[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Cognitive Functions

[FlamingMask]

It's the invasion of the whippersnappers.

What can I say? Looked like a nice place to hang out.

If you've got weird function orders, do you want to keep them?

Or more importantly, if people say they have unusual function orders, why do you believe them?


I'm just curious because I find it really, really difficult to imagine why someone would want to avoid the simple idea that an e function paired with an i function represents balance in a good way.

By the bye, does everyone still want perception functions paired with judgment functions?

It depends. If the function order is based on preference, I would say I'm happy the way I am. If the order is based on ability (unlikely), I would probably want something balanced, which a profile probably represents.

I respond as though I believe them because they don't appear to have a motive to lie, and if they do lie successfully, it doesn't really negatively affect me.

Someone might endorse the idea that an e and i function pair are balanced, but might believe that they don't have that high up on their function order.

And last, personally, I do prefer a perception function paired with a judgment function, because it's probably best and more effective than having a function order containing several consecutive perceptive or judgment functions.

 

[Kalach]

It depends. If the function order is based on preference, I would say I'm happy the way I am. If the order is based on ability (unlikely), I would probably want something balanced, which a profile probably represents.

I respond as though I believe them because they don't appear to have a motive to lie, and if they do lie successfully, it doesn't really negatively affect me.

Someone might endorse the idea that an e and i function pair are balanced, but might believe that they don't have that high up on their function order.

And last, personally, I do prefer a perception function paired with a judgment function, because it's probably best and more effective than having a function order containing several consecutive perceptive or judgment functions.

But see, you're stated function order is unsettling. I'd argue (or want to argue) that the apparent Ni and Te are artifacts, not actual preferences. For one, Te and Ti are inimical. I'm pretty sure that to do one well, one has to shut down the other. Probably likewise for Ne and Ni.

Or maybe I like Llewellyn's idea for this, and your function order would be pleasantly represented as
Ti > Ne (> Ni > Te) > Si (= Se > Fi) > Fe

(Not that I want to be telling you what you are... I'm just trying to reconcile a theory I like and other people's reports but without thinking too much.)

I dunno, it's a hard call: can people truly be "ambidextrous", able to use the same function in both orientations more or less well, or do they appear to themselves to do that when really they're combining other functions to mimic the results?


I keep thinking it's knowing the origin of preference that will tell us one way or the other.

But of the origin of preference I know nothing.

 

[FlamingMask]

The thing is, I think my cognitive order (or at least the one I obtained from the test I took) is more or less proficiency, and not preference. I was confused about this before, but I think that is the case. I've always figured that preferences and abilities with regard to cognitive functions would more or less match up, because people grow from practice, and are inclined to practice what they enjoy. Now I'm wondering why this doesn't seem to be the case.

But see, you're stated function order is unsettling. I'd argue (or want to argue) that the apparent Ni and Te are artifacts, not actual preferences. For one, Te and Ti are inimical. I'm pretty sure that to do one well, one has to shut down the other. Probably likewise for Ne and Ni.

Or maybe I like Llewellyn's idea for this, and your function order would be pleasantly represented as
Ti > Ne (> Ni > Te) > Si (= Se > Fi) > Fe

(Not that I want to be telling you what you are... I'm just trying to reconcile a theory I like and other people's reports but without thinking too much.)

I dunno, it's a hard call: can people truly be "ambidextrous", able to use the same function in both orientations more or less well, or do they appear to themselves to do that when really they're combining other functions to mimic the results?


I keep thinking it's knowing the origin of preference that will tell us one way or the other.

But of the origin of preference I know nothing.

I was a bit puzzled by Llewellyn's format. Could someone explain that a bit more?

As to your question of ambidexterity, I think the answer is around you with people's results from cognitive process tests. Many people have results that are in a different order than their theorized preferences. The question is, are their theorized preferences accurate, and if so, why the disparity?

 

[The Decline]

It's the invasion of the whippersnappers.

I imagine you shaking your fist in the air while saying this.

 

[Totenkindly]

I imagine you shaking your fist cane in the air while saying this.

Fixed!

 

[Totenkindly]

Well that wasn't quite the point; it was probably just a poor example. My ordering for instance, which thus far I have neglected to post or put in my profile is

Ti > Ne > Ni > Te > Si = Se > Fi > Fe

The issue I was raising was that, as a better example, a couple of my functions are way out of line. The strongest example is Fe, which is normally the fourth function. Here it's the eighth - and although you could blame it on me just being weird , I feel like I've seen many INTPs who have Fe much lower than the theory calls for. (Also I'm just focusing on INTPs since I am most familiar with those functions and can tell if they fit the theory at a glance. I have noticed it in other types as well.)

Well, it's all true, but it's usually been a part of any discussion about function order we've had here on this forum... the theoretical standard isn't necessarily the standard, except for the definitive pri+sec combo... and even then it's not necessarily the case.

For example, I class as INTP, I'm not anywhere close to an extrovert and become exhausted quickly in social situations despite enjoying them now, but I rely on my N more IRL. I attribute this to growing up in an environment where my N was appreciated and got me rewarded and was often my only escape from my misery, whereas using my T was punished because it usually conflicted with the prevaling norms around me. I've met other INTPs as well who really focus on N, yet they show the INTP pattern and not an ENTP one.

So what exactly is function order and how does it conform to reality? Even if we have natural inclinations of function order, it doesn't mean in practice our function order will end up reflecting our natural order. Environment for each individual is SO unique and diverse that no two people even of same MBTI type are going to look exactly the same. That's not even a profound statement to make, to me, it's just observable reality and common sense.

So some variation is accepted, just like we can make some generalizations about gender that might apply to the large ground of millions of people but in which many of the individuals might vary greatly in how they match up with the "standard."

There's a problem to me with anything beyond functions 1, 2, and 4 being standardized. You can make a case for 3 being the inverse of #2, but the entire second quattro and the roles assigned to them really seem to be nothing more than whimsy... there's no way to validate and there's far too much variety in people to be able to distill them from a RL sample. It's a theoretical schema that has no way to ever be validated.

Really, the second quattro is just an extension -- theorists trying to expand MBTI and put their own thumbprint on it (remember, it's also a business and a source of livelihood, there's incentive to create a new piece of the theory and call it your own). All I can see that makes sense is that everyone has a perceiving function and a judging function they rely on (a way to gather and a way to process information) as opposed to other ways -- a preference -- and it makes sense that the opposite of the main preference is probably the weakest link. Where that falls on a preference scale for the individual, there's no way to specify because everything is on sliders so to speak.

 

[durentu]

The thing is, I think my cognitive order (or at least the one I obtained from the test I took) is more or less proficiency, and not preference.

For MBTI, the proficiency is* preference.

As the theory goes, we start developing our cognitive functions in order, starting with the first one. The dominant function is used first, and over time used the most and the most developed: proficiency. It becomes the least mentally expensive with so much practice (like second nature) and hence it becomes a preference. Of course our environment can shift or affect which functions we develop sequentially if we are made to believe that we are something we're not. An INTP surrounded by ESFPs will bias the cognitive development because growing up, we identify with the things we see everyday. Kinda like the ugly duckling story.

For the argument of nature vs nurture, I don't know. It's usually both and I haven't been able to find good evidence to pin point something concrete.

The best thing I found was the J/P preference is the left/right brain dominance respectively. Is that nature or nurture? again, I don't know.

 

[Jaguar]

I imagine you shaking your fist in the air while saying this.

I don't know where that image came from.
Actually, I was laughing when I wrote it.
My brother and I always laugh using that word with people.

Fixed!

I'm many decades away from a cane, Jen. Lol.

 

[sculpting]

The problem here is that Te and Ti (for example) are not really different functions. It's misleading to think of it that way. The best way I've thought of to conceptualize the system is that there are FOUR functions (Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition) and an Introversion/Extroversion score for each one.

So someone with X amount of thinking would have Y Ti and (X-Y) Te. Any two INTPs could have different X and Y values, which would mean their 8 function order would look different. (Check out my type calculator for a visual if you want.)

I disgree greatly. From my perspective Fe and Fi are universes apart from one another. It is almost like Ti and Fi function in a more similiar way than Fe and Fi or Te and Ti. I am putting what little brain power I have into Ti and Te right now as I think they do very different things as well-it isnt simply orientation internal and external. I posted somewhere else that Fe and Fi look like two people speaking spanish and portugease. It sounds similiar at first and they may think they understand each other to some extent. But in reality much is being lost or misinterrpreted. I think Te and Ti may be acting the same way.

Two functions, alike in orientation, inside someone's conscious head, where we lay this scene, inasmuch as they must have the age-old dislike of operating at the same time, there's no basic incapacity produced?

How do a bunch of i functions operate without the intercession of some e function? Surely if one if heavy on i functions, one is stuck inside oneself--and I don't mean one is an introvert, I mean one has nothing coming in. Likewise, a bunch of e functions doing anything without some i function inside? Heavy on the e, is one even a person, or just a environmental response mechanism?

If you've got weird function orders, do you want to keep them?

Or more importantly, if people say they have unusual function orders, why do you believe them?


I'm just curious because I find it really, really difficult to imagine why someone would want to avoid the simple idea that an e function paired with an i function represents balance in a good way.

By the bye, does everyone still want perception functions paired with judgment functions?


Ooo, conscious vs unconscious... can we really "want" a given function order, considering much of consciousness is unconscious? Well, if we can't, we aren't conscious at all, are we?


Thus, if you have weird function orders, it's your own fault.


I could be wrong. But why aren't you seeking "health"?

These are all good points. I think Nature sort of developed us and identified the most "optimal" pairs of functions. But I would argue that 20-30% of folks are using them/born with them in a different order. I am not certain it is as simple as just deciding to change your function order....

I'm many decades away from a cane, Jen. Lol.

 

[FlamingMask]

Well, it's all true, but it's usually been a part of any discussion about function order we've had here on this forum... the theoretical standard isn't necessarily the standard, except for the definitive pri+sec combo... and even then it's not necessarily the case.

For example, I class as INTP, I'm not anywhere close to an extrovert and become exhausted quickly in social situations despite enjoying them now, but I rely on my N more IRL. I attribute this to growing up in an environment where my N was appreciated and got me rewarded and was often my only escape from my misery, whereas using my T was punished because it usually conflicted with the prevaling norms around me. I've met other INTPs as well who really focus on N, yet they show the INTP pattern and not an ENTP one.

So your highest function i/e pair is not TiNe? Do you mean that you know you are an introvert, but your primary function is an extroverted one? Or is your primary function something like Ni? I think I get your example, but I'm not sure. Also, if we're talking preference order, I don't know of a test that gauges that - only one that tests ability in the different cognitive functions. So despite the risk of talking about the wrong thing, I'm going to continue. And if someone does, let me know.

So what exactly is function order and how does it conform to reality? Even if we have natural inclinations of function order, it doesn't mean in practice our function order will end up reflecting our natural order. Environment for each individual is SO unique and diverse that no two people even of same MBTI type are going to look exactly the same. That's not even a profound statement to make, to me, it's just observable reality and common sense.

So some variation is accepted, just like we can make some generalizations about gender that might apply to the large ground of millions of people but in which many of the individuals might vary greatly in how they match up with the "standard."

I would accept that one's "true" type would probably be one's highest e/i pair of functions. For instance, someone who is Ti Fi Se Ne Ni Si Te Fe would be ISTP, since their first function is introverted thinking, and their next extroverted function is the perceiving sensing. If they tested that function order reasonably often but did not test as ISTP or something close reasonably often, I would be inclined to think that either the tests are inadequate or their answers are distorted on one of the two tests.

Underneath it all, there's obviously a reliable framework that accurately describes people's behavior and mental processes, so the tests are not exactly the same as the theory. That's why I wouldn't rule out a testing error instead of assuming it's based on variation. By this, I mean variation from the i/e pair typing process.

There's a problem to me with anything beyond functions 1, 2, and 4 being standardized. You can make a case for 3 being the inverse of #2, but the entire second quattro and the roles assigned to them really seem to be nothing more than whimsy... there's no way to validate and there's far too much variety in people to be able to distill them from a RL sample. It's a theoretical schema that has no way to ever be validated.

Really, the second quattro is just an extension -- theorists trying to expand MBTI and put their own thumbprint on it (remember, it's also a business and a source of livelihood, there's incentive to create a new piece of the theory and call it your own). All I can see that makes sense is that everyone has a perceiving function and a judging function they rely on (a way to gather and a way to process information) as opposed to other ways -- a preference -- and it makes sense that the opposite of the main preference is probably the weakest link. Where that falls on a preference scale for the individual, there's no way to specify because everything is on sliders so to speak.

I am interested why you don't think anything beyond 1, 2, and 4 should be standardized. Why not just 1 and 2, or why not 1-4 - or the first 5? Why did you settle on those three? I'm not really disagreeing I'm just curious.

 

[Blank]

Here are my functions in order from http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/assessment/develop_old.html

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Ti (19 bars)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] . . . .Te
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] . . . .Ne (16 bars)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] . . . . . Fi (15 bars)
[][][][][][][][][][][][] . . . . . . . . .Si
[][][][][][][][][][][][] . . . . . . . . .Ni (12 bars)
[][][][][][][][][][][] . . . . . . . . . .Se (11 bars)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fe (0 bars, wtf?)

It's pretty surprising to find out that my Te is so high, but I guess it makes sense because I tend to not shut the fuck up about stuff.

 

[Eric B]

The problem here is that Te and Ti (for example) are not really different functions. It's misleading to think of it that way. The best way I've thought of to conceptualize the system is that there are FOUR functions (Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition) and an Introversion/Extroversion score for each one.

That is perhaps the original Jungian conncept (though I'm seeing it said that some of what he wrote was sometimes contradictory). [cont'd]

I disgree greatly. From my perspective Fe and Fi are universes apart from one another. It is almost like Ti and Fi function in a more similiar way than Fe and Fi or Te and Ti. I am putting what little brain power I have into Ti and Te right now as I think they do very different things as well-it isnt simply orientation internal and external. I posted somewhere else that Fe and Fi look like two people speaking spanish and portugease. It sounds similiar at first and they may think they understand each other to some extent. But in reality much is being lost or misinterrpreted. I think Te and Ti may be acting the same way.

...From what I have come to see lately, the attitude (e/i) is tied more to the person (ego) than to the functions. So a type starts with an introvert or extravert who uses his dominant function in his preferred orientation. The function then takes on the characteristics we call Xe or Xi. The auxiliary then takes on the rejected other orientation. the other functions remain undifferentiated, but come up in the complexes represented by the archetypes.[cont'd]

I am interested why you don't think anything beyond 1, 2, and 4 should be standardized. Why not just 1 and 2, or why not 1-4 - or the first 5? Why did you settle on those three? I'm not really disagreeing I'm just curious.

...Because of the fact that again, everything the ego rejects is undifferentiated. When the dominant is established in the preferred attitude, the other three functions and the opposite attitude are rejected into the unconscious. Hence, in the original order, the aux. tertiary and inferior were all said to be the opposite attitude. So the aux. is in the opposite attitude, and then the Puer complex (according to Lenore Thomson) when it comes into consciousness then adopts the tertiary function and orients it in the dominant attitude.
The anima remains in the opposite attitude with the inferior function. It's because of this dispute as to the orientation of the tertiary that 1, 2 and 4 were specified above. They were the most definite.
Beebe then extended it by paralleling these four functions with those of the reverse attitude, and indentified four more complexes that manifest themselves through them.

It really has nothing to do with relative strengths of the functions. Much of what is coming up on those tests is probably undifferentiated function behavior, and not any real ego-consciousness. Hence, beyind the dominant and auxiliary, we really can't use the rest of it to type ourselves.

See
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/1416-archetypes-functions-6.html#post748446

 

[FlamingMask]

I see. Jung placed a lot more emphasis on introversion vs. extraversion than we usually do. And I do realize we sort of force our shadow functions into the roles they are associated with, instead of realizing that they manifest themselves in that way under certain circumstances. But we can still see that Ti and Te are different. I mean, there are plenty of INTPs whose Ti is incredibly developed but their external life is an organizational disaster.

I admittedly don't know that much about the shadow processes and other terminology for cognitive processes. I'm looking forward to looking into it more later.

 

[Eric B]

Yeah; I forgot to add that this perspective makes it understandable why on the MBTI, E/I is a separate dichotomy to begin with. Looking at cognitive processes as eight distinct entities in themselves, it was tempting to say that E/I really did not mean much; as it only indicated the "attitude" of the "dominant" function. I had started saying that the cognitive process test should have been the official MBTI. But seeing it the original Jungian way, E/I is a personality factor in it's own right (like it was in older temperament theory).
What we had done is conflated the processes with the complexes/archetypes.
And yes, Thinking used in an inner or outer orientation will come across differently.

 

[FlamingMask]

Let me try to get this straight - you think that of the four main processes, the one that is represented in a dominant function of a person will the best split between it's e/i focus? Like an INTP will easily be able to differentiate between their Ti and Te and perhaps their Ne and Ni, but probably not their S and F functions? And this is isn't necessary, because only the first two processes and someone's introversion/extroversion score is needed to find their MBTI type?

 

[Blank]

I couldn't tell you when I differentiate between Ti and Te, personally.

 

[Eric B]

Let me try to get this straight - you think that of the four main processes, the one that is represented in a dominant function of a person will the best split between it's e/i focus? Like an INTP will easily be able to differentiate between their Ti and Te and perhaps their Ne and Ni, but probably not their S and F functions? And this is isn't necessary, because only the first two processes and someone's introversion/extroversion score is needed to find their MBTI type?

No; that's not what I was saying. The dominant function will be used in the dominant attitude. The auxiliary will be in the "rejected" opposite attitude. Those are the only two normally differentiated. Differentiated doesn't mean simply "split between e/i focus" like both are now equal and distinct. Differentiated means "specialized" for specific tasks, basically.

Here, Lenore explains the concept:

The word "differentiation," after all, is analogical. Jung borrowed it from the field of developmental biology. Before a fertilized egg implants itself in the uterine wall, it's an undifferentiated cell mass. It's only after implantation and division that individual cells begin to differentiate. And what this means is that the cells become specialized, turning some genes off and others on, so that the cells are capable of supporting particular tasks in the growing embryo. For example, some cells differentiate for the operation of the heart, thereby becoming what the heart needs in order to grow and develop. Once a cell specializes, it acquires a "type," and it's suited to support a particular system of the body.

It seems to me that Jung borrowed these existing terms deliberately. Undifferentiated functions are like undifferentiated stem cells. That is, they're conflated with each other, without specialized purpose, operating in concert with our emotional needs. However, as a person adapts to a particular environmental context, one of those functions becomes differentiated, supporting the expression of developing strengths in real-world terms.

As I see it, a differentiated function is not a cognitive process. It's the means by which emotion is integrated with the operations of the executive brain in the conscious decision to take action.

Undifferentiated functions remain allied with the unconscious emotional subsystem, and they're always operating to bring their products to consciousness. But their products may not reach awareness unless they're consonant in some way with the interpretive principles the dominant function has set up.

In Jung's type theory, our dominant function will naturally reflect our Extraverted or Introverted temperament. The other three orientations remain aligned with the unconscious life of the body, and they compensate the conscious point of view by way of the opposing attitude.

This is why an Introverted Thinker with auxiliary Intuition is diagrammed Ti-Ne-Se-Fe in classic Jungian terms. There aren't 8 cognitive processes that offer us skills we need to develop in order to be whole. There are 4 functions, and by differentiating one, we've set aside some of our generic potential for the sake of real-world form.

Whatever we habitually put aside to make our willful conscious choices will inevitably make its alliance with the unconscious -- emotions we don't want to feel, desires we don't recognize, the body itself.

 

[sculpting]

Here are some quotes I grabbed from Jung-I am still ruminating on what they really mean and looking for how they play out in Ti/Te differences so I hope they are some use for you guys as well.

I often engage in debate with my bf ENTP. I very much enjoy it but as of late I have been paying attention-we are not following the same tracks in our logic or discussion. I cannot always follow where she goes-haha, sometimes I fill in the gaps with blah, blah, blah even until she touches a point I can recognize.

At the same time I will use Te to debate/discuss the argument back and I see the same thing-she cannot logically follow all of the time. Sometimes we restate the argment a few times back and forth until we get what we are trying to say.

We pass the discussion back and forth each making misteps but together coming up with well rounded ideas. Also in meetings I notice she will dive right into a logical progression of Ti ideas-too deep in fact. I have to step in every so often and point the focus back to the big Te picture about why the logical progression is important, then she goes back to the progression.

Papa Jung:
“Introverted thinking is primarily oriented by the subjective factor......introverted thinking is concerned with concrete or with abstract objects , always at the decisive points it is oriented by subjective data. It does not lead from concrete experience back again to the object but always to the subjective content....it begins and ends with the subject, far though it may range into the realm of actual reality. With regard to the establishment of new facts it is only indirectly of value, since new views rather than knowledge of new facts are its main concern...it wants to reach reality to see how the external fact will fit into and fill the framework of the idea....introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image ....”

Jung and Te verses Ti:
“Orientation to the object as already explained makes no essential change in the thinking function; only its appearance is altered. It has the appearance of being captivated by the object as though without the external orientation it simply could not exist. It is almost as though it were a mere sequela of external facts or as though it could reach its highest point only when flowing into some general idea. It seems to be constantly affected by the objective data and to draw conclusions only with their consent.

In its essence this extroverted thinking is no less fruitful and creative than introverted thinking, it merely serves other ends. This difference becomes quite palpable when extroverted thinking appropriates material that is the special province of introverted thinking; when for instance a subjective conviction is explained analytic ally in terms of objective data or as being derived from objective ideas. For our scientific consciousness however the difference becomes even more obvious when introverted thinking attempts to bring objective data into connections not warranted by the object-in other words to subordinate them to a subjective idea. Each type of thinking senses the other as an encroachment on its own province, and hence a sort of shadow effect is produced, each revealing to the other its least favorable aspect. Introverted thinking then appears as something quite arbitrary, while extraverted thinking seems dull and banal. Thus the two orientations are incessantly at war.

The thinking of the extraverted type is positive ie productive. It leads to the discovery of new facts or to general conceptions based upon disparate empirical material. It is usually synthetic as well.

Even when it analyzes it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the analysis to a new combination, to further conception which reunites the analyzed material in a different way or adds something to it.”

 

[Katsuni]

It's just an example, and there's also the possibility of people misreading it as well yeu have to take into account. On my second attempt at checking myself I got INTP instead of ENTP, though every subsequent test after has always been ENTP, and after reading the descriptions, entp's way more accurate for me.

The thing is though... I'm very conflicting as well myself, my actions do not neccesarily match my strengths, this isn't exactly uncommon to be honest. A personality is not directly tied to whot yeu're 'good' at, how many people LOVE doing exercize, but their bodies just aren't capable of it? I physically have the genes and specialized muscle structure that I'm one of the few people physically capable from birth of being a sprinter, but I really don't care for it at all.

Same thing cognitively, someone may be a math wizard but hate math, and really really want to be an artist... but sucks at it. They may end up having to combine the two by making fractals or something; just because we're good at thinking in a certain way doesn't mean we WANT to think that way.

For another personal example, one more dedicated to mindset, I am creative in some rather disturbing ways, it's not uncommon for me to come up with bizzarely intricate and ridiculously disturbing forms of torture, it doesn't mean I actually LIKE thinking about these things, and it can often be rather unnerving to just realize that while laying down trying to sleep or something end up with a startlingly long list of horrible things to do to someone, and it's far from desireable. I'd really rather not have that happen, and yet it seems to be a natural affinity, a talent of which I have no control over. The mind works in odd ways... our biggest advantage is we have the opportunity to understand it and go against our base programming; just because our brain wants to do one thing doesn't mean we HAVE to give into it.

My absolute basic personality without any restraint is cruel, malicious, greedy, overbearing, and quite a few other horrible things I'd rather not mention. Yet I go quite far out of my way to keep such traits restricted and buried, to act the way I want to be. We can embrace some of our traits, and go against others. Our values can be different than our mindset, and with a bit of nurturing the ideals we prefer, we can better ourselves in the long run, at least by our own standards. I'll admit that lately my cynicism has escaped a bit more than I'd like, and I'm nowheres near the naive idealist I may've once been, but I guess we can't have absolute control and just magically "make ourselves into someone else" either. Just work on whot we have to start with.

That being said, let's go to a final example, something a bit more accurate to deal with the types...

I think as an ENTP, however, at the very least the T could just as easily been F, the thing is I've seen far too many cases of people who are heavy on the Feeling side of things, to the point that they abhor rational thought I swear. I've gone far out of my way to make sure I don't fall down that same path, as such, it's meant that whot was probably a very slight advantage on the F>T, has turned over time into a heavy bias towards T>F. Innately I still have a strong F but it's kind of been neglected and shoved in the corner, then shot at a few times to make sure it doesn't try to move. I still fully have a capable F aspect, and all it honestly needs is a bit of attention dedicated to it, but I really don't feel like doing that, and am going to continue to let it languish as it is.

The chances of finding someone who PERFECTLY matches their personality type in the exactly expected order, is probably not really all that great, because it just assumes that we are limited to whot our initial design is and that no effort, no training, no nurturing on our part will ever have any effect.

This's hardly the case, but neither do we have full reign over who we want to be either. Moreso, I think the best way to explain it is that we are born with several strengths and talents, and several drawbacks, some even crippling at times. This immediately off the start limits how many paths we have available to us, but it doesn't force us down a single one. How yeu grow and whot yeu decide to do with whot yeu have will be whot decides which path yeu eventually take. We're not completely free to do anything we want, but we're not restricted to a single unerring path from birth either.

The ones who match their type perfectly, are honestly the ones I worry about the most, because it generally means they didn't do much with their lives to try to change who they were. On the other hand, if yeu're nowheres near where yeur mental strengths are, it probably means yeu're trying just a bit too hard to deny yeur own self as well.

 

[BlackCat]

The thing to keep in mind is that no matter what your function STRENGTH is according to those tests, the function USE will not change because of that.