not just me did you not get anything I said, another person had no idea who you were but you thought she was arguing with you. Seems like a grip of an archetype.

You explained to me exactly what I had originally explained. Feelers label good and bad towards any topic, not just people, even math.. You took my example and used it to explain it to me.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> Nope, but we shouldn't confuse a hybrid with a GPS for a model T, which is my point. If I wanted to learn about model T's then I wouldn't go to a hybrid with GPS to find such knowledge, I would instead go directly to the model T's to learn about the model T's, and I wouldn't let myself make such an unintelligent move of mistaking what a model T is for any succeeding model that may have derived their mechanics from a process that started with the model T as its foundation.
> 
> I could dissect your argument a multitude of ways because of its faulty reasoning but I think I'll just leave it at this for now.


Maybe I'm just more cavalier in my attitude, but I don't feel I would need to dissect the model T in intricate detail to get the gist of what it was going for. Likewise, I don't feel I need to read Jung's book in detail to get the gist of what he was going for. 

Certainly there are things I could pick up from reading any of the theories in detail, but considering that none of the function theories are anything more than educated guesses, my approach tends to be one of "look for commonalities in the gist of the theories and compare them against reality." 

In other words, I can see the value in hanging on Jung's every word if the goal is to deeply understand the origin of the theory, but personally, my goal is more along the lines of picking up enough to make it practical and leaving it at that. There was a time I cared a lot about making sense out of the functions, but it seems with every "improvement" on function theory - or even a marked revisiting of old function theory - there is far too much that doesn't align with reality and requires mental gymnastics to keep it intact, or is too muddled and requires "special knowledge" to understand (an "expert's" interpretation of text, not unlike what we see with Christians and the Bible).

I fear that if I become too attached to any of the function theories, I (as someone who is markedly irreligious) is being rather hypocritical to give religion such a hard time and yet give my pet theories lots of leeway.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Because it's all fake in the end.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> Maybe I'm just more cavalier in my attitude, but I don't feel I would need to dissect the model T in intricate detail to get the gist of what it was going for. Likewise, I don't feel I need to read Jung's book in detail to get the gist of what he was going for.
> 
> Certainly there are things I could pick up from reading any of the theories in detail, but considering that none of the function theories are anything more than educated guesses, my approach tends to be one of "look for commonalities in the gist of the theories and compare them against reality."
> 
> ...


The bold is important to take notice, and I agree if one wants to have a deep understanding of the origin of the theory of cognitive functions then one would need to abide by Jung's definitions of cognitive functions to better understand exactly what it is that he is trying to get at.

Do people have to worship him? Nope. Do people have to even believe him? Nope. Can people make up their own theory and call it cognitive functions? Yes. Will that take away from anything Jung put out? Nope. Will that mean that the "new" cognitive functions are more accurate? Nope since they would essentially be two different theories. Can there be a more practical method to understanding a persons psychology? Yup. Will the more practical method take away anything or make Jung's writings less credible credible? Nope since it would be a completely different method that has its own foundations and worth.

Basically you can believe in whatever you want, but just because your beliefs differ from anothers, and in this case Jung's, doesnt mean that the opposing belief is wrong. A lot of people claim Jung is wrong, or didn't make sense because it doesn't correlate with their own definitions or worldview, but they fail to realize that their view is just incompatible with Jungs. To claim he is wrong without using logical/mathematical proofing methods, or without having actual objective empirical proof of the non-existence of functions, is not only fallacious but on the very very far end of unintelligent.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

ConspiracyTheory said:


> ???
> I don't have any questions. I was talking about problems I've seen OTHER people mention, like wanting clarification on words and concepts. Are you really saying people can't want to clarify?


People can want to clarify, but is the clarification justified or warranted is a completely different question.



> I was answering why everyone is dense at the functions, to answer the question of the thread.
> I go by what Jung says, not what society connotes to the term "feeling". I already said that and gave an example.. No quoted needed:. I already go by what Jung says. thanks anyway.


That would be true if you didn't claim that Jung didn't describe anything about feeling in his definition. Either you abide by his definition of feeling which would lead you to understand that his definition of feeling *defines* Feeling as a concept from his own perspective, or you don't agree with his definitions and think he didn't accurately describe feelings which would mean that you think there is a better definition not from the perspective of Jung.



> You seem in the grip of an archetype, since you continually misinterpret what people are saying in this thread. Not just me did you not get anything I said, another person had no idea who you were but you thought she was arguing with you. Seems like a grip of an archetype.


There was never a woman who shared that she had no idea who I was in this thread, but there was @reckful who was confused as to who I was because of my absence from the threads and my name change. Trust me though, he is very aware of who I am and there are many threads that take up countless pages between his and I debates over the same aspects of cognitive functions that we always get into. You on the other hand who either doesn't know who I am, or has never read any of my previous posts on the topic would be confused between that interaction between reckful and I, but that's understandable.

As to misinterpreting other people's posts, I think it would be better stated that I disapprove with other people's posts on the matter and am going about it by wither arguing or correcting them. If you think I misinterpreted you then I'm sorry for you feel that way.



> You explained to me exactly what I had originally explained. Feelers label good and bad towards any topic, not just people, even math.. You took my example and used it to explain it to me.


I also said I was confused to what you were trying to get at also. This post of yours would of been the perfect time and much more productive for our conversation to have better explained yourself rather than state I misinterpreted your statement without giving the correct interpretation of what it is you were trying to get at. If we are on the same page then that only means we agree that Jung's definition of feeling is exactly as he defined it, still not seeing the problem with that though.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Because people start off with mbti and behaviour, then try working it backwards to the functions. They don't understand that the functions are perspectives which often lead to typical behaviours, they aren't behaviours in themselves. 

They don't like to believe that they are limited by their own perspective bias, either. They prefer to believe that they're correct and other perspectives are flawed. 

People can't easily view something objectively when they exist within it.


----------

