Criteria for determining primary function

[Jonathan]

Here's an issue that seems to get glossed over a bit....Suppose someone is strong in a number of functions. Say, for example, that a person is good at and . This leaves the question, which one is "primary" and which ones are merely "skills"?

Typically, there are two function-based approaches to answering this. One is to ask questions such as which is the strongest, which does a person really follow, which does a person use most consistently, etc. The problem with this approach is that if several functions are strong and used at different times, it may not be easy to answer these kinds of questions.

Another approach is to focus one's attention on the dual-related functions. For example, does a person "like" or ? However, similar problems exist on this side as well. Maybe a person appreciates all of those as expressed in various people one knows.

...all of which takes us back to what seems the essential question...To what extent is the consciousness, the ego, so to speak, bound to certain functions, and what does this really mean?

The whole concept of intertype relationships, of course, assumes that there is one "true" self....one ultimate way that one is. If there isn't, then that concept is of little concern except in terms of what modes within one's repertoire of capabilities are most appropros when conversing with different people.

So, the question is, how does one really know what is "primary"?

[Angel von Himmel]

I think it can probably go like this ...


If a person is using a great deal of what seems to be and he or she is probably an Alpha quadra member

If a person is using a great deal of what seems to be and he or she is probably an Alpha quadra member

If a person is using a great deal of what seems to be and he or she is probably a Beta quadra member

If a person is using a great deal of what seems to be and he or she is probably a Beta quadra member

If a person is using a great deal of what seems to be and he or she is probably a Gamma quadra member

If a person is using a great deal of what seems to be and he or she is probably a Gamma quadra member

If a person is using a great deal of what seems to be and he or she is probably a Delta quadra member

If a person is using a great deal of what seems to be and he or she is probably a Delta quadra member


Sound simple enough for you?

[Jonathan]

If a person is using a great deal of what seems to be and he or she is probably a Gamma quadra member

If a person is using a great deal of what seems to be and he or she is probably a Gamma quadra member

that's interesting...pairing things this way instead of the traditional
and
and
etc. Was that intentional?

What you seem to be implying is that if a person doesn't use a lot of along with his or her , or a lot of along with his or her , that person probably isn't in Gamma. Similarly, if a person uses a lot of , one would check to see if that person also uses a lot of or to tell if that person is Alpha?

Is that what you're saying? If not, remember that my question isn't merely asking for a simplification; I'm considering the special case of where someone uses a lot of 7&8 as well as 1&2.

[Joy]

nooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Angel von Himmel]

Actually, what I am implying is that often times people can express a shadow form of the function parallel to their their ego function, meaning the hidden agenda.

For example:

It may seem like someone who is dominant expresses if ENTj or if ESTj ... but he or she really doesn't have a command over the function

It may seem like someone who is dominant expresses if ENTp and if ENFp ... but he or she really doesn't have a command over the function

It may seem like someone who is dominant expresses if INTp and if INFp ... but he or she really doesn't have a command over the function

And Etc ...

[Joy]

It may seem like someone who is dominant expresses if ENTj or if ESTj ... but he or she really doesn't have a command over the function

damn... that makes a lot of sense

[Angel von Himmel]

I gather you are probably being sarcastic ...

[Angel von Himmel]

Is that what you're saying? If not, remember that my question isn't merely asking for a simplification; I'm considering the special case of where someone uses a lot of 7&8 as well as 1&2.

Well, if model-a is correct, then a person should be able to express either the ID and EGO functions, but the ID functions must be called and the EGO functions are enabled automatically. I suspose maybe you can watch someone over a period of time and try to see if they default to Fe over Fi or Te over Ti or something. That is how I figured out my stepfather was ESFj, his tendency is to default to Fe over Fi ...

[Joy]

I gather you are probably being sarcastic ...

not at all

[Angel von Himmel]

I gather you are probably being sarcastic ...

not at all

K, hard to tell over the internet ...

[Rocky]

So, the question is, how does one really know what is "primary"?

Whatever you take as the final decision in accepting what reality is.

[Jonathan]

Actually, what I am implying is that often times people can express a shadow form of the function parallel to their their ego function, meaning the hidden agenda.

For example:

It may seem like someone who is dominant expresses if ENTj or if ESTj ... but he or she really doesn't have a command over the function

It may seem like someone who is dominant expresses if ENTp and if ENFp ... but he or she really doesn't have a command over the function

It may seem like someone who is dominant expresses if INTp and if INFp ... but he or she really doesn't have a command over the function

And Etc ...

You know, that's interesting, because I have noticed INFps who have seemed to me to express .

However, if we use the hidden agenda in such a prominent way to type people, the question then becomes how to recognize the ways in which people express their hidden agenda. Presumably, it's more subtle than the functions in the ego block; that's why it's called "hidden."

For example, what behaviors might one be likely to see in an INTp expressing , an INTj expressing , or an ENTp expressing ?

Of course, this all leads to an interesting paradox. One potential argument for someone being INTp is similarity to INFps, with the exception that INFps are so much more . But if INFps are characterized by expression of , finding a similarity with INFps would be more likely suggest that one is INTj.

[anndelise]

You know, that's interesting, because I have noticed INFps who have seemed to me to express .

. . .

Of course, this all leads to an interesting paradox. One potential argument for someone being INTp is similarity to INFps, with the exception that INFps are so much more . But if INFps are characterized by expression of , finding a similarity with INFps would be more likely suggest that one is INTj.

I would think that it might depend on which aspects one finds similar to the NiFe.

If one finds the Ti aspects to be similar, then look into the alpha and beta sections.

If one finds the Ni aspects to be similar, then look into the beta and gamma sections.

Also, there is the beneficiary relationship between NiFe and TiNe. Which would be different from the [whatever] relationship between the NiFe and NiTe.