• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Costrin's Super Amazing Function Definitions

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
Where did that zarc guy's post go?

I guess I meant, not that we can't access it, but that we can't really know if two perceiving functions can happen at the same time.

Hmm... ya I guess.

Yeah I don't like that whole area of the brain thing. I just don't buy it. If there's one theme to what I've learned as a cognitive science major, it that the brain is much much more complicated than that.

Oh snap, I'm dealin' with someone who has actual learnin' in the area?

Judging can change models in that it can throw out something or validate it. But it can't come up with something novel.

I didn't mean to imply that. Judging doesn't create new ideas, it just replicates what it sees.

It's not fast/slow...it's conscious/unconscious. Also, instinct is in the realm of sensing, it's not outside of cognitive functions.

Mmk. One thing though, if Perceiving is unconscious, and Judging conscious, does that mean that a primary Perceiving type is... more unconscious than a primary Judging type or something?

You're right. It does process the information. I shouldn't have left that out. Visual information hits the retinas, but it's still sensing until the time it's a three dimensional representation. Same with all senses. Once metaphor and analogy step in, though, it's intuition.

Mmk.

I just doubt anyone actually thinks true/false more than "this is important"/"this is not important". Feeling narrows down the possible things you have to think about. If Feeling didn't reign over thinking, we'd be wasting a shitload of time.

Hmm... not sure about this. It doesn't feel this way for me. It seems as though for me that my Thinking is capable of rapidly comparing information to my model, and the majority of information I receive is already (not necessarily the exact information, but an equivalent) integrated into my model, so is efficiently deal with. I guess I'm saying that Judging (specifically Thinking in this case) is at least somewhat unconscious.

I don't think they're paired in actuality. I just think they're useful to talk about together because any good idea has to have an extroverted counterpart and introverted counterpart, as well as a perceiving and a judging counterpart.

Could you elaborate?
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
Where did that zarc guy's post go?

I had a momentary lapse of confidence. I had just thought up most of the ideas I’d written and I hadn’t given myself enough time to ascertain that it waz zall good. Still not sure but I’ll repost anyway. Soonish.
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
ze Repost 1

I’m going to take a stab at it.

Evan said:
I think perceiving is actually pretty amorphous. You could claim that only one perceiving function happens at one time, but the whole point is that it's unconscious, meaning there is no way to access it. That's the reason these functions are called irrational. Because we can't really figure out what they're doing, we just know the inputs and outputs. I think Intuition and Sensing can, and have to happen simultaneously (in fact, I don't really think there's anything much different about them, other than an arbitrary label.) They depend on each other.

It isn’t that they are unconscious or that perceiving is considered irrational because of it. They’re considered irrational because they deal with one’s perception of reality (P) not interpretation of it (J). We become 'aware' of the information, or conscious, as it occurs to us. That's why it's irrational. It’s not about accessing it or lack thereof. We do know what they’re doing, they’re receiving information. Now, do we know what to do with it or how to use it? No, and that’s when J helps out when we choose to use it.

Costrin said:
Also, since you didn't address this, why does it happen that an introverted perceiving seems to get paired with an extroverted judging, and vice versa?

I’m going to tackle this by first furthering what I meant about P/J:

Receiving information (P) vs Processing information (J)

Pi introjection/ internalizes and withholds what it receives
Pe projection/ externalizes and releases what it receives
Ji valuation/ sets the value (relative to self standards) of what it is processing
Je evaluation/ determines the worth (relative to other’s standards) of what it is processing

To explain in case this is misunderstood:
Introjection is understood as taking in behaviors or attributes of people or fragments of the surrounding world and turning into them. Replace that with introjection ‘of ideas’ or ‘of objects’ instead. The fusion isn’t with people or direct objects but with the ideas or the ideas of objects. The action is within the self. By action, I do not mean making an act but of (inner) activity. Pi action is a one way affect.

Projection is thought of as taking out behaviors or attributes of yourself onto people of your surrounding world. Replace that with projection ‘of ideas’ or ‘of objects’ instead. The infusion isn’t with people or direct objects but with the ideas or the ideas of objects. The interaction is outside the self. By interaction, I do not mean speaking with people but activity between ideas or objects. Pe interaction is a two-way effect.

Valuation places an estimate on the value.

Evaluation means to examine the worth.

The last two seemed easiest to understand so I haven't written more just yet. Later.

When paired:

IJ: Pi internalizes what it receives and then Je determines the worth
EP: Pe externalizes what it receives and then Ji sets the value
IP: Ji sets the value of what it is processing and then Pe externalizes
EJ: Je determines the worth of what it is processing and then Pi internalizes

As for the 'why' of pairing... let's use INTP, Ji and Pe. Why not Ji and Pi? Let's try Si first.

If Ti is constantly setting importance to a logical framework of its understanding how would it get new information in order to factor it in and continue? Si wouldn't give it anything new. It might even make an INTP paranoid because, while they're not able to get the necessary info they need through Ne, Si is just mounting up all the knowledge that they have but is meaningless in furthering their understanding. Ti would end up going over and over information with Si, causing nothing but mental frustration. (See Lenore's Tertiary Temptation for when an INTP seems 'put upon' when highly stressed, though you probably have).

As for Ni, it would give a new meaning or give it a new point of view (even various points of the same view) but how useful is that to Ti? Ti has already determined what it wants, now it wants to further the frame, not change it's understanding of it. Both forms of Pi aren't needed immediately for Ti. Why not Se, it's Pe too, right? Well... for an INTP, they don't care much for Se because they'd have to mentally engage their physical environment and that's essentially useless information for what Ti wants. (But give Se information to an ISTP and they'd love it). Ne is most useful because it will interpret Ti's framework, giving it possible scenarios and connecting the relation of each new one from which Ti will set a value, discarding which seems improbable.

Je and Ji? Ti doesn't need to create a shared objectivity based on external measures, it needs no structure or efficiency of its model or to determine the worth of it, as it still doesn't know how to further its blocks from which to keep building, so Te is useless. Same for Fe. Ji through Fi would confirm the value of how one feels about the framework, which is especially useless to Ti.

Of course Si, Fe, or any other function will at various times be used but while an INTP's Ti is trying to figure something out, it's not necessary or vital to their existence at the time. Only Ne can further Ti's goal. That's why Ji pairs with Pe. It's also why the pairs not only exist but show how they work best together. Try it out with the rest of the types and you'll see it.
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
2

Hmmmm. Evan, as for your un/conscious-ing of P/J. I've already said I think Perceiving functions are consciously accessed. But I’m guessing this next bit. If a perceiving function is conscious (Si) but paired with its similar perceiving function (Ni), then the other one becomes unconscious when accessed. So, it might work more along the lines of N being an unconscious perception for an S type while S is an unconscious perception for an N type.

So, let me apply and rework that to this post:

Evan said:
Anyway, back to introversion/extroversion...so...perceiving functions. Introversion of a perceiving function is like a feedback loop. The more introverted the P function, the more it focuses on the data that is relevant to the current unconscious process (and the less it focuses on ALL data). The more extroverted the P function, the less it cares about what it's doing and the more it picks up ALL information it possibly has access to. So Pi is hopelessly looped on itself, with absolutely no chance of getting out of its own confirmation bias (because it only sees what it wants). But Pe cares hopelessly much about every single piece of data in the world. A pure Pe couldn't think anything about his or herself. So the way it's set up, Pi (or, the half of the spectrum I refer to when I say that) is focused on depth at the cost of breadth. And vice versa.

So that would apply to N only, the S being an unconscious perception. Ni tries to consciously filter through the information it needs which is now unconscious and stored (Si). Ni can’t take hold of all of the information directly (shadow Si) so it tries to grasp at one. And so, when stuck, Pi only sees what it wants there to be -- because when the loop begins, Ni keeps furthering itself away from reality, entirely focused. Ne tries to consciously adapt through all of the information that is unconsciously present at the moment (Se). Ne can’t keep hold of the information directly (shadow Se) as it keeps trying to grasp at more than one. When stuck, Pe only keeps on patterning what it's seeing. -- Ne keeps interpreting all scenarios aimlessly, becoming unfocused. When no longer stuck, both take from their unconscious (S) environments, whether internal or external, and create what seemed inconceivable (N).

Now to apply it to S, the N being an unconscious perception. Si tries to consciously filter through relevant information that it has collected but it can’t represent how that information was viewed now that it’s become unconscious (shadow Ni). Unlike Ni, Si can keep track of the information but the problem lies in which representation was the right one (Ni). Conversely, when stuck, Pi only wants to see what it has seen -- because when the loop begins, Si is unable to remove itself from its familiar reality, entirely focused. Se tries to consciously adapt as situations occur but it’s not filtering all of the unconscious possibilities that could be created (shadow Ne). Unlike Ne, Se can notice the change of information but it has a problem integrating the interpretation of patterns that are possible (Ne). When stuck, Pe only keeps experiencing what it's seeing. -- Se keeps adjusting to changes aimlessly, becoming unfocused. When no longer stuck, both take from their unconscious (N) environments, whether internal or external, and alter what is conceivable (S).

I’m guessing that’s why Si/Ni and Se/Ne are so opposed to each other for IJs and EPs. I think similar perceiving functions, though possibly unconscious, are easier to access than the opposite perceiving function... which seem unavailable when we need them, never mind inaccessible.

Ex. when opposite S/N Pe fuck with the IJs:
-ISJ know what they want to say (Si) but may have trouble interpreting the relation of it (Ne) or seeing an alternate path of what's possible (Ne).
-INJ know what they want to convey (Ni) but may have trouble figuring out the immediate context of words to explain it (Se) or adjusting their information so that it's accessible to what is available now (Se).

Ex. when opposite S/N Pi fuck with the EPs:
- ESP follows what it is experiencing (Se) but may have trouble understanding the likely effects (Ni) or a new way of conceptualizing their experiences (Ni).
- ENP follows what it is interpreting (Ne) but may have trouble stabilizing the information into something recognisable (Si) or applying it to past accumulated data (Si).

I hope you enjoyed my version, though it mostly is a huge guess on my part, but I doubt it'd have been inspired without what you'd written. :)

--I'm well aware that using terms like "shadow" for an unused process will probably not go over so well but ignore that and focus on the info plz. kthx.
 

Apollanaut

Senior Mugwump
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
550
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
S - 5 senses data.
N - Ideas.
T - Objective Judging.
F - Subjective Judging.

Costrin, I think you've done an excellent description and analysis of the various type functions. There are just a few points where I think the terminology is muddling your definitions of the functions a little.

I prefer the definitions of "objective" and "subjective" used by Carl Jung himself, as explained by Lenore Thomson in "Personality Type - An Owner's Manual". Here are some of my own attempts at definitions of the complex terminology used to describe the type functions:

Objective relates to the object, as in something outside the subject. It is therefore a quality of all of the extraverted functions.

Subjective relates to the subject, as in something personal to the subject. It is therefore a quality of all of the introverted functions.

Perceiving functions are irrational, meaning that they are unpredictable and inconsistent (as is the nature of perceptions).

Sensing is perception via the five senses, whether relating to external objects (Se) or internal images (Si).
Intuition is perception via the unconscious, whether triggered by external objects (Ne) or internal images (Ni).

Note: this does not mean that Ne and Ni themselves are unconscious, merely that they delve into the unconscious (both personal and collective) to make their perceptions.

Judging functions are rational, meaning that they are predictable and consistent (as is the nature of judgements).

Thinking is logical, meaning that it prefers to "step out" of a situation to provide impersonal judgments which exclude emotions.
Feeling is value-based, meaning that it prefers to "step in" to a situation to provide personal judgments which include emotions.

Hence:

Se is objective, irrational and perceives via the senses.
Ne is objective, irrational and perceives via the unconscious.

Si is subjective, irrational and perceives via the senses.
Ni is subjective, irrational and perceives via the unconscious.

Te is objective, rational and logical.
Fe is objective, rational and value-based.

Ti is subjective, rational and logical.
Fi is subjective, rational and value-based.

I also believe that only one type function can be used at a time, but that we can rapidly switch between functions, making it seem that we are using more than one simultaneously. By "rapidly", I mean that we are capable of flipping between functions at a rate of several times per second!
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
Perceiving functions are irrational, meaning that they are unpredictable and inconsistent (as is the nature of perceptions).

Perceptions are not unpredictable or inconsistent. If they were, P Doms would be in mental institutions. They wouldn’t have a firm grasp on their version of reality or their perception of reality would always be unpredictable. (That’s kinda cool to think about, actually…)

Considering you mentioned Lenore's book (if you read the bits on Pi), I'm surprised. Taken from her wiki on Introverted Perception:

p. 67: "Introverted Perception dictates an interest in represented experience--words, facts, numbers, signs, and symbols: the kind of data that can be acquired or explored in the mind."

Introverted and Extraverted perception is able to change within their respective environments but that doesn’t mean what was previously perceived was inconsistent to what is newly perceived. The understanding (Pi) or observation (Pe) of it changed. P Doms merely adapt to the change. And not all new perceptions cancel out the rest. If it still relates to the understanding or improves it, the new piece of information merely fits itself to their never ending puzzle.

The outside world can seem unpredictable and inconsistent to Introverted Perceivers, to both Si and Ni Doms, and this is why they maintain a consistent one within their minds. Be sure, they will take in all new information but they aren’t so easy to accept it’s validity until after they’ve ruminated over and dissected it so that there either is congruence to what they understand or that it isn’t wrong. Once they’re certain all is sound, they adapt.

More Wiki goodness:

Perhaps what Lenore means by Introverted Perception is an attitude of putting things you experience into categories, where the categories are chosen on the basis of whatever seems to you to fit the things, without serving a predefined purpose or criterion.

Taking an Si perspective, then, you simply find categories to put things in, and use these categories to build a rich network of mental associations that guide you to attend to the things that matter to you--to find those things in the midst of a predominantly overwhelming perceptual field.

Taking an Ni perspective, you attend to the nature of whatever categories you come across: what they contain and what they leave out, what they assume about the context where they're applied, what (probably unstated) purposes are served by those categories, what cannot be said in terms of those categories (and that, if said, might unravel their power to seem real and meaningful).

Si leads you to gradually accumulate a factual map of the world, or at least the parts of it that are of interest to you. Ni leads you to gradually accumulate an understanding of how different maps operate and to be able to compare the assumptions of different maps against each other.

Intuition is perception via the unconscious, whether triggered by external objects (Ne) or internal objects (Ni).

Intuition has nothing to do with the unconscious. If there is any sort of “triggering" by an external or internal object, tell me then, how is that not a form of being conscious of them? You're aware yet unconscious?

Judging functions are rational, meaning that they are predictable and consistent (as is the nature of judgements).

I’m thinking this is half right but I can’t quite figure out what I think is wrong (if at all). So, here’s some quick take on it. Judgments, themselves, are not predictable and consistent. Judgments are liable to change but not after an examination of prior ones. There is a judgment on information which makes it easier for J Doms to move forward once it’s been established.

So yea, we may be in agreement lol
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
I’m thinking this is half right but I can’t quite figure out what I think is wrong (if at all). So, here’s some quick take on it. Judgments, themselves, are not predictable and consistent. Judgments are liable to change but not after an examination of prior ones. There is a judgment on information which makes it easier for J Doms to move forward once it’s been established.

So yea, we may be in agreement lol

It's my opinion that Jung should not have had two words to name judgements.

He had "judgement" and then he had "rational."
In fact, he meant to use rational to describe them, but because he used a homespun definition of rational, it works just the same way as a name.

Now what judgements are, their own entities. Each decision can be molded. That is, decisions are changed.

Actually, Costrin has it backwards. It's the perceptions that don't change. What happens actually, is that when new perceptions come in that don't coalesce with the previous ones, one of them has to be thrown out. But they're not changed. Judgement decides which perceptions are good and which are faulty. But even still, those perceptions are still there, they're just usually ignored.

Ultimately, what judgement boils down to are decisions.

Anyway, a decision can change when new perceptions come in. Especially when gaps are filled.


Anyway, by rational and irrational, jung more acutely meant conscious and unconscious, but even these aren't very good.
 

Apollanaut

Senior Mugwump
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
550
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Zarc, by irrational I did not mean crazy! I just wanted to point out that perceptions do not follow the same rational laws and principles as judgements and are therefore difficult to predict in advance. Here's an alternative explanation from the same wiki: Rational and Irrational

"a rational attitude is one that orients by laws, and an irrational attitude is one that simply takes each new thing independently. A rational attitude tends to derive its conclusions by applying laws or principles to irrational data. Its conclusions are always indirect: mediated by principle in some way. An irrational attitude lacks a derived aspect: what seems to be true via an irrational attitude simply seems to be true, with no possibility for doubt or explanation."

I think we are actually on the same page here, I am in complete agreement with this:

"Introverted and Extraverted perception is able to change within their respective environments but that doesn’t mean what was previously perceived was inconsistent to what is newly perceived. The understanding (Pi) or observation (Pe) of it changed. P Doms merely adapt to the change. And not all new perceptions cancel out the rest. If it still relates to the understanding or improves it, the new piece of information merely fits itself to their never ending puzzle.

The outside world can seem unpredictable and inconsistent to Introverted Perceivers, to both Si and Ni Doms, and this is why they maintain a consistent one within their minds. Be sure, they will take in all new information but they aren’t so easy to accept it’s validity until after they’ve ruminated over and dissected it so that there either is congruence to what they understand or that it isn’t wrong. Once they’re certain all is sound, they adapt."

As for intuition, it does indeed rely on the unconscious mind. As I stated, it is usually triggered by an external object or an internal image, from which the unconscious mind generates an idea or thought (an "intuition") which itself becomes conscious. However, the person having the intuition may remain entirely unconscious of the original triggering factor. For example, my own intuition generates an unending stream of thoughts, speculations, ideas and fantasies. If I pay attention to a particular idea or train of thought I might be able to track it back to its source ("Where did this idea come from?") but more often than not, I have no idea what triggered the intuition in the first place.
 

Mondo

Welcome to Sunnyside
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
1,992
MBTI Type
EsTP
Enneagram
6w7
Costrin said:
Ts, being more objective, are less effected by emotions because they have learned (perhaps subconsciously) that it is more effective to not act on their emotions.

Yes, this is the primary difference between Thinkers and Feelers.
As my sig states, Thinkers are not robots!!
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
RAWR MULTIQUOTE

I’m going to tackle this by first furthering what I meant about P/J:

Receiving information (P) vs Processing information (J)

Pi introjection/ internalizes and withholds what it receives
Pe projection/ externalizes and releases what it receives
Ji valuation/ sets the value (relative to self standards) of what it is processing
Je evaluation/ determines the worth (relative to other’s standards) of what it is processing

Hmm...

Could you elaborate a bit on Je?

When paired:

IJ: Pi internalizes what it receives and then Je determines the worth
EP: Pe externalizes what it receives and then Ji sets the value
IP: Ji sets the value of what it is processing and then Pe externalizes
EJ: Je determines the worth of what it is processing and then Pi internalizes

Mmk.

As for the 'why' of pairing... let's use INTP, Ji and Pe. Why not Ji and Pi? Let's try Si first.

Yeah thats basically what I've thought. PeJi/PiJe just naturally fit together, are kinda designed for each other, *blah blah evolution stuff goes here?*.

(See Lenore's Tertiary Temptation for when an INTP seems 'put upon' when highly stressed, though you probably have).

Ya I've devoured that wiki. Not the book itself though.

Hmmmm. Evan, as for your un/conscious-ing of P/J. I've already said I think Perceiving functions are consciously accessed. But I’m guessing this next bit. If a perceiving function is conscious (Si) but paired with its similar perceiving function (Ni), then the other one becomes unconscious when accessed. So, it might work more along the lines of N being an unconscious perception for an S type while S is an unconscious perception for an N type.

Hmm...

Under what circumstances are shadow functions accessed?

I’m guessing that’s why Si/Ni and Se/Ne are so opposed to each other for IJs and EPs. I think similar perceiving functions, though possibly unconscious, are easier to access than the opposite perceiving function... which seem unavailable when we need them, never mind inaccessible.

You mean Si/Se and Ni/Ne?

Costrin, I think you've done an excellent description and analysis of the various type functions. There are just a few points where I think the terminology is muddling your definitions of the functions a little.

Yeah that works.

Actually, Costrin has it backwards. It's the perceptions that don't change. What happens actually, is that when new perceptions come in that don't coalesce with the previous ones, one of them has to be thrown out. But they're not changed. Judgement decides which perceptions are good and which are faulty. But even still, those perceptions are still there, they're just usually ignored.

I though that was what I said (or maybe what I thought but didn't externalize?).

Anyway, agree with this.

As for intuition, it does indeed rely on the unconscious mind. As I stated, it is usually triggered by an external object or an internal image, from which the unconscious mind generates an idea or thought (an "intuition") which itself becomes conscious. However, the person having the intuition may remain entirely unconscious of the original triggering factor. For example, my own intuition generates an unending stream of thoughts, speculations, ideas and fantasies. If I pay attention to a particular idea or train of thought I might be able to track it back to its source ("Where did this idea come from?") but more often than not, I have no idea what triggered the intuition in the first place.

Intuition sucks because it is hard to define. Yeah, I said it, sue me.
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
Nocap said:
Now what judgements are, their own entities. Each decision can be molded. That is, decisions are changed.

Yup.

Actually, Costrin has it backwards. It's the perceptions that don't change. What happens actually, is that when new perceptions come in that don't coalesce with the previous ones, one of them has to be thrown out. But they're not changed. Judgement decides which perceptions are good and which are faulty. But even still, those perceptions are still there, they're just usually ignored.

Ultimately, what judgement boils down to are decisions.

Anyway, a decision can change when new perceptions come in. Especially when gaps are filled.

Yes! That was my problem with Apollanaut’s description of Judging.

But conversely, I suspect this is what would happen when J interferes with P. From another thread:

zarc said:
I don't think so. The byproduct, for any type, probably comes from Ji or Je.

Ji can make IPs closed minded and stubborn about relinquishing their understanding of a subject.
Je can make EJs closed minded and stubborn about understanding something new once they've determined what they know is the only valid information.
A Pe Dom might use their Ji (Ti/Fi) to justify their understanding and keep closed minded about accepting contrary information.
A Pi Dom might use their Je (Te/Fe) to determine that their understanding is the correct one and be closed minded about changing their minds.

So, we ALL can be closed minded at one time or another. Just depends when and what for.

Zarc, by irrational I did not mean crazy!

I didn't say so. o_O

I think we are actually on the same page here, I am in complete agreement with this:

We are, yea.

As for intuition, it does indeed rely on the unconscious mind. As I stated, it is usually triggered by an external object or an internal image, from which the unconscious mind generates an idea or thought (an "intuition") which itself becomes conscious. However, the person having the intuition may remain entirely unconscious of the original triggering factor. For example, my own intuition generates an unending stream of thoughts, speculations, ideas and fantasies. If I pay attention to a particular idea or train of thought I might be able to track it back to its source ("Where did this idea come from?") but more often than not, I have no idea what triggered the intuition in the first place.

Yes, I see it clearly now. It's about "delving into the unconscious" as you wrote prior, not N being unconscious itself. It wasn’t until I was halfway through, identifying, that it struck me where to find the information I needed to clear up my misunderstanding. Voila! . Ha.

In all honesty, I've been trying to divorce myself from the rather fanciful understandings of N and in particular Ni. I've become rather sensitive lately to the selective understanding that most people seem to have of it, putting N on a pedestal, so to speak. One way was disregarding unconsciousness from MBTI but that’s not exactly quite what I mean. Ugh. Wording this is difficult. Or maybe that Ni seemed so natural to me considering it unconscious was to render my use over it impotent and consequently all Pi users too. >_> I hope I made sense. Basically, I'm not even sure I did disregard them but instead changed the meaning of them. But yea, thanks. :D

Y'know, I find this funny, but it just occurred to me that I answered it myself, without realising it, when I said with regards to perceiving: "You're aware yet unconscious?" (Take lucid dreams, for ex, you can have full or partial awareness yet you're physically unconscious. It's just a new perception of reality!) and to then to Evan: "We become aware of the information, or conscious, as it occurs to us." As it occurs! LOL!

Costrin said:

Hmm is right. That was all a quickie, biggie guess. The idea was fun to play with, though. I might need to replace the bits on consciousness. Hmm... Edit: actually, I'm thinking it still works.

Under what circumstances are shadow functions accessed?

Quickie answer. The kinds we've yet to acclimate ourselves to or aren’t able to rely on our primary/auxiliary. I’ll further this later.

You mean Si/Se and Ni/Ne?

By similar perceiving functions, I meant it’s Introverted or Extraverted counterpart. So it might be easier for an Si dom to access Ni as opposed to Ne.
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
Hmm...

Could you elaborate a bit on Je?

To keep it in mind:
zarc said:
Receiving information (P) vs Processing information (J)

Je evaluation/ determines the worth (relative to other’s standards) of what it is processing

Evaluation means to examine the worth.

What I mean by relative to other’s standards, I meant by the established principles. The inherent structure is already there. As they were already created, they were done so by other people. Since guidelines exist, Je measures them to ensure they work to what its accustomed to. If there is uncertainty by what it will become accustomed to Je will switch to Pi. Si will try to figure out what it might be by turning to prior experiences. Ni will try to figure out what it might be by creating new view points on the situation.

If the guideline doesn’t yet exist that is when Je will turn inwards to Pi to create one - based on similar ones (Si) or creating new ones (Ni).

If Je is focusing (processing info) on efficiency and productivity of a group or task it will determine how well it was performed. If Je finds the system or the people within the system lacking, due to its evaluation of it, it will reorganize to improve.

Take Fe. Relationships are built around established principles. Fe determines the relative worth between people (the people are the "information being processed”) The “other’s standards” would be the level of importance that the other person has to Fe. Your family, friends, acquaintances. You can distance or remove yourself from your family if you dislike them but you can never sever the connection you have. It exists. It cannot unexist. You can change the relative importance of a person by disowning your parent or divorcing your spouse or change your view of them etc but you’re really just reorganizing their worth (of importance) to you. Which was due to your overall evaluation of them.

Fe will gather its efficient by how receptive people are to its care of them. It will gather it’s been productive when its helped someone out to their (the other person’s standard of) satisfaction. You smile at a person and they smile back, Fe triumphs. When Fe fails, it turns to Pi (same as above on Pi but just based on personal situations).

And.... But I’m stopping here. Was this helpful and less convoluted than my other posts? lol

Btw you previously wrote F is subjective (can’t remember if anyone corrected you). Only Fi. Fe is objective. It's a personal objective whereas Te is an impersonal objective. Can you see that now?

Oh, and I notice you write ExtrOvert instead of ExtrAvert. Most people make that mistake. It's a bane to the understanding of MBTI (and I know you actually care to understand). Well, both Introvert and Extravert are commonly misunderstood, since people ascribe behaviors onto the them and the functions. People are Introverting or Extraverting a process, not a behavior. zzzzz (This gripe is not with you, btw)
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
By similar perceiving functions, I meant it’s Introverted or Extraverted counterpart. So it might be easier for an Si dom to access Ni as opposed to Ne.

Mmk.

To keep it in mind:
And.... But I’m stopping here. Was this helpful and less convoluted than my other posts? lol

Yeah, I understand what you meant more now. Although, I might ask you to do a similiar analysis for Te also.

Btw you previously wrote F is subjective (can’t remember if anyone corrected you). Only Fi. Fe is objective. It's a personal objective whereas Te is an impersonal objective. Can you see that now?

Well, they're all subjective, but F is more 'traditionally subjective'. F deals with feelings, emotions, the actions of people. Fe is subjective in that it's based on societal values, which aren't rigorously defined, are decided by the emotions of people, and interpretations of peoples actions. Te is more objective, in that it deals with defined and easily measured things, like a college degree for instance. Either you have one or you don't. Or by if something or someone is following the defined rules, or if something is efficient, by measurable standards, like the amount of product produced per time.

Oh, and I notice you write ExtrOvert instead of ExtrAvert. Most people make that mistake. It's a bane to the understanding of MBTI (and I know you actually care to understand). Well, both Introvert and Extravert are commonly misunderstood, since people ascribe behaviors onto the them and the functions. People are Introverting or Extraverting a process, not a behavior. zzzzz (This gripe is not with you, btw)

Meh, I just collapse it into the spelling 'extrovert'. That's the more commonly used way, it's the way I learned, and the definition can be expanded to cover what I want without sacrificing much.
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
Thought this a better thread to post this here (though I can remove it if you'd like, Costrin). Since the aim is understanding not only know the functions but how they possibly work together. My insomniac esotericy spin.

Nah, it's the rider. The auxiliary is the horse, slave to the whims of the driver .And tertiary is the chariot, keeping you safe, and the ground is the inferior, that you navigate, yet disdain (hence the use of chariot) and hope you don't fall and hit your head on.

imo

I was just reworking the whole thing as soon as I wrote the other post. This is going to be hard to explain, bear with, since I just thought it all up and can't word it to my satisfaction.

You are not a sole function nor in full control of it (your Dom). That is why it can never be the chariot or the driver. You weren't born with control over it, you had to work it out, tailor it to your circumstantial understanding of your world until you were able enough to choose what you'd learn.

Seeing how the functions work in tandem, they could be the horses side by side, your closest functional horses (instinctual reflexes) nearest the chariot (your brain) while your least developed ones are furthest from the whip (that is your will over them).

The rider embodies (your) Consciousness. Your consciousness can't determine or dictate where you go. It merely is. Existence. However, your brain along for the ride, being the chariot, chooses where to go to further its understanding of the world. Your will, being the whip, adapts your functional horses, which are your reflexes, to the chariot so you can easily coordinate around the world stadium. The better you are at controlling your horses, the better you'll be able to maneuver around obstacles in your path and environment (which include other riders with their chariot of horses).

If your brain, the chariot, isn't moving around the stadium, then you don't acquire new information and you can't acclimate yourself to any either. The whip, your will, doesn't receive instructions from your brain so it isn't instructing your reflexes to better adapt, thus your self-control becomes lax. Your functional horses, reflexes, aren't exercised enough and so they lose muscle and power and weaken. Self-control gives way to reflexes.

Depending on how far you've gone, you may have little control so your functional horses wont move for you or become out of control should they become spooked because they can't run away from a perceived threat fast enough. When your brain, the chariot, tries to get started again, it may take some time to whip your reflexes back into shape so they can keep up with others.

However, your two closest functional horses which were JUST in front of the chariot (your brain) were the easiest trained because they were closest to the whip (your will). So you will always trust them the most. And they will stay closest to you due to having been tamed.

And... over a lifetime your chariot begins to decay, you don't need to force the whip as hard anymore, your horses easily obey but there begins small slips or shaky moves because the connected harness is slack or threadbare. Some horses escape, some refuse to move due to strain, some die. Until the chariot can no longer keep together and finally breaks down.

Consciousness, the rider, steps out from the chariot. Freedom.
 

Apollanaut

Senior Mugwump
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
550
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The Chariot is an apt metaphor for the relationship between the mind (Ego) and the type functions. Are you familiar with the symbolism of "The Chariot" Tarot card?

picture.php


The four creatures drawing the chariot are said to represent the four typological functions (among other things). Notice how two of them are facing forward (dominant and auxiliary?) and two sideways (tertiary and inferior?).
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
Apollanaut said:
The Chariot is an apt metaphor for the relationship between the mind (Ego) and the type functions. Are you familiar with the symbolism of "The Chariot" Tarot card?

Interesting. And here I thought my sudden burst of insomniac inspiration stood alone, when perhaps I tapped into the Collective. Or... maybe my own subconscious punched me. I used to be very familiar with The Tarot when I was a bit younger but it's been a few years now since I've let my interest wane.

The four creatures drawing the chariot are said to represent the four typological functions.

I've never come across this before, thanks. I've tried looking but have yet to come across anything relating them. Do you have any links?

Notice how two of them are facing forward (dominant and auxiliary?) and two sideways (tertiary and inferior?).

Yes, I can see that. It's what I meant about the (functional) horses closest (Dom and Aux) to the chariot being the easiest to direct whereas the ones further are the least easy. Although I erred in trying to fit the Shadow functions (and thus an extra set of horses lol). Relating only the top four makes more sense.

"He is fueled by contradictory impulses, represented by the black and white sphinxes that pull his chariot." Relates well to the Dom and Aux. As for the Tertiary and Inferior, it's powerful to think of the symbolism behind the horse and lion. One years to run wild (Tertiary), the other yearns to dominate (Inferior). Or maybe it's the reverse, hmm.

Even the sphinxes (Dom and Aux) which represent IIRC wisdom and knowledge. But then I think, "What happens should you fail to answer them correctly?" The sphinxes devours you. So you turn to that wild horse first but when it runs free you have no choice but to face that lion...

All four of them "A union of opposites".

How inspiring.
 
Last edited:

Apollanaut

Senior Mugwump
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
550
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Interesting. And here I thought my sudden burst of insomniac inspiration stood alone, when perhaps I tapped into the Collective. Or... maybe my own subconscious punched me. I used to be very familiar with The Tarot when I was a bit younger but it's been a few years now since I've let my interest wane.

That's the beauty of this stuff; it does indeed lurk in the collective unconscious, ready to reveal itself to all who look in the right place.

I've never come across this before, thanks. I've tried looking but have yet to come across anything relating them. Do you have any links?

Check out this link, which I came across while researching my post about The Chariot:

The Tarot Journey

It also has a really interesting take on the correspondances between the 16 court cards and the MBTI types - something I have been working on for years, but not spotted this version. I'm inclined to agree with it - I've always identified most with the King of Wands card.

Yes, I can see that. It's what I meant about the (functional) horses closest (Dom and Aux) to the chariot being the easiest to direct whereas the ones further are the least easy. Although I erred in trying to fit the Shadow functions (and thus an extra set of horses lol). Relating only the top four makes more sense.

You did not err. Take a closer look at the sphinxes - the top halves do not match the bottom halves, they are jumbled up. For example, the man-headed sphinx (representing Thinking) has eagle claws (representing Feeling). In my view, the top halves are the consciuos functions and the bottom halves are the Shadow functions.

"He is fueled by contradictory impulses, represented by the black and white sphinxes that pull his chariot." Relates well to the Dom and Aux. As for the Tertiary and Inferior, it's powerful to think of the symbolism behind the horse and lion. One years to run wild (Tertiary), the other yearns to dominate (Inferior). Or maybe it's the reverse, hmm.

Even the sphinxes (Dom and Aux) which represent IIRC wisdom and knowledge. But then I think, "What happens should you fail to answer them correctly?" The sphinxes devours you. So you turn to that wild horse first but when it runs free you have no choice but to face that lion...

All four of them "A union of opposites".

How inspiring.

Yes, you've seen it too! Although there are many alternate explanations of this card (sometimes the 4 pillars are linked to the 4 functions instead of the sphinxes) they differ only in detail, not in the overall meaning.

What this means, of course, (he says, taking a HUGE Ni inductive leap) is that ancient civilisations and people clearly understood the concepts of the psyche postulated by Jung and others - they just used different symbolism to illustrate their insights. Of course, this is some of the source material Jung himself used to help formulate his theories.
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
Costrin said:
Yeah, I understand what you meant more now. Although, I might ask you to do a similiar analysis for Te also.

Fire when ready. It just might take some time to hit me.

Well, they're all subjective, but F is more 'traditionally subjective'. F deals with feelings, emotions, the actions of people. Fe is subjective in that it's based on societal values, which aren't rigorously defined, are decided by the emotions of people, and interpretations of peoples actions. Te is more objective, in that it deals with defined and easily measured things, like a college degree for instance. Either you have one or you don't. Or by if something or someone is following the defined rules, or if something is efficient, by measurable standards, like the amount of product produced per time.

When you are dealing with someone else’s emotions are you not viewing them objectively? It's only when you let your feelings get in the way for what's better suited to them that it's your Fi at work.

Fe doesn’t deal with the subjective feelings of the individual, Fi does. Fe doesn’t belong to the self, it belongs to others. Fe deals with the collective, therefore it exists outside the self. Rules already exist that Fe didn’t make up to suit the individual self. An individual can objectively choose to discard them but not on the basis of having their feelings hurt but because it didn’t suit them. Fe suits itself to the rules. K. Let’s try this.

You have two parents and three siblings. That is an objective fact, right? Yet the fact is relational to you. Fe. You can’t objectively deny that they aren’t your family. But Fi can. Fi can say, “I don’t like them and just because we’re related by blood or circumstance doesn’t mean I have to agree they’re my family.” That’s a subjective opinion based on the self’s feelings. Fe would objectively regard, despite internal disputes between the family, that they are still the family. And I don’t mean to say that Fe will stick by the family either. But that it won’t deny the existence of the family. Piece Fe and Fi together within a person who is dealing with dispute within their family and both opinions can be recognised.

Btw. Ti is subjective. It deals with the subjective opinions of the person. Yet still rational. Same with Fi.

And Apollanaut made the case earlier in the thread too. Fe Te Se Ne objective. Ti Fi Si Ni subjective. Fe Te Fi Ti rational. Se Ne Ni Si irrational.

Meh, I just collapse it into the spelling 'extrovert'. That's the more commonly used way, it's the way I learned, and the definition can be expanded to cover what I want without sacrificing much.

Common doesn’t mean correct, though. Jung was specific in making it Extravert to distinguish it from Extrovert and Myers Briggs mother-daughter duo tried to maintain that. I tried finding but have yet to find info aside from the preference for ‘a’. My guess was Jung wanted it that way due to the common understanding of what Extrovert is. Loud, outgoing, lively, better social skills etc.

I’m guessing Introvert wasn’t changed because it can still apply to the process of Introversion because going within the self is similar to the common use of Introvert preferring to being alone with themselves. Iunno. Less certainty.

As for Extrovert, it assumes one is going outside to interact with others. And I don't think that's what Extraverting a process is about. It’s still within the individual self, however the objective is directed outside the self. I think confusion stems about extraverting towards an ‘object’ having to mean that it’s directly with the object. It’s not or it’s not always the case. It’s directed towards the object, not with. So an Se Dom doesn’t have to talk or touch a person, they observe physical behaviors and mannerisms of a person without ever having to come in contact and they also unconsciously ‘take it all in’ so they may notice without realising (Fi/Ti will help with realising). Don't get me wrong, Se is about touching and all that jazz but that's just one facet of it.

Both I or E processing can deal directly with people. And yes, Extraverts orient themselves in the outer world easier than Introverts, but I don't think it necessarily makes them gregarious or loud or more social. I’m thinking it could be incidental to culture (that we are aware of) because there are more of them in North America and so it’s easy to spread themselves around - I chose NA b/c we're both from there. It's different elsewhere. Look at various cultures of the past, some had clearly Introverted vibes to them. The Introverts of those cultures could readily cultivate the environment to their needs, whereas the Extraverts had to adapt to them. So if you want to find a place more suited to your Introverted way of being, I suggest you find your red heels and get to clicking elsewhere. I’ve got examples of cultures and places in mind but just can’t word it yet. Shall I try?

Some random tidbit. ENPs can be antisocial. ENFPs can be agoraphobic. I’d guess ENTPs less so because Ti would dismiss the people within vicinity whereas Fi for an ENFP might cause them to feel vulnerably exposed. ESFPs might be shy growing up. Se is so potent for them that people have more a presence to them than other kids who a lower preference of Se. Fi not having been developed so early is probably why they're shy because they're not sure how they feel about people in their physical space and it's scary. ESTPs, same as ENTPs, wouldn't be as affected due to Ti. But they may dominate spaces more, instead, because they want to experience and test it out.

So I don't think the commonly understood explanation for Extrovert or Introvert applies to MBTI. Because we can ALL be both outgoing or quiet or loud or reserved. It's just a matter of our comfort of when, why, what for, how, and for whom we choose to display ourselves as being in those moments. Our E/I processes are cultivated by them in how they're expressed, they're not due to them.
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
Fire when ready. It just might take some time to hit me.

That was me asking, in my own highly indirect way. :doh:

I'll respond to the rest when I'm feeling less sick.
 
Top