## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by sleepless
I think there is a point in having not more than one basic approach to life (Dominant function, that is), instead of some compromise between two or more. The Ti and Ni approach (for example) collide with each other and doesn't approve of the other.
It makes sense that one would be dominant, but the fact that they contradict each other is a good thing. For an ISTP, Ni will take Ti out of one narrow path of analysis, opening the ISTP to new ideas. For an INFJ, Ti will knock down Ni ideas that don't make sense. The functions have to keep each other in check because alone they're all pretty much useless.

Any good idea is going to be N (new idea to contemplate) analyzed by T (using deductive logic to see if it makes sense). S needs to ground N ideas in concrete terms, F needs to okay an idea to motivate T to analyze it.

2. Well, it's just my personal experience that Ti interferes far too much with Ni, to a point where it becomes slightly destructive. The thing is, I feel like I don't have to worry about my Ti, I overuse it anyway, and it will knock down ideas that don't make sense, or at least try to. Sometimes it tries hard at it, but doesn't succeed. Ti: "This doesn't make any sense." Ni: "Well, obviously it's still my perception. What am I going to do about that?" Our third function is actually often our second most used function, as it lets us keep our dominant I/E, and especially so we're having problems with our Auxiliary, as for me. Still, I can see the need to "check" your Dominant, but I say the fourth function should do that, as being the opposite of your Dom.

3. Every function should check every other one, honestly.

I think the reason we're disagreeing at all is that we understand the functions differently. I've done a ton of work over the last few months trying to figure out a computer science-ey model of how these functions would interact (I'm pretty obsessed with programming). Plus, I talked to BW on AIM for hours and hours (and nocapszy too) until my model made complete sense to me and included every single possible cognitive behavior. (Behavior is a key word, not motivation.)

On top of that, I'm probably much more T than you are and much less F. Even within type, there is room for variation.

4. Originally Posted by dissonance
On top of that, I'm probably much more T than you are and much less F. Even within type, there is room for variation.
My position is that you can't escape your type per se, but your strengths and weaknesses compared to another of the same type can be like night and day. Of course, you and I don't seem to agree on much related to personality study, so don't "take my word for it."

5. Originally Posted by Jack Flak
My position is that you can't escape your type per se,
Well not INTPs anyway. We can only seem to escape it per Ne.

6. I never take anyone's word for it.

We do agree on this, though. (You pretty much said exactly what I said, lol.)

7. I posted a couple of posts back and would like to change what I said a little, and back up what dissonance said about how every function should check every other one. The first two functions seem to be the most natural to use. In an emotionally unhealthy person, there seems to be a split between the first and the second function. For example, In an unhealthy INFJ, they are having trouble using Ni and Fe together to make decisions. In a healthy INFJ, they can use both Ni and Fe together to make decisions because their tertiary, Ti, is serving as a "translator" if you will, between the first two functions. Se, their shadow function, may do the same thing as Ti but in an unconscious sort of way.

In short, the first two functions are two wise men speaking different languages. The tertiary is a translator between the first two functions, and the shadow determines how good of a translator the tertiary is.

That's the way I think of it.

8. Originally Posted by dissonance
(You pretty much said exactly what I said, lol.)
I attempted, and possibly failed, to differentiate.

It seemed as if you were saying people "lean" toward T if they are F, whereas I consider them never to lean away from what they are, just having addditional skills.

9. What do you mean by "what they are" though? People lean all over the place. Lots of Fs lean away from T, I'd say healthy Fs lean towards. Just like healthy Ts lean toward F, healthy Ns lean towards S, etc.

In IJs and EPs, T and F doesn't really mean as much anyway. Both T and F are somewhat in the grips of the dominant. They should hopefully both be consciously referenced as much as possible.

I'm probably still not understanding you. What's the difference between leaning towards T and developing T?

10. Originally Posted by dissonance
What do you mean by "what they are" though? People lean all over the place. Lots of Fs lean away from T, I'd say healthy Fs lean towards. Just like healthy Ts lean toward F, healthy Ns lean towards S, etc.

In IJs and EPs, T and F doesn't really mean as much anyway. Both T and F are somewhat in the grips of the dominant. They should hopefully both be consciously referenced as much as possible.

I'm probably still not understanding you. What's the difference between leaning towards T and developing T?
Fundamentally, it comes down to the preference. An intellectual genius could be INFP. He'd still prefer feeling.

We see things very differently. I don't follow the "developing functions" argument, even. I base type on categorizations to sixteen types, and other categories not verbalized. People always seem to act according to type, though they are individuals. INFPs always act like INFPs, in as much as the type itself means. That's all I'm really concerned with in type study. I don't care what someone's supposed tertiary function is, by any means. I predict behavior and choose action based on type.

#### 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