Inspired by Wildcat's insights.

[Athenian200]

And in the MBTI, how many functions do we have?

Four.

Ti/Fe; Fi/Te; Ni/Se; Si/Ne

If Ti/Fe = a
- what is Fi/Te?

When I read what Wildcat posted, something clicked, and I remembered something I had thought of while reading Jung's work. What do you think of this:

Te and Fi both consider the existance of a thing in itself to be a truth, and subjugate expression to existance. Te sees things that actually exist in an external reality, data. Fi sees things that actually exist in an internal reality, emotions. They create rules, but only based on their observations of what exists.

Fe and Ti both consider rules aspects of reality, and subjugate reality and expression to rules. Ti tries to use rules to define/predict internally what exists (or should exist) in external reality, data. Fe tries to use rules to define/predict externally what exists (or should exist) in internal reality, emotions.

Therefore, Te and Fi are in fact the same process engaged in reverse, as are Fe and Ti. This is why you always see those processes together in the inital four functions.

This means that people with Te and Fi are focused on describing what's there as an assumed truth, and people with Ti and Fe attempt to define what should be there using rules and principles. Does this make any sense so far?

Now, you may think I've mistaken Te and Fi for perceiving functions, but I haven't. Their function is still to evaluate things in terms of rules, they just base these rules on what they actually perceive within their respective forms of reality, rather than seeing rules an independant entities to which one can subjugate reality as Ti and Fe do. So, Te/Fi subject their rules to reality, and Ti/Fe subject their reality to rules.

The perceptions themselves, however, are separate, and simply feed the above processes.

Se and Ni both deal with reality as it happens, believe it or not. Se simply appears to look outwardly at reality as it happens, and unconsciously is reacting to an abstract model of it created by the senses and mind, believing it to be reality. In other words, Ni works unconsicously, creating a representation of reality. Because we only preceive things in our minds, through our senses, we cannot see reality, only a representation of it. Whoever said, "We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are" was quite correct.

Ni is a bit different. It focuses on the creation of the abstaction itself, aware that it is only creating a representation of reality. With the awareness of your mind constructing this abstraction, you have to consciously focus on creating it. But with this awareness, you aren't limited to representations of reality. You can take an awareness of any given thing, and represent it internally. Se works unconsciously, feeding data from the senses with which you consciously try to create the abstractions. In other words, Se percieves the "reality", Ni perceives the internal construction of the "reality".

Si and Ne both actually try to fit reality into patterns. Si simply appears to compare the reality that exists to reality that has previously been experienced. But truthfully, it is actually comparing the abstraction just unconsciously created to represent "reality" with a previous set of abstractions that it believed did the same. Ne works unconsciously, perceiving obvious patterns via which to compare previous abstractions with the new one, and the overlapping and most common trends in these result in "standards" by which reality is judged, as well as memories of how one situation was, based on how it differed from another.

Ne is different, again. It focuses on the process of seeking the patterns in the data itself, aware that it seeks patterns and not previous experiences. However, with the awareness that the patterns are being sought, it can look for patterns in several ways, rather than simply through previous experiences and information. It can proactively see patterns between things that are around it, things it has experenced before, and things that it has envisioned. It constantly tries to create new patterns and new associations. Si works unconsciously, holding up previous memories and associations from which patterns can be detected. Without an awareness of previous data, there would nothing from which to deduce patterns.

So, to recap, this means there are four two-sided functions:

Ti/Fe -- Creates rules by which to subjugate reality.
Fi/Te -- Creates rules which are determined by reality.
Se/Ni -- Deals with the experience and construction of our reality.
Si/Ne -- Deals with the comparison of reality to other things.

 

[wildcat]

When I read what Wildcat posted, something clicked, and I remembered something I had thought of while reading Jung's work. What do you think of this:

Te and Fi both consider the existance of a thing in itself to be a truth, and subjugate expression to existance. Te sees things that actually exist in an external reality, data. Fi sees things that actually exist in an internal reality, emotions. They create rules, but only based on their observations of what exists.

Fe and Ti both consider rules aspects of reality, and subjugate reality and expression to rules. Ti tries to use rules to define/predict internally what exists (or should exist) in external reality, data. Fe tries to use rules to define/predict externally what exists (or should exist) in internal reality, emotions.

Therefore, Te and Fi are in fact the same process engaged in reverse, as are Fe and Ti. This is why you always see those processes together in the inital four functions.

This means that people with Te and Fi are focused on describing what's there as an assumed truth, and people with Ti and Fe attempt to define what should be there using rules and principles. Does this make any sense so far?

Now, you may think I've mistaken Te and Fi for perceiving functions, but I haven't. Their function is still to evaluate things in terms of rules, they just base these rules on what they actually perceive within their respective forms of reality, rather than seeing rules an independant entities to which one can subjugate reality as Ti and Fe do. So, Te/Fi subject their rules to reality, and Ti/Fe subject their reality to rules.

The perceptions themselves, however, are separate, and simply feed the above processes.

Se and Ni both deal with reality as it happens, believe it or not. Se simply appears to look outwardly at reality as it happens, and unconsciously is reacting to an abstract model of it created by the senses and mind, believing it to be reality. In other words, Ni works unconsicously, creating a representation of reality. Because we only preceive things in our minds, through our senses, we cannot see reality, only a representation of it. Whoever said, "We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are" was quite correct.

Ni is a bit different. It focuses on the creation of the abstaction itself, aware that it is only creating a representation of reality. With the awareness of your mind constructing this abstraction, you have to consciously focus on creating it. But with this awareness, you aren't limited to representations of reality. You can take an awareness of any given thing, and represent it internally. Se works unconsciously, feeding data from the senses with which you consciously try to create the abstractions. In other words, Se percieves the "reality", Ni perceives the internal construction of the "reality".

Si and Ne both actually try to fit reality into patterns. Si simply appears to compare the reality that exists to reality that has previously been experienced. But truthfully, it is actually comparing the abstraction just unconsciously created to represent "reality" with a previous set of abstractions that it believed did the same. Ne works unconsciously, perceiving obvious patterns via which to compare previous abstractions with the new one, and the overlapping and most common trends in these result in "standards" by which reality is judged, as well as memories of how one situation was, based on how it differed from another.

Ne is different, again. It focuses on the process of seeking the patterns in the data itself, aware that it seeks patterns and not previous experiences. However, with the awareness that the patterns are being sought, it can look for patterns in several ways, rather than simply through previous experiences and information. It can proactively see patterns between things that are around it, things it has experenced before, and things that it has envisioned. It constantly tries to create new patterns and new associations. Si works unconsciously, holding up previous memories and associations from which patterns can be detected. Without an awareness of previous data, there would nothing from which to deduce patterns.

So, to recap, this means there are four two-sided functions:

Ti/Fe -- Creates rules by which to subjugate reality.
Fi/Te -- Creates rules which are determined by reality.
Se/Ni -- Deals with the experience and construction of our reality.
Si/Ne -- Deals with the comparison of reality to other things.

Something clicked with me as well when I read your OP.
I did not know what clicked.
Then I found out there was more than one click.

The clicks are all combined.

The understanding of the functions gives no place to speculate about the order.
Correct.
We find a pre set.

Is there a discrepancy between the conception and the expression of the conception?

Not if we do not force it.

 

[Xander]

You know this is why if you have the following first four preferences
A1, B1, C1, D1
Then you'll have the last preferences as
D2, C2, B2, A2

If A1 = Ti then A2 = Fe. That's why Wildcat keeps going on about 9.

Well that's as far as I have interpreted it anyhow.

It's nice that you've come up with such clarity Athenian whilst keeping the overall picture accurate (well I consider it accurate).

I wonder how it would compare to the more common modelling techniques in terms not of completeness but more usability.

 

[runvardh]

I wonder if this means I'm more balanced than I previously thought...

 

[Athenian200]

Okay, so now I've come up with another idea, somewhat similar to the Socionic idea of conscious/unconscious. I'll bet there are a lot of holes in it, but maybe you Ti and Te users can see something in it, and find a better expression. Using INFJ as an example:

Unconscious: Se Ti Si Te
Conscious: Ni Fe Ne Fi

However, a person can switch consciousness to their first two unconscious functions, which is why they are technically higher in normal order. It's technically easier to switch to these, because they are the reverse side of the normally used process. They are mechanically the easiest to develop, because you already use them unconsciously, and you just have to learn how to "tap" them the other way.

It also explains why INFJ is said to act out a negative form of ESTP under stress, and vice-versa. Those were strong, unconscious functions all along.
Example: I have a strong awareness of intonation and gesture, and I jump whenever I hear a loud noise. My eyes dart towards any sudden movement that occurs. I don't control this the way an ESTP can, because I'm focused on Ni, and only using Se to feed myself data, although Se has some instinctive responses like flailing, screaming, and fleeing. This is also why I can't stay focused and get tense if something moves, or someone talks unexpectedly. My unconscious is drawn to it, and I know that I can't consciously react quickly enough, but that my unconscious will, and that makes me paranoid, so I try to avoid Se situations, but of course my Se has to be aware of them in order to avoid them (if anything, it's hyperaware. An Se type doesn't get freaked out as quickly, because they consciously control their less sensitive Se. Their Ni might actually be stronger than mine, because it can proactively create in reasonable detail the abstractions of reality that their senses and mind experience without them having to think about it, unlike me.)

So the unconscious's dominant functions are strong, but not under conscious control (one has to be controlled by the unconscious, so that you can focus on the other), and thus feared. This is different from the Socionic model, because I believe that Se is more the other side of Ni than Si, and that Se is more opposed to Ni than Si, because it has a stronger root in the unconscious. Your level of opposition to the opposite of your auxiliary is somewhat lower. The other four functions actually have a random strength based on the individual's situation, and can be used without much difficulty once consciously developed (although I would think that the last two conscious ones would be easier.)

Is this possible at all?

 

[Xander]

I think that the "shadow" functions DO show through like you said. That's kinda how I've always seen the shadow.

Look at INFPs and consider how they draw such harsh lines at times and if they believe in their ideas then they can be quite sergeant like. That's all ESTJ, their shadow.

Now consider INTPs, the whole obsessive traits.. the ability to be irrational and yet claim it's rational like some spoilt child (I'm doing myself no favours here but with shadows it's about under developed traits to begin with and is represented as the stereotype). Consider the temper which comes from no where and is unbound by reason when it does appear, that's an undeveloped ESFJ coming through (it's also why I laugh at the whole "we hate SJs" thing).

 

[wildcat]

Okay, so now I've come up with another idea, somewhat similar to the Socionic idea of conscious/unconscious. I'll bet there are a lot of holes in it, but maybe you Ti and Te users can see something in it, and find a better expression. Using INFJ as an example:

Unconscious: Se Ti Si Te
Conscious: Ni Fe Ne Fi

However, a person can switch consciousness to their first two unconscious functions, which is why they are technically higher in normal order. It's technically easier to switch to these, because they are the reverse side of the normally used process. They are mechanically the easiest to develop, because you already use them unconsciously, and you just have to learn how to "tap" them the other way.

It also explains why INFJ is said to act out a negative form of ESTP under stress, and vice-versa. Those were strong, unconscious functions all along.
Example: I have a strong awareness of intonation and gesture, and I jump whenever I hear a loud noise. My eyes dart towards any sudden movement that occurs. I don't control this the way an ESTP can, because I'm focused on Ni, and only using Se to feed myself data, although Se has some instinctive responses like flailing, screaming, and fleeing. This is also why I can't stay focused and get tense if something moves, or someone talks unexpectedly. My unconscious is drawn to it, and I know that I can't consciously react quickly enough, but that my unconscious will, and that makes me paranoid, so I try to avoid Se situations, but of course my Se has to be aware of them in order to avoid them (if anything, it's hyperaware. An Se type doesn't get freaked out as quickly, because they consciously control their less sensitive Se. Their Ni might actually be stronger than mine, because it can proactively create in reasonable detail the abstractions of reality that their senses and mind experience without them having to think about it, unlike me.)

So the unconscious's dominant functions are strong, but not under conscious control (one has to be controlled by the unconscious, so that you can focus on the other), and thus feared. This is different from the Socionic model, because I believe that Se is more the other side of Ni than Si, and that Se is more opposed to Ni than Si, because it has a stronger root in the unconscious. Your level of opposition to the opposite of your auxiliary is somewhat lower. The other four functions actually have a random strength based on the individual's situation, and can be used without much difficulty once consciously developed (although I would think that the last two conscious ones would be easier.)

Is this possible at all?

Powers that be: the SNS. The curse of life.
We are unfavoured by gods.
It is different with the phlegmatics and the sanguins.

The esteemed bard let Caesar remark of Cassius not sleeping in the night.
Cassius was a choleric. Never to be trusted, always pardoned.

Cicero.
Did the learned foe of the Consul manage to sleep through the nights?
Julius even paid a call in his country villa. The antagonists sat together like best of friends.
They drank, talked, listened to music, bathed.. and lingered well into the dawn.

If the unhappy men had slept their nights, Caesar would have lived.

Octavian had Cicero put to death quite soon after the ill deed. The nephew had no scruples. He was a phlegmatic.

The sympathetic nervous system operates without conscious control. There is the crux of the difference.
The phlegmatic and the sanguine have that part of the nervous system conscious.
Should it then be called the autonomous nervous system?
Only with the cholerics.. and the melancholics of course.
Fight or flight. Lousy digestion.
Dyspepsia, if you ask me.
Insomnia. Bulimia. Panic attacks.

And who are the wicked and the nefarious?
We are.

 

[wildcat]

PTypes - The Idealist (melancholic) Temperament

/
sensitive
conscientious
dramatic
idiosyncratic
mercurial.
html.

 

[Prometheus]

Okay, so now I've come up with another idea, somewhat similar to the Socionic idea of conscious/unconscious. I'll bet there are a lot of holes in it, but maybe you Ti and Te users can see something in it, and find a better expression. Using INFJ as an example:

Unconscious: Se Ti Si Te
Conscious: Ni Fe Ne Fi

However, a person can switch consciousness to their first two unconscious functions, which is why they are technically higher in normal order. It's technically easier to switch to these, because they are the reverse side of the normally used process. They are mechanically the easiest to develop, because you already use them unconsciously, and you just have to learn how to "tap" them the other way.

It also explains why INFJ is said to act out a negative form of ESTP under stress, and vice-versa. Those were strong, unconscious functions all along.
Example: I have a strong awareness of intonation and gesture, and I jump whenever I hear a loud noise. My eyes dart towards any sudden movement that occurs. I don't control this the way an ESTP can, because I'm focused on Ni, and only using Se to feed myself data, although Se has some instinctive responses like flailing, screaming, and fleeing. This is also why I can't stay focused and get tense if something moves, or someone talks unexpectedly. My unconscious is drawn to it, and I know that I can't consciously react quickly enough, but that my unconscious will, and that makes me paranoid, so I try to avoid Se situations, but of course my Se has to be aware of them in order to avoid them (if anything, it's hyperaware. An Se type doesn't get freaked out as quickly, because they consciously control their less sensitive Se. Their Ni might actually be stronger than mine, because it can proactively create in reasonable detail the abstractions of reality that their senses and mind experience without them having to think about it, unlike me.)

So the unconscious's dominant functions are strong, but not under conscious control (one has to be controlled by the unconscious, so that you can focus on the other), and thus feared. This is different from the Socionic model, because I believe that Se is more the other side of Ni than Si, and that Se is more opposed to Ni than Si, because it has a stronger root in the unconscious. Your level of opposition to the opposite of your auxiliary is somewhat lower. The other four functions actually have a random strength based on the individual's situation, and can be used without much difficulty once consciously developed (although I would think that the last two conscious ones would be easier.)

Is this possible at all?

Yes, it is.
I'll do some exploration, though.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm still thinking this through, as well as it's tangential problems.
I will arrive to an answer, definitely.

 

[Totenkindly]

Lol, prom... welcome back, two years is a long time to chew on a post!

 

[Eric B]

When I read what Wildcat posted, something clicked, and I remembered something I had thought of while reading Jung's work. What do you think of this:

Te and Fi both consider the existance of a thing in itself to be a truth, and subjugate expression to existance. Te sees things that actually exist in an external reality, data. Fi sees things that actually exist in an internal reality, emotions. They create rules, but only based on their observations of what exists.

Fe and Ti both consider rules aspects of reality, and subjugate reality and expression to rules. Ti tries to use rules to define/predict internally what exists (or should exist) in external reality, data. Fe tries to use rules to define/predict externally what exists (or should exist) in internal reality, emotions.

Therefore, Te and Fi are in fact the same process engaged in reverse, as are Fe and Ti. This is why you always see those processes together in the inital four functions.

This means that people with Te and Fi are focused on describing what's there as an assumed truth, and people with Ti and Fe attempt to define what should be there using rules and principles. Does this make any sense so far?

Now, you may think I've mistaken Te and Fi for perceiving functions, but I haven't. Their function is still to evaluate things in terms of rules, they just base these rules on what they actually perceive within their respective forms of reality, rather than seeing rules an independant entities to which one can subjugate reality as Ti and Fe do. So, Te/Fi subject their rules to reality, and Ti/Fe subject their reality to rules.

The perceptions themselves, however, are separate, and simply feed the above processes.

Se and Ni both deal with reality as it happens, believe it or not. Se simply appears to look outwardly at reality as it happens, and unconsciously is reacting to an abstract model of it created by the senses and mind, believing it to be reality. In other words, Ni works unconsicously, creating a representation of reality. Because we only preceive things in our minds, through our senses, we cannot see reality, only a representation of it. Whoever said, "We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are" was quite correct.

Ni is a bit different. It focuses on the creation of the abstaction itself, aware that it is only creating a representation of reality. With the awareness of your mind constructing this abstraction, you have to consciously focus on creating it. But with this awareness, you aren't limited to representations of reality. You can take an awareness of any given thing, and represent it internally. Se works unconsciously, feeding data from the senses with which you consciously try to create the abstractions. In other words, Se percieves the "reality", Ni perceives the internal construction of the "reality".

Si and Ne both actually try to fit reality into patterns. Si simply appears to compare the reality that exists to reality that has previously been experienced. But truthfully, it is actually comparing the abstraction just unconsciously created to represent "reality" with a previous set of abstractions that it believed did the same. Ne works unconsciously, perceiving obvious patterns via which to compare previous abstractions with the new one, and the overlapping and most common trends in these result in "standards" by which reality is judged, as well as memories of how one situation was, based on how it differed from another.

Ne is different, again. It focuses on the process of seeking the patterns in the data itself, aware that it seeks patterns and not previous experiences. However, with the awareness that the patterns are being sought, it can look for patterns in several ways, rather than simply through previous experiences and information. It can proactively see patterns between things that are around it, things it has experenced before, and things that it has envisioned. It constantly tries to create new patterns and new associations. Si works unconsciously, holding up previous memories and associations from which patterns can be detected. Without an awareness of previous data, there would nothing from which to deduce patterns.

So, to recap, this means there are four two-sided functions:

Ti/Fe -- Creates rules by which to subjugate reality.
Fi/Te -- Creates rules which are determined by reality.
Se/Ni -- Deals with the experience and construction of our reality.
Si/Ne -- Deals with the comparison of reality to other things.

This latter part is the concept I was trying to develop here, by deriving names for the tandems. http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...lity-matrices/14018-process-tandem-names.html

It did not seem to make sense to anyone, so I'm still thinking if there are better names. What I had was:

Ti/Fe -- maintains forms of harmony (internal, logical or external values)
Fi/Te -- maintains "systems" (Te builds them and Fi provides the "importance" or personal support for them)
Se/Ni -- See things as they are, and what they lad to
Si/Ne -- sees around things (either the past, or multiple present possibilities)

The way I see it now, there are realy four functions that can be used in an either inner or outer orientation, and when you choose one function, the other is rejected, and when you choose one orientation to use a function in, the other orientation is rejected for its use.

So the tandems are formed by accepting one j/p function in one attitude, and rejecting the other function and attitude. The rejected attitude is used for the auxiliary, but that function is rejected from the dominant orientation. Likewise, the opposite orientation is rejected for the dominant function. So what are really "the same process engaged in reverse" are the function with the attuitude reversed. It's the same function, used in the opposite orientation.
Ne and Fi are the "shadows" of the INFJ's dominant and auxiliary, meaning that those two are rejected from consciousness, however they do "back up" the leading functions in a way, and hence might come out strongly. Ti and Se might seem unconscious, because the primary orientations were initially rejected by the ego, and Si and Te are actually the left-brain alternatives, and hence, might seem more conscious than the tertiary and inferior.

 

[Thalassa]

Ti/Fe -- Creates rules by which to subjugate reality.
Fi/Te -- Creates rules which are determined by reality.

This really speaks to my experience as someone with Fi/Te and my mild frustration at times with Ti/Fe users.

I'm like, this is the way it should be done because this is what reality is. I see this as being pragmatic and sensible.

And they're like, no no but I think reality should be this so you have to do it this way that I'm telling you. I see this as being nit-picky and overly idealistic.

I guess mainly I'm referring to annoyance with Ti/Fe in positions of authority.

It's all so clear to me now...and for so long I just thought is was a P/J divide.

 

[Athenian200]

This really speaks to my experience as someone with Fi/Te and my mild frustration at times with Ti/Fe users.

I'm like, this is the way it should be done because this is what reality is. I see this as being pragmatic and sensible.

And they're like, no no but I think reality should be this so you have to do it this way that I'm telling you. I see this as being nit-picky and overly idealistic.

I guess mainly I'm referring to annoyance with Ti/Fe in positions of authority.

It's all so clear to me now...and for so long I just thought is was a P/J divide.

Yeah, that's it exactly. You really get it.

The thing is, though, is that if you base things on how they are rather than how they should be... the effects will be positive at first, but there will be a slow decay in order and purpose that comes from ignoring the ideals in practice for too long.

Basically, if you don't do anything to push things back towards where they should be, they'll keep sliding until the situation gets ugly.

I can see how it would be annoying to someone who just wants to get things done, but I assure you there's a point. It's more to keep things on track than to actually achieve the ideal.

Does that make sense?

 

[Prometheus]

I was writing a thesis and I discovered that I could write, and enjoy writing, so long as I thought about it as "reading in reverse". I soon discovered that drawing too could be seen as "watching in reverse", and that I could draw well. This morning I spent the day thinking about things and their reverses when I remembered this post. [MENTION]Athenian2000[/MENTION] words appear to have hypnotized me. Please forgive me for resurrecting this post, for a second time. So yes, most definitely (Ni,Se), (Ne,Si), (Fi, Te), (Ti, Fe) are pairs of reverses. And most certainly being strong in one makes you potentially strong in the other. The tricky thing is to stop seeing it as an activity in itself instead of a change of order. The difference is that Ni, Ne, Fi, Ti are questions and Se, Si, Te, Fe are affirmations. So an INFJ could appear to be an Se dominant by stop making questions and start giving answers, she would find all that question making has made her very good at answering (as long as she doesn't answer with another question). The reverse would happen to an ESFP if she stopped answering questions and started asking them, she would find that all the work done to quickly find the right answer has made her great at asking the right questions.

 

[Eric B]

I had forgotten all about this, but there has since been a proposal of tandem concept names, from a more "official" source: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...ions/71276-finally-official-tandem-names.html

And no, they should not be seen as "activities", but rather the division of reality into opposites (both function and attitude). If your consciousness separates out one function, and an associated attitude, then the opposites of both "collect" somewhere lower in consciousness, and hence work in "tandem" with it in the background (and moreso than the opposite function with the same attitude or vice versa, which end up as totally in the "shadow" of consciousness).