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
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.