# Function Definitions - How I understand them.



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

My Interpretation of the Functions

I apologize in advance for the many typos that I’m sure I missed, but anyways, hopefully this helps. I’d love to discuss this, so bring on the comments and questions!

What I am about to describe is a way of understanding the Jungian cognitive functions, that in my opinion, is superior to most of what’s out there. I’m not creating a new model; my aim here is to put some ideas out in the community and see if they resonate. There are a lot of different ideas behind what the functions mean, how many you can consciously “use”, and how they manifest themselves in daily life. So before I get started the first thing I’m going to do is state my assumptions. 

1. You can only use four of the functions cognitively. I’m actually going to present an argument for why this has to be the case, so you don’t need to take my word for this one.
2. I’m going to assume the remaining four cognitive functions reside in the shadow, which I will not discuss in this post.
3. The Jungian cognitive functions aren’t actually functions; they’re “lenses” or perspectives of looking at and valuing reality. (You don’t “use” *Te*, *Te* is a perspective and value system. What would be more appropriate to say is that you have a *Te *world view.) I’m sure I made the mistake at least once in this description, but old habits die hard.

One of the reasons MBTI and JCFs are so hard to understand is because they of the language used in their descriptions. There are certain key words or phrases that get used to describe certain functions and these key words or phrases get used over and over again. Some of that language is going to come out in my writing because a lot of it is true, but hopefully I’ll be able to add some insight for those trying to figure things out. 

My first proposition is that introverted functions are deconstructive in nature, while extroverted functions are constructive by nature. They are opposites not only in “direction” but in their values and perspective.

Deconstructive functions (*Ni*, *Si*, *Ti*, *Fi*) have to do with essence, it’s how you experience beauty by appreciating something on its purest level. I label these functions deconstructive because they aim to break reality down into its smallest elements and appreciate its structure and interconnection between its parts. As a result, users of these functions will value optimization through each of their lenses, and value the ultimate vision of each in its purist form. A lot of people confuse feeling essence with having *Ni*, but the truth is everyone feels it but with different things. When I say essence I’m talking about the soul, I’m talking about that deep, “being one with the universe” feeling. It’s personal and beautiful. Each of these functions have a “just knowing” quality to them that is often only attributed to *Ni*.

Constructive functions (*Ne*, *Se*, *Te*, *Fe*) have to do with creativity, it’s how you create a tangible difference in the world. A lot of people confuse creativity with *Ne*, but the truth is everyone feels it but in different concepts. Unlike the deconstructive functions, these functions value pragmatism instead of purity in its highest form. Instead of valuing abstract perfection above all else, it values execution. “But what about those with a dominate extroverted function!”, that’s a great question. Valuing perfection through one lens and pragmatism/execution in the other doesn’t necessarily mean that you value the “purity function” more. It’s just that the standards for what’s acceptable are different, *Ni* values the perfection abstraction above all else, *Fe* values that a moral consensus exist.

I think it’s easiest to understand the functions working together rather than strictly separate, so I’m just going to jump right in.

*The Judgment Functions*

*Ti* values breaking down a system into its most basic parts and witnessing the essence of its structure and interrelations. From the *Ti* user’s perspective, the goal is a perfect logical system, which can make them uncompromising in the pursuit of their vision. In my experience, this manifests as Ti users preferring analytical models to describe reality. In case not everyone here is a scientist, mathematician, or engineer I’ll explain what this is. Since *Ti* is about the complete logical model, it wants to include everything to get the most exact answer possible. In the movie shooter, Mark Walberg talks about how he has to incorporate the corioles affect (the earth’s rotation) into his calculations when taking a far shot. Think about that level of detail, that’s how far if you want to attempt completeness. *Fi* values breaking down the human experience, humanity as whole, or even just one person’s values, emotions, and beliefs into their most basic pieces and value the structure as beautiful. *Fi* users value the ultimate understanding and health of the human soul, and are against anything that marginalizes it.

*Te* and *Fe* are much simpler, instead of searching for the perfect system, the extroverted judging lens just values that system exists and works. Now let’s combine them.

These functions will always exist in pairs, as *Fi/Te* and *Fe/Ti*, so each user will trying to create their pure introverted vision using the opposite function. The reason you can’t view through *Fi/Fe* is because one part of the lens would value the purest moral system, the most humane that you can comprehend, and the other part would desire set that vision aside in the interest of making a system no one totally agrees with but endures because it’s consistent for everyone (*Fe* justified by *Ti*). It would be like one hand trying to feed you while the other slaps it away. You can’t have *Ti/Te* using the same line of logic. 

Instead, you pair thinking with feeling.

Here are some examples:

The Merciless:

*Fi/Te*: “What’s happening right now isn’t okay with me, it goes against everything that I perceive as good in this world (*Fi*), I have to protest, I have to institute some kind of system to stop it (*Te*). I will do whatever it takes to stop this injustice.”

The Merciful:

*Fi/Te*: “What’s happening right now isn’t okay with me, it goes against what everything that I perceive good in this world, but it isn’t this person’s fault. They have been neglected their whole life, they never felt validated or understood. Sure they have done some bad things, but through the lens of *Fi* their ‘internal human system’ is flawed and broken. We need to do something so this never happens again.”

*Fi/Te* can be absolutely merciless because the user can create impersonal drastic “do or die” ultimatums as a way of maintaining their pure vision. It also has the capacity to be the most merciful, identifying the beauty of the individual; the *Fi/Te* user will do whatever it takes to protect their vision of beauty. Using the language I’ve proposed, the *Fi* user is deconstructing the moral fabric of society, identifying the essence of everything that is good and defending it. They do this because their deconstruction function is *Fi*, and it is how they witness the beauty of reality.

*Ti/Fe* is the opposite, their source of beauty and essence comes from logical consistency. As the *Fi* user looks into your soul and feels crushed themselves as they see your pain, the *Ti* user feels the same when someone is treated unfairly. The almost tribal values of *Fe* are really just *Ti* logical consistently applied to moral systems. Social harmony is only possible through consistent and agreed upon moral rules. The *Fe/Ti* mindset values peace and social harmony by rules that not everyone may agree with, but people honor them because everyone does. *Ti* logic applied to human values sounds like: “I want to be nice to people because I want other people to be nice to me, what we need is consensus. Let’s bring everyone together, and make sure we’re on the same page”. This point of view is absolutely stifling and goes totally against *Fi/Te*, which holds human expression of values, emotions, and ideals as the pure. When looking through an introverted judging function’s lens, an extroverted function will look like a “sell out”.

Think of the difference when confronted with hate speech (assume neither people are targeted by it). I presented both sides:

Don’t allow it!

*Fi/Te*: “I believe in freedom of speech but what they’re saying is hurting people, this shouldn’t be allowed. (This person is hearing words of hate, imaging how hurtful the words are, and feel like something should be done to stop them.)”

*Ti/Fe:* “I believe in freedom of speech but what they’re saying is hurting people, this shouldn’t be allowed. If we’re ever going to move past these issues we’re going to have to put these issues behind us, they shouldn’t be allowed to have these kinds of rallies.”

Tolerate it!

*Fi/Te:* “I believe in freedom of speech but what they’re saying is hurting people. Although I disagree I think it should be allowed because I feel strongly in freedom of expression, and if I need to allow this hurtful speech to go on in order for me to get my way then so be it.”


*Ti/Fe*: “I believe in freedom of speech but what their saying is hurting people. Although I disagree with what they are saying on every point I feel like they should be allowed to say what they mean, because it says so in the constitution. So it’s fair for everyone, even though I don’t like it.”

Let’s bring some more fidelity by adding some perception functions.

*The Perceiving functions*

*Si* in my opinion is widely misunderstood JCF because it’s described as nostalgic and sentimental sensory experiences, the truth is its way more than that. *Si* is developed by experiencing things, but what it really is, is feeling a oneness and identity with a real world experience. As a deconstructive function, *Si* is taking an experience, breaking it down, and really understanding what is best about, and how to optimize it. The stereotypical *Si*-dom is an old man with highly ritualized behavior. As a boy he went fishing off a dock, but even though the lake dried up years ago he still goes to the lake and casts off the same dock, etc. It has nothing to do with this; it’s about living the perfect moment. The lens of *Si* values comfort and being at peace with literal reality, right now. Let’s address some stereotypes…

*Si *dom and aux users are often perceived as being down to earth, and in lot of ways simple. They enjoy a couple basic things and do those things as much as possible. It’s not that these people don’t enjoy new things now and again, but they experience beauty in appreciating the moment in a pure way. They don’t want to have a bunch of different experience as much as they want to have the perfect one, repeatedly. As purists of literal reality, they’re going find a great joy in experiencing all the details of reality. This is why *SJs* are often perceived as rule Nazis; they are all about doing the right thing, having the correct result. That’s because to an *SJ*, not having the right thing happen is just wrong, they’re going to take that situation apart. They’re going look at how it goes against the pure experience, as its been defined, because they really care what literally happens. Unresolved demands create unrest, going against what is ideal creates unrest. Although they are often perceived as dogmatic, it’s really not the case, they are just can’t relax until their tangible world demands have been met. In order to this, *SJs* limit the different types of moments they have, and maximize the ones they love the most. If an *SJ* loves to drive, drink beer while sitting in a chair, play fetch with a dog, fly a plane, travel to England, she’s going to do it as much as possible and have a highly optimized process for making it happen. The reason nostalgic experience gets lumped into this is because *SJs* are so focused on highly optimizing their experiences that they don’t do that many different ones. They tend to do the same ones over and over again because they do them in the first place for very specific reasons. They see the beauty in them, so when look at their “old baseball mitt” that they loved so much, it’s going remind them of all those perfect moments. It’s my theory that our introverted functions are the source of our nostalgia, so it’s not that *Si* is nostalgia, it’s just nostalgia in the colloquial sense.

Here are some examples with some judgment functions thrown in, these are just a continuation from before.

*Si/Fe/Ti* – *Creating in this moment the perfect human experience.* Ever since you were young you kept the same family traditions, even sat in the same places around the table. Now that you have a family of your own you want to do the same thing, you repeat everything to the “T” because this moment is special and brings you great joy. The idea of never being able to re live the same rituals over and over again makes you sick, it’s like a piece of you is dying inside. _Discourse will be civil, you must participate and if you don’t like it then keep it to yourself. Everyone has their own convictions and beliefs, everyone has stuff they have to do, but the rules are the same for everyone so it’s fair. You are however encouraged to speak your mind if you feel there is inconsistency or a lack of fairness._

*Si/Te/Fi* – *Creating in this moment the perfect human experience.* Ever since you were young you kept the same family traditions, even sat in the same places around the table. Now that you have a family of your own you want to do the same thing, you repeat everything to the “T” because this moment is special and brings you great joy. The idea of never being able to re live the same rituals over and over again makes you sick, it’s like a piece of you is dying inside. _This is a special moment that’s important to everyone, it’s important that everyone feel welcome. If someone doesn’t want to participate then that is okay if there is clash of belief systems and I can empathize with their world view, but this is inconsistent and on a case by case basis. If too many parties try to opt out, I may draw a hard line and make participation mandatory for everyone._

Let’s get some *Se* in the mix:

*Se *is the opposite of this, it’s lens doesn’t value _the_ experience as much as _a_ experience. If these two functions had an argument, they would be exactly the same but for the opposite reasons.

*Si* – You under appreciating reality! You miss out on so much! (You do different things all the time and never really get to experience anything that isn’t superficial).

*Se* – You under appreciating reality! You miss out on so much! (You do the same things all the time and never really get to experience anything new).

While my explanation so far isn’t much different than what’s out there, I want to take this further. *Se* is about action, right now.

*Extroverted Sensation*

*Se/Ti* – Break down this logical system, understand how it works, and use that knowledge right now.

*Se/Fi* – Break down this human system, understand how it works, and use that knowledge right now.

This is why *ISTPs* are called the “mechanics” of myers-briggs. Like *INTPs* they are masters of deconstructing logical systems, but they prefer to work on tangible and physical things. A lot of *ISTPs* like computer stuff too, but I don’t know any *ISTPs* or *ESTPs* for that matter that don’t love cars, bikes, and other machines. They feel the “heart beat” of the machine, and can immediately get a sense of it. If they’re experienced they can invaluable in product development as engineers. You can show one a picture or describe a machine and he’ll know immediately if it’ll work and what the problems are going to be. It’s like he can use the machine in his mind before it’s even built. *ESTPs* can be like this too, it’s what gives them such a good mind-body connection. They break down the problem into its smallest pieces, and address it…right now. Let’s be a little stereotypical, have you ever been in a car with a young *ISTP* and *ESTP*? Chances are they drive standard or wish they did, and can pull stuff off you never dreamed of. They look out into the environment, deconstruct everything that is going on, then know EXACTLY what to do with *Se *to get the desired result. In the same way an *INTP* or *ENTP* is trying to create the most pure logically pure idea, *ISTPs* and *ESTPs* are trying to create the most logically pure object or environment. 

*Se* is really hard to explain, I like the idea of being described as an “energy” (thanks to EJArendee on youtube). It’s a lot like *Ne*’s description of “seeing possibilities” or “having an explosion of ideas” (I hate both of these explanations), except it’s probably more true. While *Ne*’s idea explosion (ugh) is abstraction based, *Se*’s perceptions are about what to do right now. It’s about having that urge, that rush of energy, unlike Si which values the perfect moment Se values the pragmatic moment. Pragmatic moment being, what’s the best thing I can do in tangible reality (immediately, let’s get started yesterday).

*Introverted & Extroverted Intuition (Now for the hard part)*

*Ni* is the deconstruction of a concept or abstraction into pieces and looking how all these pieces connect together. People talk about *Ni* like its having an entire English classroom in your brain studying the same book. Each student is going to read that book and interpret it in a way unique to them and write a unique essay about what the book is about. The stack of essays produced from the classroom is the output of *Ni*. You can read through the stack and see all the different assumptions and interpretations different students had of the book. Maybe one essay is about the timeless battle between good and evil, another about how it’s really about the barbaric nature of the human soul, etc. Each book doesn’t have one meaning; it has a multitude of different meanings that exist simultaneously. I’m going to take things in a different direction.

The *Ni* dom is the master of building abstract models, and as such, they have a unique world view that is pretty difficult for everyone else to understand. I think *Ne* is much easier to understand, mostly because it’s much easier to recognize. *Ne* is in a way “pragmatic” intuition. It’s creating abstractions as a way to serve either *Fi* or *Ti* if users of dominant or auxiliary *Ne*, and when the idea has been said it goes away. The idea has been expressed, it exists, and that’s it. There’s no lasting effect that gets built on. Look at Family Guy, Seinfeld, and Curb Your Enthusiasm. Each of those uses absurd humor as a commentary, but they don’t build. They contain a lot of ideas but are ultimately about nothing. *Ni* is an enduring abstraction that lasts long after its “started”, various *Te* or *Fe* systems may come and go to fulfill their practical purpose but the connections build indefinitely. Imagine if every random joke in Family Guy built on the one before starting with the first episode….well maybe not exactly like that.

*Ni/Se:* What are the possible ways you can interpret _a_ reality? *Ni* values deconstructing concepts, examining the concept in essence. Its goals is make new ideas and concepts part of their bigger model, if there isn’t anything this new abstraction has to offer then its forgotten. Otherwise, it’s forgotten (think about the Borg in Star Trek). *Se* values continuously validating *Ni* perceptions with real world experience. This isn’t about storing data as much as informing the world view. A lot of people describe *Ni *as looking at a concept at all different angles, but I’m going disagree with this in a sense. It’s not about looking at things from different angles as much as having extremely in depth ideas of how abstract ideas can connect. *Ni* doms excel at decomposing and understanding abstractions in their purest forms, so when they create their own models they are going to make them air tight. There will be no stone unturned or not taken into consideration.

I’m going to talk about *NTJ*s for a minute because I’ve had some personal experience (I don’t know any *NFJs *so I’m not going to comment). Let’s say an *NTJ* wants to excel at their job. Not only are they going to be highly educated and extremely competent, they’re going to do all the little things that most other people think are going to be unrelated. They’re going to optimize their appearance, work out, dress well, and eat healthy. They’re going to optimize their social circle, make the right friends (politically), make strategic working relationships, network, and expand their visibility. They’re going to read about business, ethics, technology, psychology, leadership, and even literature. This may not be totally true to all *NTJ*s but it’s very common in my opinion. These people are unstoppable machines that take life very seriously. This may not what 

*Ne/Si:* What are the possible ways you can interpret _THE_ reality? *Ne* values constructing concepts based on *Si*’s pure reality. *Ne* doesn’t reinterpret what *Si* has already determined, it extrapolates upon it. *Ni* focuses on figuring out what reality really is, while *Ne* doesn’t because *Si* already has that area. *Ne* values what reality could be (Outside the box…ugh). *NPs* tend to come off as more irreverent and less serious than *NJs*, but that isn’t necessarily the case. It can just look that way due to the silliness of the *Ne* view, which isn’t always appreciated in a professional work environment. *NPs* however have the advantage in selling ideas in most cases, because they bang out analogies on the fly and talk about the possibilities of going in their direction pretty easily. They can also easily change directions and synthesize a new path if they hit a dead end. Whereas *INJs* can have a map so massive and interconnect that it can be difficult to explain _exactly_ what they mean. *ENJs* may run into the same problems a little bit, especially if they’re younger, but not to the same extent as *INJs* (especially if young).

I may add more later, but that’s all for now.


----------



## marckos (May 6, 2011)

This is wonderful, thank you, cant wait to read the rest.:happy:


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

This is a very good post. I think you have something going on here.

I would very much like to see you give examples of the dynamics of every combination of functions, like you did in the comparative paragraphs (si-te-fi and si-fe-ti). Also, I would very much like to hear you elaborate a bit more on Ne, like you did with Ni.

(BTW, I think the entire-classroom-reading-the-same-book parable was pure genius.)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I've read parts of it, not all, but I do object to quite a few things. A big problem that I see occurring based on what I did read was that your perception is very much colored by your type. I see a lot of value judgements going on and I feel that it's not wholly appropriate to describe functions using value judgements.

I also reject your definition of grouping Pi and Ji functions together and Pe and Je functions together. Pi functions aren't deconstructive in the same sense Ji functions are.

There was more regarding shadow functions which I cannot agree with either because your proposition is flawed: just because two function perspectives oppose each other it doesn't mean we cannot overlook these differences in situations that require it. An example: sometimes it is not beneficial for you as a person to always act according to Fe values. Would an Fe user be more likely to rely on an Fe perspective? Yes. Does it mean an Fe user can never or will never utiize an Fi perspective? No. I think it was summed up nicely on the Dolphin Site regarding the Beebe model where the author wrote (and I'm paraphrasing): 

"I find that Fi is usually a function whose perspective is selfish when compared to Fe, but there are times when I need to evaluate what I want and what is important to me, then I must consult Fi even though I think it's selfish."

It shows the necessity that in order to grow as people, we need in fact learn to deal with different perspectives outside "our" type. A person such as my grandmother who uses Fe unheathily and seems to wholeheartedly reject both Ti and Fi will easily become manipulated and driven over by other more dominant people such as myself, because she has an inability to consult what it is what she wants and what is good for her.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I've read parts of it, not all, but I do object to quite a few things. A big problem that I see occurring based on what I did read was that your perception is very much colored by your type. I see a lot of value judgements going on and I feel that it's not wholly appropriate to describe functions using value judgements.


I didn't mean to treat some functions unfairly if that's what your saying. Could you give an example of something?



> I also reject your definition of grouping Pi and Ji functions together and Pe and Je functions together. Pi functions aren't deconstructive in the same sense Ji functions are.


I see how its not really the same in the sense that they are different things, but I think the "mechanics" of my arguments accommodates both. Although it isn't as concise as it could be. Do you disagree or are you against it entirely?



> There was more regarding shadow functions which I cannot agree with either because your proposition is flawed: just because two function perspectives oppose each other it doesn't mean we cannot overlook these differences in situations that require it. An example: sometimes it is not beneficial for you as a person to always act according to Fe values. Would an Fe user be more likely to rely on an Fe perspective? Yes. Does it mean an Fe user can never or will never utiize an Fi perspective? No. I think it was summed up nicely on the Dolphin Site regarding the Beebe model where the author wrote (and I'm paraphrasing):
> 
> "I find that Fi is usually a function whose perspective is selfish when compared to Fe, but there are times when I need to evaluate what I want and what is important to me, then I must consult Fi even though I think it's selfish."
> 
> It shows the necessity that in order to grow as people, we need in fact learn to deal with different perspectives outside "our" type. A person such as my grandmother who uses Fe unheathily and seems to wholeheartedly reject both Ti and Fi will easily become manipulated and driven over by other more dominant people such as myself, because she has an inability to consult what it is what she wants and what is good for her.


Regardless of type people are going to conform to the group, they're going to break away and defy the group, they may not be a part of a group at all. Functions don't speak to that, it's all the individual. What they do speak to is how your rationalize your behavior. 

Take the example you just gave, an Fe user thinks an Fi users perspective is selfish. So when the Fe user says they "consults Fi" even though they think its selfish, well, they're not really consulting Fi. If the Fe user was consulting Fi they would have abandoned their entire value system, including the thought of Fi being selfish, and consulted these new values. If at that time they did any kind of reflection, they would looked back at their life with regret. Every rationalization they'd ever made would be wrong. Then they came back to Fe, realized their rationalizations in the past had value and the one they just made was totally wrong. That's what going into "shadow vision" is like in my opinion. 

So in your Grandmother's case, if she uses Fe to an unhealthy extreme, I can't really say because I don't know your Grandmother, but a Ti is meant to compliment Fe. Ti's view is focused on what's fair and consistent. So when an Fe user does something, makes some kind of action, they maybe thinking "i better do this, I don't agree with it but it won't make any waves". It's also healthy to think, from a Ti perspective, "if someone else was in the same position, would they do the same for me?"


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> I didn't mean to treat some functions unfairly if that's what your saying. Could you give an example of something?


Calling something "beautiful" is an obvious value-judgement you're making for example.


> I see how its not really the same in the sense that they are different things, but I think the "mechanics" of my arguments accommodates both. Although it isn't as concise as it could be. Do you disagree or are you against it entirely?


Not entirely sure what you are referring to at all. I definitely do not see them accomondate the same things, they just have the same internal perspective. But they function in very different ways.


> Regardless of type people are going to conform to the group, they're going to break away and defy the group, they may not be a part of a group at all. Functions don't speak to that, it's all the individual. What they do speak to is how your rationalize your behavior.
> 
> Take the example you just gave, an Fe user thinks an Fi users perspective is selfish. So when the Fe user says they "consults Fi" even though they think its selfish, well, they're not really consulting Fi. If the Fe user was consulting Fi they would have abandoned their entire value system, including the thought of Fi being selfish, and consulted these new values. If at that time they did any kind of reflection, they would looked back at their life with regret. Every rationalization they'd ever made would be wrong. Then they came back to Fe, realized their rationalizations in the past had value and the one they just made was totally wrong. That's what going into "shadow vision" is like in my opinion.
> 
> So in your Grandmother's case, if she uses Fe to an unhealthy extreme, I can't really say because I don't know your Grandmother, but a Ti is meant to compliment Fe. Ti's view is focused on what's fair and consistent. So when an Fe user does something, makes some kind of action, they maybe thinking "i better do this, I don't agree with it but it won't make any waves". It's also healthy to think, from a Ti perspective, "if someone else was in the same position, would they do the same for me?"


I disagree. An Fe value system doesn't inherently have to clash with an Fi value system and a decision doesn't always have to be based on a feeling of doing what feels right externally but doing what feels right internally. They may or may not overlap. If you decided to go against your Fe value system even though it feels wrong, then you are still going against your value system because it's _even more wrong to not go against your internal value system_. So no, I still don't think your logic is vaild.

No, a Ti user should be able to rationalize and say, "it is not always good to always live for other people, it is logical that I also take care of myself". She entirely rejects any Ji over Fe. That's why it's unhealthy and that's why I am saying that I think healthy individual development is not just developing the functions of your supposed "type" which I think is a false construction to begin with, I don't think there are any types per se, just people that fit some patterns better than others, but I think we need to learn to rely on every perspective when required. That's a symbol of maturity and growth when we can see the value of something else outside our natural preference.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Calling something "beautiful" is an obvious value-judgement you're making for example.


That's fair, beauty is subjective. I probably could have put things in a different way, but that I thought it best captured the spirit of what I was getting at. Although definitely not as concise.



> Not entirely sure what you are referring to at all. I definitely do not see them accomondate the same things, they just have the same internal perspective. But they function in very different ways.


Right, but I also think that what happens in reality depends entirely on personality. I think you can be anything and do anything. What determines someone's type is the internal perspective and how they rationalize their actions. You can be anything and be a jerk, and be anything and be a saint. Sure I think certain actions and perceptions can be correlated to type, but it really depends why they're doing it. 



> I disagree. An Fe value system doesn't inherently have to clash with an Fi value system and a decision doesn't always have to be based on a feeling of doing what feels right externally but doing what feels right internally. They may or may not overlap. If you decided to go against your Fe value system even though it feels wrong, then you are still going against your value system because it's _even more wrong to not go against your internal value system_. So no, I still don't think your logic is vaild.


According to your definitions of Fe and Fi your argument is totally consistent. I'm suggesting they mean something else entirely. What's different is that Fi values moral purity, there is one right system, the entire details may not be apparent, but it exists. Fe values moral pragmatism, what can we negotiate and make exist, what's fair and doable with all things considered. You could believe in literally anything.

If Fi users just did what they valued internally all the time they would all be selfish. They don't because Fi isn't about that, it's believing there is a universal moral truth. It's pure, it's real, and its not negotiable. They may not know what it entirely is, but it's out there. 



> No, a Ti user should be able to rationalize and say, "it is not always good to always live for other people, it is logical that I also take care of myself". She entirely rejects any Ji over Fe. That's why it's unhealthy and that's why I am saying that I think healthy individual development is not just developing the functions of your supposed "type" which I think is a false construction to begin with, I don't think there are any types per se, just people that fit some patterns better than others, but I think we need to learn to rely on every perspective when required. That's a symbol of maturity and growth when we can see the value of something else outside our natural preference.


I agree a Ti user should be able to rationalize that, because always living for yourself and not taking care of yourself is for sure illogical. I definitely agree that people should learn to respect each other and value other perspectives. You also need to learn to live with and flourish in environments that aren't conducive to your type. Take Te for example, Te users are going to thrive in an objective based environment that involves producing 80% solutions as quickly as possible. That doesn't mean the product is sloppy, its just not the ultimate product. Ti users are going to thrive in and an objective based environment that involves an analytic solution (close to 100% as possible) as quickly as possible. That doesn't mean a Te user can't crush a Ti user in an analytic solution environment, it's just that they're likely to be begrudgingly adding more details then they know is necessary while the Ti user is going to giggling hysterically in their cubicle. (assuming what they're working is in their field of choice, and assuming they have sufficient resources)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@CellarDoor, then we obviously have different perspectives and understanding of the functions so arguing further about what Fe or Fi is or is not is pointless.


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

LeaT said:


> @_CellarDoor_, then we obviously have different perspectives and understanding of the functions so arguing further about what Fe or Fi is or is not is pointless.


Yet you seem to instigate many of these "arguments" with posters on the forum...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Muser said:


> Yet you seem to instigate many of these "arguments" with posters on the forum...


Well, I like to learn and understand how others see things. I don't see a problem with that. A forum is meant for open discussion.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

You're more-or-less on the right track, but there are issues in your interpretations as well. I would argue it is extraversion that permits one to be on terms with the world/universe, not introversion (which is probably why Freud thought introversion was a form of narcissism, due to being more concerned with taking ideas and reasoning to various personal heights of profundity in order to be accepted, rather than accepting that reasoning can be comfortably supported by objective activity in the world). It is the extraverts, to Jung, who were naturally inclined to be on good terms with everything going on around them - they were probably more emotionally pleasant people to be around in their natural extraverted habitus, while introverts tend to kind of come across as more self-defensive of their own ideas of their identities - they tend to feel that their objective interactions with life do not adequately support these ideas (which hold more weight to them than objective conditions for determining their desires/goals) - extraverts might look like a bad parody/cartoon of this around their inferior introversion (as in, egotistical and possibly hard to take seriously when they bring personal quibbles/defensiveness to the table). It is introverts who tend to be more in touch (consciously) with their own emotions, drives, motives, values, strategies of defense, etc. than extraverts - this has nothing to do with the feeling function, contrary to tons of popular internet misunderstanding (that function is just a vague description of a mentality related to either extraversion/introversion, not anything particularly concrete (unless somehow, the person reveals it after slipping up with their persona), but able to be inferred through certain archetypal qualities of a person's judgments).


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

*@Cellar Door

*You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned Ni users being very optimizing. This is very true of me, everything I do is fitting a larger frame work. I notice my Ne/perceptive friends are able to just go and do random things with ease. For me, doing things outside of my framework will be draining. I, for example, will only seek to make friends with certain individuals that fit my framework, it energizes me, if I come into contact with someone outside it, trying to strike up a conversation with them will drain me.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

I thought you had some interesting, really concrete examples and analogies of the functions; I thought your perspective on Ni was especially enlightening. I'm also enjoying the discussion it's engendered.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> You're more-or-less on the right track, but there are issues in your interpretations as well. I would argue it is extraversion that permits one to be on terms with the world/universe, not introversion (which is probably why Freud thought introversion was a form of narcissism, due to being more concerned with taking ideas and reasoning to various personal heights of profundity in order to be accepted, rather than accepting that reasoning can be comfortably supported by objective activity in the world). It is the extraverts, to Jung, who were naturally inclined to be on good terms with everything going on around them - they were probably more emotionally pleasant people to be around in their natural extraverted habitus, while introverts tend to kind of come across as more self-defensive of their own ideas of their identities - they tend to feel that their objective interactions with life do not adequately support these ideas (which hold more weight to them than objective conditions for determining their desires/goals) - extraverts might look like a bad parody/cartoon of this around their inferior introversion (as in, egotistical and possibly hard to take seriously when they bring personal quibbles/defensiveness to the table). It is introverts who tend to be more in touch (consciously) with their own emotions, drives, motives, values, strategies of defense, etc. than extraverts - this has nothing to do with the feeling function, contrary to tons of popular internet misunderstanding (that function is just a vague description of a mentality related to either extraversion/introversion, not anything particularly concrete (unless somehow, the person reveals it after slipping up with their persona), but able to be inferred through certain archetypal qualities of a person's judgments).


I don't necessarily think that my theory is inconsistent with this, rather from a different point of view.

I agree that extroverts are more in tune with the world around them, if by in tune you mean that they feel it reflects their values more. My view is that extroverted functions are about making something happen that works, as apposed to the purist view of the introverted functions.

One of the reasons I think JCFs and MBTI are so hard to figure out for anyone is that we're given a list of symptoms but not reasons why.

Why are extrovert's on better terms with the world around them?
Why do introvert's think their objective interactions with life do not adequately support these ideas?

I'm thinking "why would a rational person think either of these things?". As in what must an extrovert believe in order to think this way, what does the introvert believe?

The justification that I argue is that an extroverts first function doesn't have as high requirements for value as that of an introvert. I mean that in the sense that both introverted and extroverted versions of the same function manifest in reality. The extroverts value doing just enough to meet the objectives and challenges, while the introverts are going to be "connoisseurs". The reason introverts are more aware of themselves is that they're more accustomed to digging deeper and deeper into what they're into because their interested in a more purist approach. They're more interested in optimizing their values, understandings, etc. in search of the purest form they can.

I would argue this explains why an introvert is going to be quiet around people they don't know well, unless they're talking about something an introvert "nerded out" on. They'll be sitting there quietly and then someone brings up a topic of interest, their mouths will open, and a laser beam of knowledge will blow your face off. I've seen this at meetings at work, when someone gets fired up at a meeting its usually a guy/girl who rarely talks.

It's not to say an extrovert can't "nerd out", its just that introverts are all about "nerding out".

Would you agree? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

NiDBiLD said:


> This is a very good post. I think you have something going on here.
> 
> I would very much like to see you give examples of the dynamics of every combination of functions, like you did in the comparative paragraphs (si-te-fi and si-fe-ti). Also, I would very much like to hear you elaborate a bit more on Ne, like you did with Ni.
> 
> (BTW, I think the entire-classroom-reading-the-same-book parable was pure genius.)


 @marckos

Definitely, I'm working on some more depth stuff for Ni vs. Ne, then after that I'm going to do some complex function interactions.


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

This was outstanding!

For the first time in my life, I've read a description of Si that correlates very closely to what I feel about reality. For me, it's all about taking the experience as _it should be_, one of the reasons why disruptions and lack of consistency in a experience are so annoying to me. It feels like when i'm disrupted, it's not the thing it should have been anymore and that I must place my stakes at the world to enforce that it goes as it should.

I have a belief when dealing with functions that is: If you can't connect a function description to its compensatory function, you're not doing it right. For instance, when you said _" They don’t want to have a bunch of different experience as much as they want to have the perfect one, repeatedly. As purists of literal reality, they’re going find a great joy in experiencing all the details of reality_.", it was clear to assume that Si-dominants are going to have a problem dealing with Ne, which you have put nicely as _"the possible ways you can interpret THE reality"_.

Similarly, after reading Ni's entire-classroom-reading-the-same-book parable, it's easy to think that a Ni-dominant will have problem dealing with 'what it actually is', that is, they will be trying to gather insights about so many possibilities that they'll struggle to deal with something as it is. I really liked it.

The only thing that i'm not satisfied is that you took to little space to describe Je functions! I'd love to hear more from them.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Cellar Door said:


> I don't necessarily think that my theory is inconsistent with this, rather from a different point of view.
> 
> I agree that extroverts are more in tune with the world around them, if by in tune you mean that they feel it reflects their values more. My view is that extroverted functions are about making something happen that works, as apposed to the purist view of the introverted functions.
> 
> ...


Oh no, it's not about "thinking those things" that constitutes I/E - it's literally about the mentality they have toward orienting their thoughts with or against the conditions of the outside world in favor of their own emotions, perspectives, preferred mode of comprehension, etc. Quiet and talkative has zilch to do with I/E tendencies, actually. I mean, after all, where's the limit to how loud and interactive you have to be to qualify as an extravert and how quiet and self-directed/reserved you have to be to be an introvert? Everyone is both, but extraverts downplay their introversion as irrelevant to their lives in a lottt of ways (introverts, you would be amazed to realize how often and intensely these types "commit murder," in Jung's words, on their own subjective stances and states - I think, from my experiences with them IRL, he was 100% correct - these types definitely tend to lack the emotional control of introverts when forced to confront their own personal values). Extraverts essentially orient themselves to the world in an objective fashion (take the outer world for what it is without imposing their own subjective associations and desires on it FIRST - they may do this after accepting their relationship to the external, but to go the other way for them tends to be like switching hands to write - they might run into emotions and thoughts they have that really displease them about their ideas and ideals, as well as perceptions/preferred ways of seeing).


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Cellar Door, I think that was extremely interesting. And I especially loved it when you said this at the beginning: 



> 3. The Jungian cognitive functions aren’t actually functions; they’re “lenses” or perspectives of looking at and valuing reality. (You don’t “use” *Te*, *Te* is a perspective and value system. What would be more appropriate to say is that you have a *Te *world view.) I’m sure I made the mistake at least once in this description, but old habits die hard.


I'm sure you've noticed the amount of people running around on the forums who talk about their functions as if they are tools, and you use each tool separately depending on the task at hand. 

What was most interesting was your ideas about Introversion and Extroversion. Some of it I agreed with, some of it I'm trying to wrap my mind around. Despite being a Ne-dom, I found myself relating more to your description of Ni. Although I could relate to what you said about Ne for the most part as well. ^^' This is partly because you make those who use Ni (as either their dom or aux functions) the "truth seekers", bent on learning the truth about reality, and digging deeper and deeper in order to find it. The odd thing is, this is exactly what I like to do and spend my time contemplating. I like to see how things connect and I like looking at the nature of things -- constantly asking about how and why something is the way it is and how it works and why it does what it does. Things of that nature. Of course you can probably tell I'm totally focused on the object. Sure I see many possibilities for what reality really is, but my "goal", if you will, is still to find out truth. Truth in my opinion is the most important thing out there, and from truth everything else becomes evident. I just go about it in an Extroverted sort of way, I suppose. 



> I agree that extroverts are more in tune with the world around them, if by in tune you mean that they feel it reflects their values more. My view is that extroverted functions are about making something happen that works, as apposed to the purist view of the introverted functions.


I'm still having trouble understanding what you say the Extroverts really value. You make it seem like usefulness in the external world. Like it's got to have some sort of practical application, while the Introverts can truly value a perhaps "useless in the external world" subjective way of looking at things. I do not understand yet why you call this "pure". Unless you mean, "Sticking to your own personal subjective values" or something to that effect. I always try to dig deeper and search for the most perfect, beautiful form that I can. But I suppose I do it in a different way than the Introverts. 

I do know I have this problem, though, that perhaps an Introvert does not have. I always must perceive first. I must perceive the possibilities concerning the external world around me. When I do that, I feel happiest and healthiest and it gives me one thousand different ideas to think about and play with and enjoy. But because of this, often I appreciate something simply because it has a different perspective or a different angle -- but I have a hard time actually "judging" or finding my own stance about those different perspectives. I simply want to enjoy them for what they are, if that makes sense. To do otherwise somehow _ruins _the experience. 

I figured you might appreciate an Extrovert's perspective on all of this. I don't pretend to be able to perfectly understand everything you were trying to convey, so I'm sure I misunderstood some of what you said.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

@Julia Bell

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I've been really thinking carefully about what you said. I guess the reason that I portrayed Ni as truth seeking because that's its ultimate goal. Ne isn't different, the same way Te isn't illogical even though Ti values the ultimate logically consistent model, Ne still seeks truth but it doesn't have as many requirements. Ne doesn't value taking every single thing into consideration, making a network to understand a single thing, it's interested in figuring out everything. Ne is pragmatic theory building, you're going to want to figure out this thing, that thing, the next thing, whatever, and you're constantly going further and further. That's why Ne jokes get more and more ridiculous the farther they go on, they just build and build. Another connection, then another, connecting one topic, then another topic, and another reference. Ni jokes are about reinterpreting everything you know, because Ni is focused probably only one one or two things. So in the way that going in a different direction, making an unexpected reference, counts as a surprise in Ne humor, Ni humor is about reinterpreting what someone said to mean something else.

Here's an example of Ni humor from a story Joe Rogan told on youtube:

Man: "The other day I held the door open for my hooker, I always do that for my prostitutes."
Woman: "That's sexist!"
Man: "He really appreciated it..."

I agree that I didn't go as far with extroversion as I should have, especially the perceiving functions. I've always found Fe/Ti vs. Fi/Te (Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi) the easiest to understand.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> @_Julia Bell_
> 
> Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I've been really thinking carefully about what you said. I guess the reason that I portrayed Ni as truth seeking because that's its ultimate goal. Ne isn't different, the same way Te isn't illogical even though Ti values the ultimate logically consistent model, Ne still seeks truth but it doesn't have as many requirements. Ne doesn't value taking every single thing into consideration, making a network to understand a single thing, it's interested in figuring out everything. Ne is pragmatic theory building, you're going to want to figure out this thing, that thing, the next thing, whatever, and you're constantly going further and further. That's why Ne jokes get more and more ridiculous the farther they go on, they just build and build. Another connection, then another, connecting one topic, then another topic, and another reference. Ni jokes are about reinterpreting everything you know, because Ni is focused probably only one one or two things. So in the way that going in a different direction, making an unexpected reference, counts as a surprise in Ne humor, Ni humor is about reinterpreting what someone said to mean something else.
> 
> ...


No problem. ^_^ I think one of the oddest things to try and compare and contrast when it comes to cognitive functions is Ne versus Ni. Because Intuition in itself is easy to figure out (at least for me). But the attitude makes all the difference and yet it is the direction of Intuition that makes it all so confusing.  What makes you so sure whether your Intuition is Introverted or Extroverted anyways? >.< 

I do like to think of Ne and Ni as being mirrors of each other. Ni is familiar, but does everything backwards from my point of view. It focuses and pays no attention to potential surrounding objects like Ne, but draws things _out _of objects and then does this weird subjective thing. And to me that doesn't make sense. Why do that when you could look at all the possibilities surrounding that object? Why not actually pay attention to the object, the thing you're looking at? @[email protected] Why go all underlying-meaning about it? 

I was just thinking about how a Ni-dom's post differs from a Ne-dom's post. Ni-doms often sound like they have _on__e _huge interconnected thought, and often as they post (or speak) it feels like they're trying to rush to get it all out. It's like one whole thing that just slips out of their mind all at once. And when they post (or speak) it very much sounds and feels like it is coming from inside of them. Like "_I _see it." It is very subjective, and I'm not sure I can explain it all that well. In that sense it feels very raw and "pure". I was talking about this to @JungyesMBTIno who often posts large paragraphs which I always find difficult to read (lol). 

Whereas a Ne-dom's post probably looks rather scattered. A bunch of different ideas and connections that seem very loosely connected somehow. It is very tangential. And it sounds and feels like it is coming from outside of them. It is external. As opposed to a, "_I _see it," feel there is a, "Look at _that _and _that _and _that!_" sort of feel. And Ni is more like a mirror. One big thought that happens to have split things coming off of it. 

Haha, in this sense, to me Extroverted functions feel more pure. And that's because I'm biased. ^^' I like your example of Ni humour.  Blearg, I have a much easier time understanding perceiving functions than judging functions. How does a person judge something _before _they perceive it? I simply to not understand. To me that is like inside-out thinking. x3 I find it much easier to understand the difference between, say, Se versus Ne versus Si.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Oh yes, one more thing to add: 



> Ne isn't different, the same way Te isn't illogical even though Ti values the ultimate logically consistent model, Ne still seeks truth but it doesn't have as many requirements. Ne doesn't value taking every single thing into consideration, making a network to understand a single thing, it's interested in figuring out everything.


I think this depends on your perspective. Ne has many requirements as it seeks for truth. It's just different requirements. ^_^ Ne, after, isn't just, "Let's throw it all out there and figure out ALL THE THINGS!" I do have to search in a very particular way and I must be looking at things just so. And things do connect very carefully -- at least to me, in my brain. To me, Ni looks inconsistent and like it is limiting and has too many requirements.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

@Julia Bell

I agree that Ne vs. Ni is the hardest, for a variety of reasons I think. First of all they’re the most abstract and almost unexplainable functions, and second because a lot of people mistype themselves as Ns. Thirdly because there are multiple systems with conflicting definitions, this is especially true with Fe actually. 

After reading what you wrote I think I might take what I said back, your right, and I feel like I really got away from my original premise. My goal of this was to get at the core of what’s going on with all this type theory stuff, and there are a lot of ideas floating around right now that I just refuse to believe.

I refuse to believe that if someone smiles with their whole face that it means they have Fe. I refuse to believe that having “aha” moments means you have Ni. I refuse to believe that you can “use” functions. I refuse to believe every stereotypical “tell” that each function has. The list goes on, and I’m not saying these things are false, because sometimes they’re not, but they aren’t indisputable evidence of a function’s existence. I think that all these profiles and patterns of behavior are just symptoms of a more fundamental underlying pattern that explains everything.

I believe that functions are the way we see the world, and how we perceive and assign value to information. You don’t have values because of your subjective beliefs, you have subjective beliefs because of your values. If you think something is so important that bringing it into the social arena where you may need to negotiate would only produce a bastardization of the truth, then that’s evidence of an introverted function. 

Applied to Ni I think this is right in line with what you are saying. Ne is very pragmatic, from the user’s point of view they want their ideas to have traceability. “Check this out, look at this, now this” is showing someone something and showing how they got there. Ni is going to be about jumping straight to the answer or final form of an idea, explaining how you got there is trivial because it is the truth and should be obvious. I notice with INTPs, I’ve maybe only met a couple, but they’re willing to explain stuff to you but it’s almost impossible to listen to. They have such an analytical process that goes way beyond what a Te view would value. If you ask questions or critique them you can only do it on the terms of their argument because their value is total logical truth. If it follows the rules of logic, end of story, no need for evidence. Same goes for Ni, Ni values a total understanding of our entire reality. The “aha” moment is realizing a butterfly flapping its wings is Tokyo is causing a hurricane in the Caribbean. 
“Just knowing” and “gut feeling” have nothing to do with it, it’s that they’re connecting everything they know and do so they’re looking at second, third, fourth, fifth order effects to verify the consistency of their understanding. The difference between this and Ne is…maybe nothing, it depends on what the Ne user needs to do. An Ni user is going to be searching for all this stuff because they believe its inherently valuable, and Ne user is going to go as far as they have to. This would explain Ne’s association with explosions of ideas, brain storming, and wittiness. It’s going to value saying “what about this connection, that connection, could be do it under water? By the way, what’s the deal with marsupials,? I wish I had a pouch!”, it’s creating connections to accomplish a current or emerging task. Whether that task is to have fun, make others laugh, come up with a new product idea, etc. it doesn’t matter. It has a reputation for being random because it doesn’t have to live with all the connections its making like Ni does, which values absolute conceptual connectedness and truth. That it thinks is inherently valuable, and coming up with a bunch of meaningless connections is a bastardization of the truth.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> @_Julia Bell_
> 
> I agree that Ne vs. Ni is the hardest, for a variety of reasons I think. First of all they’re the most abstract and almost unexplainable functions, and second because a lot of people mistype themselves as Ns. Thirdly because there are multiple systems with conflicting definitions, this is especially true with Fe actually.
> 
> ...


Might I say I totally agree, and I'm tired of hearing people speak of functions in that sort of "tools" manner. I view the functions as lenses, really. The way in which you see and make sense of everything. They work unconsciously. Very much under the surface. And above all, you can't just decide, "Hey, I've got to write an essay. Time to call upon the forces of Te." I really don't understand the logic there. I love the way you are speaking about the functions.  I think that Fe and Si are the functions that are usually most misunderstood and they always have the worst stereotype. It used to be that ESFJs were everybody's enemy around here (on PerC). Thankfully that has died down a bit. 



> Applied to Ni I think this is right in line with what you are saying. Ne is very pragmatic, from the user’s point of view they want their ideas to have traceability. “Check this out, look at this, now this” is showing someone something and showing how they got there. Ni is going to be about jumping straight to the answer or final form of an idea, explaining how you got there is trivial because it is the truth and should be obvious. I notice with INTPs, I’ve maybe only met a couple, but they’re willing to explain stuff to you but it’s almost impossible to listen to. They have such an analytical process that goes way beyond what a Te view would value. If you ask questions or critique them you can only do it on the terms of their argument because their value is total logical truth. If it follows the rules of logic, end of story, no need for evidence. Same goes for Ni, Ni values a total understanding of our entire reality. The “aha” moment is realizing a butterfly flapping its wings is Tokyo is causing a hurricane in the Caribbean.


Very true, from what I know and understand. ^_^ I have an INTP brother and I've gotten used to his logic over the years. It has always struck me as odd. And sometimes it frustrates me to death. It's really all about the logic, their logic. Te does make more sense to me, in some ways. Something that has struck me is that Ni has this very different feel. It definitely doesn't concern itself with potential or relations (connections) really, like Ne (like you said). It has a different focus entirely. The difference between Ne and Ni is the focus, I suppose. 



> “Just knowing” and “gut feeling” have nothing to do with it, it’s that they’re connecting everything they know and do so they’re looking at second, third, fourth, fifth order effects to verify the consistency of their understanding. The difference between this and Ne is…maybe nothing, it depends on what the Ne user needs to do. An Ni user is going to be searching for all this stuff because they believe its inherently valuable, and Ne user is going to go as far as they have to. This would explain Ne’s association with explosions of ideas, brain storming, and wittiness. It’s going to value saying “what about this connection, that connection, could be do it under water? By the way, what’s the deal with marsupials,? I wish I had a pouch!”, it’s creating connections to accomplish a current or emerging task. Whether that task is to have fun, make others laugh, come up with a new product idea, etc. it doesn’t matter. It has a reputation for being random because it doesn’t have to live with all the connections its making like Ni does, which values absolute conceptual connectedness and truth. That it thinks is inherently valuable, and coming up with a bunch of meaningless connections is a bastardization of the truth.


Haha. ^_^ Ne is just very broad, while Ni is narrow. A lot of the time I'll spend portions of my day attempting to come up with words that describe Introversion and Extroversion. I was thinking that the word _intensive _describes Introversion well. "Concentrated on a single area or subject or into a short time." You look at one point and you get to know that point very well. Ni definitely concerns itself with doing that. Ne is extensive. 

You know, I have never, despite having dominant Intuition, related to the whole "gut feeling". Or the "just knowing".  It's funny because many Intuitives (funnily enough, usually people who have Intuition as their auxiliary function) say they do relate to the "gut feeling" and "just knowing". I don't understand it. 

Out of curiosity, do you know what your dominant function is? *curious Julia is _very _curious*


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> Might I say I totally agree, and I'm tired of hearing people speak of functions in that sort of "tools" manner. I view the functions as lenses, really. The way in which you see and make sense of everything. They work unconsciously. Very much under the surface. And above all, you can't just decide, "Hey, I've got to write an essay. Time to call upon the forces of Te." I really don't understand the logic there. I love the way you are speaking about the functions.  I think that Fe and Si are the functions that are usually most misunderstood and they always have the worst stereotype. It used to be that ESFJs were everybody's enemy around here (on PerC). Thankfully that has died down a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very true about the functions being spoken of as though they're tools that you can pull out of a box and use at will. It's much more complicated than that. Someone else around here described them as "lenses," too, and some are more in focus than others. But might the metaphor of lenses also also imply that the functions are tools you can use at will?

The "gut feeling" thing; is this more of a Pi thing?


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

hm, I'd say that the thing people call being able to objectively see things from different sides might be that we can make good intuitive guesses based on what we know.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@Cellar Door, thank you so much for writing this, it was very interesting and helped me on my typing journey. Your explanation helped me to see why I am Ti/Fe and not Fi/Te. I struggled with this because there is an assumption that anyone who has any kind of personal moral code is an Fi user, but that is not the case; Fe is just as much about morals, and I think Ti can be too; it's possible to analyse a moral theory from a Ti perspective. I got confused with this though because I kept reading about how Fi is about personal moral principles, but I've known for a while that Ti is a big part of my thinking.

There's a lot of bad information out there. Even keys2cognition, which is supposedly written by experts, describes the functions in terms of "We are using Te when we do X and when we do Y we are using Se."

Going back to the difference between introverted and extraverted functions, I think of them in terms of extraverted functions being contextual, and introverted functions being universal or out of context. For example to an Se user, sensory perceptions have no meaning outside of the immediate context. The smell of bread baking means there is bread baking nearby, and that is all. To an Si user, that same perception might signify the bread Grandma used to bake, whether or not that has anything to do with the current context; that association exists no matter what is happening in the outer world. Does that seem accurate?

If so, maybe that way of looking at things can help with the discussion between you and @Julia Bell about the differences between Ni and Ne. I don't understand Ni very well so the following might be completely wrong, but I'd appreciate some feedback on whether it's accurate. Ne, because it's an extraverted function, wants to understand things in context. It might go outside the current context or link together ideas from different contexts, but even so, the way Ne understands things is tied to context. Ni, on the other hand, wants to get away from that. Ni users want to understand the way things really are, taking a detached perspective and trying to see through the assumptions we make, doing so by looking at ideas in their purest form, outside of their context.

I'm not arguing with you; I agree with everything in your OP, just wanted to make a contribution to the discussion.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> hm, I'd say that the thing people call being able to objectively see things from different sides might be that we can make good intuitive guesses based on what we know.


Right but there is a difference between JCF intuition and intuition in the colloquial sense.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Ellis Bell said:


> Very true about the functions being spoken of as though they're tools that you can pull out of a box and use at will. It's much more complicated than that. Someone else around here described them as "lenses," too, and some are more in focus than others. But might the metaphor of lenses also also imply that the functions are tools you can use at will?
> 
> The "gut feeling" thing; is this more of a Pi thing?


Good point I should have been more specific about what I mean by lenses. The metaphor is different from tools because tools imply functionality, so if you don't own a saw you can't cut something. That's why a lot of people think everyone has all the functions in their main stack, because everyone can do all the behaviors associated with each function. Lenses refer to how you see the world, so I have glasses, when I look through them everything makes sense. If I wear someone else's glasses I can look at the same objects, but it's just not right. Things are skewed and it gives me a headache. 

This by no means implies it's going to be obvious which functions are in your stack. It's really easy to confuse some of them, especially in combination. Like Ni + Te vs. Ti or Ni + Fe vs. Fi, because the combination of the definitions of the two sound a lot like the definition of the one. 

Hmmm, gut feeling. My gut feeling about this is that it depends on what the area is, so different function stacks will be bring more gut feelings about different things. This is an interesting idea, I'm going to have to think about it more before I can confidently answer.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Cellar Door said:


> Right but there is a difference between JCF intuition and intuition in the colloquial sense.


Well, intuition in a normal sense is being able to understand something without conscious reasoning.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> @_Cellar Door_, thank you so much for writing this, it was very interesting and helped me on my typing journey. Your explanation helped me to see why I am Ti/Fe and not Fi/Te. I struggled with this because there is an assumption that anyone who has any kind of personal moral code is an Fi user, but that is not the case; Fe is just as much about morals, and I think Ti can be too; it's possible to analyse a moral theory from a Ti perspective. I got confused with this though because I kept reading about how Fi is about personal moral principles, but I've known for a while that Ti is a big part of my thinking.
> 
> There's a lot of bad information out there. Even keys2cognition, which is supposedly written by experts, describes the functions in terms of "We are using Te when we do X and when we do Y we are using Se."


I appreciate it, I'm really glad you found it useful. What's really tough about this stuff is that there is no "path" to figuring it out. I've read a lot of books and studied a lot of things online to get where I am, and I'm not going to be satisfied before I go through everything and understand the differences and tradoffs between each theory. There are definitely some that are worse than others, I'm not a fan of the Beebe model for example.



> Going back to the difference between introverted and extraverted functions, I think of them in terms of extraverted functions being contextual, and introverted functions being universal or out of context. For example to an Se user, sensory perceptions have no meaning outside of the immediate context. The smell of bread baking means there is bread baking nearby, and that is all. To an Si user, that same perception might signify the bread Grandma used to bake, whether or not that has anything to do with the current context; that association exists no matter what is happening in the outer world. Does that seem accurate?


Sort of, it's a side effect. Si is about being a connoisseur of sensor experiences, for them it's about the perfect moment. People remember things that are relevant to what they frequently think about. So if that particular Si user is all about baking, then they very well might remember the smell of cake from 10 years ago. But they also might not, it depends on the person and their interests.



> If so, maybe that way of looking at things can help with the discussion between you and @_Julia Bell_ about the differences between Ni and Ne. I don't understand Ni very well so the following might be completely wrong, but I'd appreciate some feedback on whether it's accurate. Ne, because it's an extraverted function, wants to understand things in context. It might go outside the current context or link together ideas from different contexts, but even so, the way Ne understands things is tied to context. Ni, on the other hand, wants to get away from that. Ni users want to understand the way things really are, taking a detached perspective and trying to see through the assumptions we make, doing so by looking at ideas in their purest form, outside of their context.
> 
> I'm not arguing with you; I agree with everything in your OP, just wanted to make a contribution to the discussion.


Right, what you're saying is true. I think a great example of Ne vs. Ni is the following thread.

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/127857-explanation-introverted-intuition.html

The OP of the thread thinks he's talking about Ni but he's actually giving a great example of Ne. So it's like you're saying, Ne is in context and therefore has traceability. If you read forward in the thread to where @LXPilot is talking, his description of Ni is awesome. With Ni there is no traceability, there are no connections. In the way Si may say the smell of the cookies is like grandma's, there is no traceability, it's just inherently true. The same holds with Ni, some things are just going to have that abstract essence I guess.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

@Julia Bell

I do know what my dominant function is, but I've been keeping it a secret. People on here sometimes judge a post differently depending on the type of the poster, so I took mine off. I can PM it you if you like, but I was thinking about in the future dedicating a thread to my type, and how I know I am what I am.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> I appreciate it, I'm really glad you found it useful. What's really tough about this stuff is that there is no "path" to figuring it out. I've read a lot of books and studied a lot of things online to get where I am, and I'm not going to be satisfied before I go through everything and understand the differences and tradoffs between each theory. There are definitely some that are worse than others, I'm not a fan of the Beebe model for example.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So would it be fair to say that Ni makes associations similarly to Si, but in a more abstract way? Also, what do you think of the idea of describing Ni as "looking at things from different angles"? Because I've read some sources that describe it like that, and say that Ni doms want to get past all the assumptions they're making. I relate to some of those descriptions; I'll turn an idea over and over in my head, trying to make sure I've looked at it from every possible angle and taken into account all the assumptions and personal biases that might be getting in the way of my understanding. That's something I'm conscious of doing, though, so I'd guess it's related to Ti. I've read that Ni is similar to Ti, but less conscious and maybe more... instant. Would that be a fair comparison? It doesn't entirely make sense to me since Ni is a perceiving function and Ti is a judging function, but is there some kind of similarity between them?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> So would it be fair to say that Ni makes associations similarly to Si, but in a more abstract way? Also, what do you think of the idea of describing Ni as "looking at things from different angles"? Because I've read some sources that describe it like that, and say that Ni doms want to get past all the assumptions they're making. I relate to some of those descriptions; I'll turn an idea over and over in my head, trying to make sure I've looked at it from every possible angle and taken into account all the assumptions and personal biases that might be getting in the way of my understanding. That's something I'm conscious of doing, though, so I'd guess it's related to Ti. I've read that Ni is similar to Ti, but less conscious and maybe more... instant. Would that be a fair comparison? It doesn't entirely make sense to me since Ni is a perceiving function and Ti is a judging function, but is there some kind of similarity between them?


I think it's a similar process - and it might even be fair to say Si and Ni are two (competing) ways of doing the same overall perceptive action. The output of the two functions is obviously very different, and it's not the same mechanism, but I think both functions involve the perception of an inner state - physical or conceptual. I've found this method, in fact, to be a very effective way of understanding functions of the same orientation, but different letter dichotomy (Ti/Fi, etc) - to understand what the two components of each function mean, and use them to portrait the "missing" function.

I'm not sure, however, that "looking at things from different angles" would _constitute _Ni. This: 


> Because I've read some sources that describe it like that, and say that Ni doms want to get past all the assumptions they're making. I relate to some of those descriptions; I'll turn an idea over and over in my head, trying to make sure I've looked at it from every possible angle and taken into account all the assumptions and personal biases that might be getting in the way of my understanding.


is textbook auxiliary/creative/#2 Ne. The extraverted nature of the function is evident in your scanning "every possible angle," as this would more than likely require directing one's focus _outward_ if _every _possible outcome is to be considered. Ni would simply see the end result and judge away on what is seen. The auxiliary/creative/#2 nature of it is evident in your using it not as a means to an end as an ENTP or ENFP would, but rather, as a way of solidifying or ensuring (dealing with a problem). The core drive is Ti, and the Ne is used as a means of pedestaling whatever your Ti wants to do or think. This is what makes INTP and INFP better categorized as "rational," IMO, and INTJ and INFJ (et al) technically "irrational" despite having flipped J/P dichotomies in MBTI. 

As far as Ni and Ti go, I'm not sure a comparison can really be made beyond the "inner essence" idea, which may be useful to some degree, but can be better understood comparing Si and Ni. The judging/perceiving dichotomy in functions is very distinct. I think both IN_P and IN_J have a subjective interpretation of the things they deal with, but one perceives for the sake of judging, and the other judges for the sake of perceiving. The motives are subverted. Ni doesn't really do the dirty work in actively synthesizing information. It simply sees it, albeit often very poignantly, and leaves it for a judging function to bring forward to the world.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@LXPilot, and anyone else who can answer this question, would this be accurate? From what I've read, I understand that you as an Ni dom might read this post and think something like "There's a user on a forum writing this post, and she wants me to think that it has a particular meaning. But really it's just a bunch of shapes on a screen, which only have a particular meaning because we choose to give them that meaning." Because you have freed yourself from the assumptions we make about what things mean, you can reinterpret everything in new ways. So my post for example doesn't have to mean what I assume it means. What do you think?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> @_LXPilot_, and anyone else who can answer this question, would this be accurate? From what I've read, I understand that you as an Ni dom might read this post and think something like "There's a user on a forum writing this post, and she wants me to think that it has a particular meaning. But really it's just a bunch of shapes on a screen, _which only have a particular meaning because we choose to give them that meaning_." Because you have freed yourself from the assumptions we make about what things mean, you can reinterpret everything in new ways. So my post for example doesn't have to mean what I assume it means. What do you think?



(Per italicized part) I definitely recognize what you're talking about, but I think that may be more of a "jig" the function does that many people who use it can relate to (in other words, I wouldn't summarize the function with only that description, but yes, I believe you've identified Ni). 

I tend to think it's actually not as hard as most people think to segregate what Ni is "like" when it's being employed, but it's very difficult for others to imagine what using it all the time, as a dependent mental mode, would be like. It's quite interesting to compare the usage patterns of a given function across an E and I of the same last three MBTI dichotomies, to see how the roles differ. (Tangent, apologies). I know I can't imagine what depending on Te like an ENTJ would be like, and I also notice weaknesses in their Ni. 

That last sentence you wrote is quite poignant, and I think sums the function's process well for all users.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> (Per italicized part) I definitely recognize what you're talking about, but I think that may be more of a "jig" the function does that many people who use it can relate to (in other words, I wouldn't summarize the function with only that description, but yes, I believe you've identified Ni).
> 
> I tend to think it's actually not as hard as most people think to segregate what Ni is "like" when it's being employed, but it's very difficult for others to imagine what using it all the time, as a dependent mental mode, would be like. It's quite interesting to compare the usage patterns of a given function across an E and I of the same last three MBTI dichotomies, to see how the roles differ. (Tangent, apologies). I know I can't imagine what depending on Te like an ENTJ would be like, and I also notice weaknesses in their Ni.
> 
> That last sentence you wrote is quite poignant, and I think sums the function's process well for all users.


So do you have a constant running commentary in your head of "this is supposed to make me think x, but really it's just y"?


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

Herp said:


> This was outstanding!
> 
> For the first time in my life, I've read a description of Si that correlates very closely to what I feel about reality. For me, it's all about taking the experience as _it should be_, one of the reasons why disruptions and lack of consistency in a experience are so annoying to me. It feels like when i'm disrupted, it's not the thing it should have been anymore and that I must place my stakes at the world to enforce that it goes as it should.
> 
> ...


Lol...
You know this is the first time I'm getting Si. My mom is Si-Fe and my sister Fe-Si and they kept pestering me about peas of all things for a good few weeks before Christmas and generally calling me to ask me in round about ways about what I was going to serve. My husband is foreign and an ENFP so there's an element of surprise in what will be in the table. End result: my mom who was supposed to just bring gingerbreads shows up with all the traditional dishes, which since I know how they are I got too, so there is double of everything AND my husband's "exotic" dishes. All was well though, until my sister asked where the peas were....
Sigh... 
So I'm guessing they were recreating the perfect Christmas.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

How would Si be noticeable, besides certain situations just popping out. Like with Ni, a lot of time you can tell in some way the transparency of Ni and the influence of it. With Si how or is it transparent enough to tell without having certain moments jump out and saying SI right here is SI


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> So do you have a constant running commentary in your head of "this is supposed to make me think x, but really it's just y"?


I'd say that particular thought pops into my head more when I'm _really _fixated onto a topic - but perhaps that's different for other Ni doms - I'm not really as inquisitive or intellectually-obsessed as Ni dominants are stereotyped to be (even by Jung). It's probably the same for your Ti as an INTP, unless I'm making unfair assumptions as to how intensely each of the types generally applies their dominant. 

Whenever the brain is put in a situation in which it needs to function more intensely, be that on its own in rumination, or prompted externally/societally, Ni goes first to a perception of native form. What's the innate intangible quality of something? This goes down to even the most mundane activities - I noticed a certain can of tomatoes for chili over others today because the label made it look like it would fit better into my perception of what "good chili" innately looks like in concept (that latter part is more Te, but the perception of form is Ni). Ni is about perceiving ideas of innate form - _that's_ the running dialogue. 

The one problem I have with Ni descriptions - actually, those of all of the i functions - is that they tend to lean towards the over-intellectual, including Jung's. It's not that these descriptions aren't accurate, or don't describe what the function is "like," but they're only snippets of what's happening in the person's every-minute life. Think that may be the case with Ti as well?


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> I'd say that particular thought pops into my head more when I'm _really _fixated onto a topic - but perhaps that's different for other Ni doms - I'm not really as inquisitive or intellectually-obsessed as Ni dominants are stereotyped to be (even by Jung). It's probably the same for your Ti as an INTP, unless I'm making unfair assumptions as to how intensely each of the types generally applies their dominant.
> 
> Whenever the brain is put in a situation in which it needs to function more intensely, be that on its own in rumination, or prompted externally/societally, Ni goes first to a perception of native form. What's the innate intangible quality of something? This goes down to even the most mundane activities - I noticed a certain can of tomatoes for chili over others today because the label made it look like it would fit better into my perception of what "good chili" innately looks like in concept (that latter part is more Te, but the perception of form is Ni). Ni is about perceiving ideas of innate form - _that's_ the running dialogue.
> 
> The one problem I have with Ni descriptions - actually, those of all of the i functions - is that they tend to lean towards the over-intellectual, including Jung's. It's not that these descriptions aren't accurate, or don't describe what the function is "like," but they're only snippets of what's happening in the person's every-minute life. Think that may be the case with Ti as well?


I see what you mean about the descriptions. I'm not solving complex problems every minute of my life, but I'd say my Ti is always there. Whatever I think about I tend to approach in a Ti-ish way, even though I sometimes think about things that aren't particularly intellectual, as we all have to. Your example with the tomatoes seemed like Si to me, but I think that highlights an interesting problem with discussions of the functions: our brains are going to reinterpret descriptions in a way that is understandable to us. So when I read your example it made me think of choosing the tomatoes based on stored sense perceptions of what they should look like, so that you can recreate an earlier experience. How would the Ni way of approaching that situation differ from that? I guess it would be more conceptual somehow?


----------



## grimsavage (Jan 13, 2013)

OP: " *NPs however have the advantage in selling ideas in most cases, because they bang out analogies on the fly and talk about the possibilities of going in their direction pretty easily. They can also easily change directions and synthesize a new path if they hit a dead end. *"

Cut this from your last paragraph.
This is why I love being an ENTP, and it is true, I can bang out analogies on the fly to most co-workers horror, because as they say... Put 50 cents on him and you get for 10 dollars..


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

grimsavage said:


> OP: " *NPs however have the advantage in selling ideas in most cases, because they bang out analogies on the fly and talk about the possibilities of going in their direction pretty easily. They can also easily change directions and synthesize a new path if they hit a dead end. *"
> 
> Cut this from your last paragraph.
> This is why I love being an ENTP, and it is true, I can bang out analogies on the fly to most co-workers horror, because as they say... Put 50 cents on him and you get for 10 dollars..


Haha yeah, I've been thinking of revising that too. It might be more of a Ti thing that Ne mercilessly abuses. (from someone else's point of view at least.)


----------

