Personality Cafe banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
These are my definition of the 8 functions.

Perceiving function : A function to gather information.
Judging function : A function to change a condition.

Extroverted Perceiving (Pe) function : Perceiving function which the information come from 5 senses
Introverted Perceiving (Pi) function : Perceiving function which the information come from memory
Extroverted Judging (Je) function : Judging function which affect the world that can be perceived by 5 senses, in other words, an action
Introverted Judging (Ji) function : Judging function which affect memory

Se : Pe function that perceives any physical stimulation
Ne : Pe function that perceives any non-physical stimulation, in other words, a concept
Si : Pi function to recall any concept perceived by Ne function before from memory
Ni : Pi function to recall any physical stimulation sensed by Se function before from memory, in other words, an imagination

Fi : Ji function to save information gathered from any perceiving function without any reason
Ti : Ji function to save information gathered from any perceiving function with some reasons
Te : Je function in order to implement any information saved by Fi function
Fe : Je function in order to guard any information saved by Ti function

Belief : A successfully saved information which come from Ne function and saved by Fi function
Desire : A successfully saved information which come from Se function and saved by Fi function
Principle : A successfully saved information which come from Ne function and saved by Ti function
Instinct : A successfully saved information which come from Se function and saved by Ti function

Any opinion? I think this is the best model i can give.
 

·
Premium Member
INTP
Joined
·
11,905 Posts
Introverted functions don't 'come from memory'.
Ni and Si don't rely on Ne and Se perception.

Extroverted functions align their perceptions and judgements with those externally given. Information which was externally given last week is still information externally given when we remember it this week.

Ji functions don't 'save' information.

This really needs a overhaul, starting from the bottom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaladinX

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
These are perfect:
 



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,074 Posts
Si is not stored Ne. Concepts can be learned or taken in through many different functions. P functions are like intake filters. Sensing functions stay tied to original context. Si, takes one step of abstraction to private interpretation, while Se prizes realism and unfiltered experience for the sake of that experience.

Fi is not nonsense, it is personal evaluation. Feeling functions evaluate, thinking functions mechanize. Function use is a matter of processing favoritism, and a matter of priority (priority of processing criteria not essentially about the content of ones life), not exactly one way of thinking versus a different brand of thought.

N functions filter experience differently than S. Opposite p functions are not some kind of recycling of each other. No human can filter every moment to pick up every bit of information - we choose, we have a default choice.


MAYBE we could take what we know about physics, time and space, and computers, and apply something here? We may all have raw-data files stored somewhere that we, most of the time don't do anything with. N's look for metaphors, interconnectedness for potential and future use. But Si is not recycled concepts. And even if Ni acts like a strategy to avoid screw ups - suppressing Se -thats different than putting Se (as is) through some type of strainer.

Introverted functions do in a way work with stored information because otherwise what are you reflecting and focusing on in your head - it came from somewhere. I think the mistake is in thinking input-output of one file, rather than thinking more of a processing preference. (the raw file plus the favorite software?) - inferior function being the one that gets left-over ram.

Belief, desire, instinct, principal - all loaded phrases, many meanings to different people and more attached to the content of a persons life when you get down to specifics in the individual.

I would imagine Ni as more of an instinctual thing but that's me. For example in art school at one point I found it hard to recognize a particular artist's work until I could verbalize to myself what made an artist unique (defining a style). But I imagine that Ni users and maybe si, would have more of a "sense" about it. In the same vein, once I recognize a certain line quality doing a certain thing (Ti) I would have potential multiple uses for that technique.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Your model reflects the "tandem function" notion — under which you're either an "Fe/Ti type" or an "Fi/Te type" and ZOMG, INTJs and ESFPs have so much in common cuz they're both Ni/Se types and Fi/Te types!

That notion is based on the Harold Grant functions model — a function stack that has no respectable validity, wasn't Jung's or Myers's function model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

Just in case you're open to further (possible) enlightenment about the Harold Grant function stack, the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find more from me in this post, this post, this post and this long INTJforum post (also linked to in a couple of the others).

As a final note: the idea that S and N are simply "information-gathering functions," in addition to being inconsistent with Jung's descriptions, is also too limited to encompass many of the characteristics associated with MBTI S and N preferences. For more on that, see this post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,074 Posts
Hi @reckful :)

Is your post in regard to OP or me? it does sound a little like how i think, or what I've observed in people.
I wouldn't say INTJ and ESFP are anything alike but I do notice a Te-Fi glitch for my own communication comfort at times.

I'm checking out the post about "informal gathering" right now.

BTW, Te-Fi and Ti-Fe differences were something I arrived at from life and what appeared to me to be patterns from interactions on the forum - didn't know anybody else had a theory about that.

As always I appreciate your links and research.

Okay, the informal gathering comment - well compared to strong J relatives who know me -my Ne might make me a nut-case or even a bad person in their eyes. BUT my point is that how everything plays out doesn't tell you why about anybody.

In many respects my behavior would seem bland or unremarkable. An adult may recognize that certain priorities and behaviors in one aspect of life - buys them something that matters more in another area of life. So then an outside observer would not know what is the driver and what "values" are merely facilitation.

I agree with you that P functions are each a different way of seeing the world. What I was trying to get away from in the OP is the idea that Ne is conceptual thinking. Conceptual thinking is something a person can choose to do, Ne is a way of seeing that just is.

Si, is something I can choose conditions for, I suppose I flip a mental switch, but it is definitely not some kind of recycling of conceptual thought. If I do that - that would be Ti.

One example of si in my life - I financially and practically noticed that in working for myself, I had trouble switching gears between different types of activities - The answer was an Si solution, or a prevention of inferior si getting to me. I noticed that different lighting and mood of music was better for clean-up set-up stuff which I hated doing. And even though I loved design innovation work, sometimes I was in a wound up mood after sales calls. Switch of sensual conditions helps, like softer lights or a transition activity like NPR radio show or lunch at the bookstore.

The difference here is that the desire to do creative work and not be bored is the driver, the need to be in tune with my nature. But at some outer parameter Si is part of that nature too. In reverse stack order you might you have somebody looking for a safe government job because they want nice furniture or better stereo speakers, and the safest path to get there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
Introverted functions don't 'come from memory'.
Ni and Si don't rely on Ne and Se perception.

Extroverted functions align their perceptions and judgements with those externally given. Information which was externally given last week is still information externally given when we remember it this week.

Ji functions don't 'save' information.

This really needs a overhaul, starting from the bottom.
By "Extroverted functions align their perceptions and judgements with those externally given. Information which was externally given last week is still information externally given when we remember it this week.", when you realize your old information you are using Pi function, which is recalling a concept to compare with the new one. New information are formed by Pe function, so Pe and Pi must be relying each other to works.

Hmm.. so, what is the definition of Ji function for you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Si is not stored Ne. Concepts can be learned or taken in through many different functions. P functions are like intake filters. Sensing functions stay tied to original context. Si, takes one step of abstraction to private interpretation, while Se prizes realism and unfiltered experience for the sake of that experience.

Fi is not nonsense, it is personal evaluation. Feeling functions evaluate, thinking functions mechanize. Function use is a matter of processing favoritism, and a matter of priority (priority of processing criteria not essentially about the content of ones life), not exactly one way of thinking versus a different brand of thought.

N functions filter experience differently than S. Opposite p functions are not some kind of recycling of each other. No human can filter every moment to pick up every bit of information - we choose, we have a default choice.


MAYBE we could take what we know about physics, time and space, and computers, and apply something here? We may all have raw-data files stored somewhere that we, most of the time don't do anything with. N's look for metaphors, interconnectedness for potential and future use. But Si is not recycled concepts. And even if Ni acts like a strategy to avoid screw ups - suppressing Se -thats different than putting Se (as is) through some type of strainer.

Introverted functions do in a way work with stored information because otherwise what are you reflecting and focusing on in your head - it came from somewhere. I think the mistake is in thinking input-output of one file, rather than thinking more of a processing preference. (the raw file plus the favorite software?) - inferior function being the one that gets left-over ram.

Belief, desire, instinct, principal - all loaded phrases, many meanings to different people and more attached to the content of a persons life when you get down to specifics in the individual.

I would imagine Ni as more of an instinctual thing but that's me. For example in art school at one point I found it hard to recognize a particular artist's work until I could verbalize to myself what made an artist unique (defining a style). But I imagine that Ni users and maybe si, would have more of a "sense" about it. In the same vein, once I recognize a certain line quality doing a certain thing (Ti) I would have potential multiple uses for that technique.
"Concepts can be learned or taken in through many different functions", can you give an example about a concept that created by a function other than Ne?

By Fi, what is your definition of "nonsense"? My definition : a statement that doesn't have any argumentation to support it. It is true, that a statement Fi users give can have an argumentation, but is this argumentation itself has some argumentation to support it? The logical person will have argumentation of argumentation, and so on to construct a building of argumentation. The more logical a person is, the deeper the argumentation he constructs. But he must still have a "nonsense" information in the bottom of his argumentation building.

I can be sure to say that belief is Fi/Ne result. Because a belief is a concept (Ne) and has no argument that support it (Fi). Can you find a belief with any argumentation or not a concept?
The same with desire, instinct, and principle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
Your model reflects the "tandem function" notion — under which you're either an "Fe/Ti type" or an "Fi/Te type" and ZOMG, INTJs and ESFPs have so much in common cuz they're both Ni/Se types and Fi/Te types!

That notion is based on the Harold Grant functions model — a function stack that has no respectable validity, wasn't Jung's or Myers's function model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

Just in case you're open to further (possible) enlightenment about the Harold Grant function stack, the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find more from me in this post, this post, this post and this long INTJforum post (also linked to in a couple of the others).

As a final note: the idea that S and N are simply "information-gathering functions," in addition to being inconsistent with Jung's descriptions, is also too limited to encompass many of the characteristics associated with MBTI S and N preferences. For more on that, see this post.
As an INTJ, can you give a direct and simplified conclusion of your sources? What is wrong with my model?

The same question for you, @emberfly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
As an INTJ, can you give a direct and simplified conclusion of your sources? What is wrong with my model?
If you're going to go around making forum posts where you purport to summarize the "cognitive functions" and what roles they serve in the various types, you really owe it to yourself and your prospective readers to educate yourself about what Jung said, the nature of the changes Myers made (and the reasons), and what over 50 years of data has shown in terms of the validity of various aspects of Jung's, Myers's and others' models.

I don't know of any better quick (relatively speaking) — and free! — way for you to go about doing that than to begin by reading those linked posts of mine.

Virtually all the respectable data/studies points to the "direct and simplified conclusion" that the actual, at-least-semi-genetic, underlying components of MBTI personality are the four dichotomies, and that personality characteristics that result from (or are influenced by) a combination of two or more of the dichotomies are affected in a simple, additive way.

So, for example...

INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ.

INTP = I + N + T + P + IN + IT + IP + NT + NP + TP + INT + INP + ITP + NTP + INTP.

ESFP = E + S + F + P + ES + EF + EP + SF + SP + FP + ESF + ESP + EFP + SFP + ESFP.

And it follows from that that what I call the Real MBTI Model expects INTJs and INTPs to have a lot of MBTI-related characteristics in common and INTJs and ESFPs to have no MBTI-related characteristics in common.

Assuming the Real MBTI Model is correct — and it's the perspective that has all the respectable support behind it — the cognitive functions perspective is "mistaken" in multiple respects.

For one thing, it treats a very limited subset of those preference combinations — e.g., NJ (Ni) and TJ (Ti) for an INTJ — as if they were the fundamental building blocks of personality, while tending to ignore or shortchange the others.

For another, assuming you're working with the popular (but goofy) Harold Grant function stack, you're saying that INTJs, besides tending to have the characteristics that NJs and TJs tend to have in common, also tend to have the characteristics that FPs and SPs tend to have in common (onnaccounta INTJs' "Fi" and "Se"). But as further discussed in this post (which I linked to previously), that function stack — and its associated "tandems" aspect (where INTJs and ESFPs are both "Ni/Se types" and "Fi/Te types") — has no respectable validity (on top of being inconsistent with Jung and Myers both).

For another, the cognitive functions perspective says that, comparing an INTJ and an INTP, the INTJs' N will generally play a greater role in their personality than their T and the INTPs' T will generally play a greater role than their N — because dom/aux! — and that notion, too, has no respectable validity. INTJs and INTPs both have N and T preferences, with all that those entail, and whether the N or the T plays a greater role in any NT's personality will basically depend on whether one of those two preferences is substantially stronger than the other — and the data suggests that the N preference is no more likely to be the stronger one for an INTJ than for an INTP.

And so on.

Notwithstanding the impression somebody might get from hanging out on internet forums, the cognitive functions have received so little respect from academic psychologists over the years that they've barely been studied at all. And as Reynierse notes in the article with the "category mistake" verdict, the handful of studies that have put "type dynamics" to the test have not led to an encouraging body of results for cognitive function aficionados.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,074 Posts
"Concepts can be learned or taken in through many different functions", can you give an example about a concept that created by a function other than Ne?

By Fi, what is your definition of "nonsense"? My definition : a statement that doesn't have any argumentation to support it. It is true, that a statement Fi users give can have an argumentation, but is this argumentation itself has some argumentation to support it? The logical person will have argumentation of argumentation, and so on to construct a building of argumentation. The more logical a person is, the deeper the argumentation he constructs. But he must still have a "nonsense" information in the bottom of his argumentation building.

I can be sure to say that belief is Fi/Ne result. Because a belief is a concept (Ne) and has no argument that support it (Fi). Can you find a belief with any argumentation or not a concept?
The same with desire, instinct, and principle.
There is innovative creativity which is mostly or usually a bi-product of Ne. But expressive creativity comes hard for an Ne-Ti user. Expressive creativity often has a commonality in human nature whether it came originally as biological or whatever - so Se-Fi can turn into something conceptual, even if it started as a physical process.

AND, Many many times on this forum somebody comes up with the use of an analogy. An analogy is not Ne, analogies are often a natural outgrowth or symptom of Ne. A person can come up with an analogy simply because of the need to explain something. A person can look into their own experiences or try to find something they think a listener will relate to because they imagine what that person's life is like - this imagining can be in anyone, it could come from Fe, (or Te) using Si.

It's not the activity that is the function. An analogy is one way we think of concepts. Si users develop concepts as an outgrowth of comparisons, typically more like a sea change, but conceptual thinking can come purely from Ti too. Te-Ni users tend to piece together something from what already has pre-made pieces but you can work at bringing a concept into being this way. Ne is something that happens to you and you can work with it, but if it IS work, then it becomes a judging function - by definition - different level of ego (active) investment.

Belief? here we are just playing games with semantics - If I believe something it is because I saw evidence or enough of a pattern to indicate something may be true, or useful. OR I may subscribe to beliefs I am surrounded with in my upbringing because so far I have no cause to call the belief into question - many beliefs like that are Si, but we often call that common sense. AND people often find reasons for what they want to believe when this doesn't have to be fi (and may not hold up to honest critical thinking inspection) - it may be a coping mechanism to deal with specific groupings of life situations - anyone could do that in the right combination of circumstance.

Fi is not required to have a true or false proof! This doesn't make it illegitimate judgement. If I like spaghetti, I can like spaghetti - my like for spaghetti is real because I say so. "Do it like this because I want it this way" IS legitimate if someone has earned the authority or the cooperation by those willing to engage - period.

Color and composition has been studied to the point that we have rules - you can work with rules or you might use a sense of taste. -that taste ends up mostly following the rules without having to verbally list them.

You seem to want to nail functions too tightly to behavior when there are often many different routes to the same ends.

Fi's live up to an internal standard, an ideal; what that is or exactly where it comes from will depend on the individual, these ideals being a determining factor or guiding light is a consistent usable understanding of Fi. Different people (Fi's) will have different content in that "personal values" file folder, could be about social skills, could be about religious faith, or it could be pure status/materialism - but it is identity based on ideals.

Every human being has desires. This doesn't make us temporary Fi users. And I doubt that Se users think of their Se-ness as desire. Nardi studies compare an Se dom in studies and literally show the brain in a preparation for action state - something like when you play tennis.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top