# Thread: Is it better to be well-rounded in function use?

1. Originally Posted by ajblaise
Balance is boring. There are pros and cons to it, but I think the people who indulge in their strengths, rather than try to compensate for their weaknesses, do better in life.

If Einstein had a more well-rounded and balanced Ti we might not have had E=mc2.... etc. etc...
This is sort of what I was getting at. It's not directly applicable to how functions would work I guess, but here's another analogy. Sorry, can't help it, it's my prefered way of conveying ideas

If a student scores 70s in half the test and 50s in the other half, should she work on improving the 50s to 70s? Or should she keep the 50s there and improve the 70s to 90s?

2. Originally Posted by ajblaise
Well, his Fe was notoriously weak. And he was a complete sensotard. Intensely introverted.

If you just rely on Ti to the extreme and then Ne, and most everything else is weak, that's imbalanced.
Ok well now we are just defining balanced differently. I think no function can get along well without some balancing input from another function or function(s). You don't have to have good use of all functions to be considered "balanced." That's just "perfectly balanced", and I'll agree with you that Einstein was definitely no where near perfectly balanced. Perfectly balanced probably would be pretty boring, honestly. It'd be like mixing an equal part of every color when you're painting; then all you end up with is a dull, ugly brownish black.

3. Originally Posted by William K
This is sort of what I was getting at. It's not directly applicable to how functions would work I guess, but here's another analogy. Sorry, can't help it, it's my prefered way of conveying ideas

If a student scores 70s in half the test and 50s in the other half, should she work on improving the 50s to 70s? Or should she keep the 50s there and improve the 70s to 90s?
Well mathematically, both yield the same end result. What's your point here?

4. Originally Posted by teslashock
I think no function can get along well without some balancing input from another function or function(s).
The function use divine interconnectivity theory? Bollocks.

5. Originally Posted by William K
If a student scores 70s in half the test and 50s in the other half, should she work on improving the 50s to 70s? Or should she keep the 50s there and improve the 70s to 90s?
70s and 50s? Maybe this school thing isn't right for her altogether.

6. Originally Posted by William K
From some of the posts made in the Fi, Ti and INxP threads, it seems to me that being a strong user of a certain function by itself is neither good or bad since it mainly indicates preference, not skill in applying the said function.

Please be patient now as I try to make an analogy

Let's say there is a tennis player who is naturally tall and has a strong right arm. As such, he has a powerful serve. Now, if he just works on his serve and puts it into play a high percentage of the time, he's going to win a lot of points and matches. He might be too one-dimensional to be world number one or win Grand Slams, but he will still be a good tennis player. Yes, he could work on other portions of his game like groundstrokes and volleying, but his serve will still be the main weapon that he depends on.

Now let's take another player who is not tall and not as strong, but has great foot speed and court coverage. Again, he can work on his serve of course but he will never be as good as the big serve-dom Would you expect the coach to tell him to stop trying to run around but instead to go hit the gym and build up his arm strength?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while it might be optimal to be an all-round player, not everyone can be a Federer or Nadal. Is working on your strengths a better way to success than trying to improve your weaknesses? If you could only choose one, which would it be? Not really looking for a definite answer, but would love to hear others' thoughts.
i go for excellence, not success.

i would lie in the second category trying desperately to win

7. Originally Posted by ajblaise
The function use divine interconnectivity theory? Bollocks.
You're the epitome of an arrogant Ti-er. I'd be a lot more impressed by you if you could push out some Ne every once in a while A varied armory is a lot more impressive to any gun collector out there.

Though I bet you don't even give a shit about impressing anyone here (yay underdeveloped tert Fe!!), but it just makes you predictable and you probably rarely get laid. oh wellz!! at least you can fool yourself into believing that you're capable of developing something like the theory of relativity. but too bad that's already been done

8. Balanced people can connect the ends of everything better.
Seeing more of the whole picture is of course better. That's why i'm trying to improve even Fi.

9. Originally Posted by ajblaise
70s and 50s? Maybe this school thing isn't right for her altogether.
Details, details... Focus on the big picture
Make it 70s and 90s with an average of 80s if you want

Originally Posted by teslashock
Well mathematically, both yield the same end result. What's your point here?
Average-wise it's the same and the student will pass all the same, but is it preferable to have a breadth of knowledge vs a depth of knowledge?

10. Originally Posted by William K
Details, details... Focus on the big picture
Make it 70s and 90s with an average of 80s if you want

Average-wise it's the same and the student will pass all the same, but is it preferable to have a breadth of knowledge vs a depth of knowledge?