# Cognitive Functions: Communication difficulties ranked



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

The easiest functions to have in communication are the extroverted functions and because of this extroverts have an advantage with their power of expression since their ideas are strongly dominated by the lead extrovert function. But still not a those functions are equal in communication ease and below is the rank of the easiest to the hardest functions:

"Te" Extroverted Thinking
Te dominants ranks highest in communication due to how logic is easier to pick up and convey to others.

Se
Se dominants rank second in comparison to their Te counterparts since they have to conceptualize data that they observe in objects which is irrational. They have to describe the data they observe and that isn't as easy as point to logic which is straight forward. 

Ne
Ne dominants rank third naturally since intuition isn't as straight forward as as Se data. Its conceptualizing emerging potential which may turn out to be idiosyncratic. 

Fe
Fe dominants rank lowest in communication ease when conveying ideas due to how the values they pick up, which are naturally understood by them, are difficult to explain since language doesn't account for the various subtle tones they observe. Sure they may find it easier to adapt to people having one of the best interpersonal skills, however they would be harder to articulate.

For introverts the same principles applies for the same fundamental reasons. The only difference is that what makes the introverted functions harder is the emergence of new interpretations and idiosyncratic descriptions as the subject orientation drifts from the "concrete" becoming a bit more abstract. 

Ti
Si
Ni
Fi


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think it would depend on which types were communicating with each other, basically (otherwise, it's all down to individuals' communication styles). I've noticed that Fi and Fe types tend to clash to death at times in the communication department (I've seen some Fe types I know IRL accuse some Fi types as coming off as overly moralistic and preachy to the point that they somehow got very irritated by stuff they said). Don't even get me started with Fe and Te clashes that involve ways of dealing with people - those tend to be rather huge.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think it would depend on which types were communicating with each other, basically (otherwise, it's all down to individuals' communication styles). I've noticed that Fi and Fe types tend to clash to death at times in the communication department (I've seen some Fe types I know IRL accuse some Fi types as coming off as overly moralistic and preachy to the point that they somehow got very irritated by stuff they said). Don't even get me started with Fe and Te clashes that involve ways of dealing with people - those tend to be rather huge.


I can communicate with just about anyone for a period of time. For some reason it depends for me the stacking of each function. For example, i connect better with Ti in the aux, or tert position than lets say the DOM position. I do see the similarities with Ti-Fi, although the motivations are very different. Ti-Fi have a similarity about them in the process, how they take on strong subjective stances of ideas. Although the motivation and where it comes from is driven by either thinking or feeling, something that is obvious when looking at it. There is usually some sort of Fe spread amongst the Ti also. This seems to appear more often in debates or anything the poster is passionate about. It would only make sense that you use the one most natural, and if Ti is your thinking function, than Fe has to be your feeling function no matter how much you want to believe it's Fi.

Fe, well i make myself as unavailable as possible when interacting with people who use this function strongly. I can't deal, seriously.
Fi is another example. If it stands in the DOM position, i will have breakdowns in communication because my Ne Te feels cockblocked without some form of objectivity. The same can be said with strong Ti. Ti will deliver such a strong stance of subjectivity it will irritate my Te beyond. I know my Fi puts people off at times, the direct subjective flavour is just as annoying as Ti.


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

LOL. Way too many variables in individuals to come out and make such a blanket statement. Training? Motivation? Content? Audience?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I can communicate with just about anyone for a period of time. For some reason it depends for me the stacking of each function. For example, i connect better with Ti in the aux, or tert position than lets say the DOM position. I do see the similarities with Ti-Fi, although the motivations are very different. Ti-Fi have a similarity about them in the process, how they take on strong subjective stances of ideas. Although the motivation and where it comes from is driven by either thinking or feeling, something that is obvious when looking at it. There is usually some sort of Fe spread amongst the Ti also. This seems to appear more often in debates or anything the poster is passionate about. It would only make sense that you use the one most natural, and if Ti is your thinking function, than Fe has to be your feeling function no matter how much you want to believe it's Fi.
> 
> Fe, well i make myself as unavailable as possible when interacting with people who use this function strongly. I can't deal, seriously.
> Fi is another example. If it stands in the DOM position, i will have breakdowns in communication because my Ne Te feels cockblocked without some form of objectivity. The same can be said with strong Ti. Ti will deliver such a strong stance of subjectivity it will irritate my Te beyond. I know my Fi puts people off at times, the direct subjective flavour is just as annoying as Ti.


Yeah, I can definitely relate to the Fe issues you have, mainly with Fe dominants, I've noticed, where sometimes, I feel like their expectations of how I sould present my feelings are too consistent (some of them wear their expectations on their sleeves really strongly, I've noticed), to the point that I get paranoid altogether about what impressions they're getting from me when I just don't feel like acting on my feelings the same way all the time (they're my business in the end, period, end of story), unless they just happen to be in touch enough with their own subjectivity. "Can't deal" sums that up for me as well (I would say the tert. Fe types rub me similarly as well with this).


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

This was meant to be theoretical function analysis, I got bored in the middle of making this.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

ChanceyRose said:


> LOL. Way too many variables in individuals to come out and make such a blanket statement. Training? Motivation? Content? Audience?


Linguistic skills? Social anxiety? Yeah, completely agree.

I'm not a verbal person (more conceptual/visual) and I have mild social anxiety, making me an awful communicator, despite potentially being an extrovert. There is so much more to communication that the functions simply don't touch.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I feel the OP is completely off. How do Te doms have the easiest time communicating? That's freaking contextual. A Te user might have it easy communicating a theoretical idea, but expressing their feelings and what's wrong in a relationship is a completely different issue. I smell bias.

No function have it easier or harder to communicate since communication does not entirely hinge upon the functions that we use. Those with a dominant introverted function might however suffer from the problem of translating their introverted thoughts in a way that's easier to communicate to others. Ergo, that's where we need an extraverted function, more specifically, extraverted judgement, to help us out and identify ways of transforming our introverted thoughts into something more general that others are more likely to understand. This is definitely the most true for Pi dominants than Ji, but I think the same applies to Ji to a degree. 

With that said, I usually get along better with intuitives than sensors, and Ne users more so than Ni users. The exception being some INTJs. INFJs almost always immediately fall off my radar when it comes to communication. I just can't seem to communicate well with a person whose Fe is above tertiary position. Their Fe becomes much too overbearing and annoys the hell out of me after a while, and my Ne craves idea-generation and INFJs and ENFJs just don't deliver because of the difference between Ni and Ne. 

I haven't really spoken much to ENTPs so I can't comment on that (the few people I have spoken to more in depth, I quite enjoy talking to though), but I have a good ENFP IRL. I have in general become friends with NFPs, as I find that we often have a similar way of contextualizing the world. So yeah, when it comes to people that I enjoy interacting with, I am essentially left with some INTJs and NPs.


----------



## bolter1 (May 21, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> "Te" Extroverted Thinking
> Te dominants ranks highest in communication due to how logic is easier to pick up and convey to others.


You'd be surprised...


----------



## human (Dec 23, 2010)

I'm sorry in advance, but....

1) Depends on the medium
2) Depends on the message
3) Depends on the audience/intended recipient
4) Depends on the sender

That's not even taking into account things like technical difficulties, the weather, what mood the recipient is in, who is tired or hungry or if someone just got a really bad haircut, whether there's another disagreement going on a low boil somewhere else in the recipient's life, what age the sender is, who has been to Toastmasters, whether the communication is being graded, if anyone involved is related, if there is a love interest, who is or is not a Verizon customer, if this project involves Youtube in any way shape or form, what is at risk for all parties, if the sender was way too inspired by a movie, if the recipient is a big fan of Derrida, if there are any purchases involved, or if, when it's all over, we can have ice cream.

In short, I think there are too many factors at play to pin communication difficulties at large on any one cognitive function -- or to rank communication troubles this way. We are so much more complicated and interesting than that.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

bolter1 said:


> You'd be surprised...


Well since its your axillary, that doesn't obviously count for you, your difficulty in expression stems from having to use Ni. Ni is what drives your views not Te, hence its tangles aren't easy for the auxillary to unravel. ENTJs don't have the same perspective since Ni isn't a big priority, its just used to serve Te, thus they are less likely to get lost in riddles of exploration. They are judgers not percievers, hence their Ni is at a lower risk of losing itself in new word and concept inventions like lead Ni users (and when those words represent complex images, translating it to others isn't easy). 

Anyway, I'm not taking into account individuals in this, I'm just looking at the functions from a pure theoretical perspective much like socionics's Agusta did; hence she never even took note of the fact that "Te" users can mimmic surface level "Fe" behaviour thus displaying an illusion of having the function (with the same working vice versa). On a theoretical perspective that makes sense, but when you factor in individuals then it emerges that some people are better communicators than others in general expression of their ideas.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

human said:


> I'm sorry in advance, but....
> 
> 1) Depends on the medium
> 2) Depends on the message
> ...


This is looking at the functions from a theoretical perspective, its reasonable to assume that an understanding based on extroverted logic is theoretically easier to explain compared to an understanding based on extroverted ethics. With logic something is or not or inconclusive, which an admixture of those perspectives; Whereas with ethics, things have their special significance that can be pointed out to whether they are or are not, inconclusive or finally and most commonly the hybrid of those views. In theory expressing ethics is something that is more complicated than logic.


----------



## The Nth Doctor (May 18, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I feel the OP is completely off. How do Te doms have the easiest time communicating? That's freaking contextual. A Te user might have it easy communicating a theoretical idea, but expressing their feelings and what's wrong in a relationship is a completely different issue. I smell bias.


Expressing their feelings and what's wrong in a relationship would be using their inferior Fi, so IMO the theory still holds up with that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The Nth Doctor said:


> Expressing their feelings and what's wrong in a relationship would be using their inferior Fi, so IMO the theory still holds up with that.


But my point was that since it is the inferior, they would have problems verbalizing or acknowledging such troubles, or indentifying them properly in favor for viewing it too much through the lens of Te, just like an INTP might have troubles always seeing the consequences of their social actions due to inferior Fe.

This leads to communication problems.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LeaT said:


> But my point was that since it is the inferior, they would have problems verbalizing or acknowledging such troubles, or indentifying them properly in favor for viewing it too much through the lens of Te, just like an INTP might have troubles always seeing the consequences of their social actions due to inferior Fe.
> 
> This leads to communication problems.


I think the Op is stating that from a purely theoretical perspective (not used in practicle application), based off of the first function alone, how easier it is for a function to express their thoughts in what their focused on. So for Te, what makes it different from Fi and the rest of the functions it will have an easier time to express verbally in comparison to Ne, which would have to go through all the possibilities. 

His theory isn't to take into account the aux functions, individual peoples personal life make up. Its just focused on the functions alone separated by everything else, just studied by segregating each function from any other influencing, putting them in solitude to be studied from a purely theoretical stand point. As it is harder for Fi to express verbally their inner values, emotions or Ni is harder to explain their inner intuitive thought process verbally. Communication in this sense is equal to verbal expression, not how it responds in a social setting.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> I think the Op is stating that from a purely theoretical perspective (not used in practicle application), based off of the first function alone, how easier it is for a function to express their thoughts in what their focused on. So for Te, what makes it different from Fi and the rest of the functions it will have an easier time to express verbally in comparison to Ne, which would have to go through all the possibilities.
> 
> His theory isn't to take into account the aux functions, individual peoples personal life make up. Its just focused on the functions alone separated by everything else, just studied by segregating each function from any other influencing, putting them in solitude to be studied from a purely theoretical stand point. As it is harder for Fi to express verbally their inner values, emotions or Ni is harder to explain their inner intuitive thought process verbally. Communication in this sense is equal to verbal expression, not how it responds in a social setting.


I understand this, and I disagree even in this very rudimentary and basic sense, because human communication is too complicated. Let's say a dominant Te user thinks a chart tells everything we need to know about the world - how can we rate this as effective communication when there are so many other variables that interplay here? There's one thing to be able to express oneself and one thing to do it in a way that makes the recipient understand what you're talking about.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I understand this, and I disagree even in this very rudimentary and basic sense, because human communication is too complicated. Let's say a dominant Te user thinks a chart tells everything we need to know about the world - how can we rate this as effective communication when there are so many other variables that interplay here? There's one thing to be able to express oneself and one thing to do it in a way that makes the recipient understand what you're talking about.


I agree with you that in a social setting dealing with others and getting your point across there are so many factors to be considered. The thing is he is not discussing about social settings, or human communication, or how how a function comes across to any one else. He is simply stating that its easier for Te to express verbally their facts, then it is for Ne to go through every singly possibility verbally. This isn't to say that there aren't people who understand Ne more than Te but he is taking the functions out of human social context. He is just stating from his observation that its easier for Te to express what it does uniquely different from any other function verbally than it would for Ti or Se. Its easier to verbally express facts than it is to verbally express sensory details (this is subjective to his observation) accompanied with the fact that Te is an outwardly judging function of logic, which makes expressing its unique qualities easier than another function. This isn't to say its the best function for communication, to be honest there isn't a "best function" for verbal communication because to many factors have to be taken into account along with who are the receivers of the verbal communication expressed from the one talking and who has an easier time understanding that individual function.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> I agree with you that in a social setting dealing with others and getting your point across there are so many factors to be considered. The thing is he is not discussing about social settings, or human communication, or how how a function comes across to any one else. He is simply stating that its easier for Te to express verbally their facts, then it is for Ne to go through every singly possibility verbally. This isn't to say that there aren't people who understand Ne more than Te but he is taking the functions out of human social context. He is just stating from his observation that its easier for Te to express what it does uniquely different from any other function verbally than it would for Ti or Se. Its easier to verbally express facts than it is to verbally express sensory details (this is subjective to his observation) accompanied with the fact that Te is an outwardly judging function of logic, which makes expressing its unique qualities easier than another function. This isn't to say its the best function for communication, to be honest there isn't a "best function" for verbal communication because to many factors have to be taken into account along with who are the receivers of the verbal communication expressed from the one talking and who has an easier time understanding that individual function.


I understand this and I still disagree. Random Ne idea: the sky is blue. What's so hard to express about that? Or random Ti moment: It makes sense. Or random Fi moment: I don't like this movie. Or random Se moment: It's a chair. If we talk about Si and Ni, then maybe I can agree with that they are not as easily translateable into something known, but Te being the function that has the easiest time communicating? I don't buy into that. Te has it no easier or harder time stating facts than Ti would.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Radiant Truth said:


> I think the Op is stating that from a purely theoretical perspective (not used in practicle application), based off of the first function alone, how easier it is for a function to express their thoughts in what their focused on. So for Te, what makes it different from Fi and the rest of the functions it will have an easier time to express verbally in comparison to Ne, which would have to go through all the possibilities.
> 
> His theory isn't to take into account the aux functions, individual peoples personal life make up. Its just focused on the functions alone separated by everything else, just studied by segregating each function from any other influencing, putting them in solitude to be studied from a purely theoretical stand point. As it is harder for Fi to express verbally their inner values, emotions or Ni is harder to explain their inner intuitive thought process verbally. Communication in this sense is equal to verbal expression, not how it responds in a social setting.


I get what you're saying with Te. As an ENFP Te is the only function that makes any sense externally to me/ and other people. When expressing and commuting through Ne it feels scattered, jumping and leaping looking like a pile of contradictions. People don't get it, and it can become extremely frustrating. It works well when exchanging ideas, or expanding information, and for those who are getting the idea based around the jumps and leaps, its amazing. Fi, well i couldn't possibly articulate exactly what it is i'm feeling at my core. It looks like a complete hot mess with words missing when i try to convey that externally. It never comes out externally the way i see it in my head, and most of all it doesn`t come close to what i`m truly feeling at my core. It feels i'm only touching the surface, and even that looks really messy. When communicating with another Fi user, we often find ourselves saying " yeah i know what you mean ", you don't have to explain, because i can relate with not being able to reach the core to express externally exactly what it going on.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@LeaT
Because random idea for Ne isn't sky is blue, that could well be Se looking at the sky. Ne is "sky is blue, but what if it wasn't blue? What if it was green? Imagine a green sky, that would change the whole atmosphere of the world. Then we would have green oceans. Imagine neon green, we would be radiating through space like a glowing orb of green wonder. Is there a planet that has green wonders? Possibly in an alternate universe where light reflects differently causing a distortion of color in its realm of existence. Which reality is the distorted one, we possibly are distorted compared to the observation of another universe as they are to us." That's Ne and how it would communicate verbally which would be harder than stating a scientific fact that is backed up by statistical evidence such as "blacks have a higher rate of catching aids than other minorities based off of these statistics I present to you" she would go into describing the detail of the immediate sensory perception such as the wall looks chalk white, feels like it was made from 'x' property" She is harder because its a perceiving function it needs an introverted judging function form a context in which it can be presented to others, such as Ti. Since Te is an external judging function of logic based off of empirical evidence, its easier to repeat what is already started prior to The communicating the fact verbally.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> @_LeaT_
> Because random idea for Ne isn't sky is blue, that could well be Se looking at the sky. Ne "sky is blue, but what if it wasn't blue? What if it was green? Imagine a green sky, that would change the whole atmosphere of the world. Then we would have green oceans. Imagine neon green, we would be radiating through space like a glowing orb of green wonder. Is there a planet that has green wonders? Possibly in an alternate universe where light reflects differently causing a distortion of color in its realm of existence. Which reality is the distorted one, we possibly are distorted compared to the observation of another universe as they are to us." That's Ne and how it would communicate verbally which would be harder than stating a scientific fact that is backed up by statistical evidence such as "blacks have a higher rate of catching aids than other minorities based off of these statistics I present to you" she would go into describing the detail of the immediate sensory perception such as the wall looks chalk white, feels like it was made from 'x' property" She is harder because its a perceiving function it needs an introverted judging function form a context in which it can be presented to others, such as Ti. Since Te is an external judging function of logic based off of empirical evidence, its easier to repeat what is already started prior to The communicating the fact verbally.


All this is irrelevant. My entire point was that I just verbalized the first thing that came into my mind to prove that Ne has no problems expressing itself. Will it always make sense? No. Does it mean its ability to express itself being inhibited? No.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LeaT said:


> All this is irrelevant. My entire point was that I just verbalized the first thing that came into my mind to prove that Ne has no problems expressing itself. Will it always make sense? No. Does it mean its ability to express itself being inhibited? No.


On the contrary its very relevant to the discussion, your limiting what a function does at its core. Any function can say "sky is blue", or "it makes sense", or "I don't like this movie", this doesn't invalidate his claim at all. It merely describes that any person has the potential to communicate whatever, not what the individuals function at its core stands for in comparison to other functions and how it expresses this core verbally. What he is stating is from what makes each function different from all the rest, then putting it in solitude and studying its potential of verbal communication in expressing what the individual functions do that makes them that function and which makes it differ from any other function.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> On the contrary its very relevant to the discussion, your limiting what a function does at its core. Any function can say "sky is blue", or "it makes sense", or "I don't like this movie", this doesn't invalidate his claim at all. It merely describes that any person has the potential to communicate whatever, not what the individuals function at its core stands for in comparison to other functions and how it expresses this core verbally. What he is stating is from what makes each function different from all the rest, then putting it in solitude and studying its potential of verbal communication in expressing what the individual functions do that makes them that function and which makes it differ from any other function.


That was my entire point in fact. Any function can express itself and do so easily if you want to. If you want to separate a function from the rest of the functions and how it interacts, then this becomes pointless though, since we end up with nothing. Which is my point. You can't just say function X does this or that or has this or that much time easier to communicate. There's simply more to it than that, but if you look at the functions at face value, then none of them will have an easier or harder time alone. There's more to that to the psyche. 

How functions may express themselves in the psyche doesn't necessarily correlate to how hard or easy it is to communicate an idea using that function.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LeaT said:


> That was my entire point in fact. Any function can express itself and do so easily if you want to. If you want to separate a function from the rest of the functions and how it interacts, then this becomes pointless though, since we end up with nothing. Which is my point. *You can't just say function X does this or that or has this or that much time easier to communicate.* There's simply more to it than that, but if you look at the functions at face value, then none of them will have an easier or harder time alone. There's more to that to the psyche.
> 
> How functions may express themselves in the psyche doesn't necessarily correlate to how hard or easy it is to communicate an idea using that function.


Bold: This is where the differences in our interpretations of the functions show. Functions exist to tell the differences in thought processes/patterns. Their differences make them what they are. If you can understand their differences then indeed you can separate them and quantify them, categorize them, study their differences. All @Boolean11 is dong is showing their core differences and exposing which one is easier to communicate their core through verbal expression. Saying Ne thinks of "sky is blue" is not separating out from any other function, for any other function can say the "sky is blue", Fi isn't the only function that can say "I don't like this" for any function has their reason why they may not like something. Ne may not like something due to its lack of novelty so therefore Ne can also say "I don't like this". It doesn't shown the difference or the core n each function. What Ne can do that other functions can't do is perceive the objective reality and bring up many multiple possible interpretation of what it is perceiving, that's what is Ne at the core. No other function shares that. What Te does focus on facts in the objective world based off statistical/empirical evidence which is what separates it from every other function at the core. All he is doing is showing the care of each function and explaining why Te has an easier time to communicate its already statistical proven facts verbally since its an external judging function of logic in comparison to how it would take Ne a while to explain its every possible interpretation of reality, it would become a tangent. Te wouldn't go off on tangents but instead present facts using statistical proof to back it up. Ne would take longer verbally expressing itself when in comparison to Te, therefore Te is the easier function to verbally express its core tendencies. It may not be easily understood others but that's up to the listener, in his theoretical approach he is leaving out the outer influences, such as the listener or the individual communicator but instead focusing only on the individual function, its core differences in contrast with other functions and the core differences.


----------



## bolter1 (May 21, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Well since its your axillary, that doesn't obviously count for you, your difficulty in expression stems from having to use Ni. Ni is what drives your views not Te, hence its tangles aren't easy for the auxillary to unravel. ENTJs don't have the same perspective since Ni isn't a big priority, its just used to serve Te, thus they are less likely to get lost in riddles of exploration. They are judgers not percievers, hence their Ni is at a lower risk of losing itself in new word and concept inventions like lead Ni users (and when those words represent complex images, translating it to others isn't easy).
> 
> Anyway, I'm not taking into account individuals in this, I'm just looking at the functions from a pure theoretical perspective much like socionics's Agusta did; hence she never even took note of the fact that "Te" users can mimmic surface level "Fe" behaviour thus displaying an illusion of having the function (with the same working vice versa). On a theoretical perspective that makes sense, but when you factor in individuals then it emerges that some people are better communicators than others in general expression of their ideas.


I was more so going on the angle that sometimes logic can't be communicated effectively, but that is true.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

bolter1 said:


> I was more so going on the angle that sometimes logic can't be communicated effectively, but that is true.


no function exist in isolation as Jung pointed, but in what you are saying the issue isn't explicitly the logic, but getting the other guy to understand the perception that drives the logic. You'll notice this when having an argument with a Te Si sensor whose perception is different, they may respect the "facts"/"logic" but not take the perception especially when your Te has multiplied Ni's based views as facts (Te actually multiplies facts Jung wrote it).


----------



## bolter1 (May 21, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> no function exist in isolation as Jung pointed, but in what you are saying the issue isn't explicitly the logic, but getting the other guy to understand the perception that drives the logic. You'll notice this when having an argument with a Te Si sensor whose perception is different, they may respect the "facts"/"logic" but not take the perception especially when your Te has multiplied Ni's based views as facts (Te actually multiplies facts Jung wrote it).


Yes, I know. It was an attempt at a joke.


----------



## human (Dec 23, 2010)

Okay. I'm probably splitting hairs (sorry for this -- turns out I'm passionate about communication)... 

I don't think communication can ever be in theory -- It is _always _applied, because you have a real human being on the other end. The success of Ne, Fi, or Se in communicating doesn't depend on how awesome the message is but (if we're talking true communication) whether the message is received, understood, and, well, _communicated_. 

Since we're all different, that success depends at least 50% on the listener. What is a fantastic argument to someone in Te-mode or Si-mode could sound not-so-convincing to someone listening with another function. So I still say it's more complicated. 

Sorry I'm not doing a post quote here... I'm disorganized-- but this is in response to an interesting point made earlier:
Having a topic of conversation that's easy for the recipient to understand or is somehow less slippery (based on logic rather than ethics) seems, to me, to be unrelated to cognitive functions and more related to the stuff we end up talking about when we use certain functions, unless I'm missing something?

Maybe we're really talking about how well each function helps us craft a logical argument?


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

human said:


> Okay. I'm probably splitting hairs (sorry for this -- turns out I'm passionate about communication)...
> 
> I don't think communication can ever be in theory -- It is _always _applied, because you have a real human being on the other end. The success of Ne, Fi, or Se in communicating doesn't depend on how awesome the message is but (if we're talking true communication) whether the message is received, understood, and, well, _communicated_.
> 
> Since we're all different, that success depends at least 50% on the listener. What is a fantastic argument to someone in Te-mode or Si-mode could sound not-so-convincing to someone listening with another function. So I still say it's more complicated.


This is it exactly. Communication requires two end points. You cannot isolate the person speaking/writing/emoting and still call it communication.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

human said:


> Okay. I'm probably splitting hairs (sorry for this -- turns out I'm passionate about communication)...
> 
> I don't think communication can ever be in theory -- It is _always _applied, because you have a real human being on the other end. The success of Ne, Fi, or Se in communicating doesn't depend on how awesome the message is but (if we're talking true communication) whether the message is received, understood, and, well, _communicated_.
> 
> ...







you definitely seem like you have a chomskian view over language, I'm more with pinker who merely describes it as a simple byproduct of evolution that has little meaning. The apes who f*cked each other, placing high value on the ability to exchange information that is key to survival are the mere reason we have language in general.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

ChanceyRose said:


> This is it exactly. Communication requires two end points. You cannot isolate the person speaking/writing/emoting and still call it communication.


You can have non human communication, for example, the bond with a dog. Plus communication can be unilateral ie "prayer", apparently the evolution of intuition is the reason why we are able to do so.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

The levels of misunderstood I've gone trough, fits well with Fi being the most difficult to communicate.
I have zero issues with getting Te or Se messages across and Ni takes a lot of toil for very little return generally.
Especially if it is an Si dom/aux user who is on the other end.


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> You can have non human communication, for example, the bond with a dog. Plus communication can be unilateral ie "prayer", apparently the evolution of intuition is the reason why we are able to do so.


I didn't say you _couldn't_ have non-human communication. A bond with an animal is still bilateral; prayer is assumed to be bilateral, as well. why pray if you don't believe your prayer will at least be heard? Otherwise, it's meditation which is not communication but reverie.

I'm also not saying that your analysis is not without merit, only that is too simplistic. How does Te communicate with Ti? I think you need to look at both endpoints to make a useful analysis.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> The levels of misunderstood I've gone trough, fits well with Fi being the most difficult to communicate.
> I have zero issues with getting Te or Se messages across and Ni takes a lot of toil for very little return generally.
> Especially if it is an Si dom/aux user who is on the other end.


All introverted functions are hard to communicate to someone else because they're introverted. It makes sense to you but not to anyone else.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

LeaT said:


> All introverted functions are hard to communicate to someone else because they're introverted. It makes sense to you but not to anyone else.


True!
According to this layout though, INFPs would have the hardest time communicating of all the types.
Having lead Fi and only Ne to help bridge the gap.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

ChanceyRose said:


> I didn't say you _couldn't_ have non-human communication. A bond with an animal is still bilateral; prayer is assumed to be bilateral, as well. why pray if you don't believe your prayer will at least be heard? Otherwise, it's meditation which is not communication but reverie.
> 
> I'm also not saying that your analysis is not without merit, only that is too simplistic. How does Te communicate with Ti? I think you need to look at both endpoints to make a useful analysis.


The whole point was about "expression" an abstract view of how the essence of each functions would be somewhat could be compared in the theoretical ease of expression. The subjective analysis in that is comparing "theoretically" how harder or easier for the function bearer to express ideas conveyed the function; how hard is it to spout logic pure "Te" in a that could be understood as opposed to "Se" which requires a bit more effort, obvious "Ne" is harder and finally "Fe" is at the bottom due to how its contents seem like the least straight forward to explain.... sorry hopefully I'm not losing you here.

However the only reason I suggested that introverted functions have a higher difficulty in "expression", putting things in a way another person can understand, is all based on acknowledging that personalized language and interpretation easily evolve ideas orientated around the subject. Thus in theory a pure Ti based understanding requires a bit more effort in expression, translating the concept into a manner the audience can best understand since the person has to bypass their personalized structure and word expressions to bring their understanding to a point where it can be understood; in comparison pure Te would do so since its concepts are borrowed from without so there is no personalized language expression hurdle to overcome.

I know that there is no such thing as a pure type since Jung clearly aid that no function can work in isolation, but that doesn't really matter that much in this abstract analysis since it is an abstract analysis. I even went to explain that with an NiTe (which is not TeNi) based model the difficulty would be explicitly in expressing the logic, but more of the Ni part that has to be understood before the accompanied Te logic can be understood; I think was speaking to some random INTJ who posted about why he found i difficult to think being a Te auxiliary would mean he has it easier in expression but my argument was that he models of understanding where driven my Ni more so than Te hence they hurdle was more of the heavy Ni than Te.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

hornet said:


> True!
> According to this layout though, INFPs would have the hardest time communicating of all the types.
> Having lead Fi and only Ne to help bridge the gap.


An INFP is the one that actually inspired me to look at this when I compared whether Ni (the vast subjective images that seem to have their own language) compared to Fi (where the images come with "tones", it evokes feeling "X" to this <insert measurable amount> then does not appear to do so...)


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

And I still think you are only seeing half the picture by not considering the receiver of the communication. A Te dom would find it easier to communicate -- less effort -- with a fellow Te dom than with an Fe dom because there is still a difference in language. Ask a teacher if they can communicate the same idea the same way with the same ease to five different students. Ask any parent if they can communicate the same way with each of their children. The teacher or parent may be a Te dom and therefore, under your theory, have the easiest go at communicating but it _still depends on the nature of the receiver._



Boolean11 said:


> sorry hopefully I'm not losing you here.


Comments like this are less than helpful when trying to explain and justify your point of view. I am not stupid. I find your attitude patronizing and antagonizing.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ChanceyRose said:


> And I still think you are only seeing half the picture by not considering the receiver of the communication. A Te dom would find it easier to communicate -- less effort -- with a fellow Te dom than with an Fe dom because there is still a difference in language. Ask a teacher if they can communicate the same idea the same way with the same ease to five different students. Ask any parent if they can communicate the same way with each of their children. The teacher or parent may be a Te dom and therefore, under your theory, have the easiest go at communicating but it _still depends on the nature of the receiver._


I agree about this, but it is still hard to communicate the specifics.
Fi to Fi is hard even if both are Fi dom.
Both can understand the others frustration about everybody else being clueless, but still the specifics are elusive.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

ChanceyRose said:


> And I still think you are only seeing half the picture by not considering the receiver of the communication. A Te dom would find it easier to communicate -- less effort -- with a fellow Te dom than with an Fe dom because there is still a difference in language. Ask a teacher if they can communicate the same idea the same way with the same ease to five different students. Ask any parent if they can communicate the same way with each of their children. The teacher or parent may be a Te dom and therefore, under your theory, have the easiest go at communicating but it _still depends on the nature of the receiver._


I think I did say that the principle is crippled when real people are applied; and that leads to also acknowledging the fact that the functions can never exist in isolation... etc, there are too many variables



> Comments like this are less than helpful when trying to explain and justify your point of view. I am not stupid. I find your attitude patronizing and antagonizing.


I get frustrated when I'm accused of hidden motivations I don't have but I know everybody has a subjective interpretation of the world. We did have a similar talk the other time where I got lost in my "F mask" assumption? You know I found it difficult to understand why people sometimes respond antagonistically towards me but it turns out that socionics had the answer figured with Fe as my blind spot; I don't know how I come across to others and ENFjs are said to be the supervisors who notice the illusion of how great I perceive my Fi to be. 

I guess I'm really bad which Fi which is why I fit the "office introvert" stereotype quite well, in real life I'm the guy "who will not let a sentence mean anything but what was technically said, and doesn't care about how uncomfortable he is making his co-workers". I guess I understand why I prefer to project a lifeless aurora around most people.


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

hornet said:


> I agree about this, but it is still hard to communicate the specifics.
> Fi to Fi is hard even if both are Fi dom.
> Both can understand the others frustration about everybody else being clueless, but still the specifics are elusive.



Simple anecdotal evidence so not really evidence at all, but as Ni dom I find communication to be easiest with fellow Ni doms. It's one of the reasons I tend to stay in the INTJ forum and why I gravitate toward only a handful of those posters. It's why my daughter, my SO, and I can have random, haphazard dinner conversation that all of us follow but why I have to be very linear and literal with my dad (Si dom) to avoid miscommunications.

I work with an ENTJ who struggles to communicate the need for certain aspects of the program she is in charge of. In a way, she's _too_ logical. The program in it's entirety makes complete sense to her and she can't understand why someone would not see it the same way.

I've worked as an hobby instructor for children and adults, a corporate trainer, and now as a technical writer. Communication simply doesn't happen unless you tailor your message for your audience.


----------



## human (Dec 23, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> ... you definitely seem like you have a chomskian view over language, I'm more with pinker who merely describes it as a simple byproduct of evolution that has little meaning. The apes who f*cked each other, placing high value on the ability to exchange information that is key to survival are the mere reason we have language in general.


Sorry to revive ancient thread. This is probably highly irrelevant to the community now, but I never answered your interesting question:

You are right that I disagree with Pinker's conclusions (not his science, since I'm in no position to judge). No matter how language originally developed, I think it matters (greatly) in our world now. How we use languages today affect change in societies. At the same time, I wouldn't say I'm a follower of Chomsky. He's a structuralist, and if I were planning a party for my favorite theorists, I'd be more likely to invite the post-structuralists and maybe the late Wittgenstein, who said, "Language is a part of our organism and no less complicated than it." Sorry for geeking out on everyone!

PS. Someone on the thread brought up communication with animals. I love that: breaking through the binary of human versus non-human, challenging the notion that one is more important than the other.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

l've been a little envious of dominant Te users, at least those who communicate well in an obvious way and l probably don't notice those that don't.

lf ''good'' means efficient, they are doing it right. They usually aren't expressing something that is non-fact based or said to make the listener reflect on it, what the say is looking for immediate feedback from the receiver. No circular speak, which l am very guilty of.

l think with dominant Ne, everything l say comes out sounding...meta, somehow. My friend once said that l sound like l'm always alluding to something. l can see how that would be, my thoughts are sort of "about my thoughts", referencing the actual thought by the time the words are spoken.

Ti and Fi seem like functions that can manifest on either end of the spectrum. l think many dominant Ti users speak in a fascinating way that captures me more than Te does, even if it's less effective in the immediate sense.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

Fe doms are the masters of communication! Ni doms have the most complex speech!


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I have always found Fi-Te types to be frustrating. Te types because they always have a need to reference some sort of intellectual authority or else everything you said was bullshit. While with Fi types seem to enjoy berating me on my "coldness" whenever they are fucking cold themselves. I read this passage about how feeling types (though mostly Fi doms) will berate people for not acting human enough. Whatever the hell that means. These problems are only apparent enough to be noted with either Fi or Te dominants though.

I also think that Ni doms seem to talk down to me on some sort of level. It's this sort of "feeling" I get from them sometimes, and I feel as if I am being parented by them a lot. I find this annoying.

Thanks to typology, now I can kind of understand where they are coming from though, and thus I feel less annoyed whenever I encounter situations like this now. So that's something.


----------

