16 personality type from our 4 judging functions. Perceiving functions are transitory

So Im obsessed with these crazy functions. Probably because I got so confused easily. And now I think I know why. We often use the word to define the word. We use descriptions that have to do with other functions to "sort of" define a singular function. It has killed me. A singular function really can't have an "attitude," only more like an orientation and a singular purpose along the mind filter. Our ethics could be complete opposites with the same personality type. However, the MBTI can be great for knowing our preference and therefore how we will react in stress situations etc..

I will start basic and pretty obvious trying to use minimal terminology, and then by the end you will see why I think we should get 16 personality types from the 4 judging functions, using only perceiving preference for less concrete subtypes.

The obviousness of this necessity I think comes to bear because Judging functions based on ethics obviously are much more concrete than perceiving functions, which simply take in data. We often try to have the perceiving functions discriminate in the same way, but if we do that, they I feel we lose the difference between P and J functions. It comes down to this for me. Saying someone is not actively using Se in their life, is ironically wrong.

The descriptions for the personality type attributes could easily be assigned based on the order of the judging functions rather than using the perceiving as main factors. I mean really, how we view Te and Fe, Ti, and Fi, are HUGE! Of course these effect us. If Im not good at considering possibilities, it is probably because of a low Te, or Ti, not because I perceive with Si or Se. I perceive based on what is necessary, and what is necessary is based on the order of my ethical functions.

For example, you might shut out past trauma, and have justified behavior based on ethics of "avoiding thoughts about that trauma." The perceiving function is just an extension of what is necessary to achieve our judging function, not the other way around.

We aren't fish, and we are capable of knowing that we can consider possibilities, go based on past impressions, etc.. and we do so actively.

When we don't, it can be out of habit, but the habit of which perceiving function is used, is directly correlated with which judging function is third or fourth. Both the perceiving function and the inferior judging functions are suppressed at the same time.

If a paragraph seems too slow, simply skip to the next paragraph. This is largely based on much of what has been said already. I might be wrong about some things, and not unique in my conclusions, but I felt it should be said certainly.

------------------------
For perceiving functions, our extroverted function "explores," and our introverted function decides which data is important.

What gets confusing, is that the extroverted function also decides which data is important, but that is because they are receiving instruction from the judging functions. It is a constant loop- J- P- J- p etc..

Se explores the environment via the 5 senses, and then Ni filters some data from the possibilities of what we JUSt experienced. The confusing thing is sometimes we say that Ni is exploring possibilities. Well yes, but said like that, it is Ne, what Ni does is explore and sort through the possibilities that Se, the extroverted function, has focused on, and store the data, sending it over to J functions to assign value and reconfigure our future thinking.

Ne explores the possibilities, sort of, rather than having the Earth's terrain to experience, Ne can go in the head, and twist the terrain around, or even intangible thoughts around, to think about possibilities. Out of these possibilities, Si will then decide which is relevant sifting through the possibilities. Ne Si will drive without noticing road signs often times enough etc..

If you think in this way, that we must always use S, and always use N, then it is just a matter of deciding how you will be extroverted while perceiving.

The reason we actually have a difference between S and N, and simply don't say Pe and Pi, is because there are subtle differences from our judging functions that we assign on to the perceiving functions. Instead of looking at it as a pair of perceiving and judging working together, we try to isolate the variables, and therefore assign some of thhe judging properties to the introverted function. Really though, the introverted perceiving function just orders the data in a simple way based on a congruency between the judging and extroverted perceiving function. And by extroverted, I mean, even if you are in your head reliving or considering, you are still picturing images from the external world.

Anyway we have both S and N to help us define some of the ethics and values, which helps us create more personality types, etc.. So we use them in pairs, only Se Ni for example, not Ne Ni, because that is what the system is based on, for clarity sake. If we change the properties, then all the assigned characteristics of each personality type would have to be rewritten. It is not that it can't be done for any of them.

I'm just assigning the basic values to the functions at this point, and to expain why it isnt Ne Ni, beyond that because the descriptions are written that way, would be to get into specific character ethics that effect the perceiving function.

Here is an example of confusion: ""In short, Ni is about integrating numerous different (and often seemingly contradictory) interpretations into one total interpretation that escapes the confines of the unconscious assumptions made by each one on its own. It's about changing one's personal interpretation of meaning and significance in order to view an idea from many different conceptual standpoints."

The thing is, of course the perceiving function is about integrating interpretations. Thats what our mind does, it thinks and interprets. We arent talking about liver function, that processes and secretes bile. We are talking about thoughts. This description is also part of Si. Once we add some ethics to it though, we apparently Im seeing now, assign things like "Ni prefers to think about meanings, where as Si prefers to think about whatever is important in the past." How silly can that really be? What if Si has thought about meanings in the past? that is completely ridiculous. Assigning ethics to perceiving functions, as a singular seperate function attitude is ridiculous. "Attitudes" only come with I suppose an example would be @Eric B's archeatypes. Not singular functions. No wonder I was so confused...........

We can obviously shift between them and use both. That is why we can score high on the function analysis test with all functions. The thing Jung does though is assign preference, which gives us a typical way that peopel react to stress and danger. And since without danger we would all just get along and be happy, it is good to think of it from this conflict theory, in order to defend ourselves against the possible conflict and therefore get along etc.. But yea we can shift using both.

After we take in data and decide what is relevant, we actually at the same time of deciding what is relevant are starting to use our Judging functions. In fact, if you look at functions in pairs, you are either say using (Ne, Si), or then (Si, J) for example.

The reason we our wired like this, is because Si or Ni wouldn't know how to order and configure the new data that they deem relevant, without the use of T or F.

Really, each cognitive function attitude is acting like a filter.

Jung simply chopped the mind filter up into 8 portions, assigned them congruent filter abilities, and wrote of their qualities.

However, parts in a filter work together.

We might confuse Ji and Pi, for example, Ti and Ni. They sound very similar in function, and in fact they are. They filter information for the purpose of the mind. However, J functions are geared towards configuring the data we have already taken in from P.

Another thing to note, is that, J functions are our ethics, so, we don't have to consider our ethics everytime we think, and when we do consider, we are back to perceiving. It is a series of 0's and 1's for good and bad labeled on everything. In fact, the perceiving functions can assign 0 and 1 values to new data, because we can relate it to old data. The J functions then order this new data one on top of the other.

For example, if we assign a value to red that is good, and connect it to the value of yellow, which is good, T and F might theoretically combine the good of red and yellow to say that orange is also good. Shitty example I know, but initially, when exploring the possibility of what could orange be, we are using the perceiving function, but when we try to order it, refer to the post on real life examples for cognitive functions and go to the orange part. The example is fully lined out there.

Basically, we get new thoughts, Pe, assign some values to it, Pi, then order those values based on how we've ordered values in the past, J.

On one end, receiving news, on the other end, using the news.

Each step in the way is a slight morph of the news. A blob Pe, to a blob assigned a label amongst other blobs of its kind, Pi, then implications of this blob to our ethics (how we ought to live)- J.

Its definitely a 3 step process initially.

So my functions should be ordered like:

Judging preference, Fi
Back up, Te

Perceiving preference, (Ne Si)
Back up, (Se, Ni)

We most definitely use both pairs of perceiving functions depending on the situation. Its not hard on us, it is just perceiving.

It is how we relate to what we gather that can be difficult. This is when the extroversion and introversion become relevant. There are 4 main viewpoint outlined with Jung.

What this means is that everyone has one main factor in their personality type, their dominant Judging function, either Te, Ti, Fe, or Fi.

And everything from there is based on both the secondary judging function, as well as third fourth, etc... which wil give 16 personality types,

but also, based on each main type of situation, which might be defined as, with self, in a relationship, amongst a group, in a public speaking situation where you are not prepared, etc..

For an obvious thought that brings this to light is this problem with the typical interpretation of Jung:

Some people hardly use Se? I think that is incorrect.

We need to get our 16 personality types from the order of the 4 judging functions, and we can further subtype that based on the two perceiving types, and how we typically approach problems, but the perceiving functions are much more easily transitionable with us, where as our ethical framwork is obviously much much harder and is the culprit based on past trauma, not something simple like "knowledge not yet learned."

:)

This is interesting. I'll sit down and see if I can internalize this this evening.

One question: You are talking about ethical functions. These would be Fe and Fi, correct?

Also, I think it is interesting that you put this amount of focus on the judging functions. I am of quite the opposite perception. I think the greatest difference is a result of differing perceptive function sets, since the perception is always the basis for judgment. The Si-Ne and Ni-Se-sets are fundamentally incompatible and seem quite alien to eachother. The judging function gap-of-understanding can be bridged as long as the perceptive functions are alike. One can say "oh, yes. I see that too, but I have different priorities."

Differing perceptions are more difficult to bridge, at least for me.

There is a huge difference between a ESTJ and an ENTJ, for example. The judging function order is identical, though the ESTJ is a Si-Ne user, while the ENTJ is a Ni-Se user. For me, at least, the resulting gap in perception makes communication very difficult. We can be using the same words, but we speak about completely different things since the internal worlds are so fundamentally different.

For example, I know that I have no use of Si. Use of Si would contradict my Ni, and therefore it is impossible for me to use it. Si is all about having one singular, well elaborated, trustworthy perspective on the world, while Ni is about being able to shift perspectives at will. You can't do both. It's theoretically impossible.

For a Si-user, the perspective shifting of Ni would feel slippery, untrustworthy and a bit like lying to oneself, because for Si, one certain model of perception seems "true". For a Ni user, Si seems single minded, inflexible and all too sure of it's own validity, because according to Ni, truth is context-dependant.

Ethical functions I was actually referring to the T's too, but its hard not to call everything an ethical function. Every single one effects how we live, and therefore how we think we "ought to live" If my Fi is inferior and my Fe is shadow, are we really in Jungian terms going to say that someone is hardly capable of ethics? Everything seems to work together.

Since they all work together, it seems beneficial to me to look at the order of the Judging functions, since they are harder to change in a person than is one of the two perceiving pairs. You have listed worldviews for the perceiving pairs. I've been meaning to go back and review that again. I would say that those worldviews, can be changed out more easily than changing an entire T or F block. When someone shifts one of their judging functions, we tend to say they are acting in their shadow, being an a hole, etc... If someone was to change their perceiving worldview, would it effect the judging function as well?

In theory, I think changing the perceiving function would put pressure on our judging function to change, and vice versa.

They seem to be all tied together, so that, looking at perceiving pairs as contradictory world views, could also be tied to or be attributed to the order of our judging functions.

It has been argued that we use perceiving pairs, both Pe and Pi.

Has it been argued that we use both Je and Ji in every action as well?

If not, we could say that Pe+Pi=J as far as data filtering strength (all being partially ethical based on our interests though the various usages of the word can make this kind of statement confusing)

Or we could say that Pe=Pi=J as far as filtering strength.

Filtering strength= Influence on our behavior.

So either they are equally linked, or our sole judging function is twice as strong.

As my last resort point to make this relavant. How can we actually say that someone hardly uses their Se?

Survival situations force us to change between the two perceiving functions.

They may not be our preference, but just like violence on TV, we become knowledgeable and therefore tolerant via experience.

So my argument is that by using both perceiving pairs often, we become tolerant to both of those world views, and therefore they aren't the more concrete of the two types of function attitudes.

I'm not so sure we change our sole or paired judging function so interchangeably.

Truth might seem slippery when we perceive based not on our preference, however, since we are just "perceiving," and not changing our Judging functions, I don't feel our personalities reject it as strongly as say, using Fe instead of Fi.

That being said, I need to think more of the judging functions in pairs I suppose.

If my Fi is inferior and my Fe is shadow, are we really in Jungian terms going to say that someone is hardly capable of ethics?

This is the reason I want to modify the span of function theory to only include the decision making process, and nothing else. No model for general behaviour, because that's impossible to isolate and make a functional system from.

I am Te-dominant. I have a lot of ethics and values. It's only that if it comes to decision making, for me, the only ethical thing (Fi) is to deliver results according to what i have promised (Te).

This is also why I say some people hardly use Se, because Se is not direct sensory experience. Se is the act of putting direct sensory variables as high priority data in your decision-making process. Not the actual sensory experience - that's just nerve endings doing their job, and everyone has nerve endings.

Even in an extreme, fast paced survival situation, Ne-Si-types will improvise using Ne, based on previously established Si axioms. This is not a slower process. It's just as quick, because Ne is also a present time function, just like Se.

The Si-Ne-combination does not mean you can remember stuff and that you are able to recognize opportunities, cause everyone can do that. Being a Si-Ne-type means that the data you put into your decision making process, that is, what you feed to the J-functions, is Ne-alternatives based on Si-axioms. Primary Si means more axioms to base alternatives on, and therefore fewer and more reliable alternatives. Primary Ne means more alternatives, fewer axioms. That is, lots of crazy ideas.

The Se-Ni-combination does not mean you can see things from different angles and act based on real time response. Everyone does that. Being a Se-Ni-type means that the data that you feed into your J-functions are Ni-perspectives based on Se-facts. For a Se-dominant, the Se-facts are detailed and primary, while the rudimentary Ni creates a few perspectives. For a Ni-dominant, the Se-facts are simple and rudimentary, but there is a multitude of perspectives for each Se-fact.

The decision making progress is different, because the input is of two completely different kinds. A Si-user can attempt to create Ni, but he/she will feel as if it's just made up. Some of these perspectives are just excuses to do something bad, for example. One of them has to be true, or they are all false. For a Ni-user, everything is equally true - it just depends on how you choose to see it. Ni is not just the act of being able to see these perspectives. It's about recognizing them all as equally true and useful. No perspective is false unless it contradicts the Se-facts, because that's the only thing that can not be bent or turned around by Ni.

Different judging functions, same perception functions: Same type of inbound data, different mechanisms for decision.
Different perception functions, same judging functions: Different kinds of inbound data, same mechanisms for decision.

This means that in the case of different judging functions but same perception functions, at least the inbound data is the same. It's first at the judging stage that there is a difference. In the case of different perception functions but same judging functions, not even the inbound data is of the same format. This means that the data put into the j-functions is different, and that it will lead to a different kind of judgment.

The difference is that when perceptions are alike, the difference starts at the judging stage. Perception happens before judgment.
When perceptions differ, the difference is there from start. Both the judgment and the perception will be different.

Originally Posted by Souled In

We need to get our 16 personality types from the order of the 4 judging functions, and we can further subtype that based on the two perceiving types, and how we typically approach problems, but the perceiving functions are much more easily transitionable with us, where as our ethical framwork is obviously much much harder and is the culprit based on past trauma, not something simple like "knowledge not yet learned."

:)

Just a perception: This argument is created from the Si-Ne-spectrum. Si is a subjective framework of fixed, reliable axioms. For a Si-user, the basis for judgment, namely the perceptive functions, is much more strict and fixed than they are for a Ni user. You are saying it's obviously much harder to change since it is based on past experience. I don't think that is obvious at all, and I don't base my judgments on past experience. My judgments are based on primarily what's rational based on how I decide to interpret the current situation. I don't use axioms like you do, and because of that, my conclusions about what's difficult or easy differ from yours.

This is what I mean when I talk about the problem of perpetual misunderstanding between the different perceptual paradigms. I can't know how Si-Ne feels, since it's not how I percieve the world. I don't get that sense of obviousness that Si-users talk about. For me, what's really obvious is what's in front of my eyes - right here, right now. I don't think past experience is reliable as a basis for judgment. Things change, and last time, one might have missed some important variable.

Ethical functions I was actually referring to the T's too, but its hard not to call everything an ethical function. Every single one effects how we live, and therefore how we think we "ought to live" If my Fi is inferior and my Fe is shadow, are we really in Jungian terms going to say that someone is hardly capable of ethics? Everything seems to work together.

In that case, we might just as well call every function practical, since they all relate to how we act in the external world. That classification becomes so broad by that definition of "ethical functions" that it's useless.

From my perspective, Te is not an ethical function, since it does not base it's decisions on the good-bad duality, but on the does work-does not work duality. Neither is Ti an ethical function. It uses the makes sense-does not make sense duality. Killing wagonloads of innocents might be completely rational for some purpose - maybe as a marketing strategy or something. Without the ethical feeling functions balancing the scales, if this decision is the most rational, then that's what gets done. Luckily, all types have a dynamic between one feeling and one thinking function. This is necessary in order to take ethics (Fe) or values (Fi) into account.

In order to evaluate something based on personal values (Te-Fi), or in order to create a congruent ethical system (Fe-Ti), the thinking functions can be used, but in themselves, they are not ethical - they are practical and logical.

Originally Posted by NiDBiLD

This means that the data put into the j-functions is different, and that it will lead to a different kind of judgment.

I agree, but it is possible that they will be even more different if you were to use the same perceiving pair, and change your judging one. I understand what you are saying though, and I need some more clarification from the pairs in general actually.

With the Ne Si you use the terms alternatives and axioms , and with Se Ni the terms perspectives and facts. Can you contrast the two a bit more? I've read your other article again and I still need some clarification.

I like what you said about my perspective that changing past experience would be harder than learning new knowledge. For you, since you don't rely on past experience as much, it isn't hard because it isn't as relevant? Am I getting close? You are learning and improving so much with new experience, etc..

Originally Posted by NiDBiLD

From my perspective, Te is not an ethical function, since it does not base it's decisions on the good-bad duality, but on the does work-does not work duality. Neither is Ti an ethical function. It uses the makes sense-does not make sense duality. Killing wagonloads of innocents might be completely rational for some purpose - maybe as a marketing strategy or something. Without the ethical feeling functions balancing the scales, if this decision is the most rational, then that's what gets done. Luckily, all types have a dynamic between one feeling and one thinking function. This is necessary in order to take ethics (Fe) or values (Fi) into account.

In order to evaluate something based on personal values (Te-Fi), or in order to create a congruent ethical system (Fe-Ti), the thinking functions can be used, but in themselves, they are not ethical - they are practical and logical.

I agree. I just think the word ethics used for feeling functions are confusing. Basing your life on logic, because it is supported by either Fi or Fe, makes perfect sense as part of an ethical system to me. I can see what you mean that it is just kind of the extending hand of the ethical center F, though.

This is why what you were saying about that they must work in pairs is so relevant I suppose. Fe works with Ti, Te works with Fi. Each ethical value system has a kind of soldier planner worker deployment get the job done value system attached to it.

In that sense, Te Fi makes perfect sense. I suppose since I use that function pair. How can we not say our introverted function is the ethical part, lol. Wow, I really am missing something.

I have no idea how Fe Ti works. Why would anyone base their ethics on other people. And can't you use Ti with Fi? Ti has been worded as "checking for logical consistency," but honestly, I don't even know what that means.

Well, you've been a blessing so far. If you can explain some more of this I will be much much appreciative.

Thanks

With the Ne Si you use the terms alternatives and axioms , and with Se Ni the terms perspectives and facts. Can you contrast the two a bit more? I've read your other article again and I still need some clarification.

I like what you said about my perspective that changing past experience would be harder than learning new knowledge. For you, since you don't rely on past experience as much, it isn't hard because it isn't as relevant? Am I getting close? You are learning and improving so much with new experience, etc..

I have some problems explaining the difference as well, because I don't understand Si-Ne as well as I do understand Se-Ni, but I'll try to explain what I mean. If I don't make sense, just tell me ;)

Both Pi functions (Si, Ni) are subjective worldview functions. They absorb the objective data from the external world and interpret it in one way or the other so that the things you see and the ideas you get are put in some sort of personal framework of meaning and purpose. This framework is created by the Pi functions.

For Si the framework consists of previous experience and also information of which meaning this previous experience has for you, personally. So in one way the previous experience dictates the Si-users decisions in the present. Si is the collection of stuff you really know for sure it's true, because you have experienced it yourself first hand many times over and it made a lasting impression. In a decision making situation, I think that Si is used in order to understand what some new piece of information or experience means for you, personally based on what similar situations have meant for you in the past.

After this meaning has been assigned to a situation, then Ne is used to spawn several alternatives, theories or hypotheses, based on these axioms. One of these alternatives for action is then selected by a J-function, and the entire event is saved as a Si-axiom - this means that in the future, when you encounter a similar situation, you will know how to interpret this, because you have done it before.

For Se-Ni, the process is different.

Just as Si interprets the data and puts it in a personal framework of meaning and reference, Ni does the same thing, with the difference that you don't pick the meaning based on your own prior experience and call it "true". You see many different possible interpretations of the same situation, none truer than the other. Ni does not generate possibilities in the external world like Ne. It generates several different subjective standpoints on the same situation, and none of them is considered true. Truth for a Ni user is an arbitary concept, and what personal meaning you ascribe to something in this moment is decided by the context and perspective you want to use.

Ne works by expanding and spawning ideas outside the frame of reference. Ni just sees the frame of reference as arbitrary and interchangable. If this interpretation of this situation only leads to bad conclusions, then we change the interpretation so that we see the situation from a different, and more useful light.

It is a reframing of perception, like changing the mood lighting in a room in order to get a party started. Nothing changes except for the color of the lights and people's subjective perception of the situation. We percieve it as a party, because the party lights are on, and that changes our span of options into the options for actions we have at a party. That is how Ni works, but inside the mind. You change your perception of the situation - not the situation itself.

Standing alone, Se is pretty strict. What's out there is out there. Facts are facts, and the facts are real. The options for action that Se provides are all anchored firmly into the external world, and they are pretty much down to earth. No real thinking outside of the box there. In tandem with Ni, this external reality can be viewed from a multitude of different viewpoints, and this in turn gives you a lot more alternatives. The Se facts in themselves can't be changed by this perspective switching, just like the matter of the room does not change when you turn on the party lights. Nothing changes but the perception, but a change in perception may let you find out new ways to do things.

This is why what you were saying about that they must work in pairs is so relevant I suppose. Fe works with Ti, Te works with Fi. Each ethical value system has a kind of soldier planner worker deployment get the job done value system attached to it.

Yes, pretty much. Here I can notice that you are a Fi-dominant, though. You say that the ethical value system has a soldier, planner, worker value system attached to it. But thinking functions are not value systems. Te, for example, does not automatically say that doing stuff efficiently is the best way to go. It simply calculates the most efficient ways to do things, but it does not evaluate it except from an efficiency standpoint. Fi does the ethics part, so Fi is the value system.

Imagine for a moment that the soldier, planner, deployment, get the job done-system was in charge of your mind. This system decides what you do, and why you do it. You plan, in order to get the job done. You strategize in order to win. The ethical system is reduced to the role of a not-quite-trusted advisor (because taking values and feelings into account tends to create inefficiency). The pragmatic getting-the-job-done-system is in charge. What's practical is what gets done, because that's the most efficient way to do it. That's what it's like to be a Te-dominant.

Ti on the other hand does not work like a planner-deployer-getting-the-job-done system. It's rather philosophical and wants to achieve understanding. It wants to know if things are true or false in a mathematical-logical sense (not in an ethical sense) and it wants to understand how things work by using logic, mathematics and cold reasoning only.

1 + 1 = 2.

If A, then B.
A, thus B.

These are Ti constructs.

Fe, in turn, is extraverted just like the deployment oriented Te. It also wants to get the job done, but the only job of Fe is to keep the group together, either by providing the group with guidelines, habits and commonly held values, or to adapt to the values and habits of a group in order to fit in.

These two work together in tandem, just like Te and Fi do.

You could say that Te is pragmatism, planning and efficiency monitoring, while Fi is a personal code of conduct.

Ti is logical understanding and reasoning, and Fe is the creation of and adaptation to external social-relational-ethical structures.

I am happy to help. I hope I make some sort of sense.

Originally Posted by NiDBiLD

I have some problems explaining the difference as well, because I don't understand Si-Ne as well as I do understand Se-Ni, but I'll try to explain what I mean. If I don't make sense, just tell me ;)

:D

Originally Posted by NiDBiLD

Both Pi functions (Si, Ni) are subjective worldview functions. They absorb the objective data from the external world and interpret it in one way or the other so that the things you see and the ideas you get are put in some sort of personal framework of meaning and purpose. This framework is created by the Pi functions.

For Si the framework consists of previous experience and also information of which meaning this previous experience has for you, personally. So in one way the previous experience dictates the Si-users decisions in the present. Si is the collection of stuff you really know for sure it's true, because you have experienced it yourself first hand many times over and it made a lasting impression. In a decision making situation, I think that Si is used in order to understand what some new piece of information or experience means for you, personally based on what similar situations have meant for you in the past.

I'm with ya, until I try to relate the worldview Si or Ni, to the J function, that has its own worldview. I suppose we have a P and a J main worldview, that we synthesize to create a new one. In your article, you used four main words to describe each unique main worldview, however, is there not one word to describe each "main world view?" For example, it would be nice if there was a philosophy that encompassed much of each one. :)

Originally Posted by NiDBiLD

After this meaning has been assigned to a situation, then Ne is used to spawn several alternatives, theories or hypotheses, based on these axioms. One of these alternatives for action is then selected by a J-function, and the entire event is saved as a Si-axiom - this means that in the future, when you encounter a similar situation, you will know how to interpret this, because you have done it before.

For Se-Ni, the process is different.

Just as Si interprets the data and puts it in a personal framework of meaning and reference, Ni does the same thing, with the difference that you don't pick the meaning based on your own prior experience and call it "true". You see many different possible interpretations of the same situation, none truer than the other. Ni does not generate possibilities in the external world like Ne. It generates several different subjective standpoints on the same situation, and none of them is considered true. Truth for a Ni user is an arbitary concept, and what personal meaning you ascribe to something in this moment is decided by the context and perspective you want to use.

Ne works by expanding and spawning ideas outside the frame of reference. Ni just sees the frame of reference as arbitrary and interchangable. If this interpretation of this situation only leads to bad conclusions, then we change the interpretation so that we see the situation from a different, and more useful light.

It is a reframing of perception, like changing the mood lighting in a room in order to get a party started. Nothing changes except for the color of the lights and people's subjective perception of the situation. We percieve it as a party, because the party lights are on, and that changes our span of options into the options for actions we have at a party. That is how Ni works, but inside the mind. You change your perception of the situation - not the situation itself.

Standing alone, Se is pretty strict. What's out there is out there. Facts are facts, and the facts are real. The options for action that Se provides are all anchored firmly into the external world, and they are pretty much down to earth. No real thinking outside of the box there. In tandem with Ni, this external reality can be viewed from a multitude of different viewpoints, and this in turn gives you a lot more alternatives. The Se facts in themselves can't be changed by this perspective switching, just like the matter of the room does not change when you turn on the party lights. Nothing changes but the perception, but a change in perception may let you find out new ways to do things.

What about the fact that Se sees possibilities too? Is that not a function of Ne, or, is that simply a part of ALL functions, in that, every function continually sees possibilities (as I think you have clarified before), and it is what it does with those possibilities that makes it a "function." For clarification, Ne, the one that gets assigned most easily to exploring possibilities, simply assigns meaning to those possibilities, in a Ne way. However, every function is continually looking either inward or outward (main point is it looks somewhere) which by definition is "perceiving," which is "seeing differences," which following this continuem "sees possibilities."

I think I really was getting caught up on what function out of the perceiving pair went into action first. I always thought it was the extroverted one, however, do they not work simultaneously?

I think I just got something! Ne pretty much scans for Si. And Se pretty much scans for Ni. I'm probably sounding like a gradeschooler with my obviousness right now, but, Ne goes out on a mission based on Si's instructions, to scan for what is relevant to Si. And Se scans for what is relevant to Ni. Ne will glance over many details, looking for somethings specific to what the Si "impressions" hold. Se scans for Ni, but I have no idea what Ni wants, lol. Oh. I suppose that, well. It almost seems as if Si is discriminatory, and Ne looking for something specific, whereas, Se is more accepting, being open to whatever Ni is okay with, which happens to usually be much more?

Wouldn't this be tied to our J functions then also? Because, what we deem important, definitely has to be tied to how we solve problems ya know? Otherwise, it just looks like one person with Ne Si is scanning the environment looking for something specific, where as, Se Ni is happy with what they see in front of them, and getting everything they need to grow from that.

It is like an animal eating a plant. The Ne Si animal wants a certain type of food, and scans the environment for it, where as, Se Ni, can break down any kind of food to get what they want from it.

Another way of seeing it is that Ne Si, likes to get their nutrients in clumps, and they are skilled hunters of that nutrients, where as Se Ni can find their nutrients a lot more easily, however, they get less of it, and have to be skilled at obtaining, breaking down whatever plant for example as a metaphor, provides those nutrients.

Originally Posted by NiDBiLD

Yes, pretty much. Here I can notice that you are a Fi-dominant, though. You say that the ethical value system has a soldier, planner, worker value system attached to it. But thinking functions are not value systems. Te, for example, does not automatically say that doing stuff efficiently is the best way to go. It simply calculates the most efficient ways to do things, but it does not evaluate it except from an efficiency standpoint. Fi does the ethics part, so Fi is the value system.

Imagine for a moment that the soldier, planner, deployment, get the job done-system was in charge of your mind. This system decides what you do, and why you do it. You plan, in order to get the job done. You strategize in order to win. The ethical system is reduced to the role of a not-quite-trusted advisor (because taking values and feelings into account tends to create inefficiency). The pragmatic getting-the-job-done-system is in charge. What's practical is what gets done, because that's the most efficient way to do it. That's what it's like to be a Te-dominant.

Ti on the other hand does not work like a planner-deployer-getting-the-job-done system. It's rather philosophical and wants to achieve understanding. It wants to know if things are true or false in a mathematical-logical sense (not in an ethical sense) and it wants to understand how things work by using logic, mathematics and cold reasoning only.

1 + 1 = 2.

If A, then B.
A, thus B.

These are Ti constructs.

Fe, in turn, is extraverted just like the deployment oriented Te. It also wants to get the job done, but the only job of Fe is to keep the group together, either by providing the group with guidelines, habits and commonly held values, or to adapt to the values and habits of a group in order to fit in.

These two work together in tandem, just like Te and Fi do.

You could say that Te is pragmatism, planning and efficiency monitoring, while Fi is a personal code of conduct.

Ti is logical understanding and reasoning, and Fe is the creation of and adaptation to external social-relational-ethical structures.

I am happy to help. I hope I make some sort of sense.

I still don't understand Fe at all. Keeping the group together only makes sense if it is from Fi or Ti, logical to do so. Oh. So Fe Ti, people think it is logical to be Fe. But Fi Te, people aren't sure if it is logical to keep the group together. Thats the best different I can find so far. It almost just seems like, Fe Ti is one specific viewpoint that is possible from Fi Te. It seems like Fi Te is base, and Fe Ti an extension sub from that, probably because I don't understand it yet.

I've got to say about pragmatism. That the definition of pragmatism in philosophy, is that of Fe. It is an ethical system. Trust me I had an entire class just dedicated to Richard Rorty's pragmatism. I know there are lots of different definitions for words, but that's gonna be confusing I think. Well, unless I misunderstand Fe and am missing the point, but I can clarify what I mean by Pragmatism if it would help.

I think this conversation is pretty much stereotypical Ne-Si vs Ni-Se.

You keep expanding on every point in every direction - asking questions, formulating hypotheses and such.

You use these posts as the Si axiom, and from there, you expand with multiple alternatives using Ne.

I attempt to limit the frame of reference, eliminate alternatives and keep very strictly to a single thesis.

That's me having Ni before Se in my function order.

I hear ya. I'm not to the point where I'm ready to understand which one is dominant, I'm still working on the pairs. First I've got to nail down the Judging pair, then I'll be right back. What you just did though is definitely my goal. You can't get more real life examplish than knowing what functions we are using when debating about functions, lol. Good stuff.

*entering brainstorm self- reflection and learning mode

01001
010101110
00101011001100101
010100101010101
jk

J and P both are all cognitive functions and therefore all function as part of our awareness, in that they see possibilities, and then are active. They arent necessarily making judgments, but they are fitting new data into our mind map, and as soon as that happen, a new judgment is created. So in a way they are, but thats not all they do.

Fe Ti Vs. Te Fi

Te Fi,
Fi= I trust what I know (private values) about values more than people (the external environment),
Te= but I trust people's methods for solving problems, for example business and motivation models

Fe Ti,
Fe= I trust other people (doesnt have to be pragmatism, it might just be a few certain people) more than I do myself for my values
Ti, and since I don't have to create values so much, all I have to do is check the values coming in for logical consistency

Se Ni seems like it relates to Fe Ti.
Se Ni can find the information it needs for mental stability in the immediate environment, and break down that environment to gather the nourishment. Each bit of nourishment might be small, but it is a consistent and constant feed. Fe Ti also can find ethical value congruency and/or new knowledge from many places in the environment, and Ti just has to filter it, much like Ni does for Se.

Ne Si Te Fi
Ne Si scans the environment looking for a specific type of nourishment only, and is good at looking for it, and therefore eats a lot when it eats, but does not eat consistently like the Se Ni, and the filter is setup more in filtering the environment looking for a certain nourishment, than having the power in the filter setup like Ni with Se to break down the smaller amounts of nutrients to make it usable. Since Ne Si finds nourishment that really doens't need breaken down as much, they don't need the Ni Filter like Se does. This relates to Te Fi in that, my ethical values I feel are more important or aware than anyone else I know. For example, If I all of a sudden found a great mentor, or was humbled enough by the fact that my ethical values seemed "wrong," I would probably immediately "convert" to Fe Ti. This is really interesting in fact, and I could relate it to religion and Church quite easily, not in number of attendance, but other stuff that I will in the future. Te though, since we aren't getting guidelines for how to behave from other people, we have to outward search, "stripped of our ethical search since we have Fi," we look only for business models of planning execution and motivation templates etc...

With Fe Ti, the ethical guidelines actually come with "guidelines," so that we just have to "check them," for how to live. We don't have to seperate the two, much like Fi and Te is forced to do, though, sometimes it is obviously necessary, hence, the positive and negative side of each pair (somewhat ambiguous, but a less important add on)

I'm starting to understand now. Both perceiving function pairs look outwardly, but they are looking for different things. Ni does to Se sort of what Ti does to Fe. So for someone that is Se Ni Fe Ti, Ni-Ti is the inner filter that pretty much is the same damn thing, just for a different boss. Ti is working for ethics, Ni is working for whatever shows up.

Goal= gain information that can be used easily for more understanding in what is relevant in our life.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Se filters down to
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Ni filters down to
XXXXXXXXXX Fe filters down to
XXXX and Ti filters down to

The differences between Ni and Ti, for example, only become so different when we start talking about which functions are dominant.

Ni Se Fi Te

Some how, our internal Se filter, Ni, is functioning stronger than its Se counterpart. This realy just means that it takes us a long ass time to interpret data from Se. It also might mean that we get alot of "food for thought" with each experience, which sounds like it could be a good thing. So, Ni would be interpreting data for some goal of improvement with, in this case, Fi, Te. Since Fi is dominant, more than likely the data is for the sake of inspecting internal values, but could also be being used for Te knowledge, planning how to improve, improve things like for example, Fi, or even Ni and Se.

It is hard to justify that someone could "stay" Ni dominant their whole lives, however. If anything, they will switch back and forth between being Se and Ni Dominant.

It is also justifiable to say that they will not only switch between being Se and Ni, or perceiving dominant, but that they will also switch back and forth between judging and perceiving dominant.

Just like Ni spends time processing Se, so do we use that information to process by the judging functions.

So someone could switch from Ni dominant, to in this case, Fi dominant pretty easily, or if Fi incorporates the information from Ni (through Se) quickly, then it is just as likely to switch to Se dominant.

On the other hand, one might argue that we get "stuck" in certain habits of perceiving etc..

I think that is just a habit we can break. If we logically know that it does us no good, then I feel even in a stressful situation, we can still use the proper function (out of our top two function pairs).

Now, I think a lot of times we dont rationalize which function is necessary, and that is when we fall into tertiary or inferior stereotypes.

I think if we can undersatnd the function necessities well, however, that this will stop being the case.