• 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.

Pe and Pi

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Can anyone direct me to some worthwhile definitions of extraverted perception and/or introverted perception apart from their S/N distinctions? I'm interested in getting a handle on exactly what 'perception' is and what the E/I attitude specifications are (e.g. what does Se have in common with Ne, but not Si).
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
Calling [MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]: is this something either of you can point Z Buck to?
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Well, Jung himself did describe these. Look here under "Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types" and "Recapitulation of Introverted Irrational Types".

As a side note, IMO, I see each type having "overlaps" (for lack of a better word) with the others. For example, both Se & Si have the function of percieving sensory data, but Si & Ni, being Pi, both have the introverted attitude of Pi & view things in terms of their inner world (they just view different "things", either the tangible or intangible implications). Both Fe & Fi have the function of assigning value, but Fi & Ti are both Ji & so they both define things in terms of their inner world (they just use different ways of classifying, either with value or factual qualities).
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't have anything more than OA does... certainly haven't run across anyone more recent that talks much about Ji and Pi as categories.

I find it interesting that Jung's introverted sensation description seems awfully mystical and artistic compared with the more prosaic modern descriptions.

By more current definitions, it does seem like Pe involves the perception of new external events and possibilities, while Pi involves the activation of pre-existing internal meanings and perspectives. In that sense, Si seems to focus more on the activation and relationship of the sensation to pre-existing meaning (known facts, traditions, previous emotional associations).

Ni seems to sift perceptions through awareness of the patterns and images those perceptions evoke internally. In some sense, those patterns and images pre-exist the stimulation, and are perceived as an sudden awareness of an already existing truth, rather than the creation of a new possibility (even though objectively the insight is new).
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
[MENTION=10423]Lily flower[/MENTION]: Pi and Pe just refer to introverted perception (Ni and Si) and extraverted perception (Ne and Se).

[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]: thanks for the link, I’ll check it out.
(And thanks [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION], for paging some folks.)

I think I’ve got abstract understanding of them, but I was looking for already articulated descriptions to save me the trouble of trying to figure out how to articulate it myself. I did a quick google search which went nowhere fast, and it occurred to me that maybe some people here already know where I could find such a thing. Or maybe even throw out some quicky description of their own. And I realize I could have just gotten Jung’s Psychological Types off the shelf- but I have a bad habit of getting distracted and I’d have forgotten why I got it off the shelf (and gotten interested in something else in the book) before finding exactly what I’m looking for. Lol.

What got me thinking about this in the first place is the mention of “Je is always right”. Basically I agree- but something about it falls short. I’m more inclined to say “Je is set”, or determined or something. It doesn’t care about being ‘right’ so much as having enough ‘rightness’ that it won’t have to improvise or change suddenly. Since it works from the outside going in- it seeks unchangeable basics but not perfection, and nuances can be added afterward (whereas Ji doesn't like establishing anything imperfect in the external world, it prefers to perfect the 'rightness' as it's being established). That probably doesn’t make sense, but anyway, it got me thinking about what fundamental differences there are to be found between Js and Ps (hence the interest in Pe and Pi).

edit: thanks [MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION]!
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I've been thinking the same thing lately [MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION]. There's so much talk about Je and Ji qualities but you don't hear much about Pe and Pi. I actually had a quick search a few weeks ago on the subject but couldn't find anything.

There's one interesting thing I remember coming across regarding Pi (which is sort of in line with what [MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION] said). I was reading an interview with a plainly Ni-dom or aux musician, who was talking about his songwriting process. He said it was like trying to piece together clues - that it's like the song is already subconsciously written and he's simply trying to remember it. He also said that just as you can't force a memory, you can't force the song to come out, instead you must wait for it to reveal itself.

I thought that was rather fascinating, seeing as Si is also so strongly associated with memory. It made me wonder if Si is like trying to remember and make sense of what has happened, and in similar terms, Ni is like trying to reveal and make sense of what will happen.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
i don't have any good sites, but i like thinking of them as expansionist and reductionist. Pe seeks the whole puzzle by getting all the pieces... Pi seeks the whole puzzle by gathering all the clues from a single piece.

am looking forward to reading more from others :)
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
What got me thinking about this in the first place is the mention of “Je is always right”.

I just use it as a shorthand of my perception really ... it is more nuanced in my head. :)

It's like, Je starts from a position of authority, of rightness. A default position. An assumptive position almost.

It doesn’t care about being ‘right’ so much as having enough ‘rightness’ that it won’t have to improvise or change suddenly.

Yes, I agree - a Te dom is not so heavily invested in being right that the facts cannot readily convince them they are wrong, even though they really sound like they are. The advantage to convince a Te-er otherwise is that Te is focussed on the tangible, therefore you can point to real stuff in the real world and the Te person will just say, "Huh, that's right then" and integrate that new data readily into their knowledge database. Oh, they might wriggle and squirm while you convince them as they try to reassert their "rightness". But, it doesn't leave them flailing to see where they erred in the first place, because their thoughts never start from a position of indecision.

Fe is trickier ... less tangible. Or, at least, what you can see is not always what you are dealing with. Lots of stuff beneath the surface, and stuff that is not easily verifiable.

Since it works from the outside going in- it seeks unchangeable basics but not perfection, and nuances can be added afterward (whereas Ji doesn't like establishing anything imperfect in the external world, it prefers to perfect the 'rightness' as it's being established).

Yes, I like that, will think on that some more too.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I thought that was rather fascinating, seeing as Si is also so strongly associated with memory. It made me wonder if Si is like trying to remember and make sense of what has happened, and in similar terms, Ni is like trying to reveal and make sense of what will happen.

I like this...mainly because Pi is really about one's impressions of things, whereas Pe is about external possibilities. Of course, this adds Je into it, because you're describing some reasoning in there too by "making sense" of things (being a Ji-dom, it's hard to fathom NOT thinking rationally first & foremost). Si-dom are often described as enjoying reviewing what they know, which is really just going over it, not arranging it in any order according to logic or value.

Similar to how Je judges using external criteria & seeks to create & establish viable systems, Pe creates & searches for what is possible in reality; whereas Pi explores internal impressions & interpretations, making it less visible, much as Ji is about creating & perfecting systems in concept & also less visible in action. For the P types though, things just pop up & are followed, which is easiest to imagine when you think of it in terms of Se-doms exploring literal sensory experiences. J types use lines of reason to explore things, because they're trying to make sense, not just experience or become aware of.

Jung also describes Ni as pursuing the inner images much as the Ne type runs after external possibilities. Again, that arrangement into categories is not there (that's where Je/Ji comes in).

-----------

This discussion vaguely connects to a breakdown of Jung's wording in a Ni description I was mentally doing the other day. I was putting the same thought in different words to clarify it to myself (this is a typical exercise of a fun filled day with moi). It provides a nice comparison/contrast of Si/Ni which I think sheds light on what Pi is.


Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation.

My simplification of this using less dense language:
Whereas introverted sensation is mainly focused on the perception of particular, stimulating & impressive facts, occurrences, or circumstances via the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side and instead perceives the archaic mental image which has actually caused the stimulation/impression.

And my long-winded way of interpreting this:
The Si type perceives their subjective impression of tangible experience & facts & even people ("the object"). Their impression is still of the literal objects, but they prefer to focus on their own interpretive view of them. This is why Si is compared to impressionistic art; it's reality through the highly idiosyncratic view of the individual. It is colored by the unconscious, which determines what details the individual responds to & focuses on. Ni ignores all this in favor of going directly to the "image" from the unconscious that stirs the impression of the object. The image amounts to a symbol representing the essence of that object. This is why the Ni type experiences their iNtuitions as "objective", because it's not about their personal impression (as it is with the Si type), but an image representing a universal, core "truth" about the object arising from the collective unconscious. However, the individual is still interpreting this image & its "truth", and that's when it becomes highly subjective (as does every introvert's experience of the collective unconscious).
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I like this...mainly because Pi is really about one's impressions of things, whereas Pe is about external possibilities.
Impressions vs possibilities. Sounds good to me :yes:

Of course, this adds Je into it, because you're describing some reasoning in there too by "making sense" of things (being a Ji-dom, it's hard to fathom NOT thinking rationally first & foremost). Si-dom are often described as enjoying reviewing what they know, which is really just going over it, not arranging it in any order according to logic or value.

Similar to how Je judges using external criteria & seeks to create & establish viable systems, Pe creates & searches for what is possible in reality; whereas Pi explores internal impressions & interpretations, making it less visible, much as Ji is about creating & perfecting systems in concept & also less visible in action. For the P types though, things just pop up & are followed, which is easiest to imagine when you think of it in terms of Se-doms exploring literal sensory experiences. J types use lines of reason to explore things, because they're trying to make sense, not just experience or become aware of.
Hmmm, yes it is difficult for me to get away from drawing a conclusion. :thinking:

So p-types are primarily about the experience/impression in and of itself? And is this (ie. the bolded) why the perceiving functions are said to be "irrational" and the judging "rational"?

And my long-winded way of interpreting this:
The Si type perceives their subjective impression of tangible experience & facts & even people ("the object"). Their impression is still of the literal objects, but they prefer to focus on their own interpretive view of them. This is why Si is compared to impressionistic art; it's reality through the highly idiosyncratic view of the individual. It is colored by the unconscious, which determines what details the individual responds to & focuses on. Ni ignores all this in favor of going directly to the "image" from the unconscious that stirs the impression of the object. The image amounts to a symbol representing the essence of that object. This is why the Ni type experiences their iNtuitions as "objective", because it's not about their personal impression (as it is with the Si type), but an image representing a universal, core "truth" about the object arising from the collective unconscious. However, the individual is still interpreting this image & its "truth", and that's when it becomes highly subjective (as does every introvert's experience of the collective unconscious).
This is where I get confused about how aspects of Fi and Ni cross over. Of course perceiving and judging are completely different processes but there are elements that resemble one another. Especially with phrases (implied or otherwise) like:

subjective experience
internal images
the essence of things
universal truth

How are the Ni "images" and "essence" differ to the Fi versions? I mean, when you look at it both Ni and Fi are very interested in uncovering the inherent nature of things, right?

And how does this "collective unconscious" work? Are you saying that Ni does have an objective view of some universal truth (ie. the "image" itself is genuinely apt and not a subjective construction) but that view can be clouded by interpretation?

Also interesting is that you effectively describe Sensing vs. Intuiting, as direct vs. indirect/mediated modes of perception (rather than simply literal versus conceptual) - but also that Sensors are perhaps more personal in their contact with the object.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So p-types are primarily about the experience/impression in and of itself? And is this (ie. the bolded) why the perceiving functions are said to be "irrational" and the judging "rational"?

That's my basic understanding, yes.

This is where I get confused about how aspects of Fi and Ni cross over. Of course perceiving and judging are completely different processes but there are elements that resemble one another. Especially with phrases (implied or otherwise) like:

subjective experience
internal images
the essence of things
universal truth

How are the Ni "images" and "essence" differ to the Fi versions? I mean, when you look at it both Ni and Fi are very interested in uncovering the inherent nature of things, right?

And how does this "collective unconscious" work? Are you saying that Ni does have an objective view of some universal truth (ie. the "image" itself is genuinely apt and not a subjective construction) but that view can be clouded by interpretation?

I've been thinking a lot about all of this, and I actually did a rough "how cognitive functions can be confused" write-up that I may post here (it's at PerC already, piggy-backed within another thread; I should just bite the bullet & post it as its own thread here). EDIT: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51503&p=1711086#post1711086

In short, no I don't believe Ni has an objective view of some universal truth; I think the collective unconscious provides this universal knowledge to everyone, but the Ni types sees the image in its most conceptual form. In a weird way, this almost leaves it open to more interpretation because its stripped of all concrete support. However, they may experience it as objective; I think P types in general experience perceptions that way. Jung says of BOTH Pi types that they don't relate the inner image to themselves and that this is incomprehensible to J types. This is because J types relate it to themselves in the sense that they are aware they are forming subjective lines of reasoning using these images (or concepts) as the premise, whereas P types feel they are just "seeing" something & calling it what it is. Of course, P types are very much are interpreting, but just not in the form of reasoning; it's that immediate "knowing". This applies to Pe and external objects too.

As for how the collective unconscious works, I'm still contemplating that too. It seems so vague in Jung's theory. I need to read more of his work. My short guess is that we experience it 2 basic ways: the imagination & dreams. I think feeling-tones are possibly connected to this also, but this is not noted by Jung.

Also interesting is that you effectively describe Sensing vs. Intuiting, as direct vs. indirect/mediated modes of perception (rather than simply literal versus conceptual) - but also that Sensors are perhaps more personal in their contact with the object.

Well, what I meant was the Ni type may FEEL this perception is objective in the sense that it's so conceptual it is not linked to a literal, personal experience of theirs. It just feels like a general truth to them.

The Si type, IMO, also sees their perception as objective in the sense that they often feel they are just noting REAL facts (not their own spin on it). The difference is that the Si type will see it connected it to a personal experience (ie. they read it in X book), as opposed to seeing it as some universal insight come over them ("just knowing"). IDK if I'm explaining what I mean clearly....
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I've been thinking a lot about all of this, and I actually did a rough "how cognitive functions can be confused" write-up that I may post here (it's at PerC already, piggy-backed within another thread; I should just bite the bullet & post it as its own thread here). EDIT: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51503&p=1711086#post1711086
I will head over there now and take a look :)

In short, no I don't believe Ni has an objective view of some universal truth; I think the collective unconscious provides this universal knowledge to everyone, but the Ni types sees the image in its most conceptual form. In a weird way, this almost leaves it open to more interpretation because its stripped of all concrete support. However, they may experience it as objective; I think P types in general experience perceptions that way. Jung says of BOTH Pi types that they don't relate the inner image to themselves and that this is incomprehensible to J types. This is because J types relate it to themselves in the sense that they are aware they are forming subjective lines of reasoning using these images (or concepts) as the premise, whereas P types feel they are just "seeing" something & calling it what it is. Of course, P types are very much are interpreting, but just not in the form of reasoning; it's that immediate "knowing". This applies to Pe and external objects too.
Ahh, I see. I really should read Jung more thoroughly rather than in dribs and drabs.
 
Top