# How are Se and Si related?



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

I understand how Ne/Ni, Fe/Fi, and Te/Ti are related, but how are Se/Si related? What is "sensing"?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Se is placing importance on sense impressions (information via the senses) as the decisive factor of perception. 
Si is placing importance on subjective sense impressions activated by information being received via the senses.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> Se is placing importance on sense impressions (information via the senses) as the decisive factor of perception.
> Si is placing importance on subjective sense impressions activated by information being received via the senses.


So, sensing is information received via the senses.

What is an example of an Si sense impression? 

What is an example of an Se sense impression?

How can you determine which of your S functions is in your shadow?

How can you determine if your valued S function is dom/aux or tert/inferior?

Also, Se is not an understanding of force, power dynamics, and influence?


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Gentleman said:


> I understand how Ne/Ni, Fe/Fi, and Te/Ti are related


Could you explain how these are related?


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Dedication said:


> Could you explain how these are related?


Intuition - acquiring knowledge without inference or the use of reason.

Feeling - consciously applying emotion.

Thinking - consciously applying logic.

Intuition/sensing are perceiving, or "irrational" functions, while thinking/feeling are judging, or "rational" functions.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Gentleman said:


> Intuition - acquiring knowledge without inference or the use of reason.
> 
> Feeling - consciously applying emotion.
> 
> ...


Sensing - acquiring experience without inference or the use of reason.

Not that I agree with any of the three descriptions you made or the one I made, but that's how I would solve the puzzle if it was presented to me.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

> *47. SENSATION. I regard sensation as one of the basic psychological functions (q.v.). *Wundt likewise reckons it among the elementary psychic phenomena. 77 *Sensation is the psychological function that mediates the perception of a physical stimulus.* It is, therefore, identical with perception. Sensation must be strictly distinguished from feeling (q.v.), since the latter is an entirely different process, although it may associate itself with sensation as “feeling-tone.” *Sensation is related not only to external stimuli but to inner ones, i.e., to changes in the internal organic processes. *[793] *Primarily, therefore, sensation is sense perception— perception mediated by the sense organs and “body-senses” (kinaesthetic, vasomotor sensation, etc.).* It is, on the one hand, an element of ideation, since it conveys to the mind the perceptual image of the external object; and on the other hand, it is an element of feeling, since through the perception of bodily changes it gives feeling the character of an affect (q.v.). *Because sensation conveys bodily changes to consciousness, it is also a representative of physiological impulses.* It is not identical with them, being merely a perceptive function. [794] *A distinction must be made between sensuous or concrete (q.v.) sensation and abstract (q.v.) sensation.* The first includes all the above-mentioned forms of sensation, whereas the second is a sensation that is abstracted or separated from the other psychic elements. Concrete sensation never appears in “pure” form, but is always mixed up with ideas, feelings, thoughts. Abstract sensation is a differentiated kind of perception, which might be termed “aesthetic” in so far as, obeying its own principle, it detaches itself from all contamination with the different elements in the perceived object and from all admixtures of thought and feeling, and thus attains a degree of purity beyond the reach of concrete sensation. *The concrete sensation of a flower, on the other hand, conveys a perception not only of the flower as such, but also of the stem, leaves, habitat, and so on. It is also instantly mingled with feelings of pleasure or dislike which the sight of the flower evokes, or with simultaneous olfactory perceptions, or with thoughts about its botanical classification, etc. But abstract sensation immediately picks out the most salient sensuous attribute of the flower, its brilliant redness, for instance, and makes this the sole or at least the principal content of consciousness, entirely detached from all other admixtures. Abstract sensation is found chiefly among artists.* Like every abstraction, it is a product of functional differentiation (q.v.), and there is nothing primitive about it. The primitive form of a function is always concrete, i.e., contaminated (v. Archaism; Concretism). *Concrete sensation is a reactive phenomenon, while abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always associated with the will (q.v.), i.e., with a sense of direction. *The will that is directed to abstract sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude.





> .We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn. The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future, while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day.


Se= Concrete Sensation
Si= Abstract Sensation


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Gentleman said:


> So, sensing is information received via the senses.


Pretty much, yes



> What is an example of an Si sense impression?


A sense impression from within the psyche, that is activated by the objective perception. Substituting elements of the objective perception with subjective elements.



> What is an example of an Se sense impression?


An image/noise/smell/combination of, etc.



> How can you determine which of your S functions is in your shadow?
> 
> How can you determine if your valued S function is dom/aux or tert/inferior?
> 
> Also, Se is not an understanding of force, power dynamics, and influence?


Figure out your dom and aux and then you can figure out the rest of your functions from them. Type tests are a good starting point.





Shadow Logic said:


> Se= Concrete Sensation
> Si= Abstract Sensation


Jung used the terms abstract and concrete in two slightly different contexts. He said that extraverted functions dealt with concrete data (because it's 'mixed together') but also when referring to undifferentiated functions (which are also 'mixed together'). Abstracting for the functions abstracting data, as in separating it out from other elements (all functions abstract, introverted functions abstract and assimilate). Also abstract was used for differentiated function, also separated out from other elements & functions.

I believe the above quote is intended to mean abstract Sensation = dominant/differentiated Sensation & concrete Sensation = unconscious/undifferentiated Sensation


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> A sense impression from within the psyche, that is activated by the objective perception. Substituting elements of the objective perception with subjective elements.


I don't mean to be a dick, but this isn't an example. So like, I would smell roses then remember as a kid when I played in a rose garden with my parents? I don't think my impressions from within the psyche are activated by my senses. 



Neverontime said:


> Figure out your dom and aux and then you can figure out the rest of your functions from them. Type tests are a good starting point.


Well, I'm here now because I can't figure out my dom/aux. Been trying for like a year. I was comfortable typing as INTJ for a long time, but then I went to the socionics forum and they threw me for a loop. I'm now torn between ISTJ, INTJ, and INFP. Most tests tell me that I'm an INTJ, but people online tell me there's no way that's possible, that I'm either ISTJ, INFP, or even ISTP, and that tests are total bologna. I'm certain that I value Te over Ti. I'm certain that I value Fi over Fe. I'm almost certain that I'm an introvert. I don't know if my Te is aux with my Fi being tert or if my Fi is dom with my Te being inferior. I also don't know if I value Si/Ne or Ni/Se. Understanding the S/N functions would help clear things up for me. Problem is that everyone has a different interpretation of everything.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Dedication said:


> Sensing - acquiring experience without inference or the use of reason.
> 
> Not that I agree with any of the three descriptions you made or the one I made, but that's how I would solve the puzzle if it was presented to me.


If I'm incorrect, then what is sensing for real? Why am I incorrect and why are you correct?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

You're right that he uses it in two different contexts but I disagree with your conclusion. 



> . 14. DIFFERENTIATION means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept of differentiation chiefly with respect to the psychological functions (q.v.). *So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions*— thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.— that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic (q.v.) condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself.


I want to pay attention to the bold when reading the quote coming up next because he is focused directly on the functions in the above, whereas below he is focused on concepts which are products of thoughts, not functions :



> . A concretely thought concept is one that has grown together or coalesced with other concepts. Such a concept is not abstract, not segregated, not thought “in itself,” but is always alloyed and related to something else. *It is not a differentiated concept, but is still embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception*.





> . Concretism is a concept which falls under the more general concept of participation mystique (q.v.). *Just as the latter represents a fusion of the individual with external objects, concretism represents a fusion of thinking and feeling with sensation, so that the object of one is at the same time the object of the other.* This fusion prevents any differentiation of thinking and feeling and keeps them both within the *sphere of sensation*; they remain its servants and can never be developed into pure functions. The result is a predominance of the sensation factor in *psychological orientation *(q.v.). (Concerning the importance of this factor, v. Sensation.)


Participation mystique is the over set while concretism is the subset of participation mystique, therefore since participation mystique is focused on external objects the concretism is also a concept that is focused on external objects. This is shown to be the case most evidently in this quote:



> .The disadvantage of concretism is the subjection of the functions to sensation. *Because sensation is the perception of physiological stimuli, concretism either rivets the function to the sensory sphere or constantly leads back to it.* This results in a bondage of the psychological functions to the senses, favouring the influence of sensuous facts at the expense of the psychic independence of the individual. So far as the recognition of facts is concerned this orientation is naturally of value, but not as regards the interpretation of facts and their relation to the individual. *Concretism sets too high a value on the importance of facts and suppresses the freedom of the individual for the sake of objective data.*


It is shown that Concretism is directed to external objects which are contained with the sphere of sensation for the sake of objective data, making it synonymous with extraversion. All of the extraverted functions have to use sensation to a degree in order to pick up external objects, because external objects are picked up through our senses. 

Using this quote again, I want to show you what I mean. Below he is focused on concepts which are products of thoughts, and these concepts are concrete mean they are embedded in the material transmitted through sense perception, this in the way I understand would directly speaking of Te:



> . A concretely thought concept is one that has grown together or coalesced with other concepts. Such a concept is not abstract, not segregated, not thought “in itself,” but is always alloyed and related to something else. *It is not a differentiated concept, but is still embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception.*





> .As a consequence of the general attitude of extraversion, thinking is oriented by the object and objective data. This gives rise to a noticeable peculiarity. Thinking in general is fed on the one hand from subjective and in the last resort unconscious sources, *and on the other hand from objective data transmitted by sense-perception. *Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by the latter than by the former. Judgment always presupposes a criterion; for the extraverted judgment, the criterion supplied by external conditions is the valid and determining one, no matter whether it be represented directly by an objective, perceptible fact or by an objective idea; for an objective idea is equally determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned.


As we can see he describes the extraverted thought directly as being focused on objective data transmitted by sense perception. Obviously Te-Ni aren't sensors, but yet being Te Dom's first their focus is on the external which happens to be fused with sensations. This is proven again during his statement on how extraverted intuitives relate to external sensations:



> . But since extraverted intuition is directed predominantly to objects, it actually comes very close to sensation; *indeed, the expectant attitude to external objects is just as likely to make use of sensation.* Hence, if intuition is to function properly, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed. By sensation I mean in this instance the simple and immediate sense-impression understood as a clearly defined physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand because, if I ask an intuitive how he orients himself, he will speak of things that are almost indistinguishable from sense-impressions. Very often he will even use the word “sensation.” *He does have sensations, of course, but he is not guided by them as such; he uses them merely as starting-points for his perceptions.* He selects them by unconscious predilection. It is not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, that is accorded the chief value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value is enhanced by the intuitive’s unconscious attitude. *In this way it may eventually come to acquire the chief value, and to his conscious mind it appears to be pure sensation.* But actually it is not so.


As you can see here Extraverted Intuition is just as likely to make use of sensation due to its predominant focus on external objects which can't be separated from the material which was taken in through sense perception, Te's concepts come from it, Ne's possibilities uses them as starting points. This is why concrete functions are extraverted functions. I don't think I have to speak for the others in how they too are tied into sensations through sense perception since I do believe is fairly obvious in to how they may be.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Gentleman said:


> I don't mean to be a dick, but this isn't an example. So like, I would smell roses then remember as a kid when I played in a rose garden with my parents? I don't think my impressions from within the psyche are activated by my senses.


You're right, it's not an example. I should have said that I can't give you an example. Si alters the sense perception at the source and so this occurs outside of our awareness. 
In healthy Si types, this seems unlikely to be a significant alteration. In my observations of dom/aux Si & Se types, there doesn't seem to be any obvious differences between the two perceptions. Jung said it was most noticeable in art. If a bunch of artists of equal ability painted the same picture, there would be variations in some paintings, which he could only conclude were a result of Si seeing something slightly different.



> Well, I'm here now because I can't figure out my dom/aux. Been trying for like a year. I was comfortable typing as INTJ for a long time, but then I went to the socionics forum and they threw me for a loop. I'm now torn between ISTJ, INTJ, and INFP. Most tests tell me that I'm an INTJ, but people online tell me there's no way that's possible, that I'm either ISTJ, INFP, or even ISTP, and that tests are total bologna. I'm certain that I value Te over Ti. I'm certain that I value Fi over Fe. I'm almost certain that I'm an introvert. I don't know if my Te is aux with my Fi being tert or if my Fi is dom with my Te being inferior. I also don't know if I value Si/Ne or Ni/Se. Understanding the S/N functions would help clear things up for me. Problem is that everyone has a different interpretation of everything.


Well I would say that Si vs Se would be the most difficult to distinguish one from the other for typing purposes if you don't relate to either descriptions. Ive never had a problem with typing tests, so I do think them a good starting point. The tests are supposed to be more about who you think you are than who you actually are. This is good for self-typing ecause most people are aware of who they think they are, even if others would disagree.

My overall impression from reading back through your posts is intj. Although, my judgement did swing between intj and istj quite a lot. But then I've had that before when reading posts by Ni doms, usually older inxj's but also when they have been around Sensors often or experience or have experienced significant stressful periods at some point. If the tests usually indicate that you're intj and you can relate to that result then I would ignore other's opinions.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@Shadow Logic I'm confused, once again, by what Jung is saying. I swear he sat down and wrote his collected works whenever he was pissed up. 

If abstract sensation is always associated with the will and a sense of direction, abstract sensation must be in the dominant or ego position. Since he said that only differentiated functions are capable of direction. 

If Se is always mixed up or concrete, then is saying that Se doms aren't differentiated and come under his 'primitive mentality' ? I can't make sense of it.

I think he's tied my brain in knots as usual. I'll look at again later.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Gentleman said:


> I understand how Ne/Ni, Fe/Fi, and Te/Ti are related, but how are Se/Si related? What is "sensing"?


If you extrovert sensing, you are moving toward the physical world around you. Your sensing is more active, and you take a more active role in that world. You are less concerned with your place in it, but rather are focused on the world itself. This does mean that you are more aware of your physical placement in the world, but for Se, the world and objects in the world are all tools to be utilized, played with, manipulated and used. 

For Si, the focus is away from the physical world, and on the self. This would result in the world as being something to be observed and how it impacts you, rather than how you can impact the world. The focus would be more on how you are affected, and on the internal sensations from that external world. There is more hesitancy or distrust, it seems, from new and unfamiliar sensations, whereas for Se, new is fun or accepted or even sought out, for Si, what is already is preferred. Si is more passive and Se more active. 

This is not to say that Si doesn't like to explore or experience new, but that its approach will be more cautious or considered, like wading into the pool, while Se will just do a cannonball or dive in head-first. Si seems to need some point of reference (self?), while Se just navigates what is there, without reference to self. I guess Se sees self in the big picture of what's out there, while Si sees what's out there in reference to self? Does that sound right?


----------



## ClarityOfVision (Mar 3, 2013)

Since a lot of the information in this thread is focused on a theoretical explanation of the functions and the OP asks for examples, let me gives you some clear examples.

*Examples of Si (mostly extracted from my ISTJ father and ISFJ ex):*

My father likes to read books he already read and look at pictures from the past. This is pure Si, because these pictures (visual representation) triggers a memory and experience in him.

My ex likes to listen to songs from her teenager period. This triggers memories in her from that time, even if she may not like the song that much anymore.

My father likes watching old movies again, that he grew fond of or that have fond memories. He also likes to visit places again and learn about the past of those places.

They are both very much focused on past experiences, what it was like. They immediately apply these experiences to the future as well. “If this happened now, it will happen again. No discussion.” <-- harsh explanation but you get the point.

*Examples of Se (extracted from my ISFP girlfriend):*

My girlfriend lives in the moment, she sees something beautiful and comments on it. It doesn’t matter what happened in the past related to that particular item/view. It’s just there and it’s beautiful.

She is not thinking about how the past influenced the future. She makes predictions, of course, but not in the five senses. She likes the smell because she likes the smell, much less because it reminds her of something.

She notices tiny details in the environment that I’d never notice. She appreciates a funny face, because it’s funny. Not because she remembers it from something before.

She’s very focused on the present, what it is like. How does it influence her at this moment, now? “It doesn’t matter what happened, this happens now.”

I hope this helps your understanding a bit! Let me know if you need anything else!


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> @_Shadow Logic_ I'm confused, once again, by what Jung is saying. I swear he sat down and wrote his collected works whenever he was pissed up.


I'm inclined to think that it wasn't tobacco in that pipe of his.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> @Shadow Logic I'm confused, once again, by what Jung is saying. I swear he sat down and wrote his collected works whenever he was pissed up.
> 
> If abstract sensation is always associated with the will and a sense of direction, abstract sensation must be in the dominant or ego position. Since he said that only differentiated functions are capable of direction.


If this was true then only abstract functions could be in the dominant, but if that was the case then only introverted functions would be dominant for everyone:



> .“Interest” I conceive as the energy or libido (q.v.) which I bestow on the object as a value, or which the object draws from me, maybe even against my will or unknown to myself. I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. *In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido (v. Introversion). [680] I call an attitude (q.v.) abstractive when it is both introverting and at the same time assimilates (q.v.) a portion of the object, felt to be essential, to abstract contents already constellated in the subject.* The more abstract a content is, the more it is irrepresentable.


Obviously he didn't mean only abstract functions can be dominant since abstraction, as is bold above, is an introverting process which we both know extraverted functions do not introvert, or else they would be introverted functions. He also states that abstracrtion is a devaluation of the object while also being an introverted movement of libido being withdrawn from the object which coincides with this following quote:



> .*34. INTROVERSION means an inward-turning of libido (q.v.), in the sense of a negative relation of subject to object. Interest does not move towards the object but withdraws from it into the subject*. Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the prime motivating factor and that the object is of secondary importance.





> If Se is always mixed up or concrete, then is saying that Se doms aren't differentiated and come under his 'primitive mentality' ? I can't make sense of it.


You have to be able to differentiate from the primitive man and the civilized man to better understand, but when Jung speaks of concretism he is not solely referring to the primitive but also to the civilized:



> Primitive thinking and feeling are entirely concretistic; they are always related to sensation. *The thought of the primitive* has no detached independence but clings to material phenomena. It rises at most to the level of analogy. Primitive feeling is equally bound to material phenomena. Both of them depend on sensation and are only slightly differentiated from it. Concretism, therefore, is an archaism (q.v.). The magical influence of the fetish is not experienced as a subjective state of feeling, but sensed as a magical effect. That is concretistic feeling. *The primitive* does not experience the idea of divinity as a subjective content; for him the sacred tree is the abode of the god, or even the god himself. That is concretistic thinking. *In civilized man, concretistic thinking consists in the inability to conceive of anything except immediately obvious facts transmitted by the senses, or in the inability to discriminate between subjective feeling and the sensed object. *


As you can see, Jung doesn't apply concretism specifically and solely to the primitive but also applies it to the civilized man, therefore concretism isn't exclusive to the primitive but it is equally applicable to the civilized. Now when he speaks of primitive thinking and feeling, he is talking of a thinking and feeling that is most representable in the primitive individual which happens to be extremely influenced by Participation Mystique. Whereas the civilized individual can also contain concretistic thinking and feeling but this thinking is no longer representable by the primitive but instead by the civilized. Therefore concretism applies to the primitive, but also to the civilized. 

Also understand, there is a difference between the differentiation of functions and the differentiation of content. Extravert's are inevitably tied into the sphere of sensation since objects are fused with their sensations in how sense perception takes them in, therefore in this sense their content is undifferentiated from the *sphere* of sensation, but their dominant function is still differentiated from all the other functions, hence why all extraverted functions need to use sensations to a degree also leading them to be concrete functions.

I also notice that when a lot of us have a confusion with Jung that we tend to blame it on him rather then our own understanding. Now I understand that when you said he probably wrote collective works when he was pissed off, that you were most likely joking. Even though it was probably a joke I still want to make a point of this, that when we have trouble understanding that its never the problem of the writer but instead one of the reader because the reader may a view opposed to writer that can cause misconceptions. The writer can on!y present something in the way that they understand I, not in the way that everyone else will understsnd it, hence why two people can have two different definitions of the same word which also causes misunderstandings in a conversation that includes those words. For instance, many users try to use Jungian terms but don't differentiate Jungian use of those terms from the common use of those terms, this causes the majority of the misunderstandings of Jung. So instead of us trying to put the blame away from us due to the protection of our own egos, we need to blame ourselves for our individual misunderstandings and then we should go back to the study at hand to either reread or restudy in order to figure out where our misunderstandings comes from. In order to do that we need to understand the terms, not in the way that makes sense to us, but in the way that made sense the writer. That is the only way to understand the point of view that is external to ones self.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Si - First impression ( or first few impressions) of something concrete that is imprinted on your mind. Once a mental abstraction of a something in reality exists in the mind then the mind can add other elements to it which may not be tangible or physical to make the impression more tenable to the individual. Si is sort of like the mind's encyclopedia from which information is derived from realistic impressions. When talking about trains for example , the Se would describe it in terms of actual motion or the general experience of riding a train. The Se for the most thorough understanding would like to see the train up close and personal ( physically) and either ride it or look at the train engine , etc. The Se will always prefer to go to the physical source as it is not as they recall it was or how they think it should be. Se doms are not much for abstraction in that sense rather prefer to see the real nuts and bolts of reality. Si will recall their vivid detailed concrete impression of the train and then further reference all the little factoids they've discovered about a train. The Si could abstractly recall these things with great ease or describe a train in real time ( maybe like a teacher showing students a train). The Si would have a rich data bank of facts regarding trains but not so many theories that veer into the abstract. Si is like 'Here are the facts , do what you will with them.' This is why the Si doms I know including my best friend are almost unmatched in factual knowledge about hobbies or things that interest them.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

If you understand the relationship b/w Ne and Ni correctly, you should be able to understand how Se and Si are related.

Ne - extraverted version of N
Ni - introverted version of N
Se - extraverted version of S
Si - introverted version of S

Definition of E/I for here, you can assume objectivity/subjectivity.

IMO "Sensing" means, to put it simple, perceiving things as they are, focusing on what can be sensed from the appearance, rather than what they mean inside.

By the way S and N are RELATIVE. This is different from T/F which are more compensatory.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Gentleman said:


> If I'm incorrect, then what is sensing for real? Why am I incorrect and why are you correct?


I have never once met an ISTJ who had this much trouble understanding what I was saying. But then again, for everything is a first time.

I did not say that you were incorrect. I did not say that I was correct. I said that I did not agree with any of the statements you or I made. When I say that I do not agree, I mean that I do not agree. This has nothing to do with being correct.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Dedication said:


> I have never once met an ISTJ who had this much trouble understanding what I was saying. But then again, for everything is a first time.
> 
> I did not say that you were incorrect. I did not say that I was correct. I said that I did not agree with any of the statements you or I made. When I say that I do not agree, I mean that I do not agree. This has nothing to do with being correct.


Perhaps I'm an INFP after all then.

If I'm correct, then why do you disagree with me? 

"2 + 2 = 4. What does 3 + 3 equal?" 
"If I'm filling in the puzzle, 3 + 3 = 6, but I disagree with you. I also disagree with my own statement, that 3 + 3 = 6." 
"Why am I incorrect? What does 3 + 3 really equal, and why are you correct?" 
"You are not incorrect, I simply disagree. This has nothing to do with that." 

Correct - in accordance with fact or truth.

If your methodology has nothing to do with being in accordance with fact or truth, then I do not value it.

Sensing either is "acquiring experience without inference or the use of reason" or it isn't. This statement is either correct or incorrect.


----------



## Zee Bee (Aug 19, 2014)

Gentleman said:


> ... S functions is in your shadow?


Perhaps first work on functions in the daylight, and after mastering that you can also get a night job?


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Zee Bee said:


> Perhaps first work on functions in the daylight, and after mastering that you can also get a night job?


Which functions of mine can you see clearly in the daylight?


----------



## Zee Bee (Aug 19, 2014)

Gentleman said:


> Which functions of mine can you see clearly in the daylight?


Since shadows function better at night, I suggest you put in more efforts with things visible during the day.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I can't see my shadow when it's dark. It must be busy elsewhere.
:laughing:



Zee Bee said:


> Since shadows function better at night, I suggest you put in more efforts with things visible during the day.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Gentleman said:


> Perhaps I'm an INFP after all then.
> 
> If I'm correct, then why do you disagree with me?
> 
> ...


"do not agree" =/= "disagree"
@Dedication may be suggesting that the correctness of either of your statements is uncertain, or may be asserting it. I'm an INFP and I believe I understood :wink:

Nothing is off the table until it's ruled out. Until then, you are firmly within the realm of maybe. Nothing wrong with asserting "I don't know, and neither do you" as a conviction, until you have something definite. But I don't think @Dedication was stating it quite that strongly. Not only am I Ne aux, I might be a little off the deep end with it :/

And I'm guessing you're ...not 

For example, I do not agree with this:



Shadow Logic said:


> I also notice that when a lot of us have a confusion with Jung that we tend to blame it on him rather then our own understanding. Now I understand that when you said he probably wrote collective works when he was pissed off, that you were most likely joking. Even though it was probably a joke I still want to make a point of this, that when we have trouble understanding that its never the problem of the writer but instead one of the reader because the reader may a view opposed to writer that can cause misconceptions. The writer can on!y present something in the way that they understand I, not in the way that everyone else will understsnd it, hence why two people can have two different definitions of the same word which also causes misunderstandings in a conversation that includes those words. For instance, many users try to use Jungian terms but don't differentiate Jungian use of those terms from the common use of those terms, this causes the majority of the misunderstandings of Jung. So instead of us trying to put the blame away from us due to the protection of our own egos, we need to blame ourselves for our individual misunderstandings and then we should go back to the study at hand to either reread or restudy in order to figure out where our misunderstandings comes from. In order to do that we need to understand the terms, not in the way that makes sense to us, but in the way that made sense the writer. That is the only way to understand the point of view that is external to ones self.


... though until now I probably would have said, "I disagree, but I may be wrong." This is because I prefer a communication model that places responsibility for understanding on both the sender and the receiver of the communication, rather than solely on the sender (as a lot of people seem to do these days), or solely on the receiver (as @Shadow Logic seems to do, and as I suspect was more common in ages past). But I do not presume to "know" that my preferred model is "correct."

Hope I have been more helpful than annoying :laughing:


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Verity3 said:


> Nothing is off the table until it's ruled out. Until then, you are firmly within the realm of maybe. Nothing wrong with asserting "I don't know, and neither do you" as a conviction, until you have something definite. But I don't think @Dedication was stating it quite that strongly. Not only am I Ne aux, I might be a little off the deep end with it :/
> ... though until now I probably would have said, "I disagree, but I may be wrong." This is because I prefer a communication model that places responsibility for understanding on both the sender and the receiver of the communication, rather than solely on the sender (as a lot of people seem to do these days), or solely on the receiver (as @Shadow Logic seems to do, and as I suspect was more common in ages past). But I do not presume to "know" that my preferred model is "correct."


If you can't know that your model is correct (in accordance with fact or truth), then your model holds no value in my eyes. You're firmly within the realm of maybe, it could be valid or it could be invalid. Although I guess that's how this game is played, nothing is definite because everything is unscientific. I'm looking for certainty that doesn't exist.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

ClarityOfVision said:


> Since a lot of the information in this thread is focused on a theoretical explanation of the functions and the OP asks for examples, let me gives you some clear examples.
> 
> *Examples of Si (mostly extracted from my ISTJ father and ISFJ ex):*
> 
> ...


According to this I definitely value Si.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Gentleman said:


> If you can't know that your model is correct (in accordance with fact or truth), then your model holds no value in my eyes. You're firmly within the realm of maybe, it could be valid or it could be invalid. Although I guess that's how this game is played, nothing is definite because everything is unscientific. I'm looking for certainty that doesn't exist.


Looking for facts and truth in this pseudoscience called personality typing was your first mistake. It's interesting and fun, but don't take it too seriously - people are much too complex to be categorized into sixteen types.

Listen to @Neverontime. She understands Si better than most.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Gentleman said:


> According to this I definitely value Si.


Those examples are not Si. Si is a cognitive preference that places emphasis on past sensed impressions. It is not nostalgia.


----------



## phEight (Dec 17, 2010)

niss said:


> Those examples are not Si. Si is a cognitive preference that places emphasis on past sensed impressions. It is not nostalgia.


Those examples might not be Si, but are they representative of how Si can manifest itself? If what you say is true, (cognitive preference that places emphasis on past sensed impressions), then doesn't it seem natural that an Si user would be fond of revisiting internal impressions? For example, if one is asked to describe Beauty, would it not seem natural for an Si user to refer to their internal impressions of the past to evoke the concept of Beauty? A Se user would not do this majority of the time. 

I'm not saying all Si users are nostalgic, nor do I think that's what @ClarityOfVision was saying. Nostalgia has an emotional attachment to it, where Si doesn't. Si in and of itself is not even close to nostalgia, but paired with an emotional catalyst, Si can easily lead to it.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

niss said:


> Those examples are not Si. Si is a cognitive preference that places emphasis on past sensed impressions. It is not nostalgia.


It is a form of Nostalgia. Good/bad + from the past are triggered through present moments that left impressions of ( Good/Bad/happy/sad ). It isn't only the memory attached, it also brings back all the emotions that were felt in the exact moment of the impression ( Memory ). It's like reliving something over again. Si is unconscious, triggers are the only thing that lets me know Si is kicking in. It's hard to explain.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

Gentleman said:


> So, sensing is information received via the senses.


Not quite. There's a difference between sensing and Sensing. Everyone can use their senses. Not everyone has Sensing.

Sensing doesn't just _experience_ sense data, it places a great amount of importance on sense data as a means to understanding the world, and so Sensors are focused on the physical world in a way that Intuitives aren't. 

If you think of dominant functions as our primary ''talent'', than a Sensor's talent is the ability to focus on, manipulate and respond to the physical world. Which involves more than just perceiving sensory details but an understanding of them and how to work with them.

A sport metaphor is a bit of a cliche, but it's good for illustrating my point, I think. Say an ESTP for example is playing football. Capital S Sensing grants them the ability to calculate the weight and speed of the other players as they are coming at them so you can time their movements and dodge them effectively, while simultaneously judging how hard and fast they have to throw the ball so the other guy on their team can catch it, all while they are running and these variables are constantly changing, in a matter of split seconds.

It's more than just being able to see or hear etc what's happening in front of you, which anyone with functioning senses can do. It's their focus on and ability to process and react to that data that makes them Sensors.

Hope that makes sense. [pun not intended]


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> It is a form of Nostalgia. Good/bad + from the past are triggered through present moments that left impressions of ( Good/Bad/happy/sad ). It isn't only the memory attached, it also brings back all the emotions that were felt in the exact moment of the impression ( Memory ). It's like reliving something over again. Si is unconscious, triggers are the only thing that lets me know Si is kicking in. It's hard to explain.


The word I think of when I think of Si is ''continuity''. Si is focused on maintaining continuity between the past and the present via sense impressions.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@Shadow Logic 
Yes, I understand that extraverted functions are always tied to concrete concepts/ideas/things. If the functions themselves are concrete, then they are undifferentiated. I'm quite sure we agree on that point.


To show why I think the first quote was referring to differentiated vs undifferentiated sensation, here's the quote with 'abstract' & 'concrete' replaced with 'introverted' and 'extraverted.' The quote makes sense in that context until we reach the last few sentences. 

"A distinction must be made between sensuous or *extraverted (q.v.) sensation and *introverted (q.v.) sensation. The first includes all the above-mentioned forms of sensation, whereas the second is a sensation that is abstracted or separated from the other psychic elements. *Extraverted sensation never appears in “pure” form, but is always mixed up with ideas, feelings, thoughts. *Introverted sensation is a differentiated kind of perception, which might be termed “aesthetic” in so far as, obeying its own principle, it detaches itself from all contamination with the different elements in the perceived object and from all admixtures of thought and feeling, and thus attains a degree of purity beyond the reach of *extraverted sensation. *Extraverted sensation of a flower, on the other hand, conveys a perception not only of the flower as such, but also of the stem, leaves, habitat, and so on. It is also instantly mingled with feelings of pleasure or dislike which the sight of the flower evokes, or with simultaneous olfactory perceptions, or with thoughts about its botanical classification, etc. But *introverted sensation immediately picks out the most salient sensuous attribute of the flower, its brilliant redness, for instance, and makes this the sole or at least the principal content of consciousness, entirely detached from all other admixtures. *Introverted sensation is found chiefly among artists. *Like every abstraction, it is a product of functional differentiation* (q.v.), and there is nothing primitive about it. The primitive form of a function is always *extraverted, i.e., contaminated (v. Archaism; Concretism). Extraverted sensation is a reactive phenomenon, while *introverted sensation, like every abstraction, *is always associated with the will* (q.v.), i.e., with a sense of direction. The will that is directed to *introverted sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude."

Introverted sensation isn't a product of functional differentation and it isn't always associated with the will, as we know. Only when it's in the dominant position, so in that context those last statements would be incorrect.

Here's the quote again with 'abstract' and 'concrete' replaced by 'differentiated' & 'dominant' (once because the word differentiated was already in the same sentence) & 'undifferentiated'.

A distinction must be made between sensuous or *undifferentiated (q.v.) sensation and *differentiated (q.v.) sensation. The first includes all the above-mentioned forms of sensation, whereas the second is a sensation that is abstracted or separated from the other psychic elements. *Undifferentiated sensation never appears in “pure” form, but is always mixed up with ideas, feelings, thoughts. *Dominant sensation is a differentiated kind of perception, which might be termed “aesthetic” in so far as, obeying its own principle, it detaches itself from all contamination with the different elements in the perceived object and from all admixtures of thought and feeling, and thus attains a degree of purity beyond the reach of *undifferentiated sensation. The *undifferentiated sensation of a flower, on the other hand, conveys a perception not only of the flower as such, but also of the stem, leaves, habitat, and so on. It is also instantly mingled with feelings of pleasure or dislike which the sight of the flower evokes, or with simultaneous olfactory perceptions, or with thoughts about its botanical classification, etc. But *differentiated sensation immediately picks out the most salient sensuous attribute of the flower, its brilliant redness, for instance, and makes this the sole or at least the principal content of consciousness, entirely detached from all other admixtures. *Differentiated sensation is found chiefly among artists. Like every abstraction, it is a product of functional differentiation (q.v.), and there is nothing primitive about it. The primitive form of a function is always *undifferentiated i.e., contaminated (v. Archaism; Concretism). *Undifferentiated sensation is a reactive phenomenon, while *differentiated sensation, like every abstraction, is always associated with the will (q.v.), i.e., with a sense of direction. The will that is directed to *differentiated sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude.

Both contexts make sense until we reach the last few sentences and he starts talking about the will, direction and the sensation attitude, which are all associated with the dominant function, which is a always a result of functional differentation.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I'm inclined to think that it wasn't tobacco in that pipe of his.


:laughing:


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

phEight said:


> Those examples might not be Si, but are they representative of how Si can manifest itself? If what you say is true, (cognitive preference that places emphasis on past sensed impressions), then doesn't it seem natural that an Si user would be fond of revisiting internal impressions? For example, if one is asked to describe Beauty, would it not seem natural for an Si user to refer to their internal impressions of the past to evoke the concept of Beauty? A Se user would not do this majority of the time.
> 
> I'm not saying all Si users are nostalgic, nor do I think that's what @ClarityOfVision was saying. Nostalgia has an emotional attachment to it, where Si doesn't. Si in and of itself is not even close to nostalgia, but paired with an emotional catalyst, Si can easily lead to it.





MuChApArAdOx said:


> It is a form of Nostalgia. Good/bad + from the past are triggered through present moments that left impressions of ( Good/Bad/happy/sad ). It isn't only the memory attached, it also brings back all the emotions that were felt in the exact moment of the impression ( Memory ). It's like reliving something over again. Si is unconscious, triggers are the only thing that lets me know Si is kicking in. It's hard to explain.


Si is a cognitive perceiving function; one that places emphasis on past sensed impressions to interpret the current object or stimuli. What is evoking what was as a method of cognitive perception.

Everyone waxes nostalgic, time to time - especially as we age and have more memories of past good times. 

Reliving past experiences is not Si...we all do that. Focus on concrete granular detail in reliving past experiences can be Si - usually coupled with Te - but isn't always.

An ENFP experiencing Si will find it very negative, as it is very nearly their weakest function. This similar to an ISTJ experiencing Ne - very negative. 

HTH


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> It is a form of Nostalgia. Good/bad + from the past are triggered through present moments that left impressions of ( Good/Bad/happy/sad ). It isn't only the memory attached, it also brings back all the emotions that were felt in the exact moment of the impression ( Memory ). It's like reliving something over again. Si is unconscious, triggers are the only thing that lets me know Si is kicking in. It's hard to explain.


No it isn't. Your Si is unconscious and therefore mixed up with all that other stuff. That is unconscious Si manifesting but it's not Si in itself.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Do we have any ENTP, ENFP and INFP, INTP pro sportsmen out there?  (probably but bet not to many if comparison with stp's or ye, sensing types I guess.) Sensing is the cognitive focus on sensing reality. All type senses but sensing types save and use more of their brain capacity for this information. Si seems to have an internal liberty with sensing experiences while Se handle everything right away in the moment.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> Do we have any ENTP, ENFP and INFP, INTP pro sportsmen out there?  (probably but bet not to many if comparison with stp's or ye, sensing types I guess.) Sensing is the cognitive focus on sensing reality. All type senses but sensing types save and use more of their brain capacity for this information. Si seems to have an internal liberty with sensing experiences while Se handle everything right away in the moment.


Playing sports is, when all is said and done, a set of skills and demands muscle memory. I see no reason why one could not compete at the top of the game from any type. Type would probably have its impact in what sorts of sports a person chooses and how he or Che approaches a sport. Some types seem to have better fine motor skills and others gross motor skills.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> Playing sports is, when all is said and done, a set of skills and demands muscle memory. I see no reason why one could not compete at the top of the game from any type. Type would probably have its impact in what sorts of sports a person chooses and how he or Che approaches a sport. Some types seem to have better fine motor skills and others gross motor skills.


Yes. I too think too every type can be a top sportsman in every kind of sport. Do not think it is not a talent thing but a strive thing. Sensors value sensing, intuition value intuition, for self. Spending way much time tuning in on muscle memory would be a sensor cognitive demanding thing to do. With coaching anytype can achive almost all kind of activities and pursuits.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> Yes. I too think too every type can be a top sportsman in every kind of sport. Do not think it is not a talent thing but a strive thing. Sensors value sensing, intuition value intuition, for self. Spending way much time tuning in on muscle memory would be a sensor cognitive demanding thing to do.


Yeah. I would have gone into much further detail in my post, but I was writing on my phone, so it was rather short... 

In most subsections under the Keirsey groupings, in the articles sections, there are articles about "your key to sports success" for the types. 

For examples, here's the ISFP one:
http://personalitycafe.com/isfp-articles/14072-your-key-sports-success-isfp-description.html

and INTP:
http://personalitycafe.com/intp-articles/14151-your-key-sports-success-intp-description.html

and INFJ:
http://personalitycafe.com/infj-articles/14085-your-key-sports-success-infj-description.html


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

niss said:


> Si is a cognitive perceiving function; one that places emphasis on past sensed impressions to interpret the current object or stimuli. What is evoking what was as a method of cognitive perception.
> 
> Everyone waxes nostalgic, time to time - especially as we age and have more memories of past good times.
> 
> ...


What is the difference between perception and cognitive perception?

What do you think about this Si description from Jung's wife?(as told by Von Franz):



> _In describing herself [Emma Jung], she said that the introverted sensation type was like a highly sensitized photographic plate. When somebody comes into the room, such a type notices the way the person comes in, the hair, the expression of the face, the clothes, and the way the person walks. All this makes a very precise impression on the introverted sensation type; every detail is absorbed. The impression comes from the object to the subject. It is as though a stone fell into deep water: the impression falls deeper and deeper and sinks in. Outwardly, the introverted sensation type looks utterly stupid. He just sits and stares, and you do not know what is going on within him. He looks like a piece of wood with no reaction at all--unless he reacts with one of the auxiliary functions, thinking or feeling. But inwardly the impression is being absorbed._


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_Neverontime_

In his Se description, he describes it as a focus on concrete, sensuous objects:



> Sensation, in the extraverted attitude, is most definitely conditioned by the object. As sense-perception, sensation is naturally dependent upon the object. But, just as naturally, it is also dependent upon the subject; hence, there is also a subjective sensation, which after its kind is entirely different from the objective. In the extraverted attitude this subjective share of sensation, in so far as its conscious application is concerned, is either inhibited or repressed. As an irrational function, sensation is equally repressed, whenever a rational function, thinking or feeling, possesses the priority, ie. it can be said to have a conscious function, only in so far as the rational attitude of consciousness permits accidental perceptions to become conscious contents; in short, realizes them. The function of sense is, of course, absolute in the stricter sense; for example, everything is seen or heard to the farthest physiological possibility, but not everything attains that threshold value which a perception must possess in order to be also apperceived. It is a different matter when sensation itself possesses priority, instead of merely seconding another function. In this case, no element of objective sensation is excluded and nothing repressed (with the exception of the subjective share already mentioned). Sensation has a preferential objective determination, and those objects which release the strongest sensation are decisive for the individual's psychology. The result of this is a pronounced sensuous hold to the object. Sensation, therefore, is a vital function, equipped with the potentest [sic] vital instinct. In so far as objects release sensations, they matter; and, in so far as it lies within the power of sensation, they are also fully accepted into consciousness, whether compatible with reasoned judgment or not. As a function its sole criterion of value is the strength of the sensation as conditioned by its objective qualities. Accordingly, all objective processes, in so far as they release sensations at all, make their appearance in consciousness. *It is, however, only concrete, sensuously perceived objects or processes which excite sensations in the extraverted attitude; exclusively those, in fact, which everyone in all times and places would sense as concrete. Hence, the orientation of such an individual corresponds with purely concrete reality. *The judging, rational functions are subordinated to the concrete facts of sensation, and, accordingly, possess the qualities of inferior differentiation, i.e. they are marked by a certain negativity, with infantile and archaic tendencies. The function most affected by the repression, is, naturally, the one standing opposite to sensation, viz. intuition, the function of unconscious perception.


How does that differ from his comparison in the Sensation definition of sensuous, concrete sensation and abstract sensation?


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

PaladinX said:


> What is the difference between perception and cognitive perception?
> 
> What do you think about this Si description from Jung's wife?(as told by Von Franz):


1) No difference. I was emphasizing that Si is a perceiving function.

2) Pretty horrific.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@PaladinX In that quote he is using concrete to mean tangible. 
To give another example of his use of the term concrete in the context of undifferentiated, his Feeling definition:

"Ordinary 'simple' feeling is concrete (q.v.), i.e. it is mixed up with other function-elements, frequently with sensation for instance. In this particular case we might term it affective, or (as in this book, for instance) feeling-sensation, by which a well-nigh inseparable blending of feeling with sensation elements is to be understood. This characteristic fusion is universally present where feeling is still an undifferentiated function, hence most evidently in the psyche of a neurotic with a differentiated thinking."


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> @_PaladinX_ In that quote he is using concrete to mean tangible.
> To give another example of his use of the term concrete in the context of undifferentiated, his Feeling definition:
> 
> "Ordinary 'simple' feeling is concrete (q.v.), i.e. it is mixed up with other function-elements, frequently with sensation for instance. In this particular case we might term it affective, or (as in this book, for instance) feeling-sensation, by which a well-nigh inseparable blending of feeling with sensation elements is to be understood. This characteristic fusion is universally present where feeling is still an undifferentiated function, hence most evidently in the psyche of a neurotic with a differentiated thinking."


I disagree. In this quote he is talking about emotion. Emotions are always concrete. Just like primitive thinking is always concrete. But concretistic feeling is not always emotion, just as concretistic thinking is not always primitive.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I disagree. In this quote he is talking about emotion. Emotions are always concrete. Just like primitive thinking is always concrete. But concretistic feeling is not always emotion, just as concretistic thinking is not always primitive.


If he's talking about emotions then why might it be termed affective in this particular case? Surely emotions could be termed affective in almost every case. 
Why is it most evident in a differentiated thinking type? Emotions being most evident in a T dominant doesn't make sense.


----------



## Angelwingd (Jan 16, 2015)

Hi 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> If he's talking about emotions then why might it be termed affective in this particular case? Surely emotions could be termed affective in almost every case.
> Why is it most evident in a differentiated thinking type? Emotions being most evident in a T dominant doesn't make sense.


Touché.

Why do you think that "concrete" and "sensuous" are being used differently between the Se description and the Sensation definition?

How does introversion = abstracting attitude factor into it all?




Angelwingd said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Hello random!


----------



## register (Aug 29, 2013)

Gentleman said:


> I understand how Ne/Ni, Fe/Fi, and Te/Ti are related, but how are Se/Si related? What is "sensing"?


Se=I see the varigation in this particular plant leaf-with each look I note more and more detail about the leaf and am exposed to every facet of its texture

Si=leaves have a certain shape and sizeand this leaf is representative of a leaf family. The perfect leaf lives in my mind as a platonic ideal.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Touché.
> 
> Why do you think that "concrete" and "sensuous" are being used differently between the Se description and the Sensation definition?
> 
> How does introversion = abstracting attitude factor into it all?


In his Se description he says concrete, sensuously perceived objects that all people in all places could pereive as concrete. If everyone can perceive them then they must be concrete in the tangible context. 
In the Sensation definition, he says that abstract sensatation is always associated with the will. Since the dominant function is always associated with the will he must mean abstract in terms of differentiated. Therefore concrete must be intended as undifferentiated because he's distinguishing between the two forms and he also said that concrete sensatation isn't associated with the will, like undifferentiated functions aren't associated with the will. 

He mentions in his definitions that concrete refers to concepts that are fused together or mixed up with irrelevant elements. Things which are abstract or differentiated are separated from the irrelevant elements. The dominant function is abstract since it is separated out from the other functions and irrelevant unconscious contents. The undifferentiated functions are still fused together and mixed up with unconscious contents. 
The other context which he uses the term concrete is when describing objective concepts, ideas, values, etc. Objectively given concepts are fused together and mixed up with irrelevant elements. The introverted functions abstract the relevant elements from the concrete concept in order to make it comparable or to understand it. The extraverted functions don't abstract to the same extent. In order to align themselves to the object, they must be able to accept the object in the form which it is objectively presented to them. 

So all dominant functions are abstract because they aren't fused with the other functions. But the way they deal with objective concepts is different. Extraverted dominant functions are abstract even though they accept concrete concepts and deal with them in their concrete form. 
Introverted dominant functions are abstract and also abstract relevant elements from the concrete concept. 
One context is referring to functions and the other is referring to concepts, idea's, etc. which functions deal with.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Se is Si's second cousin

thought this was common knowledge


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> In his Se description he says concrete, sensuously perceived objects that all people in all places could pereive as concrete. If everyone can perceive them then they must be concrete in the tangible context.
> In the Sensation definition, he says that abstract sensatation is always associated with the will. Since the dominant function is always associated with the will he must mean abstract in terms of differentiated. Therefore concrete must be intended as undifferentiated because he's distinguishing between the two forms and he also said that concrete sensatation isn't associated with the will, like undifferentiated functions aren't associated with the will.


Hmm... There's still something not quite sitting right with me about this. I'll have to ponder it some more. I can't quite put my finger on it.



> He mentions in his definitions that concrete refers to concepts that are fused together or mixed up with irrelevant elements. Things which are abstract or differentiated are separated from the irrelevant elements. The dominant function is abstract since it is separated out from the other functions and irrelevant unconscious contents. The undifferentiated functions are still fused together and mixed up with unconscious contents.
> The other context which he uses the term concrete is when describing objective concepts, ideas, values, etc. Objectively given concepts are fused together and mixed up with irrelevant elements. The introverted functions abstract the relevant elements from the concrete concept in order to make it comparable or to understand it. The extraverted functions don't abstract to the same extent. In order to align themselves to the object, they must be able to accept the object in the form which it is objectively presented to them.
> 
> So all dominant functions are abstract because they aren't fused with the other functions. But the way they deal with objective concepts is different. Extraverted dominant functions are abstract even though they accept concrete concepts and deal with them in their concrete form.
> ...


What do you mean by concepts? Concept is the realm of thinking. His definition of thinking is the function that brings representations into conceptual connection.



> The term 'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one's intention or not.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Hmm... There's still something not quite sitting right with me about this. I'll have to ponder it some more. I can't quite put my finger on it.


"Abstract" can be used as a synonym for "extract" (separate or remove something). It seems to me, that this would be the meaning in the context she references. So, in that context, the concrete is just there, but differentiated Se abstracts the pertinent from the non-pertinent--what matters from what matters. Others see a stick, but Se sees a tool. It's not just a part of the background, but it is separated and utilized. Yeah, this is a super simplification of the concept, but at least "abstract" would fit there in such a context... 

But I don't know if this is what you are struggling with or not...


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> Playing sports is, when all is said and done, a set of skills and demands muscle memory. I see no reason why one could not compete at the top of the game from any type.


Let's take an INFP and an ESTP as an example here. An INFP simply wouldn't have the same investment in the immediate physical world as the ESTP. They wouldn't experience it to as rich a degree as the ESTP would. They wouldn't have the same sort of confidence in the impact they can make with their physical presence. So while an INFP is perfectly capable of doing physical things and enjoying them, as all people generally are, I doubt very much you would find a lot of, say, medal-winning INFP triathlon runners.

It's not that they're inherently incapable of reaching that level, it's just with their particular set of cognitive functions, there's nothing to really motivate them towards that end. It's not psychologically fulfilling for them in the same way as it is for an Se.

And it's not that all ESTPs are freakishly talented at sport or even like sport [I know ESTPs who are as lazy and nerdy as I am], but their functions do incline them towards physicality and competitiveness, and they gain a sense of psychological fulfilment from mastering the physical world and having an impact on the physical world. So I wouldn't be surprise if a significant amount of the greatest athletes were ESPs.

That being said, I *did* point out that I knew I was using a cliché metaphor and it was for illustrative purposes. There is a point where theory is not enough and you have to try and understand how a function works from a real-world perspective.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> "Abstract" can be used as a synonym for "extract" (separate or remove something). It seems to me, that this would be the meaning in the context she references. So, in that context, the concrete is just there, but differentiated Se abstracts the pertinent from the non-pertinent--what matters from what matters. Others see a stick, but Se sees a tool. It's not just a part of the background, but it is separated and utilized. Yeah, this is a super simplification of the concept, but at least "abstract" would fit there in such a context...
> 
> But I don't know if this is what you are struggling with or not...


I'm not convinced that Jung is necessarily referencing two different contexts. I just keep looking for something that's missing.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

owlboy said:


> Let's take an INFP and an ESTP as an example here. An INFP simply wouldn't have the same investment in the immediate physical world as the ESTP. They wouldn't experience it to as rich a degree as the ESTP would. They wouldn't have the same sort of confidence in the impact they can make with their physical presence. So while an INFP is perfectly capable of doing physical things and enjoying them, as all people generally are, I doubt very much you would find a lot of, say, medal-winning INFP triathlon runners.


This is why I mentioned the different kinds of sports--fine motor skills vs. gross motor skills. But, it seems to me, that an INFP might enjoy long distance running. But think of sports like golf or even table tennis. My wife loved table tennis as a teen (INTP).  Also, there are sports like baseball that don't necessarily demand physicality, and that appeal to certain types. There are track sports, winter sports (curling anyone?)--all kinds. If we just think of football (both American soccer and the real game) and basketball, then we might find that full of SPs and SJs, but there are tons of different sports.

But yeah, I do agree that many sports, while maybe a broader range of types could do well, that doesn't mean that they will want to.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> This is why I mentioned the different kinds of sports--fine motor skills vs. gross motor skills. But, it seems to me, that an INFP might enjoy long distance running. But think of sports like golf or even table tennis. My wife loved table tennis as a teen (INTP).  Also, there are sports like baseball that don't necessarily demand physicality, and that appeal to certain types. There are track sports, winter sports (curling anyone?)--all kinds. If we just think of football (both American soccer and the real game) and basketball, then we might find that full of SPs and SJs, but there are tons of different sports.
> 
> But yeah, I do agree that many sports, while maybe a broader range of types could do well, that doesn't mean that they will want to.


I'm not sure why you're telling me this? I know there are different sports. I used football because it was the first thing that came to my head, but what I was describing [calculating speed, timing, etc] would apply to any situation for an ESP.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Neverontime, I see that your biggest problem is directed toward the use of will in those definitions, so I will present this to make it much more clearer how the will operates in an extravert in contrast to an introvert:

Extraversion: 


> . From these definitions the dependence of the naïve poet on the object is especially clear. *His relation to the object has a compelling character, because he introjects the object— that is, he unconsciously identifies with it or has, as it were, an a priori identity with it.* Lévy-Bruhl describes this relation to the object as participation mystique. This identity always derives from an analogy between the object and an unconscious content. One could also say that the identity comes about through the projection of an unconscious association by analogy with the object. An identity of this kind has a compelling character too, because it expresses a certain quantity of libido which, like all libido operating from the unconscious, is not at the disposal of consciousness and thus exercises a compulsion on its contents. *The attitude of the naïve poet is, therefore, in a high degree conditioned by the object; the object operates independently in him, as it were; it fulfils itself in him because he himself is identical with it. He lends his expressive function to the object and represents it in a certain way, not in the least actively or intentionally, but because it represents itself that way in him.* He is himself Nature: Nature creates in him the product. *He “allows Nature unlimited sway in him.” Supremacy is given to the object. To this extent the naïve attitude is extraverted.*


Introversion:



> . It is easy to see that the sentimental poet, contrasted with the naïve, is characterized by a reflective and abstract attitude to the object. *He reflects on the object by abstracting himself from it. He is, as it were, separated from the object a priori as soon as his work begins; it is not the object that operates in him, he himself is the operator.* He does not, however, work in towards himself, but out beyond the object. He is distinct from the object, not identical with it; he seeks to establish his relation to it, to “rule his material.” From his distinction from the object comes that sense of duality which Schiller refers to; for the sentimental poet draws his creativity from two sources: from the object and/ or his perception of it, and from himself. *For him the external impression of the object is not something absolute, but material which he handles as directed by his own contents. *He thus stands above the object and yet has a relation to it— not a relation of mere impressionability or receptivity, *but one in which by his own free choice he bestows value or quality on the object. His is therefore an introverted attitude. *


As we can see abovez the extravert is characteristic of letting nature "sway" them, while the introvert bestows their own value on the object of their *free choice*. Nevermind the fact that he again is using abstraction to identify the introvert, which by the way he never once uses abstraction to describe an extravert except to state that the most abstract an extravert could get would still never leave their concrete reality, therefore it is still representable instead of irrepresentsble, and in this case it is still a form of concretism more so than abstraction:



> I call an attitude (q.v.) abstractive when it is both introverting and at the same time assimilates (q.v.) a portion of the object, felt to be essential, to abstract contents already constellated in the subject. The more abstract a content is, the more it is irrepresentable. I subscribe to Kant’s view that a concept gets more abstract “the more the differences of things are left out of it,” 4 in the sense that abstraction at its highest level detaches itself absolutely from the object, thereby attaining the extreme limit of irrepresentability. It is this pure “abstract” which I term an idea (q.v.). *Conversely, an abstract that still possesses some degree of representability or plasticity is a concrete concept (v. Concretism).*


Therefore if it can be represented then it is *not* abstract but falls under concretism. The example below is relevant to this fact and to our discussion as a whole:



> .This type— the majority appear to be men— naturally does not think he is at the “mercy” of sensation. He would ridicule this view as quite beside the point, because sensation for him is a concrete expression of life— it is simply real life lived to the full. His whole aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is oriented accordingly. Indeed, true enjoyment has its own special morality, its own moderation and lawfulness, its own unselfishness and willingness to make sacrifices. It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, *for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of aesthetic purity without ever deviating from his principle of concrete sensation however abstract his sensations may be.*


Also I have realized you keep using abstraction as synanymous for differentiation when Jung makes clear the difference between abstraction (an introverted libido movement) and differentiation. To simply state, there is a world of difference between an abstract function and a differentiated function.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

His use of concrete in his Feeling definition also doesn't make sense if applied to extraverted Feeling. The first part I already quoted earlier.

"Ordinary 'simple' feeling is concrete (q.v.), i.e. it is mixed up with other function-elements, frequently with sensation for instance. In this particular case we might term it affective, or (as in this book, for instance) feeling-sensation, by which a well-nigh inseparable blending of feeling with sensation elements is to be understood. *This characteristic fusion is universally present where feeling is still an undifferentiated function, hence most evidently in the psyche of a neurotic with a differentiated thinking.*

Although feeling is an independent function in itself, it may lapse into a state of dependence upon another function, upon thinking, for instance; whereby a feeling is produced which is merely kept as an accompaniment to thinking, and is not repressed from consciousness only in so far as it fits in with the intellectual associations.

It is important to distinguish abstract feeling from ordinary concrete feeling. For, just as the abstract concept (v. Thinking) does away with the differences of the things embraced in it, so abstract feeling, by being raised above the differences of the individual feeling-values, establishes a 'mood', or state of feeling, which embraces and therewith abolishes the different individual values. Thus, just as thinking marshals the conscious contents under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. *The more concrete the feeling, the more subjective and personal the value it confers; but the more abstract it is, the more general and objective is the value it bestows.*Just as a completely abstract concept no longer coincides with the individuality and peculiarity of things, only revealing their universality and indistinctness, so too the completely abstract feeling no longer coincides with the individual instant and its feeling quality but only with the totality of all instants and their indistinctness."

So if concrete Feeling is Fe and abstract Feeling is Fi, he would be saying that Fe is personal and subjective and Fi is general and objective. Which also wouldn't make sense.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> So if concrete Feeling is Fe and abstract Feeling is Fi, he would be saying that Fe is personal and subjective and Fi is general and objective. Which also wouldn't make sense.


In which way do you mean that it wouldn't make sense?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> His use of concrete in his Feeling definition also doesn't make sense if applied to extraverted Feeling. The first part I already quoted earlier.
> 
> "Ordinary 'simple' feeling is concrete (q.v.), i.e. it is mixed up with other function-elements, frequently with sensation for instance. In this particular case we might term it affective, or (as in this book, for instance) feeling-sensation, by which a well-nigh inseparable blending of feeling with sensation elements is to be understood. *This characteristic fusion is universally present where feeling is still an undifferentiated function, hence most evidently in the psyche of a neurotic with a differentiated thinking.*
> 
> ...


I do think Fe is abstract in that sense. It blurs the photograph. Removes the lines of distinction. Makes it one. Ni-Fe really wants to do that. A specific virtue, has many manifestations. The one precedes the many. The many cheap imitations are proof of the initial.

*It is impossible to conceive of many without one.


Just as things in a picture, when viewed from a distance, appear to be all in one and the same condition and alike.

But if with your mind's eye you regard the absolute great and these many great things in the same way, will not another great appear beyond, by which all these must appear to be great?

-Plato

roud:
*


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> His use of concrete in his Feeling definition also doesn't make sense if applied to extraverted Feeling. The first part I already quoted earlier.
> 
> "Ordinary 'simple' feeling is concrete (q.v.), i.e. it is mixed up with other function-elements, frequently with sensation for instance. In this particular case we might term it affective, or (as in this book, for instance) feeling-sensation, by which a well-nigh inseparable blending of feeling with sensation elements is to be understood. *This characteristic fusion is universally present where feeling is still an undifferentiated function, hence most evidently in the psyche of a neurotic with a differentiated thinking.*
> 
> ...


I got the impression (based on this text alone), that what he is actually describing here is feeling in the inferior sense--as in INTP or ENTJ? So, for F-doms (both Fe and Fi), it is more abstract independent from the other functions, and functions more as a pure form or complete. Where is this passage found?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I got the impression (based on this text alone), that what he is actually describing here is feeling in the inferior sense--as in INTP or ENTJ? So, for F-doms (both Fe and Fi), it is more abstract independent from the other functions, and functions more as a pure form or complete. Where is this passage found?


It comes from Jung's definition of Feeling in Chapter XI of Psychological Types:

Psychological Types - Wikisocion


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> It comes from Jung's definition of Feeling in Chapter XI of Psychological Types:
> 
> Psychological Types - Wikisocion


Thanks! I read that chapter a few years ago, but this part wasn't ringing a bell for some reason... maybe because back then I didn't understand it, or have a context for it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I think this is why it is confusing. Fe and Fi are both abstract, and objective and subjective, in their own way.

Jung said that introversion is an abstracting process. It takes what it wants. It breaks the object. I said that Se is "choiceless awareness". It is totally one with the environment. Fe and Te are abstract, in that they want to turn many into one. They want a statistical mean basically. So Fe and Te are objective. But they are subjective because to get to that statistical mean, requires an abstraction process. Se sees the whole, and leaves it. Fe and Te break the whole into pieces -- abstract, to merge it into one. You walk around your kitchen. You can abstract many qualities. Many solids, they have mass, form, many commonalities. The individual appliance is pushed back, for the "deeper", under the surface qualities that connect them all, and allows further construction/improvement. Te and Fe are more constructive. Ti and Fi want to deconstruct. See how things work. Te and Fe want to make things work. They don't necessarily care how they work.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Lest the forest get lost for the trees, there's really no question that the Feeling definition that [URL="http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/440514-how-se-si-related-post14358506.html#post14358506" @Neverontime has just quoted[/URL] is another clear example of Jung using "concrete" and "abstract" in reference to _undifferentiated_ and _differentiated_ functions — rather than to extraverted and introverted functions.

Jung said:



Jung said:


> *Ordinary, "simple" feeling is concrete (q.v.), that is, it is mixed up with other functional elements*, more particularly with sensations. In this case we can call it _affective_ or, as I have done in this book, _feeling-sensation_, by which I mean an almost inseparable amalgam of feeling and sensation elements. *This characteristic amalgamation is found wherever feeling is still an undifferentiated function*, and is most evident in the psyche of a neurotic with differentiated thinking.


Jung clearly believed that the inferior function of a Ti-dom was Fe and the inferior function of a Te-dom was Fi, and in this quoted definition of Feeling, Jung explains that "concrete" feeling "is found wherever feeling is still an undifferentiated function" — which means that feeling is "concrete" (in the _undifferentiated_ sense) regardless of whether it's extraverted (as in the case of a Ti-dom) or introverted (as in the case of a Te-dom).

And @Shadow Logic can make as many posts as he likes claiming that Jung never used the term "concrete" to refer to a function in its undifferentiated form in the unconscious (whether extraverted _or introverted_) or that he never used the term "abstract" to refer to a function in its differentiated, conscious form (whether introverted _or extraverted_), but there's really no way — within the reasonable-people-can-disagree range — to square that claim with Jung's use of "concrete" and "abstract" in the Sensation and Feeling definitions that @Neverontime has quoted in this thread.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@PaladinX it doesn't make sense that Jung would say 

"The more extraverted the Feeling, the more personal and subjective the value it confers and the more introverted the Feeling, the more general and objective the value it bestows."

What does make sense is 

"The more undifferentiated the Feeling, the more personal and subjective the value it confers and the more differentiated the Feeling, the more general and objective the value it bestows."


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@ferroequinologist I agree. That's what I think he means too.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@FearAndTrembling Yes, it can get confusing. Were discussing Jungs use of abstract vs concrete in particular quotes. 

Whether he uses 'concrete' and 'abstract' in more than one context.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_reckful_ I'm curious as to your take on this argument:

If Jung described:



> A distinction must be made between *sensuous or concrete (q.v.) sensation* and abstract (q.v) sensation. *The first includes all the above-mentioned forms of sensation,* whereas the second is a sensation that is abstracted or separated from the other psychic elements.


as



> I regard Sensation as one of the basic psychological functions (q.v.). Wundt likewise reckons it among the elementary psychic phenomena. Sensation is the psychological function that mediates the perception of a physical stimulus. It is, therefore, identical with perception. ... Sensation is related not only to external stimuli but to inner ones, i.e., to changes in the internal organic processes.
> 
> Primarily, therefore, sensation is sense perception--perception mediated by the sense organs and "body-senses" (kinaesthetic, vasomotor sensation, etc.). It is, on the one hand, an element of ideation, since it conveys to the mind the perceptual image of the external object; and on the other hand, it is an element of feeling, since through the perception of bodily changes it gives feeling the character of an affect (q.v.). Because sensation conveys bodily changes to consciousness, it is also a representative of physiological impulses. It is not identical with them, being merely a perceptive function.


(^ for "all the above-mentioned forms of sensation")

And if it's not to be confused with differentiated Sensation, then why did he use it in his Se description?



> As sensation is chiefly conditioned by the object, those objects that excite the strongest sensations will be decisive for the individual's psychology. *The result is a strong sensuous tie to the object.* Sensation is therefore a vital function equipped with the strongest vital instinct. Objects are valued in so far as they excite sensations, and, so far as lies within the power of sensation, they are fully accepted into consciousness whether they are compatible with rational judgments or not. The sole criterion of their value is the intensite of the sensation produced by their objective qualities. Accordingly, all objective processes which excite any sensations at all make their appearance in consciousness. *However, it is only concrete, sensuously perceived objects or processes that excite sensations for the extravert;* those, exclusively, which everyone everywhere would sense as concrete. Hence the orientation of such an individual accords with purely sensuous reality. The judging, rational functions are subordinated to the concrete facts of sensation, and thus have all the qualities of the less differentiated functions, exhibiting negative, infantile, and archaic traits. The function most repressed is naturally the opposite of sensation--intuition, the function of unconscious perception.



Furthermore, speaking of Se descriptions, a possible counterpoint to your argument here:



> Here's a passage for you to ponder from Jung's Se-dom description:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is that the Se type never deviates "from his principle of concrete sensation" because "however abstract his sensations may be" (assuming abstract = introverted) they are being "inhibited or repressed" in favour of the former.



> Sensation in the extraverted attitude, is pre-eminently conditioned by the object. As sense perception, sensation is naturally dependent on objects. But, just as naturally, it is also dependent on the subject, for which reason there is subjective sensation of a kind entirely different from objective sensation. *In the extraverted attitude the subjective component of sensation, so far as its conscious application is concerned, is either inhibited or repressed.*


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> @_PaladinX_ it doesn't make sense that Jung would say
> 
> "The more extraverted the Feeling, the more personal and subjective the value it confers and the more introverted the Feeling, the more general and objective the value it bestows."
> 
> ...


I could interpret it many different ways. So, thanks for the clarification! 

As a side-note, there are interesting implications about Fi based on this.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> @reckful I'm curious as to your take on this argument:
> 
> If Jung described:
> 
> ...


Again, not only does Jung use abstract/concrete in two ways in Psychological Types, he uses the terms in their introverted/extraverted sense substantially more often than in the other sense. And I'd say that, in the third quote in your post (with "concrete, sensuously perceived objects"), he's using concrete in the extraverted sense.

The Se-dom is attuned to "concrete" sensation in the same way that a Te-dom has "concretistic" thinking.

As a side note: Jung thought that undifferentiated sensation included "simple," basic sensation of the kind that _everybody_ basically experiences as a result of receiving input from their senses. An S-dom who has _differentiated_ their sensation function to the point where their consciousness includes a more rarefied form of sensation doesn't thereby (for the most part, anyway) _lose_ the more basic, universal aspects of sensing.

But I certainly wouldn't disagree that a greater focus/emphasis on the physical world was something Jung associated (to some degree) with _both_ extraversion and the sensing function, and so I also wouldn't disagree that, for Jung, an Si-dom's ultimate perspective on the world ends up being considerably farther out of touch with the simple, physical facts of the world than the highly realistic Se-dom's.

But that's not to say that the Si-dom's Si process doesn't _begin_ with basic sensory input, or that the Se-dom's Se process doesn't involve a differentiated kind of sensing that ends up at a more rarefied/aestheticized/whatever kind of sensing than the the "simple," basic sensation that non-S-doms experience.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Furthermore, speaking of Se descriptions, a possible counterpoint to your argument here:
> 
> 
> Is that the Se type never deviates "from his principle of concrete sensation" because "however abstract his sensations may be" (assuming abstract = introverted) they are being "inhibited or repressed" in favour of the former.


Buuut it seems to me that that interpretation — besides being strained in the sense that it suggests that "however abstract his sensations may be" really means "however abstract his sensations may be... well... as long as they're not very abstract at all because they're mostly inhibited/repressed" — also (more importantly) requires assuming that the reference to the Se-dom "differentiating his sensation to the finest pitch of aesthetic purity" earlier in the sentence really has nothing to do with the "however abstract" reference at the end.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> Again, not only does Jung use abstract/concrete in two ways in Psychological Types, he uses the terms in their introverted/extraverted sense substantially more often than in the other sense. And I'd say that, in the third quote in your post (with "concrete, sensuously perceived objects"), he's using concrete in the extraverted sense.
> 
> The Se-dom is attuned to "concrete" sensation in the same way that a Te-dom has "concretistic" thinking.
> 
> ...


What makes it necessarily true that he is using concrete in a different context? Where does he define a second context for "concrete?" What is a "concrete sensation" if it's not a concrete sensation as per his definition of sensation? What makes extraversion concrete?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> What makes it necessarily true that he is using concrete in a different context? Where does he define a second context for "concrete?" What is a "concrete sensation" if it's not a concrete sensation as per his definition of sensation? What makes extraversion concrete?


What makes extraversion concrete?

The same aspect of extraversion that makes the thinking of the Te-dom — which is most certainly _differentiated_, right? — "concretistic."

And you and I have previously spent a lot of time discussing the E/I, concrete/abstract issue, and I'd say this would be my recommended summary post, for anyone else who's interested.

I've mostly been disagreeing with Shadow Logic in this thread, but he's certainly correct that, to a substantial degree — and in many places in Psychological Types — Jung associates concretism and abstraction (in the sense described at the end of his Abstraction definition) with extraversion and introversion.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> What makes extraversion concrete?
> 
> The same aspect of extraversion that makes the thinking of the Te-dom — which is most certainly _differentiated_, right? — "concretistic."
> 
> ...


You're not honestly telling me that extraversion is concrete because it's concretistic are you? 

If you are suggesting that I infer from what makes Te concretistic, then from what I understand, it is because it is mixed up with sensation. Everything that is extraverted is ultimately tied to sensation. Or am I wrong?

What's interesting about concretism is that he says that it it's a peculiarity of Thinking and Feeling. Why would he describe it that way without including the perceiving functions?

Also...



> _What makes it necessarily true that he is using concrete in a different context? Where does he define a second context for "concrete?" What is a "concrete sensation" if it's not a concrete sensation as per his definition of sensation? _


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> You're not honestly telling me that extraversion is concrete because it's concretistic are you?
> 
> If you are suggesting that I infer from what makes Te concretistic, then from what I understand, it is because it is mixed up with sensation. Everything that is extraverted is ultimately tied to sensation. Or am I wrong?
> 
> ...


I'm behind on quite a few other things this weekend (some forum-related) and not in a position to expand on that previously-linked post and the posts it links to — not that I'd necessarily find much to expand on, though, since those posts include _boatloads_ of discussion on why Jung viewed introversion as abstract and extraversion as concrete, and boatloads of helpful Jung quotes, and I really think they address most (if not all) of the questions you've raised in your latest posts.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Neverontime, @reckful, @PaladinX, @ferroequinologist, @FearAndTrembling 

I'm extremely lazy today and don't feel like writing out a whole debate right now explaining my point of view some more. Instead I'm just going to post the quotes that are relevant to this thread, and relevant to the discussion of concrete/abstract feeling and sensation. I've bolded most of the key points to make it easier to follow, and underlined important distinctions, while keeping all other information that is also relevant in italics. These quotes should help show my point of view, and maybe it can help explain your own point of views, or you can use something in these quotes to help better your own argument. The quotes are more so that we can use to our own disposal, either to understand the others point of view, or to strengthen our own point of views. I hope all of you take the time to read every quote I presented just so no information is dismissed or looked over. 

In the next day, or few days, I'll come back to this thread to write an actual response explaining my point of view as concise as possible as I can. Until then here's the quotes: 



> .Ordinary, “simple” feeling is concrete (q.v.), that is, it is mixed up with other functional elements, more particularly with sensations. *In this case we can call it affective or, as I have done in this book, feeling-sensation, by which I mean an almost inseparable amalgam of feeling and sensation elements. This characteristic amalgamation is found wherever feeling is still an undifferentiated function, and is most evident in the psyche of a neurotic with differentiated thinking.* Although feeling is, in itself, an independent function, it can easily become dependent on another function— thinking, for instance; it is then a mere concomitant of thinking, and is not repressed only in so far as it accommodates itself to the thinking processes. [727] It is important to distinguish abstract feeling from ordinary concrete feeling. *Just as the abstract concept (v. Thinking) abolishes the differences between things it apprehends, abstract feeling rises above the differences of the individual contents it evaluates, and produces a “mood” or feeling-state which embraces the different individual valuations and thereby abolishes them.* In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value.* The more concrete it is, the more subjective and personal is the value conferred upon them; but the more abstract it is, the more universal and objective the value will be. Just as a completely abstract concept no longer coincides with the singularity and discreteness of things, but only with their universality and non-differentiation, so completely abstract feeling no longer coincides with a particular content and its feeling-value, but with the undifferentiated totality of all contents. *Feeling, like thinking, is a rational (q.v.) function, since values in general are assigned according to the laws of reason, just as concepts in general are formed according to these laws.


---------------



> From the standpoint of the extravert we would have to say that the person reveals itself simply and solely in its relatedness, in the function of relationship to the object. *For only with the introvert is the “person” exclusively the ego; with the extravert it lies in his affectivity and not in the affected ego. His ego is, as it were, of less importance than his affectivity, i.e., his relatedness.* The extravert discovers himself in the fluctuating and changeable, the introvert in the constant. The ego is not “eternally constant,” least of all in the extravert, who pays little attention to it.* For the introvert, on the other hand, it has too much importance; he therefore shrinks from every change that is at all liable to affect his ego. Affectivity for him can be something positively painful, while for the extravert it must on no account be missed*.


-------------------



> But it is clear what is the function to which Schiller attributes the highest value, divinity: it is the constancy of the idea of the ego. *The ego that abstracts itself from affectivity is for him the most important thing, consequently this is the idea he has differentiated most, as is the case with every introvert.* His god, his highest value, is the abstraction and conservation of the ego.


-----------------------



> It is entirely characteristic of Schiller’s psychology that he should conceive the expression of this instinct as sensation, and not as active, sensuous desire. *This shows that for him sensuousness has the character of reactiveness, of affectivity, which is altogether typical of the introvert. An extravert would undoubtedly emphasize the element of desire. *It is further significant that it is this instinct which demands change. The idea wants changelessness and eternity. Whoever lives under the supremacy of the idea strives for permanence; hence everything that pushes towards change must be opposed to the idea. In Schiller’s case it is feeling and sensation, which as a rule are fused together on account of their undeveloped state.


-----------------------------
**************


> *Differentiated feeling can establish universal values as well as those that are merely specific and individual*. _But it is true that the “feeling-sensation” of the introverted thinking type, because of its passive and reactive character, is purely specific; it can never rise above the individual case, by which alone it is stimulated, to an abstract comparison of all cases, since with the introverted thinking type this duty is performed not by the feeling function but by the thinking function._ *Conversely, with the introverted feeling type, feeling attains an abstract and universal character and can establish universal and permanent values. *


-----------------------------------
*******


> *From a further analysis of Schiller’s description we find that “feeling-sensation” (by which term I mean the characteristic fusion of the two in the introverted thinking type) is the function with which the ego does not declare itself identical. It has the character of something inimical and foreign, that “extinguishes” the personality, whirls it away, setting the subject outside himself and alienating him from himself.* _Hence Schiller likens it to affect, which sets a man “beside himself” (= extraverted). When one has collected oneself he says this is called, “just as correctly, going into oneself [= introverted], that is, returning to one’s ego, re-establishing the personality.”_ 52 *From this it is quite evident that it seems to Schiller as though “feeling-sensation” does not really belong to the person, but is a rather precarious accessory “to which a firm will may triumphantly oppose its demands.”* 53 _But to the extravert it is just this side of him which seems to constitute his true nature; it is as if he were actually himself only when he is being affected by the object— as we can well understand when we consider that for him the relation to the object is his superior, differentiated function, to which abstract thinking and feeling are just as much opposed as they are indispensable to the introvert. _


--------------------------
************



> .*When the energy of positive thinking is supplied to feeling-sensation, which would amount to a reversal of the introverted thinking type, the qualities of undifferentiated, archaic feeling-sensation become paramount: the individual relapses into an extreme relatedness, or identity with the sensed object.* _This state is one of inferior extraversion, an extraversion which, as it were, detaches the individual entirely from his ego and dissolves him into archaic collective ties and identifications. He is then no longer “himself,” but sheer relatedness, identical with the object and therefore without a standpoint. The introvert instinctively feels the greatest resistance to this condition, which is no guarantee that he will not unconsciously fall into it. _*It should on no account be confused with the extraversion of the extraverted type*, inclined as the introvert is to make this mistake and to display for this extraversion the same contempt which, at bottom, he always feels for his own.


-------------------------

Focusing on Differentiation:



> .To discover, therefore, that impartial basis for the will, we must appeal to another authority, where the opposites are not yet clearly separated but still preserve their original unity. Manifestly this is not the case with consciousness, since the whole essence of consciousness is discrimination, distinguishing ego from non-ego, subject from object, positive from negative, and so forth. *The separation into pairs of opposites is entirely due to conscious differentiation; only consciousness can recognize the suitable and distinguish it from the unsuitable and worthless. It alone can declare one function valuable and the other non-valuable, thus bestowing on one the power of the will while suppressing the claims of the other. *But, where no consciousness exists, where purely unconscious instinctive life still prevails, there is no reflection, no pro et contra, no disunion, nothing but simple happening, self-regulating instinctivity, living proportion. (Provided, of course, that instinct does not come up against situations to which it is unadapted, in which case blockage, affects, confusion, and panic arise.)





> . *The will then has the self as a possible aim, and it becomes the more possible the more any further development is arrested by the conflict. In this case, the will does not decide between the opposites, but purely for the self, that is, the disposable energy is withdrawn into the self— in other words, it is introverted. The introversion simply means that the libido is retained by the self and is prevented from taking part in the conflict of opposites. Since the way outward is barred to it, it naturally turns towards thought, where again it is in danger of getting entangled in the conflict.* _The act of differentiation and introversion involves the detachment of disposable libido not merely from the outer object but also from the inner object, the thought. The libido becomes wholly objectless, it is no longer related to anything that could be a content of consciousness, and it therefore sinks into the unconscious, where it automatically takes possession of the waiting fantasy material, which it thereupon activates and forces to the surface_.





> * To strive after absolute appearance demands greater capacity for abstraction, more freedom of heart,* more vigour of will than man needs if he confines himself to reality, and he must already have put this behind him if he wishes to arrive at appearance.





> One must not forget that, just as the good sense of the introverted woman depends on a careful accommodation of her mental contents to the general thinking, *the affectivity of the extraverted woman possesses a certain lability and shallowness because it is adapted to the ordinary life of human society. It is thus a socially differentiated affectivity with an incontestable general value, which compares very favourably with the heavy, sultry, passionate affect of the introvert. This differentiated affectivity has sloughed off everything chaotic and pathetic and become a disposable function of adaptation,* even though it be at the expense of the inner mental life, which is conspicuous by its absence. It none the less exists in the unconscious, and moreover in a form corresponding to the passion of the introvert, i.e., it is in an undeveloped, archaic, infantile state. Working from the unconscious, the undeveloped mentality supplies the affective output with contents and hidden motives that cannot fail to make a bad impression on the critical observer, although they may be unperceived by the uncritical eye. The disagreeable impression that the constant perception of thinly veiled egoistic motives has on the observer makes him only too prone to forget the actual reality and adapted usefulness of the affective output displayed.





> We must subject this statement to a thorough criticism, for it contains a problem which, in my experience, always gives rise to the greatest misunderstandings between the types. The introverted intellectual, whom Gross obviously has in mind here, outwardly shows as little feeling as possible, he entertains logically correct views and tries to do the right things in the first place because he has a natural distaste for any display of feeling and in the second because he is fearful lest by incorrect behaviour he should arouse disturbing stimuli, the affects of his fellow men. He is afraid of disagreeable affects in others because he credits others with his own sensitiveness; furthermore, he is always distressed by the quickness and volatility of the extravert. He bottles up his feeling inside him, so that it sometimes swells into a passion of which he is only too painfully aware. His tormenting emotions are well known to him. *He compares them with the feelings displayed by others, principally, of course, with those of the extraverted feeling type, and finds that his “feelings” are quite different from those of other men. Hence he gets round to thinking that his feelings (or, more correctly, emotions) are unique or, as Gross says, “individual.” It is natural that they should differ from the feelings of the extraverted feeling type, because the latter are a differentiated instrument of adaptation and therefore lack the “genuine passion” which characterizes the deeper feelings of the introverted thinking type. But passion, as an elemental instinctive force, possesses little that is individual— it is something common to all men. *Only what is differentiated can be individual. In the case of intense emotions, type differences are instantly obliterated in the “human-all-too-human.” In my view, the extraverted feeling type has really the chief claim to individualized feeling, because his feelings are differentiated; but he falls into the same delusion in regard to his thinking. He has thoughts that torment him. He compares them with the thoughts expressed by the other people around him, chiefly those of the introverted thinking type. He discovers that his thoughts have little in common with them; he may therefore regard them as individual and himself, perhaps, as an original thinker, or he may repress his thoughts altogether, since no one else thinks the same. In reality they are thoughts which everybody has but are seldom uttered. In my view, therefore, Gross’s statement springs from a subjective delusion, though one that is the general rule.


Focusing on Extraversion/Introversion; Concrete/Abstract 


> *Empathy presupposes that the object is, as it were, empty, and seeks to imbue it with life. Abstraction, on the other hand, presupposes that the object is alive and active, and seeks to withdraw from its influence. The abstracting attitude is centripetal, i.e., introverting. Worringer’s conception of abstraction therefore corresponds to the introverted attitude. *It is significant that Worringer describes the influence of the object as fear or dread. The abstracting attitude endows the object with a threatening or injurious quality against which it has to defend itself. _This seemingly a priori quality is doubtless a projection, but a negative one. We must therefore suppose that abstraction is preceded by an unconscious act of projection which transfers negative contents to the object. _





> One might speak in this case of a continual unconscious abstraction which “depsychizes” the object. *All abstraction has this effect: it kills the independent activity of the object in so far as this is magically related to the psyche of the subject. *The abstracting type does it quite consciously, _as a defence against the magical influence of the object. _The inertness of objects also explains the trustful relationship of the empathetic type to the world; there is nothing that could exert a hostile influence or oppress him, since he alone gives the object life and soul, though to his conscious mind the converse would seem to be true.* For the abstracting type, on the other hand, the world is filled with potent and dangerous objects that inspire him with fear and a consciousness of his own impotence; he withdraws from any too intimate contact with the world, in order to weave those thoughts and formulas with which he hopes to gain the upper hand*.





> .The outward reaction characterizes the extravert, just as the inward reaction is the mark of the introvert. The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, because his whole nature goes outwards to the object. He gives himself easily to the world in a form that is pleasing and acceptable, and it is always understandable even when it is unpleasing. *Because of his quick reactivity and discharge of emotion, valuable and worthless psychic contents will be projected together into the object; he will react with winsome manners as well as with dour thoughts and affects.*





> The introvert, on the other hand, who reacts almost entirely within, cannot as a rule discharge his reactions except in explosions of affect. He suppresses them, though they may be just as quick as those of the extravert. They do not appear on the surface, hence the introvert may easily give the impression of slowness. Since immediate reactions are always strongly personal, the extravert cannot help asserting his personality.* But the introvert hides his personality by suppressing all his immediate reactions. Empathy is not his aim, nor the transference of contents to the object, but rather abstraction from the object. Instead of immediately discharging his reactions he prefers to elaborate them inwardly for a long time before finally coming out with the finished product. *His constant endeavour is to strip the product of everything personal and to present it divested of all personal relationships. The matured fruit of prolonged inner labour, it emerges into the world in a highly abstract and depersonalized form. It is therefore difficult to understand, because the public lacks all knowledge of the preliminary stages and the way he attained his result. A personal relation to his public is also lacking, because the introvert in suppressing himself shrouds his personality from the public eye. But often enough it is just the personal relationship which brings about an understanding where mere intellectual apprehension fails. This must constantly be borne in mind when passing judgment on the introvert’s development. As a rule one is badly informed about the introvert because his real self is not visible. His incapacity for immediate outward reaction keeps his personality hidden. His life therefore affords ample scope for fantastic interpretations and projections should his achievements ever make him an object of general interest.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@reckful,

I'm still waiting on that answer....


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> @reckful,
> 
> I'm still waiting on that answer....


_Jung said_:

"The outward reaction characterizes the extravert, just as the inward reaction is the mark of the introvert. The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, because his whole nature goes outwards to the object. He gives himself easily to the world in a form that is pleasing and acceptable, and it is always understandable even when it is unpleasing. Because of his quick reactivity and discharge of emotion, *valuable and worthless psychic contents will be projected together into the object; he will react with winsome manners as well as with dour thoughts and affects*."

_Shadow Logic asked_:



Shadow Logic said:


> So you agree that the extravert "projects" valuable and *worthless* psychic content into the object, that the extravert will *react* with winsome manners as well as *dour thoughts* and *affects*?



_reckful asked_:

Are you basically just looking to waste everybody's time?

How about if you answer some of the questions in post 73 about the paragraph that you and @Neverontime were arguing about, and then I'll think about answering more of your quesitons.

_reckful wrote_:

Dear @Neverontime,

I tried my bestest, but I suspect I didn't make any progress.

Your pal,
reckful


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

reckful said:


> _Jung said_:
> 
> "The outward reaction characterizes the extravert, just as the inward reaction is the mark of the introvert. The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, because his whole nature goes outwards to the object. He gives himself easily to the world in a form that is pleasing and acceptable, and it is always understandable even when it is unpleasing. Because of his quick reactivity and discharge of emotion, *valuable and worthless psychic contents will be projected together into the object; he will react with winsome manners as well as with dour thoughts and affects*."
> 
> ...


On the contrary, I'm looking to have a discussion with you, and in order to respond to post #73 I need you to answer that question because your answer to it is relevant to my response. By you answering that question, I'll have a better idea on how your thought process is structured which allows me to respond to you in a way that you can better understand, instead of us talking pass eachother or over eachother. If you want to forgo our conversation then that is up to you, but I genuinely want to have this discussion with you about this so I can understand your position better, and you can understand mine better, but if you have no intentions on understanding or even discussing this then I guess there is no point to continue this any further. We can agree to disagree, or we can continue our conversation, its up to you but don't think that I'm wasting your time when I don't even like wasting my own time.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> On the contrary, I'm looking to have a discussion with you, and in order to respond to post #73 I need you to answer that question because your answer to it is relevant to my response. By you answering that question, I'll have a better idea on how your thought process is structured which allows me to respond to you in a way that you can better understand, instead of us talking pass eachother or over eachother. If you want to forgo our conversation then that is up to you, but I genuinely want to have this discussion with you about this so I can understand your position better, and you can understand mine better, but if you have no intentions on understanding or even discussing this then I guess there is no point to continue this any further. We can agree to disagree, or we can continue our conversation, its up to you but don't think that I'm wasting your time when I don't even like wasting my own time.


It looks to me like all you're doing is trying to save face because you don't have the integrity to admit that you misunderstood (and misrepresented) Jung and @Neverontime corrected you.

I'm guessing you figure that if you just keep posting walls of text, at least some of the thread's readers — to the extent there are any left by this point — may think, well, Shadow Logic must have had some good points, even though I don't have the time (or the knowledge of Jung) to read all those walls of text and figure it out.

And assuming that's what you're doing, and just in case you want my opinion, I think that's really scummy behavior.

In the spoilers below, for your convenience, are the relevant portions of posts 73 and 88, which explain why your side of your debate with @Neverontime is inconsistent in multiple ways with what Jung said in his definitions of Sensation and Feeling.

If my analysis in those spoilers is faulty, you're free to explain why, and you don't need me or anybody else to answer any more questions — so you "have a better idea on how [my] thought process is structured" or for any other steaming-pile-of-horseshit reason — before you do it.

From post 73:


* *




The issue that you and @Neverontime were debating was: in which sense was he using the terms in that paragraph from his Sensation definition? And she and I have both pointed out to you why your interpretation doesn't work in the context of that paragraph, and your latest post just ducks that issue.

To revisit several sentences from that paragraph...



Jung said:


> Concrete sensation never appears in 'pure' form, but is always *mixed up with ideas, feelings, thoughts*.


Surely you don't disagree that Jung thought that an undifferentiated, unconscious function was typically fused with the other functions, while the essence of _differentiation_ into consciousness involved the _separation_ of the function from the other functions.

So if you assume "concrete sensation" means "extraverted sensation" in that sentence, what sense does it make? Why would Jung say that Se is "always mixed up" with "feelings" and "thoughts," _whether it's differentiated or not_?



Jung said:


> Abstract sensation is a differentiated kind of perception, which might be termed 'aesthetic' in so far as, obeying its own principle, it detaches itself from all contamination with the different elements in the perceived object and *from all admixtures of thought and feeling*, and thus attains a degree of purity beyond the reach of concrete sensation.


Similarly, if you assume "abstract sensation" means "introverted sensation" in that sentence, what sense does it make? Why would Jung say that Si is a "differentiated kind of perception," detached "from all admixtures of thought and feeling," when there's no question that Jung thought that Si would be differentiated in an Si-dom and undifferentiated (and accordingly mixed up with T and F) in (for example) an Ne-dom?

Next point: The functions that Jung said were "associated with the will" were the _differentiated_ functions, not the introverted functions, and the functions Jung said were reactive were the _undifferentiated_ (unconscious) functions, not the extraverted functions. In his Differentiation definition, Jung explains:



Jung said:


> Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant. Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; only a differentiated function is _capable_ of being directed.


And in Chapter 7, Jung explains:



Jung said:


> The superior function is the most conscious one and completely under conscious control, whereas the less differentiated functions are in part unconscious and far less under the control of consciousness. The superior function is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply "happen" to one.


So... honest to freaking God, Shadow Logic... what sense can it possibly make to interpret this sentence (from the paragraph you and @Neverontime have been debating)...



Jung said:


> Concrete sensation is a *reactive* phenomenon, while *abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always associated with the will* (q.v.), i.e., with a sense of direction. The will that is directed to abstract sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude.


... to mean that Se (regardless of whether it's differentiated/conscious or undifferentiated/unconsciousness) is a "reactive" function, while Si (regardless of whether it's differentiated/conscious or undifferentiated/unconsciousness) is "always associated with the will, i.e., with a sense of direction"—??

I'll tell you how much sense that makes, Shadow Logic. It makes no sense.

The "concrete sensation" that Jung was characterizing as "reactive" was _undifferentiated_ sensation (whether extraverted or introverted), and the "abstract sensation" that Jung was saying was "always associated with the will" was _differentiated_ sensation (whether extraverted or introverted).



From post 88:


* *




Lest the forest get lost for the trees, there's really no question that the Feeling definition that [URL="http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/440514-how-se-si-related-post14358506.html#post14358506" @Neverontime has just quoted[/URL] is another clear example of Jung using "concrete" and "abstract" in reference to _undifferentiated_ and _differentiated_ functions — rather than to extraverted and introverted functions.

Jung said:



Jung said:


> *Ordinary, "simple" feeling is concrete (q.v.), that is, it is mixed up with other functional elements*, more particularly with sensations. In this case we can call it _affective_ or, as I have done in this book, _feeling-sensation_, by which I mean an almost inseparable amalgam of feeling and sensation elements. *This characteristic amalgamation is found wherever feeling is still an undifferentiated function*, and is most evident in the psyche of a neurotic with differentiated thinking.


Jung clearly believed that the inferior function of a Ti-dom was Fe and the inferior function of a Te-dom was Fi, and in this quoted definition of Feeling, Jung explains that "concrete" feeling "is found wherever feeling is still an undifferentiated function" — which means that feeling is "concrete" (in the _undifferentiated_ sense) regardless of whether it's extraverted (as in the case of a Ti-dom) or introverted (as in the case of a Te-dom).

And @Shadow Logic can make as many posts as he likes claiming that Jung never used the term "concrete" to refer to a function in its undifferentiated form in the unconscious (whether extraverted _or introverted_) or that he never used the term "abstract" to refer to a function in its differentiated, conscious form (whether introverted _or extraverted_), but there's really no way — within the reasonable-people-can-disagree range — to square that claim with Jung's use of "concrete" and "abstract" in the Sensation and Feeling definitions that @Neverontime has quoted in this thread.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

reckful said:


> It looks to me like all you're doing is trying to save face because you don't have the integrity to admit that you misunderstood (and misrepresented) Jung and @Neverontime corrected you.
> 
> I'm guessing you figure that if you just keep posting walls of text, at least some of the thread's readers — to the extent there are any left by this point — may think, well, Shadow Logic must have had some good points, even though I don't have the time (or the knowledge of Jung) to read all those walls of text and figure it out.
> 
> ...


*sigh* So instead of just answering my question you decide to start assuming my intentions and behavior which doesn't pertain to the topic at hand. I mean you just admitted that you haven't at all even read my "walls of text" seriously because you have an assumption that I'm writing just to write, that my words are completely meaningless and that everything I have written was intentionally for the users who won't read but will assume I have good points. Nevermind that your whole post is one huge ad hominem directed forwards me.

I now know you truly have no intentions in having an intellectual conversation with me over this, you've come up with your own assumptions to justify discarding what I have to say. I'll just leave you to your non-subject pertaining assumptions.


----------

