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

[Eric B]

With some new definitions of the functions http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...ive-functions/90105-space-time-awareness.html, here’s another approach to establishing the theory:

Extraversion was deemed by Jung to be “conscious”. What it is conscious of is the environment!
So in defining the functions, we first must determine their environment:

S: space
N: time
T: things
F: people

The individual (introverted) orientations all turn within, from the environment (which it then becomes "unconscious" of, in a way) to an internal “model” of the environmental product, so it’s the extraverted variants that are tied to the actual “real world” functional products.

So this yields:

Extraverted attitude: stimulated by the real world “environment”

Se: attention to tangible reality in the environment of space
Ne: attention to intangible implications playing out in the environment of time
Te: rational standard is the environment of impersonal things
Fe: rational standard is the environment of people

Introverted attitude: stimulated by the individual “model” of reality

Si: attention to tangible reality referencing individual images (aside from current space)
Ni: attention to intangible implications via individual subconscious impressions (apart from time)
Ti: rational assessment via individual models of things
Fi: rational assessment via individual models of [affect on] people

 

[Eric B]

Starting with the obvious association of “Se=immediate senses”, and “Si=memory” (and perhaps also “Ni=the unconscious”), I decided to extend this to all eight function-attitudes. That instead of coming up with new names for them, like Hartzler or PersonalityHacker, though inspired by them, as it’s simpler to present than “Xy” codes.

Of course, there is a difference between basic senses and “Se”, for only certain human types are defined by Se, while all the other types, as well as animals, can also use the five senses. So we can’t say just seeing, smelling, hearing, touching and tasting is “using Se”; at least not in the sense that the SP types (and mature NJ’s) use it. Likewise, all can remember things, but are not “using Si” the way that defines an SJ (or mature NP). So this difference has to be specified.
Immediate senses and memory can be seen as at best, “undifferentiated” forms of those functions. The function is differentiated when the ego or one of its complexes, via the cortex, interprets the data from the limbic system. Animals have the limbic system only, and so their immediate senses and memory is not INTERPRETED cognitively. With other types, they’re associated with lower complexes, and otherwise, are simply part of the data that their higher complexes sort out for their preferred perspectives. The data itself is all “mixed together”, and the functions are the aspects of it sorted out by the complexes. The “memory” and the other faculties are the means by which the data is sorted out.

Source of awareness (“INPUT”):
Se: “immediate senses” (via space)
Si: “memory” (stores and filters spatial data)
Ne: “imagination” (of potential changes through time)
Ni: “the unconscious” (filters temporal patterns)

Source of rational determination (“PROCESSING”):
Te: our “commonsense” (learning from outside authority how things work)
Ti: our “reason” (learning or determining for yourself how things work)
Fe: our “sociability” (connecting with people via the environment)
Fi: our “conscience” (our own human values used to relate to others)

“Everybody has all of these faculties, but…”:
(i.e. these are NOT “the functions” themselves. They are what the functions “sort out” of reality):

What it means to “prefer” the “function”:
The associated faculty is the ego structure’s primary means of gathering or processing information

What it means when the function is not preferred:
The associated faculty is a more “generic” means of handling information that supports the preferred functions; or is differentiated by one of the lower complexes.

 

[Eric B]

Dominant perspectives (what your ego is most energized in saying):

S: “Behold!” (“hark”, hands-on, etc.)
N: “Imagine!“
T: “True!” (“correct”)
F: “Good!” (“Nice!”)

I was trying to think, for instance, how we can tell from our two preferred functions, which one is dominant, and which is auxiliary. Especially if the auxiliary might be extraverted, and thus more visible. The dominant proclamation will be what your ego "lives for", so to speak.

So to add the attitudes:

Se: Behold! what's before us
Si: Behold! how it has proven itself to be
Ne: Imagine! from these patterns we can ponder on
Ni: Imagine! from what your mind can come up with
Te: Correct! according to what's before us
Ti: True! according to what I have determined
Fe: Nice! to the people around us
Fi: Good! according to what brings inner harmony


Preferred function perpectives:
ST practical mechanics
SF practical humanities
NT philosophized mechanics
NF philosophized humanities

A quick way I have found, to get a sense of type in watching vloggers and Facebook posters; likely F's will be more about "living life" and "fun", such as doing the "challenges" vlogs will tag each other to do next. Thinking types may do some of this, but will devote more videos to "how to" presentations, in whatever their field is. (Even girly stuff like cosmetics).
Sensing types will remain on the practical side of life, whether fun, or day to day living, or the how to. Intuitives will do some of this, but also venture to more abstract topics like politics and religion. They will often engage their followers to join in a more intellectual discussion. Hence, their sense of the mechanics or human affects of things is more "philosophized". That's why, for instance, the NF is called an "Idealist".


Perception functions and the future:
Se: make future happen by seizing immediate opportunities
Si: forecast future based on actual past tangible experience
Ne: hypothesize on possible futures based on external patterns
Ni: predict future based on universal patterns that come up as unsubstantiated “hunches”

 

[Eric B]

Another way of simply expressing the functions:

Se: apparent reality
Si: self-referenced reality
Ne: apparent implications
Ni: self-referenced implications
Te: revealed truth
Ti: self-determined truth
Fe: revealed good[ness]
Fi: self-determined good[ness]

I first got the idea with the judgment functions, realizing that “revealed” sums up the extraverted perspective. Think “revealed religion”, which will often state “God said it, that settles it“. No deviation from external authority is allowed in determining 'truth' (T) or 'good' (F). Ji will take the external data, but then “filter” it to determine what's true or good. I came to realize this from debating NTJ's, realizing that they take their strong stand because Ni often tells them “no” (not a possibility; where Ne says “yes” to just about anything), and then Te appeals to authority, such as empirical science, to determine that what what Ni says “no” to is in fact, “false” (incorrect).

So,

Je: “they said it, that settles it”
Ji: “they said it, this is MY take on it“ (right, wrong or more complicated)

 

[Eric B]

My new way of introducing the functions as successive dividing of reality:

Our cognition can be thought of as basically answering “yes or no” ("tenable": 'able to be held' as a personal view, or "viable": able to be acted on; or not), and perception (the "input") breaking "yes/no" down into what "is" or "isn't"*, which then breaks down into either "known/unknown" (in a tangible sense: S) or "guessed" or "naysayed" (i.e. accepted or denied, even without complete evidence: N).
The judgment ("processing"), or making rational decisions, breaks the yes/no down into "right" or "wrong" (often leading to the action or "output" of trying to make things "right"). This further breaks down to an impersonal "true/false", or a more "person"-affecting "good/bad".

*(While Jung associated "what is" with S, that would assume everything that exists is perceived through the senses only. But to our consciousness, patterns of "where it's heading" are "things" that exist as well. They are simply inferred, or basically "guessed", and if guessed against, this may come off as "naysaying"; i.e. objecting just for the sake of objecting, without any visible reason. Ne I find says “yes” to everything, because looking at an object, you can imagine anything for it. It's like Se in its "openness" to "emergent" data. If something's there, then Se says "yes"; if not, then it's an automatic "no". N is about "where it's heading", and thus Ne lets the object itself [rather than a purely internal hunch, like Ni] determine where it's heading, which is not as solidly determined as whether that outcome is actually "there" or not. "Where it's heading", in its own right, can be anything. So it’s basically the judgment function or tandem-mate Si that would have to indicate an outcome is not tenable or viable and thus "nay" it. Ne's "nay" might otherwise simply be the possibility of something "not" being there, or an outcome not happening, but that will be just another possible option and not settled.

So you could distinguish it as S="WHAT it is" [the existence of something; the "it", is already a given], and perception in general is "THAT it is", to begin with).

I got these ideas from debating INTJ's on things, here or elsewhere, and the term "naysaying" is what kept coming up for me. (Part of this comes from Ni fitting my Senex complex, where it definitely takes on a role of a critical "naysayer"). I kept arguing, essentially, "can't these concepts all co-exist"? It reminded me of a peace activist saying "can't we all co-exist?" which would be more of a likely NFP Ne + Fi perspective. Ne + Ti says "can't all these [impersonal] theories coexist"? My opponents always seem to say "NO!" It's one OR the other. One TRUE; one FALSE! Functions OR dichotomies, we've seen here. Other people, various places; NO temperaments or Interaction Styles! NO Beebe archetypes! (or at least they're being tossed around way too much).
When one of these people then explains the Ni perspective as "looking for 'what's missing' in an existing, taken-for-granted pattern", it took me awhile to be able to fit that with everything else, but then it became clear that this was another way of saying Ni perceives from an internal unconscious impression, and if it happens to say "NO" to a pattern [doesn't exist, untenable, not viable, for some overlooked element somewhere, destroys it), then it will clash with Ne's undiscriminating "yes" (["guessed"]; and supported by Ti's "yes"[true] judgment), and instead resort to Je with its own "no" [wrong!] to verify it. That's what we've seen with these debates here, with the appeal to "empirical research" demanded by the other side as the final argument.

When another INTP says "no"; it's the Ti saying "false", and I noticed they will usually be more willing to give more of a self-determined reasoning [rather than some external authority] for why they say no, and yet seem to have more of a respect for the idea of the other view, since there's a common Ne, which allows anything.

So I think it might be good, to look at the discussions and disagreements, in terms of "yes" and "no", and which functions are coloring the yes or no, and we can see the functions at work!

 

[Eric B]

Taking the "yes/no" definition to the next step;

Perception is when the data or life itself, says "yes" or "no". Something is either there, or not there; you only can take it in, and agree or disagree.

With S, tangible reality says "yes" (it's there, perceptible via the senses), or "no" (it's not there)
Se, it's emergent tangible reality being experienced currently in the environment
Si, it's recalled tangible reality, once experienced, and "stored" in the individual

With N, a pattern ("Where it's heading") says "yes" or "no".
Ne, the pattern itself is the "external" object you are following. Ne by itself says "yes" to just about anything, and judgment will be needed to determine "no".
Ni, unconscious impressions are used to filter a pattern, and and determine "yes" or "no" from it.

Judgment is when we ourselves; i.e. the "ego" (and it's "will" or "emotions"), says "yes" or "no".

T, based on an impersonal criteria, such as how objects work, either by the environment, or the individual
F, by personal criteria, such as how things affect people, again, by the environment or the individual

These last two are what have been said many times already, but this new way of putting things is good for understanding the perception functions better.

 

[j.c.t.]

I've bookmarked this thread, keep up the great work!

 

[Eric B]

I had long avoided trying to come up with single-term “names” for the eight function-attitudes, like Berens and Personality Hacker do, since these can be confusing. But when one of them came to me (see below), then I realized the key is to name perspectives (for that’s what the function-attitudes are, recall), instead of behaviors or actions, which the other people’s terms have been. (for it will usually turn out that either attitude can DO the same things).

Se: immediacy (objects [instantly] form sense impressions)

Si: familiarity (sense impressions emanate from subject)
The first one that came to me. I would be thinking of the Si perspective, and “familiarity” kept coming to mind, and it fit, reminding me of the way Personality Hacker use “Memory” for Si.

Ne: implications (objects form their own “big picture”)
It’s really an object that implies another object

Ni: forebodance (big picture emanates from the subject)
The definition of “forebode” is basically “foresee” (as Berens uses for Ni; but I felt was not specific to it; technically, Ne, Si and even Se can “foresee” something happening, via their own faculties, such as memory or the immediate senses). “Foreboding” carries more of a specific sense of the impression coming from within, and not necessarily about the future, beyond the uncovering of the data

Te: authority (correctness determined by an object)

Ti: expediency (correctness determined by subject)
Definition is “(of an action) convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral.” This has a strong “subjective” element to it, where “efficiency” can be either individual or environmental, but is usually assumed to be environmental

Fe: Fellowship (Sense of “goodness” shared by a group; i.e. “object”)

Fi: contentedness (Sense of “goodness” within the subject)

Also,
Reimaging Bruzon’s illustration of “Feeling”:

Bruzon draws a circle around the points of the matrix, which he calls “holistic”, where Thinking is the direct “linear” connections of the points. As we know, what Thinking deals with is the “impersonal”, while Feeling deals with things personal or interpersonal. The circle, and description of “holistic” don’t really capture this sense: “Any decisions taken by the Feeler must maintain the integrity of these wide, interdependent connections, and not just the immediate structure pertaining to the given situation.” This still sounds “impersonal” (though he goes on to state “Possibly due to the type of associations that are established, Feeling is concerned with people rather than things, bringing about a moral conscience, a sense of loyalty and responsibility. Feelers give priority to personal values and consider the broader perspective before making any decisions.” The reason for this “people” focus is not known for sure; only hypothesized to be connected to the “type of associations”).
So to really capture this “personal” connection, it should be represented by a human shaped “holistic”.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes, Si is constantly comparing back to the known and experienced and what has become familiar. It becomes the de facto standard -- "the thing I already know" and is assumed to be the baseline. Hence how it gets related to a respect for the traditional and how things have always been done... although it's bigger than that.

It's only my tertiary but typically it means I can value in my past -- the things I have done, the people I have known, the experiences I have had -- value in itself and it feels "good" simply because I can recall it simply for existing, if the experience itself was not a negative one. All those memories can become associated with identity as well, the past texture of one's life.

 

[Jaguar]

I told my brother the season premiere of a show is on a Saturday. He said that has to be wrong. I said no it isn't, it's on the network's website. "But they've never started the season on a Saturday." So what? The date is on the website. "But they've never done that before. Why would they do that?" They decided to change it, what is the frigging problem?

Maddening.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I told my brother the season premiere of a show is on a Saturday. He said that has to be wrong. I said no it isn't, it's on the network's website. "But they've never started the season on a Saturday." So what? The date is on the website. "But they've never done that before. Why would they do that?" They decided to change it, what is the frigging problem?

Maddening.

"no, it can't be that way! I've been doing this for years, it's never been like that!"

 

[Eric B]

“Degradation” of each function, from its preferred position, to the unpreferred tandem-mate, and finally, the shadows. It started from recognizing the direct “shadow” (opposite attitude) as a negative aspect of the primary function in is often described as a negative version of. Like when an Fe persective is frustrated and feels unappreciated, and then objects “what about my needs?”, it has really degraded to its Fi shadow. The bypassed unpreferred function (Ti) is implicit, as well.

preferred Fe: I adopt your experience or need of ‘good’ and respond
Ti subconscious [denied]: ‘leverage’: if I give to others, I can expect in return (i.e. harmony)
Fi shadow of frustrated Fe: What about MY needs? (feel unappreciated)
Te “deep shadow”: will logically organize for oneself in a heated huff

preferred Ti: impersonal symmetry
Fe subconscious: symmetry would produce fairness (harmony) and gain acceptance
Te shadow of frustrated Ti: seek to use objects to establish goals
Fi “deep shadow”: focuses on wants; devalues self and world in retaliation

preferred Te: orders world according to how objects are best used
Fi subconscious: This will be good for all (whether they like it or not)
Ti shadow of frustrated Te: appeals to universal truths anyone should be able to see
Fe “deep shadow”: destroys harmony or the social standing of offenders

preferred Fi: uses their feelings to gauge others’ needs
Te subconscious: orders the environment logically to attain this
Fe shadow of frustrated Fi: takes up the evident cause of the underdog
Ti “deep shadow”: turns cold and calculating in reaction to offenders

preferred Si: needs familiarity, even if not necessarily favorable
Ne subconscious: if the object has been this way, it will probably always be
Se shadow of frustrated Si: bitterly criticizes the appearance of things
Ni “deep shadow”: forecasts the most negative outcomes unreasonably

preferred Ne: looks at implications of objects
Si subconscious: remembers “ruts” we were stuck in and wants freedom
Ni shadow of frustrated Ne: locks in on negative outcome they tried to fight
Se “deep shadow”: takes “rash” action at the first opportunity

Preferred Se: exploits immediate opportunity in the tangible environment
Ni subconscious: aids in realizing when opportunities may arise
Si shadow of frustrated Se: uses memory to support what can be done
Ne “deep shadow”: loses confidence, suddenly seeing negative possibilities

preferred Ni: relies on data springing from the unconscious, to fill in patterns
Se subconscious: mines immediate tangible environment for insights
Ne shadow of frustrated Ni: tosses out random possibilities facetiously
Si “deep shadow”: avoids record of the past yet uses it against others


I've also come to see that our primal desire is to be in sync with the universe, and this is felt through the dominant function. We have a sense of what “should be”, and the function says “yes” it is, or “no” it isn't.

Extraverts seek to sync with the outer world directly.
Introverts filter outer reality through their universal sense of things.

Where for introverts, cognitive dissonance results when it doesn't match, for extraverts, it's [likely] when they can no longer receive new data from the environment.

So the ways each function will desire to sync with the universe, is through the basic “perspective” each represents:

Se: what's “obvious” (immediate external senses)
Si: what's “familiar” (filteringsenses from ones stored in memory)
Ne: exploring implications of objects
Ni: following/interpreting “hunches” from within
Te: ordering through logical “authority”.
Ti: “expediency” (things “making sense”, especially as they command our action)
Fe: “fellowship” (external interpersonal harmony)
Fi: “contentment” (meaning in this case, an inner harmony).

This comes from realizing how frustrated I get from the way things are often done, through Te “authority” (which seems to have the edge in the world, and especially the US), and feeling “out of sync” when things imposed on me don't make sense. This is further highlighted by the blog linked in this post: TPs, do you agree with TJs about Ti/Te? where he points out that Te favors “facts over logic”, while Ti favors “logic over facts”. Of course, “logic” refers to the products of T in general (either attitude), while “facts” can really be either S or T. But Te lets the 'object' (environment, etc.) determine its “truth” [“yes”], so “logic” is really not your own process; while for Ti, it's the inner sense of truth, that each person can determine on his own, which is what we may usually think of as 'logic' proper. So he points out that Te will be “illogical”, but at least “factual”, and that's precisely how it has always come off to me ; while Te types will toss out terms like “subjective” and “technical” at the other perspective, and say it's not “factual”.

Of course, the whole point of the theory is that both sides are needed.