User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Strict separation between introverted and extraverted versions of the same function?

  1. #31
    psicobolche Array tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    Admittedly, the language I use is inspired mainly by Lenore Thomson (an INTJ) who describes the functions as warring perspectives. I'm able to relate very easily to the assumptions she makes and the illustrations she uses.
    Yep, I am going to buy that book. She sounds to have quite a dialectical approach too (without wishing to sound like a broken record).
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  2. #32
    Active Member Array Poki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    Can I ask for clarification as I'm not sure I understand this: what do you meanwhen you say that a function is "conceptual standpoint that seeks to illustrate natural, instinctive behaviour" and not a "set of tools"/

    Does this mean that a "cognitive function" is actually an external imposition on reality to gve a name to a phenomenon which can't be understood in its entirety, and is to an extent an arbitrary classification, and not something actually existing within the brain? Or did I misunderstand...?
    I see it as exactly what you said, an arbitrary classification instead of something that actually exists. I can see an Ne type though trying to tie it to something that actually exists as they look toward controlling the future more instead of just letting life happen. An Se I feel uses it more to put themselves in positions that allow things to happen and then just allow them to happen.

    I use functions and any type of analysis in a parallel fashion to reality. Not to control, but to understand. Like from a detached view of my world. It helps me understand what is real. Its completely different then my in the moment of interacting and responding. The 2 dont overlap, if they did then it would not be in parallel and one would skew the other and I would lose what is real.

    My external functions are what naturally happen, my internal functions are what I use to figure out what position I want to put myself in.

    I can see how some types use their external functions to put themselves into a position and then use their internal to decide where they want it to go.

    I may be way off, but this is what makes logical sense in regards to what I see and seperation of internal/external functions.
    Take what I say with a grain of salt, because that's all it is compared to the ocean of complexity when it comes to actions and real life.

  3. #33
    failure to thrive Array AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    451 sx/so
    ENFj Ni


    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    They're definitely not illustrative of any genuine, empirically-measured mechanics of the brain - they're illustrations of the way different people process, perceive and ultimately behave in the world - developed based on observation, introspection and interviews by Carl Jung. The functions are a wholly subjective understanding of other people, developed by one person in his own head.

    NPs don't make a conscious decision to "use" Extraverted Intuition like it was a tool - it's a process that emerges naturally out of interaction with the world. Ne is just a reflection of how NPs "see" the world - "everything is connected". Similarly, TPs don't make a concscious decision to "use" Introverted Thinking like it was a tool - it's a process that emerges naturally through introspection. The Tertiary Function is just an illustration of the way people "take the easy way out" or "make excuses", the Inferior function illustrates what stands against the ego (and the central conflict of a person's self-identity), and the Dominant Function illustrates the ego - the apex of that person's self-identity.

    I'm also slowly starting to think that people who say they're using any of the other functions are really just using one of their "default" four functions - e.g. an ESFP might describe themselves as "using" Fe, when all they're doing is being nice to someone else by shaking their hand and saying "hello". This easily could have been learned and rationalised through the lenses of Extraverted Thinking or Introverted Feeling. They think they're "using " Fe because they've been taught that shaking someone's hand, being nice to other people etc. is Fe. We're drilled to be nice, upstanding, cookie-cutter citizens almost from birth (some take to it more easily than others) and the only way we can rationalise how we're "supposed" to behave is through the lenses that we see the world through. Extraverted Thinkers say "hello" and shake hands because it establishes a relationship of trust, ensuring a predictable relationship that can be relied upon to not break apart (and also to avoid the wrath of more socially-tuned individuals; "I should say hello, otherwise this person will think I'm cold and distant - It would be easier to get them to do what I want if they didn't think that").

    Extraverted Feelers don't have the same (cynical?) motives, because their focus is on emotional relationships, and they want to define and maintain the social vocabulary that enables them. So they don't say "hello" to avoid someone's wrath, they do it because they want to be friendly for the sake of it, and that's how you're supposed to be friendly.

    I should also probably mention that some of this is my subjecting understanding, developed in my head. Feel free to dismiss this if it doesn't match up to your own understanding of things.
    I like what you have to say. I agree with it. Regarding the bolded, I want to add that on the flip side, I use Ti Te as a means to an end as well. I don't really want to know how everything works, per se, I just want to know enough so that it will help me figure out how people work, or to engage with people, which is my modus operandi.

    I've tried to introduce on these boards the idea of genetics in personality, and even personality typing, because being a stay-at-home (SAH) mom, I naturally use my familial relationships as my personal laboratory to fuel Ni. I haven't seen many others on here comment on this however. Do you have any thoughts on it? Did Jung?
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

  4. #34
    ⒺⓉⒷ Array Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    548 sp/sx


    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    The problem is that you're seeing the functions as tools in a toolbag, to be utilised when needed, when they're not - they're conceptual standpoints that seek to illustrate natural, instinctive behaviour. This isn't really your fault, it's Linda Berens' fault! Her and that stupid cognitive processes test have people convinced that they exist in vacuums unto themselves.

    A dominant-Te type is going to process and interact with the world in an entirely different manner than a dominant-Ti type. It's probably tough to see this because, like I say, you're looking at the functions as discrete tools that people just pick up and use, when they're supposed to be looked at as a whole - a set of interoperating variables that operate on certain rules, in order to illustrate the way people think, behave and react to the world.
    Precisely what I've been doing since last year is trying to move away from that thinking. But it's just so ingrained, having gotten Berens' books first, and being introduced to the cognitive processes in the first place in discussions influenced by her model. One influential pair of Beebe/Berens interpreters out there make hard rules out of all this, where any "enthusiasm", "liking/disliking", "evaluation of importance", etc. is necessary Fi (likely in a preferred position, if one is seen "using" it too much), and this based largely on Berens' one word descriptors of the functions (and then, Fe is "considering, connecting", etc. Ti is "analyzing, categorizing, naming", Te is "organizing, segmenting", etc). This is what I believe has caused a lot of difficulty for people struggling between NFP and NTP. (And certainly influenced the early "Mistyped TYPOc Members" thread, where people tried to call Solitary Walker a Te user among other things!) Do Ti users never like anything, get enthusiastic, or or decide what is important? Do they or Fe users never know what they want? This is why that "Not Cognitive Processes" article in the Lenore Exegesis wiki was so good.

    Lenore had even spoken against the notion of "using" functions (As I'm sure you are aware, since you articulated the principle regarding Ne, above), though I never really caught a better way of phrasing it. (Maybe it's in there; I'll have to go check again). So it's just easier to put it that way. Beebe himself had actually called the functions "kinds of consciousness", and that makes a lot of sense also, as opposed to them being like discrete things.
    Also, she spoke of the concept of undifferentiation. So like you said regarding an ESFP "using" Fe, being nice is likely not a differentiated "Feeling" attitude; it's just a human reaction, and it can be connected with either orientation of Feeling. (If what I described above weren't bad enough, making a "key-word fallacy" out of those descriptive terms, Fi ends up cast as virtually antisocial, in contrast to Fe in that line of thinking!)
    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. Am I Extraverted or Introverted ?
    By Lanton88 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-06-2012, 06:56 PM
  2. [JCF] Introverted Intuition not Introverted thinking the primary\dominant function of INTPs
    By ObliviousExistence in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 213
    Last Post: 03-12-2010, 12:43 PM
  3. Introverted and Extraverted Side
    By VagrantFarce in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-27-2010, 08:08 PM
  4. Extraverted or Introverted
    By Unique in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 08:37 PM
  5. Where does the introverted/extraverted function difference show up?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 11:04 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