• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Function Order : Clarification.

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
I am not sure what you were going to ask since your whole argument is that you do not believe in cognitive functions. Clearly you have your connotation of what thinking is which is not what Jung describes, therefore not what MBTI or the enthusiasts of both theories are considering. Give us your connotation of what you describe as thinking which you believe would encompass both Ti and Te.
We two are too divergent to find any meaningful ground within this thread. Neither can follow the others thinking. I think it's best left there.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Okay I'll attempt to remove all variables here and see where we get to.

Ne Ti and Ni Te (in both orders)

INTP - Pulls in information from the immediate context. Builds internal logical framework of information. Not likely to offer judgements of "things". Internal judgement, external information.

ENTP - More likely to seek external information due to the overall preference for extraversion, still building an internal framework of logic.

ENTJ - More likely to offer judgements, less likely to be working on the immediate information. External judging, internal information.

INTJ - A better resolution on the internal information but less likely to offer external judgement due to the overall preference for introversion.

All four use thinking as per the standard definition including logic, analysis, principles over values etc etc.

The thinking involved is the same for all four (and in fact for the sensor versions though it looks very different due to the information used to form the judgements).

Is there any difference between the four types here listed in terms of their thinking? No. The process remains the same. It is only where it is applied. Hence an INTJ may well agree with an INTP thinking but may disagree, most commonly, with either how they have applied their principles or about the information used (the context). I've noted that most times T type will NOT disagree with the application of logic or analysis or other similar techniques only about the skill with which they are used or how it has been applied. This leads me to the concept that all thinking is the same (hence how they are all Ts).

The main thing I'm trying (and failing miserablly it would seem) is to investigate whether it is a mistake or not to try and work under the assumption that there's some core difference between Ti and Te. I find that there is no difference between the T part of those notations and therefore conclude that any and all differences found are due not to a difference in T but in other elements, primarily whether the person prefers to apply their judgements externally or internally.

One pattern I noted to an INTJ was that those who use Te seem to expect the world to work according to logic and become frustrated when it does not but fail to recognise that they themselves do not expect themselves to be as logical. I find the reverse is true of those who prefer Ti. I do not find any evidence of the logic or "thinking" applied to be any different in either case.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Thank you , Eric B, that was an awesome post!
...
Ti is really about the internal ordering of thoughts into logical structures, models and frameworks, rather than understanding all external models and frameworks instantly. It's because of the fact that an external system can be mapped to an internal framework that would make the person likely to gain a good grasp of the system. But it is also said that if the person does not have a particular internal framework that he can map the system to, he will be very slow to "get" it! This was pointed out by H&H, (the person seemed like they had a learning disability, but he just needed time for his Ti to do its grasp things) and then it finally clicked. His main method of judgment is still internal logic; he just doesn't have a model for that particular system.
This beautifully explains why when I am trying to understand a complex system, I need it to be explained 3 times. I must be trying to understand it on an Ni framework.


... It was like the two attitudes of Feeling were totally different animals! ... then, I remembered how FP's are generally portrayed as "empathetic" as the FJ's, and began realizing that they weren't as different as the impression I was given.

They both are driving the same F "values" car; only one's values are externally based, and the other's is internally based. Someone using an internal standard will generally try to align with the values of a group he is in, unless a personal value is violated. Then, rather than imposing himself, he will try to withdraw.
...
This describes my tertiary F perfectly.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Okay I'll attempt to remove all variables here and see where we get to.

Ne Ti and Ni Te (in both orders)



ENTP - More likely to seek external information due to the overall preference for extraversion, still building an internal framework of logic.

ENTJ - More likely to offer judgements, less likely to be working on the immediate information. External judging, internal information.

INTJ - A better resolution on the internal information but less likely to offer external judgement due to the overall preference for introversion.

All four use thinking as per the standard definition including logic, analysis, principles over values etc etc.

The thinking involved is the same for all four (and in fact for the sensor versions though it looks very different due to the information used to form the judgements).

Is there any difference between the four types here listed in terms of their thinking? No. The process remains the same. It is only where it is applied. Hence an INTJ may well agree with an INTP thinking but may disagree, most commonly, with either how they have applied their principles or about the information used (the context). I've noted that most times T type will NOT disagree with the application of logic or analysis or other similar techniques only about the skill with which they are used or how it has been applied. This leads me to the concept that all thinking is the same (hence how they are all Ts).

The main thing I'm trying (and failing miserablly it would seem) is to investigate whether it is a mistake or not to try and work under the assumption that there's some core difference between Ti and Te. I find that there is no difference between the T part of those notations and therefore conclude that any and all differences found are due not to a difference in T but in other elements, primarily whether the person prefers to apply their judgements externally or internally.

One pattern I noted to an INTJ was that those who use Te seem to expect the world to work according to logic and become frustrated when it does not but fail to recognise that they themselves do not expect themselves to be as logical. I find the reverse is true of those who prefer Ti. I do not find any evidence of the logic or "thinking" applied to be any different in either case.
Maybe the thinking APPLIED isn't different, but the OUTCOME is,
and I think that's what the notation is for.
Wouldn't you agree?

Even you yourself have described how T applied in an extraverted way has a different effect than T applied in an intraverted way.

I may be missing something but it seems to me that to one person "T" is enough information,
but another person wants to differentiate "Te" and "Ti".
Both seem correct to me.
Both people understand "INTP - .... Internal judgment, external information."
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
That's equally true for every type, if you want to get ridiculously technical, and I know we all do.
I don't understand what you were trying to say.
Were you saying that all people make internal judgments and externalize information?
Tee-hee :smile: You're right.

But I was just quoting Xander's post right there.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
All four use thinking as per the standard definition including logic, analysis, principles over values etc etc.

The thinking involved is the same for all four (and in fact for the sensor versions though it looks very different due to the information used to form the judgements).

Is there any difference between the four types here listed in terms of their thinking? No. The process remains the same. It is only where it is applied. Hence an INTJ may well agree with an INTP thinking but may disagree, most commonly, with either how they have applied their principles or about the information used (the context). I've noted that most times T type will NOT disagree with the application of logic or analysis or other similar techniques only about the skill with which they are used or how it has been applied. This leads me to the concept that all thinking is the same (hence how they are all Ts).

The main thing I'm trying (and failing miserablly it would seem) is to investigate whether it is a mistake or not to try and work under the assumption that there's some core difference between Ti and Te. I find that there is no difference between the T part of those notations and therefore conclude that any and all differences found are due not to a difference in T but in other elements, primarily whether the person prefers to apply their judgements externally or internally.
Te and Ti are not tangible items that really have core differences. They are processes (actions, basically), and the core difference would lie in the different people preferring one or the other.
Thank you , Eric B, that was an awesome post!

This beautifully explains why when I am trying to understand a complex system, I need it to be explained 3 times. I must be trying to understand it on an Ni framework.
Your Welcome :)
Frameworks are usually associated with Ti. Ni is perception. Ti is more about arranging frameworks than perceiving them. However, I guess because it's introverted, there might be a similar dynamic. (Like Fi would be about ethical frameworks, and I guess Si would be about experiential frameworks).
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Te and Ti are not tangible items that really have core differences. They are processes (actions, basically), and the core difference would lie in the different people preferring one or the other.

Your Welcome :)
Frameworks are usually associated with Ti. Ni is perception. Ti is more about arranging frameworks than perceiving them. However, I guess because it's introverted, there might be a similar dynamic. (Like Fi would be about ethical frameworks, and I guess Si would be about experiential frameworks).
I daresay I think so.
I mean, that's what I understood about myself as you were describing Ti.
I don't have a Ti framework to work with when learning something new.
I have to lay it onto my Ni framework, which for me personally is built of principles that don't change.

Perception might be a misleading way to understand Ni.
Granted, Ni is the most difficult introverted function to describe, in my opinion.

If you mean experiential as in sensory, then I would agree.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Would it be agreed that if someone were to say that a person was either an INTJ or an ENTJ because they used Te that this would be wrong? If Te and Ti do not exist except as concepts to explain the different results of two T preference people then how can you work backwards with any reliability?

You see I don't have a problem with the function order as listed in most text books per se only the way in which people pick it up and use it literally. In strictest definition is Te a function? Is it not that T is the function and e the preferred arena to use it in? Ergo function analysis should not be based upon Fe and Fi but rather F itself as a whole. The various arenas should be a layer of analysis on top of that and not beside.

It's a question of priority and importance. It seems that many consider the context as part of the function itself, it is this which I find incorrect and it's this tendency which I'm trying to address.

It would be incorrect to assume that I'm trying to alter the system as it is, or as I interpret it to be (to be precisely precise), but rather how it is interpreted by a few people.

Also in part I'm trying to find out if my thinking is correct but that's an aside to this particular thread as if I try to do both I'll only get buried in nay sayers and that's just irritating.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
No, you can't type someone based just on seeing them use a function. We all use all functions, and type is determined by preference of the functions. Then there are the words "function" and "process", which are often used interchangeably. Perhaps one can refer to the neutral T, F, S or N, and the other refer to the specific attitude. I have not seen a consistent rule followed on that.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Would it be agreed that if someone were to say that a person was either an INTJ or an ENTJ because they used Te that this would be wrong? If Te and Ti do not exist except as concepts to explain the different results of two T preference people then how can you work backwards with any reliability?
I agree with you on this point, though as with MBTT in general, everyone has their own method that they believe works for them.
Personally, I consider myself too much of a novice to know what Te looks like.
And if I did, I wouldn't know if I was looking at a person's first or second function,
or a usually unused function.
And frankly, I don't see how anyone else could know that either.
And by the time you had been with someone long enough to determine that,
it seems to me that there would be faster more accurate means of determining someone's type.

The "working backwards" you mentioned happens in the 4 dimensions as well, if we think about it. What is the proper way to determine someone's type? Is it not by a personal/group consultation where the options are laid before the persons and they decide for themselves what type they are?
Technically, the system wasn't meant for people to go around typing other people, yet it's increasingly being used that way. I have read some of the most atrocious ways people have for determining the type of another. They jump to conclusions; they have no way of falsifying their findings, yet they insist that they're correct.
I think it just comes with the territory.
As with all of life, people are wrong all the time.
Some of the online tests use this "backwards" thinking as well.
Visit the "What's my type" sub-forum and you will see all kinds of information given in the name of thinking they are helping someone determine their type!

If Linda Berens were here, do you think she would agree with you? I think maybe not.
She probably feels secure enough in her understanding of people and of the functions that she feels she can determine someones type quite easily.
Maybe not. I could be wrong.


You see I don't have a problem with the function order as listed in most text books per se only the way in which people pick it up and use it literally. In strictest definition is Te a function? Is it not that T is the function and e the preferred arena to use it in?
Once again I agree. And given that a person might be forced to use a function outside of their preferred arena occasionally, it seems pretty arrogant to claim to be able to judge total strangers by such an observation.
As far as textbook listings, it's not that exact of a science, right? Or is it?
I think some people here are of the opinion that it is not.

I can only be as exact with my work as my tools allow me to be.
I.e., a chisel is less precise than an Exacto knife.

Ergo function analysis should not be based upon Fe and Fi but rather F itself as a whole. The various arenas should be a layer of analysis on top of that and not beside.
If I were a function "expert" I perhaps would disagree with that. Given the time to study someone, and observing that a certain person ALWAYS uses Fe and Never uses Fi, that might be helpful in helping me determine their type, but as I said, there are probably faster, easier ways to do it.

It's a question of priority and importance. It seems that many consider the context as part of the function itself, it is this which I find incorrect and it's this tendency which I'm trying to address.
I agree with you that determining someone's type by observing the functions they use is not a good way to do it.
But if a person chooses to do it that way and is always correct, then I don't see the harm.

It would be incorrect to assume that I'm trying to alter the system as it is, or as I interpret it to be (to be precisely precise), but rather how it is interpreted by a few people.
Perhaps these people are novices who don't know any better?

Also in part I'm trying to find out if my thinking is correct but that's an aside to this particular thread as if I try to do both I'll only get buried in nay sayers and that's just irritating.
That's an INTP question that I can't help with.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
No, you can't type someone based just on seeing them use a function. We all use all functions, and type is determined by preference of the functions. Then there are the words "function" and "process", which are often used interchangeably. Perhaps one can refer to the neutral T, F, S or N, and the other refer to the specific attitude. I have not seen a consistent rule followed on that.
Perhaps it is this lack of consistency which started my thinking? Not sure what starts me noticing a pattern as I only notice after the patterns starting to form..

Anyhoo, perhaps I should say that without stability in approach then the function should be used neutrally and the attitude determined separately?
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
I agree with you on this point, though as with MBTT in general, everyone has their own method that they believe works for them.
I resist such comfort myself (and no that's not an in joke btw). I find I'm never satisfied just saying "well that's this persons way".. I can be happy with people doing things differently but mostly I try to make sense of it.. if it makes sense, then I'm happy.

This doesn't make sense...yet.
Personally, I consider myself too much of a novice to know what Te looks like.
And if I did, I wouldn't know if I was looking at a person's first or second function,
or a usually unused function.
And frankly, I don't see how anyone else could know that either.
And by the time you had been with someone long enough to determine that,
it seems to me that there would be faster more accurate means of determining someone's type.
That's the thing, you can do all of this without recourse to determining the attitude of function usage. It's not usually difficult to determine if someone is a J or a P. Even in my case I'm most assuredly a P even though I've been around Js all my life pretty much (aside from Dom I think they're all Js!!).

Once you know that then you know which function is extraverted and so on.
The "working backwards" you mentioned happens in the 4 dimensions as well, if we think about it. What is the proper way to determine someone's type? Is it not by a personal/group consultation where the options are laid before the persons and they decide for themselves what type they are?
Technically, the system wasn't meant for people to go around typing other people, yet it's increasingly being used that way. I have read some of the most atrocious ways people have for determining the type of another. They jump to conclusions; they have no way of falsifying their findings, yet they insist that they're correct.
I think it just comes with the territory.
As with all of life, people are wrong all the time.
Some of the online tests use this "backwards" thinking as well.
Visit the "What's my type" sub-forum and you will see all kinds of information given in the name of thinking they are helping someone determine their type!
Errm wasn't this whole thing started by someone trying to type people? Isn't that what it's all based upon? Whether or not the subject is the most accurate arbitrator is irrelevant to whether you can apply it to others or not (you obviously can).

I think the thing which can be drawn from the evidence on this board and in many other locales is that the system is very open to abuse and context. I lost track many moons ago, for example, of the number of Americans who swear blind their intuitives because they can spot patterns that their neighbour can't and yet display none of the other signs of intuitive behaviour. Such things are a mistake of context. Contrast only works if the background is fairly neutral otherwise the whole thing shifts accordingly.
If Linda Berens were here, do you think she would agree with you? I think maybe not.
Surely you don't think I wouldn't argue with her? Hell I'd argue quantum physics with Heinz Wolfe given half a chance.. It'd be fun and I'd learn something... even if that is just not to mess with them :D
She probably feels secure enough in her understanding of people and of the functions that she feels she can determine someones type quite easily.
Maybe not. I could be wrong.
This is what concerns me with those regarded as "experts". I find a lot of them have travelled so long along the path before them that they can no longer relate properly to other paths and hence become increasingly detached from the wider reality.
Once again I agree. And given that a person might be forced to use a function outside of their preferred arena occasionally, it seems pretty arrogant to claim to be able to judge total strangers by such an observation.
As far as textbook listings, it's not that exact of a science, right? Or is it?
I think some people here are of the opinion that it is not.
I think typology as with most psychology, defies "science". Hell mathematics defies science... as does physics come to think of it... I mean what is it with the whole thing of "this always happens" from an observed result of "this happened for as long as we watched but when we weren't watching something random happened"?
I can only be as exact with my work as my tools allow me to be.
I.e., a chisel is less precise than an Exacto knife.
Even so you could be more accurate with a hair, though your patience would need to be accordingly greater.
:newwink:
If I were a function "expert" I perhaps would disagree with that. Given the time to study someone, and observing that a certain person ALWAYS uses Fe and Never uses Fi, that might be helpful in helping me determine their type, but as I said, there are probably faster, easier ways to do it.
This is a good question. I know that people are capable of using all 8 functions and do so in a blend which MBTI only pulls out the grosest of tendancies but I wonder if according to theory we're using all 8 functions all of the time and only the strongest is really noted in the MBTI or if we do operate on a selection of those 8 functions most of the time and just retain the capability to "switch" occasionally.
I agree with you that determining someone's type by observing the functions they use is not a good way to do it.
But if a person chooses to do it that way and is always correct, then I don't see the harm.
I've yet to see someone do that though. They usually seem to totally miss the point.
Perhaps these people are novices who don't know any better?
In which case I hope that by discussing it the thinking is brought out in the open for others to understand or work from to a better solution. There's little point keeping it behind closed doors even if it is true and right (I know we disagree on this last point but I'm hoping you'll permit this P that leeway :newwink:)
That's an INTP question that I can't help with.
Oh but you are, said the spider to the fly.
:newwink:
 
Top