[Bhathaway]

How does the cognitive function stack interact with one another? The dominant function is the most conscious while the lower functions are more archaic and unconscious, but what is there to say beyond that? Do functions serve one another based on the function stack order?

What is a feeling function fundamentally? Does it relate to the physical innervation of a feeling or is it something else? If it is something else and is related to the subjective roots of all logical arguments that have to do with ethics, I would respond with saying that you can define logical parameters to set up ethics foundations(ex. Stoicism).

Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual.

What is the goal of introverted thinking? Jung mentions how Ti is always reaching towards a subjective image, but as an INTP(assuming I am one), I am very much unaware of this subjective image's existence fundamentally. Is it a visual image mentally? I have no clue what Jung is referencing here. He mentions going beyond the physical data via interpretation so that the facts are coerced into representing the subjective image but I sense this is something people do fundamentally and is the entire source of logical errors. Cutting corners, etc. This is especially stand out for me because Ti, I thought, is supposed to be the function that is more scrupulous with its logical dealings making sure to not assume too many things.

Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor,*i.e.*the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and momentary existence, and not only that, but at the same time it would also see that Other, which was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. To this consciousness the present moment is improbable. This is, of course, only a simile, of which, however, I had need to give some sort of illustration of the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. Introverted sensation conveys an image whose effect is not so much to reproduce the object as to throw over it a wrapping whose lustre is derived from age-old subjective experience and the still unborn future event. Thus, mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.

What background is Si perceiving? Does Si still perceive things with the same clarity as Se when no subjective content intervenes between the subject(the Si user) and the objects in their environment? Is Si subjective data only perceived internally?

Similarly, what is Ni actually perceiving? It supposedly perceives the internal essence of things(visually?), Jung using the example of a man being shot theough the heart and the scene playing out like a movie inside the mind of an Ni dominant, but what about when there is no internal feeling that is producing a perception for their Ni? What do Ni users perceive in outer objects that produces the inner object?

What is the goal of each function?(I know people will probably think this is meant in a judging tone and then respond with "perceiving functions have no goal, it's the judging functions to assign value", but for all intents and purposes they do essentially have a goal because they only perceive specific phenomena/innervations and focus on those things inherently. There is too much overlay for defining what specific behaviors would arise, but for the judging functions what are the criteria for whether something is desirable or not?



In addition to everything above, I'm going to define the cognitive functions as responses come in so that there can be a working definition that can be critiqued as it goes that way everyone will know which perspective I am understanding from

Ti-
Te-
Fe-
Fi-
Si-
Se-
Ni-
Ne-

 

[Gilead]

What is a feeling function fundamentally? Does it relate to the physical innervation of a feeling or is it something else? If it is something else and is related to the subjective roots of all logical arguments that have to do with ethics, I would respond with saying that you can define logical parameters to set up ethics foundations(ex. Stoicism).

As I understand it, it is value that can be by nature only felt, not intellectually defined.

I prefer this description because it is applicable to feeling in general:

- awareness/experience of feeling
- expression of feeling values (at a rudimentary level: acceptance/agreement or disagreement/rejection of something based on the positive/negative feeling attitude)
- evaluation of things based on their worth, orienting behavior based on feeling (e.g. avoiding devalued things), organizing experiences (e.g. remembering things that caused a strong feeling reaction)
- feeling related/connected to things (to other people but also into objects, ideas etc.)
- creating and finding significance and meaning ouf of things and experiences

What is the goal of introverted thinking? Jung mentions how Ti is always reaching towards a subjective image, but as an INTP(assuming I am one), I am very much unaware of this subjective image's existence fundamentally. Is it a visual image mentally? I have no clue what Jung is referencing here. He mentions going beyond the physical data via interpretation so that the facts are coerced into representing the subjective image but I sense this is something people do fundamentally and is the entire source of logical errors. Cutting corners, etc. This is especially stand out for me because Ti, I thought, is supposed to be the function that is more scrupulous with its logical dealings making sure to not assume too many things.

I believe he is once again talking about the subjective archetype that I understand to be a framework in the mind (one INTP called it "thinking in blueprints"). Part of it is about taking information and fitting it into what is already known. And out of that, understanding, rules and laws can be formed. It certainly doesn't have to lead into logical errors, as you can constantly check the inner consistency (call it maintenance); and the system can be updated when coming across to new information that contradicts the data that has already been gathered. But it can biased if the Ti type starts living in accordance to these inner laws excessively without looking into other alternatives (Ne) or seeing if they match the reality (Se).

Does Si still perceive things with the same clarity as Se when no subjective content intervenes between the subject(the Si user) and the objects in their environment? Is Si subjective data only perceived internally?

Not with the same clarity no; the subjective factor always intervenes.

What do Ni users perceive in outer objects that produces the inner object?

Impossible to say for sure obviously, but I'm thinking it might be about recognizing things that are not directly discernable from the object's behavior or presentation in that specific moment; rather a growing understanding while familiarizing themselves with the object (because at least then they could have gathered several perspectives conserning the object).

What is the goal of each function?(I know people will probably think this is meant in a judging tone and then respond with "perceiving functions have no goal, it's the judging functions to assign value", but for all intents and purposes they do essentially have a goal because they only perceive specific phenomena/innervations and focus on those things inherently. There is too much overlay for defining what specific behaviors would arise, but for the judging functions what are the criteria for whether something is desirable or not?

I'm not sure I subscribe to that idea as it seems to assume the functions are separate entities that "guide" us rather than concepts of mental functions...
Regardless, you might be interested in this.

 

[Kynx]

Feeling function could be described as evaluation of emotions which are felt at a very low intensity. Physical innervation of emotions is felt at a higher intensity and eventually cross over into the realm of Sensation. High intensity emotions affect us in physical ways, facial expressions, voice tone, crying, laughing, 'butterflies' in stomach, lump in throat, etc. right through to making us feel ill.

Ti strives towards the subjective/archetypal/primordial image. The image isn't observable within our own psyche, only the effects are observable once they shape the external data. Like an instinct isn't observable until the right external conditions are present, to trigger the instinct. The introverted functions are like an instinctive way of thinking. They would steer thought in a particular direction, regardless of how a person was taught to think or how external information was presented.

 

[Catwalk]

The best way of "understanding," (Si), I found, is looking first at other internalized-function(s): (Si) is an anxietic/negative-function] - I consider all "internalized-subjective-introverted" function(s) pessimistic, depressive in some degree:

(Se/Si) can be seen in the 'hand-animation' below: (Si) being open/close and (Se) being close/open: (Se) will be pushing into the white space via spatial awareness - 'movements' [and other urgency to "disturb" or cause changes], unlike (Te) that attemps to transform external-data into something else - or something better, entirely

The bold touches on surface-distinction(s) I have noticed via (Si vs Se) and (Si vs Ni)

(Si)-favoritism - will revolve around (negativity / impending fluctuation / threats / possibility) - insight / instruction / caution.


(Se)-favoritism - will revolve around (positivity / impending connectivity / forcefulness / optimism / desire) - movements / space / presentation.


(Ni)-favoritism - will revolve around (negativity / impending doom / possible collapse / probability) - insight / direction / warning.



Si-perception will be bouncing off of (external-stimuli) of the 'environment' / outside world - and will be internally "extracting" data via stored information from 'past' state-of-affairs, events, and 'objects' (re: everything that exists out of the self) simultaneously, from "previous" events, and pulling it inward making irrational / contradictory correlations between the two: such high-functioning correlations are stored via "sensory"-outputs, (re: textures / aesthetics / details / order), which is where the 'sensation' aspect comes into the perceptiveness, that is generally in lower-degrees/absent in the (Ni)-user who does not store correlational data via sensory-outputs. This correlative data is then passed on into the (judging)-functions/units: which is where most of the (Si)-humanoids 'behaviors' are going to be demonstrated - pushed outward the most.


Ex;

The (Si)-humanoid will 'see an object' - then store such data, and begin exstracting correlations of 'data' (not memories, necessarily) which "subjectively" embedded in the subject, from previously occurred state-of-affairs, and/or 'objects' to make correlations within the present:

This keen awareness causes somewhat of a 'neuroticism' in the (Si)-user; which makes sense as it is an anxietic-function:

"I remember how I felt that day, and I'm sure this isn't a good idea," -- it is irrational because such correlation(s) are being extracted via 'abstract-unreals', coming from the persona, internalized-consciousness or the "psyche" - which simply not 'things', only simulations with no real supportive grounding.

:::

Some old post(s)

(Ne/Ni)

 

In order to [understand] "what (Ni)-does," via an internalized-operative processing unit - you must first understand the (internal) - aspect, and it's similarities via (Ti - Fi - Si);

Due to it being an (internalized) perceptive-cognitive unit - it fetishized the negative over the positives [seen in Ne], I would argue all 'internalized' function(s) deal with abstractions (including Si - Ti - and Fi), the only difference appear(s) to be how these "abstractions," manifest. All these functions slice with the same scalpel's of accuracy - while they are internally-atonomically-sitauted. This 'subjective' fixation is what is generating the esoteric 'abstractions' specimens - [explaining the repetitive parallels of questions via all types].

Ex; (1) -->

 

Why do "Sensors" still wander off into lalaland [lost in their heads] when I talk to them?

Why am I an ISTJ and still daydream so much? (re: INFP mistypes)

I am a "sensor" and still highly-imaginative (?)

:::


(Si) is around as equivalently 'abstract' as (Ni); in so far as it deals with, or fixates on, impossibilia, 'unreals', contradictions, 'ideas' of things (events - state-of-affairs'), the function (working in reverse), seems irrelevant. (e.g., "memories / patternized-events / 'abstract' states of physical-malfunctions"). External-information cognitive-units will be abstracting [from external stimuli] pulling it inward. Internal; will be abstracting from (internalized)-states projecting outward.

All internalized-function(s) are abstracting from (internalized)-states, consciousnessness (&) distinctions among cognition, and "the selves,", (Fi) abstracts from internalized-anatomic selves, and more concrete anatomic- psyiological / psychological states of well-being in other subjects.


(Ex; 1B) --->

 

I know how I would feel in this situation; so I will not disturb your space.

(Ti) "abstracts" from internalized anatomic selves, and more concrete (functions) - of matter / things / (actualized-reality) and deals with changes and fluctuations within 'actualized' reality (re: in objects), in a similar manner of (Te), in the same sense ('Fe') deals with 'actualized' subjects.

Why is a "room full of (Fi)-doms; more likely to get along than a room full of (Fe)-doms?"


Due to basic-human psychologiy (most internalized-functions will be fixated (or gaining momentum in negative or via pessmisstic)-states.


Ex; (2) --->

 

(Ni)-favoritism - will revolve around (negativity / impending doom / possible collapse / probability) - insight / direction / warning.



(Ne)-favoritism - will revolve around (positivity / hopefulness / can-happens / -lapsing) - suggestion influence / critique.


--

(Si)-favoritism - will revolve around (negativity / impending fluctuation / threats / possibility) - insight / instruction / caution.



(Se)-favoritism - will revolve around (positivity / impending connectivity / forcefulness / optimism / desire) - movements / space / presentation.

(Te/Fe) and (Ti/Fi) follow these similiar negativity / positivity patterns (re: Fe in ISFJ).

---

Utilize referents (e.g, conversational stimulus) to identify the function(s) of said humanoid - all are susceptible to delusions (biases (e.g., only seeing what they prefer to see) - due to cognitive-defects / perceptive favoritism.

(Ni) is a closed anemone opening;

(Ne) is an open anemone closing;

____________________

(Ne) - will be utilized (outside) reflective - or sensory referents to formulate (various) possible of 'outcomes' that can occur via state-of-affairs, the various intake of 'possibles' generates a sense of temporal ataraxia for high-functioning (Ne) user(s) due never being "backed into a corner," per se with much less opportunistic-outcomes / solution(s) or possibility - while (Ne)-generates various outcomes -- it induces connectivity between said outcomes - or makes 'connections' between them; regardless if they fit - or not (Ne)-creates 'essence' / connectivty - while (Ni)-extracts it from existing essences / connectivity.

Abstracting from the environment (&) reflecting it inward, a (Ne)-specimen can seem self-fixated on various events becoming problematic to 'themselves' (or disrupting the internalized-states of themselves); which can (&) cannot make much sense to a (Ni) or internalized user - in so far as it cannot be determined (X, Y, Z) will 'affect the self' in such a manner without it being deriving directly from the internalized-state, first.

There are 'multiple' outcomes; now how does (X)-possibility relate to the [referents].


Because of this; (Ne) remains positive, hopeful, and somewhat 'idealistic' about future affairs; in spite of acquiring a 'negative' possibility (which are generally imcomplete), and generally not connected to any (strong multiple referents / patternization) to go off - inducing a more 'unstable' uncertainty via the (Ne) humanoid due to lack of foundation or "support" aside from [one referent] which is usually only one subject / object - or singular affair. The (Ni) will often find (Ne) absurd; and rather annoying for it's inability to 'link' (X, Y, Z)-possibility anywhere - and often, less rational, however, both function(s) are equally irrational in their general-fixation on abstractions.

_____________


(Ni) will only generate (one or two probabilities) via patternized ('landmarks') on the terrarian - which is generally utilizing (abstract 'points' (known as object - subject essence') or "vibes"; utilizing it's scalpel to fixate on, and sort out perceived data, (negative) probabilities will arise in how such 'events - state-of-affairs' or (X)-objects / subjects will change, fluctuate over time.


These 'landmarks' or points on the terrain; will always be connected (in some essence / way) to one another; where as, (Ne)-connectivity derives from a single-point, and abstracts outwards (in various things that could happen - / can happen to (X)-ball if we decide to bounce it) - often not related to directional [bounces]; but rather a series of possible ways (X)-ball will be effected by surrounding-referents. Thus, it is best we bounce this ball here, and see what happens. (Positivity/Hopeful fixation).


What (Ni) - 'extracts' is from existing references [with supporting essences'] such as the 'balls volicity'.


(Ni)-will utilized patternized-content on the ball (such as lines) - via sensory observation; and say (X)-ball will only bounce (left and right). At it's worst, (X)-ball will hit a stick near the Oak tree and pop completely, thus, it is best we bounce (X)-ball on a smoother surface, and away from sharp objects. (re: Negative fixation).


(Why are 'introverts' more reluctant to particpate in (X)?)

__________




In this sense via (accuracy), (Ne) users can find (Ni)-users arrogant in their 'insightfulness'; in the same sense (Ti / Fi / Si) humanoids seem to trust-too much in their internalized-functions.

[HR][/HR]

(Fe/Fi) vs Te/Ti

 

 

I reckon it is the high-functioning (reflexive)-nature that avoided deeper analysis of the "(F/T)" functons themselves, to which when end up with specimens utilizing 'emotionless' body-mannerism or specimens that have a "strong logical composure," as direct indicators of (X)-type, however, such thinking is fallacious + highly susceptible to high-functioning cognitive-biases / human-errors.

It could be said; "feelers," (while highly intuned with themselves) - have a 'distorted' sense of themselves: I will attempt to expound on my point.

Although; we can argue all the (internalized) function(s) seem to be as well: (Si/Ni/Ti/Fi) - due to the fixation on "internalized"-states: which has an overall-fixation on (self-disturbances + self-frequencies), as seen with (Ni):

And again with (Si) - with a disposition to be concerned with (internalized-discomforts / self-anatomic disturbances + high-functioning self-safety).

________


(Feeling) - as I understand it, deals with the anatomic-function / well-being of subjects - which is never said within typology itself, although, it becomes evident "Feelers," will be fixated on subjects (regardless of external / internal) stimuli, but differential anatomic "states" - thus, for the feeler, it is a subconscious reflex to be concerned with either the psyiological / psychological / anatomic states of subjects (including themselves), above all else, to which such logicla-judgments will be made with the following categories/fixations/focuses in mind.

And I suppose, when we here 'fixation on subjects,' a hueristical-reflex occurs that equates it to nurture, habital care, and "emotions,", which may be a side-effect, however, not what "feeling," actually is - or 'fixates' on, which is not emotions, caring for other specimens, rather it is a logical-function constantly making judgments on the high-functioning anatomic states / well-being of surrounding agents + subjects:



So what is "subject-fixation," concerned with (?)

Ex; (1)


In general: (A, B, C):


(A) -

 

Anatomy of other subjects (re: organ health / bone health / muscluar/tissue health) - health of body :

(B) -

 

Physiological well-being (re: chemical-make-up / hormonal level + homoestatis / stability) of subjects:

(C) -

 

Psychological states of subjects: (emotions / feelings / biases / cognition/mind)

::



(Fi)-users will be utilizing the anatomic-states of themselves to address the anatomic-states of other humanoids;

(Fe)-users will be utilizing the anatomic-states of others; to address the anatomic-states within themselves;

Somewhere in between, values are formed.

::

If you wish; I can demonstrate what "logical-judgments on anatomic," states looks like (re: the distinctions between F/T - and Fi/Fe), however, I wish to keep this post less lengthy.



If we will break these down in "degrees", rather than either/or black/white:

(Fi) will have more fixation on (A, B) in this order,

While (Fe) will have more fixation on (B, C) in this order:

_______________


(Thinking) - as I understand it, will be logical-judgments via with the ('anatomic function / structure / state-of-affairs') of all non-subjects which entails "objects," - but not always, some "thinking," function(s) can be utilized to break-down the anatomic-structures of subjects (re: "psychology of 'humans'), however, it differs from that of the feeler, in so far as it is not concerned with overall well-being, of said structures: which may by implication/disposition create a 'cooler' demeanor - but I do consider this a "strong" / sound distinction between the 'feeler/thinker' - in so far as there certainly are "emotionally cold" feelers (re: INFJ) - and "emotionally soft thinkers," (re: INTJ):

Reflecting back on the "thinking function," itself: it will fixated on (the following below in the opposition to the 'feeler' function):


Ex; (2)


It can entail things;

State-of-affairs; -----> (Do not confuse this with the 'perception' function(s))

Events; ------> (Do not confuse 'events' with the (Ni) dealing with time-lapse / essences) - rather than direct events themselves:



(D, E, F)


(D)

 

Structure: - All internalized (physical - properties / rules / attributes / substances') belonging to (X);

(E)

 

"Things":- All external intimate-objects consisting of (attribtes / properties / substances):

(F)

 

"Objects": - All external events, state-of-affairs, occurrences, et al - "existing," outside the subject/self

If we will break these down in "degrees", rather than either/or black/white:

Ex; (Te)-doms are less analytical than (Ti)-doms,

Thus the (Te)-doms fixation revolves around (F, E),

While the (Ti)-humanoid follow (D, E) - in this order:


[HR][/HR]

Based off the above: It appears to myself,


As to why "feelers," are more likely to type themselves as thinkers; it does not seem to be rooted within the (strong thinker/logic) bias, although, it may occur in less skilled-specimens within typology (&) be products of other personalized/psychological-malfunctions (e.g., insecurities), but this is not all it is.

"Feelers," may be more susceptible to high-functioning cognitive / psychological biases via the fixation on (congition / subject-fixation) in general, which is demonstrated to be 'unreliable' in scientific discourse, and other highly sound / reliable testing methods: (re: why 'ancedotal evidences / "experiences" / appealing to intuition over trial/error) and other subject-related abstractions are simply unreliable; which does not surprise me that 'feelers' may have more malfunctions typing themselves accurately than "thinkers" due to the the genetic / cognitive-disposition make-up to fixatue on less reliable "typing" methods when addressing themselves: - while 'thinkers' certainly have malfunctions typing themselves, and are susceptible to the same human-baises / hueristical reflexive thinking disregarding deeper analysis of the self:

Futher, a specimen may say in defense of this oppsition, "feelers have deeper understanding of themselves," (and who they are), which indeed, may be true on (surface-value psychology (re: "emotions") and/or other reflexive conscious-outputs, but this does not seem to be case when devolving deeper into the subconscious to which (cognition / and/or the 'inner workers') of humanoids has yet to be accurately described as "what is," (and how the 'self-subject' operates), in the subconscious degree: meaning, the deeper the "feeler" goes into understanding themselves via typology (re: appealing to the anatomic / psychological-states of themselves), the more unreliable, dogmatic / hueristic - it becomes. Which may certain explain why we have more "confused" feelers typing as thinkers; than vice versa. The thinker, due to less subject-fixation (will have a small, however significant) reduction in susceptibility to such internalized-psychological / cognitive-biases due to appealing to (structures / things / objects), outside of the self - or the subject. Creating a more 'stable' foundation in typing oneself; even if the foundation is 'unstable', the accuracy of such typing increases - due to the reduction of psychological-bias implementation.

[HR][/HR]

(Te/Ti)

 

I think such fixations via 'logic, truth' et al, in typology are side-effects, rather than functions overall "focus,".


What (both) (Te/Ti) Thinking - are concerned/focused on is not "truths, facts, logic," but rather with :: (D, E, F)


Ex; (A)

(D) Structure: - All internalized (physical - properties / rules / attributes / substances') belonging to (X);

(E) "Things":- All external intimate-objects consisting of (attribtes / properties / substances)

(F) "Objects": - All external events, state-of-affairs, occurrences, et al - "existing," outside the subject/self



(Te) does not care about "truths," nor falsehoods - a (Te) is production/transformation of 'objects/structure/things' - and high-functioning (Te)-usage/users are concerned via transforming error / data / objects [in the same way Se transforms space / movements], and wishes to disturb the atmosphere.

(Te) is not a 'quiet' uncontradictory, inevitable truth; it is a loud fact, & can be contradictory.

Similar to (Se) that is Transforming space - movements - ("external") through pushing through the environment:


(Te) - Transformining the ("external") through production of 'making ends meet': (Te) utilizes facts, not truths or falsehoods, to connect the train set in the environment (this can occur between trains of specimens - or 'managing' the environmental objects) through events, state-of-affairs (ontic / facts) - and 'things' (re: scheduling / "graph-making" / Examples, bullets),". It makes logical judgments on data, information.

Ex; (A1)

Coupled with (Intuition) you will then start to see this 'time-management,' or this sense of urgency to be busy, to be moving persona extroverted through the ENTJ - and some INTJ respectively.


(Te)-users will be utilizing (F, E) in this order from Example A.



[HR][/HR]


(Ti) "cares" about truths / falsehoods - but only to the extent that the 'definition' of truth is lack of contradiction; they 'access' these inconsistent (or rather decipher through systematicies through "analysis,"). Analytic work; indepth scalpel-cutting in loops, by implication of fixation heavy 'structure', one must be somewhat concerned with the consistencies of the attributes, and properties that entail the strucutre.

By implication, this will hit "true and false," more so than (Te) will. Ti It will scrutinize; rather than transform data; and this is why you see a 'heavy intellectualism,' that tends to be somewhat less aparent in (Te)-preferencers, while both utilize the 'thinking' function.

(Ti)-users follow (D, E) in this order from Example A.

 

[ae1905]

I consider all "internalized-subjective-introverted" function(s) pessimistic, depressive in some degree:

Si is what causes people to have a favorite color or flavor of ice cream, etc, so it isn't necessarily "pessimistic", much less "depressive"..."cautious" or "skeptical" might be better descriptions of the attitude of introverted functions...caution and skepticism cause introverted types to be slow to process information and adapt to their environments...this slowness can appear to be "depressive" in the same way slow music is often sad, though this isn't necessarily the case--eg, Ti is slow because it is contemplative, not because it is "depressed"

extroverts, in contrast, tend to process information and act quickly, so much so their quickness--their responsiveness--is considered a quality of extroversion...their quickness is also commonly associated with optimism and happiness, in the same way fast-paced music is thought to embody "happiness", though this isn't necessarily the case, either--eg, Te is fast because it is efficient, not because it is "happy"

 

[heroindisguise]

How does the cognitive function stack interact with one another? The dominant function is the most conscious while the lower functions are more archaic and unconscious, but what is there to say beyond that? Do functions serve one another based on the function stack order?

If i am not wrong, our dominant functions parallel Freud's ego. It is conscious, and in control; taking the drivers' seat. Function stacks describe how the other cognitive functions come into play in our mentality. The auxiliary is a servant to the dominant, which means it's allowed into consciousness in so far as it is able to serve the objectives of our dominant. For example (I will use Fi-Ne as it is what I am most familair with), Ne is out to play when I am stuck in a Fi-Si loop, where the world feels heavy and everything feels like a cage, like nothing will ever change from the everyday sameness. Essentially, when I feel stuck, Ne gives me a new perspective. It pushes me to grow myself, and informs me that there are many possibilities in this world that I can pursue, to live what I think is a meaningful life.

Everything else is suppressed into the unconscious, largely our opposing function, as it contradicts with our ego. In psychological types, Jung touches briefly how the functions are 'stacked'. At the very least, it was clear which function is the antithesis of the other (i.e. extroverted intuition and introverted sensing).

What is a feeling function fundamentally? Does it relate to the physical innervation of a feeling or is it something else?

I think @Gilead, got the main points. Jung's words for introverted feeling "Primordial images are, of course, just as much idea as feeling. Thus, basic ideas such as God, freedom, immortality are just as much feeling-values as they are significant as ideas." Feeling is very much about valuation - it is not a physical innervation, as in an emotion, but a process that determines whether something is meaningful/ significant. This definition works for both Fe and Fi, but because of function orientation (as in whether it values or devalues the object), the premise differs. Sorry if I oversimplified things, it's been a while since I read Jung and I'm speaking from memory.

What is the goal of introverted thinking? Jung mentions how Ti is always reaching towards a subjective image, but as an INTP(assuming I am one), I am very much unaware of this subjective image's existence fundamentally.


I'm not sure what you mean here by goal. Cognitive functions, as far as I know, doesn't serve a goal, but describes how someone relates to the world, and how the self is defined.

When Jung speaks about the subjective, I assume he refers to the 'primordial image' which he has repeatedly mention in his book. Just as how there is an external, physical world, there is also a subjective, internal world that we all house - it houses our psychology history, sort of like a powerhouse all mankind are running on. For the introverted judging type, "thinking" is always directed and determined inwards. As in the case of Fi (which is similar to Ti, except both differ on their focus), meaning and significance is always found within. If there is reference to any predetermined values, facts, social norms, they are all treated as a means to an end, not without ruthless examination of its validity. For example, if i find that society's definition of a 'normal life' is invalid, as in it does not help perpetuate the good life, then I disregard, or even discard this notion, and proceed to understand what is normal for ME. This is frequently explored via the imagination, day-dreaming, introspection etc. I would say spontaneous imagery from dreams and imaginations are part of this subjective image, so it does not contradict with Ti's pedantic way of dealing with logic. Einstein is the prototypical INTP for good reason. His thought experiments are good examples of how imagination and in this case, the subjective factor, is used to explore ideas and concepts.

Edit: Just wanted to add here that the subjective image sounds vague, because it is vague. Jung kept it quite vague himself; as when he spoke about "God" and described it as a anthropomorphic idea that exists in our unconscious psyche.

 

[Eric B]

I’ve been trying to come up with the most root definitions:

S spacelike object recognition
N timelike pattern recognition
T impersonal (“things”) truth determination
F human (“people”) affect determination
e in the environment
i in the individual

 

[ae1905]

I’ve been trying to come up with the most root definitions:

S spacelike object recognition
N timelike pattern recognition
T impersonal (“things”) truth determination
F human (“people”) affect determination
e in the environment
i in the individual

Ne pattern recognition is not "timelike"

 

[Eric B]

Patterns are timelike. It takes time for things to play out, where we’ll say we recognize “a pattern”. (Of course; I’m not talking about a physical pattern that we literally see with our eyes)

 

[Catwalk]

Si is what causes people to have a favorite color or flavor of ice cream, etc, so it isn't necessarily "pessimistic", much less "depressive"..."cautious" or "skeptical" might be better descriptions of the attitude of introverted functions...caution and skepticism cause introverted types to be slow to process information and adapt to their environments...this slowness can appear to be "depressive" in the same way slow music is often sad, though this isn't necessarily the case--eg, Ti is slow because it is contemplative, not because it is "depressed"

extroverts, in contrast, tend to process information and act quickly, so much so their quickness--their responsiveness--is considered a quality of extroversion...their quickness is also commonly associated with optimism and happiness, in the same way fast-paced music is thought to embody "happiness", though this isn't necessarily the case, either--eg, Te is fast because it is efficient, not because it is "happy"

I did not say that (Si/Ni) are "depressed," nor "happy," as a function themselves - but rather 'perceptive' function(s) that are fixated internally will by default be more 'anxietic' (and susceptible to negativity / neuroticism) due to the dogmaticism/irrationally elevated from (internally)-embedded, thus more susceptible to (irrationalities / unique to internalized-function baises) et al, (&) thus, harbor a sort of 'pessimistic' essence when met with the judging-function(s). I think, such can be observed via the distinctions of demeanor between an ESTP - and a ISTP - // or an ENFP and a INFP for instance, that inspite of having 'thinking functions,' (or (X, Y, Z) in common - they do not exuberate - nor project themselves, nor respond in similar fashion on the ontic 'external stimuli - or the surroundings / 'external' environment,'. It seems that such a correlation would pass-on into the functions when these distinct energies are met with 'sensing/intuition' themselves.

"Cautious," and "skepticism," is simply a side-effect of this 'introverted-energy,' applied to sensing (that when analyzed) is simply a 'fear of the unknown,' (or a ('fear of impending doom,') of some sort [stemming from subconscious anxieties]. Passed into the judging-functions, we then have a humanoid reluctant to experiment/participate in the present; in the new.


Estatic, in the moment - optimistic; (Se)-function [that is building pysiological brain-chemical(s) [dopamine] from external-stimuli], thus, regardless of what goes wrong in the "extroverts life," or what interferes (re: death in the family), that may lead to grief / depressive states, that with (Se/Fe/Te/Ne), these functions will still be fueled via external 'outer-stimuli', and will always be getting fed 'feel-good' stimulus (re: thus, harboring a hopefulness about what is to come, an optimism of sorts, when they are fed "positive"-energy which is external-stimuli) - unlike the introvert, who does not receive fuel, (regardless of "how they feel in that moment," - or "what goes wrong in ones life,"). That (Si), will always fundamentally be doing that anxietic-thing.

You will see an IXXX; for instance, come alive in a 'small group,' - they become funny (fueled/charged) they mimic-extroversion. They no longer have a stress on their agency (re: frustrationed-introversion), and thus, appear happier, optimistic, confident - engaging in external-stimulus.

When this energy is met with "Intuition," (if introverted) - it will 'intuit', and when such data is passed into the judging-inputs will express distinct-behaviors - (or appear / respond or react) distinctively, like so:


(Ni)-favoritism - will revolve around (negativity / impending doom / possible collapse / probability) - insight / direction / warning.


And Si like so ::


(Si)-favoritism - will revolve around (negativity / impending fluctuation / threats / possibility) - insight / instruction / caution.

_________________

The ENTP for ex; is 'innovate,' or the ENFP is an 'advocate' more so than not, due to this ('positivity / optimism / hopefulness) fed or fueling (Ne) itself ::

(Ne)-favoritism - will revolve around (positivity / hopefulness / can-happens / -lapsing) - suggestion influence / critique.

[HR][/HR]

Although, this is a rather small portion of what I posited. I do not claim that any of these functions 'ultimately is,' or 'only is' what I said above.

 

[ae1905]

I did not say that (Si/Ni) are "depressed," nor "happy," as a function themselves - but rather 'perceptive' function(s) that are fixated internally will by default be more 'anxietic' (and susceptible to negativity / neuroticism) due to the dogmaticism/irrationally elevated from (internally)-embedded, thus more susceptible to (irrationalities / unique to internalized-function baises) et al, (&) thus, harbor a sort of 'pessimistic' essence when met with the judging-function(s).

I didn't say "depressed"...I said "depressive", as you wrote here:

The best way of "understanding," (Si), I found, is looking first at other internalized-function(s): (Si) is an anxietic/negative-function] - I consider all "internalized-subjective-introverted" function(s) pessimistic, depressive in some degree:

[comparisons between various functions]

"depressive" can mean "tending to depress" or "characterized by depression, especially mental depression"...depression is a recognized mental illness...even if we take "depressive" to mean "a tendency to depress, ie, to become depressed", it still implies introversion is a tendency to mental illness...is that what jung or myers and briggs believed?...or is introversion a normal, healthy aspect of human personality?....you may have observed depression in some introverts, but they may, in fact, have been ill...illness shouldn't be confused with a normal personality trait

I think, such can be observed via the distinctions of demeanor between an ESTP - and a ISTP - // or an ENFP and a INFP for instance, that inspite of having 'thinking functions,' (or (X, Y, Z) in common - they do not exuberate - nor project themselves, nor respond in similar fashion on the ontic 'external stimuli - or the surroundings / 'external' environment,'. It seems that such a correlation would pass-on into the functions when these distinct energies are met with 'sensing/intuition' themselves.

but Se and Ti are combined in different measures in estp and istp, so why would you expect the latter to "exuberate" more than the former?

"Cautious," and "skepticism," is simply a side-effect of this 'introverted-energy,' applied to sensing (that when analyzed) is simply a 'fear of the unknown,' (or a ('fear of impending doom,') of some sort [stemming from subconscious anxieties]. Passed into the judging-functions, we then have a humanoid reluctant to experiment/participate in the present; in the new.

this explanation assumes introverts are maladapted to their environments and consequently suffer from subconcsious anxieties and fears...an alternative explanation is that introverts are adapted so they don't need to "experiment or participate in the present or new" as much as extroverts do, that they make up for these deficits by accumulating an abundance of inner resources, like mental models of the world, that allow them to navigate and anticipate their environment...I mean, I can turn this around and say the reason extroverts need to "experiment and participate in the present or new" so much is precisely because they need to make up for their internal deficits, right?

extroversion and introversion are two sides of the same personality coin...neither is perfect...both are successful strategies adapted so different types can live and survive in the world

Estatic, in the moment - optimistic; (Se)-function [that is building pysiological brain-chemical(s) [dopamine] from external-stimuli], thus, regardless of what goes wrong in the "extroverts life," or what interferes (re: death in the family), that may lead to grief / depressive states, that with (Se/Fe/Te/Ne), these functions will still be fueled via external 'outer-stimuli', and will always be getting fed 'feel-good' stimulus (re: thus, harboring a hopefulness about what is to come, an optimism of sorts, when they are fed "positive"-energy which is external-stimuli) - unlike the introvert, who does not receive fuel, (regardless of "how they feel in that moment," - or "what goes wrong in ones life,"). That (Si), will always fundamentally be doing that anxietic-thing.

yes, but is it quality or quantity of human contact that matters when you're depressed?...is it support from people close to you or lots of social contact with acquaintances and strangers that will help when you are down?...if it's quality, then extroverts' usually active social lives won't necessarily help them, while introverts' close circle of friends and family may

You will see an IXXX; for instance, come alive in a 'small group,' - they become funny (fueled/charged) they mimic-extroversion. They no longer have a stress on their agency (re: frustrationed-introversion), and thus, appear happier, optimistic, confident - engaging in external-stimulus.

again, quality vs quantity

introverts disengage or refuse to engage when the quality is not there...this doesn't mean they won't be perfectly happy alone

When this energy is met with "Intuition," (if introverted) - it will 'intuit', and when such data is passed into the judging-inputs will express distinct-behaviors - (or appear / respond or react) distinctively, like so:

(Ni)-favoritism - will revolve around (negativity / impending doom / possible collapse / probability) - insight / direction / warning.


And Si like so ::


(Si)-favoritism - will revolve around (negativity / impending fluctuation / threats / possibility) - insight / instruction / caution.

_________________

The ENTP for ex; is 'innovate,' or the ENFP is an 'advocate' more so than not, due to this ('positivity / optimism / hopefulness) fed or fueling (Ne) itself ::

(Ne)-favoritism - will revolve around (positivity / hopefulness / can-happens / -lapsing) - suggestion influence / critique.

[HR][/HR]

Although, this is a rather small portion of what I posited. I do not claim that any of these functions 'ultimately is,' or 'only is' what I said above.

I don't see why Ni or Si must necessarily be cast under dark clouds, anymore than Ne must bask in eternal sunshine...a depressed Ne can imagine dark possibilities just as a happy Ni can imagine a bright future or a happy Si can feel utter contentment in his present world

mental illness is not part of type descriptions...maybe it should since the big 5 has neuroticism...but as myers-briggs formulated the types, no type or function is "depressive", much less mentall ill

 

[Catwalk]

I didn't say "depressed"...I said "depressive", as you wrote here:



"depressive" can mean "tending to depress" or "characterized by depression, especially mental depression"...depression is a recognized mental illness...even if we take "depressive" to mean "a tendency to depress, ie, to become depressed", it still implies introversion is a tendency to mental illness..

Only if we are going by it's (medical)-definition. I am not going by it's "medical," defintion - rather by 'depressive,' I recognize 'depressing', drawing a parallel between "depressive," (re: side-effects), rather than an indication of cause a source of (re: mental illness).

Temporal feeling(s) of ('disturbing / sub-optimal' feelings of distress) seem to suffice; and does not imply an illness, rather (surface-value) correlations, between the depressed (re: medically diagnosed) - and Timmy, who simply is in a down mood or a sub-optimal position.

The more the introvert "remains," in certain-stimuli, ignoring 'rebooting,' period(s) - the more dopamine [or brain-chemistry will be disrupted], resulting in an essence of 'depressive states' and/or sub-optimal fluctutations for the agent, in so far as the "introverted" brain-chemistry responds sub-optimally to certain stimulus. Whether or not this is 'unhealthy' is moot. Although, it is certainly is not "healthy," (re: optimizing) in so far as it puts unnecessary / useless stress on the agent.

Whether or not there are (predispositions) to specific-mental illnesses (while some studies have found some correlative-data), is still moot (although, as the studies deepend) I would not be surprised that (Si/Ni) and/or INXX / ISXX specimens report slightly higher level(s) of chronic anxiety/depression than their cousins. Which is often associated with (negative / sub-optimal psychological brain-activity & other mechanisms - such as 'self-deteatist' thoughts).

or is introversion a normal, healthy aspect of human personality?....you may have observed depression in some introverts, but they may, in fact, have been ill...illness shouldn't be confused with a normal personality trait

I haven't observed 'depression,' in (some introverts), more so side-effects of demonstrable changes occurring to (internalized-brain chemistry) - thus, differential responses to the same stimuli (between extroversion / introversion).

The more ("extroverted") stimulus; the more the introvert deterioriates; or is put under distress. Vice-versa to the extroverted specimen. I consider 'distress' sub-optimal/self-defeatist to the agent, regardless.

this explanation assumes introverts are maladapted to their environments and consequently suffer from subconcsious anxieties and fears...

Indeed; and, I am inclined to think the susceptibility (increases) - the more the 'perceptive'-function(s) (Si/Ni) are within the dominant-degree. These "introverted," functions are also balanced with the (extroverted)-functions, for the reasoning stated above, which gives the 'introverted'-specimen a boost; & in the opposition the 'extroverted' specimen a relaxer. Just these 'functions' alone - however, generate(s) a very different breed.

This does not mean mean that "extrovert(s) do not feel degrees of anxiousness / nor suffer from 'false fears'," within certain localities, or ever for that matter. In fact, the extrovert is a rather 'neurotic' animal, as well.

Granted, this does not mean 'introvert/extrovert' are incapable of 'satisfactorily surviving' in multiple-environment(s); my focus is on flourishing.

an alternative explanation is that introverts are adapted so they don't need to "experiment or participate in the present or new" as much as extroverts do,

I am not merely talking about "introverted/extroverted," people. (Ni) will need to 'experiment' as much as any other 'perceptive' function in so far as 'introverted energies' do not change the structures related to (intuitiveness) - (re: openness) that requires a certain degree of stimulus (re: external-sensory processing via global complex). Which is why (Ni) "works on the environment," -- but is non-external + subjectively internalized. There is a yin-yang non-dualistic pattern occurring. A love/hate of sorts.

The distinctions, however, are seen within the 'degrees' in which such 'participation in (X),' is needed. An introverted does not "need," the same amount of stimulus - or better yet, even the same type of stimulus - to derive what they need from external-environment. In other words, "sufficient or good enough," suffices for most, rather than the same stimulus the 'extrovert' needs for optimization of their 'energy'.

It seems known that extrovert(s) require distinct, unique amounts of stimulus different from the introvert, at minimum. A predisposition for (X).

extroversion and introversion are two sides of the same personality coin...neither is perfect...both are successful strategies adapted so different types can live and survive in the world

Okay.

I am focusing on "flourishing," however. Not mere survival. (Certain 'types' flourish better under differential circumstances), in so far as they are receiving unique stimuli appropriate for their unique attributes (less stressed).

yes, but is it quality or quantity of human contact that matters when you're depressed?...is it support from people close to you or lots of social contact with acquaintances and strangers that will help when you are down?...if it's quality, then extroverts' usually active social lives won't necessarily help them, while introverts' close circle of friends and family may

"Extrovert(s)," can be surrounded by 'poor quality strangers / company,' and still feel terrible, of course. However, the 'functions' themselves will still be thriving - or perhaps, will continue to be "nourished," regardless of whether or not Jody is having a terrible day; or whether or not Jody and Mark get along. The essence, the "energy" via the subject and/or other 'external' stimulus outside of themselves, [of this encounter] is what nourishes (X)-extrovert-functions, not the personalized-details or 'personas' of people themselves.

again, quality vs quantity

introverts disengage or refuse to engage when the quality is not there...this doesn't mean they won't be perfectly happy alone

In spite of whether or not "the crowd of 60 is filled with good 'quality' specimens," the introverted will be draining sufficiently more than an extroverted specimen.

And indeed, it seems no coincidence that 'introvert(s)' prefer prolonged states of less-subjects or "less bodies" perhaps, lower-dosages of unique extrovert-stimuli than the extroverted cousin.

I don't see why Ni or Si must necessarily be cast under dark clouds, anymore than Ne must bask in eternal sunshine...a depressed Ne can imagine dark possibilities just as a happy Ni can imagine a bright future or a happy Si can feel utter contentment in his present world

Of course; however, "functions" themselves cannot be 'happy' nor 'sad', as they lack this capacity - which is not what I am talking about. Rather, I am discussing 'energies' and/or essences.

 

[Zeus]

Ti is more prone towards being unscrupulous than being so. The image you speak of is what you ideally seek in the form of ideas. Hope that helps.

 

[Penny]

"What is a feeling function fundamentally? Does it relate to the physical innervation of a feeling or is it something else? If it is something else and is related to the subjective roots of all logical arguments that have to do with ethics, I would respond with saying that you can define logical parameters to set up ethics foundations(ex. Stoicism)." @Bhathaway

in the basic writings of c.g. jung, jung states basically that the feeling function is the act of placing value on something, (i.e) like or dislike, or that feelings can manifest as a mood or sensation. He also states that feeling can also be a kind of "judging", basically concerned with the persons acceptance or rejection of the matter at hand. it relates as it can create an "affect" on the physical body. i don't understand the last question about ethics that you are asking.

 

[Eric B]

In Beebe's new book, he points out:
The difference between “Feeling” and “feelings” (emotion) is that Feeling is “the function that sorts out feelings” Or, to quote Jungian writer William Willeford, the function that “discriminates affect”.

 

[ae1905]

Only if we are going by it's (medical)-definition. I am not going by it's "medical," defintion - rather by 'depressive,' I recognize 'depressing', drawing a parallel between "depressive," (re: side-effects), rather than an indication of cause a source of (re: mental illness).

Temporal feeling(s) of ('disturbing / sub-optimal' feelings of distress) seem to suffice; and does not imply an illness, rather (surface-value) correlations, between the depressed (re: medically diagnosed) - and Timmy, who simply is in a down mood or a sub-optimal position.

The more the introvert "remains," in certain-stimuli, ignoring 'rebooting,' period(s) - the more dopamine [or brain-chemistry will be disrupted], resulting in an essence of 'depressive states' and/or sub-optimal fluctutations for the agent, in so far as the "introverted" brain-chemistry responds sub-optimally to certain stimulus. Whether or not this is 'unhealthy' is moot. Although, it is certainly is not "healthy," (re: optimizing) in so far as it puts unnecessary / useless stress on the agent.

Whether or not there are (predispositions) to specific-mental illnesses (while some studies have found some correlative-data), is still moot (although, as the studies deepend) I would not be surprised that (Si/Ni) and/or INXX / ISXX specimens report slightly higher level(s) of chronic anxiety/depression than their cousins. Which is often associated with (negative / sub-optimal psychological brain-activity & other mechanisms - such as 'self-deteatist' thoughts).




I haven't observed 'depression,' in (some introverts), more so side-effects of demonstrable changes occurring to (internalized-brain chemistry) - thus, differential responses to the same stimuli (between extroversion / introversion).

The more ("extroverted") stimulus; the more the introvert deterioriates; or is put under distress. Vice-versa to the extroverted specimen. I consider 'distress' sub-optimal/self-defeatist to the agent, regardless.




Indeed; and, I am inclined to think the susceptibility (increases) - the more the 'perceptive'-function(s) (Si/Ni) are within the dominant-degree. These "introverted," functions are also balanced with the (extroverted)-functions, for the reasoning stated above, which gives the 'introverted'-specimen a boost; & in the opposition the 'extroverted' specimen a relaxer. Just these 'functions' alone - however, generate(s) a very different breed.

This does not mean mean that "extrovert(s) do not feel degrees of anxiousness / nor suffer from 'false fears'," within certain localities, or ever for that matter. In fact, the extrovert is a rather 'neurotic' animal, as well.

Granted, this does not mean 'introvert/extrovert' are incapable of 'satisfactorily surviving' in multiple-environment(s); my focus is on flourishing.



I am not merely talking about "introverted/extroverted," people. (Ni) will need to 'experiment' as much as any other 'perceptive' function in so far as 'introverted energies' do not change the structures related to (intuitiveness) - (re: openness) that requires a certain degree of stimulus (re: external-sensory processing via global complex). Which is why (Ni) "works on the environment," -- but is non-external + subjectively internalized. There is a yin-yang non-dualistic pattern occurring. A love/hate of sorts.

The distinctions, however, are seen within the 'degrees' in which such 'participation in (X),' is needed. An introverted does not "need," the same amount of stimulus - or better yet, even the same type of stimulus - to derive what they need from external-environment. In other words, "sufficient or good enough," suffices for most, rather than the same stimulus the 'extrovert' needs for optimization of their 'energy'.

It seems known that extrovert(s) require distinct, unique amounts of stimulus different from the introvert, at minimum. A predisposition for (X).





Okay.

I am focusing on "flourishing," however. Not mere survival. (Certain 'types' flourish better under differential circumstances), in so far as they are receiving unique stimuli appropriate for their unique attributes (less stressed).

"Extrovert(s)," can be surrounded by 'poor quality strangers / company,' and still feel terrible, of course. However, the 'functions' themselves will still be thriving - or perhaps, will continue to be "nourished," regardless of whether or not Jody is having a terrible day; or whether or not Jody and Mark get along. The essence, the "energy" via the subject and/or other 'external' stimulus outside of themselves, [of this encounter] is what nourishes (X)-extrovert-functions, not the personalized-details or 'personas' of people themselves.

In spite of whether or not "the crowd of 60 is filled with good 'quality' specimens," the introverted will be draining sufficiently more than an extroverted specimen.

And indeed, it seems no coincidence that 'introvert(s)' prefer prolonged states of less-subjects or "less bodies" perhaps, lower-dosages of unique extrovert-stimuli than the extroverted cousin.

Of course; however, "functions" themselves cannot be 'happy' nor 'sad', as they lack this capacity - which is not what I am talking about. Rather, I am discussing 'energies' and/or essences.

you are making many assertions here about "energies and/or essences", terms which are not recognized in psychology, much less defined

the only reference you make to something remotely scientific is your mention of dopamine...do you have a source for your claim as it applies to introverts?...also, did you know that exposure to too much dopamine can cause depression, at least in mice?

https://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20050728/dopamine-may-play-new-role-in-depression

if this applies to extroverts, then too much stimuli can induce depression in them, just as you claim too little dopamine can cause depression in introverts

also, dopamine is not the whole story...do you know what the acetylcholine pathway is?

https://introvertdear.com/news/intr...ns-really-are-different-according-to-science/

introverts get their "high" via a different neurochemical mechanism than extroverts' dopamine...too little dopamine might cause depression in extroverts, but relatively small quantities of dopamine are a necessary condition for introverts' wellbeing (or "flourishing")

 

[ae1905]

Si is what causes people to have a favorite color or flavor of ice cream, etc, so it isn't necessarily "pessimistic", much less "depressive"..."cautious" or "skeptical" might be better descriptions of the attitude of introverted functions...caution and skepticism cause introverted types to be slow to process information and adapt to their environments...this slowness can appear to be "depressive" in the same way slow music is often sad, though this isn't necessarily the case--eg, Ti is slow because it is contemplative, not because it is "depressed"

extroverts, in contrast, tend to process information and act quickly, so much so their quickness--their responsiveness--is considered a quality of extroversion...their quickness is also commonly associated with optimism and happiness, in the same way fast-paced music is thought to embody "happiness", though this isn't necessarily the case, either--eg, Te is fast because it is efficient, not because it is "happy"

some of the science behind the idea extroverts process information faster than introverts do:

https://introvertdear.com/news/intr...ns-really-are-different-according-to-science/