# Thread: Imagine adding Me and Mi (motion) to the list of function attitudes.

1. ## Imagine adding Me and Mi (motion) to the list of function attitudes.

Imagine adding Me and Mi (motion) to the list of function attitudes.

Me = extraverted motion
Mi = introverted motion

This would be added to Fe, Fi, Te, Ti, Se, Si, Ne, and Ni.

The motion center comes from the Enneagram. The enneagram has three centers: Thinking, Feeling, and Motion. Or Movement, or Instinct.

Enneagram Types
Thinking Center: 5,6,7
Motion Center: 8,9,1
Feeling Center: 2,3,4

So what if we made 'motion' or 'movement' into another Jungian function? Introverted and extraverted movement. What would that be? What would someone be doing if they were using introverted motion or extraverted motion?

The Jungian functions seem to be all about just sitting there thinking and feeling things inside your head. It seems very passive. So you could add the 'doing' function to describe how we 'do' things and how our actions connect with our other Jungian functions.

How many types would there be if we added that to the list of functions? It looks like there would be 20 types instead of 16.

But that's not necessarily the answer. It might be more complicated than that, depending on what the motion center is and how it interacts with the other functions. What I mean is, 'P' and 'J' are part of your Myers-Briggs type, but they're not in that list of functions. Lol, you don't just take every letter of your Myers-Briggs type and then add either e or i after it: Ee (extraverted extraversion), Ei (introverted extraversion, lol), Pe, Pi, and so on. Those letters mean something else having to do with the other letters. So it could be confusing if you try to add Me or Mi in there when actually they might be 'implied' somehow by the other functions. Me and Mi might not be a 'function.'

I have a feeling that this is something only a clueless newbie would think of. Still, it would be interesting to add 'motion' and see what happens to the types.

2. That is an incredibly creative idea, Ret (do you mind if I call you Ret?).

I can see how it might seem as though most of the functions are just processing information and not actually moving anything around. I had always assumed that that all Introverted functions created a tendency to move/do inward, towards the self, and all Extraverted functions created a tendency to move/do things outwardly, in the external environment.

If we separate the system from this assumption, we come up with some interesting possibilities. For instance, an INFJ that uses Mi would be your typical INFJ... reflective, contemplative, trying to absorb knowledge, drawing everything inward, focused on the self and ideas. Whereas an INFJ that uses Me would be more interested in implementing their visions and being proactive. They would be leaders of causes, etc, despite their introverted focus, because their "motion" moves outward.

This idea has been expressed in several ways, actually. There's the "subtype" idea, where some people are more focused on their auxiliary or dominant, creating the same effect. This would be expressed as INFJ-Fe (for Me) or INFJ-Ni (For Mi). There are other people who say that Introversion and Extraversion serve that purpose well enough, and that E implies what you're calling Me, and that I implies what you're calling Mi.

Does that make sense?

3. Isn't "extraverted Motion" what this site http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/page9.html (Geldart) adds to attempt to make type 3 fit the MBTI (which many have said does not otherwise fit)? It also adds "extraverted Persona", but they don't have introverted versions of either.

Pe, Pi, Je and Ji are just collective terms for extraverted or introverted S or N; T or F.
Funny, you also mention "extraverted extraversion and "introverted extraversion". In classic temperament, I/E is one factor, and people vs task focus is the other. In one system, this is called "responding" as an introvert or extrovert (where I/E is expressing as an introvert or extrovert). This determines how much interaction we want, where I/E is connected with how much we express. So we could actually talk about Ee, Ei, etc.
In type, it is also used for certain types that seem to act opposite of the dominant letter at times. Particularly ENP's, and I think the opposite is ISP's.

4. Originally Posted by Athenian200
That is an incredibly creative idea, Ret (do you mind if I call you Ret?).
no, I don't mind, thank you

Originally Posted by Athenian200
I can see how it might seem as though most of the functions are just processing information and not actually moving anything around. I had always assumed that that all Introverted functions created a tendency to move/do inward, towards the self, and all Extraverted functions created a tendency to move/do things outwardly, in the external environment.

If we separate the system from this assumption, we come up with some interesting possibilities. For instance, an INFJ that uses Mi would be your typical INFJ... reflective, contemplative, trying to absorb knowledge, drawing everything inward, focused on the self and ideas. Whereas an INFJ that uses Me would be more interested in implementing their visions and being proactive. They would be leaders of causes, etc, despite their introverted focus, because their "motion" moves outward.

This idea has been expressed in several ways, actually. There's the "subtype" idea, where some people are more focused on their auxiliary or dominant, creating the same effect. This would be expressed as INFJ-Fe (for Me) or INFJ-Ni (For Mi). There are other people who say that Introversion and Extraversion serve that purpose well enough, and that E implies what you're calling Me, and that I implies what you're calling Mi.

Does that make sense?
Yes, that makes sense. It's helpful to hear that there is already an attempt to express something like that. I hadn't yet read about the idea of people being more focused on their auxiliary or dominant function.

I'm not familiar enough with the theory of the functions to know whether the E and I already imply the idea of Me and Mi. That would require more understanding than I have of it.

This is hard to explain, so bear with me. I believe that nothing is ever as simple as it looks at first glance. I think that if somebody tried hard enough to look for something, they would be able to find it - or find something, anything - that could be added to the Jungian functions, something that isn't already there. If it was somebody's mission to add something to the Jungian functions, they could do it.

I know there is a lot more to the enneagram than what I've read. I've scratched the surface. I glanced at some of Oscar Ichazo's original teachings online (translated) and I saw that there is a ton of stuff that I've never heard of before. Some of it seemed to say something different from what I've read in Riso and Hudson's book about the Enneagram. Ichazo had this list of instincts, and I would have to look it up again, but "feelings" were described as "the relational instinct," for instance.

What I'm getting at is: the "movement center" or "instinctual center" might, or might not be, the same thing as "bodily movement" or "doing things" or "acting out." It's complicated and I don't understand it all. "Me and Mi" was an idea inspired by the movement center, but it might not be the same thing at all, and it doesn't matter - it inspired the idea. Let it be something different.

I feel uncomfortable with the idea of subtypes. I haven't read about it at all so I'm not familiar with it. I might feel more comfortable if I've seen more about it. But it makes me feel like there's an inadequacy. If people start struggling to explain something or account for something, if people have a hard time using a system, if people start adding on new subtypes to try to account for things, then it makes me feel like something might be wrong with the system or missing.

Let me give an example: I don't like "wings" in the enneagram (blending in with one of the types next to you), and I also don't like the "directions of integration/disintegration." I think that those were added on at some point in history, and I want someone to explain how and why they work. I think they were added on because either somebody was trying to explain something that the original system couldn't explain well enough, or else somebody added them on because they looked pretty in the enneagram symbol. When I say they "looked pretty" I mean that it seemed to make sense because you can look at the symbol and the two types are next to each other, so people started thinking that they could blend together, but it wasn't explained exactly how that would happen.

So if there are any weaknesses or uncomfortable things in the Jungian function attitudes, I'm curious to know what they are. "Sitting there just thinking in your head, without DOING anything" was the first weakness that I felt in the system.

5. by the way I learned about thinking creatively by reading some of Edward de Bono's books http://www.edwdebono.com/lateral.htm

My brother John gave me one of his books many years ago.

6. Originally Posted by Eric B
Isn't "extraverted Motion" what this site http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/page9.html (Geldart) adds to attempt to make type 3 fit the MBTI (which many have said does not otherwise fit)? It also adds "extraverted Persona", but they don't have introverted versions of either.
hang on, I'm going to read that page and I'll get back to you...

7. Originally Posted by Retmeishka
Yes, that makes sense. It's helpful to hear that there is already an attempt to express something like that. I hadn't yet read about the idea of people being more focused on their auxiliary or dominant function.
It's not a common theory, but a few people believe in it. It's not usually questioned to that degree. A lot of people just believe what they read. That's why I liked your idea... it questions things, doesn't just take them on face value.
I'm not familiar enough with the theory of the functions to know whether the E and I already imply the idea of Me and Mi. That would require more understanding than I have of it.
This system requires a LOT of research to understand properly. Most people have a very filtered understanding... the theory started with Jung, was interpreted into MBTI by Isabel Myers, and eventually spawned several further simplifications like Keirsey. The writings you'd have to study are Jung's, Lenore Thompson's, and Beebe's. Those are the main body of current theory.

Many of us have spent years trying to understand it.
This is hard to explain, so bear with me. I believe that nothing is ever as simple as it looks at first glance. I think that if somebody tried hard enough to look for something, they would be able to find it - or find something, anything - that could be added to the Jungian functions, something that isn't already there. If it was somebody's mission to add something to the Jungian functions, they could do it.
Several things actually have been added in various versions of the system. Archetypes, functions, you name it. The problem is that no one can agree on WHAT exactly should or shouldn't be added. Everyone sees the theory differently.
I know there is a lot more to the enneagram than what I've read. I've scratched the surface. I glanced at some of Oscar Ichazo's original teachings online (translated) and I saw that there is a ton of stuff that I've never heard of before. Some of it seemed to say something different from what I've read in Riso and Hudson's book about the Enneagram. Ichazo had this list of instincts, and I would have to look it up again, but "feelings" were described as "the relational instinct," for instance.
That's because Ichazo and Riso/Hudson disagree on interpretation to some degree. Socionics is a different system from MBTI, based on Jungian theories. That's where subtype theory first appeared, actually. These systems all look similar, but there are just SO many different interpretations and alternative perspectives.
What I'm getting at is: the "movement center" or "instinctual center" might, or might not be, the same thing as "bodily movement" or "doing things" or "acting out." It's complicated and I don't understand it all. "Me and Mi" was an idea inspired by the movement center, but it might not be the same thing at all, and it doesn't matter - it inspired the idea. Let it be something different.
Okay, then. Would you care to define Mi and Me more precisely? Since you're now saying it's not like the moving center of Enneagram?
I feel uncomfortable with the idea of subtypes. I haven't read about it at all so I'm not familiar with it. I might feel more comfortable if I've seen more about it. But it makes me feel like there's an inadequacy. If people start struggling to explain something or account for something, if people have a hard time using a system, if people start adding on new subtypes to try to account for things, then it makes me feel like something might be wrong with the system or missing.
That's understandable. A lot of people dismiss subtype theory completely. And some even say that MBTI is so incomplete that it's useless. So it's reasonable to question whether something is missing.

We just have to figure out what's missing, and that could help.
Let me give an example: I don't like "wings" in the enneagram (blending in with one of the types next to you), and I also don't like the "directions of integration/disintegration." I think that those were added on at some point in history, and I want someone to explain how and why they work. I think they were added on because either somebody was trying to explain something that the original system couldn't explain well enough, or else somebody added them on because they looked pretty in the enneagram symbol. When I say they "looked pretty" I mean that it seemed to make sense because you can look at the symbol and the two types are next to each other, so people started thinking that they could blend together, but it wasn't explained exactly how that would happen.
A lot of us don't like the wings or directions of integration/disintegration. In fact, Magic Poriferan and Evan actually created an alternative theory about how wings work. Instead of being adjacent to your number, now they're chosen based on something else. I don't remember the details, but a lot of people liked it.
So if there are any weaknesses or uncomfortable things in the Jungian function attitudes, I'm curious to know what they are. "Sitting there just thinking in your head, without DOING anything" was the first weakness that I felt in the system.
Well, as the system stands, I would say that Se is the most active function. It's the one most construed as being about "doing things." You might want to look into that more specifically, since it's your auxiliary function.

Hope I'm making sense. It's just that there's so much information, and I can't decide what's most relevant to tell you to study yet.

8. Originally Posted by Eric B
Isn't "extraverted Motion" what this site http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/page9.html (Geldart) adds to attempt to make type 3 fit the MBTI (which many have said does not otherwise fit)? It also adds "extraverted Persona", but they don't have introverted versions of either.
Okay, I looked at that page and also a page mentioned on your website.

http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/page9.html
http://www.erictb.info/temperament1.html

I wish I had lots of time to read and think. This is one of those things where I could read it all day and still barely scratch the surface.

It looks like the Geldart page talks about how the Jungian types don't account for 'motion,' and how the two systems are different and it's helpful to know both of them, because they both have their strengths and weaknesses... that's making a long story short and I can't read it in depth enough to understand it as much as I would like.

I also liked how that page says that if you are able to use any of your functions when needed, it's harder to get an accurate result from the test. I've read that as you get older you learn to use more of your functions. I'm different now than I was when I was a teenager and I have probably learned when to use something or not use it.

It mentions 'the sensitivity of each Enneagram Point to their Jungian irrational sensation processes for physical internal body states.' This is something that I am very aware of.

Something I hadn't read before, on the other page (erictb.info) was how they mentioned expressiveness versus responsiveness. Some people 'approach others,' wanting something from them, but they don't like to be approached and they tend to reject people (their description sounded like the 'disconnected' type, which goes with ones, fours, and sevens). Other people don't approach others very much, but they tolerate and welcome being approached. Others don't approach, and don't want to be approached. I know that I myself don't approach other people very much but I tolerate people approaching me.

I had the same feeling from reading this page that I have had when, for instance, I looked at Ichazo's original teachings: I felt as though there was a lot of stuff that seemed to contradict things I had read elsewhere, or else it was talking about something using words that might mean something different depending on which system it's in or which author wrote them. I'm not sure how to reconcile them. They don't need to be reconciled to be useful.

But it's interesting that they actually wrote "Me," extraverted moving and extraverted persona, next to type Three.

What confuses me about this is that the words don't mean the same thing. This is hard to explain. Many different Myers-Briggs types can fall into a particular enneagram type. Your enneagram type and your Myers-Briggs type don't correspond perfectly. There can be all different Myers-Briggs types in Enneagram Six - almost any type can be a Six. But 'introverted feeling' is supposed to correspond to type Six, even though 'introverted feeling' isn't the dominant function for many of the different Myers-Briggs types that can be Sixes. They are not talking about the same thing. When they say 'introverted feeling is Type Six,' it doesn't mean the same thing as saying 'ISFP and INFP's dominant function is introverted feeling.' Whatever they're talking about, it means something different. They're not making a one-to-one correspondence between each Myers-Briggs type and each enneagram type.

Anyway, good page, overwhelming to me, but still it was interesting to see that somebody else was talking about 'extraverted motion' and connecting it to type Three. It makes me aware that there is a huge amount of stuff that I don't know yet.

9. Well, it was in part 3 of the series: http://www.erictb.info/temperament3.html#enneagram where I attempt to tie Enneagram to temperament.
But I have kind of stepped back from this, realizing there is a lot more to Enneagram than meets the eye.

Originally Posted by Retmeishka
Something I hadn't read before, on the other page (erictb.info) was how they mentioned expressiveness versus responsiveness. Some people 'approach others,' wanting something from them, but they don't like to be approached and they tend to reject people (their description sounded like the 'disconnected' type, which goes with ones, fours, and sevens).
Case in point. The 7 seemed like a Sanguine, who both expresses and wants, yet you're saying it's in a category that basically rejects people. The 8 seems like the Choleric who would seem to express, and yet reject people (they only respond according to a criteria).

The four I had linked with the range of temperament blends that lie between Melancholy and Supine, so they have only a moderate want for people.
Other people don't approach others very much, but they tolerate and welcome being approached. Others don't approach, and don't want to be approached. I know that I myself don't approach other people very much but I tolerate people approaching me.
That would be the Interaction Style: ISF, which is Supine or Phlegmatic. It's introverted (low expressive, or "reserved"), yet what is called "informative", which Keirsey had defined as allowing the other person to define the relationships; where the directive himself defines the relationship for the other person, basically rejecting others unless the criteria is met. So the informative's willingness to allow the other person to define the relationship is basically "responding" to being approached.
What confuses me about this is that the words don't mean the same thing. This is hard to explain. Many different Myers-Briggs types can fall into a particular enneagram type. Your enneagram type and your Myers-Briggs type don't correspond perfectly. There can be all different Myers-Briggs types in Enneagram Six - almost any type can be a Six. But 'introverted feeling' is supposed to correspond to type Six, even though 'introverted feeling' isn't the dominant function for many of the different Myers-Briggs types that can be Sixes. They are not talking about the same thing. When they say 'introverted feeling is Type Six,' it doesn't mean the same thing as saying 'ISFP and INFP's dominant function is introverted feeling.' Whatever they're talking about, it means something different. They're not making a one-to-one correspondence between each Myers-Briggs type and each enneagram type.
On the page; I mention the MBTI correlations, and they vary a lot. Type 6 is usually assumed to be an SJ. I believe the 6 is Supine, which is the fifth, previously unrecognized temperament, which also may seem SJ'ish in some respect (in the area of Control, that is), but has more of a dependency need, which may make them appear to be a strong "Guardian" in upholding an institution (hence the "phobic/counterphobic" tendencies), but unlike the concrete SJ, they'll accept anyone who makes decisions for them (and thus are not being driven by Si, but are rather more open to the abstract). This trait does not seem to be covered well in type theory, but would actually fit more as a kind of NF.

The correlation that seems to fit more my ideas is that of David Boje, which I made into a table on the page.

So my correlation of those systems is on the back burner. I would think that the instinctual variants would correspond to the three temperament areas (so=Inclusion, sp=Control, sx=Affection), and that types should be stacked along those lines, but they don't stack different types, and the variants seem to be stacked in comparison with each other along the same type.

10. If we build a robot controlled by the eight functions, and if the robot just sits there quietly meditating to itself instead of doing anything, then we'll know that we need to add some kind of 'movement' function to the list of eight.

#### 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