# Are introverted functions deep and extroverted functions broad?



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

This recently came up in a thread about Fe vs. Fi, and the more I've thought about it, the more it kind of makes sense to me. I hope I'm not repeating anything that has already been posted in great length somewhere.



This is the idea that introverted functions are a more isolated, singular "deep" version of the same extroverted function. Likewise, extroverted functions are a more expanded, spread out "broad" version of the same introverted function.


To me, it makes sense with Se vs. Si. Se is really good at bouncing around between a lot of different sensory experiences. It can quickly adjust and adapt to new ones, so it's almost like it's focusing on a lot at once. Si, on the other hand, can only focus on one at a time. However, it does so in great detail, and it internalizes it in a much stronger way than Se does.


This seems to fit with the judging functions as well. From what I can tell, Fi tends to have deeper personal values, whereas Fe bounces around between external ones. Fi is stronger and deeper, but Fe is more flexible.


The same is true for Ti and Te. Ti focuses on the depth of every little piece of the logic of a situation, and that can make it unwavering. Te skips over the details but focuses on a lot of different little logical problems all at once.



I have no idea how this would work for Ni and Ne though. That's what I get for having inferior Ne.



I have no idea how accurate this is, but it makes sense to me. It might just be a rehash of stuff other people have posted in the past anyway, but it stood out to me, so I felt like posting. 


And I'm also curious to hear others' thoughts on it.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

For extroverted judging, I think it is not so much just skipping over details, as it is accepting external information as true. Extroverted judging considers the external "reality" and the arbiter of truth. 

Introverted judging considers itself to be the arbiter of truth. It doesn't accept external information as automatically valid, but it does not doubt its own effectiveness.

This would be why extroverted and introverted judging have to work together.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Owfin said:


> For extroverted judging, I think it is not so much just skipping over details, as it is accepting external information as true. Extroverted judging considers the external "reality" and the arbiter of truth.
> 
> Introverted judging considers itself to be the arbiter of truth. It doesn't accept external information as automatically valid, but it does not doubt its own effectiveness.


I think that makes a lot of sense. I also believe the reason why introverted judging doesn't doubt its effectiveness is that it's greatly examined something in great detail already, so it feels confident in its decision. And its belief in its own effectiveness explains why it's so unwavering.


I actually think this holds true for introverted sensing as well, though. I think Si users study and internalize sensory things in so much detail that they believe what they see fully. I think this is why others have such a problem with Si sometimes; they view it as blocking out new sensory information.

I agree this is not quite the same as the way the judging functions work, but I do think there's some correlation.



But I definitely see this as holding true for feeling and thinking. I've noticed Te users tend to buy into the logic of others more quickly than I do. This doesn't mean they don't think for themselves, but I think they more readily accept external logical ideas.

The same is true for Fe and Fi. I probably buy into external values more quickly than Fi users do, but this doesn't mean that I don't have my own values.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> I think that makes a lot of sense. I also believe the reason why introverted judging doesn't doubt its effectiveness is that it's greatly examined something in great detail already, so it feels confident in its decision. And its belief in its own effectiveness explains why it's so unwavering... But I definitely see this as holding true for feeling and thinking. I've noticed Te users tend to buy into the logic of others more quickly than I do. This doesn't mean they don't think for themselves, but I think they more readily accept external logical ideas.
> 
> The same is true for Fe and Fi. I probably buy into external values more quickly than Fi users do, but this doesn't mean that I don't have my own values.


I thought of it more as an either/or thing. You have to either accept your internal judgement as true, or you have to accept what the external shows you as true. Otherwise you would have faith in nothing, and therefore nothing to determine anything upon. You can't accept both as true, because otherwise you would have nothing to judge. Therefore, each individual judging function is one or the other.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Owfin said:


> I thought of it more as an either/or thing. You have to either accept your internal judgement as true, or you have to accept what the external shows you as true. Otherwise you would have faith in nothing, and therefore nothing to determine anything upon. You can't accept both as true, because otherwise you would have nothing to judge. Therefore, each individual judging function is one or the other.


I would agree with this. Te, for instance, inherently needs _demonstrable_ logic based in external social reality. It's not so much 'other people's' logic so much as something that can be justified externally, with things anyone can see, impersonal - we use it to justify things to ourselves just as much as following others' logic. Ti is more about what makes sense to oneself, internal consistency. Similarly Fi: you know it internally and personally, and it doesn't have to be justified in external terms, to anybody else, to be trusted/valued. I suppose Fe would, in contrast, need some justification from external social reality .

In terms of depth, teddy, I definitely see your point, though to be sure this isn't meaning deep in the value-laden I am so much deeper than you sense. In terms of Ni/Ne, I think the depth/breadth can be compared just by what they focus on: probabilities vs possibilities. I don't think though that this sets limits so much as tendencies - we each can cover the same ground eventually, I think, though paired functions also may help with that.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

It won't let me edit - to make my first paragraph clearer, I think where we seek justification is the essential different and is more of a black and white thing in terms of how the functions work. Anyone can seek information/input either place but the sense of what constitutes true justification is more straightforwardly internal/external.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Owfin said:


> I thought of it more as an either/or thing. You have to either accept your internal judgement as true, or you have to accept what the external shows you as true. Otherwise you would have faith in nothing, and therefore nothing to determine anything upon. You can't accept both as true, because otherwise you would have nothing to judge. Therefore, each individual judging function is one or the other.


Well, I think you're right, but the thing is that for me this is all broken down into so many different details that it almost looks like they're mixing. For example, I may already have my own personal judgment about something, and then I hear an external new idea. I may keep parts of my internal judgment, but then use the external ones to switch some of them to a new one. So it's kind of like I'm using both at the same time, but for two different things. So for each detail separately, I do have to make the choice between the two...but it's a lot of different little choices all happening at once.



lirulin said:


> I would agree with this. Te, for instance, inherently needs _demonstrable_ logic based in external social reality. It's not so much 'other people's' logic so much as something that can be justified externally, with things anyone can see, impersonal - we use it to justify things to ourselves just as much as following others' logic. Ti is more about what makes sense to oneself, internal consistency. Similarly Fi: you know it internally and personally, and it doesn't have to be justified in external terms, to anybody else, to be trusted/valued. I suppose Fe would, in contrast, need some justification from external social reality .


I think what you said about paired functions makes sense here, because I think I agree with what you're saying here, but I don't know if it exactly fits for me personally. Maybe it's because I have tertiary Ti, but I think I tend to feel like my logic still is justified externally. I think the difference may be the starting point. Kind of like you said with your Te, you start with the external and use it to justify things to yourself. I think I might start with the internal and then test it with external ideas. But this might be where Fe and Ti mix.




lirulin said:


> In terms of depth, teddy, I definitely see your point, though to be sure this isn't meaning deep in the value-laden I am so much deeper than you sense.


Yeah, that's why I specifically used the word broad rather than shallow, because this is sometimes what's tossed around with Fi and Fe....this is what I mentioned in the other thread where this first came up. I think sometimes Fe has a perception of being shallow, and that carries a negative connotation sometimes. I do think it's shallow when compared to Fi, but that this is just a descriptive attribute, not a value measurement.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> I think what you said about paired functions makes sense here, because I think I agree with what you're saying here, but I don't know if it exactly fits for me personally. Maybe it's because I have tertiary Ti, but I think I tend to feel like my logic still is justified externally. I think the difference may be the starting point. Kind of like you said with your Te, you start with the external and use it to justify things to yourself. I think I might start with the internal and then test it with external ideas. But this might be where Fe and Ti mix.


I don't start externally, it is just where I justify things. I have ideas through Ni, based on Se, and if I want to prove them correct or incorrect I look for external logic/evidence. Whereas, if I have values, it doesn't occur to me to prove them valid at all to myself or anyone else. I don't feel I need to. They are mine. I don't have to prove them to other people or to myself; they are a benchmark. I can try to rationalise and make sense of them but in the end they come from me and I don't care that the process is not transparent to anyone else. It isn't the point. I might, however, seek more information, examples, etc. to refine my understanding and application of said values, however.

I guess it depends on how you justify things externally. You said through testing it against ideas - to me that is still different to external logic. If I look outside is is rarely for ideas...they are sort of already inside in a way...I more look for evidence or logic. The way I understand Ti-Ne pairing (since I am more familiar with that) is that Ne will seek out other ideas/alternatives to test against the Ti logic - but it does not seek an external metric, and external standard. It just seeks data - the standard/justification/metric remains internal. Could something like that be the case with you?


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

delete............


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

This is a really nice thread.

Nice to have you back @lirulin. It's great to read your posts, you have a lot of great things to say and you say them well. 

@teddy564339 I've seen the broad vs deep described before for for introverted vs extroverted functions. I've also seen introverted vs extroverted compared to a breadth-first search and a depth-first search. Imagine a large collection of a bunch of presents, and say they were stacked in piles (and assuming each present was related to the one above and below it), a little like this: 


For a breadth-first search, the algorithm (or you) would look in all the presents in the top layer first, ie look at all the cases. In a depth-first search, you would open all the presents in one stack, starting at the top and working all the way down, ie consider one situation as far as it will go. 

@OwLY. It looks like I might have mixed a little bit of Te in with my Ni-Se description... I suppose Se is more just noticing all the details, and Te is wanting to have external standards by which to judge my ideas. lirulin described it much better two posts above this.


----------



## Metanoia (Nov 21, 2011)

I have to agree with the others; nice thread and this concept is very relateable to me. Being new to MBTI and Cognitive functions, in trying to educate myself, I've often come across either conflicting or seemingly overlapping/restated descriptions between the functions which are introverted vs extroverted, which makes it hard to decode which you preference and in which order. My mind thinks best with metaphors/connections, so to think of Fi as "deep" and Fe as "broad" resonates well with me. So thanks again, Teddy, for taking a chance and sharing your perspective. 

I'm also interesting in exploring/expanding this idea of 'deep vs broad' with the other functions, too. When you first said that Fi is feeling things DEEPLY, I said to myself, wait a minute... I think I feel things very deeply; I'm not shallow, and things can move me to the core and a lot of my feeling is 'buried', but then when you further quantified the 'deep' analogy by saying Fi users relate most to things that are personal to themselves, that made sense. Right now I think I'm an INFJ, so that means aux. Fe user, and I can more identify with having mutable/variable emotions, which makes it easy for me to identify with a BROAD range of people, not just people who I can identify with or I see as sharing my emotional perspective. It's a bit annoying, actually, to be an Fe user... and I see a lot of people on here saying "stay away" from Fe users because we're fake, liars or lemmings... but the indecision and 'muddiness' of having your feelings be so affected by others' aside, it can also be a great strength--namely, as you said, I find it very easy to identify with a wide audience. I really can empathize with people no matter the situation... it's like dressing yourself up in the emotional "clothing" of another person, so it helps you to relate to what they're feeling and provide better insight/comfort/support. To me, that's the strength of Fe. But I am still aware that it can be a weakness, so I try very hard with my Ni/Ti to keep myself in line, so I don't become fickle or lost in a sea of ever-shifting emotional states. For a LONG time (most of my adult life), I pretty much shut off my Feeling valve, because I couldn't really handle the instability of it... but being more mature/experienced now, I can use Ni/Ti to compartmentalize/rationalize emotions and decide if it's something I should be feeling/acting on or not. 

Just my personal two cents... I hope it contribute something to the whole of this theory.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

listentothemountains said:


> I've seen the broad vs deep described before for for introverted vs extroverted functions. I've also seen introverted vs extroverted compared to a breadth-first search and a depth-first search. Imagine a large collection of a bunch of presents, and say they were stacked in piles (and assuming each present was related to the one above and below it), a little like this:
> 
> For a breadth-first search, the algorithm (or you) would look in all the presents in the top layer first, ie look at all the cases. In a depth-first search, you would open all the presents in one stack, starting at the top and working all the way down, ie consider one situation as far as it will go.


Ha ha...you know, when I first thought of this topic, I thought of the words "deep" and "shallow". But I didn't like shallow, and what immediately popped into my mind were the words "depth" and "breadth". This is because I remembered how when I taught Discrete math, I taught my students about depth-first-search and breadth-first-search, and how they and I had trouble pronouncing the words "depth" and "breadth". 

But it is an interesting analogy. Just like how breadth-first-search and depth-first-search both produce spanning trees, but the kinds of spanning tress they produce serve different purposes. Neither one is better or worse than the other, but in some situations one is better suited than the other one. It's the same with the cognitive functions.



lirulin said:


> I guess it depends on how you justify things externally. You said through testing it against ideas - to me that is still different to external logic. If I look outside is is rarely for ideas...they are sort of already inside in a way...I more look for evidence or logic. The way I understand Ti-Ne pairing (since I am more familiar with that) is that Ne will seek out other ideas/alternatives to test against the Ti logic - but it does not seek an external metric, and external standard. It just seeks data - the standard/justification/metric remains internal. Could something like that be the case with you?


Yeah, I think that makes sense. I guess when I described my external logic, it was more a description of my Ti leading to my Ne, since I did say external ideas. The idea of having one external logical standard is confusing to me in some situations.

I mean, with things like science and math, which are very easy to measure, then I can very clearly see the objective logical standard. But I think those are more "S" based examples, with concrete verifiable data.

When we enter into the abstract world, I guess my Ti just tells me that a lot of times people can have opposite opinions about something logically and still be right. I tend to feel like there's not an objective standard for them both to reach.


I think part of it too is that because I have tertiary Ti, I don't always seek for the most logical answer first. I value logic, but it's not like it's a constant priority in my life. I think the relationships between people and the happiness they feel tends to be the first thing I look for, since I tend to place positive emotions above everything else. I guess I'm ok with two people believing they're both right as long as they appreciate and value each other. So I guess that's where the Fe and Ti come in...they can think what they want as long as they can get along with one another. 



So I think your description of an external standard or measure helps clarify the Te/Ti difference.


I feel like it's a little more complicated with Fe, though...because I don't know if I necessarily seek one external social measure. In general I'm ok with people having individual values and I think it's best if they're allowed to. But I think I'm probably more sensitive in terms of them getting on each other's nerves. So I think in that regard, I seek a social standard that allows them clear guidelines to follow so no one gets on anyone else's nerves more than anyone else. It's like I'm seeking balance and fairness.

So in that regard, I guess I do seek an external social standard. But the purpose is to try to help everyone equally.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> I feel like it's a little more complicated with Fe, though...because I don't know if I necessarily seek one external social measure. In general I'm ok with people having individual values and I think it's best if they're allowed to. But I think I'm probably more sensitive in terms of them getting on each other's nerves. So I think in that regard, I seek a social standard that allows them clear guidelines to follow so no one gets on anyone else's nerves more than anyone else. It's like I'm seeking balance and fairness.
> 
> So in that regard, I guess I do seek an external social standard. But the purpose is to try to help everyone equally.


I agree that seeking external standards doesn't equate to seeking *one* measure. Te-users seek external logical/empirical means of validating something, but they don't all agree with each other or think that everyone has to have the same opinions. They just look for proof/validation/evidence/justification along the same lines. I think with Fi/Ti there is more sense that there is one standard, since it is personal - one in the sense that each person has one of their own; many in the sense that _each_ person has one.

Both Te and Fe, I think, are also used, like you described, as a way to communicate/connect. To supplement your Fe example, I would say Te seeks common ground in terms of facts - we can have different opinions, but if there aren't basic facts and/or logical rules we agree on, like understanding the basic nature of the thing we have different opinions about, we simply talk past each other. It is completely non-functional. There has to be some level of acknowledgement of common reality so we have something to have an opinion _on_ - and Te seeks that commonality through impersonal objective measures rather than communal social measures. Ti-Fe is more, we need the basics of civility so everyone can express their opinion and conversation works; Te is more we need to know we are even talking about the same thing so conversation works. Both, through being external, are in principle open to anyone, though not always in practice. Does that make sense for you?


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Nice topic! There were a few clarifications/things I wanted to add, but it seems like the people who have replied have mentioned most of them. Excuse my slight lack of focus as I try and summarize.

Basically, Introverted functions rely on internal subjective experience/reasoning, whole Extroverted ones rely on external "objective" experience/reasoning. What that translates to:

*Perception*
Ni: Connection of ideas arising from within.
Ne: Connection of ideas related to external stimuli.
Si: Recreation of personal past experience.
Se: Immersion in current experience.
*Judging*
Ti: Logically consistent and precise to the user.
Te: Externally useful or measurable.
Fi: Personal value decisions.
Fe: Social and situational value decisions.

This is slightly rushed. Apologies for those functions I have a poor use of. I might come back later and fix this up.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

lirulin said:


> I agree that seeking external standards doesn't equate to seeking *one* measure. Te-users seek external logical/empirical means of validating something, but they don't all agree with each other or think that everyone has to have the same opinions. They just look for proof/validation/evidence/justification along the same lines. I think with Fi/Ti there is more sense that there is one standard, since it is personal - one in the sense that each person has one of their own; many in the sense that _each_ person has one.


Yeah, that makes sense now that I think about it. Sometimes I wonder how different Te users don't all reach the same conclusion...it amazes me to see two ENTJs disagree strongly about something. But I think what you're saying here explains that. Their thought process may be similar, but based on their experiences and past information they may reach different conclusions. 

I guess the same is true for Fe users. They can have different sets of values, but these may be based on their experiences. The difference from Fi users is that they may be more based on external situations and experiences. 



lirulin said:


> Both Te and Fe, I think, are also used, like you described, as a way to communicate/connect. To supplement your Fe example, I would say Te seeks common ground in terms of facts - we can have different opinions, but if there aren't basic facts and/or logical rules we agree on, like understanding the basic nature of the thing we have different opinions about, we simply talk past each other. It is completely non-functional. There has to be some level of acknowledgement of common reality so we have something to have an opinion _on_ - and Te seeks that commonality through impersonal objective measures rather than communal social measures. Ti-Fe is more, we need the basics of civility so everyone can express their opinion and conversation works; Te is more we need to know we are even talking about the same thing so conversation works. Both, through being external, are in principle open to anyone, though not always in practice. Does that make sense for you?


Yeah, I think this makes sense. It also explains why ISFJs often have trouble having discussions about logical topics. I think my problem with finding the Te common ground starting point that you mentioned is that I often don't know who or what to trust. My Si tells me that unless I can see it with my own eyes and have physical proof of it, then I don't know if I can take someone else's word for it. So I guess my Ti is saying that unless I can see it for myself and how it makes sense to me, I have trouble buying into it.

So when these logical discussions come up, it's really hard for me to find the starting place that's necessary for you.

For simple topics based on facts that everyone knows, this isn't hard. But for complex controversial ones, especially things like politics, I often don't know which facts to trust, or how to keep them all straight....because I don't have that Si personal proof. It's like my Ti is unsettled.


But the funny thing is this is why it's not as big of a deal talking about certain things with STJs for me. For example, me and my ESTJ friend like talking about work experiences, or sports. He can tell me about his work, and it's like I can trust what he's saying because it's the only facts available. Or with sports, since we both know the facts, we can talk about what's there. It's almost like my Ti personal understanding is aligning with his Te objective, visible set of facts. So the conversation is easy. 

But since we're both S's, we can talk forever about these kinds of things and not get bored. With an NTJ, they are looking to discuss more abstract topics, and I don't have the knowledge to even know where to start.

So I end up giving up on the topic because my Fe doesn't want us to disagree on it.



So I see what you're saying here, and it fits.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Se juggling in real life
Si juggling internally, as wide as you want with those concrete variables
Ne juggling abstract thoughts in real life, or even juggling thoughts that arent abstract, though this would be less N on the dichotomy
Ni doing the same within

When we juggle we can do so with 1 ball or many


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Pretty much.

Jung even said so himself, introversion seeks depth, extroversion strifes for broadening.


----------



## Magic Mirror (May 20, 2011)

Thank you Teddy for this thread! Your observation totally makes sense.

I think you hit the nail on the head here:



teddy564339 said:


> Se is really good at bouncing around between a lot of different sensory experiences. It can quickly adjust and adapt to new ones, so it's almost like it's focusing on a lot at once. Si, on the other hand, can only focus on one at a time. However, it does so in great detail, and it internalizes it in a much stronger way than Se does.


Yes! I have tertiary Si and can totally relate to this. I've noticed that while doing something sensory, I want to focus on one experience at a time and do so in depth. While experiencing something for the first time, I often have a feeling I'm missing out on something, that I'm not getting the most out of it because I don't know how to "ride" the experience.

To get the most out of the experience, I want to repeat it so I can get a "feel" of it. I enjoy repeating experiences because repetition helps me notice and savor all the nuances of it: what felt similar and what felt different compared to previous times, how could I do it better, what could I change, etc. Depth, definitely.

I've also noticed that new sensory experiences, even those I enjoy, often stress me out because I'm horribly bad at adapting to quickly changing situations and reacting to unfamiliar sensory stimuli. I feel anxious, unsure of myself, and disconnected from the experience. Is this a tertiary Si thing, is it because I'm just physically awkward sometimes, or do you Si-doms feel the same?




> I have no idea how this would work for Ni and Ne though. That's what I get for having inferior Ne.


I'll give it a try but I'm horribly bad at explaining iNtuition, especially introverted one. But I guess it's basically the same thing as you described with Se and Si, except in this case we're dealing with ideas, patterns, symbols and connections, instead of sensory experiences.

Ne is good at bouncing around in a world of connections and ideas. Unlike Se, Ne doesn't pay much attention to physical details but it quickly notices the _patterns_ and _connections_ between those details and comes up with many _possible_ connections. To make out the big picture, Ne feeds on external stimuli but doesn't need to explore them in depth. Ne is quick to adjust and adapt to new ideas and possibilities, so it's almost like it's focusing on many ideas at once.

Ni, on the other hand, only focuses on one idea at a time, so it may not be as quick to explore and adapt to new ideas. However, while focusing on the single idea, Ni does so in great detail, looking at it from every possible (and a few impossible) point of view. Unlike Ne, Ni isn't looking for connections to other ideas, it's looking for different ways to _interpret_ the single idea. Ni is better at _internalizing_ the idea, connecting it with a storehouse of personal impressions, ideas and symbols.


Ni users, please feel free to correct me if I'm way off here... and Ne users too!


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

This idea thrown around that Ti does not care about external measurements is stupid. T cares about truth. Truth is reality, or the external world. Without an external world there is no purpose for thinking at all. So of course Ti cares about the external world. It just is oriented more toward the unmeasureable and unarticulable.



Psychological Types said:


> External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so
> appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it *may undertake the widest flights into the*
> *territory of the real and the actual*. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views
> rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up
> ...


Basically, Ti is more goal-oriented (because idea-goals are unmeasurable), whereas Te is strictly empirical.


And Magic Mirror's explanation of Ni sounds pretty good. But another point about Ni that relates to your breadth versus depth idea is that Ne tends to consider all the different possibilities in a situation, whereas Ni magically has a tendency to pinpoint which ones are most likely to be true and focus more thoroughly on those. So Ne might be inclined to see five different options and think three steps down each one, whereas Ni might see one or two options and go ten steps down under the assumption that those paths will actually occur.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

> *External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear.* It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may undertake the widest flights into the
> territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up
> prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. *Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for
> their own sake.* Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. *For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.*


To me, this provides _more_ evidence that Ti is subjective and internal. It studies an subject internally.

Te would collect facts for their own sake because for Te facts are the truth.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Owfin said:


> Te would collect facts for their own sake because for Te facts are the truth.


Yes, they are truth, but as the op says they are a shallow truth. Ti would study the facts primarily for the purpose of finding a deeper truth to them, of which the facts are only symptoms or evidence.


----------



## Magic Mirror (May 20, 2011)

Owfin said:


> Te would collect facts for their own sake because for Te facts are the truth.





Obsidian said:


> Yes, they are truth, but as the op says they are a shallow truth. Ti would study the facts primarily for the purpose of finding a deeper truth to them, of which the facts are only symptoms or evidence.


I agree with both of you. Yes, I think Te would more readily accept the facts _as they are_ while Ti would first compare the facts against an _internal logical framework_ to see if they're true or not. The integrity of the internal framework is more important than the facts themselves; therefore, facts are mere symptoms or evidence of truth.

If the facts fit the internal framework, they will be accepted. If they don't, Ti will either discard the facts or change the internal framework so the new facts will logically fit in.

Changing the internal framework would mean changing Ti's idea of "truth", so sometimes it's easier to simply discard a fact instead of changing the framework. Of course, if there's a lot of data that suggests the framework needs to be changed, it will be done and the Ti user might say he's "gained a deeper understanding" or "discovered a new truth".

For Te, it's more about the facts themselves, there's no need to go through a tedious internal process like this. Facts speak for themselves. Therefore, Te will quickly sift through a lot of facts and form a conclusion about truth based on the facts collected (breadth) while Ti needs to more slowly and carefully examine the facts, one fact at a time (depth).


I suppose it's the same with Fe and Fi, except they're dealing with value judgements. Just like Ti, Fi will have an internal framework of what's valuable, and compare new facts against the internal value system. If they fit the system, they're valuable; if they don't, Fi will either discard them as wrong or go through an internal process of altering its value system.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> Yes, they are truth, but as the op says they are a shallow truth. Ti would study the facts primarily for the purpose of finding a deeper truth to them, of which the facts are only symptoms or evidence.


Objectively, yes, Te is shallower than Ti. But Te, of course, doesn't think it is shallow. It thinks that facts = truth, and that's that. Ti would be bewildered by this, I imagine.


----------



## Magic Mirror (May 20, 2011)

Owfin said:


> Objectively, yes, Te is shallower than Ti. But Te, of course, doesn't think it is shallow. It thinks that facts = truth, and that's that. Ti would be bewildered by this, I imagine.


 Bah. If the word "shallow" didn't have so many negative connotations, Te would have no trouble admitting it's shallow.

Sometimes it's good to be "shallow". If you're too deep, you'll focus on your inner world only, until your brain implodes and your personality turns into a black hole.

Of course, if you're _too_ shallow, you'll be expanding into the outer world so rapidly your brain explodes and your personality gets shattered into a million pieces.

Maybe this is why we all have two "shallow" functions and two "deep" ones. :tongue:


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

I was thinking of it more like Te doesn't choose to not look deeper. Te honestly thinks the facts are all there are. Te doesn't "know" that Te could be shallow.


----------



## Magic Mirror (May 20, 2011)

Owfin said:


> I was thinking of it more like Te doesn't choose to not look deeper. Te honestly thinks the facts are all there are. Te doesn't "know" that Te could be shallow.


 Yeah, I get what you're saying, I was just trying to be semi-humorous while following an idea your comment triggered in me. I blame it on my Ne going on tangents again. :tongue:

So yes, I agree Ti might consider Te "shallow" or even "ignorant" while Te might consider Ti "over-analyzing" or "nitpicky".

In the same manner, Fi might consider Fe and its source of values "shallow" while Fe would consider Fi "selfish".


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Magic Mirror said:


> I agree with both of you. Yes, I think Te would more readily accept the facts _as they are_ while Ti would first compare the facts against an _internal logical framework_ to see if they're true or not. The integrity of the internal framework is more important than the facts themselves; therefore, facts are mere symptoms or evidence of truth.
> 
> If the facts fit the internal framework, they will be accepted. If they don't, Ti will either discard the facts or change the internal framework so the new facts will logically fit in.
> 
> ...




Ah, so I think this kind of adds another piece to the puzzle for me.



It's not just that introverted functions are deeper....it's that they're subjective in choosing *which* topics or information or whatever that they go deeply into. They block out things that aren't important to them and focus on the ones that are.


Si focuses on deep personal experiences that the user has a reason to internalize.

Fi focuses on values that are important to the user.

Ti very logically examines ideas....but only ones that serve the goals of the user. A Ti user doesn't just look for facts for the sake of facts...they discard the ones that don't serve their own goals.

(This is why ISTPs are the "mechanics". They focus on what's in front of them and logically fit together the details. INTPs have Ne to help them look at a lot of possibilities, but they only dive in logically into the ones that they like).


And someone gave the Ni description earlier but I can't repeat it right now.




Extroverted functions, on the other hand, just value information for the sake of having the information. They just naturally have a drive to look for everything, not just what's of particular value to the user. Everything is of value to the user.

This is why Se looks to experience as much as it can, Ne looks at as many different possibilities at it can, Te places value on every single possible fact (that's where the external measure comes in), and Fe considers the value of all different kinds of social feelings.


----------



## Magic Mirror (May 20, 2011)

teddy564339 said:


> It's not just that introverted functions are deeper....it's that they're subjective in choosing *which* topics or information or whatever that they go deeply into. They block out things that aren't important to them and focus on the ones that are.
> 
> --
> 
> Extroverted functions, on the other hand, just value information for the sake of having the information. They just naturally have a drive to look for everything, not just what's of particular value to the user. Everything is of value to the user.


 I wanted to quote your entire post and shout YES! but it would be pointless to quote so much so I simply took your main points. Thank you for wording your understanding in such a concise, elegant way - I think you just nailed the essence of why Jung called the introverted processes _subjective_ and extraverted processes _objective_.

After this discussion, I guess I finally understand why we introverted types need our time alone: it takes _time_ to internalize our experiences. When external stimuli are bombarding us more quickly than we can internalize, we need to _withdraw_ from the outer world until everything is internalized. After that, we're ready to accept new stimuli again. We form our understanding or perception of the world based on the _quality_ of data.

Extroverts, on the other hand, base their understanding or perception of the world on the _quantity_ of data: the more data there is, the better is their understanding or perception of the world. Therefore, they need a lot of stimuli.


----------



## Stanley309 (Dec 22, 2011)

Ne bredth vs. NI depth (beside what was said): 

Me and an ENTJ friend compared how our intuition works when playing chess. I see possibilities, potential weakness of his positioning and get little ideas the whole time, lets say maybe every 5 minutes... Well, I get all that little intuitions, but I have to prove their plausibility - my problem is, that my spatial sense lacks, so to do well I would have to move his and mine figures on my own, to reconstruct artificially the develepoment of our game. Since this isnt allowed, my spatial sense just allows me to foresee maybe the next 2-4 steps perfectly - I could imagine me playing really good chess without this handicap. 


The spatial sense of my ENTJ friend is pretty well developed and he got way more experience than me - when we play against each other, he likes to play more relaxed and isnt much motivated, without much intuition. But sometimes, he told me, when he plays against his father or a really good older opponent and gain a strong will to win, a intuitive insight happens, which is more like a bigger "package" -> he knows exactly what he got to do the next 8-10 steps. "When I get an intuition, my opponent has lost usually", to quote him XD 

A Ni-intuition doenst happen often, but when it happens, it includes and considers more than a Ne-intuition.


----------

