Another crack at root function definitions

[Eric B]

Se emergent facts
Si established facts
Ne emergent meanings
Ni established meanings (i.e. archetypes, symbols, patterns, etc.)

Te established technical evaluations
Ti variable technical evaluations
Fe established personal evaluations
Fi variable personal evaluations

("established" connects with both Pi and Je; Bruzon's "local area matrix"; while "emergent" doesn't really fit Ji; that's more P specific, but emergent Pe data does lead to variable or specific, situational, and thus more "deep" and "internalized" Ji evaluations; i.e. picked up by individuals rather than "established" consensus).

So,
J: established data
P: emergent variables

And of course:

Interpretive focus:
S: facts (i.e. concrete)
N: meanings, possibilities (i.e. abstract)

Rational focus:
T: technical (aka "impersonal")
F: personal

 

[Andy]

I wouldn't agree with this, I'm afraid. Pe is emergent in that it explores and seeks to experience, but Pi doesn't limit itself to what has been established. it would be more true to say that they are concerned with establishing rather than just the established. That's pretty much what the introverted percieving functions do. They check incoming information to see if it mesures up and if it can be used by Je (or Ji, to a lesser degree). A Pi user can throw away what is consider to be an established fact/meaning by the rest of the world if in their judgement it isn't good.

 

[Eric B]

OK, over the last few days, I have rethought precisely that point (getting ready to add this soon), and determined that Ji would be better tagged as dealing with stored data rather than "established". It occurred to me that "established" still sounds too externally focused to refer to an introverted function, and this might cause confusion.

You're right about seeking to establish. The data is basically internally "established", and thus, sought to be made externally established through the Je.
So still, that does show Pi's affinity to Je, around a local area matrix.

Established is just the term that came to mind when thinking about how SJ's demand what is "known" as fact. But stored (which I had also seen used for this) conveys this better.

So it should be

Si stored facts.
Ni stored meanings

 

[Andy]

Quite. The introverted percieving functions are concerned with what i think of as "certifying" the extent of certainty of knowledge/understanding posesed by the individual. Thus the IJs tend to spend more time double checking than the EJs before going ahead with whatever Je driven scheme seems like a good idea.

 

[Eric B]

Decided that "personal" (for F) is still too ambiguous. "Personal" is often used for introverted judgments. Both F and T. Fi="personal values"; Ti="personal principles". It is practically a synonym for "subjective", in the Jungian sense. (Though "subjective" is also associated with Feeling by some).
Also, "personal" in a more general sense. Like "getting personal" in some sort of relationship or interaction.

I'm thinking now that humane is a better term. It covers what "personal" is intended to mean in that sense, but it is not as fixed to one orientation as "personal", and not as generalistic (and also argued as to fitting one orientation of Feeling or another) as "empathy".

Also thinking that "established" for extraverted judgments might not cover all bases. Like when such measures as "efficiency" are mentioned (for Te), it's hard to link "established" to that. The standard might not be something already established (especially when the person is in the process of trying to establish the external order in the first place!)

If a person decides on efficiency, what the standard is is a set course of action. That is similar in meaning to "establish", conveying it is external to the judger, yet it allows for the standard to not already be preexisting, but rather in the process of being established. Like with the Pi, it is both "established" and "set" internally, and the judger's course of action is [pre-]determined by this external source, rather than his own evaluation of emergent variables.

So, now it should be:

Te set technicalities
Ti variable technicalities
Fe set humanities
Fi variable humanities

("humanities" short for "humane considerations").

 

[Andy]

Decided that "personal" (for F) is still too ambiguous. "Personal" is often used for introverted judgments. Both F and T. Fi="personal values"; Ti="personal principles". It is practically a synonym for "subjective", in the Jungian sense. (Though "subjective" is also associated with Feeling by some).
Also, "personal" in a more general sense. Like "getting personal" in some sort of relationship or interaction.

Yes, the disparity in the common and technical meanings of words can make it very difficult to talk about things and have everyone understand what is being said. It's like describing someone as "sensitive". In the common usage, that means they are kind and easily upset. In technical usage, it means they respond strongly to mild stimulous, such as by beating someone to death because they didn't like they way they looked at them. Best not to get those two individuals confused.

I'm thinking now that humane is a better term. It covers what "personal" is intended to mean in that sense, but it is not as fixed to one orientation as "personal", and not as generalistic (and also argued as to fitting one orientation of Feeling or another) as "empathy".

Also thinking that "established" for extraverted judgments might not cover all bases. Like when such measures as "efficiency" are mentioned (for Te), it's hard to link "established" to that. The standard might not be something already established (especially when the person is in the process of trying to establish the external order in the first place!)

If a person decides on efficiency, what the standard is is a set course of action. That is similar in meaning to "establish", conveying it is external to the judger, yet it allows for the standard to not already be preexisting, but rather in the process of being established. Like with the Pi, it is both "established" and "set" internally, and the judger's course of action is [pre-]determined by this external source, rather than his own evaluation of emergent variables.

So, now it should be:

Te set technicalities
Ti variable technicalities
Fe set humanities
Fi variable humanities

("humanities" short for "humane considerations").

Yes, it's hard to find one word that sums up all aspects of a given function. I usually use two or three for just that reason. For the Je functions I think the word "needs" applies quite well. Fe centers around the idea of judging and responding to humanitarian needs (as opposed to ideas), while Te is more about technical/logistical needs.

 

[strychnine]

Ti variable technicalities

Could this manifest as trying to look at all possible variables that could be at play in an effect?
I mean this in the sense that, the variables can be factors and the effect can be hypothetical or observed.

Also, isolating the (main) cause of an effect, by accounting for all the other variables somehow?
i.e. Dissect the issue by separating the effects of each variable as much as possible

e.g. If you want to account for B, but you have one set with ABC, and another with BYZ, you can look at what they have in common. Or, if you have ABC and AC, can 'subtract' and find the effect of B. Does Ti (sometimes) analyze problems this way?
(Obviously many real world problems are more complex, it's just an example.)

Sorry for the lack of clarity. Please ask for clarification if it seems there is hope lol.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, I think that those would fit.
By "variable technicalities", I was trying to cover Lenore's mention of both "variables" and "essential dynamics of a situation". Ti tends to internalize certain universal dynamics (such as my frequent example, symmetry), which it then looks for in situations. So it has to break them down in what we then call"analysis".
Te in contrast looks at the external technical dynamics of efficiency, or an agreed upon set of rules. Alphabetizing is one common example.

 

[Eric B]

Some more descriptions of the perceiving functions I have found:

Se seeing an object and its potential for what it is (and realizing it as is)
Ne seeing an object and its potential in terms of a pattern (that it can be changed into)
Si seeing stored data for what it is, for an object to be compared with (takes the form of "how to do things")
Ni seeing stored data in terms of patterns for an object to be compared with (e.g. to see outside [the patterns of] the object to discover a likely outcome)

So, S/N is not always about whether the object itself is concrete or abstract, but rather whether you see it for what it is, or abstract patterns from it. Even looking at concrete objects, and noticing patterns in them (comparing the patterns of one to another, etc), which is abstracting data. Like I compare old architecture from one city to another, which sounds like some concrete sensory process, but in my case, things I see in one place or another take on meaning, including the question of why it is this way in one place, and another way in another place. Sensors will notice the differences, but not place any meaning on it. "It is what it is". They then wonder why I notice such impractical details, while stumbling over more practical ones which they notice better. I only focus on the sensory data more than they in that case because of the meaning abstracted from it.