Great - glad we both think it's obvious so we can move beyond thinking it's a unique perspective. I never actually suggested that - the point was that the mimicking part is purely semantics.
The entirety of typology is semantics, since none of it has any empirical evidence. We're just arguing over categorization, nothing more.
I'm not selling anything so it doesn't matter if you buy.
I'm not suggesting an alternative explanation from the dominant one. You are. If you're the one suggesting a different theory of cognitive processes than the several (Jung, Lenore etc etc) all of whom refer to people using all eight functional processes but with varying skill then the onus lies at your end to explain and provide evidence for what you are suggesting as a shift in paradigm.
Actually, Jung never said that. The "we use all eight functions" model was introduced by Berens, Beebe and other more recent authors:
Wiki said:
...those who study and follow Jung's theories (Jungians) are typically adamant that Myers is incorrect. Jungians interpret Jung as explicitly stating that the tertiary function is actually in the same attitude as the dominant, providing balance. More recently, typologists such as John Beebe and Linda Berens have introduced theoretical systems in which all people possess eight functions -- equivalent to the four functions as defined by Jung and Myers but in each of the two possible attitudes -- with the four in the opposite attitude to that measured known as the "shadow functions," residing largely in the unconscious.
Either it's a purely subjective topic where several interpretations apply - your response to Seymour and others implies otherwise or its an objective topic where you provide evidence for a singular explanation that applies best. Pick one and argue accordingly. It can't be subjective when you feel like it and objective otherwise.
Okay, let me be clear--nobody has any empirical evidence for any typology system, myself included. I'm arguing why I think this interpretation is most internally consistent and describes people's motivations most effectively. Everyone's interpretation of something this amorphous is obviously subjective; typology is just a form of philosophy, not science.
1. Okay so you've already shifted into saying that people can use them at different times but this would require a permanent shift. This implies, already, that we all have eight functions. If the shift can happen later on in life, the access remains even if you don't use them earlier.
No it doesn't. You only have "access" to whichever functions comprise your current worldview. If some sort of life experience convinces you that your worldview thus far has been wrong, you might then change to one that contradicted your previous one, but that doesn't mean you had access to the new one before the shift in perspective occurred. The old has to completely fade out before the new can take over.
2. If this shift can happen, it could happen periodically and be really difficult when it happens? Seriously, that's really the big point of difference here.
I won't say it's totally impossible that such a shift could happen more than once, but it's not a voluntary or controllable reaction, and it's certainly something that would happen very rarely. It'd be like a religious conversion--some kind of huge revelation via profound life experience would have to convince you that the entire basis for your worldview has been completely wrong all along. This could theoretically happen to someone more than once throughout life, but it certainly would not be a routine occurrence and this still wouldn't allow people to use Fi/Te without completely getting rid of Ti/Fe's influence (or vice versa.)
Of course we do. Even though I've repeatedly said otherwise and not identified functions with a particular external manifestation.
I would like to know what leads you to believe that people use all eight attitudes routinely, then.
I've been talking about Fi being used to a different degree by everyone which is an internalized process so no, I haven't been arguing that I've seen the same external manifestations of the same. That would be inconsistent with the mimicking. I've actually been arguing that Ti doms/auxs have talked about their own experience with using this weaker internal judging process and how alien it feels. It seems from their experiences that they can tap into it. They may or may not weild it well depending on age and experience but they do seem to from their descriptions of the experience. Also, everyone has feelings and when one makes an internal feeling based judgment it isn't always done using Fe especially if it doesn't relate to the group and maintaining external harmony or other community value. If related to the individual's feeling himself/herself - it's Fi. That's what I've said in case you missed it the first few times.
I would argue that these Ti doms are feeling the unfamiliar effect of Si/Fe, not Fi.
But this is just a question of semantics regarding our definitions of Fi. I would define these "alien experiences" as manifestations of Fe, but obviously we're not going to agree on that. I don't think "I felt something emotional that was unfamiliar" is necessarily Fi, because I don't think the Ti dom in question is fully aware of where these feelings are coming from. For all we know, they might be validated externally even if the Ti dom doesn't realize it.
You seem to be listening to these experiences and deciding that they constitute Fi, without really knowing where the feelings came from or what the root cause of them was.
Maybe you could post some of these recollections of this sort of experience from Ti doms?
Again, I don't need to argue this Sim -- this is what all cognitive function theory is saying besides the experiences of members on this board and outside who keep confirming this. They don't all have the definitions wrong and yours is not very helpful or new, honestly. Anything else to back up your claim or will this magical challenge prove all?
That's interesting, because quite a few members have thanked me for the help my interpretations have provided them with typology.
Besides that, you just implied that all credible sources use an 8-function model (which isn't actually true--see quote above), and that my functional definitions are "stretched" from the original, "standard" definitions, but now my 4-function model is also "nothing new"?
Which is it? I can't be out of touch with everyone in the typology community
and totally not unique. Pick an insult and stick with it.
For that matter, where does Jung state that people use all eight functions on a regular basis?
I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree if this is in fact a completely subjective topic as you suggest. You can choose to believe that you only have access to and use four functions and perhaps you do. Don't, however, tell everyone else that they don't know the definitions and don't use the eight functions they think they are if they disagree. That's presumptuous.
Listen, I'm not arguing that our brains are biologically incapable of using the shadow functions--just that switching to them requires permanently changing into a different personality type via some sort of life-changing experience. It's a dramatic shift in perspective that would edge out our old perspective.
So if I go along living my life and get to the point where I realize Fi actually makes more sense to me than Ti, then Ti has been pushed out of my functional makeup. If I reach a point where Fi truly resonates more clearly with my perspective than Ti, then Ti is gone--I'm not going to just switch between the two whenever I feel like it. The difference between Ti and Fi is that profound. If this happened to me, I would become an ENFP, which is possible but not something that would happen overnight or whenever I feel like it. And changing back to ENTP would require some equally powerful experience to convince me to rebuild my worldview again.
So when I say we don't use all eight functions, I mean we have a mold of four that makes up our worldview and that our worldview has to change profoundly and significantly in a way that clearly contradicts our old worldview in order to move into using the other four--and that once this happens (barring a similar revelatory experience in the other direction) there's no going back. The people I'm taking issue with are the ones who say things like, "Yesterday I used Fi for this and that, and today I'm using Ti for something else! Later this afternoon I'll use Fi again, but then I might use Ti tonight!" That's not how this works.
So my theory is that we're holding four tools at a time. At some point we may eventually decide to set down two (or even all four) of them and pick up some other ones, but this would be a very gradual and life-changing decision, not something people do on a daily basis.
Picking up new tools requires setting other contradictory tools down--we can't hold all eight at once.
I believe that this theory is more representative of Jung's original model (which never actually says that any one person uses all eight functions routinely.) I'll continue to support this theory in my functional discussions until such a time as I change my mind.
Maybe later I'll end up deciding that we do use all eight functions--but that won't mean that I was a four-function believer and an eight-function believer at the same time, or that I had "access" to believing the eight-function theory before changing my mind. The point is, the four-function theory and eight-function theory cannot simultaneously be true, so I can't believe one without rejecting the other first--Ti and Fi share this relationship.
To continue the religious conversion parallel, I could be an atheist at one point in my life and later become a theist, but I'd have to discard atheism first and I would not routinely waffle between atheism and theism because these are really fundamental parts of one's worldview that simply don't change that easily. I see cognitive functions the same way--it's possible for an Fi/Te user to become a Ti/Fe user, but not without discarding Fi/Te first.
Amar, quick, get the rogue NF trap...
