# What is universally true about the functions?



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> So are you simply comparing against the kinds of things that Thomson and Jung have attributed to Te, for example, rather than the concept of Te itself?


Rather, I think the concept of Te itself is that which Thomson and Jung attributed to it, granted I stray a bit with my own conception. So far as human behavior I have references within psychology, sociology, anthropology, and neuroscience, the cognitive functions fitting somewhere within yet simultaneously across the board. The aforementioned constitutes the most valid model of human cognition and behavior available (imo.) 

I'm saying I wouldn't assert that model as being universal, because I do not know if the conditions for human cognition or even biological life, are universally applicable - case in point, biological life was found on a space shuttle in the vacuums of space where there is no oxygen. Can we continue to say that biological life is contingent upon the presence of oxygen or the ability to convert chemicals into oxygen?

That's what I meant when I said that human knowledge is incomplete. I don't see how you could make statements about a thing being universal without having complete knowledge of all things beforehand. That seems like conjecture, assumption, or "good faith," and where the aforementioned runs rampart, pure theory or logic is typically afoot which I'm wary of.



> I'm not sure about others, but when I think of "universal" I think of Bertrand Russell's interpretation of it as abstract ideas. Universal - Metaphysics. Some of the posts seem to be a reaction to what is "universally applicable."
> 
> Perhaps another way to ask the original question is what makes Thinking, Thinking? Does this also apply to the concept of Te and Ti? What makes Te, Te and Ti, Ti? Same for Sensation and Se/Si, Intuition and Ne/Ni, Feeling and Fe/Fi.


You're asking what is universal in terms of thinking so far as Te and Ti, in terms of sensing so far as Se and Si, and etc?

Basically between introversion and extraversion what are the qualities shared that align themselves with a core preference in it's purest state?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Octavian said:


> You're asking what is universal in terms of thinking so far as Te and Ti, in terms of sensing so far as Se and Si, and etc?
> 
> Basically between introversion and extraversion what are the qualities shared that align themselves with a core preference in it's purest state?


Something like that. For example, to answer my first question with a simplistic response: let's say that Thinking is always about logical conclusions. Te is always based on external criteria for its logical conclusions. Ti is always based on internal criteria for its logical conclusions. #2 Yes, Te and Ti would also necessarily be about logical conclusions.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Something like that. For example, to answer my first question with a simplistic response: let's say that Thinking is always about logical conclusions. Te is always based on external criteria for its logical conclusions. Ti is always based on internal criteria for its logical conclusions. #2 Yes, Te and Ti would also necessarily be about logical conclusions.


Your syntax threw me off. If I knew it were in the metaphysical sense I would have answered differently. In any case I'll have to think on it for a while.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I'm confused. What you appear to be asking about is stuff I thought you already knew, which leads me to believe I'm missing the point. 

Do you mean, for example, Feeling is an evaluation of values and worth? What's acceptable, liked,. wanted, agreeable, 
etc. Since Thinking, Sensing and Intuition don't assign value or worth, those judgements exist in the realm of Feeling. Fe & Fi are the same function, same process, only differing by where/how the standards are set (i or e). 

Is that what you're asking for?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> I'm confused. What you appear to be asking about is stuff I thought you already knew, which leads me to believe I'm missing the point.
> 
> Do you mean, for example, Feeling is an evaluation of values and worth? What's acceptable, liked,. wanted, agreeable,
> etc. Since Thinking, Sensing and Intuition don't assign value or worth, those judgements exist in the realm of Feeling. Fe & Fi are the same function, same process, only differing by where/how the standards are set (i or e).
> ...


My intention was to start an intellectual exploration of the conceptual extremes of the functions. Most people either tend to ask what function a given behaviour is attributed to or when they ask what a function is, most respond with various attributed behaviours/rationalizations. Rather than try to understand through attributions, I thought why not look at the concept itself? There are a multitude of ways that I was hoping the conversation might go, of which I was hoping I might learn something new, perhaps some new perspective I hadn't considered before.

Essentially it was meant to be a group discussion rather than posing a question just for my own learning. I wanted to look more into where others were coming from.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> My intention was to start an intellectual exploration of the conceptual extremes of the functions. Most people either tend to ask what function a given behaviour is attributed to or when they ask what a function is, most respond with various attributed behaviours/rationalizations. Rather than try to understand through attributions, I thought why not look at the concept itself? There are a multitude of ways that I was hoping the conversation might go, of which I was hoping I might learn something new, perhaps some new perspective I hadn't considered before.
> 
> Essentially it was meant to be a group discussion rather than posing a question just for my own learning. I wanted to look more into where others were coming from.


Ok, I see. 

I view the different functions as being fundamentally defined by the basic descriptions - 
Intuition = emphasis on perception via the unconscious, etc. Basically, what most people know, so I won't go over each one. 

Extraverted functions are like a blank page, ready to take in external information and build from that. E places emphasis on the differences, which is the only way extraversion could work. 
Introversion places emphasis on the similarities. Assimilating similar aspects. Introverted functions are like a mold waiting for the information to fill them out. 

I know everyone abstracts and assimilates information and employs deductive, etc. reasoning and whatever. But in context of cognitive functions, it's happening automatically and unconsciously. Which is what seems to cause confusion because people are thinking of the processing occurring within their awareness and attributing those conscious processes to functions. 
Whereas in actual fact, we can't consciously observe the functions in our own mind, we can only observe the effects of our 2 main functions, occasionally our tert & inferior. When we start trying to find examples in our own minds of function attitudes 5 - 8 then we become way off track because they are perspectives outside of our awareness. (noticing the effects of the shadow functions is possible but by no means easy to do and possibly not even something we can obtain through will and conscious effort). 
The dom and aux represent the whole ego worldview and we can't possibly look through that lens in order to comprehend looking through others. First we'd need to be stripped of our current dominant functions and only then we could experience other function perspectives. 
This is why functions can be debated until the cows come home and we still won't find a definition to describe them. The truth is something existing between our various, limited type perspectives.

That's my take on it anyhow :happy:


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> So what would differentiate them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





PaladinX said:


> Let's narrow down to the feeling function for a moment. Do you think that there is anything that is universally true about Feeling as a function? If so, does Fe and Fi both exhibit that same universality? Do you think that there is something universally true about Fi that equally applies to both INFP and ISFP?
> 
> As a sidenote reaction to what you wrote:
> 
> ...


The universality of the feeling function is the focus on the personal angle of a given matter, whereas thinking is more focused on the impersonal elements. The difference between extroverted and introverted is how this focus is applied, is it in order to affect the outside or the inside ? So both INFPs and ISFPs are concerned about pursuing faithfulness towards themselves (the personal concern of their feeling function is themselves). But ISFPs having Ni in third position, they analyze much longer their ideas in order to get to the bottom of it, whereas INFP with their Ne navigate through ideas rapidly but with less structure and coherence. On the other hand, Si provides this gut feeling that ISFPs lack (yeah, the description is a bit sloppy but it's hard to translate into words). Both live their internal feelings differently, a difference related to their tertiary function, but quite consequential in the end. 

I'm basing our likelihood from the context that every function is compartmentalized, that our most favorite function delegates to other, less favored functions, tasks outside its domain of proficiency, but always keeps the lead. In that sense ISFPs and INFPs have the same core and the same goals, hypothetically. 

Articulating all this kind of polished my thoughts some more. It makes me wonder why the temperaments are laid out as they are, why is it that Artisans or Overseers share at least two functions, why Intellects or Dreamers can potentially share none at all. Well, some more stuff to ponder is always welcome.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I think they are the result of a man who studied psychology and said "there are 8 general dispositions that people have toward understanding the world. There are perceiving functions and there are judging functions, here I will demonstrate an archetypal description of what a dominant user of each of these cognitive function would be like". 
In my opinion functions are what Jung personally saw in people and he thought it through immensely and organized his experience and understanding into these frameworks. Now I didn't read Jung's books but this my impression of what happened and for that no need to criticize me for not understanding because fact is I basically don't know what I'm talking about well enough to say what I'm saying but I'm saying it anyway. But to continue, I do think it's a man's conception or his understanding of personalities, it's very elaborate and interesting but it's not on the level of concrete facts, more as an interpretation of experience.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

I'm going to say that theres nothing universally true about them at all...

For a function to be universally true you would have to say something like "all Fe doms like there friends" and then test every single EXFJ and every single one would have to agree for it to be a universal truth. Which is just not going to happen...

In fact the only theory to have done this is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Evolution and Musical theory aren't even accepted as universal truths so why would cognitive functions be? lol

Lets be real, MBTI can only take you so far and it's something that is much more up to your discretion rather than some exact definition.


Simple as that.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

Octavian said:


> We can't even quantify the functions. Statements about their universality would venture into the realm of *pure theorizing or pure logic*, both of which I view as dangerous.


I'm sure you know by now to stay away from INTP's if thats what you think. lol


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I think they are the result of a man who studied psychology and said "there are 8 general dispositions that people have toward understanding the world. There are perceiving functions and there are judging functions, here I will demonstrate an archetypal description of what a dominant user of each of these cognitive function would be like".
> In my opinion functions are what Jung personally saw in people and he thought it through immensely and organized his experience and understanding into these frameworks. Now I didn't read Jung's books but this my impression of what happened and for that no need to criticize me for not understanding because fact is I basically don't know what I'm talking about well enough to say what I'm saying but I'm saying it anyway. But to continue, I do think it's a man's conception or his understanding of personalities, *it's very elaborate and interesting but it's not on the level of concrete facts,* more as an interpretation of experience.


Why would the response to my question necessarily be about concrete facts? The functions themselves are abstractions. Why can't there be something universally true about a given function in an abstract way?

Tangent:
I find that most of the responses, so far, seem to be unable to break away from tangible reality. Why is that? I thought I was starting a theoretical discussion, but all I'm hearing is how impractical the idea is. I am genuinely curious.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I'm not entirely sure how it would be more constructive to try and abstract further from the objective ideas already in place that define each function, than it would be to simply direct people along the correct path to investigate for themselves by providing them with citations of established bodies of knowledge on the subject.

To the extent that the theory of Jungian functions has a purpose, which is to describe, explain, predict, and allow for some control over specific cognitive processes that collectively constitute the ways in which people are all the same, but in different degrees, why is it necessary to refine the theory in the abstract unless you are trying to go beyond the original intent of the theory? What do you intend to do with the knowledge you might obtain? To what would it apply?

If, as I ask, you are trying to help beginners and/or you want to do something about the sorts of threads that consistently arise, e.g., the "what function is this" type threads that try to attribute behavior or rationalizations to various functions, my intuition tells me that drawing the functions out into the realm of the philosophical will not make a significant difference, except perhaps in a tiny handful of people who are already predisposed to a philosophical point of view for understanding things (e.g., NTPs).

Speaking only for myself, the point of contention I have is that I do not see a useful purpose in pursuing further abstractions of the functions. Rather, it seems to me people want them to be more concrete. They want simple, straight-forward, "down-to-earth" examples and concise, clear, familiar explanations of them so that they can internalize them with minimal effort.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Why would the response to my question necessarily be about concrete facts? The functions themselves are abstractions. Why can't there be something universally true about a given function in an abstract way?
> 
> Tangent:
> I find that most of the responses, so far, seem to be unable to break away from tangible reality. Why is that? I thought I was starting a theoretical discussion, but all I'm hearing is how impractical the idea is. I am genuinely curious.


Are you asking for overlapping features of each function?
We could note that Si reduces sensory experiences to limit them in order to feel comfort and Se searches for more of these experiences.
Similarly Ni reduces possiblities to the most probable while Ne searches for more possibilities.
I haven't made one up for Te/Fe and Ti/Fi but I see the introverted judging functions to be rebellious to the extroverted one however being equally stubborn in their own right.


----------



## scenefinale (May 26, 2014)

Octavian said:


> We can't even quantify the functions. Statements about their universality would venture into the realm of pure theorizing or pure logic, both of which I view as dangerous.


Maybe dangerous _for you_.



Bahburah said:


> In fact the only theory to have done this is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Evolution and Musical theory aren't even accepted as universal truths so why would cognitive functions be? lol


 Watch _Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey_ and try to tell us again that Evolution is merely a theory.

The evidence is our shared DNA. We even share DNA with trees.


----------



## scenefinale (May 26, 2014)

My current interest is in trying to understand the emergent properties of large scale neural networks. I believe there exists certain properties of these networks which give rise to these similarities across the human race in their cognition.

In my opinion all great science starts with a theory.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

There is none, they're an interpretation of human behavior and cognition that we choose to apply. Their truths depend on how applicable they are to you.

It's kind of like music theory; it's neither right nor wrong. It's how we choose to explain what happens in music.


----------



## scenefinale (May 26, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> I'm not entirely sure how it would be more constructive to try and abstract further from the objective ideas already in place that define each function, than it would be to simply direct people along the correct path to investigate for themselves by providing them with citations of established bodies of knowledge on the subject.
> 
> To the extent that the theory of Jungian functions has a purpose, which is to describe, explain, predict, and allow for some control over specific cognitive processes that collectively constitute the ways in which people are all the same, but in different degrees, why is it necessary to refine the theory in the abstract unless you are trying to go beyond the original intent of the theory? What do you intend to do with the knowledge you might obtain? To what would it apply?
> 
> ...


Not everything need be immediately applicable. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

It can be very beneficial to "play" with ideas.





It is very disheartening to see many types which bash theory all the time. If it was not for theory we would all still live in caves.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

scenefinale said:


> Maybe dangerous _for you_.


Dangerous for all seeing as the conclusions spawned tend to masquerade as knowledge. Intellectual masturbation from the tops of ivory towers satisfy none but the ego.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Why would the response to my question necessarily be about concrete facts? The functions themselves are abstractions. Why can't there be something universally true about a given function in an abstract way?
> 
> Tangent:
> I find that most of the responses, so far, seem to be unable to break away from tangible reality. Why is that? I thought I was starting a theoretical discussion, but all I'm hearing is how impractical the idea is. I am genuinely curious.


Se vs. Si - what is universal between them, is the fixation with the concrete, that which is immediately experienceable through the five senses. 

E vs. I - Object vs. Subject. The object and subject seems to change depending upon the function in question.

For Se the object is the literal thing as it is. The way in which it is immediately experienced. If we take Jung's conception of Si, it is the sensate impression left by the object. He seems to view Si as the sensing version of Introverted Intuition (for the record I do not ascribe to his Si description.) All the same, both fall back on that which is immediately experienceable through the senses. 

Ne vs. Ni - Fixation with the unconscious. 

Ne, sharing many similarities with Se, does latch onto objects, though if not in the concrete way, in the conceptual way. According to Jung, the possibilities spawned thereafter are influenced and guided by the unconscious. Hence, sensing serves as nothing more than a starting point for both forms of intuition (although to a significant degree, they can run on their own.) 

Ni fixates on the subjective images "thrown" inbetween the object and the mind perceiving it. The image itself is superimposed over the object and taken as "real" i.e. vertigo is not the sense of falling from high up, but the image of a man being shot through the heart by an arrow. 

Both fall back on the unconscious though, and the things projected by it. 

Is that going in the direction you want?


----------



## scenefinale (May 26, 2014)

Octavian said:


> Dangerous for all seeing as the conclusions spawned tend to masquerade as knowledge. Intellectual masturbation from the tops of ivory towers satisfy none but the ego.


Some of us aren't afraid to take on the theory portion. In the wrong hands, sure, it can be dangerous. I agree t's not a job suitable for everyone, especially those too impatient and in need of immediate practical results. Once developed adequately though, it should inevitably lead to practical results. Regardless of the motivation (by ego, or what have you), the theory is a necessary step.


----------

