# Cognitive function explanation and examples from an ISFP perspective



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

*Examples of cognitive functions*

*Perceiving functions*
These functions only perceive information, but never judge it.

*Sensing functions*
Situation: Person takes a nap. He/She looks at clock.
*Si* - I have slept my whole day!!! Says things as they sense they are and and can explain them based on what they sense, but not everytime others will sense it (subjective, perceiving).
*Se* - I have slept 4 hours. Says things as they are and can explain them to others in understandable language to everyone (objective, perceiving).

*Intuition functions*
*Ni* - often fascinated by rarer stuff on internet, doesn't like popular youtube jokes to be repeated, would choosee to watch Wangan midnight over Initial D (and will be more satisfied after watching it). Doesn't follow popular stuff (doesn't follow other intuition, they use their own) on net, fascinated by less popular things. In other words, use their own subjective intuition and may don't need other's intuition. Connect things as they think they are, but it's not something that everyone think can be connected (subjetive, perceiving).
*Ne* - Copy pastes Harambe jokes, likes more popular things on net. Would choose to watch Initial D over Wangan midnight (and will be more satisfied after watching it). They follow internet (or in other words others intuition) trends. In other words, they crave for other's intuition and may ignore their own. Connect things as everyone think they are (objective, perceiving).

*Judging functions*
These functions only judge information, but never perceive it.

*Feeling functions*
*Fi* - internal feeling decides what to like or not (subjective, judging). In other words choose their feelings based on himself/herself, but is aware of what others feel.
*Fe* - external feelings decide what to like or not (objective, judging). In other words choose their feelings based on others, but is aware of what himself/herself feels.

*Thinking functions*
Situation: Let's imagine person buying furniture from IKEA (Jokes aren't welcome. IKEA was mentioned, because everyone knows it). He/She drives back to home and brings it to room to assemble it.
*Ti* - does thinking internally, may not use external resources (instructions or other people advice) to figure out how to build it. is only satisfied when furniture is complete and funtioning (they may have used wrong parts in wrong places, but they made it working as they should) (subjective, judging).
*Te* - does thinking internally, most likely use external resources (instructions or other people advice) to figure out how to build it. Is only satisfied when everything looks like other's furniture (No parts in wrong places or spare ones) (objective, judging).


I created everything myself, no external sources were used, except my knowledge.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

The cognitive functions will depend on which system you're using. If you go by Jung, he considers thinking as one thing and that thinking can be given preference towards the subjective aspects (Ti) or objective aspecs (Te). That means no one is raw Ti or raw Te. When we think, we use both simultaneously, only we give preference for either introverted or extraverted thinking. So for instance, an ISTP and an ESTJ are both 'thinking types' in Jung system because their dominant function is thinking. They both use Ti and Te when thinking but the ISTP will give weight to Ti in the decision making and the ESTJ will give weight to Te.

Also, because Jung considered the dominant function to be the deciding factor in a personality, all the other functions were somewhat repressed and acquired a opposite direction of the dominant function. That means the 3rd function is repressed by the intensity of the first function, not the second one. As you can, modern theorists disagree.

When MBTI came, people (when I say people I mean guys like Dario Nardi, etc) started to see the cognitive functions as separate things: Te is one thing, related to one part of the brain and Ti something completely different related to another part of the brain. And when you use Te it doesn't mean you are using Ti simultaneously and vice versa. One similarity modern MBTI theorist have with Jung is that both agree we use all of them in different situations.

The purpose of MBTI was to create a simple system to understand our behavior, that's where the letters came in. If we ignore all the functions stack and focus only on the letters it's acually a very useful, although simple, system and I think that's where myers wanted to go in the end, to abandon the congnitive model and focus only on the letters, in this sense: ISTP would NOT mean you're an introverted thinking type anymore, NOR it would mean you like Ti and Se and that 2 these are the main functions and yada yada. It would simply mean you prefer introversion over extraversion, sensing over intuition, thinking over feeling and (and the next one is why you will never be able to mix cognitive functions with letters...) perceiving over judging.

My opinion: When I describe cognitive functions I try to go by Jung, I try to understand what he meant, why? Because the guy was actually a doctor, he actually treated mental patients in practice. His biggest problem is, and I quote a great thinker: "He was one of the most confusing minds of all time in terms of theories". In practice he was great, he was a great doer but a bad teacher, 'psychological types' is one of the hardest reads I came across. From his results, we know his theories work. They are just too hard to grasp in only one go.

So imagine a bunch of people trying to put his theory to proof doing a bunch of tests based on questions pulled out of their asses and later on changing some of the functions because the function didn't fit the 'research' or their understanding. So they go: "Jung was wrong about Si, Si was doing things by the book instead." and I'm like: "what does doing things by the book has anything to do with repressing intuition?? And specifically (and conveniently) why only extraverted intuition?"

I'm not saying only Jung was right and everything that came after him is wrong. The judging and perceiving dichotomy is observable in our dealings with things. All I'm saying is: if you're gonna make a model, start from scratch instead of trying to use the same terms Jung used without knowing what they mean. The only thing I could take from Jung as science, aside from his philosophical musings, is:

The process your mind is stuck, your favorite function, the one you use so much we can say it is your "type" (let's say it is Ti), when the activity of that function is so intense to the point where it completely represses the antagonistic function which is feeling (*notice this is a rare occasion, of mental illness*, normal people don't do this), when that happens, that feeling will manifest in an extraverted manner that is archaic. This is a key word, because the inferior function has a primitive and archaic behavior in this situiations, Jung was able to spot it and treat it.

Oh, I almost forgot: the people in charge of the official mbti these days are doing their own thing that has nothing to do with Myers and Briggs, they've managed to make a model where everything fits to please everyone so that way they can better profit from it.

So I ask again to clear the confusion, which model of cognitive are we using? A new one? I noticed you threw some socionics in there too...


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Felipe said:


> So I ask again to clear the confusion, which model of cognitive are we using? A new one? I noticed you threw some socionics in there too...


I have never read very much of socionics and never understood it completely. Now I don't know which model I used, but it's technical explanation of cognitive functions. It's nothing new, just short. I just tried to make simple, easely comprehensive and as unbiased explanations as possible, based on Jung (I removed his bias), Keirsey, Beebe (this person better explained stacks than functions) and some other random crap in my head. I probably failed hard with doing so.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

@Felipe I'm still waiting for response


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> @Felipe I'm still waiting for response


Sorry for the late response, I was busy with some things. I'll try a "take 3" with the cognitive functions later on.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Ok, let's try another 'simplified' descritpion:

*Ti*: Like Te, Ti doms naturally judge things impersonally. However Ti is not satisfied with making conclusions based just on the data presented in the situation, Ti needs to go beyond, sometimes even consider facts that remained through time to make a conclusion. Hence the more philosophical way of thinking.

*Te*: Like Ti, Te doms naturally judge things impersonally. However Te insist on the presented data and avoid trying to go beyond it, avoid making judgements that cannot be verified or pertrain only indirectly to the situation. Hence the more practical, sometimes even more strategic way of thinking.

*Fi*: Like Fe, Fi doms naturally judge things personally. However Fi judgments are kept to the person, they don't feel the need to expose it directly but perhaps pass them with attitudes. Fi also (similar to Ti) sometimes feel the need to go beyond the time and place at hand to judge things. There are universal truths and ethics that go beyond culture, place and time.

*Fe*: Like Fi, Fe doms naturally judge things personally. However Fe judgments are well known, they don't think twice before exposing how they feel, they simply do it. They have objective attitudes and expect an objective response from you. Fe is more practical when judging, what matters is here and now and how it affects us personally, universal truths are of secondary matters. 

*Ni*: Like Ne, Ni doms perceive things intuitively, without needing many details or being taught. However Ni perceptions are mixed with the Ni user's subconscious experiences, making it more subjective and vague. But because we humans are inherently similar, Ni perceptions are often accurate about the progress of past and future states. Hence the prophetical nature.

*Ne*: Like Ni, Ne doms perceive things intuitively. However Ne perceptions are adapted according to the current situation. Brainstorming is perhaps a good way of describing it, perceiving many things simultaneously that could lead to the desired outcome. Hence the more entrepreneurial and dynamic nature of the intuition.

*Si*: Like Se, Si doms perceive things concretely by what their main senses (vision, tact, etc) tells them. However Si perceptions have a curious impact on the subject that is not seen in Se. Like Ni, it is hard to explain objectively and is also related to the user's subconscious experiences. Si is impressionistic, hence the nostalgic and conservative nature.

*Se*: Like Si, Se doms perceive things concretely. However Se perceptions doesn't discriminate against the object, it doesn't neatpick like Si does with impressions. Se, similar to Ne adapts to the situation, in this case to the sensed object. Whatever sensation the object gives, Se doesn't try to take away or add anything, hence the down to earth and detailed nature.


----------



## 318138 (Oct 1, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> *Feeling functions*
> *Fi* - internal feeling decides what to like or not (subjective, judging). In other words choose their feelings based on himself/herself, but is aware of what others feel.
> *Fe* - external feelings decide what to like or not (objective, judging). In other words choose their feelings based on others, but is aware of what himself/herself feels.


Nah, both feeling functions are subjective. It doesn't matter whether they choose what to like based on themselves or others, both are subjective. Fe just chooses what is more '_socially acceptable_'.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Lsjnzy13 said:


> Nah, both feeling functions are subjective. It doesn't matter whether they choose what to like based on themselves or others, both are subjective. Fe just chooses what is more '_socially acceptable_'.


Not sure if Jung or Beebe said, that Fe is objective.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Lsjnzy13 said:


> Nah, both feeling functions are subjective. It doesn't matter whether they choose what to like based on themselves or others, both are subjective. Fe just chooses what is more '_socially acceptable_'.


Fe deals in objective values, which can be applied in all kinds of ways, which partially includes behavioural morality. That which is 'socially acceptable' can be applied to all functions. It's not socially acceptable to be illogical around a Ti-dom, for example.



The red spirit said:


> Not sure if Jung or Beebe said, that Fe is objective.


Carl Jung described all extroversion as objective.


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby (Apr 11, 2013)

I just wanted to add a bit about how Si works, at least for me. I think it's a commonly misunderstood function. Si is still a sensing function so I tend to spend a lot of time *observing* the world around me but not actively interacting with it the way I hear Se types going on about. I tend to focus on concrete information - things I *see*, things I _*hear*_, things I've personally *experienced*. Additionally, I almost always find myself *relating my new experiences back to already familiar experiences and memories*. For example, when I had jury duty for the first time recently, I found myself thinking about how driving the specific route I took reminded me of when I worked at a previous job. I tend to focus on *details* and not just a vague overview or impression of a situation.

Good thread though.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

MrsAndrewJacoby said:


> I just wanted to add a bit about how Si works, at least for me. I think it's a commonly misunderstood function. Si is still a sensing function so I tend to spend a lot of time *observing* the world around me but not actively interacting with it the way I hear Se types going on about. I tend to focus on concrete information - things I *see*, things I _*hear*_, things I've personally *experienced*. Additionally, I almost always find myself *relating my new experiences back to already familiar experiences and memories*. For example, when I had jury duty for the first time recently, I found myself thinking about how driving the specific route I took reminded me of when I worked at a previous job. I tend to focus on *details* and not just a vague overview or impression of a situation.
> 
> Good thread though.


I haven't included info about comparing experiences, because many functions does this. 

Thanks for trying to help


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Lsjnzy13 said:


> Nah, both feeling functions are subjective. It doesn't matter whether they choose what to like based on themselves or others, both are subjective. Fe just chooses what is more '_socially acceptable_'.


"socially acceptable"=objective 

You are using the colloquial meaning of subjective vs. objective, but subjective and objective in this context means "concerning the subject" or "concerning the object". Typically the subject is self, and object everything but self, but it can be expanded grammatically to be understood that anything that can be identified as if self is the subject. This is how come, for instance, IXFPs tend to take the side of the unspoken for, the downtrodden, etc. and also why they gravitate to individuals rather than groups. One can more easily integrate as "self" with one person, vs. integrating with a group.

As to the more commonly understood meanings, I would remind you that there is no such thing as an "objective" person. We are all subjective, and bound to our own prejudices and blindnesses. Only most people can't see that (duh). "Objectivity" as a goal is a holy grail, an impossible task, and is bound to lead to a deeper subjectivity of which one is blind. I'm going out a bit on a limb here, but I would guess that probably the types most aware of this subjectivity are the IXFP types. I think that their perspective--one of honesty about oneself, of one's own subjectivity is probably the one thing they truly have to offer to the world.


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby (Apr 11, 2013)

The red spirit said:


> I haven't included info about comparing experiences, because many functions does this.
> 
> Thanks for trying to help


LOL. That's kind of what I meant about Si being misunderstood. :happy: I think people tend to brush certain aspects about it off. I know many functions analyze information and compare it (like Fi, Ti, Ne for example) but Si is slightly different. I think my jury duty explanation wasn't sufficient to REALLY get across what Si is like. For me, I'm almost *always *(literally, no exaggeration here) thinking to myself (sort of unconciously even) how *this reminds me of that*, or how *this feels like that*, or how* this is like that*. Not just simply comparing things, but comparing them to things I am readily *familiar *with. When I meet a person, I scan my mind trying to think of who they remind me of. If I go to a new place, I tend to immediately notice things that seem familiar. Certain parts of town feel *safer* for me (not based on crime level) simply because I'm more familiar with that part of town. The more unfamiliar or foreign an experince or situation is, the more it tends to induce fear, panic, feelings of being overwhelmed (I've heard other Si-doms express similar feelings). Even little changes can upset my Si; like if a large tree in my neighbor's yard gets cut down (true story, by the way). It's like my Si is an anchor of thoughts, memories and experiences that helps me stay connected to what feels safe as I venture out into a world of unknown. I recently spoke with my INFP sister on this and she remarked, "Oh that sounds sad. It's like nothing is ever truly new for you." She said if life were like that for her, she'd feel stuck. I laughed and said it life _weren't_ like that for me, I'd feel like I was in hell. Also, I forgot to mention before that the more something becomes a routine or established part of my life (even things I don't enjoy), the more I tend to feel comfortable with them.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

MrsAndrewJacoby said:


> Also, I forgot to mention before that the more something becomes a routine or established part of my life (even things I don't enjoy), the more I tend to feel comfortable with them.


Yeah. I've seen this in other ISJs, myself. But I'm the exact opposite. It doesn't matter how good it is, or how much I enjoy whatever the routine is, but routine is a burden to me. For instance, say I want to establish the habit of checking my daily planner/bullet journal after I get dressed in the morning (forgetting the fact that I don't have a routine even for that), I could do it easily for the first week, or two or three, and it would become somewhat of a habit, and I might even enjoy having that feeling of being in control of my day for a while, but slowly, after the first two or three months, it would become a burden--something I feel forced to do, and start doing it more and more reluctantly, and forgetting some days, until I'd have to stop altogether. I must have variety! And even my variety needs variety! (by that, I mean, I can even get bored with too much change or variety of things going on--even that gets boring, so I need to slow down, or even spend a while doing the same, boring thing for a while). I struggled for decades to maintain some kind of daily routine, and thought that everybody struggles with this (my wife does too--INTP), but it turns out, no. There are some types who need routine. Our daughters (both NFJs) need some structure to their lives, and when we couldn't give it, they made their own. oops. 

Oh, my ISFJ coworker used to complain about struggling with routine, etc. and I believed him, but after watching him for a long time, i realized that his lack of order or structure was my straight jacket! His idea of struggling with routine was having interruptions or other, outside interferences, not his own nature...  I did notice that for him, he seemed to have an almost paranoia against disorder or non-order. Anything not in place according to his perceived world was very unsettling to him. He would complain about not being organized (and his desk was sometimes a mess), but again, what to him was chaos was more than I could ever hope to maintain! ;-)


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

MrsAndrewJacoby said:


> LOL. That's kind of what I meant about Si being misunderstood. :happy: I think people tend to brush certain aspects about it off. I know many functions analyze information and compare it (like Fi, Ti, Ne for example) but Si is slightly different. I think my jury duty explanation wasn't sufficient to REALLY get across what Si is like. For me, I'm almost *always *(literally, no exaggeration here) thinking to myself (sort of unconciously even) how *this reminds me of that*, or how *this feels like that*, or how* this is like that*. Not just simply comparing things, but comparing them to things I am readily *familiar *with. When I meet a person, I scan my mind trying to think of who they remind me of. If I go to a new place, I tend to immediately notice things that seem familiar. Certain parts of town feel *safer* for me (not based on crime level) simply because I'm more familiar with that part of town. The more unfamiliar or foreign an experince or situation is, the more it tends to induce fear, panic, feelings of being overwhelmed (I've heard other Si-doms express similar feelings). Even little changes can upset my Si; like if a large tree in my neighbor's yard gets cut down (true story, by the way). It's like my Si is an anchor of thoughts, memories and experiences that helps me stay connected to what feels safe as I venture out into a world of unknown. I recently spoke with my INFP sister on this and she remarked, "Oh that sounds sad. It's like nothing is ever truly new for you." She said if life were like that for her, she'd feel stuck. I laughed and said it life _weren't_ like that for me, I'd feel like I was in hell. Also, I forgot to mention before that the more something becomes a routine or established part of my life (even things I don't enjoy), the more I tend to feel comfortable with them.


I don't compare information or try to do connection of it, but it just happens to me. I felt negative emotions when my grandparent decided to remove greenhouse or they after 40+ years of owning dog, decided not to get one, after it died. It doesn't feel natural to me. I actually like things to stay same, if they don't annoy me or don't function like they should and meet my expectations. Neighbours near my grandparents house decided cut down tree, that was standing my whole life, now it feels too empty for me. I feel that 'safe' part of town too. I agree that I share a lot in common with what you said, I haven't included things about remembering things and Si, because I do exact same thing.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

@ferroequinologist ^^^is it normal for ISFP^^^


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby (Apr 11, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I must have variety! And even my variety needs variety! (by that, I mean, I can even get bored with too much change or variety of things going on--even that gets boring, so I need to slow down, or even spend a while doing the same, boring thing for a while).


Ha ha. Oh wow! I know as I was growing up, I always tended to have one really good friend who was likely an Se-dom or aux because they were just like that. Variety! It was a strange combination, the two of us. I was the stick-in-the-mud goodie-two-shoes and they were the adventerous trailblazer. It was like a strange yin/yang thing. I think I kept them balanced and they brought some spice into my life. :happy:



The red spirit said:


> I don't compare information or try to do connection of it, but it just happens to me. I felt negative emotions when my grandparent decided to remove greenhouse or they after 40+ years of owning dog, decided not to get one, after it died. It doesn't feel natural to me. I actually like things to stay same, if they don't annoy me or don't function like they should and meet my expectations. Neighbours near my grandparents house decided cut down tree, that was standing my whole life, now it feels too empty for me. I feel that 'safe' part of town too. I agree that I share a lot in common with what you said, I haven't included things about remembering things and Si, because I do exact same thing.


Okay. Um, well all I know is that those types of things (routine, being adverse to change, tending to focus on the past) tend to be ascribed to the introverted Sensing function. But, hey I'm not a psychologist. :shrugs:


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

The red spirit said:


> I don't compare information or try to do connection of it, but it just happens to me. I felt negative emotions when my grandparent decided to remove greenhouse or they after 40+ years of owning dog, decided not to get one, after it died. It doesn't feel natural to me. I actually like things to stay same, if they don't annoy me or don't function like they should and meet my expectations. Neighbours near my grandparents house decided cut down tree, that was standing my whole life, now it feels too empty for me. I feel that 'safe' part of town too. I agree that I share a lot in common with what you said, I haven't included things about remembering things and Si, because I do exact same thing.





The red spirit said:


> @*ferroequinologist* ^^^is it normal for ISFP^^^


Here's the question. Is this how you would define yourself? Or are there only a few things like this in your life? And is it the feelings or the objects themselves that are more important?


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

ferroequinologist said:


> Here's the question. Is this how you would define yourself? Or are there only a few things like this in your life? And is it the feelings or the objects themselves that are more important?


Maybe I could define myself like this. I like thing to stay same, but I enjoy to try out something new. There are a lot of these thing in my life. I would say that I feel those things, but I sense them too so...:stupid:


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

The red spirit said:


> Maybe I could define myself like this. I like thing to stay same, but I enjoy to try out something new. There are a lot of these thing in my life. I would say that I feel those things, but I sense them too so...:stupid:


I'm going to throw this one out here for you and for @MrsAndrewJacoby. I'm curious about both of your opinions.

How well do you think this describes you? 

This is Van der Hoop's description of the Introverted Sensing type (sorry in advance for the wall of text):

*Introverted Sensing*​
The instinctive introvert is ruled by his emotions and impulses. These form the subjective side of instinctual life, just as sensation represents its objective side. The attention of the introvert is not directed primarily to the source of sensation (as communicated to {31} him through his sense-organs), but to its so-called “feeling-tone”, and to his own impulses. It depends upon the extent to which he is stirred, whether a given experience will make a big impression on him, not upon the intensity of the sensation itself. This aspect of susceptibility to emotion may occasionally, under certain conditions, prevail in anyone, but here it dominates all the other functions. Inherited disposition and early experience have produced a certain susceptibility to impressions and a certain need for emotional experience, and in these cases the whole mental life is directed by these two factors. Adjustment along these lines may, under favourable circumstances, provide for such people a satisfying existence, so long as these needs are met. Since in most cases there is little external evidence of this inner satisfaction, the lives of these people may sometimes appear to others as anything but happy, arousing compassion, for which there is no real reason. 

Children of this type are frequently noted for a certain gentleness and receptiveness, but also for periods of timidity and monosyllabic reserve. There is something a little vague and passive about them. They are attached to people in their environment who are kind to them. They love nature, animals, beautiful things, and an environment with which they have become familiar. Anything strange or new has at first no attraction for them; but they offer little active resistance to it and soon learn to accept the good in it. They are often friendly and easy to get on with, but a little lazy and impersonal. When older, too, these people usually give an outward impression of being reserved, quiet, and somewhat passive. Only in rare cases, for example, in artists, does the distinctive and personal quality of their inner emotion come to expression. In other cases, however, their whole behavior reveals their peculiar characteristics, although it is not easy to define these.

People of this type have well-developed sense-organs, but they are particularly receptive to anything having lasting value for human instinctual needs. This lends to their lives a certain solid comfort, although it may lead to somewhat ponderous caution, if instinct becomes too deeply attached to all kinds of minor details. The advantages and disadvantages of this type are well brought out in the reserved and conservative farmer, with his care for his land and his beasts, and his tendency to carry on everything, down to the smallest detail, in the same old way. The same is true of the sailor. He also shows a passive resistance to anything new, which can only be overcome by absolutely convincing experience. Other examples of this type are the naturalist, devotedly observing in minutest detail the lives of plants and animals, the lonely collector of beautiful {32} or interesting things, the worker in applied art, and the painter, who manage to express a deep experience in the presentation of ordinary things. In their own field these people are usually very much at home, having a good mastery of the technical side of their calling, but without regarding this as any special merit. They accept both what they can, and what they cannot, do, as simple facts, but they tend on the whole to under-estimate rather than to over-estimate themselves. Pretense and bluff in others may irritate them to the point of protest, which is probably connected with their own difficulty in understanding their own potentialities and worth. These people usually strike one as very quiet and somewhat passive. Except in relation to persons and things in their own immediate sphere, to which they are bound by their instinctual reactions, they show little inclination to activity; they never readily depart from their routine. If anything gets in their way, they put up a peculiarly passive resistance, although under exceptional circumstances there may be an outbreak of wrath. If their environment is not favorable, they will nevertheless try to adapt themselves to it; in such circumstances, they are inclined to regard their emotions, in so far as they differ from other people’s ideas, as morbid. At the same time, they feel extraordinarily helpless and inferior. Or they may turn away from the world and give themselves up entirely to their own emotions. Where this is the case, they see any adaptation to other people as a mere pretense, and may develop remarkable skill in belittling the motives and ideals of others. 

The development of reason also follows the same lines here as the general attitude to life. Facts are its point of departure, and particularly certain fundamental facts, which are subjected to exact and thorough investigation. Observations and ideas are matter-of-fact and clear. There is nothing contemplative about people of this type. Moreover, they prefer to stick to the familiar, and find it difficult to adopt anything new. This is connected with their need to see things in a clear setting. If they can bring themselves to accept anything new, they tend to occupy themselves with it until it has become absolutely clear to them. Here is revealed the obstinacy of instinct, with its ever-renewed attack until it has learned to control its object. Circumstances, however, have to be favorable. In more abstract matters, they find it difficult to form an opinion of their own, and follow those authorities {33} which, by a knowledge of facts, give them the impression of being thorough. Even so, they do not feel any confidence, and are easily upset if drawn into discussion in this field, or if the value of their authorities is questioned. On the other hand, they have few prejudices, and their view of things is calm and temperate. 

Feeling may also make itself felt here, in which case it is, by the influence of instinct, attached to concrete objects. But the emphasis does not rest on the object, as with the extravert of this type, but on its feeling-tone, on the reactions of the subjective personality. Here there is something compulsive in the reaction. It appears as something unalterable, and the feelings which arise therefrom are also experienced as something unavoidable, and are accepted with a certain fatalism. The attitude is, “I was born that way, and I cannot change my nature”. As a result, those people and circumstances are sought out which are congenial to them, and no attempt at adaptation is made if this search is not immediately successful. Feelings are therefore specially developed within a personal sphere to which the individual is attached and which reminds him of home. Within such a sphere, these people may occasionally be able to emanate a certain warmth and cosiness around themselves, and their love is frequently concentrated on beautiful things and on animals within this sphere. If they do not succeed in creating such a personal sphere for themselves, they may become very depressed and unhappy. In the realm of sex their feelings are strongly colored by sensual manifestations, with the result that they may become deeply attached to the object of their attraction. This predominance of the sexual instinct causes sexual attraction to play a larger part in their sentimental relationships with the opposite sex than is the case with people of other types. Masculinity and femininity are accordingly strongly emphasized in the emotional life of such people. 

As regards intuition, it is a concept which this type of instinctive individual also finds very difficult to grasp, and he regards its activity in others with misgiving. He cannot take it seriously. At the same time, the intuitive views of leading spirits on matters, for example, of religion and politics are accepted by him, provided they appear in traditional form. The somewhat passive attitude towards life of these people then exerts an influence, in that factors of predestination and fate are likely to play a large part in their philosophy. This latter is not much affected by their personal life, since abstract vision and practical adaptation are for them two entirely different things. This lack of a comprehensive {34} vision, and their introversion, stand in the way of a satisfactory external adaptation. They are less able than the extraverts of this type to make use of helpful circumstances, and in this respect they have, as a rule, to get help from others, who, recognizing their good qualities, manage to find an environment for them where these can come to expression.


----------

