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."