We perceive, we judge. Those two are the ying/yang of who we are. Is it really accurate to put one first?
i would love to think that everyone can do both and there is no way i would abandon my own J when it comes to understanding things, but experience show that some people do a very good job at excluding as much as possible of the capabilities of their secondary functions and the resulting informations. it begins with behavior and even i exclude Fe and Te from most of my live time, being alone with myself, just staring at the void, at my vision of unification. but the exclusion goes on to affect the mind of some people. they have plenty of attitudes that serve to exclude their secondary functions from their views.
it's important to keep in mind that not all perceivers or judgers are the same, and when they are radicalized and exclude their secondary, the results will be different. Ne people who abandon Ti into their shadow have not much in common with Ni people who abandon Fe into their shadow, albeit both are perceivers who abandon conscious judgement.
and another thing that people don't get:
not consciously using a function means this:
a) not using it is often the result of the activity of another function, albeit it is natural in young people to not use more than one function.
b) not using it means that someone can't adjust it. it does not mean, that someone does not have it.
c) as it is not adjusted sensitively to the current situation, it is the source of most acted out pathology and of prejudice and projection.
d) so the cause of exclusion of a function might be the first function, but the content of any resulting projection or prejudice shows in the quality of what is reported about the products of other functions.
all the unconscious functions throw their contents into the conscious realm and then the conscious function(s) deal with it as they desire.
so introverted people are not cut of from the world, if they are cut of from their secondary function.
there is only one world, by the time cognition comes into play the whole world is allready in our heads and functions are applied to it.
this means for example that Ni-dominance is applied to the products of Fe and Fe is applied to the products of Ni.
cut off Fi people are feeling into the world, especially the world of Se or Ne and Ti.
cut of Ni people are seeking to understand their world via Ni synthesis which is applied to their world which is consisting of a lot of Fe or Te and Se products and less frequently the products of other functions.
early in development they cant fine tune the production of the other functions, they have to accept them or they can become suspicious and avoid any responsiveness to their inner (their only) world, which creates radical introversion.
when they interact with the world, the behavior is habitual and out of control, regulated by the shadow. perfectly normal behavior for a lot of self-confident people. in america it is considered to be a problem, if someone is "self-conscious". if your shadow functions produce content without corrupting it, you can be poplular and just be "yourself" and have a very active social life. also introverted kids are very much interacting with their parents without being self-conscious. every introverted person remembers this pain from kindergarden in their bones about being judged for a behavior that is out of their control and that they are not even identified with. i mean being judged for how they deal with the worldspace of extroverted functions. of course extroverted people get judged for unconscious things too. like maybe enfp for Fe violations.
conscious functions add the ability to fine tune consciously. of course this is bound to getting to know and understand the function, and also helps to understand that function in others.
extroverted functions need not be conscious in order to give information and also not to create interaction with the world.
only sensitivity and honesty and care and doublechecking and differenciating perceptions or feelings or thoughts from projections and so on requires conscious access to the functions. also theory of mind. if your mother is a mad ENFj and you are Ti with an Fe shadow, you can respond to your mother perfectly, but you have no idea why she is that way.
being a perceiver means to be sensitive and actively involved in fine tuning perception or in the case of extroverted perception it means being sensitive about interaction and response. once you have developed a lot of functions, you can be sensitive about both P and J. but a tendency to retract from the complexity will remain. in the lazy mood, one will continue to use the objects of secondary and further functions that have been fine tuned in the past, but without double checking them. this is classical predjudice. the objects of perception are very poor in dominant judgers, and while they will occasionally have enough mental space to refine them, they will not do so on every occasion. this leads to a well thought theoretical word without much reality in it. the concepts of perceives are very poor in dominant perceives and while they will occasionally have enough mental space to refine them or learn new ones they will usually repeat what has been achieved in the past. the introverted dominant perceiver can only accept new concepts that are suited to match the collected products of the synthesis of introverted perception. the introverted dominant thinker will only accept new perceptions if they are helping with the current project of introverted thinking. the extroverted perceive will only accept concepts that are useful for manipulation/interaction. the extroverted dominant judgers will only accept new insights that can be "accepted" by the priorities of extroverted judgement. if any of those are smart, they will redraw from interaction with the world, so they have time to become conscious of secondary and further functions and to fine tune their shaping. discussions are never helpful because then the focus will go back to the strongest functions and only one will used sensitively..
so Ne seeks to be opportunistic and to manipulate and Ti seeks to be honest or incorruptibly, but if Ti is cut off, then Ne is manipulating using it's intuitive access of random spontaneous Ti, without being able to fine tune it. so Ti is only throwing the same old concepts into the mix of Ne, whichever can be used for the goal of Ne. so the subjectivity of Ne is shaped by all those prejudices and Ne is playing football with them, like there is nothing new in the world and they know how to deal with everything. nothing incurruptible about that. so NeTi is opportunistic and TiNe is incorruptibly stubborn. TiNe is totally J. if you are truly Ti you may make a lot of conscious effort to use Ne when you research something, but when you are put into your archetypal function of action, which is that of a director then you are the most stubborn dog. when the Ne person is thrown into a function they go wild.
none of my opinions are related to myself. i might as well be nonexistent. infact the notion that i am a insane fata morgana was the first thesis of my exploration of typology. as a kid i fell from a table and from a tree and from a 2nd floor window and i must not be an example for any type. all of this is observation of other people. i might very well find out that i am ENFj, ESTp, INTj, INFj, ENFP and this would affect nothing of what i have to say (except that one has to be conscious of functions to understand them in other people, which was probably over the top, but its true if we talk about very deep understanding). to know myself in terms of typology i must first know typology and to know typology (and validate it) i must first understand ALL people, then see if its possible to fine tune typology so that it matches all of my understanding of people. and this is a work in progress and i take no short cuts. i am not in a hurry. understanding the world of the human condition is supposed to take a lifetime and then some. however disapproving of mbti is possible in this stage of my work. this does not prove socionics to be right at all. its not even clear if its valid to talk of cognitive functions like they are entities. and most of what is say is not considered by myself to be the truth, it is only true enough, in comparison to contradicting concepts that have been disproved. since my mind is firmly seated in vision i am not afraid to abandon the literal aspects of theories, the concrete T stuff, but language forces me to become concrete to say anything at all.
