Another Crack at Function Definitions: “Relationships” of Objects
Recently, coming to understand the whole Jungian framework better, I’ve been trying to identify a common thread to understand the functions through: “relationships”. Not just personal relationships (which is what we often use them for in understanding type), but relationships of objects in general.
First, to go back over what the functions are from scratch:
Perception encourages us to process sensory impressions as they occur.
Judgment prompts us to organize our sense impressions by focusing on the ones that happen regularly enough to recognize and predict. (Lenore, Personality Type An Owner’s Manual, p253)
Left brain (J = Je/Pi) linear one-at-a-time approach to life
Right brain (P = Pe/Ji) wholistic* all-at-once approach to life.
*(Also spelled “holistic”, but “wholistic” is actually the more correct form: http://www.reference.com/motif/health/holistic-vs-wholistic. “Holistic” is similar, but more about “interconnectedness”)
Descriptions from the chapters on the functions:
Se: Sense impressions as they occur
Si: stabilize our sense impressions by integrating them with ones we remember (past experience)
Ne: unify sense impressions with larger [outward] contexts
Ni: liberate sense impressions from larger contexts; patterns are part of us; the way we make sense of information and energy impinging on our systems
[Notice, both Si and Ne deal in “integrating” or “unifying”, while Se and Ni deal in individual or “liberating”. This is why the functions work in tandem].
Te: shared qualities objects have in common used as a standard of sequential order
Ti: coordinating our behaviors with the variables [essential dynamics] in a situation related to our intended effect
Fe: measure our options for relationships against an external standard of behaviors
Fi: encourages a personal relationship to an evolving pattern (e.g. how a given situation would affect the person)
[You can deduce from this that both T and F deal in “relationships”, and that while F is relationships of a “personal” nature, T is relationships between objects: impersonal].
Genesis portrays a universe created by differentiation of opposites.
God separates light from dark, the heavens from the earth, the dry land from the water, night from day, life from the nonliving waters, and then the nonliving earth, male from female, intelligent man from nature, and then good from evil (which man was not supposed to get into on his own).
When our souls become immersed in spacetime, marked by a physical body in a particular location and time, we divide existence into past/future, ahead/behind, up/down and left/right.
Ever since, we’ve been psychically to try to mend the rifts in one way or another.
So we spend our lives depending on the material world we were split from in order to survive, and try to merge with it by either getting in harmony with it, or conquering it.
We long for an existence beyond this world of spatial and temporal polarities, where separation is undone, good and evil are resolved, and we no longer have to depend on the environment for survival. Our attempts to create this now (through our ego-driven enterprises) often end up blurring polarities such as good and evil. We just cannot inegrate the data that goes against the path we have set for ourselves.
Heterosexual desire is at its root a psychic attempt to reintegrate what was split off from us when we were developing into our own gender (which too often focuses too much on the body and the physical pleasure. Still not sure how the dynamic translates for homosexuals).
So all of the polarities and every object and event are connected by some form of relationship to one another, and it’s the nature of these relationships that provide the data for our cognitive functions.
Human egos divide (abstract) reality into opposite poles in terms of these relationships, and usually takes one side of each over the other. This creates imbalances in our perspective, as concrete (“mixed together”) reality ends up being neither of the extremes people always veer towards.
We each have impressions of reality, or “truth”.
We observe and assess the relationships between things in organizing our impressions.
“Observation” of truth:
tangible (what is right before you; immanent tangible relationships)
conceptual (background, contexts; transcendant intangible relationships; what it means or might be done with it)
“Assessment” of truth:
technical (impersonal; relationships between objects)
humane ([inter]personal; relationships between people)
Orientation of truth
external (localized, immediate)
internal (universalistic, which can only be processed internally since we are not omnipresent)
(I find that it’s actually harder to come up with better terms to differentiate the perception attitudes than it is for the judging attitudes, since N got described in terms of “motion”; i.e. “where it’s heading”, which is easy to misinterpret, and all perception is described in terms of “sense impressions”, which might make us think of S.
I first considered “static” vs “mobile” instead, but this is still confusing, as it’s not about actual motion, but rather just the mobility of possible relationships. –As in “pattern abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another” as I’ve seen it put. Hence, “immanent” vs “transcendant” might be better terms. It’s not the object N is looking at that’s “heading” anywhere; it’s a pattern that can be taken from another object and matched to this one. All together this creates a matrix of possible connections.
[Edit: I think I’ll just go with “tangible vs intangible” as even better, being more simple].
To use Bruzon’s “Fundamental Nature of the MBTI” illustrations (https://web.archive.org/web/20131004003001/http://player2000gi.alotspace.com/jungian_functions.htm), if the S focus is represented by individual points, the N is the background space between them, represented by the dotted lines connecting points.
On his page, he states: “The Sensor is obviously aware of the motion component, but within the reality structure, this takes the form of fact, rather than process.” iNtuition “often provides intelligence and the ability to understand complex ideas and relationships.”; i.e. the complexity of the relationships is the real “motion”.
Also, now I’m willing to use “personal”, along with “impersonal”, where before I suggested “humane” for Feeling, because framing it in terms of “relationships” avoids the double meaning of “personal” as also an introverted perspective. And they’re more familiar, common words. Using the concept of “immanent” vs “transcendant” [or “tangible” vas “intangible”] relationships instead of “concrete” or “tangible” avoids the misconception that any dealing with tangible items isn’t iNtuition. Introverted Sensing might seem to be other than “immanent” [or even “tangible” perhaps] since it might deal a lot with the past, which is not right before you. This is why I once tried to dub its tandem with with Ne as “circumspective”, or “looking around” rather than “looking at”. But again, it’s the character of the data that determines it, not the time element.
The definitions of the terms are:
Immanent – to experience reality as present in the world where transcendent is to believe reality exists outside the material universe.
Introverted Sensing still deals with “reality present in the world”, even though it may store facts outside “real time”. iNtuition of either attitude deals with concepts such as [nonvisual, non-auditory] patterns and meanings, which are nonmaterial).
Putting it all together:
We are social creatures, and our Persona forms as we try to adapt to the social environment (i.e. expectations) around us, and what’s left out of this becomes the Shadow.
(Even if we say we don’t care what others think, we still like to think of ourselves in ways that would “look good” to others. Like being strong, honest, etc. even if we do it in ways that don’t look like those qualities to others).
This further creates more polarities, between the perspectives we choose to accomplish this, and their opposites.
The ego chooses the orientation and form of “truth” it finds it uses best for these adaptations (indicated by the emotional reward given when successful). The other orientation and truths become subdued; still there, only not given as much weight. At least one other mode of truth will be preferred, since we must both observe and assess. So the mode of the opposite method of processing will become “auxiliary” and also take on the opposite orientation (for the sake of balance).
Different, partially dissociated senses of “I” will focus on each of the other modes of truth, and in either orientation.
“The [first] four functions” of each type are simply what the parts of ourselves that are the main ego achievers, the ego supporters or guides of others, the less mature uplookers, and the inferior-feeling seeker of completeness will focus on. More negative versions of these will reverse the orientations, generating “the other four”.
| Function definitions | Resultant dominant perspectives | Se: observing immediate tangible relationships | experiencing life as it comes |
| Si: observing through a storehouse of tangible relationships | filtering life through familiar fact |
| Ne: observing immediate intabgible relationships | exploring conceptual contexts as data arises |
| Ni: observing through a stored sense of intangible relationships | exploring conceptual contexts not yet externalized |
| Te: assessing immediate impersonal relationships | establishing logical order |
| Ti: assessing wholistic impersonal relationships | making sense of things using logical order |
| Fe: assessing immediate [inter]personal relationships | establishing social harmony |
| Fi: assessing wholistic personal relationships | look at life through the lens of human values |
So if we want to know which function is being “used” in a given situation, we need to ask:
1) Are the relationships observed between objects/events tangible (each one “is what it is”), or are they intangible (patterns that can be abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another)?
2) Are the relationships being assessed in a fashion impersonal (how things work), or personal (how they affect self and/or others)?
3) Is the data being derived from an external, immediate source, or an internal, often more far reaching source?
So when we speak of “using” a function, we have to clarify what we mean. It can be more active or passive.
It’s not having the emotion that indicates a “Feeling” function, it’s what we do with it.
Awareness starts with Sensation, but “S” simply makes this its primary focus, while “N” goes beyond that into invisible CONTEXTS. (Hence iNtuition being described by Jung as “unconscious”, along with introverted functions which draw on an invisible internal blueprint of data, and undeveloped functions and the Shadow).
People are still objects (impersonal material) and objects do have affect on people. So a T’s organizing can take into consideration people, and an F’s organizing will include objects. But the focus will be on the opposite (preferred) elements, and what they are organizing will in the long run take a back seat (and may be easy to pick flaws in, because it is the more vulnerable component to their judgment, and yet is supporting what ego is pushing for, and thus will be felt as an attack on the soul; hence the person then possibly falling into the “inferior grip”).
So the insistence on Genesis as being a literal account of universe-wide creation in seven literal days is a rabidly one-sided “S” perspective looking only at the tangible (immanent, static) words on the page, and refusing to place them in a larger intangible (transcendent, mobile) context. (And this brand of fundamentalism will also usually dismiss discussions like this that employ psychological concepts in favor of explaining everything with “scripture terms only”). On the other hand, people who use the allegorical approach to altogether neutralize anything the Bible says about God or morality are making a lopsided use of an “N” perspective.
It’s possible for one’s enjoyment of physical pleasures to be connected with larger contexts such as symbolic meaning. Like in sex, this is precisely what a “fetish” is. You can have the physical pleasure without the fetish, but the fantasy carries a larger meaning that goes beyond the physical contact.
I also see a lot of introverted iNtuitives who can get into nostalgia and other “past” focused interests (even though Si is the deepest “shadow” function for them), because there are a lot of patterns, symbols and other larger contexts that come from the past.
What I see they get irritated by is a focus on past “facts” just for their own sake, or reliving events that are in some way negative to them (such as conflicts).
(Autistic spectum disorders may be characterized by “taking things too literally” (missing nuances, etc), and this sounds like S, but it is still possible to take certain things others say literally, while still preferring transcendent relationships for one’s own perception, as do most Aspies who gravitate to the N side).
So looking at type through the lens of temperament (and even Myers-Briggs had originally set out to create a new four temperament or “style” type of system, and of course, Keirsey did perfect the temperament groups, but then rejected the functions types were based on), we have gotten into looking for “traits” such as “focus on the past”, but we see where it doesn’t always work that way. There are other factors that can produce similar behaviors.
The key temperament traits to look for are the original “expressive” and “responsive” (with the neurologically based I/E as expressive), which do remotely correspond with functional preference, but have their own set of typical behavioral patterns.
"ERIPEDIA" 
At this point, I should clarify an apparent contradiction with Bruzon “fundamental Nature of the MBTI” I often cite (which is based on the same “Brain Types Institutes” concept as Lenore’s work)
“wide/local area matrix”: Pi considered “local” along with Je while Pe is “wide”, because what he considers “the matrix”, is “the brain’s map of reality”, where what I’m referring to as “universalistic”[i.e. “wide”] and “local” is the actual external reality itself.
In other words, “local” and “wide” in the brain’s inner world versus in the outer world.
So “wide” ends up being more “broad” (like extraversion), while “local” is more “focused” on specifics (like introversion).
Comparing the two:
Pe broad, wide
Pi focused, local
Je broad, local
Ji focused, wide
Then, he at the same time associates this i/e orientation with perception, for which this matches. (Because “The perceiving function builds the content of the reality structure”. He even suggests T/F not having orientations, though he goes on to describe them anyway, putting them in the same brain hemisphere as the opposite attitude perception functions they pair with).
So it ends up matching for the judging functions: extraversion is local and introversion is wide. (The judging functions form part of our “output” to the external world; the other part being the “responsive” behaviors connected with them, as well as the expressive behaviors of [dominant] I/E itself).
But in another way, Pe is clearly localized as well, while Pi is more extensive. Think Se and Ne’s “immediate, emergent” focus, and Si and Ni’s storehouses of data used for many different situations.
This is the external world in which you can only directly perceive what’s right before you, where internal perception can visualize what’s not before you; it’s stored in memory.
On the other hand, Je tends to be more “broad” in its principles, which are generally applied in a “one size fits all” fashion (and Pi’s stock observation data will go among with this), while Ji is more abstracting of variables and individual unique situations (supplied in an “emergent” fashion by Pe).
Should also be mentioned; another use of “unconscious” I’ve heard, is that when a psychological process matures through consciousness into order, it becomes habitual and dominant, and thus, unconscious again.
This can be confusing, especially in reading Jung, because we are so accustomed to thinking that the dominant is by definition the furthest from “unconsciousness”. But it makes sense, and people have testified to not recognizing their dominant function because it is so “second nature”; especially introverts.
So now we have another definition of unconscious. An undeveloped function, one that is developed to the point of being habitual, and then any introverted perspective, or the products of iNtuition. (Hence, the INJ is the one who deals the most in the “unconscious”, and hence Ni being the hardest function to understand and explain).
Expanding on what I was trying to articulate in the above table:
how the situation demands things be arranged
if it were up to me, how I would arrange it
how they say they want to be treated
if that were me, how I would want to be treated
Notice,
Se and Ni both deal directly with “what is”
Ne’s “could point to”, and Si’s “what was learned” fill each other in.
TeFi we are inner beings; things are external objects
FeTi we are inner things constituting outer (relational) beings
Here, I look at the eight dominant (ego) orientations when combined with the opposite function mode (j/p). The other function can be either the preferred auxiliary, or the tertiary (relief, “eternal child”, which can be strong. Some even insist Jung spoke of ‘two auxiliaries”), and hence, each type can exhibit some of the other characteristics, explainign some type confusion. (For example, I constructed this from realizing that overall, my whole world view is impersonal interconnections. This usually comes out “in theory”, or with concepts, but it does cross over to more sensory (visual, experiential) products as well. So I can also identify with Ti+S).
Also, one could naturally identify with the opposite Auxiliary perspective with dominant, like Ne+T for me, and sometimes even the T will seem extraverted; hence the “backup” (5th) function.
S+T what makes sense in practice
Se+T experiencing life practically from an impersonal viewpoint
Si+T experiencing life via known facts from an impersonal viewpoint
Te+S making order though impersonal connections in practical experience
Ti+S making sense through impersonal connections in practical experience
S+F what’s good for people in practice
Se+F experiencing life practically from a personal viewpoint
Si+F experiencing life via known facts from a personal viewpoint
Fe+S making order through personal connections in practical experience
Fi+S making sense though personal connections in practical ways [expression]
N+T what makes sense in theory
Ne+T becoming aware through impersonal interconnections
Ni+T referencing awareness through impersonal interconnections
Te+N making order through impersonal connections in ideas and concepts
Ti+N making sense through impersonal connections in imaginitive experience
N+F what’s good for people on theory
Ne+F becoming aware through personal interconnections
Ni+F referencing awareness of personal interconnections
Fe+N making order through personal connections with ideas and concepts
Fi+N making sense through personal connections in imaginitive experience
Continuing trying to come up with good definitions for “functional products“:
an emergent sensation
a recalled sensation
an emergent [nonsensory] pattern
a recalled [nonsensory] pattern
an external need for logical order
an internal blueprint of logical order
an external occasion for social harmony
an internal identification with a human need
These elements are present in every event and action. What makes them differentiated specific functional products is when an ego (or one of its other complexes) abstracts them from the situation, paying more attention to that aspect of the data.
(An extreme unfortunate example, but one that really makes the point well):
You may love your child and would never do anything to harm him (personal relationship)
Yet you trip and fall, crushing him (impersonal relationship. You are still material things, subject to the laws of nature, such as mass, gravity, etc. regardless of how you feel).
You’re one object and he’s another (tangible relationship)
You’re parent and child; family (intangible relationship).
This is simply how things are. Both poles of each set of opposites are equally true, and we can see all of them, but our egos, in dividing up reality, tends to prefer one side over the other.
Not that we can’t see the other side, especially in a given instance. Hence, NT’s, who tend to look at the world in terms of transcendent impersonal relationships can still see the immanent, personal need of another human (who’s not even related to him). He just prefers to deal with stuff like science theories, and based on stuff like environment, it may not even be science, it may be religious doctrine, politics, or just a bunch of ideas he keeps to himself in a largely S culture.
We each prefer an internal or external orientation
We each prefer the process of taking in information itself or making decisions with it
We each prefer focusing on objects (S for information gathering, and T for decision making), or wholistic meanings (N for information gathering and F for decision making).
Each event we encounter produces several emotional responses. The one that resonates most with our sense of the way the world should be (or violations of this) will be interpreted through the ego’s dominant perspective:
That’s an opportunity to experience or act in the moment [external] (Se)
That fits what I know [internal] to be factual (Si)
That’s an opportunity to realize unfulfilled potential [external] (Ne)
That points to unspoken [internal] meaning (Ni)
That needs to be put to efficient [external] use (Te)
That is so logically elegant [internal impression]; e.g. symmetry (Ti)
That can be put to use for social [external] harmony (Fe)
That is so humanely beautiful [internal impression] (Fi)
The emotions associated with our sense of caretaking or helping others will be interpreted through the function the ego has assigned as its auxiliary function.
The other six complexes (ego states) and associated functions will mirror these two.
Cautious about the whole “Te=’applied logic’” thing, because the Ti type will want to “apply” his sense of logic in the real world too, and he isn’t switching to “Te” when he does it. The attitude is based on the standard of the assessment, and for Ti, it’s that internal sense of order itself, and for Te, it’s whatever works* best in the outer world.
So since I like symmetry, I always liked how New York’s 2-WCBS, 4-WNBC and 7-WABC are reflected in the west coast by 2-KCBS, 4-KNBC and 7-KABC. So to be consistent, I thought it would be cool if the “little” networks and PBS; 5, 9, 11, 13 matched like that, but those stations all developed differently in the two flagship markets, under the same owners, but the channels not matching. (For a while, the 9’s did have the same owner).
Of course, if I had the power, I would arrange them that way. This has no “practical” purpose. The most it could ever do is just make me more “at home” with LA TV (and that, the rare times I’m over there), and otherwise just be an intriguement.
It seemed that someone, somewhere in the TV industry of three big networks thought enough of it to have the flagship channel numbers and call letters match. (And then the station logos usually match, or come close to it as well).
This catches my attention, seeming to validate my sense of symmetry (“see, others recognize it; it must be ‘true’ and really universally worthwhile after all”), and then I extend it beyond where the people have actually arranged it.
An example of Te-types engaging Ti a bit is my parents giving me, as a male, my mother’s initials (ETB), and if I or my brother had been a girl, we would have gotten my father’s initials (CBB). A nice little reverse symmetry (especially if there was one boy and one girl at the same time), that is generally not their usual their way of deciding things, but I live for the stuff (and then wasn’t prepared for it to grow thin for others after awhile).
When they would get me and my brother’s somewhat similar names mixed up at times, they would wish they hadn’t used that pattern. (It would be more efficient, and myself operating off of the symmetrical buleprint, I don’t think I would have had the problem of confusing the names).
Likewise, Fe will be more about outer application as well, but should not be defined as “expressing feeling/emotion”, in contrast to Fi keeping it in (as I’ve seen done in type discussions). Fi types too will desire their internal values being enacted in the outer world, and may express this (especially if Fi is auxiliary, where they are dominant extraverts, which is really what determines “expressiveness” of their beliefs/values).
*It should be mentioned in passing, that there may be some confusion in the matter of “what works” or “pragmatism”. Te’s standard is what works (“efficiency”), but then Keirsey had associated the SP and NT temperaments with “pragmatism”. He had rejected the cognitive functions, but when you put them back into the equation (as Berens had done, and the rest of the online community pretty much follows), then not only do both temperaments consist of either Te or Ti types, but it turns out that the Ti-preferring ones; the TP’s, end up consistently “pragmatic”. (And this article: http://www.rogerbissell.com/achillestendencies/atnewlook.html considers them “the Pragmatists”). They can only be SP’s or NT’s: (S[T]P) or (NT[P]; where the TJ’s can fall into the “cooperative” SJ temperament. Where P is overall more pragmatic, J is more cooperative, with FJ the most consistently so, being S[F]J or NF[J]).
The difference is, that Keirsey’s “pragmatism” is more conative (corresponding to a high “expressed Control”), and thus about how quickly the individual takes self-initiated action (whichever function he may use in it). The pragmatism connected with Te is not so much about the self-initiated action of the individual, but more focused on the objective standard itself. The STJ (and NFP) will end up “cooperatively” pushing for “what works” in establishing logical order for their superiors or other authority.
Ti will push for “consistency” based on an internal model, such as symmetry. Informed by Ne, it will be of ideas (including ones pertaining to human interaction, such as fairness; hence can be easily confused with Fi, like when “personally identifying” with someone suffering the “a-symmetry” of an injustice), and with Se, it may help in something like physical balance (knowing if gravity or inertia push you so much one way, you need to counter that much the other way. Hence being described by Keirsey as making good surfers, and would also be good for dancing and musical performance and composition as well).
Te is about the consistency of a course of action with an objective goal; hence, “efficiency”.
Fi is about a humane consistency of inner values (not about simply HAVING values). Just like it can be hard for Ti to choose between two symmetries that are [logically] valued, Fi can have a hard time deciding between humane values when they conflict. Hence being described as “weighing” and evaluating for “congruence”, as Fi types on one hand want to maintain their values, but nevertheless still infer others’ state, and then often feel pulled to give in anyway. (Hence, being more “Supine” or at least “Sanguine” in temperament).
Fe is about the consistency of external interpersonal harmony.
Ti for me deals in just impersonal “facts” for their own sake; which help build models of reality. Hence trying to put back together and recreate the whole geographical context of the Five Points, as a contrast to the world of today.
Tertiary Si contributes to this, being drawn to the non-emergent (and thus easily internalized) tangible connections of where everything was, and comparisons with similar nearby areas from the same century that survived, (and the bewilderment that the site was such a part of my life, working there for a decade, without even knowing its history), and auxiliary Ne draws the emergent intangible (transcendant) connections (OK, it once was, but is no more, but what else can we draw from it now?), by imagining what it must have looked like, and what it would look like if it had survived into the present. This then leads into ideas like time travel and alternate realities.
Te finds this sort of “trivia” a waste of time, for it’s more about localized immediate solutions to problems. Coupled with Si as aux or dom., it might engage the nostalgia for a bit, but then want to move on to the more “practical” matters that Si facts can inform the Te judgments with.
With Ni, it also might engage, but look for deeper meanings, if any can be discerned, and approach things differently, as logical facts will be more for an external goal.
Fi would be personal values for their own sake to build models of ideal harmony, like just pondering on “peace and love” (which to me always seemed futile and setting yourself up for disappointment, for it doesn’t fit in with the way the universe is set up as determined by either attitude of T. Though peace and love are certainly appreciated, ⦅if not feared or supected of being illusory⦆, when encountered).
Fe will value the ideals of peace and love, to create harmony of course, but be more about immediate response and generalized local, more practical solutions like Te, where Fi will respond using the internal blueprint to shape the decision more than than the immediate situation by itself.
So Ti tends to building internal blueprints and then referencing them.
So where Ti can be applied either internally or externally, Te is almost totally external, and thus tends to be applied externally as well. (Its internal aspect is that a subject uses it, merging with the object).
Ti will look at fairness in a symmetrical “tit for tat”, give and take, what goes around comes around manner.
Te will be less focused on details, and try to resolve the issue by saying “OK, everyone gets the same amount” (which may not take into account finer details such as ability, etc).
Fe might work like Te (common “J” attitude) and assume equal shares might please everybody, but would be more willing to listen to people’s wishes (and thus work with the finer logical details of Ti).
Fi would try to determine each person’s needs from an inner sense of the needs at hand. It might look at finer details of situations like Ti, or perhaps figure that an equal share would be the most ethical, and thus work with Te.
So continuing to try to put together a step by step approach of understanding type:
1) The products of undifferentiated functions are capable of entering consciousness when aligned with the ego’s complex structure.
a) The ego itself is the main complex (an archetype that has become “personalized”; filling up with personal experience). Others closely aligned with it are the Persona and Hero.
This is what differentiate the “dominant” function.
b) The functions represent neurological paths from the limbic brain of emotional response to the cerebral cortex where they are cognitively interpreted.
2) The next complex will generally be the “caretaker” aka “Parent”, whose associated function becomes the auxiliary; serving as an undifferentiated partner to the dominant function, giving us access to the other attitudes (inner or outer orientation and judging or perceiving process).
3) The remaining ego development complexes follow, mirroring these first two, creating the tertiary, inferior and “shadow” positions for the corresponding functions and also setting their attitudes.
a) However, the ego can access the products of any function on its own, apart from the other complexes.
b) Undifferentiated function products are “mixed together”. Therefore it’s better to not start out getting hung up on i/e “attitude”. That is basically differentiated by the complexes.
We can then deal with pure S, N, T and F, and not have to worry about whether “introverted” or “extraverted”. (Four is easier to work with than eight).
c) Placing function “order” (and so-called “strength”) on the complexes rather than the functions themselves can explain why Jung could be interpreted as teaching “two auxiliaries”. If the Puer is strong (and perhaps the Parent underdeveloped), it may look like the person has an impossible preference (j and p of same attitude), or at least appear to equally prefer both j or p functions.
Undifferentiated functional products (realized these should start with the “natural” four, rather than the eight attitudes, as I did above):
S: awareness of tangible data (“what it is”)
N: awareness of intangible data (what links disparate items)
T: the impersonal connections in data (if-then as per nature)
F: the personal connections in data (how it affects us emotionally or relationally)
[last two engage “rational” assessment]
Every person has a need to:
Take in and respond to current sensory data
Store factual data to inform decisions
Conceive of intangible possibilities from emergent data
Store intangible patterns to “read between the lines” from
Order the environment impersonally
Have a storehouse of impersonal order to work from
Have interpersonal harmony*
Have an inner sense of values
Should also reiterate from a recent post, a concept of naming the tandems is finally being officially developed: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/finally-official-tandem-group-names. So
Se/Ni is “Realizing Awareness”,
Ne/Si is “Inquiring Awareness”,
Fi/Te is “Ordering Assessments”,
Ti/Fe is “Aligning Assessments”.
*ego differentiation from “shadow” founded upon putting forth face (Persona) to collective. I started wondering, if Fe types must have biggest temptation with this (and thus would seem apparently most ego-driven? I know in the inferior position for me, it’s what drives me to be concerned with “what others think”). Would think all eight dom. types would have a similar foundational ego struggle through their function.
Perhaps it’s not Fe per-se, but rather Fi will also be about pleasing others and maintaining the Persona too, only taking a more “universalistic” approach. So for Ordering types, it’s about proving onesself in line with universal values through other people’s approval (?).
Or perhaps, it is an Fe perspective, but simply unconscious for the Ordering type. I had to ask “why do Melancholies and Cholerics [the TJ’s] care about what people think about them and maintain an ego Persona before the world?” They’re the ones more likely to to openly not care what others think (hence, the “directing communication” among other things). It ultimately still does matter, but again, it’s unconscious. This would go along with APS descriptions (especially in God Created You) of the “neurotic” behaviors of the Melancholy and Choleric. They really do need others just like the high “Wanted” temperaments, but unconsciously go about meeting the needs in a way that basically pushes others away. They then end up with the need unmet, but are unconscious of this, as ego goes along in its double-driven task focus (directing + structure), telling others “don’t call me; I’ll call you”, and then not being inclined to do it.
So then the FJ is simply someone more directly conscious of the need for being in sync with the values of others as apart of ego’s drive. (And the TP being semi-aware, and often resisting it). The Persona (and thus lack of individuation from the collective) wouldn’t be a “bigger” temptation for them; though it may look like it to other types. Those other types (as “free-spirited” as some of them may think themselves to be) are simply less aware of their boundness to collective values or a Persona based on them (even if in an oppositional fashion).
The FP would also be unconscious of it directly, but his Fi would substitute, using its sense of universal values to guage the collective.
Just finishing up Personality Junkie’s new book My True Type (See https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/review-of-personality-junkie-my-true-type)
Every object is both an “at hand” reality, and an imaginal idea. Drenth mentions the “idea” of a table. This can be shown by taking the table, or better yet, an object like a machine or building that has many more, smaller parts.
When one breaks, we say “we replaced the ______ on this [object]”. We still see it as the same original object, just with a part replaced. It still holds its overall form. We can do that again with another part, and it would be the same thing.
But suppose over time we’ve replaced every part? Is it still the same object? The only continuity between the original object and the final one is the overal form it held. If we had dismantled it and removed every part at once and then built a new one just like it, we wouldn’t say it was the same one. It doesn’t have the same exclusive continuity; it’s essentially a duplicate having its own separate history. So what we see as a tangible object is really an idea or image that physical parts can fit into.
Some ecenarios, as examples:
•“rebuilding” a house leveled by fire or tornado. Not the actual house that’s rebuilt, but the lot in its location relative to everything else that forms the idea.
•Demolitions disguised as modifications. They “modify” it by gutting and rebuilding the inside first, but then replace most or all of the outside later. This way, they can call it a “modification” rrather than a totally new building, which I affects the laws or the tax code or something).
•Temptations have only one original member left. Still same group?
•Our cells change, etc. body is just the shape taken by them
•Matter as waveforms that transfer from one string to another.
Best way to think of this is a moving image on a screen of pixels. Electronic signals transfer from one pixel to the next, making it look like one object moving across the screen. But it’s really just an image of signals transmitted in time across stationary pixels rather than an object moving through space.
So all of this shows that N products are just as much “reality” as S products. And everyone recognizes both, regularly. What distinguishes S and N types is what we focus on, “for its own sake”. S’s will focus on the whole object, in a practical sense. I’ll get attached to the idea of the object. So when my wife thought I’d be upset about a house being demolished to expand the church, she tried to offer as consolation that people would be saving various parts of the house. But if it had been a house I had cared about, that would not have helped because what I want preserved is the idea or “image” of the whole house. Now, this is a completely tangible object, and might sound like an S function being “used”, but it’s clearly conceptual or imaginal rather than practical.
Every object also has a personal and impersonal sense about it, as mentioned.
I’ve seen Ne types describe looking at nature and wondering if this is Se. But they also describe something like immediately making analogies from it. But that part of it is what makes it conceptualizing, or drawing out the intangible from the data. Because it’s intangible, it’s often also considered “unconscious” (which to me can be confusing).
Looking at a “pattern” is another definition of iNtuition. I have avoided it, because you can have a physical “pattern” such as a jagged line, but what you indicated is jumping across the physical (hence “mobile”), by comparing separate objects. That comparison is the intangible or “mobile” connection!
We all have to start with tangible data; but it’s what we do with it that determines true S/N.
Drenth also mentions that both introversion and intuition contribute an element of reflectiveness. Of course, Thinking is associated with this as well.
On the other hand, Sensing and Feeling both figure in “Taste and Style”.
I have previously linked S and T in being “realistic” or “fact”-based, and iNtuition and Feeling being more specifically “human”-centered. (So in some respects, S and T seeming like the “default” view of survival in the universe. But as we are all ego’s, who again divide reality in one-sided ways, N and F are just as much apart of “reality”).
So with this, we can put together what each function shares in common with each other (in addition to two being judgment and the other two being perception):
S, T “realistic” perspectives of nature
N, F specifically human, “idealistic” perspectives
N, T “intellectual” or “reflective” perspectives
S, F style, class, artisticness
While Keirsey’s temperament names for the N’s fit this: “Idealist” and “Rational”, we could name the S “mirror temperaments”: ST “Realist” and SF “Aesthete” (which was actually once Hirsch & Kummerow’s name for the ISFP. Sort of like how “Artisan” used to be Keirsey’s name for just the ISTP. The N mirror temperaments could also be named NJ “Visionary”, and NP “Daydreamer” Both H&K and Personality Page used “Visionary” for one ENP or the other, while H&K actually used “Dreamer” for the INFP. Still, I would think Ni’s “visions” are what we normally associate more with what we would a “visionary” than Ne’s open ideas).
To complete the concept of how Fe and Fi handle rejection, as mentioned in the article on Supines and Fe/Fi:
Mature Fe: “if others reject me, I must be out of sync with their values”.
Ji will be used to determine whether those values are legitimate enough to consider adopting (Fe types won’t [necessarily] follow just any set of “external” local values).
Immature Fe: “if others reject me, I must be out of sync with their values”.
Their values will be assessed by Ti to see whether they are logical enough for consideration.
Mature Fi: “if others reject me, I may be out of sync with a universal value”.
Fi will then try to infer what’s likely being violated to the other person, and “weigh” the values with ego’s own values to see whether to give in or not. Many times it will be a difficult dilemma, and so the Sanguine, Supine or Phlegmatic [FP’s] will seem “wishy washy” or easily impressionable or weak-willed. Or, believing everyone’s personal values are valid (including their own), they’ll lament but accept being at odds with the other person, and either withdraw, or compensate with their lesser Te to try to serve the other with tasks.
Immature Fi: “if others reject me, they must be out of sync with universal values”.
Hence, the Melancholy and Choleric [TJ’s] (and perhaps Phlegmatic FP in a more “stubborn” or “standoffish” mode, as that temperament is often described) take a tough stand. If becoming more mature, or otherwise depending on the situation, Fi may reasess the matter and be more willing to admit one’s own shortcoming.
OK, another take:
Basically, the functions (divided first, into perception and judgment) can be framed as answering one of two questions:
1) What things are we observing?
2) What are the proper relationships between things?
The two functional poles for each question determine the type of observations or relationships being processed. Both can be expressed as either a more factual “it is what it is” approach, or one where there is some sort of meaning or worth to us.
Basical functional “products”:
[Observation of] what exists (irrational):
S: [comprehension of] “Point-by-point”, direct experience of “at hand” objects and events
N: [comprehension of] Overall “patterns” connecting objects and events
[Evaluation of] how things relate (rational):
T: [Determination or evaluation of] the proper relationship between objects
F: [Determination or evaluation of] the proper relationships between or involving people
The way this connects to emotions and values, is that these are potential indicators of the proper relationship of something or someone to the person. But they are not the actual rational process of evaluation of the relationship, itself.
Also good to keep in mind that people are still “objects”, and objects have affect on people.
Hypothetical patterns start with or at least involve physical objects, and the physical reality is a “base” hypothesis that can be interpreted different ways.
So each function will reference the products of the opposite function. But the determination of which function is being “used” will be its focus.
purpose or standard:
e attention or evaluation is derived directly from external object
i attention or evaluation is filtered through internal subjective blueprint
Full function-attitude perspectives:
Se: attention to immediate (external) at hand data in a “point-by-point” fashion:
Hence, a greater inclination for physical activity and sensory experience
Hence, a greater appearance of “Experiencing and noticing the physical world ” (Berens)
Si: filtering at hand data through an internal storehouse of point-by-point fact and experience
Will focus on practical knowledge and affairs.
Will rely a lot on “memory” or “recalling”, but memory itself is not the actual process.
Ne: hypothetical connections (patterns) are implied by the object
Looks at objects and imagines different possibilities based on patterns shared in common with other objects.
Hence, a greater appearance of “inferring relationships, noticing threads of meaning, etc” (Berens)
Ni: hypothetical connections are implied by an internal sense of patterns
Will tend to “fill in” where a situation is going or what it means
Will often come across as “foreseeing” or “having images of th future or profound meaning”.
Te: proper relationship between objects is determined by the objects themselves
Will order based on maximum logical efficiency, often in a predetermined, formulaic fashion
Hence, “organizing [assumed to be logical], segmenting, sorting” and an greater appearance of “applying” logic.
Ti: proper relationship between objects is determined by internal blueprint
Will use subjectively chosen logical frameworks, and sometimes logic or facts “for their own sake” rather than an externally efficient goal.
Hence, a focus on elegant “models”, “categories” and “naming” things, figuring out how they work or fit together (i.e. the correct relationship of their parts), and thus an appearance of “analyzing”.
[Actually both attitudes will “analyze” things and want to “apply” their decisions, but the internal or external nature of the attitude does make these respective processes more apparent].
Fe: proper relationship involving/between people is evaluated according to external values
Will take on the values, needs or emotions of others as if they were one’s own
“They feel this way, so I feel this way too”.
Hence, a greater appearance of “considering others”
Fi: proper relationship involving/between people is evaluated according to an internal blueprint of values
Will infer the needs of others from evolving situations, and ones’ own sense of universal values
“If that were me, how I would want to be treated?”
These variables will often lead to the “weighing”, “evaluating congruence” and looking for ultimate “importance”.
[Again, the different attitudes can do the same things. Like Fe will not necesarily just go along and do what others want, but will also have to weigh against internal values (which again, don’t constitute the “Feeling” judgment itself), but the data will be filtered through the internal perception perspective (memorized fact or patterns of what’s right or wrong, based on other environments they may have a greater allegiance to). Likewise, Fi will then “consider others” from its internal personal identification].
When these perspectives are dominant, they will be your main “world-view”, if you really look at it long enough. When auxiliary, they are more about support through attitudinal (i/e orientation and j/p class; i.e. to inform judgments or utilize perceptions) balance.
(Tables pairing functions according to what they share in common)
MOVED:
https://erictb.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/perceiving-and-judging-pairs-and-political-views/#comment-4011
S/N as “point-by-point” vs “overall patterns” is basically what Fundamental Nature of the MBTI had said all along with his diagrams. So the thing was coming up with a better way of expressing it. (I had tried “static vs motion” before, which is how he framed it).
“Point by point” could be called “details”, which is commonly described for S, but that’s too vague and broad. N’s can focus on physical details; what makes it an N preference is that they usually place them in a pattern. “Pattern” also seemed ambiguous; as there can be physical patterns, but I think adding the term “comprehension” clarifies it as conceptual, rather than physical patterns.
Even when looking at visible “patterns”, N’s will interpret it as a whole pattern, or at least in terms of a larger pattern, while S’s will still look at it in a point-by-point manner. An example I’ve seen is in a simple drawing of lines, to ask “what do you see”, and the N’s will compare it to something else that it looks like, and the S’s describe it more “literally”.
S is the acting out of the script
N is the “story” itself
Someone on a forum had just asked me to describe how “freedom” would be handled by both Thnking and Feeling.
“Freedom” can be expressed in terms of impersonal objects or personal subjects. Most pleas for “freedom” probably gravitate more toward the latter, for it is about a proper relationship involving people.
I can however right off the bat say “yeah, people should have freedom”, and reason that I want freedom, so how could I deny others as well. Even though it’s still dealing with people, the principle seems to be operating off of symmetry more, which is an impersonal arrangement: the proper relationships between objects (which would hold, whether it was people or not).
Both can accomplish the same things (fighting for freedom), but the impersonal may sometimes be clunky at it, because it doesn’t look at all the personal variables. (Like it may deny others’ freedom if ones self has lost freedom; hence “revenge”, for that also fits the principle of “symmetry”. Or perhaps there are some people who shouldn’t be free because they are harming others. Like in cartoons, while not about freedom; it’s still about punishment; I often feel sorry for the characters like cats chasing mice or birds, who almost always lose in the end, but then I have to realize they’re “bad” guys trying to do the smaller creature harm. But looking at it symmetrically, a lot of the stuff that happens doesn’t seem fair).
Another person asked me about how Ti+Se+Ni work together.
Ti establishes/assesses the proper relationship of impersonal objects. The objects will be looked at in an emergent, “at hand”, point-by-point fashion. Hence, there will be a focus on symmetry, as I mentioned for myself; but this will be more physical symmetry, rather than conceptual symmetry. I think of a surfer (Keirsey’s example of an ISTP, though he didn’t believe in the functions), and they can keep balance, because if gravity or inertia pushes you a bit one way, you need to exert that much force the other way. (Where I would be too focused on the hypothetical “story” of falling off and drowning; or in common function parlance, “what could be”, that I would be less able to pay attention to the physical details that could make that less likely, that I as it is pay less attention to).
Dancing, likewise is symmetry (I like the idea of the different steps for that reason, but when doing it, it’s like useless energy-draining movement).
Football is also arranged in a symmetrical way, and the quarterback will scan through this to readily find an opening or someone he can pass to.
Hence, that’s why SP’s are said to be good at physical stuff like that. The arts also have a lot of symmetry.
It’s harder for me to describe how Ni will play in the background of this, because of lack of conscious awareness, as I have for NeSi.
I was also thinking today than as an N, I often wish the patterns (N products) I’ve observed to be played out in the physical world (to become “real”-ized, as S products). S’s, on the flipside, put forth their point-by-point observations (S products) as the true “story” (N product; I’m thinking of how the S’s around me always said “that’s life”, when I’m asking why or trying to put together a pattern).
So when you put the attidudes into it; the experience I just gave was with SJ’s, for they “store” their point-by-point knowledge internally, and then reference it to match current experience to it, and thus paint a single “true” story or pattern, which is visible and not an N-style “idea”.
So for the Se-preferrer (SP), it’s probably a matter of then taking in the external point-by-point data, and extracting a likely [invisble] “true story” or idea from it. (One INTJ did describe to me the Sensory data as the source of the iNtuitions). I guess as SP sports player or performer when they begin developing their Ni will start building symbolic meanings from the sensory data he’s using.
So likewise, when Ni is the preferred function, it will draw from current Se. Like when Ne is preferred, it will draw from the stored data of Si.
Undifferentiated function products in dominant functional perspectives
Easier to deal in terms of four natural functions. The different attitudes will be similar
Sensing type ego:
Sensate products will be the initial data taken in, and dominant perspective will deal with them in their own right in a “point by point” fashion.
Conceptual patterns abstracted from (N products) will be used to confirm the sensory knowledge.
The proper impersonal relationships between objects (T products), and the proper relationships regarding people (F products) are more “facts” observed int heir own right.
iNtuition type ego:
Dominant perspective will use the sensory data (S) to extract its intangible patterns or “storylines”. The impersonal relationships between objects (T) or the personal relationships involving subjects (F) will both figure in these patterns.
Thinking type ego:
Dominant perspective will use the sensory or intuitive products (specific events, places, etc or, larger patterns, meanings, etc.) to extract or assess the proper relationships between objects.
Relationships between people will also often be treated as another array of objects that can be arranged logically. Hence, an appaearance of “detachment”. When something “hits home”, to the point that they can’t detach, they may lose control of emotions, but then can usually analyze the situation later.
Feeling type ego:
Dominant perspective will use the sensory or intuitive products (specific events, places, etc or, larger patterns, meanings, etc.) to extract or assess the proper relationships between “personal” subjects.
The way impersonal objects relate will be assessed as far as how they affect or can benefit people and their needs.
Fundamental Nature of the MBTI, the archived site referenced above, that drew from BTI (and thus similar to Lenore’s views on the brain hemispheres), and had the little diagrams of each function (and the hemispheres and associated functions), is BACK; now hosted on ETB (the main space):
http://www.erictb.info/bruzon.html
In my refiguring of the functions now (inspired largely by that page), I might define some of the functions differently. Like instead of Feeling dealing with “holistic” (grouping objects together in a circle), that might be more iNtuition (but then the portrayal of iNtuition as dashed lines connecting the objects is correct also). I consider Feeling as dealing with “proper personal [as opposed to “impersonal”] connections” , which is what I think his “holistic” is trying to convey, but I haven’t figured any better way to represent that now.
In any case, the illustrations were agreat idea, and I’ve always pointed to this site in my discussions of functions, and am glad to now host it!
[Universal?] Generic Data Elements (GDE’s)
The undifferentiated roots of the functions
SENSATIONS (tangible data)
outer orientation: Immediate sensation (including emotions)
inner orientation: memorized sensations (including internal ones)
INTANGIBLE INTERCONNECTIONS (invisible, inaudible, etc)
outer orientation: external invisible interconnections
inner orientation: internalized elements beyond interconnections
IMPERSONAL ASSESSMENTS (universe of “objects”)
outer orientation:
survival(“if-then” course of action)inner orientation:
equilibrium(“if-then” sense of order, as how justice is defined)PERSONAL/INTERPERSONAL ASSESSMENTS (world of “subjects”)
outer orientation: social persona (against which shadow forms)
inner orientation: conscience (internally identifying on a universal level, with a set of values)
Every type has immediate sensations, not just SP types
Every type has memory, not just SJ types
Every type recognizes interconnections, not just NP types
Every type recognizes different possible intepretations of things, not just NJ types
Every type does what it takes to survive, not just TJ types
Every type desires equilibrium (justice, etc), not just TP types
Every type has a sense of social manner, not just FJ types
Every type has a conscience, not just FP types
(In fact, even animals do some of these things).
It’s one thing to say “all types do all of these things, only each type ‘prefers’ one or the other”. But even that for some reason comes off more as a “cliché” that has little practical meaning.
There should be a difference made between these GDE’s (representing the “undifferentiated” form of the functions), and the differentiated “perspective” each type’s egos or other complexes actually engage in.
The GDE’s represent instinctual life, where we experience the tangible data of the physical universe, realize that the sense impressions combine to form bigger “pictures” or meanings (like an animal knows that IF he smells something, it means food, threats, competitors, possble mates etc. are nearby), know the technical course of action that must be taken (like for animals, how to catch food), and the “personal” ramifications of things. (Animals fear being “hurt” and like being fed, sheltered, etc).
For animals, all of this is controlled solely by instinct (based in the limbic brain of emotional response, which automatically motivate living beings to action). Humans have this also, but add to it a cerebral brain which converts this data into cognitive elements that the frontal cortex interprets providing conscious or rational control over the data, relating it to sources of emotional reward.
Different areas of the brain will react to the different stimuli (tangible, intangible interconnections, impersonal, personal).
One thing that might throw us off is the description of all four perceiving attitudes in terms of “sense impressions”. This to me made it seem to favor “S” over “N”. But this is why it’s good to come up with a concept of GDE’s distinct from the “functions” making up type preference. These “sense impressions” are the generic data that all creatures (humans and animals alike) start with in interacting with the physical world. They are not [yet, at least] what we have been calling “S” or “Se”. It only becomes that when the cortex interprets the data simply for what it is, rather than an intangible bigger picture, or a judgment.
Edit: further development of concepts: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/11/30/taking-it-again-from-the-top-functions-from-their-generic-roots/#comment-2396
I should also clarify that introverted iNtuition is not inferring from a subjective pattern. Both Ni and Ne compare data with patterns stored in memory. Ne looks at data in terms of the patterns, while Ni infers from [elsewhere] within what’s been left out of the given pattern.
[Ni example discussion moved: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/realizing-vs-inquiring-the-nise-vs-nesi-difference-in-my-experience-and-in-others-observations ]