Quote Originally Posted by Arcanum
Smilex, don't you have any people to save as a doctor?

This has to be one of the strangest threads... I think you guys were smoking a little Mary Jane before posting, no offense :wink:. I am not buying the whole functions thing really. Why not mention the reason why there are exactly 8 functions, and exactly 16 types?
No. I don't have patients. I mainly do research.

There are 8 functions because Jung found 8 functions. Of course it seems that each function has at least a creating and accepting version of it, and also a concrete and an abstract version of it so it would be more correct to say that there are 32 functions. But why stop there? There are further distinctions between individuals in how they use their functions so why not make say each person has their own function? Basically it was just decided that a certain distinction merits to be separated as "a function" while other distinctions don't merit to be called separate functions. So the reasons are historical.

Same goes for types.

But this threas is still boring...

hmm...

Except for this:

Quote Originally Posted by Dioklecian
I disagree with this Ni description of functions as Ni, functions are Ti categorizations.
This is weirdly hilarious. I hesitate to ask for clarification because I think understanding the sentence would spoil the hilarity. Oh, but I know you'll clarify it anyway... Damn... Do your worst!