Function Combos mimicing functions you don't have...

[Kalach]

I wonder about those cognitive functions tests. If you have Xi in your type makeup, those function tests will report you also using Xe but to a lesser degree. Likewise, if Xe is part of your type, the tests show you using Xi too but, again, to a lesser degree. Is it true?

As INTJ I'm happy to say I use Ni. Really happy. I like it. And I'm taken somewhat aback to learn I also use Ne. I think I don't. I think I have on tap what Ni's worked out in the past and Te/Se can deploy it or make use of it on the spot. My intuitions are as much "in the moment" as going back to my room and stewing for a while lets them be.

Or, for example, Ti. Do I use Ti at all? The function tests say I do. I wonder, however, if what really happens is something like, Te, when pressed, and with the aid of Ni itself, will go back over Ni inspirations and plot a path to them, and may even mock up a model that looks like categorisation and contradiction/framework checking. It'll look like Ti to the untrained eye, and if I'm anal enough about it, I may even fool an NTP. But I could do without such labour intensive rigour. I'd really prefer to say, hey, guys, check out this truth I found in the universal a priori.

Or, for example, currently the ENXPs are saying they use Se. And I'm like, ch'yuh, as if. They're really talking about Ne slimmed down in service of Si. Or something.

And so on.

Or my real example, Fe and Fi results. ENFPs and ENFJs usually get both Fi and Fe scores, and I think I doubt them. I think ENFP Fe scores are really Te expressions of Fi softened by Ne openness. And ENFJ Fi scores are really, I guess, Fe reactions to Ni/Ti discoveries.

Or maybe I don't think it. It's reductionist, perhaps unnecessarily so, and includes an assumption that if people are healthy and doing what they do best, then they're using their top four functions, and only their top four.


Counterpoint: the shadow.

If people are unable to use their top four to solve a problem facing them, they will have to resort to the shadow functions. This kind of stress may not be so uncommon. For example, the idea about about this INTJ using Ti... that's a duress situation of sorts. I actually wrote "when pressed". So maybe the shadow functions really are there as the function tests show.


So-o-o-... just being function-o-phobic or what?

 

[run]

I didn't read all this, but are you saying that maybe Ni+Te can do the same shit as Ne, and its hard to tell because its so theoretical?

 

[BlackCat]

I actually agree with this. I think that Ne-Si might be able to imitate Ni, but I didn't have any basis to this proposition besides that I had an idea of it in my mind as a theory.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Se is an extremely universal function, only requiring vast, vast amounts of information and experience to decide and get the idea of most everything. It only goes skin deep if one doesn't concentrate, though. It's good function to mimic the work of other functions, I'd say.

Ne is a more deeper, intellectual, multi-faceted universal can-do-anything-function, with perhaps no practicality per se (not to say that Ne users would be impractical). There's the idea of everything, and a strong Ne user will try anything, but will succeed at it only after getting in the practical, sensible content of the issue in question.

Ti can study intellectually practically anything, though Fe seems to be the most difficult. I think Fe gets bastardized by some Ti users. Ti mimicking some other functions may come off akwardly.

Si, Fi can't mimic anything imho. There's some aspects of "handling" other issues, but mimicking, no.

Te isn't an all-in-one-function, but Te users will stumble upon all kinds of issues in the humanity, eventually finding out what works and what doesn't. This will make them acknowledge that feelings "work" in some situation, deep understanding "works" in another, so I'd say Te some kind of facelessly "borrows" meaning and significance from other functions and just makes it work. There's a bit depth in Te, not real disguise of other functions, just "compatibility mode" or such.

Fe users can acknowledge the vast amount of people around us, playing along with some use of functions they don't use themselves. They don't seem to bother to do that alot tho, leading me to think it isn't a function to mimic other functions very successfully.

 

[nightning]

In my experiences... Ni Fi can imitate Fe, just like Ni Ti can be mistakenly identified as Te. This is an attributional error in parts of the observer and not the individual themselves. To put it simply, they see that you're courteous and think you do so because you believe in the social rules (Fe) when in fact it could be because you just wanted to treat others the way that feels right to you (Fi). It's difficult to confuse yourself about which you're actually using though if the said function is your dominant or auxiliary function.

That's not to say an Ni dominant rarely use Ne. That's not true in my case. I do pull crazy Ne-related ideas from thin air.... but usually that's tempered by Ni. (Ni sets the direction in which Ne can proceed or Ne randomly thought of something and Ni immediately redirects attention to further developing the idea.)

 

[yenom]

Or, for example, currently the ENXPs are saying they use Se. And I'm like, ch'yuh, as if. They're really talking about Ne slimmed down in service of Si. Or something.

Using Se is natural for EPs. It all part of the EP ness.

Just like an INTJ would use Si in certain circumstances, as an IJ would.
For me , Se is like taking uncaluclated risks against certian odds.
Similar to Caesar's quote" the die is cast" when he crossed the rubicorn.
(as for what caesar's type is, I am not going to debate about it)

And I wouldn't read too muchy into the 8 functions, like some function causing me anxiety and burnout, etc, etc, these things make no sense,
You have a burnout becuase you can't cope with life, it has nothing to do with functions and inferior use.

 

[527468]

You guys are saying all this because you forget that you actually use ALL the functions, even if you generally suck at them.

If you think Ni + Te or whatever = a part of Ne (or mimicking it), it's probably because you actually have more Ne than you originally thought.

How many times should I see a creative logic thread going on that doesn't actually use logic but the forms of it? You could be in this case associating the wrong things with Ne. That Ni + Te mimics Ne, but then you'd be attributing a falseness upon Ne, because those with Ne have Ni and Te too, lets not forget.

 

[Kalach]

But see...

subjectively, I'm not aware of using Ne at all. I know what Ni is like, and I'm getting a pretty good grasp on Se moments, and Te makes sense to me sort of as a focus for my Ni content, making it about "things out there". But Ne? I'm not subjectively aware of doing to the outside world what my intuition does in the inner world. In fact, put me in an everyday situation and I really do prefer Se for perception.

Now, type theory says Ne would be fifth for me, second to Se, and that seems to accord with subjective awareness of what I do. But, cognitive functions tests say Ne is my second best used process, so in theory it's easier for me than Se. So either:

(a) I'm good at Ne but just don't care

or

(b) I can get false-positives on a cognitive functions test because something else has appeared to play the Ne role.

If it's (b), I doubt the thing mimicing Ne would work well in real time. I'd hypothesise Ni has a backlog of discoveries and insights and they can be pulled out of my butt in the moment if needed by some Te or Se event, but if the moment goes beyond what Ni's stewed over in the past, then Ne mimicry will start to fail.


There's another thing too. Those times I've been around people more dominant than I in Te or Se, that's to say, around ENXJs, I could presumably have gotten by off the back of some Ne use. In other words, if Ne were my second best used function, I could have deployed it and let the ENXJs be king. But I rarely ever did. It was awful, in fact. I'd say, if Ne were available to me, those situations should have been easier to take. But if Te/Se were relying on Ni backlogs to pretend Ne, a feeling of conflict rather than association with the ENXJ would be more likely.


All up, I don't know. Is Ne my fifth or my second? Is it an ability I have but prefer not to use? Or a thing I don't have but can appear to have had? Currently, I can't tell.

 

[yenom]

But see...

subjectively, I'm not aware of using Ne at all. I know what Ni is like, and I'm getting a pretty good grasp on Se moments, and Te makes sense to me sort of as a focus for my Ni content, making it about "things out there". But Ne? I'm not subjectively aware of doing to the outside world what my intuition does in the inner world. In fact, put me in an everyday situation and I really do prefer Se for perception.

Now, type theory says Ne would be fifth for me, second to Se, and that seems to accord with subjective awareness of what I do. But, cognitive functions tests say Ne is my second best used process, so in theory it's easier for me than Se. So either:

(a) I'm good at Ne but just don't care

or

(b) I can get false-positives on a cognitive functions test because something else has appeared to play the Ne role.

If it's (b), I doubt the thing mimicing Ne would work well in real time. I'd hypothesise Ni has a backlog of discoveries and insights and they can be pulled out of my butt in the moment if needed by some Te or Se event, but if the moment goes beyond what Ni's stewed over in the past, then Ne mimicry will start to fail.


There's another thing too. Those times I've been around people more dominant than I in Te or Se, that's to say, around ENXJs, I could presumably have gotten by off the back of some Ne use. In other words, if Ne were my second best used function, I could have deployed it and let the ENXJs be king. But I rarely ever did. It was awful, in fact. I'd say, if Ne were available to me, those situations should have been easier to take. But if Te/Se were relying on Ni backlogs to pretend Ne, a feeling of conflict rather than association with the ENXJ would be more likely.


All up, I don't know. Is Ne my fifth or my second? Is it an ability I have but prefer not to use? Or a thing I don't have but can appear to have had? Currently, I can't tell.

you are a J and trying to use a E P function. of course things woill be difficult. Try usinfg other judging functions or introverted perciever functions.

 

[527468]

Is it an ability I have but prefer not to use?

Socionics says yes, even though its basically a theory of categories somewhat different from MBTI. Not separate though. The theory can be correlated to your idea.

 

[mlittrell]

it makes sense its just not worth looking into. wont explain that much except how the functions work

 

[Kalach]

I see.

And we'd rather not delve too deeply into function workings. We may find hamsters.


The other thing is, if I were able to do Ne, I wouldn't get that blank "I'm not here" thing that happens so often. Talking to people who don't get off on the weird things Ni wills me to throw out into conversation, I can keep going through the motions for quite a while, but it's really rather like being a semi-conscious phone answering machine. And when it's done it's really like it never happened. But I could switch to Ne if it were as good as the cog.func test says. Or am I just being really obstreperous about my preferred function use? (Or mixing up introversion with perceived lack of alt.functions.)


And on the, like, what--fifth hand?--a healthy person functioning normally in an environment suited to him will presumably stick with his function preferences. If the environment goes ahead and calls for something a little more, he may use those functions to mimic other functions. Then if the environment ramps up the stress, he may be forced to actually use the shadows. The real stress is being forced out of normal function usage.

But it still remains a question: why is using the shadows stressful?

And if it is, how can the cognitive functions tests go ahead and show things like Ni>Ne>Te>Ti>Fi for an INTJ?

The whole thing may be explained just by observing that cognitive functions tests are supposed to work for everyone. They ring up everything they possibly can, and the real result for any Xi/Xe is, whichever one comes out strongest is the one you really do. If the hamster's dead, you don't count the buckshot in the wall that missed.


Preferences... how much choice is there really?

 

[nightning]

I see.

And we'd rather not delve too deeply into function workings. We may find hamsters.

NO! We should study the hamsters... those are important too.

The other thing is, if I were able to do Ne, I wouldn't get that blank "I'm not here" thing that happens so often. Talking to people who don't get off on the weird things Ni wills me to throw out into conversation, I can keep going through the motions for quite a while, but it's really rather like being a semi-conscious phone answering machine. And when it's done it's really like it never happened. But I could switch to Ne if it were as good as the cog.func test says. Or am I just being really obstreperous about my preferred function use? (Or mixing up introversion with perceived lack of alt.functions.)

What you're referring to is "Ne mimicry". I find that, in general, Ni takes time to process all the parameters before it provides you with an answer. You have a problem in your head and it sits there for a while until you suddenly get that insightful solution. However for areas you're familiar with, as you said, Ni has already done some processing of this problem in the past. So it's just a matter of adapting an old pattern to fit the new problem. That takes less work and as a result you get "Ne" response times... at the snap of your fingers. So it seems to other people that you're operating on Ne, when you know that it's really Ni.

The true Ne for me is a more vague surface thing. The idea just spontaneously come to me, typically it's visual based. There's no sitting about trying to define the "meaning" of something. The image is just right there. It's like seeing moving cars casting interesting pattern of shadows under the streetlights and wanting to use that pattern of shadows for a visual art piece. Very what you see is what you use. There's only the concern for shapes and textures and nothing about the meaning or implication behind moving shadows or cars or streetlights. I'm sure that's not the only thing an NP will use Ne for, but it's how I use my shadow Ne.

But it still remains a question: why is using the shadows stressful?

Unfamiliarity with its uses... lack of practice means you need to concentrate a lot to use it. That makes it tiring to use for extended periods. Don't forget you're also fighting to suppress the natural tendency for your dominant and auxiliary functions to take over. That also makes it more difficult.

And if it is, how can the cognitive functions tests go ahead and show things like Ni>Ne>Te>Ti>Fi for an INTJ?

The pattern isn't Ni > Ne > Ti > Fi.... Function development varies from person to person. But for most well developed individuals, I found the pattern to be closer to Ni > Ti > Ne, Fi > Se, Te >> Fe >> Si

The whole thing may be explained just by observing that cognitive functions tests are supposed to work for everyone. They ring up everything they possibly can, and the real result for any Xi/Xe is, whichever one comes out strongest is the one you really do. If the hamster's dead, you don't count the buckshot in the wall that missed.

The cognitive function tests only provides a broad indicator for the possible function usage. Ni and Ne are the two that received the worse descriptions. What they suggest should be an Ne function can actually be served using Ni. The question about brainstorming for example. Ni likes to brainstorm too... it's just that it takes a different approach to it than Ne.

 

[Kalach]

The true Ne for me is a more vague surface thing. The idea just spontaneously come to me, typically it's visual based. There's no sitting about trying to define the "meaning" of something. The image is just right there. It's like seeing moving cars casting interesting pattern of shadows under the streetlights and wanting to use that pattern of shadows for a visual art piece. Very what you see is what you use. There's only the concern for shapes and textures and nothing about the meaning or implication behind moving shadows or cars or streetlights. I'm sure that's not the only thing an NP will use Ne for, but it's how I use my shadow Ne.

That's not Se? Sounds like Se.

I use my shadow Ne for spotting ENFPs.

I'll be on the street saying "hamster" to passers-by and meeting Ne-users and policemen.

 

[nightning]

That's not Se? Sounds like Se.

I use my shadow Ne for spotting ENFPs.

I'll be on the street saying "hamster" to passers-by and meeting Ne-users and policemen.

No, not Se... I wasn't focusing on the actual outline of the shadows... What I saw was the triple shadow outlined from the set of streetlights. It's mostly the idea of that. Of course you can say it's simply Se + Ni but it doesn't seem like Ni to me because the approach was different.