Taking it again from the top: Root defintions of the functions

[Eric B]

Functions can be seen as all deal in “positive/negative”

perception: IS or ISN’T
(no course of action if negative; it’s just data gathering)
S dealing with what exists: observable (tangible)
N filling in according to what’s possible (inferred/implied; or imagined; intangible contexts)

judgment: RIGHT or WRONG
(if negative, we are prompted to action, including mental; i.e. the “judgment”)
T dealing with its impersonal qualities (true/false, correct/incorrect)
F considering its personal affect (good/bad, like/dislike)

S: What exists (tangible “at hand” reality) can be:
•immediate (current), external, emergent
•stored in a mental canister to integrate new experiences with

N: intangible connections (possibilities, imaginations, etc.) can be inferred (filled in) from:
•the objects themselves (including ones stored in memory, to unify with larger contexts)
•the subjective unconscious (impressions that have no tangible basis; often symbols)

T/F: both true/false and good/bad assessments can be:
•set by the objects themselves and/or what’s learned from the culture (taking on a “localized” nature)
•set by subjective models of the nature of things generally learned individually, and from nature (thus, universalistic)

Examples of learned from culture are alphabetic order, math formulas and social etiquette. What can be learned naturally, individually can be the principles behind those things: how numbers work, or even technical details of [manmade] languages. (The glyphs used in both fields are just abstract representations agreed on by a culture), or universal principles of what people like. That certain things you like or dislike you can assume will be liked or disliked by others, since we’re all alike on a fundamental level. Like we all like to be comfortable, and don’t like to be attacked by others).

All of this data is implicit in all experience.
The elements of reality being separated according to the "functions" I think of as "Generic Data Elements" (GDE's).
It will probably be simplest if we understand them in terms of:
"What's tangibly experienced", "What's inferred intangibly from experience", "Correct/incorrect assessments", "Good/bad assessments".

Behavior the eight differentiated perspectives often lead to:

Se: mastery of physical activity, for its own sake
Si: memory and internal senses
Ne: imagining what’s possible from comparing with other objects or matching to larger contexts
Ni: imagining things from the unconscious itself; e.g. “hunches”
Te: organizing the outer world for impersonal "efficiency"
Ti: internalizing impersonal principles such as how something works, and using this to gauge other situations
Fe: creating and conforming to social harmony
Fi: having an internal sense of what's right (ethically; e.g. "conscience") and personal identification with others

All of these things we all "do".

We have often said “we all use ‘all eight functions’, but…”‘; but what exactly does that mean? It’s almost a cliché sometimes: “We all use all functions, but only ‘prefer‘ some…” This still isn’t really telling us much, thus it has not really been grasped, and we still sometimes end up thinking if someone (including us ourselves) “values” something [for instance], it might have a necessarily bearing on his/(our) T/F preference (i.e. "type").

But in everything we process, there is some sort of tangible object or energy (light, sound, etc.), that can be taken in immediately or stored in memory. It can be intangibly connected to other objects, contexts, ideas or impressions, either directly or through less conscious means. We will think something about it is true or false, and this based either on external means we’ve learned from the environment or are dictated by the local situation, or internal principles we’ve learned individually, often through nature; and we may like or dislike it or something about it, again, based either on an external values we’ve learned from the environment, or internal values we’ve learned individually through nature.

Yes, we all do all of these things constantly. So what do we mean when we declare some of these processes as “preferred” in making up a “type”?

It’s when an ego selects one of them, in addition to the internal or external orientation as it’s primary way of approaching life. (the other functions are initially, in a state called "undifferentiated", which means they remain pretty much in the "GDE" state.
Since this is all about how the ego artificially divides an undivided reality, then for the sake of balance: they will need to both perceive and judge, and have access to both the inner and outer worlds; so another function will end up [partially differentiated in[to] a “supporting” role.

This then sets the type (all of the remaining possible function/attitude combinations, which will basically mirror these first two in being the opposite function and/or attitude and level of suppression in favor of the preferred ones, will become associated with complexes [lesser senses of “I”] which similarly mirror the ego and its “supporting caretaker” complex.
Thus we have the complete type and function+archetype model.

So the ego divides reality into these different perspectives. What’s preferred will be the driving force between the polarity:

S: what’s existent * is used to assume implications
N: what’s inferred/imagined * is based on what exists (and treated as a kind of "existence")
T: what’s true/false * is liked/disliked (good/bad)
F: what’s good/bad * determines true/false
dominant attitude:
e: what’s _____ *according to an external reality* is…
i: what’s _____ *according to an internal 'blueprint'* is…

So here are the sixteen functional perspectives in this regard:

ISTJ [i-Sn/Tf]: What I know inside (i) exists (S) sets the stage for what meaning /possibilities can be inferred . This informs what’s true (T), which determines what’s good (f).	ISFJ [i-Sn/Ft]: What I know inside (i) exists (S) sets the stage for what meaning or possibility can be inferred . This informs what is good (F), and therefore true (t).	INFJ [i-Ns/Ft]: what I infer (N) from inside (i) I use to fill in reality (s). This informs what is good (F) and therefore also true/correct (t).	INTJ [i-Ns/Tf]: what’s inferred (N) according to internal unconscious impressions (i) of what exists (s) determines what is true (T), which also makes it good (f).
ISTP [i-Tf/Sn]: what’s correct (T) according to my internal blueprints (i) is liked (f); and if it fits what exists (S), also sets the stage for what possibility or meaning can be inferred .	ISFP [i-Ft/Sn]: what’s good (F) according to what I have learned individually (i) is true (t), and is determined by what exists (S), which determines what meaning or possibility can be inferred .	INFP [i-Ft/Ns]: what’s good (F) according to what I have learned individually (i) is what I determine to be true (t), and is informed by what’s inferred (N) from what exists (s).	INTP [i-Tf/Ns] What’s correct (T) according to my internal blueprints (i) is liked (f); my dominant standpoint is informed by what’s inferred (N) from what exists (s).
ESTP [e-Sn/Tf]: engaging what exists (S) in the current outside world (e) sets the stage for what meaning /possibilities can be inferred . This informs what’s true (T), which determines what’s good (f).	ESFP [e-Sn/Ft]: engaging what exists (S) in the current outside world (e) sets the stage for what meaning or possibility can be inferred . This informs what is good (F), and therefore true (t).	ENFP [e-Ns/Ft]: what’s inferred (N) according to the external patterns/contexts (e) of what exists (s) determines what is good (F) and therefore also true/correct (t).	ENTP [e-Ns/Tf]: what’s inferred (N) according to the external patterns/contexts (e) of what exists (s) determines what is true (T), which also makes it good (f).
ESTJ [e-Tf/Sn]: what’s true/correct (T) according to an objective standard (e) is good (f); and if it fits what exists (S), also sets the stage for what possibility or meaning can be inferred .	ESFJ [e-Ft/Sn]: what’s good (F) according to the external environment (e) is true/correct (t). My dominant standpoint is determined by what exists (S), which sets the stage for what meaning or possibility can be inferred .	ENFJ [e-Ft/Ns]: what’s good (F) according to the external environment (e) is what I determine to be true (t), and is informed by what’s inferred (N) from what exists (s).	ENTJ [e-Tf/Ns]: what’s true/correct (T) according to an objective standard (e) I like (f); my dominant standpoint is informed by what’s inferred (N) from what exists (s).

(Attitude is connected to the differentiated dominant, and so here not noted in the other [undifferented] functions, whose attitudes are set more by the complexes they associate with. Here we see all functions entering awareness, when linked to the dominant standpoint).

 

[Eric B]

Some examples of function descriptions:

Keirsey could say functions are "imaginary", and there's actually a point to that, but they are still a useful way to categorize the way we separate out data.

Like I've heard Fi described as "personal identification": "if that were me, how would I want to be treated?"
This is seeing a situation, and judging something good or bad, and identifying with it, and acting accordingly as if it was you personally experiencing it. If "bad", then some course of action will be taken to correct it, even if encouraging someone else to do something; including perhaps the actual sufferer himself. If nothing can be done, then it's a more passive co-commiserating. If "good", then you just share the joy.

Fe: proper relationship involving/between people is evaluated according to external values. This proper relationship will be the "good", and an improper relationship will be "bad".

Ti for me figures heavily in a sense of "equilibrium". Looks at a logical pattern, and determines it should be consistent. So then other things will be judged as "correct" or "incorrect" based on this.
Like I like 2D matrices: one object is expected to mirror the other. If it does; then "correct"; if not, then something must be "incorrect".

When something is deemed "correct", then ego likes this, which is a "feeling" judgment. But it's not differentiated Feeling. It's not the ego's starting point; it's only a universally human reaction to a positive judgment.

Fi has been deemed "Evaluating congruence". Congruence is actually a mathematical term. Like we learn in trigonometry that "corresponding parts of congruent triangles are congruent".
All it means is consistency.

Both Ti and Fi deal in terms of "consistency". Logical (impersonal, technical matters) consistency is "correct" or proves something "true"; incnsistency is "incorrect" or proves something "false".
With person-related ("humane") matters, consistency determines "good", and inconsistency makes something "bad".

Te and Fe can be seen as looking for consistency, but this is more external; about assuming that conclusions allocated for a particular situation are carried out always and everywhere specified. It's not the evaluating itself that deals with consistency.

So "liking" in that sense, while technically a "feeling" judgment, and one that in that case is internally based, is not quite the "Fi" that we use to determine a type preference. Everyone "likes" things. It's a normal human reaction. There are no types who have no likes or dislikes because "Fi" is buried deep in their shadow.
This "liking" judgment is an undifferentiated "feeling" that supports the ego's dominant Thinking judgment.

We think Ti and Fi are so "far apart" or "opposed" that they couldn't possibly be bound together like that in the same situation; but again, Ti and Fi are just artificial ways of dividing the personal vs impersonal internal standpoints of whatever we are judging.
The data is all there, mixed together, and rational judgment tells us "positive or "negative" ("right or wrong").

So if we see something like a symmetry, we can judge it right or wrong in different ways. We can simultaneously "like" it for some reason. ("Good" according to an internal sense), but the REASON it's "good" might be because of its mathematical precision. Now, that's no longer an "Fi" perspective; is it? Now, that's more of an impersonal "true" or "correct". Others can see the symmetry is inefficient for some practical reason: "incorrect" from an external, localized perspective. Another person can see it's somehow "good" for a social purpose. They can all acknowledge the other perspectives as well.

This might seem to "favor" Fi as more fundamental to judgment than the others, but the jumpstart for my current analysis is that all functions have some "fundamental" application like that. The most obvious example is current sensation; what we would call "Se". But everyone is not an "SP", of course. Also, creating a storehouse of sensory data: "Si". Obviously, everyone has both current senses and memory.
So back to judgment, we are all social creatures with "Personas" (which is what much of the "shadow" forms against in the first place), so we naturally care about others' values almost as much as we have our own values. This is basically a kind of "Fe".

So hence, I've been trying to really expound this concept of "generic" versus type specific function "use".

What sparked this off was my thinking in light of this upon how much my wife's ego is bound up in what others think about her or us on the surface, and making things look good for them. If I tell someone we're tight on money, she has a fit. To, me, the difficulty of not being able to buy things is the bigger problem, not how "embarrassing" it may look. ("What's the use" with that, when I'm the one who sees the struggle first hand).

Now, she's Fe dom. What this means is that this is central to her whole ego.
Yet I'm also bound up in what others think, but in a different way; to the point even she comments on it. (Like what others say about different groups in political rhetoric, that I feel will ultimately affect us in some way; like who's really responsible for "draining the economy"; i.e. the rich making too much or, poor and struggling middle class who aren't doing enough, allegedly, and in today's news, how our reactions to things shapes the nation's view of us).
With me, it's tied up in a sense of "inferiority". (Which ties to another complex in the psyche). Even to her "mature" Fe, this is seen as 'overkill', and that at some point; I should have a more inner assurance. (We often overcompensate with the inferior and tertiary).

Other people still have a sense of need of social acceptance. None of us go out naked, because it's not socially appropriate. I don't think TJ's and FP's, for whom Fe is "shadow" are sitting around thinking "man, I really wish I could go out naked, but I'll get arrested, so I'll force myself to conform to this stupid, senseless social convention" [at least not most of them].
We all have that social sense, just that for others, ego will have more of a particular investment in it. For some like me, the investment will be in a more "shaky" vulnerable sense, where it's something important in the background, but an opposite perspective takes precedence. (Which can also create the appearance of "weighing", which is another thing that got tagged to "Fi")

I believe this stuff about "shadow" functions necessarily being "toxic" to us is also greatly overblown (at best). We already use all of them, it's just that the unpreferred ones remain in the background of consciousness, while others focus on them more. What happens is that we will then tend to gloss over the elements of others' interaction that focus on them.
Now, if someone comes at us in a negative way with them (like saying or implying I'm a BAD person in some intrinsic way, or perhaps for an IFP, saying something they believe in is fundamentally illogical), THEN it might seem particularly "toxic" or "ruffle" us. I guess if someone bombards you with a lot of it, it will be annoying, but then that's for the effort required in having to read a lot of something you're not interested in, or can't process well; not the actual functional products themselves.
But not just any use of the function just for its own sake will hit us that way.

Here are how common descriptions or even 'names' of the functions fit:

Berens function names:
Experiencing (i.e. …what exists, currently, tangibly)
Recalling (i.e. internal storehouse of what exists tangibly)
Inferring (i.e. …from other [external] objects, contexts)
Envisioning (i.e. inferring from [internal] unconscious impressions)
Organizing (i.e. external environment sets correct [impersonal] order)
Analyzing (…according to sense of what’s [impersonally]correct, learned individually/naturally)
Considering (i.e. the environment sets the standard of what’s good [for people]).
Evaluating (…according to sense of what’s good [for people], learned individually, from nature)


Hartzler & Hartzler function names:
The Scout (e.g. the part of us that seeks current tangible experience)
The Conservator (e.g. the part of us that measures tangible experience according to what’s known (by the subject)
The Brainstormer (e.g. the part of us that infers possibilities by comparing objects and contexts)
The Seer (e.g. the part of us that infers from unconscious impressions)
The Administrator (e.g. the part of us that orders impersonally according to the environment)
The Analyzer (e.g. the part of us that assesses impersonally, based on what’s known internally)
The Guide (the part of us that determines what’s “good” [for self and others] from the environment
The Conscience (e.g. the part of us that decides what’s “good” [for self and others] from within

I would say that some of these terms might hold, IF they are understood as at best fitting GDE's, and not differentiated functions (since any type can do these things).

 

[Eric B]

Kiloby’s “Living Inquiries” (Discover the Tools that Change Everything - The Living Inquiries | The Living Inquiries) I've run across are an example we can use, of “concrete” functions “mixed together” in their undifferentiated form.

It starts with painful emotions. You can physically feel them (S). They are part of a bad (F) “story” (N) as he puts it (i.e. the sequence of events that have triggered the emotion, or more importantly, how we interpret them, as self-help memes often remind us). And also, they are technically deemed “incorrect” (T), as this is not our optimal state, so we then aim to take some course of action to change what’s causing it.
(Even though we are people: “personal” subjects; we are still ultimately impersonal “objects”; subject to the laws of nature. So we can do what’s necessary to improve the situation, even if it might be uncomfortable, or otherwise “bad”, in the short run).

Initially, you’re not really “using” any of the specific “functions”. They’re all there “mixed together” in our limbic reaction. T/F especially are bound into one “negative” sense, though it seems more like “F” because it’s a “feeling”, which we’re accustomed to associating with its namesake, the F function. So it’s even hard to really differentiate T and F from each other in that instance. N is a bit easier to differentiated from the T/F mix because it’s not a negative/positive judgment. S then is the easiest to differentiate. (Hence, why Jung termed N as “unconscious”, which assumed that S is conscious).

(Right now; I feel like I’m discussing theoretical physics, especially “string theory”, where they seek to find the “Grand Unified Theory”, and found that mathematically, if you add more space dimensions ⦅but curl them up to an infinitesimal 10-35m⦆, then the four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear, and finally gravity, begin to merge.
But this gives you another good concept of what “differentiation/undifferentiation” is about. Another one is biological cells, which start out neutral, but then become specialized for certain functions when the prenatal body develops enough).

The “Inquiries” whole method is to essentially differentiate the S, splitting the others off from it. By focusing inward deeply, you see that what you’re feeling as “negative emotion” is really just neutral energy (S), coupled to a “negative [T/F] story [N]”.

You’ve basically “abstracted” (set out as distinct) the internal sensory impressions, which are basically Si. (Internal body sensations are also considered Si, along with remembered tangible experience. Makes me wonder if this approach will come more naturally for SJ's).

To continue with some more examples of how functions boil down to "tangible" vs" intangible" and "true/false" vs "good/bad":
Hartzler and Hartzler Functions of Type, p40 (discussing Ti, “the Analyzer” and comparing it to Fi, “what [a person] really believes in”) uses as an example “it is wrong to kill other people because if I can kill arbitrarily, I create an environment where it is okay for me to be killed arbitrarily—but that is arriving at a principle, not a value".

To break this down, “If I kill, I can be killed” is basically a symmetry. Thus, killing is judged “incorrect”, and is “bad” only by virtue of being logically incorrect. What’s being called “value” is the judgment of “bad” in and of itself. Therefore; it’s incorrect by virtue of being “bad”.

That’s why they’re calling it the “Conscience”. You “just know” inside that it’s wrong, even if you never got caught, or could even barricade yourself so that no one could ever kill you likewise; and thus, might never have to worry about that symmetrical element of “justice” coming back to you.

And “what you really believe in” as Fi (in addition to “what’s important”, etc.), is assuming “belief”, regarding what’s “good” (they really, really should clarify some of these terms more).

If you look at all the Fi “skills”, the common thread is what’s deemed “good” internally. You can develop the “skills”, but this is not really “developing” the actual function, which ties into the ego structure. You’re developing the generic elements.
I myself “like” things and have strong “beliefs” about them, but still, it has to have some logical basis behind it, or I’ll feel stupid and ashamed for liking or believing them. And from that state, it enters the “inferior” space and then extraverts into a need to have my likes and beliefs validated by others.

As for Ne vs Ni, both are said in different sources to deal with “possibilities” or “what could be”, and you usually think of Ne in those terms (being an “open” ‘P’ function, in contrast to the “closed” ‘J’ attitude of Ni), but then an Ni type will say that they are the ones who only want to make people aware of “unexplored possibilities”.

The difference between the two attitudes is what they are inferring these possibilities from. Ne is inferring the possibilities for one object from another object. (Even if it’s one stored in memory). Ni is inferring from the unconscious within. Since these elements are no more tangible than Ne’s unrealized possibilities, then it too is simply “what’s possible”, or what something “could be”.

An example we can use for Se is a baseball player looking for “possibilities” for stealing a base. This is Se in conjunction with generic intuition, envisioning himself making the successful steal (which hasn’t happened yet), as well as Ti (the example is used by Lenore in the chapter on Ti), which has to make the decision based on what can logically be done in the moment (rather than by the normal “rules”). This is looking at an external object, but not Ne, and not Ni working in tandem with Se either, for that matter.
When I look at objects and envision “possibilities” for them, I’m comparing with other objects (stored in memory; generic internal sensation), and the difference is that the “possibilities” aren’t at hand or immediate; they must be “filled in”, and require objects to be changed. With Se, only the subject changes (by taking immediate action. With Ne, the subject may not take action at all; he’s just pointing something out, that others may –or may not, change)
Si deals with what the subject knows to be observable
Ni fills in (changes) according to what subject senses as possibilities.

 

[Ene]

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]

This is a fantastic breakdown and analysis of functions. I like how you've pulled each gear out of the proverbial clock and explained how it functions in relation to all the other ones. The functional prespectives in your first post are insightful.

I want to thank you for formulating these thoughts and posting them. I was particularly fond of this section.

Keirsey could say functions are "imaginary", and there's actually a point to that, but they are still a useful way to categorize the way we separate out data.

Like I've heard Fi described as "personal identification": "if that were me, how would I want to be treated?"
This is seeing a situation, and judging something good or bad, and identifying with it, and acting accordingly as if it was you personally experiencing it. If "bad", then some course of action will be taken to correct it, even if encouraging someone else to do something; including perhaps the actual sufferer himself. If nothing can be done, then it's a more passive co-commiserating. If "good", then you just share the joy.

Fe: proper relationship involving/between people is evaluated according to external values. This proper relationship will be the "good", and an improper relationship will be "bad".

Ti for me figures heavily in a sense of "equilibrium". Looks at a logical pattern, and determines it should be consistent. So then other things will be judged as "correct" or "incorrect" based on this.
Like I like 2D matrices: one object is expected to mirror the other. If it does; then "correct"; if not, then something must be "incorrect".

When something is deemed "correct", then ego likes this, which is a "feeling" judgment. But it's not differentiated Feeling. It's not the ego's starting point; it's only a universally human reaction to a positive judgment.

Fi has been deemed "Evaluating congruence". Congruence is actually a mathematical term. Like we learn in trigonometry that "corresponding parts of congruent triangles are congruent".
All it means is consistency.

Both Ti and Fi deal in terms of "consistency". Logical (impersonal, technical matters) consistency is "correct" or proves something "true"; incnsistency is "incorrect" or proves something "false".
With person-related ("humane") matters, consistency determines "good", and inconsistency makes something "bad".

Te and Fe can be seen as looking for consistency, but this is more external; about assuming that conclusions allocated for a particular situation are carried out always and everywhere specified. It's not the evaluating itself that deals with consistency.

So "liking" in that sense, while technically a "feeling" judgment, and one that in that case is internally based, is not quite the "Fi" that we use to determine a type preference. Everyone "likes" things. It's a normal human reaction. There are no types who have no likes or dislikes because "Fi" is buried deep in their shadow.
This "liking" judgment is an undifferentiated "feeling" that supports the ego's dominant Thinking judgment.

Excellent descriptions.

And this next part....yes, well stated.

We think Ti and Fi are so "far apart" or "opposed" that they couldn't possibly be bound together like that in the same situation; but again, Ti and Fi are just artificial ways of dividing the personal vs impersonal internal standpoints of whatever we are judging.
The data is all there, mixed together, and rational judgment tells us "positive or "negative" ("right or wrong").

So if we see something like a symmetry, we can judge it right or wrong in different ways. We can simultaneously "like" it for some reason. ("Good" according to an internal sense), but the REASON it's "good" might be because of its mathematical precision. Now, that's no longer an "Fi" perspective; is it? Now, that's more of an impersonal "true" or "correct". Others can see the symmetry is inefficient for some practical reason: "incorrect" from an external, localized perspective. Another person can see it's somehow "good" for a social purpose. They can all acknowledge the other perspectives as well.

I loved the example you gave of your wife and you.

What sparked this off was my thinking in light of this upon how much my wife's ego is bound up in what others think about her or us on the surface, and making things look good for them.

So, what is her type?

If I tell someone we're tight on money, she has a fit. To, me, the difficulty of not being able to buy things is the bigger problem, not how "embarrassing" it may look. ("What's the use" with that, when I'm the one who sees the struggle first hand).

Now, she's Fe dom. What this means is that this is central to her whole ego.

Yet I'm also bound up in what others think, but in a different way; to the point even she comments on it. (Like what others say about different groups in political rhetoric, that I feel will ultimately affect us in some way; like who's really responsible for "draining the economy"; i.e. the rich making too much or, poor and struggling middle class who aren't doing enough, allegedly, and in today's news, how our reactions to things shapes the nation's view of us).With me, it's tied up in a sense of "inferiority". (Which ties to another complex in the psyche). Even to her "mature" Fe, this is seen as 'overkill', and that at some point; I should have a more inner assurance. (We often overcompensate with the inferior and tertiary).

This is just such a great illustration of how you both think about what people think, but in your own type-related ways. I've never heard it out in this perspective before. Very insightful.

I believe this stuff about "shadow" functions necessarily being "toxic" to us is also greatly overblown (at best). We already use all of them, it's just that the unpreferred ones remain in the background of consciousness, while others focus on them more. What happens is that we will then tend to gloss over the elements of others' interaction that focus on them.

Agreed.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I think these posts are full of ideas and examples that could be very helpful to people wanting to gain an understanding of the functions.

 

[Eric B]

Thanks!

So, what is her type?

ESFJ (Fe-Si)

 

[Researcher]

You said >> Ni: imagining things from the unconscious itself; e.g. “hunches”

Sorry, but this is a bad description of Ni.

All perception is instant, whether Se/Ne/Ni/Si. Thus the instant "hunch" is for all perception. (However hunches in daily speech are usually associated with Ne's "aha" moments, not Ni).

As for unconscious, talking about conscious/unconscious makes it all too magical. Since there is no clear definition of conscious(ness), I always try to stay far away from those words as they tend to have a different meaning for everyone. Basically by using the word unconscious, you didn't define anything at all.

a simpler way of defining the perception functions:
- Se perceives actual profit (strengths)
- Si perceives actual loss (weaknesses)
- Ne perceives possible profit (opportunities)
- Ni perceives possible loss (threats)

 

[Researcher]

You said >> (if negative, we are prompted to action, including mental; i.e. the “judgment”) >> but "if negative" is only true for Ti & Fi, as they are avoiding/introverted. for Te & Fe it is "if positive", as they are pursuing/extraverted.

 

[Eric B]

I didn't particularly like "unconscious" either, because it's so vague, and used for other things (like iNtuition itself, or shadow functions), but that's the best way to describe it, concisely, right now. It's really hard to come up with a descriptive term, because the terms can become ambiguous.

I had previously been inclined to say that Ni was simply inferring from an internal storehouse of patterns (archetypes), but then that probably wasn't quite right either. (That might actually be more Si/Ne; and actually external interconnections stored inside as factual data. As I've been saying, all of this division of data is artificial, and there is probably no "pure" function totally unmixed with any others).

Perhaps, "conscious/unconscious" can describe both the process of perceiving itself, and the orientation, so that:
Se: conscious perception of the conscious world
Si: conscious perception of the unconscious world
Ne: unconscious perception of the conscious world
Ni: unconscious perception of the unconscious world

Where emergent (e) sensation (S) is what's most "conscious"; what's least conscious is what's least tangible: an inference, which is not seen, heard, etc. (N) from inside (i). So Si and Ne are "in between"; having a mixture of conscious and unconsciousness: an inference made from external data, or an internal impression of sensation.

When we think of "hunch", we think of this inner sense (i) of a meaning, or something "filling in" a larger picture or "story" (N).
This of course is "instant", just like the others, but I've never heard the instant-ness of the other perception functions called "hunches". If I suddenly see an opening to move through (like in a sports game; Se), that's not a "hunch". Hunch is about something invisible and internal, not visible and external. The same with comparing current facts with what's already known. That's not called a "hunch" either. And even with Ne, when comparing disparate patterns, and seeing common threads, it's still what you see externally (e) and not considered a hunch.

Also, the "aha moment" is usually associated with Ni; though I've said it could be any introverted function, when the external data suddenly lines up with the internal blueprint, and either a perception or judgment then "comes to you. (and again, the functions by nature are mixed together. It's the ego, or other complexes, that separate out the specific S, N, T or F aspects more).

I also don't know about that "profit/loss" definition you added. How is extraversion about "profit" and introversion about "loss"?
Which then ties into that next post, about "'if negative' is only true for Ti & Fi, as they are avoiding/introverted. for Te & Fe it is 'if positive', as they are pursuing/extraverted."

By "negative", I simply means "false"(incorrect) or "bad"(disliked). The extraverted judgments determine false and bad, only it's the external environment that sets the standard. If we say 2+2=5 is "false", then it's an agreed upon (e) standard of impersonal truth (T) making a "negative" judgment.
I really don't know what this "avoiding/pursuing" concept is. It sounds more like dominant orientation (whether the person is "introverted" or "extraverted": I or E, which is set by the orientation of the dominant function; but then often leads into those familiar social traits). Seeing how you use the terms in the Asperger's thread ("more 'extroverted' when discussion their interests", etc), we really need to make the distinction between people being introverted or extroverted, and functions being introverted or extraverted. For the latter; it's only the standard they use to engage their process. It's not about about avoiding or pursuing (at least, not in themselves), though they may shape that stuff when dominant in the ego.

 

[Eric B]

Here, BTW, is a simple self-sorter based on these definitions. I was trying to decide the actual order, but perhaps it would be better to just have the person start with the one that comes easiest (which may be an indicator of the dominant):


j/p
Are you geared more toward taking in information for its own sake, or coming to some sort of conclusions with it?
(This does not yet necessarily indicate the actual J/P dichotomy preference. Which is why it's lowercase here, while the dichotomy is in capitals)
[if "p", then go to S/N; if "j", go to T/F]

I/E
Are you most energized by drawing upon what you have already learned on your own or what comes to you from within; or what you gather from the environment or culture?

(J=E+j, I+p; P=E+p, I+j)

S/N
Do you, in gathering information tend to focus on what's "at hand" according to tangible experience, or do you tend to "fill in" things that are not at hand, such as meanings, "big pictures" and inferences?

T/F
Do you tend to think more in terms of good vs bad (what people "like" or "dislike") or true or false (what's correct or incorrect regardless of whether people like it; i.e. "impersonal")?

 

[Researcher]

, we really need to make the distinction between people being introverted or extroverted, and functions being introverted or extraverted.

I usually only talk about functions, not about people.

And when you say people, you probably mean MBTI type of a person? The E/I of people's MBTI type is simply what their first function is, as regards to introverted/extraverted. I don't see the confusion in that here.

 

[Researcher]

Perhaps, "conscious/unconscious" can describe both the process of perceiving itself, and the orientation, so that:
Se: conscious perception of the conscious world
Si: conscious perception of the unconscious world
Ne: unconscious perception of the conscious world
Ni: unconscious perception of the unconscious world

Haha, oh god, you are trying to make those magical/undefined words more solid by mixing them around some more?

 

[Researcher]

By "negative", I simply means "false"(incorrect) or "bad"(disliked). The extraverted judgments determine false and bad, only it's the external environment that sets the standard. If we say 2+2=5 is "false", then it's an agreed upon (e) standard of impersonal truth (T) making a "negative" judgment.
I really don't know what this "avoiding/pursuing" concept is. It sounds more like dominant orientation (whether the person is "introverted" or "extraverted": I or E, which is set by the orientation of the dominant function; but then often leads into those familiar social traits). Seeing how you use the terms in the Asperger's thread ("more 'extroverted' when discussion their interests", etc), we really need to make the distinction between people being introverted or extroverted, and functions being introverted or extraverted. For the latter; it's only the standard they use to engage their process. It's not about about avoiding or pursuing (at least, not in themselves), though they may shape that stuff when dominant in the ego.

The words introversion and extraversion were introduced by Jung, he defined them. (Although popular culture tries to redefine them.)
He defined them roughly like this:
introversion moves away from the object, it avoids something
extraversion goes to the object, it pursues something
Jung's translators (to English) didn't use the words avoid/pursue, but the translators (to English) used move-away/go-to. But it means the same. Its not about the exact words/label but what core concept in our brain they stand for. Words/labels are just a way to dig up those core concepts in our brain.

If you want the exact descriptions, of the above (and all the 8 functions), you can read his book Psychological Types in the English translation. Just Chapter X (Roman number 10) will do, plus 1 following chapter with definitions, I think it was chapter 12 or 13 if i remember it well. You can probably find it online.

 

[Eric B]

I usually only talk about functions, not about people.

And when you say people, you probably mean MBTI type of a person? The E/I of people's MBTI type is simply what their first function is, as regards to introverted/extraverted. I don't see the confusion in that here.

OK; I made a mistake. I thought you were the one who said "Aspies are actually usually extroverted when you talk about what they are interested in", and that I put that together with your "avoiding/pursuing", but it was someone else who had said that.

In any case, yes, people are introverted or extraverted based on their dominant function, though regardless of which function it is, it still leads to some common general "social" traits (which we could summarize as "expressive" vs "reserved"), which is why the I/E factor became apart of the Interaction styles. So what I was saying, was that "avoiding/pursuing" sounds like it might be more part of a person's Interaction Style, than a quality of a function in itself.

 

[Eric B]

The words introversion and extraversion were introduced by Jung, he defined them. (Although popular culture tries to redefine them.)
He defined them roughly like this:
introversion moves away from the object, it avoids something
extraversion goes to the object, it pursues something
Jung's translators (to English) didn't use the words avoid/pursue, but the translators (to English) used move-away/go-to. But it means the same. Its not about the exact words/label but what core concept in our brain they stand for. Words/labels are just a way to dig up those core concepts in our brain.

Yes, it's easy to lose the meanings in the translations.

The "-version" suffix itself means "turning" [i.e. toward]. I'm not sure it's so much about "avoiding" as opposed to "pursuing". I guess pursue would fit, but what's not pursued will become "suppressed", and you can consider that "avoided", but I don't think it's quite as active as that, like it's [consciously] on an equal footing with "pursuing" what's preferred; at least that's the impression I get seeing the terms used like that; especially in the context you used them, of "profit"/losses". I don't think those have anything to do with functions, directly.

 

[Researcher]

Yes, it's easy to lose the meanings in the translations.

The "-version" suffix itself means "turning" [i.e. toward]. I'm not sure it's so much about "avoiding" as opposed to "pursuing". I guess pursue would fit, but what's not pursued will become "suppressed", and you can consider that "avoided", but I don't think it's quite as active as that, like it's [consciously] on an equal footing with "pursuing" what's preferred; at least that's the impression I get seeing the terms used like that; especially in the context you used them, of "profit"/losses". I don't think those have anything to do with functions, directly.

Thanks for the -version suffix explanation, this is really great that you found that, I didn't even know that. I will remember.

Suppressing is a form of avoiding as well. Fi suppresses bad feeling / Fi avoids bad feeling, its the same. Ti suppresses bad logic / Ti avoids bad logic, its the same. I choose avoiding over suppressing because its more general. Like pursue pleasure, avoid pain. You don't say suppress pain, you could, but it would be more specific than avoid pain.
There are many other even weirder words for pursue/avoid such as hunt/flee. Its all the same in my eyes.

Loss is something you avoid, profit is something you pursue.

What is blocking you in accepting profit/loss? Your association with money?
What do you think profit/loss stands for if you disregard money/currency and look at it abstractly? Or are you unable to uncouple it from money?

 

[Eric B]

I just don't think profit/loss corresponds with the attitudes in such a hard, definite way. Fe and Te will avoid bad feelings or logic as well, and Fi and Ti will pursue good feelings and logic. The only difference is the standard that "good" (or "true", etc) is based on. It's not (necessarily) the direction of our action. (Though when dominant, it may shape that).
I think there's a misunderstanding of Jung's "turning", in a literal, behavioral fashion. But what you "turn" to is simply the internal or external standard good or true is based on, and we naturally will pursue good and true, and avoid what we deem bad or false.

 

[Researcher]

Yes, of course typing is not about literal things, its all abstract to the highest degree.

The fun part is "the universal law of our physical reality" that if you pursue something, you automatically avoid something else. Or if you avoid something you automatically pursue something else. They are always coupled, this is unavoidable, it is the shadow effect.

So if you see something in real life, it is always avoiding something and pursuing something-else at the same time (if you look well, from all perspectives). It is impossible to do a one-sided action, in physical reality.

Now the question is, about that "conscious actor" you are observing pursuing&avoiding in pshyical reality at the same time: what was his original intent? to pursue object1? or to avoid object2? (Even though his act shows both at the same time)

 

[Eric B]

And I would still say that both introverted and extraverted attitudes primarily pursue their respective realms (and of course avoid the other one).
So you cannot really say (Strictly) "Xe=pursue; Xi=avoid". Unless you set the "object" (external) as the universal reference point, but there is nothing that favors such a slant.

 

[Researcher]

And I would still say that both introverted and extraverted attitudes primarily pursue their respective realms (and of course avoid the other one).
So you cannot really say (Strictly) "Xe=pursue; Xi=avoid". Unless you set the "object" (external) as the universal reference point, but there is nothing that favors such a slant.

Yes, the object is the universal reference point for pursue/avoid. (experienced from the point of view of the subject)

Optionally you can make the subject the reference point, and then we just reverse avoid/pursue for the same effect. So, yes, you can call them all pursuing if you switch the introverted ones to the subject, but keep the extraverted ones to the object. (They are all perfect opposites so by definition they would mean the same if you switch them around obviously.)

So why "object=universal reference point" ? and not "subject = universal reference point"?
Both could work, its just a matter of preference...
But I think "object=universal reference point" is good because:
1) it will be experienced like pursue/avoid for the subject itself. And when we type, we type from the viewpoint of the subject itself (looking at / deciding about the object), not from the viewpoint of the object he confronts.
2 You can't pursue the subject / go towards the subject (e.g. introverted, retracting/withdrawing deeper within the subject doesn't make sense) if you are already the subject, you can only avoid the object. So if somebody says a subject is withdrawing/retracting/hiding deep within himself (e.g. pursuing himself in your words), thats just a figure of speech, because taken literally : "where can he actually go? he is already there!". He can actually only avoid the object (whatever his coping strategy is in the end, even if its just closing his eyes).

So, it makes basic sense right?

 

[Eric B]

Still been trying to come up with something elemental for S/N as clear and concise as “true/false” and “good/bad” for T/F.

I think I’ll go with “perception of physical items” (with an alternate of “itemization” or “itemized data”) and “perception of mental constructs” (with an alternate of “larger contexts” or “[nonphysical] patterns”).

That really seems to sum up what S and N are about. Like S’s “details” and what I was trying to cover with “at hand”; and N’s “big picture” or “stories” that “fill in” experience.

“Items” would simply represent the sensory “details” S’s focus on. It’s another way of saying “detail”, without using that term, often used in cheap quiz questions.

For N; “construct” means (Wikipedia):

an ideal object, where the existence of the thing may be said to depend upon a subject’s mind. This, as opposed to a real object, where existence does not seem to depend on the existence of a mind.
In a scientific theory, particularly within psychology, a hypothetical construct is an explanatory variable which is not directly observable. For example, the concepts of intelligence and motivation are used to explain phenomena in psychology, but neither is directly observable.

Concepts that are considered constructs by this definition include that which is designated by the symbol “3” or the word “liberty”. Scientific hypotheses and theories (e.g. evolutionary theory, gravitational theory), as well as classifications (e.g. in biological taxonomy) are also conceptual entities considered to be constructs.

Simple examples of real objects (that are not constructs) include lawyers, silver fish and undershirts.

Other examples of constructs:
In Biology: Genes, evolution, illness, taxonomy, immunity
In Physics/Astrophysics: Black holes, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, String Theory, molecular physics or atoms, gravity, center of mass. In Psychology: Intelligence or knowledge, emotions, personality, moods. Theories and Hypotheses.

Here are some of the basic concepts redone:
Se: physical items as they are encountered, externally
Si: physical items compared with ones stored internally in memory
Ne: mental constructs interconnected in some some larger [external] arrangement
Ni: mental constructs filtered through internal impressions

How functions are differentiated from each other
S: what’s physically itemized [from internal or external source] is used to make mental constructs
N: what’s mentally constructed (larger patterns) [filtered internally or connected externally] fills in the world of physical items (s)