# How are Je/Pe/Ji/Pi dominants similar/different?



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

@_mushr00m_ @_Veggie_ @_Flatlander_ @_Entropic_ @_mimesis_ @_PaladinX_ @Figure
*
Short version*: How are Je dominants similar and different? How might an EXFJ be mistaken for an EXTJ? Is this even likely? What about Ni-dominants vs. Si-dominants? One is governed by Ni-Se and the other Si-Ne, so would having a Pi-dominant cognition carry any similarities? I often hear of Si-doms mistyping as Ni-doms for instance. 

Moreover, Fi-Te can develop a meticulous or precise nature, depending on what the Fi-dom values. For instance, while I studied physical chemistry, I felt that in order to truly understand a concept, I had to derive the equations myself before being able to use them. I imposed those standards of mathematical ethics (i.e., not just regurgitating an equation, but the belief that I should be able to reach that conclusion myself) to the point that I was perhaps not as practical or productive as others. I have wondered if an Fi-dom, therefore, could be mistaken for Ti-dom, by virtue of both being rational-dominants and more specifically, Ji-dominant.

So...



Compare and contrast Je-doms (Fe-Ti and Te-Fi) 
Compare and contrast Pe-doms (Ne-Si and Se-Ni) 
Compare and contrast Ji-doms (Ti-Fe and Fi-Te) 
Compare and contrast Pi-doms (Si-Ne and Ni-Se) 

How might any of these look similar?

For instance, perhaps an Ne-dominant is constantly focusing on the "next thing" because it's constantly filtering the objective possibilities of "this could happen, that could happen, that could have happened, etc.", but could not an Se-dom also focus on what the next thing is, staying current with the present [and more importantly, the present's constant shifting nature] (but perhaps internally, the Ne-dom is focusing on the "untouchable" portion or the potential that connects one event to another, whereas the Se-dom is focusing on the tangible; the event itself, and not so much the potential that leads to the event.).


*More Detailed Background*: I've been interested in figuring out what is the essential hierarchy of Jung's hypothesis on cognitive types. Are the functions more important than the attitudes or the attitudes more important than the functions? What is the role of rational/irrational dominance? Much of this inspiration comes from a thread I've shared with some of you on how it was the attitudes, and not the functions, that was the "core" of Jung's onion (a.k.a. Psychological Types).

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/86903-its-attitude-stupid.html

This would make sense, considering that before Jung ever delves into the nitty-gritty details of the function-types themselves, he first starts with the nature of the conscious-unconscious dyad, which I take it to be the dominant function (i.e., the one we identify with at the most conscious level) and its interplay and suppression of the inferior function (i.e., given its suppressed nature and opposing attitude, it exists more at the unconscious level, and may result as an "eruption of the inferior" per Quenk's _Was That Really Me?_ book).

I don't view functions in a vacuum. Intuitions or possibilities both arise from and lead to tangible outcomes, so it doesn't make sense for me to isolate sensing data from the intuition. Like yin and yang, intuition and sensing data complement one another. Opposite, in the sense that sensing deals with "that which exists or is" and intuition in "where a thing is going and from whence it came"... or like how light and shadow interplay—one without the other results in a blank slate—either blinding light or total darkness. Only through balance (which is NOT to say equal) or counterweighting one another, does a more interesting (or rather complete) picture develop:


































apologies... photos are like potato chips; you can't have just one.

But the more I've thought about what is the order of importance for Jungian cognitive theory, the more I've started ordering it as such:

1) *Attitudes *- introversion vs. extraversion (so _*generally*_, introverts have more common with each other than extraverts)

2) *Rational-Irrational* - Je/Ji vs. Pe/Pi (so I think Pi dominants have more in common with each other than, say, Ni vs. Ti dominants)

I know this is socionics, but I like this little gifs (source: Rationality vs. Irrationality (J vs. P) ) :

Judging/Rational









Perception/Irrational










3) *Functions* - Functions are important, I just think Fi and Ni doms have more in common than Fe... after all, both IXFPs and INXJs are introverts, so they are dominated by a subjective attitude. Jung describes the introvert as wanting to "have mastery" over the outer world... in other words, having the object bend to their subjective worldview. Whereas Jung notes extraverts as more able to "give themselves" over to the object, to flow with the object.

Thus, an Ne-dominant may actually be more connected to "reality" than a Ti-dominant.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

K, bunch of thoughts, not sure how much sense that makes. Critique away.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

hal0hal0 said:


> @_mushr00m_ @_Veggie_ @_Flatlander_ @_Entropic_ @_mimesis_ @_PaladinX_ @_Figure_
> *
> Short version*: How are Je dominants similar and different? How might an EXFJ be mistaken for an EXTJ? Is this even likely? What about Ni-dominants vs. Si-dominants? One is governed by Ni-Se and the other Si-Ne, so would having a Pi-dominant cognition carry any similarities? I often hear of Si-doms mistyping as Ni-doms for instance.


Hmmm... I'll have to think on it a bit.



> Moreover, Fi-Te can develop a meticulous or precise nature, depending on what the Fi-dom values. For instance, while I studied physical chemistry, I felt that in order to truly understand a concept, I had to derive the equations myself before being able to use them. I imposed those standards of mathematical ethics (i.e., not just regurgitating an equation, but the belief that I should be able to reach that conclusion myself) to the point that I was perhaps not as practical or productive as others. I have wondered if an Fi-dom, therefore, could be mistaken for Ti-dom, by virtue of both being rational-dominants and more specifically, Ji-dominant.


Yes. I believe they can be mistaken for one another. Here is a quote from Jung's Fi description where he mentions how it is very similar to Ti:



> Primordial images are, of course, just as much idea as feeling. Thus, basic ideas such as God, freedom, immortality are just as much feeling-values as they are significant as ideas. Everything, therefore, that has been said of the introverted thinking refers equally to introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought.





> So...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've already mentioned Ti & Fi. I'm not sure how to address the rest, except for Ne and Se. Jung also mentioned that the Ne type might confuse themselves as a Sensation type:



> Hence, for intuition really to become paramount, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed. I am now speaking of sensation as the simple and direct sense-reaction, an almost definite physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand, because, *if I ask the intuitive how he is orientated, he will speak of things which are quite indistinguishable from sense-perceptions. Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision.* They are selected by unconscious expectation. Not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, obtains the crucial value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value happens to become considerably enhanced by reason of the intuitive's unconscious attitude. In this way it may eventually attain the leading position, appearing to the intuitive's consciousness indistinguishable from a pure sensation. But actually it is not so.


What is interesting about this to me, is that in my time attending and conducting MBTI sessions, I have come across a few ENTPs that really thought they were Se-doms at first. Further analysis helped to show them otherwise though.




> *More Detailed Background*: I've been interested in figuring out what is the essential hierarchy of Jung's hypothesis on cognitive types. Are the functions more important than the attitudes or the attitudes more important than the functions? What is the role of rational/irrational dominance? Much of this inspiration comes from a thread I've shared with some of you on how it was the attitudes, and not the functions, that was the "core" of Jung's onion (a.k.a. Psychological Types).
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/86903-its-attitude-stupid.html
> 
> This would make sense, considering that before Jung ever delves into the nitty-gritty details of the function-types themselves, he first starts with the nature of the conscious-unconscious dyad, which I take it to be the dominant function (i.e., the one we identify with at the most conscious level) and its interplay and suppression of the inferior function (i.e., given its suppressed nature and opposing attitude, it exists more at the unconscious level, and may result as an "eruption of the inferior" per Quenk's _Was That Really Me?_ book).


I agree and I've made similar comments before about the notation. The majority of Psychological types is about E vs I. The hierarchical structure of Chapter X shows that E/I as the overarching type:


* *





Extraverted Type
* The General Attitude of Consciousness
* The Attitude of the Unconscious
* The Peculiarities of the Basic Psychological Functions in the Extraverted Attitude
** Thinking
** Extraverted Thinking Type
** Feeling
** Extraverted Feeling Type
** Sensation
** Extraverted Sensation Type
** Intuition
** Extraverted Intuition Type

Introverted Type
* The General Attitude of Consciousness
* The Attitude of the Unconscious
* The Peculiarities of the Basic Psychological Functions in the Extraverted Attitude
** Thinking
** Introverted Thinking Type
** Feeling
** Introverted Feeling Type
** Sensation
** Introverted Sensation Type
** Intuition
** Introverted Intuition Type




He also mentioned it in the Type definition:



> In two previous contributions upon the theory of types I did not differentiate the thinking and feeling from the introverted and extraverted types, but identified the thinking type with the introverted, and the feeling with the extraverted. *But a more complete investigation of the material has shown me that we must treat the introversion and the extraversion types as superordinated categories to the function types.* Such a division, moreover, entirely corresponds with experience, since, for example, there are, undoubtedly two sorts of feeling-types, the attitude of one being orientated more by his feeling-experience, the other more by the object.





> I don't view functions in a vacuum. Intuitions or possibilities both arise from and lead to tangible outcomes, so it doesn't make sense for me to isolate sensing data from the intuition. Like yin and yang, intuition and sensing data complement one another. Opposite, in the sense that sensing deals with "that which exists or is" and intuition in "where a thing is going and from whence it came"... or like how light and shadow interplay—one without the other results in a blank slate—either blinding light or total darkness. Only through balance (which is NOT to say equal) or counterweighting one another, does a more interesting (or rather complete) picture develop:
> 
> But the more I've thought about what is the order of importance for Jungian cognitive theory, the more I've started ordering it as such:
> 
> ...



I don't have any major criticisms of this point of view.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

hal0hal0 said:


> Compare and contrast Je-doms (Fe-Ti and Te-Fi)
> Compare and contrast Pe-doms (Ne-Si and Se-Ni)
> Compare and contrast Ji-doms (Ti-Fe and Fi-Te)
> Compare and contrast Pi-doms (Si-Ne and Ni-Se)
> ...


I was thinking it's as if one attitude is going horizontal and the other vertical but one depends more on the external so the introverted is inverted, arranging the incoming data for those who are Pe/Ji or Ji/Pe. And with Je/Pi and Pi/Je, I'm less confident on what to say here in that it's the opposite process of having internal perceptions and externalising those with Je. So yeah it would be the same pattern of information collecting with Pe/Ji versus Je/Pi be it ISFJ or INFJ etc. It could be a helpful angle to help to type from also until you magnify what about the object is being payed attention in how it's perceived and the priority of how it's judged. 

*



More Detailed Background

Click to expand...

*


> : I've been interested in figuring out what is the essential hierarchy of Jung's hypothesis on cognitive types. Are the functions more important than the attitudes or the attitudes more important than the functions? What is the role of rational/irrational dominance? Much of this inspiration comes from a thread I've shared with some of you on how it was the attitudes, and not the functions, that was the "core" of Jung's onion (a.k.a. Psychological Types)


Sometimes it seems with irrational dominance and this is just a general observation, there is less decision making/sorting/arranging and enjoying more of what is happening in an experience. Whereas with judging doms or just the judging function - decisions, evaluations, critiques, arranging data and needing to make sense of it whether through evaluation or implementing it.



> I don't view functions in a vacuum. Intuitions or possibilities both arise from and lead to tangible outcomes, so it doesn't make sense for me to isolate sensing data from the intuition. Like yin and yang, intuition and sensing data complement one another. Opposite, in the sense that sensing deals with "that which exists or is" and intuition in "where a thing is going and from whence it came"... or like how light and shadow interplay—one without the other results in a blank slate—either blinding light or total darkness. Only through balance (which is NOT to say equal) or counterweighting one another, does a more interesting (or rather complete) picture develop:


Agreed! It doesn't make sense to view one without the other, night without day, air without water. But seriously, I can only imagine somebody dominant in a certain function and their inferior was non-existent would make for a lifelong imbalanced person, so yeah, the functions need each other, all parts of the same wall holding each other together, to become what we strive towards as developed, mature and healthy human beings, we stretch all our functions muscles throughout our lifetimes. I s'pose that's one way of putting it :/


:tongue:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hal0hal0 said:


> @_mushr00m_ @_Veggie_ @_Flatlander_ @_Entropic_ @_mimesis_ @_PaladinX_ @Figure
> *
> Short version*: How are Je dominants similar and different? How might an EXFJ be mistaken for an EXTJ? Is this even likely?


I've seen this happen a lot. Seems more common in men, because they may try to make their Fe seem and come across as more impersonal than it is, and I've seen a lot of male Fe doms mistyped as Te doms. 



> What about Ni-dominants vs. Si-dominants? One is governed by Ni-Se and the other Si-Ne, so would having a Pi-dominant cognition carry any similarities? I often hear of Si-doms mistyping as Ni-doms for instance.


I think it's more common for Si doms to mistype as Ni doms, mostly because of poor information available on how to delineate the two. They often and likely confuse the abstract nature of Si with intuition in a more generic sense. 



> Moreover, Fi-Te can develop a meticulous or precise nature, depending on what the Fi-dom values. For instance, while I studied physical chemistry, I felt that in order to truly understand a concept, I had to derive the equations myself before being able to use them. I imposed those standards of mathematical ethics (i.e., not just regurgitating an equation, but the belief that I should be able to reach that conclusion myself) to the point that I was perhaps not as practical or productive as others. I have wondered if an Fi-dom, therefore, could be mistaken for Ti-dom, by virtue of both being rational-dominants and more specifically, Ji-dominant.


Socionics argues that Fi doms have Ti role, so they are not nearly as bad at Ti as MBTI theory would profess. 



> So...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This question is too vague because they all share the same primary orientation (extroversion/introversion and rational/irrational) and therein lies their similarities. 



> For instance, perhaps an Ne-dominant is constantly focusing on the "next thing" because it's constantly filtering the objective possibilities of "this could happen, that could happen, that could have happened, etc.", but could not an Se-dom also focus on what the next thing is, staying current with the present [and more importantly, the present's constant shifting nature] (but perhaps internally, the Ne-dom is focusing on the "untouchable" portion or the potential that connects one event to another, whereas the Se-dom is focusing on the tangible; the event itself, and not so much the potential that leads to the event.).


I think that's missing that Ne is about seeing the absolute potential in an object, something Se does not. 



> *More Detailed Background*: I've been interested in figuring out what is the essential hierarchy of Jung's hypothesis on cognitive types. Are the functions more important than the attitudes or the attitudes more important than the functions? What is the role of rational/irrational dominance? Much of this inspiration comes from a thread I've shared with some of you on how it was the attitudes, and not the functions, that was the "core" of Jung's onion (a.k.a. Psychological Types).


To Jung, introversion/extroversion is what's more important over the function the psyche holds as a part of its egoic structure. If you have say, dominant intuition but your psyche is not compartmentalized in terms of introversion/extroversion (i.e. ambivert), you would not have a type. You would have something akin to a type if your psyche is compartmentalized towards either introversion/extroversion but not necessarily always wholly preferring a certain function as your dominant. 



> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/86903-its-attitude-stupid.html
> 
> This would make sense, considering that before Jung ever delves into the nitty-gritty details of the function-types themselves, he first starts with the nature of the conscious-unconscious dyad, which I take it to be the dominant function (i.e., the one we identify with at the most conscious level) and its interplay and suppression of the inferior function (i.e., given its suppressed nature and opposing attitude, it exists more at the unconscious level, and may result as an "eruption of the inferior" per Quenk's _Was That Really Me?_ book).
> 
> ...


Not entirely sure what the point of this portion is about. The similarities you end up with depends on what dichotomies that are being shared. Two introverts even if one is rational another irrational, share more in common like that than with an extrovert, but then again, an irrational introvert shares more with an irrational extrovert than a rational introvert. 

So I don't think there's much to do with more or less. They just cover different dynamic aspects.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

mushr00m said:


> *I was thinking it's as if one attitude is going horizontal and the other vertical but one depends more on the external so the introverted is inverted*, arranging the incoming data for those who are Pe/Ji or Ji/Pe. And with Je/Pi and Pi/Je, I'm less confident on what to say here in that it's the opposite process of having internal perceptions and externalising those with Je. So yeah it would be the same pattern of information collecting with Pe/Ji versus Je/Pi be it ISFJ or INFJ etc. It could be a helpful angle to help to type from also until you magnify what about the object is being payed attention in how it's perceived and the priority of how it's judged.


Interesting. I'm not sure I understand this part. So when you say the two attitudes (which I take to be introverted/extraverted) are perpendicular to each other, each has an internal and external portion to it?

In other words, when we say "introversion" what we really mean is introversion-dominance, extroversion-inferior. And vice versa for extroversion. 

Put another way, an Se-dominant, even if the focus is upon "that which exists" and the object itself, there is still some connection to the subject, however minor it may seem. In other words "pure" objectivity is an illusion (i.e., even extroverted processes are still subjective, even if the individual is attempting to suppress their influence upon the object). This would make sense, b/c all functions are considered "ways of thinking" or information processing and thus, would depend on the subject in some way.

Then... does it follow (sorry I have a habit of driving for symmetry/balance :tongue that introverts likewise can never be "purely" subjective? Just as yin-yang suggests a light amidst darkness and shadows amidst the light?



mushr00m said:


> Sometimes it seems with irrational dominance and this is just a general observation, there is less decision making/sorting/arranging and enjoying more of what is happening in an experience. Whereas with judging doms or just the judging function - decisions, evaluations, critiques, arranging data and needing to make sense of it whether through evaluation or implementing it.


Yeah, I've noticed this. I think rational dominants have an urge to "act" upon the object of interest, which doesn't necessarily translate to real world action, but more in the sense that the Ji/Je dominant attempts to impose some sort of judgment upon the object... a Ti-dom perhaps driven to define a given process, an Fi-dom upon its aesthetics, agreeableness or value. And, as I mentioned earlier, T and F processes work in tandem, which is why I think Ji dominants can look similar.... Thinking dominance drives for categorization, definition, etc., but underpinning the order imposed by Thinking is the Feeling side or "agreeableness" of it all.

This is easy to see in things like grammar and general language rules... The rules imposed are predominantly a thinking operation, imposing categories, rules and definitions that make language "work." However, within language, there is the Feeling component as well... the agreeableness of certain techniques, active voice, passive voice, etc., are aesthetic values that have their own "logic" as a rational process imposing order or structure, but it's based more off taste and agreeableness. Much of language is what "feels" or flows right.

Another good one: Why is symmetry "nice?" I know for me, I'm particularly guilty of believing in balance or the idea of reciprocity i.e., "all types are equal, yet different" (unlike one of our favorite and uh... _impassioned _members on this forum who is more hierarchical in his uh... interpretations on Jung :wink::laughing.



mushr00m said:


> Agreed! It doesn't make sense to view one without the other, night without day, air without water. But seriously, I can only imagine somebody dominant in a certain function and their inferior was non-existent would make for a lifelong imbalanced person, so yeah, the functions need each other, all parts of the same wall holding each other together, to become what we strive towards as developed, mature and healthy human beings, we stretch all our functions muscles throughout our lifetimes. I s'pose that's one way of putting it :/


PaladinX posted a thread with some of Jung's diagrams I rather like: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/427258-diagrams-jung.html












Entropic said:


> I've seen this happen a lot. Seems more common in men, because they may try to make their Fe seem and come across as more impersonal than it is, and I've seen a lot of male Fe doms mistyped as Te doms.


I wonder if the reverse is true as well... Could not Te-dominant women appear Fe-dominant? In the social context (using traditional gender roles for instance), etiquette, agreeableness of action, harmony, etc. is the "nuts and bolts" of a social system, so to speak, maintaining those structures could drive the Te-dom towards, say, being polite, as doing so is more likely to produce results. Inwardly, those values (Fi) are perhaps not at the Te-dom's conscious.



Entropic said:


> I think it's more common for Si doms to mistype as Ni doms, mostly because of poor information available on how to delineate the two. They often and likely confuse the abstract nature of Si with intuition in a more generic sense.


Personally, I think Si-doms can be just as "spacey" as Ni-doms are often described as (i.e., the archetypal manifestation being perhaps, reminiscing about past experiences and the sense impressions they leave). Introverts in general I think are more disconnected from the external reality (so... in a way, I think Ne-doms are more "with it" in the real world than Si-dom for instance).




Entropic said:


> To Jung, introversion/extroversion is what's more important over the function the psyche holds as a part of its egoic structure. If you have say, dominant intuition but your psyche is not compartmentalized in terms of introversion/extroversion (i.e. ambivert), you would not have a type. You would have something akin to a type if your psyche is compartmentalized towards either introversion/extroversion but not necessarily always wholly preferring a certain function as your dominant.


Yeah, I've heard you talk about differentiation before (which I take to be the orientation to a particular attitude). Is ambiversion "better?" If the thesis of Jung is that the conscious portion of our psyche suppresses the unconscious, and that we are "out of touch" with our inferior attitude, that suggests to me that "balance" is the goal, or put another way, perhaps it's better to say the imbalance is to way when the ball is out of bounds, so to speak (because really, where are the rules written in stone that "you must balance your psyche"... perhaps imbalance is valuable in its own right).



Entropic said:


> Two introverts even if one is rational another irrational, share more in common like that than with an extrovert, but then again, an irrational introvert shares more with an irrational extrovert than a rational introvert.


I'm confused by this. "like that" how? So is I vs. E more important? Or rational/irrational? Or is this imposing a value judgment that is too hierarchical?


----------



## ElliCat (May 4, 2014)

hal0hal0 said:


> Moreover, Fi-Te can develop a meticulous or precise nature, depending on what the Fi-dom values. For instance, while I studied physical chemistry, I felt that in order to truly understand a concept, I had to derive the equations myself before being able to use them. I imposed those standards of mathematical ethics (i.e., not just regurgitating an equation, but the belief that I should be able to reach that conclusion myself) to the point that I was perhaps not as practical or productive as others. I have wondered if an Fi-dom, therefore, could be mistaken for Ti-dom, by virtue of both being rational-dominants and more specifically, Ji-dominant.


That's been my personal experience too. Glad you mentioned it, because I've wondered about that. I'm definitely not a Ti-dom but I can relate to them, and it seems other people (unfamiliar with typology) see a lot of similarities there too. 



> I don't view functions in a vacuum. Intuitions or possibilities both arise from and lead to tangible outcomes, so it doesn't make sense for me to isolate sensing data from the intuition. Like yin and yang, intuition and sensing data complement one another. Opposite, in the sense that sensing deals with "that which exists or is" and intuition in "where a thing is going and from whence it came"... or like how light and shadow interplay—one without the other results in a blank slate—either blinding light or total darkness. Only through balance (which is NOT to say equal) or counterweighting one another, does a more interesting (or rather complete) picture develop:


Wholeheartedly agree. I don't like this "sensors have zero intuition" crap. Or even going the other way - my Se is shit, which from the little I know about Socionics would make sense, but I definitely use Si and it's not bad at all. Perhaps it would be more true if my lower functions were less developed, but then that to me would be a sign of underdevelopment/immaturity and not the normal way of things. I need Si to hold back my Ne and to ground me. Would it be true to say that Se needs Ni to give its perceptions meaning? 

Sorry that I don't have any grand insights to offer, and I hope I'm not polluting the thread with nonsense. I'd just like to deepen my understanding of the functions, so I'll be reading closely and asking questions if I can think of any at the time.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

@_hal0hal0_ I think I know what you're trying to do, but answering it will require more detailed sit down than I have the focus to do right now. I've tried a couple times now, and simply run onto tangents instead of darting it directly. 

I'll write something though, got my word on it


----------



## Hespera (Jun 3, 2011)

Beautiful! I think you are spot on with this @hal0hal0 and I can't wait to read more! Your approach seems more impressionistic than the usual systematic approach and I find that very refreshing. Personality study is both art and science after all.

I know Lenore Thomson had a ship-based model/metaphor (sort of described here under Chapter 10) where the functions that mirrored your dominant and secondary were your alternatives and were helpful because they worked similarly to your preferred functions (unlike your tertiary and inferior) while also giving you a fresh perspective. For example, as an INFP I have Ti and Se at my disposal. I still struggle a bit to sort out the Ti influence, but Se is definitely very helpful for me because it effectively snaps me out of my dominant judging function and into more pure extroverted sensing (whereas Ne is so connected to Fi that it's often difficult to access by itself).


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

@hal0hal0

Quick answers to your questions:


1.) "How are the two different Ji (Je/Pe/Pi) types similar and different?"


· They will appear similar in the methods they use to apply their worldview 
· They will appear different in that their actual worldviews are very different/oppositional

Example: an INFP who does not take type theory to seriously because it “puts people into boxes when people care different and can’t be defined that way” vs. an INTP who likes type theory but is too skeptical of its actual existence to take it too seriously. Different worldviews created by the Dominant (ethically impossible to categorize people, and empirically impossible to prove), but same way of applying their worldview (other viewpoints are possible).


2.) "Can the two different Ji (Je/Pe/Pi) types mistype as each other, and if so, why?"

· Yes, especially if they are “subtypes” or rely heavily on their Auxiliary function they will look more like each other, and the less they will correspond with the Rationality of their type (i.e. more Ne-ish INFP may look like Ne-ish INTP, and possibly more Irrational than say INFJ which is a truly Irrational type). 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so my response to this thread. I won't be adhering only to Jung's own ideas, as I think they depart from practicality and become wishy washy and over-complex past simply stating what cognitive functions are.

There are two different typological mechanics at stake in this - Rationality, and Function-Attitude in a Function Role. Rationality (whether a function is T/F or S/N) is independent of Function Role (is the function Dominant, Auxiliary, etc) so I think it's useful to divide the two ideas before trying to mash them together to describe a single type's traits. 

*RATIONALITY:*

Rationality is purely a way of defining whether a cognitive function is T/F, or S/N - nothing more. Unlike MBTI Jung labeled his types by their "Dominant" function, so by virtue of that T/F dominant types are Rational and S/N types Irrational, but in MBTI that isn't the case, so it's better to simply think of Rationality as an over-arching category of the 4 function categories for type theory as a whole. 

Hierarchically: 
Rationality > Function > Function-Attitude > Function-Attitude in a Function Role (i.e. Dominant)
or: T/F or N/S > T > Ti > Ti Dominant


*IDENTIFYING TYPE VIA RATIONALITY:
*
If you were to type someone and say, I know that person is a Thinker or a Feeler dominant (which people rarely do), you'd be typing on the basis of Rationality by itself. What people do more often is type from the basis of one of the other three - "I know Bob is a Thinker" (by function), or I know Mary is a Ti dominant (by function-attitude in a specific Role). As should be obvious, to type by Rationality alone would be to type by having a common set of characteristics to all F and T types - which can be done, but force too much generalization to be practical. 

The category that was used on this thread is not, in fact, rationality alone; it is function-role. Ti vs. Fi dom, with Se auxiliary. You wouldn't care so much about rational/irrational dominance (which would be, T/F dominance, or what E_TJ, E_FJ, I_FP, I_TP share in common); you would care to know what Ne, for example as an auxiliary. 

There is NOT to date a lot written in MBTI on function-roles, because MBTI itself doesn't depend on them. This in my opinion is a serious area of improvement in the future for the theory. The Beebe model is so far IMO the best effort in MBTI theory at creating function-roles. 

*ROUNDUP:*

You asked about the hierarchy on Jung's hypothesis on cognitive types. Jung proposes a dominant function, and I believe a very brief, non-conclusive proposal of what we label as the "auxiliary," as a weaker, supplemental function to the dominant. 

Single cognitive function within a role trumps both attitude alone, and function alone. Without a function inhabiting a clearly defined role in the psyche, attitude and function say very little/nothing about the way a type uses that function.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

hal0hal0 said:


> But the more I've thought about what is the order of importance for Jungian cognitive theory, the more I've started ordering it as such:
> 
> 1) *Attitudes *- introversion vs. extraversion (so _*generally*_, introverts have more common with each other than extraverts)
> 
> ...


Arr... this is confusing. They are contradicting. You say Ji has more in common with Je, but then you say Fi and Ni doms have more in common than Fe.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

uncertain said:


> Arr... this is confusing. They are contradicting. You say Ji has more in common with Je, but then you say Fi and Ni doms have more in common than Fe.


Yeah I didn't word that well, but I would like to point out that I never said "Ji has more in common with Je." :wink: You are extrapolating to conclusions that I never intended to be extrapolated to and putting words in my mouth. Fi and Ni are both introverts, and as I said, I consider introversion/extraversion the most important. What I said next was not "Ji has more in common with Je." I said that Ji dominants (INFPS and INTPs for instance) have more in common with each other than any other types, like Pi dominants, Pe, dominants, or Je dominants.

Anyways, I merely suggesting the following based on my own assumptions and claims about the _*hierarchy*_ of importance. To reiterate:



_*Attitude *_is of principle importance - in this case, Ni, Si, Fi, and Ti as introverts, have more in common with each other, as subjective attitudes, than Ne, Se, Fe, and Te. Introverts are subjectively oriented and tend to impose their own "distorted" viewpoint that cannot be objectively "proven." 
_*Rational/Irrational*_ - So judging dominants, ceterus paribus (i.e., assuming the same attitude), would have more in common with each other. This means, according to my hypothesis (which i never claim to be correct, btw, merely based off what I believe to be important based on what I've read in PT), the following pairings are there:

Je = Te/Fe 
Pe = Ne/Se
Ji = Ti/Fi
Pi = Ni/Si 
_*Functions *_- Those are the least important. Sure, Fe-dom and Fi-dom are both "feeling" dominant, but their attitude is completely different. One is oriented to the object and suppresses its inner, subjective perspective. While the other is oriented to the subjective, hidden part of cognition... introversion. 

Note these still obey attitude as what I take to be the most important factor. To give one example, take the Ji pairing... I consider an IXTP to have more in common with a IXFP compared to say, an INFJ. While true, all are introverts (satisfying point 1), IXTPs and IXFPs are both Ji-dominant, so subjective AND rational, whereas an INFP vs. INFJ only share introversion.

The same, I conjecture, can be applied to any of those pairings.

Fi-doms I consider to be more similar to Ni doms than Fe, simply because _*introversion/extraversion*_, IMO, takes precedence. Obviously, this is a hypothesis that has yet to be proven (if it even can), but I think that the attitude (introversion/extraversion) is the principle driver behind a person's cognitive orientation and disposition. Of course, creating hierarchies in this way is problematic, just as "function stacking" is problematic and not my preferred model (to an extent, I prefer the Model A structure of socionics for that precise reason over the Beebe model, although I admit socionics is something I'm only vaguely familiar with, because the functional descriptions I prefer described by Jung).


----------

