Weak Cognitive Functions - Don't we all use most functions, at least a little bit?

[entropie]

I dont use functions, they use me

 

[INTP]

Great, thanks for the thorough explanation!

However, if NeTi can do the same things that Te does, and if that is how I do it, then what would be the point of developing my Te later in life?

And how can you tell whether you are actually developing a function (like Te), or just using your natural functions (NeTi) to do the same things (that Te does)? What's the difference?

Np. well the whole point is that you dont use Te if you are ENTP, so there is no developing Te. its about developing each 4 function separately, and learning to use them as separate processes and learn to use them together consciously. Also the deal with functions used together, not as separate conscious functions, but undifferentiated function(s) in sort of chain of functins. the end of the chain where undifferentiated functions chain themselves remains unconscious and has an (usually) negative effect on the other functions in the conscious end of the function chain.

This process of differwntiating functions is called individuation. this is a life long process that according to jung can never be totally accomplished, but you just get further in the process and develop on the way

 

[entropie]

Np. well the whole point is that you dont use Te if you are ENTP, so there is no developing Te. its about developing each 4 function separately, and learning to use them as separate processes and learn to use them together consciously. Also the deal with functions used together, not as separate conscious functions, but undifferentiated function(s) in sort of chain of functins. the end of the chain where undifferentiated functions chain themselves remains unconscious and has an (usually) negative effect on the other functions in the conscious end of the function chain.

This process of differwntiating functions is called individuation. this is a life long process that according to jung can never be totally accomplished, but you just get further in the process and develop on the way

Do you think its realistic to assume that you wont develop Te ? Doesnt the model stand and fall with the thesis how dynamic that whole function apparatus is ? I mean the human brain is a complex apparatus I doubt he can keep up the status quo personality until the end of your life

 

[highlander]

the list of what Te does that you posted, isnt Te. its just generalizations about what Te people are naturally good at.

Te focuses on measurement, segmenting, sequencing, structuring, organizing, and logical consequences. In business terms, project planning, status reporting, operational metrics are examples of things that someone who prefers Te will gravitate towards. We decide if something works or doesn't work based on measurable results. We look at objective reality. Te tends to be somewhat black and white. There is right and wrong based on the objective or accepted criteria. If things don't fit on either side then they are considered to not matter. It is applied to a problem of finite scope. Our society as a whole, especially business, is heavily Te oriented. That's why executive leadership positions in business tend to be occupied by people who have Te as a primary or auxiliary function, because the company is measured by objective results - revenue, income, shareholder value, stock prices, etc. So, it plays to the strengths of someone who prefers Te. It's all about results.

Ti is more nuanced and precise. It's more about analyzing and clarifying ideas. It's about frameworks, principles and models. It's more abstract, holistic and focusing on getting thinking accurate. Stuff like that. I tend to think of Te as being more objective and Ti as being more subjective.

Do we have to use Te if we're doing project management? Do we have to use Se to drive a car? I think as a cognitive function, it represents a preference for processing things to make decisions/judgments. It doesn't represent the entire working of the human brain or form the whole basis of skills that we develop. The fact that we have learned skills or behaviors that someone who prefers Te would naturally be good at, doesn't necessarily mean that we're using Te in my opinion.

 

[INTP]

Te focuses on measurement, segmenting, sequencing, structuring, organizing, and logical consequences. In business terms, project planning, status reporting, operational metrics are examples of things that someone who prefers Te will gravitate towards. We decide if something works or doesn't work based on measurable results. We look at objective reality. Te tends to be somewhat black and white. There is right and wrong based on the objective or accepted criteria. If things don't fit on either side then they are considered to not matter. It is applied to a problem of finite scope. Our society as a whole, especially business, is heavily Te oriented. That's why executive leadership positions in business tend to be occupied by people who have Te as a primary or auxiliary function, because the company is measured by objective results - revenue, income, shareholder value, stock prices, etc. So, it plays to the strengths of someone who prefers Te. It's all about results.

Ti is more nuanced and precise. It's more about analyzing and clarifying ideas. It's about frameworks, principles and models. It's more abstract, holistic and focusing on getting thinking accurate. Stuff like that. I tend to think of Te as being more objective and Ti as being more subjective.

Do we have to use Te if we're doing project management? Do we have to use Se to drive a car? I think as a cognitive function, it represents a preference for processing things to make decisions/judgments. It doesn't represent the entire working of the human brain or form the whole basis of skills that we develop. The fact that we have learned skills or behaviors that someone who prefers Te would naturally be good at, doesn't necessarily mean that we're using Te in my opinion.

what you posted is an end result of Te, but all of those things can be achieved using other functions too.

the point of this is that yes Te users tend to do those things and yes if you would have to define a typical Te user, you would say those things. but as i said Te users usually do those things because extraverted movement of T function makes those things as their natural talents. its not that Te equals those things you said, those things are what Te looks like on the surface, when it manifests in a type. the reason why its not to predominant in Tp types is that we need one function to gather info from external world and another to analyze it. this gives some disadvantages(problems on scheduling etc.), but also some advantages(more in depth analysis etc.). Te just looks at the external world and sees a schedule as something obvious and sees the relevance of it more often than Tp, because the logical analysis is directed towards external world, by applying you internal framework to it and doing that based on what is logical.

also people tend to like to concentrate on things they are good at, but they also are able to concentrate on other things too. this is also true for functions. i can try to apply my Ti on social situations all i want, but i prefer not to do it(anymore so much), because i have learned other(better) ways to do that. because Ti is my natural talent, i kinda have hard time sometimes not to apply it on things that would just lead to Ti failure. not really sure, but i kinda had the idea from your post that you see the human mind as something that knows automatically to put Te in things that require Te etc. i have seen some people thinking it this way, but its totally the opposite. people try to force their preferred functions in things that the preferred function doesent fit to and that why get into trouble, its not so much about having a "weak" function that gets you in trouble, its selecting the wrong function to the situation. and this is where we would get back on the differentation/individuation thing that i already explained

 

[Eric B]

You use 4 functions, N T F S. N is oriented extraverted, T is oriented introverted, F is oriented extraverted and S is oriented introverted. orientation of these functions doesent change, so you dont use Ni Te Fi Se.

extraversion means pretty much applying whats inside to something outside(directed towards external world). introversion is basically taking whats outside and taking out what you think is irrelevant, this way creating an subjective view to it.

This still binds these orientations to the functions, and there is no reason that they should be so indelibly bound. It's not the way Jung conceived the theory.

It's all about preference. i/e is a preference, not an elemental part of a function. You prefer a particular orientation of the function. The opposite orientation is still implicit in the object (not in the function); you just suppress it. But it is still there, and can enter consciousness under the right circumstances. That's all the eight function model says.

I can look at something, and evaluate "what is it", omitting what is irrelevant, but that's only my own subjective view. The stuff omitted from "what is it" still exists in the object, though this is usually ignored.
It doesn't automatically become "where it's going". I'll tend to look at "what is it-what's relevant?", plus "where is it going-what can I add to this?", but that's still different from "what is it--what can I add to it?" which will include all the omitted stuff, while the former is only dealing with what was drawn out as relevant. What you're adding to in that case is where it's going, not to what it is. That's why Te would not simply be an illusion from Ti+Ne.

Again, the Mental Muscles is the best illustration of this. http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/tt/t-articl/mb-dynam.htm There are only four bubbls, or "muscles", as you said. However, while most of each one lies on one side of the i/e/ divide, there is still a part of it that lies on the opposite side. the i/e divide is not apart of the function.

 

[highlander]

what you posted is an end result of Te, but all of those things can be achieved using other functions too.

Perhaps, but I don't believe they would manifest in combination in such a fashion though.

but i kinda had the idea from your post that you see the human mind as something that knows automatically to put Te in things that require Te etc. i have seen some people thinking it this way, but its totally the opposite. people try to force their preferred functions in things that the preferred function doesent fit to and that why get into trouble, its not so much about having a "weak" function that gets you in trouble, its selecting the wrong function to the situation.

I didn't intend to imply that at all in my post. In fact, I think when you're a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail. Or, depending on the situation, we often reach for the wrong wrench even if it's not in the dominant or auxiliary. So, I agree with you there.

 

[uumlau]

OK, so cognitive function theory ranks the order in which each personality type develops each of the 8 cognitive functions.

I can only remember my first 4. As an ENTP, mine are: Ne, Ti, Fe, Si.

I can agree definitely with the first 2, maybe the first 3. However, despite not being an expert, I'm going to go out on a limb and call bullshit on the theoretical development order for the rest of the functions.

Examples

For example, aren't most of us forced to develop Te in order to function in an office environment? I'm pretty sure my Te is more developed than my Si because of this. I get Te Exhaustion sometimes, but other times, I actually like using my Te. For example, I like finding efficient ways to do things. I find anal-retentive measures for supposed minor improvements to be really annoying (like bosses that get mad if you're 10 min late), but I love finding aggressive ways to improve efficiency, like systemic improvements that reduce potential for error and reduce iterations. I also like to put a lot of time into the first iteration, in order to reduce the need for subsequent iterations. It seems to work well because I sometimes feel like I'm taking way too long, yet overall I seem to work a lot more efficiently than most, with fewer iterations.

Also, I feel like I have a lot more Se than my INTJ husband. Theoretically, INTJs are supposed to have more Se than ENTPs, and I'm going to call complete bullshit on that, too. From what I've seen, ENTPs seem to have waaaaay more Se than INTJs.

I also find I've made a few major decisions in my life that seem very Fi in nature, while it is very clear to me that my Ti is like second-nature, so while I definitely prefer Ti over Fi, I do think I use Fi sometimes.

I can go on and on about why I think the theory for the development of cog functions beyond the first 2 or 3 is BS, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Functions - "Use" or "Prefer"? What's the Difference?

Oh yeah, and another related topic for discussion. In another thread awhile ago, I mentioned "using" certain functions, and someone said you don't "use" functions, you "prefer" them. I don't understand that, it doesn't make sense to me.

What do the rest of you think?

The functions are best thought of as archetypes. This helps one understand to what degree it does/doesn't make sense to say "we use all functions" or that we somehow mix-and-match functions consciously or unconsciously.

Archetype has a very specific meaning. From wikipedia: An archetype is a universally understood symbol or term or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Archetypes are often used in myths and storytelling across different cultures.

It's a prototype, a pattern, a symbol. It's a way of taking a fairly complex set of ideas and packaging them into a single prototype that represents that set of ideas. Jung, with his function theory, created archetypes that describe both behavior and patterns of thought. He had one other key observation for all 8 of these functions: that the more one embodies the patterns/behavior/thoughts of one archetype, one unconsciously creates a shadow in the psyche which embodies its opposite. Thus Ni-Se, Ne-Si, Ti-Fe, and Te-Fi are all paired. The shadow is not "weaker", but it's unconscious and thus can be problematic. For example, Ni is preoccupied with the intuitions of one's inner world, but for that very reason the sensing world (Se) necessarily intrudes upon one's mind: one is made far more aware of the concrete world of the senses than one would like, and one tends to react negatively to it. I'll not go deeper in to the pairings for now. Let's just suffice it to say that if you embody one function to any degree, you have to have its opposite, to a degree. They fit together like puzzle pieces.

With MBTI, we get a classification that supplies two functions: one is perceiving (N/S), the other is judging (T/F); one is extroverted (e), the other is introverted (i); one is dominant, one is auxiliary. Having been classified as such, let's say Ne-Ti, then there are only two "shadow" functions that fit with this, namely Si and Fe. Ne implies the Si shadow and Ti implies the Fe shadow. That gives the first four functions. The remaining four cannot be "shadows" of the first four. Te is not the shadow of Ti, and in fact they really don't "think the same" at all.

One does wonder whether or not one can "use" the other four functions. After all, we're all human, right? Why can't an ENTP use Ni? Who cares if it's the "8th function" in Beebe's ordering? One ought to be able to do it anyway, right?

Personally, I believe that one can embody the "first four" to a large degree, coming to terms with one's shadow functions and possibly even gaining great strength of personality by resolving the polarities. (Jung hypothesized a "transcendent function" that would handle these different aspects of the psyche.) I don't believe that one can truly embody the other four, though one can certainly become aware of them in others and understand how to deal with them. One can even learn to behave in ways that emulate these other behaviors, but internally it's not natural.

If I've spent all my life learning to play the violin and become a virtuoso, I might sort of be able to pick up the piano, but I will never be able to play the piano as well as the violin. The violin has become "who I am", and the piano is always somewhat alien. Perhaps if I abandon the violin and spend countless hours and years practicing the piano and approach near virtuoso level in that, then I'll have lost much of my skill with the violin. Similarly, in theory, it may be possible to learn to work with the patterns inherent in these other four functions, but to really develop them would require "un"-developing the first four functions to some degree.

Why? Because the archetypes are antithetical. To think in one pattern means to NOT think in the other pattern. The shadows are the exception because they are a complimentary pattern. To mix and match the functions, to say that anyone can do any function, is to assert that the functions are real psychological entities that any human can choose to use or not use at one's leisure, and as such they are no longer archetypes, but skills or talents or what have you.

I do not categorically deny that one has access to all eight functions, but my experience on these various forums and in real life suggests that the archetypes have very real consequences. I've seen too many people cross-talk on the basis of Ne/Si vs Ni/Se or Te/Fi vs Ti/Fe, which suggests that it is no simple matter to just "start thinking like those other functions." It's as if Ne/Si is kind of a "meta-axiom" that describes how one should organize thoughts, and Te/Fi is how one should judge them, more or less, and these axioms prevent one from seeing Ni/Se thought processes clearly, or from seeing Ti/Fe processes clearly. One knows that those other processes are there, in an abstract way, but they don't quite make sense.

Now as for your observations that appear to contradict everything I've said; how, as an ENTP, you seem to have access to Te, and you feel like you've used Fi, and you certainly feel that you have way more Se than your INTJ husband. I'm not going to discount any of those feelings. I've been there and done that, too.

When I've taken Nardi's cognitive function tests (or variations on a theme), I test strong in Ni AND Ne, Te AND Ti, sort of strong in Fi, kind of weak in Si and Se, and very low in Fe. Yet it doesn't explain why some of my worst never-goes-anywhere discussions (especially online) are with INTPs. We ought to be thinking the same, we share so many functions, right? What I came to understand is that what I thought was "Ti" was really Ni in tandem with Te, that "Ne" was also just Ni, and that Fi and Se were more prominent than I'd realized. That means I don't share a single function with an INTP, though on the surface, to others, we'll appear much the same, both being INTx. So while we seem to be the same kind of nerds, when we actually try to share complex ideas, there is a LOT of cross talk, because the INTP is trying to nail down definitions, while I'm trying to just get the gist/meanings of the concepts.

Now that's just a taste of my experiences, and there's a lot of potential evidence out there. I would suggest, however, that perhaps what you feel is Te is really Fe (they often seem to emulate each other, especially in the workplace - my ESFJ ex-wife loved being "really efficient"), and that your Fi moments were really Fe. (Try telling an Fe dom that they don't really feel deeply and personally most of the time. I'll stand back while your head gets bitten off.) As for your being "more Se" than your INTJ, perhaps you mistake what Se is. It isn't about how good your senses are so much as how aware you are (consciously or unconsciously) of the physical world in the moment. Yes, most of the time, INTJs are completely unaware, but inferior Se kicks in and generally irritates them. They complain about smells that you hardly notice, that sort of thing. As an ENTP, you're going to be very aware of others' concerns (Fe), and you're going to be spotting all sorts of patterns/ideas in the environment (Ne) that your INTJ will never see. So yeah, you're seeing things he doesn't, but perhaps that's Ne and Fe, not Se. This is all just some food for thought; you know yourself far better than I do, of course.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just sharing.

 

[entropie]

When I've taken Nardi's cognitive function tests (or variations on a theme), I test strong in Ni AND Ne, Te AND Ti, sort of strong in Fi, kind of weak in Si and Se, and very low in Fe. Yet it doesn't explain why some of my worst never-goes-anywhere discussions (especially online) are with INTPs. We ought to be thinking the same, we share so many functions, right? What I came to understand is that what I thought was "Ti" was really Ni in tandem with Te, that "Ne" was also just Ni, and that Fi and Se were more prominent than I'd realized. That means I don't share a single function with an INTP, though on the surface, to others, we'll appear much the same, both being INTx. So while we seem to be the same kind of nerds, when we actually try to share complex ideas, there is a LOT of cross talk, because the INTP is trying to nail down definitions, while I'm trying to just get the gist/meanings of the concepts.

I feel with you, tho I am per definition even closer to an intp than anybody else would ever get.

The socionics qudras explained the difference for me a bit, where intjs and entps are in alpha and intps are in gamma http://www.socionics.us/theory/quadras.shtml

 

[redcheerio]

This is only vaguely related to the thread, but this cog function test was posted in someone's type-me thread, so I decided to share it and put my results here.

http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm

Cognitive Process Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)

extraverted Sensing (Se) ***************************** (29.4)
average use

introverted Sensing (Si) ******** (8.7)
unused

extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ********************************************** (46.6)
excellent use

introverted Intuiting (Ni) ********************************** (34.2)
good use

extraverted Thinking (Te) ************************* (25)
average use

introverted Thinking (Ti) ************************************** (38.7)
excellent use

extraverted Feeling (Fe) *************************** (27.9)
average use

introverted Feeling (Fi) ****************************** (30.3)
good use

So basically, according to these results, I've developed a bit of everything except Si.

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

However, I understand that this might not actually be the case. I'm still not sure about the distinction between when I'm actually using a function (back to the Te example) and when I'm using my more favored functions in its place to do the same kind of activities. I can believe it's true, but I'd like to understand it better.

<*goes back to reread what others already wrote about this earlier in the thread*>

 

[uumlau]

This is only vaguely related to the thread, but this cog function test was posted in someone's type-me thread, so I decided to share it and put my results here.

http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm

Cognitive Process Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)

extraverted Sensing (Se) ***************************** (29.4)
average use

introverted Sensing (Si) ******** (8.7)
unused

extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ********************************************** (46.6)
excellent use

introverted Intuiting (Ni) ********************************** (34.2)
good use

extraverted Thinking (Te) ************************* (25)
average use

introverted Thinking (Ti) ************************************** (38.7)
excellent use

extraverted Feeling (Fe) *************************** (27.9)
average use

introverted Feeling (Fi) ****************************** (30.3)
good use

So basically, according to these results, I've developed a bit of everything except Si.

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

However, I understand that this might not actually be the case. I'm still not sure about the distinction between when I'm actually using a function (back to the Te example) and when I'm using my more favored functions in its place to do the same kind of activities. I can believe it's true, but I'd like to understand it better.

<*goes back to reread what others already wrote about this earlier in the thread*>

Se: Ne can seem similar to Se, so Ne > Se means "Ne".
Si: Of course Si seems remote to you. Ne is your dominant function. Si plays a more significant role than you think.
Ne: your top function.
Ni: also seems similar to Ne, but you don't really do this.
Te: seems similar to Ti, but you don't do this.
Ti: You do this.
Fe: You'll figure this one out, more or less.
Fi: No, you don't really do this.

Don't confuse skills with cognitive functions. (This is why the tests mostly suck, because skills are easily confused with the functions, and the tests can't ask the questions in such a way as to filter out the false positives.)

 

[redcheerio]

Np. well the whole point is that you dont use Te if you are ENTP, so there is no developing Te. its about developing each 4 function separately, and learning to use them as separate processes and learn to use them together consciously. Also the deal with functions used together, not as separate conscious functions, but undifferentiated function(s) in sort of chain of functins. the end of the chain where undifferentiated functions chain themselves remains unconscious and has an (usually) negative effect on the other functions in the conscious end of the function chain.

This process of differentiating functions is called individuation. this is a life long process that according to jung can never be totally accomplished, but you just get further in the process and develop on the way

Te focuses on measurement, segmenting, sequencing, structuring, organizing, and logical consequences. In business terms, project planning, status reporting, operational metrics are examples of things that someone who prefers Te will gravitate towards. We decide if something works or doesn't work based on measurable results. We look at objective reality. Te tends to be somewhat black and white. There is right and wrong based on the objective or accepted criteria. If things don't fit on either side then they are considered to not matter. It is applied to a problem of finite scope. Our society as a whole, especially business, is heavily Te oriented. That's why executive leadership positions in business tend to be occupied by people who have Te as a primary or auxiliary function, because the company is measured by objective results - revenue, income, shareholder value, stock prices, etc. So, it plays to the strengths of someone who prefers Te. It's all about results.

Ti is more nuanced and precise. It's more about analyzing and clarifying ideas. It's about frameworks, principles and models. It's more abstract, holistic and focusing on getting thinking accurate. Stuff like that. I tend to think of Te as being more objective and Ti as being more subjective.

Do we have to use Te if we're doing project management? Do we have to use Se to drive a car? I think as a cognitive function, it represents a preference for processing things to make decisions/judgments. It doesn't represent the entire working of the human brain or form the whole basis of skills that we develop. The fact that we have learned skills or behaviors that someone who prefers Te would naturally be good at, doesn't necessarily mean that we're using Te in my opinion.

...With MBTI, we get a classification that supplies two functions: one is perceiving (N/S), the other is judging (T/F); one is extroverted (e), the other is introverted (i); one is dominant, one is auxiliary. Having been classified as such, let's say Ne-Ti, then there are only two "shadow" functions that fit with this, namely Si and Fe. Ne implies the Si shadow and Ti implies the Fe shadow. That gives the first four functions. The remaining four cannot be "shadows" of the first four. Te is not the shadow of Ti, and in fact they really don't "think the same" at all.

One does wonder whether or not one can "use" the other four functions. After all, we're all human, right? Why can't an ENTP use Ni? Who cares if it's the "8th function" in Beebe's ordering? One ought to be able to do it anyway, right?

Personally, I believe that one can embody the "first four" to a large degree, coming to terms with one's shadow functions and possibly even gaining great strength of personality by resolving the polarities. (Jung hypothesized a "transcendent function" that would handle these different aspects of the psyche.) I don't believe that one can truly embody the other four, though one can certainly become aware of them in others and understand how to deal with them. One can even learn to behave in ways that emulate these other behaviors, but internally it's not natural.

If I've spent all my life learning to play the violin and become a virtuoso, I might sort of be able to pick up the piano, but I will never be able to play the piano as well as the violin. The violin has become "who I am", and the piano is always somewhat alien. Perhaps if I abandon the violin and spend countless hours and years practicing the piano and approach near virtuoso level in that, then I'll have lost much of my skill with the violin. Similarly, in theory, it may be possible to learn to work with the patterns inherent in these other four functions, but to really develop them would require "un"-developing the first four functions to some degree.

Why? Because the archetypes are antithetical. To think in one pattern means to NOT think in the other pattern. The shadows are the exception because they are a complimentary pattern. To mix and match the functions, to say that anyone can do any function, is to assert that the functions are real psychological entities that any human can choose to use or not use at one's leisure, and as such they are no longer archetypes, but skills or talents or what have you.

I do not categorically deny that one has access to all eight functions, but my experience on these various forums and in real life suggests that the archetypes have very real consequences. I've seen too many people cross-talk on the basis of Ne/Si vs Ni/Se or Te/Fi vs Ti/Fe, which suggests that it is no simple matter to just "start thinking like those other functions." It's as if Ne/Si is kind of a "meta-axiom" that describes how one should organize thoughts, and Te/Fi is how one should judge them, more or less, and these axioms prevent one from seeing Ni/Se thought processes clearly, or from seeing Ti/Fe processes clearly. One knows that those other processes are there, in an abstract way, but they don't quite make sense.

Now as for your observations that appear to contradict everything I've said; how, as an ENTP, you seem to have access to Te, and you feel like you've used Fi, and you certainly feel that you have way more Se than your INTJ husband. I'm not going to discount any of those feelings. I've been there and done that, too.

When I've taken Nardi's cognitive function tests (or variations on a theme), I test strong in Ni AND Ne, Te AND Ti, sort of strong in Fi, kind of weak in Si and Se, and very low in Fe. Yet it doesn't explain why some of my worst never-goes-anywhere discussions (especially online) are with INTPs. We ought to be thinking the same, we share so many functions, right? What I came to understand is that what I thought was "Ti" was really Ni in tandem with Te, that "Ne" was also just Ni, and that Fi and Se were more prominent than I'd realized. That means I don't share a single function with an INTP, though on the surface, to others, we'll appear much the same, both being INTx. So while we seem to be the same kind of nerds, when we actually try to share complex ideas, there is a LOT of cross talk, because the INTP is trying to nail down definitions, while I'm trying to just get the gist/meanings of the concepts.

Now that's just a taste of my experiences, and there's a lot of potential evidence out there. I would suggest, however, that perhaps what you feel is Te is really Fe (they often seem to emulate each other, especially in the workplace - my ESFJ ex-wife loved being "really efficient"), and that your Fi moments were really Fe. (Try telling an Fe dom that they don't really feel deeply and personally most of the time. I'll stand back while your head gets bitten off.) As for your being "more Se" than your INTJ, perhaps you mistake what Se is. It isn't about how good your senses are so much as how aware you are (consciously or unconsciously) of the physical world in the moment. Yes, most of the time, INTJs are completely unaware, but inferior Se kicks in and generally irritates them. They complain about smells that you hardly notice, that sort of thing. As an ENTP, you're going to be very aware of others' concerns (Fe), and you're going to be spotting all sorts of patterns/ideas in the environment (Ne) that your INTJ will never see. So yeah, you're seeing things he doesn't, but perhaps that's Ne and Fe, not Se. This is all just some food for thought; you know yourself far better than I do, of course.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just sharing.

Se: Ne can seem similar to Se, so Ne > Se means "Ne".
Si: Of course Si seems remote to you. Ne is your dominant function. Si plays a more significant role than you think.
Ne: your top function.
Ni: also seems similar to Ne, but you don't really do this.
Te: seems similar to Ti, but you don't do this.
Ti: You do this.
Fe: You'll figure this one out, more or less.
Fi: No, you don't really do this.

Don't confuse skills with cognitive functions. (This is why the tests mostly suck, because skills are easily confused with the functions, and the tests can't ask the questions in such a way as to filter out the false positives.)

OK, so what is the distinction between functions and skills? (I guess I'm Ti-ing this. )

Aren't we always using some combination of functions? I can think of times when I'm mostly using Ne, or Ti, or Fe. So if I'm doing an activity that looks like Te but I'm not using Te, does that mean that my internal thought process that I use for this skill is different than how a Te dom would do it?

How can we tell whether we're using our preferred functions, or developing our shadow functions to do it? Back to what INTP said; does this mean that I have some potentially negative shadow functions going on at the same time that I should be aware of? Or does it just mean I'm using Ne-Ti-Fe (or something like that) to do the same Te-like activity in a less masterful way than a Te user would do it?

 

[redcheerio]

Another question. How would ADD/ADHD meds affect an Ne dom in terms of function use?

If Ne activity lights up the brain like a Christmas tree, while ADD meds help them to focus, would that mean it would suppress Ne in favor of Ti and make an ENTP more like an INTP, or would they start becoming more like an ENTJ? If they became more like an ENTJ, would that mean they were developing functions like Te?

(I've never tried them, but was just wondering. I'm curious whether they transform Ti users into Te users, or if something else is going on.)

 

[INTP]

So if I'm doing an activity that looks like Te but I'm not using Te, does that mean that my internal thought process that I use for this skill is different than how a Te dom would do it?

Or does it just mean I'm using Ne-Ti-Fe (or something like that) to do the same Te-like activity in a less masterful way than a Te user would do it?

Yes. there is no shadow functions. people are misusing jungian words, when i say shadow, it just means unconscious(like jung used the word). so if a function is in the shadow, it just means its undeveloped/undifferianted, so its unconscious and links itself to other functions. now when Fe is in the shadow(undeveloped), you have no real control over it and it shows itself through other functions that it links to. for example Fe might link itself to Ti, so now you are unconsciously aiming Ti analysis towards something that Fe wants to analyze(and usually should analyze to get good results). this Ti analyzing over Fe matters will look like retard or handicapped pseudo Fi and this is where the confusion of shadow functions comes from, but its not Fi you are actually using. now this sort of using Ti to Fe matters can lead you to obsess over a thought of something if the unconscious Fe wants it resolved(thus sending instincts for you to concentrate on it), but Ti might not be able to resolve it or might make you act in stupid ways because you are basically controlled by yoir shadow(unconscious).

 

[INTP]

Another question. How would ADD/ADHD meds affect an Ne dom in terms of function use?

If Ne activity lights up the brain like a Christmas tree, while ADD meds help them to focus, would that mean it would suppress Ne in favor of Ti and make an ENTP more like an INTP, or would they start becoming more like an ENTJ? If they became more like an ENTJ, would that mean they were developing functions like Te?

(I've never tried them, but was just wondering. I'm curious whether they transform Ti users into Te users, or if something else is going on.)

I looked up the effect mechanisms of those drugs. basically they inhibit dopamine and noradrenaline from being taken back to synapses that fast, so they make them work for longer periods of time and is basically same as adding them to brains.

I suggest watching this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA

dopamine increases activity on areas fp1 and fp2(he explains what the areas do in the video).

Noradrenaline has bit more complicated effects, but what i found doesent affect on cerebral cortex(area that he measures on the video). basically it just increases focus.

So i dont think they have an effect to Ne, except that when there is info coming elsewhere, you are able to concentrate on that other info instead of just jumping from subject to subject.

But i cant say for sure about noradrenaline, because i cant find any good info about it.

But i doubt that it changes brains from Ti to Te, because Te and Ti are basically different wiring on the brains. if it lowers Ne, it does it by increasing Ti.

 

[entropie]

I dont think that hyperactivity can at all be related to a well-functioning N. For example are hyperactivity symptoms related to Ne-doms but why not for example to Ni-doms. Per definition they had to suffer from an equal phaenomena but on a more introverted scale. Still with the majority of Ni-doms noone would call them clutterminded or hyperactive in their thoughts.

To me N is as well nothing that comes natural, it is a learnt attitude gained by experience. It is about the preference to trust your hunches and those hunches are most often patterns and analogies drawn from your subconcious mind. I for example yesterday watched a movie in the cinema with my girlfriend and we both draw at some point in the movie simoultaneously the conclusion, who the murderer could be tho the movie was at a point when you couldnt prove that theory rationally, but only could say its a hunch.

The curious thing is that we shared this ability from day one. Someonehow we manage to simoultaneously reach the same conclusion about a situation at the exact same time. We manage to write each other sms at the exact same time, we had from day one a kind of synchronisation in thoughts with each others thats marvellous. Well I am the Ne-dominant and she is infx and she is diagnosed ADD, I was never only remotely diagnosed or suspected of hyperactivity. So here is a problem with ADD - theory and Ne-doms.

If you take a long look in my past and my girlfriends past, you'll find that in every life stage we had similiar intrests, sometimes even the same intrests. She is like a clone of me or I am a clone of her at times, its really mysterious at times. Regarding our life experiences we made similiar experiences and our attitudes towards life are the same or similiar as well. So we have a sort of shared experience, a pool of experience we both can rely to and its very similiar.

I am not quite sure with my theory, but still my theory is that an N does rely more on the patterns and analogies that are formed in the subconcious, meaning the subconcious has a strong influence on our presence. When I for example watch a movie or read a long text, it's like the important or relevant parts are immediantly highlighted to me, like someone would light them up or mark them. Thats no sole Ne quality, cause my girlfriend doesnt have that, her greatest problem is finding focus, so I am attributing that to NeTi. Still she does have the same insights like I have about situations and since she has problems to focus, it cant be that she is just good at analyzing.

A S in this theory simply wouldnt rely on the subconcious but on the factual, following the motto "what I cant see, doesnt exist". He'd be the "I play it safe with reality type" and he'ld focus on the factual in that regards and become a master of dealing with it.

there is one problem to this theory and that is enthusiasm. I dont know the role of enthusiasm in the whole thing. it could be that me and my girl reach the same conclusions, because since we are both contempt with each others attitudes and opinions, its easier for us to be enthusiastic about each others ideas in an instant. What speaks against that is that just the moment before I had an idea my girlfriend tells me she had an idea and it was the same like I just had, so I basically wasnt influenced by her.

I dunno its worth more thinking, but I think its definitly wrong to too strongly connect ADD or hyperactivity with Ne. The obvious solution is not always the right one.

 

[uumlau]

OK, so what is the distinction between functions and skills? (I guess I'm Ti-ing this. )

Skills = "What you know how to do."
Functions = "How you choose what to do."

It's easy to make the confusion because people familiar with functions will treat them as "verbs" as you just did, as a kind of shorthand.

I find the distinction to be particularly clear when trying to teach/explain something to someone else. I can teach/explain ideas and skills and so on. I can't teach "how to think." I have always found it odd that so many people couldn't "look at problems" the way I do. It didn't even occur to me that they looked at problems completely differently, and they can't teach me how they think about problems.

Aren't we always using some combination of functions? I can think of times when I'm mostly using Ne, or Ti, or Fe. So if I'm doing an activity that looks like Te but I'm not using Te, does that mean that my internal thought process that I use for this skill is different than how a Te dom would do it?

Yeah, pretty much.

How can we tell whether we're using our preferred functions, or developing our shadow functions to do it? Back to what INTP said; does this mean that I have some potentially negative shadow functions going on at the same time that I should be aware of? Or does it just mean I'm using Ne-Ti-Fe (or something like that) to do the same Te-like activity in a less masterful way than a Te user would do it?

Well it's kind of like breathing. In order to breathe in, you must breathe out, and vice versa. You don't get to do just one. To "use" a function, you must also "use" its opposite.

Using the breathing analogy, we mostly think of breathing as "breathing in", while we would classify "breathing out" as "blowing." So, we might be tempted to think that we only breathe in, which is of course nonsense, but for abstract notions such as how we organize things in our minds, it isn't obvious that breathing and blowing are "the same thing" even if opposites. Now imagine only consciously breathing in: drawing in breath would be controlled, graceful, easy, but breathing out would be haphazard, but we would still necessarily do it, if only to breathe in again.

This is how the shadow works, if you read his type theory: if one uses Ti, the Fe side breaks out as an uncharacteristic aspect of one's personality, for example. But in order to think about things in a Ti way, by arranging part of one's mind that way, the other part of the mind has to be arranged in its mirror image.

So the realization that you are necessarily thinking both ways is key to self-understanding. You differentiate the "shadow" (I believe Jung overused the word in the typological sense, somewhat conflating it with other sets of archetypes he used) by recognizing that you do behave/think that way, and it can thus become conscious. Upon becoming conscious, one can more easily develop skills that are in sync with that mode of thought (Ti types becoming more socially aware, and thus more socially skilled, for example). I should point out that it doesn't "become conscious" in a clear, distinct way, but rather one gradually becomes more self-aware. "Developing one's shadow" is the task of a lifetime. Actually, I'd say developing one's primary function(s) is also the task of a lifetime, one just happens to have a head start in that case.

 

[INTP]

Uumlau is using definitions for shadow and archetype from other people than jung. those words mean different things to other than jung. then he tries to apply these meanings from others to what jung writes and this leads him to have distorted view on what jung means.

There is no mirror image of function used, Ne doesent need Ni.

Like you mentioned earlier the christmas tree figure, thats Ne. Ni isnt some mirror image of christmas tree. Ni shows itself on very different manner measured with EEG. its mainly the area of T6, T6 area handles (when simplified) future projection.

Ne on the other hand is cross-contextual thinking, this is totally different from future projection and isnt any sort of opposite of future projection of Ni.

Cross-contextual thinking is for example done when trying to figure out a metaphor for something, drawing a picture of love or explaining something. or there is this commercial that representa cross-contextual thinking perfectly. its a commercial for some healthy drink that has calsium, vitamins etc. so it makes your bones stronger and you healthier in many ways(better immune system etc.). there is dad trying to explain for a kid why it is good to drink it and explaining its benefits. the dad goes around and around the subject trying to explain things about calcium etc. the kid naturally has bit hard time getting this, but then he asks "so, its like this bicycle helmed protecting me, but from inside?". this how the kid understood the ramblings of the dad and put it in different context, that still has the same fundamentals, is cross-contextual thinking and pretty much is the definition of Ne. this isnt needed for future projection of Ni and from what i have noticed, INTJs are total retards when it comes to this sort of cross contextual thinking, instead they need to combine observable facts from external world(Se) and see how these facts could be put together by thinking possibilities that these facts have in them and projecting them in future(and see how it fits to other stuff that seem to also be in the future).

 

[uumlau]

Uumlau is using definitions for shadow and archetype from other people than jung. those words mean different things to other than jung. then he tries to apply these meanings from others to what jung writes and this leads him to have distorted view on what jung means.

There is no mirror image of function used, Ne doesent need Ni.

Ne doesn't need Si?

 

[entropie]

w/o Si I wouldnt know what to rebel against