Hopefully a better discussion on Cognitive Functions

I’ve seen many forums discussing cognitive functions, but to my observations, the vast majority of such discussions were fortune cookie at best. Sometimes watching people discussing cognitive functions is as amusing and frustrating as watching a group of mentally retarded kids working with puzzle pieces. Where one cognitive function is fully explain in practice, and processed through as a stand alone, especially when this is done with Si and Ni. I've also seen pretty wild or invalid descriptions when dealing of such when it is relating with personality theory to how it is practiced.

Starting with the perceiving cognitive functions, there are function pairs Se/Ni and Ne/Si. Si and Ni are very dependant on Se and Ne respectively. To give an example of their differences and how they function, I'll use the ISTJ and the INTJ to keep all else constant.

So say that an INTJ observed that A causes B several times in his/her life. An Ni user will remember an A then B causal relationship very well. Then continues on with life where Se detects A in environment. Then the mind immediately recalls the pattern and the INTJ think "Wait I remember this, B is going to happen now". This is how the predictive ability of Ni works. It is basically anticipating. It's like flipping the patterns you have perceived in past situtions into the future and expecting them to repeat.

As composed to Si/NE with an ISTJ, a Si user collects data and streams them to find equilibrium (basic patterns). When a piece is collected which conflicts with the established pattern Ne kicks in and brainstorms “why did this happen? What holistic change is needed in my equilibrium to be able to include this?” It’s like testing information against a query and updating the structure of the query for future use. The humorous title Inspector given to ISTJs is in referenced to this combination where unique pieces are what catch the eye of the ISTJ.

In short it would be

Observations from Se > Prediction through Ni

Brainstorming from Ne > Query through Si

(non linear> linear), in that Se and Ne can jump around and operate in no specific order, while Ni and Si are very straightforward when they operate when they process information in the mind.

These also repeat like Se>Ni>Se…etc as a continuous cycle. Introverted perceiving functions require their extraverted counter part to interact first prior to individuals to be able to turn around the info in their heads. At least one of these cognitive pairs are used by every type with specialization directed either towards one. As with Ne/Si, both ENFP’s and ISTJ’s use the same function pair, but a greater emphasis on a different part of the pair.

The function pair Te/Fi (and Fe/Ti) are less complex and people don’t seem to trip up on them too much or at least from what I have judged. Often you’ll see the grand simplification of T’s see objects and F’s see relationships. It services is purpose at any rate. It is based on what you place on individual value.

Te drops individual value to zero directed towards the environment, and thus in any XIXJ forums, you see a lot of criticism directed toward others. Fi holds value that elevates individual sense of self-worth, this leads to believing held values are worth implementing.

Where as Ti/Fe, Ti drops individual's value to nothing brought inwards onto the individual itself, which leads to self criticism holding internal thoughts to strict competitive standards, while Fe works to be friendly and cooperative with others in the environment.

I believe this explanation is slightly better than the cookie cutter pieces I’ve been reading on the majority of these forums. And in regards to S/N, I think people forget that they are perceiving functions and do not dictate views or specific actions. Anyways, critiques are welcomed or even new interpretations on the functions, hoping for a greater discussion on the topic, if you need me to expand on a certain part I will do so... so what are your thoughts?

Would you accept the following J generalizations?

Te Fi, looks at people like robots, but cares about self more.

Fe Ti, cares about people more, but treats self like a robot.


Here is where I get confused.

If I work with the Ne Si pair, I know Ne is searching exploring possibilities looking for something, but is it the first J function that provides most of the something Ne is looking for? If so, why even bother to write how Si interacts with Ne?

Se Ni though, I simply can't wrap my head around yet.

Originally Posted by Souled In

Would you accept the following J generalizations?

Te Fi, looks at people like robots, but cares about self more.

Fe Ti, cares about people more, but treats self like a robot.


Here is where I get confused.

If I work with the Ne Si pair, I know Ne is searching exploring possibilities looking for something, but is it the first J function that provides most of the something Ne is looking for? If so, why even bother to write how Si interacts with Ne?

Se Ni though, I simply can't wrap my head around yet.

In short the model holds that people have 4 general operations
O Data Collection (Ne or Se)
O Inner Filter (Fi or Ti)
O External Projection (Fe or Te)
O Data Storage (Si or Ni)
And the pairings are set up based on task
Interpretation to Projection
Te/Fi and Fe/Ti are value systems (and through our values we judge), value systems don't provide any source of old information to brainstorm (Ne) against as Judging functions do not store old info or capture new data, instead it filters how the information is projected.
New data examined by Old.
Si and Ni hold old or established information, Ne and Se create or capture new information, and it is the comparing of the new information to the old that drives it. It is why they interact with each other.
The function pairs listed earlier are paired together based on their task and their dependency on each other. To hold information, you need some means to gather it; to project towards the environment, you need some sort of filter to judge it. The two function pairs cross and influence each other through.

Originally Posted by Cogdecree

In short the model holds that people have 4 general operations
O Data Collection (Ne or Se)
O Inner Filter (Fi or Ti)
O External Projection (Fe or Te)
O Data Storage (Si or Ni)
And the pairings are set up based on task
Interpretation to Projection
Te/Fi and Fe/Ti are value systems (and through our values we judge), value systems don't provide any source of old information to brainstorm (Ne) against as Judging functions do not store old info or capture new data, instead it filters how the information is projected.
New data examined by Old.
Si and Ni hold old or established information, Ne and Se create or capture new information, and it is the comparing of the new information to the old that drives it. It is why they interact with each other.
The function pairs listed earlier are paired together based on their task and their dependency on each other. To hold information, you need some means to gather it; to project towards the environment, you need some sort of filter to judge it. The two function pairs cross and influence each other through.

This is good stuff.

I am interested in an elaboration on your take on the difference between Si and Ni, though. I have some theories on percieving function interaction, but I'd like to see your version.

Originally Posted by NiDBiLD

This is good stuff.

I am interested in an elaboration on your take on the difference between Si and Ni, though. I have some theories on percieving function interaction, but I'd like to see your version.

Internal perceiving functions require their outer perceiving function to perform first, as data collection has to come before data storage.

Se is nonlinear, where you point the camera or what you notice in your external world can jump around, there is no order.

Se takes snapshots. Snapshot __ Snapshot __ Snapshot __ Snapshot
Ni tries to link and organize them via cause and effect

Ni extrapolate solely from Se, making the Se/Ni combo much more physically based, as for the predictive models crafted by Ni to be relied upon, they need to be applicable to reality. Ni is also situation specific and it is the collection of these predictive models for various situations consists of the info that Ni stores.

Like Se, Ne is nonlinear and has no order. It searches for meaning and connections by asking the simple questions of why and how, which through subjectivity can create some bizarre explanation.

Si looks at the entire collection of all the ideas generated by Ne. The data is also quite complex due to the pool it extracts its information from. It will search for patterns by finding average means, ranges, outliers, and frequencies (along with other measures). Thus Si is what we would call an inter-subjective function. It is the holistic collection of raw data and its measures that Si holds information. So we could say that Ne/Si works towards exploration and Se/Ni works towards prediction.

Edit* Just to prevent any confusion, after reading the wording I used for Si, possible making it sound to robotic, Si is simply what explores the data. Another note to add, while all the extraverted funtion come prior to their introverted ones, I define the pairs by their internal functions as that is how the infomation reaches maturation.* End Edit

That is my explanation of Si vs. Ni at any rate, and Ne and Se as well simply because the internal perceiving functions have to pool from them.

I'm still new to this as NidBild knows. Please don't be offended if I've missed something entirely, however, sometimes I end up with a creative idea that contributes well to the discussion so I'd like to try with the following:

It is so interesting to me that the actual chronological order of function processes are different than the order of functions that effect our behavior based on dominance.

So my dominant order (INFP) might look like: Fi Ne Si Te

However my chronological order might look like: Ne Si Te (Fi Ne Si Te) Fi ...

So the order ends up being the same eventually, but my dominant function is now fourth!

This changes my view of the mechanics of these functions, because instead of picturing myself "hanging" on one function, and only moving down the line when the first fails, I now picture them as a constant ----> moving process that hits my "main adjusting dominant" function, Fi, every fourth function.

This viewpoint seems superior to picturing "hanging" on to one function then the other.

Things like "tertiary temptation" are still relevant, but that just means that as my mind shifts between the continuum of my four functions, that when it hits my "usually third dominant function," Si, that Si is then acting as the first dominant.

When Si acts as dominant, though, I need to learn more of how it represses other functions.

Thats it. If you guys have time, let me know where I can study repression of the less dominant functions, especially when one of the less dominant functions takes over. And especially let me know if I am missing the mark.

Thanks yall. :D

Originally Posted by Cogdecree

Internal perceiving functions require their outer perceiving function to perform first, as data collection has to come before data storage.

Se is nonlinear, where you point the camera or what you notice in your external world can jump around, there is no order.

Se takes snapshots. Snapshot __ Snapshot __ Snapshot __ Snapshot
Ni tries to link and organize them via cause and effect

Ni extrapolate solely from Se, making the Se/Ni combo much more physically based, as for the predictive models crafted by Ni to be relied upon, they need to be applicable to reality. Ni is also situation specific and it is the collection of these predictive models for various situations consists of the info that Ni stores.

Like Se, Ne is nonlinear and has no order. It searches for meaning and connections by asking the simple questions of why and how, which through subjectivity can create some bizarre explanation.

Si looks at the entire collection of all the ideas generated by Ne. The data is also quite complex due to the pool it extracts its information from. It will search for patterns by finding average means, ranges, outliers, and frequencies (along with other measures). Thus Si is what we would call an inter-subjective function. It is the holistic collection of raw data and its measures that Si holds information. So we could say that Ne/Si works towards exploration and Se/Ni works towards prediction.

Edit* Just to prevent any confusion, after reading the wording I used for Si, possible making it sound to robotic, Si is simply what explores the data. Another note to add, while all the extraverted funtion come prior to their introverted ones, I define the pairs by their internal functions as that is how the infomation reaches maturation.* End Edit

That is my explanation of Si vs. Ni at any rate, and Ne and Se as well simply because the internal perceiving functions have to pool from them.

This makes sense. It's interesting, and I think we're somewhat on the same track.

If you have the time, I'd also like to hear your take on this thread:

Why function strength tests are $@(#@ - a guide to understanding function theory

It's getting pretty long now, but I'd especially like you to see my take on Si-Ne vs Ni-Se. I think it has to do with Si giving a singular subjective interpretation, and Ni giving multiple paralell subjective interpretations of the same event. This is the biggest difference between Si-users and Ni users I have seen. Si users are solid in their worldview, while Ni-users are more liquid.

I think the "perspective shifting" I talk about when I speak of Ni can be explained by Ni being able to create several models from the same Se-data, and then choosing freely between them when interpreting a situation. Si-Ne can't do that. It expands it's singular model of reality instead of shifting between several lesser models, like Ni does.

What do you think?

Originally Posted by Souled In

I'm still new to this as NidBild knows. Please don't be offended if I've missed something entirely, however, sometimes I end up with a creative idea that contributes well to the discussion so I'd like to try with the following:

It is so interesting to me that the actual chronological order of function processes are different than the order of functions that effect our behavior based on dominance.

So my dominant order (INFP) might look like: Fi Ne Si Te

However my chronological order might look like: Ne Si Te (Fi Ne Si Te) Fi ...

So the order ends up being the same eventually, but my dominant function is now fourth!

This changes my view of the mechanics of these functions, because instead of picturing myself "hanging" on one function, and only moving down the line when the first fails, I now picture them as a constant ----> moving process that hits my "main adjusting dominant" function, Fi, every fourth function.

This viewpoint seems superior to picturing "hanging" on to one function then the other.

Things like "tertiary temptation" are still relevant, but that just means that as my mind shifts between the continuum of my four functions, that when it hits my "usually third dominant function," Si, that Si is then acting as the first dominant.

When Si acts as dominant, though, I need to learn more of how it represses other functions.

Thats it. If you guys have time, let me know where I can study repression of the less dominant functions, especially when one of the less dominant functions takes over. And especially let me know if I am missing the mark.

Thanks yall. :D

Sorry for the late reply, it has been a heavy week. The first half dealing with a continuous process is something I agree with. The second half dealing with dominance is still sketchy in my book, in that I am still in the process of reading and researching the topic. I have read several theories, but not enough to develop a consensus or to tie it to something more tangible. The difficulty is trying tie down behavior to cognitive function to mbti type, while holding that cognitive functions are fluid. As dominance is dependant on MBTI type, we are then working with three variables. In short I don't consider myself adequate enough to give a confident answer or assessment on the topic of dominance in regards to cognitive functions.

Originally Posted by NiDBiLD

This makes sense. It's interesting, and I think we're somewhat on the same track.

If you have the time, I'd also like to hear your take on this thread:

Why function strength tests are $@(#@ - a guide to understanding function theory

It's getting pretty long now, but I'd especially like you to see my take on Si-Ne vs Ni-Se. I think it has to do with Si giving a singular subjective interpretation, and Ni giving multiple paralell subjective interpretations of the same event. This is the biggest difference between Si-users and Ni users I have seen. Si users are solid in their worldview, while Ni-users are more liquid.

I think the "perspective shifting" I talk about when I speak of Ni can be explained by Ni being able to create several models from the same Se-data, and then choosing freely between them when interpreting a situation. Si-Ne can't do that. It expands it's singular model of reality instead of shifting between several lesser models, like Ni does.

What do you think?

I have several areas of disagreements or misunderstandings in your thread by either overemphasizing certain item or whatnot. I model cognitive functions in regards to what function they serve as we depend on our favored functions due to their utility they provide.

Si, more fluid than you give it credit

You describe Si as a single and solid world view. I find this troublesome due to the fact that Ne and Si are to work together. If Si is to be singular, it would then have to be quite fluid or “liquid” in that Si collects and adapts to Ne. Si requires to stock itself prior to being organized, then it by default has to accept many assertions generated by Ne (the entire composition of Si derives from Ne). With that being the case Si would have to be more fluid, continuously accepting conclusions by Ne, while at the same time Ne is scrutinized by Si with it’s collection other stored Ne pieces. I also believe Si is more holistic and establishes general patterns, it explores the raw data in it’s entirety as individual pieces.

Ni, the end goal is solid

If Si does not accept enough new postulates generated by Ne, its utility diminishes, as it becomes less relevant and less up to date. The basic holistic patterns like frequency, outliers, average mean, etc, require continual acceptance of new and reacceptance of old Ne postulates, and it is with this body of information that it throws its weight and scrutinizes Ne.
And in regards to Ni, having multiple view points on the same data leads to multiple conclusions which weakens the predictive models that I believe Ni stores (cause and effect relationships). If Se is to detect an item (take a snapshot), an established Ni’s utility is to accurately predict a single outcome which it learned by analyzing previous snapshots. So I see Ni’s end goal as working towards becoming a solid, something which could be dependant on.

My explanation

I see Ni and Si actually both in this light in that they are given liquids, and they attempt to create solids out of them. This is what I meant by nonlinear to linear. Ne and Se are completely wild. Se change angles which it takes snapshots which can “notice this, miss that, catch this”; and Ne can answer why/how by whatever perspective creating a different concept/conclusion.

Ni and Si receive this chaotic information, and they work on creating stable and predictable structure to be able to then pass this along to our judgment from which decides our actions. We respond very similar to the same stimuli because we still have a similar structure organized by Ni/Si from which our judgment has the same reaction. So it is not until enough new information brought to Ni/Si by Se/Ne that our structure changes and our reaction to stimuli changes.

Originally Posted by Souled In

Fe Ti, cares about people more, but treats self like a robot.

I can relate to the above statement. When someone has had their world shattered more times than they can feel, they tend to shut down. Feelings can be protected by staying low and one's defenses can keep them from being damaged more. But, concentrating on defenses, in a figure/ground gestalt perspective, makes one see everything as a potential enemy or reference point for more pain. In my case, I began teaching and my Fe came to the foreground. Even though the pay was low, I chose that to help myself begin to feel more. I'm still learning to drop my defenses and it's a toughie. My need to protect against perceived threats has created a life that does not allow me to live fully. It's a trust issue because when I showed my feelings as a child, I was taught to keep them to myself. Others were more important than me, referring specifically to my parents, because they had their own pain. Family dynamics will shape us.

Excellent point. You've very sharp. By your explanation, I now see myself fully as a well-developed Fe. But, there is a strong balance with my T. Essentially, my life has helped me balance my view of the world and it's now time to see it through a smile, instead of a defense of no contact through the senses.

Senses are important to help us figure out what is real vs. unreal. I'm recovering from a trauma-based fall and since my mind is recovering as well (mind/body/spirit), I need to rely more on my senses. Reality is now what I can see, feel, hear, taste and smell to be able to connect. The pieces of parts of my world need to be sensed at this point, not imagined. What's in my head as an imagination doesn't seem real, only an imagination? Thank you for sharing your perspective because I learned a great deal from it.