How do we use all 8 functions?

[OnePiece]

I believe I'm talking to someone who has no way what he's talking (or does he?), and wanted to see what others thought of it:

I agree that MBTI does a poor job explaining itself. The only concepts from MBTI that I even use are the four-letter type abbreviations and the functional orders--which are NOT the only functional orders that exist in practice, but rather represent ideal personality balances which provide the most utility.

To me, the functions do not represent individual specific actions, but rather broader value systems which govern the most basic motivations for everything we believe. I am in the minority on this forum because I do not believe that shadow functions are really used at all, but only appear to be used when a similar function reaches a similar conclusion.

I believe that all four functions combine to produce one fluid value system with varying levels of influence from each function. Again it's crucial to recognize that the functions are not single actions but rather complete value systems based on the way in which the world is perceived and judged. In this context, a person cannot use Fi and Ti because these value system contradict each other regarding how internal judgments should be made. Whenever a person uses Ji for anything, if you pry enough you can always discover whether Fi values or Ti values were the root cause--regardless of whether they happen to agree on the surface.

Here is an example of my explanation of shadow functions:

I may "use Fi" sometimes, but not because I place any fundamental value in Fi itself, but rather because I recognize situations where Fi's values happen to align with my own (which are invariably the result of Ne+Ti+Fe+Si.) I have no shame in admitting that I find Ti a totally superior system for internal judgments, but then--of course I do, I'm a Ti user! Again you need to direct your focus toward the total reasoning process and its most basic underlying values, not just the surface behavior or end conclusion.

Uh yeah but you've ignored and completely glossed over my point about shadow functions by simply declaring, "Of course we use them!"

It's my contention that we don't use them because they heavily conflict with the value systems of our preferred functions. An Fi user's entire conception of ethics comes from the inside; the idea that one's ethics should bend according to external standards is antithetical to Fi's entire worldview. This is why I do not believe that Fi users ever use Fe (even when they do things that appear to promote Fe goals--they are only doing them because they serve more important and often unseen Fi goals, not because they see intrinsic value in Fe. That's the key concept here.)

When you see the functions as overarching value systems, it seems ridiculous to claim that people switch between glaringly contradictory value systems on a regular basis.

An Fi user might perform actions that appear Fe-motivated, but in reality you can explain the motivations for these actions using Fi and the person's other three natural functions. The explanation will always end up being reduced to "My internal sense of ethics said it was the right thing to do", not "My external surroundings said it was ethical so I went with it."

Fi users are, on principle, against bending ethics to the external environment because ethics are considered private and personal from the Fi perspective. It doesn't make sense that people would just randomly switch between these two directly conflicting values.

When an Fi user makes an external judgment, it comes out in the form of Te because Thinking is the process that naturally makes sense to that person for external judgments.

[Jarno]

If someone talks about MBTI functions then it's automatically bullshit.

Since those functions have bugs and are incompleet. But he'll discover that soon enough when studying socionics.

[OnePiece]

He believes the unvalued functions are not used AT ALL, how exactly do you go about to disprove that?

[Azeroffs]

if we assume that he was talking about not using valued functions rather than shadow functions, he's not alone. Some others have adopted this view.

I suppose it's possible. However, it is wrong according to classic socionics. Claiming that the unvalued functions aren't used would require new definitions of model-A or an entirely new model.

As far as MBTI, you can't prove that the shadow functions are used. The shadow functions have little to do with type.

[ArchonAlarion]

The person you're talking to is right.

[717495]

I typically use Ni, Te, Fi more than Ne, Ti, Fe. However I'm about 50/50 on Si and Se. The major conflictor for me is Fe and Ne, but I still use them minimally. It's just really hard to because one is like totally the opposite of my main function, and that literally creeps me out, and the other one is very unnecessary and exhausting.

[strrrng]

He believes the unvalued functions are not used AT ALL, how exactly do you go about to disprove that?

That's the thing – you can't indefinitely prove that we do or do not use all eight functions. Conclusions on the matter hinge not on some empirical set of patterns that can be directly linked to functional ontology, but rather, on conceptions of what the functions are and how they operate. The contention on this issue between various clusters of individuals in this community, always boils down to these fundamental ideas; the consensus is based around Model A, with the most frequent counter to the claim that we can't use all eight functions being, "That's wrong because it contradicts Classical Socionics, which says that we use all eight" – more or less refuting an argument with a burden of truth shift. Ultimately though, if we can't immediately prove that we do use all eight functions, I'd hope that people would be somewhat open to alternative ideas about them, instead of dogmatically adhering to some theoretical definition because it has a neat framework and was propounded by an Expert.


edit: despite the claims of strawman arguments made against this alternative viewpoint, the idea that we don't use all eight functions isn't meant to imply that we are blind to half of reality, or the psyche, or whatever. It revolves more around basic notions of information metabolism and psychological feedback loops, and purports functions as psychological filters that process information in specific ways, rather than things that become activated when a certain "type" of information is interacted with (i.e. drawing up a cost-benefit chart for an financial company implying Te usage). I personally find the latter notion foolish, and indicative of nothing more than post-hoc self-deception on the part of the observer, i.e. one's psyche processes information a certain way, they see the expressly manifest form of said thing, and assume that the information had a form before it entered their psyche; conversely, they observe information produced by a person using their unvalued functions, and after translating it through their own, assume that they were using the other functions.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[crazedrat]

No the person who wrote that is archon, and this has been argued into the ground. nothing came of it back then, and nothing will come of it now.