User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 13

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    9

    Default On the Nature of Jungian Functions

    In this essay, I will attempt to sum up the nature of the functions both generally and concisely. My goal here is to logical deduce the functions down to what they essentially are, and in doing so, gain general definitions which can be used in the context of typing someone. This means that the definitions will not only capture the functions in their entirety, but be able to be applied to others to describe a general characteristic they present.

    To start, I'll be unpacking the major concepts which are at the foundation of Jungian typology and mbti. This will begin with the dichotomies of introversion vs extraversion, perceiving vs judging, sensing vs intuition, and thinking vs feeling. Once these concepts are adequately fleshed out I will layout the essential nature of each particular function as simply as possible.

    Introversion vs Extraversion
    Introversion and extraversion are the general attitudes one can take. By attitude, I refer to the direction of ones awareness. Introversion directs its awareness inward, toward the subject, being subjective. Extraversion directs its awareness outward, toward the object, being objective. To understand introversion and extraversion fully we must also understand the nature of the subject and the object.

    The Subject
    The subject is practically synonymous with oneself. So, when one directs its awareness toward the subject, they are reflecting on their self, in a sense, distorting their awareness with the subjectivity of their own views, beliefs, and overall past experience (I say past experience because ones current state of mind is their sum of their past experiences. For instance, an individuals current state of knowledge is the sum total of all their previously acquired knowledge). In this regard, we could say that the subject is an internal referential point from which we understand stuff as it relates to our own unique individuality. Introversion is the preference for reflecting on this reference point, bouncing that which comes into awareness off of it.

    The Object
    The object is ones environment; all of that which surrounds them; the world outside of oneself. The object exists independently from the subject in the sense that its existence isn't effected by subjective impressions; the shared environment of two separate subjects is the same even if each subject perceives it to be different. In this sense, the object is objective and certain. You could imagine the object is something like the bare essentials of the outer world; the material world stripped down to its most fundamental form, akin to what Kant proposed as the "primary qualities". So, when one directs there awareness toward the object, they are remaining objective, focusing on those aspects of their environment which is shared, unaltered, and is not filtered through their own subjective lens.

    Perceiving vs Judging
    Before moving on, it's important to know that the essential nature of all functions is to process information. The world is made up of information. For an individual to make any movement in the world, they have to interact with information. This is where the functions come in to play; the functions are representative of the different ways we process information, generally speaking. So, the functions are modes of information processing; different types having different preferences for how they process information.

    Of the functions, two types exist, perceiving and judging. Perceiving functions absorb information, simply observing it so it can be understood. You could say, perceiving functions are passive and receptive, due to the fact that they just take in information and don't put it up to any scrutiny. On the other hand, judging functions evaluate information, actually engaging with it. You could say judging functions are more active in their processing, due to the fact that they actually analyze and critique information. Both types of functions work together to interpret and discern information.

    Intuition vs Sensation
    Of the perceiving functions, you have intuition and sensation. Intuition looks to absorb information of the abstract nature. By abstract, I mean it finds the connections, patterns, and underlying meanings within and throughout information. On the the other hand, sensation absorbs information of the concrete or physical nature, typically referring to that of the senses, hence the label sensation. The purpose of each function is to simply take in information without applying judgement, the difference being in the type of information they process.

    Intuition
    Intuition dwells in theory, finding interest in the notions pervaded throughout information. Due to the nature of intuition being abstract, most of this functions perceptions are beyond words, having no concrete place in reality, and rely heavily on metaphors and analogies. Intuition is the perception that a brain is like a computer, or that society is like an organism; the perception is of the abstract, underlying connection of two different things. Furthermore, intuition is the ability to recognize that things are deeper than they appear, which is evident in the human pursuit of metaphysical truths. Overall, intuition is the perception of things that don't physically exist, but are represented in things that physically exist.

    Sensation
    Sensation doesn't go beyond what is physically there. In nature, this function deals with that which can be absorbed through the senses, leading to a concrete representation of information. This leads to information that is easily communicable for one, due to it having a physical form that can easily be described in words. It's also important to note that sensation is the sum total of that which we experience physically; it is our sensory experience. In essence, sensation is the perception of information as it exists physically.

    Thinking vs Feeling
    For the judging functions, there is thinking and feeling. To put it quite simply, thinking judges information logically, putting the information under the scrutiny of what is correct and what isn't, based on rationale; while feeling judges information ethically or righteously, putting information under the scrutiny of what is right and what is wrong, based on values. Essentially, both functions scrutinize information, the difference lies in the criteria used to discriminate what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong.

    Thinking
    Due to the nature of thinking, it's criteria is based on correctness and precision; judgement that is free from error. While feeling judges information through emotions, what feels right or wrong, thinking operates on reason, deciding what is true and what is false. Thinking looks at information almost mathematically, putting that information through a sort of equation: "if all humans are mortal and I am a human, I am therefore a mortal." You could say thinking strives for accuracy, dissecting information and eliminating it of errors. Essentially, thinking is the function of order and rationality, sifting through information and assessing the validity of it.

    Feeling
    Feeling, on the other hand, is based on morality; what is right and what is wrong; good vs. bad. Feeling is largely influenced by our emotions, as in, how we feel about information. While thinking judges based on laws of what actually is, feeling judges based on principles of fairness. Feeling looks at information morally, putting information under the scrutiny of ethics: "is this fair?", "is it right to be treated in such a way?".

    It's important to note, that feeling is a social function, being responsible for assessing information in regards to others. It is the emergence of civilization and society that makes feeling a necessary function; there is no right or wrong if there is no one else to harm, it's the presence of others that lead to moral issues. In this way, feeling is essentially our social function, striving for equity and fairness, analyzing information and eliminating it of inappropriate and corrupt beliefs.

    The Functions
    Now, having the knowledge of the functions in there most basic form, we can move on to specialized functions. By this I mean, the functions when they take on a specific attitude, introversion or extraversion. If awareness can be directed both inward and outward, the functions can as well, since the functions are simply filters that awareness uses to metabolize particular information. Due to this, functions can process information in either an introverted or extraverted manner. The eight particular functions are: introverted intuition, extraverted intuition, introverted sensation, extraverted sensation, introverted thinking, extraverted thinking, introverted feeling, and extraverted feeling.

    Introverted Perception
    It's important to note that introverted intuition and introverted sensing are, first and foremost, introverted perceiving functions, This means that they take in information as it relates to the subject. In other words, when absorbing information, it views it from the perspective of the subject, leading to a narrow mindedness, where ones own perceptions are of preference, and the perceptions outside of ones own field of view are seen as irrelevant and rejected. You could say the subject is predisposed to perceive information in a particular fashion.

    Introverted Intuition
    Absorbs abstract information, such as patterns, ideas, and underlying truths, from the perspective of the subject. Leads to an observer who prefers to see a few relevant abstract notions as they manifest in the world around them. Introverted intuition parses through abstract information according to subjective interest, ignoring possibilities which are irrelevant to the subject. To the introverted intuitive, abstractions are not all equal, and only those that align with the subjects impressions of the world are treated with praise.

    Introverted Sensation
    Absorbs sensory information from the perspective of the subject, leading to an observer who attaches personal sentiment to sensory information. Sensory information is seen as symbolic of, or related to, some aspect of the subject. To the introverted sensor, pieces of sensory information are representative of associated past experiences.

    Extraverted Perception
    Just as introverted perceiving functions have a general underlying nature, so do extroverted perceiving functions. Where introverted perceptions prefer to take the perspective of the subject, extroverted perception removes that subjective lens and takes in information as it objectively is. To the extroverted perceiver, perceptions exist independently to them and simply are their surrounding environment. In this way, extroverted perception is fleeting, as there is no subjective attachment made and no particular piece of information being preferred, leading to large amounts of information being gathered, and none of it being held on to.

    Extraverted Intuition
    Absorbs abstract information as it comes across it and applies no subjective filter; abstract information has no intrinsic value. The object, or ones surrounding environment is seen as a world of possibilities, with patterns, ideas, and underlying truths emerging from all angles and perspectives. To the extroverted intuitive, no abstraction is to peculiar to be entertained (until analyzed by judging function).

    Extraverted Sensation
    Absorbs sensory information as it comes across it, experiencing it in its concrete, objective form. Ones surrounding environment is simply a physically world, existing as it does in that moment. To the extroverted sensor, sensory information is of no sentiment, and is simply the world they inhabit. To put it simply, this function is the epitome of empiricism.

    Introverted Judgment
    Since judging functions essentially critique information, introverted judging functions critique information according to the subject. In a way, you could say this type of subjective judgment takes place in a vacuum, detached from the surrounding environment; it simply has to make sense, or feel right to the subject. To the introverted judger, the scrutiny of information is ultimately at their hands, making them the final decider.

    Introverted Thinking
    Assesses information according to logic as the subject sees fit. To make sense, the information has to be structured as it is understood by the subject; relying on information to be distinct and defined, so it can be catalogued accurately, according to a subjective order. To the introverted thinker, validity is related to a structure within (typically propositional), assessing everything to align with their own understanding of information.

    Introverted Feeling
    Assesses information according to what is considered of value to the subject. The subjects emotional affect toward information is the ultimate decider of merit; "that disgusts me!", or "I love that". To the introverted feeler, right and wrong or good and bad is personally felt and isn't something to be objectified or even necessarily understood.

    Extraverted Judgement
    Objective analysis of information. Extroverted judging functions align information with their environment, ultimately looking for that which will lead to results. For the most part, extroverted judgment ignores the process of understanding and prioritizes solutions. To the extroverted judger, the criteria for which information is scrutinized in in the environment around them.

    Extraverted Thinking
    Assesses information according to the structure of ones surrounding, finding order to be something inherit in their environment. Logical analysis is something found outside of oneself, relying on facts, data, and empirical evidence. To the extroverted thinker, knowledge exists in relation to an externally acquired goal, being used as a tool to achieve.

    Extraverted Feeling
    Assesses information according to the agreed upon ethics of ones social surroundings. Ultimately, right and wrong, or good and bad, is determined by the consensus of those who make up ones social environment. To the extroverted feeler, value is determined externally and based on mutual agreement, and keeping to this agreement is key to maintaining harmony within the group.

    Conclusion
    To wrap up, I'd like to address that these definitions are an attempt to isolate each function and highlight its purpose. Essentially, each function has its own specialization, meant to mediate the interactions between awareness and the world. To sum it up, intuition specializes in the perception of truths and meaning; sensation specializes in the perception of the physical and sensory; thinking specializes in evaluation of structure; and feeling specializes in the evaluation of morals and propriety.

    Ultimately, to understand the functions in there entirety, you need to understand them in the context of their underlying metaphysics. At the base of Jungian typology is the idea that there exists two worlds: the subjective and the objective. Mediating between these worlds are organisms, which have objective bodies possessed by subjective souls. The functions are simply the ways in which the awareness of an organism can interact with the different aspects of the worlds. The ways in which organisms differ from each other in their worldly interactions leads to individual differences in personality, and we categorize these as types.
    Last edited by moflow; 04-19-2019 at 04:29 PM.
    Likes Tomb1, Zhaylin liked this post

  2. #2
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    655

    Default

    Myers and Briggs started (mostly) from Jung, but they ended up putting him to the test in accordance with modern psychometric standards, and making a lot of adjustments to Jung's original concepts on the way to a typology that was largely — and notwithstanding a fair amount of Jungian lip service — centered around the four dichotomies.

    In fact, the early history of the MBTI was sufficiently dichotomy-centric that Linda Berens, writing in 1999, lamented that "most practitioners" seemed to have forgotten — or "never even understood" (her words) — all that functiontastic goodness that was (in Berens' goofball view) "what the type code really stood for." "The dichotomies took on a life of their own," she complained.

    But as already noted, Myers' dichotomies reflected a lot of changes to Jung, so if Berens and her fellow functionistas were going to talk about a set of eight "cognitive functions" that matched up with the modern MBTI types, they couldn't very well use Jung's versions of the functions. Instead, they came up with a new function set, but most often described them as if they were Jung's original versions — cuz as everybody knows, it's cool to be Jungian.

    Your OP seems to be a somewhat jumbled mix of Jung's original notions, the modern MBTI dichotomies, and those eight jerry-rigged faux-Jungian functions.

    For example: as discussed at length in this post, one of the biggest adjustments Myers made to Jung was moving concrete/abstract from E/I to S/N, but your OP seems to put it both places. You say extraversion involves an "objective" focus on the external environment, undistorted by the person's subjective views; and you also say that sensation involves a focus on concrete reality at the expense of meanings and theories that "don't physically exist."

    As between a typical ISTJ and a typical ENFP, do you think the ENFP's perspective on the world will be more objective — "not filtered through their own subjective lens," as you put it — and the ISTJ's perspective will depart more from the objective facts in favor of distortions reflecting their own subjective views and beliefs?

    If that's your view, it's consistent with Jung's version of Si, which he said involved a "reality-alienating subjectivity" that led an Si-dom to have an "arbitrary" and "illusory conception of reality." But the version of Si that you'll find in most modern MBTI sources — cuz it's the one that lines up well with MBTI SJs — is very different from Jung's, and is more like the opposite of Jung's when it comes to the correspondence of Si with objective reality. And if you're interested, you can find a long discussion of that here.

    Your OP describes the eight functions, but doesn't describe which functions you think correspond to which MBTI types. Assuming you subscribe to a "function stack," is your stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux Ti-Ni-Se-Fe (Jung's stack), Ti-Ne-Se-Fe (Myers' stack), or Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (the Harold Grant stack)?

    As a final note: although both spellings of "extraversion" can be found in the dictionary, Jung coined the term, and he spelled it with an "a" — and rightly referred to later "o" spellings as "bad latin." Isabel Myers also spelled it with an "a," and it's spelled with an "a" in all the most well-known MBTI sources, in virtually all the leading Big Five sources, and in most other academic-psychology sources.

    Anybody's free to be a special snowflake if they want, of course, but it seems to me that there's some advantage to having a consistency of spelling for the main terms (at least) involved in a respectable field of study — particularly in the context of journals (and forums) devoted to discussions of that field. And again, when it comes to the field of personality psychology generally (not just the MBTI), the "extraversion" spelling isn't just slightly favored; it's very strongly favored.

    In case you're interested in the Wikipedia Talk discussion of which spelling should be used in the Wikipedia article, it's here:

    Wikipedia Talk: Reasons to use ExtrAversion instead of ExtrOversion

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    9

    Default

    "Your OP seems to be a somewhat jumbled mix of Jung's original notions, the modern MBTI dichotomies, and those eight jerry-rigged faux-Jungian functions."

    You hit the nail on the head. So I should start by saying that my OP is my interpretation of Jungian typology based on all the information I've gathered on it, which mostly includes Jung's original work and mbti literature, but also a bit of socionics theory as well.

    2. "For example: as discussed at length in this post, one of the biggest adjustments Myers made to Jung was moving concrete/abstract from E/I to S/N, but your OP seems to put it both places. You say extraversion involves an "objective" focus on the external environment, undistorted by the person's subjective views; and you also say that sensation involves a focus on concrete reality at the expense of meanings and theories that "don't physically exist.""

    I'll try to clarify it as best as I can. Essentially, I see the E/I dichotomy as distinguishing the reference point for which we use to understand information, one extreme being relating info to ones own subjective biases and the other relying purely on the surrounding environment. And to reiterate, I see N/S as abstract/ physical.

    I see the confusion, the surrounding environment is practically synonymous with the physical environment, and tbh, this is the part I struggle with the most, but I do think there is the difference. What that difference is has been tough for me to pin down exactly. I think it's something like: sensation is the concrete representation of information, whereas extroversion is the objective interpretation of information. By concrete representation, I mean the perception of information is clear, corporeal, and easily translated, but not necessarily objective in the sense that it is universally perceived in such a way. By objective interpretation, I mean information is looked to be understood in a way that is universal or externally modulated. Idk, ima keep digging at this.

    3. "As between a typical ISTJ and a typical ENFP, do you think the ENFP's perspective on the world will be more objective &; "not filtered through their own subjective lens," as you put it; and the ISTJ's perspective will depart more from the objective facts in favor of distortions reflecting their own subjective views and beliefs?"

    Yes, absolutely. Now, the typical ISTJ will certainly have a more physical grasp on reality, but that physical reality will have subjective traces in it. This could simply be by attaching a memory to a physical sensation. For instance, my aunt has all types of distinct memories associated with the movie Jaws. To Si, physical stimuli is representative of certain subjectivities the individual associated with it; in the example of my aunt, the physical stimuli would be the movie Jaws.

    I should also also add that it seems that the subjectivities Si associates with physical stimuli are related to the individuals culture. This may make them seem objective since they will have good awareness of their cultural surroundings and the ensuing traditions, but overall the associations are made from past experiences with the culture.

    As far as the ENFP, I personally don't understand how Ne actually manifests itself. In theory, I imagine it wouldn't let the subjects biases get in the way of gathering all the potentialities in its environment. Therefore, it's acquisition of intuitive perceptions would be all encompassing and universal in the sense that it would ideally come across all possibilities and not just the ones related to a particular subject.

    Honestly, I have trouble conceptualizing intuition as objective, but I think it comes down to perspective, specifically, it comes down to taking on all perspectives as opposed to just the subjects perspective.

    4. "Your OP describes the eight functions, but doesn't describe which functions you think correspond to which MBTI types. Assuming you subscribe to a "function stack," is your stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux Ti-Ni-Se-Fe (Jung's stack), Ti-Ne-Se-Fe (Myers' stack), or Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (the Harold Grant stack)?"

    Tough to say. I guess I would say the aux is fluid. Of the stacks you proposed, I think both Jung's and Grant's look correct. In the Jung stack, Ti-Ni-Se-Fe, I would consider this an ISTP; in the Grant stack, Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, I would consider this an INTP. What I'm getting at is both are a Ti-dom with an N-aux, but are still different types due to the difference in perceiving axis.

    Now I said I believe the aux is fluid. What I mean is, in the ISTP for example, I believe the Ni-Se can swap places. I think naturally, being an introvert, the ISTP is going to prefer to introvert its perception, and in the case of the ISTP, they use Ni for introverted perception. However, I still believe they will be naturally adept at Se but it will likely be something called upon more as life calls for it.


    Sorry if my responses aren't all that consistent, I kinda rushed through this. When I saw your response I wanted to get back to you ASAP as I think you brought up valid critiques. @reckful

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    503

    Default

    Pretty good...my only problem is your blurring of feelings and morality. Feeling needs to be defined without bringing in morality.
    Click here for my 2500+ Enneagram Type List to type yourself and others with. It's the only valid breakdown for every enneagram type, wing and stack.

    Click here for the only valid visual typing model of stackings on earth and socionics.
    Click here for enneagram type descriptions as a supplement to the only valid breakdown for every type, wing and stack.
    Click here for my typings of 100+ fictional exemplars and here for my typings of 90+ typology central members.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomb1 View Post
    Pretty good...my only problem is your blurring of feelings and morality. Feeling needs to be defined without bringing in morality.
    I think morality is an essential component of feeling. I guess I should elaborate on my understanding of morality to explain.

    Morality is that which guides behavior in a social context, for instance, we don't murder because it's unsustainable behavior for a society over time. Now, these guiding principles are rooted in a hierarchy of values, for instance, the value implied in the principle "Don't murder" is that of an individual life. The point here is that as animals evolved to become pack oriented, they had to evolve guiding principles (implicit of course since morality emerged long before verbal communication), or morals, based on certain values that were useful to the group; this allows animals to function amongst each other in a way that's beneficial to the whole of the group.

    So how does this relate to feeling? Well feeling is the the judgement of values, and values are at the root of our moral principles. Essentially from what I see, the feeling function structures the value hierarchy of an individual, which then necessarily alters their moral compass in the process. Now, I guess you could say values alter more than ones morals, but I'm not exactly sure that's the case. If you don't mind maybe you can elaborate on what you think I'm missing?

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moflow View Post
    2. "For example: as discussed at length in this post, one of the biggest adjustments Myers made to Jung was moving concrete/abstract from E/I to S/N, but your OP seems to put it both places. You say extraversion involves an "objective" focus on the external environment, undistorted by the person's subjective views; and you also say that sensation involves a focus on concrete reality at the expense of meanings and theories that "don't physically exist.""

    I'll try to clarify it as best as I can. Essentially, I see the E/I dichotomy as distinguishing the reference point for which we use to understand information, one extreme being relating info to ones own subjective biases and the other relying purely on the surrounding environment. And to reiterate, I see N/S as abstract/ physical.

    I see the confusion, the surrounding environment is practically synonymous with the physical environment, and tbh, this is the part I struggle with the most, but I do think there is the difference. What that difference is has been tough for me to pin down exactly. I think it's something like: sensation is the concrete representation of information, whereas extroversion is the objective interpretation of information. By concrete representation, I mean the perception of information is clear, corporeal, and easily translated, but not necessarily objective in the sense that it is universally perceived in such a way. By objective interpretation, I mean information is looked to be understood in a way that is universal or externally modulated. Idk, ima keep digging at this.
    I've thought about this somemore and think I'm able to clarify this issue, so I figured this would be worth posting to settle the confusion on the E/I and S/N dichotomies as I proposed them.

    First I would like you to imagine the physical reality which we all exist in. Now, imagine if you were to strip this reality of everything except it's form, leaving behind something like pure mass; similar, if not the same as what Kant called the primary qualities. This is what I refer to as the object.

    Now, imagine applying all the textures back onto the object; again, similar to what Kant called the secondary qualities. This is what I would call sensory information, that which is perceived by sensation.

    I've been going back over Jung's original notion of the types and my interpretation seems to be consistent with his. Firstly, it doesn't seem to me that Jung proposed the E/I dichotomy as abstract/concrete per say, but as subjective/objective; or something like self/world roughly speaking.

    In Psychological Types Jung says about the extroverted attitude, "When orientation by the object predominates in such a way that decisions and actions are determined not by subjective views but by objective conditions, we speak of an extroverted attitude" (p. 333). From this quote, it doesn't seem to me that Jung is referring to extroversion as concrete, but objective conditions as he says. And by objective conditions, I interpret that as properties inherent to the external world, independent of observers.

    Furthermore, Jung later goes on to say "Sensation is naturally dependent on objects. But, just as naturally, it is also dependent on the subject, for which reason there is a subjective sensation" (p. 362). He also stated about extroverted sensation "No other human type can equal the extroverted sensation type in realism" (p. 363). I've interpreted this to mean that sensation and extroversion are two Important components of reality; sensation being the aspect of reality that we observe, the object being the aspect of reality that's integral to its structure. The more you extrovert sensation, the closer the observation is to objective reality. As I mentioned above, Kant's distinctions of primary and secondary qualities reflect this.

    These are the definition of primary and secondary qualities as proposed by Wikipedia:

    "Primary qualities are thought to be properties of objects that are independent of any observer, such as solidity, extension, motion, number, and figure."

    "Secondary qualities are thought to be properties that produce sensations in observers, such as color, taste, smell, and sound."

    Link: Primary/secondary quality distinction - Wikipedia

    For what I posted originally, I'm happy with these further representing my interpretation of the distinction between extroversion and sensation. Hopefully this makes sense?
    @reckful

  7. #7
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moflow View Post
    I've been going back over Jung's original notion of the types and my interpretation seems to be consistent with his. Firstly, it doesn't seem to me that Jung proposed the E/I dichotomy as abstract/concrete per say, but as subjective/objective; or something like self/world roughly speaking.
    The first post I linked you to (in my initial post in this thread) was this one, and it's a long discussion — with lots of supporting quotes (and don't miss the spoilered quote, from Chapter 8) — of the fact that, as Jung saw it, concrete/abstract went to the heart of E/I. That notion runs through multiple chapters of Psychological Types, and it's really not a reasonable-people-can-disagree issue.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    The first post I linked you to (in my initial post in this thread) was this one, and it's a long discussion — with lots of supporting quotes (and don't miss the spoilered quote, from Chapter 8) — of the fact that, as Jung saw it, concrete/abstract went to the heart of E/I. That notion runs through multiple chapters of Psychological Types, and it's really not a reasonable-people-can-disagree issue.
    Regardless of Jung's views, I don't view E/I as concrete/abstract. Admittedly I've only read the general type descriptions of Jung's Psychological Types so I'm not well versed on his overall view, and if what you say is true than I'm not in agreement with him on this issue.

    I did go through the posts on your link, tho I did skip the spoiler (I'll check it out when I get a chance). I believe you said that your a dichotomy guy, so you might disagree with me but I think an important issue here is establishing solid definitions for each function. I'm interested, what exactly is your take on the cognitive functions?

    And as for the similarities between E/I and concrete/abstract in my OP, I'm gonna go through them again and try to make the descriptions more distinct to clarify that confusion.

  9. #9
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moflow View Post
    Regardless of Jung's views, I don't view E/I as concrete/abstract. Admittedly I've only read the general type descriptions of Jung's Psychological Types so I'm not well versed on his overall view, and if what you say is true than I'm not in agreement with him on this issue.

    I did go through the posts on your link, tho I did skip the spoiler (I'll check it out when I get a chance). I believe you said that your a dichotomy guy, so you might disagree with me but I think an important issue here is establishing solid definitions for each function. I'm interested, what exactly is your take on the cognitive functions?

    And as for the similarities between E/I and concrete/abstract in my OP, I'm gonna go through them again and try to make the descriptions more distinct to clarify that confusion.
    To maybe clarify, and as emphasized in that linked post, I think concrete/abstract belongs in the S/N cluster, and Jung was mistaken to think it was primarily an E/I thing.

    On dichotomies and functions, you can find my take on that thorny issue in this post.

    The final link at the end of that linked post is no longer functional (since the owner has taken INTJforum private), but you can find a long replacement excerpt from the INTJforum post — describing the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI — in the spoiler in this post.

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    To maybe clarify, and as emphasized in that linked post, I think concrete/abstract belongs in the S/N cluster, and Jung was mistaken to think it was primarily an E/I thing. On dichotomies and functions, you can find my take on that thorny issue in this post. The final link at the end of that linked post is no longer functional (since the owner has taken INTJforum private), but you can find a long replacement excerpt from the INTJforum post — describing the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI — in the spoiler in this post.
    So as for the functions, do you reject them completely? Or do you simply see them as unpractical due to the lack of evidence supporting them?

    I'm not trying to box you in, it just seems that despite your preference for the dichotomies you haven't completely disregarded the functions.

    I've gone through a portion of your posts and I gotta say, you put up a compelling argument for the dichotomy's. As a functions guy who largely rejected the dichotomy centric model, you certainly opened me up to its validity. Up until now I was under the impression that the dichotomy centric model was invalid, unreliable, and overall inferior compared to the Big 5. I see now that that is inaccurate.

    However, I'm not ready to give up on the functions; I think if they could be empirically proven they would be the most insightful personality measure yet. Tho I think they would measure something different than what the MBTI and Big 5 are tapping into. I guess I see the functions and dichotomies as fundamentally different personality measures as of now.


    Anyhow, I appreciate all the research you provided here on the forum. Seriously useful stuff; I wish I would've stumbled upon all this earlier.

    Oh, and also, I saw you post "How about doing what Nardi somehow failed to do and give me some Ni, Ne, Ti and Te descriptions that I can offer those poor type-me-please INTx's as a solution to their confusion." I decided to take up the challenge.

    Ne vs Ni:

    * Ne: I have little to no discrimination towards theoretical conjecture and don't mind speculating for the fun of it.

    * Ni: I'm very selective about my metaphysical beliefs and prefer to only theorize about possibilities or ideas that I see as relevant, likely, or meaningful.

    Ti vs Te:

    * Te: When confronted with a problem I prefer to look to external sources for solutions, such as proven methodologies, empirical observations, and those who are competetent/experienced in the given field.

    * Ti: When confronted with a problem I prefer to reason through it myself, relying on my already acquired bank of knowledge.

    I don't think these are anything ground breaking, but they are in direct opposition of each other, so logically speaking you can only perform one at a time. Sure, you could be in the middle, performing one after the other, but I'd predict that across time and situations, an NT type would show a preference in either direction.

Similar Threads

  1. The Essence Of Jungian Functions
    By moflow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Yesterday, 10:28 PM
  2. What's the consensus on the use of shadow functions?
    By garbage in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 04-27-2012, 12:37 PM
  3. The Nature of Ne -- a metaphorical visual
    By spirilis in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 01:55 AM
  4. On the nature of ethics
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 02-23-2009, 04:55 PM
  5. A Note on the Problem of Induction
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO