Why should I care about the functions?!

[ThatGirl]

Shit! I am Fe I just dont define F as others do...its very objective to the situation.

 

[Ilah]

Shit! I am Fe I just dont define F as others do...its very objective to the situation.

A complicated thing about functions is that it seems like different authors define them differently. You might identify strongly with one Fe description, but another seems like it is not you at all.

Also "feeling" in MBTI is not used the way it is used in normal language. It is not just emotion, but covers values as well. For example if you feel strongly about the environment, politics, religion or some cause that would be part of F.

 

[ThatGirl]

After almost accidentally killing the dog I never should have owned in the first place. I really wanted her to make it so I could give her to someone else........ because I'm not a caretaker and I dont do causes.

But I cared enough to give her away


She did make it by the way and with a good family with another dog.

 

[ThatGirl]

I think I need to read up on F more

 

[mlittrell]

Jung's system is totally based on the functions and more reliable than MBTI.

agreed very very very much, if you look at my posts, a good chunk of them are basically function theory. the functions are by far one of the most important things in personality typing. to me, moreso then understanding the temperaments (though you must understand that before functions). the reason i find them to be extremely helpful is because really anything can be explained using functions. it seems to help people who are trying to figure out what they are in mbti terms. I use it a lot in situations. Really, its a deeper way of understanding people. and your functions are INTP (Ti, Ne, Si, Fe)

 

[Totenkindly]

Functions are a lot like Astrology in actual practice. You tell someone "you are x, that's why you do this," and they say "oh yeah, that makes sense."

yes, it's pretty easy to do that.

I.e., you can define behavior in terms of functions, but you cannot justify/proves functions necessarily from behavior. It's just one way of organizing behavior and potentially explaining it and probably should just be looked at in that light.

I think where it gets a little more interesting is whether or not you can predict future behavior by organizing past behavior in terms of function. Does it have predictive value? Unfortunately there is enough deviation so you're left wondering what suggests the theory is flawed versus what is just exception to the rule.

 

[mlittrell]

behavior/motives = enneagram, decision making = functions/mbti. you will find that an Fi and Fe person might come to the same decision but for different reason. or they have a different mindset about it.

 

[redacted]

Functions are a lot like Astrology in actual practice. You tell someone "you are x, that's why you do this," and they say "oh yeah, that makes sense." Yet you can't usually decipher someone's functions without prior knowledge. Think about it.

And Keirsey is somehow better? Are you kidding?

 

[Jack Flak]

And Keirsey is somehow better? Are you kidding?

Yes; No.

 

[redacted]

Good luck with that.

 

[Jack Flak]

Good luck with that.

Thank you. It's going absolutely smashingly so far.