• 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.

Taking it again from the top: Root defintions of the functions

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I figured it might be good to bring in scientific-like terms for more concise clarification: “general” vs“special” uses of the functions.

Whenever we assign a function to a type, in the particular “orders”, such as dominant, aux, tertiary, inferior, or even the “shadow” roles, these are really special instances of the function, determined by the associated complexes involved.
This distinguishes it from the “general” sensation, intuition, thinking and feeling (and internally or externally based) everyone does.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Further decided, for the perception functions (to match the simple “true/false” and “good/bad” terms for T/F):
S: is/isnt
N: could/couldn’t

Se: is/isn’t based on current external items
Si: is/isn’t based on internal knowledge of items
Ne: could/couldn’t based on external constructs
Ni: could/couldn’t based on internal (and likely unconscious) sense of constructs

(this last one is good for summarizing Ni!)

Berens had also used:
“what is” (Se)
“What was” (Si)
“what could be” (Ne)
“what will be” (Ni)

Notice, both of the extraverted functions match what I’m now assigning to the natural function in general.
You could see the introverted perceptions as special versions of “what is” and “what could be”, since they have been internalized. what “was” is just an internal blue print “what is” is compared to, so Si ultimately pays more attention to “what is” after all.
“What will be” is not really the best specific description for Ni. It seems that way, because it can be used to get a sense of the future, but it’s really in general filling in any observed pattern, regardless of the time frame (which is more of a rational element a judgment function is needed to deal with).
You often see in others’ function descriptions “what could be” used for Ni, and this is in the sense that even with their less “up-in-the air” (like Ne) impressions, what Ni types come up with is still not 100% certain (hence, you can’t really say “will be”), so it, just as much as Ne, is ultimately about “could“.

Of the different N products, obviously,
1) pondering on something that doesn’t exist, that you wonder about making exist, or if it will come about on it’s own or by someone else, or science “theory”, is dealing with “could” be.
(Like in personality theory itself, there is never any absolute “is”, whether type preferences, temperament patterns, etc.; it’s all at best “could”).
Then, you have a case like Schröedinger’s Cat, where we can only go on “could” (mental constructs of the possible outcomes), and don’t know what “is” or “isn’t” (the actual state of the item inside).

2) A fantasy, such as an alternate reality, or “story” (fiction, etc.) deals in what “could have been“. Even with things naturally impossible, what you’re imagining then, is basically a different set of universal laws (or suspensions of/exceptions to them) that “could have been”.

3) Concepts such as religious doctrine, and politics may not seem like “coulds” at first, largely because of the way they are often pontificated as absolute “fact”. But they are not tangible items that can be proven on the spot, like the law of gravity (or the other three forces, which govern things such as the nature of what we call “solid objects” that we can touch, see, etc.)
They are at best, things that “could” be true, but different people will see them differently (proof they are not tangible realities), and then have to use more intangible constructs to try to dismiss the other person’s view. Religion even usually admits this, ultimately, when they start saying it is by “faith” (though many still treat this as absolute and tangible experience, which contradicts the notion of “faith”).

4) Stuff like archetypes, symbols, etc. also may not seem like “coulds”, because they’re alternative ways of looking at reality, and seem like sort of “realities” of their own, but then that’s where their “could” lies: “could” be a way to see the situation!

So, redoing the table from the OP:
162bbdc5f7fd30cc2245bfcabf9a4f84.jpg
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Further thinking now that Lenore's definition of function attitude in terms of "culture" or "environment" and "individual" may be even better than "internal/external" (which like many other terms can be ambiguous at times, since they are all processes internal to us, and involve external elements).

Se: what is, directly from the environment
Si: what is, filtered through individual factual knowledge
Ne: what could be, inferred from patterns in the environment
Ni: what could be, inferred from individual impressions used to fill in patterns
Te: what's correct according to environmentally determined standards
Ti: what's correct according to individually determined standards
Fe: what's good according to environmentally determined standards
Fi: what's good according to individually determined standards
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
How either function attitude can do the same things

How either function attitude can do the same things
(Using descriptions attributed to one attitude. Function role names from Berens, Personality Hacker and Hartzler Functions of Type)


“Experiencing” (“Sensation”, “The Scout”)

Se: taking on new options for activity as it arises
Si: reliving trusted or "tried and true" activities

“Recalling” (“Memory”, “Conservator”)

Se: knowing those physical activities or facts you liked, and would like to relive or reference.
Si: referencing learned fact to inform decisions

“Inferring” (“Exploration”, “Brainstormer”)

Ne: comparing patterns to get a sense of what something in one of them means
Ni: using unconscious impressions to get a sense of what something in a pattern means

“Foreseeing” (“Perspectives”, “The Seer”)

Ne: comparing patterns to get a sense of where a new timelike pattern might lead to
Ni: using unconscious impressions to gain a sense of where a timelike pattern is heading

“Applying logic” (“Effectiveness”, “Administrator”)

Te: What the environment determines is the most logical solution becomes your main goal
Ti: figure how it would be arranged by your own individual sense of logical order; e.g. “if it were up to me”

“Analyzing” (“Accuracy”, “Analyzer”)

Te: dissect something using conventional (i.e. from the environment) knowledge of what is most efficient or practical
Ti: Dissect something using your own individually learned/derived “true/false” standard

“Considering others” (“Harmony”, “The Guide”)

Fe: hears a person’s judgment of “good/bad”, and takes it on as his own
Fi: puts himself in the person’s shoes and makes the good/bad judgment for him, and responds to him accordingly.

[personal] “valuing” (“Authenticity”, “Conscience”)

Fe: the environmental values they have adopted have become their personal values
Fi: develops individual values on their own
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
In deciphering the two different attitudes of each function, the question to ask is:

WHO is really doing the actual Thinking? (the subject, or an object; i.e. Other person, group, computer; e.g statistics, etc.)

In the latter case [e], the subject then “introjects” or takes these environmental judgments of what’s “true” or “correct,” as his own.
In the former case , it’s, his own individual assessment of “true”, who then projects them. (“if it were left up to me, I would do it this way”)

WHO is really doing the actual Feeling? (subject, or an object; i.e. other person, group, culture).

In the latter case [e], the subject then “introjects” or takes these environmental values of “good” as his own.
In the former case , it’s his own, individual assessment of what’s “good”, projected onto the other (“if that were me, I would feel this way”).

With perception, it’s always the subject “doing” the process (taking in the information). What’s different, is where it’s processed from.

Se: directly from the environment as occurs
Si: directly from individual memory
Ne: patterns in environment via memory
Ni: individual impressions repressed from memory

So instead of “who”, it’s simply “where”.

WHERE are your sense impressions?
(directly from the environment, as they occur, or filtered individually through memory)

In the latter case [e], the subject introjects the current experience from the environment, in effect “merging” with it. (You sometimes even see the function directly described in this term).
In the former case , he projects his own individually learned sense of experience onto the environment (often, if it doesn’t line up, feels stress)

WHERE do meanings (inferred from sense impressions) TAKE PLACE?
(other patterns that are in the environment, though stored in memory; or individual impressions which are outside the pattern, from stuff likely repressed from memory)

In the latter case [e], the subject introjects the pattern, taking it into himself. In the former case , he projects into the situation subjective impressions, not necessarily bound to the contexts. (So it tends to come off to me as “pulling stuff from out of thin air”).

An example of the extravert “subject” merging with the object in decision making:

When TJ’s (even when Te is auxiliary) enforce “group think"; even when they say stuff like “I don’t like it either; it’s hard on all of us, [etc.]…but that’s just the way it is”, their ego’s perspective (dominant or supportive) is still being gratified. It’s still the way they think things should be (especially with an STJ), compared to, [heaven help], an introverted Thinking perspective, where the subject subtracts [what he feels is irrelevant] from the object rather than just adopting it.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm thinking for S/N, probably more precise than "is/isn't" and "could/couldn't" is S= "the substance of things" N="the idea of things". At first, I thought of "reality vs idea of things", but that seems lopsided in favor of S.

I've been realizing the often disparity between the practicality of things and the idea of things, and how I tend to see life in terms of "storylines" that I want to see lived out (or try to oppose if negative). When I get to live some of them out, they often are not what they seemed, so it was like I "liked the 'idea' of it".

Se: substance of things in the environment
Si: substance of things as referenced from individual knowledge
Ne: ideas of things inferred from the environment
Ni: ideas of things inferred from individual impressions
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Going with “material” vs “ideational” for S/N.

So now, in putting together what differentiates the functions from each other

•All self-conscious beings perceive data through imagery.

When the images are based on physical material (strings vibrating an a way that produces fields that we cannot pass through, and thus stimulates our nerve sensors, and reflect photons which also stimulate sensors, then we are experiencing sensation (S), and we call these fields “material”, and can say that it is epirically “what IS”.
Our experience of this can be immediate, in the environment (e), or previously learned and retained,individually (i).

If the imagery is not backed up by the material experience, then it is merely inferred (may or may not exist, but we haven’t verified it yet), or is imagined (put together in our minds, such as “stories”, “big pictures”, “meanings”, etc.) and is thus “ideational”, or described as “what COULD be”, and the function is iNtuition (N).
These ideations can be from the environment (e), where they’re based on other objects of patterns, or they can be from individual reflection, which usually brings up insights that come from less conscious knowledge.

•All self-conscious beings assess things as right or wrong. What’s right is what we strive for, and what’s wrong is what we seek to make “right”.

If the sense of right or wrong is from emotions that are based on the effect of objects based on their own properties, we speak of things being “true” (versus “false”) or “correct” or not, and the function is called Thinking (T).
This assessment can be based on the environment (e), where the objects themslves, or a group or culture’s demands or consensus on the best use of them, determines what is correct; or it can be based on individual (i) knowledge or logical preference.

If the sense of right or wrong is from emotions that are based on the effect of objects on our own souls, we speak of things being “good” (versus “bad”) or “liked” or not, and the function is called Feeling (F). [Thanks to freelance type theorist Ben Kovitz for putting T/F this way].
This assessment can be based on the environment (e), where a group or culture’s demands or consensus (of values) determines what is “liked” or good (which the assessing ego takes as its own and acts accordingly); or it can be based on individual (i) knowledge or ethical preference (which can be used to guage the needs of others).

•Each ego prefers one function, and either the environmental (“extraverted”) or individual (“introverted”) focus. Since we have to both take in information (“perceive”), and determine right/wrong (“judge”), then each ego will have a preference for the other mode of processing from its dominant. This will also take on the unpreferred orientation.

From here, we are able to identify 16 “types”.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Was writing a post on a list for someone weighing between T and F, and the term “mechanics” suddenly came to me, as what I’ve been looking for for T, (as what technical is “of or pertains to”, since “technics” is not really a word. It thus replaces “properties [of]”, as I had been using before).
So this could go with “soulish” for F. (I looked up what’s “of or pertains to the ‘soul'”, and I saw people suggest “soulean” and “soular” (What would be the word meaning ... [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board). It would probably revert to the Greek “psych[ic]”, but that brings to mind other things, both in Jungian lingo and common speech. There’s also “pneuma[tic]” which is really “spirit”, but also used for the often blurred-with-it concept of “soul”; and its Latin counterpart “anima”, but these too bring to mind other things, in both fields.
So my full term might be “soul affect”. May continue to look for a good single word for that. Really, “affect” by itself as a noun is really just that, but it might still not be clear enough without specifying “soul”).

So this will go along with “substance” and “idea” for S/N (while I’ve paired “material” and “hypothesis” together as alternates).

So now you can speak of “the substance of it”, “the idea of it”, “the mechanics of it”, and “the soul affect of it”.

Also of interest, Personality Hacker put up a new page for the INTP type (they’ve been doing a series of good podcasts on the type).
INTP Personality Type In Depth | PersonalityHacker.com : Personality Hacker
On this article: The INTP "Architect" Personality Type | PersonalityHacker.com : Personality Hacker (The INTP “Architect” Personality Type) they point out “If you’re mistaken and an Accuracy [their term for introverted Thinking] person corrects you, it’s not personal. They honestly would want that information themselves and so they expect you want it, too.”

This helps complete for me the analogue to what I was once given for Fi: “If that were me, I would feel this way [i.e. that the experience is “good” or “bad”]”. So to rephrase it for Ti, “if that were me, I would want this ‘truth’ too”.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Someone on a list asked about the difference between Introversion and iNtuition, which can be confused in type definitions.

This parallels the ambiguity of subjective/objective, concrete/abstract and especially conscious/unconscious in Jung’s terminology. It seemed what is deemed “conscious” is whatever is sensory (tangible) and externally oriented (environmental). Internal (individual) is not really conscious, because you’re not perceiving it from the real world; it’s basically an image you’re bringing up yourself.

“Concrete” means “all mixed together”, and refers to the undivided reality that comes to us, “as is”. When we then begin separating out what’s most important to the ego (individual) to pay attention to, we are “abstracting”, which means making distinctions among these concrete things in order to focus on what they share in common, which can thereafter be treated as an “idea”. Physical items are tangible objects; “what they share in common” is an intangible concept or “idea” that has meaning only to a “subject”.

Of course, Intuition of either attitude does this. Deals in intangible “ideas” or “contexts” things share in common, rather than the physical “items” themselves. But then so does the individualized (introverted) version of all functions. And extraverted functions deal with reality as it “is”, “all mixed together”.

Se deals in tangible items as they are in the environment, where we can immediately exploit them.
Si deals in tangible items that we have stored in a mental canister, to individually reference in order to learn how to exploit in the future. Even though the products of Si are nominally “physical items”, since it’s something we are drawing upon individually, they technically are not. They’re basically “ideas” now, just as much as N’s ideas. We’re not actually “seeing” them in front of us. We can only “guess” that they are still the same as when we actually did see them. So it’s not something really “conscious”. No one else will necessarily see what we’re seeing.


Te deals in a logical consensus (from the environment). Where Se may observe that “it is what it is” and realize what CAN be done, Te often decides “it is what it is”, inasmuch as it affects a necessary course of action: “what SHOULD be done”. (Hence, both also end up described in terms of "taking action").
Ti on the other hand is logic filtered through individually stored “ideas” of the "mechanics" of things.
Fe deals with an interpersonal consensus, from a “personal environment. So it’s like Te in deciding “it is what it is”, but it’s about the needs of living souls [anthropinism?], rather than the best use of impersonal objects.
Fi is need of living souls filtered through one’s own individual “ideas” of personal need, which he uses to guage others’ needs.

So Ne deals in “ideas” as they are, in the environment, in the form of patterns or contexts, and then moves them to shape possibilities for new ideas; often comparing other ideas to find the larger pattern.
Ni filters these ideas through individual impressions or “ideas” used to guage possibilities. So it’s like “the idea of the idea” or “the abstraction of the abstraction”, and hence, often described in terms of “META-perspective”.
(Also, you can see
Se=”consciousness of consciousness”,
Si=”unconsciousness of consciousness”,
Ne=”consciousness of unconsciousness”, and
Ni=”unconsciousness of unconsciousness”, and hence the hardest to understand or explain.
Notice both Ni and Se end up as “meta” forms; hence, a straight “realizing”, where the uneven Ne and Si end up resorting to “inquiring”).


So there is a lot of “cross-talk”, so to speak between I/E and S/N (and with “subjective/objective”, between I/E and T/F to some extent). I think Keirsey even said that Myers “confused E with S” or something like that.

The difference can be seen in all three factors dealing with the primary polarity in our existence, of“I” vs “not I”.
I/E deals with this directly, looking at WHERE the data we are processing is coming from. Either the environment (“not I”) or our own individual (“I”) filtration of it.
S/N is WHAT FORM the data is; either tangible items (and situations, etc) as is (“not I”), or our own individual (“I”) grouping of data into intangible concepts. Both I and N are creating “ideas” that are processed by an individual, but one is treating idea as the “location” (orientation), and the other as a type of data.
T/F is dividing reality essentially into types of existence; WHO OR WHAT is being affected in a situation necessitating a course of action: Either impersonal objects (“not I”), or living souls; each one an individual “subject” (a more collective “I vs not I”; with “I” in this case as part of the larger “us”, who are the only things in the known physical universe that can even speak of “I/us”).
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
How both attitudes of the functions play out in "external" and "internal" "uses". This needs to be cleared up, when we say one attitude is "external", and the other, "internal". It's not really "where" they're "used", but rather than standard or source of the perspective (environmental or individual). So both standards/sources have both external and internal applications.

ExternalInternal
SeTaking in new experience for its own sakeRemembering what you enjoy and doing it again
SiFiltering new experience through a storehouse of what’s familiarReferencing a storehouse of facts to inform regular decisions
NeComparing one pattern to anotherBrainstorming for ideas for an object or situation
NiInterpreting an external pattern with “what’s missing”, that comes up from unconscious internal impressionsMeditating to bring up internal images, and creating meanings with them.
TeOrdering the environment according to impersonal principlesOrdering one’s own life according to impersonal principles learned from the environment or culture
TiImplementing one’s own individually determined principles“Thinking for its own sake” (Jung); relishing individual impersonal principles for their “elegance”
FeEstablishing interpersonal harmonyTaking in environmental values as one’s own
FiProjecting an emotional state onto someone experiencing something, and responding accordinglyFocusing on one’s own personal likes and values, and relishing emotional experiences


The difference between the "general" uses of the functions (that "everybody does" all the time), and type-specific "uses" (that define an ego's preference, or connection with one of the archetypal complexes that make up the "function stack")

GeneralSpecific
SeAwareness of current sensation (environmental “actuality”)A type specific ego-state focuses on current sensation when activated
SiMemory of sensation and factual details (individual “actuality”)A type specific ego-state focuses on memorized sensation and factual details when activated
NeMatching external patterns (environmental “potentiality”)A type specific ego-state focuses on matching external patterns when activated
NiRecognizing an internal image or "hunch" as a possible interpretation of a pattern (individual “potentiality”)A type specific ego-state focuses on internal images or "hunches" as possible interpretations of patterns when activated
TeDeciding or ordering based on externally set knowledge of how things work (environmental “truth”)A type specific ego-state focuses on externally set knowledge of how things work when activated
TiDeciding or understanding according to an internally held understanding of how things work (individual “truth”)A type specific ego-state focuses on internally held understanding of how things work when activated
FeAdopting or establishing group harmony (environmental “good”)A type specific ego-state focuses on adopting or establishing group harmony when activated
FiPaying attention to one's own emotional state and personally identifying with someone else's situation (individually projected “good/bad”)A type specific ego-state focuses on one's own emotional state and personally identifying with others' situations when activated
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Expanding the concept of "imagery" I gave above, I think these may be the best simple descriptions of the perception functions yet:

Se: individual's images match current environment
Si: individual's images ONCE matched the environment, but currently can only be held among individuals sharing the experience
Ne: individual's images never matched environment, but are still based on the environment (and thus can possibly be perceived by others)
Ni: individual's images have never matched the environment, and can only be directly perceived by the individual.
(and hence, why it's so hard to explain).

To extend it in this way to judgment:

Te: individual's assessment of true/false (mechanics of the situation) are determined by the environment.
Ti: individual's assessment of true/false (mechanics of the situation) are determined by individual reflection.
Fe: individual's assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by the environment.
Fi: individual's assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by individual reflection.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265


This is a wonderful publication, and IMO it really should get its own thread. Thank you for sharing it.

There is SO much good stuff in here, and could potentially be useful to a number of people on here with sorting through their S/N axis, as well as disconnecting it from T/F axis material that can muddle the former. There's great information on types in general and the paper does a very good job at carefully and analytically analyzing the data and presenting the results. It's information dense, and takes a while to read, but it's SO worth it.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Iterating something with no truth value does not make it any truer. But the iteration does distract the mind and make it more plausible.

So iteration replaces truth value with believability.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
hm I think of S as object-recognition, and N as pattern-recognition.

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] - do you think the functions are discrete entities, or do they sort of blend into each other? like, is a judging process necessarily either F or T, or it could be sort of halfway in between, without actually using 2 different processes at once?
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
They're just abstract concepts (and hence, these discussions on them attracting more N's, and the larger S society, including the psychology field, think it's not "real" enough to take seriously).

It's like I've said: "these divisions are already implicit in all the data we run across in life.

In everything we process, there is some sort of tangible object or energy ... It can be intangibly connected to other objects, contexts, ideas or impressions [N]... We will think something about it is true or false, [T]... and we may like or dislike it or something about it [F]... (and all of this based either on an environmental [e], or internal perspective."

What determines whether the process gets the T or F is the particular ego state (complex) that is focusing on the truth or liking judgment; particularly the ego's main achieving or supporting states (i.e. dominant or auxiliary, which in turn indcate the function as typologically "preferred").
But then the opposite is always likely there, in the background; it's either "undiferentiated" (just connected with our limbic response), or associated with one of the other complexes if they arise.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
In deciphering the two different attitudes of each function, the question to ask is:

WHO is really doing the actual Thinking?
WHO is really doing the actual Feeling?

With perception, it’s always the subject “doing” the process (taking in the information). What’s different, is where it’s processed from.
So instead of “who”, it’s simply “where”.
WHERE are your sense impressions?
WHERE do meanings (inferred from sense impressions) TAKE PLACE?

I had above expressed the attitudes as “who is doing the thinking/feeling”, but that wouldn't have made mense for S/N. Now, it just occurred to me that instead of “who is doing...”, it could be expressed as “What is creating...” to keep it more in continuity with T/F:

WHAT is really creating the actual sensation? (the object in the environment, directly, or the subject’s individual storehouse of memory)
WHAT is really creating the actual intuition [i.e. pattern connection]? (the object in the environment [directly implies connection to something else] or the subject’s individual unconscious impressions [which infers connections by some other means than the object itself])
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Really seeing that two of Jung’s alternate functions description (mentioned in Hunziker’s new book) really make the most sense:

S: “registers reality as real”
F: “sorts out our feelings”

The first tells us what the S function does with tangible reality. The key word being “register”. The second distinguishes the Feeling function from what we commonly call “feelings” (which is often a source of confusion).
Of course, N is still “where it’s heading” (or specifically associated with time), while T is “defining” (basically, telling us "what" it is).

So the notion of “sorting out our feelings” really explains what the function is. “Ordering our feelings” is sometimes associated with the introverted version, specifically, but both types sort out their feelings. Fi simply sorts them directly, internally, and uses them to gauge others’ feelings. The extraverted variant simply merges them with others, which are taken as their own (including providing environments that others are known to like).

We may think of T as more “orderly”, while F is less controlled, as we watch F types be more “emotional”. But really, their emotions are more controlled than we think. This illusion comes from T types projecting their own weaker experience of F onto others. Our idea of “ordering” emotions is to stuff them, but then that is when they’re more likely to erupt in the fashion we think we see F’s display them. I know how I hate to feel negative emotions, like toward a sad story, and sometimes even don’t want to feel happy emotions, fearing I’ll be “caught off guard” when something bad inevitably happens. This is an avoidance of sorting through them! F types are better able to embrace the feelings, and are less ashamed to display them. Again, this is from sorting them out. The determination of “good” and “bad” comes from this.

For me, the Inferiority Complex sorts out feelings in comparison to others, and feels I’m coming up short, or "should" be responding to others in a way I’m not (because it contradicts the Hero’s agenda). The Demonic Personality Complex handles the sorting out of negative emotions, which make situations feel destructive to the ego. Others’ strong emotions are a threat, as I project “if I were reacting that way, I would have to be feeling SO bad”. I even may get annoyed at them, thinking they should react rather than feel. Stories that evoke strong emotions are uncomfortable, because I just don’t want to sort those emotions, so I stuff them and shut down.
Feeling good emotions, associated with gratification or moral self-contentedness, are sought as representing “integrity”, and thus are the source of “narcissism”. This too is projected onto people who seem to be self-contented, or have gained their way, especially at what I perceive to be my expense.

Trying to come up with comparable terms for N and T, I think “how things work” is best for T. Not even sure why I didn’t decide on this earlier, especially given the “tells you about the object” and “technical” definitions. Really, I wonder why Jung didn’t put it this way! “Defining” is done basically by determining "what it is" by how it works, or what it does (as opposed to how we feel about it). This then yields the judgment of “true” that things are measured true or false by.

Since Jung defined N in terms of “time“ (i.e. “where it’s heading”), I think of some N products that don’t seem to have a time element.

For example:
•Archetypes are ruling patterns that play out as sequential behaviors
•Typology looks at sequences of people’s behaviors based on the idea of an archetypal category.
•Many analogies are comparisons of sequences.

I was thinking of STATIC objects, which I also make parallels to other objects with. But I think the time element there lies in the fact that the objects still had to have come from somewhere. It’s just noted how they seem to have developed into the same or similar form, and from that, a connection is inferred or at least looked for.

Another possibility, is like when I compare a symmetrical building for instance (with four segments that are mirror images of each other) to the similar symmetry of the Expressive/Responsive temperament matrix; while it’s comparing a pattern, it’s really more introverted Thinking than iNtuition. It’s looking at a tangible (not conceptual) object, and then comparing a conceptual matrix to it. The commonality lies in the logical “framework” (the mirror symmetry, which is a logical “archetype”) determining what’s “true”, moreso than any timelike “implications”.

So to put together all eight (using the common terms the functions are based on to show how they relate):

Se: registers [sensory] reality as real in the immediate environment
Si: registers [sensory] reality as real in comparison to individual recollection
Ne: infers the [intuitive] implications of objects from comparison to the environment
Ni: infers the [intuitive] implications of objects from individual “gut” feeling or images
Te: directs our thinking to how things work, according to environmental determination
Ti: directs our thinking to how things work, according to individual determination
Fe: sorts feelings according to environment (merges with others’ feelings)
Fi: sorts feelings according to individual reflection (and figures others’ feelings from this)
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The 16 types based on dominant function (eight original Jungian "types"), distinguished by the focus shifted to by the auxiliary function. (Also show the difference between the same two functions as dominant and auxiliary or vice versa. Focusing more now on the definition of function attitudes in terms of "stimulation"):

Se Person's drive is engaging with the current tangible world (stimulated by the tangible environment)
+Fi directs this towards people, and what is universally pleasing to them ("fun")
+Ti directs this toward how things work, and thus may be into adventure (hiking, etc), sports, etc. and self-promotion

Ne Person's drive is engaging the implications of objects; what can be imagined from them (inferring is stimulated by objects)
+Fi directs this toward people, and what universally brings smiles to one's face (silliness, puns, stories, etc)
+Ti directs this toward how things work, and thus may be into philosophical discussions, politics, etc. but delivered in a more "open" way

Ti Person's drive is toward an individual sense of how things work (stimulated by an individual models of what's technically "true")
+Se directs this toward the current tangible world, and may be into mechanics, sports and dance moves, music production, other fine arts.
+Ne directs this toward the implications of things, such as science and political theory, why things work the way they do

Fi Person's drive is toward an individual sense of what is unversally "good" for people (stimulated by individual models of what's good)
+Se directs this toward the current tangible world, and so may be into artwork and other "aesthetics"
+Ne directs this toward the implications of things, and may be into ideals of altruism, self-care, etc.

Si Person's drive is referencing an internalized sense of the tangible world (stimulated by internal remembrances of what's real)
+Te directs this toward how things work according to environmental standards (good at "inspecting" to make sure things are being done right)
+Fe directs this toward what is good to people in the environment and according to their obvious needs (good at acts of service)

Ni Person's drive is referencing an internal sense of the implications of things (stimulated by internal model of unconscious inferences)
+Te directs this toward how things work according to environmental standards (may be into math theory and other sciences employing this)
+Fe directs this toward what is good to people in the environment and according to their obvious needs (may be into counseling, personality

Te Person's drive is toward "objective" employing of the way things work (stimulated by the environment as determining what's correct)
+Si directs this toward creating order based on an internal sense of the way the tangible world is (good at managing people and institutions)
+Ni directs this toward creating order based on an internal sense of the implications of things (good at envisioning goals and plans)

Fe person's drive is toward the environment of people (stimulated by the environment as the desired source of good)
+Si creates harmonious order based on an internal sense of the way the tangible world is (good at hosting and caretaking)
+Ni creates harmonious order based on an internal sense of the implications of things (good at inspiring and counseling)
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Another set of the function definitions; trying to narrow it down to more specific terms:

Se engagement of tangible reality is stimulated by the environment
Si engagement of tangible reality is stimulated by individual reference
Ne engagement of the implications of reality is stimulated by the environment
Ni engagement of the implications of reality is stimulated by individual reference
Te determination of what's correct (true/false) is stimulated by the environment
Ti determination of what's correct (true/false) is stimulated by individual reference
Fe determination of what's desired (good/bad) is stimulated by the environment
Fi determination of what's desired (good/bad) is stimulated by individual reference
 
Top