Function Levels: High Vs. Low Use

People make varying speculations on the difference between a function in its dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior positions. They have this tendency to attribute negative behaviors of a certain function to purely the lower users, since they should have weaker use. They like to assume that those with higher use of function will nearly always display the positive behavior. I’ve found this assumption to be false, or to put it a touch more bluntly, wishful thinking. I’ve seen dominant Ti users do very detrimental things with their Ti… and that’s not because it was actually their inferior Fe jumping in. No, no. It was dominant Ti.. I can say the same thing about the other dominant function users as well. I’ve seen all levels of Ne users display paranoia, all levels of Te users being hyper rigid or controlling, all levels of Se users eschewing the future to indulge in the present, all levels of Si users crutching on the past, and etc. (That list was getting tiring. >.>) So, I think I tend to view the function stack a little bit differently than other people. (or maybe I don’t? You tell me.)

Difference between High Use and Low Use

People typically say that that a dominant function user will display more of the positives of that function than the negatives in comparison to someone with that same function in a lower position. I don’t completely agree with that statement. It frequently is true, but not always. I think a more accurate statement to make is that a dominant function user will use that function MORE than someone with the same function in a lower position.

Because a function is higher in someone’s stack, they’ll naturally default to using it, ergo making them use it more. Of course, the more you use something the better you should get at it. That’s logical, right? So on average, a dominant function user SHOULD display more positives than someone with that same function in a lower position. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case because there are those people in life who are essentially walking train wrecks. They never mature, and never learn positive behavior. So, they’ll still use that function the most, but it’ll always look negative because their personality is generally negative and unhealthy, so finding positive use for any function in their stack will be nearly impossible.

Let me share an analogy with you

I tend to view the cognitive function stack like skill levels in a video game. (Bear with me here.) Many of us have played those types of games, right? You pick a skill, like for instance, Attack or Strength, and then you go into battle over and over again so you can unlock better and better attributes or abilities in that skill category.

From my perspective, people are born with a predisposition toward a certain cognitive function stack. They then subconsciously practice those functions over and over again, starting from the top and working their way down, all the while unlocking greater and greater abilities, and strengthening their personality. Just like someone with a certain skill can still go back and perform the level 0 task, everyone can still display the negative or safe tendencies of their dominant function. However, since they also have been “leveling up” their dominant function, they should be able to display the level 50 or level 100 tendencies as well. Inversely, someone can level up their inferior function. Will they ever unlock as many abilities in that function as someone who has it dominant and make it to level 100? Probably not, since they’ll default to a different dominant function. However, they can still unlock more abilities, and won’t always be relegated to the negative or level 0 behavior of that function.

Applying This to the Art of Typing

I try to keep everything I say somehow useful and relevant, so people can hopefully learn how to understand this stuff a bit better and apply that knowledge. So, what can be gained from everything that I just said? Can it be useful or applicable somehow? Well. I’ve noticed that many people approach typing by looking for positives and negatives. AKA: which function is being used best and which function is being used worst? And, there is certainly a validity to that. I’m not bashing. I do that as well in most cases. However, beyond just looking for positives and negatives, I’ve also learned to look for which function is being used the MOST, rather than just the best. Sometimes, I’ll see an overwhelming amount of use in one specific function, even though that use is mostly negative. That then leads to three possibilities: someone stuck in the grip of an inferior function, someone looping between their dominant and tertiary, or someone who is completely immature and unhealthy. That latter possibility is the one that I’ve seen people overlook.

Sometimes in our biased tendency to idolize certain functions we lose track of the bigger picture. You need to take stock of someone as a whole before getting into the individual details of their personality. Is this person mature? Are they healthy? Are they in a good point in their life? Are they happy? Are they depressed? Are they suffering the after effects of a tragedy? Are they in the midst of a tragedy? These are all important questions that you need to ask before pulling out the magnifying glass and breaking down someone’s every little behavior or tendency. Everything must be placed in its proper context.