Von Hase, You say that everyone uses all of the J functions, regardless of type, when reasoning. Does that mean that if there is a reasoning question that's supposed to test for, let's say, Ti, you could use any one of the J functions to answer (or maybe I should say interpret) it?
Yes. Interpret is also a very apt word choice.
The mind uses all functions at the same time, and in most instances, one function is almost as effective as another to provide a solution, allowing people to stick with their prefered pair as the leading function.
However, some tasks are inherently very oriented toward specific function pairs. Self assessment tests are primarily a trigger for Ti as they urge an individual to ponder (very T) how
they work (very i). To a lesser degree focused Fe can be triggered by self assessment tests because Fe is prone to reflexively answer based on how an individual
feels the
subjects of the questions
should be. To use focused Te in a self assessment test, an individual would have to 'stop and think' about themselves in relation to the subjects of the questions. To use focused Fi in a self assessment test, an individual would have to be emotionally engaged by the test and simply react. Any function pair could lead the reasoning process in this situation, though Ti is going to be the likely candidate, even for people who don't have Ti as their lead J pair.
Regardless, all of the function pairs are working at all times. The distinctions come from how much preference any function is given in any situation. They are all in use, but we lean more on our favored pair unless another pair would make the process easier for us, at which point we lean on it instead.
I don't really understand your next sentence: "The distinctions are in preferences in deduction process, not distinctions in function or capacity." Let's take the reasoning question I mentioned above as an example, are you saying that such a question would not be able to make distinctions in the J functions (it won't be able to tell you which J function you're actually "using") or their capacity, but only which J function is used to understand that question first (which depends on your type), and that you will go on to use your other J functions to understand it in the order determined by your type?
Questions can be formed to do a good job of isolating function pairs, but the whole J function is used with preference and dominance to each function in its own place, not exclusion and monopoly. I think a good analogy is left and right handedness when doing something that requires both hands. You use not only both of your hands, but also your whole body - nervous system, arms, spine, senses to let you know what your hands are doing... etc. However, at some point in that process, it will become clear which hand you give preference to for that function. In another situation, you might prefer the other hand. I swing a bat with preference to my right hand, but I shoot a rifle with preference to my left hand. In both cases, I'm using my whole body, but either hand is the dominant body part for that task.
I agree with you that to say someone is Fe dominant does not mean they cannot access the other J functions, but you go on to that this because Fe, Te, Fi, and Ti don't actually exist as entities. Why do you say so? Then you say that the cognitive processes are T, F, i, and e. How did you come to this conclusion, is it only to explain the results people have gotten on the InterStrength Cognitive Assessment or are there any other places (besides tests) where you can observe this phenomenon? From what I understand, the 4 functions and 2 attitudes are never observed in isolation, do you have a description of the "elements" T, F, i, and e; or is this separation artificial, only a way of explaining the test results?
Because it is so difficult to isolate the function pairs, it is almost impossible to isolate the elements that comprise them. However, time and time again, in people, in test results (especially the MBTI), and in various related schools of thought on thought processes, it is self evident that these elements are distinct. However, they naturally pair with attitudes. Deconstructing the J function into its parts is the focus of most MBTI/Jung enthusiasts, but don't forget that these parts make a whole system - which is what we are trying to understand more clearly with these tools.
You say that the pairs formed when these cognitive function elements combine are not distinct sections of the mind, nor are the elements that comprise them, then go on to say that they are all parts of the whole that is an individual's ability to reason - half of the process of cognition. Are you trying to say that the distinctions between Ti, Fe, Te, and Fi are not important; and that we should be concentrating on the process of reasoning as a whole instead? Anyway, what do you mean by "distinct sections of the mind"? Are you saying that the "territory" of Fe (for example) also "stretches" into the "territory" of Fi, Ti, and even Te?
I'm saying that they are parts of a whole. If you want to understand the whole, you have to understand the parts. However, these are not distinct parts. There is a significant amount of gradient between them, and connecting them. If the J function was a land mass that had desert, mountains, plains, and forests, there would not be a clear distinct line between these territories. At some point, you'd not be in the plains anymore, and in the desert. At some point the forest would slowly give way to the mountains. There would certainly be regions that are distinctly their own, but there would also be a lot of overlap and blending. The Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi functions are much like this, but they are always made up of the T, F, i, and e elements. Forests or deserts might have flat land like plains or steep land like mountains. Mountains might be covered in plant life like a forest, or exposed to the raw snow and sun like a desert. Plains could be open tracks of dirt like a desert or a sea of waving grass taller than a person resembling a forest. These parts are both interchangeable and inseparable. Most importantly, these parts make up the land mass itself.
When you drive from one state to another, often the only distinction you have is a sign that someone put up to mark the point at which someone decided the division occurs. There's not a whole lot different about the land on one side or the other of a state line. However, when you go deeper into that state, you begin to get a true feel for the state itself. But all the states together make the nation, and it is only when the states interact with one another is it truly whole.
Later on, you say that capacity and function with cognitive processes are almost irrelevent to personality. By capacity, you mean how often (and probably how gracefully) you use a particular cognitive process, right? But what do you mean by function, are you referring to what activity you "use" a particular process in (or for)? Would I be misunderstanding you if I said that the 8 cognitive processes have no content (and do not determine the behaviors that're often associated with them)?
Capacity with a cognitive process would be how
strongly an individual used the process, when they used it.
Function with a cognitive processs would be how well an indivisual used the process, when they used it.
Neither of these have direct bearing on preference, though they are often (but certainly not always) related, because people tend to gain more capacity and function with the processes they prefer to use the most.
The 8 cognitive processes certainly have content, but their contents overlap greatly, and invoke one another frequently as they are parts of a whole. A car has many parts. Most importantly, every car has required parts that they all need to operate. When not put together, the parts cannot perform any of the functions of a car. It doesn't matter how well built those parts are, or how well they perform. If they're not assembled, the car doesn't work. Some cars have better speed, others more power, others more style, and still others more comfort. They are all cars, and they are all made up of the same basic parts. Certainly, all of these cars have their own unique parts that give them more advanced functionality, but these are analogeous to the individual. The MBTI analogy would simply address the required parts inherent to all cars. When one of these parts is given primary preference in design, and another secondary preference in design, the role (aka personality) of the car becomes clear. When a car focuses on gas mileage and comfort, it's role is likely that of a travelling car. There might be many 'travelling car' models on the road, each with their own levels of performance from their required parts. Some travelling cars might have better speed parts than 'racing cars', or better handling than 'sports cars'. It doesn't change the fact that their inherent role is a 'travelling car', but most importantly... it's a
car. Just like all cars, you drive it places, and then you park it until you want to drive it again. The preferences are what give it personality, not performance.
I'm sorry for the rather long post, but I hope you'll reply and help me understand your theory better. Thanks
Not a problem. I'm always happy to help people learn. (Cuz I'm secretly an eNFJ, muhuhahahaha)
)
