Function Stacks

[wolfy]

I've read a lot of threads on one function. But I'm interested in whether anybody has any theories about how two functions stack together.
I'm particularly interested in how you feel any two of your top three functions work together.
For example Se+Ni creating a type of extraverted intuition. Things like that.

Any ideas.

 

[Athenian200]

Well, I don't think that they stack to create a function. You already have all the functions, after all. Rather, using a group of other functions together could resemble one other function, although it wouldn't really be "true" to or of that function.

In my case, I'd say that Ni, Fe, and Ti sometimes work together in such a way that I can appear to be using Te (or sometimes even Ne) on a superficial level, although closer examination would show that there are no real Te motives or processing behind my display. Actual Te would likely manifest as far more shadowy and unskilled for me.

 

[wolfy]

Interesting...I don't think they create a function either. But using the MBTI lingo makes it easy to understand.

Thanks for sharing. Those were the kind of thoughts I was looking for.

 

[mlittrell]

i think they do stack to create a function. there are 4 main functions that are accessible by an individual and there are 4 that are not. take an ISFP for example. your functions are Fi, Se, Ni, Te. that leaves you with 4 other functions unaccessible. i believe, yet can't prove, that you can create pseudo functions out of your accessible functions, like the example you gave, but really the last 4 functions really aren't worth looking into. i also believe its not worth wasting your time on; it wont tell you all that much. i push this a lot but using just the temperaments will get you quite a bit farther then the functions will. the functions explain how the temperaments are derived, in a way, so why not just stick with the temperaments? also if you are going to look at the functions you need to look at them like a team and not as individual entities. as individual entities they really dont do to much. they also tend to be influenced by the other functions around them. Ni in an ISFP and Ni in an INFJ are going to be quite a bit different.

sorry for the random line of thought. i just typed what i thought, hope it makes sense.

 

[wolfy]

I'm thinking along the same lines as you mlittrell. How do they come together to create something useful. Because one of them wouldn't work by itself.

 

[mlittrell]

well you need to think of what they do actually do individually first and then think what they create. ill take myself because its the easiest for me to explain lol. Ne is my first function. that is a mode of perception. so i perceive things abstractly from the outside world. my next function would be Fi. that is a mode of judgement. i make decisions in an internal and emotionally based way. i put myself into the situation and make a value judgment. put those together now. i take things in abstractly and decide what to do with them based on how i feel (to sum it up because im lazy). and you can keep going down the functions doing that but also taking into account that the farther you go down the less weight the function has.

EDIT:

Te. i take my judgment and apply it in a logical way...?

etc

 

[spirilis]

I usually speak of functions in terms of pairs like this. E.g. Ji+Pe or Je+Pi (J=judgment function, P=perceiving function) are the ones I can most easily understand since they end up together in the functional breakout of a type. But what I find most curious is how Je+Pe or Ji+Pi functions interact, if they do at all. It's this kind of material that makes me wish there was some solid (and peer-reviewed) neurological science verifying all of this stuff.

 

[nanook]

i think Si works by it self.
i doesn't do anything though
makes you melt with a chair or something ...

 

[mlittrell]

spirilis: an interesting way of looking at it, ive seen that mentioned before. for me personally i just find it easier to think of the actual functions instead of Je, Pi, or whatever but that is a good way to sum it up. also if you want material on neuroscience and personality look into The Edge Effect by Eric Braverman or really anything he does. he bases a lot of his work on MBTI.

nanook: if that were true then Ni would work by itself too

 

[nanook]

nanook: if that were true then Ni would work by itself too

makes you melt with time? (momentum)
dissociative entheogen may be required....

 

[spirilis]

spirilis: an interesting way of looking at it, ive seen that mentioned before. for me personally i just find it easier to think of the actual functions instead of Je, Pi, or whatever but that is a good way to sum it up. also if you want material on neuroscience and personality look into The Edge Effect by Eric Braverman or really anything he does. he bases a lot of his work on MBTI.

nanook: if that were true then Ni would work by itself too

hm interesting, might check that book out one of these days.

I think it's important to consider a function pair because they color each other. IMO, Ne+Fi has a different "feel" to it than Ne+Ti, in that the concepts thrown about by folks of those respective types tend to have different hidden assumptions underlying them, for one example.

 

[mlittrell]

oh i 100% agree. i was just talking about the notation.

 

[garbage]

I guess it's Ne and a strong tertiary Te that sees me pulling ideas for solutions to problems out of thin air and actually taking a directed path toward a solution. This is especially true for me in the realm of computer programming.

Luckily, with Ne, if some aspect of the problem changes as I start to implement the solution, I can usually change course on the fly.

 

[nightning]

Function interactions... it's something I've been playing around a bit myself as well.

I'm most familiar with Ni... but you can apply it equally to all the rest.

Basically you see the same function being used differently with different types. I'll attribute that to function interactions.

For example INXJ with dominant Ni automatically let Ni wander. The imageries we come up with tend to be more elaborate and encompassing than what somebody with auxiliary or tertiary Ni come up with.

Here's an example of a ISTP's tertiary Ni in action...

reminder to self, sketch this up

everything is a pyramid, zoom out it becomes a single point, in becomes a base larger and larger until you are at the most basic unit

slice out the layers of human consciousness
ultimately chemical and electrical impulses
conceptually a network, no ideas come from nowhere

zoom in on human purpose
a node on each side of a large spectrum
perfection (pursuit of) vs disaster (fear of)

as a whole, strive for perfection is more survivable
all entities capable of interaction directed towards the positive only and each individual never holding onto life for only themselves
small scale, avoidance of disaster is more survivable but fails on a large scale

the latter is a citadel built on a foundation of self, how lost am i in it?

See how structured everything is? In this case Ni is used to create an image to describe something Ti created. As oppose to INXJ using Ni to create a model... then figure out what the hell the model implies.

 

[mlittrell]

and all of this is why function order matters lol.

 

[Totenkindly]

... It's this kind of material that makes me wish there was some solid (and peer-reviewed) neurological science verifying all of this stuff.

That would be awesome, honestly. Most of the discussion is usually just theoretical, with the obvious assumptions being made up front (e.g., that the functions even exist, that they exist as defined, etc.)

and all of this is why function order matters lol.

well, it does matter.... but we already see that some people do not necessarily rely on their primary primarily. (The general scenario is for introverts, who can easily feel more comfortable interacting with the world via the secondary, and this colors their approach to issues as well as how they are perceived.)

For example, I favor N a lot of the time, for various reasons. But that doesn't make me an ENTP in the least, I don't behave like that type does normally.

I think this sort of discussion can help highlight why, with even just "four basic functions" to describe someone, there is a lot of variety from person to person. The combination of favored functions (and even unfavored) and their strengths will color the expression of personality.

 

[wolfy]

I think this sort of discussion can help highlight why, with even just "four basic functions" to describe someone, there is a lot of variety from person to person. The combination of favored functions (and even unfavored) and their strengths will color the expression of personality.

One of the things that lead to me posting this was me reflecting on how much I relied on Ni. It seems to me that I will often use Fi with Ni or Se with Ni. Just reflecting on how much I seemed to use the Ni function as described made me curious.

 

[nightning]

and all of this is why function order matters lol.

Well there's a difference between the "conventional" take of function order as compared to the actual function preference of the individual. The two in my experiences are often different.

For example, I favor N a lot of the time, for various reasons. But that doesn't make me an ENTP in the least, I don't behave like that type does normally.

I think this sort of discussion can help highlight why, with even just "four basic functions" to describe someone, there is a lot of variety from person to person. The combination of favored functions (and even unfavored) and their strengths will color the expression of personality.

Exactly! There's also learnt use of other functions. That has to be taken into account of in the mix.

 

[Apollanaut]

A fascinating discussion, people!

I am most aware of the following function pairings in myself:

Ni/Ti: Ni comes up with an image, idea or insight, then Ti analyses it and either chucks it out or accepts it and then tries to fit it into my internal Matrix. Ti then passes its findings back to Ni which can trigger another convoluted Ni tangent, which will eventually be passed on to Ti, and so on.

Ni/Se:

1) Ni has an intuition, then uses Se to look for direct evidence to either confirm or deny the idea.

2) Se spots something unusual, which then triggers Ni into a train of speculations.

Best of all is when all three work together:

Ni comes up with an idea which Ti decides is a Really Good Idea. Both functions then pass the buck to Se to actually DO something to make it happen.

Ni/Fe: This has been covered on many discussions relating to INFJs and ENFJs. Fe merges with another person enough for Ni to get inside their heads. The info gained allows Fe to better understand and relate to that person. Or Ni has an insight about someone, which becomes a working theory. It then uses Fe to validate the insight, which will affect how I relate to that person in future interactions.

 

[mlittrell]

Well there's a difference between the "conventional" take of function order as compared to the actual function preference of the individual. The two in my experiences are often different.

imho the "conventional" take is the only useful part. ill explain...

well, it does matter.... but we already see that some people do not necessarily rely on their primary primarily. (The general scenario is for introverts, who can easily feel more comfortable interacting with the world via the secondary, and this colors their approach to issues as well as how they are perceived.)

For example, I favor N a lot of the time, for various reasons. But that doesn't make me an ENTP in the least, I don't behave like that type does normally.

I think this sort of discussion can help highlight why, with even just "four basic functions" to describe someone, there is a lot of variety from person to person. The combination of favored functions (and even unfavored) and their strengths will color the expression of personality.

the problem i have with functions is when people take a test and (being an INFJ irl for example) go: "wow look my functions are Ti, Fe, Ni, Si"... well that isn't at all how functions work. if you take that approach, in my feeble illogical mind, then you can only look at function as individual entities and not as a team of functions working together (which is a much more elegant and explains quite a bit more). also taking this approach kinda kills the "conventional" approach which is fundamental in functions (imho). idk if any of this makes sense... its been a long day.