# Why can't we use these definitions of the Cognitive Functions ?



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> When you said that Si "mythologizes" the outer world archaically, you lost me. It sounded like archetypes or something. Mythological is a good word for Si though. It is nostalgic and centered. The myth is constructed of their abstracted experiences, but centered around a "rooted pureness", which must be guarded and returned to. That is why it has a problem with change, it uproots that world.
> 
> Si can be very cliquey that way. It wants to maintain a static world, in a changing one. Confucius may be another good example. He was all about tradition and routine. You get purity through routine. Through habit. There is a mold. Similar to Aristotle.


The images that always come to mind as I think about Si are those of rust and crust and deposit. I think of hoarders sitting in their filthy homes with newspapers from the 1970s piled up in a teetering tower in some forgotten corner. I think of that one corner of the house that my grandma never sweeps, that has dust in it from the day she first moved in, lifetimes ago. Profound, unimaginable stasis. 

I think of my ISTJ mother in law, as she watches Bill O'Reilly feed her mythology its daily bread from a TV set into a wall covered in a collection of watering cans she has built up, collected, over decades and allowed to gather dust for what she must surely hope is an eternity. 

It is timeless, pure. Any effort at change, at dynamicism, anything, is a morbid and damaging thing. Like an old woman screaming and bawling as cleaning crews come into to disassemble her hoard. 

But, yes, Si absolutely mythologizes. The example which stands like an elephant in the room is unquestionably religion. By religion I don't mean devotion or altruism, or passion, or symbolism, I mean mythology. This world isn't really real, just a morbid dream. Eternal warm stasis is reality. A private abstract eternal world. In a sense, people aren't people, but how they fit into that world.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

arkigos said:


> The images that always come to mind as I think about Si are those of rust and crust and deposit. I think of hoarders sitting in their filthy homes with newspapers from the 1970s piled up in a teetering tower in some forgotten corner. I think of that one corner of the house that my grandma never sweeps, that has dust in it from the day she first moved in, lifetimes ago. Profound, unimaginable stasis.
> 
> I think of my ISTJ mother in law, as she watches Bill O'Reilly feed her mythology its daily bread from a TV set into a wall covered in a collection of watering cans she has built up, collected, over decades and allowed to gather dust for what she must surely hope is an eternity.
> 
> ...


I used the word "dreary" recently to describe Si. lol. 

This world is really like hell to them. They are the only semblance of order. The world cannot be saved/changed, it just must be guarded. This is a problem I have with cops and "the system". It's the same thing as The Hobbits. The cops are like hobbits. I am some punk in the chaotic world. I am supposed to be there. I am that morbid dream. I will never change to them. I will always be a punk, and I will always be an angel to my Si relatives. lol. They each have their own mythologies, where I am always the good guy or the bad guy.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> When you said that Si "mythologizes" the outer world archaically, you lost me. It sounded like archetypes or something. Mythological is a good word for Si though. It is nostalgic and centered. The myth is constructed of their abstracted experiences, but centered around a "rooted pureness", which must be guarded and returned to.


Jung believed in applying the scientific approach to the extent feasible (in light of the nature of the subject being studied), and Briggs and (especially) Myers put Jung's type categories to the test in a way that he never had. And the result was that Myers' type descriptions ended up departing from Jung in many ways, both large and small.

And if I wanted to pick a single cognitive function where Myers' conception of the corresponding types departed the most from Jung, I'm pretty sure I'd pick introverted sensation.

No respectable modern MBTI theorist that I know of — whether dichotomy-centric or function-centric — really makes much use of Jung's original conception of Si. If you want to find somebody holding it up as the standard, your best bet is to hang out at internet forums and hunt up goofy posts by people like @arkigos.

As discussed at length in this post, most modern Si descriptions — including the ones you'll find in more _function-centric_ theorists like Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — bear little resemblance to Jung's Si descriptions, and are more like the _opposite_ of Jung's descriptions in many respects. Virtually _nobody respectable_ really subscribes to Jung's original conception of Si anymore, and I think it's fair to say that Jung's Si-dom description does a poor job of capturing the personality of any reasonably large group of non-disordered people who have ever walked the Earth, today or in 1921 or at any time. And in any case, it certainly does a lousy job of describing most of the people (extraverts and introverts both) whose preferences put them on the S and J sides of those two MBTI dimensions.

So it's no surprise if arkigos's function descriptions "lose" you, since he's kind of lost in his own little fact-insensitive INTP world. And although he often characterizes his perspective as _Jungian_, I've had multiple exchanges with him that show that his familiarity with Psychological Types is much weaker than the tone of his posts might lead someone to think.

As one example: Although it's not hard to see why somebody might point to modern MBTI SJ (and Si) descriptions as being a decent match for quite a lot of the characteristics Tolkien associated with his practical, traditional, down-to-earth hobbits, hobbits are a poor match for Jung's Si-doms. In describing what he referred to as "the reality-alienating subjectivity of this type," Jung said that an Si-dom "has an illusory conception of reality," and that the relation between the actual, concrete, mundane physical world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it is "unpredictable and arbitrary." Both because of that and because, in Jung's view, the Si-dom's thinking and feeling functions "are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression," Jung said that not only was it typical for Si-doms to be unable to really communicate their views to the world in understandable ways, but that an Si-dom also typically "fares no better in understanding himself."

Jung said the main hope for an Si-dom to be able to communicate his thoughts to others was through art — in which case, although others would then be able to get a better glimpse of the Si-dom's soul, it would also be "strikingly clear" how "irrational" the Si-dom's perspectives were — but alas, Jung also noted that artistic Si-doms were the exception rather than the rule, with the result that, "as a rule, [the Si-dom] resigns himself to his isolation." From the standpoint of actual, practical, real-world accomplishments, Jung grouped the Si-doms and Ni-doms together and referred to them as the "most useless of men."

I've read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings more than once, and those aren't the hobbits I remember.

In his ridiculous attempt to apply Jung's version of Si to Tolkien's hobbits, arkigos says that the "outer world" that the hobbits "mythologize" is the greater, scary world outside the Shire — that "frightening, morbid, undesired place, filled with darkness and absurdity" (in arkigos's words) — as they "solipsistically" limit their perception to their "own world" within the Shire while "refusing to acknowledge" the scary "outer forces" that they've "mythologized." And this interpretation has Jung precisely _backwards_. To Jung, what the Si-dom "mythologizes" isn't some greater world outside his own familiar neighborhood, but rather _the entire external world_. Rather than suffering from a solipsistic obliviousness to some greater world (which he fears) in favor of a tighter focus on his own familiar surroundings, the Si-dom suffers from a blindness to his own surroundings in favor of a mythologized version of the world that results from the fact that the Si-dom's sense-perceptions are merely "stimuli" that evoke archetypes in the collective unconscious. What's more, the Si-dom doesn't find those mythological archetypes to be "scary" or "morbid" or "undesired" or "not really real" (as arkigos absurdly described them). On the contrary: it's the archetypes that the Si-dom views as real, and that hold the Si-dom's interest, and that the Si-dom's world revolves around. Jung actually uses the word "morbid" to describe how the Si-dom _may_ experience the _gap_ between his preferred mythological world and the real world if he happens to become aware that the gap exists; but again, Jung says that's not the norm (he describes it as a "dilemma" that happens "only in extreme cases"), and that, in any case, if that happens, it's the real world that's viewed as the problem, not the mythological world.

Talk about a richly multilayered tangle of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. I'd probably find it funny if it wasn't so tiresomely typical of arkigos.

In any case, and regardless of what anybody thinks of hobbits, what nobody can deny is that Myers's characterization of SJs bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-dom description — as arkigos has rightly acknowledged! — and that Thomson, Berens, Nardi, Quenk and virtually every other MBTI source that most people are likely to have heard of basically agree that Myers was right to make the substantial changes she did. And that's why Thomson's "Si," and Berens's "Si" and Nardi's "Si" and Quenk's "Si" all basically match up with Myers, rather than Jung.

And arkigos can find Myers, Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk all "profoundly wanting" if he likes, and claim that their descriptions "fail" because of their "inaccuracy" and "inefficacy." But to that extent I'd say arkigos's own "reality-alienating subjectivity" (to use Jung's phrase) causes him to resemble Jung's Si-doms to a substantially greater degree than a typical SJ (or hobbit) does.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after Psychological Types was published, somebody was inclined to ignore all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was telling people they should pretty much be sticking with his original Si description, I really don't think he'd approve.

So... that makes arkigos's hobbit analysis _non-Jungian_ on two different levels.

And again, for anyone who's interested, there's much more on the evolution of Si — with quotes from Jung and multiple modern sources — in that long linked post.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Even though @reckful and I are at a fundamental disagreement on how to define, or whose definition Si is more valid, where he focuses more on Myers Si definition while I focus more on Jung's Si definition, what he did state about Jung's view on Si has been mostly correct. For anyone who wants a Jungian reference to view it for themselves, here:



> *Introverted sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, of the primordial images which, in their totality, constitute a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them.*





> *Obviously therefore, no proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but one that is apparently quite unpredictable and arbitrary. What will make an impression and what will not can never be seen in advance, and from outside*. Did there exist an aptitude for expression in any way proportional to the intensity of his sensations, the irrationality of this type would be extraordinarily striking. This is the case, for instance, when an individual is a creative artist. But since this is the exception, the introvert’s characteristic difficulty in expressing himself also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may be conspicuous for his calmness and passivity, or for his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads a superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. *Normally the object is not consciously devalued in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it and immediately replaced by a subjective reaction no longer related to the reality of the object. *This naturally has the same effect as devaluation. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all, or why objects in general should have any justification for their existence since everything essential still goes on happening without them. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, *but not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is absolutely necessary to sensation and merely produces something different from what the external situation might lead one to expect.*





> *Seen from the outside, it looks as though the effect of the object did not penetrate into the subject at all.* This impression is correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious and intercept the effect of the object. The intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to be shielding himself directly from all objective influences. In more serious cases, such a protective defence actually does exist. Even *with only a slight increase in the power of the unconscious, the subjective component of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the influence of the object*. If the object is a person, he feels completely devalued, while the subject has an illusory conception of reality, which in pathological cases goes so far that he is no longer able to distinguish between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction reaches the vanishing point only in near-psychotic states, yet long before that the subjective perception can influence thought, feeling, and action to an excessive degree despite the fact that the object is clearly seen in all its reality. *When its influence does succeed in penetrating into the subject— because of its special intensity or because of its complete analogy with the unconscious image— even the normal type will be compelled to act in accordance with the unconscious model. *Such action has an illusory character unrelated to objective reality and is extremely disconcerting. It instantly reveals the reality-alienating subjectivity of this type. _But when the influence of the object does not break through completely, it is met with well-intentioned neutrality, disclosing little sympathy yet constantly striving to soothe and adjust. The too low is raised a little, the too high is lowered, enthusiasm is damped down, extravagance restrained, and anything out of the ordinary reduced to the right formula— all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. _In this way the type becomes a menace to his environment because his total innocuousness is not altogether above suspicion.





> If no capacity for artistic expression is present, all impressions sink into the depths and hold consciousness under a spell, so that it becomes impossible to master their fascination by giving them conscious expression. *In general, this type can organize his impressions only in archaic ways, because thinking and feeling are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression*. As conscious functions, they are wholly incapable of adequately reproducing his subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to objective understanding, and he usually fares no better in understanding himself.





> *Above all, his development alienates him from the reality of the object, leaving him at the mercy of his subjective perceptions, which orient his consciousness to an archaic reality, although his lack of comparative judgment keeps him wholly unconscious of this fact*. Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons. *That they appear thus to him never enters his head*, though that is just the effect they have on his judgments and actions. He judges and acts as though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. *If he has any aptitude for objective reason, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is ready to grant his sensations reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-believe and a comedy. *Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule he resigns himself to his isolation and the banality of the world, *which he has unconsciously made archaic*.


----------



## Deity (Dec 26, 2014)

Interesting thread. 
A+


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> Even though @reckful and I are at a fundamental disagreement on how to define, or whose definition Si is more valid, where he focuses more on Myers Si definition while I focus more on Jung's Si definition, what he did state about Jung's view on Si has been mostly correct. For anyone who wants a Jungian reference to view it for themselves, here:


I have to confess that Jung's description of Si types far more accurately describes my mom than the other descriptions. I wouldn't say the others are "wrong" but they don't nail her like Jung does. My poor mom had a miserable Depression-era childhood with an overbearing mother and a drunk and abusive father--all the hallmarks for messing a child up, so I guess it shouldn't be surprising if she fits this rather dreary description. I would say that Jung is not so much "wrong" as much as he is describing the worst possible manifestation of an Si type. 

As to all the other Si types I know--I don't really see much of Jung in them. I think I see a faint glimmer there but his description is very much overwrought.

If, on the other hand, I were to look to the races of Middle Earth for an example of the Si type, I would look to the Elves rather than the Hobbits.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

reckful said:


> Jung believed in applying the scientific approach to the extent feasible (in light of the nature of the subject being studied), and Briggs and (especially) Myers put Jung's type categories to the test in a way that he never had. And the result was that Myers' type descriptions ended up departing from Jung in many ways, both large and small.
> 
> And if I wanted to pick a single cognitive function where Myers' conception of the corresponding types departed the most from Jung, I'm pretty sure I'd pick introverted sensation.
> 
> ...



Jung broke from Freud because of the dogma of one way, and an objective psychology that ignored subjective elements. You are just like Freud in that you are more interested in creating something that can be defended, and has no cracks, than continual exploration. Authority. You want authority. An institution. You trot out all these names, like they mean anything to me. I am not interested in defending any school. 

I think Arkigos gets his definitions of Si, from Si users. You may think he is goofy, but it is not as goofy as you thinking Jung uses Te, or is an INTJ. Arkigos is acting like Jung, and in the spirit of Jung. You are missing the larger point. Si does mythologize in the way he said imo. It also never sees the present moment, as is. So it never actually sees reality. Ni-Se does. Ne sees objective possibilities. Possibilities are not realities. Si takes what it wants. The present moment, or reality, is never touched. Also, Si cannot be gangster. It is not in touch with the streets. 

"What we are to our inward vision, and what man appears to be sub specie aeternitatis, can only be expressed by way of myth. Myth is more individual and expresses life more precisely than does science. Science works with concepts of averages which are far too general to do justice to the subjective variety of an individual life."


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> You are just like Freud in that you are more interested in creating something that can be defended, and has no cracks, than continual exploration. Authority. ...
> 
> I think Arkigos gets his definitions of Si, from Si users. You may think he is goofy, but it is not as goofy as you thinking Jung uses Te, or is an INTJ. Arkigos is acting like Jung, and in the spirit of Jung.


You've got that backwards. In this thread and many others, arkigos basically treats Jung as an "authority," while scoffing at modern theorists who've had the gall to treat Jung with the appropriately sceptical mindset that Jung himself applied to Freud and all his other theoretical predecessors.

That's not acting "in the spirit of Jung."

You say arkigos "gets his definitions of Si, from Si users," but on the contrary, he's up front about the fact that he pretty much subscribes to Jung's definitions and, more to the point, _rejects_ those who make substantial departures from the Great Swiss Master.

In a thread where I directed the OP to a post that I said offered what I considered "some clarification on N and S" — and that included quotes on S/N from Myers, Keirsey, Thomson, Berens and Nardi — arkigos objected that the quoted views of _all those theorists_ didn't even qualify as "attempts to actually clarify N and S," because as far as he was concerned, those people all "essentially reject Jung," and their notions of N and S are "completely outside of Jung." And it's worth emphasizing that the OP of that thread hadn't specifically asked for anybody's input to be limited to _Jung's_ views on the functions. Here's what arkigos said:



arkigos said:


> Only the spoiler at the end of that post attempts to actually clarify N and S, and only the first sentence of that engages it directly at all. The second sentence jumps right into Myers, by moving away from a theory of cognition, but one of preference (as in, 'that which you personally choose to be more desirable'). We are now, of course, completely outside of Jung. ...
> 
> The rest of the clarification are quotations of people who all essentially reject Jung and supplant it with their own systems, which are specifically contradictory to it (and in many ways each other)... and on more wildly more profound levels than just aux/tert function ordering.


It would have been one thing if arkigos had simply disagreed with my characterizations of N and S. But what he said was that my characterizations didn't even qualify as an "attempt to clarify N and S" because those characterizations — which, as I noted, are similarly found in Thomson, Berens and Nardi — stray too far from Jung's original conceptions.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Regarding hobbits. If any race in Middle Earth represents Si types, it'd be the Elves...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

^ I beg to differ. Those warm/mystical/philosophical/humanitarian elves are NFs all the way. :tongue:


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> ^ I beg to differ. Those warm/mystical/philosophical/humanitarian elves are NFs all the way. :tongue:


Then they'd be Ne types, because they definitely exhibit Si--their memories being more real to them than the present. And they aren't particularly philosophical--a few of the top elves are, but they tend to be rather down-to-earth--remember the woodland elves in the Hobbit. The high elves--Galadrial and Celeborn--less so, but they aren't really very philosophical, and humanitarian? Not very--very closed, and quite stiff with non-elves. They have a very closed, and stratified society. There is so much in elvedom that doesn't fit the dreamy NF style of life... It is sort of presented that way from the perspective of the Hobbits, but the reality is a bit different. Also, it'd be worth reading The Silmarillian. 

I think you could call them Plato's Guardians--but not Keirsey's, though... In fact, they may be Tolkein's representation of Plato's guardians, now I think about it (which would make them a cross between SJs and NFs with a smattering of NTs)


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> Then they'd be Ne types, because they definitely exhibit Si ...


Both Jung and Myers viewed Ne and Si — or NP or SJ, if you prefer — as essentially opposites. The idea that, if you were an "Ne type," then you'd also "use" Si, because Ne and Si work "in tandem," is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers and basically comes from the Harold Grant function stack — which has _no respectable validity_ and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

If you're interested in a long discussion of the _tandem_ issue — focusing specifically (in part) on Ne and Si — you'll find it in this post.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Dezir said:


> *The Extroverted Thinking (Te)* function imposes our own order on the world around us. Te structures the world in logical ways, ranging from the physical world (your desk, your office, etc) to concepts (creating 'flow charts' of ideas in your mind.)
> 
> The Introverted Thinking (Ti) function is used when an individual analyzes something, breaks it apart, and categorizes and defines its elements. This is the foundation of logical thinking. Ti is crucial in identifying logical inconsistencies and putting together logical arguments. Those with strong Ti usually have an ability to remain objective even when it may bother others.
> 
> ...


That is because naughty children don't get what they want now don't they?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> Both Jung and Myers viewed Ne and Si — or NP or SJ, if you prefer — as essentially opposites. The idea that, if you were an "Ne type," then you'd also "use" Si, because Ne and Si work "in tandem," is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers and basically comes from the Harold Grant function stack — which has _no respectable validity_ and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.
> 
> If you're interested in a long discussion of the _tandem_ issue — focusing specifically (in part) on Ne and Si — you'll find it in this post.


That was actually my point, only a bit roundabout. ;-) But like I said, I doubt we can pigeonhole Middle Earth like this. (again a bit roundabout)


----------



## Gurpy (Aug 8, 2014)

I think your description of the functions sounds on point

TBH this may be the best description I have ever seen


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

arkigos said:


> The images that always come to mind as I think about Si are those of rust and crust and deposit. I think of hoarders sitting in their filthy homes with newspapers from the 1970s piled up in a teetering tower in some forgotten corner. I think of that one corner of the house that my grandma never sweeps, that has dust in it from the day she first moved in, lifetimes ago. Profound, unimaginable stasis.
> 
> I think of my ISTJ mother in law, as she watches Bill O'Reilly feed her mythology its daily bread from a TV set into a wall covered in a collection of watering cans she has built up, collected, over decades and allowed to gather dust for what she must surely hope is an eternity.
> 
> ...



Sounds more like tertiary/inferior Si. Ask me how I know :crying:


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

These are pretty good but I think Fe and Si are a little simplistic. High Fe doesn't necessarily one mean is considerate of others, for example. Even EFJs can be callous jerks.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Is my understanding of the functions correct:

Se - looking at the stars
Ne - seeing how the stars connect into constellations

Si - recalling your past experiences
Ni - thinking of how these experiences put together make the story of your life

Philosophers is usually understood as Ni-dominant (imagining things they've read about and putting them together into a grand model of reality as a whole) , but I think they can use Ne as well. If they create their models of reality based on what they perceive through their five senses, isn't it Ne?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Blazkovitz said:


> Is my understanding of the functions correct:
> 
> Se - looking at the stars
> Ne - seeing how the stars connect into constellations
> ...


Ne, Si, Ni descriptions sound like judging.

Some philosophers are Ni-dom (Nietzsche), but I'd argue that a great deal of them are Ti-dom.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Honestly I think my definitions are 100 times better than OP
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/431002-function-descriptions-iteration.html

You have to make a distinction between perceiving and judging functions. understanding P and J in terms of function definition is far and away more useful than P or J categories of traits or labels to put on people.

Around these sites I've seen people desperately trying to prove to themselves they are Ne dom, for example.
A person can be innovative in a particular situation simply by working hard at coming up with an innovation. Others seem to think that babbling nonsense makes them "N" (like spewing random bullshit is "out of the box" or something).

BTW, your definition of Ni seems only to apply to one situation of the meanings of words (terms) - which is often characteristic maybe even more-so of Ti. Ni as a perceiving function is literally right brained - pre language. And yet Ni is objective in the sense that meaning intake is pulled apart from personal or original sensory context.

The distinction that Si, Ne, Se, Ni - are all passive intake, not judgement - is key to understanding what a function or function stack is.

If you just want to put people into groups so people can have identities like clubs to belong to - you can read horoscopes or put a swimming pool in your back yard or drive a certain type of car.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> Honestly I think my definitions are 100 times better than OP
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/431002-function-descriptions-iteration.html


I've read them carefully and maybe I am retarded but I still don't understand Ni and Ne. This is even more strange if you take into consideration the fact I'm an Intuitive.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Blazkovitz said:


> I've read them carefully and maybe I am retarded but I still don't understand Ni and Ne. This is even more strange if you take into consideration the fact I'm an Intuitive.


Well, if for example you were Fe-Si, you would do a lot of verbal replays of what I call "in the moment experiences", because the ESFJ does a lot of learning by experience - in an indirect way. I remember a roommate I would have to say "well that's not my point" (quite often) to, when she would say "oh that's just like when.....". For her the intake has to get filtered through familiar context.

If I think about a customer I believed was ENFJ, I would say she has a lot of "if, then" statements going on in her head all the time - but not outright expressed and maybe not even verbalized in an internal dialog. Her sense of how things work, in life is going to be from stored past experience, but not about the actual experiences, distilled more into how things are, how people are, systemic similarities discovered or known on a sub-conscious level.

This is not to say Si is dumber, just focused in a different way, conducive to continuity and culture building. It would be a mistake to say that Si values tradition because it is not a deliberate choosing of values. Traditionalism is a trait but could come from a source other than Si.

What Ni does over time, Ne does in the moment. The shot-gun approach, several possibilities "lets throw them all at the wall and see what sticks".


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

reckful said:


> Both Jung and Myers viewed Ne and Si — or NP or SJ, if you prefer — as essentially opposites. The idea that, if you were an "Ne type," then you'd also "use" Si, because Ne and Si work "in tandem," is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers and basically comes from the Harold Grant function stack — which has _no respectable validity_ and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.
> 
> If you're interested in a long discussion of the _tandem_ issue — focusing specifically (in part) on Ne and Si — you'll find it in this post.



Well. i'm not sure about elves (original context). But I think you could say Ne doms who are not young and struggling with the inferior function - are going to be more aware of si than someone who is sp (see example below). BTW, INTP's deal with the world by balancing Ne and Si.

As an example, if I watch a TV movie with my mother (ISTP). I tend to want to know or try to guess when the movie was made. I'm looking for context and a type of personal orientation to the movie. But this is not my default, it serves my Ne. When I watch a movie, part of the enjoyment is to guess the plot or even write several plot possibilities while watching. Si figures into empathy of the writer or producer sort of, to guess where the story is going plus how it could go differently if it was re-written.
My mother on the other hand wants me to shut up. She could care less about when the movie was made. Her enjoyment is to soak up the performance and to catch the meaning of every bit of dialog, or subtle inference of action.

The understanding of opposites is important, but Jung's point was how opposites are impossible to do without a deliberate shift. The stronger a dominant preference the more one will choose not to indulge it's opposite. Getting older doesn't mean balance in a sense of flattening out (equilibrium like death) it just means people can and do shift perspectives if they see it as advantageous.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Well, if for example you were Fe-Si, you would do a lot of verbal replays of what I call "in the moment experiences", because the ESFJ does a lot of learning by experience - in an indirect way. I remember a roommate I would have to say "well that's not my point" (quite often) to, when she would say "oh that's just like when.....". For her the intake has to get filtered through familiar context.
> 
> If I think about a customer I believed was ENFJ, I would say she has a lot of "if, then" statements going on in her head all the time - but not outright expressed and maybe not even verbalized in an internal dialog. Her sense of how things work, in life is going to be from stored past experience, but not about the actual experiences, distilled more into how things are, how people are, systemic similarities discovered or known on a sub-conscious level.
> 
> ...


I like your descriptions, they are concise. That is what Ne does too. Ni is trying to load the bullet back into the gun. Stuff everything in that box. Clean up the mess. Many possibilities simply overwhelm me. Ne is divergent. Ni is convergent.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

These posts by @reckful are a great example, once again, of the difference between Te and Ti cognition. See how he is arrested by the object - unable to turn away from what he sees as plain obvious objective truths. There is an oppressive feeling to it, but also a corrective one. Count on the Te to dot every i and cross every t and to call you out on every perceived misstep. That is why they make such excellent critics and commentators. It is their role and it is a valuable one. He acted particularly in character in acting uncomfortable and dismissive of my mode of thinking:



> So it's no surprise if arkigos's function descriptions "lose" you, since he's kind of lost in his own little fact-insensitive INTP world.


As I said, Te tends to view Ti as meandering, subjective, and willfully contradictory, in much the same way that Fe tends to view Fi. Te and Fe tend to take more of a policing role, trying to get everyone and everything into sync with the Object, while Ti and Fi by their very natures seek to detach from it and subvert it in an attempt to get to a purer place. Sometimes, that is precisely what is accomplished, while sometimes the only result is meandering Subjectivity. This is far too unreliable and out of line for the Te, and for extreme Te types it can be both baffling and maddening. "He's so far off from the Object that we all can clearly see, why would anyone listen to his ramblings?" Its a fair criticism, though it begs the question: are Ti simply worse thinkers? @reckful implies as much in the above quote... hinting that it is my status as an INTP that causes or at least contributes to my status as a goofy charlatan. 

Well, obviously not as we are all aware of many of the greatest thinkers being Ti types. Some might be profoundly meandering and Subjective in their thinking, like, say, Descartes. Some might be less so, such as Einstein (though he is oft criticized for losing his way after his original successes, and consistently disregarding and putting off the findings of others and consequently lagging behind and spinning out on his own private trains of thought). Ultimately, the wiser conclusion is that both Te and Ti have their strengths and their weaknesses. I am terribly wary of someone who fails naturally to understand that.

It is foolish, @reckful, to say that adherence (or at least lip service) to peer-review and scientific method/rigor is a necessary indication of Te over Ti. It is well within any types capacity to reason out the importance of such things for one reason or another. As has been said to you many times, some pursuits require it to logically (or socially) proceed. Ti types adhere to these requirements as readily as any, though perhaps not with such a natural myopic zeal as a Te type might. Our minds will certainly wander, but we aren't going to disregard it when the consideration of it is a matter of professional survival. Jung is a great example of this. No one with even a weak sense of what is meant by Ti and Te would begin to call Jung a Te. You are the only who I've heard do so, for what it is worth, and I find your argument that Jung was mindful of the importance of such things as entirely tenuous. You cannot have someone who meanders and contradicts and abstracts in every sentence and call them a Te simply because they (probably grudgingly) acknowledge the importance of empiricism and peer-review. If I were to go on and on about it, would you call me a Te? And, yet, I will. Peer review is all important... despite my natural tendency to disregard it, I would be lost and useless without those around me to review what I am thinking and producing. I think I have proven as much. Further, something that cannot be proven must not be believed. It all sounds good on paper, but if it doesn't work in the field, it is just a theory. I actually believe that. How much do I need to talk about it before you call me a Te? As much as Jung did? More? 

---

Back on the subject of Si. This:



> _In his ridiculous attempt to apply Jung's version of Si to Tolkien's hobbits, arkigos says that the "outer world" that the hobbits "mythologize" is the greater, scary world outside the Shire — that "frightening, morbid, undesired place, filled with darkness and absurdity" (in arkigos's words) — as they "solipsistically" limit their perception to their "own world" within the Shire while "refusing to acknowledge" the scary "outer forces" that they've "mythologized." And this interpretation has Jung precisely __backwards. To Jung, what the Si-dom "mythologizes" isn't some greater world outside his own familiar neighborhood, but rather the entire external world. Rather than suffering from a solipsistic obliviousness to some greater world (which he fears) in favor of a tighter focus on his own familiar surroundings, the Si-dom suffers from a blindness to his own surroundings in favor of a mythologized version of the world that results from the fact that the Si-dom's sense-perceptions are merely "stimuli" that evoke archetypes in the collective unconscious. What's more, the Si-dom doesn't find those mythological archetypes to be "scary" or "morbid" or "undesired" or "not really real" (as arkigos absurdly described them). On the contrary: it's the archetypes that the Si-dom views as real, and that hold the Si-dom's interest, and that the Si-dom's world revolves around. Jung actually uses the word "morbid" to describe how the Si-dom may experience the gap between his preferred mythological world and the real world if he happens to become aware that the gap exists; but again, Jung says that's not the norm (he describes it as a "dilemma" that happens "only in extreme cases"), and that, in any case, if that happens, it's the real world that's viewed as the problem, not the mythological world._


This is an excellent re-rendering of Jung's thoughts on the matter, and I find myself quite in agreement with it. My wandering and imprecise mind is once again policed back into line, and I am grateful for it. 

Yes, this. Things aren't things, but representations of (archaic) archetypes (or mythologies). You aren't an object, but a place in an abstract mythology. Again, the real best example is religion. 

So, yes, it would be wrong to say that Si types see their mythologized worlds as morbid or scary. I believe that in saying that they mythologized the world and in so doing found it frightening, I was not repeating the words of Jung, but my own thoughts. I'd argue that it is better to say that Si itself might find the greater objective world a morbid thing and that they tend to mythologize (or at least view from the point of their own mythological world) much of that world. It is certainly truer and cleaner to discard that and state it as Jung did. But, I wonder how much of that natural antagonism to the objective world is caused by seeing it through a mythological lens. Yes, that. Interesting that so many have attributed to 'inferior Ne' what above is clearly attributable to Si itself. But, also, you are right that hobbits are not a clean example of Jung's Si, because they lack that strong mythology to encapsulate their own world. Indeed, they would be terrible examples. Nevertheless, I think they ARE good examples of Si types, regardless of Jung... rather, of how they might appear to us. Squaring that up seems to a fundamental part of the SJ vs Si problem. 

The goal here is not to bring myself into line with Jung, but to use his observations, which I agree with, as a staging point. You'll not find me simply proselytizing what he said, because doing so is entirely contrary to the point. Inasmuch as we don't have a better explanation, Jung will be extolled. Also, I am fine being wrong. The only thing we know is that we are all currently entirely wrong. The only way to get right is to offer new plausible suggestions (educated guesses) and see if they stick, which will also be wrong, but might be more right. As long as those ideas continue to develop and progress, we are getting somewhere... and, yes, sticking to Jung is progress. When you get lost, you retrace your steps to a truer place and start over. Find the truest place, and start there. I am imagining you citing the antiquity of Jung against me, and it is silly.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

The problem of *Jung's Si* description is not the description, it is the inability of modern readers to put Jung's writings into the context of his times. Jung studied his "clients" but he also studied religion and philosophy, he looked for parallels in myth through the ages, as part of understanding human nature. Myers/brigs is primarily concerned today with testing and having verifiable test results. One thing does not negate the other - they are serving a different purpose.

I still maintain that if you don't understand what Jung describes in psychological types, you don't understand functions or what a function stack means. Without Jung, all you have is taxonomies for the sake of filing people. If filing people according to traits is what you want (MBTI) - fine. But I believe this was more helpful in the industrial age. Information technology is still changing the world. The whole usefulness of terms like Introvert or extrovert is turned upside-down on the internet, for example.

So we have the popularity of on-line testing but employers still go through workers like running water. Part of this may be millennials looking for advancement, but part of it is that employers don't even know what to ask for to find an ideal employee, in practical skills OR anything else - right now.

Jung's description of Si is more a contrast to Se than talking about fantasy the way we think of fantasy like anime or movie fiction today. The abstract painting being something about essence and private interpretation, not the realism for the experience itself that you see with Se - It is not that complicated you guys.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> The problem of *Jung's Si* description is not the description, it is the inability of modern readers to put Jung's writings into the context of his times. Jung studied his "clients" but he also studied religion and philosophy, he looked for parallels in myth through the ages, as part of understanding human nature. Myers/brigs is primarily concerned today with testing and having verifiable test results. One thing does not negate the other - they are serving a different purpose.
> 
> I still maintain that if you don't understand what Jung describes in psychological types, you don't understand functions or what a function stack means. Without Jung, all you have is taxonomies for the sake of filing people. If filing people according to traits is what you want (MBTI) - fine. But I believe this was more helpful in the industrial age. Information technology is still changing the world. The whole usefulness of terms like Introvert or extrovert is turned upside-down on the internet, for example.
> 
> ...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> No one with even a weak sense of what is meant by Ti and Te would begin to call Jung a Te. You are the only who I've heard do so, for what it is worth, and I find your argument that Jung was mindful of the importance of such things as entirely tenuous.


I've never said Jung was a _Jungian_ Te, and he certainly bore no significant resemblance to his own Te-dom description.

As explained in this post, Jung believed that a Ti-dom with an N-aux would be Ti-Ni-Se-Fe and an Ni-dom with a T-aux would be Ni-Ti-Fe-Se. He viewed himself as the first at the time he wrote Psychological Types, but it appears that he may have felt at least somewhat torn between those two types later on.

And as noted in the next linked post, I think the characteristics that the MBTI J/P dimension taps into line up considerably better with Jung's descriptions of J-doms and P-doms than with Jung's extraverted J-doms and introverted P-doms on the one hand and Jung's extraverted P-doms and introverted J-doms on the other (which was Myers' spin on Jung's functions). Jung said that P-doms "find fulfilment in ... the flux of events" and are "attuned to the absolutely contingent," while J-doms seek to "coerce the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern." He said a J-dom tends to view a P-dom as "a hodge-podge of accidentals," while a P-dom "ripostes with an equally contemptuous opinion of his opposite number: he sees him as something only half alive, whose sole aim is to fasten the fetters of reason on everything living and strangle it with judgments."

So I'd say the fact that Jung viewed himself as a "rational type" (J-dom) — at least at the time he wrote Psychological Types — is at least some evidence that he was more of a J than a P in MBTI terms.

My take on Jung's type is here. As I explain in that post, I think INTJ and INFP are the likeliest types — but again, _not_ associating either INTJ or INTP with _Jungian_ Te — and INFJ is also a possibility.

ADDED: Anyone interested in a discussion of the adjustments Myers made to Jung's original conception of Te can find it here.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> Well, if for example you were Fe-Si, you would do a lot of verbal replays of what I call "in the moment experiences", because the ESFJ does a lot of learning by experience - in an indirect way. I remember a roommate I would have to say "well that's not my point" (quite often) to, when she would say "oh that's just like when.....". For her the intake has to get filtered through familiar context.
> 
> If I think about a customer I believed was ENFJ, I would say she has a lot of "if, then" statements going on in her head all the time - but not outright expressed and maybe not even verbalized in an internal dialog. Her sense of how things work, in life is going to be from stored past experience, but not about the actual experiences, distilled more into how things are, how people are, systemic similarities discovered or known on a sub-conscious level.
> 
> ...


Your description of ENFJs' use of "if, then" statements sounds like me.

So, am I now right that intuition distils the essence out of what sensing perceives?


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Dezir said:


> *The Extroverted Thinking (Te)* function imposes our own order on the world around us. Te structures the world in logical ways, ranging from the physical world (your desk, your office, etc) to concepts (creating 'flow charts' of ideas in your mind.)


That is partly true, but Te is not really that much involved in being systematic at all, that's Ti.

Te is usually the function in society that needs constant assuring that everyone is on the same page about something. Te looks for the lowest common denominators. When an xxTJ type meets somebody new, one of their first tasks is to establish common values and understanding in various topics. Te types can hardly tolerate individuality that is so common in Fi-types, because Te types like to believe that individuality isolates groups of people and disrupts the sense of unity and productive atmosphere in the group.

Te, being extroverted function, naturally works to work through huge streams of information into more compact and practical applications, such as graphs, charts, conclusions, tutorials and instruction guides. Same approach applies on their lives, where Te-types often make their sole mission to find common, overlapping categories which explain the world for them. That is why xxTJ types love working in structured environments like businesses and institutions - because they enforce people to unite based on common interests and desires and enforce "getting everybody on the same page" before any agreements are being made.

Te also loves common standards in society, and using them for measuring the quality of everything. That's the reason why Te-types might say things like "it's all about death and taxes in this life, buddy", "sex appeal and money gets you everything you ever desire for" or even "this type of roof is very collapsible; all houses I've seen to collapse have featured this type of roof".

This is not to say that Te is inherently cynical or evil - Te actually values democracy much more than many other cognitive functions. Because external standards dictate the idea "if it looks good, it probably is good", and looking good is not a constant value.



> The Introverted Thinking (Ti) function is used when an individual analyzes something, breaks it apart, and categorizes and defines its elements. This is the foundation of logical thinking. Ti is crucial in identifying logical inconsistencies and putting together logical arguments. Those with strong Ti usually have an ability to remain objective even when it may bother others.


That is very good definition, actually. I agree!

I would like to add that Ti is closely related to being consistent with systematic approach to problems, one of them being the one you described. The other systematic approach example is "I am not willing to do X unless it includes also doing Z", and "activity V cannot be performed if the condition S persists. If condition S is eliminated, only then the activity V can be performed". 



> The Extroverted Intuition (Ne) function is oriented toward generating new possibilities. Ne is all about brainstorming - imagining a variety of possible outcomes and considering them all to be possibly true. Ne is associated with new ideas and innovative breakthroughs.


That is actually not the most specific statement about Ne, because new possibilities can be created by everyone with power over circumstances. Ne is more related to creating harmonies and putting abstract observations together to form associations that can have practical outlets. It's a very Ne thing to analyse same object in very many different contexts and come up with many thoughts based on that. For example, Ne types live often by a motto "you can't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree", because they know that in a perfect world there are no imperfect people.



> The Introverted Intuition (Ni) function implicitly recognizes that one term can have multiple meanings, and allows the individual to disconnect themselves from the concept of 'objective truth'. This allows those with strong Ni to 'rewire' the connections that form a concept and test it from new and unique angles. This is why the Ni dominant types are often called analysts: they can pull apart an idea and test each individual piece to see how it changes the whole.


Sorry dear but that is not very Ni specific trait, again. 

Socionics tells that Ni is time-intuition, meaning that Ni's area of work is working with, recognizing, understanding, guiding and maintaining processes and methods that dynamically and organically evolve in time. Ni-types are extraordinary in recognizing what trends exist in society on a wider scale, and know how to manipulate these trends and values of society in order to improve the social standing of themselves and any groups they belong to. Very good example is Walther White in Breaking Bad (INTJ), who knows that he has cancer, thus involves in reckless criminal business, but when learning that his cancer is in remission, he fluidly changes his goals, moving the goalposts gradually further and further until it becomes a matter of personal pride.

Walther White example is little bad, because Ni is not inherently evil function either. Ni-types are exceptionally useful in situations where other people or a group of people need advice in life-changing situations, or sources of confidence in situations where everyone around is in chaos.



> The Extroverted Sensation (Se) function is associated with a vivid perception of the world, taking into account details that others may miss. Se is about being closely tuned to the world around you, and that usually translates into following 'gut impulses' and taking great pleasure in physical action. Those with weak Se may sometimes feel 'disconnected' from the world around them.


That is partly true, but this description misses the point that Se mostly "thinking on feet" function. The merit of Se is very quick reactions to immediate problems and "fast solution is better than delayed solution that is better" mentality. Se is also very attached to "ways of life", meaning that Se people usually strive to adopt a certain role in society and live by it. 

Se is also commonly referred to as a force of aggression, but this is something rather external, because it's only a byproduct. Since Se values fast solutions and quick thinking, this means that they act out their very first impulse or impression, which might be an aggressive one in some situations, but may not always be so. 

Actually Se is very useful cognitive function in some areas of life, because in many situations, it's an Se-type that triggers events or makes something happen, while others are too shy to take the lead or say the word. Se-types are also very popular in popular culture and as movie characters, because Se-types usually have simple and honest reactions that many people think, but are too afraid to act on... this is what really inspires people.



> The Introverted Sensation (Si) function compares past events with current events. Si is associated with vivid memory recall and a reliance on experiential learning. Those with strong Si often prefer to take a 'hands on approach'. On the other hand, those with weak Si often do not benefit from interacting in that way.


Si is not memory! Memory is restricted to everybody, not to Si types!!!! 

I agree though that Si-types are prone to value solutions that are foolproof and proven to fail the least. Si-types are people who love to surround themselves with everything that has proven itself to serve them well. Si-types also hugely favor several qualities in people such as loyalty to socially acceptable principles and persistance, because they believe that doing something for the common good of "own people" is inherently valuable trait. The ideology of Si is very well explained in old scandinavian ethics code "Law of Jante" - Law of Jante - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The Extroverted Feeling (Fe) function is used when an individual acts in a considerate way to the feelings and beliefs of the people around them. Those with strong Fe can easily empathize with other people and is the most likely to be a 'people person.' Those with weak Fe may find themselves offending people unintentionally.


This true to most extent, but I'd like to add that Fe's large area of work is social environments of any sort. While Fi is more interested in analysing relationships in society and social hierarchy, Fe is more at work in recognizing emotions, what affects a certain group of people the most, creating and maintaining the appropriate attitude in a group that corresponds to nature of situation affecting the group and circumstances.



> The Introverted Feeling (Fi) function attempts to find meaning in the world. In this sense, 'feeling' doesn't necessarily mean 'emotions' - it refers to the subjective and subtle sense of value within a situation. It is often associated with gut reactions about the fairness or goodness of an interaction. Those with strong Fi usually care less about objective facts and more about what's fair or right.


Many people figure about finding meaning in life, that can not only be said about Fi. 

Fi is mostly at work in areas such as relationships between people, figuring out and developing personal integrity, knowing which is the social hierarchy of their environments and recognizing what people like and don't like in and using that knowledge in communication in order to achieve goals.

Here's my two-cents worth! Thx for reading :happy:


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

PaladinX said:


>


That picture was awesome. 

Ni: Hammering motion, hit area and vision what we are going to accomplish perhaps. Pick your tools and material to accomplish this.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> Te types can hardly tolerate individuality that is so common in Fi-types, because Te types like to believe that individuality isolates groups of people and disrupts the sense of unity and productive atmosphere in the group.


Actually, I find this more true withe Fe than Te. Te doesn't really care what you think or feel, so long as you get the job done. Fe, on the other hand, doesn't tolerate any different vibe, and tends to do what it can to squash difference, or failing that, ostracize them--kick them out--bully, to be blunt. That has been my experience.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@KraChZiMan Ti Te fine tuning of definition would be a big deal if we could get clearer in this thread. I look forward to following comments. I think your input is an interesting balance to @reckful and @arkigos . I should go get some popcorn now if you guys would be wiling to battle this out:happy:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Blazkovitz said:


> Your description of ENFJs' use of "if, then" statements sounds like me.
> 
> So, am I now right that intuition distils the essence out of what sensing perceives?


Si can be said to have a level of abstraction, but it never gets divorced from the actual context. Part of Si's value is the attachment it keeps to space and time. But the abstraction is there in that the subject adds categorical-ness or associations and interpretations to what has been experienced (in the object, objects). Ni is like one more step of abstraction or distillation into what is timeless and impersonal.

Si could seem to blur with Ti or Fi or Fe, but you have to remember the non-verbal (sub conscious or passive) intake of information that makes perceiving perceiving and not judgement.

The same with Ni, though I think it is easier to confuse Ni with Ti, Te, or Fe.

You could maybe say that Si scans for a sense of appropriateness and Ni scans for a sense of absolutes. Ni avoids bad experience or the risk involved in Se. Ne avoids boredom or confinement represented by Si.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Actually, I find this more true withe Fe than Te. Te doesn't really care what you think or feel, so long as you get the job done. Fe, on the other hand, doesn't tolerate any different vibe, and tends to do what it can to squash difference, or failing that, ostracize them--kick them out--bully, to be blunt. That has been my experience.


You raise a good point, actually :happy:


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @KraChZiMan Ti Te fine tuning of definition would be a big deal if we could get clearer in this thread. I look forward to following comments. I think your input is an interesting balance to @_reckful_ and @arkigos . I should go get some popcorn now if you guys would be wiling to battle this out:happy:


Haha, that's really flattering :tongue:

I have had some arguments with both reckful and arkigos, and they usually go for pages after pages,
so it has been an exhausting experience, but at the same time there has been a lot of clarification too.
It's as if they give me the incentive to improve the validness of my statements or something :d

On the Ti-Te difference, it's kind of difficult to compare, since they don't function in a similar way.
I find Te to be much more similar to Fe and Ti - Fi than Ti - Te.

That's because Te only externally looks similar to Ti, since they both value rules and being cynical time-to-time.

For me, Te and Ti difference is almost like this: 

When *Te-type (xxTJ)* looks for a job, they would go for "expanding and narrowing options" a.k.a. using every and any method possible to gain access to job offers. They would open millions of tabs on computer to carefully read and compare job offers all at once, then filter and filter them, until 15 potential offers turn into 3 offers that are most perfect, and then they apply for all three, sending a resume that has every little achievement marked down and is really impressive, and then after they are sent, go to bed.

tl;dr - gathering huge amount of all kinds of offers, comparing them all at once using a standard (which job pays most or something), selecting few, applying them, if fails, rant and swear a little and repeat the process


When *Ti-type (xxTP)* looks for a job, they would do something different, such as at first actually not searching offers,but searching for the one specific company they really want to work in. Then they would e-mail that company, saying that they could be of huge help to the business, because they have specific set of skills. When this has no results, they would even go directly to the company's adress, knock on the door, talk to the person responsible for hiring and try to haggle the deal even further, until they are successful. 

tl;dr - knowing very few businesses they really admire, trying to convince them to hire Ti-type with any method possible, if this fails, get to know more businesses to choose from


On this basis, Fe would be similar to Te, as in *Fe-type (xxFJ)* would try to hunt a job by remembering businesseswhere they have had a good time, or they have positive association with, and then they would look up all thesebusinesses and look if they have any offers available and if they do, they apply them all without filtering any, sincethey already prechose those businesses. Similarity to Te is that a Fe type would also expand the options first, andthen narrow them, just the criteria and filtering process is very different from Te.

tl;dr - choosing businesses which have proven they are extraordinary (service, atmosphere, products etc), looking if they have any offers, applying, if this fails, trying to recall more great businesses


*Fi-type (xxFP)* would instead be super choosy and would go for the job offers one-by-one, looking at every offerin a very time-consuming way, considering each remotely suitable option very carefully and thus waste the precioustime that way, but this could also impress the business, because Fi-types tend to be able to leave the "your offerwas true magic, i didn't consider anything else" impression, that could like some businesses in the job interview.

tl;dr - going through very few options at once, carefully choosing, then trying to leave great impression to them, if this fails, lowering standards or finding more options


While Fi-Te and Fe-Ti pairs look similar in their filtering process (focus on offers vs. focus on businesses), the Fi-Ti and Fe-Te pairs have more similar methods (expanding and narrowing options vs. much effort on select few).

Source: half personal experience and half socionics theory about cognitive functions.

For a future warning, remember - those are just examples! If they don't apply to you personally, that's fine. I was just trying to explain differences in decision making and methods.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

:laughing:


KraChZiMan said:


> When *Ti-type (xxTP)* looks for a job, they would do something different, such as at first actually not searching offers,but searching for the one specific company they really want to work in. Then they would e-mail that company, saying that they could be of huge help to the business, because they have specific set of skills. When this has no results, they would even go directly to the company's adress, knock on the door, talk to the person responsible for hiring and try to haggle the deal even further, until they are successful.
> 
> tl;dr - knowing very few businesses they really admire, trying to convince them to hire Ti-type with any method possible, if this fails, get to know more businesses to choose from
> 
> ...


*^This is really interesting.* I tend to think of Fi as in a different world from me, but I get what you are saying.
The significant thing I see (in your post) is how for Te - the key issue for success is to know and exploit, acquire, or master what is out there. For me, my success or failure hangs totally on what I find and cultivate in myself.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to go for a volume approach (eventually:laughing; still, when I was young I did exactly like you said above. So with what I said about myself now, my mindset sounds quite Fi to an observer. As an older adult, what is happening now is my practiced balance of Ti-Fe. I am monitoring the outside world, observing trends, predicting the future, trying to pick my spot out of emerging trends (Ne). But when I read craig's list, or click a job link off from social media or rss feed - I'm looking at an aggregate of what employers are looking for, and using self knowledge, assessing all that I've been teaching myself and saying how do I compare? When I get done agonizing over this, I intend to launch my career shift/job search campaign. Today it won't be finding the best company, but the best opportunity, the best fit with a team I can't know about till I go out there and stir things up.

The place where I wish I was Fi right now, is that I've always made campaigns for other people. I systematize what they express. I'm not without a sense of self, but being myself is in that dialog, problem solving - not projecting an image of some inner meee. 

I definitely think Te's in my place would be saying I need to go for mass job searching and scrounge up the best offer, fit myself into the best option I can get out of what is being offered on job boards or through acquaintances.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> :laughing:
> 
> *^This is really interesting.* I tend to think of Fi as in a different world from me, but I get what you are saying.The significant thing I see (in your post) is how for Te - the key issue for success is to know and exploit, acquire, or master what is out there. For me, my success or failure hangs totally on what I find and cultivate in myself.
> 
> ...


Great, I am also very interested in having this kind of discussion where we can compare how MBTI and Cognitive functions correspond to real life... that's what I like to discuss with my INFJ brother as well. Interesting topic :tongue:

That could be Ne-similarity where you look for best opportunities in the moment, the Ne-esque manouvering in the sea of could-be's ability, but the difference comes in where you are more dedicated to self-learning yourself all the necessary skills that you need for the dream job, because I have always participated in workshops and what-else-makes-CV-cool volunteering stuff based on nothing in particular but general boredom and hatred of routine. I wish I would be able to have the patience to plan out my future in a way that I would look for opportunities that are more in tune with what I actually need, not what is interesting, but the thing is: what I actually need and what is interesting can overlap occasionally, making it look like I actually can plan future, while it's coincidental.

For example, I once participated in festival management workshop just because my friend went there and they organized free field trips and free food for us, but I actually didn't learn that much about festival management in particular, and I don't intend to host a festival in the future on any case. It was not all that necessary for my future, but it was slightly exciting, and I met some people there, which was lovely.

Actually, it's not all that useful to self-project while enjoying the expressions of others all the time. Even I sometimes grow bored of this. It's the exact reason why I stopped listening to emo stuff and going to tumblr - because it's all too superficial to self-project myself to, and now I systematize those expressions too ("the singer may sing about how adolescence is tough, but this does not sound believable when singer is 40-something, also, this genre is pretty much dead and this sound is hugely irrelevant and melodramatic for anyone to enjoy"). 

Although I do kind of understand what you mean, because I do notice that Ti-people tend to distance themselves from self-projecting to the point that when it's forced upon, they get frustrated, meanwhile Te-types can self-project, but they are so embarrassed in admitting to it that they become too awkward all of the sudden to even express that they do so. Fe-types I believe can self-express and will do it successfully, but I have seen so often that Fe-types consider it to be impractical or too boring if self-projecting inner me is the single thing required somewhere. 

A non MBTI-related commentary: that kind of self-employment seems the sound of the future nowadays, since in the past it was "loyal to one successful major company brings career opportunities and good life", now it's like "being partly involved in small-scale enterprising provides position from where you can be in the right place at a right time doing the right thing, and eventually become da boss man of your niche". :tongue:


----------

