# Thread: Cognitive Functions

1. I'm finding this thread helpful because it does illustrate how I could technically have both Ne and Ni, which also explains why I test INFP, ENFP, and INFJ.

The function order is not based on relative strength
I have a question about this then. I am almost convinced that I'm an ENFP, for various reasons (and I know I'm not an INFJ, but that's beside the point) but some people on here keep insisting that I seem Fi dom. Just because I have strong Fi - or at least visible Fi on Internet discussion forums - that doesn't necessarily mean I'm an INFP though. This means I very well can be an ENFP...?

2. One of the reasons I had to make this thread was to seek some explanation for my seemingly anomalously high Ni and Te.

I suggest that you think about your real e/i attitude. As Eric B pointed out, Jung placed a lot more emphasis on Extraversion and Introversion than modern MBTI theorists do. If you are certain that you are an Extravert, you cannot be INFP. Most people and tests use their two strongest functions to type themselves, however.

3. Originally Posted by Eric B
The function order is not based on relative strength. So if your third strongest might be N, still, for an INFP, the tertiary is S, and the puer complex will always manifest through the tertiary. If it's weaker than the two N's (good parent and senex), then you simply have a weak puer. It doesn't switch complexes.
Thanks! I think I get it now. FWIW, my Si is higher than my Se... but I guess that you can't take that as proof that my puer complex is in the dominant attitude, since someone assuming that the puer complex must be in the opposite attitude would just say that mine is really, really weak.

4. There's been discussing on i/e functions pairs -- i.e., can you develop either the I or E of the pair (e.g., Se vs Si) without developing the other to some degree?
Hey Jennifer, where is this discussion? (a link would be good) I am rather interested in this!

Thanks.

5. Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise
I have a question about this then. I am almost convinced that I'm an ENFP, for various reasons (and I know I'm not an INFJ, but that's beside the point) but some people on here keep insisting that I seem Fi dom.
How you "seem" in writing, may in fact be the opposite of the real you.
There are many people who communicate very differently face-to-face, compared to online.

6. Originally Posted by Jaguar
How you "seem" in writing, may in fact be the opposite of the real you.
There are many people who communicate very differently face-to-face, compared to online.
Yes. For one thing, the way I construct posts is certainly more slapdash than say the writing I would do for school or work, etc.

Secondly, my ex said that the way that I write comes across so differently from who I am to him IRL that it surprised him.

It's easier, too, to achieve a persona in writing that is different from one's true self because it's more carefully constructed than just opening my mouth and saying blah blah blah, which I admittedly do a lot.

7. Originally Posted by SciVo
Thanks! I think I get it now. FWIW, my Si is higher than my Se... but I guess that you can't take that as proof that my puer complex is in the dominant attitude, since someone assuming that the puer complex must be in the opposite attitude would just say that mine is really, really weak.
Even though I didn't specify Si vs Se there (for it was being contrasted with N), the Puer always aligns with the dominant attitude. The opposite attitude would be the shadow counterpart to the puer, which is called the trickster.
Yes, Jung initially said that the tertiary along with the aux. and inferior all had the opposite attitude, but according to Lenore thomson, the puer complex aligns the tertiary with the dominant attitude, and that's one of the things I was illustrating in the diagram.

See:
Tertiary Defense

8. Maybe it would help if people discussed their definition or perceived purpose of each cognitive function also. I have seen countless descriptions of the functions and most of them are not really satisfactory. Specifically, Ni, Si, and Fi have always sort of intrigued me, even when I am supposedly using them.

What would be a concise but solid description for one or more of the functions?

9. Originally Posted by FlamingMask
Maybe it would help if people discussed their definition or perceived purpose of each cognitive function also. I have seen countless descriptions of the functions and most of them are not really satisfactory. Specifically, Ni, Si, and Fi have always sort of intrigued me, even when I am supposedly using them.

What would be a concise but solid description for one or more of the functions?
Fi: Fi tends to be more focused on internal values and is concerned with ethics as an end to themselves, and not necessarily so much the societal rules of polite behavior. Fi wants to be authentically an individual, and in theory allows others to be their individual selves with less interference. This is debatable, apparently. To Fi users it's all about being "real."

10. Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise
Fi: Fi tends to be more focused on internal values and is concerned with ethics as an end to themselves, and not necessarily so much the societal rules of polite behavior. Fi wants to be authentically an individual, and in theory allows others to be their individual selves with less interference. This is debatable, apparently. To Fi users it's all about being "real."
Would that be more "real" like one's id, ego, or superego? That is, what do most heavy Fi-users view as being themselves? Following their desires? Having control over their behavior? I thought it would be most like someone's superego but now I'm not so sure.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•