# Te while analysing , Ti while making things work



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

intranst said:


> How is it an assumption of me to say the 7th function is relatively weaker


You are assuming that 8 function model is valid and that 7th function exists. Obviously, if the premises are true, then 7th function is indeed weaker, because that is how you assumed/defined it.


> and you saying “Jung says this” isn’t an assumption


I didn't say that it isn't an assumption. I am using another set of assumptions as well. It is just less flawed.



> Also I think the superficial behaviors are relevant here cuz they are still influenced by the functions, suggesting that there are differences more than merely S vs N for example.


They are very relevant, yes. But we shouldn't confuse behaviors (effects) with their causes (functions), which is what people are doing all the time.


> suggesting that there are differences more than merely S vs N for example.


It doesn't necessarily suggest that there are more than 4 functions, there are other ways of conceptualizing differences.


----------



## Questionner (Dec 6, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> I agree. In the case of our own psychology, at least, we are a part of the phenomenon that we are hoping to model.
> 
> 
> I think it isn't practical trying to narrow down complex human psychology to something very concrete without losing a lot of information. The difference between Extraversion vs Introversion doesn't converge to something decipherable from the immediately observable but is a pattern that reveals itself from many observations.
> ...


So for you , you reject The Myer-Briggs model? Is that it?


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Questionner said:


> So for you , you reject The Myer-Briggs model? Is that it?


MBTI isn't based on 8 functions, but I find it insufficient as well since it fails to go beyond what is empirical/observable, just like Big 5. There is no theory/attempt to comprehend what is actually going on. At the very least, it is not trying to make conclusions out of nowhere, so I am not completely rejecting it, it has its own uses.


----------



## Questionner (Dec 6, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> MBTI isn't based on 8 functions, but I find it insufficient as well since it fails to go beyond what is empirical/observable, just like Big 5. There is no theory/attempt to comprehend what is actually going on. At the very least, it is not trying to make conclusions out of nowhere, so I am not completely rejecting it, it has its own uses.


Then ,you'd say you prefer enneagram, at least for it gives an explanation of why you are the type you are ?


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Questionner said:


> Then ,you'd say you prefer enneagram, at least for it gives an explanation of why you are the type you are ?


What are you asking specifically, that I prefer anything that tries to give explanation?
That wouldn't be correct, because explanations can be stupid.

My understanding of enneagram types is also just as unpopular for similar reasons as it builds from Oscar Ichazo's ideas.

I typically form my own understanding/explanation using whatever helps with increasing accuracy.


----------



## 17041704 (May 28, 2020)

Well yeah I tend to agree with the other posts basically thinking is thinking and I suppose Te and Ti are merely hairsplitting terms to try to give us an idea of the 2 aspects. As an example one may see Ti as the anchor and Te as the vessel and they are both necessary components of the same entity.

On the other hand it's true my Ti is more preferred (and therefore more familiar) so it's pointless for me to pretend Ti and Te are meaningless now that I'm aware of them.

BS aside, to your questions as a Ti-dom:



Questionner said:


> And Ti users , how do you manage to externalise your thoughts? And do you find it rewarding when you do so?
> And when you spend a big amount of time (like a year) thinking about something do you feel the need (and even urge ) to talk about it?



* *




I may test the reliably and validity of my thoughts by experiments / actions / feedbacks / observations / my other accepted or proven ideas / anything I deem relevant. It is not just rewarding but also necessary. Ti as the dominant function is not daydreaming it's actively scrutinising and trying to improve itself all the time and the only way for it to happen is to throw it out to the world and test it.

Generally I don't feel the need to talk about it because it does not concern others and if I do I tend to share it with a selected few only (sometimes to strangers like you for instance).






Questionner said:


> Would you say a Fe-Ti good balance could externally resemble Te in that aspect?
> Plus , if Ti cares about truth, and only pure truth, wouldn't be logical that they doubt more their conclusions , as in I might be wrong and I need to check the results I get in some way ?
> Or is it all about the veracity of axioms for them?



* *




Fe-Ti and Te are not the same. As someone else already said Ti and Te both are judging functions so they evaluate and judge. Fe-Ti concerns the communication / presentation of Ti (its workings and conclusions) to the public. Whatever Te is about it is not about presentation.

Ti cares about the truth as much as the next person. It's the way they seek their truth and the kind of truth they are seeking that are different from the others. Yes Ti-dom checks and scrutinizes its own workings and conclusions all the time but healthy Ti also realizes endless verifications only leads to paralysis so Ti has to take a stand at some point even if they do not believe in it wholeheartedly. It is more about the courage to take a leap of faith and let others see your work in progress. 

Techincally speaking Ti is never satisfied (or totally believe in) with any conclusion because it can always find the angles to counter or at least cast doubts so if possible it would prefer keep on working on the problem in the background.






Questionner said:


> So really basically, Ti is about understanding fir yourself ,while Te is about "logical choice to get X"
> 
> And also really basically ,Ti is more mathematical, whereas Te is more experimental.



* *




Basically yes, the motivation behind Ti is understanding and Te application. However I don't think Ti is mathematical and Te is not experimental. The way Ti and Te approach a problem is essentially the same which is reason and logic they are equally creative, experimental and logical but in different aspects and the way they do it are different because they focus on different things. Whichever way Ti/Te chooses to do it is natraully the best way to serve its purposes.




well as for your other questions maybe another time my wife is calling me i gotta go


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Questionner said:


> I still cannot fully grasp the differences of these two functions.
> So Te users ,do you struggle when you need to analyse the inner functioning of a system ? (I know that with the introverted perception function, it becomes easier .., but what are your thoughts on this).
> And Ti users , how do you manage to externalise your thoughts? And do you find it rewarding when you do so?
> And when you spend a big amount of time (like a year) thinking about something do you feel the need (and even urge ) to talk about it?


I think everyone has pretty much given clear differences. I have always liked these definitions:


> *Extraverted Thinking (Te)*- Organizing, segmenting, sorting, and applying logic and criteria. Contingency planning, scheduling, and quantifying utilize the process of extraverted Thinking. Extraverted Thinking helps us organize our environment and ideas through charts, tables, graphs, flow charts, outlines, and so on. One woman labeled the shoeboxes for her 100 pairs of shoes for color, height, style, and comfort. Sometimes the organizing of extraverted Thinking is more abstract, like a logical argument that is made to "rearrange" someone else's thinking process! An example is when we point out logical consequences and say, "If your do this, then that will happen." In written or verbal communication, extraverted Thinking helps us easily follow someone else's logic, sequence, or organization. It also helps us notice when something is missing, like when someone says he or she is going to talk about four topics and talks about only three. In general, it allows us to compartmentalize many aspects of our lives so we can do what is necessary to accomplish our objectives.
> 
> *Introverted Thinking (Ti) *- Analyzing, categorizing, and figuring out how something works. Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, there is a search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Te: All browns are bad.
Ti: That's not true. I've seen some browns that were trying to help...
..
Ti: In fact, I can make it work if we...
Te: I don't care. Just make it work.You have my approval.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

jetser said:


> Te: All browns are bad.
> Ti: That's not true. I've seen some browns that were trying to help...
> ..
> Ti: In fact, I can make it work if we...
> Te: I don't care. Just make it work.You have my approval.


Isn't it depressing to think that after.. 6 years of sitting on perc, this endlessly regurgitated degenerate joke is the best that you can contribute now?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Allostasis said:


> Isn't it depressing to think that after.. 6 years of sitting on perc, this endlessly regurgitated degenerate joke is the best that you can contribute now?


Meanie


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Allostasis said:


> Isn't it depressing to think that after.. 6 years of sitting on perc, this endlessly regurgitated degenerate joke is the best that you can contribute now?


No.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> Meanie


Do you still wanna defeat me?


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Allostasis said:


> Isn't it depressing to think that after.. 6 years of sitting on perc, this endlessly regurgitated degenerate joke is the best that you can contribute now?


Obviously my weak spot is Te.
Read between the lines. What am I?

* *




INFJ, yes


----------



## Rayos (Mar 28, 2012)

These functions ultimately are not that similar. The difference between Te and Ti is exactly the same as that between Fe and Fi.

Ti and Fi are the introverted judging functions, what they're concerned with is creating and living in accordance with these sort of universal principles or ideals that are intended to be right or true no matter the context. So types who favor these are often very against expedient decision-making that only cares about getting the job done no matter what it takes. They're willing to sacrifice Je results if it means betraying their Ji principles.

Te and Fe are the exact opposites, extroverted judging functions whose focus is making meaningful changes to an actual context. Of course, the kind of changes they want to make are different, but they're both willing to sacrifice their Ji principles if it's what a particular situation demands to get the job done, and in fact they can find it annoying when others prioritize their personal Ji principles over the Je demands of a particular moment. In other words, they're willing to sacrifice their Ji principles if it means getting Je results.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Allostasis said:


> Isn't it depressing to think that after.. 6 years of sitting on perc, this endlessly regurgitated degenerate joke is the best that you can contribute now?


You wanna hear the real joke?
I came up with this joke on my own.

Te as PoLR in motion.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

jetser said:


> Do you still wanna defeat me?


In what sense?


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Functianalyst said:


> I think everyone has pretty much given clear differences. I have always liked these definitions:


You may have made a good effort of defining Te and Ti, however, at the end of the day, it's the same old nonsense about Te and Ti being two different types of thinking. 

What you said about Te, Ti types do those as well. What you said about Ti, Te types do them as well.
Ultimately, it boils down to one term - Thinking (as opposed to Feeling).

*The main difference lies in the conscious attitude of the individual, expressed as either Extraversion or Introversion. *
Ambiversion, which means 50/50, does not exist. One is either an E or an I. Nothing in between.

What you need to look into are:
1. Extroversion or introversion?
2. Thinking or Feeling?
These refer to the conscious ego.

*If one is an introvert and a T type, they must have conscious Ti. ITJs have dom Ti. ITPs have aux. Ti.
If one is an extrovert and a T type, they must have conscious Te. ETJs have dom Te. ETPs have aux. Te.*

The hair-splitting attempts to describe the differences between Ti and Te are closely associated with the Grant BS model. When Jungian types are applied, everything becomes immediately clear.

Take ESTJ for example - TeSeNiFi are proper functions and TiSiNeFe are phantom/ghost functions. To the ESTJ, Te1 > Se2 represent the conscious ego whereas Ni3 > Fi4 represent the unconscious ego. Their Fi4 and gTi1 are polar opposites so they can't exist at the same time. Ti, being a phantom, is minimized or you may say, muted. Does that mean the ESTJ is totally incapable of doing what you call "Ti"?

If Te and Ti are dichotomous, then the ESTJ would be unable to do what is seen as "Ti activity". In fact, numerous ESTJs are good at theorizing and analyzing.

*Describing Te and Ti as two thinking styles is very misleading and can easily be misinterpreted as capacity-related. This is also my critique of MBTI. *What you have attributed to Te and Ti is the ability to do something, and ability =/= type. Any type can do anything. The absence of a function does not automatically render a person incapable.

The ESTJ's dom Te makes them Thinkers and all that can be attributed to Thinking (as opposed to F) is what their Te does. The same applies to, e.g., ISTJs, TiSiNeFe. 

For ESTJ, the unconscious Fi4 and Ti5 are undifferentiated so you can safely assume that, the ESTJ's Fi is their Ti. What it means is that when the ESTJ turns to their unconscious, they get in touch with what has been suppressed - Feelings and introverted ego, F + I. They don't experience what they are consciously good at, which is Thinking. So here, Ti is muted. What you define as "Ti" is merged into dom Te.

To the Ti dom, their Te is muted. What you defined as "Te" is merged into dom Ti. When the Ti1 turns to their unconscious, their attention goes to what has been suppressed, which is Feeling and extroverted ego. 

When things are made more complicated and confusing, why not change a direction by simply going directly toward the essence?


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

jetser said:


> What am I?
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


I thought you are estp.


----------



## Questionner (Dec 6, 2021)

lww23 said:


> When things are made more complicated and confusing, why not change a direction by simply going directly toward the essence?


Again ,it is about the model each accepts and applies .There's no scientifical proof for any of them (except for the Big5, in term of theory), so each can decide only by what makes sense to him/her and is more adapted to his /her observations and understanding of people.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> I thought you are estp.


Close enough


----------



## Rayos (Mar 28, 2012)

Before I begin, I will admit that I do not understand the judgement functions as well as I do the perception functions, so my explanations will probably not be as robust or nuanced.

That said, extroversion is characterized by the belief that laws and principles are ultimately incapable of accurately modelling reality. Sure, one may be able formulate principles or equations that get the job done, but at the end of the day, we need to be able to interact with reality _on its own terms_. Reality is always moving, and we must be able to move with it, or else be left behind. Cumbersome and complicate theories that must be kept in mind and adhered to are simply dead weight in this context. The more a function, individual, or organization embodies this belief, the more it can be said to be extroverted.

Introversion is of course the opposite. It refuses to interact with objects on their own terms. If you give it a color, it will attempt to place it somewhere on the color spectrum before ever interacting with it. Reality is always shifting and changing, introversion says, and so in order to handle it, we must develop laws and principles that model reality, or else be lost forever. Of course, there will be times when an unprecedented problem occurs and, having no equations with which to derive a solution, we must deal with in the moment. But this is ideally only a provisional solution, to eventually be replaced by settled law. The more a function, individual, or organization embodies this belief, the more it can be said to be introverted.

Now, it is true that, using these terms, judgement as a whole is more "introverted" than perception, and thus Te (and Fe) have the introverted desire to formulate generally valid principles and lay down precedent, but Ti (and Fi) are even _more_ introverted. If extroverted judgement is goal-oriented, then introverted judgement is rule-oriented, and this is where I will begin directly answering your questions.


Allostasis said:


> What if the job in the context of Je is reaching an universal transcontextual comprehension of principles that underlie anything intelligible?


Regardless of whether this is a particular ExxJ's goal or not, they will never pursue this goal in a way that could be mistaken for Ji dominance — they are far too impatient for that. Extroverted judgement's ultimate goal is something like achievement, and anything else is merely a means to that end. To Je, a good-enough solution applied on time is always better than a perfect solution applied too late. Now, what counts as "good-enough" will depend on the individual, but either way this is what Je dominants excel at, MacGyvering good-enough solutions out of nothing but the materials at hand. Of course, this skill can be taken too far, and then we get the stereotype of the ExTJ, who cuts far too many corners in order to achieve a goal, or the ExFJ, who says one thing to one group and something entirely different to another for the sake of maintaining harmony.


Allostasis said:


> What if living in accordance to Ji principles entails a necessity to perform a certain job that in the end moves reality closer to the conformance with said principles?


To Ji, the desire to derive universally valid principles cannot be reduced to "a certain job". It is their primary goal in life, and achieving and maintaining internal consistency within this structure is vitally important for these types. It is why Ti types cannot stand logical incoherence, and why Fi types loathe the violation of one's personal authenticity. To do so is to introduce inconsistency and dissonance into their Ji structure. Extroverted judgment is the most galling to them for this reason — it is constantly asking them to violate their Ji principles, and not even for good reasons, just to achieve specific, arbitrary goals in specific, arbitrary contexts. Of course, this tendency of theirs can be taken too far, and is apparent in the "how many angels could fit on a pinhead" style pedantics of IxTPs, or the IxFP's naivete which ignores all practicality in favor of a kind of self-indulgent self-expression.


Allostasis said:


> They likely will be quite annoyed by all other personal Ji principles as well because they won't be theirs, no?


What I have personally seen is that Ji doms tend to be the most willing to live and let live in this respect, perhaps because they assume that everyone else is operating under the same premises as them and thus would not appreciate their meddling. That said, once it becomes apparent that this is often not the case, and they become aware of how generally inconsistent others can be, I imagine this can annoy them, though in this context it seems like Je doms would be the principle offenders in their eyes, rather than other Ji doms who, while they may have differing systems, are at least consistent.


----------



## Rayos (Mar 28, 2012)

Questionner said:


> But really ,it gets me back to my first question : how would a Tedom/aux analyse something to get its internal functioning.
> I'll give my conceptualization of it ,and tell me your thoughts:
> "OK ,there's this system. The system gives Z result .
> Now ,what are the logical steps that can give X .It is Y , and what can get Y ? "
> ...


Speaking as a Te aux, you basically described the process accurately enough, though I tend to think of it as primarily mediated through my dominant Ni, which seeks to observe and model what are essentially the genre conventions of a particular system, with an eye towards how it can be used for Te's ends as a secondary but significant motivator.


----------



## FaeSoleil (9 mo ago)

I've yet to read a thread on the introverted vs extraverted attitudes of functions that doesn't sound like splitting hairs and pretending it means something, tbh. How do you understand how a system gets from point A to point B without understanding the internal logic? On the same token, how do you understand a system's internal logic without examining how it gets from its input to its output?


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Rayos said:


> Before I begin, I will admit that I do not understand the judgement functions as well as I do the perception functions, so my explanations will probably not be as robust or nuanced.
> 
> That said, extroversion is characterized by the belief that laws and principles are ultimately incapable of accurately modelling reality. Sure, one may be able formulate principles or equations that get the job done, but at the end of the day, we need to be able to interact with reality _on its own terms_. Reality is always moving, and we must be able to move with it, or else be left behind. Cumbersome and complicate theories that must be kept in mind and adhered to are simply dead weight in this context. The more a function, individual, or organization embodies this belief, the more it can be said to be extroverted.
> 
> ...


Thank you, I appreciate your honest attempt to address my concerns.
I don't know what the basis behind your view is, and I won't cross-reference every single statement with what Jung wrote, but I will try to examine it critically by its own merit.
My goal is to refine my understanding further and views that conflict with mine, such as yours, are best for that I think. Maybe my questions will help you with refining your own views too, if that is something that you value.

As a side note, I find it notable that introverts and extraverts both tend to have recurring negative biases against each other. More specifically :

Introverts tend to view extraversion as being shallow, concrete, impatient and focused on the present. Introverts typically hide their contempt/condescending view on extraverts by stating "how valuable they are to society", since they "get the job done" or whatever.
Extraverts tend to view introversion as being narrow, delusional, defensive, resistant to any changes. Extraverts typically hide their contempt/condenscending view on introverts by saying how sometimes original their particular delusions/ideas are I suppose.
Both tend to disregard the influence of their biases.
Typically, neither E nor I truly, honestly to God respect and appreciate/accept the other side or so it seems. One has to be superior and the endless conflict goes on.

Now more to the point :


> That said, extroversion is characterized by the belief that laws and principles are ultimately incapable of accurately modelling reality. Sure, one may be able formulate principles or equations that get the job done, but at the end of the day, we need to be able to interact with reality _on its own terms_. Reality is always moving, and we must be able to move with it, or else be left behind. Cumbersome and complicate theories that must be kept in mind and adhered to are simply dead weight in this context. The more a function, individual, or organization embodies this belief, the more it can be said to be extroverted.


So, if laws and principles can't accurately model reality, then what can? What Te dom would use then, since all laws, principles and other products of thinking are unreliable within this your view? Sense perceptions? "facts"? What facts would even mean without model? Or extravert simply stops caring about modeling anything with any degree of accuracy, as long as it "does the job", whatever job means? Why T dom would sacrifice Thinking for the sake of direct sense perceptions/interaction with the world, even if he is extraverted?




> Introversion is of course the opposite. It refuses to interact with objects on their own terms. If you give it a color, it will attempt to place it somewhere on the color spectrum before ever interacting with it. Reality is always shifting and changing, introversion says, and so in order to handle it, we must develop laws and principles that model reality, or else be lost forever. Of course, there will be times when an unprecedented problem occurs and, having no equations with which to derive a solution, we must deal with in the moment. But this is ideally only a provisional solution, to eventually be replaced by settled law. The more a function, individual, or organization embodies this belief, the more it can be said to be introverted.


Why extravert won't want to develop laws and principles as well, if they care so much about interacting with reality on its own terms? Abstractions aren't necessarily obstacles. They are a means of interacting too.

Or, as soon as extravert stops being a dumb monkey that just moves from one thing to another and decides to be actually reasonable about their handling/judgement of the world, they immediately become introverted, is this what you are saying? Or extravert is just a half-assed lazy introvert (intellectually), they do more and think less, is this correct interpretation?



> Regardless of whether this is a particular ExxJ's goal or not, they will never pursue this goal in a way that could be mistaken for Ji dominance — they are far too impatient for that.


In other words, they can only hope to approach the brilliance of this blessed gift of introversion, I see.
I am curious though, what made you think so exactly, where does this assumption that extraversion leads to impatience comes from for you?



> Extroverted judgement's ultimate goal is something like achievement, and anything else is merely a means to that end.


How interesting, wasn't aware that I had something like this.
But, apparently, it is illegal for me to have goals like "universal principles/comprehensive understanding", it has to be something like a lot of money or a big fancy home, right?



> To Je, a good-enough solution applied on time is always better than a perfect solution applied too late. Now, what counts as "good-enough" will depend on the individual, but either way this is what Je dominants excel at, MacGyvering good-enough solutions out of nothing but the materials at hand. Of course, this skill can be taken too far, and then we get the stereotype of the ExTJ, who cuts far too many corners in order to achieve a goal, or the ExFJ, who says one thing to one group and something entirely different to another for the sake of maintaining harmony.


Didn't you just say earlier that introvert is okay with dealing with problems at the moment too in the absence of perfect solutions?
Or introverts can simply do everything, while extraverts weren't gifted with the attention span or brilliance for anything beyond half-assed/good-enough patches?



> To Ji, the desire to derive universally valid principles cannot be reduced to "a certain job". It is their primary goal in life, and achieving and maintaining internal consistency within this structure is vitally important for these types. It is why Ti types cannot stand logical incoherence, and why Fi types loathe the violation of one's personal authenticity.


I don't know if you read any of my posts before, but logical incoherence doesn't make me excited to any extent either. If any "Ti dom" thinks that he can outcompete me in commitment to logical coherency, then they are very much welcome to try.
And, of course, I would love to see someone trying to compromise my authenticity and tell me what I should do, this could be fun too.

I am not trying to be defensive or make it personal, but I am just wondering how being an extraverted thinker adds up with tolerance to logical incoherence for you. How extraversion exactly makes it optional, why? Because the world is too fast for extraverted monkey brain to think?



> Extroverted judgment is the most galling to them for this reason — it is constantly asking them to violate their Ji principles, and not even for good reasons, just to achieve specific, arbitrary goals in specific, arbitrary contexts.


Are you just venting, or there is a reason why extroverted judgment has to violate the freedom of others constantly? And why do those goals have to be exactly specific and arbitrary in arbitrary contexts? Or, again, it is only an introverted mind that is blessed with an attention span and intellect fit for formulating long-term meaningful goals?

To summarize, I see a rather typical introverted perspective on what extraversion is so far with a characteristic to it bias. But I hope that there is a deeper reason for all those good statements that you procured, as the current result isn't "good enough" just yet.


----------



## FaeSoleil (9 mo ago)

Jung's definition of introversion vs extraversion seems very simple to me: Extraverts are motivated by external things, introverts by internal things and reject external influences. Most people aren't clearly defined by either. No point in overmythologicalizing it more than Jung himself did.

Most people are willing to compromise internal principles for something important enough, but most people still care about them and have a _limit_. There is no bimodal distribution.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

FaeSoleil said:


> I've yet to read a thread on the introverted vs extraverted attitudes of functions that doesn't sound like splitting hairs and pretending it means something, tbh. How do you understand how a system gets from point A to point B without understanding the internal logic? On the same token, how do you understand a system's internal logic without examining how it gets from its input to its output?


I think it only appears to split hairs because some are referencing to Jung's principles, whereas others are not. Trying to discuss cognitive functions based on anything but knowing his work is an apple/orange discussion. The moment people place an emphasis on functions alone, I know they are referring to MB, not Jung. 

Simply put, extraverted thinking and introverted thinking are two different cognitive functions. Why else would Jung make a clear distinction between the two?


----------



## FaeSoleil (9 mo ago)

Functianalyst said:


> I think it only appears to split hairs because some are referencing to Jung's principles, whereas others are not. Trying to discuss cognitive functions based on anything but knowing his work is an apple/orange discussion. The moment people place an emphasis on functions alone, I know they are referring to MB, not Jung.
> 
> Simply put, extraverted thinking and introverted thinking are two different cognitive functions. Why else would Jung make a clear distinction between the two?


They are definitionally different functions because Jung defined them that way - in the same book he acknowledges it's one way of many to classify personality traits and cognitive processes, and that the eight functions+attitudes is just the way be thinks works best and explains people best. I just happen to personally think that division is across a hair not anything important, I understand Jung and others here do not.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Functianalyst said:


> Simply put, extraverted thinking and introverted thinking are two different cognitive functions. Why else would Jung make a clear distinction between the two?


Not sure what kind of you Jung you were reading exactly, but in his book "Psychological types" there is no such thing as "cognitive functions" and especially extraverted or introverted ones.

He attempted to make distinctions between 8 types, not 8 functions. For instance, introverted thinking is just thinking function that is oriented by the introverted attitude.

There are 8 pairs of functions+attitudes, but they are formed from only 4 functions.

You can brag about the amount of years that you spent on sitting there all you want, but it adds nothing to the validity of your conclusions.


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Functianalyst said:


> First of all, I did not write the definitions. I plucked them from a thread I posted years ago that can be found *here*.


Good to know.
My critiques are focused on any Te/Ti definition of this sort.
Nothing personal.
If this was written by someone else, I will point out the errors as well.



Functianalyst said:


> To the contrary. Interestingly Dr. Jung referenced this very subject in his work by saying:


Main ideas from the excerpt based on my understanding:
1. Conscious orientation matters, E or I.
2. There must be only one dominant function, which is in the same E/I attitude as the individual.
3. The secondary function is not an equal to the dominant. It must be of secondary importance. X1 > X2.

Maybe I didn't make my point very clear in that comment.
Not saying that ETJ can have a dominant Ti as well. The point is that the distinction between Te and Ti as two separate ways of thinking is erroneous. ETJs can analyze, theorize, and conceptualize but when they do so, they do it with their conscious dominant function T. ITJs can make an impact on the world but when they take any action, they do so with conscious dominant T as well.

Instead of treating Te and Ti as different functions representing two styles of thinking or two types of logic, it must be made clear that such a distinction is utterly meaningless and misleading. Many people do this because they want to figure out whether they "use Ti or Te" under the Grant model.

I once tried to figure out if I was ENTP because of the nonexistent "NeTi" combination. When the Jungian type model is applied, it is clear that I'm not ENTP, NeTe.

Everyone's conscious E/I orientation refers to the E/I attitude of the conscious ego. According to Jung, the conscious ego involves the primary and the secondary functions, say, X1 and X2. Plugging in the E/I, it has to be EEII or IIEE. X1 and X2 must be in the same E/I attitude. 



Functianalyst said:


> Not sure when posting those definitions, you ill perceived that we were not aware of how cognitive functions work.


No ill perception. The fact is, most people in the typology community do not have an idea of how cognitive functions work, so they believe in BS like "TiNe", which was conjured up by Grant.
"TiNeSiFe" does not exist. It has to be TiSiNeFe - ISTJ.
The true INTP is NiTiFeSe --> This corresponds to MBTI's dichotomous letters: I + N + T + P + IN + IT + IP + NT + NP + TP + INP + ITP + NTP.



Functianalyst said:


> I posted on this topic years before you joined this forum. The explanation can be found *here*.


I'll read your post later. If I make any comments or critiques, know that nothing is personal.
I go after the ideas, not the people who hold them.



Functianalyst said:


> You seem to contradict yourself that in the end thinking is thinking, then give a full explanation of why they're not the same. We all think, feel and sense/intuit.


Good point.
Thinking is thinking. Thinking is different from Feeling.
The example was not so well-written and assumed that people understood Jungian types.

The general point is - Applying the E/I attitude to individual cognitive functions can be very confusing. An example is that people constantly ask if they use Te or Ti while neglecting their own E/I orientation. An extroverted T cannot have conscious Ti due to extroversion. There is no such thing as "Te thinking" or "Ti thinking". If you are extroverted and T, then you must have conscious Te.

The same applies to S, N, F.



Functianalyst said:


> But as you and most of us know, Dr. Jung's work is not about merely doing these things when describing his cognitive functions. What am I missing in your explanation?


Jungian types ultimately require intuitive understanding. As Jung himself mentioned in the 1959 interview, the types are frameworks/skeletons, and you need to add flesh and bones to them [paraphrase]. What he suggested, imo, is a case-by-case approach taking into consideration both the framework and the specifics.

As I said before, any attempt to express Jungian types in cognitive functions would be reductionist. It creates rigidity in types. I'm not in favor of the view that Jungian types can be accurately converted to function-based models.

But the question is - How should people get to know Jungian types then?
My current answer is - Then you have to use the functions. It only serves as a guide to Jung's theory but it has its own limits. To actually get Jung's ideas, you must eventually discard those functions and letters. It is ultimately one's intuition that leads to the most accurate understanding of Jungian psychology.

A central idea in Jung's works is the integration of opposites. You know your ego, your unconscious, and the imbalance between the two. Then, he teaches people to realize wholeness by exploring the inner unknown and reaching a reconciliation between the conscious ego and the unconscious. Types are the means toward self-understanding. They serve as a bridge through which one realizes wholeness.



Functianalyst said:


> ITP types dominate with introverted thinking, whereas ITJs use extraverted thinking as their auxiliary function, and ETPs use introverted thinking as their auxiliary function, not extraverted thinking.


That's what I mean when I say, most people don't understand types. If we have to use cognitive functions to express types, then it must be eeii/iiee because the Grant construction goes against the very distinction between the ego consciousness and the unconscious.

For a more thorough explanation of the Jungian type model, I would recommend this source:








cognitive functions


Posts on akhromant tagged as cognitive functions




akhromant.tumblr.com





I have no affiliation with the owner of the website and I don't intend to advertise anything.
As of now, after having read a bit of Jung (I still have a long way to go), I find their explanation of types most convincing and consistent.


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Functianalyst said:


> The moment people place an emphasis on functions alone, I know they are referring to MB, not Jung.


This view suggests an inaccurate understanding of MBTI.
Original MBTI does not use cognitive functions. It is the pop typology community that forced the Grant "function stack" upon MBTI, since then, the trend has been established that uses "cognitive functions" for MBTI types.

If you want to know more about MBTI, read reckful's post.
MBTI makes sense in the area of letters-in-dichotomy: E/I, S/N, T/F.
Their J/P, however, is twisted.

Take ISTP for example: I + S + T + P + IS + IT + IP + ST + SP + TP + IST + ITP + STP = ISTP. Failing to satisfy a condition specified in any single chain in this equation would result in a non-ISTP. 

introverted + sensing + thinking + perceiver
introverted sensing + introverted thinking + introverted perceiver
sensing and thinking + sensing and perceiving + thinking and perceiving
introverted sensing and thinking + introverted thinking and perceiving + sensing, thinking, and perceiving
= ISTP
I have taken the trouble to write out all the details for you to see. *Is Grant compatible with MBTI?
Grant says "Ti-Se". From the equation above, where does it say extroverted sensing? *

The point is - You may claim yourself as a loyal follower of MBTI (and may reject Jungian types as such), but doing so while still advocating Grant suggests convoluted thinking.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Allostasis said:


> Not sure what kind of you Jung you were reading exactly, but in his book "Psychological types" there is no such thing as "cognitive functions" and especially extraverted or introverted ones.
> 
> He attempted to make distinctions between 8 types, not 8 functions. For instance, introverted thinking is just thinking function that is oriented by the introverted attitude.
> 
> ...


Not sure what you are reading, but *here* is Chapter X in its entirety, where he gives detailed descriptions of how each orientation uses each function. Your further assertion that he limits his work to 8 types is equally in error. Dr. Jung makes it clear that the cognitive functions (my choice of how to refer to them, not his) make up a distinctive type. In fact he makes it clear that a person only using their dominant function is rare. Nonetheless, Dr. Jung had no interest in placing a number on how many types there are since the cognitive functions are fluid and no one person uses the eight like the next person with the same stacking order.


> For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function.
> 
> From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through [p. 516] with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.
> 
> A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition. This peculiarity, however, is of interest only for one who is concerned with the practical psychological treatment of such cases. But for such a man it is important to know about it.


Where is the information you allude to from Dr. Jung, that indicates he believes there are only eight types borne of his theory? This is not bragging, but stating facts. Do you really think this is the first time someone has spouted off their opinion as fact when the information is so easily accessible?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lww23 said:


> I have taken the trouble to write out all the details for you to see. *Is Grant compatible with MBTI?
> Grant says "Ti-Se". From the equation above, where does it say extroverted sensing? *


I am not using MBTI, I am using Jung's work:


> Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, _i.e_. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it _serves _the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.


Completely unsure what you are attempting to convey since in the same sentence, you continue to say thinking is thinking while making a distinction using Te and Ti codes. You also seem to have a fixation on contrasting thinking and feeling as though that means something. You do know that Dr. Jung's system is based on cognitive abilities, and only makes a minor mention of equating feeling to emotions? From Dr. Jung:


> The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness.


Seems pretty clear that all the functions can be used, but his work is based on the orientation of the function. Otherwise, thinking in itself is neutralized until it is combined with the dominant attitude.


> Although I do not propose to present the nature of introverted thinking at this point, reserving it for a later section, it is, however, essential that I should make a few statements about it before going further.
> 
> For if one considers strictly what I have just said concerning [p. 430] extraverted thinking, one might easily conclude that such a statement includes everything that is generally understood as thinking. It might indeed be argued that a thinking whose aim is concerned neither with objective facts nor with general ideas scarcely merits the name 'thinking'.
> 
> ...


You appear to be doing just that with your assertions.


----------



## Rayos (Mar 28, 2012)

In the interests of transparency, I'll open things with a detailing of my sources. In terms of the content of the comment, centered around a discussion about extroversion and introversion followed by Je and Ji, there is no singular source — this is just a synthesis of about a decade of lurking around here and other type communities online combined with my personal observations and theories. Essentially, it's just one person's musings and I will not pretend that it has any more validity than. I am secondarily drawing from the work Michael Pierce, a typologist and philosophy graduate who uses his academic background to introduce what are (in my opinion) interesting and novel insights to the type space. A summary of his work can be found here. In the comment I wrote, his influence shows up most clearly in the presentation and word choice that I used.

Now, I will preface my response by stating that I appreciate the detailed response and critique but that, while I do not mind disagreement, there are several outright misunderstandings in your response to my comment. Perhaps they were my fault, perhaps they weren't, but either way I would like to set them straight.

My position, before anything else, is that every function and personality type has its pros and its cons, its weaknesses and its strengths. There is no such thing as an approach that is perfect and appropriate for every possible situation or context. That is a primary theme of my response, and I bring it up over and over again throughout it. If that did not get through in my writing, then that is my failing, and I am correcting it here. You specifically call out such people in your response, and we are in agreement here — people who believe such things are naïve or immature, believing that their dominant functions have no weaknesses, or if they do none that really matter, and they suffer to the extent that believe this is true.


Allostasis said:


> So, if laws and principles can't accurately model reality, then what can? What Te dom would use then, since all laws, principles and other products of thinking are unreliable within this your view? Sense perceptions? "facts"? What facts would even mean without model? Or extravert simply stops caring about modeling anything with any degree of accuracy, as long as it "does the job", whatever job means? Why T dom would sacrifice Thinking for the sake of direct sense perceptions/interaction with the world, even if he is extraverted?
> 
> Why extravert won't want to develop laws and principles as well, if they care so much about interacting with reality on its own terms? Abstractions aren't necessarily obstacles. They are a means of interacting too.
> 
> Or, as soon as extravert stops being a dumb monkey that just moves from one thing to another and decides to be actually reasonable about their handling/judgement of the world, they immediately become introverted, is this what you are saying? Or extravert is just a half-assed lazy introvert (intellectually), they do more and think less, is this correct interpretation?


What I described in my response is a spectrum, not a binary. Like forwards or backwards, or up and down. I realize that in the community extroversion and introversion are often spoken of as binaries, so perhaps I should have been more aware of this fact and put more effort into establishing my position. I mention after this segment that, under this framework, judgment is more introverted than perception, and so even Je has some the elements of introversion that I described. But this my response is about contrasting extroverted judgement from introverted judgement, and in that context, where ignore the other functions to focus only on Je and Ji, then they have the relationship described above. If you compare Te to Se or Ni, then of course it is more given to developing abstractions with which to mediate its relationship to the world, but it is not as given to this behavior as Ti or FI, which are _even more introverted_.

As for the actual content of my descriptions, they are outlining how immature extroverts or introverts would describe things, not what is actually true. Maybe the descriptions tainted by my experience as a perception dom rather than a judgement dom, but frankly I do not see how someone could come to these conclusions. Extroversion is adaptable. It can roll with the punches of reality that would introversion out flat, and it can do so in general. _That is valuable_. It is not a consolation prize. It is not a monkey mashing away at a typewriter and accidentally getting things right. Extroversion the force dragging introversion to reality when it begins to lose itself within its abstractions. Unchecked introversion is delusion. It is the librarian who claims that if something doesn't exist in their records then it isn't real. And of course, before anyone thinks that I'm just praising extroversion, unchecked extroversion is just as bad, _actually _moving from one thing to another without any guiding principle or method.


Allostasis said:


> In other words, they can only hope to approach the brilliance of this blessed gift of introversion, I see.
> I am curious though, what made you think so exactly, where does this assumption that extraversion leads to impatience comes from for you?
> 
> How interesting, wasn't aware that I had something like this.
> ...


In order,

No. Introversion is a specific way of approaching things, not a blessing. It has its pros and it has its cons. It is capable of devising abstractions which accurately model reality, but it cannot do this quickly or on demand, and so it often leaves opportunities on the table or holds off on taking action, which can strike more extroverted processes as a waste or lazy. As a result, extroversion will tend to make a move before introversion, which in certain situations and contexts can be described as impatience.

No, I did not claim that EJs only seek socially sanctioned forms of achievement. I claimed that, whatever the aim of a particular EJ is, they will approach it as a goal to be achieved, rather than a rule to be maintained, as is the case with IPs and their introverted judgement. For them, deriving universally valid principles is a state of being that they are trying to maintain. They do not need to pursue it, only refrain from actions or persons that would violate the perceived sanctity of their introverted judgements. This can get them into trouble when they refuse to take any action, even _necessary _action, because they cannot stand the dissonance of breaking their principles or values.

Once again, no, I described a concession that introversion makes when presented with situations that _cannot be solved using introversion_, just as extroversion makes concessions to introversion (e.g. that one may be able formulate principles or equations that get the job done, but at the end of the day, we need to be able to interact with reality on its own terms). Again, neither attitude has one over on the other, not in any general way. They both have their pros and their cons, their weaknesses and their strengths. The EJ's strength is their willingness to, well to put it bluntly, to violate their inferior introverted judgement and do what the situation demands to get the job done.

To be clear, I consider this value neutral. I described above how IP's preoccupation with maintaining their Ji principles can cause them to not take action when it is necessary. Je dominants are largely immune to this issue, but the price they pay is the risk of going too far, and acting when they shouldn't have acted. That is just the con to the pro, the weakness to the strength. If you don't like the way I phrased it, then keep in mind that I am a perception dominant and so I cannot describe the judgement functions with as much depth or nuance as judgement dominants. If that's what you want, then the floor is open to you to describe what extroverted judgement is like from an EJ's perspective.


Allostasis said:


> I don't know if you read any of my posts before, but logical incoherence doesn't make me excited to any extent either. If any "Ti dom" thinks that he can outcompete me in commitment to logical coherency, then they are very much welcome to try.
> And, of course, I would love to see someone trying to compromise my authenticity and tell me what I should do, this could be fun too.
> 
> I am not trying to be defensive or make it personal, but I am just wondering how being an extraverted thinker adds up with tolerance to logical incoherence for you. How extraversion exactly makes it optional, why? Because the world is too fast for extraverted monkey brain to think?


I didn't claim that other types don't care about these things, though I suppose I also didn't make it clear that what I mean here is that Ji doms care about these things the most. Now, I am speaking as someone with tertiary Fi, but there have been many times, particularly in my youth, where I compromised what was personally authentic to me in the face of external circumstances. Of course, I would have preferred not to do so, but it really isn't a big to me, in the way I imagine it would be for an INFP or ISFP. Likewise, Ti accuracy is great and all, but I do not treat it is as the primary motivator in my life. It is necessary for not making costly mistakes, but that is its utility to me. My natural feelings are to consider the effort Ti doms put into the logical systems to be admirable but ultimately unnecessary for my personal purposes.

Now I can't speak for you, but I will relate a story that I think is relevant here. There was a time when I had a pretty high opinion of my memory, to the point where I even wondered if I might in fact be an ISTJ. This is until I learned from several SJs that they were capable of remembering entire conversations word for word, and this ability of theirs was so natural to them that they assumed other people were simply lying when they did not repeat conversations back word for word. If I had not heard several, unrelated SJs say the same thing, I probably would not have believed such a thing was even normal — I considered it impressive to simply be able to remember the general flow of a specific conversation for more than a day. As far as I was concerned, that level of recall was the stuff of anime and movies, but apparently, it's not uncommon for SJs. Who knew.

The point of this story is to illustrate how easy it is for us to imagine that what comes naturally or easy to us is the average or middle point, or that what is impressive to us is generally impressive. You may consider your commitment to logical coherency to be very high, but it is possible that an IxTP's commitment to is even higher, and it is also possible that IxFPs refuse to compromise their values to an extent that you would never imagine. Of course, it is also possible that you would genuinely outcompete Ji doms on these fronts. I don't know you, so I won't claim otherwise.


Allostasis said:


> Are you just venting, or there is a reason why extroverted judgment has to violate the freedom of others constantly? And why do those goals have to be exactly specific and arbitrary in arbitrary contexts? Or, again, it is only an introverted mind that is blessed with an attention span and intellect fit for formulating long-term meaningful goals?


This is a description of how the naïve Ji dominant sees things, not an account of my personal views. To them, the slightest impingement on their Ji principles is unbearable, and they are unable to see extroverted judgement accurately. They simply dismiss it because it is their inferior — the cons of Je are obvious to them, but the pros remain hidden to them so long as they believe introverted judgement holds all the answers to life's questions. _From their point of view_, EJs are asking them to violate their principles for poorly defined reasons, because they believe that anything that has not been run through endless layers of Ji-style bureaucracy is poorly defined. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong, the same as with the EJs and their Je goals.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

intranst said:


> Close enough


If you know anything about MBTI, yes it's close.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

ESTP becoming INFJ






INFJ becoming ESTP






There's not much of a difference.


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

It seems you have read Jung and know MBTI, however, for many years you have maintained that the Grant model is correct. How can you make sense of such a thing as INTP being Ti dom?

Exactly where did Jung say that the secondary function must be in an opposite attitude to the primary?



Functianalyst said:


> I am not using MBTI, I am using Jung's work:


The first excerpt suggests that the auxiliary follows the dominant and will never go against it.

According to Jung:
_As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking._

This sentence itself says the auxiliary cannot be in the opposite attitude because if that happens, it will contradict the dominant. In the example of Thinking, It must be TeSe or TeNe for extroverts and TiSi or TiNi for introverts.



Functianalyst said:


> You do know that Dr. Jung's system is based on cognitive abilities, and only makes a minor mention of equating feeling to emotions? From Dr. Jung:


Feeling is a rational function and does not involve emotions. Emotion belongs to the domain of sensation.

Thinking is different from Feeling. There are Thinking types who are extroverts, ETJs and Thinking types who are introverts, ITJs. 
the central idea is the difference between extraversion and introversion, which is also the main theme of Jung's _Psych. Types_.
When Jung talks about extroverted thinking and introverted thinking, he was referring to Thinking types who are extroverts and Thinking types who are introverts.

the second excerpt tells exactly the division between the conscious and the unconscious, which is EEII or IIEE.

Obviously, you don't understand what I'm talking about and do not even try to understand.



Functianalyst said:


> Seems pretty clear that all the functions can be used, but his work is based on the orientation of the function. Otherwise, thinking in itself is neutralized until it is combined with the dominant attitude.


No. No one uses all eight functions. One only has four functions, half extroverted and half introverted. If the conscious ego is E then the unconscious is I.

Thinking is not neutralized. If it is not conscious, then it is unconscious. The 4th function, the inferior, is the most undifferentiated.

The third excerpt is basically saying that society only recognizes extroverted thinking but pretty much leaves out introverted thinking. Recognition by others is in itself something that can only happen in the outside world, so it has to be related to E, not I. Social recognition is Fe, and to the Ti types, Fe is unconscious.



Functianalyst said:


> You appear to be doing just that with your assertions.


Not sure what it means, but at this point, you don't seem to get what I'm talking about therefore, your replies to me are mostly irrelevant.
Those quotes do not in any way contradict my point.
On the contrary, they show what the correct function order should be if types are written into letter-based functions. That is, EEII for extroverts and IIEE for introverts.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

I’ve always been under the impression that functions 3 and 4 were sub conscious but not unconscious, as in there is still some psychological recognition of them to the user. So no, TP types would not have unconscious Fe, they have unconscious Te. Functions 5-8 are unconscious. It doesn’t make sense to me why 3 and 4 would be unconscious if they are valued, assuming you also believe 1-4 are valued functions. If everyone strictly operated on a 4 function stack than people would face much more communication issues than they already do.


lww23 said:


> It seems you have read Jung and know MBTI, however, for many years you have maintained that the Grant model is correct. How can you make sense of such a thing as INTP being Ti dom?
> 
> Exactly where did Jung say that the secondary function must be in an opposite attitude to the primary?
> 
> ...


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

intranst said:


> I’ve always been under the impression that functions 3 and 4 were sub conscious but not unconscious, as in there is still some psychological recognition of them to the user. So no, TP types would not have unconscious Fe, they have unconscious Te. Functions 5-8 are unconscious. It doesn’t make sense to me why 3 and 4 would be unconscious if they are valued, assuming you also believe 1-4 are valued functions. If everyone strictly operated on a 4 function stack than people would face much more communication issues than they already do.


Good question.
Let's assume, for a while, that Jungian types can be converted into function-based models.

According to Jung, everyone is either an extrovert or an introvert. It is the E/I attitude of the conscious ego that determines whether one is E or I. 
Everyone has two sides but only the side that has the same attitude as the conscious is fully conscious. The other side is unconscious. So, for an Extrovert, the conscious side is extroverted and the unconscious side is introverted. For the introvert, the reverse is true. 

Take ESTJ for example: *TeSeNiFiTiSiNeFe is the correct complete function order of the type. 

Functions 1-4 are propers. 5-8 are ghosts/phantoms. 1-4 together represent the self (as divided by conscious E and unconscious I). 5-8 means nothing to the self. *

Te, as the dominant, is fully conscious. Se, as the auxiliary, is mostly conscious. *TeSe together form the conscious ego. *
The 7th and 8th functions are ghosts/phantoms. Ne7 is mostly conscious and Fe8 is fully conscious. 
*The Jungian ESTJ has the following functions that are conscious:
TeSeNeFe.* 
The first two constitute the ego (who I am), as mentioned before. The latter two form the anti-ego (who I'm not).

In the middle, there are NiFiTiSi, which are all unconscious. The first two are the unconscious self and the latter two are unconscious ghosts. 
The unconscious functions - Ni3 and Fi4 are not dormant. They are accessible. They are functions that actually work. Being proper functions (although unconscious), they cannot be ignored or manipulated. 

The ghosts, either conscious or unconscious, are unreal. Any ghost function can be ignored or manipulated because none of them forms part of the self.


----------



## 17041704 (May 28, 2020)

I'm not here to argue tbh what you guys are talking about right now is well beyond my knowledge and I'm no expert so I'm not here to judge whether you guys are talking truth or BS. MBTI is just a harmless indication to me so I'm not going as deep as you guys.

But I have a problem when I came across the assertion that we do not use all 8 functions - I'm not even trying to dispute whether there are functions or whether it's true or not etc it does not concern me. 

It doesn't seem right and I'd just take the simple approach. Assuming there are indeed 8 functions and they are different, by saying that we do not use all 8 functions it is like telling me that yes arms and legs exist in human anatomy but none of us use both arms and legs. All of us use only one or maybe two limbs in different combinations and the other limbs are unreal because they are not part of us.

But we know for a fact we have both arms and legs and they are real and it's not some mystical superpower to use them either. On the other hand, the inability to use them is widely regarded as disability. I can understand if the assertion is that some of us are better with our right legs and left arms etc but I don't get that impresssion when I read it. I could be very wrong I'm just saying I'm confused if anything.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lww23 said:


> It seems you have read Jung and know MBTI, however, for many years you have maintained that the Grant model is correct. How can you make sense of such a thing as INTP being Ti dom?


Not sure who you are replying to here, but since you are quoting me, I am assuming you are addressing me. I have no idea who Grant is, and if I have followed their so-called model, please show me where. If anything whoever this Grant person is, is following Jung's work, hence you have read my post and associated my comments with them. 

I follow Dr. Carl G. Jung's theory plain and simple, which is where this discussion has become moot since you clearly are not. Any further discussion is a futile gesture since neither of us are referring to the same principles. Jung's work is quite simple but does require extensive reading and applying to the self. I am clueless to the information you are referring to, but it's not Jung's theory. The stacking order you indicate for an ESTJ type simply defies his theory which has been pointed out. The auxiliary function cannot oppose the dominant function in anyway, thus both cannot be extraverted.


----------

