# What is a Function?



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Anyone else tired of not having an actual definition of a "cognitive function?"



Wikipedia says "different ways of perceiving and judging the world"

cognitiveprocesses.com says "processes"
Not sure if Jung ever really defined it

My definition is *"a preference towards a specific kind of information to bring in, process, and communicate out." *@MegaTuxRacercalled it a "lens," which I think works well too. Most of what I see around the web nowadays either claims it as a mental process, just butts in with the dichotomies, or dodges giving an explicit definition. It's about time that changed.


How do you define "cognitive function?"


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

I agree with both definitions above. I think I have referred to it as a 'lens' before as well. There is so much more to the world, ideas, and people than that which we perceive through our most preferred lenses. In those rare moments when my own lens has 'lifted' I have felt very peaceful. It reminds of this;










Of course, it could be argued that during those moments, I was, in fact, just processing something with a completely different 'lens.' :tongue:


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

A willful organization of content into meanings. 

-By willful, I mean with the ability to initiate and terminate a process independent of other agents (competing processes such as complexes, entities that can be recognized outside the self). 
-By content, I mean representations not yet posed in the representations that can be constituted as having "meaning" or information. 
-By meanings/information, I mean a representation that is ultimately reducible to a set of relations that the *subject* holds to be true/self-evident/extant. 

The last statement is essentially the problem in the theory of mind or "where the mind begins" and how identity is formed. The relations may begin as something common from having to breathe to avoid feeling discomfort and to pushing against a wall and not passing through it as if it wasn't a boundary. However at some point, these relations diverge between subjects and are integrated into a nacent identity of self. From then on, higher order relations are encountered through the behavior/language of culture/symbols as recognizable forms of representations. As an example, I'll draw from a debate in sociology concerning whether the modern concept of "romantic love" had ever existed before Shakespeare. Would such a concept exist prior to the illustration of behaviors between the characters of Romeo and Juliet? And suppose one holds this concept to be self-evident, would it lead to a new representation or dimension along feeling values in cog-function theory?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Jung:


> functionby psychological function i understand a certain form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances. From the energic standpoint a function is a phenomenal form of libido (q.v.) which theoretically remains constant, in much the same way as physical force can be considered as the form or momentary manifestation of physical energy. I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational—viz. _thinking_ and _feeling_, _sensation_ and _intuition_. I can give no a priori reason for selecting just these four as basic functions; i can only point to the fact that this conception has shaped itself out of many years' experience.
> i differentiate these functions from one another, because they are neither mutually relatable nor mutually reducible. The principle of thinking, for instance, is absolutely different from the principle of feeling, and so forth. I make a capital distinction between this concept of function and phantasy-activity, or reverie, because, to my mind, phantasying is a peculiar form of activity which can manifest itself in all the four functions.
> in my view, both will and attention are entirely secondary psychic phenomena.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Really dissecting what it is makes me reconsider the way l type myself.

l try to go with the functions that l think l started out with regardless of my behavior now(which is why l consider Fi over Ti), since l've assumed that l've strengthened areas of my brain associated with those functions and that they are probably hardwired to an extent.

Viewing functions as a simple lens that may or may not be a product of some cemented wiring makes me reconsider but it relates back to the entire debate about MBTI.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Jung:


Bingo! Knew we could count on you. 

All right, that's the appetizer. What do we think? Is this something we can use around the forum and elsewhere?

I think this


> _a certain form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances._


is the kernel, but it's really broad (not that Jung had a lot in the way of technology to work with back then). What do we think is meant by "psychic activity?"

also paging @nonnaci, @Eric B @cyamitide @JungyesMBTIno @Teybo @celticstained @luemb @firedell @JSRS01 @Ellis Bell @Julia Bell @chimeric @MegaTuxRacer @KookyTookie @Briguy everyone else I'm missing, and everyone who's lurking.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Jung:
> 
> "*From the energic standpoint a function is a phenomenal form of libido (q.v.) which theoretically remains constant,* in much the same way as physical force can be considered as the form or momentary manifestation of physical energy."


Now, that's fascinating. What does he mean? Function preferences as _desire_ at the energetic level?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Here's a little more Jung:



Jung said:


> I have often been asked, almost accusingly, why I speak of four functions and not of more or fewer. That there are exactly four was a result I arrived at on purely empirical grounds. But as the following consideration will show, these four together produce a kind of totality. Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation. In this way we can orient ourselves with respect to the immediate world as completely as when we locate a place geographically by latitude and longitude.





Jung said:


> In reality, however, these basic functions are seldom or never uniformly differentiated and equally at our disposal. As a rule one or the other function occupies the foreground, while the rest remain undifferentiated in the background. Thus there are many people who restrict themselves to the simple perception of concrete reality, without thinking about it or taking feeling values into account. They bother just as little about the possibilities hidden in a situation. I describe such people as sensation types. Others are exclusively oriented by what they think, and simply cannot adapt to a situation which they are unable to understand intellectually. I call such people thinking types. Others, again, are guided in everything entirely by feeling. They merely ask themselves whether a thing is pleasant or unpleasant, and orient themselves by their feeling impressions. These are the feeling types. Finally, the intuitives concern themselves neither with ideas nor with feeling reactions, nor yet with the reality of things, but surrender themselves wholly to the lure of possibilities, and abandon every situation in which no further possibilities can be scented.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Figure,

I don't know that I have much to say on this topic these days, except perhaps that when people treat Jung's (or some interpretation thereof) cognitive functions as very narrowly or concretely defined, it has seemed to lead to more confusion than clarity, especially when it comes to people trying to understand (and improve) themselves and others.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

The Socionics point of view:

The eight information elements are mental functions that describe how the human mind processes and interacts with the corresponding eight aspects of objective reality. For example, the information element Ne is the mental process corresponding to the aspect conveying "information about the innate, internal, constant properties of objects, the sources of these properties, and the potential that they contain". Ne is the mental process, while the aspect to which it corresponds is a sort of information that exists outside the mind. Ne itself is something that can be understood in Jungian terms of mental processes, but also in terms of the information to which it pertains.

This, I think, gives a good perspective on why mental processes can be understood as cognitive functions. If one can describe information about reality as it relates to eight categories, one can develop a model for how the psyche perceives and evaluates these information aspects, which is the basis for the Socionics function Model A.

Source: Wikisocion


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Figure said:


> How do you define "cognitive function?"


You might be interested in skimming through this SEP article: Functionalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Figure said:


> Bingo! Knew we could count on you.
> What do we think is meant by "psychic activity?"


On the Nature of the Psyche, by C.G. Jung
As always, the important bits are hidden in the footnotes and it is one of "causal" vs "final" perspectives.

5. "Final causes and mechanical causes are mutually exclusive, because a function having one meaning cannot at the same time be one with many meanings" (Wundt, p. 728). It seems to me inadmissible to speak of "final causes," since this is a hybrid concept born of the mixing of the causal and final points of view. For Wundt the *causal sequence has two terms and one meaning, i.e., cause M and effect E, whereas the final sequence has three terms and several meanings, i.e., the positing of a goal A, the means M', and the achievement of the goal E'.* This construction I hold also to be a hybrid product, in that the positing of a goal is a causally conceived complement of the real final sequence M'-E', which likewise has two terms and one meaning. In so far as the final standpoint is only the reverse of the causal (Wundt), M'-E' is simply the causal sequence M-E seen in reverse. The principle of finality recognizes no cause posited at the beginning, for the final standpoint is not a causal one and therefore has no concept of a cause, just as the causal standpoint has no concept of a goal or of an end to be achieved.ective 

Thus, what underlies Jung's psychic activity is the concept of a "goal" that is not separable from the event. i.e. for the four cognitive functions, the goal of seeking answers to "is there something?", "what is it?", "what is worth to us?", and "what is possible?" is inseparable and remains constant in an event, which is a bit reminiscent of the difficulties in moving outside of subject-object relations.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I describe it in terms of the aspects of data we pay attention to (tangible, conceptual, technical or humane —meaning dealing with affect on emotional beings). Cognitively, it involves the paths from the limbic area to the frontal cortex, which lead to to four different _interpretations_ of data.

I'm currently continuing to try to improve my definition of the functions. Especially now after attending a presentation by Allen L. Hammer the other day (on Step III), where he mentioned that seeing grass as "green" is actually _judging_ (Which would be T), because it's categorizing, and not just "perceiving" it. A hypothetical question connected with this was "how many colors does a newborn see in fields of grass?" (none of the functions are differentiated).
This raises the notion of undifferentiated functions, and also "concretism" as we were discussing on TypoC recently, where T or F is undifferentiated and mixed up with sensation.

So trying to sort all of this out again, to give a crack at perhaps another set of simple definitions, I see it's very difficult to separate the functions out as these hard, disstinct THINGS, which is kind of what I've been saying for awhile anyway.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Figure said:


> @MegaTuxRacer


You summoned me?

I have never conceptualized cognitive functions as something that you "use" like a tool. It's always been this thing that happens. It's like programming that data gets processed through or a series of lenses that light gets distorted and warped through. It's that simple.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Cognitive processes, in my opinion, should be looked at as an orb. The orb as a whole is a specific process of the mind that separates it from others, but each orb act as magnets to other orbs, either being pulled in or pushed out by others. If you look further at the orb you can start to see that its split in half as extraversion and introversion but each half has different flavors, shades, or you can even say seasons. These are the specific 8 functions, but each function will always be connected to another for they are one of the same just the repressed version of each other, intuition being essentially repressed sensation and vice versa. So therefore if you have Ne you must Si. 

Basically its a dualistic interpretation of specific ways of processing the world through perceptions and judgments, inside and out, that form to connect to the concepts of extraversion and introversion, that forms to connect the single "orb", the specific way our mind processes different from another's. That's just looking at it from cognitive functions alone, but there's more to it and many different subtypes of processing and different systems interconnecting to make the whole psyche that also forms this orb, such as different shades. I like to connect this to universe, so think of this orbs as planets, the depths of the water (introversion), the breadth of the skies (extraversion), the different seasons (specific 8 functions), the atmosphere (unknown part of the personality), the inner core of the planet (enneagram), life within it resembling the environment that influences you. So each orb is what makes us specifically who we are, much of this orb we do not know about but cognitive functions and enneagram we are aware of which those can connect us to the rest of the system....Within time.

The concept of the orb, the planet fits within the concept of duality for the fabric of our being is the introverted version of the fabric of the universe. We could technically be classified as subjective interpretations of reality, and our processing the objective world is a reflection of subjectivity within our nature. You could consider subjectivity the repressed form of objectivity and vice versa. These symbols are what make up our archetypes and our archetypes are intertwined with the patterns of reality.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

^ The Si is _strongly repressed_ with this one. :tongue:


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

*Function Definition:*

A psychological process used to:

gather information
or​

make decisons


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

nonnaci said:


> Thus, what underlies Jung's psychic activity is the concept of a "goal" that is not separable from the event. i.e. for the four cognitive functions, the goal of seeking answers to "is there something?", "what is it?", "what is worth to us?", and "what is possible?"





EricB said:


> I describe it in terms of the aspects of data we pay attention to (tangible, conceptual, technical or humane —meaning dealing with affect on emotional beings). Cognitively, it involves the paths from the limbic area to the frontal cortex, which lead to to four different _interpretations__ of data._





MegaTuxRacer said:


> It's like programming that data gets processed through or a series of lenses that light gets distorted and warped through. It's that simple.





Shadow Logic said:


> Basically its a dualistic interpretation of specific ways of processing the world through perceptions and judgments, inside and out, that form to connect to the concepts of extraversion and introversion, that forms to connect the single "orb", the specific way our mind processes different from another's.


So, to simplify, it looks like we've decided on a few things. A cognitive function so far involves:


A goal related to the end event
The aspects of data we pay attention to as it relates to the dichotomies/F, T, N, S *before *it is processed.

The big point here is that there is no reason that a function has to be an actual mental action, but does involve what happens before it. I'll add one thing to the list above:


A function preference should be visible in communication since it involves your goal, and the aspects of data you pay attention to

What else? Are we missing anything?


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

I just view a function as a preference for a certain type of information. I'm starting to wonder if they can be "split" and if they can, to what degree. For instance, Ni appears useless if it doesn't have Se, judging functions are useless without perception functions, and I may be engaging in reductio ad absurdum right now but there is a reason for that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I simply view functions as a specific cognitive perspective of understanding the world. It's in other words a cognitive thought process to explain how the psyche functions. Does it function by aligning itself towards sensation, intuition, thinking or feeling? 

LiquidLight already quoted Jung so I won't bother go into more detail than that.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@Eric B

Looks like you got typed as an ENFP by someone who goes around typing everyone as an ENFP.

I'm starting to think the "ship model" makes more sense, especially if we're going to try to reconcile functions with dichotomies. If an INTP is Ti Ne, it makes sense that the functions they would most reject would be Si (the SJ perspective, because they're NPs) and Fe (the FJ perspective, because they're TPs).


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_Eric B_

Jung described it as "abstract sensation would be aesthetic as distinguished from sensual sensation (v. Sensation)". Which according to wikipedia on aesthetics:

_
It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, *sometimes called **judgments of sentiment** and taste*.
_

I would agree that "pretty" could be considered a judgment, but I disagree that it is a value judgment. However, in its common usage, I could concede that "pretty" and "like" often assumed to go hand-in-hand. However I see them as distinctly different things. It is possible to have an aesthetic appreciation for something which you might not find agreeable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I understand now the difference in our meaning of "what it means". I use the word in a literal sense, as in definition. I think you use it in the sense of "what it could mean" or "what it implies" or "what does this mean in the grand scheme of things" or something along those lines. Essentially, I mean it as definition, you mean it as possibility.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> @_Eric B_
> 
> Looks like you got typed as an ENFP by someone who goes around typing everyone as an ENFP.
> 
> I'm starting to think the "ship model" makes more sense, especially if we're going to try to reconcile functions with dichotomies. If an INTP is Ti Ne, it makes sense that the functions they would most reject would be Si (the SJ perspective, because they're NPs) and Fe (the FJ perspective, because they're TPs).


You have to keep in mind that INTPs for instance have Si and Fe, just lower in their functional stack. Their "rejection" pattern if we base it on opposites would be Te - Ni - Se - Fi. My "hate" functions as Te - Ni - Se - Fi are: Ti, Ne, Si and Fi. I think I dislike Si the most though closely followed by Fe.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Eric B I will just refer to what I wrote to nonnaci. Agree to disagree. I feel you have a very concrete way of interpreting the world that is not in line with mine. I don't think a specific sentence must always infer to a specific function because of the way it's structured or the way it looks like. Rather, what matters is the reason why that sentence was uttered. Did I say the grass is green because it's a way to convey a sense impression I just received or did I say it because I want to classify it from other types of grass? Different purposes can lead to similar results, but it doesn't mean the results actually have the same causes.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@Kamishi

Okay so I've read the whole thread and can somewhat get what everyone is on about.
As a Fi dom who represses thinking I find it funny how you thinking types struggle with seperating sensing and thinking.
To me they are so seperate as they can be. Like if I percive something in the world like green grass,
it isn't automatic for me to label it anything. I can stop and think grass is green.
But usually I don't I just appreciate the worth of beauty as a whole. 
That involves several other objects that are sensed pretty much at the same time as seeing the green grass.
I could label them too... *but I don't.*
Sky, threes, flowers, rocks, birds and lots of other things enter and leave. Sure I will think about them too.
It's not like I don't use my thinking as an F dom. But I don't have to if there is no need.
I truely see now that none can appreciate their sensations as the Fi coupled with Se can.
They get lost in analysis and interpretation.
But then again who am I to say that deriving meaning from those things are less meaningful than
the meaning I derive from sensory objects and their value to me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@hornet _What _do you label then, or what are you inclined to label?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> I think I dislike Si the most though closely followed by Fe.


PoLR

I love how socionics explains that stuff. In contrast, I don't think I hate Si as much as I hate Fe, but Si comes closely behind, yes.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kamishi said:


> @_hornet_ _What _do you label then, or what are you inclined to label?


Well it is pretty random isn't it?
Cause when you try to figure it out you fail.
Am I labeling now?
Just thinking about it forces you to label.
But when you just are somewhere and you have forgot about any thinking agenda.

And then a spectacular sunset happens that is so beautyful that you want to cry.
You just see it and in that moment there is no labeling.
Sure afterwards the labels come, I saw a "sunset".
Then you pile on adjectives, "marvelous", "spectacular", "magnificent" whatever.
Of course the adjectives are just patetic attempts to convey the power of the sense expression to a third party.
They will never know or understand your experience of the sense expresion.
The worth it gave you.

Writing this I realize that I struggle to seperate F from S.
They are so linked. Sense-feel-sense-feel.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> Well it is pretty random isn't it?
> Cause when you try to figure it out you fail.
> Am I labeling now?
> Just thinking about it forces you to label.
> ...


Well, wouldn't you seek to define say, feeling tones in terms of how much you like-dislike and so on?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kamishi said:


> Well, wouldn't you seek to define say, feeling tones in terms of how much you like-dislike and so on?


Feeling tones?
How so?
You mean in the process of feeling I would stop and label the feelings?
Part of feeling is letting the feeling happen without needing to define it.
If you step back and analyse and define the feeling, you have basically pushed it away.
I might later start pondering "definitions" of what I felt,
but in that moment the feeling was experienced just as freely as the sensation itself.
Defining feelings strikes me as a pretty useless activity unless one wants to share.
Back to the patetic adjectives again, 
*I feel soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo strongly about this.*
Oh really.... XD

Now why did I find it beautyful?
Well I dunno... I certanly didn't sit down and defined beauty beforehand.
So it's worth is that it let me feel deeply.
As in the feeling and deep emotions are valuable experiences in themself.
Fi defines worth, it isn't the emotions themself, but it pegs worth to them.
"It is better to feel happy than sad"
But I don't approach it in that way in my mind, it is more a knowing what feelings one want and don't want,
and then acting out of that in a very intellectually "blind" way. 
*It doesn't matter if it is reasonable. I want it.*


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> Feeling tones?
> How so?
> You mean in the process of feeling I would stop and label the feelings?
> Part of feeling is letting the feeling happen without needing to define it.
> ...


As an example of how cyamitide seems to categorize people: 



cyamitide said:


> What I would suggest for you to do is go to Socionix gallery and look at people of different types posted there. Then write down what impressions you have of the look in their eyes and facial expressions i.e. how would you characterize them? *Do they look soft, warm, sharp, wet, lost, subtle, kind, unpleasant to you? *If you have time, watch some of their videos in addition and observe their body language (for example, see if you can tell any differences between Ip vs Ij body language). Contrast and compare what you see. Write down your impressions. Then you'll be able to use these impressions you have gathered to type someone in the future.


Granted, that's how Fe would reason in terms of feeling tones, but my assumption would be that Fi would do something similar but internally.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kamishi said:


> As an example of how cyamitide seems to categorize people:
> 
> Granted, that's how Fe would reason in terms of feeling tones, but my assumption would be that Fi would do something similar but internally.


That seems more Ti/Fe to me yes.
It is thinking (Ti) and magically attaching worth from external standards (Fe) about sensory data.
I find it rather meaningless to do that.
It strikes me as barking up the wrong three.
I'm much more concerned with context and what information goals a person seems to pursue to type them.
Apperance can be deciving, and especially seeming kindness... XD
Every type can be and act kind/cruel etc
It brings in the fallacy that the way someone looks somehow magically reflects what is gong on inside.
Can't blame Fe for operating that way.
The newest ENFJ in my life put great significance into what "villains" and "heros" he found under the certain types
on celebritytypes.com. To him they embodies the type. 
So now he runs around looking for people who act like heros and villains and types according to that.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

PaladinX said:


> @_Eric B_
> 
> Jung described it as "abstract sensation would be aesthetic as distinguished from sensual sensation (v. Sensation)". Which according to wikipedia on aesthetics:
> 
> ...


So you're saying "pretty as a perception" is an example of "abstract sensation"? I'm just beginning to try to understand Jung's version of "abstract", as well as "concrete" (which we were discussing on TypoC recently), which differs from the common Myers/Keirsey use for S/N.
Aesthetic appreciation I can see as being more "irrational" (an uncontrolled perception), but I would say it still has some element of value judgment in it. As I said, the functions are mixed up together.



> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I understand now the difference in our meaning of "what it means". I use the word in a literal sense, as in definition. I think you use it in the sense of "what it could mean" or "what it implies" or "what does this mean in the grand scheme of things" or something along those lines. Essentially, I mean it as definition, you mean it as possibility.


To me, it meant the Jung statement "where it came from and where it's headed". Again, that's not literal motion in space, it means, basically "what it _could_ mean" (think, "could" can be framed as "where this is _leading_ to") or "what it implies" (again, where it's _heading_) or "what does this mean in the grand scheme of things" (that could involve both "where it came from" and "where it's going").



Kamishi said:


> @_Eric B_ I will just refer to what I wrote to nonnaci. Agree to disagree. I feel you have a very concrete way of interpreting the world that is not in line with mine. I don't think a specific sentence must always infer to a specific function because of the way it's structured or the way it looks like. Rather, what matters is the reason why that sentence was uttered. Did I say the grass is green because it's a way to convey a sense impression I just received or did I say it because I want to classify it from other types of grass? Different purposes can lead to similar results, but it doesn't mean the results actually have the same causes.


 I'm not sure what you mean by "concrete" (since as was just mentioned, it means two different things). I'm not trying to fix certain sentences to specific functions in some sort of permanent way, but trying to use the different constructs to give a loose sense of how to differentiate between functions.
Again, what I say is that the functions are mixed together in every bit of data. It's the way the ego sorts them out, preferring one over others, and this is apparently hard to really put our fingers on in describing.



Scelerat said:


> You have to keep in mind that INTPs for instance have Si and Fe, just lower in their functional stack. Their "rejection" pattern if we base it on opposites would be Te - Ni - Se - Fi. My "hate" functions as Te - Ni - Se - Fi are: Ti, Ne, Si and Fi. I think I dislike Si the most though closely followed by Fe.


This "rejection pattern" of "hate functions" seems to be based on the first way of looking at it, but it might not work like that. 
The lower ones (#5-8) are so unconscious, you're probably not even aware of "hating" them. The tertiary (if bombarded with it too much) and especially inferior, are the ones that will be the most _consciously_ rejected (since they are on the conscious side of the primary/shadow divide).
Some from that first camp made a lot of primary vs shadow, to the effect that you would wonder how people who don't have the same primary four could ever get along.
What I find is that INTP and ISFP for example, rather than being totally "irritating" to each other, simply miss each other altogether. (I guess it would be irritating if one forced their perspective on the other, but that could be with any function). The types INTP's seem to complain about the most, are the ["ego-compatible"] SFJs!
All that ego-compatibility means, is that ideally, the types should "grow together", as they develop the tertiary and inferior, which are the other's dom. and aux. But they are starting out on totally opposite ends, and likely resisting it all the way. 
Again, the other functions are totally unconscious, and connected to the shadow complexes, and #7 & 8 at least have in common the same J/P orientation, so that you may have more in common with those to a certain extent than the tertiary and inferior. At least if the other preferred function is compatible. Like INFP/INTP, which in Type Logic intertype dynamics system are called "Companion" relations. They may clash a bit on the "personal/impersonal" perspective, but share the Ne/Si tandem.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@Eric B

I completely know what you mean about ISFPs and INTPs completely missing each other.
I and my INTP friend will happily play games with each other.
Both having a totally different agenda for why we play.
But we don't see it as it is lost in trying to win.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Eric B said:


> The lower ones (#5-8) are so unconscious, you're probably not even aware of "hating" them. The tertiary (if bombarded with it too much) and especially inferior, are the ones that will be the most _consciously_ rejected (since they are on the conscious side of the primary/shadow divide).


very well possible to "hate" on them, because you identify the perspective in other people. It's not like you just ignore them. Believe me, I am not fond of Fe, especially not when I am also expected or encouraged to Fe. It's not like I walk around Fe-ing or am consciously aware of expressing Fe sentiments or attitudes or can do it on accord which would suggest Fe as the preferred egoic perspective. Instead what frustrates me is when it's identified in others. 


> What I find is that INTP and ISFP for example, rather than being totally "irritating" to each other, simply miss each other altogether. (I guess it would be irritating if one forced their perspective on the other, but that could be with any function). The types INTP's seem to complain about the most, are the ["ego-compatible"] SFJs!


Or perhaps those people aren't xSFJs at all but misidentified as something else entirely?


> All that ego-compatibility means, is that ideally, the types should "grow together", as they develop the tertiary and inferior, which are the other's dom. and aux. But they are starting out on totally opposite ends, and likely resisting it all the way.
> Again, the other functions are totally unconscious, and connected to the shadow complexes, and #7 & 8 at least have in common the same J/P orientation, so that you may have more in common with those to a certain extent than the tertiary and inferior. At least if the other preferred function is compatible. Like INFP/INTP, which in Type Logic intertype dynamics system are called "Companion" relations. They may clash a bit on the "personal/impersonal" perspective, but share the Ne/Si tandem.


Yes, because intertype.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Kamishi said:


> very well possible to "hate" on them, because you identify the perspective in other people. It's not like you just ignore them. Believe me, I am not fond of Fe, especially not *when I am also expected or encouraged to Fe*. It's not like I walk around Fe-ing or am consciously aware of expressing Fe sentiments or attitudes or can do it on accord which would suggest Fe as the preferred egoic perspective. Instead what frustrates me is when it's identified in others.


 I guess that would be apart of what I meant by being "bombarded" with them too much. Or at least, that's how your ego feels at the time, perhaps from some painful experiences (that you may not even be consciously remembering). So if your Trickster complex constellates, you might project it on someone, using Fe. It might be from them using the function in some way offensive to your ego, but it doesn't have to be an Fe-"user", because as you said, it's really something inside you, that you're projecting onto them.

But a TJ does not always _have_ to "hate on" Fe.


> Or perhaps those people aren't xSFJs at all but misidentified as something else entirely?


Possible, but myself being married to one, I can see what they are saying. And she even says it herself! All the basic type preferences (regardless of attitude) are opposite. 


> Yes, because intertype.


Yeah, I like Type Logic because it has as extensive a type dynamics system as Socionics (Which is what a lot of people say makes then prefer Socionics). Only thing, the whole thing comes with a cost to use.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Eric B said:


> I guess that would be apart of what I meant by being "bombarded" with them too much. Or at least, that's how your ego feels at the time, perhaps from some painful experiences (that you may not even be consciously remembering). So if your Trickster complex constellates, you might project it on someone, using Fe. It might be from them using the function in some way offensive to your ego, but it doesn't have to be an Fe-"user", because as you said, it's really something inside you, that you're projecting onto them.


I don't think it's necessarily a projection in that they "don't" Fe. They clearly do. And not all forms of Fe bother me. Yes, it has to do with childhood experiences and I am well aware of this, but the projection only goes so far.


> But a TJ does not always _have_ to "hate on" Fe.


I never said it would, but if you study socionics for example, you will find that the IxTJ has Fe PoLR. This means they are naturally sensitive to Fe because the way it challenges Te as an egoic perspective.


> Possible, but myself being married to one, I can see what they are saying. And she even says it herself! All the basic type preferences (regardless of attitude) are opposite.


As a sidenote, did you ever consider being an ISFJ?


> Yeah, I like Type Logic because it has as extensive a type dynamics system as Socionics (Which is what a lot of people say makes then prefer Socionics). Only thing, the whole thing comes with a cost to use.


Cost to use? What cost?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Kamishi said:


> I never said it would, but if you study socionics for example, you will find that the IxTJ has Fe PoLR. This means they are naturally sensitive to Fe because the way it challenges Te as an egoic perspective.


 Even though the ship model doesn't say this, it does sound like there could be a connection with the "left-brain alternative" concept. (Its stacking order is actually similar to Model A).


> As a sidenote, did you ever consider being an ISFJ?


 I once got that on Team Technology, when I first started trying online tests, and it is similar in haing the same Interaction Style. But no; I may look like an Si preferrer (inflated tertiary), but I am not an Fe preferrer. It fits perfectly "inferior", though I am becoming more aware of it. (Also, being Supine Temperament: Supine In Inclusion —As opposed to Phlegmatic, the other temperament sharing the same Interaction Style, will make me look somewhat like a Feeler. ISFJ is Supine Melancholic, and this will be very similar to Supine Choleric).


> Cost to use? What cost?


 It comes with some software they charge for. It's on their site.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Eric B said:


> Even though the ship model doesn't say this, it does sound like there could be a connection with the "left-brain alternative" concept. (Its stacking order is actually similar to Model A).


I would say it's more similar to Beebe than Thomson.


> I once got that on Team Technology, when I first started trying online tests, and it is similar in haing the same Interaction Style. But no; I may look like an Si preferrer (inflated tertiary), but I am not an Fe preferrer. It fits perfectly "inferior", though I am becoming more aware of it. (Also, being Supine Temperament: Supine In Inclusion —As opposed to Phlegmatic, the other temperament sharing the same Interaction Style, will make me look somewhat like a Feeler. ISFJ is Supine Melancholic, and this will be very similar to Supine Choleric).


But why even type according to such a perspective, of how you come across as, what behavior you are? That doesn't suggest strong Ti with auxiliary Ne, it suggests a strong preference towards sensation.


> It comes with some software they charge for. It's on their site.


I don't think you need to pay anything to learn and understand socionics well. There is little left for me to learn when it comes to socionics which I learned from simply reading Wikisocion and some articles on 16types.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

An information processing strategy.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> “subject/object” can refer to either T/F or e/i; and in a way, even S/N! This ties into my earlier statements, where both S and T deal with “what is” (i. e. “objects”), and N and F are “what it means” (i. e. cognition only possible to “subjects”). so I...used “object”, as it pertained to S/N, in a _general _ sense, and then in the T/F sense only for T/F, hoping it all wouldn't be confounded together.
> 
> “information” is just to convey the data that is gathered through “perception” functions. I got it from an S/N defnition I saw years ago, as simply “information
> gathering” (while T/F was “decision-making”), which relped me understand what the two classes of functions were about.
> ...


Meant to add to this, I got this idea of trying to refine T/F, from seeing someone at work, who is very "Sanguine" (And I don't seem to see many male Sanguines in person, so he really stands out), and is likely an ExFP. Probably S, because he seems to be focused on living life as it comes, rather than looking for or discussing meaning. Very bright and friendly, often buys cakes, cookies, etc. for everyone (I usually give in, trying to avoid sugar and wheat as much as possible these days, but if someone's giving it away, I can't resist); sometimes irritating to some people in this heavy ISTJ environment.

Trying to verify my correlation of type with temperament, as well as refining my understanding of the true definitions of the functions, I thought to myself, what makes me think this guy (and others like him I've seen) is a Feeler? I have not been close enough to him personally to really see him make decisions (beyond buying the goodies for everyone). I don't see him articulating any "values". I draw my sense of a Sanguine from temperament theory, particularly this description: The Sanguine in Inclusion Temperament 

What makes this profile most likely a Feeler? That system is based on FIRO-B, and doesn't go into MBTI typology, so there's nothing about "making decisions based on values, emotions", etc. What makes any of us look at a person and assign T/F (as well as any of the other dichotomies)?

Obviously, the "people-focus" is apart of it. 
When I thought about what I see when I see that person, and comparing with my wife, who's part Sanguine, and also a Feeler (but opposite in orientation from what I believe that guy is), and then you have the NFJ's, who aren't even "people-focused" in the social area like all the other Feelers, but rather in the conative area) the common thread is the focus on "humanity". 
Just living and interacting with people, and in the case of my wife who I live with, and is always trying to pry it out of me, "feelings" and emotions. The "properties of subjects" (themselves and others). 
Everybody has them, but these types are more in touch with them, and it comes out as _just being focused on being "human"_. Interacting, loving, serving, all stemming from a focus on human emotional needs. There's somewhat of a clue of this in Berens' descriptions of the ExFP's aux. Fi, where they "key in to their values", and this school often teaches that this is often "unseen". 

I on the hand am apart of one of the other anomaly groups, the sole "role-informative Thinkers", the NTP's. So what happens, is that I like the _idea_ of people, and tend to like who they _are_, but not what they *do* (this is from the task or structure focus of the conative "iNtuitive Thinking" part of it, which I believe is the tough-minded "Choleric" that counterbalances the people focused Sanguine or Supine). Hence, as I have been saying before, NTP's often are mistaken (by themselves or others) as Feelers, because of that softness or light-and-airiness in their personality. 
But if you really look at what they _focus_ on, it is clearly technical things, or "properties of objects", and not properties of subjects (neither themselves nor others), unless they are simply being self-conscious due to stressful situations or midlife soul searching, or whatever). I myself am going through all of this, but still sometimes shudder at the idea of being a frail, vulnerable emotional human. A Feeling type, as I understand it, would more likely embrace it.

That NTP's "softness" or "airiness" is coming from the P, not any F; and P, like F, will tend to be more people-focused, in one area or the other. In the NP's case, the "airy" Ne function. But this people-focus will differ from the F's, again, by not being focused on the subjective properties such as emotions and values, but rather simply Ne's "openness" to ideas, rather than forcing people into some sort of external closure.

So that's how I derived:
_T focuses on the properties of impersonal objects for making judgments_
_F focuses on the properties of personal subjects for making judgments_


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Eric B

Could you clarify this quote below:



Eric B said:


> then you have the NFJ's, who aren't even "people-focused" in the social area like all the other Feelers, but rather in the conative area)


Also, I want to ask you why you feel that an INTP's "softness" should have any association with the idea of "Ne" rather than just Perceiving in general. Shouldn't ENTP's, who are Ne-dominants in _every_ Jung/MBTI system, be even "softer" than INTP's if we associate this property with "Ne"? Why would we have any reason to expect ENTP and INTP to systematically differ in their "softness"?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Both questions are answered in the "informing/directing" aspect of Interaction Styles. Informing is "people-focused", and directing is "task-focused". Informing types are both NP and SF, while directing types are ST and NJ. So for S's this dimension is tied to T/F, but for N's, it's J/P, which also indicates the attitude of the function. 
NFJ's are "directing" because of the NJ (Ni), which differs from all the other feelers: *SF*J, *SF*P and *N*F*P*. However, being NF's, they are "motive focused" (Focus on motives and why people do things rather than forcing them into a structure), which is the "conative" area, which is where their "people-focus" is represented.

In the Interaction Styles (or Keirsey's "intelligence variants", which prefigured them), dom. or aux. doesn't matter. Both functions define the type, and D/Inf will be determined by either the attitude of N, or the judging function paired with S. So there's really no sense of one NTP being "more soft" than the other, other than Ne dom. will be "Get Things Going" or Sanguine, which will be openly more friendly or "airy", but on the other hand, INTP would be "Behind the Scenes", which is Phlegmatic or Supine, which will appear "softer", from being more "passive". So again, which one is more soft, doesn't figure.

Then you have *ST*P's, which end up directive, despite the P. The P will then figure in the "motive focus" of the conative temperament (SP), which of course is defined (cognitively) by Se in a preferred position.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Eric B said:


> Both questions are answered in the "informing/directing" aspect of Interaction Styles. Informing is "people-focused", and directing is "task-focused". Informing types are both NP and SF, while directing types are ST and NJ. So for S's this dimension is tied to T/F, but for N's, it's J/P, which also indicates the attitude of the function.
> NFJ's are "directing" because of the NJ (Ni), which differs from all the other feelers: *SF*J, *SF*P and *N*F*P*. However, being NF's, they are "motive focused" (Focus on motives and why people do things rather than forcing them into a structure), which is the "conative" area, which is where their "people-focus" is represented.
> 
> In the Interaction Styles (or Keirsey's "intelligence variants", which prefigured them), dom. or aux. doesn't matter. Both functions define the type, and D/Inf will be determined by either the attitude of N, or the judging function paired with S. So there's really no sense of one NTP being "more soft" than the other, other than Ne dom. will be "Get Things Going" or Sanguine, which will be openly more friendly or "airy", but on the other hand, INTP would be "Behind the Scenes", which is Phlegmatic or Supine, which will appear "softer", from being more "passive". So again, which one is more soft, doesn't figure.
> ...


Unfortunately, this didn't really clear things up for me. The interaction styles theory you're mentioning just seems to be asserting that these types will act that way without any clear grounding. I was hoping for something with a little more explanation other than "well, this _other_ theory says so".

EDIT:

I hope the above doesn't come off as bitchy. I'm was just hoping for something a little more logically grounded rather than "s/he said this, so this."


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

It's not merely “he/she said”, Interaction Styles (regardless of who discovered them) explain what you were asking. You asked about one type being “more soft”, and I pointed out tht that will not figure. 
The biggest clue was in the previous post, mentioning Ne's “*oppenness to ideas, rather than forcing people into some sort of external closure*.” That's what makes them softer. So when I mentioned Ne again in relation to the Interaction Styles, I thought that would be understood.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

INTPs "soft?" I though that kind of lightness was an inferior Fe thing (e.g. the person is kind of aimless on the evaluative level, consciously anyhow - either that or as Jung points out, they try to keep everyone at bay emotionally). Maybe the Ne thing is true, I dunno, but isn't that more of just an appearance than anything meaningful?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

As for INFPs, I thought that would be an inferior Te thing (the person just doesn't think much consciously, so they appear to be wanderers of a random sort in the outer world). Just a speculation anyhow. Jung does acknowledge that J doms might appear completely random going about their days and whatnot, due to their P side belonging to those things that happen to them in the outer world. Internal sensation with external intuition might make them seem ungrounded in reality and thus, "airy," going by the latest MBTI model.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Inferior Fe might go along with it to some extent, but it is really separate from the "softness" (or "light/airiness" is really more accurate for INTP's, especially Phlegmatic ones. Supine is the softer temperament), which is what I associate with the "informing communications". ISTP also has inferior Fe, but is directive.

For the INFP's, what I see is that inferior Te will make them more likely to look up to and yield to Te decisions, hence being more passive and responsive.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Here's what seems to be the way the judging attitudes are differentiated: 
Je: broad, sweeping rules, where “one size fits all” a broad “objective” this meets is the standard. 
Ji: abstracts what is not relevant, itemizing and making exceptions according to variables (internalizes the principles) 

Also, still trying to sort out the relationship of F to “emotions” and values: 

Unconscious F: just reacting to emotions or impulsively going for what's “liked” 
conscious F: looking at the emotion, or what is liked, and making a rational decision based on it. 
(Everyone will do the former at times, but the difference is that the Feelers will be more likely to do the latter in normal circumstances). 

Would any F's testify to this last one?


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Eric B said:


> Also, still trying to sort out the relationship of F to “emotions” and values:
> 
> Unconscious F: just reacting to emotions or impulsively going for what's “liked”
> *conscious F: looking at the emotion, or what is liked, and making a rational decision based on it. *
> ...


Not emotion - *values*. I don't get it, why is this so hard to grasp?

Mostly for me Fe-aux is about taking in external human values with which I am in certain kinds of contact, temporarily seeing in dual perception, then analyzing them using Ti. I don't that that's relevant to what you're trying to figure out.

To try to answer your question, I have to look at a secondary aspect of Fe for me, which is how I use it for decision processes outside of that other dynamic. 

Basically, when I'm in a collective context, it's important to me that that there's a shared value system underlying our collective decisions. What are our core priorities? Are our decisions and actions truly aligning with those priorities? When there aren't shared values, or when there are stated values that do not match decisions and actions, or when there are conflicting values that will cause confusion and lack of clarity in action, I generally default to stepping away from the group or relationship. 

Disconnects between stated values and decisions/actions feel almost painful to me to experience, it's like there is no basis for rational decisions because the group is essentially lying. And conflicting core values with a group make it nearly impossible to move well as a group.

I don't know if that will be useful, but maybe ...


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Aquarian said:


> Not emotion - *values*. I don't get it, why is this so hard to grasp?


 Now, I didn't say "Feeling=emotions" or anything like that. I said "*looks at* emotions" From there, it would derive "values", which is also what I was representing by "what is liked" (I know it's a bit more than that, but was trying to keep it short).

It's hard to square away because of the misconceptions, like either "Feeling=emotions" OR "Feeling=values" (which is what I was trying to avoid). 

Both emotions and values seem to be among the elements the Feeling judgment works with; the "properties of subjects" I spoke of. (Where Thinking uses the [technical] properties of objects).

Both Fe and Fi seem to be more emotional than T, or more correctly, more in touch with emotions, and more likely to display them (though perhaps a bit more expressed for Fe). So that's why I include them among the properties F (in general) looks at.


> Mostly for me Fe-aux is about taking in external human values with which I am in certain kinds of contact, temporarily seeing in dual perception, then analyzing them using Ti. I don't that that's relevant to what you're trying to figure out.
> 
> To try to answer your question, I have to look at a secondary aspect of Fe for me, which is how I use it for decision processes outside of that other dynamic.
> 
> ...


 That sounds a bit like it fits what I was talking about. Shared value system being the collective "properties" of multiple "subjects".


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Eric B said:


> It's hard to square away because of the misconceptions, like either "Feeling=emotions" OR "Feeling=values" (which is what I was trying to avoid).
> 
> Both emotions and values seem to be among the elements the Feeling judgment works with; the "properties of subjects" I spoke of. (Where Thinking uses the [technical] properties of objects).


For me, Fe is specifically about values/value systems.



> Both Fe and Fi seem to be more emotional than T, or more correctly, more in touch with emotions, and more likely to display them (though perhaps a bit more expressed for Fe). So that's why I include them among the properties F (in general) looks at.
> That sounds a bit like it fits what I was talking about. Shared value system being the collective "properties" of multiple "subjects".


Trying to understand F _in relation to_ T as the (semi-unmarked) norm - this may be a, or even the, source of inaccuracy. I understand how it could be useful, but there seems to be a persistent distortion when people try to understand F from a T space. If that makes any sense.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Well, I figure it's best to highlight what differentiates them.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Eric B said:


> Well, I figure it's best to highlight what differentiates them.


I'm not just talking about that. I'm talking about what is positioned in relation to what. (yeah, that's clear)

I feel like sometimes when some MBTI thinkers try to describe feeling, they describe feeling from a space where their experience of thinking is the invisible defining norm. So it's not just what differentiates feeling and thinking in both directions. It's specifically how does feeling _differ from_ the invisible norm of thinking. 

In this approach, thinking sets the framework, the field, the terms and then that framework is used to try to describe feeling. And I think that could be what creates a distorted view of what feeling is. It's not completely inaccurate, but there is distortion there. IMO.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Here's my proposal for a definition of T/F:

Feeling (F): the judgment (decision-making) function that covers personal or interpersonal elements of life. According to Jung, it tells us "what [something] is worth". *This is possible from our state as emotional creatures affected by objects and events*, which is the focus of the function.

A Feeling type is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world in terms of people or humanity, and the elements that makes them “subjects”, such as emotions and values; usually with a focus on goals such as individual or group harmony. They approach life in terms of being human first, and seeing others as humans to interact with, and objects are to be looked at and used from that perspective.

Thinking (T): the judgment (decision making) function that covers technical or "impersonal" elements of objects, such as "if-then" evaluations, regardless of affect on people. According to Jung, it is the function that gives it a name [i.e logically categorizes "what is"]. This is the function that captures our [personal] detachment from things evaluated.

A Thinking type is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world in terms of objects and how they work (including people), often with a focus on goals such as efficiency.



With this, I can now explain some of the confusing ambiguities regarding T/F

As a Thinking type, I look at things from a detached position, and evaluate or arrange them according to an internal standard. There may be an emotional attachment to the thing I'm looking at (like a nice symmetry) or the decision made based on it (like the satisfaction of arranging something like that) which indicates obvious personal *value* being assigned, but this is not the main judgment going on. It is in the background, and likely being *taken for granted* (Where a true Feeling type would pay more attention to that aspect of the evaluation). _It is still "felt", and not necessarily ignored_, however.

Some people will be confused by this, recognizing their emotion, and thinking (based on common misconceptions) that a Thinking type shouldn't feel or at least be at all aware of those emotions. (I certainly went through this years ago). T's have been portrayed almost like robots or "vulcans", but no real human is like that. 
I've also heard "Many people think they are 'analyzing', when they're really 'valuing'. But we're really doing _both_. You cannot completely separate out the opposite function. It just falls to the background.

Likewise, every situation will have impersonal logical aspects to it, and these will usually fall into the background for a Feeling type evaluating the situation.

In the background, I'm thinking it's attitude is less distinct. 
So is the emotion I feel from Ti gratification distinctively Fe; while the same emotion an ETJ feels at the gratification of his Te has to be Fi? This is something that was always confusing, and in reading type descriptions (notably in Quenk's _Was That Really Me?_) it looked like *the same things were being attributed to both attitudes of F*.

I would say that in such a case, the preferred attitude of the inferior is not as significant. It's sort of like the discussion of "concretistic" feeling or thinking. It's not differentiated, and thus not oriented. 
So this again shows the nature of four functions (not eight), with the attitudes assigned by the ego separately according to the situation.

It's the *complexes* (inferiority or anima/animus) that really differentiate the attitudes, bringing a distinct [one-out-of-eight] function-attitude out of the background to the forefront. 
If the ego or "hero" complex is doing it's thing, making detached technical evaluations referencing its internal world, then the inferiority complex is not constellated at that point, so the background Feeling is not differentiated right then. It's just there, almost out of sight, providing the emotional investment. 
Now, when something occurs that constellates the hero's diametric opposite inferior/anima/animus complex, _then_ it will evaluate based on its preferred Feeling, and assigned external orientation. (You can also do a "right-brain" (P) function switch, or have the Daimonic complex constellated, which will also evaluate according to Feeling, but maintain the dominant attitude). 


So (especially to Feeling types), does the idea of "*not taking the emotions for granted*" sound like it captures your perspective?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I would offer a one-sentence definition of "cognitive functions" as this:

"Cognitive functions are labels we use to differentiate the types of psychological effects caused by the state of being conscious."


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Thinking - A reasoning process based upon epistemic principals.

Feeling - A reasoning process based upon empathic values.

Sensation - The perception of physical experience.

Intuition - The perception of implicit experience.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

In light of this discussion, I had been planning to clarify the simplified function definitions used by Berens/Nardi, on http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com (and the _Understanding Yourself and Others_ "Jung's Cognitive Processes" booklet). They are good when kept in their conceptual *contexts*, which are easy to lose when tossing around the simple terms given. This can lead to "Forer effects" (behaviors any type can do used to define a specific type):

Sensing is pretty simple:

•*Se: Experiencing and noticing the physical world, scanning for visible reactions and relevant data*
(acting in the immediate context) 

-obviously, externally based, emergent, tangible experience

•*Si: Recalling [reviewing] past experiences, [seeking] remembering detailed data and what it is linked to
*
-an internal storehouse of tangible data

It cannot be repeated too much that everyone does both of these things, but what makes them a specific functional perspective defining a particular type by its "preferred" status (or connecting with various complexes for other types) is being the primary means of taking in information.

The other functions are what need more clarification; sometimes as to what exactly makes them N, T or F, but especially what determines the i/e attitude:

•*Ne: Inferring relationships, noticing threads of meaning, scanning for what could be* 
(interpreting situations and picking up meanings and interconnections to other contexts)

-the external objects themselves are used to imply these relationships, meanings, and possibilities, or what “could be” as in could be done with the idea. 
There is actually some hidden confusion with Se here, as Se will also deal with what “could be”. But it will be more tangible, where Ne will be more hypothetical. An example once given to me was a football player seeing an opening to run or pass to. (i.e. What 'could be done' in the emergent physical world). 
Someone I know of who's always tried on different N types, but is now going with ESFP also testifies to this. 

•*Ni: Foreseeing implications, conceptualizing, and having images of the future or profound meaning* (...transformations, likely effects)

-Should clarify what's internal and thus distinct from Ne (and also intuitive and thus distinct from Si) about this: 
This is from an internal blueprint of concepts used to gauge these implications and likely effects. Instead of a tangible (“concrete”) experience you store inside through memory, it's a concept or non-tangible pattern you store inside to reference. 
Si can actually be used for “foreseeing...likely effects”, because once you get a sense of how the tangible world works, you'll know what's likely to happen in a given situation. But this is still tangible or “concrete”. (And while everyone does this, SJ's are simply those who focus on this perspective more than the others, while the other types are more open to more emergent and/or conceptual data). 
Now, if you identify something like a particular archetype (a conceptual or symbolic model of the person or situation), then that would be an internal intuitive perception, that could tell you things mere memory of tangible experience might not. 

•*Te: Organizing [for efficiency], segmenting, sorting and applying logic and criteria* 
(systematizing)

-the external impersonal objects themselves set the standard
However, the biggest problem in this one is that “_applying_ logic” really needs to be clarified. Ti logic can be “applied” to things as well. What will distinguish it as internal is where its standard or “criteria” is located (object or subject), not where it's “used”, as is sometimes portrayed. (Same error made with Fe/Fi). Judgments will often be applicable in the realm where their standards lie (like organizing something), but not necessarily. 

•*Ti: Analyzing categorizing and figuring out how something works* 
(evaluating according to principles)

-Should clarify what is exactly internal about this: principals (frameworks, etc.) are extracted from the objects, and matched to the internal blueprints (then the introverted “abstracting” process begins, of eliminating what's irrelevent). 

•*Fe: Considering others [and the group] and responding to them* 
(connecting)

-This assumes an objective standard for the judgment behind these behaviors. But it's possible to do these things from an internal standard. Like knowing how you would like to be connected with and accommodated, and thus doing the same to others. 

•*Fi: evaluating importance and maintaining congruence* 
(valuing and considering importance, beliefs and worth)

-[This one has the most ambiguity in the descriptions]. These could just as well be describing T judgments. Like it's _important_ to not overspend beyond the budget. That's a Te judgment, being impersonal (”if-then” logic of efficiency with objects), and externally focused (the best course of action is inherent in the object). So it's doubly “objective”. 
At this point, some may attribute this to Te working in tandem with Fi and claim the “importance” is coming from the latter. Only in an individual ego that prefers Te would this connection hold. In other words, to him is the personal/interpersonal value tied to a focus on maintaining a budget as particularly good for one's overall happiness. 
Ti judgments will also see “importance” in maintaining its principles, or the “integrity” of the frameworks (so Ti will deal with the integrity of impersonal things, while Fi will deal with the integrity of the personal entity). Like if my principle or framework in theory is a particular symmetry, it will be “important” that things match up with it. 

“Congruence” is simply the parity of an inner judgment, whether personal or impersonal. 
It can also be extended to external judgment, where the course of action must match the objective standard. 
“Beliefs” can certainly be Ti. If I've judged something from an internal, impersonal criterion, it will form a “belief” about the situation. 
This term and the others are from an assumption of a purely “humane” and personal definition of “value”, “importance” “congruence” and “beliefs”.


----------

