# Thread: Functional Orientation ? Typological Orientation

1. There is the possibility that the dominant function can be so encompassing of your view and interactions with the world, that you take it for granted and do not recognise it's dominance. It's quite common for people to be surprised to find out that not everyone sees the world through the same dominant lens that they do.

I think the theory is that functional orders, are underlying methods of operation, we can pick and choose functions to use as tool's but the overall method we use is supposed to be ingrained.

Your dominant function (to me) is natural, instinctive, all encompassing and constant. People are often better at describing their second function than their dominant as they have no reference point to describe their dominant from, it IS their reference point.

2. Originally Posted by Engler
If one's functional orientation shifts depending upon usage, why bother making the I/E distinction (unless I/E also connote the existence of a long-term preference, instead of just a temporary perspective)?
Because not everyone has their primary and secondary functions balanced, and depending on their function makeup they will act differently in moments of stress. So that distinction still helps.

3. ^ I have seen people lean real hard on a single function.
It's as if their secondary doesn't even exist.

4. Nice topic with very pertinent questions.

Originally Posted by Quinlan
There is the possibility that the dominant function can be so encompassing of your view and interactions with the world, that you take it for granted and do not recognise it's dominance. It's quite common for people to be surprised to find out that not everyone sees the world through the same dominant lens that they do.

I think the theory is that functional orders, are underlying methods of operation, we can pick and choose functions to use as tool's but the overall method we use is supposed to be ingrained.

Your dominant function (to me) is natural, instinctive, all encompassing and constant. People are often better at describing their second function than their dominant as they have no reference point to describe their dominant from, it IS their reference point.
Agreed. I have a hard time explaining why I'm a Ne dominant. And I do think my "identity" feels more connected to Fi (and Ti, my third strongest). It's more conscious.

5. Originally Posted by Quinlan
There is the possibility that the dominant function can be so encompassing of your view and interactions with the world, that you take it for granted and do not recognise it's dominance. It's quite common for people to be surprised to find out that not everyone sees the world through the same dominant lens that they do.

I think the theory is that functional orders, are underlying methods of operation, we can pick and choose functions to use as tool's but the overall method we use is supposed to be ingrained.

Your dominant function (to me) is natural, instinctive, all encompassing and constant. People are often better at describing their second function than their dominant as they have no reference point to describe their dominant from, it IS their reference point.
This is absolutely correct; good work.

Originally Posted by Jaguar
Click on my profile and look in the "Biography" field.

I do not identify with most of the ENTJs in this forum.
For lack of a better word, I "resonate" better with INTJs.
I could say more, but then I would be stirring up a hornets nest.
Well, you've gotten better about that, and no offense intended here, but you still make Ni subservient to Te's ends a lot of times on the forum here.

Your Ni "just knows" something and you will insist beyond all insistence that it's true because your Te so desires immediately tangible results/proof.

It's actually common for people to openly identify more with the auxiliary function, because that's the one that you use consciously most often. The dominant is like a lens through which everything you perceive is inherently colored, so often it's difficult to even realize how much the dominant function is coloring your perceptions of everything.

That said, you do have better Ni than most of the ENTJs here when you turn off Te for a minute and let it out. (Like now, for instance.)

Originally Posted by Jaguar
I actually prefer to be called XNTJ. It fits me perfectly.
It's not that I can't decide-- that's bullshit.
It's that I know damn well that I can use Ni and Te with agility.
Yes, the first letter E/I is unique in that regard because both are actually weaknesses. In the long run you should be able to switch between both primary functions whenever each is necessary, so xNTJ (or any type with no real E/I preference) is superior.

By the way, I think you're mistaken in saying that your Ne matches your Ni. You repeatedly cite your test scores, saying that "some people test highly in both Ne and Ni", not really realizing that these are not fundamentally testable propositions.

Such tests are not testing your Ne; they are testing your Ni's ability to imitate Ne in tasks that are traditionally done best by Ne users. We all do this...Ne is such a distinctly NP function that claiming that yours is equal to your Ni would require you to be equal parts xNTP and xNTJ, which you're not. You're clearly extremely J.

Originally Posted by Jaguar
You may, or may not have, noticed but there are a few young INTJs, leading with Te.
You can tell by their obsessive clinging to demanding "evidence" for everything.
It's as if Ni is completely foreign to them.
Yes I have noticed this, and I've also noticed that you don't realize how much you do this, too. Js (especially EJs) tend to appear more stubborn and mechanical to the outer world than they really are; Ps tend to appear more flighty and uncertain of their positions than they really are.

I don't see your internal openness very often, and you don't see my internal consistency very often (hence your criticisms that I have "no consistency of thought." It's because I don't/can't show you my Ti as easily as my Ne.) But both are definitely there.

Remember that the rest of us can't really see or interact directly with your Ni because introverted functions don't express themselves to the outside world easily.

Often when you are on one of your rants, Te is the only thing we see. I realize that inside you're more flexible than that, but you don't show it as much as you think you do. The same is probably true of these ENTJs who over-rely on Te...you just think they're worse about it than you because you can't see their Ni, but you can see your own.

6. Originally Posted by simulatedworld
Well, you've gotten better about that, and no offense intended here, but you still make Ni subservient to Te's ends a lot of times on the forum here.
Who cares about what goes on this forum? It's not real life.
You've got 100's of online personas in this group.
For all your know I'm an 85-year old transvestite with bad breath.

7. Originally Posted by Jaguar
Who cares about what goes on this forum? It's not real life.
You've got 100's of online personas in this group.
For all your know I'm an 85-year old transvestite with bad breath.
Do me a favor and at least try to learn something from what I said (Ni) instead of just dismissing me outright (Te).

8. Originally Posted by Engler
After reviewing the accepted definitions of the eight functions, it has come to my attention that, while extroverted functions are oriented toward the external world, those who choose to utilize them (primarily) are not necessarily extroverted, and vice versa (with regards to the introverted functions).

Taken from Understanding the Eight Jungian Cognitive Processes / Eight Functions Attitudes:

Why must a dominant user of extroverted intuition (Ne) be extroverted? I can think of many situations in which one may prefer to utilize Ne while isolated from others.

How does one even go about making the distinction between extroverted and introverted functions? Doesn't the wild speculation that accompanies Ne occur within the user's mind? And is it not also true that, despite the fact that Ti is considered to be an introverted functions, it can easily be directed toward the outside world (perhaps in tandem with an extroverted perceiving function)?

I propose that the traditional concept of "extroverted" and "introverted" functions is revised in such a way, so that they are classified according to the activity with they are associated, rather than their supposed orientation (e.g. "speculative intuition" as opposed to "extroverted intuition", "analytical thinking" as opposed to "introverted thinking", so on and so forth).

Thoughts?
Extroversion is just defined as using an extroverted function more than the rest. Ditto for introversion. They are not the same usages of the words as you would find in the dictionary. That is all.

9. ^ Aye!

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO