I chose this specific definition of "value" as a represenation for what you meant on the basis below.
You clearly used the word 'worldview' which in all appropriate cases of the word's usage refers to an ideology or one's perspective regarding life and the world as a whole which is by definition underpinned by moral values that the holders of this worldview are aware of. Fascism, communism, or even Ti-ism is the folk typological sense are examples of a worldview. In the case of the first two worldviews, its clear that their adherents rely on clearly defined moral principles that maintain and expand their vision of the world. The same could be said about the third case, many MBTI enthusiasts see typology as a personality system where people belongning to a certain type endorse a clear set of values that are not shared by people of other types.
I don't agree with the assertion that the term "worldview" necessitates conscious moral values:
dictionary.com said:
world·view (wûrld'vyōō')
n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.
1.
The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2.
A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
Since it's impossible for any person to be totally aware of all the unconscious biases in his own perspective, I reason that one's "overall perspective" must necessarily also include unconscious tendencies and biases of which he is not directly aware. Also, "overall perspective" or "collection of beliefs" does not necessitate strictly
moral beliefs either--simply any beliefs about life and the universe.
The term value in this case is too general as too often the word is used to character firm moral principles that guide a person's actions. Unconscious motivations are more precisely described as tendencies or inclination.
You could just as well describe them that way, sure, but I don't think your choice of terminology is superior or more precise.
I never made the claim that he was focused exclusively on tendencies that apply to intellectual endeavors, only that he focused exclusively on human thought rather than behavior.
That's interesting, as it seems to contradict what you've said below about how, for instance, being in the military might motivate one to "behave in a Te way." How is it possible to behave in a Te way if Te is only a description of human thought and not human behavior?
No, not quite. There is a significant difference between unfounded conjecture and plausible apriori reasoning. That is how we separate a substantial typological notion from a folk one. Jung's system has conceptual integrity despite its lack of empirical support.
Sure, from a Ti standpoint it has conceptual integrity. I know plenty of Te people, however, who find Jung utterly ridiculous and irrelevant due to the lack of empirical support for his theories. Good luck convincing them to look at it from a Ti perspective instead.
I refer to thought-experiments that employ typology to explain common human behavior while paying little heed to their own internal logical consistency or grounding in factually accurate premises.
Isn't the insistence that they pay attention to internal logical consistency a Ti-biased request on your part? This seems to imply that you have some
a priori knowledge of what constitutes internal logical consistency, but others might not agree with your definition, or even agree that internal logical consistency is an important value.
No, Jung described features of the mind that are regularly exhibited by people ot the temperaments that he has described. These features describe mere tendencies rather than behavior that must and will be constantly displayed by people to whom they apply. For instance, the material Jung was quoted on in the Extroverted Intuition description cites mere inclinations that people have rather than behaviors by which their type is identified. Thus, the following type of thinking would be mistaken. 'Oh look, Jon matches this, this and that quality Jung says an Ne type has, but goodness I have never seen him acting like he does not at all notice physical objects, so he cannot be an Ne type!' In other words, if you interpret Jung as describing rigid and obvious habits of thought and action, then yes his theories have very little application to description of real people. However, if you interpret him as describing mere cognitive tendencies, then his insights are indeed quite applicable.
How can one directly observe so-called "features of the mind"? The minds of others are not real physical things that can be directly observed; we can only observe their effects second-hand via their behavior and our (subjective) attempts to interpret it.
Clearly, assuming that Ne types never use any Sensing would be a mistake, but that is not and has never been my contention. I also interpret him as observing mere cognitive tendencies; however, I don't believe any function is directly responsible on its own for any given behavior, since no function ever acts alone or in a vacuum. All thoughts/behaviors/actions/values are the result of all (four) functions working in concert, with perhaps occasional influence from a "shadow function" during unusually stressful times.
Jung does not state that he is not describing the tendencies of actual people. I did not claim that either, I claimed that he is not describing the core of their characters, but merely their tendencies.
Would one's cognitive tendencies not comprise the core of his character? By what other means would one assess a person's character, exactly?
That claim seems rather counterintuitive. It is a fact that all functions are grounded in a person's mental constitution or what Jung calls psyche. A function is extroverted if it is most easily stimulated by interaction with the world than through solitary activity, and introverted if vice versa. The scenario that all functions can be stimulated only through one kind of activity and not another paints a grotesquely disorganized and desynchronized picture of the human mind. It simply does not reflect the basic facts about the mind. For one that all of us are easily able to become stimulated to use all of our cognitive faculties either in quiet group activity or active interaction with the world. If half of those functions were missing, one could be sure that a person of an SJ type would be absolutely incapable of any abstract reasoning alone. He would have no intuition at all unless he manages to become connected to the external world sufficiently. For example, an ISJ accountant would be almost altogether incapable of imagining anything when he is sitting at his desk alone, yet with a relative ease, he manages to reason and contemplate about his job tasks while alone. If his intuition was gone or nearly completely gone, he wouldn't be capable of any coherent thought at all, as all thinking requires intuition or basic imagination that we use in order to attain a mental conception of even the simplest and the most mundane of tasks.
I think your ideas here are based on overly rigid interpretation of what constitutes "use" of each function. You claim that an SJ type would be incapable of internal abstract reasoning without Ni; however, I don't think this is the case as I consider Si+Ne fully capable of performing internal abstract reasoning on its own. You seem to have connected functions directly to specific actions, which is exactly what we seem to agree is the greatest mistake of so-called "folk typology."
I posit that reasoning abstractly doesn't necessitate "using intuition" any more than looking around and taking in sensory information necessitates "using sensing." One cannot "use" any function in isolation from his others; each function is merely an arbitrary description of one aspect of his total worldview. If one is an Si type, then part of his worldview involves the unconscious tendency to perform introverted perception in a concrete manner--he seeks to associate signs and symbols with stable, consistent and predictable meanings.
I believe Ni would directly contradict this preference by seeking all possible meanings simultaneously instead of searching for the stability of interpretation that Si does, and so an Si user would rarely make any of use Ni unless forced to do so by unusual circumstances.
The Si user's abstract reasoning via Ne can still be used in private thought without communicating directly with the outside world--you say that he must be "sufficiently connected to the external world" in order to use Ne, which is true, but being "sufficiently connected to the external world" doesn't necessitate that he be talking to or interacting with others. So long as his private abstraction involves concepts of a nature that can be communicated and verified through external means, he is still "using Ne."
Similarly, the idea of an INTJ scholar working in disciplines that require rigorous logical thinking would also be impossible as this person by his very nature would incur immense struggles to use Thinking or to see structure in his ideas when working alone and therefore receiving little stimulation from the outside.
Similarly, the INTJ would still have access to rigorous logical thinking via Te; he would not need to be directly interacting with the outside world in order to be "using Te" so long as he is conceptualizing Thinking in terms of that which is objectively and empirically validated (as opposed to the subjective and internal validation of Ti.) When the INTJ needs to make an internal value judgment, he would call on the aspect of his worldview represented by Fi's deeply held personal values. Again, one can process the world in Te terms while receiving little to no external stimulation, so long as he conceptualizes Thinking in a manner that must (later) be externally validated.
You seem to have implied that an INTJ lacking Ti would be incapable of rigorous logical thought. I suggest that this is untrue, and that your belief in it simply signifies a limitation on your overly narrow functional definitions, and that "use of Ti" is not necessary for rigorous logical thinking.
Instead of advocating the absurdity above, I suggest that all eight functions exist, however, they are all in the state of antithesis with one another. There is also far greater conflict between the functions that are headed in the same direction than between those facing opposite directions. For instance, in the case of the INTJ, Si is more opposed by Ni than Se.
After discussing this with you and others, I would agree that all functions exist in each individual, but that use of the shadow functions is quite unusual as it implies adherence to worldviews that are in direct opposition with the way in which we prefer to perform each type of cognitive task.
I interpret Jung as saying that there are four types of cognitive tasks: Introverted Judgments, Extroverted Judgments, Introverted Perceptions and Extroverted Perceptions, and that each person (once he has reached maturity and solidified his tendencies) has a definite preferred method of performing each of these tasks. To contradict the preferred method is to expend considerable energy, and as such the non-preferred orientation of each process is used only occasionally when trying circumstances force it.
Thus, since the opposition from the dominant function is often very strong, it often seems as if the weakest function does not exist at all. However, not all 'shadow functions' are as weak as the weakest function. For instance, I'd posit that the other side of our dominant two functions is fairly advanced or we are at least somewhat comfortable using them. Consider the ENFP.
This is the model that I'd have for the type.
1.Ne
2.Fi
3. Ni
4.Fe
5. Te
6. Ti
7. Si
8. Se
Altogether, we often see this type naturally engaging in what Neo-Bebeans call Fe activity. Altogether it is conceivable that they were genuinely stimulating Feeling-wise by the external world often rather than in the way that is the most natural to them (Fi). However, since Fi predominates, the Fe way will always be less natural for this type and shall always be met with far greater internal opposition than in the case of an Fe type.
I agree with most of this, except your function order for the ENFP. If, as we have agreed, functions do not necessarily line up with particular surface actions, the phrase "Fe activity" should be all but meaningless in reference to a person who does not use Fe as his preferred method of Extroverting Judgment.
It is a common misconception that one who is behaving in a manner common to Fe users is "using Fe", but since functions represent not surface behaviors themselves but cognitive tendencies, one would not actually be "using Fe" unless he were making an extroverted judgment via Feeling for its own inherent value,
and not because imitating the behavior of Fe users on the surface satisfies another more important function's values.
For instance, consider a Te dominant person who really wants to be included in his rich Fe dominant father's will. Since Te has defined, "Get the inheritance" as a goal that must be completed, the person may recognize that displaying an overt
appearance of adhering to Fe values will increase his chances of getting what Te really wants--but does this constitute legitimate "Fe use"? I posit that it does not.
The only time such a person would be legitimately "using Fe" would be if he feels naturally motivated, purely for its own sake, to place inherent value in some external ethical standard--which is difficult and unusual for a person who normally prefers Te+Fi. I won't say it's impossible, but it's certainly not something that happens routinely. The way he prefers to extrovert judgment is in the form of Te, and only when Te's values have been temporarily set aside can Fe have any legitimate influence.
So I would suggest the following functional order for ENFP:
1) Ne
2) Fi
3) Te
4) Si
5-7) Some combination of Ni, Fe, and Ti that varies in priority order depending on the individual.
8) Se
The principle is that people have many functions that are opposed to one another and aren't committed to any one of them entirely.
Now this I would agree wholeheartedly with; however, I do believe through my own observations of others that each person shows a clear preference for how to perform each of the four cognitive tasks (Ji, Je, Pi, Pe) and that it takes an unusual amount of energy brought on by difficult circumstance for him to go against these preferences.
I'd modify the Jungian claim and maintain that those naturally exhibit introversion can't also exhibit extroversion just as naturally without any experience or training. However, with experience and training, they could become more comfortable exhibiting the extroverted attitude, however, rarely, if at all will it be more natural than their main attitude.
I'd agree with this too.
In principle you can discuss relations between functions in the regard of how they describe the cognitive constitution alone. However, some appeal to empirical experience is necessary to attain a basic understanding of how the human mind works. An appeal to behavior is minor and was reduced to the very minimum; it served the sole purpose of understanding the human cognitive tendencies rather than predicting and explaining their behavior.
Which makes it all the more confusing for me when you discuss such things as "Fe behavior." Fe behavior, it seems, can only refer to behaviors which Fe types are commonly predisposed to--but this doesn't seem to necessitate that anyone behaving this way must be motivated by Fe.
A solidified habit of cognition, in the Jungian sense it is one of the four habits that in a very broad sense define the basic elements of all human thought.
This seems consistent with what I've just written above.
A type can entail multiple value systems and methods of doing things. The common practices of INTPs in China in the year of 1500 are different from those of the U.S today. A type is simply a solidified tendency for people to respond to cognitive stimuli. This way of responding will create one value system and metods of operation in one environment and a wholly different one in the other. The nurture aspect is crucial to a person's identity as culture builds the core of an individual's character far more than his psychology or inner constitution. Surely your personality would be radically different had you grown up in China, although your type would have been the same.
Of course, but there must be some common thread in terms of cognitive tendency that relates all Ti users, or the term Ti would have no meaning. When I say that all Ti users share a certain value system, all I mean is that they share a similar preference in terms of the way they make introverted judgments. This, in concert with the enormous influence of nurture/upbringing, could lead to a virtually infinite number of different moral/social/political values. I've made no claim that all Ti users must share any characteristic other than what I've just described. You are still hung up on your misinterpretation of my use of the terms "value system" and "worldview."
That's not what Ti is, you've been infected with the germ of Neo-Bebbean typology that you've been severely criticizing. You ascribed too many illegitimate behavioral tendencies to type. Ti is just a tendency to be stimulated to think or perceive structure in the world by inner mental content more so than the external world. In principle, its possible for a person with this firm cognitive habit to behave in a way we expect a conventional Te type American behaves.
This is precisely what I mean when I say all Ti types share a certain type of worldview. As I've shown above, use of the term "worldview" does not necessitate conscious moral decision.
And yes, it's quite possible for a Ti person to behave in ways that are common for Te types--but one of my main points here is that doing this doesn't necessitate use of Te (and indeed, rarely constitutes genuine use of Te.)
You could call Ti as a 'value system' of activating thinking in response to cognitive stimuli that are internal more than external, yet I still think that the term value is misleading in this context. First of all, its far too broad, as the conventional dictionary has 18 disparate definitions for this term, most of which refer to some kind of conscious cognition. Its manifest ambiguity would compel me to resist using the word as much as possible, let alone in a discussion of an abstruse philosophy of mind topic.
Well, I suppose we'll have to disagree regarding use of the term "value" in this instance. Use "worldview" instead if that makes you more comfortable--the dictionary definition I've quoted above should make it quite clear that this term in no way necessitates conscious moral decision.
What textual support can you provide for this inference?
All I mean by "Ti represents the value system that Thinking is best done internally" is that Ti users all show a cognitive tendency to use Thinking in an introverted way (which I am sure we agree on.) It sounds like you're still taking issue with my use of the term "value system" and insisting that it must refer only to conscious moral decision, but I've already explained that it doesn't.
Yes, it is the most supressed of all cognitive faculties in the Ti dominated mental constitution.
I can agree that the absolute weakest function is probably the other method of the same cognitive task that the dominant performs--in most cases, anyway.
Not in all cases, I'd argue that in the case of an INTP, Te is stronger than Si and Se than Fe. Generally, if a certain function is strong, say Thinking for example, I see no reason why it would be by far more easily stimulated from within than from without. Otherwise, as I've mentioned, the human mind would be by far more disorganized and grotesque than it truly is. Functioning in an environment that requires competence with skills associated with all functions would be extremely difficult, if not impossible altogether.
I'm sure this is the case for some individuals, but I think that since use of shadow functions depends largely on training and conditioning, the INTP's relative emphasis on Se, Ni and Te probably varies significantly from person to person.
I don't agree with your statement about disorganized grotesqueness for reasons I've outlined in my descriptions of functional definitions above.
To have a strong function means to be comfortable using it without making a conscious effort to. Generally, it takes a great deal of practice for a person to awaken the natural tendency to use the most supressed function without great discomfort. Most people do not achieve this feat until they are well past their middle age.
Agreed.
Implausible conclusion for reasons mentioned above.
Fair enough; I will concede this point and admit that shadow functions are occasionally used.
As far as Se for the ENTP is concerned or the most supressed function, yes, yet as far as Ni and Te are concerned, most likely not.
I don't understand where you get the conclusion that the shadow forms of the tertiary and inferior functions are in fact stronger than the tertiary and inferior themselves. I think the ENTP's preferred method of extroverting judgment is Fe, and his preferred method of introverting perception is Si, so he'd have a harder time using Te or Ni as they contradict his natural preferences for each type of cognitive task.
By saying that he would have the hardest time with Se, you seem to be implicitly agreeing with my supposition about the preferred method of each type of cognitive task Je/Ji/Pe/Pi, and yet for some reason you've placed the non-preferred methods of the tertiary and inferior tasks above the traditionally preferred ones. Why?
I also don't understand your assertion that just because is Ti relatively strong, Te must be also. It seems to me that Ti is more similar to Fi than it is to Te, given that Ti and Fi both perform the same cognitive task (introverted judgment.)
Its in principle impossible because a creature that does not feel at all cannot have any desire conscious or unconscious to continue its own existence. It would be altogether devoid of motivation and therefore it will be impossible for this thing to be alive in the first place.
Fair enough.