# Sticky  Intro to Function Theory + More Detailed Descriptions of Each Function Attitude



## MensSuperMateriam

simulatedworld said:


> Te and Fi go hand in hand for the same reasons Fe and Ti do. Fi and Ti also contradict each other because one says you should form subjective value judgments through personal feelings and the other says you should do it through impersonal, so-called "natural logic" and deliberately block out personal feelings.


I understand why Fi is contradicted by Ti. Ti seeks, by a subjective thinking process, a universal truth, which includes also a "universal moral system". So Ti improves Fe by blocking Fi option.

But I don't see why Te and Fe are not compatible. Could you explain?


----------



## Eric B

It would be the same reason Ti and Fi contradict. Same orientation; opposite "personal vs impersonal" valuation.


----------



## simulatedworld

Eric B said:


> It would be the same reason Ti and Fi contradict. Same orientation; opposite "personal vs impersonal" valuation.


Haven't we disagreed about this like 200x on typo-c?


----------



## Linnifae

This helped me understand the function much better than before. ..and convinces me even more of my type. thanks


----------



## MensSuperMateriam

Eric B said:


> It would be the same reason Ti and Fi contradict. Same orientation; opposite "personal vs impersonal" valuation.


Your explanation is a bit simplistic. I know they should contradict by an argument like yours, but I'm not sure to see "the process". We can think over why Ti dom makes non-viable its coexistence with Fi, as I wrote. A process, not a simple rule. But I don't see this in the case of Te+Fe. 

I want to understand the processes in order to truly understand how functions work, so I could recognize them properly when they manifest in others.

Te only explanation I see as more or less convincing is that one Ji funcion is needed, at least ,in order to construct the ego, the self consciousness. But in this case Te and Fe don't truly contradict as happens with Ti+Fi.


----------



## simulatedworld

MensSuperMateriam said:


> Your explanation is a bit simplistic. I know they should contradict by an argument like yours, but I'm not sure to see "the process". We can think over why Ti dom makes non-viable its coexistence with Fi, as I wrote. A process, not a simple rule. But I don't see this in the case of Te+Fe.
> 
> I want to understand the processes in order to truly understand how functions work, so I could recognize them properly when they manifest in others.
> 
> Te only explanation I see as more or less convincing is that one Ji funcion is needed, at least ,in order to construct the ego, the self consciousness. But in this case Te and Fe don't truly contradict as happens with Ti+Fi.


Te and Fe do contradict each other because the criteria for their objective organizational methods of the external world are based on impersonal vs. personal criteria. In reality there's really no separation; it's just two fluid processes: TiFe vs. FiTe. Yin and yang.

This may be less obvious to an introvert, but the extroverted processes are just as much a part of the ego as the introverted ones...they just base their criteria on different things.


----------



## Eric B

simulatedworld said:


> Haven't we disagreed about this like 200x on typo-c?


OK, I forgot about that. Forget for the moment exactly what aspect of this stuff we were debating about.
What you just said immediately above this post is what I was trying to convey, as quickly as possible. "the criteria for their objective organizational methods of the external world are based on impersonal vs personal criteria." 

So is Materiam suggesting that Te/Fe shouldn't contradict as much because an external orientation would be less prone to incompatibility than an internal (universal/personal) one? 

I can see why one would think so. Still, these are two opposite perspectives of the same environment.


----------



## Jonny0207

First of all, this is totally awesome!


But... as an English second language I kinda struggle with your phrasing...


----------



## MensSuperMateriam

Eric B said:


> So is Materiam suggesting that Te/Fe shouldn't contradict as much because an external orientation would be less prone to incompatibility than an internal (universal/personal) one?


Exactly. I was only trying to see the functions as deeply as possible. Anyway, I agree with you (both of you).

Thinking in all combinations, two options are not considered yet: FiFe; TiTe.

The first is impossible; it would imply the individual is unable to take decisions about what is true/false (zero inteligence? a zombie?). But, what about the second? Could this kind of combination be the basis for a psycho? A psychopath, not a sociopath, terms sometimes confused.


----------



## Eric B

The way I look at those now, is that there are really only *four* functions, to begin with, in the original Jungian conception. The ego can orient them in either one orientation or the other, creating the eight "function-attitudes", and thus their respective "world-views". We treat them like these eight solid things, but they are really four coins with two sides each. That's why the MBTI scoring system and the code is constructed as I + N + T + P, rather than Ti + Ne (like the cognitive process test).
So looking at it that way, when an ego engages a function, it will _prefer_ one orientation, but can sometimes engage the other orientation as needed. They back each other up.


----------



## simulatedworld

Eric B said:


> OK, I forgot about that. Forget for the moment exactly what aspect of this stuff we were debating about.
> What you just said immediately above this post is what I was trying to convey, as quickly as possible. "the criteria for their objective organizational methods of the external world are based on impersonal vs personal criteria."
> 
> So is Materiam suggesting that Te/Fe shouldn't contradict as much because an external orientation would be less prone to incompatibility than an internal (universal/personal) one?
> 
> I can see why one would think so. Still, these are two opposite perspectives of the same environment.


I think we've debated shadow functions a few times where you seemed to be arguing that shadow functions are used normally and frequently by everyone all the time, and I was trying to explain that they're contradicting perspectives, etc.

Anyway I imagine Materiam's position here has to do with him being generally unfamiliar with Je, being an IxxP type, so it's much easier for him to understand how Ji can be part of the ego, since he himself is Ji dominant.

If Je is your dominant function, however, it's much easier to understand firsthand how strongly the two Je attitudes oppose each other.


----------



## Eric B

> I think we've debated shadow functions a few times where you seemed to be arguing that shadow functions are used normally and frequently by everyone all the time, and I was trying to explain that they're contradicting perspectives, etc.


OK; that's right.
I've been for the longest trying to solidify my understanding of how and when these things surface, and when it's really other functions simulating them, or just plain undifferentiated (i.e. *not* type-specific and archetypal) functions.

I've finally got a working answer to five questions I had compiled as to understand the whole thing in a nutshell. Just posted this over there on the old "Archetypes of the Functions" sticky:

1) What exactly triggers them in us
2) How others' "use" (manifestation) of them affects us
3) how they affect ourselves, inside
4) how we use them on others
5) when the "good" or "bad" sides of them surface 

So it seems

1) The [archetypal] complexes (personal unconscious) are triggered when a situation invokes a memory of an event associated with the corresponding archetype. Like something that makes us feel inferior, adversarial or cranky; or makes us feel trapped, or feels like evil. We then view this through the perspective of the associated function-attitude. 

2)Others manifestations of these functions may trigger these memories, and affect us in kind. (i.e. according to the archetype, and it's functional perspective). Otherwise, they will be subject to how they fit the ego's goals (positively, no effect, etc). 

3)We normally see the functional perspectives as "*irrelevent*" (or sometimes even have an aversion to them), and under stress, take them on in a rash, haphazard way. Again, the products of the undifferentiated functions do not have this effect on us when not in conflict with the ego. 

4)We *project* them onto others, in which we see the other person as the archetype. (This can be either from them truly acting in a way that matches (resonates with) the archetypal complex, or likely more often, just our manufacturing the illusion of such when a situation somehow evokes it). We then react to them in the same way. (adversarial, critical, etc). The goal is to see these archetypes in ourselves rather than project them. 

5)The positive effects surface more either in certain instances of stress when the primary counterparts cannot solve the problem. Otherwise, it is when we "own" the associated complexes and withdraw them, that we gain more conscious access to the functional perspectives. (And of course, there is also the "undifferentiated" normal everyday use of the function).
--------------------------------

So I think part of it was that we were misunderstanding each other over the meaning of "*normally and frequently...all the time*". I couldn't quite put my finger on any kind of "frequency", so I simply argued that they were likely used more than you (and others like Lenore) seemed to be saying. 

But now in this light, it should not seem so "normal" or "all the time". It is in specific occurrences when these things are triggered.


----------



## Robopop

Know what, I've always thought NPs should have their own temperament. They all share Ne and have some similar traits, in fact, INTPs and ENTPs might be closer to INFPs and ENFPs than they are to INTJs and ENTJs. TPs, TJs,FPs, and FJs share dom/aux judging functions and NJs, SJs, SPs, and NPs share dom/aux perceiving functions, doesn't this make more sense function wise? This is also* another* reason I don't like Socionics, ENTp and INTj share the same functions for example, but it is easier for me to group them according to which introverted and extroverted functions types share than whether their judging or perceiving dom.


----------



## Eric B

All of the MBTI two letter groups have some use. NP actually is part of Interaction Styles, when divided by I/E, and then the S+T/F group is added in.

Here are all of the symmetrical two letter groups. You can even see that one person, Janet Germane, also preferred the S/N + Jp (across the board), and named NP and NJ the true form of two of Keirsey's original temperaments:

E/I + S/N (ETB: "language styles") 

ES extraverted dominant function, preferred perception function is Sensing (expressive, concrete)
EN extraverted dominant function, preferred perception function is iNtuition (expressive, abstract)
IS introverted dominant function, preferred perception function is Sensing (reserved, concrete)
IN introverted dominant function, preferred perception function is iNtuition (reserved, abstract) 

E/I + T/F (ETB: "Social image temperaments") 

EF extraverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Feeling (ETB: "expressive feelers")
ET extraverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Thinking (ETB: "expressive thinkers")
IF introverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Feeling (ETB: "deep feelers")
IT introverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Thinking (ETB: "deep thinkers") 

E/I + J/P ("Sociability Temperaments" —George Frisbie writing in JPT) 

EP dominant extraverted perceiving (Bissell: "extraverted eMpiricals" —Jung's "irrationals")
EJ dominant extraverted judging (Bissell: "extraverted Rationals", not to be confused with Keirsey's "Rational")
IP dominant introverted judging/aux. extraverted perceiving (Bissell: "introverted Rationals")
IJ dominant introverted perceiving/aux. extroverted judging (Bissell: "introverted eMpiricals") 

S/N + T/F (Original Myers "Temperaments"; preferred function combinations) 

SF preferred Sensing and Feeling (Concrete Feeling, concrete [role-]informatives)
ST preferred Sensing and Thinking (Concrete Thinking, concrete directives)
NF preferred iNtuiting and Feeling (Abstract Feeling; Apollonian/Idealist)
NT preferred iNtuiting and Thinking (Abstract Thinking; Promethean/Rational) 

S/N + J/P ("Cognitive Temperaments", "Germane Temperaments", "Perceiving attitudes") 

SP preferred extraverted Sensing (Dionysian/Artisan)
SJ preferred introverted Sensing (Epimethean/Guardian)
NP preferred extraverted iNtuiting (abstract informatives; [Janet] Germane: true Apollonian)
NJ preferred introverted iNtuiting (abstract directives; Germane: True Promethean) 

T/F + J/P ("Myers/McCaulley groups", "Normative Temperaments", "Judging temperament model", "Judging attitudes") 

TJ preferred extraverted Thinking (Bissell: "the most directive")
TP preferred introverted Thinking (Bissell: "the most pragmatic")
FJ preferred extraverted Feeling (Bissell: "the most cooperative")
FP preferred introverted Feeling (Bissell: "the most friendly")


----------



## simulatedworld

Robopop said:


> Know what, I've always thought NPs should have their own temperament. They all share Ne and have some similar traits, in fact, INTPs and ENTPs might be closer to INFPs and ENFPs than they are to INTJs and ENTJs. TPs, TJs,FPs, and FJs share dom/aux judging functions and NJs, SJs, SPs, and NPs share dom/aux perceiving functions, doesn't this make more sense function wise? This is also* another* reason I don't like Socionics, ENTp and INTj share the same functions for example, but it is easier for me to group them according to which introverted and extroverted functions types share than whether their judging or perceiving dom.


I completely agree; this is why I hate Keirsey's NT and NF categories. SP and SJ are reasonable groupings because they're united by Se and Si respectively, but NT/NF doesn't make sense.

I've always found NTP more similar to NFP than it is to NTJ. NTJ is more similar to NFJ than it is to NTP. NTP shares no functions with NTJ (same for NFP and NFJ), so where is the reasoning in this category? Simply having some form of N and some form of T as the top two functions doesn't create enough similarities in internal reasoning for NT to make any sense.

Personally, I think the best temperaments would be EP/IP/EJ/IJ, but if we're not going to do that, then at least use SP/SJ/NP/NJ. That would make a lot more sense.


----------



## Eric B

Remember; Keirsey's temperaments are based on Galen, via Kretschmer. NT is anasthetic, and NF is hyperesthetic. Between them, one is "Choleric", and the other, "Phlegmatic". Where I differ from Keirsey is in which is which. Both NTP's and NTJ's dogged "toughmindedness", is classic Choleric. They *are* very similar in some ways, on the surface. Likewise, the NF's diplomacy and need for peace is Phlegmatic. (Then, SJ is Melancholic, and SP is Sanguine).

So they do have meaning, though in a separate framework from MBTI. And the similarly a-symmetrical E/I + S + T/F; E/I + N + J/P groups also tie to the old temperaments; such that each type is a blend of "humours" like you see in 4-Marks or LaHaye. Tis is also a very informative way of categorizing personality.

I discuss this more here:
http://personalitycafe.com/personal...93-who-here-knows-about-has-taken-firo-b.html


----------



## RafaelEnvoy

NPs need a cool name though. Call them "Wonderers".


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow

RafaelEnvoy said:


> NPs need a cool name though. Call them "Wonderers".


there is already a label for NPs, it's called ADD


----------



## MensSuperMateriam

I was thinking about this. I'm trying to "see" precisely how this strange kind of perception called Ni works. I describe it as "strange" because for an INTP, who is judging dominant instead perceptive dominant, and in a way incompatible with Ni, it seems so.

I'm not only trying to "intuit" Ni (more or less, everybody could do this, more after reading the descriptions in the first post), I'm trying to exactly sistematize the process. The first I realized is that I cannot speak about Ni without considering the pair Ni+Te (or Ni+Fe, but I will use the Te for because it's more familiar to me).

I will compare the solutions presented for the same problem from Ti+Ne and Te+Ni perspectives:

A=chair. B=table. To evaluate: is A equal to B?

Ti: internal evaluation, ie, in the process (while it is working) external world is irrelevant. The comparison could then only be realized with the information adquired before the evaluation started. This imply that the elements to be compared must have exact definitions, and a set of rules also previously stablished (fixed while evaluating), otherwise a conclusion cannot be reached. So, Ti, being internal, needs exact definitions. Ti will compare concept A with concept B.
Answer: NO.

Te: external evaluation, ie, in the process of evaluation, external world has the last word. Comparison using external world imply experimenting, so the answer is not a conceptual answer but a functional answer. The "experiment" could be something like this: if you eat on a chair, then a chair is like a table; if you sit on a table, then a table is like a chair. Experimentation requires adapting concepts to the multiple situations, so it must be more diffuse, less fixed than with Ti. 
Answer: YES (=could be).

It might seem then that Ti is "more stupid" than Te, but not really. Ti could realize the problem as well as Te, but prefering fixed concepts, will consider it irrelevant for a first answer. When Ti see that the chair/table concepts are inadequate for covering all the possibilities, will change the concept for another concept that could cover all the known situations, but still fixing it for comparing. Or will stablish a newer and broader concept like "forniture" that includes chair and table and could be used in more situations. Te is an "experiment generator" and "analogic comparator" while Ti is a "concept generator" and "digital comparator". 

Each one has its advantages and disadvantages. It seems to me that Te is faster than Ti when reaching a conclusion, but less powerful than Ti. Because if the concept is diffuse, you can more or less adapt it according to your needs, while if it is exact you need to redefine it in a more abrupt way or to stablish a new concept, what could imply a more radical change in the vision of reality (Einstein, relativity). 

If Ti thinks by fixed concepts, then its companion Ne should also see by fixed concepts. Ne generates ideas by combinations of external world elements: significants. It seems logic to me that the external world concepts, at least in a first pass, should be fixed, because if not, oneself could not distinguish clearly between one element and other, so they couldn't be recombined in new patterns.

If Te thinks by unfixed concepts, then its companion Ni should also see by unfixed concepts. Being oriented internally, Ni cannot recombine significants, which exist outside, only what exists inside (meanings). So the concepts should be enough unfixed, if not, no new ideas (new meanings, new points of views) could be generated. The example of chair and table overlapping their meanings clearly shows this.

Of course, all of this is the two radical poles. Everybody has more or less both faculties, but prefers using one instead other.


----------



## MensSuperMateriam

I've also been thinking about another idea: the influence of cognitive functions in beliefs, as pointed in this post:



simulatedworld said:


> For most religious people, whether or not the idea of God as a conscious entity is literally true is really not the point. Religious Si users like the idea because it's familiar and gives them a sense of stability; religious Fe users like the sense of community and moral guidance; religious Te users like that it provides a set of rules they can hold everyone accountable for following; religious Ni users figure human perception is inherently too limited to know the nature of God anyway, and so on and so forth. You're never going to sway them with Ti arguments because they don't operate on the fundamental axioms of Ti in the first place.


Being the idea of "God" an empty concept, everyone will full it according to oneself mental processes. So maybe it is possible to determine cognitive functions asking to a subject about his/her beliefs. But not considering the answer, but the way this subject constructed the answer (because not always the same functions will produce the same answer).

The challenge is to find the appropiate questions, which will not be "corrupted" by "experimental conditions". For example: if you ask to someone why he/she believes in God, maybe this subject will think "this person is rational, I will not show my emotional reasons because he could think I'm stupid". But if you ask "why do you think other people believe/not believe? As his/her ego is not being threatened, it's easier the answer could be more sincere: an "empathized answer" (F>T) or a "rationalized answer" (T>F).

Other questions could then distinguish between Ti-Te.

It seems easier to me first distinguish between the dichotomy and later between the orientation of dichotomy. For example, an intuitive subject often will doubt about his/her concept of god, and probably changed over time, whereas the concept in a sensitive subject more or less will be static, will not doubt about the interpretation of the idea.

What do you think? Obviously this will not be as effective as a deep observations of cognitive functions results in multiple situations, but it seems to me that for a first approximation, it could be enough precise, more than a standard MBTI test, and much quicker.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

That might be Te and Fi, though it doesn't have to be.


----------



## pushit

JungyesMBTIno said:


> That might be Te and Fi, *though it doesn't have to be*.


What do you mean by the bolded? I'm sorry, that just sounds a little vague to me.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

sinsandsecrets said:


> What do you mean by the bolded? I'm sorry, that just sounds a little vague to me.


Yea, it's vague. I think in the sense that a Te "mentality" would represent someone trying to reason at face value, where the idea leads back to some generally accepted idea/fact, is where that might apply, although having this as a concern itself would not represent Te - it would just represent the concern, which "might" be dealt with via Te - that's how I took it anyway. Actually, this is where I really question whether or not I can be legitimately called a Te type - I'm not sure my thinking is all that focused on generally accepted ideas (might be more of a situational thing, unless I'm misconstruing something), other than perhaps as a way for people to catch onto my points or maybe as a way to demonstrate knowledge/deal with information. It's a little frustrating - the only real reason I go with Te would be sort of vague things, like being able to manage "formulae" in order to make inductions and all that mentioned in Jung - and mainly because I identify with Fi>Fe (but for my type, the original MBTI model might support something like Ni-T-F-Se, or Ni-Ti-Fi-Se, etc.). So why I'm talking about me, because that's the best I can give you on Te - I honestly don't have the greatest sense around for how much of a Te type I am, even though I suspect it for kind of minimal reasons that might as well be pretty vague, hard to explain, and overall, a relative comparison.


----------



## pushit

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yea, it's vague. I think in the sense that a Te "mentality" would represent someone trying to reason at face value, where the idea leads back to some generally accepted idea/fact, is where that might apply, although having this as a concern itself would not represent Te - it would just represent the concern, which "might" be dealt with via Te - that's how I took it anyway. Actually, this is where I really question whether or not I can be legitimately called a Te type - I'm not sure my thinking is all that focused on generally accepted ideas (might be more of a situational thing, unless I'm misconstruing something), other than perhaps as a way for people to catch onto my points or maybe as a way to demonstrate knowledge/deal with information. It's a little frustrating - the only real reason I go with Te would be sort of vague things, like being able to manage "formulae" in order to make inductions and all that mentioned in Jung - and mainly because I identify with Fi>Fe (but for my type, the original MBTI model might support something like Ni-T-F-Se, or Ni-Ti-Fi-Se, etc.). So why I'm talking about me, because that's the best I can give you on Te - I honestly don't have the greatest sense around for how much of a Te type I am, even though I suspect it for kind of minimal reasons that might as well be pretty vague, hard to explain, and overall, a relative comparison.


I mean, sometimes I think I'm Te-ish because I can question my opinion if two or more people (usually) disagree with me on something, and I usually need external validation if I'm not sure of something. But then I may question that external output.


----------



## Eric B

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yea, it's vague. I think in the sense that a Te "mentality" would represent someone trying to reason at face value, where the idea leads back to some generally accepted idea/fact, is where that might apply, although having this as a concern itself would not represent Te - it would just represent the concern, which "might" be dealt with via Te - that's how I took it anyway. Actually, this is where I really question whether or not I can be legitimately called a Te type - I'm not sure my thinking is all that focused on generally accepted ideas (might be more of a situational thing, unless I'm misconstruing something), other than perhaps as a way for people to catch onto my points or maybe as a way to demonstrate knowledge/deal with information. It's a little frustrating - the only real reason I go with Te would be sort of vague things, like being able to manage "formulae" in order to make inductions and all that mentioned in Jung - and mainly because I identify with Fi>Fe (but for my type, the original MBTI model might support something like Ni-T-F-Se, or Ni-Ti-Fi-Se, etc.). So why I'm talking about me, because that's the best I can give you on Te - I honestly don't have the greatest sense around for how much of a Te type I am, even though I suspect it for kind of minimal reasons that might as well be pretty vague, hard to explain, and overall, a relative comparison.


 It might be obscured for you, because of the dominant Ni. Whan we say "thinking", it can be hard to tell where true T ends, and N begins, and being internal and dominant, it will color everything in your processes.


----------



## Elyasis

Eric B said:


> It might be obscured for you, because of the dominant Ni. Whan we say "thinking", it can be hard to tell where true T ends, and N begins, and being internal and dominant, it will color everything in your processes.



Wondering if an INTP gets confused on Ne and Ni as the Ti colors their perceptions just as assuredly as Ni colors Ni-doms perceptions. Or IS their perception in the case of Ni. Or is this sort of thing easier when your dominant is a judging function?

Or am I over thinking things again?



sinsandsecrets said:


> I mean, sometimes I think I'm Te-ish because I can question my opinion if two or more people (usually) disagree with me on something, and I usually need external validation if I'm not sure of something. But then I may question that external output.


I would say it depends on what your opinion is about. If it's whether there are 7 billion people in the world and you are going by the general consensus based on estimates by the census bureau then that's Te. Ti, I guess would disagree if they had a better model that could estimate to a closer and more accurate degree, but they would still preface that it's only an estimate.

Now if it's about over-population due to that figure and whether it is moral to continue to have offspring/have more than 1 or 2. Fe might agree that it is or isn't moral based on the overall opinion of the society they are in. Fi would have personal justifications for the ethics of "being fruitful and multiplying" or abstaining from reproduction. They are both concerned with the good/bad, right/wrong, kind/mean and so on dichotomies. It's the focus on the outward or inward ideals that change. 

:mellow: I guess.


----------



## Eric B

Elyasis said:


> Wondering if an INTP gets confused on Ne and Ni as the Ti colors their perceptions just as assuredly as Ni colors Ni-doms perceptions. Or IS their perception in the case of Ni. Or is this sort of thing easier when your dominant is a judging function?


 I do know a lot of INTPs get high Ni on the K2C. (I don't; it's always my weakest). Dominant judging might make it easier, but not sure. With every person, it's probably different.


----------



## Bricolage

> Ti/Fe = I think/We feel; Fi/Te = I feel/We think


That's incredibly accurate and simple. I may have to lighten you of that one. :tongue:


----------



## stoicBrit

pro at filing said:


> Glad to see people found that post interesting
> That book is definitely a recommended read.
> 
> 
> They had a group of university students do a short daily session of image streaming for a few weeks, and found, on average, an increase in IQ. Actually, they were comparing this mental training with another, more "classic" if you will, program designed to enhance students' learning abilities, and found that image streaming increased IQ by more than the other program. Moreover, it made the students' learning style more rounded.
> 
> 
> Congratulations, you're one of the people who hasn't had that ability "trained out" of them
> 
> 
> One could speculate that Ni dominant people will, even as they grow older, take a larger interest in their image stream than people of other types (and may subsequently be less likely to get out of touch with it), but the thinking is that almost everyone has it.


I have a very strong stream of image and generally think visually rather then words but I read in a book called 'The Dyslexia advantage' that strong visual thinking is vary common in people with Dyslexia like myself.I would be interested to hear if anyone else with Dyslexia has this ability too.


----------



## angelina.jhon

ung used the term “function” to explain ways we use our brain to *gather information and make decisions*. Sensing and Intuiting are his “irrational”, perceiving, information-gathering functions; Thinking and Feeling are his “rational”, judging, decision-making functions.
Jung described our direction and source of mental energy (“libido”) as an *Extraversion or Introversion *“attitude”. Since all functions can occur in both attitudes, we end up with eight function-attitudes (a term probably first coined by Henry L. Thompson).
They are:
Extraverted Sensing *Se*; Introverted Sensing *Si*; Extraverted Intuiting *Ne*; Introverted Intuiting *Ni*; Extraverted Thinking *Te*; Introverted Thinking *Ti*; Extraverted Feeling *Fe*; and Introverted Feeling *Fi*.
Over the next 8 days, we’ll go into a little more detail about each of these.
*You have access to and use all eight function-attitudes*, but they show up differently according to where they are in the hierarchy of your personality preferences.
I got four letters on this test, but I don’t remember what they are…If you have taken the MBTI(r) or another personality type indicator, you probably received a four-letter code. *Your type code is short-hand* for the type dynamics and patterns that lie within. For example, someone with ESFJ preferences has Fe as their lead, dominant, first function; someone with INTP preferences has Fe as their inferior, aspirational, fourth function; someone with ENTJ preferences has Fe as their demonic, eighth function.
Type describes the *patterns* that those mental preferences bring to who you are and how you behave. Don’t break the code into its segments (e.g. to describe someone as a “Sensor” or a “Feeler”), because it’s only the context of the whole type that accurately reflects your personality and mental processes.
I can do all functions equally wellCongratulations! Sadly, you’re probably kidding yourself.
*The function you develop first* as your dominant is usually the one you are most comfortable with and most skilled at. It is also the one that is most under your conscious control. The further we go down the list, the less ability we generally have, right down to the eighth function that we probably use with least effectiveness. Until we become aware of the processes and work at improving them, of course.
*Dr. John Beebe*, noted Jungian analyst, developed a model where he charted the eight function-attitudes to archetypes. *Archetypes are universal images* that represent the human experience. He calls the first four function-attitudes ego-syntonic, or experienced as part of the self, and the last four ego-dystonic, or experienced as foreign to the self. In other words, those are behaviors and attributes we may *project onto something or someone else* without recognizing that they are part of us, inside us.


----------



## Noetic

Hey does anyone know what theorist this guy got his ideas from? Was it Lenore Thomson? That was the only theorist he really mentioned that I thought it could be. I'm asking because I've seen these ideas - this particular way of sorting the functions (e.g. the Pe, Pi, Je, Ji dichotomies) in other people's explanations - but surely they must have come from a single original source. What was it?


----------



## LiquidLight

@simulatedworld heavily referenced Lenore Thomson when he was active. Not sure where he's at these days he was huge at Personality Nation for a while, but that site is no more.


----------



## Noetic

I'm still curious to know the original source of the Pi, Pe, Ji, Je labels though - do you know where they come from?


----------



## ToplessOrange

It seems like I'm completely Introverted. Ni, Fi, Si, Ti, and Ne sound like me the most. Not in any order.

However, I've always found myself more likely to find ambivert descriptions to resonate with me. It could simply be working mostly on Ne-Ni, which would make me more ENTP than INTP. This is all very curious, being introverted making it possible for me to be more extroverted.

I'd like to read more on this. Take me away, Google!


----------



## vertigo12314

Are there examples on how we can practice these types we want to learn (for inferior functions)?


----------



## Bear987

I cannot make heads or tails of this. Does that mean I am stupid - or what does that say about my type? :laughing:


----------



## Grain of Sugar

simulatedworld said:


> *Fe, or extroverted Feeling is dominant for ExFJ, secondary for IxFJ, tertiary for ExTP and inferior for IxTP. It is an attitude that encourages adherence to the ethics of the cultural/social/familial groups we feel emotionally connected to. Fe leads you to derive your moral viewpoints from some sort of externalized consensus. This doesn't mean you automatically fall in line with whatever moral viewpoints happen to surround you, just that (unlike the accompanying Ti view on logic as something you don't need external input to understand) you don't see how ethics can be decided reasonably without some sort of external context. (Fe views ethics as dependent upon collective consensus in the same way Te views logic/impersonal ideas.)*


Well, it's my inferior function. And I don't really get it. If the whole world something is right, I don't have to think it's right, but I try to see why people think/feel it's right. or what? :/ Getting confused right now. Can anyone explain it a bit differently?


----------



## Dewymorning

The OP is amazing. 


Reading it made me feel more assured of my type but has also made me aware of how much bullshit is said on this site. 
@proudtobeme if you are online can you read the first post? I would like to discuss the insights I had while reading it with you.


----------



## jay.x

Bless the OP. This post has helped me so much


----------



## Adam Stewart

*dots connect*
THANK YOU.

Seriously, making me understand everything holistically is a task often unfulfilled when reading on cognitive functions. Modern day Si's that I mistyped make much more sense to me!


----------



## Nilo

A wonderful post! Thank you sincerely!


----------



## Hero902

Very well writed post, congratulations. Helped me a lot, i was having some troubles understanding the cognitive functions.

Thank you


----------



## Reggie

simulatedworld said:


> Technically that might make the point a little clearer, but Fi constitutes such a large part of any FP's personality (excepting EFPs in dom/tert loops) that immature Fi for them is virtually always going to translate into an immature person.
> 
> But if it makes it easier to understand, sure, think of it as "mature Fi" or "immature Fi." That works too.


Thanks for the great post! 
What is (mature/) immature Fe, Ti, Te?


----------



## Lolo74

Fantastic! Thanks a million!


----------



## Eric B

Reggie said:


> Thanks for the great post!
> What is (mature/) immature Fe, Ti, Te?


 That's a way of saying less developed, or underdeveloped. It would then manifest its more negative side.
Like since he was discussing Fi, I would say that the common stereotype of Fi as saying "I don't care what others feel; I only care about what I feel" would be at most an "immature" Fi. (And more likely a TJ's tertiary or inferior reaction, or even a TP or FJ's shadow).
It's true that Fi references its own standard rather than an objective one like Fe, but since F in general involves the "personal", a mature Fi would be able to infer the needs of others from within, and accomplish the same sort of interpersonal dynamics as Fe referencing others the directly.


----------



## yumchesspie

All of my functions make sense after reading this except for the thinking. I feel like I do both introverted and extroverted thinking. I can definitely have circular debates featuring hypothetical situations in which I try to justify how they could happen. I can also focus on details in a discussion and miss or ignore the big picture. But pairing this with introverted intuition, I can come across as absurd and so I do try to link my final "truths" to an external objective. I would go ahead and say that I'm more of an extroverted thinker, but I certainly have times during which I completely immerse myself in something and want to know anything and everything I can find about it just for the sake of it. But maybe I just think I do that, which is why I can't trust what I think. All the other INTJ functions make sense and I'm pretty sure the order is correct, so I'll keep going with that for now.


----------



## ten

Anyone know why the user was banned? It's too bad since the article explained so much.


----------



## TheEpicPolymath

Thanks a lot!


----------



## Eric B

yumchesspie said:


> All of my functions make sense after reading this except for the thinking. I feel like I do both introverted and extroverted thinking. I can definitely have circular debates featuring hypothetical situations in which I try to justify how they could happen. I can also focus on details in a discussion and miss or ignore the big picture. But pairing this with introverted intuition, I can come across as absurd and so I do try to link my final "truths" to an external objective. I would go ahead and say that I'm more of an extroverted thinker, but I certainly have times during which I completely immerse myself in something and want to know anything and everything I can find about it just for the sake of it. But maybe I just think I do that, which is why I can't trust what I think. All the other INTJ functions make sense and I'm pretty sure the order is correct, so I'll keep going with that for now.


Don't know why I never got back to this one, but the "completely immersing and wanting to know everything about it just for the sake of it, is likely both iNtuition and Thinking together (and especially as a dominant introvert). For NiTe, the Ni would provide the deeper focus, where for TiNe, it's the Ti. The way to know the difference, is whether your "immersion" is more about the collecting of the information for its own sake, or determining true/false for its own sake.


----------



## Zee Bee

ten said:


> Anyone know why the user was banned? It's too bad since the article explained so much.


I also wondered.
By his hints, sounds like he is in jail - won't connect to the net.


----------



## Cesspool

That thing about perfect pitch being somehow related to Si is wrong. Absolute pitch has nothing at all to do with cognitive functions. Take that paragraph out, it damages the integrity of the rest of the post.


----------



## blingyeol

This is the best explanation I've read so far, all the others only made me utterly confused but this helped me with a lot of things. Well written, thank you :')


----------



## JacksonHeights

Great explanation! This made me realize that Fi isn't a "bad" function at all, but rather a really useful one when used right


----------



## Goetterdaemmerung

Very cool


----------



## Crowbo

I'm an ENTP with perfect pitch. I don't think it correlates with Si


----------

