Dominant Introverts: Functions and You

[InvisibleJim]

N.B. This is a post I have made in other forums, but someone asked me if I have ever posted anything regarding judging functions. Also it is useful to have this post as dominant extraverts often ask for the definitions of intraverted behaviour. Therefore, here it is:

Dominant Introverts: Functions and You​

One of the more interesting aspects of identifying correctly a persons MBTI type is identifying correctly their dominant driving function. This may seem somewhat simplistic to extraverts as their hearts are often worn upon their sleeves. But for introverts these are in effect hidden and thus intangible to the observer and potentially to the users themselves. Therefore I thought it wise to describe these functions and their attitudes in detail. Hopefully others will bring forward their views on these functions to reduce any misunderstandings in future.

Introverted Thinking - INTP and ISTP

Analyzing, categorizing, and evaluating according to principles

The dominant introverted thinkers most enjoy the taking problems into their heads and then in detail generating a concise and accurate solution when compared to other types. This leads to a preference towards introverted interaction as extraverted stimulus can shut this process off as a distraction. It prefers to focus on one aspect of a problem at a time building that to a complete and detailed conclusion (Introverted Judging).

For the INTP the supporting Ne function is selectively used to screen ideas available from others in their surrounding environment which Ti then may judge as worth for integration to the problem solving set. If the ideas provided from others are not viewed as especially relevant the INTP may find those they converse with boring or disinteresting as it does not advance them to their current goal.

For the ISTP the supporting Se function provides a screen of the current environment providing their Ti function ready access to the surrounding world in an attempt to manipulate it and solve the problem. As the world itself is the object of ISTP support they are often less set in determining what are the useful and useless ideas coming from those around them and as a result they are often less challenged in personal relationship than the INTP as they are less likely to feel someone is forcing ideas which do not match the task at hand.

Introverted Feeling - INFP and ISFP

Valuing and considering importance, beliefs, and worth

Introverted feeling instinctually gauges the importance and worth of actions and ideas in its surrounding environment and indeed those of others in the surrounding environment by bringing them internally for analysis (Introverted Judging). Those with dominant introverted feeling are often content to strongly state their opinions to others in turn; giving introverted feeling an interaction flavour much like an extroverted judging function.

For the ISFP the justification as a trigger for introverted feeling is supported by Se (Extroverted Sensing). The aspect of Se is such that it triggers immediate outrage as the Se digests the current situation or circumstance and Fi uses it as a springboard to action. As a further consequence ISFPs often find solace in those who act with their morals and conviction of belief as these best justify their inner vision.

For the INFP beliefs are triggered as introverted feeling is supported by Ne (extraverted intuition). Extroverted intuition supports as a submissive in this role, much as the INTP uses Ne to support Ti, by allowing Fi to considering ideas that others may hold as wrong based upon internal judgement.

Introverted Sensing - ISTJ and ISFJ

Reviewing and recalling past experiences and seeking detailed data

The introverted sensing function acts as a creative smokescreen in the mind of the ISTJ and ISFJ types, pulling forth past experiences and seeing similarities in form and function. As a introverted perceiving function it does not provide judgement of an object and define it externally, it provides a library of potentially similar objects and forms as a support to the rest of the cognitive set. Introverted Sensing is a concious process focussed on whatever the user is seeing in their minds eye and passively seeks out sensator experiences to enrich itself over life.

For the ISTJ the most apparent function in any interaction will be Extroverted Thinking (an extroverted perceiving function) which allows the ISTJ to favour critical idea exchange through a lense of past experiences while using thisas a method of communicating new information to their internal perception.

For the ISFJ the most apparent function in any interaction will be Extroverted Feeling with instinctual sharing of their past experience with those in their surrounding environment and counter exchange as method to enrich themselves.

Introverted Intuition - INTJ and INFJ

Foreseeing implications, transformations, and likely effects

As every introverted intuition is an ill defined process. It is an introverted subconcious perceiving process thus leaving most bewildered at its function. It imaginatively creates benchmarks and using iconology determines the similarities in ideas proposing the implications of these ideas and how they can affect the world. It is also sneakily subjective as it lends to a person a censored thought pattern to others around them as the benchmarks and iconology may bear little relation to reality but subtle guide the definition of the introverted intuitive. Over time it is passively enriched by other functions as experience is gained.

For the INFJ the introverted intuition is supported by extroverted feeling as a way to deal with the need to protect the imaginative and uniquely defined benchmarks of the Ni mindset is reconciled with attempting to gain a mutual understanding of shared external space.

In contrast the INTJ supports introverted intution by protecting their mindset by logically critiqueing their external environment using thinking to select elements of the environment which suit their inner vision.

Small Note

Most people get very confused in the different functioning between Si and Ni, therefore it is useful to have a concise description of these and the difference in how they assert themselves.

In effect upon seeing the moon an Si dominant may say 'I see a face on the moon' comparing the shapes they see etched on its surface with their internal vison of faces.

Upon seeing the moon the dominant Ni user may ponder the moon and theorise that the moon is infact a head with a personality and story after considering that someone has informed them that the moons surface appears to look somewhat like a face.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Additional Information and Discussion

Useful replies to this post in the past:

Great post--presumably in the part about ISTJs, you meant that Extroverted Thinking is an extroverted judging function, not perceiving, right?

You are correct, to point out this distinction and it is one I have grappled with. It is an external judging function but it is relatively weak in comparison to the internal judgement provided by Ti, thus it takes on perceiving aspect: this is probably explainable by the hidden selectivity in Si and Ni, both nominally introverted perceiving functions. I think that both Ni-Te work together to provide judgement, not simply Te judging alone.

Well the functions don't really operate in isolation; separating them from each other for purposes of discussion is just a theoretical idea to help us better understand our cognition.

So strictly speaking, Ni doesn't provide judgment and Te doesn't provide perception; however, for an NTJ (or SFP) it's impossible to use only one or the other on its own.

I don't understand how Te takes on a "perceiving aspect." What does that mean? Why is it relatively weak compared to Ti? How are you able to compare the strengths of the two when your introverted judgment manifests itself in the form of Fi?

I agree the functions all interact at all times but the balance and focus would appear to shift through life.

What I should say with perceiving aspect is that the external judgement is seemingly slave to internal judgement. i.e. Ti uses Fe as a way to get others to empathise with the correct perspect and agree with the user (hence INTPs great difficulty with attempting to get Fe to relate to others as it aspiratory rather than relief) and Fi uses Te as a way to point out how the correct position is right based upon external benchmarks which should be made to fit the 'right value system'.

However as the Te is dominant over Fi in preference for an INTJ we have a conundrum, the Fi is ineffect seemingly bossing the Te around in a less prefered position contrary to cognitive behaviour! Thus the Te is forced to be considerably more recessive as Ni and Fi are both forcing internal benchmarks and therefore the Te becomes a data gathering tool rather than a judgement; flipping from judgement to perception.

Therefore in the very confusing cognitive order where Ni is dominant, Ni takes on flexible aspects of Fi and Te takes on flexible aspects of Se. I have read that there is a feeling that INTJs do advance into their relief development before other types: could it be that it is because Fi is already strong in the Ni function as a natural consequence of its design and perhaps Se development is brought forward due to Te mimicking its behaviour?

Regardless, I think you can agree that internal judgement does drive external and thus the external is the weaker of the two partners.

The introverted sensing function acts as a creative smokescreen

Can you clarify this? I believe your grasp on these functions are quite sound, however I have never really found a good definition of Si. Most of the definitions I have seen are people trying to guess or theorize what Si is, but they do not actually have a understanding of it. Thank you.

Okay, cognitive functions do not relate to how we interact with the world but rather how we process and relate to information in our brain and our thinking pathways (see cognitive). When I look at Si as it is directed internally (introverted perceotion) what I see is that as the brain receives information it instantanaeously compares this information against data sets stored in memory. Thus, with the example I gave, the Si users sees the moon and his first call is to relate this to his past images and sensing of objects, thus he cognitively concludes 'I see that the moon looks like it has a face'.

Something seems amiss for me. Although I strongly relate with ISFP, I have an abnormally strong Si. When Si surpasses Se, tests suggest I am an ISFJ or INFP. Yet the definitions of those types don't ring nearly as true for me overall. I'm not sure what's going on. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the questions, or the test answers are tied to the wrong function.

My first instinct is definitely to use the Si view of the moon (thank you for that real-life example, by the way!) and I also remember seeing images and faces in wood/marble when I was young. I would think I'm an INFP, but hidden meanings go way over my head, I indulge my senses in the here and now, and I am a very direct & detailed expressor (art, writing, etc.). These things have been apparent since childhood. I live the ordered "J" lifestyle only to gain approval in structured environments and not as a natural instinct.

Please forgive my ignorance on this topic, but I am hoping for a rational explanation from a Thinker's perspective...

I did not comment on this post, I hope the reasons why are clear.

Could we discuss a bit more about how exactly Ne and Se (the Pe functions) "screen" data from the surround environment? These are perceiving functions, not judging functions.

I don't think "screen" is the correct word, because "screen" denotes "review and judgment."

Definitely they both collect data. Not being much of an Se person and only having experienced it through watching my Se primary child, who happens to be diagnosed with ADD, I can't even see that Se is screening anything... he tends to have a lot of trouble focusing, and focusing occurs when we naturally screen out information and is inhibited when we are not screening out information.

Ne has a "positive building" inherent within it, however. Rather than screening for information, it only explores pathways and collects data along pathways that have some sort of connection to the last. So it springboards through the external world in every direction, a radiating web, and only picks up information connected in SOME way to the last.

But I think Judging is needed to truly screen things... or am I wrong? Is there some sort of inherent judgment in these Pe functions, unrelated to the Ji functions?

You are right, when Ne or Se are in the Dominant position they drive cognitive decision making and are perceptive, but in the support position they are subservient to the dominant function (its conclusions are preferred) and thus they are limited, see INFP/INTP for the most vivid example of this..

 

[KDude]

I did not comment on this post, I hope the reasons why are clear.
.

Like Gwenspirit, I'd have to say I can relate to Si somewhat. Unlike her though, I don't live a "J lifestyle". I've always been pretty atrocious as far as that goes. As for Si, I can't recall ever associating the moon with a face specifically. For the most part, the moon is what it is... I might think of it in scientific terms or utilitarian (as "light"...). That said, I can think of plenty of instances where I do associate the shape or form of something to something from another context. Sometimes my associations are a little offensive (particularly if it's how a person looks), so I try to bite my tongue. Sometimes far from offensive, and I think I can make a creative compliment. In other cases, I remember looking at woodgrains when I was a kid and seeing things, like her. I remember even scaring myself to death, because one of the walls in our house had a pattern that resembled some ghostly looking consquistador (or something like that). I remember crying and jumping in my mom's arms because of it (I eventually got over it though... it was just a wall).

As for being Ne over Se.. I'm not quite sure. I can be creative in a Ne-Si way, but I doubt I am constantly creative like that. In a way, I identify with a thread another poster made recently, where she identified with the functions inherent in INTP, but didn't feel intelligent enough to be one. I feel that way about all N types. I'm just a regular Joe.

 

[Thalassa]

Your reasons for not commenting on Gwen's posts are not clear to me, Jim.

There appears to be a bit of snobbery with those of you who are especially deep into function theory and don't like to apply it to holistic personality descriptions or Keirsey temperament styles. I personally find it a bit obnoxious.

Part of the reason why I find it so obnoxious is because I don't think my type of thinking is quite as abstract as yours (I SUCK AT ALGEBRA) and I feel like you're making fun of people who aren't as abstract as you are.

 

[ajblaise]

There appears to be a bit of snobbery with those of you who are especially deep into function theory and don't like to apply it to holistic personality descriptions or Keirsey temperament styles. I personally find it a bit obnoxious.

And if you're going to be intellectually snobby about something, don't choose function theory. Physics snobs are laughing at you.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Your reasons for not commenting on Gwen's posts are not clear to me, Jim.

There appears to be a bit of snobbery with those of you who are especially deep into function theory and don't like to apply it to holistic personality descriptions or Keirsey temperament styles. I personally find it a bit obnoxious.

Part of the reason why I find it so obnoxious is because I don't think my type of thinking is quite as abstract as yours (I SUCK AT ALGEBRA) and I feel like you're making fun of people who aren't as abstract as you are.

It's not intended to be obnoxious. I'm happy to say what I have understood so that people have the option of understanding my perspective and challenging what is on the table. It is not my responsibility to make those leaps for them or indeed to apply my labels to them.

If you wish to make decisions and reach understanding based upon what you find obnoxious (or not) then I that is your decision to do so; but you won't find me accommodating that.

That would neither be fair nor morally true to what I feel should be right or wrong. I'm not one to dilute myself so that others find me more 'comfortable' or 'acceptable'.

 

[Thalassa]

Well expecting people to just understand you without explaining things isn't useful either.

That's more descriptive than using an emotive value word like "obnoxious."

I mean to say that you'd make a horrible teacher. You can't just expect people to GET THINGS that are EXTREMELY ABSTRACT without giving more concrete examples or helping them to make those connections.

That's one thing that I do respect about Simulated World, honestly, I'll give him that much.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I mean to say that you'd make a horrible teacher. You can't just expect people to GET THINGS that are EXTREMELY ABSTRACT without giving more concrete examples or helping them to make those connections.

Correct, I would make a horrible teacher to some people. To other people I make a perfect teacher.

There is also an error in your reasoning. A concrete example would be a physical or a behavioural thing. Haven't we already discussed that (in my limited opinion) Cognitive =/= Behavioural? Wouldn't I just be feeding a misnomer? Do you expect me to lie or to state what I might find untrue to convince you that I am right? This is confusing to me.

That's one thing that I do respect about Simulated World, honestly, I'll give him that much.

Then go ask Simulatedworld about it?

 

[Thalassa]

What does that have to do with why you can't give us a reason for not answering Gwen...or why the hell you didn't come down off of your high horse to answer her post in the first place?

Because you CAN'T? Is that it? Is your thinking so limited to Ni that you are incapable of describing abstract concepts in a way that could be understood by more people?

 

[Andy]

Well expecting people to just understand you without explaining things isn't useful either.

That's more descriptive than using an emotive value word like "obnoxious."

I mean to say that you'd make a horrible teacher. You can't just expect people to GET THINGS that are EXTREMELY ABSTRACT without giving more concrete examples or helping them to make those connections.

That's one thing that I do respect about Simulated World, honestly, I'll give him that much.

What would you like a more concrete example of? I'll try out Ti.

I think of Ti as an urge to evaluate technical worth and place value upon it. This idea of worth is a little different to utility. IT is possible for an ITP to value something of little practical value and spend their wholes lives in study of something with very little material pay out.

A good example might be an INTP astronomer who spends most of his life tracking celestrial bodies and analysiing spectra from distant stars. His work has little practical value, but he does it anyway, quite possible with a lot of passion too. He might talk about inspiring people or those occations where blue sky (or night sky in this case) research stumbles across the solution to some practical problem. Ultimately, though he does it because he feels it has worth, and that feeling has it's roots in Ti regardless of the exact reasons he might state.

An ISTP car enthusiast might have a great love of the engineering involved in making a formula 1 racing car, considering them to be a great example of technology, as well as rather exciting. This is despite the fact that they have poor fuel consumption, limited visiblity due to the drivers low position and a high rate of wear on the components. Of course, he might point out that these are points of concern for a road car, not a racing car, but then, what is the practical value of a racing car anyway? It doesn't have any. It is high class engineering for it's own sake, rather than because it has practical value. Again Ti is the source of this evaluation of wht has value.

 

[KDude]

What would you like a more concrete example of? I'll try out Ti.

I think of Ti as an urge to evaluate technical worth and place value upon it. This idea of worth is a little different to utility. IT is possible for an ITP to value something of little practical value and spend their wholes lives in study of something with very little material pay out.

A good example might be an INTP astronomer who spends most of his life tracking celestrial bodies and analysiing spectra from distant stars. His work has little practical value, but he does it anyway, quite possible with a lot of passion too. He might talk about inspiring people or those occations where blue sky (or night sky in this case) research stumbles across the solution to some practical problem. Ultimately, though he does it because he feels it has worth, and that feeling has it's roots in Ti regardless of the exact reasons he might state.

An ISTP car enthusiast might have a great love of the engineering involved in making a formula 1 racing car, considering them to be a great example of technology, as well as rather exciting. This is despite the fact that they have poor fuel consumption, limited visiblity due to the drivers low position and a high rate of wear on the components. Of course, he might point out that these are points of concern for a road car, not a racing car, but then, what is the practical value of a racing car anyway? It doesn't have any. It is high class engineering for it's own sake, rather than because it has practical value. Again Ti is the source of this evaluation of wht has value.

Interesting... I've been devoting myself to pointless endeavors (both technical and artistic) to the detriment of....a lot of other things. None of it is as cool as a Formula 1 race cars or tracking celestial bodies though (cars I probably could do, but it's expensive. I'll leave it at computers or guitars for now...or whatever new interest that comes to mind that isn't going to put a dent in my pocket). Where I think I'm Fi like is in ethical or social concerns...in addition to being "people oriented" (and not to say Ti can't be any of those things, but ethical matters provoke and/or weigh heavily in a way that Jim described above. And it's hard to imagine an ISTP acting as as sociable as I can be at times. Seems like I may as well stick with being ISFP. Thing is, I can see other functions play out for me in minor ways. I'm not always "in the moment". Nor do I give a shit about attributing ultimate meaning to what can only be experienced with my senses. Also, I suck at dancing. I bet there are INTJs here who enjoy it more than me. All of these little behavioral things fuck with my understanding of typology. It's a little confusing).

 

[InvisibleJim]

What does that have to do with why you can't give us a reason for not answering Gwen

Okay let me ignore the belligerence and answer the question.

Gwen has stated she is, in her mind someone who uses 'a lot' of Si by how she has discussed it. However, she won't accept that because she 'wants' to be a different type based upon the behavioural type descriptions; which I disagree with in favour of cognitive functions. As long as she wishes to hold that axiom and I a cognitive axiom then we are talking about different subjects and trying to put a square cube into a circular hole.

I'm not there to tell someone what they are, I can only provide them the information. If they agree with all of the information and then decide to go a different way, then I'm not going to convince them otherwise. That would be disrespectful.

No horses were harmed or otherwise abused in the typing of these paragraphs.

 

[JocktheMotie]

And if you're going to be intellectually snobby about something, don't choose function theory. Physics snobs are laughing at you.

What if you're both?

/headasplodes

 

[Totenkindly]

Okay let me ignore the belligerence and answer the question.

Gwen has stated she is, in her mind someone who uses 'a lot' of Si by how she has discussed it. However, she won't accept that because she 'wants' to be a different type based upon the behavioural type descriptions; which I disagree with in favour of cognitive functions. As long as she wishes to hold that axiom and I a cognitive axiom then we are talking about different subjects and trying to put a square cube into a circular hole.

I'm not there to tell someone what they are, I can only provide them the information. If they agree with all of the information and then decide to go a different way, then I'm not going to convince them otherwise. That would be disrespectful.

No horses were harmed or otherwise abused in the typing of these paragraphs.

Ah, got it.

I have to admit, I get stymied sometimes by this type of INTJ "drop all the explanation." The problem is that there's nothing really inherent in indicating which frame you're standing in. Ne is better in that it's "rocks across a river" and if you find one rock, you can work your way across if the rocks exist to do so. All you need is one rock in order to get on the trail, and then you just go from there.

Ni seems more needle in a haystack -- you're tossing me one of Aahz and Skeeve's dimension hoppers and saying, "The answer's right there." Ha, cute. Yeah... somewhere in the millions of possible dimensions I could try. it's easier if you at least offer a road sign or destination.

Totally get where you were as soon as you started to explain; when I read her post, I just thought... "huh, it's an ISFP who wants to be Si dom."

 

[PeaceBaby]

Part of that too perhaps is Invisible Jim holds an Fi value that would be undermined through the direct sharing of his opinion on the matter.

I understood why he wasn't telling her, but I'm not sure why he wasn't going to try to leave a better trail for her (or other readers here) to follow.

 

[Andy]

Interesting... I've been devoting myself to pointless endeavors (both technical and artistic) to the detriment of....a lot of other things. None of it is as cool as a Formula 1 race cars or tracking celestial bodies though (cars I probably could do, but it's expensive. I'll leave it at computers or guitars for now...or whatever new interest that comes to mind that isn't going to put a dent in my pocket). Where I think I'm Fi like is in ethical or social concerns...in addition to being "people oriented" (and not to say Ti can't be any of those things, but ethical matters provoke and/or weigh heavily in a way that Jim described above. And it's hard to imagine an ISTP acting as as sociable as I can be at times. Seems like I may as well stick with being ISFP. Thing is, I can see other functions play out for me in minor ways. I'm not always "in the moment". Nor do I give a shit about attributing ultimate meaning to what can only be experienced with my senses. Also, I suck at dancing. I bet there are INTJs here who enjoy it more than me. All of these little behavioral things fuck with my understanding of typology. It's a little confusing).

Yes, Fi and Ti can be quite similar at times. which isn't that surprising. They are both Ji processes, after all. All the IPs tend to be characterised by that strong sense of what has worth.

I guess the most fundamental step to take in understanding the functions is to realise that they aren't about what you do but rather why you do it. I was just talking about INTP astronomers, but there could also be an ESTJ astronomer as well. It's just that his reasons for doing the job would be very different. From his point of view, it could be just a form of employment that pays the bills, ensuring that his has enough money to get the loft insulation fitted and give his kids a good education. Perhaps he joined the observatory in some other capacity and moved within the institute when the position came open. His doing very much the same thing as the INTP, but the motivations are so different.

This is the advantage of trying to understand the types in terms of functions rather than holistic type descriptions. There are too many ways the functions can play out for a single discription to cover them all. If someone tride, it would start to look like a novel rather than an essay. This is especially true when considering people in unfamilar cultures or different periods of time. When I give such examples, I hope people recognise them for what they are - illustrative examples, not definitions. Function parables, if the you.

There is no reason why an ISFP would be always in the moment. Their Pe and Pi are in the middle of the concious functions, which is about as balanced as these functions get. Given that the tertiary is easy to activate (the tertiary temptation wouldn't be very tempting otherwise) it will often be used more than the auxuillary, especially amongst younger people.

 

[Thalassa]

What would you like a more concrete example of? I'll try out Ti.

I think of Ti as an urge to evaluate technical worth and place value upon it. This idea of worth is a little different to utility. IT is possible for an ITP to value something of little practical value and spend their wholes lives in study of something with very little material pay out.

A good example might be an INTP astronomer who spends most of his life tracking celestrial bodies and analysiing spectra from distant stars. His work has little practical value, but he does it anyway, quite possible with a lot of passion too. He might talk about inspiring people or those occations where blue sky (or night sky in this case) research stumbles across the solution to some practical problem. Ultimately, though he does it because he feels it has worth, and that feeling has it's roots in Ti regardless of the exact reasons he might state.

An ISTP car enthusiast might have a great love of the engineering involved in making a formula 1 racing car, considering them to be a great example of technology, as well as rather exciting. This is despite the fact that they have poor fuel consumption, limited visiblity due to the drivers low position and a high rate of wear on the components. Of course, he might point out that these are points of concern for a road car, not a racing car, but then, what is the practical value of a racing car anyway? It doesn't have any. It is high class engineering for it's own sake, rather than because it has practical value. Again Ti is the source of this evaluation of wht has value.

Thank you. This is helpful.

In my head last night I was trying to grasp cognition by visually picturing it as moving patterns in the brain...and yet those moving patterns do eventually result in some type of observable behavior, even though it's not necessarily tied to any particular cultural or philosophical belief, and even though the observable behavior can have different motives.

But visualizing it helped. It's like when I was in school and I loved the text books that had colorful boxes with bullet points explaining the main concepts, and photographs or graphs illustrating ideas that had been addressed in the reading.

 

[William K]

I guess the most fundamental step to take in understanding the functions is to realise that they aren't about what you do but rather why you do it.

Agreed with the behaviour vs motivation thing. However since we can't see inside the brain of another person, it is the behaviour that we use to try and figure out the motivation, however inaccurate it is.