{"id":6925,"date":"2016-03-22T11:12:36","date_gmt":"2016-03-22T11:12:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/?p=6925"},"modified":"2020-06-20T22:38:49","modified_gmt":"2020-06-20T22:38:49","slug":"functions-for-beginners-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/2016\/03\/functions-for-beginners-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Functions for Beginners, Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

John Barlow\u00a0is a contributing guest writer for CelebrityTypes. As always with guest writers on the site, Barlow’s\u00a0piece represents his\u00a0own insights and assessments and not necessarily those of the site. In this piece, Barlow\u00a0attempts an informal and colloquial exposition of basic function theory.<\/em>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

By\u00a0John Barlow<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this article, I\u00a0will try to explain function-based typology to newcomers and beginners. Similar to Mary Arrington’s sweet piece here<\/a>, I will try to make my presentation colorful and entertaining. So if you’re already an expert, or if you’re a stickler for academic references and precision, I suggest you read some of the other (excellent) articles on the site instead. Still here? Okay, let’s\u00a0go!<\/p>\n

The first thing to understand about functions is that only S, N, T, and F are functions<\/em>. E and I are orientations<\/em> that designate the direction<\/em> of a\u00a0function, and J and P are merely there to designate which of the functions is the dominant function<\/em> in a given type.<\/p>\n

For example, an ENTP and an INTP both have Ne and Ti as their two uppermost functions. But ENTPs get ‘E\u2019 in their\u00a0type code because their\u00a0dominant function is extroverted. And INTPs get the \u2018I\u2019 in their\u00a0<\/em>type code because their\u00a0<\/em>dominant function is introverted.<\/p>\n

At the end of the day, though, the two NTP types are still the only types with the Ne-Ti combination as their uppermost functions. So in terms of function-based typology,\u00a0they’re really similar.\u00a0If all of the INTPs of the world were magically removed from the universe\u00a0come tomorrow, the best fill-ins for the Ti-Ne role would probably be the ENTPs (though not everyone agrees<\/a>). So\u00a0when we look at the types through functions, the E\/I thingy in\u00a0the four-letter code tends to belie how similar the types who share their two uppermost functions really are.<\/p>\n

And regarding J and P, that is merely a handle to denote which of a type\u2019s two uppermost functions is the dominant one. For example, you might have an ENF type and not know whether the N or the F is the dominant function in that type. That was why Myers introduced the J\/P lever; she did it in order to show that those whose lever is switched to J will have a Judging function<\/em> (F or T) as their dominant function,\u00a0while\u00a0those whose lever is switched to P will have a Perceiving function<\/em> (S or N) at the forefront\u00a0of their consciousness. So if we return to our ENF type, we see that an\u00a0ENF-J type\u00a0must have Feeling in the dominant role, while the ENF-P type\u00a0is bound to have\u00a0Intuition as\u00a0its<\/em> dominant function.<\/p>\n

But this is where it gets really confusing –\u00a0this rule only applies to extroverts<\/em>;\u00a0for introverts, the rule is reversed! The reason Myers did this was to confuse everyone completely out of their skulls and make sure\u00a0nobody but her ever understood typology. Okay, just kidding. She did it because it’s actually easier to use\u00a0typology that way if you don’t understand the functions and I’ll give you an example below. For now, let’s just note that for introverted types, the rule is reversed. So if you’re dealing with an INF type, things are now the other way ’round: The introvert who has a J in their type code now has a\u00a0Perceiving function<\/em> (S or N) as their dominant function, while an introvert who has a P in their code\u00a0now has a Judging function<\/em> (F or T) as their<\/em> dominant function. So with Myers’\u00a0uppity-up rules for introverts, the INF-J now has Intuition in the dominant role, while INF-Ps have Feeling.<\/p>\n

Confused yet? Here’s a handy chart:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I promised I’d give you an example of why Myers did this, so here is one: The\u00a0dominant function in introverts is always introverted and therefore not very easily seen by others. So in an INFJ, for example, their dominant Intuition is introverted and has to be picked up on indirectly, but the INFJ’s\u00a0secondary function (their Feeling)\u00a0is extroverted and tends to be\u00a0much more easily noticeable than their subterranean Intuition.<\/p>\n

Even if you don\u2019t know the first thing about functions, you can still look at an INFJ and deduce that it\u2019s basically an introverted ENFJ. This is really kind of neat since — let’s face it — not a lot of people will ever take the trouble\u00a0to understand this stuff in depth. So with Myers’ flummoxing rules, people don\u2019t have to study functions if they don\u2019t want to.<\/p>\n

Myers probably caused more confusion than she cleared up when she decided to use two different rule sets to govern the same principles.\u00a0It\u2019s hard to blame her, though. She made that call many years ago and she\u00a0had to get the party started somehow.<\/p>\n

The Four Functions and Their Relation<\/strong><\/p>\n

We have already said\u00a0that F and T are Judging functions<\/em>, which means that they are ways of evaluating<\/em> information. We also said that S and N are Perceiving functions<\/em>, which is to say that they are ways of collecting<\/em> information. So you might think that S and N go together while F and T go together, but things are\u00a0not quite that simple. Let us say that you are a really strong Thinking type. Thinking is your dominant function and you like to use your Thinking all day long. Whatever information comes in from Sensation and Intuition, you just submit it to your Thinking and it all seems like it\u2019s just more fuel on your jet engine. Sensation and Intuition collect<\/em> the information but Thinking evaluates<\/em> it. Fuel and Fire. You just\u00a0crunch all the problems\u00a0as they tick in. You glide right past them. No problem at all.<\/p>\n

Then comes Feeling. Slush<\/em>. Mud down your jet engine. Sensation and Intuition were content to supply your Thinking with information, but Feeling is quite a different matter: Like Thinking, Feeling too wants to evaluate information and Feeling has its own agenda that is contrary to Thinking. Oh yes — Feeling wants to do something altogether different with the information than Thinking does. It’s like two people in a sporting\u00a0court, where one of them insists they’re playing tennis while the other only wants to hear talk of badminton.\u00a0It must be one mode or the other. So if you look at the picture below, Sensation and Intuition just make the wheel spin faster, but Feeling pulls Thinking back towards the center, down into an undifferentiated sludge where everything is the same. Everything that made you such a clear\u00a0Thinker was achieved because you repressed Feeling from consciousness. You stamped it out so that Thinking could stand head and shoulders above the rest of your cognitive processes.<\/p>\n

\"Oo\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Naturally, the story about\u00a0petulant Feeling in the Thinking type has its equivalent for each of the three other types. If you are an Intuitive type,\u00a0Sensation comes along<\/a> and ruins your plan with specifics because\u00a0you really are broke and don\u2019t have the funds to go to Mars like you envisioned. I won’t torture you with the analogous stories for\u00a0Feeling and Sensation. Suffice to say that the inferior function is the cognitive\u00a0equivalent of an unmanageable child\u00a0— it’s too naughty<\/em>. And in my next article, I’ll talk more about that.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

John Barlow\u00a0is a contributing guest writer for CelebrityTypes. As always with guest writers on the site, Barlow’s\u00a0piece represents his\u00a0own insights and assessments and not necessarily those of the site. In this piece, Barlow\u00a0attempts an informal and colloquial exposition of basic function theory.\u00a0 By\u00a0John Barlow In this article, I\u00a0will try to explain function-based typology to newcomers[\u2026] Continue Reading<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6925","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-psychology"],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6925","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6925"}],"version-history":[{"count":25,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6925\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7002,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6925\/revisions\/7002"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6925"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6925"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6925"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}