# Emotional Cognitive Functions



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Hi,

I have a theory I've been working on for a while that connects the 8 cognitive functions of Carl Jung's theories with the 8 basic emotions of Robert Plutchik's theories. I just made a blog post about it and want to expose it to people and get some feedback: 
psychologyofemotion.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/emotional-cognitive-functions/

The post talks about much more than this, but to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, I'm proposing that the following cognitive functions are advancements over the corresponding basic emotions:

Fear <=> Introverted Thinking
Anticipation <=> Introverted Intuition
Sadness <=> Introverted Feeling
Disgust <=> Introverted Sensing

Anger <=> Extroverted Thinking
Surprise <=> Extroverted Intuition
Joy <=> Extroverted Feeling
Trust <=> Extroverted Sensing

Hope this gets some people interested!

Thanks


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

I don't understand. So are you saying that people's main emotional states are that of their dominant function? Like Fi-dom usually feel sad?

Why is Fe joy and Fi sadness? Why is Se trust? Wait, trust is an emotion?

You can just copy and paste the URL of your blog post


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Each emotion is highly evolved to respond well to specific stimuli. Sadness is stimulated by loss and ultimately seeks empathy (in survival terms if you successfully empathize another they can aid you in dealing with your loss). So Sadness-dom people are masters at empathy and dealing with loss. I know sadness is negative, and it seems strange that a whole cognitive function would have a negative connotation, but keep in mind that Sadness is designed to prevent or respond to a negative situation. In that sense it is "good".

As for why the cognitive functions are advancements of these specific emotions, I don't have any solid scientific proof. I believe they are because of a lot of research observing, interacting, and discussing with the different personality types and seeing how the functions line up exactly with the emotions. Ultimately, my ability to understand and predict other people's behavior has increased greatly from this theory and that's why I think there is something to it.

Also, I want to point out that each emotion corresponds to one function and each person uses all 8 functions, not just their dominant.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> Here is the blog post: psychologyofemotion.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/emotional-cognitive-functions/
> 
> Each emotion is highly evolved to respond well to specific stimuli. Sadness is stimulated by loss and ultimately seeks empathy (in survival terms if you successfully empathize another they can aid you in dealing with your loss). So Sadness-dom people are masters at empathy and dealing with loss. I know sadness is negative, and it seems strange that a whole cognitive function would have a negative connotation, but keep in mind that Sadness is designed to prevent or respond to a negative situation. In that sense it is "good".
> 
> ...


I definitely notice that a lot of IFPs have experienced things like depression in their lives, same do I. Fi seems to bring a lot of internal struggle to the person. For me, negative emotion, which sadness is the most common, is often most strongly felt and expressed, which I don't know why. Surely joy can be very strong but it seems that we are more often apathetic and depressed than joyful. But when I feel really happy it's profound as well, so idk. It's like apathetic/neutral > depressed > joy. That's just me.

Dealing with loss is interesting, and sounds pretty romantic. I have not thought about that. Umm... it's actually kind of true. I have been learning to cope with some fucking loss throughout my life.

Fe is joy? Maybe? That's interesting.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

I just want to be clear that there is a difference between Joy and Happiness. I struggled with this for a while since Joy is my inferior and it would seem I'm doomed to be unhappy. However, that was a naive view, and in reality Joy is a specific emotion with specific goals (gain valued resources) while Happiness is relative to the goals of your whole personality (taking all 8 functions into account). I would say happiness relative to any emotion is when that emotion is accomplishing it's goals successfully. And for a whole personality, happiness is when a person can attain success, which really means their dominant function is able to find really good completions based on cognitive appraisals.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

This is really interesting. I've just begun looking at your blog post and this emotions system, but I've got to say I don't understand why Joy=Fe and Trust=Se. I would switch those two. Se has a very "want, take, have" attitude towards the world, and "Friendly object-->Friend!" sounds like a cartoon Fe-dom.

I do quite like my functions' corresponding cycles though.

Edit: @UniversalTruth Could you elaborate on why Ti is fear? I don't quite get it and if you talked about it in your blog post I couldn't find it.

Edit #2: Okay, I'm starting to get it as the opposite of Anger, in the sense that it is a systematic avoidance of the obstacle as opposed to a systematic confrontation of it. Is that kind of the idea?

Edit #3: I realized you were trying that opposition between the extrovert introvert pairs, and I actually think, now that I've looked at, that Fi would be WAY better as disgust and Si would be much better as sadness. I identify much more with disgust than sadness, and I associate Fi really intensely with the feeling of _I hate that thing_ and my Si with loss, nostalgia, and melancholy.

Edit #4: Sorry about all the edits. I just keep having ah-ha moments. This is a ton of fun.

Edit #5: Okay, my argument for switching the feeling and sensing functions: trust and disgust are value judgements. This thing is good, or this thing is bad. Sadness and Joy are more intensely tied to the physical and the now.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

For why Joy is Fe and Trust is Se, the answer is just that that's what I have observed in those types. Keep in mind each person uses 4 different emotions consciously, so ENFJ for example is a Joy dominant, and their associations (tertiary) is Trust (Se) which when specialized to the associations role is about determining to what degree a person/object is a friend. Their completion role (auxiliary) is Anticipation, which when specialized to the completion role is exploration. So to briefly summarize ENFJs in a short sentence one could say: ENFJ's use Joy-ideas (ideas about gaining valued resources) to connect Friend associations to exploration completions. They love to explore around looking for more friends which are valued resources to them.

Se dominants on the other hand use Trust directly in their ideas and planning. They associate objects/people as either enemies (ESFP) or possessions (ESTP), and their trust connects these associations to good completions, either seek empathy (ESFP) or escape (ESTP).

One way to tell them apart is Joy dominants will often talk about all the great stuff they are gaining or will gain, while Trust dominants have a group-based thinking, they often talk about what belongs in each group, they are highly sensitive to the specific "culture" of every group and are masters of being accepted into any group they want and also extremely open to accepting others into their groups.

Your edit#2 is about right except Fear avoids threats (not obstacles).

Si is your 4th function, which is the elements role. In that role disgust identifies objects as to how "unpalatable" they are, or in other words: how much they stand out in a given context. This makes sense for Ne (Surprise) dominants since knowing what stands out from what is normal allows you to better come up with surprising ideas.

When you go into inferior mode you become like an ISTJ which is disgust dominant. You wrote: 


> I identify much more with disgust than sadness, and I associate Fi really intensely with the feeling of I hate that thing and my Si with loss, nostalgia, and melancholy


ISTJ's have sadness specialized into their associations role in which case it attempts to determine the degree to which objects are causing abandonment. It sounds like you associate Si with your associations when in inferior mode, but they are actaully sadness based. When in ISTJ-mode your ideas and planning will be Disgust based which means they will be about rejecting what does not belong (getting rid of poisons).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I love that you call Se types relating to enemies or possessions. It's a state of mind that deeply offends other types, you know. It's seen as ugly or brutal or insane.

I actually agree with you. Fe types plan and anticipate joy in a way which can seem artificial to other types. Fi types can be very sad, thinking about human or animal suffering, being big Debbie Downers, we are not laughing at your jokes about washing kitty in the commode. No wonder Fe and Fi can have conflicts, their emotions of mastery are almost opposite.

Si yes they can annoy, attempting to avoid disgusting things can be like a huge wet blanket if you are not Si.

I also entirely understand Te and anger.

Your N correlation of Surprise and Anticipation mystify me, but that's ok.. I also don't understand what Ti means, but what else is new, im lucky to be able to use rudimentary Ti in order to use a complicated fireplace lighter with two clicky things. I still can't drive a stick without grinding the clutch.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

> I love that you call Se types relating to enemies or possessions. It's a state of mind that deeply offends other types, you know. It's seen as ugly or brutal or insane.


I do not agree with this at all. Any type can behave in a brutal or insane way. Whether they do or not depends on how healthy/intelligent/experienced/how much empathy they have/etc. An ENFP or ESFP can view you as a "worthy opponent" and still care about you very much. ENTP and ESTP can view you as their "prized possession" and treat you wonderfully.

Whether you agree or disagree with a type's associations/tertiary depends on your specific emotions and how they line up with others. I find it hard to deal with some specific emotions in others, but if I force myself to look at it objectively I see that their emotions are serving a purpose and can be used to help others even if I can't easily agree with them.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

fourtines said:


> Your N correlation of Surprise and Anticipation mystify me, but that's ok.. I also don't understand what Ti means, but what else is new, im lucky to be able to use rudimentary Ti in order to use a complicated fireplace lighter with two clicky things. I still can't drive a stick without grinding the clutch.


As an example of Surprise and Anticipation behavior, I've noticed that they have specific ways they form their sentences. ENFP and ENTP form their sentences in a way so as to maximize surprise in the listener. The beginning and middle of the sentence goes in one direction and at the end of the sentence they place a word/concept that is "out of left field" that one does not expect. INTJ and INFJ do the opposite: their sentences always build up to their main point at the end. You see it coming already at the beginning and middle of the sentence. They build anticipation in you for the final result at the end.

As a Fi dominant your weakest function is Ti/fear (and as a Ti dominant my weakest function is Fi/sadness). Ti is like a specialized problem-solving way of thinking. The "problem" is viewed as a threat, and Ti/Fear attempts to escape from the theat (solve the problem). A threat could be an imminent danger and lead to death, so Ti/Fear is highly focused and alert at solving the theat/problem. Nothing else exists while the theat still stands. Fear dominants feel like we must escape the threat immediately before we can do anything else.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I mean Ni makes more sense to me than Ne...based on Se data I will anticipate xyz, and people will say I am insightful or have a screw loose.

Avoiding surprises seems fucking awful, which is probably why Ne in general sometimes seems silly or pointless to me (oh isn't that person brilliant and creative about absolutely nothing!) And would easily be paired with a function that avoids disgust.

I always want one right yes or no answer. That's avoiding anticipation. Ni.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

UniversalTruth said:


> As an example of Surprise and Anticipation behavior, I've noticed that they have specific ways they form their sentences. ENFP and ENTP form their sentences in a way so as to maximize surprise in the listener. The beginning and middle of the sentence goes in one direction and at the end of the sentence they place a word/concept that is "out of left field" that one does not expect. INTJ and INFJ do the opposite: their sentences always build up to their main point at the end. You see it coming already at the beginning and middle of the sentence. They build anticipation in you for the final result at the end.
> 
> As a Fi dominant your weakest function is Ti/fear (and as a Ti dominant my weakest function is Fi/sadness). Ti is like a specialized problem-solving way of thinking. The "problem" is viewed as a threat, and Ti/Fear attempts to escape from the theat (solve the problem). A threat could be an imminent danger and lead to death, so Ti/Fear is highly focused and alert at solving the theat/problem. Nothing else exists while the theat still stands. Fear dominants feel like we must escape the threat immediately before we can do anything else.


Ti sounds like the way men are stereotyped. They don't want to hear about a problem they can't solve!

So Ne and Ni maximize surprises and anticipation. I thought they avoid it because Ne says what if what if, and Ni wants to know the one correct future aha.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

fourtines said:


> I mean Ni makes more sense to me than Ne...based on Se data I will anticipate xyz, and people will say I am insightful or have a screw loose.
> 
> Avoiding surprises seems fucking awful, which is probably why Ne in general sometimes seems silly or pointless to me (oh isn't that person brilliant and creative about absolutely nothing!) And would easily be paired with a function that avoids disgust.
> 
> I always want one right yes or no answer. That's avoiding anticipation. Ni.


Ne does not avoid surprise. Ne literally is an advancement of the Surprise emotion which is a positive emotion meant to increase understanding of the environment. Surprise dominants want to perceive and express things in surprising ways, they want to experience things which were previously unexpected/unknown. Surprise has a specific survival value: to ultimately move toward and explain unexpected events. 
Ni does move away from that which has been understood (as from a survival point of view you it wants to gain more knowledge so you need to explore new territories to get more knowledge).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

UniversalTruth said:


> I do not agree with this at all. Any type can behave in a brutal or insane way. Whether they do or not depends on how healthy/intelligent/experienced/how much empathy they have/etc. An ENFP or ESFP can view you as a "worthy opponent" and still care about you very much. ENTP and ESTP can view you as their "prized possession" and treat you wonderfully.
> 
> Whether you agree or disagree with a type's associations/tertiary depends on your specific emotions and how they line up with others. I find it hard to deal with some specific emotions in others, but if I force myself to look at it objectively I see that their emotions are serving a purpose and can be used to help others even if I can't easily agree with them.


Welp, if you hang around personality cafe long enough you will find people very disgusted with you for thinking of them or their bodies as a possession or communication as a challenge or opposition is mean and rude.

I live it son. And why the hell would ENxP have Se.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

UniversalTruth said:


> Ne does not avoid surprise. Ne literally is an advancement of the Surprise emotion which is a positive emotion meant to increase understanding of the environment. Surprise dominants want to perceive and express things in surprising ways, they want to experience things which were previously unexpected/unknown. Surprise has a specific survival value: to ultimately move toward and explain unexpected events.
> Ni does move away from that which has been understood (as from a survival point of view you it wants to gain more knowledge so you need to explore new territories to get more knowledge).


But Si types would use what if to avoid surprises, and Ni used by Se types to avoid the wrong path. So my estimation of avoiding is probably based on Si and Se types.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Se is Trust, Ne is Surprise; neither are related to possession or enemies. Each person is not just one emotion but an interaction of all 8 (with 4 conscious and easily observable). Enemy-thinking is the association/tertiary of Anger, and Possession-thinking is the association/tertiary of Joy. ESFP and ENFP have Anger specialized into their association/tertiary role (from MBTI type-dynamics they have Te as their tertiary and Te=advancement of anger). ESTP and ENTP have Joy specilaized into their association/tertiary role (Fe as their tertiary)


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Maybe I am a Si-dom. Most things in the world seem so disgusting to me. =P


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

I'm not sure to what extent Si types avoid surprise. In their inferior personality mode they become Ne/surprise dominant, so for that reason they will tend to learn a negative association to full blown Surprise. However, their elements role (4th function) is Ne/Surprise, which when specialized to the elements role means they are looking out for "unexpected events". That is literally how Si dominants identify objects and events: by the degree to which they are unexpected.
Se types have Ni specialized to the elements role which means they identify objects and events as vague directions. Like a basic cause and effect idea, but the effect isn't fully formed, it's more like an arrow pointing in a direction.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

I don't see how 'trust' is an emotion.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Popular culture emphasizes Sadness and Joy above the other emotions. Emotions are really a means to solve a problem our ancestors encountered in the past; they have a specific survival benefit. Trust allows one to assess the degree to which a person is your friend and also gives one an understanding of what others expect as "friendly" behavior. It allows one to build their group or join a group. Here is the stimulus->action cycle:
Friendly object -> Friend -> Trust -> groom/accept

Trust has a consistent facial expression: eyebrows raised slightly and relaxed, big smile with lips held together and no teeth showing. You will see this displayed very often by ESFP and ESTP.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

carteblanche said:


> Sure, my question is why would I need to? Where does the need to correlate emotion and cognitive functions come from? What is the theory trying to accomplish?


Because emotional expression is something everyone can understand. Emotions involve specific observable behaviors. This makes it easier to type and understand people. How many times have you seen a post about people not sure what their type is? The MBTI has a high inaccuracy. Using emotional expression and behavior this could potentially allow much more accurate typing. It could bring the theory into a real science that is observable. If someone isn't sure if they are INTJ or INTP, well now they can figure out if they are anticipatory and prone to attack, or fearful and prone to examine, and can even use their own emotional expressions.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Velasquez said:


> So er, which type do you think he is?


Fear = Dominant Ti; Grooming/acceptance = completion Se
So ISTP


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I don't think it was directed at you as a question, but as a comment on the OP doing it in this very thread.


I understand, and I hope the OP responds. Your comment made me think some more, so I posted the questions that came to mind.
Basically, I can accept (pun intended)  the premise of a possible correlation (cognitive processes predispose us toward certain emotional states), I cannot however make myself equate "Ti" and fear.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> Fear = Dominant Ti; Grooming/acceptance = completion Se
> So ISTP


Now produce an argument for him being ISTP without referring to his facial expressions or emotions.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

UniversalTruth said:


> Because emotional expression is something everyone can understand. Emotions involve specific observable behaviors. This makes it easier to type and understand people. How many times have you seen a post about people not sure what their type is? The MBTI has a high inaccuracy. Using emotional expression and behavior this could potentially allow much more accurate typing. It could bring the theory into a real science that is observable. If someone isn't sure if they are INTJ or INTP, well now they can figure out if they are anticipatory and prone to attack, or fearful and prone to examine, and can even use their own emotional expressions.


) So you are basically trying to formalize the "vibe" a person might give off? ) I think that's cute!


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Velasquez said:


> Now produce an argument for him being ISTP without referring to his facial expressions or emotions.


They whole point of what I'm suggesting is that the emotions are what is really going on, the functions are advancements over them, so any truthful description of why I think he's ISTP will involve emotions. The cognitive functions are inherently vague and one could construe them to mean many things, while emotions have a universal quality and grounded behavior.

If you try to analyze what he's doing overall in his interview with the glasses, he is being very tactical, he is careful not to make any really extreme claims that could come back to hurt him, and everything he says is designed to project a specific persona of the cool, unique, artist. The careful tactics and grooming to a specific group are what makes him ISTP. His emotional expressions align with his overall strategy. It fits.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

carteblanche said:


> ) So you are basically trying to formalize the "vibe" a person might give off? ) I think that's cute!


Thanks! At least someone is on my side


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> You are attacking me for something I never did (assuming if you were listed as ENTP I would type you as such). I gave you specific grounded examples of your own behavior.


How is it an attack? Yes, I accuse you of what you are doing in this thread and the way you reacted to my post because it's not sound behavior. You made an assumption about me at some level or you would not have been able to type me in the first place. Now, you have barely interacted with me so at some level you must have made an assumption about my character. Since your analysis was so neatly fitting the type label I wear, I assume you looked at my type level as we all do on this forum and you thought you saw a pattern that fit and provided an analysis as such. Yet humorously, you refuse to type one of the most honest Hollywood celebrities you can find because of the potential of him projecting a stage persona but you tentatively typed this persona of his that is not a persona at all as some form of Ti type if I understood you correctly, though this does not at all actually correlate to his cognition. 

Similarly then, how do you know I am not projecting a persona now? How do you know I am honest about myself? You don't. You merely assumed I am, and you do, because you judge me based on my behavior as opposed to my cognitive mechanics and the reason you do this is because you don't understand them and thus, cannot see them in people. It's very easy to discredit that which one cannot see. 



> It has not existed long enough to be failing, it has only been exposed to the public for less than one day. You believed it has already failed, even though that is not possible until the future, clearly anticipation.


Sigh. You and I don't agree on the definition of "failing". I never was interested in the public opinion and how the public is going to perceive it. It is failing *to me* and it is doing it now. I honestly thought that much was clear when I expressed that it's failing. I couldn't care about how other people see your theory or whether it's going to fail according to public opinion in the future. That you think I care about public opinion and how they will receive your theory in how you analyzed my reasoning shows your own projection bias more than it says something about how I actually reason. You projected a number of things and assumed that I'd operate and logically reason as you would but I don't. I'm not an Fe type so I couldn't give a rat's ass about public opinion. 



> I have no idea what you are referring to about twisting Jung's theory. I make almost no claims about Jung's theory other than that his cognitive functions are advancements of human emotions. I never claimed Jung's theory is something it is not. I'm making claims about my theories.


Exactly, you don't, because you don't understand Jung enough to know why it's being twisted. Let me put it as plainly as possible:

You want to connect Jungian theory to this theory of yours. When you do that, you assume a number of things of how Jungian theory works because if you wouldn't, you can't connect them. That's why you bothered to quote Wikipedia about Jungian theory and the MBTI in the first place. You've clearly made an inference where your theory at some level builds upon Jungian theory, whether you like it or not. You for example refer to the functions and make allusions to introversion-extroversion. Now, if you actually understood Jung, you would realize that it wouldn't be possible to connect Jung the way you did without some serious tweaking that would no longer be related to Jung's original theory but rather an expansion of it. I actually don't necessarily mind this as long it makes some rational sense. Myers did this, socionics did this, Beebe has done this etc. However, when one does that, one better knows the differences between what one is trying to create and is able to separate that from the source of creation. You aren't capable of doing this, and the reason why is because you cannot identify the source of creation. Whether it be a pile of mud or a bucket of color, you couldn't care less. You just splatter it all onto your canvas just the same. 

When you present your now colored canvas and point out, "that color is Jung" it's no longer distinguishable into what it used to be. You've changed the contents to fit your own concept with little regard how the original concept operates. Of course, you favoring Ne with such heavy Si bias you don't see the issue with this because to you all ideas are equal and the same but that's not how it works for me, especially if you are going to also type people in this new system of yours wherein your typing doesn't seem to correlate much at all with neither MBTI nor Jungian typing. Then it is clear your system is something else unrelated to anything Jung and for the sake of intellectual honesty and integrity, it would be better if you actually recognized it as such. 

I fail to see how it can be clearer than this.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> They whole point of what I'm suggesting is that the emotions are what is really going on, the functions are advancements over them, so any truthful description of why I think he's ISTP will involve emotions.


So in other words, what you're saying is that your theory is based on nothing but circular reasoning and is complete bullshit? 

_"An ISTP by my definition is somebody who has X facial expressions"
"Hey, look at how everybody who has X facial expressions is ISTP. There is a link between people's personality types and their facial expressions"_


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> Thanks! At least someone is on my side


If the most merit that anybody has managed to find in your theory thus far is that it's 'cute', maybe it's time to reconsider...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> Fear = Dominant Ti; Grooming/acceptance = completion Se
> So ISTP


He's a cognitive INTJ. I was at least hoping you'd type him as an Fi dom since that's an easy mistake to make. His cognition is very NiTe. He speaks about intuitive concepts though perhaps the videos I linked weren't necessarily the best at showcasing it, and refers to external data and internal values when doing so. His Fi is very visible whenever he speaks about his art and sense of self because of how self-focused he is. It's about subjective rationalization of ethics and values. He favors that which is important to him and he finds valuable, not necessarily referring to external values the Fe type does seeing the world through the lens of objective focus. 

This is an example of a cognitive ISTP right down to how he uses inferior Fe in order to build emotional rapport with the audience but to me at least, only comes off as overly creepy due to its inferior character, albeit sincere in its presentation:


----------



## Fuzzyslug (Aug 12, 2011)

So I was going over the thread and thought "is this one of those instances where a Ti theory doesn't match up with reality?" hrm...
Also lolz @ ISTP for Marilyn Manson :laughing:


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Exactly, you don't, because you don't understand Jung enough to know why it's being twisted. Let me put it as plainly as possible:
> 
> You want to connect Jungian theory to this theory of yours. When you do that, you assume a number of things of how Jungian theory works because if you wouldn't, you can't connect them. That's why you bothered to quote Wikipedia about Jungian theory and the MBTI in the first place. You've clearly made an inference where your theory at some level builds upon Jungian theory, whether you like it or not. You for example refer to the functions and make allusions to introversion-extroversion. Now, if you actually understood Jung, you would realize that it wouldn't be possible to connect Jung the way you did without some serious tweaking that would no longer be related to Jung's original theory but rather an expansion of it. I actually don't necessarily mind this as long it makes some rational sense. Myers did this, socionics did this, Beebe has done this etc. However, when one does that, one better knows the differences between what one is trying to create and is able to separate that from the source of creation. You aren't capable of doing this, and the reason why is because you cannot identify the source of creation. Whether it be a pile of mud or a bucket of color, you couldn't care less. You just splatter it all onto your canvas just the same.
> 
> ...


Please point out specifically where I have suggested Jung's theory is altered or twisted. It seems to me I have done an extensions as you say you would prefer. I was very clear to provide a review of the theories, and then in a separate section describe my own. I suggest the cognitive functions are advancements over emotions. That is an extension, not a twisting. It does not alter anything in Jung's original theory. It can be true both that Ti is what Jung said and also an advancement of Fear.

Please give specifics, as so far you are being vague.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Velasquez said:


> So in other words, what you're saying is that your theory is based on nothing but circular reasoning and is complete bullshit?
> 
> _"An ISTP by my definition is somebody who has X facial expressions"
> "Hey, look at how everybody who has X facial expressions is ISTP. There is a link between people's personality types and their facial expressions"_


Sorry, no I didn't mean to convey that. Of course I was inspired originally because of seeing the link between the cognitive functions as I understood them in Jung's or MBTI and emotions.

For example, (according to wikipedia):
"Ti seeks precision, such as the exact word to express an idea. It notices the minute distinctions that define the essence of things, then analyzes and classifies them. Ti examines all sides of an issue, looking to solve problems while minimizing effort and risk. It uses models to root out logical inconsistency. Ti is calm, articulate, and aware of the forces that bind reality together. As introverted thinkers, INTPs spend the majority of their time and energy ordering the interior, logical world of principles and generalizations in an effort to understand."
Being precise, noticing minute distinctions, examining all sides of an issue, minimizing effort and risk. These all align with Fear based thinking. Each of the emotions aligns with the descriptions of the cognitive functions in a similar way.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> Sorry, no I didn't mean to convey that. Of course I was inspired originally because of seeing the link between the cognitive functions as I understood them in Jung's or MBTI and emotions.
> 
> For example, (according to wikipedia):
> "Ti seeks precision, such as the exact word to express an idea. It notices the minute distinctions that define the essence of things, then analyzes and classifies them. Ti examines all sides of an issue, looking to solve problems while minimizing effort and risk. It uses models to root out logical inconsistency. Ti is calm, articulate, and aware of the forces that bind reality together. As introverted thinkers, INTPs spend the majority of their time and energy ordering the interior, logical world of principles and generalizations in an effort to understand."
> Being precise, noticing minute distinctions, examining all sides of an issue, minimizing effort and risk. These all align with Fear based thinking. Each of the emotions aligns with the descriptions of the cognitive functions in a similar way.


How does that definition relate back to Marilyn Manson?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> Please point out specifically where I have suggested Jung's theory is altered or twisted. It seems to me I have done an extensions as you say you would prefer. I was very clear to provide a review of the theories, and then in a separate section describe my own. I suggest the cognitive functions are advancements over emotions. That is an extension, not a twisting. It does not alter anything in Jung's original theory. It can be true both that Ti is what Jung said and also an advancement of Fear.
> 
> Please give specifics, as so far you are being vague.


But you are using his theory to build upon yours and you refer to his concepts but in order for Jungian theory to fit the concepts you want them to fit you need to change them into something they're not.

In other words, you are trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole. It doesn't work without removing the corners but by doing that you no longer hold a square peg, it's round.


----------



## Fuzzyslug (Aug 12, 2011)

UniversalTruth said:


> Thanks! At least someone is on my side


Please don't misunderstand, this isn't about taking 'sides' - you're offering up a theory that will be scrutinized for validity, nothing more.

If it holds up to reality that's all that matters.
Certainly you didn't expect to not be criticized?

It's a noble thing trying to help others, however I won't accept this at face value (your subjective observations) - sources, etc. ("Te-methods") would give more weight to your system. :tongue:


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> Being precise, noticing minute distinctions, examining all sides of an issue, minimizing effort and risk. These all align with Fear based thinking.


So if I was walking through the forest one day and then all of a sudden a *motherfucking big ass grizzly bear* started coming towards me, you think I'd start noticing minute distinctions in its behaviour and examining all sides of the issue?


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> But you are using his theory to build upon yours and you refer to his concepts but in order for Jungian theory to fit the concepts you want them to fit you need to change them into something they're not.
> 
> In other words, you are trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole. It doesn't work without removing the corners but by doing that you no longer hold a square peg, it's round.


I disagree that in order for a cognitive function to be an advancement over an emotion it has to be different than Jung's definition. Please provide an example where there is a contradiction between a Jungian function and the perception or behavior of the emotion associated with that function.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Velasquez said:


> So if I was walking through the forest one day and then all of a sudden a *motherfucking big ass grizzly bear* started coming towards me, you think I'd start noticing minute distinctions in its behaviour and examining all sides of the issue?


Yes, in order to get away from the bear it is important to consider as many possible exit routes as one can as fast as possible. Of course there is only so much time, but the emotion will have built up over years information and tactics to speed up the process when a major threat appears. Fear wants to be precise and fast, because life is on the line.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> According to Jung emotions are the realm of Sensation and to a lesser degree, Feeling.


It seems the situation is that Jung had theories about a lot of different aspects of psychology. He theorized about cognitive functions as well as emotions. I clearly don't agree that emotions are restricted to only a subset of the functions. However, I see a clear connection to his cognitive functions and the emotions I've listed. It seems several people reject my ideas because they do not take all of Jung's together as a whole consistently.

I'm suggesting cognitive functions are advancements over basic emotions. I'm also clearly disagreeing with some of Jung's ideas about emotions. Essentially, I'm taking some ideas from Jung's theory that are correct (in my experience) and discarding others that are in contradiction to my experiences (that emotions are only related to some and not all cognitive functions). I assumed my presentation of my theory was ok in this regard. If it is not please explain to me why. Is it not appropriate to say Jung's cognitive functions are advancements of emotions? If not then why? I'm not claiming to have scientific evidence other than my own experiences. It's just a theory for now, something for people to consider and see if their own experience coincides or disagrees. I can't imagine it's true that it's illegal for someone to say "hey this other theory has some good ideas and some bad ones; I'm going to take the good ones and see where they lead".


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Way to misinterpret my statement. I never implied that I don't get along with Se dominants, in fact I can talk with them easily thanks to the shared Se-Ni, and this is more clear with ESFPs because they value Fi-Te. Are you sure that those people that you know are Se doms? I ask because Se is a troublesome function for INTPs and INFPs, but that's an issue explained by Socionics's idea of the Point of Least Resistance.


You actually did the exact thing you criticize me for: you made an assumption about my relationship with Se dominants.
If you look in this thread an ESFP was by far the nicest to me of anyone. They liked the idea of my theory, my INTP concepts make sense to them.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

UniversalTruth said:


> You actually did the exact thing you criticize me for: you made an assumption about my relationship with Se dominants.
> If you look in this thread an ESFP was by far the nicest to me of anyone. They liked the idea of my theory, my INTP concepts make sense to them.


Wait what? you're assuming that from only one post, so how that can be sound evidence about you getting along with Se doms and that they really get your concepts?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> According to Jung emotions are the realm of Sensation and to a lesser degree, Feeling.


How do you draw that conclusion based on this? He uses the word "approximation", which makes it not quite the same since it is experienced through the nervous system but he does not speak of the source as much as he does of the experience. I'm talking about the source here wherein feelings would themselves not be of actual conscious content. How we experience and thus rationalize feelings, would however perhaps be closer to Sensation and Feeling based on how Jung defined it himself.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Wait what? you're assuming that from only one post, so how that can be sound evidence about you getting along with Se doms and that they really get your concepts?


I am not jumping to the conclusions you suggest. I'm saying I have one grounded example that everyone can observe. You are saying there is some theory that says such and such about how INTPs and INTJs interact with Se dominants. Any of us could make any abstract claims and no one else here has the ability to directly verify them. I'm providing a specific example we can all share in and observe.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

UniversalTruth said:


> I am not jumping to the conclusions you suggest. I'm saying I have one grounded example that everyone can observe. You are saying there is some theory that says such and such about how INTPs and INTJs interact with Se dominants. Any of us could make any abstract claims and no one else here has the ability to directly verify them. I'm providing a specific example we can all share in and observe.


Whatever, if you really want evidence that proves those abstract claims, then I have no other choice than to summon the two ESFPs that I know, which are @Amaterasu and @Kintsugi as I've talked with them before, verifying at least that duality isn't a ridiculous concept.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> You know they are not the same fruit by sensory stimulus, so you are suggesting you know those aspects of psychology are different from sensory stimulus directly?


No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. It was simply an analogy to clarify the discrepancy in understanding. 



> That's for each person to interpret, clearly I have not satisfied you in the least.


Actually no. If you cannot validate your own ideas logically to others, then what merit does it have to anyone else but you? 



> I do not believe there is an objective type for Marilyn Manson. You say he's INTJ and gave vague justifications about how his ideas match with Ni etc.; I say he's ISTP from his emotional expression and overall strategy. This is an extremely poor example to go off of since he's a celebrity and has a strong incentive to manipulate the viewer in a way that favors his celebrity aims.


And I just told you that Marilyn Manson is perhaps one of the most honest celebrities you can find if one is willing to type someone and is worried about persona. His "persona" is his actual self. He has no reason to fake himself because it goes against the core of who he is. 

And you think they are vague because you can't see it. Therein lies the problem. It's not a poor example at all. It's a very good one because you can use this argument on essentially anyone to get away with the fact that there may be a discrepancy in your theory and how others actually type people based on Jungian cognition. 

Jungian cognition doesn't directly deal with persona in the first place or behavior exactly because it would be too easy to stereotype people this way just like the MBTI system does e.g. J types are all orderly people whereas P types are disorderly people. 

Jungian cognition attempts to look beyond how people appear or behave in order to understand their psychological processes. The basic question is always "is the psyche introverted or extroverted"? How do we know this? We look at how the psyche orients itself to the world. Does the psyche seem to draw upon and describe content outside or inside? We can conclude that Marilyn Manson seems to be an introvert because when he describes his reality, he seems to always do that from his own experience of it. He's not attempting to describe things outside himself as an object among objects, but he's focusing his thoughts on the objective world as a subject located in a world of objectivity. And it's important to not get hung up on words. This guy is an ENFJ but seems to describe inner experience:






We know this because we see that he is rationalizing ethics, value etc in this particular speech. He's trying to rationalize the importance of war but he is not doing so based on his own personal sentiments as much as he's describing what war is objectively, what effect it has on people and how it makes people feel. Thus his psyche is objectively focused. This stands in contrast to this character when she holds her similar speech:






She first of all realizes the importance that what her experience is unique to everyone else. It's usually a strong indicator that the person is an introvert, especially Fi type. She then motivates it with Fi-Te sentiments e.g. it was an external logical fact they are slaves and it is now an external logical fact they are free. An Fe-Ti type wouldn't agree with this logic because slavery and freedom are to them, universal ethical experiences of subjective logical value. Being a slave does not abide logical rules but changes through context. She then goes on to express a lot of Fi sentiments wherein she's trying to motivate them because of what she personally finds important. She doesn't care about the feeling of others in the sense that her cognitive focus is that on how they are feeling and simply generalizes this the way Fe does being extroverted, but she does this by stating her personal goal and desire and recognizes their own freedom to choose because their personal desire could be different. 

And if you want examples of Se types:






Mugen is an ESFP and Bundai the teacher, likely ESTP.






Ygritte is also an ESFP and Jon Snow an INTJ. 

It's not so much about behavioral but how they conceptualize reality. This is what cognitive type is. 

We can note that Marilyn Manson is an intuitive type because he often deals with reality as concepts or ideas of what things represents. When he describes what something is, he tends to do so in terms of how the object appears beyond its actual physical qualities that would lie in the realms of sensation. Therein the comment in another video he appeared in where he sarcastically said that "[a painting is an] object with four corners and looks like a painting" or some such. It's a strong indication of Se by stating the object exactly as it is, and because he did so sarcastically it means he's actually aware of the fact the painting could well be something more than a painting that is, in terms of intuitive content, he sees it as something beyond its physical presentation. Because he doesn't seem very concerned about defining the world as much as he seems concerned about experiencing it which becomes obvious when he appears in the Bill Maher shows and he makes some statements about what his performances are about, we can conclude he's more likely an irrational over rational type. Because he favors intuition then Ni is more likely than Si. 

Type does not exist concretely. The only person I can think of as of this moment who could prove this at all is Dario Nardi though I disagree with his definitions of what the functions are, and any attempt to define type concretely ends up the same way - it doesn't actually define Jungian type at all but something else. 



> What does that mean?


It means what I've been saying all along - Te types and Ti types view reality differently and thus also what is seen as valid or not in terms of data and data construction. That you and I cannot agree has part to do with our psychological types and how it affects intertype relationships, something socionics goes into much greater detail than neither Jung nor the MBTI. I find it extremely accurate in its ability to depict behavior thus far. 



> How is it different? Both say the emotion originates in the subconsious. The text you quoted did not suggest emotions _only_ exist in the subconscious. If they did then we would hardly ever see them.


It's different because you suggest the rationalization and conceptualization process of type is the same as emotion when it's not. I suggest it exists parallel to it as opposed to being the same.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> And I just told you that Marilyn Manson is perhaps one of the most honest celebrities you can find if one is willing to type someone and is worried about persona. His "persona" is his actual self. He has no reason to fake himself because it goes against the core of who he is.
> 
> And you think they are vague because you can't see it. Therein lies the problem. It's not a poor example at all. It's a very good one because you can use this argument on essentially anyone to get away with the fact that there may be a discrepancy in your theory and how others actually type people based on Jungian cognition.


It is an objective fact that Marilyn Manson has a financial incentive to present a persona that maintains and grows his fan base. I'm not suggesting that he is definitely doing that, but the incentive is there. You say he is being real, ok but that is just your opinion. A better example is someone who does not have a direct, large financial incentive to be an actor.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> It is an objective fact that Marilyn Manson has a financial incentive to present a persona that maintains and grows his fan base.


No it isn't. This is your opinion.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> How do you draw that conclusion based on this? He uses the word "approximation", which makes it not quite the same since it is experienced through the nervous system but he does not speak of the source as much as he does of the experience. I'm talking about the source here wherein feelings would themselves not be of actual conscious content. How we experience and thus rationalize feelings, would however perhaps be closer to Sensation and Feeling based on how Jung defined it himself.


Eh?

I was just throwing out there that Jung mentioned a relationship to Sensation and Feeling specifically rather than all of the functions. This was just a random fact to throw at the OP. Not sure what you're on about...

From my understanding, "approximated," in this context, was to say that an affect was more of a sensation than a feeling. I'm not sure what you think I think it means.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I'll just tl;dr the Jungian model to you here then:


Geez, you should make a socionics site or whatever for all your explanations to be readily accessible. Many of your posts are quite informative and it's a pity that most people might miss them because they appear in random threads sometimes.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> It is an objective fact that Marilyn Manson has a financial incentive to present a persona that maintains and grows his fan base. I'm not suggesting that he is definitely doing that, but the incentive is there. You say he is being real, ok but that is just your opinion. A better example is someone who does not have a direct, large financial incentive to be an actor.


Actually, it's not my opinion. It's his opinion of himself and people close to him state this too. This is a direct quote from him:

"Marilyn Monroe wasn't even her real name, Charles Manson isn't his real name, and now, I'm taking that to be my real name."

You clearly haven't bothered to listen to any of his interviews when people question him and his life choices or for the matter read The Long Hard Road Out of Hell, though I don't blame you for doing the latter since one would need to be a bit more vested into him more than typing him to do that. 

I can't seem to find the actual video I am looking for where some of his closer associates comment on his role as an artist and how Marilyn Manson is his actual identity as opposed to his birth name, but it doesn't matter. It's a fact that it is and that you keep denying this in order to protect your theory just shows your own shortcomings.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Eh?
> 
> I was just throwing out there that Jung mentioned a relationship to Sensation and Feeling specifically rather than all of the functions. This was just a random fact to throw at the OP. Not sure what you're on about...
> 
> From my understanding, "approximated," in this context, was to say that an affect was more of a sensation than a feeling. I'm not sure what you think I think it means.


Oh, I see. I misunderstood you then as I thought you were citing something in relation to something I wrote as factually incorrect or something. My apologies. We were talking about different things then.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

UniversalTruth said:


> Fear <=> Introverted Thinking
> Anticipation <=> Introverted Intuition
> Sadness <=> Introverted Feeling
> Disgust <=> Introverted Sensing
> ...


I came here to laugh at you, I'll probably leave slightly interested in your theory instead.

There doesn't seem to be any theoretical basis for this. However, on an empirical level, from my experience there does seem to be some user trends.

Weird. Although perhaps it has to do with the experience the functions put the user through, more-so than the emotions giving form to a function.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

UniversalTruth said:


> For why Joy is Fe and Trust is Se, the answer is just that that's what I have observed in those types. Keep in mind each person uses 4 different emotions consciously, so ENFJ for example is a Joy dominant, and their associations (tertiary) is Trust (Se) which when specialized to the associations role is about determining to what degree a person/object is a friend. Their completion role (auxiliary) is Anticipation, which when specialized to the completion role is exploration. So to briefly summarize ENFJs in a short sentence one could say: ENFJ's use Joy-ideas (ideas about gaining valued resources) to connect Friend associations to exploration completions. They love to explore around looking for more friends which are valued resources to them.
> 
> One way to tell them apart is Joy dominants will often talk about all the great stuff they are gaining or will gain, while Trust dominants have a group-based thinking, they often talk about what belongs in each group, they are highly sensitive to the specific "culture" of every group and are masters of being accepted into any group they want and also extremely open to accepting others into their groups.


This still sounds backwards to me. Your description of Joy still sounds like Se, and Trust sounds SO MUCH like Fe. Why would Se discuss what belongs in groups? They don't do that; Se is a perceiving function. That's what Fe and Ti do.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

randomshoes said:


> This still sounds backwards to me. Your description of Joy still sounds like Se, and Trust sounds SO MUCH like Fe. Why would Se discuss what belongs in groups? They don't do that; Se is a perceiving function. That's what Fe and Ti do.


Can you explain more what you mean by "sounds"? The real test is to go interact/observe some Fe dominants and Se dominants and see if the Fe dominants are focused on gaining valued resources, and express the emotion of Joy frequently; and if the Se dominants are focused on classifying into groups, joining groups, accepting others, and express the emotion of Trust frequently.

This theory does not make a clear distinction between judging and perceiving, as it attempts to get even closer to behavior than these more abstracts terms. If I had to relate an emotional explanation of judging I would say it is related to how strong either Si/disgust or Ni/anticipation are in a person's personality. Thus, I would rank the types from judging to perceiving as:

1. ISTJ, ISFJ, INTJ, INFJ
2. ESTJ, ESFJ, ENTJ, ENFJ
3. ISTP, ISFP, INTP, INFP
4. ESTP, ESFP, ENTP, ENFP

The reason is because disgust and anticipation make longer-term "judgments" than the other emotions: disgust identifies an object as a poison that must be removed. Once an object is identified as a poison and removed, one would never want to ingest it again. Anticipation is a certain belief an event will happen in the future. Once an anticipation is made, one can move on to explore elsewhere, as there is no additional knowledge to gain from the current object.

The other emotions don't make corresponding long-term judgments. What is threatening one day, causing fear and escape, may not be threatening tomorrow (while a poison or anticipation has a permanent quality). Similarly, a loss, obstacle, unexpected event, gain, and friendly object, all lead to shorter-term judgments that can change in the future quite easily.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

carteblanche said:


> @UniversalTruth
> Also, from the premise of your theory, do you actually believe that all of our cognitive processes are triggered/correlated to emotion? If so, what lead you to believe that?


Sorry I missed your post before. Yes I do believe all higher level mental processes are triggered/correlated with emotions. I don't think there is any higher level thought/feeling/perception without emotions involved.

I have done a lot of research in Jung and Myers-Briggs in an attempt to understand people. I also have read some of Paul Ekman's work on emotions. Eventually I thought that emotions might be involved in personality and so did research on emotions which brought me to Robert Plutchik's work. The coincidence of 8 basic emotions all with clear survival benefit and 8 cognitive functions intrigued me. After a lot of interaction/observation with people and much trial and error I realized each type expresses the corresponding emotion of their dominant way more than any other type, and eventually it became clear it is not only expression, but that the emotion is the driving force behind their dominant way of thinking.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

carteblanche said:


> @_UniversalTruth_
> Also, from the premise of your theory, do you actually believe that all of our cognitive processes are triggered/correlated to emotion? If so, what lead you to believe that?



Out of interest, I like this guy's diagram and explanation of physiology -> emotions -> feelings/thoughts -> behaviour -> goals. This theory sort of reminds me of this video. The relevant part that I am referencing is between the 3 and 8 minute markers.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

I love that video! Saw it a while ago and it really opened my eyes to how much the "lower level" processes in my mind and body effect the higher level ones.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> Can you explain more what you mean by "sounds"? The real test is to go interact/observe some Fe dominants and Se dominants and see if the Fe dominants are focused on gaining valued resources, and express the emotion of Joy frequently; and if the Se dominants are focused on classifying into groups, joining groups, accepting others, and express the emotion of Trust frequently.


And how would you determine whether someone is an Se or Fe dom before you type them in your system? 



> This theory does not make a clear distinction between judging and perceiving, as it attempts to get even closer to behavior than these more abstracts terms. If I had to relate an emotional explanation of judging I would say it is related to how strong either Si/disgust or Ni/anticipation are in a person's personality. Thus, I would rank the types from judging to perceiving as:
> 
> 1. ISTJ, ISFJ, INTJ, INFJ
> 2. ESTJ, ESFJ, ENTJ, ENFJ
> ...


Now you are using the terms very removed from both how Jung and Myers intended them. 



> The reason is because disgust and anticipation make longer-term "judgments" than the other emotions: disgust identifies an object as a poison that must be removed.


If you are going to link your theory back to the MBTI, then at least perhaps understand the term judgement as it is intended. Judgement can either refer to:

a) someone who's dominant or auxiliary function is Je, i.e. Fe/Te
b) someone who's dominant function is either Thinking or Feeling
c) (less relevant point) someone who scores J on the MBTI test wherein J is defined as an ordered and structured oriented mentality

You need to work with your terminology and what you actually mean. 



> Once an object is identified as a poison and removed, one would never want to ingest it again. Anticipation is a certain belief an event will happen in the future. Once an anticipation is made, one can move on to explore elsewhere, as there is no additional knowledge to gain from the current object.


Actually, this superficially sounds like Si in terms of cognition.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

UniversalTruth said:


> "We notice relevant facts and occurrences in a sea of data and experiences, learning all the facts we can about the *immediate context* or area of focus and* what goes on in that context*."
> 
> -> So Se dominants look for the "current context" i.e. they are attuned to the *current group and customs of that group*.


You just shoved the concept of groups in there. It wasn't there before.



> "The process involves instantly *reading cues* to see how far we can go in a situation and still *get the impact we want* or respond to the situation with presence."
> 
> -> Reading cues = *reading group customs*. Getting the impact they want = *grooming others*. All can be interpreted with trust/group based thinking.


And right there you did it again. Cues does not inherently involve people at all, let alone groups of them. "Grooming others," has nothing to do with "getting the impact they want." What that refers to is things like knowing how to safely pole jump or having a feel for how a saxophone responds to a small movement of the tongue.



> None of the Se description refers to _gaining valued resources_.


Nope. Neither does any description of Fe, but okay.

However, that description of Se does imply a certain amount of gluttony, or never quite fulfilled desire: "learning all the facts we can about the immediate context or area of focus and what goes on in that context" "An active seeking of more and more input to get the whole picture may occur until all sources of input have been exhausted or something else captures our attention" "A oneness with the physical world and a total absorption may exist as we move, touch, and sense what is around us."



> "Using this process, we respond according to expressed or even unexpressed *wants and needs of others*.
> 
> We may ask people what they *want or need* or self-disclose to prompt them to talk more about themselves."
> 
> -> Directly references expressing what they _want and need_ and what others _want and need_. This is clearly *gain-valued-resources* i.e. joy based thinking.


The wants of needs of *others*. There is nothing in there about their own wants. In addition: "The process of extraverted Feeling often involves a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure." That sounds like Friendly Object-->Friend-->Trust-->Groom/Accept.



> "Often with this process, we feel pulled to be responsible and take care of others' feelings, sometimes to the point of not separating our feelings from theirs.
> 
> We may recognize and *adhere to shared values*, feelings, and social norms *to get along*."
> 
> -> They feel a pressure to keep the valued resources coming, to *consume and retain* what they have.


Where in that description did you get "valued resources"? That was discussing feelings and shared values.



> Trust dominants do not feel the same desire to conform to social norms for the purpose of consuming/retaining them. Instead they use their keen perceptions of group customs/behaviors as a means to join groups/be classified into a group by others/and get others to join their group i.e. befriend them.


I do not understand how conforming to social norms (which isn't a very complete description of what Fe does, but okay) is something you can "retain."



> All you're saying with this is "nothing can be known about it because it's not accurate enough so let's not try". If you don't want to pursue then that is your choice. I'm diving in head-first and looking for answers.


No, accuracy wasn't the issue. ABSTRACTION was the issue. I'm looking for abstract answers and internal consistency. I didn't say let's not try, I said let's not do bad science using only people you yourself have experienced. It's absurd to ask me to convince four of my friends to join a website just to prove to you that I'm not grossly misrepresenting them. If that's the only argument you will find valid against any part of your theory then presenting it for discussion on the internet is a pointless exercise. You are not listening to anyone's input. If you would like to do a psychological study or a survey, do that, but you don't seem to want theoretical discussion.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Hurricane said:


> @UniversalTruth , could you explain the second chart in your blog post?
> 
> For instance, walk me through the logic of how unconscious loss -> friend -> anger -> explore, and conscious gain -> poison -> fear -> examine would work together in an INTP


Hi, I did an example of my conscious functions/emotions in this post: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/169694-your-functions-described-you-5.html#post4453814

The subconscious functions, by their very nature are difficult to observe. If you look at subconscious functions of every type you will see that they are the introverted/extroverted "mirror" of their conscious functions, so INTP's subconscious functions have the form of an ENTJ and vice versa. The subconscious is greatly involved in where your attention goes. So INTP's will be likely to focus on ENTJs or an object onto which ENTJ behavior can be projected.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

randomshoes said:


> Nope. Neither does any description of Fe, but okay.


You conveniently you "forgot" that just a few posts back yo wrote:


> Your description of Joy still sounds like Se, and Trust sounds SO MUCH like Fe


I was directly answering your claim that Joy sounds like Se. You tried to turn it around and act like I put in manipulative statements, when in fact they were direct answers to a claim you made. That was very manipulative of you and not conducive to truthful discussion.

So now you agree that Joy is not related to Se? Why did your opinion change from before I posted the description of Se to after?



> I didn't say let's not try,* I said let's not do bad science using only people you yourself have experienced*. It's absurd to ask me to convince four of my friends to join a website just to prove to you that I'm not grossly misrepresenting them. If that's the only argument you will find valid against any part of your theory then presenting it for discussion on the internet is a pointless exercise. You are not listening to anyone's input. If you would like to do a psychological study or a survey, do that, but you don't seem to want theoretical discussion.


The bolded part again exposes you as being manipulative: I'm am doing the exact opposite of what you are claiming and you are doing exactly what you are claiming. No one said you had to convince your friends to do anything. I said it would be nice if they could give input about their personal types. I suggested to *bring others who I don't even know* to come and give input. You are saying you don't want to bring others input, and instead you want to go by your own interpretation of their personalities and functions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> The bolded part again exposes you as being manipulative: I'm am doing the exact opposite of what you are claiming and you are doing exactly what you are claiming. No one said you had to convince your friends to do anything. I said it would be nice if they could give input about their personal types. I suggested to *bring others who I don't even know* to come and give input. You are saying you don't want to bring others input, and instead you want to go by your own interpretation of their personalities and functions.


Let's misrepresent what others say a bit more. The fact that you don't even understand what was being expressed here says it all really. You have no interest in theoretical discussion and that's what this entire thread has proven now. You keep retentively holding onto the superiority of your own system without even considering that it could be flawed or that your understanding is flawed or that your sources are flawed or that your methodology is flawed. That's as intellectually dishonest as one gets. Instead all you seem to want to hear is people patting you on the back and say, "what a great theory! This explained everything I need to know about the world!". If that's the goal of your theory, you won't get it without doing the former that is, being intellectually honest.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

After reading the last posts the only thing that I can conclude is that this system will collapse thanks to the amount of contradictions and circular logic, plus it really explains nothing because it mixes unrelated concepts. Even worse as the OP has no real intentions of finding out the flaws that has been pointed out many times on a theoretical level. Really this thread is a waste of time.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Hey guys, I wanted to bring attention to this thread: http://personalitycafe.com/istp-forum-mechanics/55475-do-istps-intimidate-people.html which discusses whether ISTPs have a certain "look" to them. This type of assessment of the "vibe" of each type could potentially be put into emotional terms and used as a test to falsify the theory.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

UniversalTruth said:


> You conveniently you "forgot" that just a few posts back yo wrote:


I said it sounded to me like a similar idea. Not that I'd seen an Se description actually mention valued resources. I was trying to make your theory make sense to me; to connect two _separate_ ideas. You're trying to prove somehow that those ideas are already the same thing, which is absurd. I was also pointing out that the Fe description you quoted DID NOT mention valued resources, even though you were acting like it did. So, to sum up, neither the description of Fe you posted nor the description of Se said anything about valued resources. I simply thought it was a more logical leap to make from the Se description.



> I was directly answering your claim that Joy sounds like Se. You tried to turn it around and act like I put in manipulative statements, when in fact they were direct answers to a claim you made. That was very manipulative of you and not conducive to truthful discussion.


You were dismissing my claim that Joy sounded like Se by saying that the specific words "valued resources" were never mentioned in an Se description, while quoting an Fe description that didn't mention that concept or those words either. And you know what's not conducive to truthful discussion? Calling someone manipulative for pointing out a flaw in your argument. 



> So now you agree that Joy is not related to Se? Why did your opinion change from before I posted the description of Se to after?


It didn't. I still think your concept of Joy is more closely related to Se than Fe. What has changed after THIS post is that I no longer think there's any point in discussing your theory with you. I started off this conversation interested in your theory. I pointed out something that didn't make sense to me. I had to fight you tooth and nail to get you to even explain to me what your reasoning was, and when I didn't swallow it whole you called me names.

Also, who am I supposedly manipulating? I posted on this thread because I found your theory interesting and wanted to see if I felt it had value. I didn't start out telling you I hated it. I started out telling you my reactions. One of them was, and I quote, "This is a ton of fun." However, they were not all mindless agreement. I like to use my brain now and then.



> The bolded part again exposes you as being manipulative: I'm am doing the exact opposite of what you are claiming and you are doing exactly what you are claiming. No one said you had to convince your friends to do anything. I said it would be nice if they could give input about their personal types. I suggested to *bring others who I don't even know* to come and give input. You are saying you don't want to bring others input, and instead you want to go by your own interpretation of their personalities and functions.


You needed them to give input directly to YOU for you to believe anything I said. I didn't say you're only accepting info you already have, I meant you expected to interact with every person anyone brought up to believe anything. And I used examples of people I know because you asked me to, after which I pointed out that I didn't find either my examples or your subjective experience to be very valuable in this theoretical discussion. You expected me to accept your subjective experience of other people but would not accept my subjective experience of other people. You can't have it both ways. Which is why I was arguing for a theoretical discussion, something I'm clearly not going to get here.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

There's this concept called "due process" and I think it's a beautiful thing. While it's generally mentioned more in relation to law, maybe applying it in essence to the processing of ideas is a good idea. Shortcut assessments of ideas should be avoided. I'll leave what is considered a "shortcut assessment" up to you.


----------



## Cre (Nov 3, 2013)

Just adding an SJ's 2 cents. (Sorry if it was already mentioned)


Please tell me if my interpretation of your thought process was incorrect . I have heard NT and SJ tend to think differently. 

You used your Ne to observe the patterns in each types: INTP ,INTJ ,etc. 
Then you identified the pattern within each type and correlated it to the dominant cognitive function of that type.

Um.. Is this not a logical fallacy? ( a=b,b=c,c=a )
Formal fallacy, example from wiki: 
Some men are doctors.
Some doctors are tall.
Therefore, some men are tall.




My questions:

What is his neutral state? If his excited state results in a behavioral reaction which corresponds to a cognitive function. What would his thought process be if his excited state did not reach threshold yet? 

Can a person express multiple Behavioral reactions from one stimulus? 
Not in the flowchart manner where my 8th cognitive function leads to my 7th then leads to my 6th and so on. 
But in a more soluble manner. 
Ex. Somebody feels a mixture of fear & joy or anticipation & anger.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Hi, thanks for your post!



Cre said:


> You used your Ne to observe the patterns in each types: INTP ,INTJ ,etc.
> Then you identified the pattern within each type and correlated it to the dominant cognitive function of that type.
> 
> Um.. Is this not a logical fallacy? ( a=b,b=c,c=a )
> ...


It is an example of inductive reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning


> Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.


Along the lines of:
1. (All INTPs have Ti as their dominant function), and (all INTPs consistently display the emotional expression of fear in tone of voice, facial expression, body language, and do so significantly more than any other emotion, with Surprise being the second most, etc.). Also, for INFP, ISTJ, etc, and the corresponding emotions.
-This is experimentally falsifiable/verifiable due to affective neuroscience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_neuroscience , Paul Ekman's work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman , and others.
2. Therefore, there is probably a relationship between each cognitive function and its corresponding emotion.

Using many inductive arguments like these (extending the observations to behavior instead of just expression) I came to conclusions like: the cognitive functions probably derive from and are advancements over the corresponding emotions; that each function specializes to a role within a personality; etc.

I'm hoping eventually someone with the means to do a scientific test will notice this or some better modified version of it and attempt to falsify it.



> My questions:
> 
> What is his neutral state? If his excited state results in a behavioral reaction which corresponds to a cognitive function. What would his thought process be if his excited state did not reach threshold yet?
> 
> ...


The poster @amatsuki (ISFP) in another thread mentioned her Fi-Ni loop. It's possible this loop is what is happening when a person's elements have no additional stimulus and are not executing any behavioral reactions. This seems plausible and I think my Si-Ti often go in a loop along the lines of: 
Si provides one or more cognitive appraisals
-> Ti tries to come up with ideas/plans; hasn't got anything good yet
-> back to Si for more cognitive appraisals; repeat...
...Eventually a good idea/plan is formed
-> now Ne can examine in ways aligned with the idea/plan.
Observation suggests that thought generally flows along the lines suggested in the charts, with loop-back between adjacent functions, and additionally that any function can "override" others if it sends a strong enough signal.

I think people can do multiple behavioral reactions from one stimulus, especially if the first behavioral reaction didn't give them the result they were looking for. Although, it's not totally clear since not getting the result you want can possibly be an additional stimulus.

People definitely show mixtures of emotions. The brain works in parallel, and it's very likely all functions/emotions are doing_ something_ at all times, however only one of them appears to have the main "control" at one time, and the "flow" of thought along the charts suggests where the control flows. It's possible Surprise can have control currently, but the strength of the signals from Fear is strong enough that the person expresses a mixture of Surprise and Fear i.e. they express Awe.

This chart has a summary of some of Robert Plutchik's work and at the lower left it describes pairs of emotions: http://www.markusdrews.de/Plutchiks.Emotionstheorie.PLAKAT.pdf


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Hurricane said:


> @UniversalTruth , could you explain the second chart in your blog post?
> 
> For instance, walk me through the logic of how unconscious loss -> friend -> anger -> explore, and conscious gain -> poison -> fear -> examine would work together in an INTP


Wanted to give a more detailed description of how some of my subconscious functions work:

Besides the types of objects my subconscious it likely to focus on, it also shifts my attention in a consistent way:
Usually my thought process takes one or a few rigid concepts produced by my Si and my Ti then does logical analysis. This progresses in a rigid/linear way and I tend to focus on one line of reasoning, ignoring others. My Ne examinations take this line of reasoning and come up with tons and tons of possible directions that could be derived from that one line of reasoning. If you ask me to come up with 2 possibilities, I can give you 200 :happy:

Now, a situation arises where I want to keep examining the same line of reasoning over and over, I want to find the one conclusive direction that is implied by the reasoning. However, if this turned out to be a bad line of reasoning, then I can get "stuck" wasting a lot of time, examining something that won't be fruitful. This is where my subconscious comes in. My subconscious-dominant Anger is always looking for weak points (akin to obstacles that can be removed) in the arguments. I'm almost never consciously aware of this happening, but sometimes it's strong enough that I get a subtle feeling that something about the reasoning is weak, and then my subconscious completion of Exploration gives me a feeling that I should go explore other lines of reasoning and leave this one for now. I'm usually not even aware of the details of the weak point, and there is not a clear path to explore to, but rather a general feeling of needing to "get away" from the current reasoning.

A lot of times I just ignore this since it's like a subtle, unclear feeling and the conscious functions are in control and so much stronger. It's also not easy to listen to because it's so opposed to the conscious way of my thinking of doing intense examination of a single line of reasoning. But it is a very important balancing part of my personality that leads to me finding good answers much much faster.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

UniversalTruth said:


> Fear <=> Introverted Thinking
> Anticipation <=> Introverted Intuition
> Sadness <=> Introverted Feeling
> Disgust <=> Introverted Sensing
> ...


Firstly, I don't see the need to correlate emotions and cognition in this way. They're separate. Emotions may be classified with specific names, but in the end when and why they're experienced are answers that are unique to the person in question. 

So you say that the functions are advancements of the basic emotions. How and why? That's like saying cats are advancements of dogs. They're just separate. Emotions may influence how we think, and how we think may affect the data gathered and the conclusions arrived at to have emotions about, but ultimately they're separate concepts, however influential they may be for each other.

How much and when a person feels a certain emotion cannot be determined by type. So if I'm an Se dom, I operate on the basis of trust? How is trust an emotion? Also, classifying things on the basis of whether it can be trusted or not trusted seems to predict the person's motivations, which I think are better explained by another theory like the Enneagram. So that's saying that all people who are a certain type feel the same things for the same situations at some base level. How would that result in the diversity of people as it exists today? People are motivated by and want different things. Cognitive functions just determine how the data and resources they gather are processed by them. 



> One way to tell them apart is Joy dominants will often talk about all the great stuff they are gaining or will gain, while Trust dominants have a group-based thinking, they often talk about what belongs in each group, they are highly sensitive to the specific "culture" of every group and are masters of being accepted into any group they want and also extremely open to accepting others into their groups.


I'm an Se dom, and I think in terms of what I want and what I will get, but you say that's characteristic of Joy/Fe doms. I think for myself, not for the group. Your definition of Trust/Se doms seems more like Fe to me. As for "what belongs in each group", what is the "what" here?



> Trust has a consistent facial expression: eyebrows raised slightly and relaxed, big smile with lips held together and no teeth showing. You will see this displayed very often by ESFP and ESTP.


Maybe the Se doms you've seen display this, but I don't see how such extremely specific physical descriptions should apply to people. So you may need to reevaluate your personal observations, because I'm more often than not someone who looks like she's thinking deeply; often frowning or looking focused. Sometimes I can try to smile and it may come out smaller than intended. Just because I'm an extroverted perceiving dominant, it doesn't mean this has to necessarily show in my expression and honestly, I feel rather offended if people incorrectly judge what I'm like because of my expression. 



> Because emotional expression is something everyone can understand. Emotions involve specific observable behaviors. This makes it easier to type and understand people.


What about the people who don't display their emotions for others to observe and see? Emotions are felt, but not necessarily shown. Even if I do see that a person is sad or afraid or whatever, how do I come to understand what made them sad or afraid, and why they feel that way? 
They could be sad because they tried to include someone in their group, but failed at it, which is Fe informed. (But then you say Fe users need to feel joy when they use that function?) They could be sad because let's say, their cat died. How does that relate to a function at all? 
They could be afraid because they don't like being forced to explain themselves and how they arrived at their conclusions logically, which points to some sort of inferior thinking. They could also be afraid because they need to confront someone about something, but don't know how to be aggressive enough, which is poor Se. So since fear can be experienced by anyone for different reasons, you can't really determine someone's functions through observing the presence of that emotion. That applies to all emotions.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Amaterasu said:


> Firstly, I don't see the need to correlate emotions and cognition in this way. They're separate. Emotions may be classified with specific names, but in the end when and why they're experienced are answers that are unique to the person in question.
> 
> So you say that the functions are advancements of the basic emotions. How and why? That's like saying cats are advancements of dogs. They're just separate. Emotions may influence how we think, and how we think may affect the data gathered and the conclusions arrived at to have emotions about, but ultimately they're separate concepts, however influential they may be for each other.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure how it's meant is that the emotion sparks the cognitive function(because we all have emotions and we all have "reasoning"). What determines which emotion is predominant is probably environmentally/genetically influenced(guessing).

The function develops by the frequent emotion that prompts it.. leading to a quick and nasty approach once you "dominate" your primary function and that function in turn dominates you because your motivation demands it.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

I think what tangosthenes and Amaterasu have said are both parts of the truth. The theory is oversimplified and leaves a lot of room for misunderstanding and conflict against parts of other theories, yet I can't completely dismiss it due to actually considering it against my experience and coming to conclusions similar to tangosthenes' above.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I mean Ni makes more sense to me than Ne...based on Se data I will anticipate xyz, and people will say I am insightful or have a screw loose.
> 
> Avoiding surprises seems fucking awful, which is probably why Ne in general sometimes seems silly or pointless to me (oh isn't that person brilliant and creative about absolutely nothing!) And would easily be paired with a function that avoids disgust.
> 
> I always want one right yes or no answer. That's avoiding anticipation. Ni.


I'm actually with this theory in a sense........ in that Ne actually minimizes surprise rather than maximizes it. I've long thought this to perhaps be the defining nature of the function - the tendency to really not be surprised by anything. Ne rejects the static expectation of reality that comes from Si (which itself is a sort of minimization of disgust), so "anything is possible" and therefore almost no surprise. The Ne type is the character who, when aliens show up on Earth or animals suddenly start talking or people end up switching bodies, thinks more "wow, this is interesting" more than going into the typical incredulous panic. On a raw level Ne feels like anticipation more than surprise, but that's another story in itself.

I can see how Ni is the minimization of anticipation too. Totally. Likewise on a raw level Ni is more like surprise, as an epiphany is basically a surprise, a thing that comes so randomly from the unconscious that it surprises even the person experiencing it.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

@_UniversalTruth_

As a feeler, I completely understand what you are trying to do here. The general approach is somewhat similar to the way a feeler would approach perceiving people energetically, however it involves way more elements than the overall "emotion" that you read in a person. It's an organic, intuitive process (involving intensity, body language, voice tonality, alignment etc.) that is quite difficult to define and put into words, let alone to formalize convincingly. For some reason your theory reminds me of the "big data" argument. As seductive as the idea of "big data" may seem, it does not have room for organic, creative flow -- same goes for your theory, in my opinion, despite the fact that it is based on emotion, which is, in itself organic.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> The function develops by the frequent emotion that prompts it.. leading to a quick and nasty approach once you "dominate" your primary function and that function in turn dominates you because your motivation demands it.


Isn't it the other way round? Our experiences, situations and associated emotions can influence how we use the data we gather and conclusions we arrive at using our functions. You can say someone experiences fear, but what data are they afraid of? I can be afraid of the useless meaning I find in small things (inferior Ni). But see, the fear there is caused by the poor use of Ni. The emotion itself isn't causing or leading to the function, since anyone can experience fear related to their inferior. Fear in that case is because of incompetence and being overwhelmed by data that can't be processed right, which is separate as a whole from any function.

Imo emotions shouldn't be mixed with functions because they deal with situations that you can't categorize reactions to, whereas cognitive functions attempt to explain the areas where people categorically behave and react in different ways. 

I mean, this is the sort of thing that leads people to get poor psychiatric treatment. Their disorders are charted out and defined and characterized so extensively that the subjective nature of the experience is whittled down to a checklist of symptoms. Similarly, I don't think emotions can be impersonally picked at and correlated to functions this way. I hope you get what I mean.

Please read what I said again. I understood what the OP said, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Amaterasu said:


> Isn't it the other way round? Our experiences, situations and associated emotions can influence how we use the data we gather and conclusions we arrive at using our functions. You can say someone experiences fear, but what data are they afraid of? I can be afraid of the useless meaning I find in small things (inferior Ni). But see, the fear there is caused by the poor use of Ni. The emotion itself isn't causing or leading to the function, since anyone can experience fear related to their inferior. Fear in that case is because of incompetence and being overwhelmed by data that can't be processed right, which is separate as a whole from any function.
> 
> Imo emotions shouldn't be mixed with functions because they deal with situations that you can't categorize reactions to, whereas cognitive functions attempt to explain the areas where people categorically behave and react in different ways.
> 
> ...


I do understand what you're saying and I think the question you are asking is whether the internal or the external affects human beings more. I think I sort of assume the internal, because that is what all external events are "reflected" off of. The external is definitely present in large degree.

However, to what extent this "internal colorization" feeds back through outside events which you then reinterpret, is a hard question, and maybe that's where the functions fit in. They are not responsible for the after-effects(which in your words, is "Our experiences, situations and associated emotions" plus "the data we gather and conclusions we arrive at using our functions"), so to speak, but are only the initial spark of reasoning, as emotion is the initial spark of the functions(I'm assuming this), so where you end up is necessarily divergent from others with similar mindsets, which allows for the diversity and breadth of experience we all have and blah blah blah...

Really, I don't want to be conclusive here, because I don't have enough information to guess at the details of the question that could give me an accurate understanding, but maybe you want to take that up?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> I do understand what you're saying and I think the question you are asking is whether the internal or the external affects human beings more. I think I sort of assume the internal, because that is what all external events are "reflected" off of. The external is definitely present in large degree.
> 
> Really, I don't want to be conclusive here, because I don't have enough information to guess at the details of the question that could give me an accurate understanding, but maybe you want to take that up?


The questions were rhetorical. I'm not asking about the external and the internal at all. I'm saying that cognition and emotion should not be made a part of the same functional system because while they may influence each other, there is no set pattern that can be determined about the experience of emotion because it differs from person to person, whereas cognitive function models attempt to determine the thinking experience by delineating how much energy is devoted to each function in its specific role.



> the after-effects(which in your words, is "Our experiences, situations and associated emotions" plus "the data we gather and conclusions we arrive at using our functions"), so to speak,


I specifically mentioned that "Our experiences, situations and associated emotions" and "the data we gather and conclusions we arrive at using our functions" are separate and influence each other. I wouldn't put them all under the same banner as "after-effects".



> emotion is the initial spark of the functions(I'm assuming this)


Well assumptions should have some basis, and the basis of these assumptions in the OP's theory is what I'm arguing against.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Amaterasu said:


> The questions were rhetorical. I'm not asking about the external and the internal at all. I'm saying that cognition and emotion should not be made a part of the same functional system because while they may influence each other, there is no set pattern that can be determined about the experience of emotion because it differs from person to person, whereas cognitive function models attempt to determine the thinking experience by delineating how much energy is devoted to each function in its specific role.
> 
> 
> I specifically mentioned that "Our experiences, situations and associated emotions" and "the data we gather and conclusions we arrive at using our functions" are separate and influence each other. I wouldn't put them all under the same banner as "after-effects".
> ...


That same sort of argument invalidates Jung, too. But, it's sort of only playing on an ambiguity of induction. Stuff like that isn't easily determined in conversation, because you cannot deductively determine such things. That is, unless you have proof of what you are saying?

Edit: that came off wrong. I'm actually going off right now to see to what degree human emotional experiences can be considered similar lol...


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

UniversalTruth said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have a theory I've been working on for a while that connects the 8 cognitive functions of Carl Jung's theories with the 8 basic emotions of Robert Plutchik's theories. I just made a blog post about it and want to expose it to people and get some feedback:
> psychologyofemotion.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/emotional-cognitive-functions/
> ...


I like your theory! 

When I saw the explanation of disgust, I automatically thought of my ISTP husband. Every single time (or darn close) that he eats something he doesn't like, or something that came from a place he doesn't like, he thinks he has food poisoning and gets a stomach ache. I tell him it's all in his head. It would fit, except he's extroverted sensing, not introverted sensing. Maybe it's something to think about and test.

I appreciate your connection between the two subjects. 

Edit: I read more of your blog post, maybe it's his shadow, subconscious reaction. Interesting.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> That same sort of argument invalidates Jung, too. But, it's sort of only playing on an ambiguity of induction. Stuff like that isn't easily determined in conversation, because you cannot deductively determine such things. That is, unless you have proof of what you are saying?


How exactly does it invalidate Jung? You're making unsubstantiated statements here and veering off point. Stuff like "that"? Like what, exactly? "Such things"? What things? If you're going to try and tell me I'm wrong, I expect you do it clearly. So far you haven't told me anything about how emotions are supposed to be the very basis and foundation of the cognitive functions. You haven't proved your point, and yet you try to extract proof from me? My proof exists in everyone who is of the same type and yet leads different lives because of different motivations and situations and different emotional reactions to things. Your turn.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> That same sort of argument invalidates Jung, too. But, it's sort of only playing on an ambiguity of induction. Stuff like that isn't easily determined in conversation, because you cannot deductively determine such things. That is, unless you have proof of what you are saying?


No, it doesn't, because Jung's theory is based on empirical observations of his patients. Just like with other theories, he noticed patterns over time and wanted to formulate a structural idea as to why this is. Hence, we have his plethora of theories he developed during his time. 

I think you are confusing the word "deductive" with "empirical". Deduction and induction can be performed regardless of whether empirical evidence is present. I argue there is no empirical evidence present to support the theory of the OP aside fuzzy Si readings and subjectively biased Fe perception with a needlessly holding onto Ti structure.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> No, it doesn't, because Jung's theory is based on empirical observations of his patients. Just like with other theories, he noticed patterns over time and wanted to formulate a structural idea as to why this is. Hence, we have his plethora of theories he developed during his time.
> 
> I think you are confusing the word "deductive" with "empirical". Deduction and induction can be performed regardless of whether empirical evidence is present. I argue there is no empirical evidence present to support the theory of the OP aside fuzzy Si readings and subjectively biased Fe perception with a needlessly holding onto Ti structure.





Amaterasu said:


> How exactly does it invalidate Jung? You're making unsubstantiated statements here and veering off point. Stuff like "that"? Like what, exactly? "Such things"? What things? If you're going to try and tell me I'm wrong, I expect you do it clearly. So far you haven't told me anything about how emotions are supposed to be the very basis and foundation of the cognitive functions. You haven't proved your point, and yet you try to extract proof from me? My proof exists in everyone who is of the same type and yet leads different lives because of different motivations and situations and different emotional reactions to things. Your turn.



Anywayyy... even though you guys miss the point, I don't really care. Here's this http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/~lindqukr/docs/Lindquist_etal_BBS2012.pdf

Seems to support that some emotions are localized, but several of the ones mentioned in this theory are not.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> Anywayyy... even though you guys miss the point, I don't really care. Here's this http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/~lindqukr/docs/Lindquist_etal_BBS2012.pdf
> 
> Seems to support that some emotions are localized, but several of the ones mentioned in this theory are not.


We could equally argue that you're missing the point, couldn't we? In every post I've made I've stuck to the original intention of saying why the OP's theory doesn't have a proper basis. Saying it like you're superior because you have some "point" we don't get isn't quite right unless you explain yourself to us, and even if you do, it doesn't mean we're automatically supposed to agree with you. Our theories may be as valid as, or more valid than yours, but we may not understand each other because of our function divide. 

That pdf seems rather long. I will read it later unless there are some parts of it you want to highlight or summarize in relation to the topic at hand.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Amaterasu said:


> We could equally argue that you're missing the point, couldn't we? In every post I've made I've stuck to the original intention of saying why the OP's theory doesn't have a proper basis. Saying it like you're superior because you have some "point" we don't get isn't quite right unless you explain yourself to us, and even if you do, it doesn't mean we're automatically supposed to agree with you. Our theories may be as valid as, or more valid than yours, but we may not understand each other because of our function divide.
> 
> That pdf seems rather long. I will read it later unless there are some parts of it you want to highlight or summarize in relation to the topic at hand.


I admit it's laziness on my part. I figure if you come to understand it as I understand it, that's fine by me, but it's not like we are going to sit here and break down each other's worldview piece by piece(usually doesn't help). Anyway, that article is really interesting, and I think it addresses exactly the question you are asking.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> I admit it's laziness on my part. I figure if you come to understand it as I understand it, that's fine by me, but it's not like we are going to sit here and break down each other's worldview piece by piece(usually doesn't help).


Well alright, if you don't want to discuss it then there's no point in driving it forth because it means my point will be lost on you either way. Thanks for the article.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

To clarify, there is no proof from the OP to substantiate as to why functions would correlate to these emotions presented in the OP, or why the Jungian theory of the psyche would correlate to this theory of emotions. I think Jung might even have disliked joining his idea with this, simply because it seems to lie closer to what Freud did, i.e. looking into people's childhoods in order to figure out who they are. Jung disliked this very much and it is one of the reasons he broke off with Freud. 

The psyche is an immensely complex structure and depending from what perspective of what one is looking at it, one will see different things. If you study the brain from the POV of neuroscience you will get that human emotion is simply the production of certain synapses in the brain that release certain signal substances and chemicals in reaction to external stimuli, but if one looks at it from the point of psychology the human psyche turns into an entirely different and in a sense, more abstract structure of reality where an emotion is simply not just a reaction to a specific chemical like oxytocin or the lack of dopamine, but it's a psychological reaction of more archaic nature that conveys the complexity of our relations with ourselves, people around us and the world in general. 

To Jung, functions were not concrete objects or mechanisms like a cog wheel in people's psyche though this is the impression most people seem to have when they learn about the function theory and unfortunately other MBTI scholars haven't helped to clarify the matter at all because they don't seem to understand why they're not either being too focused and occupied with describing the end results of functions rather than their fundamental source and nature, but what functions are would be better and more accurately presented as mentalities or mind sets of how we perceive, understand and make sense of the world around us. A better metaphor would be like viewing functions as colored glasses we all wear and it subjects us to personal bias because we always interpret the reality in a certain way in relation to our own dominant function while rejecting that of others. This is exactly what Jungian theory actually deals with, and it's a very Ni-esque way of viewing reality and I also dare say that many of the conflicts that occurred in this thread is because people refuse to take their glasses off in favor of borrowing someone else's glasses which is natural because if one is used to seeing the world through a specifically color-tinted glass, that's the way we think the world works. We cannot know or understand there are different ways to understanding it until we're presented with a different perspective. As PaladinX quoted, emotions can be experienced differently depending on one's function preference, as emotion can in be experienced or felt through Sensation and Feeling, depending. 

This is why the OP cannot be applied to functions because they too describe a lens of reality, but they also all describe a rationalization process that is, something that lies within the realms of judgement or Thinking and Feeling. It tries to look into motivations but it doesn't actually touch on the Jungian motivations e.g. someone with inferior Sensation might be afraid that they ultimately do not experience the world sufficiently enough, that they have never truly felt alive, or someone with inferior Feeling might be afraid that they will never experience genuine emotion, belonging and care. This can all lead to an anticipation of the future in various ways. 

If the theory perhaps at least attempted this, I might be less inclined to throw it out with the birth water, because then there would be a much more clear and direct correlation to actual Jungian cognition rather than taking a pear and an apple and claiming they're two types of fruit so therefore they are now the same kind of fruit because look, they both grow on trees, they are both round in nature, both have such and such texture etc. lolwut? Sometimes what is important is to realize that just because two things seem to be the same, it does not mean it is the same. It's like assuming that two people who both wear red dresses that particular day do it for exactly the same reason, and then assumes that since one person does it for this particular reason, then the other does too. Now, _that is_ an example of poor inductive thinking. 

When Jung formulated his theories he did so mostly for the sake of formality because the scientific world demanded that it must be presented in such a way as to be accepted but he did not genuinely believe that his theory could ever fit the current ruling logos of Thinking and Sensation that dominates the natural sciences today because his theory does not deal with Thinking and Sensation, it deals with Intuition and Thinking (according to himself, but I think it's more on the Feeling side personally). Thus the only empirical evidence there is to type is that we can continually observe the same patterns Jung originally observed. To try to link Jungian cognition to facial expressions and body language in order to determine type is therefore faulty, because it goes against the fundamental logic of Jungian cognition itself which is to look into the deeper psychological motivations of someone, to figure out their color-tinted lens they are wearing which also means one cannot assume that just because two people wear the same kind of dress it's for exactly the same reason. Sometimes it's as important to understand and realize the delineation of two objects and how they are fundamentally different compared to trying to see how they are fundamentally similar. 

Since the human psyche is complex, it means that there can be more than one process that is informing us about the world, and this is also likely the case more so than there is one ruling principle that determines the totality of the psyche. Jung did not think such a thing, hence he declared that memory has nothing to do with Jungian functions because it deals with a different realm entirely. Yet memories are inextricably linked to emotion. Does this mean memories are the same thing as emotions? Of course not. It's just that memory can be a trigger. Functions however, are not emotional triggers in themselves. Jung was very clear on this, in that functions are simply mechanical processes that on their own cannot produce any form of feeling or emotional content. 

It is only through the inferior that bridges to the unconsciousness, that we can experience emotion in the sense that all unconscious content is emotionally charged. Where Jung thought feelings came from I don't know, but I suspect that outside of a strict scientific explanation, he likely thought of them as archaic in content and nature and are produced by the collective unconsciousness as they seem to serve a basic principle for human life itself. So that's the only thing where Jungian theory strongly overlaps with this particular theory. This does not however, necessarily suggest evolution, as the collective unconsciousness is the vast sum of all conscious and unconscious thought produced by humans through the ages. So in such a sense it links to evolution but it is not evolution itself.

And I think that's the issue with the OP too. Another poster touched on it already that the OP seems to try to produce a grand theory of sorts, but then misses out on all the actual intricate detail when doing so. When a grand theory is produced, one has to ignore certain aspects in order to generalize all content to fit the criteria of the theory itself. This is why grand theories are avoided in most sciences, because they ultimately end up telling nothing. Let's take a simple example - horoscopes. Horoscopes is a kind of grand theory of personality, where the horoscope is an attempt to explain almost every aspect of the human personality, but when it does so, it ends up explaining very vague and loose ideas only. Pisces is an emotionally sensitive type. When this happens, the theory loses ground because it is no longer fully and truly universally applicable. But, someone says, I'm a Capricorn and I experience myself as emotionally applicable, how does that work? The horoscope reader will then go on to proclaim that don't worry, it's because of the alignment of your sun sign not necessarily lining up with Capricorn as your actual sign given your date, time and place of birth. See how this tries to generalize someone's fundamental experience in order to be pigeonholed to fit the theory? This theory operates on exactly the same principles. What it does is that it cannot even ultimately type people correctly in terms of Jungian type, because the facial expressions are out-right contradictory to the actual cognition people seem to display when they describe their view of the world, indirectly or directly. What worth is a theory that only cares about getting itself right but never wrong? To question and self-doubt is important for any theory or idea in order to progress. This theory does exactly the opposite. It has no intent in doing so. That much is clear or this thread would be so much more productive and meaningful.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> Anywayyy... even though you guys miss the point, I don't really care. Here's this http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/~lindqukr/docs/Lindquist_etal_BBS2012.pdf
> 
> Seems to support that some emotions are localized, but several of the ones mentioned in this theory are not.


That's beyond the point that is being raised. The critique is rather simple, in that the theory cannot empirically validate its own connection it proclaims exists aside the subjective presentation of the OP claiming that he's noticed these facial patterns etc., except that when put under scrutiny he can't even type people properly or make the proper connections between function and the emotion he claims it's connected to. You are giving us something else entirely, which is the neuroimaging of emotions and how the brain itself operates when dealing with and/or being projected to emotions. You are looking at result, not source, and the result doesn't even touch on the nature of functions even in an indirect way that is, it somehow managed to involve the reality of functions without being about Jungian theory. 

The real question that would validate the OP is whether functions and emotions share the same source and that answer is undeniably no, according to Jung. They do not. The MBTI doesn't even try to explain the psychological structure at all and mostly borrowed Jungian terminology and watered the whole theory down a fair bit, so I find that whatever the MBTI might have to say on the matter highly irrelevant though some descriptions of F or the Feeling function might be overlapped with emotions depending on the MBTI source. That highly contradicts the Jungian definition of Feeling, however.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> That's beyond the point that is being raised. The critique is rather simple, in that the theory cannot empirically validate its own connection it proclaims exists aside the subjective presentation of the OP claiming that he's noticed these facial patterns etc., except that when put under scrutiny he can't even type people properly or make the proper connections between function and the emotion he claims it's connected to. You are giving us something else entirely, which is the neuroimaging of emotions and how the brain itself operates when dealing with and/or being projected to emotions. You are looking at result, not source, and the result doesn't even touch on the nature of functions even in an indirect way that is, it somehow managed to involve the reality of functions without being about Jungian theory.
> 
> The real question that would validate the OP is whether functions and emotions share the same source and that answer is undeniably no, according to Jung. They do not. The MBTI doesn't even try to explain the psychological structure at all and mostly borrowed Jungian terminology and watered the whole theory down a fair bit, so I find that whatever the MBTI might have to say on the matter highly irrelevant though some descriptions of F or the Feeling function might be overlapped with emotions depending on the MBTI source. That highly contradicts the Jungian definition of Feeling, however.


First paragraph: Person is not the theory. People disagree about types all the time, for example.

And yeah, I didn't assume that the OP was trying to validate his thing through the exact foundation of Jung. I didn't read the entire thread though, just sort of figured out what I would need to know to make it true for me(assumed it was made of borrowed terminology, in your words).

Hmm, I've never quite agreed with Jung anyway. I understand where you're coming from though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> First paragraph: Person is not the theory.


Never claimed such a thing. 



> People disagree about types all the time, for example.


Yes, but if one studies why they disagree we'll notice certain patterns related to cognition. That's what the OP claims too, by the way. It does not in any way make the person any less a person, just like claiming that emotions are a result of certain reactions in the brain are somehow no longer emotions. 



> And yeah, I didn't assume that the OP was trying to validate his thing through the exact foundation of Jung. I didn't read the entire thread though, just sort of figured out what I would need to know to make it true for me(assumed it was made of borrowed terminology, in your words).


And the critique was as much aimed at you since you brought up the point about Amaterasu relying too much on fuzzy induction, yet could not provide anything substantial on your own. 



> Hmm, I've never quite agreed with Jung anyway. I understand where you're coming from though.


I honestly don't see where you are coming from.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Never claimed such a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I mean is that his aptitude in clearly seeing people's types has nothing to do with whether he understands his theory.

And so, Jung views libido as the source for differences, right? It strikes me as a contrivance. To me, replacing libido with straight emotion is more solid and then viewing feeling as a tool using this base emotion is better. But anyway, yeah, I doubt there's much actual foundational Jung.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Now that I read the thread I would suggest the OP take the comments and evaluate the theory. I took it to be in the beginning stages, but there seems to be a strong connection to the conclusions that seems premature. 

If the Jung information makes those who have studied it irritated, then it probably should change. Clearly it all needs to be tested. Just formulating it off of facial expressions and emotions isn't enough to convince people to take it seriously.

I still like the connection. Though, it may be that the main emotion shaped the cognitive function. So if an Fi was abandoned young, their body responded by putting them in the position to safeguard against it later in life. It may not be that everyone still responds in a pre-determined way to the situation. Like fear may conclude with escape, however it could also conclude with overcoming it. One is negative and the other is positive. Running away verses facing it. Or even healthy verses unhealthy. Or mature verses immature. 

I really don't get how you put them together and form your conclusions. The "gain -> poison -> fear -> examine" that seems random and confused. 

I think you should test it out and find out what works and what needs to be changed.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> Anywayyy... even though you guys miss the point, I don't really care. Here's this http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/~lindqukr/docs/Lindquist_etal_BBS2012.pdf
> 
> Seems to support that some emotions are localized, but several of the ones mentioned in this theory are not.


Hi, thanks for the link. It's ok that an emotion is non-local to a small brain region as long as the same set of brain regions activate consistently and uniquely for that emotion (meaning the whole global pattern is unique; other emotions can share some local regions).


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

fourtines said:


> Your N correlation of Surprise and Anticipation mystify me, but that's ok.. I also don't understand what Ti means, but what else is new, im lucky to be able to use rudimentary Ti in order to use a complicated fireplace lighter with two clicky things. I still can't drive a stick without grinding the clutch.


I identify with the Ni Anticipation (anxiety about the future) very well. It is even the daily envisioning accidents and destruction on a more-graphic-than-I-like on a mental level. LOL! It seems to make sense to me.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> I really don't get how you put them together and form your conclusions. The "gain -> poison -> fear -> examine" that seems random and confused.


Hi, each of the single-emotion stimulus->action cycles is based on Robert Plutchik's research into animals. He observed that stimulus events would be consistently responded to in the ways described by the cycles. (Note that the cycles used in this theory are altered from Plutchik's, as there are problems with his. For example, his anticipation cycle has "examine" as the cognitive appraisal which is a verb, while the other 7 emotions' cognitive appraisals are described as nouns which is what one would expect).

Humans evolved from less developed animals. Many, much less developed animals have a limbic system, however the "more evolved" animals have a significantly more developed cerebral cortex. So, what started as a linear/emotional response, could have evolved into a much more advanced and nonlinear reaction. Emotions which were previously separate from eachother, could have become much more interactive through the cerebral cortex.

The combinations of emotions in the main chart are based on combining type dynamics with the idea that emotions specialize to a specific role out of the simulus->action cycles. If the cerebral cortex allows complex interactions between emotions, then it allows for the possibility of specialization which can lead to stronger behavior overall. Taking an INTP for example, type dynamics suggests their functions are:
Inferior -> Fe
Tertiary -> Si
Auxiliary -> Ne
Dominant -> Ti

The main chart takes each function, replaces it with the corresponding emotion, and then specializes the emotion into its corresponding "role":
inferior -> stimulus event
tertiary -> cognitive appraisal
dominant -> subjective reaction
auxiliary -> behavioral reaction

The specialization looks like:
(stimulus event of Joy) -> (cognitive appraisal of Disgust) -> (subjective reaction of Fear) -> (behavioral reaction of Surprise)

And finally:
gain -> poison -> Fear -> examine

This is an essential reason why the theory cannot be easily separated from cognitive functions. If observation gives evidence in favor of Myers-Briggs types using the corresponding emotions in the specific ways suggested by the theory, then it gives strong support to the idea that the cognitive functions and emotions are intimately related, since the specific predictions of how a type uses and expresses emotion was originally derived from type dynamics.

The strictly linear progression in the main chart of the blog post does not capture all the possible interactions of the emotions/functions. It is meant to suggest a "natural" flow of thought while a person is in their dominant personality mode, and no overly strong stimuli are present. It is highly likely that an emotion can "loop-back" to it's adjacent emotion in the chart, as it may need more input before it can come to a conclusion and move forward. Additionally, if any function receives or produces an overly strong signal then it can likely override the normal flow. There could be other non-linear communication going on as well.

Evolution rarely creates completely new structures. More often it creates a variation or advancement over an already existing structure. Some animals have little cerebral cortex to speak of, and yet still flourish in their environment using their "emotional" reactions to stimuli. It seems reasonable that the cortex evolved as an advancement of the lower brains and emotions, and not independent of them.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

Hey guys, I want to clarify what I mean by a cognitive function is an advancement of an emotion.

A basic emotion is a linear way of behaving and has a corresponding biophysical response (e.g. increased heart rate for fear) which we all regularly recognize. I can see why people would reject the idea that such emotions control their personality. However, I don't mean that a basic emotion controls the personality. 

Rather, a significant advancement of the emotions in intelligence and memory capacity are controlling the personality. These are "higher level" cerebral-cortex based functions which do not need to trigger the full primal biophysical response of the corresponding primal emotion. These functions still have their roots in the primal emotion. I imagine something like neurons projecting from the limbic system (an ancient brain region very important to emotions) into regions of the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex regions share goals and form of behavior with the corresponding more-primal emotion regions. The cerebral cortex region becomes something like an abstract-emotion, capable of simulation and higher understanding, however the simulations and understandings are all based around the theme of the primal emotion.

When we experience a primal emotion, I think it corresponds with such a strong stimulus for that emotion (e.g. loss for Sadness), that the primal emotion overrides the more advanced function. An unusually strong stimulus has an urgency to it, so it makes sense to fall back on the tried-and-true primal emotion.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

UniversalTruth said:


> Hi, each of those stimulus->action cycles is based on Robert Plutchik's research into animals. He observed that stimulus events would be consistently responded to in the ways described by the cycles. (Note that the cycles used in this theory are altered from Plutchik's, as there are problems with his. For example, his anticipation cycle has "examine" as the cognitive appraisal which is a verb, while the other 7 emotions' cognitive appraisals are described as nouns which is what one would expect).
> 
> Humans evolved from less developed animals. Many, much less developed animals have a limbic system, however the "more evolved" animals have a significantly more developed cerebral cortex. So, what started as a linear/emotional response, could have evolved into a much more advanced and nonlinear reaction. Emotions which were previously separate from eachother, could have become much more interactive through the cerebral cortex.
> 
> ...


What confused me is the way you listed them together. In your first graph you show a progression of element to association to dominate to completion. So for Ti the element is a threat, the association is danger, the dominate is fear, and the completion is escape. Besides the psychological of it, it all seems straight forward. As an Ti dom the person would react in this pattern to problems. I got that.

Then in your next graph you take one cognitive dom (Fear) from the first graph and put it together with different cognitive elements. I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate. It seems you want to make the interaction of the different functions of the ISTP stream line together. I don't see how that would ever work. 

If a person is going to see a problem as threat, danger, fear, escape in their dom, they wouldn't all the sudden switch the element to gain, and then progress to poison, and then fear, and then examine. It doesn't even flow in a logical way. How is an element of gain associate with poison? I guess poison to fear, but then fear to examine? It just plays out as random and senseless. Even from the perspective of the cognitive functions, you add in Ne and ISTP have Ni. 

There would need to be more detail as to why the gain is a poison to an ISTP. I see that you want to incorporate all the functions of the ISTP together, I just think you went about it the wrong way. 

For me this is they way I would see it:

Ti = Fear - Dominate
Se = Trust – Auxiliary 
Ni = Anticipation - Tertiary
Fe = Joy – Inferior

So an ISTP would make decisions they incorporate their dom emotion and their other functions help to balance it out so that they fear doesn't keep them from refusing to do anything. Their fear is balanced with trust, anticipation, and joy.

Of course this all assumes that you assigned the right emotions with the right functions. 

I just don't see the flow of the second graph.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Scruzz said:


> I identify with the Ni Anticipation (anxiety about the future) very well. It is even the daily envisioning accidents and destruction on a more-graphic-than-I-like on a mental level. LOL! It seems to make sense to me.


That seems more like tert or inf N.

I also have Ni flashes, like when I was in school, I was getting burnt out, but before I even consciously decided to withdraw, I had the clear calm thought, I won't be graduating. Not out of fear or anxiety, and it actually took me by surprise. I also knew someone had been killed in an apartment I lived in in NoHo for three or four months.

The way I differentiate good Ni from fear or paranoia is the clear calm knowing that comes from deep inside, not of my ego mind. SP Ni tends to be wonky like this, hit or miss, paranoid/conspiracy or almost psychic seeming. The director David Lynch gets his ideas for films from dreams, but also singular images he sees irl or that come to him.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> What I mean is that his aptitude in clearly seeing people's types has nothing to do with whether he understands his theory.


Who is "he"? 



> And so, Jung views libido as the source for differences, right? It strikes me as a contrivance. To me, replacing libido with straight emotion is more solid and then viewing feeling as a tool using this base emotion is better. But anyway, yeah, I doubt there's much actual foundational Jung.


Not source of difference. Source of energy, source of direction, source of interest. But you can't. Libido isn't the same as emotions. There is nothing about the Jungian definition of libido that overlaps with the definitions provided by the OP except perhaps "love" or "desire" that would be the closest kinds of emotions, though still doesn't capture the gist of it.


----------

