• 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.

Any function more of less useful than others?

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Any function is haphazard when used haphazardly.

When used properly in conjunction with Te, this is much less the case.

Why Te? :laugh:

The same could be said of any of the functions:

Is each particular function necessary for the particular act it is more likely to create? No.

Does the presence of that function increase the likelihood that that particular will take place? Yes.

I disagree. If you took away Se, you have a totally useless person. You take away Ti, you have a totally useless person. There is not sufficient way for any other process to take up the role of those processes. Presumably, this is just as true of Ni as it is of any of the other seven processes, but I don't think for the reason that you posted here. I was wandering more down the path of thought that I had written on your wall in regards to the absolutely necessary function of Ni.

On the fly analysis and improvisation is Ne. Se is detail awareness.

Neither. Neither Ne nor Se encompasses that much. You're probably looking at more than one process there.
 

JustHer

Pumpernickel
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
1,954
MBTI Type
ENTJ
The box. Learn not to trust it.

Consider the following:

1) The dominant function is the function we use to absorb process information. The auxiliary function is used to organize and communicate said information.

2) Te is the boss function. It emphasizes efficiency and is rather brash about it, and is good at scheduling, organizing, etc. It sounds something like this:



3) Ni, on the other hand, is the strategist function. It solves paradoxes, analyzes possible variables and creates predictions and grand schemes. It sounds something like this:



Although, of course, that's Ni assisted by Fe. Te Ni would sound more like this:



This of course is not how ENTJs function. They don't spot inefficiency and then air it out in a dreamy tone. They come up with grand strategies and then bark at other people to get them done. The problem is that according to Jung's definition of ENTJ, this is how they work. Conclusion: Jung was an idiot, and a better cognitive function theory is needed.

I don't even......

Wtf is this....

Perhaps you should start again over here...Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Exactly.



You're a Je dom.

You would.

Oh.. it requires Je dominance to realize that this thread is asking for everyone's individual interpretation and not some sort of objective truth.. thats interesting.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110

:laugh:

Egocentrism.

See edit. I actually made it before you posted.

Also, I'm kinda assuming we're talking about the functions being in the dominant position.

Not that that's the only place for a function to manifest itself in an important way, but, well, you'd think those would be the two most important cases, and the ones we should consider first...

I disagree. If you took away Se, you have a totally useless person. You take away Ti, you have a totally useless person. There is not sufficient way for any other process to take up the role of those processes. Presumably, this is just as true of Ni as it is of any of the other seven processes, but I don't think for the reason that you posted here. I was wandering more down the path of thought that I had written on your wall in regards to the absolutely necessary function of Ni.

First off: wasn't the question more about the usefulness to society of a particular function, and what would happen to society without one of the functions?

In that case, I think you ought to go and reread my post (I've edited it slightly since, as I'd apparently mistakenly excluded the word "act").

But to deal with your approach anyway:

I disagree.

Why would taking away Se make someone a totally useless person? Same for Ti?

You obviously would have to replace it with something else (probably Ne and Fi, respectively, assuming we're talking about the functions being in the dominant position, and we want to keep the other functions relatively similar).

Why wouldn't that something else allow the person to perform just fine?

Neither. Neither Ne nor Se encompasses that much. You're probably looking at more than one process there.

Very much agreed.
 

IZthe411

Carerra Lu
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
2,585
MBTI Type
INTJ

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Oh.. it requires Je dominance to realize that this thread is asking for everyone's individual interpretation and not some sort of objective truth.. thats interesting.

Yeah, sorry about that.

I realized after I wrote it what you actually meant.

I originally thought you were talking about "usefulness in a Je sense".

It was my bad, but, for some reason, I decided not to edit it out...

Maybe just to show the world (i.e., typeC) that I do make mistakes and I admit to them.

:jew:
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Any function is haphazard when used haphazardly.

When used properly in conjunction with Te or Fe, this is much less the case.

This is true in some sense. All introverted functions, particularly introverted judging functions, are extremely unilateral. So it's generally advised to exercise some extroverted function as a means of balancing them out.

It's very easy to seize one function and label it as "least useful" when your orientation is completely opposed to that function. For instance, we see Justerher saying that Fi is useless, but in her case, Fi is completely subservient to Te - therefore it is her most dreaded function to grapple with.

Meanwhile, Te is completely subservient to my Fi, which gives me a clear advantage when dealing with introspecting and feeling (which is a necessary component for society. Both Fi and Ti are needed in order to critically think about ethics and truth) However, we need others to keep treading onward to be more industrious or outwardly social (Te and Fe respectively).

Am I the only one who views society as functionally parallel to the individual human psyche, though much more balanced?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
^^ I would be with you too, except that I think the degree of balance depends upon the individual and the society.

:jew:
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
First off: wasn't the question more about the usefulness to society of a particular function, and what would happen to society without one of the functions?

I'm working on the premise that if something made invidiuals dysfunctional, then a society full of these dysfuncitonal individuals is in trouble.

But to deal with your approach anyway:

I disagree.

Why would taking away Se make someone a totally useless person? Same for Ti?

You obviously would have to replace it with something else (probably Ne and Fi, respectively, assuming we're talking about the functions being in the dominant position, and we want to keep the other functions relatively similar).

Why wouldn't that something else allow the person to perform just fine?

I'll focus on Se. Without Se you lack a basic capicity to react to external concrete details/stimulus/information what-have-you. Without that, what can you? I hate to answer a question with a question, but how would Ne take over for Se?

Each one of the processes is defined by a unique function. Unique being the key word. The other processes can't fill in. And it's worth noting that I don't even think the processes exist as any kind of tangible entity. At best they are different magnitudes of electrical activity in different areas that we choose to categorize down certain lines. They are merely concepts, so it's almost impossible for Ne to fill-in for Se just by virtue of the fact that anything acting in the role of Se wouldn't be Ne or Fi or whatever, it would be Se. A cognitive process is not like a cell in the brain that does a job and is prepared to take over for one of the others if they should die.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I'm working on the premise that if something made invidiuals dysfunctional, then a society full of these dysfuncitonal individuals is in trouble.

Ok, well I guess we're talking about different things then.

I was working from the approach that if you removed individuals who used those functions (and, most specifically, those who used them in the dominant position), what would happen to society?

I can see the value of your approach, though.

It is another understandable way to approach the question.

I'll focus on Se. Without Se you lack a basic capicity to react to external concrete details/stimulus/information what-have-you. Without that, what can you? I hate to answer a question with a question, but how would Ne take over for Se?

I've recently had this discussion with SillySapienne and Simulated World, and we arrived at a different conclusion.

I don't think lacking Se means one can't "react to external concrete details/stimulus/information what-have-you".

I don't think lacking Se means one no longer has sensory perceptions.

Rather, I think of Se as a disposition.

It's a way one orients oneself to the world, specifically with regard to how one prefers to perceive incoming data.

All human beings have sensory perceptions.

Se doms (and heavy users in general) just prefer to deal with incoming data in a more concrete, sensory-oriented way.

That is: they don't like to, or don't have much ability to, absorb the incoming data and see many abstract connections within it.

Hence why I feel that, in many ways, Ne is Se plus abstract connection-making.

(aside: although, I was just thinking about whether the same holds true for Ni and Si, and, at first, I felt that it didn't, as I believe Si does make connections, but, on second thought, maybe these connections are not abstract connections, but concrete connections, and, thus, the same thing can be said for Se, that it makes concrete connections; but, then, that got me thinking on the difference between concreteness and abstractness, which, I am sure, will now be a major question in my thinking over the next couple of days...)

I know your position, and you could stick to your ground there I suppose, but I do believe it's a difficult position to maintain...

Same goes for Ti.

I don't think one need use Ti to be able to ratiocinate.

I just think those who prefer to use Ti more tend to make their decisions based more on ratiocination.

Remember, this is personality theory, not the basis of our entire neurological happenings (unless, of course, you want to make the argument that it is, which, as I said before, I'm open to, but I think is a very difficult position to maintain).
 

Aleksei

Yeah, I can fly.
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
3,626
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Unless you are aware of the details you can't improvise worth shit, they are inextricably linked, and therefore one, or something like that. :cheese:
I dunno, I kinda suck at noticing details (I do love sensory experiences though) and I love improvising.
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
^ Explains your lack of knowledge of detailed MBTI.
 

William K

Uniqueorn
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
986
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
I don't think lacking Se means one can't "react to external concrete details/stimulus/information what-have-you".

I don't think lacking Se means one no longer has sensory perceptions.

Rather, I think of Se as a disposition.

It's a way one orients oneself to the world, specifically with regard to how one prefers to perceive incoming data.

Hmmm, not sure if this is a good example, but I prefer to read a book than to watch a movie based on the book.

Se would be like watching a movie where you know exactly what a character, object, scene looks like. Ne would keep things abstract. I may not even care what the hero looks like and if I read the book multiple times, it might even change every time.

That sounds logical? :)
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
On the fly analysis and improvisation is Ne. Se is detail awareness.

Look man, gear shifting theories ultimately fail. World view theories dont. Im sick and tired of explaining this to people on the forum. THEY ARE WORLD VIEWS, NOT SKILL SETS.

A Ne person is a schemer, they can pay attention to details or not, thats not the point! Ne is not about seeing the possibilities on the micro, its about on the macro level: "live one day at a time, take out a big loan, have no plan, it will all be fine! we'll figure something out to make it work out..."

think BIG PICTURE, not day to day tasks. That goes for EVERY world view. If a Fe person happens to wave to somebody thats not "engaging Fe", because again that would be MICRO. Instead, that person might be a Fe because on a MACRO, they see their existence as one that has loyalties and dis-loyalties.

EDIT:
"well babylon, who made you the authority on this?"
--look, if gear shifting theories fail, then all we are left with are world view theories, all I've done is shortened some of the better world view theory descriptors that I've ever read. Philosophical Exegesis
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
^I don't see why it can't be explained with macro and micro (to use your terms) examples. And I'd hesitate to call typology a world view. Because as we approach individuation (hopefully we are on that journey), we utilize different functions and ways of being, so that we are shifting in how we gather and process data; and a world view encompasses so much more than that.

Worldview definition:

A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[1] The term is a loan translation or calque of German Weltanschauung [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] ( listen), composed of Welt, 'world', and Anschauung, 'view' or 'outlook'. It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
^I don't see why it can't be explained with macro and micro (to use your terms) examples. And I'd hesitate to call typology a world view. Because as we approach individuation (hopefully we are on that journey), we utilize different functions and ways of being, so that we are shifting in how we gather and process data; and a world view encompasses so much more than that.

Worldview definition:

I have nothing against that definition of world view... in fact I smiled when they mentioned German epistemology and philosophy (Jung was a big Kant fan :D). The problem aphro is that if we go by micro examples, the theory falls on its face. I don't have time right now to give a long winded example, but I will later.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I have nothing against that definition of world view... in fact I smiled when they mentioned German epistemology and philosophy (Jung was a big Kant fan :D). The problem aphro is that if we go by micro examples, the theory falls on its face. I don't have time right now to give a long winded example, but I will later.

I'm not saying to go predominantly by micro examples or anything like that, but one doesn't need to be a typology nazi when it comes to interpreting the cognitive functions and how they work, especially considering how little we really know about them, need one?
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
Functional world views are basically what Jung detailed in Psychological Types.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
And as the discoverer of typology, he would. I'd hesitate to put that much stock in one way of viewing the world however, especially one that is just scratching the surface of the human psyche.
 
Top