# Thread: Moving past 1D function use

1. My dominant is Ni, and I struggle sometimes with having my thoughts all over the place. I think this is common with how N works. Your mind is better at seeing the full range of possibilties (compared with those who are S). Coming up with ideas is easy. Deciding which one(s) to go with is difficult. There is a strong tempation to want to go with all of them. Even if I narrow them down down to a 4th of of my original ideas they will still be all over the map.

This post is a good example. There were many different ideas in this thread I could post about, but I decided to narrow it down to one.

So what is it that helps me to pick just one (or maybe two or three) out of all my ideas to go with and what helps decide to go with just one instead of attempting all of them or 5 of them? Is it a more developed N? I am thinking that a more developed N would just give me even more possibilties, though it might give me a sense of which of my ideas were most important. I think it is one of the judging traits (or maybe both working together) that help narrow it down and give it focus.

T would use logic and analysis to find the most important point(s) and F would use feelings and values to find the most important point(s).

But what about the decision to narrow it down to one or two points and become more focused? For me it is because it seems more logical. T tells me it is generally better to go indepth with one thing than do a little with a whole bunch of points. This feels like a N v. T thing because part of me (N) still wants to do everything, and part of me (T) says it would be better to focus more.

I am not sure how F would help some one to make the decision to do just one thing instead of everything, but I am guessing it does some how. Really anything I say about F is mostly a guess based on things I've read, since my F is relatively week.

I think there may be a learning from experience factor as well. The realization that I spend lots of time and effort learing new things and have never gotten better than intermediate at any of them. I sometimes think of how good I might have been at something if I narrowed my focus to becoming really good at just a few things. This inspires me to try to stay more focused.

Ilah

2. Originally Posted by proteanmix

I'm not really good at explaining what I think and I usually find that visuals are the best way to explain what I think. I use that picture as a representation of varying levels of individual function usage.
I don't understand what those images are supposed to represent really. Are we trying to be a collection of circles?
It's so hard to find good expressions of abstracted and functional dominant functions on the forum. I'm going to use Ne because I think it's one of the easiest functions that you can "see" being used. I'm not trying to pick on anyone I'm just choosing members that are good examples of what I want to communicate.

CzeCze and Liquid Laser exhibit good Ne grounded with their introverted judgment. They're able to accurately find the relevant points of connection between ideas and communicate them easily and it clear for people to understand. Some ENPs on the forum think that being random and disconnected is being Ne, or more generally obfuscating things is being intuitive. I also think that this is how someone becomes "intuitive" on the forum, by showing exaggerated manifestations of Ne and Ni.
What you're describing is a combination of Ne and Ti.
Being random and disconnected IS being an ENFP.
If ENFPs are going to accurately sift through ideas and come to universally communicable conclusions then they need to use their thinking function, which is extroverted and therefore far more effective when in an external medium such as speech or forum posts.

The spontaneity of ENFPs is not only one of their defining qualities, it is the most efficient way for them to come to solid and applicable conclusions, reliance on their introverted judging capabilities (Fi) will make for illogical and silently held ideas.

Back on topic, it is using Ne but it's using it in a 1D way. Anyone can be random and make unlikely connections but I don't think mature use of a function is that ostentatious. TLL and Cze don't seem to get bogged down in possibilities or connections that lead to dead ends. For example, CzeCze will come into a discussion and summarize and unify they most pertinent points or the way Liquid Laser has better arguments and sounder logic than a good number of INTPs on the forum. Judging by their forum behavior, I'd say they've moved into at least 3D use of their dominant function.
Obviously Cze doesn't get bogged down in dead ends, her agenda is one of peace and unification. If she's not trying to make an original point how could be possibly end up in the muck?

ENTPs are the #1 argument building type, they FAR surpass INTPs due to their focus on the external.

I don't see how you could possibly perceive an ENTP displaying what is quintessential behavior for his type to be exceptional mastery of a function. I am also unable to see how summary can be seen as an effective and admirable use of Ne.
Not picking on CaptainChick (), but CC is a good example of someone who floats between 2D and beyond usage of her dominant Ne. You see her making the connections, but she's not sure which ones are worth investigating further. Sometimes this makes her seem scattered and all of the map. This manifests itself IRL with the jack of all trades, master of none attitude that many EPs have. Not knowing where to focus their possibility or sensation seeking abilities and explode it into something great within their chosen area of interest. It gets scattered like leaves in the wind.
As already stated, it is unreasonable to expect an ENFP with a decisive motivation to be able to find their own direction quickly and without aid. Since the primary judging capability of an ENFP is internalized feeling, the decision to involve themselves in an argument is as they can go before needing to externalize.

Judging ENFPs according to their inclination for impulsiveness and heart felt side taking is incredibly unfair to them. If anything an ENFP who displays greater motivation to involve themselves aggressively in a discussion is displaying a healthy use of their Fi (realizing it is more of a motivational compass than a decisive function) and should be commended.

So I need to agree with BlueWing here and say that you're totally off base. It is better to develop the relationships between all of your functions than to focus on getting as much out of your dominant functions as possible.

3. Originally Posted by murkrow
So I need to agree with BlueWing here and say that you're totally off base. It is better to develop the relationships between all of your functions than to focus on getting as much out of your dominant functions as possible.
From what I can tell they are simply using different language to describe a similar thing. Not only should one seek to use their functions proficiently, but in order to do so the functions need to work together.

For example I think one of the reasons I've always had an easy time using Ti is that my dad is an INTP. This is probably an ideal mentor for an ENTP because he can easily engage my primary function Ne while challenging my auxiliary Ti. Really I can't simply develop Ti in a vacuum. It's more appropriate for me to have a starting point of Ne and use that to engage Ti as much as possible. Ne and Ti are mostly useless by themselves, but they are extremely useful when both are working together well. In general the best way to access the other functions in a useful way is through the primary function (or possibly the auxiliary). The primary gives you a starting point of strength and that makes it easier to effectively use the other functions.

(Aside: In general I think the best mentor for a person is their E/I counterpart. They use the same functions, but the function that needs to be developed, the auxiliary, is the primary for the mentor.)

4. Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser
From what I can tell they are simply using different language to describe a similar thing. Not only should one seek to use their functions proficiently, but in order to do so the functions need to work together.

For example I think one of the reasons I've always had an easy time using Ti is that my dad is an INTP. This is probably an ideal mentor for an ENTP because he can easily engage my primary function Ne while challenging my auxiliary Ti. Really I can't simply develop Ti in a vacuum. It's more appropriate for me to have a starting point of Ne and use that to engage Ti as much as possible. Ne and Ti are mostly useless by themselves, but they are extremely useful when both are working together well. In general the best way to access the other functions in a useful way is through the primary function (or possibly the auxiliary). The primary gives you a starting point of strength and that makes it easier to effectively use the other functions.

(Aside: In general I think the best mentor for a person is their E/I counterpart. They use the same functions, but the function that needs to be developed, the auxiliary, is the primary for the mentor.)
I wonder what others' experience is with their E/I counterpart. That'd be ENFJ for me and that type is absolutely hardest for me to read--they do Fe so well and I can't cut through it always to get at what they're really thinking. About all I've really picked up from them in using Fe is remembering to give compliments more, a pretty shallow imitation of their gifts.

In contrast, just about every single one of my coauthors and cotrainers prefers ENFP and I find it's taught me to be flexible, spontaneous, willing to experiment in the moment, hold off on finalizing, etc.

5. Originally Posted by murkrow
I don't understand what those images are supposed to represent really. Are we trying to be a collection of circles?

What you're describing is a combination of Ne and Ti.
Being random and disconnected IS being an ENFP.
If ENFPs are going to accurately sift through ideas and come to universally communicable conclusions then they need to use their thinking function, which is extroverted and therefore far more effective when in an external medium such as speech or forum posts.

The spontaneity of ENFPs is not only one of their defining qualities, it is the most efficient way for them to come to solid and applicable conclusions, reliance on their introverted judging capabilities (Fi) will make for illogical and silently held ideas.

Obviously Cze doesn't get bogged down in dead ends, her agenda is one of peace and unification. If she's not trying to make an original point how could be possibly end up in the muck?

ENTPs are the #1 argument building type, they FAR surpass INTPs due to their focus on the external.

I don't see how you could possibly perceive an ENTP displaying what is quintessential behavior for his type to be exceptional mastery of a function. I am also unable to see how summary can be seen as an effective and admirable use of Ne.

As already stated, it is unreasonable to expect an ENFP with a decisive motivation to be able to find their own direction quickly and without aid. Since the primary judging capability of an ENFP is internalized feeling, the decision to involve themselves in an argument is as they can go before needing to externalize.

Judging ENFPs according to their inclination for impulsiveness and heart felt side taking is incredibly unfair to them. If anything an ENFP who displays greater motivation to involve themselves aggressively in a discussion is displaying a healthy use of their Fi (realizing it is more of a motivational compass than a decisive function) and should be commended.

So I need to agree with BlueWing here and say that you're totally off base. It is better to develop the relationships between all of your functions than to focus on getting as much out of your dominant functions as possible.
1)How is being able to summarize indicative of sound use of Extroverted Intuition?

It is not. An ability to summarize soundly is most akin to quality use of Thinking, as in order to summarize soundly one must see structure clear in the presented material and be able to focus on what is truly relevant. This, more than anything else, requires competent use of Thinking.

However, Extroverted Intuition is primarily concerned with perception of the external environment. Very often, the Extroverted Intuitive will joggle multiple perspectives without a clear-cut agenda. This is very common among ENTP philosophers. This is the case because what we have here is pure perception of the external environment with little influence of judgment. For this reason, we will often see the Ne dominant, especially the ENTP, recapitulate the aforementioned claims before proceeding to his own.

2) ENTPs are better argument generators than INTPs.

Why would someone say this? Because their Intuition is more active? In that case, why not the ENFP, who is even more intuitive due to being less inhibited by judgment? Or how about the INFJ, the most Intuitive type of all.

This is implausible. Logic is conventionally referred to as the 'science of arguments'. Is this titling justified? We ought to ask, what is an argument? An argument is a chain of reasoning to the end of showing how a given proposition holds true. In order to perform this, one needs to be able to clearly analyze the previously propounded ideas, and provide logical structure for the thoughts he wishes to respond with to what has been propounded. Both, without a doubt require the use of Thinking first and foremost. It is important to be able to perceive what has been said clearly, this requires Intuition, and to make connections between ideas one already has in mind, this also requires Intuition, yet this does not require an exceptional utilization of this faculty. Or in other words, this activity does not exhort you to stretch your imagination extensively.

The primarily quality required for building an argument is being able to reason soundly. Thinking has most dispositions for the soundness of this practice. Introverted Thinking more than Extroverted Thinking because the former is closer to the essence of Thinking than the latter.

Intuition does play some role, however, less salient because the core of an argument is logical structure. Intuition is important, once more, this is why we do not see the ISTPs or ESTJs on the same level as the NTs, however, I do not see the foundation for the claim that the Thinking type with a dominant Intuitive function shall be superior at the use of Thinking (argument) than the Intuitive type with a dominant Thinking function. The closer the function is to being primary, the more naturally gifted we tend to be with the use thereof.

ENTPs however, will have more ideas relevant to the topics debated, yet they will have a more difficult of a time generating sound argument than the INTPs because their Thinking is less accessible. Concocting an argument is more than conjuring ideas, it is to a more significant extent about giving structure to those ideas.

6. Originally Posted by Ilah
My dominant is Ni, and I struggle sometimes with having my thoughts all over the place. I think this is common with how N works. Your mind is better at seeing the full range of possibilties (compared with those who are S). Coming up with ideas is easy. Deciding which one(s) to go with is difficult. There is a strong tempation to want to go with all of them. Even if I narrow them down down to a 4th of of my original ideas they will still be all over the map.

This post is a good example. There were many different ideas in this thread I could post about, but I decided to narrow it down to one.

So what is it that helps me to pick just one (or maybe two or three) out of all my ideas to go with and what helps decide to go with just one instead of attempting all of them or 5 of them? Is it a more developed N? I am thinking that a more developed N would just give me even more possibilties, though it might give me a sense of which of my ideas were most important. I think it is one of the judging traits (or maybe both working together) that help narrow it down and give it focus.

T would use logic and analysis to find the most important point(s) and F would use feelings and values to find the most important point(s).

But what about the decision to narrow it down to one or two points and become more focused? For me it is because it seems more logical. T tells me it is generally better to go indepth with one thing than do a little with a whole bunch of points. This feels like a N v. T thing because part of me (N) still wants to do everything, and part of me (T) says it would be better to focus more.

I am not sure how F would help some one to make the decision to do just one thing instead of everything, but I am guessing it does some how. Really anything I say about F is mostly a guess based on things I've read, since my F is relatively week.

I think there may be a learning from experience factor as well. The realization that I spend lots of time and effort learing new things and have never gotten better than intermediate at any of them. I sometimes think of how good I might have been at something if I narrowed my focus to becoming really good at just a few things. This inspires me to try to stay more focused.

Ilah
I can relate to much of what you say here. My weakness is that it isn't always important to me to analyze all aspects of a thread especially if a strongly social component enters the picture. As an introvert my filtering takes longer and requires much more time to reflect. One key point is enough to keep me busy in my mind for hours. I read the OP and glance over the thread and will tend to choose a point that strikes me as fundamental to the discussion that hasn't been analyzed in sufficient depth. Other times a particular point will just strike my mind and I find myself analyzing it as i go through the day until i formulate a theory built on that core idea. As someone who leans towards F over T, the main difference I am aware of is the content of material that catches my attention. This is typically the more subjective systems that are easily misrepresented in discussion. In the same way an INTJ works to create technical and theoretical efficiency, I suspect the INFJ prefers efficiency when dealing in more subjective systems like perception, values, and emotion. I understand Ni to distill complexity to its core so that the principle can be reapplied in an endless variety of contexts efficiently. It's an approach to thinking that values cohesion while maintaining plasticity.

FYI: I chose this point because Ne has been discussed, and now Ni is introduced from the vantage point of a T. My post is an attempt to complete the missing piece of the attempt to show examples of various functions. There is much more to look at in this thread, but this one point happened to strike me.

7. Originally Posted by BlueWing
2) ENTPs are better argument generators than INTPs.

Why would someone say this? Because their Intuition is more active? In that case, why not the ENFP, who is even more intuitive due to being less inhibited by judgment? Or how about the INFJ, the most Intuitive type of all.

This is implausible. Logic is conventionally referred to as the 'science of arguments'. Is this titling justified? We ought to ask, what is an argument? An argument is a chain of reasoning to the end of showing how a given proposition holds true. In order to perform this, one needs to be able to clearly analyze the previously propounded ideas, and provide logical structure for the thoughts he wishes to respond with to what has been propounded. Both, without a doubt require the use of Thinking first and foremost. It is important to be able to perceive what has been said clearly, this requires Intuition, and to make connections between ideas one already has in mind, this also requires Intuition, yet this does not require an exceptional utilization of this faculty. Or in other words, this activity does not exhort you to stretch your imagination extensively.

The primarily quality required for building an argument is being able to reason soundly. Thinking has most dispositions for the soundness of this practice. Introverted Thinking more than Extroverted Thinking because the former is closer to the essence of Thinking than the latter.

Intuition does play some role, however, less salient because the core of an argument is logical structure. Intuition is important, once more, this is why we do not see the ISTPs or ESTJs on the same level as the NTs, however, I do not see the foundation for the claim that the Thinking type with a dominant Intuitive function shall be superior at the use of Thinking (argument) than the Intuitive type with a dominant Thinking function. The closer the function is to being primary, the more naturally gifted we tend to be with the use thereof.

ENTPs however, will have more ideas relevant to the topics debated, yet they will have a more difficult of a time generating sound argument than the INTPs because their Thinking is less accessible. Concocting an argument is more than conjuring ideas, it is to a more significant extent about giving structure to those ideas.
Due to their focus on an extroverted function, ENTPs are more likely to see the whole of an issue than INTPs are. There is also the matter of how to measure the capability of an arguer, is it their ability to sway the opinion of others or their ability to build solid reasoning? I agree with you that an INTP has the upper hand in the way of solid reasoning, however the tertiary Fe and focus on the external world gives ENTPs a significant boost in the way of convincing others.

An INTP will often attack one aspect of an issue voraciously while ignoring "the big picture" and therefore will only convince those who have given specific consideration to that aspect of the discussion.

Every NT type has it's own specialty in the way of debate (maybe not INTJ) but when it comes to the ability to broadly convince I see ENTPs as the dominant type.

8. Originally Posted by murkrow
Due to their focus on an extroverted function, ENTPs are more likely to see the whole of an issue than INTPs are. There is also the matter of how to measure the capability of an arguer, is it their ability to sway the opinion of others or their ability to build solid reasoning? I agree with you that an INTP has the upper hand in the way of solid reasoning, however the tertiary Fe and focus on the external world gives ENTPs a significant boost in the way of convincing others.

An INTP will often attack one aspect of an issue voraciously while ignoring "the big picture" and therefore will only convince those who have given specific consideration to that aspect of the discussion.

Every NT type has it's own specialty in the way of debate (maybe not INTJ) but when it comes to the ability to broadly convince I see ENTPs as the dominant type.
You seem to be using the term argument in a colloquial fashion, or closely akin to the 'art of persuasion'.

This is not relevant to the essence of argument which is a reasoning process concocted to the end of arriving at the truth.

The ENTP is the most persuasive of the NTs because Ne leads them to be attuned with the perceptions of others, hence they know how to put on the right image and the applied personal charisma (Fe). Not nearly as persuasive as the NFs. The most prominent propagandists and writers and of the people were the NFs.

Bottom line is, from the standpoint of traditonal scholarly definition of 'argument', persuasiveness is irrelevant.

9. I thought that was called reasoning.

10. Originally Posted by murkrow
I thought that was called reasoning.
Yes. Logic is traditionally referred to as the science of arguments. No distinction between the two. (Logic is the essence of reasoning as it outlines the proper laws of thought)

#### 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