• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

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

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
I dont think naturally one person will have both Xi and Xe.

However I think you can develop some Xe-let's use Fe as an example, is you are an Xi-Fi user.

In this case for me, a mindest of compassionate detachment allows me to disconnect my Fi from my surroundings adn take on a more Fe feel. Is its Fe? Not like the Fe I felt when I cheated to get to Fe...that was living in another mind.

However it gives a surface veneer that appears Fe-like and enables me to function productively in an Fe dominant group.

I have been chatting with the entps about this as well-Ni/Ne and Ti/Te as well as Fi/Fe.

Jung proposed a "transcendant function" where the dominant function is balanced by development of the introverted aspect of it. Thus balance Ne with Ni? I dunno though...
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well, Thomson does lay out a particular assigned order of the processes. I will say that I break with pretty much all of the literature on the cognitive types in that I've been mostly unimpressed with the reasoning about the processes beyond the auxiliary, so as of now, I define types by the dominant and auxiliary procces (the primary pair) and assume that the other processes may fall in any particular arrangement, and differs among people of the same type.

agreed.

Plus, I'm pretty sure I use the extraverted and introverted form of my dom and aux functions of N and F more than T and S, hence my sig. I know I use Ne more than Se, for example, although function theory would suggest otherwise. And although I'm an Fe user, I use Fi pretty well too. Studying the functions and how much you call each one up and use it is interesting stuff.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm gonna steal a couple of quotes from Lenore's book to illustrate the differences:





And yes, you absolutely should buy her book. :) Here's a preview:

Personality type: an owner's manual - Google Books

While those make sense, we Fe on people different then we Fe on objects. How do I translate your Fe on that bookcase in regards to how we use Fe with people who actually respond. Fe takes on a whole different feel because you open up your ego to interaction from others.
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
While those make sense, we Fe on people different then we Fe on objects. How do I translate your Fe on that bookcase in regards to how we use Fe with people who actually respond. Fe takes on a whole different feel because you open up your ego to interaction from others.

I think the point being made in that quote is that, when making decisions with Fe, the terms are "What would other people think about this design? What designs do other people recommend would look good?". The focus is still on what other people think, and you're still orienting via general social expectations.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think the point being made in that quote is that, when making decisions with Fe, the terms are "What would other people think about this design? What designs do other people recommend would look good?". The focus is still on what other people think, and you're still orienting via general social expectations.

"What would other people think about this design?" - I tend to struggle because that single question defines the whole process starting with Se-leading into Ti and Ni and ultimately Fe. I dont see this as Fe, but a process with a result of Fe.

"What designs do other people recommend would look good?" - I see this as Te feeding into Ni and then Fe can make a judgement. Different process resulting in Fe.

Thanks your questions helped me seperate it out more. It helps me understand, what I see though is the first question opens up ego to be hurt more then the second question. I can see an inferior Fe more in the second question and an dominant Fe more in regards to the first question.

But then what confuses me is that if the first question would be what an inferior Fe would ask hoping for some Te and the second question asked by a person would be digging into their Ti. Which yeilds opposite results.

Ok, now are your questions in internal questions or an external questions?
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
You're reading too much into it, I think. The point is that those questions are asking what other people think is good - "how will this affect my relationship with others? If I do what other people think is good, I'll stay in their favour. If I ask someone I don't like what they think, I'll do the opposite. Maybe I'll consult a design magazine to see what the general consensus is.". That's the point being made.
 

tcda

psicobolche
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,292
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5
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.

...

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.

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...?
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
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...?

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. :)
 

tcda

psicobolche
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,292
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5
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.

</Reflects>

I can see what you mean that the fucntions aren't a conscious tool. I don't know if the argument hinges on that though, I mean when I made this OP I didn't think they were ncessarilly "conscious" I just htought they arise out of the needs of life and consciousness.

The idea of it being a reflection of how you "see the world" seems almost like you're rejectign the diea of "functions" though...surely the logical conclusion of this view is a more "Enneagram-style" approach than an approach based on Cognitive funcitons. I always thought the whole idea of functions theory was that behaviour can be broken down into specific, well, functions :)tongue:) which you can describe empirically as "mechanics of the brain". Otherwise it doesn't seem to make much sense to tlak of functions at all.

I like this idea though:

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

It's very dialectical...not sure if you have read any Marx and Engels, but it ties well with the "unity of opposites"and "negation of the negation" - youu're perhaps a dialectician who doesn't know it.;) That's a compliment btw.

I will make a constructive criticism of your method though (not of your understanding of MBTI itself as I don't claim to know as much as you): I think there is one dialectical rule which might help you: "quantity into quality". think about itnegrating that into your analysis in order to ground it more in the "parts" i.e. the functions (at the moment you are almost reducing everything to being determined solely by the "whole i.e. personality, when maybe an understanding of the dialectical interaction between the two is necessarry).

EDIT: how unfortunate that "Functions" initially came out as "cuntions"! Makes me think of Curb Your Enthusiasm.
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
The idea of it being a reflection of how you "see the world" seems almost like you're rejectign the diea of "functions" though...surely the logical conclusion of this view is a more "Enneagram-style" approach than an approach based on Cognitive funcitons. I always thought the whole idea of functions theory was that behaviour can be broken down into specific, well, functions :)tongue:) which you can describe empirically as "mechanics of the brain". Otherwise it doesn't seem to make much sense to tlak of functions at all.

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. :)

It's very dialectical...not sure if you have read any Marx and Engels, but it ties well with the "unity of opposites"and "negation of the negation" - youu're perhaps a dialectician who doesn't know it.;) That's a compliment btw.

Haha, I've read plenty of Marx and Engels, but that was a very long time ago - I wonder if they had any effect on my mind. ;)
 

tcda

psicobolche
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,292
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5
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).
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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?
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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!)
 
Top