# Perception vs Judgment Function



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

n2freedom said:


> Carl Jung developed the theory of cognitive processes in his work _"Psychological Types"_. He used the terms dominant, auxiliary, and inferior.


You are being intellectually dishonest here. One may think that you have read Jung's _"Psychological Types"_ book, yet you have copy paste that line from Wikipedia. You have also hide the next line.



> Carl Jung developed the theory of cognitive processes in his work _"Psychological Types"_. He used the terms dominant, auxiliary, and inferior.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In another site it is also said:


> *Jung implied the existence of differences in how functions are used, but didn’t provide a method to establish the differences. *
> 
> Myers (I. B. Myers, 1962; I. B. Myers & McCaulley, 1985; I. B. Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998) developed the first method by recognizing the behavioral consequences. This is where the J-P dichotomy comes in.
> 
> ...


 Jung did _suggest _the theory of dominant, auxiliary, and inferior function. Yet he _did not_ use it in his 8 personality types theory.


Furthermore, I'd like to point out our original argument. You previously said that:


> I *don't think* Jung's reference to rational/irrational are to be *applied to types but to functions*.


I then argued that:


> The 'Rational' and 'Irrational' category is *not only applied for functions, but also types*.


You gave your argument and said:


> I still submit the argument that the subject of rational/irrational in Jung's theory refer to judging (thinking/feeling) vs perceiving (intuition/sensing) *functions*.


When I said I disagree with you, you belittling my knowledge by saying:


> You're entitled. * Reading is fundamental.* When you provide me with information that clearly states otherwise I would be glad to read it. * I believe as you continue to research information on this topic, you will find more evidence that this is indeed what Jung was communicating in his work.*


After I gave my evidence that shows that the subject of rational/irrational in Jung's theory refers to judging (thinking/feeling) vs perceiving (intuition/sensing) *functions AND types*:


> Jung made 8 personality types.
> *Rational (Je-Ji dom)*: Extraverted Thinking, Introverted Thinking, Extraverted Feeling, Introverted Feeling.
> *Irrational (Pe-Pi dom)*: Extraverted Sensation, Introverted Sensation, Extraverted Intuition, Introverted Intuition.


You then said:


n2freedom said:


> Agreed. *However *Jung *did *have four functions which his eight personality types were derived.


Since when I ever said that Jung *did not* have four functions?

Not only you have been incorrect in your first assumption about Jung's rational/irrational types, you have also belittling my knowledge (which I then proved that your assumption of me was wrong) and you are also arguing about things which wasn't my point of argument in the first place.

Pardon me, but I do not understand the 'competition aura' you have presented here. You've changed a light argument into unnecessary 'competition of intelligence', in which I have no desire to participate.


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

As far as the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, please read again


n2freedom said:


> *From Jungian cognitive functions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> *Carl Jung*
> 
> Carl Jung developed the theory of cognitive processes in his work _"Psychological Types"_. He used the terms dominant, auxiliary, and inferior.


 And, I did not see the need to include the next paragraph since I included the information to address when you said:


WickedQueen said:


> “Jung did not made auxiliary, tertiary, or fourth function.”


 I apologize for my belittling statement.

As far as the original argument:



WickedQueen said:


> So Jung divided the types to be Rational (EJ & IP) and Irrational (EP & IJ)


Please direct me to the original source for me to read. Thanks.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

n2freedom said:


> As far as the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, please read again
> And, I did not see the need to include the next paragraph since I included the information to address when you said:


The next paragraph -and the image- shows that Jung *did not* made auxiliary, tertiary, nor inferior function *on his 8 personality types* (although he _suggested the idea_ in his book). This validates my statement. By not including the next paragraph and the image, you make it seems like my statement was wrong.



n2freedom said:


> As far as the original argument:
> 
> Please direct me to the original source for me to read. Thanks.


If you really read the flow of conversation, it's obvious that my statement -which you quoted- was a conclusion from what Naama had explained to me. I stated that to emphasize my understanding of his explanation, so he can correct me if I'm wrong.

But if you insist of asking for a reference...


> The four functions and the two attitudes combine to create eight distinct personality types: extroverted-thinking, introverted-thinking, extroverted-feeling, introverted-feeling, extroverted-sensing, introverted-sensing, extroverted-intuitive, and introverted-intuitive.
> 
> Source: Carl Jung Defined - Psychology Glossary


Jung made 8 personality types.
*Rational (Je-Ji dom):* Extraverted Thinking, Introverted Thinking, Extraverted Feeling, Introverted Feeling.
*Irrational (Pe-Pi dom):* Extraverted Sensation, Introverted Sensation, Extraverted Intuition, Introverted Intuition.

In MBTI, Rational (Je-Ji dom) types includes EJ and IP, while Irrational (Pe-Pi dom) types includes EP and IJ.

Also, it's weird that you bring up that particular post _right now_, but didn't mention that _before _in your previous argument. It's like you're trying to nit-picking my posts to find a new argument which can validate your opinion no matter what.

I was simply disagreeing with you.


WickedQueen said:


> And I disagree.


 It was you who kept insisting that you're right, and even belittling me for disagreeing with you. It was you who refuse to 'agree to disagree'. It's your own problem. Do not throw it on me and turn it into unnecessary competition, I do not accept.


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Thanks for the reference. I read it. We will definitely agree to disagree.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

When Carl Jung proposed the types, he only proposed 8 types, each defined by their primary function (he did not include an auxiliary function). He described only the nature of the 8 functions in terms of types. Therefore the "irrational" functions were called the "irrational" types.
What does it mean to be an "irrational" type? 
Well, rational types (those with a dominant judging function) are likely to be more decisive, display an air of certainty and confidence in their decisions. Also, rational types are more likely to keep plugging away at something even if it isn't working. 
Einstein (an irrational type with Ne primary--INTP) made an observation of judging primary types from the "irrational" type perspective: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."
Judging function primary users or the so-called "rational" types, are likely to keep plugging away at things even if it isn't bringing them as much success or happiness as they would like. An ESTJ friend of mine has been working the same job for over 10 years, and just keeps doing it, day after day, just because he can't irrationally force himself to look for something new. Why would he? He's comfortable, he makes money, he has what he wants (not everything) but he's too rational to think to change it. 
But, on the other hand, perceiver primary users or the "irrational" types are so exploratory in their nature they might forget to buckle down long enough to get anywhere. How often have we read about the ENFP who switches career directions, or expresses fear about becoming a "grown up" (essentially akin to living out the boring life of my ESTJ friend I just mentioned--don't get me wrong, I love him to pieces but I'm glad that's not my life). 
Perceivers are irrational.
Judgers are rational. 
Perceivers have difficulty staying on one task for the rest of their lives. 
Judgers can get stuck in ruts. 
But of course, there are perceivers who get stuck in ruts and there are judgers who can't buckle down so this is only the "trend" caused by a lopsided ego stance (i.e. a judger who needs to cultivate his perceiving function or perceiver who needs to cultivate his judging function).


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

n2freedom said:


> What is there to get about me? We were discussing your ideas for understanding not me. You created a thread and stated correct me if I'm wrong....I view that as an invitation to discuss your ideas. I don't have a problem apologizing when I'm wrong.
> 
> I apologize here. I was incorrect. I misread your post. Premise was the statement of functions used by xNFP and XSTJ. Argument was everything you stated following for example. Arguing means to give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.
> 
> ...


fort both of you, jung had 16 types, when you count the variation of aux in it, 8 sort of like main types(based on just first function). INTP in jungs terms is introverted thinking type with intuition, ISTP being introverted thinking type with sensation. both introverted thinking types, but different variants of it.

while there was 4 functions basically, for example intuition with introverted orientation(Ni) was considered a different function from intuition with extraverted orientation. so imo its not wrong to talk about 4 or 8 functions, same sort of thing than with 8 vs 16 types, but variant replaced with orientation of function.

also jung did talk about tert function and it working as transcendent function, its not just mentioned in the book psychological types much and wiki page sucks. also aux function by jung can be both second and third, that seems to create alot of confusion about this



http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/t/#tertium said:


> *Tertium non datur*
> The reconciling "third," not logically foreseeable, characteristic of a resolution in a conflict situation when the tension between opposites has been held in consciousness. (See also transcendent function.)
> 
> 
> "As a rule it occurs when the analysis has constellated the opposites so powerfully that a union or synthesis of the personality becomes an imperative necessity. . . . [This situation] requires a real solution and necessitates a third thing in which the opposites can unite. Here the logic of the intellect usually fails, for in a logical antithesis there is no third. The "solvent" can only be of an irrational nature. In nature the resolution of opposites is always an energic process: she acts symbolically in the truest sense of the word, doing something that expresses both sides, just as a waterfall visibly mediates between above and below.["The Conjunction," CW 14, par. 705.]"





> *Transcendent function *
> A psychic function that arises from the tension between consciousness and the unconscious and supports their union. (See also opposites and tertium non datur.)
> 
> 
> ...


oh and the irrational/rational thing goes to both type and function:



http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm said:


> 5. Recapitulation of *Extraverted Rational Types*(ENTJ, ESTJ, ESFJ and ENFJ in MBTI terms)
> 
> I term the two preceding types rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and the judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a [p. 453] large extent, subordinated to reasoning judgment. But we must not overlook the point, whether by 'reasoning' we are referring to the standpoint of the individual's subjective psychology, or to the standpoint of the observer, who perceives and judges from without. For such an observer could easily arrive at an opposite judgment, especially if he has a merely intuitive apprehension of the behaviour of the observed, and judges accordingly. In its totality, the life of this type is never dependent upon reasoning judgment alone; it is influenced in almost equal degree by unconscious irrationality. If observation is restricted to behaviour, without any concern for the domestic interior of the individual's consciousness, one may get an even stronger impression of the irrational and accidental character of certain unconscious manifestations in the individual's behaviour than of the reasonableness of his conscious purposes and motivations. I, therefore, base my judgment upon what the individual feels to be his conscious psychology. But I am prepared to grant that we may equally well entertain a precisely opposite conception of such a psychology, and present it accordingly. I am also convinced that, had I myself chanced to possess a different individual psychology, I should have described the rational types in the reversed way, from the standpoint of the unconscious-as irrational, therefore. This circumstance aggravates the difficulty of a lucid presentation of psychological matters to a degree not to be underestimated, and immeasurably increases the possibility of misunderstandings. The discussions which develop from these misunderstandings are, as a rule, quite hopeless, since the real issue is never joined, each side speaking, as it were, in a different tongue. Such experience is merely one reason the more for basing my presentation upon the subjective conscious psychology of the individual, since there, at least, one has a definite objective footing, which completely [p. 454] drops away the moment we try to ground psychological principles upon the unconscious. For the observed, in this case, could undertake no kind of co-operation, because there is nothing of which he is not more informed than his own unconscious. The judgment would entirely devolve upon the observer -- a certain guarantee that its basis would be his own individual psychology, which would infallibly be imposed upon the observed. To my mind, this is the case in the psychologies both of Freud and of Adler. The individual is completely at the mercy of the arbitrary discretion of his observing critic -- which can never be the case when the conscious psychology of the observed is accepted as the basis. After all, he is the only competent judge, since he alone knows his own motives.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

@WickedQueen it's so weird, that link to the definition of Carl Jung says: "Sensation and intuition are non-rational functions by which we perceive the world - either through our sense organs (sensation), or by means of an unconscious process (intuition)."

What's weird about that is that, Ne being my primary function means my primary function of my consciousness is an unconscious process. 
Hahaha.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Here's how I know my (yes, ENFP) brain works: 

Si is the beginning: I pull in all the details and I'm not even aware of which details I'm pulling in until asked/questioned. 
(how do I know that I'm pulling in all these details? When asked, "Why...?" I have a whole bunch of sources, names, books, details, quips, quotes, etc. that I didn't even realize I was working from.)
From here, I go to Ne-Fi. 
Fi sorts the emotional data: "What is this person feeling? Why? What does he/she want? What did I do that frustrated him/her? What do I want? How does that pertain to me? etc." 
Ne says: "Well, it could be: ....X, X+1, X+2...X+N. If X, I should do Y. If X+1, I should do Y+1...etc."
But inevitably what happens is Te, decides to test what it is that is going on: 
If I do X, and Y happens, I can narrow down the possibilities to 1, 2, and N." 
Te acts. 
Si-->Ne-Fi observe. 
Te narrows it down again and so on. 

Also, Si -->Ne-Fi observe/think out loud/type this message. Te asks: "Is this useful?"
And I'm not sure it is. I'm going to find a way to make it useful. 

So, WickedQueen, knowing that my functions go: 
Ne primary
Fi aux.
Te tert.
Si last 

I'll try to make a chart for yours, too. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just proposing what I think based on a bunch of stuff (you know my unconscious gathering of details and such)

ESTJ
Te primary
Si aux.
Ne tert.
Fi last

So then, first you take in information through Fi (values and ethics) without even realizing it, you then use whether or not something jives with your value system and make an Te claim: "That's incompetent." "I disagree." "I won't that would be ineffective." 
But see, the Fi value is implied: "It isn't worth my time and effort, to waste my time would be a disservice to myself."
And I'm sure you could grow to explain that just as I have to sometimes explain all the details that go into my Ne arguments. 
Okay so you use Te to explain why it can or cannot be done. Your mind sees all the details as to why it is incorrect/cannot be done. Then, you take it to Ne to see "_But_ we could do this instead."
Is that right? 
Idk. I'm not an ESTJ. I can't read your mind!


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Cant wait to read this thread. Been gone for a few days. Gosh this looks like a good read. Cant wait.


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Naama said:


> oh and the irrational/rational thing goes to both type and function:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by *Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10*
> ...


Thanks for the additional information. Would this be a direct reflection of MBTI rational/irrational categorization of personality types or Jung's?

My confusion still lies in categorizing personality types as rational/irrational. I have found countless references to rational/irrational functions for Jung's work. And, I'm having even a harder time wrapping my brain around that concept of categorizing a personality type as rational/irrational after reading this excerpt from website:personality styles, types, theories and psychometrics models, personality tests and quizzes theory



> *jung's eight psychological types*
> 
> This all leads us to Jung's eight major 'Psychological Types', which as already explained Jung constructed by adding one or other of the *introversion* or *extraversion* 'general attitude types' to each of the possible *four* *superior functions* described above.
> Logically this produces eight main psychological types. *The eight psychological types do not include 'auxiliary' functions and as such do not represent full personalities in themselves.* The 'type characteristics' below are generally applicable keywords - they are not absolutes or exclusive. Interpretations can vary a lot - it impossible to summarise a personality type that encompasses millions of variations within it in just a few words, although hopefully the matrix helps to convey some sense of the collective and comparative types within the model. Fuller descriptions are available on specialised resources, for instance at Dr Robert Winer's excellent website Winer Foundation -- Robert Winer, M.D. Neurology, Psychiatry, Psychopharmacology, Neuropsychiatry, Psychoanalysis,and Psychotherapy in Philadelphia Pennsylvania (PA). Some commentators and resources suggest 'job examples' for the different types, and some also suggest examples of famous people falling into each type, although stereotypical 'typing' guesswork of this sort can be misleading if taken at all seriously. Remember again that these eight main types are not the 'whole person' - people comprise a least one other functional preference, plus unconscious balancing functions, all to varying degrees, all of which which produce personality types that are much more complex than the basic eight main types shown here.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

n2freedom said:


> My confusion still lies in categorizing personality types as rational/irrational. I have found countless references to rational/irrational functions for Jung's work. And, I'm having even a harder time wrapping my brain around that concept of categorizing a personality type as rational/irrational after reading this excerpt from website:personality styles, types, theories and psychometrics models, personality tests and quizzes theory


I have a number of theories about why you are having difficulty in declaring types as rational/irrational: 
-you don't like that your type is "irrational"
-you are assuming that by the label "irrational" type indicates that a person who has an "irrational" type would be irrational
-Unknown third possibility

If either of the first two possibilities are true, I would like to point out that just because someone is labeled as having an "irrational" type does not make the person irrational. 
In fact, Jung said that Ne primary users, while exhibiting some psychological problems, were the only type not susceptible to severe psychotic breakdowns. How he came to this conclusion was based on case studies. The only Ne primary users that came to see him did so of their own volition purely out of their own curiosity sparked by self-reflection.


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

marzipan01 said:


> I have a number of theories about why you are having difficulty in declaring types as rational/irrational:
> -you don't like that your type is "irrational"
> -you are assuming that by the label "irrational" type indicates that a person who has an "irrational" type would be irrational
> -Unknown third possibility
> ...


- I don't have a problem with the term irrational used by Jung. And, I have found adequate information concerning grouping functions as rational/irrational. I am still seeking information that supports that Jung also grouped personality types into the category of rational/irrational.
- Nope. I know Jung's meaning of irrational is not to be construed as "illogical" and/or "inferior".
- Unknown third possibility..... Looking for information to support that Jung subdivided personality types into rational/irrational.

Thanks for the extra information Ne.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

n2freedom said:


> - I don't have a problem with the term irrational used by Jung. And, I have found adequate information concerning grouping functions as rational/irrational. I am still seeking information that supports that Jung also grouped personality types into the category of rational/irrational.
> - Nope. I know Jung's meaning of irrational is not to be construed as "illogical" and/or "inferior".
> - Unknown third possibility..... Looking for information to support that Jung subdivided personality types into rational/irrational.
> 
> Thanks for the extra information Ne.


I know for certain I read it in _The Portable Jung_ edited by Joseph Campbell in the section devoted to the psychological types. I remember because he didn't explain why he used that term. He just did. 
He classified judging function primaries as rational.
I think it's nicer than calling them judgers. 
And I think we perceiving types are more curious about the term rather than offended. So, I think it was a political classification.


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

marzipan01 said:


> I know for certain I read it in _The Portable Jung_ edited by Joseph Campbell in the section devoted to the psychological types. I remember because he didn't explain why he used that term. He just did.
> He classified judging function primaries as rational.
> I think it's nicer than calling them judgers.
> And I think we perceiving types are more curious about the term rather than offended. So, I think it was a political classification.


Thanks @marzipan01.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

n2freedom said:


> I am still seeking information that supports that Jung also grouped personality types into the category of rational/irrational.


that quote about extraverted rational type was from jungs book 'psychological types'. what more do you need? i mean it clearly says extraverted rational *type*, there is also description for Te type, Te function, Fe type, Fe function, Se type, Se function, Si type, Si function, Ne type, Ni function, Fi type, Fi function, Ti type, Ti function. introverted rational types, introverted irrational types and extraverted irrational type. extraverted types(+ general attitude of conscious and general attitude of unconscious), introverted types(+ general attitude of conscious and general attitude of unconscious). and some explanation for principal(dom) and aux functions. third function came in with his later works, that book was at quite start of his career(or actually what skyrocketed his fame)

here is the link again Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Thanks @Naama.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

marzipan01 said:


> @_WickedQueen_ it's so weird, that link to the definition of Carl Jung says: "Sensation and intuition are non-rational functions by which we perceive the world - either through our sense organs (sensation), or by means of an unconscious process (intuition)."
> 
> What's weird about that is that, Ne being my primary function means my primary function of my consciousness is an unconscious process.
> Hahaha.


LOL. I think the writer was failed to find a word synonym with 'no-sense', as the opposite word for 'sense organs'.



marzipan01 said:


> I'll try to make a chart for yours, too. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just proposing what I think based on a bunch of stuff (you know my unconscious gathering of details and such)
> 
> ESTJ
> Te primary
> ...


Well firstly, Fi is a Judging function to _analyze the data_, not to _take information_ (that would be Si-Ne).

For example, imagine that I'm in a situation where I'm talking to someone.

My Ne absorb information about the person I'm talking to. Ne observe his words, his body language, his respond to my reaction, etc.
Ne: "Okay. So this person say such and such. He did such and such. He reacted such and such."

My Si then processing the external information from Ne and correlate them with Si's long term stored information.
Si: "So his words shows pattern A, his body language shows pattern B, and his reaction shows pattern C."

My Te and Fi analyze the data from Ne and Si.

Te analyzes the facts.
Te: "Hmm... there are some inconsistencies with his patterns."

Fi analyzes the values.
Fi: "Hmm... this person is lieing. He's a bad person."

My Ne then tried to find the hidden meaning of why this person is lieing and looking for every possible answers, while my Si tried to balance Ne by correlating the Ne's possibilities with reality-check-based-on past experiences. 

Since my Te is the dominant function, it decided what to do based on the objective facts.
Te: "So far he shows inconsistency and un-matched patterns, which is an indicator of dishonesty. I shall not trust him. There are some realistic reasons of why he did that. However, until we find enough reliable facts to refute his words and to prove that he's indeed lieing, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and treat him with respect."


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

From @_Naama_ 's post:

Originally Posted by *Lexicon of Jungian Terms | New York Association for Analytical Psychology* 
*Empathy *
An introjection of the object, based on the unconscious projection of subjective contents.

"Empathy presupposes a subjective attitude of confidence, or trustfulness towards the object. It is a readiness to meet the object halfway, a subjective assimilation that brings about a good understanding between subject and object, or at least simulates it. ["The Type Problem in Aesthetics," CW 6, par. 489.]"

In contrast to abstraction, associated with introversion, empathy corresponds to the attitude of extraversion.

"The man with the empathetic attitude finds himself . . . in a world that needs his subjective feeling to give it life and soul. He animates it with himself. [ Ibid., par. 492.]"










Originally Posted by *Lexicon of Jungian Terms | New York Association for Analytical Psychology* 
*Abstraction* 
A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, similar to the process of differentiation. (Compare empathy.)

"Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions in general. There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values . . . . Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation, and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 678.]"

Jung related abstraction to introversion (analogous to empathy and extraversion).

"I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido.[Ibid., par. 679.]"

To the extent that its purpose is to break the object’s hold on the subject, abstraction is an attempt to rise above the primitive state of participation mystique.

----------------------------
*Ok. I'm having trouble seeing abstraction as introverting. I can undestand it being introverting away from the object, but in that respect, i could extravert away from the object unto another object as well.*

*This leads me to think we can both employ empathy and abstraction at the same time.*

*I'd like to discuss and understand this further. *


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Souled In said:


> *Ok. I'm having trouble seeing abstraction as introverting. I can undestand it being introverting away from the object, but in that respect, i could extravert away from the object unto another object as well.*
> 
> *This leads me to think we can both employ empathy and abstraction at the same time.*
> 
> *I'd like to discuss and understand this further. *


Fi abstracting would be Fi taking irrelevant out of what is perceived based on the Fi judging something as valuable, what is not valuable enough is left out, this leaving out things that are not valuable to given situation is the process of abstraction. its introverting only what is seen as relevant, taking irrelevant out of what is perceived. its perception minus irrelevant, instead of taking in everything, taking in what is perceived without abstracting it is called concrete.

empathizing is sort of like projection of internal things onto something in external world. putting what is inside onto some outside objects. i think the TAT test picture i used as an example earlier explains it perfectly.



Naama said:


> for example when you look at this picture, what do you think led to this, what is happening, why etc etc?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and yes, they can be both used pretty much the same time or on same thing fast, without you being able to tell them as different thoughts, because people arent aware of things happening fast in the brains.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

WickedQueen said:


> LOL. I think the writer was failed to find a word synonym with 'no-sense', as the opposite word for 'sense organs'.


I could definitely see that! lmao. 



> Well firstly, Fi is a Judging function to _analyze the data_, not to _take information_ (that would be Si-Ne).
> 
> For example, imagine that I'm in a situation where I'm talking to someone.
> 
> ...


So then, wow, is the difference between judger and perceiver just that perceivers linger the perception stages longer?


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Naama said:


> Fi abstracting would be Fi taking irrelevant out of what is perceived based on the Fi judging something as valuable, what is not valuable enough is left out, this leaving out things that are not valuable to given situation is the process of abstraction. its introverting only what is seen as relevant, taking irrelevant out of what is perceived. its perception minus irrelevant, instead of taking in everything, taking in what is perceived without abstracting it is called concrete.
> 
> empathizing is sort of like projection of internal things onto something in external world. putting what is inside onto some outside objects. i think the TAT test picture i used as an example earlier explains it perfectly.
> 
> and yes, they can be both used pretty much the same time or on same thing fast, without you being able to tell them as different thoughts, because people arent aware of things happening fast in the brains.


Interesting. When I read "withdrawal of libido from the object" I associated that with a process of "identifying or not" with the object, in a T vs. F sort of way.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Abstracting is detaching from and analyzing in my reading of it. That's the purpose of the introverted functions. You may decide to reattach after the analysis (abstracting) or not.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

saffron said:


> Abstracting is detaching from and analyzing in my reading of it. That's the purpose of the introverted functions. You may decide to reattach after the analysis (abstracting) or not.


K, but when you detach from one thing, you are attaching to another, so therefore you can only say you are in one of those particular processes in reference to a certain object.

When we talk about ourselves as the object or subject, those meanings become much more muddled haha.

Oh by the way.

WOOOOOOOOOOOT!


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

When I say detaching it's more of letting go of an expectation or initial connection/observation and looking at the merit of the object more critically. But yes, you move from one process to the next. 

And I agree that if we are incredibly muddled in all regards concerning ourselves.  

Wooohoooo!


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

saffron said:


> When I say detaching it's more of letting go of an expectation or initial connection/observation and looking at the merit of the object more critically. But yes, you move from one process to the next.
> 
> And I agree that if we are incredibly muddled in all regards concerning ourselves.
> 
> Wooohoooo!


I got ya, I guess. However, when we look at an object critically, we could at the same time be identifying with the process of looking at the object critically, and therefore be attaching to our own subjective identity I at the same time as E interacting with the object in a critical manner. T

*Does back flip


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Yes, endless layers of possibility and angles for sure, none of which can be discounted.

*Intentionally sloppy cartwheel with commitment and enthusiasm*


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

saffron said:


> Yes, endless layers of possibility and angles for sure, none of which can be discounted.
> 
> *Intentionally sloppy cartwheel with commitment and enthusiasm*


*Mimicks Tiger and attacks television visciously tearing it apart into endless layers mwahahahaha.

Lol. Just for illustration purposes of course 

See work and study should be just exactly like a playground.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

*bear rips off tiger's head then spills out all innards and tap dances over them before leaving them to rot and be consumed by the flies and vultures* I mean, metaphorically. 

Anyways, no more hijacking of this thread for absurd humor, I apologize. Back to topic.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

> My Te and *Si* analyze the data from Ne and Si.


Blargh. I meant "My Te and *Fi*". Sorry. I have edited that.



marzipan01 said:


> So then, wow, is the difference between judger and perceiver just that perceivers linger the perception stages longer?


I think that could be true in MBTI version, yes.

In Jung's version, I have a suspicion that, since the fourth function of a Judger is Judging function, that makes the person mostly use the dominant function and tend to 'ignore' the other Judging function. For example, as an ESTJ, I mostly use my Te to analyze the data and tend to 'ignore' data analysis from Fi. But since my aux and tert functions are Si and Ne, I have a balance ability to _taking in information_. 

On the contrary, a Perceiver mostly 'ignore' one of the perceiving functions, yet the person have a balance ability for decision making. For example, you as an ENFP will mostly use your Ne to get information and tend to 'ignore' information from Si, but you have a balance Fi-Te for your decision making process.

This is why, there are stereotypes for ExTJ and ExFP.

Although the ExTJs has strong leadership personality and very logical, but their lack of Fi can make their employees hate them for being insensitive, cruel, and bossy. This is because the ExTJ has a balance ability in taking in every information to make a decision, yet ExTJ mostly only use his or her Te to analyze the information and make decision, so their decisions tend to be effective and logical, but in a 'cold blooded' and 'inhuman' manner. 

For ExFPs, they have balance judging functions. They are empathetic, spontaneous, fun, and less sensitive than IxFP. But they lack of Si/Ni. They tend to repeating the same mistakes and not learn from the past. They live in the moment and unreliable if given responsibility to make decisive plans and persistently follow through it. They tend to hold/delay making decision until the last moment, or even change their mind after the plans were made, which can cause problems in professional manner.

I also want to say that Perceivers are less judgmental than Judger, but then again, I've met some Perceivers IRL that are more judgmental than the Judgers, so idk. It depends on the individual as well, I think.


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

WickedQueen said:


> For ExFPs, they have balance judging functions. They are empathetic, spontaneous, fun, and less sensitive than IxFP. But they lack of Si. They tend to repeating the same mistakes and not learn from the past. They live in the moment and unreliable if given responsibility to make decisive plans and persistently follow through it. They tend to hold/delay making decision until the last moment, or even change their mind after the plans were made, which can cause problems in professional manner.
> 
> I also want to say that Perceivers are less judgmental than Judger, but then again, I've met some Perceivers IRL that are more judgmental than the Judgers, so idk. It depends on the individual as well, I think.


Very insightful information. How else do you think lack of Si impacts ExFPs? And, how do you think those versed in Si use it to connect the dots to the past to prevent from making the same mistakes? Does Si help you to hold all the details in your brain so that you can readily see a certain pattern and know to avoid it in the future?


----------



## ReliveTheMagic (Jun 17, 2011)

It seems to me that a judging person will come to a conclusion about something. While a perceiving person might instead be more unassuming? Just something I thought I noticed.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

> But they lack of *Si*.


Blargh again. I meant *Si/Ni*. Sorry. *slaps self*



n2freedom said:


> Very insightful information. How else do you think lack of Si impacts ExFPs? And, how do you think those versed in Si use it to connect the dots to the past to prevent from making the same mistakes? Does Si help you to hold all the details in your brain so that you can readily see a certain pattern and know to avoid it in the future?


Well, Ne-Si and Se-Ni are mutual pairs. They complete each other.

Ne/Se involved in interpreting external sensory data and are driven by sights and sounds. Ne put emphasis on abstract (intangible) data, Se put emphasis on concrete (tangible) data.

Ni/Si associated with recalling events, making plans and problem-solving. They find patterns by abstracting the external data and connecting them with information from past experiences. Ni put emphasis on abstract (intangible) data, Si put emphasis on concrete (tangible) data.

I've made a thread about Si vs Ni:
http://personalitycafe.com/articles/48813-si-te-fe-vs-ni-te-fe-wickedqueens-mbti-theory.html

While Ne/Se absorb information from their surroundings and draw the future based on what they sense in the present, Si/Ni work like an internal guidance to balance Ne/Se by filtering: (1) information receives by Se/Ne and (2) predictions/possibilities made by Se/Ne.

Example
Se: "OMG birds are flying in the sky! It's beautiful!" --> embraces external data.
Ni: "Don't stand right below them, some times they poop while flying." --> makes connection between 'birds are flying' with past information that 'bird poop while flying'.

Now since the fourth function is the 'less used' function, as an ENFP you can imagine what happen if Si becomes your fourth function.

Si:


simulatedworld said:


> *Si, or introverted Sensing,* is dominant for ISxJ, secondary for ESxJ, tertiary for INxP and inferior for ENxP. It's related to Se in that it deals with sensory experience, but rather than constantly scan for everything about what's going on now, it relies on internalizing those experiences into an extremely detailed internal map of highly vivid *memories* of those past sensory experiences. This dependence on reliving past experience and using it as a guide for the present leads to an extremely good memory for detail, and a general attitude that going with what we know for sure from having experienced it before is usually best.
> 
> Si is the opposite of Ne because rather than relate new information to some larger external, constantly changing pattern, it tries to relate all new information to something it already knows, some sensory data that it's absorbed from its past experiences. This leads to the classic Ne vs. Si battle: Ne wants to try something new just for the sake of doing something different and finding something interesting; Si wants to stick to what we've done before because its vivid memories of direct experience allow us to relate the new information to that past information we've already absorbed.
> 
> ...


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Thanks for much for this information. I think I'm beginning to make some connections and understand. I'm at work now but, I'm going to read your thread. This is very interesting indeed thanks for taking the time to share this information. You've given me much to process.


----------

