[mambodog]

Another way of thinking about it is that it's kinda like Function.prototype.call is being used implicitly at the call site to set the 'context' (the 'this' value):

    // assuming in each case
    var o = {}
    var o2 = {}
    var fn = function(){}
    
    // 1. bare function call
    fn() // this == undefined in strict mode, global in non strict mode.
    
    // 2. calling with Function.prototype.call
    fn.call(o) // this == o
    
    // 3. 'method' call (calling an object's function property)
    o2.fn = fn
    o2.fn() // this == o2
    // equivalent to
    fn.call(o2)

    // 4. calling object's function property with Function.prototype.call
    o2.fn = fn
    o2.fn.call(o) // this == o

    // 5. new
    var o3 = new fn() // this = o3
    // equivalent to
    var o3 = Object.create(fn.prototype)
    fn.call(o3)

    // 6. calling function bound with Function.prototype.bind
    var fn2 = fn.bind(o)
    fn2() // this == o
    // equivalent to
    var fn2 = function(){ fn.call(o) }
    fn2()

    // 7. calling object function property which is a bound function
    o2.fn = fn.bind(o)
    o2.fn() // this == o
    // equivalent to
    o2.fn = function(){ fn.call(o) }
    o2.fn()
    
  

Basically you should think of functions (and 'methods') as not being intrinsically bound (as in binding-of-'this' bound) to anything.

If you think of a 'method' (function property) as being bound an object purely by being 'attached' to it then you are gonna have a bad time. Instead, think of binding of 'this' as usually only happening at call time, to the thing you are 'calling the function off of'.

In reference to case 1 (bare function call), this is the same behaviour which occurs when as defining an anonymous function inside a function which has 'this' set. Just don't use 'this' in this case, it doesn't make sense. Defining a _this or self variable in the parent function is the standard practice to deal with this case, or in ES6, Coffeescript etc. you have the => fat arrow to implicitly do that for you.