User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 14

  1. #1
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default The Search for Better, More Elemental Definitions of the Functions, Esp. Judging

    There are so many different experts with so many different ways of putting things, that there ends up being a lot of miscommunication. I'm particularly thinking of the definitions of i/e and T/F.
    The internal or external orientation of a function is often portrayed in terms of where the function is "used" ("applied"), or even where its energy "flows", yet on the other hand, some will insist it is the standard of reference of the function. Then this will often be framed in terms of "individual" (personal) versus "agreed upon" or "group" standards, or the orientation being inherent in the objects/subjects in question.

    All of these are interpretations of Jung's "focused on the subject [or] object".

    Sensing and iNtuition are widely recognized as dealing with concrete vs abstract information. So there is not as much problem defining these.

    It's T/F where a lot of problems and type confusion occur. Thinking is widely defined as "logic" and "impersonal". Yet for Feeling, we hear about "values", "ethics", "personal", "harmony", "empathy/sympathy" (and questions as to which attitude carries which), and "emotions/emoting".
    This is where descriptions of that function get really screwed up.
    Especially regarding emotions.

    I myself have been tossed around with these descriptions, and will often use one or another in my discussions. Sometimes, a knowledgeable person, who has settled on one pair of definitions or another, will dispute. Like I'll say "internal or external application", and they'll insist on "standard". Or we'll differ on which of the various terms for "Feeling" apply. (Like in an email recently, I spoke of "emotion", and I was told "personal" experential identification, instead).

    What happens is that my mind is swimming with all these terms, which are basically attempts at concise definitions. But what we need are the most elemental root definitions we can find. And I just hadn't had the time yet (until now) to try to figure and settle on which ones that seemed to capture the essence of the functions the best.

    All these terms stick because they all do have at least some truth to them. But since, as we see, the various factors can sometimes span different dichotomies or be common to people of all types, it can often lead to outright contradictions.

    Also, it seems some are really more behavioral results than elemental definitions. And I can see (as some complain at times) that the problems in typology often result from overusing behavioral concepts. They do basically match the concepts, but can vary.
    This is what often leads to the "Forer effect" I have often been mentioning. For instance, everyone has emotions, and "knows what they want for themselves", not just Feelers in general or introverted Feelers.

    I have found Lenore Thomson's definitions to seem more solid (she's one major source for the "standard" and "personal/impersonal" definitions), and so decided to get these from the book:

    Perception encourages us to process sensory impressions as they occur
    Judgment prompts us to organize our sense impressions by focusing on the ones that happen regularly enough to recognize and predict. (p253)

    Left brain (J=Je/Pi) linear one-at-a-time approach to life
    Right brain (P=Pe/Ji) wholistic[sic] all-at-once approach to life

    It is noteworthy that another person, Mark Bruzon, has T=linear, F=holistic. This would work the same way as "objective/subjective", which can apply to either e/i or T/F. The factor applies to both, but in different aspects.

    The other three dichotomies:

    i internal standard
    e external standard

    S concrete
    N abstract

    T impersonal
    F personal

    Descriptions from the chapters on the functions:

    Te: shared qualities objects have in common used as a standard of sequential order
    Ti: the variables [essential dynamics] in a situation related to our intended effect (this probably refers to personal "frameworks", such as particular symmetries one looks for in things)
    Fe: measure our options for relationships against an external standard of behaviors
    Fi: encourages a personal relationship to an evolving pattern (e.g. how a given situation would affect the person)

    To make Ti and Fi parallel Te and Fe more closely:

    Ti: essential qualities objects have, chosen as a standard of universal truth
    Fi: personal relationship to situations chosen an internal standard of truth

    While "relationships" are mentioned only for the two Feeling attitudes, really, all four judging attitudes are dealing with "relationships". The Feeling attitudes deal with "relationships" between people (which includes the subject, of course), and the Thinking attitudes deal with relationships between objects (including treating one's self and others as objects).

    So we can see right here why Feeling would also be tagged as "subjective" while Thinking is "objective".
    At the same time, the external attitude relates to an external object, while the internal attitude relates to the subject.

    So to rephrase the functions in terms of their base elements:

    Te: judges relationships between impersonal objects according to an external standard (in the objects themselves)
    Ti: judges relationships between impersonal objects according to an internal standard (the subject's chosen frameworks)
    Fe: judges personal relationships by an external standard (agreed upon behaviors)
    Fi: judges personal relationships by an internal standard (experiential identification)

    Of course, for the perception functions:

    Se: perceives concrete data from an external (emergent) source
    Si: perceives concrete data from an internal (stored) source
    Ne: abstracts external, emergent data
    Ni: abstracts internally stored data

    So hope we can keep these in mind and they can be helpful when thinking of which function is which.
    Last edited by Eric B; 03-09-2011 at 08:48 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

  2. #2
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    So while we still can never be absolutely sure of other people's types (especially celebrities, who we don't know, and of course, fictional characters), still, to get a good estimation of T/F, we can look at what we can look at what we can call, the
    rational focus: personal vs impersonal.
    (And perception I would call "perceptive focus: concrete vs abstract")

    (Forgot to mention, personal/impersonal would explain Bruzon's T=linear; F=holistic definition. Impersonal relationships are linear, basically "if this, then that". Personal relationships are a more fuzzy category, that looks at each point's [Bruzon does his representations as point matrices] relationship to it environment, rather than a hard line connecting it to the next point. Hence, "holistic").

    I used to often wonder if I was "using Fi" when I would evaluate whether something I said or did was congruent with my beliefs in a debate or something (since Fi was often defined simply as "evaluating congruence"); but in that context, the the actual reasoning was based on fear of being accused of double standards by others.

    So it was more an impersonal "if-then" process, and the personal relationship aspect of it was more externally focused.

    Other people, who have struggled with type, and considered F, but were really more "impersonal" in their self-descriptions and focus here, than personal:
    Such Irony, Luna and Greed/Bologna.
    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

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

    Default

    Celebrities and others for whom we have debated their type:

    Rachel Ray:
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...achel-ray.html
    As I have argued, wears a very "personal" onstage persona, but by many of her own descriptions, is clearly mor e"impersonal" in real life. (ESTP instead of ESFP)

    Stevie Wonder:
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...-analysis.html
    While he obviously is more "personal" in his older age, when he first became an adult independent musisioan, he was more impersonal. He had love songs reflecting his ongoing breakups and new loves, but the rest of the songs focused on the mind, politics and other logical messages. An accident that injured the right side of his head seemed to mark the beginning of a change, where he went from being more S and T, to N and F. INFJ (which most people assume for him) is the left-brain "supplement" to ISTP.

    This person:
    http://personalitycafe.com/infj-foru...-jo-infjs.html
    Also presents a very Fe "nurturing sage" persona, but in direct experiences, is clearly more impersonal, (focuses on application of the logical aspects of type and the "seriousness" of the business; and one has to see for themselves the way she actually relates to people), and even "other" INFJ's can sense something is off. (ENTJ "Fieldmarshall" seems to fit).

    Kate Gosselin
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...john-kate.html

    Clearly impersonal focused. The kids (and former husband) were just objects to order around.
    In her case, people seemed to look purely at her "emotion" to make her an ExFJ. But as is being pointed out here, an F preference is really not about "emotion" at all. In fact, when you see emotions that out of control, it is likely a person who has a very impersonal focus. The connection of emotions to the Feeling preference would involve stuff like being able to control them!
    When someone has a negative "Feeling" reaction, T's likely project how they would have to been feeling in order to react that way, and assume that person must be that upset. So we come to associate "Feeling" with out of control emotion.

    Then, of course, the old debate on Hitler. He's clearly more impersonal. In cases such as him and some of these other people, people pick out some sort of "personal"-based motive he might have had, but as I kept pointing out, when a function comes out that erratic or "gone wrong" as people put it, it is not preferred; it is likely tertiary/inferior and their shadow, the Trickster/Demon.
    They also point to supposed "mistakes" he might have made with logic. But the preference is not about mistakes; it's focus. A preference does not guarantee the decisions made with the function will work. there are a lot of reasons they might not. Clearly, this was the clearest example of an "impersonal" focus to the hilt!

    On the other hand, you have Oprah, who I have hears described with similar controlling "Choleric" behavior as the other In Charge types, above. Yet, she is clearly more personal-focused, overall. So ENFJ would seem to fit.

    Someone just resurrected the thread on Prince, but he's hard to tell as to whether he is more personal or impersonal. Some of these people, you would really need to know them in person.

    You still have other factors, such as expressiveness and responsiveness (I/E, directive/informative, structure/motive, etc), that affect how one's "personal" or "impersonal" behavior. (in addition to "people vs task" focus) But cognitively, personal/impersonal directly affects what they focus on in decisions, and behavior is something likely affected by this, but can change do to various things.
    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. #4
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Vicky Jo an ENTJ?

    Kind of a stretch. I don't know her, but if I was a well read consultant for 30 years you'd bet I promote a sense of logic too. She's probably just trying to help get correct information out there. A lot of people want to reinvent the wheel or look at things in too much of an arbitrary manner, instead of just read (even myself at times).

  5. #5
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Sort of like Rachel Ray, there's a persona that might make some female T's seem F, but beneath the surface, it's a whole different story. (My mother (ISTJ) is another example of this).

    It's not just a "sense of logic", but rather the entire focus that is a better indicator of the true preference.
    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

  6. #6
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Vicky Jo an ENTJ?

    Kind of a stretch. I don't know her, but if I was a well read consultant for 30 years you'd bet I promote a sense of logic too. She's probably just trying to help get correct information out there. A lot of people want to reinvent the wheel or look at things in too much of an arbitrary manner, instead of just read (even myself at times).
    Kinda wondered the same thing. Not only does she seem INFJ, that's also what she claims her type is. I'm sure with her knowledge of typology, she probably knows her own type fairly well.
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

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

    Default

    Would you two happen to be basing this on the videos? Or the articles?
    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

  8. #8
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    A little of both. I don't know her personally. And to clarify the other point I was making, I would give someone the benefit of the doubt if they have been involved in MBTI for as long as she has. Me? I signed up on this site a year ago. Maybe not the best reasoning, but I don't feel right about it.

  9. #9
    jump sleuthiness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    54 so/sp
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    In a Youtube interview with Letterman, Ray describes her husband and herself as a pair of hot-blooded, easily angered Italians, which doesn't support estp, though it's understandably difficult to tell, as she's also resourceful, action-oriented, and to-the-point. Rather, I think it's more likely she's an e1 esfj, sx/sp e12, one whose traditional, kitchenwife leanings are overshadowed by her boisterous tenancies at first glance. Also, I want to confirm that that Paula lady is estp, so/sx e78, so let's compare. Start with their kitchens.

    Even after all the friendly discussion, I still consider Wonder an sx/so e32 enfp. Strong, compulsive, outward energy supported by being a 3, with a friendly, poetic flair tailored to please anyone of his choosing. Couldn't we go back and forth all night about attributing T or F to however his songs come across to us?

    thinking of you

  10. #10
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Would you two happen to be basing this on the videos? Or the articles?
    Both for me. Her video with her husband, and also her articles. Obviously I don't have any "hard evidence," just a hunch. But she seems much more Fe dependent than Fi. I can't quite say how.
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 53
    Last Post: 11-04-2017, 01:46 PM
  2. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 07-13-2011, 12:25 PM
  3. [sx] sx/sp types, let me save you a lot of trouble in the search for a mate
    By themarlins in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 11:08 PM
  4. Case of kissing too many frogs when searching for her prince?
    By Sahara in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-31-2007, 10:58 AM

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