^Interesting. I'd like to hear more.
User Tag List
Thread: Functions: Xi vs. Xe

09122008, 05:53 AM #21

09122008, 06:02 AM #22
it can't be elliptical or a circle
it would have to be some weird shaped blob to fill out the appropriate 3D space to represent % of a characteristic because the shape may have to pass through the center of the cube in a 2D plane, and expand 3D to take up the appropriate space for all the 8 possible sub cubes if they are 0/100% for one, and 50/50 for another measurement.
definitely not a smooth ellipse. think of like a cingular logo for extreme situations.

09122008, 06:33 AM #23

09122008, 06:35 AM #24

09122008, 07:56 AM #25

09122008, 08:34 AM #26

09122008, 09:28 AM #27
Feeling and Thinking can come to the same conclusion, they just get there different ways.
When deciding between two things you can do what "feels right" (feeling) or what is "logical" or "makes most sense" (thinking). Sometimes the most logical thing is also what feels right. For example, I eat healthy because it feels like the right thing to do and makes me feel better (feelings) and also because there are scientific studies saying I am decreasing my chance of having medical problems by eating healthy. I could have reached the same decision with either thinking or feeling.
Ilah

09122008, 10:15 AM #28
The fact that not every function is 100% is due to nature. All personalities are made of nature (your mbti) + nurture (how you were raised, your environment, etc). There are 8 functions and they vary in strength due to orientation and the nature nurture aspect.
"Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Mahatma Gandhi
Enneagram: 9w1

09122008, 11:33 AM #29
Perception does a lot of the work you're talking about. Feeling literally can either say "good" or "bad". Thinking can either say "true" or "false". If you guys have heard of Turing machines, Perception is like the tape, and Judgment is like the head. Perception is what you're thinking about  it does every single step that is not deductive. (In MBTI, a Thinker focuses more on "true" or "false", a Feeler focuses more on "good" or "bad".) If you string together a bunch of Feelings (coupled with a bunch of Perceptions and Thinkings, Perceptions to put the thoughts in your consciousness, Thinkings to answer Perceptions' yes or no questions), that's when you get the sort of thoughts you're talking about  "This makes me feel good". That thought, though, is completely impossible without Thinking to answer questions like "is it true that 'this makes me feel good'?" Or, "is there a causal relation between feeling good and eating well?".
You get the picture, I hope. Every complete thought is really an interaction of all four functions. Sensing takes in data, Intuition makes the connections (metaphor is the basis of all language), Thinking checks logical consistency, Feeling checks motivation level.

09122008, 12:45 PM #30
Well, in theory a 3D ellipsoid has 8 degrees of freedom (3 degrees for the origin, two degrees of freedom for the three axis, and 3 for the length, width, height along those axis). 8 degrees of freedom,8 functionsseems plausible.
I was actually trying to think through the equations of projections of the ellipsoid on the various "plane vectors" representing function scores.
Any 3D ellipsoid can be specified by a 3x3 positive definite matrix, B, (defines axis and "lengths" along those axes), and a 3D vector, r, (defines the origin).
The bounds of the ellipsoid are defined by the solutions to the equation:
[(xr)^T][B^1](xr)=1
Each cognitive function vector would have a 3x3 projection matrix, P, of rank 1. These matrices are symmetric and have the property that P^2=P.
Now the projection of the solutions to the equation above using P becomes the solutions to:
[(yPr)^T]P[B^1](yPr)=1
I was thinking that I could make the function score of the ellipsoid to be given by the maximum valued solution to (8 versions of) the above equation.
For convenience, lets denote the Projection Matrix by the actual function name.
Si score = max y such that, [(ySir)^T]Si[B^1](ySir)=1
Ni score = max y such that, [(yNir)^T]Ni[B^1](yNir)=1
Se score = max y such that, [(ySer)^T]Si[B^1](ySer)=1
Ne score = max y such that, [(yNer)^T]Ni[B^1](yNer)=1
Fi score = max y such that, [(yFir)^T]Si[B^1](yFir)=1
Ti score = max y such that, [(yTir)^T]Ni[B^1](yTir)=1
Fe score = max y such that, [(yFer)^T]Si[B^1](yFer)=1
Te score = max y such that, [(yTer)^T]Ni[B^1](yTer)=1
Note: in all the above equations the "y" is independently bound, that is, each y is a different y (I just didn't want to do y_Si, y_Ni, etc.).
Other things to note:
The directions of the axes of the ellipsoid are given by the eigenvectors of B, and the "halfaxis length" along those axes is given by the squareroot of the corresponding eigenvalues.
B must be positive definite, and because of that, it must be symmetric (we're dealing completely with realnumbers here).
With the things noted above, we've now created a framework of 9 scalar variables.
b1 b2 b3
B=b2 b4 b5
b3 b5 b6
r1
r=r2
r3
Given the eight constraints above and one more for positive definiteness, it seemed like it was doable.
The issue is that I haven't yet thought thought what vectors should represent the functions, and I need to make sure that equations given from the projections are independent (or at least not contradictory).
Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield
Similar Threads

about function order vs strength
By INTP in forum MyersBriggs and Jungian Cognitive FunctionsReplies: 3Last Post: 02272010, 01:36 PM 
Xe vs. Xi: Discriminating word pairs
By Economica in forum MyersBriggs and Jungian Cognitive FunctionsReplies: 13Last Post: 06212009, 04:59 PM 
Cognitive functions vs. umm... the other thingy =)
By /DG/ in forum MyersBriggs and Jungian Cognitive FunctionsReplies: 32Last Post: 05202009, 09:57 PM 
Help with jungian dichotomies vs. cognitive functions
By Scytale in forum MyersBriggs and Jungian Cognitive FunctionsReplies: 9Last Post: 05092008, 01:23 PM 
[JCF] How my Ti functions (crude representation) vs. F in an "argument"
By MacGuffin in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)Replies: 5Last Post: 09202007, 06:13 PM