Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Okay. Basically I have seen a lot of threads here where people say stuff like "Well, I am an ENTP with dominant Ni. What does this mean?"

Usually, the reason for this is that someone took a function strength test and ended up delusional - because that's not how it works. Certain functions require certain other functions in order to function (yeah.) and the popular function strength tests are seriously messing up peoples understanding of this system.

I'll now proceed to explain something that is pretty much evident if you do some research on the functions, but which might be too evident to be noticed by most.

Functions work in pairs only.

This is my basic thesis. You'll never, for example, encounter Ni without Se because they require eachother in order to function. One pair of reverse functions is basically the smallest practically applicable unit of psyche.

So to elaborate on this, I will tour you through the four irreducible units that can be combined to build types:

First out are the percieving function pairs, Se-Ni and Si-Ne. Let's call these paradigms. These are the only two possible combinations of percieving functions. There are no other options, and I'll explain why.

First off, sensing and intuition differ from eachother in that sensing presents a single output, while intuition presents several different sets of output.

We'll begin with Se-Ni. Regardless of other involved functions, Se-Ni by itself has a certain dynamic:

Se absorbs information from the outer world in real time. It is a here-and-now function that's focused only on the tangible hard facts of the present experience. For a Se-Ni-type, this Se experience is the axiom. It's undeniable and self evidently real, and when something appears to be false, it has to be tested in Se space in order to be accepted as valid.

Ni, in turn, uses this input and forms a series of interpretations that apply to the present time experience. The forest fire can be interpreted as a horrible catastrophe. It can also be interpreted as a part of a natural pattern that is necessary for the renewal of the forest. It can also be interpreted as a great opportunity for the media to fill an otherwise eventless day with a great scoop. It depends on the perspective, it depends on what you choose to see. Ni aknowledges that, and Ni does not take sides. It just observes the multitude of different possible viewpoints that can be applied to the same single event.

This combination is irreducible. Ne-Ni is impossible, because there are no axioms to interpret, no anchors to reality and no test-space. Se-Si is also impossible, because there are no options, no differing viewpoints, and no possibilities for anything.

Si-Ne is an entirely different paradigm.

Ne sees the external world as full of different alternatives for action. Every single point in real time has a multitude of possible opportunities attached to it. This can be done, or that, or that. While Se sees the present as a singular axiomatic point, Ne sees the many possibilities inherent in every situation.

Si, in turn, is the axiom of Si-Ne types. It records the personal experience of the user into a database of trustworthy axioms. In order to see if a Ne-idea is good or not, the idea is compared to previously established Si. The difference from Ni is that Si saves only the personal interpretation of every event. It results in one singular world view, in contrast to the wider interpretative space of Ni.

So, in short:

Ni-Se results in One external reality as the axiom, and many possible personal interpretations of every situation. Ni-Se types are experiencer-interpreters.

Ne-Si results in Many external possibilities, and one personal interpretation of every situation. Si-Ne-types are hypothesiser-axiomatics.

On top of these two possible paradigms are the value systems - the Judging functions.

There are really only two possibilities here as well: Fe-Ti and Te-Fi. No other combinations are possible. The Ji function acts as an internal compass, and the Je-function as a way to handle the external world.

The first combination is Te-Fi:

Te: Extraverted thinking cares about one thing: External measurement based on previously established criteria. A Te-judgment can be reduced to this form:

if (criteria is fulfilled) do X, else, do Y

Usually the judgments are more complex, and have several separate criteria with different consequences, but that's the basic form. The formulation of the criteria is a combination between all applicable functions, but Te alone sees if the criteria are fulfilled. It's very binary, black and white and absolute.

Since Te is an external judgment system it drives to apply itself to the external world in one way or another. This might be in the form of a organisational system, the formulation of a scientific theory or a set of legal rules. One can recognize the influence of Te by checking for clearly established, measurable criteria as the basis for one judgment or another. The legal system is a clear example, as well as the scientific method.

Fi, in turn, works in tandem with Te. It's an internal value system that checks for ethical inconsistencies in ones own actions. The ethical judgment is internal, personal and it does not need to be applied to the world. Since it's an internal judging function it has no need for external validation or evidence. It knows that it's right. One has to be responsible for ones own actions before oneself.

Fi sees so that Te states criteria that are ethically correct, according to ones own values.

The second possible combination of functions is Fe-Ti. This combination differs hugely from Te-Fi. (I am a Te-Fi user myself, so forgive me if my Fe-Ti-description is lacking)

Fe, like Te wants to apply itself to the external world. The difference between the two is that Fe wants to establish common ethical values, while Te wants to externalize common systems of criteria and consequence. If Te wants to establish uniform systems of organization to be followed by many, Fe wants to establish uniform systems of values and ethics to be followed by many.

Ti wants to understand the structure of a system. By itself it cares about logical consistency and little else. It can see if something makes sense. Ti users search for logical consequence, and want to establish singular definitions of everything in order to structure their understanding of reality. These singular definitions are necessary in order to be able to follow unbroken chains of reasoning to the very foundations of a system. If Te is induction, Ti is deduction. It reasons it's way to the baseline - what HAS to be the absolute truth in this?

A stereotypical application of the combination of Ti and Fe is the ethical system. Logical systems for externalizing ethics, like Kant's categorical imperative are no doubt a result of this combination of functions.

So, to recap once again:

Te-Fi results in application of rationality to the external world, in combination with an internal ethical compass.

Ti-Fe results in application of common values to the external world, in combination with internal logical reasoning.

This gives us four basic building blocks: Two perceptual paradigms, and two systems of judgment.

To restructure the temperament system a bit, I would like to firstly divide the types according to the perceptual paradigms:

NJs and SPs are Experiencer-Interpreters. (Have Ni-Se)
SJs and NPs are Hypothesiser-Axiomatics. (Have Si-Ne)

and then according to judgment systems:

TJs and FPs use Te-Fi.
FJs and TPs use Ti-Fe.

A result of this is that there are basically four possible combinations of functions in any type, before function order is established:

Ni:Se:Ti:Fe (NFJ, STP) Experiencer-interpreters with external values and internal logic.
Ni:Se:Te:Fi (NTJ, SFP) Experiencer-interpreters with external pragmatism and internal values.
Ne:Si:Ti:Fe (NTP, SFJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external values and internal logic.
Ne:Si:Te:Fi (NFP, STJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external pragmatism and internal values.

I believe that these are the four basic worldviews. Function order only determine priorities, but these four combinations dictate what perspective one takes on the world.

This is why I say other combinations of functions are impossible, and that function strength tests are only throwing wrenches into our understanding of this system.

Discuss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
Thank you so much for writing this. It was very clear and concise, and helped me to understand the function pairings better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Learning a lot from this. Thanks for the write up. Please check out the child development thread.

A few questions and comments:

1) Te strives to formulate plans of action, where as Ti strives to find logical consistency/ inconsistency?

But when I actually move my hand to say pick up a pencil, that isnt necessarily Te in action, it is just from Te planning to a very low degree. That is just me in action, perhaps even off in my own world, barely sensing the movement if they are already habitualized; is this correct?

2) "The difference from Ni is that Si saves only the personal interpretation of every event. It results in one singular world view, in contrast to the wider interpretative space of Ni."

This threw me off a bit. The actual interpretation, is a result of the judging function correct? As data comes in, chosen by Si for example, it is then interpreted by the F T functions.

3) "Se absorbs information from the outer world in real time. It is a here-and-now function that's focused only on the tangible hard facts of the present experience."

Having retained a lot of information from my 17th century British Empiricism class, I can help this definition somewhat using Locke, where the starting of Emperical thought with the functions of the mind began. We sense, but when we "perceive" what is important to us, that is where Se is involved.

The reason this distinction might be necessary, is because we can be "sensing" in Lockian terms, without perceiving anything (Sensing in Jungian terms).

A further example of how this awareness is used is with the metaphor of a flashlight. Either the awareness can be spread out, or it can be focused in to a single point.

We only direct our focus in on something when it "stands out" as important or interesting etc...
 

·
MOTM Dec 2011
Joined
·
8,651 Posts
I don't disagree with this basic concept & don't mean to nitpick, but the definitions of the functions need some clarification, IMO.

Se IS aware of possibilities - tangible/literal ones immediately available. This is important to note, as many Se-dom mistype as Ne-dom. Many descriptions imply the one-ness Se types can have with a physical element, and the ability to manipulate it, because of their mental focus on what is immediately possible, and that is not always singular. "Opportunities" may be a better word, but they are possibilities nonetheless.

Ne is aware of possibilities in terms of concepts, theories, etc - the intangible. Possibilities can have no concrete tie to the present, which is what makes Ne types seem to pull stuff out of nowhere. It's more of "whatever you can imagine is possible" attitude vs. REAL possibilities.

Also, while the Fi description is not wrong at all, it's good to note that Fi is like Ti in the sense that it checks for a consistency - in Fi's case, one of value - based on an internal framework/model. Fi wants things to make sense from the standpoint of what is significant and what is not in order to fit an ideal. A Fi-dom understands the structure of moral & aesthetic systems - measuring whether they are sound according to the Fi-er's inner model of the ideal. It's personal in that it does not tend to impose and is more conceptual than action-oriented regarding others (in contrast to Fe), but it has a "universal" aspect where it does measure the integrity of everything, not just the individual's own actions.

I'm not sure I would classify these as "worldviews" either. The mindset of, say, an ENTJ and ISFP are still worlds apart, despite sharing the same thought processes. I personally can't even fathom the ESTJ mindset - it's the most foreign to me. I mean, even if an ENFJ prefers FeNi & I prefer FiNe, we both prefer to judge in terms of value & to perceive the intangible sides of things , which can make our worldviews & conclusions more similar than an ESTJ and me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Learning a lot from this. Thanks for the write up. Please check out the child development thread.

A few questions and comments:

1) Te strives to formulate plans of action, where as Ti strives to find logical consistency/ inconsistency?

But when I actually move my hand to say pick up a pencil, that isnt necessarily Te in action, it is just from Te planning to a very low degree. That is just me in action, perhaps even off in my own world, barely sensing the movement if they are already habitualized; is this correct?
My interpretation is that actions are not function based. Acting in the real world is not bound to a single function, because even if people don't display Te as a part of their normal psyche, they can move about and do stuff. It's the reasons for doing things that are function based, so to say. If you pick up the pen in order to write down a crazy idea of yours, then that could be said to be Ne in action. If I pick up the pen in order to outline a strategy, then that's Te.

2) "The difference from Ni is that Si saves only the personal interpretation of every event. It results in one singular world view, in contrast to the wider interpretative space of Ni."

This threw me off a bit. The actual interpretation, is a result of the judging function correct? As data comes in, chosen by Si for example, it is then interpreted by the F T functions.
My interpretation is that Pe decides what kind of data you percieve - either opportunities and possibilities - or hard facts. Pi, in turn, together with the judging functions, decide how you look at that data. For a Si-user, the interpretation is given. It's automatic - just like external Se-perception of real time data. A Ni-user, on the other hand has a freedom of interpretation, just like a Ne-Si-user has an external freedom of opportunity: The meaning of a perception is not automatic.

We see a multitude of possible interpretations (Ni) of a single situation (Se). As I wrote in a different thread, if my company goes bankrupt and I end up in debt, I might choose to see that as a student loan or as a personal failure - and both ways of seeing it would be equally honest. I pick freely among the possible interpretations just like a Ne user picks freely among the external possibilities. For a Si user, the interpretation would be automatic, and trying to replace the interpretation with another one would feel like lying.

My understanding is that the J-functions make their decisions after both Pe (Data intake) and Pi (Interpretation). I might be wrong, but making decisions based on data that is not yet interpreted by the Pi worldview seem strange.


3) "Se absorbs information from the outer world in real time. It is a here-and-now function that's focused only on the tangible hard facts of the present experience."

Having retained a lot of information from my 17th century British Empiricism class, I can help this definition somewhat using Locke, where the starting of Emperical thought with the functions of the mind began. We sense, but when we "perceive" what is important to us, that is where Se is involved.

The reason this distinction might be necessary, is because we can be "sensing" in Lockian terms, without perceiving anything (Sensing in Jungian terms).

A further example of how this awareness is used is with the metaphor of a flashlight. Either the awareness can be spread out, or it can be focused in to a single point.

We only direct our focus in on something when it "stands out" as important or interesting etc...
If I understood you correctly, I agree. We "sense" pretty much everything that happens to us, but Se/Ne is the focus of our perception. We are talking about cognitive functions here, and not sensory stimuli or bodily reactions. Se and Ne happen in the mind, after the Lockian sensory perception.

Sensory functions work like filters. They eliminate what does not fit, and let only some of the information pass through. Intuitive functions work like prisms, parting one single beams into a spectrum of options (External options = Ne, internal options = Ni). Judging functions select one of these beams according to certain criteria and goals that are specific for each J-function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I don't disagree with this basic concept & don't mean to nitpick, but the definitions of the functions need some clarification, IMO.

Se IS aware of possibilities - tangible/literal ones immediately available. This is important to note, as many Se-dom mistype as Ne-dom. Many descriptions imply the one-ness Se types can have with a physical element, and the ability to manipulate it, because of their mental focus on what is immediately possible, and that is not always singular. "Opportunities" may be a better word, but they are possibilities nonetheless.

Ne is aware of possibilities in terms of concepts, theories, etc - the intangible. Possibilities can have no concrete tie to the present, which is what makes Ne types seem to pull stuff out of nowhere. It's more of "whatever you can imagine is possible" attitude vs. REAL possibilities.

Also, while the Fi description is not wrong at all, it's good to note that Fi is like Ti in the sense that it checks for a consistency - in Fi's case, one of value - based on an internal framework/model. Fi wants things to make sense from the standpoint of what is significant and what is not in order to fit an ideal. A Fi-dom understands the structure of moral & aesthetic systems - measuring whether they are sound according to the Fi-er's inner model of the ideal. It's personal in that it does not tend to impose and is more conceptual than action-oriented regarding others (in contrast to Fe), but it has a "universal" aspect where it does measure the integrity of everything, not just the individual's own actions.

I'm not sure I would classify these as "worldviews" either. The mindset of, say, an ENTJ and ISFP are still worlds apart, despite sharing the same thought processes. I personally can't even fathom the ESTJ mindset - it's the most foreign to me. I mean, even if an ENFJ prefers FeNi & I prefer FiNe, we both prefer to judge in terms of value & to perceive the intangible sides of things , which can make our worldviews & conclusions more similar than an ESTJ and me.
These are all good points, and I agree. I might have been a bit too binary in my descriptions. I also have quite a hard time grasping Ne, so I didn't have a good idea of how to describe it.

And when it comes to worldviews:

I have an INTP friend, and on the surface, we think very much alike. We are both quite logical and rational people, even though we don't share a single function. When we start discussing deep matters, though, it always feels like we are speaking totally different languages.

I feel that he's nitpicky and silly when he says the external world is just a well grounded hypothesis since the only thing one can know for sure is that one has a perception. He calls my reasoning slippery when I refuse to accept his axioms, since he can't give me a good reason to accept them instead of the millions of other axioms I could base my arguments on instead. We do reach the same practical conclusions, but from different directions, and through completely different methods. It is difficult for me, if not impossible, to put myself in his headspace, even though we are both intuitive thinkers.

I have a much easier time understanding an ISFP. We have completely different priorities and outlooks on life, but at least we use the same tools. We do not have the problem of perpetual misunderstanding - Only disagreement. And that's a major difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Kick butt stuff man. This keeps getting better and better. : ) A few more comments.

"My understanding is that the J-functions make their decisions after both Pe (Data intake) and Pi (Interpretation). I might be wrong, but making decisions based on data that is not yet interpreted by the Pi worldview seem strange."

I'm confused.

Environment (5 senses filter) => (Pe Filter 1) => (Pi Filter 2) => (Je Filter 1) => (Ji Filter 2)=> Adjustment ?


"Sensory functions work like filters. They eliminate what does not fit, and let only some of the information pass through. Intuitive functions work like prisms, parting one single beams into a spectrum of options (External options = Ne, internal options = Ni). Judging functions select one of these beams according to certain criteria and goals that are specific for each J-function."

Haha thats awesome. Thanks.

"Ni:Se:Ti:Fe (NFJ, STP) Experiencer-interpreters with external values and internal logic.
Ni:Se:Te:Fi (NTJ, SFP) Experiencer-interpreters with external pragmatism and internal values.
Ne:Si:Ti:Fe (NTP, SFJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external values and internal logic.
Ne:Si:Te:Fi (NFP, STJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external pragmatism and internal values."

So the world views are made up only of T an J right? Our S an N is just our ability to work with those views.

Lastly, I have a problem with Se and Te. When we "perceive" something, we have what Locke refers to as a Simple Thought, for example when we see red, we might have a thought of red. Later, we form a complex thought, or simple mode, a general idea of red, from combing multiple simple thought memories of red together.

Would you call this Se or Te?

Further, we might one day associate red with blood, and then another day, associate blood with the complex idea of "justice," or "war."






"Se IS aware of possibilities - tangible/literal ones immediately available. This is important to note, as many Se-dom mistype as Ne-dom. Many descriptions imply the one-ness Se types can have with a physical element, and the ability to manipulate it, because of their mental focus on what is immediately possible, and that is not always singular. "Opportunities" may be a better word, but they are possibilities nonetheless.

Ne is aware of possibilities in terms of concepts, theories, etc - the intangible. Possibilities can have no concrete tie to the present, which is what makes Ne types seem to pull stuff out of nowhere. It's more of "whatever you can imagine is possible" attitude vs. REAL possibilities. "

I like this a lot as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Kick butt stuff man. This keeps getting better and better. : ) A few more comments.

"My understanding is that the J-functions make their decisions after both Pe (Data intake) and Pi (Interpretation). I might be wrong, but making decisions based on data that is not yet interpreted by the Pi worldview seem strange."

I'm confused.

Environment (5 senses filter) => (Pe Filter 1) => (Pi Filter 2) => (Je Filter 1) => (Ji Filter 2)=> Adjustment ?
Environment: => Physical sensory input => Pe (Ne spectrum or Se filter) => Pi (Si filter or Ni spectrum) => Ji & Je balancing eachothers wills => Action => Result => Adjustment of P function filters / spectra and J-judgments according to result (or defense mechanisms like casting blame or projecting if one has problems modifying ones world view)

Basically, a Ne-Si type will first percieve a lot of spaced out theories, opportunities and options through the Ne-prism, and then the Si-filter sets in and eliminates those that are incompatible with their accumulated experience. J-functions pick and choose between the remaining options.

A Ne dominant has a weak Si filter, so a lot of the spaced out stuff is still there after elimination. A Si dominant has a weak Ne-spectrum, and will only let through a few reliable options.

A Ni-Se type will observe a few tangible options through the Se filter, and then they will expand on those by changing their perception with their Ni-spectrum. The J-functions then pick a fitting perspective as a basis for decision.

A Se dominant has a weak Ni. They will see more nuances of the direct Se experience, but they have fewer options for perspective shifting. A Ni dominant will filter out everything but the most obvious Se-input, but then they expand on this in every direction using the Ni-spectrum.

"Ni:Se:Ti:Fe (NFJ, STP) Experiencer-interpreters with external values and internal logic.
Ni:Se:Te:Fi (NTJ, SFP) Experiencer-interpreters with external pragmatism and internal values.
Ne:Si:Ti:Fe (NTP, SFJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external values and internal logic.
Ne:Si:Te:Fi (NFP, STJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external pragmatism and internal values."

So the world views are made up only of T an J right? Our S an N is just our ability to work with those views.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Will you elaborate?

Lastly, I have a problem with Se and Te. When we "perceive" something, we have what Locke refers to as a Simple Thought, for example when we see red, we might have a thought of red. Later, we form a complex thought, or simple mode, a general idea of red, from combing multiple simple thought memories of red together.

Would you call this Se or Te?

Further, we might one day associate red with blood, and then another day, associate blood with the complex idea of "justice," or "war."
I'd call what you name a "simple thought" a piece of Se data.

I'd call the "general idea of red" that is built of several previous experiences of red a Si axiom.

When we associate "red" with justice or blood, I'd still say that's a Si axiom, since the associations are fixed. When we always associate red with justice or blood or whatever - then that's Ne associations generating and expanding a Si axiom.

If you associate "red" in this particular context to justice, but "red" in that particular context to revolution, this particular time only, because that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to you in this moment, then it's Se-Ni at work.

Am I too vague, or do I make sense? I don't know anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Environment: => Physical sensory input => Pe (Ne spectrum or Se filter) => Pi (Si filter or Ni spectrum) => Ji & Je balancing eachothers wills => Action => Result => Adjustment of P function filters / spectra and J-judgments according to result (or defense mechanisms like casting blame or projecting if one has problems modifying ones world view)

Basically, a Ne-Si type will first percieve a lot of spaced out theories, opportunities and options through the Ne-prism, and then the Si-filter sets in and eliminates those that are incompatible with their accumulated experience. J-functions pick and choose between the remaining options.

A Ne dominant has a weak Si filter, so a lot of the spaced out stuff is still there after elimination. A Si dominant has a weak Ne-spectrum, and will only let through a few reliable options.

A Ni-Se type will observe a few tangible options through the Se filter, and then they will expand on those by changing their perception with their Ni-spectrum. The J-functions then pick a fitting perspective as a basis for decision.

A Se dominant has a weak Ni. They will see more nuances of the direct Se experience, but they have fewer options for perspective shifting. A Ni dominant will filter out everything but the most obvious Se-input, but then they expand on this in every direction using the Ni-spectrum.



I don't understand what you mean by this. Will you elaborate?



I'd call what you name a "simple thought" a piece of Se data.

I'd call the "general idea of red" that is built of several previous experiences of red a Si axiom.

When we associate "red" with justice or blood, I'd still say that's a Si axiom, since the associations are fixed. When we always associate red with justice or blood or whatever - then that's Ne associations generating and expanding a Si axiom.

If you associate "red" in this particular context to justice, but "red" in that particular context to revolution, this particular time only, because that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to you in this moment, then it's Se-Ni at work.

Am I too vague, or do I make sense? I don't know anymore.
Thank you so much once again. I need to seriously digest the first part. It might take me a day or two. And I will hold off my elaboration on the second part until then to, since I might have to rethink it entirely.

I will comment on one thing now: The act of extending towards the possibilities of the connections between blood and justice, would be as you say, but once the connection is formed, then it becomes just another fixed Si Axiom I suppose. Which, just as a nerd, I find very very cool. I'm sure that connection, being the most complex, and needing the most ideas (Se data) to form the complex connected thoughts (Si Axiom), will be the least stable. As in, our neuroreceptors would have traveled that fixed path the least amount of time, therefore being the one that is easiest to shift. Anyway, I think I digress a bit. Surely interesting though is it not?

I will need some time to consider the rest though. Happy thoughts!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
Ni:Se:Ti:Fe (NFJ, STP) Experiencer-interpreters with external values and internal logic.
Ni:Se:Te:Fi (NTJ, SFP) Experiencer-interpreters with external pragmatism and internal values.
Ne:Si:Ti:Fe (NTP, SFJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external values and internal logic.
Ne:Si:Te:Fi (NFP, STJ) Hypothesiser-axiomatics with external pragmatism and internal values.
Do you think this is why people and their opposite type are supposed to get along? opposite function order, but same way of experiencing life?

edit: I just read through the other replies and you mentioned that you have an easier time relating to an isfp than an intp because of what is written above. :blushed:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
^^Well, someone can choose their external values to be external pragmatism (correct me if Ive messed up the definitions before I understand it completely). Though, pragmatism must allow for private beliefs that differ from the "meshed together conglomerate of societys believe" otherwise pragmatism can easily end up being fascism. So it probably comes down to some kind of maturity, would you say?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
^^Well, someone can choose their external values to be external pragmatism (correct me if Ive messed up the definitions before I understand it completely). Though, pragmatism must allow for private beliefs that differ from the "meshed together conglomerate of societys believe" otherwise pragmatism can easily end up being fascism. So it probably comes down to some kind of maturity, would you say?
That's an interesting proposal, but I'd say it's impossible to make Fe behave like Te.

Fe is the application of ethical values to the external world. Te is the application of a practical solution.

A Fe-user might form an ethical system that says that it's good to solve problems in practical, pragmatical ways. And he/she might get other people to agree that it's good to do so. It's still a set of ethics, seeing things on a good-bad scale.

Te in itself is amoral. It does not say that pragmatic solutions are ethically sound. It does not say solving problems in a pragmatic manner is good or bad. It does not care about that. It's not part of the script. Te just takes the different facts into consideration and outputs a practical solution.

A Fe-user with an ethical system that supports pragmatism might say this Te-solution is "good". Te does not. Te does not care. It just solves problems in amoral, practical ways.

A Te-user's ethics arrive from Fi. Fi can say that a certain Te-action is "right" or "wrong", and if a certain solution is considered wrong by Fi, it is (in most cases) not acted upon by the person.

A Fe-Ti-user, on the other hand, will attempt to apply an ethical framework to the external world - Fe wants to declare things as either "right" or "wrong" for every individual, and for society as a whole. Ti backs up and modifies the Fe ethical rules so that they make sense and follow logical consequence.

The output of Fe-Ti types is "This is right" or "this is wrong". The arguments backing up these ethical conclusions are formulated by Ti.

The output of Te-Fi types is "This will work" or "this will not work". If these solutions are acted upon or not is decided by the personal Fi ethics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
And it is on this level where function order starts to set in.

A Te-preferent (TJs) will primarily set (practical) Te-based goals, and use Te-methods in order to reach them. Fi is used to check each decision against personal ethics, so that the individual does not do anything that's morally unjustifiable.

A Fi-preferent (FPs) will primarily set Fi-based ideals, and use Te-methods in order to reach them. Fi sets personal goals based on personal ethics, and then Te-methods are used to reach those goals.

A Ti-preferent (TPs) will primarily be interested in the exploration of logical systems, and simple Fe-ethics backed up by heavy Ti is used to handle the external world.

A Fe-preferent (FJs) will primarily want to involve people in their value systems, by forming groups, changing people's opinions and such. Ti is used to support their ethics and ideals, giving a logical base for their arguments and opinions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Ok I finally digested this. Let me test my clarity.

"A Ni-Se type will observe a few tangible options through the Se filter, and then they will expand on those by changing their perception with their Ni-spectrum. The J-functions then pick a fitting perspective as a basis for decision."

If say, all my sense are shut off. I can not hear, see, taste, fee, or touch. I am left with my memories only. This changes nothing correct? If I am inside reliving past memories, I am in effect, still capable of using Se. I will just be going through the process again, much like re reading a book, possibly finding something I missed before even.

Now, I would say that a pair is equal in both its parts as far as function strength. Even if we say someone is Ti Se dominant, should we not say (Ti,Fe) (Se,Ni) Dominant? Te, and Fi, will be auxiliary, but would work on conjunction with Ti and Fe, since they are already dominant, and Si and Ne inferior. These inferior pairs will likely never work together, being an inferior pair, since each of the functions that are not of the dominant two, will function with the aready dominant pair, simply adding to the current perceiving or judging function.

Bit wordy, but I think Im starting to get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,849 Posts
The way I have come to frame these things:

Te: judges technical relationships according to an external standard (in the objects themselves)
Ti: judges technical relationships according to an internal standard (the subject's chosen frameworks, variables in a situation)
Fe: judges personal relationships by an external standard (agreed upon behaviors)
Fi: judges personal relationships by an internal standard (experiential identification)

For the perception functions:

Se: perceives concrete data from an external (emergent) source
Si: perceives concrete data from an internal (stored) source
Ne: abstracts external, emergent data
Ni: abstracts internally stored data

So yes, the diametric opposites end up working in tandem, because all of this is a sort of "mirror" dynamic, where the ego prefers one perspective and orientation, and the opposite is used to back it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,214 Posts
From my understanding the OP hypothesis is more or less correct - function strength tests are misleading. I understand it a little different though. From what I understand everyone has all 8 cognitive functions and use them to different degrees, in different ways. Here's where the confusion comes in, a dominant or primary function is not the same as having a strong function. An ENTP, for example, could be good at using Ni, but that doesn't make it their dominant function. Everyone of the same type will have the same primary processes in the same order, but different people will use each function with a different degree of success.

Here's how I understand it. I will use ENTP because it's my type, and ISFJ because it my opposite, for examples.

Your lead role will always be your first response, or primary instinct. Your first extroverted (lead or support) function will be your end game or goal. Your first introverted (lead or support) function will be how you arrive at that end game. For example as an ENTP (Ne Ti) my first instinct when approaching anything is to cycle it through Ne (scan for possibilities). I will then utilize Ti (analyze known data) to filter everything gathered from Ne in order to realize (or enact) those Ne possibilities. An ISFJ (Si Fe) would approach something by running through Si (compare to known experiences). (S)he would then use that Si comparison to come to an Fe (consensual value) decision.

Your tertiary function is used as clean up and to get the dust to settle. An ENTP would use Fe (consensual value) to smooth things over with the people around us after throwing our insane chaos of an Ne Ti loop at everyone and driving them all insane. An ISFJ will utilize Ti (known logical data) to look for logical inconsistencies with their Fe (consensual value) decision that they are forcing on to everyone.

Your inferior function is your last ditch effort to make sense of something. As an ENTP if something isn't working the way I envision it with Ne Ti, and I can't smooth it over with Fe, then my brain goes into Si (compare to known experiences) and says Oh $#^!, what did I miss?!?! For an ISFJ if something isn't working the way they decided it should via Si Fe, and the Ti can't make sense of it, their brain goes into Ne (scan for possibilities) mode and braces for impending DOOM!

The shadow functions are just that, shadows. They run in the background like an anti-virus or a task manager. Now, you may be good at making a Hail Mary pass (inferior function), but you're not ever going to use it unless you absolutely have to. You could also have a really good anti-virus, but you're not going to ever sit and watch it run, you'll just have it lingering in the background. An ENTP could be very good at Ni (connecting intricate possibilities) processes, maybe even better than they are at Ne although not likely, but they're not going to use it like they do with their primary functions.

Anyway, from what I've read, that's how I understand the cognitive functions. So like the OP stated an ENTP can not be Ni dominant, even if they do test high Ni on a process strength test.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
The op for sure now has me thinking I'm on the wrong team. I don't get si... At all. Se makes sense, it's very much a part of my extroversion. And when you put ne that way... Not as much. Not to mention the ni is also a very familiar function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
I think I see the problem.

We keep giving perceiving functions too much ability.

Se knows what information to look for, because our judging functions, or instincts, have told it.

But Si is just reliving Se through memory. You can't say that "Si" is attempting to put it into a logical framework.

The S and N functions, perceiving functions as a whole, relate to storing memory, but that is a "memory function," which has nothing to do with "perceiving and judging functions."

The only reason memory is associated with S, is because S is more stimulating than N. N lacks hard data from the 5 senses. That is the only reason why. Memory is related, not a part of the function.

Se or Si isnt trying to establish any kind of network, that just happens via memory, but unclear. Those memory blocks arent ordered until we sort through them with guess what.

Well its obvious enough. Fi and Ti.

Fe and Te are simply the extroverted functions of what we do with those memory blocks, and what kind of logical framework we put them in.

You cant get to Te or Fe without starting at Fi and Ti, however, once you establish Fe and Te, you dont necessarily need to use Fi and Ti again, theoretically.

T is impersonal.

F is personal. This is simply when you "care" about something. If you dont care about something, you are using T. They are both logical calculating decision makers. Just like any math problem, there are a couple ways to solve the problem. Thats all.

I guess I'm not very clear on the difference between Te and Fe. If we say Fe constructs and attempts to do something with ethical structures, then how is that different than Te?

Te can easily do that, because it can be measured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I think I see the problem.

We keep giving perceiving functions too much ability.

Se knows what information to look for, because our judging functions, or instincts, have told it.

But Si is just reliving Se through memory. You can't say that "Si" is attempting to put it into a logical framework.

The S and N functions, perceiving functions as a whole, relate to storing memory, but that is a "memory function," which has nothing to do with "perceiving and judging functions."

The only reason memory is associated with S, is because S is more stimulating than N. N lacks hard data from the 5 senses. That is the only reason why. Memory is related, not a part of the function.
I think you can use only either Se-Ni or Si-Ne. Because the two paradigms contradict eachother. They are impossible to combine without having to go into details and add exceptions and what-ifs everywhere. I also want to limit the span of function theory to only the cognitive processes preceding a decision. Everything else is outside of the span of at least my thesis on this subject. I can explain how I think about this and why:

All humans can percieve the details of the tangible here-and-now, but only Se-types use it as a major factor in their decision-making. That's why they are Se-types. Likewise, all humans have some degree of memory. This does not mean that they use Si as a basis for decision making. Everyone can solve a practical problem in an objective manner, but this does not mean they use Te for decision making. I think what cognitive functions theory does is that it elaborates on certain aspects of the psyche, and it explains how these might be combined in order to form different decision making processes and priorities.

Si relies on a single storehouse of data gathered over time. Events percieved as similar to each other by the subject (by use of judging functions) are put in the same array. An "average" - in the mathematical sense - of events in the same array is then used as an axiom for decision making. This means that this average is sent to a judging function when it's decision-time. I guess the decision-making process of a Si-Ne-type could be described something like this:

"Oh, I am in this kind (Si) of situation now. This means that I have these options (Ne) for action. What am I going to do (Je), and why am I doing it (Ji)?"

Se does it differently. It does not look at average of similar situations as a basis for judgment. It does not rely on previously established axioms. It looks at the emergent tangible data in the present moment, and sees what can be done in just this particular moment. A Se-type might have memories of similar situations in the past, but that information is not used for decision-making and the type is therefore not a Si-user.

A decision making process for a Se-Ni-type would look something like this:

"So this is the available data in this particular situation (Se) and these are the interpretations of the data that make sense to me right now (Ni). What am I going to do (Je) and why am I going to do it (Ji)?"

One can't use both these sets. They are mutually incompatible world views.

I guess I'm not very clear on the difference between Te and Fe. If we say Fe constructs and attempts to do something with ethical structures, then how is that different than Te?

Te can easily do that, because it can be measured.
I am not clear on exactly what you mean here, but if I have interpreted you correctly, then this is my answer:

There is a great difference between Te-pragmatism and Fe-ethics, and the two are also mutually exclusive, because there is a conflict of values and priorities inherent in the difference between the two.

A Fe-user would want to establish common ground with people in order to make agreed-upon-by-all decisions, because in Fe-space, what makes a decision justified is that everyone can agree it's a good idea. It is a political function, so to say. It is ready to compromise and change because of differing opinions and feelings. The best possible decision in Fe-space is the decision that has the most people believing it is good. It does not matter if the solutions proposed are horribly inefficient - as long as everyone likes the idea, it's all good.

Fe wants to make decisions that are agreed upon and that pleases people in one way or another. The reactions of other people is the basic measurement unit for deciding if a decision is good or bad.

Te is practically the total opposite.

Te only cares about the opinions of others if these opinions have practical implications to the decision. A Te-solution does not usually take people into account, except as numbers in a risk management calculation - Because opinions are irrelevant to the Te-mind.

Te cares nothing about the wills and wants of the self or others. It is not an ethical system - it's just as amoral as building a functioning machine. Either a machine works or it does not - only the measurable efficiency of the construct is the basis for decisions. More efficient = good. Less efficient = bad - regardless of people's opinions, because people's opinions can change no measurements. Measurements are objective and therefore they stand above opinions. They are facts, and facts are real. A solution works in reality, or it doesn't. That's what's important for Te-judgment.

Do you understand the difference?

And also, how do you measure an ethical structure?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,229 Posts
Ah. Thank you again. I think I have a solid basis in the perceiving functions now. Awesome job.

How do you measure an ethical structure?
I think I see where I went wrong when it comes to the judging functions and also why I was wrong about measuring an ethical structure in this context. Say I have an ethical goal, to be non biased and appreciate cultural relativism and variety more, a democratic pragmatism in a way, (Fe), then I will also have other goals and plans formulated to meet that goal. (Te)

I think I was confusing the "means" (Te) including the possibility of measurement, with the ethical goal its self.

So I believe we are on track now then. And if this thread doesn't answer someone's questions, I'm really not sure what will, :).
 
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Top