Personality Cafe banner

Intro to Function Theory + More Detailed Descriptions of Each Function Attitude

210K views 194 replies 74 participants last post by  Crowbo 
#1 · (Edited)
The function descriptions in the stickies here are okay, but don't seem to go into a lot of depth or give many examples. I will attempt to improve them here. Sorry if any of this is repeated from stuff that's been posted before; I just tried to cover everything.


Jung observed two types of general cognition: Perception (taking in information) and Judgment (making decisions/evaluating it.)

He said that there are two styles of Perception: Sensing (which deals with immediate, concrete, tangible sensory impressions) and iNtuition (which deals with abstract patterns and relationships between things or ideas, and other non-tangible information.)

There are also two styles of Judgment: Thinking (which deals with impersonal logic and structure) and Feeling (which deals with personal/interpersonal ethics and morality.)

Furthermore, each of these four processes can be directed inwardly (introverted), which means it's conceptualized subjectively in terms of the self, or externally (extroverted), which means it's conceptualized objectively in terms of not-self.

Introverted attitudes view the outer world in terms of the self's subjective ideal, so they attempt to make the outer world more like the inner self. Their focus is deeper but less expansive--they can see all the implications of one idea at a time.

Extroverted attitudes view the inner world in terms of the non-self's objective ideal, so they attempt to make the inner self more like the outer world. Their focus is broader but more shallow--they can see a wide range of different information at once, but in less detail.


(For example, Ne can see the next few steps down many different paths at once, but Ni sees all the way to the end of one path at a time.)

So, we can derive two kinds of extroverted perception (Pe): Ne and Se (extroverted iNtuition/extroverted Sensing)

And two kinds of introverted perception (Pi): Ni and Si (introverted iNtuition/introverted Sensing)

And two kinds of extroverted judgment (Je): Te and Fe (extroverted Thinking/extroverted Feeling)

And two kinds of introverted judgment (Ji): Ti and Fi (introverted Thinking/introverted Feeling)

Each of these eight functions represents a complete worldview or attitude about life, the self, the outer world the relationship between them. As you learn you will start to see these value systems at work everywhere in everyone all the time, influencing all of their behaviors and ideas so profoundly that most people are entirely unaware of their own biases. As I said, think of them as lenses that color your perceptions/judgments to a far greater extent than you may even realize.

The E/I and P/J letters in Myers-Briggs types are not actually cognitive functions; they simply tell us which directions our functions (S/N and T/F) are oriented and which ones are dominant.

P/J tells us which of our two primary attitudes is extroverted, so if you are xxxP then you prefer Ne/Se with Ti/Fi; if you are xxxJ then you prefer Ni/Si with Te/Fe.

I/E tells us which of those two attitudes is dominant. If you are IxxP your Ti/Fi is dominant and your Ne/Se is secondary (ExxP is the reverse.) If you are IxxJ, your Ni/Si is dominant and Te/Fe is secondary (ExxJ is the reverse.)

So, for dominant/secondary attitudes:

Ne = xNxP
Se = xSxP
Ni = xNxJ
Si = xSxJ

Te = xxTJ
Fe = xxFJ
Ti = xxTP
Fi = xxFP

------------------------------

Now, on to the functional attitudes...first, the extroverted Perception (Pe) attitudes. These are dominant for ExxP types, secondary for IxxP, tertiary for ExxJ and inferior for IxxJ:

Ne, or extroverted iNtuition, is dominant for ENxP, secondary for INxP, tertiary for ESxJ and inferior for ISxJ. It is an outwardly exploratory attitude that encourages us to change, reinvent and experiment with the external world in order to find new and interesting combinations and patterns. Ne looks for novel outcomes and imagines how the things around you could be changed into other, more interesting things. Ne sees new information as part of a larger, emerging, as of yet unseen pattern that extends far beyond the self, and whose meaning will continue to change as the context grows and we discover more of the all-encompassing pattern. Rather than directly confront an issue, Ne will often broaden the context until the issue seems insignificant by comparison to the much bigger and more expansive ideas it imagines.

As with all extroverted functions, Ne needs to be validated by external/objective information to have meaning. So Ne users will often have many ideas very quickly but not know if they're good until they hear other people's reactions to them, or have a chance to experiment and see what happens. Ne wants very badly to be understood and appreciated by others. Note that Ne songwriters (e.g. Brandon Boyd, ENFP) will typically write enough context clues and such into their work that you can put the pieces together and infer what they were thinking when they wrote it. They want others to put the pieces together and get it.


Se, or extroverted Sensing,
is dominant for ESxP, secondary for ISxP, tertiary for ENxJ and inferior for INxJ. It is the attitude that what is directly apparent in our immediate physical surroundings is the most important thing to go by. Se leads you to follow your gut instincts, pay very close attention to what's going on around you, and respond to things in the moment in whatever way will make the strongest and most immediate guttural, sensory impact on others. Se users are so present-focused that they're often on the cutting edge of new trends because they place so much emphasis on what is current and new. They like to learn things via a hands-on, figure-it-out-by-experimenting-as-you-go, direct experiential approach (in this way they are similar to Ne) but they are more focused on what is immediately tangible than on what their surroundings might be changed into. They usually pay a lot of attention to their physical appearance and are very good with reading body language and using it to immediately size up a person or a situation and respond instinctively. They can be quite impulsive and prone to overindulgence in sensory pleasures, but they also know how to work a crowd and they tend to make themselves into reflections of current popular trends--whatever will make an impact.

Se is the opposite of Ni because it intentionally focuses on the literal surface meaning of exactly what is going on right in front of you right now, whereas Ni tries to ignore that and see the hidden meaning in what is not directly apparent.

---------------------------

Next, the introverted Perception (Pi) attitudes. These are dominant for IxxJ types, secondary for ExxJ, tertiary for IxxP and inferior for ExxP:

Ni, or introverted iNtuition, is dominant for INxJ, secondary for ENxJ, tertiary for ISxP and inferior for ESxP. It is an inward sense of abstract perceptual shift. Rather than imagine different ways we could change the outside world, Ni acknowledges many different ways we could change the subjective meaning of things to ourselves by looking at them from different angles. Rather than directly confront an issue, Ni will often solve problems by simply looking at them from a different angle. Doing a bunch of community service sucks? Just think of it as an opportunity to get lots of exercise! Note that Ni doesn't think about how to change the outer world the way Ne does; it only thinks about how to change *the way we interpret* the outer world. Ni leads you to try and see "through the smoke and mirrors" to what is REALLY going on below the surface, that other people are not perceptive enough to pick up on...so in its unhealthy form, it turns into conspiracy theories, a la Dale Gribble from King of the Hill.

Strong Ni users like being the person behind the scenes who pulls all the strings (even better if most people don't even realize it) and understands the dynamics of everything on a deeper level than everyone else. They are threatened by the idea that there might be any perspective or angle they cannot see, and as such they sometimes overestimate their own ability to fully grasp and work around the attitudes of others.

As with all introverted functions, Ni doesn't pay attention to external conditions outside the self so it doesn't care if anyone else grasps the ideas the same way the Ni user does. To Ni, I get the significance and that's all that matters. Ni songwriters (e.g. Thom Yorke, INFJ) will often write lyrics that could not possibly make any sense to other people without a direct explanation from the writer, but they don't really care because Ni considers intuition such a personal thing that it can't make its perspective/ideas clear to others very easily at all, and frequently doesn't even bother trying.

For another example, Isaac Newton (INTJ) invented calculus and didn't bother telling anyone about it for 20 years. Ne would have been out showing the idea to others and changing it based on their reactions--but not Ni!

As a result Ne is typically much better at putting its abstract ideas into terms that others will understand than Ni.

On a side note: Ni appreciates definitional freedom (and thus is often annoyed by Ti) in the same way Ne appreciates freedom to change its plan of action abruptly (and thus is often annoyed by Te.) Ti users will tend to frame debates by first assigning precise definitions to terms, but Ni often objects to this by wondering: "How are we unconsciously limiting our understanding by assigning such rigid definitions in the first place?" Ni always seeks to escape the unconscious assumptions that limit its understanding of as many different conceptual viewpoints as possible.


Si, or introverted Sensing, is dominant for ISxJ, secondary for ESxJ, tertiary for INxP and inferior for ENxP. It's related to Se in that it deals with sensory experience, but rather than constantly scan for everything about what's going on now, it relies on internalizing those experiences into an extremely detailed internal map of highly vivid *memories* of those past sensory experiences. This dependence on reliving past experience and using it as a guide for the present leads to an extremely good memory for detail, and a general attitude that going with what we know for sure from having experienced it before is usually best.

Si is the opposite of Ne because rather than relate new information to some larger external, constantly changing pattern, it tries to relate all new information to something it already knows, some sensory data that it's absorbed from its past experiences. This leads to the classic Ne vs. Si battle: Ne wants to try something new just for the sake of doing something different and finding something interesting; Si wants to stick to what we've done before because its vivid memories of direct experience allow us to relate the new information to that past information we've already absorbed.

It's a common misconception that Si users are traditionalists on principle. In my experience, many older Si users (xSxJ types have Si as dom/secondary) are traditionalists because the only source of information they had was their parents and the traditions they were raised with, but these days many younger SJs are much less traditionalist in nature because information is so much more freely available than it was just a few generations ago. Si is not into tradition just for the sake of tradition; it just likes to relate new information to something it already knows. Rules and traditions can be a convenient way to do this, but it's a mistake to believe that Si always leads to traditionalism for its own sake.

Si also does some really cool stuff like perfect pitch...I have one ISFJ friend (Si dominant) who can tap into his past sensations of what a particular note sounded like and use it to identify some note he hears now as a G#. That's amazing to me...as an Ne dom I only understand notes in terms of their relationship to other notes in a larger pattern; Josh just taps right into his detailed sensory memory and can identify the note by remembering what it sounded like before, on its own.

Si doms like to collect objects and facts that evoke pleasurable memories from the past. An Si who's into history will collect books, photos, stamps, etc...an Si who's into music will collect instruments, sheet music, photos of concerts, and so on. Many Si types love scrapbooking because looking back at those old photos evokes those powerful, highly detailed sensory experiences from the past.

On a more morbid note, Dexter (from the TV series "Dexter") is probably ISTJ. He collects blood slides because they evoke the detailed memories of his most enjoyable murder experiences from the past. =/

-----------------------------

Next, the extroverted Judgment (Je) attitudes. These are dominant for ExxJ types, secondary for IxxJ, tertiary for ExxP and inferior for IxxP:

Te, or extroverted Thinking, is dominant for ExTJ, secondary for IxTJ, tertiary for ExFP and inferior for IxFP.

It's an attitude that encourages an external, objective standard when dealing with logic, impersonal facts and ideas. Te, when arguing, will tend to cite appeals to authority and other widely accepted, externally focused evidence; i.e., citing books or prominent authors/studies, or any widely accepted consensus among the external world of people who study the topic in question. "The experts all agree that this is the case" is a very Te-oriented argument, because it relies on external standards and context for its evaluation of logical decisions.

For this reason Te people will usually insist on seeing quantifiable, repeatedly demonstrable, empirical evidence before accepting anything. If you can't put it in a test tube, measure it and repeat these results any time for all to see, it's not valid. The scientific method is extremely Te-oriented. From the Te perspective, there is no such thing as logic without this sort of externalized validity, because impersonal ideas are to be shared and agreed upon by large groups instead of individuals (the same way Fe treats ethics) and determined by objective consensus. Te users tend to find Ti selfish and unyielding in its insistence on fitting things into its own personal logical framework before accepting them, rather than taking widely accepted external evidence or consensus seriously.

Strong Te users are efficiency experts. They are typically very good at translating a theoretical idea into a fluid, external process that gets effective, measurable results that can be repeated and verified on schedule. They usually do very well in management positions that allow them to focus on process over theory in order to maximize efficiency and bring about the desired goal while expending the smallest possible amount of resources (especially time.)


Fe, or extroverted Feeling is dominant for ExFJ, secondary for IxFJ, tertiary for ExTP and inferior for IxTP. It is an attitude that encourages adherence to the ethics of the cultural/social/familial groups we feel emotionally connected to. Fe leads you to derive your moral viewpoints from some sort of externalized consensus. This doesn't mean you automatically fall in line with whatever moral viewpoints happen to surround you, just that (unlike the accompanying Ti view on logic as something you don't need external input to understand) you don't see how ethics can be decided reasonably without some sort of external context. (Fe views ethics as dependent upon collective consensus in the same way Te views logic/impersonal ideas.)

Fe leads people to adjust, hide or set aside entirely their own emotions in favor of fitting the emotional needs of the broader groups that are important to them. This leads to a certain respect for the common consensus among those important groups regarding interpersonal behavior and treatment of others. If you were to criticize someone's behavior from an Fe standpoint, it would be from the standpoint of, "Your behavior is inconsistent with the group's standards--most people would consider it wrong or inappropriate." Fe appeals to the collective morality of the whole; the fact that "most people would agree" serves as externally objective evidence to support Fe's moral standpoints.

People with strong Fe are typically good at saying just the right thing that fits in with the moral expectations of the audience. For this reason Fe tends to make great politicans because strong Fe users often make outstanding, charismatic public speakers who can play off the emotions of others to rally groups toward the desired cause. They are excellent at organizing, leading and delegating tasks to others with an interpersonal style that gets the job done while still appearing socially appropriate and respecting the emotional needs of others (so long as those needs are reasonable within the group's objective framework of ethics.) They understand how to perform the social/cultural responsibilities expected of them and they expect others to do the same, and if you're not fulfilling these responsibilities they're very good at appealing to the crowd to deliberately make you look like an asshole in front of everyone. ("Look everyone, this guy doesn't fit with our collective moral ideals!")

Fe considers it paramount to show overt displays of loyalty to the people in the groups it feels connected to, which includes helping out friends/family whenever possible and receiving similar displays of loyalty in return. (If these displays are not reciprocated Fe may take this as a sign that the other person is not loyal.) Fe tends to see Fi users as selfish for refusing to adapt their feelings to the feelings of others in service of the good of the larger group, and for ignoring objective standards on ethics in favor of purely personal ones.

The whole idea behind Ms. Manners is very Fe--Fi would wonder why anyone cares about any external consensus on ethics, because to Fi ethics are purely subjective. Fe is concerned with adjusting to the ethical standards as established objectively by the groups it feels are important.

-------------------------

And finally, the introverted Judgment (Ji) attitudes. These are dominant for IxxP types, secondary for ExxP, tertiary for IxxJ and inferior for ExxJ:

Ti, or introverted Thinking, is dominant for IxTP, secondary for ExTP, tertiary for IxFJ and inferior for ExFJ.

It's an attitude that encourages subjective logical decision-making based on our personal and directly experiential ideas of what fits into an impersonal logic framework and what doesn't. When it comes to logic/impersonal ideas, Ti reasons, external consensus can go to hell because it might very well be wrong, no matter how many people believe it or how many experts claim to know the truth. Ti seeks truth for its own sake; it wants to understand the relationships that force frameworks of information to fit together into cohesive wholes. Ti is focused on the blueprint, the design, the idea--while Te is focused on the application of that idea into an objectively measurable process. Externally measurable application is not nearly as important to Ti as internal structural integrity and logical consistency with itself.

Ti appreciates structural symmetry, balance, and the beauty of symmetrical models that elegantly explain and organize real world phenomena (perceived by Ne or Se) into neatly arranged categories. Ti people are usually very good with pure logic in a vacuum, as Ti simply "knows" inherently what is logical and what is not, and will defend this sense of logic to the death just to prove a point. Te people, on the other hand, are more concerned with what tangible USE can come from an argument--which is often none. This is why INTPs will argue hypotheticals all day but INTJs will rarely bother trying to convince you. For the INTJ, Te simply doesn't see what useful goal would be served by trying to change your opinion.

Ti: What logical relationships necessitate this system working the way it does, and how can I make them make sense to me?

Te: What externally verifiable, quantifiable evidence can we show that this is logical, and what tangible goal can be served by spending our time on it?

Another good example is music theory...when I learned chord theory I naturally wanted to learn the rules of how chords fit together so that I'd understand the entire system holistically and could theoretically figure out any chord. Ti likes to figure out entire systems just for the sake of getting a glimpse of complete truth ("I want to play guitar, so I will learn the system of rules for how chords are built so I understand the whole thing at once"), whereas Te is much more goal-oriented and always wants to know how this system can be applied to something externally useful or used to accomplish our predetermined goals...so Te would be more inclined to first figure out what the goal is ("What do I plan to use my guitar playing for?") and then learn only what's necessary to complete that goal. ("I want to learn 'Freebird', so I will learn the chords and techniques necessary to play that song.")

Te takes a step by step, sequential and linear approach based on which steps are needed to complete its goals, while Ti tries to understand the entire system as one big unit simply because it's interesting and stimulating.

I borrowed the following baseball analogy from Lenore Thomson, because it works so well:

So let's say you're playing baseball. Te would tell us that if the runner doesn't reach the base before the ball gets there, he's out--period. That's objectively verifiable and can be shown logically, through external empirical evidence/consensus of experts that it is always the case, and it can be quantified and measured precisely without any personal emotions getting involved. (You can see why so many TJs are research scientists, especially NTJs.)

But Te won't do us any good when we're the runner trying to decide whether to steal 2nd base or wait for another hit. The situational logic in this case is subjective Ti because it requires us to reason out what makes sense at the moment according to our direct experience--the logic at play here cannot be precisely quantified in an externally verifiable manner.


Fi, or introverted Feeling,
is dominant for IxFP, secondary for ExFP, tertiary for IxTJ and inferior for ExTJ. Unlike Fe, Fi leads you to draw ethics purely from an internal, subjective source and finds Fe's collective approach to morality shallow and fake. Since ethics are purely a personal ideal in Fi's view, all personal feelings are sacred and allowing any outside views to affect them is patently unethical. Fi treats ethics in the same way Ti treats logic, in that it's something that requires no external context to understand and that should not be influenced or changed by any outside forces.

The ability to express one's personal feelings and inner self freely and maintain a strong sense of personal uniqueness and individuality is of utmost importance to Fi. (It's also important to Ti, but for different reasons and in different contexts.) I have found that many Fi users dislike typology in general because they feel that "putting people into boxes" suppresses their sense of personal identity, and that people are too unique to be categorized so easily.

Fi people are typically very good at picking up emotional vibes in the tone of voice and word choice of others. They often know what you're feeling even better than you do because they're aware of the subtle effects that different emotional states have on our behaviors and can pick up cues about how you're feeling that you didn't even intend to give off. For this reason strong Fi users are profoundly empathetic and tend to understand and identify with basic human needs on a profound level. If you were to criticize someone's behavior from an Fi standpoint, it would be in the form of, "What you are doing is hurting my feelings/violating my ethics/preventing me from fulfilling my basic human needs." Strong Fi users often feel a certain connection to the beauty of nature, animals, and life itself, simply "knowing" deep inside themselves that life is sacred and all individuals possess inherent value.

A mature Fi user is extremely in tune with the emotional needs of others and very supportive of and responsive to them. An immature Fi user is overly preoccupied with his own emotional needs and will act passive aggressively toward people who don't bend over backwards to cater to how he feels. Note that both Fe and Fi users often feel a strong sense of moral obligation to their loved ones; the difference is simply the source of this obligation. If it comes from an external/objective cultural standard, it's probably Fe--if it comes from a personal sense of moral responsibility that deliberately blocks out external influence, it's probably Fi.

Fi doms are ethical perfectionists in the same way Ti doms are logical perfectionists. They seek a sense of internal balance and harmony with their surroundings that feels right in their own individual way. Note that introverted judgment (Ti/Fi) seeks depth and specificity while extroverted judgment (Te/Fe) seeks broad applicability. Ti wants to define exactly what is logically correct under an extremely specific set of circumstances that may never happen in the real world, while Te seeks widely applicable objective consensus that can apply in many different situations. Fi seeks to determine precisely what the user feels is morally right regardless of external application, while Fe seeks widely applicable, generalized ethical rules that can serve to govern entire groups. Ti/Fe = I think/We feel; Fi/Te = I feel/We think.
 
See less See more
#88 ·
Really good post and I like the fact you try to steer MBTI back to Jung's teachings (a bit of Jungian myself) but even after having read all the different attitudes, I still cannot decide what am I. I think I can safely admit I am an xNxP but from then on it's just chaos to me. Most tests (for whatever they mean) are quite consistent in reporting the N and P in me (N with a low grade) but the rest preferences are quite fluid.

Ne,Ni,Te,Ti,Fe,Fi all seem good to me and struggle to decide what i prefer, if I prefer anything. Maybe I fall under your dominant/tertiary loop theory..

Bottom line is that all that made me very skeptical about MBTI and I'd rather go and read Jung, who I don't think had MBTI in mind when writing about psychological types.
 
#89 ·
lol you're right--he certainly didn't, because his work predates MBTI by several decades and MBTI was based directly on his ideas in the first place (albeit bastardized and oversimplified in the process.)

I can try to take a guess at your type if you write me a few paragraphs describing the state of your life, your career path, hobbies, family life, most important values, what you want out of life/your goals and aspirations, what would make you the happiest, what bothers you most, etc. etc.
 
#90 ·
The function descriptions in the stickies here are okay, but don't seem to go into a lot of depth or give many examples. I will attempt to improve them here. Sorry if any of this is repeated from stuff that's been posted before; I just tried to cover everything.

WOW. What an illuminating, well written, thoughtful, and most likely accurate account. Well done! This is the best explanation I've come across.

Thank you for taking the time to put it together and share it with us. :happy:
 
#109 ·
My whole notion of the brain hemishperes is from Lenore Thomson, and checking her book (p.72), she lists:

Left side of th brain (J)

reductive and analytic
symbolic
temporal
proceeds one step at a time
little appreciation of tone
specializes in language skills
controls speech

Right side of brain (P)

synthesizing and insightful
imaginal
unaware of time limits
perceives all at once
evaluates intonation
specializes in musical and artistic skills
controls spatially related activities

Notice, stuff like "analytic" and thsi she's attributing to J vs P. In fact a few of those sound like things that are attributed to T/F at times. So that may be where some of the dispute lies.
(And in the temperament/Interaction Styles model, T/F and J/P actually do share similar roles in an alternatig fashion).
 
#110 ·
Haha, then I made myself a bit of an ass asking you not to spread conjectures that already have been spread.
Still, that doesn't change my arguments. I guess I should read Thomson's book before I say anything else, but for the moment, I disagree with her. That listing you posted doesn't make much sense to me, and doesn't conform with my experiences (for example, speech and language skills are given rise to by J functions? Pff, I'm an INTP and I'm focused on language. Me and countless other INTPs. And the list of incongruencies goes on, concerning that listing of Thomson's).
These comments of mine tie into a larger context: all the good and helpful aspects of typology notwithstanding, I am a strong proponent of not taking typology further than it goes. And this seems to me to be doing just that. Another example: I've seen a thread here where someone was wondering whether they're sociopathic, and then a bunch of people took that thought apart typologically, which is totally ludicrous, since almost totally different effects are at play when it comes to sociopathy. Not that I blame the people in that thread, of course. If all you have is a hammer, then it's natural for everything to look like a nail. If all you have is typology, then ... you get my point.

But that's basically all from me. I'm not out to convince anyone that this function/hemisphere model is wrong. I just want to show that there's at least one person who disagrees, and that a (hopefully) valid point can be made against it.
 
#111 ·
I guess the question is where each claim is coming from. i take it, the claim you're going by is the more "mainstream" neurological science, right?
Well, they're not mapping the hemispheres to type codes or Jungian functions. They're just using general terms such as "logic", etc. Those aren't necessarily tied to "T/F". Some of it might be more like J/P, which will then point to opposite judgment or perception attitudes. (Such as Ni being called "analytical", or "deep thinking", etc.)

Also, that speech and language might be controlled by the left brain doesn't mean P's won't have access to it.

I'm not that familiar to the mainstream theory, but I see it all as just theory that is subject to different explanations.
 
#114 ·
@Vel and @ Simulatedworld.

Sorry for answering to your posts after long time, but I've disconnected from the majority of my Inet activities due to external issues not under my control, and probably will not actively participate still for a while.

Anyway, I recognize that both of you are basically right. My propositions started with a particular (therefore subjective) concept of what objectivity is and implies. Starting with an invalid (or incomplete, too polarized, etc) concept, all deductions generated with it are not... very useful.

Well, this experience could help me to answer my eternal doubt about my wing in my E5 core. Sometimes I tend to overestimate some concepts or ideas, what fits more a 5w4 behavior (one of whose nicknames is "rational idealist", if this oxymoron makes any sense) than a 5w6 behavior (aka "the problem solver").
 
#116 ·
As an INFJ, I seem to use Fe a lot in my relationships with other people; I always try to make other people feel better, to be conscious of others' feelings, etc. But I don't think that Fe is "morality defined by the group". I have my own system of morals, but I catch myself often trying to get others to follow my system. I frequently like to write books/songs/etc (Fi?). Is it likely for an INFJ to have an equally developed Fi as Fe? I definitely use Ni, Ti, and lack Se, but I seem to be equally balanced in Fe and Fi.
 
#117 ·
I love my Ni. It keeps me skeptic, which in turn allows me to win or succeed in life by being mentally flexible. And because my methods are intangible, nobody expects it.

My ideas are like assassins. They slip in unnoticed and stab me in the brain. Except by stab I mean show me the path to transcendence. And by brain I mean... brain.
 
#120 ·
You're I with strong N + T + J. Both match up, and the N and T are so strong that both attitudes of each follow each other. On these function tests, they don't have to line up NiTeFiSe... I don't see anyone for whom it does. The way type was originally constructed, is the way your results came out.
 
#123 ·
Excellent descriptions but I still don't have a clue over whether I use Fe or Fi! I seem to use both equally. My dislike of societal values seems to make me an Fi (I wouldn't do or think anything just because others did - my autonomy is very important to me and I feel that people violate themselves when they change themselves to fit in). However, I spend a lot of time calling people selfish (not in front of them!) for not putting the needs of others before their own (which seems to be somehow naturally moral to me, though obviously there's no real objective "good" or "bad"). As far as I can tell, the need for others to feel good about themselves way overthrows any need for me to be able to express myself, so I assume I'm using Fe. In many other ways, I fit the INFJ type better than the INFP type. But I'm still not totally convicted on this. My much harder exterior and direction appears to make me an INFJ. I can't deal with any form or emotion for emotion's sake or expressiveness for expressiveness' sake and for a long time I thought I was a T for my general dislike of the saccharine, but eventually I had to concede that, however much I hate it, I am led by my heart rather than logic. Don't know. Just can't decide!
 
#124 ·
@ukinfj, I just went through this myself. I had a recent type identity crisis in which I wondered if I was really INFJ. @Nymma helped me with understanding Fi and Fe. Here's her explanation:

http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/55120-what-heck-am-i-2.html#post1357313

I found it very helpful. Once I decided I was a Fi user, my true type was clear. Type descriptions are only a starting point, imo. You really need to spend time examining the cog functions and looking for their manifestations in your life.
 
#125 ·
Cheers. Looks like i'm Fe, since that appears to be my natural preference, even if I don't necessarily always use it. While it's always been incredibly important for me to be myself and not be influenced by peer pressure (in shallow ways - clothes, tastes, traditional female roles, grooming etc), I would never do anything for me that could even have the possibility of hurting another. For instance, I'd find it hard to not attend work so that I could go to an interview for a job I wanted because I'd worry about burdening the people in the office with my load. I'd still do it but it would make me very anxious. I can't stand the idea of being a worry/burden/getting in people's way and my most hated phrase is "I have to look after myself right now". I feel like I have a strong identity and don't follow traditional rules, having created my own moral system (although this is generally tougher and stricter than the accepted one), but others come first and I'll let my values go if needs be. Even if I don't step on others' toes when they break my moral code, I'm going to be angry at them about it! If I think a friend has acted selfishly, I'll continue to support them without condoning their actions, because it's not my right to scold people who aren't my children or interfere in anyone else's business - that's part of my moral code - but it'll keep me awake at night!
 
#126 ·
After reading this, I'm starting think I'm more INTJ. Ni seems closer to home than Ne.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tophthetomboy
#127 ·
@ukinfj

Quote:
'' One possibility is that Lenore characterizes Introverted Intuition in terms of an attitude of relativity of perspectives, especially the attitude of granting the validity of multiple, incompatible viewpoints without accepting any of them. So perhaps she is distinguishing between Introverted Thinking as leading you to give priority to a perspective derived from first-hand experience and Introverted Intuition as leading you see things at a second-hand remove, through the intermediary of representations each of which reflects only a part of the whole. That, in turn, raises the broader question of why so many people who test INTJ seem obsessed with rendering judgements from an independent perspective. And of course bemoaning the existence of power and power structures that keep people down, especially by setting up a cultural language that encourages some people to see themselves as inferior to others, seems to be an especially common pastime of people who test INFJ.
Wouldn't a great deal of INFJ rhetoric be well characterized as follows? (1) an Ni attitude of seeing biases from an attitude that earnestly attempts to be independent or unbiased, (2) an Fe emphasis on self-definition through social relationship and obligation created by a social contract that you did not originate but that still binds you, (3) a radically Ti perspective of trying to point out (give people first-hand knowledge of) patterns that suggest that the social contract really works in a way inconsistent with our social fictions, and (4) a loathing of Se attitudes that people are to be defined by surface appearances combined with an obsession with the power of surface appearances.''


source : Louis Farrakhan

So i guess that Fe, combined with other functions, isn't necessarly linked to follow the social rules.
 
#128 · (Edited)
As you all may know, I had been having a debate here with Naama, over the eight function model versus a four function model where opposite tandem mates combine to form "fabrications" of apparent "shadow" functions (i.e. reversed in attitude from the primary four).
This led to a discussion of Jung's concept of "abstraction", which was actually associated with introversion rather than intuition, as it is commonly used! Likewise, "empathy" is associated with all extraversion, not just Fe.

Abstraction Lexicon of Jungian Terms | New York Association for Analytical Psychology
A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. [paraphrase: taking out what doesn't make sense to the functional perspective] Therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object.

Empathy Lexicon of Jungian Terms | New York Association for Analytical Psychology
An introjection of the object, based on the unconscious projection of subjective contents. Empathy presupposes a subjective attitude of confidence, or trustfulness towards the object. It is a readiness to meet the object halfway. The man with the empathetic attitude finds himself in a world that needs his subjective feeling to give it life and soul. He animates it with himself.

I had already heard about this meaning of "abstraction" from Lenore, and just hadn't come to the point of integrating this way of looking at it into my understanding and exposition of the theory yet.
It seems to be a more deeply technical way of expressing i/e that might take time to digest (as it gets into so many other concepts that aren't as widely used in hobbyist discussions), but can help further clarify what exactly the differences between function attitudes are.

I still maintain the attitudes independently from the four functions, so that a person differentiates a dominant function, in a dominant attitude, and suppresses everything else, so that the other, undifferentiated functions "collect" in the opposite attitude, and the initial exception to this is the Puer complex which reorients the tertiary to the dominant attitude.
The "shadows" then consist of negative versions of the first four complexes, which then reorient the four functions into the opposite attitudes from the primary assignments, generating eight "function-attitudes" connected to eight archetypal complexes.

Under this definition:
Se: merges with the tangible environment
Si: frees tangible environment from association with irrelevant elements. (By storing pertinent facts
Ne: merges with conceptual content (ego introjects self-visualized possibilities into environment)
Ni: frees conceptual content from association with irrelevant elements (zeroes in on most likely possibilities).
Te: merges with technical aspect of situations (ego's goals are logical efficiency)
Ti: frees technical content from its association with irrelevant elements (by focusing on particular frameworks).
Fe: merges with humane environments
Fi: frees humane content from association with irrelevant elements (by focusing on internal universal values).

So I've been trying it out on myself. Here's how it appears to work with the "spine" tandems:

Ti: free technical content from its association with irrelevant elements. Value is transferred from the object to the now subjective content (internalized "impersonal" frameworks)

This is unconsciously compensated by:
Fe: humane content is then entrusted to the object (A subjective attitude of trust is then introjected into other people or social values).

Introverts make this transfer from the object to the subject. Their inner world is what they prefer, and the outer world is where they are less confident. So the dominant function with which they are most confident is introverted, and the inferior function is extraverted. This makes a lot of sense, naturally.

I then wondered why extraverts make the transfer from the subject to the object. Why would they not want to favor their own subjective realm?
I find that it seems to tie into concepts such as "identification" and "participation mystique" (Definitions available on Jung Lexicon). These involve the merging of the subject with the object. To them the object is what they identify with. And as the quote says, his subjective feeling is simply what he uses to give the outer world life.
So then, the inner world in its own right is the untrusted realm.

So while their ego entrusts the object with their preferred functional content, it is the internal world that is suppressed, and used to collect the other functions (again, until the Puer reorients the tertiary to the external) The inferior complex maintains the internal orientation, of course.

So now, to do the opposite Thinking dominant types:

ETJ:
Te: technical content is confided to the object, which the ego identifies with (most likely whatever is being organized, or an objective, agreed upon standard).

Fi: humane content is dissociated from object, (stripped of irrelevant elements). Value is transferred from the object to the now subjective content (internalized "personal" frameworks)

ITP shadow:
Te as OP: transfers value back to the object, in order to back up subjective content (e.g. shows how internally recognized frameworks are proven by external efficiency).

Fi as right-brain "Crow's Nest": Switches subjective content from technical to humane, when a technical perspective doesn't solve the problem.
As Demon: withdraws humane confidence entrusted in object (group standards) back into the subject. (Very negative, reactive process in which extreme vulnerability in interpersonal relations feels taken advantage of, and is compensated by a subjective counter-content that aims to destroy the threat).

ETJ shadow:
Ti as OP: transfers value from to subject, eliminating irrelevant elements, to back up objective content (e.g. shows how external efficiency is supported by internally held universal principles).

Fe as left brain "Crow's Nest": switches objective content from technical to humane, when a technical perspective doesn't solve the problem.
As Demon: formerly subjective humane content is now introjected into the object (reactive process in which extreme vulnerability in internal integrity feels taken advantage of, and is compensated by a subjective counter-content that aims to destroy the threat).

(Hope I'm understanding "content" and "object" right).

The other way the functions are said to work:
Fe sees the value, Ti abstracts the values away that doesnt compute.

I believe it does work like this as well. This would be the more normal situation, while the Crow's Nests and shadows are for the more stressful situations where Ti and Fe are not able to solve the problem, or are threatened by the situation.
 
#130 ·
Ni, or introverted iNtuition.

It is an inward sense of abstract perceptual shift. Rather than imagine different ways we could change the outside world, Ni acknowledges many different ways we could change the subjective meaning of things to ourselves by looking at them from different angles.

Ni always seeks to escape the unconscious assumptions that limit its understanding of as many different conceptual viewpoints as possible.
Dead on! People should keep this in mind when they call INTJ's "rigid". Present us with new and useful information, we will thank you!

I also really enjoyed the Ti/Te distinction in the OP. Excellent! It really emphasizes the key points and explains most of the misunderstandings between INTP's and INTJ's.

The Fi/Fe distinction seems a bit biased, but I'll let Fe-users have their say on that one.
 
#131 ·
Thanks for this post. Reading through it, I agree with the statements held within that correspond to my MBTI type, ISFP. I've taken the Cognitive Function quiz twice and not been satisfied with the results.
These are my latest results:

Your Cognitive Functions:
Extroverted Sensation (Se) |||||||||||||||| 7.17
Introverted Sensation (Si) ||||||||||||||| 6.7
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) |||||||||||| 5.14
Extroverted Thinking (Te) |||||||||||| 5.12
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) ||||||||| 3.96
Introverted Thinking (Ti) ||||||| 2.86
Introverted Feeling (Fi) ||||| 1.94
Introverted Intuition (Ni) |||| 1.44


I feel that some of the questions are not worded all that well. I had a hard time understanding certain questions and knowing how to respond because they used words in ways that, for me, needed to be unpacked.
 
#132 ·
Dropping random thought here

At the extremes, S and N are easy to see the difference between, however

what about when the boundaries get close

what about when we write our thoughts down on the wall, and we begin shuffling them physically?

what about when we visualize a dancing partner and go through the movements

or what about when we are simply looking at art, and letting our thoughts flow freely

we may have a hundred thoughts looking at a painting

some will be more concrete based and some more abstract

honestly, there is no actual definition of such that holds water, since "everything is filtered through the mind" (Berkeley)

but, the general definition has to do with something berkeley referred to as properties, of course it might have been locke actually, i can check

anyway, basically there are primary and secondary properties, later he discusses something that is akin to a tertiary property

primary properties are things like solidity as in your hand wont pass through it (even though we are all made up of atoms making it almost an arbitrary albeit functional way to categorize our priorities)

secondary properities are like taste, as in, our reaction to some primary quality

tertiary i think is something about thinking

anyway, the closer to primary qualities the more concrete and S it is

We can stare at an object, or we can pick up many objects and juggle them.

We can focus on one part of ourself, or we can juggle many aspects of our self.

more S------------------less S--less N--------------------More N
juggling objects-------visualizing jugglinn objects--------juggling ideas

of course, we dont always have the idea, and we are sort of "searching for ideas"

picture a triangle, in which each point holds an object that could be juggled

now take out the object, and there is a hole

so we can also juggle not only objects, but holes of objects (objects representing thoughts here)

um, im sure there is a better word

thoughts of relation not yet discovered or something

kind of like, juggling red and yellow, but not quite grasping orange

searching our past memories, searching all our possible value and knowledge systems, searching the environment around us

.
Ne, sure as heck isnt just emergent possibilities, because we simply might be enjoying the exercise of juggling what has already been uncovered, but okay fine i admit most of the time it certainly is trying to synthesize something (find some object to juggle not yet found)

Ni this is the same thing, except it relates to the parts we consider our "self" right, which is interesting, because if a Ni user considers the world as part of themself, then their Ni will equal Ne or vice versa.
 
#135 ·
This answer is probably not going to do your post justice, as I currently lack the time to check out all the ideas you mention properly, but it may add a thought or two that is helpful to the discussion.

At the extremes, S and N are easy to see the difference between, however
what about when the boundaries get close
Here's an attempt: People with an S preference basically have the potential to understand (almost?) all ideas that people with an N preference can. At first, the only limitation when it comes to understanding ideas and concepts, for both Sensors and iNtuitors alike, is that they have to be smart enough to process the given idea. The difference is, that when encountering an idea (whether it is another person's or one's one) the Sensing person will most probably want to search for the consequences that this idea has for the concrete world (I'm gonna count, for example, the balance on one's bank account to the concrete world; there's gotta be a thread on this topic somewhere, right? :) ), while the iNtuiting person is more likely to accept the idea for its own purpose, if you will, or be more willing to delay the search for the consequences of the idea/concept on concrete things, or be interested in the consequences the idea has on the world of ideas.
Is it fair to say that Sensors have a tendency to feel that ideas should serve the concrete, while iNtuitors have the tendency to want to shape the concrete so that it adheres more closely to concepts? Or even feel that concepts are more real/more legitimate than the concrete; see that old physics joke which goes something like: physicist: "My equations are correct, and if the experiment yields different results, it's reality which is flawed".

more S------------------less S--less N--------------------More N
juggling objects-------visualizing jugglinn objects--------juggling ideas
While iNtuitors are probably going to spend more time in the world of their imagination, I think you shouldn't assume that imagination/visualization is more close to iNtuition than concrete actions are. I read this book, "The Einstein Factor", which says that probably everyone (well, probably everyone who didn't go blind too early in life) has a constant stream of images in their mind during waking hours. This is readily observed in children, and as we grow older, we learn to suppress this stream of images in order to concentrate on the tasks at hand (actually he says that the school training we receive makes many people actually repress their stream entirely, and that using techniques which he recommends for getting back in touch with your image stream verifiably makes you smarter). Actually, on one typology website I've seen "voracious reading" listed as an activity associated with Se.

Actually, it just occurs to me that in this discussion, it's important to keep in mind what simulatedworld has been stressing in this thread: that the Jungian functions are best thought of, not as activities or brain functions, but as attitudes. See the wording in the last sentence of my above paragraph: "an activity associated with Se". It's taken me a while to digest this, the natural tendency of people who learn about Jungian typology seems to be to think of the functions as abilities or activites; even after reading what sim has been writing here it didn't quite dawn on me, but now I believe I finally get it.
 
#134 ·
Everyone uses intuition and sensing.

The axis isn't so much
S-----------N

More like
Se---------Ni
Ne---------Si

Where an individual slides around on that axis.
Why did you stagger them?

My purpose was to say that the less S you are being, the more N you are being.

In your graph, the less Se you are being, the more Ni you are being, and that isn't true.

However, if your point is that they are opposites on the P side, then yes the graph is accurate, but that wasnt the point i was making, hence the different scale.
 
#142 ·
Te, or extroverted Thinking, is dominant for ExTJ, secondary for IxTJ, tertiary for ExFP and inferior for IxFP.

It's an attitude that encourages an external, objective standard when dealing with logic, impersonal facts and ideas. Te, when arguing, will tend to cite appeals to authority and other widely accepted, externally focused evidence; i.e., citing books or prominent authors/studies, or any widely accepted consensus among the external world of people who study the topic in question. "The experts all agree that this is the case" is a very Te-oriented argument, because it relies on external standards and context for its evaluation of logical decisions.

For this reason Te people will usually insist on seeing quantifiable, repeatedly demonstrable, empirical evidence before accepting anything. If you can't put it in a test tube, measure it and repeat these results any time for all to see, it's not valid. The scientific method is extremely Te-oriented. From the Te perspective, there is no such thing as logic without this sort of externalized validity, because impersonal ideas are to be shared and agreed upon by large groups instead of individuals (the same way Fe treats ethics) and determined by objective consensus. Te users tend to find Ti selfish and unyielding in its insistence on fitting things into its own personal logical framework before accepting them, rather than taking widely accepted external evidence or consensus seriously.

Strong Te users are efficiency experts. They are typically very good at translating a theoretical idea into a fluid, external process that gets effective, measurable results that can be repeated and verified on schedule. They usually do very well in management positions that allow them to focus on process over theory in order to maximize efficiency and bring about the desired goal while expending the smallest possible amount of resources (especially time.)
No. Te standing alone is not prone to accepting or using appeals to authority. If any specific function is prone to this, it is not Te, but Fe. Appeals to authority uses a social structure to reinforce an argument: "This is a person of certain social status, and s/he thinks this is the case". Social structure as a point of navigation is connected to Fe use.

What Te needs in order to function is repeatable external measurement, or simply evidence. Not validation from the mouths of measly apes. I understand the beauty and symmetry that would result from making these functions mirror each other in this way, but this does not make it true.

Te builds theories based on things it can prove to be true by experiment, measurement and observation. What makes this different from Ti is that Ti often produces purely hypothetical scenarios and constructs that can not be tested in any way. A good example of a Ti/Fe construct is the ethical system. A Te user would not accept a system of ethics as objectively true, because you can't take a kilogram of "rightness" and put it in a test tube for all to see. A Ti user, however, could accept an ethical system as true on the basis of logical consistency, even without anchoring it in solid data from the external world.

For a Te user, logical reasoning has to have a basis in the external world. This is what makes the thinking extraverted. This does not mean it has to have a basis in people. For example, a Ti user would be able to accept the theory of relativity as "very probably true" based on it's logical form and elegance, and because it makes more sense than the previous alternatives. A Te user would accept the same theory as true first after observing experimental data proving gravitational time dilation.

Neither the Te or the Ti user would accept it as true "because Einstein said so".
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top