Moving past 1D function use

[proteanmix]

I'm not really good at explaining what I think and I usually find that visuals are the best way to explain what I think. I use that picture as a representation of varying levels of individual function usage.

It's so hard to find good expressions of abstracted and functional dominant functions on the forum. I'm going to use Ne because I think it's one of the easiest functions that you can "see" being used. I'm not trying to pick on anyone I'm just choosing members that are good examples of what I want to communicate.

CzeCze and Liquid Laser exhibit good Ne grounded with their introverted judgment. They're able to accurately find the relevant points of connection between ideas and communicate them easily and it clear for people to understand. Some ENPs on the forum think that being random and disconnected is being Ne, or more generally obfuscating things is being intuitive. I also think that this is how someone becomes "intuitive" on the forum, by showing exaggerated manifestations of Ne and Ni.

Back on topic, it is using Ne but it's using it in a 1D way. Anyone can be random and make unlikely connections but I don't think mature use of a function is that ostentatious. TLL and Cze don't seem to get bogged down in possibilities or connections that lead to dead ends. For example, CzeCze will come into a discussion and summarize and unify they most pertinent points or the way Liquid Laser has better arguments and sounder logic than a good number of INTPs on the forum. Judging by their forum behavior, I'd say they've moved into at least 3D use of their dominant function.

Not picking on CaptainChick (), but CC is a good example of someone who floats between 2D and beyond usage of her dominant Ne. You see her making the connections, but she's not sure which ones are worth investigating further. Sometimes this makes her seem scattered and all of the map. This manifests itself IRL with the jack of all trades, master of none attitude that many EPs have. Not knowing where to focus their possibility or sensation seeking abilities and explode it into something great within their chosen area of interest. It gets scattered like leaves in the wind.

Now once you've moved past 2D use of your dominant function, I wonder how much further in development you can delve into with your other functions? Like can you ever achieve more than 3D use of your tertiary and inferior function? Can shadow functions ever not play a fearful role in your life and regularly accessed in a positive way?

When people have abstracted their dominant function or moved past one and two dimensional usage of a function they don't need to show it off as much because they're confident in their ability of how to use it. It begins to look more like this:



This picture represents what happens when any function has matured into a cohesive whole.

I guess this goes into the preference vs. ability argument when it comes to typing people. I believe that's what makes it hard to type people accurately in real life (or maybe it's just me!) because many have had to develop functions "out of order" and may have developed at least 3D usage of another function which hides their true type and also why it's easier to find people who act stereotypically their type because they've developed more or less in order. When I say out of order I mean that your dominant and auxiliary still developed in tandem but everything else is up in the air.

What do people think?

[entropie]

yeah, well, THIS is a good thread !

[Haphazard]

So you're not asking us to become five dimensional? Because that looks difficult.

[proteanmix]

Shoot for the stars, grasshopper.

[Nocap]

Those are still only 3 dimensions. Do you mean multi-directional?


Anyway, CC's alleged inability to further examine the possibilities and connections 'worth' exploring are because of a lack of judgement facility. Not because of a weak or poorly developed dominant Ne.

Knowing which perceptions to develop is entirely the jurisdiction of judgement, unless the perception is introverted.


It looks like you're talking about type, or more broadly, personality. Not really the functions themselves... they're set in stone. The variable isn't how we use them, it's when we use them.

[edcoaching]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

These are great images--want to do an article about it for the Bulletin of Psychological Type?



This picture represents what happens when any function has matured into a cohesive whole.

I really like the contrast of the "imperfect vs. perfect" shape. The way we stretch uncomfortably and unevenly when using preferences that we haven't developed is really captured.

I guess this goes into the preference vs. ability argument when it comes to typing people. I believe that's what makes it hard to type people accurately in real life (or maybe it's just me!) because many have had to develop functions "out of order" and may have developed at least 3D usage of another function which hides their true type and also why it's easier to find people who act stereotypically their type because they've developed more or less in order. When I say out of order I mean that your dominant and auxiliary still developed in tandem but everything else is up in the air.

It is REALLY hard to type people in real life. I think you have to actually work with them or interact about their preferences to do it accurately.

• I agree that part of it is the order in which the functions develop. I'll add whether you get opportunities to develop them. For example, getting an MBA and working in finance was a perfect way for me to have to develop Te, my natural third function.
  
• The nurture piece also comes in. Would I be so comfortable with Ni if my best friend through 1st grade hadn't been an INTJ and our parents left us alone with our dumb week-long fantasy games we made up? And if my teachers hadn't believed in independent study?
  
• Then, just about everyone puts on a public persona. As in, people think I prefer E because I teach workshops. I explain that they wouldn't be very happy if I stayed in I mode, told them to read Chapter 1 and write a paper...

One discussion I've had with others is that many of us can't tell the E and I versions of our "third" functions apart as far as how we use them. For example, technically I know what Te and Ti are but using either one requires strategies, deep breaths, and chocolate...anyone else have the same experience?

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

Those are still only 3 dimensions. Do you mean multi-directional?


Anyway, CC's alleged inability to further examine the possibilities and connections 'worth' exploring are because of a lack of judgement facility. Not because of a weak or poorly developed dominant Ne.

Knowing which perceptions to develop is entirely the jurisdiction of judgement, unless the perception is introverted.


It looks like you're talking about type, or more broadly, personality. Not really the functions themselves... they're set in stone. The variable isn't how we use them, it's when we use them.

If you were to tell me that new hampshire was about to be hit by a hurricane, I would laugh. I know how the usual wind regimes would not let that happen, and I know enough about the weather pattern across the eastern U.S today to tell you what will and won't happen. I also know from experience what tell tale signs to look for before a storm (inferior Si).

I will give you that any function developement beyond Nardi's level 2 (getting good at doing a few fairly simple and somewhat instinctual things with a process) requires at least some help of another process (I say *another* process, because I think it is innapropriate to put a false emphasis on the auxiliary.)

And I will never believe that the functions are "set in stone". Two EXTRAVERTED children of the same exact type will be different from each other in noticable ways and will emphasize thier dominant function in different ways from the moment they're born.

[Nocap]

Originally Posted by Gabe

And I will never believe that the functions are "set in stone". Two EXTRAVERTED children of the same exact type will be different from each other in noticable ways and will emphasize thier dominant function in different ways from the moment they're born.

True. They will. That's not because the functions aren't set in stone. It just means they're flexible.

I realize that sounds contradictory, but bear with me.

The definitions are rigid. They don't change. Where (or more accurately when) they can be applied is to be decided later.

Rather than having variable definitions, and several different versions of the functions -- that would get to be way too convoluted and wouldn't be worth analyzing -- we have extremely broad-scope function definitions, which can cover every contingent behavior. It's a brilliant device.

Besides, it's silly to say that the functions have changing definitions, but yet their order in type is rigid.

Actually, they both seem to work now that I think about it; both allow for un-heretofore seen behavior; maybe your way makes sense too, as long as you don't stray too far with defining them (else why define them at all? we could just use dichotomies or... runes or chicken bones).

[entropie]

I do not exctly now what impaired means. But I gess this becomesmy new wordd of the day.

[Magic Poriferan]

(I warn you that I barely paid attention to this topic, but it got me thinking).

I think there's a difference between a function's degree of use, and a function's quality of use. Well, I don't just think that, I know that.

So, we should ask how much does a person use a given function, and then how affectively do they use it? The only downside with this idea is that if you think it's hard to define and measure function usage, just wait 'till we have the debates on how to measure and define function quality.

But an example of what comes to mind is when somebody thinks they know how a horse-race is going to turn out. They are trying to use Intuition, because they claim that they can envision what is going to happen in that race. They supposedly foresee the likely outcome. But while they are using what could best be described as Intuition, they are using it very, very poorly.