Seymour
Vaguely Precise
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,579
- MBTI Type
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 5w4
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
Thanks for responding so thoughtfully.
Yeah, I've been mulling over the differences the last couple of days and I think I mostly agree with you. I certainly agree that individual function development is different for every individual. It makes me wish we had good functions test and the ability to give them to a large random sample over their lifespan (maybe combined with the jobs people have at various points and their spouses' types and functions). Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Otherwise, it seems like we are mostly shooting in the dark as far as having solid data to work from. It seems equally clear we are unlikely to get a good set of data any time soon, either, so we are left with subjective evaluation and comparing notes with others.
I still find Thomson's left-brained/right-brained division helpful conceptually but not because I think it necessarily has a physically reality. More as a division between ordered, one-thing-at-a-time vs random and continuous. It makes it much more comprehensible to me how Fi and Ti (in particular) can be rational but not have the solid feel of Te and Si (just to name a couple of functions for contrast).
I also wonder if some of the individual roles functions play are more related to how we encounter them early in our life, rather than being absolutely fixed for each type. I need to read through Beebe again and see if I agree with him. I'm not sure I'll ever know for some of my functions, since they remain either mysteriously vague, or tend to blend with another function for me personally.
Thanks again for responding... it does help to have someone to bounce ideas off of while I attempt to reconcile various models with personal experiences.
Yeah, I've been mulling over the differences the last couple of days and I think I mostly agree with you. I certainly agree that individual function development is different for every individual. It makes me wish we had good functions test and the ability to give them to a large random sample over their lifespan (maybe combined with the jobs people have at various points and their spouses' types and functions). Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Otherwise, it seems like we are mostly shooting in the dark as far as having solid data to work from. It seems equally clear we are unlikely to get a good set of data any time soon, either, so we are left with subjective evaluation and comparing notes with others.
I still find Thomson's left-brained/right-brained division helpful conceptually but not because I think it necessarily has a physically reality. More as a division between ordered, one-thing-at-a-time vs random and continuous. It makes it much more comprehensible to me how Fi and Ti (in particular) can be rational but not have the solid feel of Te and Si (just to name a couple of functions for contrast).
I also wonder if some of the individual roles functions play are more related to how we encounter them early in our life, rather than being absolutely fixed for each type. I need to read through Beebe again and see if I agree with him. I'm not sure I'll ever know for some of my functions, since they remain either mysteriously vague, or tend to blend with another function for me personally.
Thanks again for responding... it does help to have someone to bounce ideas off of while I attempt to reconcile various models with personal experiences.