# Sticky  MBTI functions explained



## penchant

^^^ Maybe just skimming the "You know you are an xxxx" in the different subforums could be one way to go at it...


----------



## timwaagh

I just came to the function area for some basic story on my favourite functions. why isn't that enough for everyone? there is no need to wrap MBTI up in pseudoscience. it's good enough as it is and it's place is not in science. so no use trying to make theories centering on it. I know I'm not making much sense but I want to give you guys one thing. the article that started it, gave itself away when the right brain left brain image came into view. it's not worth much.


----------



## dntknwy

awesome post!!!!!!!!

i always found all this interseting but never had a clue that it can be this much complex also............:shocked:


----------



## Eric B

OK, here is another way to view functions, that should really bring them to life, in part from the way someone explained them to me. Even better and more in depth than the "perspective" designation!

The functions represent the different ways the emotions are brought into relationship with our higher mental operations. Every person goes though life having to process both concrete and abstract information, and then make both impersonal (logical) and personal (value) judgments. Where our type theory begins; and the whole key to it, is in the way this processing affects us emotionally. The functions are differentiated when a greater value is given to those choices where emotion and reason are in synch. *When we use a function that is destined to become "preferred", we feel an emotional investment in what we're doing, and we feel in control of our emotional life, so we keep on doing it*. We tend to be more _stimulated_ by the function. It then appears to "develop" or get "stronger", and behaviors associated with it will increase. 

This is pivotal to understanding the concepts, as many become confused in their or others' types from looking at behaviors, thinking "such-and-such type can't do that", or "He does such and such too much to be this type".

We all can see, hear touch, taste etc. But only some will have more of an emotional investment in that process, where it becomes "preferred". What is seen right before them is more important as data. To others, the information gained from it will be* less relevant*.

We all can recognize likely possibilities from situations. But only some will gain the emotional investment from that process, and it will be those who saw the plain, concrete data as less relevent. There must be more to what is seen before you.

Here now, we can really clear things up regarding *emotions*, since this often gets mixed up with one of the functions.
We all have emotions and like and choose things based on likes and dislikes. Yet only some will have an emotional investment in emotions for their own sake, and specifically prefer to make their decisions accordingly.

We all can see impersonal cause-and-effect relationships in objects and situations, and make decisions accordingly to them. Yet only some will have an emotional investment in this process. Emotion for its own sake will be seen as almost nonsensical.

When functions are _undifferentiated_, It's not really the functions themselves that are suppressed, and merely waiting for us to "develop" skills associated with them. They simply remain tied to the emotional responses to life, as mobilized by the dominant function. 
In other words, for the type preferring concrete data, any immediate abstractions of this data implied will simply support the emotional investment the person has in that concrete data. For the person who prefers impersonal criteria for decisions, the value he places on them will support his Thinking, rather than being a differentiated "Feeling" process.

So types for whom Si is not a conscious function (such as NJ's), will be able to remember things like anyone else; yet they will tend to see the past as less relevant than the Si-preferring SJ's (who will likely demand everything they are involved with be familiar to them). So when they are remembering something, they are not necessarily "using Si". As a primary perspective carrying an emotional investment, it is normally outside the consciousness.
Likewise; with me, I'm usually so busy looking at something for the concepts I associate it with or extract from it; I do not "see" everything that is there. 
While I can actually see as good as any SP type, still, the _attention_ is clearly focused elsewhere. I always gained more of an emotional high from pondering meanings, so just looking at something for nothing more than it being there just leaves a very "boring" or "incomplete" feeling. The Se perspective ends up less relevant (until I find I have missed something important, or are called to remember certain details of what was there).

An SJ type we would expect to also not be good at seeing what is there, because they only operate off of stored data. But to the contrary, because they need to take in current data in order to have something to store, they too will likely be better at just seeing what is there for what it is. Hence, we can describe one single "S" function, that deals in sensory data, regardless of whether it is oriented inward or outward. However, what will happen with them is that the purpose of taking in the new information will be to create such a storehouse to draw from, and taking in new experience just for its own sake will be seen as less relevent (if not overly risky). To the SP type, a storehouse will be less relevent. Just deal with the new experience as it comes. (This further illustrates the difference between the J and P attitude).

This focus on emotions should also make the concept of the archetypes easier to understand; like the function themselves; they and their differentiation are forms of emotional reactions.


----------



## Eric B

There are so many different experts with so many different ways of putting things, that there ends up being a lot of miscommunication. I'm particularly thinking of the definitions of i/e and T/F. 

The internal or external orientation of a function is often portrayed in terms of where the function is "used" ("applied"), or even where its energy "flows", yet on the other hand, some will insist it is the *standard* of reference of the function. Then this will often be framed in terms of "individual" (personal) versus "agreed upon" or "group" standards, or the orientation being inherent in the objects/subjects in question. 

All of these are interpretations of Jung's "focused on the subject [or] object".

Sensing and iNtuition are widely recognized as dealing with concrete vs abstract information. So there is not as much problem defining these.

It's T/F where a lot of problems and type confusion occur. Thinking is widely defined as "logic" and "impersonal". Yet for Feeling, we hear about "values", "ethics", "personal", "harmony", "empathy/sympathy" (and questions as to which attitude carries which), and "emotions/emoting". 
This is where descriptions of that function get really screwed up. 
Especially regarding emotions.

I myself had been tossed around with these descriptions, and would often use one or another in my discussions. Like the dispute I used to have here with Sim, over the notion of "internal or external _application_", versus "_standard_". Or we'll differ on which of the various terms for "Feeling" apply. (Like in an email recently, I spoke of "emotion", and I was told "personal" experential identification, instead).
These terms are basically attempts at concise definitions. But what we need are the most elemental *root* definitions we can find. 

All these terms stick because they all do have at least some truth to them. But since, as we see, the various factors can sometimes span different dichotomies or be common to people of all types, it can often lead to outright contradictions.

Also, it seems some are really more behavioral results than elemental definitions. And I can see (as some complain at times) that the problems in typology often result from overusing behavioral concepts. They do basically match the concepts, but can vary.
This is what often leads to the "Forer effect" I have often been mentioning. For instance, _everyone_ has emotions, and "knows what they want for themselves", not just Feelers in general or introverted Feelers.

I have found Lenore Thomson's definitions to seem more solid (she's one major source for the "standard" and "personal/impersonal" definitions), and so decided to get these from the book: 

*﻿P*erception encourages us to process sensory impressions as they occur
*J*udgment prompts us to organize our sense impressions by focusing on the ones that happen regularly enough to recognize and predict. (p253)

Left brain (J=Je/Pi) linear one-at-a-time approach to life 
Right brain (P=Pe/Ji) wholistic[sic] all-at-once approach to life 

It is noteworthy that another person, Mark Bruzon, has T=linear, F=holistic. (Fundamental Nature of the MBTI) This would work the same way as "objective/subjective", which can apply to either e/i or T/F. The factor applies to both, but in different aspects.

The other three dichotomies:

i internal standard
e external standard

S concrete
N abstract

T impersonal 
F personal


----------



## Eric B

Descriptions from the chapters on the functions:

Te: shared qualities objects have in common used as a standard of sequential order
Ti: the variables [essential dynamics] in a situation related to our intended effect (this probably refers to personal "frameworks", such as particular symmetries one looks for in things)
Fe: measure our options for relationships against an external standard of behaviors
Fi: encourages a personal relationship to an evolving pattern (e.g. how a given situation would affect the person)

To make Ti and Fi parallel Te and Fe more closely:

Ti: essential qualities objects have, chosen as a standard of universal truth
Fi: personal relationship to situations chosen an internal standard of truth

While "relationships" are mentioned only for the two Feeling attitudes, really, *all four judging attitudes are dealing with "relationships"*. The Feeling attitudes deal with "relationships" between people (which includes the subject, of course), and the Thinking attitudes deal with relationships between objects (including treating one's self and others as objects).

Personal/impersonal would also explain Bruzon's T=linear; F=holistic definition. Impersonal relationships are linear, basically "if this, then that". Personal relationships are a more fuzzy category, that looks at each point's [Bruzon does his representations as point matrices] relationship to it environment, rather than a hard line connecting it to the next point. Hence, "holistic".

So we can see right here why Feeling would also be tagged as "subjective" while Thinking is "objective". 
At the same time, the external attitude relates to an external object, while the internal attitude relates to the subject. 

So to rephrase the functions in terms of their base elements:

Te: judges relationships between impersonal objects according to an external standard (in the objects themselves)
Ti: judges relationships between impersonal objects according to an internal standard (the subject's chosen frameworks)
Fe: judges personal relationships by an external standard (agreed upon behaviors)
Fi: judges personal relationships by an internal standard (experiential identification)

Of course, for the perception functions:

Se: perceives concrete data from an external (emergent) source
Si: perceives concrete data from an internal (stored) source
Ne: abstracts external, emergent data 
Ni: abstracts internally stored data

So while we still can never be absolutely sure of other people's types (especially celebrities, who we don't know, and of course, fictional characters), still, to get a good estimation of T/F, we can look at what we can look at what we can call, the 
*rational focus: personal vs impersonal*.

(And perception I would call "perceptive focus: concrete vs abstract")

So hope we can keep these in mind and they can be helpful when thinking of which function is which.


----------



## Eric B

Continuing to expand upon this, undifferentiated functions can be described in terms of elements that carry a "*sense of meaning*" when brought into consciousness by the ego, and when not conscious, come out as felt reactions.

To get an idea of the functions as senses of meaning, first, we should look at the root definitions of the functions I have been highlighting recently:

Se: focus on emergent facts/experience
Si: focus on stored facts/experience
Ne: focus on emergent meanings/patterns
Ni: focus on stored meanings/patterns
Te: focus on set standard of technicality
Ti: focus on variable essence of technicality
Fe: focus on set standard of humanity 
Fi: focus on variable essence of humanity

We take in and process these elements continuously, but for each type, according to this theory, only one will be our main outlook in life. The others will either come and go inasmuch as they align with that main outlook, or be more tied to emotions (hence, the premise of the topic) and affect our reactions, or they will align with the archetypes of functional development which form complexes. There are actually hundreds of complexes, but for typological purposes, the eight often mentioned here are those representing how the ego (which is itself a complex; the "main" one of consciousness, of course) experiences other complexes in relationship to the structure it sets up to manage the information allowed into or barred from awareness.

So for examples of this, my main perspective in life is what makes sense, which is a _technical_ focus with an _internal_ standard of analysis using variables that form essential dynamics of how things work. Linear if-then "principles" in decisions, as well.

A focus on emergent patterns and meanings accompany this, and provide the variables in situations in light of my intended effect. This then hooks up with a parental archetype, that becomes personalized as a complex of helping others understand patterns in the form of shared ideas. In Jung's terminology, only the dominant function is "differentiated". Yet, since the parent archetype and it's associated function are prominent, it basically acts like it is differentiated. It is frequently "used" by the ego to fill the role of that complex. So is the tertiary, actually, for a matured person. And at midlife, the inferior also fits its archetypal role more often.

What we call function "development" is likely the increased awareness of the complexes in our consciousness. It's not the undifferentiated "neutral" form of the function that we choose to "develop" through "skills" increased by doing more activities associated with it.
I believe the remaining functions; the "shadows" don't "develop". The most we can do is own the complexes in ourselves that they align with. Outside the complexes, they will just continue to be connected with our emotions.

I should also reiterate from this viewpoint, that undifferentiated functions are not "gears" we shift from one to the other. I don't say "OK, I'm analyzing a symmetry here, so I must 'use' Ti, and now, I should place a personal value in it, so I must 'use' Fi, and I need to see the symmetrical object in the first place, so I have to 'use' Se, and I want to organize something I'm building that way, so I have to 'use' Te". Ti is the main perspective, and those acts associated with the other functions are called functional "products", but those functions themselves are not really differentiated as such like Ti is. 

This is what clears up the problem I always saw in speaking of "using" all the other functions. We use their products as they fit our ego's goals, or tie into our emotional reactions. 
The closest they come to a quasi-'differentiated' state is when they align with the archetypal complexes, and (beyond the parent/aux, child/tert. and inferior) that is temporary, and usually reactionary. So as I've said before, we don't have to speculate ourselves as being in "oppositional", "witch", "trickster" or "demon" mode when "using" the shadow functions. (And even Beebe acknowledges this).


----------



## Eric B

Here's an example of the "sense of meaning" concept:

The "meaning" the type models have for me (as a TP) is a symmetrical categorization system that makes people's behavior *make more sense*, and for the FP, it will be seen more as a self-improvement tool, and for the FJ, it's good for people to learn to get along better (or for my wife, a counseling tool), and for the TJ, it's a good "team-building" tool for the company. 
But of course, I could see those other three meanings as well, and even use them to convince others of the value of the system, (even though my purpose for popularizing it is that it is a symmetry I like that is useful). 

So I can see *emergent facts and experience emerging events.* Unconsciously, they might produce the emotions of fear, joy, anger, etc. and I'll react. In certain instances, I'll consciously use it to find out facts that align with some framework I'm researching. Other times, when I feel bound by something, the Trickster complex will constellate, and I'll use facts to bind the other person, or if there's enough fear in some physical activity, then the Trickster will turn on me, and bind me by making it look more impossible so I'll protect myself by giving up. 
There's also a special use by the ego, when it wants to be devious in a playful way, or just silly. This will usually involve sensory experience in some way.

I can also sense how the *emerging variables will affect me personally*, and this will cause a conscious reaction in favor or against. 
If it's a situation not connected to my technical focus, then the reaction will be less conscious, and more emotional. 
If it's big enough where the ego feels totally threatened, then the Demonic personality Complex will constellate, and I'll for one, likely feel crushed inside, or perhaps condemned, and then set out to destroy the threat, often from some sort of universalistic moral stance.
When this is constellated a lot, eventually, some sort of resolve will be seen, and then the functional perspective then provides a kind of comfort. It becomes an "angel"

For a long time, I was led to believe that all of the latter might be an NFP's normal Fi "use", and many others seem to think or struggle with that. It was hard to tell one "use" in one type from another, given the functions are basically defined in terms of behaviors. But for the NFP, Fi will be more conscious, tying into a heroic or parental complex, where they valiantly try to solve problems or help others. Total different "use" of it than mine; including the "good" use, which is still connected with something very negative, even if a past experience.

So this should help understand the three different types of role "undifferentiated" functions play, and how their "use" degrades from a normal conscious use by the ego, to unconscious connection with emotions and reactions, and then, (for the shadows) the archetypes (including their positive flipsides).


----------



## Eric B

Here are some new additions to my page on type. For those who might have read the full version (Temperament Part 2: The MBTI's 16 types and Cognitive Functions), I have been revamping it, to try to improve the flow. I had been adding new stuff as I went along, understanding the concepts better, and it got to the point that the whole flow was interrupted. So now, I have gone back to just building up the type code letter by letter, and moved some of the deeper info on function definitions and archetypes to later. 

[With the new terms used for the functions in the above post]:

...we see that the type defining dominant and auxiliary must be JePi or PeJi because:

Emergent data (Pe) produces variable situations (Ji)
Stored data (Pi) is best for set procedures (Je)

Using these definitions of the functions the tandems come together as follows:
SeNi: emergent experience compared with stored inferences (patterns)
NeSi: emergent inferences compared with stored experience (facts)
TeFi: technical (impersonal) considerations are set, so humane (personal) considerations must then be variable in deference to them.
FeTi: humane considerations are set, so technical considerations must be variable, in deference to them.

They've also been expressed as:

TiFe: "_I think, we feel_"
FiTe: "_I feel; we think_"

I've never seen this one, but by extension:
SiNe: I experienced, we infer
SeNi: we experience, I infer

(I had since gone with "inferences" for N, but just today, I decided "conceptualization" would probably be a bit more all-inclusive. Also, I have since decided on "tangibles" for S instead of just "experiences").

Thinking and Feeling function's connection to literal "thinking" and "feeling": 

The literal terms are based on the emotionality of the process, with emotion representing more of a deeper personal involvement in the process, in contrast to a detached impersonal pondering of subjects. This is where the confusion about "Feeling=emotions" comes from, but it says nothing about the humane or technical focused content of the process, which is what the T/F functions are about.

Functions and gender roles 

At this point, it's probably good to mention the problem of gender and the judging attitudes, and the roles formed around them. Either can gender can be either T or F. But *because females are naturally designed to be the mothers, carrying and nurturing the young child, their natural focus has shifted more to the "humane" or "personal" side of life. (Including being more in touch with the emotions). Since males then were the breadwinners, and the strong protectors, they became more focused on the "technical" or "impersonal"*. The traditional roles of society formed around this, with the typical model of a woman being said to be SFJ or SFP, and the typical model of a man being STJ or at least STP. (Notice how both are S). 
Even though modern society has been changing the roles and integrating both genders to the same sorts of careers and family tasks, the associations have stuck. This can cause type confusion for female T's, and both type and "masculinity" problems for male F's. I have noticed particularly that female ITJ's (especially ISTJ's) and ETP's, who both have tertiary Feeling, will look a lot like Feelers. Male EFP's and I imagine, IFJ's (particularly INFJ) will have tertiary Thinking, and are said to look a lot like Thinkers. The tertiary as will be discussed later, is often carried by a complex that is said to "inflate". This will lead to it becoming very visible in the personality, so a woman's tertiary Feeling, especially, will often be very prominent and color their outward behavior, fitting the traditional roles.

Different perspectives with the functions

Personality theory is a subject that covers both the technical and the humane. It's ultimate goal is humane, or "personal" (how we can improve our lives and relationships), but it consists of technical (impersonal) structures, such as matrices of factors and analysis of linear cause and effect We are both living human beings (humane) and yet, we are also still physical things (technical). So it is possible to analyze ourselves from either a humane or technical perspective, or a combination of both. We also have likes, wants, desires and values, which are properties of the ego, not the judgment preference. T/F will be determined, not by these things in themselves, but by the perspective we look at them through. 
So both T's and F's can be found, pretty much equally, in the discussions. In online discussions, it is often hard for some people to tell which of these two poles they prefer, because we all end up referencing a lot of both logic and personal subjects. There is a predominance of N's, however, as the theories provide a "big picture", so to speak, of human interaction, where when I try to discuss the stuff with an S heavy family and friends, they're not interested. I had noticed, they seemed more focused on just "living" day to day life than building models of its patterns, and their discussions reflect this, in that it is almost entirely recounts of what other people said and did rather than putting together a bigger picture).

Not realizing these distinctions, I had started off jumping into a couple of online lists populated mostly by F's (mostly N also), who discussed all aspects of the theory, focusing on the theoretical big picture as well as technical details, but then had to wonder why they thought I was being too "impersonal" when I _focused_ on factors of comparitive personality systems. For them, it was more about self-improvement and relationships. To me, those were just "fringe benefits" of a series of symmetries that finally has some kind of practical use to be discussable with others. (Ironically, they all thought I was an F, because of the "enthusiasm". T was supposedly "detached" emotionally. This was a common, but mistaken association, and one of the things I'm really trying to clear up with the "humane vs technical" terms)


----------



## Eric B

The functions represent different ways of building neurological connections from the frontal cortex back to the limbic area, whose motives reach awareness as images freighted with emotion. (Which are generally forms of "archetypes"). An example of this is when something happens, and we use a metaphor to convey how we feel. These images are filled out by personal experience. The functions translate this limbic motivation into cognitive data, allowing us to redirect the instinctual "energies" the limbic system mobilizes to activities that have individual meaning for us.

The way this works is, we have a situation. We take in data from what is happening. If it is a negative situation, then our instinctual reactions and emotions such as fear kick in, just like they do for animals. The difference is that the animals remain guided by the instincts. Both have "sensation" of what is happening, but the human cortex _interprets_ the data, and if the preference is sensation itself, then the person will focus more on what is seen, heard, felt, etc. and react to it based on these factors. If the preference is iNtuition, the person will instead connect the data to a larger meaning that is not immediately seen, such as the possible or likely outcomes. If the person prefers Thinking, they will focus on the cause and effect of the impersonal elements of the situation, both in analyzing why it happened, as well as in deciding on courses of action. If the person prefers Feeling, they will focus on the more "humane" or personal aspects of the situation. How it affects people, especially emotionally. —That any courses of action should take into consideration their needs and well being. 

The types all went through the same situation, yet the functions interpreted it differently, and this by focusing on different aspects of it. Each person will generally prefer one of the first two, to take in information, and one of the second two, to make decisions. However, depending on the situation, the person might use the other functions instead.

For the type preferring concrete tangible data, any immediate abstractions or inferences from this data implied will simply support the emotional investment the person has in that concrete data. For the person preferring abstract data, the concrete reality he sees before him will simply be used to support the inferring process. For the person who prefers technical criteria for decisions, any _humane_ "value" he places on them will support his Thinking, rather than being a differentiated "Feeling" process. And for the person who prefers humane considerations, and logical, technical conclusions will support the humane endeavor somehow. *What determines the true "preference" is not the "function" you might see him "using" at any given time, but rather the ultimate perspective it is supporting*. 


We can see why, when a person is geared to focus on technical things, and suppress the humane; when forced to deal with the humane, such as in a situation where his life is severely affected, it will trigger a strong negative reaction, which is all the repressed stuff erupting from the unsconscious. Likewise, when someone normally focused on the humane is forced to deal with the technical, this might also violently erupt, as the part of themselves that _would_ put logical efficiency first feels cold and inhuman to them.

To sum it up, the different ways the functions manifest: 
1) Differentiated (the dominant ego perspective) 
2) Undifferentiated: linked to the ego's dominant network
• ego-syntonic archetype complexes (auxiliary-parent; tertiary-child, inferior)
• general "uses" of the functions. We can all process tangible inferential, technical and humane data 
3) Undifferentiated: Tied to the emotions at the limbic level through imaginal representation —ego dystonic archetypes (Opposing, witch, etc), other complexes, instinctual reactions.


----------



## counterintuitive

Eric B said:


> Functions and gender roles
> 
> At this point, it's probably good to mention the problem of gender and the judging attitudes, and the roles formed around them. Either can gender can be either T or F. But *because females are naturally designed to be the mothers, carrying and nurturing the young child, their natural focus has shifted more to the "humane" or "personal" side of life.*


Is this a lifelong shift, or a shift that occurs during pregnancy or early parenthood? I'm curious about the energy investment (evolutionary cost*) of being nurturing and personal when not a parent. During pregnancy (or early parenthood), a propensity to be more nurturing or personal might 'kick in' (could possibly be a hormonal thing)... but it seems like a waste of energy for a female to develop a more humane focus, outside of natural functional development, at a time when it's not necessary.

*If your discussion of natural gender roles is not based on evolution, then please ignore this paragraph.



> *(Including being more in touch with the emotions).*


It seems to me that caring is interpersonal, whereas emotional awareness is intrapersonal. I do think you need emotions to be a good parent (sociopaths probably don't make the best parents, lol) but emotional awareness? I'm not disagreeing with you, I would just like to hear your reasoning behind this. Thanks.



> *Since males then were the breadwinners, and the strong protectors, they became more focused on the "technical" or "impersonal"*. The traditional roles of society formed around this, with the typical model of a woman being said to be SFJ or SFP, and the typical model of a man being STJ or at least STP. (Notice how both are S).


The same question applies to the male's technical orientation as to the female's humane one. I do agree about the 'traditional roles', though.



> I have noticed particularly that female ITJ's (especially ISTJ's) and ETP's, who both have tertiary Feeling, will look a lot like Feelers. Male EFP's and I imagine, IFJ's (particularly INFJ) will have tertiary Thinking, and are said to look a lot like Thinkers. The tertiary as will be discussed later, is often carried by a complex that is said to "inflate". This will lead to it becoming very visible in the personality, so a woman's tertiary Feeling, especially, will often be very prominent and color their outward behavior, fitting the traditional roles.


A few months ago I came to a similar conclusion about tertiary T and F functions. But I wonder if different types are affected differently. I have noticed that male SFJs in particular try very hard to come across as Ts. One I know says he wants to be more 'logical' and 'objective' -- but, hilariously, wanting to conform to gender roles is highly Fe in the first place. Indeed, there is a desire to be more T-like, but it's Fe-driven, and that Fe is what shows outwardly. I don't think he is actually more T, he just wants to be. By contrast, male FPs I know (I only know NFPs) do not try to hide their F at all, especially ENFPs. ETA: They also do not seem to want to be more T-like.

I wonder if an ETP female's Fe could cause its own development, in a positive feedback loop.



> ... they seemed more focused on just "living" day to day life than building models of its patterns, and their discussions reflect this, in that it is almost entirely recounts of what other people said and did rather than putting together a bigger picture).


I agree. I have noticed that they have more interest in exchanging information than interpreting it and forming patterns.


----------



## Eric B

Wilson said:


> Is this a lifelong shift, or a shift that occurs during pregnancy or early parenthood? I'm curious about the energy investment (evolutionary cost) of being nurturing and personal when not a parent. During pregnancy (or early parenthood), a propensity to be more nurturing or personal might 'kick in' (could possibly be a hormonal thing)... but it seems like a waste of energy for a female to develop a more humane focus, outside of natural functional development, at a time when it's not necessary.


 I didn't mean a shift in time, but of the overall focus of female-hood in general. Even if one doesn't have children, the entire role of the gender is still one of a more personal focus, and it's like what their mother and other females tried to teach them growing up.


> It seems to me that caring is interpersonal, whereas emotional awareness is intrapersonal. I do think you need emotions to be a good parent (sociopaths probably don't make the best parents, lol) but emotional awareness? I'm not disagreeing with you, I would just like to hear your reasoning behind this. Thanks.
> 
> The same question applies to the male's technical orientation as to the female's humane one. I do agree about the 'traditional roles', though.


 Well, emotions aren't really the Feeling function to begin with, but they have become associated for the reason I gave in the paragraph before the one you quoted from. Hence, female roles took on a more emotional persona, while male roles became more "impersonal", which would include being less emotional.


> A few months ago I came to a similar conclusion about tertiary T and F functions. But I wonder if different types are affected differently. I have noticed that male SFJs in particular try very hard to come across as Ts. One I know says he wants to be more 'logical' and 'objective' -- but, hilariously, wanting to conform to gender roles is highly Fe in the first place. Indeed, there is a desire to be more T-like, but it's Fe-driven, and that Fe is what shows outwardly. I don't think he is actually more T, he just wants to be. By contrast, male FPs I know (I only know NFPs) do not try to hide their F at all, especially ENFPs. ETA: They also do not seem to want to be more T-like.


 I really do not know about male SFJ's, by experience. If there are any around, I'm not aware of it. 
I think of a guy on TypoC called Pure Mercury, who has always worn ESFJ, and at one point began to wonder about it, and asked the rest of us. All I could go on is the fact that ESFJ's are very rare in the type discussions, plus his avatar (he has this tough guy look and pose), so he looked like an ExTJ "Choleric" to me. But he finally settled back on ESFJ. It's hard to imagine him being all Sanguiney in person, though I'm of course aware that you can make yourself look like anything in a single picture, and it says nothing about who you might be face to face. 
So I guess that's one example of a male ESFJ fitting a male persona. And I guess Fe would go along with that.


> I wonder if an ETP female's Fe could cause its own development, in a positive feedback loop.


 Maybe so. The tertiary is said to be what we run to, to maintain the dominant attitude, anyway. so when growing up, they would use it a lot, and become more familiar with that perspective. They still look ultimately like Thinkers, to me though. Like Jenocyde from TypoC (who we meet up with). they have this bright, "airy" persona, but they still have a more impersonal bent, and the competitive fight-to-win NT comes out at times.

ITJ women, whom I'm all to familiar with, it's similar, but with Fi. They have a strong inner sense of ethics and personal value, that is also greatly promoted by the F=female roles. Especially if they are ISTJ, who have the tradition-retaining Si out front. 
so it doesn't matter which attitude of F, it seems either way, the female role has taken on an image of Feeling.


> I agree. I have noticed that they have more interest in exchanging information than interpreting it and forming patterns.


 And that's I problems I've always had. I see them exchanging information, and then I jump in, spitting out my own. It is not relevant to them, as is, but what I really want to get into is interpreting it and forming patterns, and that they are not interested in.


----------



## Eric B

To expand upon an earlier point; now expanding from the four functions to the eight function-attitudes:

We _all_ can engage external tangible data
We _all_ can reference a storehouse of tangible data
We _all_ can infer from the external data
We _all_ can infer from a storehouse of impressions
We _all_ can arrange the technical aspects of life to make sense in the environment
We _all_ can demand that the technical aspects of life must make sense to us personally
We _all_ can arrange the humane aspects of life to be harmonious with the environment
We _all_ can demand that the humane aspects of life must be harmonious in our individual estimation

...but only SOME will *focus* on certain of these perspectives or others, depending on our functional and attitude preference, or according to the way that these processes surface through the emotionally freighted complexes of the ego's structure.


----------



## Eric B

Here's a way to put things I just thought of:

The opposite functional perspective is always implicit in a situation, because when we look at it through a function and orientation, we are in essence *dividing* the situation that in complete form consists of both tangible and conceptual, and technical and humane aspects, which both emerge and vary, and can be stored or set in our memory. 

So if I pick out of a situation the technical and variable elements, then the humane and set
elements are implicit, in having basically been differentiated or set apart.

This works for the shadows and archetypes as well:
I feel bound in a situation (which constellates the Trickster), which also implies a form of negation (which constellates the Senex). So the part of me that feels bound by the current reality will accuse someone deemed responsible of "thinking it's funny" or "playing around", which are "bad child" projections. (I also ask "what do they get out of it?") A bad child implies a need for a critical parent to point out and chastize him. They compensate for the presence of each other. So this simultaneously erupts, providing the authoritarian anger and blaming posture, using an conceptual meaning (even if off the wall) of the situation implicit in view of the tangible reality I'm reacting to in the first place.


----------



## Karen2011

Seeker said:


> This thread is interesting and useful, but I think the writing in the article exemplifies the trouble I still have in understanding Myers-Briggs. I need examples of a actual behaviors and anecdotes. I am a more narrative thinker. The organization above is a start, but it's too amorphous for me. I need context to root it in. For each instance, I need an example.
> 
> Does anyone have examples?
> 
> Thank you.


Here is a thread where I used this thread to make sure my test results were correct. I tested as ISTJ and sure enough the related cognitive functions seem to match.

http://personalitycafe.com/isfp-forum-artists/77745-i-m-not-isfp-i-m-istj-don-t-really-like-3.html


----------



## Eric B

Continuing to try to integrate these ways of putting these things into a more refined definition:

S What it is, tangibly
N What's its origin/destination, conceptually
T What it is, technically
F What's its worth, humanely
e What I can add to it (merge with object)
i What I can take out of it (according to subject)
J Add to a set standard, subtract according to a data storehouse
P Add to emergent data, subtract from variables according to an internal standard

Se what I can add to what is tangible
Si what I can subtract from what is tangible (not relevant to internal data)
Ne what I can add to its conceptual trajectory
Ni what I can subtract from its conceptual trajectory (not relevant to internal data)
Te what I can add to what it is technically
Ti what I can subtract from what it is technically (not relevant to internal standard)
Fe what I can add to its humane worth
Fi what I can subtract from its humane worth (not relevant to internal standard)


----------



## Eric B

To expand upon this for the types:

SiTe subtract from 'what is' tangibly; add to 'what is' technically
SiFe subtract from 'what is' tangibly; add to its humane worth
SeFi add to 'what is' tangibly; subtract from its humane worth
SeTi add to 'what is' tangibly; subtract from 'what is' technically
NiTe subtract from 'where it's going' conceptually; add to 'what it is' technically
NiFe subtract from 'where it's going' conceptually; add to its humane worth.
NeTi add to 'where it's going' conceptually; subtract from 'what it is', technically
NeFi add to 'where it's going' conceptually; subtract from its humane worth

The other eight types, with these combinations in reverse, would use the same process, but the emphasis would be on the dominant.

To expand it to the other six archetype positions, using my type:

tert Si: compensates for adding to 'where it's going' conceptually by subtracting from 'what it is' tangibly

inferior Fe: compensates for subtracting from 'what it is' technically by adding to its humane worth

OP Te: when dominant subjective subtraction from 'what it is' technically is obstructed; then I add subjective content to it instead. 

Senex Ni: when [authoritative] adding to 'where it's going' conceptually is negated, then I subtract all but a particular negative destiny instead.

Trickster Se: when a [vulnerable] process of subtracting from 'what it is' tangibly feels bound, I then add to the content, to bind others. Also fills in for adding to 'where it's going' conceptually, when it cant solve a problem.

Demon Fi: when adding to humane worth is threatened, I then subtract instead to destroy the threat. Also fills in for subtracting from 'what is' technically, when it can't solve a problem.

The difference between e and i can also be looked at as processes of "merging vs splitting".


----------



## Eric B

OK, here I will match the basic Jungian "adding/subtracting" definitions of the function attitudes with Berens' simple key word definitions (which are basically true, but can become overgeneralized and ambiguous when not understood in the proper context). This to show how the concepts relate:


*Se* _experiencing and acting in the immediate context_
adding to what is tangible

Something is happening (emergent situation) and you add yourself to it, as is.

*Si* _reviewing and recalling past experiences and seeking detailed data_
subtracting from what is tangible 

You've experienced a lot of things, and hold on to what is relevent for what you need for your goals, and eliminate everything else.

This is good to know, for when I expect SJ's (including even dom's) to remember certain things, and they don't. (which would seem to call into question their type, like for my wife, who seemed to identify with Se more then Si based on the simple "experiencing" vs "remembering" definitions, and appeared to possibly be the Se-"using" ENFJ or ESFP types rather than ESFJ). 

However, what they remember is what is _relevant_ (not just anything), and usually with a more serious purpose (hero, parent complexes), where to me, stuff less relevant to them (petty nostalgia) might be remembered, because Si is connected with a "child" or "relief" complex for me. So they will either not remember something, or they might (as they do have good memories), yet it will be like "Oh, yeah; that..."). It is remembered, but not relevant. (When it comes to holding on to relevant subtractions from data, my wife is actually a very typical stickler for that!)


*Ne* _Interpreting sitations and relationships and picking up meanings and interconnections to other contexts_
adding to an object's conceptual trajectory

I see an object, and basically interject myself into it with ideas of how else it can be, what can be done with it, etc.


*Ni* _foreseeing implications, transformations, and likely effects_
subtracting from an object's conceptual trajectory

To see an object, as well as multiple possibilities with it (hence, confusion with Ne definitions), and be able to recognize and eliminate what is not relevant, which will narrow it down to a likely outcome.


----------



## Eric B

*Te* _segmenting, organizing for efficiency, and systematizing_
adding to what it is technically

You merge with the technical content of an object, which results in a most efficient course of action with it. Like the example I used to use (from Sim), you would effectively "merge" with a desk that is messy, and the ego's natural recourse then' is to organize it eficiently.


*Ti* _Analyzing, categorizing and evaluating according to principles_
subtracting from 'what it is' technically. 

Like when I see something, and always extract a particular arrengement out of it (I'm avoiding "pattern", because that's usually associated with iNtuition). 

Like I love mirror symmetries, and usually look for them in both visual and conceptual constructs. My grandmother used to live in this garden apt. building Google Maps which consists of four quadrants (two of which, attached in the e/w direction), so to look across the court in any direction is like looking in a mirror. Straight across (either the attached or unattached quadrant) is a reverse version of the quadrant I'm looking for. The quadrant on the opposite side in both directions is a double negative that yields something identical to the quadrant I'm in; though rotated 180°.

I would sit and look out the window admiring this, but it was "useless" in a practical sense, and no one else was really interested in it. (Here's another one I used to live near, and always liked. Google Maps The attachment is now in the n/s direction).

Forward to recent years, I find that temperament theory is like an abstract version of the same symmetry, with the E/I and people/task dimensions. (With the addition of a fifth "neutral" element directly in center). This now is more useful, both for myself understanding people, and with the internet now, I can find others who are interested. (In my SJ environment, without the internet, I would have been in the same boat as before).

As Jung conceived it, what was "subtracted" was what was NOT relevant, but you could look at it either way. (Hence, you could call the process "splitting", while in extraverted function is about "merging"). I focus on the content relevant to my own subjective likes (symmetry), and everything else becomes irrelevant (like practical uses, efficiency etc. which become secondary).

(This should also show that "liking" is a product of the _ego_, and not necessarily "Fi". If the content were more humane, it would be, but here, it is purely technical, or "impersonal")

Of course, the "principles" are those elements I look for in things. "Categorizing" would also stem from common threads in different seen as relevant. Like to most people, "a building is a building", but I had taken notice that buildings like those are very hard to find outside of NYC. This based on the age (pre-war), design, etc. In New England, for instance, they'll be planer, smaller and usually have bulky wooden "porches" instead of fire escapes. 
Al of this is irrelevant or at least less relevant to most people but it makes these categories stand out to me in a way they don't to others.

*Fe* _Connecting and considering others and the group_
adding to humane worth

This one is simple. You add yourself to or merge with a group, and its values. Hence, if you see someone has a want or need, you "consider" them.

*Fi* _valuing and considering importance, beliefs and worth_
subtracting from its humane worth

You look at values (of a group, or those involved in an evolving situation) and recognize and eliminate those variables not relevant. Like a group might agree to do something that hurts another, and even justify it with some form of moralization. What comes to mind these days, is the assertion of people like Gingrich that the poor are just lazy and need a stronger ethic. This veneer of moralization can be removed (subtracted, split off), and the real needs of the people (even if "unspoken"; often not articluated well by the liberal establishment that purports to be their main defenders) are brought out and focused on. (To be fair, this can be used by the conservatives, seeing a greater need of a work ethic —splitting off class rhetoric; though my and others' issue with them is the overgeneralization of the poor and other groups; basically in defense of the rich whom they support).

So Fi can "consider others" as well as Fe, the difference is whether you do it by adding to the object in need, or by subtracting the deeper needs from the surface data of the object.


----------



## MandarinChild

Fi – feel ALL the feelings, sigh ALL the sighs
Fe – take ALL the hearts, chirp ALL the hi’s
Ni – see ALL the signs, steal ALL the smarts
Ne – open ALL the doors, play ALL the parts
Si – say ALL the prayers, do ALL the chores
Se – win ALL the games, roar all the roars (…eat ALL them s’mores? Ew.)
Ti – outsmart ALL the laws, pay ALL the fines
Te – whip ALL the butts, end ALL the lines

/sponteneoussilliness
/notmeanttooffend


----------



## Nickel

mandarinchild said:


> fi – feel all the feelings, sigh all the sighs
> fe – take all the hearts, chirp all the hi’s
> ni – see all the signs, steal all the smarts
> ne – open all the doors, play all the parts
> si – say all the prayers, do all the chores
> se – win all the games, roar all the roars (…eat all them s’mores? Ew.)
> ti – outsmart all the laws, pay all the fines
> te – whip all the butts, end all the lines
> 
> /sponteneoussilliness
> /notmeanttooffend


I...I love you.


----------



## HandiAce

I find these visual representations of the functions quite fascinating, especially considering that I am a visual learner. I decided to do my own work of grid dots to try to get some insight on my own perceptions. I drew my own six by six grid:










The circle I drew above shows immediately the general area of where my eyes focus. I do not instinctively look at the outskirts of the square, so if I saw this drawing for the first time, I would not realize it is a square of dots until later in my processing. So I see nothing apparent in the initial circle of focus so I start scanning in and around the outside of the circle, but not the outskirts of the image. Suddenly, some of the dots begin standing out:










I see a pattern of dots pointing to a few evenly-spaced squares. I also notice another similar pattern with the same squares:










Notice that in the first pattern of four squares I saw, I did not really see any square in the center, but did see one in the second pattern of five squares. It just did not feel right to see a square in the center of the first pattern which I think is due not just to symmetry, but balance. Now that I think about it, the five squares I saw in the second pattern are all evenly spaced from each other. 










Just to keep everyone on the same track as me, I figure if the distance between two adjacent dots is one unit, the distance between them diagonally is the square root of two or about 1.41 units.










If I had seen a square in the center of the first pattern, the squares would not have the same spacing distance. This is disharmony in my point of view:









This drawing to illustrate my point seems to be creating some symmetrically balanced harmony with all of the lines I drew. Maybe I didn't need to draw as many...

So as soon as I noticed the pattern of five squares, the center of the whole image now obviously has four dots making a square in the middle. With this now clearly established in my head, I now see that surrounding my circled dots there is a perimeter of dots forming a larger square!










I might have noticed this extra pattern pointing to the larger square which I instantly then see surrounding the smaller square in the center:










...and what do you know? That square is also inside a larger square!










The dots create some nice paths I'll say:










Wow! So technical, yet ultimately holistic! That was fun!


----------



## Raichan

Sunless said:


> I found this in this website: http://player2000gi.host-ed.net/jungian_functions.htm and thought I'd share. I found it very concise and elegant:
> 
> 
> Our personal world is a complex network made up of countless elements. To make sense of it all, our mind forms a matrix which contains information that has reached our conscious awareness, and which it will use to give meaning to our perceptions. Our motivating force is to maintain the stability and coherence of this structure, and our personality represents the process through which this is achieved. See conclusions for more information.
> 
> The matrix is made up of conceptual elements, i.e. physical objects, people, beliefs, etc., that I will simply call objects or events. Whenever it is enhanced, we feel pleasure; if it is damaged, we feel pain. The fundamental purpose of all our choices and actions is to maintain and enhance the stability and coherence of this structure.
> 
> 
> *The Perceiving Function*
> 
> To understand the perceiving function, we need to divide objects into two components: physical and motion. The physical component is the object's physical properties- shape, colour, texture, etc., while the motion component describes the dynamic processes associated with the object. Naturally, both exist within our experience, but the idea is that the matrix, the brain's map of reality, is built primarily with just one of the components.
> 
> The Sensing reality structure is built with the physical component. For this reason, the Sensor is drawn to the concrete and pragmatic matters of life. He is in touch with the immediate sensory experience and has little interest in idea or theory. The Sensor is obviously aware of the motion component, but within the reality structure, this takes the form of fact, rather than process.
> 
> The Intuitive mind is sensitive to the motion component. Even static objects, when integrated into the matrix, must be associated with past experience, and therefore take the form of motion and process. Ideas, theory, and possibilities are then more appealing than facts and actualities. How something works, or what it does, is more important than the thing itself.
> 
> Surface appearance is not sufficient to enhance the Intuitive reality structure. The Intuitive must be aware or work out the processes associated with an object or event. Only then can it be connected with past experience and integrated into the matrix. This mental activity often provides intelligence and the ability to understand complex ideas and relationships. Furthermore, as facts per se do not provide security, the Intuitive function brings about an original mind that is always eager to further develop its understanding of reality.
> 
> Sensitivity to process means that only Intuition allows us to (i) understand something that we have never before encountered, and (ii) apply our acquired knowledge in an unfamiliar situation. The function is invaluable in the sciences, engineering, philosophy, and any other field that requires us to deal with the abstract or the unknown.
> 
> When raised to a human level, the motion component will encompass personality, growth and progress, which are therefore particularly important to the Intuitive. The present condition, individual or collective, depending on the function's orientation, is then an obstacle, a 'thing' to be improved and developed. No wonder that most of history's greatest social reformers and human rights activists have been Intuitives. The Sensor, in contrast, frowns upon unconventional behavior that could bring change to the status quo, preferring instead the security provided by the known and the familiar.
> 
> Naturally, extreme perception of either component is unhealthy, giving rise to a person who is closed-minded, materialistic and superficial, or who lives immersed in a world of fantasy and imagination. Also, such an imbalance builds a reality structure that is 'blind' to either one of the components and is therefore particularly vulnerable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As shown above, the Sensing matrix is built with static objects and their physical properties. Intuition, on the other hand, is aware of motion and process. Sensing and Intuition act in some respects as two opposing forces - the former seeking stability; the latter, change. Thus, the perceiving function has a profound impact on the way we see, understand, and respond to the world.
> 
> 
> *Introversion / Extraversion*
> 
> The perceiving function builds the content of the reality structure. The information, however, can be integrated through two distinct processes:
> 
> *Introversion*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Introvert will focus on particular aspects of the environment and connect perception with highly specific past knowledge. Experience is then integrated within a localized matrix area. Though precise and discriminating, objects are associated and understood within an immediate and limited context. For the Introverted Sensor, the matrix contains specific, detailed and factual information, while an Introverted Intuitive will strive to grasp the principles behind a particular situation.
> 
> Introversion is aware of the specific and the literal, but has poor perception of the overall environment. The relationships that are established between our perceptions and the matrix are such that, although we may be aware of their precise meaning, we cannot connect them with our knowledge of the world at large. To maintain a stable reality structure, the Introvert requires a safe environment that provides continuity, familiarity, habit and isolation.
> 
> Matrix enhancement through Introversion is a relatively slow analytical process, and the introvert often feels overwhelmed in highly stimulating environments.
> 
> 
> *Extraversion*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extraversion has global access to the reality structure. This means that it can establish relationships between the perceived information and multiple objects throughout the matrix. A downside to this cognitive process is that, although the perceived information is integrated onto a wide matrix area, it is only sensitive to overall, superficial properties. Extraverted Sensing maintains a matrix based on superficial sense impressions, and Extraverted Intuition is aware of process, pattern, and possibility.
> 
> Extraversion is an expansive force that is stimulated by the world at large. While Introversion will focus on specific external objects, only Extraversion can grasp significance within the 'big picture.' It is a fast process, and so the Extravert requires highly stimulating environments to maintain a stable reality structure.
> 
> Introverted perception and extraverted perception are located in the left and right brain hemispheres, respectively.
> 
> See hemisphere specialization.
> 
> *Introverted Sensing*
> 
> Sensory information is incorporated into a localized matrix area. The Introverted Sensor focuses on a specific aspect of an object and establishes highly localized connections to other objects within the matrix. This structure is perhaps the most dependent on a familiar and stable environment.
> 
> *Extraverted Sensing*
> 
> Overall sense impressions are integrated onto a wide matrix area. The Extraverted Sensor is acutely aware of the immediate physical environment and how it fits into the larger context. This type enjoys strong sensory stimuli and lives very much in the present.
> 
> *Introverted Intuition*
> 
> Dynamic processes are integrated within a highly localized matrix area. Introverted Intuition is mainly interested in the abstract principles that underlie a given event, not in the event itself. For this reason, this function often provides insight and understanding.
> 
> *Extraverted Intuition*
> 
> The motion component is integrated onto a wide matrix area. The Extraverted Intuitive will conceptualize process and pattern within the overall picture, and is immediately aware of all the possibilities suggested by a particular situation. The focus is always on future possibilities, rather than the present moment.
> 
> 
> *The Judging Function*
> Connections within the matrix are established by the judging function.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Feeling function ties together our perceptions in a wide, holistic manner, establishing connections between multiple objects throughout the matrix. Any decisions taken by the Feeler must maintain the integrity of these wide, interdependent connections, and not just the immediate structure pertaining to the given situation.
> 
> Possibly due to the type of associations that are established, Feeling is concerned with people rather than things, bringing about a moral conscience, a sense of loyalty and responsibility. Feelers give priority to personal values and consider the broader perspective before making any decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking types are critical, impersonal and objective. The Thinking function establishes linear connections based on specific properties. When making decisions, the Thinker only has to maintain the immediate matrix structure that may be affected by any ensuing action. For this reason, this type will disregard all that is not directly related to the decision at hand, and may often appear cold and impersonal. The connections established by this function are highly specific and often provide insight and understanding.
> 
> While Feeling is essentially a holistic process that perceives the world as an interconnected web, Thinking is linear, logical and analytical.
> 
> 
> The ideas we have discussed above seem to suggest that the judging function has no orientation. There is no Extraverted or Introverted Feeling, just Feeling, period. The dominant and auxiliary functions form part of the same cognitive process, and the characteristics associated with each of the functions arise from their mutual interaction in the unconscious mind.
> 
> For example, Introverted Sensing will focus on the details and integrate the perceived information into highly specific and localized areas within the reality structure. Extraverted Thinking can then easily establish linear connections that only span an immediate matrix area, and which are based on concrete and specific facts. For this reason, the Extraverted Thinker is decisive and practical.
> 
> Extraverted Sensing, on the other hand, will focus on overall, surface properties, and integrate information onto a wide matrix area. Thinking must then tie together our perceptions of the overall environment, and the Introverted Thinker is then described as detached, introspective, or reflective.
> 
> Whether perception or judging is dominant is determined by the primary matrix aspect that maintains stability and coherence, i.e. content or connections, respectively.
> 
> *Introverted Feeling*
> This functions will establish holistic relationships spanning a wide matrix area. It gives deep meaning and significance to our perceptions and strives for a sense of harmony in the overall environment. Decisions are then based on personal values and ideals.
> 
> *Extraverted Feeling*
> Extraverted Feeling builds a holistic web of connections within a localized matrix area. The function has strong awareness of social structure and may manifest as the drive to organize a family, community, school, etc. Extraverted Feelers are drawn to social institutions where they can bring order, harmony and cooperation.
> 
> *Introverted Thinking*
> Introverted Thinking establishes analytical and linear connections between our overall perceptions. It will build a web of specific and direct connections suggested by overall external elements. Introverted Thinkers are therefore not directly interested in the external situation, but rather on any understandings that it may provide.
> 
> *Extraverted Thinking*
> Extraverted Thinking establishes linear connections within a localized matrix area. It brings order into specific aspects of life, and for this reason, an Extraverted Thinker will impose structure and order onto a particular organization or institution.
> 
> 
> If the dominant and auxiliary form part of the same cognitive process, as is suggested here, then it is reasonable to suppose that they are located in the same brain hemisphere. This would give us the configuration shown below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Inferior Function*
> 
> Each of the matrices has a psychological blind spot, i.e., experiences and thought patterns that cannot be processed through the structure. This is not only responsible for our fears and inferiorities, but creates a constant state of insecurity that most of us try to eliminate through all forms of destructive behavior.
> 
> Introverted Sensing types, for example, often have a strong fear of change. With a rudimentary awareness of the motion component, plus an inability to access the overall reality structure, this type can find it impossible to function in an unfamiliar environment. If they lose the routine to which they are accustomed, all sorts of dire possibilities come to mind. Consequently, SJs prefer a world that is cyclical and struggle to keep everything under their control.
> 
> Extraverted Sensing types thrive in a homogeneous and stable environment. Like the SJ, they fear losing the familiar, but the threat, for them, comes from the specific. Obsessive, irrational fears often haunt the mind of many SPs. Any localized manifestation of the motion component (i.e. progress, growth, etc.) can terrify the SP, and must be destroyed if an overall sense of stability is to be achieved.
> 
> In contrast, Intuitives, who prefer a dynamic environment, may attack authoritarianism (NPs), or people and values that curtail personal freedom, growth and individuality (NJs).
> 
> Threatening situations are those that would normally be processed by the person's inferior function. To maintain a safe environment that can be adequately interpreted through the matrix, an individual will develop active defenses through which threatening external objects can be eliminated.
> 
> 
> 
> The MBTI types and associated matrices are given below.
> 
> *Sensing and Feeling*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matrix | component | enhacement | connections
> Si Fe .... Physical ......... Local ........... Holistic
> Se Fi .... Physical ......... Wide ........... Holistic
> 
> http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii25/thesunawakens/7.gif
> *Sensing and Thinking*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matrix | component | enhacement | connections
> Si Te .... Physical ......... Local ........... Linear
> Se Ti .... Physical ......... Wide ........... Linear
> 
> 
> *Intuition and Feeling*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matrix | component | enhacement | connections
> Ni Fe .... Motion ......... Local ........... Holistic
> Ne Fi .... Motion ......... Wide ........... Holistic
> 
> *Intuition and Thinking*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matrix | component | enhacement | connections
> Ni Te .... Motion ......... Local ........... Linear
> Ne Ti .... Motion ......... Wide ........... Linear


*Introverted Feeling
This functions will establish holistic relationships spanning a wide matrix area. It gives deep meaning and significance to our perceptions and strives for a sense of harmony in the overall environment. Decisions are then based on personal values and ideals.

Extraverted Feeling
Extraverted Feeling builds a holistic web of connections within a localized matrix area. The function has strong awareness of social structure and may manifest as the drive to organize a family, community, school, etc. Extraverted Feelers are drawn to social institutions where they can bring order, harmony and cooperation.*

This is one of the best explanations for Fe vs Fi.

I feel the need/drive to contribute to ''organizing'' social structures, even though as an INFJ I don't usually agree with majority opinion except when it's backed up by proof.


----------



## tanstaafl28

cardinalfire said:


> could you put that in basic terms?
> 
> I'm still getting the hang of this.


Cardinalfire, check this out: 

Functional Analysis of Psychological Types


----------



## Kimalynn

So, with so many words, sometimes a picture is all you need. While I used it to describe Ne and Ni, I think it is a good analogy for introverted versus extroverted attitudes in general.

The image seems pretty small, so the blue part on the bottom is Ni Land, and the orange thing in the sky is labeled as Ne Land. Any techy people know how to make it look better?


----------



## Dauntless

HandiAce said:


> I find these visual representations of the functions quite fascinating, especially considering that I am a visual learner. I decided to do my own work of grid dots to try to get some insight on my own perceptions. I drew my own six by six grid:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The circle I drew above shows immediately the general area of where my eyes focus. I do not instinctively look at the outskirts of the square, so if I saw this drawing for the first time, I would not realize it is a square of dots until later in my processing. So I see nothing apparent in the initial circle of focus so I start scanning in and around the outside of the circle, but not the outskirts of the image. Suddenly, some of the dots begin standing out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a pattern of dots pointing to a few evenly-spaced squares. I also notice another similar pattern with the same squares:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that in the first pattern of four squares I saw, I did not really see any square in the center, but did see one in the second pattern of five squares. It just did not feel right to see a square in the center of the first pattern which I think is due not just to symmetry, but balance. Now that I think about it, the five squares I saw in the second pattern are all evenly spaced from each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to keep everyone on the same track as me, I figure if the distance between two adjacent dots is one unit, the distance between them diagonally is the square root of two or about 1.41 units.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had seen a square in the center of the first pattern, the squares would not have the same spacing distance. This is disharmony in my point of view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This drawing to illustrate my point seems to be creating some symmetrically balanced harmony with all of the lines I drew. Maybe I didn't need to draw as many...
> 
> So as soon as I noticed the pattern of five squares, the center of the whole image now obviously has four dots making a square in the middle. With this now clearly established in my head, I now see that surrounding my circled dots there is a perimeter of dots forming a larger square!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I might have noticed this extra pattern pointing to the larger square which I instantly then see surrounding the smaller square in the center:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and what do you know? That square is also inside a larger square!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dots create some nice paths I'll say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! So technical, yet ultimately holistic! That was fun!



Blessings upon the nerdiest post I've ever seen here. :kitteh:


----------



## HandiAce

Dauntless said:


> Blessings upon the nerdiest post I've ever seen here. :kitteh:


Keep your repro-ducts away from me you monster!


----------



## petite libellule

MandarinChild said:


> Fi – feel ALL the feelings, sigh ALL the sighs
> Fe – take ALL the hearts, chirp ALL the hi’s
> Ni – see ALL the signs, steal ALL the smarts
> Ne – open ALL the doors, play ALL the parts
> Si – say ALL the prayers, do ALL the chores
> Se – win ALL the games, roar all the roars (…eat ALL them s’mores? Ew.)
> Ti – outsmart ALL the laws, pay ALL the fines
> Te – whip ALL the butts, end ALL the lines
> 
> /sponteneoussilliness
> /notmeanttooffend


I love too <3 
so very much <3


----------



## Eric B

Don't know why I didn't put this together sooner (at least, I don't think I did). 
The eight function-attitudes in terms of the “turning inward outward” concept I learned from MBTI class, which I’m seeing is the simplest most accurate way to express them:

*Se* turning outward for tangible observations (emergent experience)
*Si* turning inward for tangible observations (referencing a storehouse of experience)
*Ne* turning outward for conceptual observations (emergent inferences extracted from objects)
*Ni* turning inward for conceptual observations (referencing a storehouse of inferential patterns)
*Te* turning outward to make impersonal assessments (the determination of logical order is implicit in the object)
*Ti* turning inward to make impersonal assessments (determinations stem from an internal blueprint of order)
*Fe* turning outward to make personal assessments (harmony is determined based directly on the group)
*Fi* turning inward to make personal assessments (harmony is determined from an internal blueprint)


----------



## stiletto

MandarinChild said:


> Fi – feel ALL the feelings, sigh ALL the sighs
> Fe – take ALL the hearts, chirp ALL the hi’s
> Ni – see ALL the signs, steal ALL the smarts
> Ne – open ALL the doors, play ALL the parts
> Si – say ALL the prayers, do ALL the chores
> Se – win ALL the games, roar all the roars (…eat ALL them s’mores? Ew.)
> Ti – outsmart ALL the laws, pay ALL the fines
> Te – whip ALL the butts, end ALL the lines
> 
> /sponteneoussilliness
> /notmeanttooffend


Seriously, I'm a "cut to the chase" type of learner. I think this made so much for sense to me than all these pages of gibberish. Hahaha, love it!

As an ENTJ, Te Ni Se Fi explains it pretty well LOL


----------



## Daniel Jones

i do agree with the aspects surrounding my type, this is very informative and was fun to read thanks.


----------



## Nilo

When I read this I felt so happy! This is a great and simple explanation! Thank you so much!


----------



## kimsb2429

Does anyone have the picture for Extroverted Feelers?


----------



## Eric B

kimsb2429 said:


> Does anyone have the picture for Extroverted Feelers?


A year late, but here







Should also be pointed out, that the original page has long expired, and I'm now hosting it now, here: Fundamental Nature of the MBTI


----------



## Eric B

In deciphering the two different attitudes of each function, the question to ask is:


*WHO is really doing the actual Thinking?* (the subject, or an object; i.e. Other person, group, computer; e.g statistics, etc.)

In the latter case [e], the subject then “introjects” or takes these environmental judgments of what’s “true” or “correct,” as his own.
In the former case _, it’s, his own individual assessment of “true”, who then projects them. (“if it were left up to me, I would do it this way”)


*WHO is really doing the actual Feeling?* (subject, or an object; i.e. other person, group, culture).

In the latter case [e], the subject then “introjects” or takes these environmental values of “good” as his own.
In the former case , it’s his own, individual assessment of what’s “good”, projected onto the other (“if that were me, I would feel this way”).


With perception, it’s always the subject “doing” the process (taking in the information). What’s different, is where it’s processed from.

Se: directly from the environment as occurs
Si: directly from individual memory
Ne: patterns in environment via memory
Ni: individual impressions repressed from memory

So instead of “who”, it’s simply “where”.


*WHERE are your sense impressions?*
(directly from the environment, as they occur, or filtered individually through memory)

In the latter case [e], the subject introjects the current experience from the environment, in effect “merging” with it. (You sometimes even see the function directly described in this term).
In the former case , he projects his own individually learned sense of experience onto the environment (often, if it doesn’t line up, feels stress)


*WHERE do meanings* (inferred from sense impressions) *TAKE PLACE?*
(other patterns that are in the environment, though stored in memory; or individual impressions which are outside the pattern, from stuff likely repressed from memory)

In the latter case [e], the subject introjects the pattern, taking it into himself. In the former case , he projects into the situation subjective impressions, not necessarily bound to the contexts. (So it tends to come off to me as “pulling stuff from out of thin air”).


An example of the extravert “subject” merging with the object in decision making:

When TJ’s (even when Te is auxiliary) enforce “group think"; even when they say stuff like “I don’t like it either; it’s hard on all of us, [etc.]…but that’s just the way it is”, their ego’s perspective (dominant or supportive) is still being gratified. It’s still the way they think things should be (especially with an STJ), compared to, [heaven help], an introverted Thinking perspective, where the subject subtracts [what he feels is irrelevant] from the object rather than just adopting it._


----------



## Eric B

Interesting paper on S/N:


https://www.capt.org/journal-psychological-type/whitepapers/s-n whitepaper_02.2016.pdf


----------



## SetTheStage

What you do when none of the functions describe anything you do?


----------



## Eric B

I had above expressed the attitudes as “who is doing the thinking/feeling”, but that wouldn't have made mense for S/N. Now, it just occurred to me that instead of “who is doing...”, it could be expressed as “What is creating...” to keep it more in continuity with T/F:

S: *What is creating the sensation?*
e: the object in the environment, directly
i: the subject's individual storehouse of memory
N: *What's creating the intuition?* (i.e. pattern connection)
e: the object in the environment (implies connection to something else)
i: the subject's individual unconscious impressions (which interpret the meaning of the object by some other means than the object itself)

(@SetTheStage , if you say none of the functions describe anything you do, you must not be understanding something; either the functions themselves, or your own behavior. Everyone senses, intuits, thinks and feels, and in both environmental and individual orientations Type is determined by which ego states these align with).


----------



## albino mallato

*caution* extremely personalized views of the functions, not an actual representation, not peer reviewed, definitely not spell checked

Heavy Fi combined with Ne is going to manifest itself as humanitarian drive, saving the planet, fighting against oppression. Of course, those three things are the ideal paths for the functions. Because Fi is highly personalized, it can manifest itself through Ne in suprising, even morally skewed ways. it is a catalyst for action and many times these individuals will need to carry out their convictions in order to feel theyve served any sort of purpose or understand something deeper. more wacky, fun, and earthy in my opinion. prefers to explain things and gain understanding
:t:both types are going to have a keen sense of internal "balance" and when something is "off" feel compelled to take direct action to absolve the internal turmoil:t:
Se combined with heavy Ni is going to manifest itself as either abstract visions and/or intense physical sensations that communicate whether an atmosphere is charged with conflict, is harmonious, etc. any emotion under the sun, their Fe will pick up on the general atmosphere and then Ni works like a detective narrowing down to the cause, solution, alternative solution, future implications;usually in a matter of seconds, like an instant message from God himself. seeks to create holistic things (speeches, art, innovations) that further their interest in universal "connection" and harmony. basically, the entire 60s counter-culture movement but leaning towards the more extreme, mysterious psychedelic stuff, not the protests, thats more Ne-Fi. Although, martin luther was an enfj, go figure. more sullen, intense, and "interesting" prefers to leave a "gap" of understanding and not explain things fully, almost as if to screen off non-intuitives, also likes to babble in tongues

Heavy Si with Ne is going to manifest as nerdiness basically. Its someone who recognizes possibilies but instead of sticking their necks out into potential danger, their going to use it to master a video game, read 100 books, memorize a complex rap song, yadda yadda. Eventually these types either find their niche or end up going full Ne and breaking out of their shells, trying new, scary things and eventually turning into extraverted geeks.

im too lazy to type anymore, there you go guuys


----------



## JonathanLivingstonSeagull

Thanks for posting!


----------

