# How you typed your self: Thought process vs Behaviour???



## themartyparade (Nov 7, 2010)

Bit of both but primarily my thought process.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> I can behave in an "Fe" stereotypes manner but when analysing my thought process it is evident that I don't value "Fe".


Yeah that's a good point too about not using behaviour for typing.




> The misconception is that* all evidence is equal if it sourced externally*, but you still don't understand that Te isn't like Ti, it doesn't have a subject. When we are handed something, a subject has to be constructed first for an understanding to be crafted, and that comes from a subjective function. Just because "Te" evidence is there externally doesn't mean it would be trust since not all of it is equal. Its the subjective functions that judge the quality of external evidence provided by Te. Te is merely data much like Se is likely to you, it has to be processed calculating what is right and what is not.


I didn't say Te is like Ti... I'm not sure why you imply this? I'm just trying to see the exact difference between the two. How does a Pi (that is, Perceiving) function *judge* the quality of external Te evidence? I would have thought that Te is the process that does the Judging too on its own and thus differ from Se in this way as Se doesn't do this.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Yeah that's a good point too about not using behaviour for typing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The subject is what determines the understanding. "Ni"/"Si" is what constructs understanding for introverted perceivers, it moulds it self around the quality of Te evidenced produced. Without Te or general judgement, Pi can craft several parallel models of understanding without ever knowing the right pathway of understanding. 

"Te" serves the subject it has been given. I can see the confusion I caused there but its important to note that Te lacks a "subject". In order to explain to this in another way, as an Ni driven Te, I can give xSTJ facts. They can recognize that they are reputable as their Te understands them but though they can accept the "Te" facts, it won't be enough to buy my Ni model since if their "subjective" is looking elsewhere, it can reject my overall subjective model though agree on the validity of my facts.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I didn't say Te is like Ti... I'm not sure why you imply this? I'm just trying to see the exact difference between the two. How does a Pi (that is, Perceiving) function *judge* the quality of external Te evidence? I would have thought that Te is the process that does the Judging too on its own and thus differ from Se in this way as Se doesn't do this.


I think it's pretty useless to compare Te to Ti.This is like comparing the work of a person in retail to the work of someone producing goods. You compare the work of a person selling devices to a person selling clothes, for example. Or you compare the work of a person producing devices to the work of a person producing clothes.

So imo it's better to compare Se and Ne, Si and Ni, Fi and Ti, Te and Fe.

Ji functions are used for evaluation of the content of perceiving functions and Je functions apply this in the external world.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Hmm, how do you differentiate between yourself and your persona? This is an interesting idea about typing the persona...


It kind of depends how one defines "persona." I didn't mean my Persona is a mask, that it's someone separate or different from "who I am." I meant it more in a way that it's how people would perceive me and, hell, partly how I perceive(d) myself, my outward behavior. For various reasons, I often feel like I can't react how I'd like, so I come off as another type. My brain is often thinking of more "pure" responses, which is what I would classify my Self as.

Functionally speaking, there's no real behavioral profile any type (that I'm aware of). All CFs say for INTJs is, "you must prefer Ni-Te-Fi-Se," which I do. If behaviorally I act like an IxFP, well, that still doesn't mean I am one because it was painfully obvious my mind worked differently from theirs when I typed as such. 



JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think 99% of the INTJs I know IRL have very mysterious, unpredictable/unstereotypical personas (myself included).


Eh, sounds too "Ni can't be understood" for me. I don't think of myself as hugely mysterious or unpredictable. Though, yeah, most people think of me as unstereotypical.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Eh, sounds too "Ni can't be understood" for me. I don't think of myself as hugely mysterious or unpredictable. Though, yeah, most people think of me as unstereotypical.


I'm not describing their behavior - I'm just alluding to the fact that I can't really stereotype their personas, especially in an MBTI sense.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I'm not describing their behavior - I'm just alluding to the fact that I can't really stereotype their personas, especially in an MBTI sense.


Okay, thanks for the clarification. Your meaning was quite different than what I interpreted it as.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Paradigm said:


> Okay, thanks for the clarification. Your meaning was quite different than what I interpreted it as.


Yeah, I was a bit paranoid about using that terminology, haha. On a stereotypical level, I would actually say most of don't seem "deep and mysterious" that I know (not that they seem the opposite of this either, but the latter description doesn't aptly characterize them in any particular ways).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> The subject is what determines the understanding. "Ni"/"Si" is what constructs understanding for introverted perceivers, it moulds it self around the quality of Te evidenced produced. Without Te or general judgement, Pi can craft several parallel models of understanding without ever knowing the right pathway of understanding.
> 
> "Te" serves the subject it has been given. I can see the confusion I caused there but its important to note that Te lacks a "subject". I order to explain to this in another way, as an Ni driven Te, I can give xSTJ facts. They can recognize that they are reputable as their Te understands them but though they can accept the "Te" facts won't be enough to buy my Ni model since if the "subjective" is looking else, it can reject my overall subjective model though agree on the validity of my facts.


Hm, okay.




yedra said:


> I think it's pretty useless to compare Te to Ti.This is like comparing the work of a person in retail to the work of someone producing goods. You compare the work of a person selling devices to a person selling clothes, for example. Or you compare the work of a person producing devices to the work of a person producing clothes.
> 
> So imo it's better to compare Se and Ne, Si and Ni, Fi and Ti, Te and Fe.
> 
> Ji functions are used for evaluation of the content of perceiving functions and Je functions apply this in the external world.


I don't really like these kinds of analogies. Why not talk about the real thing directly? For some reason, I don't find it useless to compare Ti vs Te. Staying with the analogy, both people are doing some kind of work so they can indeed be compared. And in this manner, Ti can be applied for the external world in the sense that it evaluates external perceived content... And both Ti and Te are Thinking...


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Hm, okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I reckon you can have a similar issues with xNTPs where you can agree that their logic is sound but fail to understand their sources when obscure "Ne" data is driving their thinking.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> I reckon you can have a similar issues with xNTPs where you can agree that their logic is sound but fail to understand their sources when obscure "Ne" data is driving their thinking.


Oh, as long as it's put into words using clear definitions, it's not obscure.  If you meant the use of analogies, I do understand what these try to get at but I find it unsatisfactory in terms of actual explanation. So in that case, you would be right. Nothing unresolvable though.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I don't really like these kinds of analogies. Why not talk about the real thing directly? For some reason, I don't find it useless to compare Ti vs Te. Staying with the analogy, both people are doing some kind of work so they can indeed be compared. And in this manner, Ti can be applied for the external world in the sense that it evaluates external perceived content... And both Ti and Te are Thinking...


I like how Jung described each function for the most part, I just don't like how he named them. While it may look neat and pretty to say that there is the function T and it has either an extraverted or introverted attitude I can't help myself but to regard such an explanation as inaccurate. 

If we look at the processes it is as follows:
There is observation of the physical world and gathering information from it, there is observing one's inner world, there is evaluation and judgment of observed content and finally there is application of the aforementioned in the physical world. When you look at this like that why would anyone compare evaluation to application? Because that's what's happening when people compare Ti and Te or Fi and Fe.

Ti and Te are not two variations of the same process, Ti and Fi are, Te and Fe, Si and Ni.
Ti and Te each have a different purpose. Ti and Fi have the same purpose. They judge whether something is good, bad, important, true, false, insignificant etc. They just use different criteria and render different results. 

Te and Fe are about how we do things. Te tries to do everything in the most efficient manner, Fe tries to do everything in the most considerate manner. Same purpose, different criteria.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

yedra said:


> I like how Jung described each function for the most part, I just don't like how he named them. While it may look neat and pretty to say that there is the function T and it has either an extraverted or introverted attitude I can't help myself but to regard such an explanation as inaccurate.
> 
> If we look at the processes it is as follows:
> There is observation of the physical world and gathering information from it, there is observing one's inner world, there is evaluation and judgment of observed content and finally there is application of the aforementioned in the physical world. When you look at this like that why would anyone compare evaluation to application? Because that's what's happening when people compare Ti and Te or Fi and Fe.
> ...


Your definition of the "objective" and "subjective" is really far away from Jung.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Your definition of the "objective" and "subjective" is really far away from Jung.


Elaborate.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

yedra said:


> Elaborate.


did you see my other post where I linked you to my "Te" thread? It has quotes from Psychological Types too.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> did you see my other post where I linked you to my "Te" thread? It has quotes from Psychological Types too.


I know what it says, I just ask you to point out in a concise manner how I misinterpreted Jung on the definitions of objective and subjective.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@_yedra_

@_Boolean11_ picked up on how you used the word "objective" toward thinking and "subjective" toward feeling. Subjective has nothing to do with evaluation, unless it is characterizing evaluation. You can look at things in an intuitively subjective way, a conceptually subjective way, or an impressionistically subjective way as well.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @_yedra_
> 
> @_Boolean11_ picked up on how you used the word "objective" toward thinking and "subjective" toward feeling. Subjective has nothing to do with evaluation, unless it is characterizing evaluation. You can look at things in an intuitively subjective way, a conceptually subjective way, or an impressionistically subjective way as well.


Where? For me every Pi and Ji function is subjective and every Pe and Je function is objective.
I just had a discussion with him the other day about the definitions of objective and subjective. 

I pointed out that there is the meaning of subjective=directed inward, objective=directed to the physical world.

And there is subjective=subjective interpretation and objective=facts.

And in the realm of cognitive functions the terms subjective and objective are to be used in the former meaning, although people throw these terms around having the latter in mind.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

yedra said:


> Where? For me every Pi and Ji function is subjective and every Pe and Je function is objective.
> I just had a discussion with him the other day about the definitions of objective and subjective.
> 
> I pointed out that there is the meaning of subjective=directed inward, objective=directed to the physical world.
> ...


Okay, it sounds like you get it to me for sure.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

yedra said:


> I know what it says, I just ask you to point out in a concise manner how I misinterpreted Jung on the definitions of objective and subjective.


Feeling and thinking are all about "judging" not action. MBTI ruined that part, that not even what Jung said. Socionics really illustrates in a better way when it describes the two functions as merely evaluation processes only. They don't do stuff. I don't know how I can really describe that to you in a concise manner since it seems as if you don't even adhere to the same "logic" my reasoning stems from. I just don't know what is driving your logic. 

I had another thread I replied to you isn't it?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

yedra said:


> I like how Jung described each function for the most part, I just don't like how he named them. While it may look neat and pretty to say that there is the function T and it has either an extraverted or introverted attitude I can't help myself but to regard such an explanation as inaccurate.


Oh then I guess you've made up your own theory that deviates from original Jung theory. You're not the first to do that.




> If we look at the processes it is as follows:
> There is observation of the physical world and gathering information from it, there is observing one's inner world, there is evaluation and judgment of observed content and finally there is application of the aforementioned in the physical world. When you look at this like that why would anyone compare evaluation to application? Because that's what's happening when people compare Ti and Te or Fi and Fe.


Why not compare them if they're both some kind of reasoning process.




> Ti and Te are not two variations of the same process, Ti and Fi are, Te and Fe, Si and Ni.
> Ti and Te each have a different purpose. Ti and Fi have the same purpose. They judge whether something is good, bad, important, true, false, insignificant etc. They just use different criteria and render different results.


Pfft, I disagree that Ti and Fi have the same purpose.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

@itsme45
Found this video, here is an explanation for what I've been trying to get across the entire time. The relevant part starts at 2:20. @Boolean11 and @Neverontime might be interested too.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

yedra said:


> @_itsme45_
> Found this video, here is an explanation for what I've been trying to get across the entire time. The relevant part starts at 2:20. @_Boolean11_ and @_Neverontime_ might be interested too.


I've seen this video before, its all part of the dumbed down approach to explaining the functions to newbies. Studying Jung is better.


----------



## Ed S (Jul 27, 2012)

I've tested time and time again as either INTJ or ENTJ, but it sounds a bit too together to me, think I could be more INTP or ENTP because I'm not always very organized. I also feel like people often think I'm extroverted in work settings or close personal relationships because I will be very talkative, but really people wear me out and I love alone time to recharge and in larger groups of people I don't care enough to yell to get my point across, I would prefer to keep my thoughts to myself, even if I know I could provide some insight about the topics being discussed around me. So I still wonder if I'm really INTJ. I'm certain that I'm NT. So I feel like you really have to consider the results of the test and ask yourself some tough questions. It makes my head spin trying to figure out my type, but I test INTJ over and over.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I decided my type using MBTI, cognitive functions, behaviour and Jung. I've always been aware of having a different opinion to everyone around me, even from being a kid. So I immediately related to Fi. I don't judge easily, so when I get the sense that a judgement is correct, I trust that regardless of the general opinion. I see many possibilities and I will leave a judgement 'open' if I don't feel completely sure. I need to gather enough information so I can connect various related points together (which others think are random points) before I understand. So I related to Ne and its 'web of understanding' as well as Fi. So basically I was almost sure after the first test and description I came across and I continued to match up points whilst gaining more information and understanding, therefore, convincing me even more. 

When I read Jungs Fi description, I felt like he got inside my head. I'm used to people having no idea of how my mind works and I quit trying to explain it to people and began to use it, quite successfully, to my advantage. 
So, I was impressed by how he had almost spelt out my thoughts and motives when nobody else had even come close to understanding me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@yedraI am not sure if this is the thread where you said that Ni must first go through Se, but the same person mentions this in this video and I thought I'd let you (and others) know:






And of course I agree and I've mentioned this before as well that we can only judge sensory data with intuition by using our sensing as a starting point.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I am not sure if this is the thread where you said that Ni must first go through Se, but the same person mentions this in this video and I thought I'd let you (and others) know:
> (...)
> And of course I agree and I've mentioned this before as well that we can only judge sensory data with intuition by using our sensing as a starting point.


Yes but just simply sensing is not Se per se, right?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

thought processes hands down

though I cannot explain this well, but if you understand the nature of jungian functions (like Fi,Ti are rational, introverted functions, Se,Ne are irrational extroverted functions) then you can narrow down your type temperament, EP IP IJ EJ, by uncovering your primary mode of perception, and from there on it's just finding your supporting attitude

I always thought of these functions as passive lenses that color one's perception, rather than any set of behaviors, actions, or motivations


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Yes but just simply sensing is not Se per se, right?


No. I'm pretty sure sensing is just what our body does anyway. Which is why we have eyes, ears, taste buds, a nose, and receptors for touch that all send signals with sensory information back to the brain. That is simply sensing. Not Se.

I used thought processes and behavior to a much lesser extent.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Yes but just simply sensing is not Se per se, right?


No, but I think she describes the relationship between Ni-Se and Si-Ne well using an INTJ and INFP conversing with each other as the basis.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LeaT said:


> No, but I think she describes the relationship between Ni-Se and Si-Ne well using an INTJ and INFP conversing with each other as the basis.


That's ok but the statement that Ni has to go through Se first just doesn't make sense... Unless what you all meant was that it co-exists with Se. I guess in that case I only take issue with the wording


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> That's ok but the statement that Ni has to go through Se first just doesn't make sense... Unless what you all meant was that it co-exists with Se. I guess in that case I only take issue with the wording


Well, from what I understand the gist of her argument is that the Ni model can only be built based on Se data, but for the Ni dom whose Se is largely unconscious in favor for Ni, they just pick up on Se data that allows them to build their Ni model. For an INP or would first be Si that is used as a starting point that in a similar manner is largely unconscious and how Ne starts generating possibilites based on that Si experience. This is why SeNi has this top-down approach and SiNe bottom.up. This means that SeNi is like an inverted pyaramid and SiNe the normal pyaramid.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Well, from what I understand the gist of her argument is that the Ni model can only be built based on Se data, but for the Ni dom whose Se is largely unconscious in favor for Ni, they just pick up on Se data that allows them to build their Ni model. For an INP or would first be Si that is used as a starting point that in a similar manner is largely unconscious and how Ne starts generating possibilites based on that Si experience. This is why SeNi has this top-down approach and SiNe bottom.up. This means that SeNi is like an inverted pyaramid and SiNe the normal pyaramid.


Ok that's what I meant by co-existing. So then I always build a lot of Ni stuff unconsciously?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Ok that's what I meant by co-existing. So then I always build a lot of Ni stuff unconsciously?


I would say yes, but you are largely unaware of the Ni models.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I would say yes, but you are largely unaware of the Ni models.


But are they then used at all?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> But are they then used at all?


Yes, but usually in a more unconscious manner.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

@LeaT
This is Danielle in this video and I have posted one of her videos a few posts before yours. She makes a lot of sense to me.

I view the functions building a construct where each of them has its own role and purpose and no function can operate independently of the other ones, while other people see the functions as different outlooks on things and the world or different ways of looking at the same thing. Obviously, when you have such different viewpoints it’s hard to find common ground.

One can say that there are the five senses and if you put importance on what the five senses perceive then that is Se if you don’t then that is Ni.

And I simply don’t agree with it. For me the the sensory experience is not independent of functions. In my view Se is not putting importance on the sensory experience. It _is_ the sensory experience and the five senses are its tools. Ni is putting this information into the context of future implications or broader understanding. The broader the context, the stronger your Ni and the more you move away from the present moment. The more you repress Ni from the conscious mind, the narrower your context and the more emphasis is on the here and now, the actual moment in time.

Ne is partly sensory experience (like Se) but there is also a part of it that perceives information that doesn’t belong to the present moment, hence Ne being about posibilities. Si is putting this information in the context of personal experience or in the context of what is already known. The more reliance is on personal experience, the stronger your Si and the more you reject new possibilities. The more you repress Si from your conscious mind, the stronger your Ne and thus your trust new possibilities.

But regardless which function you repress, it still operates in your subconscious and complements your dominant.
Both Ni and Si start from something that had been perceived by Se or Ne.

Why are INFJs thought to be psychic? Maybe it is because of the vast amount of Se data that is gathered subconsciously and transferred to Ni.
Why are ESTPs thought to be good salesmen and have a good nose for business opportunities? Maybe because they put information from the here and now into context with their subconscious Ni and they evaluate it with Ti (but they will probably be aware only of SeTi).

I don't know, I might be wrong about all of this but it's always good to consider things and why they are the way they are.

And we all evaluate things (Fi, Ti) and communicate them to the world (Te,Fe). Some more, some less.

The thing is just how much are we aware of each process, because they are all there and they color each other. We might be consciously aware of a process (dom, aux, tert), subconsciously aware of a process(inferior) or the processes might be taking place in our unconscious (ego dystonic functions).

But hey,that’s just my take on it and I am aware that not everyone will agree.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@yedra I think your post makes a lot of sense and I see your view overlapping with my own so  I just thought I would link the video Danielle made because as opposed to the rest of us here on PersC, she has an MBTI certificate and works with typing people for actual money, meaning that she is actually more qualified to speak about the MBTI than most of us here (it doesn't mean her understanding isn't fallible but she is certainly less fallible than some of us in here). 

Since I saw her view overlapping with yours, I thought it was important to communicate that professional typers shared your view.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> @yedra I think your post makes a lot of sense and I see your view overlapping with my own so  I just thought I would link the video Danielle made because as opposed to the rest of us here on PersC, she has an MBTI certificate and works with typing people for actual money, meaning that she is actually more qualified to speak about the MBTI than most of us here (it doesn't mean her understanding isn't fallible but she is certainly less fallible than some of us in here).
> 
> Since I saw her view overlapping with yours, I thought it was important to communicate that professional typers shared your view.


Well if she's paid for it it must be true! 
Nobody talks crap for money do they? 

Seriously, doesn't anybody else consider the possible motives of these people? 

I hate to break the illusion, but the fact that people want your money is likely to make them lie through their teeth to get it. You can't get paid for telling people things that they have been told before, so how can you make money out of an old theory?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Well if she's paid for it it must be true!
> Nobody talks crap for money do they?
> 
> Seriously, doesn't anybody else consider the possible motives of these people?
> ...


I never said she was correct, but I don't see how her explanation of the MBTI necessarily contradicts Jung or the basic understanding of the functions. I used her to clarify what yedra was trying to say and back her up. 

Just because you don't share that particular belief it doesn't mean it's necessarily incorrect. If you had actually read my previous post properly you'd notice I actually allowed a much bigger room for error than your hyperbole post you wrote in response to me.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Well if she's paid for it it must be true!
> Nobody talks crap for money do they?
> 
> Seriously, doesn't anybody else consider the possible motives of these people?
> ...


this and the resulting side-argument was astoundingly painful to read.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> this and the resulting side-argument was astoundingly painful to read.


Heck yes I got bored in the middle of it and that's a lot for me to say


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> this and the resulting side-argument was astoundingly painful to read.


If that is an emotional repsons rather than an argument, what makes you think anyone cares? (just paraphrasing yourself, btw)


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

mimesis said:


> If that is an emotional repsons rather than an argument, what makes you think anyone cares? (just paraphrasing yourself, btw)


first of all, congratulations on being so butthurt that you felt the need to go digging around to find a post of mine to try and make me out as a fool. 

second, my PM inbox seems to indicate that at least one person cares. 

third, did you read the thread? the point, while true in some aspects, was not linked specifically to the argument being made. all that was said was that paid speakers are less likely to be truthful because they are paid. there was nothing that specifically talked about the specific person being talked about in the thread. when this was pointed out, Neverontime refused to simply admit she had missed that crucial detail.

oh, and I believe your post is just as applicable to you :dry:


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> first of all, congratulations on being so butthurt that you felt the need to go digging around to find a post of mine to try and make me out as a fool.
> 
> second, my PM inbox seems to indicate that at least one person cares.
> 
> ...


For a moment I thought you were hurting. =)
I have a very good memory, and I can connect the dots. But I'll take it as a compliment nevertheless. 

How can I make a fool of you, by referring to your own words? If it were the case, I think you did that yourself.


----------

