Personality Cafe banner
21 - 40 of 196 Posts
Te and Fi go hand in hand for the same reasons Fe and Ti do. Fi and Ti also contradict each other because one says you should form subjective value judgments through personal feelings and the other says you should do it through impersonal, so-called "natural logic" and deliberately block out personal feelings.
I understand why Fi is contradicted by Ti. Ti seeks, by a subjective thinking process, a universal truth, which includes also a "universal moral system". So Ti improves Fe by blocking Fi option.

But I don't see why Te and Fe are not compatible. Could you explain?
 
It would be the same reason Ti and Fi contradict. Same orientation; opposite "personal vs impersonal" valuation.
 
It would be the same reason Ti and Fi contradict. Same orientation; opposite "personal vs impersonal" valuation.
Your explanation is a bit simplistic. I know they should contradict by an argument like yours, but I'm not sure to see "the process". We can think over why Ti dom makes non-viable its coexistence with Fi, as I wrote. A process, not a simple rule. But I don't see this in the case of Te+Fe.

I want to understand the processes in order to truly understand how functions work, so I could recognize them properly when they manifest in others.

Te only explanation I see as more or less convincing is that one Ji funcion is needed, at least ,in order to construct the ego, the self consciousness. But in this case Te and Fe don't truly contradict as happens with Ti+Fi.
 
Discussion starter · #26 ·
Your explanation is a bit simplistic. I know they should contradict by an argument like yours, but I'm not sure to see "the process". We can think over why Ti dom makes non-viable its coexistence with Fi, as I wrote. A process, not a simple rule. But I don't see this in the case of Te+Fe.

I want to understand the processes in order to truly understand how functions work, so I could recognize them properly when they manifest in others.

Te only explanation I see as more or less convincing is that one Ji funcion is needed, at least ,in order to construct the ego, the self consciousness. But in this case Te and Fe don't truly contradict as happens with Ti+Fi.
Te and Fe do contradict each other because the criteria for their objective organizational methods of the external world are based on impersonal vs. personal criteria. In reality there's really no separation; it's just two fluid processes: TiFe vs. FiTe. Yin and yang.

This may be less obvious to an introvert, but the extroverted processes are just as much a part of the ego as the introverted ones...they just base their criteria on different things.
 
Haven't we disagreed about this like 200x on typo-c?
OK, I forgot about that. Forget for the moment exactly what aspect of this stuff we were debating about.
What you just said immediately above this post is what I was trying to convey, as quickly as possible. "the criteria for their objective organizational methods of the external world are based on impersonal vs personal criteria."

So is Materiam suggesting that Te/Fe shouldn't contradict as much because an external orientation would be less prone to incompatibility than an internal (universal/personal) one?

I can see why one would think so. Still, these are two opposite perspectives of the same environment.
 
First of all, this is totally awesome!


But... as an English second language I kinda struggle with your phrasing... :cry:
 
So is Materiam suggesting that Te/Fe shouldn't contradict as much because an external orientation would be less prone to incompatibility than an internal (universal/personal) one?
Exactly. I was only trying to see the functions as deeply as possible. Anyway, I agree with you (both of you).

Thinking in all combinations, two options are not considered yet: FiFe; TiTe.

The first is impossible; it would imply the individual is unable to take decisions about what is true/false (zero inteligence? a zombie?). But, what about the second? Could this kind of combination be the basis for a psycho? A psychopath, not a sociopath, terms sometimes confused.
 
The way I look at those now, is that there are really only four functions, to begin with, in the original Jungian conception. The ego can orient them in either one orientation or the other, creating the eight "function-attitudes", and thus their respective "world-views". We treat them like these eight solid things, but they are really four coins with two sides each. That's why the MBTI scoring system and the code is constructed as I + N + T + P, rather than Ti + Ne (like the cognitive process test).
So looking at it that way, when an ego engages a function, it will prefer one orientation, but can sometimes engage the other orientation as needed. They back each other up.
 
Discussion starter · #31 ·
OK, I forgot about that. Forget for the moment exactly what aspect of this stuff we were debating about.
What you just said immediately above this post is what I was trying to convey, as quickly as possible. "the criteria for their objective organizational methods of the external world are based on impersonal vs personal criteria."

So is Materiam suggesting that Te/Fe shouldn't contradict as much because an external orientation would be less prone to incompatibility than an internal (universal/personal) one?

I can see why one would think so. Still, these are two opposite perspectives of the same environment.
I think we've debated shadow functions a few times where you seemed to be arguing that shadow functions are used normally and frequently by everyone all the time, and I was trying to explain that they're contradicting perspectives, etc.

Anyway I imagine Materiam's position here has to do with him being generally unfamiliar with Je, being an IxxP type, so it's much easier for him to understand how Ji can be part of the ego, since he himself is Ji dominant.

If Je is your dominant function, however, it's much easier to understand firsthand how strongly the two Je attitudes oppose each other.
 
I think we've debated shadow functions a few times where you seemed to be arguing that shadow functions are used normally and frequently by everyone all the time, and I was trying to explain that they're contradicting perspectives, etc.
OK; that's right.
I've been for the longest trying to solidify my understanding of how and when these things surface, and when it's really other functions simulating them, or just plain undifferentiated (i.e. not type-specific and archetypal) functions.

I've finally got a working answer to five questions I had compiled as to understand the whole thing in a nutshell. Just posted this over there on the old "Archetypes of the Functions" sticky:

1) What exactly triggers them in us
2) How others' "use" (manifestation) of them affects us
3) how they affect ourselves, inside
4) how we use them on others
5) when the "good" or "bad" sides of them surface

So it seems

1) The [archetypal] complexes (personal unconscious) are triggered when a situation invokes a memory of an event associated with the corresponding archetype. Like something that makes us feel inferior, adversarial or cranky; or makes us feel trapped, or feels like evil. We then view this through the perspective of the associated function-attitude.

2)Others manifestations of these functions may trigger these memories, and affect us in kind. (i.e. according to the archetype, and it's functional perspective). Otherwise, they will be subject to how they fit the ego's goals (positively, no effect, etc).

3)We normally see the functional perspectives as "irrelevent" (or sometimes even have an aversion to them), and under stress, take them on in a rash, haphazard way. Again, the products of the undifferentiated functions do not have this effect on us when not in conflict with the ego.

4)We project them onto others, in which we see the other person as the archetype. (This can be either from them truly acting in a way that matches (resonates with) the archetypal complex, or likely more often, just our manufacturing the illusion of such when a situation somehow evokes it). We then react to them in the same way. (adversarial, critical, etc). The goal is to see these archetypes in ourselves rather than project them.

5)The positive effects surface more either in certain instances of stress when the primary counterparts cannot solve the problem. Otherwise, it is when we "own" the associated complexes and withdraw them, that we gain more conscious access to the functional perspectives. (And of course, there is also the "undifferentiated" normal everyday use of the function).
--------------------------------

So I think part of it was that we were misunderstanding each other over the meaning of "normally and frequently...all the time". I couldn't quite put my finger on any kind of "frequency", so I simply argued that they were likely used more than you (and others like Lenore) seemed to be saying.

But now in this light, it should not seem so "normal" or "all the time". It is in specific occurrences when these things are triggered.
 
Know what, I've always thought NPs should have their own temperament. They all share Ne and have some similar traits, in fact, INTPs and ENTPs might be closer to INFPs and ENFPs than they are to INTJs and ENTJs. TPs, TJs,FPs, and FJs share dom/aux judging functions and NJs, SJs, SPs, and NPs share dom/aux perceiving functions, doesn't this make more sense function wise? This is also another reason I don't like Socionics, ENTp and INTj share the same functions for example, but it is easier for me to group them according to which introverted and extroverted functions types share than whether their judging or perceiving dom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ambivalent
All of the MBTI two letter groups have some use. NP actually is part of Interaction Styles, when divided by I/E, and then the S+T/F group is added in.

Here are all of the symmetrical two letter groups. You can even see that one person, Janet Germane, also preferred the S/N + Jp (across the board), and named NP and NJ the true form of two of Keirsey's original temperaments:

E/I + S/N (ETB: "language styles")

ES extraverted dominant function, preferred perception function is Sensing (expressive, concrete)
EN extraverted dominant function, preferred perception function is iNtuition (expressive, abstract)
IS introverted dominant function, preferred perception function is Sensing (reserved, concrete)
IN introverted dominant function, preferred perception function is iNtuition (reserved, abstract)

E/I + T/F (ETB: "Social image temperaments")

EF extraverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Feeling (ETB: "expressive feelers")
ET extraverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Thinking (ETB: "expressive thinkers")
IF introverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Feeling (ETB: "deep feelers")
IT introverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Thinking (ETB: "deep thinkers")

E/I + J/P ("Sociability Temperaments" —George Frisbie writing in JPT)

EP dominant extraverted perceiving (Bissell: "extraverted eMpiricals" —Jung's "irrationals")
EJ dominant extraverted judging (Bissell: "extraverted Rationals", not to be confused with Keirsey's "Rational")
IP dominant introverted judging/aux. extraverted perceiving (Bissell: "introverted Rationals")
IJ dominant introverted perceiving/aux. extroverted judging (Bissell: "introverted eMpiricals")

S/N + T/F (Original Myers "Temperaments"; preferred function combinations)

SF preferred Sensing and Feeling (Concrete Feeling, concrete [role-]informatives)
ST preferred Sensing and Thinking (Concrete Thinking, concrete directives)
NF preferred iNtuiting and Feeling (Abstract Feeling; Apollonian/Idealist)
NT preferred iNtuiting and Thinking (Abstract Thinking; Promethean/Rational)

S/N + J/P ("Cognitive Temperaments", "Germane Temperaments", "Perceiving attitudes")

SP preferred extraverted Sensing (Dionysian/Artisan)
SJ preferred introverted Sensing (Epimethean/Guardian)
NP preferred extraverted iNtuiting (abstract informatives; [Janet] Germane: true Apollonian)
NJ preferred introverted iNtuiting (abstract directives; Germane: True Promethean)

T/F + J/P ("Myers/McCaulley groups", "Normative Temperaments", "Judging temperament model", "Judging attitudes")

TJ preferred extraverted Thinking (Bissell: "the most directive")
TP preferred introverted Thinking (Bissell: "the most pragmatic")
FJ preferred extraverted Feeling (Bissell: "the most cooperative")
FP preferred introverted Feeling (Bissell: "the most friendly")
 
Discussion starter · #35 ·
Know what, I've always thought NPs should have their own temperament. They all share Ne and have some similar traits, in fact, INTPs and ENTPs might be closer to INFPs and ENFPs than they are to INTJs and ENTJs. TPs, TJs,FPs, and FJs share dom/aux judging functions and NJs, SJs, SPs, and NPs share dom/aux perceiving functions, doesn't this make more sense function wise? This is also another reason I don't like Socionics, ENTp and INTj share the same functions for example, but it is easier for me to group them according to which introverted and extroverted functions types share than whether their judging or perceiving dom.
I completely agree; this is why I hate Keirsey's NT and NF categories. SP and SJ are reasonable groupings because they're united by Se and Si respectively, but NT/NF doesn't make sense.

I've always found NTP more similar to NFP than it is to NTJ. NTJ is more similar to NFJ than it is to NTP. NTP shares no functions with NTJ (same for NFP and NFJ), so where is the reasoning in this category? Simply having some form of N and some form of T as the top two functions doesn't create enough similarities in internal reasoning for NT to make any sense.

Personally, I think the best temperaments would be EP/IP/EJ/IJ, but if we're not going to do that, then at least use SP/SJ/NP/NJ. That would make a lot more sense.
 
Remember; Keirsey's temperaments are based on Galen, via Kretschmer. NT is anasthetic, and NF is hyperesthetic. Between them, one is "Choleric", and the other, "Phlegmatic". Where I differ from Keirsey is in which is which. Both NTP's and NTJ's dogged "toughmindedness", is classic Choleric. They are very similar in some ways, on the surface. Likewise, the NF's diplomacy and need for peace is Phlegmatic. (Then, SJ is Melancholic, and SP is Sanguine).

So they do have meaning, though in a separate framework from MBTI. And the similarly a-symmetrical E/I + S + T/F; E/I + N + J/P groups also tie to the old temperaments; such that each type is a blend of "humours" like you see in 4-Marks or LaHaye. Tis is also a very informative way of categorizing personality.

I discuss this more here:
http://personalitycafe.com/personal...com/personality-test-resources/24693-who-here-knows-about-has-taken-firo-b.html
 
I was thinking about this. I'm trying to "see" precisely how this strange kind of perception called Ni works. I describe it as "strange" because for an INTP, who is judging dominant instead perceptive dominant, and in a way incompatible with Ni, it seems so.

I'm not only trying to "intuit" Ni (more or less, everybody could do this, more after reading the descriptions in the first post), I'm trying to exactly sistematize the process. The first I realized is that I cannot speak about Ni without considering the pair Ni+Te (or Ni+Fe, but I will use the Te for because it's more familiar to me).

I will compare the solutions presented for the same problem from Ti+Ne and Te+Ni perspectives:

A=chair. B=table. To evaluate: is A equal to B?

Ti: internal evaluation, ie, in the process (while it is working) external world is irrelevant. The comparison could then only be realized with the information adquired before the evaluation started. This imply that the elements to be compared must have exact definitions, and a set of rules also previously stablished (fixed while evaluating), otherwise a conclusion cannot be reached. So, Ti, being internal, needs exact definitions. Ti will compare concept A with concept B.
Answer: NO.

Te: external evaluation, ie, in the process of evaluation, external world has the last word. Comparison using external world imply experimenting, so the answer is not a conceptual answer but a functional answer. The "experiment" could be something like this: if you eat on a chair, then a chair is like a table; if you sit on a table, then a table is like a chair. Experimentation requires adapting concepts to the multiple situations, so it must be more diffuse, less fixed than with Ti.
Answer: YES (=could be).

It might seem then that Ti is "more stupid" than Te, but not really. Ti could realize the problem as well as Te, but prefering fixed concepts, will consider it irrelevant for a first answer. When Ti see that the chair/table concepts are inadequate for covering all the possibilities, will change the concept for another concept that could cover all the known situations, but still fixing it for comparing. Or will stablish a newer and broader concept like "forniture" that includes chair and table and could be used in more situations. Te is an "experiment generator" and "analogic comparator" while Ti is a "concept generator" and "digital comparator".

Each one has its advantages and disadvantages. It seems to me that Te is faster than Ti when reaching a conclusion, but less powerful than Ti. Because if the concept is diffuse, you can more or less adapt it according to your needs, while if it is exact you need to redefine it in a more abrupt way or to stablish a new concept, what could imply a more radical change in the vision of reality (Einstein, relativity).

If Ti thinks by fixed concepts, then its companion Ne should also see by fixed concepts. Ne generates ideas by combinations of external world elements: significants. It seems logic to me that the external world concepts, at least in a first pass, should be fixed, because if not, oneself could not distinguish clearly between one element and other, so they couldn't be recombined in new patterns.

If Te thinks by unfixed concepts, then its companion Ni should also see by unfixed concepts. Being oriented internally, Ni cannot recombine significants, which exist outside, only what exists inside (meanings). So the concepts should be enough unfixed, if not, no new ideas (new meanings, new points of views) could be generated. The example of chair and table overlapping their meanings clearly shows this.

Of course, all of this is the two radical poles. Everybody has more or less both faculties, but prefers using one instead other.
 
I've also been thinking about another idea: the influence of cognitive functions in beliefs, as pointed in this post:

For most religious people, whether or not the idea of God as a conscious entity is literally true is really not the point. Religious Si users like the idea because it's familiar and gives them a sense of stability; religious Fe users like the sense of community and moral guidance; religious Te users like that it provides a set of rules they can hold everyone accountable for following; religious Ni users figure human perception is inherently too limited to know the nature of God anyway, and so on and so forth. You're never going to sway them with Ti arguments because they don't operate on the fundamental axioms of Ti in the first place.
Being the idea of "God" an empty concept, everyone will full it according to oneself mental processes. So maybe it is possible to determine cognitive functions asking to a subject about his/her beliefs. But not considering the answer, but the way this subject constructed the answer (because not always the same functions will produce the same answer).

The challenge is to find the appropiate questions, which will not be "corrupted" by "experimental conditions". For example: if you ask to someone why he/she believes in God, maybe this subject will think "this person is rational, I will not show my emotional reasons because he could think I'm stupid". But if you ask "why do you think other people believe/not believe? As his/her ego is not being threatened, it's easier the answer could be more sincere: an "empathized answer" (F>T) or a "rationalized answer" (T>F).

Other questions could then distinguish between Ti-Te.

It seems easier to me first distinguish between the dichotomy and later between the orientation of dichotomy. For example, an intuitive subject often will doubt about his/her concept of god, and probably changed over time, whereas the concept in a sensitive subject more or less will be static, will not doubt about the interpretation of the idea.

What do you think? Obviously this will not be as effective as a deep observations of cognitive functions results in multiple situations, but it seems to me that for a first approximation, it could be enough precise, more than a standard MBTI test, and much quicker.
 
21 - 40 of 196 Posts