# Least useful dominant function?



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

This is not meant to be a mudslinging thread. I'm just curious what you think would be the most inconvenient dominant function to have, especially since the dom is so natural and overpowering.


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

At least when it comes to making money, Fi is the least useful compared to the other 7 functions, relatively speaking...not saying that it's useless, there are many Fi uses in terms of money making....it's just that the other 7 functions are more useful for money making compared to it


----------



## Flaming Bassoon (Feb 15, 2013)

childofprodigy said:


> At least when it comes to making money, Fi is the least useful compared to the other 7 functions, relatively speaking...not saying that it's useless, there are many Fi uses in terms of money making....it's just that the other 7 functions are more useful for money making compared to it












Us INFPs don't make much money, unfortunately. From my own experience Fi doesn't place much value on money but instead if something is personally meaningful. Try finding that in your average 9 to 5 job.

And I don't think that there's _one _least useful dominant function but that each function has its unique advantages and disadvantages. According to this chart Te doms and auxes are the best at making money, for example.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Flaming Bassoon said:


> Us INFPs don't make much money, unfortunately. From my own experience Fi doesn't place much value on money but instead if something is personally meaningful. Try finding that in your average 9 to 5 job.
> 
> And I don't think that there's _one _least useful dominant function but that each function has its unique advantages and disadvantages. According to this chart Te doms and auxes are the best at making money, for example.


That chart makes wayyyy too much sense to me.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Least useful for what?

Each has it's strengths and weaknesses and each has contributed towards society as we know it. Recognizing this is the whole point of mbti.
Thinking might make more money, but without Feeling to evaluate worth, Thinking wouldn't be able to judge what's important to people in order to know the best way to make money from them. 
Intuition can perceive what's happening beneath the surface but is mostly oblivious to what's right in front of it. 
How can one be the least useful when each covers the blind spots of the others?


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Without Fi, the world would be an even more sick place, Fi is focused on the damage of individuals on this planet and can imagine without it, there would no underdog for such issues, that would create an imbalance, it would be akin living in a 1984 or Brave New World society, life would be so fucked up and just ill. There has to be balance for each perspective.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

Flaming Bassoon said:


> Us INFPs don't make much money, unfortunately. From my own experience Fi doesn't place much value on money but instead if something is personally meaningful. Try finding that in your average 9 to 5 job.
> 
> And I don't think that there's _one _least useful dominant function but that each function has its unique advantages and disadvantages. According to this chart Te doms and auxes are the best at making money, for example.


This is why MBTI is shit.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

IMO, any extroverted judging function. Probably 90% of the world's problems, politically and morally can be attributed to extroverted judging functions--always throwing their weight around, and games of one-upmanship and brinksmanship. If people, on the other hand, attempted to understand themselves, and spent less time judging others, things would be, I suspect, much better. That's my perspective.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Define "useless" and "useful".


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Define "useless" and "useful".


I think the idea was for you to define your terms, and give your conclusions. What would you define as useless, why and how...


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> I think the idea was for you to define your terms, and give your conclusions. What would you define as useless, why and how...


Indeed. But that would just result in each type describing their own functions as the most useful, with a few people saying that they'd like to develop their XYZ function more.
I think there's a reason why people are the way they are, whether people want to believe it's nature or God or their personal history that created them that way is a matter of personal preference. 

But I don't think there's an objective way of defining useful and useless. E.g. a person who is artistically inclined might try to work as a banker and might even be successful and earn lots of money, but they would still suffer psychologically/ psychically (? is that a word?), so it wouldn't be useful to them personally. Whereas another person might be naturally good at making money and be creeped out by art and even if others said "It would be good for your personal development to be more creative." it might just make their brain hurt.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Indeed. But that would just result in each type describing their own functions as the most useful, with a few people saying that they'd like to develop their XYZ function more.
> I think there's a reason why people are the way they are, whether people want to believe it's nature or God or their personal history that created them that way is a matter of personal preference.
> 
> But I don't think there's an objective way of defining useful and useless. E.g. a person who is artistically inclined might try to work as a banker and might even be successful and earn lots of money, but they would still suffer psychologically/ psychically (? is that a word?), so it wouldn't be useful to them personally. Whereas another person might be naturally good at making money and be creeped out by art and even if others said "It would be good for your personal development to be more creative." it might just make their brain hurt.


I agree with where you are coming from--that was my first thought, but using my own reply as an example, starting point, that both extroverted judging functions in the dominant position are the cause of all the world's woes... From my perspective, as an introverted judging function, this is true. I sort of quickly explained why, but someone else reading that, I hope, would be able to articulate where and how and why such functions are not useless, and that would be able to point out why they aren't useless. I know that just articulating my thoughts got me thinking a bit more broadly on the subject, and I hope someone will counter that, to be honest. So, maybe the exercise isn't so pointless--so saying we add to it, and take away from it what we can learn. In such a case, I find it useful and rather fun.  Thoughts?


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> I agree with where you are coming from--that was my first thought, but using my own reply as an example, starting point, that both extroverted judging functions in the dominant position are the cause of all the world's woes... From my perspective, as an introverted judging function, this is true. I sort of quickly explained why, but someone else reading that, I hope, would be able to articulate where and how and why such functions are not useless, and that would be able to point out why they aren't useless. I know that just articulating my thoughts got me thinking a bit more broadly on the subject, and I hope someone will counter that, to be honest. So, maybe the exercise isn't so pointless--so saying we add to it, and take away from it what we can learn. In such a case, I find it useful and rather fun.  Thoughts?


I thanked your post about extraverted judging functions because I partly agree, but only within the context of the present historical situation. At the moment, the Te-sphere in the Western world is contaminated by all kinds of near psychopathic thinking, neo-liberal capitalism, efficience for efficiency's sake, disregard for human life, blind obedience to authority etc. In this respect I totally agree with you that at the moment Te is one of the main sources of woe in the world. 
On the other hand, Te can create structure and can be used to create civilization, but it can only do this when it goes hand in hand with Fi. Basically, Te is all about creating structure. For Te-doms it's more about creating structure in the outside world and for Te-aux it's more about tidying up people's brains. 

I wouldn't blame this on Te-doms as individuals though. I know some Te-doms (friends and celebrities) who might share your values, e.g. I've got several ESTJ friends and aquaintances who are quite hippy-like. One of my ESTJ colleagues is even friends with my ISFP colleague and they get along surprisingly well. Then there's Patrick Stewart, the evil ENTJ overloard, who supports the Labour Party and campaigns against domestic violence.

I think it's not the case that all, or even a majority of real life Te-doms are like that. It's just that these values have developed a life of their own and that the business world is also influenced by psychopaths who pose as Te-doms (they may very well be Te-doms, but there's still a difference between a psychopathic Te-dom and a non-psychopathic Te-dom).


----------



## Green Girl (Oct 1, 2010)

It's easier for me to think in terms of why it would be hard to have each function as dominant. There are great things about all of them, but here are some negatives, based on people I know:

Fe - always worried about other people, what they think of you
Fi - feels the world can be a cruel, hard place to live in

Te - is eternally frustrated that people do things so irrationally
Ti - finds it hard to engage in the world, wishes the day to day annoyances would go away

Ne - never can settle on one thing, gets distracted easily
Ni - wants to live in its own private universe, doesn't want to engage, confront problems

Se - jumps from thing to thing, has trouble staying on track
Si - finds change difficult

Personally, I think Fi would be the toughest one. The world must feel like a battering ram.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

childofprodigy said:


> At least when it comes to making money, Fi is the least useful compared to the other 7 functions, relatively speaking...not saying that it's useless, there are many Fi uses in terms of money making....it's just that the other 7 functions are more useful for money making compared to it


Even in other aspects, though.. I went over this question in my head and as much as I value my Fi, it doesn't really directly help me with anything in life. lol It helps me judge things from a subjective stand point, and understand people very well which I guess could be very useful, but ime a lot of Fi-users don't apply their Fi externally in that sense. 

In comparison to something like Te, which is highly useful in today's society.. I'd say I have to agree that Fi isn't very useful in a lot of aspects. Also, though, Ni? Ni can be helpful but it falls short in comparison to others.

For me, it'd be something like this (from most useful to least)

Te
Ne
Se
Fe
Ti
Si
Ni
Fi

buuuut that's just me. obviously the extroverted functions seem to appear more useful because they're typically externally applied.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> I think it's not the case that all, or even a majority of real life Te-doms are like that. *It's just that these values have developed a life of their own* and that the business world is also influenced by psychopaths who pose as Te-doms (they may very well be Te-doms, but there's still a difference between a psychopathic Te-dom and a non-psychopathic Te-dom).


I like that bolded part.  

But I think it's more than just Te-dominance, but an Fe one as well--again, no individual is responsible for this problem, and in individuals, Fe is and can be a wonderful thing, but it's like it has developed a life of its own.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Green Girl said:


> Personally, I think Fi would be the toughest one. The world must feel like a battering ram.


Interesting... I have been thinking about this. I stated in another thread that in some ways, Fi is like the mirror to the world. The world looks at Fi in an Fi dom, and doesn't see the Fi person, but themselves in the mirror--in essence, a negative version of themselves. Now, what they do with that is up to them--they can be horrified, repulsed, and try to ignore it, or embrace it, and learn from it... 

But as to the world being cruel... How do I say this. For me, and other Fi types I've known through the years--real people with whom I am friends, and with whom I have discussed this--in some cases, long before I knew there was something like Fi--we discussed our view of the world, and how, while we tended to be viewed by others as sensitive "touchy-feely" types, we had a resilience that we didn't see in others. Let me explain myself. For us, we are like the restaurant at the end of the universe, constantly teetering on the edge of oblivion. Constantly tipping over onto the other side, seeing the vastness of the emptiness, and the horrors of nothingness, and then come tipping back, where the party is still going on, where people are partying like it's 1999 (sorry for the cliche). We live there. We get used to it. We deal with it--now, to the rest of the world, that's scary, and it seems we must be all sensitive and easily hurt, but when life is crashing down in reality--we've already been there. If there ever were some kind of natural apocalypse, the ISFPs would probably survive quite well... ;-) But those who only barely understand this abyss, they fear it, and cringe from it. It is this that people sense when they listen to an Fi share their deepest feelings, either through their art or song, or whatever. Our culture today tends to exploit that sense, but it isn't really an honest-to-goodness Fi. It is self-indulgence and not really much more. My one daughter just finished Bioshock Infinite, and she was very ticked at the game writer--very self-indulgent ending, and unsatisfying. That is, IMO, because it attempted to counterfeit a strong Fi-type ending--but it failed. (yeah, we've talked about it) ;-) Maybe INFPs are not quite as resilient as ISFPs, because their Ne-Si makes them a bit more passive, and thus, vulnerable, but I somehow have my doubts that this is true. I'm sure they are every bit as resilient as ISFPs, but manifest it in other ways. 

Maybe people will view that as useless, or helpless... I don't know, but I can guess that it is a bit more esoteric or less concrete than many folks would like... But being in touch with your own soul--is that a bad thing? ;-)

I don't personally think that any function is less useful--only their usefulnesses are quite diverse. But they are all tied together, just as we are--like it or not--and (ugh, am I saying this?) we need each other's strengths _and_ their weaknesses to properly function. Occam's razor, I suppose... ;-) (does that apply in this case?)


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Flaming Bassoon said:


> Us INFPs don't make much money, unfortunately. From my own experience Fi doesn't place much value on money but instead if something is personally meaningful. Try finding that in your average 9 to 5 job.
> 
> And I don't think that there's _one _least useful dominant function but that each function has its unique advantages and disadvantages. According to this chart Te doms and auxes are the best at making money, for example.





Le Diable said:


> This is why MBTI is shit.


I don't follow.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Define "useless" and "useful".


For me, I imagined self damaging vs self enabling.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Amusingly it's _not_ the dominant function of others you need to worry about, it's the weak, one-dimensional functions you should be worrying about.



ferroequinologist said:


> IMO, any extroverted judging function. Probably 90% of the world's problems, politically and morally can be attributed to extroverted judging functions--always throwing their weight around, and games of one-upmanship and brinksmanship.


That's all correlated to Se, by the way.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> Maaaaan, it's just sooo like throbbing, duuude.
> (Now I feel like I'm high.)
> :laughing:


Hot.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

SimplisticFortitude said:


> Hot.


Haha, you got my reference. Good for you.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Queen of Mars said:


> Maaaaan, it's just sooo like throbbing, duuude.
> (Now I feel like I'm high.)
> :laughing:


In my perverted little mind, I seriously love where this conversation is going but I think we should stop derailing this thread now.:laughing:


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

MNiS said:


> I seriously love where this conversation is going in my perverted little mind but I think we should stop derailing this thread now.:laughing:


Yeah...this went from this serious debate about personality ethics to...I don't even know. 
Okay...I believe we need to get on track now.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Queen of Mars said:


> Yeah...this went from this serious debate about personality ethics to...I don't even know.
> Okay...I believe we need to get on track now.


Someone once argued with me that Ni is the least useful function in terms of surviving on one's own and is ultimately dependent on others to fulfill their distant visions and plans. I already know how I feel about that but would you agree or disagree?


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Fi, Si, Se, Ti imo. In this order, I feel like they are the most likely to trip themselves with their own logic.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

MNiS said:


> Someone once argued with me that Ni is the least useful function in terms of surviving on one's own and is ultimately dependent on others to fulfill their distant visions and plans. I already know how I feel about that but would you agree or disagree?


That could be true, but we aren't in a vacuum. So their argument isn't valid.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

SimplisticFortitude said:


> That could be true, but we aren't in a vacuum. So their argument isn't valid.


I wanted to wait for Queen of Mars to respond first but I agreed with the assertion. Ni-dominants are seriously useless without other people. I mean, I'm not helpless because I'm older now and have learned a lot but when I was younger... man.


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

perpetuallyreticent said:


> Also, though, Ni? Ni can be helpful but it falls short in comparison to others


eh not really....Ni is extremely useful as it provides you with in-depth insights towards the underlying high level archetypes/noumenons that permeates/governs the universe behind the scenes and can therefore supply Je with the theoretical information/insights necessary to maximize its effectiveness, speed, and accuracy and thereby achieve Je's goals more efficiently...obviously, in order to profit from Ni in the external world, it needs to be used in conjunction with an extroverted function, but the same can be said with all introverted functions...


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

MNiS said:


> I wanted to wait for Queen of Mars to respond first but I agreed with the assertion. Ni-dominants are seriously useless without other people. I mean, I'm not helpless because I'm older now and have learned a lot but when I was younger... man.


I'm too lazy to explore whether or not that applies to everyone else or not, but that is the question to ask if you want to see whether or not this is particularly true.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

MNiS said:


> Someone once argued with me that Ni is the least useful function in terms of surviving on one's own and is ultimately dependent on others to fulfill their distant visions and plans. I already know how I feel about that but would you agree or disagree?


Hmm, well I believe that's an exaggeration. But yeah, I'm pretty sure INTJs and INFJs need society to function. Yes, we could function without it as we are usually intelligent humans who have common sense to survive, but Ni's thrive off of a people-oriented society.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

SimplisticFortitude said:


> I'm too lazy to explore whether or not that applies to everyone else or not, but that is the question to ask if you want to see whether or not this is particularly true.


Well I mean, in the event of a complete societal collapse and being in something like the Stone Age, I would not do well at all until I learned at least some survival skills. That's for a very contrived situation though because in a complex society introverted intuition and introverted sensing are probably the most useful functions to have.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

MNiS said:


> I wanted to wait for Queen of Mars to respond first but I agreed with the assertion. Ni-dominants are seriously useless without other people. I mean, I'm not helpless because I'm older now and have learned a lot but when I was younger... man.


Oh, sorry for taking that much time to respond I was in the middle of finishing some work.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

MNiS said:


> Well I mean, in the event of a complete societal collapse and being in something like the Stone Age, I would not do well at all until I learned at least some survival skills. That's for a very contrived situation though because in a complex society introverted intuition and introverted sensing are probably the most useful functions to have.


Introverted intuition is an amazing thing to have in a complex society. I'd be lost without it.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Queen of Mars said:


> Introverted intuition is an amazing thing to have in a complex society. I'd be lost without it.


Yep, totally agree. I think always knowing where you're going in life is a huge asset. Back in caveman days... maybe not so much.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

MNiS said:


> Yep, totally agree. I think always knowing where you're going in life is a huge asset. Back in caveman days... maybe not so much.


Yeah...although back in the caveman days our personality's were probably not nearly as developed or complex as they are now and thus I doubt Ni was even a trait. Or, if it was one it wasn't very well developed or prominent.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Queen of Mars said:


> Yeah...although back in the caveman days our personality's were probably not nearly as developed or complex as they are now and thus I doubt Ni was even a trait. Or, if it was one it wasn't very well developed or prominent.


I agree and I think it's a fun topic to think about. At what point did something like Ni come into being. I mean, evolutionarily speaking Ni-dominants wouldn't exist if it didn't offer at least some competitive advantage in the competition for scarce resources. I think Se-dominants tend to value Ni and that's probably where Ni could at least exist in hunter-gatherer societies. Which then leads me to believe that Ni-dominants absolutely need the formation of society to exist.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

MNiS said:


> I agree and I think it's a fun topic to think about. At what point did something like Ni come into being. I mean, evolutionarily speaking Ni-dominants wouldn't exist if it didn't offer at least some competitive advantage in the competition for scarce resources. I think Se-dominants tend to value Ni and that's probably where Ni could at least exist in hunter-gatherer societies. Which then leads me to believe that Ni-dominants absolutely need the formation of society to exist.


I agree. I'm personally quite interested in the study of the evolution of personalities. They are quite complex, and oh how fun complex things are. 
I believe Ni-dominants most likely developed around the time that humans began creating language, and building small societies, so probably during the hunter-gatherer time when there were small tribes. Ni-dominants were probably extremely useful for those societies because they were able to think of future possibilities and ways to improve things. You could say without Nis society would probably not be what it is today because it'd lack the sort of future insight that Ni-dominants have. Although, they most likely did not exist prior to the beginning of society. So, they're basically both caused by society and an improvement to it.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Queen of Mars said:


> I agree. I'm personally quite interested in the study of the evolution of personalities. They are quite complex, and oh how fun complex things are.
> I believe Ni-dominants most likely developed around the time that humans began creating language, and building small societies, so probably during the hunter-gatherer time when there were small tribes. Ni-dominants were probably extremely useful for those societies because they were able to think of future possibilities and ways to improve things. You could say without Nis society would probably not be what it is today because it'd lack the sort of future insight that Ni-dominants have. Although, they most likely did not exist prior to the beginning of society. So, they're basically both caused by society and an improvement to it.


Very well said.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

MNiS said:


> Very well said.


Thank you very much.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Queen of Mars said:


> Thank you very much.


So that leads to my assertion that asking which leading function is the least useful is an inherently bad question. If we frame the question in the same way we posited for Ni, then I think it quickly becomes apparent what role each function and type plays in society. Yes?


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

MNiS said:


> So that leads to my assertion that asking which leading function is the least useful is an inherently bad question. If we frame the question in the same way we posited for Ni, then I think it quickly becomes apparent what role each function and type plays in society. Yes?


Yes. I completely agree. Each function has its purpose in society and it is a requirement for each cognitive function to be used in society lest we want chaos and for it to completely fall apart. Even if some functions appear useless in certain contexts, they are the most important in other ways.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Queen of Mars said:


> Yes. I completely agree. Each function has its purpose in society and it is a requirement for each cognitive function to be used in society lest we want chaos and for it to completely fall apart. Even if some functions appear useless in certain contexts, they are the most important in other ways.


Awesome. I'm so glad that we agree. Although I can still respect the OP even though I don't agree with the original question.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

MNiS said:


> Awesome. I'm so glad that we agree. Although I can still respect the OP even though I don't agree with the original question.


It's very nice to know someone who has the same opinion about this topic. I don't agree with the original question as well, although of course I respect other's opinions on the topic. All of this is very controversial, as it is not a completely sorted out branch of science and thus there's going to be holes and people who disagree, although that seems to be the case with any branch of science


----------



## YellowDaffodil (Aug 4, 2013)

Ne seems pretty useless to me. It just seems all style and no substance. I think I'm in the minority though, because most ppl seem to find it totally amazing.

Maybe I'm just resentful because it's my 4th function and I probably just don't know how to use it properly.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

YellowDaffodil said:


> Ne seems pretty useless to me. It just seems all style and no substance. I think I'm in the minority though, because most ppl seem to find it totally amazing.
> 
> Maybe I'm just resentful because it's my 4th function and I probably just don't know how to use it properly.


Si dom doesn't feel painful to you?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@SimplisticFortitude it's very, pardon my punnery, simplistic of you to think that that chart is even moderately representative when we don't even know how tthe data was gathered. An Fi dom can care about making money if the Fi compels them to value money as something meaningful; if anything, the over-emphasis of Western society and other parts of the world too, to value what are seemingly Te modes of production, is if anything more deeply reflected of the enneagram 3 personality in the collective unconsciousness. 

Fundamentally of course, no function is better than the other since the function can't operate without its inferior shadow. 

The question in the op is poorly phrased in the first place.

Also another thing, but you don't seem like someone who strongly utilizes Ni. The comment you made at Mnis is more reflective of Ti than it is Ni.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Entropic said:


> @SimplisticFortitude it's very, pardon my punnery, simplistic of you to think that that chart is even moderately representative when we don't even know how tthe data was gathered. An Fi dom can care about making money if the Fi compels them to value money as something meaningful; if anything, the over-emphasis of Western society and other parts of the world too, to value what are seemingly Te modes of production, is if anything more deeply reflected of the enneagram 3 personality in the collective unconsciousness.
> 
> Fundamentally of course, no function is better than the other since the function can't operate without its inferior shadow.
> 
> ...


Most of what you just said seems like a can of worms to me, so I think I'll just allow you most of your opinion here. However, being an Ni dom is what I most confident about.


----------



## YellowDaffodil (Aug 4, 2013)

Well, that's all settled then. Basically everyone's dom function is useful to themselves in one way or another. Yes, Ni _is_ wonderful - truly. Let's just be friends


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

SimplisticFortitude said:


> Most of what you just said seems like a can of worms to me, so I think I'll just allow you most of your opinion here. However, being an Ni dom is what I most confident about.


I see you identify as INFJ now, is this your final decision?


----------



## Adena (May 14, 2014)

For god's sake, no dominant function is "useless". I feel like this thread is here to make drama.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> I see you identify as INFJ now, is this your final decision?


I always knew it was one or the other. I used to have both in my sig. I just had to force myself to decide which.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

SimplisticFortitude said:


> I always knew it was one or the other. I used to have both in my sig. I just had to force myself to decide which.


Ah, I see.
Welcome to the clan.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Winterlust said:


> For god's sake, no dominant function is "useless". I feel like this thread is here to make drama.


Then you must not have read the first post. Along with a fair amount of the others.


----------



## Adena (May 14, 2014)

SimplisticFortitude said:


> I always knew it was one or the other. I used to have both in my sig. I just had to force myself to decide which.


Oh, I see. Sorry!


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Ni and Ne both fairly useless functions of course hmm


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

Queen of Mars said:


> While that chart is undeniably logical and accurate towards the standard person, in my opinion it doesn't account for the people who don't follow their MBTI's typical job chart. For example, an INTJ could be an artist, and an ENFP could potentially be a doctor or scientist. Maybe it's my own opinion, however rationally speaking when talking about cognitive functions, what you choose to apply your cognitive functions for is up to you.
> In my opinion the most useless cognitive function pertains to the person's particular personality. Sure, if we go by the typical INFP who chooses a job as a social worker and gets very little pay annually, then yes their main function (Fi) would be seen as the most useless. However, strictly speaking, an INFP could potentially thrive in any profession and thus make any amount of money and gain any amount of happiness, and _thus_ Fi is not useless. The amount of function usefulness depends on who you are, what you do, and your own needs. This is why I'm starting to lose my faith in MBTI.


Yes, the MBTI instrument is not built to define a human being, we're too different to fit 7 billion people in 16 groups. Or if you go functions, that would lean towards eight groups. Or even more, the temperaments, four groups. If you look at it that way, then no, it's a useless instrument that just boxes people in. What it can be used for, on the other hand, is to explain how people think and act in different situations. 
And there's no absolute truth about a type. We all go away from our types. The chart where they tell how much money you'll make, based on your type, is just a chart of how it actually is. Not that people with, for example, an ENFJ, according to the chart not the highest earning type, can be the president of the USA. Barrack Obama and Abraham Lincoln (16personalities). And I wouldn't say that the president earns around $70.000 each year. In fact, it's about six to seven times that (if my math is correct, which it probably isn't). So even though the general income for a type is something in particular, that doesn't mean noone from that type will ever earn more. 

If I take myself as an example, ESTJ, enneagram 8w7, I'm not allways angry. And I don't kill the people I'm angry with. Okey, seriously, I feel too much for other people according to the ESTJ description, and I'm not at all that conservative. So I don't quite fit a part of what it means to be ESTJ, but ESTJ is rather the way I focus my energy, the way I take in information, make decisions and live my life. It's rather an indicator to how we may act, and not a description of how a person behave in every situation. 
As I said, we are seven billion people on earth, and 16 groups. It's not suppoused to tell everything about a person.


----------



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> IMO, any extroverted judging function. Probably 90% of the world's problems, politically and morally can be attributed to extroverted judging functions--always throwing their weight around, and games of one-upmanship and brinksmanship. If people, on the other hand, attempted to understand themselves, and spent less time judging others, things would be, I suspect, much better. That's my perspective.


Why focus on extroverted judging functions in particular and not introverted ones? Is it because you lead with an introverted judging function?



Pinina said:


> Yes, the MBTI instrument is not built to define a human being, we're too different to fit 7 billion people in 16 groups. Or if you go functions, that would lean towards eight groups. Or even more, the temperaments, four groups. If you look at it that way, then no, it's a useless instrument that just boxes people in. What it can be used for, on the other hand, is to explain how people think and act in different situations.
> And there's no absolute truth about a type. We all go away from our types. The chart where they tell how much money you'll make, based on your type, is just a chart of how it actually is. Not that people with, for example, an ENFJ, according to the chart not the highest earning type, can be the president of the USA. Barrack Obama and Abraham Lincoln (16personalities). And I wouldn't say that the president earns around $70.000 each year. In fact, it's about six to seven times that (if my math is correct, which it probably isn't). So even though the general income for a type is something in particular, that doesn't mean noone from that type will ever earn more.
> 
> If I take myself as an example, ESTJ, enneagram 8w7, I'm not allways angry. And I don't kill the people I'm angry with. Okey, seriously, I feel too much for other people according to the ESTJ description, and I'm not at all that conservative. So I don't quite fit a part of what it means to be ESTJ, but ESTJ is rather the way I focus my energy, the way I take in information, make decisions and live my life. It's rather an indicator to how we may act, and not a description of how a person behave in every situation.
> As I said, we are seven billion people on earth, and 16 groups. It's not suppoused to tell everything about a person.


We must also pay attention to the chart coming from a survey, because where else would the data come from, and with that we know that the data isnt 100% accurate. I would argue nothing is 100% accurate but thats an entirely different discussion altogether. 

Basically people can lie on surveys. People can mistype. We don't know what type of survey they used. What if they happened to only survey INFP writers? What if they only happened to survey ENTJ businessmen? What if they only happened to survey ISTP engineers? etc.,


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Smallesque said:


> Why focus on extroverted judging functions in particular and not introverted ones? Is it because you lead with an introverted judging function?


Well.... that _was_ kind of the idea. ;-) 

But more to the point, I look at the world, and what I described is how I see it. I see lots of people telling others how to live or how to think, but who don't, themselves, seem to be able to follow their own advice. The thing is, when an extroverted judger judges, it, by its very nature, impacts other people. Introverted judging is more indirect, and self-directed. I suppose that a world of nothing but introverted judgers would be bad, but what we see today seem to me to be the result of Je run amuck. This is not to slight individual Je users--like was said earlier in the thread, It's like Je has taken on a life of its own, outside the bounds of individual Je types.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> I suppose that a world of nothing but introverted judgers would be bad, but what we see today seem to me to be the result of Je run amuck. This is not to slight individual Je users--like was said earlier in the thread, It's like Je has taken on a life of its own, outside the bounds of individual Je types.


And it seems to me that healthy Je doms are not the ones causing most of the problems, but non-Je doms trying to fit themselves into the Je mold. It breeds a lot of resentment, for one thing. (Of the "How dare you not devote yourself to 'overcoming' what I have 'overcome'?!?" variety.) I have worked at organizations that I felt reflected a healthy ESFJ approach, and some that were decidedly unhealthy, and I think the difference was in how skillfully the individual leaders utilized Je (i.e. from true understanding, vs. from a perceived need to ape desired behavior). Not that Je-doms are the only people who make good leaders ...just that any person will (1) lead better from their own dominant function, and (2) have a better chance of appreciating the group's need for a diversity of functions when their own functions are not being suppressed -- and in the current cultural climate, Je doms are accorded those freedoms most often.


----------

