# Abnormally Hight Ti in an ENTJ?



## Arrogus (Dec 26, 2012)

Here are my cognitive function scores:

Extroverted Thinking (Te) ||||||||||||||||||||||||| 11.62
Introverted Intuition (Ni) ||||||||||||||||||||| 9.925
Introverted Thinking (Ti) ||||||||||||||||||||| 9.89
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) ||||||||||||||||| 7.69
Introverted Sensation (Si) |||||||||||||| 6.47
Extroverted Sensation (Se) ||||| 1.57
Introverted Feeling (Fi) |||| 1.02
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) ||| 0.98


Notice anything strange? I'm an ENTJ. Every test I've taken has said so, and reading a description of ENTJ behavior is like reading a biography of myself..... except for the supposed aversion to detail. In high school, I was the head of the math team, and distinctly remember acing my first geometric proofs exam, a test that the rest of the class literally failed. In college, I drank the tears of my classmates in abstract algebra, and was transferred out of an Intro to Logic class by my professor because I "already knew it all". 

On the other hand, I'm very outgoing, presume authority in conversations, naturally assume leadership of groups, am driven primarily by my desire for power, and have to consciously fight against the notion that I'm always right.

Is this at all common? Does it have something to do with IQ? Is it even appropriate for me to call myself an ENTJ?


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Tests mean nothing. They indicate expression of functions, not preference. Even then, they're terrible because of the language they use, and the questions they ask. Only you can know what functions you use, and certainly don't delude yourself into thinking that because you're so smart, you get an extra function. -.-

Here's mine:



> *Your Cognitive Functions:
> Extroverted Intuition (Ne) |||||||||||||||||||| 9.38
> Extroverted Sensation (Se) |||||||||||||||| 7.17
> Introverted Thinking (Ti) ||||||||||||| 5.84
> ...


Do I actually use Se, Te, Ni, or Fi to this degree? No, I don't. The questions are just phishing for a yes or no sort of answer. An adept human typist would see the functional development, but the computer's just doing the best it can with multiple choice responses.

Could you be a type other than ENTJ? Sure you could, that's up to you to figure out. The test just isn't the best way to judge that sort of thing.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Same here except I'm an I;

Boolean101, who is now retired, stated that Jung postulated Ni users can use Ti quite readily. 

Honestly, I don't get how the two are mutually exclusive, and I think these tests fail to differentiate. 

For example: "Do you take things apart to figure out how they work" which is a 'Ti' question
For example: "Do you see how systems change with varying some of its parts" which is an Ni question

How on Earth could you concieve of all possibilities in which he varying parts have on a system without at least somewhat taking it apart in your mind.

I would ask; is the function more of a preference or servile? 
For example, do you take things apart for the fun of it or is it more to serve Ni?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> Tests mean nothing. They indicate expression of functions, not preference. Even then, they're terrible because of the language they use, and the questions they ask. Only you can know what functions you use, and certainly don't delude yourself into thinking that because you're so smart, you get an extra function. -.-
> 
> Here's mine:
> 
> ...


I would say 'yeah you do' actually. You just use Se as a servile role for Ne. Ne needs to put things together so of course it needs to have knowledge of what it is that is there. You may not be as attune to the sheer nature of the beast as an Se dom would, but you are certainly using Se.

Same with Te; I'm sure you have to linearize your thoughts to make sense to people. But again, it's a servile role rather than a preference.

I think this is what's throwing people off here: "I have a high X for my X type". It's perfectly feasible for someone to use one function a lot in their daily lives:

For example, if I threw you in a gladiator match to the death "Hunger Games" style, I bet your Se would shoot right above your Ne. But it wasn't your preferred mode of operation. Sociology and enviornment need to be taken into consideration.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

For that matter, if you were to trust it, just a quick glance shows that the test would believe you to be an ENTJ


> Extroverted Thinking (Te) ||||||||||||||||||||||||| 11.62
> Introverted Intuition (Ni) ||||||||||||||||||||| 9.925
> Introverted Thinking (Ti) ||||||||||||||||||||| 9.89
> Extroverted Intuition (Ne) ||||||||||||||||| 7.69
> ...



You've got Te - Ni as Dom - Aux , and you have Se - Fi down there in the inferior zone. Based on the information provided, you'd seem to me to be a pretty averagely developed ENTJ for ages 14-30~ .


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I would say 'yeah you do' actually. You just use Se as a servile role for Ne. Ne needs to put things together so of course it needs to have knowledge of what it is that is there. You may not be as attune to the sheer nature of the beast as an Se dom would, but you are certainly using Se.
> 
> Same with Te; I'm sure you have to linearize your thoughts to make sense to people. But again, it's a servile role rather than a preference.
> 
> ...


Perhaps add your bolding to "to this degree", as I said in my post ;P

You use all the functions, but my Se isn't used to the degree displayed in the test results, nor is Te, etc. If I were in a gladiator style situation, I'd probably still be Ne-Ti heavily drawing from Si. I'm a 4th degree black belt in Taekwondo and compete in weapons, forms, and sparring. If I tried to use Se, I'd be far weaker in my exercise of it than I would be when using my native functions. The 4 functions not listed in functional preference really don't come into play as themselves without a filter through the top 4 functions. For example, my expression of Fi would be a very warped one through the lens of Fe or Ti.


----------



## Arrogus (Dec 26, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> Tests mean nothing. They indicate expression of functions, not preference. Even then, they're terrible because of the language they use, and the questions they ask. Only you can know what functions you use, and certainly don't delude yourself into thinking that because you're so smart, you get an extra function. -.-





FlightsOfFancy said:


> Same here except I'm an I;
> 
> Boolean101, who is now retired, stated that Jung postulated Ni users can use Ti quite readily.
> 
> ...


Using Ti is like a game to me, a test of skill, but ultimately not important. I may amuse myself (or humiliate someone else) by solving a logic puzzle, but everything that really matters is Te territory.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Arrogus said:


> Using Ti is like a game to me, a test of skill, but ultimately not important. I may amuse myself (or humiliate someone else) by solving a logic puzzle, but everything that really matters is Te territory.


So why doubt whether you're an ENTJ?


----------



## Arrogus (Dec 26, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> For that matter, if you were to trust it, just a quick glance shows that the test would believe you to be an ENTJ
> 
> You've got Te - Ni as Dom - Aux , and you have Se - Fi down there in the inferior zone. Based on the information provided, you'd seem to me to be a pretty averagely developed ENTJ for ages 14-30~ .






Jabberbroccoli said:


> So why doubt whether you're an ENTJ?


I was under the impression that the shadow functions should score the lowest. It appears I was mistaken.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well shadow functions is a whole huge ball of yarn. You could have a shadow function that shows up that strongly that you aren't aware of, because its 'shadow' or unconscious. The problem is people think they 'use' functions (it might be more apt to say shadow functions use you without your knowledge) and so they're like "oh well I am ESFP with tons of Ne" and if we go down the shadow function mode all this means is that the test recorded a lot of what appeared to be extraverted intuition, but it doesn't mean the person has any conscious awareness of usage of it. 

Essentially it would be like finding out you could speak another language fluently. Lets say English (Se) is your first language and all you think you know, but then along comes a test and voila "oh hey did you know you also score really high on German?" and you're like "huh?" What happens is the test may notice, in this example, that perhaps you use a lot of germanic words and so erroneously concludes you speak German. In a function test context, the test may look at your answers and infer from them that you use a certain function, lets say Ne, but that is only based on the accuracy of your answers and what is being inferred from your behaviors. Just because you might exhibit attitudes and behaviors that look like Ne doesn't mean it is Ne. And even if it is, you're still not aware of it anyway so it doesn't matter. Remember shadow functions are UNCONSCIOUS. You have no more awareness of them than you do of the electrochemical processes in your brain. What Beebe was teaching is how to recognize the effects of complexes with his theory and what to look for.


----------



## Arrogus (Dec 26, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Well shadow functions is a whole huge ball of yarn. You could have a shadow function that shows up that strongly that you aren't aware of, because its 'shadow' or unconscious. The problem is people think they 'use' functions (it might be more apt to say shadow functions use you without your knowledge) and so they're like "oh well I am ESFP with tons of Ne" and if we go down the shadow function mode all this means is that the test recorded a lot of what appeared to be extraverted intuition, but it doesn't mean the person has any conscious awareness of usage of it.
> 
> Essentially it would be like finding out you could speak another language fluently. Lets say English (Se) is your first language and all you think you know, but then along comes a test and voila "oh hey did you know you also score really high on German?" and you're like "huh?" What happens is the test may notice, in this example, that perhaps you use a lot of germanic words and so erroneously concludes you speak German. In a function test context, the test may look at your answers and infer from them that you use a certain function, lets say Ne, but that is only based on the accuracy of your answers and what is being inferred from your behaviors. Just because you might exhibit attitudes and behaviors that look like Ne doesn't mean it is Ne. And even if it is, you're still not aware of it anyway so it doesn't matter. Remember shadow functions are UNCONSCIOUS. You have no more awareness of them than you do of the electrochemical processes in your brain. What Beebe was teaching is how to recognize the effects of complexes with his theory and what to look for.


Then what's going on when I solve a logic puzzle? Ti seems like the kind of thing you can only use deliberately. Am I using another function to "brute force" the problem?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Arrogus said:


> Then what's going on when I solve a logic puzzle? Ti seems like the kind of thing you can only use deliberately. Am I using another function to "brute force" the problem?


That's just it; I don't get that either. You are pretty much using the function. The only other scenario I can see is a slave/primary theory. 

You are using Ti as a slave for the primary Te, to humiliate or whatever other things ENTJs like to do ;-x


This functional exclusivity doesn't seem to work well at all. It's almost impossible to isolate them, so the only logical answer would be that they intertwine as mention but one is ultimately 'preferred'.

How would you go about some of your larger plans without taking something a part? How would you think aloud and sometimes brainstorm ideas for Te without some Ne. The usage in isolation makes 0 sense.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Lets say English (Se) is your first language and all you think you know, but then along comes a test and voila "oh hey did you know you also score really high on German?" and you're like "huh?" What happens is the test may notice, in this example, that perhaps you use a lot of germanic words and so erroneously concludes you speak German. In a function test context, the test may look at your answers and infer from them that you use a certain function, lets say Ne, but that is only based on the accuracy of your answers and what is being inferred from your behaviors. Just because you might exhibit attitudes and behaviors that look like Ne doesn't mean it is Ne. And even if it is, you're still not aware of it anyway so it doesn't matter.


This is just a brilliant analogy.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Op, have seen lots of people posting scores like yours in a footer of post. Often NT's have heavy scoring on all the T and N stuff, or so it seems. I think part of it is that you may like a certain way of doing things, but you develop tactics to make things happen or coordinate with people. N and T interests require more jumping back and forth and they blur together sometimes.

Like I need Te because if I don't want to be resigned to a less than desirable work life, and I don't want to starve, I have to make appointments, and look at proof of what is working or not working. You accept and practice some things, and when it isn't your favorite thing, in a way you value it more.
So somewhere along the line you need Ti, in pursuit of Te?

I'm still working on my own understanding of Ti/Te.
What it seems like to me is that Ti is *management by: policy making, theory, and procedure development, designing of programs, writing a speech or presentation (some of Ti could be Ni and vice-verse?) . Te is management by scheduling, measuring, verifying, fact gathering, and planning of actions for specific situations.

* I'm using the word management here instead of thinking because my understanding of the functions is that all of it is a kind of thinking, in the way we normally think about thinking.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Not quite abnormal, ENTJs often score high on Ti on these sorts of tests, as they are T-doms, and real Te is probably more often something of a blend of the Te and Ti on these tests, as the test definitions aren't the greatest.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Well shadow functions is a whole huge ball of yarn. You could have a shadow function that shows up that strongly that you aren't aware of, because its 'shadow' or unconscious. The problem is people think they 'use' functions (it might be more apt to say shadow functions use you without your knowledge) and so they're like "oh well I am ESFP with tons of Ne" and if we go down the shadow function mode all this means is that the test recorded a lot of what appeared to be extraverted intuition, but it doesn't mean the person has any conscious awareness of usage of it.
> 
> Essentially it would be like finding out you could speak another language fluently. Lets say English (Se) is your first language and all you think you know, but then along comes a test and voila "oh hey did you know you also score really high on German?" and you're like "huh?" What happens is the test may notice, in this example, that perhaps you use a lot of germanic words and so erroneously concludes you speak German. In a function test context, the test may look at your answers and infer from them that you use a certain function, lets say Ne, but that is only based on the accuracy of your answers and what is being inferred from your behaviors. Just because you might exhibit attitudes and behaviors that look like Ne doesn't mean it is Ne. And even if it is, you're still not aware of it anyway so it doesn't matter. Remember shadow functions are UNCONSCIOUS. You have no more awareness of them than you do of the electrochemical processes in your brain. What Beebe was teaching is how to recognize the effects of complexes with his theory and what to look for.


I personally disagree with this explanation because I think it's not that simple for many reasons: 1) I don't think pure type that you speak of here exists; 2) I think our cognition is more complex than simply looking at function output (see for example @Figure's threads); 3) I think that the context in which we're in requires different function use; 4) I think Beebe is bullshit and if it's an 8 function model you're looking for, Augusta's Model A in socionics is far superior.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Maybe this means I'm Screwed up ^ took a test twice, don't remember which tests they were
also don't know how to put pic on here. Do I need to code this? - If you click it works


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> View attachment 63005
> 
> 
> Maybe this means I'm Screwed up ^ took a test twice, don't remember which tests they were
> also don't know how to put pic on here. Do I need to code this? - If you click it works


I can see the image just fine when I click on it.


This may be a slight case of "abnormally high Ti"  Well that and the rest of the patterns do look more typical of an INTP. Still, the option remains that there is a flaw in the interpretation of the test, either on your part or the test's......


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Why is everyone placing so much emphasis on the test results? 

Cognitive function test results are a projection of a projection of a projection, and maybe even more beyond that. When you receive results from a CF test, you're basically looking at a numeric score - that's supposed to represent how "well" you "fit" each function - based on how you interpret the question and what the question is measuring - which is supposed to represent which Jungian type you are - which is supposed to represent the way you process information around you - which is supposed to represent some sort of mental process or set of mental processes. 

There are _far _too many conceptual jumps here to take quantitative personality test results as seriously as many do here. I'll get flamed for this, but I think all of this "shadow" stuff is a load of mythological nonsense, especially since we haven't really determined what, exactly, a "function" itself is, and, as such, needs to be taken with a grain of sand. Specifically, what we're doing here is affixing behavioral output to a "function," without really having defined what a "function" is. 

I no longer believe a function is a mental process - I know self-confirmed ENFJ who are outstanding at "puzzle games" as well, and ISFJ who think about the future. They may be "doing" the same, or similar things as even an ENTJ and INTJ, respectively - with their processes mediated by very different kinds of information valued. but I think a "function" is more of an informational style, or orientation of these shared underlying processes. An "MBTI" of sorts to these specific processes.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_LiquidLight_

I've extensively thought about to what extent it is true, what you wrote, and observed in me.

For instance, I realized that a huge hunk of what I thought is Ni, actually can be Ti, and I've realized recently just how clearly I'm not an Ni-dominant in the sense of what the theories are you speak of.

The key is that most of the theories of how we consciously are aware of so and so function are studying _pairings_ of functions that we prefer conscious use of, not the functions themselves, and this is where I think a lot of the confusion arises.

That is, I can observe in myself a preference for consciously assimilating information and processing most through Si-Ne and Ti-Fe. My levels of introversion dictate that I use a lot of abstract Si, and that Ti-Si likely overrides even Ne. I do _not_ suppress sensation the way a true severely introverted Ni-dominant would. And when I extrovert, it is through Ne, whose experience of data is stored by Si.

But that said, to say that I am always oriented to intuit in an Ne-sense without doing so in an Ni-sense seems neither sensible to me by my readings of Jung nor necessarily true.

The clear suppressing or use of certain function attitudes of introversion/extroversion may occur easily visible when people's dominants are considered, particularly when their level of intro/extroversion is high enough. But precisely the extent of suppressing, the extent of consciousness - there seems no good reason for these to not vary.



I need someone to define the functions to me in such a way that it's clear why someone who is a dominant X, and supposedly tends to follow certain patterns of introversion/extroversion in functions other than X, need necessarily choose starkly between introversion and not for sensation v. intuition or similarly for feeling vs thinking. If someone overwhelmingly prefers to perceive through Ne, and to store sensory Si rather than suppress it, if neither of these is anywhere near dominant, I do not see how there isn't the strong possibility of other perceiving attitudes creeping in. 



> Then what's going on when I solve a logic puzzle? Ti seems like the kind of thing you can only use deliberately. Am I using another function to "brute force" the problem?


 @Arrogus 

I do not think you need to consciously invoke much Ti there necessarily, but it depends how one is thinking of Ti. If one considers a highly extensive definition of the functions, if you're a dominant T type, there is a strong likelihood use of Pi together with Te can get mistaken for what Ti is, by the description people here often use.

It is true you need to observe the laws of the puzzle, abide by them, and appeal to some level of introversion to extract how to proceed. In principle there's no reason this can't be achieved with strong Pi + Te, and some unconscious Ti that is highly non-deliberate.

Just because you formed a strategy that makes sense to you does not mean you had to have appealed to much Ti. 

When I tend to use Ti, in fact, I realized that the very idea of what registers to my introversion as sensible in figuring something out is likely distinct from what would occur in a true Ni-dom.



To say though that I have absolutely _no consciousness of the other functions_ is I think an overstatement. I may not use them integrally to process information freely, because I tend to prefer certain patterns of Pe-Ji to Pi-Je and certain sorts of Pe-Pi, etc etc etc. There is often no way I can Se-Ni consciously, because my sensing is so introverted. But I can observe what seems impossible to describe as anything but Fi, Ni, many times. My conscious comfort with Ni as part of daily information processing on a basic level may be limited due to my being such an introverted sensor, but I think what happens is more complicated ultimately.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*Arrogus* your Si and Se have a big drop between them.

Your Ni, Ti, and Ne are all quite close together. Have you thought about how you might have kind of a bent toward creativity? It is more popular or secure in our society for Men to be factual math whizzes?
You may have an excellent math aptitude but that doesn't mean that is what you prefer to use in the bigger picture of life? Just offering a different angle.

Op's post is so similar to some concerns I have, thinking of a whole new thread but . . . .


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Same thing here @Jabberbroccoli. My Se always seems almost as high as my Ne.


----------



## Arrogus (Dec 26, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> *Arrogus* your Si and Se have a big drop between them.
> 
> Your Ni, Ti, and Ne are all quite close together. Have you thought about how you might have kind of a bent toward creativity? It is more popular or secure in our society for Men to be factual math whizzes?
> You may have an excellent math aptitude but that doesn't mean that is what you prefer to use in the bigger picture of life? Just offering a different angle.
> ...


Actually I'm one of the least creative people I know. If an idea can't be extrapolated from something I already know, I'll likely never arrive at it. Me writing fiction is like Carl Sagan "making an apple pie from scratch".


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Arrogus said:


> Actually I'm one of the least creative people I know. If an idea can't be extrapolated from something I already know, I'll likely never arrive at it. Me writing fiction is like Carl Sagan "making an apple pie from scratch".


I get really excited when someone makes an humorous and at least somewhat intelligent analogy.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> I get really excited when someone makes an humorous and at least somewhat intelligent analogy.


uh-ohh does that mean he could be one of us?


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> uh-ohh does that mean he could be one of us?


No. He's a Te-dom.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

But it could be that he is good at math, and still has the soul of an artist. . . . . .
The big Gap of preferring Si over Se.
He just thinks it sooo much kooler, and smarter to be rich . . .
Which it probably is


----------



## Arrogus (Dec 26, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> But it could be that he is good at math, and still has the soul of an artist. . . . . .
> The big Gap of preferring Si over Se.
> He just thinks it sooo much kooler, and smarter to be rich . . .
> Which it probably is


Never would I imagine being described as having "the soul of an artist".

....I'm genuinely offended. Congratulations.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> But it could be that he is good at math, and still has the soul of an artist. . . . . .
> The big Gap of preferring Si over Se.
> He just thinks it sooo much kooler, and smarter to be rich . . .
> Which it probably is


Enneagram correlations, but no relevamce to functional preference.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Ne need not quite be creative - mine is relatively not. It helps me sees many of the potential objective states data I'm perceiving may occupy. But often these aren't things someone hasn't thought of before or any such thing, nor were they envisioned as part of an attempt to generate, so much as part of what I need to do to start analyzing properly.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> You use all the functions, but my Se isn't used to the degree displayed in the test results, nor is Te, etc. If I were in a gladiator style situation, I'd probably still be Ne-Ti heavily drawing from Si. I'm a 4th degree black belt in Taekwondo and compete in weapons, forms, and sparring. If I tried to use Se, I'd be far weaker in my exercise of it than I would be when using my native functions. The 4 functions not listed in functional preference really don't come into play as themselves without a filter through the top 4 functions. For example, my expression of Fi would be a very warped one through the lens of Fe or Ti.




This is one of the few posts in support (roughly, yes I know you say we use all of them) of the theory of 4 functions that I really think makes sense. 




FlightsofFancy said:


> Jung postulated Ni users can use Ti quite readily.
> 
> Honestly, I don't get how the two are mutually exclusive, and I think these tests fail to differentiate.




I don't think they are mutually exclusive, nor has someone ever shown them to be in any way to me yet. 

What I think is true, however, that when you speak of pairing functions together to assimilate/process information, e.g. Ti-Ne, Ni-Te, they exhibit a very different means of viewing, digesting, etc the information. 

However, where the complexity lies is partly that information is not digested merely consciously, nor is it digested just once. Once we accept that information as a term refers to some abstract phantom thing, we realize it proceeds through various layers of cognition. 

I do not consciously assimilate information with Ni-Se nearly as much as I follow some Ne-Si procedure, but to say that my perceiving doesn't take on many different layers and states, many of which involve key Ni, would simply I think be incorrect, and one would be trying a little too hard to twist things to say I'm just Ti-ing.

One of my clues on my type was there is a very different role to the sensing function Si than there is to Se, and I show a clear preference for one over another. I cannot digest in an Ni-Se form, without, as @Jabberbroccoli said, being heavily warped by Ne-Si. 


What I think one should be careful of, though, is observing that "I must be Ni-ing in this situation" -- sure there may be some version of it going on, but one's mindset may still be very Ti, or whatever else. The thing I've observed is that people habitually have very limited views of what happens under the vision of each of these functions. You don't _have to keep switching_ or something -- rather, you can tap into your cognitive abilities more deeply, and develop further the patterns of cognition you already have formed. 

Indeed, lessening these limitations is how I precisely realized how far from an Ni-dominant I really am, even if tests score me roughly equivalently on Ni, Ti.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

High Ti in a Te dom.: strong overall *T* preference (As others touched upon). Think of the dominant function (T) and dominant attitude (E) separately. The ego orients the dominant function to the dominant attitude, usually, but it will cross over to the other side at times. This is called the "backup".

High Se in an Ne dom.: strong overall *P* preference. That is what the two functions share in common, and there are similar behaviors, though one will be focused more on the conceptual, whgile the other fucuses more on the tangible.

Type is the dom. and aux. ONLY. The others can be ordered most consistently by the archetypal complexes that often align with them, or by simple "mirroring" (the dominant will be compensated by its function/attitude opposite being inferior; same with the aux. being not as preferred as the dom. so its mirror, the tertiary is not as suppressed as the inferior).

Otherwise, "strength" does not figure in the other six at all (other than them being assumed to be weaker than the first two, and particularly the dom.)

A lot of this is from the blurring of the functions as perspectives, and as behaviors. "cognitive process" tests are basically measuring behaviors, trying to guage likely perspectives from them.

I've been thinking the past few days, comparing myself with my wife. INTP/ESFJ. They share the same "primary" or "ego-syntonic" functions, but during certain reactions to my TiNe, she seems almost like she's "using" Te. Like I've begin reading _Wheat Belly_, which suggests a lot of our obesity is from wheat, which raises sugra more than anything else, according to the claim.
She becomes skeptical (though she wouldn't admit this), thinking I'm just grabbing up anything that comes along and running with it.

But what it is, is my dom. Ti processing something, and it _clicks_ theoretically, based in internal knowledge (which can be hard to articulate), and then Ne says "let's try this on". (And then, Si looks back at experience, which also seems to fit). 
She suddenly becomes this critical "thinker", relying on internal principles, but it fits an inferior, and then Si "What's familiar" (e.g. what we've already been eating; the routine, etc) kicks in. She has this way of taking apart my ideas in favor of external-based evaluations (empirical evidence, what the experts say, etc. ), and in this case, it's not Fe. She becomes very "directive Te"-like; sounding like the STJ's I grew up with. (She said it was hard for her to learn this way of thinking in training, but it sure seems to come up quickly in times like this). 
All of this is *behavior*, that has become associated with different functions.

I say at those times, it's a J/P clash, and she's being a typical "J". Fe and Te share the J attitude. J/P was conceived, because they deal with external interaction, and this was deemed important in what MBTI was trying to do.

So it's not a matter of how much Te is being "used" in that case. IIRC, it was low for her on that test. Though the dom. Fe "backup", Fi was very strong. She might "use Ti" more (And that might have been the starting perspective in her skepticism), but the way it is used is very incompatible with the way it is for me. The same with Ne. 
So this goes along with the Lenore order, that for her, it might be something like FeSi————NeTi. Te is the "Crow's Nest" that comes up in an issue like this, that does not call for Fe at all, and Ti is rather apprehensive, from being weak and vulnerable. I don't think that order was really about relative "strength" either. So a typical strength order doesn't have to follow any of the official stackings we use.

It might be more like: 
Fe (dom) 
Si (aux.) 
Fi("backup" of dom.) 
Te (Left-brain "Crow's Nest" alternative) 
Ne ("inflated" puer/puella) 
Se (backs up aux.) 
Ni (shadow of puer; also other "left brain alternative" Crow's NEst)
Ti (inferior)
For people who got to engage the aux. more, the tertiary might be at #7.

(Illustrating the limitations of the tests; these are my wife's actual scores; she got much higher on Fi, Se and even Ni, making her an ISFP, but with high Fe; but I determined that was due to the Forer effects suffered by the questions for those three functions).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

So, is it kind of like what Jung was talking about about archaic thinking representing the uber repressed side of thinking in these types (or it might be her just being all Fe-pushy in her communications)? I mean, I don't see why Ti can't involve fact collecting as well (it's not like Te doesn't involve reasoning). To me, I often see these types as random fact collectors down to the detail, while the Te types come off as more inductive and tend to generalize into thinking assumptions - maybe that's just me, I dunno.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Fact collecting I would say would be a perception function. Ti is an internal storehouse of logical models that we can guage things by, while Te is an external order implied by the external world itself. The stuff I'm reading about wheat clicks with my internal models of the way things are, while for her, it's filtered through Si —which is more about "fact-collecting", so it has to pass through an "irrational" internal storehouse of facts, so there is more of a need for familiarity and concrete structure. When it comes time to make an actual decision, Te would be more the natural companion to the Si perspective than Ti (or Fe, since it's not really an F judgment directly involved in this issue); thus the overall "J" attitude is maintained.
But yes, Jung's "archaic" (or "primitive") Thinking is what I had in mind.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

To add to this



Eric B said:


> Fact collecting I would say would be a perception function. Ti is an internal storehouse of logical models that we can guage things by, while Te is an external order implied by the external world itself.




it's partly why I think Ni paired with Te creates such a powerful effect - to observe the unfolding of implications in accordance to laws one has not created, an introverted vision, rather than introverted system of laws, proceeds best.

This might be what you are witnessing @JungyesMBTIno in




> the Te types come off as more inductive and tend to generalize into thinking assumptions - maybe that's just me, I dunno.




I find my such vision occurs after creating several logical models of the data's potential (Ne).


----------



## Beauty for Ashes (Feb 6, 2013)

I would recommend taking this test and then looking at this model and comparing your description to the color grid/chart toward the middle of the Model A explanation page. I'm not sure of the exact order of the functions in the Socionics equivalent of ENTJ, but I believe Te being your dominant function would place Ti (and Ne) somewhere in your Id Block, which means you DO use those functions well... just on a subconscious level. I say this because it helped me make sense of having surprisingly high Ni/Fe along with Fi/Ne.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yea, that's a great explanation, @Eric B. I guess it's more of a behavioral quirk I notice in Te types who just try to get something to quickly conform to what they deem "relevant" to their formulaic grasp of something - sort of the whole "get to the point" attitude going on.


----------

