strychnine
All Natural! All Good!
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Messages
- 895
I cannot see my dominant function... any tips? I'd like to actually verify what it is lols.
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.
So what function must I use to see the function that I am currently using?
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.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.
Yes, Learning about yourself from someone else would be weak form of learning about yourself... Non efficient.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.   
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
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.
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.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
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 mean that the isfp archetype is in a neutral position in peoples minds on the forum.