# Alternative names of cognitive functions



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

So this is something I've been thinking about. The names of the cognitive functions can be quite confusing in that they're all defined differently to how they normally are in the English language so it's not obvious to a beginner what they actually mean and could mislead people. For example, going by just their names, feeling could easily get confused with sensing, and thinking is always confusing (because everyone "thinks", but thinking here refers to a specific type of thinking, if that makes sense).

So, just an idea, it's _only_ an idea and I'm relatively new to this myself, would it be accurate to describe them like this?

T = objective logic
F = subjective logic
S = objective information
N = subjective information.

And replace introverted/extroverted with internal/external so:

Te = external objective logic
Ti = internal objective logic
Fe = external subjective logic

etc.

That makes sense to me, based on my current understanding of cognitive functions and my understanding of the meaning of the words above. Genuinely interested in your thoughts, I have this awful feeling that I'll look back on this post when I'm more knowledgeable and think it was stupid.


----------



## 90082 (Apr 16, 2014)

This is not a stupid thought, not at all.
Our common use of these terms can confuse people to no end. I have given the topic _some _thought after having a client (fairly new to type functions) who kept getting confused/thrown-off _because of_ the facet terms. When giving presentations, I make sure that I explain the facets in ways that are more accurate than what the terms suggest; and I find that I need to explain what the terms mean when working with many people, because the terms do not readily convey the meaning.

I particularly dislike the "thinking" and "feeling" terms, because people of either preference both think and feel. Feeling can imply that those with this preference are overly emotional and incapable of analytical thought. This is not true. In addition, our society has a bias toward "thinking," which can mislead people to believe that all thinkers have a mature, well-developed knack for reasoning and accurate analysis. This is certainly not true in all cases. 
I like to think of T as objective analysis, and F as subjective analysis. Both analyze situations, but through different priority filters. I don't care so much for the term "logic," because it carries some social expectation that the person may be inclined to use formal logical methods (which is not always the case). 

I don't see objective/subjective applying much to the S/N dichotomy. Aside from the terms of S/N, the definitions given also mislead. A common description used for sensors tells that they focus on those things that they can experience with their five senses (touch, smell, taste, feel, see), which gives the impression that sensors are elementary or basic.This implication is ridiculous.

I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel on terms due to the large familiarity and use of the terms, and because I have way too many other projects going. I don't think that coming up with more accurate descriptions is silly or a waste of time, even if you're "new" at this. In fact, playing with the terms can actually help you make more sense of it all. I think you have a great start here, and I'll be interested to see what others have come with.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> T = objective logic
> F = subjective logic
> S = objective information
> N = subjective information


T = Reason
F = Values
S = Sensory Information
N = Abstract Information

Te = Extroverted Reasoning. Objective. Empiricism. Scientism. Measuring, evaluating, testing.
Ti = Introverted Reasoning. Subjective. Rationalism. Philosophy. Frameworking, pure reasoning. 

Fe = Extroverted Values. Objective. Ethics as pertaining to how one should live. External harmony between all.
Fi = Introverted Values. Subjective. Morals pertaining to personal sense of right and wrong. Internal harmony, synchronicity with own views.

Se = Extroverted Sensing. Objective. The concrete world as it currently is. Immediacy. 
Si = Introverted Sensing. Subjective. Storing data. Recalling data. 

Ne = Extroverted Intuition. Objective. Open-ended exploration. Establishing (or finding?) relationships between abstractions or objects. Spontaneity.

Ni = Introverted Intuition. Subjective. Internal images of an abstract or surrealist tint. Prophetic foresight, penetrating insight.


----------



## Ugunti (Oct 10, 2013)

Octavian said:


> T = Reason
> F = Values
> S = Sensory Information
> N = Abstract Information


This. Amazing.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Ava_McKeehen said:


> This is not a stupid thought, not at all.
> Our common use of these terms can confuse people to no end. I have given the topic _some _thought after having a client (fairly new to type functions) who kept getting confused/thrown-off _because of_ the facet terms. When giving presentations, I make sure that I explain the facets in ways that are more accurate than what the terms suggest; and I find that I need to explain what the terms mean when working with many people, because the terms do not readily convey the meaning.
> 
> I particularly dislike the "thinking" and "feeling" terms, because people of either preference both think and feel. Feeling can imply that those with this preference are overly emotional and incapable of analytical thought. This is not true. In addition, our society has a bias toward "thinking," which can mislead people to believe that all thinkers have a mature, well-developed knack for reasoning and accurate analysis. This is certainly not true in all cases.
> ...


Thanks for a great reply. Yes with "logic" I meant "the logic you would use to analyse something" which could be formal or not, so I'm happy to change that to analysis, that means the same as what I meant with logic.

S vs N; I see S as looking at concrete information (what things are, what they were), which is objective. N looking at how things connect, which is going to be more dependent on a point of view hence the subjective (and I guess because I liked the symmetry!). It still makes sense to me. I actually hoped that this definition would make things fairer on sensors, because I know how they're sometimes unfairly viewed.

Also would you agree that whether using Ne or Se, you're still using your physical senses to gather information from the world around you, but just prioritising different information?

Agreed, I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel either. Just trying to help my understanding and maybe others, and to put things into words (usually more difficult than the understanding itself).


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm not opposed to considering alternative terminology. It sounds intriguing.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@Octavian 

I find your ability to cut through the clutter and bring clarity quite refreshing.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

@Octavian , I don't really understand your use of Objective and Subjective. You're saying that extroverted functions are objective and introverted functions are subjective. But isn't something like Ethics which you put for Fe inherently subjective (you would need a system of values first), but something like Rationalism which you put under Ti is something that's very objective?

You might be able to say T = Reason = Objective Analysis, and F = Values = Subjective Analysis.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

ALongTime said:


> @_Octavian_ , I don't really understand your use of Objective and Subjective. You're saying that extroverted functions are objective and introverted functions are subjective. But isn't something like Ethics which you put for Fe inherently subjective (you would need a system of values first), but something like Rationalism which you put under Ti is something that's very objective?
> 
> You might be able to say T = Reason = Objective Analysis, and F = Values = Subjective Analysis.


I think perhaps introverted functions are self/internal referenced, hence more subjective, whereas extraverted functions are other/external referenced, hence more objective.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

I really liked the rest of Octavian's text, and I think those labels would solve many of the stereotypes being enforced, until I saw this:



Octavian said:


> Se = Extroverted Sensing. Objective. *The concrete world as it currently is. Immediacy. *
> 
> Si = Introverted Sensing. Subjective. *Storing data. Recalling data. *


Are you serious???? Sensing functions go much more in depth than this.

*Se *can also be defined as strong willpower, effective establishing and completing of short-term goals, ability to test or evaluate other people on "friend or foe" basis, quick recognition for the face values of things, adequate sense of style and fashion etc.

*Si*, on the other hand, can also be defined as a lifestyle choice, since most Si-users show extreme adherence to their lifestyle choices. Basically, the motto for Si would be "If you're not going to do it correctly, you might as well leave it undone!" Si is not really good in planning, but rather in sustaining of something, a kind of survival skill, making Si-users really awesome in the wild. Si can also be connected to a sense of loyalty that always extends to their actions. 

For example, when a company is not doing well, the people belonging to Se-Ni axis would be prone to focus to invest in increasing the income, while people belonging to the Ne-Si axis would be more prone to cutting the expenses.

Otherwise, great job!! :happy:


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Sensation = being

Thinking = definition

Feeling = worth/value

Intuition = change


Notice that nowhere is "emotion" a part of the functions.

Emotions have nothing to do with cognitive functions.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> I find your ability to cut through the clutter and bring clarity quite refreshing.


It's the Te. Deleted the paragraphs I had written and demanded a single line for each. 



> I don't really understand your use of Objective and Subjective.


We're working out of the Jungian Cognitive Functions. When I use the words Objective and Subjective, I'm referring to the Jungian definitions, not the standard dictionary ones.

Objective functions align themselves by external data. They orient towards the object and seek to preserve the integrity of it. When we consider that subjective functions seek to distort the object to derive meaning from it, antagonism between functions of the same preference (Te vs. Ti for example) becomes apparent.



> If a man thinks, feels, acts, and actually lives in a way that is directly correlated with the objective conditions and their demands, he is extraverted. His life makes it perfectly clear that it is the object and not this subjective view that plays the determining role in his consciousness. Naturally he has subjective views too, but their determining value is less than that of the objective conditions [...] His whole consciousness looks outward [...] The moral laws governing his actions coincide with the demands of society.


_p. 333 - 334, Psychological Types, Princeton-Bollingen._

When we consider the above it is clear as to why, for example, Te does not accept the sheer reasoning of Ti, and demands extensive testing and collective verification via peer review, to accept a theory or claim.

It becomes clear as to why Fe is willing to sacrifice personal values while demanding that Fi do the same, because the sacrifice of such a thing means collective well being.

Objective = Object = The thing itself. An objective function is one that is extraverted. An extraverted individual is one that is oriented towards the object.

Subjective by contrast, as stated earlier, distorts the object to derive meaning. 



> The introvert interposes a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that fits the objective situation [...] It is oriented by the factor in perception and cognition which responds to the sense stimulus in accordance with the individual's subjective disposition [...] Whereas the extravert continually appeals to what comes to him from the object, the introvert relies principally on what the sense impression constellates in the subject [...] The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me.


_p. 373 - 374, Psychological Types, Princeton-Bollingen_

Subjective = Subject = The interpretation of the thing's essence. A subjective function is one that is introverted. An introverted individual is one that is oriented towards the subject.

Ti is typically more concerned with epistemological truths than it is with scientific truths, regarding the latter with general skepticism. The term scientism may be used pejoratively to point out an individual that leans overwhelmingly towards logical positivism, highlighting a general disdain for Te notions of truth (which would basically be empiricism on steroids.) 

Fi will stand directly opposed to the collective should it embody values that contradict it's own storehouse of internal 'morals' with unwavering spirit. Streaks of non-conformism will run high as it asserts that collective notions of right and wrong do not determine what is _actually_ right or wrong... The same spirit is visible within Ti, which asserts that Te quantitative analyses and measurements, do not determine ultimate truth. 

Both are aware of the object, as human beings, we cannot be blind to them unless we are somehow touched in the head. The key is that the subjective factor distorts the object to derive new meaning from it. Hence, a scientific model is rejected by Ti if it does not contain internal logical consistency. Hence Fi will raise utter hell if it interprets a set of external ethics as being wrong, no matter what sort of ethical consensus has been reached. 

To the objective function, the subjective one seems insane, but that's because the objective functions have a tendency to never look beneath the object, or to simply devalue the subject interpretation of it.

To summarize:

Objective - Extraverted = Looking outward or at the surface.

Subjective - Introverted = Looking inward or beneath the surface.



> But isn't something like Ethics which you put for Fe inherently subjective (you would need a system of values first), but something like Rationalism which you put under Ti is something that's very objective?


Human beings can never actually be objective. Even our observations of supposedly objective data is subjective, as we must observe, internalize, and then analyze it. The slightest glance at a thing, with no judgement passed, is a subjective observation even. Whether we benefit or not from regarding things in a objective light is a different story. Treating that which appears to be fact, _as fact,_ has generally lead to us not dying at age 30 anymore and landing people on the moon.

We call Fe objective because it is oriented towards collective ethics. Almost like consensus. What is commonly considered right is considered to be ethical by Fe. Within highly developed Fe users, someone like Plato comes to mind, that which creates an overall collective good for the masses, is regarded is being ethical.

Ti, even rationalism, does not work by collective consensus. Within the realm of thinking, that consensus would be something like scientific peer review. If you make a scientific claim, 30 other scientists will test your claim, exchange notes and results, and then determine if it has validity and even further, soundness. Ti is subjective because it relies upon sheer reasoning and will even exclude 'objective' input if it does not meet it's standards for logical consistency.



> You might be able to say T = Reason = Objective Analysis, and F = Values = Subjective Analysis.


I can tell you haven't read Jung in depth but you're not far from the mark at all. I'd say:

Extroverted = Objective Analysis

Introverted = Subjective Analysis

And remember, this is operating out of the Jungian Cognitive Function model, if you began speaking science or any other topic with me, my notions of Objective and Subjective would be completely different.



> Are you serious???? Sensing functions go much more in depth than this.


I was trying to create simple definitions, not in depth descriptions. When I typed the sensing descriptions it kept leaning into the territory of other functions or implying a specific axis so I just left it that way out of laziness.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

@Octavian, thanks for your explanation. But what I'm trying to do here is to get away from Jungian definitions and redefine things in language as it is commonly used outside of the field. I always find it's best to understand something for yourself rather than remember someone else's definition.

Objective and Subjective as I'm using them are Objective: Related to concrete objects, observed facts, reality, formal logic. Subjective: Based on individual experience and mindset, or seeing how something is in relation to something else.

So I can see that Objective and Subjective aren't unambiguous terms that I thought because they have alternative definitions. So I would need to find different words that mean the same thing as I'm trying to get them to mean. Any ideas?


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> thanks for your explanation. But what I'm trying to do here is to get away from Jungian definitions and redefine things in language as it is commonly used outside of the field.


That's already been attempted and the result was bastardization through Myers-Briggs and Kiersey simplification. Both of which still receive scathing criticism, JCF effectively ignored.



> Objective and Subjective as I'm using them are Objective: Related to concrete objects, observed facts, reality, formal logic. Subjective: Based on individual experience and mindset, or seeing how something is in relation to something else.


The problem is that with those two definitions, I can fit all of the functions into each. Ti can relate to formal logic as well as individual experience / mindset. Ne can pertain to something in relation to something else as well as to observed facts. etc.



> So I can see that Objective and Subjective aren't unambiguous terms that I thought because they have alternative definitions. So I would need to find different words that mean the same thing as I'm trying to get them to mean. Any ideas?


I think that's why Jung decided to use Extraverted and Introverted. Unfortunately no, nothing immediately comes to mind.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Octavian said:


> That's already been attempted and the result was bastardization through Myers-Briggs and Kiersey simplification. Both of which still receive scathing criticism, JCF effectively ignored.


I'm not attempting simplification necessarily, just re-explaining in different terms, substituting different words for the same thing with no depth lost. That would be ideal, if not there's still value in having a model to help understand something on a certain level, you get that all the time in sciences.

I understand what you're saying with what Jung meant by subjective and objective (and I didn't know that before), just using different language.

What I'm seeing here is something in common between T and S, and something in common between F and N. Subjective and objective are obviously not the right words because they're already used to mean something else. I know what I mean, I may not be right, but I don't think I've communicated it properly yet.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

ALongTime said:


> @Octavian , I don't really understand your use of Objective and Subjective. You're saying that extroverted functions are objective and introverted functions are subjective. But isn't something like Ethics which you put for Fe inherently subjective (you would need a system of values first), but something like Rationalism which you put under Ti is something that's very objective?
> 
> You might be able to say T = Reason = Objective Analysis, and F = Values = Subjective Analysis.


There are objective values and worth as you mention in a later thread. Your definitions don't contradict Jungian subjective and objective on that page. Fe doesn't care about self referencing decisions and singling out the ethics in a way Fi naturally would. Octavian's description is the basic thing that function means. Fe egos place value on external things and have a linear value system.
Ti is subjective because it isn't just looking for external logical results but is a non-linear logical system that is more concerned with making sense to the person than cold, hard facts. Te is a much more direct function than Ti.

Still, those are examples of objective ethics and subjective logic. There's more overlap to your later definitions of objective and subjective and Jungian objective and subjective than what you give credit. The terms are more flexible and mean more than how they're being looked at.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Well, if I were to take a shot at it, I'd do something like this. 

Imagine a given thing. 

Se: What _is_ the thing? What are its visible properties?

Si: What do I know about the thing? What has it done in the past?

Ne: What _could_ I do with this thing? What possibilities does it hold that aren't obvious? 

Ni: What could I use this thing for? Where does it fit within my own life and plans?

For the judging functions, meanwhile, you'll have to switch it up to a stated fact rather than a thing. 

Te: Is this fact borne out by the evidence? Have I seen the fact in action? 
Ti: Does the fact make sense? Can it be possible given what I know already? 

Fe: How does this fact affect the people around me? Negatively? Positively?
Fi: How do I feel about this fact? Is it something I'm happy about? Unhappy about? 

Obviously, my understanding of types and whatnot is rudimentary as hell. But you guys get the idea.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Well, if I were to take a shot at it, I'd do something like this.
> 
> Imagine a given thing.
> 
> ...


I really like this chain of thinking.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Chained Divinity said:


> Well, if I were to take a shot at it, I'd do something like this.
> 
> Imagine a given thing.
> 
> ...


I like these definitions, they're quite clear. I will say about Fi though, I see it as creating an internal harmony more than just happy/unhappy. That's why I say it's subjective, and Ti is objective because it doesn't matter how it makes you feel, it matters whether it's right, does that make sense?


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Yeah…I'm fine with the terms. It's really not that damn hard to learn why they're called what they're called. But, if I had to change them, I guess I would say:


Se - *Externally-referenced Sensations*, a form of *Unreasoned Perception* (à la *sensory, literally-understood data*.)
Si - *Self/Internally-referenced Sensations*, a form of *Unreasoned Perception* (à la *sensory, literally-understood* *data*.)

Ne - *Externally-referenced Abstractions*, a form of *Unreasoned Perception* (à la s*ymbolic, hypothetically-understood* *data*.)
Ni - *Self/Internally-referenced Abstractions*, a form of *Unreasoned Perception* (à la *symbolic, hypothetically-understood data*)

Te - *Externally-referenced Logic*, a form of *Impersonal Reasoning *(via *impartial* *definitions* and *cause/effect relationships*)
Ti - *Self/Internally-referenced Logic*, a form of *Impersonal Reasoning* (via *impartial* *definitions *and *cause/effect relationships*)

Fe - *Externally-referenced Ethics*, a form of *Personal Reasoning *(via *evaluations of worth* in relation to *affects on people*.)
Fi - *Externally-referenced Ethics*, a form of *Personal Reasoning* (via *evaluation of worth* in relation to *affects on people*.)


*Abbreviatons*:

Externally-referenced = e
Self/Internally-referenced = i
Unreasoned = n/a
Perception = P

Sensation/Sensing = S
Abstractions/Abstractions = A

Impersonal = n/a
Personal = n/a
Reasoned/Reasoning = R
Logic/Logical = L
Ethics/Ethical = T 



SeTi = SeLi
SeFi = SeTi

SiTe = SiLe
SiFe = SiTe 

NeTi = NeLi
NeFi = NeTi 

NiTe = AiLe
NiFe = AiTe

__ 

TeSi = LeSi
TeNi = LeAi

TiSe = LiSe
TiNe = LiAe

FeSi = TeS
FeNi = TeAi

FiSe - TiSe
FiNe - ΤiAe


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

ALongTime said:


> I like these definitions, they're quite clear. I will say about Fi though, I see it as creating an internal harmony more than just happy/unhappy. That's why I say it's subjective, and Ti is objective because it doesn't matter how it makes you feel, it matters whether it's right, does that make sense?


True. XD 

Actually I probably ought to change the F-descriptions to be about actions rather than facts, as that's more where what they are is noticeable. But I'll edit them up to:

Fe: How does this action affect the people around me? Positively, negatively?
Fi: How does this action line up with previous things I've done or have been done to me? Have I viewed anything similar negatively in the past? Positively?


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Chained Divinity said:


> True. XD
> 
> Actually I probably ought to change the F-descriptions to be about actions rather than facts, as that's more where what they are is noticeable. But I'll edit them up to:
> 
> ...


OK, sorry but now you've lost me slightly. F functions are logical judging functions just like T, they're used to analyse the same kind of information that T does but use different criteria. I really don't think Fi has necessarily anything to do with the past or whether something is positive or negative in the past.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

ALongTime said:


> OK, sorry but now you've lost me slightly. F functions are logical judging functions just like T, they're used to analyse the same kind of information that T does but use different criteria. I really don't think Fi has necessarily anything to do with the past or whether something is positive or negative in the past.


I'd say feelings are very dependent on the past. I think they are constructs of logic combined with the past actually which I think is the primary difference of Ti and Fi. It's like relying on instinct which can only be learned over time. For example, in video games I use Ne trying new things and ideas while my Fi stores the data so I can instantly react at a later date given I run into the same scenarios whereas a Ti wouldn't react so instantly but focus more on a response since it's not combining the internal logic with past experience in that way.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Stelliferous said:


> I'd say feelings are very dependent on the past. I think they are constructs of logic combined with the past actually which I think is the primary difference of Ti and Fi. It's like relying on instinct which can only be learned over time. For example, in video games I use Ne trying new things and ideas while my Fi stores the data so I can instantly react at a later date given I run into the same scenarios whereas a Ti wouldn't react so instantly but focus more on a response since it's not combining the internal logic with past experience in that way.


Have to say I've always been good at retaining information, but I've put that down to Si rather than Fi.

But I think I can see what you're getting at. Would you say Fi is more to do with facts fitting into a previously established model (kind of what I meant by "internal harmony"), whereas Ti is more to do with the absolute correctness of the facts and therefore the model?

I think my post wasn't well worded. The main question I had was how F is specifically to do with actions, but I would say F and T is to do with analysing all kinds of information but with different standards. That was meant to be my main point I think.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

ALongTime said:


> Have to say I've always been good at retaining information, but I've put that down to Si rather than Fi.
> 
> But I think I can see what you're getting at. Would you say Fi is more to do with facts fitting into a previously established model (kind of what I meant by "internal harmony"), whereas Ti is more to do with the absolute correctness of the facts and therefore the model?
> 
> I think my post wasn't well worded. The main question I had was how F is specifically to do with actions, but I would say F and T is to do with analysing all kinds of information but with different standards. That was meant to be my main point I think.


Yeah I think Fi is more concerned with an immediate, straight forward judgment while Ti sort of chases that perfection of understanding so requires more time. In action a Ti would be careful and thoughtful with its judgment but lack the immediate judgment. So a Ti would be better at the natural game of chess whereas an Fi would be better at speed chess. There are situations where one would be better than the other. I play video games a lot with my INTP friend and I definitely see how careful he is so he's great alone but in team work, fast pace decision making is necessary and he lacks a bit there. So normally I do better than him as we are playing a team game but he always beats me in a 1v1.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Se: What _is_ the thing? What are its *visible *properties?


Why is Se necessarily related to seeing? I know Se can be pronounced as See, but there are other senses too. 

From my observations, I noticed that Si types tend to pay more attention to the visual and Se types tend to pay more attention to the tactile. This has just been my experience though.


After reading through many of @_monemi_'s posts about Se and to a lesser extent Si, I like to think of Sensation as Experience, where Se is focused on the objective experience (the experience in itself) and Si is focused on the subjective experience (the individual's personal experience).


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Si - Impressionistic Perception
Se - Individualistic Perception
Ni - Artistic Perception
Ne - Potential Perception

Fe - Social Judgment
Fi - Moral Judgment
Te - Lawful Judgment
Ti - Analytic Judgment


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Why is Se necessarily related to seeing? I know Se can be pronounced as See, but there are other senses too.
> 
> From my observations, I noticed that Si types tend to pay more attention to the visual and Se types tend to pay more attention to the tactile. This has just been my experience though.
> 
> ...


Agreed, I'm more tactile than visual. In general Se usually are more interested in the experience than the way it looks. We're more objective and aren't usually too quick to judge a book by it's cover.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Octavian said:


> S = Sensory Information
> N = Abstract Information
> 
> Se = Extroverted Sensing. Objective. The concrete world as it currently is. Immediacy.


Disagree. This definition only reinforces old boxes. 'S is sensing.' *puke face* N doesn't equal abstract. Se isn't just concrete. 

I'm annoyed right now, I'll look at this later.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

While morals are a big part of Fi, it's also about impulses - reactions. So "moral judgment" doesn't quite do the function justice. Not everything has to do with morals.  Morals can be formed analytically too.


----------



## Annwuzhere (Jul 23, 2013)

Just as a joke lol

Se: YOLO function
Si: Yay tradition function

Fi: Oppose my values and die function
Fe: Must help everyone function

Ne: Idea overload function
Ni: Magical psychic function 

Te: Bossy boots function
Ti: White and nerdy function

Waits for the rotten fruits...


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Stelliferous said:


> Yeah I think Fi is more concerned with an immediate, straight forward judgment while Ti sort of chases that perfection of understanding so requires more time. In action a Ti would be careful and thoughtful with its judgment but lack the immediate judgment. So a Ti would be better at the natural game of chess whereas an Fi would be better at speed chess. There are situations where one would be better than the other. I play video games a lot with my INTP friend and I definitely see how careful he is so he's great alone but in team work, fast pace decision making is necessary and he lacks a bit there. So normally I do better than him as we are playing a team game but he always beats me in a 1v1.


Interesting, I've never thought about it in terms of speed of judgement... I'll have to think about that some more.

So what about if a new idea contradicts your old ideas? Then Fi can be slow, you would have to either adapt the model you have or reject the idea. I spend a lot of time inside my head, thinking through ideas and making sense of things, deciding what I believe in and what my values are.

If you asked me I would say Fe and Te are for quick decision making because they are engaged with the outside world. When you're playing a game (other than maybe something like chess, I'm talking about something active like a video game), isn't it the extroverted functions that tend to be used? Because you're interacting with the game and not inside your own head.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

ALongTime said:


> Interesting, I've never thought about it in terms of speed of judgement... I'll have to think about that some more.
> 
> So what about if a new idea contradicts your old ideas? Then Fi can be slow, you would have to either adapt the model you have or reject the idea. I spend a lot of time inside my head, thinking through ideas and making sense of things, deciding what I believe in and what my values are.
> 
> If you asked me I would say Fe and Te are for quick decision making because they are engaged with the outside world. When you're playing a game (other than maybe something like chess, I'm talking about something active like a video game), isn't it the extroverted functions that tend to be used? Because you're interacting with the game and not inside your own head.


yeah you would either reject the idea or come up with a better way to think about it but honestly contradictions are mostly not a concern to the Fi user unless it actually is problematic. And in video games and whatnot you are using your extraverted and introverted functions combined. It goes for me Si (data) to Fi (how I feel about the data) to Ne (what I should or could do) to Te (controlling/doing). Fe and Te would be quick decision making as well. Ti I think is really the slow one as you need time to think. Te takes time thinking too but to a lesser extent. In raw action Fe and Fi work faster.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

So I wonder if it follows that xxxJ types (those with strong Fe or Te) prefer or are better at real-time action games, and xxxP types prefer less time-critical, maybe turn-based strategy games. I know that's true for me, I'm not sure about anyone else.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

PaladinX said:


> Why is Se necessarily related to seeing? I know Se can be pronounced as See, but there are other senses too.
> 
> From my observations, I noticed that Si types tend to pay more attention to the visual and Se types tend to pay more attention to the tactile. This has just been my experience though.
> 
> ...


This was so confusing at first…how can an "experience in itself" be different from a reaction to an experience if what one experiences is just a reaction in the first place?

But, then I realized what you mean that Se type are more interested in "experiencing the moment." Of course, I don't mean "the moment" as in a concern for the ticking of the clock so much as they are invested in adapting to the situation at hand and (subjectively) experiencing as much of the "richness" of it as possible via as many of their senses as possible. Like I said, an ESP experiences sensations subjective, but their Ego just isn't dominated by that subjectivity. They ignore it (as well as other mental processes) for the sake of getting more external contact.

So, maybe: 

Se: Experiencing as much or as intensely as possible and changing as the situation as the situation changes.
Si: Adapting the moment to the Self by noticing subjective reactions to the experiences as well as revisiting previous experiences that seem "conceptually" related to the current experience.


Honestly, though, Si is probably the most confusing function because people describe it so differently. I never know what to believe !!

Jung (Psychological Types) and Isabel Briggs Myers (Gifts Differing) focus mostly on the extent to which subjective sensory impressions will dominate the Ego, but doesn't say anything really about comparing things to the past. Nor does either author give much description as to what these impressions are like, experientially.

Lenore Thomson adds the idea that, as "left-brained function", Si converts immediate data into signs and symbols (words, numbers, images, etc.). As a result of it's subjective nature, Si sort of randomly selects which information "is worth keeping" and should be used (with adequate Je) to organize our world to reflect what's important to us.

Dario Nardi basically describes Si as giving us references for comparing existing data to what we know, i.e. "a predictable standard." He focuses little on the subjectivity of the experiences, however.

CognitiveType.com only ever describes Si in tandem with Ne, saying that Si never absorbs information itself. Rather, it (along with Ni) only reflects on information that's already been taken in through Pe. Because, Ne is abstract/conceptual and Si is subjective/reactionary, Si simply notes physiological responses to external concepts (as well as associated memories, to my understanding). Si will channel along these impressions as a stored template (it's described as "worldview" function), that goes unchanged without more Ne. 

Finally, I've heard people a specific member of this forum describe Si as being very similar to muscle memory--giving people a very strong impression of how something (specifically tasks) should "feel" with little understanding why. IMO, he doesn't really do a great job identifying the subjective nature of Si, though. Nor does he give specific sources to why he thinks that.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

ALongTime said:


> So I wonder if it follows that xxxJ types (those with strong Fe or Te) prefer or are better at real-time action games, and xxxP types prefer less time-critical, maybe turn-based strategy games. I know that's true for me, I'm not sure about anyone else.


I know it's like that in sports. Si is an SJ trait which shows up in golfers, pool players, etc. Basically sports which take concentration rather than speed. INFP and INTP have Si as well in the form of tertiary so we do like to take our time and be tactful about it. SPs are more common in football, basketball, etc because of their Se rather than Si. I enjoy turn based games as well. FFX is my all time favorite game which just so happens to have turn based combat. But I also enjoy fast paced games, probably because of my Fi/Ne.


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

Octavian said:


> T = Reason
> F = Values
> S = Sensory Information
> N = Abstract Information
> ...



Good one. I'm not Te^^ Could we say that Fe is more about actual behavior? "Ethics as pertaining to how one should live"


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@surgery I would like to redirect that discussion to the following thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/174490-take-introverted-sensation.html


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

monemi said:


> Disagree. This definition only reinforces old boxes. 'S is sensing.' *puke face* N doesn't equal abstract. Se isn't just concrete.
> 
> I'm annoyed right now, I'll look at this later.


*standing naked in the crowd and awaiting the tomato rain* 
Woman, calm down! Instead of getting annoyed and 'oh so hurt' by the lack of understanding of S functions (which usually comes from Ns, so of course it's harder for them to understand what they don't use as often), maybe just explain. And N doesn't equal abstract but it does concentrate on it more. N also observes the sensing information, of course, but instead of more deeply exploring that, N most often will go and explore the intangible part the information. Abstract, conceptual, hypothetical. ''Behind the scenes stuff'', shall we say. It's even noticeable in the way people on this and any other thread communicate. You seemed to concentrate on the literal meaning of ''thing'' in @Chained Divinity comment, while I, possibly because of N, saw it's metaphorical meaning. Not thing as in something tangible, but thing as in source of information, whatever information that is - audial, visual, etc.

Now tell me then, what does S concentrate on. What will keep it's attention?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

SplitTheAtom said:


> *standing naked in the crowd and awaiting the tomato rain*
> Woman, calm down! Instead of getting annoyed and 'oh so hurt' by the lack of understanding of S functions (which usually comes from Ns, so of course it's harder for them to understand what they don't use as often), maybe just explain. And N doesn't equal abstract but it does concentrate on it more. N also observes the sensing information, of course, but instead of more deeply exploring that, N most often will go and explore the intangible part the information. Abstract, conceptual, hypothetical. ''Behind the scenes stuff'', shall we say. It's even noticeable in the way people on this and any other thread communicate. You seemed to concentrate on the literal meaning of ''thing'' in @_Chained Divinity_ comment, while I, possibly because of N, saw it's metaphorical meaning. Not thing as in something tangible, but thing as in source of information, whatever information that is - audial, visual, etc.
> 
> Now tell me then, what does S concentrate on. What will keep it's attention?


I'm getting fed of explaining it over again. We've had these conversations before. I feel like a broken record.


----------

