• 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.

Evan's function definitions

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
(copied from costrin's thread)

Function explanations:

Cognition divides into conscious - judging /unconscious - perceiving

Perceiving divides into sensing (instinct + sensory input + sensory representations) and intuition (ideas + analogies + metaphor + themes, etc.)

Judging divides into thinking (true/makes sense/works) or feeling (right/good/appropriate)

Then all functions divide into introversion and extroversion. Extroversion is the attitude that every piece of the environment is important and focusing too much on one thing is bad because of missed opportunities. Introversion is the attitude that things should be processed in depth, and that keeping track of each piece of the environment is bad because it takes too much processing power.

So the difference between Fe and Fi is that Fe keeps track of as many environmental variables as possible when making conscious value judgments (unconscious value judgments are in the realm of intuition), whereas Fi picks a select few environmental variables and thinks their moral consequences through in depth. Fe is "scared" of missing an environmental factor, and Fi is "scared" of not thinking through a conclusion deeply enough. (You guys can figure out Te/Ti from this.)

The difference between Ne and Ni is that Ne looks for all opportunities to make a new metaphor/idea, and Ni picks a few and tries to make as many ideas as possible. The difference between Se and Si is that Si filters down environmental factors in order to explore them in depth, whereas Se wants to keep all opportunities open at all times.

Yeah, I hope that made sense.
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
But your definitions aren't Super Amazing.
 

zarc

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,629
MBTI Type
Zzzz
You already know I agree, with the exception of unconscious intuitive judgements yadda yadda edit: I mean, just altering it a bit to include both types of perceptions.

Mine are... well... they're certainly something. And Super Amazing.

Yea, well, with the help of some others, they're now Super Duper Amazing.
 

soleil

New member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
376
MBTI Type
ENFP
(copied from costrin's thread)

Function explanations:

Cognition divides into conscious - judging /unconscious - perceiving

Perceiving divides into sensing (instinct + sensory input + sensory representations) and intuition (ideas + analogies + metaphor + themes, etc.)

Judging divides into thinking (true/makes sense/works) or feeling (right/good/appropriate)

Then all functions divide into introversion and extroversion. Extroversion is the attitude that every piece of the environment is important and focusing too much on one thing is bad because of missed opportunities. Introversion is the attitude that things should be processed in depth, and that keeping track of each piece of the environment is bad because it takes too much processing power.

So the difference between Fe and Fi is that Fe keeps track of as many environmental variables as possible when making conscious value judgments (unconscious value judgments are in the realm of intuition), whereas Fi picks a select few environmental variables and thinks their moral consequences through in depth. Fe is "scared" of missing an environmental factor, and Fi is "scared" of not thinking through a conclusion deeply enough. (You guys can figure out Te/Ti from this.)

The difference between Ne and Ni is that Ne looks for all opportunities to make a new metaphor/idea, and Ni picks a few and tries to make as many ideas as possible. The difference between Se and Si is that Si filters down environmental factors in order to explore them in depth, whereas Se wants to keep all opportunities open at all times.

Yeah, I hope that made sense.

Thanks for the breakdown. I think reading Myer Briggs & Socionics makes it's a bit confusing to understand since it's in slightly different order from one another.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
(The difference between Ne and Ni is that Ne looks for all opportunities to make a new metaphor/idea, and Ni picks a few and tries to make as many ideas as possible. The difference between Se and Si is that Si filters down environmental factors in order to explore them in depth, whereas Se wants to keep all opportunities open at all times..

This in principle cannot work. You're defining functions by what they do and not in terms of unconscious dispositions. If you take an SJ for instance with a well developed Ne, by your definitions it would have to follow that he is an Ne type as he easily sees ways to make a new metaphor or an idea. This theory is incoherent also because such a person would use Si and Ni well too. As by your definition he could easily 'pick and try to make many ideas'. So, what type is he, if he can be described with more than one of the definitions you've listed?

In one sentence, if a type is defined by behaviors, the type will be a logically incoherent notion as it will contain many behaviors that contradict one another. For instance, one may have both Ne and Si behaviors.

Ne is not what you define it as 'or seeing new opportunities' and what not, but merely an unconscious disposition to have imagination stimulated by the external environment. Seeing many new opportunities may be a result of such a disposition, but in principle cannot be the very definition of Ne as described above. The same holds for the remainder of the definitions of functions.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
This in principle cannot work. You're defining functions by what they do and not in terms of unconscious dispositions. If you take an SJ for instance with a well developed Ne, by your definitions it would have to follow that he is an Ne type as he easily sees ways to make a new metaphor or an idea. This theory is incoherent also because such a person would use Si and Ni well too. As by your definition he could easily 'pick and try to make many ideas'. So, what type is he, if he can be described with more than one of the definitions you've listed?

In one sentence, if a type is defined by behaviors, the type will be a logically incoherent notion as it will contain many behaviors that contradict one another. For instance, one may have both Ne and Si behaviors.

Ne is not what you define it as 'or seeing new opportunities' and what not, but merely an unconscious disposition to have imagination stimulated by the external environment. Seeing many new opportunities may be a result of such a disposition, but in principle cannot be the very definition of Ne as described above. The same holds for the remainder of the definitions of functions.

I'm not talking about dispositions, I'm talking about the functions themselves. I didn't say anything about type.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I'm not talking about dispositions, I'm talking about the functions themselves. I didn't say anything about type.

The definition of the function is a disposition, a solidified unconscious disposition.

Type is one solidified unconscious disposition. For instance, Ni.

Temperament is an aggreggate of types, e.g Ni-Fe-Ti-Se.

Bottom line is you can't talk about types without talking about dispositions as disposition inheres within a type because the definition of the type is a solidified unconscious disposition.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
The definition of the function is a disposition, a solidified unconscious disposition.

Type is one solidified unconscious disposition. For instance, Ni.

Temperament is an aggreggate of types, e.g Ni-Fe-Ti-Se.

Bottom line is you can't talk about types without talking about dispositions as disposition inheres within a type because the definition of the type is a solidified unconscious disposition.

I'm not talking about types or dispositions.

The perspective I'm taking is that these functions exist as concepts, and people have different tendencies to use each one.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I'm not talking about types or dispositions.

The perspective I'm taking is that these functions exist as concepts, and people have different tendencies to use each one.

Then don't define this as functions. Define this as an inquiry into applied typology and state that you're concerned not with functions themselves but with how functions tend to be used by people.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Then don't define this as functions. Define this as an inquiry into applied typology and state that you're concerned not with functions themselves but with how functions tend to be used by people.

Well, they are functions in the sense that they're input/output relations.

But you're right, it would be confusing starting from your perspective, as you have different definitions of the same words.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Well, they are functions in the sense that they're input/output relations..

You have described how functions could be used (E.G, Ne could be used to see many possibilities of how a situation unfolds), but this is not the only way Ne could be used. The definition of Ne is simply the tendency to have imagination most easily inspired by the external world. As a result of this imagination is often applied to the external situation, but it need not be limited to this.

At best, your description of how the functions work is incomplete because it cites only some instances of what they do, yet neglects to take note of others.



But you're right, it would be confusing starting from your perspective, as you have different definitions of the same words.

Your definitions are muddying the waters by confusing temperament for personality. It is this kind of thinking is what inspired students of typology to attribute rigid personality characteristics to temperaments. (E.G, ENTJs are those who are bossy, ENFPs are those who are creative).
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
You have described how functions could be used (E.G, Ne could be used to see many possibilities of how a situation unfolds), but this is not the only way Ne could be used. The definition of Ne is simply the tendency to have imagination most easily inspired by the external world. As a result of this imagination is often applied to the external situation, but it need not be limited to this.

At best, your description of how the functions work is incomplete because it cites only some instances of what they do, yet neglects to take note of others.

I don't see this.

Your definitions are muddying the waters by confusing temperament for personality. It is this kind of thinking is what inspired students of typology to attribute rigid personality characteristics to temperaments. (E.G, ENTJs are those who are bossy, ENFPs are those who are creative).

Again, I've said nothing about type. The only conclusion you can draw from what I say is something like: a person that spouts ideas all the time about everything they see is using Intuition, and in a generally extroverted way. Not that they're an NP or SJ with developed Ne or anything, only that they are using Intuition, and the observed attitude is extroverted.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I don't see this..

You don't see that Extroverted Intuition could be used in ways other than simply seeing the situation in different perspectives?

The definition of the Extroverted Intuition warrants this, as it is simply Intuition inspired by the external world. Having taken this in consideration, why should Ne be limited only to this activity. It is simply the use of Imagination which is most easily applied to the external world . (Generally, as you point out, it will be about the external situation and will be somewhat scattered as you have implied because it lacks the internal locus of control, unlike Ni which isnt scattered. So, Ne, generally is concerned with seeing the same situation from different angles which may not be closely linked to one another. Ni, on the other hand does not depend on the external situation, so it need not focus on that same external situation. In summary, Ne is imagination mostly about the external world, and it is the property of imagination to see things from many different angles, Ne is about the external world, so it sees the external situation from many angles. Ni is less concerned with the external world, so unlike Ne it need not focus on that one external situation. It can apply the property of imagination (seeing things from many perspectives) to something other than th external situation, so unlike Ne it does not need to be confined to analyzing the same external situation.) The point is, however, that generally Ne is forced to deal with the same external situation and as a result views it from many different angles. Hence, as aforementioned the result is viewing the same scenario from many different positions. This is circumstancial because in most cases Ne cannot function like an Ni (and is forced to view the same instance from many different perspectives). However, in principle Ne can function in a manner different from how it tends to function (Ne), and more like Ni. Take an idiosyncratic scenario where Ne is presented not with circumstances of some particular situation of the external world (as it usually is), but with some complex idea about astronomy, or some mystical phenomenon. (That Ni is concerned with often). The essence of Ne is imagination, so in principle it could be used to deal with ideas in a manner Ni does (just conjure new ideas without focusing foremost on the method of viewing the same situation from different angles, as viewing the situation from different angles simply would not be helpful).

The definition of Ne is imagination inspired by the external world. Hence, in principle, it is possible for such a cognitive faculty to perform in a manner similar to that of the faculty which is imagination inspired by the internal world. For this reason, Ne is chiefly concerned with viewing the same situation from many different angles, but is not limited to this. As a result, Ne cannot be defined in a behavioristic manner that you propose because the cited behaviors do not include all relevant instances of Ne in action. It should be pointed out that the behaviors in principle cannot be a description of the function or any cognitive activity, much like screaming is not a description of pain, it is only a manifestation of pain. However, as you have duly noted, you're not concerned with functions, but with how they tend to be used, yet you have failed to provide a description of how they tend to be used as well because your set of descriptions is incomplete.




The only conclusion you can draw from what I say is something like: a person that spouts ideas all the time about everything they see is using Intuition, and in a generally extroverted way. Not that they're an NP or SJ with developed Ne or anything, only that they are using Intuition, and the observed attitude is extroverted.


Yes, and this is one way Extroverted Intuition is used, though not the only.
 
Top