Attitudes as "Standards" of function, and elemental definitions of functions

[Eric B]

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/9813-mbti-functions-explained-3.html#post1091015

There are so many different experts with so many different ways of putting things, that there ends up being a lot of miscommunication. I'm particularly thinking of the definitions of i/e and T/F.

The internal or external orientation of a function is often portrayed in terms of where the function is "used" ("applied"), or even where its energy "flows", yet on the other hand, some will insist it is the standard of reference of the function. Then this will often be framed in terms of "individual" (personal) versus "agreed upon" or "group" standards, or the orientation being inherent in the objects/subjects in question.

All of these are interpretations of Jung's "focused on the subject [or] object".

Sensing and iNtuition are widely recognized as dealing with concrete vs abstract information. So there is not as much problem defining these.

It's T/F where a lot of problems and type confusion occur. Thinking is widely defined as "logic" and "impersonal". Yet for Feeling, we hear about "values", "ethics", "personal", "harmony", "empathy/sympathy" (and questions as to which attitude carries which), and "emotions/emoting".
This is where descriptions of that function get really screwed up.
Especially regarding emotions.

I myself had been tossed around with these descriptions, and would often use one or another in my discussions. Like the dispute I used to have [on PerC] with Sim, over the notion of "internal or external application", versus "standard". Or we'll differ on which of the various terms for "Feeling" apply. (Like in an email recently, I spoke of "emotion", and I was told "personal" experential identification, instead).
These terms are basically attempts at concise definitions. But what we need are the most elemental root definitions we can find.

All these terms stick because they all do have at least some truth to them. But since, as we see, the various factors can sometimes span different dichotomies or be common to people of all types, it can often lead to outright contradictions.

Also, it seems some are really more behavioral results than elemental definitions. And I can see (as some complain at times) that the problems in typology often result from overusing behavioral concepts. They do basically match the concepts, but can vary.
This is what often leads to the "Forer effect" I have often been mentioning. For instance, everyone has emotions, and "knows what they want for themselves", not just Feelers in general or introverted Feelers.

I have found Lenore Thomson's definitions to seem more solid (she's one major source for the "standard" and "personal/impersonal" definitions), and so decided to get these from the book:

Perception encourages us to process sensory impressions as they occur
Judgment prompts us to organize our sense impressions by focusing on the ones that happen regularly enough to recognize and predict. (p253)

Left brain (J=Je/Pi) linear one-at-a-time approach to life
Right brain (P=Pe/Ji) wholistic[sic] all-at-once approach to life

It is noteworthy that another person, Mark Bruzon, has T=linear, F=holistic. (Fundamental Nature of the MBTI) This would work the same way as "objective/subjective", which can apply to either e/i or T/F. The factor applies to both, but in different aspects.

The other three dichotomies:

i internal standard
e external standard

S concrete
N abstract

T impersonal
F personal

Descriptions from Lenore's chapters on the functions:

Te: shared qualities objects have in common used as a standard of sequential order
Ti: the variables [essential dynamics] in a situation related to our intended effect (this probably refers to personal "frameworks", such as particular symmetries one looks for in things)
Fe: measure our options for relationships against an external standard of behaviors
Fi: encourages a personal relationship to an evolving pattern (e.g. how a given situation would affect the person)

To make Ti and Fi parallel Te and Fe more closely:

Ti: essential qualities objects have, chosen as a standard of universal truth
Fi: personal relationship to situations chosen an internal standard of truth

While "relationships" are mentioned only for the two Feeling attitudes, really, all four judging attitudes are dealing with "relationships". The Feeling attitudes deal with "relationships" between people (which includes the subject, of course), and the Thinking attitudes deal with relationships between objects (including treating one's self and others as objects).

Personal/impersonal would also explain Bruzon's T=linear; F=holistic definition. Impersonal relationships are linear, basically "if this, then that". Personal relationships are a more fuzzy category, that looks at each point's [Bruzon does his representations as point matrices] relationship to it environment, rather than a hard line connecting it to the next point. Hence, "holistic".

So we can see right here why Feeling would also be tagged as "subjective" while Thinking is "objective".
At the same time, the external attitude relates to an external object, while the internal attitude relates to the subject.

So to rephrase the functions in terms of their base elements:

Te: judges relationships between impersonal objects according to an external standard (in the objects themselves)
Ti: judges relationships between impersonal objects according to an internal standard (the subject's chosen frameworks)
Fe: judges personal relationships by an external standard (agreed upon behaviors)
Fi: judges personal relationships by an internal standard (experiential identification)

Of course, for the perception functions:

Se: perceives concrete data from an external (emergent) source
Si: perceives concrete data from an internal (stored) source
Ne: abstracts external, emergent data
Ni: abstracts internally stored data

So while we still can never be absolutely sure of other people's types (especially celebrities, who we don't know, and of course, fictional characters), still, to get a good estimation of T/F, we can look at what we can look at what we can call, the
rational focus: personal vs impersonal.

(And perception I would call "perceptive focus: concrete vs abstract")

So hope we can keep these in mind and they can be helpful when thinking of which function is which.

 

[Eric B]

Continuing to expand upon this, undifferentiated functions can be described in terms of elements that carry a "sense of meaning" when brought into consciousness by the ego, and when not conscious, come out as felt reactions.

To get an idea of the functions as senses of meaning, first, we should look at the root definitions of the functions I have been highlighting recently:

Se: focus on emergent facts/experience
Si: focus on stored facts/experience
Ne: focus on emergent meanings/patterns
Ni: focus on stored meanings/patterns
Te: focus on set standard of technicality
Ti: focus on variable essence of technicality
Fe: focus on set standard of humanity
Fi: focus on variable essence of humanity

We take in and process these elements continuously, but for each type, according to this theory, only one will be our main outlook in life. The others will either come and go inasmuch as they align with that main outlook, or be more tied to emotions (hence, the premise of the topic) and affect our reactions, or they will align with the archetypes of functional development which form complexes. There are actually hundreds of complexes, but for typological purposes, the eight often mentioned here are those representing how the ego (which is itself a complex; the "main" one of consciousness, of course) experiences other complexes in relationship to the structure it sets up to manage the information allowed into or barred from awareness.

So for examples of this, my main perspective in life is what makes sense, which is a technical focus with an internal standard of analysis using variables that form essential dynamics of how things work. Linear if-then "principles" in decisions, as well.

A focus on emergent patterns and meanings accompany this, and provide the variables in situations in light of my intended effect. This then hooks up with a parental archetype, that becomes personalized as a complex of helping others understand patterns in the form of shared ideas. In Jung's terminology, only the dominant function is "differentiated". Yet, since the parent archetype and it's associated function are prominent, it basically acts like it is differentiated. It is frequently "used" by the ego to fill the role of that complex. So is the tertiary, actually, for a matured person. And at midlife, the inferior also fits its archetypal role more often.

What we call function "development" is likely the increased awareness of the complexes in our consciousness. It's not the undifferentiated "neutral" form of the function that we choose to "develop" through "skills" increased by doing more activities associated with it.
I believe the remaining functions; the "shadows" don't "develop". The most we can do is own the complexes in ourselves that they align with. Outside the complexes, they will just continue to be connected with our emotions.

I should also reiterate from this viewpoint, that undifferentiated functions are not "gears" we shift from one to the other. I don't say "OK, I'm analyzing a symmetry here, so I must 'use' Ti, and now, I should place a personal value in it, so I must 'use' Fi, and I need to see the symmetrical object in the first place, so I have to 'use' Se, and I want to organize something I'm building that way, so I have to 'use' Te". Ti is the main perspective, and those acts associated with the other functions are called functional "products", but those functions themselves are not really differentiated as such like Ti is.

This is what clears up the problem I always saw in speaking of "using" all the other functions. We use their products as they fit our ego's goals, or tie into our emotional reactions.
The closest they come to a quasi-'differentiated' state is when they align with the archetypal complexes, and (beyond the parent/aux, child/tert. and inferior) that is temporary, and usually reactionary. So as I've said before, we don't have to speculate ourselves as being in "oppositional", "witch", "trickster" or "demon" mode when "using" the shadow functions. (And even Beebe acknowledges this).