Calling all IxTx experts on Jung (and anyone else who wants to help a sista out...)

[PocketFullOf]

On a lot of cognitive function tests I score very high in both Ti and Te, which got me wondering, is there a point in differentiating the introverted and extroverted versions of each function? What if we think of each function as just...N for example, and then if someone is N dominant we further distinguish them from others based on the proportions by which they use the extroverted and introverted functions, that way we can get rid of the strict orders of cognitive functions. I apologize if this is in fact what Jung or MBTI is all about, or there is something completely illogical about it, I am still new to this but it is interesting and I want to learn more about it and help make it more complete if I can, the better we understand humanity in general, the better we can understand ourselves.

So, all you rational critical types, please tell me (as nicely as possible) if I am 1) If I came up with and understand an already expressed theory and 2) if there are any significant faults with what I've proposed and what they are. Do this in as civil a manner as possible, being a snarky asshole does not help the quality of the discussion.

k thnx.

 

[reckful]

Sista? I thought you were my mom!

Your Ti/Te doubling-up is typical, and yes, you're right to be suspicious of those function stacks you read about all over the damn internet.

See what you think of the IxTx-expert-on-Jung wisdom on display in this post, which talks about that doubling-up thang, among other thangs.

For extra credit, check out the long "Why I'm a dichotomies guy" INTJforum post that's linked to near the end of that one.

 

[Pionart]

Idk, I can't relate to Se. But then, I used to not relate to Si either.

Even if the 8 functions exist, you can still be high in both of the aspects of a given function. There is the component of the concept (Thinking, in Jung's terms) which resides innately in the subject, and then there is the component of the concept which resides circumstantially in the object. Information is processed from one to the other and back again. So, we see a line of empirical reasoning and this reflects innately held ideas. The idea beyond this is that we "prefer" to focus on one aspect over the other. We prefer to delve into the subjective component of the concept, or we prefer to explore the objective component.

Socionics then says that, if we prefer say, the subjective component of the concept in our own psyche, and someone else prefers the objective component of values in their own psyche, then such two will be able to relate well, moreso than one who prefers the subjective component of concept, and another who prefers the subjective component of values. This seems true to me empirically, but I have not reflected deeply enough on it or analysed the data sufficiently as I am lazy and lacking in data.

Both the notion that the 8 functions describe us and the contrary notion that they do not describe us both perplex me. I lie somewhere in the middle, but for practical purposes tend to treat them as if they were real.