Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 324 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,900 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This is for me to see if my understanding of what is meant by different cognitive functions is right. I'm a Te user, so I like to have a system of understanding things that everyone can agree upon as being right. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Perceiving Functions

Here's a fantastic piece of art from one of the ISFPs. (Do you mind me using it? If you do, I will remove it and use one of my own creations.)
Se will notice the vividness of the colours, the details of the lines and shapes, and immerse themselves in enjoying the objects and colours and details.
Si will notice the details in terms of the subconscious impression they make on the person, their own personal interpretation of what they see, relating it back to past experiences and eternal images from the unconscious.
Ne will see alternate meanings, alternate ways of interpreting the picture, suggestions of metaphors or the art may catalyse action from the ideas present in it.
Ni will be focused on the significance of the subject and its meaning from different possible perspectives, it may represent or spark some insight into their own personal understanding of the world, it may symbolize universal concepts.

So now, to go from that example to using more technical language to describe how it works.
- Se notices the details. Attention is captured by the object, separate from the self, and is held by experiencing the outer world in rich detail. it is an objective function, ie it gains energy by focusing on what is readily observable in the real world. Vivid experiences energize Se.
- Ne is also an objective function. How it differs from Se is that it does not notice physical, concrete objects, but it notices the ideas or concepts inherent or present in these objects. Every object can suggest ideas and possibilities. Playing with ideas, concepts, metaphors, and meanings of words energize Ne.
- Si is a subjective function. Instead of noticing the object, the impression, meaning, significance or "rightness" of an object is noticed by Si. Awareness of the actual object itself is repressed, but the personal representation of the object is heightened. New impressions are connected to past or known impressions, even to universal images. Positive or negative sensations may be connected with the subjective representation of the object.
- Ni is also a subjective function, but it is the subjective side of intuition. Ideas and concepts are important in the impression they make on the person, and the personal subjective value of them. Concepts and patterns of universal importance draw Ni's attention, and understanding the concepts, perspectives, and underlying assumptions that shape the world fascinates Ni.


Judging Functions

I don't really have an example for these. So I'll just give some brief descriptions.

- Fi is a subjective value-based reasoning that allows the user to make judgements based on personal ideas of what has value and what does not, and what is right and what is not. Fi dominants focus on refining their value judgements, for example their ideas of right and wrong.
- Fe is an objective value-based reasoning that ascribes value when everyone can agree upon it.
- Te is objective reasoning based on observable facts. Decisions are made based on impersonal standards. Te is objective in that the logic used should be universally understood and agreed upon.
- Ti is subjective impersonal reasoning. It involves clarifying concepts by breaking them down into the smallest possible parts. Ti desires to build a logically complete system to understand something, or the world in general.

That's all for now, as I'm rather tired. I may be adding more later.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Here are my two main sources:
Some great descriptions of function characteristics: http://www.enfpforum.com/Wiki/tabid/56/Default.aspx?topic=Cognitive+Functions
Jung's original work: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,691 Posts
I agree, that's an awesome picture @Sovia :happy:

When I look at it I'm drawn to the image in the water drop, trying to work out if it's inverted horizontally, vertically, or both. It looks like both, but that doesn't go well with my (rusty :blushed:) understanding of the laws of refraction, so I'm tempted to recreate a similar scene to check. I could look it up but that wouldn't be as fun! But would that be Se noticing the details in the foreground and background don't fit or Ne seeing a water drop and thinking of the principle of refraction? I'm not sure.

I was going to comment on how precise these descriptions are, but I think they're too precise for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,900 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
@asmit127 I'm going to say that is Ne and Ti. The words are escaping me at the moment. It isn't Se, as Se doesn't start theorizing or conjecturing. Ne provided you with some ideas for possible theories, and then you needed some Ti to try and figure out which one was right.

Its actually inverted both ways :)

@BlissfulDreams Yeah... I used a lot of technical speak. There are plenty of other threads that discuss characteristics of each function and what results each function produces. I wanted to get down to the core ideas though, the foundation that produces the results that are seen. Maybe later I will write up more about how these functions work together, and what sort of thoughts they produce.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
649 Posts
As far as I can tell, I don't see anything wrong with your description.

When looking at the painting, at first I've noticed the nice colors and how they complemented well with each other. But after staring at it for another minute, I started thinking of how the branch would make a really cool looking golf club. :tongue: With your descriptions, that would be Se and Ne for me
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Se will notice the vividness of the colours, the details of the lines and shapes, and immerse themselves in enjoying the objects and colours and details.
I would clarify that Si can do this too. I think there is some confusion about this. Sensing is sensing, its just Si is making comparisons to that which has already been experienced and Se has more of a perspective of emergent experiences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
This is for me to see if my understanding of what is meant by different cognitive functions is right. I'm a Te user, so I like to have a system of understanding things that everyone can agree upon as being right. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Perceiving Functions

Here's a fantastic piece of art from one of the ISFPs. (Do you mind me using it? If you do, I will remove it and use one of my own creations.)

Se will notice the vividness of the colours, the details of the lines and shapes, and immerse themselves in enjoying the objects and colours and details.
Si will notice the details in terms of the subconscious impression they make on the person, their own personal interpretation of what they see, relating it back to past experiences and eternal images from the unconscious.
Ne will see alternate meanings, alternate ways of interpreting the picture, suggestions of metaphors or the art may catalyse action from the ideas present in it.
Ni will be focused on the significance of the subject and its meaning from different possible perspectives, it may represent or spark some insight into their own personal understanding of the world, it may symbolize universal concepts.

So now, to go from that example to using more technical language to describe how it works.
- Se notices the details. Attention is captured by the object, separate from the self, and is held by experiencing the outer world in rich detail. it is an objective function, ie it gains energy by focusing on what is readily observable in the real world. Vivid experiences energize Se.
- Ne is also an objective function. How it differs from Se is that it does not notice physical, concrete objects, but it notices the ideas or concepts inherent or present in these objects. Every object can suggest ideas and possibilities. Playing with ideas, concepts, metaphors, and meanings of words energize Ne.
- Si is a subjective function. Instead of noticing the object, the impression, meaning, significance or "rightness" of an object is noticed by Si. Awareness of the actual object itself is repressed, but the personal representation of the object is heightened. New impressions are connected to past or known impressions, even to universal images. Positive or negative sensations may be connected with the subjective representation of the object.
- Ni is also a subjective function, but it is the subjective side of intuition. Ideas and concepts are important in the impression they make on the person, and the personal subjective value of them. Concepts and patterns of universal importance draw Ni's attention, and understanding the concepts, perspectives, and underlying assumptions that shape the world fascinates Ni.


Judging Functions

I don't really have an example for these. So I'll just give some brief descriptions.

- Fi is a subjective value-based reasoning that allows the user to make judgements based on personal ideas of what has value and what does not, and what is right and what is not. Fi dominants focus on refining their value judgements, for example their ideas of right and wrong.
- Fe is an objective value-based reasoning that ascribes value when everyone can agree upon it.
- Te is objective reasoning based on observable facts. Decisions are made based on impersonal standards. Te is objective in that the logic used should be universally understood and agreed upon.
- Ti is subjective impersonal reasoning. It involves clarifying concepts by breaking them down into the smallest possible parts. Ti desires to build a logically complete system to understand something, or the world in general.

That's all for now, as I'm rather tired. I may be adding more later.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Here are my two main sources:
Some great descriptions of function characteristics: ENFP Wiki
Jung's original work: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10
Wow, thank you so much. It filled my heart up with joy to see this here :happy:
You are more than welcome to use it and any of my other pieces, it is my pleasure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,412 Posts
Ne will see alternate meanings, alternate ways of interpreting the picture, suggestions of metaphors or the art may catalyse action from the ideas present in it.
Ni will be focused on the significance of the subject and its meaning from different possible perspectives, it may represent or spark some insight into their own personal understanding of the world, it may symbolize universal concepts.
Sorry, I didn't get very far, but I find this part a bit off. I'd argue that Ni is more interested in metaphor than Ne. Ne seems to tend more towards metonymy: seeing a part of a possible whole that keeps expanding towards an even bigger network of possibilities. Ni is more interested in the system-building that metaphors are so good for. At least in my mind.

EDIT: The rest seems bang on though.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Sorry, I didn't get very far, but I find this part a bit off. I'd argue that Ni is more interested in metaphor than Ne. Ne seems to tend more towards metonymy: seeing a part of a possible whole that keeps expanding towards an even bigger network of possibilities. Ni is more interested in the system-building that metaphors are so good for. At least in my mind.

EDIT: The rest seems bang on though.
Yes but his definition of Ni isn't incorrect though. One of the manifestations of Ni will be the underlying significances (really synthesizing possibilities down to a self-coherent symbolic meaning).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,900 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Sorry, I didn't get very far, but I find this part a bit off. I'd argue that Ni is more interested in metaphor than Ne. Ne seems to tend more towards metonymy: seeing a part of a possible whole that keeps expanding towards an even bigger network of possibilities. Ni is more interested in the system-building that metaphors are so good for. At least in my mind.

EDIT: The rest seems bang on though.
Thanks for your clarification. Metonymy is a really good descriptive idea for what Ne is like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,648 Posts
Nice picture and post. :happy:

As soon as I looked at that picture I had an idea of some ethereal plane of existance beyond normal human reckoning. Perhaps a place of unearthly powers.

In any case I love it for it's eerie beauty.

^Would you say that was Ne? Or Ni? Or neither?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
@listentothemountains

Maybe later I will write up more about how these functions work together, and what sort of thoughts they produce.
--that would be very interesting (the sort of thing i've been thinking about but haven't had any luck finding information on). it would be especially interesting since when i first looked at the picture my mind immediately started coming up with questions as to what it was that i was looking at:

*"what is this?"
*"is it a painting?"
*"is it a picture that someone has painted over?"
*"is it digital?"
*"how did they get this effect?"

in any case, i'm not sure what functions those are (Ni+Se augmented with Ti--initial concrete information intake that gets whittled down through more information being brought in--noticing that the areas that represent the "highlights" are too defined in regards to the picture as a whole and then changing the assumption?), but it would be fun to read about the mapping between functions and the result that comes from the combination.

anyhow, cool thread and awesome pic @Sovia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,354 Posts
*"what is this?"
*"is it a painting?"
*"is it a picture that someone has painted over?"
*"is it digital?"
*"how did they get this effect?"

in any case, i'm not sure what functions those are (Ni+Se augmented with Ti--initial concrete information intake that gets whittled down through more information being brought in--noticing that the areas that represent the "highlights" are too defined in regards to the picture as a whole and then changing the assumption?)
Your thought process is very similar to mine on this. I wasn't sure where to classify them either. They went something like this:

-"Interesting, is this thread going to be about the functions ISFPs use in art? (before I read to the bottom)"
-"Ah, a painting of a droplet in a forest. Nice reflection and bright color, it has a good tone to it. Is it a picture that someone has painted over, was it referenced?"
-"I wonder why they chose the subject specifically. People do like droplets it seems. Maybe it's the upside-down reflections make them interesting, plus they're in a tiny world"
-"Is this digital paint? It looks digital. They might have/could have used such-and-such methods"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,691 Posts
When I look at it I'm drawn to the image in the water drop, trying to work out if it's inverted horizontally, vertically, or both. It looks like both, but that doesn't go well with my (rusty :blushed:) understanding of the laws of refraction, so I'm tempted to recreate a similar scene to check. I could look it up but that wouldn't be as fun! But would that be Se noticing the details in the foreground and background don't fit or Ne seeing a water drop and thinking of the principle of refraction? I'm not sure.
I'm going to say that is Ne and Ti. The words are escaping me at the moment. It isn't Se, as Se doesn't start theorizing or conjecturing. Ne provided you with some ideas for possible theories, and then you needed some Ti to try and figure out which one was right.
I would clarify that Si can [notice the vividness of the colours, the details of the lines and shapes, and immerse themselves in enjoying the objects and colours and details] too. I think there is some confusion about this. Sensing is sensing, its just Si is making comparisons to that which has already been experienced and Se has more of a perspective of emergent experiences.
I'm still struggling to interpret my reaction, especially given the ... interesting? :laughing: thoughts of the two Ne users. Does that I thought the inversion looked 'wrong' not suggest Si comparing the picture to my (faulty) past perception? It's cold and dry again here so I had to look it up rather than experiment but I had to know - the double inversion is true to reality. Or is my Ne just tempered by dominant Ti...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,849 Posts
Ne will see alternate meanings, alternate ways of interpreting the picture, suggestions of metaphors or the art may catalyse action from the ideas present in it.

- Ne is also an objective function. How it differs from Se is that it does not notice physical, concrete objects, but it notices the ideas or concepts inherent or present in these objects. Every object can suggest ideas and possibilities. Playing with ideas, concepts, metaphors, and meanings of words energize Ne.
When I first saw the picture, I thought it was a real photo. Then, I wondered "why's he calling it "art"? This led me to take another look (at the details), and I could then see it was painted (particularly from the blurry background strokes, and the edges of the water drop.

I then though "wow; that is so good", and it reminded me of really good CGI graphics in animation.

I guess that's a a combination of Ne and Si.
In any case, the attention to the emergent details always comes later.
Judging Functions

I don't really have an example for these.
These are very similar to the examples of the functions Berens and Nardi give in their books.
Te would be about "organizing" something, such as perhaps, marketing the painting; Ti would be about "analyzing", like looking at what techniques makes it look so real; Fe about its obvious affect on others, like how this would look nice on the wall, and Fi about its deep affect on others, like how it might raise people's spirits or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,900 Posts
Discussion Starter #18 (Edited)
Yes but his definition of Ni isn't incorrect though. One of the manifestations of Ni will be the underlying significances (really synthesizing possibilities down to a self-coherent symbolic meaning).
Yes! Ok, so Ne is an extroverted function, in that all the world is teeming with ideas and concepts. The ideas are out there to be experienced. When using Ni, on the other hand, because of the subjective factor, some ideas and concepts make stronger impressions, leading to the user to give more weighting to some ideas and less to others. Thus, Ne experiences a profusion of ideas, but Ni synthesizes the important ones to come to a self-coherent system of making sense of the world. The symbolic meaning is because it is intuition, and the ideas themselves are best encapsulated using symbols.

Nice picture and post. :happy:

As soon as I looked at that picture I had an idea of some ethereal plane of existance beyond normal human reckoning. Perhaps a place of unearthly powers.

In any case I love it for it's eerie beauty.

^Would you say that was Ne? Or Ni? Or neither?
That is Ne. I'll try to explain why, so let me start by quoting wikipedia on Metonymy.
Metonymy: a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept. For instance, "Hollywood" is used as a metonym (an instance of metonymy) for US cinema, because of the fame and cultural identity of Hollywood, a district of Los Angeles, California as the historical center of movie studios and movie stars. Another example is "Westminster," which is used as a metonym for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, because it is located there.
So what happened here is that you associated this picture with
some ethereal plane of existance beyond normal human reckoning. Perhaps a place of unearthly powers.
In metonymy, a thing or concept is called by a different name based on a concept that is associated with that concept. What happened to you was your mind starts with an object and associates it with another thing or concept, not immediately apparent in it, but that could be connected to it.

--that would be very interesting (the sort of thing i've been thinking about but haven't had any luck finding information on). it would be especially interesting since when i first looked at the picture my mind immediately started coming up with questions as to what it was that i was looking at:

*"what is this?"
*"is it a painting?"
*"is it a picture that someone has painted over?"
*"is it digital?"
*"how did they get this effect?"

in any case, i'm not sure what functions those are (Ni+Se augmented with Ti--initial concrete information intake that gets whittled down through more information being brought in--noticing that the areas that represent the "highlights" are too defined in regards to the picture as a whole and then changing the assumption?), but it would be fun to read about the mapping between functions and the result that comes from the combination.

anyhow, cool thread and awesome pic @Sovia.
Thanks Celticstained... there have been other threads around discussing how the perceiving functions work together so I was going to start off with some ideas generated from them. Here's a link to one thread with ideas that I might start off with. I'm also thinking about using a picture to explain the judging functions, but I have to find a good one to use.

Since both celticstained and Mindswirl are quite similar, I'll just go through yours Mindswirl and point out functions. I've added comments in bold.
Your thought process is very similar to mine on this. I wasn't sure where to classify them either. They went something like this:

-"Interesting, is this thread going to be about the functions ISFPs use in art? (before I read to the bottom)" Ni -> expectations of the future based on a few details
-"Ah, a painting of a droplet in a forest. Nice reflection and bright color, it has a good tone to it. Is it a picture that someone has painted over, was it referenced?" Se and then a judging function
-"I wonder why they chose the subject specifically. People do like droplets it seems. Maybe it's the upside-down reflections make them interesting, plus they're in a tiny world" Ni
-"Is this digital paint? It looks digital. They might have/could have used such-and-such methods" Te mostly -> looking for a system of doing something, the steps that would be required.
I'm still struggling to interpret my reaction, especially given the ... interesting? :laughing: thoughts of the two Ne users. Does that I thought the inversion looked 'wrong' not suggest Si comparing the picture to my (faulty) past perception? It's cold and dry again here so I had to look it up rather than experiment but I had to know - the double inversion is true to reality. Or is my Ne just tempered by dominant Ti...
Yes I would think that you did use Si at first to notice that the one looked off compared to past impressions of details. Did it come as a sort of sensation of something being a bit weird, but you weren't quite sure why? Using Si, the details make a subconscious impression of rightness or wrongness, a feeling that something may be off, or else right. Then, however, your Ne and Ti kicked in to see if they could figure out what was going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
I just read the Ni part. It's too abstract to a extent that it's incomprehensible.

My example would be when Ni user looks at the image, he pauses for a second, then he notices the gravity and water cohension give the shape of water drop. After that, he will notice the light is passing through the water drop like through a convex lens. Something like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,900 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I just read the Ni part. It's too abstract to a extent that it's incomprehensible.

My example would be when Ni user looks at the image, he pauses for a second, then he notices the gravity and water cohension give the shape of water drop. After that, he will notice the light is passing through the water drop like through a convex lens. Something like that.
There are tons of examples floating around of cognitive functions. But, in order to evaluate whether the examples are correct or not, we need a deep, abstract understanding of what each of these cognitive functions really are. So, feel free to go back and evaluate your own example. What part of what you wrote is Ni itself, as a function? What part is your personal way of understanding the world, ie the results of your Ni building a subjective system of understanding the world? What part of that is influenced by having Te as opposed to Fe as axillary function?

Examples show the outcome, the results, without explaining the underlying mechanism. Your example is Ni, but can you explain why?
 
1 - 20 of 324 Posts
Top