Our Difficulties

Here are some of the difficulties that we've had in our attempts to understand Lenore Thomson's ideas.

General

The Genus Problem: just what are these "Function Attitudes", anyway?
What do the introverted and extraverted forms of the same function have to do with each other? For example, Extraverted Intuition seems to be guessing the whole from seeing a few parts. Introverted Intuition seems to be thinking up alternative interpretations and denying that anything true can be said. Why do those both have the name "intuition"?
- Speculative answer 1: In the chapter on Extraverted Intuition and Introverted Intuition, they are referred to as "speculative", or being consumed with the process of generating possibilities beyond the immediate. From an Introverted orientation, it generates "interpretations". However, from an extroverted orientation, it "hypotheses".
What do the introverted forms of the functions all have in common?
What do the extraverted forms of the functions all have in common?
- Speculative answer 1: Objectivity is the element which ties all of the extraverted attitudes together. Even extraverted intuition starts from an objective situation, deriving the subjective only as long as an objective root is present. Objectivity can also be looked at as more extraverted than introverted in that objectivity is viewed as being true and immutable, thus impervious to being changed by one's internal, subjective, or "introverted" analysis.
What do different forms of the same function-attitude, but in different positions, have to do with each other? For example, Introverted Sensation as a dominant function seems to be a concern with holding certain priorities intact. But for INTPs, Introverted Sensation takes the form of psychosomatic disorders or paranoia about whether one's food is poisonous. What do these have in common?
- Speculative answer: The degree a function-attitude strays from the primary strength is the degree to which it becomes unhealthy. Lenore uses an example of a psychologist who thought mixing tomatoes and dairy was deadly. An example of taking the "subjective", filtered approach to identifying and giving value to concrete things in ones environment. More healthy (when in primary or secondary) versions of introverted sensing which, like the above example, use a subjective approach to valuing external, concrete things, but with a much more refined and developed style that lends more to organization than irrational beliefs.
Why These Eight?
Why is there any conflict between Function Attitudes? For example, couldn't one just use Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Feeling as heuristics at appropriate times, without there being any conflict? Why must there be an Inferior Function, messing up what the others do?
- speculative answer 1: Maybe because humans tend to see their inferior functions as "evil". Some ISTPs, for example, tend to see Extraverted Feeling as unhealthy conformism. One can actually use one's dominant function and inferior function at appropriate times, but unfortunately it is the nature of the human brain to view the inferior as evil and stick to the dominant attitude. This is related to the Jungian theory that the inferior is pushed to the shadow.
- speculative answer 2: Maybe because the inferior function is too weak to have a "feel" of its realm. To illustrate, ETJs (with inferior Introverted Feeling) can hardly sense the "soul in all things" that IFPs easily pick up. ITPs don't have a good feel for social roles, which are the domain of their inferior Extraverted Feeling. Consequently, even if the ITP wants to use his Extraverted Feeling for socializing, he gets into difficulties because he wasn't very aware of social roles all along. This is why it's easier to use the Secondary Function to fulfill the inferior's aims indirectly: the secondary function has a stronger feel. E.g. ISTPs might not sense roles well, but their secondary Extraverted Sensing knows what will make people like them on a visceral level, and they use that knowledge for socializing. -- Rapture of the Blade (ISTP)
What do extraverts have to gain by developing an introverted attitude? It seems obvious what introverts gain by developing an extraverted attitude: money, power, a social position, etc. Why can't extraverts just focus on their extraverted concerns with no function-related problems?
- See Saints-and-Sinners and Place-your-Stakes for theories. Developing more nuance and refining the systems and frameworks you live by only has benefits. You make poor decisions otherwise. This requires introverted orientation by Lenore's definition.
At the end of the day, what does each type want their story to say?
Do ESFPs even care? Or Extraverts for that matter?
- We do -ENFP

Some word choices and metaphors

Who is Alice?
What are Altars In The Wilderness?

PreviousInferior Function NextDefinition Problem

Last updated 23 days ago

Our Difficulties

Here are some of the difficulties that we've had in our attempts to understand Lenore Thomson's ideas.

General

The Genus Problem: just what are these "Function Attitudes", anyway?
What do the introverted and extraverted forms of the same function have to do with each other? For example, Extraverted Intuition seems to be guessing the whole from seeing a few parts. Introverted Intuition seems to be thinking up alternative interpretations and denying that anything true can be said. Why do those both have the name "intuition"?
- Speculative answer 1: In the chapter on Extraverted Intuition and Introverted Intuition, they are referred to as "speculative", or being consumed with the process of generating possibilities beyond the immediate. From an Introverted orientation, it generates "interpretations". However, from an extroverted orientation, it "hypotheses".
What do the introverted forms of the functions all have in common?
What do the extraverted forms of the functions all have in common?
- Speculative answer 1: Objectivity is the element which ties all of the extraverted attitudes together. Even extraverted intuition starts from an objective situation, deriving the subjective only as long as an objective root is present. Objectivity can also be looked at as more extraverted than introverted in that objectivity is viewed as being true and immutable, thus impervious to being changed by one's internal, subjective, or "introverted" analysis.
What do different forms of the same function-attitude, but in different positions, have to do with each other? For example, Introverted Sensation as a dominant function seems to be a concern with holding certain priorities intact. But for INTPs, Introverted Sensation takes the form of psychosomatic disorders or paranoia about whether one's food is poisonous. What do these have in common?
- Speculative answer: The degree a function-attitude strays from the primary strength is the degree to which it becomes unhealthy. Lenore uses an example of a psychologist who thought mixing tomatoes and dairy was deadly. An example of taking the "subjective", filtered approach to identifying and giving value to concrete things in ones environment. More healthy (when in primary or secondary) versions of introverted sensing which, like the above example, use a subjective approach to valuing external, concrete things, but with a much more refined and developed style that lends more to organization than irrational beliefs.
Why These Eight?
Why is there any conflict between Function Attitudes? For example, couldn't one just use Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Feeling as heuristics at appropriate times, without there being any conflict? Why must there be an Inferior Function, messing up what the others do?
- speculative answer 1: Maybe because humans tend to see their inferior functions as "evil". Some ISTPs, for example, tend to see Extraverted Feeling as unhealthy conformism. One can actually use one's dominant function and inferior function at appropriate times, but unfortunately it is the nature of the human brain to view the inferior as evil and stick to the dominant attitude. This is related to the Jungian theory that the inferior is pushed to the shadow.
- speculative answer 2: Maybe because the inferior function is too weak to have a "feel" of its realm. To illustrate, ETJs (with inferior Introverted Feeling) can hardly sense the "soul in all things" that IFPs easily pick up. ITPs don't have a good feel for social roles, which are the domain of their inferior Extraverted Feeling. Consequently, even if the ITP wants to use his Extraverted Feeling for socializing, he gets into difficulties because he wasn't very aware of social roles all along. This is why it's easier to use the Secondary Function to fulfill the inferior's aims indirectly: the secondary function has a stronger feel. E.g. ISTPs might not sense roles well, but their secondary Extraverted Sensing knows what will make people like them on a visceral level, and they use that knowledge for socializing. -- Rapture of the Blade (ISTP)
What do extraverts have to gain by developing an introverted attitude? It seems obvious what introverts gain by developing an extraverted attitude: money, power, a social position, etc. Why can't extraverts just focus on their extraverted concerns with no function-related problems?
- See Saints-and-Sinners and Place-your-Stakes for theories. Developing more nuance and refining the systems and frameworks you live by only has benefits. You make poor decisions otherwise. This requires introverted orientation by Lenore's definition.
At the end of the day, what does each type want their story to say?
Do ESFPs even care? Or Extraverts for that matter?
- We do -ENFP

Some word choices and metaphors

Who is Alice?
What are Altars In The Wilderness?

PreviousInferior Function NextDefinition Problem

Last updated 23 days ago