Crows Nest Functions

[wolfy]

What is your take on this. Makes gut level sense to me that I use introverted thinking where introverted feeling doesn't cut it.

How about you? On a personal level or a dry ivory tower analytical level.

 

[527468]

I use all the functions.

 

[011235813]

What is your take on this. Makes gut level sense to me that I use introverted thinking where introverted feeling doesn't cut it.

How about you? On a personal level or a dry ivory tower analytical level.

What are crows nest functions?

Anyway, I mostly agree with your post in the sense that I do the same thing when Fi tools aren't suited to the situation. For example, if I'm working on a bibliographical essay where I have to review books or articles, I'll initially make some quick Fi-driven judgments based on tone and content (do I like this? Does it fit with my general sense of the subject?) but once I actually get down to writing a critique, I tend to go over things with a fine-toothed comb and try to consider finer points that the author might have overlooked or misinterpreted.

That part doesn't come so easily to me and usually takes a good bit of effort and concentration to keep up for prolonged periods, but nevertheless it's a skill I've acquired. I wouldn't attribute it to Ti necessarily but rather to doing what it takes to get the job done. It's largely a matter of expedience.

 

[wolfy]

Crows nest functions is a theory in Lenore Thompson's book that you use the opposite functions to the top two in situations the primary two don't cut it.

So I would use Ti in place of Fi.
Ne in place of Se.

Makes sense to me that I could more easily flip from Fi to Ti cognitively. Seems it would take less effort.

 

[011235813]

Crows nest functions is a theory in Lenore Thompson's book that you use the opposite functions to the top two in situations the primary two don't cut it.

So I would use Ti in place of Fi.
Ne in place of Se.

Makes sense to me that I could more easily flip from Fi to Ti cognitively. Seems it would take less effort.

Interesting stuff. Well, I can initially "flip" to Ti with just a little effort (which is why I've considered an INTP typing) but it gets exhausting after a while. I look at Ti users on this site (well, the INTPs at any rate) writing paragraph upon paragraph in each post and analyzing minute details with excruciating thoroughness, and I really do wonder how they do it in a way that boosts energy.

On the other hand, there are INTP posters like Stigmata whose posts I find pretty easy to relate to, mostly because they're brief and colourful while still retaining a bit of the T-ish sting. So I dunno.

I guess you're right in the sense that Ti seems easier to access in many ways than Te, which I'm actually supposed to have, albeit in minuscule amounts. There are some things about Te that make a lot of sense to me, like taking the shortest path available while doing an unpleasant task and leaving the scenic route for something I actually enjoy, or getting annoyed if people ramble on when I'm stressed instead of getting to the point. Still, it seems to come to the fore only when I'm severely out of sorts, whereas Ti related tasks don't usually put me in ragingly bad moods if I see the value in doing them.

On the other hand, flipping from Ne to Se is extremely difficult to say the least and I shy away from situations that demand it or palm off the job to someone who can do it better.

 

[011235813]

Okay, I read a summary of Thomson's hypothesis on some shady website (LINK). Based on that, I wouldn't say I agree with her assessment, because I don't think I turn instinctively to Ti when FiNe fail. I move on to Si, root around for possible models I've encountered in the past and stored to see if I can use them to get past the problem, and then, if that doesn't work either, I try to pull things apart clinically and tease out relevant solutions. Does that honestly work well for me though? I don't really know. For example, I hate making pros and cons lists and I often feel like they're tell me nothing meaningful about the right or even desirable course of action. On the other hand, it IS one possible method that I've stored and I turn to it when I've exhausted my initial set of options.

 

[INTP]

Its same as shadow functions, just a different name for them. i used to think that we use 8 functions, but then i realized that we just use the four and combining them makes them look sometimes as if the function was in opposite attitude, but its just(for example) Te + Fi looking like Ti or Fe.

I have that book of lenores and there is nothing in the book that would make me believe that its 8 functions we use.

 

[wolfy]

Its same as shadow functions, just a different name for them. i used to think that we use 8 functions, but then i realized that we just use the four and combining them makes them look sometimes as if the function was in opposite attitude, but its just(for example) Te + Fi looking like Ti or Fe.

I have that book of lenores and there is nothing in the book that would make me believe that its 8 functions we use.

It is on page 89 about crows nest functions. Crows nest functions aren't the same as shadow functions, they are functions we can use pretty well. It is the double agent functions that are like shadow functions.

 

[INTP]

It is on page 89 about crows nest functions. Crows nest functions aren't the same as shadow functions, they are functions we can use pretty well. It is the double agent functions that are like shadow functions.

No one claimed that we cant use these so called shadow functions well, especially fifth and swventh(crows nest).

I scored nearly as high Fi on 8 function test than what i scored with my Ne. my Se i dont remember exactly, but it was definitely higher than my Fe.

I used to think it was Fi i was using(had some issues bringing it up), until i realized that i was Ti analyzing my Fe at full power, after seeing how things really were i was able to sort my mind in short time(after being like 8 months in this so called Fi mode). i find it quite weird that if i were actually using Fi, me lying to myself about FeTi instead of Fi would have made thing any better..

This so called Se comes from Neing over Si, seeing possibilities in external world based on 'what is' inside. it naturally seems like Se because im looking at external world, but based introverted lens of Si.

I suggest looking at jungs work in depth and youll figure this out.

 

[Such Irony]

I find myself using Fi quite a bit. Se not so much.

 

[Silveresque]

Crows nest functions is a theory in Lenore Thompson's book that you use the opposite functions to the top two in situations the primary two don't cut it.

So I would use Ti in place of Fi.
Ne in place of Se.

Makes sense to me that I could more easily flip from Fi to Ti cognitively. Seems it would take less effort.

That would explain a lot for me.

 

[INTP]

I find myself using Fi quite a bit. Se not so much.

Sure you arent just usimg Ti abstraction on Fe empathizes?

 

[INTP]

Here is a jungian view on these crowsnest/doubleagent/shadow functions:

Differentiation The separation of parts from a whole, necessary for conscious access to the psychological functions.

"So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions-thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.-that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself. Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies."["Definitions," CW 6, par. 705.]

An undifferentiated function is characterized by ambivalence (every position entails its own negative), which leads to characteristic inhibitions in its use.

"Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant. Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; only a differentiated function is capable of being directed."[ Ibid., par. 705.]

dom function is most differentiated and other functions level of differentation is in MBTI terms how developed the function is. undifferentiated functions merge with other functions, for example in INTPs case Fe mixing with Ti and therefore it looks like Fi..

 

[entropie]

Crows nest function was the point for me when Jung not only had left the realm of empirical argumentation but logic as well

 

[Quinlan]

I don't use functions, functions use me.

 

[wolfy]

I don't use functions, functions use me.

Like Venom used Spiderman?

 

[INTP]

Crows nest function was the point for me when Jung not only had left the realm of empirical argumentation but logic as well

when you know how brains work, you start to see how much better jungs model fits.

Subliminal perception explains it pretty well. first of all, like jung said about consciousness; "consciousness possesses a level of intensity, so all weak concepts remain unconscious".
"unconscious contains all fantasy images that have yet to encounter suitable conditions to become conscious"
"unconscious is ever present and influences out conscious life"

The deal with subliminal perceptions(including seeing subliminal messages) is that the stimuli is so weak that it doesent reach other areas that would make it conscious, but nevertheless it has an modifying effect on that certain area that processes it, but which doesent communicate it much further. it might communicate it to close areas in cerebral cortex, but not to deeper areas on the brain(which combine all info and thus forms consciousness).
This same effect happens not only with perceptions, but all information exchange in brains, so you might have a thought, which signal is suppressed before it enters consciousness.
Now when it comes to these undeveloped functions, the areas on cerebral cortex which processes the undeveloped function, doesent have direct(or strong direct) link to deeper areas of the brain where consciousness is formed. but they might communicate its message to nearby regions on cerebral cortex.
But because you only come conscious of the last signal sent to areas forming consciousness, you dont become conscious of the undeveloped function, instead the area which is stronger and able to come into consciousness is processing signal from the weaker area.
Example of those would be your visual cortex. you only become conscious of the image that has been already processed, and not about the half processed images.
These undeveloped functions only make a weak signal because, first of all the areas doesent get much imput and therefore they also send a weak signal.
If we take INTPs and Fe, which is basically(or mostly) area that processes social feedback. INTPs with undeveloped Fe doesent register social feedback easily, but when there is a strong social feedback(needs to be stronger than for ESFJ for example) they become very conscious of it, but dont know what to think of this social feedback, doesent understand what it means etc. because the area itself doesent process the info well(low amount of neurons in that area). and because they dont know what to think of it and get confused about it, they try to do further processing with the info and prefer to do the further processing with Ti as its the most developed function of INTP. this means that Fe is processed by Ti and looks like Fi, but Fi is totally different process that doesent even include social feedback.
You should also check this topic about what E and I actually are about in neurological level:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...n-introversion-neurological-jungian-view.html

That stuff with brain function in the lenores book has been debunked by dario nardi with his eeg studies on typology(im pretty sure you are aware of that study)

 

[entropie]

Just dont get to fixated on that brain idea of yours yet, you know many great scientists failed because they fixated into one direction to much and lost sense of the big picture. We have no idea yet how brain impulses are translated from purely electrical into a conciencse, in the end it could be all be different than what we expected and that what we have seen now so far is only an interpretation from our current understanding.

 

[INTP]

Just dont get to fixated on that brain idea of yours yet, you know many great scientists failed because they fixated into one direction to much and lost sense of the big picture. We have no idea yet how brain impulses are translated from purely electrical into a conciencse, in the end it could be all be different than what we expected and that what we have seen now so far is only an interpretation from our current understanding.

I think we do have quite bit of ideas how its done

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_12/i_12_cr/i_12_cr_con/i_12_cr_con.html