# In what way is Ne extraverted?



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

johnnyyukon said:


> What role does Ne have in the ENTPs ability to size up situations and people quickly?
> 
> Everyone talks about primary Nes seeing possibilities everywhere, which is true, where does my abillity to "get" someone or something, often stupid fast, come from?


The ability to make lots of connections between different contexts, I would say.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

owlboy said:


> The ability to make lots of connections between different contexts, I would say.


Agreed, but is that Ne looking at all the possibilities in a situation and THEN connecting the dots?

Either way, I think that as an ENTP gains more and more experience with life, situations, people, more and more consistent patterns begin to emerge making his ability to connect the dots faster.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

owlboy said:


> Oohhh.
> 
> Sometimes I'll be looking at something, and I will ''see'' that thing transform into something else, and I'll feel compelled to change it into that thing. *That's the kind of thing he's referring to? *
> 
> Thanks for posting these lovely chunky quotes btw.


That's the exact thing he's referring too, and its one of the key defining points of an Ne Dom:



> *The stronger his intuition, the more his ego becomes fused with all the possibilities he envisions. He brings his vision to life, he presents it convincingly and with dramatic fire, he embodies it, so to speak. But this is not play-acting, it is a kind of fate*.


No problem, I do it so everyone can see where I derive all of my reasoning/insights into the cognitive functions, and so they can read it for themselves in order to gain/increase their own understanding of them also.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

Shadow Logic said:


> That's the exact thing he's referring too, and its one of the key defining points of an Ne Dom:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem, I do it so everyone can see where I derive all of my reasoning/insights into the cognitive functions, and so they can read it for themselves in order to gain/increase their own understanding of them also.


Well I've been tossing up whether I'm an Ni or Ne for ages, [I'm pretty certain I have Ti, Fe, and inferior Sensing of some sort, and that was the last thing I was stuck on] but if that's Ne, I am totally Ne.

I can never leave my own creations alone, because I start looking at them and ''seeing'' them morph into different things, and it's pretty much irresistible.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

johnnyyukon said:


> What role does Ne have in the ENTPs ability to size up situations and people quickly?
> 
> Everyone talks about primary Nes seeing possibilities everywhere, which is true, where does my abillity to "get" someone or something, often stupid fast, come from?


This ties in with somebody's question (mention in thread) about images (Ni's like the phrase images) I think you can substitute the word impression, (more for Ne) - the idea of N being holistic. We pick up little clues; I think when we ask questions, with Ti, we see where something is going or what the pieces add up to. We might not even know how much we do this until we compare with what somebody else is not seeing -and we are surprised. Again a demonstration of an outward flow of energy or focus.

I think it might be worth pointing out that P functions of whatever kind - don't actually *do* anything. So when you say Ne doms have no preference or evaluation about anything, or you want to put an estimate of action taken in the outside world - this is not Ne's job. These factors depend on judging functions and context.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

johnnyyukon said:


> What role does Ne have in the ENTPs ability to size up situations and people quickly?


That derives from Intuitions primary function, which is to transmit images, or perceptions of the relations between things, which come in the form of active fantasies that associate hints or fragments of lightly toned unconscious complexes with parralell elements on order to perceive its clear visual form. Ne focuses their intuition onto objects, objective things, and external data, so it whatever its focused on, it can directly see its potential by perceiving the relations between all of its individual properties, and the its relation with all others things, this gives us the ability to perceive the full range of a persons potential:



> It goes without saying that such a type is uncommonly important both economically and culturally. If his intentions are good, i.e., if his attitude is not too egocentric, he can render exceptional service as the initiator or promoter of new enterprises. He is the natural champion of all minorities with a future.* Because he is able, when oriented more to people than things, to make an intuitive diagnosis of their abilities and potentialities, he can also “make” men.*





> *The primary function of intuition, however, is simply to transmit images, or perceptions of relations between things, which could not be transmitted by the other functions or only in a very roundabout way*. These images have the value of specific insights which have a decisive influence on action whenever intuition is given priority. In this case, psychic adaptation will be grounded almost entirely on intuitions.





> We can distinguish between active and passive fantasy. *Active fantasies are the product of intuition (q.v.), i.e., they are evoked by an attitude (q.v.) directed to the perception of unconscious contents, as a result of which the libido (q.v.) immediately invests all the elements emerging from the unconscious and, by association with parallel material, brings them into clear focus in visual form.* Passive fantasies appear in visual form at the outset, neither preceded nor accompanied by intuitive expectation, the attitude of the subject being wholly passive. Such fantasies belong to the category of psychic automatisms (Janet). Naturally, they can appear only as a result of a relative dissociation of the psyche, since they presuppose a withdrawal of energy from conscious control and a corresponding activation of unconscious material. Thus the vision of St. Paul43 presupposes that unconsciously he was already a Christian, though this fact had escaped his conscious insight.
> 
> [713] It is probable that passive fantasies always have their origin in an unconscious process that is antithetical to consciousness, but invested with approximately the same amount of energy as the conscious attitude, and therefore capable of breaking through the latter’s resistance. *Active fantasies, on the other hand, owe their existence not so much to this unconscious process as to a conscious propensity to assimilate hints or fragments of lightly-toned unconscious complexes and, by associating them with parallel elements, to elaborate them in clearly visual form. It is not necessarily a question of a dissociated psychic state, but rather of a positive participation of consciousness*.





> 35. INTUITION (L. intueri, ‘to look at or into’). I regard intuition as a basic psychological function (q.v.). *It is the function that mediates perceptions in an unconscious way*. Everything, whether outer or inner objects or their relationships, can be the focus of this perception. The peculiarity of intuition is that it is neither sense perception, nor feeling, nor intellectual inference, although it may also appear in these forms.* In intuition a content presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence. Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, no matter of what contents*.


The fact that its an unconscious function, that instinctinctively apprehends a content by immediately investing all of the elements emerging from the unconscious by associating them with parallel elements in order to bring them in clear focus in visual form, is why you get the insights in an instinctively immediate way/form, or in your words, "often stupid fast".



> Everyone talks about primary Nes seeing possibilities everywhere, which is true, where does my abillity to "get" someone or something, often stupid fast, come from?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Well, I think we can boil this down to a simple concept; objective and subjective can be broken down into real-time or stored.

When something is stored, it has become a subjective product (from the subject). When something is real-time the focus is outside the self. Otherwise we go into a debate of what is concrete and where does that become more like Se. Focusing on a type of object is not the point but where the object representation is coming from - stored or real-time.

Ne and Ni are the same, but one works more in real-time (and then saves the product of multiple possibilities, or passes mutiples to a judging function ready and waiting from inside (Ti or Fi). The other is working with stored and mostly sub-conscious unsorted material that surfaces and gets tested from judging functions established from outside the self (Te, or Fe).


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

owlboy said:


> Well I've been tossing up whether I'm an Ni or Ne for ages, [I'm pretty certain I have Ti, Fe, and inferior Sensing of some sort, and that was the last thing I was stuck on] but if that's Ne, I am totally Ne.
> 
> I can never leave my own creations alone, because I start looking at them and ''seeing'' them morph into different things, and it's pretty much irresistible.


The biggest way to tell the difference between between Ne and Ni, is by focusing on the images perceived, are they representable or irrepresentable, and are they focused on external possibilities:



> Introverted intuition is directed to the inner object, a term that might justly be applied to the contents of the unconscious. The relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, though their reality is not physical but psychic. *They appear to intuitive perception as subjective images of things which, though not to be met with in the outside world, constitute the contents of the unconscious, and of the collective unconscious in particular*.





> Like sensation, intuition has its subjective factor, which is suppressed as much as possible in the extraverted attitude but is the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. *Although his intuition may be stimulated by external objects, it does not concern itself with external possibilities but with what the external object has released within him*.





> *The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive to external objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to inner objects.* Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new possibilities, which he pursues with equal unconcern for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations and tearing down what has just been built in his everlasting search for change, *so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between them and himself. *Just as the world of appearances can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, the world of inner images is never a moral problem for the intuitive. For both of them it is an aesthetic problem, a matter of perception, a “sensation.” Because of this, the introverted intuitive has little consciousness of his own bodily existence or of its effect on others. *The extravert would say: “Reality does not exist for him, he gives himself up to fruitless fantasies.”* The perception of the images of the unconscious, produced in such inexhaustible abundance by the creative energy of life, is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility.


The underline in the next quote creates a clear distinction between Ne and Ni, which is better shown in here:



> Everyone whose general attitude (q.v.) is oriented by intuition belongs to the intuitive type (q.v.). 68 *Introverted and extraverted intuitives may be distinguished according to whether intuition is directed inwards, to the inner vision, or outwards, to action and achievement.* In abnormal cases intuition is in large measure fused together with the contents of the collective unconscious (q.v.) and determined by them, and this may make the intuitive type appear extremely irrational and beyond comprehension.


Ne seeks immediate utility with their visions, its focused on action and achievement through way of these quasi-hallucinations, whereas Ni is focused on exploring the inner object realesed within but lacks the orientation of externalizing their intuitions for accomplishment, action, and/or achievement, which is a property of Ne that distincts itself from Ni.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> When something is stored, it has become a subjective product (from the subject). When something is real-time the focus is outside the self. Otherwise we go into a debate of what is concrete and where does that become more like Se. Focusing on a type of object is not the point but where the object representation is coming from - stored or real-time.


Ne and Se are very alike, and both are just as likely to make use of sensation, the difference is that Se is completely focused on the sensation of an object, while Ne utilizes sensation as a starting point for their visions:



> Sensation is a hindrance to clear, unbiassed, naïve perception; its intrusive sensory stimuli direct attention to the physical surface, to the very things round and beyond which intuition tries to peer. *But since extraverted intuition is directed predominantly to objects, it actually comes very close to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude to external objects is just as likely to make use of sensation*. Hence, if intuition is to function properly, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed. By sensation I mean in this instance the simple and immediate sense-impression understood as a clearly defined physiological and psychic datum. *This must be expressly established beforehand because, if I ask an intuitive how he orients himself, he will speak of things that are almost indistinguishable from sense-impressions. Very often he will even use the word “sensation.” He does have sensations, of course, but he is not guided by them as such; he uses them merely as starting-points for his perceptions. He selects them by unconscious predilection. It is not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, that is accorded the chief value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value is enhanced by the intuitive’s unconscious attitude. In this way it may eventually come to acquire the chief value, and to his conscious mind it appears to be pure sensation. But actually it is not so*.


Se is guided by the sensations derived by external data, while Ne is guided by the perceptions which use sensation as a starting-point to generate them with an unconscious predilection.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

Shadow Logic said:


> Ne and Se are very alike, and both are just as likely to make use of sensation, the difference is that Se is completely focused on the sensation of an object, while Ne utilizes sensation as a starting point for their visions:


I was about to ask if the immediacy of Ne was alike to Se.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Wait - an INTJ can be focused on external possibilities of scientific discovery. Te dom, can be focused on external possibilities as a product of direct thought.



owlboy said:


> I was about to ask if the immediacy of Ne was alike to Se.


Yes, Se and Ne have strong similarities, particularly in contrast with anyone strongly introverted (as an overall characteristic of their personality). Jung freely admitted that most people are toward the center of I/E spectrum, as compared to the outer extremes. But the adaptability of Se and Ne is the categorical distinction in MBTI for being a P or J type. Not maybe in todays testing structure, I dont't know and don't mean that - I mean the actual letter representations of P depend on Ne or Se being in a dominant or secondary position.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

owlboy said:


> I was about to ask if the immediacy of Ne was alike to Se.


They are very alike in their immediacy to external data, and this is a attribute that is shared among all extravert's, they are quickly reactive to what is immediate in the external:



> His whole consciousness looks outward, because the essential and decisive determination always comes from outside. But it comes from outside only because that is where he expects it to come from. All the peculiarities of his psychology, except those that depend on the primacy of one particular psychological function or on idiosyncrasies of character, follow from this basic attitude. *His interest and attention are directed to objective happenings, particularly those in his immediate environment. *Not only people but things seize and rivet his attention. Accordingly, they also determine his actions, which are fully explicable on those grounds. The actions of the extravert are recognizably related to external conditions. *In so far as they are not merely reactive to environmental stimuli, they have a character that is always adapted to the actual circumstances, and they find sufficient play within the limits of the objective situation*. No serious effort is made to transcend these bounds. It is the same with his interest: objective happenings have an almost inexhaustible fascination for him, so that ordinarily he never looks for anything else.





> The outward reaction characterizes the extravert, just as the inward reaction is the mark of the introvert. The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, because his whole nature goes outwards to the object. He gives himself easily to the world in a form that is pleasing and acceptable, and it is always understandable even when it is unpleasing. *Because of his quick reactivity and discharge of emotion, valuable and worthless psychic contents will be projected together into the object; he will react with winsome manners as well as with dour thoughts and affects. *For the same reason these contents will have undergone little elaboration and are therefore easily understood; *the quick succession of immediate reactions produces a series of images that show the public the path he has followed and the means by which he has attained his result.*


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Wait - an INTJ can be focused on external possibilities of scientific discovery. Te dom, can be focused on external possibilities as a product of direct thought.
> .


Te doesn't focus on possibilities, it focuses on constructing concrete concepts:



> 53. THINKING. This I regard as one of the four basic psychological functions (q.v.). *Thinking is the psychological function which, following its own laws, brings the contents of ideation into conceptual connection with one another*. It is an apperceptive (q.v.) activity, and as such may be divided into active and passive thinking. Active thinking is an act of the will (q.v.), passive thinking is a mere occurrence. In the former case, I submit the contents of ideation to a voluntary act of judgment; in the latter, conceptual connections establish themselves of their own accord, and judgments are formed that may even contradict my intention. They are not consonant with my aim and therefore, for me, lack any sense of direction, although I may afterwards recognize their directedness through an act of active apperception. Active thinking, accordingly, would correspond to my concept of directed thinking. 85 Passive thinking was inadequately described in my previous work as “fantasy thinking.” 86 Today I would call it intuitive thinking.
> 
> [831] To my mind, a mere stringing together of ideas, such as is described by certain psychologists as associative thinking, 87 is not thinking at all, but mere ideation. *The term “thinking” should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of ideas by means of a concept, in other words, to an act of judgment, no matter whether this act is intentional or not*.


The INTJ utilizes Te externalize his subjective images by concreting them through conceptualizing the ideas.

Edit: Also Te doesn't focus on external possibilities because ITT goes against their rational nature, which limits things to an average, adapted attitude, or "correct" way of doing things, whereas possibilities are taking things in the flux of events, not discarding any perception:



> *44. RATIONAL. The rational is the reasonable, that which accords with reason. I conceive reason as an attitude (q.v.) whose principle it is to conform thought, feeling, and action to objective values*. Objective values are established by the everyday experience of external facts on the one hand, and of inner, psychological facts on the other. Such experiences, however, could not represent objective “values” if they were “valued” as such by the subject, for that would already amount to an act of reason. The rational attitude which permits us to declare objective values as valid at all is not the work of the individual subject, but the product of human history.
> 
> [786] Most objective values— and reason itself— are firmly established complexes of ideas handed down through the ages. Countless generations have laboured at their organization with the same necessity with which the living organism reacts to the average, constantly recurring environmental conditions, confronting them with corresponding functional complexes, as the eye, for instance, perfectly corresponds to the nature of light. One might, therefore, speak of a pre-existent, metaphysical, universal “Reason” were it not that the adapted reaction of the living organism to average environmental influences is the necessary condition of its existence— a thought already expressed by Schopenhauer. Human reason, accordingly, is nothing other than the expression of man’s adaptability to average occurrences, which have gradually become deposited in firmly established complexes of ideas that constitute our objective values. *Thus the laws of reason are the laws that designate and govern the average, “correct,” adapted attitude (q.v.). Everything is “rational” that accords with these laws, everything that contravenes them is “irrational” (q.v.).*
> 
> ...


Not only that, but external possibilities are a perception while thinking is more focused on a reflection, to conceptualize ideas. Te does through focusing on the singularity of the object, whereas Ti does it through focusing on the similarities between them.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Yes, I don't think of myself as extroverted until I engage with Si or Ni dom in real life - the contrast of how pissy they get when you ask a question - they get all defensive, or they posture - give you the death stare or a tone of righteous indignation, look at you like you just strangled a puppy.
^ @Shadow Logic I cant seem to grab your quotes but I'm refering to post before last here 

A reason for my being here I guess. It's *not* that I am bent on being blunt but I am re-thinking how much I want to tone myself down or how much I should be conscious of others ego sensitivity. In business I used to have enough excercise for my Ne-Ti. My social life was full of empty politeness and I think this is the factor, not knowing how extroverted I am, thinking I identify socially with introverts because they often seem more thoughtful. - but then feeling stiffed or stilted in that environment with not getting the action ,interactivity, I had in business and face to face selling.

Te doms do have the capacity to say to themselves - if I do A, B is likely to happen. This is planning for possibilities. I've worked with plenty of business owners and they were not all Ne dom.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Yes, I don't think of myself as extroverted until I engage with Si or Ni dom in real life - the contrast of how pissy they get when you ask a question - they get all defensive, or they posture - give you the death stare or a tone of righteous indignation, look at you like you just strangled a puppy.


This is a great example on how the introvert comes across, to an extravert one is in complete accord with the object, a complete empathy for the object, but the introvert becomes defensive towards the object:



> One might speak in this case of a continual unconscious abstraction which “depsychizes” the object. *All abstraction has this effect: it kills the independent activity of the object in so far as this is magically related to the psyche of the subject. The abstracting type does it quite consciously, as a defence against the magical influence of the object.* The inertness of objects also explains the trustful relationship of the empathetic type to the world; there is nothing that could exert a hostile influence or oppress him, since he alone gives the object life and soul, though to his conscious mind the converse would seem to be true. *For the abstracting type, on the other hand, the world is filled with potent and dangerous objects that inspire him with fear and a consciousness of his own impotence; he withdraws from any too intimate contact with the world, in order to weave those thoughts and formulas with which he hopes to gain the upper hand*.





> A reason for my being here I guess. It's *not* that I am bent on being blunt but I am re-thinking how much I want to tone myself down or how much I should be conscious of others ego sensitivity. In business I used to have enough excercise for my Ne-Ti. My social life was full of empty politeness and I think this is the factor, not knowing how extroverted I am, thinking I identify socially with introverts because they often seem more thoughtful.


Ne can come off as extremely introverted in comparison to other extravert's because like introverts they give reality value to their image, because intuition as a whole is an unconscious function that is directed by their fantasy image:



> 26. IMAGE. When I speak of “image” in this book, I do not mean the psychic reflection of an external object, but a concept derived from poetic usage, namely, a figure of fancy or fantasy-image, which is related only indirectly to the perception of an external object. This image depends much more on unconscious fantasy activity, and as the product of such activity it appears more or less abruptly in consciousness, somewhat in the manner of a vision or hallucination, but without possessing the morbid traits that are found in a clinical picture. The image has the psychological character of a fantasy idea and never the quasi-real character of an hallucination, i.e., it never takes the place of reality, and can always be distinguished from sensuous reality by the fact that it is an “inner” image. As a rule, it is not a projection in space, although in exceptional cases it can appear in exteriorized form. This mode of manifestation must be termed archaic (q.v.) when it is not primarily pathological, though that would not by any means do away with its archaic character. On the primitive level, however, the inner image can easily be projected in space as a vision or an auditory hallucination without being a pathological phenomenon.
> 
> [744] Although, as a rule, no reality-value attaches to the image, this can at times actually increase its importance for psychic life, since it then has a greater psychological value,* representing an inner reality which often far outweighs the importance of external reality. In this case the orientation (q.v.) of the individual is concerned less with adaptation to reality than with adaptation to inner demands.*


Since Ne is an extraverted function though, it is adapted to reality, and utilizes its image to for action and achievement within the sphere of external reality. The focus on the fsntasy-image mixed with the adjustment to external data, causes a sort introverted extraverted personality, by sharing the reality value of the image but only because its directed towards and on external data.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

Hey thanks, I'll be lurking in here some more. Insightful stuff. 

So strange it seems so complex, but I've got a pretty good idea.

Like @Old Intern mentioned, I see Ne as an impression of things or people-I'm going to stick with people for the moment-rather than direct observable things, though they certainly seem to add to a particular impression.

As I've gotten a bit older, I've noticed ACTUAL evidence of my perceptions of a person. How a person is dressed, groomed, even smell, ha, tone of voice, eyes, posture, etc. I've even been told I'm an ESTP, and a few people refused to believe my ENTPness for a while : ( Or the non-meanies said my "S" was more balanced. 

But if I'm understanding correctly, most of this for the Ne goes on automatically and unconsciously. That's generally still true for me. I've often wondered if I saw a person commit a crime and had to describe him or her to a sketch artist if I'd be able to. "What did he look like? Uh, well he kind of gave off this shady, might-stab-you vibe. Does that help?" ha


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Old Intern, I'm not saying a Te Dom cant do that but its either due to some round about way, or derived from already tradition, or education. Te, the function though, is not focused on possibilities, and if any function tries to see possibilities, its being done in a round about way, not identical to the intuitive, nor are they decisive or else we are dealing with an intuitive:



> *The primary function of intuition, however, is simply to transmit images, or perceptions of relations between things, which could not be transmitted by the other functions or only in a very roundabout way. *These images have the value of specific insights which have a decisive influence on action whenever intuition is given priority.





> Thinking in general is fed on the one hand from subjective and in the last resort unconscious sources, and on the other hand from objective data transmitted by sense-perception. Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by the latter than by the former. Judgment always presupposes a criterion; for the extraverted judgment, the criterion supplied by external conditions is the valid and determining one, no matter whether it be represented directly by an objective, perceptible fact or by an objective idea; for an objective idea is equally determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, *if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education*.


Nevertheless, seeing where things are going or where they come from is a property of intuition, and not thinking, when looking at the functions separated from each other:



> Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, *and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation*.





> As a rule one or the other function occupies the foreground, while the rest remain undifferentiated in the background. Thus there are many people who restrict themselves to the simple perception of concrete reality, without thinking about it or taking feeling values into account. They bother just as little about the possibilities hidden in a situation. I describe such people as sensation types. Others are exclusively oriented by what they think, and simply cannot adapt to a situation which they are unable to understand intellectually. I call such people thinking types. Others, again, are guided in everything entirely by feeling. They merely ask themselves whether a thing is pleasant or unpleasant, and orient themselves by their feeling impressions. These are the feeling types. *Finally, the intuitives concern themselves neither with ideas nor with feeling reactions, nor yet with the reality of things, but surrender themselves wholly to the lure of possibilities, and abandon every situation in which no further possibilities can be scented.*


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> It seems all internal to me, at least mine does...In my case, Ne most often involves awareness of what is conceptually possible and of other potential ways of interpreting something.
> 
> I'm not sure what it means for Ne to "move toward the object".


Ne is extroverted because it concerns the 'outer world' or is energized, in other words, stimulated or activated by the external world. However as it is primarily an iNtuitive function, the "world" that it is energized to is abstract contexts, and various ambiguities that revolve around what a person sees as a sensory detail of the world. 

'Moving toward the object' is a symbolic way of saying that Ne types as extroverts, move toward a more objective approach of interpreting people and the world around them or their surroundings. Say, they see individuals doing, 'X' activites, and then consequently, doing 'Y' activities, and their reactions or responses or behaviours act on that premise that the world objectively works. However, in this case, Y x1000 as there are so many possibilities as a consequence of behaviour, when it comes to a abstract reasoning type as the Ne user is. 

Hope this makes sense ! 



johnnyyukon said:


> As I've gotten a bit older, I've noticed ACTUAL evidence of my perceptions of a person. How a person is dressed, groomed, even smell, ha, tone of voice, eyes, posture, etc. I've even been told I'm an ESTP, and a few people refused to believe my ENTPness for a while : ( Or the non-meanies said my "S" was more balanced.
> 
> But if I'm understanding correctly, most of this for the Ne goes on automatically and unconsciously. That's generally still true for me. I've often wondered if I saw a person commit a crime and had to describe him or her to a sketch artist if I'd be able to. "What did he look like? Uh, well he kind of gave off this shady, might-stab-you vibe. Does that help?" ha


I've actually thought the same thing about me and sketch artists Lmao xD I would do so poorly in that situation


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

I don't relate that well to the idea of being energized by the outside world as pivotal or the identifying mark of extroversion when we talk about functions. Technically yes - my Ne needs to maintain a flow of stuff to play with. But in practice, taking into consideration a whole person - I'm not necessarily energized with social activity; small talk, or people with a chip on their shoulder - can be draining.

I maintain that Te can absolutely look for possibilities. The difference is an act of will processing something specific and chosen like data, verses a holistic, default open-ness of Ne. Te's can implement feedback systems and algorithms, and they could do this in some form, before we had the technology so readily available the way we do today. 

This is why I think it is so important to understand the difference between a perceiving and judging function. The definitions you see floating around the internet, plus even the trait based method of testing - creates a misunderstanding. *Perceiving is intake, openness of intake or awareness is not the same as lacking judgement.* *Ne's job is not judgement.* *But a judging function can choose to look for predictive criteria.* This is why you hear Ne claiming the domain of out of the box thinking;* it is not pre-constrained. *BUT - some people misunderstand or they are Ne wanna-bes and think this "out of the box" is just random weirdness and what you get sometimes (on a forum or maybe a board meeting) is a judger doing some kind of forced stupidity, trying to pass it off as open-mindedness.

Here is an example of introversion and extroversion more separated from common associations of sociable-ness:

Te dom tested individual I was talking to commented on how baffling it is to hear someone say "I don't know what to think". I get it, from the Te dom perspective this would be like a void waiting to be filled. I explained how I could see myself saying something like "I don't know what I think-yet". His reply to my explanation, (more than is detailed here) was to say 'why wouldn't you say
It is complicated"?'. So the Te response is a direct description of what is out there, my own Ti - was a report on my own internal state (sifting and suspecting what was presented is not enough information). One energy flow or focus is outside the self and the other is internal activity.

@Shadow Logic, when Jung defines 8 types he also makes a point of saying he expects that most people are not a pure type, and maybe no one is. When Jung gets into secondary functions his theory starts to break down or be more controversial as far as how functions exactly play out interactively. So the idea that thinking is all subconscious - he is only saying this as a presentation of pure type - all intuitive. One way to say this would be that a judging function is not differentiated in Jung's pure intuitive type, as he describes it in "Psychological Types".And You could say the same thing about Jung's Te description. "Thinking recognizes meaning" is in your above quote, recognizing meaning can be used to analyze data and can be combined with Ni or Si to recognize possibilities, albeit Si will be far less imaginative because it remains attached to it's original context. My point is that Ne is not *determined* by action in the world, action requires judgement.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> @_Draumande Romvesen_, hope this helps to clarify the difference:
> @_Silveresque_,
> Refer to above quotes for contrast with Ni.
> 
> What makes Ne extraverted, is that its sole focus is on the object and the potential the object has. This isnt fantasizing just to fantasize, this is fantasizing what needs to be achieved, and letting the fantasy be the drive towards action, and achievement. Every moment, ever shift of an object, gives off new possibilities in the form of images that the Ne user utilizes to understand how to accomplish whatever possibility holds the most potential. In other words, the Ne user chooses an external possibility that opens up a plethora of new external possibilities. Its these external possibilities that makes Me extraverted.


While I think you are terribly accurate and really have answered the question many times over in this thread, I am going to hang myself up on this... if only in that this seems to contradict the 'fatal flaw' of Ne, which is that it is bound to remain a catalyst, and never bother to accomplish anything of itself or for itself. This is something I have personally found to be a cornerstone of strong dominant Ne. So focused on generating possibilities, in perceiving them, in encouraging them, in indulging the next to come along, the Ne never sticks with anything long enough to push it anywhere real. 

Much like the Se consumes things in the experience and only builds toward the next experience, and thus might be left with nothing to show in the end. I imagine the many Se doms who churn through schools, friends, toys, jobs, having only really wanted to experience each in its respective moment. The Ne doesn't even get this far, being entirely content to dream something up, scrawl it onto a napkin, discuss it in a lively fashion with like-minded friends, make the pitch, and then have nothing more to do with it... and, lacking their passionate pushing, it dies forgotten. 



owlboy said:


> Oohhh.
> 
> Sometimes I'll be looking at something, and I will ''see'' that thing transform into something else, and I'll feel compelled to change it into that thing. That's the kind of thing he's referring to?
> 
> Thanks for posting these lovely chunky quotes btw.


Could be. Depends on the specifics and the motivations. The devil is always in the details. You have to dig into why you are so compelled, and how it plays out.



johnnyyukon said:


> What role does Ne have in the ENTPs ability to size up situations and people quickly?
> 
> Everyone talks about primary Nes seeing possibilities everywhere, which is true, where does my ability to "get" someone or something, often stupid fast, come from?


Considering that Ne concerns itself with potential, and that to do so it 'hollows out' the object and replaces it with a vision (pulled from the Ne themselves) of that potential... then, no, it would not be a useful function for sizing up situations quickly as they are. Quite the opposite. Se or Te might be good at that, in their respective ways...but Ne would only be useful for intuiting what ELSE the situation might be, if it changed. .. and I don't mean anticipating how the conversation might progress, because that is more likely Thinking. 

Then again, I've noticed that Ne types tend to see themselves as understanding people on a more meta level, as if they have taken a step back and tend to see people and things in a more 'big picture' way. This aloofness(?) seems to result in the feeling that we understand 'people'... though I am not certain it is useful in the moment. On the flipside, Se doms might feel this way as well, and ESFPs and ESTPs are perhaps the most adept at reading people and situations in a very fluid way and making the most out of it. In those terms, far better than I have ever seen from an ENTP... who remains too 'meta' to get such visceral use out of it. In this case, the Ne dom would be more equipped to philosophize on the nature of people, while the Se dom would be more equipped to utilize this in the moment to make a situation play out as they want it to.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@arkigos It is only fair to say that the measurement of results in the world, for an Ne depends on effective use of their judgement functions. While a Ti dom will prefer autonomous results in the form of specialization, Ne dominants will work through people, just a bit more than Ti doms. ESTP's Iv'e worked with are excellent in that face to face immediacy, This doesn't mean that ENTP's don't know how to build systems that incorporate people. We don't have to be restricted to philosophy or joking at the bar.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

arkigos said:


> While I think you are terribly accurate and really have answered the question many times over in this thread, I am going to hang myself up on this... if only in that this seems to contradict the 'fatal flaw' of Ne, which is that it is bound to remain a catalyst, and never bother to accomplish anything of itself or for itself. This is something I have personally found to be a cornerstone of strong dominant Ne. So focused on generating possibilities, in perceiving them, in encouraging them, in indulging the next to come along, the Ne never sticks with anything long enough to push it anywhere real.
> 
> Much like the Se consumes things in the experience and only builds toward the next experience, and thus might be left with nothing to show in the end. I imagine the many Se doms who churn through schools, friends, toys, jobs, having only really wanted to experience each in its respective moment. The Ne doesn't even get this far, being entirely content to dream something up, scrawl it onto a napkin, discuss it in a lively fashion with like-minded friends, make the pitch, and then have nothing more to do with it... and, lacking their passionate pushing, it dies forgotten.


I find it that most people misunderstand Ne and think its not about achievement and accomplishment, but I'm sorry that is exactly how Jung defined it, and is exactly how I, a Ne dom in every way that Jung has described it relates to it:



> Everyone whose general attitude (q.v.) is oriented by intuition belongs to the intuitive type (q.v.). 68 Introverted and extraverted intuitives may be distinguished according to whether intuition is directed inwards, to the inner vision, *or outwards, to action and achievement.* In abnormal cases intuition is in large measure fused together with the contents of the collective unconscious (q.v.) and determined by them, and this may make the intuitive type appear extremely irrational and beyond comprehension.


Seeing possibilities in the external and acting on them is what the Extraverted Intuitive does, and it does this by seeing the potential of objects in the present moment:



> It seeks to discover what *possibilities the objective situation holds in store;* hence, as a subordinate function (i.e., when not in the position of priority), it is the auxiliary that automatically comes into play when no other function can find a way out of a hopelessly blocked situation. *When it is the dominant function, every ordinary situation in life seems like a locked room which intuition has to open.** It is constantly seeking fresh outlets and new possibilities in external life.* In a very short time every existing situation becomes a prison for the intuitive, a chain that has to be broken. For a time objects appear to have an exaggerated value, if they should serve to bring about a solution, a deliverance, or lead to the discovery of a new possibility.


The only way to seek fresh outlets and new possibilities in external life is to act on them, which is why Jung says it is a function that is focused on action and achiement.



> Considering that Ne concerns itself with potential, and that to do so it 'hollows out' the object and replaces it with a vision (pulled from the Ne themselves) of that potential... then, no, it would not be a useful function for sizing up situations quickly as they are. Quite the opposite. Se or Te might be good at that, in their respective ways...but Ne would only be useful for intuiting what ELSE the situation might be, if it changed. .. and I don't mean anticipating how the conversation might progress, because that is more likely Thinking.
> 
> Then again, I've noticed that Ne types tend to see themselves as understanding people on a more meta level, as if they have taken a step back and tend to see people and things in a more 'big picture' way. This aloofness(?) seems to result in the feeling that we understand 'people'... though I am not certain it is useful in the moment. On the flipside, Se doms might feel this way as well, and ESFPs and ESTPs are perhaps the most adept at reading people and situations in a very fluid way and making the most out of it. In those terms, far better than I have ever seen from an ENTP... who remains too 'meta' to get such visceral use out of it. In this case, the Ne dom would be more equipped to philosophize on the nature of people, while the Se dom would be more equipped to utilize this in the moment to make a situation play out as they want it to.


This is wrong, Ne does size up people pretty well and in the moment:



> He is the natural champion of all minorities with a future. *Because he is able, when oriented more to people than things, to make an intuitive diagnosis of their abilities and potentialities, he can also “make” men*.


Now sizing up situations as in where they are isn't the focus of Ne, the focus is sizing up the potential of the situation, to see where it is going or where it came from, but nevertheless it sees what can be done and acts on the possibility that grants more possibilities, and the only time we drop something is when we can have seen all of its potential:



> Because extraverted intuition is oriented by the object,* there is a marked dependence on external situations*, but it is altogether different from the dependence of the sensation type. The intuitive is never to be found in the world of accepted reality-values, but he has a keen nose for anything new and in the making. Because he is always seeking out new possibilities, stable conditions suffocate him. He seizes on new objects or situations with great intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, *only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without any compunction and apparently without remembering them, as soon as their range is known and no further developments can be divined*.


It looks like to thenoitside person not accomplishing something, but to the intuitive they got exactly what they wanted out of it, the possibilities of which they acted on.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> @arkigos It is only fair to say that the measurement of results in the world, for an Ne depends on effective use of their judgement functions. While a Ti dom will prefer autonomous results in the form of specialization, Ne dominants will work through people, just a bit more than Ti doms. ESTP's Iv'e worked with are excellent in that face to face immediacy, This doesn't mean that ENTP's don't know how to build systems that incorporate people. We don't have to be restricted to philosophy or joking at the bar.


This is my problem, people try to undermine Ne as if it isn't an extraverted perceiving function based on action and achievement, like its a function that goes out to joke around about possibilities. Its the biggest misunderstanding I have ever seen, and the attributes that belong to both Ne and Se gets thrown in with Se, which is just outright wrong in every respect. Both extraverted perception functions are focused on a dependence to external situations, sizing them up, either seeing the actuality or potentiality, and then acting on it.


----------



## Zee Bee (Aug 19, 2014)

Silveresque said:


> It seems all internal to me, at least mine does...In my case, Ne most often involves awareness of what is conceptually possible and of other potential ways of interpreting something.
> 
> I'm not sure what it means for Ne to "move toward the object".


You would be so amazed how EXTRAVERTED Ne is!!!

It is so extraverted, you have to open all of the windows of your house before you use it, to make sure there is enough room for all of it!!!


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> @Shadow Logic, when Jung defines 8 types he also makes a point of saying he expects that most people are not a pure type, and maybe no one is. When Jung gets into secondary functions his theory starts to break down or be more controversial as far as how functions exactly play out interactively. So the idea that thinking is all subconscious - he is only saying this as a presentation of pure type - all intuitive. One way to say this would be that a judging function is not differentiated in Jung's pure intuitive type, as he describes it in "Psychological Types".And You could say the same thing about Jung's Te description. "Thinking recognizes meaning" is in your above quote, recognizing meaning can be used to analyze data and can be combined with Ni or Si to recognize possibilities, albeit Si will be far less imaginative because it remains attached to it's original context. My point is that Ne is not *determined* by action in the world, action requires judgement.


I disagree, Ne is focused on action and achievement in the extraverted world:



> Everyone whose general attitude (q.v.) is oriented by intuition belongs to the intuitive type (q.v.). 68 Introverted and extraverted intuitives may be distinguished according to whether intuition is directed inwards, to the inner vision, or *outwards, to action and achievement*. In abnormal cases intuition is in large measure fused together with the contents of the collective unconscious (q.v.) and determined by them, and this may make the intuitive type appear extremely irrational and beyond comprehension.


I don't know if other people who claim to be Ne relate to this but I do wholeheartedly, every time I see possibilities I immediately want to act on them, they control my whole psyche to accomplish what I need to achieve. I don't just sit around thinking about possibilities, I think about possibilities in the moment in the flux of things, perceiving all of the potential in my environment then I act on the possibility that offers me the best alternative.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> This is my problem, people try to undermine Ne as if it isn't an extraverted perceiving function based on action and achievement, like its a function that goes out to joke around about possibilities. Its the biggest misunderstanding I have ever seen, and the attributes that belong to both Ne and Se gets thrown in with Se, which is just outright wrong in every respect. Both extraverted perception functions are focused on a dependence to external situations, sizing them up, either seeing the actuality or potentiality, and then acting on it.


Perceiving does not equal achievement, (recognizing the potentiality in people is different then managing or inspiring them toward results, or devising the system that utilizes the opportunity does not automatically follow, with no effort, the spotting of the opportunity ) nevertheless I can relate to your frustration. Really though, it is only a frustration on a forum. In real life do we can do what we do and see what we see.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Perceiving does not equal achievement, but I understand your frustration. Really though, it is only a frustration on a forum. In real life do we can do what we do and see what we see.


Perception as a whole may not, but Ne clearly does:



> Everyone whose general attitude (q.v.) is oriented by intuition belongs to the intuitive type (q.v.). 68 Introverted and extraverted intuitives may be distinguished according to whether intuition is directed inwards, to the inner vision, or *outwards, to action and achievement. *In abnormal cases intuition is in large measure fused together with the contents of the collective unconscious (q.v.) and determined by them, and this may make the intuitive type appear extremely irrational and beyond comprehension.


 @Old Intern 

Judgement nor perception is about action, its an extraverted thing that is shown in their quick reactivity towards the object:



> *The outward reaction characterizes the extravert*, just as the inward reaction is the mark of the introvert. The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, *because his whole nature goes outwards to the object.* He gives himself easily to the world in a form that is pleasing and acceptable, and it is always understandable even when it is unpleasing. Because of his quick reactivity and discharge of emotion, valuable and worthless psychic contents will be projected together into the object; he will react with winsome manners as well as with dour thoughts and affects.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Jung was a contemporary of Freud. They were working on the nature of consciousness. Freud's ego and id - ego as Freud used it was not associated with self esteem quite the way we sometimes assume today. *Ego is that part that knows it is a self, and has choices. Judgement is connected to choices, even when extroverted. Perceiving as defined by Jung - is pre- language. Cognitive means knowing, but P knowing doesn't have the Freudian ego investment of J functions. Being oriented toward action is not taking action, at some point Jung describes Ne as that sense of anticipation.

By your definition (interpretation of Jung) innovation is something you choose to do, not something in the nature of how you are.

*Thinking is not *reacting*, in fact Feeling type as cognition - is evaluative, not reactionary also.
Judging is not defined as reactionary. What we struggle to define here is I/E difference and @Shadow Logic , I believe your interpretation of E as action is misleading.

I think you read too much into the phrase "reacting to the external world".

But then I suppose I've come to appreciate some of Beebe's approach that each function (with attitude) - is it's own thing. Looking at I/E as the first layer definitive category, only works if you are strongly E or I. In terms of usefulness and understanding people, many of us are more near the center. Ironically, the more PE the ENTP, the less actual action they take in the world - for example.

Another example - Ti doesn't equate with living in your own world and taking no action outside yourself - it only means the process works with internal focus. In fact Ti doesn't mean you are quiet about all your thoughts, (only that expression may not be essential to the process or motivation). Why do you think journalism is recommended for ENTP career consideration? The focus of psychological activity/energy is hard to describe, but again, I think you over emphasize or over apply Jung's general attitude I/E description.

*When you choose your best option as you mention in your post* - you have stopped collecting possibilities and have made a judgement call.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Old Intern, these aren't my definitions, they are Jung's, and I can assure you I'm reading exactly what he is saying, I can show you countless statements from Jung where he defines Extraversion as being reactive to the object, becoming one with the object, while introversion does not externaly react but internally reacts. Before I even do that let me just state that first I showed you that extraverted intuition (not judgement functions) is focused on action and achievement externally, then I show you that the extravert externally reacts to objects but you still deny the external reactivity of extravert's and Ne. There is only so much I can do, but I'm not here to convince anyone, I'm here to show what Jung meant when he described certain things. Now to show some more statements about the external reactivity of the extravert and the lack of in the introvert:



> [972] I have called these two fundamentally different attitudes extraversion and introversion. *Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get “with it,” the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable,* constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself.


*



Introversion, on the other hand, being directed not to the object but to the subject, and not being oriented by the object, is not so easy to put into perspective. The introvert is not forthcoming, he is as though in continual retreat before the object. He holds aloof from external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike of society as soon as he finds himself among too many people.

Click to expand...

*


> In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. The more crowded it is, the greater becomes his resistance. He is not in the least “with it,” and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming inhibited, and it frequently happens that, by a certain brusqueness of manner, or by his glum unapproachability, or some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to people. His better qualities he keeps to himself, and generally does everything he can to dissemble them. He is easily mistrustful, self-willed, often suffers from inferiority feelings and for this reason is also envious.





> The introvert, on the other hand, who reacts almost entirely within, *cannot as a rule discharge his reactions except in explosions of affect*. He suppresses them, though they may be just as quick as those of the extravert. *They do not appear on the surface, hence the introvert may easily give the impression of slowness*. Since immediate reactions are always strongly personal, the extravert cannot help asserting his personality. But the introvert hides his personality by suppressing all his immediate reactions. Empathy is not his aim, nor the transference of contents to the object, but rather abstraction from the object. *Instead of immediately discharging his reactions he prefers to elaborate them inwardly for a long time before finally coming out with the finished product.* His constant endeavour is to strip the product of everything personal and to present it divested of all personal relationships. The matured fruit of prolonged inner labour, it emerges into the world in a highly abstract and depersonalized form. It is therefore difficult to understand, because the public lacks all knowledge of the preliminary stages and the way he attained his result. A personal relation to his public is also lacking, because the introvert in suppressing himself shrouds his personality from the public eye. But often enough it is just the personal relationship which brings about an understanding where mere intellectual apprehension fails. This must constantly be borne in mind when passing judgment on the introvert’s development. As a rule one is badly informed about the introvert because his real self is not visible. *His incapacity for immediate outward reaction keeps his personality hidden. *His life therefore affords ample scope for fantastic interpretations and projections should his achievements ever make him an object of general interest.


If you want I can present to you many more where he states that extraversion as a whole, no matter if thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition, is focused on immediate reactivity in an external way, it is not an internal reactivity like introvert as Jung describes in the last quote, but it is an immediate outwards directed reactivity to the object. All the extraverted functions are focused on action based on immediate reactions in response to objects and objective demands.

Also here:



> Ostwald’s explanation in terms of the introvert’s slowness to react does not seem to me sufficient. This is no sort of proof that Helmholtz possessed a slow reactivity. He merely reacted inwardly rather than outwardly.





> The rationality that characterizes the conscious conduct of life in both these types involves a deliberate exclusion of everything irrational and accidental. Rational judgment, in such a psychology, is a force that coerces the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern, or at least tries to do so. A definite choice is made from among all the possibilities it offers, only the rational ones being accepted; but on the other hand the independence and influence of the psychic functions which aid the perception of life’s happenings are consequently restricted. Naturally this restriction of sensation and intuition is not absolute. These functions exist as before, but their products are subject to the choice made by rational judgment. *It is not the intensity of a sensation as such that decides action, for instance, but judgment*. Thus, in a sense, the functions of perception share the same fate as feeling in the case of the first type, or thinking in that of the second.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Old Intern 



> *One cannot be introverted or extraverted without being so in every respect. For example, to be “introverted” means that everything in the psyche happens as it must happen according to the law of the introvert’s nature.* Were that not so, the statement that a certain individual is “introverted” would be as irrelevant as the statement that he is six feet tall, or that he has brown hair, or is brachycephalic. These statements contain no more than the facts they express. The term “introverted” is incomparably more exacting. It means that the consciousness as well as the unconscious of the introvert must have certain definite qualities, that his general behaviour, his relation to people, and even the course of his life show certain typical characteristics.
> 
> [940] *Introversion or extraversion, as a typical attitude, means an essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process, establishes the habitual mode of reaction, and thus determines not only the style of behaviour but also the quality of subjective experience. *Not only that, it determines the kind of compensation the unconscious will produce.


Edit:


> When you choose your best option as you mention in your post - you have stopped collecting possibilities and have made a judgement call.


No its because I'm compelled in every way to be directed by those objects or situations which offer the most possibilities, and makes sure I'm never trapped, or without an escape, it has nothing to do with judgement functions which is clarified here:



> No matter how reasonable and suitable it may be, and although every conceivable argument speaks for its stability, a day will come when nothing will deter him from regarding as a prison the very situation that seemed to promise him freedom and deliverance, and from acting accordingly. *Neither reason nor feeling can restrain him or frighten him away from a new possibility*, even though it goes against all his previous convictions. *Thinking and feeling, the indispensable components of conviction, are his inferior functions, carrying no weight and hence incapable of effectively withstanding the power of intuition*. And yet these functions are the only ones that could compensate its supremacy by supplying the judgment which the intuitive type totally lacks. The intuitive’s morality is governed neither by thinking nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his vision and in voluntary submission to its authority. Consideration for the welfare of others is weak. Their psychic well-being counts as little with him as does his own. He has equally little regard for their convictions and way of life, and on this account he is often put down as an immoral and unscrupulous adventurer. Since his intuition is concerned with externals and with ferreting out their possibilities, he readily turns to professions in which he can exploit these capacities to the full.


Its the possibilities that compel me, not my thoughts or feelings, and its those possibilities that I will chase, leaving everything behind that can not keep up or hinders my vision. The vision for the Ne user is what defines the action, not the judgement functions.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> I think he meant rational as forming conclusions/making decisions based on established concepts and values. The concepts and values that have been established were via prior reflection.
> 
> 
> From the definition of Rational in Psychological Types:
> ...


I think that "reaction" may have different nuances of meaning in this case.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> I think that "reaction" may have different nuances of meaning in this case.


I don't doubt that, but either way the reaction will be external for the extravert, and internal for the introvert. Will they all react differently based on the functions? Of course, hence the point of the functions being guided by their content, but its either introversion or extraversion that shows what direction you will act in.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@Shadow Logic , @Old Intern

Perhaps if we all used the same context, it would be more beneficial for all of us to see it from the same perspective.

I think that we all accept the reactive nature of perception. It implies irrationality.

I think the question we should look at is how are the rational functions "reactive."


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> @Shadow Logic , @Old Intern
> 
> Perhaps if we all used the same context, it would be more beneficial for all of us to see it from the same perspective.
> 
> ...


We should also focus on the *defining* characteristics of extravert's and introverts such as:



> *Psychic relationship, in the extraverted attitude, is always governed by objective factors and external determinants. What a man is within himself is never of any decisive significance.* For our present-day culture the extraverted attitude to the problem of human relationships is the principle that counts; naturally the introverted principle occurs too, but it is still the exception and has to appeal to the tolerance of the age.


*Irrationality*



> *36. IRRATIONAL. I use this term not as denoting something contrary to reason, but something beyond reason, something, therefore, not grounded on reason. *Elementary facts come into this category; the fact, for example, that the earth has a moon, that chlorine is an element, that water reaches its greatest density at four degrees centigrade, etc. Another irrational fact is chance, even though it may be possible to demonstrate a rational causation after the event.
> 
> 
> [776] In this sense thinking is a directed function, and so is feeling (qq.v.). When these functions are concerned not with a rational choice of objects, or with the qualities and interrelations of objects, but with the perception of accidentals which the actual object never lacks, they at once lose the attribute of directedness and, with it, something of their rational character, because they then accept the accidental. They begin to be irrational. T*he kind of thinking or feeling that is directed to the perception of accidentals, and is therefore irrational, is either intuitive or sensational. Both intuition and sensation (qq.v.) are functions that find fulfilment in the absolute perception of the flux of events.* *Hence, by their very nature, they will react to every possible occurrence and be attuned to the absolutely contingent, and must therefore lack all rational direction.* For this reason I call them irrational functions, as opposed to thinking and feeling, which find fulfilment only when they are in complete harmony with the laws of reason.


*Rationality*



> *44. RATIONAL. The rational is the reasonable, that which accords with reason. I conceive reason as an attitude (q.v.) whose principle it is to conform thought, feeling, and action to objective values.* Objective values are established by the everyday experience of external facts on the one hand, and of inner, psychological facts on the other. Such experiences, however, could not represent objective “values” if they were “valued” as such by the subject, for that would already amount to an act of reason. The rational attitude which permits us to declare objective values as valid at all is not the work of the individual subject, but the product of human history.
> 
> [786] Most objective values— and reason itself— are firmly established complexes of ideas handed down through the ages. Countless generations have laboured at their organization with the same necessity with which the living organism reacts to the average, constantly recurring environmental conditions, confronting them with corresponding functional complexes, as the eye, for instance, perfectly corresponds to the nature of light. One might, therefore, speak of a pre-existent, metaphysical, universal “Reason” were it not that the adapted reaction of the living organism to average environmental influences is the necessary condition of its existence— a thought already expressed by Schopenhauer. Human reason, accordingly, is nothing other than the expression of man’s adaptability to average occurrences, which have gradually become deposited in firmly established complexes of ideas that constitute our objective values. *Thus the laws of reason are the laws that designate and govern the average, “correct,” adapted attitude (q.v.). Everything is “rational” that accords with these laws, everything that contravenes them is “irrational”* (q.v.).
> 
> [787] *Thinking and feeling (qq.v.) are rational functions in so far as they are decisively influenced by reflection.* They function most perfectly when they are in the fullest possible accord with the laws of reason. The irrational functions, sensation and intuition (qq.v.), are those whose aim is pure perception; for, as far as possible, they are forced to dispense with the rational (which presupposes the exclusion of everything that is outside reason) in order to attain the most complete perception of the general flux of events.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> @_Old Intern_, these aren't my definitions, they are Jung's, and I can assure you I'm reading exactly what he is saying, I can show you countless statements from Jung where he defines Extraversion as being reactive to the object, becoming one with the object, while introversion does not externaly react but internally reacts. Before I even do that let me just state that first I showed you that extraverted intuition (not judgement functions) is focused on action and achievement externally, then I show you that the extravert externally reacts to objects but you still deny the external reactivity of extravert's and Ne. There is only so much I can do, but I'm not here to convince anyone, I'm here to show what Jung meant when he described certain things. Now to show some more statements about the external reactivity of the extravert and the lack of in the introvert:
> 
> 
> *
> ...


*

Some of your quotes refer to Extroversion as the general top layer - quoting from Jung's attitude definitions, I think this is misleading when we discuss a particular function.

Just because I think Jung is essential to understanding any discussion about Jungian cognitive functions doesn't mean I live by his book as if he is God either, even if reading Jung is a little bit like reading the Bible -(important to put writings into context).

In some respects we are splitting hairs here. But I thought my last comment bolded in my last post summed up my point.*


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> In some respects *we are splitting hairs here*. But I thought my last comment bolded in my last post summed up my point.


Here is a description of Jung describing the neurotic effect on the Ne type:



> He rids himself of the restrictions of reason, only to fall a victim to unconscious neurotic compulsions in the form of oversubtle, negative reasoning, *hair-splitting dialectics*, and a compulsive tie to the sensation of the object.


:laughing:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

No really, I'm dealing with logical usefulness of a system here. An INTJ can think of themselves as very focused on possibilities and getting results in the world. The flow of focus - what is coming from where is the difference. Stored possibilities, experience distilled down to laws of nature, and symbolism (internally referenced Ni) surfacing to be applied or tested according to verifiable fact (externally referenced Te).

Ti is like Ni that makes noise in my head, - modular lessons and moves that can be made, distilled from what I have read and experienced, conceptual understandings that have lateral move applications (internal, stored and ready, but not sub-conscious). Applied to opportunities that come in from combination of physical and imagination, often in threes or whatever, and still perceived as external and alive, Ne has no particular intent of it's own - or it wouldn't be P it would be J.

@PaladinX, (appreciate the humor but....) I could see over-subtiletude coming from Ni or Si - it irks me to death when someone has a problem with something but seem unwilling or unable to explain what it is. The dialectics - this is what you get when political parties solidify around buzz words instead of being able to take a mechanical cause and effect approach to problem solving. (the sensation of the word, if it sounds like a nice word or a word that "belongs to our side")


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Some of your quotes refer to Extroversion as the general top layer - quoting from Jung's attitude definitions, I think this is misleading when we discuss a particular function.
> 
> Just because I think Jung is essential to understanding any discussion about Jungian cognitive functions doesn't mean I live by his book as if he is God either, even if reading Jung is a little bit like reading the Bible -(important to put writings into context).
> 
> In some respects we are splitting hairs here. But I thought my last comment bolded in my last post summed up my point.


Who said Jung is a God? He was a human who created a subject, where all other sources on the subject derive from him, therefore I want to understand the subject through the eyes of Jung, or else I can easily, like most people misunderstand his position. Which is actually quite funny, becsuse he actually agrees with me on that point:



> In order to escape the ill consequences of this overvaluation of the scientific method, one is obliged to have recourse to well-defined concepts. But in order to arrive at such concepts, the collaboration of many workers would be needed, a sort of consensus gentium. *Since this is not within the bounds of possibility at present, the individual investigator must at least try to give his concepts some fixity and precision, and this can best be done by discussing the meaning of the concepts he employs so that everyone is in a position to see what in fact he means by them. *
> 
> [675] To meet this need I now propose to discuss my principal psychological concepts in alphabetical order, and I would like the reader to refer to these explanations in case of doubt. It goes without saying that these definitions and explanations are merely intended to establish the sense in which I myself use the concepts; far be it from me to affirm that this use is in all circumstances the only possible one or the absolutely right one.


I want to understand what Jung meant whenever he said anything, and the only way to do that is to understand the concepts in the way he defined the!, hence the definitions page.

Yes I am talking about a differentiated extraverted function, not an undifferentisted extraverted function, so when I speak of Ne I am speaking of a differentiated Ne function, which is a differentiated extraverted function, which means the person who has differentiated Ne, is not only an intuitive but an extravert and will conform his whole psyche around the principle of extraversion, hence:



> *One cannot be introverted or extraverted without being so in every respect. For example, to be “introverted” means that everything in the psyche happens as it must happen according to the law of the introvert’s nature. *Were that not so, the statement that a certain individual is “introverted” would be as irrelevant as the statement that he is six feet tall, or that he has brown hair, or is brachycephalic. These statements contain no more than the facts they express. The term “introverted” is incomparably more exacting. It means that the consciousness as well as the unconscious of the introvert must have certain definite qualities, that his general behaviour, his relation to people, and even the course of his life show certain typical characteristics.
> 
> [940] *Introversion or extraversion, as a typical attitude, ****"means an essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process, establishes the habitual mode of reaction, and thus determines not only the style of behaviour but also the quality of subjective experience.* Not only that, it determines the kind of compensation the unconscious will produce.


I once again must be clear, nobody is claiming Jung a God, but when I speak of cognitive functions I am speaking of the system/subject that Jung created, and that all other sources on them derive from. If we were speaking about MBTI then I would go to Kiersey, Myers, or who else, but when I speak of cognitive functions I am strictly referring to Jung. If you are adding outside data to the subjects data not inherent innPsychological Types, then for the most part I could care less, but when it contradicts a fundamental part of his subject/system, then yes I'm going to respond to make the correction, or to at least illuminate Jung's position. 

Another thing to note is that my type isnt based on MBTI, or Socionics, but instead it is strictly based on Psychological Types, and how that book would categorize the characteristics I display. In MBTI, or at least every test that I take, I always come out INTP, and in socionics I come out ILE, but neither of them are what determines my type, or how in type myself. Instead I strictly type myself based on Psychological Types, so when I speak about cognitive functions, its strictly based on Jung, so things can stay consistent with the source, rather than me adding in a whole bunch of outside data that may contradict what it is that Jungntried getting across. Consistency is what my agenda is, when speaking about cognitive functions.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Who said Jung is a God? He was a human who created a subject, where all other sources on the subject derive from him, therefore I want to understand the subject through the eyes of Jung, or else I can easily, like most people misunderstand his position.


Says you. I'd have his babies. :crazy:












EDIT: Too far?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

ooookay, I don't think of myself as an extrovert - at all, until I get around people who are quite introverted.

@Shadow Logic, most of this seems directed at how you want to be understood or perceived. 

If I want to understand Ne as a function, I need a definition of Ne that works apart from Ne dom.
I start with the base of Jung's definitions. This is not hard science, but even art can point to something real because we all see it or resonate on some level. I believe Jung pointed to something very real, but if you read everything the guy says in every book he wrote, you could make the case for whack-oh too.

I disagree flat out with being I or E in every respect, even if it is Jung who said it. I was aware, before this discussion of how the whole concept of differentiation gets quite weird, blurred or controversial, with Jung at one point naming his own type as Ni-Ti.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Okay, yesterday I had to go shovel some snow, among other things. Anyway, his has been a stimulating discussion and I will go back and read what i missed in more detail. But . . . . .

My main point with @_Shadow Logic_ is that you are strictly applying the *general idea of extroversion* to mean more than it does. All of Jung's descriptions he admits are caricatures of pure type. He doesn't expect that anyone is 100% Ne for example, but how does he begin to explain any of these ideas if he doesn't give us the components to make the points he is making? So you can't take the description of extroversion without looking at the difference of perceiving as a function, how it differs from a judging function, if you want to talk about Ne - it is both. Why can't you just read what Jung says about intuition *in* the extroverted attitude and call that good enough?

At the point he starts talking about differentiation, and secondary functions, his OWN ideas evolve and he knows this is the beginning of an ongoing discussion or discovery. IT IS a different end game to talk about a whole person. 

MBTI deals with personality by measuring traits. This seems like a sensible measurement for a test. If you only substitute what you think are a better system of traits by what you believe is being more true to Jung - you miss the point of Jung. You seem to want to attribute characteristics of a whole person to Ne, instead of defining what Ne is, regardless of a function stack. - Because you like the description of extrovert for yourself?

@arkigos is making an excellent analogy above. I don't want to argue fine points forever either. But I think these distinctions are pivotal to *using* Jung for improved communication, self understanding, self management, or even for finding a business partner or dream team, different NT's being able to work together, and on and on..

@_PaladinX_, The over emphasis of action attributed to Ne on this thread, I can only imagine is an attempt to make Ne a whole type in itself which I think misses the point Jung was making (as I explained above in this post). Emphasis of action is just arbitrary, INTJ's not being extroverted, can still believe they are taking a best action. Action in the world, as a definition of extroversion, is just one angle in an attempt to describe a mental process. @_Shadow Logic_ seems to want to make this into a grocery list of traits, or maybe a more specific personal issue is being addressed here.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

arkigos said:


> @Shadow Logic - I still don't love the word 'achievement' here. It makes me think of boy scout merit badges and MMO kill counts. I think it can be misleading, ultimately. Ne manically chases possibilities to see them come to fruition. This is the crux of its extraversion.
> 
> I am watching Phineas and Ferb. Phineas is making some wonderous thing while his sister is manically and obsessively trying to get every possible Fireside Girls (aka, Girl Scouts) merit badge. At the end of the episode, he will toss whatever he made because there is no more possibility to be intuited into it.. nowhere else to take it that is more promising (or easy) than another new idea.
> 
> ...


But that's your personal subjective relationship with the word achievement. To the Ne Dom if their possibilities come to fruition, then they have achieved in bringing their vision to life. That is achievement for the Ne Dom, yes we may drop it by tomorrow, but in the moment we have made our vision into a reality, we have brought it from the world of visions to the external world, and when that has been accomplished, we have achieved exactly what it is we want, that is what we mean by accomplishment and achievement. You have to take yourself outside of your subjective views of the word, and see just exactly what it means for the person who achieving the exact things they want.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Okay, yesterday I had to go shovel some snow, among other things. Anyway, his has been a stimulating discussion and I will go back and read what i missed in more detail. But . . . . .
> 
> My main point with @Shadow Logic is that you are strictly applying the *general idea of extroversion* to mean more than it does. All of Jung's descriptions he admits are caricatures of pure type. He doesn't expect that anyone is 100% Ne for example, but how does he begin to explain any of these ideas if he doesn't give us the components to make the points he is making? So you can't take the description of extroversion without looking at the difference of perceiving as a function, how it differs from a judging function, if you want to talk about Ne - it is both. Why can't you just read what Jung says about intuition *in* the extroverted attitude and call that good enough?
> 
> ...


Jung spent 9 chapters out of 11 to explain exactly what extraversion and introversion is, he gave a few examples in functions how they operate solely by the mechsnisms of their attitudes. Its only at the 10th chapter that he talks about the separate functions alone in their own portraits, but the first 9 chapters, plus the 11th, was written so nobody could misunderstand what exactly he meant when he defined the types. If you want to discard information, then that's up to you, but I simply will not. Jung didn't contradict himself with differentiated and undifferentiated functions, and actually brought it up a lot throughout the 9 chapters to explain exactly what he meant. What he does expect and what I can prove, is that everyone has one differentiated function, and the rest of their functions are undifferentiated. The differentiated function is the ego function, and its the one that guides his whole psyche, the undifferentiated functions are the ones that simply happen to him, not in a conscious way. So yes an Ne Dom, will be a differentiated Ne user, and Jung does expect that, which I will happily provide you the statements straight from Jung to show you his position on the matter.

Just so we're clear again, it doesn't have to do with the extraverted profiles matching me, its literally how he defined them and used them to explain how the functions work. If you ask me do I relate to it, then my answer is yes but not only do I relate to the extraverted profiles but I relate to every single little detail he mentioned about Ne, every single one. If I didn't i wouldn't type myself as an Ne Dom, and because I type myself strictly from Psychological Types, then when I discuss the types or the functions all of it will come from strictly from Jung. I understand what Jung means when he says things like this:



> .In order to escape the ill consequences of this overvaluation of the scientific method, one is obliged to have recourse to well-defined concepts. But in order to arrive at such concepts, the collaboration of many workers would be needed, a sort of consensus gentium. *Since this is not within the bounds of possibility at present, the individual investigator must at least try to give his concepts some fixity and precision, and this can best be done by discussing the meaning of the concepts he employs so that everyone is in a position to see what in fact he means by them*.
> 
> [675] To meet this need I now propose to discuss my principal psychological concepts in alphabetical order, *and I would like the reader to refer to these explanations in case of doubt*. It goes without saying that these definitions and explanations are merely intended to establish the sense in which I myself use the concepts; far be it from me to affirm that this use is in all circumstances the only possible one or the absolutely right one.


Or this:



> This fundamental tendency in my work has often been overlooked, *and far too many readers have succumbed to the error of thinking that Chapter X (“ General Description of the Types”) represents the essential content and purpose of the book*, in the sense that it provides a system of classification and a practical guide to a good judgment of human character.


Or this:



> It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical. *For this reason I have placed the general typology and the Definitions at the end of the book, after having described, in chapters I to IX, the processes in question with the help of various examples. I would therefore recommend the reader who really wants to understand my book to immerse himself first of all in chapters II and V*. He will gain more from them than from any typological terminology superficially picked up, since this serves no other purpose than a totally useless desire to stick on labels..


In order to understand him you need to understand his concepts as defined by him, and you need to understsnd his whole book by taking in everything and not discounting anything.

Edit: btw Ne is Intuition + extraversion, Ne is not separate from extraversion or else it wouldn't be Ne. Intuition by itself isn't extraverted or introverted, but when you add extraversion or introversion to it, then you inevitably come out with Ne and Ni. There is a reason why extraversion and introversion is stressed so much throughout the book, so you the reader would understsnd what he meant when he talked about the functions with those attitudes. It was too avoid misunderstanding.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@arkigos, @Old Intern 

I think you both can get something out of this:



> That the subjective observation and interpretation accord with the objective facts proves the truth of the interpretation only in so far as the latter makes no pretence to be generally valid, but valid only for that area of the object which is being considered.


If you're going to interpret a thing, then your validity is derived from that thing, you start discounting and deviating then your interpretation will inevitably be flawed.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Jung wrote this stuff almost 100 years ago. His definition of Fe is at points absurd. That doesn't mean I throw away his main concepts or not find value in his observations (in context). I can have great respect for his work, appreciate his observations and learn from points he is making. I find no conflict with applying his broader concepts to what I see around me in real life, without needing to adhere to or dissect and quote his every word as if it some kind of holy scripture.

@Shadow Logic have you tried to apply any of Jung's concepts to typing people you know other than yourself?
If you back away from "quoting scripture" and look at people, how we misunderstand each other, you have perspective in the contrasts between people. If you put these concepts into your own words you have a tool you have learned. You seem to be grasping onto Jung as if it is a life-line or something. I only know you on this thread so I'm just telling you how this seems.

Subjective is not a dirty word. Of course my interpretation of Jung is subjective in the sense that I apply it to what I have seen and experienced.

I disagree that Ne is intuition + extroversion. If this was so, Ne does not exist in an introvert like INTP, and this nature of INTP whatever you want to call it - is observable in life and literature.

Intuition can be directed or exercised, expressed or used in either attitude I or E - it is this focus or energy flow, direction of attention. Jung describing what Ne type will do -is an example, how else will he describe this new to the world explanation of attitude? 

Maybe what you struggle with is Jung's defining of irrational functions? It would be misunderstanding to assume non-nonsensical or even reactionary. Perceiving is not one and the same with reacting, which is what you seem to be saying. This confusion would seem more descriptive of Se (I'm saying this of my experience and not about you).


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Jung wrote this stuff almost 100 years ago. His definition of Fe is at points absurd. That doesn't mean I throw away his main concepts or not find value in his observations (in context). I can have great respect for his work, appreciate his observations and learn from points he is making. I find no conflict with applying his broader concepts to what I see around me in real life, without needing to adhere to or dissect and quote his every word as if it some kind of holy scripture.
> 
> @Shadow Logic *have you tried to apply any of Jung's concepts to typing people you know other than yourself?*
> If you back away from "quoting scripture" and look at people, how we misunderstand each other, you have perspective in the contrasts between people. If you put these concepts into your own words you have a tool you have learned. You seem to be grasping onto Jung as if it is a life-line or something. I only know you on this thread so I'm just telling you how this seems.
> ...


To be honest, yes and I'm pretty sure I have already stated in this thread that everyone I type, I strictly use Psychological Types to type them. I havent met or found one person that doesn't match those types. I have also traveled quite a bit (mostly due to being in the military when I was), coming across all different types of people from different cultures, and have been able to type every person I have every come across with Psychological Types. Its become such a natural tendency that whenever meeting anyone, or even watching shows, movies, reading books, and so on, my mind immediately switches too figuring out that persons type utilizing only psychological types. I haven't come across one problem, or even one person who didn't fit with those types as Jung defined them when utilizing all the concepts he defined specifically. I have actually gotten so good at it that I have helped multiple people, including some of my professors, and old unit commanders/higher ranked military officials, to realize things about themselves that were previously unknown or repressed.

The problem is that none of what I have said means anything because it is anecdotal. We can all come up here and state that we have seen Ne Dom's doing this or Fe doms doing that, but it doesn't matter because it is anecdotal. We could be wrong in how we type due to personal bias, take for instance an introvert who puts their ideas above all else coming across Jung who may have stated something that went against their idea, guess what the introvert is inclined to do, they are inclined to choose their own idea over Jung's concepts, that could cause misunderstanding. What about the people who don't know themselves and mistype, then they start typing everyone else where they use themselves as the starting point to compare and contrast off of, this person will inevitably mistype others due to their own mistype. What about those individuals who have problems interpreting another persons actions, and thoughts, they too will have a higher chance of mistyping. There are so many things that can create a bias in an individual that will hinder their ability to understsnd Jung or type others, hence why I don't like talking about anecdotal evidence, even though do have a plethora of it that could easily help strengthen my point. Instead I rather stick to the source at hand when I discuss types, if others want to type people deviating from Jung then go ahead, but I will be sure to present the Jungian perspective on things for those who want to go that route.

Let me state again, that everyone I have ever met, traveling as much as I have, that I have never come across anyone that hasn't fit into one of the types as described in Psychological Types, when taking the whole book into consideration, not one person. This book isn't a scripture, Jung isn't a God, instead he is a man that wrote a book that created a subject that gave people the tools to access the mechanism of another. He did nothing more special than Einstein or Tesla, and neither of them are Gods either. If I wanted to study about Teslas waldenclyffe tower and how he came to derive how to build it, guess what I'm going to read exactly the blue prints of waldenclyffe as designed by Tesla instead of going to Edison, because Edison wouldn't know more about Teslas design than Tesla because Tesla is the source. The same goes for Jung.

Edit: I haven't met one person not to fit the types from psychological types when taking the book in as a whole, but I have come across people who suffer from specific cognitive biases that can after their perception of others along with themselves.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Old Intern



> *I disagree that Ne is intuition + extroversion*. If this was so, Ne does not exist in an introvert like INTP, and this nature of INTP whatever you want to call it - is observable in life and literature.
> 
> Intuition can be directed or exercised, expressed or used in either attitude I or E - it is this focus or energy flow, direction of attention. Jung describing what Ne type will do -is an example, how else will he describe this new to the world explanation of attitude?
> 
> Maybe what you struggle with is Jung's defining of irrational functions? It would be misunderstanding to assume non-nonsensical or even reactionary. Perceiving is not one and the same with reacting, which is what you seem to be saying. This confusion would seem more descriptive of Se (I'm saying this of my experience and not about you).


Bold: then there really isnt much to discuss if you don't agree that Ne the function is intuition + extraversion. 

Underline: What the? Because Ne is an extraverted function, INTPs can't use it? That doesn't make any sense nor did I imply that. Ne is the function is an extraverted function, I seriously don't know how you can't accept that, and the INTP uses an undifferentiated Ne that is subordinate to their Ti. This is the facts of Jung's concepts, I can't really understand what's so hard about understanding that Ne, extraverted intuition is an extraverted function.

There is no confusion on my part, actually I have been the one staying consistent with everything I have said, while everyone else is discarding all of the Jungian concepts that they don't agree with. I assure you the confusion isn't on my part, its on those who are choosing their own ideas over Jung's concepts.

Edit: I may get accused for nitpicking but you are clearly grasping st straws right now. I can easily go back in this thread and copy every statement you have said regarding your disagreement with so many of Jung's concepts. Its obvious that in order for your own ideas to be as accurate as possible that you have to discount or deviate from Jung to do so. This isn't my problem, this is yours.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

I just think you seem obsessive about associating action with perceiving - the very words contradict each other. You are not taking in the world if you are acting on specifics of world.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> I just think you seem obsessive about associating action with perceiving - the very words contradict each other. You are not taking in the world if you are acting on specifics of world.


No they don't when discussing the concepts Jung defined. You keep acting like I made up these definitions. It is your subjective idea that can't make sense of a perceiver being action oriented, but I have already proven that Jung defined all extravert's as so no matter the function the react externally with quick immediate actions oriented towards the object. Jung has described and I have already proven that perceiving functions along with Judgement functions are action oriented when they are extraverted, and as Jung defined them. Even @PaladinX had to correct your assertion a perceiving function can't act, but its focused on the will, not if its judgement or perception which is clearly shown here:



> The rationality that characterizes the conscious conduct of life in both these types involves a deliberate exclusion of everything irrational and accidental. Rational judgment, in such a psychology, is a force that coerces the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern, or at least tries to do so. A definite choice is made from among all the possibilities it offers, only the rational ones being accepted; but on the other hand the independence and influence of the psychic functions which aid the perception of life’s happenings are consequently restricted. Naturally this restriction of sensation and intuition is not absolute. These functions exist as before, but their products are subject to the choice made by rational judgment. *It is not the intensity of a sensation as such that decides action, for instance, but judgment.* Thus, in a sense, the functions of perception share the same fate as feeling in the case of the first type, or thinking in that of the second.


The bold clearly states what causes action in a judger, and how it is different from what causes a perceivers (sensation in this context) actions.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Action orientation is a whole person - not a function 

You can say that introversion is more receiving and extroversion is more initiating -but you have two layers - perceiving by definition is not initiated.

When Jung uses the word action - how else is he going to describe his 8 types?

You are going literal to the point of religious fervor.

You don't see what @_Argo_s was saying about the difference of Te or Ne?

Two different types of action, if you insist on using that word, maybe.

I'm happy not to be this obsessive undifferentiated Ne that never stops to think. 
My actions have some reasoning behind them. Subjective thinking, forming of my own ideas.

Your answer to perceiving not existing at the same time as action, is to say this must be so because Jung said it?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

I'm just going to state this @Old Intern, if you disagree with this:



> Everyone whose general attitude (q.v.) is oriented by intuition belongs to the intuitive type (q.v.). 68 Introverted and extraverted intuitives may be distinguished according to whether intuition is directed inwards, to the inner vision, or *outwards, to action and achievement.* In abnormal cases intuition is in large measure fused together with the contents of the collective unconscious (q.v.) and determined by them, and this may make the intuitive type appear extremely irrational and beyond comprehension.


Then I have to disagree with you. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, it doesn't bother me in the least becsuse I really think I'm wasting my time trying to show what is *obviously* stated. I understand what @arkigos said, and I corrected them, along with showing them what achievement means for the Ne user, while showing above what causes a judger to act. The problem still stands that you are disagreeing with what is so obviously apparent in statement.

You also ruin your intellectual integrity when you start using buzzwords such as "religious" and what ever to put a negative light on the person you are discussing with. If you want to discuss functions then I'm going to discuss it from the perspective of Jung. If you disagree then we are at a fundamental disagreement, which I'll accept that and move on.

Edit: btw, if you look above Jung doesn't describe Ni as action and achievement oriented in the external world, so he clearly makes a distinction.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Old Intern

Undifferentiated Ne is what merges with other functions, such as thinking, its not the differentiated Ne, and if I was to type you solely on what you said I would state that you are some type of Ji-Ne user (assuming that you indeed do use Ne, which is possible you may not), most likely Ti-Ne, but that's not my place to state, nor do I want to turn this into a typing disposition:



> 14. DIFFERENTIATION means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept of differentiation chiefly with respect to the psychological functions (q.v.). So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions— thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.— that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic (q.v.) condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself. *Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies, as for instance in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis. *As a rule, the undifferentiated function is also characterized by ambivalence and ambitendency, 34 i.e., every position entails its own negation, and this leads to characteristic inhibitions in the use of the undifferentiated function. *Another feature is the fusing together of its separate components; thus, undifferentiated sensation is vitiated by the coalescence of different sensory spheres (colour-hearing),* and undifferentiated feeling by confounding hate with love. To the extent that a function is largely or wholly unconscious, it is also undifferentiated; it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions. *Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other*. Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant. Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; only a differentiated function is capable of being directed.


Differentiated Ne is the one that is solely focused on perceiving and achieving what it perceives, without reasoning getting in the way:



> Neither reason nor feeling can restrain him or frighten him away from a new possibility, even though it goes against all his previous convictions. *Thinking and feeling, the indispensable components of conviction, are his inferior functions, carrying no weight and hence incapable of effectively withstanding the power of intuition*. And yet these functions are the only ones that could compensate its supremacy by supplying the judgment which the intuitive type totally lacks. *The intuitive’s morality is governed neither by thinking nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his vision and in voluntary submission to its authority*.


This is differentiated Ne, not undifferentiated.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

You are quoting, more than giving me a line of reason using causes and effects - that is what I mean by seeming to have faith in a personality or teacher more than internalizing a concept.

You do realize, Jung makes everyone of his 8 types sound so ill or nasty and hopeless they could never exist in a real world? - This is because he is making a point - a contrast of extremes. If you distill the concepts into processes, directions of thought, it starts to make a lot more sense.

That you can't entertain explanations without a tight neat little box of a respected authority's say so - says something about you. I have never come across this before and it seems anti creative, anti open ended and anti - Ti. 

That you want to fully understand Jung is one thing, but not to be able to follow the thoughts and real world relevance of posters on this thread says something.

On differentiation. - Jung's stance is that one dominant function emerges but anything else will be undifferentiated (at first) so that an intuitive for example, will see everything they do as coming from intuition. His point, along with Freud, was to discuss what lies in unconscious, So that what is undifferentiated has not been made conscious - yet. What they were doing was exploring what it means to be conscious.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> You are quoting, more than giving me a line of reason using causes and effects - that is what I mean by seeming to have faith in a personality or teacher more than internalizing a concept.


K, then I guess there really isn't much further to go, its been a nice discussion.

Edit: @Old Intern I didn't create the functions so the line of reasoning is going to come from Jung, I could explain it with my own line of reasoning but its always going to tie right back into what Jung stated, hence why instead of me wasting time I rather post quotes to show you where your reasoning is conflict or contradicts his. Just like if you stated that the sun doesnt go through hydrogen fusion, I would present to you statements and facts derived from those phsycists who proved such a process, and if I was to use my own line of reasoning its going to always tie in to the proof that hydrogen fusion is in fact a process that happens with the sun and all of the stars.

Its apparent though that we are at a fundamental disagreement, and proceeding any further will just be pointless it seems.

Edit:


> You do realize, Jung makes everyone of his 8 types sound so ill or nasty and hopeless they could never exist in a real world? - This is because he is making a point - a contrast of extremes. If you distill the concepts into processes, directions of thought, it starts to make a lot more sense.
> 
> That you can't entertain explanations without a tight neat little box of a respected authority's say so - says something about you. I have never come across this before and it seems anti creative, anti open ended and anti - Ti.
> 
> ...


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Old Intern:



> That you can't entertain explanations without a tight neat little box of a respected authority's say so - says something about you. I have never come across this before and it seems anti creative, anti open ended and anti - Ti.
> 
> That you want to fully understand Jung is one thing, but not to be able to follow the thoughts and real world relevance of posters on this thread says something.
> 
> On differentiation. - Jung's stance is that one dominant function emerges but anything else will be undifferentiated (at first) so that an intuitive for example, will see everything they do as coming from intuition. His point, along with Freud, was to discuss what lies in unconscious, so that what is undifferentiated has not been made conscious - yet. What they were doing was exploring what it means to be conscious.


How can you not see that it has nothing to do with authority it has to do with sticking with the concepts in the way that he meant them. If you want me to not do that, then I can't and will not because I see it as pointless to learn about subject and make up my own concepts that contradict his to understand them. I'm focused on the subject at hand, and the reasoning used by the person who created the subject. I want to present to others Jung's position when I hear "he contradicted himself". So what is it that you expect me to do, to not comment, to not post my thoughts on Jung, to not give my perspective or even Jungs perspective on the matter, when I see the misunderstanding of others? 

You're right I have an undifferentiated Ti, it will not come out like a differentiated Ti and will always be subordinate to my Ne. You can consider me a Te user if you like, or even an Si Dom, it doesn't really matter to me because my focus is onunderstanding the subject, not my own ideas on it, which I do have but in order for anyone to understand them you would first need to understand Jung.

But your last few posts have been nothing but accusations of:

Religious Following
Authority Worship
Basing on faith

Its funny because I never said Jung was right, I never said people can't disagree with him, I simply stated and defended that those concepts that contradict Jung inevitably contradicts his concepts of which he tried to define so others could better understand him. I'm not focused on whose right or wrong, I'm focused on understanding Jung for what Jung defined and put out, I want to understand Jung's perspective. If you can't take yourself out of your own your personal thoughts and try to see it from the perspective of another in the way that they saw it, then I don't see the point in even trying to understand their subject. Once again its never been about whose right and whose wrong, its are you consistent with the subject at hand or are you not.

If you have your own personal system and you want me to understand it, then I will do the same, I will understand it in the exact way that you presented it, in order to ensure I do not misunderstand your view on things, because guess what, different people means different views. For me to see your view then I have to drop all of my preconceived notions and accept your definitions as is, even if they contradict my own, but you seem to fail to understand that. 

Its funny because its like you're basically telling me to never understand someones position, or understand their perspective on the matter, which to be quite frank I will never do and will always to take the position on trying to understand their individual view and perspective. If it contradicts something then I will let them know, and if they used a different definition for a concept then I will discard my own to understand exactly from where they are coming from, instead of being so gung ho on sticking to my own subjective beliefs, and interpretations, because I see that as being closed minded. The focus isn't on whose right or wrong, its on understanding what is presented, nothing more and nothing less.

I want to focus on the subject at hand, and you always want to tie it back into some personal accusation, which I don't have time for. Either stick to the subject or discussion or agree to disagree. I can care less about the personal aspect of this discussion, and I see it as not only a waste but irrelevant to the subject at hand.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I think all of you are taking terms too literally in one way or another. 

I agree that Ne is related to being action-oriented in a sense. I think disregarding that bit allows for the notion of "introverted extraverts" that I disagree with (I do have other reasons though, I swear!). Achievement on the other hand is tricky. Is it about achieving things or is it simply a focus on what could be achieved?

In my opinion, being directed towards achievement does not necessarily mean follow-through to completion. I think that's where compensation comes in, to help balance the shiney ball factor.

Otherwise, I essentially understood the quote from the definition as _intuition is directed inwards to the world of ideas and visions or directed outwards to the world of action and achievement_.


FWIW here is Von Franz take on Ne:



> Extraverted intuition is a function by which we conceive outer possibilities. A sensation type could say about a bell, "This is a bell," but a child would say that you could do all sorts of things with that, it could be a church tower, and a book could be the village, and something else could be another object, and so on. In everything there is a possibility of development; thus intuition in mythology is very often represented by the nose. One says, "I smell a rat," that is, my intuition tells me that there is something fishy about. I don't know quite what, but I can smell it! We perceive such possibilities, and then three weeks later the rat, or the cat, is out of the bag, and you say: "Oh, I smelled it, I had a hunch there was something in the air!" These are not yet materialized, unborn possibilities, the germs of the future. Intuition is therefore the capacity for intuiting that which is not yet visible, future possibilities or potentialities in the background of a situation.
> 
> The extraverted intuitive type applies this to the outer world, and therefore will be very gifted and score very high in surmising the outer developments of the external situation in general. Such types are very often to be found among business people who have the courage to manufacture new inventions and put them on the market. You find them also among journalists and frequently among publishers. They are the people who know what will be popular next year and will do big business because they will bring out something which is not yet the fashion but soon will be, and they are the first to put it on the market. You find them also among stockbrokers who, beyond the normal calculation based on the reading of newspapers and financial reports of commercial concerns, will have a certain something which tells them that a certain stock will go up, the mark will be bullish, and they will make money through sensing the rise and fall of stocks. They realize what is in the air and will be the first to speak of it. You find them wherever there is something new brewing, and you find them also in the more spiritual realm. They will always be in the advance movement, interested in the advanced aspects of a science, and they are full of enterprise and will speculate as to the outcome of this, and how something else could be used, and another thing disseminated among people, and so on.
> 
> ...


NOTE: The first two paragraphs were originally one that I split for ease of reading.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> I think all of you are taking terms too literally in one way or another.
> 
> I agree that Ne is related to being action-oriented in a sense. I think disregarding that bit allows for the notion of "introverted extraverts" that I disagree with (I do have other reasons though, I swear!). Achievement on the other hand is tricky. Is it about achieving things or is it simply a focus on what could be achieved?
> 
> ...





> The intuitive does not reap what he has sown. *He is always the one who invents*, but who in the end gets nothing out of it if he overdoes his main function, for he is, as it were, rushing through things and incapable of waiting till what he has sown comes out of the soil and he can gather the fruit


"He is always the one who invents". If that's not an achievement then I clearly do not know what is.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

> He tends also to lose himself in the object. You find such people, for instance, following in the trail of creative people, promoting the creativity of others, absolutely losing their own possibilities in the other.


This is just too fucking funny, I mean I agree with it wholeheartedly from my own personal perspective, but I just think it is so funny when noticing the comments I get from others.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Sees inferences in reality by default(extraversion), concerned with attending reality as opposed to subsuming it(perception vs judgement), doesn't project perception, receives it (pi vs pe), perceives potential space


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

> Such types are very often to be found among business people who have the courage to manufacture new inventions and put them on the market. You find them also among journalists and frequently among publishers. *They are the people who know what will be popular next year and will do big business because they will bring out something which is not yet the fashion but soon will be, and they are the first to put it on the market.* You find them also among stockbrokers who, beyond the normal calculation based on the reading of newspapers and financial reports of commercial concerns, will have a certain something which tells them that a certain stock will go up, the mark will be bullish, and *they will make money through sensing the rise and fall of stocks.* They realize what is in the air and will be the first to speak of it. You find them wherever there is something new brewing, and you find them also in the more spiritual realm. They will always be in the advance movement, interested in the advanced aspects of a science,* and they are full of enterprise and will speculate as to the outcome of this, and how something else could be used, and another thing disseminated among people, and so on.*


Yup, none of this has to do with action and achievement in the external world. Its true that this is clearly not Ne. It must be Te or Se, because Ne can't obviously accomplish anything, all an Ne Dom does is talk about unicorns and how sweet it would be to fly on space donkeys with jetpacks, woooo!!

/sacasm


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

Get into the basics:

Each function has a compulsion to simplify experiences, pinning them down to patterns and standards. Intuition seeks to predict the relativity (Ne) and/or essentiality (Ni) of objects. Relativity looks at several objects at once while essentiality looks at singular objects at a time. Once the ideal relativity or essentiality is discovered the person's perception of the object is enhanced and made novel. So Intuition tends to renew perspectives.

Extraversion and Introversion cope differently with experience. Extraversion emphasizes exposure to stimuli while Introversion emphasizes a yet-to-be-experienced image. Everything Extraverted is rooted in output, i.e., the direct feedback of objects, thus exposure to them. Everything Introverted manifests from input: every [context-dependent] experienced object is compressed into a high, symbolic standard (an ideal). Extraversion will begin from pre-existing objects (replicable, matchable, categorical things), and Introversion from tentative, theoretical objects (things to be actualized, to become, and are transcendental). That said, Ne-doms can be observant of surroundings while Ni-doms can be preoccupied by previsions.

*E*xtraverted I*n*tuition (relativity) perceives the qualities of external objects and cross-references them with the qualities of other objects. This leads to the comprehension of objects, and the modification of ideas, by association. Ne assimilates.

*I*ntroverted I*n*tuition (essentiality) perceives the qualities of external objects and thereby predicts the definitive properties of them (via a subtler cross-referencing approach). This leads to experimental analyses of objects, and the modification of ideas, by elimination. Ni pinpoints.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

My intent is not accusation. I've never come across whatever it is that I'm seeing in this thread, so my awkward attempt at description and having my own mental order for what I'm dealing with . . . just dunno. 

I think we do a disservice to ourselves if we don't recognize the significance of perceiving as perceiving. 
I enjoy my own experience of looking at a situation, or reading, seeing something and seeing many angles, while not having to obsessively act upon every single avenue that occurs to me (sometimes as a matter of learned discipline and tactics). Nobody could have enough hours in a day for every possibility I could consider. I've learned how trying to go directly to the elegant solution doesn't work for me. Scribbling in a notebook with open expansiveness and then editing down is something I wished I'd mastered when I was 20. With tactics and self understanding, an Ne dom is not doomed to never reap, just like Te dom is not forced to live a hollow soul-destructive life of pure externals and self neglect that Jung describes. The contrasts he is making are more important than word for word exactness of what he says.

So I think finding usefulness in Jung is far more worthwhile to me, than forcing definitions that seem arbitrary for practical use (today). Quoting is different than understanding main points, in fact Exact phrases, in this case, are still translations.

*I understand the frustration of people just making up BS as they go along, but I don't think I'm advocating that.* 
If a person obsesses over Jungian philosophy - the whole idea of collective unconscious can be used to support racism or other weird stuff. It is a little bit like the Bible that you can quote it to the point of craziness. I'm not saying you have done this here, just saying this much exact quoting isn't worth that much to me. 

I do believe that if people only read MBTI, especially the quantity of stuff on the internet today, and only look at trait categories, they are missing the meaning Jung Intended and may have an extremely superficial view of personality studies. But even what Jung meant is up for interpretation and comparison, (with a little common sense, applied logic, or perspective of real life). People do this same thing with quoting the Bible. I would rather put Jung in the context of his times, and how he compares with new studies, and other personality theories, looking at what he points to, that we still find useful today. I don't need a photographic memory of everything he ever said - *it is not important to me to know his every exact word. *In that case you can argue translations and compare different books written by Jung - just like the Bible.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Yup, none of this has to do with action and achievement in the external world. Its true that this is clearly not Ne. It must be Te or Se, because Ne can't obviously accomplish anything, all an Ne Dom does is talk about unicorns and how sweet it would be to fly on space donkeys with jetpacks, woooo!!
> 
> /sacasm


Yeah. When I started thinking about posting it, I was going to do that paragraph to show what you were getting at and the subsequent paragraph to show what arkigos was getting at.

@Old Intern

Responding to something you said at some point somewhere that doesn't really have anything to do with anything anymore:

MBTI does not measure traits. That's Big Five. When I took the certification program they made that point very clear! lol


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> My intent is not accusation. I've never come across whatever it is that I'm seeing in this thread, so my awkward attempt at description and having my own mental order for what I'm dealing with . . . just dunno.
> 
> I think we do a disservice to ourselves if we don't recognize the significance of perceiving as perceiving.
> I enjoy my own experience of looking at a situation, or reading, seeing something and seeing many angles, while not having to obsessively act upon every single avenue that occurs to me (sometimes as a matter of learned discipline and tactics). Nobody could have enough hours in a day for every possibility I could consider. I've learned how trying to go directly to the elegant solution doesn't work for me. Scribbling in a notebook with open expansiveness and then editing down is something I wished I'd mastered when I was 20. With tactics and self understanding, an Ne dom is not doomed to never reap, just like Te dom is not forced to live a hollow soul-destructive life of pure externals.
> ...


Well I do understand your point if somebody is going around portraying Jung as a God and psychological types as a bible of which everybody else must follow or they're wrong, but that's not the case here. I have stated countless times that I can care less if you disagree with Jung, or if you're using a different system to try to explain your reasoning, but as a person who does understand exactly what Jung meant, I'm going to post a quote to show you if you contradicted Jung or not. This is because when I talk about cognitive functions I'm talking about Psychological Types. If we were talking about socionics then I would refer to socionics concepts, if we were talking about math then I would refer to mathematical concepts, never will I not talk about the direct concepts when referring to a subject. If you said well I disagree with some of the things Jung said, and I have my own system to alter those things so I can agree with it, then I wouldn't fault you for it because you have admitted that its no longer Jung's concepts you are referring to, but your own.

I can't help but think you are taking the bible context out of hand, there is a difference between discussing the bible (or any religious book) as a subject, and trying to declare that the bible is the only truth and all shall bow down to it. There is no problem with someone discussing the bible, or correcting someone by showing them scriptures if a person misunderstood the bibles content, not interpretation but content. If someone was to say "the bible never mentions Jesus ever", then it should be expected that some one will correct you and show you a scripture where Jesus is mentioned. On the other hand if someone is going around saying " the bible is the only truth and all shall obey or die", now we have a problem because its no longer a discussion on the bible but now it has changed to a discussion on the truth or validity of the bible, and how it would be applied to the world.

I am not discussing the truth or validity of Psychological Types, I am not discussing if everyone should conform to Psychological Types, I am not discussing about if Jung was the modern day Jesus who was sent here to come save us, and all who fail to abide by him are evil cretins. I'm discussing none of those, instead I am discussing the consistency between your interpretations of his concepts in contrast to how he defined his exact concepts, because I can't help but agree with this:



> [674] In order to escape the ill consequences of this overvaluation of the scientific method, one is obliged to have recourse to well-defined concepts. But in order to arrive at such concepts, the collaboration of many workers would be needed, a sort of consensus gentium. Since this is not within the bounds of possibility at present, *the individual investigator must at least try to give his concepts some fixity and precision, and this can best be done by discussing the meaning of the concepts he employs so that everyone is in a position to see what in fact he means by them. *
> 
> [675] To meet this need I now propose to discuss my principal psychological concepts in alphabetical order, *and I would like the reader to refer to these explanations in case of doubt*. It goes without saying that these definitions and explanations are merely intended to establish the sense in which I myself use the concepts; far be it from me to affirm that this use is in all circumstances the only possible one or the absolutely right one.


That is my reasoning through the words of Jung, but before I have ever read Jung that was always my reasoning. In order for me to understand someone, then I need to understand the exact definitions of concepts that person is using, or I will have a higher chance of misunderstanding them. My focus is not on interpretation but on understanding, so I'll forgo all of my personal preconceived notions and proceed to adopt theirs, *only* in reference to the subject or system created by a person. 

I know people have different mindsets, different biases, so I choose to throw away my own in order to adopt their reasoning, helping me netter understand their subject, system, or idea. Everything I have ever come across my focus is on understanding and assimilating all that I understand, not declaring if something is right or wrong, the closest I'll get to that is seeing if a persons understanding is consistent with the subject they are referring too. If you want to talk about your own ideas on the subject, then let me know so I know that you aren't claiming that these are what the functions are, but instead are how you see them, this would clarify a lot.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@PaladinX the breakdown of behavior, "how socialble?" "how gregarious are you?", or "how messy is your desk?" - it makes sense for a test to measure behavior. What people have a habit of doing can be said to be a trait. I'm sure professionally well crafted tests are designed to align behaviors and meaning. That being said, a trait does not address why. Jung, with a theory of consciousness attempt's to help us see why. The contrast of his types shows you varieties of focus (consciousness) that occur in human nature.That is what I think is missing in this thread.

*@*Shadow Logic, I can be reading you wrong, what seems pedantic to me is a line by line approach?
-rather than looking at sections of Jung as comparisons. Everything Jung says, in my opinion, is relative, one way of being, relative to a different way of being. Si doms are not actually seeing monsters or becoming abstract impressionists painters, necessarily, for example.

We have no widely understood (Te) definition of what consciousness is even at this minute, So Ideas of I/E are a relative scale. Emphasis on a level of imperative behavior, vs seeing how one type differs from another seems counter-productive to me.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @PaladinX the breakdown of behavior, how socialble? how gregariou? are you, - it makes sense for a test to measure behavior. What people have a habit of doing can be said to be a trait. A trait does not address why. Jung, with a theory of consciousness attempt's to help us see why. The contrast of his types shows you varieties of focus (consciousness) that occur in human nature.That is what I think is missing in this thread.


MBTI does not measure how sociable you are or how gregarious you are, etc. That is measuring traits. Not to mention that Jung attributed being sociable and outgoing to extraversion. 

He talks about behaviour as well as cognition. In chapter 10, he discusses each "cognitive function" and type. How the function works and what it looks like in an individual.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> *@*Shadow Logic, I can be reading you wrong, what seems pedantic to me is a line by line approach?
> Rather than looking at sections of Jung as comparisons, everything hes says, in my opinion is relative, one way of being, relative to a different way of being.
> 
> *We have no widely understood (Te) definition of what consciousness is even at this minute,* So Ideas of I/E are a relative scale. The level of imperative behavior, vs seeing how one type differs from another seems counter-productive to me.


Which is my precise point, the fact that we don't have a widely understood definition forces me to take things as is, rather than attribute truth or false hood to it based on my own preconceived notions. If 10 people talk about consciousness/unconsciousness, then I want to understand each one of their exact definitions to better understand each individual one, rather than measure it against my preconceived definition which will inevitably create a misunderstanding on my part of their position.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@PaladinX I was going by some #2 phase description I read, something recent? mentioned on one of these threads. Testing for behavior explains why some people are frustrated with INTP, vs INTJ distinctions and definitions between Jung and MBTI.

I think this frustration illustrates the same thing we are talking about here. *What people do OR why they do it*, we can't crawl around inside another's head, until maybe EEG caps become like putting your pants on in the morning?

Jung attempts to give us a map of different mental territory sort of. But when we nail it down to exact phrases or activities instead of *contrasts between people, I think this is overboard and more literal than even Jung intended.

* A good test, will in effect contrast people within a larger group so I'm not putting that down.
INTJ's and INTP"s mistyping with or without tests, I believe is one example of how nailing down a type is about the flow of focus and processing - not exact behaviors. You have two types who could do similar activity from nearly opposite mental directions.

To say the Ne in the INTP compells him to action is useless and goes against what P functions are. To say Ni is stored over time (and runs in the background) while Ne is activated in real-time is a logical functional description that does not contradict Jung observations of 8 types.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> It seems all internal to me, at least mine does...In my case, Ne most often involves awareness of what is conceptually possible and of other potential ways of interpreting something.
> 
> I'm not sure what it means for Ne to "move toward the object".


This helped me understand it better. I find it tricky to explain how I do what I do, I just do it.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @PaladinX I was going by some #2 phase description I read, something recent? mentioned on one of these threads. Testing for behavior explains why some people are frustrated with INTP, vs INTJ distinctions and definitions between Jung and MBTI.
> 
> I think this frustration illustrates the same thing we are talking about here. *What people do OR why they do it*, we can't crawl around inside another's head, until maybe EEG caps become like putting your pants on in the morning?
> 
> ...




Oh I see, I get what you are saying now. To be clear, MBTI Step II tries to break down the categories into sub categories (well sort of), which is where you get things like "gregariousness." But it does not measure how much or how little. The official MBTI assessment is a hypothesis of type. It is a sorting hat, _an indicator_ (hence the I in MBTI). The scores that it provides do not measure how much or little of a preference you are, only how likely it thinks your preferences are given how you responded to the assessment.

However, you can observe the types and what typical behaviours they exhibit and attribute a given behaviour to a type. It doesn't mean that the type always exhibits that behaviour and no other type can exhibit that behaviour, only that, in general that type exhibits that behaviour. If 800 out of 1000 ENFPs are bubbly, it is a safe assumption that in general, ENFPs are bubbly. (Take that other thread! ).



> To say the Ne in the INTP compells him to action is useless and goes against what P functions are. To say Ni is stored over time (and runs in the background) while Ne is activated in real-time is a logical functional description that does not contradict Jung observations of 8 types.


Well that brings about a different fundamental problem about INTPs and whether or not they are actually Ne types. But, assuming that's true, what do you mean by "goes against what P functions are?"


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Well that brings about a different fundamental problem about INTPs and whether or not they are actually Ne types. But, assuming that's true, what do you mean by "goes against what P functions are?"


And the differences between differentiated Ne and undifferentiated Ne (even thought its the INTPs most differentiated undifferentiated function), they are definitely different in many of ways, including that Ne for an INTP is confined in the unconscious, not the consciousness.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> This helped me understand it better. I find it tricky to explain how I do what I do, I just do it.







I feel like this song kind of captures the feel of Ne.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> I'm pretty sure I have already stated in this thread that everyone I type, I strictly use Psychological Types to type them. I havent met or found one person that doesn't match those types. I have also traveled quite a bit (mostly due to being in the military when I was), coming across all different types of people from different cultures, and have been able to type every person I have every come across with Psychological Types. ... I haven't come across one problem, or even one person who didn't fit with those types as Jung defined them when utilizing all the concepts he defined specifically. ...
> 
> Let me state again, that everyone I have ever met, traveling as much as I have, that I have never come across anyone that hasn't fit into one of the types as described in Psychological Types, when taking the whole book into consideration, not one person.


When you say "one of the types," are you talking about one of the eight types Jung described in Chapter 10? Or the 16 types you get if you take the two possible auxiliary functions into account?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

reckful said:


> When you say "one of the types," are you talking about one of the eight types Jung described in Chapter 10? Or the 16 types you get if you take the two possible auxiliary functions into account?


Yea I was referring to one of the 8 types in chapter 10. I can for the most part tie it down to auxiliary functions in the form of XY (Ex. Ne-Ti, Fi-Se) but I'll admit that I have come across people that it was a bit difficult to understand what auxiliary they used. Those were rare cases though, for the most part I have been able to pick out the auxiliary in the majority of individuals. In the beginning it was harder but once having illuminated the differences between a differentiated and an undifferentiated function, its become much easier to notice the differences in how certain types use certain functions based on what is differentiated, and how undifferentiated a function that they contain is.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> Yea I was referring to one of the 8 types in chapter 10. I can for the most part tie it down to auxiliary functions in the form of XY (Ex. Ne-Ti, Fi-Se) but I'll admit that I have come across people that it was a bit difficult to understand what auxiliary they used. Those were rare cases though, for the most part I have been able to pick out the auxiliary in the majority of individuals. In the beginning it was harder but once having illuminated the differences between a differentiated and an undifferentiated function, its become much easier to notice the differences in how certain types use certain functions based on what is differentiated, and how undifferentiated a function that they contain is.


As you've pointed out, Jung spent most of Psychological Types talking about extraversion and introversion. He only really got into the eight function-types in detail in Chapter 10, and he framed them as four types of extravert and four types of introvert.

Jung also said that over a third of the population belonged to a "third group" made up of people who were neither extraverts nor introverts, but you say that you've "never come across anyone that hasn't fit into one of" Jung's eight types.

Are you saying you disagree with Jung's idea that there's a large group of people who are neither extraverts nor introverts — and therefore not one of his eight types?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

reckful said:


> As you've pointed out, Jung spent most of Psychological Types talking about extraversion and introversion. He only really got into the eight function-types in detail in Chapter 10, and he framed them as four types of extravert and four types of introvert.
> 
> Jung also said that over a third of the population belonged to a "third group" made up of people who were neither extraverts nor introverts, but you say that you've "never come across anyone that hasn't fit into one of" Jung's eight types.
> 
> Are you saying you disagree with Jung's idea that there's a large group of people who are neither extraverts nor introverts — and therefore not one of his eight types?


No I agree with that point, only because he goes into more detail with what he means by that statement in a few locations:



> But in so far as we apply judgment and perception in equal measure, *it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted*, so that we cannot decide at first to which attitude the superior function belongs. In such cases only a thorough analysis of the qualities of each function can help us to form a valid judgment. *We must observe which function is completely under conscious control*, and which functions have a haphazard and spontaneous character. *The former is always more highly differentiated than the latter*, which also possess infantile and primitive traits. Occasionally the superior function gives the impression of normality, while the others have something abnormal or pathological about them.





> Ultimately, it must be the individual disposition which decides whether the child will belong to this or that type despite the constancy of external conditions. Naturally I am thinking only of normal cases. *Under abnormal conditions, i.e., when the mother’s own attitude is extreme, a similar attitude can be forced on the children too, thus violating their individual disposition*, which might have opted for another type if no abnormal external influences had intervened. *As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of parental influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and can be cured only by developing the attitude consonant with his nature.*





> Give an introvert a thoroughly congenial, harmonious milieu, and he relaxes into complete extraversion, so that one begins to wonder whether one may not be dealing with an extravert. But put an extravert in a dark and silent room, where all his repressed complexes can gnaw at him, and he will get into such a state of tension that he will jump at the slightest stimulus. *The changing situations of life can have the same effect of momentarily reversing the type, but the basic attitude is not as a rule permanently altered. In spite of occasional extraversion the introvert remains what he was before, and the extravert likewise*.





> *A rhythmical alternation of both forms of psychic activity would perhaps correspond to the normal course of life*. But the complicated outer conditions under which we live and the even more complicated conditions of our individual psychic make-up seldom permit a completely undisturbed flow of psychic energy. Outer circumstances and inner disposition frequently favour one mechanism and restrict or hinder the other. *One mechanism will naturally predominate, and if this condition becomes in any way chronic a type will be produced; that is, an habitual attitude in which one mechanism predominates permanently*, although the other can never be completely suppressed since it is an integral part of the psychic economy. Hence there can never be a pure type in the sense that it possesses only one mechanism with the complete atrophy of the other. *A typical attitude always means merely the relative predominance of one mechanism.*


They are still either extraverted or introverted, but it just takes a more thorough analysis to find out which is the differentiated function, and what are the undifferentiated functions. The unconscious could be overwhelming the conscious mind, creating a confusion within and without into what mechanism predominates, but nevertheless their is still one mechanism that will be differentiated, while the rest are undifferentiated.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> No I agree with that point, only because he goes into more detail with what he means by that statement in a few locations:
> 
> 
> They are still either extraverted or introverted, but it just takes a more thorough analysis to find out which is the differentiated function, and what are the undifferentiated functions. The unconscious could be overwhelming the conscious mind, creating a confusion within and without into what mechanism predominates, but nevertheless their is still one mechanism that will be differentiated, while the rest are undifferentiated.


I agree with you that the descriptions you've just quoted involve (for the most part, anyway) extraverts and introverts. But they don't match the "third group" who Jung said were neither.

When I refer to Jung saying that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, I'm referring to a lecture he gave in 1923 — two years after Psychological Types was published — that was separately published in 1925 and later included in the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types. After first introducing the audience to the "extraverted" and "introverted" types, he said this:



Jung said:


> There is, finally, a third group, and here it is hard to say whether the motivation comes chiefly from within or without. This group is the most numerous and includes the less differentiated normal man, who is considered normal either because he allows himself no excesses or because he has no need of them. The normal man is, by definition, influenced as much from within as from without. He constitutes the extensive middle group.


The ambiverted "normal man" Jung is describing here is an ambivert because he's "less differentiated" than an introvert or extravert, rather than because his differentiated attitude is balanced by an equal amount of unconscious compensation.

In the first Jung paragraph you've just quoted, he's talking about someone that has a differentiated dominant function with one attitude and undifferentiated (therefore "haphazard" and "infantile" and "primitive") inferior functions with the opposite attitude — or in other words, a _typical_ case of one of his types, with the conscious attitude corresponding to whether they were an introvert or extravert. So they'd be an extravert or an introvert, rather than belonging to a "third group" who was "influenced as much from within as from without" because they're "less differentiated" than extraverts and introverts are. Jung was in the middle of explaining that J-doms tend to view (type) other people from the standpoint of the other person's conscious (differentiated) side, while P-doms tend to view (type) other people from the standpoint of the other person's unconscious (undifferentiated) side. The "equal measure" Jung is referring to in your quoted paragraph is an _observer_ "applying judgment and perception in equal measure" — i.e., giving as much weight to the observed subject's conscious and unconscious sides — rather than the subject being some kind of atypical case in terms of E/I being "equal" because the subject is "less differentiated" than one of Jung's eight types.

The second Jung paragraph you've quoted involves someone whose natural type is falsified "under abnormal conditions," which Jung says generally leads to neurosis. So that certainly isn't the "normal man" Jung was referring to in that 1923 lecture.

The third Jung paragraph you've quoted just refers to an extravert or introvert "momentarily" having their type reversed, after which they revert to their usual extraverted or introverted self, and that's clearly not the ambiverted "normal man" Jung described in the 1923 lecture.

And finally, the fourth Jung paragraph you've quoted is consistent, rather than inconsistent, with the idea that Jung thought there were people who were neither extraverts nor introverts. He says that "one mechanism" (i.e., extraversion or introversion) "will naturally predominate, and *if this condition becomes in any way chronic a type will be produced*" — which I'd say clearly implies that Jung thought there were cases where, for one reason or another, the requisite "condition" did _not_ "become ... chronic," with the result that a "type" was _not_ produced. And the 1923 lecture suggests that Jung thought that the typical reason that a "type" wasn't produced was that, notwithstanding the fact that the person might be born with something along the lines of an inborn lean in the E or I direction, they never _differentiated_ any of their functions (or at least the attitude of any function) to the point that, from a conscious standpoint, they came to favor E or I on a "chronic" basis.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@reckful, well I can not assume that Jung "meant" that a type will not be produced, and I can't ignore statements like this, no matter how many ways someone wants to interpret it:



> The changing situations of life can have the same effect of momentarily reversing the type, *but the basic attitude is not as a rule permanently altered*. In spite of occasional extraversion the introvert remains what he was before, and the extravert likewise.





> Under abnormal conditions, i.e., when the mother’s own attitude is extreme, a similar attitude can be forced on the children too, thus violating their individual disposition, which might have opted for another type if no abnormal external influences had intervened. As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of parental influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, *and can be cured only by developing the attitude consonant with his nature.*


I also don't take a "less differentiated man" as a man with no conscious or unconscious, or in other words, I don't take a "less differentiated man" as synanymous to a "man without differentiation" or a "man with no differentiated function". Instead I see it more consistent with this:



> To this extent, extraversion and introversion are two modes of psychic reaction which can be observed in the same individual. The fact, however, that two such contrary disturbances as hysteria and schizophrenia are characterized by the predominance of the mechanism of extraversion or of introversion *suggests that there may also be normal human types who are distinguished by the predominance of one or other of the two mechanisms*. And indeed, psychiatrists know very well that long before the illness is fully established, *the hysterical patient as well as the schizophrenic is marked by the predominance of his specific type, which reaches back into the earliest years of childhood. *





> Thus, besides the will, which is entirely dependent on its content, man has a further auxiliary in the unconscious, that maternal womb of creative fantasy, which is able at any time to fashion symbols in the natural process of elementary psychic activity, symbols that can serve to determine the mediating will. I say “can” advisedly, because the symbol does not of its own accord step into the breach, but remains in the unconscious just so long as the energic value of the conscious contents exceeds that of the unconscious symbol. *Under normal conditions this is always the case; but under abnormal conditions a reversal of value sets in, whereby the unconscious acquires a higher value than the conscious.* The symbol then rises to the surface without, however, being taken up by the will and the executive conscious functions, since these, on account of the reversal of value, have now become subliminal. The unconscious, on the other hand, has become supraliminal, and an abnormal state, a psychic disturbance, has supervened.





> To discover, therefore, that impartial basis for the will, we must appeal to another authority, where the opposites are not yet clearly separated but still preserve their original unity. *Manifestly this is not the case with consciousness, since the whole essence of consciousness is discrimination, distinguishing ego from non-ego, subject from object, positive from negative, and so forth. The separation into pairs of opposites is entirely due to conscious differentiation; only consciousness can recognize the suitable and distinguish it from the unsuitable and worthless. It alone can declare one function valuable and the other non-valuable, thus bestowing on one the power of the will while suppressing the claims of the other*. But, where no consciousness exists, *where purely unconscious instinctive life still prevails, there is no reflection, no pro et contra, no disunion, nothing but simple happening, self-regulating instinctivity, living proportion*. (Provided, of course, that instinct does not come up against situations to which it is unadapted, in which case blockage, affects, confusion, and panic arise.)


So under normal conditions the conscious contents exceed the unconscious, while in the abnormal the unconscious contents exceed the conscious, this would amount to a confusion on type if the unconscious contents are so pronounced they overcome or are equal in strength to the conscious contents. My point is that the conscious is not nonexistent and is still separated from the unconscious, no matter how strong the unconscious is.

I am sure we will disagree, or I'll be accused of nitpicking, or something along the lines of misinterpreting, or taking those quotes out of context, or using Psychological Types as a bible, or being stuck in the world of theory which is "inconsistent" with reality and "data". Which is ok, I have no intentions on trying to convince you of anything, and I've come to the conclusion that it is near impossible. We (you and I) have always come to disagree upon these things for the longest time anyways, so I'm use to it. My point still stands that there will be at least one conscious differentiated function, with the rest being unconscious. The differentiated function may or may not be to such an extreme differentiated such as a schizophrenic, and when in contrast to the schizophrenic a persons differentiated function may be less differentiated, but "less differentiation" is not synanymous to "no differentiation". 

With that said, unless you can supply a statement, that says "there are people who do not have a type", then I'm going to state here, right now, that we are going to be at a fundamental disagreement, throwing back and forth quotes and interpretations, and we both know how that ends, with both of us frustrated claiming the other isnt understanding or refusing to understand or discounting information. I rather avoid the inevitable and agree to disagree if that's alright with you @reckful.

Edit: 

The one statement that I can't ignore at all no matter what, no matter how many different people want to give different interpretations, is this:



> When we consider the course of human life, we see how the fate of one individual is determined more by the objects of his interest, while in another it is determined more by his own inner self, by the subject. *Since we all swerve rather more towards one side or the other, we naturally tend to understand everything in terms of our own type.*


When someone states *"We all"*, I can only take it as "we all", as in being synanymous to "everyone in the world", and I'm sure to be accused of being nitpicky or something of the sort. Nevertheless, that is the statement word by word, one I can not and will not ignore, and one I use as a rule when typing with Psychological Types.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

It's kinda like that.

"Why are we even _alive_?"

It tends to be even more tangential, idea and possibility oriented, but it's all based on the environment.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_reckful_

You forgot a part of that paragraph 



> There is, finally, a third group, and here it is hard to say whether the motivation comes chiefly from within or without. This group is the most numerous and includes the less differentiated normal man, who is considered normal either because he allows himself no excesses or because he has no need of them. The normal man is, by definition, influenced as much from within as from without. He constitutes the extensive middle group,* on one side of which are those whose motivations are determined mainly by the external object, and, on the other, those whose motivations are determined from within.*




I know it sounds like he's saying that everyone is ambiverted, which is true, but not quite. I like to think of it as a normal curve where the "normal man" falls within the mid 68%. When you get to the extremes at 3 standard deviations and beyond, this is where you find the ultimate extravert and ultimate introvert. These ultimate versions exhibit every characteristic of their respective attitude-types while the opposite type is completely repressed. The normal person on the other hand is influenced just as much from either attitude but still tends to favour one over the other and will fall within the first standard deviation on either side of the mean.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> With that said, unless you can supply a statement, that says "there are people who do not have a type", then I'm going to state here, right now, that we are going to be at a fundamental disagreement, throwing back and forth quotes and interpretations, and we both know how that ends, with both of us frustrated claiming the other isnt understanding or refusing to understand or discounting information. I rather avoid the inevitable and agree to disagree if that's alright with you @reckful.


Given that Jung viewed his eight types as four types of extravert and four types of introvert, and given that he also said that people fell into _three groups_, with the third group made up of people who were neither extraverts or introverts, it seems to me that it's hard to argue that he wasn't saying that there were people who didn't have one of his eight types.

So I think I've already "supplied a statement" that should, at the least, make you hesitant to claim that it's _clear_ that Jung thought that his eight types basically covered everyone.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> @_reckful_
> 
> You forgot a part of that paragraph
> 
> ...


I think you've misinterpreted the "on one side of which" and "on the other" stuff. It doesn't make sense to interpret that to mean that he's breaking the middle group into two halves — a half whose "motivations are determined mainly by the external object," and a half whose "whose motivations are determined from within," because he's already said that the middle group is inhabited by the "normal man" who "is, by definition, influenced as much from within as from without."

The "on one side of which" stuff is just Jung saying that the middle group is in between the _extraverts_ "on one side" and the _introverts_ "on the other." And that's further clarified in the follow-up sentence. Here's your expanded version of my quote, _further expanded_:

There is, finally, a third group, and here it is hard to say whether the motivation comes chiefly from within or without. This group is the most numerous and includes the less differentiated normal man, who is considered normal either because he allows himself no excesses or because he has no need of them. The normal man is, by definition, influenced as much from within as from without. He constitutes the extensive middle group, on one side of which are those whose motivations are determined mainly by the external object, and, on the other, those whose motivations are determined from within. I call the first group _extraverted_, and the second group _introverted_.​
Note that, given the context, the "first group" and "second group" references in that last sentence really only make sense as references to the _two sides_ groups from the previous sentence, where he mentioned the people "determined mainly by the external object" _first_ and the people "determined from within" _second_.

So again... Jung is talking about _three groups of people_:

"First group" = "those whose motivations are determined mainly by the external object" = extraverts.
"Second group" = "those whose motivations are determined from within" = introverts.
"Middle group" = those "influenced as much from within as from without" = "normal man."


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> And the differences between differentiated Ne and undifferentiated Ne (even thought its the INTPs most differentiated undifferentiated function), they are definitely different in many of ways, including that Ne for an INTP is confined in the unconscious, not the consciousness.


This is where strict literal interpretation of Jung looses it's usefulness, in my opinion: What is conscious and unconscious, and function attitudes of secondary functions, with Jung even considering himself to be Ni-Ti (probably not wanting to admit his Fe in my opinion). The role of secondary function(s) according to Jung - gets quite arguable -what he thought - and what he meant
- and if it has any merit beyond bringing us 8 function categories.

If I look at real people I know today, I can see secondary functioning, that follows MBTI 16 type structure. How much this said person(s) have awareness of using this function can be seen in many levels or degrees. For example my ESFP Dad may not be aware of how much he uses Fi, for sure he doesn't know what Fi is by name, yet it serves him quite well. It could be debated if he is reactionary because of Se, or if his Se adaptive default state prepares him for quick action when his internalized standards and priorities are at stake.

A persons dominant function can also be something they are not exactly aware of. Being dominant functioning for the self, it is easy to assume this is the way everyone is, until you have opportunity for specific contrasting of yourself with others.

I doubt most INTP's experience Ne as something unconscious. Even if they don't know what to call it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

reckful said:


> Given that Jung viewed his eight types as four types of extravert and four types of introvert, and given that he also said that people fell into _three groups_, with the third group made up of people who were neither extraverts nor introverts, it seems to me that it's hard to argue that he wasn't saying that there were people who didn't have one of his eight types.
> 
> So I think I've already "supplied a statement" that should, at the least, make you hesitant to claim that it's _clear_ that Jung thought that his eight types basically covered everyone.


And I gave my reasons why I think thats not so, and that a "less differentiated man" isn't synanymous to a "man with no differentiated functions", while supplying the quote in my edit which favors my point which is, that "we all" _tend_ to favor one side or another. Like I said before, I know that we will be at a fundamental disagreement on this point. With that said I understand why you think that is what it means, but I've clearly taken something else away from that, whether if you understand why that is so or not.

Edit: if you are confused about my point, and if you are very sincerely along with being genuine in your interests in wanting to understand my position, then I will explain it this way. There are three groups of people: An extreme extravert and an extreme introvert, these two do not count for the majority of people, and there is a third group, who is less differentiated, but nevertheless still contains one differentiated function and the rest undifferentiated. 

I have taken that statement into consideration, and at first it did throw me for a loop, but after having read Psychological Types to the fullest, I saw something different the further he explained, with the last quote in my last post proving what I saw, that "we all" either tend to one side or the other. Therefore making sure everything stays consistent is where my reasoning from the above paragraph derives from. Which I bet, you very much disagree with.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> This is where strict literal interpretation of Jung looses it's usefulness, in my opinion: What is conscious and unconscious, and function attitudes of secondary functions, with Jung even considering himself to be Ni-Ti (probably not wanting to admit his Fe in my opinion). The role of secondary function(s) according to Jung - gets quite arguable -what he thought - and what he meant
> - and if it has any merit beyond bringing us 8 function categories.
> 
> If I look at real people I know today, I can see secondary functioning, that follows MBTI 16 type structure. How much this said person(s) have awareness of using this function can be seen in many levels or degrees. For example my ESFP Dad may not be aware of how much he uses Fi, for sure he doesn't know what Fi is by name, yet it serves him quite well. It could be debated if he is reactionary because of Se, or if his Se adaptive default state prepares him for quick action when his internalized standards and priorities are at stake.
> ...


-I don't mix MBTI with Psychological types, things have been changed between the two that causes a disruption in interpretation (MBTI Si is one of them)

-People give all types of examples of what "they saw" such as some people think that INTJs use Ti very strongly, while others think ISFJs use Ne strongly, but once again anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean much for me. With anecdotal evidence_ any thing is possible

-following the last point, because people perceive things differently based on their own biases and their own views, even Jung stated that the irrational type can easily see the rational type as irrational and vice versa, he even went on to say that you could take his types and type them from the other perspective, the perspective of the irrational type, where in this case all the types we call rational will now be irrational and so on:



> If observation is restricted to outward behaviour, without any concern for the internal economy of the individual’s consciousness, one may get an even stronger impression of the irrational and fortuitous nature of certain unconscious manifestations than of the reasonableness of his conscious intentions and motivations. I therefore base my judgment on what the individual feels to be his conscious psychology. But I am willing to grant that one could equally well conceive and present such a psychology from precisely the opposite angle. *I am also convinced that, had I myself chanced to possess a different psychology, I would have described the rational types in the reverse way, from the standpoint of the unconscious— as irrational, therefore.*


-I never said an INTP would view their Ne as unconscious, I said that its their most differentiated undifferentiated functions, but to be clear and so you will not misunderstand again, I am saying that Ne for an INTP is their most conscious unconscious function, and because it is slightly undifferentiated, it makes it an undifferentiated function which is not the same as its differentiated counter parts, if and only if you are using Jung as the source of what you define undifferentiated and differentiated as:



> So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions— thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.— that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic (q.v.) condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself.





> We call a mode of behaviour extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. *In these cases the most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted*; in other words, the superior function is the most conscious one and completely under conscious control, whereas the less differentiated functions are in part unconscious and far less under the control of consciousness. *The superior function is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply “happen” to one*.


From what you have presented to me in this thread alone though, I would say that as much as I don't care for anecdotal evidence, or personal interpretations (that deviate away from core concepts), its probably equal to as much as you not caring about statements of a subject. So us getting pass this point seems a bit unlikely because of the two different perspectives and how we go about understanding.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@PaladinX, was there ever a time after the year 1925 that Jung considered Ni to not be in his unconscious, if so can you provide the text or source that states such a thing, because from what I have here is that Jung saw himself as having sensation and thinking as his conscious functions, while intuition and feeling was his unconscious functions, and even corrected MIss Hincks when she asked if he developed his intuition with his thinking:



> Miss Hincks: When you were speaking of bringing up your inferior function, did you mean the one in the unconscious?
> 
> Dr. Jung: Yes
> 
> ...


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> @_PaladinX_, was there ever a time after the year 1925 that Jung considered Ni to not be in his unconscious, if so can you provide the text or source that states such a thing, because from what I have here is that Jung saw himself as having sensation and thinking as his conscious functions, while intuition and feeling was his unconscious functions, and even corrected MIss Hincks when she asked if he developed his intuition with his thinking:


In an interview in the 50s.



Functianalyst said:


> Carl Jung gave his specific type, in this interview. [video=youtube;hD-W-1z_qco]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD-W-1z_qco&feature=related][b[/video][/b]Go to the 8:45 mark and he says that he is capitalized by thinking, uses intuition a great deal also, very little feeling is not practical. He never says, but it’s quite apparent from the narrator’s remarks through the entire interview that he prefers introversion. Thus, he is INTP, but many INTJs say that he claims to be their type. You be the judge.


To be clear, he never specifically says Ni, aka Introverted Intuition.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> In an interview in the 50s.
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, he never specifically says Ni, aka Introverted Intuition.


A lot of people type him as INFJ.

I don't know what his type is, but I find him very, very comfortable to read, and in sync with my own way of thinking. I have a small book on dreams and psychology by him that I like a lot. He draws similar conclusions that I do.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> In an interview in the 50s.
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, he never specifically says Ni, aka Introverted Intuition.


Thank you so much for that video, that just opened my mind to a few things, now I have a few theories about the auxiliary and tertiary, and undifferentiated functions as a whole. Well I wouldn't say these are new theories, but ones that have always been there in the back of my mind while studying differentiated and undifferentiated functions, and his change from sensation to intuition may either prove that, or prove that Jung wasn't very aware of himself in 1925. I'll pm you the theories later on, to see what you have to say on them.

As for the video, if we were to go off of what he said, he would've either been an ENTJ or INTP, or at least he claims, but he has always associated himself with introversion, so I would have to agree with the poster of that video, that he is indeed an INTP, or the INTP is the closest thing to match his psyche.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> A lot of people type him as INFJ.
> 
> I don't know what his type is, but I find him very, very comfortable to read, and in sync with my own way of thinking. I have a small book on dreams and psychology by him that I like a lot. He draws similar conclusions that I do.


Agreed, he has been very comfortable to read, which others tend to disagree with at time, but I have never seen him as an INFJ. ISTP and INTP has always been my go to for his types.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Jung and Freud knew they were pioneering with their ideas. People like Beebe and Thompson consider themselves to be Jungian and @Shadow Logic, you and I could both agree that many loose interpretations out there lack something. I am only saying that today we have more understanding of what consciousness is - broader and deeper and still not conclusive.

So either strict interpretation of Jung, or disregard for what Jung and Freud were trying to do, in terms of understanding personality - either end is extreme and limiting in counter-productive ways.

Once we get into *attitudes* of the secondary function(s) and exactly what the helping functions mean and do - I am off the Jung train. But his original 8 descriptions, 4 with contrasting I and E attitudes each point to something important and useful. The main problem I have with MBTI is not 16 types, I believe 16 types are demonstrable in reality and resonance and long standing interest and use. How types are described as lists of behavior instead of understanding and tracing differences of process or method is where I think it gets ridiculous online.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Jung and Freud knew they were pioneering with their ideas. People like Beebe and Thompson consider themselves to be Jungian and @Shadow Logic, you and I could both agree that many loose interpretations out there lack something. I am only saying that today we have more understanding of what consciousness is - broader and deeper and still not conclusive.
> 
> So either strict interpretation of Jung, or disregard for what Jung and Freud were trying to do, in terms of understanding personality - either end is extreme and limiting in counter-productive ways.
> 
> Once we get into *attitudes* of the secondary function(s) and exactly what the helping functions mean and do - I am off the Jung train. But his original 8 descriptions, 4 with contrasting I and E attitudes each point to something important and useful. The main problem I have with MBTI is not 16 types, I believe 16 types are demonstrable in reality and resonance and long standing interest and use. How types are described as lists of behavior instead of understanding and tracing differences of process or method is where I think it gets ridiculous online.


That's understandable, but what I don't think you are quite understanding from my point is this, if we today define consciousness as something completely different from how Jung or Freud defined it, then guess what, we aren't describing the *same* concept. I can agree that our concepts of the conscious mind may be different from Jung, its not like he and Freud are patent holders to the concept of consciousness. 10 years from now scientist could describe the consciousness in a way that would be synonymous to Jung's unconscious, so guess what I won't do, I won't say Jung was wrong and we are right today while beating my chest, instead I'll explain that what we describe consciousness as is synonymous to how Jung described his concept of unconsciousness.

The key point is Im focused on the concept from the perspective of the conceptual holder, not what the collective agrees on. If we were discussing Freudian concepts, I wouldn't disagree with Freud's concept of consciousness/unconsciousness just because it doesn't match up with Jung's, or the collectives. Instead I would focus on discussing exactly what Freud defined his concepts as. 

*The most basic example to describe my point is this: if I defined a square for you (before anyone has ever defined it) as a shape with 4 corners with 90 degrees, and 4 sides of equal length. So then you go out in the real world to find it, to find the exact concept I'm defining from my own mind, but then you return with a shape that only has 3 corners and 3 sides of equal length (triangle), then the fact stands that you interpreted me wrong. You can argue with me all you want about how the triangle is the true square, or how the collective defines the square as the triangle, or how its not consistent with what you think a square is, but the fact will still stand that you (the interpretor) has inevitably interpreted my (the conceptual holder) concept wrong. No matter how much you want to argue or fight about, it still won't change the fact that what I defined is what I defined, and you didn't find the thing I defined. Could I use all the other definitions in different discussions? Yes and I will depending on the discussion we are having.*

So when it comes to all the different definitions going around, I use different ones based on different discussions. You want to discuss Freudian concepts, then that means I won't be including Jungian ones to describe the Freudian ones. If you want to talk about modern day definitions, then I won't be utilizing the definitions of old to describe the definitions of new. If you want me to translate them over, then I will, but I won't state "Jung and Freud are wrong because they don't conform to modern days rah rah rah" because the concepts are different, and for the collective they are always changing. Seriously what you are proposing is the equivalent of trying to describe the bible by using the Quran, it just doesn't work and never will.

This discussion is on Jungian concepts, not Freud's, not modern day, not Schiller, not the collective, not yours, but Jung's which derive from Jung, so in order to understand them then I will go and understand the concepts the way he meant them and defined them. If you want me to translate them over to modern times definitions then I will if that makes you happy, and if there isn't a name for it in modern days, then we can make a name for it. That's how concepts work, when you define a concept and someone defines it differently and contradictory to yours, the guess what, you two are talking about two different concepts, not the same concept.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Your analogy assumes Jung's words are timeless - they are not. His ideas may have some timelessness to them like a square or a rectangle. His words have meaning in the context of his times. Subject, object, rationals, irrationals, movement, action, ego, and differentiation when we consider how consciousness is defined or understood, even his observation of something he labels Fe - all has a specific context that defines the meaning of his words. He uses literary tools of compare and contrast. This is why I made mention of the Bible, and how making a line by line direct quote may not be as honest as a paraphrase that adjusts for the meanings derived from context and historical perspective.

But anyway @Shadow Logic, you have made this an interesting thread


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> That's understandable, but what I don't think you are quite understanding from my point is this, if we today define consciousness as something completely different from how Jung or Freud defined it, then guess what, we aren't describing the *same* concept. I can agree that our concepts of the conscious mind may be different from Jung, its not like he and Freud are patent holders to the concept of consciousness. 10 years from now scientist could describe the consciousness in a way that would be synanymous to Jung's unconscious, so guess what I won't do, I won't say Jung was wrong and we are right today while beating my chest, instead I'll explain that what we describe consciousness as is synanymous to how Jung described his concept of unconsciousness.
> 
> The key point is Im focused on the concept from the perspective of the conceptual holder, not what the collective agrees on. If we were discussing Freudian concepts, I wouldn't disagree with Freud's concept of consciousness/unconsciousness just because it doesn't match up with Jung's, or the collectives. Instead I would focus on discussing exactly what Freud defined his concepts as.
> 
> ...


I think you mean *synonymous.

Anyway, continue. :kitteh:


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Ne is extroverted in a way that creates me to jump around in my thoughts, whether I'm alone, or speaking with other people. The strange part about it is I don't ALWAYS express to people when my Ne is going crazy. I'm often in INFP mood, so therefore I'm either spending time one on one, or by myself. I actually keep a lot of my Ne to myself, I don't always have the motivation to try and explain to others how I see what is happening around me, how the dots are connecting etc. Most people who frown and think I'm crazy, I don't let that bother me one bit, I trust my intuition and often believe I'm 100 steps ahead of them anyway.:kitteh:


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Your analogy assumes Jung's words are timeless - they are not. His ideas may have some timelessness to them like a square or a rectangle. His words have meaning in the context of his times. Subject, object, rationals, irrationals, movement, action, ego, and differentiation when we consider how consciousness is defined or understood, even his observation of something he labels Fe - all has a specific context that defines the meaning of his words. He uses literary tools of compare and contrast. This is why I made mention of the Bible, and how making a line by line direct quote may not be as honest as a paraphrase that adjusts for the meanings derived from context and historical perspective.
> 
> But anyway @Shadow Logic, you have made this an interesting thread


Concepts are timeless, some belong to the collective, while other belong to the individual. I wouldn't use the collectives concepts if I wanted to understand your personal concepts. If I wanted to understand your personal concepts then I will have to agree to your definitions, because if I don't then most likely I will misunderstand you. I don't think it an intellectual thing to try to understand Plato from the perspective of Kant, I rather understand both philosophers for what they are are describing and defining. Just because you change the definition doesn't mean you proved a concept wrong, all it means is you changed the concept. Now you are right about one thing, that it is of up most necessity to understand Jung from a historical perspective, from a perspective of a man who just got over his own psychosis, entering back into the field of psychology/psychiatry, in the early 1920s along with understanding the concepts as he defined them. You don't have to agree with them, but if you want to understand *him* then you are going to have to understand that the concepts that he defined are not the concepts the collective agree too, or that you have in mind, they are his concepts from his mind defined precisely and with fixity for you, the interpretor to understand what it is that he means, to understand the his perspective, to see with his eyes. Using concepts that don't belong to him to describe what he was trying to mean is going to be wrong every time, because they aren't his concepts. Im not saying you can't talk about the unconscious/conscious without using Jung, I'm saying that if youre going to discuss Jung's concepts of the unconscious/conscious then you are going to have to understand them the way Jung did, the way defined them, its the only way to stay consistent and to understand completely. The isn't about whether he is right or wrong, or whether someone else is more right or wrong than him, this is simply about understanding his work, in the way that he defined it.

Thank you, and I hope some of the people reading may get something out of it, may realize something that they once didn't before.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> I think you mean *synonymous.
> 
> Carry on. :kitteh:


Thank you, I'll go make those corrections. I usually just rush these through to keep up with my thoughts, so misspellings are a frequent site on forums like these :tongue:


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> Thank you, I'll go make those corrections. I usually just rush these through to keep up with my thoughts, so misspellings are a frequent site on forums like these :tongue:


Yeah, I understand. Verbalizing into text is why it happens, I think. I get kind of...










Sometimes. :kitteh:


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Can anyone tell me how to think about this stuff without making my head hurt? 

Thanks.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

I've read Jung, not every book or paper. Where you and I @_Shadow Logic_ disagree is the accuracy or necessity of your strict line by line assertions, for understanding the meaning of Jung himself - insofar as it would pertain to the OP. 

In regard to the OP, seem to be having trouble loading img but I will try this below.

When you understand Jung is looking at differences of focus and priorities of processing - not the content or even the actions of a persons life, then you can use Jung to understand yourself and other people. What I see around a forum like this sometimes, people defending who they are, or trying to be something they are not. My interpretation of Jung's types is that he is showing us these strong contrasts to make a point of how we all choose our reality and the world we operate in, what we focus on. 

His irrational functions are simply functions you do not actively choose. You can choose conditions or environments conducive to p functions but p functions are not what you do. I and E, again is not what you do but more where you are looking. It follows that an extrovert understands himself and the world, according to an orientation to or in the world outside himself, and the introvert, as well as an introverted function is operating in an internally reflective mode, seeing the brick by brick internal process, or inner states.







have to click it I guess.


----------

