Function Order : Clarification.

["?"]

I think they do, but not in so many words.
They don't get into the nitty-gritty of it, but sort of simplify the application, so novices can understand it, which is the main audience of their book.
For instance, in Do What You Are, chapter six basically discusses the dominant and auxiliary functions. In the section called Personality Typograms" they represent the fact that an INTP uses introverted Thinking, and extravert iNuition.

This seems to corroborate, as Xander has said, that Te and Ti are not two separate entities but rather, the same entity being applied in different places.

Imo, that doesn't change the fact that Ti and Te look different from each other, and people have noticed that and made attempts at describing it.

This actually confirms why we should not attempt to correlate systems by interchanging terms. Jung and Myers-Briggs are specific in what is meant by Te/Ti and give only a small acknowledgement to thinking alone. Based on what you say the Tiegers do the opposite in giving more emphasis to thinking itself and merely reference to Te/Ti. This again adds to the confusion when readers do not distinguish between the systems.

The Tiegers I have said for years is a hybrid similar to Otto Kroeger. You’re right they make the attempt to simplify type, which continues to confuse readers when they attempt to correlate with the more in-depth work of Myers-Briggs and Jung. Jung, Myers-Briggs, John Beebe, Lenore Thomson, Naomi Quenck, etc are Jungian followers. Lenore Thomson made that known during her debate with Keirsey years ago, reminding him that his work is temperament and does consider the basic qualities of what makes MB different. The Tiegers and Otto Kroeger go equally as far as in their hybrids which in my personal opinion are too rudimentary. They do not discuss their work using cognitive functions but in part Keirsey and Myers Briggs (not Jung). In fact if you are going to consider any hybrid work at least Berens/Nardi’s is applicable. Sorry Mom I still have to disagree.

 

[INTJMom]

Perhaps it is apples and oranges again.

 

["?"]

Perhaps it is apples and oranges again.

Agreed. The Tiegers make it a point to say they’re discussing type in their books. However “Gifts Differing” makes the distinction when saying,

“In combination, the four preferences (S/N, T/F) determine type but the traits that result from each preference do not combine to influence an individual’s personality by simple addition of characteristics.

Instead the traits result from the interaction of preferences. The effect of the interaction of the preferred processes is made apparent when the extraverted form of a particular process is compared with the introverted form of the same process. The four figures that make up the balance present contrasting pairs describing the E/I forms of thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition."

Thus again when pointing out the process in saying TSNF you are merely referring to an ESTJ or ISTP, but the two have little in common when considering the E/I direction of each types' energy.

 

[INTJMom]

... when pointing out the process in saying TSNF you are merely referring to an ESTJ or ISTP, but the two have little in common when considering the E/I direction of each types' energy.

You ain't kidding!

Instead the traits result from the interaction of preferences

I understand and agree with this.


btw: The Tiegers appear to be divorced.
Barbara goes by the last name of Barron now.

 

[Llewellyn]

Don't know about 80's suits... (Sometimes I don't get those things. What does that mean?).

But Ti can be Te with a higher resolution? (I'm not elaborating...)

Te: horizontal thinking. Ti: vertical thinking.

 

[Xander]

Xander this may be the easiest way to resolve this matter for anyone. First decide which theory you're comfortable with.

As perfect antithesis to this sensor thrust may I just say "there's theories"?

All I can say on the whole concept of two disparate theories using the same notation is what idiot thought that would be a good idea and are they still living?

 

[Xander]

Who said that they were two separate entities?

Imo, that doesn't change the fact that Ti and Te look different from each other, and people have noticed that and made attempts at describing it.

What looks different to each other?

You mean this same entity merely applied to different arenas looks different?

Well cream does look white against black but is that really appropriate to psychoanalysis?

 

[wildcat]

Okay to get back to the core of the thread and possibly to redo my original explanation...

If you take Ti then you have T (the what) and i (the where).
There is no difference between the thinking process involved in Ti and Te. If there was then there would be an innate difference in the process applied.

Of course there are differences between people that prefer Te to those who prefer Ti there is a difference between those who prefer extraversion over those who prefer introversion, the argument is are there differences in the processes applied?

Personally I find that ALL NTs seem to use the same processes. What they apply it to does differ and their own personal accumulation of experiences and skills.

What I am specifically arguing against, as edcoaching points out correctly, is the theory that people seem to use where they see both the what and the where as a what. In other words I disagree that Ti and Te are two separate entities. I disagree because I don't think they are entities themselves but rather one singular entity with a side note upon where the subject prefers to apply that entity.

In summation, if what is represented by W and where is represented by w then ALL the so called eight functions are represented as Ww. The thing is that most people only see a What and not the where. I consider this an error and hope that somehow all of this may get them to challenge their conception.

Sorry.
I did not want to disrupt your thread.
You were away, doing God knows what.
It is your thread.
Get on with it.

There is a innate difference in the process applied!
Dichotomy is one process only.

Everything takes place simultaneously.
In a dichotomy.

Preference is already.
There is no before or after.

Differentiation is another process altogether.
In other words, girls are not dolls.
Girls may have dolls, though.

Differentiation is what does not add in a dichotomy.
It is called inclusion.

This is all what I wanted to say.

 

["?"]

As perfect antithesis to this sensor thrust may I just say "there's theories"?

All I can say on the whole concept of two disparate theories using the same notation is what idiot thought that would be a good idea and are they still living?

As I have said in other threads, Jung created the cognitive functions (Te/Ti....), Katherine Briggs was working on her own theory but read Jung and realized that his theory coincided with hers therefore Isabela Briggs and Peter Myers expounded on Jung and Katherine Briggs' theories by creating a test that would indicate which cognitive preferences are dominant and by creating the four letter code to show which type one prefers, Keirsey was already working in behavioral psychology using the ancient temperaments when he begin reading Katherine Briggs' work and realized that his theory coincided with hers resulting in his adopting the Myers-Briggs four letter codes and Linda V. Berens was a student of Keirsey who fine tuned his theory and bringing it closer to coinciding with Myers-Briggs.

The Tiegers and Otto Kroeger only used the four letter codes but devised a way to make the theory easier for those who do not want to study the subject indepth by referring to the four letter codes and merely using the type functions in general (TSNF...)

As I see it when it comes to cognitive functions:

Jung=very indepth
MBTI=less indepth
Keirsey=general
Berens=hybrid of MBTI/Keirsey
Tiegers & Kroeger=something different all together

They're all good works and can help one learn about each other, but they all have distinct differences that can become confusing when you attempt to correlate.

 

[garbage]

What I am specifically arguing against, as edcoaching points out correctly, is the theory that people seem to use where they see both the what and the where as a what. In other words I disagree that Ti and Te are two separate entities. I disagree because I don't think they are entities themselves but rather one singular entity with a side note upon where the subject prefers to apply that entity.

This seems to connect pretty well with my experience. I don't seem to have a strong preference between using any function--T or N especially, I've noticed--in an external or internal sense. I do know many individuals for which the classic functional ordering imposed by their MBTI type makes sense, but it doesn't seem to for me.

There was another thread that described where each of the eight functions was located in the different parts of the brain, and I display many left-handed tendencies despite being right-handed. Could a balance between left and right brain functions lead some to see the functions (T, F, N, S) as belonging together?

 

[INTJMom]

Questions and Answers on Personality Type from Lenore Thomson and Jeanne Marlowe, page 2

 

[INTJMom]

Lenore Thomson Bentz - "...I think it's a mistake to understand the functions as references to particular behavioral skills. They don't refer to abilities or actions; they refer to the structure of cognitive experience -- the way in which we reduce a constant bombardment of information to manageable forms that relate to our goals, beliefs, and preferences."

 

[Xander]

Okay I'm going to try once more to adequately explain and that's it.

When is T not T? When it is Te? When it is Ti?
If neither then T is always T regardless of where you use it. If you believe otherwise then fine, please continue in your thinking. Who knows I may join you at some stage, but not today.

I care little what other's theorise (including Jung). If their thinking runs along similar lines to my own then I can use it, otherwise I'm going to have to figure out how to bridge the gap, points of integration etc etc. Without such things you may as well just sit there and sing brim full of asha... it will have the same effect.

 

[Xander]

Lenore Thomson Bentz - "...I think it's a mistake to understand the functions as references to particular behavioral skills. They don't refer to abilities or actions; they refer to the structure of cognitive experience -- the way in which we reduce a constant bombardment of information to manageable forms that relate to our goals, beliefs, and preferences."

Interesting... is e/i the way or the what which the way is applied to? I believe it is the what and the way is separate.

 

[INTJMom]

Interesting... is e/i the way or the what which the way is applied to? I believe it is the what and the way is separate.

I don't know.
I think different people see it differently because that's how they're wired.
Unless you change the wiring, I don't think their beliefs are going to change.

 

[Xander]

I don't know.
I think different people see it differently because that's how they're wired.
Unless you change the wiring, I don't think their beliefs are going to change.

I don't believe in hardwired responses only hardwired preferences to paths.

 

[INTJMom]

I don't believe in hardwired responses only hardwired preferences to paths.

I think that's what I meant... darned engineer talk...:steam:

 

[Xander]

I think that's what I meant... darned engineer talk...:steam:

I was drawing a difference between wiring as in preferences being referred to as cognitive wiring and wiring as in electronics. True that with the same wires you get the same results from the same input, not true with preferences. It's a kin to statistics except the percentages aren't compound.

 

[miss fortune]

Okay I'm going to try once more to adequately explain and that's it.

When is T not T? When it is Te? When it is Ti?
If neither then T is always T regardless of where you use it. If you believe otherwise then fine, please continue in your thinking. Who knows I may join you at some stage, but not today.

I care little what other's theorise (including Jung). If their thinking runs along similar lines to my own then I can use it, otherwise I'm going to have to figure out how to bridge the gap, points of integration etc etc. Without such things you may as well just sit there and sing brim full of asha... it will have the same effect.

Let's just say that T is a quarter (or whatever coin you wish to use for this) Te is one side of it and Ti is the other. They're both just different aspects of the same thing.

If you were unfamiliar with a quarter and saw one for the first time laying heads up, you might have a completely different impression of what the coin looks like than if you first saw it tails up. The tails up and heads up coin are the same thing, they both spend the same and such, but from the quick first impression they'd be different.

Is heads less of a part of the quarter than tails?

 

[Xander]

Let's just say that T is a quarter (or whatever coin you wish to use for this) Te is one side of it and Ti is the other. They're both just different aspects of the same thing.

If you were unfamiliar with a quarter and saw one for the first time laying heads up, you might have a completely different impression of what the coin looks like than if you first saw it tails up. The tails up and heads up coin are the same thing, they both spend the same and such, but from the quick first impression they'd be different.

Is heads less of a part of the quarter than tails?

Precisely my point. None of this removes the concept that the coin is always the coin no matter which side you look at. It's contrary to experience to state that things which you can no longer perceive have ceased to exists.

The sun never ceases to exist (yet) it merely goes out of view.