# A very thorough explanation of the cognitive functions.



## Philalethia (10 mo ago)

I made a thing a while ago. It's a documentation containing a very thorough explanation of the cognitive functions. Call it my magnum opus, if you will. I believe it serves as an eternal, practical guide that removes the haziness amid the process of typing others (as well as yourself). I want this to add as much value to your typing experience as possible.

While I highly recommend you check out the document due to its nuances, here's a tl;dr of the document for those in a hurry:

*Attitudes*

*Extroversion *is defined as a preference for mind-independent data and facts in the external world.
*Introversion *prefers ideals and ideal thoughts about the outer world, formed by the subject’s own mind, isolated from its environment.
The process of introversion is that of abstraction, which means that it takes information and grasps its most salient aspects, and forms or cognizes a general archetype, prototype, or model.

*Functions
Thinking - Judges the mechanics and functionality of things.*

*Extroverted Thinking (Te) *creates formulas and methods by means of empirical reasoning and marshaling. Te prefers information such as measurable, observable facts. The goal for Te is to carry out its formulas in an efficient and effective manner.
Te is about _Pragmatism_: Arranging empirical data into practical laws and systems for optimizing and implementing them accordingly.

*Introverted Thinking (Ti) *creates theorems, theories, and principles by means of deciphering and deduction. Ti prefers information such as fundamental definitions and axioms. The goal for Ti is a precise, logical understanding of things.
Ti is about _Explication_: Developing a precise, detached understanding of an idea by deconstructing it into basic, abstract principles.

*Feeling - Judges things through values, affects, and (inter)personal alignments.*

*Extroverted Feeling (Fe) *creates harmony by means of coordination and accommodation. Fe prefers information such as interpersonal human behavior and external values. The goal for Fe is to be agreeable and to bring about consensus.
Fe is about _Consensus_: Forming harmonious relationships with others based on their common, unifying standards and sentiments.

*Introverted Feeling (Fi) *creates personal ideals by means of empathy and individuation. Fi prefers information such as its conscience; its inner sense of right and wrong. The goal for Fi is self-expression and self-harmony.
Fi is about _Romanticism_: Cultivating an inner harmony from inner ideals and passions, and seeing others as having innate selfhood.

*Sensation - Perceives the concrete **details** of phenomena.*

*Extroverted Sensation (Se) *creates "photographs" by means of capturing the data at hand. Se prefers information such as observations of the current data. The end goal for Se is stimulation and achieving a flow state.
Se is about _Realism_: Actively making the most of the immediate, sensuous, and pronounced facts to get pure clarity in the moment.

*Introverted Sensation (Si) *creates a comprehensive inner archive by means of cataloging and accumulating relevant details. Si prefers information such as precedents and previously stored impressions of things in the same category. The end goal for Si is to establish firm reliability, stability, and preservation.
Si is about _Stability_: Thoroughly accumulating and archiving verified experience to gain a total and reliable grounding in a situation.

*Intuition - Perceives the speculated big picture of phenomena.*

*Extroverted Intuition (Ne) *creates hypotheses and hypotheticals by means of experimentation. Ne prefers information such as possibilities and their loose connections. The goal for Ne is to discover more hypotheses and hypotheticals to play around with.
Ne is about _Cross-questioning_: Exploring and playing around with loose ideas and all varying, potential sources of insight and inquiry.

*Introverted Intuition (Ni) *forms a concise, complete, ideal image by means of encapsulation and synthesis. Ni prefers information such as motifs and revealing visions; i.e. recurring and symbolic central ideas. The goal for Ni is to achieve a higher consciousness and to grasp the essence of a situation.
Ni is about _Centralizing_: Forming and pursuing a quintessential idea by merging symbolic visions and insights into a greater whole.

*The Function Axes
Se/Ni: Characterized by a singular, concentrated summary of information.*

Se: Characterized by the raw, obvious, and simplified facts in the present.
Ni: Characterized by a transcendent, centralized, and concise ideal of the facts involved.
Se/Ni is guided by dogmatic aphorisms.
*Ne/Si: Characterized by a cautiously compiled encyclopedia of information.*

Ne: Characterized by experimenting between a wide range of insights and their connections.
Si: Characterized by the meticulous storage and cataloging of knowledge, and its reliability.
Ne/Si is guided by tentative elaboration.
*Fe/Ti: Characterized by basic commonalities of objects.*

Fe: Characterized by establishing harmony with and between objects.
Ti: Characterized by deciphering the abstract principle that underlies a group of objects.
Guided by an ideal more important than oneself.
*Te/Fi: Characterized by the exclusive distinct properties of objects.*

Te: Characterized by the hierarchy of things based on their cogency.
Fi: Characterized by the empathic individuality of objects.
Guided by an ideal created by oneself.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Seems like it follows the Grant - Brownsword model of defining functions by observing people typed by the MBTI dichotomies. I'm more in agreement with the Jungian approach personally.


----------



## Philalethia (10 mo ago)

Red Panda said:


> Seems like it follows the Grant - Brownsword model of defining functions by observing people typed by the MBTI dichotomies. I'm more in agreement with the Jungian approach personally.


If you look at the document you'll see that my definitions are heavily rooted in Jungian descriptions.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Philalethia said:


> I made a thing a while ago. It's a documentation containing a very thorough explanation of the cognitive functions. Call it my magnum opus, if you will. I believe it serves as an eternal, practical guide that removes the haziness amid the process of typing others (as well as yourself). I want this to add as much value to your typing experience as possible.
> 
> While I highly recommend you check out the document due to its nuances, here's a tl;dr of the document for those in a hurry:
> 
> ...


I find this to be among the better descriptions of cognitive functions I've read in quite some time. I've downloaded your document and will give it a read.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Philalethia said:


> I made a thing a while ago. It's a documentation containing a very thorough explanation of the cognitive functions. Call it my magnum opus, if you will. I believe it serves as an eternal, practical guide that removes the haziness amid the process of typing others (as well as yourself). I want this to add as much value to your typing experience as possible.
> 
> While I highly recommend you check out the document due to its nuances, here's a tl;dr of the document for those in a hurry:
> 
> ...


Thank You for this information, I find it very helpful!


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Philalethia said:


> If you look at the document you'll see that my definitions are heavily rooted in Jungian descriptions.


Correction - by Jungian approach I don't mean following his exact conclusions but rather observing the same phenomena he was talking about. Some of his conclusions don't follow from the premises, i.e. that introverts only withdraw and don't want to interfere with the object when really their attitude is that of creating a reinforcing environment, _or_ withdrawing if unable to, and similarly a high fertility rate is irrelevant to extraversion as it can be a great expression of the need of the introvert to dominate the object, by leaving their mark on the world, or just creating children to carry on the genes.
I think the idea that, i.e. TIs care about precision and TEs about efficiency don't follow the observations either, these things are just contained within the T function in general and can go either way depending on the person and other factors. TEs would care for their theories to be precise to the object, like say an ENTP scientist does, (i.e. Einstein) whereas a TI want them to be precise to his own ideas regardless if they are realistic or not. Anyways, there are a couple of threads here and here that analyze this a little more.

Sorry but I prefer not to download files like that.


----------



## Philalethia (10 mo ago)

Red Panda said:


> Correction - by Jungian approach I don't mean following his exact conclusions but rather observing the same phenomena he was talking about. Some of his conclusions don't follow from the premises, i.e. that introverts only withdraw and don't want to interfere with the object when really their attitude is that of creating a reinforcing environment, _or_ withdrawing if unable to, and similarly a high fertility rate is irrelevant to extraversion as it can be a great expression of the need of the introvert to dominate the object, by leaving their mark on the world, or just creating children to carry on the genes.
> I think the idea that, i.e. TIs care about precision and TEs about efficiency don't follow the observations either, these things are just contained within the T function in general and can go either way depending on the person and other factors. TEs would care for their theories to be precise to the object, like say an ENTP scientist does, (i.e. Einstein) whereas a TI want them to be precise to his own ideas regardless if they are realistic or not. Anyways, there are a couple of threads here and here that analyze this a little more.
> 
> Sorry but I prefer not to download files like that.


I would like you to notice that you are arguing against nothing. 
(Plus you don't have to download anything; it's a Dropbox document; downloading is optional.)


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Philalethia said:


> If you look at the document you'll see that my definitions are heavily rooted in Jungian descriptions.


Your definitions aren't rooted in the Jungian ones, merely inspired by them, at best. They don't go beyond the usual Grant model descriptions, although the attempt looks cute.


----------



## Philalethia (10 mo ago)

Allostasis said:


> Your definitions aren't rooted in the Jungian ones, merely inspired by them, at best. They don't go beyond the usual Grant model descriptions, although the attempt looks cute.


What makes you think that?


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Philalethia said:


> What makes you think that?


Definitions of Te and Ti alone are sufficient. You narrowed down the first to pragmatism, being practical, while Ti is about an actual logic/understanding/precision, which isn't consistent with what Jungian approach entails. T can be all of that.


----------



## Philalethia (10 mo ago)

Allostasis said:


> Definitions of Te and Ti alone are sufficient. You narrowed down the first to pragmatism, being practical, while Ti is about an actual logic/understanding/precision, which isn't consistent with what Jungian approach entails. T can be all of that.


I see. Well, let me ask you this, because I just want to understand: What value do you see in arguing against my conclusions without looking at the actual rationale behind them? Mind that I'm genuinely curious. I would like you to notice that you are merely looking at the tip of the iceberg here.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Philalethia said:


> I see. Well, let me ask you this, because I just want to understand: What value do you see in arguing against my conclusions without looking at the actual rationale behind them? Mind that I'm genuinely curious. I would like you to notice that you are merely looking at the tip of the iceberg here.


You could just say, "These definitions are based off of the Grant-Bronsword model" because that's what your rationale is based off of.

Nothing to argue about.

Of course, you could instead be asserting that these definitions are better than Jung's, but that's a whole another discussion.


----------



## Philalethia (10 mo ago)

secondpassing said:


> You could just say, "These definitions are based off of the Grant-Bronsword model" because that's what your rationale is based off of.
> 
> Nothing to argue about.


I agree, there is nothing to argue about. These definitions come from *chiefly and specifically* from Jung, van der Hoop, Von Franz, and Myers. I have not taken a single look at the definitions of the Grant-Bronsword model. You guys are adding a story to what I've written.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Philalethia said:


> I see. Well, let me ask you this, because I just want to understand: What value do you see in arguing against my conclusions without looking at the actual rationale behind them? Mind that I'm genuinely curious. I would like you to notice that you are merely looking at the tip of the iceberg here.


There is no need to look at the premises to see that those conclusions are wrong. Whatever this rationale is, it can't be made of true premises and be consistent with Jungian descriptions at the same time. Please actually read Jung before claiming that you are rooted in any measure in him or drop the pretense. Even E/I definitions are incorrect.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Also, post a direct link to the Dropbox or to Google docs without those scam intermediate services if you care about being read.


----------



## Philalethia (10 mo ago)

Allostasis said:


> There is no need to look at the premises to see that those conclusions are wrong. Whatever this rationale is, it can't be made of true premises and be consistent with Jungian descriptions at the same time. Please actually read Jung before claiming that you are rooted in any measure in him or drop the pretense. Even E/I definitions are incorrect.


Hm I see your point. I sense a hint of dogmatism and a bit of meanness, haha 😅 
I mean no harm here, I just want you to notice what's going on, or rather what I'm seeing here. I really hope we get somewhere productive in this discussion, if you're willing to. Otherwise, we can agree to disagree and go about our days without having to bother each other  Peace and love to you my friend.


----------



## Philalethia (10 mo ago)

Allostasis said:


> Also, post a direct link to the Dropbox or to Google docs without those scam intermediate services if you care about being read.


I'm sorry you feel that way, friend. I'll change the link then.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Philalethia said:


> I would like you to notice that you are arguing against nothing.
> (Plus you don't have to download anything; it's a Dropbox document; downloading is optional.)


I'm giving a different perspective from my own studies. Such as how the function axis don't work like that because the attitude and the functions are in separate axes themselves. Hence, i.e. an SE is closer to a SI than a NE will ever be. The function axes and that the functions are 8 come from Harold Grant, which is why I mentioned him at first.


----------



## Philalethia (10 mo ago)

Red Panda said:


> I'm giving a different perspective from my own studies. Such as how the function axis don't work like that because the attitude and the functions are in separate axes themselves. Hence, i.e. an SE is closer to a SI than a NE will ever be. The function axes and that the functions are 8 come from Harold Grant, which is why I mentioned him at first.


The function axes are a fundamental concept in Jung's typology, as derived from two things:

He incorporates the metaphysics of Heraclitus (enantiodromia), Anaximander (achieving typlessness), and Lao-Tzu (same as Anaximander) into his typology: All of which talk about the union of opposites, and hence in typological terms, the union of extroversion & introversion, thinking & feeling, and sensation & intuition. And consequently, Ti/Fe, Fe/Ti, etc. It's very plainly evident that at the core of his psychology was the implicit union of the conscious with the unconscious, and the achievement of psychic wholeness. If one has conscious Te, they have unconscious Fi, and so their axial union is an undercurrent, and this rule applies to the other function-attitudes. You can even see this in the diagrams he and other Jungians have illustrated, for example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Jung's_Typological_Model.jpg
In the _Psychological Types_, he very explicitly stated the following: “The four functions … form, when arranged diagrammatically, a cross with a rational *axis* at right angles to an irrational _*axis*_.”


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Philalethia said:


> The function axes are a fundamental concept in Jung's typology, as derived from two things:
> 
> He incorporates the metaphysics of Heraclitus (enantiodromia), Anaximander (achieving typlessness), and Lao-Tzu (same as Anaximander) into his typology: All of which talk about the union of opposites, and hence in typological terms, the union of extroversion & introversion, thinking & feeling, and sensation & intuition. And consequently, Ti/Fe, Fe/Ti, etc. It's very plainly evident that at the core of his psychology was the implicit union of the conscious with the unconscious, and the achievement of psychic wholeness. If one has conscious Te, they have unconscious Fi, and so their axial union is an undercurrent, and this rule applies to the other function-attitudes. You can even see this in the diagrams he and other Jungians have illustrated, for example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Jung's_Typological_Model.jpg
> In the _Psychological Types_, he very explicitly stated the following: “The four functions … form, when arranged diagrammatically, a cross with a rational *axis* at right angles to an irrational _*axis*_.”


Correct- but the problem here is that Jung's functions are 4 not 8 and the E/I belongs on their own separate axis because it is a different trait. The diagram shows the inferior function being unconscious and the two middle ones developing various levels of consciousness, but he saw the adaptation attitudes (I or E) as belonging in the conscious or unconscious separately as well. This means that while the inferior can be influenced by the unconscious attitude, the auxiliary takes on the conscious attitude and the tertiary will vary depending on degree of consciousness as well. Moreover, Jungians drew attention to how the inferior is always the weakest aspect of the personality as it is the least developed, so it makes no sense that another type would have _worse_ development of it. Like I said, a SE is closer to a SI than a NE.


----------

