• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

You Don't "Use" Your Functions! (?)

G

Ginkgo

Guest
simulatedworld - "You don't 'use' your functions"

What an interesting statement.

I'm not exactly sure what prompted simulatedworld to make this assessment, but he recently made a post about it on another forum. I'm wondering if he said this because he observed many posters here claiming to 'use' functions that were supposedly out of their preferred orientation, or if he said this because of the connotation that the word "used" gives off - as if one uses their functions in the same way that one uses a hammer or a chair, or if there was some misunderstanding between him and other people. In any case, I'm trying to find out what the reality of the situation is.

When I first heard this, I thought it was a minor detail about semantics that hardly pertained to the truth, but rather to how we communicate about it. Maybe the truth is found therein.

I thought that maybe don't "use" functions as if we are consciously manipulating them, but instead we "use" functions in the same way that we use white blood cells in our bodies - subconsciously and out of our control. But then I reconsidered - because our functional orientations are in some ways conscious, are we not using them consciously? Ah! But if our functions shape the way we consciously perceive the world, then are our functions not "using" us? So I arrived at the conclusion that because, on some level, we are our functions, and our functions are us, the question of whether we can "use" them should be answered with a positive "yes", in the same way we can exploit ourselves, control our own actions, and exercise our free will.

The primary problem lies within the understanding of "use".

Any thoughts?
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
Your functions use you. Your functions shape your world. I'd try to think of it like your eyes. You can direct your eyes to things to look at, but what you ultimately see is what your eyes/brain choose to let you see.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Your functions use you. Your functions shape your world. I'd try to think of it like your eyes. You can direct your eyes to things to look at, but what you ultimately see is what your eyes/brain choose to let you see.

That's intriguing.

What are the ramifications of such a statement?
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Your functions use you. Your functions shape your world. I'd try to think of it like your eyes. You can direct your eyes to things to look at, but what you ultimately see is what your eyes/brain choose to let you see.

I would take Simulatedworld's statement to mean this.
Your functions just are. Using implies that some will was involved. I guess we can purposely use our functions. But 95% of the time we are not aware of what's going on in our brains- they are just doing their own job.
 

ragashree

Reason vs Being
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
1,770
MBTI Type
Mine
Enneagram
1w9
Sim's ideas on how functions work overall seem extremely odd to me, I'm sure I'd be getting some amusement out of prodding him on the topic if he was actually around. Since he isn't though, and this question relates essentially to his own highly idiosyncratic functional and semantic definitions, do you think much can be gained by asking others what he might have meant?

Personally if I was you I'd want to go straight to the horse's mouth on this one and try to hammer out what he actually meant by it rather than asking people here to speculate on his intent, which I don't see as being likely to get very far. If you can actually get a clear definition from him of what he means by it, I can happily criticise the definition, but trying to work out what might be going on inside Sim's head to make him come up with such statements in the first place is a bit beyond me, sorry! :newwink:
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
I'm not sure what you mean. Most of what people regard as "function use" is simply cognitive ability that everyone has access to. What makes me a Ti "user" is the fact that my world is created in the image of Ti. I "see" everything as a system, as rules, etc. A Se "user" sees the world full of opportunity and experience. And so on.

I've used the "use" nomenclature before, simply because everyone knows what I'm talking about when I do. But if we're going to analyze what functions really are, then no, I don't they are used by the individual, but the opposite.


Sim's ideas on how functions work overall seem extremely odd to me, I'm sure I'd be getting some amusement out of prodding him on the topic if he was actually around. Since he isn't though, and this question relates essentially to his own highly idiosyncratic functional and semantic definitions, do you think much can be gained by asking others what he might have meant?

Personally if I was you I'd want to go straight to the horse's mouth on this one and try to hammer out what he actually meant by it rather than asking people here to speculate on his intent, which I don't see as being likely to get very far. If you can actually get a clear definition from him of what he means by it, I can happily criticise the definition, but trying to work out what might be going on inside Sim's head to make him come up with such statements in the first place is a bit beyond me, sorry! :newwink:

It's not difficult. If you read Psychological Types, you will understand Sim's viewpoint, as I think he's largely a Jungian at this point from what I've read of Sim's more recent thoughts. He also likes Lenore Thomson, though for the life of me I cannot figure out why.
 

William K

Uniqueorn
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
986
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Your functions use you. Your functions shape your world. I'd try to think of it like your eyes. You can direct your eyes to things to look at, but what you ultimately see is what your eyes/brain choose to let you see.

I prefer the spotlight/torchlight analogy myself, though I guess eyes work as well. You can widen and narrow your eyes as well in addition to focusing them on things.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Your functions use you. Your functions shape your world. I'd try to think of it like your eyes. You can direct your eyes to things to look at, but what you ultimately see is what your eyes/brain choose to let you see.

Yes, they shape your world, along with a plethora of other factors like culture, learned behavior, and psychological disposition. Not to be confused with dictate.
 

ragashree

Reason vs Being
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
1,770
MBTI Type
Mine
Enneagram
1w9
It's not difficult. If you read Psychological Types, you will understand Sim's viewpoint, as I think he's largely a Jungian at this point from what I've read of Sim's more recent thoughts.
Quite possibly, but I don't wish to simply project a standard Jungian perspective on the man who once insisted that he'd only ever experienced the Ni function during a bad psychedelic drugs trip. Certainly not without more information about what his, umm, unique perspective actually constitutes in this instance. There may be other things going on there that Jung never dreamed of in his wild mandala induced reveries, scary things... ;)

He also likes Lenore Thomson, though for the life of me I cannot figure out why.
I find the brain lateralisation link to functions quite interesting, if scarcely conclusive ;) Some of her typings for well known people are better than the standard ones too, so she must have something going for her. I was interested enough to want to read up a bit more anyway.
 

wired

New member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
17
MBTI Type
INTJ
A thought:

By being relatively concious of the way we interpret our perceptions/ thoughts, we can make changes for ourselves (like stopping a thought pattern that doesn't work at that time), if necessary, to aid reaching our goals.
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
GOTTA CATCH THEM ALL

I want to be the very best,
Like no one ever was.
To catch them is my real test,
To train them is my cause.

I will travel across the land,
Searching far and wide.
Each function to understand
The power that's inside

(Gotta catch 'em all)

It's you and me
I know it's my destiny

Faculties!

You're my best friend
In a world we must defend
Faculties

(Gotta catch 'em all)

A heart so true
Our courage will pull us through
You teach me and I'll teach you
Faculties

(Gotta catch 'em all)

yeah

(verse 2)
every challenge along the way
with courage i will face
i will battle everyday
to claim my rightful place

come with me the time is right
theres no better team
arm and arm well win the fight
its always been our dream

Faculties

Chorus
(Gotta catach 'em all)

its you and me
i know its my destiny

Faculties

Oh, your my best friend
in a world we must defend

A heart so true
our courage will pull us through
you teach me and ill teach you
Faculties

(Gatta catach 'em all)x4

Yeah!

Faculties!

COLLECT ALL EIGHT COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS TODAY.
 

InsatiableCuriosity

New member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
698
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
Just a little comment to insert here:

When we test for actual MBTI (as opposed to adaptive tests) it is standard to ask people to complete their choices in a laid back, feet up manner. This is so that the MBTI administrator can result the true preferences of the individual.

Many HR companies do MBTI based testing for job placement but there is a distinct possibility, particularly where only slight preference is demonstrated in the "laid back, feet up" testing, there could be a difference demonstrated. The J/P dichotomy in particular could show differences as those with a slight preference for P in private life may answer with more J type answers when in job seeking mode.

Now this for me might suggest that when filling out a job application, we might be self-limiting as we answer questions in the way we might expect an employer to want???
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
...
Now this for me might suggest that when filling out a job application, we might be self-limiting as we answer questions in the way we might expect an employer to want???

Is that a question? If it'll get you the job, why wouldn't you? Unless you don't want the job...I've always bullshitted those tests and always will.
 

InsatiableCuriosity

New member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
698
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
Is that a question? If it'll get you the job, why wouldn't you? Unless you don't want the job...I've always bullshitted those tests and always will.

I don't think I consciously could - I would be terrified I would get the job and be obligated to not be myself :shock:

"self determination" is not something I would readily trade even for a job unless I were starving.
 

slowriot

He who laughs
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
1,314
Enneagram
5w4
Is that a question? If it'll get you the job, why wouldn't you? Unless you don't want the job...I've always bullshitted those tests and always will.

how do you know what they want and what will fit the position best in their eyes? Or have you only applied for low paid jobs where no one cares?
 

wired

New member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
17
MBTI Type
INTJ
I think it's possible over time to adapt our cognitive processes (subconciously/ conciously) to better fit our individual circumstances.

I do think that by strengthening and focusing on specific things, you always lose in other areas.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Is that a question? If it'll get you the job, why wouldn't you? Unless you don't want the job...I've always bullshitted those tests and always will.

Couldn't that be like wearing a crown and pretending to be King when you have no idea how to govern?... Why would you want a job that you're not acclimated to?
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
He also likes Lenore Thomson, though for the life of me I cannot figure out why.
Sim is spot on on this!
His basis of speaking against "using" fuctions is that functions are perspectives or "world-views". the example he used that made it click for me was that instead of "using Te" to organize a desk, you see he desk through the lens of Te, which then seeks to create maximum external efficiency.
From here, I saw how this works with the archetype theory, and extended it as such:

If the person has Te as the "hero" function (ETJ), then organizing the desk might be his way of "saving the day". If it's "parent" (ITJ), organizing the desk might tend to come out more in the form of instructing the other person who left it messy. If Te is child or inferior (FP's), the act of straightening the table may be more like a good deed, done innocently, perhaps to win approval, or just because they gain some relief doing so. If it's shadow (TP/FJ), the circumstances surrounding organizing might tend to be more negative, and they likely won't even be conscious of this.
An ITP might become stubborn about external order (matching an internal blueprint) if the ego feels threatened in any way by some other order, and externally setting and maintaining that order will end up coming off as "oppositional". An ETP will tend to be even more critical of others concerning the order. An IFJ might tend to make mistakes, such as throwing out important papers. An EFJ might work up a frenzy and totally wear themselves out organizing the desk for others, when the others might not even care. The need to organize stems from their extraverted Feeling, but if they are under stress, the perspective changes, and they over-focus on the impersonal logic aspect of the ordering. The normally less relevant functional perspective ends up surfacing in a "huffy" manner that we can loosely associate with an archetypal manifestation.

So looking at them as perspectives made it all finally fall into place for me. And both of us were influenced by Lenore, so while we might not agree with everything she says, she has been an invaluable additional perspective to understanding the eight functions.

It's the other way of seeing it people have fallen into, of treating the functions as behaviors or skills sets (hence, "using" them), that has lent itself to what has become called "folk-typology". Even Lenore will sometimes say "use". It's easier to say, in passing. But she is the one who points out that they are the ways we build neurological connections, and that the "product", as she terms it, of an undifferentiated (basically, "shadow") function can come into consciousness as good as anything else, as long as it's going along with the ego and not triggering a complex from the unconsciousness. Hence, it's not really about "using" the function; it's anout consciousness or unconsciousness.
 

InsatiableCuriosity

New member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
698
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
If the person has Te as the "hero" function (ETJ), then organizing the desk might be his way of "saving the day". If it's "parent" (ITJ), organizing the desk might tend to come out more in the form of instructing the other person who left it messy. If Te is child or inferior (FP's), the act of straightening the table may be more like a good deed, done innocently, perhaps to win approval, or just because they gain some relief doing so. If it's shadow (TP/FJ), the circumstances surrounding organizing might tend to be more negative, and they likely won't even be conscious of this.

I had never considered before the relationship between the old Transactional Analysis theory and Functions. TA surmises that all interpersonal transactions are undertaken as an Adult, Parent or Child, and crossed transactional roles can become dysfunctional.
 
Top