Seymour
Vaguely Precise
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,579
- MBTI Type
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 5w4
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
There's a difference between doing the things listed as examples of manifestations of each function, and actually directly experiencing that function.
An INTP could think, "Hmm, okay, I see that the bully is behaving this way because he needs human connection and wants to feel important", but for me as a Ti user, as soon as I read that Ti understands it more in a clinical, structural "oh this is what logically explains his behavior" kind of way than in a directly empathetic one. I can't "turn off" Ti enough to experience this understanding from a purely Fi perspective.
So Ti can understand in theory how Fi works, but it still only does that in Ti terms. You can look through the Fi lens if you try hard to see what it's all about, but you can't remove the Ti coloration from your own perspective.
Even if the Ti-er understands in theory what Fi does and engages in activities representative of its attitude, Ti's influence never really goes away completely, but it would have to in order for someone to experience and appreciate Fi for Fi's sake alone.
I don't think anyone is arguing that people suddenly throw their priorities and values overboard and have the full subjective experience of being someone who is dominant in that function. But, as in Babylon Candle quotation above, we do have access to all eight functions. We don't use them all consistently and in a high-quality kind of way, of course. Our preferences tend to be habitual and long-lasting... otherwise there would be no such thing as "type." Conversely, as Gen said, they are called "preferences" for a reason.
There are also books like this one:
Skill Development
whose goal is to help one better develop and experience one's less preferred functions (all 8 in fact, if you read through the page). I think it's true that some functions don't get along well with certain other functions, so it's not like we can use all 8 functions all at once out loud. Trying to be XXXX really isn't a healthy or achievable goal, but being able to use Fe, for example, when it's the best tool for the job is helpful.
I also acknowledge that different cognitive processes can lead to the same external behavior. The judge can arrive at the same verdict in different ways.
Anyway, I think the main problem here is one of term definition. It seems to me like the ones you use are narrower and more stringent than the generally used ones, and that leads to your disagreeing with that people have said in some specific cases. I'm not saying you have to change your definitions, but it does seem like not everyone is using terms in the same way, so acknowledging that may aid us when we try to understand each other.
Anyway, I feel like I've beat this topic into the ground. Just understand when I say I say "use Ti," I'm making a more limited claim than you would using the same phrase. I'll try to keep in mind when you say "use Ti," you mean it in more of a fundamental "Ti in charge of our days and our nights" kind of way.
(BTW, I do like the term "function attitude" from that Exegesis link. The functions do have conflicting priorities and approaches to answering "what's important?")