# Thread: Function Order : Clarification.

1. Originally Posted by Jack Flak
Except no one can reliably tell you whether the car is moving forward or backward at any given moment. Only that it's moving, if you're lucky. Therefore the e/i separation is useless.
The point is that it's moving, not motionless. Therefore thinking on itself is useless without direction from E/I.

2. Originally Posted by "?"
The point is that it's moving, not motionless. Therefore thinking on itself is useless without direction from E/I.
Useless for what purpose? Really. I'm getting by quite well considering the functions as in use, or not, without regard to the object. Maybe some need to know what the object is, but not me.

3. Originally Posted by Xander
I agree 100%. The problem I'm attempting to address is that a car going in reverse is still as much of a car as one going forwards. The direction does not change the object but merely note in which direction it is most often travelling. It also never rules out that a car has the capability to move in both directions.
Agreed, except that as we know people usually drive a car forward and occasionally in reverse so depending on you domiant type (Te/Ti) you will go forward naturally and may have some idea of drive in reverse when needed. What you will not do is drive consistently in reverse, no more than someone using Te will consistently use Ti and vice versa.. as we have access to all eight functions, but the Ti is not going to be natural and can only be done with limited use.
Originally Posted by Xander
If a car is most often reversing does this state anything about it's capability to go forwards? Obviously the answer is no.
I don't think anyone is saying that Te types can't use Ti and vice versa, but one is natural and the other takes work and is not natural. Even though you use reverse or the other function on occasion (in particularly since Lenore Thomson notes that there are many things that you cannot use Te for and you must use Ti) you still drive forward almost unconsciously, but driving in reverse always takes a consious effort.

4. Originally Posted by "?"
I don't think anyone is saying that Te types can't use Ti and vice versa, but one is natural and the other takes work and is not natural. Even though you use reverse or the other function on occasion (in particularly since Lenore Thomson notes that there are many things that you cannot use Te for and you must use Ti) you still drive forward almost unconsciously, but driving in reverse always takes a consious effort.
There are still different interpretations out there. Is it really unconsciousness with the function or trouble with switching worlds from E to I and back again?

6. Originally Posted by Jack Flak
Useless for what purpose? Really. I'm getting by quite well considering the functions as in use, or not, without regard to the object. Maybe some need to know what the object is, but not me.
C'mon Jack if you're thinking then you're not comotose therefore you're doing something. Your thinking is either internal (Ti) or geared toward an object (Te).

7. Originally Posted by "?"
C'mon Jack if you're thinking then you're not comotose therefore you're doing something. Your thinking is either internal (Ti) or geared toward an object (Te).
I think the point is whether the differentiation between Ti and Te is generally relevant. Most of the time I see T in use it is a blend of Ti and Te if you use the strictest criteria.

8. Originally Posted by edcoaching
There are still different interpretations out there. Is it really unconsciousness with the function or trouble with switching worlds from E to I and back again?
I don’t think it’s trouble, but you are not going to do them equally well. Just naturally being predisposed to preferring E/I will make some difference in which you do better.
Originally Posted by Xander
I am not sure what you were going to ask since your whole argument is that you do not believe in cognitive functions. Clearly you have your connotation of what thinking is which is not what Jung describes, therefore not what MBTI or the enthusiasts of both theories are considering. Give us your connotation of what you describe as thinking which you believe would encompass both Ti and Te.

9. I've just started my blog where I discuss my sorting out through the interoverted vs extraverted attitudes of the judging functions. http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ions-type.html

It seems the distinctions become very muddy and ambiguous at times (which goes agains the clarity the Ti type needs). Then, I have people like Xander who think I'm an NFP from the way I e-mail, somehow. But as I'm finally coming to a full grasp of the concept, it seems a lot of us have been looking at the wrong things in trying to type people.
Ti is often described as "understanding how things work". So as I struggle to figure out what's wrong with the computer and home network, mess it all up, and then a friend who I believe is ISTJ, yet who has this knack for figuring out computers and other technical things, and who set the network up in the first place has to come and fix it back. I then wonder if I should be embarrassed in light of my Ti profession, as I'm supposedly the one who should be able to understand "how it works" and figure it out.

But Haas and Hunziker's Building Blocks of Personality Type has made it finally click for me that Ti is really about the internal ordering of thoughts into logical structures, models and frameworks, rather than understanding all external models and frameworks instantly. It's because of the fact that an external system can be mapped to an internal framework that would make the person likely to gain a good grasp of the system. But it is also said that if the person does not have a particular internal framework that he can map the system to, he will be very slow to "get" it! This was pointed out by H&H, (the person seemed like they had a learning disability, but he just needed time for his Ti to do its grasp things) and then it finally clicked. His main method of judgment is still internal logic; he just doesn't have a model for that particular system. He doesn't automatically become a Feeling preferrer or extraverted Thinker or somethign like that. Einstein is supposed to have been an NTP, and he even failed Math! So this explains a lot that happened in my educational story.

Likewise, an extraverted Thinker would also be able to understand how things work. Since their logic is focused on those external things, they would really need to understand something about those external objects they are ordering.

So you will see two people who are very logically oriented, and deal in technical things. One will simply crack problems by focusing directly on the obect, and the other will map it to an internal framework like a symmetry, or familiar with those things work, etc.

Hence, Thinking as the neutral "car", and one person is simply driving it one way, and the other is driving it the other way. A much closer analogy would be someone who learns to drive a car by reading a manual, versus someone who learns by simply getting in one first, and applying stuff he remembered wither from watching others drive, or from the remote control toy car or amusement park bumper cars he drove as a kid. Or someone who reads a map to get somewhere versus someone does relies on memory.
Likewise, I had been dealing a while ago with a supposed type expert, who apparently does not really like types displaying her shadow processes a lot, and Fi was portrayed as virtually less feeling than an INTP, since the INTP's Fe is inferior, yet still in the "ego-compatible" range, while an FP's Fe is even lower than that in the ego-incompatible "shadows", and usually negative. It was like the two attitudes of Feeling were totally different animals! (Hence someone deemed not mindful of a group can't even qualify as an IxTP!) But, (aside from the CP tests, which measured actual strengths of the functions, and in which Fe for INTP's is generally the weakest, at 10% or less); then, I remembered how FP's are generally portrayed as "empathetic" as the FJ's, and began realizing that they weren't as different as the impression I was given.

They both are driving the same F "values" car; only one's values are externally based, and the other's is internally based. Someone using an internal standard will generally try to align with the values of a group he is in, unless a personal value is violated. Then, rather than imposing himself, he will try to withdraw. I imagine if the group is really trying to force itself on the person, he may seem more "selfish" than Fe types. But then this goes to show the relative nature of "values", as different groups will have different values, and who's to say which are really right? The negative side of the supposedly "selfless" Fe is that you could be following the values of a group that has really bad values. (e.g. hate groups, etc). Fi would be more likely to follow universal values (which are considered internal or introverted), and resist the evil.

But the overall net effect of Feeling is the largely the same in both groups. It's only the location of the standard that differs.

10. Originally Posted by Eric B
Likewise, I had been dealing a while ago with a supposed type expert, who apparently does not really like types displaying her shadow processes a lot...
Out of curiosity, does the "supposed type expert" you refer to have the initials "VJ" in her name?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO