I want to translate the cognitive functions.

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Every new experience for the Si type is filtered through a backdrop of personal and cultural experiences raised to the level of symbolism. Things don't simply exist for the Si, they exist as representations. These representations however are of a concrete form, unlike those of the Ni type which are more in the nature of a bizarre fantasy that seems more real than reality, and doesn't merely represent it symbolically.

I think the two views being discussed can be synthesized. A narrative can very easily consist of symbols. A Si impression of a particular type of tree can refer back to other instances of the tree. It calls to mind other things associated with that tree in the mind of the observer. The tree is symbolic of other things, like perhaps pleasant Saturday afternoons or an enjoyable childhood experience. The tree has a story associated with it. The tree is a symbol for these other experiences. In the tree forming a symbol, there are also distinctions drawn. The tree is distinguished from other types of trees that call up different experiences (because they have different shaped leaves and were witnessed in different contexts!).

Is this close?

 

[Mal12345]

I think the two views being discussed can be synthesized. A narrative can very easily consist of symbols. A Si impression of a particular type of tree can refer back to other instances of the tree. It calls to mind other things associated with that tree in the mind of the observer. The tree is symbolic of other things, like perhaps pleasant Saturday afternoons or an enjoyable childhood experience. The tree has a story associated with it. The tree is a symbol for these other experiences. In the tree forming a symbol, there are also distinctions drawn. The tree is distinguished from other types of trees that call up different experiences (because they have different shaped leaves and were witnessed in different contexts!).

Is this close?

Not only personal experiences, the tree (in this instance) draws forth an archetypical "tree" from the collective unconscious (or universal mythological background of consciousness) which is then translated through the Si type's personal spectrum of experiences. The tree may represent taking victory from self-sacrifice (in this case); the Cross is like a tree, it is made out of dead wood which was carved from a living tree and has become a symbol, not just of death and loss, but of triumph and eternal life.

Those Si types from other cultures will interpret the experience of the tree through different symbols, but the archetype "tree" will remain the same.

For example: http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/archetypal_symbolism_of_trees_the.html

 

[Eric B]

pretty common definitions for functions(which were said by jung somewhere and was said in our personality psychology class) are that:

sensation tells that a thing is(trough sensory perception ofc)
thinking tells what the thing is(logical analysis)
feeling tells what the thing is worth and whether it is acceptable or not(subjective reflection of its worth)
intuitions tells where the thing came from and where it is going to(perception of possibilities via unconscious)

How about:

sensation: observation that a thing is (trough sensory perception of)
thinking: judgment of what the thing is (logical analysis)
intuition: observation THAT the thing means something (perception of possibilities via unconscious)
feeling: judgment of WHAT the thing means (subjective reflection of its worth)

What the functions use (NOT what they ARE)
S physical sensation
T impersonal aspects of objects
N ideas
F emotions

In terms of DOMAINS:
(information gathering)
S the tangible world
N concepts, ideas and possibilities
(rational assessments, decision-making)
T the properties of objects and how they work
F living souls and their emotions --properties of subjects
Pair with:
e objective orientation
i subjective orientation

So:

Se: Sees the tangible world from an external orientation (emergent experience).
Si: Sees the tangible world from an internal orientation (storehouse of facts/experience)
Ne: Sees the world through concepts from an external orientation (meanings/possibilities inherent in the object)
Ni: Sees the world through concepts from an internal orientation (storehouse of patterns and meanings)

Te: objective standard of properties of objects (orders according to outer world efficiency)
Ti: subjective standard of properties of objects (orders according to inner world efficiency)
Fe: objective standard of properties of subjects (orders according to outer world's human needs)
Fi: subjective standard of properties of subjects (orders according to inner world's human needs)

The four functions look at a field of grass:
S seeing the grass and its color for what it is
(e: just takes it for what it is in the moment; i: stores this and compares from it)
T recognizing it as a green object (categorizing; this is what Allen L. Hammer said at a recent presentation).
(e: we should plant more grass, because green is known to be relaxing; i: ponder on some aspect of it, like the color, species, etc)
N Recognizing green's significance (e. g. it's alive)
(e: perhaps this area is well irrigated or fertilized; i: draw a symbolic meaning)
F seeing the color as pretty
(e: this would look nice for inviting people over; i: this makes me happy. I should enjoy and share with others)

All types will go through that same four step process (And both attitudes will be at least implicit).
I would say that inasmuch as every instance of processing we do will include all four, but will focus on only one or two (in one attitude or the other), the unfocused ones could be the basic “unconscious” or “undifferentiated” version of the functions.

 

[Eric B]

Further clarification on Thinking and Feeling

Further developing definitions for T/F, from a discussion on PerC.

Here's part of the process I recalled of what led me to try to nail this down now:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/149248-what-function-9.html#post3817992

Here's my proposal for a definition of T/F:

Feeling (F): the judgment (decision-making) function that covers personal or interpersonal elements of life. According to Jung, it tells us "what [something] is worth". This is possible from our state as emotional creatures affected by objects and events, which is the focus of the function.

A person’s “Feeling” function is their perspective of the human side of things, and their attention to and evaluation of things by emotions and values, and identification with other living beings.
A Feeling type is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world in terms of people or humanity, and the elements that makes them “subjects”, such as emotions and values; usually with a focus on goals such as individual or group harmony. They approach life in terms of being human first, and seeing others as humans to interact with, and objects are to be looked at and used from that perspective.

Thinking (T): the judgment (decision making) function that covers technical or "impersonal" elements of objects, such as "if-then" evaluations, regardless of affect on people. According to Jung, it is the function that gives it a name [i.e logically categorizes "what is"]. This is the function that captures our [personal] detachment from things evaluated.

A person’s “Thinking” function is their perspective of the technical side of things, and their attention to and evaluation of things by impersonal logic. It's where we detach from things as simply other objects.
A Thinking type is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world in terms of objects and how they work (including people), often with a focus on goals such as efficiency.


I was leery of just going with the common association of F with “likes”, because I had seen this (and especially Fi) overgeneralized to the point that other types would not know what they like/want.
An ego will naturally go for what it “likes”, but that in itself is different from paying more attention to the properties of the subject. Like “this is really good for the soul” or “this will look nice to people”.

So I propose:
Unconscious F: just reacting to emotions or impulsively going for what's “liked”
conscious F: looking at the emotion, or what is liked, and making a rational decision based on it.
(Everyone will do the former at times, but the difference is that the Feelers will be more likely to do the latter in normal circumstances).

Objective vs subjective:
i draws on subjective standard or storehouse of data; abstracts what's irrelevant to subject
e draws upon objective standard or emergent data, merges subject with object.
T focuses on the properties of impersonal objects for making judgments
F focuses on the properties of personal subjects for making judgments (i.e. emotions, values; what distinguishes us as humans).

This would sort out "subjective/objective"s role in both i/e and T/F. One is viewing subjects or objects as an observer, and the other deals with the subject or object as the ego's own standard.

 

[Eric B]

Further clarification on Thinking and Feeling (cont'd)

With this, I can now explain some of the confusing ambiguities regarding T/F

As a Thinking type, I look at things from a detached position, and evaluate or arrange them according to an internal standard. There may be an emotional attachment to the thing I'm looking at (like a nice symmetry) or the decision made based on it (like the satisfaction of arranging something like that) which indicates obvious personal value being assigned, but this is not the main judgment going on. It is in the background, and likely being taken for granted (Where a true Feeling type would pay more attention to that aspect of the evaluation). It is still "felt", and not necessarily ignored, however.

Some people will be confused by this, recognizing their emotion, and thinking (based on common misconceptions) that a Thinking type shouldn't feel or at least be at all aware of those emotions. (I certainly went through this years ago). T's have been portrayed almost like robots or "vulcans", but no real human is like that.
I've also heard "Many people think they are 'analyzing', when they're really 'valuing'. But we're really doing both. You cannot completely separate out the opposite function. It just falls to the background.

Likewise, every situation will have impersonal logical aspects to it, and these will usually fall into the background for a Feeling type evaluating the situation.

In the background, I'm thinking its attitude is less distinct.
So is the emotion I feel from Ti gratification distinctively Fe; while the same emotion an ETJ feels at the gratification of his Te has to be Fi? This is something that was always confusing, and in reading type descriptions (notably in Quenk's Was That Really Me?) it looked like the same things were being attributed to both attitudes of F.

I would say that in such a case, the preferred attitude of the inferior is not as significant. It's sort of like the discussion of "concretistic" feeling or thinking. It's not differentiated, and thus not oriented.
So this again shows the nature of four functions (not eight), with the attitudes assigned by the ego separately according to the situation.

It's the complexes (inferiority or anima/animus) that really differentiate the attitudes, bringing a distinct [one-out-of-eight] function-attitude out of the background to the forefront.
If the ego or "hero" complex is doing it's thing, making detached technical evaluations referencing its internal world, then the inferiority complex is not constellated at that point, so the background Feeling is not differentiated right then. It's just there, almost out of sight, providing the emotional investment.
Now, when something occurs that constellates the hero's diametric opposite inferior/anima/animus complex, then it will evaluate based on its preferred Feeling, and assigned external orientation. (You can also do a "right-brain" (P) function switch, or have the Daimonic complex constellated, which will also evaluate according to Feeling, but maintain the dominant attitude).


So (especially to Feeling types), does the idea of "not taking the emotions for granted" and "looking at the emotion, or what is liked, and making a rational decision based on it" sound like it captures your perspective?

 

[greenfairy]

That's awesome. I make a brilliant post and all anyone has to offer is some nitpick that probably isn't even based on anything. Sometimes I hate.

Well I for one think it's a really good assessment. According to the definitions though I relate more to Fi than Fe. I think they're on target, but I think some of the essence is missing. Definitely Ti>Te, Ne>Ni, and Si>Se, so it's consistent; Se and Si are still a bit confusing to me (and generate a lot of debate apparently).

 

[Azure Flame]

I'm trying to get a good handle on all the cognitive functions. I've come up with a couple words that can be closely associated with the functions as I understand them. If I'm way off, let me know. Let me know which ones are spot on, too.


Te = facts, investigation, function
Ti = logic, analysis
Ne = possibilities, potential
Ni= imagination
Si = the experience,aesthetics
Se = maneuvering, situational power and presence
Fe = preference/ emotional "energy" broadcasts and frequencies,empathy
Fi = personal preferences,ethics, wishes

I have an easier one.

If its introverted, its subjective. If its extroverted, its objective.

Te = objective logic
Ti = subjective logic

Fi = subjective ethics
Fe = objective ethics

Se = objective sensing
Si = subjective sensing

Ne = what is objectively not visible
Ni = what is subjectively not visible

 

[INTP]

How about:

sensation: observation that a thing is (trough sensory perception of)
thinking: judgment of what the thing is (logical analysis)
intuition: observation THAT the thing means something (perception of possibilities via unconscious)
feeling: judgment of WHAT the thing means (subjective reflection of its worth)

i think what you said about intuition can be understood in at least two ways. in a way where that something is perceived as something specific and in a way where there is just sense that it is something but not perceived what the thing is. the way i see Ne for example is that when you perceive sensations, Ne looks behind the sensations. for example if you are in a theater and the curtain is still down, Ne will perceive ideas about whats going on behind the curtain. with that example there is something tangible(the ideas) going on in the Ne users mind and its not just that there is something unknown going on without having some ideas about what the thing might be thats going on there. this way Ne is expanding ideas to the external world and does so automatically, but ofc some hypothesizing about the thing with logic for example can help to trigger more intuitions and while the logic part there wouldnt be automatic, the things that are triggered from logic are automatic if they are intuitive ideas. Ne > Se would mean that the persons cognition is oriented according to this sort of perception instead of perception about the curtain itself. Ni works in the similar fashion, but it abstracts instead of expands to the external world. it takes some meaningful details out of sensation, combines them with what is already known and tries to make a similar hypothesis than Ne does. also i should mention that they dont really require sensation to be there(Ni less than Ne), as the brains can visualize "information" that can be used like sensory information can.

i dont think feeling really works with meanings. its more like just an evaluation of how good/bad something is.

What the functions use (NOT what they ARE)
S physical sensation
T impersonal aspects of objects
N ideas
F emotions

im going to nitpick on the F again . according to jung feeling is what creates emotion, feeling judgment when strong enough will become an emotion.

In terms of DOMAINS:
(information gathering)
S the tangible world
N concepts, ideas and possibilities
(rational assessments, decision-making)
T the properties of objects and how they work
F living souls and their emotions --properties of subjects
Pair with:
e objective orientation
i subjective orientation

So:

Se: Sees the tangible world from an external orientation (emergent experience).
Si: Sees the tangible world from an internal orientation (storehouse of facts/experience)
Ne: Sees the world through concepts from an external orientation (meanings/possibilities inherent in the object)
Ni: Sees the world through concepts from an internal orientation (storehouse of patterns and meanings)

Te: objective standard of properties of objects (orders according to outer world efficiency)
Ti: subjective standard of properties of objects (orders according to inner world efficiency)
Fe: objective standard of properties of subjects (orders according to outer world's human needs)
Fi: subjective standard of properties of subjects (orders according to inner world's human needs)

The four functions look at a field of grass:
S seeing the grass and its color for what it is
(e: just takes it for what it is in the moment; i: stores this and compares from it)
T recognizing it as a green object (categorizing; this is what Allen L. Hammer said at a recent presentation).
(e: we should plant more grass, because green is known to be relaxing; i: ponder on some aspect of it, like the color, species, etc)
N Recognizing green's significance (e. g. it's alive)
(e: perhaps this area is well irrigated or fertilized; i: draw a symbolic meaning)
F seeing the color as pretty
(e: this would look nice for inviting people over; i: this makes me happy. I should enjoy and share with others)

All types will go through that same four step process (And both attitudes will be at least implicit).
I would say that inasmuch as every instance of processing we do will include all four, but will focus on only one or two (in one attitude or the other), the unfocused ones could be the basic “unconscious” or “undifferentiated” version of the functions.

not going to comment on the rest of this except that when you said that both attitudes are there at least implicit. i bet you have heard the example of "all bachelors are unmarried" when it comes to deductive reasoning. well same logic can be used against your argument. attitude means automatic and habitual way of responding, therefore there cant be an Ni attitude in a person who has Ne attitude, because both cant be habitual and automatic responses.

 

[RaptorWizard]

[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] it's kind of rare for me to dig too deeply into your overly-expansive walls of text. It makes my brain hurt!

I think it's best to forge our own reasons for things, regardless of whether the factual evidence or objective analysis speaks otherwise.

 

[Eric B]

i think what you said about intuition can be understood in at least two ways. in a way where that something is perceived as something specific and in a way where there is just sense that it is something but not perceived what the thing is. the way i see Ne for example is that when you perceive sensations, Ne looks behind the sensations. for example if you are in a theater and the curtain is still down, Ne will perceive ideas about whats going on behind the curtain. with that example there is something tangible(the ideas) going on in the Ne users mind and its not just that there is something unknown going on without having some ideas about what the thing might be thats going on there. this way Ne is expanding ideas to the external world and does so automatically, but ofc some hypothesizing about the thing with logic for example can help to trigger more intuitions and while the logic part there wouldnt be automatic, the things that are triggered from logic are automatic if they are intuitive ideas. Ne > Se would mean that the persons cognition is oriented according to this sort of perception instead of perception about the curtain itself. Ni works in the similar fashion, but it abstracts instead of expands to the external world. it takes some meaningful details out of sensation, combines them with what is already known and tries to make a similar hypothesis than Ne does.

That's why I liked putting it that way, over Jung's "where it's heading". That term implies some sort of motion, but it's not about motion, it's about looking behind the sensations as you point out. I guess surmising on what's behind the curtain can be seen as "where the sensory data is heading/leading", but I think dealing directly with "meaning" is more simple.

i dont think feeling really works with meanings. its more like just an evaluation of how good/bad something is.

But that evaluation is what I meant by "meaning". When we value something, we often say "that means something to me!" So the T will say "this should be ordered this way, because of what it is", while the F will say "it should be another way because it means something to me (or others)".

So I saw a parallel there of S with T and N with F (Which I believe is why both Ni and Fi are the hardest to explain, and are seen as so "deep". It also explained to me why S + T are always "directive" (Interaction Styles); because they deal with "what is", and to them, "that's all there is to it", as they would always say.

im going to nitpick on the F again . according to jung feeling is what creates emotion, feeling judgment when strong enough will become an emotion.

Feeling creates emotion? Never heard that one before.
But it can't be. Animals have emotion, but they don't have a Feeling function. For that matter, they also have sensation, but do not have it as a "cognitive function" the way we speak of.
As it was explained to me, emotion is from the limbic system (which humans and animals share), while the functions are cognitive elements the frontal cortex interprets from the limbic data (which is exclusive to humans). So the functions are basically interpretations of concrete data, and emotion is apart of this. It is a sensation, in fact!
So what we're calling the Feeling function is a cognitive interpretation of this, and what I'm saying now, that this interpretation is to pay more attention to "emotions" for they convey "meaning", which would be connected to our "values" or the "worth" of something.

not going to comment on the rest of this except that when you said that both attitudes are there at least implicit. i bet you have heard the example of "all bachelors are unmarried" when it comes to deductive reasoning. well same logic can be used against your argument. attitude means automatic and habitual way of responding, therefore there cant be an Ni attitude in a person who has Ne attitude, because both cant be habitual and automatic responses.

Well, I didn't necessarily say both attitudes were implicit in the person. They're implicit in the data itself, and the preferred one will be what the person tends to pay more attention to. Like your example of Ne or Ni. Same data, but two different ways of looking at it.

This is why I believe both attitudes can be accessed by a person; or more properly in this case, both orientations: because the orientations are not something "in" the person. (That's still looking at them as "gears" the person has to "use" either one OR the other). OK, the inner orientation does refer to the ego or "subject", and you could say the attitudes are in the person, but all the attitude really is is the ego's dominant inner or outer preference of orientation, which he draws from for his dominant function. The other functions generally default to the opposite, but the complexes are what more solidly orient them one way or the other in the eight process theory.