[Tad Cooper]

I always hear 'Extroverted functions are objective' and 'subjective' for the introverted ones.
I'm not sure what this means. How can a function i.e. Fe be objective? It's about feelings. Te is about logic etc etc. All of these are subjective (good/evil, black/white etc). I don't see how there can be an objective function, so I thought I'd ask!

 

[JungyesMBTIno]

Feelings aren't "subjective" if they are extraverted because they are meant to be applicable to a broad range of criteria established in the outer world (if they were subjective, they would only be reliable as directed toward the "subject" - the individual, in other words). Any subjective function is introverted, so they can't be APPLIED externally as a definitive criteria system, but their influence can be made evident none-the-less. Objective doesn't mean "truth" - it's about external applicability. Forget the popular misunderstandings of these words if you want to understand Jung. Logic isn't even the truth about anything in particular - it's a tool of reasoning, just like feeling.

 

[Owfin]

Logic is subjective? Woah, I lean more heavily to Te than I thought...

 

[LiquidLight]

Yea in psychology the object (or objective) refers to that which outside of the self. I think there are some mixups because the casual usage of subjective and objective don't always match the psychological definitions.

In fact we could more accurately refer to the functions as subjective functions and objective functions rather than extraverted or introverted if that helps clear things up. With Extraverted functions we are simply working at surface level, not projecting any influence from within. The cognitive energy flows from the subject to the object and vice versa with introversion.

Jung first differentiated two attitudinal types: the extravert and the introvert. In the extravert, the libido flows habitually toward the object, but there is also a secret unconscious counteraction back toward the subject. For the extravert the hidden move back toward the subject is usually an unconscious factor. In the case of the introvert, the opposite occurs, for he feels that the object would constantly overwhelm him, so that he has to continually retire from it, for everything is falling upon him, he is constantly overwhelmed by impressions, but he is unaware that he is secretly borrowing, or lending, psychic energy to the object through his own unconscious extraversion.

Psychotherapy, page 20

Also note that psychic doesn't mean fortune-teller or any of the ways we use the term but rather adjectivally describes the energy of the psyche. It's psyche-ic.

 

[TaylorS]

In Jungian Analytical Psychology "Objective" and "Subjective" retain their old, early 20th Century meanings:

Objective: from a "transpersonal" perspective in the outside world avalible to everyone.
Subjective: from a inner, personal perspective that doesn't necessarily jive with the outside world.

So Extraverts are more likely to change their minds if the outer conditions change, Introverts tend to twist the outer world to fit their mind. An unbalanced extravert is superficial, an unbalanced introvert is out of touch with reality.



The association between subjectivity and F comes from that Western culture has a bias to Te.

 

[Agent Blackout]

I always hear 'Extroverted functions are objective' and 'subjective' for the introverted ones.
I'm not sure what this means. How can a function i.e. Fe be objective? It's about feelings. Te is about logic etc etc. All of these are subjective (good/evil, black/white etc). I don't see how there can be an objective function, so I thought I'd ask!

Explanation of E/I attitudes:
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...escription-extraverted-introverted-types.html

The attitudes can also be applied to each of the 4 functions.

 

[TaylorS]

Logic is subjective? Woah, I lean more heavily to Te than I thought...

A good example of the subjective nature of Ti is Einstein being asked what he would think if Relativity was proven false. Einstein answered "then I pity the good Lord, because the theory is correct". Ti tends to twist data to fit internal conceptualizations and models.

 

[Kito]

I've seen somewhere that extroverted functions aim to make the inner ideal fit with the outer world, while introverted functions tend to make the outer world fit with the inner ideal. That seems to fit the subjective/objective idea somewhat.

 

[MuChApArAdOx]

A good example of the subjective nature of Ti is Einstein being asked what he would think if Relativity was proven false. Einstein answered "then I pity the good Lord, because the theory is correct". Ti tends to twist data to fit internal conceptualizations and models.

I'm convinced that Fi does the same thing. Maybe Ni-Si too. I see a pattern as though all the introverted functions relate something back to their internal compass in some sort of way that does twist data in order to fit into their inner model.

Is it twisting thou ? Or is it not conforming to outside stimuli because it isn't meshing with what our inner model is saying.? like saying, it isn't true for me.( subjective judgement ) Honestly if you told me you didn't think this was possible, i would still believe it is

 

[TaylorS]

I'm convinced that Fi does the same thing. Maybe Ni-Si too. I see a pattern as though all the introverted functions relate something back to their internal compass in some sort of way that does twist data in order to fit into their inner model.

Is it twisting thou ? Or is it not conforming to outside stimuli because it isn't meshing with what our inner model is saying.? like saying, it isn't true for me.( subjective judgement ) Honestly if you told me you didn't think this was possible, i would still believe it is

No, you are correct. My Si leads me to relate a sense experience to an internal emotion or thought.

So:

Se says: "I see a tree with small white flowers and smooth bark"
Si says "I see a tree and it makes me feel happy"

 

[Agent Blackout]

I'm convinced that Fi does the same thing. Maybe Ni-Si too. I see a pattern as though all the introverted functions relate something back to their internal compass in some sort of way that does twist data in order to fit into their inner model.

Is it twisting thou ? Or is it not conforming to outside stimuli because it isn't meshing with what our inner model is saying.? like saying, it isn't true for me.( subjective judgement ) Honestly if you told me you didn't think this was possible, i would still believe it is

Yes, ma'am.
(Did I just feed your ego?)

 

[Tad Cooper]

Thanks very much for the replies!
I was wondering because of looking at Ti and Te and how they're used differently. It seemed strange as T seems like it would be more external than F, but I see what you mean with Jung's explanations (I was using the dictionary terms, so I guess that made it not make as much sense).
So with Te it looks at the facts presented and makes an argument and Ti takes in the facts and twists them to make their argument?

 

[Narrator]

Thanks very much for the replies!
I was wondering because of looking at Ti and Te and how they're used differently. It seemed strange as T seems like it would be more external than F, but I see what you mean with Jung's explanations (I was using the dictionary terms, so I guess that made it not make as much sense).
So with Te it looks at the facts presented and makes an argument and Ti takes in the facts and twists them to make their argument?

Maybe Ti has an idea and works to fit facts to it? Building blocks, knitting, go where the ideas take you.

 

[koalaroo]

@tine - Potentially think of it this way?

Te uses the facts in a way that is relevant to an outward mode or model.
Ti uses the facts in a way that is relevant to an inward mode or model.

Ti or Te could easily twist facts inappropriately. We have to remember that they don't exist in a vacuum, and how the facts are "ingested" (with the perceiving functions) will often affect how a person categorizes and uses them ("digests" them) in terms of either Te or Ti.

 

[Tad Cooper]

@tine - Potentially think of it this way?

Te uses the facts in a way that is relevant to an outward mode or model.
Ti uses the facts in a way that is relevant to an inward mode or model.

Ti or Te could easily twist facts inappropriately. We have to remember that they don't exist in a vacuum, and how the facts are "ingested" (with the perceiving functions) will often affect how a person categorizes and uses them ("digests" them) in terms of either Te or Ti.

Thanks. I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but is it something along the lines of taking from the external and using in the internal for Ti and using the external for external issues with Te?
Example?
There's an argument so Ti takes the information, internally processes it and then weighs up a decision.
Te takes the external info and fits it into an argument for the side they weigh to be right from the externally presented facts, not comparing it to themselves? Or would that be wrong as if Si and Te worked together you'd compare to what you knew?
Also, does Te tend to state more facts or ask more questions to learn compared to Ti?

 

[AbioticPrime]

Thanks. I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but is it something along the lines of taking from the external and using in the internal for Ti and using the external for external issues with Te?
Example?
There's an argument so Ti takes the information, internally processes it and then weighs up a decision.
Te takes the external info and fits it into an argument for the side they weigh to be right from the externally presented facts, not comparing it to themselves? Or would that be wrong as if Si and Te worked together you'd compare to what you knew?
Also, does Te tend to state more facts or ask more questions to learn compared to Ti?

You are overcomplicating it.

Let me try to give an analogy. A Te user and a Ti user are put in front of a table with blocks on it and are told to build a structure. The Te user will manipulate the blocks on the table to create something. The Ti user will grab the blocks from the table, take it into their hands, and then create something.

The blocks represent logic. The table represents the external world.

The Te user will get the job done more efficiently, and more according to protocol -- people will understand it better because it's done right before their eyes and it follows the same rules present to everyone.

The Ti user will get the job done their own way -- usually takes longer but it's possible for it to be quicker. People will be a little baffled with what they came up with because it was all done in the privacy of their own hands -- and the product may come out strange or even improper because standard rules of the table were not taken into consideration.

Understanding better?

 

[Agent Blackout]

You are overcomplicating it.

Let me try to give an analogy. A Te user and a Ti user are put in front of a table with blocks on it and are told to build a structure. The Te user will manipulate the blocks on the table to create something. The Ti user will grab the blocks from the table, take it into their hands, and then create something.

The blocks represent logic. The table represents the external world.

The Te user will get the job done more efficiently, and more according to protocol -- people will understand it better because it's done right before their eyes and it follows the same rules present to everyone.

The Ti user will get the job done their own way -- usually takes longer but it's possible for it to be quicker. People will be a little baffled with what they came up with because it was all done in the privacy of their own hands -- and the product may come out strange or even improper because standard rules of the table were not taken into consideration.

Understanding better?

I like the analogy.

 

[Tad Cooper]

You are overcomplicating it.

Let me try to give an analogy. A Te user and a Ti user are put in front of a table with blocks on it and are told to build a structure. The Te user will manipulate the blocks on the table to create something. The Ti user will grab the blocks from the table, take it into their hands, and then create something.

The blocks represent logic. The table represents the external world.

The Te user will get the job done more efficiently, and more according to protocol -- people will understand it better because it's done right before their eyes and it follows the same rules present to everyone.

The Ti user will get the job done their own way -- usually takes longer but it's possible for it to be quicker. People will be a little baffled with what they came up with because it was all done in the privacy of their own hands -- and the product may come out strange or even improper because standard rules of the table were not taken into consideration.

Understanding better?

Yeah that makes alot more sense now, thank you! (I find it easier to understand with examples haha).

 

[owlet]

You are overcomplicating it.

Let me try to give an analogy. A Te user and a Ti user are put in front of a table with blocks on it and are told to build a structure. The Te user will manipulate the blocks on the table to create something. The Ti user will grab the blocks from the table, take it into their hands, and then create something.

The blocks represent logic. The table represents the external world.

The Te user will get the job done more efficiently, and more according to protocol -- people will understand it better because it's done right before their eyes and it follows the same rules present to everyone.

The Ti user will get the job done their own way -- usually takes longer but it's possible for it to be quicker. People will be a little baffled with what they came up with because it was all done in the privacy of their own hands -- and the product may come out strange or even improper because standard rules of the table were not taken into consideration.

Understanding better?

I've had a hard time distinguishing Ti and Te too.

With this analogy, I became confused because, literally-speaking, if anyone was asked to build something with blocks, they'd pick them up and move them around themselves. I don't quite get what you mean by 'manipulate'. I'm frustrating myself by not getting this. Any clarification would be great, thanks

 

[AbioticPrime]

I've had a hard time distinguishing Ti and Te too.

With this analogy, I became confused because, literally-speaking, if anyone was asked to build something with blocks, they'd pick them up and move them around themselves. I don't quite get what you mean by 'manipulate'. I'm frustrating myself by not getting this. Any clarification would be great, thanks

Lol, you are over-thinking it. Don't worry.

It's kind of hard to explain really unless you've experienced both of them first-hand. I know personally, I'm clueless to the distinction between Fi & Fe because those are my 2 least used functions.

In my example both Te and Ti are 'manipulating' the 'blocks' or logic, as in mulling over them, trying them out in different ways, and finally coming to a concluded creation.

Yes, they are both picking up the blocks and moving them around themselves to find a way they see fit.

I am saying that the Te user will move the blocks around on the table, without removing the blocks from table or from plain sight. The Te user will shift them right then and there -- and will follow all the conventional rules -- it becomes more standardized (because he's adhering to the structure of the table when working with the blocks).

The Ti user on the other hand will take the blocks FROM the table, and work with the blocks in their own hands or perhaps in their lap. This way, their 'manipulation' of the blocks becomes more personal, less standardized, but also more creative. But, since it's away from plain sight (the table) it's also harder to explain or see how they came to that creation, unlike the Te who works in plain sight.

Make better sense?