• 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.

Moving past 1D function use

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
4171_to_5_dimensionssvg.png


I'm not really good at explaining what I think and I usually find that visuals are the best way to explain what I think. I use that picture as a representation of varying levels of individual function usage.

It's so hard to find good expressions of abstracted and functional dominant functions on the forum. I'm going to use Ne because I think it's one of the easiest functions that you can "see" being used. I'm not trying to pick on anyone I'm just choosing members that are good examples of what I want to communicate.

CzeCze and Liquid Laser exhibit good Ne grounded with their introverted judgment. They're able to accurately find the relevant points of connection between ideas and communicate them easily and it clear for people to understand. Some ENPs on the forum think that being random and disconnected is being Ne, or more generally obfuscating things is being intuitive. I also think that this is how someone becomes "intuitive" on the forum, by showing exaggerated manifestations of Ne and Ni.

Back on topic, it is using Ne but it's using it in a 1D way. Anyone can be random and make unlikely connections but I don't think mature use of a function is that ostentatious. TLL and Cze don't seem to get bogged down in possibilities or connections that lead to dead ends. For example, CzeCze will come into a discussion and summarize and unify they most pertinent points or the way Liquid Laser has better arguments and sounder logic than a good number of INTPs on the forum. Judging by their forum behavior, I'd say they've moved into at least 3D use of their dominant function.

Not picking on CaptainChick :))), but CC is a good example of someone who floats between 2D and beyond usage of her dominant Ne. You see her making the connections, but she's not sure which ones are worth investigating further. Sometimes this makes her seem scattered and all of the map. This manifests itself IRL with the jack of all trades, master of none attitude that many EPs have. Not knowing where to focus their possibility or sensation seeking abilities and explode it into something great within their chosen area of interest. It gets scattered like leaves in the wind.

Now once you've moved past 2D use of your dominant function, I wonder how much further in development you can delve into with your other functions? Like can you ever achieve more than 3D use of your tertiary and inferior function? Can shadow functions ever not play a fearful role in your life and regularly accessed in a positive way?

When people have abstracted their dominant function or moved past one and two dimensional usage of a function they don't need to show it off as much because they're confident in their ability of how to use it. It begins to look more like this:

hecatohedron.gif


This picture represents what happens when any function has matured into a cohesive whole.

I guess this goes into the preference vs. ability argument when it comes to typing people. I believe that's what makes it hard to type people accurately in real life (or maybe it's just me!) because many have had to develop functions "out of order" and may have developed at least 3D usage of another function which hides their true type and also why it's easier to find people who act stereotypically their type because they've developed more or less in order. When I say out of order I mean that your dominant and auxiliary still developed in tandem but everything else is up in the air.

What do people think?
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
yeah, well, THIS is a good thread !
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
So you're not asking us to become five dimensional? Because that looks difficult.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Those are still only 3 dimensions. Do you mean multi-directional?


Anyway, CC's alleged inability to further examine the possibilities and connections 'worth' exploring are because of a lack of judgement facility. Not because of a weak or poorly developed dominant Ne.

Knowing which perceptions to develop is entirely the jurisdiction of judgement, unless the perception is introverted.


It looks like you're talking about type, or more broadly, personality. Not really the functions themselves... they're set in stone. The variable isn't how we use them, it's when we use them.
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
4171_to_5_dimensionssvg.png


These are great images--want to do an article about it for the Bulletin of Psychological Type?

hecatohedron.gif


This picture represents what happens when any function has matured into a cohesive whole.

I really like the contrast of the "imperfect vs. perfect" shape. The way we stretch uncomfortably and unevenly when using preferences that we haven't developed is really captured.

I guess this goes into the preference vs. ability argument when it comes to typing people. I believe that's what makes it hard to type people accurately in real life (or maybe it's just me!) because many have had to develop functions "out of order" and may have developed at least 3D usage of another function which hides their true type and also why it's easier to find people who act stereotypically their type because they've developed more or less in order. When I say out of order I mean that your dominant and auxiliary still developed in tandem but everything else is up in the air.

It is REALLY hard to type people in real life. I think you have to actually work with them or interact about their preferences to do it accurately.

  • I agree that part of it is the order in which the functions develop. I'll add whether you get opportunities to develop them. For example, getting an MBA and working in finance was a perfect way for me to have to develop Te, my natural third function.
  • The nurture piece also comes in. Would I be so comfortable with Ni if my best friend through 1st grade hadn't been an INTJ and our parents left us alone with our dumb week-long fantasy games we made up? And if my teachers hadn't believed in independent study?
  • Then, just about everyone puts on a public persona. As in, people think I prefer E because I teach workshops. I explain that they wouldn't be very happy if I stayed in I mode, told them to read Chapter 1 and write a paper...

One discussion I've had with others is that many of us can't tell the E and I versions of our "third" functions apart as far as how we use them. For example, technically I know what Te and Ti are but using either one requires strategies, deep breaths, and chocolate...anyone else have the same experience?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gabe

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
590
MBTI Type
ENTP
Those are still only 3 dimensions. Do you mean multi-directional?


Anyway, CC's alleged inability to further examine the possibilities and connections 'worth' exploring are because of a lack of judgement facility. Not because of a weak or poorly developed dominant Ne.

Knowing which perceptions to develop is entirely the jurisdiction of judgement, unless the perception is introverted.


It looks like you're talking about type, or more broadly, personality. Not really the functions themselves... they're set in stone. The variable isn't how we use them, it's when we use them.

If you were to tell me that new hampshire was about to be hit by a hurricane, I would laugh. I know how the usual wind regimes would not let that happen, and I know enough about the weather pattern across the eastern U.S today to tell you what will and won't happen. I also know from experience what tell tale signs to look for before a storm (inferior Si).

I will give you that any function developement beyond Nardi's level 2 (getting good at doing a few fairly simple and somewhat instinctual things with a process) requires at least some help of another process (I say *another* process, because I think it is innapropriate to put a false emphasis on the auxiliary.)

And I will never believe that the functions are "set in stone". Two EXTRAVERTED children of the same exact type will be different from each other in noticable ways and will emphasize thier dominant function in different ways from the moment they're born.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
And I will never believe that the functions are "set in stone". Two EXTRAVERTED children of the same exact type will be different from each other in noticable ways and will emphasize thier dominant function in different ways from the moment they're born.

True. They will. That's not because the functions aren't set in stone. It just means they're flexible.

I realize that sounds contradictory, but bear with me.

The definitions are rigid. They don't change. Where (or more accurately when) they can be applied is to be decided later.

Rather than having variable definitions, and several different versions of the functions -- that would get to be way too convoluted and wouldn't be worth analyzing -- we have extremely broad-scope function definitions, which can cover every contingent behavior. It's a brilliant device.

Besides, it's silly to say that the functions have changing definitions, but yet their order in type is rigid.

Actually, they both seem to work now that I think about it; both allow for un-heretofore seen behavior; maybe your way makes sense too, as long as you don't stray too far with defining them (else why define them at all? we could just use dichotomies or... runes or chicken bones).
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I do not exctly now what impaired means. But I gess this becomesmy new wordd of the day.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
(I warn you that I barely paid attention to this topic, but it got me thinking).

I think there's a difference between a function's degree of use, and a function's quality of use. Well, I don't just think that, I know that.

So, we should ask how much does a person use a given function, and then how affectively do they use it? The only downside with this idea is that if you think it's hard to define and measure function usage, just wait 'till we have the debates on how to measure and define function quality.

But an example of what comes to mind is when somebody thinks they know how a horse-race is going to turn out. They are trying to use Intuition, because they claim that they can envision what is going to happen in that race. They supposedly foresee the likely outcome. But while they are using what could best be described as Intuition, they are using it very, very poorly.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
4171_to_5_dimensionssvg.png


I'm not really good at explaining what I think and I usually find that visuals are the best way to explain what I think. I use that picture as a representation of varying levels of individual function usage.

It's so hard to find good expressions of abstracted and functional dominant functions on the forum. I'm going to use Ne because I think it's one of the easiest functions that you can "see" being used. I'm not trying to pick on anyone I'm just choosing members that are good examples of what I want to communicate.

CzeCze and Liquid Laser exhibit good Ne grounded with their introverted judgment. They're able to accurately find the relevant points of connection between ideas and communicate them easily and it clear for people to understand. Some ENPs on the forum think that being random and disconnected is being Ne, or more generally obfuscating things is being intuitive. I also think that this is how someone becomes "intuitive" on the forum, by showing exaggerated manifestations of Ne and Ni.

Back on topic, it is using Ne but it's using it in a 1D way. Anyone can be random and make unlikely connections but I don't think mature use of a function is that ostentatious. TLL and Cze don't seem to get bogged down in possibilities or connections that lead to dead ends. For example, CzeCze will come into a discussion and summarize and unify they most pertinent points or the way Liquid Laser has better arguments and sounder logic than a good number of INTPs on the forum. Judging by their forum behavior, I'd say they've moved into at least 3D use of their dominant function.

Not picking on CaptainChick :))), but CC is a good example of someone who floats between 2D and beyond usage of her dominant Ne. You see her making the connections, but she's not sure which ones are worth investigating further. Sometimes this makes her seem scattered and all of the map. This manifests itself IRL with the jack of all trades, master of none attitude that many EPs have. Not knowing where to focus their possibility or sensation seeking abilities and explode it into something great within their chosen area of interest. It gets scattered like leaves in the wind.

Now once you've moved past 2D use of your dominant function, I wonder how much further in development you can delve into with your other functions? Like can you ever achieve more than 3D use of your tertiary and inferior function? Can shadow functions ever not play a fearful role in your life and regularly accessed in a positive way?

When people have abstracted their dominant function or moved past one and two dimensional usage of a function they don't need to show it off as much because they're confident in their ability of how to use it. It begins to look more like this:

hecatohedron.gif


This picture represents what happens when any function has matured into a cohesive whole.

I guess this goes into the preference vs. ability argument when it comes to typing people. I believe that's what makes it hard to type people accurately in real life (or maybe it's just me!) because many have had to develop functions "out of order" and may have developed at least 3D usage of another function which hides their true type and also why it's easier to find people who act stereotypically their type because they've developed more or less in order. When I say out of order I mean that your dominant and auxiliary still developed in tandem but everything else is up in the air.

What do people think?

The chief distinction here is between the competent use of only one function and the use of all of them.

The illustration on top denotes the former, the illustration on the bottom, the latter.

The in between, those in between respectively.

Thus the correction here is, it is not about the one dimensional or multi dimensional use of the dominant function but properly interlacing the dominant function with the less prevalent faculties by cultivating them and in effect allowing for them to be activated properly.
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
The chief distinction here is between the competent use of only one function and the use of all of them.

The illustration on top denotes the former, the illustration on the bottom, the latter.

The in between, those in between respectively.

Thus the correction here is, it is not about the one dimensional or multi dimensional use of the dominant function but properly interlacing the dominant function with the less prevalent faculties by cultivating them and in effect allowing for them to be activated properly.

Then maybe at the 3d level we have 2 illustrations--a symmetrical cube for developed use of dominant and a "squashed" cube for someone using a function in a less developed manner. Then the final figure would be a great depiction of individuation.
 

Glaceau

New member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
24
MBTI Type
RAD
When people have abstracted their dominant function or moved past one and two dimensional usage of a function they don't need to show it off as much because they're confident in their ability of how to use it.



I guess this goes into the preference vs. ability argument when it comes to typing people.

Excellent points.
It is a most curious phenomenon that a poster should assume a type, claim all the good attributes of the type's dominant functions and assert excellence in the type while utterly contradicting every aspect of the claimed attributes. If I claim self-awareness and superior intuition and extraverted feeling, but then go on to act like a petulant child taking ill-conceived, antagonistic potshots at others, one must conclude that I have very little understanding of my cognitive functions and/or that I am very poor at the functions although I have a preference for them. Perference =/= superior ability, and there are variations in the maturity of each person's preferred function.
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
Um...can you repeat the part of the stuff where you talked about the things?

You know...the THINGS?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Proteanmix:

Very interesting. You seem to be describing proficiency, and saying that how often a function is used is not necessarily the same as how effectively and with how much skill it is used. So, a lower dimensional function could still be used a lot, but it would be unskilled or basic use, which might work for simpler things. A higher dimensional function would be used in more complex, aware, and effective ways.

Do I seem to get it?

Um...can you repeat the part of the stuff where you talked about the things?

You know...the THINGS?

I'm afraid they didn't talk about things at all. Just ideas... pure abstraction. We haven't really tried to apply it straight to reality yet.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
proteanmix, shall I psychoanalyze you, and describe and delineate what I find to be your moral/ethical deficiencies and your cognitive limitations???

(F.Y.I. You exhibit/have many)

Wait, you're a mod, so I can't do that, shucks, oh well.

As much as you offend me, you flatter me, thanks hon.

:smooch:
 
Last edited:

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
the good thing is: at least it was shown why "Moving past 1D function use" is a necessary thread.

I myself call it the "MBTI Uncertainity Principle"

You cant have a look at a 1D function, then you will neglect its integration in the whole human being and you can not look at the whole human being, then you can not sort out exactly, how the 1D building blocks work and manifest themselves in the process of personality.
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
proteanmix, shall I psychoanalyze you, and describe and delineate what I find to be your moral/ethical failures and your cognitive limitations???

(F.Y.I. You exhibit/have many)

Wait, you're a mod, so I can't do that, shucks, oh well.

As much as you offend me, you flatter me, thanks hon.

:smooch:

Wasn't trying to offend you. :) Psychoanalyze away, I don't mind! If I open myself up to it I'll have to deal with it.
 
Top