Axis of Functions

I like this! It concicely explains the adaptabillity of people in respect to how they choose to use their functions. Normally, explaining this takes a long time, but this gets it to the point pretty quickly.

This is what mine should roughly look like:

Ni <xXX|Xxx|x--|---> Ne
Fi <---|--x|xXX|Xx-> Fe
Ti <---|---|xxX|x--> Te
Si <XXX|xx-|---|---> Se

 

Mines:

Ni <xxX|XXX|---|---> Ne
Fi <---|---|-XX|XXX> Fe
Ti <---|---|XXX|x--> Te
Si <xxx|xx-|---|---> Se

lol, not sure how much sense this makes but I tried, very nice theory Von Hase.

 

Very interesting theory, VH. I think my chart would look something like this.

Ni <--x|xXX|xx-|---> Ne
Fi <---|--x|xXX|xx-> Fe
Ti <---|xxX|Xxx|---> Te
Si <---|--x|XXX|x--> Se

 

I don't know, I still see the functions as quite distinct.

 

I do as well, however, most people inheriently overlap them and merge them in some ways. It is near impossible to totally seperate the functions within a person, because they aren't intended to work by themselves.

 

Wow Von Hase, haha I am so amazed, you just broadened my horizons ^^

 

Agreed, and without some other metric test, there is no way to know where a "peak" lies on the spectrum.

That said, one can still make a pretty graph. :tongue:




cheers,
Ian

 

I would be:

Ni <xXX|XXx|x--|---> Ne
Fi <---|-xx|XXX|xx-> Fe
Ti <-xx|XXx|x--|---> Te
Si <---|--x|xXx|x--> Se

 

I don't find this theory wacky at all. In fact, I came up with a related theory, but represented it in percentages and a three-dimensional chart with three axis (X: E to I; Y: N to S; Z: T to F) where the 8 functions were represented as overlapping colored rectangular prisms. (So you can express ranges of probability in a colorful way!)



So for instance, I obtained the following scores from a Jung test:

E=50%; I=50%
N=70%; S=30%
F=50%; T=50%
P=50%; J=50%

That would type me as an xNxx, right?

But what if my percentage E-ness or I-ness reflected my propensity to E or I all my functions? To determine the probability that I would express Ne-ness or Ni-ness for example, I'd multiple my percentages for E or I with my percentage for N.

So if E=.50 and N=.70 then Ne=.35

Then I can determine the probability of using all the other functions in a similar manner:

Ne:.70N x .50e = .35Ne
Ni: .70N x .50i = .35Ni
Se: .30S x .50e = .15Se
Si: .30S x .5i = .15Si
Te: .50T x .50e = .25Te
Ti: .50T x .50i = .25Ti
Fi: .50F x .50i = .25Fi
Fe: .50F x .50e = .25Fe

And the math still comes out right for each of the 16 types. Given that I'm an xNxx, I am equally likely to exhibit behaviors that are INFJ or INTJ or ENTP or ENFP.

INFJ:

+35% Ni (Dom)
+25% Fe (Aux)
+25% Ti (Ter)
+15% Se (Inf)
---------
100%

INTJ:

+35% Ni (Dom)
+25% Te (Aux)
+25% Fi (Ter)
+15% Se (Inf)
--------
100%

ENTP*:

+35% Ne (Dom)
+25% Ti (Aux)
+25% Fe (Ter)
+15% Si (Inf)
-------------
100%

ENFP:

+35% Ne (Dom)
+25% Fi (Aux)
+25% Te (Ter)
+15% Si (Inf)
------------
100%

And I am less likely to be one of the S types as either Se or Si can not be probabilistically dominant functions since their probable occurence is only 15%.

*playful Ti grin*

 

This is just FUN!

I still wish there was a better way to test initially. The probability that you will get accurate results from the initial test without being in a neutral state I would assume are fairly low.

 

Given that cognitive functions are discrete elements that are their own processes, there isn't overlap or a continuum between the introverted and extroverted aspects of a given function class - so the use of an axis isn't really warranted in my view, based on Jungian theory.

To that end, if there is a peak for a given cognitive function, it wouldn't be influenced to move this way or that by some other function, even the other pairing within a function class.


cheers,
Ian

 

Yeah, you could easily get Xander on your side on this theory. He very much believes something very similar.

For myself, I think it's interesting that Fi looks and behaves differently from Fe, so I don't have a problem with the differentiation.

 

Crystaluni, that is fantasticly put together!

 

That makes sense, in the idea that you aren't redistributing points, but rather can accumulate new points (experience) for each cognitive function which wouldn't require a loss in ability in another.

Is it proven one way or the other if you can only balance what you have or that you can build up each side?

You could still potentially make VH's theory work based on that. think of the 2 cognitive functions as silos which can grow, then you put a plank of wood spanning accross the top of both. If there is an imbalance, then the plank creates an angle that marbles or some metric could roll to one side or the other in the case of vast imbalance, although that would actually be the opposite of this scale because the marbles would gravitate towards the lower, less developed process.

 

Jungian theory as well as cognitive theory both state that functions are independent of one another, even if class pairs have some degree of likeness in their description.

That said, I don't think any part of cognitive theory or MBTI or the like has been "proven," at least in the scientific sense.

Given that Jungian theory as well as cognitive theory both state that functions are independent of one another, I don't think that metaphor works.

Then again, Jungian theory as well as cognitive theory could both be wrong. They are, after all, theories.


cheers,
Ian