Let's Try Function Definitions again: "Relationships" of Objects

[Eric B]

Many have acknowledged Lenore Thomson's Personality Type An Owner’s Manual as one of the best places to start in understanding what the functions are.
It was more recently, looking back over all of this, and coming to understand the whole Jungian framework better, that I've found a common thread to understand the functions through: "relationships". Not just personal relationships (which is what we often use them for in understanding type), but relationships of objects in general.

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).

Descriptions from the chapters on the functions:

Se: Sense impressions as they occur
Si: stabilize our sense impressions by integrating them with ones we remember (past experience)
Ne: unify sense impressions with larger [outward] contexts
Ni: liberate sense impressions from larger contexts; patterns are part of us; the way we make sense of information and energy impinging on our systems

[Notice, both Si and Ne deal in “integrating” or “unifying”, while Se and Ni deal in individual or “liberating”. This is why the functions work in tandem].

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.
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)

[You can deduce from this that both T and F deal in "relationships", and that while F is relationships of a "personal" nature, T is relationships between objects:impersonal].

When our souls become immersed in spacetime, marked by a physical body in a particular location and time, we divide existence into past/future, ahead/behind, up/down and left/right.

Ever since, we’ve been psychically to try to mend the rifts in one way or another.
So we spend our lives depending on the material world we were split from in order to survive, and try to merge with it by either getting in harmony with it, or conquering it.
We long for an existence beyond this world of spatial and temporal polarities, where separation is undone, good and evil are resolved, and we no longer have to depend on the environment for survival. Our attempts to create this now (through our ego-driven enterprises) often end up blurring polarities such as good and evil. We just cannot inegrate the data that goes against the path we have set for ourselves.
Heterosexual desire is at its root a psychic attempt to reintegrate what was split off from us when we were developing into our own gender (which too often focuses too much on the body and the physical pleasure. Still not sure how the dynamic translates for homosexuals).

So all of the polarities and every object and event are connected by some form of relationship to one another, and it’s the nature of these relationships that provide the data for our cognitive functions.

Human egos divide (abstract) reality into opposite poles in terms of these relationships, and usually takes one side of each over the other. This creates imbalances in our perspective, as concrete (“mixed together”) reality ends up being neither of the extremes people always veer towards.

We each have impressions of reality, or “truth”.
We observe and assess the relationships between things in organizing our impressions.

“Observation” of truth:
tangible (what is right before you; static relationships)
conceptual (background, contexts; mobile relationships; what it means or might be done with it)

“Assessment” of truth:
technical (impersonal; relationships between objects)
humane ([inter]personal; relationships between people)

Orientation of truth
external (localized, immediate)
internal (universalistic, which can only be processed internally since we are not omnipresent).

(I found that it’s actually harder to come up with better terms to differentiate the perception attitudes than it is for the judging attitudes, since N got described in terms of “motion”; i.e. “where it’s heading”, which is easy to misinterpret, and all perception is described in terms of “sense impressions”, which makes us think of S.
I use “mobile” instead, as it’s not about actual motion, but rather just the mobility of possible relationships. –As in “pattern abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another” as I’ve seen it put. It’s not the object N is looking at that’s “heading” anywhere; it’s a pattern that can be taken from another object and matched to this one. All together this creates a matrix of possible connections.

To use Fundamental Nature of the MBTI (MBTI functions explained orhttps://web.archive.org/web/20131004003001/http://player2000gi.alotspace.com/jungian_functions.htm) illustrations, if the S focus is represented by individual points, the N is the background space between them, represented by the dotted lines connecting points).

[Bruzon: “The Sensor is obviously aware of the motion component, but within the reality structure, this takes the form of fact, rather than process.” iNtuition “often provides intelligence and the ability to understand complex ideas and relationships.”; i.e. the complexity of the relationships is the real “motion”].

Putting it all together:

We are social creatures, and our Persona forms as we try to adapt to the social environment (i.e. expectations) around us, and what’s left out of this becomes the Shadow.
(Even if we say we don’t care what others think, we still like to think of ourselves in ways that would “look good” to others. Like being strong, honest, etc. even if we do it in ways that don’t look like those qualities to others).
This further creates more polarities, between the perspectives we choose to accomplish this, and their opposites.

The ego chooses the orientation and form of “truth” it finds it uses best for these adaptations (indicated by the emotional reward given when successful). The other orientation and truths become subdued; still there, only not given as much weight. At least one other mode of truth will be preferred, since we must both observe and assess. So the mode of the opposite method of processing will become “auxiliary” and also take on the opposite orientation (for the sake of balance).

Different, partially dissociated senses of “I” will focus on each of the other modes of truth, and in either orientation.
“The [first] four functions” of each type are simply what the parts of ourselves that are the main ego achievers, the ego supporters or guides of others, the less mature uplookers, and the inferior-feeling seeker of completeness will focus on. More negative versions of these will reverse the orientations, generating “the other four”.

Function definitions	Resultant dominant perspectives
Se: observing immediate static relationships	experiencing life as it comes
Si: observing through a storehouse of static relationships	filtering life through familiar fact
Ne: observing immediate mobile relationships	exploring conceptual contexts as data arises
Ni: observing through a stored sense of mobile relationships	exploring conceptual contexts not yet externalized
Te: assessing immediate impersonal relationships	establishing logical order
Ti: assessing wholistic impersonal relationships	making sense of things using logical order
Fe: assessing immediate [inter]personal relationships	establishing social harmony
Fi: assessing wholistic personal relationships	look at life through the lens of human values

So if we want to know which function is being “used” in a given situation, we need to ask:

1) Are the relationships observed between objects/events static (each one “is what it is”), or are they mobile (patterns that can be abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another)?

2) Are the relationships being assessed in a fashion impersonal (how things work), or personal (how they affect self and/or others)?

3) Is the data being derived from an external, immediate source, or an internal, often more far reaching source?

(Now I’m willing to use “personal”, along with “impersonal”, where before I suggested “humane” for Feeling, because framing it in terms of “relationships” avoids the double meaning of “personal” as also an introverted perspective. Using the concept of motion instead of “concrete” or “tangible” avoids the misconception that any dealing with tangible items isn’t iNtuition).

 

[yeghor]

Many have acknowledged Lenore Thomson's Personality Type An Owner’s Manual as one of the best places to start in understanding what the functions are.
It was more recently, looking back over all of this, and coming to understand the whole Jungian framework better, that I've found a common thread to understand the functions through: "relationships". Not just personal relationships (which is what we often use them for in understanding type), but relationships of objects in general.

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).

Descriptions from the chapters on the functions:

Se: Sense impressions as they occur
Si: stabilize our sense impressions by integrating them with ones we remember (past experience)
Ne: unify sense impressions with larger [outward] contexts
Ni: liberate sense impressions from larger contexts; patterns are part of us; the way we make sense of information and energy impinging on our systems

[Notice, both Si and Ne deal in “integrating” or “unifying”, while Se and Ni deal in individual or “liberating”. This is why the functions work in tandem].

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.
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)

[You can deduce from this that both T and F deal in "relationships", and that while F is relationships of a "personal" nature, T is relationships between objects:impersonal].

When our souls become immersed in spacetime, marked by a physical body in a particular location and time, we divide existence into past/future, ahead/behind, up/down and left/right.

Ever since, we’ve been psychically to try to mend the rifts in one way or another.
So we spend our lives depending on the material world we were split from in order to survive, and try to merge with it by either getting in harmony with it, or conquering it.
We long for an existence beyond this world of spatial and temporal polarities, where separation is undone, good and evil are resolved, and we no longer have to depend on the environment for survival. Our attempts to create this now (through our ego-driven enterprises) often end up blurring polarities such as good and evil. We just cannot inegrate the data that goes against the path we have set for ourselves.
Heterosexual desire is at its root a psychic attempt to reintegrate what was split off from us when we were developing into our own gender (which too often focuses too much on the body and the physical pleasure. Still not sure how the dynamic translates for homosexuals).

So all of the polarities and every object and event are connected by some form of relationship to one another, and it’s the nature of these relationships that provide the data for our cognitive functions.

Human egos divide (abstract) reality into opposite poles in terms of these relationships, and usually takes one side of each over the other. This creates imbalances in our perspective, as concrete (“mixed together”) reality ends up being neither of the extremes people always veer towards.

We each have impressions of reality, or “truth”.
We observe and assess the relationships between things in organizing our impressions.

“Observation” of truth:
tangible (what is right before you; static relationships)
conceptual (background, contexts; mobile relationships; what it means or might be done with it)

“Assessment” of truth:
technical (impersonal; relationships between objects)
humane ([inter]personal; relationships between people)

Orientation of truth
external (localized, immediate)
internal (universalistic, which can only be processed internally since we are not omnipresent).

(I found that it’s actually harder to come up with better terms to differentiate the perception attitudes than it is for the judging attitudes, since N got described in terms of “motion”; i.e. “where it’s heading”, which is easy to misinterpret, and all perception is described in terms of “sense impressions”, which makes us think of S.
I use “mobile” instead, as it’s not about actual motion, but rather just the mobility of possible relationships. –As in “pattern abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another” as I’ve seen it put. It’s not the object N is looking at that’s “heading” anywhere; it’s a pattern that can be taken from another object and matched to this one. All together this creates a matrix of possible connections.

To use Fundamental Nature of the MBTI (MBTI functions explained orhttps://web.archive.org/web/20131004003001/http://player2000gi.alotspace.com/jungian_functions.htm) illustrations, if the S focus is represented by individual points, the N is the background space between them, represented by the dotted lines connecting points).

[Bruzon: “The Sensor is obviously aware of the motion component, but within the reality structure, this takes the form of fact, rather than process.” iNtuition “often provides intelligence and the ability to understand complex ideas and relationships.”; i.e. the complexity of the relationships is the real “motion”].

Putting it all together:

We are social creatures, and our Persona forms as we try to adapt to the social environment (i.e. expectations) around us, and what’s left out of this becomes the Shadow.
(Even if we say we don’t care what others think, we still like to think of ourselves in ways that would “look good” to others. Like being strong, honest, etc. even if we do it in ways that don’t look like those qualities to others).
This further creates more polarities, between the perspectives we choose to accomplish this, and their opposites.

The ego chooses the orientation and form of “truth” it finds it uses best for these adaptations (indicated by the emotional reward given when successful). The other orientation and truths become subdued; still there, only not given as much weight. At least one other mode of truth will be preferred, since we must both observe and assess. So the mode of the opposite method of processing will become “auxiliary” and also take on the opposite orientation (for the sake of balance).

Different, partially dissociated senses of “I” will focus on each of the other modes of truth, and in either orientation.
“The [first] four functions” of each type are simply what the parts of ourselves that are the main ego achievers, the ego supporters or guides of others, the less mature uplookers, and the inferior-feeling seeker of completeness will focus on. More negative versions of these will reverse the orientations, generating “the other four”.

Function definitions	Resultant dominant perspectives
Se: observing immediate static relationships	experiencing life as it comes
Si: observing through a storehouse of static relationships	filtering life through familiar fact
Ne: observing immediate mobile relationships	exploring conceptual contexts as data arises
Ni: observing through a stored sense of mobile relationships	exploring conceptual contexts not yet externalized
Te: assessing immediate impersonal relationships	establishing logical order
Ti: assessing wholistic impersonal relationships	making sense of things using logical order
Fe: assessing immediate [inter]personal relationships	establishing social harmony
Fi: assessing wholistic personal relationships	look at life through the lens of human values

So if we want to know which function is being “used” in a given situation, we need to ask:

1) Are the relationships observed between objects/events static (each one “is what it is”), or are they mobile (patterns that can be abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another)?

2) Are the relationships being assessed in a fashion impersonal (how things work), or personal (how they affect self and/or others)?

3) Is the data being derived from an external, immediate source, or an internal, often more far reaching source?

(Now I’m willing to use “personal”, along with “impersonal”, where before I suggested “humane” for Feeling, because framing it in terms of “relationships” avoids the double meaning of “personal” as also an introverted perspective. Using the concept of motion instead of “concrete” or “tangible” avoids the misconception that any dealing with tangible items isn’t iNtuition).

Noooo, wall of text....

Edit: You should try giving these in smaller doses

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

When our souls become immersed in spacetime, marked by a physical body in a particular location and time, we divide existence into past/future, ahead/behind, up/down and left/right.

Ever since, we’ve been psychically to try to mend the rifts in one way or another.
So we spend our lives depending on the material world we were split from in order to survive, and try to merge with it by either getting in harmony with it, or conquering it.
We long for an existence beyond this world of spatial and temporal polarities, where separation is undone, good and evil are resolved, and we no longer have to depend on the environment for survival. Our attempts to create this now (through our ego-driven enterprises) often end up blurring polarities such as good and evil. We just cannot inegrate the data that goes against the path we have set for ourselves.
Heterosexual desire is at its root a psychic attempt to reintegrate what was split off from us when we were developing into our own gender (which too often focuses too much on the body and the physical pleasure. Still not sure how the dynamic translates for homosexuals).

I liked reading this part.

Not sure if the function definitions and the "resultant dominant perspectives" of Ti vs. Te is quite how I would describe is - Te is more wholistic, imo. Where does this idea come from that Ti is more wholistic?

 

[Eric B]

Not sure if the function definitions and the "resultant dominant perspectives" of Ti vs. Te is quite how I would describe is - Te is more wholistic, imo. Where does this idea come from that Ti is more wholistic?

I got it from Lenore's book: Personality Type: An Owner's Manual - Lenore Thomson - Google Books

"Well developed introverted judgment has a wholistic character. It helps us to recognize that out immediate actions are an integrap part of whatever exists, affecting it for good or for ill" (p.261).

Also, p287 "As a right brain function, introverted Thinking is...body based and wholistic. It operates by way of visual, tactile or spatial cues inclinig us to reason experientially rather than analytically".

[MENTION=20531]yeghor[/MENTION], I DID cut a lot out, and this actually ties into what I'm addressing now. The first thing I cut out was Lenore's basic definitions of the hemispheres, which show why Ji (which is preferred for P's) iends up "wholistic":

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

So "wholistic" as used by her refers to the approach to life. I myself defined introverted and extraverted functions above in terms of where the "truth" is sourced: internal=local, external=wide, and this is where Te would be more "wholistic".
(It's also spelled "holistic", but "wholistic" is actually the more correct form: Holistic Vs Wholistic | Reference.com Answers. "Holistic" is similar, but more about "interconnectedness").

Also, a big thing I cut out, which I was originally going to make a separate comment and then figured I'd probably get a chance to disseminate (like now) was this issue of the ambiguity of the "wholistic" or "wide/local" [as Bruzon puts it] concept. Especially since I used to cite Bruzon a lot.

“wide/local area matrix”: Pi considered “local” along with Je while Pe is “wide”, because what he considers “the matrix”, is “the brain’s map of reality”, where what I’m referring to as “universalistic”[i.e. “wide”] and “local” is the actual external reality itself.
In other words, “local” and “wide” in the brain’s inner world versus in the outer world.
So “wide” ends up being more “broad” (like extraversion), while “local” is more “focused” on specifics (like introversion).

Comparing the two:

Pe broad, wide
Pi focused, local
Je broad, local
Ji focused, wide

Then, he at the same time associates this i/e orientation with perception, for which this matches. (Because “The perceiving function builds the content of the reality structure”. He even suggests T/F not having orientations, though he goes on to describe them anyway, putting them in the same brain hemisphere as the opposite attitude perception functions they pair with).
So it ends up matching for the judging functions: extraversion is local and introversion is wide. (The judging functions form part of our “output” to the external world; the other part being the “responsive” behaviors connected with them, as well as the expressive behaviors of [dominant] I/E itself).

But in another way, Pe is clearly localized as well, while Pi is more extensive. Think Se and Ne’s “immediate, emergent” focus, and Si and Ni’s storehouses of data used for many different situations.
This is the external world in which you can only directly perceive what’s right before you, where internal perception can visualize what’s not before you; it’s stored in memory.

On the other hand, Je tends to be more “broad” in its principles, which are generally applied in a “one size fits all” fashion (and Pi’s stock observation data will go among with this), while Ji is more abstracting of variables and individual unique situations (supplied in an “emergent” fashion by Pe).

[I know, when I see Te judgments, particularly rules and procedures that are “slapped on” to everything in a “one size fits all” fashion, then it comes of to me as Te overstepping its boundaries and trying to be wholistic or "universal"].

 

[Eric B]

More of what I was trying to articulate in the above table:

Se: experiencing reality	what it is before me; &could be done
Si: assimilating reality	what I’ve learned it is or could be done
Ne: experiencing interconnections	what it could point to
Ni: assimilating interconnections	what it is pointing to (or “wants to” be)
Te: ordering connections between objects	interactional objectification: how the situation demands things be arranged
Ti: assimilating connections between objects	experiential objectification: if it were up to me, how I would arrange it
Fe: ordering connections between people	interactional identification: how they say they want to be treated
Fi: assimilating connections between people	experiential identification: if that were me, how I would want to be treated

Notice,
Se and Ni both deal diectly with “what is”
Ne’s “could point to”, and Si’s “what was learned” fill each other in.

TeFi: we are inner beings; things are external objects
FeTi: we are inner things constituting outer (relational) beings

Here, I look at the eight dominant (ego) orientations when combined with the opposite function mode (j/p). It protrays each of the 16 types, though the other function can be either the preferred auxiliary, or the tertiary (relief, “eternal child”, which can be strong. Some even insist Jung spoke of ‘two auxiliaries”), and hence, each type can exhibit some of the other characteristics, explaining some type ambiguity/confusion. (For example, I constructed this from realizing that overall, my whole world view is impersonal interconnections. This usually comes out “in theory”, or with concepts, but it does cross over to more sensory or tangible (visual, experiential) products as well. So I can also identify a bit with Ti+S).
Also, one could naturally identify with the opposite Auxiliary perspective with dominant, like Ne+T for me, and sometimes even the T will seem extraverted; hence the “backup” (5th) function.

S+T what makes sense in practice

Se+T experiencing life practically from an impersonal viewpoint
Si+T experiencing life via known facts from an impersonal viewpoint
Te+S making order though impersonal connections in practical experience
Ti+S making sense through impersonal connections in practical experience​

S+F what’s good for people in practice

Se+F experiencing life practically from a personal viewpoint
Si+F experiencing life via known facts from a personal viewpoint
Fe+S making order through personal connections in practical experience
Fi+S making sense though personal connections in practical ways [expression]​

N+T what makes sense in theory

Ne+T becoming aware through impersonal interconnections
Ni+T referencing awareness through impersonal interconnections
Te+N making order through impersonal connections in ideas and concepts
Ti+N making sense through impersonal connections in imaginitive experience​

N+F what’s good for people on theory

Ne+F becoming aware through personal interconnections
Ni+F referencing awareness of personal interconnections
Fe+N making order through personal connections with ideas and concepts
Fi+N making sense through personal connections in imaginitive experience​

 

[Eric B]

Decided, for the perception functions, to scratch "static vs mobile" and instead go with "immanent vs transcendant relationships". The definitin of these terms is after all, "Immanent – to experience reality as present in the world where transcendent is to believe reality exists outside the material universe". Which are pretty much how S ad N are described at times!

(Introverted Sensing might seem to be other than “immanent” since it might deal a lot with the past, which is not right before you. This is why I once tried to dub its tandem with with Ne as “circumspective”, or “looking around” rather than “looking at”. But again, it’s the character of the data that determines it, not the time element.
Introverted Sensing still deals with “reality present in the world”, even though it may store facts outside “real time”. iNtuition of either attitude deals with concepts such as [nonvisual, non-auditory] patterns and meanings, which are nonmaterial).

Also trying to come up with good definitions for "functional products":

an emergent sensation (Se)
a recalled sensation (Si)
an emergent [nonsensory] pattern (Ne)
a recalled [nonsensory] pattern (Ni)
an external need for logical order (Te)
an internal blueprint of logical order (Ti)
an external occasion for social harmony (Fe)
an internal identification with a human need (Fi)

The point to make, being that these elements are present in every event and action. What makes them differentiated specific functional products is when an ego (or one of its other complexes) abstracts them from the situation, paying more attention to that aspect of the data.

(An extreme unfortunate example, but one that really makes the point well):
You may love your child and would never do anything to harm him (personal relationship)
Yet you trip and fall, crushing him (impersonal relationship. You are still material things, subject to the laws of nature, such as mass, gravity, etc. regardless of how you feel).
You're one object and he's another (immanent relationship)
You're parent and child; family (transcendant relationship).

This is simply how things are. Both poles of each set of opposites are equally true, and we can see all of them, but our egos, in dividing up reality, tend to prefer one side over the other.
Not that we can't see the other side, especially in a given instance. Hence, NT's, who tend to look at the world in terms of transcendent impersonal relationships can still see the immanent, personal need of another human (who's not even related to him). He just prefers to deal with stuff like science theories, and based on stuff like environment, it may not even be science, it may be religious doctrine, politics, or just a bunch of ideas he keeps to himself in a largely S culture.

Each event we encounter produces several emotional responses. The one that resonates most with our sense of the way the world should be (or violations of this) will be interpreted through the ego's dominant perspective:

That's an opportunity to experience or act in the moment [external] (Se)
That fits what I know [internal] to be factual (Si)
That's an opportunity to realize unfulfilled potential [external] (Ne)
That points to unspoken [internal] meaning (Ni)
That needs to be put to efficient [external] use (Te)
That is so logically elegant [internal impression]; e.g. symmetry (Ti)
That can be put to use for social [external] harmony (Fe)
That is so humanely beautiful [internal impression] (Fi)

The emotions associated with our sense of caretaking or helping others will be interpreted through the function the ego has assigned as its auxiliary function.
The other six complexes (ego states) and associated functions will mirror these two.

 

[Eric B]

I think we should be cautious about the whole “Te=’applied logic’” thing, because the Ti type will want to “apply” his sense of logic in the real world too, and he isn’t switching to “Te” when he does it. The attitude is based on the standard of the assessment, and for Ti, it’s that internal sense of order itself, and for Te, it’s whatever works* best in the outer world.

Fe will be more about outer application as well, but should not be defined as “expressing feeling/emotion”, in contrast to Fi keeping it in (as I’ve seen done in type discussions). Fi types too will desire their internal values being enacted in the outer world.

*It should be mentioned in passing, that there may be some confusion in the matter of “what works” or “pragmatism”. Te’s standard is what works (“efficiency”), but then Keirsey had associated the SP and NT temperaments with “pragmatism”. He had rejected the cognitive functions, but when you put them back into the equation (as Berens had done, and the rest of the online community pretty much follows), then not only do both temperaments consist of either Te or Ti types, but it turns out that the Ti-preferring ones; the TP’s, end up consistently “pragmatic”. (And this article: A New Look at the Keirsey Temperaments considers them “the Pragmatists”). They can only be SP’s or NT’s: (S[T]P) or (NT[P]; where the TJ’s can fall into the “cooperative” SJ temperament.
Where P is overall more pragmatic, J is more cooperative, with FJ the most consistently so, being S[F]J or NF[J]).
The difference is, that Keirsey’s “pragmatism” is more conative, and thus about how quickly the individual takes self-initiated action (whichever function he may use in it). The pragmatism connected with Te is not so much about the individual’s action, but more focused on the objective standard itself. The STJ (and NFP) will end up “cooperatively” pushing for “what works” in establishing logical order for their superiors or other authority.

---

Ti will push for “consistency” based on an internal model, such as symmetry. Informed by Ne, it will be of ideas (including ones pertaining to human interaction, such as fairness; hence can be easily confused with Fi, like when “personally identifying” with someone suffering the “a-symmetry” of an injustice), and with Se, it may help in something like physical balance (knowing if gravity or inertia push you so much one way, you need to counter that much the other way. Hence being described by Keirsey as making good surfers, and would also be good for dancing and musical performance and composition as well).

Te is about the consistency of a course of action with an objective goal; hence, “efficiency”.
Fi is about a humane consistency of inner values (not about simply HAVING values). Just like it can be hard for Ti to choose between two symmetries that are [logically] valued, Fi can have a hard time deciding between humane values when they conflict. Hence being described as “weighing” and evaluating for “congruence”, as Fi types on one hand want to maintain their values, but nevertheless still infer others’ state, and then often feel pulled to give in anyway.
Fe is about the consistency of external interpersonal harmony.

Ti will look at fairness in a symmetrical “tit for tat”, give and take, what goes around comes around manner.
Te will be less focused on details, and try to resolve the issue by saying “OK, everyone gets the same amount” (which may not take into account finer details such as ability, etc).
Fe might work like Te (common “J” attitude) and assume equal shares might please everybody, but would be more willing to listen to people’s wishes (and thus work with the finer logical details of Ti).
Fi would try to determine each person’s needs from an inner sense of the needs at hand. It might look at finer details of situations like Ti, or perhaps figure that an equal share would be the most ethical, and thus work with Te.

 

[Eric B]

Every object is both an “at hand” reality, and an imaginal idea. The new "Personality Junkie" book My True Type that I review in the Books section mentions the “idea” of a table. This can be shown by taking the table, or better yet, an object like a machine or building that has many more, smaller parts.

When one breaks, we say “we replaced the ______ on this [object]”. We still see it as the same original object, just with a part replaced. It still holds its overall form. We can do that again with another part, and it would be the same thing.
But suppose over time we’ve replaced every part? Is it still the same object? The only continuity between the original object and the final one is the overal form it held. If we had dismantled it and removed every part at once and then built a new one just like it, we wouldn’t say it was the same one. It doesn’t have the same exclusive continuity; it’s essentially a duplicate having its own separate history. So what we see as a tangible object is really an idea or image that physical parts can fit into.

Some ecenarios, as examples:
•“rebuilding” a house leveled by fire or tornado. Not the actual house that’s rebuilt, but the lot in its location relative to everything else that forms the idea.
•Demolitions disguised as modifications. They “modify” it by gutting and rebuilding the inside first, but then replace most or all of the outside later. This way, they can call it a “modification” rrather than a totally new building, which I affects the laws or the tax code or something).
•Our cells change, etc. body is just the shape taken by them
•Matter as waveforms that transfer from one string to another.

Best way to think of this is a moving image on a screen of pixels. Electronic signals transfer from one pixel to the next, making it look like one object moving across the screen. But it’s really just an image of signals transmitted in time across stationary pixels rather than an object moving through space.

So all of this shows that N products are just as much “reality” as S products. And everyone recognizes both, regularly.
What distinguishes S and N types is what we focus on, “for its own sake”. S’s will focus on the whole object, in a practical sense. I’ll get attached to the idea of the object. Now, being this is a completely tangible object, it might sound like an S function being “used”, but it’s clearly conceptual or imaginal rather than practical.

Every object also has a personal and impersonal sense about it, as mentioned.

I’ve seen Ne types describe looking at nature and wondering if this is Se. But they also describe something like immediately making analogies from it. But that part of it is what makes it conceptualizing, or drawing out the intangible from the data. Because it’s intangible, it’s often also considered “unconscious” (which can be confusing).

Looking at a “pattern” is another definition of iNtuition. I have avoided it, because you can have a physical “pattern” such as a jagged line, but what you indicated is jumping across the physical (hence “mobile”), by comparing separate objects. That comparison is the intangible or “mobile” connection!
We all have to start with tangible data; but it’s what we do with it that determines true S/N.

The book also mentions that both introversion and intuition contribute an element of reflectiveness. Of course, Thinking is associated with "reflectiveness", aling with introversion, as well.
On the other hand, Sensing and Feeling both figure in “Taste and Style”.
I have previously linked S and T in being “realistic” or “fact”-based, and iNtuition and Feeling being more specifically “human”-centered.

So with this, we can put together what each function shares in common with each other (in addition to two being judgment and the other two being perception):
S, T “realistic” perspectives of nature
N, F specifically human, “idealistic” perspectives
N, T “intellectual” or “reflective” perspectives
S, F style, class, artisticness

While Keirsey’s temperament names for the N’s fit this: “Idealist” and “Rational”, we could name the S “mirror temperaments”: ST “Realist” and SF “Aesthete” (which was actually once Hirsch & Kummerow’s name for the ISFP. Sort of like how “Artisan” used to be Keirsey’s name for just the ISTP). The N mirror temperaments could also be named NJ “Visionary”, and NP “Dreamer”.

 

[Eric B]

OK, another take (hope these definitions nail it):

Basical functional “products”:

[Observation of] what exists (irrational):
S: [attention to] direct “at hand” reality or practical experience
N: [attention to] hypothetical patterns connecting objects and events
[Evaluation of] how things relate (rational):
T: [Determination or evaluation of] the proper relationship between objects
F: [Determination or evaluation of] the proper relationships between or involving people
The way this connects to emotions and values, is that these are potential indicators of the proper relationship of something or someone to the person. But they are not the actual rational process of evaluation of the relationship, itself.

Also good to keep in mind that people are still “objects”, and objects have affect on people.
Hypothetical patterns start with or at least involve physical objects, and the physical reality is a “base” hypothesis that can be interpreted different ways.

So each function will reference the products of the opposite function. But the determination of which function is being “used” will be its focus.

purpose or standard:
e attention or evaluation is derived directly from external object
i attention or evaluation is filtered through internal subjective blueprint

Full function-attitude perspectives:

Se: attention to immediate (external) at hand data:
Hence, a greater inclination for physical activity and sensory experience
Hence, a greater appearance of “Experiencing and noticing the physical world ” (Berens)

Si: filtering at hand data through an internal storehouse of fact and experience
Will focus on practical knowledge and affairs.
Will rely a lot on “memory” or “recalling”, but memory itself is not the actual process.

Ne: hypothetoical connections are implied by the object
Looks at objects and imagines different possibilities based on patterns shared in common with other objects.
Hence, a greater appearance of “inferring relationships, noticing threads of meaning, etc” (Berens)

Ni: hypothetical connections are implied by an internal sense of patterns
Will tend to “fill in” where a situation is going or what it means
Will often come across as “foreseeing” or “having images of th future or profound meaning”.

Te: proper relationship between objects is determined by the objects themselves
Will order based on maximum logical efficiency, often in a predetermined, formulaic fashion
Hence, “organizing [assumed to be logical], segmenting, sorting” and an greater appearance of “applying” logic.

Ti: proper relationship between objects is determined by internal blueprint
Will use subjectively chosen logical frameworks, and sometimes logic or facts “for their own sake” rather than an externally efficient goal.
Hence, a focus on elegant “models”, “categories” and “naming” things, figuring out how they work (i.e. the correct relationship of their parts), and thus an appearance of “analyzing”.

[Actually both attitudes will "analyze" things and want to "apply" their decisions, but the internal or external nature of the attitude does make these respective processes more apparent].

Fe: proper relationship involving/between people is evaluated according to external values
Will take on the values, needs or emotions of others as if they were one’s own
“They feel this way, so I feel this way too”.
Hence, a greater appearance of “considering others”

Fi: proper relationship involving/between people is evaluated according to an internal blueprint of values
Will infer the needs of others from evolving situations, and ones’ own sense of universal values
“If that were me, how I would want to be treated?”
These variables will often lead to the “weighing”, “evaluating congruence” and looking for ultimate “importance”.

[Again, the different attitudes can do the same things. Like Fe will not necesarily just go along and do what others want, but will also have to weigh against internal values (which again, don't constitute the "Feeling" judgment itself), but the data will be filtered through the internal perception perspective (memorized fact or patterns of what's right or wrong, based on other environments they may have a greater allegiance to). Likewise, Fi will then "consider others" from its internal personal identification].

When these perspectives are dominant, they will be your main “world-view”, if you really look at it long enough. When auxiliary, they are more abbout support through attitudinal (i/e orientation and j/p class; i.e. to inform judgments or utilize perceptions) balance.