• 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.

Judging as internal functions, perceiving as external functions

G

garbage

Guest
I didn't want this to be lost in the shuffle of its thread, so I'm reposting this again.

I also wanted to give Psychdigg some credit for his idea..

This is pretty much 'blasphemy' in the world of Jungian functions. But I don't particularly care. So here it is:

There is no such thing as Fe, Ni, Te, Si These are all justifications for Jungs flawed dichotomous structuring of his categories.

Feeling is Introverted - it is "inside" If you are feeling something outside of your body you are probably doing something or somebody.

Intuition is Extroverted - etymologically Intuition originally meant "to see" Seeing is based on what is out there in the real world. If you are seeing "inside" of yourself you are really doing some visual thinking.

Sensation is Extroverted - it is practical. It refers to actions and movement. You move things in your environment - externally. If you are moving something inside your head it is called "thinking" or planning-first I'll do this, next I'll do that and then I'll do...

Thinking is Introverted. It is "inside" your brain. You are working with data that you have collected "in". If you are thinking in the external world you may be talking to yourself out loud and may be crazy.

Aside from the 'snarky' bits, there might be some merit to this interpretation. Judging 'internally' and perceiving 'externally' actually makes some sense. More generally, combining the extraverted and introverted versions of functions makes for a less complicated and potentially more valid system--gotta get the overall picture right before trying to make a theory that explains the details--so long as meaning, fidelity, and accuracy aren't sacrificed.

The view that I quoted may only speak from the Perceiving perspective--external perceiving, internal judging. A Judging perspective may look completely different, and I'm wondering what that perspective might be for each of the four functions.


So, thoughts?

Is there anything that this view doesn't account for? Does it speak to you or resonate with you? Is there merit in combining the extraverted and introverted versions of the functions?
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Introverted Judgement has little to do with the internal phenomenon of "Feeling" or "Thinking". Ti is introverted in the sense of being a framework of underlying principles/definitions/systematic approaches, and how it applies these to emerging variables, but it's not to be equated with the actual "act" of thinking. Te is called extraverted for being focused on how things in the outside relate or can be organized in a sort of case-by-case or utilitarian basis. To simplify it.. I don't want to waste your time defining Ti or Te. That all said, without even having to reference Jung, it's still kind of "blasphemy" because you can see how introverted or extroverted judgement are oriented and play out differently in people. That not all T's or all F's are the same. And it has nothing to do with "doing" anything half of the time, yet you can still see the difference in how Ti or Te would discuss a subject or approach problems differently. Same goes for F's. They are different enough to seperate in my opinion.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Feeling is Introverted - it is "inside" If you are feeling something outside of your body you are probably doing something or somebody.
Have you ever screwed up your feeling function? Screw with your thoughts, your wants, and convince yourself that you want to do something. You ever hate being controlled so much you have to find a way around it to control yourself. Feelings are not always as they seem. We may let you in, but most of the time we have on a facade that is real, that we created. It is who we are, but its not directly related to how we feel.

Intuition is Extroverted - etymologically Intuition originally meant "to see" Seeing is based on what is out there in the real world. If you are seeing "inside" of yourself you are really doing some visual thinking.
This is tricky as there is an internal "vision" as well as external. would seem more to fit in with the opposite of Se. Which Ne is actually concious of, a thing called Si. Ni though is manipulating things inside our head in regard to patterns. Stepping sideways, playing with whats said, with whats not said, playing with this horizontal movement as opposed to a linear "connect the dots" style path. Its not thought, its not feeling, its shifting internally. All that is seen externally is the things that are made present in that shift. Its like connect the dot puzzles.

Sensation is Extroverted - it is practical. It refers to actions and movement. You move things in your environment - externally. If you are moving something inside your head it is called "thinking" or planning-first I'll do this, next I'll do that and then I'll do...
Doing this INSIDE your head could easily be equated to Introverted sensation. Its the same thing as Se, but inside your head. Its the introverted version of the extroverted function. Maybe this is to simple.

Thinking is Introverted. It is "inside" your brain. You are working with data that you have collected "in". If you are thinking in the external world you may be talking to yourself out loud and may be crazy.

thinking is the internal thing you do that is not Si, Ni, nor Fi. I wish I could explain more, but I cant as I am in thought right now...your better off looking at what I type to understand what thinking is to me instead of having me try to explain what it is.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Sure, perceiving is extroverted in that it brings information to your conscious mind from, well, somewhere else. And judging is introverted in that it is your mind's specific way of sorting through that information.

But the other way to use extroversion and introversion isn't problematic. So why change it to something so anti-conventional?

I see your point. I just don't think any terminology should be changed. I'd agree with you more if you didn't even use the words introversion and extroversion at all. Just said "perceiving interacts with some stuff and gives your consciousness some shit to process" and "judging is personal and specific to the individual".
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
To begin with I thought, why its right, one is internal while the other is external but then I thought about it for a bit and no, its not really the case, think about it how does each function look or what does it involve when you deploy it to serve the ego?

The operate the same because they are internal functions of the mind, cognitive, ie thinking, functions, so they wouldnt "look" any different from the outside, though the behaviour mind be different the process itself is not visual to an other person, so it cant be said to be external, you know?
 

Aleksei

Yeah, I can fly.
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
3,626
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I didn't want this to be lost in the shuffle of its thread, so I'm reposting this again.

I also wanted to give Psychdigg some credit for his idea..

This is pretty much 'blasphemy' in the world of Jungian functions. But I don't particularly care. So here it is:



Aside from the 'snarky' bits, there might be some merit to this interpretation. Judging 'internally' and perceiving 'externally' actually makes some sense. More generally, combining the extraverted and introverted versions of functions makes for a less complicated and potentially more valid system--gotta get the overall picture right before trying to make a theory that explains the details--so long as meaning, fidelity, and accuracy aren't sacrificed.

The view that I quoted may only speak from the Perceiving perspective--external perceiving, internal judging. A Judging perspective may look completely different, and I'm wondering what that perspective might be for each of the four functions.


So, thoughts?

Is there anything that this view doesn't account for? Does it speak to you or resonate with you? Is there merit in combining the extraverted and introverted versions of the functions?
Psychdigg is essentially incapable of understanding metaphor. He completely misjudged what extroversion and introversion means in this context.
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
If you break it down all the way, there is only sensory stimulation and cognition.
 

stalemate

Post-Humorously
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,402
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
So under this new system of blasphemy, what will we call the things that we currently refer to as Te and Fe? Or are you saying that people don't really do those things at all?
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
who ever wrote that is a retard. I doesent mean internal process and e external process, i means that the function is working things in the inside world and e means that the function is working things in the external world.
 
G

garbage

Guest
Perhaps breaking this stuff into the eight cognitive functions is the only way for the theory to explain anything. If it's not necessary, then I think the more "broad base" approach is important to get right--explain and/or validate that first, then delve into the details.

Reducing complexity reduces the scope of the model. A simpler model wouldn't aim to explain the exact order of cognitive processes in individual types.


The first step would be something along the lines of this:

If you break it down all the way, there is only sensory stimulation and cognition.

Which, well, is pretty much valid.


From there, how do we break down functionality?

The next step seems to be getting "perceiving" and "judging" right. The OP seems to be an attempt at defining sensory stimulation as Intuition/Sensing, and cognition as Thinking/Feeling.

We've also got alternative approaches:

I see your point. I just don't think any terminology should be changed. I'd agree with you more if you didn't even use the words introversion and extroversion at all. Just said "perceiving interacts with some stuff and gives your consciousness some shit to process" and "judging is personal and specific to the individual".

Your approach here does seem better than using terms such as introversion and extroversion.

So under this new system of blasphemy, what will we call the things that we currently refer to as Te and Fe? Or are you saying that people don't really do those things at all?

People definitely do these things, but the point is that they might be considered internal processes.

who ever wrote that is a retard. I doesent mean internal process and e external process, i means that the function is working things in the inside world and e means that the function is working things in the external world.

It seems that the OP understood this, but that he's making the case that Thinking and Feeling work internally, and Sensing and Intuition work externally.

Doing this INSIDE your head could easily be equated to Introverted sensation. Its the same thing as Se, but inside your head. Its the introverted version of the extroverted function. Maybe this is to simple.

Maybe it isn't too simple--this sort of definition might be the best way to reduce complexity.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Maybe it isn't too simple--this sort of definition might be the best way to reduce complexity.

What if this simplicity is what people actually do think and its screwing them up from actually understanding it at a more complex level ;) I mean isnt all types of "thinking" Ti?
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I see all cognitive functions as internal, as they are thought processes. What determines whether a function is I or E is how the object is viewed in relation to self. Se tends to see the object for what it is, without needed to connect it to itself, whereas Si sees the object through their subjective frame of reference, so that it becomes an interpretation of what they see. The object is second to their inner perception for the Si person, but the Se person allows their perception to be shaped by the object. Hence the Si person is more focused on their internal perceptions and the Se person on their external perceptions. Same concept for the J functions....
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I believe this construction by Eric B gets to the heart of the issue:

...

There are basically two different levels of subjective/objective. They mean slightly different things, (so you're taking one strict meaning) but nevertheless they do parallel with the same underlying meaning.

Inasmuch as the symbols "1", "2", "+", and "=" are agreed upon, it can be associated with Te, especially if one's focus in math is simply working with the "formulas" using these symbols to create something. Of course, there is a universal component, in what these symbols represent...

Still, what we're comparing this to is values and ethics (which are strictly personal), and next to this, math (in either its human or universal form) is focused on impersonal objects.

So again; there are different levels of objective and subjective. Te will be the most objective of the judging functions, Fi will be the most subjective, and Ti and Fe are in between.

O/S can be extended to all the functions as follows:

Objective processing=Perception (P)
Subjective processing=Judgment (J)
Objective data=concreteness (S) or logic (T)
Subjective data=abstractness (N) or value (F)
Objective source=external (E)
Subjective source=internal (I)

N likewise uses a personal element in conceptualizing reality, and J is of course our own decision making rather than involuntary taking in of information as it is.

The eight functions are then expressed as:

Objective processing of Objective data from Objective source (OOO): Se
Objective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (OOS): Si
Objective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (OSO): Ne
Objective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (OSS): Ni
Subjective processing of Objective data from Objective source (SOO): Te
Subjective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (SOS): Ti
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (SSO): Fe
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (SSS): Fi

I first began putting together this when trying to figure out why S+T always yielded a "directive" type. (N+J is easier to figure, because Ni will be more directive than Ne). It turns out, both S and T deal more with "facts", which is more "objective". Hence, this total "fact" processing will yield more "directive" behavior. The personal factor is taken into consideration the least. And the type most embodying this would be ESTJ, hence their rising to the top of the power structure (even moreso than ENTJ, usually!)

Eric brought it up in response to a question I asked simulatedworld in one of the last threads he ever made. :boohoo:
 
Top