Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 119 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
One thing that never seemed right to me was the notion that every dichotomy had an extroverted and an introverted counterpart (such as how Fi is the direct counterpart to Fe). I believe this isn't the case, considering how they barely seem correlated at all outside of their areas of focus. Another thing that seemed off to me is the belief that the opposing functions work together in pairs. This never really clicked well with me either, because this belief would mean that every function has to rely on another in order to work, which contradicts the whole point of the function in the first place.

So, after observing my own mind for a while, I found a pretty interesting perspective that can potentially account for some of the inconsistencies and confusion in our community:

The two opposing functions in a given pair (i.e. Ti/Fe etc.) are a direct extroverted/introverted counterpart to one another.

This means that they are essentially two sides of the same coin - they operate on the same basic principals, however their directions of focus are different; one's focused on the output of information, while the other's focused on the input/storage of information.

Using my mind as reference, I'll try to explain how this'd work:

Ti/Fe: Both of these functions are concerned with finding THE general rule that can be applied to any situation/context without fail. The difference between them is that Ti keeps these rules locked up internally; it's like an 'internal manual' that is to be turned to for reference. It doesn't want to extrovert any of these rules out into the external; it wants to instead store up as many rules as it can come up with in order to form an 'internal manual' reliable enough to get the user through any situation that requires problem-solving with minimal effort. On the other hand, Fe extroverts the stored up rules at any given chance. Because these rules are purely cerebral in nature, they can't be applied directly to our physical surroundings; which is why they need to be sent as a message to other people for them to be carried out, hence these rules turn into value-oriented ones when extroverted rather than fact-like when kept internally.

Si/Ne: Both functions in this pair rely on past impressions when perceiving the present. Being the 'input' function of this pair, Si would be the one to collect as many past impressions as possible and store them up internally. Because Si refuses to put these stored-up impressions out in the external, it then has no choice but to take in the current environment and compare it to them, which is why Si types are known for noticing discrepancies between the physicality of their surroundings and their impressions of it. Ne, contrary to Si, favors extroverting those past impressions into the external over storing them up. Because Ne extroverts these past impressions, it is able to notice overlaps between the present environment and the impressions it extroverts, hence allowing it to view a given subject/object as potentially another in essence. TL;DR- when past impressions are brought out to be compared with the present, overlaps between the two will be noticed; when the present is taken in to be pitted up against past impressions, sensory discrepancies will be picked up on.

Bottom line: Both opposing functions in a given functional pair operates the same way in essence, but in opposite directions - one works towards the external while the other works internally. I think this theory can explain some other things too, like how one function suppresses the other; seeing as you obviously can't simultaneously input and output information at the same time. It can also explain why we are encouraged to develop the two last functions in our stack; as doing so will allow us to hit the right balance between storing up enough information and putting them to good use.

Would anyone agree with me on this? If you care to share, I'd also like to hear if your own functions stack works in the same way as this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
@Masterpiece Do you have any theories for Fi-Te? I think, using a similar argument, I could claim Ni-Se. The opposing percieving functions being introverted/extroverted versions of one another makes a good deal of sense to me, but the judging functions do not. Perhaps I could understand the argument a bit more if you used functions more familiar to me, seeing how Ti is entirely foreign and confusing in my mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
@Masterpiece Do you have any theories for Fi-Te? I think, using a similar argument, I could claim Ni-Se. The opposing percieving functions being introverted/extroverted versions of one another makes a good deal of sense to me, but the judging functions do not. Perhaps I could understand the argument a bit more if you used functions more familiar to me, seeing how Ti is entirely foreign and confusing in my mind.
As of now, at least - I don't, unfortunately. I've yet to find any in-depth descriptions of Fi-Te so far, and the whole Fi/Te process is entirely alien to me as well lol. But maybe I'll make a post about it if I come up with something. Or maybe someone else here more familiar with the process could share? It'd be much appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
@Masterpiece sorry to be slightly off topic but are you saying Ne is basically taking past situations and relating them to current contexts externally?

Do you know how this theory works for Se/Ni?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
@Masterpiece sorry to be slightly off topic
Don't worry, your post isn't off topic at all :)

but are you saying Ne is basically taking past situations and relating them to current contexts externally?

Do you know how this theory works for Se/Ni?
Yes, basically.

Like Fi/Te, Se/Ni is a really foreign process to me as I barely use it, but I'd imagine that it'll work in a similar fashion as Ne/Si; except that instead of past impressions, it relies on pure, detached observations of the here and now as material. Se would apply those observations to the present situation and act on them, while Ni would store them up and use them as reference for deciphering how things around it would work out/unfold.

Again, just my two cents. My understanding of Ni/Se is not great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
Don't worry, your post isn't off topic at all :)


Yes, basically.

Like Fi/Te, Se/Ni is a really foreign process to me as I barely use it, but I'd imagine that it'll work in a similar fashion as Ne/Si; except that instead of past impressions, it relies on pure, detached observations of the here and now as material. Se would apply those observations to the present situation and act on them, while Ni would store them up and use them as reference for deciphering how things around it would work out/unfold.

Again, just my two cents. My understanding of Ni/Se is not great.
thanks for answering :) the way you applied to Se/Ni definitely seems correct..

my next question is what would be the difference of Ni storing information and Si storing information, because it both seems that they store what they see. You say Ni stores to decipher & predict how something would unfold, what does Si do with the information it stores? Does Ni and Si store the same kind of information?

Also, is Ne conscious that its ideas stem from past experiences?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
thanks for answering :) the way you applied to Se/Ni definitely seems correct..

my next question is what would be the difference of Ni storing information and Si storing information, because it both seems that they store what they see. You say Ni stores to decipher predict how something would unfold, what does Si do with the information it stores? Does Ni and Si store the same kind of information?

Also, is Ne conscious that it's ideas stem from the past?
I would say that the information Si stores have more of a touch of physicality to them; there would be a few details about a perceived environment that stands out particularly to the Si user, and these details would be the ones to form the overall impression of the environment, which Si would store away. Ni doesn't really take in the details of the environment, but instead observes the various happenings in that environment - i.e. How one event would lead to another, etc.; such observations acting as future reference for deciphering the outcome to an occurrence.

In my experience, Ne is largely unaware of where its' ideas come from. I had to stop myself and consciously wonder about that whenever I had one of those 'lightbulb moments' in order to come to that conclusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
Interesting. Would you say that there only existed introverted functions during the earliest development of humankind, which the extroverted functions only later evolved from?
I can only guess, but my guess would be both introversion and extroversion developed in the mammalian brain as far as it was needed for particular species. For humans, I would say both of E and I developed at the same rate but aspects of them were valued differently in different ages, time frames.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
@Masterpiece

A largely undeveloped theory right here, just spur of the moment and I shall have to consider it in depth when I don't have class and a test to study for, or alternatively, someone else can contest/contend it, but perhaps the link with Fi/Te is purely about situational and circumstantial claims? I'm not sure if this is true at all either, it's just a thought to consider, because why not?

My idea is that as opposed to my understanding of your claim on Fe/Ti, which looks for universal rules, Fi-Te is all about circumstantial evidence and finding the "truth" for individual contexts.

For instance, many Fi doms, myself included, will take a situation and evaluate it from basis to basis with a standardization of rules. For instance, they may say that lying is always wrong, but then given a circumstance where someone lies they may evaluate that situation as being morally right. In other words, when seeing new data, Fi will use internal rules and amend them to evaluate the stimulus on its own. My personal opinion regrarding morals and the morality of law is that context and the individual situation governs the morality of the event. I cannot say that murder is intrinsically wrong because I can think of countless instances in which the murderer would be within the right or more likely, within a moral gray.

The set of rules in Fi is individual and internal, hence it being an introverted function.

Similarly, Te uses external, hard data on an individual basis. The logical consistency and internal framework of Ti aren't necessary because each scenario takes into account its own external empirical data. This uses facts/research/external framework as support because it is extroverted. Even if two studies are contradictory on the surface level, for instance, I believe that after each is retested over and over, then there is likely a truth in each due to some deeper variable we are unaware of. (That said, many Te doms and auxs will most likely disagree with that statement.) A Ti dom I discussed this with is adamantly against this claim and says that it indicates a flaw in one or both of studies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
@Masterpiece

A largely undeveloped theory right here, just spur of the moment and I shall have to consider it in depth when I don't have class and a test to study for, or alternatively, someone else can contest/contend it, but perhaps the link with Fi/Te is purely about situational and circumstantial claims? I'm not sure if this is true at all either, it's just a thought to consider, because why not?

My idea is that as opposed to my understanding of your claim on Fe/Ti, which looks for universal rules, Fi-Te is all about circumstantial evidence and finding the "truth" for individual contexts.

For instance, many Fi doms, myself included, will take a situation and evaluate it from basis to basis with a standardization of rules. For instance, they may say that lying is always wrong, but then given a circumstance where someone lies they may evaluate that situation as being morally right. In other words, when seeing new data, Fi will use internal rules and amend them to evaluate the stimulus on its own. My personal opinion regrarding morals and the morality of law is that context and the individual situation governs the morality of the event. I cannot say that murder is intrinsically wrong because I can think of countless instances in which the murderer would be within the right or more likely, within a moral gray.

The set of rules in Fi is individual and internal, hence it being an introverted function.

Similarly, Te uses external, hard data on an individual basis. The logical consistency and internal framework of Ti aren't necessary because each scenario takes into account its own external empirical data. This uses facts/research/external framework as support because it is extroverted. Even if two studies are contradictory on the surface level, for instance, I believe that after each is retested over and over, then there is likely a truth in each due to some deeper variable we are unaware of. (That said, many Te doms and auxs will most likely disagree with that statement.) A Ti dom I discussed this with is adamantly against this claim and says that it indicates a flaw in one or both of studies.
from what I know about Fi/Te this sounds extremely accurate.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
to understand the functions you have to start with first princples of cognition...we perceive things in space and time; the perceiving functions, therefore, are the different ways we perceive space and time...we interact with people and things (incl people as things); the judging functions, therefore, are the different ways we evaluate people and things...finally, we are cognizant of an external world and an internal world; therefore, both our perceptions and judgments have external (objective) and internal (subjective) perspectives

how do we get the cfs and their opposed relations from this?

looking first at perception, we note that space and time can be divided between the real and the removed, between what can be directly perceived--what exists here and now--and what can be indirectly perceived, what might exist not here and not now...from this it follows that there are four distinct ways to perceive space and time, namely:

the objective perception of real space, or Se
the objective perception of removed space, or Ne
the subjective perception of real time, or Si, and
the subjective perception of removed time, or Ni

you will notice that there is no objective perception of time or subjective perception of space...this is the result of the nature of our perceptions of space and time in the objective and subjective domains...in the objective world, we are confined to the present moment and cannot travel freely through time; we can, however, move freely through space, therefore, objective perceiving functions perceive space, both real (Se) and removed (Ne)...otoh, in the subjective world, we are confined to our bodies and cannot move freely through space; we can, however, travel through time in our memories or visions of the future, therefore, subjective perceiving functions perceive time, both real (Si) and removed (Ni)

are these perceiving functions related?...yes, they are...what is real here and now can evolve through space and time to become what is removed from the here and now...what Se and Si perceive can become what Ne and Ni imagine; intuition can perceive what the present moment might become...the evolution of the here and now determines these relationships...specifically, because space and time evolve together, removed Ni time presages the evolution of present Se space while removed Ne space imagines the transmutation of present Si time...this is why Ni is opposed to Se and Ne to Si

what about judging?

to be cont'd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,856 Posts
One thing that never seemed right to me was the notion that every dichotomy had an extroverted and an introverted counterpart (such as how Fi is the direct counterpart to Fe). I believe this isn't the case, considering how they barely seem correlated at all outside of their areas of focus. Another thing that seemed off to me is the belief that the opposing functions work together in pairs. This never really clicked well with me either, because this belief would mean that every function has to rely on another in order to work, which contradicts the whole point of the function in the first place.

So, after observing my own mind for a while, I found a pretty interesting perspective that can potentially account for some of the inconsistencies and confusion in our community:

The two opposing functions in a given pair (i.e. Ti/Fe etc.) are a direct extroverted/introverted counterpart to one another.

This means that they are essentially two sides of the same coin - they operate on the same basic principals, however their directions of focus are different; one's focused on the output of information, while the other's focused on the input/storage of information.

Using my mind as reference, I'll try to explain how this'd work:

Ti/Fe: Both of these functions are concerned with finding THE general rule that can be applied to any situation/context without fail. The difference between them is that Ti keeps these rules locked up internally; it's like an 'internal manual' that is to be turned to for reference. It doesn't want to extrovert any of these rules out into the external; it wants to instead store up as many rules as it can come up with in order to form an 'internal manual' reliable enough to get the user through any situation that requires problem-solving with minimal effort. On the other hand, Fe extroverts the stored up rules at any given chance. Because these rules are purely cerebral in nature, they can't be applied directly to our physical surroundings; which is why they need to be sent as a message to other people for them to be carried out, hence these rules turn into value-oriented ones when extroverted rather than fact-like when kept internally.

Si/Ne: Both functions in this pair rely on past impressions when perceiving the present. Being the 'input' function of this pair, Si would be the one to collect as many past impressions as possible and store them up internally. Because Si refuses to put these stored-up impressions out in the external, it then has no choice but to take in the current environment and compare it to them, which is why Si types are known for noticing discrepancies between the physicality of their surroundings and their impressions of it. Ne, contrary to Si, favors extroverting those past impressions into the external over storing them up. Because Ne extroverts these past impressions, it is able to notice overlaps between the present environment and the impressions it extroverts, hence allowing it to view a given subject/object as potentially another in essence. TL;DR- when past impressions are brought out to be compared with the present, overlaps between the two will be noticed; when the present is taken in to be pitted up against past impressions, sensory discrepancies will be picked up on.

Bottom line: Both opposing functions in a given functional pair operates the same way in essence, but in opposite directions - one works towards the external while the other works internally. I think this theory can explain some other things too, like how one function suppresses the other; seeing as you obviously can't simultaneously input and output information at the same time. It can also explain why we are encouraged to develop the two last functions in our stack; as doing so will allow us to hit the right balance between storing up enough information and putting them to good use.

Would anyone agree with me on this? If you care to share, I'd also like to hear if your own functions stack works in the same way as this.

The functions are divisions of reality, so the “diametric opposites” are simply the “collecting” of a function and attitude both suppressed from consciousness by whatever complex is operating in the moment. So the complex (starting with the ego itself) chooses its individual perspective (introversion), and also chooses an “impersonal” focus on how things work (Thinking), then the environment's (extraversion) determination of how the decision affects people (Feeling), will still be implied as put together, but lower in consciousness.


So what you've identified are simply the new “tandem” groups higlighted as part of the “Intentional Styles” model by Berens and Montoya:


Ti/Fe: “Aligning Assessments”
Te/Fi: “Ordering Assessments”
Se/Ni: “Realizing Awareness”
Ne/Si: “Inquiring Awareness”


All the “natural” (i.e. without attitude) functions are indicating is the basic division between space (where tangible objects percieved with the senses are coodinated) and time (where “patterns” perceived through intuition play out); and consideration of people vs things. But when our egos process them, individual vs environment becomes another division, and so it figures, and the double-opposite functions end up being both ego-compatible (or incompatible).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
Even if two studies are contradictory on the surface level, for instance, I believe that after each is retested over and over, then there is likely a truth in each due to some deeper variable we are unaware of. (That said, many Te doms and auxs will most likely disagree with that statement.) A Ti dom I discussed this with is adamantly against this claim and says that it indicates a flaw in one or both of studies.
I daresay that to disagree with the possibility that the studies may be affected by a hidden confounding factor is more attributable to poor understanding of study design than to cognitive functions.

With that said, your post is an interesting one. I have recently been confounded by the belief many implicitly hold that Te cannot arrive at truly objective truths (owing to the personal nature of perspective, which forms the basis of knowledge), but Fe can (because empathy transcends this, somehow). It may be that the Fe-users are so busy looking to generalize their own Fe that they have convinced themselves that it is universal, whereas Te-users are much more open to finding new data that requires them to reconsider previously-held opinion.
 

·
MOTM Dec 2011
Joined
·
8,651 Posts
A Ne type’s psychology suppresses Si - the focus on stored impressions to build a sense of what is consistent or predictable about reality - in favor of projecting what could happen onto reality based on insights that spontaneously arise from the subconscious, often triggered by some external stimuli. The Ne mentality is too focused on this to build up deep, detailed impressions and to seek consistency. The mentality is focused on what is novel or yet to be, not consistent or present. This makes Si a blind spot, and a mentality that can threaten their ego. The two don’t work hand in hand.

You are right that the inferior is the opposite in terms of function and attitude, but I thought that was common knowledge. Only the popular “tandem theory” in recent times proposes the dominant and inferior work together, so that people use phrases like “he is a Ti/Fe type” or “on the Ti/Fe axis” which is a poor understanding of the inferior. Rather the dominant and inferior definitely oppose each other. I think it’s socionics that presents the inferior as somehow being admirable to the dominant. It’s usually something a person finds antagonistic and problematic in life, not somehting they secretly admire, unless they’ve done a LOT of growth.
IMO, a Ti type will find both Fi and Te less threatening to the ego than Fe. I’d even say that due to both being introverted rationals (IxxP), Fi is probably the least threatening and foreign attitude to a Ti type.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,856 Posts
looking first at perception, we note that space and time can be divided between the real and the removed, between what can be directly perceived--what exists here and now--and what can be indirectly perceived, what might exist not here and not now...from this it follows that there are four distinct ways to perceive space and time, namely:

the objective perception of real space, or Se
the objective perception of removed space, or Ne
the subjective perception of real time, or Si, and
the subjective perception of removed time, or Ni

you will notice that there is no objective perception of time or subjective perception of space...this is the result of the nature of our perceptions of space and time in the objective and subjective domains...in the objective world, we are confined to the present moment and cannot travel freely through time; we can, however, move freely through space, therefore, objective perceiving functions perceive space, both real (Se) and removed (Ne)...otoh, in the subjective world, we are confined to our bodies and cannot move freely through space; we can, however, travel through time in our memories or visions of the future, therefore, subjective perceiving functions perceive time, both real (Si) and removed (Ni)
Interesting. I had S as about space and N as about time, because N deals in "patterns", and the key was a quote of Jung actually saying N was about time, hence "where it's going" (which may be a spacelike term when taken literally, but it's talking about how something plays out in time).

You have S as "real" and N as "removed", but "e" is the one described in terms of "the real world", in contrast to "i", which is about an individual's "model" of a sensation, metaphorical image, thought or value. So "objective" is "real world", and subjective is essentially what's "removed" from the real world. But then there is some blurring in the definitions of introversion and intuition, with both described by terms as "abstract", "introspection", idea" and "archetypal image". Hence, as was pointed out here: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...st-introverted-extraverts-3.html#post38534602 Ne "behaves almost like an introverted function because of the amount of internal processing and bias it involves." (And of course, Ni is already introverted). So you can think of N as "removed" and S as "real", but that's in the sense of as Jung put it, S is "registering reality as real." But N is the one that looks through time to see where things are "heading"; i.e."patterns".

"Objective perception of time" is simply looking at the environment of time. There are "objects" in the dimension of time. They're called "events". Tangible objects are plotted in the coordinates of space, and events are plotted in the coordinate of time. And they form "patterns", which N deals with. (and Ni differs in drawing on subjective images, rather than those actual events. So it "steps outside" the patterns to draw its inferences). "Subjective perception of space" is simply filtering it through stored images of tangible experience, in memory.
Even though we can't move freely through time, we are still moving through time, and yet cannot directly see where things are going (or even where some things have come from), and hence have to infer it by following patterns. This is what N is about. Since space can be moved freely through, we don't need to infer what's there; we can just sense what's right there, as the light or sound waves or particles we smell can also move freely toward our sensory organs, or we can reach out and touch them, or remember them from before (which is technically timelike, but it's not about the pattern at that point; it's simply looking at different static points of time instead of the present, and so is also spacelike; i.e. time is not really moving).

A Ne type’s psychology suppresses Si - the focus on stored impressions to build a sense of what is consistent or predictable about reality - in favor of projecting what could happen onto reality based on insights that spontaneously arise from the subconscious, often triggered by some external stimuli. The Ne mentality is too focused on this to build up deep, detailed impressions and to seek consistency. The mentality is focused on what is novel or yet to be, not consistent or present. This makes Si a blind spot, and a mentality that can threaten their ego. The two don’t work hand in hand.

You are right that the inferior is the opposite in terms of function and attitude, but I thought that was common knowledge. Only the popular “tandem theory” in recent times proposes the dominant and inferior work together, so that people use phrases like “he is a Ti/Fe type” or “on the Ti/Fe axis” which is a poor understanding of the inferior. Rather the dominant and inferior definitely oppose each other. I think it’s socionics that presents the inferior as somehow being admirable to the dominant. It’s usually something a person finds antagonistic and problematic in life, not somehting they secretly admire, unless they’ve done a LOT of growth.
IMO, a Ti type will find both Fi and Te less threatening to the ego than Fe. I’d even say that due to both being introverted rationals (IxxP), Fi is probably the least threatening and foreign attitude to a Ti type.
Yes, I would say the inferior is the most consciously suppressed (And so may seem lower than even the shadows; hence both Socionics, and Lenore Thomson's "ship" model, which is similar to the Socionics stack, and has Ti and Fi as on the "right brain", and Te/Fe on the "left brain", so that people, especially younger ones, might turn to their same-hemisphere "alternative" functions before the inferior (which lies int he opposite hemisphere), but it's still ultimately ego-compatible. This based on complexes, with the inferior being connected with "inferiority" (which carries an sense of secretly "aspiring" to what we outwardly oppose), but the 7th and 8th getting tied up in even more negative complexes, but people are not usually conscious of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
@Birbsofafeather Your theory seems very plausible - hope you'll touch up on it more when you get the time :)
@spaceynyc Oh right, you also asked what Si does with the stored up information, and I kind of forgotten about it lol. Anyways, I think it's something along the lines of landmarks. Si can use these information as material to identify what's familiar and what's not, what can be done in the same way as before and what can't...etc. But do note that my speculation here is very shallow, as it's not my preference and sources on Si seem to be very limited too.
@ae1905 It's interesting how you (and @Eric B) link the cfs with the concept of time and space...the tandem theory looks interesting too as the idea behind it seems to be pretty similar to what I had in mind, but I have to give it more thought. Still, I await your explanation for the judging functions!
@PiT I'm curious; since you seem to agree with Birbsofafeather's post about Te/Fi, what do you think about the theories posted about the other function pairs here?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
Interesting. I had S as about space and N as about time, because N deals in "patterns", and the key was a quote of Jung actually saying N was about time, hence "where it's going" (which may be a spacelike term when taken literally, but it's talking about how something plays out in time).
Se-Ni perceive causal relations, Se immediate opportunities to act in the external world, Ni the future consequences of such actions...for this reason, Ni has a temporal focus and Ni can be said to be concerned with time

Si-Ne, otoh, perceive qualitative relations, similarities in the qualities of things...for this reason, Ne has a spatial focus and can be said to be concerned with space

You have S as "real" and N as "removed", but "e" is the one described in terms of "the real world", in contrast to "i", which is about an individual's "model" of a sensation, metaphorical image, thought or value.
"e" isn't the same as "real"..."e" means "objective" or "external".

So "objective" is "real world", and subjective is essentially what's "removed" from the real world.
"i" doesn't mean "removed"..."i" means "subjective" or "internal"

"real" and "removed" here describe the qualities of space and time...real space and time are directly experienced by our senses, space by Se and time by Si....removed space and time are indirectly experienced or imagined by our intuition, space by Ne and time by Ni

But then there is some blurring in the definitions of introversion and intuition, with both described by terms as "abstract", "introspection", idea" and "archetypal image". Hence, as was pointed out here: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...st-introverted-extraverts-3.html#post38534602 Ne "behaves almost like an introverted function because of the amount of internal processing and bias it involves." (And of course, Ni is already introverted). So you can think of N as "removed" and S as "real",
Ne is removed from real Se space, but remains in the external world of objects, only in the mind's eye, so to speak

but that's in the sense of as Jung put it, S is "registering reality as real."
yes, and our sense of the present moment in time is largely internally constructed...for example, we feel hungry and sleepy at certain times in the day; these internal sensations give us a sense of the passing of time...we also compare our perceptions in the present moment to our memories and use the sense of continuity to construct an internal sense of time

But N is the one that looks through time to see where things are "heading"; i.e."patterns".
Ni looks through time because it is focused on causal patterns...Ne jumps through space because it is focused on qualitative patterns

of course, if Ne acts on its intuitions, its actions will necessarily happen in a future time...but time is not the aspect of the future Ne translates...in contrast, Ni does focus on translating in time typically the same objects through space

"Objective perception of time" is simply looking at the environment of time. There are "objects" in the dimension of time. They're called "events". Tangible objects are plotted in the coordinates of space, and events are plotted in the coordinate of time.
only the present moment ever exists in real space...the plotting of tangible events happens in memory...so the perception of the passing of time--the plotting of the sequence of events--lies in the internal domain

the Se perception of real space has a temporal dimension and is experienced as the immediacy of now...so Se can be said to live in the present moment, to have a sense of "objective time"...but this isn't the same time that we think of as the plotting of events; this, as I explained, falls in to the past and has to be constructed from history or memory

note: the word "plotting" suggests a highly regulated recording of time, such as is kept by external objects, like clocks, that is absent from our internal sense of time, which is far less regular or predictable and depends on our subjective impressions of physical phenomena, including observations of clocks, as well as our bodies' own internal rhythms...the plotting of time kept by clocks actually falls under Te since a clock is an organization of external objects

And they form "patterns", which N deals with. (and Ni differs in drawing on subjective images, rather than those actual events. So it "steps outside" the patterns to draw its inferences).
Ni draws on its memory of past events, its subjective impressions of those events...where it differs from Si is Si constructs a sense of the passing of time while Ni constructs a sense of the progress of time

"Subjective perception of space" is simply filtering it through stored images of tangible experience, in memory.
because objects exist in space and time, Si has a spatial dimension just as Se has a temporal dimension...but just as Se is not concerned with the passing or progress of time--with how the present moment is connected to the past or future--Si is not primarly concerned with real space, per se, with what is in its immediate environment...rather, Si is concerned with its impressions of its immediate environment, which it combines with its past impressions to construct its sense of time

Even though we can't move freely through time, we are still moving through time, and yet cannot directly see where things are going (or even where some things have come from), and hence have to infer it by following patterns. This is what N is about. Since space can be moved freely through, we don't need to infer what's there; we can just sense what's right there, as the light or sound waves or particles we smell can also move freely toward our sensory organs, or we can reach out and touch them, or remember them from before (which is technically timelike, but it's not about the pattern at that point; it's simply looking at different static points of time instead of the present, and so is also spacelike; i.e. time is not really moving).
you can't reach out and touch something that isn't there or doesn't exist...objects can be removed in space just as they can be removed in time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
@PiT I'm curious; since you seem to agree with Birbsofafeather's post about Te/Fi, what do you think about the theories posted about the other function pairs here?
You mean in reference to your OP? It seems odd to me that a general rule-making function should extrovert as feeling. Sure Te needs to consider possible falsification, but Fe should have to do that as well. I have experienced clear counterexamples wherein people try to empathize with me over things that I don't feel. I can't have been the only person to experience this, yet I see people hold up extroverted feeling (not named as such in this context, but it is basically the same thing) as some sort of unqualified good that holds the key to a true utopia.

The Si/Ne concept that you posit reminds me of a description I read of Si once wherein it was said that Si compares all sense impressions to some idealization. I have long wondered where Ne-users got their possibilistic intuitions from, so it would be interesting to suppose that these are gathered from stored up Si idealizations. There is an apparent paradox in that strong Ne-users are also ones with weak Si (particularly when young). I see what you are getting at is that Si/Ne are actually the same process expressed in two different ways. In that case, one's cognitive function preference would just be a preference between introverting and extroverting it.

Applying this to Te/Fi, they both seem to be unified by an empiricist understanding of the world (whereas Ti/Fe would represent the rationalist view); to wit, they look to specific instances to build understanding. When looking outward, you look to specific facts and instances (though again it is unclear to me why this has to be a T-function). When looking inward, you look to how you personally feel about a given proposition.

Ni/Se likewise can represent extensive learning, as opposed to the intensive learning of Si/Ne. Ni tries to understand a proposition from all possible angles, while Se tries to have all possible experiences. This relates to the tendency towards perfectionism among Ni-doms, since actually achieving "all possible" is not possible. The ideas that we tangle with exist in our heads, so that same tendency to introvert ideas, when extroverted, latches on to an element of learning that exists externally, i.e. sense experiences.
 
1 - 20 of 119 Posts
Top