# 𝗠𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀-𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗴𝘀®𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸~𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗗𝗼 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗗𝗼�



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Source:Quora hidden/Anonymous-see user










> Question: What is your take on all the MBTI functions like Si, Se, Ni, Ne, Fi, Fe, Ti and Te? How do you differentiate between them? Can you provide any deep insights into them?


Warning: Long answer below.

According to the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) theory, a person has 4 Functions – 2 are for Perceiving (P), 2 are for Judging (J).

The 2 Perceiving Functions are: Sensing (S) and Intuition (N).

The 2 Judging Functions are: Feeling (F) and Thinking (T).

Each of these functions can be either Introverted (i) or Extroverted (e).

Hence, there are a total of 8 functions. In this article, we shall be looking intuitively at each of the eight functions.

1.) Introverted Sensing (or Si):
(Memory)
*What is Si* ?





The natural preference to look at a situation by a core internal set of empirical elements like memory, familiarity, hierarchy, habits and tradition.
Having an internal positioning framework that is self-generated, self-referenced, inward-oriented, convergent (eliminating), and is independent of time, place, person and circumstances – "Identity".
The ability to import an external reality into the mind, and then transpose it onto one's internal positioning framework, to arrive at an understanding of the situation – "Experience".
Anything that is found to be inconsistent and incongruent with the internal empirical standards is red-flagged, isolated and questioned.
Concrete information and details are given priority over meanings and imagination – while reliability, preservation and diligence are given precedence over adaptability, gratification and impulsiveness – before arriving at the value of a decision.
The ability to be comfortable in the full range and depth of one's own identity without feeling confused or exhausted – "Heritage".
The compulsion to create and follow an internal code of empirical practices that should not be violated – "Duty".
Let's go deeper to understand Si...
(Memory)


> *Secure Si:* A person with pronounced Si is solidly anchored to his own heritage and self-assured in the knowledge that his identity is unshakeable. Such a person castles himself in and walls off his identity system from external influences. He tends to hoard his heritage, guard it from the world, and is less willing to share it with others. Whenever he wants, he has the native ability to pierce through the clutter to grasp the essence of the situation without needing much external help or guidance.
> *Si Tolerance:* Once such a person has secured himself, he can now afford to be selective about entertaining a wide variety of conflicting external details and traditions without the risk of being discomforted by them too much. And hence, he makes little effort to control the cultural atmosphere around him. This makes him extremely non-judgemental and tolerant of other people and their identity systems (as long as they don't threaten the person's core identity).
> *Si Protestor:* But if anyone tries to question the person's core identity and asks him to act against it, then it is considered as an attack on the castle walls. The person vehemently protests and fights back to defend his traditions.
> *Retarded Se (see below for Se):* Since the person with high Si is convinced of his self-sufficiency in cultural and identity systems, he feels that he does not need to solicit any more of the same from outside. Such a person becomes complacent and neglects his Se. This negatively affects his ability to showcase his own culture and imbibe the cultures of others around him. He can come across as clannish, unsophisticated, self-conscious, unadventurous and culturally outdated. It diminishes the ability to effectively impress another person or group.
> ...


2.) Extroverted Sensing (or Se):
(Sensation)
What is *Se* ?





The natural preference to look at a situation by an expansive external set of empirical elements like details, novelty, spontaneity, presentation and style.
Having an external positioning framework that is foreign-originated, multi-referenced, outward-oriented, divergent (accumulating), and is dependent on time, place, person and circumstances – a "Situational Awareness".
The ability to seek, sense and absorb the identity, hierarchy and culture from external sources and interconnect them – without giving too much regard to the underlying meanings and motives – to arrive at an understanding of the situation.
Anything that is found to be inconsistent and incongruent with the external empirical reality is red-flagged, isolated and questioned.
Concrete information and details are given priority over meanings and imagination – while adaptability, gratification and impulsiveness are given precedence over reliability, preservation and diligence – before arriving at the value of a decision.
The ability to outwardly project impressions and style, which are in consonance and harmony with the external empirical atmosphere, without feeling confused or exhausted – "Trend-fitting".
The compulsion to create and enforce an external code of empirical metrics that should not be violated – "Culture" (think "Fashion Police").
Let's go deeper to understand Se...
(Sensation)


> *Si Void: *A person with pronounced Se is someone with an underdeveloped Si. He can't quite locate his own internal seat of identity. So every time something triggers a self-seeking response, the act of trying to understand it causes the expenditure of a lot of mental energy accompanied by confusion, discomfort and stress. After a while, he will feel overworked, overwhelmed and mentally drained. To avoid being put into such a predicament again, he resorts to painstakingly create his own mental positioning framework for future reference, as a hedge to compensate for the lack of Si.
> *Se Mapping: *To acquire a sense of each situation, the person with pronounced Se starts at a subconscious level by acutely observing external objects around him, and correlating their details and styles to their subsequent impressions and benefits. After such validation, they slowly get good at being attuned to the identity and status of others.
> *Se Mimic: *As the person comes to grip with the language of impressions, he begins to communicate with others in the same language, by closely dressing up the details nearest to the impression he wants to convey. This way he opens up a two-way street towards cultural understanding and camaraderie, establishing excellent impressionable skills and enhances the ability to effectively impress another person or group.
> *Se Repertoire: *As the years go by, and the statistical number of observations and interactions increase with various objects, the person has steadily built-up a sizeable mental framework to deal with each new situation according to a past data-set. Over time, their repository of identity and style have swelled to such levels that sometimes they can deal with a situation in a better way than people with Si.
> ...


3.) Introverted Intuition (or Ni):
(Perspectives)
What is *Ni* ?





The natural preference to look at a situation by a core internal set of abstract elements like meanings, patterns, prospects, strategy and insight.
Having an internal path-finding framework that is self-generated, self-referenced, inward-oriented, convergent (eliminating), and is independent of time, place, person and circumstances – "Instinct".
The ability to import an external reality into the mind, and then transpose it onto one's internal path-finding framework, to arrive at an understanding of the situation – "Prescience".
Anything that is found to be inconsistent and incongruent with the internal abstract paradigm is red-flagged, isolated and questioned.
Meanings and imagination are given priority over concrete information and details – while probabilities, planning and deconstruction are given precedence over possibilities, potential and transformation – before arriving at the value of a decision.
The ability to be comfortable in the full range and depth of one's own instincts without feeling confused or exhausted – "Transcendence".
The compulsion to create and follow an internal code of conceptual practices that should not be violated – "Conviction".
Let's go deeper to understand *Ni*...



> *Secure Ni:* A person with pronounced Ni is solidly anchored to his own insights and self-assured in the knowledge that his instincts are unshakeable. Such a person castles himself in and walls off his instinct system from external influences. He tends to hoard his insights, guard them from the world, and is less willing to share them with others. Whenever he wants, he has the native ability to pierce through the clutter to grasp the essence of the situation without needing much external help or guidance.
> *Ni Tolerance:* Once such a person has secured himself, he can now afford to be selective about entertaining a wide variety of conflicting external ideas and perspectives without the risk of being discomforted by them too much. And hence, he makes little effort to control the conceptual atmosphere around him. This makes him extremely non-judgemental and tolerant of other people and their instinct systems (as long as they don't threaten the person's core instincts).
> *Ni Protestor:* But if anyone tries to question the person's core instincts and asks him to act against them, then it is considered as an attack on the castle walls. The person vehemently protests and fights back to defend his insights.
> *Retarded Ne (see below for Ne):* Since the person with high Ni is convinced of his self-sufficiency in meanings and instinct systems, he feels that he does not need to solicit any more of the same from outside. Such a person becomes complacent and neglects his Ne. This negatively affects his ability to explain his own insights and appreciate the ideas of others around him. He can come across as incoherent, unimaginative, stubborn, weird and creatively infertile. It diminishes the ability to effectively lead another person or group.
> ...


4.) Extroverted Intuition (or Ne):
(Exploration)
What is *Ne* ?





The natural preference to look at a situation by an expansive external set of abstract elements like ideas, concepts, opinions, paradigms and perspective.
Having an external path-finding framework that is foreign-originated, multi-referenced, outward-oriented, divergent (accumulating), and is dependent on time, place, person and circumstances – "Panorama".
The ability to seek, sense and absorb the meanings, patterns and concepts from external sources and interconnect them – without giving too much regard to the underlying details and style – to arrive at an understanding of the situation.
Anything that is found to be inconsistent and incongruent with the external abstract perspective is red-flagged, isolated and questioned.
Meanings and imagination are given priority over concrete information and details – while possibilities, potential and transformation are given precedence over probabilities, planning and deconstruction – before arriving at the value of a decision.
The ability to outwardly project ideas and prospects, which are in consonance and harmony with the external conceptual atmosphere, without feeling confused or exhausted – "Creativity".
The compulsion to create and enforce an external code of abstract metrics that should not be violated – "Vision" (think "Thought Police").
Let's go deeper to understand Ne...
(Exploration)


> *Ni Void:* A person with pronounced Ne is someone with an underdeveloped Ni. He can't quite locate his own internal seat of instincts. So every time something triggers a predictive response, the act of trying to understand it causes the expenditure of a lot of mental energy accompanied by confusion, discomfort and stress. After a while, he will feel overworked, overwhelmed and mentally drained. To avoid being put into such a predicament again, he resorts to painstakingly create his own mental path-finding framework for future reference, as a hedge to compensate for the lack of Ni.
> *Ne Mapping:* To acquire a sense of each situation, the person with pronounced Ne starts at a subconscious level by acutely observing people's external opinions, and correlating their ideas and concepts to their subsequent meanings and prospects. After such validation, they slowly get good at being attuned to the strategies and insights of others.
> *Ne Mimic: *As the person comes to grip with the language of ideas, he begins to communicate with others in the same language, by closely voicing the prospects nearest to the idea he wants to convey. This way he opens up a two-way street towards conceptual understanding and shared goals, establishing excellent negotiating skills and enhances the ability to effectively lead another person or group.
> *Ne Repertoire: *As the years go by, and the statistical number of observations and interactions increase with various concepts, the person has steadily built-up a sizeable mental framework to deal with each new situation according to a past data-set. Over time, their repository of insights and strategies have swelled to such levels that sometimes they can deal with a situation in a better way than people with Ni.
> ...


5.) Introverted Feeling (or *Fi*):
(Authenticity)
What is *Fi* ?





The natural preference to judge a situation by a core internal set of subjective elements like feelings, values, morals, principles and character.
Having an internal subjective framework that is self-generated, self-referenced, inward-oriented, convergent (eliminating), and is independent of time, place, person and circumstances – a "Universal Moral Code".
The ability to import an external reality into the mind, and then transpose it onto one's internal subjective framework, to arrive at an understanding of the situation – "Empathy".
Anything that is found to be inconsistent and incongruent with the internal subjective standards is red-flagged, isolated and questioned.
Humane considerations are given priority over logic and rationality – while individual good of one-and-all is given precedence over collective good of a group – before arriving at the value of a decision.
The ability to be comfortable in the full range and depth of one's own emotions without feeling confused or exhausted – "Emotional Intelligence".
The compulsion to create and follow an internal code of subjective practices that should not be violated – "Integrity".
Let's go deeper to understand Fi...
(Authenticity)


> *Secure Fi:* A person with pronounced Fi is solidly anchored to his own emotions and self-assured in the knowledge that his values are unshakeable. Such a person castles himself in and walls off his value system from external influences. He tends to hoard his feelings, guard them from the world, and is less willing to share them with others. Whenever he wants, he has the native ability to pierce through the clutter to grasp the essence of the situation without needing much external help or guidance.
> *Fi Tolerance: *Once such a person has secured himself, he can now afford to be selective about entertaining a wide variety of conflicting external values and principles without the risk of being discomforted by them too much. And hence, he makes little effort to control the emotional atmosphere around him. This makes him extremely non-judgemental and tolerant of other people and their value systems (as long as they don't threaten the person's core values).
> *Fi Protestor: *But if anyone tries to question the person's core values and asks him to act against them, then it is considered as an attack on the castle walls. The person vehemently protests and fights back to defend his principles.
> *Retarded Fe (see below for Fe):* Since the person with high Fi is convinced of his self-sufficiency in emotions and value systems, he feels that he does not need to solicit any more of the same from outside. Such a person becomes complacent and neglects his Fe. This negatively affects his ability to express his own feelings and pick up the feelings of others around him. He can come across as stiff, unengaging, selfish, clumsy and socially inappropriate. It diminishes the ability to effectively manage another person or group.
> ...


6.) Extroverted Feeling (or Fe):
(Harmony)
What is *Fe* ?
Vultology Tutorial 8: Fe Signals

The natural preference to judge a situation by an expansive external set of subjective elements like emotions, expressions, body-language, etiquette and ethics.
Having an external subjective framework that is foreign-originated, multi-referenced, outward-oriented, divergent (accumulating), and is dependent on time, place, person and circumstances – a "Situational Social Reality".
The ability to seek, sense and absorb the feelings, emotions and context from external sources and interconnect them – without giving too much regard to the underlying facts and reasoning – to arrive at an understanding of the situation.
Anything that is found to be inconsistent and incongruent with the external subjective reality is red-flagged, isolated and questioned.
Humane considerations are given priority over logic and rationality – while collective good of a group is given precedence over individual good of one-and-all – before arriving at the value of a decision.
The ability to outwardly project expressions and emotions, which are in consonance and harmony with the external subjective atmosphere, without feeling confused or exhausted – "Social Intelligence".
The compulsion to create and enforce an external code of subjective metrics that should not be violated – "Harmony" (think "Moral Police").
Let's go deeper to understand Fe...
(Harmony)


> *Fi Void: *A person with pronounced Fe is someone with an underdeveloped Fi. He can't quite locate his own internal seat of feelings. So every time something triggers an emotional response, the act of trying to understand it causes the expenditure of a lot of mental energy accompanied by confusion, discomfort and stress. After a while, he will feel overworked, overwhelmed and mentally drained. To avoid being put into such a predicament again, he resorts to painstakingly create his own mental subjective framework for future reference, as a hedge to compensate for the lack of Fi.
> *Fe Mapping: *To acquire a sense of each situation, the person with pronounced Fe starts at a subconscious level by acutely observing people's external expressions, and correlating their emotions and body-language to their subsequent physical behaviour and reactions. After such validation, they slowly get good at being attuned to the feelings and needs of others.
> *Fe Mimic: *As the person comes to grip with the language of emotions, he begins to communicate with others in the same language, by closely imitating the behaviour nearest to the emotion he wants to convey. This way he opens up a two-way street towards emotional understanding and rapport, establishing excellent interpersonal skills and enhances the ability to effectively manage another person or group.
> *Fe Repertoire:* As the years go by, and the statistical number of observations and interactions increase with various people, the person has steadily built-up a sizeable mental framework to deal with each new situation according to a past data-set. Over time, their repository of emotions and responses have swelled to such levels that sometimes they can deal with a situation in a better way than people with Fi.
> ...











7.) Introverted Thinking (or Ti):
(Accuracy)
What is *Ti *?
Vultology Tutorial 7: Ti Signals

The natural preference to judge a situation by a core internal set of objective elements like logic, reason, theory, efficiency and intellect.
Having an internal objective framework that is self-generated, self-referenced, inward-oriented, convergent (eliminating), and is independent of time, place, person and circumstances – "The Objective Truth".
The ability to import an external reality into the mind, and then transpose it onto one's internal objective framework, to arrive at an understanding of the situation – "Critical Thinking".
Anything that is found to be inconsistent and incongruent with the internal objective standards is red-flagged, isolated and questioned.
Logic and rationality are given priority over humane considerations – while logical purity and efficiency are given precedence over practicality and effectiveness – before arriving at the value of a decision.
The ability to be comfortable in the full range and depth of one's own logic without feeling confused or exhausted – "Intellectual Intelligence".
The compulsion to create and follow an internal code of objective practices that should not be violated – "Honesty".
Let's go deeper to understand Ti...
(Accuracy)


> *Secure Ti: *A person with pronounced Ti is solidly anchored to his own rationality and self-assured in the knowledge that his logic is unshakeable. Such a person castles himself in and walls off his logic system from external influences. He tends to hoard his thinking, guard them from the world, and is less willing to share them with others. Whenever he wants, he has the native ability to pierce through the clutter to grasp the essence of the situation without needing much external help or guidance.
> *Ti Tolerance:* Once such a person has secured himself, he can now afford to be selective about entertaining a wide variety of conflicting external theories and reasoning without the risk of being discomforted by them too much. And hence, he makes little effort to control the argumentative atmosphere around him. This makes him extremely non-judgemental and tolerant of other people and their logic systems (as long as they don't threaten the person's core logic).
> *Ti Protestor: *But if anyone tries to question the person's core logic and asks him to act against them, then it is considered as an attack on the castle walls. The person vehemently protests and fights back to defend his theory.
> *Retarded Te (see below for Te):* Since the person with high Ti is convinced of his self-sufficiency in rationality and logic systems, he feels that he does not need to solicit any more of the same from outside. Such a person becomes complacent and neglects his Te. This negatively affects his ability to provide verifiable proof of his own theories and accept the evidence of others around him. He can come across as inattentive, unenterprising, indecisive, lazy and professionally incompetent. It diminishes the ability to effectively execute another operation or project.
> ...











8.) Extroverted Thinking (or Te):
(Effectiveness)
What is *Te* ?
Vultology Tutorial 9: Te Signals

The natural preference to judge a situation by an expansive external set of objective elements like facts, evidence, actions, rules and competence.
Having an external objective framework that is foreign-originated, multi-referenced, outward-oriented, divergent (accumulating), and is dependent on time, place, person and circumstances – "The Objective Reality".
The ability to seek, sense and absorb the logic, reasoning and rationale from external sources, and interconnect them – without giving too much regard to their underlying feelings and emotional expressions – to arrive at an understanding of the situation.
Anything that is found to be inconsistent and incongruent with the external objective reality is red-flagged, isolated and questioned.
Logic and rationality are given priority over humane considerations – while practicality and effectiveness are given precedence over logical purity and efficiency – before arriving at the value of a decision.
The ability to outwardly project facts and actions, which are in consonance and harmony with the external objective atmosphere, without feeling confused or exhausted – "Organizational Intelligence".
The compulsion to create and enforce an external code of objective metrics that should not be violated – "Authority" (think "Military Order").
Let's go deeper to understand Te...
(Effectiveness)


> *Ti Void*: A person with pronounced Te is someone with an underdeveloped Ti. He can't quite locate his own internal seat of logic. So every time something triggers a theoretical response, the act of trying to understand it causes the expenditure of a lot of mental energy accompanied by confusion, discomfort and stress. After a while, he will feel overworked, overwhelmed and mentally drained. To avoid being put into such a predicament again, he resorts to painstakingly create his own mental objective framework for future reference, as a hedge to compensate for the lack of Ti.
> *Te Mapping: *To acquire a sense of each situation, the person with pronounced Te starts at a subconscious level by acutely observing their subjects' external facts, and correlating their evidences and actions to their subsequent proofs and results. After such validation, they slowly get good at being attuned to the logic and objectives of others.
> *Te Mimic:* As the person comes to grip with the language of proofs/results, he begins to communicate with others in the same language, by closely tailoring the evidence/action nearest to the proof/result he wants to convey. This way he opens up a two-way street towards factual understanding and trust, establishing excellent interoperative skills and enhances the ability to effectively execute another operation or project.
> *Te Repertoire: *As the years go by, and the statistical number of observations and interactions increase with various things, the person has steadily built-up a sizeable mental framework to deal with each new situation according to a past data-set. Over time, their repository of facts and actions have swelled to such levels that sometimes they can deal with a situation in a better way than people with Ti.
> ...











You may have a feminine or masculine cognitive function (unrelated to sex or gender)

*Holistic: Feminine functions* Ni, Si, Ne, Se, Te, Ti, Fe

*Analytical: Masculine functions *Ni, Si, Ne, Se, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi

*Sexual Modalities(unrelated to gender):

Masculine Savior:* Detailed memory, great at recalling details

*Feminine Savior:* Visual memory, great at recalling visual

*Masculine De:* More confident with tribe, moveable with self, pushy

*Feminine De:* More confident with self, moveable with tribe, agreeable
Masculine & Feminine Functions

*IxxJ, ExxP Observer:* Can calmly use both reasons and values, not too much people-pleaser or self-centered, either very specialist or very generalist, likes to get more imformation

*IxxP, ExxJ Decider*: Can calmly see both realities and concepts, not too much generalist or specialist, either very people-pleaser or very self-centered, likes to be decisive


𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗹𝗲:

*Ti, Fi Self:* Needs their deicsions to be aligned with their reasons/values

*Te, Fe Tribe:* Needs their decisions to be validated by others’ reasons/values

*Se, Ne Gather:* Generalist, likes to know a bit about everything, does not mean master of none

*Si, Ni Organize:* Specialist, likes to know a lot about one thing, does not mean close-minded


𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀:
*Te, Ti Thinking:* Using impersonal reasoning

*Fe, Fi Feeling:* Using personal values

*Se, Si Sensing:* Getting the realities, discrete facts, practical

*Ne, Ni Intuiting:* Getting the possibilities, connections, conceptual


*Animal Stack:
Oe/De Play:* Spending energy, doing, energetic, may be fidgety, has to do something

*Oi/Di Sleep:* Preserving energy, calming down, placid, may be stagnant, easily sits still and does nothing

*Oe/Di Blast:* Giving known information to others

*Oi/De Consume:* Getting new information for yourself












￼
















OP Database - Airtable


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

One possible answer:



*What 
functions 
are 
and 
what 
they’re 
not*

funkymbtifiction:



> *SUBMITTED by Steve*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


(via mbti-resources)


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

One thing I find intriguing about these eight functions is they are all either i or e. Question: Just how opposing are the i and e side? They must be in theory as one is introvertedly oriented while the other is extroverted. Does one favor the one so avidly that the other is forced to be unpleasantly developed? That is, is the other function shunted to the unconscious unless necessity is forced upon one?

I can elaborate myself as an example if anyone wishes.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> One thing I find intriguing about these eight functions is they are all either i or e. Question: Just how opposing are the i and e side? They must be in theory as one is introvertedly oriented while the other is extroverted. Does one favor the one so avidly that the other is forced to be unpleasantly developed? That is, is the other function shunted to the unconscious unless necessity is forced upon one?
> 
> I can elaborate myself as an example if anyone wishes.


That's an interesting thought, I highly appreciate your introverted thinking. The way you think is interesting.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> One thing I find intriguing about these eight functions is they are all either i or e. Question: Just how opposing are the i and e side? They must be in theory as one is introvertedly oriented while the other is extroverted. Does one favor the one so avidly that the other is forced to be unpleasantly developed? That is, is the other function shunted to the unconscious unless necessity is forced upon one?
> 
> I can elaborate myself as an example if anyone wishes.


Xi and Xe rely on exactly the same function X.
If, without loss of generality, you are using Xi, then it isn't Xe that is pushed into unconsciousness.
What is pushed into unconsciousness is "e"(extraversion) and Y, where Y is the alternative function of the same group as X.

So, for instance, this :


> *Te, Fe Tribe:* Needs their decisions to be validated by others’ reasons/values


Is a complete nonsense. Te doesn't need validation of others and it isn't "manager function". This "tribe/validation" crap comes from Objective Personality Theory, which is a scam cult that makes stuff up in an ad-hoc fashion to "explain" whatever they want and make people buy their "stories" about them. 16personalities test reveals more about you than OPT.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Allostasis said:


> Xi and Xe rely on exactly the same function X.


 Each Xi and Xe have sensing, feeling, intuition or thinking in common.



Allostasis said:


> If, without loss of generality, you are using Xi, then it isn't Xe that is pushed into unconsciousness.


There must be a better way of putting this. When Xi is used, Xe is not used. It can be ready in the subconscious.



Allostasis said:


> What is pushed into unconsciousness is "e"(extraversion) and Y, where Y is the alternative function of the same group as X.


Would you accept that Xi or Xe can be used as a unified function or it can be separated into X, e, and i? That is, Xz is a whole and Xe and Xi are its parts?



Allostasis said:


> Is a complete nonsense. Te doesn't need validation of others and it isn't "manager function". This "tribe/validation" crap comes from Objective Personality Theory, which is a scam cult that makes stuff up in an ad-hoc fashion to "explain" whatever they want and make people buy their "stories" about them. 16personalities test reveals more about you than OPT.


Complete? Te alone wouldn't need validation but if Fe is present it might be sought for verification as Te is fallible. 

Crap? Is this your Fi speaking? I look for what truth is present. The rest may be no good.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

BigApplePi said:


> I can elaborate on myself as an example, not that anyone is interested, lol.


If I'm an INTP, INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe

Ti - I like to see how things might work underneath. There can be a beauty and truth in that if it ever finishes up.
Te - I hate to see these things put together as their application seems arbitrary to me. A necessary practicality.

Ne - A great supplier of what is out there to supply input to Ti.
Ni - A personal bias. Pretty vague for input. I can listen but there are alternatives.

Si - Another supplier of input for Ti which is specific, not general.
Se - Transient. I have to use it to exist but waste no love on it.

Fe - The escape from loneliness. It's where I seek validation.
Fi - Always there, but like Ni is a useful bias not representing general truths.
=============================================================

What about an INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se? 
These guys are great for input. They have all the opposite functions.

Ni - I don't know what is going on. They will tell me if I'm wrong.
Te - Great to check out for universality for which I will seek what is missing.
Fi - I have to be careful not to offend as Fi is real.
Se - I will accept that they are practical. I am not ... at least in the short run.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> If I'm an INTP, INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe
> 
> Ti - I like to see how things might work underneath. There can be a beauty and truth in that if it ever finishes up.
> Te - I hate to see these things put together as their application seems arbitrary to me. A necessary practicality.
> ...


That's terrific! it makes perfect sense, Extroverted attitudes attempt to make the inner self more like the outer world's objective ideal. Introverted attitudes attempt to make the outer world more like the inner self's subjective ideal. It appears to be correct; how would you describe the eight cognitive functions in the most accurate refined way? could you define the functions in more depth, based on your experiences or perspectives?

Ni, Ne, Se, Si, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi & [Xe, Xi, Ji, Je, Pi, Pe]

Ji=Ti, Fi
Je=Te, Fe
Pe=Ne, Se
Pi=Si, Ni

How would you define them? In your own Ti way? What are these functions saying to you?

You said feelings are real to Fi users, what about Fe users are feelings real to them? Do Fe users feel exactly the feelings of others or is it just sympathy? What's your take on that? Tell us about your Fe.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> There must be a better way of putting this. When Xi is used, Xe is not used. It can be ready in the subconscious.


No, there is a reason why I put it this way. X is like tea, while i/e is just temperature/shape of cup or a type of cookies that you picked for the tea.
This parameter doesn't change the nature of the tea itself, you end up drinking it in any case.



> *It* can be ready in the subconscious.


"It" in this case is just "e".



> Would you accept that Xi or Xe can be used as a unified function or it can be separated into X, e, and i? That is, Xz is a whole and Xe and Xi are its parts?


Xi or Xe are both "applications" of function X, rather than individual, separate psychological processes.
They can be separated into X, e and i components, yes, where X is the function, and "i" and "e" - attitudes that specify subject vs object relationship.



> Ti - I like to see how things might work underneath. There can be a beauty and truth in that if it ever finishes up.
> Te - I hate to see these things put together as their application seems arbitrary to me. A necessary practicality.


Both functions are about understanding how things work underneath and neither one is specific about being pragmatic.

Te is application of T under the object > subject order, which commands more objective/empirical approach that can be roughly exemplified by scientific method.
It's goal is to achieve pure, perfectly accurate understanding of the reality and complete logical-intellectual consistency in everything. Not to become the biggest boss and earn all the money in the world. That is merely a positive side-effect.

Ti is application of T under the subject > object attitude, which adds "metaphysical"/philosophical flavor to what T offers. Subjective ideas by themselves become driving motivation. Objective data is only instrumental, a means to prove the validity of ideas to others or serve as source of inspiration.

Both in the end seek to establish object = subject connection, but they approach it from different ends.
Ti wants to adjust the external/objective world to make it fit to it's subjective set of ideas/concepts.
Te wants to adjust its internal world of ideas to conceptualize the external world more accurately.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

X10E8 said:


> how would you describe the eight cognitive functions in the most accurate refined way? could you define the functions in more depth, based on your experiences or perspectives?


I don't care to do that just now. Why? Suppose you asked me to define "warm." I don't care to do that either. I'd have to go through too many situations and if I'm lucky, come up with a workable generalization. Let another try it. Another comment is, each cognitive function is there to distinguish it from alternatives. Each is fuzzy, not precise as is warm versus cold. I can see defining warm versus cold but not each as an absolute.

J - choice making
P - observation making



X10E8 said:


> Ji=Ti, Fi
> Je=Te, Fe
> Pe=Ne, Se
> Pi=Si, Ni


Ji=Ti, Fi - each makes a choice versus some other choice, but in the inner world of the individual
Je=Te, Fe - same thing but in the social world
Pe=Ne, Se - My favorite meaning (not held by all) is one is about generalities outside the self; the other is about specifics
Pi=Si, Ni - I see Si as about specific experience as remembered while Ni is about a proposed generality observed by an individual


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Allostasis said:


> No, there is a reason why I put it this way. X is like tea, while i/e is just temperature/shape of cup or a type of cookies that you picked for the tea.
> This parameter doesn't change the nature of the tea itself, you end up drinking it in any case.


That is not clear to me. Sure you drink the tea. You are thinking of tea as being homogeneous throughout. If it were a cake, it would have a frosting, a topping and dough inside. They are different but remain cake as you say.



Allostasis said:


> Xi or Xe are both "applications" of function X, rather than individual, separate psychological processes.
> They can be separated into X, e and i components, yes, where X is the function, and "i" and "e" - attitudes that specify subject vs object relationship.


Would you accept that, yes, they are the same psychological processes but they cover different areas and are treated slightly differently as they exist in different contexts. An analogy is a sportsman can do wrestling or gymnastics. They remain an athlete but have different subtle attitudes. 

Subject vs object? Not sure I understand that. Is that distinction useful? It doesn't quite ring with me.



Allostasis said:


> Both functions are about understanding how things work underneath and neither one is specific about being pragmatic.
> 
> Te is application of T under the object > subject order, which commands more objective/empirical approach that can be roughly exemplified by scientific method.
> It's goal is to achieve pure, perfectly accurate understanding of the reality and complete logical-intellectual consistency in everything. Not to become the biggest boss and earn all the money in the world. That is merely a positive side-effect.
> ...


Damned if I don't agree with that but the way you say it throws me for a loop. I'll quote you again and break it down.

"Both functions are about understanding how things work underneath and neither one is specific about being pragmatic." - 
I'll live with that.

"Te is application of T under the object > subject order, which commands more objective/empirical approach that can be roughly exemplified by scientific method."
I'll live with that also, but why the object>subject reference? Does object mean the outside world and subject mean the user?

"Its goal is to achieve pure, perfectly accurate understanding of the reality and complete logical-intellectual consistency in everything. Not to become the biggest boss and earn all the money in the world."
Did you say you are an engineer? What kind? I want to say not everything.

"Ti is application of T under the subject > object attitude, which adds "metaphysical"/philosophical flavor to what T offers. Subjective ideas by themselves become driving motivation."
Why do I feel insulted by that? Meta/philo bullshito. I say Ti can propose a way of different looking at things, perhaps a classification not offered by Te. To the Te person that looks subjective. Maybe it is but maybe it is objective also. I think this needs work if we are going to see eye-to-eye.

"Both in the end seek to establish object = subject connection, but they approach it from different ends."
Okay.

"Ti wants to adjust the external/objective world to make it fit to it's subjective set of ideas/concepts.
Te wants to adjust its internal world of ideas to conceptualize the external world more accurately."
Alright. Note quite. Each one want to kick ass, but doesn't Te want to make things actually work? Ti says, try this. It may work.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> That is not clear to me. Sure you drink the tea. You are thinking of tea as being homogeneous throughout. If it were a cake, it would have a frosting, a topping and dough inside. They are different but remain cake as you say.


Yes, I selected homogeneous tea intentionally, because in both of its servings tea is equal not only conceptually, but is also the same in its fragrance and taste. Integrity of its substance is invariant to this complementary factor. Xi / i = Xe / e. 

Another example can be just negative and positive charges or numbers or anything that involves polarity/dualities/symmetries.



> Would you accept that, yes, they are the same psychological processes but they cover different areas and are treated slightly differently as they exist in different contexts. An analogy is a sportsman can do wrestling or gymnastics. They remain an athlete but have different subtle attitudes.


I wouldn't, unfortunately, because the domains and the ranges of these "functions" are the same, as it is exactly the same function.
The break in consistency for this specific analogy is the functional differences between wrestler and gymnast. One can't do what the other does with the same efficiency.
Reformulation or further specification is required.



> Subject vs object? Not sure I understand that. Is that distinction useful? It doesn't quite ring with me.


Yes, I do find it quite useful, both in theory and in practice. Your own stance in this conflict, for instance, is self-evident and it helps with predicting your own motivations/processes.



> I'll live with that also, but why the object>subject reference? Does object mean the outside world and subject mean the user?


Yes, object means objective data broadly. Not social world, not "thoughts of the others" narrowly, but what is invariant to the subject.
And subject means user, his personal/subjective world of ideas/impressions/feelings.
o>s means that you habitually prefer to change the internal to incorporate the change in the external.



> Did you say you are an engineer? What kind?


Software, but this is mostly irrelevant.



> I want to say not everything.


What makes you _want_ to say so, your current internalized concepts? What I described is mostly the idealized principle of extraverted T. Realistically though, one won't be able to concern himself with the consistency of literally everything without any discrimination.



> Why do I feel insulted by that? Meta/philo bullshito.
> I say Ti can propose a way of different looking at things, perhaps a classification not offered by Te. To the Te person that looks subjective. Maybe it is but maybe it is objective also. I think this needs work if we are going to see eye-to-eye.


Haha. Well, my description can be biased unintentionally. Ti certainly can be objective and by being "subjective" I didn't mean to say useless/irrelevant.
Subjective factor is just as fundamental and inescapable part of our reality. And real people are never purely objective/subjective or reducible to some function.



> Each one want to kick ass, but doesn't Te want to make things actually work? Ti says, try this. It may work.


Somewhat inaccurate, but these is some truth in that. 
Te may want to make things actually work, but not because it doesn't care how they work and just wants to earn a lot of money asap.
It's just that its interest lies in the object, in the external. In the equations and laws that decide everything in the case of T specifically.

Ti can want this too, but mostly because it may want to see his own, personal ideas becoming a reality.
Not to make things consistent with these universal laws/equations, they are merely his tools.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> One thing I find intriguing about these eight functions is they are all either i or e. Question: Just how opposing are the i and e side? They must be in theory as one is introvertedly oriented while the other is extroverted. *Does one favor the one so avidly that the other is forced to be unpleasantly developed? That is, is the other function shunted to the unconscious unless necessity is forced upon one?*
> 
> I can elaborate myself as an example if anyone wishes.


As far as application goes, the opposition varies, as on a continuum. The more balanced the psyche, the less someone heavily relies on one side one over the other (or in other words, can consciously access and value both objective/extraverted and subjective/introverted criteria). So, yeah, the bolded statement would be a result if there is too much conscious focus on one side to the deficit of the other. This is the basis of the concept of dominant and inferior functions.



Allostasis said:


> Both functions are about understanding how things work underneath and neither one is specific about being pragmatic.
> 
> Te is application of T under the object > subject order, which commands more objective/empirical approach that can be roughly exemplified by scientific method.
> It's goal is to achieve pure, perfectly accurate understanding of the reality and complete logical-intellectual consistency in everything. Not to become the biggest boss and earn all the money in the world. That is merely a positive side-effect.
> ...


I don't think this is quite right, either... the common denominator for thinking isn't "understanding how things work underneath" but using a thinking process, in general. One could just as easily use Feeling, Intuition, or Sensation to make sense of "how things work."

It is possible to engage in a style of thinking that has almost no relationship to objective data - that would be like a "pure" Ti. In contrast, it is possible to completely ignore the subjective factors in thinking, and that would be a "pure" Te. The results are irrelevant to the process except for providing clues as to the character (more likely to be on a continuum in practice). So, the scientific method, empirical approaches, accuracy, pragmatism, philosophy, etc. aren't _intrinsic _to the process but only suggestive of it. And, the more unconscious that process is the harder it would be to determine how extraverted/introverted it might be. 



BigApplePi said:


> I don't care to do that just now. Why? Suppose you asked me to* define "warm." * *I don't care to do that either.* * I'd have to go through too many situations and if I'm lucky, come up with a workable generalization.*


How do you justify "warm" being in your vocabulary if you can't be bothered to define it? A case-by-case basis? Context? How does it follow with:

"Ti -* I like to see how things might work underneath. *There can be a beauty and truth in that if it ever finishes up.
Te - I hate to see these things put together as their* application seems arbitrary to me. A necessary practicality. *"

Tangential, but might provide some insight into how your mind works, lol.



BigApplePi said:


> Subject vs object? Not sure I understand that. Is that distinction useful? It doesn't quite ring with me.


This is the basis of introversion and extraversion in Jungian type theory. That you've gotten this far in typology without that knowledge is pretty impressive (unless I'm missing something). Perhaps very Ti of you?


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Squirt said:


> I don't think this is quite right, either... the common denominator for thinking isn't "understanding how things work underneath" but using a thinking process, in general. One could just as easily use Feeling, Intuition, or Sensation to make sense of "how things work."


I didn't intend to pose understanding as a key feature of thinking. My point was that both functions could serve this purpose in equal measure.


> It is possible to engage in a style of thinking that has almost no relationship to objective data - that would be like a "pure" Ti. In contrast, it is possible to completely ignore the subjective factors in thinking, and that would be a "pure" Te.


Not that I claimed otherwise.
Although, both styles will be just as "pure" or, rather, "sterile" in their results.


> The results are irrelevant to the process except for providing clues as to the character (more likely to be on a continuum in practice). So, the scientific method, empirical approaches, accuracy, pragmatism, philosophy, etc. aren't _intrinsic _to the process but only suggestive of it. And, the more unconscious that process is the harder it would be to determine how extraverted/introverted it might be.


These scientific methods and philosophies merely illustrated the superficial character of each style.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I don't strongly disagree with anything you've said. It's just that I seek useful clarity, not that I will know how to find it.



Allostasis said:


> object means objective data broadly. Not social world, not "thoughts of the others" narrowly, but what is invariant to the subject.
> And subject means user, his personal/subjective world of ideas/impressions/feelings.


true enough, but I am sneaky. I can find subjectivity in objective rendering and objectivity in subjective expression. This leads me to not want to use the terms "objective" and "subjective."



Allostasis said:


> Ti can want this too, but mostly because it may want to see his own, personal ideas becoming a reality.
> Not to make things consistent with these universal laws/equations, they are merely his tools.


This could be a bad example. The square has objective properties that everyone accepts (Te). However Ti can go after the square and propose usages. Those usages may be objectively acceptable in some way, but the acceptance of which among a dozen choices will be subjective.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Squirt said:


> As far as application goes, the opposition varies, as on a continuum. The more balanced the psyche, the less someone heavily relies on one side one over the other (or in other words, can consciously access and value both objective/extraverted and subjective/introverted criteria). So, yeah, the bolded statement would be a result if there is too much conscious focus on one side to the deficit of the other. This is the basis of the concept of dominant and inferior functions.


If the Myers-Briggs theory has any merit, people will favor one end of the continuum even if it is a continuum. I think that is the case, but anyone can dispute that.



Squirt said:


> How do you justify "warm" being in your vocabulary if you can't be bothered to define it? A case-by-case basis? Context? How does it follow with:


My first unthought out reaction is it is contextual.



Squirt said:


> How does it follow with:
> "Ti -* I like to see how things might work underneath. *There can be a beauty and truth in that if it ever finishes up.
> Te - I hate to see these things put together as their* application seems arbitrary to me. A necessary practicality. *"


Here is how it might follow. I might not want to do a Ti on "warm." The result will be no result.

If a Te person presents a hot stove as warm and a rocket exhaust as warm, I won't be enlightened. I will want to know why both are warm even if I believe both are warm. Without doing Ti, I observe those examples as ugly because warm is left hanging. No relationship is presented. There is no relationship. After thinking about it a while I can to a Ti proposal as to why both are warm. Then the Te person can check the proposal out.

@Allostasis. BTW can either of you define "thinking"? I once saw a seminar of Ph.D.s where they couldn't do it. That set me to try to nail them to the wall. Sometimes Ph.D.s just can't cut the mustard.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> If the Myers-Briggs theory has any merit, people will favor one end of the continuum even if it is a continuum. I think that is the case, but anyone can dispute that.
> 
> 
> My first unthought out reaction is it is contextual.
> ...


Yeah, Ti doms, who have an internal logic analysing function and can think deeply, have been the most forerunners of technology and inventions.

Te doms can't think for themselves, so they frequently have to read books or collect and obsorb external information. Te users, like Fe users who obsorbs Fi, Te users obsorb the thinking of Ti users.

Fe users, unlike Fi users, do not have an internal feeling reaction analyser, which makes them less neurotic and causes them to mirror Fi users.

Te users will mirror the Ti user, giving the impression that the Te user is smarter, yet it is the Ti user and not the Te users who is intelligent.

Unlike Te users Ti users don't need to take notes to logically understand something, they can understand it in their own unique way. Most technologies have been developed and designed by Ti users.

Te users can understand and obsorb all that information but they can't think for themselves until they have absorbed a lot from the Ti users around them, However, Te users are extremely sensitive to being labelled dumb, so they put on a show of intelligence to avoid being labelled as such.

*The Fears of the Extraverted Thinker Te:*
“You’re weak.”
“You’re incompetent.”
”You’re stupid.”
“You talk nonsense.”
“You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

*Wish:*
“You’re strong and bold.”
“You can do this and you’ll get it done.”
“You’re smart.”
“You make sense.”
“You speak firmly and with confidence. You must know very well what you’re talking about.”

*The fears of the Introverted Thinker (Ti):*
“You’re believing lies.”
“You’re lying.”
“You’re incoherent.”
“You’re inconsistent and defective.”
“Pieces are missing. You are hiding something from me.”

*Wish:*
“You’re discerning.”
“You’re truthful.”
“You’re brilliant.”
“You’re original and innovative.”
“You’re highly proficient at describing and explaining concepts.”


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

X10E8 said:


> Source:Quora hidden/Anonymous-see user
> View attachment 886393
> 
> 
> ...


Too much all at once... need to take it all in...


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

X10E8 said:


> Te doms can't think for themselves, so they frequently have to read books or collect and obsorb external information. Te users, like Fe users who obsorbs Fi, Te users obsorb the thinking of Ti users.


Question: Assuming you are an INTJ, you are a Te user. What brought you to post such a favorable Ti message? (This is my Fe speaking which I'm aware of.) I compliment you for stepping out of a Te frame ... or did you since you copied (LOL) a link!

Here is an addition to Myers-Briggs theory. There is another dimension besides the S/N, F/T, P/J one. That is one of *developed action*. A user may not have developed their favorite function. They may not have developed their "shadow" function. This is not just overlooked. It's not part of the Myers-Briggs theory unless I've missed it.

Apply to Ti versus Te. Te works with the outside world not developing theory. They get outside world things done though not necessarily in the best way. Ti works levels down, spending their energy on that which means they may never finish, thus failing to develop a working object at all.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

@BigApplePi Thinking is thinking… more curious a question is what is an “unthought”? Can you unthink a thought, or is it more like a fuzzy and unsubstantiated thought? I’ve had plenty of those. Probably 90% of them would qualify as “unthoughts” which cannot discern meaning without being tested first.

Speaking of,

@Allostasis I misunderstood some of your statements. Thanks for clarifying!


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

X10E8 said:


> Te doms can't think for themselves, so they frequently have to read books or collect and obsorb external information. Te users, like Fe users who obsorbs Fi, Te users obsorb the thinking of Ti users.
> Te users will mirror the Ti user, giving the impression that the Te user is smarter, yet it is the Ti user and not the Te users who is intelligent.
> 
> Unlike Te users Ti users don't need to take notes to logically understand something, they can understand it in their own unique way. Most technologies have been developed and designed by Ti users.
> ...


Apologies for the language, but this horseshit has nothing to do with psychological types. It may be how "Objective Personality" defines things, "corrupting" terminology even more, but that is of no use to anyone.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> true enough, but I am sneaky. I can find subjectivity in objective rendering and objectivity in subjective expression. This leads me to not want to use the terms "objective" and "subjective."


That is an accurate impression. Nothing is purely objective or subjective. Te-dom is not devoid of subjectivity and vice versa.
But this doesn't render these terms meaningless, as they still reflect noticeable patterns within the psyche. 
They just don't represent something that you can carve out and observe in isolation from everything else.

As is the case with terms like "warm", "left","quick", and etc.
All of them implicitly require a certain reference frame for their meaning to be fully constructed.



> This could be a bad example. The square has objective properties that everyone accepts (Te). However Ti can go after the square and propose usages. Those usages may be objectively acceptable in some way, but the acceptance of which among a dozen choices will be subjective.


Correct.
The selection process in the case of Ti can invoke object properties into consideration, but at its root, it is directed by subjective criteria. It is its starting point.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> Apologies for the language, but this horseshit has nothing to do with psychological types. It may be how "Objective Personality" defines things, "corrupting" terminology even more, but that is of no use to anyone.


Why do you think Jungian personality theory is the sole genuine kind of personality measurement? Why can't objective personality theory be used as an measure?

Why do you only trust Jungian theory?


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> Question: Assuming you are an INTJ, you are a Te user. What brought you to post such a favorable Ti message? (This is my Fe speaking which I'm aware of.) I compliment you for stepping out of a Te frame ... or did you since you copied (LOL) a link!
> 
> Here is an addition to Myers-Briggs theory. There is another dimension besides the S/N, F/T, P/J one. That is one of *developed action*. A user may not have developed their favorite function. They may not have developed their "shadow" function. This is not just overlooked. It's not part of the Myers-Briggs theory unless I've missed it.
> 
> Apply to Ti versus Te. Te works with the outside world not developing theory. They get outside world things done though not necessarily in the best way. Ti works levels down, spending their energy on that which means they may never finish, thus failing to develop a working object at all.


Yeah, I'm looking for reliable information on this concept, and what I've discovered is that Ti-Fe users are more intellectual;smarter than Te users, on the other hand Te-Fi users are more goal oriented, more rational than Ti users. As a result, both functions complement one another.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

X10E8 said:


> Why do you think Jungian personality theory the sole genuine kind of personality measurement? Why can't objective personality theory be an accurate measure?
> Why do you only trust Jungian theory?


My trust in the Jungian theory is merely a consequence of the pursuit of understanding psychological processes.
I don't have any personal attachment to it. More accurate/useful theory will be internalized right in the moment of its discovery.

Why everything else gets rejected?
Because these other theories are inferior and don't add anything useful.
Most of them are trying to base themselves on Jung's works. Yet, in the course of their development, they end up misinterpreting his ideas producing something intrinsically different but not as insightful.

There are many reasons why OPT specifically isn't doing its job. I already talked about them, even in one of your threads.
It is a scam and is inherently inferior in its design/methods even to MBTI.

They make up stuff on the fly producing 512 bullshit types that create the illusion within the minds of misinformed people that it is fruits of real science, playing on the word "objective" and saying so in their "manifesto", while it is just fraudulence that has nothing to do with science, fuelled only by the usual cognitive biases.

Not only do they use scam bullshit tactics to lure more people in. Just the perspective that they are offering by itself technically is extremely primitive, shallow, and useless.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> My trust in the Jungian theory is merely a consequence of the pursuit of understanding psychological processes.
> I don't have any personal attachment to it. More accurate/useful theory will be internalized right in the moment of its discovery.
> 
> Why everything else gets rejected?
> ...


Thanks for the effort, You said OPT is inferior to Jungian theory, why do you think objective personality theory is inferior to the Jungian theory? How do you know the 512 types is inaccurate? How do you know they made it up on the fly and rapidly? 

Why does every personality theory have to be in line with Jungian theory? Why can't it be different?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Squirt said:


> Thinking is thinking… more curious a question is what is an “unthought”?


Could it be it is intuition or feeling?


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

X10E8 said:


> why do you think objective personality theory is inferior to the Jungian theory


We can take what you just shared recently as an example :



X10E8 said:


> Yeah, Ti doms, who have an internal logic analysing function and can think deeply, have been the most forerunners of technology and inventions.
> 
> Te doms can't think for themselves, so they frequently have to read books or collect and obsorb external information. Te users, like Fe users who obsorbs Fi, Te users obsorb the thinking of Ti users.
> 
> ...


Going from this, anyone who can think for themselves is a Ti user basically, while the rest is just brainless knowledge encyclopedias, as extraverted thinking somehow isn't thinking but just "rote memorization". How is that supposed to make sense?

It is a false, ridiculous dichotomy that doesn't reflect any real distinctions between people's personalities.
All functional humans think/process their information by their own brains. Even when you are just learning, you can't assimilate information without understanding it, unless it is just pure useless memorization.
Nor does inclination to being informed about your topics means that you are incapable of forming your own conclusions. Or being very shallow at doing that.
It is nonsense.

Watch this video that you posted. They call themselves stupid and annoyed by complex things.
I think they are just projecting their own shortcomings onto all other "Te" users lmao (not even understanding what that is supposed to mean)
In no way "real" Te makes you shallow in your thinking or annoyed by complexity. Or concerned about some "tribe needs"(what century they are from?)

I love investing a lot of time into studying or thinking about something. I could invest several weeks into optimizing algorithms even when that had no observable practical consequences.
Or breaking apart topics to the current limits of science even when that wasn't required in the context of the objectives that I set for myself.
I enjoy being intellectually stimulated. I am never annoyed or intimidated by the complexities.
And most of the time I can't care less about what others think.

I suppose that should make me Ti according to OPS
Yet, there are noticeable differences in the psychological character of my thought processes compared to introverted thinkers.
And no, they never manifest as a difference in creativity, depth, or anything as superficial.

But OPS is incapable of describing or even noticing them. It was made by stupid people who look at things very shallowly (which they admitted themselves)
But Jung can do that. And just from my own practical experiences, I can see what he observed himself, similar patterns that underlie the psychologies of humans.



> How do you know the 512 types is inaccurate? How do you know they made it up on the fly and rapidly?


From how pathetic their framework is, as should be already evident. These "512 types" is the consequence of the fact that their fundamentals are worthless.
So they have to invoke these "jumpers", "loopers", "blasters", "double feminine consumers", animal stacks, and all the other atrocities that supposedly reflect something about the world.

It is a very similar cursed pattern that can be seen in software development, where mediocre programmers add a lot of over-specific ad-hoc code constructs to cover all the functional requirements, while not thinking through the structure/architecture at all.
You end up with a lot of poorly designed code with no architecture behind it. As there is no actual theory behind OPS. 

But at the end of the day, it is the theory that really matters to the individuals in this context. Not the "functional requirements", not the fully specified type.
You can't glean anything about yourself from their types because there is no theory underneath it.
And there is no way to fix that unless they will start actually doing psychoanalysis instead of just statistics (assuming they are even doing), you can't escape that.

It is also very similar to the most popular attempts at creating AI, statistical approximation of the high-level cognitive functions without the actual cognition/understanding.
In this case, no amount of typed people or additional terms will result in the understanding of the psyche. It is futile.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> Here is how it might follow. I might not want to do a Ti on "warm." The result will be no result.
> 
> If a Te person presents a hot stove as warm and a rocket exhaust as warm, I won't be enlightened. I will want to know why both are warm even if I believe both are warm. Without doing Ti, I observe those examples as ugly because warm is left hanging. No relationship is presented. There is no relationship. After thinking about it a while I can to a Ti proposal as to why both are warm. Then the Te person can check the proposal out.


Being object-driven doesn't imply that you are going to use real concrete objects to conduct your reasoning, btw.
It doesn't compete with abstract, idealistic reasoning. Both can derive generalized principles behind what it means for something to be "warm". Neither is about "checking things out".



> BTW can either of you define "thinking"? I once saw a seminar of Ph.D.s where they couldn't do it. That set me to try to nail them to the wall. Sometimes Ph.D.s just can't cut the mustard.


I have the same reaction to this question as in 






What you are specifically trying to understand and on what level?
There are many ways to represent thinking.

Thinking is the process of the syntactic composition of cognitive representations, where the "syntax"(laws of reasoning) and specifications for these "representations" are defined by the architecture of cognition/brain.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

X10E8 said:


> I've discovered is that Ti-Fe users are more intellectual;smarter than Te users, on the other hand Te-Fi users are more goal oriented, more rational than Ti users.


I would put it this way. Ti-Fe users are more analytical in an unfocused way unless provoked. Te-Fi users are more focused. Smartness (intelligence is a different variable). I know Te users who are far more intelligent in the application sense than I am. I am able to notice their limitations though where they are interested in application and prefer to look away from limitations. I will respect a Te user who is able to look at limitations, but hate them if they are not. Such "hatred" should it occur is not intelligent.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

It is funny how there is a statement "Te doms can't think for themselves" and then there is Aristotle, an ENTJ, who basically invented formal logic. Among millions of other things.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Allostasis said:


> Being object-driven doesn't imply that you are going to use real concrete objects to conduct your reasoning, btw.
> It doesn't compete with abstract, idealistic reasoning. Both can derive generalized principles behind what it means for something to be "warm". Neither is about "checking things out".


This may not be a direct reply to what you said. I would put it this way. What you call "abstract, idealistic reasoning", I would call working with *generalizations*. "Checking things out".is working with *specifics* with the attempt to either make generalizations clear or to look for exceptions to those generalizations. I value specifics (Si) because they are a challenge to break generalizations.



Allostasis said:


> There are many ways to represent thinking.


Yes. Feynman is certainly doing thinking/ reasoning here.



Allostasis said:


> What you are specifically trying to understand and on what level?


Glad you asked. The level I'm after is the most basic one I can think of, right at the bottom foundation. What it should do is show why thinking is different from its partner, feeling. Both thinking and feeling are the two "judgmental" cognitive functions ... as opposed to the perception functions of sensation and intuition if I may use those terms.

I have been writing an essay on the definition and foundation of consciousness. In Section 6 I define feeling and thinking in their foundational aspect (the other two functions also). I have not been working on this essay for two reasons. One, it requires concentration and two, I have no one to talk to about it. I can throw the table of contents at you if you are interested.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> This may not be a direct reply to what you said. I would put it this way. What you call "abstract, idealistic reasoning", I would call working with *generalizations*. "Checking things out".is working with *specifics* with the attempt to either make generalizations clear or to look for exceptions to those generalizations.


Well, generalizations can be synonymous with abstractions, yes. You create a category by substituting the specific quality of an object with a set of all its possible values so that all variations with respect to it can be contained. A generalization of such generalization will continue this process, replacing another quality with the set that contains all of them until you arrive at an ultimate generalization that contains everything but focuses on nothing.


> I value specifics (Si) because they are a challenge to break generalizations.


Si isn't specifics, although I understand where that comes from.


> The level I'm after is the most basic one I can think of, right at the bottom foundation.


Foundation of what? Reality? How do you know when you reached this foundation?


> What it should do is show why thinking is different from its partner, feeling.


A definition that I gave already contains elements distinct from those used by the feeling process.
It isn't syntactic in nature, it doesn't manipulate mental representations according to the laws of reasoning.
It is a feedback loop that responds to input and you can only deal with its output that represents "emotional resonance"/correspondence with the given object.

There is no manipulation, no control over the output, only a continuous search for a "perfect" input that will give the most intensity.
The level of consciousness over this function gives insight into how the equation is defined and how it processes objects, but not the control over this process.



> I have been writing an essay on the definition and foundation of consciousness. In Section 6 I define feeling and thinking in their foundational aspect (the other two functions also). I have not been working on this essay for two reasons. One, it requires concentration and two, I have no one to talk to about it. I can throw the table of contents at you if you are interested.


It didn't work well the last time. I like making my own definitions too.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@X10E8 @Allostasis Here are some comments on your interesting exchanges.


Allostasis said:


> Well, generalizations can be synonymous with abstractions, yes. You create a category by substituting the specific quality of an object with a set of all its possible values so that all variations with respect to it can be contained. A generalization of such generalization will continue this process, replacing another quality with the set that contains all of them until you arrive at an ultimate generalization that contains everything but focuses on nothing.


Not sure what you said here. Focuses on nothing? Suppose I visit dog kennel and say "these are all dogs." I have made a generalization about each animal. They all belong to a class for which an abstraction of a quality can be made.



Allostasis said:


> Si isn't specifics, although I understand where that comes from.


I suppose I could do better about the "specifics" thing. The "S" part is about the senses. Sensation is a specific direct experience unlike intuition which is derived.



Allostasis said:


> Foundation of what? Reality? How do you know when you reached this foundation?


Roughly, the point at which one need not do further analysis. If chemistry is the topic, molecules need further analysis. The foundation of complex molecules are atoms. I don't bother with the foundation of atoms. Atom is good enough if chemistry is the topic. 

If house is the topic, the foundation is those concrete blocks upon which the basement lies. The concrete layout is good enough to be called the foundation.



Allostasis said:


> A definition that I gave already contains elements distinct from those used by the feeling process.


If I recall, you gave qualities in the thinking process. I want something that can relate thinking and feeling that clinches the difference. If I do Ti, I won't know if I can get at the foundational difference until I get there anymore than I will know if I can grasp chemistry without a lot of experimental research or know if my house can be built without it sinking sideways into the ground.

In my essay (without looking it up), I recall fooling around with thinking and feeling and being uncomfortable with traditional descriptions. How could they possibly be compared on an equal level? Then I thought of something and threw out those descriptions. 

The body has a dynamic beside static perception. It operates dynamically with brain oversight. It has "flow." I will call our experience of this flow, "feeling." Feelings like fondness or rage are continuous. They flow. Thinking is different. It jumps. The brain goes after something and then something else. It compares. This is discontinuous, unlike flow. This discontinuous function is the foundation of thinking. If one looks at logic functions, you will find A and B, or A and not A. One jumps from one perception to another. This is the foundation of thinking.

There you have it. Feeling is a flow; thinking is a jump. This describes the foundation and the difference. The difference is continuity versus discontinuity. If I didn't have a math backgound, I doubt if I would have thought of it. Those Ph.D.s who can't define thinking can go (*#(@$% themselves.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

I think these terms define the cognitive functions quite well.









￼


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> @X10E8 @Allostasis Here are some comments on your interesting exchanges.
> 
> Not sure what you said here. Focuses on nothing? Suppose I visit dog kennel and say "these are all dogs." I have made a generalization about each animal. They all belong to a class for which an abstraction of a quality can be made.


I meant that focus on nothing happens only for the ultimate generalization of everything.



> If I recall, you gave qualities in the thinking process. I want something that can relate thinking and feeling that clinches the difference. If I do Ti, I won't know if I can get at the foundational difference


I got the impression that you didn't even try to read what I wrote.
This syntactic composition of (separate) representations already implies discontinuity in its process, because these representations are necessary discrete elements.
The feedback loop, like an analog process, _continuously_ maps the input to the output, which is emotional resonance in this case.



> Those Ph.D.s who can't define thinking can go (*#(@$% themselves.


That seems a bit too personal. Perhaps you tried to approach this issue with a completely different goals in mind, because the distinction that was highlighted can't serve as a foundation alone.
It is possible to imagine "flowing" kind of thinking, even if that isn't how it is usually executed/observed. Continuity doesn't seem to be an essential, defining property I think.

What is more important is the reason why and how these jumps occur. It wouldn't make sense to call random bouncing between various representations as a "thinking".


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

X10E8 said:


> I think these terms define the cognitive functions quite well.
> 
> View attachment 886667
> 
> ...


Still unnecessarily narrow representation, I would say, even if marginally better than what was presented by previous sources.
It's an attempt to approximate the matter while not even trying to pierce its heart. Such an approach can't be qualified as a definition.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> Still unnecessarily narrow representation, I would say, even if marginally better than what was presented by previous sources.
> It's an attempt to approximate the matter while not even trying to pierce its heart. Such an approach can't be qualified as a definition.


I see there's a squabble between us two NTJs, lol, and it's because we have opposing perspectives on the same things.

This probably explains why......

*The Ni-Te attitude;
"I am right, therefore..."*

The way one Ni user interprets something may differ from the way another Ni dom interprets it.

*Ni can be stubborn, like Ti, *can be passionate about its own viewpoints and insights, and is prone to dismiss anybody else's viewpoints other than her own, particularly if she/he is an unhealthy Ni user. 

An example of this would be when you rushed to the conclusion that the animal stack was inaccurate or that the 512 personality kinds were incorrect. There are well over 16 different personality types in the world. As a result, it would be a mistake to presume that the world is divided into only sixteen personality types; there are many different sorts of people, and not everyone falls into the MBTI's sixteen personality categories.

When a Ni user, particularly an unhealthy Ni user, thinks anything to be true, it's quite probable that they'll ignore anyone else's perspectives and understandings of concepts, even if they're also true. ￼
*___*

So far our conversations have been like this;

*#You believe OPT is false.

#I believe OPT is generally correct.

#I agree with the cognitive function definitions.

#You don't agree with the cognitive function definitions.

You stated that you disagree with cognitive function definitions, so what would you consider a cognitive function definition? *


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

X10E8 said:


> I see there's a squabble between us two NTJs, lol, and it's because we have opposing perspectives on the same things.
> This probably explains why......
> 
> *The Ni-Te attitude;
> ...


Maybe that reflects your approach, but I don't think it is fair to compare it to mine.
I don't just "believe" that OPT is false. I explained my position through arguments and can elaborate if needed.
I don't just "disagree" with cognitive function definitions. Reasons behind disagreements and alternative more efficient solutions were provided as well.



> When a Ni user, particularly an unhealthy Ni user, thinks anything to be true, it's quite probable that they'll ignore anyone else's perspectives and understandings of concepts, even if they're also true.


There is a difference between reasoned rejection and just ignoring. Contrary perspectives and concepts were considered.
I am impartial to my position. It is accepted simply because there are no arguments against it.
Or you are describing your local conflict?


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> Maybe that reflects your approach, but I don't think it is fair to compare it to mine.
> I don't just "believe" that OPT is false. I explained my position through arguments and can elaborate if needed.
> I don't just "disagree" with cognitive function definitions. Reasons behind disagreements and alternative more efficient solutions were provided as well.
> 
> ...


Sure you have reasons why you think OPT is false, but I also have reasons why I think OPT is probably generally correct.

And again, the way one Ni user interprets and sees something may differ from the way another Ni dom sees and interprets their impressions of a certain experience.

*Ni can be stubborn, like Ti, *can be passionate about its own viewpoints and insights, and is prone to dismiss anybody else's viewpoints other than her own, particularly if she/he is an unhealthy Ni user. 

An example of this would be when you rushed to the conclusion that the animal stack was inaccurate or that the 512 personality kinds were incorrect. There are well over 16 different personality types in the world. As a result, it would be a mistake to presume that the world is divided into only sixteen personality types; there are many different sorts of people, and not everyone falls into the MBTI's sixteen personality categories. Id say no rushed decisions should be made in regards of OPT theory until fully tested.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Why do I remember you as INTJ? Is my memory faulty?



X10E8 said:


> I got the impression that you didn't even try to read what I wrote.


Impression? Ni is not my strong suit. You have no way of knowing what MY impression was. Please name what you are referring to as you wrote a lot of things. This is an xNTJ/ INTP clash. We now branch into two topics. One is this "clash" and the other is the feeling/thinking topic we are discussing. That makes it interesting, but will it lead to stress?

I can only guess at what you wrote. I'll try this:


Allostasis said:


> Thinking is the process of the syntactic composition of cognitive representations, where the "syntax"(laws of reasoning) and specifications for these "representations" are defined by the architecture of cognition/brain.


Comment: That is high level, not foundational or formal. I read it as loaded with Ni, too complex. I am after basics which speaks in simpler language.



Allostasis said:


> This syntactic composition of (separate) representations already implies discontinuity in its process, because these representations are necessary discrete elements.
> The feedback loop, like an analog process, _continuously_ maps the input to the output, which is emotional resonance in this case.


Also high level. "Implies" is an Ni concept. "representations" to whom? I'm not being precise here but haven't we already said object and subject are interchangeable ... well not interchangeable but depend on one's perspective? I am after basics if they are unambiguous in meaning. Continuous and separated are basic terms because they (I assume) tare universally understood.



Allostasis said:


> That seems a bit too personal.


It IS personal. Those PhDs get status. I get nothing as I haven't published anything. I failed to get a PhD and was in the wrong field anyway.



Allostasis said:


> Perhaps you tried to approach this issue with a completely different goals in mind, because the distinction that was highlighted can't serve as a foundation alone.


You didn't name what I highlighted. I failed to highlight *flow* and *jump* = *continuous* and *discontinuous*.



Allostasis said:


> It is possible to imagine "flowing" kind of thinking, even if that isn't how it is usually executed/observed. Continuity doesn't seem to be an essential, defining property I think.
> 
> What is more important is the reason why and how these jumps occur. It wouldn't make sense to call random bouncing between various representations as a "thinking".


Can you elaborate any? Don't worry if you don't care to. Thinking can flow but that is a motivated feeling thing and is not basic. Continuity for feeling you mean? I'm guessing it is. Hormonal. Also humans, unlike machines, have something called will, desire, motivation.

BTW on the topic of type clash. xNTJs want things done. High level expression is better for that. Low level foundations are more for xNTPs who care about the long run.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

X10E8 said:


> Why does every personality theory have to be in line with Jungian theory? Why can't it be different?





Allostasis said:


> Maybe that reflects your approach, but I don't think it is fair to compare it to mine.


Here is personality theory (not mine): There are two types of people. Those who observe. Those who judge. Do you like this theory? It is simpler than the other ones.

Here is another theory, not about personality. Any theme can be divided/ analyzed in many ways. Here is an illustration:

A room can be divided ...
1. N and S
2. E and W
3. E, S, W, N quadrants
4. Things on the wall; things inside the walls
5. Solids, liquids and gases
6. Dark colors and light colors
7. Animate beings and inanimate objects
8. High and low
9. Colors of the rainbow
10. Cool areas and warmer areas
11. Functional things and decorative things

Some of these divisions are useful for some purposes and some are not, yet all can describe a room. Same with personality theories.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Allostasis said:


> As is the case with terms like "warm", "left","quick", and etc.
> All of them implicitly require a certain reference frame for their meaning to be


It's all relative to comparison. Ties in with one key to reframing...particularly in things which have no objective viewpoint whatsoever.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Hexcoder said:


> It's all relative to comparison. Ties in with one key to reframing...particularly in things which have no objective viewpoint whatsoever.


Except for agreement on relative status.

Warm = higher temp than another thing/expected/average (ref point)

Cool = lower temp than another thing/expected/average (ref point)

The type of reference point changes depending on application. In addition, while originating from sensory information, it can be abstracted to communicate experiential themes that invoke a similar sensation.

For instance, “Hexcoder is super cool.”

Now that we have a definition of no relativistic concern, it is wide open for merciless scrutiny.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Hexcoder said:


> It's all relative to comparison. Ties in with one key to reframing...particularly in things which have no objective viewpoint whatsoever.


Except for A.I appear to be approaching objective viewpoints.

The majority of A.Is are created by high Ti users. It is no surprise and we will undoubtedly have A.I. that is 10,000 times smarter than humans.











From 2001 onward, A.I is developing rapidly, thanks to Ti users.

















"Just make sure you don't create ultron again."

































* *


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

@X10E8


> but I also have reasons why I think OPT is probably generally correct.


Never heard of them.



> And again, the way one Ni user interprets and sees something may differ from the way another Ni dom sees and interprets their impressions of a certain experience.


Yes. I might even say that it is true in any typology that defines introverted intuition.
But so what, should this be an excuse to not seek consensus/resolution?



> An example of this would be when you rushed to the conclusion that the animal stack was inaccurate or that the 512 personality kinds were incorrect.


This isn't the conclusion to which I "rushed".
The problem isn't that the animal stacks are "inaccurate" or that there are too many types.
My point is that these 512 types are meaningless when underlying theory states that e.g. Te means that you are brainless and can only memorize but not think for yourself. And the similar nonsense for any other function.

All additional concepts around such a basis won't eliminate this inherent ever-present shallowness, because they rely on it.
You will never be able to understand or explain your psychological processes when there is no theory behind it at all and just statistics.



> Id say no rushed decisions should be made in regards of OPT theory until fully tested.


Testing isn't needed in the context of what I am saying. We already can "test" this theoretical framework with our minds (or rather the lack of it in the case of OPT).


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> Why do I remember you as INTJ? Is my memory faulty?


It is not.



> Impression? Ni is not my strong suit. You have no way of knowing what MY impression was. Please name what you are referring to as you wrote a lot of things.


You seem to interpret words too literally.
I am referring to the fact that your suggestion highlights the things that were already inherent to my definitions.
It doesn't indicate lack of Ni, but a lack of effort/attention to process the results that you yourself requested btw.



> This is an xNTJ/ INTP clash.


It is, as you are looking for something that perfectly matches this subjective image/criteria/form that you preconceived and seemingly rejecting everything else.
Even when the rejected input can be reconfigured to conform subjective specifications.



> but will it lead to stress?


Not sure why it has to.



> >Thinking is the process of the syntactic composition of cognitive representations, where the "syntax"(laws of reasoning) and specifications for these "representations" are defined by the architecture of cognition/brain.
> Comment: That is high level, not foundational or formal. I read it as loaded with Ni, too complex. I am after basics which speaks in simpler language.


You can't explain thinking as a mere sequence of jumps/interruptions between something.

If definition/model is any good, then you should be able to implement or observe its object.
And all other definitions that overlap in their objects must form a coherent categorical hierarchy.

Violation of that would imply orthogonal systems that can't be immediately reconciled, similar to how there are multiple definitions for psychological functions which can't be used interchangeably without recognizing the difference and abstracting underlying meanings into holistic meta-perspective that takes into account all hierarchies.

There is little Ni in it. More simple version :
Thinking is an act of transformation of a set of object representations into another set according to certain laws of transformation(reasoning).
"Transformation" is the "jump".



> Also high level. "Implies" is an Ni concept.


"implies" wasn't a part of the definition and something that every human being is capable of.
Unless you insist on intentionally limiting yourself to these stupid boxes that aren't related to the cognition, to psychology or anything.



> "representations" to whom?


To the perceptor which can be the agent of thinking itself, but not necessarily.



> I'm not being precise here but haven't we already said object and subject are interchangeable ... well not interchangeable but depend on one's perspective?


Subjective representation of an object is an object by itself which can be interpreted into another representation.
At each step information is assimilated into the subject by "completing" it with his specifics.

Example:
If emotion is the object, then it's verbal description is it's representation that will inevitably reflect something that isn't inherent to the emotion but specific to the subject.
Same emotion will have multiple descriptions from various different people.



> I am after basics if they are unambiguous in meaning. Continuous and separated are basic terms because they (I assume) tare universally understood.


These terms exist as basic properties for millions of other definitions that have nothing to do with thinking itself.
It's like you defined a complex chemical compound through one hydrogen atom present in it but shared by millions of other compounds.



> It IS personal. Those PhDs get status. I get nothing as I haven't published anything. I failed to get a PhD and was in the wrong field anyway.


But how it is their fault. Or how their inability to conform to your subjective criteria invalidates their contributions?



> You didn't name what I highlighted. I failed to highlight *flow* and *jump* = *continuous* and *discontinuous*.
> *flow* and *jump* = *continuous* and *discontinuous*.


This is what I already implied, it is just different words for the same thing.



> Can you elaborate any? Don't worry if you don't care to. Thinking can flow but that is a motivated feeling thing and is not basic. Continuity for feeling you mean? I'm guessing it is. Hormonal. Also humans, unlike machines, have something called will, desire, motivation.


Conversation is already a bit overloaded I think at this point.



> BTW on the topic of type clash. xNTJs want things done. High level expression is better for that. Low level foundations are more for xNTPs who care about the long run.


Wrong. Well, it is "correct" technically if you stick by these same limiting stupid definitions that aren't rooted in psychological analysis.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

X10E8 said:


> Except for A. I appear to be approaching objective viewpoints.
> The majority of A.Is are created by high Ti users.


Inaccurate. Both statements.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> Inaccurate. Both statements.


You're Wrong. 

(See what I did there.)


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Allostasis said:


> You seem to interpret words too literally.


People, including me, can swing both ways.



Allostasis said:


> Thinking is an act of transformation of a set of object representations into another set according to certain laws of transformation(reasoning).
> "Transformation" is the "jump".


What I was interested in was the feeling/ thinking *difference*. Have I nailed it? One could paraphrase what you said and say,
Feeling is an act of continuous movement of a set of object representations into another set according to certain laws of movement.

You said, "according to certain laws of reasoning (transformation)." What laws? There are no laws. For example, a child could jump from observing a mouse and a mouse trap and reason the mouse is the greater danger. A common reasoning is if A implies B, then B implies A. This is erroneious reasoning, but it is still reasoning. Correct reasoning is an advanced learning process that can take years to develop.

@Eric B . In one of your threads on cognitive functions you expressed a wish to simplify functions. I don't recall where that was but I remember you wished it.



Allostasis said:


> You can't explain thinking as a mere sequence of jumps/interruptions between something.


I didn't want to explain thinking. Thinking is an advanced process involving observation, motivation (feeling) and a giant brain lower animals lack. I wanted to define the *foundation* of thinking as opposed to feeling. Thinking is not just a reaction to an observation, but a comparison of two observations (a jump). It is a prima tool human beings have that only a few lower animals can perform. Human beings also possess and use a vast repertoire of experience lower animals haven't the brain neurology to accumulate.

You said some other things. Have I failed to reply to any of them should you so wish?



Allostasis said:


> But how it is their fault. Or how their inability to conform to your subjective criteria invalidates their contributions?


It's not their fault (PhDs). It's my fault and the fault of fate.



Allostasis said:


> Conversation is already a bit overloaded I think at this point.


Good point!



Allostasis said:


> Wrong. Well, it is "correct" technically if you stick by these same limiting stupid definitions that aren't rooted in psychological analysis.


I like to think of this interchange as aimed at relieving some of the stupidity, lol.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> What I was interested in was the feeling/ thinking *difference*.
> 
> I didn't want to explain thinking. Thinking is an advanced process involving observation, motivation (feeling) and a giant brain lower animals lack. I wanted to define the *foundation* of thinking as opposed to feeling.


If you're interested in a foundation, wouldn't that foundation be built on shared characteristics rather the differences? What is a foundation_ of difference_? I'm struggling to figure out what you mean by that, or how you can make a comparison between two things without any working explanation of each of them individually.

Here is how Jung defined thinking and feeling, which I’m quoting because it is the inspiration for current cognitive function theories discussed. I bolded the parts where he explains the unique aspects of each and how they relate to each other. He introduces quite a bit of terminology that I think makes it easier to navigate distinctions between functions. Of course, this is not _all _he had to say on the topic, just a small summary from his Definitions in _Psychological Types. _Feel free to see it as something to build off, use, contest, ignore, whatever your preference.



> Feeling.
> I count feeling among the four basic psychological functions. I am unable to support the psychological school that considers feeling a secondary phenomenon dependent on "representations" or sensations, but in company with Hoffding, Wundt, Lehmann, Kulpe, Baldwin, and others, I regard it as an independent function _sui generis._
> Feeling is primarily a process that* takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection ("like" or "dislike").* *The process can also appear isolated, as it were in the form of a "mood," regardless of the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations.* The mood may be causally related to earlier conscious contents, though not necessarily so, since, as psychopathology amply proves, it may equally well arise from unconscious contents. *But even a mood, whether it be a general or only a partial feeling, implies a valuation; not of one definite, individual conscious content, but of the whole conscious situation at the moment, and, once again, with special reference to the question of acceptance or rejection.*
> Feeling, therefore, is an entirely subjective process, which may be in every respect independent of external stimuli, though it allies itself with every sensation. Even an "indifferent" sensation possesses a feeling-tone, namely that of indifference, which again expresses some sort of valuation. *Hence feeling is a kind of judgement, differing from intellectual judgement in that its aim is not to establish conceptual relations but to set up a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection. Valuation by feeling extends to every content of consciousness, of whatever kind it may be. *When the intensity of feeling increases, it turns into an affect, i.e., a feeling-state accompanied by marked physical innervations. Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process.
> ...





> Thinking.
> This I regard as one of the four basic psychological functions. Thinking is the psychological function which, following its own laws,* brings the contents of ideation into conceptual connection with one another. *It is an apperceptive activity, and a such may be divided into active and passive thinking. *Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking is a mere occurrence. In the former case, I submit the contents of ideation to a voluntary act of judgement; in the latter, conceptual connections establish themselves of their own accord, and judgments are formed that may even contradict my intention. They are not consonant with my aim and therefore, for me, lack any sense of direction, although I may afterwards recognize their directedness through an act of active apperception. Active thinking, accordingly, would correspond to my concept of directed thinking. Passive thinking was inadequately described in my previous work as "fantasy thinking." Today I would call it intuitive thinking.*
> To my mind, a mere stringing together of ideas, such as is described by certain psychologists as associative thinking, is not thinking at all but mere ideation. The term "thinking" should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of ideas by means of a concept, in other words, to an act of judgment, no matter whether this act is intentional or not.
> The capacity for directed thinking I call intellect; the capacity for passive and undirected thinking I call intellectual intuition. Further, I call directed thinking a rational function, because it arranges the contents of ideation under concepts in accordance with a rational norm of which I am conscious. Undirected thinking is in my view an irrational function, because it arranges an judges the contents of ideation by norm of which I am not conscious and therefore cannot recognize as being in accord with reason, although it came about in a way that appears to me irrational.
> *Thinking that is governed by feeling I do not regard as intuitive thinking, but as thinking dependent on feeling; it does not follow its own logical principle but is subordinated to the principle of feeling. In such thinking the laws of logic are only ostensibly present; in reality they are suspended in favour of the aims of feeling.*


I can see some of what you're saying about thinking and feeling in here, such as "flow" suggesting "mood" and "jump" suggesting "conceptual connection", but I don't find the terms you're using to be as compelling or essential to the distinction.

What I get from this is perhaps thinking and feeling are concurrent, consistently appearing psychological phenomena that can _interfere _with one another because they are both rational, judging processes acting on incompatible criteria, creating the basis of opposition. This would be supported in Jung's framework when he discusses how thinking or feeling can become dependent/subordinated to one another - which is a separate condition from "undifferentiated", as between perceiving and judging.

Also, what he terms "passive thinking" or "intuitive thinking" would be similar to what you called an "unthought," and then ascribed directly to intuition or feeling. 

This is all very abstract, but I can pretty immediately see where this framework appears "in reality". It'd take a while to compile a good body of specifics for evaluation, though.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Squirt said:


> If you're interested in a foundation, wouldn't that foundation be built on shared characteristics rather the differences? What is a foundation_ of difference_? I'm struggling to figure out what you mean by that, or how you can make a comparison between two things without any working explanation of each of them individually.


A good question. Let me see what I can do with it. If a "foundation" is a starting point perhaps if the entity is complex, there can be several starting points. The "starting point" of the feeling/ thinking difference is continuity/ discontinuity. The starting point of what feeling/ thinking have in common is they are dynamic. Perception (sensing/ intuition) is relatively static. I know I may appear to be stealing Jung's concepts, but I say these concepts would have arrived naturally even if Jung had never existed.

Continuing with foundational concepts, one can say something just exists versus moving that existence in a direction. If I try to translate that into cognitive functions, sensing and intuition just exist without a directional judgment. When one feels or thinks there are alternative ways to feel or think about a static entity. That makes both feeling and thinking judgemental (as they say) or dynamic. Now there is an objection to this. One could say intuition, for example, could have alternatives and wish to call it judgmental, but I say no ... or I wish to separate it out and say no. Pure intuition is a direct observation and is static. That is not to say it is a correct observation of reality as intuition can be wrong just as sensing can be.

I didn't read your Jung quotes yet as I have to go. Tomorrow?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Squirt said:


> I can see some of what you're saying about thinking and feeling in here, such as "flow" suggesting "mood" and "jump" suggesting "conceptual connection", but I don't find the terms you're using to be as compelling or essential to the distinction.


A quick look at your Jung quotes and your statements brings me to want to make comments. As to Jung, I think of "a boy being sent to do a man's job." Am I the boy and Jung the man? I'd like to give Jung a shot anyway ... as if he were a poster here. Are those *bold *words yours or his? Isn't Jung a doctor and psychiatrist and psychologist? 

I am different. I have a mathematical orientation that asks for linear thinking. By that, I mean I wish to start with clear concepts and proceed linearly with any deductions. I wish to build something on a solid foundation. Jung doesn't do that. Instead he is descriptive. He throws in a lot of concepts which I see as a a story or spin or picture. Then we hope to see what he's saying. The problem with this is it gives rise to ambiguity and a need to interpret further. It isn't analytical. The approach I've used hopes to have clear starting points from which one can build upon.

First I'll address what you said according to my perspective. No. Flow isn't only mood. All feeling is a flow in the physiological bodily sense. Something is going on within the body, noticed by the brain. If it is conscious, that I call "feeling." Anger is a flow against something. Affection is a flow toward something. Fear is a flow to avoid something. I see "mood" as a flow circling around without naming what. 

A jump in the most primitive sense is only a connection from one something to another. A "conceptual connection" is far advanced because concepts can be enormously complex. If I see A, that is an observation. If I see B, that is observation. If I connect the two, that is a jump because A and B are different. If I rate A as larger than B or even B is inside A, I call that "thinking." The jump rating is the foundation of thinking. 

More advanced thinking might be about *bad luck* together with a cat crossing *in front *of me together with *rumors* I've heard. If I conclude such an act by a cat will bring bad luck, that is thinking even if feeling is involved. Later this could go unconscious and we coldly believe this is bad luck. This we can call "intuition" because we see the "fact" as a whole. No feeling. No jump because of the unity of the observation. No thinking. 

Even more advanced thinking is to see an effect and seek out a cause. This is clearly a jump. However the *desire* to do so is not thinking. Desire is a feeling which is a flow to get somewhere.



Squirt said:


> What I get from this is perhaps thinking and feeling are concurrent, consistently appearing psychological phenomena that can _interfere _with one another


Thinking and feeling could interfere with each other. Normally they do not. If things are working well, they supplement each other. This is not to say we can't have more than one feeling at the same time. Then those feelings can interfere with each other. That happens all the time. 

As an example I have the desire to make direct comments on Jung. I also have the desire to not make this post too long. (It is long enough.) That is both thinking and feeling ... if you think about it.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> I am different. I have a mathematical orientation that asks for linear thinking. By that, I mean I wish to start with clear concepts and proceed linearly with any deductions. I wish to build something on a solid foundation. Jung doesn't do that. Instead he is descriptive. He throws in a lot of concepts which I see as a a story or spin or picture. Then we hope to see what he's saying. The problem with this is it gives rise to ambiguity and a need to interpret further. It isn't analytical. The approach I've used hopes to have clear starting points from which one can build upon.


I'm starting to understand a bit about how you're processing things, I think. It is "inverted" in a way from how I would approach an idea. However, I admit I don't have a background in philosophy or formal logic, only a shallow knowledge of it. I'm sure someone who does have that background would be able to pinpoint what methods you are using and provide a more complete and helpful input. Due to my lack of expertise in this area, I won't be able to provide that, unfortunately. So, my goal is to provide you information/insights I have about cognitive functions themselves, and ask questions/challenge your ideas in a way that might help you clarify them.

Also, it's important to note that what Jung wrote was predicated on observation, research, study, and analysis that spanned many years. It's not like he pulled a bunch of random ideas out of thin air and jumbled them together to be difficult, or that he didn't start with some core concepts when he began his research (which is indeed analytical).

He noted that he was tempted to include _how _he arrived at his conclusions in more detail (although some of that can be seen by his earlier works), but found that the volume was already so large that he decided against it, for clarity. That material is available, however.



BigApplePi said:


> A good question. Let me see what I can do with it. If a "foundation" is a starting point perhaps if the entity is complex, there can be several starting points. The "starting point" of the feeling/ thinking difference is continuity/ discontinuity. The starting point of what feeling/ thinking have in common is they are dynamic. Perception (sensing/ intuition) is relatively static. I know I may appear to be stealing Jung's concepts, but I say these concepts would have arrived naturally even if Jung had never existed.


I would not have taken foundation to mean starting point. Those have two different meanings. If you're going to simplify a complex topic, you need to choose your words very carefully as to be unambiguous as possible, or otherwise define them so that the ambiguity is dispelled, imo.

Similarly, I kinda get what you are trying to describe with "static/dynamic" but I'm not sure that captures the prime feature of the juxtaposition. I think you realize that some when you acknowledge how intuition could be viewed as dynamic, even if you reject your own interpretation.

I have a suspicion for why this confusion might occur when you're applying it to functions. Continuity could be a feature of introversion and extraversion, instead. Introversion maintains a continuity by its focus on the subject (which is more-or-less constant due to association with self) vs extraversion which focuses on the object (is free to undergo changes/transformations). In this way, each function could be "static" or "dynamic", depending on its orientation. I still don't like those words, though, lol.

You remarked on having trouble with the terms subjective and objective, but I find them almost indispensable when discussing cognitive functions in any "foundational" sense.



BigApplePi said:


> Continuing with foundational concepts, one can say something just exists versus moving that existence in a direction. If I try to translate that into cognitive functions, sensing and intuition just exist without a directional judgment. When one feels or thinks there are alternative ways to feel or think about a static entity. That makes both feeling and thinking judgemental (as they say) or dynamic. Now there is an objection to this. One could say intuition, for example, could have alternatives and wish to call it judgmental, but I say no ... or I wish to separate it out and say no. Pure intuition is a direct observation and is static. That is not to say it is a correct observation of reality as intuition can be wrong just as sensing can be.


Why are you trying to translate this to cognitive functions? Is it to test your premises? If so, it seems as thorough knowledge of cognitive function theories would be necessary, but you don't seem to find that necessary?

Allostasis offered a metaphor about the "danger" of assuming the hydrogen atom characterizes an entire, complex molecule. How do you address this problem with your approach? Is your scope appropriate? Is this "simplified and linear" deductive approach really the best tool for what you're trying to conceptualize about _consciousness itself_? Why so?

At least, these are the questions I'd be asking myself if I were trying to advance such an ambitious undertaking!



BigApplePi said:


> A quick look at your Jung quotes and your statements brings me to want to make comments. As to Jung, I think of "a boy being sent to do a man's job." Am I the boy and Jung the man? I'd like to give Jung a shot anyway ... as if he were a poster here. Are those *bold *words yours or his? Isn't Jung a doctor and psychiatrist and psychologist?


lol. They are mine, and yes.



BigApplePi said:


> First I'll address what you said according to my perspective. No. Flow isn't only mood. All feeling is a flow in the physiological bodily sense. Something is going on within the body, noticed by the brain. If it is conscious, that I call "feeling." Anger is a flow against something. Affection is a flow toward something. Fear is a flow to avoid something. I see "mood" as a flow circling around without naming what.
> 
> A jump in the most primitive sense is only a connection from one something to another. A "conceptual connection" is far advanced because concepts can be enormously complex. If I see A, that is an observation. If I see B, that is observation. If I connect the two, that is a jump because A and B are different. If I rate A as larger than B or even B is inside A, I call that "thinking." The jump rating is the foundation of thinking.
> 
> ...


This sounds like intellectual play, rather than seeking an accurate framework for a concept. How did you arrive at these constructions?



BigApplePi said:


> Thinking and feeling could interfere with each other. Normally they do not. If things are working well, they supplement each other. This is not to say we can't have more than one feeling at the same time. Then those feelings can interfere with each other. That happens all the time.
> 
> As an example I have the desire to make direct comments on Jung. I also have the desire to not make this post too long. (It is long enough.) That is both thinking and feeling ... if you think about it.


Interference isn't necessarily a _problem_. Although, if one function is habitually repressed in some way, it might become a problem. Like I said, maybe it is more accurate to see them as potentially concurrent, where one is more conscious than the other. At least,_ for the purposes of type._


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Squirt said:


> I'm starting to understand a bit about how you're processing things, I think. It is "inverted" in a way from how I would approach an idea. However, I admit I don't have a background in philosophy or formal logic, only a shallow knowledge of it. I'm sure someone who does have that background would be able to pinpoint what methods you are using and provide a more complete and helpful input. Due to my lack of expertise in this area, I won't be able to provide that, unfortunately. So, my goal is to provide you information/insights I have about cognitive functions themselves, and ask questions/challenge your ideas in a way that might help you clarify them.


Terrific. That would be great. If I can't get across, I am either all wet or haven't accomplished anything. "Inverted is right." My approach is bottom-up; others are top-down. 

Philosophy is an inquiry. Anyone can do it. I personally haven't studied philosophers the person, only ideas I pick up here and there. I don't consciously think "formal logic." I just look for understanding.



Squirt said:


> Also, it's important to note that what Jung wrote was predicated on observation, research, study, and analysis that spanned many years. It's not like he pulled a bunch of random ideas out of thin air and jumbled them together to be difficult, or that he didn't start with some core concepts when he began his research (which is indeed analytical).


I'm sure Jung did that. Maybe when I said "analytical", formal would have been better.



Squirt said:


> I would not have taken foundation to mean starting point. Those have two different meanings.


I meant foundation to mean the starting point to build upon ... formally. 



Squirt said:


> Why are you trying to translate this to cognitive functions? Is it to test your premises? If so, it seems as thorough knowledge of cognitive function theories would be necessary, but you don't seem to find that necessary


I may not be answering your question, so here is where I am coming from. I did not invent cognitive functions. They were thrown at me by Myers-Briggs and Jung. My mind goes, "Wha? What is all this? My mind is blank to start with and you are dumping alien stuff on me? In pure mathematics (my bachelors degree) one never ever takes a theorem on faith. The whole idea is the fun of seeing it proven. Proof is everything. The theorem can be pasted and framed on the wall as a work of art.

The questions for me are, why these four? Is there a fifth? What divides them up that way? Is the division sharp or gradual? I have to search for meaning. No precise definition for thinking. The meanings of intuition are ridiculously assumptive. There is no future in having an intuition. What divides feeling and sensing? Anything precise? Some say Myers-Briggs is not a science. Why not? What borderline makes it fail or succeed? These questions are where I am coming from.



Squirt said:


> Allostasis offered a metaphor about the "danger" of assuming the hydrogen atom characterizes an entire, complex molecule. How do you address this problem with your approach? Is your scope appropriate? Is this "simplified and linear" deductive approach really the best tool for what you're trying to conceptualize about _consciousness itself_? Why so?


Where is that @Allostasis metaphor? I don't recall seeing it to comment. As for consciousness itself, my definition is in Section 4. Section 6 only defines four different kinds of consciousness broken down after a general definition.



Squirt said:


> At least, these are the questions I'd be asking myself if I were trying to advance such an ambitious undertaking!


That's why part of me doesn't want to work on it. Overly ambitious. I can see things over my head. No reward. I've seen over two dozen references/ links to consciousness. How am I supposed to study them all to hope I've addressed every condition? Perhaps I should just put it out there as is, as I do here?


Squirt said:


> This sounds like intellectual play, rather than seeking an accurate framework for a concept. How did you arrive at these constructions?


Certainly it is intellectual play with an aim toward worthiness. Something wrong with that? Would you object if I said computer technology is based on controlling zeros and ones, on and off? I used Ti, Ne and Si, a lot of it, to form those constructions. Some time ago I went to the INTJ forum. An able person there said she thought of feeling as flow. I've lifted her idea.



Squirt said:


> Interference isn't necessarily a _problem_. Although, if one function is habitually repressed in some way, it might become a problem. Like I said, maybe it is more accurate to see them as potentially concurrent, where one is more conscious than the other. At least,_ for the purposes of type._


Want a reply to that? I have one.


.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> What I was interested in was the feeling/ thinking *difference*. Have I nailed it?


I thought you were interested in


> BTW can either of you define "thinking"?


But no. I don't think the difference was fully isolated.



> One could paraphrase what you said and say,
> Feeling is an act of continuous movement of a set of object representations into another set according to certain laws of movement.


And that would be incorrect paraphrasing because the signals are continuous. But "objects" suggest otherwise.
We don't suddenly change in our emotional state as we switch our attention onto something else.
Emotions rise and fall smoothly and the rate of change doesn't break continuity.


> You said, "according to certain laws of reasoning (transformation)." What laws? There are no laws.


Because you declared so?
There is a reason why we can agree with each other, why conclusions of others don't seem completely random, why there are patterns in how do we learn and reason about things.
And this reason is these "laws of reasoning", which not only exist but are also universal for the functional members of our species.
Laws that transcend any prior experience. And, as I suggest, are rooted in the properties of our neural architecture.

Perhaps you thought of them too literally, as if it is a set of inference rules from a formal logic book. That's not what I meant.


> Thinking is an advanced process involving observation, motivation (feeling) and a giant brain lower animals lack. I wanted to define the *foundation* of thinking as opposed to feeling. Thinking is not just a reaction to an observation, but a comparison of two observations (a jump). It is a prima tool human beings have that only a few lower animals can perform. Human beings also possess and use a vast repertoire of experience lower animals haven't the brain neurology to accumulate.


I understand what is your goal. I am saying that it is not accomplished yet.


> but a comparison of two observations (a jump).


Again, why do you think it is possible to perform such comparisons in the first place? Why these jumps are not entirely random?
Why the only humans and a few other animals have it?
Jumps alone won't be enough to serve as a foundation of Thinking or to highlight its difference with the Feeling process.



> You said some other things. Have I failed to reply to any of them should you so wish?


Probably not, don't remember.



> It's not their fault (PhDs). It's my fault and the fault of fate.


Then that makes your anger a bit misplaced.



> I like to think of this interchange as aimed at relieving some of the stupidity, lol.


In order to relieve yourself of these concepts, you must be willing to let them go.
But the phrase to which I replied suggested that your perspective didn't budge in any way. This may be not exclusively your fault though.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> I may not be answering your question, so here is where I am coming from. I did not invent cognitive functions. They were thrown at me by Myers-Briggs and Jung. My mind goes, "Wha? What is all this? My mind is blank to start with and you are dumping alien stuff on me? * In pure mathematics (my bachelors degree) one never ever takes a theorem on faith. The whole idea is the fun of seeing it proven. Proof is everything. *The theorem can be pasted and framed on the wall as a work of art.
> 
> *The questions for me are, why these four? Is there a fifth? What divides them up that way? Is the division sharp or gradual? I have to search for meaning. * No precise definition for thinking. The meanings of intuition are ridiculously assumptive. There is no future in having an intuition. What divides feeling and sensing? Anything precise? Some say Myers-Briggs is not a science. Why not? What borderline makes it fail or succeed? These questions are where I am coming from.


I don't see how making stuff up about how cognitive functions work, with little knowledge of the underpinning theory, would advance your understanding of the systems/conditions the theory attempts to elucidate. This activity is very different from attempting to prove the theory, utilize it, or disprove it.

Jung, Myers-Briggs, etc. aren't devising mathematical theorems, so what would even constitute the "proof" in that context? You appear to have a hammer and everything is a nail.



BigApplePi said:


> Where is that @Allostasis metaphor? I don't recall seeing it to comment. As for consciousness itself, my definition is in Section 4. Section 6 only defines four different kinds of consciousness broken down after a general definition.


Click on the link in the username to jump to the specific post:



Allostasis said:


> It's like you defined a complex chemical compound through one hydrogen atom present in it but shared by millions of other compounds.





BigApplePi said:


> That's why part of me doesn't want to work on it. Overly ambitious. I can see things over my head. No reward. I've seen over two dozen references/ links to consciousness. How am I supposed to study them all to hope I've addressed every condition? Perhaps I should just put it out there as is, as I do here?


Maybe start with smaller/more manageable ideas and build on them?



BigApplePi said:


> Certainly it is intellectual play with an aim toward worthiness. Something wrong with that? Would you object if I said computer technology is based on controlling zeros and ones, on and off? I used Ti, Ne and Si, a lot of it, to form those constructions. Some time ago I went to the INTJ forum. An able person there said she thought of feeling as flow. I've lifted her idea.


Nothing wrong with it, I suppose. This is a very low-stakes venue. 

I would object to your computer technology claim, as it's not accurate, since it excludes analog computing and quantum computing. This ignores not only the past, but also sets unnecessary limits on the future, as well.

For fun, since we like the theme of continuous (analog) and discontinuous (digital) and maths... and brains:

Decades-old analog computing ideas could buoy modern AI - Axios

In other words, it's important to set an appropriate frame of reference for what you are describing in order to describe it well... not just _any _frame of reference because you can. Understanding the theory better would help select a good frame of reference.


* *





Another possibility is to say the basis of computing is encoding, manipulation, and transfer of information. That is rather off the cuff, though, and likely flawed. It relies on a frame of reference for its _use_. However, I find this to be more fundamental, as in every case I can think of, computing has been a tool, and its use has been what drives its form.

Can we say the same for human beings? 

Best not to go down that path...






BigApplePi said:


> Want a reply to that? I have one.
> 
> 
> .


...What?


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Allostasis said:


> And that would be incorrect paraphrasing because the signals are continuous. But "objects" suggest otherwise.
> We don't suddenly change in our emotional state as we switch our attention onto something else.
> Emotions rise and fall smoothly and the rate of change doesn't break continuity.


Are we not distinguishing emotional state from "feeling"? Is it just a general idea of the term in all its forms, or specific to functions?

Wouldn't sensation also be "continuous" by the same emotion-sensation logic, since we never break continuity with our sense-perceptions?

The continuous/discontinuous dichotomy seems to carry little meaning when applied this way. I'd still say subject dependent continuity would warrant more testing, since I haven't seen it contradicted yet... the continuity aspect is again, apparent when focus is on the subject (internal states).


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

*Based on what I've read and watched* *videos on about*, that's how I interpret it. Is that Te users aren't necessarily brainless. 

*Ti-Fe Axis Logical*: *Robot like-Warm on the outside, very cold and logical in the inside.*

*Deep thought that is really complex (technical in nature) Complex thinking. 

*Easily creating long complicated logical chains(which is a task that requires a lot of energy effort for Te users.)

*There are *no objectives; the goal is to comprehend and organise logic.*

**Ti is necessary for high-level software programming*.

*Spots Inconsistencies in logic chains can be simply and rapidly identified.

**Ti Spontaneous thinking *deep analysis of external environment.

*Knows quickly the difference between what is true and what is false.

*Does not require taking notes and can think rapidly and reframe any type of information.

*Better at linguistic talks and knows how to utilise the appropriate words.

*Calculator itself, *Spontaneous* thinking

*Ti>Te 

Te-Fi axis Rationale*: *Humanistic, cold and logical on the outside, very warm and feely in the inside.*

*Control order, Organizing the external environment with logic

**Strategic thinking*, very *intentional*, effective thinking.

*Like a guy using a calculator or deliberate thinking.

*Knows the difference between right and wrong.

*Environmental control or management

**Te Simple thinking*, or surface level thinking, is concerned with efficiency and effectiveness rather than accuracy or precision. Simple untechnical.

*Fetches all facts and information from other people or the outside world.

*Has the ability to absorb large amounts of data, but cannot think for herself. Seeks the thinking of the tribe.

*Takes notes, more concerned with the end than with the extensive logical chains.

*Te users know not just what they know, but also what they don't know.

So Te users aren't brainless, they can definitely think effectively. Whereas Ti users can think more accurately.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

X10E8 said:


> *Based on what I've read and watched* *videos on about*, that's how I interpret it. Is that Te users aren't necessarily brainless.
> 
> *Ti-Fe Axis Logical*: Robot like-Warm on the outside, very cold and logical in the inside.
> 
> ...


Yes, I read all of that before.
According to these definitions I am just Ti+Te user, because I do everything. But how useful is that.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> Yes, I read all of that before.
> According to these definitions I am just Ti+Te user, because I do everything. But how useful is that.


Yes, everyone can perform all tasks; the question is which functions you utilise the most, and in your case, you appear to be quite balanced in your thinking.

As an INTJ jumper, I can perform both Te and Ti, but as a INTJ jumper Ni-Fi rather than Ni-Te, I prefer Te to Ti.

So, yes, I can do both, but I'm not sure if it's simply my Te, because Te can act like Ti once it understands objective logic from the outside. 

Te(rationale) users can also efficiently steer or manage the thoughts of Ti users in an attractive way that Ti users like, in a not bothersome way, just as Fe can handle the feelings of Fi users in a nice, non-manipulative way.

*Te is planned strategic intentional thinking.

Ti is spontaneous thinking can easily improvise.

Te*(Effectiveness)* is objective cause or effect thinking. 

Ti*(accuracy)*is creative thinking, or edgey thinking. 

Fi*(authenticity) *users cannot emote especially low Fi users unless they feel it, but their emotions are real and deep. Fe*(Harmony) *users can emote without feeling which like a switch is flicked on and off. Frank James, for example, is a Fe user who excels at social skills and acting. *


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Allostasis said:


> And that would be incorrect paraphrasing because the signals are continuous. But "objects" suggest otherwise.
> We don't suddenly change in our emotional state as we switch our attention onto something else.
> Emotions rise and fall smoothly and the rate of change doesn't break continuity.


It has been said one never steps into the same river twice. Consider further downstream. Same river but its nature changes.



Allostasis said:


> There is a reason why we can agree with each other, why conclusions of others don't seem completely random, why there are patterns in how do we learn and reason about things.
> And this reason is these "laws of reasoning", which not only exist but are also universal for the functional members of our species.
> Laws that transcend any prior experience.


Perhaps you are describing Te over Ti. Te reasoning can be checked out with others. Ti thoughts occur within an individual and can easily violate correct reasoning. Anyway what I call the foundation of thinking is a comparison of two objects. That "jump" from one object to another requires pulling in a lot more happenings before getting to advanced reasoning.

An example is needed. Suppose I want to choose the better of two candidates. That could involve a lot more than both Te and Ti.



Allostasis said:


> Again, why do you think it is possible to perform such comparisons in the first place? Why these jumps are not entirely random?
> Why the only humans and a few other animals have it?


Excellent questions.
Humans can form comparisons or jumps for A and B because their brain allows them to
1. Store A
2. Be motivated (a feeling) to move to B
3. Store B
4. Reach into their perceptive memory for a comparison of A and B. Example: A<B or A is contained in B.

B can be random. However B is usually confined to a narrow pool of possibilities.
Lower animals can't do this because they fail to store A. Instead they "go with the flow of feeling.'



Allostasis said:


> Jumps alone won't be enough to serve as a foundation of Thinking or to highlight its difference with the Feeling process.


Have I answered you or is something still missing?

BTW in Section 6 of my essay, I begin with sensing. Sensing is a lower level foundation for the foundation of the other three cognitive functions. I forgot to mention that. A and B used in defining thinking are either the perceptions of sensing or intuition. Intuition itself is founded on sensing.



Allostasis said:


> Then that makes your anger a bit misplaced.


Well yes. It's a maturity issue. As I gain understanding of the situation, my anger will go away. It's just that I don't know the response of my audience that well. My audience is "experts" on consciousness. I want to cover all the bases. I probably have to get to first base here on PerC before I can hit a home run out there.


Allostasis said:


> But the phrase to which I replied suggested that your perspective didn't budge in any way. This may be not exclusively your fault though.


Thank you. I assume this bears further discussion or explanation. Not sure what you mean by "not your fault."


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

X10E8 said:


> *Te is planned strategic intentional thinking.
> 
> Ti is spontaneous thinking can easily improvise.
> 
> ...


Note that Ti, should it ever finish thinking about what it is thinking about, and put it "out there" becomes something for Te to think on. Oppositely, if Te has any doubts, it can call upon Ti. This can occur all in the same person.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Squirt said:


> I don't see how making stuff up about how cognitive functions work, with little knowledge of the underpinning theory, would advance your understanding of the systems/conditions the theory attempts to elucidate. This activity is very different from attempting to prove the theory, utilize it, or disprove it.
> 
> Jung, Myers-Briggs, etc. aren't devising mathematical theorems, so what would even constitute the "proof" in that context? You appear to have a hammer and everything is a nail.


That is quite a strong critique. I will answer. I didn't make this theory up from nothing. Anyone is entitled to their own perspective. More than one theory is allowed. Some will be more useful than others. Some will have special applications others can't deal with so well. My perspective is math, physics, physiology, neuroscience, psychology, roughly in that order. The terms continuity/ discontinuity relate to math. flow/ interactive relations relate to physiology/ physics. Other terms I'm not immune to.




Squirt said:


> Maybe start with smaller/more manageable ideas and build on them?


What? That is advice that could be given to others! Anyway I have to explain something. Things can get complex very quickly. A happening could be explained using the language of psychology. That is fine. It could also be used in the language of physics. That is also fine. However some people may not like that as it wouldn't be enlightening. There is such a thing as *translation* of one language into another. That may not be easy, but in theory it can be addressed.

I was trying to avoid using another essay I've written. Here it is anyway. Special attention to 2. Translation. Skip it if you like:  #1



Squirt said:


> I would object to your computer technology claim, as it's not accurate, since it excludes analog computing and quantum computing. This ignores not only the past, but also sets unnecessary limits on the future, as well.


Good point. I'm not doing computer foundations though.

Off topic, but interesting from your computer link: "Researchers at Los Alamos and elsewhere are developing neuromorphic chips, a subset of analog computing that more closely mirrors neurons in the brain."



Squirt said:


> In other words, it's important to set an appropriate frame of reference for what you are describing in order to describe it well...


Yeah. My fault for not dumping my whole essay on consciousness here before presenting Section 6 with no context.

Would you rather I'd dumped the 37 pages of essay on you that precede Section 6? You'd never get to Section 6 I'm afraid.

From you conversation with @Allostasis :


Squirt said:


> Wouldn't sensation also be "continuous" by the same emotion-sensation logic, since we never break continuity with our sense-perceptions?


Feeling is a form of sensation, but is much longer than the more common separated out sensations from feeling. We could almost compare a sensation like taste to a point rather than a continuous interval. The physiology of taste together with the brain can't hold onto a taste. If you try there will be diminishing returns. The time interval doesn't last long enough to call it continuous though you are right some is there.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@Squirt. You quoted Jung. I want to give my view on what he said. I will use my language. I'll do feeling first. I am in blue.


Squirt said:


> Also, it's important to note that what Jung wrote was predicated on observation, research, study, and analysis that spanned many years. It's not like he pulled a bunch of random ideas out of thin air and jumbled them together to be difficult, or that he didn't start with some core concepts when he began his research (which is indeed analytical).


Feeling.
I count feeling among the four basic psychological functions. ... I regard it as an independent function _sui generis._
Good. I will relate to that.

Feeling is primarily a process that* takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection ("like" or "dislike").*
The brain and the body supply what I'll call motivation. Motivation comes from the unconscious as well as the conscious ego interpreting content. When we produce a direction, that can be called a value. Acceptance/ rejection motivate direction.

*The process can also appear isolated, as it were in the form of a "mood," regardless of the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations.* The mood may be causally related to earlier conscious contents, though not necessarily so, since, as psychopathology amply proves, it may equally well arise from unconscious contents. *But even a mood, whether it be a general or only a partial feeling, implies a valuation; not of one definite, individual conscious content, but of the whole conscious situation at the moment, and, once again, with special reference to the question of acceptance or rejection.*
Nice description, but redundant. 

Feeling, therefore, is an entirely subjective process, which may be in every respect independent of external stimuli, though it allies itself with every sensation. Even an "indifferent" sensation possesses a feeling-tone, namely that of indifference, which again expresses some sort of valuation. *Hence feeling is a kind of judgement, differing from intellectual judgement in that its aim is not to establish conceptual relations but to set up a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection. Valuation by feeling extends to every content of consciousness, of whatever kind it may be. *
Feeling may be subjective if sensed by the user, but it can also possess some objectivity if observed by an outsider. External stimuli certainly can affect feeling. I regard this as misleading. Needs a refinement. He has yet to define "intellectual judgement" so as a linear expressor I would not put it here.

When the intensity of feeling increases, it turns into an affect, i.e., a feeling-state accompanied by marked physical innervations. Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process.
To me, that falls flat.

Ordinary, "simple" feeling is concrete, that is, it is mixed up with other functional elements, more particularly with sensations. In this case we can call it affective or, as I have done in this book, _feeling-sensation_, by which I mean an almost inseparable amalgam of feeling and sensation elements.
Yes. Feeling is a very elaborate and dynamic sensation ... if a sensation were to move. This describes but doesn't contribute to the definition. Feel is a sensed physiological flow.

This characteristic amalgamation is found wherever feeling is still an undifferentiated function, and is most evident in the psyche of a neurotic with differentiated thinking.* Although feeling is, in itself, an independent function, it can easily become dependent on another function - thinking, for instance; it is then a mere concomitant of thinking, and is not repressed only in so far as it accommodates itself to the thinking processes.*
I call this descriptive, not definitional. 

It is important to distinguish abstract feeling from ordinary concrete feeling. Just as the abstract concept (v. Thinking) abolishes the differences between things it apprehends, *abstract feeling rises above the differences of the individual contents it evaluates, and produces a "mood" or feeling-state which embraces the different individual valuations and thereby abolishes them. In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. *The more concrete it is, the more subjective and personal is the value conferred upon them; but the more abstract it is, the more universal and objective the value will be. Just as a completely abstract concept no longer coincides with the singularity and discreteness of things, but only with their universality and non-differentiation, so completely abstract feeling no longer coincides with a particular content as its feeling-value, but with the undifferentiated totality of all contents.
This paragraph is filled with unexplained concepts. They are akin to theorems should the concepts be explained. Does he mean abstract feeling is like the feeling alone while concrete feeling hangs onto specific subjects/ objects? 
I guess so. It would be nice to define "concept." To me, a concept is an emergent phenomenon which I won't define here. 

*Feeling, like thinking, is a rational function, since values in general are assigned according to the laws of reason, just as concepts in general are formed according to these laws.*
"Rational "is undefined and quite misleading. What laws of reasoning? Should something appear resulting in instant fear, do you want to call that "rational" even if no threat is real? Yes a value is assigned. So what? This requires an explanation.

Naturally the above definitions do not give the essence of feeling - they only describe it from outside. *The intellect proves incapable of formulating the real nature of feeling in conceptual terms, since thinking belongs to a category incommensurable with feeling; *in fact, no basic psychological function can ever be completely expressed by another.
This is again misleading and I wouldn't say it that way. Feeling is "sensed" as a flow. A flow is unique. Of what use it is to describe it in other terms? Would you want to describe green in other terms? Yes to thinking, but he has yet to define it. Do not make conclusions in circles if defining linearly.

That being so, it is possible for an intellectual definition to reproduce the specific character of feeling at all adequately. The mere classification of feelings adds nothing to an understanding of their nature, because even the most exact classification will be able to indicate only the content of feeling which the intellect can apprehend, without grasping its specific nature. Only as many classes of feelings can be discriminated as there are classes of contents that can be intellectually apprehended, but feeling per se can never be exhaustively classified because, beyond every possible class of contents accessible to the intellect, there still exist feelings which resist intellectual classification. The very notion of classification is intellectual and therefore incompatible with the nature of feeling. We must therefore be content to indicate the limits of the concept.
This seems naive to me. Not necessarily so. Show me any feeling and I will classify it or die trying, lol

*The nature of valuation by feeling may be compared with intellectual apperception as an apperception of value. We can distinguish active and passive apperception by feeling. Passive feeling allows itself to be attracted or excited by a particular content, which then forces the feelings of the subject to participate. Active feeling is a transfer of value form the subject; it is an intentional valuation of the content in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with the intellect. Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love. *The latter would be undirected, passive feeling, as these expressions themselves show: the one is an activity, the other a passive state. Undirected feeling feeling is _feeling-intuition_. Strictly speaking, therefore, only active, directed feeling should be termed rational, whereas passive feeling irrational in so far as it confers values without the participation or even against the intentions of the subject. When the subject's attitude as a whole is oriented by the feeling function, we speak of a_ feeling type._
Fine. Jung now distinuishes the existence of passive from active. What other bifurcations can be made?
==============================================================

On to thinking.
Thinking.
This I regard as one of the four basic psychological functions. Thinking is the psychological function which, following its own laws,* brings the contents of ideation into conceptual connection with one another. *
"Ideation" and "conceptual" I have an intuitive sense of their meaning, but not a formal one. So far this is descriptive, not definitional.

I didn't mean to post this before a re-reading, but I'll leave it and continue later. I hope I have not posted too much on this thread.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> I didn't mean to post this before a re-reading, but I'll leave it and continue later. I hope I have not posted too much on this thread.


X10E8 seems to like your posts, and they started the thread, so... 

It might take me a while to (have time to) go over everything, but I'm interested in your thoughts, ... even if I have a hard time with them at first, lol.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Squirt said:


> X10E8 seems to like your posts


There is no accounting for tastes.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> There is no accounting for tastes.


* 
I have tastes, and I can elaborate on that; there is a reason why I appreciate your posts. *

Your posts appeal to my sense of rationality and sincerity, thus I enjoy them if:

*Here's 15 Reasons Why I like People's Posts:

1) If I see you put made quite an effort on it.

2) Or, if it is reasonable

3) Or, if it's sincere or heartfelt,

4) Or, if it's more practical,

5) Or, if it's understandable 

6) Or, if it's amusing or funny.

7) Or, if it's genuine or authentic

8) Or, if it's imaginative

9) Or, if you intend well,

10) Or, if you are truthful,

11) Or, if it's quirky or unusual,

12) Or, if the information is accurate.

13) Or, If it's not condescending 

14) Or, If it's not insulting or abusive

15) Or, if it's not manipulative in a evil way with bad motives*

As a result, I'm more open-minded when it comes to my likes for videos or postingspostings or article's. 

*These are the reasons I like your postings, as well as the reason I end up hitting like on almost every post I read. *


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

@BigApplePi I'm still reading your material, but I'm going to address this first since it is about cognitive functions.



X10E8 said:


> *Based on what I've read and watched* *videos on about*, that's how I interpret it. Is that Te users aren't necessarily brainless.


The biggest problem I have with this list is that it silos Ti and Te into traits based on outcomes, or uses generic terms, or describes Thinking in general, rather than how each function differs as a _process_ of Thinking. Some of the items do this more severely than others.



X10E8 said:


> *Ti-Fe Axis Logical*: *Robot like-Warm on the outside, very cold and logical in the inside.
> Te-Fi axis Rationale*: *Humanistic, cold and logical on the outside, very warm and feely in the inside.*




This probably stems from an interpretation of extraverted = outside and introverted = inside, then Feeling = warm and Thinking = cold. Is it reasonable to assume the connotations are accurate and literal to functional attributes?

"Logical" and "rationale" are too generic to be specific to Ti and Te alone.

___

For Ti...



X10E8 said:


> *Deep thought that is really complex (technical in nature) Complex thinking.


This kind of works for Ti as a subjective/personal process, which "takes its own path" independent of the object (external factors) for reference before it arrives at a finished thought, making it difficult to discern from the outside what steps were taken to arrive there.

However, complex or technical thought isn't _necessarily _introverted. It just may appear more complex because it is harder to track its course due to the introverted nature. Similar issue with the next one:



X10E8 said:


> *Easily creating long complicated logical chains(which is a task that requires a lot of energy effort for Te users.)


The only reason it would require more energy/effort for a Te user to track Ti is because the process is "hidden", where Te is bound to objective criteria that demands all the steps in the chain are visible.

This is not to say either one is more correct in their judgements or “better at thinking”.



X10E8 said:


> *There are *no objectives; the goal is to comprehend and organise logic.*


What does "organize logic" mean? That actually sounds more Te. I would say both Ti and Te are about intellectual comprehension, both being "Thinking".



X10E8 said:


> **Ti is necessary for high-level software programming*.


Why? This statement is unfounded and too specific.



X10E8 said:


> *Spots Inconsistencies in logic chains can be simply and rapidly identified.


Again, this would be a property of strong Thinking, in general.



X10E8 said:


> **Ti Spontaneous thinking *deep analysis of external environment.


I don't understand what "spontaneous thinking" means, either, or what that has to do with "deep analysis". Sounds more like a perceptive process.



X10E8 said:


> *Knows quickly the difference between what is true and what is false.


How? That would be the question for what process is being used to judge true/false. Not simply "knowing" something.



X10E8 said:


> *Does not require taking notes and can think rapidly and reframe any type of information.


Note taking is irrelevant, but might be attempting to describe the inward focus of Ti. Why is speed a factor for Ti vs Te? This seems more Ne.



X10E8 said:


> *Better at linguistic talks and knows how to utilise the appropriate words.


Not type dependent, in itself.

___

For Te...



X10E8 said:


> *Control order, *Organizing the external environment with logic*


Sounds good.



X10E8 said:


> **Strategic thinking*, very *intentional*, effective thinking.
> 
> *Like a guy using a calculator or deliberate thinking.
> 
> *Knows the difference between right and wrong.


Both Te and Ti could conform to this.



X10E8 said:


> *Environmental control or management


Vague. Could apply to many types.



X10E8 said:


> **Te Simple thinking*, or surface level thinking, is concerned with efficiency and effectiveness rather than accuracy or precision. Simple untechnical.


So, Personality Hacker uses “accuracy” to tag Ti and “effectiveness” to tag Te, but I disagree with that. I don’t think those tags have anything to do with Thinking alone or explain a difference between Te and Ti, as they are essentially about value judgements, not a process of thinking, and aren't "opposing" intrinsically.

I do think Ti would be about maintaining an _internal logical consistency_, while Te would be concerned with an _external logical consistency._



X10E8 said:


> *Fetches all facts and information from other people or the outside world.


Perhaps. It tends to ignore subjective criteria.

Like, I tend to discount someone's personal experience unless it can be recorded or sorted by an objective measure.



X10E8 said:


> *Has the ability to absorb large amounts of data, but cannot think for herself. Seeks the thinking of the tribe.


Not thinking for oneself sounds like a lack of thinking.



X10E8 said:


> *Takes notes, more concerned with the end than with the extensive logical chains.


Notes are irrelevant, but probably right in being more "results" oriented.



X10E8 said:


> *Te users know not just what they know, but also what they don't know.


This is unlikely to be specific to Thinking.



X10E8 said:


> So Te users aren't brainless, they can definitely think effectively. Whereas Ti users can think more accurately.


Ti users would be likely to have more "original" thinking, while Te users would be less eccentric in their thinking. This doesn't mean that Ti users are going to be accurate all the time, but just unusual, which might produce brilliant or original ideas, especially paired with N. Te users might also be "original" but the source of their originality would likely be in their introverted functions, Fi, or Si/Ni. They might have very original insights, impressions, or value structures, but their thinking process wouldn't be so enigmatic as Ti users.

I agree with you in so far as undifferentiated, unconscious thinking might have some introverted and some extraverted characteristics.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

X10E8 said:


> Yes, everyone can perform all tasks; the question is which functions you utilise the most, and in your case, you appear to be quite balanced in your thinking.
> 
> As an INTJ jumper, I can perform both Te and Ti, but as a INTJ jumper Ni-Fi rather than Ni-Te, I prefer Te to Ti.
> 
> ...


How users with balanced thinking are modeled within OPT?

Anyway, we don't really have any points of contention, we just need to explicitly attach respective theories to functions to reference correct meanings, like Te-Jung and Te-OPT or differentiate them by other means.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

BigApplePi said:


> It has been said one never steps into the same river twice. Consider further downstream. Same river but its nature changes.


Not sure how it relates to what I said tbh. 



> Perhaps you are describing Te over Ti. Te reasoning can be checked out with others. Ti thoughts occur within an individual and can easily violate correct reasoning. Anyway what I call the foundation of thinking is a comparison of two objects. That "jump" from one object to another requires pulling in a lot more happenings before getting to advanced reasoning.
> An example is needed. Suppose I want to choose the better of two candidates. That could involve a lot more than both Te and Ti.


At this point I think we should stop trying to use Te/Ti terms as if we both agree on what they mean or trying to study them as some objects that exist out there. That would be fruitless endeavor, as should already be evident.

I implied common laws/runtime of reasoning that precede logical inferences, contain them. The cognitive architecture that is derived from the brain physiology.

Concrete specific thoughts can be unpopular with respect to some culture, but the processes of arriving at them is reducible to the chain of applications of tools shared by all functional humans.



> Humans can form comparisons or jumps for A and B because their brain allows them to
> 1. Store A
> 2. Be motivated (a feeling) to move to B
> 3. Store B
> ...


I asked these questions not because I didn't know the answer for them but to point out that thinking isn't reducible to mere binary operators. Yet it is what you apparently trying to suggest, delegating important functions to some other tools that aren't "thinking". Or suggest that binary operators are exclusive property of it.

You wanted to consider how thinking can be "flowing" in its character?
Consider how discrete "physical" particles(representations) can actually be just a fluctuations within some "cognitive" manifold akin to quantum field that flow into each other continuously.

Or extend the idea of neural networks to a higher level abstractions, where the data flows like water through a multilayered network, distributing into a flow patterns that can be then consequently mapped into "classifications" reducible to yes/no, 0/1, "jumps".

A lot of "lower" animals have memory and, therefore, the ability to create and store mental representations of the world.



> Well yes. It's a maturity issue. As I gain understanding of the situation, my anger will go away. It's just that I don't know the response of my audience that well. My audience is "experts" on consciousness. I want to cover all the bases. I probably have to get to first base here on PerC before I can hit a home run out there.


Perhaps you don't communicate with them all that much that creates a gap in consensus.
Once again, I already suggested this but can repeat : provide some proof of concept if the validity/value of your idea aren't immediately apparent.
If your model of consciousness has any merit to it, then you should be able to produce the evidence that will support them.

We are talking about consciousness, which is a computational/physical concept nature.



> Not sure what you mean by "not your fault."


By that, I meant communication issues that either side can contribute to.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> How users with balanced thinking are modeled within OPT?
> 
> Anyway, we don't really have any points of contention, we just need to explicitly attach respective theories to functions to reference correct meanings, like Te-Jung and Te-OPT or differentiate them by other means.


Yes, we can do that yes. Anyway is there a difference between Te in OPT vs Te in Jung.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

X10E8 said:


> Anyway is there a difference between Te in OPT vs Te in Jung.


There is a great deal of differences between them, yes.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Allostasis said:


> Not sure how it relates to what I said tbh.


You talked about changing emotional states. An emotion such as envy may rise and fall smoothly as it passes different environmental circumstances. I think we are in agreement.



Allostasis said:


> At this point I think we should stop trying to use Te/Ti terms as if we both agree on what they mean or trying to study them as some objects that exist out there. That would be fruitless endeavor, as should already be evident.


It can be put aside.



Allostasis said:


> I implied common laws/runtime of reasoning that precede logical inferences, contain them. The cognitive architecture that is derived from the brain physiology.
> 
> Concrete specific thoughts can be unpopular with respect to some culture, but the processes of arriving at them is reducible to the chain of applications of tools shared by all functional humans.


Those statements seem to have washed over my head. Do you care to give an example to clarify? 



Allostasis said:


> I asked these questions not because I didn't know the answer for them but to point out that thinking isn't reducible to mere binary operators. Yet it is what you apparently trying to suggest, delegating important functions to some other tools that aren't "thinking". Or suggest that binary operators are exclusive property of it.


Disagree. Thinking IS reducible to binary operations. What is the alternative? Triad operations? I'm after elements of cognitive functions. Human brains are complex. All four of Jung's functions go on in a complex human activity. Do you buy that? Would an example help? I am talking human operations. Ordinary computers are little different. They are reducible to binary operations. There is also multitasking where computers have eight operations going on at once. I've heard some pose the brain operates at the quantum level but I don't want to go there.



Allostasis said:


> You wanted to consider how thinking can be "flowing" in its character?
> Consider how discrete "physical" particles(representations) can actually be just a fluctuations within some "cognitive" manifold akin to quantum field that flow into each other continuously.


Whoops. You did mention quantum. Can I back up and maybe rephrase? I'm not trying to define thinking in all its complexity. What I'm trying to do is pose the difference between feeling and thinking* at the elementary level*. Would you buy that?



Allostasis said:


> Or extend the idea of neural networks to a higher level abstractions, where the data flows like water through a multilayered network, distributing into a flow patterns that can be then consequently mapped into "classifications" reducible to yes/no, 0/1, "jumps".


That may be how the brain operates until I got to when you said, "jumps." I would claim we have not just one brain but a few slapped together. That means more than one neutral network. Would you go with one network connected (part of the whole brain network(s)) to another? That would look like a "jump." For example, I'm mulling over politics. I jump to a person I like. I think to myself, "Why doesn't he go into politics? I like that person." That is a jump. A better example: One part of my brain wants a rich desert to eat. Another part wants to lose weight. Those are two brains. The connection between this disconnection causes a feeling part of me to agonize over a decision.



Allostasis said:


> A lot of "lower" animals have memory and, therefore, the ability to create and store mental representations of the world.


Agreed. They do. The problem with lower animals is they not only have different body senses, but they have different motivations. They have brains limiting them to sensing, feeling and intuition. Humans and a few other animals have a cerebral cortex. Some animals can think but their thinking is limited. Let me ask you this: *Do you believe or propose that thinking can be done without "jumping"? * Do you have an example, lower animal or not?



Allostasis said:


> Perhaps you don't communicate with them all that much that creates a gap in consensus.


I am friendly with a PhD candidate who lectured on consciousness. We corresponded a little. He asked me good questions to get me going. When I replied, he in person apologized three times for not replying again. I don't want to bother him as he is busy with his thesis.

I wrote to Ned Block (try a google) a professor of consciousness at NYU. I didn't want to hit him with consciousness so I sent him a definition of "pain" to feel him out. He replied with a criticism and I clarified or corrected myself to him. He has not replied. I assume he doesn't have time to converse with me. I even bot his book. His writing is at a very high level. He can't define his terms though he tries. Other "experts" don't go after basics like I do. They do descriptions.

My conclusion is if I'm going to say anything, I had better get it right the first time. That is where I am now. You can probably guess I am highly self-critical. That ain't good enuf. That's why I'm here.



Allostasis said:


> Once again, I already suggested this but can repeat : provide some proof of concept if the validity/value of your idea aren't immediately apparent.
> If your model of consciousness has any merit to it, then you should be able to produce the evidence that will support them.


It's not a model. It's a definition which is in Section 4. I've only put out parts of feelings and thinking which is in Section 6. Section 6 also has a definition of intuition, my definition.



Allostasis said:


> We are talking about consciousness, which is a computational/physical concept nature.


Consciousness is a special kind of focus which involves something called "emergence" like the liquid water emerges from a couple gases.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> That is quite a strong critique. I will answer. I didn't make this theory up from nothing. Anyone is entitled to their own perspective. More than one theory is allowed. Some will be more useful than others. Some will have special applications others can't deal with so well. My perspective is math, physics, physiology, neuroscience, psychology, roughly in that order. The terms continuity/ discontinuity relate to math. flow/ interactive relations relate to physiology/ physics. Other terms I'm not immune to.


I don't see how anything you've stated relates to those fields very closely. By "nothing" I mean you've made no reference to how the definitions you're trying to build are founded on any knowledge besides loose personal observations and untested notions. That in itself is fine, but where I get confused is your apparent disinterest in discovering such knowledge or performing more rigorous testing of your definitions before declaring them _accurate or useful. _If you're using first principles, I don't see where you've stated what those are, except an appeal to "math" and an essay you've written but haven't shared what it said that would answer the question.

But, I'm just repeating myself now.



BigApplePi said:


> What? That is advice that could be given to others! Anyway I have to explain something. Things can get complex very quickly. A happening could be explained using the language of psychology. That is fine. It could also be used in the language of physics. That is also fine. However some people may not like that as it wouldn't be enlightening. There is such a thing as *translation* of one language into another. That may not be easy, but in theory it can be addressed.


By small, I mean narrow it down from the broad question about the nature of consciousness itself to an aspect of consciousness that might indicate properties of the whole.

For instance, we regularly turn on light switches before we enter a room, but there is a time delay between when we flip the switch and when the light turns on. It is only a few milliseconds, but it is detectable. Apparently, after performing this activity often enough, our brains "edit out" the time delay and we don't notice it anymore. What is _consciousness _in those few milliseconds we've edited out? How much of our conscious lives are "edited out" without our awareness? How does that challenge our experience of consciousness? In what ways can we seek answers to those questions?

Anyway, something like that could be explored if we want to understand more about the nature of consciousness. This approach may not appeal to you, but originally I was answering the question of what alternatives you might have for researching complex topics.



BigApplePi said:


> I was trying to avoid using another essay I've written. Here it is anyway. Special attention to 2. Translation. Skip it if you like:  #1


Reminds me of "theory of mind" in psychology.

Also, I wonder if you'd be interested in Alfred Korzybski's work - have you learned much about general semantics? He was a Polish-American right off WWI and seemed very disillusioned by it, determined to find a "common understanding" via semantics that might prevent brutality and war. Here is a _very _brief summary in case you are not familiar:

General Semantics -- Korzybski (gestalt.org) 

Btw, I'm giving you these references to potentially feed your ideas and give them a stronger footing, not in order to superficially critique them as inferior to your ideas.

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” – Sir Isaac Newton



BigApplePi said:


> Good point. I'm not doing computer foundations though.


Yet, you rely heavily on the analogy:



BigApplePi said:


> Disagree. Thinking IS reducible to binary operations. What is the alternative? Triad operations? I'm after elements of cognitive functions. Human brains are complex. All four of Jung's functions go on in a complex human activity. Do you buy that? Would an example help? I am talking human operations. Ordinary computers are little different. They are reducible to binary operations. There is also multitasking where computers have eight operations going on at once. I've heard some pose the brain operates at the quantum level but I don't want to go there.
> 
> 
> Whoops. You did mention quantum. Can I back up and maybe rephrase? I'm not trying to define thinking in all its complexity. What I'm trying to do is pose the difference between feeling and thinking* at the elementary level*. Would you buy that?


"We are all but sewing machines." -Mark Twain

Mark Twain Defines Man the Machine | Lapham’s Quarterly (laphamsquarterly.org)

It is fascinating how humans are enamored with defining their attributes in terms of their technology. My point earlier was how taking up such a shallow frame is going to limit understanding of natural phenomena, not expand or clarify it. If our goal is to focus on a particular, limited application, then that's fine... but let's not pretend we're after anything _fundamentally _true. Otherwise, "Men have become the tools of their tools" and we are reaching a singularity only because we've _reduced _ourselves to the level of our crude contraptions.



BigApplePi said:


> Would you rather I'd dumped the 37 pages of essay on you


Maybe... 



BigApplePi said:


> Feeling is a form of sensation, but is much longer than the more common separated out sensations from feeling. We could almost compare a sensation like taste to a point rather than a continuous interval. The physiology of taste together with the brain can't hold onto a taste. If you try there will be diminishing returns. The time interval doesn't last long enough to call it continuous though you are right some is there.


Again, I don't see how this relates to _cognitive functions_. Jung defined Sensation as having to do with sensory stimulations as an object focus, and described how undifferentiated functions might combine with sensation. Myers-Briggs associated it with "direct experience," as through the senses, and didn't associate it with Feeling. Where you're getting this description about Feeling isn't related to cognitive functions, and you haven't made a link to those models to warrant the use of the terms in that context, as far as I can tell. If you have, I missed it and apologize. I'd be happy to be enlightened.



BigApplePi said:


> Needs a refinement. He has yet to define "intellectual judgement" so as a linear expressor I would not put it here.






BigApplePi said:


> This paragraph is filled with unexplained concepts. They are akin to theorems should the concepts be explained. Does he mean abstract feeling is like the feeling alone while concrete feeling hangs onto specific subjects/ objects?
> I guess so. It would be nice to define "concept."






BigApplePi said:


> This requires an explanation.


You might have missed the part where these definitions aren't complete, but a supplement to facilitate the concepts presented throughout the 500+ page publication. If you'd like those explanations, clarifications and refinements, I'd suggest going over other sections of _Psychological Types_. (sound familiar? )

Here, I'll say again, I'm bemused that you would be critiquing Jung's definitions of functions with little understanding about the development of his model, while at the same time relying on simplified derivations of the model to inform your attempts to discriminate feeling or thinking. I don't want to keep going in circles on the value of that exercise, so this is the last I'm going to address it.

To be clear, I'd like to hear more about your ideas as long as we can put away any expectation that they relate to cognitive functions...



BigApplePi said:


> This seems naive to me. Not necessarily so. Show me any feeling and I will classify it or die trying, lol




I agree with Jung that such attempts are in vain. The classification wouldn't be anything more than a hollow, approximate representation, unable to bridge the innate gap between what constitutes "feeling" and how we describe it intellectually. This is where expressions like art and music tend to be more effective.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> I'll live with that also, but why the object>subject reference? Does object mean the outside world and subject mean the user?


Object at hand for the individual, subject at hand for the individual. Your logical framework is the subject by which you assess the object of your choosing, in INTPs case that's Ne options/potentialities. Introverted functions are subjective, being attached and specific to the person(subject) rather than external 'objects'.


BigApplePi said:


> Why do I feel insulted by that? Meta/philo bullshito. I say Ti can propose a way of different looking at things, perhaps a classification not offered by Te. To the Te person that looks subjective. Maybe it is but maybe it is objective also. I think this needs work if we are going to see eye-to-eye.


Agreed and Jung says the same:
" Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity. "


BigApplePi said:


> Here is an addition to Myers-Briggs theory. There is another dimension besides the S/N, F/T, P/J one. That is one of *developed action*. A user may not have developed their favorite function. They may not have developed their "shadow" function. This is not just overlooked. It's not part of the Myers-Briggs theory unless I've missed it.


Indeed, not part of the MB theory, but certaily is present in Jung's theory. Known as the individuation process. There can be more difference between two people of the same type that are on a different level if individuation than between two different types which are on the same level of individuation, ESPECIALLY when they're more individuated, which is quite a funny word to use for something that brings two opposites_ together_ through conscious perfection and which is acheived through the _integration_ of ones role in society(aka function or in your words - developed action).

Slowly reading through the threads, will likely have more comments to add.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> This may not be a direct reply to what you said. I would put it this way. What you call "abstract, idealistic reasoning", I would call working with *generalizations*. "Checking things out".is working with *specifics* with the attempt to either make generalizations clear or to look for exceptions to those generalizations. I value specifics (Si) because they are a challenge to break generalizations.


What you're describing here is the Ne-Si process that INTPs use for the sake of testing out their mental models. This is what has allowed Jung to distill thousands of his patients into clearly distinct psychological types. For Jung what mattered most was figuring out the significance of the appearance of constantly reoccuring processes which have captured his attention throughout his lifetime. These are what first started to form the subject which was of concern to him - his logical model of psychological types, hence having a subjective logical process- it divorces from the object, through Ne(generalizations), then brought back to certain objects through Si(specifications). Bring that full circle to my previous comment on what Ti at its finest looks like. The universality of applicability of his subjective model is a true testament to the caliber of his thinking.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> First I'll address what you said according to my perspective. No. Flow isn't only mood. All feeling is a flow in the physiological bodily sense. Something is going on within the body, noticed by the brain. If it is conscious, that I call "feeling." Anger is a flow against something. Affection is a flow toward something. Fear is a flow to avoid something. I see "mood" as a flow circling around without naming what.


All those feelings you've mentioned appear to me in jumps. They're never a flow. it's as if a messenger comes once in a while and says "Sir, you've got a feeling package, here, check out what it is". Thinking on the other hand is constant and ever changing, I'm more aware of the differences between the contents of thinking than the content itself at times. Hence, it's a flow for me.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Fru2 said:


> All those feelings you've mentioned appear to me in jumps. They're never a flow. it's as if a messenger comes once in a while and says "Sir, you've got a feeling package, here, check out what it is". Thinking on the other hand is constant and ever changing, I'm more aware of the differences between the contents of thinking than the content itself at times. Hence, it's a flow for me.


Interruptions of “thought-flows” is the goal of many types of meditation practices, said to involve the default mode network.

I wonder how DMN research might relate to the concept of continuity in thinking and feeling domains.









Distant from input: Evidence of regions within the default mode network supporting perceptually-decoupled and conceptually-guided cognition


The default mode network supports a variety of mental operations such as semantic processing, episodic memory retrieval, mental time travel and mind-w…




www.sciencedirect.com





Does this also suggest the subject vs object orientation? How funny.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Fru2 said:


> Object at hand for the individual, subject at hand for the individual. Your logical framework is the subject by which you assess the object of your choosing, in INTPs case that's Ne options/potentialities. Introverted functions are subjective, being attached and specific to the person(subject) rather than external 'objects'.


I'll try to remember that. Isn't it true that introverted function subjects if sent out there can turn into objects? A simple example is some Ti person can propose water can be either hot or cold. Lo and behold some Te people can verify that.



Fru2 said:


> Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity. "


Should external facts generate an idea, the prospective idea owner must have some capacity to hold the idea. Learning is involved which may not be inevitable.



Fru2 said:


> Indeed, not part of the MB theory, but certainly is present in Jung's theory. Known as the *individuation *process.


Good for Jung. I would call it "*development.*" I had a girlfriend who studied "developmental psychology." I take that to mean going from a lessor maturity to a greater one. The MBTI would do well to add this dimension.



Fru2 said:


> For Jung what mattered most was figuring out the significance of the appearance of constantly reoccuring processes which have captured his attention throughout his lifetime.


Bravo for Jung!



Fru2 said:


> All those feelings you've mentioned appear to me in jumps. They're never a flow. it's as if a messenger comes once in a while and says "Sir, you've got a feeling package, here, check out what it is". Thinking on the other hand is constant and ever changing, I'm more aware of the differences between the contents of thinking than the content itself at times. Hence, it's a flow for me.


Ah. An apparent contradiction. What (?) appears in jumps? I had said, "Anger is a flow against something. Affection is a flow toward something. Fear is a flow to avoid something." What jump do you see? I'm talking about the feeling once you're in the feeling. Certainly one feeling move to another, but that's outside the feeling.


----------

