• 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.

The Search for Better, More Elemental Definitions of the Functions, Esp. Judging

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There are so many different experts with so many different ways of putting things, that there ends up being a lot of miscommunication. I'm particularly thinking of the definitions of i/e and T/F.
The internal or external orientation of a function is often portrayed in terms of where the function is "used" ("applied"), or even where its energy "flows", yet on the other hand, some will insist it is the standard of reference of the function. Then this will often be framed in terms of "individual" (personal) versus "agreed upon" or "group" standards, or the orientation being inherent in the objects/subjects in question.

All of these are interpretations of Jung's "focused on the subject [or] object".

Sensing and iNtuition are widely recognized as dealing with concrete vs abstract information. So there is not as much problem defining these.

It's T/F where a lot of problems and type confusion occur. Thinking is widely defined as "logic" and "impersonal". Yet for Feeling, we hear about "values", "ethics", "personal", "harmony", "empathy/sympathy" (and questions as to which attitude carries which), and "emotions/emoting".
This is where descriptions of that function get really screwed up.
Especially regarding emotions.

I myself have been tossed around with these descriptions, and will often use one or another in my discussions. Sometimes, a knowledgeable person, who has settled on one pair of definitions or another, will dispute. Like I'll say "internal or external application", and they'll insist on "standard". Or we'll differ on which of the various terms for "Feeling" apply. (Like in an email recently, I spoke of "emotion", and I was told "personal" experential identification, instead).

What happens is that my mind is swimming with all these terms, which are basically attempts at concise definitions. But what we need are the most elemental root definitions we can find. And I just hadn't had the time yet (until now) to try to figure and settle on which ones that seemed to capture the essence of the functions the best.

All these terms stick because they all do have at least some truth to them. But since, as we see, the various factors can sometimes span different dichotomies or be common to people of all types, it can often lead to outright contradictions.

Also, it seems some are really more behavioral results than elemental definitions. And I can see (as some complain at times) that the problems in typology often result from overusing behavioral concepts. They do basically match the concepts, but can vary.
This is what often leads to the "Forer effect" I have often been mentioning. For instance, everyone has emotions, and "knows what they want for themselves", not just Feelers in general or introverted Feelers.

I have found Lenore Thomson's definitions to seem more solid (she's one major source for the "standard" and "personal/impersonal" definitions), and so decided to get these from the book:

Perception encourages us to process sensory impressions as they occur
Judgment prompts us to organize our sense impressions by focusing on the ones that happen regularly enough to recognize and predict. (p253)

Left brain (J=Je/Pi) linear one-at-a-time approach to life
Right brain (P=Pe/Ji) wholistic[sic] all-at-once approach to life

It is noteworthy that another person, Mark Bruzon, has T=linear, F=holistic. This would work the same way as "objective/subjective", which can apply to either e/i or T/F. The factor applies to both, but in different aspects.

The other three dichotomies:

i internal standard
e external standard

S concrete
N abstract

T impersonal
F personal

Descriptions from the chapters on the functions:

Te: shared qualities objects have in common used as a standard of sequential order
Ti: the variables [essential dynamics] in a situation related to our intended effect (this probably refers to personal "frameworks", such as particular symmetries one looks for in things)
Fe: measure our options for relationships against an external standard of behaviors
Fi: encourages a personal relationship to an evolving pattern (e.g. how a given situation would affect the person)

To make Ti and Fi parallel Te and Fe more closely:

Ti: essential qualities objects have, chosen as a standard of universal truth
Fi: personal relationship to situations chosen an internal standard of truth

While "relationships" are mentioned only for the two Feeling attitudes, really, all four judging attitudes are dealing with "relationships". The Feeling attitudes deal with "relationships" between people (which includes the subject, of course), and the Thinking attitudes deal with relationships between objects (including treating one's self and others as objects).

So we can see right here why Feeling would also be tagged as "subjective" while Thinking is "objective".
At the same time, the external attitude relates to an external object, while the internal attitude relates to the subject.

So to rephrase the functions in terms of their base elements:

Te: judges relationships between impersonal objects according to an external standard (in the objects themselves)
Ti: judges relationships between impersonal objects according to an internal standard (the subject's chosen frameworks)
Fe: judges personal relationships by an external standard (agreed upon behaviors)
Fi: judges personal relationships by an internal standard (experiential identification)

Of course, for the perception functions:

Se: perceives concrete data from an external (emergent) source
Si: perceives concrete data from an internal (stored) source
Ne: abstracts external, emergent data
Ni: abstracts internally stored data

So hope we can keep these in mind and they can be helpful when thinking of which function is which.
 
Last edited:

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So while we still can never be absolutely sure of other people's types (especially celebrities, who we don't know, and of course, fictional characters), still, to get a good estimation of T/F, we can look at what we can look at what we can call, the
rational focus: personal vs impersonal.
(And perception I would call "perceptive focus: concrete vs abstract")

(Forgot to mention, personal/impersonal would explain Bruzon's T=linear; F=holistic definition. Impersonal relationships are linear, basically "if this, then that". Personal relationships are a more fuzzy category, that looks at each point's [Bruzon does his representations as point matrices] relationship to it environment, rather than a hard line connecting it to the next point. Hence, "holistic").

I used to often wonder if I was "using Fi" when I would evaluate whether something I said or did was congruent with my beliefs in a debate or something (since Fi was often defined simply as "evaluating congruence"); but in that context, the the actual reasoning was based on fear of being accused of double standards by others.

So it was more an impersonal "if-then" process, and the personal relationship aspect of it was more externally focused.

Other people, who have struggled with type, and considered F, but were really more "impersonal" in their self-descriptions and focus here, than personal:
Such Irony, Luna and Greed/Bologna.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Celebrities and others for whom we have debated their type:

Rachel Ray:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/popular-culture-type/30853-rachel-ray.html
As I have argued, wears a very "personal" onstage persona, but by many of her own descriptions, is clearly mor e"impersonal" in real life. (ESTP instead of ESFP)

Stevie Wonder:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...e/27868-stevie-wonder-infj-istp-analysis.html
While he obviously is more "personal" in his older age, when he first became an adult independent musisioan, he was more impersonal. He had love songs reflecting his ongoing breakups and new loves, but the rest of the songs focused on the mind, politics and other logical messages. An accident that injured the right side of his head seemed to mark the beginning of a change, where he went from being more S and T, to N and F. INFJ (which most people assume for him) is the left-brain "supplement" to ISTP.

This person:
http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/11088-vicky-jo-infjs.html
Also presents a very Fe "nurturing sage" persona, but in direct experiences, is clearly more impersonal, (focuses on application of the logical aspects of type and the "seriousness" of the business; and one has to see for themselves the way she actually relates to people), and even "other" INFJ's can sense something is off. (ENTJ "Fieldmarshall" seems to fit).

Kate Gosselin
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/popular-culture-type/17205-john-kate.html

Clearly impersonal focused. The kids (and former husband) were just objects to order around.
In her case, people seemed to look purely at her "emotion" to make her an ExFJ. But as is being pointed out here, an F preference is really not about "emotion" at all. In fact, when you see emotions that out of control, it is likely a person who has a very impersonal focus. The connection of emotions to the Feeling preference would involve stuff like being able to control them!
When someone has a negative "Feeling" reaction, T's likely project how they would have to been feeling in order to react that way, and assume that person must be that upset. So we come to associate "Feeling" with out of control emotion.

Then, of course, the old debate on Hitler. He's clearly more impersonal. In cases such as him and some of these other people, people pick out some sort of "personal"-based motive he might have had, but as I kept pointing out, when a function comes out that erratic or "gone wrong" as people put it, it is not preferred; it is likely tertiary/inferior and their shadow, the Trickster/Demon.
They also point to supposed "mistakes" he might have made with logic. But the preference is not about mistakes; it's focus. A preference does not guarantee the decisions made with the function will work. there are a lot of reasons they might not. Clearly, this was the clearest example of an "impersonal" focus to the hilt!

On the other hand, you have Oprah, who I have hears described with similar controlling "Choleric" behavior as the other In Charge types, above. Yet, she is clearly more personal-focused, overall. So ENFJ would seem to fit.

Someone just resurrected the thread on Prince, but he's hard to tell as to whether he is more personal or impersonal. Some of these people, you would really need to know them in person.

You still have other factors, such as expressiveness and responsiveness (I/E, directive/informative, structure/motive, etc), that affect how one's "personal" or "impersonal" behavior. (in addition to "people vs task" focus) But cognitively, personal/impersonal directly affects what they focus on in decisions, and behavior is something likely affected by this, but can change do to various things.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Vicky Jo an ENTJ? :thinking:

Kind of a stretch. I don't know her, but if I was a well read consultant for 30 years you'd bet I promote a sense of logic too. She's probably just trying to help get correct information out there. A lot of people want to reinvent the wheel or look at things in too much of an arbitrary manner, instead of just read (even myself at times).
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Sort of like Rachel Ray, there's a persona that might make some female T's seem F, but beneath the surface, it's a whole different story. (My mother (ISTJ) is another example of this).

It's not just a "sense of logic", but rather the entire focus that is a better indicator of the true preference.
 

freeeekyyy

Cheeseburgers
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
1,384
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Vicky Jo an ENTJ? :thinking:

Kind of a stretch. I don't know her, but if I was a well read consultant for 30 years you'd bet I promote a sense of logic too. She's probably just trying to help get correct information out there. A lot of people want to reinvent the wheel or look at things in too much of an arbitrary manner, instead of just read (even myself at times).

Kinda wondered the same thing. Not only does she seem INFJ, that's also what she claims her type is. I'm sure with her knowledge of typology, she probably knows her own type fairly well.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Would you two happen to be basing this on the videos? Or the articles?
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
A little of both. I don't know her personally. And to clarify the other point I was making, I would give someone the benefit of the doubt if they have been involved in MBTI for as long as she has. Me? I signed up on this site a year ago. Maybe not the best reasoning, but I don't feel right about it. :D
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
1,858
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
54
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
In a Youtube interview with Letterman, Ray describes her husband and herself as a pair of hot-blooded, easily angered Italians, which doesn't support estp, though it's understandably difficult to tell, as she's also resourceful, action-oriented, and to-the-point. Rather, I think it's more likely she's an e1 esfj, sx/sp e12, one whose traditional, kitchenwife leanings are overshadowed by her boisterous tenancies at first glance. Also, I want to confirm that that Paula lady is estp, so/sx e78, so let's compare. Start with their kitchens.

Even after all the friendly discussion, I still consider Wonder an sx/so e32 enfp. Strong, compulsive, outward energy supported by being a 3, with a friendly, poetic flair tailored to please anyone of his choosing. Couldn't we go back and forth all night about attributing T or F to however his songs come across to us?
 

freeeekyyy

Cheeseburgers
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
1,384
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Would you two happen to be basing this on the videos? Or the articles?

Both for me. Her video with her husband, and also her articles. Obviously I don't have any "hard evidence," just a hunch. But she seems much more Fe dependent than Fi. I can't quite say how.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
In a Youtube interview with Letterman, Ray describes her husband and herself as a pair of hot-blooded, easily angered Italians, which doesn't support estp
Why in the world not? For her (I don't know what his type is), that would perfectly fit the "In Charge" Interaction Style, which is the "Choleric". Revelations like that are precisely what tipped my wife off that she had some Choleric in there. (I myself had been arguing for the "pure Sanguine" ESFP).

I recently heard her say she liked to play with Erector sets as a child. Now, you have to be careful taking just one thing like that as proof of type. But in light of all the other stuff, it is good evidence of an "impersonal" focus. Especially for a girl, who you would think would be pushed towards more "personal" (Feeling) type activities even if a T, since F is the stereotypical role for females.
though it's understandably difficult to tell, as she's also resourceful, action-oriented, and to-the-point. Rather, I think it's more likely she's an e1 esfj, sx/sp e12, one whose traditional, kitchenwife leanings are overshadowed by her boisterous tenancies at first glance.
She does not seem like either a J; nor a "traditional housewife" AT ALL. Furthest thing. I think you're just looking at her being a cook, and a host.
ESTP has tertiary Fe, and this might be greatly "inflated", especially for a female, again, because of the stereotypical role. It is strong enough to make her look like a very people-focused hostess, but it really does not seem to be a preferred function; especially not dominant! I think she's an obvious dom. Se.

The cooking can actually go well with Ti. Think Alton Brown. Only for her, it's just not dominant.

Also, e1? Couldn't be. e12? what's that; you mean 1w2? I could see 2, but where is this 1 coming from? She would seem more like a 3 or something. Perhaps 3w2?

Also, I want to confirm that that Paula lady is estp, so/sx e78, so let's compare. Start with their kitchens.
Could be. Don't watch her nearly as much; never thought much of her type.

Even after all the friendly discussion, I still consider Wonder an sx/so e32 enfp. Strong, compulsive, outward energy supported by being a 3, with a friendly, poetic flair tailored to please anyone of his choosing. Couldn't we go back and forth all night about attributing T or F to however his songs come across to us?
Someone else has suggested ENFP in that thread, but that doesn't seem like him at all! He's directive, and not a Get Things Going type at all, but rather a Chart the Course.

Again, my argument on him as that trauma to the right brain shifted him to the left brain. (So if he had started out ENFP, he would probably look ESTJ now!) Before that, he seemed much more P, and albums like Talking Book, which I grew up on, have a strong ST vibe.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
1,858
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
54
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Why in the world not? For her (I don't know what his type is), that would perfectly fit the "In Charge" Interaction Style, which is the "Choleric". Revelations like that are precisely what tipped my wife off that she had some Choleric in there. (I myself had been arguing for the "pure Sanguine" ESFP).

Now's probably a good time to catch up on your terminology so I know how to respond to this. Is there a link? I know I have it saved somewhere.

I recently heard her say she liked to play with Erector sets as a child. Now, you have to be careful taking just one thing like that as proof of type. But in light of all the other stuff, it is good evidence of an "impersonal" focus. Especially for a girl, who you would think would be pushed towards more "personal" (Feeling) type activities even if a T, since F is the stereotypical role for females.

Have you discussed her type with anyone else who is certain of their type to determine reactions? The reason I consider her esfj is because I find her tolerable (-isfj) on television, but would find her completely annoying if anywhere near me, due not only to sheer volume but volume of the subject matter she focuses on: friends, family, etc., while laughing at her audience so openly they can see the zebra stripes reverberating on her tonsils. Whereas estps give me a sort of unconscious, harmonizing satisfaction, as esfps should, in theory, give you.

She does not seem like either a J; nor a "traditional housewife" AT ALL. Furthest thing. I think you're just looking at her being a cook, and a host.
ESTP has tertiary Fe, and this might be greatly "inflated", especially for a female, again, because of the stereotypical role. It is strong enough to make her look like a very people-focused hostess, but it really does not seem to be a preferred function; especially not dominant! I think she's an obvious dom. Se.

Let's assume she's an obvious dom. Se, but whenever you get a minute, pluck a few hairbrained infps off the street and ask them what they think about Ray. Have your camera phone handy.

Think Alton Brown.
Also enneagram 1 intp?

Also, e1? Couldn't be. e12? what's that; you mean 1w2? I could see 2, but where is this 1 coming from? She would seem more like a 3 or something. Perhaps 3w2?

As noted above, I'd initially overattributed on-and-off, hot-and-cold, reactive anger (presumably what she describes in the video) with enneagram 1, but she and Marm could, indeed, be fun watching bounce off each other.

I'll lay off the Wondertalk.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Now's probably a good time to catch up on your terminology so I know how to respond to this. Is there a link? I know I have it saved somewhere.
http://www.erictb.info/temperament2ss.html The bottom section, about the MBTI-FIRO correlation. This briefly discusses the Interaction Styles and Galen temperaments.
Have you discussed her type with anyone else who is certain of their type to determine reactions? The reason I consider her esfj is because I find her tolerable (-isfj) on television, but would find her completely annoying if anywhere near me, due not only to sheer volume but volume of the subject matter she focuses on: friends, family, etc., while laughing at her audience so openly they can see the zebra stripes reverberating on her tonsils. Whereas estps give me a sort of unconscious, harmonizing satisfaction, as esfps should, in theory, give you.
You can't always go by stuff like that. Especially with someone you're seeing on TV. Again, that can be a stage persona.
We know someone who says they worked around her, and they testified she was more of an "in Charge" type (they did't use type or Interaction Style, but the behaviors fit).
Let's assume she's an obvious dom. Se, but whenever you get a minute, pluck a few hairbrained infps off the street and ask them what they think about Ray. Have your camera phone handy.
:confused:I don't understand this.
Also enneagram 1 intp?
I'm not sure about enneagram, but yes, INTP.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I also meant to add to the OP, that the impersonal focus of Thinking can also be described as "technical". Someone with a very "technical" focus is likely a T.
(Keirsey should have used "Technical" more-so than "Tough-minded" as his new name for what "T" stands for).

Some more examples:

Like choosing gadgets. I choose something I "like", which sounds like "Fi", the way it is described. But it's really because of some way it makes things easier. Like when recordable CD's, then DVD's, then finally, recordable DVD's came out, I followed it very enthusiastically, because it allowed me to eliminate annoying casette tapes. (I had waited so long for it, only for solid state technology to come on its heels).

LED's have several advantages. The monochromatic colors, ability to make any shade of white, the ability to change colors, less wattage, less heat, last longer.

Electric cars eliminate not only the smoke, but also the flammable combustion fuel.

A more "personal" perspective would focus on the "green" effect for the sake of "humanity". For me, that is just a fringe benefit, and the focus is on technical convenience. (Hence, Berens including "convenience" as one of the standards used by Ti).

Clothes, it's color and texture more than a directly "personal" factor of "fitting in". Still, some might try to define that as Fi, but the difference from a differentiated Fi standpoint is that the latter's "personal" focus will extend beying the person to a more universal scope (such as "humanity" in general. This, in contrast to crude distinctions between Fi and Fe with only Fe "considering others", while Fi is more self-involved).
So when an Fi likes a color, it might be because it represents something to him that is "personal", such as warmth, peace, etc. Contrast with me, where is just "looks cool" or something like that, or it is somehow "unique". This is actually an impersonal focus. But the way Fi was described in terms of "likes", it made it impossibleto tell the difference.

Our brains can interpret anything pleasing to the senses as "like". (Just like Luna's cupcakes in her thread! Pretty colors, and looks like they taste good!)
That is not what is meant by the "personal" factor of "valuing" something. It has to involve the universal aspect of "personhood" (from the viewpoint of the individual) for Fi, and an immediate external environment for Fe. (Hence, Bruzon's "wide/local area matrix, respectively).
 
Top