# Thread: The alternative/real function orders

1. The idea that people don't really use their "shadow" functions is just a convenient excuse for the discrepancies between real people and the MBTI. What makes it so convenient is that any time someone reports unusual function use, all you have to do is insist they're wrong, and they'll be powerless to prove otherwise. I notice this is a common tactic with orthodox (instead of liberal) MBTI users: they'll provide increasingly irrefutable explanations. In this case, we have someone who says that it's literally impossible for someone to know how they use their functions, unless they happen to know which type is theirs. But how could someone know which type is theirs, if we accept Simulated's idea? According to his reasoning, any time you think you're using one function, it could just as easily be some other function in disguise.

2. Originally Posted by Nunki
The idea that people don't really use their "shadow" functions is just a convenient excuse for the discrepancies between real people and the MBTI. What makes it so convenient is that any time someone reports unusual function use, all you have to do is insist they're wrong, and they'll be powerless to prove otherwise. I notice this is a common tactic with orthodox (instead of liberal) MBTI users: they'll provide increasingly irrefutable explanations. In this case, we have someone who says that it's literally impossible for someone to know how they use their functions, unless they happen to know which type is theirs. But how could someone know which type is theirs, if we accept Simulated's idea? According to his reasoning, any time you think you're using one function, it could just as easily be some other function in disguise.
+1

It's the point reached in which a good scientist finally has to admit that his idea is going nowhere

3. Originally Posted by Nunki
But how could someone know which type is theirs, if we accept Simulated's idea? According to his reasoning, any time you think you're using one function, it could just as easily be some other function in disguise.
Whick speaks volumes about him as a person.
His viewpoint on the theory is a giveaway about himself.
I have no doubt he is a man of many disguises.
So many in fact, he probably doesn't even know who he really is.

If Amargith tells me she uses Ni. I believe her.
Why should I allow a theory to dictate what is true?
Bottom line-- I don't.

4. Originally Posted by Evan
I think the order makes sense (and by order, i'm mostly talking about function roles, not amount of usage...) if you take the directions off.

So an ESTJ is T, S, N, F... those functions tend to go in alternating directions, but not always, especially after the 2nd. If T is really really extroverted, Ti might be 5th or 6th in terms of usage in the 8 function order. If T is barely extroverted, Ti might be 2nd.

Check out my type calculator.
Yeah I think you have it exactly right.

5. Originally Posted by Evan
I think the order makes sense (and by order, i'm mostly talking about function roles, not amount of usage...) if you take the directions off.

So an ESTJ is T, S, N, F... those functions tend to go in alternating directions, but not always, especially after the 2nd. If T is really really extroverted, Ti might be 5th or 6th in terms of usage in the 8 function order. If T is barely extroverted, Ti might be 2nd.

Check out my type calculator.
Originally Posted by simulatedworld
This is because you're totally unimaginative. Just ask Jaguar.
Open up your mind--unless you fear something might fall out.

"[...] the MBTI's A PRIORI assumption that if an individual's primary function is introverted, their secondary function MUST be extraverted,
has the interesting consequence that it precludes the possibility of an individual having a primary and secondary function,
that are both introverted (eg, 'introverted intuition' and 'introverted thinking').

This was, however, ironically Jung's own situation, personally: introverted intuition and introverted thinking were his strongest (and most preferred) functions -
despite the fact that the MBTI 'rules' for constructing type do not permit this possibility!"

Obviously the typologists who wrote that, are not "thumpers" of the MBTI bible.
They actually have the ability to see other possibilities.
How refreshing.

Source:
Six Phases in the Development of Jung's Theory of Types

6. Very interesting article, thanks for linking it. Considering this though, what are your thoughts on the ennaegram?

7. Originally Posted by DuoRCN
Very interesting article, thanks for linking it. Considering this though, what are your thoughts on the ennaegram?
You're welcome.
There's much more on that site to read.
Check it out, when you have time.

You know why I don't have a real beef with the enneagram?
It's not destructive.
It's not divisive.
It's not derisive.

I happen to like the Enneagram.
It's probing in nature.
It attempts to address unseen forces, strengths, motivations, fears etc.

If it does, use it.

8. Originally Posted by Evan
Ne and Ni are not separate functions. There is the function N, and then a preferred direction on a spectrum of introversion to extroversion.
Yes, they are. Ni is more similar to Si and Ne more similar to Se than they are to each other.

Originally Posted by Jaguar
Open up your mind--unless you fear something might fall out.

"[...] the MBTI's A PRIORI assumption that if an individual's primary function is introverted, their secondary function MUST be extraverted,
has the interesting consequence that it precludes the possibility of an individual having a primary and secondary function,
that are both introverted (eg, 'introverted intuition' and 'introverted thinking').

This was, however, ironically Jung's own situation, personally: introverted intuition and introverted thinking were his strongest (and most preferred) functions -
despite the fact that the MBTI 'rules' for constructing type do not permit this possibility!"

Obviously the typologists who wrote that, are not "thumpers" of the MBTI bible.
They actually have the ability to see other possibilities.
How refreshing.

Source:
Six Phases in the Development of Jung's Theory of Types
That's blatantly wrong; Jung didn't say his best two functions were Ni and Ti. In fact, he said in Psychological Types that the top two functions in a healthy individual always point in opposite directions.

There are people whose strongest two functions are both introverted or both extroverted; they just have unbalanced personalities that don't function as efficiently as the regular functional archetypes.

Lacking an introverted function precludes the ability to stop and reconsider one's internal positions, while lacking an extroverted one leaves one without any efficient way to interact with the outer world.

The idea isn't that it's impossible not to have I and E in your top two functions, just that it's clearly disadvantageous and not typically a natural occurrence.

Originally Posted by Nunki
The idea that people don't really use their "shadow" functions is just a convenient excuse for the discrepancies between real people and the MBTI. What makes it so convenient is that any time someone reports unusual function use, all you have to do is insist they're wrong, and they'll be powerless to prove otherwise. I notice this is a common tactic with orthodox (instead of liberal) MBTI users: they'll provide increasingly irrefutable explanations. In this case, we have someone who says that it's literally impossible for someone to know how they use their functions, unless they happen to know which type is theirs. But how could someone know which type is theirs, if we accept Simulated's idea? According to his reasoning, any time you think you're using one function, it could just as easily be some other function in disguise.
I've stated in about 9463 threads that I don't actually accept MBTI; I've only appropriated some of its terminology for the form of typology that I use.

And bolded part--nope, didn't say that. This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what "using" a function is. The only ones I've said imitate each other are shadow functions, and the only people who think they directly exercise shadow functions are basing it on erroneous understanding of what each function is.

Seriously, how do you think these people reach such conclusions? "Oh I read some random definition of Fi and I think I do that; therefore my Fi is good."

It's much easier to self-diagnose your functional usage when you actually understand what each function is. Too many people have no idea what the difference between Ne and Ni is and yet still declare that they use both equally well, and why? Because they took a test that said so?

If I were using traditionalist MBTI, I most certainly would not hold the position that psychological type can't be empirically measured or tested--that's the biggest problem with MBTI itself.

Look, each function carries properties very specific to a certain letter combination:

Ni = NJ
Ne = NP
Si = SJ
Se = SP
Ti = TP
Te = TJ
Fi = FP
Fe = FJ

Claiming that you have equally strong Ne and Ni is literally claiming that you are equal parts P and J, which implies that you place totally equal emphasis on internal and external organization. This is almost never true; if you really understand the competing value systems that are xxxJ and xxxP you would not ever make the claim that you or anyone else is equal parts both.

I mostly only correct people who clearly don't understand what the hell they're talking about when they talk about their function orders. People like Jaguar who believe that "I scored highly in Ne on completely irrelevant function tests" actually means they have good Ne. None of this is quantifiable, so stop trying.

Being good at tasks commonly associated with Ne doesn't actually mean you have good Ne! It just means the functions you use well are good at completing those tasks, too. One of the problems with function theory is that it's impossible to tell the difference for certain, meaning it's also impossible to empirically test psychological type or function usage.

Function tests don't test anything but your ability to complete certain arbitrary mental tasks and/or self-evaluate. Furthermore, psychological type "testing" is only as effective as one's own ability to be honest with himself. It's total garbage; these concepts are purely theoretical and when someone says something as ridiculous as "I am equally good at polar opposite mental attitudes", it's just clearly counterintuitive and probably bullshit.

9. Originally Posted by simulatedworld
Yes, they are. Ni is more similar to Si and Ne more similar to Se than they are to each other.
How so?

Ne and Se have literally zero overlap. They cannot perceive even one of the same things.

Ne and Ni CAN have overlap. As long as the premises in the internal standard match up with reality in the slightest bit, the exact same perceptual data is completely possible.

10. Originally Posted by Jaguar
[...] the MBTI's A PRIORI assumption that if an individual's primary function is introverted, their secondary function MUST be extraverted,
has the interesting consequence that it precludes the possibility of an individual having a primary and secondary function,
that are both introverted (eg, 'introverted intuition' and 'introverted thinking').
I never said the first two most used functions can't both be introverted or extroverted.

The way I define types is to look for the first most used function. The tiebreaker is the first most used opposite direction function of the opposite J/P. For example, if Ti is the most used function, the difference between ISTP and INTP is whether Ne is used more or Se is used more. That doesn't mean some other function can't be used more than both of them.

#### 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