# Sticky  Functions, and how they work.



## luemb

This is for me to see if my understanding of what is meant by different cognitive functions is right. I'm a Te user, so I like to have a system of understanding things that everyone can agree upon as being right. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Perceiving Functions

Here's a fantastic piece of art from one of the ISFPs. (Do you mind me using it? If you do, I will remove it and use one of my own creations.)


Sovia said:


>


Se will notice the vividness of the colours, the details of the lines and shapes, and immerse themselves in enjoying the objects and colours and details. 
Si will notice the details in terms of the subconscious impression they make on the person, their own personal interpretation of what they see, relating it back to past experiences and eternal images from the unconscious. 
Ne will see alternate meanings, alternate ways of interpreting the picture, suggestions of metaphors or the art may catalyse action from the ideas present in it. 
Ni will be focused on the significance of the subject and its meaning from different possible perspectives, it may represent or spark some insight into their own personal understanding of the world, it may symbolize universal concepts. 

So now, to go from that example to using more technical language to describe how it works. 
- Se notices the details. Attention is captured by the object, separate from the self, and is held by experiencing the outer world in rich detail. it is an objective function, ie it gains energy by focusing on what is readily observable in the real world. Vivid experiences energize Se. 
- Ne is also an objective function. How it differs from Se is that it does not notice physical, concrete objects, but it notices the ideas or concepts inherent or present in these objects. Every object can suggest ideas and possibilities. Playing with ideas, concepts, metaphors, and meanings of words energize Ne. 
- Si is a subjective function. Instead of noticing the object, the impression, meaning, significance or "rightness" of an object is noticed by Si. Awareness of the actual object itself is repressed, but the personal representation of the object is heightened. New impressions are connected to past or known impressions, even to universal images. Positive or negative sensations may be connected with the subjective representation of the object. 
- Ni is also a subjective function, but it is the subjective side of intuition. Ideas and concepts are important in the impression they make on the person, and the personal subjective value of them. Concepts and patterns of universal importance draw Ni's attention, and understanding the concepts, perspectives, and underlying assumptions that shape the world fascinates Ni. 


Judging Functions

I don't really have an example for these. So I'll just give some brief descriptions. 

- Fi is a subjective value-based reasoning that allows the user to make judgements based on personal ideas of what has value and what does not, and what is right and what is not. Fi dominants focus on refining their value judgements, for example their ideas of right and wrong.
- Fe is an objective value-based reasoning that ascribes value when everyone can agree upon it. 
- Te is objective reasoning based on observable facts. Decisions are made based on impersonal standards. Te is objective in that the logic used should be universally understood and agreed upon. 
- Ti is subjective impersonal reasoning. It involves clarifying concepts by breaking them down into the smallest possible parts. Ti desires to build a logically complete system to understand something, or the world in general. 

That's all for now, as I'm rather tired. I may be adding more later. 

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. 

Here are my two main sources: 
Some great descriptions of function characteristics: http://www.enfpforum.com/Wiki/tabid/56/Default.aspx?topic=Cognitive+Functions
Jung's original work: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm


----------



## LiquidLight

Fantastic.


----------



## suicidal_orange

I agree, that's an awesome picture @Sovia :happy:

When I look at it I'm drawn to the image in the water drop, trying to work out if it's inverted horizontally, vertically, or both. It looks like both, but that doesn't go well with my (rusty :blushed understanding of the laws of refraction, so I'm tempted to recreate a similar scene to check. I could look it up but that wouldn't be as fun! But would that be Se noticing the details in the foreground and background don't fit or Ne seeing a water drop and thinking of the principle of refraction? I'm not sure.

I was going to comment on how precise these descriptions are, but I think they're too precise for me.


----------



## BlissfulDreams

Thanks for this. Although, now I am even more confused.


----------



## luemb

@asmit127 I'm going to say that is Ne and Ti. The words are escaping me at the moment. It isn't Se, as Se doesn't start theorizing or conjecturing. Ne provided you with some ideas for possible theories, and then you needed some Ti to try and figure out which one was right. 

Its actually inverted both ways  

@BlissfulDreams Yeah... I used a lot of technical speak. There are plenty of other threads that discuss characteristics of each function and what results each function produces. I wanted to get down to the core ideas though, the foundation that produces the results that are seen. Maybe later I will write up more about how these functions work together, and what sort of thoughts they produce.


----------



## FillInTheBlank

As far as I can tell, I don't see anything wrong with your description.

When looking at the painting, at first I've noticed the nice colors and how they complemented well with each other. But after staring at it for another minute, I started thinking of how the branch would make a really cool looking golf club. :tongue: With your descriptions, that would be Se and Ne for me


----------



## LiquidLight

> Se will notice the vividness of the colours, the details of the lines and shapes, and immerse themselves in enjoying the objects and colours and details.


I would clarify that Si can do this too. I think there is some confusion about this. Sensing is sensing, its just Si is making comparisons to that which has already been experienced and Se has more of a perspective of emergent experiences.


----------



## Sovia

listentothemountains said:


> This is for me to see if my understanding of what is meant by different cognitive functions is right. I'm a Te user, so I like to have a system of understanding things that everyone can agree upon as being right. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Perceiving Functions
> 
> Here's a fantastic piece of art from one of the ISFPs. (Do you mind me using it? If you do, I will remove it and use one of my own creations.)
> 
> Se will notice the vividness of the colours, the details of the lines and shapes, and immerse themselves in enjoying the objects and colours and details.
> Si will notice the details in terms of the subconscious impression they make on the person, their own personal interpretation of what they see, relating it back to past experiences and eternal images from the unconscious.
> Ne will see alternate meanings, alternate ways of interpreting the picture, suggestions of metaphors or the art may catalyse action from the ideas present in it.
> Ni will be focused on the significance of the subject and its meaning from different possible perspectives, it may represent or spark some insight into their own personal understanding of the world, it may symbolize universal concepts.
> 
> So now, to go from that example to using more technical language to describe how it works.
> - Se notices the details. Attention is captured by the object, separate from the self, and is held by experiencing the outer world in rich detail. it is an objective function, ie it gains energy by focusing on what is readily observable in the real world. Vivid experiences energize Se.
> - Ne is also an objective function. How it differs from Se is that it does not notice physical, concrete objects, but it notices the ideas or concepts inherent or present in these objects. Every object can suggest ideas and possibilities. Playing with ideas, concepts, metaphors, and meanings of words energize Ne.
> - Si is a subjective function. Instead of noticing the object, the impression, meaning, significance or "rightness" of an object is noticed by Si. Awareness of the actual object itself is repressed, but the personal representation of the object is heightened. New impressions are connected to past or known impressions, even to universal images. Positive or negative sensations may be connected with the subjective representation of the object.
> - Ni is also a subjective function, but it is the subjective side of intuition. Ideas and concepts are important in the impression they make on the person, and the personal subjective value of them. Concepts and patterns of universal importance draw Ni's attention, and understanding the concepts, perspectives, and underlying assumptions that shape the world fascinates Ni.
> 
> 
> Judging Functions
> 
> I don't really have an example for these. So I'll just give some brief descriptions.
> 
> - Fi is a subjective value-based reasoning that allows the user to make judgements based on personal ideas of what has value and what does not, and what is right and what is not. Fi dominants focus on refining their value judgements, for example their ideas of right and wrong.
> - Fe is an objective value-based reasoning that ascribes value when everyone can agree upon it.
> - Te is objective reasoning based on observable facts. Decisions are made based on impersonal standards. Te is objective in that the logic used should be universally understood and agreed upon.
> - Ti is subjective impersonal reasoning. It involves clarifying concepts by breaking them down into the smallest possible parts. Ti desires to build a logically complete system to understand something, or the world in general.
> 
> That's all for now, as I'm rather tired. I may be adding more later.
> 
> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Here are my two main sources:
> Some great descriptions of function characteristics: ENFP Wiki
> Jung's original work: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


Wow, thank you so much. It filled my heart up with joy to see this here :happy:
You are more than welcome to use it and any of my other pieces, it is my pleasure.


----------



## Sovia

asmit127 said:


> I agree, that's an awesome picture @Sovia :happy:


Thank you so much ^_^


----------



## Essay

listentothemountains said:


> Ne will see alternate meanings, alternate ways of interpreting the picture, suggestions of metaphors or the art may catalyse action from the ideas present in it.
> Ni will be focused on the significance of the subject and its meaning from different possible perspectives, it may represent or spark some insight into their own personal understanding of the world, it may symbolize universal concepts.


Sorry, I didn't get very far, but I find this part a bit off. I'd argue that Ni is more interested in metaphor than Ne. Ne seems to tend more towards metonymy: seeing a part of a possible whole that keeps expanding towards an even bigger network of possibilities. Ni is more interested in the system-building that metaphors are so good for. At least in my mind.

EDIT: The rest seems bang on though.


----------



## LiquidLight

Essay said:


> Sorry, I didn't get very far, but I find this part a bit off. I'd argue that Ni is more interested in metaphor than Ne. Ne seems to tend more towards metonymy: seeing a part of a possible whole that keeps expanding towards an even bigger network of possibilities. Ni is more interested in the system-building that metaphors are so good for. At least in my mind.
> 
> EDIT: The rest seems bang on though.


Yes but his definition of Ni isn't incorrect though. One of the manifestations of Ni will be the underlying significances (really synthesizing possibilities down to a self-coherent symbolic meaning).


----------



## luemb

Essay said:


> Sorry, I didn't get very far, but I find this part a bit off. I'd argue that Ni is more interested in metaphor than Ne. Ne seems to tend more towards metonymy: seeing a part of a possible whole that keeps expanding towards an even bigger network of possibilities. Ni is more interested in the system-building that metaphors are so good for. At least in my mind.
> 
> EDIT: The rest seems bang on though.


Thanks for your clarification. Metonymy is a really good descriptive idea for what Ne is like.


----------



## Worriedfunction

Nice picture and post. :happy:

As soon as I looked at that picture I had an idea of some ethereal plane of existance beyond normal human reckoning. Perhaps a place of unearthly powers.

In any case I love it for it's eerie beauty.

^Would you say that was Ne? Or Ni? Or neither?


----------



## Donovan

@listentothemountains



> Maybe later I will write up more about how these functions work together, and what sort of thoughts they produce.


--that would be very interesting (the sort of thing i've been thinking about but haven't had any luck finding information on). it would be especially interesting since when i first looked at the picture my mind immediately started coming up with questions as to what it was that i was looking at:

*"what is this?"
*"is it a painting?"
*"is it a picture that someone has painted over?"
*"is it digital?"
*"how did they get this effect?"

in any case, i'm not sure what functions those are (Ni+Se augmented with Ti--initial concrete information intake that gets whittled down through more information being brought in--noticing that the areas that represent the "highlights" are too defined in regards to the picture as a whole and then changing the assumption?), but it would be fun to read about the mapping between functions and the result that comes from the combination. 

anyhow, cool thread and awesome pic @Sovia.


----------



## Mind Swirl

celticstained said:


> *"what is this?"
> *"is it a painting?"
> *"is it a picture that someone has painted over?"
> *"is it digital?"
> *"how did they get this effect?"
> 
> in any case, i'm not sure what functions those are (Ni+Se augmented with Ti--initial concrete information intake that gets whittled down through more information being brought in--noticing that the areas that represent the "highlights" are too defined in regards to the picture as a whole and then changing the assumption?)


Your thought process is very similar to mine on this. I wasn't sure where to classify them either. They went something like this:

-"Interesting, is this thread going to be about the functions ISFPs use in art? (before I read to the bottom)"
-"Ah, a painting of a droplet in a forest. Nice reflection and bright color, it has a good tone to it. Is it a picture that someone has painted over, was it referenced?" 
-"I wonder why they chose the subject specifically. People do like droplets it seems. Maybe it's the upside-down reflections make them interesting, plus they're in a tiny world" 
-"Is this digital paint? It looks digital. They might have/could have used such-and-such methods"


----------



## suicidal_orange

asmit127 said:


> When I look at it I'm drawn to the image in the water drop, trying to work out if it's inverted horizontally, vertically, or both. It looks like both, but that doesn't go well with my (rusty :blushed understanding of the laws of refraction, so I'm tempted to recreate a similar scene to check. I could look it up but that wouldn't be as fun! But would that be Se noticing the details in the foreground and background don't fit or Ne seeing a water drop and thinking of the principle of refraction? I'm not sure.





listentothemountains said:


> I'm going to say that is Ne and Ti. The words are escaping me at the moment. It isn't Se, as Se doesn't start theorizing or conjecturing. Ne provided you with some ideas for possible theories, and then you needed some Ti to try and figure out which one was right.





LiquidLight said:


> I would clarify that Si can [notice the vividness of the colours, the details of the lines and shapes, and immerse themselves in enjoying the objects and colours and details] too. I think there is some confusion about this. Sensing is sensing, its just Si is making comparisons to that which has already been experienced and Se has more of a perspective of emergent experiences.


I'm still struggling to interpret my reaction, especially given the ... interesting? :laughing: thoughts of the two Ne users. Does that I thought the inversion looked 'wrong' not suggest Si comparing the picture to my (faulty) past perception? It's cold and dry again here so I had to look it up rather than experiment but I had to know - the double inversion is true to reality. Or is my Ne just tempered by dominant Ti...


----------



## Eric B

listentothemountains said:


> Ne will see alternate meanings, alternate ways of interpreting the picture, suggestions of metaphors or the art may catalyse action from the ideas present in it.
> 
> - Ne is also an objective function. How it differs from Se is that it does not notice physical, concrete objects, but it notices the ideas or concepts inherent or present in these objects. Every object can suggest ideas and possibilities. Playing with ideas, concepts, metaphors, and meanings of words energize Ne.


 When I first saw the picture, I thought it was a real photo. Then, I wondered "why's he calling it "art"? This led me to take another look (at the details), and I could then see it was painted (particularly from the blurry background strokes, and the edges of the water drop.

I then though "wow; that is so good", and it reminded me of really good CGI graphics in animation. 

I guess that's a a combination of Ne and Si.
In any case, the attention to the emergent details always comes later.


> Judging Functions
> 
> I don't really have an example for these.


These are very similar to the examples of the functions Berens and Nardi give in their books. 
Te would be about "organizing" something, such as perhaps, marketing the painting; Ti would be about "analyzing", like looking at what techniques makes it look so real; Fe about its obvious affect on others, like how this would look nice on the wall, and Fi about its deep affect on others, like how it might raise people's spirits or something.


----------



## luemb

LiquidLight said:


> Yes but his definition of Ni isn't incorrect though. One of the manifestations of Ni will be the underlying significances (really synthesizing possibilities down to a self-coherent symbolic meaning).


Yes! Ok, so Ne is an extroverted function, in that all the world is teeming with ideas and concepts. The ideas are out there to be experienced. When using Ni, on the other hand, because of the subjective factor, some ideas and concepts make stronger impressions, leading to the user to give more weighting to some ideas and less to others. Thus, Ne experiences a profusion of ideas, but Ni synthesizes the important ones to come to a self-coherent system of making sense of the world. The symbolic meaning is because it is intuition, and the ideas themselves are best encapsulated using symbols. 



Worriedfunction said:


> Nice picture and post. :happy:
> 
> As soon as I looked at that picture I had an idea of some ethereal plane of existance beyond normal human reckoning. Perhaps a place of unearthly powers.
> 
> In any case I love it for it's eerie beauty.
> 
> ^Would you say that was Ne? Or Ni? Or neither?


That is Ne. I'll try to explain why, so let me start by quoting wikipedia on Metonymy.


> Metonymy: a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept. For instance, "Hollywood" is used as a metonym (an instance of metonymy) for US cinema, because of the fame and cultural identity of Hollywood, a district of Los Angeles, California as the historical center of movie studios and movie stars. Another example is "Westminster," which is used as a metonym for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, because it is located there.


So what happened here is that you associated this picture with


> some ethereal plane of existance beyond normal human reckoning. Perhaps a place of unearthly powers.


In metonymy, a thing or concept is called by a different name based on a concept that is associated with that concept. What happened to you was your mind starts with an object and associates it with another thing or concept, not immediately apparent in it, but that could be connected to it. 



celticstained said:


> --that would be very interesting (the sort of thing i've been thinking about but haven't had any luck finding information on). it would be especially interesting since when i first looked at the picture my mind immediately started coming up with questions as to what it was that i was looking at:
> 
> *"what is this?"
> *"is it a painting?"
> *"is it a picture that someone has painted over?"
> *"is it digital?"
> *"how did they get this effect?"
> 
> in any case, i'm not sure what functions those are (Ni+Se augmented with Ti--initial concrete information intake that gets whittled down through more information being brought in--noticing that the areas that represent the "highlights" are too defined in regards to the picture as a whole and then changing the assumption?), but it would be fun to read about the mapping between functions and the result that comes from the combination.
> 
> anyhow, cool thread and awesome pic @Sovia.


Thanks Celticstained... there have been other threads around discussing how the perceiving functions work together so I was going to start off with some ideas generated from them. Here's a link to one thread with ideas that I might start off with. I'm also thinking about using a picture to explain the judging functions, but I have to find a good one to use. 

Since both celticstained and Mindswirl are quite similar, I'll just go through yours Mindswirl and point out functions. I've added comments in bold. 


Mind Swirl said:


> Your thought process is very similar to mine on this. I wasn't sure where to classify them either. They went something like this:
> 
> -"Interesting, is this thread going to be about the functions ISFPs use in art? (before I read to the bottom)" *Ni -> expectations of the future based on a few details *
> -"Ah, a painting of a droplet in a forest. Nice reflection and bright color, it has a good tone to it. Is it a picture that someone has painted over, was it referenced?" *Se and then a judging function*
> -"I wonder why they chose the subject specifically. People do like droplets it seems. Maybe it's the upside-down reflections make them interesting, plus they're in a tiny world" *Ni*
> -"Is this digital paint? It looks digital. They might have/could have used such-and-such methods" *Te mostly -> looking for a system of doing something, the steps that would be required.*





asmit127 said:


> I'm still struggling to interpret my reaction, especially given the ... interesting? :laughing: thoughts of the two Ne users. Does that I thought the inversion looked 'wrong' not suggest Si comparing the picture to my (faulty) past perception? It's cold and dry again here so I had to look it up rather than experiment but I had to know - the double inversion is true to reality. Or is my Ne just tempered by dominant Ti...


Yes I would think that you did use Si at first to notice that the one looked off compared to past impressions of details. Did it come as a sort of sensation of something being a bit weird, but you weren't quite sure why? Using Si, the details make a subconscious impression of rightness or wrongness, a feeling that something may be off, or else right. Then, however, your Ne and Ti kicked in to see if they could figure out what was going on.


----------



## huiwcleon

I just read the Ni part. It's too abstract to a extent that it's incomprehensible. 

My example would be when Ni user looks at the image, he pauses for a second, then he notices the gravity and water cohension give the shape of water drop. After that, he will notice the light is passing through the water drop like through a convex lens. Something like that.


----------



## luemb

huiwcleon said:


> I just read the Ni part. It's too abstract to a extent that it's incomprehensible.
> 
> My example would be when Ni user looks at the image, he pauses for a second, then he notices the gravity and water cohension give the shape of water drop. After that, he will notice the light is passing through the water drop like through a convex lens. Something like that.


There are tons of examples floating around of cognitive functions. But, in order to evaluate whether the examples are correct or not, we need a deep, abstract understanding of what each of these cognitive functions really are. So, feel free to go back and evaluate your own example. What part of what you wrote is Ni itself, as a function? What part is your personal way of understanding the world, ie the results of your Ni building a subjective system of understanding the world? What part of that is influenced by having Te as opposed to Fe as axillary function? 

Examples show the outcome, the results, without explaining the underlying mechanism. Your example is Ni, but can you explain why?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

Owfin said:


> I hate it when old threads are brought up again and I no longer agree with what I said. :bored:


hahah, me too. It makes me cringe


----------



## BPReed92

This is my understanding of the functions. I simplified them so I and others can more easily understand them. Correct me if I am wrong in my understanding.


*Perceiving

*The image in the first post of this thread shows a drop of water hanging on the edge of a branch. The background is blurry and keeps your focus on the branch. The image shows bright greens and dark browns, providing great contrast in color. The clearest part of the image is what is shown within the water drop.

*Se:* I see a stick with water on it. The picture has great detail and vivid colors.
*Si:* The water drop reminds me of when it would rain a lot back home.
*Ne:* That branch looks like asparagus. What if asparagus were once spears? I got cut today.
*Ni:* One sees a branch, another sees a brush. One shows beauty, the other inspires.

Contrast Differences
*Se:* Sees the details. Focuses on the details.
*Si:* Sees the details. Focuses on the details, and what they mean to the individual.

*Ne:* Sees the picture. Thinks of abstract ideas related to the objects observed.
*Ni:* Sees the picture. Thinks of concrete ideas related to the objects observed.


*Judging

*If you were playing chess with a kid, what thoughts would come to mind?

*Te:* I can't move my Pawn forward because another piece is in its way.
*Ti:* Pawns start on rows 2 and 7. It only takes two turns for them to be adjacent.
*Fe:* I feel it would be mean to beat a kid, and I know others would agree.
*Fi:* Others say beating a kid is mean, but I know teaching a lesson is more important.

Contrast Differences
*Te:* Thinks about the details. Analyses the rules.
*Ti:* Thinks about the details. Analyses the mechanics.

*Fe:* Thinks about the situation. Considers group values, and the impact on those involved.
*Fi:* Thinks about the situation. Considers personal values, what they think is right.


----------



## Ellis Bell

Interesting analogies, except I might switch Fe and Fi. Fe is more about thinking about the social harmony of others (eg, thinking about how the kid will feel); Fi projects its own value set on the group, if it thinks about the group at all.


----------



## BPReed92

Thanks for the input. I was thinking along those lines before, but went along with what someone else told me (they have more experience with personality types than me.). If I'm not very knowledgeable on a subject, I tend to be easily persuaded. After researching Fe vs Fi a bit though, it sounds like you know what's correct. I switched Fe and Fi traits, and changed their descriptions a bit.

I never thought of this until today, but I think everyone generally shares the same initial reaction. People often mistake their initial reaction as them using a function.

For example, if loud music (hurting your ears loud.) suddenly starts playing, people will first notice the pain to their ears. After the pain, some will make different actions. Some will turn the sound down, and some will notice that it's their favorite song playing. Same way when someone sees a picture, they will notice if it is colored or black and white. But what they do next is the question. Do they study the colors and details more closely? Or do they notice a person in the picture who looks like a celebrity?

If my thinking is correct, then that might be where the confusion comes from. I thought I had dominant Se. I do pay attention to the details and notice the beauty in a picture, but I don't necessarily study the details. I may instead take notice that the branch looks like a paint brush.


----------



## The Wanderering ______

I had a question. I think I have extroverted Intuition, but I can sometimes see extroverted sensing in me. For instance I can sometimes smell distinctive smells that tell me when certain people have been. Also I can hear things and instantly Visualize in my mind what that thing is. So does that mean I am an Extraverted sensor, not an extraverted Intuitive?


----------



## Eric B

That sounds like it could be _introverted_ Sensing (it looks like focus on a storehouse of data, rather than just the emergent data by itself). And INFJ is neither Si or Ne, though Se is inferior. 
Really, that is not necessarily type specific at all, as anyone can smell or hear things, really. It's whether it's your _preferred_ way of taking in information.


----------



## The Wanderering ______

Eric B said:


> That sounds like it could be _introverted_ Sensing (it looks like focus on a storehouse of data, rather than just the emergent data by itself). And INFJ is neither Si or Ne, though Se is inferior.
> Really, that is not necessarily type specific at all, as anyone can smell or hear things, really. It's whether it's your _preferred_ way of taking in information.


No I meant I can pick up distinctive smells about people. I guess that could be introverted sensing, but sometimes I don't think it is. For instance I've recently picked up a strong smell of what smells like, cologne, fish and old feet. I've started to assume that it is my grandad because the smell wasn't there before until he showed up and I came to the conclusion that the cause of the smell is that he hasn't bathed in a while or since he got here. (He's kind of.... fragile). So would that be extraverted sensing or introverted sensing? Either I still don't think I am a sensing dom-. All my results on Keys2cognition would indicate that.


----------



## CIGgyStar

im entp can someone tell me what i am on the example lol


----------



## CIGgyStar

and also what is intj??


----------



## NonyaBiznus

I saw the picture and played a video of the water droplet falling, and then thought about the forces that would be acting upon the the droplet, how it would affect the twig, and what it would look like when it hit the ground.

Was this Ne playing out a possible scenario, and Ti following it up and analyzing? Did anyone else have something similar happen to them?


----------



## SnootchieBootchie

Thanks for this man really helped


----------



## Mammon

I first noticed it's detail and that the branch looks like a pipe along with the droplet. On a quick glance it looked quite real. Then a dude came to mind








He and a bunch of others are looking for something. He seems to be fascinated by the beauty of nature so he's taking pictures. Can't blame him, nature can sure be pretty. What are they doing there anyway? Are they looking for a holy place? An ancient tomb plagued by myths? An asteriod that crashed glowing purple and a extraterrestial friend along with it or something in it which grants powers? Perhaps an ancient place with something that used to be worshipped, something 'from the heavens'? A holy place for the few? How close are they to finding it? Will they ever? Are their intentions good? Are they aware that certain creatures might be watching them? Gaurdians of what they are trying to find? What have they already seen?

Maybe it's in another world where things are way bigger. They got trapped into another world while looking for something on Earth which turned against them or they met a fcking crazy jungle wizard who has shrunken them down.

Or perhaps it is a bug's view. 

No. It's a painting. A painting of a water droplet falling of off a branch after a pouring of rain.


----------



## Jit

The first time I read your post I completely ignored that picture thinking of it as decoration. Even while going through the post I never felt the urge to look at it but rather felt that you could probably avoid using it altogether since rest of your post makes sense even if the picture is not there. It could be like if there was a picture then Se would notice vividness of the colors while Ne would see alternate meanings etc.

But then I thought the picture is really beautiful and perhaps most of the readers would love to see it there. So instead of relating the picture to rest of your post, I rather related it to a different purpose altogether.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

I think I just realized that most of what it thought to be "Te" around here is probably the epitome of "concrete thinking" to Jung (you know, like the kind of stuff that can't transgress ideas of what thinking is collectively considered to be relative to what it could be in a more impersonally abstract sense). Extreme inferior thinking would probably be that kind of cartoonish, dogmatically subjective thinking you might get with people who declare something to be "the truth" about the merit of something (MBTI, anyone?).


----------



## luemb

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think I just realized that most of what it thought to be "Te" around here is probably the epitome of "concrete thinking" to Jung (you know, like the kind of stuff that can't transgress ideas of what thinking is collectively considered to be relative to what it could be in a more impersonally abstract sense). Extreme inferior thinking would probably be that kind of cartoonish, dogmatically subjective thinking you might get with people who declare something to be "the truth" about the merit of something (MBTI, anyone?).


What's your point?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

On second thought, concrete thinking can certainly be clever, but you tend to know it when you see it, basically (and it doesn't have to be an inferior either to be concrete - Jung thought at worst, you can definitely get auxes (tert.) in a concrete state as well that might come off as a dogmatic delivery at worst - like the person is kind of trudging through their thinking without being able to stably reference it against abstract collective ideals - often the thinking that might come off like "...you know what I mean" with undertones of projection behind it - at the very worst, it might be that thinking that thinks in "...duh, no kidding," without a strong ability to relate to/merge with the other person's thought process to help them think something through on their own "level" or in their own "way" - if you ask the person why they think something is obvious, they might just kind of throw their own rationale at you that doesn't really appeal to anything established in a very unbiased, factual way in outer knowledge). MBTI certainly has it's highs, but also has its lows if applied slightly out-of-context, since it's so tightly constructed.

As for something very very important that I just thought of, it's really important to note that Jung stated that perception is NEVER a moral problem, unlike judgement. Any tension between two peoples' worldviews/rationales will certainly be rooted in the judgement functions, but never the perception functions without the influence of judgment (so, projection issues are all issues of judgement that certainly may be filtered through intuition, according to Jung).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

luemb said:


> What's your point?


None really, other than I wanted to contribute something non-mechanical to this thread.


----------



## Entropic

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Extreme inferior thinking would probably be that kind of cartoonish, dogmatically subjective thinking you might get with people who declare something to be "the truth" about the merit of something (MBTI, anyone?).


I could buy that argument if the thinking function is poorly developed and the use is thus not very nuanced.


----------



## angelina.jhon

its really helpfull me me Thanks so so so sooooooo much


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Jung really did not find his function model real or important - I/E was what was particularly important to Jung - the rest was heuristic methodology. He didn't seem to think the functions "worked" in any particular way in the personality other than they reflected an I/E orientation. I mean, you probably get some people who stand out more than others as having a clear-cut type, but when you break it down, it might reveal more than a type on a personal basis. I would put forth the argument that there are people with very well-developed personalities out there who are harder to type from their personality alone, just because they show a lot of self-consideration and have taken care of their unadapted qualities (it is certainly possible to get people who live out of their shadow as well - they would not be mistaken for their opposite though, that's usually quite clear - their dominant type might actually be more evident, due to the inferiorities of their inferior and tertiary - tert's not really "bad" though, but just for conversation sake...). Jung seemed to think a type would be more evident in people who have "broken away from the herd" - not the most PC conversation, but that's what he considered type to be - how one breaks away from the herd. It's hard to quantify the existence of type - I mean, sometimes, it can be really hard to tell how someone is removed from the influences of the herd (that's more of a psychological reality than anything scientific). You might get a lot of things from people on those grounds, but Jung thought that basically, where the person lacks complexes is probably where they have differentiated the function (like, a thinking type or aux. is going to own their thinking function - they should not have complexes associated with it). I tend to find tert./inferior thinking types tend to find that thinking ruins their feelings, while thinking dom/auxes find that it enhances the significance of something to them (they might find evaluation kind of cheap if it's not just about something they really really care about personally). The inferior is the main function that will suffer from complexes (tert. is largely positive relief and might become an issue if the person tries to take it too far above the relief goal - I've never really heard of issues with that function though from any expert). Much of the inferior just heads far into unconscious territory and the greater unknowns of adaptation to a person (it's far removed from how the person goes about their lives in large part). At best, Jung just saw the inferior as a compensation to the persona (self-aware people probably will have a handle on this on their own terms). People who over-identify with a persona probably will not (the inferior and shadow might be very noticeable and reckless in the person). He thought you can get people who have a bunch of inferior functions, technically - that's not uncommon. It's all pretty subjective.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Inferior thinking is kind of clear in the person who might tend to make outrageous statements of ideas (they might say something and not be able to properly back it up or if they do, it's on a cliched basis) - it's not like they're always like that, but the overly egotistical feeling types (those who are "trying" to be feeling types) might be like this. Inferior feeling is kind of the person who's noticeably dissociated from their feelings when matters that cannot be reasoned come up - usually, they'll reference platitudes or just completely lose their heads. Inferior intuition is the person who projects a lot or tends to deny their hunches (they might be in denial or make naive moral judgments or think the worst is going to happen). Inferior sensation is the person who might never really be on the same page as everyone else or if they are, they might feel trapped or non-existent or like they're going to do something they'll regret/unstable. They don't really "share actual experiences" with other people (they might kind of fake their way through that kind of thing). They lack clarity (only intuitives understand each other on this basis). They might seem detached and unpredictable to sensation types.


----------



## Larac

This was really helpful, thank you:tongue:


----------



## Necrox

Nice painting. That water drop is great.


----------



## Pyromaniac

Understanding PerC's CF test;



> Your cognitive functions are, in order of development:
> Ti - Te - Ni - Si - Ne - Se - Fi - Fe


Is this implying that the dominant/auxiliary/tertiary system isn't based on development, then? And that it is possible for a shadow process (Te) to be more developed than an auxiliary (Ni)? What then is the order of TiNeSiFeTeNiSeFi for an INTP related to?


----------



## Eric B

You can't look a the order on those tests. Especially that one. It seems to lack some mechanism the Nardi tests, like Keys 2 Cognition employ, that make it more likely for the top two functions to match a type. This one always seems to be giving INTP's stuff like TiNi or TiTeNi...

Type is the dominant and auxiliary only. For INTP, it's T_N[e]. These are *reflected* by their opposites: S (aux Ne is not as preferred as dom, so Si is not as suppressed as inferior), and F[e] (Ti is most preferred, so Fe is most suppressed). The others are simply the further suppressed opposite orientations of the first four. John Beebe, who came up with that order, says that not too much is to be made of it; it's really only for convenience._


----------



## Pyromaniac

Even so, what do the percentages on the test indicate in themselves? Or is it purely a result of inaccuracy?
I'm thinking the numbers are suggesting which is more likely to be the dominant/auxiliary instead of to what degree they are. So if you were to get TiTeNeNi, you would most likely be an INTP with INTJ as runner up, which would correspond with how it predicts three types in order of compatibility.

So essentially, the dominant and auxiliary are the only constants that must apply to an INTP, and you can theoretically have a TiNeTeSi etc. etc. INTP? I need a book on this :frustrating:


----------



## Eric B

The percentages are based on how high you graded the target questions for each function, and if the functional definitions they are going by are off, you'll have Forer effects (where behavior any type can identify with becomes associated with a particular function).
The functions are not behavior, but the best any test can do to "measure" their preference (or clarity of preference), is to go by certain behaviors, but this is not perfect.

And type was not designed to based on _eight_ functions with i or e orientations built in, but rather four functions, S, N, T and F, with a dominant orientation, which will color the dominant function, and the auxiliary will be assumed to be the opposite orientation. Different complexes will tend to orient the other functions (as well as the first two, in the opposite orientation).
So we can't get too hung up on trying to arrange eight items. So yes, that test tends to pick up the natural general N and T preference, but splits it into the separate orientations of each, and lists them separately like that.


----------



## Pyromaniac

Alrighty, thanks. So would it theoretically be possible for an INTP to have higher Fi (eighth function) than Si (third)? And if so, why are they ordered thus?

And would it be possible to have Ti as dominant and Ni as auxiliary, if Beebe's i/e/i/e model is just for convenience? Really, could you have any order of functions as long as the judging functions are followed by perceiving functions and vice versa, not taking into account the type they would imply? Because both the tests and myself place me with TiNxTeSi. I'm just playing with definitions here.


----------



## Eric B

The question is what do you mean "_higher_"? Circumstances might cause you to behave in a way that would lead you to grade Fi or Ni higher, and these could be the complexes associated with those functions (Senex and Demon).
But if Ne is your default auxiliary, then it doesn't matter how "strong" those other functions may seem to be.


----------



## Pyromaniac

Stronger in development as in.

Maybe so, but say if I had read up on Ni and agreed that it suited both my behaviour and thought processes better. Would it be possible for me to be TiNi? As you said the introvert-extrovert orientation was only meant for convenience.


----------



## Eric B

If you think you're TiNi, then you could be an ISTP or INFJ with a strong tertiary. So then you'd have to see whether Se or Fe are the aux.


----------



## Pyromaniac

Oh, I was just using that for an example. In my case, TiNe suits me well enough and I'm definitely some sort of INTx, but I'm not sure where my Te comes into things (two tests have placed it as my third most developed function and I do believe I'm an all-round thinking person). That may seem contradictory as they process information in different ways, but I think I'll be somewhere in between, in that I formulate a foundation picture through objective reasoning and research, and then inductively seek data externally to support that hypothesis.

So in effect, without taking into consideration Beebe's model that necessitises the alternating between orientations, could I be a TiNeTeSi?


----------



## Eric B

As a T dom., the T will likely be strong enough to cross over into the extraverted realm. Or, in Beebe terminology, Te "back up" Ti.
You really cannot get hung up on 8 function order. TiNeTeSi is not a type, or even a variation of type. (There's a test called Singer-Loomis which reportedly would give you 40,320 "types" based on any possible order of the eight). 
The type is TiNe, or really, iT-N[e], and "i" is just the dominant orientation, which the dominant function normally gets placed in. The other functions and function-e/i combinations are in the background, and it doesn't matter which are "stronger" than the others.


----------



## bearotter

That would depend on preferences, I'd assume -- some might say the T in an introverted thinking type would be the _least_ likely to cross into the extraverted realm in the sense that say, an Fi-dom might find the Fe-dom quintessentially WTF if both are well-defined introverts and extroverts.
Socionics definitely organizes things so that a thinking type can have strong thinking in both orientations with one merely put on the backburner, which isn't too different I guess -- they organize things according to "valued/not valued" and "conscious/not conscious" where the latter is essentially synonymous I believe to choosing a static or dynamic orientation, and the former is organized by pairing your preferred 2 functions in dominant orientation to the opposite functions in the opposite orientation (orientation = static or dynamic). 

I think that's a clear way of looking at it though -- if you're a feeling type you're a feeling type, and if you're an introvert you're an introvert, and you'll generally end up having feeling reasoning proceeding in a different direction than if an extrovert. There are kind of a million theories as to how everything else organizes itself.

I think there is a lot more likelihood that any one such organization will be sensible assuming said organization also is based on stipulating clear delineations of what constitutes a function-attitude and what does not, so that things really do work out according to "the formula."


----------



## Psithurism

@_luemb_ My first reaction to the picture was me fixating on the raindrop and seeing that it is much clearer through it. The first thing that pop in my head was ''maybe life is a bit like that, you have to see things from a certain angle/view for it to be clear, otherwise everyone will remain foggy''. Does that seem more Ne or Ni (or S)?


----------



## luemb

Wistfulness said:


> @_luemb_ My first reaction to the picture was me fixating on the raindrop and seeing that it is much clearer through it. The first thing that pop in my head was ''maybe life is a bit like that, you have to see things from a certain angle/view for it to be clear, otherwise everyone will remain foggy''. Does that seem more Ne or Ni (or S)?


Sounds like Ni to me.  

I definitely encourage reading more and thinking about it more though, feel free to PM me too if you want to.


----------



## Pyromaniac

Thanks everyone.
So, essentially, your cognitive functions can be arranged in any order according to development, and your MBTI is only to interpret the most compatible temperament?


----------



## jonagelle

The artwork is very nice. It is the picture that I remember that a single picture paints a thousand words. It have many message in it. What goes into my mind is that even a small object is so significant. It contains a lot of function. Like the water dew. It is small but reflects a big picture. So it means a small object can mean a lot of thing. Even a small object how more potential of doing something. And whatever you show will be reflected the same way at any angle. So like when you are a good person, at any circumstance you will be as good as on any situation. And whatever you show will also be shown unto to you. If you do good then it will be returned into you. Karma as they say.

Nathanael King is a Clinical Hypnotherapist, NLP practitioner and weight loss & nutritional therapist. He also helps people suffering from panic attacks or social anxiety. He has written a book on how to build confidence instantly using NLP techniques. Please click <a target="_new" href="http://dailyimproveself.com/instantconfidencefree/">here</a> to download now. You can also sign up for weekly newsletter at <a target="_new" href="http://www.SelfProgress.co.uk">http://www.SelfProgress.co.uk</a> for your growth.


----------



## To_august

My first thought was that the picture is very beautiful. I didn't realize that it's a painting and couldn't understand why it's called art, but then I thought - "OK, photography should be art too".
This picture quickly reminded me of National Geographic programs and fantasy novels (that should be Si, right?). I thought it can be a glimpse of a vast jungle, and probably somewhere there lynx is hiding in the greenery and beyond there lies a beautiful land (not sure about the function here)… 
And I just wanted a breath of damp, fresh air and to immerse in the picture (something ‘sensing’ I guess).


----------



## AlwaysQuestionLife

When I saw the picture, I did not think of anything. It did not have any significance to me, so why try to analyze it? There was no stigma to prompt any sort of response like that. I didn't really think of any complex metaphors or anything, like you say my Ne should.


----------



## malachi.holden.3

My first impressions on the image were awe at the ability of the artist. The beauty is there... I just look at it and measure it instead of being captivated by it. I guess this is Ti or Te...

I disagree with the description of extroverted functions being objective and introverted functions being subjective. Fe is a very subjective function... it's based on personal values, not facts or measurable data (forgive me if I'm biased against Feeling types; I appreciate the Feelers for the good they have done for the world, it's just _so_ easy to pick on them. ).

I would think that Te is more extroverted than in the description given. It's definitely a LET'S GO function, which is why ESTJs and ENTJs make such great leaders and CEOs. I find myself using it automatically, usually when describing something to someone. I get this great concept in my head of what I mean, but it comes out as being an uncompromising statement of the way things are.

I like how you describe the perceiving functions: it's important to emphasize how they don't involve decisions or intentions, but they just open your brain up to some sort of stimulation, whether that be in the form of details or concepts.


----------



## Eric B

gross porcelain said:


> Is extroverted objective?





malachi.holden.3 said:


> I disagree with the description of extroverted functions being objective and introverted functions being subjective. Fe is a very subjective function... it's based on personal values, not facts or measurable data (forgive me if I'm biased against Feeling types; I appreciate the Feelers for the good they have done for the world, it's just _so_ easy to pick on them. ).
> 
> I would think that Te is more extroverted than in the description given. It's definitely a LET'S GO function, which is why ESTJs and ENTJs make such great leaders and CEOs. I find myself using it automatically, usually when describing something to someone. I get this great concept in my head of what I mean, but it comes out as being an uncompromising statement of the way things are.


 "Objective" and "subjective" mean different things. 
Look at the way we divide reality, when immersed into it. There's "us" and there's "not us", or everything else. "Us" is the "subject", and "everything else" is the object.
From this meaning, introverted functions are oriented to the inner subject, and extraverted ones are oriented to the outer object.

But reality can also be divided into "objects" as "impersonal" _things_, and living _people_. The inanimate things are just that; they have no subject, and so remain "objects". Each person, however, is his own "subject". So a decision-making function that focuses on impersonal "_object_s" will also have an "objective" quality, and one that focuses on such "personal" elements as "_personal_ values" has a definite "subjective" quality to it.

The difference is "object vs subject" as the standard of the orientation of the function, or whether its's the nature of the elements being judged.


----------



## Zee Bee

Eric B said:


> "Objective" and "subjective" mean different things.
> Look at the way we divide reality, when immersed into it. There's "us" and there's "not us", or everything else. "Us" is the "subject", and "everything else" is the object.
> From this meaning, introverted functions are oriented to the inner subject, and extraverted ones are oriented to the outer object.
> 
> But reality can also be divided into "objects" as "impersonal" _things_, and living _people_. The inanimate things are just that; they have no subject, and so remain "objects". Each person, however, is his own "subject". So a decision-making function that focuses on impersonal "_object_s" will also have an "objective" quality, and one that focuses on such "personal" elements as "_personal_ values" has a definite "subjective" quality to it.
> 
> The difference is "object vs subject" as the standard of the orientation of the function, or whether its's the nature of the elements being judged.



I have been wanting to get a "read" from you Eric, concerning Subjective & Objective Functions.
Would you agree with this explaination.
I saw something really interesting, at a site: http://funkymbtifiction.tumblr.com/‎

*Objective functions - Free of bias*
These facts-based functions can be argued when differences of opinion arise, because none of them are personalized emotions or perceptions. ‎These functions see what is actually there, which is why they are “accurate” in their assessment and predictions.

*Subjective functions - Biased functions*
These are based on personalized perceptions, which means they can’t be argued with over differences of opinion, because they aren’t the facts. ‎These functions interpret reality based on personal factors rather than what really happened or what is actually there. They can be totally irrational but ‎are always paired with a reality-based function.‎
Problems arise when a subjective function overrules an objective function (how you feel causes you to ignore the factual evidence or environment).‎
‎


----------



## Eric B

Pretty much, except that it (I take it, you copied and pasted that from the site. The link itself leads to "Not Found" now) adds in another ambiguous term: "rational/irrational". In our strict use, Feeling is really "rational" like Thinking. Sensing and iNtuition are "irrational". Rational means a mental decision is made. Irrational means information arrives into consciousness involuntarily (like you can't help seeing/hearing something around you, etc).

But then the whole "facts" vs "interpret" sounds a lot like S/N as well. Hence, way back in the beginning, when I first dealt with subjective/objective, I had extended it to S-objective, N-subjective.
But in Jungian and MBTI use, the term gets tossed around between e/i and T/F.


----------



## ESFP100

Thank you so much for the beautiful picture! It delivered visual pleasure to me, I had positive feelings when I looked at it, the color, the contrast, etc. After a minute or so, Mother's milk nourishing a new born infant came into my mind (from that drop of water), I feel the tenderness, the most gentle and selfless love a mother has to her baby and it started became sentimental... in another 30 seconds, the water drop felt like the emerging love just about to sprout between two young lovers, fresh, pure, shy and not sure how to show to the other party, but you could only see it from her/his facial expressions, body gestures or eye contacts... etc, or nothing outside, only can be felt inside... pardon me for not being able to express it completely

Viewed and interpretted by strong SeFi and weak Ni, Do not know where to place the weak Te in this case


----------



## Ominously

Well, when I looked at it.... well I didn't really have an interpretation I guess. The whole time I was "observing", I.... didn't find any point in looking at it anymore. There wasn't really any point to analyze the artwork, but truth be told, from a first glance it looks very lively. Anyways, it just wasn't significant to me. Sorry. :frustrating:


(Am I using any function perchance?)


----------



## Eric B

How either function attitude can do the same things
(Using descriptions attributed to one attitude. Function role names from Berens, Personality Hacker Why Personality Hacker Uses Nicknames For The 8 Jungian Cognitive Functions - Personality Hacker : Personality Hacker and Hartzler _Functions of Type_)

[orientation definitions: e: environmental focus, i: individual focus]

“Experiencing” (“Sensation”, “The Scout”)

Se: taking on new options for activity as it arises
Si: reliving trusted or "tried and true" activities

“Recalling” (“Memory”, “Conservator”)

Se: knowing those physical activities or facts you liked, and would like to relive or reference.
Si: referencing learned fact to inform decisions

“Inferring” (“Exploration”, “Brainstormer”)

Ne: comparing patterns to get a sense of what something in one of them means
Ni: using unconscious impressions to get a sense of what something in a pattern means

“Foreseeing” (“Perspectives”, “The Seer”)

Ne: comparing patterns to get a sense of where a new timelike pattern might lead to
Ni: using unconscious impressions to gain a sense of where a timelike pattern is heading

“Applying logic” (“Effectiveness”, “Administrator”)

Te: What the environment determines is the most logical solution becomes your main goal
Ti: figure how it would be arranged by your own individual sense of logical order; e.g. “if it were up to me”

“Analyzing” (“Accuracy”, “Analyzer”)

Te: dissect something using conventional (i.e. from the environment) knowledge of what is most efficient or practical
Ti: Dissect something using your own individually learned/derived “true/false” standard

“Considering others” (“Harmony”, “The Guide”)

Fe: hears a person’s judgment of “good/bad”, and takes it on as his own
Fi: puts himself in the person’s shoes and makes the good/bad judgment for him, and responds to him accordingly.

[personal] “valuing” (“Authenticity”, “Conscience”)

Fe: the environmental values they have adopted have become their personal values
Fi: develops individual values on their own


----------



## TheOddRhombus

Good Post!


----------



## Springtime

Maybe some people have come across this already however these people have a 4 people in the car metaphor to explain how the functions work. 

It might be helpful to add further insights into how they can operate? 

personality hacker - youtu.be/pBE38GMrTa0


----------



## Sait

Great description!Thanks lad.


----------



## BigApplePi

Question: If feeling and thinking are judging functions, how do you explain IxxPs are perceivers? If intuition and sensation are perceptive functions, how do you explain IxxJs are judgers? Note that Exxxs are all consistent and sane. What is so ornery about these introverts?


----------



## Eric B

Because the Jungian conception (which you are using) is based on the *dominant* function (for that was originally the "type", the aux was just a variation, and there were only the eight dom. types). Myers, who the fully developed theory with the four letter type code is based on, decided that the preferred *extraverted* function (whether dom. or aux.) was more significant, figuring more in our interactions (with the external world), which her theory focused on.

So for extraverts, the dominant _is_ the extraverted function, but for introverts, the extraverted function is the aux. and the dominant then ends up the opposite judgment or perception mode as well.


----------



## PaladinX

BigApplePi said:


> Question: If feeling and thinking are judging functions, how do you explain IxxPs are perceivers? If intuition and sensation are perceptive functions, how do you explain IxxJs are judgers? Note that Exxxs are all consistent and sane. What is so ornery about these introverts?


The intention of MBTI's P and J is about one's approach to the outer world. It is not about leading function. The P/J dichotomy is also categorically distinct with its own meaning, similar to that of the conscientiousness domain from the Big Five. It is a concept that Myers and Briggs brought to the table and should not be confused with Jung's rational/irrational (J-Dom/P-Dom) perspective.


----------



## BigApplePi

PaladinX said:


> The intention of MBTI's P and J is about one's approach to the outer world. It is not about leading function.


Sounds good. Extroverts put out their leading function; introverts put out the first extroverted function they have which happens to be their secondary function.
====================

Another question: Functions in the MBTI alternate E and I. Example: INFP = Fi Ne Si Te. I assume this is because in a well functioning person E and I must have prominent functional positions. 

How are we to explain that some tests results show consecutive prominence of E or I functions, for example, Ti Ni consecutively? Do we write this off as mere inaccuracy or is something wrong with interpreting the test? I have seen examples of test results others have given but don't find one at the moment.


----------



## Eric B

The functions are divisions of reality into opposite poles, and so the order is set by the complexes that mirror the dominant and auxiliary. The dominant is one kind of function (judgment or perception) and one attitude (i or e), so the aux. will be a function of the opposite j/p class and i/e attitude. The others are all reflections of those two.

The cognitive process tests are not going by that concept. They're treating the functions as things like gears, where you develop "skill" in "using" one or the other. It is then assumed the two "strongest" are the preferred ones determining the type. The more professional test has a mechanism built in to try to make it more likely the first two will be Pi/Je or Ji/Pe so that a legitimate type can be determined. The other one that was created on this board apparently does not have that, so you might get stuff like TiNi more often.

But type is not determined by "strongest", it's determined by the ego (dominant), and the "supporting" complex that aligns with the auxiliary. These will tend to naturally be "stronger", but the tests are trying to measure "stronger" directly rather than the complexes (that make them "stronger"), and as the results are affected by the person's (likely imperfect) clarity of preference, it won't always come out right.


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> The functions are divisions of reality into opposite poles, and so the order is set by the complexes that mirror the dominant and auxiliary. The dominant is one kind of function (judgment or perception) and one attitude (i or e), so the aux. will be a function of the opposite j/p class and i/e attitude. The others are all reflections of those two.
> 
> The cognitive process tests are not going by that concept. They're treating the functions as things like gears, where you develop "skill" in "using" one or the other. It is then assumed the two "strongest" are the preferred ones determining the type. The more professional test has a mechanism built in to try to make it more likely the first two will be Pi/Je or Ji/Pe so that a legitimate type can be determined. The other one that was created on this board apparently does not have that, so you might get stuff like TiNi more often.
> 
> But type is not determined by "strongest", it's determined by the ego (dominant), and the "supporting" complex that aligns with the auxiliary. These will tend to naturally be "stronger", but the tests are trying to measure "stronger" directly rather than the complexes (that make them "stronger"), and as the results are affected by the person's (likely imperfect) clarity of preference, it won't always come out right.


I'm listening but here is the way I take it: I would like (as if though I could have my way) to see the dominant function be the one one most naturally fits into, or the one one is most comfortable with if all functions were given an equal chance. For example I "like" thinking, hence Ti. I need support from anywhere, hence Ne. (Never mind the last two for now.) However this is an ideal situation. As living beings we are flawed. We don't always have natural environments and we don't have natural developments except in ideal situations.

In addition events can pull us out of our natural states causing us to temporarily favor odd "unnatural" functions we wouldn't be comfortable with in the long run. 

To me this is not a finished topic. A person could have "strong" Ti and Ni on separate issues, but on the same issue, aren't those contradictory functions? We could say perception for Ti comes from Ne or Se, but Ni and Ti on the same issue oppose each other. To try to be more specific, Ti is busy judging while Ni says leave it alone.


----------



## Eric B

Yes, situations pull us out of our "natural" *ego* state, and into other ones, including what are known as the "shadow" complexes". So if you're in the state called Senex (a more "critical" version of the "Parent" complex that associates with the auxiliary), and it will likely be some state of the ego feeling negated in some way that will constellate that, then you will see the situation through a negative Ni. 
Again, it's not about a function being "strong"; it's just a form of awareness coming up through the circumstance.


----------



## BigApplePi

*Functions, and how they work. Concise summary.*

Would this be a good summary? 

The first two functions operate most prominently in our consciousness, one being perceptive, the other being motivational. The first one is the one we deliberately favor the most, the second one supplies desired support. The next two fill in missing thinking/ feeling/ sensation/ intuition gaps and appear consciously when called upon. The other four functions are always there, but unconsciously, and ready to surface when and if there are contrary demands on the ego.


----------



## Eric B

I would say the next two are reflections of the first two, and the other four are just the repressed oppoiste orientations of the first four. It's the type-specific ego states that bring them into consciousness as distinct "functions". (Otherwise, they just remain tied to neutral ego states that are typical emotional or neurological reactions. Like everyone can see, regardless of where "Se" falls in their type).


----------



## entpswtf

Ni
Let's enjoy that artwork once we fully understand the context.


----------



## Hygerof

Question, Are you restricted to the functions of your type?


----------



## Eric B

No, we have access to all the functions. Type is determined by the complexes, starting with the ones that associate with the dominant and auxiliary functions. Inasmuch as the other complexes come up for every type, we can access them that way.


----------



## Daeva

My initial reaction to the picture:

Water, a raindrop hanging on a twig in a forest, about to fall. I notice the few lush colors and feel it bringing out a sense of tranquility. The sort of "calm *after* the (rain)storm". I imagine the rainfall that fell before, I'm *in*​ it, I hear it, I hear the ambiance, the rainfall creating a loud overwhelming orchestra of falling water, I 'feel' the wetness of it, the chaos of it, the noise, ... all this in contrast with the feeling of fresh air, sharp smell, and wet peace that this painting gives me. I hear the flapping of wings, birds taking off again after hiding. I feel the sun warming my wet skin.
I am one with the atmosphere.

I 'know' (=believe) that this feeling was intended by the creator..



I did not notice the background was faded out until I read other people's comments! 
I quite honestly suck at visual details, my mind goes to the overall impression first.

All about that atmosphere baby!!


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> No, we have access to all the functions. Type is determined by the complexes, starting with the ones that associate with the dominant and auxiliary functions. Inasmuch as the other complexes come up for every type, we can access them that way.


I would like to know if functions are so polarized that each type must be either an introvert or an extrovert? IOW, is there such a thing as an ambivert? Or to change the question, must each of the four functions be introverted or extroverted? Can we give equal credence to Xi and Xe for any function?


----------



## Eric B

The root of introversion and extraversion is the division between "inner/outer", and *the polarity lies in our consciousness, not the function itself*. All of the dichotomies are divisions of reality. Just like our immersion in the universe divides it into "left/right", "up/down", "back/forth" and "past/future". So there is also "inside of us" and "outside of us" (both spatially and psychically).
So it has to be either/or. Our ego consciousness prefers one or the other, and the dominant function then becomes oriented to that space. 


Inner/outer aren't really implicit in the functions (which are simply other division of reality, into tangible reality (S) vs implications of things (N), and how things work (T) vs how they affect us emotionally (F)). It's the ego that splits them further into inner (individual) or outer (environmental) polarities.


The classic "social" version of "ambiversion" (based on the traditional version of I/E) is someone inbetween being expressive and reserved to people. Being expressive tends to be connected with having the outer focus that also yields an extraverted dominant function, while being reserved tends to be connected with the inner focus that would also yield an introverted dominant function. In the classic temperament system using I/E, a person can be LESS energized toward the inner or outer world. But there will still be a preference for one or the other, however slight. 
So there won't be any "ambiverted" functions, and the attitude preference won't necessarily correspond with their social expressiveness.


Within the psyche, there are a number of complexes (starting with the "ego" itself), which are senses of "I" that handle the functional perspectives. The ego's main achievement complex (called the "Hero") will place the dominant function into the dominant orientation. The opposite orientation will then be picked up by the Hero's "shadow", the "opposing personality" (or the classic "Warrior" archetype). If the person appears to "use both", it's most likely because the Oppositional complex is being constellated a lot, which often happens when the ego feels it's facing obstruction of its goals. Or, if the person is really mature, they have learned to "back up" their dominant functional perspective with the opposite orientational perspective (which fills in its "blind spots").
But the I/E preference will be determined by the particular "Hero" complex, and that's what makes the person's type I or E, and not both.


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> The root of introversion and extraversion is the division between "inner/outer", and *the polarity lies in our consciousness, not the function itself*. All of the dichotomies are divisions of reality. Just like our immersion in the universe divides it into "left/right", "up/down", "back/forth" and "past/future". So there is also "inside of us" and "outside of us" (both spatially and psychically).


I like the clarity of the "inner/ outer" division.





> So it has to be either/or. Our ego consciousness prefers one or the other, and the dominant function then becomes oriented to that space.


That preference is the assumption I am questioning. For example, while we are aware of "left/right", "up/down", "back/forth" and "past/future", why need we polarize when we could favor middle, level, right here and the present instead? Or as an alternative instead of the middle, we could alternate equal time to the opposing divisions.






> Inner/outer aren't really implicit in the functions (which are simply other division of reality, into tangible reality (S) vs implications of things (N), and how things work (T) vs how they affect us emotionally (F)). It's the ego that splits them further into inner (individual) or outer (environmental) polarities.


If I choose just the S & N perception functions, they can be thought of as split two ways: inner/ outer and specific/ general. The former being i/e and the latter being a variation of what you said, "tangible reality vs implications of things."






> The classic "social" version of "ambiversion" (based on the traditional version of I/E) is someone inbetween being expressive and reserved to people. Being expressive tends to be connected with having the outer focus that also yields an extraverted dominant function, while being reserved tends to be connected with the inner focus that would also yield an introverted dominant function. In the classic temperament system using I/E, a person can be LESS energized toward the inner or outer world. But there will still be a preference for one or the other, however slight.


For the moment, let me separate the personality from the functions. I would agree with the personality exhibiting a preference. But you said, "however slight." If I choose the "Bell curve" as a model, this would mean a personality could linger around the top rather than the extremes of the curve. I ask if this "lingering" could be ambiversion. Now to a function.

I presume to be an INTP. Taking Fi and Fe, I will try the inside/ outside division. For myself, I see my values going in two directions: Fe toward the outside world and Fi toward the inside. I have feelings about how I would like to see the outside world go and how I would like myself to go. The former deals with others and the latter deals with myself. To be sure, these are not the same and need not be in sync. They can certainly be in conflict. However my ego (did I use the right word?) or conscious self wants to give equal credence to both. Why would not I be able to go back and forth thus having a conscious Fe and conscious Fi? Why not call this F-ambiversion?






> So there won't be any "ambiverted" functions, and the attitude preference won't necessarily correspond with their social expressiveness.


I'm not thinking of an ambiverted F (in the case above) but an alternating F. I also (in theory) won't give a social preference ... not sure. I may exhibit outer Fe, but from time-to-time express Fi as with "I don't like my feelings about thinking being dismissed and if they are I will either be angry or leave the premises."




> Within the psyche, there are a number of complexes (starting with the "ego" itself), which are senses of "I" that handle the functional perspectives. The ego's main achievement complex (called the "Hero") will place the dominant function into the dominant orientation. The opposite orientation will then be picked up by the Hero's "shadow", the "opposing personality" (or the classic "Warrior" archetype). If the person appears to "use both", it's most likely because the Oppositional complex is being constellated a lot, which often happens when the ego feels it's facing obstruction of its goals. Or, if the person is really mature, they have learned to "back up" their dominant functional perspective with the opposite orientational perspective (which fills in its "blind spots").
> But the I/E preference will be determined by the particular "Hero" complex, and that's what makes the person's type I or E, and not both.


It looks to me as if this "Hero" orientation already assumes a polarization. However, as you say, if experience leads one to fill in blind spots, this hero and "opposition" will merge into something new. Perhaps a new hero with new gaps or blind spots. Could this not in theory overcome the i/e polarization? Opposing this process is if anywhere along the line i or e became hardened, the hero might win out becoming even more heroic.

To take an example outside of personality theory, suppose one happens to become a carpenter. A plumber might be in opposition. What would decide whether polarization versus "ambi-orientation" occurs here? In a complex world there seems to be a natural orientation toward specialty. If one moved to an isolated world too small to have specialties, the carpenter and plumber could merge. The same factors that cause a division of labor could cause one cognitive function to stabilize over another. Ambiversion would require a balance and only if the "hero" seeks balance itself could ambiversion be stable. That is my thinking so far.


----------



## Eric B

BigApplePi said:


> I like the clarity of the "inner/ outer" division.
> 
> That preference is the assumption I am questioning. For example, while we are aware of "left/right", "up/down", "back/forth" and "past/future", why need we polarize when we could favor middle, level, right here and the present instead? Or as an alternative instead of the middle, we could alternate equal time to the opposing divisions.


I mentioned the spacetime dimensions to illustrate the notion of the division of reality by immersion into it. (Trying to extend this to a sort of "preference"-based "typology"; I came up with this analogy, which was difficult to justify: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...time-dimensions-analogy-type-dichotomies.html)

So I played off of the fact that our sense of "dimensions" is purely subjective (substituting fixed compass directions NESW for individual left/right/back/forth). Really, any direction we look is not going to become "left", "right", "up", down" or "back", but always becomes "forth" (ahead), with the other five directions rotating accordingly in relation to our perspective. (That's why "depth" can be vertical or horizontal. It's really straight ahead, but when we begin thinking of the vertical volume of a body of water, we in essence "think" (mentally "look") "down", and so "down" becomes looking "ahead"; i.e. "forth" or "deep").

So this analogy will only hold but so far. So we can reduce it to just back/forth, and we will always prefer "forth" (What will change will be the compass directions as the person turns around). If we say we're looking back, left, right, up or down, we are basically stepping outside of our own conscious perspective and judging those directions on which way the rest of our body besides our head/face/eyes is facing, or others' perspective (like if running in a group, and I turn one of the other directions to see who's catching up with us, or whatever).
The point is, from our subjective viewpoint, there is no "middle ground" between "back" and "forth". Just our immersion in space creates the polarity. To eliminate the space-time polarities, we can try to focus on our own position, the "here and now", but this is shutting out the outer world, and thus maintaining yet another polarity, inner/outer.

So any way you look at it, our reality is always split.



> If I choose just the S & N perception functions, they can be thought of as split two ways: inner/ outer and specific/ general. The former being i/e and the latter being a variation of what you said, "tangible reality vs implications of things."
> 
> For the moment, let me separate the personality from the functions. I would agree with the personality exhibiting a preference. But you said, "however slight." If I choose the "Bell curve" as a model, this would mean a personality could linger around the top rather than the extremes of the curve. I ask if this "lingering" could be ambiversion. Now to a function.


The bell curve is another spatial analogy that will not be exact. There is an absolute middle point on the top, but that is not the same as a conscious entity immersed in space-time reality, with a particular _perspective_ that only *looks in one direction* (at a time).



> I presume to be an INTP. Taking Fi and Fe, I will try the inside/ outside division. For myself, I see my values going in two directions: Fe toward the outside world and Fi toward the inside. I have feelings about how I would like to see the outside world go and how I would like myself to go. The former deals with others and the latter deals with myself. To be sure, these are not the same and need not be in sync. They can certainly be in conflict. However my ego (did I use the right word?) or conscious self wants to give equal credence to both. Why would not I be able to go back and forth thus having a conscious Fe and conscious Fi? Why not call this F-ambiversion?
> 
> It looks to me as if this "Hero" orientation already assumes a polarization.I'm not thinking of an ambiverted F (in the case above) but an alternating F. I also (in theory) won't give a social preference ... not sure. I may exhibit outer Fe, but from time-to-time express Fi as with "I don't like my feelings about thinking being dismissed and if they are I will either be angry or leave the premises."


What you're looking at there is called lack of "*differentiation*". I got into emphasizing the splitting of reality to illustrate the fact that the functions are just the aspects we sort out of an undivided "whole" where it's all "mixed together". All the functional perspectives are always implicit in every situation, because they all consist of both material (S) and hypothetical (N), mechanical (T) and soulish (F) aspects, and can be processed according to the environment (e) and the individual (i). 
It's actually the *complexes* that sort out this data. In Hunziker's new book, he points out that the function-attitudes “*rarely operate as discrete units. More often, they’re confusingly mixed together or form ad oc alliances*“. 

So we start out with the ego, and work our way down. The further from the ego we go, the less conscious the complex is, and thus the less differentiated the associated functions. So when you're talking about the inferior (and its shadow, the Demonic Personality), the two attitudes are going to be very blurry and not as well differentiated from each other as a "eight function stack" list makes it look. This is what has caused a lot of confusion, for people trying to sort out each function-attitude (and especially when taking "cognitive process" tests).
So you might technically be able to speak of "ambiverted Feeling", but then this is the _inferior _(encompassing two separate complexes; the inferiority itself, and its shadow, and those are which will do the "alternating"), and I/E-"-version" is determined by the _dominant_, which will be differentiated into function and attitude.



> It looks to me as if this "Hero" orientation already assumes a polarization. However, as you say, if experience leads one to fill in blind spots, this hero and "opposition" will merge into something new. Perhaps a new hero with new gaps or blind spots. Could this not in theory overcome the i/e polarization? Opposing this process is if anywhere along the line i or e became hardened, the hero might win out becoming even more heroic.
> 
> To take an example outside of personality theory, suppose one happens to become a carpenter. A plumber might be in opposition. What would decide whether polarization versus "ambi-orientation" occurs here? In a complex world there seems to be a natural orientation toward specialty. If one moved to an isolated world too small to have specialties, the carpenter and plumber could merge. The same factors that cause a division of labor could cause one cognitive function to stabilize over another. Ambiversion would require a balance and only if the "hero" seeks balance itself could ambiversion be stable. That is my thinking so far.


 That's basically covered by what I just said. The two complexes will alternate, but one is still dominant, and its primacy (from its archetypal relation to the ego) is what makes it dominant. So that will carry one attitude of the function into primacy. 
The analogy of the carpenter vs plumber is not really good, because they are not innately opposed in their function. The "specialization" will divert your attention toward one or the other set of tasks, but those tasks are not _opposite_ of each other, so it's not a hard "either/or", and you can do both (I grew up with a superintendant who was a great handyman, who could do it all; electrical and machine work as well. Meanwhile, game hero Mario, whose new game later this year has just had a preview released, started out as a carpenter, and then became a plumber after a few games!  ). This is why I tried to use the analogy of space and time, because those are closer as "divisions of reality".


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> I mentioned the spacetime dimensions to illustrate the notion of the division of reality by immersion into it. (Trying to extend this to a sort of "preference"-based "typology"; I came up with this analogy, which was difficult to justify: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...time-dimensions-analogy-type-dichotomies.html)


Dimensions are "independent variables" and can be counted. I will look at this separately. 






> So I played off of the fact that our sense of "dimensions" is purely subjective (substituting fixed compass directions NESW for individual left/right/back/forth). Really, any direction we look is not going to become "left", "right", "up", down" or "back", but always becomes "forth" (ahead), with the other five directions rotating accordingly in relation to our perspective. (That's why "depth" can be vertical or horizontal. It's really straight ahead, but when we begin thinking of the vertical volume of a body of water, we in essence "think" (mentally "look") "down", and so "down" becomes looking "ahead"; i.e. "forth" or "deep").
> 
> So this analogy will only hold but so far. So we can reduce it to just back/forth, and we will always prefer "forth" (What will change will be the compass directions as the person turns around). If we say we're looking back, left, right, up or down, we are basically stepping outside of our own conscious perspective and judging those directions on which way the rest of our body besides our head/face/eyes is facing, or others' perspective (like if running in a group, and I turn one of the other directions to see who's catching up with us, or whatever).
> The point is, from our subjective viewpoint, there is no "middle ground" between "back" and "forth". Just our immersion in space creates the polarity. To eliminate the space-time polarities, we can try to focus on our own position, the "here and now", but this is shutting out the outer world, and thus maintaining yet another polarity, inner/outer.
> 
> So any way you look at it, our reality is always split.


Our *sense* of dimensions is subjective, but isn't the existence of these dimensions objective? To add to this, insofar as we are alive, we are always in motion. When we move, we always have a direction. This direction we could call, "ahead." How far we move and how fast from our starting position varies. We could step in place in a locally ranging area. Time-wise if we focus on "here and now", we may be immersed in an inner world. Yet if we think of ourselves as "peering out a window", is that not the outer world? Is our reality split? Could be. When I raise my hands, there is a left and right arm, but they operate together as an integrated unit.






> The bell curve is another spatial analogy that will not be exact. There is an absolute middle point on the top, but that is not the same as a conscious entity immersed in space-time reality, with a particular _perspective_ that only *looks in one direction* (at a time).


Agreed. Only one direction at a time. This is true when crossing a busy intersection. Yet I may look around, taking in as much of the traffic as I can as an integrated whole. Admittedly this is not instantaneous.







> What you're looking at there is called lack of "*differentiation*". I got into emphasizing the splitting of reality to illustrate the fact that the functions are just the aspects we sort out of an undivided "whole" where it's all "mixed together". All the functional perspectives are always implicit in every situation, because they all consist of both material (S) and hypothetical (N), mechanical (T) and soulish (F) aspects, and can be processed according to the environment (e) and the individual (i).
> It's actually the *complexes* that sort out this data. In Hunziker's new book, he points out that the function-attitudes “*rarely operate as discrete units. More often, they’re confusingly mixed together or form ad oc alliances*“.


Agreed these functions are mixed together. But they alternate between a blurred integration, a differentiation, and a renewed integration. This is what sensing and intuition do. In the example above of crossing an intersection, one could pose viewing the intersection contents (Se), remembering what is safe and what is dangerous (Si), pulling it all together (Ni), attempting to cross, and then adjusting the risk depending on what is happening in the outside world and how much risk we are willing to take (inside judgment). (I'm guessing Ne belongs in there somewhere but am not sure where to place it.) Also fear (Fi) and good behavior (Fe) play a role. Does any of this make for ambiversion of functions?







> So we start out with the ego, and work our way down. The further from the ego we go, the less conscious the complex is, and thus the less differentiated the associated functions. So when you're talking about the inferior (and its shadow, the Demonic Personality), the two attitudes are going to be very blurry and not as well differentiated from each other as a "eight function stack" list makes it look. This is what has caused a lot of confusion, for people trying to sort out each function-attitude (and especially when taking "cognitive process" tests).
> So you might technically be able to speak of "ambiverted Feeling", but then this is the _inferior _(encompassing two separate complexes; the inferiority itself, and its shadow, and those are which will do the "alternating"), and I/E-"-version" is determined by the _dominant_, which will be differentiated into function and attitude.


Am I following this correctly? I can accept a primary leading function which is most conscious. You are saying the lessor functions can be more ambiverted. I wonder if when the primary function allows subordinate functions to bubble up into consciousness, if they are more prone to ambiversion if only because they are weaker? 

Let's say I lead with thinking. Ordinarily I'm so busy with thinking, I pay no attention to any feeling. From time-to-time, I may reach either an uncomfortable stumbling block or the opposite, a breakthrough in smooth operation. Either could bring my feeling to consciousness. The result could be either an unpleasant frustration or an inner joy (Fi) with a simultaneous desire not to show pleasure or displeasure to others (Fe). If this is the case, I wish to call my F, "ambiverted."







> That's basically covered by what I just said. The two complexes will alternate, but one is still dominant, and its primacy (from its archetypal relation to the ego) is what makes it dominant. So that will carry one attitude of the function into primacy.
> The analogy of the carpenter vs plumber is not really good, because they are not innately opposed in their function. The "specialization" will divert your attention toward one or the other set of tasks, but those tasks are not _opposite_ of each other, so it's not a hard "either/or", and you can do both (I grew up with a superintendant who was a great handyman, who could do it all; electrical and machine work as well. Meanwhile, game hero Mario, whose new game later this year has just had a preview released, started out as a carpenter, and then became a plumber after a few games!  ). This is why I tried to use the analogy of space and time, because those are closer as "divisions of reality".


I did not draw the carpenter/ plumber analogy very well. I had both working on my house. They could NOT switch jobs. Each had to specialize and I assume liked what they did. Anyway, as to the Hero/ Warrior complexes which you say alternate, what if the Hero runs into a situation where he finds himself an "anti- or non-hero. He could drop everything without ever trying out the Warrior (a defeated Warrior?). Is it possible he could retrogress on finding himself a failure and go into a funk for some unknown period of time?


----------



## Eric B

BigApplePi said:


> Our *sense* of dimensions is subjective, but isn't the existence of these dimensions objective?


 Yes, the dimensions themselves are objective, and also undivided, in their own right. It is our subjective "sense" (based on our location within it) that divides them, and can only see them divided.



> To add to this, insofar as we are alive, we are always in motion. When we move, we always have a direction. This direction we could call, "ahead." How far we move and how fast from our starting position varies. We could step in place in a locally ranging area. Time-wise if we focus on "here and now", we may be immersed in an inner world.


 As I pointed out, you could think of "ahead" as which way your body is faced, but in reality, it would be which way you're looking. If you look left, then what was "ahead" will appear to your "right".



> Yet if we think of ourselves as "peering out a window", is that not the outer world?


 Not really. Because YOU (subjective) are "*think*ing" it, not actually experiencing it with the immediate senses (this is the difference between Se and Si). 



> Is our reality split? Could be. When I raise my hands, there is a left and right arm, but they operate together as an integrated unit.


 Still, we can't help but identify them in the divided language of "left" and "right".



> Agreed these functions are mixed together. But they alternate between a blurred integration, a differentiation, and a renewed integration. This is what sensing and intuition do. In the example above of crossing an intersection, one could pose viewing the intersection contents (Se), remembering what is safe and what is dangerous (Si), pulling it all together (Ni), attempting to cross, and then adjusting the risk depending on what is happening in the outside world and how much risk we are willing to take (inside judgment). (I'm guessing Ne belongs in there somewhere but am not sure where to place it.) Also fear (Fi) and good behavior (Fe) play a role. Does any of this make for ambiversion of functions?
> 
> Am I following this correctly? I can accept a primary leading function which is most conscious. You are saying the lessor functions can be more ambiverted. I wonder if when the primary function allows subordinate functions to bubble up into consciousness, if they are more prone to ambiversion if only because they are weaker?
> 
> Let's say I lead with thinking. Ordinarily I'm so busy with thinking, I pay no attention to any feeling. From time-to-time, I may reach either an uncomfortable stumbling block or the opposite, a breakthrough in smooth operation. Either could bring my feeling to consciousness. The result could be either an unpleasant frustration or an inner joy (Fi) with a simultaneous desire not to show pleasure or displeasure to others (Fe). If this is the case, I wish to call my F, "ambiverted."


 What you're describing would actually be "undifferentiated" or, as I also put it "general" (rather than "special") versions of the functions. It's not totally accurate to say we all "use Se" when we look at something. For we all use the senses, regardless of type. What differentiates the functions in a *type-specific* way is the complexes, by which we interpret the data in a more focused way. So yes, in that form, you could consider them all "ambiverted" (all used equally in both attitudes), but we're talking about ambiversion as [supposedly] a dominant attitude, but then the dominant will be differentiated, and thus oriented to one attitude. 

Also, definitions like "fear" or "joy"=Fi" and "good behavior=Fe" are also really sloppy. Feeling is a rational decision-making process, and fear and joy are emotions (which are not what we mean by the "Feeling" _function_), and the good behavior or not showing displeasure to others are a set of actions that can be decided upon by either attitude. (Fi will infer what's good behavior or unpleasing from a universalistic sense within, instead of directly from the environment of people and their stated desires).



> Anyway, as to the Hero/ Warrior complexes which you say alternate, what if the Hero runs into a situation where he finds himself an "anti- or non-hero. He could drop everything without ever trying out the Warrior (a defeated Warrior?). Is it possible he could retrogress on finding himself a failure and go into a funk for some unknown period of time?


 The Warrior is but the more negative aspects of the Hero in itself. The general "negative side" of the hero in Beebe's theory is that it becomes "overdominating". But depending on the situation, it will "degrade" into an altogether different archetype, the Warrior (or, on the positive side of that complex, back itself up with the opposite functional attitude).
Speaking of the Hero "dropping everything" may be too simplistic. Basically, it's the "larger Self" that controls these complexes (the whole point is that the ego _thinks_ it's in control, but really isn't), and I guess when the ego feels threatened or "defeated" in different ways, the Self will dispatch these lower complexes. I don't know if they are "defeated" themselves, though we can definitely feel defeat or frustration through them.


----------



## BigApplePi

BigApplePi said:


> if we think of ourselves as "peering out a window", is that not the outer world?





Eric B said:


> Not really. Because YOU (subjective) are "*think*ing" it, not actually experiencing it with the immediate senses (this is the difference between Se and Si).


Okay. Change that to I look out the window taking in the visuals I see. Is that not Se?






BigApplePi said:


> When I raise my hands, there is a left and right arm, but they operate together as an integrated unit.





Eric B said:


> Still, we can't help but identify them in the divided language of "left" and "right".


Strongly disagree. I am conscious of the raised hands as a symmetrical unit. Although it is possible, there need not be any differentiation of left and right, consciously. Suppose I were to stare at the Moon. Would there be any consciousness of left and right? I doubt it. The raised arms are merely wider.

Here is a story about myself. I am left handed. I seem to have a mental defect where I cannot tell right from left spontaneously. My consciousness draws a blank. I have to stop to connect the words with the direction. I am a "P" person in that sense.



Re: the busy intersection.


> What you're describing would actually be "undifferentiated" or, as I also put it "general" (rather than "special") versions of the functions. It's not totally accurate to say we all "use Se" when we look at something. For we all use the senses, regardless of type. What differentiates the functions in a *type-specific* way is the complexes, by which we interpret the data in a more focused way. So yes, in that form, you could consider them all "ambiverted" (all used equally in both attitudes), but we're talking about ambiversion as [supposedly] a dominant attitude, but then the dominant will be differentiated, and thus oriented to one attitude.


I find that an interesting paragraph. The undifferentiated experience could almost be described as a highly developed N perception (possibly both Ni and Ne combined) with S (Si and Se) observation leaking in as needed. Perhaps that is what I was thinking by "ambiverted." Yes the dominant, if one is a thinker or feeler may be operating before and after the intersection crossing. However that dominance is abandoned to perception because of the critical necessity of crossing the intersection safely. If I'm to pursue *dominant* ambiversion I'm going to have to look harder.

Later: Perhaps about this intersection experience, I'm thinking of myself. I'm describing a heightened consciousness if only because I've learned about cognitive (conscious) functions here on PerC. One could say I'm experiencing ambiversion because I'm looking for it. If I were to relax this heightened attention perhaps my disposition to a "complex" would take over. Also in writing about it here, I'm using Si and in doing so am imagining an Se experience which never fully happened on many occasions. IOW, I'm telling a story with a PerC bias.








BigApplePi said:


> Also fear (Fi) and good behavior (Fe) play a role.





Eric B said:


> Also, definitions like "fear" or "joy"=Fi" and "good behavior=Fe" are also really sloppy. Feeling is a rational decision-making process, and fear and joy are emotions (which are not what we mean by the "Feeling" _function_), and the good behavior or not showing displeasure to others are a set of actions that can be decided upon by either attitude. (Fi will infer what's good behavior or unpleasing from a universalistic sense within, instead of directly from the environment of people and their stated desires).


Yes. Sloppy. How about, in crossing the intersection, one chooses between cautious self-preservation (Fi) and high risk dashing (I want to set a good example for others so everyone will behave safely)(Fe)?






Eric B said:


> The Warrior is but the more negative aspects of the Hero in itself. The general "negative side" of the hero in Beebe's theory is that it becomes "overdominating". But depending on the situation, it will "degrade" into an altogether different archetype, the Warrior (or, on the positive side of that complex, back itself up with the opposite functional attitude).
> Speaking of the Hero "dropping everything" may be too simplistic. Basically, it's the "larger Self" that controls these complexes (the whole point is that the ego _thinks_ it's in control, but really isn't), and I guess when the ego feels threatened or "defeated" in different ways, the Self will dispatch these lower complexes. I don't know if they are "defeated" themselves, though we can definitely feel defeat or frustration through them.


So far I am defeated in discovering examples of dominant function ambiversion, lol. Can we agree on subordinate function ambiversion though?


----------



## Eric B

BigApplePi said:


> Okay. Change that to I look out the window taking in the visuals I see. Is that not Se?


Yes, but the point to begin with was, you can't really shut out the outer world in order to remove the split caused by our location in it.



> Strongly disagree. I am conscious of the raised hands as a symmetrical unit. Although it is possible, there need not be any differentiation of left and right, consciously. Suppose I were to stare at the Moon. Would there be any consciousness of left and right? I doubt it. The raised arms are merely wider.
> 
> Here is a story about myself. I am left handed. I seem to have a mental defect where I cannot tell right from left spontaneously. My consciousness draws a blank. I have to stop to connect the words with the direction. I am a "P" person in that sense.


The fact that you mention “symmetry“ betrays the split reality. Symmetry is between your right and left. With the moon, even if you can see the whole disk at once, that disk is still a circle with a _diameter_ seen as right/left and up/down.



> Yes. Sloppy. How about, in crossing the intersection, one chooses between cautious self-preservation (Fi) and high risk dashing (I want to set a good example for others so everyone will behave safely)(Fe)?


I think those too would be, at best, highly undifferentiated versions of the functions. Fi is a “good/bad” evaluation filtered through one's own reflection. One way to describe it, regarding other people, is seeing them experiencing something, and inferring their feelings by saying “If that were me, _I'd_ feel _this_ way“. Then, you may respond to their apparent need as if they expressed it themselves, and thus look like “Fe”. The point is the *self-referencing* (based on a _projection_ of universal need), not necessarily the outward action/behavior. In your Fe example, “setting an example” might be more like Fi: “If I were them, _I_ would want a good example of safety”.
Fe on the other hand, to use the Jungian way of putting extraversion, is seeing the other person/people's expressed or objectively obvious needs, and “merging” your ego with them, so that those desires or values essentially become your own. Here, the standard is directly set by the “others”.



> So far I am defeated in discovering examples of dominant function ambiversion, lol. Can we agree on subordinate function ambiversion though?


OK. But then that answers the root of your question, about TYPEs being “ambiverted”. They can't be, because type is based on the dominant.


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> Yes, but the point to begin with was, you can't really shut out the outer world in order to remove the split caused by our location in it.


Can you rephrase that? I'm not getting the point?






> The fact that you mention “symmetry“ betrays the split reality. Symmetry is between your right and left. With the moon, even if you can see the whole disk at once, that disk is still a circle with a _diameter_ seen as right/left and up/down.


I mentioned symmetry to communicate with you. When I raise my hands, my consciousness need not be so geometrical ... only of raised hands.

If we are discussing cognitive functions, cognitive means conscious. Is it not possible to stare at the moon without being conscious of right/left & up/down? I say that is more likely than not. I do not think left/ right and I'm not conscious of that. Of course if you call my attention to left/ right, you are using Si while I used Se. I'll try more detail: When you call my attention to left and right, that asks me to remember what those areas mean. The result is I will, forget memory, and stare right now at left and right out there. Could it be INTPs like us are prone to forget or suppress the experience of Se? 

I am practicing a little introspection to make these statements.






> I think those too would be, at best, highly undifferentiated versions of the functions. Fi is a “good/bad” evaluation filtered through one's own reflection. One way to describe it, regarding other people, is seeing them experiencing something, and inferring their feelings by saying “If that were me, _I'd_ feel _this_ way“. Then, you may respond to their apparent need as if they expressed it themselves, and thus look like “Fe”. The point is the *self-referencing* (based on a _projection_ of universal need), not necessarily the outward action/behavior. In your Fe example, “setting an example” might be more like Fi: “If I were them, _I_ would want a good example of safety”.
> Fe on the other hand, to use the Jungian way of putting extraversion, is seeing the other person/people's expressed or objectively obvious needs, and “merging” your ego with them, so that those desires or values essentially become your own. Here, the standard is directly set by the “others”.


This crosses my mind: I have not met you before, nor you me. I jumped in with theory and you are giving responses. So we don't quite jibe in "reading between the lines" in understanding what the other fellow wants to get across. My attitude is to explore this. But we are not communicating very well as yet. It could be that I don't express myself well. All this is okay. I accept it.

Re: the intersection. It isn't that I want to set set an example of safety just because it's my desire. It's that *objectively* ANY person rushing across the street will set a bad example causing others to do the same resulting in misery when the accident rate goes up. Isn't this Fe?




> OK. But then that answers the root of your question, about TYPEs being “ambiverted”. They can't be, because type is based on the dominant.


I understand what you're saying (I think). Unfortunately for this conversation I have something in mind which gnaws at me. That subordinate functions can be ambiverted or at least balanced between i and e, means they can necessarily influence the dominant.

I offer myself as an example. I'm looking at ambiversion and supposedly thinking about it. Not much is external, so this is Ti thinking. If I'm a Ti lead, I have this intuition something is awry. My thinking is not pure thought as I have on my mind (intuition) ambiversion is possible for the lead, That is Ni or isn't it? I do have external evidence outside of me that some people are uncertain about their lead function. The harder I push this, the more it looks like I'm INTJ. The more I resist pushing it, the more I'm INTP. My failure to make up my mind as to what I want has me doing thinking ambiversion as I'm doing both Ti and Te. Can you convince me I'm not doing both Ti and Te? Are you sure you can convince me (at this time) of anything? Where does that leave you? Are you going to use Ti or Ni as a lead in answering this?

Think of this: Cognition may be developed as one grows in experience. Is it not possible I started out as an INTP, dealing with Ne (intuition), grown in knowledge and experience and now *in special areas* behave at ease like an INTJ? An INTJ fills in the rest of cognition possibilities. Ne turns into the ability to use Te and one can possess Ni about that. If so, in these special areas one can balance lead functions like Ti and Ni, Ne and Te. Hence the ambiversion I've alluded to. Admittedly outside of these special areas one remains a polarized personality. I am proposing that one occasionally, not permanently, on special occasions one can take on ambiversion. Even more generally, I'm proposing one can hand over the reins of one cognitive function to another and do so with a comfortable mental energy not distinguishable from the normal lead cognitive function.


----------



## Eric B

BigApplePi said:


> Can you rephrase that? I'm not getting the point?


First you said "thinking about" something, then you changed it to "look out the window and take in the visuals". The comparison was to "the inner world" and the "outer world", so I was saying that either way, we are not removing the split between inner and outer.




> I mentioned symmetry to communicate with you. When I raise my hands, my consciousness need not be so geometrical ... only of raised hands.
> 
> If we are discussing cognitive functions, cognitive means conscious. Is it not possible to stare at the moon without being conscious of right/left & up/down? I say that is more likely than not. I do not think left/ right and I'm not conscious of that. Of course if you call my attention to left/ right, you are using Si while I used Se. I'll try more detail: When you call my attention to left and right, that asks me to remember what those areas mean. The result is I will, forget memory, and stare right now at left and right out there. Could it be INTPs like us are prone to forget or suppress the experience of Se?
> 
> I am practicing a little introspection to make these statements.
> 
> 
> This crosses my mind: I have not met you before, nor you me. I jumped in with theory and you are giving responses. So we don't quite jibe in "reading between the lines" in understanding what the other fellow wants to get across. My attitude is to explore this. But we are not communicating very well as yet. It could be that I don't express myself well. All this is okay. I accept it.
> 
> Re: the intersection. It isn't that I want to set set an example of safety just because it's my desire. It's that *objectively* ANY person rushing across the street will set a bad example causing others to do the same resulting in misery when the accident rate goes up. Isn't this Fe?
> 
> I understand what you're saying (I think). Unfortunately for this conversation I have something in mind which gnaws at me. That subordinate functions can be ambiverted or at least balanced between i and e, means they can necessarily influence the dominant.
> 
> I offer myself as an example. I'm looking at ambiversion and supposedly thinking about it. Not much is external, so this is Ti thinking. If I'm a Ti lead, I have this intuition something is awry. My thinking is not pure thought as I have on my mind (intuition) ambiversion is possible for the lead, That is Ni or isn't it? I do have external evidence outside of me that some people are uncertain about their lead function. The harder I push this, the more it looks like I'm INTJ. The more I resist pushing it, the more I'm INTP. My failure to make up my mind as to what I want has me doing thinking ambiversion as I'm doing both Ti and Te. Can you convince me I'm not doing both Ti and Te? Are you sure you can convince me (at this time) of anything? Where does that leave you? Are you going to use Ti or Ni as a lead in answering this?
> 
> Think of this: Cognition may be developed as one grows in experience. Is it not possible I started out as an INTP, dealing with Ne (intuition), grown in knowledge and experience and now *in special areas* behave at ease like an INTJ? An INTJ fills in the rest of cognition possibilities. Ne turns into the ability to use Te and one can possess Ni about that. If so, in these special areas one can balance lead functions like Ti and Ni, Ne and Te. Hence the ambiversion I've alluded to. Admittedly outside of these special areas one remains a polarized personality. I am proposing that one occasionally, not permanently, on special occasions one can take on ambiversion. Even more generally, I'm proposing one can hand over the reins of one cognitive function to another and do so with a comfortable mental energy not distinguishable from the normal lead cognitive function.


I don't look at the function-attitudes as behaviors or actions _in themselves_, like the ones you describe. Technically, those actions may be able to be considered "uses" of the function, but most of them are undifferentiated form. Everyone sees things (immediately and through memory). Everyone imagines possibilities (of what the object implies itself, or a hunch they have within). These are not the differentiated forms of the functions that determine type (beginning with I/E, dominant attitude). 
So one will never get anywhere by looking at these "function uses". It's what causes most type confusion —like INTP vs J. This is why I say that type preference is based on the complexes that bring the function-attitudes to special (rather than general) consciousness. The INTP's main ego position is Ti, and the auxiliary is Ne. For the INTJ, it's Ni and Te. They will all *still be implicit in the situations* the other type looks at, but they don't really crystallize for them until brought into consciousness by an "Opposing" (Warrior) or Senex complex. It's these complexes that will turn inward or outward, to take in implications or make true/false assessments.


----------



## luemb

Daeva said:


> My initial reaction to the picture:
> 
> Water, a raindrop hanging on a twig in a forest, about to fall. I notice the few lush colors and feel it bringing out a sense of tranquility. The sort of "calm *after* the (rain)storm". I imagine the rainfall that fell before, I'm *in*​ it, I hear it, I hear the ambiance, the rainfall creating a loud overwhelming orchestra of falling water, I 'feel' the wetness of it, the chaos of it, the noise, ... all this in contrast with the feeling of fresh air, sharp smell, and wet peace that this painting gives me. I hear the flapping of wings, birds taking off again after hiding. I feel the sun warming my wet skin.
> I am one with the atmosphere.
> 
> I 'know' (=believe) that this feeling was intended by the creator..
> 
> 
> 
> I did not notice the background was faded out until I read other people's comments!
> I quite honestly suck at visual details, my mind goes to the overall impression first.
> 
> All about that atmosphere baby!!


Beautiful description of a Ni experience


----------



## luemb

Ominously said:


> Well, when I looked at it.... well I didn't really have an interpretation I guess. The whole time I was "observing", I.... didn't find any point in looking at it anymore. There wasn't really any point to analyze the artwork, but truth be told, from a first glance it looks very lively. Anyways, it just wasn't significant to me. Sorry. :frustrating:
> 
> 
> (Am I using any function perchance?)


lol. Fi. You're using Fi: "this picture has no significance to me." It didn't strike any values of yours or show any values being compromised. I was originally going to find a picture with people in it with some sort of conflict or something to bring out the responses from the dominant F people but it was a lot harder to find so I gave up.


----------



## luemb

SweetVenom said:


> Is wanting to see/enjoying to see/ just seeing things from many different perspectives or angles a characteristic for a certain function? Is it Ne?





gross porcelain said:


> I have the same question. Is it Si?


In a strict sense, seeing the same thing from many different angles/perspectives (not physically, metaphorically) is Ni. Seeing many things RELATED to the first object is Ne. Seeing the thing in detail is Se. Seeing the actual meaning of the thing is Si.


----------



## _Deadpool_

luemb said:


> This is for me to see if my understanding of what is meant by different cognitive functions is right. I'm a Te user, so I like to have a system of understanding things that everyone can agree upon as being right. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Perceiving Functions
> 
> Here's a fantastic piece of art from one of the ISFPs. (Do you mind me using it? If you do, I will remove it and use one of my own creations.)
> 
> Se will notice the vividness of the colours, the details of the lines and shapes, and immerse themselves in enjoying the objects and colours and details.
> Si will notice the details in terms of the subconscious impression they make on the person, their own personal interpretation of what they see, relating it back to past experiences and eternal images from the unconscious.
> Ne will see alternate meanings, alternate ways of interpreting the picture, suggestions of metaphors or the art may catalyse action from the ideas present in it.
> Ni will be focused on the significance of the subject and its meaning from different possible perspectives, it may represent or spark some insight into their own personal understanding of the world, it may symbolize universal concepts.
> 
> So now, to go from that example to using more technical language to describe how it works.
> - Se notices the details. Attention is captured by the object, separate from the self, and is held by experiencing the outer world in rich detail. it is an objective function, ie it gains energy by focusing on what is readily observable in the real world. Vivid experiences energize Se.
> - Ne is also an objective function. How it differs from Se is that it does not notice physical, concrete objects, but it notices the ideas or concepts inherent or present in these objects. Every object can suggest ideas and possibilities. Playing with ideas, concepts, metaphors, and meanings of words energize Ne.
> - Si is a subjective function. Instead of noticing the object, the impression, meaning, significance or "rightness" of an object is noticed by Si. Awareness of the actual object itself is repressed, but the personal representation of the object is heightened. New impressions are connected to past or known impressions, even to universal images. Positive or negative sensations may be connected with the subjective representation of the object.
> - Ni is also a subjective function, but it is the subjective side of intuition. Ideas and concepts are important in the impression they make on the person, and the personal subjective value of them. Concepts and patterns of universal importance draw Ni's attention, and understanding the concepts, perspectives, and underlying assumptions that shape the world fascinates Ni.
> 
> 
> Judging Functions
> 
> I don't really have an example for these. So I'll just give some brief descriptions.
> 
> - Fi is a subjective value-based reasoning that allows the user to make judgements based on personal ideas of what has value and what does not, and what is right and what is not. Fi dominants focus on refining their value judgements, for example their ideas of right and wrong.
> - Fe is an objective value-based reasoning that ascribes value when everyone can agree upon it.
> - Te is objective reasoning based on observable facts. Decisions are made based on impersonal standards. Te is objective in that the logic used should be universally understood and agreed upon.
> - Ti is subjective impersonal reasoning. It involves clarifying concepts by breaking them down into the smallest possible parts. Ti desires to build a logically complete system to understand something, or the world in general.
> 
> That's all for now, as I'm rather tired. I may be adding more later.
> 
> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Here are my two main sources:
> Some great descriptions of function characteristics: http://www.enfpforum.com/Wiki/tabid/56/Default.aspx?topic=Cognitive+Functions
> Jung's original work: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


Hi luemb,

When I look at the image, I feel like the image itself represents the nature of art. In the sense that the droplet hanging off the paintbrush provides a very focused, detailed image of a part of the overall background image in the same way that art zooms in and captures the essence of a particular theme. 

It's as if I enjoy looking at the art piece and the overall beauty but my focus is on how the droplet will fall off the paintbrush, and the way it indicates change, you can capture the essence of something for a brief moment. The image itself and the technical appreciate for the art isn't there as much as analyzing the best way it can be interpreted to symbolize. 

I now notice that the detail in the droplet is a mirror image of the branch in the background and I find myself trying to work out how that works or how that fits into the nature of art and different perspectives of the same thing for instance, but I don't know my physics 

It would be great if you could give me a suggestion of what functions I was using here


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> First you said "thinking about" something, then you changed it to "look out the window and take in the visuals". The comparison was to "the inner world" and the "outer world", so I was saying that either way, we are not removing the split between inner and outer.


Okay.





> I don't look at the function-attitudes as behaviors or actions _in themselves_, like the ones you describe. Technically, those actions may be able to be considered "uses" of the function, but most of them are undifferentiated form. Everyone sees things (immediately and through memory). Everyone imagines possibilities (of what the object implies itself, or a hunch they have within). These are not the differentiated forms of the functions that determine type (beginning with I/E, dominant attitude).


If you are saying cognitive functions in action are not to be separated from the personality in action, I accept that. However one is permitted to look at the personality and theorize what makes it up. This is the process of analysis. This differentiation process excludes context, precision and alternatives. It's like asking what makes up the room I am in. If the answer is the left and right areas of the room, that does not exclude the room is also made up of front and rear or high, middle and low.






> So one will never get anywhere by looking at these "function uses". It's what causes most type confusion —like INTP vs J. This is why I say that type preference is based on the complexes that bring the function-attitudes to special (rather than general) consciousness. The INTP's main ego position is Ti, and the auxiliary is Ne. For the INTJ, it's Ni and Te. They will all *still be implicit in the situations* the other type looks at, but they don't really crystallize for them until brought into consciousness by an "Opposing" (Warrior) or Senex complex. It's these complexes that will turn inward or outward, to take in implications or make true/false assessments.


Would you say complexes are complex enough that like a battleship, they are hard to change in direction or like any organism they are hard to change their metabolism?

When you mention "Warrior" as a reactive complex (is that accurate?), I think of the preferred personality as being under stress or in some unusual situation. (I had to look up Senex complex). In any case as any personality moves through life experiences, probability would say that personality will sooner or later encounter unusual or perhaps we could even call them growth situations. Then there is the choice of handling them with what the existent personality is best at or in acquiring new skills. May not these new skills lead to greater awareness of subsurface cognitive abilities? I suppose I need not belabor this point, but I don't see why if unusual situations become routine situations, ambiversion would be prohibited from arising. Perhaps a better word would be "flexibility." Flexibility grows with experience and ambiversion would be only a special case, not a necessary one.

Could we think of it this way? The potential psyche (if I used the right word) begins with a blank slate characterized by a genetic disposition. Experience populates, but does not fill the psyche with a special complex probably akin to that disposition. Experiences commonly broaden that complex rather than begin a new one. That does not mean circumstances may not begin a new one. 

Examples. A person is born male. They grow up male. Call it a male complex. Upon experiencing the female complex (by whatever means), they can either add that female complex to their repertoire into their whole psyche or they can move over completely to the female disposition temporarily embracing it. It does not matter whether this is unlikely or not as anyone could do it who has adequate capacity. This inner psyche should not be mistaken for outside behavior. This is true even if one is looking at the outside behavior of another for this is enough to have one wonder what is on the inside.


----------



## luemb

_Deadpool_ said:


> Hi luemb,
> 
> When I look at the image, I feel like the image itself represents the nature of art. In the sense that the droplet hanging off the paintbrush provides a very focused, detailed image of a part of the overall background image in the same way that art zooms in and captures the essence of a particular theme.
> 
> It's as if I enjoy looking at the art piece and the overall beauty but my focus is on how the droplet will fall off the paintbrush, and the way it indicates change, you can capture the essence of something for a brief moment. The image itself and the technical appreciate for the art isn't there as much as analyzing the best way it can be interpreted to symbolize.
> 
> I now notice that the detail in the droplet is a mirror image of the branch in the background and I find myself trying to work out how that works or how that fits into the nature of art and different perspectives of the same thing for instance, but I don't know my physics
> 
> It would be great if you could give me a suggestion of what functions I was using here


I believe you are using Si. You are focusing on a single theme, a single meaning, to the picture. You seem to be using quite a bit of Ne as well, in future projections of what will happen. Maybe you are ESFJ, ESTJ, ISFJ or ISTJ.. That's my best guess from what you wrote.


----------



## BigApplePi

My reaction to this image:








When I saw it and this thread I didn't want to give any reaction. Why? Because it was negative and I didn't want to offend anyone ... as if that would make any sense as a reaction was asked for. I could see another person finding this image "pretty", but I reacted with a kind of disgust. Not because the image was digusting, but because I couldn't make any sense of it. After all, ugliness is arbitrariness and shallowness. 

What is this golf club-branch with a drop at the end doing? So what if there is a background of supposed nature? I can't make out the background ... it doesn't suggest anything to me. So no connections. If there is going to be art here, I want connections or something meaningful. Okay. I look again and see a branch and branches out of focus. My impression of that is "big deal." I can look at something in focus with a totally out of focus background anytime. What would it mean other than that? I look at it as if this were a photograph even if someone else said it was a painting ... again I say, so what? Then I think of the person who presented this image. What did they have in mind? I think: to present something pretty. Then I think of myself and my inability to see more. They knew something and I don't ... making me a fool and I ask myself not to post this (even though it is asked) and to shut up. Stop.

I look again and see something white reflected in the raindrop. It is a white flower? I notice the clarity against the fuzzy background. What is this focus? Why does my conscious mind see something while the rest goes unnoticed or it is noticed but has no interest? I look again and see the raindrop is reflecting the branch fork in the background, but reversed. Does that reversal exemplify a law of physics I have forgotten and how that law works? More ignorance on my part. I feel like either this image is not my thing as it doesn't give me enough new to think about or else I'm not reading the image maker or even more else, it never was meant to say more.

There is a lot I could add here, but other things call ...

Then back to square one. What cognitive functions have I used above?
====================================
====================================



In a different area, I happened to see this post:


School said:


> I don't know them and my sympathy changes nothing. It would be inefficient to feel sorry for strangers who were murdered, especially considering I watch videos of people being murdered nearly every day.
> 
> Well, I think murder is good entertainment, but it would be inconvenient if someone I need was murdered. I would most likely think of it as sad if someone I care about was murdered. So murder has the potential to be inconvenient and sad. That is close to terrible.


The reply was, 


Grandmaster Yoda said:


> It also hurts but I wouldn't know that because I haven't been murdered.


So I replied, 


BigApplePi said:


> Certainly if you were murdered, you could learn from that. Yet if it wasn't mastered the first time, "practice make perfect" is a questionable policy.


I don't know what cognitive functions I used as I have difficulty interpreting them. Anyone know or can guess?
====================================
====================================






_Deadpool_ said:


> When I look at the image, I feel like the image itself represents the nature of art. In the sense that the droplet hanging off the paintbrush provides a very focused, detailed image of a part of the overall background image in the same way that art zooms in and captures the essence of a particular theme.


Terrific! I didn't know it was a paintbrush. *The paintbrush (which executes art) is reflecting the art which it might execute. *

If I stop there, I might be okay. But I want to ... ahem ... reflect further. The theme is what art can do with the proper tool. I need not be so concerned with what it actually did. But then why did I not pick up on that sooner? 

I am a tool. Why is part of me clear and the other parts so blurry?


----------



## Eric B

BigApplePi said:


> Allow me to think out loud. There is a saying, "Don't put the cart before the horse."
> 
> Observation/ perception: There is a cart and there is a horse.
> Judgment: There is an optimum way to make this a functioning system.
> 
> Thinking: I can order the cart first as opposed to the other way around. Note that this is still thinking. So far there is no good/bad or true/false. Follow on thinking could change things, but the first choice is still thinking. Thinking is ordering.


On one hand, you're essentially saying that it's TRUE that it can be ordered that way. 
But really, the first step is also iNtuition, and you're looking at the implications (possibility; i.e. "CAN" or "could") of what can be done with it (so it's the extraverted variant) that you can't see already realized through the senses. This is irrational (you can't help but see what can be done with it, it just "is"). 
Now, the DECISION as to whether it SHOULD be ordered that way, is where T (or even F) will come in. If you *reason* (i.e. "rational"), "well, the horse must come first, because the horse is the living entity, and they must pull it (they can't push it)...", then you are assessing what is the CORRECT (i.e. TRUE) order to put it in, by simply "how things work".



> Although thinking can choose (that is, judge) an order, so far there is no motivation (force).
> 
> Feeling possibles: (a) We want to put horse and cart together so we can be productive.


 This is still [mostly] Thinking, based on "how things work". Thinking carries an "if-then" causal relationship. IF we have the horse pull the cart, THEN we can be productive". This is a totally "mechanical" goal focus.
Now, the "want" is where you can say Feeling is involved. These functions, again, are not solid fixed objects, and so every situation is an admixture of functional products. But the thrust of that first point is the Thinking judgment.



> (b) It is wildly important to be productive.
> (c) I don't care what is done with the cart and horse.
> Each of these exerts a force from a lot to none. We give names to this, like: wish, desire, want, feeling, emotion to describe the force. The terms, good/bad and true/false are not needed and have been avoided.


"Important" is essentially a kind of "good" judgment". There's a reason it is important, which is some positive affect on people; hence "good". "I don't care" is either "neutral" (which still implies the good/bad pole it lies between), or you can also say it is a judgment of "_good_ either way".


> Thinking and feeling are judgments. Thinking judges order; feeling judges intensity. These are independent functions as there can be order without intensity and intensity without order.
> 
> What about good/bad and true/false?
> I see these as further constructions upon the basics above. True and false refer to consistencies external to thought. Good and bad refer to benefits external to intensity.


 What you're calling "order" is what I'm calling "mechanics", or "how things work" (is this case, which physical order will be most efficient for the goal, and thus "correct" or "true"). What you're calling "intensity" I'm calling "affect", which is what people will desire, receive, or benefit from; hence "good". So I think "true/false" and "good/bad" are a bit more than further constructions, but rather the essence of what "judgment" is; they underlie all these other aspects of judgment.


----------



## iblameyou

Is it possible to be an INFJ with ISFJ behaviors? I asked a friend about this and he said "you show ISFJ behaviors but your mind doesn't think like one". I am curious. I know MBTI/Jung is not about behaviors but rather how your brain process information. I'm aware of that. I've been reading about Si/Ni and Si-Ne/Ni-Se. The way it expresses itself are very similar so it often lead people to boxing me as ISFJ or INFJ. Whenever I read a list of INFJ or ISFJ behaviors I do resonate with INFJ. However, when I get to the function Ni and Si gets muddy for me. Too often Si is "details, past and traditions" and Ni is "future, abstract, and hunches". I'm trying to stay away from stereotypes to get a better understanding of both functions. I've been reading from PC and it's been extremely helpful, but there are some parts that I still find myself _hmmmmmm_..


----------



## BigApplePi

iblameyou said:


> Is it possible to be an INFJ with ISFJ behaviors? I asked a friend about this and he said "you show ISFJ behaviors but your mind doesn't think like one". I am curious. I know MBTI/Jung is not about behaviors but rather how your brain process information. I'm aware of that. I've been reading about Si/Ni and Si-Ne/Ni-Se. The way it expresses itself are very similar so it often lead people to boxing me as ISFJ or INFJ. Whenever I read a list of INFJ or ISFJ behaviors I do resonate with INFJ. However, when I get to the function Ni and Si gets muddy for me. Too often Si is "details, past and traditions" and Ni is "future, abstract, and hunches". I'm trying to stay away from stereotypes to get a better understanding of both functions. I've been reading from PC and it's been extremely helpful, but there are some parts that I still find myself _hmmmmmm_..


My understanding is the MBTI is about natural mental/ psychic energies. Behavior is different due to pressures external to what is natural. Just because I'm left-handed doesn't mean I can't use my right hand. I've heard a guy named Pearman measures behavior so the two can be compared. Haven't followed up on this though.
INFJ = Ni Fe Ti Se
ISFJ = Si Fe Ti Ne
Here is a try on description. I'm sure what I've *bolded* can use modification or refinement.

If one starts with "inside" functions, one chooses between N and S. I see Si as focusing on an *analytical process picking out specifics*. Hence memory. Ni goes the opposite way allowing *contextual generalized connections*. Possibles. If one is looking for contexts, presumably the motive is some future target.

What about the outside, Ne/Se? I see something similar. Se focuses in an *analytic way picking out parts* in the outside world, *specifics*. Hence senses. Ne goes the opposite allowing more *contextual generalized connections*. Possibilities.

When I use the word, "analytical" I mean a more narrow focused observation. 

On the outside, what is there? If I say "Getting to Mars is said to be a possibility", that I want to call *Ne*. Looking at Mars, a rocket or an astronaut is a specific part of that derived conceptually by an analytic process. I'll call that *Se*. 

On the inside if I say, "You are wrong about that", I want to call it *Ni*. Who you are and what you said or did is *Si *also derived by an analytic process.

When I say "derived" I don't mean N came first as S is direct. What do I mean? I guess I mean structurally that is what an outsider would see. One could ask, which came first? It could be either ... one conscious and the other unconscious or not at all. 

These thoughts need work.


----------



## iblameyou

BigApplePi said:


> My understanding is the MBTI is about natural mental/ psychic energies. Behavior is different due to pressures external to what is natural. Just because I'm left-handed doesn't mean I can't use my right hand. I've heard a guy named Pearman measures behavior so the two can be compared. Haven't followed up on this though.
> INFJ = Ni Fe Ti Se
> ISFJ = Si Fe Ti Ne
> Here is a try on description. I'm sure what I've *bolded* can use modification or refinement.
> 
> If one starts with "inside" functions, one chooses between N and S. I see Si as focusing on an *analytical process picking out specifics*. Hence memory. Ni goes the opposite way allowing *contextual generalized connections*. Possibles. If one is looking for contexts, presumably the motive is some future target.
> 
> What about the outside, Ne/Se? I see something similar. Se focuses in an *analytic way picking out parts* in the outside world, *specifics*. Hence senses. Ne goes the opposite allowing more *contextual generalized connections*. Possibilities.
> 
> When I use the word, "analytical" I mean a more narrow focused observation.
> 
> On the outside, what is there? If I say "Getting to Mars is said to be a possibility", that I want to call *Ne*. Looking at Mars, a rocket or an astronaut is a specific part of that derived conceptually by an analytic process. I'll call that *Se*.
> 
> On the inside if I say, "You are wrong about that", I want to call it *Ni*. Who you are and what you said or did is *Si *also derived by an analytic process.
> 
> When I say "derived" I don't mean N came first as S is direct. What do I mean? I guess I mean structurally that is what an outsider would see. One could ask, which came first? It could be either ... one conscious and the other unconscious or not at all.
> 
> These thoughts need work.


Wow. Thanks so much. This is probably one of the few best description I've read. Now I just have to wait, let it sink in, and observe myself, bwahaha.

{edit}

I was reading your post and I notice Si-Se and Ni-Ne have similar definition, but the nature of the functions are either expressed inwardly or outwardly. Say for example. I'm in a situation where a conflict happen and my natural tendency is to understand the other's POV. It's easier for me to dismiss my emotions and put myself in their place, but over time I begin to realise I matter as much as they do. My emotions are just as valid as theirs. I notice behaviors and certain things people do - connecting dots in my head to figure things out - and then my conclusion is usually right. It's not that I "recall" memories but it begins to make sense over time. 

[edit]

I don't even think that's my full thought process. I like to be precise how I explain myself but it is not turning out how I want.

[edit]

I edit it again because I finally figure out how I want to say it.


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> On one hand, you're essentially saying that it's TRUE that it can be ordered that way.
> But really, the first step is also iNtuition, and you're looking at the implications (possibility; i.e. "CAN" or "could") of what can be done with it (so it's the extraverted variant) that you can't see already realized through the senses. This is irrational (you can't help but see what can be done with it, it just "is").
> Now, the DECISION as to whether it SHOULD be ordered that way, is where T (or even F) will come in. If you *reason* (i.e. "rational"), "well, the horse must come first, because the horse is the living entity, and they must pull it (they can't push it)...", then you are assessing what is the CORRECT (i.e. TRUE) order to put it in, by simply "how things work".


I would like to get at the essence of what thinking is as well as the rest of the functions. I propose it is about ordering. I also propose good/bad and true/false are irrelevant or misleading.

As to cart and horse, yes the first step is observation which can be either direct (sensing) or gestalt-like ( observing a whole). You used the word, "irrational." I know Jung used it, but why? Isn't non-rational a better way, and why use this word at all? I don't know what rational means unless it is defined.

Yes I can reason the horse should go first, but that is advanced thought I claim. It skips a thinking step. The horse could push. How many times have I seen an auto which fails to start being pushed by men to get it rolling? Thinking is still thinking even if it makes mistakes. Thinking may order things in a dozen ways. We could say they are all good. Later thinking could say some ways are "gooder" than others. Or we could say they are all bad if the thinking doesn't work. Similar reasoning about "true." What exactly is true and why bother with this word?








> This is still [mostly] Thinking, based on "how things work". Thinking carries an "if-then" causal relationship. IF we have the horse pull the cart, THEN we can be productive". This is a totally "mechanical" goal focus.
> Now, the "want" is where you can say Feeling is involved. These functions, again, are not solid fixed objects, and so every situation is an admixture of functional products. But the thrust of that first point is the Thinking judgment.


Thinking as "if-then"? Let's see. Ordering means putting something one way instead of another. Maybe if-then is the same. Not sure. Thinking is an action, is it not? It is not just observing if-then or ordering. It says we are carrying out the result: the "then" decision or the ordering decision. Good and bad, true and false come in only after introducing other input to the situation.

As to "admixtures", yes that is what we observe. What I'm after is to "reverse engineer" the admixture so we see what's going on.








> "Important" is essentially a kind of "good" judgment". There's a reason it is important, which is some positive affect on people; hence "good". "I don't care" is either "neutral" (which still implies the good/bad pole it lies between), or you can also say it is a judgment of "_good_ either way".
> What you're calling "order" is what I'm calling "mechanics", or "how things work" (is this case, which physical order will be most efficient for the goal, and thus "correct" or "true"). What you're calling "intensity" I'm calling "affect", which is what people will desire, receive, or benefit from; hence "good". So I think "true/false" and "good/bad" are a bit more than further constructions, but rather the essence of what "judgment" is; they underlie all these other aspects of judgment.


Hmm. Perhaps what is happening is I'm trying to get at functions from the ground up (bottom-up) and you are doing a top-down. It's like the horse pulling the cart is being pulled by the right/good/true answer. 

I'm saying adding intensity (force) to a function gives the entity a push. It pushes harder than a lower intensity and so makes a judgment about that. That is what feeling does. Importance and good judgment are only discovered after the initial fact of observing entities. I propose that this "good" you are talking about operates from top-down at a higher level. "Important" means a force or intensity is to be applied. The reason it is important comes not from the bottom-up but is drawn from the top-down, that is, from the context of the situation.

About mechanics and "how things work" ... those consist of multiple orderings. I'm calling "order" the unit of thinking. I'm calling force or intensity the unit of feeling.

I'm not sure I've addressed all you've said.


----------



## Eric B

BigApplePi said:


> I would like to get at the essence of what thinking is as well as the rest of the functions. I propose it is about ordering. I also propose good/bad and true/false are irrelevant or misleading.


"Ordering" is something that stems from _judgment_ in itself. From the perspective of the external world, "ordering" is the *J* perspective. With Feeling judgments, you basically order things as well. Ordering then is based more on human affect, which is what gets spoken in terms of "good/bad", "like/dislike" or "desired/undesired".


> As to cart and horse, yes the first step is observation which can be either direct (sensing) or gestalt-like ( observing a whole). You used the word, "irrational." I know Jung used it, but why? Isn't non-rational a better way, and why use this word at all? I don't know what rational means unless it is defined.


I also don't like the term "irrational", as it's come to mean something else (negative) than what Jung used it for. I often substitute "*a*-rational". 
"Rational" means "reason", where you control the processing of the data, as opposed to perception, which is involuntary. An example often given is to tell you something, and then tell you not to remember it. Or to put something right in front of you and tell you not to "see" it. You can't help but see it (unless you turn away from it, so a better example would be hearing). 
This is what was Jung called "irrational".


> Yes I can reason the horse should go first, but that is advanced thought I claim. It skips a thinking step. The horse could push. How many times have I seen an auto which fails to start being pushed by men to get it rolling? Thinking is still thinking even if it makes mistakes.


How can a horse push? (at least for any distance? You then switch to men pushing a car, but men know how to guide it, where a horse won't. So this is messing up the analogy.



> Thinking may order things in a dozen ways. We could say they are all good. Later thinking could say some ways are "gooder" than others. Or we could say they are all bad if the thinking doesn't work. Similar reasoning about "true." What exactly is true and why bother with this word?


 When you say it's "good", then you are adding a measure of human affect. Humans want things to work, and when they do, we are happy and say it is "good". As I've been saying, the different functional products are all mixed in, so T and F can be intertwined like that. 



> Thinking as "if-then"? Let's see. Ordering means putting something one way instead of another. Maybe if-then is the same. Not sure. Thinking is an action, is it not? It is not just observing if-then or ordering. It says we are carrying out the result: the "then" decision or the ordering decision. Good and bad, true and false come in only after introducing other input to the situation.


 Look at the example you were responding to. An assessment is being made of which should go first, between the cart and the horse. IF we put the horse first, THEN he can pull the cart, and we can be productive. This is what's CORRECT or "true") If we put the cart first the horse can butt against it, but it probably won't go far, and it will be harder to guide it. We would have to get out and push it the direction we want it to go, instead of just riding the horse and telling him which way to turn. When it comes to the best way to achieve our productivity, this way is FALSE. 
So yes, it is "ordering", but it's ordering by how things work. Feeling might feel sorry for the horse and put the horse ON the cart, to ride along, because we feel it is better (more "GOOD") treatment of the animal (like I think NYC just banned horse carriage rides because of this) which is ALSO "ordering"; but it won't work, will it? It goes on how the act affects us, and ignores how things work.



> Hmm. Perhaps what is happening is I'm trying to get at functions from the ground up (bottom-up) and you are doing a top-down. It's like the horse pulling the cart is being pulled by the right/good/true answer.
> 
> I'm saying adding intensity (force) to a function gives the entity a push. It pushes harder than a lower intensity and so makes a judgment about that. That is what feeling does. Importance and good judgment are only discovered after the initial fact of observing entities. I propose that this "good" you are talking about operates from top-down at a higher level. "Important" means a force or intensity is to be applied. The reason it is important comes not from the bottom-up but is drawn from the top-down, that is, from the context of the situation.
> 
> About mechanics and "how things work" ... those consist of multiple orderings. I'm calling "order" the unit of thinking. I'm calling force or intensity the unit of feeling.


Again, what you're calling" intensity", I'm calling "affect". That is what I do make the essence of Feeling, and the "good/bad" judgment stems from this. What you're calling "order" now seems to be what I'm calling "If-then" and "mechanics"/"how things work". That is likewise what I see as the essence of Thinking, and "true/false" are determined by this. I was thrown off by you putting "order" in verb form. That's about what we DO, but what we do can be driven by Thinking or Feeling. But if you say "the order of things", that's more like what I would say.I focus on "true/false" and "good/bad", because they are simpler terms, and, as the PRODUCTS of these processes; the actual JUDGEments made from them; are perhaps easier to conceive of.


----------



## Pastelle

Eric B said:


> On one hand, you're essentially saying that it's TRUE that it can be ordered that way.
> But really, the first step is also iNtuition, and you're looking at the implications (possibility; i.e. "CAN" or "could") of what can be done with it (so it's the extraverted variant) that you can't see already realized through the senses. This is irrational (you can't help but see what can be done with it, it just "is").
> Now, the DECISION as to whether it SHOULD be ordered that way, is where T (or even F) will come in. If you *reason* (i.e. "rational"), "well, the horse must come first, because the horse is the living entity, and they must pull it (they can't push it)...", then you are assessing what is the CORRECT (i.e. TRUE) order to put it in, by simply "how things work".


Hello. I think "possibilities" is a bad name for the output of intuition. I feel "associations" is more of an appropriate term as "possibilities" can be gained from sensing as well (looking at the "what is" data (Se) and deciding what can be with it). It should be noted that intuition is not ideas and decision making is not of the judging functions. Idea generation is separate from the functions themselves. Perception is just a "pool" of data from where the idea is grounded in. For the cart example, Ne wouldn't see the cart, but expand on concepts that are derive from it ("possibilities"). Se would actually see the details of what is present. With this, Se would see the horse and cart and the individual would derive an idea from that data. Ne is capable of coming up with the same idea but through a different avenue (say, seeing connections from sense data that lead to the idea). Intuition is blind, and does not consider the "is". Both are perceiving functions (I hate the word irrational too) so there isn't any "reasoning" of the ideas or data. The judgement functions don't necessarily make decisions, just judge the acquired data. Your description of T vs F is spot on though. It has to be noted that thinking is not actual "thinking". T and F are Judgement functions, the I/E are just indicators of the reference. That's just my take.


----------



## BigApplePi

Pastelle said:


> Hello. I think "possibilities" is a bad name for the output of intuition. I feel "associations" is more of an appropriate term as "possibilities" can be gained from sensing as well (looking at the "what is" data (Se) and deciding what can be with it). It should be noted that intuition is not ideas and decision making is not of the judging functions. Idea generation is separate from the functions themselves. Perception is just a "pool" of data from where the idea is grounded in. For the cart example, Ne wouldn't see the cart, but expand on concepts that are derive from it ("possibilities"). Se would actually see the details of what is present. With this, Se would see the horse and cart and the individual would derive an idea from that data. Ne is capable of coming up with the same idea but through a different avenue (say, seeing connections from sense data that lead to the idea). Intuition is blind, and does not consider the "is". Both are perceiving functions (I hate the word irrational too) so there isn't any "reasoning" of the ideas or data. The judgement functions don't necessarily make decisions, just judge the acquired data. Your description of T vs F is spot on though. It has to be noted that thinking is not actual "thinking". T and F are Judgement functions, the I/E are just indicators of the reference. That's just my take.


It has always bothered me when intuition is referred to as being about the future/ possibilities. What does the future have to do with perception/ observation? Why can't it be about the past? "I have a hunch the world is coming to an end soon." "Just looking at the horse and cart, the horse goes first." These are intuitions and they do say something about the future, but why not the past as well? If these are Ni, they were preceded by Si which visualized an ending world and as well as a horse drawn buggy. 

Answer: Sensing is direct and specific and always exists in a pool of its own where every part of that pool is ignored but the entity sensed. Intuition is precisely the opposite. Intuition is about the pool, or said another way, it is about the whole. This whole ignores the parts. When this whole is addressed in some even larger pool, it is inevitable that this observed whole will be discovered to be flawed. Why? Because it neglected to take into account every part inside the whole. As soon as the flaws are discovered, the whole which is perceived will be revised. It is this revision which is about the future. Anything intuited must be corrected. Since this is known, the very essence of intuition has a future characteristic.

Sensing and intuition are historical/ traditional terms. They have connotations which make their meaning "fuzzy." This fuzziness gives us all sorts of trouble sending us in confusing directions. Why not use new terms if we are to adapt something similar. "Part" and "whole" are simpler terms. We know what they mean ... we do, don't we?

"Sensing" is misleading because the whole of which it is a part is ignored. "Intuition" is misleading because the parts of which it is made are ignored. There is another outgrowth of this: complications. Parts and wholes can be confused went each other making this proposed answer unwieldy. I have a solution in my head, but it is untested. The guinea pigs are the ideas on this thread, lol.


----------



## Pastelle

BigApplePi said:


> It has always bothered me when intuition is referred to as being about the future/ possibilities. What does the future have to do with perception/ observation? Why can't it be about the past? "I have a hunch the world is coming to an end soon." "Just looking at the horse and cart, the horse goes first." These are intuitions and they do say something about the future, but why not the past as well? If these are Ni, they were preceded by Si which visualized an ending world and as well as a horse drawn buggy.


I have been playing with the idea of perception and gauging what it really entails. You brought up a good point about intuition dealing with the future. To my understanding, the cognitive functions are just focuses of the individual. With that said [controversial idea incoming], don't all the perceiving functions deal with the present? I.e, Si. Si is often mistaken with being related to the past, but this is not so. It simply is the subjective impression of the present. It's opposite, Ne, is not so much about the future, but expanding this impression, "more to how one sees it". The Se-Ni axis is not much different. Se focuses on the objective "what is" while Ni gives a subjective impression of intuition, saying that "there is more that meets the eye" in the present. Note that even with intuition, the focus is still on the present, just differing interpretations of what is given. With this, the "possibilities" of Ne are still in the present (focusing on "what could be" in terms of inquiring what the present actually is).This is just me playing with the idea.


----------



## BigApplePi

Pastelle said:


> I have been playing with the idea of perception and gauging what it really entails. You brought up a good point about intuition dealing with the future. To my understanding, the cognitive functions are just focuses of the individual. With that said [controversial idea incoming], don't all the perceiving functions deal with the present? I.e, Si. Si is often mistaken with being related to the past, but this is not so. It simply is the subjective impression of the present. It's opposite, Ne, is not so much about the future, but expanding this impression, "more to how one sees it". The Se-Ni axis is not much different. Se focuses on the objective "what is" while Ni gives a subjective impression of intuition, saying that "there is more that meets the eye" in the present. Note that even with intuition, the focus is still on the present, just differing interpretations of what is given. With this, the "possibilities" of Ne are still in the present (focusing on "what could be" in terms of inquiring what the present actually is).This is just me playing with the idea.


About perception. We have to distinguish between the act of perceiving and what the perceiving is about. The act, the physical/mental act is us executing an observation in the present. The content is about something else. This Si, this image of our observation comes from past experience. That is where the past comes from. Se, the image of our observation is right there in front of us. No past. No future. But present. (This is actually a simplification for Se as an adult brain has more things going on.)

What about Ni and Ne? Ni, inside our head occurs in the present but is about a whole, this whole being an unfinished, incomplete in detail, observation. This means the content, being incomplete implies completion in the future. Ne is about outside ourselves possibilities. We execute the Ne in the present, but it is observed for future application. <-- we need some examples to check this out and at the moment my brain is frozen, lol. Do we have some?

Come to think of it, Si has future possibilities also. If its images are from past experience, why are we dredging them up in the first place? Answer: they are to be put to use in the future.

I haven't thought about the Si-Ne axis or the Se-Ni axis, but I think you've got something there worth exploring.


----------



## Eric B

On “possibilities”, I agree. I used it in that one instance, but otherwise have been avoiding it, in favor of “implications”.
The example once given me was a quarterback, using Se, who sees an opening to make a pass. That's a “possibility” using Se. I had been using it for Ne, but with Ne, it's about what can be CHANGED to realize its potential. With Se, it's about what opportunity can be exploited in the moment. So I would call Se “possibility”, also “DOability”, while Ne is more about the potentiality of the object.


----------



## Pastelle

BigApplePi said:


> About perception. We have to distinguish between the act of perceiving and what the perceiving is about. The act, the physical/mental act is us executing an observation in the present. The content is about something else. This Si, this image of our observation comes from past experience. That is where the past comes from. Se, the image of our observation is right there in front of us. No past. No future. But present. (This is actually a simplification for Se as an adult brain has more things going on.)
> 
> What about Ni and Ne? Ni, inside our head occurs in the present but is about a whole, this whole being an unfinished, incomplete in detail, observation. This means the content, being incomplete implies completion in the future. Ne is about outside ourselves possibilities. We execute the Ne in the present, but it is observed for future application. <-- we need some examples to check this out and at the moment my brain is frozen, lol. Do we have some?
> 
> Come to think of it, Si has future possibilities also. If its images are from past experience, why are we dredging them up in the first place? Answer: they are to be put to use in the future.
> 
> I haven't thought about the Si-Ne axis or the Se-Ni axis, but I think you've got something there worth exploring.


Throwing the Ti gauntlet at me, eh?  Let me get into TEDx mode. [Clears Throat]...

Perception is one's focus. Perceiving is the acquisition of information. In terms of cognitive functions, it has to be noted that the 5 senses is not of the functions, being a separate entity. The 5 senses are what "perceive" but is not our cognitive perception. The senses give us information, the functions are what we get out of it. I.e, I'm an ESTP (hope I'm right). My main "focus" is Se, the attention to the present objective reality and what is in it. If this is taken to the strictest sense, Se can be seen as a hedonistic and aimless entity. Sensation and Intuition are always tied together, so I would have Ni as well. Ni is the subjective intuition of Se data. I perhaps should have stated what intuition is first, oh well. I would say intuition is the conceptual associations tied to the sense data. With this, since my Ni is inferior, that doesn't mean I don't think of the future or consequences. I just don't take into account the inner conceptual qualities that are latent within the data that Se gave. I think the OP sums up what it really is quite nicely. N does see "possibilities" but what does that really mean? Since N does not acknowledge the "is" itself, it's hard for me to understand how it is responsible to see "what can be done" as it is often ascribed to (that's more creativity than of the functions). "Possibilities" means different things to different people, hence, I feel "associations" is more of an apt description. You are right that with intuition, one gains more of the "whole". Ne does focus on the external "possibilities" and Ni being inner, but I think in terms of perception, impression captures the function of Ni better like Si. 

As for your notion of Si seeing possibilities, that not a common understanding, but I see where you are coming from. I wouldn't say Si sees possibilities but rather possibilities can be generated from Si's impression. Some would say that Ne would be responsible for that but I think Ne would just say "what if it was that", trying to shift away from Si subjective way of seeing things. Long-winded, wasn't it?


----------



## Pastelle

Eric B said:


> On “possibilities”, I agree. I used it in that one instance, but otherwise have been avoiding it, in favor of “implications”.
> The example once given me was a quarterback, using Se, who sees an opening to make a pass. That's a “possibility” using Se. I had been using it for Ne, but with Ne, it's about what can be CHANGED to realize its potential. With Se, it's about what opportunity can be exploited in the moment. So I would call Se “possibility”, also “DOability”, while Ne is more about the potentiality of the object.


I always agreed with Se being "DOabilitiy" but at the same time, couldn't that involve change as well? Ideas, conjoined with Se, the mindset would be like this "What can I do with the environment". Wouldn't sculpting, crafting, playing with Legos, etc, be examples of Se taking advantage of the opportunities available.? I would say Ne is more "inferring", deriving patterns and conceptions from the "is".


----------



## Eric B

Well yes; the Se is the seeing what CAN be done with them (to “in the moment”, I should have added “AS IS”). That technically involves 'implications', but iNtuition is more about the idea of the finished product (what the changes are producing), then the process of seeing the materials and automatically knowing what can be done with them, and then doing it.


----------



## BigApplePi

Pastelle said:


> Throwing the Ti gauntlet at me, eh?  Let me get into TEDx mode. [Clears Throat]...
> Are you speaking into the microphone?
> 
> Perception is one's focus. Perceiving is the acquisition of information.
> How focused? Are we paying attention long enough to acquire?
> 
> In terms of cognitive functions, it has to be noted that the 5 senses is not of the functions, being a separate entity. The 5 senses are what "perceive" but is not our cognitive perception. The senses give us information, the functions are what we get out of it.
> What are you saying? Are you saying the sense step is different and separate from what the brain records from the senses? I'm okay with that.
> 
> 
> I.e, I'm an ESTP (hope I'm right). My main "focus" is Se, the attention to the present objective reality and what is in it. If this is taken to the strictest sense, Se can be seen as a hedonistic and aimless entity. Sensation and Intuition are always tied together, so I would have Ni as well.
> Only if you are interpreting what you see.
> 
> Ni is the subjective intuition of Se data. I perhaps should have stated what intuition is first, oh well. I would say intuition is the conceptual associations tied to the sense data. With this, since my Ni is inferior, that doesn't mean I don't think of the future or consequences. I just don't take into account the inner conceptual qualities that are latent within the data that Se gave. I think the OP sums up what it really is quite nicely. N does see "possibilities" but what does that really mean? Since N does not acknowledge the "is" itself, it's hard for me to understand how it is responsible to see "what can be done" as it is often ascribed to (that's more creativity than of the functions). "Possibilities" means different things to different people, hence, I feel "associations" is more of an apt description. You are right that with intuition, one gains more of the "whole". Ne does focus on the external "possibilities" and Ni being inner, but I think in terms of perception, impression captures the function of Ni better like Si.
> Not sure what to say here. Ni/Ne are freely apprehending associations if only because they are trying to capture a whole. Think possibilities as probabilities. N is as confident in what it observes as S is, but the other functions (T or F) are critical afterward. This criticism can be called "possibilities" but I don't want to attribute possibility to N itself as it stands in isolation. Do you? Is this correct?
> 
> 
> As for your notion of Si seeing possibilities, that not a common understanding, but I see where you are coming from. I wouldn't say Si sees possibilities but rather possibilities can be generated from Si's impression.
> Yes. Like what I just said about N, S can exist in service of future happenings. Certainly the future is separate from the here and now. Now it would be desirable if we could agree about N. N by itself doesn't do ANYTHING about the future or even possibilities. * It is a dead observation until brought to life by T or F. *We have to agree on this to proceed further.
> 
> 
> Some would say that Ne would be responsible for that but I think Ne would just say "what if it was that", trying to shift away from Si subjective way of seeing things. Long-winded, wasn't it?
> When Si supplies some data, T or F says apply the data. Go searching for applications. That is Ne. I suppose Se/Ni does the same thing. Not long winded. There is a lot going on.


----------



## Pastelle

BigApplePi said:


> [Perception is one's focus. Perceiving is the acquisition of information.
> How focused? Are we paying attention long enough to acquire?


I would say focus as in what part of reality you focus on the most (I.E, your Ti). We are always acquiring information. Sure, there are times where a function is not applicable, but the cognitive focus ("perception") is what is generally focused on. 



> In terms of cognitive functions, it has to be noted that the 5 senses is not of the functions, being a separate entity. The 5 senses are what "perceive" but is not our cognitive perception. The senses give us information, the functions are what we get out of it.
> What are you saying? Are you saying the sense step is different and separate from what the brain records from the senses? I'm okay with that.


Yes, but let me elaborate. Everyone "sees" in terms of using their available senses (not sensation). That information is then relayed to the brain. This is when functions kick in. As stated earlier, functions are what create one's perception of the world; one's main focus. Jungian sensing (Si/Se) is the actual "acknowledging" of the world. To counter and expand on sensing, one has intuition (Ni/Ne), which captures the underlying concepts and patterns of that data. Judgement (T and F) "judges" the information, but this is different form decision making (though plays a part). 



> Ni is the subjective intuition of Se data. I perhaps should have stated what intuition is first, oh well. I would say intuition is the conceptual associations tied to the sense data. With this, since my Ni is inferior, that doesn't mean I don't think of the future or consequences. I just don't take into account the inner conceptual qualities that are latent within the data that Se gave. I think the OP sums up what it really is quite nicely. N does see "possibilities" but what does that really mean? Since N does not acknowledge the "is" itself, it's hard for me to understand how it is responsible to see "what can be done" as it is often ascribed to (that's more creativity than of the functions). "Possibilities" means different things to different people, hence, I feel "associations" is more of an apt description. You are right that with intuition, one gains more of the "whole". Ne does focus on the external "possibilities" and Ni being inner, but I think in terms of perception, impression captures the function of Ni better like Si.
> Not sure what to say here. Ni/Ne are freely apprehending associations if only because they are trying to capture a whole. Think possibilities as probabilities. N is as confident in what it observes as S is, but the other functions (T or F) are critical afterward. This criticism can be called "possibilities" but I don't want to attribute possibility to N itself as it stands in isolation. Do you? Is this correct?


I would say I agree with this, but wouldn't say T and F are innately critical of information.(they just "judge" things within their respective spheres). 



> As for your notion of Si seeing possibilities, that not a common understanding, but I see where you are coming from. I wouldn't say Si sees possibilities but rather possibilities can be generated from Si's impression.
> Yes. Like what I just said about N, S can exist in service of future happenings. Certainly the future is separate from the here and now. Now it would be desirable if we could agree about N. N by itself doesn't do ANYTHING about the future or even possibilities. * It is a dead observation until brought to life by T or F. *We have to agree on this to proceed further.


. 
You are right that N doesn't do anything. Observations are just noticed. But, [this is just my own perspective] neither does T and F. Judgement just "analyzes" gathered information to gauge does if something make sense (T) or agreeable (F) through reasoning. I would say decision making would be a an amalgamation of all the functions and then some.


----------



## BigApplePi

Pastelle said:


> I would say focus as in what part of reality you focus on the most (I.E, your Ti). We are always acquiring information. Sure, there are times where a function is not applicable, but the cognitive focus ("perception") is what is generally focused on.


I wonder if we can say perception comes first?






> Yes, but let me elaborate. Everyone "sees" in terms of using their available senses (not sensation). That information is then relayed to the brain. This is when functions kick in. As stated earlier, functions are what create one's perception of the world; one's main focus. Jungian sensing (Si/Se) is the actual "acknowledging" of the world. To counter and expand on sensing, one has intuition (Ni/Ne), which captures the underlying concepts and patterns of that data. Judgement (T and F) "judges" the information, but this is different form decision making (though plays a part).


To add to that, N observes as well as S. N is an *expansion* of S. It observes something different from S. T and F judge, meaning they *select *(favor) one perception over another. We could call this "weak" decision making. Stronger decision making is called "action" where something objectively *moves*.







> I would say I agree with this, but wouldn't say T and F are innately critical of information.(they just "judge" things within their respective spheres).


I had used the word "order" before (and @*Eric B* used "if-then" for T. Also intensity and aspect (Eric) for F.). Judge is stronger and has irrelevant connotations. Critique is even stronger. What would you say to "*select*" as to what T and F do? T and F actively say, do it this way out of a pool of possibilities. S and N select also but are passive.





> You are right that N doesn't do anything. Observations are just noticed. But, [this is just my own perspective] neither does T and F. Judgement just "analyzes" gathered information to gauge does if something make sense (T) or agreeable (F) through reasoning. I would say decision making would be a an amalgamation of all the functions and then some.


I'll try try to strip this down to basics ... which I believe is what we've been after.

Suppose we say reality holds a pool (set) of entities. Observation passively unconsciously picks from the pool. Judgment consciously picks from the pool. Action moves the pool.

Elaborating, reality, both inside and outside the brain, holds a pool of entities. *Observation* unconsciously (passive) picks from the pool. * Judgment* consciously (active) picks from the pool, the consciousness being the picking process. *Action* moves the pool but with a degree of consciousness varying from high focus to almost nil awareness.

We can ask the question, how does observation move to judgment to action? Although the above says something about their distinction, less is said about their transition. I'll use the terms "pleasure" and "pain" without defining them. Observation is neutral but impacts the observer who now chooses a direction (judges) for further observation. This is motivated by a pleasure/pain. Judgment enters a larger pool bringing about a division into F and T. F is the force of this judgment; T is the direction of the judgment. Action is precipitated by the amount of force over a (chaotic?) threshold. 

Note: These cognitive functions are executed by humans. No reason why the concepts can't be extended to animals and robots. Their more primitive nature may shed light on our understanding. I keep thinking about a robot as a thinking machine that lacks feeling. This thinking needs work to fit it in with the above. A robot is very good at choosing direction (thinking) but is created to execute with a certain force (call it feeling).

I'll stop here.


----------



## BigApplePi

I wanted to reply to your post.


Eric B said:


> "Ordering" is something that stems from _judgment_ in itself. From the perspective of the external world, "ordering" is the *J* perspective. With Feeling judgments, you basically order things as well. Ordering then is based more on human affect, which is what gets spoken in terms of "good/bad", "like/dislike" or "desired/undesired".


We are using various terms. Which terms could be used to lay at the foundation of thinking and feeling respectively? Both thinking and feelings perform judgments. Both have "good/bad", "like/dislike" or "desired/undesired" in some sense of those terms. But how do we remove what I'll call "distracting variables? If we assume observation precedes, is judgment next? After observation something is done with the observed. I am now suggesting the word, "*selection*." Ordering implying more than one is asking for a relation. Selection separates, drawing from choices. To separate requires other entities. One gets prominence, the other is demoted. Hence the ordering.

Both thinking and feeling do this. Thinking is colder, concentrating on rating or scaling on whatever the variable is. Thinking removes intensity, but not entirely. Feeling I called intensity as the rating may be mild or intense. Force might be a better, more well known term (from physics). Feeling selects among possible forces. Now I'm getting warmer: Thinking differs in that it holds the force constant. 

Summary: 
Feeling selects among forces holding space-timel order constant.
Thinking selects among space-time order holding force constant.

Space-time and force are independent variables.





> How can a horse push? (at least for any distance? You then switch to men pushing a car, but men know how to guide it, where a horse won't. So this is messing up the analogy.
> 
> When you say it's "good", then you are adding a measure of human affect. Humans want things to work, and when they do, we are happy and say it is "good". As I've been saying, the different functional products are all mixed in, so T and F can be intertwined like that.
> 
> Look at the example you were responding to. An assessment is being made of which should go first, between the cart and the horse. IF we put the horse first, THEN he can pull the cart, and we can be productive. This is what's CORRECT or "true") If we put the cart first the horse can butt against it, but it probably won't go far, and it will be harder to guide it. We would have to get out and push it the direction we want it to go, instead of just riding the horse and telling him which way to turn. When it comes to the best way to achieve our productivity, this way is FALSE.
> So yes, it is "ordering", but it's ordering by how things work. Feeling might feel sorry for the horse and put the horse ON the cart, to ride along, because we feel it is better (more "GOOD") treatment of the animal (like I think NYC just banned horse carriage rides because of this) which is ALSO "ordering"; but it won't work, will it? It goes on how the act affects us, and ignores how things work.


I shot myself in the foot with this example. Responses are way too complex. I am after the basic nature of feelings and thinking. Looking for a more primitive example. Why is the horse-cart example too complex?

Horse. Cart. How to order them? One is better than the other. This example was supposed to illustrate thinking by showing order can be either way. I admit thinking has chosen one way over the other. Notice the horse will not pull unattended. Some human has to push and direct the horse. Does the human push the horse or does the horse pull the human? Actually it is both. My example fails to isolate choice. Want more complexity? The horse stands at the edge of a cliff. Is it now better to have the horse behind because if the horse pushes, there is more time to save the contents of the cart? Now what has happened to "good/ bad", "like/ dislike" or "desired/ undesired"? We have to go into more definitions which make things more complex. This is to be avoided.






> Again, what you're calling" intensity", I'm calling "affect". That is what I do make the essence of Feeling, and the "good/bad" judgment stems from this. What you're calling "order" now seems to be what I'm calling "If-then" and "mechanics"/"how things work". That is likewise what I see as the essence of Thinking, and "true/false" are determined by this. I was thrown off by you putting "order" in verb form. That's about what we DO, but what we do can be driven by Thinking or Feeling. But if you say "the order of things", that's more like what I would say.I focus on "true/false" and "good/bad", because they are simpler terms, and, as the PRODUCTS of these processes; the actual JUDGEments made from them; are perhaps easier to conceive of.


I don't know where was are now. I'm replacing order by selection. "To select." Verb form because judgment is an action on an observation though I admit not an action on moving real objects.


----------



## Eric B

Yes, "selection" would be another good term for judgment (T or F). What I say is that this "selection" is based on a notion of "right" and "wrong", and T/F is differentiated by whether that right or wrong is impersonal, which then becomes "true/false", or more "personal" (by its affect), which makes it "good/bad".
"Weak" and "strong" are an interesting distinction, and I believe that "action" usually comes about when the judgment decision determines something is wrong (bad/false), and the natural goal is to make it right (good/true), so that leads us to action. (And then, Se is often associated with "taking action", but then that's simply the act of exploiting a situation, not rationally making something "right").

I still say "intensity" is about the "affect" on us as emotional creatures. That's precisely what "pleasure"/"pain" indicate! That's what sets Feeling apart from Thinking.
Again, what has happened to "good/ bad", "like/ dislike" or "desired/ undesired" in the cart/horse scenario, is that the situation being made "right" is what's desired, when enacted, it would be "liked", and we would call it "good". All f this is the Feeling side of the issue. Thinking determines the technical (mechanical) means of achieving this state. IF we arrange the cart and horse this way, THEN this will happen. IF there's some other factor, like being on the edge of a cliff, THEN we need to adjust our strategy. One will will be "correct" (true) and the other might be "incorrect" (false). We want (desire) what's "good" for us to be "correct" (like the things we like to eat, let's say, are healthy for us, and so we can safely keep eating them to be healthy), and what's "correct" to be good to us (we hope these health foods taste good), so with that as the standard, we go about what's "correct". I would say in this case, F simply sets the humane goal, and T is the means of negotiating physical nature in order to achieve that (or at least understanding it to learn how to counter the ways nature goes that are unfavorable to our desires). 

I don't understand the connection with "space time order". I would take "space-time" as indicating the laws of the universe, which are purely the T domain; how things work, regardless of their affect on us. Are "forces" still referring to what you call "intensity"? How does that "hold space-time order constant"?



Eric B said:


> The root of introversion and extraversion is the division between "inner/outer", and *the polarity lies in our consciousness, not the function itself*. All of the dichotomies are divisions of reality. Just like our immersion in the universe divides it into "left/right", "up/down", "back/forth" and "past/future". So there is also "inside of us" and "outside of us" (both spatially and psychically).
> So it has to be either/or. Our ego consciousness prefers one or the other, and the dominant function then becomes oriented to that space.
> 
> Inner/outer aren't really implicit in the functions (which are simply other division of reality, into tangible reality (S) vs implications of things (N), and how things work (T) vs how they affect us emotionally (F)). It's the ego that splits them further into inner (individual) or outer (environmental) polarities.


 The other concept I momentarily forgot about, and I now believe is perhaps clearer than "inner"/"outer", are "*I"/"NOT I"*. This is the real way we "divide reality" in that respect. What we call "inner" is basically centered on "I", the ego, which is the center of consciousness (and again, the other complexes have their own lesser senses of "I"). Everything else, which is "outside" of this, we consider "Not I" (even other complexes, when we are not conscious of them). So an introverted function references the "I" in processing its data, while the extraverted function references the "not I". (And again, Jung described it as the "subject" merging itself with the "object").


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> It's actually the *complexes* that sort out this data. In Hunziker's new book, he points out that the function-attitudes “*rarely operate as discrete units. More often, they’re confusingly mixed together or form ad oc alliances*“.


 @*Eric B* . Would you agree with the above and below?

I originally brought up the concept of ambiversion, an idea which I'm ready to dismiss. What I question is not the idea of complexes which produce leading functions nor differentiation which is associated with development, but rather the modularity which is used to conveniently described one's functions. It's not the functions which I question but rather the degree of separateness for which much of the talk on the subject can be misleading.

(All fuzzy conceptualizations can be targeted for clarification). Suppose I type *2 + 2 = 4*. What is one's cognitive reaction? Here are some possibilities.

1. Se - It appears prominently on the display page.
2. Si - I remember that equation.
3. Ne - It is much like other equations, 2n + 3n = 5n.
4. Ni - This equation has big ramifications.
5. Ti - We can play with multiplication as well as addition and get the same square.
6. Te - We can use this equation to prove some things.
7. Fi - I like this equation.
8. Fe - We can use this equation to please people.

While it is true one may react with leading functions to this, I have probably used Ne. During that Ne process I must have gone through all the functions with some memory sense (Si) and done it to please the reader (Fe) and myself (Fi). Behind this was the primary function to think out an illustration (Ti). But to make it work I had to run through a verification (Te), all this preceded by a belief in the possibility it would work (Ni). If I am right and used so many functions in such a short interval, it is possible ten minutes later I could jump to another cognitive function. For example, Fi if I concluded this was not working and live through that.

Under stress (Se observed) I'm upset (Fi) this example is not working. Readers are not going to like this (Fe) and I will want to retract it for them for personal review (Ti). My retraction will have to be thought out (Te). And so on with these functions. 

What's my point? My point is even though I may have a dominant and auxiliary overall function, all of them can possibly be going on *in rapid succession*. There is nothing pure about a dominant and an auxiliary.

If I were now to ask, what function does 2 + 2 = 4 represent?, I would have to say it depends on the viewer. Maybe one or two functions ... maybe all of them.

It may be said complexes form defining the primary function. If they do, the psyche and ego form as an organic process just as the physical body does. It would help to define "organic process" but that's for another time. This is my subjective view (Ti) but can be checked out with brain scans (Te) such as Dario Nardi might do. What do you think?

P.S. I missed #219 and haven't seen it till now as there was no name reference to call it to my attention.


----------



## Pastelle

This is my understanding of the functions. Feel free to critique it.

There are 4 functions...

Sensing-informs one that something exists or is present.

Intuition-brings to light the connections inherent in sensing data.

Thinking-Categorizes or informs one what "something is" through reason.

Feeling-Gives one a sense of what is agreeable or "good" through reason.

With each function, there is are two subsets of it: Extraverted (E) and Introverted (I).

Though most know this, I have to just say it just to be thorough, but Extraverted and Introverted does not pertain to how social one is. They are simply indicators of how the functions are oriented. Extraverted functions are focused on the "outer" essence of their respective domain or what I like to call "reference point". With the introverted, this reference point is from the "self" or individually garnered storehouse of information if you will. With that, I will explain what that means for each function.

Sensation:
E).Focuses on the raw, tangible aspects of reality (What touches the senses). 
I). Focuses on the subjective experience of reality (I.e, "How I saw it").

Intuition:
E). Focuses on the "Possibilities" that the external world infers ("what could be" in terms of abstract connections).
I). Focuses on the meaning or "vision" that an object brings (symbolism or "hunch" of what is to come.)

Thinking:
E). To determine what is, one must look to external measure (Statistics, Charts, etc).
I). To determine what is, one look inward to one's understanding ("internal blueprint").

Feeling:
E). What is agreeable is determined by the external world and the effects therein (social consensus, etiquette, "values", etc).
I). What is agreeable is determined by one's inner "value" system and the effect on self (I'm a bit blank with this one).

-Everyone uses all functions and their derivatives but there will be a natural dominance than one leans to.
-You cannot "use" functions. They are more like "perspectives" where one's functions determines what facets of life are focused on.
-The dominant function is the facet of life that is most focused on while the inferior is the least focus on. It must be noted that the order of focus does not really determine the strength of "skill" of the functions. (Ie, INFJ, does not mean such an individual is poor at or scoffs at matters of sensation (Se).

The perceiving functions in action; looking at a painting (Let's say Van Gogh's Starry Night).

Se: focuses on swirls of the brushstrokes, the Cypress tree. The painting itself demands attention.
Si : focuses on the "haunting" essence of the painting.
Ne: "Oh, the tree looks like Maleficent...or Sauron. Oooo. Look at the sky yin/yang symbols. Black holes?
Ni: focuses on how the tree foreground represents the loneliness of a wanderer.


----------



## Eric B

Good! Though I think the Si examples aren't quite right. "How I saw it" is really _judgment_. Even though it uses the term "saw", the focus is really on a decision of it's correctness or agreeability rather than just the taking in of the information itself. It's like you've ("*I*") taken in the data ("saw"), but when you add the *"how"*, it's becoming rational.

"Subjective experience of reality" would be something like "what's touching my senses is familiar, or unfamiliar". 
"Haunting essence of the painting" sounds like iNtuition. It's an implication of a non-tangible "connection" to something. 
Unless you are drawing a comparison to something you _once saw_ that felt haunting. That comparison would then be Si.


----------



## Turi

Too many posts to go through ATM but anyone elses first thought that it looks like a mages staff?


----------



## Pastelle

I'm just going to put this out there while it's on my mind. On the Judgement Functions...

To my understanding, the judgment functions aren't really about making decisions. The Judgement functions do have a play in where initial focus is deployed during such assessment but so does perception (though more irrational). Decision making is the amalgamation of the four functions and other mental faculties. Judgement makes "sense" of the data that is gained through perception. Feeling takes note of the "values" within the data and Thinking tells you what it is. With that, I feel (funny, I know) that equating logic with thinking is not proper. I would say identification is a better suited word. The I/E divide is simply just a point of reference the function favors. 

Introverted Judgement: Favors its own "filtering" of data, shuns attempts to be swayed by outer influence.
Extroverted Judgement: Accepts the "demand" of the external, hidden internal system.

Note: This does not mean that Introverted types are stubborn and headstrong, or Extroverted types are sheep and wavering. For example Fe. Everybody has "values" to some extent or another but it is a person who constantly evaluates if the environment caters to a "value" that is a Feeling type. Fi types constantly judges the world against their inner value system (ideals, morals, etc). Fe types have such things too, but it's not really their "drive". Since they do not really judge to an inner system, they adopt one from the environment, but one that "they" accept. Thinking works in the same way but with the impersonal analysis. 

Critique?


----------



## Stevester

Eric B said:


> Good! Though I think the Si examples aren't quite right. "How I saw it" is really _judgment_.



Yes, but that's because Si is hard to describe without using shades of Fi or Ti. For instance What this experience meant to me or nostalgia can be interpreted as Fi.

Comparing experience to present circumstances can sound very Ti. _''Last time, this worked, so let's do it the same way''_.



Strip those components away and Si in its purest form can almost be as hard to explain as Ni due to its very subjective nature and personal perceptions from one person to another. I try to explain it to people as constant flashes of accumulated experience/sensory data that are very subjective but help determine one's sense of likes and dislikes in other to bring comfort (likes) or avoid discomfort (dislikes).

I assume it's the same when Ni-Doms explain Ni. Those of us who don't use that function probably think what they are describing sounds more like Fi/Ti.


----------



## Blacteco

*SJ and SP student*

SJ (ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFJ, ISFJ) is an easy example of people who has Ne. Lets make example, SJ student. They can be paranoid (Ne) if things did not work as planned (Si). Their Ne become wild "Oh gosh what to do now?! What to do now?! I haven't finish my homework yet teacher will come soon!! I will get punished and people gonna shame me xc. I am usually not like this! I HAVE TO FINISH MY HOMEWORK NO MATTER WHAT!" Finish it like 5 minutes.. because Si, SJs are consistent of doing homework. If they didn't finish homework. they feel like they are out of sync. When they are out of sync, their imagination will become wilder (Si and Ne).

Example of Ni, Lets make example of, SP student (ESTP, ISTP, ESFP, ISFP). If there's homework.. if they have mood or if the teacher is scary. They will finish it. Depends on what homework, if its not important, they likely not going to finish it. Generally SP students did not finish their homework because homework is lame and things around them is more exciting (Se). They did not care if they get punishment. In their Se-Ni mind "Homework is lame and finishing homework is inefficient and boring method. Punishment? Hah lame! I don't have to follow your method, I trust my way"... 1 minute later copy paste their SJ friend's work because it is more instant.

All of above was based from my real life experience.


----------



## Pastelle

Spamming the thread with another one of my ideas of the functions...

This is how I see the order of how the functions come into being: Object>5 Senses>Functions (Yes, it quite elaborate...)

Note that I grouped all the functions right after the senses. This is because we all use the senses as they are our information intake of the world. The functions themselves pick apart that information that was perceived and focuses on the favored data. An odd example, Let's say perception (non-jungian) are people waiting in line to get into a club. The ego is the bouncer; focusing on letting in those it deems priority first. I did not say that it rejects those on the list, but merely put them on the back burner.Let's take it a bit further to elaborate the difference between the perceiving and judging. Say perceiving/judgement is the list of which the bouncer chooses who comes in. If the bouncer has a perception list, it will just let most through without a care. If it a judgement list, it will say "you can't come in" to those who aren't on it. For example, the difference between ENTP and INTP club. The ENTP bouncer will be quite open to letting all the associations it pulled from the environment into the club. However, at Club INTP, the bouncer will only let in those who are marked on the "make sense" list. You can also see how this leads to the inferior function. Again let's say Club ENTP. Since the bouncer freely let in all the associations, there's not enough room for the back-listed Si. They'll get in eventually, but they'll be waiting. INTP Club is more choosy with its clientele; focusing on those that make sense. Some Si's get in but now those prying Fe's have to wait outside. Ti doesn't want to deal with them...yet.


----------



## Eric B

When discussing the archeypes; I've been pointing out that these are really what are called "ego states", which are lesser senses of "I" under the ego, which are what carry the other functions below the dominant. This concept is from an Austrian psychologist Paul Federn, who articulated a “Two Energy Theory” that basically corresponds to the attitudes. This can be read about in the book _Ego States: Theory and Therapy_, John G. and Helen H. Watkins, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1997 (see http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...states-actual-backbone-type.html#post39350234). The technical term he gave for the "flow" of energy or "libido" that in Jung's theory defines the attitudes is *"cathexis"*, from the ancient Greek κάθεξις (kathexis, "holding, retention"). It was chosen by James Strachey to render the German term _Besetzung_ in his translation of Sigmund Freud's complete works. Federn then decided that Freud's "single energy " (i.e. "libido", which was assumed to be directed outward only) concept "could not explain all the ramifications and decided that ego-libido was not merely the same energy with a redirected objective, but an entirely different kind of energy from ordinary libido, qualitatively speaking. He gradually dropped the term 'libido' and more frequently referred to two different types of energies: object cathexis and ego cathexis." (_Ego States_, p.14).. Things can be either "ego cathected", where we experience them as part of ourselves, (and project them outward onto other people or objects, which are then filtered through the subjective view), or "object cathected" where we see them as "not me", but nevertheless take them in (introject), where they become "internal objects", that (according to Jung), the subject merges himself with.

Object cathected data is said to be taken as “perceptions”, while ego cathected data is recognized as your own “thoughts".

(So with introverted function, the ego cathects S, N, T or F data; and I'm wondering if we always recognize the perspective as our own thought? Sometimes it seems as if we don't; so I'm wondering if that might be part of what's “unconscious” about introverted functions. Perhaps, what's conscious is the object cathexis of the associated extraverted function [other preferred function, or tandem mate, or either/both?] where the ego object cathects the SNTF data and recognizes it as an “object”).

Extraverted functions do seem to be taken as "perceptions" (even if a judging function!) Like Te types will often be the one to say "that's just the way it is!" when you question the logic or purpose of their decisions, or decisions they are upholding. (They can never admit any subjective factor in the matter, and even though the functional perspective may be by definition "objective", there's still a "_subject_" present, that has to receive and process the data). 
Fe also takes its judgments as "givens"; like my wife saying why the house MUST be cleaned, especially when others are coming over. The data will likely be filled in by the associated perception function. 

So to apply the cathexis concept to the functions (starting with Feeling, which deals directly with the "human" aspect of the ego):

Fi: Those are my feelings I see in the other person ("good" or "bad"). Let me respond as I would want to be responded to
Fe: Those are not my feelings, but let me take them as my own ("good" or "bad") and respond to what they are expressing
Ti: Those are my thoughts, ("correct"; take as confirmation) or not my thoughts ("incorrect"; ignore or fix)
Te: Those are not my thoughts, but let me take them as my own ("correct", and whatever doesn't carry the same weight is "incorrect").

(We can see there, for Feeling, the judgment is determined directly by the emotional state of self or others, while for Thinking, it's about matching one thought with another).

Si: That's my experience (what "is"); let me instruct others accordingly. If it "isn't" my experience, I'll be slow to trust it
Se: That's not my experience; let me take it as my own, anew (even if I've taken it on before)
Ni: That's my image of potential outcomes or the big picture, let me find a way to inform others from it
Ne: That's not my image of potential outcomes or the big picture (it's implied by the object itself), but let me take it as my own




Some other new thoughts on the functions:

Dominant perspectives (what your ego is most energized in saying):

S: “Behold!” (“hark”, hands-on, etc.)
N: “Imagine!“ 
T: “True!” (“correct”)
F: “Good!” (“Nice!”)

I was trying to think, for instance, how we can tell from our two preferred functions, which one is dominant, and which is auxiliary. Especially if the auxiliary might be extraverted, and thus more visible. The dominant proclamation will be what your ego "lives for", so to speak.

So to add the attitudes:

Se: Behold! what's before us
Si: Behold! how it has proven itself to be
Ne: Imagine! from these patterns we can ponder on
Ni: Imagine! from what your mind can come up with
Te: Correct! according to what's before us
Ti: True! according to what I have determined
Fe: Nice! to the people around us
Fi: Good! according to what brings inner harmony



Preferred function perpectives: 
ST practical mechanics
SF practical humanities
NT philosophized mechanics
NF philosophized humanities

A quick way I have found, to get a sense of type in watching vloggers and Facebook posters; likely F's will be more about "living life" and "fun", such as doing the "challenges" vlogs will tag each other to do next. Thinking types may do some of this, but will devote more videos to "how to" presentations, in whatever their field is. (Even girly stuff like cosmetics).
Sensing types will remain on the practical side of life, whether fun, or day to day living, or the how to. Intuitives will do some of this, but also venture to more abstract topics like politics and religion. They will often engage their followers to join in a more intellectual discussion. Hence, their sense of the mechanics or human affects of things is more "philosophized". That's why, for instance, the NF is called an "Idealist".



Perception functions and the future:
Se: make future happen by seizing immediate opportunities
Si: forecast future based on actual past tangible experience
Ne: hypothesize on possible futures based on external patterns
Ni: predict future based on universal patterns that come up as unsubstantiated “hunches”


----------



## BigApplePi

*Defining Thinking*

If thinking is to be a cognitive function under Myers-Briggs, be it Te or Ti, it would be useful to go beyond an intuitive definition. Same for feeling. It remains to be seen how close to an unambiguous definition can be found even if there is more than one. I've struggled with this in the past and may wish to review past tries though an alternative is to start from scratch. @*Eric B* especially.


----------



## Electra

BigApplePi said:


> If thinking is to be a cognitive function under Myers-Briggs, be it Te or Ti, it would be useful to go beyond an intuitive definition. Same for feeling. It remains to be seen how close to an unambiguous definition can be found even if there is more than one. I've struggled with this in the past and may wish to review past tries though an alternative is to start from scratch. @*Eric B* especially.


Sorry to nag too much about this but Helen Fisher thinks Feeling/Thinking /iNuition /Sensing /Judging /perciving in MBTI are related to hormones/neurotransmitters (Oxytocin /Estrogen /Testosterone and Dopamine.) I find it quite interesting and it seems pretty reliable so fare. I might change opinion later of course...


----------



## BigApplePi

Blizzard said:


> Sorry to nag too much about this but Helen Fisher thinks Feeling/Thinking /iNuition /Sensing /Judging /perciving in MBTI are related to hormones/neurotransmitters (Oxytocin /Estrogen /Testosterone and Dopamine.) I find it quite interesting and it seems pretty reliable so fare. I might change opinion later of course...


A great issue you have raised. When we ask for the definition or meaning of anything, we want to know how it is used and the boundaries or limits of its usage in some practical sense. To do that we need to build a context for the observer that may or may not already be there. 

For example if we want to define "dog", we need lots of dogs and then abstract what all of them have in common. Another requirement is we want to know how far we should go in collecting all these dogs and what the abstractions themselves mean. We could ask that a dog be domesticated so as to eliminate wolves. We would need to define "domesticated" else go with an intuitive meaning. We could proceed by defining a DNA requirement but then such a requirement is not accessible to those who wish a practical meaning.

Still another issue when we wish to define something is what takes priority: the entity we are trying to define or the definition itself. In the case of defining "planet" some would favor tradition thus retaining Pluto as a planet. Some would favor other conditions because too many heavenly bodies have since been discovered which are like Pluto but unlike the rest of the planets. This gives priority to the defintion itself disqualifying Pluto under the definition of planet.

Look at the case of using hormones/neurotransmitters to define FTNS. That is one way to make the definition but that way is not accessible to the majority of us. My favorite, and this is admittedly biased, would be to look for definitions that could be understood in basic physics we would all understand. 

How could we define thinking and feeling in terms of basic physics? Surely we know thinking is different from feeling. Can we refine this meaning in some practical way?


----------



## Electra

BigApplePi said:


> Look at the case of using hormones/neurotransmitters to define FTNS. That is one way to make the definition but that way is not accessible to the majority of us. My favorite, and this is admittedly biased, would be to look for definitions that could be understood in basic physics we would all understand.
> 
> How could we define thinking and feeling in terms of basic physics? Surely we know thinking is different from feeling. Can we refine this meaning in some practical way?


Thank you for the long answer! I never thought about it in these terms, interesting idea...! Yes, just because we give something a label doesn't automaticly make us better equipped to deal with it. It's like...for example...a chocklate can both be viewed as a chemical formula and a wonderful taste. One doesn't have to exclude the other...Oh, now the phone is ringing offcourse


----------



## Eric B

BigApplePi said:


> If thinking is to be a cognitive function under Myers-Briggs, be it Te or Ti, it would be useful to go beyond an intuitive definition. Same for feeling. It remains to be seen how close to an unambiguous definition can be found even if there is more than one. I've struggled with this in the past and may wish to review past tries though an alternative is to start from scratch. @*Eric B* especially.





BigApplePi said:


> Look at the case of using hormones/neurotransmitters to define FTNS. That is one way to make the definition but that way is not accessible to the majority of us. My favorite, and this is admittedly biased, would be to look for definitions that could be understood in basic physics we would all understand.
> 
> How could we define thinking and feeling in terms of basic physics? Surely we know thinking is different from feeling. Can we refine this meaning in some practical way?


I take it, when you say “intuitive definition”, you mean as opposed to a more “sensory” definition, meaning “basic physics“?
I tried to come up with the notion of “divisions of reality”, between people and impersonal “things” (for T/F), which are divisions recognized by physics, and I would have thought neurotrasmitters would have even moreso been the “physical” basis science was looking for.

What else is really wanted, regarding physical and empirical means? All of this can be seen in looking at people. The theory is at its root an intuitive (“conceptual”, “philosophized”, “pattern”-based, etc.) product, so I don't think it can ever be made totally physical. The physical and empirical would be a neurological basis for behavior, and the playing out of the behavior in the real world, itself.


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> I take it, when you say “intuitive definition”, you mean as opposed to a more “sensory” definition, meaning “basic physics“?
> I tried to come up with the notion of “divisions of reality”, between people and impersonal “things” (for T/F), which are divisions recognized by physics, and I would have thought neurotrasmitters would have even moreso been the “physical” basis science was looking for.
> 
> What else is really wanted, regarding physical and empirical means? All of this can be seen in looking at people. The theory is at its root an intuitive (“conceptual”, “philosophized”, “pattern”-based, etc.) product, so I don't think it can ever be made totally physical. The physical and empirical would be a neurological basis for behavior, and the playing out of the behavior in the real world, itself.


I will have to explain by showing what I mean by physics or physical. I have two goals in mind. One is to find a clear separation between feeling and thinking. Our intuition by experience says there is a difference. The other is to see how much precision is possible in defining feeling and thinking. You asked if I meant intuitive as opposed to sensory. Those two cognitive functions deserve as much attention as feeling and thinking. Before I address those, yes. I mean a more generalized and fuzzy definition as opposed to the specific of the senses. I'll try to remember what I thought of lying in bed a couple of days ago without looking up past endeavours. 

Thinking for humans always has a desire which is to do this thinking. However this desire is not to be confused with the subject matter. Thinking carries with it a goal directed movement whose context is consistency within that context. This thinking is directed motion with a truth and false characteristic. The truth is the consistency; the falsity is inconsistency. Although this directed movement carries a measure of force, the force itself is not thinking. 

The force is feeling. Feeling is the presence of force directed along whatever the subject matter is. The greater the force, the greater the feeling. That this is characterized by hormonal flow which is present but is irrelevant to a definition. That feeling may be directed is also irrelevant. 

To summarize, thinking is direction; feeling is force. Those are the distinguishing and defining characteristics for this model.

A computer operating, while not human, is an example in the extreme of thinking and feeling. The computer's thinking is an electronic flow which nears perfection of consistency. The computer's feeling is the force of electricity which we hardly notice because it is not visible and is constant. We only notice when the computer is interfered with by humans or electronic breakdown.

A human experiencing rage is also an example of extreme feeling and thinking. The feeling is quite visible because of its force. If this rage is completely out of control with random thrashing about there is no visible thinking. If there is any direction at all temporing this rage, that is a thinking element.

A typical application of thinking and feeling could be trying to work out a problem (directions) satisfactorily while encountering frustration and satisfaction (forces) along the way. Another example would be enjoying (force) some sensual experience (no force) while stopping to wonder, how can I continue (direction) this experience?


----------



## Eric B

So, Feeling=“force”; I remember that from awhile ago; was that you who said that?

To me, it sounds like it's still an “intuitive“ description; just as much as mine, and it seems to be equating “Feeling” with emotions themselves (a common misconception). Feeling, as a _function_ is “rational” like Thinking. Since emotions are technically “judgments” of “good or bad” (my definition), then they can be considered “Feeling” only in a very primitive, “undifferentiated” sense. This automatic limbic reaction is considered “unconscious”. Since everyone has this emotional “force”, then it is not an indicator of type (which is about what tends to be 'conscious'). What the person does with this “force” rationally; like paying more attention to them, making conscious decisions with them, etc.; that is what would constitute the Feeling _function_.


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> So, Feeling=“force”; I remember that from awhile ago; was that you who said that?


I've used that before.





> To me, it sounds like it's still an “intuitive“ description; just as much as mine, and it seems to be equating “Feeling” with emotions themselves (a common misconception). Feeling, as a _function_ is “rational” like Thinking. Since emotions are technically “judgments” of “good or bad” (my definition), then they can be considered “Feeling” only in a very primitive, “undifferentiated” sense.


This is a bit awkward to reply. I wish mainly to distinguish feeling from thinking. "What do I call feeling? Hard to describe. I wish to *scale* "feeling" along a value line. "Value" is what is important to the organisim, however the organism senses it. I'll call the definition intuitive as it is not as precise as sensing. I do not intend to equate feeling with emotion as emotion is a "hot" form of feeling, and a subset. Cooler feelings than emotion (which carries a lot of force) are wishes, desires, fancies, wants. The latter words are cooler but still feeling but they lack the same amount of force. If one undertakes to make of list of emotions, I believe the result can be scaled along those which carry a great deal of force to those which are quite mild. For example outrage stronger than hope. In general I don't dwell on the unconscious aspects of functions are all of them carry this quality. It is the conscious aspects we are looking at. 

What do you mean by "rational"? If you mean a feeling is chosen one way as opposed to another way and is backed up by a reasoning, I'll accept that. 

I'll go along with emotions as judgments of good or bad but I might choose the words "acceptible" or "unacceptible" instead as they carry less baggage. Although not fully under conscious control, one is aware of experiencing emotions and rates their impact as conforming to some desire. Because emotions carry a strong force they are biased by the sensory impact they have on the brain and body. At least they are not thinking. "Desire" is a feeling but since the force or sensory impact on the body is lower there is more room to temper it with thinking.




> This automatic limbic reaction is considered “unconscious”. Since everyone has this emotional “force”, then it is not an indicator of type (which is about what tends to be 'conscious'). What the person does with this “force” rationally; like paying more attention to them, making conscious decisions with them, etc.; that is what would constitute the Feeling _function_.


If I get what you're saying I think I agree with it. It is what is allowed to come to the conscious surface that determine type. Emotion is experienced as what bubblies up to the surface where enough of it is conscious. I will assume some personality types are able to handle this better than others.


----------



## Pastelle

Just an elaboration of my understanding of the functions

-4 Functions, 2 facets of each, introverted and extraverted.
And they are Sensing, Intuition, Feeling, Thinking.

Perception- Focus on the "is" and "what could be" 
Judgement- Analyzing and Filtering data, assigning "weight" to it.

-Sensing- Focus is placed on the "is", what is apprehended by the senses.
-Introverted Sensing- Focus on the inner sensation that is present, the personal significance or effect that the object instills.
-Extraverted Sensing- Focus is on the objective aspect of the senses, tending to what is apparent outside the mind.

-Intuition- Recognizing the connection of objects
-Introverted Intuition- Recognizing the internal image or "symbol" that the objective sensation warrants.
-Extraverted Intuition- Unconsciously summoning the connections between objects, focus is put toward the potential "is".

-Thinking- Defining based on "impersonal" qualifications.
-Introverted Thinking- Defining "what is" based on internal analysis of one's understanding
-Extraverted Thinking- Defining "what is" based on an objective essence. 

-Feeling- Judging what is "good" in a harmonic sense.
-Introverted Feeling- defining what is acceptable according to a held inner principle or "value"
-Extraverted Feeling- defining what is acceptable according to objective vibe or external circumstance.

*Be back to finish this!


----------



## Rventurelli

Pastelle said:


> Just an elaboration of my understanding of the functions
> 
> -4 Functions, 2 facets of each, introverted and extraverted.
> And they are Sensing, Intuition, Feeling, Thinking.
> 
> Perception- Focus on the "is" and "what could be"
> Judgement- Analyzing and Filtering data, assigning "weight" to it.
> 
> -Sensing- Focus is placed on the "is", what is apprehended by the senses.
> -Introverted Sensing- Focus on the inner sensation that is present, the personal significance or effect that the object instills.
> -Extraverted Sensing- Focus is on the objective aspect of the senses, tending to what is apparent outside the mind.
> 
> -Intuition- Recognizing the connection of objects
> -Introverted Intuition- Recognizing the internal image or "symbol" that the objective sensation warrants.
> -Extraverted Intuition- Unconsciously summoning the connections between objects, focus is put toward the potential "is".
> 
> -Thinking- Defining based on "impersonal" qualifications.
> -Introverted Thinking- Defining "what is" based on internal analysis of one's understanding
> -Extraverted Thinking- Defining "what is" based on an objective essence.
> 
> -Feeling- Judging what is "good" in a harmonic sense.
> -Introverted Feeling- defining what is acceptable according to a held inner principle or "value"
> -Extraverted Feeling- defining what is acceptable according to objective vibe or external circumstance.
> 
> *Be back to finish this!


_Very_ clear and precise!


----------



## Loheatser

great


----------



## Eric B

Another way of simply expressing the functions:

Se: apparent reality
Si: self-referenced reality
Ne: apparent implications
Ni: self-referenced implications
Te: revealed truth
Ti: self-determined truth
Fe: revealed good[ness]
Fi: self-determined good[ness]

I first got the idea with the judgment functions, realizing that “revealed” sums up the extraverted perspective. Think “_revealed religion_”, which will often state “God said it, that settles it". No deviation from external authority is allowed in determining 'truth' (T) or 'good' (F). Ji will take the external data, but then “filter” it internally to determine what's true or good. I came to realize this from debating NTJ's, realizing that they take their strong stand because Ni often tells them “no” (not a possibility; where Ne says “yes” to just about anything), and then Te appeals to authority, such as empirical science, to determine that what what Ni says “no” to is in fact, “false” (incorrect).

So,

Je: “they said it, that settles it”
Ji: “they said it, this is MY take on it“ (right, wrong or more complicated)


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> To grant functions more believability, we should focus on what's actually happening in the brain. Every bit of info we take in forms new neurological connections, so starting with our perception, we should speak of it in terms of these connections.


It would be helpful if we could identify those areas of the brain, each area representing one of the eight cognitive functions.





> The NEUROLOGICAL connections:





> Se: Neural connections made by CURRENT, DIRECT input
> Si: Neural connections made by PREVIOUS, DIRECT input
> Ne: CURRENT neural connections from INDIRECT input
> Ni: PREVIOUS neural connections from INDIRECT input



"DIRECT" as a term. What about this? 
Specific for direct? General for indirect? Directness is noted for accuracy between the identified object and the brain's interpretation. Directness commonly finds defined areas within the brain.

"INDIRECT" as a term. What about this?
The brain also guesses at an interpretation in a broad way, generalizing, hoping for accuracy but leaving open holes (as generalities by and large do) of uncertain specificity. (It's the difference between, this is a dog and this resembles a dog.) Broad interpretations find diffuse or distributed areas within the brain. (That's my guess anyway.)

"CURRENT" and "PREVIOUS" are the terms used. What about this?
What if we said for current, reaching from the outside world transferring to the brain for either specifics or generalities? What if we said for previous, already stored  inside the brain apprehending  defined memories or general contrivances?





> Te: Previous neural connections instruct current ones based on impersonal objects
> Ti: Current neural connections matched with previous ones based on impersonal objects
> Fe: Previous neural connections instruct current ones based on our emotional state
> Fi: Current neural connections matched with previous ones based on our emotional state


"IMPERSONAL" as a term. What about this? 
Impersonal are objects apprehended as existing. The brain can funnel this.

"EMOTIONAL" as a term. What about this? 
Emotional are entities judged as having value. The brain can funnel this.

At this point I'm having trouble continuing ... try this:
"PREVIOUS" and "CURRENT" as terms. What about this? 

Judgments are made for outside world entities as to either dynamic placement or dynamic value.
Judgments are made for within the brain entities as to either dynamic existence or dynamic value.
This is a complex categorization process for the brain.

Simplifying the above:
Categorizations are made of the outside world for existence or valuation.
Categorizations are made for within the brain entities as to existence or valuation.

I searched the dictionary for purported optimal terms and stopped here.


----------



## Eric B

I can see a fit for those, but “direct” and “indirect“ are referring to S/N, of course, and the concept behind it is that the incoming sensory input makes a direct change in the neural connections. That's what sensation does, and it's either current (e; incoming) or previous (i; already there). Intuitive input is not as direct, as it's not from information impinging on our sensory nerves. That's what those terms mean. “Specific” and “general“ might loosely fit S/N, but are not as precise as I'm trying to make it.

“objects” for T and “value” for F are what have already been said by many. Again, I'm trying to be more specific, as to what these things actually mean. Like things are “valued” BECAUSE of their affect on our emotions.


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> I can see a fit for those, but “direct” and “indirect“ are referring to S/N, of course, and the concept behind it is that the incoming sensory input makes a direct change in the neural connections. That's what sensation does, and it's either current (e; incoming) or previous (i; already there). Intuitive input is not as direct, as it's not from information impinging on our sensory nerves. That's what those terms mean. “Specific” and “general“ might loosely fit S/N, but are not as precise as I'm trying to make it.
> 
> “objects” for T and “value” for F are what have already been said by many. Again, I'm trying to be more specific, as to what these things actually mean. Like things are “valued” BECAUSE of their affect on our emotions.


I see that as a sensible interpretation yet some things bother me. (The below rambles a little.)

It's the difference between S and N. If those functions are to be separated, what accounts for the separation? What is the difference and how are they the same? Yes to direct and indirect, but sameness? I propose* both* are sensory inputs. What are some examples of intuition? In the case of "this resembles a dog" there is sensory input. It's just that those senses are vague, not precise. We recognize intuition in two forms: Ne and Ni. The reason I question "indirect" is it is a negative. Indirect says what something is not as opposed to what it is. Granted Ne and Ni are not direct, but what are they? I propose they are sensory inputs after all, but are indirect only in the form they are scattered,diffuse. We could almost say they are directly diffuse. 

This crosses my mind. Is a sense like vision really direct? Suppose it isn't. Isn't it impossible to see without prior stored information within the brain that interprets what is seen? This may be hard to explain, but I propose a visual scene outside the brain impinging upon the eye will be blind to the brain without prior visual or even non-visual experience. Go to any art museum with complex visual images. A novice will not be able to see what is right there in front of their eyes. Why not? Because it is too complex for the novice brain.

Another proposal is to ask, what are senses? There are the clear ones of touch, sound, vision, taste, smell. But what about bodily orientation?

Back to intuition. Need more examples. Pick Ni. Let's say a person "feels" war is on the horizon. That is hardly a simple idea. It has very complex sources. Yet it is felt immediately. We could say directly. After all the brain is making a direct observation. That is why I want to call this intuition *general*. "War is on the horizon" is a sensory input or so I claim. One must not be fooled by its inaccuracy. The other senses like smell can be inaccurate also.

Here is another way of saying it. Both sensation and intuition are observation. Observation is direct. Observation goes directly to the brain. How the brain interprets it depends on what is stored there. An observation of something like taste is specific, narrow. An observation of something like intuition has holes in it because it's gathered from a large source. We call this source "general" but I can't find a better word unless we call it diffuse or broad or widespread.
====================================



You say, "things are “valued” BECAUSE of their affect on our emotions." Isn't it both? Our emotions are turned on because of the value of what is out there? Then once our emotions are turned on we incorporate what is out there and say it is ours.


----------



## Eric B

I see what you're saying about the imbalance of having one term being “negative”. But that is in harmony with how the theory has been set up anyway. Jung refers to intuition as “unconscious“ (and all introverted functions also). Life is more immediately geared to the tangible input. I think the term “general”, while I guess fitting, is a bit more complex and needing more explanation (as you've done). I'm trying to make it as simple as possible.

Whichever comes first, the value or the emotions, “emotions” is a bit more specific. “Values” actually can refer to T products!


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric B said:


> I see what you're saying about the imbalance of having one term being “negative”. But that is in harmony with how the theory has been set up anyway. Jung refers to intuition as “unconscious“ (and all introverted functions also). Life is more immediately geared to the tangible input. I think the term “general”, while I guesm fitting, is a bit more complex and needing more explanation (as you've done). I'm trying to make it as simple as possible.
> 
> Whichever comes first, the value or the emotions, “emotions” is a bit more specific. “Values” actually can refer to T products!


"Jung refers to intuition as “unconscious“ (and all introverted functions also)." Jung is the concept founder. So we have to look up to him being the father, with respect. I would like to work on and see if cognitive functions can be updated. 

I want to call ALL cognitive functions conscious as that is approximately what "cognitive" means. I can see intuition as arising from the unconscious, but wouldn't that go for thinking and feeling as well? Even sensory apprehensions could have unconscious workings behind them. After all we don't much understand our own brains in the operational sense. Cognitive is the immediate (and direct) recognition of the function. I'd be inclined to say when we exhibit intuition we should be able to recognize it as such if asked. 

I'm prone to say the word "general" to describe intuition is weak. How about this? Sensation goes immediately (directly) from specifically named and identifiable senses either from the outside world or from specific singular memories on the inside (our brain's storage) world. Intuition does exactly the same only it goes from multiple sources either from the outside world or from multiple memories within the brain which are unified to a singular whole sometimes called a "gestalt."

If said this way there is indirection present in the sense that underneath the gestalt are a collection of unconscious sensory memories. However the gestalt (whole) itself is direct.

This reply itself is an example of intuition. I did some thinking but the expression of it is Ne with even some Ni I suppose. It's not easy to explain this but I'm willing to bet every statement I say here has a sensory sources if searched for hard enough. Also a lot of the words I've used are generalities, but as you've implied "general" doesn't really explain intuition and is weak. Gestalt does better.

Explained this way we now have an explanation why sensation/ intuition lie on the same line. At one end we have singular; at the other end we have multiple.


----------



## Eric B

Gestalt is not a really common word. I just had to look it up again. (I first heard it, wen someone was explaining archetypes to me once; "the gestalts that moved men and nations...", but forgot what it meant, as I still don't encounter it a lot).
I'd still say with "*specifically* named and identifiable senses either from the outside world or from *specific* singular memories on the inside", the "specific" part of it is what I'm calling "direct", and "multiple sources...which are unified to a singular whole" is what I'm calling "indirect". This description reminds me of the old discussion of Ne vs Ni ("divergent vs convergent", etc). and while basically true, they still in the end weren't simple enough to fully grasp. I still would come away sometimes thinking "now what does this really mean?". So you say " the gestalt (whole) itself is direct", but I'm looking more at the makeup of the information than the entities they form. This parallels the old Bruzon concept (Fundamental Nature of the MBTI) where S products are the dots of the matrix, and N is the grid of the matrix. Dots are more "specific" objects that you see "directly", while the grid is not looking at anything directly, it's just making a "map" so to speak, laying out the locations objects can be in.


----------



## BigApplePi

I've struck this out as it wasn't ready to go. The improvement is my next reply.




Eric B said:


> Gestalt is not a really common word. I just had to look it up again. (I first heard it, wen someone was explaining archetypes to me once; "the gestalts that moved men and nations...", but forgot what it meant, as I still don't encounter it a lot).


Whole is a better word. I got gestalt from gestalt psychology where they use "gestalt" to mean a whole. The whole is not the same as a list of parts as it means something more. When a whole is taken apart to examine what makes it up, it doesn't work as the meaning of that whole is lost. (I could explain this further as there must be a good reason for this.)




> I'd still say with "*specifically* named and identifiable senses either from the outside world or from *specific* singular memories on the inside", the "specific" part of it is what I'm calling "direct", and "multiple sources...which are unified to a singular whole" is what I'm calling "indirect".


Then we are together on this. What I wanted to do was go after explaining "indirect" as a negative doesn't say what makes up this "negative" .



[/QUOTE]This description reminds me of the old discussion of Ne vs Ni ("divergent vs convergent", etc). and while basically true, they still in the end weren't simple enough to fully grasp. I still would come away sometimes thinking "now what does this really mean?". So you say " the gestalt (whole) itself is direct", [/QUOTE]
Let's see if we can agree so far on this: Both Ne and Ni are wholes. They throw something" out there as a package and say "This is it" without explaining the contents. They just say, "this is my observation." This intuition business is indeed hard to grasp. I'd want to say the reason is because intuition is about wholes and one loses grasp of the parts. Intuition by its very nature loses details.





> ... but I'm looking more at the makeup of the information than the entities they form. This parallels the old Bruzon concept (Fundamental Nature of the MBTI) where S products are the dots of the matrix, and N is the grid of the matrix. Dots are more "specific" objects that you see "directly", while the grid is not looking at anything directly, it's just making a "map" so to speak, laying out the locations objects can be in.


The dots and the grid! That's a good try. I'll have to think about it. Not sure if it fits as a metaphor as the grid must be visualized. That makes dots and grid almost alike in that they are parallel visualizations. It's like the cup (grid) and the contents (dots) unless I'm misunderstanding the metaphor.

Ne and Ni, divergent and convergent? Hmm.


----------



## Eric B

“Whole” is really just another way of saying “big picture”. Which I also use for N.

But really, we must remember what I was trying to describe it from the angle of what's happening in the brain, not really the nature of the data itself this time. A light wave, sound wave, or material particles stimulating our receptors and sending signals *directly* to the brain, as opposed to the brain then having to do something else winh the data, to form a bigger “picture” from it.


----------



## BigApplePi

Eric, I had to erase that previous reply as I must have hit "reply" before it was meant to go out. 



Eric B said:


> Gestalt is not a really common word. I just had to look it up again. (I first heard it, wen someone was explaining archetypes to me once; "the gestalts that moved men and nations...", but forgot what it meant, as I still don't encounter it a lot).


Whole is a better word. I got gestalt from gestalt psychology where they use "gestalt" to mean a whole. The whole is not the same as a list of parts as it means something more. When a whole is taken apart to examine what makes it up, it doesn't work as the meaning of that whole is lost. (I could explain this further as there must be a good reason for this.)




> I'd still say with "*specifically* named and identifiable senses either from the outside world or from *specific* singular memories on the inside", the "specific" part of it is what I'm calling "direct", and "multiple sources...which are unified to a singular whole" is what I'm calling "indirect".


Then we are together on this. What I wanted to do was go after explaining "indirect" as a negative doesn't say what makes up this "negative" .





> This description reminds me of the old discussion of Ne vs Ni ("divergent vs convergent", etc). and while basically true, they still in the end weren't simple enough to fully grasp. I still would come away sometimes thinking "now what does this really mean?". So you say " the gestalt (whole) itself is direct",


Let's see if we can agree so far on this: Both Ne and Ni are wholes. They throw something" out there as a package and say "This is it" without explaining the contents. They just say, "this is my observation." This intuition business is indeed hard to grasp. I'd want to say the reason is because intuition is about wholes and one loses grasp of the parts. Intuition by its very nature loses details.





> ... but I'm looking more at the makeup of the information than the entities they form. This parallels the old Bruzon concept (Fundamental Nature of the MBTI) where S products are the dots of the matrix, and N is the grid of the matrix. Dots are more "specific" objects that you see "directly", while the grid is not looking at anything directly, it's just making a "map" so to speak, laying out the locations objects can be in.


The dots and the grid! That's a good try. I'll have to think about it. Not sure if it fits as a metaphor as the grid must be visualized. That makes dots and grid almost alike in that they are parallel visualizations. It's like the cup (grid) and the contents (dots) unless I'm misunderstanding the metaphor.

I haven't read that link you provided. I'll go and do that now. ... So far I've read the first third and have some objections. They might be hard to explain because he uses different terminology. I question the sensing as objects vs motion as detecting motion can be a sensory experience. (I think of diving which is definitely sensory motion.) He refers to "Ideas, theory, and possibilities." I'd say I'd want to know what those things are and that won't be easy. Skimming further I see he has an organized theory going ... which I want to call intuitive. I'll have to look that over later if I'm to reply here.

"Ne and Ni, divergent and convergent?" Hmm.

The way I see it Ne and Ni are exactly the same except one deals with the outside world while the other goes to the inside world of experience stored in the brain. Divergent and convergent refer to something else. Ne being external is what we see. If the user jumps around the subject matter appears to be divergent. Ni is different in its symptoms if we are looking at the user from the outside as what they put out is the result of what has been already worked out in the brain.
===================================





Eric B said:


> “Whole” is really just another way of saying “big picture”. Which I also use for N.
> 
> But really, we must remember what I was trying to describe it from the angle of what's happening in the brain, not really the nature of the data itself this time. A light wave, sound wave, or material particles stimulating our receptors and sending signals *directly* to the brain, as opposed to the brain then having to do something else winh the data, to form a bigger “picture” from it.


Granted what's happening in the brain appears to be different from the contents, yet something is missing. I'm not certain there is a difference at all. Some examples of N are needed, be they Ne or Ni.

Take Ne: The weather out there is frightful.
Take Ni: Global warming is a bad thing.

I'm not sure I've separated those properly but I'll ignore that as the important interest is about what goes on inside the brain. Since I'm not a neuroscientist, this is my own intuition. 

In the first case, say we are looking outside the window at a storm. I say this reaction is a composite of sensory experience. The brain sees a visual storm and connects with fear of damage to the body plus other memories.

In the 2nd case, global warming is an idea. But what goes on in the brain? This is not going to be easy and probably not convincing. (Not to forget the brain has trillions of linkages and can access them at will.) There is no central place in the brain for the concept of global warming. It's a combination of awareness of heated lands, flooded waters, social warnings and personal experiences of disasters as well as fear for oneself and others. It's a massive concept. "Bad thing" is added to that where we think of bad things happening all around us. This is all combined into one WHOLE observation performed all at once into "global warming being a bad thing." I also forgot personal feelings like wanting to do something about it or on the other hand angrily wanting to ignore or deny it. This last is experienced as a physical force where one's body is executing a push. 

All the above is derived from what is sensual. I claim these sensual entities lie at the foundation of what is happening. The intuition operation is a gathering of pathways from these sensations into globules for forces culminating into the expression into words of meaning which we call "intuition." It's a process from sensual memories and live experiences which are dropped along the way into forces of action. We don't see this happening because it happens so rapidly. That I claim is the nature of our brain.

When I say "dropped along the way" that is exactly what happens. Intuition is not logic or feeling. It is observation which can be incorrect. When the intuitor says global warming is bad, there are lots of steps going from sensations about global warming to sensations of badness. Those steps need not be logical if examined. There is no time for examination as the output goes out whole ... all at once. This is not to say there is sidebar feeling and thinking involved but that is another story.

All these goings on as a whole seem abstract and we call it intuition. Yet every goings on is based on some *sensual* foundation. Look at the description above. It all points to sensations we find in the details. I claim that is what happens in the brain. It may be complex happenings but the explanation is simple.





> A light wave, sound wave, or material particles stimulating our receptors and sending signals *directly* to the brain ...


Those are not sensations themselves. They are outside the brain and cause sensations.


----------



## Eric B

Well, the functional products are always mixed together in every situations. Like your example of Ne and Ni include judgment (namely, F, and even more particularly, Fi), in the form of “bad” and “frightful” (basically, a more specified form of 'bad').
These in themselves are called “undifferentiated” functions, and the discrete “function-attitudes” as we discuss them are specific perspectives “sorted out” by the cortex. So what I'm trying to describe here are what these perspectives are drawing from in the brain.

So yes, there's always at the root of every process, sensation. Intuition, however, goes beyond just the sensations. That's why I say sensation is “direct”. So then to go beyond sensation is indirect.

In conjunction winh this, I think you're taking “motion” a little bit too literally. Think Jung's “S=what IS; N=where it's HEADING”. This is what's meant by “motion” (and also, N being more “timelike”, while S is more spacelike).

So if you're liiking at what simply IS, you're looking at an object DIRECTLY. If you rook at “where it's heading” (conceptually; not necessarily physically), then you'rre tot looking at IT, “directly.”


----------



## Super Luigi

I'm trying to understand the difference between Si and Se. I did read the OP but it's still not clear to me.


----------



## Eric B

Se is the recognition of tangible reality via the senses as it occurs
Si is the recognition of tangible reality that has already occurred, and is referenced to compare current reality with.


----------



## Super Luigi

Eric B said:


> Se is the recognition of tangible reality via the senses as it occurs
> Si is the recognition of tangible reality that has already occurred, and is referenced to compare current reality with.


Si compares the present to their personal past, and Se doesn't. Is that right? :thinking:


----------



## Eric B

Yes, basically.


----------



## Dissymetry

Sarge said:


> Si compares the present to their personal past, and Se doesn't. Is that right? :thinking:


I disagree with this. I do not think "Si" has much of any connection to their "past" at least no more than any other introversion. I think introverted Sensation is about perceiving the subjective impressions one receives from sensory information. An example of introverted Sensation would be to give multiple people the same uncolored picture to color in. Each picture you receive back will demonstrate that individuals introverted Sensation, it will be show how they personally perceived the image. Whether or not the people themselves are all introverted Sensation types does not matter, what you get back is introverted Sensation. That is - how the subject personally perceived the sensory information.

These subjective impressions _will _have a source in the past of course although this is the same for all introversion. It is referring to yourself which means your own experience or thoughts or whatever else inside yourself. I do not believe there is much of a "past" association beyond that.

Other people believe introverted Sensation is about tradition and the past and routines but I disagree.


----------



## Pastelle

@Dissymetry This is the school of thought that I follow too (read J.H. Van Der Hoop?) . I see the perception functions as focuses on certain facets of reality. Neither sensing or intuition are necessarily about past or future, but about which facet of reality on focuses on. Se is focused on the object, the experience itself is focused on (hell, it can be hypothetical). Si focuses on how it is seen. Technically everyone perceives things differently, but the Si is focused on the subjective factor of the object. Take a painting. Se is focused on the appeal of the object itself. Si is focused on "impressions" that ooze from it, not of the object itself.


----------



## Super Luigi

I feel more confident about my judging functions than my perception functions


----------



## eldor

i loved the picture you added there.


----------



## Vict0r

Nice thread, very helpful information.


----------



## Folsom

I didn't think it was worth creating a new topic for this question and couldn't find anywhere more fitting to post it.

Can an INTP be very attuned to the Fe expressions around them and take Fe into account before Ti considerations take place?

For instance, at work I might overhear two people discussing how to make a process better. Rather than listening in order to potentially give Ti or Te insights if needed, I will consider the tension between the two people, small phrases which might indicate conflict, or one person might say something which sounds accusatory and the other will receive it as an accusation but I will see that it was not intended to be said that way - and the whole time this is happening I won't be interested at all in the process they are actually talking about or the logical consistency of it.

However, I would only speak up and try to clear up the misunderstanding myself if the conversation turned into an argument and started to get out of control. Even after the conversation is over I will feel slightly bad because I know that the person has taken something as an accusation and might be feeling like they have disappointed the other person, or annoyed because they didn't do anything wrong - but I won't let them know that the person didn't actually mean for it to come across like that.

It's almost like whatever Ti I have is geared toward understanding, or trying to understand, Fe things logically and I can get slightly annoyed when people misunderstand others in conversations when the intention behind a phrase or a line of thought seems very obvious to me (even though my understanding might not be accurate).

I tend to notice people attributing bad intentions to innocuous conversational moments where there were none.

Does this sound like inferior Fe or am I just blinded to how well developed my Fe is for some reason?

I have heard that Fe can be as little as noticing and taking into account the feeling aspects of a social situation, so I am quite certain that I have it in my stack, but it doesn't seem undeveloped enough to be 4th but does seem too undeveloped to be 2nd.
I'm almost certain that I'm not an E type either.


----------



## Red Panda

Timo said:


> I think this is not true for judging functions, only perceiving ones. Judging functions are definitely about action. If Te is not about enforcement, then I don't know what could be. I imagine a schoolteacher who takes textbook reasoning as the gospel of truth as a Te dom or aux (or maybe Te demon in some cases), and has no problems with enforcing that on students and does not allow them to question it (Ti or Fi?).


in that case the so called TE type is actually ignoring information from the object, so how are they preferring extraversion?


----------



## Timo

Red Panda said:


> in that case the so called TE type is actually ignoring information from the object, so how are they preferring extraversion?


Please re-read my comment (I have a nasty habit of going and editing my posts until I feel they are good enough). We seem to understand subject and object differently. What do you mean by object here? For me the object is the external reasoning coming from the tribe (the textbook). Judging thinking is enforced externally, to and from the tribe (objectively, if we prefer to use this term).


----------



## Red Panda

BigApplePi said:


> I say you are on to something valuable here. There is the issue of the unconscious as well as consciousness. When something is conscious there is a better chance of handling it. If it is unconscious control is difficult or lacking. Emotional therapy will be vastly aided by moving what is unconscious to consciousness.
> 
> How does this relate to cognitive functions? Cognitive (by definition) presumes to be conscious or have consciousness at some point. I am prone to call moving from what is unconscious to consciousness as *another dimension*. This dimension does not contradict the MBTI emotionally "healthy" stack any more than height contradicts width and depth.
> 
> When we speak of and examine the cognitive functions of a specific person we are not as aware of the conscious dimension as we could be. If one has an emotional blind spot or a thinking miscalculation it seems it would be easy to upset the MBTI function stack, but I'm not sure. (I'd like check this out with @Eric B though.)


In Jungian theory, preferring one attitude (E or I) means it's conscious and you easily push the contents of the other into unconscious, but the two preferred functions operate primarily in conscious use, hence why they can't be in opposing attitudes de facto. So you can see how that contradicts the grant stack since it not only tells you your aux is in your unconscious attitude but that your tertiary is in your conscious one, despite it being more unconscious than the 2 first.


----------



## Red Panda

Timo said:


> I think this is not true for judging functions, only perceiving ones. Judging functions are definitely about action. If Te is not about enforcement, then I don't know what could be. I imagine a schoolteacher who takes textbook reasoning as the gospel of truth as a Te dom or aux (or maybe Te demon in some cases), and has no problems with enforcing that on students and does not allow them to question it (Ti or Fi?).
> 
> We seem to understand subjective and objective differently anyway. For me subjective is internal, internal judging functions are judging in the internal realm, personal - "I need to make sense of this for myself, internally (Ti)." Objective is external (less subjective, less internal), external judging functions are judging in the external realm, interpersonal - "This is what the tribe says so this is the reasoning that I follow and others should too (Te)."


Subject is the organism and object anything outside of it, so to your organism the object is anything and everyone else. I think we got that part common. But, TE doesn't mean the person isn't gonna make sense of something on their own, it means they're gonna build their system of understanding by more readily adapting it to new information; extraversion has little defense against influence from the object. Whereas introversion does the opposite - it adapts the object to the person's systems of understanding and is resistant to influence and change. A teacher like that who disallows questioning is adapting their environment (students) to their own understanding.


----------



## BigApplePi

Red Panda said:


> but the two preferred functions operate primarily in conscious use, hence why they can't be in opposing attitudes de facto.


 It's the word "opposing." If ENFP = Ne Fi Te Si, the i in Fi opposes and is meant to compliment the e in Ne. Similarly the F in Fi opposes the N in Ne in the sense that Ne observes while the F of Fi provides the judgmental motive. See how I use the word "opposing"? 




Red Panda said:


> So you can see how that contradicts the grant stack since it not only tells you your aux is in your unconscious attitude


I see the stack as allowing for *sequential*, not simultaneous consciousness. When you say the aux is in the unconscious attitude, that may be true but only temporarily. We probably agree on all this. It's just the language meaning where we conflict.

Actually I will generalize the four items in any stack: Only one at any instant in time is conscious. All four can cluster together though. We could call that cluster "the complex that forms the personality." The primary is privileged to get the most consciousness. As we go down the stack, each function get less prominence. This is true in the healthiest optimally functioning person. As we move toward neurosis the stack gets proportionally messed up.

Is that any better?


----------



## Timo

Red Panda said:


> Subject is the organism and object anything outside of it, so to your organism the object is anything and everyone else. I think we got that part common. But, TE doesn't mean the person isn't gonna make sense of something on their own, it means they're gonna build their system of understanding by more readily adapting it to new information; extraversion has little defense against influence from the object. Whereas introversion does the opposite - it adapts the object to the person's systems of understanding and is resistant to influence and change. A teacher like that who disallows questioning is adapting their environment (students) to their own understanding.


It seems we agree on the most part, extraversion of the function is simply a measure of how much we let the outside reasoning affect our own (or conversely, introversion of a function is how much we feel the need to internally validate it first). I also think I was a slow student at school because I had to get everything through my Ti first before accepting it, I wouldn't say necessarily my own reasoning resisted the textbook reasoning, but I definitely had to re-iterate things to my own way.
You could say Ti makes reasoning selfish, self-focused, builds it around your own reasoning. What you said about Te, I never looked at it like that, that it doesn't necessarily mean you think less for yourself, it simply means you more readily take from outside (which is not the same thing as not being able to think for yourself). Although I would say that because Ti is more resistant to outside reasoning, it naturally can differ more from outside reasoning (for example textbook) than Te. Te is readier and quicker, but perhaps is less your own (because for Ti your own is more important).

I think it's also worth to note that I doubt people are either 100% Ti or 100% Te, it's a slider. I'm Ti dom, but it could be 60%-40% to introverted, or 80%-20% introverted or whatever.. but probably not all the way. But it's good because otherwise I would completely resist any outside reasoning. Or does the "leftover" extraversion go somewhere else, to Fe, to Ne? Who knows.



Red Panda said:


> Whereas introversion does the opposite - it adapts the object to the person's systems of understanding and is resistant to influence and change. A teacher like that who disallows questioning is adapting their environment (students) to their own understanding.


I can totally see what you are saying, and I'm sure it happens too. But I still think extraversion works both ways, it more readily adapts, but also more readily enforces. After all, extraverted judging doms generally apply themselves onto others more, no? It seems to me that Ti not only accepts new reasoning less easily, but also applies it outside less easily - the resistance works both ways also. After all IxTPs spend a lot of their time taking in information and processing it internally, and there is a huge delay before they are ready to reverse this and turn it into teaching. I would imagine ExTJs are the opposite, they spend minimal effort taking in new information and internalizing (after all they adapt it more readily) and they are good to go on taking it from within and putting it into others.

I think for Ti dom people, they tend to have this perspective that thinking is a lengthy process and people should be given time to process their reasoning. And I think Te dom people, they have the experience to adapt quickly to outside reasoning and so also expect this quicker adaptation from others, they probably respect the more subjective Ti less (that people could be more resistant to outside reasoning). That's why they might be more enforcing as well, I think.


----------



## Red Panda

Timo said:


> It seems we agree on the most part, extraversion of the function is simply a measure of how much we let the outside reasoning affect our own (or conversely, introversion of a function is how much we feel the need to internally validate it first). I also think I was a slow student at school because I had to get everything through my Ti first before accepting it, I wouldn't say necessarily my own reasoning resisted the textbook reasoning, but I definitely had to re-iterate things to my own way.
> You could say Ti makes reasoning selfish, self-focused, builds it around your own reasoning. What you said about Te, I never looked at it like that, that it doesn't necessarily mean you think less for yourself, it simply means you more readily take from outside (which is not the same thing as not being able to think for yourself). Although I would say that because Ti is more resistant to outside reasoning, it naturally can differ more from outside reasoning (for example textbook) than Te. Te is readier and quicker, but perhaps is less your own (because for Ti your own is more important).
> 
> I think it's also worth to note that I doubt people are either 100% Ti or 100% Te, it's a slider. I'm Ti dom, but it could be 60%-40% to introverted, or 80%-20% introverted or whatever.. but probably not all the way. But it's good because otherwise I would completely resist any outside reasoning. Or does the "leftover" extraversion go somewhere else, to Fe, to Ne? Who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> I can totally see what you are saying, and I'm sure it happens too. But I still think extraversion works both ways, it more readily adapts, but also more readily enforces. After all, extraverted judging doms generally apply themselves onto others more, no? It seems to me that Ti not only accepts new reasoning less easily, but also applies it outside less easily - the resistance works both ways also. After all IxTPs spend a lot of their time taking in information and processing it internally, and there is a huge delay before they are ready to reverse this and turn it into teaching. I would imagine ExTJs are the opposite, they spend minimal effort taking in new information and internalizing (after all they adapt it more readily) and they are good to go on taking it from within and putting it into others.
> 
> I think for Ti dom people, they tend to have this perspective that thinking is a lengthy process and people should be given time to process their reasoning. And I think Te dom people, they have the experience to adapt quickly to outside reasoning and so also expect this quicker adaptation from others, they probably respect the more subjective Ti less (that people could be more resistant to outside reasoning). That's why they might be more enforcing as well, I think.


I think our disagreement comes from you trying to fit what I'm saying about functions to how you already know the types to be from the popular narratives when what I'm trying to explain is that how we understand them in many ways it's opposite actually. What Te is thought as, currently, is actually based on the "TJ" preferences as described by the MBTI. But what I'm saying is their T is actually not TE to begin with. So if you're trying to understand TE from how TJs act of course you'll see it as enforcing. Jung described TE and FE as "thinking into" or "feeling into" the world, which means to internalize things, which in MBTI is associated with TP's T which they name "Ti". So in many ways they have reversed what the attitude is about. There's a long history of how the stacks were formed from Myers-Briggs to now and how arbitrary those decisions were, you can read some of it here. 

Also from my own experiences, TJs are far more resistant to outside reasonings, which is another reason that prompted me to investigate things more. They're open to new information usually under specific circumstances they've decided subjectively and changes from person to person. So I don't think attitude alternates between dom and aux, because the attitude is what the name suggests - and as Jung described - an attitude that characterizes one's relationship with the world. Having introverted perception means you filter incoming info in some subjective ways, so how is your judging gonna habitually do the opposite? Both attitudes exist in all people of course, but one is habitual and preferred. If we consider what we discussed about the brain scans previously, the preferences for the ACC or frontal lobe and whatnot characterize the personality differences holistically exactly because such preferences are systematic and affect the whole.


----------



## Red Panda

BigApplePi said:


> It's the word "opposing." If ENFP = Ne Fi Te Si, the i in Fi opposes and is meant to compliment the e in Ne. Similarly the F in Fi opposes the N in Ne in the sense that Ne observes while the F of Fi provides the judgmental motive. See how I use the word "opposing"?


I'd understood how you mean opposing but the contradiction I mentioned still stands. 




> I see the stack as allowing for *sequential*, not simultaneous consciousness. When you say the aux is in the unconscious attitude, that may be true but only temporarily. We probably agree on all this. It's just the language meaning where we conflict.
> 
> Actually I will generalize the four items in any stack: Only one at any instant in time is conscious. All four can cluster together though. We could call that cluster "the complex that forms the personality." The primary is privileged to get the most consciousness. As we go down the stack, each function get less prominence. This is true in the healthiest optimally functioning person. As we move toward neurosis the stack gets proportionally messed up.
> 
> Is that any better?


Are you saying that you'd agree with me that an ENFP is primarily a FE type then? There's the interpretation of Jung's theory that the aux and tert can change attitudes more easily depending on if they're conscious or not, however the conscious is still ruled by one preference, so conscious use of F, or T is still in that attitude.


----------



## BigApplePi

BigApplePi said:


> Are you saying that you'd agree with me that an ENFP is primarily a FE type then?


ENFP = Ne Fi Te Si is technical. Maybe too technical. As an INTP I am more finicky than feeling types. Since ENFP = Ne Fi, blame me for that. I won't push the point. Sure you are FE.




Red Panda said:


> There's the interpretation of Jung's theory that the aux and tert can change attitudes more easily depending on if they're conscious or not ...


Sure. Let those change attitudes. I'm cool. I can look at things one way. But if you look at things another way, I'm going to trust you. I have no right to judge. Yes you are an Fe type. Go for it. Are we cool yet?


----------



## Red Panda

BigApplePi said:


> ENFP = Ne Fi Te Si is technical. Maybe too technical. As an INTP I am more finicky than feeling types. Since ENFP = Ne Fi, blame me for that. I won't push the point. Sure you are FE.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Let those change attitudes. I'm cool. I can look at things one way. But if you look at things another way, I'm going to trust you. I have no right to judge. Yes you are an Fe type. Go for it. Are we cool yet?


I'm talking theory and the technical stuff which you don't seem up to discussing at all based on your responses...


----------



## Timo

Sorry, I didn't really understand your post so well.



Red Panda said:


> What Te is thought as, currently, is actually based on the "TJ" preferences as described by the MBTI. But what I'm saying is their T is actually not TE to begin with.


Can you elaborate? Doesn't TJ simply mean that Te is the dom function?



Red Panda said:


> I think our disagreement comes from you trying to fit what I'm saying about functions to how you already know the types to be from the popular narratives when what I'm trying to explain is that how we understand them in many ways it's opposite actually.


Well I'm trying to get a better view on it as we go. It seems to me that people often consider extroverted and introverted side of the same function like something completely different somehow (like for example Ni and Ne are almost seen like the polar opposite ways of seeing patterns). I'm trying to argue (not that my own mind is set on this, I just like throwing ideas at people - I think that my thinking and seeing patterns for some reason works best when bouncing my ideas off other people) that there really are just 4 functions (not 8) and the only difference is their "polarity", what we understand as extroversion and introversion. What we have established is that the introverted functions have a more subjective "spin" on them, so by conclusion the extroverted side of these functions are by conclusion less "personal".

So for example Ti and Te, it's the same thinking, it's not like one is "upside down" thinking and other is "downside up thinking", or deductive vs inductive or whatever, this interpretation doesn't make sense to me. I've had this kind of opinion myself in past, but then I realized, no, it's the same thing - it's some other thing that makes them seem different. Perhaps it's simply a prioritization, introversion puts self above others and extroversion puts others above self? I don't know. That's why my guess was that Ti is just "making sense of things for yourself" and Te would be "making sure your way of making sense of things is on sync with others". Of course I have little to no experience with anyone who has Te on top, so feel free to correct me, but somehow I doubt that trying to make sense of things is generally high on their priority list.
Perhaps Te does not care what others think any more either and that Te is simply more "objective", but now I feel like we are in functions "woo-woo" land again, this simply does not make sense to me. Why would Ti be more subjective and biased and Te just more "pure logic and reasoning"? Is extroversion just lack of subjectivity? I don't know, if that's the case than I don't get it. I don't think Te is any more objective (less biased), I think it's simply less questioning from your subjective opinion.
Isn't that why Te picks up new reasoning more readily from others? There is less resistance to change, there is less emphasis on your own subjective and trying wade through whatever you are processing.



Red Panda said:


> Also from my own experiences, TJs are far more resistant to outside reasonings, which is another reason that prompted me to investigate things more.


Didn't you just say Te changes their opinion more easily? Okay now you made me think, Te is more tribal oriented (or whatever authority source the Te person trusts), Ti is more independent. Te changes its opinion more easily when it comes from what it considers authority, but is very resistant to info that it considers to come from "other tribe" or "lower authority" than the Te person itself. This would mean that Ti considers more easily "outsider" reasoning, because it's self above tribe, but Te considers more easily tribal reasoning (tribe above self). I don't think extraversion is about objectivity, I think it's about the people you belong with, so that's where some of our disagreements might come from (also I'm building my ideas as we go).
Yes I know, I'm doing a stereotypical TJ stereotyping here, I don't know what to say. Everyone are split 50-50% self vs tribal in their functions though, introverted doms are extroverted (tribal?) somewhere else. Or maybe introversion and prioritizing self are not really the same thing, idk.


----------



## BigApplePi

I'm too disoriented this AM here. For some reason none of my functions are working.


----------



## Eric B

Red Panda said:


> yea, the Beebe theory, I don't really agree with it though. There is access to the opposite orientation, just not through the auxiliary function. Jung believed there was a 5th one which he called the Transcendent exactly because it bridged the two. Based on my experiences, it's far more plausible as it happens both at perception and judgment depending on the situation, so it can't be one of those that does the job exclusively.





Red Panda said:


> you can read about the Transcendent here
> Jung believed it works best through therapy, free artistic expression, dreams or passive contemplation which may bring you to a realization and accepting of something you couldn't before. As for an example it can be something like having a specific dream which had a certain emotional atmosphere that made you realize you're more lonely than you thought and not focused on alleviating that in some way or another in your daily life.


The transcendant function is not a normal automatic occurrence (Though that site does make it sound more common that the impression I had gotten before). That seems to be special inner work. And it's about _uniting_ the opposites, not presenting one beside the other. So short of that state, the auxiliary will provide access to the opposite orientation, and it will be natural and not require any special effort.


----------



## Red Panda

Eric B said:


> The transcendant function is not a normal automatic occurrence (Though that site does make it sound more common that the impression I had gotten before). That seems to be special inner work. And it's about _uniting_ the opposites, not presenting one beside the other. So short of that state, the auxiliary will provide access to the opposite orientation, and it will be natural and not require any special effort.


A shift in attitude can happen casually, depending on how much one favors their preference, and it can also affect the dom. But it's a problem to think that the aux _must_ be in the opposite attitude to provide _balance_ because it's the same meaning as saying it unites the contents of both.


----------



## BigApplePi

Red Panda said:


> it's the same meaning as saying it unites the contents of both.


I've always taken the auxiliary to be the supplement of choice that helps out the primary, not the union. If I help an old lady across the street, where is the union?

I'm tempted to call "opposite" a technical term that says i is opposite of e and doing is the opposite of observing and not going beyond that.





Red Panda said:


> A shift in attitude can happen casually, depending on how much one favors their preference, ...


Agreed.


----------



## Red Panda

BigApplePi said:


> I've always taken the auxiliary to be the supplement of choice that helps out the primary, not the union. If I help an old lady across the street, where is the union?
> 
> I'm tempted to call "opposite" a technical term that says i is opposite of e and doing is the opposite of observing and not going beyond that.


the old lady in the street isn't part of your organism, there's no reason for union.
a judger is gonna use perception to supplement their judging because it's part of a whole. A different attitude of adaptation is a different relationship with the world, so an auxiliary in the different attitude habitually would antagonize the primary. An introvert is going to put their subjective impressions, intuitions, reasons, gut feelings above the object primarily because that's the attitude they prefer. Take the example of the ACC we discussed earlier, the ACC is responsible for perceiving the world, for error correction and forming ethical decisions, it's both a 'center' of perception and judgment and favored by extraverts. When I judge the contents of my N I don't primarily do so with a subjective attitude, it's not about what I want or feel, that comes later.


----------



## Red Panda

Timo said:


> Sorry, I didn't really understand your post so well.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate? Doesn't TJ simply mean that Te is the dom function?
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm trying to get a better view on it as we go. It seems to me that people often consider extroverted and introverted side of the same function like something completely different somehow (like for example Ni and Ne are almost seen like the polar opposite ways of seeing patterns). I'm trying to argue (not that my own mind is set on this, I just like throwing ideas at people - I think that my thinking and seeing patterns for some reason works best when bouncing my ideas off other people) that there really are just 4 functions (not 8) and the only difference is their "polarity", what we understand as extroversion and introversion. What we have established is that the introverted functions have a more subjective "spin" on them, so by conclusion the extroverted side of these functions are by conclusion less "personal".
> 
> So for example Ti and Te, it's the same thinking, it's not like one is "upside down" thinking and other is "downside up thinking", or deductive vs inductive or whatever, this interpretation doesn't make sense to me. I've had this kind of opinion myself in past, but then I realized, no, it's the same thing - it's some other thing that makes them seem different. Perhaps it's simply a prioritization, introversion puts self above others and extroversion puts others above self? I don't know. That's why my guess was that Ti is just "making sense of things for yourself" and Te would be "making sure your way of making sense of things is on sync with others". Of course I have little to no experience with anyone who has Te on top, so feel free to correct me, but somehow I doubt that trying to make sense of things is generally high on their priority list.
> Perhaps Te does not care what others think any more either and that Te is simply more "objective", but now I feel like we are in functions "woo-woo" land again, this simply does not make sense to me. Why would Ti be more subjective and biased and Te just more "pure logic and reasoning"? Is extroversion just lack of subjectivity? I don't know, if that's the case than I don't get it. I don't think Te is any more objective (less biased), I think it's simply less questioning from your subjective opinion.
> Isn't that why Te picks up new reasoning more readily from others? There is less resistance to change, there is less emphasis on your own subjective and trying wade through whatever you are processing.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you just say Te changes their opinion more easily? Okay now you made me think, Te is more tribal oriented (or whatever authority source the Te person trusts), Ti is more independent. Te changes its opinion more easily when it comes from what it considers authority, but is very resistant to info that it considers to come from "other tribe" or "lower authority" than the Te person itself. This would mean that Ti considers more easily "outsider" reasoning, because it's self above tribe, but Te considers more easily tribal reasoning (tribe above self). I don't think extraversion is about objectivity, I think it's about the people you belong with, so that's where some of our disagreements might come from (also I'm building my ideas as we go).
> Yes I know, I'm doing a stereotypical TJ stereotyping here, I don't know what to say. Everyone are split 50-50% self vs tribal in their functions though, introverted doms are extroverted (tribal?) somewhere else. Or maybe introversion and prioritizing self are not really the same thing, idk.



Te being the dom function of ETJ was arbitrarily decided by Myers-Briggs and not supported in any way other than circular reasoning or retrofitting the definition of the function to fit TJ behavior after years of studying people based on the dichotomies only. So if you're trying to understand Te based on what TJs do you're not gonna understand what I'm saying. You'll have to put that aside and start from the premises of what E,I and T are. Extraversion has nothing to do with people necessarily, you could be extraverted and Mowgli, never ever meeting another person in your life, because E and I are attitudes of our relationship with the outside world, animate or inanimate. Being object-oriented in this sense means that when you're met with cognitive dissonance, when the world doesn't prove you right, you try to find where you're wrong and change, being subject-oriented means you wanna change the world so that you're right. That's in simple words what Jung describes as the attitudes in chapter 10. I recommend these two threads here and here for reading and discussion.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb

So, you know how STPs can react immediately in situations: Eg: If they're driving and say, the weather is dangerous to drive in... the car tyre blows or caves in, and they make a quick maneuver into the emergency lane, or just off road... And handle they car really wel;l and the car didn't roll and everyone's ok...

I think that would be Se right? Because it reacts to the external environment.

How come they can react so quickly and precisely though? 

It's like they're 4 steps ahead of time concerning the physical world. Kind of like how people think Ne users are 4 train thoughts away... Or Ni users ability to "see the future".


----------

