# Struggling to Understand the Cognitive Functions



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

I've been researching the qualities of each of the 8 cognitive functions, but I'm still struggling to get a good grasp on how they are all different from one another and how they all manifest differently. Specifically for Ne, Ni, Te, Ti.
Can someone give a 1-2 sentence summary of Ne, Ni, Te, Ti?
Or an example of how Ne, Ni, Te, Ti would each manifest differently?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Not one or two sentences, but..

*Ni (INxP)*
Inwardly focused passive perception - fantasy land inside ones mind, that is more realistic and true than the outer world.
Due to this preference and involvement with this fantasy land, these types can have difficulty communicating their insights and thoughts in a manner that is understandable for other people.

Look at this kind of perception, as essentially that moment when you realize you've arrived at your destination, and think to yourself "have I already passed that bridge? have I already taken a left down xxxxx street?".

Obviously, to reach your destination, you did indeed have to pass these landmarks - the information was perceived, just not actively - so the information you passed by, is actually in your mind - below your level of awareness - it is this kind of knowledge and information, that these types of people tend to rely on to survive - it's nothing mystical or magical, it is a form of memory - sometimes, a lightning fast recollection of information the person never intentionally absorbed or focused on.

This is why these types are stereotypically the kinds to receive 'insights', and can't express where they came from, or how they know what they know - the reality is, this knowledge isn't simply _pulled out of thin air_ - it's actually derived from information the user has perceived in the past. It's pulled from their memory.

The kind of information these types of people prefer to focus on is the _relationships and connections between things/people/ideas/worldviews/perspectives, as opposed to the things/people/ideas/worldviews/perspectives themselves _- this is the kind of information they pluck from their subconscious, it's not detailed, it's not concrete, it's actually recollection of these relationships and connections between the above, that provides the insights.

An example of this, would be remembering 'Beacon Street' while taking a leisurely stroll along the esplanade - the connections there would be esplanade, beach, lighthouse, beacon - in the moment however, it's simply 'beacon' out of seemingly thin air - especially considering there may not even be a lighthouse present.

The information that built the connections is in the users mind, however at the time, they don't actually realize there was a logical process that occurred ridiculously fast, below their level of awareness - they're simply the recipient of the end-result, i.e 'Beacon Street' - "aha" finally, you remembered that god damn street name you were trying to recall a few days ago (without consciously thinking about it).

This is separate from 'Si' i.e ISxP types, as they focus on the meanings and significance of things/people (as opposed to the things/person itself) and not the relationships or connections _*between *_these things.



*Ne (ENxP)*
Outwardly focused on _possibilities and connections_ between things/people in their environment as opposed to the things/people themselves (that would be 'Se' i.e ESxP) - and also, this should be noted as different from 'Ni' i.e INxJ due to 'Ni' being focused on the _relationships between these things/people/ideas/worldviews and perspectives _ - *not *possibilities that can be realized externally _in the moment_.

Spontaneously innovative - think MacGyver - _*practically *creative_, would be one way to describe this form of perceiving. Anti-stagnation. Loves _change _for the sake of mixing it up due to this innate focus on possibilities.

Due to the extraverted nature of this form of perception, these types of people are stereotypically quick off the mark with their unique* brand of witty banter and puns - this is because they're naturally tuned in to possibilities - and these possibilities includes 'the lulz' i.e, opportunities for jokes.

These types of perceivers are the masters of transcontextual thinking due to this focus on possibilities presented - these possibilities and ideas, are the information these types perceive and therefore, it makes sense (imo) that this would be the information that sinks into their brain - so it makes sense to me, that these types would easily apply seemingly unrelated ideas and possibilities to the present situation they're in, as that's simply the realm of perceiving they live in - it's practically a form of memory, for these kinds of people, I believe.

*the above explains why the brand of humour and wit these types possess, will be _unique _to the individual, as they're applying seemingly unrelated ideas/contexts into the current situation derived from the persons own, personal and subjective experience - this is to distinguish the 'witty banter' from the kind that might be entirely derived from the environment - i.e, observational humour ala 'Se' (ESxP types).

To be honest, I would love more information on these types as I don't feel I have a very solid grasp on what exactly ENxP types excel at, asides from creating memes, making puns, trolling internet forums and failing to complete any projects they embark on.



*Te (ExTJ)*
Externally focused thinking. Objective.
Stereotypically all about organization, rules, laws, structures and regulation - this is a somewhat of a misnomer however, as it's more of an innate *awareness *of the above rules/regulations etc, rather than a natural inclination to adhere to them. Understands the laws and rules governing most situations easily - doesn't attempt to apply it's own _subjective _laws, logic and understandings to every situation, instead seeing the *current *situation as unique and governed by it's own rules.

The exception* to this, is this kind of thinking values fairness and equality, which it seeks to enforce across the board - this means this kind of thinking seeks to apply the same 'logic sauce' to all situations, as opposed to considering an individuals specific and unique circumstances.

An example of this would be, if you break into someones house, you get 2 years jail time.
Just because you've just lost your job, and do not have enough money to support your family, does not mean that you are an exception to the fairness and equality that this kind of thinking seeks to apply - 2 years jail time for the recently unemployed father of two, regardless of circumstances.

*This isn't a true contradiction, as it ties back into this kind of thinking adapting to the general rules/law/structure - evidenced by adherence to the statute and laws of the state, in the above example. 



*Ti (IxTJ)*
Internally focused thinking. Subjective.
Seeks to understand how everything works, and apply basic understandings across 'the board' - this is akin to somebody essentially having a basic understanding of a system - consider this a skeletal framework - and covering the skeleton in different skin, a different face, depending on the situation - the actual framework remains the same.

These kinds of thinkers apply the above logic to as many situations as possible - the more similar something is to a system they already understand, the more easily the can pull the relevant skeleton out of their closet, slap some new understandings (skin) over the top, and proceed with this bodge-job understanding to find the easiest path to success, based on their pre-existing skeletal framework.

These are the kinds of people who, when faced with entirely new questions in a personality test, have an 'innate' understanding of what responses will produce what results - they are experts at 'gaming' systems in this fashion, as without even thinking about it, they are applying a 'personality test' skeletal framework to the current test - they don't even have to think "this response = this", they just know it already due to having built these skeletons in the past.

These kinds of people can get so caught up in modding and pimping up these skeletons and seeking new skins and faces (information), that they forget to actually apply their knowledge to the real world in any practical way, instead preferring to continuously add to this mountain of skulls and bones until the day they die.

I believe these kinds of thinkers can actually deceive themselves unintentionally into believing they're Feeling types - or intuitive types due to this understanding they can build of 'humanity' and understanding people in general, if they decide to apply their thinking to understanding this.

Due to the subjective nature of these kinds of thinkers, they can find it difficult to accept information that doesn't fit - look at this as essentially a jacket that's the wrong size for the relevant skeleton - yeah, it's a jacket (information), but it's not right, not the right fit - and therefore, not accurate and will not be worn (applied to their understandings).



***imo***


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

I wonder why despite supposedly liking letters/dichotomies, @Turi continues to try to link them to functions which theoretically should corrupt the meaning of the MBTI types...

From this Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality (SLIP) study (link) linked to by xraydav in the other thread, from P to J, the order was (in typical function-attitude notation): Ni, Fi/Ne, Fe, Si, Te, Se, Ti

If you are to put any weight on SLIP as somehow measuring the 8 function-attitudes, which I believe Turi has, *this suggests Ni not only being P but the most P, and Ti not only being J but the most J*.








In the right column, positive numbers infer J correlation, and negative numbers infer P correlation.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I wonder why despite supposedly liking letters/dichotomies, @Turi continues to try to link them to functions which theoretically should corrupt the meaning of the MBTI types...
> 
> From this Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality (SLIP) study (link) linked to by xraydav in the other thread, from P to J, the order was (in typical function-attitude notation): Ni, Fi/Ne, Fe, Si, Te, Se, Ti
> 
> If you are to put any weight on SLIP as somehow measuring the 8 function-attitudes, *this suggests Ni not only being P but the most P, and Ti not only being J but the most J*.


I'm not trying to link anything to functions, I use that terminology purely to refer to the "types" in a way people can understand without confusing the shit out of them.

I agree entirely with "Ni" being the most P, and "Ti" being the most J, if you read what I posted that idea is aligned with my thoughts.

I clearly outlined "Ni" as an ultimate perceiver type, and "Ti" as much more J like than "Te" to the point it is literally in a judgement mode 24/7, applying its own J to everything it can possibly J.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Turi how does it help to understand Ni by having INxJ next to it? Especially when one of those letters stands for something which opposes the nature of what you are describing.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Turi how does it help to understand Ni by having INxJ next to it? Especially when one of those letters stands for something which opposes the nature of what you are describing.


For the lemmings.
I prefer it as INxP, tbh.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

For the lemmings?


Turi said:


> I'll keep pushing for accuracy and truth, fighting against this brainwashed mass of hypocrisy until I'm banned.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> For the lemmings?


I did think it was better to take it.. step by step.. but, what the hell.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

MD_analyst said:


> I've been researching the qualities of each of the 8 cognitive functions, but I'm still struggling to get a good grasp on how they are all different from one another and how they all manifest differently. Specifically for Ne, Ni, Te, Ti.
> Can someone give a 1-2 sentence summary of Ne, Ni, Te, Ti?
> Or an example of how Ne, Ni, Te, Ti would each manifest differently?


 @MD_analyst, I've already written pretty extensively about Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi on this thread. I'm the first reply to the OP.  Also people ask good questions on this thread and it's pretty short, so reading through it might prove helpful for you. http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...nderstanding-judgement-functions-correct.html 

I'll quote just part of that post here, but go ahead and read the whole post if you want to get to the descriptions of Te and Ti. 



> What sort of Perceiving function you use is determined by the sort of information your mind prefers to take in. What sort of Judging function you use is determined by how you prefer to sort out information.
> 
> Here are very simple definitions Jung used to describe the four functions in general:
> 
> ...


That's just some basic information to provide a framework. I like giving people the basic definitions, because I feel they are so important to having a good grasp of the functions. 

Both Ne and Ni are Intuition. They both repress taking in or focusing too much on what _is_ in any given situation and instead are attuned to What Ifs, What Could Be - the things that aren't there. They are also _perceiving_ functions. Some people mistake Intuition for Thinking. They think that if they just like reasonably wading through every alternative or thing, that = Intuition. That is not the case. With Intuition, you perceive potential, associations between ideas, etc. 

Ne is easier (for me at least) to understand. Ne is legitimately and simply all about What If and What Could Be. The Ne-user is one who is drawn to wondering endlessly about things. Think of a closed door. The Ne-user would wonder what is behind it. The wondering if exciting for the Ne-user. But once all the possibilities are exhausted, Ne wants to chase after the next thing it perceives as having potential. Once the door is open and there's nothing new to wonder about, Ne wants to move on. Compare this to the Se-user, who would move on once all that is physically there has been discovered and explored. Both Ne and Se are similar, but Ne is drawn not to what is there but to what could be. Se is drawn to what IS and experiencing it via our five senses. 

Onto Ni... to do this, let's go back to our sunset example.

The *only* difference between Ne and Ni is one is objective and externally focused. The other is subjective and internally focused. One person is much more focused on the sunset itself, and the other internalizing what impressions or ideas the sunset gives them. 

Where the Ne user is focused very much on perceiving all of What Could Be around them in the world and are very much attuned to seeking out every exciting new possibility in the world, feeling out potential... Ni is very much focused on focused on the abstract archetypal (aka: "universal") image or idea it gets from its external environment. It is much more subjective. It is still very concept idea-focused, very much attuned to something not present in its environment, but extremely subjective. Ni therefore can come off as being unrelated or untied to reality. The perceptions that come to the Ni-user are private, unique to the person, and might be very hard to articulate to others around them. 

Maybe perceiving these sorts of things/pondering these ideas feels like watching how something will unfold.. but the thing is, some people will be like, "I use Ni because I have these weird moment where I can predict what song will come on the radio," or such like. Or, "I could predict this next political movement." Whatever. Ni is way more _conceptual_ than that as Intuition ought to be, way less tied to reality or situational things. It's perceiving an abstract image, a potential, quite like Ne does, that is probably rather hard to articulate... and if you did, it might sound like utter nonsense to others around you, or at least really hard to follow (at least in the case of Ni, sometimes for Ne too though not as much).

Like, "Hmm, that sounds interesting but I honestly don't know where you got all of that," sort of thing after you've tried to explain your thought process. Explaining your thought process is hard because you didn't "think" or "reason" through what was in your head - you "perceived" it. Even as a Ne-user I sometimes run into that, but I feel like Ni-users would run into that more.

I think the big thing people forget about Ni is that it's a _perceiving_ function. It's not about using reason to predict what could happen in the future. It's subjective, internalized, and I think it's about _connecting in a somewhat unconscious associative ways these archetypal (to Jung, something "archetypal" was a somewhat universal motif in literature and history that kept repeating itself) images/ideas that come to the Ni-user._

Anyways. I don't know if that at all helps you understand Ni or Ne. Feel free to ask questions. 

Would examples of people who I think are Ne and Ni users help?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Jewl - what do you think of the descriptors I wrote up?
I'd love to hear your thoughts, you're far more well-versed than I.


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

@Turi 

trying to understand where you're coming from with your Ni description

to my understanding you are basically stating that Ni is associative memory... and that the whole Ni process is subconscious. so what do dominant Ni users *consciously* think about then to your understanding?

I just find it hard to accept that for dominant Ni users that the process of Ni is completely out of our awareness, because in my experience most of my "thinking" is completely effortless [because I am perceiving] & my mind just tends to wander all day long without my control... BUT I can say that I am very aware of the random thoughts/perceptions that come to me despite it being out of my control.. hard to explain..

bottom line I'm just trying to figure out if you're saying that an Ni dominant has no awareness of how their mind is working until they get an answer out of thin air. this confuses me because it makes it sound like there's nothing going on in our heads most of the time lol. I am probably understanding what you're saying wrong though


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Turi said:


> @Jewl - what do you think of the descriptors I wrote up?
> I'd love to hear your thoughts, you're far more well-versed than I.


I thought they were pretty solid, actually. I think you could've made Ni a bit more Intuition focused. It was more general Pi, but I think the reason for that is the particular subjective/introverted side of Ni that you were trying to highlight in that description. Which I like to emphasize too simply because so many people do not in Ni descriptions. The important thing to remember is Ni is still Intuition, so still focused on something not present, some concept or connection between ideas. Ni is the functions that peers behind the curtain of _what is_ (totally sweeps it aside) to get a feel for "_how things really are_", wonder at where something might be going or where it might have come from, and it is perceived as this archetypal image that comes seemingly out of nowhere. 

I liked your Ti description because I really dislike it when people talk about how "objective" Ti is. Hahaha. It is not, like you brought out. 



> To be honest, I would love more information on these types as I don't feel I have a very solid grasp on what exactly ENxP types excel at, asides from creating memes, making puns, trolling internet forums and failing to complete any projects they embark on.


I don't create memes or make puns. I'm actually terrible at puns. I don't know how "funny" I am either. Those might be stereotypical ENTP things. My ESTJ sister and INTP husband are all better at puns and being funny than me. I have a fairly exaggerated sense of humor. I'm not very sarcastic or witty. I don't know why people think Ne is this "silly" function. Never gotten that. When people type comedians as Ne-doms just because of that... ugh. Ne is Intuition, too, after all. Often when talking about something I'll say, "That reminds me of..." and it'll be because the idea or essence of the two things looks to be the same to me. (Not to be confused with seeing things as similar because you're comparing two historical events or being analytical like that. It's different.) I think Ne-doms probably all do that sort of association.


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Jewl said:


> I thought they were pretty solid, actually. I think you could've made Ni a bit more Intuition focused. It was more general Pi, but I think the reason for that is the particular subjective/introverted side of Ni that you were trying to highlight in that description. Which I like to emphasize too simply because so many people do not in Ni descriptions. The important thing to remember is Ni is still Intuition, so still focused on something not present, some concept or connection between ideas. Ni is the functions that peers behind the curtain of _what is_ (totally sweeps it aside) to get a feel for "_how things really are_", wonder at where something might be going or where it might have come from, and it is perceived as this archetypal image that comes seemingly out of nowhere.
> 
> I liked your Ti description because I really dislike it when people talk about how "objective" Ti is. Hahaha. It is not, like you brought out.
> 
> ...


the associations are what make Ne-doms apt to humor, however, with you as an example, the power is not always used for jokes. Jokes are pretty much association based.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

spaceynyc said:


> the associations are what make Ne-doms apt to humor, however, with you as an example, the power is not always used for jokes. Jokes are pretty much association based.


I don't think all the associations will be apt to humor, but that's just me saying this from my narrow experience. There are really funny Ne-doms out there. Don't know how much of it is due to Ne. In my life, the funniest person I know is hands down my ESTJ sister. Dry, witty, very punny, tells great stories like a comedian would, and she'll make you laugh so hard you cry and almost empty your bladder. That said, I don't know if that has anything to do with her Te. ^-^


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

spaceynyc said:


> to my understanding you are basically stating that Ni is associative memory


Introverted Sensing is more associated with associative memory.


(i was writing a response about Ni and seperating Functions, accidently closed the browser)


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

myjazz said:


> Introverted Sensing is more associated with associative memory.
> 
> 
> (i was writing a response about Ni and seperating Functions, accidently closed the browser)


isn't that basically the way he was describing it in the original post though


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Jewl said:


> I thought they were pretty solid, actually. I think you could've made Ni a bit more Intuition focused. It was more general Pi, but I think the reason for that is the particular subjective/introverted side of Ni that you were trying to highlight in that description. Which I like to emphasize too simply because so many people do not in Ni descriptions. The important thing to remember is Ni is still Intuition, so still focused on something not present, some concept or connection between ideas. Ni is the functions that peers behind the curtain of _what is_ (totally sweeps it aside) to get a feel for "_how things really are_", wonder at where something might be going or where it might have come from, and it is perceived as this archetypal image that comes seemingly out of nowhere.


Thanks - I did highlight what intuition focuses on - relationships and connections between things/objects/perspectives etc, as opposed to those things themselves - this actually _was _me saying it focuses on what's not present.

I don't believe it actually does come from 'nowhere' - in _Gifts Differing_, Myers says:



> The common factor in all of these manifestations of intuition is a sort of ski jump - a soaring take-off from the known and established, ending in a swooping arrival at an advanced point, with the intervening steps apparently left out.
> 
> These steps are not really left out, of course; they are performed in and by the unconscious, often with extraordinary speed, and the result of the unconscious processes pops into the conscious mind with an effect of inspiration and certainty.


That is what I'm getting at, as it's how I experience my introverted intuition.



> I liked your Ti description because I really dislike it when people talk about how "objective" Ti is. Hahaha. It is not, like you brought out.


Awesome, thanks.



I don't create memes or make puns. I'm actually terrible at puns. I don't know how "funny" I am either. Those might be stereotypical ENTP things. My ESTJ sister and INTP husband are all better at puns and being funny than me. I have a fairly exaggerated sense of humor. I'm not very sarcastic or witty. I don't know why people think Ne is this "silly" function. Never gotten that. When people type comedians as Ne-doms just because of that... ugh. Ne is Intuition, too, after all. Often when talking about something I'll say, "That reminds me of..." and it'll be because the idea or essence of the two things looks to be the same to me. (Not to be confused with seeing things as similar because you're comparing two historical events or being analytical like that. It's different.) I think Ne-doms probably all do that sort of association.[/QUOTE]

That whole little section was just a joke, my understanding of ENxP types is essentially a stub.



spaceynyc said:


> the associations are what make Ne-doms apt to humor, however, with you as an example, the power is not always used for jokes. Jokes are pretty much association based.


Yep, this is what I was getting at.



spaceynyc said:


> @Turi
> 
> trying to understand where you're coming from with your Ni description
> 
> ...


I don't believe INxP (INxJ mbti) types are alert to what is happening below their level of awareness, no.

I don't think we just run around with no thoughts in our minds, I for one generally have imagery/visuals in my head, accompanied by an inner dialogue with myself, basically, even if 'myself' takes the form of other characters in my own little fantasy land.

If I elaborated you'd either resonate completely, or think I have schizophrenia or something, lol.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Turi said:


> Not one or two sentences, but..
> 
> *Ni (INxP)*
> Inwardly focused passive perception - fantasy land inside ones mind, that is more realistic and true than the outer world.
> ...


so to sumarize if i didn't realize i had an exam tomorrow i'm probably Ni and Ne if i can make a good joke about the tragicomedical situation to the teacher so she would pass me anyway. damn this comment is so ne uh?.
BULLCRAP.
that has nothing to do with it. 
every human exists in all possible ways.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

VoodooDolls said:


> so to sumarize if i didn't realize i had an exam tomorrow i'm probably Ni and Ne if i can make a good joke about the tragicomedical situation to the teacher so she would pass me anyway. damn this comment is so ne uh?.
> BULLCRAP.
> that has nothing to do with it.
> every human exists in all possible ways.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

spaceynyc said:


> isn't that basically the way he was describing it in the original post though


Yeah basically, of course he also made Macgyver a poster boy for Ne...so basically I am not buying to much stock in what was said.


----------

