User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 91

  1. #21
    Member FlamingMask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTp
    Posts
    79

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    It's the invasion of the whippersnappers.
    What can I say? Looked like a nice place to hang out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    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.
    I (89%) N (88%) T (88%) P (56%)

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

    Enneagram: 5


  2. #22
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingMask View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Member FlamingMask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTp
    Posts
    79

    Post

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    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?
    I (89%) N (88%) T (88%) P (56%)

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

    Enneagram: 5


  4. #24
    (☞゚∀゚)☞ The Decline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    It's the invasion of the whippersnappers.
    I imagine you shaking your fist in the air while saying this.
    "Stop it, you fuck. Give him some butter."
    Ti
    = Ne > Ni > Fi > Te > Se > Fe > Si INTP (I/PNT) 5w4

  5. #25
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Decline View Post
    I imagine you shaking your fist cane in the air while saying this.
    Fixed!
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #26
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingMask View Post
    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.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #27
    Senior Member durentu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingMask View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Decline View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Fixed!
    I'm many decades away from a cane, Jen. Lol.

  9. #29
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    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....

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    I'm many decades away from a cane, Jen. Lol.

  10. #30
    Member FlamingMask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTp
    Posts
    79

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    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.
    I (89%) N (88%) T (88%) P (56%)

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

    Enneagram: 5


Similar Threads

  1. Explain the cognitive functions to me
    By Colors in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-31-2012, 10:40 PM
  2. MBTI and Cognitive Functions
    By RansomedbyFire in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 06:52 AM
  3. [JCF] Leanor Thomson's Theory and INFP cognitive functions
    By heart in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-31-2007, 01:07 AM
  4. Cognitive Functions Test?
    By MerkW in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 04:01 PM

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