# Te , Ne , Si , Fi don't really exist.



## chwoey (Mar 29, 2012)

reckful said:


> And one of the things that's been established pretty much beyond disagreement at this point is that the E/I, S/N and T/F dimensions that the official MBTI taps into _do not significantly correlate with one another_. An MBTI introvert is no more likely to be an N than an S, and no more likely to be a T than an F. (And the same is true of the corresponding Big Five dimensions.)


I'm sorry, I'm just a little confused. I don't have a lot of knowledge into the science behind the Big 5 and theories of that type.. But as far as I have learned in my meager psychology courses, the only element we have actually scientifically pin pointed is extroverted/introverted.. The others are simply theory?

Could you point me to where the other dimensions were established as fact? I'm quite curious!


----------



## rawrmosher (Apr 22, 2013)

Clear up your russled jimmies and move on guys, this is either a pretty convincing troll or someone who's telling me none of my 4 dominant functions exist. Either way -shit >.<


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

phoenixpinion said:


> Get a life troll.


You presented an argument based on no evidence at all claiming that we misunderstand the MBTI and then claim that the MBTI is wrong. You invalidated your own argument. You don't even have an appeal to authority because you asserted that your authority is wrong. What else am I supposed to do?


----------



## chwoey (Mar 29, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> You presented an argument based on no evidence at all claiming that we misunderstand the MBTI and then claim that the MBTI is wrong. You invalidated your own argument. You don't even have an appeal to authority because you asserted that your authority is wrong. What else am I supposed to do?


Change your signature. I still cringe every time I see it.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

chwoey said:


> Change your signature. I still cringe every time I see it.


There's a bureaucratic process you have to go through.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I'm not going to really address the argument, mostly because I think it's a tad silly and because I have a headache.

Still Te doesn't exist? HAHAHAHAHA That is the funniest shit I've ever heard. My father is so Te orientated that he can't trust fucking anything that hasn't be proven by some sort of scientific authority. It's fucking frustrating. In fact isn't the scientific community itself just a bunch of Te. If you even looked at the barest of things then you would've realized that Extroverted Thinking is in fact something that exists.

Besides Introversion and Extroversion only really deal with how much you self reference. Sensation might be "extroverted" and Intuition can be "introverted" as I imagine Keirsey had thought. However one can always orient what you experience to what YOU experience, and what sort of vibe they get, alongside of using one's own intuition to get a good nose on things outside of oneself.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> There's a bureaucratic process you have to go through.


I'll sign up for this.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

St Vual said:


> some sort of scientific authority


On an off-topic note, I've never understood why scientific evidence is described as an "authority."


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

chwoey said:


> I'm sorry, I'm just a little confused. I don't have a lot of knowledge into the science behind the Big 5 and theories of that type.. But as far as I have learned in my meager psychology courses, the only element we have actually scientifically pin pointed is extroverted/introverted.. The others are simply theory?
> 
> Could you point me to where the other dimensions were established as fact? I'm quite curious!


I don't really understand how you would have gotten the notion that E/I had been "scientifically pin pointed" while the other four Big Five dimensions (and their MBTI counterparts) were "simply theory."

As I understand it, the main way personality typologists go about establishing the reality of broad and relatively stable dimensions of personality (like the Big Five/MBTI dimensions) is by a process involving statistical factor-correlation where they ask people lots of questions and/or observe behavior and/or otherwise measure personality-related things and they look for what you might call "clusters" of things that co-vary to a statistically significant extent. The "Big Five" is an umbrella term for a number of somewhat different typologies that gradually evolved over many years and ended up more or less converging on five major dimensions of personality. All five of those dimensions — not just extraversion/introversion — now have decades of studies supporting them in terms of both their "reliability" and their "validity" (the two main standards for respectability in the personality-psychology field). And the same is true of the MBTI, albeit with (as I understand it) a smaller body of supporting studies — and, assuming you take the view that the MBTI is essentially tapping into four of the Big Five dimensions, studies supporting the Big Five dimensions are also, in effect, studies supporting the corresponding MBTI dimensions.

McCrae and Costa are probably the most prominent Big Five scientists, and they long ago concluded (see this article) that the four MBTI dichotomies were essentially (albeit with some variation) tapping into four of the Big Five factors, and that there was a respectable body of scientific data in support of the MBTI dichotomies.

Over twenty years ago now, John B. Murray ("Review of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator," Perceptual & Motor Skills, 70, 1187, 1990) summed up the MBTI's status this way:



Murray said:


> The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has become the most widely used personality instrument for nonpsychiatric populations. ... Approximately 300 studies of the MBTI are cited by Buros (1965, 1978) and over 1500 studies are included in the [1985] edition of the [MBTI Manual]. ... The research on the MBTI as a psychometric instrument and as an application of Jung's typology was reviewed and some of its modern applications considered. ...
> 
> The reliability of the M-B Indicator has been improved in recent years. ... Studies reviewed by Carlyn (1977) as well as later studies have shown generally satisfactory split-half and test-retest reliabilities. ...
> 
> ...


Particularly noteworthy (to me, anyway) is the fact that decades of twin studies have established that identical twins _raised in different households_ are substantially more alike with respect to the Big Five and MBTI dimensions than more genetically dissimilar pairs, which strongly suggests that these typologies are tapping into relatively hard-wired dimensions of human personality — however imperfectly and/or incompletely grasped and defined they may be at this stage.

It's worth noting, though, that the data support for the MBTI relates almost exclusively to the four MBTI _dichotomies_ — which, as I've said, correlate with four of the Big Five dimensions — rather than the eight cognitive functions. As I understand it, and as further discussed in this post, the few attempts that have been made to test the functions have been pretty much unsuccessful.


----------



## cityofcircuits (Nov 8, 2010)

Why won't anyone link their resources for their information?
I like hearing arguments on both sides in order to help formulate my own opinions on a matter but seriously...
I can't take everyone's word at face value.
Where is everyone getting their information?
Another thing, would these sources be credible?


----------



## chwoey (Mar 29, 2012)

reckful said:


> I don't really understand how you would have gotten the notion that E/I had been "scientifically pin pointed" while the other four Big Five dimensions (and their MBTI counterparts) were "simply theory."
> 
> As I understand it, the main way personality typologists go about establishing the reality of broad and relatively stable dimensions of personality (like the Big Five/MBTI dimensions) is by a process involving statistical factor-correlation where they ask people lots of questions and/or observe behavior and/or otherwise measure personality-related things and they look for what you might call "clusters" of things that co-vary to a statistically significant extent. The "Big Five" is an umbrella term for a number of somewhat different typologies that gradually evolved over many years and ended up more or less converging on five major dimensions of personality. All five of those dimensions — not just extraversion/introversion — now have decades of studies supporting them in terms of both their "reliability" and their "validity" (the two main standards for respectability in the personality-psychology field). And the same is true of the MBTI, albeit with (as I understand it) a smaller body of supporting studies — and, assuming you take the view that the MBTI is essentially tapping into four of the Big Five dimensions, studies supporting the Big Five dimensions are also, in effect, studies supporting the corresponding MBTI dimensions.
> 
> ...


I have yet to take an actual personality course, so the brief mentions of personality in my previous courses only pin pointed on really introversion and extroversion. If my memory serves me correctly, brain scans can show a significant difference between introverts and extroverts (as well as ambiverts, I suppose). I have never read anything in my academic studies about the other traits in the Big 5 dimensions, and I was unaware of any physical proof other than surveys. I am not, however, disregarding surveys as evidence/data.

I appreciate all you wrote, and I definitely plan on looking deeper into the Big 5 in the future. 
Though, you (as well as others) have started to sway my thinking of functions vs. dichotomies.. My thinking is VERY conflicted on the matter now, and I'm just not sure where I stand on the issue/debate.


----------



## The Madman (Feb 20, 2013)

phoenixpinion said:


> And you know this because you're an N? These are just that, descriptions. All descriptions are abstract processes. Therefore sensation cannot be explained by an intuitive, for he/she by definition of being an intuitive is handicapped in the realm of sensation. Trying to capture sensation in abstract definition mirrors a complete misunderstanding about sensation, being direct experience. Pure sensation is nothing less than living in the "Now".


I guess that means that all of Jung's descriptions on Sensation were invalid, according to your reasoning, since he was most likely (and typed himself as) an Intuitive. This probably means that Jung's descriptions on Feeling were also invalid, since he was most likely a Thinker. Additionally, this means that Myer's descriptions on Sensation were invalid, since she was most likely an Intuitive. 
Congratulations. You have effectively discredited the sources from which you got your descriptions of Sensation from the first place. You have also provided this forum with one of the worst arguments I have seen, filled with Argument from Intimidation, contradictory statements, and pure rudeness.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

cityofcircuits said:


> Why won't anyone link their resources for their information?
> I like hearing arguments on both sides in order to help formulate my own opinions on a matter but seriously...
> I can't take everyone's word at face value.
> Where is everyone getting their information?
> Another thing, would these sources be credible?


Typology is more philosophy than science.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

phoenixpinion said:


> That's right, there's no such thing as the above mentioned functions, atleast not as implied by their wordings/definitions. Why?
> 
> Because all sensations by definition have to do with the external 5-sense world (that's why it's called sensing), just like all intuitions are abstract processes, aka they happen internally. This is for the perceiving functions. For the judgement functions, thinking and feeling, it is just the same. Thinking is always an introverted proces, the judging counterpart of intuition. Just like feeling is always an extraverted proces, the judging counterpart of sensing. Evidence? Feelings are always directed at something/-one that exists in the external world. That is why it's called ethics or values, thinking about the welfare of other living beings that exist objectively/externally. You can't have ethics for something that only exists in the abstract world (those are called principles).
> 
> ...


My friend, _none _​of the functions really exist.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Hey guys, guess what? I don't exist!!!


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

cityofcircuits said:


> Why won't anyone link their resources for their information?


In case you were referring to that Murray article I quoted, I'm afraid it's not online. Otherwise I would have linked.


----------



## like hella days (May 15, 2013)

@*phoenixpinion

I understand your points and agree with them.




It's good that you seemed to expect backlash. I'm glad that you are questioning established methods. It's refreshing. It truly is. 

**You've made certain MBTI theories seem as valid as religion. As if people hold onto them for security.*
*
Thank you
*


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

You're completely misunderstanding the system.

In Jung's original text of the theory, he describes extraversion as being more objective (influenced by external stimuli) and introversion more subjective (influenced by internal stimuli). That being said, the extraverted functions (objective functions) tend to be more open-ended and see endless possibilities. On the flip side, the introverted functions (subjective functions) tend to be more closed, as they narrow down one way of viewing it.

Like Ni for example sees all of the interconnections but then looks inward to narrow down what best fits on a subjective level. Ne, on the other hand, is gaining that energy directly from the external environment so they continue to make these connections without narrowing any down.

Every person processes all things both objectively (externally) or subjectively (internally). The only difference, and what ultimately creates each unique type, is the order in which the functions are naturally used and which way of processing information are we internalizing and which are we externalizing.

So yes, I do understand and agree what you mentioned about Ne and Te being more introverted than Fe and Se. They just are in nature because it is intuition and thinking. However, there is still a key difference between Ne and Ni and Te and Ti.


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Typology is more philosophy than science.


Yes. And just because something can't be scientifically tested, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Welcome to possibly the biggest fault of western civilization. ;-)


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Meh, overall the concept sounds fairly sound, to an extend.

To however say that cognitive functions wouldn't exist, or that an I/E divide within their restrictive fields wouldn't exist is nothing short of silly. Much like denying a general flow of direction of one's libido.

I won't go into the sensation definition debacle, as it'd be a waste of our time - but let me say this: I don't think your idea is wrong per-se (or your system for that matter) but that you still struggle with the implementation of some vital parts. As such it's not wholly yet, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad.

Could you further, and more importantly lay out how you derived at the conclusion that T < N < F < S in terms of bubbling mechanic came to life?

You should note however that what you're proposing has nothing to do with MBTI per-se anymore. It is neither a 'correction' or such, or an improved version - rather than an idea of your own, which probably holds more merit many are willing to bestow onto it.


----------



## cityofcircuits (Nov 8, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Typology is more philosophy than science.


Apparently. "Id est quid id est.":tongue:


----------



## like hella days (May 15, 2013)

*@*pheonixpinion * 

Yea I'm back. After dwelling on your ideas (that make totar sense) for a rittle whire and then watching an episode of Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, I think you just simprified an overy compricated subject matter*.
*
Sir, In the most riterar way, I FEER incrined to Thank You again.*



phoenixpinion said:


> Based on this theory the 16 mbti personality types on the spectrum of *most introverted to most extraverted* become as follows (and therefore not as simple as previously thought wereby e.g. all extraverted dominants are equally extraverted), not taking into account the tertiary and inferior functions (as there is no proof of their lineair placement):
> 
> _INTP----ISTP----INTJ/ENTJ----INFJ/ESTJ----_ENTP----ENFP/INFP----ISFP----ISTJ----ENFJ----ISFJ/ESFJ----ESTP----ESFP


You are prainry very insightfur. I think your perspective makes (i.r.l.) typorogy easier due to this rogicar simpricity... opposed to a sentimentar over comprication of perspectives toward individuar circumstances (so subjectivery ridic).

My 'Ti' is refrects on arr of your good points
My 'Fe' adores your anarysis of said subject matter

Aaaw call me baranced.... _mmm confused bitches_* 



MegaTuxRacer said:


> You misunderstand what is meant by "sensation". It's not literally the 5 senses.


Based on my... 'intuition of thought' this said idea of sensation makes no sense


Write an MBTI quiz (I have). Then decide how to carculate the resurts. You might discover that this guy, pheonixpinion, has fantastic and varid points. 

SRSLY write a friggin quiz



*Am not baranced due to dominant introversion and intuition. Either way... MBTI can still judge and suck my awe-inspiring pink crotch

:happy: Rater Gaters <3


----------



## DeepDownImShallow (Dec 15, 2012)

paraphrased: Te, Ne, Si, Fi etc don't exist...



phoenixpinion said:


> That's right, there's no such thing as the above mentioned functions


you're right and yet you're wrong. Life is too complex to accurately distinguish cognitive processes. On the other hand, I see these 'functions' as real living animated things, each has its own quality, form, energy and expression. It doesn't matter how unique each individual person is, they still display these functions since they are an inbuilt system from which we draw on. These things are very general and there are no hard and fast rules, just because one observes 'Te' being used a certain way it doesn't mean that is the only way it can be used. Keep curious and keep persevering in understanding people, spend time with them and the information will present itself to you. It probably does help that I use Ni and Ti to understand these invisible systems yet I swear they ARE there. Weather systems can be invisible yet still have their affect. Take wind for example, you can't actually observe it, it's invisible, what you CAN observe is it's effect on the environment (foliage etc). 

Intelligence is the ability to make distinctions. We need to assert what isn't true before we can get to what is, it's a never ending process of refining the incredible amount of information we are presented with each day. If you lose curiosity then you will just end up with assumptions, and that is what I would call a lazy mind. 

Oh one more thing, there are endless cross-overs to how we can perceive the functions in action. I have noticed that Se+Fi can come across as 'Fe', Fi can be channelled through Te coming across as very logical or cold even (the list of these possible incorrect 'typings' is endless). I had to make many many mistakes in my trial and error to start refining the complexity of combinations that can be expressed. assumptions are killer. 

If my answer wasn't satisfying or didn't answer your original post, then I'm sorry I just had to have a little rant... 

p.s. you should read 'Kant for beginners' Christopher Want, Andrzej Klimowski. it covers a lot and gives great condensed summaries of Kant's theories, It will be much more satisfying to read that than my drivel. It talks about what you are talking about and really establishes the limits of our Knowledge; perception cognition etc.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Figure said:


> My friend, _none _​of the functions really exist.


Exactly, however, no one can argue with the fact that there exist two worlds for each one of us. The subjective introverted personal world (abstract), and the objective external material shared world. This is where I started. 
The only thing we're sure of is thus introversion and extraversion, introversion requiring a subject/self-conscious being like us humans with the capacity of abstract thought, extraversion only requiring physical senses (touch/smell/sound/vision) to perceive/"decode" the external world. (I say decode because quantum physics came to the conclusion that the physical universe functions like a hologram.) Thus all animals, plants, ... are pure extraverts (perhaps with the exception of cetaceans). They are more objective than us, even though they're not capable of logic. This is because objectivity has nothing to do with logic. 

Objectivity is about perceiving something like it IS, not how you imagine it in your mind. That is why scientific findings so often contradict logic. Nonetheless, evidence is evidence. A good scientist thus puts his logical ego aside and accepts it. A bad scientist will suffer from cognitive dissonance and try to twist the evidence to so it fits his predetermined conclusions. He cannot differentiate between his subjective abstract world and the objective world around him. He thus tries to control the objective world so it fits his abstract version. In other words, this person is dogmatic. His logic/intuition is out-of-control. 

Point being? Objectivity is paying attention to what your senses tell you about the objective external world. The most objective person alive is thus the extraverted senser. However, is subjectivity less important than objectivity? I don't think so... Balance is where it's at folks.

So, if Sensing is the least abstract function, logic is then the most abstract function, even more so than intuition. Why? While sensing is extraverted and perceiving, the opposite of it must be introverted and judging, which is logic. These are the two extreme polar opposite cognitive functions. Yes, intuition is the perceiving counterpart of sensing, but because it's still a perceiving function, it has more in common with sensing than logic. Intuition is thus introverted and perceiving. As a result, feeling is thus extraverted and judging, which obviously fits.

So what we have here is the following:
*S = E and P
F = E and J
N = I and P
T = I and J*

Then what about Si, Fi, Ne and Te. Well, the invention of these functions is a result of fundamental misunderstanding. However, the Sensing-Thinking spectrum is not black-white, but a continuum. After S came F, after F came N, after N came T. This is the evolution of the abstract mind of humanity. (Off-topic, but I firmly believe our collective intellect has gone out-of-control, which is why we have forgotten how to be objective. Just because religion is disappearing, does not mean dogma is. I believe dogma has actually gotten worse, not better. Priests of old were obviously questioned by quite a few. But who questions the modern day professor?)

So the S-T spectrum can be expanded into the S-F-N-T spectrum. This can yet again be expanded into Se-Si-Fe-Fi-Ne-Ni-Te-Ti (, and theoretically can keep on being expanded ad infinitum). Thus Si, Fi, Ne, Te may aswell exist, yet Si and Fi are still actually extraverted, and Ne and Te are still actually introverted.

I already imagine the counter-arguments, i.e., you can't mix judging and perceiving functions. Why not? Because the holy book of personality typing says so? As you can see, I just did, and it fits.


To the nay-sayers out there. I have one simple question. If Si is more introverted than Ne like implied by its name, why then do Ne-dom users often bump into walls and stumble over physical objects, a rare event of an Si-dom user?
(My conclusion is simple: Si is more extraverted than Ne.)

Another note: The introversion/extraversion spectrum has nothing to do with sociality, but where you get your energy from, i.e., where your focus lies. It's obvious that extraverts are often more social, because other people are located in the external world.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

thegirlcandance said:


> You're completely misunderstanding the system.


Yep, because the system SUCKS!


----------



## Metaplanar (Apr 2, 2011)

All I am getting from this is that those are your functions, the ones you naturally understand.
Ni, Ti, Fe, Se...makes you either ISTP, ESTP, INFJ or ENFJ.
And you're very trapped in your own nature and perspective. That's normal! The opposite orientations of these functions of course seem weird and unnatural to you. But, and that's where MBTI/JCF are so useful, it doesn't seem that way to everyone.

Let me tell you about Te and Fi.
Te and Fi are obviously the natural orientations for T and F:
Thinking is external, it is objective, orients itself on cause and effect, efficiency, the external world. Thoughts and theories can be shared, discussed.
Feeling, on the other hand, is always introverted, subjective, personal. Feelings are so individual, that, when you are trying to communicate them, you can never even be sure if you are both talking about the same thing.

See, Ti and Fe cannot exist. Obviously.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Erbse said:


> To however say that cognitive functions wouldn't exist, or that an I/E divide within their restrictive fields wouldn't exist is nothing short of silly. Much like denying a general flow of direction of one's libido.


True, I actually meant to say that Te and Ne are not really extraverted, and Si and Fi are not really introverted.



> Could you further, and more importantly lay out how you derived at the conclusion that T < N < F < S in terms of bubbling mechanic came to life?


Simple, sensations are obviously our first and most direct contact with the physical world, thereby most extraverted. These sensations get judged semi-abstractly with feeling. After feeling the first real abstraction begins, being intuition, again a perceiving function, but not a direct perceiving function like sensing, but a perceiving function of feelings (=judgements). (It's common knowledge that intuitives are often very aware of the emotional states of the room, hence why many NF's are such good counselors.) Then again the most abstract minds come along and start judging the intuitions again, these are the T's. I personally do not advocate such extreme abstraction (leads to alienation of the external world), and I also find it hard to believe that T's/NT's are born this way (for they must first gather the necessary feelings and then intuitions), unless reincarnation holds true.

So, extraversion-introversion is the most - not the least - important duality here, followed by perceiving-judgement.



> You should note however that what you're proposing has nothing to do with MBTI per-se anymore. It is neither a 'correction' or such, or an improved version - rather than an idea of your own, which probably holds more merit many are willing to bestow onto it.


Yes, but official MBTI theory was still my starting point.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Metaplanar said:


> All I am getting from this is that those are your functions, the ones you naturally understand.
> Ni, Ti, Fe, Se...makes you either ISTP, ESTP, INFJ or ENFJ.


 ENxP mostly fits with my real personality.



> And you're very trapped in your own nature and perspective. That's normal! The opposite orientations of these functions of course seem weird and unnatural to you. But, and that's where MBTI/JCF are so useful, it doesn't seem that way to everyone.


 Correction, MBTI trapped my nature and confused my perspective. My nature got loose and corrected MBTI.



> Let me tell you about Te and Fi.
> Te and Fi are obviously the natural orientations for T and F:
> Thinking is external, it is objective, orients itself on cause and effect, efficiency, the external world. Thoughts and theories can be shared, discussed.
> Feeling, on the other hand, is always introverted, subjective, personal. Feelings are so individual, that, when you are trying to communicate them, you can never even be sure if you are both talking about the same thing.
> ...







Nonono, by definition, thoughts and theories do not exist externally. They are pure abstract matters. It's pure introversion. It doesn't matter if these theories are oriented towards the external world or not, though Te will most likely be more external-world oriented than Ti. Yet Te is still pretty dam abstract.

Feelings are far more down-to-earth than thoughts. They are the direct judgement/interpretation of the sensual world around you. Yet, feelings are still slightly abstract, because everything beyond Se is more or less abstract in varying degrees, with Ti being the most abstract/introvert, followed by Te > Ni > Ne > Fi > Fe > Si. 

The evidence of this is in the fact that feelings can be picked by others, especially intuitives. On the other-hand, try to telepathy mindread someone's theory or philosophy.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Si and the rest of the functions are kind of like the attitude rather than the means.

Most people have senses anyhow. Its how people prefer to use them.

As for Jung, he didn't stop as "Introverted sensing is the use of the body." Nor was that his words or his underlying point.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

/removed


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Figure said:


> My friend, _none _​of the functions really exist.


Neither do mermaids, yet that was the basis for his arguments in his last thread...


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Neither do mermaids, yet that was the basis for his arguments in his last thread...


That other thread has nothing to do with this one.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> Yes it is. The fact that you twist its real meaning is the result of fundamental MBTI misunderstanding which tries to twist the cognitive functions so it fits their mental box. That is not the approach of a scientist. You don't twist reality so it fits your model, if anything, the model must seek to alter itself continuously to fit reality. That is why MBTI has been stuck in dogma for decades, assumptions build on assumptions, build on assumptions... As a result, no one even dares to question its fundamentals anymore. Not even you, a so-called unauthoritarian ENTP. You don't do your type any good.


yea word cool dude.

:dry:


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

phoenixpinion said:


> Yep, because the system SUCKS!


Can't convince a fish what water is if the fish is convinced in its mind that water doesn't exist.

Ignorance isn't bliss. It's just flat out ignorance.


----------



## like hella days (May 15, 2013)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> There's a bureaucratic process you have to go through.


Your signature is part of the reason why I turned of signature viewing in threads a couple weeks ago


----------



## like hella days (May 15, 2013)

phoenixpinion said:


> PaladinX said:
> 
> 
> > Neither do mermaids, yet that was the basis for his arguments in his last thread...
> ...



That was childish


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Well since the functions are ideas to better grasp real world phenomena...*sure!*
All Jung did was recognice that certain individuals valued certain information over other types of information.
So he pegged them and gave them names.
Are these things real?
Well sure they are, but the ideas and labels pegged to them aren't real.
So Ne, Te whatever isn't real, but is an attempt to get to grips with how people value information.

Like people who value things that have been repeated over and over.
Like my mother, who value the way she has done something so much that she tries to impose these ways on others.
Not because her way has merit, but because her doing it has made it so real for her she won't even entertain
alternatives unless forced.
A nice label for such behavior is called Si. 
It is just a label. 
Just as you might label a box of strawberrys with the word "strawberries" before sticking it in the freezer.
Now there may be more to it, might me a bug in the berries, and some grass too, and lord knows what.
Yet we only use the label "strawberries", cause guess what?
That is what is important.
That is what can be used to get results, the other stuff is just distractions.

Knowing that my mother fits under the label Si, I can confidently deal with her antics in a stress free way.
I sure as hell couldn't before. Now this scientific authority you speak of.
What use does it serve us?
How will debunking and throwing this system on the garbage heap cause it can't be proved to be pure "strawberries"
help me relate to my mother and countless others with all sorts of messed up behavior?
Behaviour that just happens to not only fit these labels, but also solve the problems when the insights offered
from the theory that Jung devised actually changes the situation for the better.

See I don't know what crusade off great revolution you are on.
But I sure can tell that it will benefit you excatly *ZERO*.
I doubt severely that your revised cognitive system will usher in a period of understanding between you
and those around you. Instead I predict stress and hard work with no end.
I hope I'm wrong, but I can't say I envy you this position you are putting yourself in.
We already have Socionics and MBTI, The Beebe model, pure Jung and the Enneagram I doubt there are room
for yet another earth shattering model that contains the neverending cognitive truth.

So you reject the standardized labels?
Where does that put you?
Are your new model helpful in real life?
Or are they just a theory for theorys sake?
I usually label such things Ti btw.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Seeing as how everybody is going on against *phoenixpinion*, i think he might be on to something here. I know next to nothing about the MBTI types and i'm eager to learn. I will dive fully into this thread next week or the week after.

Hey *phoenixpinion*, where do you suggest i start learning about MBTI? I value your opinion because i can tell that you have put in time and effort. You are also not afraid to questioning the very foundations of MBTI, i respect a man like that.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Dedication said:


> Seeing as how everybody is going on against *phoenixpinion*, i think he might be on to something here. I know next to nothing about the MBTI types and i'm eager to learn. I will dive fully into this thread next week or the week after.
> 
> Hey *phoenixpinion*, where do you suggest i start learning about MBTI? I value your opinion because i can tell that you have put in time and effort. You are also not afraid to questioning the very foundations of MBTI, i respect a man like that.


Basically cause he has invented something new that has a totally different criterea for what a function even is.

To him only objectitve function is sensing since it is external, and he puts the sensing apparatus as the functions,
not in an interpretive layer of the mind.
To him everything that is in the mind is introverted apparantly.
Nothing wrong with labeling those phenomena with those labels.

However by doing so you make yourself fully irrelevant to any real discussion of practical worth
with anyone using the standard labels.
What he doesn't get is that the label doesn't define the phenomena, it is the phenomena that define the label.
However having learned about type, I'm understand that some people will force their interpretation of the label onto reality.

His system might have merit in some way or not.
But the reality is that it will never be widely adopted and hence will be worthless as far as labeling goes.
He has failed to outline any practical value to using his severely limited functions.
So to me it stands as an attempt to force some vision down everyones throat for the sake of the vision,
rather cause the particular view is of any great enlightening benefit.



> *So here you have the real continuum of introversion <-> extraversion*


And of course he is the only one that can see reality as it is...
Making for a pretty arrogant stance, alienating most potential followers automatically.
Besides we all know that none can see reality for what it actually is, 
we can just see our subjective take on it and make the best out of that.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> You misunderstand what is meant by "sensation". It's not literally the 5 senses.


It kinda is literal five senses for Se in MBTI.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The problem with this is that it defines introversion-extroversion into its own system. That is fine, but as such I also fail to see how it actually is a critique against the system as it stands since you aren't interested in redefining these definitions into something you think is workable and reflects reality better. As someone who prefers the cognition of Ni Te Fi Se, I can very much attest that Te and Fi are very real as attitudes. When I make Fi decisions, I make them based on my personal standards, not that of anyone else's. Similarly, when I fall back on logic, I am aware of the logical systems around me and how I can utilize them in order to better express my thinking. 

The main problem with your theory then, is that you don't seem to be capable of seeing the functions as cognitive _processes_. They are in fact* all internal *because they deal with how we process, take in and sort out information. 

Having spoken to an ENTP extensively, I can also tell that our processes are very different
While we are both intuitives with a preference towards thinking as our auxiliary, her method of thinking ultimately feels backwards. This is because instead of trying to narrow intuition to one model or idea, she wants to generate more of them. Denying these obvious cognitive differences is denying reality itself. The model should fit reality based on what we can observe, not be formulated because we don't like the logical structures of the current ones. 

It's exactly what @hornet wrote. The definitions of phenomena should not define the nature of the phenomena, but the phenomena should define the nature of our definitions. We are the source of all human cognition. What Carl Jung did was to simply give some of those processes a name because he recognized that people indeed think very differently. 

As a last and final note, we can all think, feel, sensate and intuit. What makes us one type over the other has simply to do with what processes we favor more than the other. I don't like the obvious bias you injected against SF types suggesting that their cognition is simpler or more basic than that of the NT. Sensation and feeling can be as complex as thinking and intuition because at the heart of it, they are all the same thing. The complexity is simply perceived because of our own biases.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@_Kamishi_
From this view I can say that my approach to all of this is take the labels and the concepts they embody.
Then observe the world to see if the concepts manifest in the real world.
If not throw away the labels and the concepts, 
if they do, keep the labels and explore the phenomena for my self, guided by the theory for what to look for.
I don't care about logical stuff too much. 
A theory is just a map and if you follow it,* you either arrive at your destination or not.* 
( Okay some logic I guess  )
If the map is unreliable and you get crap results, throw it away.
Make sure you know how to read it first though. 
The Jungian theory (map) gives me results I could only dream about 5 years ago.
It has proven it's merit under fire.
So when someone comes along and say they don't "like" the outline of the map, 
cause it "annoys" them, I can't really take it seriously. XD


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

*Kamishi*, thank you for explaining, as somebody who knows little about MBTI, your explaination makes sense.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> @_Kamishi_
> From this view I can say that my approach to all of this is take the labels and the concepts they embody.
> Then observe the world to see if the concepts manifest in the real world.
> If not throw away the labels and the concepts,
> ...


I don't like to formulate theories or concepts prior of observing reality. If I do, there is always the risk I'm wrong and that's just inefficient and not overly logical. How can I define something which I have yet to observe? I guess dominant judgers might not experience this as a problem, but I definitely do.

And when we observe phenomena, they will remain the same. It is easy to think that phenomena might change or evolve, but what really happens is that we are observing more dimensions and facets of them. What matters is therefore how we can improve and deepen our understanding which will over time require use to revise and improve our models of explanation of said phenomena, as we observe more and more facets of them. Case in point, Newtonian gravity is nothing like Einstein's relativity theory even though both try to explain how gravity operates. Yet there is a certain point where both overlap since both try to explain the same phenomenon - gravity. 

So Einstein's theory of relativity is then simply an improved and revised version of Newton's original theory and this is how science should work in my opinion. If our explanations don't fit because of contradictions or because we found out that the way we thought something worked is not the way it worked, we need to see how we can improve our model. The models should fit reality, otherwise it's not legit science. Anyone can come up with a model based on reality as we perceive it, but without trying to understand why things are the way the are, the models themselves become rather pointless.

What the OP is doing isn't much different than trying to streamline things into something like the Big 5 model, which ironically doesn't make it much better than the MBTI system he's trying to critique. If one is only going to be interested in cognitive function output that is, being only interested in that sensation is taking in information via the five senses (but then where does intuition take information from?) because sensation is concrete, then one might as well just simplify it as that every person who is hands-on, likes the concrete over the abstract and prefers kineasthetic learning over over types of learning must be a sensor and an Se type, then why not just call it sensation and call it with one letter: S. Since there is no real distinction anyway. And instead of having 16 types let's just narrow it down to 4 types (since there are only 4 valid letter combinations narrowing things down this way). 

What we end up with is something similar to the MBTI model but with a greater distinction between introversion-extroversion, which frankly makes no sense to me since introversion-extroversion has to do with our cognitive focus, and the balance between the two depends on the balance between dominant-inferior and dominant-auxiliary assuming you support the model where the auxiliary must always be of the opposite attitude of the dominant. 

So in the end, what this models turns out doing has nothing to do with the MBTI and Jung, but stands as its own thing. The problem as I see it is that it fails to really tell us something new or capture a new dimension of reality. Yes, people can range between how socially introverted-extroverted they are, but is this what this model is really trying to depict? Nevermind the problem as was already expressed with the J/P letter definitions that seem right-out contradictory. 

This is the problem I have when people rush into coming up with explanations using existing terminology but they fail to realize the very important first step - working out your definitions and how they are different when compared to the accepted terminology. The OP is not defining sensation or Se the way it's usually understood for example, so then the question becomes, why even define it sensation or Se at all if has nothing to do with either unless the purpose is to improve the current definition? But that's not what I'm seeing the intent being here. Rather, the intent seems to be to create one's own model entirely.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kamishi said:


> I don't like to formulate theories or concepts prior of observing reality. If I do, there is always the risk I'm wrong and that's just inefficient and not overly logical. How can I define something which I have yet to observe? I guess dominant judgers might not experience this as a problem, but I definitely do.


You raise a valid point here.
As I see it, I wouldn't be interested in the theory is not some phenomena was giving me some sort of grievance.
So the observation do come first, but as a dominant judger I tend to marginalise the importance of the first observation.
It is kinda taken for granted and credit is given to the initial judgment over the observation.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> You raise a valid point here.
> As I see it, I wouldn't be interested in the theory is not some phenomena was giving me some sort of grievance.
> So the observation do come first, but as a dominant judger I tend to marginalise the importance of the first observation.
> It is kinda taken for granted and credit is given to the initial judgment over the observation.


Unless I have a strong sense of understanding what it is I observe, I rarely tend to define those observations if at all. I can formulate hypotheses as I go, but it's a constant process of refinement. I just need to have that sense of idea what it is I'm observing or I find that defining my observations are rather useless since I could as well observe nothing of particular value.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kamishi said:


> Unless I have a strong sense of understanding what it is I observe, I rarely tend to define those observations if at all. I can formulate hypotheses as I go, but it's a constant process of refinement. I just need to have that sense of idea what it is I'm observing or I find that defining my observations are rather useless since I could as well observe nothing of particular value.


Well for me value is easy to detect.
If it pertains to something that are interfearing with a smooth life.
Then the observation has value.

Then it needs to be defined somhow.
Luckily I've been trained in both Norwegian and English in childhood 
and have pretty extensive definitions at my disposal.
So I just plaster on some generic definition. (As we all do)

Only if this simplified approach doesn't seem to offer any insight to solve the problem do I seek out more refined approaches.
I usually go online and search for standarized how to guides that seem plausible. (Gotta start somewhere)

Seldom do I need to go as deep as I've done with this theory.
It matches my martial arts, religious and other hobby related studies.

The tricky part is that I've lived like 27 years oblivious to the fact that people value different information.
Accepting stereotypical information without questioning it ect.
So now when I have found a map of this area, an area that have spawned several life issues for me that seemed unsolvable,
even with "expert" counseling from related areas, I've got to reorient myself on a grand scale.
The added complexity of others around me having resistance to me even using this map complicates things further.

I find it interesting to note that you reserve judgment unless the understanding is deep.
I just jump into the water and try to swim.
Failing a lot, but getting a lot of experience in the process.
It is only lately knowing that I repress Te that I've managed to gain some sort of intellectual perspective on it all.

If my neighbour who is type X fires his gun at me every time he sees me cause his type can't handle red.
An I just happen to wear red t-shirts. I may be perplexed by this violent behaviour with no seeming cause.
If he is unable to verbalize his grievance when I wear white t-shirts and try to find out why he shot at me in the past,
I can come up with all sorts of weird ideas for why he does it.
Finding a "type t-shirt colour guide" will solve all my hassles as I can clearly see that if I avoid red I will not be fired upon.
That is how I approach this.
Either I find a way to navigate troublesome people or the system is bad.
In this case the result is staggering, and I can quickly identify how well I will interact with someone.

Basically all I need is a system that works, that gets me results where it counts subjectively for me.
I find that some other types are motivated by very other ends and gets upset with my pure selfish value pragmatism.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@hornet with the neighbor example, I would also be pre-occupied trying to figure out why the neighbor acts that way, but I would look for a wide range of explanations and causes why that is, not just type. I would first of all look into psychological factors, but I would also look at myself and try to understand if I did something that triggered said behavior too. 

Not knowing or understanding the cause of conflict causes anxiety though, so I have a strong need to figure out the cause.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kamishi said:


> @_hornet_ with the neighbor example, I would also be pre-occupied trying to figure out why the neighbor acts that way, but I would look for a wide range of explanations and causes why that is, not just type. I would first of all look into psychological factors, but I would also look at myself and try to understand if I did something that triggered said behavior too.
> 
> Not knowing or understanding the cause of conflict causes anxiety though, so I have a strong need to figure out the cause.


Yeah I imagine I run a higher risk of getting shot in the process of trying to figure out what is causing it.
Se is a fairly high risk information gathering strategy.
The higher you have it the more likely you are to put yourself in harms way while trying to figure things out.
Everyone would have a strong need to figure it out, but each type would approach it differently.
And the results and the level of contentment with certain outcomes would be different.

If I never stumbled over a usable guide, I might have to resort to laying in ambush and taking my neighbour out.
Moving or building a concrete wall is other options.

As far as this theory goes I litterally moved to the other side of Norway, to find that people was as messed up there
and that the issues I thought was specific with my familiy and aquanitances wasn't so unique after all.
(Some of them where though)

I often catch myself thinking what it would mean for my life if I had been taught this at an earlier age.
Like at 16 or something, back when I was confused as hell on every level.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@hornet I'm slightly confused why research has to be of physical nature. I would probably have all the data I need from that one encounter and if I don't I will simply research more. I wouldn't do it physically though. There are so many other ways to gather data nowadays.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kamishi said:


> @_hornet_ I'm slightly confused why research has to be of physical nature. I would probably have all the data I need from that one encounter and if I don't I will simply research more. I wouldn't do it physically though. There are so many other ways to gather data nowadays.


Well sure I get what you are saying.
But faced with a situation, I would get some howto from say google.
It would say that neighbours that are firing upon you will stop if you do X.
Well got to try X then.
Oh shit didn't work still firing... XD

I'm very prone to just trying random advice that seem to work based on past experience.
So my survival rate goes very much up the longer I live since, I've tried a lot of really stupid stuff
and have seen first hand how that is a very very bad idea... XD
Provided the bad ideas dont kill me...

If I was a Se dom I would be even more prone to jumping into the action.
Probably just try and fail over and over without going to google first...
Most Se doms I know have been severely injured in some way.
Se dom children from what I can observe working in kindergarden 
have almost zero fear from trying all sorts of things that can kill them instantly.

Si/Ni and even Ne users are much more careful in their approach.
I've yet to hear a Se dom confess that they are scared of trying an activity, unless they know for sure it will hurt.
And even then they often do it to double check that it hurts every time.


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> That's right, there's no such thing as the above mentioned functions, atleast not as implied by their wordings/definitions. Why?
> 
> Because all sensations by definition have to do with the external 5-sense world (that's why it's called sensing), just like all intuitions are abstract processes, aka they happen internally. This is for the perceiving functions. For the judgement functions, thinking and feeling, it is just the same. Thinking is always an introverted proces, the judging counterpart of intuition. Just like feeling is always an extraverted proces, the judging counterpart of sensing. Evidence? Feelings are always directed at something/-one that exists in the external world. That is why it's called ethics or values, thinking about the welfare of other living beings that exist objectively/externally. You can't have ethics for something that only exists in the abstract world (those are called principles).
> 
> ...


My idea is quite different and complicated, based on a lot of different theories but it basically goes like this. Whether someone is "extraverted or introverted" can be confused with whether their energy is more "yin or yang" (based on emotional orientation which is often confused with extraversion or introversion). Also the positions on the spectra (such as left-right brained) are not evenly spaced out, but the orders are like this:-

Left-right spectrum:
ESFP - ENTJ - ISTJ - INFP - ESFJ - ENTP - ENFP - ESTJ - ENFJ - ESTP - INTJ - ISFP - INTP - ISFJ - ISTP - INFJ

"yin-yang" spectrum:
ESTJ - ENFP - INTP - ENTP - ESFJ - ISFJ - INFJ - ENTJ - ISTP - ESFP - INFP - ISTJ - INTJ - ISFP - ESTP - ENFJ


----------



## StaceofBass (Jul 1, 2012)

If Ne, Fi, Te, and Si don't really exist then I must be dreaming of my existence or something...


----------



## Chloliz (Jun 22, 2013)

Just thought I'd add my two cents here. I'm fairly new to cognitive functions theory, but I read an article yesterday that clarified it all for me, and I think what I've learned from it could help shed some light on the matter here. (Can't remember where it was now! If I find it again I'll post the link.)

*Introversion vs. Extroversion*
Firstly, it defined the introverted orientation as a desire to adapt the external world to the self, and the extroverted orientation as a desire to adapt the self to the external world.
*
Extroverted Sensing*
Se is the function that seeks out new sensory experiences and data, and assimilates them in an objective fashion. A prime example of someone dominated by this function to my mind would be Stephen Fry. He has an insatiable thirst for information - words and their definitions, books and their authors, historical events - if you've read his autobiography you'll know he remembers the names of almost everyone he's ever met - and his prose is peppered with a storehouse of literary quotations and sensory-detail-rich anecdotes.

*Introverted Sensing*
Si on the other hand savors and cherishes sensory experiences and data, and assimilates them in a subjective fashion. People dominated by this function seem to be particularly nostalgic compared to other types, and tend to collect mementos/souvenirs that have rich personal significance for them as they go through life (not saying that other types don't do this, but that it is a habit particularly common among introverted sensors). I would tentatively suggest that an example of an Si dominant personality would be Peter Kay - the consummate observational comic. He filters his personal experiences through his extroverted feeling function to create re-enactments of his life experiences that everyone can relate to. Some might disagree and argue that Peter Kay is an extrovert - but I would point out that his demeanor (<<really Chrome?? Getting irritated by these American spellings haha!) in interviews is far more mellow, and he goes about his creative process very earnestly and independently. If anyone can think of any better examples of this type feel free to let me know 

*Extroverted Intuition*
This function drives an individual to discover the inherent patterns and meanings that belie external things. A good example of someone who is Ne dominant would be Professor Brian Cox. As a presenter, he is continually transforming abstract scientific concepts into elaborate yet concrete metaphors (a tendency that has been parodied in the 'Wonders of the Universe' mockumentary) i.e. "Light waves are just like these hotdog sauces." The connections they make bear no personal significance, and they are continually re-evaluating the symbolic implications of things to fit with the constant influx of objective information they receive.

*Introverted Intuition
*Ni dominant individuals have a more innate sense of what things mean and tend to discard or assimilate information based on how it fits with their internal 'theory of everything'. That is not to say that these individuals are closed-minded - just that, if they receive a piece of evidence that seriously jars with their core understanding of the world, they will adapt their 'theory of everything' so that it incorporates this new piece of evidence. A prime example of someone with this inclination would be Sherlock Holmes. He believes that all chains of events follow a finite set of predictable patterns, and that any new set of circumstances (i.e. new murder cases) will invariably fit into the elaborate working model of reality he has forumlated.

Wow, that was difficult! Being an ENFP myself, all of these ideas came to me in one instant flash, and as soon as I started writing them I could no longer be bothered to finish explaining it all. Forced myself to persevere though. Hope it helps


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> That's right, there's no such thing as the above mentioned functions, atleast not as implied by their wordings/definitions. Why?
> 
> Because all sensations by definition have to do with the external 5-sense world (that's why it's called sensing), just like all intuitions are abstract processes, aka they happen internally. This is for the perceiving functions. For the judgement functions, thinking and feeling, it is just the same. Thinking is always an introverted proces, the judging counterpart of intuition. Just like feeling is always an extraverted proces, the judging counterpart of sensing. Evidence? Feelings are always directed at something/-one that exists in the external world. *That is why it's called ethics or values, thinking about the welfare of other living beings that exist objectively/externally.* *You can't have ethics for something that only exists in the abstract world* (those are called principles).
> 
> *Ofcourse it is not so black-and-white, which is why MBTI does list Te, Ne, Si and Fi.* However, it is wrong and totally confusing to do so because it implies that Ne or Te are more extraverted than Si or Fi, which they aren't. *Add to this the fact that judging functions are also always more introverted than their perceiving counterparts, for judgement by definition is an abstract proces (abstraction=introversion as just explained). Pure extraversion is thus pure observing, pure perceiving, pure physical 5-sense world oriented without letting feelings/thoughts or intuitions or any other abstract matter in the way, in other words, it is pure Se. Based on this we can also conclude that Ti is pure introversion, for Ti is the polar opposite of Se (not Ni).*


I personally think of Se as the most concrete solid existing thing. Perceiving with your five senses, simple. Then I still don't quite understand why Ni is the polar opposite of Se. (My understanding is that sensing is the opposite of intuition, and extraversion the opposite of introversion.) Fi and Te _do_ exist as well. Te is a pretty concrete thing.

Why is thinking always an introverted process, and feeling an extraverted process? Why is thinking not directed at something as well? I guess you don't understand Fi and Te because you simply don't use it. 

*"That is why it's called ethics or values, thinking about the welfare of other living beings that exist objectively/ externally."
*This sounds pretty Fe. I do that, too, sometimes, and I think this is a grey area between Fi and Fe, but the two types probably have different reasons for doing so, or what's on their mind are different from each other. 

Yes I think feeling is directed at something/someone. Fi is directed at the _self. _Fi does create personal values, but values do not equal to "thinking about the welfare of other living beings." Like I value personal freedom a great deal because then I can do whatever I want and feel free and relaxed. Does that involve anyone else? Some people value freedom and liberty because they are important to the people's welfare, but this is not the very reason why I personally value freedom.

And Fi is not all about values either. According to definition, Fi is judging the information gathered from the world. A lot of time it is like and dislike.


*Ofcourse it is not so black-and-white, which is why MBTI does list Te, Ne, Si and Fi.
*Imo, MBTI doesn't list them not because things are not black-and-white, but because it starts from a single letter T/N/S/F.

*"Add to this the fact that judging functions are also always more introverted than their perceiving counterparts, for judgement by definition is an abstract proces (abstraction=introversion as just explained). Pure extraversion is thus pure observing, pure perceiving, pure physical 5-sense world oriented without letting feelings/thoughts or intuitions or any other abstract matter in the way, in other words, it is pure Se. Based on this we can also conclude that Ti is pure introversion, for Ti is the polar opposite of Se (not Ni)."

*This is totally confusing.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> Nonono, by definition, thoughts and theories do not exist externally. They are pure abstract matters. It's pure introversion. It doesn't matter if these theories are oriented towards the external world or not, though Te will most likely be more external-world oriented than Ti. Yet Te is still pretty dam abstract.
> 
> Feelings are far more down-to-earth than thoughts. They are the direct judgement/interpretation of the sensual world around you. Yet, feelings are still slightly abstract, because everything beyond Se is more or less abstract in varying degrees, with Ti being the most abstract/introvert, followed by Te > Ni > Ne > Fi > Fe > Si.
> 
> The evidence of this is in the fact that feelings can be picked by others, especially intuitives. On the other-hand, try to telepathy mindread someone's theory or philosophy.


Te is pretty concrete because it is result oriented and about achieving things, I think. It is very pragmatic. You don't always need a theory in order to finish a task, and you use different methods and strategies for doing different things, even for the same thing. To me Te is more like an attitude than about theories.

WHY would feeling exist externally?

Feelings are very abstract. Very few people actually get how I feel. They either have no idea about my feeling or they get it wrong. Feelings can be very intense, complicated, and hard to describe, yet you feel it very deeply, thus abstract. On the other hand, thought and theories can at least be verbalized or written down. Words can never represent feelings well, at least for me.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

@phoenixpinion

what i find most interesting in this thread is to consider:

the reception of your idea has more to do with the time frame in which you have introduced it. i doubt many people are even thinking when they read your words (lol, most i _believe_ are just hopping on, trying to be a part of what is happening). 

earlier on, i'm sure this would have granted you some sort of "PerC rep", which would have altered your idea in itself, or in how others are now reacting to your idea now... hahaha, i love the venom others put in their posts towards you, as if you've just told them their child is ugly... lol.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> To the nay-sayers out there. I have one simple question. If Si is more introverted than Ne like implied by its name, why then do Ne-dom users often bump into walls and stumble over physical objects, a rare event of an Si-dom user?
> (My conclusion is simple: Si is more extraverted than Ne.)












1. i don't "often bump into walls and stumble over physical objects," you're generalizing about Ne-doms from probably very little empirical data.
2. i know Si-dom users who DO bump into walls and stumble over physical objects, which means i have empirical data which refutes your OTHER generalization, regarding Si-dom users.
3. your faulty conclusion drawn from your false premises to answer your "simple question" has all but destroyed any credibility you had regarding understanding functions.


----------



## livinginabubble (Feb 13, 2013)

Donovan said:


> @_phoenixpinion_
> 
> what i find most interesting in this thread is to consider:
> 
> ...


Have you seen the other stuff he's posted? There's been at least one other thread like this. He's a troll and just looking for attention.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

nujabes said:


> .


Best GIF! You win!


----------

