• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Strength of Functions: Dominant and Auxiliary

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
Everyone has a perceiving function which can be either dominant or auxiliary. Location of the perceiving function doesn't determine the strength of the perceiving function and I suppose the same is true for the judging fuction. For example, an ESP being a dominant perceiver, doesn't necessarily have stronger/better/more accurate Se than and ISP. It's just where the perceiving function falls in the cognitive functions.

I'm reading Jung's Psychological Types and from what I'm understanding he's not saying that the dominant function is the most skillfully used function. The dominant function is simply the function that a person feels most comfortable using, which doesn't indicate if they use it well. Like taking a certain route home not because it's the shortest or most scenic, but just because it's the one you like the best. It seems that because a person uses it the most they'd also be more adept at it, but it's not necessarily true although it can be.

What confuses me is the insistence that the auxiliary function is weaker than the dominant. Everyone has a way of receiving information (S or N) and a way of evaluating information (T or F). Saying that a dominant judger (Ti, Fi, Fe, Te) takes in less information than a dominant perceiver or that a dominant perceiver (Se, Ne, Ni, Si) evaluates information less than a dominant judger is psychologically off balance. I don't know how to explain it so possible explanations of why this is or isn't true are appreciated. :)
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
The dominant function is the one that the person feels most comfortable using. For most people this will mean that they will use it the most, and therefore it will be the function that they are most skillful with. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but I also think they are fairly rare. If a person does not primarily use the function that they feel the most comfortable with, then they are probably untypable. Also I would guess that they would be fairly depressed or neurotic.
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
I was reading something from Lenore Thomson and she says that people often confuse functional abilities with skills. She says:
Jung never used the word "skill" when he talked about the functions. He used the word "orientation." In fact, he specifically compared the four functions to the four directions on a compass. Orienting oneself by North doesn't make you good at dog-sledding or building igloos. And, conversely, being good at building igloos doesn't mean that you're innately disposed to go North.

I also won't deny that the more we orient ourselves by one of the functions, the more differentiated it becomes. But that word "differentiated" doesn't mean that our functional skills are well-developed. It means that the function becomes more and more adapted to the tasks we've set ourselves with respect to work and love.

And like I said, I'm reading Psychological Types right now and I have not (yet?) read anywhere that people are most skillful in use of their dominant function although I suppose if you continue along that train of thought the person could be more "skilled" with the function. Are we conflating orientation with skill?

What are your thoughts the auxiliary function being "weaker" than the dominant?
 
Last edited:

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The dominant function is the one that the person feels most comfortable using. For most people this will mean that they will use it the most, and therefore it will be the function that they are most skillful with.

That tends to be the natural progress. So what you are saying might make some theoretical sense, PM, but in how it plays out in reality? Generally, practice makes perfect. But there are nuances to that concept.

Something I have not written up much yet but was on my ToDo list was exploration of people who class as one type when they look at the descriptions, but if you look at how that personality plays out, they tend to utilize their auxiliary more than their dominant... partly because perhaps in childhood they felt more comfortable showing their auxiliary.

(For example, in emotionally dangerous long-term situations, some functions are better at enabling the child to survive than others, regardless of initial inclination. For example, INxPs forced into social settings and constantly criticized attacked for making Ti/Fi style observations, if they cannot withdraw completely, will easily end up being more comfortable in relying on their Ne and you'll see this in how they approach others. They also tend to distrust their own reasoning process, be non-committal, much more P in approach. And yet they will not match up with ENxP in their personalities; extroverted situations will drain them, they'll have to pull back a lot to regain energy, etc., and it is clear they are still introverted. So in cases like this... and for other types as well... I think it is possible for someone to have developed/relied upon their auxiliary because it's less dangerous, even thought instinctively their brain is wired to still approach things with the dominant. They just end up not trusting their dominant enough to express it outwardly or place as much stock in it as they'd like. And this causes strong unrest in the personality later in life.)

So what is driving your thoughts about perhaps the auxiliary not always being weaker than one's dominant?
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Jennifer, your insight is great, and it's a small observation of the real underlying phenomenon which is type-continuum along IP, EP, IJ, EJ axes, which means that there are such types as ENXJ (with equally strong extraverted thinking and extraverted feeling, and strongest available auxiliary introverted intuition), or ESXPs (with equally strong introverted thinking and introverted feeling creative function). Of course, if you take the derivative at any given point in time you will find that a person either is an ENFJ or ENTJ, but for t->infinity, type->ENXJ in the case I described above.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I was reading something from Lenore Thomson and she says that people often confuse functional abilities with skills. She says:

And like I said, I'm reading Psychological Types right now and I have not (yet?) read anywhere that people are most skillful in use of their dominant function although I suppose if you continue along that train of thought the person could be more "skilled" with the function. Are we conflating orientation with skill?

What are your thoughts the auxiliary function being "weaker" than the dominant?

I've been thinking about this some more and I think the term "skilled" can be taken more than one way. Does skill refer to how well one uses a function on a short term basis, or does skill refer to the final quality that one will have on a larger scale completing a "project". Consider an analogy using these two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Bob and George are construction workers. Bob has had more formal training in construction and also more experience, so he is considered above average when it comes to building houses. George has less training and experience, and he is considered to be of average ability in building houses. If each are given 10 days to build a house, then who will build the more valuable house? Clearly Bob will build the house with the higher market value.

Scenario 2: Let's say that Bob and George have no time limit when it comes to building their house. Also Bob doesn't particularly like building houses. He simply does it to make money, and he can build an acceptable house in 10 days time. George on the other hand loves to build houses, and this particular house that he is building is the one that he is going to be living in. He spends 60 days building his house. In this case who is going to build the more valuable house? I think it's clear that this time George's house will have a higher value.

So my point is that a person's dominant function is going to produce the best overall results when using that function, simply because they use it more and they prefer to use it more. I can say from personal experience that my Ti is very sharp. I have two Math degrees and many years of using math in my various jobs. In one sense my Ti is stronger than most of the INTP's that I know. I can spot logical errors, or solve logical problems better than most INTP's.

On the other hand when it comes to developing some large coherant logical theory, I will never be nearly as good as most INTPs. First of all that is not the kind of thing I like to do. But even if I had to make myself do it for some reason my Ne would keep getting in the way. I'd want to keep collecting more data and starting over (not to mention start a completely new project), and I'd never really get anywhere. At best I'd just create a lot of small theories that are very loosely tied together. But for INTP's developing largem coherant theories and ideas seems to come quite naturally, so they are always going to be the type most suited for it.

Likewise an INFJ may be more skilled at Fe than an ENFJ for example. So the INFJ might seem to always know the right thing to say or do in every situation compared to even the ENFJ. On the other hand, when it comes to making friends, the INFJ is going to want to stay at home a lot. But the ENFJ is going to keep trying to befriend people even if they make some social blunders along the way, and eventually they will win a lot more people over. Persistant use of a dominant function is going to yield the best long term results.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Everyone has a perceiving function which can be either dominant or auxiliary. Location of the perceiving function doesn't determine the strength of the perceiving function and I suppose the same is true for the judging fuction. For example, an ESP being a dominant perceiver, doesn't necessarily have stronger/better/more accurate Se than and ISP. It's just where the perceiving function falls in the cognitive functions.

I'm reading Jung's Psychological Types and from what I'm understanding he's not saying that the dominant function is the most skillfully used function. The dominant function is simply the function that a person feels most comfortable using, which doesn't indicate if they use it well. Like taking a certain route home not because it's the shortest or most scenic, but just because it's the one you like the best. It seems that because a person uses it the most they'd also be more adept at it, but it's not necessarily true although it can be.

What confuses me is the insistence that the auxiliary function is weaker than the dominant. Everyone has a way of receiving information (S or N) and a way of evaluating information (T or F). Saying that a dominant judger (Ti, Fi, Fe, Te) takes in less information than a dominant perceiver or that a dominant perceiver (Se, Ne, Ni, Si) evaluates information less than a dominant judger is psychologically off balance. I don't know how to explain it so possible explanations of why this is or isn't true are appreciated. :)

Okay. The dominant function is the function that a person typically prefers to use when there are no negative consequences for doing so. So in a typical theoretical situation, this would be the function they use most of the time, therefore it would be strongest. However, if you assume there was negative feedback, then it's reasonable to assume that they used another function more. In this case, the strongest/most skilled function could be different from the preferred/dominant function.

The auxiliary is the function that is second most preferred, so it would be presumed again that this is the function a person would use in situations where the dominant wasn't appropriate or useful. Again, influences against using, or rewards for using another non-preferred function could interfere with this.

So typically and ideally, a person's dominant is most used, and their auxiliary is second most used. Those functions will always be the source of the most creativity and intelligence in the person, so it's kind of a shame if they get too focused on a non-preferred function and never realize the potential of their dominant or auxiliary.

In extreme circumstances, a person may even live out their "shadow" functions. Meaning that in certain circumstances, if things were habitually oppressive enough in that direction, an INTP could be forced to behave like an ESFJ, or an INFJ could be forced to behave like an ESTP, an ENFJ could be forced to behave like an ISTP, and so on. There would likely be lasting psychological/emotional damage from this, though.

Does that make sense?
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
So what is driving your thoughts about perhaps the auxiliary not always being weaker than one's dominant?

What's driving my thoughts are I've been reading Jung's book this week and rereading some of my other books about this subject and I've seen no evidence by Jung or otherwise that the auxiliary is weaker than the dominant. Jung never uses the term auxiliary, but he does mention an opposing attitude (my words). The more recent books (Berens, Beebe, Thomson, Haas/Hunziker) all emphasis that each person has a information receiving function and an information evaluating function. I'm thinking that those should be equal in strength. That's like saying EFJs and IFPs have "more feeling" than EFPs and IFJs or like saying one of our five senses are (with all being equal) are better than another. For example, even though you may be a visual learner, but that doesn't mean you auditory capacities are any worse. It just depends on which one is preferred. Someone may in fact learn better if they switched their preferred style to another.

I'm not saying that the persistent use of dominant function doesn't make a person good at it. Like TLL said, practice makes perfect. Lenore Thomson mentioned that people are confusing functional preferences with functional skills. I agree with her. There seems to be an assumption that just because it's someone's dominant function, they're better at it which I think is untrue. When did the ranking of functions become part of MBTI? I can see how between two of the same types of function, one would be better at another but not between a perceiving and a judging. The P/J work together.

Using your example above, just because an INP was in a situation where the dominant function was not acceptable doesn't mean that it is less used than the auxiliary. It just had to be hidden. As soon as the INP (or any other type) is out of the oppressive environment then the repressed function should begin to return to normal. This may take some time like you said Actually this illustrates the point quite well! Wouldn't you have to "retrain" yourself to use the dominant function that's been dormant for so long? Doesn't that mean that facility of the function is not innate, you just don't pop back into top form? The fact that it can be suppressed means that it's not as dominant as people think it is. Am I repeating back to you what you just said?! ;) I'll stop with that train of thought because I'm confusing myself.

How many people have read Jung's Psychological Types? I feel like I have to erase all this MBTI junk out of my head and get back to the source and rework from there. If anyone is doing some research out in the MBTI world, it seems like there's a split between Jungian psychoanalysts and MBTI theorists. I think I'm starting to lean more towards the psychoanalysts because MBTI is becoming so restrictive.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
How many people have read Jung's Psychological Types? I feel like I have to erase all this MBTI junk out of my head and get back to the source and rework from there. If anyone is doing some research out in the MBTI world, it seems like there's a split between Jungian psychoanalysts and MBTI theorists. I think I'm starting to lean more towards the psychoanalysts because MBTI is becoming so restrictive.

I have it. I've read it as well. I was thinking it might be important to get back to Jung's theories as well, and it's been helpful in seeing where the Jungian roots are, what useful ideas might have been discarded, and what new innovations exist. Jung's does seem to permit a bit more variation.
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
Bumping because I just saw this in Related Threads and I still would like to have discussion on this.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
IMO this is related to a much large problem which is trying to anchor types via the cognitive functions and preference order to begin with. It's so arbitrary its borderline retardation. CHALLENGE to all on this board that disagree with me on this: give me any thought, feeling or behavior and I can explain it using ANY combination of functions(you choose them for me), and i wont even have to stretch your imagination that much to do so. The cognitive processes theory is a "any shoe size fits" theory and thus explains nothing.. (rather, i should say it explains everything regardless of what way you want to explain it, which renders it entirely subjective and inconsistent)

MBTI theorists like evan says its like this to reduce the combinatorics problems you would run into if you let cognitive functions strengths/preference dictate how many types we would have. (which would be 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 40,000+ types). So what they do is settle on 16 and do their best to "wiggle" people into one of those types via cognitive functions. However, this does nothing to explain the "in betweeners" we see on this board and in the real world. If you ask a rigid MBTI theorist, they will tell you that a person with a Dominant Ni and auxillary Fi should not even exist according to definitions, nor should someone with dom Ne aux Ni, but they do and we have those people here present on this message board.

I suggest just try to ditch the whole notion of individual cognitive functions and look for your/other's COHESIVE type, and if you yourself as an XXXX type feel it convenient to explain something you do via a function then go ahead, but don't start with the cognitive functions firstly and definitely don't type others by the cog functions. And when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. There is absolutely NOTHING in the description or definitions of Se that, say, allows you to understand how an ISTP (just as an example) sees the world and why they rebel so often against it. If you want to know how ISTPs go about the world, do not appeal to cognitive functions, just talk to/observe them, and you will understand ISTPs and be able to spot them. No appeal to dom/aux processes is needed and in fact I think it leads you astray.
 

Afkan

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
324
IMO this is related to a much large problem which is trying to anchor types via the cognitive functions and preference order to begin with. It's so arbitrary its borderline retardation. CHALLENGE to all on this board that disagree with me on this: give me any thought, feeling or behavior and I can explain it using ANY combination of functions(you choose them for me), and i wont even have to stretch your imagination that much to do so. The cognitive processes theory is a "any shoe size fits" theory and thus explains nothing.. (rather, i should say it explains everything regardless of what way you want to explain it, which renders it entirely subjective and inconsistent)

MBTI theorists like evan says its like this to reduce the combinatorics problems you would run into if you let cognitive functions strengths/preference dictate how many types we would have. (which would be 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 40,000+ types). So what they do is settle on 16 and do their best to "wiggle" people into one of those types via cognitive functions. However, this does nothing to explain the "in betweeners" we see on this board and in the real world. If you ask a rigid MBTI theorist, they will tell you that a person with a Dominant Ni and auxillary Fi should not even exist according to definitions, nor should someone with dom Ne aux Ni, but they do and we have those people here present on this message board.

I suggest just try to ditch the whole notion of individual cognitive functions and look for your/other's COHESIVE type, and if you yourself as an XXXX type feel it convenient to explain something you do via a function then go ahead, but don't start with the cognitive functions firstly and definitely don't type others by the cog functions. And when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. There is absolutely NOTHING in the description or definitions of Se that, say, allows you to understand how an ISTP (just as an example) sees the world and why they rebel so often against it. If you want to know how ISTPs go about the world, do not appeal to cognitive functions, just talk to/observe them, and you will understand ISTPs and be able to spot them. No appeal to dom/aux processes is needed and in fact I think it leads you astray.
I will accept your challenge, but first I ask you this: How are the functions any more arbitrary than the E/I S/N T/F J/P dichotomies? Does your self-proclaimed type, INTP, describe who you are and does it define you as equivalent to all other "INTPs"? Or are those concepts represented on a continuum like unto the functions? Does that make your type description any less accurate?

I understand that function development ordering is what destructs the theory's validity. Still I don't think that destroys the entire concept; nor the fact that SPs are more Se oriented, SJs are more Si oriented for example.

Additionally, a certain type isn't equivalent to a thought, feeling, or behavior. How might your pledge to disprove cognitive function theory as applied to type by explaining a thought, feeling, or behavior with any order of the functions be possible?
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
The cognitive process theory has more arbitrariness on the sole basis that it uses either Function Strength or "preference order" to determine/wiggle someone into one of the sixteen types. As stated, 8 factorial is 40320 possible types if we wish to emphasize cognitive function "strength" OR the order of preference. This has much more room for mistakes and error/noise compared with the 16 types we get from the i/e n/s dichotomies.

I also argue against this theory because people are simply not cognitive functions, they are a conglomeration of them. As i argue, an ISTP is neither defined NOR described by Se, they are described by being ISTP. What that means should be the issue of focus/research, not where Se appears in some arbitrary "order". If you "pull out" Se from the ISTP and try to analyze it, you gain no insight into the ISTP because people are not "Stand-alone" cognitive functions - people are combinations of functions and withdrawing them from people destroys the signifigance of them.

It's like when people ask "what is time?". Unless you are asking for a time duration for something to take place, It's a nonsensical question in and of itself. EVERY single mathematical equation in chemistry or physics that has ANY useful meaning whatsoever has time in the denominator or numerator of some other variable because it must be understood in reference to some other physical thing or happening going on. What a unit of time is to the motion equation is completely different from what a unit of time means in the Flux equations (flux is the amount of "STUFF" that flows through a unit area per unit time). It is the same for the cognitive functions - they MUST be understood in relation to each other for EACH individual type due to claimed preference order.

Just as if you are to pull the dimensional variable "time" from underneath the displacement equation or the flux equations and ask "What is this?" you get nothing, if you pull out "Ti" from the INTP or ISTP you get an analysis of nothing. Those variables do NOT stand by themselves and exist in conjunction with other variables.

As such, I see much less potential for errors by simply using the 4 scale dichotomies, because I don't think it's possible to understand what Se is. Perhaps we can never know what an ISTP is either, but at least we try to grab at something more meaningful. And even if you do know what Se is, every personality type is going to have different uses for it. So why bring it up in the first place? Just describe the 16 types as best as possible and be done with it.
 

Afkan

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
324
As such, I see much less potential for errors by simply using the 4 scale dichotomies, because I don't think it's possible to understand what Se is. And even if you do know what Se is, every personality type is going to have different uses for it. So why bring it up in the first place? Just describe the 16 types and be done with it.

Ah yes, so you do argue the validity of the individual functions then, no?
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
They could have validity. That's not the problem, the problem is that even if they are valid, how are they supposed to help us understand the Types accurately seeing as people are not defined by singular functions?

Aside from me being able to say things like "This coffee is making my Ne go off the chain!", I don't see any advantage to mentioning the cognitive functions whatsoever.

Additionally, a certain type isn't equivalent to a thought, feeling, or behavior. How might your pledge to disprove cognitive function theory as applied to type by explaining a thought, feeling, or behavior with any order of the functions be possible?

Because it shows how the cognitive process theory is an "any size fits" theory if we use the cognitive functions alone as the basis for typing people. This means any person's behavior or thoughts or feelings can be described by ANY cognitive function, meaning every person's behavior can be explained by ALL sixteen types, showing it's a very poor basis for a foundational theory.
 

Afkan

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
324
It's like when people ask "what is time?". Unless you are asking for a time duration for something to take place, It's a nonsensical question in and of itself. EVERY single mathematical equation in chemistry or physics that has ANY useful meaning whatsoever has time in the denominator because it must be understood in reference to some other physical thing or happening going on. What a unit of time is to the motion equation is completely different from what a unit of time means in the Flux equations (flux is the amount of "STUFF" that flows through a unit area per unit time). It is the same for the cognitive functions - they MUST be understood in relation to each other for EACH individual type due to claimed preference order.
Yes, time is difficult to define with precision. Does that mean its not worth defining? Should time not even be assigned a name such as "time" because it is too difficult to define?

..even if you do know what Se is, every personality type is going to have different uses for it. So why bring it up in the first place? Just describe the 16 types and be done with it.

Of course every personality type is going to have different uses for Se. That doesn't mean that because Se and Si are poles they are not used more by some and less by others. What about the normal standardized distribution curve, which holds true when describing ANY variable? Does it not make sense to say that a certain percentage of the pop use one function more than another? Can you prove that the Gaussian curve has no validity?

I have respect for your theory, I do. And I agree that trying to develop an equation to describe personality is like trying to develop an equation to describe time. It won't be precise. But does that mean it does not have merit?
 

Afkan

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
324
Because it shows how the cognitive process theory is an "any size fits" theory if we use the cognitive functions alone as the basis for typing people. This means any person's behavior or thoughts or feelings can be described by ANY cognitive function, meaning every person's behavior can be explained by ALL sixteen types, showing it's a very poor basis for a foundational theory.
True, although behavior OR thoughts OR feelings OR even a combination do not fully define a person.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
"Yes, time is difficult to define with precision. Does that mean its not worth defining? Should time not even be assigned a name such as "time" because it is too difficult to define?"

It's not difficult, its IMPOSSIBLE. "Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." Physicists are actually pushed to define a second in terms of the revolution of an atomic particle! Trying to describe a unit of time in the absense of something else is impossible, and even in a grander more abstract sense time is not a stand-alone variable: Space and time are intrinsically linked, and this is a fact of modern physics.

I'm not saying that its impossible to define Se independent of the other functions, I don't have to go that far. i'm saying that even if you do, it won't really benefit our theory any better, and will just yield more errors.


And the reason that any function or measurement approaches the bell curve has to do with the mathematics involved. If you take ANY function in EXISTENCE and convolve it with itself over and over (or if you are in applications take any measurement over and over again), it ALWAYS yields the Gaussian. It's the basis for the central limit theorum and why a gaussian is to be expected over time. but Just because a mathematical function approaches a Gaussian over time does NOT mean it has real world validity, because all functions do. A gaussian isn't special, it is trivial.
 

Afkan

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
324
"Yes, time is difficult to define with precision. Does that mean its not worth defining? Should time not even be assigned a name such as "time" because it is too difficult to define?"

It's not difficult, its IMPOSSIBLE. "Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." Trying to describe a unit of time in the absense of something else is impossible, and even in a grander more abstract sense time is not a stand-alone variable: Space and time are intrinsically linked, and this is a fact of modern physics.
Don't you see? We agree; Time cannot be defined precisely- that is impossible- but the concept merits a word in language. That kind of a definition. Where would we be without that? Preciv?

And the reason that any function or measurement approaches the bell curve has to do with the mathematics involved. If you take ANY function in EXISTENCE and convolve it with itself over and over (or if you are in applications take any measurement over and over again), it ALWAYS yields the Gaussian. A gaussian isn't special, it is trivial.
I know. My point exactly. Any continuum, any polar concept can be described with the Gaussian.
 
Last edited:

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
Please people, I don't want this thread to turn into another debate about how in/valid cognitive theory is.

For the purposes of this thread, there IS a such thing as functions and in this universe you can derive a type from them so go from there.
 
Top