Functions explained in own words

[Zergling]

A sort of silly version of how I understand the functions (which may be way off, assuming the brain actually uses something like these functions.):

Se: there is dark brown, sticky, mud on my shoe

Si: there is some mud on my shoe that is not normally there

Ne: there is some mud on my shoe, that might have come from the ground, the sidewalk, an alien depositing it there, a prank being played....

Ni: there is some mud on my shoe, getting it off could involve either running, dissolving plus rubbing to clear it, maybe some soap...

Te: There is mud on my shoe that must be off NOW!

Ti: there is mud on my shoe that must have come from some outside source.

Fe: there is mud on my shoe, that will offend the people around me, and should be taken off

Fi: there is mud on my shoe, I do not value mud on the shoes, so will remove it. (this one is iffy, I'm not too sure how to connect personal values with this situation.)

 

[RDF]

Well, I was talking about the open-endedness in the two functions, maybe I am using the word wrong though. But a way of viewing Ne and Ni is to look at Ne as giving ever expanding results. You start out with something little and end up with something huge. Ni on the other hand is about synthesising, so you start out with a vast amount of perspectives, and from them you end up with a synthesised view. The point is, you are reaching for conclusions, which is kind of the opposite of open-endedness. That means Ni is >, while Ne is <. I am not saying this is my opinion, they are just some thoughts, potential views on what Ni and Ne are.

Oh, okay. I understand your point.

That wouldn't be J vs. P in the traditional use of those letters. But I've wondered about similar issues. Comparing T and F, for example, T sometimes seems reductive (break things apart and analyze) and F often seems assimilative (piling feelings on top of each other and comparing).

As for your specific example, though, I wonder... Both Ne and Ni seem to start with a single idea or experience or piece of data and see larger possibilities, in the sense of fitting the idea/data into a larger existing network or web of previous ideas/data. It's only later in the game (after the idea/data has been processed and assigned a place in the "network") that possibilities get pared down and ideas synthesized.

Ne types may do the synthesis process as much as Ni types. That is, it seems to me that Ne types will also reduce and synthesize at the end of their processing process much like Ni types. It's just that everything's out in the open, and the input and processing portion is big and attention-grabbing. But in the end, they presumably synthesize focused ideas and results from their experiences as well. IOW, sooner or later a judgment (J) is made to end the processing (P) of data.

Just for a possible parallel: Fi starts with many feelings and eventually pares them down into a few core values; similarly, Fe starts with many externalized feeling tools and hones them into a few favorite tools for dealing with people.

Though, of course, F is a judging function and may not compare directly to N.

Just guessing, though....

 

[RDF]

I don't see INTP stubbornness as a fault. I think INTPs are stubborn when it comes to others imposing their beliefs on what truth is and how to live upon them.

In what way does INTJ stubbornness manifest?

Using the theoretical basis of perceiving functions (N and S) versus judging functions (T and F):

INTPs will keep their judging Ti largely hidden and will interact with the world mostly via their perceiving Ne. So the world will see them for the most part as interested in new ideas and willing to consider things in an open-ended manner. Stubbornness will only come up when a particular issue impacts a core value or idea that's important to their hidden judging Ti, at which point they can dig in their heels and become surprisingly resistant.

INTJs, on the other hand, will keep their perceiving Ni largely hidden and will interact with the world mostly via their judging Te. So the world will see them for the most part as resistant to input and judgmental about issues that don't conform with previously held beliefs. They can almost seem anti-intellectual and close-minded at times. But if input is seen as relevant to material currently being processed by their hidden perceiving Ni, then they will admit that input and do amazing things with it, i.e., process it endlessly in conjunction with other ideas and in ways that other people wouldn't consider. At that point, their voraciousness and nimbleness with ideas comes to the forefront.

Again, this is a theory-based explanation.

 

[disregard]

Thanks for that.. you quite neatly put those functions into action for me.. I have been struggling to understand how they manifest, but now I have much more perspective.

Jennifer, thanks for you post as well. I most certainly know what INTPs can be like when they are suspicious you are manipulating them! Urgh.

 

[nightning]

I think I better put down my own version before I go take a peek at everybody else's answers...

Ne/Ni... These two give me big headaches... I couldn't differentiate very well between them. Uhhhh let's see.
Ne - Seeing patterns and making connections using things you've noticed in your environment. Formation of a flexible mesh that spreads.
Ni - Coming up with new ways of connecting ideas often based upon multiple or the outside perspective. Synthesis of a unified whole upwards.

Se - Seeing and experiencing the world as it comes to you. What just is. Observation of the world in its brilliant colors... The mind as a camera.
Si - Recollection of knowledge and experiences. A comparison of past and present. Reading the blue print within the mind.

Fs... I'm trying very hard not to use the words feeling and emotion in the descriptions because those two words are very bias.
Fe - Reactive judgments based on feedback obtained from other people. The external frame of reference means judgment can be variable and case specific.
Fi - Judgments based upon internal principles. A standard moral and ethical code is strictly adhered to under all circumstances.

Te - Judgments determined following the logical systematic approach. Case specific, method of optimization and maximal efficiency under the given scenario.
Ti - Judgment based on the rules of logic. Merit is based on the soundness of proofs under a given set of assumptions. Truth is the driving factor, application is but a mere side thought.

 

[RDF]

Ne types may do the synthesis process as much as Ni types. That is, it seems to me that Ne types will also reduce and synthesize at the end of their processing process much like Ni types. It's just that everything's out in the open, and the input and processing portion is big and attention-grabbing. But in the end, they presumably synthesize focused ideas and results from their experiences as well. IOW, sooner or later a judgment (J) is made to end the processing (P) of data.

Just to follow up. Here is the description of the Ne process from From CognitiveProcesses.com:

Extraverted iNtuiting involves noticing hidden meanings and interpreting them, often entertaining a wealth of possible interpretations from just one idea or interpreting what someone's behavior really means. It also involves seeing things "as if," with various possible representations of reality. Using this process, we can juggle many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our mind at once with the possibility that they are all true. This is like weaving themes and threads together. We don't know the weave until a thought thread appears or is drawn out in the interaction of thoughts, often brought in from other contexts. Thus a strategy or concept often emerges from the here-and-now interactions, not appearing as a whole beforehand. Using this process we can really appreciate brainstorming and trust what emerges, enjoying imaginative play with scenarios and combining possibilities, using a kind of cross-contextual thinking. Extraverted iNtuiting also can involve catalyzing people and extemporaneously shaping situations, spreading an atmosphere of change through emergent leadership.

Extraverted iNtuiting

Translation: Start with one idea, entertain a wealth of possible interpretations, juggle, weave, a thought thread appears, and finally a strategy or concept emerges.

IOW, sounds like a narrowing and synthesis are occuring at the end. Things don't continue getting wider forever.

[Edit:] So the question would be: Do Dominant Ni types (INTJs and INFJs) feel like they are following roughly the same pattern as Ne, albeit internally (not in interaction with the outside world)?

 

[RDF]

Thanks for that.. you quite neatly put those functions into action for me.. I have been struggling to understand how they manifest, but now I have much more perspective.

Glad to help. I think this is useful stuff for understanding how others work.

 

[Athenian200]

Ni: Attempting to find the most comprehensive perspective or combination of perspectives to envision a particular aspect of reality.

Fe: Perceiving other's expressed emotions, and trying to accommodate them, as well as adjust your expression to something mutually acceptable to both of you.

Ti: Understanding the specific nature/structure of things that seem to be consistent between perspectives.

Se: Observing and evaluating what is around you exactly as it is, with no interpretation whatsoever.

What do you think?

 

["?"]

Reading the Fe posts has made me wonder about the limited development theory raised. We have the understanding that the weakest function is the least developed, therefore we use it less well or not at all. I propose we have a lower tolerance of it's usage not only in ourselves, but in others. When I read descriptions about Fe, I get it. What I find in Fe is the low tolerance I have in others using it, in particularly in attempting to place, or judge others, by their own moral standards. This is also indicative of those having a high usage of Ni having contempt for Se users. It would make one question Beebe's secession theory and give more credibility to Lenore Thomsons.

 

[Totenkindly]

... When I read descriptions about Fe, I get it. What I find in Fe is the low tolerance I have in others using it, in particularly in attempting to place, or judge others, by their own moral standards. This is also indicative of those having a high usage of Ni having contempt for Se users. It would make one question Beebe's secession theory and give more credibility to Lenore Thomsons.

I can identify with that... My issue too is really focused on people using Fe in ways I see as unfair or illogical.

 

[Totenkindly]

Small edits! (my spin)

Se: There is dark brown, sticky, mud on my shoe, and boy does it feel good/gross!

Si: There is some mud on my shoe that is not normally there.

Ne: There is some mud on my shoe, that might have come from the ground, the sidewalk, an alien depositing it there, a prank being played....

Ni: There is some mud on my shoe, this could be either a good thing or a bad thing.

Te: There is mud on my shoe that must be off NOW [and let me count the ways]!

Ti: There is mud on my shoe that must have come from some as yet undefined outside source.

Fe: There is mud on my shoe, that might embarrass me or offend the people around me, and so I should clean it off as soon as I can. (Unless, of course, I am working on a farm, where it is entirely appropriate.)

Fi: There is mud on my shoe, but I'm fine with it, so anyone who has a problem just needs to suck it up. (And I say that in the nicest, most respectful way, of course!)

 

[Wandering]

Fi: There is mud on my shoe, but I'm fine with it, so anyone who has a problem just needs to suck it up. (And I say that in the nicest, most respectful way, of course!)

They are all good, but this one is the best !

 

["?"]

I can identify with that... My issue too is really focused on people using Fe in ways I see as unfair or illogical.

Exactly! I received a PM asking for clarity on my thoughts. I may create a thread over the weekend since I want to input some reference material that is not readily available. But on my off subject about Fe, can others relate when it comes to their weakest function? It would seem that ETJs may have a low threshold of tolerance for people they consider too sensitive, EFJs to those they see as being too analytical, IFPs to those who may be a bit boisterous and insensitive and so on. Do ENPs have a hard time stomaching rigid people and those who are by the book? I had a Director who was most likely ENP and she detested anyone using the excuse that "This is how we have always done it." So again, it seems to me the weakest function may or may not be on it's development of types, however a disdain for the function itself.

 

[cascadeco]

Exactly! I received a PM asking for clarity on my thoughts. I will may create a thread over the weekend since I want to input some reference material that is not readily available. But on my off subject about Fe, can others relate when it comes to their weakest function? It would seem that ETJs may have a low threshold of tolerance for people they consider too sensitive, EFJs to those they see as being too analytical, IFPs to those who may be a bit boisterous and insensitive and so on. Do ENPs have a hard time stomaching rigid people and those who are by the book? I had a Director who was most likely ENP and she detested anyone using the excuse that "This is how we have always done it." So again, it seems to me the weakest function may or may not be on it's development of types, however a disdain for the function itself.

This does make sense to me.

A fellow INFJ and I were talking about something very similar recently, if not this very thing. It had to do with the 'Anger' thread that toonia opened, and we were discussing different ways people process anger, and how for example a personality type who does not use Fe (or Ni, or whatever) very much would probably perceive an Fe response to anger as being more 'unhealthy', because if this person were using the Fe response himself, it would probably be a more 'unhealthy' use of it, simply because it's his/her weaker function. Also he might access it when in fact he IS in a less healthy, or more stressed-out, place - whereas he wouldn't have any need to use it when he was more in control or 'healthier', and his own dominant function in fact is much more effective, for HIM. Thus his perception of someone else using it as their dominant function could be negative or be viewed differently from the way the dominant-user actually uses it or experiences it. Phew. Sorry if that doesn't make sense; I didn't take the time to try to outline all of that out in a clearer way.

As for me, I guess I tend to have a low threshold for materialistic lifestyles, and fully in-the-moment without any regard to the future or consequences to self or others (binge-drinking, careless w/ money, crazy partying, etc etc)...so that would be Se?? But when it comes to other Se stuff that match my value system and interests, I'm fine and I can actually love it, and really thrive with some Se-ness in my life.

 

[alcea rosea]

Excellent writings about functions! Thanks and please continue!

 

[Gabe]

Reading the Fe posts has made me wonder about the limited development theory raised. We have the understanding that the weakest function is the least developed, therefore we use it less well or not at all. I propose we have a lower tolerance of it's usage not only in ourselves, but in others. When I read descriptions about Fe, I get it. What I find in Fe is the low tolerance I have in others using it, in particularly in attempting to place, or judge others, by their own moral standards. This is also indicative of those having a high usage of Ni having contempt for Se users. It would make one question Beebe's secession theory and give more credibility to Lenore Thomsons.

Von Franz says that people will often plead do be 'realeased' from thier inferior function, but really it cannot happen. It would be like asking for bread without flour! The one-sided ness is a complete illusion.
For example, the 'Caske of Amontadillo (or however that's all spelled)" is definately NOT about killing the inferior funtion. It seems much more likely to me that Edgar allen poe wanted to kill an opposing personality, or a trickster, or most likely a demon.
After all, killing the inferor function is like saying, "my stupid legs couldn't even carry me to the other side of that mountain. I should just cut them off"

 

[Gabe]

So, it would be nice if the functions would be explained in own words.
What is & how does it feel / how does it look for outsider?

Ne
Ni

Se
Si

Fe
Fi

Te
Ti

Example how I understand the following functions:

Ne: Connecting things, reading between lines, seeing pattern, seeing something that is not said & that it's not there (no real evidence). E.g. understanding what other people really means even if it is not said in loud.

Te: Organizing everything: things & people. Visible organizing and organizing things in head. Categorizing & labelling. E.g. organizing pencils on desk so they are in order longest first and the shortest last. Organizing people to complete a project.

Actually, exactly what your looking for is provided in two books i know about.
Leona Haas+Marc Hunzikers "building blocks of personality type", and Dario Nardi's '8 keys to leadership book'.
One of these should be selling pretty cheap used by now, and as always, you can use the 'search inside' feature if you don't want to spend any money.

 

[Athenian200]

Von Franz says that people will often plead do be 'realeased' from thier inferior function, but really it cannot happen. It would be like asking for bread without flour! The one-sided ness is a complete illusion.

I've learned that from dealing SP's. Se isn't quite as crazy as it sounded on paper all the time, and they actually do spend time observing things before acting, and react to what they think they see, they don't just act totally on random impulse most of the time.

They also seem to be aware of the underlying assumptions of a situation in a way similar to mine, but they use it differently. It's something SJ's often have a bit more trouble with.

I'm still intimidated by strongly Se situations, though, because I don't have great reaction time, reflexes, or a desire for actual adventure. It's just the normal human trait of avoiding situations that you can't handle well.

 

[alcea rosea]

The posts here are so interesting that I used my Te (or something) a little bit and collected different descriptions under headings. I'll post Ne&Ni, Se&Si, Te&Ti and Fe&Fi separately so there will not be really long one post.

I had to shorten some of the text. Hopefully I didn't forget any posts that had definition. If I did - I'm sorry!

 

[alcea rosea]

Ne & Ni

Ne

• Connecting things, reading between lines, seeing pattern, seeing something that is not said & that it's not there (no real evidence). E.g. understanding what other people really means even if it is not said it out loud.
• what *could* this mean? How many different ways of looking at it can I find? How many different meanings can I imagine for it? Expansive: starts with one word/fact/idea, and builds entire hypothetical worlds upon it.
• Interpreting situations and relationships, seeing hidden meanings and connections, being drawn to changing what is, noticing the meaning connecting multiple contexts. Being aware of the possible things you may communicate on a nonverbal level. Extraverted intuition allows for the retention of many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings at once with the understanding that they may all be true. Concepts appear among multiple here-and-now interactions. Being aware that there is always another view. Example: wondering what “the real story is” because there are often multiple sides to a story.
• welcoming the unknown. Flexible mode. Best usage is being adaptable and handling change.
• "To use Intuition in an Extraverted way--as a way to navigate through the world--you maintain a flexible understanding of what a sign means, which varies as more and more of that "everything" emerges. You view each interpretation of a sign as nothing more or less than a guess. You may well decide to bet a lot on that guess, but you regard it as just a guess. As more information becomes available, you change your guess."
• there is some mud on my shoe, that might have come from the ground, the sidewalk, an alien depositing it there, a prank being played....
• Seeing patterns and making connections using things you've noticed in your environment. Formation of a flexible mesh that spreads.
• Start with one idea, entertain a wealth of possible interpretations, juggle, weave, a thought thread appears, and finally a strategy or concept emerges.

Ni

• This function speaks a highly individual language, whose insights of the universal nature of things or the future are almost impossible to translate.
• Ni is synthesising views, you might take a bit from different perspectives, and it is no wonder that is both hard to explain to others and hard for others to understand. Ni views always seem to come with a twist, and are rarely exactly like more common perspectives, although they might be mistaken for being exactly one of those common perspectives by the listener, which leads to misunderstandings and frustration.
• Foreseeing implications and consequences without external data. Being aware of what will be. Conceptualizing new points of view, envisioning change, getting an image of profound meaning, envisioning yourself in a certain way. Having a grip on the big picture. Realizations that come from introverted intuition have an imperative quality that demands action.
• noticing and distinguishing assumptions. Interpretation mode. Best usage is being able to see through distortions created by interpretations.
• "To take an Intuitive attitude toward signs in an Introverted way--to give you an atemporal perspective on events that is not bound to any particular time or place--you attempt to discover all the possible meanings of a sign before giving it any interpretation or power to lead you in any particular direction. You continually wonder, "In what other contexts could this sign mean something different?" You discover these other contexts, and these other meanings that a sign could have, through imagination or by acquiring knowledge from other times and places (like by reading books). You refuse to jump to any conclusions about the actual context that gave rise to a sign until you've peered into that vast set of possible reasons that the sign may have appeared."
• there is some mud on my shoe, getting it off could involve either running, dissolving plus rubbing to clear it, maybe some soap...
• Coming up with new ways of connecting ideas often based upon multiple or the outside perspective. Synthesis of a unified whole upwards.
• Attempting to find the most comprehensive perspective or combination of perspectives to envision a particular aspect of reality.
• what *does* this mean? How can I organise all those disparate facts/ideas into a single coherent ensemble? Structuring: starts with many words/ideas/facts and aims at building a single structure that will incorporate them all.