# Thread: Pi = Judger, Pe = Perceiver; why?

1. ^^ For the moment being, I completely understand your perspective, and I think it's essentially impossible to prove one over the other.

Even lesser forms of definitiveness than proof are difficult to substantiate with regards to this matter, because I can see how Ni and Te could combine to produce something very much like Ti, and thus, even my own perceptions of the phenomenon come under fire.

I've got a theory, though, to argue your counterpoint, and I'm gunna let it fly sometime soon...

2. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
Oh, and the real \$40 million question:

- If, for example, an INTJ believes he uses both Ti and Ne in relative abundance (as in, equal to or greater than his tertiary function), then what of the relationship(s) between Ni and Ti and Ne and Te...

- Also, necessarily unhealthy and unproductive? Or potentially healthy and productive?
This is where it gets funky.

I'm still fairly sure that I use Ne with Fi and Ti, not Ni. It comes out, however, as "TiNe" and "FiNe", not "NeTi" or "NeFi". With Fi > Ne, for example, it isn't that I see patterns in the world and the patterns make me feel. Rather, I feel, and the feelings generate patterns, that I then express to the world. E.g., I play improv piano. Similarly, with Ti > Ne, Ti logically puts things together, and then Ne expresses it, but the expression is seemingly random: it touches on logically true statements in the internal Ti construct, but not in any particular order, but in an associative, pattern-matching kind of way. When I am figuring out logic, I'm in a mode where it becomes difficult to say what I think with any clarity: it all makes sense, but my statements are random. I have to change gears (to NiTe presumably) to order my thoughts in a coherent way that is understandable to others.

To compare with NiTe, Ni randomly matches patterns and finds something useful, then Te objectifies it, organizes it, edits out some Ni nonsense, and then proceeds to state the Ni-based truths with remarkable clarity.

In each of the cases of FiNe, TiNe, and NiTe, the energy flow is from inside to outside oneself.

To compare with NeTi, Ne sees external patterns and Ti parses through them and gradually makes logical sense of them. Similarly, for NeFi, Ne takes external patterns and Fi processes them in its own unique way.

For completeness, the case of TeNi, Te takes external logical arrangements and Ni stores them as patterns for future reference.

In these cases, the energy flow is from outside to inside.

For all individuals using any of these function pairs, the energy flows in both directions, but the predominant flow is based on one's extroversion/introversion.

Of course, people's opinions on this differ, mostly because some people regard the MBTI as more or less immutable, that one uses one perceiving and one judging function predominantly, and that usage precludes using the others with much facility. I think that such views contradict what we see in real life. Not only is it often difficult to classify an individual as any one particular type, it is also the case that as people get older, they generally become more adept at various cognitive skills and become increasingly difficult to type. Given the hypothesis that, for example, the INTJ just learns to use Ni/Te really well to emulate the other functions, and the alternative hypothesis that the INTJ gradually learns to use the other functions, I find the latter to be more credible and more in line with Jung's thinking.

I would agree, however, that for a single thought process, the process would either be NiTe or TiNe, for example, but not both simultaneously. For an individual, thought processes might be 90% NiTe, and thus one is an INTJ, but that does not preclude the other 10% being NeTi. I believe that it is a gross error to assert that Jungian functions (and by derivation, MBTI) are binary, black-and-white affairs, and not continuous shades of gray from one polarity to the other.

3. ^ Oh, man, I'm going to bed before I even try and read this...

Have fun, guys...

I look forward to reading the retorts in the morning...

4. Originally Posted by uumlau
Of course, people's opinions on this differ, mostly because some people regard the MBTI as more or less immutable, that one uses one perceiving and one judging function predominantly, and that usage precludes using the others with much facility. I think that such views contradict what we see in real life. Not only is it often difficult to classify an individual as any one particular type, it is also the case that as people get older, they generally become more adept at various cognitive skills and become increasingly difficult to type. Given the hypothesis that, for example, the INTJ just learns to use Ni/Te really well to emulate the other functions, and the alternative hypothesis that the INTJ gradually learns to use the other functions, I find the latter to be more credible and more in line with Jung's thinking.
I tend to agree with this sentiment.

I feel that I've learned to use Ti as I've gotten older. Like, I've literally learned to introvert my T.

Similar goes for my N: I feel I've learned to extravert it as I've gotten older. It might be less natural and more draining, but I sincerely feel I do it.

What would be the alternate explanation: that I use my Te and then make connections with Ni to mimic Ne? I dunno; seems a bit too convoluted to me. At least more convoluted than the notion that I've learned to extravert my already dominant N...

Furthermore, I would say both of these phenomenon (learning to introvert my T and extravert my N) took place largely at the same time that I would say I "balanced my J and P", by shifting on the spectrum from J towards P.

I now feel that I have relatively well-balanced J and P, and, hence, am capable of using my shadow functions as if I were an INTP (or, interestingly enough, even an ENTP at times).

Doing so may not be as natural to me as my traditional NiTe dom/aux structure, but I do feel I legitimately use the two in some circumstances...

I should add that I only feel I can really make this claim about N and T, so I'm not saying whether or not I fully flip into full INTP functional arrangement or not. I think Si and Fe are a little too muted back there to really be noticeable at all.

5. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
How bout NiTi or NeTe?

If not, why not?
I found SW's post on the topic enlightening. It kind of makes sense that one might possibly be "too introverted" or "too extroverted" and start using functions awkwardly. In spite of the meritorious reasoning in that regard, I find it difficult to see MBTI and Jungian functions as a tool to describe unhealthy behaviors. If I recall correctly, MBTI necessarily breaks down if one is psychologically unhealthy, because the equilibrium that MBTI assumes no longer exists. Essentially, SW's description asserts that MBTI still applies, but that one uses the function order in an unhealthy way. I would argue that if one is using functions in an unhealthy way, then one's "tested" MBTI type is in doubt.

This is not to utterly discount SW's point, but just to say that it is one of many hypotheses that are closely related to MBTI, but not strictly defined in MBTI.

6. Originally Posted by uumlau
I would agree, however, that for a single thought process, the process would either be NiTe or TiNe, for example, but not both simultaneously.
How bout NiTi or NeTe?

If not, why not?

7. Originally Posted by uumlau
I would argue that if one is using functions in an unhealthy way, then one's "tested" MBTI type is in doubt.
I think I'm gunna have to side with Sim on this one.

I think Happy Puppy (Orobas) is too perfect of an example of this phenomenon.

I don't really know Little Linguist, but Sim's description seemed pretty intriguing and convincing.

As did his description of Victor (who I also, admittedly, don't know very well)...

8. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
I tend to agree with this sentiment.

I feel that I've learned to use Ti as I've gotten older. Like, I've literally learned to introvert my T.

Similar goes for my N: I feel I've learned to extravert it as I've gotten older. It might be less natural and more draining, but I sincerely feel I do it.

What would be the alternate explanation: that I use my Te and then make connections with Ni to mimic Ne? I dunno; seems a bit too convoluted to me. At least more convoluted than the notion that I've learned to extravert my already dominant N...

Furthermore, I would say both of these phenomenon (learning to introvert my T and extravert my N) took place largely at the same time that I would say I "balanced my J and P", by shifting on the spectrum from J towards P.

I now feel that I have relatively well-balanced J and P, and, hence, am capable of using my shadow functions as if I were an INTP (or, interestingly enough, even an ENTP at times).

Doing so may not be as natural to me as my traditional NiTe dom/aux structure, but I do feel I legitimately use the two in some circumstances...

I should add that I only feel I can really make this claim about N and T, so I'm not saying whether or not I fully flip into full INTP functional arrangement or not. I think Si and Fe are a little too muted back there to really be noticeable at all.
You probably do use them in some circumstances...you probably have better command of your "P tendencies" now than you did when you were younger, but I doubt that you've come close to truly balancing the two.

I know Ps who say the same thing about having "developed their J side" but then when I ask a real J about them they're invariably pretty critical of the P's use of J-ness.

So while I think you do gain more ability to use the shadow functions effectively as you get older, I don't think your P and J are as balanced as you say they are, nor do I think this is true for anyone. I will attribute this assertion to INTJ hubris

9. Originally Posted by simulatedworld
You probably do use them in some circumstances...you probably have better command of your "P tendencies" now than you did when you were younger, but I doubt that you've come close to truly balancing the two.

I know Ps who say the same thing about having "developed their J side" but then when I ask a real J about them they're invariably pretty critical of the P's use of J-ness.

So while I think you do gain more ability to use the shadow functions effectively as you get older, I don't think your P and J are as balanced as you say they are, nor do I think this is true for anyone. I will attribute this assertion to INTJ hubris

I'm not saying they're balanced.

In fact, I think my "INTPness" is definitely inferior to my "INTJness"...

I just think it is there, and I do use it...

10. Here's a formula:

INTJ + smoke too much weed = INTP

#### 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