Dual Preference Order

[WALMART]

A few days ago I had a passing idea that the inferior function's opposite is the theoretic last preferred/least developed function. Since, the concept has grown slightly in scope.


The implications are as follows:


ENTP - Ne/Ni/Ti/Te/Fe/Fi/Si/Se

ISTP - Ti/Te/Se/Si/Ni/Ne/Fe/Fi

INFJ - Ni/Ne/Fe/Fi/Ti/Te/Se/Si

ESFJ - Fe/Fi/Si/Se/Ne/Ni/Ti/Te

Etc.


If drawn out proper, it would look a little something like this:

The secondary function set is perhaps actuated by extenuating circumstance, such as stress at work or being placed in an unfamiliar/uncomfortable situation. I know in my case when under stress, I become less of a Ti user and more of a Te user, but not an inefficient Te user... also in line with my thinking is that I am highly insusceptible to displaying Fi, perhaps making it my last theoretical preferred function.

An example of external thinking would be an ENTP undergoing relationship troubles, attempting to Ni signs out of every gleaning spot of information available. It is not a preferred modus operandi, but exists nonetheless.

I suppose, if you'd like to weigh in, consider the opposites of your dominant through inferior functions and how/when you actually use them, presuming you do. Can you relate at all to this? Are you aware of theory already in this vein? I've heard Socionics has an opinion of shadow functions similar to mine.



Anyways, this is just fun, self-indulgent thinking for me, any critique encouraged.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Hey thanks for posting this. Well anyway, we mentioned on Vent that though a Ti dominant may be sufficiently skilled in the use of Te, he may not actually have a preference or natural instincts for the use of that function, kind of like how you could be built athletically tall and be talented at basketball, but nonetheless be a type like INFJ and hence have no interest in the sport, common to the stereotypes for such a type.

So I guess we can conclude that skill in the corresponding shadow functions higher on the heirarchy is not necessarily proportional to preference.

 

[INTP]

Ne working in the framework of Si without immediate external stimuli might look like Ni to someone who doesent understand how functions work together and beliefs in beebean model of 8 functions. same can happen with other I/E function pairs, for example INTP might go into a mode that looks like Fi, but is really just Ti rationalizing contents that Fe is providing. dom Ne being analyzed by Ti might look like Te.

from what you are saying, you idea of what it means for a function to be extraverted or introverted doesent seems to be in line with jungian/MBTI model, but is clearly more of an beebean model way of thinking.

for example:

It is no proof of its extraverted nature(of T) that it is preoccupied with concrete objects, since I may be engaging my thoughts with a concrete object, either because I am abstracting my thought from it or because I am concretizing my thought with it. Even if I engage my thinking with concrete things, and to that extent could be described as extraverted, it yet remains both questionable and characteristic as regards the direction my thinking will take; namely, whether in its further course it leads back again to objective data, external facts, and generally accepted ideas, or not.

("abstracting my thought from it" means Ti introverting from extraverted function, "concretizing my thought with it" would be Te)

in beebes model(or other 8 function models) this would be labeled always as Te, even tho in jungs model it could either be Te alone or Ti working with E function.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I'm actually pretty interested in JTRs theory, as it is only by turning the accepted conventions on their head that we can hope for new discoveries, so it follows that if we are to learn more about Typology, we should introduce radical developments such as this theory on shadow functions and the role they play under stressful circumstances with the primary functions.

I am therefore curious about what folks such as [MENTION=6554]DisneyGeek[/MENTION] [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION] [MENTION=7760]LEGERdeMAIN[/MENTION] [MENTION=13589]Mal+[/MENTION] [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION] [MENTION=15978]Typoz[/MENTION] and [MENTION=9325]ZPowers[/MENTION] think of this theory. Any input would be appreciated.

 

[Amargith]

I'll subscribe to it. My function strengths go: Ne=Fi, Ni=Fe, Si=Te, Se,Ti and I do get the 'are you sure you aint an INFJ' thing occasionally.

 

[WALMART]

Ne working in the framework of Si without immediate external stimuli might look like Ni to someone who doesent understand how functions work together and beliefs in beebean model of 8 functions. same can happen with other I/E function pairs, for example INTP might go into a mode that looks like Fi, but is really just Ti rationalizing contents that Fe is providing. dom Ne being analyzed by Ti might look like Te.

from what you are saying, you idea of what it means for a function to be extraverted or introverted doesent seems to be in line with jungian/MBTI model, but is clearly more of an beebean model way of thinking.

for example:



("abstracting my thought from it" means Ti introverting from extraverted function, "concretizing my thought with it" would be Te)

in beebes model(or other 8 function models) this would be labeled always as Te, even tho in jungs model it could either be Te alone or Ti working with E function.

Why not just call it Ni then?


It's been hard for me to break away from the literal interpretations of function implications. If Ni and Si are varying ways of calling upon information, are they not mutually exclusive in their operation? It is safe to say then that people possess both modes of functioning at different preference levels, varying conditions surfacing varying functions. I don't find it fair to say an Ni-dom Ni's at all times and never Si's. I would call an Ne dom Si'ing to be Ni'ing well before I would say it is an Ne/Si duality, though I suppose both provide the same final input.


I intended to provide a companion thread to this one, about 'function literalism'. I'm still working out potentialities and things of the like.

I'll subscribe to it. My function strengths go: Ne=Fi, Ni=Fe, Si=Te, Se,Ti and I do get the 'are you sure you aint an INFJ' thing occasionally.

Ah, if you do, that is wonderfully in line with my thinking. Though I never get mistaken for an ESTJ?

[MENTION=15371]RaptorWizard[/MENTION], this would also explain why you get ENTP and INTJ at varying rates, eh?

 

[cascadeco]

Well, a physiognomy/video i.d.-er on here once insisted I was an ENFP based on my mannerisms and how my face twitched/eyes moved when I thought and spoke, so sure, to the OP, why not?

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

I have some thoughts on this, but I just got off work. I'll respond in... TBD.

 

[Venom]

It would certainly explain the entp/intj ENFP/INFJ confusions... Not sure it works as well across the board. Is an ENTJ and an intp often confused? Is an ISFP oft confused for ESFJ? Not that any of those last sentences matter...

I often do think part of the problem of the "unfalsifiiable" natures of MBTI is examples like:
Te can look like Ti Se.
Ti can look like Ni Te.

A model like yours would absolve us of it, allow us to have our cakes and eat them too. Ultimately allowing us to simply get back to the damn profile type descriptions!

 

[/DG/]

This is an interesting theory...and I suppose it could shed some more light on function tests and why people tend to score high on both Ne and Ni, both Fi and Fe, etc.

But then again, I don't know exactly why the current functions are ordered the way the are.

Sorry [MENTION=15371]RaptorWizard[/MENTION]. I don't have much of a response.

 

[The Great One]

[MENTION=15371]RaptorWizard[/MENTION]

My Ne is strong, Ni is fairly strong, Ti I'm trying to develop, Te is okay, Fe is very developed, Fi is okay, Si sucks, and Se not the best either.

 

[WALMART]

Researching just now, the term "shadow functions" relates directly to this thread. Always a day late and dollar short. Thank you, Linda V. Berens, for affirming the fact that I am on the right track of my studies.

 

[Eric B]

The functions were originally conceived singular. S, N, T and F. When the ego chooses its dominant function and dominant orientation, it pairs them together, and then the other functions and their attitudes fall into place in a reflective manner. But you can still look at them as single functions that lean toward one attitude or the other, but are a little bit on the other side as well. This is what Team technology calls the "Mental Muscles". The archetypal complexes, according to Beebe's model, then show some of the contexts the other side will surface in.

 

[miss fortune]

but for a few questions here... are these functions truly opposite or possibly complementary in a manner in which they can work together?

what if someone has an inborn preference for one function but consciously chooses to embrace and work on another aspect of their personality?

who is to say that there aren't over a million different personality combinations available?

how would different degrees of usage effect the overall personality?



so many questions... so little time

 

[WALMART]

but for a few questions here... are these functions truly opposite or possibly complementary in a manner in which they can work together?

what if someone has an inborn preference for one function but consciously chooses to embrace and work on another aspect of their personality?

who is to say that there aren't over a million different personality combinations available?

how would different degrees of usage effect the overall personality?



so many questions... so little time

Functions in this theory aren't opposite, they are very closely coexistent. I suppose one observation I made was a user's self typing as Ne auxiliary and Ni as the absolute last preferred function. I find that impossible, frankly.


I'm at my phone, but I'll write a better response when my internet comes back up.

 

[miss fortune]

Functions in this theory aren't opposite, they are very closely coexistent. I suppose one observation I made was a user's self typing as Ne auxiliary and Ni as the absolute last preferred function. I find that impossible, frankly.


I'm at my phone, but I'll write a better response when my internet comes back up.

you DO realize that people are weirdos and that because of this fact nothing is absolutely impossible don't you?

just threw out these questions because none of the strict function theorists are ever able to explain any of these things in manners I can't poke holes in