Function Order : Clarification.

[alcea rosea]

Ask her for her number, wildcat...

You are misreading my writings a lot in that comment of yours and it shows you don't understand ENFP's....
I appreciate wildcat in the way ENFP's appreciate people.
Not in romantic way but the way I appreciate interesting people and their interesting views. I take these kinds of things very seriously if I take some things in life seriously. I don't want to mislead people in any way and I think (and hope) wildcat understands my appreciation.

 

[Jack Flak]

I was kidding, for the record.

 

[alcea rosea]

I was kidding, for the record.

Ok. It's just I don't kidd around wit these kinds of things....
I do not wish to mislead people in any way.

I think you just hit one of my strongest values in life with that comment of yours and I'm extremely serious with my strongest values.

I do appreciate your comments too, , but I'm not giving you my phonenumber either.

 

[edcoaching]

This is really not a slight toward you Xander and I purposely did not respond to your inquiry on this thread you started, but how can you have over three thousand posts and be asking some of the most basic principles of type? I started to respond in detail to your inquiry but realized that if you do not get it after all of your posting then I will be doing you a disservice.

Actually this is quite the subject of debate. some type experts are wedded to the 8-function model and the order of preferences and others are questioning whether Xander's viewpoint is the more correct one.

 

[Salomé]

...

 

[wildcat]

Yes, I shouldn't underestimate INTP's thinking capabilities! I'm just used to overexplaining myself because many people do not understand what I'm saying when I get complicated.

I think you are great wildcat and I always appreciate your way of thinking. I mean it's so refreshingly different and I love to learn new ways of looking at things. That is why I enjoy very much the discussions with INTP's I meet in the real life (thank god my sister is iNTP or eNTP, we have very intense and interesting discussions together when we see, althought I tire her out with my huge amount of radiant extroverted energy).

But what you were saying in your previous post would explain why I have problems with the functions theory and my very strong F and why I don't fit into ENFJ even with my strong F. My F isn't mainly Fe like it is when most visible with EXFJ's. It's very strong and quiet F in the real life. I hide it well because it has caused me a lot of trouble in my life. Let's just put it this way: it just hurts too damn much.

Your function order is interesting. It is the standard ENFP function model and therefore a perfect Palindrome. Therefore you are distinctly a P > J.
It also explains your radiant extraverted energy. The dichotomy of extraversion is not distinguished from the dichotomy of P/J, it is one process. P does not store energy, it consumes it. Therefore you have a radiant quality, which I find delightful.

J conserves energy. Therefore Te is a forceful function. Fi is the complementary partner of Te, it is the fragile function. Easily broken. Radiance has a price.

Te also exacts a price.
But it is usually the other individuals who pay for it.

 

[INTJMom]

I now understand what you are attempting to convey Xander and no there is no “pure function” as you allude to in meaning that there is pure thinking with no direction of attitude. In fact when Jung discusses any function he either makes the distinction of attitude direction (E/I) or he makes the comparison of let’s say thinking with it’s counterpart feeling and discusses them in tandem as judging or perceiving. I don’t want to post his entire description of thinking because it’s long, but I encourage you to read it for yourself here. As you can see even when he discusses a simple function like thinking he distinguishes between the extraverted type and introverted type. In fact Jung says that when you are discussing thinking in itself, you're not even talking about thinking as he proposes in his theory:Jung does go on to say that logic of thought is the common denominator between the two functions (Te/Ti), but that is as far as he goes in discussing similarities:In fact Jung’s whole preposition of any function focuses on the differences not commonalities. Jung thus says that it is impossible to Ti /Te, Fi/Fe, Ni/Ne….. simultaneously or with equal demonstration:In the end you either or, not both.

Thank you for the quotes from Jung.
I happen to be one who sees the difference between Ti and Te.
They don't look alike at all, to me.
I think perhaps a problem is caused by the use of the word thinking.
What if we changed the word to logic instead?
One person uses logic based on Internal standards to make judgments,
one person uses logic based on External standards to make judgments.
To my mind, that's what Jung meant... I think.

 

[redacted]

Your function order is interesting. It is the standard ENFP function model and therefore a perfect Palindrome. Therefore you are distinctly a P > J.
It also explains your radiant extraverted energy. The dichotomy of extraversion is not distinguished from the dichotomy of P/J, it is one process. P does not store energy, it consumes it. Therefore you have a radiant quality, which I find delightful.

J conserves energy. Therefore Te is a forceful function. Fi is the complementary partner of Te, it is the fragile function. Easily broken. Radiance has a price.

Te also exacts a price.
But it is usually the other individuals who pay for it.

I agree with you. But I'm interested: why do you think Fi and Te complement each other?



(When you say fragile, don't you mean "externally fragile"?)

 

[Salomé]

Thank you for the quotes from Jung.
I happen to be one who sees the difference between Ti and Te.
They don't look alike at all, to me.
I think perhaps a problem is caused by the use of the word thinking.
What if we changed the word to logic instead?
One person uses logic based on Internal standards to make judgments,
one person uses logic based on External standards to make judgments.
To my mind, that's what Jung meant... I think.

Or go one step further and use completely different terms: say
Systematizing (Te) vs Analyzing (Ti)

Very different skills.

I can analyse something to death but systematizing holds little interest for me. The former opens up, the latter closes down. The former breaks down, the latter builds up.

 

[miss fortune]

I would say that the biggest difference between the introverted v extroverted functions is the obvious "how things are internalized" v "how things are taken in"

and now you're going to make fun of me for going all obvious there!

INTJ and ENTP, both NTFSs, but quite different- of the two, the INTJ is an aged Cab while the ENTP is a young Merlot. To explain, since you don't go around drinking wines on a daily basis, the INTJs dominant function is introverted- you won't quite catch the structure in the wine straight off because it's not the first thing that catches your attention, you'll get the tobacco and green pepper notes before you get the almost vanilla-ish oak notes in the background, which lend the wine it's structure. However, with a young Merlot it's structure is the first thing you notice- the tannins reach right out of the glass and grab your tongue. The leading function is more obvious because it's reflected outward.

You might notice the Te before the Ni in an INTJ, but you won't mistaken the ENTP for being anything less than Ne driven, I fear

 

[A Schnitzel]

INTJ and ENTP, both NTFSs, but quite different- of the two, the INTJ is an aged Cab while the ENTP is a young Merlot. To explain, since you don't go around drinking wines on a daily basis, the INTJs dominant function is introverted- you won't quite catch the structure in the wine straight off because it's not the first thing that catches your attention, you'll get the tobacco and green pepper notes before you get the almost vanilla-ish oak notes in the background, which lend the wine it's structure. However, with a young Merlot it's structure is the first thing you notice- the tannins reach right out of the glass and grab your tongue. The leading function is more obvious because it's reflected outward.

Does everything you say boil down to drinking or sex?

 

[miss fortune]

Does everything you say boil down to drinking or sex?

we speak of what we know

... and sometimes I talk about society or politics!

 

[redacted]

we speak of what we know

... and sometimes I talk about society or politics!

which both boil down to sex...

 

[miss fortune]

which both boil down to sex...

see... the topic can't be avoided!

 

[INTJMom]

Very interesting point. Now I'll have to check my function tests. I do rememer I have FI+Fe very high both.... *checking the function order test results*

The result of the function order test for me is: Ne Fi Fe Ni Se Ti Te Si
and counting the procentages together I'm FNST. But when checking out my stronges function that I'm very strong it's Ne. And my Fi is much stronger than Fe so I say I'm more ENFP than ENFJ even if I'm probably ENFp.

I took the test twice, almost one year apart.
Both times they said I was an INTP, which is ridiculous,
but here are the results:

introverted Thinking (Ti) (46.6)
introverted Intuiting (Ni) (40.1)
introverted Feeling (Fi) (36.9)
introverted Sensing (Si) (33.8)
Notice how all the introverted functions are first.
extraverted Thinking (Te) (27.6)
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) (26.4)
extraverted Feeling (Fe) (17.3)
extraverted Sensing (Se) (11.1)


introverted Thinking (Ti) (46.4)
introverted Feeling (Fi) (45.2)
introverted Intuiting (Ni) (40.1)
extraverted Thinking (Te) (29.4)
introverted Sensing (Si) (27.3)
Te and Si switched places, but not by much.
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) (26.4)
extraverted Sensing (Se) (13.2)
extraverted Feeling (Fe) (12)


The test doesn't have any credibility with me, but I thought it would be a curiosity to see how close the e/i siblings were.
They are not close.

 

[wildcat]

I agree with you. But I'm interested: why do you think Fi and Te complement each other?



(When you say fragile, don't you mean "externally fragile"?)

I was ill in the 80s. I was confined to bed for a long time.
To pass the time I began to explore things that interested me.
The mechanics of dichotomy was the top of the line.

I did not find the palindrome numbers, or the fractal math.
I thought I did.
Later I found out these things were found before me. I was not dissappointed.
It only proved I was in the right.

It happens the MBTI as a system can not ignore the basic laws of a dichotomy.
Dichotomy is one process only. The complementary number is exclusive.
It is as you say.

Why Te is the complementary partner of Fi?
Te is discussed in my thread: ESTJ.

Dichotomy is about basic math.
Basicness is all there is.
The rest is pure derivation?

No.
Derivation is not a subsequence.
Dichotomy is one process.
Direction is not an arrow.
Point is counter point.

Inclusion is divided.
Exclusion is not.

 

[Xander]

Okay to get back to the core of the thread and possibly to redo my original explanation...

If you take Ti then you have T (the what) and i (the where).
There is no difference between the thinking process involved in Ti and Te. If there was then there would be an innate difference in the process applied.

Of course there are differences between people that prefer Te to those who prefer Ti there is a difference between those who prefer extraversion over those who prefer introversion, the argument is are there differences in the processes applied?

Personally I find that ALL NTs seem to use the same processes. What they apply it to does differ and their own personal accumulation of experiences and skills.

What I am specifically arguing against, as edcoaching points out correctly, is the theory that people seem to use where they see both the what and the where as a what. In other words I disagree that Ti and Te are two separate entities. I disagree because I don't think they are entities themselves but rather one singular entity with a side note upon where the subject prefers to apply that entity.

In summation, if what is represented by W and where is represented by w then ALL the so called eight functions are represented as Ww. The thing is that most people only see a What and not the where. I consider this an error and hope that somehow all of this may get them to challenge their conception.

 

[INTJMom]

Okay to get back to the core of the thread and possibly to redo my original explanation...

If you take Ti then you have T (the what) and i (the where).
There is no difference between the thinking process involved in Ti and Te. If there was then there would be an innate difference in the process applied.

Of course there are differences between people that prefer Te to those who prefer Ti there is a difference between those who prefer extraversion over those who prefer introversion, the argument is are there differences in the processes applied?

Personally I find that ALL NTs seem to use the same processes. What they apply it to does differ and their own personal accumulation of experiences and skills.

What I am specifically arguing against, as edcoaching points out correctly, is the theory that people seem to use where they see both the what and the where as a what. In other words I disagree that Ti and Te are two separate entities. I disagree because I don't think they are entities themselves but rather one singular entity with a side note upon where the subject prefers to apply that entity.

In summation, if what is represented by W and where is represented by w then ALL the so called eight functions are represented as Ww. The thing is that most people only see a What and not the where. I consider this an error and hope that somehow all of this may get them to challenge their conception.

Who said that they were two separate entities?

 

["?"]

Xander this may be the easiest way to resolve this matter for anyone. First decide which theory you're comfortable with. Second which is the main reason for disputes, is realize and appreciate the systems do not correlate. If you are going to argue Ti/Te then you are arguing Jung so I would think the principles of Jung would need to be followed. If you are going to argue the theory of the Tiegers then argue it on that basis. You're attempting as most, to debate apples and oranges by using lingo from two systems. Ti is different from Te based on Jung. Thinking in general based on the Tiegers may not be so apparent. In fact (and again without going back through "Gifts Differing" to see if she originated the term TNSF) I don't recall the Tiegers ever referring to cognitive functions.

 

[INTJMom]

Xander this may be the easiest way to resolve this matter for anyone. First decide which theory you're comfortable with. Second which is the main reason for disputes, is realize and appreciate the systems do not correlate. If you are going to argue Ti/Te then you are arguing Jung so I would think the principles of Jung would need to be followed. If you are going to argue the theory of the Tiegers then argue it on that basis. You're attempting as most, to debate apples and oranges by using lingo from two systems. Ti is different from Te based on Jung. Thinking in general based on the Tiegers may not be so apparent. In fact (and again without going back through "Gifts Differing" to see if she originated the term TNSF) I don't recall the Tiegers ever referring to cognitive functions.

I think they do, but not in so many words.
They don't get into the nitty-gritty of it, but sort of simplify the application, so novices can understand it, which is the main audience of their book.
For instance, in Do What You Are, chapter six basically discusses the dominant and auxiliary functions. In the section called Personality Typograms" they represent the fact that an INTP uses introverted Thinking, and extravert iNuition.

Interestingly, and Xander might appreciate this, concerning career satisfaction they say: "To achieve maximum satisfaction and effectiveness, you need to use your dominant function in your favorite world." ("world" meaning inner/introverted world, or outer/extraverted world.)

This seems to corroborate, as Xander has said, that Te and Ti are not two separate entities but rather, the same entity being applied in different places.

Imo, that doesn't change the fact that Ti and Te look different from each other, and people have noticed that and made attempts at describing it.