# Function Descriptions



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

goamare said:


> Treating inferior function as one of the "top preferred" functions is a very one-dimensional approach, and I'm sorry to tell you, but it actually goes completely against the gist of the theory.
> 
> Inferior function means "*lack of*," "*struggle* with that specific function," or "the one *against* your true preference."
> 
> ...


Fi and Te don't directly contradict each other though, whereas Fe/Ti and Fi do to an extent. Thinking is a different system to Feeling, so it's more complimentary than contradictory. (Sorry for the short reply, I'm a bit under the weather.)

Also, have you looked into Socionics? I really think you'd enjoy that system.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

laurie17 said:


> Fi and Te don't directly contradict each other though, whereas Fe/Ti and Fi do to an extent. Thinking is a different system to Feeling, so it's more complimentary than contradictory. (Sorry for the short reply, I'm a bit under the weather.)
> 
> Also, have you looked into Socionics? I really think you'd enjoy that system.


I know Socionics well enough. It talks a lot but doesn't explain "why" very much. Without thorough reasoning, it's not much useful.

So, you're saying Fi contradicts with Fe and Ti but not Te.

I'd like to know how well you get along with ESTJ's. Their functions are "the same" with that of INFP's, just different order. According to you, it seems that ESTJ's and INFP's are similar types, and should chime in with each other pretty well. The more extreme they are, the better they should get along.

On ther other hand INFJ's must be in every way different with INFP's, and you guys should have constant "direct" conflicts, since their functions directly oppose INFP's functions.

Is it really?


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

goamare said:


> I know Socionics well enough. It talks a lot but doesn't explain "why" very much. Without thorough reasoning, it's not much useful.
> 
> So, you're saying Fi contradicts with Fe and Ti but not Te.
> 
> ...


I don't believe in the type-relations theory, so it's hard to say. I'm talking about functions within each individual rather than across individuals because, as I think I said before, nurture/environment tends to alter the expression of functions. Therefore, while I may get on well with one Te user, I may not with the next. It all depends on how they express themselves rather than how they think. I don't think I clash with people due to their functional stacks.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

laurie17 said:


> I don't believe in the type-relations theory, so it's hard to say. I'm talking about functions within each individual rather than across individuals because, as I think I said before, nurture/environment tends to alter the expression of functions. Therefore, while I may get on well with one Te user, I may not with the next. It all depends on how they express themselves rather than how they think. I don't think I clash with people due to their functional stacks.


Within each individual, ok. Within an individual, it is case by case too. Fi can work with Ti, Fe, or even Te too, if they are supporting Fi from rather superficial level. If they both work together in a very fundamental level, within an individual, it is an inevitable clash. Again, you can find out about this from Jung's writings.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

goamare said:


> Within each individual, ok. Within an individual, it is case by case too. Fi can work with Ti, Fe, or even Te too, if they are supporting Fi from rather superficial level. If they both work together in a very fundamental level, within an individual, it is an inevitable clash. Again, you can find out about this from Jung's writings.


Would you mind quoting some specific parts from his writings which say so? From your last ones, it seemed more that Jung was just saying extroverted and introverted functions worked together. (I also don't know which sources you're using, so can't really comment.)


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

goamare said:


> On ther other hand INFJ's must be in every way different with INFP's, and you guys should have constant "direct" conflicts, since their functions directly oppose INFP's functions.
> 
> Is it really?


I can't speak for this particular relationship, but for the ISFP, the comparable "quasi-identical" relationship is the ISFJ. I worked 15 years arm-in-arm with an ISFJ, and although he has since moved away, we are still good friends. However, I can tell you that our working relationship took _lots_ of work and constant compromise. I also know now that he made far more compromises and he probably put up with a lot more from me than I did from him. Fe really doesn't stand a chance against Fi, especially when, as in this situation, where Fe is merely in the auxiliary position. One of my daughters is an INFJ, and some of the same issues I have had with him are observable in my relationship with her--and that's despite being my daughter.  

Fe and Fi are always in constant tension. Fe desires to exert its will over Fi, and Fi will always resist it. That's just how it is, as Jung said:



> The superior position of the subjective factor in consciousness involves an inferiority of the objective factor. The object is not given that importance which should really belong to it. Just as it plays too great a role in the extraverted attitude, it has too little to say in the introverted. To the extent that the introvert's consciousness is subjectified, thus bestowing undue importance upon the ego, the object is placed in a position which in time becomes quite untenable.


If it comes to tension, the strongest tension will be between the introverted and extraverted feeling judgments, because they are in contradiction to each other. Fe desires all to conform, and Fi desires anything but conformity. Of the four orientated judging functions, Tie is the one in least tension, because it is furthest from Fi. It is neither introverted, nor feeling. It has a weird hold on Fi--a sort of push-pull effect. It is our shadow personality. It is our Mr. Hyde, if you will. It is a different relationship than what we have to the other two judging functions. This relationship, I would guess, is true between every leading function and its inferior. 

I really don't know where you come up, btw, with the idea that someone like me would prefer Fe to Te. I prefer Fi. I function within the realm of Fi. Fe is the oil to my water. Actually, if anything were more true than anything else, both Fe and Te are not functions I would prefer to have to deal with. In fact, the judging function I have the most complex/confusing relationship with would be Ti. Both Te and Fe are quite clear in their own ways, but Ti--no. not so much... (and this despite being married to an INTP--go figure)


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

laurie17 said:


> I don't believe in the type-relations theory, so it's hard to say. I'm talking about functions within each individual rather than across individuals because, as I think I said before, nurture/environment tends to alter the expression of functions. Therefore, while I may get on well with one Te user, I may not with the next. It all depends on how they express themselves rather than how they think. I don't think I clash with people due to their functional stacks.





ferroequinologist said:


> Fe and Fi are always in constant tension. Fe desires to exert its will over Fi, and Fi will always resist it.


 @laurie17
Let's think of it this way. Within an individual, have you ever seen anyone who says "I'm not sure if I'm INFP or ESTJ"

@ferroequinologist
Similarly, have you seen anyone who says "I'm not sure if I'm ISFP or ENTJ"

I've personally seen none.
On the other hand I've seen lots of posts saying like "I'm not sure if I'm INFP or INFJ"
It's for you to decide.

*Treating inferior function simply as "one of the top preferred function" is, as I said, ignoring the "color" of the inferior function completely, and against the gist of the theory.*

So, I'll give you bunch of quotes. Feel free to explore:

Jung on sort of a "negative" unconscious character of the inferior function and its use:


Jung said:


> The activity of the conscious is selective. Selection demands direction. But direction requires the exclusion of everything irrelevant. On occasion, therefore, a certain onesidedness of the conscious orientation is inevitable. *The contents that are excluded and inhibited by the chosen direction sink into the unconscious*, where by virtue of their effective existence they form a definite counterweight against the conscious orientation. The strengthening of this counterposition keeps pace with the intensification of the conscious onesidedness until finally a noticeable tension is produced. This tension involves a certain inhibition of the conscious activity which can assuredly be broken down by increased conscious effort.





Jung said:


> For, inasmuch as too great a share of the libido is intercepted by the favoured function, *the inferior function undergoes a regressive development*, i.e. it returns to its earlier archaic state, therewith becoming incompatible with the conscious and favoured function.





Jung said:


> The functional relation of the unconscious processes to consciousness we may describe as compensatory (q.v.), since experience proves that the unconscious process pushes subliminal material to the surface that is constellated by the conscious situation hence all those contents which could not be lacking in the picture of the conscious situation if everything were conscious. The compensatory function of the unconscious becomes all the more manifest, the more the conscious attitude maintains a one-sided standpoint; this is confirmed by abundant examples in the realm of pathology.





Jung said:


> In a general way, the compensating attitude of the unconscious finds expression in the process of psychic equilibrium. A normal extraverted attitude does not, of course, mean that the individual behaves invariably in accordance with the extraverted schema. Even in the same individual many psychological happenings may be observed, in which the mechanism of introversion is concerned. A habitus can be called extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree. The superior function is always the expression of the conscious personality, its aim, its will, and its achievement, whilst the inferior functions belong to the things that happen to one. Not that they merely beget blunders, e.g. lapsus linguae or lapsus calami, but they may also breed half or three-quarter resolves, since the inferior functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness. The extraverted feeling type is a classical example of this, for he enjoys an excellent feeling rapport with his entourage, yet occasionally opinions of an incomparable tactlessness will just happen to him. These opinions have their source in his *inferior and subconscious thinking, which is only partly subject to control and is insufficiently related to the object ; to a large extent, therefore, it can operate without consideration or responsibility.*



Myers on "purposeful" use of inferior function (I personally see it as "superficial-compensatory" as opposed to "fundamental-true preference" of dominant function):


Myers said:


> ...eventual admission of the least developed processes to conscious, *purposeful
> use in the service of* the dominant process.


Introversion and Extraversion of functions, that an individual's preference toward a function may have both sides. This is related to Fi and Fe in our discussion:


Jung said:


> As basic functions, i.e. functions which are both genuinely as well as essentially differentiated from other
> functions, there exist thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. If one of these functions habitually prevails, a corresponding type results. I therefore discriminate thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive types. Every one of these types can moreover be introverted or extraverted according to his relation to the object in the way described above.





Jung said:


> But, as I have already emphasized more than once, introversion and extraversion are not traits of character at all, but *mechanisms which can, as it were, be switched on or off at will*.





Jung said:


> Hence, there can *never* occur a pure type in the sense that he is entirely
> possessed of the one mechanism with a complete atrophy of the other.
> A typical attitude always signifies the merely relative predominance of one mechanism.


(He says "habitual," as opposed to a notion that one will prefer one direction only):


Jung said:


> When this is *habitual*, one speaks of an extraverted type.





Jung said:


> There is, finally, a third group, and here it is hard to say whether the motivation comes chiefly from within or without. This group is the *most numerous* and includes the less differentiated normal man, who is considered normal either because he allows himself no excesses or because he has no need of them. The normal man is, by definition, *influenced as much from within as from without*. He constitutes the extensive middle group.


Now, on the other hand, he suggest that an individual may have a general attitude, all before having a clear-cut T/F preference. This is related to Fi and Ti in our discussion:


Jung said:


> Everyone whose attitude is introverted *thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the chief factor of motivation* while the object at most receives only a secondary value.





Jung said:


> If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, as to correspond directly
> with objective conditions and their claims, whether in a good sense or ill, he is extraverted.


He also mentions F and T do not always clash within an individual. (Note that he's not talking about use of inferior - he says both are conscious, which means both will have similar e/i-ness):


Jung said:


> Although feeling is an independent function in itself, it may lapse into a state of dependence upon another function, upon thinking, for instance; whereby a feeling is produced which is merely kept as an accompaniment to thinking, and is not repressed from consciousness only in so far as it fits in with the intellectual associations."


So what is it? I think Lenore Thomson, a more recent MBTI scholar, sums it up pretty well. *Note that tertiary function is treated in a similar fashion as inferior function*:


Lenore Thomson said:


> Conscious awareness, however, is a top-down affair. What we believe about ourselves and what we want for ourselves is reflected by the layers near the surface of the lasagna.
> 
> The top layer is our dominant function, which governs most of our conscious behaviors. It's subject to our will, and the traits it encourages feel like "us."
> 
> ...


Sources (as requested):
Psychological Types, by Carl Gustav Jung
Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, by Isabel Briggs Myers
Personality Type: An Owner's Manual, by Lenore Thomson


----------



## giraffegator (Dec 28, 2014)

Also don't forget the basic premise of functions is that everybody uses a Je, Ji, Pe and Pi function. And everybody uses a thinking, feeling, sensing and intuiting function. In theory, people can't really do anything without all four. So that's why you have to have them different. I think others have given good reasons for the structure of the top two.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

goamare said:


> @_laurie17_
> Let's think of it this way. Within an individual, have you ever seen anyone who says "I'm not sure if I'm INFP or ESTJ"
> 
> @_ferroequinologist_
> ...


Odd. On the ISFP forum, it has not at all been uncommon to find INTJ, ISTJ and even ISTP type confusion. For myself, if you had asked me 5-7 years ago, when I was deeply in an inferior grip, I may have even said ENTJ. 

So I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to prove here. (same with all the lift quotes.)


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> So I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to prove here.


 @ferroequinologist @laurie17

It's simple - I'm trying to show you that tertiary and inferior functions are weakest of all, when it comes to "true preference."

With the sources I've shown on the previous post, it should be clear to you.

Doesn't mean that everyone will fit into this model, but this is what "function stack" really means.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

goamare said:


> @_ferroequinologist_ @_laurie17_
> 
> It's simple - I'm trying to show you that tertiary and inferior functions are weakest of all, when it comes to "true preference."
> 
> ...


There are loads of dom/aux Fi users to mistype as dom/aux Te users, because it's easier to see the less natural functions. Because an Fi dom has very natural Fi, it's pretty much unconscious, whereas Te is more noticeable because it causes strain on the user as it's not their developed way of functioning. So, these people notice their Te and don't really see their own Fi and so type themselves as Te dom/aux users. I was mistyped as an INTJ for a while because of something like that.

The thing is, the quotes you've used are talking about the tert/inferior functions as the weakest, as in (as far as I gather from the quotes) the weakest of each types functions which, in terms of MBTI are generally considered to be four - dom/aux/tert/inferior. So, yes they are the weakest, but they're still more preferred than the ones which aren't in the top four.

Could you give an example of how Fe and Fi could work at once in a person?


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

laurie17 said:


> The thing is, the quotes you've used are talking about the tert/inferior functions as the weakest, as in (as far as I gather from the quotes) the weakest of each types functions which, in terms of MBTI are generally considered to be four - dom/aux/tert/inferior. So, yes they are the weakest, but they're still more preferred than the ones which aren't in the top four.


No. This quote says that tertiary and inferior are the weakest of ALL FUNCTIONS.

On the second paragraph here, it talks about the other four functions that are not included in the 4-function stack model, and states that they are in BETWEEN dom/aux(strongest) and ter/inf(weakest).

Here's the quote again, Please read carefully:


Lenore Thomson said:


> *At the very bottom are the two functions directly opposed to the top two: the tertiary and inferior functions. These are our least conscious functions.* Opposite is a "type lasagna" for each of the sixteen types, *showing our two extremes: our two strongest and two weakest functions.* In the logic of this analogy, most of us get a conscious fork into the top layer of our type lasagna, but we don't have much control over the layers at the bottom. In fact, our inferior function generally gets stuck in the pan and we leave it behind.
> Our inferior function is inferior because its approach to life opposes everything we've tried to be. Making 180-degree turns, even for good reason, is dangerous business. Instead of raising our least-developed function to consciousness, we can sink our personality to a more unconscious level of operation.
> ...
> *The four functions between our strongest* (the captain and the petty officer) *and our weakest* (the water-skier and the would-be captain) have their own roles on our typological ship.


Let's get this straight before we move on.


----------



## giraffegator (Dec 28, 2014)

I think a couple of things need to be acknowledged here.

1. Some people are going from a four-function understanding of theory. Some are going from an 8-function understanding.
2. Both four function and 8-function adherants are saying that the tertiary and inferior are the bottom-most functions, so in some ways everybody actually agrees.

My understanding of the 8-function theory is that it is not meant to be hierarchical anyway - at least, from what I've read of Beebe. The idea of 8-function theory is that we use all 8 functions, but each different type will use the different functions for different purposes (archetypes).
Only the 'hero' function (dominant) and to some extent the 'good parent' function (aux) are conscious. All the rest are to greater or lesser extent unconscious until we can start to understand them and make peace with our shadow. 
Example - for an ISFP, my hero function, that helps me solve problems and feel like a good and succesful person, is Fi. The function with which I would help others and my own hero is Se.
The rest fall into the other archetyes based on their relationship with the hero and parent archetype functions e.g. Si is the reflection of Se - the 'critical parent' that is used somewhat unconsciously when I feel forced into a position of being belittled and criticised. 
Fe, as Ferroequinologist mentioned, would be an opposing force - when someone else is using it strongly and ISFP would feel opposed and would use Fe to stubbornly argue back - but this would not be conscious behaviour. This is the 'that didn't seem like me' type behaviour.
Something like that is how I understand it.

In the end pretty much everyone seems to agree that you have two more differentiated functions, and then a 'shadow'.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

sassafrassthelioness said:


> 2. Both four function and 8-function adherants are saying that the tertiary and inferior are the bottom-most functions, so in some ways everybody actually agrees.
> 
> In the end pretty much everyone seems to agree that you have two more differentiated functions, and then a 'shadow'.


Not really, but thanks.


----------



## giraffegator (Dec 28, 2014)

goamare said:


> Not really, but thanks.


Well then I guess I've also understood the material you quoted differently to you. I guess the issue is that everyone is understanding it differently - and to be honest, that's because it's all a pretty hazy field. It's hard to nail down.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

sassafrassthelioness said:


> 2. Both four function and 8-function adherants are saying that the tertiary and inferior are the bottom-most functions, so in some ways everybody actually agrees.


Not that you've understood the material I quoted differently to me.
Other posters here were saying tertiary and inferior are 3rd and 4th most preferred functions, not the bottom-most functions.



sassafrassthelioness said:


> and to be honest, that's because it's all a pretty hazy field. It's hard to nail down.


I agree.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

@ferroequinologist @laurie17

Btw it seems we digressed a little. To answer my own question back from post #2:



goamare said:


> So, with those descriptions, how would you explain the reason WHY Pi pairs with Je, and Ji pairs with Pe?


You may want to check this out, post #2 (I wanted to start a new thread, but got too lazy, then this came up):
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/611778-dichotomies-functions.html#post19704874


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

@goamare It seems you already have a very strong idea in your head, so I don't really want to continue down this current line of debate. I'd be grateful if instead you could give me an example of how Fi and Fe, or other seemingly contradictory functions, could work together in real terms to actively illustrate your point.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

laurie17 said:


> @goamare It seems you already have a very strong idea in your head, so I don't really want to continue down this current line of debate. I'd be grateful if instead you could give me an example of how Fi and Fe, or other seemingly contradictory functions, could work together in real terms to actively illustrate your point.


There is a real-life example I like to use for Ti (fundamental) working with Fe (superficial).
From here, you clearly see that the meat(Ti) is the core, the real, and the bread(Fe) is merely the surface.

The Hamburger Method of Constructive Criticism

Fi with Fe is similar as Ti with Fe. If the meat - "your opinion" - was based on what you felt (felt as in you liked/disliked, or sort of a personal "acceptance" way of feeling), and not primarily on logical analysis, it can be called Fi. In order to prevent Fi from being looked upon as too one-sided, a "purposeful" Fe can help it out from rather "superficial" level. Te could be more efficient, but there are many incidents where T isn't necessarily needed, after all. For instance (off the top of my head), casual group conversations about how they felt with a given poem or painting. You wouldn't really have to bring "logical" elements to back yourself up here.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

goamare said:


> There is a real-life example I like to use for Ti (fundamental) working with Fe (superficial).
> From here, you clearly see that the meat(Ti) is the core, the real, and the bread(Fe) is merely the surface.
> 
> The Hamburger Method of Constructive Criticism
> ...


But that's not a real life example of Fi and Fe operating within one individual. In fact, reading this "hamburger method" (although I didn't have to open the link, I just had an idea of what it was going to be--a criticism sandwiched between two compliments) strikes me as manipulative as well as dismissive of the other person ("I have to protect his po widdle feewings" by making him feel good before I knock him down, and than have to build him back up by saying something positive again). It is just too condescending to my point of view--and demeaning to the person you think you are helping by doing that to. And I hope nobody ever tries that on me--actually, they do, and every time, already, with the first compliment, I'm generally interrupting them, and telling them to move on to their complaint, and dispense with the niceties. Please, be a grown up and man up to your need to complain about me. That's my perspective. So, how's this Fe working for me? I don't see it... I really don't. 

OK. I know, or I could say I've learned, that some people prefer to be coddled like this, but I find it _very_ difficult to do, and if'n'when I've done it, it has never gone down well, simply because my attempts are very amateurish and pathetic. I'd rather just tell them. I will use gentle language if possible/necessary, but I generally don't pretend to soften the blow with compliments. That's just too fake.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> I will use gentle language if possible/necessary, but I generally don't pretend to soften the blow with compliments. That's just too fake.


That's okay. The example I gave you is sort of an extreme one, just to clarify my point. It's not black and white. It doesn't need to be a fake compliment. The fact that you'll use gentle language, already means you'll take Fe into account to some degree. The level of "superficiality" will always vary, so it's okay if you "genuinely" felt that you wanted to use gentle language. Being right in-your-face like "I FEEL DIFFERENT" will even make yourself uncomfortable too. Why? Because you'll make tension to the external environment, and you are AFFECTED by it. The very fact that you inevitably get affected these factors, to a small degree at least, shows that you can't completely be free from Fe.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

goamare said:


> That's okay. The example I gave you is sort of an extreme one, just to clarify my point. It's not black and white. It doesn't need to be a fake compliment. The fact that you'll use gentle language, already means you'll take Fe into account to some degree. The level of "superficiality" will always vary, so it's okay if you "genuinely" felt that you wanted to use gentle language. Being right in-your-face like "I FEEL DIFFERENT" will even make yourself uncomfortable too. Why? Because you'll make tension to the external environment, and you are AFFECTED by it. The very fact that you inevitably get affected these factors, to a small degree at least, shows that you can't completely be free from Fe.


Wow... you'll try to hang your hat on anything to make your point... Sorry, but Fe is the anti-Fi. I don't know why you refuse to recognize that... 

I use gentle language, not for their sake, but for my own. Why? because I don't want someone to think I'm mean. I'm not doing it to make them feel better. How is that Fe?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

I should add that, at their core, neither Fe nor Fi are about making people feel comfortable or appreciated, etc. The difference between the two is simply this. Where is the judgment applied--to others or to self. Fe is about creating external order, and Fi about internal order. Fe is other-focused, and Fi self-focused. 

Fe attempts to regulate the feeling environment by working on others feelings, and by moderating or tempering one's own feelings and emotions. Fi, on the other hand, can be totally _unaware_ of the feeling environment, and in cases it is aware, it tends to feel powerless to moderate or temper the environment, and certainly is not keen to moderate one's own feelings for the sake of the environment. In fact, it may rebel at the efforts of others to temper its feelings. 

There are so many incompatibilities between Fe and Fi that I just can't see where you get this idea that an Fi dom can "prefer" Fe... 

It's very similar to how Ti and Te fail to come to terms. Or how Si and Se are in constant conflict.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> I should add that, at their core, neither Fe nor Fi are about making people feel comfortable or appreciated, etc. The difference between the two is simply this. Where is the judgment applied--to others or to self. Fe is about creating external order, and Fi about internal order. Fe is other-focused, and Fi self-focused.
> 
> Fe attempts to regulate the feeling environment by working on others feelings, and by moderating or tempering one's own feelings and emotions. Fi, on the other hand, can be totally _unaware_ of the feeling environment, and in cases it is aware, it tends to feel powerless to moderate or temper the environment, and certainly is not keen to moderate one's own feelings for the sake of the environment. In fact, it may rebel at the efforts of others to temper its feelings.
> 
> ...


It's fine that you don't find such a case accurate for your case. It could be that you have a strong introverted judging attitude in general, which makes Fe not such a priority. Everyone's different after all. Also many are oblivious about their unconscious side.



ferroequinologist said:


> Fe is the anti-Fi.


Yeah, I sort of think so too. But your description doesn't explain enough about WHY creating internal order MUST oppose creating external order in every possible way. Why not both? (doesn't necessarily mean that I think otherwise - it's simply not convincing) What if somebody comes up and say "I prefer order in general, internal AND external." 



On the other hand, let me give you some quotes which may help you understand the relationship between extravertedness and introvertedness.



Jung said:


> These opposite attitudes are merely opposite mechanism - a diastolic going out and seizing of the object, and a systolic concentration and release of energy from the object seized. Every human being possesses both
> mechanisms as an expression of his natural life-rhythm - that rhythm which Goethe, surely not by chance, characterized with the physiological concepts of cardiac activity.





Jung said:


> But, as I have already emphasized more than once, introversion and extraversion are not traits of character at all, but mechanisms which can, as it were, be switched on or off at will.





Jung said:


> We must not forget-although extraverted opinion is only too prone to do so-that *all perception and cognition is not purely objective: it is also subjectively conditioned.* The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me. Indeed, at bottom, we have absolutely no criterion that could help us to form a judgment of a world whose nature was unassimilable by the subject. If we were to ignore the subjective factor, it would mean a complete denial of the great doubt as to the possibility of absolute cognition. And this would mean a rechute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch -- an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man -- we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.
> 
> 
> The same holds good for all the psychic functions: they have a subject which is just as indispensable as the object. It is characteristic of our present extraverted valuation that the word 'subjective' occasionally rings almost like a reproach or blemish; but in every case the epithet 'merely subjective' means a dangerous weapon of offence, destined for that daring head, that is
> not unceasingly convinced of the unconditioned superiority of the object. We must, therefore, be quite clear as to what meaning the term 'subjective' carries in this investigation. As the subjective factor, then, I understand that psychological action or reaction which, when merged with the effect of the object, makes a new psychic fact.


Like I said earlier in this thread, there is nothing completely "internal." "Internal" is really built from "external," and gets constantly affected by it. Similarly, there is nothing completely "external." "External" is framed by "internal," and is always perceived by "internal."


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

goamare said:


> Yeah, I sort of think so too. But your description doesn't explain enough about WHY creating internal order MUST oppose creating external order in every possible way. Why not both? (doesn't necessarily mean that I think otherwise - it's simply not convincing) What if somebody comes up and say "I prefer order in general, internal AND external."


You quote Jung, but you never seem to quote the right things. He explains why, and I quote him:



> Introverted feeling is determined principally by the subjective factor. *This means that the feeling-judgment differs quite as essentially from extraverted feeling as does the introversion of thinking from extraversion*. It is unquestionably difficult to give an intellectual presentation of the introverted feeling process, or even an approximate description of it, although the peculiar character of this kind of feeling simply stands out as soon as one becomes aware of it at all. *Since it is primarily controlled by subjective preconditions*, and is only secondarily concerned with the object, this feeling appears much less upon the surface and is, as a rule, misunderstood. It is a feeling which apparently depreciates the object; hence it usually becomes noticeable in its negative manifestations. The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were. *Its aim is not so much to accommodate to the objective fact as to stand above it*, since its whole unconscious effort is to give reality to the underlying images. It is, as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision. *From objects that can never fit in with its aim it seems to glide unheedingly away*. It strives after an inner intensity, to which *at the most*, objects contribute only *an accessory stimulus*. The depths of this feeling can only be divined—they can never be clearly comprehended. It makes men silent and difficult of access; with the sensitiveness of the mimosa, *it shrinks from the brutality of the object*, in order to expand into the depths of the subject. *It puts forward negative feeling-judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference, as a measure of self-defence*.


I really can't say it better than that. (and the same sort of tension exists between all the functions in their two orientations)

Are you saying that you never feel the tension between, for instance, Ne and Ni? Ne wants to ever expand outward, explore new possibilities and ideas, and Ni keeps saying, "Stop! We need to examine this point further," and wanting to circle around that one possibility, and beat it to death until there's nothing left to learn about it, before maybe moving on, or maybe desiring to implement it (via Je).

The attitudes (introversion vs. extraversion) are not static. They represent a *movement*, either *toward* the subject and *away* from the object, or toward the object, and away from the subject. That puts the two on either a collision course, or moving away from each other, so that there is difficulty to come to any real, abiding peace. Sure, there can be an impasse or compromise. Or there may be simply distance, as the two avoid each other, but just as likely, when forced to cohabit the same intellectual space, there will be some level of conflict. 

It is this introversion/extraversion tension that defines Jung's system. Without that tension, there is no Jungian psychology. Without it, there is no MBTI, no Socionics (especially no Socionics). 

And the strongest tension that exists is between the two orientations of the same function. This is the foundation. That is why your contention that Fi and Fe, for example would "get along" just confuses me.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> You quote Jung, but you never seem to quote the right things. He explains why, and I quote him:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What does any of this have to do with order? Yes you make a case for extraversion vs introversion, but not about internal vs external _​order._


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> You quote Jung, but you never seem to quote the right things. He explains why, and I quote him:
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't say it better than that. (and the same sort of tension exists between all the functions in their two orientations)


What you have quoted is very well known here in PC forum. I am very aware of those descriptions. The thing is that you should be aware that Jung describes each function/type in sort of an "extreme" manner, to make his point clear.

I'll give you a quote related to this:


Jung said:


> In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, *only Galtonesque family portraits*, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore *typical* characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced.





Jung said:


> Hence, *there can never occur a pure type in the sense that he is entirely
> possessed of the one mechanism with a complete atrophy of the other*.
> A typical attitude always signifies the *merely relative* predominance of one mechanism.



Here you have your descriptions about Ne and Ni:


ferroequinologist said:


> Are you saying that you never feel the tension between, for instance, Ne and Ni? Ne wants to ever expand outward, explore new possibilities and ideas, and Ni keeps saying, "Stop! We need to examine this point further," and wanting to circle around that one possibility, and beat it to death until there's nothing left to learn about it, before maybe moving on, or maybe desiring to implement it (via Je).


I actually really like this, and this fits exactly with my descriptions about Ni and Ne.
One may prefer one over the other, since they "contrast" each other.
But this is important: *What if, one wanted to select the "N" world first and foremost, not "S" world, in terms of which he dwells in, even before deciding whether to expand or focus?* This is called N preference over S.

And also from here, you'll see that Ni and Ne are *INEXTRICABLE*. I'll quote myself here (I've posted this before):



goamare said:


> Ni stays on a subject.
> Ne jumps from one subject to another.
> 
> From this point of view, you'll see that Ne and Ni are inextricable.
> ...


And also from here, you'll see that Ni and Ne are *RELATIVE*:

*On this thread so far, we "stopped" and examined cognitive function dynamics.
- From MBTI scholar's point of view, we are "circling around one thing" too much. There is a lot more in MBTI theory.
- From Jungian scholar's point of view, focusing on MBTI is "circling around one thing." There is a lot more in Jung's theory.
- From general psychologist's point of view, focusing on Jung is "circling around one thing." There is a lot more psychology in general.
- From general humanities scholar's point of view, focusing on psychology is "circling around one thing." There is a lot more than just psychology.*

Something that is broad for someone can seem rather narrow to someone else. This is obvious.





ferroequinologist said:


> It is this introversion/extraversion tension that defines Jung's system. Without that tension, there is no Jungian psychology. Without it, there is no MBTI, no Socionics (especially no Socionics).


I don't deny the tension at all. I just deny black/white logic here.



ferroequinologist said:


> And the strongest tension that exists is between the two orientations of the same function. This is the foundation. That is why your contention that Fi and Fe, for example would "get along" just confuses me.


I think that if you look into the relationship/relativity carefully, rather than purely regarding them as pure opposite, aka black and white, then you will start to see the whole picture better.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> What does any of this have to do with order? Yes you make a case for extraversion vs introversion, but not about internal vs external _​order._


I'm not sure that this is really the point, though. For me, as an IP, i.e. dominant introverted judger, internal order is absolutely essential. I tend to treasure and guard that over everything else. More importantly, IMO, insofar as the subject is concerned, I feel pretty helpless in being able to bring external order, and in particular, order in the realm of "Feeling". If conflict arises, I will likely do one of two things, either clam up or flee, or go all field marshal or medieval. I watch Fe types, and how they are able to "work" the atmosphere, and I cannot do that. I can "admire" their ability to do that, but honestly, I don't know how they can do that, just thinking about it is exhausting to me, and if I were to try, it _would_ be exhausting. And to really confuse me, the ones I know _want_ to do this, _enjoy_ doing this, and wouldn't have it any other way. I absolutely cannot relate to that at all. I am helpless at controlling the feeling atmosphere, and have no real interest or desire in that. 

That is me. However, for a dominant introverted perceiver, I really don't know. I would presume that there is a comparable need of some sort that relates to introverted perceiving, but I don't know what it is. I do know, however, that the IJ types I know also seek some sort of order or maybe freedom.... I can't say personally, as I am not such a type. But the truth is, because there are dominant introverted perceivers and dominant introverted judgers, I don't think that describing introversion in terms of order is the right way to go about it. IMO, the important element of introversion vs. extraversion is that movement. The goal of that movement would be different, depending on the function.

So, what does an introverted, dominant Pi type look for or desire? Interesting... I need internal order, but external freedom. Maybe an IJ type needs internal freedom but external order? HELP!!!


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

goamare said:


> What you have quoted is very well known here in PC forum. I am very aware of those descriptions. The thing is that you should be aware that Jung describes each function/type in sort of an "extreme" manner, to make his point clear.


I don't believe him when he says that. Why? Because he's too sure of his descriptions, and too willing to apply them. Why does he say this? It's called an escape hatch, or a disclaimer. Think about it. When people say to him, "that doesn't match me." Bang. Out comes the disclaimer. I really don't take his disclaimer too seriously for this reason. Sure, it's useful, and I think that, in many ways, when he is describing the "type" what he was really doing was describing the functions as they appear in people, but let's be honest. We all know people who are perfect fits for these descriptions, and, in fact, most people I know of these types fit very well. Of course, we are all human, and we are all unique, in that our environment and all have an impact on shaping us, but when you strip away all the content, and just watch people under the lens of Jung, he's surprisingly accurate. 

And now, to read the rest. I just had to comment on that.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

goamare said:


> I think that if you look into the relationship/relativity carefully, rather than purely regarding them as pure opposite, aka black and white, then you will start to see the whole picture better.


I think you are trying to box me in here, when the reality is, from my perspective, I'm not the one boxing things in here. You are trying to make a case that one prefers intuition over sensing or sensing over intuition, and that orientation is only secondary, so that a dominant extraverted intuit, for instance, would handle introverted intuition just as easily, or nearly as easily as extraverted intuition, and a dominant extraverting Feeling judger would prefer or handle introverted Feeling judgments far better than thinking judgments. This is, in essence, what you are trying to say. 

But Jungian psychology is absolutely not saying that. You so much as admit that, when you comment on my statement on the stress between the two orientations of intuition. But then you don't like my black and white (as you put it) take that the two are, in essence and fact incompatible. 

I will confess that, at a certain level, there is a grain of truth to that. All of us think. All of us intuit, all of us feel, and sense. All of this is true. All of us must introvert and all of us must extravert. And we can focus on one topic or subject, and circle around it, and try to understand or grasp it. But, as I've said before. None of that has to do with the psychological functions as defined or described by Jung, and which make up typology. I think that this is why the term "cognitive" function is misleading. Those are all a part of cognition, but they aren't defining within a person, or a part of the psyche. It's what we do to live and survive. For instance, I stink at math. That has nothing to do with type. My dad is most likely an ESFP, and he is a math wiz. He's brilliant. There are ISFPs who are good at math. I've done programming, and worked on logic. I find it fascinating and when I was doing it regularly, I was quite good at it. But let's be honest. That's not my forte. My wife is an INTP. She is the most amazing crocheter you could imagine, and has come up with some very unique things. But she just loves the actual making of them. It's a very (as far as I'm concerned) Si thing to do. She also makes an excellent hostess. She is quite capable at making guests feel at home, and creating a wonderful atmosphere for the guests, even those who have stayed longer than she would have liked. That is a very Fe activity. None of these things, IMO, are directly linked with what we are talking about. 

I say that because as Jung shows us, when there is a movement away from or toward, it creates what I have come to call tension. There is, to use another term, friction. If there is none of that--if there is no pressure on the psyche, I am not sure that we can properly talk about psychological functions. In other words, if there was only ME in this world, then could I be said to have a psychological type? How would I know? Who would be there to judge these things? How could I judge them, without some other object (person) who was different from me to create a sense that something is wrong or "off"? This is very important, IMO, to understanding Jung's theories. We tend to just read, and look at ourselves, and say "yeah, that's me!" or "I'm nothing like that." but honestly, what's one of the first things people start doing? They start typing everybody else they know! Why? Because _that_ is what really matters... Only people don't really think that through. The Functions only exist or become apparent when we are prodded and poked, when we are rubbed the wrong way, when we are made to feel uncomfortable. Yes, there is some of that within us--for instance, I always feel my lack when it comes to dealing with the future, or planning. But I dealt with it for years, and learned coping mechanisms and ways to make things work. We all do. But when we become conscious of them... well, that changes things. 

And that's my point. It is that tension that causes these things we call functions to manifest themselves. To try to undo or minimize that tension is to undo the theory right at its source.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> You are trying to make a case that one prefers intuition over sensing or sensing over intuition, and that orientation is only secondary, so that a dominant extraverted intuit, for instance, would handle introverted intuition just as easily, or nearly as easily as extraverted intuition, and a dominant extraverting Feeling judger would prefer or handle introverted Feeling judgments far better than thinking judgments. This is, in essence, what you are trying to say.
> 
> But Jungian psychology is absolutely not saying that.


Since I'm at work, I'll make this short for now. Here is a quote from Jung, take a look:



Jung said:


> My experience has taught me that individuals can quite generally be differentiated, not only by the universal difference of extra and introversion, *but also according to individual basic psychological functions*. For in the same measure as outer circumstances and inner disposition respectively promote a predominance of extraversion or introversion, they also favor *the predominance of one definite basic function* in the individual.
> 
> As basic functions, i.e. functions which are both genuinely as well as essentially differentiated from other functions, there exist thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. If one of these functions habitually prevails, *a corresponding type results. I therefore discriminate thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive types.* Every one of these types *can moreover be* introverted or extraverted according to his relation to the object in the way described above.


You are free to interpret this differently from me. Let me know.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

goamare said:


> Since I'm at work, I'll make this short for now. Here is a quote from Jung, take a look:


//Can you source that quote?//

Scratch that. I found it.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> //Can you source that quote?//
> 
> Scratch that. I found it.


How about this?



Jung said:


> When supremacy among the psychological functions is given to thinking, i.e. when the life of an individual is mainly ruled by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds from intellectually considered motives, or when there is at least a tendency to conform to such motives, we may fairly call this a thinking type.


Again, free to interpret it in your own way.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

@goamare I'm still curious if you could write out an example of Fi and Fe working together. I just want to know if it works.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

laurie17 said:


> @goamare I'm still curious if you could write out an example of Fi and Fe working together. I just want to know if it works.


You missed it.. Here:
#39

BTW, note that "higher preference" (e.g. those results you get from tests like keys2cognition functions test) may not necessarily mean "working together at the same time," if you know what I mean.
I'll repost a link about this matter:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...rder-completely-arbitrary-3.html#post14375386


----------

