User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 84

  1. #11
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    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.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

  2. #12
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Engler View Post
    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. #13
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

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

  4. #14
    Senior Member Moiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    6,020

    Default

    Nice topic with very pertinent questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    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. #15
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    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.



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

    I was just talking to a forum buddy of mine about this last night.
    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.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    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.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #16
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    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. #17
    Listening Oaky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    6,168

    Default


  8. #18
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    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).
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #19
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Engler View Post
    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.

  10. #20
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    ^ Aye!
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] New Function Orientation: Generalizing and Non-Generalizing
    By wobbuffet222 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-05-2016, 01:27 PM
  2. Is Fi a person-oriented function?
    By skylights in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-18-2010, 03:33 AM
  3. Jung and functions, primary, auxiliary and inferior functions plus typology
    By slowriot in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-29-2010, 07:35 PM
  4. Orienting by the Tertiary Function
    By VagrantFarce in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-30-2009, 05:56 PM

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