Easy Function Descriptions! Totally legit! Figure out your true type! etc.

[Jeremy]

You see a your best friend's girlfriend kissing another guy.

Fi: Could I see myself doing that?
Fe: I can't believe she did that! How disgusting!

Ti: Was there a reason she did that?
Te: That's not how people in relationships are supposed to act!

Si: Hm, maybe that's why she changed her makeup recently.
Se: I need to get closer to hear what they're saying!

Ni: I knew she'd do something like this.
Ne: I bet that guy gave her that new necklace and started screwing her behind Matt's back.

I could be completely off-base here with these descriptions, but that's how I see each type given that circumstance.

Say you're an INFP, you would act in the following order:

Would I do something like that? (Hell no!) then:
I wonder why she did that? Maybe he's just a friend..? But..
I bet that's why she's been changing her makeup lately!
That's not how people in relationships are supposed to act!

. I am not saying all INFPs would react in the same way. Let's take a look at an ISFP for comparison!

Would I do something like that?
I need to see this for myself, I'll just nudge a little closer...
I always knew she was going to cheat on him... I should have said something before.
This isn't how people in relationships are supposed to act!

 

[Night]

Good stuff, Jeremy.

 

[BerberElla]

I liked that, it was easy on the brain.

Except the stuff in parenthesis, that's not my Fi.

 

[Jeremy]

I liked that, it was easy on the brain.

Except the stuff in parenthesis, that's not my Fi.

Yeah, looking over it, that's not really Fi, but Fe. I was just going off of how people can subconsciously react to things. I'd better clarify that.

 

[ptgatsby]

Wow, that's surprisingly good

The Se/Ne thing doesn't quite fit for me, but that might be a balance issue. Each is probably more accurate the stronger the preference is.

 

["?"]

Not to rain on the parade but, "Se: I need to see this for myself." Did I miss something, I thought the person was seeing it directly. If so, then should this not be changed to say how a Se type would respond to witnessing the matter?

 

[Totenkindly]

Funny, it does chalk up pretty close to my cog function test.

Ti: Was there a reason she did that?
Ni: I knew she'd do something like this.
Ne: I wonder why she did something like this?
Fe: I can't believe she did that! How disgusting!
Fi: Could I see myself doing that?
Se: I need to see this for myself.
Te: That's not how people in relationships are supposed to act!
Si: Hm, maybe that's why she changed her makeup recently.

 

["?"]

Again, why is the other seven functions responding directly to witnessing the matter, but the Se function is responding as though they did not see it for themselves?

 

[Moiety]

Pretty interesting. We need more threads/scenarios in the same vein to distill.

 

[ptgatsby]

Again, why is the other seven functions responding directly to witnessing the matter, but the Se function is responding as though they did not see it for themselves?

I took it in the generalised sense that we need to discover it for ourselves. Maybe I'm projecting my own nature here, but when I Ti ask (in the definition above), "see for myself" means that I need to see the foundation of it - data, normally. I inherently distrust "Ne" conclusions. I would say that Ne is more like "she might of done it for any number of reasons", which is how I took it in the OP.

Although, the Se-Ne still doesn't seem to grab the nuanced difference between them.

 

["?"]

I took it in the generalised sense that we need to discover it for ourselves. Maybe I'm projecting my own nature here, but when I Ti ask (in the definition above), "see for myself" means that I need to see the foundation of it - data, normally. I inherently distrust "Ne" conclusions. I would say that Ne is more like "she might of done it for any number of reasons", which is how I took it in the OP.

Although, the Se-Ne still doesn't seem to grab the nuanced difference between them.

I am reminded of Lenore Thompson's statement, "As a right-brain function, extraverted Sensation comes into play when events are changing so rapidly that linear analysis is impossible. We respond immediately, on the basis of visual and tactile information, guided by what we've done before." Based on that and knowing myself, my immediate response may well be, "Whoa... or Oh shit....!" Based on whether I have experienced similar situations, I may just as well respond, "This is awkward." I think that it would be hard to say what the Se function would have us do. I know that ESPs may either make their presence known to the girlfriend, but the ISPs may do a turnabout and get out of site to avoid embarassment. Just my thoughts.

 

[ptgatsby]

I am reminded of Lenore Thompson's statement, "As a right-brain function, extraverted Sensation comes into play when events are changing so rapidly that linear analysis is impossible. We respond immediately, on the basis of visual and tactile information, guided by what we've done before." Based on that and knowing myself, my immediate response may well be, "Whoa... or Oh shit....!" Based on whether I have experienced similar situations, I may just as well respond, "This is awkward." I think that it would be hard to say what the Se function would have us do. I know that ESPs may either make their presence known to the girlfriend, but the ISPs may do a turnabout and get out of site to avoid embarassment. Just my thoughts.

True, although I don't believe in the right-brain elements. Sensing is more a left brained deducing function, or in slightly more clinical terms, is more serial and defined. That is, the N tends to exist on the "right side" (which would mean "parallel thinking"), in that they are not defining elements in which things can be deduced. It's a holistic view, undefined, and without meaning. The meaning portion is done through the serial processes - Ti.

That is to say, that in the context of how the mind processes, Ti-Ne is how holistic parts talk to serial parts. That is, Ti-Ne is more about finding a rational framework around the information we have. Ti-Se is more serial, that is the framework we have is more rigid to new information. The "we need to see", to me, translates to "we need solid evidence to add it to our framework". This is a double edged swords, of course. Too holistic and you get the conspiracy outlays, where everything is somehow connected. To rigid, and you don't find meaning (ie: "connections") to anything. Those are the unhealthy sides of it.

You can kind of see the barrier of entry difference - both of us have much stronger frameworks, while most Ns will say they use MBTI "because it just makes sense". The actual framework can be as robust - for example, I can just as easily connect the research into how the brain works with sensory data as an N - but for me to do so, I need to see a very stringent connection. And even then, I'm skeptical that they are describing the same thing... I would need to see a study done that strongly links them before I would actually build a system out of it.

This doesn't scale up to all MBTI functions (but that is where the "we all use all functions" disclaimer comes in), but it's how I think of the T portions. F uses too much empathy and the like, making it draw upon more components of the mind, and is hard to generalize.

 

["?"]

Ummm.... okay we will agree to disagree, or maybe I do agree with your thoughts but my point is not the debate of left/right brain. My point in using the quote is that when Se comes into play our response is immediate. The response could vary from being confident in our response based on previous experience in handling such matters to not knowing what to do since I had never experienced this. But it's hard to say what the immediate response would be in the moment since I have never experienced this directly.

 

[ptgatsby]

Ummm.... okay we will agree to disagree, or maybe I do agree with your thoughts but my point is not the debate of left/right brain. My point in using the quote is that when Se comes into play our response is immediate.

Is it? I suppose it depends on the environment... I'm certainly reactive when I'm, say, skiing... but I'm decided not reactive when I'm writing something like this. But I think that is true for everyone. My INTJ wife is every bit as reactive as I am, and as deliberate when she writes. Same goes for Ne dominants - ENFP is way more reactive than I am, both physically and otherwise.

I'm not sure I can agree with that distinction... To me, it comes down to how we gather and sort information. A degree of focus - when skiing, to use the same example, the focus is narrower for Se -> just the run, the moment. When writing, it is on the topic. When building the internal framework, it's narrower (less connections, IOW).

 

["?"]

Is it? I suppose it depends on the environment... I'm certainly reactive when I'm, say, skiing... but I'm decided not reactive when I'm writing something like this. But I think that is true for everyone. My INTJ wife is every bit as reactive as I am, and as deliberate when she writes. Same goes for Ne dominants - ENFP is way more reactive than I am, both physically and otherwise.

I'm not sure I can agree with that distinction... To me, it comes down to how we gather and sort information. A degree of focus - when skiing, to use the same example, the focus is narrower for Se -> just the run, the moment. When writing, it is on the topic. When building the internal framework, it's narrower (less connections, IOW).

Damn we’re on a tangent here…… the Se example is not given in the same context as the other examples. How lame would it be for someone to see your best friend's girlfriend kissing another guy and respond, “I need to see this for myself.” Duh… you are seeing it for yourself, so that would not be anyone’s response under the circumstances. But then again since I am the only one seeing that the Se example is not in the same context as the other examples, maybe it would be everyone’s response, just not mine.

 

[Randomnity]

Fe
Ti
Se (in the sense of, is what I'm seeing accurate or are there other factors)
Te/Ni/Ne
Si and Fi would never cross my mind

cool model though. I guess other than Fe it's fairly accurate.

 

[cascadeco]

Great concept. Very useful way to illustrate the functions - so they're more readily translated into everyday situations rather than just remaining as vague phrases. I think this sort of thing would help people realize what functions they might actually use, and it makes the ordering concept more relevant (although I still don't think order has to be rigid or will be the same for all of the same type).

For me I'd have Ni/Ne initially, then Fe/Ti, then the other four somewhere later in the analysis of the situation.

 

[ptgatsby]

Damn we’re on a tangent here…… the Se example is not given in the same context as the other examples. How lame would it be for someone to see your best friend's girlfriend kissing another guy and respond, “I need to see this for myself.” Duh… you are seeing it for yourself, so that would not be anyone’s response under the circumstances. But then again since I am the only one seeing that the Se example is not in the same context as the other examples, maybe it would be everyone’s response, just not mine.

Ahhhh! No, I agree with you (that's what I meant when I said the Ne and Se don't seem to line up). I was just interpreting the comment to how I saw it, sorry.

 

[Neo Genesis]

I don't really have a thought when Fi happens, but that Ne is spot on.

 

[Jeremy]

I'm not really well-versed in Se (or really Ne for that matter... I often wonder about my N-ness, but at the same time, I've tried to move on lol)

Let me revise Se and Ne:

Se: I need to get closer to hear what they're saying!
Ne: I bet that guy gave her something nice and started screwing her behind Matt's back.

Again I could be completely off-base, because my understanding of the two is limited. That's usually how I go about things, but also realize that it's not always conscious. Fi for me is an automatic empathizer; I start making excuses for others behavior by putting myself in their "shoes" and trying to understand the possible reasons for their behavior. If I could see myself acting the same way given a situation, I'm more likely to be able to forgive someone for something. In the case of the cheating girlfriend, I would go along these lines (remember, you're in an external situation, so your extroverted function comes first - I forgot that earlier )

I wonder what is making her do this? Did her and Matt have problems lately? I mean, I have noticed Matt start hanging out a lot on his own.. maybe that's why? Or maybe he's just broke and now she's looking for money. I don't know. I mean, if I was in her place I still don't think I could do what she's doing. It's just not right, you need to be honest with people. I mean, now that I think about it, she has started to dress a lot more attractively lately! Maybe she's trying to find someone else before she breaks up with him! Well, whatever it is, that's just not how a relationship works. I will tell Matt the next time I see him.

Red: Extraverted Intuition
Green: Introverted Feeling
Blue: Introverted Sensing
Orange: Extraverted Thinking

I'll try another one, a real challenge this time: An ENFJ! If an ENFJ could tell me if I'm right or wrong, lemme know!

Oh my god, did she just do that? That's so freaking disgusting and mean! I always knew there was something rotten about her, ever since we first met - she just had that vibe of being a complete and utter money grubber. Oh! They're talking again! I've got to get closer and see what's going on! Oh damnit, I can't hear! I wonder if there's a reason why she did this? I guess it doesn't matter, Matt still needs to know about this.. she's going to end up breaking his heart.

Green: Extraverted Feeling
Red: Introverted Intuition
Blue: Extraverted Sensing
Orange: Introverted Thinking