# Cognitive Functions: New Paradigm



## reybridge

First of all, i am from an engineering background, specifically software engineering, though i am not currently working as one and focus on enjoying life. If you feel like you are logically mature, please put a comment. Well, even if you are not, you can still comment anything positive of course. I just find it a hard time to discuss about cognitive function with people who doesn't use logic and rationality in the first place. I prefer to discuss with logicians who can help me formulate how cognitive functions should be described with firm and consistent premises. It doesn't need to be exactly the same as the definition of Jungian cognitive functions, the important thing is the clarity of the system. Please tell me i am wrong only if you think the system won't work, and not because it is not the same as the original definition as this is supposed to be a new paradigm. Don't get me wrong, the original definition was a great achievement of cognitive functions history that has brought us here.

Well, this is the rules i believe is the fundamental of cognitive functions.

Fundamental

1. Judging Function is a function to change or to create an 'Entity'.
2. Perceiving Function is a function to grasp an 'Entity'.
3. Entity refers to absolutely anything.
3.1. Entity can be 'Physical Entity' or 'Conceptual Entity'.
3.2. No 'Physical Entity' is 'Conceptual Entity', and vice versa.
3.3. Physical Entity is a representation of at least 2 Entities.
3.4. Conceptual Entity is a rule of existence of an Entity.

Extrovert and Introvert

4. Extroverted function is all about 'The World'.
4.1. 'The World' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is currently perceived by utilizing the sensing organs.
5. Introverted function is all about 'The Mind'.
5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by utilizing the sensing organs.
6. Extroverted judging function is a Judging Function (see point 1) to change The World (see point 4.1).
6.1. The only way one changes The World (see point 4.1) is by taking an action, therefore extroverted judging function is always an action.
7. Introverted judging function is a Judging Function (see point 1) to change The Mind (see point 5.1).
7.1. The only way one changes The Mind (see point 5.1) is by 'Burning', therefore introverted judging function is always a 'Burning'.
7.2. Burning is a process to change or to create any Entity (see point 3) in The Mind (see point 5.1).
8. Extroverted perceiving function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp information of The World (see point 4.1).
9. Introverted perceiving function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp information of The Mind (see point 5.1).

Feeling and Thinking

10. Feeling function is a Judging Function (see point 1) to change or to create an Entity (see point 3) with 'Trigger'.
10.1. Therefore, extroverted feeling function is any action with 'Trigger',
10.2. And introverted feeling function is any Burning (see point 7.2) with 'Trigger'.
11. Thinking function is a Judging Function (see point 1) to change or to create an Entity (see point 3) with 'Standard'.
11.1. Therefore, extroverted thinking function is any action with 'Standard',
11.2. And introverted thinking function is a Burning (see point 7.2) with 'Standard'.
12. Standard is an Entity (see point 3) to be (or that has been) deducted logically into another Entity (see point 3).
13. Trigger is an Entity (see point 3) to be (or that has been) inducted into another Entity (see point 3).

Sensing and Intuitive

14. Sensing function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Physical Entities (see point 3.3).
14.1. Therefore, extroverted sensing function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Physical Entities (see point 3.3) from The World (see point 4.1),
14.2. And introverted sensing function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Physical Entities (see point 3.3) from The Mind (see point 5.1).
15. Intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Conceptual Entities (see point 3.4).
15.1. Therefore, extroverted intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Conceptual Entities (see point 3.4) from The World (see point 4.1),
15.2. And introverted intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) to grasp Conceptual Entities (see point 3.4) from The Mind (see point 5.1).
16. How one deciphers an Entity into a Physical Entity or a Conceptual Entity is open for discussion and observation.

That is the rule i hold about cognitive functions. If something is wrong or something is missing, let's discuss it.

Remarkable Edit History:

Sunday, September 19, 2021
*Object ->* *Entity *(Suggested by @BigApplePi)
*Gather ->* *Grasp* (Suggested by @BigApplePi)
3.3. Physical Entity is *representation of connected* Entities.* ->* 3.3. Physical Entity is *a representation of at least 2 attached *Entities. (By myself)
3.4. Conceptual Object is *the connection between Objects*. *-> *3.4. Conceptual* Entity is a rule of existence of an Entity*. (By myself)
5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by the sensing organs. -> 5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by *utilizing *the sensing organs. (By myself)

Wednesday, December 15, 2021
4.1. 'The World' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is currently perceived by the sensing organs. -> 4.1. 'The World' refers to any Entity (see point 3) that is currently perceived by *utilizing *the sensing organs. (By myself)
12. Standard is an Entity (see point 3) to be (or that has been) deducted logically into another Entity (see point 3). *Some people may call it a premise.* -> 12. Standard is an Entity (see point 3) to be (or that has been) deducted logically into another Entity (see point 3). (By myself)
16. How one deciphers an Entity into a Physical Entity or a Conceptual Entity is *unknown*. -> 16. How one deciphers an Entity into a Physical Entity or a Conceptual Entity is *open for discussion and observation*. (By myself)


----------



## Serpent

Wut. You're just redefining the literal definitions of the functions in a fancy way.


----------



## Amelia

> "Please, only people with pure logic enter"


Sorry, I only have logic cut with sarcasm, I'll have to hit up my dealer for some pure stuff.
I'll come back later.


----------



## CreepyArcher

reybridge said:


> Feeling and Thinking
> 
> 10. Feeling function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes (or creates) an Object (see point 3) without any 'Standard'.
> 10.1. Therefore, extroverted feeling function is any action without any 'Standard',
> 10.2. And introverted feeling function is any Burning (see point 7.2) without any 'Standard'.
> 11. Thinking function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes (or creates) an Object (see point 3) with some 'Standards'.
> 12. 'Standard' is an Object (see point 3) to be (or that has been) deducted logically into another Object (see point 3). Some people call it a premise or a reason.


 I think the reasoning behind Fe being an action without a standard is flawed. If a standard is a logical reason for action, there has to be a similar premise for those operating with extroverted feeling as a Judging Function. I've had a chance to observe several people expressing Fe as a dominant or secondary function, and when (healthy) Fe-using individuals decide to act, it is with reason (just not as a Te or Ti user interprets it). Instead of proclaiming feeling functions as actions or burnings without a Standard, there should be another way of explaining it, perhaps:

10. Feeling function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes (or creates) an Object (see point 3) with 'Principle'.
10.1. Therefore, extroverted feeling function is any action with 'Principle',
10.2. And introverted feeling function is any Burning (see point 7.2) with 'Principle'.
11. Thinking function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes (or creates) an Object (see point 3) with some 'Standards'.
12. 'Standard' is an Object (see point 3) to be (or that has been) deducted logically into another Object (see point 3). Some people call it a premise or a reason.
13. 'Principle' is an Object to be (or that has been) inducted into another Object for harmony with others (in the case of action) or harmony within (in the case of burning). Some people may call it a moral or an ethic. 

The rest of your compilation makes sense.


----------



## Catwalk

-------------- slides in

*Collects posting points*

------------- slides out


----------



## FlightlessBird

I love this post!! xD


----------



## FlightlessBird

View attachment 413746


I love this post!! xD


----------



## PaladinX

reybridge said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fundamental
> 
> 1. Judging function is a function to change or create an 'Object'.
> 2. Perceiving function is a function to gather an 'Object'.
> 3. Object refers to absolutely anything.
> 3.1. Object can be 'Physical Object' or 'Conceptual Object'.
> 3.2. No 'Physical Object' is 'Conceptual Object', and vice versa.
> 3.3. 'Physical Object' is any Object that can be imagined.
> 3.4. 'Conceptual Object' is the connection between some Physical Objects.
> 
> Extrovert and Introvert
> 
> 4. Extroverted function is all about 'The World'.
> 4.1. 'The World' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is currently perceived by the sensing organs.
> 5. Introverted function is all about 'The Mind'.
> 5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by the sensing organs.
> 6. Extroverted judging function is a function to change The World (see point 4.1).
> 6.1. The only way one changes The World (see point 4.1) is by taking an action, therefore extroverted judging function is always an action.
> 7. Introverted judging function is a function to change The Mind (see point 5.1).
> 7.1. The only way one changes The Mind (see point 5.1) is by 'Burning', therefore introverted judging function is always a 'Burning'.
> 7.2. 'Burning' is a process to change or create any Object (see point 3) in The Mind (see point 5.1).
> 8. Extroverted perceiving function is a function to gather information of The World (see point 4.1).
> 9. Introverted perceiving function is a function to gather information of The Mind (see point 5.1).
> 
> Feeling and Thinking
> 
> 10. Feeling function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes (or creates) an Object (see point 3) without any 'Standard'.
> 10.1. Therefore, extroverted feeling function is any action without any 'Standard',
> 10.2. And introverted feeling function is any Burning (see point 7.2) without any 'Standard'.
> 11. Thinking function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes (or creates) an Object (see point 3) with some 'Standards'.
> 11.1. Therefore, extroverted thinking function is any action with some 'Standards',
> 11.2. And introverted thinking function is a Burning (see point 7.2) with some 'Standards'.
> 12. 'Standard' is an Object (see point 3) to be (or that has been) deducted logically into another Object (see point 3). Some people call it a premise or a reason.
> 
> Sensing and Intuitive
> 
> 13. Sensing function is a perceiving function that gathers Physical Objects (see point 3.3).
> 14. Intuitive function is a perceiving function that gathers Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4).
> 15. Extroverted sensing function is a function to gather Physical Objects (see point 3.3) from The World (see point 4.1).
> 16. Extroverted intuitive function is a function to gather Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4) from The World (see point 4.1) with 'N' process.
> 17. Introverted sensing function is a function to gather Physical Objects (see point 3.3) from The Mind (see point 5.1).
> 18. Introverted intuitive function is a function to gather Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4) from The Mind (see point 5.1) with 'N' process.
> 19. 'N' process is a process to spot the connection between Physical Objects perceived.
> 19.1. The connection generated by 'N' process is a Conceptual Object.


There are a number of questions I have about this, but for now:

If I imagine a chair, am I perceiving it with sensing or creating it with a judging function? If I imagine two different chairs, is 'chair' a conceptual object that connects the two imagined chairs? Can I imagine a conceptual object? If so, is it then a physical object?


----------



## TyranAmiros

reybridge said:


> Sensing and Intuitive
> 
> 13. Sensing function is a perceiving function that gathers Physical Objects (see point 3.3).
> 14. Intuitive function is a perceiving function that gathers Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4).
> 15. Extroverted sensing function is a function to gather Physical Objects (see point 3.3) from The World (see point 4.1).
> 16. Extroverted intuitive function is a function to gather Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4) from The World (see point 4.1) with 'N' process.
> 17. Introverted sensing function is a function to gather Physical Objects (see point 3.3) from The Mind (see point 5.1).
> 18. Introverted intuitive function is a function to gather Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4) from The Mind (see point 5.1) with 'N' process.
> 19. 'N' process is a process to spot the connection between Physical Objects perceived.
> 19.1. The connection generated by 'N' process is a Conceptual Object.


I'm not sure why 'N' process is necessary. It seems to imply that Physical Objects are logically prior to Conceptual ones. My understanding is that for Jung, Intuition/"Conceptual Objects" need not rely on "Physical Objects perceived"--and shouldn't for intuitive types.

I think dropping Rule 19 and the 'N' Process makes the argument more accurate.


----------



## niss

Pure logic? You've set yourself up for failure. Pure logic doesn't exist in human form.


----------



## reybridge

CreepyArcher said:


> I think the reasoning behind Fe being an action without a standard is flawed. If a standard is a logical reason for action, there has to be a similar premise for those operating with extroverted feeling as a Judging Function. I've had a chance to observe several people expressing Fe as a dominant or secondary function, and when (healthy) Fe-using individuals decide to act, it is with reason (just not as a Te or Ti user interprets it). Instead of proclaiming feeling functions as actions or burnings without a Standard, there should be another way of explaining it, perhaps:
> 
> 10. Feeling function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes (or creates) an Object (see point 3) with 'Principle'.
> 10.1. Therefore, extroverted feeling function is any action with 'Principle',
> 10.2. And introverted feeling function is any Burning (see point 7.2) with 'Principle'.
> 11. Thinking function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes (or creates) an Object (see point 3) with some 'Standards'.
> 12. 'Standard' is an Object (see point 3) to be (or that has been) deducted logically into another Object (see point 3). Some people call it a premise or a reason.
> 13. 'Principle' is an Object to be (or that has been) inducted into another Object for harmony with others (in the case of action) or harmony within (in the case of burning). Some people may call it a moral or an ethic.
> 
> The rest of your compilation makes sense.


You are making sense. But i think 'Principle' is not the the best word to describe an object that is inducted. I always think that principle is any conceptual object. I would replace the word 'Principle' with 'Trigger' so it is appropriate for physical objects as well.


----------



## reybridge

PaladinX said:


> There are a number of questions I have about this, but for now:
> 
> If I imagine a chair, am I perceiving it with sensing or creating it with a judging function? If I imagine two different chairs, is 'chair' a conceptual object that connects the two imagined chairs? Can I imagine a conceptual object? If so, is it then a physical object?


When you are imagining a chair that you have seen exactly as is, it is Si function. But, if the chair is never in your mind before, you are using Ni function. Conceptual objects are not the kind of objects you imagine. It is the principles how physical objects are exist. Conceptual object is the kind of invincible object that must be exist so you can imagine the form of a chair when someone says the word 'chair'.


----------



## reybridge

TyranAmiros said:


> I'm not sure why 'N' process is necessary. It seems to imply that Physical Objects are logically prior to Conceptual ones. My understanding is that for Jung, Intuition/"Conceptual Objects" need not rely on "Physical Objects perceived"--and shouldn't for intuitive types.
> 
> I think dropping Rule 19 and the 'N' Process makes the argument more accurate.


I thought so too. But, how can one perceive a connection between physical objects without perceiving the physical objects in the first place?


----------



## PaladinX

reybridge said:


> I thought so too. But, how can one perceive a connection between physical objects without perceiving the physical objects in the first place?


By intuition, duh.


----------



## reybridge

PaladinX said:


> By intuition, duh.


Well, your 'intuition' is my 'N' process.


----------



## PaladinX

reybridge said:


> When you are imagining a chair that you have seen exactly as is, it is Si function. But, if the chair is never in your mind before, you are using Ni function. Conceptual objects are not the kind of objects you imagine. It is the principles how physical objects are exist. Conceptual object is the kind of invincible object that must be exist so you can imagine the form of a chair when someone says the word 'chair'.


Your definition of a physical object is anything that can be imagined. By this definition, if I imagine a chair that I have never seen, it is still a physical object because it is a thing that can be imagined. It is not a conceptual object because it is not a connection between physical objects.

And now that I'm thinking about it, a wire can be considered both a physical object and conceptual object because it can be imagined and connects some physical objects.

In any case, if I imagine a chair that I have never seen, am I not now creating an object as per the definition of a judging function?


----------



## reybridge

PaladinX said:


> Your definition of a physical object is anything that can be imagined. By this definition, if I imagine a chair that I have never seen, it is still a physical object because it is a thing that can be imagined. It is not a conceptual object because it is not a connection between physical objects.
> 
> And now that I'm thinking about it, a wire can be considered both a physical object and conceptual object because it can be imagined and connects some physical objects.
> 
> In any case, if I imagine a chair that I have never seen, am I not now creating an object as per the definition of a judging function?


When you imagine a never seen chair, what you actually created was not the chair object, but the specification of the chair which is a conceptual object. A wire is not a conceptual object, it is the specification of the wire that is conceptual. You can imagine a wire that is not connecting objects.


----------



## reybridge

Double post.


----------



## PaladinX

reybridge said:


> When you imagine a never seen chair, what you actually created was not the chair object, but the specification of the chair which is a conceptual object. A wire is not a conceptual object, it is the specification of the wire that is conceptual. You can imagine a wire that is not connecting objects.


Your definition states that a physical object is _anything_ that can be imagined. Assuming that my never seen chair is a thing that I imagined, and thus a physical object, you seem to be now suggesting that sometimes a thing that is imagined is also a conceptual object; but, that conflicts with 3.2. Otherwise, you are putting limitations on what can and cannot be imagined without defining as such.


----------



## TyranAmiros

reybridge said:


> I thought so too. But, how can one perceive a connection between physical objects without perceiving the physical objects in the first place?


Theoretically, the intuitive type (especially the introverted intuitive) finds a pattern first then places physical objects according to how they fit the preordained pattern. It's like Plato's Theory of the Forms:
1. We see Physical Object x1 through x100
2. We understand that each individual Object is a member of set X
3. We see Physical Object x101, where x101 is not identical to any existing member of set X
4. Nevertheless, we immediately understand that x101 is also a member of set X
5. Therefore, the properties of set X cannot only rely upon x1 through x100
6. Therefore, our understanding of the properties of set X is logically prior to observations x1 through x100. This is the Ideal, or the Form.

Sticking with the Greeks, let's take poetry. The sensing types would, as you suggest, start with sense-perceptions:

Extraverted sensing: This is what a poem feels like (based on experience of poems). Does this new experience match my previous experiences? Yes, it's a poem/No, it's not a poem.

Introverted sensing: This is what a poem should feel like (based on an expectation of an experience). How much does this new experience match my preconceived notion of what a poem is?

But intuitive types shouldn't build up like this:

Extraverted intuition: According to this pattern, this is a poem. How would I expect it to feel? Not feeling it? What about this completely different connection?

Introverted intuition: This is what constitutes a poem. That is not a poem. Other people may call it a poem, but it doesn't fit my notion of poetry, so it is not a poem. 

Rather than building up, the intuitive moves from the connection level to the sensation level--if the sensation does not conform to the pattern, expect the intuitive to change the connection wholesale or reject the sensation itself.


----------



## PaladinX

Ksara said:


> Beats me. Not the first time I've walked passed something. Concluded that thing is 'X', then realised I have never come across that thing in my entire life so how could I know it was 'X'. I probably just don't know what I know haha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not recognise you. What I would recognise is we spoke about a blue shirt, and link that to the person wearing the blue shirt is most likely you.
> Is this the idea of Thinking linking up representations by means of a concept. That is we have a concept, in this case what a blue shirt is, and linking this concept to represent something, that is what the blue shirt means. In this case you as are going to use it as an identity maker. So it means the blue shirt is you. So when I come across a person wearing a blue shirt in the cafe I identify that as you by means of linking the concept of blue shirt to the concept of identity marker of a person of interest?
> This seems very similar to assigning and recalling variables when coding.
> I feel I may have over complicated this...
> 
> 
> Thinking acknowledges the existence of? I though't Sensation tells us what exists?
> When you say acknowledges do you mean to recognise. That is you can see a tree, but thinking recognizes that what you see is a tree.
> 
> 
> Yup, so the unconscious just churning away when you're not paying attention to thinking.




The point is that recognition has more than one meaning. The blue shirt example was to illustrate that you would recognize me based on some characteristics even though you have never actually seen me or a picture of me before. Dictionary.com has a better definition:


1. to identify as something or someone previously seen, known, etc.
2. to identify from knowledge of appearance or characteristics


So going back to your question about recognizing the noise of air bubbles, you may have never heard that sound before, but you can 'recognize' it through deduction of known characteristics.

Going back to my shirt example, the concept is 'me.' The blue shirt is a characteristic (aka idea/representation) that you link to the concept of 'me.'

To be clear of my former intention, I was simply throwing out multiple possibilities instead trying to make a cohesive assertion. My apologies for the confusion.


----------



## reybridge

Cmart said:


> Incorrect grammar does not matter, you are not a native English speaker which I kind of assumed once I started reading it. I do think your definitions of conceptual and physical object are a bit wrong, but they are hard things to ACTUALLY define, we would need to think of a definition for them that cannot possibly be contested. Something which I haven't been able to do thus far, we should all keep trying though. Or we can accept them as flawed.
> 
> I think an atom is a physical thing that we could conceptualize before we had any proof of it being there. As far as sensing them, how do we really know we "sense" anything? People can define sensing differently. I guess we can come to a generalized understanding of what sensing is, but how do we know? We conceptualize things that we cannot see or haven't seen yet. Therefore everything is conceptual, and also physical. I think I'll stop there.


People can sense differently, but anything they sense will always a Physical Object. For example, a kid senses a chair and another one senses the chair too. Although the object may appears to be the same, actually the chair the first kid see is different to the one second kid see. They may see the color of the chair differently for example. But, one thing that must be true is that they both see a Physical Object. So what other people see as physical object, you must see it as a physical object as well, except you are not a human or vice versa. This can be proved by asking a question to a bunch of humans, can they sense an atom?


----------



## Ksara

PaladinX said:


> The point is that recognition has more than one meaning. The blue shirt example was to illustrate that you would recognize me based on some characteristics even though you have never actually seen me or a picture of me before. Dictionary.com has a better definition:
> 
> 
> 1. to identify as something or someone previously seen, known, etc.
> 2. to identify from knowledge of appearance or characteristics
> 
> 
> So going back to your question about recognizing the noise of air bubbles, you may have never heard that sound before, but you can 'recognize' it through deduction of known characteristics.
> 
> Going back to my shirt example, the concept is 'me.' The blue shirt is a characteristic (aka idea/representation) that you link to the concept of 'me.'
> 
> To be clear of my former intention, I was simply throwing out multiple possibilities instead trying to make a cohesive assertion. My apologies for the confusion.


No apologies necessary. I get the sense you know what your are talking about so I throw questions in your direction to better understand and learn


----------



## Cmart

reybridge said:


> People can sense differently, but anything they sense will always a Physical Object. For example, a kid senses a chair and another one senses the chair too. Although the object may appears to be the same, actually the chair the first kid see is different to the one second kid see. They may see the color of the chair differently for example. But, one thing that must be true is that they both see a Physical Object. So what other people see as physical object, you must see it as a physical object as well, except you are not a human or vice versa. This can be proved by asking a question to a bunch of humans, can they sense an atom?


With the right equipment if you're using sensing for only physical objects. But sensing can be for anything really.


----------



## reybridge

Cmart said:


> With the right equipment if you're using sensing for only physical objects. But sensing can be for anything really.


Well, i borrowed the word "sensing" to define some points, but i replaced the meaning of "sensing" itself in point 14 in the rule: "Sensing function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Physical Objects (see point 3.3).". So, no matter the actual meaning of sensing is, it is replaced by the rule though. And point 4.1 about 'sensing organs', i really don't have any clue how to put it into a word so that the reader will considers it as not only about physical objects, but also conceptual objects.


----------



## Cmart

reybridge said:


> Well, i borrowed the word "sensing" to define some points, but i replaced the meaning of "sensing" itself in point 14 in the rule: "Sensing function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Physical Objects (see point 3.3).". So, no matter the actual meaning of sensing is, it is replaced by the rule though. And point 4.1 about 'sensing organs', i really don't have any clue how to put it into a word so that the reader will considers it as not only about physical objects, but also conceptual objects.


Ah ok, I skipped around a little bit, and didn't know you were giving it a temporarily definite definition. So yes we can perceive it with certain kinds of equipment. Maybe there's even a way to detect "connections" as physical things, with equipment that we don't have yet. Everyone in here was trying to decide whether physical things were also connections, I think the outcome was a definite maybe. Which I would agree with as well.


----------



## Ksara

reybridge said:


> Grammar is in The World i think, because when you write or say something grammatically incorrect, it is The World that will judge you. So, grammar is in The World. What is in your The Mind is not actually grammar object. It is just another Conceptual Object that is similar (but is not identical) with grammar object. Not all people can recreates a grammar object from The World exactly as is, just like not all people can draws a picture of a cat exactly the same as the original image.


Ok when you write something, don't you base it on your concept of what grammar is?
And when the world judges it, is that not another person applying their concept of grammar to the product you have produced to determine if it is right or wrong?

Also if there are no people around, does that now mean grammar ceases to exist? that is you can not be grammatically correct or incorrect as there is no one to judge it? So if it is of the world how can grammar cease to exist when there are no people around?

I do postulate that if grammar is something to be derived from the world then any infant (without any significant cognitive disfunction) would just pick it up and learn the rules of language.

This in fact is not the case. An infant will only pick up language and grammar if there is another person to communicate with it. That is someone must have the concept of grammar (and language) in their head to be able to teach the infant the concept of grammar.


I do think we are just looking at the same thing under different perspectives which is definitely interesting


----------



## reybridge

Yes, some conceptual objects can be represented by using an equipment. But, the representation of a concept is a completely different object. It is the law of nature that connects the conceptual object and the represented object. And the equipment is an object that implements the law of nature.


----------



## reybridge

Ksara said:


> Ok when you write something, don't you base it on your concept of what grammar is?
> And when the world judges it, is that not another person applying their concept of grammar to the product you have produced to determine if it is right or wrong?
> 
> Also if there are no people around, does that now mean grammar ceases to exist? that is you can not be grammatically correct or incorrect as there is no one to judge it? So if it is of the world how can grammar cease to exist when there are no people around?
> 
> I do postulate that if grammar is something to be derived from the world then any infant (without any significant cognitive disfunction) would just pick it up and learn the rules of language.
> 
> This in fact is not the case. An infant will only pick up language and grammar if there is another person to communicate with it. That is someone must have the concept of grammar (and language) in their head to be able to teach the infant the concept of grammar.
> 
> 
> I do think we are just looking at the same thing under different perspectives which is definitely interesting


I think the actual grammar object is not attached to someone mind, it is attached to another object in the world, maybe a book or something. Sure it is created by someone in the past. But grammar will not cease to exist when there is no people as long as the book still exists.


----------



## Cmart

reybridge said:


> Yes, some conceptual objects can be represented by using an equipment. But, the representation of a concept is a completely different object. It is the law of nature that connects the conceptual object and the represented object. And the equipment is an object that implements the law of nature.


Thought is a concept, and so are emotions. Things we cannot see directly, using our sub-par human senses, but we have always known them to be there, through just theorizing at first, and now we can scan brains and it can show us where these things come from, they come from chemical processes and the sort. Conceptual objects are physical objects and vice versa. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's kind of hard to argue about them, when there's a fairly easy counter-argument. If we could fine tune our senses to such an extreme that conceptual ideas can seem like physical objects, aren't they? No, but if the laws of nature can let us mentally flip flop these things as if they could be each other, couldn't they?


----------



## Ksara

reybridge said:


> I think the actual grammar object is not attached to someone mind, it is attached to another object in the world, maybe a book or something. Sure it is created by someone in the past. But grammar will not cease to exist when there is no people as long as the book still exists.


But that book is now meaningless. It is just a type of paper bound together with black ink arranged in some sort of pattern on each page. That is all the object is. The physical properties of paper, ink and glue and how they are arranged together. The ink making a peculiar black and white pattern. it is just book.

Where is the grammar? The words? The words are literally just ink on a page arranged in a certain way. To any other creature this is meaning less. If I write the word 'tree' here, and then proceed to burn down all the tress in existence. I don't have one tree left. All I have is a symbol that represents tree, and it only represents tree because that is the meaning I have associated with the word. The word 'tree' are physically just pixels on my screen that light up in different ways.


----------



## reybridge

Cmart said:


> Thought is a concept, and so are emotions. Things we cannot see directly, using our sub-par human senses, but we have always known them to be there, through just theorizing at first, and now we can scan brains and it can show us where these things come from, they come from chemical processes and the sort. Conceptual objects are physical objects and vice versa. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's kind of hard to argue about them, when there's a fairly easy counter-argument. If we could fine tune our senses to such an extreme that conceptual ideas can seem like physical objects, aren't they? No, but if the laws of nature can let us mentally flip flop these things as if they could be each other, couldn't they?


Yes, i think any debate will eventually come to this kind of conclusion. We can not judge something is wrong or right for 100% sure. We think in a framework. And the most often a framework predicts something, the most 'right' it is. That is the reason i made this rule. I think the rule separates each cognitive function more clearly than the original cognitive function definition by Jung. The only 'noises' that can make the definition incorrect is the cut line between physical object and conceptual object. And i think, whatever one's thought about physical and conceptual, it will still far more probable to be the same as other people thought, rather than any other explanation about cognitive function.


----------



## reybridge

Ksara said:


> But that book is now meaningless. It is just a type of paper bound together with black ink arranged in some sort of pattern on each page. That is all the object is. The physical properties of paper, ink and glue and how they are arranged together. The ink making a peculiar black and white pattern. it is just book.
> 
> Where is the grammar? The words? The words are literally just ink on a page arranged in a certain way. To any other creature this is meaning less. If I write the word 'tree' here, and then proceed to burn down all the tress in existence. I don't have one tree left. All I have is a symbol that represents tree, and it only represents tree because that is the meaning I have associated with the word. The word 'tree' are physically just pixels on my screen that light up in different ways.


Grammar is a Conceptual Object, you can not perceive it by Se function. Those objects you mentioned are Physical Objects that you perceive by Se function. Grammar is an entirely different object. It is always be there, sitting right next to the book, but you need Ne function to perceive it. However, if you change the whole contents of the book, the object grammar will be gone and no one can perceive it anymore.


----------



## boogiestomp

Dang, your standards are a little too high, Mr. Spock.


----------



## PaladinX

Ksara said:


> No apologies necessary. I get the sense you know what your are talking about so I throw questions in your direction to better understand and learn


FWIW, I came across a few other passages by Jung where he uses "recognize" in terms of Thinking:



> 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.





> It is perceived as something that exists (sensation); *it is recognized as this and distinguished from that (thinking);* it is evaluated as pleasant or unpleasant, etc. (feeling); and finally, intuition tells us where it came from and where it is going. This cannot be perceived by the senses or thought by the intellect. Consequently the object’s extension in time and what happens to it is the proper concern of intuition.


NOTE: Underline correlates to Jung's emphasis; originally in italic, but since all quoted text is italic, I used underline instead.



> Sensation establishes what is actually given, *thinking enables us to recognize its meaning*, feeling tells us its value, and finally intuition points to the possibilities of the whence and whither that lie within the immediate facts.


----------



## Ksara

@PaladinX thank you.

I can look at an object, simultaneously I recognize what it is I'm looking at, I know how much I like or don't like that object and I can imagine what's going to happen to it next. So how does one know their dominant function haha?

Slightly less relevant, I have found it funny how when I read a word I say it in my head. I've tried many times to just look at it as any other picture/object/thing but I just can't seem to unattach that recognition of those symbols to being a word with a particular meaning haha.


----------



## forgotten reason

The flaw in this representation is that you are conforming the state of consciousness (for which this word is poorly termed because this would include your conscious and unconscious mind) to cognitive functions, when really the cognitive functions need to conform to the state of consciousness. There is an operational aspect to consciousness that cannot be simply split into these cognitive states in a stand alone manner. When someone describes an experience to you and you then reply with how that state conforms to your definition 'here', you're cutting out the capacity for the describer to include additional information about the state of their consciousness - especially when what they are describing is complex rather than simple.

When I describe that there is complexity, I mean there is a mixture of cognitive functions taking place. As what has been described before, thinking needs perception to take place. Not separately, but as a domain for it to operate at all. So in order to make this list wholly accurate (to the state of consciousness), there needs to be an inclusion of how the cognitive functions operate between each other. My suggestion for such is as follows:

F incorporates the domain of N more than the domain of S. It is also the case that N incorporates the domain of F. The "standard" F comes to is not directly known, but there is a "trigger" for a reason. "Feeling tones" (see post #21) are associated with the way sensation _changes_ (think back to when you were a child and experienced things for the first time). This often takes the form of pleasure or pain, but need not be only these. This perception of sensory change creates the basis of N connectivity and its anticipatory properties.

When speaking of judging:

T incorporates the domain of S because it operates in a domain of that which is not anticipated - it uses constants, the "standards" are clear. 

T utilizes intuition, and likewise F utilizes sensing, but in between both of these at any one time are the S and N respectively in order for them to operate. But obviously I'm not being specific enough about what S and N are yet.

When speaking of perceiving:

Ne/Si are of the same domain, and likewise Ni/Se are of the same domain - Their being "N" or "S" is connected to the judging state. As an illustration, Ne as it exists for INTP is different than how it exists for an INFP. For an INFP, their F is more directly associated with the Ne and their "i" is more directly associated with their Si. So when they feel it's based on a lot of "world" anticipations/connections, while they are taking in consciously the state of this in the form of sensation with their Si inside the mind. With INTP when they think it is based on a lot of internal sensations, in fact it might be accurate to say an INTP is a dominant Si user with a judging Ti that overshadows their Si. Their Ne is simply a means to escape their introversion and gather new novel information.

Ne/Si is a domain that is based more on the state of the mind. 

Ni/Se is a domain that is based more on the state of the world.

For the Ni/Se user it is the observable mind that continually reassembles information, while all of the information has a clear basis in the external world, so much so that what is reassembled can have a very real sensation to it. It's difficult for me to say more for I am not of this type.

To have a dominant function be a perceiving function, you are continually creating a new domain of reality, as apposed to seeing it as one giant thing and analyzing it. The difference here would be akin to stratego vs. dungeons and dragons. Clearly dominant perceivers constantly live in a state of dungeons and dragons. laughing But still it is the judging function that alters the state of it being either more "S" or more "N".

Hopefully this offers some additional insight - again I will state that this is not a complete explanation seeing as consciousness is complex. Perhaps at some point I can outline ways in which analyzing the functions in this way allow one to predict behavior and states of mind with unusual accuracy.


----------



## PaladinX

Ksara said:


> @_PaladinX_ thank you.
> 
> I can look at an object, simultaneously I recognize what it is I'm looking at, I know how much I like or don't like that object and I can imagine what's going to happen to it next. So how does one know their dominant function haha?
> 
> Slightly less relevant, I have found it funny how when I read a word I say it in my head. I've tried many times to just look at it as any other picture/object/thing but I just can't seem to unattach that recognition of those symbols to being a word with a particular meaning haha.


Do you do that for every object in your environment all the time?


----------



## reybridge

jeremusic2 said:


> The flaw in this representation is that you are conforming the state of consciousness (for which this word is poorly termed because this would include your conscious and unconscious mind) to cognitive functions, when really the cognitive functions need to conform to the state of consciousness. There is an operational aspect to consciousness that cannot be simply split into these cognitive states in a stand alone manner. When someone describes an experience to you and you then reply with how that state conforms to your definition 'here', you're cutting out the capacity for the describer to include additional information about the state of their consciousness - especially when what they are describing is complex rather than simple.
> 
> When I describe that there is complexity, I mean there is a mixture of cognitive functions taking place. As what has been described before, thinking needs perception to take place. Not separately, but as a domain for it to operate at all. So in order to make this list wholly accurate (to the state of consciousness), there needs to be an inclusion of how the cognitive functions operate between each other. My suggestion for such is as follows:
> 
> F incorporates the domain of N more than the domain of S. It is also the case that N incorporates the domain of F. The "standard" F comes to is not directly known, but there is a "trigger" for a reason. "Feeling tones" (see post #21) are associated with the way sensation _changes_ (think back to when you were a child and experienced things for the first time). This often takes the form of pleasure or pain, but need not be only these. This perception of sensory change creates the basis of N connectivity and its anticipatory properties.
> 
> When speaking of judging:
> 
> T incorporates the domain of S because it operates in a domain of that which is not anticipated - it uses constants, the "standards" are clear.
> 
> T utilizes intuition, and likewise F utilizes sensing, but in between both of these at any one time are the S and N respectively in order for them to operate. But obviously I'm not being specific enough about what S and N are yet.
> 
> When speaking of perceiving:
> 
> Ne/Si are of the same domain, and likewise Ni/Se are of the same domain - Their being "N" or "S" is connected to the judging state. As an illustration, Ne as it exists for INTP is different than how it exists for an INFP. For an INFP, their F is more directly associated with the Ne and their "i" is more directly associated with their Si. So when they feel it's based on a lot of "world" anticipations/connections, while they are taking in consciously the state of this in the form of sensation with their Si inside the mind. With INTP when they think it is based on a lot of internal sensations, in fact it might be accurate to say an INTP is a dominant Si user with a judging Ti that overshadows their Si. Their Ne is simply a means to escape their introversion and gather new novel information.
> 
> Ne/Si is a domain that is based more on the state of the mind.
> 
> Ni/Se is a domain that is based more on the state of the world.
> 
> For the Ni/Se user it is the observable mind that continually reassembles information, while all of the information has a clear basis in the external world, so much so that what is reassembled can have a very real sensation to it. It's difficult for me to say more for I am not of this type.
> 
> To have a dominant function be a perceiving function, you are continually creating a new domain of reality, as apposed to seeing it as one giant thing and analyzing it. The difference here would be akin to stratego vs. dungeons and dragons. Clearly dominant perceivers constantly live in a state of dungeons and dragons. laughing But still it is the judging function that alters the state of it being either more "S" or more "N".
> 
> Hopefully this offers some additional insight - again I will state that this is not a complete explanation seeing as consciousness is complex. Perhaps at some point I can outline ways in which analyzing the functions in this way allow one to predict behavior and states of mind with unusual accuracy.


So, in your opinion, what point is wrong in the rule? What standard do you use to correlate N with F? I think it is not true. F is a function to changes any Object with a Trigger. N/S is a function to perceive an Object. The type (conceptual/physical) of an object that is being judged is not correlated to whether the judging uses a trigger or a standard to work. Judging function can only be one of these:

1. Needs a standard which is a physical object.
2. Needs a standard which is a conceptual object.
3. Needs a trigger which is a physical object.
4. Needs a trigger which is a conceptual object.

So, how judging function works (with a standard or a trigger) is not correlated to how one perceives the standard/trigger at all. N function will perceives conceptual objects, while S function will perceives physical objects.

By "Ne as it exists for INTP is different than how it exists for an INFP", i am pretty sure you are confusing Ne function with the Objects it perceives. It is true that INTPs will have different pattern of objects as INFPs have in their mind. But the mind are just the objects one perceives by Ne/Se function and judged by any introverted judging function. Ne function is not those objects nor the pattern of them, Ne is the process to gather them. What makes the pattern of objects in INTPs mind different to those in INFPs mind is the function that they were using to Burn (see point 7.2) them into their mind. INTPs need a standard whenever they are going to Burn an object, while INFPs need a trigger whenever they are going to Burn an object. The only similarity between them is that the objects they Burn are conceptual objects of course.

By "you're cutting out the capacity for the describer to include additional information about the state of their consciousness", what kind of additional information someone may tell that doesn't conform the rule for example? Because if there is such information, this rule is nothing. But, as complex as it is that someone tells, what he really does is just bringing conceptual objects from his mind out into The World, no?


----------



## forgotten reason

reybridge said:


> By "you're cutting out the capacity for the describer to include additional information about the state of their consciousness", what kind of additional information someone may tell that doesn't conform the rule for example?


Everything I described in that last post, further exemplified by the fact that you insist it conflicts with the way you define cognitive functions.


----------



## giraffegator

BigApplePi said:


> . How people conceive of concepts is more than this thread can handle.


But that's the most interesting part! (It is a derail though I agree).


----------



## BigApplePi

I almost missed your post because my name wasn't referenced. I think you do good work. I see two issues: logic and definitions. I have a little trouble keeping your definitions in my head, but that's me. Your logic should work.


reybridge said:


> I think Fi doesn't inform anything, it judges (changes) something.
> By environment, what is it actually mean?
> Why would Si function observes the environment? What if someone just remembers something without observing the environment and it is not a pattern since what he remembers is a concrete fact? Is it still Si works?
> I would agree with Te and Ti since ordering something will need to be done with some standards.


Is this any better?


BigApplePi said:


> "Fi is used to maintain life. It informs says what is important to us.
> Fe is used to get along with other life forms. It supports.
> 
> Se observes the environment (outside world) as it immediately is.
> Si observes the environment (inside mind) compared to what it has been.
> 
> 
> Ne looks for environmental patterns.
> Ni looks for personal patterns.
> 
> Te is used to order external environments.
> Ti is used to order personal environments.


For Fi, "inform" was probably too strong a word. Is "says" any better? Fi does judge and change, but what is this change? Doesn't it inform or tell the self what the change in judgment is?
By "environment" I mean anything outside and surrounding the observing self, whether the "world" or the "mind."
About Te and Ti. I wrote that post in a different thread before I ever read this thread. When you use the word "standard" I could ask for that to be defined. For example, a standard could be some sort of template to be matched against. I used the word, "order." We could go on and on searching for precise definitions or words but if what has been said in this thread so far is good enough, we have to decide and stop. I avoided using the word, "logic", as being too precise for practical usage of Te and Ti.

We can stick with your language in this thread though. My language just gives a slightly different perspective and could be left out.
====================

Feel free to ignore the below:
I'm having trouble with 
_3.3. Physical Object is the representation of connected Objects.
_and 
_3.4. Conceptual Object is the connection between Objects.
I see too heavy a leaning in both cases on the word "connection" and I'm disinclined to straighten it out. This is why you are having trouble distinguishing CO from PO.
_
I like to use the human skin as the dividing line. The world is anything outside. The mind is what is inside. Leave physical objects to what is outside and conceptual objects to what is inside.


----------



## Enistery

"pure logical"

bye


----------



## reybridge

sassafrassthelioness said:


> Are you talking about higg's bosons? I have heard that they give particles mass but I'm not clear on how or why this happens. Also I'm struggling to understand the link between your Rule and that property. Could you explain it a bit more?


Bosson particle is an analogy for Conceptual Object in my rule. It is not really matter particle, but it will always be attached to matter particle. Higgs bosson is one example of bosson, every matter particles attached to it will have mass. The same goes with CO (Conceptual Object) and PO (Physical Object) in my definition. CO is not an object we observe directly with our 5 senses, but it is always be there attached to any PO, no matter whether we choose to perceive it or not. CO gives PO a rule.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> I almost missed your post because my name wasn't referenced. I think you do good work. I see two issues: logic and definitions. I have a little trouble keeping your definitions in my head, but that's me. Your logic should work.
> 
> Is this any better?
> 
> For Fi, "inform" was probably too strong a word. Is "says" any better? Fi does judge and change, but what is this change? Doesn't it inform or tell the self what the change in judgment is?
> By "environment" I mean anything outside and surrounding the observing self, whether the "world" or the "mind."
> About Te and Ti. I wrote that post in a different thread before I ever read this thread. When you use the word "standard" I could ask for that to be defined. For example, a standard could be some sort of template to be matched against. I used the word, "order." We could go on and on searching for precise definitions or words but if what has been said in this thread so far is good enough, we have to decide and stop. I avoided using the word, "logic", as being too precise for practical usage of Te and Ti.
> 
> We can stick with your language in this thread though. My language just gives a slightly different perspective and could be left out.
> ====================
> 
> Feel free to ignore the below:
> I'm having trouble with
> _3.3. Physical Object is the representation of connected Objects.
> _and
> _3.4. Conceptual Object is the connection between Objects.
> I see too heavy a leaning in both cases on the word "connection" and I'm disinclined to straighten it out. This is why you are having trouble distinguishing CO from PO.
> _
> I like to use the human skin as the dividing line. The world is anything outside. The mind is what is inside. Leave physical objects to what is outside and conceptual objects to what is inside.


Yeah, i am actually struggling in defining CO and PO since i can not find any better words to describe them. So it is acceptable that you don't understand the definition very well.

For Fi or any other judging function, if you are into my rule, judging function won't inform or says anything to anyone or anything, it just change something. If the self then perceive something he just judged, it is not the work of judging function anymore. Cognitive functions run in alternately though. One is allowed to use perceiving function just right after he uses judging function.

About standard, yes it can be a template to be matched. That is why i choose the word, any thinking function uses a template to change something. It is whether the template is used to change the world or the mind that makes it Te or Ti. While feeling functions don't use any template, they will only be used when something triggers them to run.

Thinking function will always run as long as all the standards have not been achieved.
Feeling function will not run until all the triggers have been achieved.

If PO is any object outside of our mind and CO is any object inside the mind, what word can be used to describe something Se function perceives VS something Ne function perceives? And of course the definition of what Se and Ne perceive is as my current definition of PO and CO. So, is there any word to replace PO vs CO in that context?


----------



## Ixim

reybridge said:


> Actually, i want people in this thread are professional engineers, especially programmers, so we are thinking in the same logical level, i don't care your type. But if you feel like you are pure logical, you can also give a comment. I just find it is time wasting to discuss about cognitive function with people who doesn't use logic in the first place. I want the purest logician who can help me discover how the very core of cognitive functions work with a firm explanation. It doesn't need to be exactly the same as the definition of Jungian cognitive function, the important thing is the clarity of the system. Please tell me i am wrong ONLY if you think the system won't work, and not because it is not the same as the definition. Because i don't care about the definition. If you are the 'see this link' person, please don't comment anything.
> 
> To make them short, this is the very rule of cognitive functions i learned:
> 
> Fundamental
> 
> 1. Judging Function is a function to change or create an 'Object'.
> 2. Perceiving Function is a function to gather an 'Object'.
> 3. Object refers to absolutely anything.
> 3.1. Object can be 'Physical Object' or 'Conceptual Object'.
> 3.2. No 'Physical Object' is 'Conceptual Object', and vice versa.
> 3.3. Physical Object is the representation of connected Objects.
> 3.4. Conceptual Object is the connection between Objects.
> 
> Extrovert and Introvert
> 
> 4. Extroverted function is all about 'The World'.
> 4.1. 'The World' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is currently perceived by the sensing organs.
> 5. Introverted function is all about 'The Mind'.
> 5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by the sensing organs.
> 6. Extroverted judging function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes The World (see point 4.1).
> 6.1. The only way one changes The World (see point 4.1) is by taking an action, therefore extroverted judging function is always an action.
> 7. Introverted judging function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes The Mind (see point 5.1).
> 7.1. The only way one changes The Mind (see point 5.1) is by 'Burning', therefore introverted judging function is always a 'Burning'.
> 7.2. Burning is a process to change or create any Object (see point 3) in The Mind (see point 5.1).
> 8. Extroverted perceiving function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers information of The World (see point 4.1).
> 9. Introverted perceiving function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers information of The Mind (see point 5.1).
> 
> Feeling and Thinking
> 
> 10. Feeling function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes or creates an Object (see point 3) with 'Trigger'.
> 10.1. Therefore, extroverted feeling function is any action with 'Trigger',
> 10.2. And introverted feeling function is any Burning (see point 7.2) with 'Trigger'.
> 11. Thinking function is a Judging Function (see point 1) that changes or creates an Object (see point 3) with 'Standard'.
> 11.1. Therefore, extroverted thinking function is any action with 'Standard',
> 11.2. And introverted thinking function is a Burning (see point 7.2) with 'Standard'.
> 12. Standard is an Object (see point 3) to be (or that has been) deducted logically into another Object (see point 3). Some people may call it a premise.
> 13. Trigger is an Object (see point 3) to be (or that has been) inducted into another Object (see point 3).
> 
> Sensing and Intuitive
> 
> 14. Sensing function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Physical Objects (see point 3.3).
> 14.1. Therefore, extroverted sensing function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Physical Objects (see point 3.3) from The World (see point 4.1),
> 14.2. And introverted sensing function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Physical Objects (see point 3.3) from The Mind (see point 5.1).
> 15. Intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4).
> 15.1. Therefore, extroverted intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4) from The World (see point 4.1),
> 15.2. And introverted intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4) from The Mind (see point 5.1).
> 16. How one deciphers an Object into a Physical Object or a Conceptual Object is unknown.
> 
> That is the rule i hold about cognitive functions. If something is wrong or something is missing, let's discuss it.


lol silly. You are looking for INTELLIGENT people, not T people. T is merely used to do things and can, but doesn't have to be linked to intelligence.

Here is how all of this works:

For irrational leads:

You notice an object in your environment.
You naturally focus on what you prefer to focus on(real data / things vs concepts).
You "perceive" the object for some time.
You pass your judgment(ethical or logical) on it.
You do something with it(or don't).
(the point being that the goals are rational{ ethics / logic } and the methods are irrational{ sensory data / concepts })

For rational leads:

You notice an object in your environment.
You feel a stinging need to do something with it and hence:
You judge the object with either logic or with ethics.
You do something with it(or don't).
Now you review your options in the new situation and compare the new situation with the wanted outcome.
Repeat until you reach the desired outcome.
(the point being that the goals are irrational { sensory data or physical items / concepts } and the methods are rational)


----------



## BigApplePi

Ixim said:


> For irrational leads:
> 
> You notice an object in your environment.
> You naturally focus on what you prefer to focus on(real data / things vs concepts).
> You "perceive" the object for some time.
> You pass your judgment(ethical or logical) on it.
> You do something with it(or don't).
> (the point being that the goals are rational{ ethics / logic } and the methods are irrational{ sensory data / concepts })
> 
> For rational leads:
> 
> You notice an object in your environment.
> You feel a stinging need to do something with it and hence:
> You judge the object with either logic or with ethics.
> You do something with it(or don't).
> Now you review your options in the new situation and compare the new situation with the wanted outcome.
> Repeat until you reach the desired outcome.
> (the point being that the goals are irrational { sensory data or physical items / concepts } and the methods are rational)


That seems to work, but does it covers all 16 cognitive functions? Has introvert vs extrovert been defined? Rational vs irrational? Sensation vs intuitive?


----------



## reybridge

Ixim said:


> lol silly. You are looking for INTELLIGENT people, not T people. T is merely used to do things and can, but doesn't have to be linked to intelligence.
> 
> Here is how all of this works:
> 
> For irrational leads:
> 
> You notice an object in your environment.
> You naturally focus on what you prefer to focus on(real data / things vs concepts).
> You "perceive" the object for some time.
> You pass your judgment(ethical or logical) on it.
> You do something with it(or don't).
> (the point being that the goals are rational{ ethics / logic } and the methods are irrational{ sensory data / concepts })
> 
> For rational leads:
> 
> You notice an object in your environment.
> You feel a stinging need to do something with it and hence:
> You judge the object with either logic or with ethics.
> You do something with it(or don't).
> Now you review your options in the new situation and compare the new situation with the wanted outcome.
> Repeat until you reach the desired outcome.
> (the point being that the goals are irrational { sensory data or physical items / concepts } and the methods are rational)


What does environment refer to? What is ethic? Can not be ethic logical? If it can, then ethic and logic, in whatever your definition is, is not perfectly devided. And if ethic won't be logical, what is your definition of ethic and logic? But more importantly, what are you trying to explain? Is it the prosedure of how cognitive functions work?


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> Yeah, i am actually struggling in defining CO and PO since i can not find any better words to describe them. So it is acceptable that you don't understand the definition very well.
> 
> For Fi or any other judging function, if you are into my rule, judging function won't inform or says anything to anyone or anything, it just change something. If the self then perceive something he just judged, it is not the work of judging function anymore. Cognitive functions run in alternately though. One is allowed to use perceiving function just right after he uses judging function.
> 
> About standard, yes it can be a template to be matched. That is why i choose the word, any thinking function uses a template to change something. It is whether the template is used to change the world or the mind that makes it Te or Ti. While feeling functions don't use any template, they will only be used when something triggers them to run.
> 
> Thinking function will always run as long as all the standards have not been achieved.
> Feeling function will not run until all the triggers have been achieved.
> 
> If PO is any object outside of our mind* and CO is any object inside the mind**, what word can be used to describe something Se function perceives VS something Ne function perceives? And of course the definition of what Se and Ne perceive is as my current definition of PO and CO. So, is there any word to replace PO vs CO in that context?


It is important to look at PO and CO as any logical uncertainty in premise can't be used. Let's look at what the original post has to say.


reybridge said:


> 3.3. Physical Object is the representation of connected Objects.
> 3.4. Conceptual Object is the connection between Objects.
> 
> Sensing and Intuitive
> 14. Sensing function is a Perceiving Function that gathers Physical Objects (see point 3.3).
> 15. Intuitive function is a Perceiving Function that gathers Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4).
> 
> 16. How one deciphers an Object into a Physical Object or a Conceptual Object is unknown.
> 
> That is the rule i hold about cognitive functions. If something is wrong or something is missing, let's discuss it.


I am assuming your theory intends to capture and explain all of Se Si Ne Ni. Agreed?

S means particular sensations such as touch and memories in the present, immediate, here and now.
N means generalities, impressions, patterns, symbols, ideas, abstractions and the like not dependent on the present.

I would separate both of those by what occurs inside the skin versus outside the skin ... what you call mind and world.

PO in the world = Se. Not so with Si. Si as with memories occurs inside the mind. **That is PO inside the mind.*

CO inside the mind = Ni. Not so with Ne. Ne as with ideas about the outside world. ***That is CO outside the mind.*

Let me know if this fixes the problem and we now have consistency.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> It is important to look at PO and CO as any logical uncertainty in premise can't be used. Let's look at what the original post has to say.
> 
> I am assuming your theory intends to capture and explain all of Se Si Ne Ni. Agreed?
> 
> S means particular sensations such as touch and memories in the present, immediate, here and now.
> N means generalities, impressions, patterns, symbols, ideas, abstractions and the like not dependent on the present.
> 
> I would separate both of those by what occurs inside the skin versus outside the skin ... what you call mind and world.
> 
> PO in the world = Se. Not so with Si. Si as with memories occurs inside the mind. **That is PO inside the mind.*
> 
> CO inside the mind = Ni. Not so with Ne. Ne as with ideas about the outside world. ***That is CO outside the mind.*
> 
> Let me know if this fixes the problem and we now have consistency.


Yes, i want to separate all the function with clear devider. You are mostly right. But, PO is not always about here and now, because the one Si function perceives is not "here and now" object with the definition of "here and now" as something we are perceiving by using 5 sense right now. With this definition, "here and now" is more about Se/Ne. And about deviding by skin, i think even our internal organs can be perceived by extroverted perceiving function. So, it is not a very good devider. Other than those, you are right.


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> Yes, i want to separate all the function with clear devider. You are mostly right. But, PO is not always about here and now, because the one Si function perceives is not "here and now" object with the definition of "here and now" as something we are perceiving by using 5 sense right now. With this definition, "here and now" is more about Se/Ne. And about deviding by skin, i think even our internal organs can be perceived by extroverted perceiving function. So, it is not a very good devider. Other than those, you are right.


I hope we are getting closer to something usable. I will favor the clear divider even if the "skin" is not quite the precise answer.

I'm not clear how you are talking about* Si*. The literature seems to always cite memory. Memory is sensing or pulling up a past experience and we can think of this as sensed. I don't worry about the 5 senses as when I remember something I'm willing to accept more than 5 senses and to accept a remembered memory as "sensed." Now when we remember, we sense in the "here and now" something from the past. It's our sensing of something inside ourselves, not the outside. *Se* refers to sensing an outside event, not inside. The dividing line depends on how our brain perceives. I just used "skin" as a metaphor.

Now here is something I've NOT read in the literature. Suppose you hear a noise. This could be either Si or Se depending on how our mind looks at it. It is Se if we are hearing the noise coming from the outside. It is Si if we sense the noise as annoying or pleasurable as compared with a past experience. That is Si. This means *a simple objectively occurred noise can be experienced by the mind as either Se or Si.* I don't know if YOU agree with this, but I'd like it confirmed by either by an expert or maybe someone else reading this thread who has another opinion.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> I hope we are getting closer to something usable. I will favor the clear divider even if the "skin" is not quite the precise answer.
> 
> I'm not clear how you are talking about* Si*. The literature seems to always cite memory. Memory is sensing or pulling up a past experience and we can think of this as sensed. I don't worry about the 5 senses as when I remember something I'm willing to accept more than 5 senses and to accept a remembered memory as "sensed." Now when we remember, we sense in the "here and now" something from the past. It's our sensing of something inside ourselves, not the outside. *Se* refers to sensing an outside event, not inside. The dividing line depends on how our brain perceives. I just used "skin" as a metaphor.
> 
> Now here is something I've NOT read in the literature. Suppose you hear a noise. This could be either Si or Se depending on how our mind looks at it. It is Se if we are hearing the noise coming from the outside. It is Si if we sense the noise as annoying or pleasurable as compared with a past experience. That is Si. This means *a simple objectively occurred noise can be experienced by the mind as either Se or Si.* I don't know if YOU agree with this, but I'd like it confirmed by either by an expert or maybe someone else reading this thread who has another opinion.


Well, the type of that noise object is PO based on my definition, because noise is a representation of connected objects, which is the nature of vibrating air creating a wave. When you hear a noise, you sure are using S function. But when the noise is annoying, it is Fi that makes it annoying, because the noise triggers some changes in the mind. And my bet is that every changing activities in the mind will creates some emotional effects. Si function is used when you are trying to perceive PO in the mind. It is Si function which makes you be able to perceive PO, whether you have perceived the exact PO or not. Whether the PO perceived is true or false doesn't matter, it is always Si function to perceive PO in the mind.

For example, you perceive a coconut tree by Se function and burn it into the mind. Now you have a coconut tree PO in the mind. When you perceive this coconut tree PO from the mind later, it is Si function work. And the PO perceived by the Si function will be exactly the same as you have seen by Se function. Now, another example. You perceive a coconut tree by Ne function and burn it into the mind. Now you have a "high tree" object (of course this is CO) in the mind. When you perceive any PO based on this "high tree" concept, it is Si function work as well. Even though the PO may be different from that has been perceived from the world, it still is perceived by Si function, not Ni. I think this is what most people fail to understand. Just because something perceived from the mind has not been perceived exactly from the world, doesn't mean the function perceiving it is Ni function. That is my explanation about Si.

Is there any question about it?


----------



## reybridge

reybridge said:


> Well, the type of that noise object is PO based on my definition, because noise is a representation of connected objects, which is the nature of vibrating air creating a wave. When you hear a noise, you sure are using S function. But when the noise is annoying, it is Fi that makes it annoying, because the noise triggers some changes in the mind. And my bet is that every changing activities in the mind will creates some emotional effects. Si function is used when you are trying to perceive PO in the mind. It is Si function which makes you be able to perceive PO, whether you have perceived the exact PO or not. Whether the PO perceived is true or false doesn't matter, it is always Si function to perceive PO in the mind.
> 
> For example, you perceive a coconut tree by Se function and burn it into the mind. Now you have a coconut tree PO in the mind. When you perceive this coconut tree PO from the mind later, it is Si function work. And the PO perceived by the Si function will be exactly the same as you have seen by Se function. Now, another example. You perceive a coconut tree by Ne function and burn it into the mind. Now you have a "high tree" object (of course this is CO) in the mind. When you perceive any PO based on this "high tree" concept, it is Si function work as well. Even though the PO may be different from that has been perceived from the world, it still is perceived by Si function, not Ni. I think this is what most people fail to understand. Just because something perceived from the mind has not been perceived exactly from the world, doesn't mean the function perceiving it is Ni function.
> 
> Is there any question about it?


Now i am thinking about it. The idea that "changing object in the mind creates an emotional effect" is the same as the idea that "electric current (moving electrons) creates an electric shock effect". When the electrons is not moving, there will not be electric shock effect. Then my theory will be:

The changes in the mind = *Emotion = Electric shock in the brain cells* = Moving electrons in an area of the brain. (the bold is the key premise)

So, you can say that Fi function moves electrons rapidly in an area of the brain. This can be proved by EEG. But i don't have that.


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> Well, the type of that noise object is PO based on my definition, because noise is a representation of connected objects, which is the nature of vibrating air creating a wave. When you hear a noise, you sure are using S function. But when the noise is annoying, it is Fi that makes it annoying, because the noise triggers some changes in the mind. And my bet is that every changing activities in the mind will creates some emotional effects. Si function is used when you are trying to perceive PO in the mind. It is Si function which makes you be able to perceive PO, whether you have perceived the exact PO or not. Whether the PO perceived is true or false doesn't matter, it is always Si function to perceive PO in the mind.


I concur with most of that. I'll make some refinements.


Any Fi feelings can be present. They are a separate CF not sensation like Se or Si. I would differ but only slightly about the Si interpretation. With the Si function, you hear the sound in your mind but it is not the objective sound from outside. It is close to but a facsimile of the real sound. 






> For example, you perceive a coconut tree by Se function and burn it into the mind. Now you have a coconut tree PO in the mind. When you perceive this coconut tree PO from the mind later, it is Si function work. And the PO perceived by the Si function will be exactly the same as you have seen by Se function. Now, another example. You perceive a coconut tree by Ne function and burn it into the mind. Now you have a "high tree" object (of course this is CO) in the mind. When you perceive any PO based on this "high tree" concept, it is Si function work as well. Even though the PO may be different from that has been perceived from the world, it still is perceived by Si function, not Ni. I think this is what most people fail to understand. Just because something perceived from the mind has not been perceived exactly from the world, doesn't mean the function perceiving it is Ni function. That is my explanation about Si.


Not exactly the same. Think of the Si as a correspondence. What is in the mind is a mapping of what is in the world. It will be distorted from the real world by however your mind works.

As to the coconut tree, if you see a high tree that is Se. Only if you see it along with maybe the sky and a giraffe contrasting with lower trees and bushes incorporating the *concept* of "high" does it become Ne. If you see it in your mind as "high" because it is contrasted with medium and low memories, that is Ni. It is an Ni perception. Ni is an advanced function requiring a prior experience of low and medium. If you only remember the *specific* tall tree without any contrast, that is Si.

My turn to ask if you have any questions.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> I concur with most of that. I'll make some refinements.
> 
> 
> Any Fi feelings can be present. They are a separate CF not sensation like Se or Si. I would differ but only slightly about the Si interpretation. With the Si function, you hear the sound in your mind but it is not the objective sound from outside. It is close to but a facsimile of the real sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly the same. Think of the Si as a correspondence. What is in the mind is a mapping of what is in the world. It will be distorted from the real world by however your mind works.
> 
> As to the coconut tree, if you see a high tree that is Se. Only if you see it along with maybe the sky and a giraffe contrasting with lower trees and bushes incorporating the *concept* of "high" does it become Ne. If you see it in your mind as "high" because it is contrasted with medium and low memories, that is Ni. It is an Ni perception. Ni is an advanced function requiring a prior experience of low and medium. If you only remember the *specific* tall tree without any contrast, that is Si.
> 
> My turn to ask if you have any questions.


Of course Fi is a separate function from Se/Si. Si is not more correlated to Fi than Se to Fi. If you say some functions are executed in the present time, then what function is not? Even when you perceive something with N function, you perceive it in the present time actually. 5+2 will not be 5-2 because the time of the execution is different. I mean, one shouldn't correlate any function to any time it is executed.

About the tree, no matter whether the object one perceived from the world would be different or the same as to the one perceived by introverted perceiving function, if the object perceived from the mind is a PO, it is Si function to work. And yes, it may be a different PO to the one perceived by extroverted perceiving function, since no one would use S function for all the time. But, it could be, in theory, the same. Someone sees a piano for the first time with Se function, so it will be a piano PO, and burn it into the mind. And later in time, he uses Si function without ever uses N function between the time, then the PO he would remember will has exactly the same properties as he perceived by Se. By "however your mind works", i think you should explain it in more detail, because all of the brain activities must be defined in CF definition to make the CF definition perfect. If a process of any brain activity can not be explained by a CF theory, i think the CF theory is broken or the process is not there actually.

Well, it seems like i ignored some objects. I meant the perceiver perceives the "high tree" CO object because there is a coconut tree along with other objects as the comparison. But the thing is, in the end, he perceives a "high tree" CO.


----------



## Kerik_S

reybridge said:


> What does environment refer to? What is ethic? Can not be ethic logical? If it can, then ethic and logic, in whatever your definition is, is not perfectly devided. And if ethic won't be logical, what is your definition of ethic and logic? But more importantly, what are you trying to explain? Is it the prosedure of how cognitive functions work?


Have you ever considered that your insistence on pure logic is actually _preventing you_ from rationally understanding?

This entire post quote could have answered its own questions if you deferred to other cognitive functions

　
You can't tell me, as a functioning human being, that you haven't seen people be able to communicate and navigate life successfully without nitpicking at semantics like you do


----------



## Artorias

........................


----------



## reybridge

Kerik_S said:


> Have you ever considered that your insistence on pure logic is actually _preventing you_ from rationally understanding?
> 
> This entire post quote could have answered its own questions if you deferred to other cognitive functions
> 
> 
> You can't tell me, as a functioning human being, that you haven't seen people be able to communicate and navigate life successfully without nitpicking at semantics like you do


What is "rationally understanding" if it is not understanding in logical manner? By logical manner, i mean by deducting some premises. Is an argument that doesn't have any pemise could be considered rational by any chance? If you would says yes, please tell me an example for it.


----------



## Kerik_S

reybridge said:


> What is "rationally understanding" if it is not understanding in logical manner? By logical manner, i mean by deducting some premises. Is an argument that doesn't have any pemise could be considered rational by any chance? If you would says yes, please tell me an example for it.


Way to completely miss the point, dude


----------



## Kerik_S

@reybridge
　
　
Ugh, responding like that is probably considered trolling, so I'll just copypasta something I typed earlier:

　



> ninjahitsawal_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it weird how you can put two elements together and get an entirely new set of chemical properties? But that doesn't happen when you put play-dough and hot air together. What the hell. This is what I mean by "irrational".
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, my mind isn't taken aback by that information.
> 
> The main differences can be immediately honed in upon with a sort of "impulse" to use Ti in INFJs, while your mind goes to Te and is like "What the actual fuck...?"
> 
> because Te is looking at the objective similarities of "A(sub-1) + B(sub-1) yields homogeneity" <--> "A(sub-2) + B(sub-2) yields heterogeneity".
> 
> Ti doesn't do that. I don't think of it as A({sub-1;sub-2}), or B({sub-1;sub-2}), I think of it as A+B, and C+D,
> 
> so my mind looks at the logical consistency of separate subjects (subjective, seen from their insides ignoring the outer "connections"),
> 
> rather than logically-interconnected (objective, seen from the outside as containing similar logical ramifications)
> 
> 
> So, I don't see that as "irrational" at all. I just see it as using logic in a subjective way.
> 
> This is the trap: "subjective" does not equal "irrational".
> 
> You're generating the logical dissimilarity without an impulse to dig into each interaction subjectively, causing a sort of "mindfuck". You default to self-reference (probably a focus on your own confounded reaction, filtered through Fi) and think "irrational, wow",
> 
> when that's not the case. It's simply "subjective logic that I don't feel impelled to use, wow".
> 
> I experience "mindfucks" when I encounter information that prompts me to look at the explicit "pragmatic" logic. I could easily think, "irrational, wow",
> 
> but with my Fe accessing the normative perceptions of what is "irrational"-as-a-colloquial (subjective, inferred), my Fe in and of itself asserts the "trope" of normativity into my mind so I'm like:
> 
> , "But, that's Te, and Te isn't irrational."
> 
> or in the mind of someone who's unfamiliar with typology, "But, that requires pragmatism, and pragmatism isn't irrational."
> 
> 
> If it weren't for the norms, your mind might have been more likely to think "But, that's Ti, and that isn't irrational."
> 
> But, the norms as they are-- "rationality = objective, explicit"-- your mind will feel justified in saying "Yeah, it's irrational" without even considering it from another angle. Because of social norms, really.
> 
> It's a subtle prejudicial influence. Even if the influence didn't exist, however, you might still miss it as an INTJ because your Fe is in a weak position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninjahitsawal_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when I say "the world" I am including humans in that. We're not separate from the world. Part of what I was getting at in my first post, when I said "humans are irrational", is that we are a part of this irrational world. Consider this - when you program music notes into a computer, you can tell it to "humanize" to varying degrees, which essentially means to add imperfections.. this is like "let's add some irrationalities to make it more like real life."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd say that's-- in terms of music-- "let's add some subjective inferential rationalities (Fi "feels") to make it more like real life."
> 
> So no such thought of irrationality occurs because I look at logical consistency of separate subjective systems: "Irrationality vs Rationality", "Subjective vs Objective", "Explicit vs Inferred"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninjahitsawal_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess I am essentiallydefining rationality as a discretely organized, determinate system (which life itself is not).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's essentially saying "Rationality = Te" which, as I outlined, is a bias.
Click to expand...


----------



## Clayfighter

Im not going to try and comment extensively on your logic so I dont offend you by being inadequate on some level, but you might want to consider restructuring in order to make the base format of the personality types easier to organize and prove in dichotomies. Taking Judging and perceiving out of the mix would allow each type to have a different order to the functions, which would make it less likely to be invalid due to some exception of the rule and leave less room for the possibility of "mixed types." It would probably be best to avoid any uncertainty altogether to avoid inconsistencies down the road in types.

It almost looked like you started with J and P though for how we interact or gather from our environment or internal thoughts. while its true we start by gathering information, we start with energy being created through stimuli in order to provoke us to gain the information and follow up.

I and E would be defined as energy flowing from a state of inwardness or self, and E would be energy levels increasing from outside experience.

From there I would categorize people as observing or interacting, basically the difference between how one learns from the environment, by physical interaction(kind of like sensing) or by observing at a distance. The beauty of these two functions is that it allows for subtypes which might be akin to N and S, but the real importance comes from the fact that observing(detaching) and interacting is that they are both behaviors we can observe, and you cannot do anything other than observe or interact when it comes to how you form perceptions, regardless of whether you're thinking, using intuition, or sensing.

You would then execute data based on your values and ideals which drive as the feeling function or thinking which is structure and analysis.

You can keep splitting up the types, just as long as the Hierarchy is simple and valid at its core. It would be easier I think to restructure the subtype formatting than to redo the entire theory because on a problem with terms down the road. I could see how someone might try and say they lead with something other than a perceiving function, but I dont think that's the case I think you start perceiving when you are born and it cycles back and forth as you acquire data.


----------



## Clayfighter

The point im trying to make with my definitions on this post, is I think terms like introverted and extroverted perception seem to be almost misleading, because a perception can be made in so many different ways and its really a category that is intended to reference a perceiving function not necessarily be its own function, the dichotomy becomes so vague that almost 100% of the population are going to use both introverted and extroverted perception equally.... and I dont think it would make sense to say we either perceive our mind or the world as an attitude or a preference, or even as a separate form of perception. cognitive functions like metacognition are simply an unrelated form of self-correction which is not utilized as an opposing format to perceiving the world but rather for its own purpose entirely which is utilized regardless of how you process everything else.

And it wouldnt even be a perception, if you perceived a fact from the world and then executed with a thinking function, how would you perceive it inwardly, or notice an error with the same perceptive function? It would be more a thinking function or judging process which would be introspective in this conscious way. Perceiving is more unconscious than anything.

The reason I say this is all thoughts are abstract, it requires some form of execution to make sense of them in order to understand your own mind.


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> Thank you. Yes, there is no solid definition of Jungian function, that is why i created this thread. And this is also why people always debating on cognitive functions.


Yes, it is like religion 



> Just like you said, Jungian function doesn't have definition, so how can my definition correspond accurately with Jung's description?


A description can be interpreted as a vague definition. For example, if one defines Ti in a certain way, so that all aspects of mathematics is about Ti, then this will contradict the Jungian/MBTI descriptions of types (and thereby functions). Why would an ISTJ (SiTe) be the typical accountant? SSS (School of System Socionics) claims that SLE (ESTP) and LSI (ISTP) are the typical accountants. NJET!



> And also, what kind of type actually exist in reality?


Well, we are not claiming that a type actually exists in reality. But we are claiming that there is a group of people that are accurately (or not) described by a certain type, i.e. a set of personality traits.



> Types are based on the functions. If the functions themselves don't have a solid definition, they will be ambiguous forever, and people will debating them forever. That is why i said again and again and again, i am kinda tired about this, that there should be one solid definition about cognitive functions so we all can have exactly the same perspective on how cognitive functions work, so discussing types will be much more convenient.


I agree 100% with this sentiment.



> I am proud that someone actually understand it. Yes, Ne function only runs when you are using your sensing organs.
> This will differentiates Ne with Ni perfectly. The fact that you use sensing organs to perceive something doesn't justify what kind of object you perceive, it could be either Physical Object or Conceptual Object.


So if you close your eyes then you cannot use Ne?


----------



## RubiksCubix

Not to nitpick, but I would not say that judging creates or changes an object. I would rather say that it draws the distinctions between opposites and applies intuition in a way that the object is ascertained. This allows for categorization. This facilitates change, but the change does not lie in the act of judging itself. 

Also, sensing cannot gather objects without certain intuitions preexisting. I wouldn't say that this makes your definition wrong, but an understanding of the a priori cognitions which exist always within our mind and make the world perceivable to us is vital here. Without this understanding, the claim becomes that sensing can ascertain objects alone, which is false.


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> A description can be interpreted as a vague definition. For example, if one defines Ti in a certain way, so that all aspects of mathematics is about Ti, then this will contradict the Jungian/MBTI descriptions of types (and thereby functions). Why would an ISTJ (SiTe) be the typical accountant? SSS (School of System Socionics) claims that SLE (ESTP) and LSI (ISTP) are the typical accountants. NJET!


To define a perfect definition, there should be a rule set that is consistent and complete. With "If one defines Ti in a certain way, so that all aspects of mathematics is about Ti", what rule set exactly they offer to satisfy this condition? If they can not give any rule, i think it is just an arbitrary statement.



> So if you close your eyes then you cannot use Ne?


No, you can still use your nose, tongue, skin, and your ears to perceive something conceptual.


----------



## Inveniet

Cognitive functions are an abstract construct made by Jung.
It only works the way he described it.
It is very simple too.



> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Carl Jung


End of discussion.
If you don't like it make your own typology.


----------



## reybridge

MisterPerfect said:


> You know mindset is more than education, right? You can have that mindset without a college degree. I cant show you without giving a link since all the other explanations I was seen were pages explaining the functions. If you are going to just ignore that in favor of your biased there is no point in speaking with you.


I don't understand why people always depend on links. Don't you have any strong opinion? I mean, some good subjective views about something. In this case, cognitive functions. Education is a way to form mindset. If you don't educate yourself, you wouldn't have the mindset of educated people. But education is not the only way to build mindset. I didn't say that engineers must be educated. I said that they have to have logical mindset, because that is how they survive in life. How they achieve that mindset is not important. Therefore, i invited them to deconstruct my definition of cognitive functions so it will be a real discussion on how cognitive functions should be defined completely.


----------



## reybridge

Strontphite said:


> Cognitive functions are an abstract construct made by Jung.
> It only works the way he described it.
> It is very simple too.
> 
> 
> 
> End of discussion.
> If you don't like it make your own typology.


Looking at your quote, i very easily find inconsistencies. If thinking recognizes meaning and feeling tells value, then whenever we think we also feel. Because how can something has a meaning without value? Or something has a value but doesn't have any meaning? Seriously, don't you an INTJ find that ridiculous?
For intuition and sensing, what if someone perceives a possibility but it is actually present? Is he using S or N function? That is very ambiguous.


----------



## reybridge

Mothtodark said:


> Im not going to try and comment extensively on your logic so I dont offend you by being inadequate on some level, but you might want to consider restructuring in order to make the base format of the personality types easier to organize and prove in dichotomies. Taking Judging and perceiving out of the mix would allow each type to have a different order to the functions, which would make it less likely to be invalid due to some exception of the rule and leave less room for the possibility of "mixed types." It would probably be best to avoid any uncertainty altogether to avoid inconsistencies down the road in types.
> 
> It almost looked like you started with J and P though for how we interact or gather from our environment or internal thoughts. while its true we start by gathering information, we start with energy being created through stimuli in order to provoke us to gain the information and follow up.
> 
> I and E would be defined as energy flowing from a state of inwardness or self, and E would be energy levels increasing from outside experience.
> 
> From there I would categorize people as observing or interacting, basically the difference between how one learns from the environment, by physical interaction(kind of like sensing) or by observing at a distance. The beauty of these two functions is that it allows for subtypes which might be akin to N and S, but the real importance comes from the fact that observing(detaching) and interacting is that they are both behaviors we can observe, and you cannot do anything other than observe or interact when it comes to how you form perceptions, regardless of whether you're thinking, using intuition, or sensing.
> 
> You would then execute data based on your values and ideals which drive as the feeling function or thinking which is structure and analysis.
> 
> You can keep splitting up the types, just as long as the Hierarchy is simple and valid at its core. It would be easier I think to restructure the subtype formatting than to redo the entire theory because on a problem with terms down the road. I could see how someone might try and say they lead with something other than a perceiving function, but I dont think that's the case I think you start perceiving when you are born and it cycles back and forth as you acquire data.


No, the current order of each type already make sense. This thread define each cognitive function, but this doesn't define types. You can say that Pi will always be in pair with Je and Pe with Ji, but it is another discussion. And that rule doesn't conflict with first post rule set at all. It support my definition instead. And i myself likes the current order of functions in types. For example, Te in my definition is any action to change the world with standard. Where does the standard come from in the first place? It comes from Fi function which creates the foundation in the mind. This explains why Te always be in pair with Fi. The same thing happens to other function pairs.

Is "observing and interacting" your definition of Ne and Se? Ne observes and Se interacts? Well, this kinda makes sense to me. But, you need to define "interacting" more detail, because when people chit-chats, i will say they are interacting, which you consider Se. Furthermore, how about Si vs Ni?

As i said, my definition doesn't need types to be restructured. No conflict there. Why do you think my definition needs new type structure? Maybe you are right that everyone started their life by perceiving functions. And maybe this is the reason why kids are playful. But as they get older, they will be able to use judging functions. Just because someone started with perceiving function, doesn't mean he uses perceiving function the most often. So, what is significant here?


----------



## MisterPerfect

reybridge said:


> I don't understand why people always depend on links. Don't you have any strong opinion? I mean some good subjective views about something. In this case, cognitive functions. Education is a way to form mindset. If you don't educate yourself, you wouldn't have the mindset of educated people. But education is not the only way to build mindset. I didn't say that engineers must be educated. I said that they have to have logical mindset, because that is how they survive in life. How they achieve that mindset is not important. Therefore, i invited them to deconstruct my definition of cognitive functions so it will be a real discussion on how cognitive functions should be defined completely.


Since I just said what you wrote sound like other things written explaining the functions. Meaning this is not new or special and you don't need an engineer to figure that out. You are just a biased, self-centered, most elite who thinks he is better than anyone and a lot of people might find that behavior terribly obnoxious. Whatever though if you think you are godly good for you. Have a nice day.


----------



## Inveniet

reybridge said:


> Looking at your quote, i very easily find inconsistencies. If thinking recognizes meaning and feeling tells value, then whenever we think we also feel. Because how can something has a meaning without value? Or something has a value but doesn't have any meaning? Seriously, don't you an INTJ find that ridiculous?
> For intuition and sensing, what if someone perceives a possibility but it is actually present? Is he using S or N function? That is very ambiguous.


You are right.

In terms of dynamics the functions are linked.
You must have a sensory POV to be able to intuit where it is coming from and where it is going.
You must have a value to support meaning and a meaning to support value.
The difference between a feeler and a thinker is in what degree they focus more on either of those.

Since you already know everything and are just organizing your logic in a vacuum for the fun of it.
I'll go waste my time on a computer game instead.


----------



## Clayfighter

reybridge said:


> No, the current order of each type already make sense. This thread define each cognitive function, but this doesn't define types. You can say that Pi will always be in pair with Je and Pe with Ji, but it is another discussion. And that rule doesn't conflict with first post rule set at all. It support my definition instead. And i myself likes the current order of functions in types. For example, Te in my definition is any action to change the world with standard. Where does the standard come from in the first place? It comes from Fi function which creates the foundation in the mind. This explains why Te always be in pair with Fi. The same thing happens to other function pairs.
> 
> Is "observing and interacting" your definition of Ne and Se? Ne observes and Se interacts? Well, this kinda makes sense to me. But, you need to define "interacting" more detail, because when people chit-chats, i will say they are interacting, which you consider Se. Furthermore, how about Si vs Ni?
> 
> As i said, my definition doesn't need types to be restructured. No conflict there. Why do you think my definition needs new type structure? Maybe you are right that everyone started their life by perceiving functions. And maybe this is the reason why kids are playful. But as they get older, they will be able to use judging functions. Just because someone started with perceiving function, doesn't mean he uses perceiving function the most often. So, what is significant here?


Well I wasnt really trying to fully define anything, its your thread, I was just formatting it a bit differently, if you saw something in it you could expand upon it, but I think you missed my point, when you said I need to define interacting in more detail. I was trying to establish a dichotomy and then from there establish more than one type of interacting. I wanted to make sure I had two diametrically opposed terms first. interaction / non-interaction its similar to se/ne etc but the point was more-so to establish a framework before even getting down to the specific functions. 

Maybe its just me, but also because I havent been through your thought process you went through in order to make this, my mind is telling me to form a skeleton first(logical framework), so I can color inbetween the lines. I guess im just wondering if the functions will result in a sound hierarchy as you already seemed to have everything laid out, but I cant see the order in it. Im not really trying to change functions so much as I am trying to establish a deductive model. Interaction and no interaction might as well be X and Y. theyre just variables where something needs to be plugged in.

But I also see your point too. I guess you are not forming a hierarchy of sorts, you are just defining functions and formulating it so we all just have preferences for each one? I guess all im saying is that if theres not anything new in the structure really. What is the difference?


----------



## reybridge

Strontphite said:


> You are right.
> 
> In terms of dynamics the functions are linked.
> You must have a sensory POV to be able to intuit where it is coming from and where it is going.
> You must have a value to support meaning and a meaning to support value.
> The difference between a feeler and a thinker is in what degree they focus more on either of those.
> 
> Since you already know everything and are just organizing your logic in a vacuum for the fun of it.
> I'll go waste my time on a computer game instead.


So, when someone uses N function he will automatically uses S function? But if he uses S function, he doesn't need to use N function? Your argument is similar as mine long ago actually. But then i realize that is not balanced and arbitrary. So here i come with my best definition. As for F vs T, let's say you focus on meaning. Then, what does T function do to get it? Logic? What if i say that someone can give a meaning to something even without a logical deduction? I think it is too ambiguous to make everyone think exactly the same about those functions, no?

Thank you. Does your computer game support Jung's description?


----------



## reybridge

Mothtodark said:


> Well I wasnt really trying to fully define anything, its your thread, I was just formatting it a bit differently, if you saw something in it you could expand upon it, but I think you missed my point, when you said I need to define interacting in more detail. I was trying to establish a dichotomy and then from there establish more than one type of interacting. I wanted to make sure I had two diametrically opposed terms first. interaction / non-interaction its similar to se/ne etc but the point was more-so to establish a framework before even getting down to the specific functions.
> 
> Maybe its just me, but also because I havent been through your thought process you went through in order to make this, my mind is telling me to form a skeleton first(logical framework), so I can color inbetween the lines. I guess im just wondering if the functions will result in a sound hierarchy as you already seemed to have everything laid out, but I cant see the order in it. Im not really trying to change functions so much as I am trying to establish a deductive model. Interaction and no interaction might as well be X and Y. theyre just variables where something needs to be plugged in.
> 
> But I also see your point too. I guess you are not forming a hierarchy of sorts, you are just defining functions and formulating it so we all just have preferences for each one? I guess all im saying is that if theres not anything new in the structure really. What is the difference?


I see, it is a different framework, right? Maybe like this.

Interacting
- Interacting via conceptual medium
- Interacting via physical medium
Observing
- Observing physical possibilities
- Observing conceptual possibilities

Well, i think you need to start your own thread. Just let me know your thread and i will help deconstruct it for you. I will go for this thread.


----------



## Inveniet

reybridge said:


> So, when someone uses N function he will automatically uses S function? But if he uses S function, he doesn't need to use N function? Your argument is similar as mine long ago actually. But then i realize that is not balanced and arbitrary. So here i come with my best definition. As for F vs T, let's say you focus on meaning. Then, what does T function do to get it? Logic? What if i say that someone can give a meaning to something even without a logical deduction? I think it is too ambiguous to make everyone think exactly the same about those functions, no?
> 
> Thank you. Does your computer game support Jung's description?


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> To define a perfect definition, there should be a rule set that is consistent and complete. With "If one defines Ti in a certain way, so that all aspects of mathematics is about Ti", what rule set exactly they offer to satisfy this condition? If they can not give any rule, i think it is just an arbitrary statement.


They do offer a set of rules. There are two alternative ways to define the information aspects in Socionics:

1) L (Ti) = external statics of fields, P (Te) = external dynamics of objects

2) Read about the second method on the SSS website.

School of System Socionics (information elements)

Socionics define eight kinds of information instead of cognitive processes. But they indirectly define the functions. Unfortunately, their method is ten times harder since the information aspects must correspond perfectly with the functions.



> No, you can still use your nose, tongue, skin, and your ears to perceive something conceptual.


Hmm... so if you are completely isolated then you cannot use Ne according to your definition. That makes me very skeptical, because we can clearly use Ne to think about new connections/ideas that are completely unrelated to our current physical environment. Btw, anything conceptual is almost exclusively visual.

Also, you don't have to smell something (Se) in order to remember a scent (Se).


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> They do offer a set of rules. There are two alternative ways to define the information aspects in Socionics:
> 
> 1) L (Ti) = external statics of fields, P (Te) = external dynamics of objects
> 
> 2) Read about the second method on the SSS website.
> 
> School of System Socionics (information elements)
> 
> Socionics define eight kinds of information instead of cognitive processes. But they indirectly define the functions. Unfortunately, their method is ten times harder since the information aspects must correspond perfectly with the functions.


Well, i don't know where to start reading. Nothing there is right to the point. Maybe next time.



> Hmm... so if you are completely isolated then you cannot use Ne according to your definition. That makes me very skeptical, because we can clearly use Ne to think about new connections/ideas that are completely unrelated to our current physical environment. Btw, anything conceptual is almost exclusively visual.


Yes, you can not use Se nor Ne when you are not using any of your sense. It needs to be this way to separate Pe with Pi. If it was not this way, what description/definition you think could divide Pe and Pi mutual-exclusively without any ambiguity? We don't use Ne to perceive conceptual objects that is not perceived via 5 senses. We use Ni for this case. But, what kind of isolation makes you unable to use any of your sense really? Let's assume there really is, then yes, you don't use Pe function when you are isolated like that.



> Also, you don't have to smell something (Se) in order to remember a scent (Se).


True. When you remember a scent, you use Si function, not Ne nor Ni. Any scent, image, or sound is physical object. What Ni perceive is conceptual objects. You know, if i could revise the 1st post, i would change some points to:
3.3. Physical Object is the representation of Objects.
3.4. Conceptual Object is the rule between Objects.
But, there is no edit button there. Any rule, i mean ANY, could only be perceived by N function. No rule is a representation of something, and vice versa. Anything is not a rule is a representation, and vice versa. They both are simply work mutual-exclusively. Back to the point. So, when you recall a scent, it is Si function because what you recall is not a rule, but a representation.


----------



## Chesire Tower

reybridge said:


> Please rate this thread 5 stars if you are interested in this thread so other people with logic can discuss this too.


I fail to see a logical connection here (sorry, couldn't resist .


----------



## heavydirtysoul

The title is very promising.


----------



## BigApplePi

So far I'm not impressed by the way Socionics is presented. Links which present the kitchen sink are not focused or logical. I'm seen many references to this "Model A" which did not focus. Then I saw a reference to a "Model D." Immediately I asked myself, what happened to Models B and C? are they relevant? Talking pure quality without a starting point of clarity leaves me coldish. 

I understand something of cognitive functions with the MBTI. Who wishes to approach that kind of clarity with Socionics? If Socionics is being talked about rather than the MBTI, can that be said? 

That's my general impression so far as a novice to Socionics.


----------



## reybridge

Chesire Tower said:


> I fail to see a logical connection here (sorry, couldn't resist .


I am surprised that someone actually read all the posts in this thread.


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> Well, i don't know where to start reading. Nothing there is right to the point. Maybe next time.


Yes, let's skip Socionics in this thread. 



> Yes, you can not use Se nor Ne when you are not using any of your sense. It needs to be this way to separate Pe with Pi. If it was not this way, what description/definition you think could divide Pe and Pi mutual-exclusively without any ambiguity?


Well, that's the big question. But any definition must still correspond with our observations.



> We don't use Ne to perceive conceptual objects that is not perceived via 5 senses. We use Ni for this case.


Ne is about cross-contextual thinking about ANY objects.

Let's imagine 100 new Pokemon monsters. Monster No. 1 and No. 34 have wings, so if you think about monster No. 1 then you might also think about monster no. 34. That leap is Ne!

"Ne is responsible for understanding the essence (permanent but not obvious traits) of a thing, estimating the potential and latent capabilities for people and things" 



> But, what kind of isolation makes you unable to use any of your sense really? Let's assume there really is, then yes, you don't use Pe function when you are isolated like that.


It doesn't matter. The 5 senses and extroverted functions are (most likely) not connected like that anyway. However, the 5 senses are related to Sensing (Se and Si).



> True. When you remember a scent, you use Si function, not Ne nor Ni. Any scent, image, or sound is physical object. What Ni perceive is conceptual objects. You know, if i could revise the 1st post, i would change some points to:


No, you do not remember a scent with Si. It does not correspond with our observations of Se dominant types and Si dominant types. It is the Se dominant types that are good at details. Si dominant types are good at describing "the story" behind/around the details.



> 3.3. Physical Object is the representation of Objects.
> 3.4. Conceptual Object is the rule between Objects.
> But, there is no edit button there. Any rule, i mean ANY, could only be perceived by N function. No rule is a representation of something, and vice versa. Anything is not a rule is a representation, and vice versa. They both are simply work mutual-exclusively. Back to the point. So, when you recall a scent, it is Si function because what you recall is not a rule, but a representation.


I was not referring to Si vs N. Only Si vs Se. 

Btw, I like your distinction between physical objects and conceptual objects better.


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> Well, that's the big question. But any definition must still correspond with our observations.


See, even the very fundamental question like this can not be clearly explained by Jung's description. If no one can even explain this, then how can i expect everyone have the same thoughts about functions. Seriously, i think this is crucial. If you can not differentiate Pi vs Pe clearly, how can i believe when you say someone is a specific type? You know what i mean?
INTJ -> Ni-Te-Fi-Se. If you are confusing Ni with Ne here, then you may also confuse it with any personality with Ne dom, followed by Te, Fi, and Si (because if Ne is the dom, Se would be the 8th). And the possible personalities would be either ENFP and ENTP. But, you also think that he is quite bold, stubborn, and strong-willed to you. But wait, since he uses Ne, then he must be either ESTJ or ISTJ. While some other people may see him as Ni-dom (because the uncertainty), then they will mention different types to describe him. This makes him to be uncertainly described as he could be an INTJ, ENTP, ENFP, INFP, ESTJ, ISTJ, or even INTP.



> Ne is about cross-contextual thinking about ANY objects.
> 
> Let's imagine 100 new Pokemon monsters. Monster No. 1 and No. 34 have wings, so if you think about monster No. 1 then you might also think about monster no. 34. That leap is Ne!
> 
> "Ne is responsible for understanding the essence (permanent but not obvious traits) of a thing, estimating the potential and latent capabilities for people and things"


Ne doesn't perceive the physical object, which is the texture of the pokemon. Ne perceives the rule. So with Ne you perceive the rule: pokemon with wings->no1,no34. But, you don't come with any image or texture representing the pokemon with Ne. Also, when you bring the rule from the mind, then it would be Ni. Ne works exactly this way, only the object perceived is in the world. But you can always stick to your believe about Ne i suppose. But then i would ask, what does Ni do?



> It doesn't matter. The 5 senses and extroverted functions are (most likely) not connected like that anyway. However, the 5 senses are related to Sensing (Se and Si).


I think i understand what you understand about these functions now. You think that when we look at something, we use Se. And when we recall something which is triggered by that, then it is Si, right? What is "that" then? Is it something that Se perceives? If this was the case, it will be safe if i say that Si always need Se in the first place to active? But then, why is it not the opposite way, that Se needs Si to active? I think this is not mutually exclusive, too arbitrary. But if it worked the opposite way as well lets say, then shouldn't the amount of usages between Si and Se be exactly the same? So, why in any type are they separated quite far away? Even Se is nearer to Ni than Si.



> No, you do not remember a scent with Si. It does not correspond with our observations of Se dominant types and Si dominant types. It is the Se dominant types that are good at details. Si dominant types are good at describing "the story" behind/around the details.


So, what function do you use when you recall the scent of a pizza while you hold your nose closed even though there is no actual pizza there? Is it Se? If it was Se, how can you sense it without your nose? If it was Ni, what pattern does it perceive? It is not even a pattern, it is only the scent you recall. The scent is not connected to anything.



> I was not referring to Si vs N. Only Si vs Se.
> 
> Btw, I like your distinction between physical objects and conceptual objects better.


Well, thank you.


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> See, even the very fundamental question like this can not be clearly explained by Jung's description. If no one can even explain this, then how can i expect everyone have the same thoughts about functions. Seriously, i think this is crucial. If you can not differentiate Pi vs Pe clearly, how can i believe when you say someone is a specific type? You know what i mean?


I couldn't agree more! Being able to differentiate between Pi vs. Pe is crucial. We obviously don't have the same thoughts about the functions. But the descriptions are still good enough to model types.



> INTJ -> Ni-Te-Fi-Se. If you are confusing Ni with Ne here, then you may also confuse it with any personality with Ne dom, followed by Te, Fi, and Si (because if Ne is the dom, Se would be the 8th). And the possible personalities would be either ENFP and ENTP. But, you also think that he is quite bold, stubborn, and strong-willed to you. But wait, since he uses Ne, then he must be either ESTJ or ISTJ. While some other people may see him as Ni-dom (because the uncertainty), then they will mention different types to describe him. This makes him to be uncertainly described as he could be an INTJ, ENTP, ENFP, INFP, ESTJ, ISTJ, or even INTP.


First of all, I don't agree with the this order of the functions. But to your point, we are generally not confusing Ni with Ne, except in some special situations. The descriptions are perhaps 80-90% accurate.



> Ne doesn't perceive the physical object, which is the texture of the pokemon. Ne perceives the rule. So with Ne you perceive the rule: pokemon with wings->no1,no34. But, you don't come with any image or texture representing the pokemon with Ne.


Okay, so what is the connection with the 5 senses?

Let's assume that I agree with your assumption that Pe is connected with the 5 senses. An alternative view could be that one does perceive a physical object, but the essence instead of the concrete/texture of the pokemon.



> Also, when you bring the rule from the mind, then it would be Ni. Ne works exactly this way, only the object perceived is in the world. But you can always stick to your believe about Ne i suppose. But then i would ask, what does Ni do?


Ni is essentially about scenario thinking: strategizing (NiTe) and fantasy (NiFe). However, these overlap.

I don't agree with you that you need Ni in order to use Ne.



> I think i understand what you understand about these functions now. You think that when we look at something, we use Se. And when we recall something which is triggered by that, then it is Si, right?


No, my view is that Si is about the episode/story/context that "explains" your behavior. You remember yourself looking at something. You tend to see yourself as an actor in these memories/events. That's Si. But the exact details of your clothes etc. and the things you are looking at, that's Se.



> What is "that" then? Is it something that Se perceives? If this was the case, it will be safe if i say that Si always need Se in the first place to active?


You need some kind of experience in order to process Si. But once you have that experience then you don't need Se to "activate" Si.



> But then, why is it not the opposite way, that Se needs Si to active?


You always observe/sense details about the world in a context. But once... see comment above.



> I think this is not mutually exclusive, too arbitrary. But if it worked the opposite way as well lets say, then shouldn't the amount of usages between Si and Se be exactly the same? So, why in any type are they separated quite far away? Even Se is nearer to Ni than Si.


Why some functions are "nearer" is explained by Ego, Super-Ego etc. Read about Model A. Once you realize that the model is more accurate than Harold Grant's model or John Beebe's model, then you can consider my Model D. 



> So, what function do you use when you recall the scent of a pizza while you hold your nose closed even though there is no actual pizza there? Is it Se? If it was Se, how can you sense it without your nose? If it was Ni, what pattern does it perceive? It is not even a pattern, it is only the scent you recall. The scent is not connected to anything.


'sensing', i.e. using the 5 senses, does not always correspond to the Jungian function Sensing (= one of the eight different ways of thinking). The 5 senses often interact with the cognitive function Sensing, but you can stand on the moon recalling the smell/taste of pizza, or the visual details of another object from earth.


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> I couldn't agree more! Being able to differentiate between Pi vs. Pe is crucial. We obviously don't have the same thoughts about the functions. But the descriptions are still good enough to model types.


I think the Jung's description doesn't allow people to understand it by using logic, you have to believe all it says to be considered being understand. Whenever you use logic to it, you will unavoidably see many holes you want it to explain more and more. It is "good" because people love to not using logic, and this will be a great justification for them to be considered "intellectual" as they "understand" about cognitive functions even though what they are doing is just to believe. This is not good, because with this approach, what one person understands about it may not be even close to what another person understands. There need to be one rule to make it works for everyone.



> First of all, I don't agree with the this order of the functions. But to your point, we are generally not confusing Ni with Ne, except in some special situations. The descriptions are perhaps 80-90% accurate.


If you don't agree with the order, what is the function order of INTJ, ISTJ, INTP, etc? What differentiates each type?



> Okay, so what is the connection with the 5 senses?


You cut my paragraph here, which is:



> Ne doesn't perceive the physical object, which is the texture of the pokemon. Ne perceives the rule. So with Ne you perceive the rule: pokemon with wings->no1,no34. But, you don't come with any image or texture representing the pokemon with Ne. Also, when you bring the rule from the mind, then it would be Ni. Ne works exactly this way, only the object perceived is in the world. But you can always stick to your believe about Ne i suppose. But then i would ask, what does Ni do?


In your previous example about pokemon, there is no Ne running in your brain, because you bring the rule from your mind. But Ne function was going in mine when i red your post.



> Let's assume that I agree with your assumption that Pe is connected with the 5 senses. An alternative view could be that one does perceive a physical object, but the essence instead of the concrete/texture of the pokemon.


If you don't perceive a physical object, then you perceive a rule which can only be perceived by N function. Whatever you think "essence" mean here, i can say it is not a physical object but a rule. The physical object is the texture one. And yes, you can just perceive a rule without even perceive the physical object and vice versa. For example, when you read a fiction book deeply, you won't aware the physical detail of even the most important sentence there. You may even forget all of the conversations but you still know the overall story line. That is Ne for you.



> Ni is essentially about scenario thinking: strategizing (NiTe) and fantasy (NiFe). However, these overlap.
> 
> I don't agree with you that you need Ni in order to use Ne.


I think it is too narrow to specify NiTe to be strategizing and NiFe to be fantasizing. Anyway, someone with Ni-Fe doesn't fantasize. Fantasy is more to Si thing, because you perceive physical objects whenever you fantasize. But the most fantasizing personality would be Ne-dom. I can explain why if you want, it will be long. Ni-Fe people will be more to creating a conceptual object, a rule, such as status-quo, self-image, atmosphere, basically anything that people can perceive with Ne function and accept with Fi function.

What words in my post that said you need Ni to use Ne by the way?



> No, my view is that Si is about the episode/story/context that "explains" your behavior. You remember yourself looking at something. You tend to see yourself as an actor in these memories/events. That's Si. But the exact details of your clothes etc. and the things you are looking at, that's Se.


Well yes, that is a part of Si function, because when you see yourself doing something in your mind, no matter what and when, it is physical object that you perceive and not a rule.



> You need some kind of experience in order to process Si. But once you have that experience then you don't need Se to "activate" Si.


So, *the exact time* you use Si, you don't use 5 senses, right? But you said:

"It doesn't matter. The 5 senses and extroverted functions are (most likely) not connected like that anyway. However, the 5 senses are related to *Sensing (Se and Si)*."



> You always observe/sense details about the world in a context. But once... see comment above.


Actually, you only observe a context with Ne function. When you use Se you don't see any context at all. You just that, sense it.



> Why some functions are "nearer" is explained by Ego, Super-Ego etc. Read about Model A. Once you realize that the model is more accurate than Harold Grant's model or John Beebe's model, then you can consider my Model D.


Well, would you explain it in very simple and clear words about why some functions are nearer?



> 'sensing', i.e. using the 5 senses, does not always correspond to the Jungian function Sensing (= one of the eight different ways of thinking). The 5 senses often interact with the cognitive function Sensing, but *you can stand on the moon recalling the smell/taste of pizza, or the visual details of another object* from earth.


So what function is it when you recall a scent of pizza while you hold your nose closed? If Jung's description can not explain this, then it is incomplete. There is nothing incomplete like this in my definition of functions. Nothing about human psychology can not be explained by my definition basically, just saying.


----------



## LostFavor

I got bored for a spell and I have a lot I can say about the functions. And the thought of attempting to be logical was just overbearing, so I wrote the stuff below. It's not really "logical" exactly, but I think it's a fun way to look at the functions. Let me know what you think, folks. 

A few basic premises to start with:

We all have brains.
We all have thoughts.
We all have emotions.
We all perceive things.
We all differentiate between one thing and another, using our senses (e.g. the difference between a baseball and a football).
We all have the ability to differentiate between concepts in our minds.


Functions:

(Te) Extroverted Thinking is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed perfection[SUP]1[/SUP] that relies on sensory perception, memories of sensory perception, and imagined sensory perception.

(Ti) Introverted Thinking is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed perfection that relies on conceptual perception[SUP]2[/SUP], memories of conceptual perception, and imagined conceptual perception (ex: math equations). 

(Fe) Extroverted Feeling is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed imperfection[SUP]3[/SUP] that relies on sensory perception, memories of sensory perception, and imagined sensory perception.

(Fi) Introverted Feeling is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed imperfection that relies on conceptual perception, memories of conceptual perception, and imagined conceptual perception (ex: moral righteousness).

(Se) Extroverted Sensing is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed solidity[SUP]4[/SUP] that relies on ongoing sense perception and imagined ongoing sense perception (ex: doing parkour for real, or visualizing an action scene). 

(Si) Introverted Sensing is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed solidity that relies on stored sense perception and imagined stored sense perception.

(Ne) Extroverted Intuition is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed fluidity[SUP]5[/SUP] that relies on ongoing sense perception and imagined ongoing sense perception.

(Ni) Introverted Intuition is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed fluidity that relies on stored sense perception and imagined stored sense perception.


Footnotes:

1. 'Assumed perfection' means that the analysis and differentiation are done with the assumption of a hypothetically perfect system or world.

2. 'Conceptual perception' refers to any perception that is not based, fundamentally, on sensory data. Rather, it often acts as a sort of overlay for the sensory world; a way to see it more clearly (such as a map). 

3. 'Assumed imperfection' means that the analysis and differentiation are done with the assumption of a hypothetically flawed, or imperfect, world.

4. 'Solidity' refers to the assumption that the sensory world is fundamentally unchanging.

5. 'Fluidity' refers to the assumption that the sensory world is fundamentally subject to change, or is based significantly on one's point of view.


Examples of function failure (usually induced by imbalanced/exclusionary use of functions)-
Te: Creates a testable and reasonable-sounding banking system, but doesn't account for human beings running it.
Ti: Creates a model that will get man to Mars in a few days, but it requires tools that we don't have.
Fe: Remains in a damaging relationship because "everyone has flaws anyway."
Fi: Pushes the idea "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them," but doesn't follow it. "Nobody's perfect and I'm no exception."
Se: Skateboards the whole day and loses track of adult responsibilities.
Si: Insists that the flag at the ballpark was orange, when it was objectively red.
Ne: Forgets that reality exists for a few weeks, while fighting the Lost Knights of Camelot.
Ni: Looks into a crystal ball and concludes, "You'll have a bad case of the flu next week."


----------



## BigApplePi

Nice layout and descriptions. I have some comments (in blue) so see what you think.


LostFavor said:


> I got bored for a spell and I have a lot I can say about the functions. And the thought of attempting to be logical was just overbearing, so I wrote the stuff below. It's not really "logical" exactly, but I think it's a fun way to look at the functions. Let me know what you think, folks.
> 
> A few basic premises to start with:
> 
> We all have brains.
> We all have thoughts.
> We all have emotions.
> We all perceive things.
> We all differentiate between one thing and another, using our senses (e.g. the difference between a baseball and a football).
> We all have the ability to differentiate between concepts in our minds.
> I would change "all" to "some of us." (That's a joke.)
> 
> Functions:
> 
> (Te) Extroverted Thinking is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed perfection[SUP]1[/SUP] that relies on sensory perception, memories of sensory perception, and imagined sensory perception.
> I like "concept analysis" but would not assume perfection. I would leave out sensory as intuition is eligible. Example: INTJs.
> 
> (Ti) Introverted Thinking is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed perfection that relies on conceptual perception[SUP]2[/SUP], memories of conceptual perception, and imagined conceptual perception (ex: math equations).
> ISTPs rely on sensory perception, so concept perception doesn't work universally.
> 
> 
> (Fe) Extroverted Feeling is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed imperfection[SUP]3[/SUP] that relies on sensory perception, memories of sensory perception, and imagined sensory perception.
> 
> (Fi) Introverted Feeling is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed imperfection that relies on conceptual perception, memories of conceptual perception, and imagined conceptual perception (ex: moral righteousness).
> Both F's: I can't quite fathom "imperfection." I favor "ordering" (not a great word) for thinking and "evaluation" for feelers. Both ordering and evaluation are choices (judgments) so imperfection is implied.
> 
> 
> (Se) Extroverted Sensing is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed solidity[SUP]4[/SUP] that relies on ongoing sense perception and imagined ongoing sense perception (ex: doing parkour for real, or visualizing an action scene).
> 
> (Si) Introverted Sensing is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed solidity that relies on stored sense perception and imagined stored sense perception.
> Both S's: You use the word, "solidity." You mean sensing is solid? You don't mean motionless, do you? We sense either the unmoving and the moving. I do like the words "ongoing" and "stored." I had used external and internal.
> 
> 
> (Ne) Extroverted Intuition is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed fluidity[SUP]5[/SUP] that relies on ongoing sense perception and imagined ongoing sense perception.
> 
> (Ni) Introverted Intuition is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed fluidity that relies on stored sense perception and imagined stored sense perception.
> Both N's: I don't buy "fluidity." I use particular (not the best word) for sensing and pattern for intuition.
> 
> 
> Footnotes:
> 
> 1. 'Assumed perfection' means that the analysis and differentiation are done with the assumption of a hypothetically perfect system or world.
> 
> 2. 'Conceptual perception' refers to any perception that is not based, fundamentally, on sensory data. Rather, it often acts as a sort of overlay for the sensory world; a way to see it more clearly (such as a map).
> 
> 3. 'Assumed imperfection' means that the analysis and differentiation are done with the assumption of a hypothetically flawed, or imperfect, world.
> 
> 4. 'Solidity' refers to the assumption that the sensory world is fundamentally unchanging.
> Disagree unless I missed your meaning.
> 
> 5. 'Fluidity' refers to the assumption that the sensory world is fundamentally subject to change, or is based significantly on one's point of view.
> 
> 
> Examples of function failure (usually induced by imbalanced/exclusionary use of functions)-
> Te: Creates a testable and reasonable-sounding banking system, but doesn't account for human beings running it.
> Ti: Creates a model that will get man to Mars in a few days, but it requires tools that we don't have.
> Fe: Remains in a damaging relationship because "everyone has flaws anyway."
> Fi: Pushes the idea "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them," but doesn't follow it. "Nobody's perfect and I'm no exception."
> Se: Skateboards the whole day and loses track of adult responsibilities.
> Si: Insists that the flag at the ballpark was orange, when it was objectively red.
> Ne: Forgets that reality exists for a few weeks, while fighting the Lost Knights of Camelot.
> Ni: Looks into a crystal ball and concludes, "You'll have a bad case of the flu next week."
> Good examples.


I wrote the below in another thread and include it to see if you think a merger is eligible.

* *




We can divide the human psyche into eight functions. Functions can be cognitive, meaning conscious and focused. Functions can be unconscious meaning background and diffuse. This division itself will be "fuzzy" and has to be defined by scientific observation as to clarity.



* *




We can start with perceptive versus judgmental functions. Perception is observation. Perception can be divided into specific versus general (S vs N). This roughly translates to sense apprehension versus patterns/ impressions-in-the-large apprehension. Perception is immediate and precedes judgment as judgement must have content to judge. 

Judgment gives direction to the perceived. Judgment can be divided into order versus value (T vs F). Order means spacial direction; value means intensity of application. (It is interesting this can be roughly translated into velocity in physics where velocity is direction and speed combined.)

Perception and judgment can further be divided into internal mind versus external world. This roughly translates to introversion vs extroversion but I won't use those words. The external world is the world observable not just to the self but to others, sometimes called the "objectively" viewed world. The internal world is a mapping of the external world observable only within the mind or brain of an individual. (Post #210)


----------



## LostFavor

BigApplePi said:


> Nice layout and descriptions. I have some comments (in blue) so see what you think.


Thanks. 



> I would change "all" to "some of us." (That's a joke.)


Lol, on the last one I originally put a caveat in there that we can't prove everybody is able to do it, but then I realized we can't really prove everybody can do the other stuff either. Not without testing every single person, living and dead. 



> I like "concept analysis" but would not assume perfection. I would leave out sensory as intuition is eligible. Example: INTJs.





> ISTPs rely on sensory perception, so concept perception doesn't work universally.


A fair point, though I'm attempting in those definitions to look at each in isolation. I think it's fair to say that when combined, the functions get exponentially more complicated. I do think we can still hold them together somewhat reasonably though.

For instance, the ISTP may rely a lot on sensory perception, but may also turn more to "perfect" concept perception for the basis of how to do things (ex: with engineering). As in, "this is how things work," followed by "let's execute the steps." 

In reverse, the ESTP would likely rely primarily on sensory perception and then use "perfect" concept perception as a sort of backdrop on which to hold together what they've learned from sensory perception. 

If that makes sense.



> Both F's: I can't quite fathom "imperfection." I favor "ordering" (not a great word) for thinking and "evaluation" for feelers. Both ordering and evaluation are choices (judgments) so imperfection is implied.


It's not a word I'm super confident about, but I chose it to get away from the typical portrayal of F and T that tends to make the dichotomy about detachment vs. morality. I'll explain a bit more though the reason I chose "perfection" and "imperfection": In my experience, one of the primary protests that thinkers get from feelers is that they aren't being realistic, or they are detachment from reality to the point of ignoring what's in front of them. Meanwhile, feelers often get accused of being anything from overly trusting to stubbornly sticking to things that don't work.

I don't take either as true exactly, but from that kind of experience, I was attempting to pull at what it is exactly that differentiates the two. I've seen cases, for example, of Fe looking highly similar to Te, to the point that I was forced to wonder whether it's fair to separate them all that distinctly. Which brings me to the idea that what differentiates T types primarily is the base instinct to assume that given conditions can be perfectly met, whereas for F types the assumption is the opposite; that given conditions cannot be perfectly met. 

This may not be as far from "ordering" and "evaluation" as you think. Both may be judgments, but remember, I'm talking about the assumptions made in utilizing the function, not the actual act itself, if observed objectively. Both are imperfect, yes, because judgments are imperfect. My meaning is that one is assuming a perfect world, or perfect conditions, and the other is assuming the opposite. If I set out to place four oranges in a row such that they are exactly equidistant to one another, it's likely I'm assuming that it's possible to do so. But is it actually possible in reality to place them exactly equidistant to one another? I think an engineer would tell you that no, it's only possible to be very very close, when applying such a concept to reality.

But that won't necessarily stop the engineer from creating a model in which they are exactly equidistant.



> Both S's: You use the word, "solidity." You mean sensing is solid? You don't mean motionless, do you? We sense either the unmoving and the moving. I do like the words "ongoing" and "stored." I had used external and internal.
> 
> Disagree unless I missed your meaning.


Perhaps the disagreement is over the word "fundamentally." I'm meaning that the assumption is, "The core sensory principles of the world do not change" (ex: a rock does not suddenly become a ball of jello). Versus fluidity: It's unlikely an N type would say that a rock has become a ball of jello and believe it, but they might be more open to the idea that under the right hypothetical or imaginary circumstances, it's worth exploring the idea of rocks turning into jello. Or they might argue that the principle of a rock being a rock is based on our perception, not some fundamental "rock" status that is handed to it by the universe.



> Good examples.


Thanks.



> I wrote the below in another thread and include it to see if you think a merger is eligible.
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can divide the human psyche into eight functions. Functions can be cognitive, meaning conscious and focused. Functions can be unconscious meaning background and diffuse. This division itself will be "fuzzy" and has to be defined by scientific observation as to clarity.
> 
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can start with perceptive versus judgmental functions. Perception is observation. Perception can be divided into specific versus general (S vs N). This roughly translates to sense apprehension versus patterns/ impressions-in-the-large apprehension. Perception is immediate and precedes judgment as judgement must have content to judge.
> 
> Judgment gives direction to the perceived. Judgment can be divided into order versus value (T vs F). Order means spacial direction; value means intensity of application. (It is interesting this can be roughly translated into velocity in physics where velocity is direction and speed combined.)
> 
> Perception and judgment can further be divided into internal mind versus external world. This roughly translates to introversion vs extroversion but I won't use those words. The external world is the world observable not just to the self but to others, sometimes called the "objectively" viewed world. The internal world is a mapping of the external world observable only within the mind or brain of an individual. (Post #210)


Not sure what you meant about merging (merging of ideas, I'm guessing?).

It's an interesting breakdown. Can you expand on what you mean by "spacial direction" and "intensity of application"?


----------



## reybridge

LostFavor said:


> I got bored for a spell and I have a lot I can say about the functions. And the thought of attempting to be logical was just overbearing, so I wrote the stuff below. It's not really "logical" exactly, but I think it's a fun way to look at the functions. Let me know what you think, folks.
> 
> A few basic premises to start with:
> 
> We all have brains.
> We all have thoughts.
> We all have emotions.
> We all perceive things.
> We all differentiate between one thing and another, using our senses (e.g. the difference between a baseball and a football).
> We all have the ability to differentiate between concepts in our minds.
> 
> 
> Functions:
> 
> (Te) Extroverted Thinking is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed perfection[SUP]1[/SUP] that relies on sensory perception, memories of sensory perception, and imagined sensory perception.
> 
> (Ti) Introverted Thinking is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed perfection that relies on conceptual perception[SUP]2[/SUP], memories of conceptual perception, and imagined conceptual perception (ex: math equations).
> 
> (Fe) Extroverted Feeling is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed imperfection[SUP]3[/SUP] that relies on sensory perception, memories of sensory perception, and imagined sensory perception.
> 
> (Fi) Introverted Feeling is concept analysis and concept differentiation of assumed imperfection that relies on conceptual perception, memories of conceptual perception, and imagined conceptual perception (ex: moral righteousness).
> 
> (Se) Extroverted Sensing is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed solidity[SUP]4[/SUP] that relies on ongoing sense perception and imagined ongoing sense perception (ex: doing parkour for real, or visualizing an action scene).
> 
> (Si) Introverted Sensing is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed solidity that relies on stored sense perception and imagined stored sense perception.
> 
> (Ne) Extroverted Intuition is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed fluidity[SUP]5[/SUP] that relies on ongoing sense perception and imagined ongoing sense perception.
> 
> (Ni) Introverted Intuition is sensory perception and sensory differentiation of assumed fluidity that relies on stored sense perception and imagined stored sense perception.
> 
> 
> Footnotes:
> 
> 1. 'Assumed perfection' means that the analysis and differentiation are done with the assumption of a hypothetically perfect system or world.
> 
> 2. 'Conceptual perception' refers to any perception that is not based, fundamentally, on sensory data. Rather, it often acts as a sort of overlay for the sensory world; a way to see it more clearly (such as a map).
> 
> 3. 'Assumed imperfection' means that the analysis and differentiation are done with the assumption of a hypothetically flawed, or imperfect, world.
> 
> 4. 'Solidity' refers to the assumption that the sensory world is fundamentally unchanging.
> 
> 5. 'Fluidity' refers to the assumption that the sensory world is fundamentally subject to change, or is based significantly on one's point of view.
> 
> 
> Examples of function failure (usually induced by imbalanced/exclusionary use of functions)-
> Te: Creates a testable and reasonable-sounding banking system, but doesn't account for human beings running it.
> Ti: Creates a model that will get man to Mars in a few days, but it requires tools that we don't have.
> Fe: Remains in a damaging relationship because "everyone has flaws anyway."
> Fi: Pushes the idea "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them," but doesn't follow it. "Nobody's perfect and I'm no exception."
> Se: Skateboards the whole day and loses track of adult responsibilities.
> Si: Insists that the flag at the ballpark was orange, when it was objectively red.
> Ne: Forgets that reality exists for a few weeks, while fighting the Lost Knights of Camelot.
> Ni: Looks into a crystal ball and concludes, "You'll have a bad case of the flu next week."


I appreciate your description. My questions would be:
1. So, Te function must only relies on "sensory perception, memories of sensory perception, and imagined sensory perception"? How about someone who have a concept of justice in his mind and he does anything to make a perfect justice into his environment? Justice is not sensory perception, but still he uses Te to make it happens, no? I mean, what function is it to implement a perfect concept to the world if not Te?
2. How do you define perfect vs imperfect?
3. "'Conceptual perception' refers to any perception that is not based, fundamentally, on sensory data", what do you mean by "not based"? Would it be fine if i said that conceptual perception is the rule you make out of anything you encounter? Because no rule is sensory data and sensory data has no rule.
4. What is the difference between "imagined ongoing sense perception" and "imagined stored sense perception"?
5. What perceiving function you use to perceive concept perception?


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> I think the Jung's description doesn't allow people to understand it by using logic, you have to believe all it says to be considered being understand. Whenever you use logic to it, you will unavoidably see many holes you want it to explain more and more. It is "good" because people love to not using logic, and this will be a great justification for them to be considered "intellectual" as they "understand" about cognitive functions even though what they are doing is just to believe. This is not good, because with this approach, what one person understands about it may not be even close to what another person understands. There need to be one rule to make it works for everyone.


Yes, we need to define the functions.



> If you don't agree with the order, what is the function order of INTJ, ISTJ, INTP, etc? What differentiates each type?


I don't agree with that particular function order. Model A/Model D is accurate.



> You cut my paragraph here, which is:
> Ne doesn't perceive the physical object, which is the texture of the pokemon. Ne perceives the rule. So with Ne you perceive the rule: pokemon with wings->no1,no34. But, you don't come with any image or texture representing the pokemon with Ne. Also, when you bring the rule from the mind, then it would be Ni. Ne works exactly this way, only the object perceived is in the world. But you can always stick to your believe about Ne i suppose. But then i would ask, what does Ni do?
> In your previous example about pokemon, there is no Ne running in your brain, because you bring the rule from your mind. But Ne function was going in mine when i red your post.
> If you don't perceive a physical object, then you perceive a rule which can only be perceived by N function. Whatever you think "essence" mean here, i can say it is not a physical object but a rule. The physical object is the texture one. And yes, you can just perceive a rule without even perceive the physical object and vice versa. For example, when you read a fiction book deeply, you won't aware the physical detail of even the most important sentence there. You may even forget all of the conversations but you still know the overall story line. That is Ne for you.


Please, be patient with me  I am trying to get your point of view. I chose newly imagined pokemons for a reason; they are fantasy figures. So Ne is not considering objects from the "World", but from the "Mind". *Why isn't my pokemon example about Ni according to your definitions? 
*
"Conceptual Object is the connection between Objects." "Intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4)." "Therefore, extroverted intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4) from The World (see point 4.1),"

I agree with you that Ne and Ni are about connections between objects, which in turn is about seeing the essence of objects.



> I think it is too narrow to specify NiTe to be strategizing and NiFe to be fantasizing.


As I said, they overlap.



> dAnyway, someone with Ni-Fe doesn't fantasize. Fantasy is more to Si thing, because you perceive physical objects whenever you fantasize. But the most fantasizing personality would be Ne-dom. I can explain why if you want, it will be long. Ni-Fe people will be more to creating a conceptual object, a rule, such as status-quo, self-image, atmosphere, basically anything that people can perceive with Ne function and accept with Fi function.


No, this is a good example of how your definitions do not correspond with our actual observations. Both Ni and Si perceive physical objects. But Ni goes beyond what actually happened and thinks about various scenarios. Ni is related to the psychological term "episodic future thinking". 

It is a known fact that INFJs are severe daydreamers.



> What words in my post that said you need Ni to use Ne by the way?


 "Also, when you bring the rule from the mind, then it would be Ni."



> Well yes, that is a part of Si function, because when you see yourself doing something in your mind, no matter what and when, it is physical object that you perceive and not a rule.


I don't agree with this distinction. Ni definitely perceives physical objects. Otherwise NiTeFiSe is completely inaccurate, and Model A as well. INTJs visualize objects and scenarios all the time.



> So, the exact time you use Si, you don't use 5 senses, right? But you said:
> "It doesn't matter. The 5 senses and extroverted functions are (most likely) not connected like that anyway. However, the 5 senses are related to Sensing (Se and Si)."


No, both Se and Si are directly related to the 5 senses in my view. It is a matter of focus. You either look at the specifics (Se) or the event/context in a "serial form" (Si). (Si is dynamic function in Socionics, and Se is a static function... even though I don't agree with their definitions/descriptions). Se categorizes: you look at a tree and think "that's a tree". Si puts it into context: "I am looking a tree this wonderful day..." Furthermore, you can use Si consciously and Se unconsciously at the same time. Btw, Ne also categorizes objects (and subjects). Everything Se don't "recognizes" Ne tries to categorize, i.e. finding a matching category.



> Actually, you only observe a context with Ne function. When you use Se you don't see any context at all. You just that, sense it.


No, Ni and Si are about context. 



> Well, would you explain it in very simple and clear words about why some functions are nearer?


INTP's Ti is mostly "interfered" by Te. Te is the opposite approach to the same problem. That's why Te is an Id function, i.e. most unconscious. Ti and Fi complement each other, so Fi is also a conscious function.



> So what function is it when you recall a scent of pizza while you hold your nose closed? If Jung's description can not explain this, then it is incomplete. There is nothing incomplete like this in my definition of functions. Nothing about human psychology can not be explained by my definition basically, just saying.


Well, it is not just about covering all aspects of cognition/information processing. The definitions must also correspond with our observations of the types and real people.


----------



## reybridge

Double post.


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> I don't agree with that particular function order. Model A/Model D is accurate.


How can you be sure that it is accurate if you don't even have a solid definition of functions it based on? Anything that is derived from ambiguous description would have the same degree of ambiguity.



> Please, be patient with me  I am trying to get your point of view. I chose newly imagined pokemons for a reason; they are fantasy figures. So Ne is not considering objects from the "World", but from the "Mind". Why isn't my pokemon example about Ni according to your definitions?
> 
> "Conceptual Object is the connection between Objects." "Intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4)." "Therefore, extroverted intuitive function is a Perceiving Function (see point 2) that gathers Conceptual Objects (see point 3.4) from The World (see point 4.1),"
> 
> I agree with you that Ne and Ni are about connections between objects, which in turn is about seeing the essence of objects.


Well, sorry if i sounded too impatient. The rule of "pokemon with wings->no1,no34" came from your mind. So, the time you perceived that rule, you was using Ni. When it has been written on your post, the rule object was created into the "World". Anyone who then perceive it would needs Ne, including me. Without you brought the rule here, no one would ever perceived this rule. That is what differentiates Ni and Ne. Ne perceives rules existing in the world, while Ni perceives rules existing in the mind.



> No, this is a good example of how your definitions do not correspond with our actual observations. Both Ni and Si perceive physical objects. But Ni goes beyond what actually happened and thinks about various scenarios. Ni is related to the psychological term "episodic future thinking".


You always said about observation. How do you do an actual observation on any introverted function, especially Ni and Si? What definition of functions do you bring to test? If you don't have any statement to test in the first place, what do you observe? Well, you said Ni and Si perceive physical objects, so how do you prove this with observations? How do you differentiate PO with CO in your observation?
Thinking about the future is not necessarily related to Ni. Ni function perceives the rule you have in your mind about anything you consider as the future. But, when you visualize the future in a form of physical object, it is Si. I am afraid you can not actually understand either PO or CO and always think that they are always bound together because what you always perceive is only one kind of them but you feel like you know the other just as well or you do them both alternately in a balanced frequency so you can not even separate them.



> It is a known fact that INFJs are severe daydreamers.


What fact? How can you tell that the wall of bricks is hard if you don't know a brick is hard? I mean, how can you tell INFJs are daydreamers if you don't even know how Ni works? Well, something sturdy may stands there, but then how do you know that it is a wall of bricks? I mean, someone who daydreams may stands there, but then how do you know he is an INFJ? The only way to clarify that it is a wall of bricks is by knowing that it consists of bricks and knowing that a brick is hard.



> "Also, when you bring the rule from the mind, then it would be Ni."


This line doesn't say anything about how Ni needs Ne to be active i think. With Ni, you perceive the rule from the mind. To prove that a rule is from someone mind and not from the world, you can do a simple experiment. Just ask a random person in public to write 10 things he will do if he win a $1000000 lottery. If no one besides the asked person can not guess it, it proves that a rule can come from someone mind independently to the world (see my definition of the world). And no, he might not visualize anything in his mind while he was writing them. Visualizing is just an option, which is perceived by Si, to make a rule detailed and complete.



> I don't agree with this distinction. Ni definitely perceives physical objects. Otherwise NiTeFiSe is completely inaccurate, and Model A as well. INTJs visualize objects and scenarios all the time.


INTJs don't visualize, they just compare a concept with other concepts in their mind without any visualization. The visualization is not important for INTJs. If you have a concept, you can just put whatever PO in there to represents it. For example, they don't care whether something has form of a needle, or stick, or pencil, if they have "something to pry up the leftovers in the teeth" CO and want to implement it to the world, they will take anything possible. But, the time they form the CO in the mind, they don't visualize the pencil, or needle, or stick. They may not even know what exactly they need, except the criteria they have. They need Se or Si to fill the rule.



> No, both Se and Si are directly related to the 5 senses in my view. It is a matter of focus. You either look at the specifics (Se) or the event/context in a "serial form" (Si). (Si is dynamic function in Socionics, and Se is a static function... even though I don't agree with their definitions/descriptions). Se categorizes: you look at a tree and think "that's a tree". Si puts it into context: "I am looking a tree this wonderful day..." Furthermore, you can use Si consciously and Se unconsciously at the same time. Btw, Ne also categorizes objects (and subjects). Everything Se don't "recognizes" Ne tries to categorize, i.e. finding a matching category.


I think it is silly that you say Se categorizes and Ne also categorizes. It sounds like there is no difference between them. Se doesn't let you know that an object is a tree or a cat. Se function doesn't have the capacity to relate anything to anything, Se only sees it as an object. Just like Ne doesn't let you know what PO a rule implemented to. Ne function doesn't have the capacity to visualize them. So, when you look at a tree and think "that's a tree", you already use Ne function to extract the characteristic of something call the characteristic as a tree. Yes, everything you see are probably COs except you have the capacity of using Se function. For example, you see a traffic jam, not a collection of objects. More over, what you call Si may be what i identify as Ni. You perceive a rule independently to the world. The rule is just for you. In your case, the rule is "I am looking a tree this wonderful day...". It is a CO. PO is the raw object you see without any meaning put into it.



> No, Ni and Si are about context.


You said earlier that Ni and Si perceive physical object. Now you say they are about context. I think you don't really understand physical object i defined. Any context is a rule (conceptual object), you know.



> INTP's Ti is mostly "interfered" by Te. Te is the opposite approach to the same problem. That's why Te is an Id function, i.e. most unconscious. Ti and Fi complement each other, so Fi is also a conscious function.


This is as arbitrary as someone can say about function i can not even debate this. It is like you are saying "Cat is yellow. Lion is cat, but tiger is not cat. But you may call a baboon a cat too because it is a mammal.". Yes, it is that arbitrary. What rule says Ti is mostly interfered by Te? What is the exact distinction of Te approach and Ti approach that makes them mutually exclusive? Why is Ti and Fi complement each other? How can you even tell while you don't have any solid definition of them though?



> Well, it is not just about covering all aspects of cognition/information processing. The definitions must also correspond with our observations of the types and real people.


Just like i said, what do you want to prove by observing while you don't even have any non-ambiguous statement to prove?


----------



## LostFavor

reybridge said:


> I appreciate your description. My questions would be:
> 1. So, Te function must only relies on "sensory perception, memories of sensory perception, and imagined sensory perception"? How about someone who have a concept of justice in his mind and he does anything to make a perfect justice into his environment? Justice is not sensory perception, but still he uses Te to make it happens, no? I mean, what function is it to implement a perfect concept to the world if not Te?
> 2. How do you define perfect vs imperfect?
> 3. "'Conceptual perception' refers to any perception that is not based, fundamentally, on sensory data", what do you mean by "not based"? Would it be fine if i said that conceptual perception is the rule you make out of anything you encounter? Because no rule is sensory data and sensory data has no rule.
> 4. What is the difference between "imagined ongoing sense perception" and "imagined stored sense perception"?
> 5. What perceiving function you use to perceive concept perception?


Just wanted to pop in and say, I read this. Gonna try to get you some answers in the next few days. Will have to sit down at some point and think on it a bit. They're some deep questions. ^^


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> How can you be sure that it is accurate if you don't even have a solid definition of functions it based on? Anything that is derived from ambiguous description would have the same degree of ambiguity.


First of all, I have created a new thread, in which I present an alternative approach to defining the functions. This contradicts some of my previous comments, like "I agree with you that Ne and Ni are about connections between objects".

How can I...? Because my view is that all cognitions (that are relevant to our personality) are subsumed by the Jungian functions. So even though the Jungian functions are not (officially) defined, we can still describe the functions and the types in a fairly accurate manner. Everybody recognizes the main differences between Fe and Fi. But if we are discussing a particular sentence, then it gets tricky. This is what socionists are doing, so they need definitions of the functions (or rather information aspects).



> The rule of "pokemon with wings->no1,no34" came from your mind. So, the time you perceived that rule, you was using Ni. When it has been written on your post, the rule object was created into the "World". Anyone who then perceive it would needs Ne, including me. Without you brought the rule here, no one would ever perceived this rule. That is what differentiates Ni and Ne. Ne perceives rules existing in the world, while Ni perceives rules existing in the mind.
> This line doesn't say anything about how Ni needs Ne to be active i think. With Ni, you perceive the rule from the mind. To prove that a rule is from someone mind and not from the world, you can do a simple experiment. Just ask a random person in public to write 10 things he will do if he win a $1000000 lottery. If no one besides the asked person can not guess it, it proves that a rule can come from someone mind independently to the world (see my definition of the world). And no, he might not visualize anything in his mind while he was writing them. Visualizing is just an option, which is perceived by Si, to make a rule detailed and complete.


Your definitions do not correspond with Jung either, which you probably are aware of. "pokemon with wings->no1,no34" was actually a (small) creative process. Let's say I remember a machine X from last year, and then associate it with another machine Y from last month. "If I combine these two machines then I have a new machine Z". Are you claiming that machine Z is a creation made by Ni? 

The lottery example is all about Ne. But they will most certainly not write 10 identical answers. 



> Thinking about the future is not necessarily related to Ni. Ni function perceives the rule you have in your mind about anything you consider as the future. But, when you visualize the future in a form of physical object, it is Si. I am afraid you can not actually understand either PO or CO and always think that they are always bound together because what you always perceive is only one kind of them but you feel like you know the other just as well or you do them both alternately in a balanced frequency so you can not even separate them.


This also contradicts our observations. Si dominant types are not focused on the future. They are focused on the past. 

I realize that you are explaining what is true according to your definitions of the functions. But as I have mentioned before, any definitions must correspond with our observations of the types. Otherwise they are more or less useless.



> You always said about observation. How do you do an actual observation on any introverted function, especially Ni and Si? What definition of functions do you bring to test? If you don't have any statement to test in the first place, what do you observe? Well, you said Ni and Si perceive physical objects, so how do you prove this with observations? How do you differentiate PO with CO in your observation?
> 
> What fact? How can you tell that the wall of bricks is hard if you don't know a brick is hard? I mean, how can you tell INFJs are daydreamers if you don't even know how Ni works? Well, something sturdy may stands there, but then how do you know that it is a wall of bricks? I mean, someone who daydreams may stands there, but then how do you know he is an INFJ? The only way to clarify that it is a wall of bricks is by knowing that it consists of bricks and knowing that a brick is hard.


Because it is not that black and white. It is not as if we don't know anything about Ni and the INFJ.

See comment above: Let's assume that the Jungian functions describe only 10% of all cognitions that are relevant to our personality. Then we should doubt any descriptions, i.e. non-definitions, of the functions. 

But if everything that doesn't belong to one function, belongs to another functions, then it is actually often not that hard to figure out which process you are currently using. 



> INTJs don't visualize, they just compare a concept with other concepts in their mind without any visualization. The visualization is not important for INTJs. If you have a concept, you can just put whatever PO in there to represents it. For example, they don't care whether something has form of a needle, or stick, or pencil, if they have "something to pry up the leftovers in the teeth" CO and want to implement it to the world, they will take anything possible. But, the time they form the CO in the mind, they don't visualize the pencil, or needle, or stick. They may not even know what exactly they need, except the criteria they have. They need Se or Si to fill the rule.


You are describing a personality type that does not exist. I can assure you that visualization is a huge part of the INTJ. But there are different kinds of visualizations. Ni is different from Si. 

We know that the rear of the brain is visual. Consider Dario Nardi's T6 brain region.



> I think it is silly that you say Se categorizes and Ne also categorizes. It sounds like there is no difference between them. Se doesn't let you know that an object is a tree or a cat. Se function doesn't have the capacity to relate anything to anything, Se only sees it as an object


There is a difference; concrete details vs. the essence. I used to think the way you do, but it doesn't work because all types are constantly categorizing objects. It is not as if ESTP and ESFP see a lot but don't know what they are seeing. All perception functions categorize according to me.



> . Just like Ne doesn't let you know what PO a rule implemented to. Ne function doesn't have the capacity to visualize them. So, when you look at a tree and think "that's a tree", you already use Ne function to extract the characteristic of something call the characteristic as a tree. Yes, everything you see are probably COs except you have the capacity of using Se function. For example, you see a traffic jam, not a collection of objects. More over, what you call Si may be what i identify as Ni. You perceive a rule independently to the world. The rule is just for you. In your case, the rule is "I am looking a tree this wonderful day...". It is a CO. PO is the raw object you see without any meaning put into it.


What do you mean by PO and CO?



> You said earlier that Ni and Si perceive physical object. Now you say they are about context. I think you don't really understand physical object i defined. Any context is a rule (conceptual object), you know.


Both Ni and Si are about context and physical objects (and subjects). It is not "physical" that distinguishes them, but the amount of information from an object that each function considers. And it is about context since Ni and Si are about relationships between objects/subjects.



> This is as arbitrary as someone can say about function i can not even debate this. It is like you are saying "Cat is yellow. Lion is cat, but tiger is not cat. But you may call a baboon a cat too because it is a mammal.". Yes, it is that arbitrary. What rule says Ti is mostly interfered by Te? What is the exact distinction of Te approach and Ti approach that makes them mutually exclusive? Why is Ti and Fi complement each other? How can you even tell while you don't have any solid definition of them though?


Both Te and Ti are about judgements and evaluations of objects (i.e. logic in Socionics). So Te is most similar to Ti. Is Te the exact opposite of Ti? If we use Jung as a reference then they are opposite functions. But if we use my definitions then they aren't. However, they still interfere with each other. Let's say you evaluate an object X with Ti. There is another approach to evaluate the same object, namely Te. You draw some conclusions with Ti, which are contradicted (or not) by Te. Fi and Fe don't even consider objects. Ne, Ni, Se and Ni don't evaluate objects and subjects.

You must also realize that all functions which are not currently conscious, are unconscious. If both Fi and Ti were concsious at the same time, then Fi would definitely interfere with Ti. That is not what I am talking about. 



> Just like i said, what do you want to prove by observing while you don't even have any non-ambiguous statement to prove?


You are exaggerating the ambiguity of the functions.


----------



## ferroequinologist

Tellus said:


> How can I...? Because my view is that all cognitions (that are relevant to our personality) are subsumed by the Jungian functions. So even though the Jungian functions are not (officially) defined, we can still describe the functions and the types in a fairly accurate manner.


"The conceptual capacity of the intellect proves incapable of formulating the real nature of feeling in abstract terms, since thinking belongs to a category quite incommensurable with feeling. In fact, no basic psychological function whatsoever can be completely expressed by any other one. This circumstance is responsible for the fact that no intellectual definition will ever be able to render the specific character of feeling in any adequate measure."


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> First of all, I have created a new thread, in which I present an alternative approach to defining the functions. This contradicts some of my previous comments, like "I agree with you that Ne and Ni are about connections between objects".


You will be always contradict your own words if you don't have any solid understanding about the subject you are discussing. I have red your thread and i think there are many holes you need to explain more and some overlapping statements. Please find them yourself.



> How can I...? Because my view is that all cognitions (that are relevant to our personality) are subsumed by the Jungian functions. So even though the Jungian functions are not (officially) defined, we can still describe the functions and the types in a fairly accurate manner. Everybody recognizes the main differences between Fe and Fi. But if we are discussing a particular sentence, then it gets tricky. This is what socionists are doing, so they need definitions of the functions (or rather information aspects).


Don't you know that people always debating functions? It is because each of them has different understanding about cognitive functions. And in your opinion, why is it that way? Are you talking about your version of Jungian cognitive functions? Of course you will say accurate about it. But, how can you be sure that people have the same understanding of cognitive functions as yours? You can not, and it will remains this way until there is one solid definition about cognitive functions that is perfectly defined.



> Your definitions do not correspond with Jung either, which you probably are aware of. "pokemon with wings->no1,no34" was actually a (small) creative process. Let's say I remember a machine X from last year, and then associate it with another machine Y from last month. "If I combine these two machines then I have a new machine Z". Are you claiming that machine Z is a creation made by Ni?


I don't have any interest to adjust my definition to Jung's description. But if anything, i think my definition would make Jungian functions perfect instead. What do you mean by combining those two machines? Are you combining their physicality or their specification? Please make your example clear. Whatever you mean though, yes, you have to use Ni function to combine anything in your mind. Si function is used when you start visualize the image of the new machine.



> The lottery example is all about Ne. But they will most certainly not write 10 identical answers.


No, it is Ni to generate a rule out from your mind. Ne is only used by the asked person to understand the question.



> This also contradicts our observations. Si dominant types are not focused on the future. They are focused on the past.
> 
> I realize that you are explaining what is true according to your definitions of the functions. But as I have mentioned before, any definitions must correspond with our observations of the types. Otherwise they are more or less useless.


How do you do the observation? I didn't say Si dom types focus on the future. Si perceives physical object, and Ni perceives rules. You generate a rule for the future with Ni, but you visualize it with Si. If you only visualize and don't generate any rule (in this case it could be the meaning of the image) about the future, you are using Si. The past is the same way. If you only recall your past experience without any context you put into it, you are using Si. But, if you make your own story or meaning into it, then you are using Ni function for that particular process.
Once again, how do you do your observation?



> You are describing a personality type that does not exist. I can assure you that visualization is a huge part of the INTJ. But there are different kinds of visualizations. Ni is different from Si.
> 
> We know that the rear of the brain is visual. Consider Dario Nardi's T6 brain region.


Just because you don't understand Ni doesn't make Ni dom personality types not exist. I was describing Ni dom type. They exist. Someone with Ni dom will make his own rule first, and then optionally add physical objects to the rule. This is the reason of why INTJ and INFJ is often related to philosophy and science. In these fields, someone can freely make his own theory, philosophy, or any kind of rule. Putting physical objects into his rule is just an option to make his rule perfect (proven).



> What do you mean by PO and CO?


It is in the 1st post.



> Both Ni and Si are about context and physical objects (and subjects). It is not "physical" that distinguishes them, but the amount of information from an object that each function considers. And it is about context since Ni and Si are about relationships between objects/subjects.


So, how much information i should perceive to be considered using Si or Ni? Too arbitrary for me.



> You are exaggerating the ambiguity of the functions.


It is necessary. The goal of a definition is to make people understand it under the same perspective.


----------



## LostFavor

Bear in mind my memory is not fresh on what I originally wrote. Here are my answers:


reybridge said:


> I appreciate your description. My questions would be:
> 1. So, Te function must only relies on "sensory perception, memories of sensory perception, and imagined sensory perception"? How about someone who have a concept of justice in his mind and he does anything to make a perfect justice into his environment? Justice is not sensory perception, but still he uses Te to make it happens, no? I mean, what function is it to implement a perfect concept to the world if not Te?


I believe what I was going for is that Te's basis, or "foundation," is in sensory perception. This doesn't mean that Te won't work with any concepts. It means that, using justice as the example, the Te concept of justice (talking pure Te, not involving any other functions) is going to rely on what can be discerned from sensory perception.

So looking at it in complete functional isolation, say a Te observes that criminals are virtually never rehabilitated. So they decide that rehabilitation is a waste of time, or perhaps observe the existing rehabilitation system, decide that it is ineffective, and improve on it. 

In contrast:


reybridge said:


> 3. "'Conceptual perception' refers to any perception that is not based, fundamentally, on sensory data", what do you mean by "not based"? Would it be fine if i said that conceptual perception is the rule you make out of anything you encounter? Because no rule is sensory data and sensory data has no rule.


Meaning that it largely functions in one's own head, without needing to be tested against sensory data. Thus the common trope of a pure Ti exercise, in which the "perfect model" gets applied to reality and is found to be totally unrealistic. Nonetheless, it might be perfect (or as close to perfect as a model can be) following the internal rules of its design. Just not the rules of the sensory world. 

Hopefully that makes sense.



reybridge said:


> 2. How do you define perfect vs imperfect?


1. 'Assumed perfection' means that the analysis and differentiation are done with the assumption of a hypothetically perfect system or world.

3. 'Assumed imperfection' means that the analysis and differentiation are done with the assumption of a hypothetically flawed, or imperfect, world.

Meaning that, the pure Te or Ti assumes the possibility of perfect application. And the pure Fe or Fi assumes the impossibility of perfect application. This may or may not be a belief as well, but the idea is that from a functional standpoint, it's what is assumed when the function is put to use. 

I don't know if it's accurate, but that's the meaning.



reybridge said:


> 4. What is the difference between "imagined ongoing sense perception" and "imagined stored sense perception"?


Ongoing sense perception refers to (rough example) driving a car. Data is coming in constantly and reactions have to happen on an ongoing basis with what's coming in. So the imagined version of that would be, for example, a daydream in which you are driving a car and taking in all sorts of imagined data of what's going on around you.

Imagined stored sense perception... gotta be honest, I don't remember what I was going for here. Stored sense perception (without the imagined part) is roughly referring to memory of events. So I guess imagined version of that would be anything that is a fictional memory of events, possibly including memories of movies and books and such?



reybridge said:


> 5. What perceiving function you use to perceive concept perception?


It's a good question. I think I see what you're going for, but I'm not sure I have an answer. I'm not sure if it's possible, given the definitions I'm using, for concept perception to be something you can perceive. It seems a little redundant on its surface. Perhaps I'm missing something. If you simply mean, "What perceiving function perceives concepts?" I think that is more clear, but I'm still not sure I have an answer. I suppose it doesn't quite fit with the references to concept perception if no function can perceive concepts, does it? Perhaps it's a muddling of language.


----------



## Tellus

ferroequinologist said:


> "The conceptual capacity of the intellect proves incapable of formulating the real nature of feeling in abstract terms, since thinking belongs to a category quite incommensurable with feeling. In fact, no basic psychological function whatsoever can be completely expressed by any other one. This circumstance is responsible for the fact that no intellectual definition will ever be able to render the specific character of feeling in any adequate measure."


This is a quote by Jung, right? What is your point?


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> You will be always contradict your own words if you don't have any solid understanding about the subject you are discussing. I have red your thread and i think there are many holes you need to explain more and some overlapping statements. Please find them yourself.


I don't agree with you that my definitions have overlapping statements. But this thread is about your definitions, so let's focus on them. Btw, solid understanding etc. is not relevant here, I just changed my mind.

I have two fundamental questions for you:

1) Do you think that your definitions correspond with the Jungian functions?

2) Do you think that your definitions correspond with any descriptions of the types? Which ones? You seem to avoid any comments about observations of the types.



> Don't you know that people always debating functions? It is because each of them has different understanding about cognitive functions. And in your opinion, why is it that way? Are you talking about your version of Jungian cognitive functions? Of course you will say accurate about it. But, how can you be sure that people have the same understanding of cognitive functions as yours? You can not, and it will remains this way until there is one solid definition about cognitive functions that is perfectly defined.


You are missing or avoiding the point: Do the functions refer to all cognitions (that are relevant to personality) or not.

You seem to agree with me that they are, since your definitions cover all aspects of cognition/information processing. But your view is also different from mine: you want to define the functions and then describe the types. I want to describe the types first, and then define the functions. I claim that your approach does not work.



> I don't have any interest to adjust my definition to Jung's description. But if anything, i think my definition would make Jungian functions perfect instead.


I guess you have answered my first question. So you dismiss Jung's, Isabel's and many socionists' years of research. Again, this approach does not work. 



> What do you mean by combining those two machines? Are you combining their physicality or their specification? Please make your example clear. Whatever you mean though, yes, you have to use Ni function to combine anything in your mind. Si function is used when you start visualize the image of the new machine.


I mean both. How do they differ? Ni or Ne?

Ni seems to be the creative function according to your definitions.



> No, it is Ni to generate a rule out from your mind. Ne is only used by the asked person to understand the question.


Do you know anything about the actual types? Do you claim that a Ne dominant type (ENTP) has deepest understanding of theoretical problems?



> How do you do the observation? I didn't say Si dom types focus on the future. Si perceives physical object, and Ni perceives rules. You generate a rule for the future with Ni, but you visualize it with Si. If you only visualize and don't generate any rule (in this case it could be the meaning of the image) about the future, you are using Si. The past is the same way. If you only recall your past experience without any context you put into it, you are using Si. But, if you make your own story or meaning into it, then you are using Ni function for that particular process.
> Once again, how do you do your observation?


You didn't explicitly say that Si dom focus on the future. But let's forget about ISF/TJ. The implication of your argument is that INTJ, who visualizes future scenarios all the time, then must use Si all the time.




> Just because you don't understand Ni doesn't make Ni dom personality types not exist. I was describing Ni dom type. They exist. Someone with Ni dom will make his own rule first, and then optionally add physical objects to the rule. This is the reason of why INTJ and INFJ is often related to philosophy and science. In these fields, someone can freely make his own theory, philosophy, or any kind of rule. Putting physical objects into his rule is just an option to make his rule perfect (proven).


Now you are annoying me. You don't know your own type but somehow you have a good understanding of how INTJ perceives Ni. 



> The goal of a definition is to make people understand it under the same perspective.


But you cannot choose any definitions you want, because we already know a lot about the types. Your definitions will have different types but these will not correpond to real people. SSS made the exact same mistake.


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> I don't agree with you that my definitions have overlapping statements. But this thread is about your definitions, so let's focus on them. Btw, solid understanding etc. is not relevant here, I just changed my mind.
> 
> I have two fundamental questions for you:
> 
> 1) Do you think that your definitions correspond with the Jungian functions?
> 
> 2) Do you think that your definitions correspond with any descriptions of the types? Which ones? You seem to avoid any comments about observations of the types.


1. I am borrowing the model of 8 functions, so yes, my definition is based on his. I just don't like the long description. What i am doing here is to define each function as clear as possible.
2. Whose description? Descriptions are ambiguous, but i would say yes for about half of the time i read them on various. Maybe i need to write my own description as well next time, i don't know.



> You are missing or avoiding the point: Do the functions refer to all cognitions (that are relevant to personality) or not.
> 
> You seem to agree with me that they are, since your definitions cover all aspects of cognition/information processing. But your view is also different from mine: you want to define the function and then describe the types. I want to describe the types first, and then define the functions. I claim that your approach does not work.


Of course they are. Which of my words say they are not relevant to personality? Well yes, i think that is the problem. You tend to understand the people behavior first and then make the description, while i am focused on the theory first. The problem with your approach is that you will always revise the description whenever a new behavior appears in someone which is not covered yet in any type description or it satisfies more than one type description. You will not have the conclusion on function definition ever since there will always be possibilities for this alien type to appears. While with my approach, types will be strictly defined based on the functions. Even aliens, or cats, or dogs, if they have a brain, they can be classified as one of the types. My definition is more complete i think.



> I guess you have answered my first question. So you dismiss Jung's, Isabel's and many socionists' years of research. Again, this approach does not work.


I don't. I actually appreciate the concept of 8 functions, they are well named also i feel like my definition is what they really wanted to say.



> I mean both. How do they differ? Ni or Ne?
> 
> Ni seems to be the creative function according to your definitions.


I already said it, Ni perceives a rule from the mind while Ne perceives it from the world that everybody can perceive as well. Yes, Ni is the creative function, but this doesn't make any other types besides Ni dom not creative since everyone may use all the functions alternately. It is just means that Ni dom types take a pride on being creative and original intensively while others probably not.



> Do you know anything about the actual types? Do you claim that Ne types have deepest understanding of theoretical problems?


What do you mean by the actual types? Ne dom types tend to understand something faster than the others. If then Ti function runs over their understanding, it will Burns the information with logic filter. If this happens over and over, then this allows them to have deep, accurate, and factual knowledge about everything they have learned. But this is not the case with Fi-Ne combination.



> You didn't explicitly say that Si dom focus on the future. But that is the implication of your argument. If INTJ always visualize objects then INTJ's Si must be constantly conscious, i.e. a dominant function.


Let's be objective and focus only on what i said explicitly. INTJs don't like to visualize, they perceive conceptual objects, rules, existing in their mind. And ISTJs don't like making rules such as assumption, theory, philosophy, or something like that. They just visualize. This has nothing to do with the past nor the future. INTJs are those who make his own rules and meanings to their past and future. And ISTJs are those who visualize their past and future without any rule or meaning put into it.



> Now you are annoying me. You don't know your own type but somehow you have a good understanding of how INTJ perceives Ni.


I know my type but i wouldn't say it explicitly because i don't want people to judge my posts good or bad, true or false, based on their obsession and hate to a specific type.


----------



## myjazz

I may be the most illogical person here at PerCafe, may I have permission to speak?


----------



## MusiCago

myjazz said:


> I may be the most illogical person here at PerCafe, may I have permission to speak?


No you may not. Can't you read? Logical people ONLY! Feeler folk ain't welcome hur.


----------



## Inveniet

I hope you guys realize that extroverted functions was classified as projections
and introverted functions was classified as introjections by Jung.

Hence Se for instance isn't just the sensation, but whatever we project as being out there.
After all vision is just photons interacting with our eyes.
The phontons are not what we see, we see the properties that the photons has from bouncing off the last object.
That is not the object itself, but just a residue stuck on the photon.
From this residue property of the object stuck on the photon our mind constructs an image.
This image we project outwards as if it was there.
Reality is of course not like that at all, but that is what we have to work with.
The object is forever out of reach, 
but trough projection we feel that our unconcious subjective evaluation of it is correct.
We percieve this inner originated image to be something outside of ourself.

With Si it is different. Then this sense impression is held at arms lenght.
The ego tries to devalue it and hone in on certain qualities that it can identify with.
Hence one feels that the qualities that one hone in on are in some way a part of oneself.
And that is actually a lot more closer to the truth than the so called objective Se.
Cause after all objectivity is make belief.
It is still a very useful approach to reality, and should in no way be looked down upon,
just because of it's paradoxical nature.
So subjectivity is more real than objectivity.
But objectivity is a noble attempt to deal with reality, and should not be scoffed at.


----------



## ferroequinologist

I just want to drop this article into the discussion. If one wants a nicely and logically laid-out understanding, this article exemplifies it. He even defines his perspective (local vs global), which few typologists have done (actually, none have). If one were seeking what the originator of this thread purports to be seeking, one could hardly do better than to start here:

Process Vs. Orientation: A Local Formulation of Typology – Open Journal of Jungian Typology

For the record, I have a preference for looking globally at the functions, rather than locally, i.e. orientation vs process, because I believe we all process information in all ways, but it's not until something has a psychological impact on us (causes a reaction that "moves" us) that it becomes functional or related to cognitive functions (or psychological functions as Jung termed them).


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> How do we observe types without people being the subject? Of course you need people to be included into your observation. But then how can you know their types without knowing the functions defining those types?


Because we don't need perfect definitions of the functions in order to distinguish between 16 different personalities. Jung's (and MB Foundation's) vague descriptions are good enough. Hence, we have 16 groups of people but we don't fully agree what defines each group. So if we observe one group (i.e. a type) and compare it with some aspects of a function, there may be contradictions.


----------



## ferroequinologist

Tellus said:


> Because we don't need perfect definitions of the functions in order to distinguish between 16 different personalities. Jung's (and MB Foundation's) vague descriptions are good enough. Hence, we have 16 groups of people but we don't fully agree what defines each group. So if we observe one group (i.e. a type) and compare it with some aspects of a function, there may be contradictions.


I believe a good term to use here would be "heuristics"...


----------



## BigApplePi

Shiver said:


> Maybe I should say Ti _leads_. It's the whole "if reality doesn't line up with my internal system, then reality is wrong" attitude. >_>


Ti thinks. What priority it gives over other functions depends on what priority those other functions have. Reality is a "system" outside of the "i" functions. There is a correlation with reality but what that correlation is varies. Why should there be any correlation at all? Well, if you can tell me about the *entire you* and I will answer. Think non-fiction writer versus novelist.
=================================






Strontphite said:


> I hope you guys realize that extroverted functions was classified as projections and introverted functions was classified as introjections by Jung.


Nice way of putting it Mr. Jung.

I would want to add that that is primitive and foundational. By the time we grow up we have large mappings (systems?) of the outside world and the inside world. We know imagine they are separate, but to be practical we don't bother to separate them unless we are writing a message for this thread, lol.

When Se sees a duck-billed platypus there is an enormous history of seeing animals before we acknowledge our Se is working. When we turn away and use Si to work with a duck-billed platypus, we work with our best memory + imagination and only an experienced observer can get it close enough to please a professional animal observer of that animal.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...duckbilled-platypus-16682470.jpg&action=click


----------



## charlie.elliot

The title of this thread is so intimidating. What is pure logic??? Who has it??? I want to know!!


----------



## Inveniet

charlie.elliot said:


> The title of this thread is so intimidating. What is pure logic??? Who has it??? I want to know!!


I also had second guesses about my own ability to perform up to standard with that title.
I wondered if only post with equations that was correctly solved was the right way to go.


----------



## ferroequinologist

charlie.elliot said:


> The title of this thread is so intimidating. What is pure logic??? Who has it??? I want to know!!


The problem with that title is that the only person who would ever create such a thread title would have to be oblivious to his (or her) own lack of pure logic, and thus, could not be a pure thinker. It's kind of an oxymoron...


----------



## BigApplePi

charlie.elliot said:


> The title of this thread is so intimidating. What is pure logic??? Who has it??? I want to know!!


Intimidation is a feeling. I'm okay with that. One can feel any way they want. I know the person who created the title had multiple things crossing their mind not all of which could possibly be conscious. I react by wanting to take a shot at his meaning. I don't have to take some meaning for granted as necessarily forced on me. If the problem is too tough for me, I could feel intimidated, but I won't let that be my first reaction.

I'm not sure I want to know (pure logic, that is). Let's try out some logic. Eleven is bigger than four? Seems good. What about Four is bigger than eleven? Is that logical? Is it bad logic? If it is, then isn't it a kind of logic? ... like a bad boy is still a boy. We seem to need something better ... especially if we are to define "thinking." I will define thinking. I've done it before and am not ready to give up. I just have to convince you, lol.
====================


----------



## Shiver

BigApplePi said:


> Why should there be any correlation at all?


Because no correlation is what most would probably call delusional? People have to _function_ in their environments. I get that people are trying to establish a basis, but this whole effort looks like an attempt to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## myjazz

BigApplePi said:


> I'm not sure I want to know (pure logic, that is). Let's try out some logic. Eleven is bigger than four? Seems good. What about Four is bigger than eleven? Is that logical? Is it bad logic? If it is, then isn't it a kind of logic? ... like a bad boy is still a boy. We seem to need something better ... especially if we are to define "thinking." I will define thinking. I've done it before and am not ready to give up. I just have to convince you, lol.


4 7


----------



## BigApplePi

myjazz said:


> 4 7


Now that is good thinking!


----------



## charlie.elliot

ferroequinologist said:


> The problem with that title is that the only person who would ever create such a thread title would have to be oblivious to his (or her) own lack of pure logic, and thus, could not be a pure thinker. It's kind of an oxymoron...


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## The red spirit

myjazz said:


> I may be the most illogical person here at PerCafe, may I have permission to speak?


Please come in, you are welcome!:kitteh:


----------



## BigApplePi

The guy who wrote this:
Process Vs. Orientation: A Local Formulation of Typology – Open Journal of Jungian Typology
is a man after my own heart. The global vs local approach is the same as a top-down vs bottom-up approach. Either can be used but as he says, the bottom up seems to be neglected. I like the bottom up approach even if I foresee problem of getting to the actual bottom. I wish this Sam Levey were a poster here. I have some objections/ refinements to what he's saying.
====================
====================






ferroequinologist said:


> He even defines his perspective (local vs global), which few typologists have done (actually, none have). ... For the record, I have a preference for looking globally at the functions, rather than locally, i.e. orientation vs process, because I believe we all process information in all ways, but it's not until something has a psychological impact on us (causes a reaction that "moves" us) that it becomes functional or related to cognitive functions (or psychological functions as Jung termed them).


I am fond of the local vs global concepts and use it here: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/1005265-complexes-how-they-work.html although I'm not any more a typologist than anyone else here. I also used it to explain flat Earth theory but that is off-topic for this thread.


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> Because we don't need perfect definitions of the functions in order to distinguish between 16 different personalities. Jung's (and MB Foundation's) vague descriptions are good enough. Hence, we have 16 groups of people but we don't fully agree what defines each group. So if we observe one group (i.e. a type) and compare it with some aspects of a function, there may be contradictions.


I think an explanation about anything should be based on a clear definition. You can suggest yourself that a description of a type represents your personality. But you can actually believe in any description if you want to. You have a description of types which doesn't base on anything. You will never have any group of actual like minded people that way. You will always find a particular pair of types is more similarly described than any other pair of types because why not? There is no rule to cut the thin lines between types. And for the worst, there will be a possibility that someone can not relate to any type description. On the other hand, you can not rely on the function stack which each type holds because you don't have any solid definition of functions. The best you can do is to believe in another description without clear definition, but this time it is about the functions. Whether you want it or not, there must be a single solid definition of each function so you can say that a type is described based on its functions and not anything arbitrary.


----------



## reybridge

Strontphite said:


> I hope you guys realize that extroverted functions was classified as projections
> and introverted functions was classified as introjections by Jung.
> 
> Hence Se for instance isn't just the sensation, but whatever we project as being out there.
> After all vision is just photons interacting with our eyes.
> The phontons are not what we see, we see the properties that the photons has from bouncing off the last object.
> That is not the object itself, but just a residue stuck on the photon.
> From this residue property of the object stuck on the photon our mind constructs an image.
> This image we project outwards as if it was there.
> Reality is of course not like that at all, but that is what we have to work with.
> The object is forever out of reach,
> but trough projection we feel that our unconcious subjective evaluation of it is correct.
> We percieve this inner originated image to be something outside of ourself.
> 
> With Si it is different. Then this sense impression is held at arms lenght.
> The ego tries to devalue it and hone in on certain qualities that it can identify with.
> Hence one feels that the qualities that one hone in on are in some way a part of oneself.
> And that is actually a lot more closer to the truth than the so called objective Se.
> Cause after all objectivity is make belief.
> It is still a very useful approach to reality, and should in no way be looked down upon,
> just because of it's paradoxical nature.
> So subjectivity is more real than objectivity.
> But objectivity is a noble attempt to deal with reality, and should not be scoffed at.


I agree with some of you points. We don't perceive the object itself but the photons it reflects. Even if it is very physical and clear to us, we still can not know how a pencil actually looks like in the eye of the universe itself. We are subjective, and that is why i wrote point 16 in my definition: "How one deciphers an Object into a Physical Object or a Conceptual Object is unknown".


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> ...



see post 201


----------



## Dissymetry

reybridge said:


> I don't understand why you said it doesn't make any sense but don't have sound arguments on your claim.


I am not making a claim.



> You argued that Ti-Ni-Se-Fe stack is in INTJ type. Can you explain why INTJs are more decisive than ISTPs? Which function in the stack is responsible for that quality?


My argument for Ti-Ni-Se-Fe logically suggesting an INTJ type is self-explanatory if you understand I do not believe in how the MBTI uses the P/J dichotomy to force a preferred "extroverted" function. Ti denotes a person is an introverted thinking type (IxTJ), J in MBTI dichotomy refers to Judging. This suggests logically that the T/F function is preferred over the S/N function. A P would suggest S/N before T/F. Very simple very straightforward. It is supported with the same amount of validity that the functions-stacks the MBTI applies are supported with as well .

No "function" says that an INTJ is more decisive than an ISTP. The J says it. A part of being a J and not a P type is being decisive.


----------



## Red Panda

Dissymetry said:


> I am not making a claim.
> 
> 
> 
> My argument for Ti-Ni-Se-Fe logically suggesting an INTJ type is self-explanatory if you understand I do not believe in how the MBTI uses the P/J dichotomy to force a preferred "extroverted" function. Ti denotes a person is an introverted thinking type (IxTJ), J in MBTI dichotomy refers to Judging. This suggests logically that the T/F function is preferred over the S/N function. A P would suggest S/N before T/F. Very simple very straightforward. It is supported with the same amount of validity that the functions-stacks the MBTI applies are supported with as well .
> 
> No "function" says that an INTJ is more decisive than an ISTP. The J says it. A part of being a J and not a P type is being decisive.


While it should be this way, that the J/P suggests function dominance, I don't think the MBTI manages that. From what I remember most of the questions involve implicitly or explicitly affecting the object with your decisiveness, which is a thing of Jungian Introversion the most. I know an INTP and and ENTP and the difference between them is apparent, in terms of result-focus which the INTP has more and fits the T-dom/Rational type more. But he is not forceful on others the way Js are and generally fits the go with the flow thing much more than even perceiver Js. In my experience Js have the cognitive traits of a Jungian Introvert and Ps of the Extravert the most. Some may be in between, usually when they type low on the P/J axis. But I also from what I remember there was a study that found that J is generally preferred and correlates with the S and T types the most, so the questionnaire doesn't manage to differentiate the F and N types in the J/P axis well.


----------



## Dissymetry

Red Panda said:


> While it should be this way, that the J/P suggests function dominance, I don't think the MBTI manages that.


There is not anything in the MBTI that suggests function "dominance". This is why I said my suggestion has the same validity as the function-stacks the MBTI employs (none).



> From what I remember most of the questions involve implicitly or explicitly affecting the object with your decisiveness, which is a thing of Jungian Introversion the most.


Can you cite where Jung says anything about introversion and extroversion pertaining to decisiveness?



> I know an INTP and and ENTP and the difference between them is apparent, in terms of result-focus which the INTP has more and fits the T-dom/Rational type more. But he is not forceful on others the way Js are and generally fits the go with the flow thing much more than even perceiver Js.


I do not understand the relevance of this and do you see the contradiction where you suggest J = introversion and also J = forceful on others? There is a clash here. Introversion abstracts, takes from the outer world and gives the the inner world. Introversion is the opposite of "forceful on others". Extroversion is what forces oneself onto objects in the outer world. I do not think this connection you have between J and introversion makes any sense at all.



> In my experience Js have the cognitive traits of a Jungian Introvert and Ps of the Extravert the most. Some may be in between, usually when they type low on the P/J axis. But I also from what I remember there was a study that found that J is generally preferred and correlates with the S and T types the most, so the questionnaire doesn't manage to differentiate the F and N types in the J/P axis well.


What is your experience? I disagree that J = introversion and P = extroversion. It does not make sense even in theory. Can you please clearly connect the dots for me that have lead you to believe J = introversion and P = extroversion, and can you support your connection of these dots with sources to support this idea?


----------



## brightflashes

@Dissymetry

At the risk of being out-logicked I'll take a swing at you. 

So the MBTI and Jung are two different systems. Jung only uses the P and J to describe the functions. N & S are P functions while T & F are J functions. 

MBTI, however, arbitrarily applies function attitudes after the dichotomies are found. 

So, one can be a P in dichotomy but not in function-in-attitude, yeah?

For example, my preferred dichotomy for MBTI is I, N, T, & J. The way MBTI _defines_ the characteristics of the P/J is - to me at least - arbitrary as well and comes from an invention from the mind(s) of Briggs or Myers. 

However, I "lead" with a P function (Ni) and this should be obvious from a Jungian point of view. 

I fall into the categories that the MBTI needs me to fall into to get a J type - I prefer to plan, I prefer organisation, etc ...

I fall into the category of Perceiving dominance the way Jung describes it - I prefer to keep my options open (I plan also for flexibility), I prefer not to commit until I have all the information and, sometimes, that makes me appear as if I'm a commitment-phobe when I'm really just that serious about what I commit to. I take in information for the sake of taking in information: to play with, to suspend in my mind so I can rearrange it and explore it, but not to make any conclusions about it unless I absolutely must to function in this world. 

So ... is this a valid way that one can be an INTJ in the MBTI system and an Ni-T in the Jungian system?

I'm sure you'll be able to find a way to prove me wrong. But I must say I do agree with you. I'm arguing for the sake of arguing mostly because I know there's a fallacy in my reasoning but I don't know what it is and need someone to point it out to me.


----------



## Red Panda

Dissymetry said:


> There is not anything in the MBTI that suggests function "dominance". This is why I said my suggestion has the same validity as the function-stacks the MBTI employs (none).


Fair enough. It's just that the way you write about this reads as if you already expect this to happen in MBTI types, which is a bit confusing, but maybe it's just me



> Can you cite where Jung says anything about introversion and extroversion pertaining to decisiveness?


Correction; I meant "the object with your decisions"



> I do not understand the relevance of this


The relevance of this was that both these people score NTP in the MBTI yet one prefers judgment the other perception (relates to the 1st quote above)



> and do you see the contradiction where you suggest J = introversion and also J = forceful on others? There is a clash here. Introversion abstracts, takes from the outer world and gives the the inner world. Introversion is the opposite of "forceful on others". Extroversion is what forces oneself onto objects in the outer world. I do not think this connection you have between J and introversion makes any sense at all.
> 
> What is your experience? I disagree that J = introversion and P = extroversion. It does not make sense even in theory. Can you please clearly connect the dots for me that have lead you to believe J = introversion and P = extroversion, and can you support your connection of these dots with sources to support this idea?


Just my life experience with people who type J and P. It's never been radically different, only varies a bit because of individual preferences. 

There's no contradiction once you read and understand the premises of how Jung defined E and I. Of course there's the issue of whether he was right for many of those traits in his detailed descriptions, but in my opinion, at the very least, the basic premises he wrote in the beginning of chapter 10 are correct. 

For Jung, the Introvert is in constant defence against the object, their adaptational strategy is to shape the object after their vision, which is done by abstracting the information that reinforces them. So the introvert generally creates an environment that affirms their needs. Which is why they often choose the J answers in the MBTI, as those are a symptom of a psychology that is not afraid to affect the object. Even the introvert perceivers are fine with this, they'll just have a bit different strategies than the judgers to enforce their perspective, such as denial, avoidance, passive aggression, guilt-tripping etc. The most apparent social wide phenomenon of this is how SJs uphold and try to force others to social conventions and it's not always a boss-like behavior, but subtler things. 

The extraverts consider the object of the most importance and thus are weak to affect it, instead they prefer to change themselves to adapt to it, and experience it as it is. This for Ps often manifests as being influenciable, and feeling guilty, as intropunition is high in order to achieve this adaptation.

There's more of that in this thread (also post #7 gives examples from the book)


----------



## brightflashes

@Red Panda

Often times reckful is referring to generalities made throughout Jung's entire body of work (something that I admit that I have not read it its entirety), yet in the amount of work I have read, this has not been my experience at all. The "negative" attitude toward the object that Jung refers to in any introverted type is only an illustration of the inferior extraverted attitude which Jung also describes. 

So, a Ti dom, as reckful used in his example, would reject the object due to the inferiority of Fe or the Ti dom would not be able to Fe harmonize his or herself to the object. This is because the introverted type prefers to put him or herself above the object (as a hierarchy of importance), not because introverts avoid and "reject" the object.

It is, instead, that any introverted type will not take the object just as the object itself. In other words, its primary essence or that which everyone can objectively agree on is instead distorted and shaped by an introverted mind to fit some sort of subjective reality. This is not the introvert forcefully manipulating the external world. This is, instead, the introvert's preference for "subjectifying" reality.

The introvert is not more "J" than the extravert and this is consistent throughout the works of Jung I, myself, have read. And if it were, Jung would have said so directly. He certainly didn't beat around the bush with any of his assertions. He was, instead, propelled forward by his own passion to record every detail he could possibly write so as to prove to the world "empirically" that his theories could be verified in every instance if one would only seek out the answer. 

I can understand the reason why you and reckful would go along these lines based on what you have read of Jung because I see the train of thought there, or how one could at least get on that train. However, I simply think it's inaccurate to what Jung meant by introversion and extraversion. I do not think that introverts are somehow more "J" at all or extraverts are all "P"s. 

I don't say this to try to convince you otherwise or to try to dissuade you from your conclusions. I just simply want to provide a counter-point to what you're saying. 

That's what I think academically. 

Personally, I think that the idea of I=J and E=P is ridiculous. The P/J dichotomy was entirely the invention of Myers. While Jung did mention the way Judging functions operated vs Perceiving functions, he never outright said that J and P were functions nor did he say that I and E were functions. He only provided these functions: F, T, N, & S and these attitudes: I & E. He came up with 8 types, described these types and did not assign any "rules" to many of the things that are passed around as Jungian "rules" around this forum.

These 8 types were then either J types because their most differentiated function was a Judging function or P types because their most differentiated function was a perceiving function. No where did he characterise all Js as Introverts and all Ps as Extraverts. Again, personally, I find that laughable. Academically, I can see where the thinking comes from. That's just not what I have gathered in my own experience.

Now, that said, I also must say that I have in no way read all of Jung's works but I am working my way through them. I have studied Jung in a structured academic setting and devoted a lot of hours to the practice of Jungian psychoanalysis. From my perspective, there isn't enough evidence at all to suggest what you and reckful are saying. Perhaps one or both of you could convince me one day, though. It certainly would be fun and exciting to find out I was wrong this whole time!


----------



## brightflashes

brightflashes said:


> No where did he characterise all Js as Introverts and all Ps as Extraverts.


And I just want to mention, to underscore my assessment, that had Jung thought that, he would have simply eliminated the Ni, Si, Te, and Fe types all together. Because, by such logic, half of Jung's 8 types wouldn't be able to exist because of this ... "logic" ... that you and reckful speak of. 

Again, I could be wrong and I might be. Again, I admit that if I were, it would change my perspective on Jung's work completely.


----------



## Red Panda

brightflashes said:


> @Red Panda
> 
> Often times reckful is referring to generalities made throughout Jung's entire body of work (something that I admit that I have not read it its entirety), yet in the amount of work I have read, this has not been my experience at all. The "negative" attitude toward the object that Jung refers to in any introverted type is only an illustration of the inferior extraverted attitude which Jung also describes.
> 
> So, a Ti dom, as reckful used in his example, would reject the object due to the inferiority of Fe or the Ti dom would not be able to Fe harmonize his or herself to the object. This is because the introverted type prefers to put him or herself above the object (as a hierarchy of importance), not because introverts avoid and "reject" the object.
> 
> It is, instead, that any introverted type will not take the object just as the object itself. In other words, its primary essence or that which everyone can objectively agree on is instead distorted and shaped by an introverted mind to fit some sort of subjective reality. This is not the introvert forcefully manipulating the external world. This is, instead, the introvert's preference for "subjectifying" reality.


Well, saying that the negative attitude is due to the inf E is exactly the same as saying it's due to the dom I attitude though. The preferred attitude is that of defending against the object, of not wanting to experience it in full. From what I understand, the introvert abstracts from the object, then pushes the non wanted information to the unconscious, which inevitably nudges him that it exists, which causes the introvert negative feelings that are expressed through controlling attitudes to further protect the ego from the influence of the unconscious & the object. I believe this is what Jung describes in his Introvert Unconscious section in chapter 10. Of course this happens to varying degrees in people, it's not a 0-100, as with any of that really.

But the part I mostly disagree with is that this subjectification does not affect the object. I think it's tantamount to reshaping it, as these perspectives are passed down on generations, as well as affecting other people and society in daily life interactions. I have so many examples of this sort of "passive" behavior that I'm not sure where to start. A personal example is my aunt who constantly re-shapes events and essentially fabricates a new reality to her perspective. She lies for and makes excuses for people even when they don't need them, she's not aggressive but rather she wants to save everyone's feelings but most of all her own as she wants to maintain a certain perspective she has of the people in her life. Literally everyone in the family knows she's rather mythomaniac but she can't stop herself. She's benevolent, but also has this strange behavior of picking and choosing and reshaping the world after her vision, by trying to affect other peoples' view of events. Such behaviors inevitably have social wide consequences for society and mankind. Of course not all of the introverted behaviors are harmful as some of those abstractions and the subjective point of view can be beneficial depending on the situation. 

I agree with what you say about how the introvert subjectifies, which is why I don't agree that people like TPs are "Ti" types, in my experience they are very object-positive, which also was a great contrast to my TJ family (what I was used to) when I first met some.



> The introvert is not more "J" than the extravert and this is consistent throughout the works of Jung I, myself, have read. And if it were, Jung would have said so directly. He certainly didn't beat around the bush with any of his assertions. He was, instead, propelled forward by his own passion to record every detail he could possibly write so as to prove to the world "empirically" that his theories could be verified in every instance if one would only seek out the answer.
> 
> I can understand the reason why you and reckful would go along these lines based on what you have read of Jung because I see the train of thought there, or how one could at least get on that train. However, I simply think it's inaccurate to what Jung meant by introversion and extraversion. I do not think that introverts are somehow more "J" at all or extraverts are all "P"s.
> 
> I don't say this to try to convince you otherwise or to try to dissuade you from your conclusions. I just simply want to provide a counter-point to what you're saying.
> 
> That's what I think academically.
> 
> Personally, I think that the idea of I=J and E=P is ridiculous. The P/J dichotomy was entirely the invention of Myers. While Jung did mention the way Judging functions operated vs Perceiving functions, he never outright said that J and P were functions nor did he say that I and E were functions. He only provided these functions: F, T, N, & S and these attitudes: I & E. He came up with 8 types, described these types and did not assign any "rules" to many of the things that are passed around as Jungian "rules" around this forum.
> 
> *These 8 types were then either J types because their most differentiated function was a Judging function or P types because their most differentiated function was a perceiving function. No where did he characterise all Js as Introverts and all Ps as Extraverts. Again, personally, I find that laughable. Academically, I can see where the thinking comes from. That's just not what I have gathered in my own experience.*
> 
> Now, that said, I also must say that I have in no way read all of Jung's works but I am working my way through them. I have studied Jung in a structured academic setting and devoted a lot of hours to the practice of Jungian psychoanalysis. From my perspective, there isn't enough evidence at all to suggest what you and reckful are saying. Perhaps one or both of you could convince me one day, though. It certainly would be fun and exciting to find out I was wrong this whole time!


The bold part reads to me that you are a bit confused with what I'm saying. When I say J=I and P=E I am referring to the MBTI J/P and Jung's E/I. Not Jung's both J/P and E/I.

The MBTI J/P axis, was an invention of Myers based on her understanding of Jung's work and her own observations. But her understanding was coloured by various individual biases, including that she did not want to care about the negative traits of types and rejected Jung's ideas about the Shadow, etc, from what I read. It's why she chose to have the function stack with the auxiliary in a different attitude, she disagreed with Jung about the transcendent function being the bridge and instead wanted it to be the aux. Her function stacks came before the test which essentially ended up creating a mix up of Jung's: Rational/Irrational and E/I traits. The most apparent example of that is that Js generally care about having control, which is a very explicitly described feature of Introversion by Jung.

Also as I've said elsewhere too, I don't think it's a 1:1, absolute correlation because of the above, it wasn't directly intended as such, but because she wanted Js to have Pi, it inevitably leads to some degree of correlation.

Maybe Jung didn't intend explicitly for E and I to be like functions but I think in reality they are, at least somewhat, as they hold an influence in the psyche on their own, regardless of what functions are preferred, which is why there are similarities between all E and I types as he explained. The functions sort of join along for the ride with the preferred adaptational drive.


----------



## reybridge

Dissymetry said:


> I am not making a claim.
> 
> 
> 
> My argument for Ti-Ni-Se-Fe logically suggesting an INTJ type is self-explanatory if you understand I do not believe in how the MBTI uses the P/J dichotomy to force a preferred "extroverted" function. Ti denotes a person is an introverted thinking type (IxTJ), J in MBTI dichotomy refers to Judging. This suggests logically that the T/F function is preferred over the S/N function. A P would suggest S/N before T/F. Very simple very straightforward. It is supported with the same amount of validity that the functions-stacks the MBTI applies are supported with as well .
> 
> *No "function" says that an INTJ is more decisive than an ISTP. The J says it. A part of being a J and not a P type is being decisive.*


Te by definition is a function to change the extroverted world, and this is decisiveness. Just that simple. In your system, Ti is the one which makes INTJs decisive, and Te is the one which makes ENTJs decisive. Now i ask you, what is the difference between Ti and Te which make them mutually exclusive? Why should a function changes its function based on the circumstance like Ti in INTJ and Ti in ISTP? And why would 2 different functions have the same functionality? "+" function will always adds numbers no matter what, and "+" function won't function the same with "-" no matter what. This was why i only wanted people with a background of a programmer or related to it in this thread, they should have the capacity to understand this.


----------



## reckful

brightflashes said:


> From my perspective, there isn't enough evidence at all to suggest what you and reckful are saying.


From my perspective, I don't see much evidence that what you're suggesting I've said is what I've actually said. And in any case, I've certainly never said I=J, and E=P.


----------



## reybridge

brightflashes said:


> @Red Panda
> 
> Often times reckful is referring to generalities made throughout Jung's entire body of work (something that I admit that I have not read it its entirety), yet in the amount of work I have read, this has not been my experience at all. The "negative" attitude toward the object that Jung refers to in any introverted type is only an illustration of the inferior extraverted attitude which Jung also describes.
> 
> So, a Ti dom, as reckful used in his example, would reject the object due to the inferiority of Fe or the Ti dom would not be able to Fe harmonize his or herself to the object. This is because the introverted type prefers to put him or herself above the object (as a hierarchy of importance), not because introverts avoid and "reject" the object.
> 
> It is, instead, that any introverted type will not take the object just as the object itself. In other words, its primary essence or that which everyone can objectively agree on is instead distorted and shaped by an introverted mind to fit some sort of subjective reality. This is not the introvert forcefully manipulating the external world. This is, instead, the introvert's preference for "subjectifying" reality.
> 
> The introvert is not more "J" than the extravert and this is consistent throughout the works of Jung I, myself, have read. And if it were, Jung would have said so directly. He certainly didn't beat around the bush with any of his assertions. He was, instead, propelled forward by his own passion to record every detail he could possibly write so as to prove to the world "empirically" that his theories could be verified in every instance if one would only seek out the answer.
> 
> I can understand the reason why you and reckful would go along these lines based on what you have read of Jung because I see the train of thought there, or how one could at least get on that train. However, I simply think it's inaccurate to what Jung meant by introversion and extraversion. I do not think that introverts are somehow more "J" at all or extraverts are all "P"s.
> 
> I don't say this to try to convince you otherwise or to try to dissuade you from your conclusions. I just simply want to provide a counter-point to what you're saying.
> 
> That's what I think academically.
> 
> *Personally, I think that the idea of I=J and E=P is ridiculous. The P/J dichotomy was entirely the invention of Myers. While Jung did mention the way Judging functions operated vs Perceiving functions, he never outright said that J and P were functions nor did he say that I and E were functions. He only provided these functions: F, T, N, & S and these attitudes: I & E. He came up with 8 types, described these types and did not assign any "rules" to many of the things that are passed around as Jungian "rules" around this forum.*
> 
> These 8 types were then either J types because their most differentiated function was a Judging function or P types because their most differentiated function was a perceiving function. No where did he characterise all Js as Introverts and all Ps as Extraverts. Again, personally, I find that laughable. Academically, I can see where the thinking comes from. That's just not what I have gathered in my own experience.
> 
> Now, that said, I also must say that I have in no way read all of Jung's works but I am working my way through them. I have studied Jung in a structured academic setting and devoted a lot of hours to the practice of Jungian psychoanalysis. From my perspective, there isn't enough evidence at all to suggest what you and reckful are saying. Perhaps one or both of you could convince me one day, though. It certainly would be fun and exciting to find out I was wrong this whole time!


*Exactly*. This is what have bothered me about MBTI and Jungian cognitive functions. There was no "rule" on the functions, which led me to create this thread. I really don't want to debate people, i just feel the urge to make a single accepted understanding about cognitive functions so everyone can discuss further about personality type knowing we all have agreed to a single fundamental definition.


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> Now i ask you, what is the difference between Ti and Te which make them mutually exclusive?


If what I say below is out of context, then ignore this post. I just thought the question interesting. 

Mutually exclusive in what sense? They are not mutually exclusive in the sense of being able to address them in sequence. They are mutually exclusive in the sense of addressing things at the same time. Why? Because one is about the outside world and the other about the mind's world. Thinking about the outside world or the inside world are specialties. In practice, people will do one specialty or the other, not both. See below about French and English.





reybridge said:


> i just feel the urge to make a single accepted understanding about cognitive functions so everyone can discuss further about personality type


That would entail defining each of the four (eight) cognitive functions. I'll pick one: thinking. Thinking is too vague to define, but the elements that go into it are not. (I have a handle on those elements.) Personality emerges from our usage of those eight cognitive functions. Just how they emerge is describable in so many ways we have to restrict our usage. This restriction is for practicality. 

An analogy is language itself. We are fond of using language. But although French works, we have decided to use English on PerC.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> If what I say below is out of context, then ignore this post. I just thought the question interesting.
> 
> Mutually exclusive in what sense? They are not mutually exclusive in the sense of being able to address them in sequence. They are mutually exclusive in the sense of addressing things at the same time. Why? Because one is about the outside world and the other about the mind's world. Thinking about the outside world or the inside world are specialties. In practice, people will do one specialty or the other, not both. See below about French and English.


I remember you from previous posts in this thread a long time ago. Yes, i meant in a sense of addressing things at the same time. AND.. they should have different functionality, AND consistently defined. He said Ti in INTJ is a function which makes INTJs decisive. But also implied Te in ENTJ also makes ENTJs decisive (if not, please explain Te in ENTJ). How do two mutually exclusive functions have same functionality, which means a person can use both at the same time just by being decisive? It is not logically consistent.



> That would entail defining each of the four (eight) cognitive functions. I'll pick one: thinking. Thinking is too vague to define, but the elements that go into it are not. (I have a handle on those elements.) Personality emerges from our usage of those eight cognitive functions. Just how they emerge is describable in so many ways we have to restrict our usage. This restriction is for practicality.
> 
> An analogy is language itself. We are fond of using language. But although French works, we have decided to use English on PerC.


Your analogy with a language is more like MBTI and Big5. You can not have a language within a language.


----------



## Dissymetry

reybridge said:


> Te by definition is a function to change the extroverted world, and this is decisiveness. Just that simple. In your system, Ti is the one which makes INTJs decisive, and Te is the one which makes ENTJs decisive. Now i ask you, what is the difference between Ti and Te which make them mutually exclusive? Why should a function changes its function based on the circumstance like Ti in INTJ and Ti in ISTP? And why would 2 different functions have the same functionality? "+" function will always adds numbers no matter what, and "+" function won't function the same with "-" no matter what. This was why i only wanted people with a background of a programmer or related to it in this thread, they should have the capacity to understand this.


It looks like I will have to ELI5 this for you. I will use bullet points so you can not misunderstand me.



The MBTI tests for type according to dichotomy exclusively.
It applies the "function-stacks" after the type is found by dichotomy.
This means that the function-stacks have no validity whatsoever as they are not tested for in any way.


The way P/J is means the P/J choice denotes the first supposedly "extroverted" in the function stack.
As functions-in-attitudes are applied after the type is found by dichotomy, this use of the P/J dichotomy to denote the first extroverted function in a function stack is invalid.


P is for Perceiving. The P functions are Sensing and Intuition.
J is for Judging. The J functions are Thinking and Feeling.
Considering the way the MBTI uses the P/J dichotomy in relation to "function stacks" is invalid, the most logical solution would be to apply the P/J dichotomy to the functions P and J are supposed to refer to.
Which is again, S/N for P and T/F for J.


This means that P should logically refer to a S/N dominance and J should refer to T/F dominance.


Following Jungs theories, a person is introverted or extroverted in every way. This logically includes both the preferred rational and irrational functions.
Following Jungs theories, a persons inferior function has an auxiliary (what is seen as the tertiary) function that is logically in the same attitude as the inferior function.


This suggests the most logical function-stack for the INTJ is Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.
Ti dominance because the person has selected I, T and J. This means Introverted Thinking type, as the I denotes Introversion, T denotes Thinking and the J denotes that the Thinking function is preferred above the Perceiving function (intuition).
Ni secondary as the person is an introverted and intuitive type but has not selected a J preference, meaning that intuition (a Perceiving function) is not the first choice.
Se as "tertiary" as it works both as a bipolar opposite to the auxiliary Ni following Jungs theories on inferior functions (consider Se as "less" inferior than Fe here, but still an inferior function) and also it works as supporting the inferior Fe as it opposes Fe as an irrational function.
Fe as inferior as it is the bipolar opposite to Ti (dominant) and this follows Jungs theories on the inferior functions.


The reason this has the same validity as the function-stack the MBTI applies (none) is because again, the functions in attitudes are not tested for. This means that selecting I, T and J does not mean a person has tested for "Ti" dominance.
It is possible to prefer I, N, T and J and have your clearest preference N, which would rebut the most logical function stack for an INTJ (Ti-Ni-Se-Fe). It is possible for an INTJ to have the clearest preference in T, which would rebut the equally-as-invalid "Ni-Te-Fi-Se" function stack.


The functions as they are used in the stacks do not exist. Ti, Te, Ni, Ne, Si, Se, Fi and Fe are not "functions". They denote types of people, not functions. The functions are Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensation. Using them in the way people have been using them is incorrect.
For example Ti does not denote a "Ti function" instead it refers to the Introverted Thinking type. People have been using these "functions in attitudes" incorrectly and in accordance with invalid function stacks. They are not their own entities.


Jungs rational and irrational types are very different to Myers/Briggs P and J types. They are not the exact same thing. 
Jungs rational types are people that are oriented mostly towards things that are logical in some way, this includes Feeling types. Rational types are basically bound by whatever is within "reason".
Jungs irrational types are people that are oriented mostly towards things that are not bound by reason or what makes sense, such as being oriented towards outer-world facts and intuitive inspiration.
MBTI J types are people that are orderly, decisive, organized, structured and like to plan.
MBTI P types are people that are more chaotic, less decisive, less organized, less structured and prefer not to plan things too much to allow themselves to adapt to what is coming.
To the best of my knowledge Jung does not connect his rational types to traits such as the MBTI applies to J.
To the best of my knowledge Jung does not connect his irrational types to traits such as the MBTI applies to P.
I understand there are some logical connections to make (that the MBTI P type sounds similar to Jungs irrational type, if they do not like to plan and be open to new information and be adaptable, it sounds like someone that is oriented towards awaiting intuitive inspiration or someone that is waiting for new facts to be observed, but these are not the same thing.


I did not say that "Ti" is responsible for the decisiveness in the Ti-Ni-Se-Fe "INTJ" type.
I said the J was responsible for the decisiveness.
Both the Ti-Ni and Ni-Te "INTJ" function stacks are bunk and invalid, neither has more credibility than the other. The Ti-Ni stacks simply makes the most sense in a purely logical way (I thought this was the premise of the thread).
The J in MBTI does not in any credible way relate to the Thinking in an INTJ if it is perceived as part of the "function stack" in either way (J does not = Ti nor Te).
The J in MBTI does absolutely refer in a credible way to the "decisiveness" of an INTJ because J is the dichotomous preference that relates to decisiveness.


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> I remember you from previous posts in this thread a long time ago. Yes, i meant in a sense of addressing things at the same time. AND.. they should have different functionality, AND consistently defined.


If you are talking Ti and Te, these are about different things but both are thinking. One can't even do Te about two different topics at the same time so I'm not sure what you are talking about.





> He said Ti in INTJ is a function which makes INTJs decisive.


Sorry but I'm not keeping up on previous posts. As soon as I saw Ti Ni for INTJs in posts I knew I was going to have to look into the meaning of that. I put it aside. My starting point is the MTBI which doesn't use Ti for INTJs. INTJs use Te, so I don't know what those posters are talking about.

My experience with INTJs on PerC is they are strongly Te. I'm a Ti person but that's MBTI oriented.

INTJs are decisive because decisions are seen in the external world. Te is the first outside world function for INTJs in the sense of priority usage. Even if they lead with Ni, Ni is observation only. INTJs (MBTI) = Ni Te Fi Se.





> But also implied Te in ENTJ also makes ENTJs decisive (if not, please explain Te in ENTJ). How do two mutually exclusive functions have same functionality, which means a person can use both at the same time just by being decisive? It is not logically consistent.


In the MBTI, ENTJ = Te Ni Se Fi. What is there to explain? They lead with Te. My impression is INTJs using Ti is wrong. Ti resides in an INTJs subconscious. I don't see any contradiction. INTJs are Te people.

I am a Ti person, interested in theory. My thinking is quite different. I am decisive about logic but it is not readily seen as Ti is internal. Not to forget a cognitive function being decisive is not the same as a personality as a whole being decisive. A person can think robbery is wrong (That could be a Ti/Te mix), but they can go in and rob a bank. That is decisive action.


----------



## brightflashes

@Red Panda @reckful

I do not see myself as one who typically lacks reading comprehension but I will reread what both of you said in the posts I must have misread with a bit more critical thinking to investigate what I clearly got wrong. I still think there's a fundamental difference between myself and Red Panda on the way we perceive and understand Jung's depiction of introversion and extraversion but I think that difference may not be what I thought that prompted me to respond the way I did to this post. 

@reybridge

I do not pretend to be pure logic (or purely logical) and certainly don't want to tread where I don't belong, but I can provide my own subjective understanding. I think that at least in the past few pages, everyone is at least attempting to break things down in a way that makes sense to them and this is all I can really offer here. I'll also look at your original post with a critical eye later on as well and I'll let you know if I have anything additional to add to this thread then.


----------



## reybridge

Dissymetry said:


> It looks like I will have to ELI5 this for you. I will use bullet points so you can not misunderstand me.
> 
> 
> 
> The MBTI tests for type according to dichotomy exclusively.
> It applies the "function-stacks" after the type is found by dichotomy.
> This means that the function-stacks have no validity whatsoever as they are not tested for in any way.
> 
> 
> The way P/J is means the P/J choice denotes the first supposedly "extroverted" in the function stack.
> As functions-in-attitudes are applied after the type is found by dichotomy, this use of the P/J dichotomy to denote the first extroverted function in a function stack is invalid.
> 
> 
> P is for Perceiving. The P functions are Sensing and Intuition.
> J is for Judging. The J functions are Thinking and Feeling.
> Considering the way the MBTI uses the P/J dichotomy in relation to "function stacks" is invalid, the most logical solution would be to apply the P/J dichotomy to the functions P and J are supposed to refer to.
> Which is again, S/N for P and T/F for J.
> 
> 
> This means that P should logically refer to a S/N dominance and J should refer to T/F dominance.
> 
> 
> Following Jungs theories, a person is introverted or extroverted in every way. This logically includes both the preferred rational and irrational functions.
> Following Jungs theories, a persons inferior function has an auxiliary (what is seen as the tertiary) function that is logically in the same attitude as the inferior function.
> 
> 
> This suggests the most logical function-stack for the INTJ is Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.
> Ti dominance because the person has selected I, T and J. This means Introverted Thinking type, as the I denotes Introversion, T denotes Thinking and the J denotes that the Thinking function is preferred above the Perceiving function (intuition).
> Ni secondary as the person is an introverted and intuitive type but has not selected a J preference, meaning that intuition (a Perceiving function) is not the first choice.
> Se as "tertiary" as it works both as a bipolar opposite to the auxiliary Ni following Jungs theories on inferior functions (consider Se as "less" inferior than Fe here, but still an inferior function) and also it works as supporting the inferior Fe as it opposes Fe as an irrational function.
> Fe as inferior as it is the bipolar opposite to Ti (dominant) and this follows Jungs theories on the inferior functions.
> 
> 
> The reason this has the same validity as the function-stack the MBTI applies (none) is because again, the functions in attitudes are not tested for. This means that selecting I, T and J does not mean a person has tested for "Ti" dominance.
> It is possible to prefer I, N, T and J and have your clearest preference N, which would rebut the most logical function stack for an INTJ (Ti-Ni-Se-Fe). It is possible for an INTJ to have the clearest preference in T, which would rebut the equally-as-invalid "Ni-Te-Fi-Se" function stack.
> 
> 
> The functions as they are used in the stacks do not exist. Ti, Te, Ni, Ne, Si, Se, Fi and Fe are not "functions". They denote types of people, not functions. The functions are Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensation. Using them in the way people have been using them is incorrect.
> For example Ti does not denote a "Ti function" instead it refers to the Introverted Thinking type. People have been using these "functions in attitudes" incorrectly and in accordance with invalid function stacks. They are not their own entities.
> 
> 
> Jungs rational and irrational types are very different to Myers/Briggs P and J types. They are not the exact same thing.
> Jungs rational types are people that are oriented mostly towards things that are logical in some way, this includes Feeling types. Rational types are basically bound by whatever is within "reason".
> Jungs irrational types are people that are oriented mostly towards things that are not bound by reason or what makes sense, such as being oriented towards outer-world facts and intuitive inspiration.
> MBTI J types are people that are orderly, decisive, organized, structured and like to plan.
> MBTI P types are people that are more chaotic, less decisive, less organized, less structured and prefer not to plan things too much to allow themselves to adapt to what is coming.
> To the best of my knowledge Jung does not connect his rational types to traits such as the MBTI applies to J.
> To the best of my knowledge Jung does not connect his irrational types to traits such as the MBTI applies to P.
> I understand there are some logical connections to make (that the MBTI P type sounds similar to Jungs irrational type, if they do not like to plan and be open to new information and be adaptable, it sounds like someone that is oriented towards awaiting intuitive inspiration or someone that is waiting for new facts to be observed, but these are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> I did not say that "Ti" is responsible for the decisiveness in the Ti-Ni-Se-Fe "INTJ" type.
> I said the J was responsible for the decisiveness.
> Both the Ti-Ni and Ni-Te "INTJ" function stacks are bunk and invalid, neither has more credibility than the other. The Ti-Ni stacks simply makes the most sense in a purely logical way (I thought this was the premise of the thread).
> The J in MBTI does not in any credible way relate to the Thinking in an INTJ if it is perceived as part of the "function stack" in either way (J does not = Ti nor Te).
> The J in MBTI does absolutely refer in a credible way to the "decisiveness" of an INTJ because J is the dichotomous preference that relates to decisiveness.


This is so wrong on so many level. I am sorry. I can not imagine how many people have scattered and unsystematic thoughts about MBTI and cognitive functions like this. You are saying function stack, but they are not functions? Nonsense i would say. Why do you by any chance use the same symbols as Jungian cognitive functions to describe your types? And irrational vs rational, how do these relate to your "types"?

But i like this bullet points, this helps to see flaws in your system.



brightflashes said:


> @Red Panda@reybridge
> 
> I do not pretend to be pure logic (or purely logical) and certainly don't want to tread where I don't belong, but I can provide my own subjective understanding. I think that at least in the past few pages, everyone is at least attempting to break things down in a way that makes sense to them and this is all I can really offer here. I'll also look at your original post with a critical eye later on as well and I'll let you know if I have anything additional to add to this thread then.


Thanks. I am looking after your opinion.


----------



## Dissymetry

reybridge said:


> This is so wrong on so many level. I am sorry. I can not imagine how many people have scattered and unsystematic thoughts about MBTI and cognitive functions like this. You are saying function stack, but they are not functions? Nonsense i would say. Why do you by any chance use the same symbols as Jungian cognitive functions to describe your types?


Identify what is wrong and provide sources to support everything you identify.


----------



## reybridge

Dissymetry said:


> Identify what is wrong and provide sources to support everything you identify.





Dissymetry said:


> It looks like I will have to ELI5 this for you. I will use bullet points so you can not misunderstand me.
> 
> 
> 
> The MBTI tests for type according to dichotomy exclusively.
> It applies the "function-stacks" after the type is found by dichotomy.
> This means that the function-stacks have no validity whatsoever as they are not tested for in any way.
> 
> 
> The way P/J is means the P/J choice denotes the first supposedly "extroverted" in the function stack.
> *[*]As functions-in-attitudes are applied after the type is found by dichotomy, this use of the P/J dichotomy to denote the first extroverted function in a function stack is invalid.*[SUP]1[/SUP]
> 
> 
> P is for Perceiving. The P functions are Sensing and Intuition.
> J is for Judging. The J functions are Thinking and Feeling.
> *[*]Considering the way the MBTI uses the P/J dichotomy in relation to "function stacks" is invalid, the most logical solution would be to apply the P/J dichotomy to the functions P and J are supposed to refer to.*[SUP]2[/SUP]
> Which is again, S/N for P and T/F for J.
> 
> 
> This means that P should logically refer to a S/N dominance and J should refer to T/F dominance.
> 
> 
> Following Jungs theories, a person is introverted or extroverted in every way. This logically includes both the preferred rational and irrational functions.
> Following Jungs theories, a persons inferior function has an auxiliary (what is seen as the tertiary) function that is logically in the same attitude as the inferior function.
> 
> 
> *[*]This suggests the most logical function-stack for the INTJ is Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.*[SUP]3[/SUP]
> Ti dominance because the person has selected I, T and J. This means Introverted Thinking type, as the I denotes Introversion, T denotes Thinking and the J denotes that the Thinking function is preferred above the Perceiving function (intuition).
> Ni secondary as the person is an introverted and intuitive type but has not selected a J preference, meaning that intuition (a Perceiving function) is not the first choice.
> Se as "tertiary" as it works both as a bipolar opposite to the auxiliary Ni following Jungs theories on inferior functions (consider Se as "less" inferior than Fe here, but still an inferior function) and also it works as supporting the inferior Fe as it opposes Fe as an irrational function.
> Fe as inferior as it is the bipolar opposite to Ti (dominant) and this follows Jungs theories on the inferior functions.
> 
> 
> The reason this has the same validity as the function-stack the MBTI applies (none) is because again, the functions in attitudes are not tested for. This means that selecting I, T and J does not mean a person has tested for "Ti" dominance.
> It is possible to prefer I, N, T and J and have your clearest preference N, which would rebut the most logical function stack for an INTJ (Ti-Ni-Se-Fe). It is possible for an INTJ to have the clearest preference in T, which would rebut the equally-as-invalid "Ni-Te-Fi-Se" function stack.
> 
> 
> *[*]The functions as they are used in the stacks do not exist. Ti, Te, Ni, Ne, Si, Se, Fi and Fe are not "functions". They denote types of people, not functions. The functions are Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensation. Using them in the way people have been using them is incorrect.
> [*]For example Ti does not denote a "Ti function" instead it refers to the Introverted Thinking type. People have been using these "functions in attitudes" incorrectly and in accordance with invalid function stacks. They are not their own entities.*[SUP]4[/SUP]
> 
> 
> Jungs rational and irrational types are very different to Myers/Briggs P and J types. They are not the exact same thing.
> Jungs rational types are people that are oriented mostly towards things that are logical in some way, this includes Feeling types. Rational types are basically bound by whatever is within "reason".
> Jungs irrational types are people that are oriented mostly towards things that are not bound by reason or what makes sense, such as being oriented towards outer-world facts and intuitive inspiration.
> MBTI J types are people that are orderly, decisive, organized, structured and like to plan.
> MBTI P types are people that are more chaotic, less decisive, less organized, less structured and prefer not to plan things too much to allow themselves to adapt to what is coming.
> To the best of my knowledge Jung does not connect his rational types to traits such as the MBTI applies to J.
> To the best of my knowledge Jung does not connect his irrational types to traits such as the MBTI applies to P.
> I understand there are some logical connections to make (that the MBTI P type sounds similar to Jungs irrational type, if they do not like to plan and be open to new information and be adaptable, it sounds like someone that is oriented towards awaiting intuitive inspiration or someone that is waiting for new facts to be observed, but these are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> *[*]I did not say that "Ti" is responsible for the decisiveness in the Ti-Ni-Se-Fe "INTJ" type.
> [*]I said the J was responsible for the decisiveness.*[SUP]5[/SUP]
> *[*]Both the Ti-Ni and Ni-Te "INTJ" function stacks are bunk and invalid, neither has more credibility than the other. The Ti-Ni stacks simply makes the most sense in a purely logical way (I thought this was the premise of the thread).*[SUP]6[/SUP]
> The J in MBTI does not in any credible way relate to the Thinking in an INTJ if it is perceived as part of the "function stack" in either way (J does not = Ti nor Te).
> The J in MBTI does absolutely refer in a credible way to the "decisiveness" of an INTJ because J is the dichotomous preference that relates to decisiveness.


1. Why should it be found?
2. Why is it considered invalid in the first place?
3. Why? I don't see any clue as to how the previous points suggest this.
4. It is called function stack but they are not functions? Why do you use Jungian cognitive function notations for your "types"?
5. If INTJ letters were enough to describe the personality, then why must there Ti-Ni-Se-Fe notations just to describe it again?
6. Until you can answer the first 5 questions sensibly, sure, you can go pure logical all you want.


----------



## Dissymetry

reybridge said:


> 1. Why should it be found?


Because a type is found after a person takes the MBTI. What is this question?



> 2. Why is it considered invalid in the first place?


Because the "functions in attitudes" are applied after the type is found by dichotomy. Which part of this is not clear enough for you?



> 3. Why? I don't see any clue as to how the previous points suggest this.


I explained why in my post. Feel free to read it again.



> 4. It is called function stack but they are not functions? Why do you use Jungian cognitive function notations for your "types"?


Jung did not even talk about "function stacks" but let me ELI4 at you. 
The functions are Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensation.
Extroversion and Introversion are attitudes.
Applying an attitude to a function does _not _create a new function, the functions remain Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensation.
Things like "Ni, Ne, Se, Si, Fe, Fi, Te and Ti" are _not _functions. From a Jungian perspective they would simply denote the _type_. Outside of a Jungian perspective and into a more Myers/Grantian (and followers) perspective, these are referred to as "functions" and have definitions that are far removed from Jungs theory. I prefer Jung over Myers and Grant and the rest.

If you are referring to my signature for my "types" it is my way of noting N-T-F-S, with no particular care for the attitudes because again adding an attitude to a function does not in any way change the actual function.



> 5. If INTJ letters were enough to describe the personality, then why must there Ti-Ni-Se-Fe notations just to describe it again?


There does _not _have to be any nonsense "function stack" to describe the INTJ or any other type again. It is invalid and not credible nonsense that is interesting to theorize on, no more and no less. I, N, T and J describes the INTJ type in each and every way that is actually credible.



> 6. Until you can answer the first 5 questions sensibly, sure, you can go pure logical all you want.


All of the questions you asked were a waste of time and could have been answered by yourself by reading and actually comprehending my post, besides the one that referred to my "types".


----------



## reybridge

Dissymetry said:


> reybridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Why should it be found?
> 
> 
> 
> Because a type is found after a person takes the MBTI. What is this question?
Click to expand...

I asked why *should* it be found?, not "why was it found?".



> 2. Why is it considered invalid in the first place?
> 
> Because the "functions in attitudes" are applied after the type is found by dichotomy. Which part of this is not clear enough for you?


Just because it was found after the mbti type was found, doesn't mean it is more valid than the original stack, at all.



> 3. Why? I don't see any clue as to how the previous points suggest this.
> 
> I explained why in my post. Feel free to read it again.


Which part?



> 4. It is called function stack but they are not functions? Why do you use Jungian cognitive function notations for your "types"?
> 
> Jung did not even talk about "function stacks" but let me ELI4 at you.
> The functions are Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensation.
> Extroversion and Introversion are attitudes.
> Applying an attitude to a function does _not _create a new function, the functions remain Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensation.
> Things like "Ni, Ne, Se, Si, Fe, Fi, Te and Ti" are _not _functions. From a Jungian perspective they would simply denote the _type_. Outside of a Jungian perspective and into a more Myers/Grantian (and followers) perspective, these are referred to as "functions" and have definitions that are far removed from Jungs theory. I prefer Jung over Myers and Grant and the rest.
> 
> If you are referring to my signature for my "types" it is my way of noting N-T-F-S, with no particular care for the attitudes because again adding an attitude to a function does not in any way change the actual function.


So you want to say that INTJ is the same as ENTP, which is N-T-F-S?



> 5. If INTJ letters were enough to describe the personality, then why must there Ti-Ni-Se-Fe notations just to describe it again?
> 
> There does _not _have to be any nonsense "function stack" to describe the INTJ or any other type again. It is invalid and not credible nonsense that is interesting to theorize on, no more and no less. I, N, T and J describes the INTJ type in each and every way that is actually credible.


Descriptions can not unite people mind into a single understanding about personalities. One description will have different interpretations depending on who interprets them. But a rule fundamentally defined, can not be interpreted differently. Would you accept my rules on cognitive functions? If not, why?


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> 1. Why should it be found?
> 2. Why is it considered invalid in the first place?
> 3. Why? I don't see any clue as to how the previous points suggest this.
> 4. It is called function stack but they are not functions? Why do you use Jungian cognitive function notations for your "types"?
> 5. If INTJ letters were enough to describe the personality, then why must there Ti-Ni-Se-Fe notations just to describe it again?
> 6. Until you can answer the first 5 questions sensibly, sure, you can go pure logical all you want.


I pick my own context to reply to these. Hope some are helpful. If not, carry on ...

1. Define "should." Morally or practically in some sense?
2. How accurate do you want to be?
4. A function stack is not a function. It attempts to note a certain kind of order.
5. Ti-Ni-Se-Fe are functions used in a personality. A personality is not just functions, but *relationships* among functions as well.
6. How "logical" do you want to be? Logic involves both *premises* and rules for dealing with premises.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> reybridge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Why should it be found?
> 2. Why is it considered invalid in the first place?
> 3. Why? I don't see any clue as to how the previous points suggest this.
> 4. It is called function stack but they are not functions? Why do you use Jungian cognitive function notations for your "types"?
> 5. If INTJ letters were enough to describe the personality, then why must there Ti-Ni-Se-Fe notations just to describe it again?
> 6. Until you can answer the first 5 questions sensibly, sure, you can go pure logical all you want.
> 
> 
> 
> I pick my own context to reply to these. Hope some are helpful. If not, carry on ...
> 
> 1. Define "should." Morally or practically in some sense?
> 2. How accurate do you want to be?
> 4. A function stack is not a function. It attempts to note a certain kind of order.
> 5. Ti-Ni-Se-Fe are functions used in a personality. A personality is not just functions, but *relationships* among functions as well.
> 6. How "logical" do you want to be? Logic involves both *premises* and rules for dealing with premises.
Click to expand...

1. Practically speaking, since there is already mbti type to describe personalities, why would someone created a code name (not function stack, because they are not functions, the poster said) Ti-Ni-Se-Fe that practically describes a personality the same way as "INTJ". With Ni-Te-Fi-Se stack for INTJ, it has some senses and can be explained intuitively. But Ti-Ni-Se-Fe is just as arbitrary as it can be arranged if you accepted that they are not a code name, but a stack of functions defined in my rules. If you think it doesn't make sense, please spot the wrong point and why, provide your definition of each function, then we talk about function stack.
2. I don't want to be perfectly accurate, i want a consistent system which everyone could refer to when talking about cognitive functions.
4. Of course. The poster implied that the individual function in the stack is not a function. He can not define the functions in the stack one by one. If they are functions, each of them must have a definition.
5. Of course, but why is it in that order? Back to my previous question, with that system, what is the differences between Ti in INTJ and Te in ENTJ?
6. I just want a system with consistent definition of cognitive functions, which people can understand exactly the same way. Nothing else.


----------



## HIX

My post has no meaning, but neither does ...........


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> 1. Practically speaking, since there is already mbti type to describe personalities, why would someone created a code name (not function stack, because they are not functions, the poster said) Ti-Ni-Se-Fe that practically describes a personality the same way as "INTJ". With Ni-Te-Fi-Se stack for INTJ, it has some senses and can be explained intuitively. But Ti-Ni-Se-Fe is just as arbitrary as it can be arranged if you accepted that they are not a code name, but a stack of functions defined in my rules. If you think it doesn't make sense, please spot the wrong point and why, provide your definition of each function, then we talk about function stack.
> 2. I don't want to be perfectly accurate, i want a consistent system which everyone could refer to when talking about cognitive functions.
> 4. Of course. The poster implied that the individual function in the stack is not a function. He can not define the functions in the stack one by one. If they are functions, each of them must have a definition.
> 5. Of course, but why is it in that order? Back to my previous question, with that system, what is the differences between Ti in INTJ and Te in ENTJ?
> 6. I just want a system with consistent definition of cognitive functions, which people can understand exactly the same way. Nothing else.


1. That is too ambiguous for me to make sense of it. Where does Ti-Ni-Se-Fe come from? Who says that is INTJ? Is that from some test or other? (I'm not examining prior posts.) What do you mean by "code name" and what code name are you referring to?

INTJ? What is the source for using this word? What does "INTJ" mean here and to whom?
2. Good.
5. I'd like to know how Ti gets into an INTJ.
6. Good.


----------



## brightflashes

BigApplePi said:


> 1. That is too ambiguous for me to make sense of it. Where does Ti-Ni-Se-Fe come from? Who says that is INTJ? Is that from some test or other? (I'm not examining prior posts.) What do you mean by "code name" and what code name are you referring to?
> 
> INTJ? What is the source for using this word? What does "INTJ" mean here and to whom?
> 2. Good.
> 5. I'd like to know how Ti gets into an INTJ.
> 6. Good.


1. TiNi/SeFe comes from the way that Jung would create a function stack. 

For a J type, it would have to lead with either F or T (a judging function). For this purpose, we're talking about an INTJ so:

Ti

Next, it would need its auxiliary function. Jung described type as total, so the conscious part of type will be either all introverted or all extraverted so:

TiNi

The remaining functions will be repressed in the opposite attitude

Ti-Ni/Se-Fe

This is the Jungian cognitive function stack for the INTJ

However! Jung didn't ever actually describe an "INTJ" type. He only described 8 types which are each function (T, F, S, N) in each attitude (I or E). 

5. Ti gets into an INTJ if one is taking a Jungian perspective of cognitive functions-in-attitude. Example of each theorists' cognitive stack for INTJ & ENTP =

Jung = Ti Ni/Se Fe & Ne Te/Fi Si
Myers = Ni Te/Fe Se & Ne Ti/Fi Si
Grant= Ni Te/Fi Se & Ne Ti/Fe Si

Using myself as an example. I am an Ni type by Jung's definitions of the 8 types. According to Jung, anyone who finds their most differentiated function as Ni is an Ni type, regardless of what function comes next. Since I prefer T, I'm an Ni+T. Since I'm an introvert, my "T" will prefer to be in the introverted attitude.

I am also an INTJ by MBTI's definition of the 16 types: I prefer I to E, N to S, T to F, and J to P (but remember this is Myer's definition of what J and P are; not Jung's).

Hopefully this makes sense?


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> 1. That is too ambiguous for me to make sense of it. Where does Ti-Ni-Se-Fe come from? *Who says that is INTJ*? Is that from some test or other? (I'm not examining prior posts.) What do you mean by "code name" and what code name are you referring to?
> 
> INTJ? What is the source for using this word? What does "INTJ" mean here and to whom?
> 2. Good.
> 5. I'd like to know how Ti gets into an INTJ.
> 6. Good.


1. It was not me. Just follow some few previous posts discussing about this "Ti-Ni-Se-Fe" thing to look for the original poster. Why did you answer 5 of my questions in the first place though?
5. I don't know, not even a single clue.


----------



## brightflashes

reybridge said:


> 1. It was not me. Just follow some few previous posts discussing about this "Ti-Ni-Se-Fe" thing to look for the original poster. Why did you answer 5 of my questions though?
> 5. I don't know, not even a single clue.


word. Dissy ( @Dissymetry ) was the one who first introduced the concept of Jung's function "stack" (if it can even be called that as for Jung, a stack doesn't really exist the way we think of it in MBTI*) for an INTJ assuming that J refers to the function that one prefers. 

As a Jungian, I find it very simple to follow, though. It wasn't something that came purely out of Dissy's mind without warrant or study. He's only stating that Jung would call an Introverted Intuitive Thinker who is also a Judging type a Ti+N. Since the preferred attitude is what is conscious, the N would be forced to be in the introverted position. So, Ti+Ni. The second two functions would be the repressed functions in the opposite attitude= Fe & Se, the order being Ti-Ni/Se-Fe with the "/" representing what is conscious and what is repressed. 

Repressed functions aren't exactly unknown or not used. They're just not valued (as much) by the person who is repressing them.

*For example, just because one is conscious of two function-in-attitudes and represses two function-in-attitudes doesn't mean the other four function-in-attitudes do not play a significant role in the makeup of that person's over-all persona, Shadow, Anima/-us, or Self.


----------



## reybridge

brightflashes said:


> word. Dissy ( @Dissymetry ) was the one who first introduced the concept of Jung's function "stack" (if it can even be called that as for Jung, a stack doesn't really exist the way we think of it in MBTI*) for an INTJ assuming that J refers to the function that one prefers.
> 
> As a Jungian, I find it very simple to follow, though. It wasn't something that came purely out of Dissy's mind without warrant or study. He's only stating that Jung would call an Introverted Intuitive Thinker who is also a Judging type a Ti+N. Since the preferred attitude is what is conscious, the N would be forced to be in the introverted position. So, Ti+Ni. The second two functions would be the repressed functions in the opposite attitude= Fe & Se, the order being Ti-Ni/Se-Fe with the "/" representing what is conscious and what is repressed.
> 
> *Repressed functions aren't exactly unknown or not used. They're just not valued (as much) by the person who is repressing them.*


Then they are functions? I thought they are not supposed to be functions from what @Dissymetry pointed out in his post. If they were functions, what is the definition of each of them?



> *For example, just because one is conscious of two function-in-attitudes and represses two function-in-attitudes doesn't mean the other four function-in-attitudes do not play a significant role in the makeup of that person's over-all persona, Shadow, Anima/-us, or Self.


Yeah, I agree with this. What i don't agree is the stack in which the functions are prioritized by a person.


----------



## brightflashes

reybridge said:


> Then they are functions? I thought they are not supposed to be functions from what @Dissymetry pointed out in his post.


No, they are functions or functions-in-attitude, depending on how they're spelled out.

Each Function-in-attitude as described as most differentiated is the Jungian type. For example, the Ti type or the Ne type or the Si type. This function-in-attitude is then polarised by its opposite in opposite attitude so Ti/Fe or Ne/Si. 

Note that this only refers to Jung's definition of type and not to the MBTI version, though. So it can be a bit tricky depending on the school of thought one prefers. I personally think it's best not to combine theories, but in order to attack something with the scope that you have thought out, it seems impossible to really look at it without the blending of several theories into one. 

I just so happen to know (and don't think he'd object to me speaking for him on this point) that @Dissymetry is a follower of the Jungian school of thought toward typology and, from what I gather, he has a pretty solid grasp of it though he can come across a bit - lol - I suppose it would be against forum rules to characterise him. But regardless of how he comes across (condescending at times), I do find the way he thinks about typology aligned with the way I think about it. : )

Edit to add: The inferior function is important with Shadow work while the "missing" functions are most important with Anima/-us work. One "problem" with Jungian typology is that it doesn't paint a full picture of Jung's take on personality by any means. When people confuse Jung's typology for his entire theory of personality, they will definitely find it lacking. However, his theory of personality is greatly expanded upon in each of his works.


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> 1. It was not me. Just follow some few previous posts discussing about this "Ti-Ni-Se-Fe" thing to look for the original poster. Why did you answer 5 of my questions in the first place though?
> 5. I don't know, not even a single clue.


I think I'll reply to @brightflashes instead. Why did I answer 5? Because they were there and I thought I could reply and wanted to ... if that is what you're asking. I thought it would be an intermediate step in straightening out this Ti/ Te business.





brightflashes said:


> 1. TiNi/SeFe comes from the way that Jung would create a function stack.


To me Jung is history. He is the founder and deserves respect for that. I would prefer to go modern, up-to-date.





> For a J type, it would have to lead with either F or T (a judging function).


I would favor a consistent theory as would @reybridge. For me I'll go with Myers-Briggs. A "J type" need not lead with F or T if by that you mean primary. I see see the auxiliary could make a J type. I supposedly am an INTP who leads with Ti yet I'm no J type. I'm perceptive if you buy that.





> For this purpose, we're talking about an INTJ so: Ti Next, it would need its auxiliary function. Jung described type as total, so the conscious part of type will be either all introverted or all extraverted so: TiNi The remaining functions will be repressed in the opposite attitude Ti-Ni/Se-Fe This is the Jungian cognitive function stack for the INTJ However! Jung didn't ever actually describe an "INTJ" type. He only described 8 types which are each function (T, F, S, N) in each attitude (I or E).


This makes no logical sense to me. Try defining all those terms and you can't put them together that way. Hard to explain without writing long responses. If Jung didn't describe an INTJ type, then he's not differentiated enough that we can talk about a view of his that doesn't exist!





> 5. Ti gets into an INTJ if one is taking a Jungian perspective of cognitive functions-in-attitude. Example of each theorists' cognitive stack for INTJ & ENTP =
> 
> Jung = Ti Ni/Se Fe & Ne Te/Fi Si
> Myers = Ni Te/Fe Se & Ne Ti/Fi Si
> Grant= Ni Te/Fi Se & Ne Ti/Fe Si


I read this as something about you. You are an INTJ. Using Myers, INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se. You are using Se perspective of Jung, Myers, and Grant to say something. It's an external observation. I am not going to analyze all those things in those lists.





> Using myself as an example. I am an Ni type by Jung's definitions of the 8 types. According to Jung, anyone who finds their most differentiated function as Ni is an Ni type, regardless of what function comes next.


I must speak to that. I want to say the leading function is the one most natural, preferred, desired. In a normal person that will be most differentiated. In a disturbed person that could be suppressed. Such a disturbed person could lead with something else. They would be miserable. (I forgot the undeveloped, undifferentiated person. They too could lead with something else.)





> Since I prefer T, I'm an Ni+T. Since I'm an introvert, my "T" will prefer to be in the introverted attitude.


Now you've said something! I want to say it's the Ni that makes you an introvert. That's true in spades. The T is merely supporting. When you go out and tell me about Jung, Myers, and Grant that is external. If you are reasoning or thinking like that, it is Te not Ti. If we can agree on this, we have a chance to clear up this Ti/ Te contradiction.





> I am also an INTJ by MBTI's definition of the 16 types: I prefer I to E, N to S, T to F, and J to P (but remember this is Myer's definition of what J and P are; not Jung's). Hopefully this makes sense?


I'll go with that (as a Myers-Briggs person).


----------



## brightflashes

@BigApplePi 

heh. That's cool. I was just explaining where Dissy was coming from. I understand the whole wanting to be "up to date" with things. It's just in my experience, Jung's original theory has been strayed away from by these "updates" that none of them actually align with Jung's theory. So, to me, the theory is still usable since it exists independent from any other system.

I do not say this to convince you of my ideas, but just to highlight the differences and my "why" of sticking to Jung. Perhaps I'm worried you might think I'm silly and I want to convince you of my intelligence.

I didn't say the other things to convince you of taking a Jungian view, but simply to explain what Dissy said. It seemed that you were confused by it so I tried to delineate it for you. : )


----------



## BigApplePi

@*brightflashes*. I can see plenty of room for more than one theory, lol.


----------



## Red Panda

BigApplePi said:


> To me Jung is history. He is the founder and deserves respect for that. I would prefer to go modern, up-to-date.


the grant stack and mbti are almost just as old and imo not up-to-date since for something to be that, there should be research and studies done that actually correct the initial theory and no one has really done that ever to my knowledge


----------



## reybridge

Red Panda said:


> the grant stack and mbti are almost just as old and imo not up-to-date since for something to be that, there should be research and studies done that actually correct the initial theory and no one has really done that ever to my knowledge


I think it is not about older theory or newer ones, it is about which one is making sense the most.


----------



## reybridge

Double post.


----------



## brightflashes

reybridge said:


> I think it is not about older theory or newer ones, it is about which one is making sense the most.


At this point, which one makes the most sense for you?

For me, it's Jung's ... but then, I include the bits outside of Psychological Types as well, like his concept of Self, Persona, Anima/-us, Shadow, etc ...


----------



## reybridge

brightflashes said:


> At this point, which one makes the most sense for you?
> 
> For me, it's Jung's ... but then, I include the bits outside of Psychological Types as well, like his concept of Self, Persona, Anima/-us, Shadow, etc ...


I agree to the Grant function stack then. The reason? I will quote my own previous post.


reybridge said:


> Well, whoever defined the functions stack i implied in my previous post, i agree with his stack. The stack like Ti-Ni-Se-Fe doesn't make sense to me if it was supposed to be ISTP function stack. When you use Ti function, you need a function which feed it with information. And you must prefer extrovert perceiving function for that. Why? Because you can not just dwell in your memories and imagination and grow with it. You can live with Ti-Se without any other functions (it is a very shallow lifestyle though), but you can not do that with Ti-Ni alone. You will naturally use Ti and Se the most frequently in an ideal world if you were an ISTP.


I would like to hear your argument on Jung's though.


----------



## Dissymetry

@reybridge - the "Ti-Ni-Se-Fe" suggestion is not for an ISTP. Following the same idea an ISTP "stack" if such a thing existed and with all due disclaimers, would be "Si-Ti-Fe-Ne". Si = introverted sensation type, since Sensation is perceiving - they get ISxP, and it is supported by Thinking. I explained the reasoning for this earlier. This perspective has exactly the same amount of validity the "function stack" everybody else talks about which is precisely zero. It however does make more sense from a "purely logical" perspective.

Unfortunately, introversion and extroversion do not require each other to survive. They are their own entire temperaments an introvert does not require an extroverted auxiliary function to take in information, introversion can take in information from the outer world, it is quite literally what introversion does, actually. Extroversion of course does not require an introverted function to have access to the inner world either. This idea that each attitude requires the other to function at all is false.

Your suggestion that a person "must prefer an extroverted perceiving function" and could not live with "Ti-Ni" is incorrect. Ti denotes the introverted Thinking _type_. Introversion is _not _a completely isolated attitude, it always has a less preferred extroversion attached which means the introverted Thinking type has a form of extroversion built into its type. The person does not "just dwell" in their "memories and imagination and grow with it". This perspective is derived from the faulty understanding of introversion and extroversion that began with Myers/Briggs interpretation of Jung. 

Forcing an extroverted auxiliary onto an introverted type does not make sense logically. The MBTI dichotomy is its own system and has no relation to functions-in-attitudes. The way they apply them has no credibility there is nothing to support the validity of an ISTP supposedly possessing a "Ti-Se-Ni-Fe" "function stack" or anything of the sort. All that is actually supported is an ISTP preferring I, S, T and P in dichotomy. This does not say anything with regards to the functions-in-attitudes.


----------



## brightflashes

reybridge said:


> I agree to the Grant function stack then. The reason? I will quote my own previous post.
> 
> I would like to hear your argument on Jung's though.


The best thing I can say is to read Jung. Start with _Man and his Symbols_. Next, I suggest _Symbols & Transformations_. Finally, I'd suggest reading _Psychological Types _ followed by _Structure & Dynamics of the Psyche_.

At this point you can pretty much pick and choose from any of these:

_Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious
Development of Personality
The Symbolic Life
Question of Psychological Types_

Follow that up with:
The rest of his collected works that haven't been read 

And end with:

_The Red Book_

- - - - - - - - - - 

I don't say this to be difficult. I say it because, essentially, his theory of personality is so vast and so detailed that to even begin, we would at least need to know what each term means based on Jung's own definition. It's terribly hard for me to find anyone who is actually willing to put in the effort to read that much to have an (in my opinion) intelligent discussion with me about it. Hopefully one day I will find someone who has.

I find Jung's theory the most empirical, comprehensive, and detailed theory of personality that exists and I am yet to see anything that disproves it.


----------



## reybridge

Dissymetry said:


> @reybridge - the "Ti-Ni-Se-Fe" suggestion is not for an ISTP. Following the same idea an ISTP "stack" if such a thing existed and with all due disclaimers, would be "Si-Ti-Fe-Ne". Si = introverted sensation type, since Sensation is perceiving - they get ISxP, and it is supported by Thinking. I explained the reasoning for this earlier. This perspective has exactly the same amount of validity the "function stack" everybody else talks about which is precisely zero. It however does make more sense from a "purely logical" perspective.


With your claim that ISTP leads with Si function, then what does Si function do? What is the definition of Si in your system? It is even better if you can define each of the function.



> Unfortunately, introversion and extroversion do not require each other to survive. They are their own entire temperaments an introvert does not require an extroverted auxiliary function to take in information, introversion can take in information from the outer world, it is quite literally what introversion does, actually. Extroversion of course does not require an introverted function to have access to the inner world either. This idea that each attitude requires the other to function at all is false.


No. You are an introvert, right? Then you are saying that you prefer to do Ti-Ni forever? Why not? You can close your eyes, leave your computer, don't read and just thinking and dwell into imaginations forever. Those two functions are your preferences, you should prefer that kind of life compared to bouncing between reading this post and think, and read, and think again.



> Your suggestion that a person "must prefer an extroverted perceiving function" and could not live with "Ti-Ni" is incorrect. Ti denotes the introverted Thinking _type_. Introversion is _not _a completely isolated attitude, it always has a less preferred extroversion attached which means the introverted Thinking type has a form of extroversion built into its type. The person does not "just dwell" in their "memories and imagination and grow with it". This perspective is derived from the faulty understanding of introversion and extroversion that began with Myers/Briggs interpretation of Jung.


Then you prefer to think and imagining forever than to read this post and think and read and think again? I don't believe it.



> Forcing an extroverted auxiliary onto an introverted type does not make sense logically. The MBTI dichotomy is its own system and has no relation to functions-in-attitudes. The way they apply them has no credibility there is nothing to support the validity of an ISTP supposedly possessing a "Ti-Se-Ni-Fe" "function stack" or anything of the sort. All that is actually supported is an ISTP preferring I, S, T and P in dichotomy. This does not say anything with regards to the functions-in-attitudes.


It does make sense. No one prefer a life of complete introversion without any information from the outside world, if they are given the opportunity to interact with the outside world. The same argument applies with complete extrovert life. It is practically impossible.


----------



## brightflashes

reybridge said:


> With your claim that ISTP leads with Si function, then what does Si function do? What is the definition of Si in your system? It is even better if you can define each of the function.


In Dissy's system, there are 4 functions: T, F, S, & N and 2 attitudes: I & E. 

The functions can be found defined in detail within Jung's _Psychological Types_. The types themselves (the 8 functions-in-attitude) can be found described in chapter X. But remember that he's describing a type, not a function when he's describing each function-in-attitude.




> No. You are an introvert, right? Then you are saying that you prefer to do Ti-Ni forever? Why not? You can close your eyes, leave your computer, don't read and just sleep and have a good dream forever. Those two functions are your preferences, you should prefer that kind of life compared to bouncing between reading this post and think, and read, and think again.


I can vouch for Dissy that he uses Ni & Ti pretty much "forever" as you say. However, he uses every other function as well to basically exist in this world. And, like every human, he is capable of using all the functions-in-attitude when they are necessary. 




> It does make sense. No one prefer a life of complete introversion without any information from the outside world, if they are given the opportunity to interact with the outside world. The same argument applies with complete extrovert life. It is practically impossible.


Introverts interact with the outside world. It's because of Meyer's definition of Introversion that it seems as though a person would not be able to function in a purely introverted attitude. That doesn't mean that one completely closes themselves off to any information or anything like that. They still experience the world - they just subjectify it. 

You can put an introvert and an extravert in a room with the same stimulus and they will still retain their functions-in-attitude that they prefer. Introversion isn't being cut-off from reality. It's, instead, the preference to see the secondary characteristics of reality rather than focus on the primary characteristics.

And yeah, I'm speaking for @Dissymetry, but only because I'm 100% certain he is currently unavailable to respond himself (unless he lied to me just now) and I know how he thinks.


----------



## reybridge

brightflashes said:


> In Dissy's system, there are 4 functions: T, F, S, & N and 2 attitudes: I & E.
> 
> The functions can be found defined in detail within Jung's _Psychological Types_. The types themselves (the 8 functions-in-attitude) can be found described in chapter X. But remember that he's describing a type, not a function when he's describing each function-in-attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I can vouch for Dissy that he uses Ni & Ti pretty much "forever" as you say. However, he uses every other function as well to basically exist in this world. And, like every human, he is capable of using all the functions-in-attitude when they are necessary. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Introverts interact with the outside world. It's because of Meyer's definition of Introversion that it seems as though a person would not be able to function in a purely introverted attitude. That doesn't mean that one completely closes themselves off to any information or anything like that. They still experience the world - they just subjectify it.
> 
> You can put an introvert and an extravert in a room with the same stimulus and they will still retain their functions-in-attitude that they prefer. Introversion isn't being cut-off from reality. It's, instead, the preference to see the secondary characteristics of reality rather than focus on the primary characteristics.
> 
> And yeah, I'm speaking for @Dissymetry, but only because I'm 100% certain he is currently unavailable to respond himself (unless he lied to me just now) and I know how he thinks.


No, he can not. He likes reading? Why not imagining things and think on it forever alone? Is reading necessary for a person to exist? Or is he controlling? Why does he control things? Why not just imagining things and think on it forever alone? Is control necessary for a person to exist? There are people who don't try control anything and still exist happily. Is he supportive and talkative to you? Why not imagining things and think on it forever alone? There are people who are not supportive and still live with satisfaction. You must use at least an extroverted function to simply live a satisfying life.


----------



## brightflashes

As an afterthought I just wanted to add that it seems that there is this idea on the forum that introversion somehow means = unconscious of anything outside of the self and extroversion means = unconscious of anything inside of the self. This is an absurd definition and clearly not the same thing as introversion and extraversion. That sort of definition tries to make a black and white out of something that really falls on a continuum.

@reybridge I'm not going to fight his battles for him, so I'll let him respond to you, but I know plenty of Introverts who use two introverted functions primarily and live a satisfying life. As far as the quality of the relationship I have with him, he is functional in our friendship and yes, I find it rewarding. But I don't see how my evaluation of his friendship really has anything to do with the legitimacy of the II/EE and EE/II function stack that Jung presents.


----------



## hornpipe2

Is this thread a joke?

EDIT: I guess it's not... But I'm confused by this:



reybridge said:


> *Exactly*. This is what have bothered me about MBTI and Jungian cognitive functions. There was no "rule" on the functions, which led me to create this thread. I really don't want to debate people, i just feel the urge to make a single accepted understanding about cognitive functions so everyone can discuss further about personality type knowing we all have agreed to a single fundamental definition.


Who made YOU the decider of the definition of functions, and why are you wanting to avoid debating about it? Shouldn't the definitions arise from multiple arguments / debates? If I come out and say "the sky is green and I will accept no dissent", then I should not be surprised if others have not "agreed" to my single fundamental definition.


----------



## brightflashes

@hornpipe2

The intrigue for me is that there is no agreed upon function stack and so all anyone can do is present the function stack they agree with the most and then do their best to explain why they prefer that one. My preference for Jung shouldn't infringe on anyone else's freedom to choose their own. Since I use Jung in my day-to-day life (I believe you just observed me using it for an hour straight with a client), that's the one that makes most sense because I have familiarised myself with it so totally and everything else seems so foreign comparatively.

But it is also dependent on the context. Those who have studied personality psychology know that type theory is only one of many theories of personality. Jung's theory of personality goes way beyond his typology. Typology does affect the way certain personal and collective archetypes present themselves in the psyche, but I believe that's a whole different subject all together.

The best I can say for myself is there are 4 functions: 
T & F which are rational (judging) functions and N & S which are irrational (perceiving) functions. 

There are 2 function attitudes:
Introversion & Extraversion, which exists for every individual on a continuum

There is one's type:
The function that is most differentiated paired with the preferred attitude.
Which then creates the inferior function as the opposite function and attitude from the most differentiated one.

That's all there is to typology for me. 

When it comes to personality, though ... that's when the other function-in-attitudes, personality development, etc... come into play.


----------



## hornpipe2

I just find it funny because I can picture how this happens: OP comes into personality theory, sees "conflicting" or "unclear" definitions, gets into a few fights about it, and decides "AHA! I see a Problem of disorder, and so I will Solve It by imposing some order!"

So then he throws his "definitions" and is perplexed as to why they aren't simply accepted. "I did the first part, I defined the terms, you're supposed to go use them as I said. Why are you still fighting over the meanings?"

Buddy, if you think you can just wade directly into the midst of a field you know nothing about, and expect to just wing it based on the strength of your "pure logic" (programmers, lol), then you have a rude awakening coming.


----------



## Red Panda

reybridge said:


> I think it is not about older theory or newer ones, it is about which one is making sense the most.


Yes but to compare you'd have to first know and understand the differences and you are using very different definitions from Jung's. And so does MBTI.


----------



## reybridge

hornpipe2 said:


> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> EDIT: I guess it's not... But I'm confused by this:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made YOU the decider of the definition of functions, and why are you wanting to avoid debating about it? Shouldn't the definitions arise from multiple arguments / debates? If I come out and say "the sky is green and I will accept no dissent", then I should not be surprised if others have not "agreed" to my single fundamental definition.


I understand. I don't mind debating it, it is just not my goal. If it really needed to be debated, you can tell your arguments. Maybe spot inconsistency in the rules. I am open to update the rules whenever there are good arguments for it. The rule in the first post have been actually refined over and over thanks to the earlier people in this thread contributing to it.


----------



## reybridge

brightflashes said:


> As an afterthought I just wanted to add that it seems that there is this idea on the forum that introversion somehow means = unconscious of anything outside of the self and extroversion means = unconscious of anything inside of the self. This is an absurd definition and clearly not the same thing as introversion and extraversion. That sort of definition tries to make a black and white out of something that really falls on a continuum.
> 
> @reybridge I'm not going to fight his battles for him, so I'll let him respond to you, but I know plenty of Introverts who use two introverted functions primarily and live a satisfying life. As far as the quality of the relationship I have with him, he is functional in our friendship and yes, I find it rewarding. But I don't see how my evaluation of his friendship really has anything to do with the legitimacy of the II/EE and EE/II function stack that Jung presents.


I still believe no one can functions with completely introverted functions, i am sorry. It is just practically impossible. It is only based on my function definition though.


----------



## reybridge

Red Panda said:


> Yes but to compare you'd have to first know and understand the differences and you are using very different definitions from Jung's. And so does MBTI.


When i formulated the rules, of course i compared what a personality with the so called "Grant stack" of functions defined in my rule would look like with the description of each MBTI types. And i think they fit together.

For an example, an ESFJ is described as a person who is caring, social, and reactive to people appearance. ESFJs have function stack Fe-Si-Ne-Ti. Fe in dominant position makes them easy to trigger, not only by people. They are people who will go panic easily because it is their dominant function to be triggered and change something in the outside world. And why are they so social? Because they react to each other reaction. And the reaction would be about Physical Objects they gathered by Si function. This explains their tendency to gossip about people appearance, whether it is appropriate or not, and how a person should appears, what to wear, etc.

And those people triggered and complaining about people attitude the most? They are not ESFJs. Because attitude is a Conceptual Object. They are ENFJs. See? It is easier to read people by using my definition of function.


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> When i formulated the rules, of course i compared what a personality with the so called "Grant stack" of functions defined in my rule would look like with the description of each MBTI types. And i think they fit together.
> 
> For an example, an ESFJ is described as a person who is caring, social, and reactive to people appearance. ESFJs have function stack Fe-Si-Ne-Ti. Fe in dominant position makes them easy to trigger, not only by people. They are people who will go panic easily because it is their dominant function to be triggered and change something in the outside world. And why are they so social? Because they react to each other reaction. And the reaction would be about Physical Objects they gathered by Si function. This explains their tendency to gossip about people appearance, whether it is appropriate or not, and how a person should appears, what to wear, etc.
> 
> And those people triggered and complaining about people attitude the most? They are not ESFJs. Because attitude is a Conceptual Object. They are ENFJs. See? It is easier to read people by using my definition of function.


Thought experiment. You throw a party inviting only ESFJs. They mingle. You enter the room and get an feeling (intuition that is) for the flavor of those attending. Yet after a while you'd be able to tell them apart. 

Why? Some would be doing Ti, some would be doing Ne, some would be doing Si. Actually the longer the party went on, the more they might try to distinguish themselves, one from the other.

(I have not actually run this experiment.)


----------



## brightflashes

BigApplePi said:


> Thought experiment. You throw a party inviting only ESFJs. They mingle. You enter the room and get an feeling (intuition that is) for the flavor of those attending. Yet after a while you'd be able to tell them apart.
> 
> Why? Some would be doing Ti, some would be doing Ne, some would be doing Si. Actually the longer the party went on, the more they might try to distinguish themselves, one from the other.
> 
> (I have not actually run this experiment.)


I don't know if this helps or not, but this is true in prison populations in the states. You put enough men in a white jumper, they will do whatever they can to try to distinguish themselves from one another. This is why tattoos are so popular with ex-cons. I wonder if one were to track the individuation process (may as well use a word that exists to describe this) between prison populations and ESFJs at a party, if the individuation would follow the same curve? Fascinating experiment idea!


----------



## BigApplePi

brightflashes said:


> I don't know if this helps or not, but this is true in prison populations in the states. You put enough men in a white jumper, they will do whatever they can to try to distinguish themselves from one another. This is why tattoos are so popular with ex-cons. I wonder if one were to track the individuation process (may as well use a word that exists to describe this) between prison populations and ESFJs at a party, if the individuation would follow the same curve? Fascinating experiment idea!


I didn't think of it until just now. Your idea of looking elsewhere for the experiment ... we don't have to look far. It's right here on PerC. Some posters label themselves right at their avatar. If you look at INTJs, for example, some will be open with their Fi and some won't be. Here is an INTJ who just told me where to get off: #25814


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> Thought experiment. You throw a party inviting only ESFJs. They mingle. You enter the room and get an feeling (intuition that is) for the flavor of those attending. Yet after a while you'd be able to tell them apart.
> 
> Why? Some would be doing Ti, some would be doing Ne, some would be doing Si. Actually the longer the party went on, the more they might try to distinguish themselves, one from the other.
> 
> (I have not actually run this experiment.)


Interesting. I would say it might be true. To survive in any kind of relationship, a group of people need to use all cognitive functions. When a person uses Fe, the other should use an extroverted perceiving function and introverted judging function. If not, then there will be voices going on without a listener, so there won't be enough impression for a person to develop a relationship because there is no one "Burning" anything. There should be someone to give in and grows his lower functions in the Grant stack even more.


----------



## Dissymetry

@reybridge - Where are you sourcing your information? In your latest post you are suggesting Fe is a voice, and that extroverted perceiving (and introverted judging?) are listening. This is not right and does not even work as a metaphor as it is so misleading.
Introverted perceiving and judging functions can be voices without requiring extroverted judging. Extroverted judging can listen and this does not require introverted judging or perceiving. Your perspective is so absolutist, and incorrect.


----------



## reybridge

Dissymetry said:


> @reybridge - *Where are you sourcing your information?* In your latest post you are suggesting Fe is a voice, and that extroverted perceiving (and introverted judging?) are listening. This is not right and does not even work as a metaphor as it is so misleading.
> Introverted perceiving and judging functions can be voices without requiring extroverted judging. *Extroverted judging can listen and this does not require introverted judging or perceiving*. Your perspective is so absolutist, and incorrect.


There is no source other than the first post. The rules in the first post were from my thought and refined over time by some people. You can assume what i mean when i talk about functions in this thread refer to the first post rules.

People with extroverted judging function can listen, yes, but it is not their most preferred function. ESFJs have Ne. They use Ne along with Ti (well, maybe sometimes also Fi) so a relationship can forms.

If you found it misleading, please just tell me exactly where it is wrong.


----------



## Dissymetry

@reybridge - okay I guess you are free to just make up whatever you would like then. I did not realize this was a discussion in relation to and only in relation to your subjective perception of "cognitive functions". If I had understood this entire thing had to be framed solely within the boundaries of what you specifically find acceptable, I never would have responded to the thread due to the absurdity of this idea.


----------



## brightflashes

I think a problem is that for one to use pure logic, they must at least have the freedom to point out fallacy, if any exist, in other systems of logic. We are all human and prone to fallacy in our thinking. There is no "pure logic". Your requirement for those to expand upon their ideas to essentially prove your logical ideas wrong seems to be arbitrarily applied. 

I'm not in any way saying that the way I view cognitive functions is the "most logical", but I can offer that it makes the most sense for me.

And, as hp2 said, the field of psychology does not work as a programming language.

@BigApplePi

lol. I'm pretty much of the same mind at this point. This obsession with the definition of "consciousness" seems misplaced on the INTJ forum. Hardly anyone has bothered to take interest or interact and, honestly, when you said only one person responded to you straight to me in the "INTJs have no empathy pt 67035" thread (referring to Squirt, and then USING this as an argument AGAINST me to prove that INTJs don't have empathy), it actually put me off from responding to you in the first place because I figured what I said wasn't important enough for you to remember the first time, why should I even attempt later on?


----------



## reybridge

Dissymetry said:


> @reybridge - okay I guess you are free to just make up whatever you would like then. I did not realize this was a discussion in relation to and only in relation to your subjective perception of "cognitive functions". If I had understood this entire thing had to be framed solely within the boundaries of what you specifically find acceptable, I never would have responded to the thread due to the absurdity of this idea.


And yet, you still can not tell what kind of function definition you refer to every time you mention a function, right? Please be introspective and just accept that fact. Whenever you are in a debate with other people anywhere, you will be thankful to the first post of this thread if you accepted it.


----------



## brightflashes

reybridge said:


> And yet, you still can not tell what kind of function definition you refer to every time you mention a function, right? Please be introspective and just accept that fact. Whenever you are in a debate with other people anywhere, you will be thankful to the first post of this thread if you accepted it.


He has already posted it more than one. Whenever you are in a debate with other people anywhere, you will be thankful to re-read what they say or absorb it the first time. Why should he repeat himself? I've also defined them for you and I certainly don't care to repeat myself a ... let's see ... 4th time?


----------



## hornpipe2

reybridge said:


> And yet, you still can not tell what kind of function definition you refer to every time you mention a function, right? Please be introspective and just accept that fact. Whenever you are in a debate with other people anywhere, you will be thankful to the first post of this thread if you accepted it.


----------



## reybridge

brightflashes said:


> I think a problem is that for one to use pure logic, they must at least have the freedom to point out fallacy, if any exist, in other systems of logic. We are all human and prone to fallacy in our thinking. There is no "pure logic". Your requirement for those to expand upon their ideas to essentially prove your logical ideas wrong seems to be arbitrarily applied.
> 
> I'm not in any way saying that the way I view cognitive functions is the "most logical", but I can offer that it makes the most sense for me.
> 
> And, as hp2 said, the field of psychology does not work as a programming language.


Of course it doesn't. Logic is universal, it applies to programming, science, every technical departments, politics, even to psychology.


----------



## brightflashes

reybridge said:


> Of course it doesn't. Logic is universal, it applies to programming, science, every technical departments, politics, even to psychology.


:shocked:

Your logic is obviously subjective or else everyone would be agreeing with you for 26+ pages rather than offering anything else.


----------



## reybridge

brightflashes said:


> He has already posted it more than one. Whenever you are in a debate with other people anywhere, you will be thankful to re-read what they say or absorb it the first time. Why should he repeat himself? I've also defined them for you and I certainly don't care to repeat myself a ... let's see ... 4th time?


Do you mean the points he posted here earlier? I still have questions on it, it doesn't cover all possibilities necessary to formulate a perfect system.


----------



## reybridge

brightflashes said:


> :shocked:
> 
> Your logic is obviously subjective or else everyone would be agreeing with you for 26+ pages rather than offering anything else.


The world doesn't actually work like that. Is there even objective logic? Please show me an example of your so called objective logic. And those who don't agree with my rules are actually just two or three people. And they have the same quality, they can not explain their believed function definitions without some logical fallacies. There are more silent readers than who actively posting in the thread.


----------



## hornpipe2

reybridge said:


> The world doesn't actually work like that. Is there even objective logic? Please show me an example of your so called objective logic.


I have no idea what you're even trying to do here. You're fighting with everyone here while saying you don't want to argue, you're belittling people for not accepting the "truth" of whatever you posted on page 1, now you're saying that "logic applies to everything" and yet here - "logic: it doesn't apply to everything"

What are you even trying to say with this thread?


----------



## brightflashes

reybridge said:


> Do you mean the points he posted here earlier? I still have questions on it, it doesn't cover all possibilities necessary to formulate a perfect system.


No, because Jungian typology is incomplete in and of itself as a personality theory. Typology was never meant to be the only part of the system. It was only to represent a facet to provide the language needed to explain the other facets of personality Jung goes into elsewhere. 

Here:

S & N are perceiving (irrational) functions. They both perceive, without judgement, information in either a primary way or a secondary way. S is the observance of facts while N is the observance of the unknowable.

F & T are judging (rational) functions. They both form conclusions about the information perceived. F conclusions are based on value hierarchy while T conclusions are based on truth.

Each of these four functions operate in two attitudes: Introversion (for introverts) and Extraversion (for extraverts).

Introverts focus on taking the information at hand and interpreting that through a subjective lens while Extraverts take the information and interpret them through an objective lens.

The combination of each function and attitude forms 8 types. These types are Ni, Ne, Si, Se (P types or irrational types) and Ti, Te, Fi, and Fe (J types or rational types). To find one's type, you look for their most differentiated (most used, most preferred) function and pair it with their attitude (introvert or extravert).

Additionally, each type also has an inferior function-in-attitude which is the opposite in the opposite attitude.

The cognitive function "stack" Dissy proposes is this: II/EE or EE/II based on Jung's work.

The cognitive function "stack" I propose is this: Pi-J/J-Pe, Ji-P/P-Je, Pe-J/J-Pi, & Je-P/P-Ji. In this thread this is the first time I'm revealing my personal preference.


- - - - - - - - - - 

Oh, about the "objective logic". That's what I was saying to begin with. Logic is human and prone to fallacy. That's why your subjective ideas about how to define functions are not being accepted over the 28+ pages of this thread. You said, instead, that logic was "universal". I apologise, but I thought that "universal logic" and "objective logic" are interchangeable. You are treating me as if I'm an idiot for trying to explain this to you yet you yourself is the one who first postulated this idea of logic being "universal" throughout all these various fields etc ... Whatever, I don't have time to argue with you about the definition of the word logic or whether or not "universal" and "objective" can be used interchangeably. 

I'm done with this thread. Too much drama for my tastes.


----------



## reybridge

hornpipe2 said:


> I have no idea what you're even trying to do here. You're fighting with everyone here while saying you don't want to argue, you're belittling people for not accepting the "truth" of whatever you posted on page 1, now you're saying that "logic applies to everything" and yet here - "logic: it doesn't apply to everything"
> 
> What are you even trying to say with this thread?


I don't want to argue, but i don't mind if it is necessary to support my rules.


----------



## hornpipe2

reybridge said:


> I don't want to argue, but i don't mind if it is necessary to support my rules.


That answered none of my questions! Thanks!


----------



## reybridge

brightflashes said:


> No, *because Jungian typology is incomplete in and of itself as a personality theory*. Typology was never meant to be the only part of the system. It was only to represent a facet to provide the language needed to explain the other facets of personality Jung goes into elsewhere.
> 
> Here:
> 
> S & N are perceiving (irrational) functions. They both perceive, without judgement, information in either a primary way or a secondary way. S is the observance of facts while N is the observance of the unknowable.
> 
> F & T are judging (rational) functions. They both form conclusions about the information perceived. F conclusions are based on value hierarchy while T conclusions are based on truth.
> 
> Each of these four functions operate in two attitudes: Introversion (for introverts) and Extraversion (for extraverts).
> 
> Introverts focus on taking the information at hand and interpreting that through a subjective lens while Extraverts take the information and interpret them through an objective lens.
> 
> The combination of each function and attitude forms 8 types. These types are Ni, Ne, Si, Se (P types or irrational types) and Ti, Te, Fi, and Fe (J types or rational types). To find one's type, you look for their most differentiated (most used, most preferred) function and pair it with their attitude (introvert or extravert).
> 
> Additionally, each type also has an inferior function-in-attitude which is the opposite in the opposite attitude.
> 
> The cognitive function "stack" Dissy proposes is this: II/EE or EE/II based on Jung's work.
> 
> The cognitive function "stack" I propose is this: Pi-J/J-Pe, Ji-P/P-Je, Pe-J/J-Pi, & Je-P/P-Ji. In this thread this is the first time I'm revealing my personal preference.
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Oh, about the "objective logic". That's what I was saying to begin with. Logic is human and prone to fallacy. That's why your subjective ideas about how to define functions are not being accepted over the 28+ pages of this thread. You said, instead, that logic was "universal". I apologise, but I thought that "universal logic" and "objective logic" are interchangeable. You are treating me as if I'm an idiot for trying to explain this to you yet you yourself is the one who first postulated this idea of logic being "universal" throughout all these various fields etc ... Whatever, I don't have time to argue with you about the definition of the word logic or whether or not "universal" and "objective" can be used interchangeably.
> 
> I'm done with this thread. Too much drama for my tastes.


You said it yourself, Jungian typology is incomplete in and of itself as a personality theory. So here i am, providing a system to complete it. In response on your function definitions, i have some questions:

- "S is the observance of facts while N is the observance of the unknowable". Can a fact be unknowable? If it could, then there will be a situation where it is ambiguous whether you are using S or N function. And can a not fact information knowable? You should explain it in a way that it can not be ambiguous.

- "F conclusions are based on value hierarchy while T conclusions are based on truth". Can a value someone hold be the truth? What is considered truth regarding T function usage? How do they work exactly? This statement is very ambiguous to the point you can do a function and you call it both T and F at the same time.

- "Introverts focus on taking the information at hand and interpreting that through a subjective lens while Extraverts take the information and interpret them through an objective lens". Introvert what? Do you mean a person as a whole or an individual introvert function?

About logic, yes it is universal. That is exactly why i don't understand what you call objective logic and subjective logic. It doesn't make sense. A logic is a function to deduce some premises, nothing more nothing less, no matter how you bring that logic into discussion. If you find a conclusion is false, you go see the premises, not the logic itself.


----------



## hornpipe2

reybridge said:


> You said it yourself, Jungian typology is incomplete in and of itself as a personality theory.


It's an "incomplete" theory, in that typology is only a small part of Jungian personality theory.

Personality is not "just" typology.

(I'm @brightflashes partner btw... and like she said before, don't expect more response from her on this. She uses the WHOLE theory, not just this one part. And I think she gave you a bibliography, if you care to look into it.)


----------



## reybridge

hornpipe2 said:


> That answered none of my questions! Thanks!


The first post is what i want to say.


----------



## reybridge

hornpipe2 said:


> It's an "incomplete" theory, in that typology is only a small part of Jungian personality theory.
> 
> Personality is not "just" typology.
> 
> (I'm @brightflashes partner btw... and like she said before, don't expect more response from her on this. She uses the WHOLE theory, not just this one part. And I think she gave you a bibliography, if you care to look into it.)


The wider it expands only generate more flaws to the system without a well defined definition. By well defined definition, i mean a definition without any logical fallacy and ambiguity. If you can tell me that kind of definition, it is better than any description about cognitive functions.


----------



## BigApplePi

brightflashes said:


> @*BigApplePi*
> 
> lol. I'm pretty much of the same mind at this point. This obsession with the definition of "consciousness" seems misplaced on the INTJ forum. Hardly anyone has bothered to take interest or interact and, honestly, when you said only one person responded to you straight to me in the "INTJs have no empathy pt 67035" thread (referring to Squirt, and then USING this as an argument AGAINST me to prove that INTJs don't have empathy), it actually put me off from responding to you in the first place because I figured what I said wasn't important enough for you to remember the first time, why should I even attempt later on?


I'm not following you at all. Link for 67035 or something please!


----------



## Red Panda

reybridge said:


> When i formulated the rules, of course i compared what a personality with the so called "Grant stack" of functions defined in my rule would look like with the description of each MBTI types. And i think they fit together.
> 
> For an example, an ESFJ is described as a person who is caring, social, and reactive to people appearance. ESFJs have function stack Fe-Si-Ne-Ti. Fe in dominant position makes them easy to trigger, not only by people. They are people who will go panic easily because it is their dominant function to be triggered and change something in the outside world. And why are they so social? Because they react to each other reaction. And the reaction would be about Physical Objects they gathered by Si function. This explains their tendency to gossip about people appearance, whether it is appropriate or not, and how a person should appears, what to wear, etc.
> 
> And those people triggered and complaining about people attitude the most? They are not ESFJs. Because attitude is a Conceptual Object. They are ENFJs. See? It is easier to read people by using my definition of function.


Well, in Jung's theory, needing to take control and change the outside world is the psychology of the Introvert. Because E/I are not about the literal ability to intake information or act on the world, but are psychological preferences of how you relate to the world, Jung identified them as two distinct evolutionary adaptations. Which as a perspective, I think, has a lot more potential to get things right and actually tell us something about personality as it's a more holistic approach.


----------



## reybridge

Red Panda said:


> Well, in Jung's theory, needing to take control and change the outside world is the psychology of the Introvert. Because E/I are not about the literal ability to intake information or act on the world, but are psychological preferences of how you relate to the world, Jung identified them as two distinct evolutionary adaptations. Which as a perspective, I think, has a lot more potential to get things right and actually tell us something about personality as it's a more holistic approach.


Is it explained (of course i am asking for an unambiguous explanation) why control and change the outside world is related to introverts? Holistic approach is the one which covers all possibilities and behaviors a person could do and think, and still can identify accurately what the function is behind such behavior. Knowing how a person behaviors over time, you can easily identify his function stack which leads to knowing the personality of that person. And if everyone understood this system, they can describe a person much more accurately just by saying an MBTI type, without a doubt, with the exact same perspective. Well, maybe i should start referring to MBTI based on my function definition with R-MBTI with type like R-ISTJ or R-ESFP.


----------



## Red Panda

reybridge said:


> Is it explained (of course i am asking for an unambiguous explanation) why control and change the outside world is related to introverts? Holistic approach is the one which covers all possibilities and behaviors a person could do and think, and still can identify accurately what the function is behind such behavior. Knowing how a person behaviors over time, you can easily identify his function stack which leads to knowing the personality of that person. And if everyone understood this system, they can describe a person much more accurately just by saying an MBTI type, without a doubt, with the exact same perspective. Well, maybe i should start referring to MBTI based on my function definition with R-MBTI with type like R-ISTJ or R-ESFP.


Well, first of all he was the one who came up with the terminology Extravert and Introvert, so the choice of words was his. He identified these two groups of people and then found suitable words for them. 



Jung said:


> The attitude types, as I have repeatedly emphasized in the preceding chapters, are distinguished by their attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always intent on withdrawing libido from the object, as though he had to prevent the object from gaining power over him. The extravert, on the contrary, has a positive relation to the object. The object can never have enough value for him, and its importance must always be increased.


The introvert's psychology is one of self-reinforcement of their subjective view and when the information they receive by the object contradicts them, they feel the need to dominate it, like your examples of the EFJs. 


* *







> (II) THE UNCONSCIOUS ATTITUDE (of Introverts)
> 
> The superior position of the subjective factor in consciousness involves an inferiority of the objective factor. The object is not given that importance which should really belong to it. Just as it plays too great a role in the extraverted attitude, it has too little to say in the introverted. To the extent that the introvert's consciousness is subjectified, thus bestowing undue importance upon the ego, the object is placed in a position which in time becomes quite untenable. The object is a factor of undeniable power, while the ego is something very restricted [p. 478] and transitory. It would be a very different matter if the Self opposed the object. Self and world are commensurable factors; hence a normal introverted attitude is just as valid, and has as good a right to existence, as a normal extraverted attitude. But, if the ego has usurped the claims of the subject, a compensation naturally develops under the guise of an unconscious reinforcement of the influence of the object. Such a change eventually commands attention, for often, in spite of a positively convulsive attempt to ensure the superiority of the ego, the object and objective data develop an overwhelming influence, which is all the more invincible because it seizes upon the individual unawares, thus effecting an irresistible invasion of consciousness. As a result of the ego's defective relation to the object -- for a will to command is not adaptation -- a compensatory relation to the object develops in the unconscious, which makes itself felt in consciousness as an unconditional and irrepressible tie to the object. The more the ego seeks to secure every possible liberty, independence, superiority, and freedom from obligations, the deeper does it fall into the slavery of objective facts. The subject's freedom of mind is chained to an ignominious financial dependence, his unconcernedness of action suffers now and again, a distressing collapse in the face of public opinion, his moral superiority gets swamped in inferior relationships, and his desire to dominate ends in a pitiful craving to be loved. The chief concern of the unconscious in such a case is the relation to the object, and it affects this in a way that is calculated to bring both the power illusion and the superiority phantasy to utter ruin. The object assumes terrifying dimensions, in spite of conscious depreciation. Detachment from, and command of, the object are, in consequence, pursued by the ego still more violently. Finally, the ego surrounds itself by a regular system of safeguards (Adler has ably [p. 479] depicted these) which shall at least preserve the illusion of superiority. But, therewith, the introvert severs himself completely from the object, and either squanders his energy in defensive measures or makes fruitless attempts to impose his power upon the object and successfully assert himself. But these efforts are constantly being frustrated by the overwhelming impressions he receives from the object. It continually imposes itself upon him against his will; it provokes in him the most disagreeable and obstinate affects, persecuting him at every step. An immense, inner struggle is constantly required of him, in order to 'keep going.' Hence Psychoasthenia is his typical form of neurosis, a malady which is characterized on the one hand by an extreme sensitiveness, and on the other by a great liability to exhaustion and chronic fatigue.
> 
> An analysis of the personal unconscious yields an abundance of power phantasies coupled with fear of the dangerously animated objects, to which, as a matter of fact, the introvert easily falls a victim. For a peculiar cowardliness develops from this fear of the object; he shrinks from making either himself or his opinion effective, always dreading an intensified influence on the part of the object. He is terrified of impressive affects in others, and is hardly ever free from the dread of falling under hostile influence. For objects possess terrifying and powerful qualities for him-qualities which he cannot consciously discern in them, but which, through his unconscious perception, he cannot choose but believe in. Since his conscious relation to the object is relatively repressed, its exit is by way of the unconscious, where it becomes loaded with the qualities of the unconscious. These qualities are primarily infantile and archaic. His relation to the object, therefore, becomes correspondingly primitive, taking on all those peculiarities which characterize the primitive objectrelationship. Now it seems as though objects possessed [p. 480] magical powers. Strange, new objects excite fear and distrust, as though concealing unknown dangers; objects long rooted and blessed by tradition are attached to his soul as by invisible threads; every change has a disturbing, if not actually dangerous aspect, since its apparent implication is a magical animation of the object. A lonely island where only what is permitted to move moves, becomes an ideal. Auch Einer, the novel by F. Th. Vischer, gives a rich insight into this side of the introvert's psychology, and at the same time shows the underlying symbolism of the collective unconscious, which in this description of types I am leaving on one side, since it is a universal phenomenon with no especial connection with types.








The reason why in Jung's typology, the preferred perception and judgment functions have the same attitude is because the attitude is a separate trait of the personality, not an attachment to the functions. It's sort of a function itself. 
The systems after Jung did not follow his terminology but rather like you do, take a more literal meaning of the words introversion and extraversion and perhaps only choose specific traits to include in them. But also from comparison it seems to me that the types that have Pi and Pe roughly are the same as Jung's I and E respectively.


----------



## Gashina

This thread takes the cake as the most hilarious just by title alone.


----------



## reybridge

I feel the need to relive this before more and more people are misguided.


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> I feel the need to relive this before more and more people are misguided.


Aren't you afraid any breathe of life will feed into more and more misguidanceship? Evidence?


----------



## Tellus

Model D - Page 15


A type is defined by six large-scale brain networks (or subsystems) and expressiveness (E)/inexpressiveness (I). a physicist: rFPN 2 > rVAN > rFPN 1 > lFPN 1 > rDAN > lDAN etc + inexpressive a mathematician: rFPN 1 > lFPN 1 > rDAN > lDAN > rVAN > rFPN 2 etc + inexpressive ------




www.the16types.info





left dlPFC ("Ti"), right dlPFC ("Ne")

dmPFC ("Ne" i.e. analogy and categorization, "Fi"):

"Based on these findings, it can be speculated that, when two or more competing responses come into conflict, the dmPFC is engaged to search for a new and more appropriate response to resolve the conflict by directing attention to external sensory information from the environment or information available in memory (Cabeza et al., 2002; Horst and Laubach, 2009), which may have little to do with fulfilling the immediate internal needs of the body."


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> left dlPFC ("Ti"), right dlPFC ("Ne")
> 
> dmPFC ("Ne" i.e. analogy and categorization, "Fi"):


Can you translate that into ordinary language?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Can you translate that into ordinary language?


My point is that dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) corresponds to the Jungian function Extroverted Intuition, but it interacts with "The Mind" as well so reybridge's definitions of the functions do not work.


----------



## Tellus

You can argue that Ne must be an _extroverted_ function (i.e. "The World") but then the type descriptions are incorrect.






The Myers & Briggs Foundation - The 16 MBTI® Types


The Myers & Briggs Foundation - - The 16 MBTI® Types



www.myersbriggs.org





ENFP: "Make connections between events and information very quickly" ... This must be equally true for an introverted type.


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> My point is that dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) corresponds to the Jungian function Extroverted Intuition, but it interacts with "The Mind" as well ...


You are saying a special area of the brain goes with Ne (extroverted intuition of Myers-Briggs). All cognitive functions interact with "The Mind." They are part of the mind, aren't they?



Tellus said:


> so reybridge's definitions of the functions do not work.


How so?



Tellus said:


> ENFP: "Make connections between events and information very quickly" ... This must be equally true for an introverted type.


Any type with Ne in the first or second position might work. ENFP = Ne Fi Te Si (Myers-Briggs). INFP = Fi Ne Si Te. Ne in a lower position might not gain such prominence.

BTW you and I used to talk, but that was a couple years ago I think.


----------



## tanstaafl28

BigApplePi said:


> You are saying a special area of the brain goes with Ne (extroverted intuition of Myers-Briggs). All cognitive functions interact with "The Mind." They are part of the mind, aren't they?
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> Any type with Ne in the first or second position might work. ENFP = Ne Fi Te Si (Myers-Briggs). INFP = Fi Ne Si Te. Ne in a lower position might not gain such prominence.
> 
> BTW you and I used to talk, but that was a couple years ago I think.


Apparently, something only Ne users have is known as "Trans-contextual thinking." Multiple areas of the brain light up on an EEG when people with this ability are tested. 









Trans Contextual Thinking: ENTP, ENFP, INTP, INFP -...


Trans-contextual thinking is the ability to create connections in the mind between things or ideas that aren't typically associated with each other in a particular context. This is a special talent of types who use Extraverted iNtuition, particularly ENFP and ENTP, but also INFP and INTP...




www.personalitycafe.com













The Christmas Tree Brain


What is a “Christmas Tree Brain?” Someone who likes to shop? Decorate the house? Take a limo ride to view the holiday lights? Actually, the Christmas Tree Brain is an asynchronous macro-state measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG). It is characterized by various brain regions firing at...




www.annholm.net


----------



## BigApplePi

For me, Ne is a terrific input tool to integrating diverse or conflicting issues. If integration comes up with a successful generalization, that generalization becomes a tool, in turn, to grasp particulars.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> Aren't you afraid any breathe of life will feed into more and more misguidanceship? Evidence?


My definitions are isolated by their own, it's a framework of thinking, not a theory that needs empirical evidence. And they are logically complete framework, therefore, it must be as true as that there are people who believe in god and there are people who don't believe in god.


----------



## tanstaafl28

BigApplePi said:


> For me, Ne is a terrific input tool to integrating diverse or conflicting issues. If integration comes up with a successful generalization, that generalization becomes a tool, in turn, to grasp particulars.


As a Ne dom, I make connections that others miss.


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> My point is that dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) corresponds to the Jungian function Extroverted Intuition, but it interacts with "The Mind" as well so reybridge's definitions of the functions do not work.


*The Mind* in my definitions is not a kind of physical activity in the brain, it simply refers to a realm that is not currently perceived by using our sensing organs. Your computer and your surroundings are parts of my *The Mind* since i am not currently perceiving it by using my sensing organs.



BigApplePi said:


> You are saying a special area of the brain goes with Ne (extroverted intuition of Myers-Briggs). All cognitive functions interact with "The Mind." They are part of the mind, aren't they?


Of course no, *The Mind* doesn't refer to any activity of the brain. Please read again my definitions.



tanstaafl28 said:


> Apparently, something only Ne users have is known as "Trans-contextual thinking." Multiple areas of the brain light up on an EEG when people with this ability are tested.


That trans-contextual thinking you mentioned must correspond to Si function, not Ne. Ne function perceives what is in *The World*, while trans-contextual thinking you mentioned perceives what is in *The Mind*.


----------



## BigApplePi

tanstaafl28 said:


> As a Ne dom, I make connections that others miss.


I am going to miss any connections that you don't make.



reybridge said:


> My definitions are isolated by their own, it's a framework of thinking, not a theory that needs empirical evidence. And they are logically complete framework, ...


Are your definitions so isolated that they have no frame? I need some empirical evidence as I've not been to this thread lately. 



reybridge said:


> therefore, it must be as true as that there are people who believe in god and there are people who don't believe in god.


Are you saying this is a polarized world? What about peoples who believe in a god only when it is convenient and don't believe in a god at times when it suits them?


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> Are your definitions so isolated that they have no frame? I need some empirical evidence as I've not been to this thread lately.


It is a framework of thinking that i want people to belief in the first place to challenge the complexity of Jung's description of cognitive functions. As long as you interact with things, it's the evidence these definitions are there governing your behaviors.



BigApplePi said:


> Are you saying this is a polarized world? What about peoples who believe in a god only when it is convenient and don't believe in a god at times when it suits them?


That is perfectly allowed, just like people use cognitive functions alternately according to what kind of object they are interacting with, it may be their computer, their family members, their past memories, their principles, or their beliefs. When people interact with a certain object, they use a certain cognitive function.


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> Of course no, *The Mind* doesn't refer to any activity of the brain. Please read again my definitions.


Can you give the post # or post #s for such definitions? I cannot read 200 odd messages. Thank you. My perspective is entirely different. Should I see your definitions, I'll show you what I mean. I claim the "mind" IS an activity of the brain.



reybridge said:


> It is a framework of thinking that i want people to belief in the first place to challenge the complexity of Jung's description of cognitive functions. As long as you interact with things, it's the evidence these definitions are there governing your behaviors.


That sounds interesting. I'd like to see a better or at least different view of Jung's descriptions.



reybridge said:


> That is perfectly allowed, just like people use cognitive functions alternately according to what kind of object they are interacting with, it may be their computer, their family members, their past memories, their principles, or their beliefs.


Good. 



reybridge said:


> When people interact with a certain object, they use a certain cognitive function.


I'm for that. I see one function as prominent but others will be in play.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> Can you give the post # or post #s for such definitions? I cannot read 200 odd messages. Thank you. My perspective is entirely different. Should I see your definitions, I'll show you what I mean. I claim the "mind" IS an activity of the brain.


It's in the first post:
*5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by the sensing organs.*
What do you mean by your perspective? *The Mind* is a term from the definitions in the first post, you should use a perspective of the definitions for this particular term.


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> What do you mean by your perspective?


I will assume Ti is my primary. Thinking is supposed to be a judging function. I will judge. You will judge. I have a take on things and so do you. I'll take a look at 5.1 ... or maybe the whole thing.



reybridge said:


> Actually, i want people in this thread are professional engineers, especially programmers, so we are thinking in the same logical level, i don't care your type. But if you feel like you are pure logical, you can also give a comment. I just find it is time wasting to discuss about cognitive function with people who doesn't use logic in the first place. I want the purest logician who can help me discover how the very core of cognitive functions work with a firm explanation.


I was a programmer. My type could help you understand what I say, but feel free to ignore it. I certainly am not pure logical. I feel, sense and intuit. I am also after "the very core of cognitive functions work with a firm explanation" but explanations vary and can depend on how one starts.



reybridge said:


> It doesn't need to be exactly the same as the definition of Jungian cognitive function, the important thing is the clarity of the system.


RightO.



reybridge said:


> Please tell me i am wrong ONLY if you think the system won't work,


 I hesitate to say anyone is "wrong." They are just different.



reybridge said:


> If you are the 'see this link' person, please don't comment anything.


Deal. When others give a link I prefer they quote what they want from it so I know what they're talking about.



reybridge said:


> 3. Object refers to absolutely anything.


My reaction is I hope I'm not forced to narrow "anything" later.



reybridge said:


> 4.1. 'The World' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is currently perceived by the sensing organs.


I forgot to ask you, you said "this is the very rule of cognitive functions i learned."

Is 4.1 a deduction from something or am I suppose to take it as an axiom as true? I say that because in my world", I can perceive the world either by sensing or* intuition*.



reybridge said:


> 5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by the sensing organs.


You used the word "not." I prefer positiveness. What are examples of that? Thinking, feeling and intuition?

I will stop here. I've not read further until we are on the same plane up to here.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> I will assume Ti is my primary. Thinking is supposed to be a judging function. I will judge. You will judge. I have a take on things and so do you. I'll take a look at 5.1 ... or maybe the whole thing.


Thinking as the general word people use is too vague. Thinking may be a judging function if it changed something in your *The Mind*. But the word thinking as people in general use may also in fact a perceiving function as in my definitions if it doesn't change anything in *The Mind*.



BigApplePi said:


> I was a programmer. My type could help you understand what I say, but feel free to ignore it. I certainly am not pure logical. I feel, sense and intuit. I am also after "the very core of cognitive functions work with a firm explanation" but explanations vary and can depend on how one starts.


Well, i can sense it, you are fine. I changed my words in the first post to bring more positivity.



BigApplePi said:


> My reaction is I hope I'm not forced to narrow "anything" later.


You won't, it's absolutely anything.



BigApplePi said:


> I forgot to ask you, you said "this is the very rule of cognitive functions i learned."


Let's forget it, it was done by my immature self years ago. That i am a better person now, i updated some words in the first post.



BigApplePi said:


> Is 4.1 a deduction from something or am I suppose to take it as an axiom as true? I say that because in my world", I can perceive the world either by sensing or* intuition*


You are supposed to debate whether or not there is a better definition than that.



BigApplePi said:


> You used the word "not." I prefer positiveness. What are examples of that? Thinking, feeling and intuition?
> 
> I will stop here. I've not read further until we are on the same plane up to here.


I bring you a positiveness by updating my first post, but not any clause of the definitions. I mentioned earlier about *The Mind* in previous post "it may be their computer, their family members, their past memories, their principles, or their beliefs".


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> My definitions are isolated by their own, it's a framework of thinking, not a theory that needs empirical evidence. And they are logically complete framework, therefore, it must be as true as that there are people who believe in god and there are people who don't believe in god.


A theory is completely useless without empirical evidence. This is not math. The Jungian functions are obviously based on empirical evidence.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> You are saying a special area of the brain goes with Ne (extroverted intuition of Myers-Briggs).


yes



> All cognitive functions interact with "The Mind." They are part of the mind, aren't they?


Well, "The Mind" is reybridge's definition, and it does not make any sense at all.

5. Introverted function is all about 'The Mind'.

5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by the sensing organs.



> Any type with Ne in the first or second position might work. ENFP = Ne Fi Te Si (Myers-Briggs). INFP = Fi Ne Si Te. Ne in a lower position might not gain such prominence.


No, it must be a dominant intuitive function. This type is not included in the Myers-Briggs system.


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> I mentioned earlier about *The Mind* in previous post "it may be their computer, their family members, their past memories, their principles, or their beliefs".


Their family members belong to the external world, right? So why do you think an introverted function (which processes the internal world) is all about "The Mind"?


----------



## Eset

I thought this was a dead thread and people were necro-posting, but I guess not.
What is pure logic anyways? All humans possess logic, so what makes it pure?


----------



## Behnam Agahi

BigApplePi said:


> A dog is an abstract class of lots of dogs. Such a class is an instance of the class of primates. Primates is an instance of living creatures. Not sure if this is what you meant.


Yep but it's not an instance of, it's the abstract super class. The purpose of an abstract class is to use polymorphism while we know that there is no more super class which can be instantiated and allocated dynamic memory.
For example, an animal doesn't exist, it's just in our mind. But a dog called jack which is an animal exists.



BigApplePi said:


> Crazy eh? It is more than consistency. It is the nature of existence itself. Existence remains a mystery.


Yep, no matter how we look at it, I also think that there will be never any explanation to the meaning of existence itself.


----------



## Behnam Agahi

Eset said:


> I thought this was a dead thread and people were necro-posting, but I guess not.
> What is pure logic anyways? All humans possess logic, so what makes it pure?


Yes, there is nothing called pure logic.
The most famous known logic is boolean logic which can also be said to be the logic of knowledge itself. But boolean logic deals with absolute propositions while real world facts are not absolute and pure.


----------



## Tellus

Eset said:


> I thought this was a dead thread and people were necro-posting, but I guess not.
> What is pure logic anyways? All humans possess logic, so what makes it pure?


"I feel the need to relive this before more and more people are misguided."

He keeps self promoting the thread so this is not the last time we see it.


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> Of course,


???

You agree with me that your definitions are not a priori knowledge, right?

But a posteriori knowledge depends on empirical evidence.



> and each of cognitive functions in my definitions are indeed a process in the brain, that derives from clause 16.


The problem here is that your definitions contradict actual processes in the brain.



> The types derived from my definitions can as well be separated as MBTI does, including the naming, since the dichotomies are exactly the same as original MBTI types.


You don't have any types unless people can identify themselves with your definitions. But those types will be based on empirical evidence (i.e. people's experience).



> No, they don't belong to the The World, they belong to The Mind.


OK. How is "The Mind" related to Jungian introversion?


----------



## BigApplePi

Eset said:


> I thought this was a dead thread and people were necro-posting, but I guess not.


As long as a thread has loose ends and it is not closed from the outside, it is open to posting by those who want to tie those ends.



Behnam Agahi said:


> Yep but it's not an instance of, it's the abstract super class. The purpose of an abstract class is to use polymorphism while we know that there is no more super class which can be instantiated and allocated dynamic memory.


I don't know what most of those words mean. What does instantiated mean? Which is the super class?



Behnam Agahi said:


> Yep, no matter how we look at it, I also think that there will be never any explanation to the meaning of existence itself.


The best I can do (so far) is existence of something occurs when there is a relationship to that something. No relationship, then it doesn't exist. One can build on that. Relationships exist when there are other relationships to them.


----------



## Behnam Agahi

BigApplePi said:


> I don't know what most of those words mean. What does instantiated mean? Which is the super class?


Instance is the object itself. When a constructor method is called, an object of that class is instantiated.
Super class is a class which all of its properties and methods are inherited to its sub classes.
But in this thread I was talking about abstract super classes just like how we can find a similar thing between two physical things while that similarity doesn't exist in reality itself (can't be instantiated or you can say it by the word "relation")


----------



## Behnam Agahi

Tellus said:


> "I feel the need to relive this before more and more people are misguided."
> 
> He keeps self promoting the thread so this is not the last time we see it.


But what's the problem? It's a well written reflection on Jungian functions.


----------



## Tellus

Behnam Agahi said:


> It's a well written reflection on Jungian functions.


I don't think he agrees with that statement.


----------



## BigApplePi

Behnam Agahi said:


> how we can find a similar thing between two physical things while that similarity doesn't exist in reality itself


Do you have an example again?


----------



## Behnam Agahi

BigApplePi said:


> Do you have an example again?


What is a field in physics?
You could say that there are many situations where two things force each other to move because of electrical force but the meaning of electrical field in physics is absolutely an imaginary thing (relation) which is the similarity between many physical situations.
Our mind also acts like that, the more you experience certain situations the more confident and unconscious you are when dealing with a similar one.


----------



## Behnam Agahi

Tellus said:


> I don't think he agrees with that statement.


Why so?


----------



## Tellus

Behnam Agahi said:


> Why so?


Jung's _theory_ is based on observations.

reybridge: "My definitions are isolated by their own, it's a framework of thinking, not a theory that needs empirical evidence."


----------



## BigApplePi

Behnam Agahi said:


> Our mind also acts like that, the more you experience certain situations the more confident and unconscious you are when dealing with a similar one.


I'll agree when dealing with similar situations that similarity can or will go unconscious.

But you said, "how we can find a similar thing between two physical things while that similarity doesn't exist in reality itself."

Unless I've misunderstood you, just because something is unconscious doesn't mean the similarity doesn't exist in reality. It's there in the unconscious.


----------



## goodvibe

😃lol. I love the title of this thread. How did I miss this before? haha


----------



## reybridge

Changed the title to make it more, you know.. user friendly i guess.


----------



## reybridge

Eset said:


> I thought this was a dead thread and people were necro-posting, but I guess not.
> What is pure logic anyways? All humans possess logic, so what makes it pure?


I changed the title. You don't need to define "pure logic" anymore.



Behnam Agahi said:


> Yep but it's not an instance of, it's the abstract super class. The purpose of an abstract class is to use polymorphism while we know that there is no more super class which can be instantiated and allocated dynamic memory.
> For example, an animal doesn't exist, it's just in our mind. But a dog called jack which is an animal exists.


Yes, and based on my definitions, animal is a CO while a representation of a dog called jack is a PO.



Behnam Agahi said:


> Yep, no matter how we look at it, I also think that there will be never any explanation to the meaning of existence itself.


I believe the meaning of life is to be a part of the progress of the human civilization, both economically and politically (they are the same thing) and slow down the entropy as best as we can.



Tellus said:


> ???
> 
> You agree with me that your definitions are not a priori knowledge, right?
> 
> But a posteriori knowledge depends on empirical evidence.


That is why there is the clause 16. It acts as the bridge for a posteriori knowledge to enter and bring the other rules, which are a priori knowledge, into life.



Tellus said:


> The problem here is that your definitions contradict actual processes in the brain.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have any types unless people can identify themselves with your definitions. But those types will be based on empirical evidence (i.e. people's experience).
> 
> 
> 
> OK. How is "The Mind" related to Jungian introversion?


What do you mean by Jungian introversion?


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> Fundamental
> 
> 1. Judging Function is a function to change or to create an 'Entity'.
> 2. Perceiving Function is a function to grasp an 'Entity'.


You assume that a person has either a dominant Judging Function or a dominant Perceiving Function (like the Myers-Briggs model). But that is not possible since cognitive neuroscience has proven the existence of large-scale brain networks. FPN, for example, processes both Judging and Perceiving information.


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> You assume that a person has either a dominant Judging Function or a dominant Perceiving Function (like the Myers-Briggs model). But that is not possible since cognitive neuroscience has proven the existence of large-scale brain networks. FPN, for example, processes both Judging and Perceiving information.


Please elaborate, what is FPN? I don't believe judging and perceiving functions as in my definitions are processed simultaneously. Otherwise there must be no consciousness as i believe consciousness is a raw perceiving function without changing anything (judging).


----------



## BigApplePi

I hope to get back to this thread. (Remind me, lol.)



reybridge said:


> I changed the title.


What was it before? (Just in case I have notes on the old title).



reybridge said:


> 1. Judging Function is a function to change or to create an 'Entity'.
> 2. Perceiving Function is a function to grasp an 'Entity'.





Tellus said:


> You assume that a person has either a dominant Judging Function or a dominant Perceiving Function


1. Judging implies supplying a direction.
2. Perceiving implies looking first.

What does "dominant" mean? A personality might dwell on either. One person may prefer going somewhere; another seeing what is going first; another might check out both.
The last personality takes more time and is more developed. What do you want? 60-40 of one over the other?


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> By "*I can be thinking, feeling or whatever as a primary focus*", do you mean Ti and Fi? And what do you mean by primary focus? Focus means observing something, while Ti and Fi are not functions to observe. I wonder if it's possible to change your mind without even realizing it. Or, are you actually conscious when you are changing something in your mind (introverted judging functions) or in the world outside your mind (extroverted judging functions)? Because you can be not conscious while working and you enter an autopilot mode. Maybe perceiving functions work right after you change something and this is what creates a sense of consciousness. I can't be so sure though.


I can't be sure how to test this. I don't have a laboratory with sensitive machines and ability to take notes. I am only someone who speculates and introspects, an INTP. I see the brain (my brain at least) as being in constant turmoil, bubbling and churning like a cauldron. Some things push to the surface like an iceberg. Most have to stay underneath. We call that unconscious activity. That cognitive functions are separated, isolated, and distinct is a fallacy. We create those concepts as clues to what stands out as some things stand out more than others. I can define each of sensation, feeling, intuition and thinking and run with those, but thy are artificial constructs.

I can't tell you what are my primary activities are when driving as I'm not driving right now and my memory is faulty. But I'm am typing. It's just a flow. Which cognitive functions are primary? I do know. They are whatever is entering my head. I'd have to match up my thoughts with the definitions to see and I'm far from perfect at that. Thinking I suppose. Feeling enters in when I think I'm not doing a good job. Sensation because I haven't had anything to eat for a while ... been up only 40 minutes. Intuition for sure as my thinking only floats above all this and the thinking is guessing ... far from perfect. I can check the logic if I were to reread this, but intuition (guessing) is the primary presence, checking if I'm on the right path in replying to your questions along the way.

Ti? I'm not separating Ti from Te. For right now I'm dull. I am not caring about the difference. You tell me. I suppose Te is in the background. It's mostly Ti but if I go off too far, Te will kick me in the butt. By "focus" I'm referring to brain activity, not just observing. Of course I have to self-consciously observe to write this. Change my mind? Not the logic. Everything is changing as I write from sentence to sentence. Not to forget that doing and observing are different things. Doing is immersion; observing is looking from the outside. Those are definitely different brain activities. Be careful when you ask, "What creates a sense of consciousness" as consciousness can be about all and any of the cognitive functions.

Now I have to go back to reread what I've written here for typos and editing. Is that Te? I guess so. I just want to get this response out there and not perfect it (a feeling). This feeling is a combo of Fe and Fi. Why must they be separated when I'm aware you have to read this (Fe thing I care about) and I want it read (Fi, me). See what I mean by the brain being a like a boiling cauldron of a lot of crap?

There are reflections. I think (is that thinking or observing?) of you and not knowing who you are. I think of @Tellus and his silence. He is interested in this but am I blowing his mind? Am I way off track for what HE is thinking?


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> I can't be sure how to test this. I don't have a laboratory with sensitive machines and ability to take notes. I am only someone who speculates and introspects, an INTP. I see the brain (my brain at least) as being in constant turmoil, bubbling and churning like a cauldron. Some things push to the surface like an iceberg. Most have to stay underneath. We call that unconscious activity. That cognitive functions are separated, isolated, and distinct is a fallacy. We create those concepts as clues to what stands out as some things stand out more than others. I can define each of sensation, feeling, intuition and thinking and run with those, but thy are artificial constructs.
> 
> I can't tell you what are my primary activities are when driving as I'm not driving right now and my memory is faulty. But I'm am typing. It's just a flow. Which cognitive functions are primary? I do know. They are whatever is entering my head. I'd have to match up my thoughts with the definitions to see and I'm far from perfect at that. Thinking I suppose. Feeling enters in when I think I'm not doing a good job. Sensation because I haven't had anything to eat for a while ... been up only 40 minutes. Intuition for sure as my thinking only floats above all this and the thinking is guessing ... far from perfect. I can check the logic if I were to reread this, but intuition (guessing) is the primary presence, checking if I'm on the right path in replying to your questions along the way.


*I'd have to match up my thoughts with the definitions*. This must be Te because whatever the result of this thinking, it became words.
*Feeling enters in when I think I'm not doing a good job*. This indeed is a feeling, can be Fi or Fe depending whether or not it changed your mind. Probably Fe since you expressed it here already.
*Sensation because I haven't had anything to eat for a while*. This is Se.
*Intuition for sure as my thinking only floats above all this and the thinking is guessing*. This may be Ne or Ni depending on whether or not your sensing organs were necessarily utilized to create this conceptual entity by guessing. Probably Ni.



BigApplePi said:


> Ti? I'm not separating Ti from Te. For right now I'm dull. I am not caring about the difference. You tell me. I suppose Te is in the background. It's mostly Ti but if I go off too far, Te will kick me in the butt. By "focus" I'm referring to brain activity, not just observing. Of course I have to self-consciously observe to write this. Change my mind? Not the logic. Everything is changing as I write from sentence to sentence. Not to forget that doing and observing are different things. Doing is immersion; observing is looking from the outside. Those are definitely different brain activities. Be careful when you ask, "What creates a sense of consciousness" as consciousness can be about all and any of the cognitive functions.


When you are thinking and resulting in an action, you are using Te. When you are thinking and your mindset changes, you are using Ti.



BigApplePi said:


> Now I have to go back to reread what I've written here for typos and editing. Is that Te? I guess so. I just want to get this response out there and not perfect it (a feeling). This feeling is a combo of Fe and Fi. Why must they be separated when I'm aware you have to read this (Fe thing I care about) and I want it read (Fi, me). See what I mean by the brain being a like a boiling cauldron of a lot of crap?
> 
> There are reflections. I think (is that thinking or observing?) of you and not knowing who you are. I think of @Tellus and his silence. He is interested in this but am I blowing his mind? Am I way off track for what HE is thinking?


*Now I have to go back to reread what I've written here for typos and editing*. Yes, this is definitely Te.
*Am I way off track for what HE is thinking? *This is Ni since you created a conceptual entity for what HE was thinking without any reference from your sensing organs.

See, with a consistent definition discussing cognitive functions can be this clear.


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> *I'd have to match up my thoughts with the definitions*. This must be Te because whatever the result of this thinking, it became words.


Thank you for the cognitive function rendering. 

I will attempt to put the following into words: 

Suppose one uses Ti to come up with a theory or even a modified definition after turning things over in one's mind using Ne and Si as input. Then, wishing to try out this idea, decides it is worth putting out in words. Is the decision Ni and the output in words, Te? If so, would this mean an INTP who has come up with something and decides to try it out as output, is now behaving as an INTJ? Would this indicate a process whereby an INTP turns into an INTJ if only for testing the worth of the output? The alternative is the coming up with the theory in the first place could have been using Ni and Se without realizing it, making the original thinker INTJ. 

Of course I'm thinking of myself when I ask this.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> Thank you for the cognitive function rendering.
> 
> I will attempt to put the following into words:
> 
> Suppose one uses Ti to come up with a theory or even a modified definition after turning things over in one's mind using Ne and Si as input. Then, wishing to try out this idea, decides it is worth putting out in words. Is the decision Ni and the output in words, Te? If so, would this mean an INTP who has come up with something and decides to try it out as output, is now behaving as an INTJ? Would this indicate a process whereby an INTP turns into an INTJ if only for testing the worth of the output? The alternative is the coming up with the theory in the first place could have been using Ni and Se without realizing it, making the original thinker INTJ.
> 
> Of course I'm thinking of myself when I ask this.


Well, people who tend to have their own ideas are always Ni dom people. Ne dom people don't really care about their own ideas, they collect ideas from the world outside their mind. That being said, it doesn't mean when you put out your ideas then you automatically turn into a Ni dom type, it depends on how often you use it. Expressing or realizing ideas should be the work of extroverted judging functions, not a perceiving function. Moreover, what you call as "idea" can actually come from Si when it is only a copy-paste of a physical entity, whether or not you or other people think it is your own idea.


----------



## BigApplePi

reybridge said:


> Well, people who tend to have their own ideas are always Ni dom people.


I have my own ideas though they may be a consolidation of other people's ideas. Maybe they aren't my ideas. I just steal from others and put a perspective on them. The way I see it is other people's ideas are Ne to me. This brings up the question: Do other people's ideas (Ni), if they are expressed, turn into Ne ideas if someone else views them? 

Did I say I have come up with a definition for consciousness? Is that now my idea (Ni) or is the work I did coming up with it by lots of thinking (Ti) using other's concepts (Ne) really Ti, not Ni?



reybridge said:


> Ne dom people don't really care about their own ideas, they collect ideas from the world outside their mind. That being said, it doesn't mean when you put out your ideas then you automatically turn into a Ni dom type, it depends on how often you use it.


That is what I do with other people's ideas. I collect them and try to address them all into a unified theory. I am not Ne dom. I am having a helluva difficult time putting out my consciousness theory. It would be out there right now if it were easy. What I have to do is go through every other person's theory that I can get a hold of and explain them in terms of my "unifying" idea. One slip up on my part and it blows my theory and I won't put it out. If I were to publish something, are you saying it would be seen as Ni on my part even if my personal thinking is something unseen unless I tell a good story? 



reybridge said:


> Expressing or realizing ideas should be the work of extroverted judging functions,


Yes. Ti and Te are judging functions. It's just that to get my ideas out there I have to do Te and I'm having a terrible time with it and from time-to-time actually hate it. So. What am I? Ti dom or Ni dom?


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> I have my own ideas though they may be a consolidation of other people's ideas. Maybe they aren't my ideas. I just steal from others and put a perspective on them. The way I see it is other people's ideas are Ne to me. This brings up the question: Do other people's ideas (Ni), if they are expressed, turn into Ne ideas if someone else views them?


You are right, as long as it is a conceptual entity in The Mind, it must be perceived by Ni no matter the original source of the ideas and how it is formed. I said " people who tend to have their own ideas are always Ni dom people" because it is one way to create a conceptual entity, and this doesn't exclude the ideas consolidated of other ideas.



BigApplePi said:


> Did I say I have come up with a definition for consciousness? Is that now my idea (Ni) or is the work I did coming up with it by lots of thinking (Ti) using other's concepts (Ne) really Ti, not Ni?
> 
> 
> That is what I do with other people's ideas. I collect them and try to address them all into a unified theory. I am not Ne dom. I am having a helluva difficult time putting out my consciousness theory. It would be out there right now if it were easy. What I have to do is go through every other person's theory that I can get a hold of and explain them in terms of my "unifying" idea. One slip up on my part and it blows my theory and I won't put it out. If I were to publish something, are you saying it would be seen as Ni on my part even if my personal thinking is something unseen unless I tell a good story?
> 
> 
> Yes. Ti and Te are judging functions. It's just that to get my ideas out there I have to do Te and I'm having a terrible time with it and from time-to-time actually hate it. So. What am I? Ti dom or Ni dom?


When you were grasping others concept from the world outside your mind, you were using Ne. Then you burned the idea using Ti or Fi. You then did a lot of thinking using Ti to form a logical consolidation and re-burned it again and again. Now it becomes a new idea. When you wrote the idea, you perceived it from The Mind by Ni or Si. It is Ni if what you have formed by consolidating was a conceptual entity, and it is Si if what you have formed by consolidating was a physical entity. Finally you published it by Te or Fe.


----------



## BigApplePi

Aye yi yi. We may be talking past each other. Not sure. Maybe not.


reybridge said:


> You are right, as long as it is a conceptual entity in The Mind, it must be perceived by Ni no matter the original source of the ideas and how it is formed. I said " people who tend to have their own ideas are always Ni dom people" because it is one way to create a conceptual entity, and this doesn't exclude the ideas consolidated of other ideas.


The way I hear you is you speak of "a conceptual entity in The Mind" as if it were a fixed object. A fixed object is perceived so it is Ni (or Si) and I would agree with that. My situation is I am working with lots of observations (Ne and Si I claim) and that working is mulling things over and over in my mind, namely Ti. Have I gotten across to you that I'm doing Ti? Not sure. You do not see my thinking as it is inside me. All you see is my posts here which you observe and call it a perception on your part, Ni and Si.



reybridge said:


> When you were grasping others concept from the world outside your mind, you were using Ne. Then you burned the idea using Ti or Fi. You then did a lot of thinking using Ti to form a logical consolidation and re-burned it again and again. Now it becomes a new idea. When you wrote the idea, you perceived it from The Mind by Ni or Si. It is Ni if what you have formed by consolidating was a conceptual entity, and it is Si if what you have formed by consolidating was a physical entity. Finally you published it by Te or Fe.


A comment, if I may, on this paragraph. You said "using Ti or Fi." and later, "by Te or Fe." How so "*or*"? Should that not be an "*and*" as feeling is always involved. Or maybe not Fe or Fi at all if those cognitive functions are supposed to be conscious. Would a conscious Ti and Te push any feeling to the unconscious?


----------



## BigApplePi

Cognitive function transformation. An identifiable object or judgment doesn't exist in isolation. It always relates to a person. Question: if it is inside me and I interpret it as i or e, does it transform to the opposite (e or i) when I deliver it to you? If this is the case, we might avoid some confusion. 

Oppositely, if you express something and I receive it, the e and i reverse. I'd have to check this out, but as an example, if you do Te, I may have to check it out and that is Ti. If you do Se, I may observe it, note it, and it becomes Si for me. If you express Fi, I may want to relate to it and that can transform to Fe for me.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> Aye yi yi. We may be talking past each other. Not sure. Maybe not.
> 
> The way I hear you is you speak of "a conceptual entity in The Mind" as if it were a fixed object. A fixed object is perceived so it is Ni (or Si) and I would agree with that. My situation is I am working with lots of observations (Ne and Si I claim) and that working is mulling things over and over in my mind, namely Ti. Have I gotten across to you that I'm doing Ti? Not sure. You do not see my thinking as it is inside me. All you see is my posts here which you observe and call it a perception on your part, Ni and Si.


It is a fixed object, a conceptual one. You can change this fixed conceptual object into another object by any judging function. When i read your words i am using Ne to grasp the conceptual entity out of "*You do not see my thinking as it is inside me*", Te and Ni to compare this conceptual entity with a conceptual entity "*When you are mulling things over and over with logical deduction, a thinking function process has not over yet until you decide whether you change the world (for Te) or your own mind (for Ti) with the result*" from my mind. The result is this sentence "*I don't need to see your thinking, as long as i believe you use valid logic and it ended in words, i believe you were using Te*". Spoiler: Si doesn't work in a conceptual discussion like this.



BigApplePi said:


> A comment, if I may, on this paragraph. You said "using Ti or Fi." and later, "by Te or Fe." How so "*or*"? Should that not be an "*and*" as feeling is always involved. Or maybe not Fe or Fi at all if those cognitive functions are supposed to be conscious. Would a conscious Ti and Te push any feeling to the unconscious?


Judging functions should be mutually exclusive between each others. When you are using Ti, you are not using Fi. Same with Te and Fe. Te or Fe because i am not sure whether you utilised a valid logic to formulate the words or not. Ti or Fi because i am not sure whether you utilised a valid logic to formulate the conceptual entity before burning them or not.

Now i am thinking about it, any perceiving function may be running while any judging function is running and this doesn't invalidate any clause of my definition.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> Cognitive function transformation. An identifiable object or judgment doesn't exist in isolation. It always relates to a person. Question: if it is inside me and I interpret it as i or e, does it transform to the opposite (e or i) when I deliver it to you? If this is the case, we might avoid some confusion.


Same with my previous reply, a thinking function process has not over yet until you decide whether you change the world (for Te) or your own mind (for Ti) with the result.



BigApplePi said:


> Oppositely, if you express something and I receive it, the e and i reverse. I'd have to check this out, but as an example, if you do Te, I may have to check it out and that is Ti. If you do Se, I may observe it, note it, and it becomes Si for me. If you express Fi, I may want to relate to it and that can transform to Fe for me.


"if you do Te, I may have to check it out and that is Ti", only if you decide to burn the concept into your mind, otherwise it is Te. Since meaningful words by nature are conceptual objects, Se and Si don't work in a meaningful discussion with words.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> What I'm trying to do is communicate with you. Unsuccessfully so far. In theory I have to strike out with "fuzzy" meaning of words to try to reach you. So I will guess:
> 
> It hinges on the word "absolute" which means "all or nothing."


absolute = "a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things"



> Absolute consciousness would mean whatever a conscious entity is, it would either be conscious or have no consciousness at all. To me, it would be like having to classify water as either absolutely hot or absolutely cold with no temperature existent as a possibility in between.


A function is either on or off (i.e. "absolute").









Personal unconscious - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





"The personal unconscious includes anything which is not presently conscious but can be."


Jungian cognitive functions - Wikipedia 

see diagram

The dominant function is obviously conscious. The auxiliary function and the tertiary function are partially conscious.

My argument still holds, though, since the auxiliary function and the tertiary function must be as conscious as the dominant function, otherwise they contradict FPN etc.


> To go further, what would one call one's experience on slowly waking up? Does one go from being aware of nothing at all to being fully aware of all of one's surroundings? Not for me. How about you?


Yes, we gradually become more aware of the _external world_ when we are waking up. But we don't become unconscious when we sleep.


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> Can you summarize it? I still don't understand what consciousness is from this definition. And to define what consciousness is please exclude the word "conscious" itself from the definition. Otherwise it will be a circular statement.


I don't think Jung defined consciousness. Instead, he defined cognitive functions in relation to consciousness. If a function (or a part of a function) is conscious, then we use it in a deliberate and sophisticated manner.


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> I don't think Jung defined consciousness. Instead, he defined cognitive functions in relation to consciousness. If a function (or a part of a function) is conscious, then we use it in a deliberate and sophisticated manner.


So, you are saying there is another function which decides which cognitive function should be conscious in a particular time? What kind of function is it? It must not be any of the cognitive functions themselves.


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> I don't think Jung defined consciousness. Instead, he defined cognitive functions in relation to consciousness. If a function (or a part of a function) is conscious, then we use it in a deliberate and sophisticated manner.





reybridge said:


> So, you are saying there is another function


Gentlemen. You guys have many things going. I am not a person who goes all that much with tradition as tradition can go obsolete and step on progress. This whole thing reminds me of epicycles which try to explain how the Earth is the center of our planetary system. That didn't work out all that well.

I don't know where to start. I like to search for basics. Looks like I may have to dump my definition of consciousness here without adequate explanation. You may not accept this definition. I just wonder if there is anything wrong with it, in which case it needs fixing. A definition is not so good unless it can be used and accepted.

My definition of consciousness is down to seven words and has four parts. Don't know if it would help with this conversation but I am optimistic. The way I see it is proceeding without a clue as to what consciousness is is like building a house on sand.


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> So, you are saying there is another function which decides which cognitive function should be conscious in a particular time? What kind of function is it? It must not be any of the cognitive functions themselves.











Carl Jung On Becoming Conscious


One of Jung’s basic beliefs, and arguably his most important message, is that the purpose of human life is in becoming conscious. “As far as we can discern




frithluton.com





Jung defined consciousness as “the function or activity which maintains the relation of psychic contents to the ego.” [CW 6, par. 700] In that way he distinguished it conceptually from the psyche itself, which is comprised of both consciousness _and_ the unconscious. Also, although we speak of ego-consciousness, in Jung’s model the ego is not the same thing as consciousness, but simply the dominant complex of the conscious mind. Of course, in practice we can only become aware of psychic contents by means of the ego. In other words, the more we know about what’s going on in our unconscious, the more conscious we become.


----------



## reybridge

BigApplePi said:


> Gentlemen. You guys have many things going. I am not a person who goes all that much with tradition as tradition can go obsolete and step on progress. This whole thing reminds me of epicycles which try to explain how the Earth is the center of our planetary system. That didn't work out all that well.
> 
> I don't know where to start. I like to search for basics. Looks like I may have to dump my definition of consciousness here without adequate explanation. You may not accept this definition. I just wonder if there is anything wrong with it, in which case it needs fixing. A definition is not so good unless it can be used and accepted.
> 
> My definition of consciousness is down to seven words and has four parts. Don't know if it would help with this conversation but I am optimistic. The way I see it is proceeding without a clue as to what consciousness is is like building a house on sand.


What is your definition of consciousness again? Looks like you haven't stated them here.



Tellus said:


> Carl Jung On Becoming Conscious
> 
> 
> One of Jung’s basic beliefs, and arguably his most important message, is that the purpose of human life is in becoming conscious. “As far as we can discern
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frithluton.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jung defined consciousness as “the function or activity which maintains the relation of psychic contents to the ego.” [CW 6, par. 700] In that way he distinguished it conceptually from the psyche itself, which is comprised of both consciousness _and_ the unconscious. Also, although we speak of ego-consciousness, in Jung’s model the ego is not the same thing as consciousness, but simply the dominant complex of the conscious mind. Of course, in practice we can only become aware of psychic contents by means of the ego. In other words, the more we know about what’s going on in our unconscious, the more conscious we become.


So Jung did define consciousness as a function. If what he meant by psychic contents are what entities residing in The Mind are in my definition and ego is how you act to cope with your internal emotions, then it only means Jung's definition of consciousness is simply Ni/Si as in my definition that brings the entities out of your mind which then may become an ego after they're acted upon by an extroverted judging function.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

I've only read the first post but I find the premise of this topic to be really cute for some reason. It's like taking Jung, combining it with the concept of information metabolism from Socionics, then combining it with MBTI then breaking it down into functions.

The kicker is there seems to be an element of tarot thrown in too. 😄 Anyway cute post. 👍


----------



## reybridge

Scoobyscoob said:


> I've only read the first post but I find the premise of this topic to be really cute for some reason. It's like taking Jung, combining it with the concept of information metabolism from Socionics, then combining it with MBTI then breaking it down into functions.
> 
> The kicker is there seems to be an element of tarot thrown in too. 😄 Anyway cute post. 👍


I don't think you are being serious here. Anyway, i didn't know nor i cared about tarot while writing the first post. Would you care to explain? Besides, please read the entire thread to get a better perspective about this thread.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

reybridge said:


> I don't think you are being serious here. Anyway, i didn't know nor i cared about tarot while writing the first post. Would you care to explain? Besides, please read the entire thread to get a better perspective about this thread.


I used the laughing smiley because I thought the OP was cute as it was written like a procedure or an SOP you'd be reading at work. Also, you never defined what "grasp", "the mind", "burning", etc mean which is what was reminding me of tarot. I wasn't saying I think you were using tarot. The way you worded a few things made me think of tarot though. 🙂

Also, I did read the OP. 🙂


----------



## reybridge

Scoobyscoob said:


> I used the laughing smiley because I thought the OP was cute as it was written like a procedure or an SOP you'd be reading at work. Also, you never defined what "grasp", "the mind", "burning", etc mean which is what was reminding me of tarot. I wasn't saying I think you were using tarot. The way you worded a few things made me think of tarot though. 🙂
> 
> Also, I did read the OP. 🙂


Well, i did define *The Mind* and *Burning *in the first post, please reread the clauses one by one. As for other words not redefined in any clause of my definition should simply refer to the original meaning of them.


----------



## reybridge

I hope everything will be alright. Love > Logic. Let's discuss things more faithfully from now on


----------



## reybridge

Up! Anyone want to debate me about anything? About religion or politics maybe? I have a theory about politics --> There is only one flow, which is to the right. People who are at the front (right-most) are those who just happen hold all the privileges in this world. They are completely independent of human interactions and everything they do will naturally be followed by others who are left behind, and this follow-ship will happen whether or not those right-most people interact with others. Guess the MBTI type for those right-most people!


----------

