# Exclusive "Te" characteristics



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

"Te" can multiply facts by looking at tried and tested models as a basis for evidence for a new unrelated model being generated. This is all in part of the characteristic of being able to source logic that is not directly evident from external reality. A short extract from Carl Jung:


> The thought of the extraverted thinking type is, positive, i.e. it produces. It either leads to new facts or to general conceptions of disparate experimental material. Its judgment is generally synthetic. Even when it analyses, it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the, analysis to a new combination, a further conception which reunites the analysed material in a new way or adds some., thing further to the given material.





> Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. judgment always presupposes a criterion ; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions, no matter whether this be directly represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally external and objective in origin. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education.


"Te" can pull facts out of its ass, its seems like a joke but its true. Well "Te" doesn't have to source its "objective data" from the external, like Ni's stereotype it can magic up facts by looking deep inside sourcing data internally. It can adopt "subjectively sanctioned" ideas as Jung pointed out. What ever is pointed to it is what is granted as the object, if that seems to be a strange but "sound" concept deep within a person, it can be sourced as evidence to justify a point. However at the same time it is important to note that not all of Te's facts are equal, just because evidence it provided, it doesn't mean that the "Te" types will trust it. There is a misconception amongst some "Ti" types that "Te"s do not independently craft their own understanding of an idea since if given facts from the external, they would naturally be taken for processing without manipulation; in that mode of thought "Ti" types are said to instead independently craft their logic instead, thus not taking strict/"rigid" adherence to that external model. Whilst that is true to an extent it doesn't quite acknowledge how "Te" types craft "understanding". 



> But essentially this thinking is no less fruitful and creative than introverted thinking, only its powers are in the service of other ends


"Te" can't reason on its own as it doesn't have a "subject" by default, its use in service serves of other ends. This means that it isn't the process that is directly responsible for crafting meaning. Initially this may not make sense that as a judgement it isn't responsible for crafting meaning directly. However a simple fact is that a "Te" type can take his model to another "Te" type and fail to sell his idea when the subject driving the models between the two are different. For example this can easily be notice when xSTJs and xNTJs disagree on a model of understanding whilst both respect the validity of the "Te" evidence produced. "Te" doesn't create understanding it merely a tool for which ever subjective function maybe using it. 

Psychological Types - Wikisocion


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> For example this can easily be notice when xSTJs and xNTJs disagree on a model of understanding whilst both respect the validity of the "Te" evidence produced.


It would be the same in all of the Te types, including EXFPs and IXFPs as well - in fact, it's probably the most pure in the inferior Te types, where it's very highly untainted by other consciously learned/conditioned elements of the person.



> "Te" can pull facts out of its ass, its seems like a joke but its true.


What does this even mean? I don't think this is true (if it references objective conditions of the real world, where does this fall in line? Jung pointed out that all of the extraverted functions are like "active imagination" in Ch. 10 of Psychological Types, which implies that people should be very good at using them "on-the-spot," outside of the protective incubation of their minds - is this what you're getting at on some level?). Understanding itself has nothing to do with any function in particular - it may involve some, or just involve a person's non-Jungian thinking (not a *process* like Jungian thinking). Hell, it can even click at the unconscious level (not intuition, btw).



> Te" can multiply facts by looking at tried and tested models as a basis for evidence for a new unrelated model being generated.


No. Te might give a person a strong locus of control over referencing facts, but it doesn't multiply anything. It draws connections and makes connections in a cause-and-effect manner (or just a divergent manner in general), like all of the other extraverted functions. So actually, it zeros in on information in a very dynamic way, while Ti would multiply facts into components of thought.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> It would be the same in all of the Te types, including EXFPs and IXFPs as well - in fact, it's probably the most pure in the inferior Te types, where it's very highly untainted by other consciously learned/conditioned elements of the person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your critique doesn't even adhere to the same evidence I put there, I find it difficult to even take it seriously. Even Celebrity Type even said so and I've got the quote there for you to see. You are just digging "facts" from your internal objects which make sense to you. Something which I've noted is a characteristic of "Te".


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Your critique doesn't even adhere to the same evidence I put there, I find it difficult to even take it seriously. Even Celebrity Type even said so and I've got the quote there for you to see. You are just digging "facts" from your internal objects which make sense to you. Something which I've noted is a characteristic of "Te".


Yeah, and Celebrity Type is a more credible source than Carl Jung, lol. Internal objects would probably be stored and re-arranged in the imagination itself based on the data extracted from the environment toward the ego via the extraverted functions. Those functions aren't internal - their products can be, but they can never be.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yeah, and Celebrity Type is a more credible source than Carl Jung, lol. Internal objects would probably be stored and re-arranged in the imagination itself based on the data extracted from the environment toward the ego via the extraverted functions. Those functions aren't internal - their products can be, but they can never be.


Its your interpretation of "Jung" vs Celebrity Types interpretation of him, which really seems more reliable? Stop taking this personally, it ruins your point of view further than it appears to be. I'm guessing you have some intricate model in your mind which feels right and you are feeling frustrated about having to prove it since it sounds like crystal clear fact.

Good luck on that


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

This kind of thread hurts my head, although i enjoy reading all the responses in hopes of learning something new. What i have learned to date with Ti-Te is the way they process and express themselves. Not making any generalizations here, although for me personally i know when someone is using Ti by the fact it reads almost backwards in my thinking process. This causes me frustration and millions of misunderstandings. If i read it over and over again i might come to some kind of resolution the angle they are coming from, but if i don't really listen and try and put pieces together, i'm going left while their going right sort of speak. That language ( or process )is not naturally for me, because it doesn't align with how i would naturally process. Te just makes perfect sense to me overall.

Anywho these thread are interesting even with different perspectives


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Its your interpretation of "Jung" vs Celebrity Types interpretation of him, which really seems more reliable? Stop taking this personally, it ruins your point of view further than it appears to be. I'm guessing you have some intricate model in your mind which feels right and you are feeling frustrated about having to prove it since it sounds like crystal clear fact.
> 
> Good luck on that


I love how your post here is 100% projection. Good luck with owning the projections. My point is, that I have no idea how it's possible from your explanation to say that Te can be internal. Obviously, everything related to the human brain is internal, essentially, so what are you trying to prove? I have a feeling we're coming from very different perspectives (schools of thought) on the functions.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Or, perhaps we've just tied the knot in our interpretations (I really do seriously hate how Te gets painted as something that looks almost like the antithesis of a thinking function for whatever the reasons).


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Or, perhaps we've just tied the knot in our interpretations (I really do seriously hate how Te gets painted as something that looks almost like the antithesis of a thinking function for whatever the reasons).


Me too, the only reason why I actually forced myself to read Jung's stuff was because I didn't want to believe that "Ti" was superior to "Te" as it is commonly mistaken. DaveSuperPowers was all over the place with his random stereotypes, especially when he implied that only "Ti" guys can think. Apparent INTJs are suppose to be doers, they supposedly can't be at the fore point of discovery since that was a role for the "thinker" that INTPs fit perfectly.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Me too, the only reason why I actually forced myself to read Jung's stuff was because I didn't want to believe that "Ti" was superior to "Te" as it is commonly mistaken. DaveSuperPowers was all over the place with his random stereotypes, especially when he implied that only "Ti" guys can think. Apparent INTJs are suppose to be doers, they supposedly can't be at the fore point of discovery since that was a role for the "thinker" that INTPs fit perfectly.


Oh yeah, that Ti supremacy silliness definitely got me more Jung obsessive as well (I've been to begin with, but that _really_ did it for me - heh, I guess having intellectual obsessions makes me a mistyped Ti type now - NOT). I always thought the "doer" associations with Te were downright ridiculous - I'm usually a pretty horrendous doer (I can remember being really slow to carry out chemistry experiments in chemistry class, where my INFP lab partner was much quicker in the application department here). Isn't DaveSuperPowers supposedly an INTJ (and supposedly the guy who was convinced that sensors' eyes demonstrate a more primitive mentality in them due to their dominant function - if not, this guy was similar to who I think DaveSP might've been)?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Oh yeah, that Ti supremacy silliness definitely got me more Jung obsessive as well (I've been to begin with, but that _really_ did it for me - heh, I guess having intellectual obsessions makes me a mistyped Ti type now - NOT). I always thought the "doer" associations with Te were downright ridiculous - I'm usually a pretty horrendous doer (I can remember being really slow to carry out chemistry experiments in chemistry class, where my INFP lab partner was much quicker in the application department here). Isn't DaveSuperPowers supposedly an INTJ (and supposedly the guy who was convinced that sensors' eyes demonstrate a more primitive mentality in them due to their dominant function - if not, this guy was similar to who I think DaveSP might've been)?


Socionics says the truth when it says that "Ni"s don't do enough living we've got inertia issues. Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion plus ENTJs are said to be very similar to their introverted counterparts with the only exception that they start with the facts before intuiting, they aren't seen to be really different or intellectually inferior as suggested by MBTI's stereotypes.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Socionics says the truth when it says that "Ni" don't do enough living we've got inertia issues. Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion plus ENTJs are said to be very similar to their introverted counterparts with the only exception that they starts with the facts before intuiting, they aren't seen to be really different or intellectually inferior as suggested by MBTI's stereotypes.


Yeah, the ENTJ stereotypes are so out-in-left-field, I tend to wonder if some disgruntled Fi dominants (or even Ti dominants) with agendas write those. The ENTJs I know tend to be highly intelligent people who are really sharp with being able to come to accurate conclusions on the spot from logical presumptions.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

On a random side note, it seriously cracks me up (and disturbs me even more all-at-once) how the Fe dominants on that Socionics website get painted like all-talk, no substance politicians who can get away with not using logic (so, technically, this would make them clinically insane, since lack of logic is the hallmark of an irrational state of mind) and throwing empty rhetoric out while they act like their functioning from intensive hormonal reactions. I know tons of Fe dominant professors who are nothing like this (they aren't oblivious to the events and what's going on around them either like that description entails - I don't even know how anyone can survive like this). Good grief, it's a wonder I'm a Jungian purist at this point.


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

This thread is really dark, colourless, etc. Why no avatar?

Jung, what's your opinion on Socionics? You deem it unworthy?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

esq said:


> This thread is really dark. Why no avatar?
> 
> Jung, what's your opinion on Socionics? You deem it unworthy?


You talking to me? If so, well, I think it's sort of this oversimplified system like MBTI that tries harder to adhere to Jungian principles, which is good, but in trying to depict the functions, does it in a bit of a crude, stereotypical way (in other words, it tries too hard to animate the functions to assign them to the real world, but also tries to dumb it down for the public, while getting a bit overly presumptuous about their manifestations and what they might mean for different types, which is inevitably what happens with type descriptions anyway, since they don't use real people to verify them with or assign the descriptions/ideas/principles to instead). It's like a more sophisticated take on MBTI, but I think MBTI frankly does a better job of representing the individual functions (it's less presumptuous about the *functions*, anyway). They're both rough and cartoony when it comes to representing real people.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> "Te" can multiply facts by looking at tried and tested models as a basis for evidence for a new unrelated model being generated. This is all in part of the characteristic of being able to source logic that is not directly evident from external reality. ...
> 
> "Te" can pull facts out of its ass, its seems like a joke but its true. Well "Te" doesn't have to source its "objective data" from the external, like Ni's stereotype it can magic up facts by looking deep inside sourcing data internally. It can adopt "subjectively sanctioned" ideas as Jung pointed out.


Um, yeah, speaking of pulling stuff out of one's ass...

You want to talk about Te? Let's talk about Te.

First of all, I don't think anybody really follows Jung's conception of Te very closely today, including cognitive function theorists like Nardi, Berens and Thomson. Jung didn't miss the boat as badly on Te as he did on, say, Si, but Myers (rightly) corrected him in major respects, and Nardi, Berens and (I think) virtually all modern cognitive function theorists pretty much incorporate Myers' improvements. But — setting that issue aside for the moment — assuming someone was interested in learning about Jung's original conception of Te, your OP would certainly be a poor place to start.

FYI, Jung believed there were two very different categories of ideas that constitute products of "extraverted thinking." Both kinds are extraverted by virtue of the fact that they basically come from outside the subject, but they _come from outside_ in two completely different ways.

The first category is ideas that constitute what Jung called "concretistic" thinking, by which he meant ideas that are very closely tied to external physical facts, with a relatively low level (at most) of _abstraction_. As Jung explained, concretistic thinking involves concepts that are "not abstract, not segregated, not thought 'in itself,' but ... still embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception." Jung noted that, "o far as the recognition of facts is concerned this orientation is naturally of value, but not as regards the _interpretation_ of facts and their relation to the individual. Concretism sets too high a value on the importance of facts and suppresses the freedom of the individual for the sake of objective data." Not to put too fine a point on it, Jung thought extraverts _in general_ (not just Te-doms) tended to be somewhat crippled thinkers when it came to dealing with highly abstract concepts.

And the second category of ideas that Jung said could be products of extraverted thinking are more abstract ("purely ideal") ideas that "come from outside" as far as the particular thinker is concerned because _he didn't think of them himself_, but got them from external sources — ideas "borrowed from outside, i.e., ... transmitted by tradition and education," as Jung described it. Jung viewed extraverted thinking types as conservative traditionalists when it came to their abstract ideals. He said they tended to adopt the "generally accepted ideas" of the time rather than coming up with original ideas of their own.

In your OP, you completely misinterpret the sentence where Jung refers to "subjectively sanctioned" ideas. Here's the sentence in context (from the _Collected Works_ translation, which superseded the original Baynes translation):



Jung said:


> Judgment always presupposes a criterion; for the extraverted judgment, the criterion supplied by external conditions is the valid and determining one, no matter whether it be represented directly by an objective, perceptible fact or by an objective idea; for an objective idea is equally determined by external data or borrowed from outside *even when it is subjectively sanctioned*. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education. So in judging whether a particular thinking is extraverted or not we must first ask: by what criterion does it judge—does it come from outside, or is its origin subjective?


What Jung says is that an idea that's a product of Te is either "determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned." And in the next sentence, he explains, "Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education."

In other words, again, Jung viewed "extraverted thinking" as either involving (1) ideas that were "embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception" at the expense of subjective interpretation, or (2) more abstract ideas that the extraverted thinker "borrowed" from outside because they were the "generally accepted ideas" of his time and place, rather than abstract ideas that he came up with himself. The "subjectively sanctioned" reference that you completely misunderstood was Jung explaining that the fact that the Te-dom ends up "subjectively sanctioning" an idea — i.e., deciding that he personally agrees with it — doesn't change the fact that _the idea's source was external_, because otherwise, as far as Jung was concerned, it wouldn't constitute "extraverted thinking."

===================================

And while I have your attention, let me expand on my initial comment that almost nobody today — with the exception of annoyingly uninformed internet forumites — makes use of Jung's original conception of Te.

Who are the Te-doms (in terms of the MBTI types)? ESTJs and ENTJs. Do ESTJs tend to be somewhat fact-oriented "concrete" thinkers? Yep; that's pretty much their S at work, right? And do their ideas tend to be largely "borrowed from outside" (conventional/traditional)? Yep; they're SJs, right? You could see an ESTJ squawking that some of Jung's characterizations sell him short (in terms of abstract thinking ability, for example), but still, so far (at least arguably) so good. But wait... what about ENTJs? Oops. Concretistic thinkers? Not hardly. Tending to mostly favor conventional/traditional ideas "borrowed from outside"? Well, no, actually. And the main problem is that extraversion, as Jung conceived it, was what we today would think of as more of a combination of E and S. So Jung's "extraverted thinkers" weren't E_TJs; his description really only works (to the extent that it does) for ESTJs.

And Myers recognized that. After a short chapter in Gifts Differing where she dutifully provided four pages of tables summarizing Jung's conceptions of the cognitive functions (including, for Te, "Is fed from objective data — facts and borrowed ideas"; and "Depends upon the facts of experience and regards the abstract idea as unsubstantial and of negligible importance"), she went on to _abandon_ those aspects of Jung's characterization in her own descriptions of E_TJs (except, to a limited extent, in her ESTJ description). Myers' description of ENTJs aptly notes that they "look at the world with intuition rather than sensing, so they are mainly interested in the possibilities beyond the present, obvious or known," singles out their "tolerance for theory" and "taste for complex problems" and says they're "likely to be expert at finding new solutions."

To Myers, E_TJs were "analytical and impersonal" types driven to "organize the facts — and everything else within reach." She said they're "decisive, logical, strong in reasoning power," "aim to govern their own conduct and other people's in accordance with thought-out conclusions," and "value truth in the form of fact, formula, and method."

Look at, say, Berens' or Thomson's descriptions of Te and ENTJs and ESTJs and you'll see that they basically adopt Myers' adjustments to Jung — including her all-important transplantation of abstract/concrete from I/E to N/S.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@_reckful_
"Nardi, Berens and Thomson..." if someone work is garbage it is so regardless of what time it is in. They are creating their own theories where they create their own subjective truth. They have their own theories from what I've seen and its not really conclusive. 

Your critique does nothing really, you still don't understand what "subjectively sanctification" ideas is but what ever works for you.

You really misunderstand Jung and way this isn't the first time people have attempted to dump Nardi's material without much thought. From what I've seen he hasn't really found solid ground and he has practically started to create his own theory where the functions are different. He seems like he is trying to coerce his data around the ideas his presented. Nardi is some kind of Ti type when typing him according to Jung's definition of the functions (he might be possibly extroverted but that might be another story). Had nardi been a Te type, I would expect his introverted perception to coerce itself losely around the poor facts his found. Jung's generally looks more impressive than his since he actually attempted to adhere as strictly as possible, to the object. 

I'm actually hoping that my dissertation doesn't actually lean towards the subjective, the way I may want to coerce the objective to suit my subjective understanding. But that is a random lesson I've learnt from Jung.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> @reckful
> "Nardi, Berens and Thomson..." if someone work is garbage it is so regardless of what time it is in. They are creating their own theories where they create their own subjective truth. They have their own theories from what I've seen and its not really conclusive.
> 
> Your critique does nothing really, you still don't understand what "subjectively sanctification" ideas is but what ever works for you.


As I suspect you know (unless you barely read my post, which I suppose is a distinct possibility), the fact that Myers adjusted Jung — and that Nardi, Berens, Thomson and others have essentially followed her lead — was a secondary point in my post, the main part of which explained how, "setting that issue aside," your OP badly mischaracterized Jung's original conception of Te.

And, as I suspect you also know, and not surprisingly, your latest post is a total non-reply on that issue.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

reckful said:


> As I suspect you know (unless you barely read my post, which I suppose is a distinct possibility), the fact that Myers adjusted Jung — and that Nardi, Berens, Thomson and others have essentially followed her lead — was a secondary point in my post, the main part of which explained how, "setting that issue aside," your OP badly mischaracterized Jung's original conception of Te.
> 
> And, as I suspect you also know, and not surprisingly, your latest post is a total non-reply on that issue.


I read your post son, I actually spent a couple of minutes digesting it, trying to understand the logic, evidence that guided your perception; naturally since I didn't agree with it. And what I realized is the issue of multiplying "facts" that Te is well known for is also in your model of understanding where you ascend Nardi and Myers work based on the fact that it is a lot more recent than Jung; I'm not really buying some of those facts you've multiplied from your psyche. If the evidence is crystal clear, without any gap feeling from the subjectively sanctioned, I'm able to see so, as naturally my Te follows the highest order of evidence confirmed by objective reality. However in truth this isn't always easy to attain hence facts are naturally multiplied.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

reckful said:


> As I suspect you know (unless you barely read my post, which I suppose is a distinct possibility), the fact that Myers adjusted Jung — and that Nardi, Berens, Thomson and others have essentially followed her lead — was a secondary point in my post, the main part of which explained how, "setting that issue aside," your OP badly mischaracterized Jung's original conception of Te.
> 
> And, as I suspect you also know, and not surprisingly, your latest post is a total non-reply on that issue.


You left the edits I had made as I'd continued to think about your position and how I came to a conclusion on Nardi. The guy still has a lot of work to do under his belt and he must lesson his orientation towards the subjective.


> Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. judgment always presupposes a criterion ; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions, no matter whether this be directly represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally external and objective in origin. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education.


Plus dude you left out the punctuation in "Jung" description that points to evidence created by Te having a subjective sanction. I don't know how don't realize that the idea of "Te" pulling evidence out of its ass makes sense. Its like a "Te" type saying god exists/doesn't exists using subjective premises, subjectively sanctioned ideas that can make both either part be certain that they have the superior answers as to their chosen position over god's existance or non existance. 

That is all part of the multiplying facts aspect that "Te" has, a person can take an inconclusive subject model and use it as evidence (in which process the "objectification" process emerges).


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@_reckful_ 
MBTI ruined a lot of Jung's work as they tried to make it more accessible to people. Socionics which came later does fair job of adhering to most of Jung's principles which were sound by the way. Jung was very objective and his work is of a high quality, the guys in the modern age have advantage of trying to bridge his work with neuroscience but from the looks of it they don't really have things that are firmly concrete. Most of the theories in neuroscience are bull shit when actually trying to apply them to a meaningful concept, as my dissertation is in A.I. I've learnt quite a lot that in my field the theories from biology are largely shunned when trying to adapt the techniques for A.I.; neural networks could not even make sense for programmers as they do in biology which is why ANN (artificial neural networks) were created trying to the add benefits the principle had.


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

Celebrity Types is an acceptable source of information but Nardi, Berens, and Myers are not?


*confused*


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

ChanceyRose said:


> Celebrity Types is an acceptable source of information but Nardi, Berens, and Myers are not?
> 
> 
> *confused*


They are not, just different, they seem to have different definitions of the functions. They say that the shadow functions rise to consciousness from the subconscious, apparently everyone has 8 functions. But Jung says that the subconscious (Shadow) functions remain in the there; Yet they always rise to prominence. At first that seems contradictory since if one assumes that the "subconscious" part of a person is always hidden. However that wasn't the definition since the subconscious is the part of the psyche that people have no conscious control over, hence the principle of where lie detectors come from (all influenced by Jung, who even made tests in the pasts without the proper equipment used nowadays).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> @_reckful_
> MBTI ruined a lot of Jung's work as they tried to make it more accessible to people.


My post partly described the _corrections_ (particularly from an ENTJ's standpoint) Myers made to Jung's original conception of Te, some of which followed from her recognition that Jung had mixed together two components (at least) of human temperament (I/E and N/S) in his broad and (overly) multifaceted conceptions of introversion and extraversion.

Were it not for Isabel Myers' work, it's quite possible few of this forum's members would ever have heard of Jung's ideas about personality. As I understand it, Psychological Types received a relatively unappreciative reception from the psychological community and mostly languished for years until Myers developed her typology, which reflected countless corrections and improvements to Jung's ideas. Properly understood, and as a theory for understanding the normal-range aspects of personality that tend to remain relatively stable over a lifetime, the Myers-Briggs typology represented a big advance beyond Psychological Types. Fifty years and many studies later, Myers' four dichotomies (three of which differ significantly from Jung's original conceptions of them) have generally been found to exhibit reasonable degrees of validity and reliability (by the soft-science standards of personality psychology) and appear to be tapping into four of the Big Five factors of personality. The fact that the Big Five typology was independently developed, also has many years of accumulated data behind it, and has ended up lining up reasonably well with the MBTI dichotomies — which Myers described _earlier_ — is further confirmation of the impressiveness of Briggs' and Myers' insights in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff, making a number of appropriate corrections and expansions, and shifting the central focus from the eight functions to the four dichotomies.

Meanwhile, how are Jung's eight cognitive functions doing in the academic community?

Well, McCrae and Costa are probably the most prominent Big Five psychologists, and on top of concluding (see this article) that the four MBTI dichotomies are essentially (albeit with some variation) tapping into four of the five Big Five factors (and that the accumulated data provides reasonable support for the MBTI dichotomies), they've also pointed out that "the MBTI may be looked upon as an advance over Jung's largely untested speculations," and that Jung's original conceptions of the types are not supported by the data.

And here's a recent article from a journal published by the owners of the MBTI in which James Reynierse notes that there are now decades of studies (including some of his own) that provide support for the four MBTI dichotomies, as compared to an almost complete lack of support for the cognitive functions. Reynierse concludes that the cognitive functions constitute what he calls a "category mistake," and explains why. You might want to open your mind and take a look.

It's clear from your posts that your own understanding of Jung's ideas, and of the adjustments Briggs and Myers made to them, isn't even close to being sufficient for you to be making the kind of overall assessment of the MBTI that you made in your latest post.

As one example, my first post pointed out how far off your OP was in its misinterpretation of Jung's conception of Te. And the fact that you continue to refuse to either admit you were wrong or defend your interpretation — meanwhile making irrelevant remarks about Nardi (who I'm no fan of) and AI and the MBTI "ruining a lot of Jung's work" — suggests to me you've got integrity issues compounding your ignorance.

=======================================

As a final note, and so I'm not misunderstood: Notwithstanding what McCrae and Costa and Reynierse may have concluded about the eight "cognitive functions," I haven't taken a definite, final position that they're a complete mistake, and I certainly don't think anyone else is currently in a position to say that their nonexistence has been firmly established. But in the face of internet forumites who assert (or imply) that the cognitive functions are what it's really all about and/or that the four MBTI dichotomies are some kind of dumbed-down and/or superficial overlay that was just formulated for testing purposes or that's mostly comprised of silly behavioral stereotypes or bla bla bla, I'm often moved to point out that, outside the internet forum echo chamber, the four dichotomies remain the elements of Jungian/MBTI typology that are better supported by the data and more widely accepted in the psychological community.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

reckful said:


> My post partly described the _corrections_ (particularly from an ENTJ's standpoint) Myers made to Jung's original conception of Te, some of which followed from her recognition that Jung had mixed together two components (at least) of human temperament (I/E and N/S) in his broad and (overly) multifaceted conceptions of introversion and extraversion.
> 
> Were it not for Isabel Myers' work, it's quite possible few of this forum's members would ever have heard of Jung's ideas about personality. As I understand it, Psychological Types received a relatively unappreciative reception from the psychological community and mostly languished for years until Myers developed her typology, which reflected countless corrections and improvements to Jung's ideas. Properly understood, and as a theory for understanding the normal-range aspects of personality that tend to remain relatively stable over a lifetime, the Myers-Briggs typology represented a big advance beyond Psychological Types. Fifty years and many studies later, Myers' four dichotomies (three of which differ significantly from Jung's original conceptions of them) have generally been found to exhibit reasonable degrees of validity and reliability (by the soft-science standards of personality psychology) and appear to be tapping into four of the Big Five factors of personality. The fact that the Big Five typology was independently developed, also has many years of accumulated data behind it, and has ended up lining up reasonably well with the MBTI dichotomies — which Myers described _earlier_ — is further confirmation of the impressiveness of Briggs' and Myers' insights in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff, making a number of appropriate corrections and expansions, and shifting the central focus from the eight functions to the four dichotomies.
> 
> ...


Socionics makes more sense in comparison to MBTI. You still remain stubborn but I guess you are coming from other subjective definitions, you refuse to see past throught it. You have multiplied your facts upto a point were you simply realised they are untranslatable to others, something Jung noted I don't know ho you can't see through that.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@_reckful_
http://leadu-library.com/mj/2007/club/MBTI/MBTI-5factor.pdf
Matey the article above is merely somebody's subjective analysis that does very little to create any objective truth. They are merely trying to coerce they data into their own subjective analysis. There is too much objective data missing hence the interpretation is strongly leaned to their desired subjective position. The big 5 personality theory is just too subjective. 

This just one of the reasons why people largely look down on psychology, there is very little objectivity. Hence the neuro network example I'd pulled up.

MBTI is largely crippled and that isn't really news once you start to look at it, socionics is a lot more sound than it; but again psychology generally suffers from the same flaws.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@reckful


> And here's a recent article from a journal published by the owners of the MBTI in which James Reynierse notes that there are now decades of studies (including some of his own) that provide support for the four MBTI dichotomies, as compared to an almost complete lack of support for the cognitive functions. Reynierse concludes that the cognitive functions constitute what he calls a "category mistake," and explains why. You might want to open your mind and take a look.


This article was largely a huge waste of my time, starting from the abstract and going to the conclusion. His category mistake accusation is either inconclusive or clearly stating the obvious fact that Jung could never be able to get into people's minds finding hard science evidence for his claims.


----------



## tower (Nov 2, 2016)

reckful said:


> What Jung says is that an idea that's a product of Te is either "determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned." And in the next sentence, he explains, "Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education."


Even when "subjectively sanctioned", in what sense?

Anyway, this description seems to work for me as MBTI TJ type, too. 




> And the main problem is that extraversion, as Jung conceived it, was what we today would think of as more of a combination of E and S. So Jung's "extraverted thinkers" weren't E_TJs; his description really only works (to the extent that it does) for ESTJs.


No, this description is not about ESTJs or ENTJs, it's about "pure" Te as dominant function. Don't expect it to fit either ESTJs or ENTJs in that form. It's not meant to.




> Myers' description of ENTJs aptly notes that they "look at the world with intuition rather than sensing, so they are mainly interested in the possibilities beyond the present, obvious or known," singles out their "tolerance for theory" and "taste for complex problems" and says they're "likely to be expert at finding new solutions."


This is simply because of what the quote itself says - the ENTJ has intuition too, not just Te.




> To Myers, E_TJs were "analytical and impersonal" types driven to "organize the facts — and everything else within reach." She said they're "decisive, logical, strong in reasoning power," "aim to govern their own conduct and other people's in accordance with thought-out conclusions," and "value truth in the form of fact, formula, and method."


Yes, this fits Jung's Te well.




> Look at, say, Berens' or Thomson's descriptions of Te and ENTJs and ESTJs and you'll see that they basically adopt Myers' adjustments to Jung — including her all-important transplantation of abstract/concrete from I/E to N/S.


Clearly, the abstract/concrete thing isn't really the issue there. 

Anyway, there are different meanings of these words. So it depends on which meaning is used here as to whether it's I/E or N/S or whatever else. Not that I care about these nuances, just saying.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

tower said:


> No, this description is not about ESTJs or ENTJs, it's about "pure" Te as dominant function. Don't expect it to fit either ESTJs or ENTJs in that form. It's not meant to.


One of the lamer canards that pops up with semi-regularity at internet forums is the one that says that Jung's type descriptions in Chapter 10 of Psychological Types were "extreme" (or otherwise unusual) portraits that wouldn't much resemble typical people of the applicable type. And really, when you think about it, WTF sense would that have made? Jung spent most of Psychological Types talking about the things he saw as common to _all introverts_ and _all extraverts_. Chapter 10 is the _only_ place where he gave us anything like in-depth descriptions of his eight functions. Why on earth would he not have described what he viewed as the more or less _typical_ characteristics of his types?

And he did.

And when somebody's confused on that issue, it usually turns out that the source of their confusion is a misinterpretation of this Jung passage from Chapter 10, which comes at the start of his discussion of the auxiliary function:

In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which *single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced*. Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance [— i.e., the auxiliary function —] is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.​
What Jung is saying in this passage is that his eight portraits are artifically "pure" portraits in the sense of leaving out the "individual features" that tend to distinguish, say, one Te-dom from another Te-dom —and, most notably, a Te-dom with an N-aux from a Te-dom with an S-aux. (It's important to remember that the sentence about the "pure form" was at the start of the paragraph where Jung introduces the reader to the auxiliary function.)

And by contrast, when it comes to the characteristics that derive from Te, and will therefore tend to found in Te-doms generally (i.e., ENTJs and ESTJs _both_), Jung says that his portraits concentrate on "the common and therefore typical features" of the type. So it makes no sense to claim that the features Jung described as "common" and "typical" of Te-doms were features he thought would only show up in rare cases.

As a final (maybe) clarification with respect to the relationship between the "purity" Jung is referring to and the auxiliary function, please note that there's a big difference between saying (1) that Jung's _portraits_ are artificially "pure" in the sense of omitting the features that would vary depending on _which_ auxiliary function someone had, and (2) that the _people_ Jung is describing are the "pure" people who _don't have an auxiliary function_. Jung makes it clear that he thought it was overwhelmingly _typical_ to have an auxiliary function — and in fact, he went so far as to say (at the end of the passage I quoted) that an auxiliary function is "invariably present in consciousness." So... there's no way Jung would have described Te characteristics that were only present in some rare no-auxiliary-function subset of Te-doms as characteristics that were the "common and therefore typical" features of the type.

If you're interested, you can find a somewhat longer discussion of this issue here.


----------



## tower (Nov 2, 2016)

reckful said:


> One of the lamer canards that pops up with semi-regularity at internet forums


I don't think there is a need to use personal qualifiers like "lamer".




> is the one that says that Jung's type descriptions in Chapter 10 of Psychological Types were "extreme" (or otherwise unusual) portraits that wouldn't much resemble typical people of the applicable type. And really, when you think about it, WTF sense would that have made? Jung spent most of Psychological Types talking about the things he saw as common to _all introverts_ and _all extraverts_. Chapter 10 is the _only_ place where he gave us anything like in-depth descriptions of his eight functions. Why on earth would he not have described what he viewed as the more or less _typical_ characteristics of his types?


Strawman. This is not what I was talking about. Same issue with the post you linked to.

It should be obvious that the description of "pure" Te as a dominant function means that it's about the typical characteristics of the Te-dom type. Without any auxiliary added.




> In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which *single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced*. Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance [— i.e., the auxiliary function —] is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.
> 
> What Jung is saying in this passage is that his eight portraits are artifically "pure" portraits in the sense of leaving out the "individual features" that tend to distinguish, say, one Te-dom from another Te-dom —and, most notably, a Te-dom with an N-aux from a Te-dom with an S-aux. (It's important to remember that the sentence about the "pure form" was at the start of the paragraph where Jung introduces the reader to the auxiliary function.)


Yes this was my point.




> And by contrast, when it comes to the characteristics that derive from Te, and will therefore tend to found in Te-doms generally (i.e., ENTJs and ESTJs _both_), Jung says that his portraits concentrate on "the common and therefore typical features" of the type. So it makes no sense to claim that the features Jung described as "common" and "typical" of Te-doms were features he thought would only show up in rare cases.


Where did I claim such a thing that it's about some rarity?




> As a final (maybe) clarification with respect to the relationship between the "purity" Jung is referring to and the auxiliary function, please note that there's a big difference between saying (1) that Jung's _portraits_ are artificially "pure" in the sense of omitting the features that would vary depending on _which_ auxiliary function someone had, and (2) that the _people_ Jung is describing are the "pure" people who _don't have an auxiliary function_. Jung makes it clear that he thought it was overwhelmingly _typical_ to have an auxiliary function — and in fact, he went so far as to say (at the end of the passage I quoted) that an auxiliary function is "invariably present in consciousness." So... there's no way Jung would have described Te characteristics that were only present in some rare no-auxiliary-function subset of Te-doms as characteristics that were the "common and therefore typical" features of the type.


My point was interpretation (1). It's just a description with exaggerated typical characteristics of the dominant function, yeah, so don't expect it to fit 100% the ESTJ or the ENTJ because those are profiles with other nuances added (from the auxiliary).

One more note on your other post you linked to. I don't subscribe to Jung blindly. So don't stereotype me into that category of people. Otoh, I think you don't want to own up to the fact that Myers got quite a bit wrong too.  I myself don't see either system as the Bible.


Anyway. I had a question for you, can you answer it? How is "subjectively sanctioned" meant for the jungian Te-dom? Just simply what you said in your other post, that the Te-dom personally accepts the external idea? Does the jungian Ti-dom think of every single idea themselves?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

That moment you realise someone's about to be converted over to the dichotomies. 
:hopelessness:


Run, istj! 
Quickly, while there's still time!

:laughing:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

tower said:


> Where did I claim such a thing that it's about some rarity?
> ...
> My point was interpretation (1). It's just a description with exaggerated typical characteristics of the dominant function, yeah, so don't expect it to fit 100% the ESTJ or the ENTJ because those are profiles with other nuances added (from the auxiliary).
> ...
> Anyway. I had a question for you, can you answer it? How is "subjectively sanctioned" meant for the jungian Te-dom? Just simply what you said in your other post, that the Te-dom personally accepts the external idea? Does the jungian Ti-dom think of every single idea themselves?


I disagree that Jung meant that the Te characteristics that he described as "the common and therefore typical features" of Te-doms were _exaggerated_ in his portraits. He just meant that his portraits were _incomplete_, because they didn't include the _additional_ characteristics that would be characteristic of Te-doms with a particular auxiliary.

And I had no way of knowing exactly what you meant by your reference to a "pure" type, but there is (as I said) a frequently-encountered canard at internet forums where people refer to "pure" Jungian types as a relatively unusual phenomenon, and claim that those are the only people that are really well captured by Jung's Chapter 10 descriptions.

And I'm always happy to put in my contrary $0.02 on that issue for any interested thread readers, regardless of whether that group included you in this particular case.

On your last question, in the context of that Te-dom description, yes, when Jung wrote "even when it is subjectively sanctioned," he was just noting that the fact that an individual Te-dom has _accepted_ the idea doesn't keep it from being extraverted if it was essentially "determined by" (or "borrowed from") the outside, rather than being a product of the the internally-focused process that Jung viewed as introverted thinking.

But on the other hand, I certainly assume Jung didn't think that a Ti-dom "thinks of every single idea themselves." That just sounds like a straw-manny question to me. And I assume that he also didn't think that a Te-dom _never_ comes up with an original (individually-sourced) idea.


----------



## tower (Nov 2, 2016)

Kyn said:


> That moment you realise someone's about to be converted over to the dichotomies.
> :hopelessness:
> 
> Run, istj!
> ...


Haha um what made you think this?




reckful said:


> I disagree that Jung meant that the Te characteristics that he described as "the common and therefore typical features" of Te-doms were _exaggerated_ in his portraits. He just meant that his portraits were _incomplete_, because they didn't include the _additional_ characteristics that would be characteristic of Te-doms with a particular auxiliary.


He said it's general characteristics, so yes, in that sense it will most definitely be exaggerated. I meant nothing more and nothing less. Yes, it will not include the additional characteristics which is what I already said.

So, that's why his Te-dom profile doesn't entirely match ENTJ or ESTJ and this is actually to be expected. Which doesn't mean Jung was right in everything, either. Or MBTI. Etc.




> And I had no way of knowing exactly what you meant by your reference to a "pure" type, but there is (as I said) a frequently-encountered canard at internet forums where people refer to "pure" Jungian types as a relatively unusual phenomenon, and claim that those are the only people that are really well captured by Jung's Chapter 10 descriptions.


Well but you understand now that I'm not in that group. Next time maybe you don't want to jump the gun so fast.




> And I'm always happy to put in my contrary $0.02 on that issue for any interested thread readers, regardless of whether that group included you in this particular case.


Sure, no problem.




> On your last question, in the context of that Te-dom description, yes, when Jung wrote "even when it is subjectively sanctioned," he was just noting that the fact that an individual Te-dom has _accepted_ the idea doesn't keep it from being extraverted if it was essentially "determined by" (or "borrowed from") the outside, rather than being a product of the the internally-focused process that Jung viewed as introverted thinking.
> 
> But on the other hand, I certainly assume Jung didn't think that a Ti-dom "thinks of every single idea themselves." That just sounds like a straw-manny question to me. And I assume that he also didn't think that a Te-dom _never_ comes up with an original (individually-sourced) idea.


I was just curious about this phrasing by Jung. Let me explain below but first, yes, I did word it less than perfectly where I referred to it as the Ti-dom thinking of all ideas themselves, I should have said just Ti as in, the Ti function, not Ti-dom. Since, I would think the Te-dom still has Ti too in the "background", the Thinking process is just mainly extraverted in the consciousness. And vice versa, for Ti-dom with Te. IIRC Jung did say something like this, too.

So how the Te-dom accepts the idea _subjectively_, not simply _accepting _it, but _accepting it subjectively_ without using the Ti process for that is what I found interesting here. My guess is still that Jung may have meant that the Te will still have the introverted side behind.

There's a model in another theory (Socionics) that says both Ti and Te will be able to take ideas from outside, just Ti will process differently. I would think that's much clearer btw than Jung's model. I would still not see it as a perfect model but I like this change in it.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

tower said:


> Haha um what made you think this?


 @reckful is a dichotomies guy. He doesn't believe in functions. He squashes functionite's swiftly with 'scientific evidence' and various links and source's. 

I don't hold it against him though, since he does know the theories well, he's probably the most knowledgeable member who posts here.


----------



## tower (Nov 2, 2016)

Kyn said:


> @reckful is a dichotomies guy. He doesn't believe in functions. He squashes functionite's swiftly with 'scientific evidence' and various links and source's.
> 
> I don't hold it against him though, since he does know the theories well, he's probably the most knowledgeable member who posts here.


Gotcha.  

Yeah I can see he knows his facts well.

Tbh I don't believe in functions in such a strict way either, I just see them as parts of cognitive patterns of thinking in general. But I don't entirely dismiss all of the observations like @reckful does, since some of them are valid. The function models I don't really believe in "as is", some ideas are too speculative to me.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

tower said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> Yeah I can see he knows his facts well.
> 
> Tbh I don't believe in functions in such a strict way either, I just see them as parts of cognitive patterns of thinking in general. But I don't entirely dismiss all of the observations like @reckful does, since some of them are valid. The function models I don't really believe in "as is", some ideas are too speculative to me.


My answer to your Te vs Ti question would be that Jung believed Te ideas will always fit into the framework of the current objective facts. Anything that appears logical which doesn't fit in that framework, will be dismissed. Ti will place more importance on what appears logical, even if it goes beyond the external framework.


----------



## tower (Nov 2, 2016)

Kyn said:


> My answer to your Te vs Ti question would be that Jung believed Te ideas will always fit into the framework of the current objective facts. Anything that appears logical which doesn't fit in that framework, will be dismissed. Ti will place more importance on what appears logical, even if it goes beyond the external framework.


Well, I have such a framework of objectively observed and quantified facts. I don't understand what you mean by going beyond that while still appearing logical, mind saying more on this? I mean, I don't really follow the idea that something non-quantifiable and thus non-explicit could still be logical.  But let me know if this isn't what you meant.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

tower said:


> Well, I have such a framework of objectively observed and quantified facts. I don't understand what you mean by going beyond that while still appearing logical, mind saying more on this? I mean, I don't really follow the idea that something non-quantifiable and thus non-explicit could still be logical.  But let me know if this isn't what you meant.


I think that's because you're not a Ti dom/aux. That's kind of the point. Ti is a perspective that is outside the awareness of the Te perspective and vice versa. Te sees Ti as "thinking of an idea and then finding the facts to fit". While Ti sees Te as "Not thinking for themselves".


----------



## tower (Nov 2, 2016)

Kyn said:


> I think that's because you're not a Ti dom/aux. That's kind of the point. Ti is a perspective that is outside the awareness of the Te perspective and vice versa. Te sees Ti as "thinking of an idea and then finding the facts to fit". While Ti sees Te as "Not thinking for themselves".


OK, however can you say if Ti is really like what I said, something non-quantifiable and thus non-explicit? Or what is this idea of "appearing" logical if I misunderstood that?

Edit: reading IxTP posts that's what it looks like to me, anyway.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Exclusive "Te" characteristics:

- Push you to your limits for which you later will be greatful.


----------

