Thread: Has this been proposed before? Opposite functions being rooted in each other.

1. Originally Posted by Kurt.Is.God
I think these opposite functions are working in tandem, but INTP has explained that the F and T functions aren't two sides of the same coin like the S and N functions are, which was what I was trying to say.
But he did say (in the linked post) they were still needed, because "if you only decide what something is(T), but wont be able to give an value for it(F), you wont be able to complete anything". That's the point I was making. It's just that one of those functions will be more preferred, yet it will be compensated int he unconscious by its opposite.

(The way I take the "coin" analogy, you start with a thick coin representing all of reality. It has two sides, a-rational (taking in information) and rational (making decisions about it). You split them down the middle into two coins. Both of these coins now have two sides. For the a-rational coin, one side is S and the other is N. For the rational coin, one side is T and the other is F. You split these coins down the middle, and you have four coins representing each of the functions. Each side of these coins is the i or e attitude. (Afterwards, they're too thin to go any further).
You can loosely think of the tandems in that if you were to let's say put the rational coin back together; assuming the i/e sides of the final coins were on the same side (let's say, e is left and i is right), you would see that the "i" side of T was actually adjacent to the "e" side of F. If we reversed it so that i is left and e is right, then the "e" side of T would be adjacent to the "i" side of F.
This is a loose analogy, but it shows the symmetry of the whole thing).

2. Sorry for the late response. I get that these functions are like two halves of a whole. But I think what INTP's saying is that F and T aren't halves of each other in the SAME sense that S and N are (expressions of each other). I agree with everything you're saying, by the way.

3. [QUOTE=Kurt.Is.God;1810044]I've read this, actually. I think the MBTI's definition of these is different from the somatic marker hypothesis. In the hypothesis, feeling encompasses our intuitive feeling of what the right answer is from previous experiences with problem-solving, and not our value-system.
But then I think we do need values to work toward when we solve problems (or do anything).
[QUOTE]

It is related, because Damasio's work is a hypotheis based on neurological evidence, and typology is based on an archaic hunch. Discussing the minutia of an inaccurate system is a waste of time and effort.

4. [QUOTE=nebbykoo;1811282][QUOTE=Kurt.Is.God;1810044]I've read this, actually. I think the MBTI's definition of these is different from the somatic marker hypothesis. In the hypothesis, feeling encompasses our intuitive feeling of what the right answer is from previous experiences with problem-solving, and not our value-system.
But then I think we do need values to work toward when we solve problems (or do anything).

It is related, because Damasio's work is a hypotheis based on neurological evidence, and typology is based on an archaic hunch. Discussing the minutia of an inaccurate system is a waste of time and effort.
Fine, then. Don't tell me. I'll live.

5. Originally Posted by nebbykoo
It is related, because Damasio's work is a hypotheis based on neurological evidence, and typology is based on an archaic hunch. Discussing the minutia of an inaccurate system is a waste of time and effort.
But his definitions are different, he isnt talking about feeling and thinking functions

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO