[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Cognitive Functions

[Valuable_Money]

It's just an example, and there's also the possibility of people misreading it as well yeu have to take into account. On my second attempt at checking myself I got INTP instead of ENTP, though every subsequent test after has always been ENTP, and after reading the descriptions, entp's way more accurate for me.

The thing is though... I'm very conflicting as well myself, my actions do not neccesarily match my strengths, this isn't exactly uncommon to be honest. A personality is not directly tied to whot yeu're 'good' at, how many people LOVE doing exercize, but their bodies just aren't capable of it? I physically have the genes and specialized muscle structure that I'm one of the few people physically capable from birth of being a sprinter, but I really don't care for it at all.

.

Im rather bizzare as well. Muscularly im built like a linebacker, tall with huge broad sholders. Yet because I get very little exercise Im very thin. If I did exercise regualrly I would probably resemble a body builder but instead I resemble frankenstein.

 

[Katsuni]

Im rather bizzare as well. Muscularly im built like a linebacker, tall with huge broad sholders. Yet because I get very little exercise Im very thin. If I did exercise regualrly I would probably resemble a body builder but instead I resemble frankenstein.

Well consider the good that comes with that! Cheap halloween costumes, all yeu need is some green makeup, a $5 haircut, and two screws with some tape/glue.

 

[Eric B]

OK, here's an illustration where I aim to show how differentiation and the complexes proceed:

 

[SciVo]

But see, you're stated function order is unsettling. I'd argue (or want to argue) that the apparent Ni and Te are artifacts, not actual preferences. For one, Te and Ti are inimical. I'm pretty sure that to do one well, one has to shut down the other. Probably likewise for Ne and Ni.

Or maybe I like Llewellyn's idea for this, and your function order would be pleasantly represented as
Ti > Ne (> Ni > Te) > Si (= Se > Fi) > Fe

(Not that I want to be telling you what you are... I'm just trying to reconcile a theory I like and other people's reports but without thinking too much.)

I have super-high Fi/Ne/Ni, and my Te/Fe/Si/Se/Ti are all much lower. Despite getting rather different MBTI results over the years -- including INxJ in a highly-structured high school and xNxx in a highly-social college environment while studying math -- one thing that always remains the same is my hard N, so I don't doubt at all that my Ne and Ni are both so high (and therefore so close).

By my self-diagnosis, I'm currently an INFP. By Llewellyn's explanation, I guess I'm an INFP (Fi/Ne) first and an INTJ (Ni/Te) second? By Evan's calculator, my Ne and Ni are so close that moving the difference one point turns an ENFP into an xNFx. As it happens, I'm inclined to believe that the models are all imperfect representations of some objective reality that remains not fully knowable, so I don't see any contradiction in these results.

...From what I have come to see lately, the attitude (e/i) is tied more to the person (ego) than to the functions. So a type starts with an introvert or extravert who uses his dominant function in his preferred orientation. The function then takes on the characteristics we call Xe or Xi. The auxiliary then takes on the rejected other orientation. the other functions remain undifferentiated, but come up in the complexes represented by the archetypes.[cont'd]

I am interested why you don't think anything beyond 1, 2, and 4 should be standardized. Why not just 1 and 2, or why not 1-4 - or the first 5? Why did you settle on those three? I'm not really disagreeing I'm just curious.

...Because of the fact that again, everything the ego rejects is undifferentiated. When the dominant is established in the preferred attitude, the other three functions and the opposite attitude are rejected into the unconscious. Hence, in the original order, the aux. tertiary and inferior were all said to be the opposite attitude. So the aux. is in the opposite attitude, and then the Puer complex (according to Lenore Thomson) when it comes into consciousness then adopts the tertiary function and orients it in the dominant attitude.
The anima remains in the opposite attitude with the inferior function. It's because of this dispute as to the orientation of the tertiary that 1, 2 and 4 were specified above. They were the most definite.
Beebe then extended it by paralleling these four functions with those of the reverse attitude, and indentified four more complexes that manifest themselves through them.

It really has nothing to do with relative strengths of the functions. Much of what is coming up on those tests is probably undifferentiated function behavior, and not any real ego-consciousness. Hence, beyind the dominant and auxiliary, we really can't use the rest of it to type ourselves.

See
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/1416-archetypes-functions-6.html#post748446

I have no idea WTF you just said. However, it sounds like you have an explanation for why my 3 isn't the conventionally expected Si, so I'll try re-reading it for understanding.

 

[Valuable_Money]

OK, here's an illustration where I aim to show how differentiation and the complexes proceed:

Graphs should make things simpler not complicated-er.

 

[Eric B]

Well, sorry, but it was kind of hard to represent the process.

 

[SciVo]

I think I've almost got it. My puer complex somehow chose N (oriented in the dominant attitude), even though my ego also chose N (oriented in the opposite attitude) for the auxiliary to my dominant Fi? While Te, the inferior function in the opposite attitude, was the anima as normal. Which means... that my puer is also my senex? And then where does my S come into the story?

 

[Valuable_Money]

I think I've almost got it. My puer complex somehow chose N (oriented in the dominant attitude), even though my ego also chose N (oriented in the opposite attitude) for the auxiliary to my dominant Fi? While Te, the inferior function in the opposite attitude, was the anima as normal. Which means... that my puer is also my senex? And then where does my S come into the story?

Your crazy alien language has ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD!!!!

 

[FlamingMask]

OK, here's an illustration where I aim to show how differentiation and the complexes proceed:

I thought you were saying that anything other than the primary function isn't differentiated. Are we talking complexes now? (I don't mean to conflate them but it's unclear.)

 

[Eric B]

I have super-high Fi/Ne/Ni, and my Te/Fe/Si/Se/Ti are all much lower. Despite getting rather different MBTI results over the years -- including INxJ in a highly-structured high school and xNxx in a highly-social college environment while studying math -- one thing that always remains the same is my hard N, so I don't doubt at all that my Ne and Ni are both so high (and therefore so close).

By my self-diagnosis, I'm currently an INFP. By Llewellyn's explanation, I guess I'm an INFP (Fi/Ne) first and an INTJ (Ni/Te) second? By Evan's calculator, my Ne and Ni are so close that moving the difference one point turns an ENFP into an xNFx. As it happens, I'm inclined to believe that the models are all imperfect representations of some objective reality that remains not fully knowable, so I don't see any contradiction in these results.

I have no idea WTF you just said. However, it sounds like you have an explanation for why my 3 isn't the conventionally expected Si, so I'll try re-reading it for understanding.

I think I've almost got it. My puer complex somehow chose N (oriented in the dominant attitude), even though my ego also chose N (oriented in the opposite attitude) for the auxiliary to my dominant Fi? While Te, the inferior function in the opposite attitude, was the anima as normal. Which means... that my puer is also my senex? And then where does my S come into the story?

The function order is not based on relative strength. So if your third strongest might be N, still, for an INFP, the tertiary is S, and the puer complex will always manifest through the tertiary. If it's weaker than the two N's (good parent and senex), then you simply have a weak puer. It doesn't switch complexes.

I thought you were saying that anything other than the primary function isn't differentiated. Are we talking complexes now? (I don't mean to conflate them but it's unclear.)

Yes, the diagram starts with the dominant, and the other functions undifferentiated, but then shows how the complexes manifest the other functions or function attitudes.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm finding this thread helpful because it does illustrate how I could technically have both Ne and Ni, which also explains why I test INFP, ENFP, and INFJ.

The function order is not based on relative strength

I have a question about this then. I am almost convinced that I'm an ENFP, for various reasons (and I know I'm not an INFJ, but that's beside the point) but some people on here keep insisting that I seem Fi dom. Just because I have strong Fi - or at least visible Fi on Internet discussion forums - that doesn't necessarily mean I'm an INFP though. This means I very well can be an ENFP...?

 

[FlamingMask]

One of the reasons I had to make this thread was to seek some explanation for my seemingly anomalously high Ni and Te.

I suggest that you think about your real e/i attitude. As Eric B pointed out, Jung placed a lot more emphasis on Extraversion and Introversion than modern MBTI theorists do. If you are certain that you are an Extravert, you cannot be INFP. Most people and tests use their two strongest functions to type themselves, however.

 

[SciVo]

The function order is not based on relative strength. So if your third strongest might be N, still, for an INFP, the tertiary is S, and the puer complex will always manifest through the tertiary. If it's weaker than the two N's (good parent and senex), then you simply have a weak puer. It doesn't switch complexes.

Thanks! I think I get it now. FWIW, my Si is higher than my Se... but I guess that you can't take that as proof that my puer complex is in the dominant attitude, since someone assuming that the puer complex must be in the opposite attitude would just say that mine is really, really weak.

 

[Twixt]

There's been discussing on i/e functions pairs -- i.e., can you develop either the I or E of the pair (e.g., Se vs Si) without developing the other to some degree?

Hey Jennifer, where is this discussion? (a link would be good) I am rather interested in this!

Thanks.

 

[Jaguar]

I have a question about this then. I am almost convinced that I'm an ENFP, for various reasons (and I know I'm not an INFJ, but that's beside the point) but some people on here keep insisting that I seem Fi dom.

How you "seem" in writing, may in fact be the opposite of the real you.
There are many people who communicate very differently face-to-face, compared to online.

 

[Thalassa]

How you "seem" in writing, may in fact be the opposite of the real you.
There are many people who communicate very differently face-to-face, compared to online.

Yes. For one thing, the way I construct posts is certainly more slapdash than say the writing I would do for school or work, etc.

Secondly, my ex said that the way that I write comes across so differently from who I am to him IRL that it surprised him.

It's easier, too, to achieve a persona in writing that is different from one's true self because it's more carefully constructed than just opening my mouth and saying blah blah blah, which I admittedly do a lot.

 

[Eric B]

Thanks! I think I get it now. FWIW, my Si is higher than my Se... but I guess that you can't take that as proof that my puer complex is in the dominant attitude, since someone assuming that the puer complex must be in the opposite attitude would just say that mine is really, really weak.

Even though I didn't specify Si vs Se there (for it was being contrasted with N), the Puer always aligns with the dominant attitude. The opposite attitude would be the shadow counterpart to the puer, which is called the trickster.
Yes, Jung initially said that the tertiary along with the aux. and inferior all had the opposite attitude, but according to Lenore thomson, the puer complex aligns the tertiary with the dominant attitude, and that's one of the things I was illustrating in the diagram.

See:
Tertiary Defense

 

[FlamingMask]

Maybe it would help if people discussed their definition or perceived purpose of each cognitive function also. I have seen countless descriptions of the functions and most of them are not really satisfactory. Specifically, Ni, Si, and Fi have always sort of intrigued me, even when I am supposedly using them.

What would be a concise but solid description for one or more of the functions?

 

[Thalassa]

Maybe it would help if people discussed their definition or perceived purpose of each cognitive function also. I have seen countless descriptions of the functions and most of them are not really satisfactory. Specifically, Ni, Si, and Fi have always sort of intrigued me, even when I am supposedly using them.

What would be a concise but solid description for one or more of the functions?

Fi: Fi tends to be more focused on internal values and is concerned with ethics as an end to themselves, and not necessarily so much the societal rules of polite behavior. Fi wants to be authentically an individual, and in theory allows others to be their individual selves with less interference. This is debatable, apparently. To Fi users it's all about being "real."

 

[FlamingMask]

Fi: Fi tends to be more focused on internal values and is concerned with ethics as an end to themselves, and not necessarily so much the societal rules of polite behavior. Fi wants to be authentically an individual, and in theory allows others to be their individual selves with less interference. This is debatable, apparently. To Fi users it's all about being "real."

Would that be more "real" like one's id, ego, or superego? That is, what do most heavy Fi-users view as being themselves? Following their desires? Having control over their behavior? I thought it would be most like someone's superego but now I'm not so sure.