• 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.

A new language for understanding N and S

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
So I was daydreaming in the shower today and it lead me to thinking the nature of Sensing, and by extension, Intuition. I came to a few realisations that made me think about them differently and perhaps eliminate some of the sorts of problems that are created by the current, common language for understanding them.

This sort of relates to things I've been pondering lately about two Sensors and an Intuitive that I know (this is optional reading, so I'll put it in spoilers):



All this makes me think that Perceiving is not so much about whether your thinking is abstract or literal (or whatever), it's more to do with context.

I was also thinking about how we look at Judging functions. People often reduce the difference between T and F and being "logic vs. values", and that often irritates Feelers, as it implies that Thinking is superior and dismisses the Feeling world in a reductive manner. Additionally it fails to recognize that "values" are an indirect result of Feelers' mode of thought, not the means of achieving it. It is like defining professional cyclists as people who compete in the Tour De France, rather than as those who ride bicycles for a living.

This makes me wonder if way that people talk about N and S is dismissive, reductive and inaccurate in the same sorts of ways and if this is why a lot of descriptions bother Sensors. We say that the differences between N and S as being "conceptual vs. practical" or "abstract vs. literal" or "cerebral vs. sensory", but these never really fit in the right way. It seems there's a failing in the language that makes it hard for us to understand what these things really are; what the fundamental features of each are.

Looking back at those two examples I gave of Sensor behaviour it seems to me that Sensing is much better defined by its specificity, in contrast to my own Intuitive needs for breadth of understanding. Just as we need to remember that T and F are simply different means of evaluating information, N and S are different ways to perceive and establish context. Ns need more awareness of overall scope in order to comprehend things, and Sensors need more awareness of the specifics (be it through greater detail, personal experiences, more sensory-oriented information, established patterns/characteristics, more narrative driven information etc). In this sense, Sensors aren't less interested in discussing concepts, it's that they often find them too sketchy to easily address. They're not even sure where to begin and therefore lack the jumping off point to discuss them. It's not the concepts themselves that bothers them, it's the vagueness of it all and how prohibitive that is. And it's important to remember that Ns are equally on the back foot when it comes to the specificity of S communication; it can all seems random, arbitrary and bewildering to them until they gain a holistic frame of reference. It's also worth noting that when Sensors express themselves, the broader context is implied, and vice-versa for Intuitives. Both expect others will be able to infer that larger/narrower context from what is said, neither bothering to (or interested in) explicitly articulate it.

I think this sort of way of looking at it can also be applied to the individual functions too. There is a sort of way of defining Judging functions that I find useful:

Te - Objectively Objective
Ti - Subjectively Objective
Fe - Objectively Subjective
Fi - Subjectively Subjective


So this means that Te, for example, externally evaluates impersonal information, whereas, Fe externally evaluates 'personal' information. The same could perhaps be done with Perceiving functions:

Ne - Expansively Expansive
Ni - Specifically Expansive
Se - Expansively Specific
Si - Specifically Specific


So this means that Ne, for example, openly perceives a broad context, whereas, Se openly perceives a narrow context, and so on.

This makes me wonder about the implications this sort of definition suggests for the way we see Sensors. I confess I'm sort of surprised that it was Si that got the place of 'most specific'. Of course, it makes sense if you think about it, but I just assumed it would be Se based on the way I view the function. Also, in contrast to Ne, it gives Si an impression of being keen and discerning, rather than rigid as it is often portrayed. It also highlights the way that Se can extrapolate insights from a limited scope of experience and can learn tremendously well from this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, potential questions for discussion:
- What do you think of this way of describing differences in Perceiving?
- Do you agree or see flaws in it?
- Sensors: do you like this better than the usual descriptions? Why/Why not?
- Does it fit with some of the observations and experiences you have had with people of different types?
- If this is accurate, what other implications do you see for how we view N and S?
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
I think all of this sort of stuff that people try to come up with doesent really offer anything. Maybe it will help someone understand something about the function better, but at the same time it leaves something out.

Simplest way and which still holds as much as what its about imo is:

Sensing = sense perception.
Intuition = perception via the unconscious.

With extraversion the determining factor of focus is in the external world and with introversion its in the inner world.

Now ofc perception via unconscious doesent tell you everything about intuition, but thats what it is, knowing how the unconscious operates youll know what its about.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Ti - Subjectively Objective - LMAO, its fun to be subjectively objective :D

agree with this one.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I think all of this sort of stuff that people try to come up with doesent really offer anything. Maybe it will help someone understand something about the function better, but at the same time it leaves something out.

Simplest way and which still holds as much as what its about imo is:

Sensing = sense perception.
Intuition = perception via the unconscious.

With extraversion the determining factor of focus is in the external world and with introversion its in the inner world.

Now ofc perception via unconscious doesent tell you everything about intuition, but thats what it is, knowing how the unconscious operates youll know what its about.
This would be all well and good if people subjectively viewed it in this way, but they don't. Firstly, this basically tells us nothing useful regarding behaviour; it's cold and meaningless as an explanation. Secondly, the reality is people are always going to seek to get something more useful out of it. This can be positive or it can end in prejudice, and partly why I'm trying to rethink things is to offer an alternative to the language that generates bias. Thirdly, as soon as even experts actually apply this they're going to start saying more about what it suggests; what it means for how we behave. Clearly there are underlying factors even within your definition - aspects that are fundamental to understanding how these things operate that are worth exploring. Also, it fails to address the way we shape our own perception; what we choose to see and the way we choose to see it. Perception is not like film in a camera, capturing the reality as it is (although even this idea is problematic). Perception is merely a representation of reality.

The truth is, I'm not actually trying to do away with your definition. I'm just trying to get something more productive out of it. :shrug:
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So, potential questions for discussion:
- What do you think of this way of describing differences in Perceiving?
- Do you agree or see flaws in it?
- Sensors: do you like this better than the usual descriptions? Why/Why not?
- Does it fit with some of the observations and experiences you have had with people of different types?
- If this is accurate, what other implications do you see for how we view N and S?

the concept of Receptivity should always play a part in describing the perceiving functions. Receptivity is a matter of fine-tuning one's consciousness to either a broader or more specific context. Ji, which is risk-aversive, prefers to narrow in like a laser beam on a more specific context. Pe, which is risk-taking, prefers to broaden their context, ever-expanding and taking in even more contexts all at the same time.

In practice, you will see that Ji has a more-or-less narrow viewpoint that focuses on only a limited number of contexts. At the extreme, there is only one goal and only one method to achieving the goal. Safety is the prime motivator here, they practice the virtues of "tried and true," "never switch horses in the middle of a stream," and "slow and steady wins the race."

In practice, you will see that Pe has a very broad-minded and flexible viewpoint from which to derive contexts of various sorts. At the extreme, it is hard to get them tied down to any specific notion, they fly from one notion to the next. They draw broad comparisons between ideas and/or objects that often don't make sense to others. The Pe implicitly follows such ideas as, "The mind that opens to a new idea never returns to its original size" (Einstein).
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
"All this makes me think that Perceiving is not so much about whether your thinking is abstract or literal (or whatever), it's more to do with context."

It's more to do with receptivity.
 

indra

is
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
1,413
MBTI Type
jedi
Enneagram
8
Love, love, love, expansively specific for Se. It almost makes me want to read the rest of your post.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Ti - Subjectively Objective - LMAO, its fun to be subjectively objective :D

agree with this one.
I'd like to take credit for that but I wasn't the one who came up with it.

the concept of Receptivity should always play a part in describing the perceiving functions. Receptivity is a matter of fine-tuning one's consciousness to either a broader or more specific context. Ji, which is risk-aversive, prefers to narrow in like a laser beam on a more specific context. Pe, which is risk-taking, prefers to broaden their context, ever-expanding and taking in even more contexts all at the same time.
So you think this whole idea applies equally to the Judging functions? I would think that Perceiving is driven by context (ie. a framework; shifting or solid) and Judging is driven by criteria (ie. a yardstick; personal or impersonal).

And why "receptivity"? Can you expand on what you mean by that?

In practice, you will see that Ji has a more-or-less narrow viewpoint that focuses on only a limited number of contexts. At the extreme, there is only one goal and only one method to achieving the goal. Safety is the prime motivator here, they practice the virtues of "tried and true," "never switch horses in the middle of a stream," and "slow and steady wins the race."
A lot of this seems like Si to me.

Love, love, love, expansively specific for Se. It almost makes me want to read the rest of your post.
LOL. I know it's a bit of a wall of information. If you're looking for something that may be of interest to you: inside the spoilers, the first paragraph is about my ISFP friend as an example of Se behaviour (and how baffled it leaves me as a Ne-user) . I'd like to know what a SP thought about that.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I really, really like this, SK. I think you've gotten nearer to the heart of it than most explanations I've read. I love the expansive/specific language and how it mirrors the subjective/objective pairings.

Regarding S/N and context, my only deviating thought would be that I don't know if it's accurate to say Se perceives a narrow context... Unless you mean that Se prefers to limit to the "narrow" present context, which I would agree with, though I hesitate to see it as narrow because the present situation technically contains an infinite amount of information, making it equal to what Ne perceives. I think the specificity comes in more because it zooms in on tangible elements, not because it prefers to limit the context, as Se operates in the ever-changing present. Semantics, really, though I figure I'll leave this thought train since the entire thread is devoted to semantics.

Si is surprisingly... Spacious. It can seem very rigid and nostalgic, but when I hear my Si-dom unpack it, it's actually quite beautiful, inquisitive, and seeking. Have you ever seen the .gif where it looks like you are infinitely zooming into fractals within fractals? I see Pi functions kind of like that. It's like the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, the more there is to find. I think the fractals correlate a little better to Ni, because of the retained patterns, but the infinite zooming is very Si, too. Worlds within worlds, details within details. He sees an old photo of downtown and immediately catches that there is a random mailbox on the second story wall of a brick building. He wonders whose box it is... Who lived there... Why it was put there. Details within details. It goes deeper than "comparing the past and present". It's more like seeing iterations and traces of the past infinitely within the present.
 

Glint

ಠ﹏ಠ
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Messages
105
MBTI Type
TiNi
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Kross, I like the way you put it! Your explanation addresses well the generally used descriptions of S vs N that have bothered me a lot and caused me to doubt my type. (see my MBTI to the left of this post.)
Especially the association of S with 'practical' because if you look hard and far enough, just about anything conceivable can have a practical application.
My insistence on topics having meaning/relevance ("what's the point of blindly memorizing all of these details?") also kept getting me typed as S by other people. hahaha
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So you think this whole idea applies equally to the Judging functions? I would think that Perceiving is driven by context (ie. a framework; shifting or solid) and Judging is driven by criteria (ie. a yardstick; personal or impersonal).

And why "receptivity"? Can you expand on what you mean by that?

Your context or framework depends on receptivity, where the latter term simply means "openness to experience." Our perceptions are open to whichever context is habituated and then termed a 'function.' In my previous post I gave examples of the two basic types of receptivity, Ji and Pe. The rest is explained in that post.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Looking back at the OP, I'm not seeing a big distinction in what we're respectively saying. I just don't think 'context' is the right terminology to use.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
This would be all well and good if people subjectively viewed it in this way, but they don't. Firstly, this basically tells us nothing useful regarding behaviour; it's cold and meaningless as an explanation. Secondly, the reality is people are always going to seek to get something more useful out of it. This can be positive or it can end in prejudice, and partly why I'm trying to rethink things is to offer an alternative to the language that generates bias. Thirdly, as soon as even experts actually apply this they're going to start saying more about what it suggests; what it means for how we behave. Clearly there are underlying factors even within your definition - aspects that are fundamental to understanding how these things operate that are worth exploring. Also, it fails to address the way we shape our own perception; what we choose to see and the way we choose to see it. Perception is not like film in a camera, capturing the reality as it is (although even this idea is problematic). Perception is merely a representation of reality.

The truth is, I'm not actually trying to do away with your definition. I'm just trying to get something more productive out of it. :shrug:

I mean if you say to someone who doesent know type that he is subjectively objective and secondarily expansively expansive, how much do you think the person gets out of your definition of him?

Then if you tell the same person this instead:
a thinking attitude is oriented by the principle of logic; a sensation attitude is oriented by the direct perception of concrete facts; intuition orients itself to future possibilities; and feeling is governed by subjective worth. -Jung

And you ask him what type of attitude he generally has and what he lacks the most and he will know at least something about his type.

Or you tell him:
thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is important or unimportant for us, sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the background, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation. -Jung

Or if you simplify these things to:
S = sense perception
T = logical definition
F = judging personal worth
N = seeing the hidden possibilities via unconscious process


The definitions of jungs time were little different from what the definitions are now, which is:
http://allpsych.com/psychology101/sensation_perception.html said:
Sensation refers to the process of sensing our environment through touch, taste, sight, sound, and smell. This information is sent to our brains in raw form where perception comes into play. Perception is the way we interpret these sensations and therefore make sense of everything around us.

Or well the definition for sensation is still the same, but at jungs time perception was more general term used also in sensation.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
the concept of Receptivity should always play a part in describing the perceiving functions. Receptivity is a matter of fine-tuning one's consciousness to either a broader or more specific context. Ji, which is risk-aversive, prefers to narrow in like a laser beam on a more specific context. Pe, which is risk-taking, prefers to broaden their context, ever-expanding and taking in even more contexts all at the same time.

In practice, you will see that Ji has a more-or-less narrow viewpoint that focuses on only a limited number of contexts. At the extreme, there is only one goal and only one method to achieving the goal. Safety is the prime motivator here, they practice the virtues of "tried and true," "never switch horses in the middle of a stream," and "slow and steady wins the race."

In practice, you will see that Pe has a very broad-minded and flexible viewpoint from which to derive contexts of various sorts. At the extreme, it is hard to get them tied down to any specific notion, they fly from one notion to the next. They draw broad comparisons between ideas and/or objects that often don't make sense to others. The Pe implicitly follows such ideas as, "The mind that opens to a new idea never returns to its original size" (Einstein).

Disagree heavily with Ji. Most ixtjs fall under your explanation then and ixtp.

I actually apply more contexts and ideas then most and make an attempt to properly balance these and to also categorize them into a certain priority that is context based.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Disagree heavily with Ji. Most ixtjs fall under your explanation then and ixtp.

I actually apply more contexts and ideas then most and make an attempt to properly balance these and to also categorize them into a certain priority that is context based.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the concept of 'context.' I'm just saying that receptivity comes before it. And what you're talking about above is not Pe.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Regarding S/N and context, my only deviating thought would be that I don't know if it's accurate to say Se perceives a narrow context... Unless you mean that Se prefers to limit to the "narrow" present context, which I would agree with, though I hesitate to see it as narrow because the present situation technically contains an infinite amount of information, making it equal to what Ne perceives.
I was a little uncertain of using the word "narrow" because it has a negative connotation - so consider that a temporary placeholder for the idea behind it.

Yes, I partly mean narrow in that it is very specific to an immediate, emerging context (though not necessarily in the present, physical world, because it can be through creative works or daydreaming, for example). It's expansive in a linear fashion, like a story unfolding. I've actually come to see the function as very narrative-like in nature, as it explores an idea to its full length. Ne on the other hand is related to an overarching, diverging context - it expands outwardly not linearly.

I think the specificity comes in more because it zooms in on tangible elements, not because it prefers to limit the context, as Se operates in the ever-changing present. Semantics, really, though I figure I'll leave this thought train since the entire thread is devoted to semantics.
I actually think (like what I was trying to get at with the cyclist example) the tangibility is a indirect result of a desire to limit context. I believe the way they think is what draws them to the tangible world and to engage in their senses. I mean, if you're very aware of the narrative style elements of things, wouldn't you experience your life as if you were a character in a story: taking in your environment and feeling keenly aware of the way things unfold around you.

Si is surprisingly... Spacious. It can seem very rigid and nostalgic, but when I hear my Si-dom unpack it, it's actually quite beautiful, inquisitive, and seeking. Have you ever seen the .gif where it looks like you are infinitely zooming into fractals within fractals? I see Pi functions kind of like that. It's like the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, the more there is to find. I think the fractals correlate a little better to Ni, because of the retained patterns, but the infinite zooming is very Si, too. Worlds within worlds, details within details. He sees an old photo of downtown and immediately catches that there is a random mailbox on the second story wall of a brick building. He wonders whose box it is... Who lived there... Why it was put there. Details within details. It goes deeper than "comparing the past and present". It's more like seeing iterations and traces of the past infinitely within the present.
I agree. This is what I'm trying to get at. I'm starting to see Si as a process of unpacking information. :yes:

Kross, I like the way you put it! Your explanation addresses well the generally used descriptions of S vs N that have bothered me a lot and caused me to doubt my type. (see my MBTI to the left of this post.)
Especially the association of S with 'practical' because if you look hard and far enough, just about anything conceivable can have a practical application.
My insistence on topics having meaning/relevance ("what's the point of blindly memorizing all of these details?") also kept getting me typed as S by other people. hahaha
You're so right about "practicality" being a very vague term that it can end up having little meaning. Same goes with Intuitives being associated with "conceptual thinking". As I think my example of me and my ENTP cousin demonstrates, concepts can sometimes be more S-oriented.

Relevance is important; it's just that the way that is defined varies widely between types. As a INFP I can talk for hours about random ideas just for the fun of it, but when my dad randomly asks me to do a specific task for him, I immediately ask "why?". I can't help it. I just need to know what larger purpose it serves.

Looking back at the OP, I'm not seeing a big distinction in what we're respectively saying. I just don't think 'context' is the right terminology to use.
I think we may be.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I mean if you say to someone who doesent know type that he is subjectively objective and secondarily expansively expansive, how much do you think the person gets out of your definition of him?

Then if you tell the same person this instead:
a thinking attitude is oriented by the principle of logic; a sensation attitude is oriented by the direct perception of concrete facts; intuition orients itself to future possibilities; and feeling is governed by subjective worth. -Jung

And you ask him what type of attitude he generally has and what he lacks the most and he will know at least something about his type.

Or you tell him:
thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is important or unimportant for us, sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the background, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation. -Jung

Or if you simplify these things to:
S = sense perception
T = logical definition
F = judging personal worth
N = seeing the hidden possibilities via unconscious process


The definitions of jungs time were little different from what the definitions are now, which is:


Or well the definition for sensation is still the same, but at jungs time perception was more general term used also in sensation.
I understand what you're getting at. I think your definition is more immediately clear, but my point is that this can still obfuscate things. I think if you asked a Sensor who is not yet typed (or even one that is) if they use "sense perception", they wouldn't find that revealing or something they identified with. Hell, I'm definitely a Feeler, but I would really struggle to pick "judging personal worth" over "logical definition". This makes me think there's something lacking in these kinds of definitions that make it harder to grasp what the function is really about.

I don't mean to say my descriptions should be put out into the world in the form they are currently in, not do I think it's something that would be good for first time MBTI users. I'm just wondering if this sort of approach is something that may be more useful for make sense of the differences, in a less biased and dissuasive manner, and perhaps going forward, it may help others to type themselves. I mean, I've been reading about MBTI for years and I still find it difficult to verbally define N and S on the spot in a way that doesn't make Sensors sound like idiots. The wording just isn't easy for to connect with and I imagine others feel the same.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I understand what you're getting at. I think your definition is more immediately clear, but my point is that this can still obfuscate things. I think if you asked a Sensor who is not yet typed (or even one that is) if they use "sense perception", they wouldn't find that revealing or something they identified with. Hell, I'm definitely a Feeler, but I would really struggle to pick "judging personal worth" over "logical definition". This makes me think there's something lacking in these kinds of definitions that make it harder to grasp what the function is really about.

I don't mean to say my descriptions should be put out into the world in the form they are currently in, not do I think it's something that would be good for first time MBTI users. I'm just wondering if this sort of approach is something that may be more useful for make sense of the differences, in a less biased and dissuasive manner, and perhaps going forward, it may help others to type themselves. I mean, I've been reading about MBTI for years and I still find it difficult to verbally define N and S on the spot in a way that doesn't make Sensors sound like idiots. The wording just isn't easy for to connect with and I imagine others feel the same.

You're nitpicking. "Sense perception" isn't a very good description for it, but INTP's first language isn't English.

If you would find it difficult to pick between "judging personal worth" and "logical definition," then it's probably because you're a little of both. Consider your OP with its logical definitions. That post is as Ti as they come.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
You're nitpicking. "Sense perception" isn't a very good description for it, but INTP's first language isn't English.
Wow, a Ti-dom accusing me of nickpicking. That's a scary thought. :D

But seriously, it's not my intention to nitpick over INTP's shorthand descriptions. I'm trying to get across my own subjective impression of what appears problematic of MBTI definitions in general - a subjective impression that I have seen mirrored in others' reactions over many years. If I discuss the matter in that way it's because I don't think me saying something like, "it doesn't capture the vibe right" would be an argument most people would really respond to. I'm just trying to use examples and more objective arguments as a means of conveying the subjective impression. I certainly don't want to tear all these structures down and start afresh. I'm just wondering if too many labels on certain types are distorting our view of their real traits. I'm interested in finding ways to define and understand different types in a way that matches their subjective experience of the world.

If you would find it difficult to pick between "judging personal worth" and "logical definition," then it's probably because you're a little of both. Consider your OP with its logical definitions. That post is as Ti as they come.
I'm glad I get the Ti seal of approval but it's far to consciously done and forcibly structured to be Ti. What I wrote is merely the closest, comprehensible approximation of how I think about and connect these ideas; it's a translation of Fi. Subjectively speaking, I'm well aware that the way I think differs from Ti users; that their brand of logic is clearly distinct from my own. I'm also aware of a hazy grey between Ti and Fi that is hard to define and differentiate between, and that area interests me - as does the differences between all the functions. :shrug:
 
Top