How easy is it for you to see your dominant function?

[strychnine]

I cannot see my dominant function... any tips? I'd like to actually verify what it is lols.

 

[Oaky]

So what function must I use to see the function that I am currently using?

 

[Eric B]

I think this is a good point that might throw someone off as to their true dominant as well:

Attitudes from the Horse's Mouth

Watching the INTJ and INTP discussion lists, people who are new to the theory often mistake their secondary function for their dominant function. INTJs, for example, often think of themselves as primarily rational in the sense of being "systematic", and reasonably infer that "thinking", perhaps "introverted thinking", would be their dominant function. INTPs often think of themselves as primarily imaginative, outside-the-box thinkers, and reasonably infer that "intuition", perhaps "introverted intuition", would be their dominant function.

Could it be that they're describing their favored extraverted attitude? Casual, anecdotal evidence suggests that extraverts also typically identify with their secondary function, though. For example, ENTPs and ESTPs think of themselves as analytical and having a good "hands-on" understanding of things. "Let me get my hands on it and I can figure it out. It's just a magical talent of mine."

More examples: ISTPs and ISFPs often think of themselves as primarily "cool" or "hip". ISFJs and INFJs tend to understand themselves mainly in terms of their personal loyalties to others.

 

[wolfy]

So what function must I use to see the function that I am currently using?

That's a good question. What perspective do you take to see your dominant function?

I was simply trying to observe. Watching things unfold and trying to catch something that seemed Fi in nature. Some kind of framework, some kind of perspective on decisions.

It is possible that it is impossible to see your dominant perspective. Going around in circles like a dog chasing it's tail.

I can't see it. I can sense it.

 

[Oaky]

That's a good question. What perspective do you take to see your dominant function?

I was simply trying to observe. Watching things unfold and trying to catch something that seemed Fi in nature. Some kind of framework, some kind of perspective on decisions.

It is possible that it is impossible to see your dominant perspective. Going around in circles like a dog chasing it's tail.

I can't see it. I can sense it.

One is consciously trying to look at what he consciously does unconsciously which confuses one's mind because only one conscious can be present at a time. Perhaps we can observe by memory of our thoughts and feelings of a situation or by how someone else observes us.

 

[wolfy]

One is consciously trying to look at what he consciously does unconsciously which confuses one's mind because only one conscious can be present at a time. Perhaps we can observe by memory of our thoughts and feelings of a situation or by how someone else observes us.

Maybe in memory, but memory in a split second. You should be able to catch it happening. I don't trust others observation, not completely. It is interesting from the perspective of seeing how others see me. But not in seeing myself.

I think part of why Fi is so hard to see is it is so often dressed in frilly underwear. You need to view it raw and naked to see it in action. 　　

 

[KDude]

I don't have a problem seeing Fi type of thought/pathways/choices at all. I have a need to do the right thing, move to whatever degree closer to what I consider the ideal. It isn't really enigmatic to me. It is to put it all into words (or rather, it's all very circumstantial, and I'd have to write a detailed narrative on how it could play out), but it isn't so cloudy that I'm confused on being a Fi dom.

 

[Oaky]

Maybe in memory, but memory in a split second. You should be able to catch it happening. I don't trust others observation, not completely. It is interesting from the perspective of seeing how others see me. But not in seeing myself.

I think part of why Fi is so hard to see is it is so often dressed in frilly underwear. You need to view it raw and naked to see it in action. 　　

Yes, Learning about yourself from someone else would be weak form of learning about yourself... Non efficient.

Fi would be a difficult function to actually try and 'look at' indeed. Recollection of trying to remember what you just experienced and identifying it to a function where you can confuse yourself because to identify the function itself would take up that particular function to judge or analyse it.

 

[sleuthiness]

I think this is a good point that might throw someone off as to their true dominant as well:

Attitudes from the Horse's Mouth

This is an excellent point, and it's faintly interesting how close this sounds to the Socionics creative function.

 

[wolfy]

I think this is a good point that might throw someone off as to their true dominant as well:

Attitudes from the Horse's Mouth

The part about Preaching the dominant in indignation is pretty interesting.

 

[KDude]

The part about Preaching the dominant in indignation is pretty interesting.

Yeah, interesting. If there's any merit to that, then I'm really an ESFP or ENFP.

Except.. well.. no. I don't think I make for a good extrovert. Why would I be so attentive to Fi, yet be an EFP, and stink at everything they are seemingly more suited for?

 

[rav3n]

I think this is a good point that might throw someone off as to their true dominant as well:

Attitudes from the Horse's Mouth

This was an interesting read but it doesn't take into account that while your functions purportedly don't work concurrently (this theory bothers me), different stimuli whether internal or external will cause other functions to come to the forefront.

But if you look back at your reactions over a defined period of time, you should be able to see patterns in your behaviour.

 

[KDude]

ISTPs and ISFPs often preach "go with the flow, man." They like to preach that since you can't control the world, you've got to just go with what you feel like doing at each moment, without anticipating the future and without bogging yourself down by trying to be consistent with the past. Have fun now, man, tomorrow you could be hit by a bus. Just "be." See Extraverted Sensation.

You know, there's a difference here with Thomson's book actually. Her descriptions of ISFPs sound like they have a lot of overlap with INFPs (in that their Fi is idealistic). The whole go-with-the-flow thing seems overstated, but I've kind of accepted it..if that's what they are. It's one reason why I decided I was not ISFP though. Sounds like some lazy hippy hedonist faking a Buddha act. How could a Fi type be so much much Se oriented than ESFP?

 

[wolfy]

ISTPs and ISFPs often preach "go with the flow, man." They like to preach that since you can't control the world, you've got to just go with what you feel like doing at each moment, without anticipating the future and without bogging yourself down by trying to be consistent with the past. Have fun now, man, tomorrow you could be hit by a bus. Just "be." See Extraverted Sensation.

You know, there's a difference here with Thomson's book actually. Her descriptions of ISFPs sound like they have a lot of overlap with INFPs (in that their Fi is idealistic). The whole go-with-the-flow thing seems overstated, but I've kind of accepted it..if that's what they are. It's one reason why I decided I was not ISFP though. Sounds like some lazy hippy hedonist faking a Buddha act. How could Fi be so much much Se oriented than ESFP?

I really relate to that. In a lot of ways Lenore's book pushes me to istp. I mean lazy hippy hedonist on a zen trip is kind of my thing, my ideal. I am what I am. I don't know how it all works. I got estp in my latest cog test.

 

[KDude]

Yeah, but Buddha went through hell and back to get there. He didn't just say he was enlightened just because. And then he went and made change in his society. And sometimes chastised his own disciples into correcting themselves too.

I don't to derail too much about Buddha though I just think just "being" enlightened isn't easily attained for Fi types.. and neither does Thomson. Almost every pop culture example she uses are people who made choices that often put them in conflict with society and the flow of things.

 

[wolfy]

Yeah, Zen is a different ball game than Buddhism in popular culture and in the way that enlightenment is achieved. How it is used in her book. The Zen and the art of...quotes etc, I relate to those. Also, she puts a few people on paths to use Se which I think is really Zen.

You know, I was just thinking, even if Jung came back from the dead and told me I was istp I don't know if I'd change it on the forum. isfp is such a convenient type to be on a forum, neutral ground. You can move any way you want.

 

[KDude]

Heh. Suit yourself. *I'm going with the flow here too* I will say though that neutral ground is a 9 thing probably, shared with many types. ISFPs don't necessarily seem neutral imho. Except on this board, I guess. Detailed explanations, like in Thomson's book as I mentioned, aren't close to being limited to that. I think it's uncool if that can't be recognized.

 

[wolfy]

I don't mean that I'm neutral. I mean that the isfp archetype is in a neutral position in peoples minds on the forum.

I feel I am pretty idealistic about some things. I know I can be pretty idealistic about training, training authenticity. The start of the chapter on isfp in that book talks about isfp being deceptively easy going. More often than not an isfp's idealism is driven into something they do. That is how I see it. Idealism itself is abstract in nature, so you'd expect any talk of idealism as a concept in itself to be hard for an isfp to spot. Se obscures it, or maybe changes it is better. The lens is different.

 

[KDude]

I mean that the isfp archetype is in a neutral position in peoples minds on the forum.

Yeah, I know.. I don't think it makes a lot of sense though. That wiki site is cool too, but I just thought it was funny to catch that description there. Texts like Thomson's would disagree that they're freeflowing.. She's one of the authors that gives them the credit of making impact with their ideas and being discriminate, rather than this need to just be. Views like that strip people of any recognizable aspirations. Even by Keirsey's more limited descriptions, they would be artists/composers - and artists don't have a lack of things to say either. They have something they're not flowing with - whether personal or a larger issue. Maybe 10% of artists don't say anything worth a damn, but those are bands like.. Bananarama and Nickelback or something. And I wouldn't call Nickelback ISFP

 

[wolfy]

I think the thing is you don't get a lot of isfp really invested in typology. That is why. If an isfp was really into typology, I mean, that was really his thing. Then you would see all that come out.