User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 27 of 27

  1. #21
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy
    I'm also starting to see just hoe incompatible the two views are. For example, you regard functions as perspectives, while I think of them as motivations/concerns. To me, a perspective is something tht gets processed through the functions, where as to you it is the functions!

    Thus, if asked to define any given function, we would be most unlikely to even agree on that, let alone how they all interlate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Motivations/concerns? I'll have to think on that. For now, it doesn't seem like it would really be incompatible. It might be another good way to put it. I would think one's motivation or especially concern could be their perspective.

    I didn't say the perspective is the functions, but that the functions are perspectives. There's a bit of a difference there. We have many different kinds of perspectives on things. The functions would be the perspectives dealing with our cognitive processing (input--S/N; computation--T/F). So yes, other perspectives will be processed through these perspectives.

    The thing being emphasized in the term "perspectives" (which I got from Sim), is that what the functions should not be thought strictly in terms of, are behaviors or skills sets. That's what confuses a lot of people, when they try to type others, or even themselves, by behavior/skill descriptions of functions (which are very common attempts at shorthand definitions). Anyone can engage in any one of those. We need the internal context in which he is engaging in them (could be an archetypal manifestation of a function, a left/right brain alternative, just a normal human reaction not associated with a differentiated function, etc), which sounds like it is best described as a perspective. "Motivation/concern" sounds good too.
    it's been interesting to keep up with this thread.

    to throw in my two cents, i would assume that perspective would apply mostly to the Perceiving functions and motivation/concern to the Judging functions.

    to put it in way, way oversimplified terms...
    NF is primarily motivated by humans via looking at what could be.
    SF is primarily motivated by humans via looking at what is.
    NT is primarily motivated by systems via looking at what could be.
    ST is primarily motivated by systems via looking at what is.

    i like your four-quadrant mirror setup because it's mathematically pleasing, but being a very visual person, your graphic leaves me with so many more questions than answers...

    like, do the Parent and Child, and Senex and Trickster connect with one another (as implied by the hands?) and what exactly is implied by the Anima being the mirror of the Hero? and the Parent seems to be under the control of the Hero, while for a Ji aux i feel like the Hero is more often under the watchful eye of the parent. for me, i feel like Te is much more of an "arm" to Ne than Fi is. Fi's the stubborn one being all hey be nice, whereas Te's a helper, helping me organize the Ne mess. and so on...

    your grandma's place sounds neat.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    136

    Default

    I think it would help to see this diagram evolve in process so we follow your thoughts as you created it. Just seeing the end product, there's a lot of filling-in the viewer needs to do.

    What about a step-by-step slideshow? Or even a YouTube video? Or a webpage you can scroll down and see it all come together as more is filled in until you get to the final complete diagram?

  3. #23
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    it's been interesting to keep up with this thread.

    to throw in my two cents, i would assume that perspective would apply mostly to the Perceiving functions and motivation/concern to the Judging functions.
    Interesting idea!
    to put it in way, way oversimplified terms...
    NF is primarily motivated by humans via looking at what could be.
    SF is primarily motivated by humans via looking at what is.
    NT is primarily motivated by systems via looking at what could be.
    ST is primarily motivated by systems via looking at what is.
    Great way of putting those.
    i like your four-quadrant mirror setup because it's mathematically pleasing, but being a very visual person, your graphic leaves me with so many more questions than answers...

    like, do the Parent and Child, and Senex and Trickster connect with one another (as implied by the hands?) and what exactly is implied by the Anima being the mirror of the Hero? and the Parent seems to be under the control of the Hero, while for a Ji aux i feel like the Hero is more often under the watchful eye of the parent. for me, i feel like Te is much more of an "arm" to Ne than Fi is. Fi's the stubborn one being all hey be nice, whereas Te's a helper, helping me organize the Ne mess. and so on...

    your grandma's place sounds neat.
    Yes, and I mentioned it all in there. The Child is the mirror of the Parent. The auxiliary is the start of the arm of consciousness, whereby we reach out to others. So the more preferred aspects of this will collect into a "parent" complex, where we will be confident (ego proud of itself) and try to lead others. What is suppressed is the opposite function, and it collects into a complex where we desire to be led or please someone in authority. So the opposite of parent is child.
    The Senex and Trickster are just the shadows of these, and work the same way. The even more suppressed aspects of the auxiliary function (including its opposite orientation or attitude) collect in this negative parent complex, and the even further suppressed aspects of the child complex collect in this bad child complex that tries to cover up our childish vulnerabilities by deceiving others, demanding our own way, etc.

    Likewise, the anima surrounds the collection of everything initially rejected from the hero or persona. The opposite function, the opposite attitude, the opposite of the hero's confidence (vulnerability) the sense of the opposite gender.

    The hero is the ego's dominant world-view. In Jung's original Personality theory, that was your "type". The auxiliary is just what it sounds like. It aids the dominant. Because we need both perception and judgment, and both internal and external orientations, then we need this other function to support the dominant.

    Now what happens, that Lenore Thomson is known for suggesting, is that our egos become so locked into their dominant attitude, that sometimes we will bypass the auxiliary, and run straight for the tertiary, which the child complex orients into the dominant attitude (else, it would be the opposite attitude like the aux and inferior like type theorists had earlier suspected).

    The tertiary is also apart of the arm, and it will tend to be about reaching out to others. So for you, Te acts as helper of Ne in an innocent way, as it sounds like. Really, arm complexes are supposed to be more about helping others, while the spine is about self. So I'm sure if you really look at it, the Te will somehow be about seeking approval from others (This might not be a conscious thing). Fi will be "parent", so it might not seem to be "helping".
    That is, if the complex is really engaged. Any type can engage "the products" of any function any time, without it fitting the archetypes.
    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

  4. #24
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coconut View Post
    I think it would help to see this diagram evolve in process so we follow your thoughts as you created it. Just seeing the end product, there's a lot of filling-in the viewer needs to do.

    What about a step-by-step slideshow? Or even a YouTube video? Or a webpage you can scroll down and see it all come together as more is filled in until you get to the final complete diagram?
    OK, I'll consider that.
    I also had this image, which attempted to do something like that i.e. step by step (though I hadn't framed it as the mirror concept yet):

    That too did not really go over well. I thought the mirror analogy would clear it up. I might draw more of a frame on it to make sure people realize it's supposed to be a mirror.
    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

  5. #25
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    This pretty much matches what we (I, SIm, and a few others) are trying to convey. I don't think I ever said that Te was just perception of what is efficient. I didn't take Sim's comment about "seeing" a desk that way either. You're introducing the terms "drive", "desire" and especially "getting fed into", and those to me are just other ways to speak of what we are calling perspectives or 'seeing' something through the lens of a function.

    Te did not see through the lens, it was the lens. Precisely the problem, we often speak of the functions as "doing" things, as if they had their own psyches. That again stems from treating them as skills.
    What I dislike about the term perspectives is that it is so passive. For the introverted functions, that not much of a problem - they are bit passive - but for the extroverted functions it underplays one of their most important aspects - their tendancy towards being (pro)active.
    Don't make whine out of sour grapes.

  6. #26
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    But that's precisely the whole point. It's not the functions that do anything (or be anything animated, such as "passive" or "active"). It's the ego that is conscious, and is either proactive or less so based on its functional perspective.

    I was earlier influenced by this whole notion of the functions "doing" or "being" this and that, and it made it virtually impossible for me to even completely solidify INTP (over ENFP). I had been told that things I was doing were "Fi", and that Ti would "do" something else instead. Now, looking at them as perspectives; it's all more obvious!

    Perspective is what the ego holds, and the functions are subordinate to the ego.
    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

  7. #27
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    OK, to further highlight the concept of "otherness" and how it differentiates the "spine" complexes and their associated functions.

    We wake up as conscious egos in a large world where so much is different from us. So we choose certain mechanisms to define our identity.

    We confidently pursue ego's goals
    We take on a gender identity
    We choose a dominant function
    we choose a dominant orientation (inner or outer) to operate primarily off of.

    This all becomes connected with our public "persona", and takes on a "heroic" sense in achieving our goals.

    Everything else is "not I" or "other", and collects in an opposite space that conveys a sense of "otherness". This includes what remains unconscious to us, in the "larger self"; both personal, and collective.

    For one thing, life or nature itself is too big for the ego to contain. (Lenore had been pointing this out to me). We have a rather small place in it. So we feel inferior in it, as we run to the dominant preferences we feel confident in to try to make something of ourselves so our ego's feel at the center of things.
    So this "otherness" space takes on a sense of inferiority.

    We feel vulnerable in it
    It takes on a sense of the opposite gender
    We associate the opposite function with it
    We associate the opposite orientation with it

    (It's also opposite J/P attitude, and opposite brain hemishpere).

    At the same time, it creates a sense of awe in us, and we end up looking up to it. It becomes like our soul. It creates our attraction to the opposite gender, with a sense of "mystery" we would like to uncover and conquer. It is seen first, in our opposite gender parents, spawning the contrasexual aspect of an "anima" or "animus" complex, and as you mature, and they are no longer "other", it transfers to other members of the opposite gender as potential romantic partners. (And then, when we have one, their "otherness" tends to wear off, and we continue to "itch" in curiosity about others).
    So while we in a sense reject this space, we at the same time "aspire" to it.

    It seems the ego's preferred function always carries with it a sense of confidence.
    Meanwhile, the other aspects of "otherness", the opposite orientation and opposite gender, remain bound together. This probably is a reflection of the persona.

    So it's like two contrasexual images form (They're not how the actual other gender experiences themselves; just our own projections). Or you could think of it as one contrasexual image that separates into two.

    Both stem from your own sense of inferiority concerning your "portion in nature". Both of them are what you essentially want to conquer. Both involve the opposite orientation and J/P attitude. However, it is divided according the the function and its sense of confidence or vulnerability.

    The half that is totally "other" is connected with what you are in awe of, and would complete you. The other half is more the negative side of this; where aspects of the "other" has begun to mix with ego's dominant world-view. So it conveys what you feel opposed by, and also what you wish you could master and fight back with. (Also compensating for the more vulnerable side of the dual complex).

    These basically connect to the madonna/whore dilemma for men; and "good guy/bad boy" for women.

    So when our ego needs to combine its dominant function with the opposite orientation (and opposite brain hemisphere), it manifests in an "oppositional" form that may carry a contrasexual connotation. (I had described this a bit in one of the earlier posts).

    Even less desired is the flipside of this, where the opposite world view invades the dominant realm. The opposite function had been relegated to the opposite orientation, but when it creeps into the dominant orientation, it may come off as totally at odds to ego's way of seeing things, to the point of seeming evil at times.

    In one sense, it is more similar to the dominant, being the same J/P attitude, and hence the same brain hemisphere. It thus also retains the dominant gender. It becomes the opposite of that ideal romantic image you have of the opposite gender, sharing with it only its sense of vulnerability (which seems to be hidden behind its fierce reactiveness).

    Otherness in gender, in both cases is what we desire, while sameness, outside of its heroic persona context, is generally repulsive. (I'm not sure how all this works for LGBT).
    Hence, this seems to be why genders are assigned to the archetypes the way they are.

    Reminder, this is only the "spine" complexes (1/4/5/8) we are dealing with, as these deal with the ego's relation to self. The arms (2/3/6/7) all seem to default to the dominant gender. Otherwise, as far as the other elements such as function, orientation, and confidence, they reflect and shadow the same way.
    Last edited by Eric B; 10-10-2010 at 10:40 PM.
    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. Why we always misunderstand one another on the Internet
    By Olm the Water King in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 09-15-2015, 09:50 AM
  2. Hey. Feeling bored? Check this thread out!!!
    By Chickennugget in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-08-2015, 02:24 AM
  3. ENTJs-Just found this funny article on The Onion
    By johnnyyukon in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-28-2014, 08:14 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-24-2010, 05:00 PM
  5. The Eight Functions and Fence-Building
    By INTJMom in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-15-2008, 01:09 PM

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