[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by toonia

These may need to be refined a bit, but there is clearly a distinction, two separate poles that can interrelate. Focus on individual vs. the community (intra vs. inter) forms two mutually exclusive poles that address the same process of relating the individual to the whole. The poles of E and I are mutually exclusive in that they define whether the processing of the ideals is focused inward or outward in relation to the individual. What do you think?

Well, for one, in practical usage, can you really separate Fi/Fe into inter/intrapersonal traits?

What I find is that people I know who are Fi do both inter/intra things, and people with Fe do both as well. I don't know if they are as exclusive as you have made them here. Is there any consistent basis for these traits to be subdivided?

Originally Posted by toonia

Are T and F really mutually exclusive? Are they related processes explored from opposite ends like S and N? Or are they separate processes entirely?

Good question.

If you look at the mind and body from a physiological standpoint they are clearly separate processes. The brain has sections devoted primarily to emotional processing - in everyone. I haven't heard any info that these sections are smaller in Ts for example.

Not sure on that issue. I wonder what the activity tests have shown when people make decisions. (I think there have been some studies on this -- which areas of the brain seem to activate more strongly, depending on the person who is reacting to an offered scenario.)

Also the processing of emotion releases chemicals that affect physiology. Is T an absence of chemicals? From the F standpoint, T looks like the absence of F, while from the T standpoint, F looks like personalized reasoning. Do you see justification for this because I don't? A person can personalize their thinking, reject reason w/o any emotionally driven chemical processes occurring, correct? A person can be flooded with hormones and endorphines and still reason, correct?

True. I do know that anger and other intense emotions can "disrupt" a Thinking types logical process -- they begin to make really crappy decisions because they're responding to the emotional content. In the same way, a Feeler forced to make a complete "neutral" decision could probably sometimes feel distressed if they have nothing personal to evaluate [is this true?].

One way that I think could be productive to think of it is not what decision process / combination seems to be used, but which function seems to cause more anxiety when used. We use particular functions because we do not feel anxiety over using them; others, we feel uncomfortable when we use them. I know when I am forced to make very personalized decisions, I feel lots of anxiety, and i want to retreat to a neutral/impersonal position as to justify my choice. Other people are not bothered.

So what sort of function use causes anxiety?

Yes, one process can, and often does, dominate the other, but the same can be said of the relationship between N and T, or N and F, or T and S, etc. I would be very curious to hear other's thoughts on this.

IOW, can the functions be paired up and polarized as given in the MBTI, or could there be connection between S/N and T/F?

Well, for one, I think we are limited people and not omniscient, so any decision we make will be based on where we have oriented ourselves -- thus, rather "personal" in nature. A different decision could be reached even by OURSELVES if we simply oriented ourselves differently. Some people see this as a more Feeling-based decision.

However, Thinking & Feeling decisions still tend to be definitive. Meshou mentioned in a recent thread about the perception of a table, and how her view of it would be valid, yet much different from someone else's experience of the table. I acknowledge that... and yet there are physical properties of the table that do not change, regardless of who is doing the experiencing. (Size, weight, height, composition, color, etc.) Feeling seems to focus on the personal relevance of the item experienced, while Thinking tends to focus on the inherent quantities and qualities of the item rather than its relevance... except for what can be generalized at least into "universal similarities."