User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 17 of 17

  1. #11
    Senior Member sticker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    ISTp
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    I'd also be inclined to say that there is no such thing as skill in using a function, because functions are not skills, but rather a psychological driving forces to act/think in a particular way. What does it mean to be more skilled at wanting to achieve a goal (Te) or to try something out with your own hands (Se)?
    If that's the case, what does it mean when someone is of an 'immature' type and one that is 'mature'? Do matured types have more balanced psychological driving forces or do they force themselves to make use of the other functions which are less preferred? Then what about 'mature' people who say they don't those functions as 'well' as those who prefer them as much? Is it the difference in how much attention/effort/resources used for each function?
    Maybe skills are like the proficiency come up with a working plan (Te), proficiency to in hand-eye coordination (Se); And preference is the psychological drive to come up with a working plan (Te), psychological drive to participate in activities requiring hand-eye coordination (Se)?
    I can't really think of any examples for Te or Se, but I can for Ne in an INTP. I don't know if it's really how things go though, I'm still not an expert, and most likely never will, in functions.
    Say for example an INTP who loves using Ne (psychological driving force) but isn't all that good in doing so (lack of 'skill', thus drawing less connections to make sense of things as he/she would have liked to) and has to think of a solution to a problem. He/she uses Ti supported by Ne, draws very little connections and ends up being unable to solve the problem or giving S-like solutions as there might be a chance of him/her having to resort to using Si or Se to fill up the gaps. Is it improbable, but possible for Si/Se to be ingrained into the psychological driving force instead of Ne through long periods of usage? Like using it so much that it becomes second nature, preferring Si/Se to Ne automatically without conscious thought?
    Well... Ragingkatsuki and Simulatedworld explained it better than me in these posts regarding INTPs who does not use Ne as much (though they did not talk about whether it was by preference or learned).
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tml#post990574
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tml#post992325
    (Does that mean my questions in the first post are still valid? )

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    To help illustrate what I mean by an order of concious use I'll give an example. I'm an INTJ with Ni, Te, Fi and Se, and I've trying to decide what I want to do. First off I brain storm for ideas, picking up ideas that look interesting and throwing away the rest, then I go though that list to see what looks practicle before making my final choice.

    In doing this the functions I'm using are Ni (Brainstorming), Fi (throwing away unattractive ideas), Te (to judge which I can do) and then Fi again (to make the final choice, once all logistical consierations are done). At some point in the past, I must also of used Se to gather the information that Te used at its stage. However, the only ones I'm very aware of using are Ni and Te. Those are the two ways of thinking that get all my efforts. When Ni throws up an idea which Fi throws out immediastel, I tend not to spend a huge amount of time thinking about. My thought processes can be pretty much sumed up as "Nah". Nevertheless, I still use it before my auxilary Te. If at the second Fi stage I still have more than one choice to make, I pretty much just flip a coin.

    Regardless of success or failure, my function use is likely to have been very much like this. As it happens, that success or failure is likely to originate in my inferior Se, seeing as that is the weak link in the chain. Most disasters in my life come from a failure to gather enough real world information or not paying enough attention to things. Remembering that weakness often causes me to double check these days.

    As a person gets older, they get more aware of the tertiary and inferior processes and give them more importance. These days I spend more time considering what I really want out os something. I also gather more Se type information as well - when I remember! The inferior still gives me problems.
    This example works really well for people who do have at least the first 4 functions in the order of their personality types, but what about people who don't, be it for reasons like what I'm suspecting or not?
    Everyone is unique. ...Just like everyone else.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Video Challenge

  2. #12
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    this will solve everything:

    Not Cognitive Processes

    functions are not skills, but I would go farther than andy, who at the heart of it was still assigning skills to his functions. They are orientations. Andy assigned things like brainstorming, deciding and other "actions". The functions are orientations that merely set up the operating systems behind ANY actions. Therefore his Ni world view would together with Te set up the boundaries of how he decides and brainstorms. However, neither functions is "responsible" for either.

    Philosophical Exegesis

    functions are merely attitudes of perceiving the world. Attitudes arise from making decisions on how you decide what is true, ethically right and important to you.

  3. #13
    Glycerine
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sticker View Post


    Is can get unhappy being alone. Do you need a lot of people around or just a small amount to be content? Thoughts as in thinking(Te), or feelings(Fe)?

    Yeah, I get really unhappy when I get too much alone time. I use Fe but I still think a lot. Feeling is about values and the people element not the incapability of thoughts. I'm not quite sure what you meant by the last question.

  4. #14
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sticker View Post
    If that's the case, what does it mean when someone is of an 'immature' type and one that is 'mature'? Do matured types have more balanced psychological driving forces or do they force themselves to make use of the other functions which are less preferred? Then what about 'mature' people who say they don't those functions as 'well' as those who prefer them as much? Is it the difference in how much attention/effort/resources used for each function?
    The functions only describe a single layer of the human mind. There are layers above it and layers below. The stuff from underneath rises up, gets filtered by the functions, then carries on to interact with whatever lies above.

    It is this that allows different people of them same type to be so disimilar, because the functions recieve different input, and there own output will also be processed different.

    The difference between a mature and an immature person of a given type lies in this differing input and output, I think. An individual seen as immature winds up with an overall effect that is dubious.

    An unhealthy individual can fall prey to the impluses of the lower functions. However, such an person is out of control and is not using the functions (ways of thinking, if you like) so much as being used by them. In their more lucid, controled moments, it will be the primary and the auxilary talking.

    If you want a loose definition (I refuse to try anything more than that!) of "skill in functions", then it is the ability to conciously think that way, rather than the functions operating as uncontroled impluses. This definition comes with a huge disclaimer, largely because people often think inside their primary so habitually, they aren't even aware they are doing it..




    This example works really well for people who do have at least the first 4 functions in the order of their personality types, but what about people who don't, be it for reasons like what I'm suspecting or not?
    I don't actually believe such people exist. Not without brain damage or something. People often think they have odd function preferences, but I reckon that mores to do with the difficulty in self-typing and understanding the functions. Still, you are free to disagree with me if you like.

  5. #15
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    this will solve everything:

    Not Cognitive Processes

    functions are not skills, but I would go farther than andy, who at the heart of it was still assigning skills to his functions. They are orientations. Andy assigned things like brainstorming, deciding and other "actions". The functions are orientations that merely set up the operating systems behind ANY actions. Therefore his Ni world view would together with Te set up the boundaries of how he decides and brainstorms. However, neither functions is "responsible" for either.

    Philosophical Exegesis

    functions are merely attitudes of perceiving the world. Attitudes arise from making decisions on how you decide what is true, ethically right and important to you.
    Yeah, I know what you mean. I did do that, but sometimes it hard not to. Trying to describe how an individual function works is always going to be difficult, because an individual function doesn't do anything! They always work in concert. Nevertheless, it's difficult to know how they work together if you don't know what they do on their own... I tride (and failed, it seems ) to convey the idea that the functions are just a general way of going about things rather than rigid, well defined skills or attitudes. If you have a better valcabulary, I'd be greateful.

    It's almost like you have to approach the functions "side on", because the whole is too much to understand in one bite. You just start off with a vague overview, then try to refine it one step at a time.

    Nice links by the way.

  6. #16
    Senior Member sticker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    ISTp
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    this will solve everything:

    Not Cognitive Processes

    functions are not skills, but I would go farther than andy, who at the heart of it was still assigning skills to his functions. They are orientations. Andy assigned things like brainstorming, deciding and other "actions". The functions are orientations that merely set up the operating systems behind ANY actions. Therefore his Ni world view would together with Te set up the boundaries of how he decides and brainstorms. However, neither functions is "responsible" for either.

    Philosophical Exegesis

    functions are merely attitudes of perceiving the world. Attitudes arise from making decisions on how you decide what is true, ethically right and important to you.
    Wow, thanks for the links, they really cleared things up quite a lot. Would have loved to read more on the other related topics but it seems like the site is down...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pitseleh View Post
    Yeah, I get really unhappy when I get too much alone time. I use Fe but I still think a lot. Feeling is about values and the people element not the incapability of thoughts. I'm not quite sure what you meant by the last question.
    When you said you process most of your thoughts through talking, I was wondering if most of the topics you talk about are about your/other's feelings or less emotion based subjects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    If you want a loose definition (I refuse to try anything more than that!) of "skill in functions", then it is the ability to conciously think that way, rather than the functions operating as uncontroled impluses. This definition comes with a huge disclaimer, largely because people often think inside their primary so habitually, they aren't even aware they are doing it..
    Yup, a loose definition is enough for me

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    I don't actually believe such people exist. Not without brain damage or something. People often think they have odd function preferences, but I reckon that mores to do with the difficulty in self-typing and understanding the functions. Still, you are free to disagree with me if you like.
    I beg to differ, but I think it's because I don't believe Jung's theory is infallible. It's more of an opinion and I do not have anything to back it up though.
    Everyone is unique. ...Just like everyone else.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Video Challenge

  7. #17
    Glycerine
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sticker View Post
    When you said you process most of your thoughts through talking, I was wondering if most of the topics you talk about are about your/other's feelings or less emotion based subjects.
    Ok ok, thanks for clarifying. My thoughts just mean the general sense of the word. Others'/ my feelings, evolution, tv, history, psychology,and pretty much w/e I am thinking about at the moment. I even talked out some of this post as I was writing.

Similar Threads

  1. Enlightenment in alchemy, Jungs view of individuation and learning to use functions
    By INTP in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-31-2013, 11:09 AM
  2. An honest question about god and his ways
    By sabastious in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 01:08 PM
  3. Questions about myself, and your opinions.
    By Serendipity in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-28-2009, 04:41 PM
  4. Question about extraverts and contradiction between inner and outer worlds
    By Llewellyn in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-16-2008, 10:32 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