# Definitions of the Cognitive Functions (2nd attempt)



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

I think these definitions correspond with Linda Berens' descriptions of the functions.

*"Extroverted" (e) *is about behavior.

*"Introverted" (i)* is about recognition and identification.

"Extroverted" functions analyze a sequence of elements in time and space. They have short-term storage. "Introverted" functions analyze relations of elements that may not be adjacent, so they are independent of the sequence of occurence. They have long term stored representations. 

*Thinking* is an evaluation (or a judgement) of objects or relationships between objects (or events), which tries to preserve energy. This process considers both obvious information and hidden information.

*Feeling* is an evaluation (or a judgement) of subjects or relationships between subjects (or events), which tries to satisfy needs (social, physiological...). This process considers both obvious information and hidden information.

A subject is a being who has a unique consciousness and/or unique personal experiences. The body of a person is not a subject, unless we are referring to that person's experience of his/her body. The minds of dogs and cats are (often) subjects, but the minds of insects and reptiles are not. 

Feeling is not just an (indirect) evaluation of emotions, but it is also an evaluation of desires and the need for self-actualization / knowledge.

A logical deduction (Te) is about behavior in an abstract form: A=B, B=C, therefore A=C.

*Sensing *is a perception of obvious information. This process considers objects and subjects, and relationships between objects and subjects (or events).

*Intuition* is a perception of hidden information. This process considers objects and subjects, and relationships between objects and subjects (or events).

*Ne* sees the _potential behavior_ of objects and subjects. *Ni* sees objects and subjects in a new _context_. For example, someone is watching an elephant quietly eating leaves from a tree, and then he/she thinks: "this elephant could charge me if I shout". That is Ne. If he/she sees the elephant in a different context, like being shot by a poacher or as a symbol for Africa, then he/she is using Ni.

Do you think these definitions contradict our observations of the types?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I think your elephant example is spot on. If I am looking at an elephant, then I am looking at the elephant, itself, what it means and what it represents. I am looking at its interactions with its family and its behaviors. I am not imagining what it COULD be doing, like charging me. That would be silly, I think. Which of course just shows my bias. If I planned on going elephant watching, I would already have found a place that is safe from which to do it, so as to better learn about elephants and what it means to be an elephant. You could make metaphors about memory, you could compare the ethics of various species - did you know elephants will remember their dead, and honor them decades after their death? There are some cool pics of elephants mourning their lost loved ones on the web. Elephants are an interesting creature, which is of course why we have so many different peoples of the world that use them as symbols. The amount of meaning to be gleaned from elephants is awesome. Much more interesting to me than watching a caterpillar squirm its way up a leaf. I know, I've been there already. It is harder to test any conclusions made about the caterpillar, unfortunately. So, elephants. Elephants are more...relatable. Yeah, that's it. It is easier for regular Joes to understand, identify with, and be impacted by symbolisms of elephants. There is a common consciousness of the elephant, a collective meaning we have gained from our study of them. You could probably walk down the street asking people what elephants represent and get several well thought out answers from strangers. Elephants are symbolic like that. Especially in America, I think the street example would work. After all, we have a whole political party represented by them.

"Feeling is not just an (indirect) evaluation of emotions, but it is also an evaluation of desires and the need for self-actualization / knowledge."

That actually makes a lot of sense. I had never thought about feeling in quite that manner before. But is that feeling alone (true of S and N types both) or is that more the intuitive slant of feeling? It strikes me as more true of N types than for S types, personally.

Why is a reptile's mind not a subject? I find this a curious assertion, but have no knowledge as to why they would or would not have a mind in the same manner as, say, a cat.

Your example for Te does not sound like it is exclusive to Te. I think Te is more like...what you said there, given that no other elements are being considered. Ti would seek to understand why A=C, and maybe test what else is equal to c. A=B, B=C, conclusion: C=[A and B and ?]. So...your example doesn't show how it is distinct and separate from Ti, is basically what I am trying to say here.

I do not think these observations contradict our observations, given the things I have stated above as my hitching points where I am less sure.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I think your elephant example is spot on. If I am looking at an elephant, then I am looking at the elephant, itself, what it means and what it represents. I am looking at its interactions with its family and its behaviors. I am not imagining what it COULD be doing, like charging me. That would be silly, I think. Which of course just shows my bias. If I planned on going elephant watching, I would already have found a place that is safe from which to do it, so as to better learn about elephants and what it means to be an elephant. You could make metaphors about memory, you could compare the ethics of various species - did you know elephants will remember their dead, and honor them decades after their death? There are some cool pics of elephants mourning their lost loved ones on the web. Elephants are an interesting creature, which is of course why we have so many different peoples of the world that use them as symbols. The amount of meaning to be gleaned from elephants is awesome. Much more interesting to me than watching a caterpillar squirm its way up a leaf. I know, I've been there already. It is harder to test any conclusions made about the caterpillar, unfortunately. So, elephants. Elephants are more...relatable. Yeah, that's it. It is easier for regular Joes to understand, identify with, and be impacted by symbolisms of elephants. There is a common consciousness of the elephant, a collective meaning we have gained from our study of them. You could probably walk down the street asking people what elephants represent and get several well thought out answers from strangers. Elephants are symbolic like that. Especially in America, I think the street example would work. After all, we have a whole political party represented by them.


This is why Ni is "deep" and strongly related to fantasy. You see an object/subject in a new context, which in turn can be seen in new context etc.

These thoughts of yours are good examples of Ni- (Ni blocked with Fe).



> "Feeling is not just an (indirect) evaluation of emotions, but it is also an evaluation of desires and the need for self-actualization / knowledge."
> 
> That actually makes a lot of sense. I had never thought about feeling in quite that manner before. But is that feeling alone (true of S and N types both) or is that more the intuitive slant of feeling? It strikes me as more true of N types than for S types, personally.


Intuitive types are usually more interested in self-actualization than Sensing types, and Sensing types are usually more interested in desires than Intuitive types. Yes, that is probably reflected in Feeling as well. My point was that Feeling reads body language and facial expressions that are rooted in other needs than emotional needs.



> Why is a reptile's mind not a subject? I find this a curious assertion, but have no knowledge as to why they would or would not have a mind in the same manner as, say, a cat.


Most people tend to subjectify cats and dogs, but not reptiles. If you see dogs purely as food (some Chinese provinces, right?), then their minds are not subjects.



> Your example for Te does not sound like it is exclusive to Te. I think Te is more like...what you said there, given that no other elements are being considered. Ti would seek to understand why A=C, and maybe test what else is equal to c. A=B, B=C, conclusion: C=[A and B and ?]. So...your example doesn't show how it is distinct and separate from Ti, is basically what I am trying to say here.


Ti can evaluate A=B and B=C (not A=C). But that is not what my example is about. It is a sequence (do not consider the parts separately!): [A=B, B=C, therefore A=C ]


----------

