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

[tcda]

I think this approach seems counter-intuitive. I'll use Ti-Te as my example, because, well it's the one I feel most comfortable with.

I've been thinking about this quite a lot recently, because I don't find I identify with the standard "INTP" character, and in fact have realized I much prefer INTJ forums to INTP forums, as they are more grounded in reality, respectful, and constructive in terms of conversation, rather than dominated by unhealthy repressed emotions and narcissism.

At the same time, I don't like the function descriptions of Ni and Te. Firstly, I'm a materialist philosophically, so the idea of some "premonition" or "mystic" state from where we "just know" the truth, I find to be metaphysical bullshit, the worst kind of hateful, backwards obscurantism. Likewise, I'm really not that organized or linear in my thinking.

As for Ti-Te, surely, Te is just applied Ti? The idea that a Ti-dominant person or a Te dominant person wouldn't even posses the intro/extra versions of that function, is jsut fucking bizzarre. Look at the actual descriptions for the two functions? How on earth could someone with strong Ti not have a lot of Te, and vice-versa? I mean, I use Ti, and then when sure of something, I use Te. I've found myself using Te a lot recently. Also I guess that "sureness" equates with an internalization of Ne into Ni. And it's permanently switchable, it seems to me. Ne gives you ability to grasp a theory and play with it, and Ni comes when you consolidated it into a whole, relatively consolidated vision, which you then implement with Te.

It seems to me that the very compartmentalized ideas that INTP/INTJ don't have Te/Ti-Ni/Ne, are just sloppy ideas, and ultiumately just end up getting used by people on forums who want to make excuses for either lack of application of their ideas, or for lack of flexibility of their ideas, and that a normal person has all of these tendencies (though not in equal amounts), while a healthy person should aspire to balancing them well and effectively.

Any thoughts?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

At the same time, I don't like the function descriptions of Ni and Te. Firstly, I'm a materialist philosophically, so the idea of some "premonition" or "mystic" state from where we "just know" the truth, I find to be metaphysical bullshit, the worst kind of hateful, backwards obscurantism.

Well, ummm... You should read Lenore Thomson's work. She gives a solid, amystical explanation of what Ni is that I find much more digestable.

As for Ti-Te, surely, Te is just applied Ti? The idea that a Ti-dominant person or a Te dominant person wouldn't even posses the intro/extra versions of that function, is jsut fucking bizzarre. Look at the actual descriptions for the two functions? How on earth could someone with strong Ti not have a lot of Te, and vice-versa? I mean, I use Ti, and then when sure of something, I use Te. I've found myself using Te a lot recently. Also I guess that "sureness" equates with an internalization of Ne into Ni. And it's permanently switchable, it seems to me. Ne gives you ability to grasp a theory and play with it, and Ni comes when you consolidated it into a whole, relatively consolidated vision, which you then implement with Te.

It seems to me that the very compartmentalized ideas that INTP/INTJ don't have Te/Ti-Ni/Ne, are just sloppy ideas, and ultiumately just end up getting used by people on forums who want to make excuses for either lack of application of their ideas, or for lack of flexibility of their ideas, and that a normal person has all of these tendencies (though not in equal amounts), while a healthy person should aspire to balancing them well and effectively.

Any thoughts?

My main thought is, Te and Ti are definitively not merely applied and unapplied versions of the same thing.

 

[tcda]

Well, ummm... You should read Lenore Thomson's work. She gives a solid, amystical explanation of what Ni is that I find much more digestable.

Hmm...I've heard of her but not read that. Is it online?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Hmm...I've heard of her but not read that. Is it online?

To tell you the truth, I bought the book. I admit I have not done a very thorough search, but up to now I am both surprised and regretful to say that I have not found her work comprehensively online.

 

[tcda]

ok, well, thanks for the recommendation. Is this the book you bought?:

What's New In Type and Temperament

 

[VagrantFarce]

I'm gonna steal a couple of quotes from Lenore's book to illustrate the differences:

For example, if we were building a bookcase:

Extraverted Thinking would prompt us to reason with causal logic; to make sure we understand the instruction manual and the predictable consequences of following the steps.

Introverted Thinking would prompt us to reason with situational logic; to deal with immediate variables as they happen. Perhaps the holes in the second shelf don't line up with the holes in the groove it's supposed to occupy. Our step by step instructions don't cover this possibility, so we have to consider our options and their probably effects on the whole project.

Extraverted Feeling would encourage us to judge the finished bookcase in terms of general social expectations. For example, we might page through books and magazines about interior design, trying to determine whether this particular bookcase would look "right" in the living room.

Introverted Feeling would prompt us to make the bookcase our own - that is, to give it a place among the things that matter to us. Maybe we'll use it for the books we love best. Maybe we'll put our collection of miniatures on the top shelf. We'll try something, change it, try something else, until the elements come into harmony for us and we're happy with the arrangement.

For example, if we were spending a day at the beach:

Extraverted Sensation would prompt us to go with our sense impressions as they occured; to lie in the sun, play in the surf, listen to the gulls piping overhead.

Introverted Sensation would move us to stabilize our sense impressions by integrating them with facts we knew to be consistent. We might bring our favourite book, a snorkel and flippers, a bag of snacks, extra towels because someone will probably forget one, and a watch to make sure we beat the traffic home.

Extraverted Intuition would move us to unify our sense impressions with their larger context, thereby creating new options for meaning and response. For example, as we lie on our blanket in the sun, perhaps we hear music in the distance. Someone passing by mentions a great restaurant in town. Suddenly we're thinking: Hey, there must be an amusement park nearby. If it's on our way to town, we can check out the rides before we look for the restaurant that passerby was talking about. In fact, maybe the guy knows about other places we should consider. Where did he go?

Introverted Intuition would prompt us to liberate our sense impressions from their larger context, thereby creating new options for perception itself. For example, we might find ourselves wondering why people feel so strongly about getting a good tan. We remember reading somewhere that before the Industrial Revolution, being tanned marked one as a manual laborer, because it suggested work out of doors. After the Industrial Revolution, it was pale skin that suggested manual labor, because it indicated work in a poorly lit factory. Such correlations aren't relevant today, but a good tan is still considered attractive. Why is that? We consider raising the question as a topic of conversation, but we're pretty sure our friends will think we're observing a situation instead of enjoying it.

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

Personality type: an owner's manual - Google Books

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Yes, that's the book.

 

[Little Linguist]

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

DUDE OMG I GET IT!!!!!!!!!! *hears mental clicks in brain*

I now understand the difference.

OMG I love you, thanks. (Well, no I don't love you, but I'm really happy you shared that).

 

[Bri]

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

Sooo... is it the order we go through those things that matters? Because all of them seem like plausible things I'd do/think on any given day. Is it the order, the one I do first, second, etc. most often, that determines type?

 

[Little Linguist]

Jeez and I always thought Ni was some weird voodoo crap. Now I realize that I'm Ni-ing, Ne-ing, Fe-ing and Si-ing my way through the world with a great deal of Te-ing, some Fi-ing, some Se-ing and definitely no freaking Ti-ing.

(In my brain, that sounds weird like, "I'm knighting, kneeing, feeling, and sighing my way through the world with a great deal of teething, some fighting, some seeing, and no tying.")

That's going to be my new signature.

And that was Ne-ing.

Right?

 

[tcda]

Sooo... is it the order we go through those things that matters? Because all of them seem like plausible things I'd do/think on any given day. Is it the order, the one I do first, second, etc. most often, that determines type?

Well Lenore thomson argues that we all have all 8 functions. I don't know much else, but will looka t buying the book.

Regarding my doubts expressed, I agree with the quote, and still struggle to see why Te and Ti would negatively correlate with each other...from those descriptions at least, they seem complementary within any given XTXX personality, if anything.

Which is not to say that they don't negate each other as functions, I can see how they do. However I would think a well rounded NT personality could switch easily between the two. Out of interest, to those who ahve read Thomson, does she say this, or the opposite?:s

 

[Magic Poriferan]

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.

 

[Seymour]

So, I think Thomson makes a separation between functions ("function attitudes" in Beebe's terms) and skills (cognitive processes, more or less). (You can see this [URL="http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-1.html]here[/URL]).

Function attitudes are the basic psychological orientation and the basis of how we consciously discriminate between things, and they are in service of the ego. Function attitudes also determine what things we get energy from. Function attitudes are habitual and bound up with our self-identity and the things we find enjoyable and important.

Behavior skills (or cognitive processes) in Thomson's view are also available and can be used in service of our ego's aims. We can develop those skills to broaden the range of options consciously available to us (and the quality of those options), but they don't change our fundamental aims or how we evaluate things when push comes to shove.

So when Thomson talks about our "left brain alternatives" or "right brain alternatives," for example, she is talking about things in terms of behavior skills (that is, cognitive processes used in such a way that they don't set our top-level priorities) and not so much in terms of function attitudes (which do).

So, we can't just develop our inferior function attitude, because that would mean going directly against the aims of our ego. (And note that Thomson lists the inferior function as most unconscious/least developed, as the Hartzlers did based on collected data). That doesn't mean we can't develop Te-ish (even as an Fi-doms) behavior skills that back our primary aims, but that doesn't have much to do with our function attitudes. It doesn't mean we suddenly change all our priorities and values and become Te-doms, we just apply those skills in a limited domain.

Note that Thomson's model is different than some, which claim that the primary, secondary, tertiary and inferior functions are all you get (in that order), both as function attitudes and behavior skills/cognitive processes.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Well Lenore thomson argues that we all have all 8 functions. I don't know much else, but will looka t buying the book.

Regarding my doubts expressed, I agree with the quote, and still struggle to see why Te and Ti would negatively correlate with each other...from those descriptions at least, they seem complementary within any given XTXX personality, if anything.

Which is not to say that they don't negate each other as functions, I can see how they do. However I would think a well rounded NT personality could switch easily between the two. Out of interest, to those who ahve read Thomson, does she say this, or the opposite?:s

They're completely different functions, the only reason you're confusing them is because they're both labelled as "thinking" functions.

Ti is about being "in tune" with how things work, simply for the sake of knowing. It's all about identifying and following "natural law", and seeking the absolute truth removed from arbitrary institutions and human-centric motives.

Te is about exerting control over your environment to maximise goals and achievements - contingency planning, organisation, following procedure - everything that ensures a stable and trustworthy organization or institution for everyone to rely on.

it's the difference between Albert Einstein and Bill Gates.

 

[tcda]

They're completely different functions, the only reason you're confusing them is because they're both labelled as "thinking" functions.

Ti is about being "in tune" with how things work, simply for the sake of knowing. It's all about identifying and following "natural law", and seeking the absolute truth removed from arbitrary institutions and human-centric motives.

Te is about exerting control over your environment to maximise goals and achievements - contingency planning, organisation, following procedure - everything that ensures a stable and trustworthy organization or institution for everyone to rely on.

it's the difference between Albert Einstein and Bill Gates.

I can see the difference there, but Einstein and Gates would represent extremes (I assume, Ia ctually know amazingly little about both of them). I don't dispute that Ti and Te are ocntradictory functions in the sense that one is essentially constructing models based on assumptions and one is deconstructing assumptions. However they just seem complementary more than exclusive withint he context of a given personality, I don't see why a well-rounded NT personality wouldn't employ both of these regularly and effectively.

Also I don't see that it's as simple as them both being "simply" called thinking. Surely they are both manifestations of the same function, but differently oriented (one externally, one internally)? In fact wasn't the I/E addition only a later addition on the initially more crude T/F/N/S divisions?

Having read some of the descriptions of them (for example on the widely circulated cognitive processes test) I would think there is a fair amount of overlap, for example, breaking down a system to see how it works, then presenting a causal chain of logic, block by block to explain how to construct a system, seem complementary, no? Or did I miss something?

 

[Totenkindly]

Regarding my doubts expressed, I agree with the quote, and still struggle to see why Te and Ti would negatively correlate with each other...from those descriptions at least, they seem complementary within any given XTXX personality, if anything.

I think one of your issues is that you are viewing one as an applied version of the other... which means that one is really just an overlay on the other... but really, a Ti person using Te-style functionality is still thinking in Ti and applying it, she is not thinking in the base Te language as a foundation in itself, and I think this has ramifications that filter throughout the behavior. In addition, MBTI really is more about tandem functions (Ni+Te, Ti+Ne)... I'm not sure how easy it is to separate a judging function from its complementary perceiving function because with anything we do, generally, we have a perception and then a choice/behavior/judging action; functions do not exist within vacuums.

I might just be confusing matters, so just get through the book if you can and then post some more questions or criticisms....

 

[Magic Poriferan]

It is really, really hard to explain how a process works by itself. They really are pieces so functionally codependent that they don't make much sense when isolated. I've taken more and more to thinking of there being 8 process pairs (or 16 if you're counting the mirrors) than 8 processes.

I don't know why this idea keeps coming up that E is somehow more applicable, assertive, or projective than I. In the end, for all of the functions, E and I is really a distinction of source or point of orientation.

 

[tcda]

fair enough...I'll just read the book I guess.

 

[Eric B]

My main thought is, Te and Ti are definitively not merely applied and unapplied versions of the same thing.

So, I think Thomson makes a separation between functions ("function attitudes" in Beebe's terms) and skills (cognitive processes, more or less). (You can see this To tell you the truth, I bought the book. I admit I have not done a very thorough search, but up to now I am both surprised and regretful to say that I have not found her work comprehensively online.

There's the Exegesis site:
[url=http://www.greenlightwiki.com/]The Green Light Wiki (which is down at the moment).

 

[VagrantFarce]

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.