# Utilizing Other Functions



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

I do believe people can utilize other functions even though they might have a natural preference for specific ones. I tend to have a preference for Ne, Te, Fi, and Si, but there have been moments in which I've found that utilizing Ti+Fe and even Ni+Se can be helpful. Those are sides of my mind that I tap into... again, they are not natural, but they do give me a new and interesting take on things. Does anybody else (who knows what they're talking about) do this? When I get into my Cogntive Functions world or get involved with something that takes focus, I can flip a switch so to speak. This is an interesting thing to try to explain, but I push aside my natural tendencies, and adopt other functions. Shit, I sound whacked, but can I get a witness?


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

Our shadows tend to bring out negative tendencies when brought into consciousness, and we can't simply pick and choose when they are brought in and out. However, they can still be good. Bringing out our tert and inf shadows is actually a necessary reaction for highly traumatic events. 

If you want to learn more, I would recommend reading a bit about Beebe's model.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Impact Calculus said:


> Our shadows tend to bring out negative tendencies when brought into consciousness, and we can't simply pick and choose when they are brought in and out. However, they can still be good. Bringing out our tert and inf shadows is actually a necessary reaction for highly traumatic events.
> 
> If you want to learn more, I would recommend reading a bit about Beebe's model.


LOL... Not what I'm talking about. Thanks anyway.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

This isn't possible (@Impact Calculus is right). I mean, what you're probably mistaking for Ti/Fe, etc. shadow functions might just be Te/Fi, etc. (shadow functions can never be fully conscious) Really, the only real difference between both T functions and both F functions is their objectivity/subjectivity and their natural locus of control (regardless of stuff you've learned over the years, etc. - the locus of control will either be internal or external). They can all pay attention to things that the other one does (e.g. Te and Ti can focus on definitions), but one naturally thinks in a definitional fashion, while the other doesn't.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> This isn't possible (@Impact Calculus is right). I mean, what you're probably mistaking for Ti/Fe, etc. shadow functions might just be Te/Fi, etc. (shadow functions can never be fully conscious) Really, the only real difference between both T functions and both F functions is their objectivity/subjectivity and their natural locus of control (regardless of stuff you've learned over the years, etc. - the locus of control will either be internal or external). They can all pay attention to things that the other one does (e.g. Te and Ti can focus on definitions), but one naturally thinks in a definitional fashion, while the other doesn't.


I never said this was a conscious shift, but one I've noticed. So what is this actually?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> I never said this was a conscious shift, but one I've noticed. So what is this actually?


What makes you think you are? I mean, I've heard that the aux/tert functions can be a bit ambiguous in types (Jung thought this was possible for various individuals), so maybe there's something to this if these are the functions you've seen more ambiguity in.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> What makes you think you are? I mean, I've heard that the aux/tert functions can be a bit ambiguous in types (Jung thought this was possible for various individuals), so maybe there's something to this if these are the functions you've seen more ambiguity in.


I get in a very focused zone and will even lock myself away to research and study for hours undisturbed. When I am interrupted, I get pissed. I need to continue down my linear pathway of thought until I either reach a conclusion or hit a dead end. When something like that captures my interest, I want to focus on nothing else. I must have the answer and must learn as much as I can to gain understanding.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

You know for a long time I was sort of with the establishment on this one. That there are only four functions deployed in one of two attitudes. But the more I've looked into the type dynamics model, the more I start to doubt this. First of all, because Jung never says that the function attitudes are that rigid (except in the case of the dominant and inferior). So its quite possible for the Sensation or Intuition of say an INTP to just be undifferentiated, or even both be extraverted.

What we consider to be the 'law' of type dynamics is the Brownsword Model which came out in the mid-80s and they're the ones who really identified the Xi-Ye-Yi_Xe model. The MBTI manual actually stated originally that all three other functions would be the opposite attitude from the dominant (so INTP would really be Ti-Ne-Se-Fe - which only works if the two middle functions are undifferentiated and basically function as generic Intuition and Sensation not really pointed in any given direction). A few researches, namely Reynierse and Hawker actually tested these models and found that out of 570 test cases:



> 1. The hierarchical nature of type dynamics predicts that the dominant > auxiliary > tertiary > inferior, but this effect never occurred for the Grant-Brownsword model and occurred only once for the _Manual _model.
> 
> 2. The preference pairs hypothesis predicts that the dominant = auxiliary > tertiary = inferior, and this effect occurred 106 times for the Grant-Brownsword model and 99 times for the _Manual _model. These effects are due strictly to the functional preferences, S, N, T, or F.
> 
> ...


Futhermore this article on Double Introverts, Dual Extraverts seems to indicate that the type dynamics rigidity may not be all that factual either in this new proposed model. So I'm not sure. I've gone back to just sticking with Extraverted Intuition supported by Thinking because I think perhaps the psyche might too complex to make a formal hierarchy in the way MBTI does. Wilde writes of the results of his own studies that



> These results squarely contradict, and in my opinion disprove, conventional type dynamics assumptions about ‘balance’ that lead in part to the previously assumed arrangement of the function-attitude sequence of innate preferences. Our example, Isaac, would be reported through conventional MBTI interpretation as INTJ, and therefore expected by type dynamics theory to have a fairly high (tertiary) preference for introverted feeling (Fi). Whereas, my approach leads me to conclude that Fi is not developed in this individual, and it is Fi’s ‘opposite,’ Te, which plays the subsidiary J-domain role. And remarkably, the type dynamic steps wouldn’t even mention introverted thinking (Ti), which our quantitative analysis shows to be dominant. This oversight would distort the personality description, leading to inadequate career counseling and mediocre assignment to a team. Moreover, according to conventional type thinking, the MBTI type with Ti dominant and N auxiliary is INTP rather than INTJ, making it another perplexing case for _Personality Type in Depth’s_ recent “Question of the Day: INTJ or INTP?”
> 
> When I first noticed such discrepancies, I paid special attention to the students involved to see which prediction fit better. These observations involved several hundred students over the last fifteen years. Since it was soon apparent to me that the Composite Value predictions provided more reliable information than conventional MBTI reports, I stopped using the standard scoring method entirely. The fraction of Stanford teams winning national awards tripled (Wilde, 2009, 2010) when CV analysis of the MBTI results was used to create function-attitude-diverse teams, as compared to previously not taking personality type into consideration at all. Reynierse and Harker then published their statistical study of type dynamics behavior predictions, summarized in “The Case against Type Dynamics” (2009), concluding that the correlation was unacceptably poor. I took their study as further reason to believe that a better way of calculating MBTI scores was needed.


Another psychologist shares the same sentiments in their article entitled http://temperamentmatters.com/2011/09/23/why-does-psychology-diss-the-mbti/


> But, type dynamics has this problem. It was incorporated into the MBTI, I would guess, out of great respect and admiration for Jung. Unlike Isabel Myers’ development of the individual items and of the preference scales, which was admirable and professional, this scheme is the product of faith. No experimental research was done to substantiate it. As early a 1965, a reviewer for the Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook raised doubts about the validity of the type dynamics aspect of the MBTI. In 1989, McCrea and Costa, the same researchers who reported positively on the relationship between MBTI scales and the Big Five, did a research study looking specifically at whether the reported stronger preference on the MBTI would be positively related to the dominant function as calculated by type dynamics. What they found was no relationship between the strongest preference and the hypothesized dominant preference. Isabel Myers had, herself, presumed that the strongest preference would turn out to be the dominant preference most of the time, but had found this to be true in only 5o% of cases at that time, suggesting that this was essentially random.
> 
> Much more recently, Reynierse and Harker reported on a relatively exhaustive series of six experimental studies looking for support or non-support for type dynamics. They concluded that “the results of this research and other research of ours….suggest that the dominant preference is simply the* independently* _high-value preference_, particularly when that preference stands out and is markedly higher than any other contributing preference.”


So in short, I don't know what to believe other than what Jung writes because the modern theories do not seem to be very coherent.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> I get in a very focused zone and will even lock myself away to research and study for hours undisturbed. When I am interrupted, I get pissed. I need to continue down my linear pathway of thought until I either reach a conclusion or hit a dead end. When something like that captures my interest, I want to focus on nothing else. I must have the answer and must learn as much as I can to gain understanding.


So, does this make you more T-like? I'm not sure what this is supposed to represent functionally. Maybe an inferior S thing? I have no clue.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> So, does this make you more T-like? I'm not sure what this is supposed to represent functionally. Maybe an inferior S thing? I have no clue.


What I'm saying is that this is one example in which my thought pattern does not pull from Ne+Si or Fi+Te. It starts with curiosity, but instead of pondering a thousand possibilities for an answer, I sit down and research on a very direct path of thought. I break down the external information and form my own thoughts on the subject to see if they check out. This is difficult to explain.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Ace Face said:


> What I'm saying is that this is one example in which my thought pattern does not pull from Ne+Si or Fi+Te. It starts with curiosity, but instead of pondering a thousand possibilities for an answer, I sit down and research on a very direct path of thought. I break down the external information and form my own thoughts on the subject to see if they check out. This is difficult to explain.


Although I do agree that MBTI's rigid function stack is kind of wonky and I do notice that some people in certain types have one or two other developed functions, I do believe that MBTI is pretty decent at being a best fit for grouping users of certain cognitive functions. I don't think you're pushing away your natural tendencies at all. Maybe these other functions are your real functions? How close are your functional preferences? Could you list them all in order?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think @Ace Face is just noticing an aspect of what it means to be human, honestly. I don't think any type is restricted from having laser-focus moments, although this might certainly be indicative of falling into a more introverted state. That being said, perhaps the nature of what she's focusing on might be more telling about functions getting triggered. For instance, I'm really beginning to notice that basically all Ti types tend to lurve reading the thoughts of other people on the internet and such just for the sake of relating their own thoughts to them and as a counter reaction with Fe in these types to objectively form opinions that can be useful to channeling their thoughts through (think internet fora, self-help guides, etc.). I mean, any type can, but I suspect there's a very different motivation behind why Te types might like reading fora, etc. For me, beyond interest in a subject, I'm driven by gaining a sense of external structure (Te) to go through Ni perspective switching and insights to make some idea, etc. seem more real to me (inferior Se aspiration?), of course, among other reasons not type-related. The nature of what interests someone can be very telling about their personality type.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

I don't understand why anyone would ever say you can't do this or that based on a theory. I understand that you wouldn't theoretically be able to do it according to said theory, but until someone proves you can't, the truth is that it just doesn't fit into the model. So either you're mistaken or the model is too rigid. And I don't think that personality typing is by nature meant to be rigid. The human brain is dynamic and beyond simple theories.

I've considered just typing myself as unknown. I definitely identify as a Ne dom, but I can go into Se mode playing sports. I don't care what anyone says, I know that to be true. It's not my usual mode and I'm fully aware of that and enjoy the lack of mental exhaustion and that's precisely what appeals to me. It's a reprieve, and it helps me to feel balanced. That's one example, but I could give more on how silly it is, in my mind, trying to conform who I am to a loose model of what is supposedly possible. 

At a complete resting point, I'm Ne>Fi. But in real life I'm using a full range of functions depending on the circumstances and demands.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

saffron said:


> I don't understand why anyone would ever say you can't do this or that based on a theory. I understand that you wouldn't theoretically be able to do it according to said theory, but until someone proves you can't, the truth is that it just doesn't fit into the model. So either you're mistaken or the model is too rigid. And I don't think that personality typing is by nature meant to be rigid. The human brain is dynamic and beyond simple theories.
> 
> I've considered just typing myself as unknown. I definitely identify as a Ne dom, but I can go into Se mode playing sports. I don't care what anyone says, I know that to be true. It's not my usual mode and I'm fully aware of that and enjoy the lack of mental exhaustion and that's precisely what appeals to me. It's a reprieve, and it helps me to feel balanced. That's one example, but I could give more on how silly it is, in my mind, trying to conform who I am to a loose model of what is supposedly possible.
> 
> At a complete resting point, I'm Ne>Fi. But in real life I'm using a full range of functions depending on the circumstances and demands.


Well I think i read somewhere that laws explain sets of empirical observations, whereas a theory explains a set of laws. 

With regard to the MBTI and trying to fit into one of its categories, part of the problem is that they are attempting to apply Jung's 'laws' (i.e. Thinking opposes Feeling, Sensing opposes Intuition, superiority of the dominant, etc) to a paradigm that is incompatible. You see Jung could say that because he wasn't focused on trying to use the functions to explain all of human psychology. He accounts for the vast differences in people with purposeful vagueness and by concentrating on a holistic view of the psyche, the complexes, the archetypal influences, personas, etc. 

MBTI on the other hand, in trying to be empirical, creates a laws out of its own assumptions, but then tries to use Jung's ideas to back up those assumptions. But the two are incompatible. If you are going to use, as MBTI does, the functions as the raison d'etre of the psychological experience, that's fine but real people are not going to play so simply by rigid rules like "if your aux function is Ne your tertiary must be Si" and this kind of stuff. It's just too rigid, it standardizes what should be inherently variable. Jung doesn't care what your aux function is because its not important in his greater picture, its only MBTI and its trying to mix two incompatible ideas where you run into the problem of people seeming to favor both Te and Ti. 

In reality, you would actually have to, as Reynierse did with his mutlidimensionality model, break all of the functions down into individual components and just score the strengths of each. You can't apply arbitrary laws like S vs N or J vs P if you are not going to offer any greater or more holistic psychic explanations. You basically have to measure S-N-T-F-J-P (and perhaps I-E) as individual variables and then just score them as a snapshot of percentages like the Five Factor Model. (And J-P absolutely cannot be pointer variables, they can't point to function use just to the definitions of judging-closure-seeking/perceiving-non-closure-seeking). The reason being is if you try to force laws onto something that is by nature variable, you're constantly either going to have to ignore evidence to the contrary (of which there seems to be a lot) or accept that your theory has limitations. 

MBTI says things like "people may mistype because of social expectations, and lack of self-awareness" and so on, but that sort of defeats the point. Basically what they are saying is, people cannot be typed correctly unless they fit our model, and it should be the other way around. Jung accounts for this by spending time talking about the ego and the shadow and the personas and the nature of the complexes and so forth. We recognize the difference between the ego and its personas, but with MBTI it appears to be all of these things at once, and none of them. It's like it can't decide whether to just describe behavioral patterns, or personas, or underlying psychology -- it's sort of all the above and none of the above, and again this gives too much power to the functions which were never intended for this. And then we go off with JCF making more rules and theories on top of something that is already philosophical (like dom-tert loop theory) when the evidence that the tert is the same attitude as the dominant seems non-existent. We believe this simply because its what we've been taught. Again the difference between Jungian psychological philosophy and MBTI trying to be a science, but not wanting to play by scientific rules. 

To say x person is an Extraverted Intuitive as the Jungians do, leaves the door open for a myriad of possibilities about the person, we're simply saying the person favors using intuition. We're not going as far as to say "...and they will secondarily favor Introverted Judgment and then Extraverted Judgment and these functions will have a heirarchy of strength and the extraverted of the two will have more impact on the outer orientation of the person and on and on and on." That just tries to do too much and then people run in circles trying to figure out if they fit ENTP or ENFP, or maybe they have J tendencies and so forth. It gets ridiculous. 

To my knowledge Jung never says we can't use all eight function attitudes, just that conscious orientation will center around the dominant function which will generally be the most differentiated and point in a given direction (and by extension the inferior function will be the conscious expression of the unconscious). This is not describing any of the hard absolute qualities that MBTI and modern type theories interject onto type, like Si will be conservative and past-oriented and Ne will be creative and impulsive. In fact you could take Jung's words to mean anything, he's just sketching out basic processes as a sort of philosophical guide, a way of looking at things, not trying to nail people into solid categories. Maybe we really honestly only use one function, the dominant, or perhaps its the inferior that carries the weight in some people and the other three don't mean much. Jung leaves that possibility open, but MBTI does not.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

saffron said:


> I don't understand why anyone would ever say you can't do this or that based on a theory. I understand that you wouldn't theoretically be able to do it according to said theory, but until someone proves you can't, the truth is that it just doesn't fit into the model. So either you're mistaken or the model is too rigid. And I don't think that personality typing is by nature meant to be rigid. The human brain is dynamic and beyond simple theories.
> 
> I've considered just typing myself as unknown. I definitely identify as a Ne dom, but I can go into Se mode playing sports. I don't care what anyone says, I know that to be true. It's not my usual mode and I'm fully aware of that and enjoy the lack of mental exhaustion and that's precisely what appeals to me. It's a reprieve, and it helps me to feel balanced. That's one example, but I could give more on how silly it is, in my mind, trying to conform who I am to a loose model of what is supposedly possible.
> 
> At a complete resting point, I'm Ne>Fi. But in real life I'm using a full range of functions depending on the circumstances and demands.


Maybe you're perceiving the model too rigidly (also, what makes you think Se has anything to do with sports? Se is just very literal perception (e.g. the ball is green - oh, those doors are green also).


----------



## Adasta (Nov 22, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Maybe you're perceiving the model too rigidly (also, what makes you think Se has anything to do with sports? Se is just very literal perception (e.g. the ball is green - oh, those doors are green also).


That doesn't mean it has no role in sports, either.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Flow (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was a tidbit from one of Dario Nardi's lecture on how all types are able to reach this common of "flow" when all their brain regions (EEGs) synch up. 

@*Ace Face*

If you've entered this state before, how did the last experience compare with that of former cases?


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> You know for a long time I was sort of with the establishment on this one. That there are only four functions deployed in one of two attitudes. But the more I've looked into the type dynamics model, the more I start to doubt this. First of all, because Jung never says that the function attitudes are that rigid (except in the case of the dominant and inferior). So its quite possible for the Sensation or Intuition of say an INTP to just be undifferentiated, or even both be extraverted.
> 
> What we consider to be the 'law' of type dynamics is the Brownsword Model which came out in the mid-80s and they're the ones who really identified the Xi-Ye-Yi_Xe model. The MBTI manual actually stated originally that all three other functions would be the opposite attitude from the dominant (so INTP would really be Ti-Ne-Se-Fe - which only works if the two middle functions are undifferentiated and basically function as generic Intuition and Sensation not really pointed in any given direction). A few researches, namely Reynierse and Hawker actually tested these models and found that out of 570 test cases:
> 
> ...


How did they determine that their method of testing function use was reliable?


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Okay, first off, I'm not ignorant as to what the theory suggests as far as this topic is concerned. I realize that in theory, it's not possible. But what if it actually is? Opinions on this, of course, can only be concluded by what other people are experiencing for themselves. In other words, it is a subjective topic up for discussion despite the theory suggesting that it is not possible. Secondly, I'm trying to describe situations (these are not the norm) in which my mind taps into a different part of itself. If you've seen me post around, you know I'm not ignorant to how the functions work nor am I ignorant to the motivations behind my own functions. I understand them well enough to distinguish when I am using them. Ne is pretty much always present, and Fi+Te make themselves quite evident. Inferior Si moments do spark up from time to time, and they can be rather enlightening. But what I have described is outside the norm, and try as I may, I can't honestly match it up to any of my preferred functions. And the instance I described is only one example. Again, this is a difficult thing to describe to you since it is a subjective experience. I don't expect anyone to understand completely, but I'm trying my hardest to convey the message in a manner that is easy to understand. And if anyone thinks I'm not informed enough on the functions and/or I have mistyped... please, PM me and make my day, lol.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Tenebrae said:


> How did they determine that their method of testing function use was reliable?


The full article is here https://www.capt.org/JPT/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf

This thread http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...es/54300-reynierse-s-revised-type-theory.html over at Type C you might find interesting as well.


----------

