Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
I still think it's pragmatically meaningful to consider only the valued fxns; unvalued fxns are only experienced in a shadow capacity—i.e., they can't be apprehended directly.<br />
Definitely disagree. I would say personally that one of the reasons I and so many others have trouble understanding our own types is that functions are not clear in terms of there placement in the psyche due to circumstantial influence of both valued and non-valued functions. It may be true to your experience that you only "directly apprehend" valued functions, but it is not true to mine; I experience all functions in different shades of consciousness, but I would say that I apprehend all of them directly. Personally I think your choice of words and rationale makes your statement conveniently unfalsifiable and essentially boils down to the fact that unvalued functions are experienced differently than valued functions.

<br />
Of course, if you go the Krigweed approach and cluster behaviors to IEs… e.g., &quot;cooking = Si, logical analysis = Ti, assertiveness = Se,&quot; then yeah, you can have your 'people use all 8 IEs' POV.
It would, or course, be your prerogative to attach a brattishly disdainful label and nonexistent ontological boundaries to beliefs other than your own. My beliefs fall under neither extreme of your conveniently constructed delusional dichotomy; I believe that we all utilize the mental processes represented by the functions, even if they are not all apparent to the untrained mind.<br />
<br />
'xactly.
How convenient. Unfortunately if you have any capacity for interpreting context you can see that Jung was clearly referring to the fact that people do not always remain the same type, highlighted by the indirect nature of his answer.