Uh oh, here comes a non-NT questioning aphrodite's made up functional definitions.
There goes the whole "NTs are personally biased against me and that's the only reason anyone is attacking my ideas" argument. Oops.
Aw, aren't you cute.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think are some common ENTJ weaknesses?
What are some limitations on the Te and/or Ni perspective?
To me, it seems only fair to acknowledge Ne/Ti weaknesses, but I'm not kidding when I say it seems like many NTJs don't believe their perspectives have any weaknesses at all.
When I read Jung and his defintions of functions, or how he describes functions, I basicially agree with his gist of things. I think he's brilliant to have been able to observe and identify all that he did. But there are places that I disagree. And I think looking back through the filter of time can lend a huge distortion to what he meant as well, just as looking back through time on any document or work, especially with prose, can be.
So when I read his work, I can't help but naturally 'tweak' the ideas and definitions to fit. It's just what I do. I don't really ever take anything I read at face value, even with contemplation. I like to combine it with what I've observed and mix it with what I already know and understand (Ni) to see if it makes sense.
The problem is that you're "fixing" ideas that you haven't really fully understood in the first place. You keep pointing out "problems" with the current theory that don't actually exist, and are just based on your own erroneous understanding of it.
I think that you are extremely rigid in your understanding of functions as regards their manifestation. Even if a person were to apply intense thinking to how a function works and manifests itself, there is still so much room for error, or bias! I am open to exploring pertinent, modern definitions of functions (based on Jung or whoever has proposed helpful definitions, like Thompson), and how they manifest themselves. However, it sounds like you want to stick to Jung's definitions word for word, which is fine, but we know more now, we understand more (because of him), and we have each other (he only had himself) to bounce ideas off of and brainstorm with.
Thomson's definitions are pretty consistent with Jung's. And the central point of her entire type theory is that balancing the dominant and auxiliary is the ideal approach, but that many people are tempted to use the tertiary instead of the auxiliary--it's more comfortable because it's oriented in the same direction as the dominant.
Your theory about tertiary functions is exactly the opposite of Thomson's, and your idea of the definitions of Fi/Fe/Ti/Te are totally inconsistent with all well-known authors on the subject.
Does that mean you can't offer new ideas? No, of course not, but you have to realize that many of your ideas that you think are "new" have already been explored and discarded by people who know more than you do. You keep talking about how current function theory is "inadequate", but I can't take that criticism seriously until you show that you actually
understand current function theory enough to make such a claim.
Because of this apparent rigidity, it makes working with you difficult. If you already know you are Right in everything, and know more than most everyone, then how can someone propose something and have it be taken in good faith. You obviously don't need us (or my ideas anyway), so why this long, drawn out debate with me?
I'm not being rigid because I have some silly dogmatic faith in already established methods. I'm being rigid with you because most of your ideas about the inadequacies of current function theory are just based on inadequacies in your own understanding of it.
In other words, I've heard it all before and I've already considered it fully and discarded it. I don't dismiss any and all new ideas on principle--yours are getting dismissed because they're nothing new. You haven't offered a single new idea on this topic that I've never heard before, but you have made a lot of really common mistakes.
It's like taking taking piano lessons and complaining to your instructor that he's being "closed-minded" because he tells you that hitting a C# in your C scale is wrong. It's not that he's never considered playing a C# in the key of C--it's that he's already explored all the implications of that in much greater depth than you even grasp at this point and recognized that it doesn't work in 99.9% of contexts.
Furthermore, Ti might be rigid when it comes to definitions and understanding the way things work, I get that. But I also feel an almost desperate emotional clinging to your ideas that is NOT Ti like, which I perceive as Fi like. Again, Jung said himself that we do not necessarily know the functions (beyond our dominant) that are at play in ourselves. This in itself is ironic of him to say, because it seems like the most difficult function to understand in ourselves IS our dominant. Yet he might be very right in this, because understanding our tert is obviously very hard to see.
Your perception of this as Fi-like is incorrect. My behavior in this case is a function of Ti+Fe. The Fe aspect comes in because I find your insistence on ignoring sources that are far more informed than you are to be out of sync with generally accepted standards for learning about new topics. You need to understand the old approach before you decide you can improve upon it. Anyone can break the rules, but it takes someone who understands the rules enough to recognize their natural limitations to break them
intelligibly.
Do you have any ideas or goals for function theory you'd care to share with me? Are you happy with the status quo, or do you just like to study prominent authors on the subject and learn what you can from them, applying it here and irl?
I like to apply the already existing model to new contexts and discover new connections between different contexts as a result. I don't much care for dramatic redefinitions of the entire system unless they're offered by someone who: A) understands the current system enough to deconstruct its potential flaws meaningfully, and B) has some genuinely new ideas that no one has offered before.
I guess I see Jung and others as a framework. I mean he was the first to tap in to and discover how we think, and label it. In the process he made a sort of new philosophy. That's huge. From my vantage point in 2010, I can identify gaps and shortcomings in function theory, just from studying on it a year. Most authors contribute something interesting, if not valuable. I guess I'd like to, in my INFJ sort of way, bring it all together in a more cohesive whole, whereby it can be utilized by all.
You haven't identified any shortcomings that haven't already been covered in much greater depth and clarity by more recent authors with more knowledge and experience than yourself. You think you're being new and revolutionary but every criticism of current type theory that you've offered has already been suggested by others and already been addressed by numerous authors.
This is why we have a hard time communicating. Your Ti and my Ni just have a hard time meshing, I guess. To my way of thinking, if we stick dogmatically to a definition that is perhaps substandard in our times, we anchor ourselves and cannot go anywhere. I want to go somewhere. Do you?
While we're on the subject of Ni, let's talk about typical Ni mistakes. Ni has a bad habit of thinking its perspective is so unique and original that it's impossible that anyone could ever have thought of it before. Ni-ers who are relatively inexperienced in a new area often make the mistake of thinking they've discovered some fundamental flaw in the system that nobody else has ever noticed and that only they were clever and perceptive enough to pick up on. This feeds Ni's need to view its perspectives as revolutionary and to consider itself a master of "seeing through to the REAL meaning."
Occasionally, a profoundly brilliant Ni dom actually does successfully see something nobody has ever seen before and redefines an entire previously established school of thought. Much more often, though, Ni doms who haven't yet mastered the already existing rules will erroneously believe they've discovered gaping errors because: A) they don't want to accept that their "discoveries" have already been discovered and sufficiently dealt with because this threatens their ability to view themselves as revolutionary out-of-the-box pioneers, and B) they grossly overestimate their grasp of the already existing material.
I really don't think I use Ti, as much as I'd like to claim I do. If you research it a bit, and remain as open-minded as you could to learning something new, and consider that some of your ideas about functions might be fallible, you would see that I use more of a Te approach to this stuff. No, I'm not going to divulge more about that. I expect a person, especially an Ne dom, to be able to intuit some things like that. After all, I've written a lot to you, and most of it is flavored with Te. If you cannot see this, or understand it, or access it, then I really don't see that we can go any further. We will just have to agree to disagree.
I've had about enough of your self-righteous preaching about open-mindedness. Your failure to grasp the mistakes in your interpretation doesn't translate into everyone else being "closed-minded", but rejecting anyone who points them out as "closed-minded" plays perfectly into Ni's preferred self-image. "I'm too amazingly perceptive and uniquely insightful for all these morons! They just can't see it!"
When it comes to theories that have been around a long time, and have already had a number of great minds working on them, there's a general rule of thumb that applies: Whenever you think you've found a glaring error in the already existing theory that
somehow nobody but you has ever noticed, chances are it's already been discovered and adequately explained a long time ago. Give that some consideration.
Who made what up? Depends on who you're talking about. The original guru, for all intents and purposes, aligned the tertiary opposite the dominant. Was he right? Or wrong? Or someone who came after him? Who is to say what is right?
Really? Then why do a large portion of Jungian scholars believe he meant that the tertiary and dominant are in the same direction? There's still significant debate on this topic because Jung didn't express a clear opinion on it in his work.
Another Fi-er telling an Fe aux what Fe is. Gotta love it.
For fuck's sake, my mom is an Fe dom and she doesn't have a damn clue what the term "Fe" even means. Marm is more proficient in functional theory than you are.
Having a function in your top two does not entitle you to automatically understand its conceptual meaning any better than anyone else.
I'm going to have to disagree. 
airheaded. i love it. 
