Any function more of less useful than others?

[Venom]

Without Fi we have no sense of self. We have no sense of enjoyment, nor most of what makes us human.

I disagree. No single one of these functions = our sense of self. We have the "us" as a blob of self. Then we have our little world views we acquire as we go, the molds are applied to the blob until it has a certain number of sides.

Did Einstein have no sense of enjoyment? So I guess Einstein now has every function and merely gear shifts?

lol no. Define Fi.

If we look at functions not as gear shifting, but as worldviews we take on when decision making, Fi is rather simple to define:

Fi: Double checks for anything that is simply unconscionable, regardless of cause/effect, results or bottom line "success".

"Is anyone's future success, integrity, health or self-esteem is being jeopardized by these methods?"

"Is it conscionable to be managing the staff like they are all idiot peons?"

Other examples that easily fit this definition: "making it legal to sell organs would definitely solve economic problems and be the cause of getting some results (Te world view), but do we really want to live in a world that treats human beings like commodities? I find that unconscionable, no matter how effective!" (Fi world view)

 

[Lethe]

Almost by definition, Fi is the function most opposed to being useful. So now we must ask, how useful is the "unconcionable alarm system"? I think its rather easily replaced by properly functioning Fe and Ti working together...

Without Fi we have no sense of self. We have no sense of enjoyment, nor most of what makes us human.

Agreed with Aleksei. Fi's job is not to be effective by Je standards. It's supposed to be a relaxing, soul-searching function, because no person or machine in this day can truly operate on 100% efficiency. They all need their down-time: moments to just think, dream, and get in touch with the inner self. Fi is also good at stimulating passion from within, making all the hard-work and challenges we go through seem pleasurable, and meaningful. In a way, introverted feeling is a great catalyst for saving (and creating) personal energy in the long-run. It makes sure that energy is spent in the 'right' places. Of course, in Fe-Doms, they play a less important role, but are nonetheless, useful for other types.

 

[JustHer]

This is going to be a Fi thread

 

[Venom]

Agreed with Aleksei. Fi's job is not to be effective by Je standards. It's supposed to be a relaxing, soul-searching function, because no person or machine in this day can truly operate on 100% efficiency. They all need their down-time: moments to just think, dream, and get in touch with the inner self. Fi is also good at stimulating passion from within, making all the hard-work and challenges we go through seem pleasurable, and meaningful. In a way, introverted feeling is a great catalyst for saving (and creating) personal energy in the long-run. It makes sure that energy is spent in the 'right' places. Of course, in Fe-Doms, they play a less important role, but are nonetheless, useful for other types.

I think you guys are assinging way too much to functions. Here's a picture to explain:

"===" is function
"----" is just our general "conscious self"
"{{{{" is some enneagram
"(((((" is some enneagram instincts

Here is how you guys are viewing this:

Human psychology:
((({{{{================----==============}}}}}))))

Here is how I view it:

Human psychology:
((({{{{{{{{{{=======-----------------------------=====}}}}}}}})))))

Notice how much more "===" takes up % in yours. Notice how much credit I give to "-----". Not everything humans do is meant to be catagorized by MBTI functions.

 

[JustHer]

LOL babylon!!!!

A+ for amusement.

 

[Lethe]

Without Ne we'd still be living in caves and fishing fire out of trees.

We need people with crazy, impractical ideas who are not interesting in being realistic. Their effort may not pay off now, but in the future, we'll see their ideas and creativity built into society's structure by the pragmatic individuals/opportunists, and stabilized through people dedicated to establishing consistency. They are the front-runners for inspiring people to do the impossible, and bringing color in this world.

 

[Jaguar]

HAHAHA. I needed that good laugh.

 

[Lethe]

I think you guys are assinging way too much to functions.

Definitely, never disagreed that one or two function can act as a substitution for another, but my post is meant to indicate four things (which may have gotten lost along the message):

a.) For some people, they don't have any other means of substitution.
b.) One function can prompt the other to work at their best.
c.) Using another function to get the same results will only change the path they must take. Depending on the type of problem, sometimes there's no other method.
d.) Functions are indicative of how something is done. Introverted or Extroverted? Convergent or Divergent? Etc.

For example: If Fe is feeling down, then Fi can "scope" out the individual problem by encouraging the Fe to look inside to see what they want. When that happens, Fe gets back to doing Fe-esque activities.

Or if Fe wants to cheer up Fi, then they may do so by relating to the social atmosphere, and how the roles are interconnected.

*PS: As for the Enneagram, it's the best system I've seen for describing the "whys". The instinctual variants tell us "where" that happens. "What" can be attributed to 'the general "conscious self" ' (your words).

 

[trondor]

I dont think so. I think all functions depend on each other (as I touched on in the "feeling thinking differenting"thread)

Without feeling functions, we would have no will. We would be apatethic, not caring wheter we died or not.

Without thinking functions, we might have had alot of desires and stuff, but we'd have no means to act on them. It'd be like being hungry without knowing how to acquire food.

Without intuitive functions, we'd only know the details with no means to make sense of them.

Without sensing functions, we'd be lost from the real world. I guess.

Thing is, I see all functions as depending on each other and as equally important, without one we'd not be able to live at all. Even animals have all functions (f-motives,t-means,s-sensing,n-connections). But we have personality preference, meaning we tend to focus and excel at one or two of them.

On the introverted-extroverted scale, I also see them both as important. Extrovert is mainly associated with action, while introverted with reflection. Both definately needed.

Speculative, perhaps, but this is how I make sense of jungian functions.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Do we really need another Fi-hate thread? :rolli:


I'd say Ni - that's why Ni-doms are so "rare". Nature has deemed them largely useless.

 

[Quinlan]

Ni is extraordinarily useful.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Ni is extraordinarily useful.

But Fi isn't. Just remember that.

 

[JocktheMotie]

If I had to pick the most debilitating function, it'd be Ti.

 

[Aleksei]

Do we really need another Fi-hate thread? :rolli:


I'd say Ni - that's why Ni-doms are so "rare". Nature has deemed them largely useless.

Ni, like Ne, is vital to human progress. The problem is that too many Ni-doms in this world would end up destroying the Earth and each other.

 

[simulatedworld]

Define "useful".

 

[Oaky]

Useful personally? I would think the mechanism of our brain would put our dominant to inferior functions according to what the brain would think is useful to us.

 

[Lethe]

I'd say Ni - that's why Ni-doms are so "rare". Nature has deemed them largely useless.

Ni, like Ne, is vital to human progress. The problem is that too many Ni-doms in this world would end up destroying the Earth and each other.

Perhaps the rarity occurs because those functions are not the most stabilizing contributors on a smaller scale. For an analogy, it's like how extremes -- geniuses, the severely handicapped, savants, etc. --- are uncommon in nature and society. Too many of them can overthrow the population's balance, but Nature keeps a few around for the sake of diversity, survival, growth and progress.

I reckon the extraverted functions are the most useful.

Yeah, most people take this view, and I don't blame them. They seem to place a higher emphasis on the end results (to what is tangible right before them), without paying any attention to how the product was delivered. The extraverted functions are responsible for piecing together or connecting all the little parts [i.e -- introverted, personalized systems], but without those individual pieces, there would be nothing to work with.

I suppose it's better to pair 'useful' with a specific time frame. The extraverted functions are obviously the short-reacting components that immediately delivers the material because of their flexibility, while the introverted functions are long-reacting, but goes into more depth and holds a greater shelf-life. The latter can appear useless because more resources have to be put in to sustain them, though when a certain period is over, they can contribute back stronger resources (the ones they've been building for years) to society.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

You're all over thinking this.

Most useless>Most useful:

Old Times:

Ni--Look at Socrates
Te-Good for a ruler, or a farmer/rancher, but not that useful overall
Fe--Etiquette and mores made little difference
Ne--Not as important
Fi--Important for the arts, which were highly valued
Si--Important for memory, which was utilized often
Ti--Making things work; always important
Se--Observing environment because there were no instruments to take data in otherwise

New Times:

Fi--
Si--Tradition is outdated
Se-S is outdated, N is evolving
Ni--?Seeing a solution that isn't readily observable
Fe--Good for getting along, but T and N are more valued now
Te--Organization and accumulation of data important in a fast changing world
Ne--All possibilities are necessary for bringing about the best solution
Ti--Still needed to make things work/get something done/find a solution

 

[Tamske]

Most useful - Te, the only function which cares about whether things are useful or not.

But that was not the meaning of the original question.

I don't agree with Aphro about the relative worth of Ne vs Si. True, lots of companies pay lip-service to "out of the box thinking" and "finding out original solutions" but in practice "tried and true" often gets its way.
Personally, I think a good mix between the two is the best, either within a single person or within a group. Originality should not be an end goal. If the tried and true method works, just go ahead... unless you think a new method could be better and testing the thing wouldn't hinder your progress too much.

 

[Aleksei]

Perhaps the rarity occurs because those functions are not the most stabilizing contributors on a smaller scale. For an analogy, it's like how extremes -- geniuses, the severely handicapped, savants, etc. --- are uncommon in nature and society. Too many of them can overthrow the population's balance, but Nature keeps a few around for the sake of diversity, survival, growth and progress.

Mentally handicapped people and savants are genetic anomalies. Geniuses are a higher evolution of humanity, compared to normal people (As a species we're still barely a step above apes, tough as it is to acknowledge -- There are gorillas with a higher IQ than, for example, the Indian average).