# Thread: The pairings aren't pairings--Te/Fi, Fe/Ti, Se/Ni, Si/Ne--they're identities

1. My intuitive image of functional preference is a pool table.
It's never totally horizontal, so the experience-balls of life will always have a tendency: the ball will roll - hesitantly or quickly - towards the end of Sensing or Intuition, or - at the judging table - towards the end Feeling or Thinking.

Hm... maybe the corners are I vs. E and somehow cross connected so the ball drops down the hole of extroverted Intuition for instance and roll subconsciously / subtablishly towards introverted Sensing.

Memory? If the balls are stacking up at the end of preference the table would get more and more bias in that direction?

"Balance"? If the ball doesn't know what way to roll, the preferential process will take forever in each case and the number of balls you have time for processing will be smaller. Life is passing you by!
= Yay for strong preferences?

2. Originally Posted by Matthew_Z
Function pairs are complementary. This is the nature of their relation. The functions influence each other, their collective strengths often correspond. (that is, a person's combined strength in their 1st and 4th functions are often roughly equatable to the combined strength of their 2nd and 3rd functions.) I agree that function pairs are closely related. However, I will assert that the statement that they are identities is false.

Functions, as a whole, are understood to be all part of the larger entity of neural processing. To make studying of this entity easier, cognitive ability is divided into functions. By definition (and perhaps definition alone) functions are differentiated. To assert them as some sort of "identity" would require a change in definition.This change would quite possibly be arbitrary; it would partially change the perspective on functional analysis, but it would also deprive the ability to study the nature of 8 different functions by simplifying them into four. Si and Ne are about as much the "same thing" as Si and Ni are.
Originally Posted by Andy
I'm not sure if a function can ever be used on its own, though if one can it would be percieving function. A judging function cannot operate without information being supplied to it by a percieving function, but it is conceivable that a preceiving function could gather data without any attempt to analyse it being made, creating something of an idiot savant.

I think this fact is one of the things that makes the functions hard to understand. In pretty much any situation, you will get two functions working together. Both the pairing and dominance order will effect the out come, so the obserable output of Te will be different for Si&Te, Te&Si, Ni&Te or any other combination. So to understan "pure" Te (if thats the right word) you need to seperate it from the flavour given to it by the percieving function used and to do that you need to under stand that function as well. Trouble is, you'll pretty much never see a perceiving function working on its own either...

Because of this, you pretty much have to try and understand all the functions at once, starting off with a vague idea of what each one means and then refining your ideas one step at a time. With each step the picture gets a little clearer and you start to see the ways the all blend into each other, not really discrete entities at all.

At least, that's been my experience with them. I'm still learning a lot.
I think it might be a bit of a mistake to speak of the functions doing stuff so much. The ego is the self-conscious entity, that "does" things or is "influenced" using the functions, which are just forms of consciousness.

When I speak of simplifying the functions into four, it means that all the eight are is the four functions being used (by the ego) in two possible orientations. the orientations will give the functions the characteristics of "Xe" or "Xi". But it was originally conceived as four functions, and I'm finding that is what makes it easier to discover a type, and understand stuff like the archetypes.

3. Originally Posted by Kalach
So I guess the spectrum idea sounds okay if one remembers that an i function isn't in the moment. It's got a backlog of stuff to deal with first, I guess.
Heh you are just sounding like an Ni dominant when you say this. Remember Ni is the function that is least in the moment, while Se is most in the moment. For an INTJ it's probably difficult to talk about switching between Ni and Se, because Ni is your dominant function. I think it would be more enlightening for you to first think about how you switch between thinking and feeling.

4. I like this topic, I just don't have time to read through it/comment this second...

5. Originally Posted by Kalach
They're always paired in any given type. If Te is present in the top four, so is Fi. If Ti, then Fe. If Ne, then Si. And if Ni, then Se. (And vice versa on all of them.)

I wonder, do these pairings represent two functions together, or a person's exaggeration--her unbalancing of a balanced thing--via preference. That is, what if Te and Fi, or any of the other pairs, are not pairs, but instead they are exaggerations, distortions, extreme perspectives placed on things that, somehow, are the same thing?

What same thing? Dunno.

But why suggest the pairs might somehow be not pairs but somehow "the same thing"? Because I look around and it seems to me that inferior and tertiary, but particularly inferior, functions have an essential role in the life of the top two functions. Like, it seems that Ni really can't exist without Se. How could it? With no information coming in about what things look like moment to moment, how is there anything at all for Ni to sit back and process? Likewise, Ne and Si, if there is no library of at least some basic steadfast unchanging well known and detailed information, how is Ne to propose its wild possibilities? And maybe likewise Te+Fi and Ti+Fe, but I haven't thought how to make that seem plausible yet.

But so what this would suggest is that, once again, you don't mix and match functions. You get judgment and you get perception, and that's it. And for some reason, you're born wildly unbalanced in which aspect of judgment and which aspect of perception you prefer.
The way I am leaning recently(my Ti construct) in regard to Fe/Ti and Te/Fi goes back to simplicity and the core of people. We have both thought and feelings. Te/Fi rationalizes using logic, flawed logic. Fe/Ti rationalizes using feelings, flawed feelings. Its not to say the feelings or logic is wrong, but its not complete, it cant be followed through without breaking. Its lossy. Ti and Fi are like values and principles. Its what balances us in regard to this.

I am still trying to figure out the flawed part. Some is more flawed then others. I think that with Fe as an inferior it is more flawed, but more personalized. With Fe as a dominant it is less flawed, but also less personalized. You can also flip "less flawed"/"more flawed" if you believe that personalized has more weight. Dont focus on the judgement side or whats better/worse. Feel free to flip that around as you see fit, but the concept is what I am constructing.

Fe/Te accomplishes this by relying on outside sources or people who they believe are experts and knowledgable. The more Fi/Ti you are the more you have to rely on these principles because of this flawed logic/feelings. The more Fe/Te you are the more you rely on it, but you will face problems because its not consistent with who you are. Its like forcing yourself in a box that doesnt fit. Ti/Fi keep poking holes in the boxes, or busting out, not sure how it flips around yet on the Ti/Fi side.

6. Ok I lied... I read through the posts, and I don't think I know enough about functions yet to engage in this thread.

7. Originally Posted by poki
The way I am leaning recently(my Ti construct) in regard to Fe/Ti and Te/Fi goes back to simplicity and the core of people. We have both thought and feelings. Te/Fi rationalizes using logic, flawed logic. Fe/Ti rationalizes using feelings, flawed feelings. Its not to say the feelings or logic is wrong, but its not complete, it cant be followed through without breaking. Its lossy. Ti and Fi are like values and principles. Its what balances us in regard to this.

I am still trying to figure out the flawed part. Some is more flawed then others. I think that with Fe as an inferior it is more flawed, but more personalized. With Fe as a dominant it is less flawed, but also less personalized. You can also flip "less flawed"/"more flawed" if you believe that personalized has more weight. Dont focus on the judgement side or whats better/worse. Feel free to flip that around as you see fit, but the concept is what I am constructing.
"Flawed" as in there are degrees of difficulty in handling the content, and the degree is related to the degree to which the content is conscious, with higher degrees of difficulty (which is to say, a lesser degree of conscious control) tending to correlate with a larger number of flawed handling events? More conscious means more competent means more likely to be accurate and effective?

And "personalized" means more likely to be uncritically, perhaps even unconsciously, mixed into decision and perception processes?

Fe/Te accomplishes this by relying on outside sources or people who they believe are experts and knowledgable. The more Fi/Ti you are the more you have to rely on these principles because of this flawed logic/feelings. The more Fe/Te you are the more you rely on it, but you will face problems because its not consistent with who you are. Its like forcing yourself in a box that doesnt fit. Ti/Fi keep poking holes in the boxes, or busting out, not sure how it flips around yet on the Ti/Fi side.
Wildly reinterpreting: objective (e) and subjective (i) cognitive elements are required in a machine before that machine can be said to be conscious? Both are needed before choice (and perception) count as independently made by an entity?

Wildly corollarizing: thus judgment pairings, like Te with Fi and Fe with Ti, and perception pairings, like Se with Ni and Si with Ne, are mandated for efficacy of the consciousness concept, and other pairings, should they ever be attempted in a mechanism, will fail at being conscious....

:horor:

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•