The alternative/real function orders

[redacted]

Ne and Ni are not separate functions. There is the function N, and then a preferred direction on a spectrum of introversion to extroversion.

 

[527468]

Ne and Ni are not separate functions. There is the function N, and then a preferred direction on a spectrum of introversion to extroversion.

I like to think the direction comes first. Ni = intuition of introversion (introverted intuition), not introversion of intuition (intuitive introversion). So it's more of introversion and extroversion that are the functions, and the four dichotomies come after. This is my standpoint at least.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I hope you now realize why I have opened this thread.

We simply have too much contradictions going around.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I found the function order to be bogus for me as well. I believe, like many others here, that the first two are usually accurate and can help you figure out your type and be informative. But Beebe's order left much to be desired, imo. Eric B has done extensive research into this as well, if you didn't know. Here is a quote from the 'archetypes' thread:

But outside of those situations, we are free to use the processes, in any context, and without worrying that they might be "ego-syntonic" or "preferred" and that thus we must be mistyped. They processes are not rejected by the ego; they simply are undifferentiated. This frees us from having to force all of the processes into archtypes every single use, or conclude that Ne preferring egos somewhow reject current senses.
What many of us have gotten caught up in is what I now call "HyperBeebeanism". (Beebe's theory itself is valid, but this interpretation of it is being taken beyond ["hyper-"] its practical use). I've had two observers describe it to me in terms of a "set of rules" on personality and functions. It sought to explain practically every move we make through the eight archetypes. When I saw this, it looked fascinating and elegant, so I grabbed it and tried to fit into it myself and use it with others. But now I see that it is just not working completely for anybody (I even framed an informal "test" on it, ETB's Ultimate Lucky Eight Archetype test! with very poor results).

That's why I changed my sig. I prefer Ni/Fe. But I use the other function on a whim, if you will, when I need them.

As for functions tests, I agree with others--I find them completely unreliable at the least, and downright misleading at the most. If someone would just make a lengthy functions order test it would be really cool! Although that won't stop someone from being subconsciously biased anyway.........

 

[Jaguar]

Shadow functions (the four apart from your preferred ones) are not exercised directly.

Sometimes you may think you are seeing, say, Si from an ENFJ, but it's really just the ENFJ's Ni resembling it.

As for the order of the primary four, some people lack development of the secondary or tertiary, so for instance if you see someone who appears to be Ti-Si it's probably an INTP with underdeveloped secondary Ne.

Most of the weird combinations are just regular types with weird functional disorders that result in some sort of clear unbalance.

Once again, you prove to me you have no consistency of thought.

Do not make me find your old post where you agreed with me,
that predetermined function orders are bullshit.
Now you sound like the poster boy for MBTI.
Make up your mind.

I happen to agree with the OP.
One of the first warning bells that went off for me was this ridiculous notion of symmetry.
To know people, is to know complexity.
The thought of this symmetrical paint-by-numbers approach is more than I can bear.

Excerpt from the workbook, Functions of Type:

[...] due to life circumstances, the amount of development does not follow either pattern.
Following are some of the circumstances that could influence the amount of development:

During childhood (about 3–12 years of age)
1. There was negative feedback when the dominant was being used
2. Family life called upon a nonpreferred function to be used in order to survive (e.g., an alcoholic or abusive parent or sibling)
3. There was positive feedback for using nonpreferred functions

Later in life
4. Chosen jobs required extensive use of nonpreferred functions
5. Parenting skills demanded use of nonpreferred functions.

In any of these situations it may be difficult to determine the type preferences of the person;
thus, the pattern of development for that person may also be unclear.

------------------


All of that should already be known by anyone.
Our childhood environments are so complex, varying from person to person,
that to suggest if you score type XXXX that your function order is:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

is absolutely laughable.

The functions we use at any given time are like poetry in motion, a dance if your will.
It's a sense of fluidity.
Our own willingness, or unwillingness, to accept such a rigid and unforgiving theory,
says more about who we are as a person, than the theory itself.

Food for thought.

 

[Jaguar]

I hope you now realize why I have opened this thread.

We simply have too much cuntradictions going around.

"cuntradictions."

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I hope you now realize why I have opened this thread.

We simply have too much cuntradictions going around.

haha! good eye, jaguar.


Freudian slip, AO? getting enough?

 

[entropie]

I hope you now realize why I have opened this thread.

We simply have too much contradictions going around.

Given the premisse of course everyone is from the same plane of perception

 

[Poki]

SW, I dunno enough about the theory to really have an opinion on this. Btw, my post was in jest, in case you didn't notice

And, I'm sorry, but the description of Ni does fit me like a glove. When Ni-users talk about how and why they use it, I'm not as adept as they are, but I do 75 percent of that as well. I really doubt that's Ne filling in. Could be though. I dunno.

Whoever is right, it would be nice though, if I could ask these questions and maybe be wrong, without you rolling your eyes at and making fun of those that, like me, ask such questions though

How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop? The world may never know

Ne and Ni are not separate functions. There is the function N, and then a preferred direction on a spectrum of introversion to extroversion.

Ok, lets take it to N function level. Ni is intuition based on what you know, Ne is intuition based on what you see. So you can seperate them and it is possible for one to be concious and the other subconcious. Ne types have the first subconcious function as Ni. So it is the dominant subconcious function.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

How many licks does it take to appease a cuntradiction?

Haha, poki!! The world may never know

but it'd be fun to find out.

 

[Polaris]

The idea that people don't really use their "shadow" functions is just a convenient excuse for the discrepancies between real people and the MBTI. What makes it so convenient is that any time someone reports unusual function use, all you have to do is insist they're wrong, and they'll be powerless to prove otherwise. I notice this is a common tactic with orthodox (instead of liberal) MBTI users: they'll provide increasingly irrefutable explanations. In this case, we have someone who says that it's literally impossible for someone to know how they use their functions, unless they happen to know which type is theirs. But how could someone know which type is theirs, if we accept Simulated's idea? According to his reasoning, any time you think you're using one function, it could just as easily be some other function in disguise.

 

[entropie]

The idea that people don't really use their "shadow" functions is just a convenient excuse for the discrepancies between real people and the MBTI. What makes it so convenient is that any time someone reports unusual function use, all you have to do is insist they're wrong, and they'll be powerless to prove otherwise. I notice this is a common tactic with orthodox (instead of liberal) MBTI users: they'll provide increasingly irrefutable explanations. In this case, we have someone who says that it's literally impossible for someone to know how they use their functions, unless they happen to know which type is theirs. But how could someone know which type is theirs, if we accept Simulated's idea? According to his reasoning, any time you think you're using one function, it could just as easily be some other function in disguise.

+1

It's the point reached in which a good scientist finally has to admit that his idea is going nowhere

 

[Jaguar]

But how could someone know which type is theirs, if we accept Simulated's idea? According to his reasoning, any time you think you're using one function, it could just as easily be some other function in disguise.

Whick speaks volumes about him as a person.
His viewpoint on the theory is a giveaway about himself.
I have no doubt he is a man of many disguises.
So many in fact, he probably doesn't even know who he really is.

If Amargith tells me she uses Ni. I believe her.
Why should I allow a theory to dictate what is true?
Bottom line-- I don't.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I think the order makes sense (and by order, i'm mostly talking about function roles, not amount of usage...) if you take the directions off.

So an ESTJ is T, S, N, F... those functions tend to go in alternating directions, but not always, especially after the 2nd. If T is really really extroverted, Ti might be 5th or 6th in terms of usage in the 8 function order. If T is barely extroverted, Ti might be 2nd.

Check out my type calculator.

Yeah I think you have it exactly right.

 

[Jaguar]

I think the order makes sense (and by order, i'm mostly talking about function roles, not amount of usage...) if you take the directions off.

So an ESTJ is T, S, N, F... those functions tend to go in alternating directions, but not always, especially after the 2nd. If T is really really extroverted, Ti might be 5th or 6th in terms of usage in the 8 function order. If T is barely extroverted, Ti might be 2nd.

Check out my type calculator.

This is because you're totally unimaginative. Just ask Jaguar.

Open up your mind--unless you fear something might fall out.

"[...] the MBTI's A PRIORI assumption that if an individual's primary function is introverted, their secondary function MUST be extraverted,
has the interesting consequence that it precludes the possibility of an individual having a primary and secondary function,
that are both introverted (eg, 'introverted intuition' and 'introverted thinking').

This was, however, ironically Jung's own situation, personally: introverted intuition and introverted thinking were his strongest (and most preferred) functions -
despite the fact that the MBTI 'rules' for constructing type do not permit this possibility!"

Obviously the typologists who wrote that, are not "thumpers" of the MBTI bible.
They actually have the ability to see other possibilities.
How refreshing.

Source:
Six Phases in the Development of Jung's Theory of Types

 

[DuoRCN]

Very interesting article, thanks for linking it. Considering this though, what are your thoughts on the ennaegram?

 

[Jaguar]

Very interesting article, thanks for linking it. Considering this though, what are your thoughts on the ennaegram?

You're welcome.
There's much more on that site to read.
Check it out, when you have time.

You know why I don't have a real beef with the enneagram?
It's not destructive.
It's not divisive.
It's not derisive.

I happen to like the Enneagram.
It's probing in nature.
It attempts to address unseen forces, strengths, motivations, fears etc.
The bottom line is: Does it help you?

If it does, use it.
If it doesn't, discard it.

 

[simulatedworld]

Ne and Ni are not separate functions. There is the function N, and then a preferred direction on a spectrum of introversion to extroversion.

Yes, they are. Ni is more similar to Si and Ne more similar to Se than they are to each other.

Open up your mind--unless you fear something might fall out.

"[...] the MBTI's A PRIORI assumption that if an individual's primary function is introverted, their secondary function MUST be extraverted,
has the interesting consequence that it precludes the possibility of an individual having a primary and secondary function,
that are both introverted (eg, 'introverted intuition' and 'introverted thinking').

This was, however, ironically Jung's own situation, personally: introverted intuition and introverted thinking were his strongest (and most preferred) functions -
despite the fact that the MBTI 'rules' for constructing type do not permit this possibility!"

Obviously the typologists who wrote that, are not "thumpers" of the MBTI bible.
They actually have the ability to see other possibilities.
How refreshing.

Source:
Six Phases in the Development of Jung's Theory of Types

That's blatantly wrong; Jung didn't say his best two functions were Ni and Ti. In fact, he said in Psychological Types that the top two functions in a healthy individual always point in opposite directions.

There are people whose strongest two functions are both introverted or both extroverted; they just have unbalanced personalities that don't function as efficiently as the regular functional archetypes.

Lacking an introverted function precludes the ability to stop and reconsider one's internal positions, while lacking an extroverted one leaves one without any efficient way to interact with the outer world.

The idea isn't that it's impossible not to have I and E in your top two functions, just that it's clearly disadvantageous and not typically a natural occurrence.

The idea that people don't really use their "shadow" functions is just a convenient excuse for the discrepancies between real people and the MBTI. What makes it so convenient is that any time someone reports unusual function use, all you have to do is insist they're wrong, and they'll be powerless to prove otherwise. I notice this is a common tactic with orthodox (instead of liberal) MBTI users: they'll provide increasingly irrefutable explanations. In this case, we have someone who says that it's literally impossible for someone to know how they use their functions, unless they happen to know which type is theirs. But how could someone know which type is theirs, if we accept Simulated's idea? According to his reasoning, any time you think you're using one function, it could just as easily be some other function in disguise.

I've stated in about 9463 threads that I don't actually accept MBTI; I've only appropriated some of its terminology for the form of typology that I use.

And bolded part--nope, didn't say that. This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what "using" a function is. The only ones I've said imitate each other are shadow functions, and the only people who think they directly exercise shadow functions are basing it on erroneous understanding of what each function is.

Seriously, how do you think these people reach such conclusions? "Oh I read some random definition of Fi and I think I do that; therefore my Fi is good."

It's much easier to self-diagnose your functional usage when you actually understand what each function is. Too many people have no idea what the difference between Ne and Ni is and yet still declare that they use both equally well, and why? Because they took a test that said so?

If I were using traditionalist MBTI, I most certainly would not hold the position that psychological type can't be empirically measured or tested--that's the biggest problem with MBTI itself.

Look, each function carries properties very specific to a certain letter combination:

Ni = NJ
Ne = NP
Si = SJ
Se = SP
Ti = TP
Te = TJ
Fi = FP
Fe = FJ

Claiming that you have equally strong Ne and Ni is literally claiming that you are equal parts P and J, which implies that you place totally equal emphasis on internal and external organization. This is almost never true; if you really understand the competing value systems that are xxxJ and xxxP you would not ever make the claim that you or anyone else is equal parts both.

I mostly only correct people who clearly don't understand what the hell they're talking about when they talk about their function orders. People like Jaguar who believe that "I scored highly in Ne on completely irrelevant function tests" actually means they have good Ne. None of this is quantifiable, so stop trying.

Being good at tasks commonly associated with Ne doesn't actually mean you have good Ne! It just means the functions you use well are good at completing those tasks, too. One of the problems with function theory is that it's impossible to tell the difference for certain, meaning it's also impossible to empirically test psychological type or function usage.

Function tests don't test anything but your ability to complete certain arbitrary mental tasks and/or self-evaluate. Furthermore, psychological type "testing" is only as effective as one's own ability to be honest with himself. It's total garbage; these concepts are purely theoretical and when someone says something as ridiculous as "I am equally good at polar opposite mental attitudes", it's just clearly counterintuitive and probably bullshit.

 

[redacted]

Yes, they are. Ni is more similar to Si and Ne more similar to Se than they are to each other.

How so?

Ne and Se have literally zero overlap. They cannot perceive even one of the same things.

Ne and Ni CAN have overlap. As long as the premises in the internal standard match up with reality in the slightest bit, the exact same perceptual data is completely possible.

 

[redacted]

[...] the MBTI's A PRIORI assumption that if an individual's primary function is introverted, their secondary function MUST be extraverted,
has the interesting consequence that it precludes the possibility of an individual having a primary and secondary function,
that are both introverted (eg, 'introverted intuition' and 'introverted thinking').

I never said the first two most used functions can't both be introverted or extroverted.

The way I define types is to look for the first most used function. The tiebreaker is the first most used opposite direction function of the opposite J/P. For example, if Ti is the most used function, the difference between ISTP and INTP is whether Ne is used more or Se is used more. That doesn't mean some other function can't be used more than both of them.