Do you use your functions all at the same time (but some having simply more influence than others)
Or do you use your functions only one at a time (for different occasions and events a different function)
I'm curious to your answers.
Do you use your functions all at the same time (but some having simply more influence than others)
Or do you use your functions only one at a time (for different occasions and events a different function)
I'm curious to your answers.
Last edited by Jarno; 07-25-2009 at 06:29 PM.
Definitely this, in my opinion.Do you use your functions all at the same time (but some having simply more influence than others)
One of the reasons I consider the act of making statements like "OMG, you just used Te" to be flawed in principle.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Removed at User Request
It can be both depending on what you're doing. I'm sure for some activities, they are so prominent obviously one dominant function, that the rest are so shadowed in a way as to be meaningless. Yet when doing varied, 'non-professional, non-institutionalized' activities, where you are just living life.....then I'd say it's the former.Do you use your functions all at the same time (but some having simply more influence than others)
Or do you use your functions only one at a time (for different occasions and events a different function)
You are being bombarded with a beam of visible white light. You may have a number of different filters which break down the light into reds, blues, and greens that you can look at. You may like to look at the blue light being filtered, but you are still constantly being hit by that white beam of light composed of all the colors of the visible light spectrum.
I personally find the idea of not using all the functions in conjunction together to be about as ridiculous as saying, "No, I am not using my heart right now, because I am focusing on breathing."
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Removed at User Request
From what I understand, an INTj's Ne is simply about apprehending the meaning of a concept. I do in fact use that skill all the time whenever I think. It's just something different from the explosive, chaotic ENTp version.labcoat and Logos: I doubt you use Ne all the time, but you know better
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Removed at User Request
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Removed at User Request
Information is processed one function at a time, but it moves through them very rapidly. The reason why Model A is numbered so strangely, with 3 below 2 and 4 below 1, is that it shows the cycle of how information flows through the psyche. Gulenko has a good article on this: The Structure and the Elements of the Socionics Model - Wikisocion
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Removed at User Request
I'm still a bit of a novice, but here's my take on it:
I imagine that there's a limit on either end: there's a limit to how much one can narrow one's focus to only act/perceive/understand with one function, and a limit to how much one can broaden one's focus to act/perceive/understand with every function. So you can't "just" use your first function, nor can you use "all the functions at once." While you can move (with varying degrees of difficulty) anywhere between the poles, most people, I'd imagine, stick fairly close to a narrow field of view.
I would, however, somewhat defend the, "OMG, you're using Te" statements by saying that if one is working near the "narrowness limit", one is acting/perceiving/understanding in such a way that it provides a relatively unmixed example of a given function, although not perfectly unmixed.
But I could be completely wrong.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Ooh, that one is neat. The Ego and Id can, and the Super-Ego and Super-Id can't, while the Ego and Super-Ego know, and the Super-Id and Id don't know. "I can" and "I don't know I can" aren't really opposites, the one saying is just pointing out the subconscious nature of the Id and Super-Id.
Of course, the Vital Ring isn't really sub-conscious or unconscious, in the sense of not being aware of it, it's just wordless and instinctive rather than controlled and deliberate. We know, we just don't think about it.
My own (somewhat unwieldy) mnemonic for the blocks:
Ego: I know I can, and I enjoy doing it!
Super-Ego: I know I should, but I suck at it and I really don't want to.
Super-Id: Oh man, that's awesome, I wish I could do that!
Id: Yeah, I can, but it's so boring...
And while I'm here:
SeFi: That table is all rough and ugly and I don't like it!
SeTi: That table is all rough because it hasn't been sanded down.
SiFe: Ow! That table hurt me! Stupid table!
SiTe: Ow. That table hurt me. Where's my sandpaper?
I think we use functions two at a time, actually. Using with makes no sense to me--I try to explain things as impersonally as possible, but I always run afoul of the because I always fail to account for it (I've gotten into some nasty arguments with LSIs by doing this). Then, when I try to use myself, some always finds its way in there--I start judging everything on an emotional level. Also, and seem inseparable to me, like peanut butter and jelly. Who would want with their ? That's like a peanut butter and fish sandwich!
The saddest ESFj
...
Removed at User Request
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I've been considering discarding the functions and considering all relationships interactions between E/I, S/N, T/F and Static/Dynamic for this very reason. As in: If Static/Dynamic is different, differences on those four dichotomies are appreciated; if Static/Dynamic matches, matches on those four dichotomies are appreciated. (Yes, I have Static/Dynamic appreciated no matter what. )
What does that view lose? Asymmetrical relationships...
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari