This helps one realize often the unknown is discounted.
x is most often always part of the equation (along with y, z, God/antiGod, DNA strands etc...). In other words: the map is not the terrain. MBTI is a tool or measuring device and not the matter measured (nor a measure of all things).
Then again of course without generalizations or common denominators/agreed hypothesizes greater abstractions would remain invisible outside of the scope of reason or debate.
I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.
Originally Posted by Edgar
Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"
I'm pasting this from an extended wall conversation I've been having with Two Point Two, because I thought it had some other applications and might result in some good discussion. It provides support for my ongoing assertion that only the four primary functions (dom, aux, tert, inf) are ever truly exercised.
This is in the context of speaking to an INTJ:
A good example of what I mean here is people who claim to be borderline P/J.
In actuality this doesn't make any sense because P and J imply completely different sets of functional value systems. I've seen people claim to be something like ENFx, which is ridiculous because it implies that Fi, Fe, Ni and Ne are all of equal importance to you, and this simply doesn't work because Fi and Fe are so fundamentally opposed in their approaches (same for Ni and Ne.) (Amusingly, people who claim ENFx are virtually always ENFPs who are just attracted to the idea of being "miscellaneous". "Wow, I don't fit into any of the molds! I guess that's cause I'm just SO unique and different!" It's no coincidence that "be unique and different/don't fit the molds/go outside the box" is such a huge part of Ne's value system. Go fucking figure!)
This is what I mean about how every behavior, thought, action and opinion can be reduced further until you end up with ~4 primary life directives...one for Je, one for Ji, one for Pe and one for Pi.
People who make these claims simply don't understand enough about functional dichotomies to recognize why they're implicitly contradicting themselves. We're not working with 8 mutually exclusive and completely independent processes here; we're working with an interconnected system of competing and often absolute opposite value systems. Saying that you value Fi and Fe equally is completely absurd; you just don't understand the implications of those terms.
I may "use Fi" sometimes, but not because I place any fundamental value in Fi itself, but rather because I recognize situations where Fi's values happen to align with my own (which are invariably the result of Ne+Ti+Fe+Si.) I have no shame in admitting that I find Ti a totally superior system for internal judgments, but then--of course I do, I'm a Ti user! Again you need to direct your focus toward the total reasoning process and its most basic underlying values, not just the surface behavior or end conclusion.
You as an Fi user may make decisions in some situations that resemble Fe decisions, but it's always possible to look further into the motivations for those decisions and recognize which function or functional combination was ultimately responsible. Just because you did something that a lot of Fe users commonly do doesn't mean that Fe actually motivated your reasoning process to do it. I realized this through just talking to a lot of people and prying for honest, deep insight as to the most basic values that make them tick--and trust me, nobody values Fi and Fe equally. The natures of those two value systems are too fundamentally contradictory.
One wonders at people who are "working on" developing some function outside their top four. What are they working with? How has it come to be an issue? What decided for them that it was an issue?
One wonders at people who are choosing functions. What are they choosing with? Who is the deeper person inside themselves making these decisions? And why? (And what's his type?)
But, a difficulty: why can people not keep a function but switch orientation? They can't do it willy-nilly, that's for sure, because switching orientation counts as a violation of the original function, and switching would hurt... something--sense of identity, at least. But why can people not over relatively very long periods of time shift from one orientation to another?
That difficulty is maybe not entirely answered by observing that Xe and Xi are competing systems. The competition will make it difficult for the person to accept the change. Psychologically they'll resist it. But how stubborn is that resistance, ultimately? Why is it seemingly so stubborn that the change (theoretically) never happens?
Maybe there's an obvious answer, like switching orientation of one function affects all the others and so destabilizes the sense of self that your identity disappears, and people will always fight that or die.
Still, what is it that makes preference so stubborn?
Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."
Functions are not "pure" modes of thinking that exist perfectly partitioned. They often act in a pair between a perceiving function and a judging function.
To make an analogy, take visible light, particularly in the sense of RGB color theory. We shall let Fi be represented by Green. The "opposite" of Green, Magenta, shall be represent Fe. In their current forms, the colors are most easily distinguishable.
In this example, the Fi shall be used by an INFP, an Fi-dominant. The Fe shall be used by an ESFJ, an Fe-dominant. Next we shall represent Ne by the color blue. For whatever reason, the INFP and the ESFJ have opted to use their F function and Ne together. In the INFP's case, Green Fi and Blue Ne combine to form a Cyan Fi+Ne. In the ESFJ's case, the Magenta Fe and Blue Ne form a tertiary existent between Magenta and Blue. While the two remain distinct, they are somewhat "blurred."
For a visual demontration:
F functions through the Ne "lens":
Should the F functions be supportive of a common function rather than vice versa, the difference is even harder to discern, especially in the context that both F functions deal in the same "realm," albeit differently. This is all said without touching on the concept of shadow functions, the idea that one develops/uses the "opposite" form of a function under stress.
If a deaf INFP falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?