MBTI vs Jungian functions: Why you can't be both Fe/Fi

[not sure]

I am struggling to understand this stuff but really it doesn't make sense that you would prefer both Fe and Fi. That would mean that you are looking to the external for your ethics and the internal for your ethics which would create tremendous conflict and distress for the person. You also can't use all introverted functions or all extroverted functions because for the first you would be completely out of touch with the world and for the second you would be an empty shell with no opinions of your own. That's why if you are Te you must be Fi and so on, otherwise, we would be talking madness wouldn't we?

http://www.personalitynation.com/ju...nt-five-common-functional-misconceptions.html

Do not get hung up on examples of what the different cognitive functions look like. The examples are only trends not absolutes so they can lead you astray. Pay close attention to the definitions instead and then study your own thinking to determine which cognitive functions you prefer.

As for shadow functions, they only come up occasionally during times when you experience and understand firsthand the value in another function attitude purely for its own sake, and not because another function told you to do it. This is often very painful/uncomfortable and cannot ever be sustained for a significant length of time because it expends a tremendous amount of mental energy... -- simulatedworld

 

[Arsal]

I'm not convinced of any of this, I'm sure which functions you use is largely situational.

Then you don't understand the concept of Psychological Types.

 

[This]

Then you don't understand the concept of Psychological Types.

I understand the concept I just don't necessarily agree. I think the mind could be broken up a number of ways and that Jung's opinion is just one mans opinion on how it should be divided. No one can see into the mind of another only into their own mind, Jungian philosophy assumes all factors have been accounted for and that there is no other way someone could think outside of those man made divides.

 

[Atticus]

I agree with Sali.

I believe we can use all eight function. As for me I accidentaly have moments when I realize that 'ah-ha, now if I would decide based upon this that would be Fi, and if I'd do it upon that that would be Fe. Though those who say one experiences a huge inner conflict deciding on which one should one decide are right. It's a tremendous torment for me. And who say one of them is always coming more 'easily' to one are also right. So Jung was right when he said that when you use your lesser functions you just don't seem to be natural. I just happen to decide based upon lesser functions as well every now and then.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I've always found the judging functions pretty easy to grasp.

It's obvious to me that I use Fe and Ti, but not Fi or Te. I can observe myself
going inwards to logically analyse (this has to be forced) and also processing
in an F way when dealing with the external environment. I simply can't figure
something out internally in an F way, nor act externally in a T way. I have to
do these things in an indirect way, e.g. taking in information about a situation,
and then taking time to think logically about what needs to be done, and maybe
looking around (inside) for how I feel about something as opposed to actually
going through any sort of judgment process.

(I think the perception functions are also potentially easy to grasp, but they
are often explained very poorly so it's easy to get confused. However, once
you do have an understanding of them which is correct, everything else will
fall into place, and the divisions become far more clear, so just experiment a
bit with your understanding. I think the key is to realise that Perception is a
more engaging process than you might think.?)

I see the explanation as basically being that thinking in this way is simply more
efficient. We need use of Je, Ji, Pe, Pi, as well as T, F, N, S in order to process
the full range of data available to us, and cognitive evolution would have it that
we end up with the simplest configurations of this, since more parts = harder to
get working smoothly. We're social creatures, so individual differentiation is both
possible and desirable.

 

[Limit]

Sometimes I begin to type up a post here at INFJs and then I just completely lose motivation to explain things.

sorry

 

[Neuropedia]

sometimes I begin to read really long posts and then completely lose motivation to read them and go on tumblr

 

[Neuropedia]

and by that I mean
it's redundant to try to enlighten the wilfully ignorant. you don't need to be a martyr. this forum is primarily used for it's social aspect, not it's educational aspects. I mean, it's like you're posting about the genetic implications of incest on the litrotica forums.

and if you still want to get your message through to INFJf, make an anon confession, and use MLA style or ima assume its just your opinion

 

[Saru Inc]

Guys, I think you're misinterpreting them. You CAN use Fe and Fi. Not at the same time though. Its impossible for someone to not have both. Everyone uses Se once in a while, everyone uses Si once in a while. I think what people are meaning on one side is that you can't use them all at the same time. I want an ESFJ to tell me they never used Te?

At the same time, I don't agree with Sali that its largely situational. I think that when the other 4 shadow functions are in use, its in a very perturbed and sporadic way, and cannot be sustained for a long time at all, without consuming mass amounts of energy. And I do have several typing sites that say this as well. So if anyone wishes to debate me thats fine, I'll just quote the sites because besides that I don't really have anything else to say. *Just putting that out there*


edit: also while I'm re reading this topic, I think I may have misinterpreting the fact that people are misinterpreting stuff.

 

[Quinlan]

In my opinion you can no more "use" a function as you can "use" a sexuality.

Like I can't "use" my heterosexuality to pick up women or something, it just is what it is, it might provide a motive but it says nothing of my prowess at anything.

 

[Limit]

The best way I can put it in words is to view the functions as “perspectives”

You do not USE Fe to be nice, and you don’t USE Te to organize things.

The world is seen through these perspectives. There is a Te lens. Carl Jung alludes in his books that MOST people rarely use anything but their dominant and auxillary. Those two are mostly conscious of while everything else is unconscious (Jung’s definitions of conscious and unconscious).

And ESTP may think they are ENTJ, because SeTi may seem very similar to an outside perspective of Te. Functions preferences work dynamically and like Saru stated, it would be under extreme conditions where your mind may possibly hit the other functions.

 

[This]

The best way I can put it in words is to view the functions as

 

[Arsal]

I understand the concept I just don't necessarily agree. I think the mind could be broken up a number of ways and that Jung's opinion is just one mans opinion on how it should be divided. No one can see into the mind of another only into their own mind, Jungian philosophy assumes all factors have been accounted for and that there is no other way someone could think outside of those man made divides.

It's not one man's opinion, it's one man's study into a field he extensively researched throughout his life-time and culminated it with a work that has been appreciated by psychology enthusiasts since its genesis. Each of his works have been extensively reviewed and have a lot more credibility than you may be implying.

Though, Jungian ≠ MBTI. MBTI, at this current point of time, is only vaguely sourced from Jung and is a separate typology system based on the research of many different people -- sometimes independently even -- who were somehow influenced by Jung. It's a mishmash of different points-of-view that have come to reaffirm each others' perspectives, and the commonalities between them are considered canonical. The original MBTI model, set down by Catherine Myers and Isabella Briggs, has evolved out of its initial two-dimensional designation, and become entwined with many, many different studies into the subject that (unfortunately) got lumped together with MBTI. It's far from the opinion of one person.

No one said you shouldn't be skeptical, but of course, no one is stopping you from doing your own bit of research. From my experience, Jung's observations of the human psyche, and much of MBTI, strongly resonate with my own experience.

 

[Arsal]

I realized I didn't address my actual point. My point was that if you think you can use all 8 functions at any time, however you want, then you are absolutely warping the entire Jungian concept of psychological types and do not understand it. If you really think you use Ti-Fi-Si-Ne in that order, then you are no longer abiding by the Jungian model, and everything you have to say regarding it is invalid because the definitions you use are inherently incorrect. The function definitions exist only with regards to the particular 4-function Jungian model, and cannot be used independent of the system. Similar to how IM Elements in Socionics are defined according to Model A, and cannot be applied to MBTI/JCF/Jungian and vice versa.

Also, please stop using the nomenclature if you are not using the system, as it furthers misconceptions.

 

[This]

I realized I didn't address my actual point. My point was that if you think you can use all 8 functions at any time, however you want, then you are absolutely warping the entire Jungian concept of psychological types and do not understand it. If you really think you use Ti-Fi-Si-Ne in that order, then you are no longer abiding by the Jungian model, and everything you have to say regarding it is invalid because the definitions you use are inherently incorrect. The function definitions exist only with regards to the particular 4-function Jungian model, and cannot be used independent of the system. Similar to how IM Elements in Socionics are defined according to Model A, and cannot be applied to MBTI/JCF/Jungian and vice versa.

Also, please stop using the nomenclature if you are not using the system, as it furthers misconceptions.

I never said you could use them all at the same time, only that it seems extremely short sighted to think you can only use them in a limited capacity because they are your "inferior functions" I don't think I use Ti-Fi-Si-Ne in that order actually. I just chose the functions that I most relate to and wrote them down in the order of how much I relate to them that was never meant to be any kind of jungian 4 function model (I actually was going to put all 8 but the space wouldn't allow it). Where as that may not work for you it does for me and isn't the entire point individuation?

I question the system and it's rigidity in order to further understand the system not to try and discredit it, but to try and look at it more objectively as opposed to the somewhat dogmatic stance that seems to be taken by many who study it.

 

[Saru Inc]

I never said you could use them all at the same time, only that it seems extremely short sighted to think you can only use them in a limited capacity because they are your "inferior functions" I don't think I use Ti-Fi-Si-Ne in that order actually. I just chose the functions that I most relate to and wrote them down in the order of how much I relate to them that was never meant to be any kind of jungian 4 function model (I actually was going to put all 8 but the space wouldn't allow it). Where as that may not work for you it does for me and isn't the entire point individuation?

I question the system and it's rigidity in order to further understand the system not to try and discredit it, but to try and look at it more objectively as opposed to the somewhat dogmatic stance that seems to be taken by many who study it.

There's a difference between going against a system, because it has failed in the past, and limits humanity from achieving resolution and achievement.

Or, going against a system because you fail to understand the underlying principles, and are thus rebelling out of confusion.

Or, going against a system because you are a rebel without a cause, and you need a cause to rebel about.


You think its short sighted? I honestly equate that to saying "well how do you know one + one will always equal two?"

I think if you get really into the theoretical maths then that may be the case. But here's what I think your situation, you are rebelling because you want to appear deep and intelligent, and you're afraid that if you show the fact that this system could be proven right, you would be one of the masses. Here's a key factor though, this isn't a contest, or even as my philosophy teacher would say "a closed question." It either is, or it isn't. I usually don't get along so great with Arsal, but I agree with him here. If you're not going to play with the system, then get out of it. A new member may come on here, and have no idea what JCF is, they see your type, and they may then believe there is a whole side of type that isn't actually there. They are then taken farther away ffrom the truth, so you can have your little 15 posts of fame, as the "rebel who brought down the system."

I confess I was the one who wrote that many people on this forum have no idea what it means to be an intuitive. I was also NOT implying [MENTION=528]slant[/MENTION] when I said its not a slant against anyone, but I wasn't about to admit I wrote it right then and there. The difference between an intuitive and a sensor in this case, is an intuitive asks "what if' BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER. In a sense. What I mean by that is, if they ask "what if the system doesn't work?' they tend to already know, by their means of intuition, when the theres even a point to asking "what if." I don't know which Nx that is, or if its not just N in general. But sensors will ask "what if?" because they have no idea how it will turn out, but they want to try. And that is why I dislike it when sensors try to be intuitive, or intuiters try to be sensors. Its not what you're made for. Intuitives who try to be sensors suck at it soooooooooo badly. At the same time, when sensors try to be a visionary (who doesn't?) it tends to not work out at all.

I can look at Jungian models, and I can say "what if?" But then I can know whether or not the "what if" will work before I even start to do it. that may just be Ni vs. Ne, I'm not going to state an opinion in that sense because I have no clue. But if you're going to say for all to hear "what if none of this is correct?" At least try to provide proof, other than further non sequitur arguments such as "what if? "what if?" because no one likes redundancy. Except for federal governments.


Now after saying that, I don't want you to think I am attacking you, I most certainly am not. And if we were having this discussion irl or over skype, I would be talking in a very pleasant tone, for I do not mean to be condescending, I do however do mean to be succinct and to the point. Do not use the Jungian models, if you're not going to model Jung.

Do you agree [MENTION=3538]Arsal[/MENTION]? I'd be interested to know your opinion, whether by pm or response.

 

[Arsal]

I just want to say, despite the fact that I've been tagged, [MENTION=3156]saru[/MENTION]'s views and opinions do not necessarily reflect mine. Thank you.

 

[Saru Inc]

I just want to say, despite the fact that I've been tagged, [MENTION=3156]saru[/MENTION]'s views and opinions do not necessarily reflect mine. Thank you.

wat. did you read it? I wasn't saying you agree, I was asking if you agree. (when you say "I just want to say ..." it makes you sound like I'm implying you agree.) whatevs.

 

[Arsal]

wat. did you read it? I wasn't saying you agree, I was asking if you agree. (when you say "I just want to say ..." it makes you sound like I'm implying you agree.) whatevs.

Oh wait, you were asking me if I agreed? I read it differently. Sorry. I was just distancing myself from the ad hominem attacks at @Sali, which I felt were uncalled for.

No, I don't agree, I think questioning is good. However, you cannot use any function in whichever order you please, as long as you are using a) the 16-type MBTI/JCF/Pod'lair model, or b) using function definitions that exist within those models.

For example, Fe and Ti are defined in such a way that one cannot exist without the other. To be a properly functioning individual, you need either Fe and Ti or Te and Fi in your top four preferences, otherwise, you are mentally handicapped. This is because of the way these functions are defined. One cannot exist without the other. If you take out the function definitions from this context (i.e. Ti-Fi-Si-Ne, for instance), it fucks up everything.

 

[Peppermint]

I think the main issue is that people feel limited by typology and the seemingly small number of types.

Which, as I explained in length before is a non-issue actually. The type does not define who you are. It defines a structure (cog. hierarchy), which marks certain predispositions. The fact, is that you can have two people who both have Fi-Ne-Si-Te and REGARDLESS of that they can be wholly different people, with wholly different views, philosophies, interests, motivations. I can't emphasize this enough.

The type does not define how you WILL behave, ALL the time, under ALL circumstances.

It defines a predisposition that MIGHT condition certain behavior, and it's really a matter of probability, and it's VERY nuanced, and VERY hard to figure out.

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=188898&postcount=3