# new definitions of the cognitive functions



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Mammon said:


> "Sees someone building a strair case leaning thingy with anvils in Minecraft"
> 'Yes, very nice but I rather not do it like this because those are anvils. ANVILS."
> 
> This is Si.
> ...


Yes, these sentences could be Si (and other functions). But they are _descriptions _of the functions, not _definitions _of the functions.


----------



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

Tellus said:


> But what exactly do you mean by "_elaborating_ on familiar ideas and interpretations"?


"Elaborating" as in becoming even more familiar with the ideas/interpretations (Ni) or with the facts/experiences (Si). According to Carl Jung's book on Psychological Types, introversion refers to seeing within oneself/the subject, while the extraversion refers to seeing outside oneself and focused on the object. So for the perceiving functions-- sensing and intuition-- the introverted ones are about perceiving familiar info and becoming even more familiar with the info (i.e., elaborating on the info); the extraverted perceiving functions are about perceiving novel info that you didn't know about, "discovering" more novelty in the external environment that was not previously stored in your internal framework. 



Tellus said:


> What exactly do you mean by "ensuring decision outcomes are logically effective"? Are you referring to practicality?
> ...
> "personally understanding a decision’s logical basis" ... Is there a non-personal understanding of a decision's logical basis? Te?


Basically yes. Again, introversion is about seeing from within oneself while extraversation is about seeing outside of oneself. For the decision-making functions-- thinking and perceiving-- the introverted ones are about personal responses to decisions while the extraverted ones are about judging the decision outcomes. So Te would be ensuring logical evidence in the external environment, often through ensuring effectiveness and whether something works-- according to Te, logic is based on external evidence of whether something can work. But Ti is more concerned with personally understanding the logical basis-- logic is based on whether one personally understands the reasons that make sense to the user. 



Tellus said:


> "personally valuing a decision" ... "ensuring decision outcomes are valued by others" ... Which function processes others' evaluations of a decision? (theory of mind)


Fe is often involved in processing others' evaluations of a decision, but its counterpart-- Ti-- can also be used as well, because one's personal understanding of others can aid them in understanding what others value so that the decision outcome is favored by the other.


----------



## tosakski (Jan 17, 2019)

Tellus said:


> You are still not explaining what _elaborating_ means in this context. "over-analyzing" must be a logical function.
> 
> "over-interpreting" familiar ideas... What exactly does that mean? Can you give me an example?


A good example would be the art project I worked on with a talented artist for the past 5 years straight. The focus of his work is to draw/create entirely new and unique civil coat of arms which are inspired entirely by the personality of the client.
"On a bad day" it takes him no more than 12 months to complete the project from start to finish. That 12-month time frame includes holding many discussion sessions with the client to determine his personality, his life philosophy, values and goals. (and then roughly 3 months of work to complete his extremely detailed painting.) Which by itself is never an easy endeavor, since most people can't really say much about their life philosophies or values, unless they had a habit of regularly devoting a significant portion of their daily life to consciously forming their world-view in deep excruciating detail. But even with clients who have actually a very deep, conscious, detailed inner-world, it still requires a fair amount of discussions, to draw their true selves out to the surface, to find ways to form/shape those personality traits into consistent symbolical pieces which can be visually portrayed through a strict art like heraldry.

The artist worked in this fashion roughly since the 1990's, and had around 5 clients every year. However, once he met me, he was in for a wild journey of never-ending self-discovery that lasted a whooping 5 years. I've put so much time and effort into determining the *perfect* and *most accurate* means to portray my persona in the form of symbols, that the total amount of intellectual work I did for this project was roughly 2 to 3 times larger than the amount of work I had to do to graduate university from start to finish.

On countless occasions I was accused by the artist of "going too deep" into the meanings and functions of each symbol, and their interconnections; of over-analyzing the possible impacts of a piece of art that abstractly personifies a personality; of attempting to include way too many facets into an otherwise extremely simple artistic figure. It's not that I wanted to place a thousand words into a single visual silhouette... but rather, it was simply that I strove to find *one perfect word* (or to be exact, one perfect pattern or interconnection of meanings) that would cause all of those disparate multiple facets of my personality to converge in one single point, and thus be defined by one single word (or symbol/silhouette).

Whilst all other of his clients were perfectly fine with just sprinkling loosely interconnected aspects of their personality onto a canvas. I was on the contrary, obsessed with drilling a mile-deep hole through the canvas and building its colors, meanings, effects, side-effects, pixel by pixel. Which is exactly why the project took us a whooping 5 years to complete.

This might not be a great portrayal of Ni, but it portrays what it means to over-analyze and over-interpret.



Tellus said:


> Okay, so there is no relation to _facts_. But then her definitions are false.


Okay, then if you're uncomfortable with the word "fact", you can shift to the word "piece of knowledge or information". Still doesn't change the original definition provided of Se though, you're just clinging to words.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

MD_analyst said:


> "Elaborating" as in becoming even more familiar with the ideas/interpretations (Ni) or with the facts/experiences (Si). According to Carl Jung's book on Psychological Types, introversion refers to seeing within oneself/the subject, while the extraversion refers to seeing outside oneself and focused on the object. So for the perceiving functions-- sensing and intuition-- the introverted ones are about perceiving familiar info and becoming even more familiar with the info (i.e., elaborating on the info); the extraverted perceiving functions are about perceiving novel info that you didn't know about, "discovering" more novelty in the external environment that was not previously stored in your internal framework.


I think Jung was wrong about objective functions ("the collective standpoint") and subjective functions. 

You cannot see "outside yourself", unless you mean immediate perception of objects right in front of you. But that would mean that a person must look at an object in order to come up with new ideas (Ne). 



> Basically yes. Again, introversion is about seeing from within oneself while extraversation is about seeing outside of oneself. For the decision-making functions-- thinking and perceiving-- the introverted ones are about personal responses to decisions while the extraverted ones are about judging the decision outcomes. So Te would be ensuring logical evidence in the external environment, often through ensuring effectiveness and whether something works-- according to Te, logic is based on external evidence of whether something can work. But Ti is more concerned with personally understanding the logical basis-- logic is based on whether one personally understands the reasons that make sense to the user.


You are essentially agreeing with OP. Te _is _about cause-and-effect and consequences.

But "external evidence" is inaccurate. I disagree with Jung (and you) here. There is no cognitive function that ensures evidence in the external environment. Let's say you are trying to solve a math problem. Ti is obviously used. But what exactly is the function/purpose of Te in this task? 



> Fe is often involved in processing others' evaluations of a decision, but its counterpart-- Ti-- can also be used as well, because one's personal understanding of others can aid them in understanding what others value so that the decision outcome is favored by the other.


You:

Feeling= prefers judging decision value; judges "what is meaningful" 
Fe = ensuring decision outcomes are valued by others 
Fi = personally valuing a decision

-----

Okay, so Fe is both about valuing a decision and ensuring that decision outcomes are valued by others ... according to you.


----------



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

Tellus said:


> I think Jung was wrong about objective functions ("the collective standpoint") and subjective functions.
> 
> You cannot see "outside yourself", unless you mean immediate perception of objects right in front of you. But that would mean that a person must look at an object in order to come up with new ideas (Ne).


Well, that's basically what I was getting at by stating "discovering novel ideas/interpretations." To seek novelty, you must look to the external world at the object and then come up with your novel ideas (i.e., this object gives me an idea about this possibility, but also there's this other possibility, but also this other different possibility, etc. <---Ne). That is what I understood from Jung when he was describing objectivity/seeing outside yourself. That's different from Ni, which is more about building off an already-familiarized idea, and then coming up with a more detailed idea based off of what the user is already thinking (i.e., this idea leads to this possibility, which could lead to this possibility, which could lead to this possibility, etc. <--Ni).



Tellus said:


> But "external evidence" is inaccurate. I disagree with Jung (and you) here. There is no cognitive function that ensures evidence in the external environment. Let's say you are trying to solve a math problem. Ti is obviously used. But what exactly is the function/purpose of Te in this task?


It's not that Te is the function that "ensures" evidence in the external environment. Rather, Te is the function that is used to assess evidence in the external environment, in order to ensure it is logical. Or in other words, it evaluates whether the decision is logical based on external evidence of its outcomes' effectiveness. As I said, Te is used if you care more about how the decision outcome demonstrates whether the decision was logical-- based on whether it proved that it works/is effective at demonstrating that the decision was logical/made sense. Ti is used if you care more about whether you just understand that logic-- you may or may not need to look at the outcome or evidence of how the decision proves its logic, you just need to have it "make sense to you," according to your own internal framework of understanding. 




Tellus said:


> You:
> 
> Feeling= prefers judging decision value; judges "what is meaningful"
> Fe = ensuring decision outcomes are valued by others
> ...


Fe is more about ensuring that others value the decision outcome-- personal value (Fi) for the same decision is more likely to be influenced by whether others value it. Both Fe and Fi can influence each other-- one's personal value can be based on whether others value it (Fe influencing Fi), or one's personal value can also influence how they want to make others value something (Fi influencing Fe). This is because Fe and Fi are about decision value and thus shadow functions of each other (just as how Te is going to be influenced by Ti, as they are shadow functions of each other, although the theory behind shadow functions deserves an entirely separate discussion).


----------



## X A N A (Jun 21, 2018)

I enjoyed your definitions Tellus. I can see where you were going with them, but yeah many people won't get it.


----------



## Shadowhuntress (Jan 25, 2019)

I answered to this thread on the Socionics forum post, but since this one is more active I'll share my observations here too.

I noticed the basics are derived from Gulenko's work with Socionics, the + and - system for the functions. Also that I could decipher some of them right away, like Fi- sounds like an ISFP (ISFj) and Fi+ an INFP (INFj), or should I say how the functions operate in those types. I was less clear about the Te+ and Ti+, same with the minuses, because the descriptions read very similarly, so it wasn't immediately helpful when trying to distinguish between ENTJ and ISTP for typing myself.

I will add that when I read first read about the +/- system I wondered if it was a necessary addition to the functions, because it may just describe how the functions work together. In other words, does Fi- exist as a separate sub-function or it just the appearance when Fi and Se are working together in a specific order with other functions in a type? I'm not saying the +/- system is necessarily incorrect, but that's the point where you'd debate its existence.


----------



## Shadowhuntress (Jan 25, 2019)

Lord Pixel said:


> So like.....these are the definitions for really smart ppl right? Like the AP honors class definitions?
> 
> 
> Cuz I got no clue what any of this means...object ----> object----->huh?


It's a bit confusing, but knowing how the functions are described as objective and subjective I can fill in the gaps...mostly. I think with object? → (known) object → object it should be interpreted as the Si user looking at an object, or something objective at least, and weighing if it's familiar with what is known or something original and possibly unreliable. One example of an xSFJ I remember that fits this is a child is sad and so a mother realizing that makes hot chocolate for the child, because in the past that has helped cheer people up. So, someone (object) is sad, what I can do? Hot chocolate (object) has helped before. Makes hot chocolate and gives it to the child to make them feel better. I'm not sure which would be the object in that less part to be honest, but I thought that was a good description of the Si and Fe thinking process.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Shadowhuntress said:


> I will add that when I read first read about the +/- system I wondered if it was a necessary addition to the functions, because it may just describe how the functions work together. In other words, does Fi- exist as a separate sub-function or it just the appearance when Fi and Se are working together in a specific order with other functions in a type?


Some socionists think +/- exist independent of the function "block". I think they are a direct consequence of the block. But it depends on how you define +/-.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Shadowhuntress said:


> It's a bit confusing, but knowing how the functions are described as objective and subjective I can fill in the gaps...mostly.


I disagree with Jung's objective and subjective functions.



> I think with object? → (known) object → object it should be interpreted as the Si user looking at an object, ... , and weighing if it's familiar with what is known or something original and possibly unreliable.


Yes, that is 'object?' 



> One example of an xSFJ I remember that fits this is a child is sad and so a mother realizing that makes hot chocolate for the child, because in the past that has helped cheer people up. So, someone (object) is sad, what I can do? Hot chocolate (object) has helped before. Makes hot chocolate and gives it to the child to make them feel better. I'm not sure which would be the object in that less part to be honest, but I thought that was a good description of the Si and Fe thinking process.


This is Fe- and Si, but also Te+.

object? → (known) object → object ... Here I am trying to describe the process of object recognition.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

tosakski said:


> but rather, it was simply that I strove to find one perfect word (or to be exact, one perfect pattern or interconnection of meanings) that would cause all of those disparate multiple facets of my personality to converge in one single point, and thus be defined by one single word (or symbol/silhouette).


This is about Ni ... but it is a description rather than a definition of Ni

Interesting reading btw



> Okay, then if you're uncomfortable with the word "fact", you can shift to the word "piece of knowledge or information". Still doesn't change the original definition provided of Se though, you're just clinging to words.


MD_analyst:

Sensing= prefers to process facts, experiences, and observable info; perceives the "what" 

Se = discovering novel facts and experiences 
Si = elaborating on familiar facts and experiences 

-----

If these are _definitions_ of the functions, then you have to be very precise. 

What does "discovering novel pieces of knowledge or information" mean? Are you finding new books in library? Or are you writing new books?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Here's a clarification.

Se: you have two (or more) objects, so you can get a shape.

Ne: you have an object and a shape, so you can guess an object. Ne includes association and metaphor.

Si: you have two (or more) objects, so you can figure out causality.

Ni: you have an object and causality, so you can visualize an outcome/effect or a cause.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

MD_analyst said:


> Well, that's basically what I was getting at by stating "discovering novel ideas/interpretations." To seek novelty, you must look to the external world at the object and then come up with your novel ideas


Are you referring to (1) an immediate perception of an object ... or (2) a mental representation of an object? 

If (2) ... Are you referring to working memory, short-term memory or long-term memory?



> It's not that Te is the function that "ensures" evidence in the external environment. Rather, Te is the function that is used to assess evidence in the external environment, in order to ensure it is logical.


This is Jung's point of view.



> Or in other words, it evaluates whether the decision is logical based on external evidence of its outcomes' effectiveness. As I said, Te is used if you care more about how the decision outcome demonstrates whether the decision was logical-- based on whether it proved that it works/is effective at demonstrating that the decision was logical/made sense. Ti is used if you care more about whether you just understand that logic-- you may or may not need to look at the outcome or evidence of how the decision proves its logic, you just need to have it "make sense to you," according to your own internal framework of understanding.


This is not Jung's point of view, and it is not external logic vs. internal logic. Instead, it corresponds with OP.

Jung (Te): 

"The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."



> Fe is more about ensuring that others value the decision outcome-- personal value (Fi) for the same decision is more likely to be influenced by whether others value it. Both Fe and Fi can influence each other-- one's personal value can be based on whether others value it (Fe influencing Fi), or one's personal value can also influence how they want to make others value something (Fi influencing Fe). This is because Fe and Fi are about decision value and thus shadow functions of each other (just as how Te is going to be influenced by Ti, as they are shadow functions of each other, although the theory behind shadow functions deserves an entirely separate discussion).


Again, that is not Jung's point of view.

Jung (Fe): 

"The personality appears to be adjusted in relation to objective conditions. Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values. Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement. Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. "


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Jung failed so much at describing the extraverted rational functions, especially the FE, he conflated them with SI, and didn't follow on his original premises of adaptability.


----------



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

Tellus said:


> Are you referring to (1) an immediate perception of an object ... or (2) a mental representation of an object?
> 
> If (2) ... Are you referring to working memory, short-term memory or long-term memory?


Since the extraverted info-processing functions seek novelty, I would believe that this has more to do with immediate perception of an object, requiring minimal internalizing and internal thinking processes when perceiving stimuli/info. 




Tellus said:


> This is not Jung's point of view, and it is not external logic vs. internal logic. Instead, it corresponds with OP.
> 
> Jung (Te):
> 
> "The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."


I never exactly said that Ti is NOT based on objective data-- Ti still looks at "objective" data but uses personal understanding to judge that objective data. Te relies on how the data presents itself to come to its conclusion. Both therefore look at the "objective" data in the sense that they look outside themselves at first, but Te continues to focus on the external to make its judgement while Ti goes within to make its judgment. This could also explain why Te must be paired with Ni or Si, so that there is still some internalization before making its judgment based on external assessment, and why Ti must be paired with Ne or Se so that there is some external info to influence its internally-based judgment. 



Tellus said:


> Again, that is not Jung's point of view.
> 
> Jung (Fe):
> 
> "The personality appears to be adjusted in relation to objective conditions. Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values. Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement. Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. "


"Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values." <--- That's basically what I was trying to summarize when I was explaining why Fe is about ensuring decision outcomes are valued by others: the user's Fi can be influenced be Fe, so when assessing the value of decisions, there is more focus on the "objective"-- the values that are outside of her own, that others have. 
"he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement." <--- she values him because he fits a standard based not on her own preferences, but rather, based on arbitrarily constructed standards most likely existing because of what is accepted by society (and not logic, otherwise it would be Te and not Fe). So if she were to make her own decisions, she would ensure the outcomes are valuable, and the standards by which she judges the value of her decisions would be based on that type of standard.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

MD_analyst said:


> Since the extraverted info-processing functions seek novelty, I would believe that this has more to do with immediate perception of an object, requiring minimal internalizing and internal thinking processes when perceiving stimuli/info.


Then you are essentially saying that a person must look at an object in order to come up with new ideas. I think you are wrong.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...y-best-money-making-ideas-come-lying-BED.html

"People come up with their best money making ideas while lying in bed, suggests new research"


The Lie That Tells a Truth: A Guide to Writing Fiction, by John Dufresne:

"Descartes made discoveries while lying in bed"


Lisa Freidus: “I use my nighttime insomnia as a time to come up with new ideas"


https://thriveworks.com/blog/myth-of-multitasking/

"Instead of lying in bed and letting our minds come up with new ideas"



> I never exactly said that Ti is NOT based on objective data-- Ti still looks at "objective" data but uses personal understanding to judge that objective data. Te relies on how the data presents itself to come to its conclusion. Both therefore look at the "objective" data in the sense that they look outside themselves at first, but Te continues to focus on the external to make its judgement while Ti goes within to make its judgment. This could also explain why Te must be paired with Ni or Si, so that there is still some internalization before making its judgment based on external assessment, and why Ti must be paired with Ne or Se so that there is some external info to influence its internally-based judgment.


First of all, you are talking about two different kinds of "objective". Ti is not "objective" in the Jungian sense.

Te and Ti are judging functions, so they are "blind". That _external _objective data must be provided by a perceiving function.

OR: If Ni is about internal data and Te is about external data, then why are they blocked together? 

It doesn't add up!



> "Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values." <--- That's basically what I was trying to summarize when I was explaining why Fe is about ensuring decision outcomes are valued by others...


They are not the same thing. Jung does not mention decision outcomes and other people's evaluations. He refers to something entirely different.


----------



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

Tellus said:


> Then you are essentially saying that a person must look at an object in order to come up with new ideas. I think you are wrong.


It's not that people "must" look at an object to come up with ideas. People can certainly just come up with ideas from nothing, just by lying there as those articles have pointed out. Not everything has to be reduced to functions-- I'm just describing how the functions are related to one another, as well as how they often play out depending on their ordering for particular types and based on the axis they reside on. 



Tellus said:


> First of all, you are talking about two different kinds of "objective". Ti is not "objective" in the Jungian sense.
> 
> Te and Ti are judging functions, so they are "blind". That _external _objective data must be provided by a perceiving function.
> 
> ...


They are blocked together because you can't function if you rely on only internal data with nothing in the external world to guide you/make things happen/prove your internal understanding. And vice versa-- if you only rely on external data but have no internal input, you'd basically be like a blank slate with no ability to provide personal feedback whatsoever. 


I know that Jung doesn't specifically define the functions the way I have, but that's part of my point in defining the functions the way I have. Jung never even preferred the concept of "function stacks" and an ordering of four functions for each of the 16 types-- he preferred to view each of the 16 types as having stronger preference for a particular function, and that ppl with the same type will vary on how extraverted or introverted each of their functions are. Therefore, it's probably safe to assume that he didn't consider defining each function based on their relationships with one another on their axes and in their ordering for each type. That's why I've come up with the definitions I stated-- they are based on Jung's definitions of each function, but modified so that they can more coherently describe how they would operate based on their ordering in functional stacks for each type. If we see the cognitive functions as purposed to be in functional stacks, we see that every functional stack for each type needs 2 extraverted and introverted functions, as well as 2 info processing and 2 decision-making functions. Since Jung didn't believe in functional stacks, his exact definitions are not very helpful in understanding why they are grouped the way they are, so that's why I've modified the definitions a bit to fit them in the context of functional stacks.
Of course, everyone's going to have their own way of understanding the functions, so I get it if people don't agree with my definitions. It's totally fine if people have different definitions of the functions, but I just recommend that those differences and personal changes to the definitions ought to be based on Jung's original definitions, because if people aren't using the same source to draw up their personalized definitions, everyone's just going to have totally arbitrary and conflicting ideas about what the functions mean.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

What people completely forget in these arbitrary function debates,
is that a function definition is a purely abstract concept.
It doesn't exist in the real world, as it is a general pattern applies to many seemingly similar cases.

Jung was all about the complexes.
He believed that introverted functions built up disconnected models of the world,
while extroverted functions built up connected models of the world.
Where these came in conflict with each other, there was a lot of inner conflict.
@MD_analyst is totally correct that Jung didn't believe in function stacks,
and this is the reason, as the stacks isn't really stacks.
Rather it is tendencies to pile up complexes in certain ways.
At any time an isolated (introverted) complex can be challenged by extroverted impulses.
Leading the person to have to "rethink" everything about their existence that the complex touches.
As a Fi dom, I'm prone to build up a network of values, that doesn't necessarily match a Te oriented
labeling of all the elements my values touches.
If I would actually start to think about the elements involved, then some of those complexes would collapse.
Hence I will have resistance against those classifications.
Basically ignoring everything that doesn't match my existing schema. (Piaget fits nicely here)

It is of course the same with Ni vs Se, Ti vs Fe and Si vs Ne.
There will be resistances towards them.
A person with say Ti and Si in the shadow will be even more resistant of changing the complexes.
As it is hard to deal with those functions, and actually having to rebuild the model will be very taxing.
Introverted functions not in the shadow is a bit different.

As a Fi dom, Te may come and trample my value-judgments, I may get a bit annoyed,
so I go take a walk and get tons of sensory impressions,
I will by the end of the walk have figured out a new value-constellation that resolves the issue.
The dominant perspective has enough mental energy available to make it more or less trivial,
at least compared to trying to rebuild razed shadow complexes.
Which is in many ways where defense mechanisms come in.
Our mind will go to enormous lengths of denial and other reality warping schemes 
to avoid taxing itself like that.

The function definitions are a blind alley, as it is a general simplified concept of a much more dynamic system.
Trying to crystallize it will only serve to build up a Ni-complex around the issue.

Yet again, if it doesn't harm us, and if it gives us meaning, then does it really matter?
For me it sort of does matter, as I use the Jungian model actively, 
and I'm always looking to better match it up to the world I perceive.

If other people hold less effective models to be true, I'm fine with that.
Just as in poker, if someone else is doing a mistake, that mistake can be made into money.
Other peoples lesser models, is what makes me look good to my employer.
If everyone else knew the same as me, I would hold no advantage.

I think the model in this thread makes way too big intuitive jumps for me to evaluate it effectively.
--> basically means,* AND THEN I SKIP A CRAP-LOAD OF STUFF I TAKE AS A GIVEN.
*That is typical of Ni-doms, personally with a tert-Ni, I sort of see where it is going,
but due to the relatively weak complex nature of my Ni, I'm not really ready to dive deep to challenge it.
Not when the current model serves me so well in real life situations.
It strikes me as a time consuming and energy expensive way of _*maybe*_ getting 0.0005% more effect.


----------



## Egao (Nov 29, 2018)

Tellus said:


> Here's a clarification.
> 
> Se: you have two (or more) objects, so you can get a shape.
> 
> ...


That's brilliant!


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Inveniet said:


> I think the model in this thread makes way too big intuitive jumps for me to evaluate it effectively.
> --> basically means,* AND THEN I SKIP A CRAP-LOAD OF STUFF I TAKE AS A GIVEN.
> *That is typical of Ni-doms, personally with a tert-Ni, I sort of see where it is going,
> but due to the relatively weak complex nature of my Ni, I'm not really ready to dive deep to challenge it.
> ...


OP is not about a model, it is about definitions of the functions. 

"personally with a tert-Ni"... Okay, so _you _think there is a function stack, right?

I will comment on the rest later.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

MD_analyst said:


> Oops, I meant to say that for Te, the logical reasoning is for the _practicality_ in making decisions, not for the "purpose." That was an error in how I worded the last part of my first sentence.


In what way is theoretical physics (mostly NiTe, INTJ) about practicality?



> https://personalityjunkie.com/04/introverted-thinking-ti-intp-vs-intj-extraverted-thinking/
> 
> Te -- "Since their auxiliary function is Extraverted Thinking (Te), INTJs prefer the world’s systems and operations be controlled, orderly, and rational.


Yes, it is a logical function.



> Since Te is extraverted, INTJs endorse a standardized set of collective methods for evaluating and implementing what is rational."


Jung and Myers-Briggs were wrong. There are no extroverted functions that deal with the "collective standpoint". Instead, it is related to Sensing.

It is not as if an INTJ needs a textbook or some colleagues' approval in order to come up with new ideas.

1) Introverted Intuition + Extroverted Thinking... doesn't make any sense (see our discussion in this thread)... both functions must be either extroverted or introverted.

2) _One _dominant and conscious function (Jung) doesn't make any sense either. You need at least one judging function and one perceiving function that are conscious.



> personalityjunkie:
> This is why INTJs believe so strongly in the value of science and the scientific method.


No, science is about causal reasoning. That is why INTJs like physics etc.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Jung:

"The moral laws which govern his action coincide with the corresponding claims of society, i.e. with the generally valid moral view-point. If the generally valid view were different, the subjective moral guiding line would also be different, without the general psychological habitus being in any way changed. It might almost seem, although it, is by no means the case, that this rigid determination by objective factors would involve an altogether ideal and complete adaptation to general conditions of life. An accommodation to objective data, such as we have described, must, of course, seem a complete adaptation to the extraverted view, since from this standpoint no other criterion exists. But from a higher point of view, it is by no means granted that the standpoint of objectively given, facts is the normal one under all circumstances. Objective conditions may be either temporarily or locally abnormal. An individual who is accommodated to such con certainly conforms to the abnormal style of his surroundings, but, in relation to the universally valid laws of life. He is, in common with his milieu, in an abnormal position. The individual may, however, thrive in such surroundings but only to the point when he, together with his whole milieu, is destroyed for transgressing the universal laws of life. He must inevitably participate in this downfall with the same completeness as he was previously adjusted to the objectively valid situation. He is adjusted, but not adapted, since adaptation demands more than a mere frictionless participation in the momentary conditions of the immediate environment. (Once more I would point to Spitteler's Epimetheus). Adaptation demands an observance of laws far more universal in their application than purely local and temporary conditions. Mere adjustment is the limitation of the normal extraverted type."


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> "change the object"
> 
> Do you expect me to guess what you mean by this?
> 
> ...


You posted quotes on your own, where he talks about adaptability. And this is why I'm not very willing to continue this and explain more, you are not paying attention or processing the stuff, even when you do to the quote mining. 



> The Handbook of Jungian Psychology: Theory, Practice and Applications ... by Renos K. Papadopoulos
> 
> "It should be noted that Jung took for granted that most consciousnesses are so undifferentiated that even the auxiliary function is rarely more than unconscious. Too fine a distinction regarding the attitude of the auxiliary would not have made a great deal of sense to him: everything besides the superior function was still more or less unconscious anyway."


Well that's just downright wrong, if you take 10 mins to read the very last part of Chapter 10 even. Lol. Jung talks about the auxiliary never reaching the dominant in differentiation, but that it's differentiated enough to readily combine with it and produce distinct features. His undifferentiated types are a rarity, as he says. 




> You are comparing apples and oranges here. If the extroverted type actually had an idea/system, then he or she would not react well when additional information would be presented.
> 
> So the extroverted type is not more adaptable. Instead, he or she is usually not preoccupied with ideas etc.


It's exactly the opposite actually. Because the extravert, as Jung put it, has an positive relation with the object, and readily wills to accept the additional information and incorporate it in his psyche.
However, he didn't understand the extraverts well, so that's where you'll find most inconsistencies and a bias for viewing them as SFs.
Are you trying to say that, for example, an extravert intuitive is not preoccupied with ideas? lol


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> You posted quotes on your own, where he talks about adaptability. And this is why I'm not very willing to continue this and explain more, you are not paying attention or processing the stuff, even when you do to the quote mining.


I posted some quotes ... but did you read them?

"He is adjusted, but not adapted, since adaptation demands more than a mere frictionless participation in the momentary conditions of the immediate environment. (Once more I would point to Spitteler's Epimetheus). Adaptation demands an observance of laws far more universal in their application than purely local and temporary conditions. Mere adjustment is the limitation of the normal extraverted type."



> Well that's just downright wrong, if you take 10 mins to read the very last part of Chapter 10 even. Lol. Jung talks about the auxiliary never reaching the dominant in differentiation, but that it's differentiated enough to readily combine with it and produce distinct features. His undifferentiated types are a rarity, as he says.


"For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function."



> It's exactly the opposite actually. Because the extravert, as Jung put it, has an positive relation with the object, and readily wills to accept the additional information and incorporate it in his psyche.


This is not the same thing as adaptability.



> Are you trying to say that, for example, an extravert intuitive is not preoccupied with ideas? lol


Are you trying to say that, for example, an ENTP adjusts to the physical environment as well as an ESTP?

All intuitives are preoccupied with ideas, but introverted intuitives often get more distracted since they spend more time on a single idea.

The difference between ENTP and INTP is that the former often starts the cognitive processes from external factors.


----------



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

Tellus said:


> In what way is theoretical physics (mostly NiTe, INTJ) about practicality?
> ….
> No, science is about causal reasoning. That is why INTJs like physics etc.


Just because INTJs lead with NiTe doesn't mean we can't enjoy theoretical physics. This is sort of how the shadow functions come into play-- Ni is going to be influenced by Ne, and Te by Ti: for example, using one's own logical reasoning (Ti) to consider multiple possibilities related to theoretical physics (Ne) can influence how the user then assesses for external evidence to logically justify the possibilities (Te), and then narrow down to a few possibilities to elaborate on (Ni) based on that use of Te. I don't agree that Jung's view of the shadow functions is in line with how they are stacked for each of the 16 types (again, because Jung wasn't describing the functions as if they were applied to function stacks), but he did say that “the contents of the collective unconscious are archetypes, primordial images that reflect basic patterns that are common to us all, and which have existed universally since the dawn of time," and that the “shadow” lies at the edge of our conscious and unconscious psyche-- it is the repressed side of the self and so they come in and out of consciousness as a way of protecting the ego when it’s not doing a good enough job on its own. So when NiTe are not sufficient enough, NeTi steps in unconsciously.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

This is my view on the types.

ENTP: extraversion + NxTx ...

INTP: introversion + NxTx ...

ENTJ: extraversion + NyTy ...

INTJ: introversion + NyTy ...


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Tellus said:


> This is my view on the types.
> 
> ENTP: extraversion + NxTx ...
> 
> ...


What's the x and y?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Ocean Helm said:


> What's the x and y?


x is spatial information ... see OP

y is temporal-sequential information


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> I posted some quotes ... but did you read them?
> 
> "He is adjusted, but not adapted, since adaptation demands more than a mere frictionless participation in the momentary conditions of the immediate environment. (Once more I would point to Spitteler's Epimetheus). Adaptation demands an observance of laws far more universal in their application than purely local and temporary conditions. Mere adjustment is the limitation of the normal extraverted type."


Yes, which contradicts his original premises that you quoted in a different post. And that's the problem with Jung's theory, while he defined E and I in certain ways, when it came to the extravert he didn't follow through, and he especially viewed them all as S except when he described the NE type specifically.



> "For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function."


There's a whole thread I linked earlier, discussing this particular quote, which is what Myers took out of context from the rest of his work. 




> This is not the same thing as adaptability.


Why not?




> Are you trying to say that, for example, an ENTP adjusts to the physical environment as well as an ESTP?
> 
> All intuitives are preoccupied with ideas, but introverted intuitives often get more distracted since they spend more time on a single idea.
> 
> The difference between ENTP and INTP is that the former often starts the cognitive processes from external factors.


Not as well as an ESTP, but probably better than an J, even an SJ. That would depend on individual preferences, how repressed the S, how strong the P or J, etc and maybe the circumstances. But I think more often than not, it is true. 
That's because it's easier to switch 1 function than to switch a function AND an attitude, when both are repressed. 

What does it mean "external factors"? If it's what I think, then INTPs most definitely start their process from external factors too, they're pretty known to be always on the lookout for new information, same as the ENTP really. Always reading and learning something, etc.

The differences usually observed between an INTP and an ENTP (provided that first is T dom and latter N dom) is that the first will tend to analyze something and when they are in a rut their tendency will be to keep analyzing from different angles, while the ENTP will take a step back and search for more information to get an even bigger picture. It's kinda the same difference for all judging and perceiving doms, even Js.

Not sure what you mean with the "introverted intuitives often get more distracted since they spend more time on a single idea", do you mean less distracted? Typically, because the NIs are so focused on a single idea they may miss the forest for the tree, depending on how strong the introversion vs N.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

https://www.triangis.be/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MBTI-Insights.pdf
_
However, while working to align his Discovery system with Jung’s theory, Andi Lothian discovered that in fact this passage, key to an accurate portrayal of typology, is the result of a mistranslation by both translators (Baynes, 1923 and Hull, 1971) of the two versions of Psychological Types. Just one word, but this word is critical to establishing a sixteen-type model based on Jung’s theory. The word, “unconscious,” has been wrongly translated into English from the original German word which Jung wrote as “conscious.” The correct translation from the original German should read “For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively conscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect di"erent from the nature of the main function” (1923, p. 515; 1973, para 669).
_
Okay, so what did he mean by _relatively _conscious? The auxiliary function must be both conscious and unconscious, right? But then FiNi _and _FiNe are accurate.

_If _Jung actually meant FiNi, then I think he was wrong since INFP and ENFP are similar to each other.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> https://www.triangis.be/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MBTI-Insights.pdf
> _
> However, while working to align his Discovery system with Jung’s theory, Andi Lothian discovered that in fact this passage, key to an accurate portrayal of typology, is the result of a mistranslation by both translators (Baynes, 1923 and Hull, 1971) of the two versions of Psychological Types. Just one word, but this word is critical to establishing a sixteen-type model based on Jung’s theory. The word, “unconscious,” has been wrongly translated into English from the original German word which Jung wrote as “conscious.” The correct translation from the original German should read “For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively conscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect di"erent from the nature of the main function” (1923, p. 515; 1973, para 669).
> _
> ...


The mistranslation doesn't really change much, as you understand too, because we still need to determine what he means by relatively. And that's something that imo is understood by the rest of the context, in which he says that the auxiliary can't be as strong as the dominant. I think it was just another way for him to give emphasis to that, rather than claim the auxiliary has the opposite attitude, since he doesn't mention this anywhere at all. 

"Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]"

"As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle."

"A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling (_NF_) attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect (_ST_), whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition. "

In this, for example we can see he paired 2 conscious with 2 unconscious functions, and we also know he believed the attitude of E/I to encompass the conscious/unconscious in its entirety, from the rest of the book.
The last section where he talks about the auxiliary is quite small, and I can see why Myers wanted to interpret it the way she did, but I think upon careful reading it was misinterpretation.



> _If _Jung actually meant FiNi, then I think he was wrong since INFP and ENFP are similar to each other.


It doesn't make Jung wrong, it makes the MBTI wrong, in this case. 
Because it's not using accurate, consistent semantic framework to distinguish the types. 
Even if Jung made mistakes, the MBTI doesn't even try to have fundamental definitions for the terms used. On one hand they say E/I is how social you are, then in the functions supposedly how "subjective/objective" you are, then your P/J shows what's your "outward" behavior (meaning E = expressing yourself lol). So in the end, all of them put together show there's no actual underlying foundation as to why they have to be this way. Which is the difference to what Jung tried to do.

The FiNi wouldn't belong to the INFP, it would belong to the INF Jungian type, which closer to the NFJ. It's what I was telling you earlier about the P = extraversion, J = introversion. 
That's because Jung didn't just pair functions with attitudes as if the attitude is subservient to it, he just explained how someone with a general conscious attitude of E or I and a dominant function X, would behave.
The ENFP and INFP are both extraverts, the INFP is just less social and more analytical, but their general attitudes are the same. The similarities between them show one can't possibly be a Jungian FI and the other a Jungian NE, as these types have very different resulting attitudes.

Basically to build an accurate typology system it's a better idea to start from the premises Jung put forth about adaptability (because they are well observable and he was right to distinguish them), the general definitions of his 4 functions and build up from it while being critical of what he described in the individual function-attitudes, to avoid making the same mistakes.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> Why not?


Jung: "Adaptation demands an observance of laws far more universal in their application than purely local and temporary conditions."

Adaptability: you modify an object or a (mental) state for a new purpose - one that was not originally anticipated.

You claim that an extrovert accepts additional information. But that doesn't mean he or she is flexible/adaptable. Adaptability sometimes means that you should not accept additional information.



> What does it mean "external factors"? If it's what I think, then INTPs most definitely start their process from external factors too, they're pretty known to be always on the lookout for new information, same as the ENTP really. Always reading and learning something, etc.
> The differences usually observed between an INTP and an ENTP (provided that first is T dom and latter N dom) is that the first will tend to analyze something and when they are in a rut their tendency will be to keep analyzing from different angles, while the ENTP will take a step back and search for more information to get an even bigger picture. It's kinda the same difference for all judging and perceiving doms, even Js.


I disagree with you here. I don't think ENTP has a dominant Ne and an auxiliary Ti. Why? Because every time Ne is involved, Ti is involved too.

This is my view on the types. ENTP: extraversion + NxTx... INTP: introversion + NxTx...

'External factor' refers to an immediate perception of the real world... which triggers other cognitive processes/mental representations. 

-----

"the ENTP will take a step back and search for more information to get an even bigger picture"

Yes


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> The mistranslation doesn't really change much, as you understand too, because we still need to determine what he means by relatively. And that's something that imo is understood by the rest of the context, in which he says that the auxiliary can't be as strong as the dominant. I think it was just another way for him to give emphasis to that, rather than claim the auxiliary has the opposite attitude, since he doesn't mention this anywhere at all.
> "Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]"
> "As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle."
> "A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling (NF) attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect (ST), whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition. "
> ...


Well, this is _your_ interpretation.



> It doesn't make Jung wrong, it makes the MBTI wrong, in this case.
> Because it's not using accurate, consistent semantic framework to distinguish the types.
> Even if Jung made mistakes, the MBTI doesn't even try to have fundamental definitions for the terms used. On one hand they say E/I is how social you are, then in the functions supposedly how "subjective/objective" you are, then your P/J shows what's your "outward" behavior (meaning E = expressing yourself lol). So in the end, all of them put together show there's no actual underlying foundation as to why they have to be this way. Which is the difference to what Jung tried to do.
> 
> ...


Again, your theory about adaptability is inaccurate. Jung's Extraversion is about objectivity (i.e. the "collective standpoint") and his Introversion is about subjectivity. Moreover, Jung was wrong. 

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/extraversion-or-introversion.htm

Have you read this? 

_"The first pair of psychological preferences is Extraversion and Introversion. Where do you put your attention and get your energy? Do you like to spend time in the outer world of people and things (Extraversion), or in your inner world of ideas and images (Introversion)?
_
_Extraversion and Introversion as terms used by C. G. Jung explain different attitudes people use to direct their energy. These words have a meaning in psychology that is different from the way they are used in everyday language."_

There is no clear distinction between Jung's E/I and Myers-Briggs' E/I. 

It is not as if Myers-Briggs E/I is the same as Big Five E/I.

-----

"The FiNi wouldn't belong to the INFP, it would belong to the INF Jungian type, which closer to the NFJ. It's what I was telling you earlier about the P = extraversion, J = introversion."

The problem here is that MBTI types do not correspond with your "types". And there are plenty of evidence that supports MBTI.

Your claim that INF Jungian type corresponds to ENFJ (mbti) is ridiculous. Jung's Extraversion is partially about "social extraversion".

_"Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get “with it,” the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts."
_
_"He lives in and through others; all self-communings give him the creeps. Dangers lurk there which are better drowned out by noise. If he should ever have a “complex,” he finds refuge in the social whirl and allows himself to be assured several times a day that everything is in order."_


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> What does it mean "external factors"? If it's what I think, then INTPs most definitely start their process from external factors too, they're pretty known to be always on the lookout for new information, same as the ENTP really. Always reading and learning something, etc.


_
_I: "The difference between ENTP and INTP is that the former _often_ starts the cognitive processes from external factors."

Yes, INTPs read a lot of books. But reading is not about external factors (i.e. immediate perception of the real world) in my view. It is about your own mental images. 

-----

https://introvertdear.com/news/intr...ns-really-are-different-according-to-science/




_







_


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

MD_analyst said:


> Just because INTJs lead with NiTe doesn't mean we can't enjoy theoretical physics. This is sort of how the shadow functions come into play-- Ni is going to be influenced by Ne, and Te by Ti: for example, using one's own logical reasoning (Ti) to consider multiple possibilities related to theoretical physics (Ne) can influence how the user then assesses for external evidence to logically justify the possibilities (Te), and then narrow down to a few possibilities to elaborate on (Ni) based on that use of Te.


But we _know_ that a vast majority of pure mathematicians are INTP, and a vast majority of theoretical physicists are INTJ. This can only be explained by 1) stronger functions or 2) conscious functions.

I agree with you that shadow functions (or Vital functions: Socionics) are important, though.


----------



## xiangguosun (Nov 26, 2018)

The first four words I come up with are: happy, happy, happy, happy. hahaha


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Tellus said:


> But we _know_ that a vast majority of pure mathematicians are INTP, and a vast majority of theoretical physicists are INTJ.


We "know" that?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Ocean Helm said:


> We "know" that?


Yes

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-your-personality-type.531612/

"Every time we do this poll, we are heavily INTJ. It seems to go with being scientifically inclined."


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Tellus said:


> "Every time we do this poll, we are heavily INTJ. It seems to go with being scientifically inclined."


You said "vast majority" and instead we have a vast... plurality? I guess that's fine but do you have a similar thing to show that INTPs are the same about math?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

If Ti is theoretical and Te is practical, then what the h-ell does SeTi (ego) mean?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Ocean Helm said:


> You said "vast majority" and instead we have a vast... plurality? I guess that's fine but do you have a similar thing to show that INTPs are the same about math?


no


----------



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

Tellus said:


> But we _know_ that a vast majority of pure mathematicians are INTP, and a vast majority of theoretical physicists are INTJ. This can only be explained by 1) stronger functions or 2) conscious functions.


I guess you can also look at it another way: INTP mathematicians may be using their own logical reasoning (Ti) to consider the right/best answer from a multitude of possible ways to solve a mathematical formula/concept/problem (Ne)….INTJ theoretical physicists may be elaborating on a theory they come up with (Ni) and then test that theory through experimentation and/or seeking real-world external evidence for that theory (Te). 

There are different ways to interpret the functions and interpret which ones are at play-- that's fine, as long as the interpretations are consistent with what is presented in reality.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

MD_analyst said:


> I guess you can also look at it another way: INTP mathematicians may be using their own logical reasoning (Ti) to consider the right/best answer from a multitude of possible ways to solve a mathematical formula/concept/problem (Ne)….INTJ theoretical physicists may be elaborating on a theory they come up with (Ni) and then test that theory through experimentation and/or seeking real-world external evidence for that theory (Te).


The problem here is that "elaborating on a theory" includes logical reasoning. Ni only _perceives _objects/situations.

"real-world external evidence" is about Sensing _and_ Thinking.

-----

If Ti is theoretical and Te is practical, then what on earth does SeTi (ego) mean?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Jung: "Adaptation demands an observance of laws far more universal in their application than purely local and temporary conditions."
> 
> Adaptability: you modify an object or a (mental) state for a new purpose - one that was not originally anticipated.
> 
> You claim that an extrovert accepts additional information. But that doesn't mean he or she is flexible/adaptable. Adaptability sometimes means that you should not accept additional information.


The E and I are TWO modes of adaptation, one is changeable the other is self-protective, so yes BOTH are valid, what matters is how pronounced one or the other is in a person. More specifically, the extravert is willing to adapt their certainties to new information more readily than the introvert. The difference with the introvert is that the he takes a defensive stance first, while the extravert takes an willing stance first. Then the information is double checked/analyzed/whatnot at whatever level of consciousness the person is capable of and accepted or not. Obviously we're talking about complex interactions here, but bottom line is that the extravert will adapt their certainties while the introvert will defend them, _habitually_. This is what Jung observed and described as the key difference between the types. He didn't use the terms objectivity and subjectivity in the same manner we commonly use, exactly. He referred to the "object" as anything outside of the "subject" and the extravert was the objective type who has a good relation with the object (not defensive), while the introvert the opposite. 
How small or large the object, for the person depends on N/S as well as general intelligence. Jung's mistake was that he conflated these things, as his descriptions of E types conflate with S+E. 
Adaptability was the basic premise he put forth and developed his types, it's in the introduction of chapter 10. 




> I disagree with you here. I don't think ENTP has a dominant Ne and an auxiliary Ti. Why? Because every time Ne is involved, Ti is involved too.
> 
> This is my view on the types. ENTP: extraversion + NxTx... INTP: introversion + NxTx...
> 
> 'External factor' refers to an immediate perception of the real world... which triggers other cognitive processes/mental representations.


And I agree with you except that the P is the real extraversion here. There's no "NeTi", there is E+NT+j/p. Because extraversion and introversion are separate traits from individual functions. It's like at some level you understand what I'm saying but not with the same words, because you believe in different definitions of E/I.

You asked earlier what difference is the ESTJ/ISTJ in Jung's theory because of MBTI's E/I. In reality there are differences, but Jung didn't pinpoint them so they were not part of his theory. 
In reality, the mbti "E" types are sort of more "aggressive" in their attitude. The EJs will aggressively protect their certainties, and the EPs will aggressively seek out new data/experiences/input. The P/J attitude is what reflects the adaptability preference (Jung's E/I).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Well, this is _your_ interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've already addressed why Jung was wrong in conflating sociability with E, such as that being social can serve both attitudes of adaptation. 
The Jungian social introvert will seek to expand their view to other people, effectively consolidating his position. This is easily seen for example, in highly J (introverted) ESFJ social circles, where the ESFJ will try to align people to their point of view even by means of emotional manipulation. This happens because it's the best way for the ESFJ to avoid any cognitive dissonance from new datas, it protects their certainties and avoids change. If the ESFJ is balanced by their FP shadow they will have a more flexible approach and be genuinely caring and avoid hurting others as much as possible. If you read Jung's section of the attitude of the introvert (conscious+unconscious), he's describing strong J types quite well.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> _
> _I: "The difference between ENTP and INTP is that the former _often_ starts the cognitive processes from external factors."
> 
> Yes, INTPs read a lot of books. But reading is not about external factors (i.e. immediate perception of the real world) in my view. It is about your own mental images.
> ...


Reading is literally allowing input in your brain though. But it's not just that, INTPs do seek out information in a very similar way to ENTPs, in a broad manner that willingly puts them in the position to rethink what they understand and adapt their understanding to the new information. They will become frustrated if they can't find new things to challenge them, like all NPs.

As for the link, see my other post about EP/EJ/IP/IJ differences, but also I want to add that the *terms* extraversion and introversion from a scientific point of view may not correspond to the same things we talk in typology exactly. For example, they may correlate with N/S preference for more sensorial stimuli, or with time of processing and not necessarily adaptability, etc etc.

I think the meaning Jung gave to E/I was diluted after Myers because people at the time simply didn't understand adaptability in the same way we do today, since it related to evolution and species/behavioral biology/psychology that weren't as developed as it is today. There's no literature that I know of that addresses these things, they all take it for granted it's what he original referred to. And as a consequence, science has picked those popular words to define what they observe without going back to the origins of type theory. Because at the bottom, Jung's choice to define his terms as he did was his own idea, it's a semantics issue.


----------



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

Tellus said:


> The problem here is that "elaborating on a theory" includes logical reasoning. Ni only _perceives _objects/situations.
> 
> "real-world external evidence" is about Sensing _and_ Thinking.


By "elaborating", I meant becoming more specific about the theory-- Ni perceiving more specific and detailed ideas/possibilities about objects and situations. 

And yes, real-world external evidence involves Sensing and Thinking-- specifically, Se and Te. In a way, Te needs to look at the external data/observable facts (Se) as well as novel, unfamiliar possibilities in the external world (Ne) before doing logical reasoning based off of all the external info, and that's why it must be paired with Ni or Si in order to incorporate internal/personal perception (since the external perception of Se is already integrated into Te). This is why everyone is able to use all the functions-- what distinguishes each type is HOW those functions are used, and for what purpose. Strong NiTe users will still use Se, Ne, and Ti, but the Se/Ne is often used for the purpose of coming to a logical conclusion based on external evidence through Te, not to come up with a logical conclusion based on personal understanding through Ti (otherwise they would be a strong SeTi or NeTi user).



Tellus said:


> If Ti is theoretical and Te is practical, then what on earth does SeTi (ego) mean?


I'm not sure where you're getting the "ego" part from? Are you referring to SeTi in socionics? SeTi basically involves perceiving external facts/observable data (Se) and then using personal understanding to make sense of it/reason it out (Ti). I never said Ti has to be theoretical-- it is a decision-making function, and since it's introverted, it integrates both theoretical and concrete details (Ni and Si respectively) during its logical reasoning. That's why it needs to be paired with extraverted perception-- the introverted perceiving functions already play a role in its personal/introverted reasoning.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

MD_analyst said:


> Logical reasoning, either for its own sake (often in the case of Ti), or for the purpose of making decisions. Thinking/feeling are "judging" functions, so the logical reasoning in Te/Ti is often used for helping make decisions.





MD_analyst said:


> Oops, I meant to say that for Te, the logical reasoning is for the _practicality_ in making decisions, not for the "purpose." That was an error in how I worded the last part of my first sentence.
> 
> Both Te/Ti serve the purpose to make decisions by looking at the logic-- Ti often does so for its own sake (because it is introverted and focused on personal understanding of the decisions it makes), Te often does so for the sake of having a practical output (because it is extraverted and focused on external outcomes of the decisions it makes).
> 
> ...


I have to rethink decision-making and Te/Ti. ...but I would like to continue this discussion later.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> Reading is literally allowing input in your brain though. But it's not just that, INTPs do seek out information in a very similar way to ENTPs, in a broad manner that willingly puts them in the position to rethink what they understand and adapt their understanding to the new information. They will become frustrated if they can't find new things to challenge them, like all NPs.
> 
> As for the link, see my other post about EP/EJ/IP/IJ differences, but also I want to add that the *terms* extraversion and introversion from a scientific point of view may not correspond to the same things we talk in typology exactly. For example, they may correlate with N/S preference for more sensorial stimuli, or with time of processing and not necessarily adaptability, etc etc.
> 
> I think the meaning Jung gave to E/I was diluted after Myers because people at the time simply didn't understand adaptability in the same way we do today, since it related to evolution and species/behavioral biology/psychology that weren't as developed as it is today. There's no literature that I know of that addresses these things, they all take it for granted it's what he original referred to. And as a consequence, science has picked those popular words to define what they observe without going back to the origins of type theory. Because at the bottom, Jung's choice to define his terms as he did was his own idea, it's a semantics issue.


I don't think reading distinguishes an introvert from an extrovert. ENFJs, for example, read a lot. And I don't think Jung referred to that kind of input.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> I've already addressed why Jung was wrong in conflating sociability with E, such as that being social can serve both attitudes of adaptation.
> The Jungian social introvert will seek to expand their view to other people, effectively consolidating his position. This is easily seen for example, in highly J (introverted) ESFJ social circles, where the ESFJ will try to align people to their point of view even by means of emotional manipulation. This happens because it's the best way for the ESFJ to avoid any cognitive dissonance from new datas, it protects their certainties and avoids change. If the ESFJ is balanced by their FP shadow they will have a more flexible approach and be genuinely caring and avoid hurting others as much as possible. If you read Jung's section of the attitude of the introvert (conscious+unconscious), he's describing strong J types quite well.


You keep referring to Jung even though you think he was wrong. That is problematic.

A couple of months ago I posted this on another forum:

_*If* there is a difference between social extraversion and cognitive extraversion, then I suggest this division:_

_SLE, SEE, ILE, IEE ... social extroverts and cognitive extroverts_

_LSE, ESE, LIE, EIE ... social extroverts and cognitive introverts_

_LSI, ESI, LII, EII ... social introverts and cognitive extroverts_

_SLI, SEI, ILI, IEI ... social introverts and cognitive introverts

-----
_
Today I don't think "cognitive extraversion" is about extraversion at all. But Myers-Briggs J/P is vague, so it is an important issue.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> The E and I are TWO modes of adaptation, one is changeable the other is self-protective, so yes BOTH are valid, what matters is how pronounced one or the other is in a person. More specifically, the extravert is willing to adapt their certainties to new information more readily than the introvert. The difference with the introvert is that the he takes a defensive stance first, while the extravert takes an willing stance first. Then the information is double checked/analyzed/whatnot at whatever level of consciousness the person is capable of and accepted or not. Obviously we're talking about complex interactions here, but bottom line is that the extravert will adapt their certainties while the introvert will defend them, habitually. This is what Jung observed and described as the key difference between the types. He didn't use the terms objectivity and subjectivity in the same manner we commonly use, exactly. He referred to the "object" as anything outside of the "subject" and the extravert was the objective type who has a good relation with the object (not defensive), while the introvert the opposite.
> How small or large the object, for the person depends on N/S as well as general intelligence. Jung's mistake was that he conflated these things, as his descriptions of E types conflate with S+E.
> Adaptability was the basic premise he put forth and developed his types, it's in the introduction of chapter 10.


Let's agree to disagree here.



> And I agree with you except that the P is the real extraversion here. There's no "NeTi", there is E+NT+j/p. Because extraversion and introversion are separate traits from individual functions. It's like at some level you understand what I'm saying but not with the same words, because you believe in different definitions of E/I.


Well, there is E+NxTx in my view ... or E+NyTy etc .... j/p doesn't mean anything. 

I use NeTi etc for convenience.



> You asked earlier what difference is the ESTJ/ISTJ in Jung's theory because of MBTI's E/I. In reality there are differences, but Jung didn't pinpoint them so they were not part of his theory.
> In reality, the mbti "E" types are sort of more "aggressive" in their attitude. The EJs will aggressively protect their certainties, and the EPs will aggressively seek out new data/experiences/input. The P/J attitude is what reflects the adaptability preference (Jung's E/I).


You keep ignoring that mbti P/J only refers to "the outer world". You cannot redefine MBTT.

_"Everyone takes in information some of the time. Everyone makes decisions some of the time. However, when it comes to dealing with the outer world, people who tend to focus on making decisions have a preference for Judging because they tend to like things decided. People who tend to focus on taking in information prefer Perceiving because they stay open to a final decision in order to get more information."_

https://frithluton.com/articles/introversion/

_"Introversion. A mode of psychological orientation where the movement of energy is toward the inner world."
_
_------
_
_"Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the prime motivating factor and that the object is of secondary importance. [“Definitions,” CW 6, par. 769.]"
_
_"Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion."_

THIS is the difference between an introvert and an extrovert according to Jung.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> Myers of course didn't choose the P/J to refer to E/I because she changed his theory with the auxiliary switch. It's basically by accident, because J and P measure symptomatic behaviors that can fit into the E/I types.
> 
> For example, someone who's willing to control his environment, act on it and take responsibility for others (organize objects) and have things decided and unchanging, is likely someone who has the introverted attitude as a whole. Because the introvert is someone willing to change the object, while the extravert is driven to change themselves. The Ps in MBTI are considered adaptable, while Js not so much.
> 
> ...


What exactly do you mean by "change the object"?

You: _"Duuude cmon. Just read the book, or at least the chapter. Or at least the attitudes of both types."_

Jung:

_"Never, therefore, does he expect to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the only ones he knows are outside himself. Epimetheus-like, his inner life succumbs to the external necessity"_

Extroverts are not driven to change themselves. Instead, their subjects just "tag along".


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> What exactly do you mean by "change the object"?
> 
> You: _"Duuude cmon. Just read the book, or at least the chapter. Or at least the attitudes of both types."_
> 
> ...


First two lines of the introduction of chapter 10 and a little below:

_
In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But, in addition, I shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life._

_The relation between subject and object, considered biologically, is always a relation of adaptation, since every relation between subject and object presupposes mutually modifying effects from either side. These modifications constitute the adaptation. The typical attitudes to the object, therefore, are adaptation processes.
_


The difference between E and I is that the E is oriented to change their mind while the I to change the environment (object) so that it aligns with his mind. It's the two methods of how the mind adapts to correct cognitive dissonance. And why the E=P and J=I.
The rest of the explanation is in the quote you decided that we should agree to disagree about.




> You keep referring to Jung even though you think he was wrong. That is problematic.
> 
> A couple of months ago I posted this on another forum:
> 
> ...


I don't think it's problematic at all, he was right about certain things and wrong about others. Critically engaging his theory is what everyone should be doing. This conversation started because you thought Jung believed in alternating stacks, and I explained to you why that wasn't the case, the rest of the discussion has been both about where he was wrong and where he was right.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Well, there is E+NxTx in my view ... or E+NyTy etc .... j/p doesn't mean anything.
> 
> I use NeTi etc for convenience.


But what do E and I really mean, what is "NeTi" supposed to be?
j/p = denotes the dominant function preference, isn't that how socionics uses them too? it's a straightforward way






> You keep ignoring that mbti P/J only refers to "the outer world". You cannot redefine MBTT.
> 
> _"Everyone takes in information some of the time. Everyone makes decisions some of the time. However, when it comes to dealing with the outer world, people who tend to focus on making decisions have a preference for Judging because they tend to like things decided. People who tend to focus on taking in information prefer Perceiving because they stay open to a final decision in order to get more information."_
> 
> https://frithluton.com/articles/introversion/



We're going in circles again. The point is to understand where these behaviors come from and how they connect in a unifying, personality-wide way. Which is where the MBTI fails. 
Their Judgers are people who want to have control over the object so they don't have to change their minds a lot. They are resistant to change and consequently in defense against the object more often than not. Which is what Jung saw as the basic premise of Introversion.
Their Perceivers are people who are resistant to assume control over the object and prefer to keep themselves open to change. Which is what Jung described as Extraversion. 
It's the basic principles that bridge MBTI and Jung's theory, MBTI's P/J is an adaptability axis. 





> _"Introversion. A mode of psychological orientation where the movement of energy is toward the inner world."
> _
> _------
> _
> ...


if you continue quote mining and selectively reading, you're just hurting your own chances of understanding the full thing


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

A good example of how a strong J= Introvert changes the object to deal with his cognitive dissonance is Jordan Peterson in the following:


* *












Dillahunty here describes perfectly the strong introvert cognition of how they change they object so they don't have to deal with changing their certainties. It's how the introvert mind deals with the cognitive dissonance.
Additionally, JP's particularity VS the other apologists he speaks of is also the difference between NI and SI, as the latter is fine with just denying the truth, the former will create a more elaborate parallel truth like JP does.
Of course not every introvert/J does this so pronounced, as people have varying strength of preference.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> First two lines of the introduction of chapter 10 and a little below:
> In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But, in addition, I shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life.
> The relation between subject and object, considered biologically, is always a relation of adaptation, since every relation between subject and object presupposes mutually modifying effects from either side. These modifications constitute the adaptation. The typical attitudes to the object, therefore, are adaptation processes.
> 
> ...


_"Never, therefore, does he expect to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the only ones he knows are outside himself. Epimetheus-like, his inner life succumbs to the external necessity" 
_
_"This is the extravert's danger; he becomes caught up in objects, wholly losing himself in their toils."_

E doesn't change his mind... it is what the external conditions dictate. Another way to put this is that E's mind IS CHANGED.

I changes his mind... it is not what the external conditions dictate. 

_"Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion."_

-----

It is not possible to "change the environment (object)". Introverts are not magicians who can turn one object into another object.



> I don't think it's problematic at all, he was right about certain things and wrong about others. Critically engaging his theory is what everyone should be doing. This conversation started because you thought Jung believed in alternating stacks, and I explained to you why that wasn't the case, the rest of the discussion has been both about where he was wrong and where he was right.


The problem is that your cherry-picking changes the system. It is not Jung's theory anymore.

Alternating stacks? FiNeSiTe? I have never claimed that. 

You have explained why YOU think it is FiNi... But I still don't think that was Jung's point of view. He wrote: _relatively_ conscious.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> A good example of how a strong J= Introvert changes the object to deal with his cognitive dissonance is Jordan Peterson in the following:
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


The introvert adds meaning to the object. But that doesn't mean he (or she) changes it. The definition of 'atheist' is the same. 

JP suggests an alternative definition, but "the collective standpoint" is unchanged. The subject (JP) is changed, though.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> The introvert adds meaning to the object. But that doesn't mean he (or she) changes it. The definition of 'atheist' is the same.
> 
> JP suggests an alternative definition, but "the collective standpoint" is unchanged. The subject (JP) is changed, though.


He changed the definition of religion to be "what you act out", so that he can say everyone is religious, because he doesn't want to accept that one can be atheist and uphold morals. It's not always about physically affecting the object because it's impossible to do so when it's about ideas. It's not like organizing your desk or your day, and that's how MBTI is limited, since it can't test for these things well. And it's also more T-focused in those questions, which is prob why a lot of FJs type as FPs.
The collective standpoint is changed because he affects his followers and people who believe him and don't have the will, knowledge or capacity to see through his thought process.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> _"Never, therefore, does he expect to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the only ones he knows are outside himself. Epimetheus-like, his inner life succumbs to the external necessity"
> _
> _"This is the extravert's danger; he becomes caught up in objects, wholly losing himself in their toils."_
> 
> ...


Object is anything outside of our nervous system, so introverts do change it of course, extraverts necessarily change it too, but through different ways. It's not about magic, you just haven't given this enough thought... 



> The problem is that your cherry-picking changes the system. It is not Jung's theory anymore.
> 
> Alternating stacks? FiNeSiTe? I have never claimed that.
> 
> You have explained why YOU think it is FiNi... But I still don't think that was Jung's point of view. He wrote: _relatively_ conscious.


So what if it changes the system lol it just makes it more accurate, since it corrects for Jung's mistakes. I was clear in the parts that was Jung's and then what wasn't.
You don't think it was Jung's viewpoint because you are just reading a couple paragraphs of it, get stuck on a word and avoid the rest of the book which gives the necessary context.

No, you said most people think Jung's stacks were like FiNeSeTe, which is alternating in the conscious, but it was Myers' stack not Jung's.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> But what do E and I really mean, what is "NeTi" supposed to be?
> j/p = denotes the dominant function preference, isn't that how socionics uses them too? it's a straightforward way


Myers-Briggs E and I are OK in my view.

There is no dominant function. ISTP's Ti and Se (TxSx) are equally strong/conscious. ISTP is strongly related to the parietal lobe (i.e. perception).



> We're going in circles again. The point is to understand where these behaviors come from and how they connect in a unifying, personality-wide way. Which is where the MBTI fails.
> Their Judgers are people who want to have control over the object so they don't have to change their minds a lot.
> They are resistant to change and consequently in defense against the object more often than not. Which is what Jung saw as the basic premise of Introversion.
> Their Perceivers are people who are resistant to assume control over the object and prefer to keep themselves open to change. Which is what Jung described as Extraversion.
> It's the basic principles that bridge MBTI and Jung's theory, MBTI's P/J is an adaptability axis.


Js are resistant to change because they have already made a decision. Ps have not considered the problem yet. That is why they seem more flexible/adaptable.

-----

J is actually about sequential ordering/"control", and P is about spatial ordering.


----------

