# Thread: The alternative/real function orders

1. Originally Posted by simulatedworld
So you meant dominant + tertiary?
yes, why? Does it not match what I said? We prefer the direction of our dominant function so it would lead to it being very well developed, but also very well misused or to put it a better way overused.

2. Originally Posted by Jaguar
You are then making an assumption there is only one leading function.
I don't see it that way.
I contend our brain has flexibility and plasticity.
I do not believe we have to lead with one function 100% of the time,
or even the same function 100% of the time.
I think that it's a statistical impossibility to not use one function more often than others. Since all functions are used thousands of times a day, te chance that two functions are used the same amount is essentially zero.

Different situations call for different functions, sure...I'm just literally talking about the amount of usage of a function on average.

There are many people who appear to have both Ne and Ni well-developed.
Opinion?
Intuition is intuition. There is usually a preferred direction, but that doesn't imply the other direction is underdeveloped. It just means one is used more often.

MBTI is about preference, not ability. So having a well developed function is irrelevant. It's about how much your functions are used.

Originally Posted by simulatedworld
A deductive argument must always consist of conditional if-then statements, yes, but that's not what circular logic is. Anyway I'm moving on to the next part now because this one didn't turn as interesting as I thought it would.
Circular logic, as in, you always assume your conclusion is true before you start your argument.

Your conclusion is always hidden in the premises. Deduction often times seems like you're coming to new conclusions, but you're not. You're just rewording your premises.

Which form of S did I use and how do you know?
I have no idea if you used Si or Se. But you used S if you took in sensory data. That's what S means. If you didn't take in sensory data, you'd have nothing for your intuition to work with.

If external information is always taken in via Sensing, what exactly does Ne do and why is it referred to as an extroverted function?
Like I said, intuition attaches metaphorical meaning to sense data. It's called perception because it's unconscious. So once information bubbles to consciousness, it's an amalgamation of sensing and intuition. If, in consciousness, that data is manipulated, it's judging.

No, but extroverted perceiving functions (including Ne) do.
The only functions that take in data are Si and Se. They are called sensing.

How do humans take in information about the world? Through their senses. What other kind of information is even possible to take in?

How is this confusing?

So Si does pick up information directly from the outside world? Why is it an introverted function? As far as I'm aware, introverted functions do not interact directly with the external world.
Well, I guess you should rework your understanding then.

Again, Sensing, by definition, is the part of cognition that takes in sense data. Sensing with an extroverted attitude prefers all environmental data equally. Sensing with an introverted attitude specifically focuses on environmental data relevant to the current thought process. That's why Si users go into more depth about details of one thing. If they're focusing on that thing, Si will collect all the sense information it can about it. Whereas Se doesn't care what they're focusing on; it's always looking all around, trying to get all the sense data possible.

So the tradeoff is, Se sees more (breadth), and Si sees in more detail (depth).

So Ne and Ni are both inherently introverted and never communicate with the outer world? That doesn't seem likely.
That's not what introversion means.

Ne attaches metaphorical meaning to as many different things as it can. Ni attaches metaphorical meaning to things relevant to the current thought process.

Again, think of it as breadth vs. depth. That's the best way to distinguish introversion and extroversion. Not direct contact with the world or whatever.

That's fine, but it doesn't make any sense to label Ne an extroverted function if it doesn't actually operate outside the subject himself. It would just be a third form of Pi.
Only if you have the incorrect definition of introversion.

I don't really know what more to say...

Direct contact with the world doesn't have anything to do with I/E. The only difference between introverted and extroverted functions is that introverted functions frame their uses on the internal standard, extroverted functions frame their uses on the external standard. The internal standard is defined by the current thought process/unconscious tendencies. The external standard is just defined by what's currently happening in the environment. This is why people that favor extroverted perceiving are Ps, they are constantly changing their frame of reference...looking desperately for novelty. People that favor introverted perceiving are J, because they follow along with one line of thought and fill it out.

My definitions are very simple and totally parallel. Not only that, but you can exactly determine which of the four functions are being used in any situation. You can't really figure out introversion or extroversion of functions, though, except by observing over time.

3. Evan, you might be on to something

4. Originally Posted by Evan
Direct contact with the world doesn't have anything to do with I/E. The only difference between introverted and extroverted functions is that introverted functions frame their uses on the internal standard, extroverted functions frame their uses on the external standard. The internal standard is defined by the current thought process/unconscious tendencies. The external standard is just defined by what's currently happening in the environment. This is why people that favor extroverted perceiving are Ps, they are constantly changing their frame of reference...looking desperately for novelty. People that favor introverted perceiving are J, because they follow along with one line of thought and fill it out.
This is alot of what I thought when I first got into MBTI. The problem I started to see is that how can a thought process that you are conciously going about be unconcious? I will throw out the idea that a concious Ne could represent an unconcious TiNi of FiNi. Like Fe could be some combination of unconcious SiFi or NiFi.

5. Originally Posted by poki
This is alot of what I thought when I first got into MBTI. The problem I started to see is that how can a thought process that you are conciously going about be unconcious? I will throw out the idea that a concious Ne could represent an unconcious TiNi of FiNi. Like Fe could be some combination of unconcious SiFi or NiFi.
Do you mind rewording that? I have no idea what you're talking about.

6. Originally Posted by Evan
Do you mind rewording that? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Sheesh, intuitive minds, gotta spell everything out

Ok, I will take it to simple terms. TiNi is used to piece together how thing logically fit at a very deep level to create a pattern or theory. Ne is good at this, but more in terms of breadth. So Ne would be like very quick and dirty TiNi or FiNi, something we dont really control conciously. Then someone like an INTP would logically break this down into Si data using Ti.

Im wondering if for Ti types Ne or Se would be driven by a subconcious FiNi or FiSi then processed through Ti.

An INTP would be Ne(FiNi) -> Ti - >Si

Like I said just a thought.

edit: to define what I see as Si look at what an INTP actually comes up with. The come up with the detail of the theory. The use Ti to take Ne and create detail of it. The detail is the constants, the invividual functions, etc.

7. Originally Posted by Jaguar
Clearly, you can see this demands a complete break with what MBTI has claimed for decades.
Singer and Loomis-both Jungian analysts- not only set out to challenge MBTI, but to also challenge Jung's long-held assumptions.
In the end, they found the majority of the assumptions did not hold up.

My biggest problem with MBTI is simple:
They never ran a check to see if the function orders they claim to be true, are actually true.
People have always just assumed they were true.
I don't think that you can have TWO dominant functions... if you test that way in a functions test then that just doesn't mean anything. You can't have more than one unconscious and natural way of thinking, as an ISFP for example it's Fi. That's my default lens in life. Te is your default lens. Even though you can improve yourself and your function use, you can't have more than one dominant function. If someone thinks that you can, then they are mistaken about the definition of "dominant".

Originally Posted by Jaguar
No doubt if I reviewed a couple hundred results of the SL-TDI,
I would see a pattern emerge rather quickly: All people would be unique.
And most certainly, there would not be 16 types.
For all I know there are hundreds of thousands of types, just as Singer and Loomis have suggested.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Everyone varies with how they are functionally, but they still end up fitting into a type. A type is a core thing. You can measure how people vary with functions sure, but they will always fit into a certain type with how they naturally function at the core.

8. Originally Posted by Evan
I think that it's a statistical impossibility to not use one function more often than others. Since all functions are used thousands of times a day, te chance that two functions are used the same amount is essentially zero.

Different situations call for different functions, sure...I'm just literally talking about the amount of usage of a function on average.
I'm not sure Jaguar is capable of understanding the concept of average trends. It's either 100% or 0% with him, or it doesn't exist. Classic Te.

Originally Posted by Evan
Intuition is intuition. There is usually a preferred direction, but that doesn't imply the other direction is underdeveloped. It just means one is used more often.
I can't agree with this, based on observation and personal study of virtually everyone I know. Show me an ENTP with equal Ni to his Ne; I dare you.

Originally Posted by Evan
MBTI is about preference, not ability. So having a well developed function is irrelevant. It's about how much your functions are used.
But the more you prefer to use a function, the more it becomes developed because you're practicing it. I don't see how development and preference could be mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Evan
Circular logic, as in, you always assume your conclusion is true before you start your argument.

Your conclusion is always hidden in the premises. Deduction often times seems like you're coming to new conclusions, but you're not. You're just rewording your premises.
Well, you're just coming to conclusions that are already implied by the premises. It's just that many people don't naturally understand this deduction process, so we use deductive argumentation as a way to express it more concretely.

Originally Posted by Evan
I have no idea if you used Si or Se. But you used S if you took in sensory data. That's what S means. If you didn't take in sensory data, you'd have nothing for your intuition to work with.
Yes I got that that's your interpretation; I just find it really unnecessarily limited.

Originally Posted by Evan
Like I said, intuition attaches metaphorical meaning to sense data. It's called perception because it's unconscious. So once information bubbles to consciousness, it's an amalgamation of sensing and intuition. If, in consciousness, that data is manipulated, it's judging.
I think metaphorical meaning is much more a function of Ni than Ne, but that's beside the point so I'll drop this part for now.

Originally Posted by Evan
The only functions that take in data are Si and Se. They are called sensing.

How do humans take in information about the world? Through their senses. What other kind of information is even possible to take in?

How is this confusing?
The kind of information that arises from observing abstract patterns and connections between abstract external world concepts. You seem to be arguing that intuition itself is inherently introverted, and yet both Si and Se can be extroverted at different times? This doesn't hold up.

Out of curiosity, would you mind explaining to me what you think the difference between Ni and Ne is? I'm very curious now because I think you lack understanding of what Ne really does.

Originally Posted by Evan
Well, I guess you should rework your understanding then.
Same to you, buddy.

Originally Posted by Evan
Again, Sensing, by definition, is the part of cognition that takes in sense data. Sensing with an extroverted attitude prefers all environmental data equally. Sensing with an introverted attitude specifically focuses on environmental data relevant to the current thought process. That's why Si users go into more depth about details of one thing. If they're focusing on that thing, Si will collect all the sense information it can about it. Whereas Se doesn't care what they're focusing on; it's always looking all around, trying to get all the sense data possible.
And yet Ne is not looking around trying to get as much data as possible? You neglect the importance of external validation for Ne vs. Ni. You've implied that both are purely internal processes, which negates the fundamental definition of an extroverted function.

It's quite possible to perceive information from the outside world that doesn't consist purely of literal five-senses data. It's called Ne. Noticing that when x person takes action y, he will usually also take action z--this connection is in itself information stemming from the external world, but can't be expressed in terms of purely sense data.

How do you explain this?

Originally Posted by Evan
So the tradeoff is, Se sees more (breadth), and Si sees in more detail (depth).
That's great; the same relationship applies to Ni/Ne. This isn't the part of your interpretation with which I take issue.

Originally Posted by Evan
That's not what introversion means.

Then maybe you should rework your own understanding.

Originally Posted by Evan
Ne attaches metaphorical meaning to as many different things as it can. Ni attaches metaphorical meaning to things relevant to the current thought process.
You've still defined the internal world as the ultimate source of Ne, which leads me to believe you really don't understand what it does. You seem to see it as merely a more breadth-focused version of Ni, still stemming primarily from the inside, which totally neglects the external environment as a vital component of the Ne process.

Originally Posted by Evan
Again, think of it as breadth vs. depth. That's the best way to distinguish introversion and extroversion. Not direct contact with the world or whatever.
As I said, maybe you should rework your own understanding and stop using such a limited definition of a concept with many more implications and possible interpretations than that.

Originally Posted by Evan
Only if you have the incorrect definition of introversion.

I don't really know what more to say...

Direct contact with the world doesn't have anything to do with I/E. The only difference between introverted and extroverted functions is that introverted functions frame their uses on the internal standard, extroverted functions frame their uses on the external standard. The internal standard is defined by the current thought process/unconscious tendencies. The external standard is just defined by what's currently happening in the environment. This is why people that favor extroverted perceiving are Ps, they are constantly changing their frame of reference...looking desperately for novelty. People that favor introverted perceiving are J, because they follow along with one line of thought and fill it out.
Latter part is fine...but I can't agree with your simplistic definition of introversion/extroversion because you've taken a surface characteristic and erroneously decided it's the root cause.

I'd agree with you that E functions do better with breadth and I ones do better with depth, but that's only one surface consequence of an even deeper cause.

Originally Posted by Evan
My definitions are very simple and totally parallel. Not only that, but you can exactly determine which of the four functions are being used in any situation. You can't really figure out introversion or extroversion of functions, though, except by observing over time.
My definitions are parallel across a different dimension of similarity.

The fact that you can figure out exactly anything in your system should be a clear indication that you make too many arbitrary assumptions.

I don't have a quotable source for my interpretation either, as it's based largely on personal experience and interaction with people, but your definition of Ne is grossly oversimplified and you seem to think there's a lot more "exactness" to this stuff than there actually is. (Which is pretty Ti, I would say.)

My system actually explains why Xi dominant types appear socially withdrawn--the only reasonably intuitive answer is that introverted functions have a very difficult time expressing themselves to the external world. When you see an INTJ in his dominant Ni mode, he's typically having a very hard time communicating his ideas to anyone else because Ni doesn't translate into terms that can be separated from his personal perception. There's no way he can make you see what he sees, and most of the time he doesn't even want to--Ni requires no external validation.

When he goes into Te mode, though, suddenly he appears extroverted and very outwardly goal-oriented, briefly looking like an ENTJ. This is because extroverted functions are required in order to interact successfully with the outer world. You cannot reduce introversion/extroversion purely to a question of breadth/depth--that is one aspect that results from being I or E in many cases, but is only one small part of the total picture of what those attitudes mean.

Furthermore, I think by reducing extroversion to fundamentally a subset of introversion, you display a basic conceptual misunderstanding of the very nature of extroversion. Given also that you're someone who used to describe himself as Ni/Ti (hence your waffling between INTP and INFJ), I'd wager a guess that you have a number of social difficulties with the external world in general, and that this is probably having an effect on your ability to grasp the true nature of extroversion.

Right now you're just trying to express it in terms of introversion, and that doesn't work because it's something completely different. This is all suggestive that you have rather weak E functions yourself and probably don't understand their significance firsthand--if you did, you wouldn't need to discuss them as if they're just another form of introversion (as you've done here with Ne.)

9. Originally Posted by Jaguar
No doubt if I reviewed a couple hundred results of the SL-TDI,
I would see a pattern emerge rather quickly: All people would be unique.
And most certainly, there would not be 16 types.
For all I know there are hundreds of thousands of types, just as Singer and Loomis have suggested.
It depends how you define types. There are obviously lots of possible function orders: 8*7*6*5*4*3*2 = 40320 possible orders.

The way you get 16 is this: there are 8 functions, and one of them is used the most. That gives you 8 possibilities. For each of those, there are two choices for an auxiliary (that doesn't necessarily mean 2nd most used function, it just means the more used function out of the two possible opposite P/J and opposite I/E functions). 8*2 = 16.

So for a Pi dominant, the auxiliary is a Je. That doesn't mean the Je is used second most, just that the definition of auxiliary entails it. The auxiliary could technically be the 7th most used. A Ti dominant is either ISTP or INTP. The defining factor is whether Ne or Se is used more. If Ne is used more, they're INTP. Even if Te, Ni, Fe, Fi, and Si are used more.

10. Originally Posted by simulatedworld
I can't agree with this, based on observation and personal study of virtually everyone I know. Show me an ENTP with equal Ni to his Ne; I dare you.
Well, that's impossible by the definition of ENTP, so I can't. ENTPs by definition use Ne more than any other function.

But the more you prefer to use a function, the more it becomes developed because you're practicing it. I don't see how development and preference could be mutually exclusive.
True. But that doesn't mean an INFP couldn't have a better working Te than an ENTJ. It just means they use it less compared to their other functions.

Well, you're just coming to conclusions that are already implied by the premises. It's just that many people don't naturally understand this deduction process, so we use deductive argumentation as a way to express it more concretely.
Agree.

Yes I got that that's your interpretation; I just find it really unnecessarily limited.
k.

I think metaphorical meaning is much more a function of Ni than Ne, but that's beside the point so I'll drop this part for now.
k.

The kind of information that arises from observing abstract patterns and connections between abstract external world concepts. You seem to be arguing that intuition itself is inherently introverted, and yet both Si and Se can be extroverted at different times? This doesn't hold up.
I only have one definition of introverted and extroverted. You're conflating my definition with yours, so of course it looks like there is a contradiction.

Out of curiosity, would you mind explaining to me what you think the difference between Ni and Ne is? I'm very curious now because I think you lack understanding of what Ne really does.
I did. N is intuition (attaching metaphorical meaning). Ne does it with everything, Ni does it more with specific things.

Same to you, buddy.
k.

And yet Ne is not looking around trying to get as much data as possible? You neglect the importance of external validation for Ne vs. Ni. You've implied that both are purely internal processes, which negates the fundamental definition of an extroverted function.
Not my fundamental definition.

It's quite possible to perceive information from the outside world that doesn't consist purely of literal five-senses data. It's called Ne. Noticing that when x person takes action y, he will usually also take action z--this connection is in itself information stemming from the external world, but can't be expressed in terms of purely sense data.
Making that connection is not directly given by the environment. It takes internal synthesis of information.

Anyways, I'm not saying your view isn't logically consistent. It just doesn't fit with the definitions anyone else uses.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•