User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 134

  1. #11
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    This is really not a slight toward you Xander and I purposely did not respond to your inquiry on this thread you started, but how can you have over three thousand posts and be asking some of the most basic principles of type? I started to respond in detail to your inquiry but realized that if you do not get it after all of your posting then I will be doing you a disservice.
    Oh if only things were that simple. You see whilst looking into the differences between various INTPs I got to thinking about internal behaviour and realising that J and P only apply to extraverted activity produced the question of what applies to introverted activity. Unfortunately I posted the question before stumbling upon the obvious conclusion that neither J or P represent anything but a preference order. It's not that I'm not familiar with the theory, just a nice little corkscrew.

    As for this particular thread it's more a question of being polite and trying to make sure that I don't stick my foot in it again. You see I just don't see this whole division between Te and Ti. I speak to ENTJs and INTJs and the only thing I'm seeing is NT not T and certainly no difference in the processes which they apply to things. Both processes seem to be the same but the focus changes in reference to what information the process is applied to. If that much is true then in terms of pure cognitive functions should there be a difference between this Ti and Te or should it be used purely as a notation of where the subject prefers to apply the function?

    If Ti is no different to Te except that one is focused more on internal matters and the other upon external matters then what's the difference in pure function? Sure there's no doubt there'd be accumulated differences as each subject would approach things slightly differently but that's not the process as the behaviour which is implied by MBTI but not stated specifically.

    In specific, throughout all the writings I've seen here about Ti and Te there seems to be no real difference in what they describe other than the arena to which T was applied. This would seem to indicate that T is T and the reason the e or i is lower case is that it doesn't indicate a change in function at all but rather a change in the prefered environment for the use of the function.

    Of course this would make a mockery of J and P just a tad. Well to some degree.

    INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe = TNSF
    INTJ = Te Ni Se Fi = TNSF

    It would make the two very similar except you'd tend to find them in totally different environments... I think.


    Anyhoo... if you think I'm building to some kind of conclusion you're wrong. If I was only here to teach then I'd have more posts and probably a better job. I'm musing... get with the beat baggy....
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #12
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Oh if only things were that simple. You see whilst looking into the differences between various INTPs I got to thinking about internal behaviour and realising that J and P only apply to extraverted activity produced the question of what applies to introverted activity. Unfortunately I posted the question before stumbling upon the obvious conclusion that neither J or P represent anything but a preference order. It's not that I'm not familiar with the theory, just a nice little corkscrew.

    INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe = TNSF
    INTJ = Te Ni Se Fi = TNSF

    Anyhoo... if you think I'm building to some kind of conclusion you're wrong. If I was only here to teach then I'd have more posts and probably a better job. I'm musing... get with the beat baggy....
    I now understand what you are attempting to convey Xander and no there is no “pure function” as you allude to in meaning that there is pure thinking with no direction of attitude. In fact when Jung discusses any function he either makes the distinction of attitude direction (E/I) or he makes the comparison of let’s say thinking with it’s counterpart feeling and discusses them in tandem as judging or perceiving. I don’t want to post his entire description of thinking because it’s long, but I encourage you to read it for yourself here. As you can see even when he discusses a simple function like thinking he distinguishes between the extraverted type and introverted type. In fact Jung says that when you are discussing thinking in itself, you're not even talking about thinking as he proposes in his theory:
    It might indeed be argued that a thinking whose aim is concerned neither with objective facts nor with general ideas scarcely merits the name 'thinking'. I am fully aware of the fact that the thought of our age, in common with its most eminent representatives, knows and acknowledges only the extraverted type of thinking. This is partly due to the fact that all thinking which attains visible form upon the world's surface, whether as science, philosophy, or even art, either proceeds direct from objects or flows into general ideas.
    Jung does go on to say that logic of thought is the common denominator between the two functions (Te/Ti), but that is as far as he goes in discussing similarities:
    When the objective orientation receives a certain predominance, the thinking is extraverted. This circumstance changes nothing as regards the logic of thought -- it merely determines that difference between thinkers which James regards as a matter of temperament. The orientation towards the object, as already explained, makes no essential change in the thinking function; only its appearance is altered.
    In fact Jung’s whole preposition of any function focuses on the differences not commonalities. Jung thus says that it is impossible to Ti /Te, Fi/Fe, Ni/Ne….. simultaneously or with equal demonstration:
    Such a conflict, we might think, could be easily adjusted if only we clearly discriminated objects of a subjective from those of an objective nature. Unfortunately, however, such a discrimination is a matter of impossibility, although not a few have attempted it. Even if such a separation were possible, it would be a very disastrous proceeding, since in themselves both orientations are one-sided, with a definitely restricted validity; hence they both require this mutual correction.
    In the end you either or, not both.

  3. #13
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    The orientation towards the object, as already explained, makes no essential change in the thinking function; only its appearance is altered.
    This is what I meant and I think your examples from Jung's writing show.

    Basically there is no Ti and Te, there is only T in the context of E or I.

    No person is a pure I or a pure J or a pure anything but only by establishing these extremes is it possible to compare people and categorise them.

    Anyhow, what I'm getting at is that when people start to analyse and propose that they "use Ti" or whatever, it's incorrect. They are using T, the context does not form part of the function.

    Btw, I noticed I made an arse out of myself with those function order examples. It should have been INTP and ENTJ not INTJ

    Anyhow... this comparison lead me to a piece of development theory I was working on a while ago and also dovetails into whether you can change your type or not nicely.

    INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe = TNSF
    ENTJ = Te Ni Se Fi = TNSF

    If an INTP learns more extraversion then they should develop more ENTJ traits, they'd use their dominant T in a more extraverted environment leading to Te. Though they may eventually appear as quite like an ENTJ they never will be an ENTJ because at the least their unconscious influences will be different.

    I wonder though if functions necessarily operate in pairs. I know that Jung said that if the primary function was extraverted then the secondary would be introverted to balance it but is it necessarily impossible to use Te and Ne at times?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  4. #14
    Senior Member Llewellyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INtj
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Your order for INTP of TNSF might be the order of strength, but the functional order (stream of data) I see as Ne -> Ti -> Fe -> Si (-> Ne). But that would be another post, or is it generally seen that way?

    I think Ti is much more different from Te than that it is just directed inwards. I think there is an irrationality, a complexity about Ti (like in math it would use irreal numbers, reaching more places).
    INtj | 9w1

  5. #15
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llewellyn View Post
    Your order for INTP of TNSF might be the order of strength, but the functional order (stream of data) I see as Ne -> Ti -> Fe -> Si (-> Ne). But that would be another post, or is it generally seen that way?
    Ti Ne Si Fe that's the function order in terms of preference. I agree that it does make sense to place the sensing function first otherwise how do you gain the information necessary for the judging function right? However what about if there is some thought made about where to look for the information? Would that then place the judging function first?
    I think Ti is much more different from Te than that it is just directed inwards. I think there is an irrationality, a complexity about Ti (like in math it would use irreal numbers, reaching more places).
    Where as ESTJs are known for their Te supported rationality... not

    Rationality depends more upon the user than the tool itself in my opinion.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #16
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    ^Rationality

    1. the state or quality of being rational.
    2. the possession of reason.
    3. agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.
    4. the exercise of reason.
    5. a reasonable view, practice, etc.
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

  7. #17
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mlittrell View Post
    ^Rationality

    1. the state or quality of being rational.
    2. the possession of reason.
    3. agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.
    4. the exercise of reason.
    5. a reasonable view, practice, etc.
    I think Llewellyn is on about the expanded uses of "rationality" as a term but yeah that's the kinda basis I was working from. It's a description of the persons manner more than whether they are consistent or not.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #18
    Senior Member Llewellyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INtj
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Ti Ne Si Fe that's the function order in terms of preference. I agree that it does make sense to place the sensing function first otherwise how do you gain the information necessary for the judging function right? However what about if there is some thought made about where to look for the information? Would that then place the judging function first?
    I think that's extraversion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Rationality depends more upon the user than the tool itself in my opinion.
    Yes, an NF e.g. can be rational.

    All in all, rationality is just a power term
    INtj | 9w1

  9. #19
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llewellyn View Post
    I think that's extraversion.
    As a great man said once to me
    "IP is EJ"

    INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe
    ENTJ = Te Ni Se Fi
    ENTP = Ne Ti Fe Si
    INTJ = Ni Te Fe Si

    The pattern is always JPPJ or PJJP the P and the J in your type only states which is extraverted. Whether you are an E or an I defines which comes first. Hence even Ps can have a dominant judging function and vice versa.
    Yes, an NF e.g. can be rational.
    Shhh... don't tell them that!
    All in all, rationality is just a power term
    But it does go with the 80's suits
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  10. #20
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Some touched on this, but the difference is the roles of the functions. So INTP and ENTJ can be both TNSF, but the INTP's T will lean more inward. When hit with outward T, it will strike him as oppositional, and then he will react in kind. When not under stress, he may then turn to external T to "back up" the conclusions of his internal processing. And environment does come into play, as this is a Te dominant society that demands that logic be externally substantiated, so some of us will appear to lean a lot to external logic to get our point across.
    The ENTJ I imagine will be opposite, and start off with external T, and internal T will be oppositional. I imagine they (as well as the ESTJ) will look down on someone using "their own subjective logic", without the external facts. They'll only use internal logic to back up the external facts. ("See, this always happens; it's a universal principle at work").

    The same with the good parent N. One will be external, with the internal counterpart as critical parent. I recognize this as seeing a whole lot of possibilities of what could happen in a situation, and fearing that the worse is what probably will happen. This gives INTP's their familiar "cynicism" about the world. ENTJ's will have a good parent use of future implications, and I imagine exploring multiple possibilities, in which their vision might not work, is what would be their critical parent. However, this process could be put to good use as "discovery".

    So you have the same four processes, with the opposite attitudes shadowing each other, in parallel "good'/"bad" roles. T is a "true"/false" evaluation, and N is an abstract perception. The diferrence in shadow types is the source of these evaluations or perceptions, which does change certain aspects of the process, but it is still a version of the same process.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

Similar Threads

  1. The alternative/real function orders
    By Virtual ghost in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 10-11-2009, 03:25 PM
  2. How Function Order dictates behaviour
    By VagrantFarce in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-28-2009, 06:31 PM
  3. [JCF] What is the function order?
    By INTJ123 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-16-2009, 04:34 PM
  4. Function Order Game
    By StephMC in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-10-2009, 03:18 PM
  5. Function order
    By Poki in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 06:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO