# Thread: Judging as internal functions, perceiving as external functions

1. Originally Posted by INTP
who ever wrote that is a retard.
You have no idea.

2. Originally Posted by bologna
Maybe it isn't too simple--this sort of definition might be the best way to reduce complexity.
What if this simplicity is what people actually do think and its screwing them up from actually understanding it at a more complex level I mean isnt all types of "thinking" Ti?

3. I see all cognitive functions as internal, as they are thought processes. What determines whether a function is I or E is how the object is viewed in relation to self. Se tends to see the object for what it is, without needed to connect it to itself, whereas Si sees the object through their subjective frame of reference, so that it becomes an interpretation of what they see. The object is second to their inner perception for the Si person, but the Se person allows their perception to be shaped by the object. Hence the Si person is more focused on their internal perceptions and the Se person on their external perceptions. Same concept for the J functions....

4. I believe this construction by Eric B gets to the heart of the issue:

Originally Posted by Eric B
...

There are basically two different levels of subjective/objective. They mean slightly different things, (so you're taking one strict meaning) but nevertheless they do parallel with the same underlying meaning.

Inasmuch as the symbols "1", "2", "+", and "=" are agreed upon, it can be associated with Te, especially if one's focus in math is simply working with the "formulas" using these symbols to create something. Of course, there is a universal component, in what these symbols represent...

Still, what we're comparing this to is values and ethics (which are strictly personal), and next to this, math (in either its human or universal form) is focused on impersonal objects.

So again; there are different levels of objective and subjective. Te will be the most objective of the judging functions, Fi will be the most subjective, and Ti and Fe are in between.

O/S can be extended to all the functions as follows:

Objective processing=Perception (P)
Subjective processing=Judgment (J)
Objective data=concreteness (S) or logic (T)
Subjective data=abstractness (N) or value (F)
Objective source=external (E)
Subjective source=internal (I)

N likewise uses a personal element in conceptualizing reality, and J is of course our own decision making rather than involuntary taking in of information as it is.

The eight functions are then expressed as:

Objective processing of Objective data from Objective source (OOO): Se
Objective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (OOS): Si
Objective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (OSO): Ne
Objective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (OSS): Ni
Subjective processing of Objective data from Objective source (SOO): Te
Subjective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (SOS): Ti
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (SSO): Fe
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (SSS): Fi

I first began putting together this when trying to figure out why S+T always yielded a "directive" type. (N+J is easier to figure, because Ni will be more directive than Ne). It turns out, both S and T deal more with "facts", which is more "objective". Hence, this total "fact" processing will yield more "directive" behavior. The personal factor is taken into consideration the least. And the type most embodying this would be ESTJ, hence their rising to the top of the power structure (even moreso than ENTJ, usually!)
Eric brought it up in response to a question I asked simulatedworld in one of the last threads he ever made.

#### Posting Permissions

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