User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 52

  1. #11
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by speculative View Post
    Sympathy is when you understand why someone is feeling a certain way; empathy is when you actually feel their emotions as though they were your own. (If you are using a nontraditional use of empathy you may want to define it further...)
    I cannot say I have ever identified with this definition of empathy, so have never related to 'feeling the others emotions as if they were my own'. I guess I first understand why someone feels a certain way, and/or imagine what it would be like if I were them, or if the same happened to me. But I can't say I ever feel what they're feeling. I might feel for them, or feel badly for them, etc etc, but my own emotions are quite distinct from theirs and those boundaries definitely exist.

    Costrin - I don't have any specific comments to make, but think you have a lot of good info in that initial post. The only thing I'm not certain I agree with is the objective/subjective, "unbiased"/"biased" breakdown in distinguishing between T/F, but I would need to put more thought into how I would word it/define it differently, if even possible.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  2. #12
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascademn View Post
    I cannot say I have ever identified with this definition of empathy, so have never related to 'feeling the others emotions as if they were my own'. I guess I first understand why someone feels a certain way, and/or imagine what it would be like if I were them, or if the same happened to me. But I can't say I ever feel what they're feeling. I might feel for them, or feel badly for them, etc etc, but my own emotions are quite distinct from theirs and those boundaries definitely exist.
    I envy you, then.

    When people do something that I imagine would embarrass them, I often feel more embarrassed than they do.

    When people lose something close to them, I'm often more hurt than they are (at first, at least). When one of my best friends died a few years ago, I didn't cry at the funeral until I saw his parents speak, and then I cried for them.

    It's definitely an annoying curse.

    (But I agree with you, it isn't Fe.)

  3. #13
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I envy you, then.

    When people do something that I imagine would embarrass them, I often feel more embarrassed than they do.

    When people lose something close to them, I'm often more hurt than they are (at first, at least). When one of my best friends died a few years ago, I didn't cry at the funeral until I saw his parents speak, and then I cried for them.

    It's definitely an annoying curse.

    (But I agree with you, it isn't Fe.)
    Hmm....well, when you give all of those examples...I don't know. Perhaps it boils down to semantics. I am thinking of extreme examples, like if someone is really depressed or angry or whatever, I don't then become that way automatically, or spiral down with them. If I learn why they are angry and I am equally angered by what made them angry, then I might become angry, but that's me becoming angry of my own accord, not just taking their anger on [but anger is a poor example, as I rarely get angry]. Because it very well may be that I won't personally be able to relate to their anger, or I may personally feel their anger is unjustified given the circumstances, in which case I won't be angry, but I'll try to understand, etc, and still lend a supportive ear.

    Your embarassment example is a good one, and I may be similar to you w/ that. Maybe that's tied to Fe, as I'm hypersensitive to emotions/reactions that I see in a crowd of people, so I'll know when the person is being mocked at/laughed at/whatever, even if the person doesn't know it himself. But again, I'm not certain I myself become embarassed..but maybe I do, who knows. :-) It's more of a thing where I sense ripples/undercurrents in the overall crowd or mentality, and so anything that causes those ripples is something that I pick up on.

    Same goes with my mom in social settings. My mom lacks a lot of social grace and can be quite tactless, bordering on rude, at times, and I tend to internally cringe on her behalf when she says things. Not because she's feeling it, because she's not -- but because I know what other peoples' reactions to her will be.

    Perhaps everything I've described DOES mean I feel other peoples' emotions, but I guess I have never personally looked at it that way. ha.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  4. #14
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    When people do something that I imagine would embarrass them, I often feel more embarrassed than they do.
    Hmm... interestingly, I can sometimes do this too...
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  5. #15
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Everyone uses all 8 functions, to varying degrees. It's the role (and not strength) that you use each function in that determines your type. Your type is determined by your primary and secondary function. Pi and Je are paired together, and Pe and Ji are paired together. For the record, I believe that IPs lead with a juding function, and IJs lead with a perceiving function.
    Ya.

    A function is like a muscle, it is strengthened by using it, and atrophies when unused. You can only use one function at a time, though you can switch rapidly, especially between a perceving function and it's judging partner.
    I actually disagree here. There needs to be a distinction made between judging and perceiving -- which is the same thing as saying conscious (T and F) vs. unconscious (S and N).

    I think perceiving is actually pretty amorphous. You could claim that only one perceiving function happens at one time, but the whole point is that it's unconscious, meaning there is no way to access it. That's the reason these functions are called irrational. Because we can't really figure out what they're doing, we just know the inputs and outputs. I think Intuition and Sensing can, and have to happen simultaneously (in fact, I don't really think there's anything much different about them, other than an arbitrary label.) They depend on each other.

    So my idea is that the perceiving functions can happen at the same time. The judging cannot (because it is conscious). But judging and perceiving can take place at the same time (because the conscious and unconscious don't necessarily contradict each other; hopefully they help each other).

    S - 5 senses data.
    N - Ideas.
    T - Objective Judging.
    F - Subjective Judging.

    Extroverted Functions - Linear.
    Introverted Functions - Webbed.

    Introverted functions store the fruits of their labor in memory.
    Okay here's where I'm gonna define things quite differently.

    The functions are supposed to split all of cognition into 8 mutually exclusive compartments that add back together to make the whole (no parts missing). There are a few things I've realized trying to figure this out.

    1, there's no chance of separately defining all the functions and hoping they add up to everything without overlapping. Therefore the only way it will work is by taking all of cognition and dividing it.

    2, the more functions doing different things, the more complicated and confusing everything gets. I chose to solve this by throwing out the idea that an introverted function is different from its extroverted counterpart. In my understanding, there are 4 functions: Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition. There are tendencies within these functions to cater to the extroverted world where signs and symbols are taken for granted, or the introverted world where the equivalent of signs and symbols are unconscious tendencies and themes.

    All functions point somewhat in both directions. Also, all functions are used together all the time, the perceiving ones at least multiple times a second, and the judging ones at least every few seconds of waking life. Sensing, to take in and unconsciously process sensory data, and to take care of all automatic body function. Intuition, to break down that information into manageable chunks and themes, to change scope, etc. Thinking, to throw away ideas that bubble to consciousness from the perceiving functions that don't make sense or verify those that do. And importantly, Feeling, to decide whether the ideas that come to consciousness are worth something.

    So actually, the perceiving functions do most of the work, because they decide what the judging functions even see. And everything behind the scenes is the work of S and N. Judging can always be explained (the premises may be questioned, but whatever). Perceiving can only be explained if it decides to pass to consciousness the explanation.



    So here's my take on how to explain the definitions of introversion and extroversion when applied to functions. I'm gonna explain it differently for judging and for perceiving, as they are vastly different "functions" -- "unconscious" and "conscious" work much better.

    So for judging functions, extroversion is the amount with which external signs and symbols are taken for granted. Evidence (current, too...tangible) is all, and hypotheticals have no weight on their own (unless they are passed in by perceiving specifically to check against evidence). Introversion is the amount of weight given to ideas, feelings, hypotheticals...anything going on inside the mind. But Thinking and Feeling themselves, they are just deductive processes. Thinking says "true" or "false". Feeling says "good" (meaning, good for me) or "bad". The premises that perceiving passes in, those are really all that matter, or even determine whether a function is being used in an introverted or extroverted way. If we take that logic even further, we could even claim that Thinking and Feeling are the same -- some of the premises perceiving can pass in make judging look like Thinking, others make judging look like Feeling. It's actually the perceiving functions with the preferences. But anyways, sometimes it's useful to make the distinction between "good"/"bad" judgments and "true"/"false" judgments, which is the point of the distinction in the first place.

    And this is why everything is stored in the perceiving functions. Judging functions are really nothing by themselves. But perceiving functions are. They can do things without the conscious mind even knowing. They can make you block a punch -- they don't need to look through some sort of "thinking database" to figure out if it's true that blocking a punch saves you from harm. Nor a "feeling database" that would say whether blocking the punch is good.

    Anyway, back to introversion/extroversion...so...perceiving functions. Introversion of a perceiving function is like a feedback loop. The more introverted the P function, the more it focuses on the data that is relevant to the current unconscious process (and the less it focuses on ALL data). The more extroverted the P function, the less it cares about what it's doing and the more it picks up ALL information it possibly has access to. So Pi is hopelessly looped on itself, with absolutely no chance of getting out of its own confirmation bias (because it only sees what it wants). But Pe cares hopelessly much about every single piece of data in the world. A pure Pe couldn't think anything about his or herself. So the way it's set up, Pi (or, the half of the spectrum I refer to when I say that) is focused on depth at the cost of breadth. And vice versa.


    So, now, instead of separately defining everything, I defined the functions by dividing consciousness in two (judging perceiving), then in two((thinking feeling) (sensing intuition)), then into infinity (or not dividing again at all, depending on how you look at it), breaking each function into an entire spectrum of introversion to extroversion.

    There is a kind of odd implication from my explanation, though (which there are with others, too, and I guess I'm trying to claim mine has fewer flaws than the others):

    Sensing vs. Intuition is a silly distinction to make in people, at least when referring to using either Sensing more or Intuition more. The truth is, almost all data that gets sent to consciousness to analyze is sent from Intuition. Who cares whether a photon of light on the retina is "true" or "good" when it clearly hit the the retina in the first place and nothing can be done to change it? Who cares about how "good" it is that you kick your leg out when the doctor hits that spot below your knee? Thinking and Feeling are almost entirely wasted on information from Sensation. So the distinction I've made between Sensing and Intuition is not useful.

    But, oddly, I can't think (Intuit, I should say ) of any other way to explain the function definitions. Which sort of leads me to my 2nd point. I don't think it makes sense to define these "spectrums" of T vs. F and S vs. N by which function is used more. I think the only way to distinguish is to find a grouping in the data in which it makes sense to use different labels. 50/50 is just silly. So we can keep the types we have, not because it's actually true that anyone uses T more than F (I doubt anyone even comes close), but because there are natural groupings in the data, and the "T"s generally fall on one side, the Fs on the other. There are always outliers, though.

    We also have to remember that T and F aren't actually in opposition. Someone could use 10 T points and 5 F points (points, I'm assuming, would scale it back to a 50/50 divide) and be a T. But someone else could use 12 T points and 13 F points and be an F, even if they're more T than the T.

    I'm sure I'm forgetting something, I always do. I'll post more later.

  6. #16
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Interesting. I previously thought of possibility of reducing the functions even more to just T, F, S, and N, and maybe even more to just Judging and Perceiving (kinda like, how in the end, everything in math is just the 4 basic operations (even then, you could reduce further)). However, I wasn't (and still not (haven't thought it out enough yet)) sure whether that would be better or not. Simpler is better, but not at the cost of explanatory power.

    It's pretty clear to me though that the functions are more similiar than they are different.

    I'll ask more specific questions as I digest this.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  7. #17
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I envy you, then.

    When people do something that I imagine would embarrass them, I often feel more embarrassed than they do.

    When people lose something close to them, I'm often more hurt than they are (at first, at least). When one of my best friends died a few years ago, I didn't cry at the funeral until I saw his parents speak, and then I cried for them.

    It's definitely an annoying curse.

    (But I agree with you, it isn't Fe.)
    I do the same, but likely not to the same degree. It'd be nice to be completely detached from others' problems, but then it can be great feeling so involved, too.

    And it's definitely not Fe. My ENFJ friend likes to take care of the people he cares about, but doesn't even comprehend the concept of empathy. When I'd tear up telling stories of some of my other friends' hardships, he thought I must be doing so because they hurt me, or I was directly involved, or I lost something because of their experiences, or something.. but in my mind, I was essentially reliving the process of seeing what they were going through.

    That's not to say that FJ's can't exhibit empathy, just that Fe doesn't describe it.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Hendo Barbarosa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    197

    Default

    This is a damn fine thread, right here!

    The only thing I would be more specific about in the explanation (assuming it was for someone who I guess knew NOTHING of cognitive functions) would be to be more explicit about how thinking and feeling, being verbs, and therefore requiring the action of judging, are judging functions, likewise the same re-iteration of Sense and Intuition being perceiving functions because it is how we observe the world. That might seem like a no-brainer, yeah, but I just felt it could've been mentioned when ramping up to the rest, for an easier time.

  9. #19
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    So I finally decided to do something with this thread again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hendo Barbarosa View Post
    This is a damn fine thread, right here!

    The only thing I would be more specific about in the explanation (assuming it was for someone who I guess knew NOTHING of cognitive functions) would be to be more explicit about how thinking and feeling, being verbs, and therefore requiring the action of judging, are judging functions, likewise the same re-iteration of Sense and Intuition being perceiving functions because it is how we observe the world. That might seem like a no-brainer, yeah, but I just felt it could've been mentioned when ramping up to the rest, for an easier time.
    It was meant for people who are already somewhat familiar with the theory (well in actuality, it was meant more for myself, and for others to comment on the validity of my theory). But no harm in doing so, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post



    I actually disagree here. There needs to be a distinction made between judging and perceiving -- which is the same thing as saying conscious (T and F) vs. unconscious (S and N).

    I think perceiving is actually pretty amorphous. You could claim that only one perceiving function happens at one time, but the whole point is that it's unconscious, meaning there is no way to access it. That's the reason these functions are called irrational. Because we can't really figure out what they're doing, we just know the inputs and outputs. I think Intuition and Sensing can, and have to happen simultaneously (in fact, I don't really think there's anything much different about them, other than an arbitrary label.) They depend on each other.

    So my idea is that the perceiving functions can happen at the same time. The judging cannot (because it is conscious). But judging and perceiving can take place at the same time (because the conscious and unconscious don't necessarily contradict each other; hopefully they help each other).
    Yeah that makes a lot more sense than my poorly thought out thingamabobx except for the bolded part. In my experience, I sometimes have to focus (and can, which is the point) to access Sensing, to be able to notice physical details. I have to keep watch and concentrate or my mind quickly starts to wander.

    Lots of stuff.
    One of the things I've encountered in my research, is the idea that different functions are mapped to different regions of the brain, like so:



    I haven't really looked into this too much, and I'm not sure the validity of it, but this doesn't seem compatible with your ideas.

    On the other hand...

    I chose to solve this by throwing out the idea that an introverted function is different from its extroverted counterpart.
    I think I agree with this. It's the same process, just applied either externally or internally. But this seems to have some interesting effects on how they work, which is why to me, it seems useful to define explicitly the differences.

    All functions point somewhat in both directions. Also, all functions are used together all the time, the perceiving ones at least multiple times a second, and the judging ones at least every few seconds of waking life. Sensing, to take in and unconsciously process sensory data, and to take care of all automatic body function. Intuition, to break down that information into manageable chunks and themes, to change scope, etc. Thinking, to throw away ideas that bubble to consciousness from the perceiving functions that don't make sense or verify those that do. And importantly, Feeling, to decide whether the ideas that come to consciousness are worth something.

    [....]

    So for judging functions, extroversion is the amount with which external signs and symbols are taken for granted. Evidence (current, too...tangible) is all, and hypotheticals have no weight on their own (unless they are passed in by perceiving specifically to check against evidence). Introversion is the amount of weight given to ideas, feelings, hypotheticals...anything going on inside the mind.
    This doesn't seem the case for me. It seems its more about how much of the process is internal versus external. It seems that Judging not only judges information, but uses that information to build with, either internally or externally. Essentially, they build what they see, in a kinda "monkey see, monkey do" process. So Ti builds a model of the universe in my head according to what Perceiving gathers. Te does the same thing, except it does it in the external world. Your definitions don't include what drives one to actually do anything, only how the information is gathered and assessed.

    And this is why everything is stored in the perceiving functions. Judging functions are really nothing by themselves. But perceiving functions are. They can do things without the conscious mind even knowing. They can make you block a punch -- they don't need to look through some sort of "thinking database" to figure out if it's true that blocking a punch saves you from harm. Nor a "feeling database" that would say whether blocking the punch is good.
    Hmm, at what point does instinct start and cognitive functions begin? This assumes that Judging functions work slowly. But I could see this as maybe being true. I suppose either explanation works (Judging being fast, Perceiving being able to "judge", or a third explanation, its some other process entirely).

    Anyway, back to introversion/extroversion...so...perceiving functions. Introversion of a perceiving function is like a feedback loop. The more introverted the P function, the more it focuses on the data that is relevant to the current unconscious process (and the less it focuses on ALL data). The more extroverted the P function, the less it cares about what it's doing and the more it picks up ALL information it possibly has access to. So Pi is hopelessly looped on itself, with absolutely no chance of getting out of its own confirmation bias (because it only sees what it wants). But Pe cares hopelessly much about every single piece of data in the world. A pure Pe couldn't think anything about his or herself. So the way it's set up, Pi (or, the half of the spectrum I refer to when I say that) is focused on depth at the cost of breadth. And vice versa.
    I can't argue against this, it makes too much sense!

    Sensing vs. Intuition is a silly distinction to make in people, at least when referring to using either Sensing more or Intuition more. The truth is, almost all data that gets sent to consciousness to analyze is sent from Intuition. Who cares whether a photon of light on the retina is "true" or "good" when it clearly hit the the retina in the first place and nothing can be done to change it? Who cares about how "good" it is that you kick your leg out when the doctor hits that spot below your knee? Thinking and Feeling are almost entirely wasted on information from Sensation. So the distinction I've made between Sensing and Intuition is not useful.
    Hmm... Well it makes sense to me, but I have a different definitions of Thinking and Feeling.

    Hmm... I also seem to define Sensing slightly different. Sensing doesn't just give to Thinking and Feeling the information that a photon of light hit your retina, it interprets the photon of light, converts it into an image, and that gets passed on to Judging. iNtuition doesn't do this though. That's why Ns are prone to "space cadet-ness".

    On the other hand, Intuition is annoyingly hard to define. It's one of those things, "I know it when I see it".

    not because it's actually true that anyone uses T more than F (I doubt anyone even comes close)
    Could you elaborate on this?

    We also have to remember that T and F aren't actually in opposition. Someone could use 10 T points and 5 F points (points, I'm assuming, would scale it back to a 50/50 divide) and be a T. But someone else could use 12 T points and 13 F points and be an F, even if they're more T than the T.
    Yup, I agree with this.


    Also, since you didn't address this, why does it happen that an introverted perceiving seems to get paired with an extroverted judging, and vice versa?
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  10. #20
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Yeah that makes a lot more sense than my poorly thought out thingamabobx except for the bolded part. In my experience, I sometimes have to focus (and can, which is the point) to access Sensing, to be able to notice physical details. I have to keep watch and concentrate or my mind quickly starts to wander.
    I guess I meant, not that we can't access it, but that we can't really know if two perceiving functions can happen at the same time.

    One of the things I've encountered in my research, is the idea that different functions are mapped to different regions of the brain, like so:



    I haven't really looked into this too much, and I'm not sure the validity of it, but this doesn't seem compatible with your ideas.
    Yeah I don't like that whole area of the brain thing. I just don't buy it. If there's one theme to what I've learned as a cognitive science major, it that the brain is much much more complicated than that.

    This doesn't seem the case for me. It seems its more about how much of the process is internal versus external. It seems that Judging not only judges information, but uses that information to build with, either internally or externally. Essentially, they build what they see, in a kinda "monkey see, monkey do" process. So Ti builds a model of the universe in my head according to what Perceiving gathers. Te does the same thing, except it does it in the external world. Your definitions don't include what drives one to actually do anything, only how the information is gathered and assessed.
    Judging can change models in that it can throw out something or validate it. But it can't come up with something novel.

    Hmm, at what point does instinct start and cognitive functions begin? This assumes that Judging functions work slowly. But I could see this as maybe being true. I suppose either explanation works (Judging being fast, Perceiving being able to "judge", or a third explanation, its some other process entirely).
    It's not fast/slow...it's conscious/unconscious. Also, instinct is in the realm of sensing, it's not outside of cognitive functions.

    Hmm... I also seem to define Sensing slightly different. Sensing doesn't just give to Thinking and Feeling the information that a photon of light hit your retina, it interprets the photon of light, converts it into an image, and that gets passed on to Judging. iNtuition doesn't do this though. That's why Ns are prone to "space cadet-ness".
    You're right. It does process the information. I shouldn't have left that out. Visual information hits the retinas, but it's still sensing until the time it's a three dimensional representation. Same with all senses. Once metaphor and analogy step in, though, it's intuition.

    Could you elaborate on this?
    I just doubt anyone actually thinks true/false more than "this is important"/"this is not important". Feeling narrows down the possible things you have to think about. If Feeling didn't reign over thinking, we'd be wasting a shitload of time.

    Also, since you didn't address this, why does it happen that an introverted perceiving seems to get paired with an extroverted judging, and vice versa?
    I don't think they're paired in actuality. I just think they're useful to talk about together because any good idea has to have an extroverted counterpart and introverted counterpart, as well as a perceiving and a judging counterpart.

Similar Threads

  1. Let's Try Function Definitions again: "Relationships" of Objects
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-20-2014, 09:05 AM
  2. Another crack at root function definitions
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 11:01 PM
  3. The Search for Better, More Elemental Definitions of the Functions, Esp. Judging
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 02:44 PM
  4. Evan's function definitions
    By Evan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 09-29-2009, 09:05 PM
  5. Costrin and BlackCat's super duper typology overview (of doom)
    By BlackCat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 05-11-2009, 10:39 PM

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