# Carl Jung succinct: subjective vs objective functions



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Objective
Objective functions orient around the “object”, external reality. Thus they preserve the integrity of the external world. Such data is not coerced (subjected) since that destroys the integrity of the object therefore the quality of the meaning being produced. These functions are “static” as they trust strictly the accuracy of the external world, attempting to match it. Objective functions take the various data from the objective world as it is.


Subjective
Subjective functions have data coerced around a “subject”, for meaning to be derived. The various data from the objective world is “focused” in order to create understanding. Accuracy of the objective is shunned since the psyche can’t derive meaning without a subject. A misconception is that this data is made up by the psyche; contrary, this data originates from the external reality, like the objective data, the only slight difference is that it is focused. Subjective functions are “dynamic” as they can easily change with their ability to easily create a subject at will.


People can’t have both subjective and objective versions of the same function. Usually because objective and subjective functions work together, confusion can emerge as whether a person has either one or the other.We are all thinkers, feelers, intuitionists and sensors; the simple question is merely what kind and what order. It is all about what is subjective and objective in your personality.


Extroverted Thinking
Valuing external logic, the psyche prefers to guide its sense of logic by looking for evidence to support the desired logic. Like Ti, the Te psyche can create internal logical classifications to build understanding. However the difference is that the logic made must have a strong adherence to the external reality else the psyche disputes it; its subject is guided by a subjective function. Ti does not regard the integrity of the "object", hence it prefers to mould its understanding around its perception data, which it hopes is accurate hence such psyches dislike "loops" Ti-Ni or Ti-Si, using subjective perception.


Extroverted Feeling
External ethics work exactly like Te. The psyche prefers to guide its sense of understanding by looking for external ethics, evidence. And again like Fi, the psyche Fe psyche is capable of creating internal ethics classifications, with the exception that the ethics must be strongly externally verifiable; its subject is guided by a subjective function. Fi does not care though hence it prefers to mould its understanding around its perception data, which it hopes is accurate hence such psyches dislike loops Fi-Ni or Fi-Si; working with a subjective perception. 


Extroverted Sensing
Extroverted sensing takes information as it is from external reality like judgement functions Fe and Te. Since, Se lacks a subject like other objective functions, the accuracy of the external world leads to no understanding without a subjective function to anchor things into place. Se yields no fruit when working with Te or Fe, without an intermediate subject at hand; all the functions work together, I thought I'd clarify that. As any other objective function, it respects the integrity of the object. 


Extroverted Intuition
Extroverted intuition takes information as it is from external reality like Se and the extroverted judgement functions. Lacking a subject, like other objective functions, Ne similarly requires a subjective function to anchor things into place. Ne similarly yields no fruit when working with Te or Fe, without an intermediate subjective function; through that the integrity of the object is kept. 

Introverted Thinking
Introverted logic has similarities to Te in the sense that the psyche sources its data from the external world. Ti types can see the same logic as Te types do, they don’t invent logic in order to create understanding. Instead, they focus and “subject” the external logic creating meaning. In subjecting the logic, these types hope that the perception data they employ is objective as that becomes the only final frontier establishing objective understanding. As stated before loops (Ti-Si or Ti-Ni) are disliked since they naturally distort the perception of reality. 


Introverted Feeling
Introverted ethics has similarities to Fe in the sense that the psyche sources its data from the external world. Fi types can see the same ethics as Fe ones; therefore they don’t invent their ethics when creating meaning. They focus and “subject” the external ethics to make sense of the world. Subjecting ethics, these types usually hope that the perception data employed is objective since that is the only frontier for objective understanding. As stated before loops (Fi-Si or Fi-Ni) are disliked since they naturally distort the truth. 


Introverted Sensing
Introverted sensing is a perception function taking in information from the external reality as Ne and Se. Like other introverted functions, it doesn’t invent understanding since the data it sources is from the objective world. Si subjects its data it takes from reality in order to derive meaning, therefore handling raw data “Se” data, objective sensing is useless since meaning is absent without a subject. As Si is subjective, it realise on objective judgement to make sense of its findings thus attempting to salvage an objective truth. 


Introverted Intuition
Introverted intuition is a perception function like Si, taking in information from the external reality as its objective counterpart Ne. Like other introverted functions, it doesn’t necessarily magic up understandings since the data it sources is from the objective world. Ni subjects the data from reality in order to derive meaning, therefore handling raw data “Ne” data, objectively is useless since meaning is absent without a subject at hand. Being subjective, it realise on objective judgement to derive objective truth. 


*Memory has little to do with Si as Jung had put it.
*the magic eureka moment that Ni people claim to have isn’t exclusive to people with that function, everybody has a subconscious.
*Fe doesn’t hold exclusive rights for empathizing, sympathising and understanding social norms that create a harmonious environment
*Te isn’t the get things done function or bulldozing
*Fi doesn’t hold exclusive rights for creating an understanding of the self
*Se doesn’t have the exclusive rights to collecting sensory data from the environment (only it and Si can do so)
*Ne doesn’t mean visionary “creative” discovering hidden potential (Ni can do so too)
*For extroverts, the loops may not be bad (or don't quite exists) since the two objective functions will be working under the common subjective functions. 
*The loops part isn't really that important I thought everyone could relate to it but that was just my mistake and it isn't quite important. 


Since the introverted functions hold the subject, they are the ones that create meaning, thus influencing the type of memories that are created. As an example, Ti types will have a library of logical classifications; Fi a library of feeling based classifications; Ni a library of intuition; and Si a library of sensed data. I’ll add that the objective functions influence these “libraries” greatly but they are structured by the subjective functions
*
THE POST HAS WORD ORDERING ERRORS I PROBABLY FAILED TO NOTICE, typing issues. *


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

The title of this thread includes "Carl Jung succinct," but many of your function descriptions don't bear much resemblance to Jung's descriptions. If you're purporting to summarize Jung, you haven't done a very good job, and if you're purporting to summarize someone else's (or your own) function concepts, you should clarify that.

In case you're interested, you can find Myers' brief summaries of Jung's functions (Chapter 8 of Gifts Differing) here — and note that these Chapter 8 descriptions really _don't_ reflect the adjustments Myers made to Jung (i.e., they don't really correspond all that well with Myers' profiles of the 16 types). Instead, for what it's worth, they're pretty much just Myers (or, I guess, Briggs, to be precise) summarizing Jung's descriptions.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Interesting read although some of what is complied here contradicts what Jung actually believed. I think Myers took some things out of it's original context and put a new spin around it, just like the descriptions of the 16 types. More often than not you will hear people say that the descriptions don't match with their cognitive functions. Jung's theory is more complex than Myers, yet for me his theory makes much more sense. The descriptions itself it one of the most leading problems we have with people who self type themselves. Personally i believe Jung was more objective in his theory leaving us with a cold reality about his theory of functions.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

reckful said:


> The title of this thread includes "Carl Jung succinct," but many of your function descriptions don't bear much resemblance to Jung's descriptions. If you're purporting to summarize Jung, you haven't done a very good job, and if you're purporting to summarize someone else's (or your own) function concepts, you should clarify that.
> 
> In case you're interested, you can find Myers' brief summaries of Jung's functions (Chapter 8 of Gifts Differing) here — and note that these Chapter 8 descriptions really _don't_ reflect the adjustments Myers made to Jung (i.e., they don't really correspond all that well with Myers' profiles of the 16 types). Instead, for what it's worth, they're pretty much just Myers (or, I guess, Briggs, to be precise) summarizing Jung's descriptions.


I have researched this in great detail, trying to make sense of the underlining meaning, what I wrote here is a lose insight of what I got. I think its fairly pretty objective beyond the parts where I try to make it relate-able. To people in themselves, which is why I tried to list the whole "loops" part and how the objective functions can do the same.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Interesting read although some of what is complied here contradicts what Jung actually believed. I think Myers took some things out of it's original context and put a new spin around it, just like the descriptions of the 16 types. More often than not you will hear people say that the descriptions don't match with their cognitive functions. Jung's theory is more complex than Myers, yet for me his theory makes much more sense. The descriptions itself it one of the most leading problems with have with people who self type themselves. Personally i believe Jung was more objective in his theory leaving us with a cold reality about his theory of functions.


I think the descriptions for the sensors, especially SJs, are the worst ones out there.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> I the descriptions for the sensors especially SJs are the worst ones out there.


Sorry to go off topic here although this reminds me of the ENNG theory with type 6. People who don't understand what the term anxiety means will jump to conclusions that this core type is incapable of living a healthy lifestyle, nor can be socially happy, confident and successful. Not to toot my own horn here , i am all of those things plus 

Anyway back on topic. Ironic enough when people don't connect well with people they will automatically believe this person must be a sensor. I have breakdowns just as often with sensors as i do intuitive. Visiting a place like this will leave all sorts of stereotypes that people will use in their reality to explain misunderstandings. Shame really. Maybe they should consider at times that they are the problem.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@MuChApArAdOx out of interests, what does contradict Jung, I know some of the explanations I used in trying to make it relatable naturally do. Is it naturally the "loops" part?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Sorry to go off topic here although this reminds me of the ENNG theory with type 6. People who don't understand what the term anxiety means will jump to conclusions that this core type is incapable of living a healthy lifestyle, nor can be be socially happy, confident and successful. Not to toot my own horn here , i am all of those things plus
> 
> Anyway back on topic. Ironic enough when people don't connect well with people they will automatically believe this person must be a sensor. I have breakdowns just as often with sensors as i do intuitive. Visiting a place like this will leave all sorts of stereotypes that people will use in their reality to explain misunderstandings. Shame really. Maybe they should consider at times that they are the problem.


I tried to explain that that in my http://personalitycafe.com/nts-temperament-forum-intellects/111977-you-probably-idiot-its-true.html most people actually failed to see the hidden irony behind that thread.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> @MuChApArAdOx out of interests, what does contradict Jung, I know some of the explanations I used in trying to make it relatable naturally do. Is it naturally the "loops" part?


I don't want to make statements i can't back up, so if i ever come across the information i read, i will post it here.

Loops, personally i don't buy into this, again this is just me personally. For example someone may say to me that i'm stuck in a Ne-Te loop, not true. ENFP have this reputation of not always being so intelligent, i beg to differ. Fi is always there, always present, although because Fi naturally hides much of it's findings, Ne-Te will be more obvious, afterall they are extroverted functions. When ENFP are expressive through Te, me for example, some might say, you should develop your Fi better...hum, well given the fact that Fi is an introverted function, do you really expect me to appear more Fe, will Fe convince you i feel.

There are so many people who confuse Fi with emotional expressing, not true. I suppose because there is an F attached to that , surely that means we are naturally a bundle of feeling. Yes , we do have very strong inner feelings, although there is a huge misconception about how Fi naturally express that. If people don't see it externally, then we are cold fucking fish who don't have any empathy towards others. The cold part has truth to that, but lack of empathy certainly isn't.

This is my own evaluation of myself. Others will swear they go into these so called loops. I don't see it as loops, i see it as my extroverted functions are more obvious and visual than introverted ones.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I don't want to make statements i can't back up, so if i ever come across the information i read, i will post it here.
> 
> Loops, personally i don't buy into this, again this is just me personally. For example someone may say to me that i'm stuck in a Ne-Te loop, not true. ENFP have this reputation of not always being so intelligent, i beg to differ. Fi is always there, always present, although because Fi naturally hides much of it's findings, Ne-Te will be more obvious, afterall they are extroverted functions. When ENFP are expressive through Te, me for example, some might say, you should develop your Fi better...hum, well given the fact that Fi is an introverted function, do you really expect me to appear more Fe, will Fe convince you i feel.
> 
> ...


I will make the subjective bits I put in there explicit sometime in the future when I have an understanding I truly satisfied with. However the subjective and objective bits made sense didn't they?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@Boolean11
What did you mean when you said that the judgement functions *disliked* loops? :-s
And why only internal loops as examples?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> I will make the subjective bits I put in there explicit sometime in the future when I have an understanding I truly satisfied with. However the subjective and objective bits made sense didn't they?


Yes, i think you were as subjective and objective as you could be using the information you did to create your theory. I recognized a _few _things that didn't align with things Jung himself quoted. I don't have any links to provide, as i only made a mental note filing it away under "_ recognize and remember _" and couldn't articulate exactly how i read it. I could never make it clear enough to make sense..haha.

I'm not convinced anyone will ever be able to create a theory everyone is satisfied with, although if you can get close to satisfying oneself that should be good enough


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

hornet said:


> @_Boolean11_
> What did you mean when you said that the judgement functions *disliked* loops? :-s
> And why only internal loops as examples?


I meant it for "subjective judgement" functions working with "subjective perception" functions, with you and I. Its hard to explain I thought everyone would recognize it, as its usually talked about on the NT forums. With you as an ISFP, I reckon that the Fi-Se feels natural since Se provides accurate data from reality which isn't "subjected" so with that you would trust your analysis isn't it since your Fi understanding is anchored by the objective? 

This is kind of hard to describe and I don't think its necessary as I look back now,


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> I meant it for "subjective judgement" functions working with "subjective perception" functions, with you and I. Its hard to explain I thought everyone would recognize it, as its usually talked about on the NT forums. With you as an ISFP, I reckon that the Fi-Se feels natural since Se provides accurate data from reality which isn't "subjected" so with that you would trust your analysis isn't it since your Fi understanding is anchored by the objective?
> 
> This is kind of hard to describe and I don't think its necessary as I look back now,


Sure Fi-Se is natural in that it was the first way I dealt with reality.
But I often find myself in Fi-Ni when I don't pay attention to the external world.
So even though you could say that I have an anchor to the Se object,
it isn't so solid that it cannot be loosened by too much use of Ni.

What I was most curious about was how you related Fe to an Fi-Ni loop... :-/


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

hornet said:


> Sure Fi-Se is natural in that it was the first way I dealt with reality.
> But I often find myself in Fi-Ni when I don't pay attention to the external world.
> So even though you could say that I have an anchor to the Se object,
> it isn't so solid that it cannot be loosened by too much use of Ni.
> ...


Extroverted functions are different since for them to work at all, they need to be given a subject and that usually comes from then the introverted auxiliary in extroverts.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> Extroverted functions are different since for them to work at all, they need to be given a subject and that usually comes from then the introverted auxiliary in extroverts.


Well I wouldn't go so far to say that extroverts can't "be in a loop" just because they need a subjective perspective.
It isn't like they loose the introverted perspective, just that they pay more attention to their two extroverted perspectives
and neglect to pay enough attention to the introverted ones. 

If you like you could write the loop like this.

*Fe*-Ni-*Se*

The auxiliary isn't gone, the dom and tert is just shouting over it. 
So they still have that subject present.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> Well I wouldn't go so far to say that extroverts can't "be in a loop" just because they need a subjective perspective.
> It isn't like they loose the introverted perspective, just that they pay more attention to their two extroverted perspectives
> and neglect to pay enough attention to the introverted ones.
> 
> ...


This is how I see loops too. I also find that loops tend to prioritize information a little differently, so when in a loop, the information seems to made to fit the current mental state. When I am SiTi-ing, it doesn't mean that I stop use Ne, but I tend to only explore Ne in relation to already known Si data. This means that I can for example explore certain memories that were meaningful to me in some way (Si perception) and then go over various scenarios of how that memory could be different IF this and that had happened instead. The loop is destructive in this case since there is no way I can ever find a meaningful answer to this overanalysis since what's in the past is in the past. Yet I keep trying to find a rational explanation or how things could be different. It's more like that Si becomes my auxiliary with Ne tertiary for a brief moment. 

There are also other kind of loops that to me are more healthy. Not all loops are unhealthy. Only loops where you become too focused on the internal and for too long in a negative manner (focus on negative experiences) are destructive.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

hornet said:


> Well I wouldn't go so far to say that extroverts can't "be in a loop" just because they need a subjective perspective.
> It isn't like they loose the introverted perspective, just that they pay more attention to their two extroverted perspectives
> and neglect to pay enough attention to the introverted ones.
> 
> ...


I had an odd image in my heard that lead me to think otherwise, you know the trouble with being lead Ni is that the vivid images that my psyche creates are quite hard to translate. I heard though that Fi's have it harder, I don't know whether thats true or not.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

I don't really think that this is succinct Jung. I see other models mixed in. 
For example:


> People can’t have both subjective and objective versions of the same function


I've never seen that in Jung writings. Maybe I missed something though. Where did you get that?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> I had an odd image in my heard that lead me to think otherwise, you know the trouble with being lead Ni is that the vivid images that my psyche creates are quite hard to translate. I heard though that Fi's have it harder, I don't know whether thats true or not.


I can't say it's harder as i don't use Ni, although if its anything like Ni, yes Fi is very difficult. Trying to articulate things you see in an abstract way isn't easy, so yes, the psyche doesn't give much wiggle room for translating. Ni is about images , where Fi is about tones + much more, both in a strange abstract way.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Thanks for your input although we will have to agree to disagree. I stand by what others have said here, it just makes more logical sense over all. Personally i don't recall reading anywhere that Jung said People CAN have both subjective and objective versions* of the same function * It just doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Like facelessBeauty said using the example of Te. It being subjective on it's own would be contradictory to the nature of it's orientation.


But I don't think a function can ever stand on its own anyway. But I do think we can access any orientation any time. It's just contextual.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

LeaT said:


> But I don't think a function can ever stand on its own anyway. But I do think we can access any orientation any time. It's just contextual.


I agree, a function can't stand on its own, although that wasn't the question. The quote specifically said that people can’t have* both subjective and objective versions* of the* same function* 

I think you could be misunderstanding the point of the quote. You're making a point of saying that we can access any function at any time, which by the way i don't buy into either, although you're certainly entitled to that opinion. Dom, Aux and tert, yes, even our inferior, although we won't naturally reach for our shadow functions in order to change our normal process. That would be like saying today i see the world through Te and the objectivity of the external world, tomorrow i will switch to Ti and see the world from a whole new perspective in a subjective way. I don't think it works that way. The same can be said for any function. I can't recall a time i have ever reached for Fe in order to explain the objective stance i use subjectively for Fi.

Anyway i got the answer i was seeking about _individual functions_ and the role they play in terms of objectivity and subjectivity.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

saffron said:


> Well, we're having one of those conversations where people are operating under differerent definitions. The function is, for example, T. Not Te or Ti. That's the attitude which defines whether it's subjective or objective in nature.


No, the E/I is what makes it subjective or objective. All introverted functions are subjective, extroverted functions are objective. So by your logic, T is always what ? subjective or objective ? So does that mean that F is always either one or the other. Because we know that Fe is and will always be objective, just like Te is and always will be objective. Ti is and will always be subjective, just like Fi is and will always be subjective.

I'm not clear what angle you are coming from, because you made it clear that you agree people* can *have both subjective and objective versions of the* same function * It was explained here nicely/logically why that can't happen.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Interesting read, thank you. It didn't quite answer the question for me thou. Do you think that a function on it own-lets take Te for example, can Te act both objectively and subjectively ? I don't mean jumping from Te to Ti either, i mean Te standing on its own. So again, can Te be expressed both in an objective and subjective way without the help of another function.? Can Ne be both objective and subjective standing on its own without the help of a subjective function ?
> 
> If each individual function can act both subjectively and objectively without the help of another function, then why did Jung put individual labels on each function. Why is there such a thing as introverted and extroverted if all functions on their own are subjective and objective.


Okay, I _think _I know what you're asking now, and no, I do not think a function can be both "objective" and "subjective." Bottom line, Te is objective, Ti is subjective, same for the others. These functions are discrete _because of _their orientation, hence the orientation cannot be the same for both. What may cause confusion is if the opposite orientation/same attitude function is used subconsciously. 

Some modern function theories, such as Model A, claim that the function that shares the same attitude of your dominant and auxiliary but opposite orientation are equal in strength/proficiency, but are subconscious. Therefore, it is very possible that these functions are understood and even used at a perfectly good level, but are not, still, the "same" as their orientational opposite - though you'd still feel as though you were using them, because you are. An ENFP, for example, would have high intelligibility of Fe, though this is not the same function as Fi. It would be possible, however, for the ENFP to confuse the two, given high proficiencies in both. 

Does that help clear things a bit?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

LXPilot said:


> Okay, I _think _I know what you're asking now, and no,* I do not think a function can be both "objective" and "subjective." Bottom line, Te is objective, Ti is subjective, same for the others*. These functions are discrete _because of _their orientation, hence the orientation cannot be the same for both. What may cause confusion is if the opposite orientation/same attitude function is used subconsciously.
> 
> Some modern function theories, such as Model A, claim that the function that shares the same attitude of your dominant and auxiliary but opposite orientation are equal in strength/proficiency, but are subconscious. Therefore, it is very possible that these functions are understood and even used at a perfectly good level, but are not, still, the "same" as their orientational opposite - though you'd still feel as though you were using them, because you are. An ENFP, for example, would have high intelligibility of Fe, though this is not the same function as Fi. It would be possible, however, for the ENFP to confuse the two, given high proficiencies in both.
> 
> Does that help clear things a bit?


Thank you, and yes it makes perfect sense to me. I wasn't so much confused about it although because i was detecting that some were, i wanted to put it out there so people like you and others could explain why a function on its own couldn't be both subjective and objective. Thanks again, we have some smart cookies here  I couldn't articulate what needed to be said in order to explain my take on it which was exactly what you said. Articulate Te users like yourself and others can explain it much better


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

hornet said:


> If I've read you correctly, *yes*, Fe is somewhat stressful to deal with.
> I don't want to consider *what my actions imply to everyone and their cat.*
> I understand very well what it would/could imply, but I hate to deal with it.
> I have more important issues to consider. }:-D


As I thought so, the shadow functions functions' true natures are stressful for the psyche. So did you relate to the under stress part? I meant to say, giving as a personal example, my shadow functions Ne and Ti can emerge; I'm able to see the deluge of possibilities that Ne throws to my psyche and sort that objective data with my Ti. However this remains a very unnatural experience since I am aware that is not comfortable or normal.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> As I thought so, the shadow functions functions' true natures are stressful for the psyche. So did you relate to the under stress part? I meant to say, giving as a personal example, my shadow functions Ne and Ti can emerge; I'm able to see the deluge of possibilities that Ne throws to my psyche and sort that objective data with my Ti. However this remains a very unnatural experience since I am aware that is not comfortable or normal.


I relate to the stress mostly because the Fe is external judgement and can cause me lots of trouble.
But Si, Ne and Ti is also stressful, but in different realms and for different reasons.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

hornet said:


> I relate to the stress mostly because the Fe is external judgement and can cause me lots of trouble.
> But Si, Ne and Ti is also stressful, but in different realms and for different reasons.


So its is likely true that our shadow functions consciously exist but only in the uncontrollable subconscious, were they can reveal them selves at odd times. For example when talking to my ISTJ brother, I noticed that he could relate to the idea of his subconscious "Ni" which he is aware that it only surfaces under great stress where his intuition becomes "focused" allowing him to see a coherent vision. He relates to that unnatural stressful circumstance as the time where he feels desperate and runs out of answers from his normal thinking patterns. Which is where suddenly the subconscious functions emerge allowing him to think in an odd way; however not long afterwards, that mode of thinking stops as insights are gained thus allowing him to return to his normal thinking pattern with Si Te Fi Ne which feel more natural.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I agree, a function can't stand on its own, although that wasn't the question. The quote specifically said that people can’t have* both subjective and objective versions* of the* same function*
> 
> I think you could be misunderstanding the point of the quote. You're making a point of saying that we can access any function at any time, which by the way i don't buy into either, although you're certainly entitled to that opinion. Dom, Aux and tert, yes, even our inferior, although we won't naturally reach for our shadow functions in order to change our normal process. That would be like saying today i see the world through Te and the objectivity of the external world, tomorrow i will switch to Ti and see the world from a whole new perspective in a subjective way. I don't think it works that way. The same can be said for any function. I can't recall a time i have ever reached for Fe in order to explain the objective stance i use subjectively for Fi.
> 
> Anyway i got the answer i was seeking about _individual functions_ and the role they play in terms of objectivity and subjectivity.


This is not quite how I see it though. It is not that you wake up one day and see the life through the eyes of an ISFJ and then another ESFP, but that the cognitive functions are indeed good at different things and useful at different things. It is contextual in the sense that we are forced to sometimes use different functions than our preferences (mostly dominant and auxiliary) because they are not very useful in this particular context, and the tertiary and inferior will not suffice in solving and nagivating the world at hand. Let's say a dominant Fi user is put in a maths class, and the Fi user actually finds herself really enjoying maths (the underlying reason can be F motivated). As a subsequent result, the Fi user will continue to study maths. However, Fi is a function that is not particularly useful for solving mathematical problems. While Te can help in this respect, I think the Fi user will also need to evoke Ti, because Ti can help to validate if the solution is correct for example. 

I think we use a much larger range of functions when dealing with our daily lives than what is generally thought of here and in official material about the MBTI and the cognitive functions. The perspective of one or a few functions is not always enough to solve a problem. It is the interplay that is important than the functions themselves. However, our dominant function colors our perception of the world itself and the way we apply the other functions will attempt to lead to using the dominant function in one way or another.

EDIT
Reading LXPilot's response, I now understand what you've been asking for and then all right, I say no. Functions themselves cannot be objective or subjective per se, but they can have objective or subjective orientations. One could possibly spin it in the way that F is subjective and T objective though, in the sense that F likes to think of things as subjects (Fi focuses on the self as subject, Fe others as subjects) and T wants to remove this subjectivity in thinking all together. 

Just a little slow today sigh.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> So its is likely true that our shadow functions consciously exist but only in the uncontrollable subconscious, were they can reveal them selves at odd times. For example when talking to my ISTJ brother, I noticed that he could relate to the idea of his subconscious "Ni" which he is aware that it only surfaces under great stress where his intuition becomes "focused" allowing him to see a coherent vision. He relates to that unnatural stressful circumstance as the time where he feels desperate and runs out of answers from his normal thinking patterns. Which is where suddenly the subconscious functions emerge allowing him to think in an odd way; however not long afterwards, that mode of thinking stops as insights are gained thus allowing him to return to his normal thinking pattern with Si Te Fi Ne which feel more natural.


Well the subconscious is just an idea.
Like you have decided to disregard either your own point of view or the external worlds point of view
on several levels. The other point of views exist and you kinda feel bummed out each time you are reminded of it.
However saying that the other point of view is buried in the subconscious sounds kinda misleading to me.
If I turn a coin and look at one side the other side doesn't magically become a new extra coin.
I'm disregarding it and I kinda have to turn the coin to look at the other side.
Since we are creatures of habit it kinda is like the coin is suspended in a forcefield that makes it hard to turn
and makes it snap back to it's original position once we let go of it.
To put it another way the disregarded side of the coin is facing down towards the unconscious.
That is how I think about it anyway.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@MuChApArAdOx

Are you in the socionics mode of though where it says that by valuing a certain function objectively, you suppress the authentic subjective. Are you into socionics now?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

hornet said:


> Well the subconscious is just an idea.
> Like you have decided to disregard either your own point of view or the external worlds point of view
> on several levels. The other point of views exist and you kinda feel bummed out each time you are reminded of it.
> However saying that the other point of view is buried in the subconscious sounds kinda misleading to me.
> ...


I think it makes sense to drop it only standing at the point that by favoring the objective, the psyche naturally suppresses the subjective as socionics states. MBTI tries to say you don't have them because of that.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> I think it makes sense to drop it only standing at the point that by favoring the objective, the psyche naturally suppresses the subjective as socionics states. MBTI tries to say you don't have them because of that.


I think the MBTI model is good for rough sorting and classification under pressure, 
when it doesn't really matter what is actually going on.
If you want to look deeper you have to rethink the whole thing and use another model.
Most people don't want to look deeper therefore MBTI is popular.
It tells you just enough to understand some very enlightening things, and manages to keep most
of the too disturbing stuff at arms length.

To me there are only four functions and you can approach them from two sides E or I.
Jung is the final authority as I find it pointless to crawl deeper down the rabbit hole than that,
there are few practical applications in the moment with nitpicking.
So very ISFP of me. =)


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> @MuChApArAdOx
> 
> Are you in the socionics mode of though where it says that by valuing a certain function objectively, you suppress the authentic subjective. Are you into socionics now?


I'm not reading you loud and clear here  I don't know squat about socionics, seriously. I can't say i've ever gone to the site to research anything. When i visited it was so alien to me i signed out as fast as i signed in . I'm assuming this observation is part of socionics. I'm not the person who can answer anything in terms of socionics, maybe someone else can help you with that


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> _People can’t have both subjective and objective versions of the same function
> _


To me, this means that a person can't consciously see the world from two of the same judgment or perception standpoints, since they would then be unable to make their own identity dependent on one charter than gives them anywhere near enough certainty in establishing a clear identity around at all - a person can't adapt their identity to both the object and subject to default to when they want to (they might be able to rather unconsciously do this when they have to, but that's when their positive emotions and self-identity might temporarily evaporate from awareness) - this would change their intentions and issues around an inferior function as well, which represent a person's shortcomings in personal identity (and if they had two charters so-to-speak, one semi-conscious (inferior) and one fully unconscious (8th function) pulling their strings so-to-speak, the person would be incapable of adapting to a mode of reasoning at all, because unconsciousness would outweigh consciousness in the individual, and they wouldn't have the power to escape this - they would probably be psychotic and very out-of-control (it's like chemistry math in a sense when you total the psychological effects of function consciousness - I think Jung's writings imply this to an extent, based on the people he dealt with).



> Do you think that a function on it own-lets take Te for example, can Te act both objectively and subjectively ? I don't mean jumping from Te to Ti either, i mean Te standing on its own. So again, can Te be expressed both in an objective and subjective way without the help of another function.? Can Ne be both objective and subjective standing on its own without the help of a subjective function ?


Well, the T functions are essentially one-in-the-same to Jung (one just prefers to reference the empirical more, while the other prefers to reference one's own thoughts, no matter what and how random they may be at any given moment). I think this is actually quite a good point - frankly, I believe the extraverted functions can probably work with reference to their introverted counterparts without turning into them (they can build a frame of reference around them to feed off of them like parasites so to speak, lol, but to the person, this might be unconscious or get projected onto the outside world as some real form of opposition holding you back from progress that you're trying to go on a mission against). There probably is a range of objectivity to subjectivity within any single function (perhaps that's why I don't come off as very stereotypical in the Te department as people seem to note around here - I might be on the tip-of-the-iceberg between objective/subjective thinking, as far as that can go).



> If each individual function can act both subjectively and objectively without the help of another function, then why did Jung put individual labels on each function. Why is there such a thing as introverted and extroverted if all functions on their own are subjective and objective.


Jung had reservations about this himself - the best explanation for this was in how some people show a tendency to resist adaptation to application of their intuitions while others tend to resist seeing things through the eyes of how they might think others will intuit the same thing being considered, etc. function, so that they can be referenced apart from the individual's premises somewhere in more universal, experiential existence. It's very hard to explain, as it's a very subtle difference, but the extraverted functions tend to be formatted toward advancing people's goals through other people (such as motivating change from a collective standpoint, such as with Te, by keeping tabs of how others tend to think or respond conceptually to ideas, people, etc.), rather than based on what appeals to the individual without regards to others' opinions, etc.

I hope this clears things up a bit!


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> No, the E/I is what makes it subjective or objective. All introverted functions are subjective, extroverted functions are objective. So by your logic, T is always what ? subjective or objective ? So does that mean that F is always either one or the other. Because we know that Fe is and will always be objective, just like Te is and always will be objective. Ti is and will always be subjective, just like Fi is and will always be subjective.
> 
> I'm not clear what angle you are coming from, because you made it clear that you agree people* can *have both subjective and objective versions of the* same function * It was explained here nicely/logically why that can't happen.


I/E and attitude *are the same thing*. So the function is T, the subjective attitude is Ti and the objective attitude is Te. You basically just said the same thing that I just said, but can't see that for whatever reason. My point is that I think everyone uses both the subjective and objective orientations of all of the functions (thinking,feeling, sensation, intuition) but as @Erbse said will prefer some over others. 

You're getting my original question all muddled by some weird reading of the actual question. Of course Te can't be subjective (by Jung's definition) all by itself. That's pretty obvious. I think my question was pretty obvious as well.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

@MuChApArAdOx @saffron

It looks like at the core of the discrepancy is the difference between preferring, and using a function. 

While one cannot _prefer _two functions of the same dichotomy (T,F, etc) but different attitude (i/e) - both Fe and Fi, for example - they can _use _both functions, perhaps subconsciously, and intermittently. People "use" all 8 functions, but some are depended upon at the expense of others most of the time.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

saffron said:


> I/E and attitude *are the same thing*. So the function is T, the subjective attitude is Ti and the objective attitude is Te. You basically just said the same thing that I just said, but can't see that for whatever reason. My point is that I think everyone uses both the subjective and objective orientations of all of the functions (thinking,feeling, sensation, intuition) but as @Erbse said will prefer some over others.
> 
> You're getting my original question all muddled by some weird reading of the actual question. Of course Te can't be subjective (by Jung's definition) all by itself. That's pretty obvious. I think my question was pretty obvious as well.


This wasn't my reading anything, it was a quote that you misunderstood. Quoted by you :

_I don't really think that this is succinct Jung. I see other models mixed in. 
For example:

People can’t have both subjective and objective versions of the same function

I've never seen that in Jung writings._

I also agreed to much of what erbse said, although the parts i agreed with, you didn't quote. What you quoted was this.

_*People obviously can*, but they'll naturally are more inclined to use one of the other.
Agreed.

See the part i highlighted, it is suggesting that people can, something you agreed with. So you did agree that people can have both subjective and objective versions of the same function  , i read into that by reading your text and what you quoted. That was the whole point. And i will assume that like LeaT, you missed the point from the beginning, why, i don't know. If you had been looking at it from its orientations perspective ( which others made very clear with understanding ) you wouldn't have agreed that subjective/objective functions can have both subjective and objective versions of the same function

I can be flawed in my thinking without a doubt, although i was never confused for a minute what this quote was saying....

Anyhow enough about this, communication breakdowns happen all the time, and this is one of times. I got the answers i was seeking and i'm quite happy and content with those who gave me insight. And yes i could have read you wrong, although anything is possible including perhaps i didn't with the data in front of me._


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

saffron said:


> I/E and attitude *are the same thing*. So the function is T, the subjective attitude is Ti and the objective attitude is Te. You basically just said the same thing that I just said, but can't see that for whatever reason. My point is that I think everyone uses both the subjective and objective orientations of all of the functions (thinking,feeling, sensation, intuition) but as @_Erbse_ said will prefer some over others.
> 
> You're getting my original question all muddled by some weird reading of the actual question. Of course Te can't be subjective (by Jung's definition) all by itself. That's pretty obvious. I think my question was pretty obvious as well.


Yeah, I hope I answered your question? I don't see how I didn't answer it based on how I understand your question. The logic presented prior was foreign to me until LXPilot helped to clear that up. To me it was just so obvious what I was talking about. 

Also, I want to add that I think all functions are used subconsciously, but we decide to subconsciously incorporate or prefer some over others as a part of our ego. I can't actively start using Ti by thinking, "I am now going to use Ti". I just can't. I will do it anyway and naturally so. We don't have much control over this, and this is why Nardi suggests that one way to activate functions we may prefer less is to engage in activities that requires that function more than others, so we must force our psyche to access it more readily. As with anything, I think practice makes perfect here. It won't make us prefer that function more, but it will help us develop that function and thus as a whole also grow as people.


> you wouldn't have agreed that subjective/objective functions_ can_ have both subjective and objective versions of the same function


 @MuChApArAdOx, can you please clarify what you mean with this again? I thought I knew what you meant, but now I am not so sure. Are you talking about T/F, the functions themselves or are you talking about orientations as in Te being able to be subjective? 

Are you saying that if one prefers Ti, then one cannot have Te or are you saying that if one prefers F, then one cannot use T?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

LeaT said:


> @MuChApArAdOx, can you please clarify what you mean with this again? I thought I knew what you meant, but now I am not so sure. Are you talking about T/F, the functions themselves or are you talking about orientations as in Te being able to be subjective?
> 
> Are you saying that if one prefers Ti, then one cannot have Te or are you saying that if one prefers F, then one cannot use T?


I made it clear what i was asking in the first post i quoted you. Instead of wanting a clear understanding you responded with this.

Because it wasn't meant to answer your question but saffron's 

And now you are asking me to repeat myself LOL.


For some strange reason you didn't make the correlation between the *quote * left by saffron and what i was asking of you, and if you did it was irrelevant to you. And no, i was never confused about what you are asking here in terms of the functions themselves. I wanted someone to validate the quote to be true as i understood it, and they did. This was the only point i was trying to make it terms of subjective/objective reasoning, and what i was asking. I'm not sure why the Te users understood it clearly, but i will have to assume that perhaps they understand my language even if i didn't articulate myself as well as they did. As far as the quote was concerned, it was self explanatory, there shouldn't have been so much confusion from you with what was being asked.

Anyway, there is no confusion from me about this topic. I had a question i needed answers too in order to help me with my clarity of how things work. I got those answers and then some thanks to the introduction of the word orientation by people who took the time to bring me to that understanding. I'm done with this topic because i no longer seek any answers . I understand, time to move on to something i don't


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> I'm not sure why the Te users understood it clearly, but i will have to assume that perhaps they understand my language even if i didn't articulate myself as well as they did.


Oh wow, I noticed this also. How appropriate for this topic title, lol.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

One person cannot use a function in both attitudes. You only need to look at an Fi vs Fe thread to see that. Jung also said the same. 



> The subjectively orientated thinking then appears quite arbitrary, while the extraverted thinking seems to have an incommensurability that is altogether dull and banal.* Thus the two standpoints are incessantly at war.*
> 
> Such a conflict, we might think, could be easily adjusted if only we clearly discriminated objects of a subjective from those of an objective nature. Unfortunately, however,* such a discrimination is a matter of impossibility,* although not a few have attempted it.................... Such a thinking-process leads naturally and directly back to the objective fact, but never beyond it ; *not once, therefore, can it lead to the coupling of experience with an objective idea. *And, vice versa, *when this thinking has an objective idea for its object, it is quite unable to grasp the practical individual experience,* but persists in a more or less tautological position.



@Boolean11 




> Subjective functions have data coerced around a “subject”, for meaning to be derived. The various data from the objective world is “focused” in order to create understanding. Accuracy of the objective is shunned since the psyche can’t derive meaning without a subject. A misconception is that this data is made up by the psyche; contrary, this data originates from the external reality, like the objective data, the only slight difference is that it is focused


If the introverted data is from the objective world and 'focused', why does Jung say it's not the case? 
This confuses me, could you explain this to me clearly please? 



> Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yeah, like @_Neverontime_ is saying, I have no idea what focus has anything to do with the introverted functions. They might reference the self, but focus? If they're apriori in the psyche, I don't think adjustment or readjustment would be necessary for them...It sounds like the OP is speaking from the extraverted perspective in describing these functions.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

It would be helpful if people could clarify and agree on what they mean by subjective and objective.
The way I see it an objective function is focused on the external world, its aim is either to observe and gather information from the external world (Se/Ne) or to communicate and act in it (Fe/Te). A subjective function either evokes (Si/Ni) or evaluates (Fi/Ti) one's own knowledge and experience.

So, no, Te can't be subjective and objective at the same time.

Our cognitive process is a cycle. We all start with gathering information from the external world (Se/Ne), we proceed to compare the gathered information to what we know (Si/Ni), we evaluate the aforementioned (Fi/Ti) and communicate and act on it in the external world. Every person functions like this within the order of this cycle but people are not aware of each process equally, hence the division of types.

My cognitive process doesn't start with Ni, it starts with Se but Ni is what I'm most aware of.

Let's look at the quadra that uses Se, Ni, Ti, Fe. Each one of the four types uses these functions in the same order but not to the same degree. By recognizing which function the subject is the most aware of the introversion or extraversion of the person is established and it becomes clear whether the primary focus is turned inward (subjective=directed to the subject) or outward (objective=directed to the external world).

*ESTP* Se Ni Ti Fe
*INFJ* Se Ni Ti Fe
*ISTP* Se Ni Ti Fe
*ENFJ *Se Ni Ti Fe

Our shadow functions cycle in the same manner as our ego syntonic functions but we are not aware of that process, it is happening in the unconscious.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

It was Jung who used "subjective/objective" for i/e, while I believe it was MBTI and its followers who use it in T/F descriptions.
(If you look at S as dealing with just "what is", and N as dealing with meanings and where things are heading, then that requires more of an interpretation from the subject. So objective/subjective could even be extended to S/N. N is a little like F in that respect, and perhaps that's part of the reason both Ni and Fi are the hardest functions to even understand and explain). 

The same thing has happened with "*unconscious*". We generally use it for "the shadow" (the unconscious functions, which are the inferior in traditional MBTI usage, and the four below that in Beebe's theory). But both "introversion" (of a function) as well as iNtuition have been described as "unconscious". (Not sure which one, if not both, are from Jung).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Jung discussing extraverted thinking being governed by objective data and introverted thinking being governed by the psychological structure, which Jung believed is hereditary. He also states that the subjective factor is not identical to the ego. 




> So far as the practical thinking of the merchant, the engineer, or the natural science pioneer is concerned, the objective direction is at once manifest. But in the case of a philosopher it is open to doubt, whenever the course of his thinking is directed towards ideas. *In such a case, before deciding, we must further enquire whether these ideas are mere abstractions from objective experience, in which case they would merely represent higher collective concepts, comprising a sum of objective facts ; or whether (if they are clearly not abstractions from immediate experience) they may not be derived from tradition or borrowed from the intellectual atmosphere of the time. In the latter event, such ideas must also belong to the category of objective data, in which case this thinking should also be called extraverted.*
> 
> Whenever the chief value is given to the subjective process, that other kind of thinking arises which stands opposed to extraverted thinking, namely, that purely subjective orientation of thought which I have termed introverted. A thinking arises from this other orientation that is *neither determined by objective facts nor directed towards objective data --* a thinking, therefore, that proceeds from subjective data and is directed towards subjective ideas or facts of a subjective character..............
> 
> ...


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> This wasn't my reading anything, it was a quote that you misunderstood. Quoted by you :
> 
> _I don't really think that this is succinct Jung. I see other models mixed in.
> For example:
> ...


_

Lol, I interpreted the quote using Jung definitions assuming that anyone on this thread would get that. I think it's nice that people took the time to try to understand what you were getting at or asking as well. I was never asking if a function attitude could be both subjective and objective, you were, and I agree with their answers here as I've already said.

You may want to note that different Te users interpreted your um, words/questions etc... differently and you agreed with them all pretty much. Don't know what to make of that either. Anyways, it sounds like you got what you needed here so, great. _


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Yeah, I hope I answered your question? I don't see how I didn't answer it based on how I understand your question. The logic presented prior was foreign to me until LXPilot helped to clear that up. To me it was just so obvious what I was talking about.
> 
> Also, I want to add that I think all functions are used subconsciously, but we decide to subconsciously incorporate or prefer some over others as a part of our ego. I can't actively start using Ti by thinking, "I am now going to use Ti". I just can't. I will do it anyway and naturally so. We don't have much control over this, and this is why Nardi suggests that one way to activate functions we may prefer less is to engage in activities that requires that function more than others, so we must force our psyche to access it more readily. As with anything, I think practice makes perfect here. It won't make us prefer that function more, but it will help us develop that function and thus as a whole also grow as people.
> @MuChApArAdOx, can you please clarify what you mean with this again? I thought I knew what you meant, but now I am not so sure. Are you talking about T/F, the functions themselves or are you talking about orientations as in Te being able to be subjective?
> ...


Yes, that was the sort of answer I was looking for. I like a conversation and I don't think much of anything regarding Jung is black and white so I actually "summoned" people who I know may see things differently but have a strong perspective. I think there's evidence on both sides as to what Jung believed (and he contradicted himself quite a bit) and people will interpret it differently. And I'm also just interested in personal readings on whether or how much one uses all of the functions and whether they see this as aligning with Jung's theory or not.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> One person cannot use a function in both attitudes. You only need to look at an Fi vs Fe thread to see that. Jung also said the same.
> 
> _The subjectively orientated thinking then appears quite arbitrary, while the extraverted thinking seems to have an incommensurability that is altogether dull and banal. Thus the two standpoints are incessantly at war.
> 
> Such a conflict, we might think, could be easily adjusted if only we clearly discriminated objects of a subjective from those of an objective nature. Unfortunately, however, such a discrimination is a matter of impossibility, although not a few have attempted it.................... Such a thinking-process leads naturally and directly back to the objective fact, but never beyond it ; not once, therefore, can it lead to the coupling of experience with an objective idea. And, vice versa, when this thinking has an objective idea for its object, it is quite unable to grasp the practical individual experience, but persists in a more or less tautological position._


*It seems to me like you could interpret this as the conscious/unconscious tension of opposites dynamic that seems central to Jung's theories. To have a war you need both to be present. But as I said in the previous post, Jung contradicts himself quite a bit.*
bolded since there's so many italics/quotes in this post that it was blending together too much and my response seemed visually lost.


Some other quotes to consider:

_The term Inferior Function is used to denote the function that lags behind in the process of differentiation. Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all of his psychological functions simultaneously. The demands of society compel a man to apply himself first and foremost to the diffferentiation of the function with which he is best equipped by nature, or which will secure him the greatest social success. As a general rule a man identifies more or less completely with the most favored and hence the most developed function. It is this that gives rise to psychological types. As a consequence of this one-sided development, one or more functions are neccessarily retarded. These functions may properly be called inferior in a psychological, not a psychopathalogical sense, since they are in no way morbid but merely backward as compared with the favored function. Although the inferior function may be conscious as a phenomenon, its true significance nevertheless remains unrecognized. It behaves like many repressed or insufficiently appreciated contents, which are partly conscious and partly unconscious, just as, very often, one knows a certain person from his outward appearance but does not know him as he really is." C. G. Jung (1934). Psychological Types (pages 450-451)_

_It should not be imagined that the unconscious lies permanently buried under so many overlying strata that it can only be uncovered, so to speak, by a laborious process of excavation. On the contrary, there is a constant influx of unconscious contents into the conscious psychological process, to such a degree that at times it is hard for the observer to decide which character traits belong to the conscious and which to the unconscious personality. … Naturally it also depends very largely on the attitude of the observer whether he seizes hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of the personality. … We must observe which function is completely under conscious control, and which functions have a haphazard and spontaneous character … the latter possess infantile and primitive traits_.(Psychological Types, CW6, paragraph 576. The Portable Jung, pages 191-192.)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

saffron said:


> *It seems to me like you could interpret this as the conscious/unconscious tension of opposites dynamic that seems central to Jung's theories. To have a war you need both to be present. But as I said in the previous post, Jung contradicts himself quite a bit.*
> bolded since there's so many italics/quotes in this post that it was blending together too much and my response seemed visually lost.
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for this. I find it weird that I haven't read much Jung at all but yet I find that he and I strangely seem to often arrive at similar conclusions. He may just express them a bit more succintly than I am capable of. And I definitely agree that I wanted a discussion, not just an agreement about how things are. Discussion helps my theories to grow as I must consider new perspectives or possible holes in my own thinking. 

This also essentially re-affirms that Jung was mostly seeing functions as point of departure but what he was really concerned about were the relationships between them. Of course, why wouldn't he in the end being an INTP  

I would like to hear the opinions of how others interpret this passage about the inferior though: do you see Jung saying that the reason why the inferior is repressed is because the dominant actively tries to diminish the inferior's influence on the psyche or is it repressed simply because an individual will prefer to put himself in such situations where the individual will be able to more readily engage the dominant, meaning the inferior will not develop simply because the individual does not practice using it?

If you subscribe to the former interpretation, can you explain why you think this way and not the other?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> One person cannot use a function in both attitudes. You only need to look at an Fi vs Fe thread to see that. Jung also said the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm trying to explain the "subjecting" part as distorting the objective through viewing the world from that type of "focused" lens. I was trying to explain what he said in a simplified digestible way. I'm trying to use the term "focusing" as distorting from the raw big truth that the objective brings. A "focused" interpretation isn't the same as the raw "unfocused"/untampered interpretation of the objective.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

saffron said:


> *It seems to me like you could interpret this as the conscious/unconscious tension of opposites dynamic that seems central to Jung's theories. To have a war you need both to be present. But as I said in the previous post, Jung contradicts himself quite a bit.*
> bolded since there's so many italics/quotes in this post that it was blending together too much and my response seemed visually lost.
> 
> 
> ...


The random springing up of the unconscious is what lead to the work of his that influenced lie detector test supposedly; the inner "daemon" can't hide from the truth. I don't get why that is contradictory at all, language is just not powerful enough to explain something that is both related and unrelated to the familiar which most people understand. The conscious is merely what someone has full control over the subconscious isn't. When observing someone else it is naturally difficult to tell the difference between behaviour that can stem from the conscious or subconscious when you can be entertained with either one or the other. 
_hornet_ now I remember why I'd thought about the subconscious and had forgotten why I had done so.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

saffron said:


> *It seems to me like you could interpret this as the conscious/unconscious tension of opposites dynamic that seems central to Jung's theories. To have a war you need both to be present. But as I said in the previous post, Jung contradicts himself quite a bit.*
> bolded since there's so many italics/quotes in this post that it was blending together too much and my response seemed visually lost.
> 
> 
> ...



I don't see where Jung contradicts himself on this. He states that we have 4 functions. Each function is orientated either objectively or subjectively. He explained that the differentiated function and it's orientation represents consciousness. That the mostly unconscious auxiliary function must be different in every sense so it compliments the dominant function and doesn't stand in opposition to it. Then he says the remaining two functions are largely unconscious, but still complementary in a healthy individual because they balance out the dominant and auxiliary. He already stated that the opposite attitudes of a function are too one-sided to be present within one individual, since they would contradict the standpoint rather than balance it out. He never says that one individual can use both attitudes of the same function, regardless of whether it's a conscious or an unconscious function.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> I'm trying to explain the "subjecting" part as distorting the objective through viewing the world from that type of "focused" lens. I was trying to explain what he said in a simplified digestible way. I'm trying to use the term "focusing" as distorting from the raw big truth that the objective brings. A "focused" interpretation isn't the same as the raw "unfocused"/untampered interpretation of the objective.


Ok, I understand what you're saying. 

Although I think it will be quite misleading to many, if it isn't also mentioned that objectivity is also 'focused' the other way, therefore distorting the truth from the raw interpretation of the subjective. The truth isn't objectively given any more than the truth is subjectively given. 

It reads as though the objective standpoint sees the truth and the subjective standpoint sees a distorted version of the it. Whereas I think it's important to clarify, that both orientations have their own bias or distorted 'lens' that prevents them from seeing the truth.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

saffron said:


> Lol, I interpreted the quote using Jung definitions assuming that anyone on this thread would get that. I think it's nice that people took the time to try to understand what you were getting at or asking as well. I was never asking if a function _attitude_ could be both subjective and objective, you were, and I agree with their answers here as I've already said.
> 
> You may want to note that different Te users interpreted your um, words/questions etc... differently and you agreed with them all pretty much. Don't know what to make of that either. Anyways, it sounds like you got what you needed here so, great.


I could continue pointing out contradictions made by you throughout this thread, but meh, it isn't worth my time or energy. And besides, i don't want to keep derailing the thread.

So back on topic. You mentioned in one post that you agree with Jungs findings, you also quoted that Jung contradicts himself. So again i'm never quite sure what angle you're coming from as you can't seem to make up your mind.

Maybe you could enlighten me with some of his contradictions. I'm here to learn as well and perhaps you have information that i don't. So if you could give examples of these contradictions you see quite a bit, that would be helpful. Using the functions and giving insight without quotes from Jung, your thoughts on this subject if you can. I'm sure we would all like to hear your theory , thanks


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I don't see where Jung contradicts himself on this. He states that we have 4 functions. Each function is orientated either objectively or subjectively. He explained that the differentiated function and it's orientation represents consciousness. That the mostly unconscious auxiliary function must be different in every sense so it compliments the dominant function and doesn't stand in opposition to it. Then he says the remaining two functions are largely unconscious, but still complementary in a healthy individual because they balance out the dominant and auxiliary. He already stated that the opposite attitudes of a function are too one-sided to be present within one individual, since they would contradict the standpoint rather than balance it out. He never says that one individual can use both attitudes of the same function, regardless of whether it's a conscious or an unconscious function.


I don't think saffron's intent was that those quotes would actually highlight a contradiction made by Jung. She just wanted to bring up other aspects of what Jung has written than what's been already discussed in here, I think. But I'm not saffron, but this is how I interpreted this post.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I don't think saffron's intent was that those quotes would actually highlight a contradiction made by Jung. She just wanted to bring up other aspects of what Jung has written than what's been already discussed in here, I think. But I'm not saffron, but this is how I interpreted this post.


That's why I said I couldn't see it, then I explained how I interpreted the text. So, if I'm missing something then saffron or anyone else may kindly point it out to me. 
I don't think any contradictions that Jung made elsewhere are particularly relevant to the discussion unless we can all see for ourselves why they should be relevant.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I would like to hear the opinions of how others interpret this passage about the inferior though: do you see Jung saying that the reason why the inferior is repressed is because the dominant actively tries to diminish the inferior's influence on the psyche or is it repressed simply because an individual will prefer to put himself in such situations where the individual will be able to more readily engage the dominant, meaning the inferior will not develop simply because the individual does not practice using it?


You can't for example engage perception that is directed inward and outward simultaneously, at least not consciously. The more conscious one function is the less conscious the other one is. That's all there is when establishing the dom-inf relation, imo.

Then there is the question of how developed each function is. The dominant function should be very well developed within the capacity of the conscious mind. I believe that our inferior function is by far superior to the other three since it develops in the subconscious mind and the subconscious operates significantly faster than the conscious mind. The thing is, when we try to engage our inferior function _consciously_ it manifests itself in a primitive manner because the inferior function is not being developed on the plane of the conscious mind and this is not how we usually engage it.

But the dominant function is being fueled by the extraordinarily developed yet unconscious inferior function and that's what renders the dominant so powerful.

The unconscious Se of an INFJ gathers immeasurably more information than the conscious Se of an ESTP. This vast amount of information is being transferred to Ni and that is why INFJs are thought to be "prophetic" and why they don't know how they know things, really. It's the same with ESTPs and Ni or any other type for that matter.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

yedra said:


> You can't for example engage perception that is directed inward and outward simultaneously, at least not consciously. The more conscious one function is the less conscious the other one is. That's all there is when establishing the dom-inf relation, imo.
> 
> Then there is the question of how developed each function is. The dominant function should be very well developed within the capacity of the conscious mind. I believe that our inferior function is by far superior to the other three since it develops in the subconscious mind and the subconscious operates significantly faster than the conscious mind. The thing is, when we try to engage our inferior function _consciously_ it manifests itself in a primitive manner because the inferior function is not being developed on the plane of the conscious mind and this is not how we usually engage it.
> 
> ...


Interesting take on the matter. How would you define the differences between conscious and unconscious though?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

yedra said:


> You can't for example engage perception that is directed inward and outward simultaneously, at least not consciously. The more conscious one function is the less conscious the other one is. That's all there is when establishing the dom-inf relation, imo.
> 
> Then there is the question of how developed each function is. The dominant function should be very well developed within the capacity of the conscious mind. I believe that our inferior function is by far superior to the other three since it develops in the subconscious mind and the subconscious operates significantly faster than the conscious mind. The thing is, when we try to engage our inferior function _consciously_ it manifests itself in a primitive manner because the inferior function is not being developed on the plane of the conscious mind and this is not how we usually engage it.
> 
> ...


I understand that Ni works very much on an unconscious level and that's the reason for the sudden insight. 
Se doesn't transfer data to Ni. Ni perceives data for itself.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Interesting take on the matter. How would you define the differences between conscious and unconscious though?


Just I, as the subject, being aware or not being aware of a process. I'm very well aware of my inner workings but not really of my environment. For example, I often went to a place with my friend, she would take me there and I still to this day don't know how to get there on my own because I never pay attention to how we get there.



Neverontime said:


> I understand that Ni works very much on an unconscious level and that's the reason for the sudden insight.
> Se doesn't transfer data to Ni. Ni perceives data for itself.


We all need external input to work with. So Ni will work with the information stored in my mind which was gathered by Se. I could see how Ni is passive, I'm not manipulating anything with Ni, Ti evaluates the content. But unconscious? Doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think the only real way that a person can prove that their dominant function is either objective (generally) or subjective (generally), would be to look at how it rationalizes from the perspective of one's auxiliary judgment or perception functions - toward them (if introverted J/P function(s)) or away from them (if extraverted J/P functions). Looking at the dom. alone can be tough, because your conscious self and motivations are so highly and personally concentrated around there, which will certainly constitute both inner and outer world motivations, that "objectively" determining this might seem almost impossible. So, say, if you're an Ni dominant, if you look at thinking and find that your intuitions tend to extract from thinking and usually don't actually make predictions about your thinking (instead, your thinking helps fuel your intuitions, rather than the other way around), then you're probably a Te type (so, INTJ in MBTI). If you're an Ne-Te type (ENFP in MBTI), your intuitions will probably help fuel your thinking, since you are an extravert in both the dominant and thinking regard (it's your habituated frame of reference). If one's dominant is objective, then the auxes get fueled by the dominant, while if one's dominant is subjective, then the auxes fuel the dominant. There's a bit of the a priori/a posteriori philosophical concept in there showcased by one's frame of reference and attitude toward the outside world in the dominant (the inferior would constitute the repressed/semiconscious counterbalance to this process).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

yedra said:


> Just I, as the subject, being aware or not being aware of a process. I'm very well aware of my inner workings but not really of my environment. For example, I often went to a place with my friend, she would take me there and I still to this day don't know how to get there on my own because I never pay attention to how we get there.
> 
> 
> 
> We all need external input to work with. So Ni will work with the information stored in my mind which was gathered by Se. I could see how Ni is passive, I'm not manipulating anything with Ni, Ti evaluates the content. But unconscious? Doesn't make sense to me.


I'm not referring to unconscious in the same sense that Jung uses it for the purpose of explaining his cognitive functions. I'm talking about when the brain processes information without our conscious effort or intention. All the functions work at least partly without our conscious awareness. 

Ni Ne Si and Se are all perceiving functions. The difference that determines preference is what part of the external information that we are perceiving mostly captures our focus or attention. 
A sensor will more likely judge a situation from what is there, an intuitive will more likely judge (both with their judging functions, obviously) a situation from what it intuits is underlying or behind what is there. It doesn't mean that intuition can't see what is there, it's just less concerned about it in comparison to the underlying possibilities and vice-versa.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I'm not referring to unconscious in the same sense that Jung uses it for the purpose of explaining his cognitive functions. I'm talking about when the brain processes information without our conscious effort or intention. All the functions work at least partly without our conscious awareness.
> 
> Ni Ne Si and Se are all perceiving functions. The difference that determines preference is what part of the external information that we are perceiving mostly captures our focus or attention.
> A sensor will more likely judge a situation from what is there, an intuitive will more likely judge (both with their judging functions, obviously) a situation from what it intuits is underlying or behind what is there. It doesn't mean that intuition can't see what is there, it's just less concerned about it in comparison to the underlying possibilities and vice-versa.


Do you really buy the notion that subjective functions start from sensing? That is really going beyond Jung where people start invent their stuff, but well its theirs. What Jung said was that all subjective functions start from the "object" but then they choose not to observe the integrity of the objective, thus making them "subjective" having an archaic form of the object. For you, your Fi starts with "Fe" data doesn't it? but what makes it Fi is that is doesn't regard the integrity of the objective.

Everybody has all the functions if Se id defined as taking any information from reality, Si as memory, Fi sense of self... everybody has all the functions. So from that view point type is less about the cognitive functions "though processes", but merely the stereotypes that MBTI rights to describe people. And that is where type can change in a person's life etc, if you happen to believe in tradition you'll instantly become an ISTJ.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Do you really buy the notion that subjective functions start from sensing? That is really going beyond Jung where people start invent their stuff, but well its theirs. What Jung said was that all subjective functions start from the "object" but then they choose not to observe the integrity of the objective, thus making them "subjective" having an archaic form of the object. For you, your Fi starts with "Fe" data doesn't it? but what makes it Fi is that is doesn't regard the integrity of the objective.


Erm no, I believe he says they are released by the object, not that they start by the object, anyway minor detail. I have no clue what the notion is that your asking me if I buy into. Are you talking about Jungs sensing or sensing in general terms? What part of my post did you get that information from? 

How does my Fi start with Fe data? Do you believe that external data, or anything aquired from outside the self is equal to extraverted? I know that it's a general mis/conception on here and if that's your view then we aren't even on the same page anyway. So a discussion will only get frustrating. 




> Everybody has all the functions if Se id defined as taking any information from reality, Si as memory, Fi sense of self... everybody has all the functions. So from that view point type is less about the cognitive functions "though processes", but merely the stereotypes that MBTI rights to describe people. And that is where type can change in a person's life etc, if you happen to believe in tradition you'll instantly become an ISTJ.


Again, I don't know how my post gave you this impression of my opinion. I don't think that the functions are defined as those things. I definitely don't think Si is defined as memory or Fi as sense of self. I don't think the cognitive functions are stereotypes or skill sets either while we're on the subject. I also don't think that everybody has all the functions in both attitudes. It seems to me as though you interpreted my post in a completely different context to what I wrote in it.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I could continue pointing out contradictions made by you throughout this thread, but meh, it isn't worth my time or energy. And besides, i don't want to keep derailing the thread.
> 
> So back on topic. You mentioned in one post that you agree with Jungs findings, you also quoted that Jung contradicts himself. So again i'm never quite sure what angle you're coming from as you can't seem to make up your mind.
> 
> Maybe you could enlighten me with some of his contradictions. I'm here to learn as well and perhaps you have information that i don't. So if you could give examples of these contradictions you see quite a bit, that would be helpful. Using the functions and giving insight without quotes from Jung, your thoughts on this subject if you can. I'm sure we would all like to hear your theory , thanks


Where did I mention that I agree with Jung's findings? I agree with some and not with others. And yes, I think Jung contradicts himself alternately speaking in absolutes (for the purpose of illustration) and qualifiers/quantifiers (as they apply to the average person) so that people get very different reads depending on which part they focused on.

And thank you for reminding me how ridiculous it is to have an online argument with someone I don't even know about something I barely care about. I've got better things to do.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I'm not referring to unconscious in the same sense that Jung uses it for the purpose of explaining his cognitive functions. I'm talking about when the brain processes information without our conscious effort or intention. All the functions work at least partly without our conscious awareness.
> 
> Ni Ne Si and Se are all perceiving functions. The difference that determines preference is what part of the external information that we are perceiving mostly captures our focus or attention.
> A sensor will more likely judge a situation from what is there, an intuitive will more likely judge (both with their judging functions, obviously) a situation from what it intuits is underlying or behind what is there. It doesn't mean that intuition can't see what is there, it's just less concerned about it in comparison to the underlying possibilities and vice-versa.


Okay, I understand what you are saying. The perceiving functions can be engaged without conscious effort, I agree. But the subject will be aware of the information presented by them if one of them is the dominant. The subject might not initiate perception consciously but still be consciously aware of the content of perception. 

One more thing, I don't think that we can initiate contact with the physical world with Pi, Ji or Je functions. The process always starts with Se or Ne. The degree of the subject's awareness of that is another matter entirely.



Boolean11 said:


> Do you really buy the notion that subjective functions start from sensing? That is really going beyond Jung where people start invent their stuff, but well its theirs. What Jung said was that all subjective functions start from the "object" but then they choose not to observe the integrity of the objective, thus making them "subjective" having an archaic form of the object.


What else does starting from an object mean other than observing something outside of yourself? And how you can observe an object without an extraverted perceiving function is known only to you, I guess.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

yedra said:


> Okay, I understand what you are saying. The perceiving functions can be engaged without conscious effort, I agree. But the subject will be aware of the information presented by them if one of them is the dominant. The subject might not initiate perception consciously but still be consciously aware of the content of perception.
> 
> One more thing, I don't think that we can initiate contact with the physical world with Pi, Ji or Je functions. The process always starts with Se or Ne. The degree of the subject's awareness of that is another matter entirely.
> 
> ...


See my new post which even makes the definition of objectivity stranger than it already appears to be. "Objective" doesn't necessarily mean sourcing from outside. And neither does "subjectivity" mean that there is no connection to the external, its not taken from the external. Hence socionics saw that and said "Si" is just a "lens","focused", view of objective reality; Si like Se can take data from the external reality, but the difference is that "Si" is directed via a subject. 
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/116411-exclusive-te-characteristics.html


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Everybody has all the functions if Se id defined as taking any information from reality, Si as memory, Fi sense of self... everybody has all the functions. So from that view point type is less about the cognitive functions "though processes", but merely the stereotypes that MBTI rights to describe people. And that is where type can change in a person's life etc, if you happen to believe in tradition you'll instantly become an ISTJ.


Yup, I'm with @Neverontime on this. None of these are the functions. Not even close. Otherwise, there would be nothing meaningful about MBTI/Jung at all - it'd all be obvious hack job crap pretending to be some new theory about people. Maybe you're being sarcastic, but no, this is not at all what Jung was getting at (if you use it that way, it's neither Jung nor MBTI).


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yup, I'm with @_Neverontime_ on this. None of these are the functions. Not even close. Otherwise, there would be nothing meaningful about MBTI/Jung at all - it'd all be obvious hack job crap pretending to be some new theory about people. Maybe you're being sarcastic, but no, this is not at all what Jung was getting at (if you use it that way, it's neither Jung nor MBTI).


People leave the "if" I put there, I don't agree with that definition of the function. But all I'm saying is that those who believe that everyone has all the functions, use a reasoning that is inline with that.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> People leave the "if" I put there, I don't agree with that definition of the function. But all I'm saying is that those who believe that everyone has all the functions, use a reasoning that is inline with that.


Well whatever (no duh, I'm sorry to say)...that's not even true either, in principle (no, 99% of people don't use this reasoning from what I've seen, other than maybe for the S functions). The functions existed to Jung as merely thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition, but their orientation toward the self or the outer world involved differentiation, where some orientations would be less conscious that other function-respective orientations, but really, the functions aren't units or entities - they're just descriptive codes for placing psychological phenomena in people. That's truly it. MBTI is very misleading in it's presentation of the functions (they're about a lot more than actually carrying out the functions - they're about how they functions interact with your ego/personality).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

yedra said:


> Okay, I understand what you are saying. The perceiving functions can be engaged without conscious effort, I agree. But the subject will be aware of the information presented by them if one of them is the dominant. The subject might not initiate perception consciously but still be consciously aware of the content of perception.
> 
> One more thing, I don't think that we can initiate contact with the physical world with Pi, Ji or Je functions. The process always starts with Se or Ne. The degree of the subject's awareness of that is another matter entirely.


The difference between all the perceiving functions and between all the judging functions are very slight differences. Not huge differences. Sensors are guided by what is there, they judge a situation by what is happening within the context of what's on the surface. They trust their senses above their intuition. Intuitives are guided by possibilities, they trust their intuition more than their senses. They judge a situation by what's underlying or behind the surface. They read between the lines. That slight change of focus on perception is what Jung named sensing and intuition. He was talking about which aspects of perception guides them, not their actual perception. 



> What else does starting from an object mean other than observing something outside of yourself? And how you can observe an object without an extraverted perceiving function is known only to you, I guess.


If it starts from the object, then it starts outside the self, that's why instead, it's released by observing the object.
I'm beginning to think it is known only to me, maybe if others put as much effort into understanding the posts that they read, instead of posting sarcastic comments, they would also know how ridiculous that notion is. What would be the point of a perceiving function that didn't observe the object?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> The difference between all the perceiving functions and between all the judging functions are very slight differences. Not huge differences. Sensors are guided by what is there, they judge a situation by what is happening within the context of what's on the surface. They trust their senses above their intuition. Intuitives are guided by possibilities, they trust their intuition more than their senses. They judge a situation by what's underlying or behind the surface. They read between the lines. That slight change of focus on perception is what Jung named sensing and intuition. He was talking about which aspects of perception guides them, not their actual perception.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Saying that the "objective" has to be sourced exclusively from the "external" isn't 100% right. Jung says "Te" can pull ideas out of its ass fundamentally and is able to multiply evidence. I have a list of quotes from him here
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/116411-exclusive-te-characteristics.html


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Saying that the "objective" has to be sourced exclusively from the "external" isn't 100% right. Jung says "Te" can pull ideas out of its ass fundamentally and is able to multiply evidence. I have a list of quotes from him here
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/116411-exclusive-te-characteristics.html


In a way, I think this kind of proves to me how much the functions really aren't so much a matter of what they entail, but more about what you do with the process and how you use it toward your ego.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I don't see where Jung contradicts himself on this. He states that we have 4 functions. Each function is orientated either objectively or subjectively. He explained that the differentiated function and it's orientation represents consciousness. That the mostly unconscious auxiliary function must be different in every sense so it compliments the dominant function and doesn't stand in opposition to it. Then he says the remaining two functions are largely unconscious, but still complementary in a healthy individual because they balance out the dominant and auxiliary. He already stated that the opposite attitudes of a function are too one-sided to be present within one individual, since they would contradict the standpoint rather than balance it out. He never says that one individual can use both attitudes of the same function, regardless of whether it's a conscious or an unconscious function.


_*As a general rule *a man identifies more or less completely with the most favored and hence the most developed function. It is this that gives rise to psychological types. As a consequence of this one-sided development, one or more functions are neccessarily retarded. *These functions may properly be called inferior *in a psychological, not a psychopathalogical sense, *since they* are in no way morbid but merely backward as compared with the favored function. *Although the inferior function *may be conscious as a phenomenon,* its *true significance nevertheless remains unrecognized. *It* behaves like many repressed or insufficiently appreciated contents, which are partly conscious and partly unconscious, just as, very often, one knows a certain person from his outward appearance but does not know him as he really is."_

So I'm breaking down this quote to show contradictions in the actual quote. First of all, note that he prefaces it by saying "as a general rule". (That means something to me, maybe not you). Secondly consider that he says that the "retarded functions" outside of the most developed may "be called the inferior" and then relates back to it as the inferior "function" (singular, which may or may not be) and continues to refer to it as singular. Is it singular not or anything undifferentiated? What is it?

I just don't find any of this black and white.  Aside from archaic terminology, there are just lapses in clear, consistent definitions which lead people to believe that, say, inferior means only the last function of the four. I don't think it does (and it's not really fully implied here). I think it means everything repressed to some extent. And I also see all of the caveats and the disclaimers sprinkled around his work and that, again, means to me to take this not as dogma, but as a general outline. Maybe I'm just inclined to see this perpsective though. *shrugs*


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Saying that the "objective" has to be sourced exclusively from the "external" isn't 100% right. Jung says "Te" can pull ideas out of its ass fundamentally and is able to multiply evidence. I have a list of quotes from him here
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/116411-exclusive-te-characteristics.html


I didn't say the objective has to be sourced exclusively from the external. I said if something starts from the object, then it starts outside the self. Start is the beginning. 

Again, you have read more into my post than what is actually there. 

Why is that?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I didn't say the objective has to be sourced exclusively from the external. I said if something starts from the object, then it starts outside the self. Start is the beginning.
> 
> Again, you have read more into my post than what is actually there.
> 
> Why is that?


Well that is because my intuition orients around the subject plus since I'm a lead "perceiver", I can bring about ideas before casting judgement.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I didn't say the objective has to be sourced exclusively from the external. I said if something starts from the object, then it starts outside the self. Start is the beginning.
> 
> Again, you have read more into my post than what is actually there.
> 
> Why is that?





Boolean11 said:


> Well that is because my intuition orients around the subject plus since I'm a lead "perceiver", I can bring about ideas before casting judgement.


Exactly, that's what I thought. 



> The difference between all the
> perceiving functions and between
> all the judging functions are very
> slight differences. Not huge
> ...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

saffron said:


> _*As a general rule *a man identifies more or less completely with the most favored and hence the most developed function. It is this that gives rise to psychological types. As a consequence of this one-sided development, one or more functions are neccessarily retarded. *These functions may properly be called inferior *in a psychological, not a psychopathalogical sense, *since they* are in no way morbid but merely backward as compared with the favored function. *Although the inferior function *may be conscious as a phenomenon,* its *true significance nevertheless remains unrecognized. *It* behaves like many repressed or insufficiently appreciated contents, which are partly conscious and partly unconscious, just as, very often, one knows a certain person from his outward appearance but does not know him as he really is."_
> 
> So I'm breaking down this quote to show contradictions in the actual quote. First of all, note that he prefaces it by saying "as a general rule". (That means something to me, maybe not you). Secondly consider that he says that the "retarded functions" outside of the most developed may "be called the inferior" and then relates back to it as the inferior "function" (singular, which may or may not be) and continues to refer to it as singular. Is it singular not or anything undifferentiated? What is it?
> 
> I just don't find any of this black and white. Aside from archaic terminology, there are just lapses in clear, consistent definitions which lead people to believe that, say, inferior means only the last function of the four. I don't think it does (and it's not really fully implied here). I think it means everything repressed to some extent. And I also see all of the caveats and the disclaimers sprinkled around his work and that, again, means to me to take this not as dogma, but as a general outline. Maybe I'm just inclined to see this perpsective though. *shrugs*


I definitely agree, because I am fairly certain I actively repress Se and Si aside of Fe. I was on quite the Se hate rant the other day on Skype with @FacelessBeauty who commented on this, where even she as an inferior Se type, saw the point of Se but *I could not*. I would also preface that I tend to dislike sensors, especially Se types with poor intuition, and that Se is the function I actually understand the least. A large part why I clash with sensors tends to boil down to me wanting to see the underlying archetypes of reality (in Jungian terms) whereas they do not. I for example made a thread on another forum which ended up in a lot of drama as I tried to connect many theoretical ideas to specific works of fiction. I was accused of being too post-modernist in my thinking, too relativist and so on. Most of the people arguing against me were also specifically arguing from the viewpoint that my thinking had 1) no practical implications; 2) no basis in reality; 3) was unfounded with no substantial evidence to support it and 4) being a pointless mental exercise. They just couldn't see the point of connecting gender theories of how gender is for example presented in works of fiction because fiction is not reality. 

But I also know that I will call upon Se in some areas of my life where I find its ability to simply live in the moment useful - sports for the example. No time to focus what's in my head as I must focus on and take the data in front of me at face value even though I always otherwise naturally cringe while doing so. 

This is why I think the word _preference_ is so important and useful when we talk about cognitive functions, because the psyche simply prefers one or several types to be incorporated into the ego structure and will actively seek to engage in activities that would require one to engage these functions more, leading to these functions to develop over the shadow functions, separating them from the shadow. Even socionics recognizes this better than the MBTI does, even though I think socionics also got many things as backwards.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> What would be the point of a perceiving function that didn't observe the object?


The subject observing the subject. Because your knowledge, the things you have internalized are a part of your inner world. Contents of the inner world are parts of the subject and Si and Ni deal with that inner world, the subject, hence them being called subjective functions.

It might seem that Si and Ni observe the physical world but they don't, that's why they are not objective. They observe the internalized image of the physical world. The subject first needs to absorb information via Se/Ne and then Si and Ni can be engaged to observe what has been stored in the mind. Obviously, in reality this happens fast and seamlessly. But there is no direct link for the Pi functions to the physical world, you can't get around the Pe functions. And thus, there is the fine difference between Pi and Pe functions.


----------

