User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 23

  1. #1
    Professional Trickster Esoteric Wench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    950

    Thumbs up F versus T: From a Jungian Cognitive Functions Perspective

    I can readily articulate the differences between various cognitive functions. For example, I can tell you the main differences between Fe and Fi. Or Ne and Ni. But I have a hard time articulating the overarching differences between F functions and T functions.

    I want to hear your guys' explanations of the differences between F and T. (Even better is if this explanation comes from someone fluent in JCFs (Jungian Cognitive Functions).) I've read a gazillion MBTI explanations of the difference between F and T. But after adopting the JCF paradigm, these MBTI explanations seem overly simplistic to me.

    What do Fe and Fi have in common that they don't share with either Te or Ti (and vice versa)?

    Go.
    ENFP with kick*ss Te | 7w8 so | ♀

  2. #2
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Fe and Fi both deal with more "personal/interpersonal" issues (which I term "humane"; as opposed to the "impersonal" or "technical" focus of Te and Ti).
    The difference between them is the inner or outer standards they draw upon. (Which may lead to different ways of going about 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

  3. #3
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esoteric Wench View Post
    What do Fe and Fi have in common that they don't share with either Te or Ti (and vice versa)?

    Go.
    Fe is seeking to connect to other's subjective expeirence, and from this conversation, i gather that Fi is striving towards harmony with one's own subjective self. on the other hand both Ti and Te are striving to understand the objective world.

    it's not much of a stretch IMO - we're social creatures and it seems natural that parts of our brain specialized in understanding a very important object in our environment - people, a part which we are also able to use to understand ourselves.

    ofcourse, mixup the two and you end up with Pantheonism.

  4. #4
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    F and T are both deductive processes in the super-function Judgment. If Judgment says "true" or "false", then Thinking was used. If Judgment says "good" or "bad", then Feeling was used.

    Basically they take some premises passed in from perception, combine them with some built in beliefs, and spit out an answer. That answer could either be the end of the line, or could be something that Perception uses to come up with new stuff to pass back in.

    Forgive my nerdy-programming moment, but here's what I think the Judgment functions look like (written in shitty c# with some english thrown in; I've only spent about an hour using c# so forgive me). Oops, it also won't let me format.

    public string[] environmentallyrelevantstuff = list of attributes about current environment that perception has labeled relevant;
    public string[] internallyrelevantstuff = list of attributes about current internal state (state of the user) that perception has labeled relevant;

    public static bool Feeling(string x, string y)
    {
    if (x is bad given y) or (y is bad given x)
    return false;
    return true;
    } // takes two things and checks if either of them are bad given the other.

    public static string Fe(string[] stufftoevaluate)
    {
    for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
    for (int j = 0; j < environmentallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
    if !(Feeling(stufftoevaluate[i], environmentallyrelevantstuff[j]))
    return "bad";
    return "good";
    } //does "Feeling" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the environmentallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "bad", otherwise returns "good".

    public static string Fi(string[] stufftoevaluate)
    {
    for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
    for (int j = 0; j < internallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
    if !(Feeling(stufftoevaluate[i], internallyrelevantstuff[j]))
    return "bad";
    return "good";
    } //does "Feeling" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the internallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "bad", otherwise returns "good".


    public static bool Thinking(string x, string y)
    {
    if (x is not consistent with y)
    return false;
    return true;
    } // takes two things and checks they are consistent with each other.


    public static string Te(string[] stufftoevaluate)
    {
    for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
    for (int j = 0; j < environmentallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
    if !(Thinking(stufftoevaluate[i], environmentallyrelevantstuff[j]))
    return "true";
    return "false";
    } //does "Thinking" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the environmentallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "false", otherwise returns "true".


    public static string Ti(string[] stufftoevaluate)
    {
    for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
    for (int j = 0; j < internallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
    if !(Thinking(stufftoevaluate[i], internallyrelevantstuff[j]))
    return "true";
    return "false";
    } //does "Thinking" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the internallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "true", otherwise returns "false".

    Sorry it's a bit handwavey, but hopefully someone will get what I'm saying.

  5. #5
    Professional Trickster Esoteric Wench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    950

    Default

    @Evan, this was a great, great post. This is exactly what I was looking for. It's really helped me get my head around this. I'm going to print this out and tape it to my bulletin board by my desk.

    ENFP with kick*ss Te | 7w8 so | ♀

  6. #6
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esoteric Wench View Post
    @Evan, this was a great, great post. This is exactly what I was looking for. It's really helped me get my head around this. I'm going to print this out and tape it to my bulletin board by my desk.

    Sweet, cuz right after I wrote that all out I thought maybe no one would have any idea how to follow it.

  7. #7
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    F and T are both deductive processes in the super-function Judgment. If Judgment says "true" or "false", then Thinking was used. If Judgment says "good" or "bad", then Feeling was used.

    Basically they take some premises passed in from perception, combine them with some built in beliefs, and spit out an answer. That answer could either be the end of the line, or could be something that Perception uses to come up with new stuff to pass back in.

    Forgive my nerdy-programming moment, but here's what I think the Judgment functions look like (written in shitty c# with some english thrown in; I've only spent about an hour using c# so forgive me). Oops, it also won't let me format.

    public string[] environmentallyrelevantstuff = list of attributes about current environment that perception has labeled relevant;
    public string[] internallyrelevantstuff = list of attributes about current internal state (state of the user) that perception has labeled relevant;

    public static bool Feeling(string x, string y)
    {
    if (x is bad given y) or (y is bad given x)
    return false;
    return true;
    } // takes two things and checks if either of them are bad given the other.

    public static string Fe(string[] stufftoevaluate)
    {
    for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
    for (int j = 0; j < environmentallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
    if !(Feeling(stufftoevaluate[i], environmentallyrelevantstuff[j]))
    return "bad";
    return "good";
    } //does "Feeling" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the environmentallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "bad", otherwise returns "good".

    public static string Fi(string[] stufftoevaluate)
    {
    for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
    for (int j = 0; j < internallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
    if !(Feeling(stufftoevaluate[i], internallyrelevantstuff[j]))
    return "bad";
    return "good";
    } //does "Feeling" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the internallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "bad", otherwise returns "good".


    public static bool Thinking(string x, string y)
    {
    if (x is not consistent with y)
    return false;
    return true;
    } // takes two things and checks they are consistent with each other.


    public static string Te(string[] stufftoevaluate)
    {
    for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
    for (int j = 0; j < environmentallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
    if !(Thinking(stufftoevaluate[i], environmentallyrelevantstuff[j]))
    return "true";
    return "false";
    } //does "Thinking" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the environmentallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "false", otherwise returns "true".


    public static string Ti(string[] stufftoevaluate)
    {
    for (int i = 0; i < stufftoevaluate.length; i++)
    for (int j = 0; j < internallyrelevantstuff.length; j++)
    if !(Thinking(stufftoevaluate[i], internallyrelevantstuff[j]))
    return "true";
    return "false";
    } //does "Thinking" with every combination of a member of the stufftoevaluate list and a member of the internallyrelevant list. If any combination doesn't work, returns "true", otherwise returns "false".

    Sorry it's a bit handwavey, but hopefully someone will get what I'm saying.
    This is a super cool, and different, way of representing these concepts!


    The whole preference of Judgment/Perception has just never jived with me, in describing what Meyers was trying to get at, which was that some people seem to like to have more external control over their environment (emotional and physical), and others seem to like to have more internal control over their environment (because P's can still be quite controlling in an individualized way).

    Since J/P has never jived with me, I cannot accept the premise of your proposition. Also I do not use my Fe or Fi in terms of 'good' or 'bad,' although I do think I understand where you are coming from with those terms. It's not so much quantitative (as your terms sort-of imply), for me, but more qualititative. Same for how I feel about T.

    If I had to say a function was Judging or Perceiving, I'd ascribe those terms to the dominant (or I also like to call it 'gatekeeper') function a person uses most. For I believe that most every thought or feeling, and every perception and intuition, filters through this before being laid down in our brain; how can it not? It being the original way we began to see and experience life from the time we were born (unless under duress and this natural process breaks down, then you might get some interesting embeds). So that if we are dominant irrational, or dominant rational, that will color what goes in, and what goes out, meaning we all judge and perceive everything fundamentally.




    So I keep coming up with F being irrational and T being rational, as being the main differences between F and T.

    But Jung calls N and S irrational. I want to say that S is not so irrational....but more based in the world, and therefore more rational than F, but this skews everything, and I know all the T's will annihilate me for this thought.

    Irrational gradation form greatest to least irrational:

    N>F>S>T

    I wanted to say "subjective vs objective" for my answer to the OP, but Ti is definitely not objective.




    Great Thread!
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  8. #8
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    This is a super cool, and different, way of representing these concepts!


    The whole preference of Judgment/Perception has just never jived with me, in describing what Meyers was trying to get at, which was that some people seem to like to have more external control over their environment (emotional and physical), and others seem to like to have more internal control over their environment (because P's can still be quite controlling in an individualized way).
    My programming-ish description actually wasn't supposed to have anything to do with preference whatsoever, it was just focused on the mechanisms (functions) themselves. The way I view the functions is that if you wrote them all out in the way I've proposed, they would account for all of cognition (the perceiving functions are actually where all the ridiculously complex stuff happens, at least in the way I divide the functions up).

    The judging functions are basically checking functions. They check whether things are consistent with relevant moral premises (Feeling) or consistent with relevant premises (probably a different set than feeling) in general (Thinking).

    The more interesting part of judging from a programming perspective is in evaluating which premises are relevant (which I skipped over because I wouldn't know how to start).

    Since J/P has never jived with me, I cannot accept the premise of your proposition. Also I do not use my Fe or Fi in terms of 'good' or 'bad,' although I do think I understand where you are coming from with those terms. It's not so much quantitative (as your terms sort-of imply), for me, but more qualititative. Same for how I feel about T.
    I just use the words good and bad to differentiate Feeling from Thinking, but it's really just yes or no for either. The question for Feeling is "is this consistent with relevant morals?", so the answer is yes/no. Same with Thinking.

    Again, in my understanding, most of the important work happens in Perception. What is "stufftoevaluate"? That's a question only Perception decides the answer to.

    If I had to say a function was Judging or Perceiving, I'd ascribe those terms to the dominant (or I also like to call it 'gatekeeper') function a person uses most. For I believe that most every thought or feeling, and every perception and intuition, filters through this before being laid down in our brain; how can it not? It being the original way we began to see and experience life from the time we were born (unless under duress and this natural process breaks down, then you might get some interesting embeds). So that if we are dominant irrational, or dominant rational, that will color what goes in, and what goes out.
    Yeah I think it would be really hard, when looking at the actual relationship of functions, to talk about preference for functions (type). In my mind the differences are not in the structure of the code, but in the function calls themselves (which might just be a tiny little tweak in perception's code, as in, how often it checks things for consistency).

  9. #9
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    My programming-ish description actually wasn't supposed to have anything to do with preference whatsoever, it was just focused on the mechanisms (functions) themselves. The way I view the functions is that if you wrote them all out in the way I've proposed, they would account for all of cognition (the perceiving functions are actually where all the ridiculously complex stuff happens, at least in the way I divide the functions up).
    I know.

    The judging functions are basically checking functions. They check whether things are consistent with relevant moral premises (Feeling) or consistent with relevant premises (probably a different set than feeling) in general (Thinking).
    I know. Thing is, this just isn't the way it really works I don't think. And it's definitely not the way it works for me. To me, T and F are not necessarily "judging" functions, as Jung defines them. I don't use my F in context to some moral code. In fact, I would say that Fe, used properly, should be one of the least judgmental of the functions. Because everyone has a unique experience! And if I am engaging with someone, ideally I will not need to judge at all. Perhaps I will use my Ni or Ne or Si or Se or even T to understand them better, but 'judgment' should actually be the furthest thing from F interaction....

    I think the only place I use Judgment is with my Ni, ultimately judging what goes in and what goes out.

    And I feel that reserving judgment for one's primary function, whatever that might be in any given point in time, is the ideal. I do not think we can label certain functions "judgmental" in other words. But I think our dominant function in use is our judging function.


    The more interesting part of judging from a programming perspective is in evaluating which premises are relevant (which I skipped over because I wouldn't know how to start).
    It becomes apparent when trying to use programming language just how much intricacy is involved when our minds work.


    I just use the words good and bad to differentiate Feeling from Thinking, but it's really just yes or no for either. The question for Feeling is "is this consistent with relevant morals?", so the answer is yes/no. Same with Thinking.
    I don't think in terms of yes or no though. Unless it is just so minute as to be practically irrelevant. It's more like, "ohrly?" lol Always a learning process...

    Again, in my understanding, most of the important work happens in Perception. What is "stufftoevaluate"? That's a question only Perception decides the answer to.
    I'm sure a dominant perceiver would agree with you.


    Yeah I think it would be really hard, when looking at the actual relationship of functions, to talk about preference for functions (type). In my mind the differences are not in the structure of the code, but in the function calls themselves (which might just be a tiny little tweak in perception's code, as in, how often it checks things for consistency).

    I guess MBTI is a quick and dirty way of assessing one's Jungian functions. And what most people use (because it is now taught in college psych), which is effective for communicating with each other.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  10. #10
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    I know. Thing is, this just isn't the way it really works I don't think. And it's definitely not the way it works for me. To me, T and F are not necessarily "judging" functions, as Jung defines them. I don't use my F in context to some moral code. In fact, I would say that Fe, used properly, should be one of the least judgmental of the functions. Because everyone has a unique experience! And if I am engaging with someone, ideally I will not need to judge at all. Perhaps I will use my Ni or Ne or Si or Se or even T to understand them better, but 'judgment' should actually be the furthest thing from F interaction. No?
    Well I don't really agree, as by definition Feeling is a judging function. I'm pretty sure I know what you're getting at though. Since Fe's judgment is predicated on environmental factors, the judgments it makes are much more context-dependent than those of Fi. I tend to think of myself as less judgmental than most people, but that's a different definition of judgment. Evaluating is closer to what I mean when I'm talking about judging functions.

    Much of what you're talking about I would say takes place inside Intuition and Sensing. Those are the functions that actually define the parameters of the evaluation, and where openmindedness actually comes into play.

    I understand not everyone has the same way of thinking about the functions, this is just how I divide up cognitive tasks in the framework I'm using.

    It becomes apparent when trying to use programming language just how much intricacy is involved when our minds work.


    I don't think in terms of yes or no though. Unless it is just so minute as to be practically irrelevant. It's more like, "ohrly?" lol Always a learning process...
    In general, I think judging mostly says "yes". So it's not necessarily that visible when it's happening. When you realize, wait a sec, that's not good, or that's not consistent, that's when it's clear you're using Judging, even if it only accounts for maybe 5% of actual usage.

    I'm sure a dominant perceiver would agree with you.
    I would say this is true for Judging dominants as well. I don't define a dominant function by it's literal use in terms of % cognitive computational power. I think generally Judging takes up a very low percentage of cognition (think of all the tasks involved in just labeling what's happening around you, it's ridiculously computation-heavy). The difference between a Judging dominant and a Perceiving dominant might be something like 5% of total cognition to 7% of total cognition.

    I guess MBTI is a quick and dirty way of assessing one's Jungian functions. And what most people use (because it is now taught in college psych), which is effective for communicating with each other.
    Sure, it's just when you actually get into the nitty gritty of what Sensing and Intuition actually do, it seems clear that they do much much more than Thinking and Feeling combined. I once took a class on visual perception and it's mind-boggling how much of the brain is used on something we think of as so simple.

Similar Threads

  1. A Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis
    By RaptorWizard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-02-2012, 12:04 PM
  2. Cat parasites trump Jungian cognitive functions :)
    By sculpting in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-10-2012, 07:15 PM
  3. What is your dominant Jungian cognitive function?
    By highlander in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 02:06 AM
  4. Ne/Ni Jungian Cognitive Function Interaction
    By InvisibleJim in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 09-28-2010, 02:56 AM
  5. Alternating Jungian Cognitive Functions
    By bechimo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-29-2010, 02:03 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