Eric B
ⒺⓉⒷ
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,621
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 548
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
We (following the lead of those like Berens, Nardi, Hartzler, etc) have gotten so into identifying the functions by behavioral descriptions, such as "organizing, segmenting", "analyzing, categorizing", "considering others and responding to them" and "evaluating importance", and then spend a lot of time debating as to whose behavior (here, with each other, or others we aim to type) matches each set of descriptions.
I liked how “?” had spoken of going “straight to the horses mouth” and getting Jung’s own descriptions of the functions Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10 to prevent the biasness and interpretations of others.
Going back to Jung's root descriptions, it is very simple. "introverted" functions are those that stem from the "subject" (the person using the function), and extraverted functions are those that stem from the object, which can be another person, group, or other thing external to the person using the function:
Te: externally sourced logic
Ti: internally sourced logic
Fe: externally sourced values/ethics
Fi: internally sourced values ethics
With the perception functions, it is the same, of course:
Se: externally sourced experience
Si: internally sourced experience (e.g. Memory)
Ne: externally sourced conceptualization
Ni: internally sourced conceptualizations (e.g. premonition)
Much of the debate over type and function preferences centers on judging.
So Te at its root is external logic, such as facts. A person using this function starts with facts and then builds his knowledge squarely from this.
Ti at its root is internal logic. You develop ideas, and then seek "facts" simply to back them up.
A lot of the debate here has involved people seeing Ti types handling the facts, and then concluding they they are using Te. This has happened with me and my ideas on how different temperament systems fit together, as well as, more recently, and more well known, BlueWing's essays.
People see the facts being tossed around and assume it's Te, but the question Jung would have us ask, is which is the source of the idea? Is the person using the facts to substantiate preconceived ideas, or does he just basically relay those facts? With BlueWing, it looked like he has come up with his own conclusions substantiated with facts which he cites in his writing. This would fit Jun's definition of Ti. My pairing systems like MBTI and FIRO together, since they are preexisting (external) systems, has been compared to Te "walking into a room full of dials and changing them" or "playing with jigsaw pieces", rather than developing an internal idea. But the theory on how they fit together is itself the original internal idea! It too uses empirical data (similarities in behavior of types or factors in both systems, and occasionally, existing statistical correlations) to support a ready made idea, rather than it only relying on empirical data.
There are a number of reasons facts are employed. We're trying to publicize ideas to an audience consisting of all different types, and it is known as it is that there is somewhat of a predominance of an STJ (TeSi) mindset in society. So people want hard facts in order to to view something as credible.
Plus, to the dom. Ti type, Te is in the oppositional/ backup role, meaning it is on the top of the shadow range (on the border of the ego-compatible range, the closest of those to his consciousness), and is the function used to become stubborn and argumentative, in its more negative aspect, and provides backup or depth to the lead function in its more positive aspect.
For the Feeling functions, Fe is basically external values, and Fi is internal values. The word "values" I find misleading, especially for the internal attitude, because everyone has internal values. Behaviors such as becoming upset because things don't go your way I'm wondering as to whether they really are good indicators of an Fi preference, as I have seen used in type discussions once in awhile. We all have a survival instinct, which guides such things as physiological needs, pleasure and comfort, power and control, etc. TP types, with dominant Ti and last place Fi often seem to be pictured as these cold robots, to whom nothing is important; nothing bothers them (except perhaps illogic). You would think then, that you could go up and smack a TP on the head, insult them, rob them even, and it will be OK, because "they're not 'in touch' with personal values".
But then on the other hand, it is sometimes said that logic itself is their value; or "principles" which they can even become very emotional about. Hence why the term "value" is ambiguous. "Ethics" is another word (as used by Socionics), but that seems on the other hand, a bit too narrow, like it's only about morality.
So Ti types have the basic survival instincts, and hence get upset when personal values are violated. This is technically Fi, but then it will be nearly their only experience of the function. Hence, its role as a negative "shadow" function. In rare occasions will it become positive, to transform or provide comedy to a situation. To Fi preferring types, there is a more positive aspect of it, which rewards them for being true to themselves and does not only give them bad feelings about violated values.
It seems that both Ti and Si judgements stem from external data that is internalized. It is taken in and then becomes subjective. You take in senses, internalize them, and then bring them up again from within as memory. Likewise, you take in logical knowledge, and then internalize it and make the models and frameworks your own, and even create your own. These are then brought up again from within when you reference them in solving problems.
Fi and Ni can work that way too. You take in values or patterns and make them your own, to reference when needed. Yet they also seem to be more likely to develop internally apart from outside input. You just grow up develop your own ethics, or visions of the future apart from your environment. So both are described as having some "mystical" qualities. Ni naturally seems mystical, but notice that Jung describes Fi as mystical as well.
This shows that while "objective" and "subjective" are usually applied to the e and i attitudes, the terms can also describe Sensing vs iNtuition as well as Thinking vs Feeling. (and likewise, perception in general-S/N, is more "objective" while judgment -T/F is "subjective")
So does anyone think this helps clear things up?
I liked how “?” had spoken of going “straight to the horses mouth” and getting Jung’s own descriptions of the functions Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10 to prevent the biasness and interpretations of others.
Going back to Jung's root descriptions, it is very simple. "introverted" functions are those that stem from the "subject" (the person using the function), and extraverted functions are those that stem from the object, which can be another person, group, or other thing external to the person using the function:
Te: externally sourced logic
Ti: internally sourced logic
Fe: externally sourced values/ethics
Fi: internally sourced values ethics
With the perception functions, it is the same, of course:
Se: externally sourced experience
Si: internally sourced experience (e.g. Memory)
Ne: externally sourced conceptualization
Ni: internally sourced conceptualizations (e.g. premonition)
Much of the debate over type and function preferences centers on judging.
So Te at its root is external logic, such as facts. A person using this function starts with facts and then builds his knowledge squarely from this.
Ti at its root is internal logic. You develop ideas, and then seek "facts" simply to back them up.
A lot of the debate here has involved people seeing Ti types handling the facts, and then concluding they they are using Te. This has happened with me and my ideas on how different temperament systems fit together, as well as, more recently, and more well known, BlueWing's essays.
People see the facts being tossed around and assume it's Te, but the question Jung would have us ask, is which is the source of the idea? Is the person using the facts to substantiate preconceived ideas, or does he just basically relay those facts? With BlueWing, it looked like he has come up with his own conclusions substantiated with facts which he cites in his writing. This would fit Jun's definition of Ti. My pairing systems like MBTI and FIRO together, since they are preexisting (external) systems, has been compared to Te "walking into a room full of dials and changing them" or "playing with jigsaw pieces", rather than developing an internal idea. But the theory on how they fit together is itself the original internal idea! It too uses empirical data (similarities in behavior of types or factors in both systems, and occasionally, existing statistical correlations) to support a ready made idea, rather than it only relying on empirical data.
There are a number of reasons facts are employed. We're trying to publicize ideas to an audience consisting of all different types, and it is known as it is that there is somewhat of a predominance of an STJ (TeSi) mindset in society. So people want hard facts in order to to view something as credible.
Plus, to the dom. Ti type, Te is in the oppositional/ backup role, meaning it is on the top of the shadow range (on the border of the ego-compatible range, the closest of those to his consciousness), and is the function used to become stubborn and argumentative, in its more negative aspect, and provides backup or depth to the lead function in its more positive aspect.
For the Feeling functions, Fe is basically external values, and Fi is internal values. The word "values" I find misleading, especially for the internal attitude, because everyone has internal values. Behaviors such as becoming upset because things don't go your way I'm wondering as to whether they really are good indicators of an Fi preference, as I have seen used in type discussions once in awhile. We all have a survival instinct, which guides such things as physiological needs, pleasure and comfort, power and control, etc. TP types, with dominant Ti and last place Fi often seem to be pictured as these cold robots, to whom nothing is important; nothing bothers them (except perhaps illogic). You would think then, that you could go up and smack a TP on the head, insult them, rob them even, and it will be OK, because "they're not 'in touch' with personal values".
But then on the other hand, it is sometimes said that logic itself is their value; or "principles" which they can even become very emotional about. Hence why the term "value" is ambiguous. "Ethics" is another word (as used by Socionics), but that seems on the other hand, a bit too narrow, like it's only about morality.
So Ti types have the basic survival instincts, and hence get upset when personal values are violated. This is technically Fi, but then it will be nearly their only experience of the function. Hence, its role as a negative "shadow" function. In rare occasions will it become positive, to transform or provide comedy to a situation. To Fi preferring types, there is a more positive aspect of it, which rewards them for being true to themselves and does not only give them bad feelings about violated values.
It seems that both Ti and Si judgements stem from external data that is internalized. It is taken in and then becomes subjective. You take in senses, internalize them, and then bring them up again from within as memory. Likewise, you take in logical knowledge, and then internalize it and make the models and frameworks your own, and even create your own. These are then brought up again from within when you reference them in solving problems.
Fi and Ni can work that way too. You take in values or patterns and make them your own, to reference when needed. Yet they also seem to be more likely to develop internally apart from outside input. You just grow up develop your own ethics, or visions of the future apart from your environment. So both are described as having some "mystical" qualities. Ni naturally seems mystical, but notice that Jung describes Fi as mystical as well.
This shows that while "objective" and "subjective" are usually applied to the e and i attitudes, the terms can also describe Sensing vs iNtuition as well as Thinking vs Feeling. (and likewise, perception in general-S/N, is more "objective" while judgment -T/F is "subjective")
So does anyone think this helps clear things up?