F = personal relationships vs T = social interactions

[SearchingforPeace]

That doesn't mean that Te-doms are exempt from such an ordeal. In fact, I see that as simply the entrepreneur being a poor judge of character instead of it having anything to do with him being an Fe-dom.

No, he lacks Te. I can't give more details, but he clearly fails on a Te test. And his failure to have Te is causing him to struggle.

I have seen other Fe using managers fail similarly. It isn't unique.

I manage people extremely well. I resolve problems, minimize conflict, and calm anger with ease. But I know my blind spots and weak points. Getting a strong ESTJ in support of a Fe using boss is key for Fe user management success.

 

[Sacrophagus]

No, he lacks Te. I can't give more details, but he clearly fails on a Te test. And his failure to have Te is causing him to struggle.

I have seen other Fe using managers fail similarly. It isn't unique.

I manage people extremely well. I resolve problems, minimize conflict, and calm anger with ease. But I know my blind spots and weak points. Getting a strong ESTJ in support of a Fe using boss is key for Fe user management success.

As a whole, having different people with different skill sets is primordial. We take into account their input and use it in the decision-making process according to the result that needs to be achieved.

Te will also fail if it took away the human element. I might try to mimic that at the best of my ability, but it's not compared to someone who's a natural.

Overall, a complementary relationship in the hierarchy is key.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

As a whole, having different people with different skill sets is primordial. We take into account their input and use it in the decision-making process according to the result that needs to be achieved.

Te will also fail if it took away the human element. I might try to mimic that at the best of my ability, but it's not compared to someone who's a natural.

Overall, a complementary relationship in the hierarchy is key.

Exactly. Too Fe and everyone is happy but nothing gets done. Too Te and it is a prison work camp.

I recently met person who works as a state investigator for discrimination matters. He said the line between a violation and huge fine and safety is short. It mainly comes down to phrases and activities and such that are Fe-ish. He called it simple human decency.

 

[Jaguar]

The black and white thinking in this thread is limiting, not productive.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Exactly. Too Fe and everyone is happy but nothing gets done. Too Te and it is a prison work camp.

I recently met person who works as a state investigator for discrimination matters. He said the line between a violation and huge fine and safety is short. It mainly comes down to phrases and activities and such that are Fe-ish. He called it simple human decency.

I am not sure I agree. Aux Te can evidently be like that, however dominant Te should be observant and physically present enough to realize that this approach may/will not work. If we say that Te is keeping a ship afloat we must compensate for all problems to do it and that includes interpersonal relationships as well. The difference is that Te will do it generally in a much firm and cold-blooded way just to get it done.

 

[Eric B]

I would say F personal relationships, T is object relationship; with "social interactions" being looked at more impersonally. I generally go by F=personal; T=IMpersonal. Saying "social interact" might make one think "personal relationship", but people (and the "groups" they make up) are all "things" that can be looked at impersonally. "Hence, Te-Doms are the gods and goddesses of social leadership...no one can read a crowd of people better than them and take leadership of that crowd". That "crowd" is an object, and leading it is the [impersonal] goal.

 

[Pionart]

I would say F personal relationships, T is object relationship; with "social interactions" being looked at more impersonally. I generally go by F=personal; T=IMpersonal. Saying "social interact" might make one think "personal relationship", but people (and the "groups" they make up) are all "things" that can be looked at impersonally. "Hence, Te-Doms are the gods and goddesses of social leadership...no one can read a crowd of people better than them and take leadership of that crowd". That "crowd" is an object, and leading it is the [impersonal] goal.

I think the word "relationship", even when we're talking about impersonal objects, suggests Feeling, perhaps Fe specifically.

As an example, I decided a while ago to do whatever maths problem came to mind, so I could study how INFJs approach mathematics. I immediately wrote down an integral, where the solution was noticing a relationship between different elements of the integral, and hence applying a transformation. Noting the relationship was what I deduced to be the Fe approach to mathematics, whereas the transformation was the Ni (a perspective shift). The Ti came in through deductive logic, and the Se came in by plugging in the original variable - thus undoing the transformation - in order to obtain the final answer.

 

[Pionart]

While I'm on the subject, from looking into the maths, I would draw it up like this...

Fe - relationships
Fi - characteristics
Ti - deductions
Te - constructions

Ni - transformations
Si - known information
Ne - projections
Se - [unsure of a specific term]

To explain what "projections" means... it's when you go "what if this is the case?" and your mind projects the scenario outwards to see where it will lead. It is related to brainstorming.

I'm not sure of the term for Se, but it's things like direct applications, visualisations, observations.

 

[Eric B]

When I say "relationships", I mean mechanical "cause and effect" (which doesn't 'care' about our feelings, likes desires, etc. at all). A mother might love, and thus never want to hurt her child, but the physical laws of nature determine that an accident can happen where it happens regardless. Think law of gravity, strong nuclear force and inertia, and how the body is subject to it, and is affected in a fall. All of this is physical matter and energy interacting with each other, and that's what I mean by "relationship". It's all "impersonal"

I had just come up with single word terms here:
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...-root-defintions-functions-5.html#post3132905

Se: immediacy (objects [instantly] form sense impressions)

Si: familiarity (sense impressions emanate from subject)

Ne: implications (objects form their own “big picture”) It’s really an object that implies another object

Ni: forebodance (big picture emanates from the subject). This carries more of a specific sense of the impression coming from within

Te: authority (correctness determined by an object)

Ti: expediency (correctness determined by subject). This has a strong “subjective” element to it, where “efficiency” can be either i or e

Fe: Fellowship (Sense of “goodness” shared by a group; i.e. “object”)

Fi: contentedness (Sense of “goodness” within the subject)

 

[Pionart]

The Feeling function(s) can still deal with things in scientific terms, it doesn't have to be people/emotion based, it's just that the nature of Feeling is such that it tends to be better than Thinking at dealing with such things (i.e. people/emotions).

So, the interactions of matter with matter can still be Feeling, if it is viewed in Feeling terms. Fe is useful in chemistry for instance, where there is a focus on attraction/repulsion and chemistry of particular bonds forming or not forming.

I think of Feeling as more holistic in how it determines its judgements, and Thinking as more component based. As mentioned, this makes Feeling more apt for dealing with people, and Thinking more apt for dealing with objects, but there is crossover.

 

[Eric B]

The Feeling function(s) can still deal with things in scientific terms, it doesn't have to be people/emotion based, it's just that the nature of Feeling is such that it tends to be better than Thinking at dealing with such things (i.e. people/emotions).

So, the interactions of matter with matter can still be Feeling, if it is viewed in Feeling terms. Fe is useful in chemistry for instance, where there is a focus on attraction/repulsion and chemistry of particular bonds forming or not forming.

I think of Feeling as more holistic in how it determines its judgements, and Thinking as more component based. As mentioned, this makes Feeling more apt for dealing with people, and Thinking more apt for dealing with objects, but there is crossover.

I don't think that's “Feeling”. That seems more like projecting our own Feeling onto mechanical processes such as “attraction/repulsion”. When we hear those terms, we think of our own attraction or repulsion to something, which is true “Feeling”, because an actual judgment (in this case. “good” or “bad” or “like/dislike”) is being made. (Remember, that's what Feeling is).

An impersonal object being attracted or repulsed to another isn't a “judgment”. Only “personal” entities (egos) can make judgments. A personal entity can look at the objects attracting or repulsing, and make a “true” or “false” judgment from it, which would be “Thinking”. If the objects personally affect him, he can also make a “good/bad” judgmentfrom it, which would be Feeling. (I like the definition someone once gave, that with T, our emotions telh us about the object, an with F, our emotions tell us about “the subject”; either us or someone else. Impersonal objects interacting by themselves have no emotions, and thus can't make a judgment; they can only be drawn along according to the physical laws of energy and forces).

 

[Pionart]

I don't think that's “Feeling”. That seems more like projecting our own Feeling onto mechanical processes such as “attraction/repulsion”. When we hear those terms, we think of our own attraction or repulsion to something, which is true “Feeling”, because an actual judgment (in this case. “good” or “bad” or “like/dislike”) is being made. (Remember, that's what Feeling is).

An impersonal object being attracted or repulsed to another isn't a “judgment”. Only “personal” entities (egos) can make judgments. A personal entity can look at the objects attracting or repulsing, and make a “true” or “false” judgment from it, which would be “Thinking”. If the objects personally affect him, he can also make a “good/bad” judgmentfrom it, which would be Feeling. (I like the definition someone once gave, that with T, our emotions telh us about the object, an with F, our emotions tell us about “the subject”; either us or someone else. Impersonal objects interacting by themselves have no emotions, and thus can't make a judgment; they can only be drawn along according to the physical laws of energy and forces).

Well... in a fractal kind of way, the divisions inherent to typology also structure the world around us, at least if we want to view it in those terms. So we could model reality by talking about matter, and relations between the different components of matter, etc. and use the functions as a way of labelling that and describing it.

And besides, I was speaking about our understanding of things. I was saying that physical processes can be understood in Feeling terms just as they can be understood in Thinking terms, although there is quite certainly an inequality in terms of which is more likely to be useful for doing so.

Without a mind, there is no Thinking or Feeling or Intuiting or Sensing, but we can describe the way that a mindless body acts by projecting those states onto it.

I don't get what you mean about T being about the object and F about the subject, because extroversion is objective and introversion is subjective, in the sense that introverted functions deal with the way we are personally viewing or impacted by something, whereas extroverted functions, although still being used by a subject, intend to deal with things in a way which is independent of viewpoint. There is of course at any time an interplay of the subjective and the objective.

But really... if one physical object can be influenced by another physical object, such as a ball bouncing off a wall, then it is an open question as to whether this may require both bodies to have some kind of consciousness/awareness in order for such a process to take place, and thus may have a basic form of Feeling etc.

 

[Eric B]

“physical processes can be understood in Feeling terms” might be somenhing like “LED's don't like the current reversed”. Now, you're basically personifying them as having likes and dislikes, which would be Feeling if they were persons. But since they're not; it's not a true F judgment; it could be called “quasi-F”. (I don't even think it's true that an F type would even necessarily be more likely to express it in those terms. T's do that all the time).

Both i/e and T/F have been associated with the common terms “subjective” and “objective”, (which of course can be confusing).

One is dealing with an individual or environmental orientation, where only the individual (i.e. “subject”) is conscious of his own “soul”, and thus everything in the environment {including other people} become “objects”.
The other is dividing all of reality directly between impersonal “objects” and personal “souls” {“subjects”; whether individual or environmental}, and making rational assessments based on which of these two categories we are reacting based on.
(i.e. whether your emotions tell you about those objects, or whether they tell you about their affect on you or others' soul. Hence, in addition to "subjective", you also see "personal" used for both i and F functional perspectives).

 

[Jaguar]

Ni: forebodance

I can't believe you, of all people, posted that.

fore·bod·ing

noun
1.
fearful apprehension; a feeling that something bad will happen.
"with a sense of foreboding she read the note"
synonyms: apprehension, apprehensiveness, anxiety, perturbation, trepidation, disquiet, disquietude, unease, uneasiness, misgiving, suspicion, worry, fear, fearfulness, dread, alarm; More

Anyone can have a feeling something bad will happen and foreboding is hardly an adequate representation of Ni.

 

[Eric B]

Sorry to disappoint , but in the link, I explained my choice for that term:

The definition of “forebode” is basically “foresee” (as Berens uses for Ni; but I felt was not specific to it; technically, Ne, Si and even Se can “foresee” something happening, via their own faculties, such as memory or the immediate senses). “Foreboding” carries more of a specific sense of the impression coming from within, and not necessarily about the future, beyond the [sequence of the] uncovering of the data

I know these terms aren't perfect (and why I had avoided single words for so long), but that's what came up whenever I would think of Ni impressions (and part of this may be influenced by it being a shadow function for me). I'm sure there's a better term.

 

[Jaguar]

I know these terms aren't perfect

Then make them perfect. Or else.

“Foreseeing”

Better.

 

[1487610420]

I can't wait for AI to render all this postulation futile.

 

[Eric B]

"Foreseeing" is better? Now I'm surprised! (That, as I mentioned, is what Berens/Nardi calls it!)
I guess you're not saying it's "perfect", but I still think "forebodance" is more specific to the sense of it coming from within, apart from the environment, where "foreseeing", as I said, could be from other functions, and is specifically about the literal "future", which I'm trying to avoid as it greatly oversimplifies the function.

Notice, I used "-ance" rather than "ing", (which doesn't even seem to be an official term), as I know the gerund "foreboding" carries a specifically bad connotation.
On Merriam Webster, the definition of the root verb ("forebode") is "to have an inward conviction of (something, such as a coming ill or misfortune)". That too is adding the negative connotation as the example, but it doesn't seem to be integral to the meaning of the root (which is "feel a secret premonition"). It's just how it's come to be used, probably because it's a feeling that gets noticed more when there's a deep fear of something bad possibly happening. Otherwise, it covers perfectly what I'm trying to convey.

(Maybe some form of "portend" is better?)

 

[Jaguar]

"Foreseeing" is better? Now I'm surprised! (That, as I mentioned, is what Berens/Nardi calls it!)
I guess you're not saying it's "perfect", but I still think "forebodance" is more specific to the sense of it coming from within, apart from the environment, where "foreseeing", as I said, could be from other functions, and is specifically about the literal "future", which I'm trying to avoid as it greatly oversimplifies the function.

Notice, I used "-ance" rather than "ing", (which doesn't even seem to be an official term), as I know the gerund "foreboding" carries a specifically bad connotation.
On Merriam Webster, the definition of the root verb ("forebode") is "to have an inward conviction of (something, such as a coming ill or misfortune)". That too is adding the negative connotation as the example, but it doesn't seem to be integral to the meaning of the root (which is "feel a secret premonition"). It's just how it's come to be used, probably because it's a feeling that gets noticed more when there's a deep fear of something bad possibly happening. Otherwise, it covers perfectly what I'm trying to convey.

(Maybe some form of "portend" is better?)

From Linda's site:
Cognitive Dynamics

Ni – introverted iNtuiting

Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data; realizing “what will be”; conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations; getting an image of profound meaning or far-reaching symbols. *Transforming with a metaperspective.

Foreseeing implications is certainly preferable to engaging in dread and anxiety, no? And what am I missing here - do you have an aversion to using the word "future" when Ni is, in fact, future-oriented?

 

[Eric B]

No, I don't define Ni in terms specifically of "the future" anymore; and yes, Berens is one who really pushes the whole "future" focus. (I thought I had remembered you being somewhat generally critical of her presentation of the concepts). Of course, it does often come in handy for getting a sense of the future, (but then so is Ne; the difference, that the latter is not as "sure" about it).
I've since leaned more toward Lenore Thomson's discussion (and an Ni dom. herself).

Descriptions from the chapters on the perception functions (all in terms of what they do wit our "sense impressions"):

Se: "go with our sense impressions as they occur"
Si: "stabilize our sense impressions by integrating them with ones we remember; facts we know to be consistent".
Ne: "unify our sense impressions with their larger context, thereby creating new options for meaning and response"
Ni: "liberate our sense impressions from their larger context, thereby creating more options for perception itself" (The example given is raising the question in one's mind of the possible reasons a suntan is valued by people today, when the original circumstances that gave it its meaning have changed).

Notice, there's nothing about "the future". Especially in discussing something about a suntan, involving the past, rather than the future! When I saw this, and also read other NJ's discuss their perspective, I realized that whole "future" concept was really selling the function short! In our own correspondence, she had described Ni as "looking beyond the map" to get a sense of where something will go. (Where I, with Ne, would be looking at the map and trying to figure something from the objects that are there, including the "larger context" that is visible). That implies the future, but Ni is simply one means of doing that; not itself simply awareness of the future, as "foreseeing" implies. She in the book continues "For INJs, patterns aren't 'out there' in the world, waiting to be discovered [as they are for NPs]. They're part of us—the way we make sense of the rest of the information and energy impinging on our systems".

This really shows what's "introverted" about it, where "foreseeing" in itself doesn't, and leaves you wondering what really makes it different from Ne. (though, again, the process can certainly include foreseeing). This is what I think has kept the meaning of the function so mysterious and hard for everyone to really understand.
Berens herself covers it best in one of the books, when the example of Ni is a person choosing a dog having a "vision" of a dog barking and crying, and then realizing that they should get a dog that didn't mind being alone. This doesn't even have anything to do with any particular singular event being "predicted". It was a subconscious model of a situation that was referenced to inform a decision for the better, to avoid that template possibly being realized in a future event. This is what I was trying to cover through the term “forebodance”. So the "future" in this case is not something certain, being "foreseen", and neither is the negative conotation).