Skip to content

Taking it Again From the Top: Functions from their Generic Roots

November 30, 2014

Functions all deal in “positive/negative”

perception: IS or ISN’T YES or NO
(no course of action if negative; it’s just data gathering)

S experiencing with what exists, or is observable (tangible [edit: is/isn’t; physical items])
N filling in according to what’s possible (inferred/implied; imagined; intangible contexts [edit: could/couldn’t; mental constructs])

judgment: RIGHT or WRONG
(if negative, we are prompted to action, including mental; i.e. the “judgment”)

T dealing with its impersonal qualities (true/false, in/correct)
F considering its personal affect (good/bad, dis/like)

This ties into my last attempt to clarify the definitions: (https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/another-crack-at-function-definitions-relationships-of-objects)

T’s “true/false” is basically a judgment of the “correct [impersonal] relationship between objects”
F’s “good/bad” is a judgment of the “correct interpersonal relationships between subjects”.

The perception functions (S/N) are still basically “tangible/intangible”, and what exists [“is”] is basically experienced as tangible (even if it’s something like light rays, which “touch” the neurotransmitters in your eye); and anything else that we surmise exists [i.e. “could” be], therefore needs to be “filled in” from a larger context like a “pattern” (even a physical or visible one, like in comparing to something unrelated, but has some sort of inferred similarity; focusing on a property to compare, like its shape, you have turned into an “idea”), and is thus, intangible. [Edit: What you’re actually perceiving is either things itemized from the physical world, or things constructed mentally].

But when you speak of “judgment”, it’s good to clarify what “judgment” actually is. We often say “how we make decisions”, but that’s so vague.
So what it is, is ultimately an assessment of what’s “right” (good as it is, and should be striven for), or “wrong” (and likely needs to be changed to what’s right).

Attitudes:

S: What exists (tangible “at hand” reality [edit: physical items]) can be:
•immediate (current), external, emergent
•stored in a mental canister to integrate new experiences with

N: intangible connections ([edit: mental constructs]) can be inferred (filled in) from:
•the objects themselves (including ones stored in memory, to unify with larger contexts)
•the subjective unconscious (impressions that have no tangible basis; often symbols)

T/F: both true/false and good/bad assessments can be:
•set by the objects themselves and/or what’s learned from the culture (taking on a “localized” nature)
•set by subjective models of the nature of things generally learned individually, and from nature (thus, universalistic)

Introverted functions end up dealing in “universals” because they are readily available to us, rather than the [“artificial”] judgments of a “manmade” group. We develop them by interacting naturally with our environment. So they’re unadapted to a specific cultural design and more individual than social. Anyone (in any culture) who is attuned to the environment in this way will reach similar conclusions. (So it’s not really about the universe; it’s about human embodiment). Introverted functions are about mapping our environment in our heads, where we then recognize landmarks and adjust ourselves to changes.

Examples of learned from culture are alphabetic order, math formulas and social etiquette. These rational standards are local, linking us to a specific place and time, where relationships (whether personal or impersonal, like math) requires a social contract held in common.
What can be learned naturally, individually (from our own experience, in contrast with cultural norms) can be the principles behind those things: how numbers work, or even technical details of [manmade] languages (the glyphs used in both fields are just abstract representations agreed on by a culture), or universal principles of what people like. That certain things you like or dislike you can assume (i.e. infer from within*) will be liked or disliked by others, since we’re all alike on a fundamental level. Like we all like to be comfortable, and don’t like to be attacked by others.

All of this data is implicit in all experience.
*(Now, I’m saying inferring is iNtuition, and here, we see how the functional perspectives all overlap. [edit the products of “inference” are “constructs”; so this is the more elemental term].
In fact, “abstract”, which has come to be used for iNtuition, really means “separated out”, where “concrete, used for Sensing, means “mixed together”. All differentiated functions “abstract” their respective data from the concrete reality, and the introverted functions in particular, further separate out of external reality the internal “blueprint” of things the we’ve retained for reference).

We have often said “we all use ‘all eight functions’, but…”‘; but what exactly does that mean? It’s almost a cliché sometimes: “We all use all functions, but only ‘prefer‘ some…” This still isn’t really telling us much, thus it has not really been grasped, and we still end up thinking if someone “values” something, it has a necessarily bearing on his T/F preference.

But in everything we process, there is some sort of tangible object or energy (light, sound, etc.), that can be taken in immediately or stored in memory. It can be intangibly connected to other objects, contexts, ideas or impressions, either directly or through less conscious means. We will think something about it is true or false, and this based either on external means we’ve learned from the environment or are dictated by the local situation, or internal principles we’ve learned individually, often through nature; and we may like or dislike it or something about it, again, based either on an external values we’ve learned from the environment, or internal values we’ve learned individually through nature.

Yes, we all do all of these things constantly. So what do we mean when we declare some of these processes as “preferred” in making up a “type”?

It’s when an ego selects one of them, in addition to the internal or external orientation as its primary way of approaching life.
The other functions are initially, in a state called “undifferentiated”, which means they remain pretty much in the “GDE” (“Generic Data Elements”) form, which is connected with the limbic brain of emotional motivation (to responses to immediate experience).
What exists, it’s larger context such as a pattern, whether it works or is understood correctly or not, or is “good” or “bad” for people all figures in this process (and even animals are affected by this, but they are not considered to use the “functions” as we describe them, as “cognitive”). But when a function “differentiates”, we then begin cognitively interpreting the data, where the raw motivation turns into investment in activities that have meaning for us.

Since this is all about how the ego artificially divides an undivided reality, then for the sake of balance: they will need to both perceive and judge, and have access to both the inner and outer worlds; another function fitting those two opposite criteria will end up in a “supporting” role.

This then sets the type. All of the remaining possible function/attitude combinations, which will basically mirror these first two in being the opposite function and/or attitude and level of suppression in favor of the preferred ones, will become associated with complexes which similarly mirror the ego and its “supporting caretaker” complex.
Thus we have the complete type and function+archetype(complex) model.

So the ego divides reality into these different perspectives. What’s preferred will be the driving force between the polarity.

S: what’s existent * is used to assume implications (n) [Edit: comment below]
N: what’s inferred/imagined * is based on, and elevated to a kind of existence (s) [Edit: comments below]
T: what’s true/false * is liked/disliked or good/bad (f)
F: what’s good/bad * determines true/false (t)
dominant attitude:
e: what’s _____ *according to an external reality* is…
i: what’s _____ *according to an internal blueprint* is…

These complexes in the psyche are organized around emotions, which again, are what the functions interpret. Complexes are what we project onto others, so the GDEs that can’t be fit into the dominant framework get projected outward on to others as well, making them conscious to us, as they help us justify or deny the reactions with which they’re allied.

(Thus, attitude is connected to the differentiated dominant, and so below not noted in the other [undifferentiated] functions, whose attitudes are set more by the complexes they associate with. The undifferentiated functions by themselves don’t split the world into subject and object; it’s the complexes, starting with the ego (the main sense of “I”), and then the others ⦅which are lesser senses of “I”⦆ that do that. Here we see all functions entering awareness, when linked to the dominant standpoint).

My perspective:
i-Tf/Ns perspective: what’s true (T) according to my internal blueprints (i) I like (feel is good: f); my dominant standpoint is informed by what’s inferred (N) from what exists (s). [Edit: or mental constructs connecting physical items; or what “could” exist]

[edit: full type breakdown in comment]

Here are how common descriptions or even ‘names’ of the functions fit:

Berens function names:
Experiencing (i.e. …what exists, currently, tangibly)
Recalling (i.e. internal storehouse of what exists tangibly)
Inferring (i.e. …from other [external] objects, contexts, patterns)
Envisioning (i.e. inferring from internal unconscious impressions)
Organizing (i.e. external environment sets correct impersonal order)
Analyzing (…according to sense of what’s [impersonally]correct, learned individually/naturally)
Considering (i.e. the environment sets the standard of what’s good [for people]).
Evaluating (…according to sense of what’s good [for people], learned individually, from nature)

Hartzler & Hartzler function names:
The Scout (e.g. the part of us that seeks current tangible experience)
The Conservator (e.g. the part of us that measures tangible experience according to what’s known [to the subject])
The Brainstormer (e.g. the part of us that infers possibilities by comparing objects and contexts)
The Seer (e.g. the part of us that infers from unconscious impressions)
The Administrator (e.g. the part of us that orders impersonally according to the environment)
The Analyzer (e.g. the part of us that assesses impersonally, based on what’s known internally)
The Guide (the part of us that determines what’s “good” [for self and others] from the environment
The Conscience (e.g. the part of us that decides what’s “good” [for self and others] from within

[Edit: “what exists” and “tangible experience” can be interchanged with “physical items”, and “mental constructs” or “what could be” can be added to what’s “inferred”].

I would say that some of these terms might hold, IF they are understood as at best fitting GDE’s, and not differentiated functions (since any type can do these things).

I would distinguish the GDE’s from regular “functions” as such:
Natural: Sg, Ng, Tg, Fg
With attitudes: Sge, Sgi, Nge, Ngi, Tge, Tgi, Fge, Fgi

Dominant perspective (experiencing/filling in perception, or true/good judgments)

Since the ego is most concerned with the dominant function (Jung originally had only eight types, based on the dominant function and attitude and the auxiliary simply distinguished two different variations of each type), then the way to help determine the dominant is by which perspective is really central to your view of the world. It can still be difficult, since the functions are not “gears” that are used one after the other, but simultaneously, and each element, again, being present in all data.
Like I knew that both Ti and Ne figured in my perspective, but found it hard to tell what was really the driving force. Especially since it’s easy to confuse Thinking with iNtuition, since both are more “in the head”.

But the terms “true/false” and “good/bad” have finally made it clear that judgments, of “true/false” are what everything is all about for me.

When I discover and put together facts of the past, like what was where in the Five Points, this is a succession of “true!” judgments. This may seem like S, but the gratification I get in finding out stuff is really in terms of a declaration of “true”! (i.e. this was here, that was there, and that is a fact, just for it’s own sake).
It was for me the same sort of “sleuthing” that I grew up fascinated by watching Batman do (on his own shows or the Superfriends), in finding clues, and then putting them together and making a determination (judgment) of what was true; (the correct sequence of events; who did it, why, what things meant, etc. Scooby was that way as well, and the best were the pairups of Batman and Scooby!)

S by contrast would be a fact for the purpose of either exploiting in the moment, or referencing later to inform judgments.

(You could say S and T both deal in “fact”, but S is about experiencing “fact” while T is about judging “fact”.
And for Fi the judgment would be “good!” instead of “true”. Te and Fe would be “true” or “good” determined by its external impersonal or interpersonal efficiency.
Now, it’s funny, as at one point, Ne seemed strongest for me, but I actually find it hard to imagine what an Ne dominant standpoint is like. I imagine, NeTi is like TiNe, but not as grounded upon technical [judged] “fact”, but more into the experiential aspect of it).

As far as S is concerned, ego does have further investment in the data through the Puer (“eternal child”) complex processing the Si elements (data that is being added to the internal storehouse, and comparing what was there then, with what’s there now, and some things even surviving), and then Ne is looking at what could have been, etc. (intangible interconnections or the larger contexts, including the overall “story”, and alternate “stories”. Like if other neighborhoods and buildings survived to the present, and are familiar, then this one would have been another one like them if it survived, but with its own particular layout and landmarks).

How to tell the dominant from the auxiliary, cont’d. Other confused terms

As I’m trying to come up with simpler expressions of the functions now, and emphasizing somewhat that the the ego is framed around the dominant, I used to wonder how to tell the difference in all of that, between iNtuition and Thinking. But clearly, the focus is more on the “true/false” (or “correct/incorrect”) judgment than on filling in simply experienced data with inferences. That’s why the data may even seem more ‘sensory’ at times. (There’s even a debate as to whether Jung held the aux. and tertiary to be really “two auxiliaries”).

It may be easier to “see” the Ne, because it’s extraverted, while introverted functions (especially Ti, Fi and Ni) are harder to “see” because of the fact that they are so “deep”, and then when preferred, and especially when dominant, they become so “second-nature”.

This is actually another form of “unconsciousness”, according to Jung —which makes it hard to know what he’s talking about when he uses terms like that in so many different contexts. (“Concrete/abstract” and “subjective/objective” being the two other key examples of this). “Unconscious” we normally think of as the opposite of our conscious preferred functions; like the “shadows”. Then, he also uses it for introverted functions as it is; and for iNtuition of both stripes as well.
(“Conscious” is basically presumed to be whatever is external and sensory. Notice how all three ambiguous term pairs deal in external reality vs the subjective experience. That’s because we automatically divide reality into “outer” [objective, concrete, conscious, sensory] and “inner” [subjective, abstracted, unconscious, interpreted] just by being sentient egos, yet our ego’s perspective can still be either internal or external in one of those ways or another).

So we can see right there why Ni, which for me fits all three “unconscious” definitions (introverted, iNtuitive, and a shadow function), is so hard to understand.
But it also became hard to really sort out Ti vs Fi, especially when popular teaching associated emotion with Feeling, and that only F’s (and particularly Fi) ever decided things by “personal values”.

But Ne is about matching things to larger contexts, and while this figures heavily in my interests, the “true” judgment made from the data has more of an emotional investment than the collecting of the data itself. The data gathering was only to feed the judgment process.

Thus, Ne dominants (even with Ti as auxiliary) are more able to jump from topic to topic, where I want to stay fixed on a subject. One time, I tried to jump to a tangent in a conversation, and then apologized, but the ENTP said it was OK, and wanted to go with the new direction. (In this case, the data collection has more of an emotional investment, and true/false judgments are what they lean towards in rationally processing the data).

Hence, ENP’s (of either T or F variety) end up both “Sanguine” (on the surface, or “Get Things Going” Interaction Style). The purest Sanguine is the ESFP (Se+Fi, and both GtG and the Keirseyan SP group), and the Sanguine temperament is heavily described as very “sensory” (especially in APS material, which described it as such mainly in the surface, social “Inclusion” area), while Se is the ENP’s least conscious (8th place or “daimonic”) function, and even Si is inferior.
But the common thread between Se and Ne is the “go with the flow” openness (which is one of the main Sanguine drives), and while Se is sense impressions as they occur, Ne is simply comparing them to larger contexts (which also maintains “openness”; hence the common “P” designation).

So that way, ENP’s can still be just as “sensory”-focused as other Sanguines, but what they’re doing with the data is different, shaped by the blended temperament (Choleric or Supine, in the leadership of conative” area denoted by the Keirsey group), connected with the N preference.

The importance of the dominant is one reason Socionics reverts back to “j/p” as dominant function rather than preferred extraverted function (though this won’t work with Interaction Styles or Cognitive Styles, as ENp and INp end up on opposite sides of the “directing/informing” scale as well as preferred function-attitudes. And even Personality Junkie tries to put more emphasis on dominant j/p).
So this is a good way to know what your dominant is.

Each pair of types (sharing the same “dominant” can be seen as the “servant” of that functional perspective (and the aspect of it they are most gratified by):

ESP: Servant of current tangible experience (“let’s jump on it for the experience!”“)
ISJ: Servant of experience by learned fact (“let’s learn from the experience“)
ENP: Servant of filling in interconnections between objects (“let’s add this idea to it“)
INJ: Servant of filling in patterns with unarticulated ideas (“this is left out of the idea“)
ETJ: Servant of local impersonal “correct”ness (“this is correct for the situation”)
ITP: Servant of universal impersonal “truth” (“it’s true!”)
EFJ: Servant of local interpersonal “likes” (“people will like this”)
IFP: Servant of universal personal “good” (“it’s good!”)

So the question to first ask, is whether your main outlook (and what you’re most energized by and take the most pleasure in) is taking in information, or making some sort of positive/negative judgment (particularly looking for the positive: the “correct” or the “good”).
E/I and J/P together are supposed to tell you that, but a more direct way to do that is to go back to Jung’s original use of j/p (i.e. rational/irrational), as referring to the dominant function.
The MBTI use, referring to the extraverted function came in handy for the more “interactive” (temperament and Interaction Style) side of type, but it was originally framed around the more internal dynamic of each ego’s dominant perspective.

Advertisements
33 Comments
  1. Some examples of function and orientation descriptions:

    Keirsey could say functions are “imaginary”, and there’s actually a point to that, but they are still a useful way to categorize the way we separate out data.
    A lot of misunderstanding involves the judgment functions; especially the introverted ones.

    Ji both extracts universal principles from nature, then uses them to determine what’s “right” or “wrong” through the internalized “principles”. You seek to learn what’s “correct” or “good” from nature, and then that becomes the “blueprint” to judge the rest of the variables that emerge from experience as true or good, or make them so, if you’ve determined they don’t measure up (and are thus false or bad).
    Je is about applied strategies —harnessing (rather than learning from) nature for the sake of a predictable result that has value in a particular place and time. You learn from the environment what is “correct” or “good”, and then apply it as necessary back in the environment.

    Hence, Je will look more “closed” (typical “J” stereotype), because it’s “set” (an earlier term I tried to suggest) by the environment, while Ji (P) will appear to at least “consider” things (variables), and change based on new information (Pe).
    However, there will be certain “unchangeable” principles, though they are not as visible as the external standard of Je; especially if Ji is dominant. (Hence, the debate as to whether IP’s are the true “J” types. Likewise, IJ’s will be more “open” to information, but only to their internalized Pi storehouse, which you won’t see ⦅and is less prone to change than external data as it is⦆, so all you see is the “closed” external standard of Je).

    T vs F and the attitudes

    I’ve heard Fi described as “personal identification”: “if that were me, how would I want to be treated?”
    This is seeing a situation, and judging something good or bad, and identifying with it, and acting accordingly as if it was you personally experiencing it. If “bad”, then some course of action will be taken to correct it, even if encouraging someone else to do something; including perhaps the actual sufferer himself. If nothing can be done, then it’s a more passive co-commiserating. If “good”, then you just share the joy.

    Lenore’s book describes Fi as “personally relating” (to an evolving pattern, and this is what is picked up by the internal world as we learn things individually, from nature, often extracting universals). It’s this “personal” aspect that makes things “good/bad” instead of simply true/false.
    With Ti (p286ff), it’s “coordinating our behaviors with the variables [or essential dynamics] in a situation related to our intended effect.” (So the “relating” is “impersonal”). Since in her theory (derived from Brain Types Institute), it’s a right brain function, its decisions coordinate our behaviors impersonally with immediate perceptive data, and thus are based on probabilities and and leaves room open for the random and the unexpected.

    Where F deals in “personal” (including “interpersonal”) relationships, T in general is about the “impersonal structural relationships” that constitute’s something’s meaning.
    Te specifies the relationships that constitute the agreed upon rules of something like sports. That’s what determines what’s “correct”. With Ti, it’s not structuring experience before it exists (as in a rule), but rather engaged by conditions here and now, (and their structural relationships to the immediate data) and adjusting to them in light of the impact on our goal; —as in actually playing the sport. The adjustment is made when something is judged “correct” from matching to these relationships, and therefore we shape our actions based on what’s “correct”.

    Fe: proper relationship involving/between people is evaluated according to external values. This proper relationship will be the “good”, and an improper relationship will be “bad”.

    Ti for me comes out as a sense of “equilibrium”. Looks at a logical pattern, and determines it should be consistent. So then other things will be judged as “correct” or “incorrect” based on this.

    2D matrices: one object is expected to mirror the other. If it does; then “correct”; if not, then something must be “incorrect”.

    When something is deemed “correct”, then ego likes this, which is a “feeling” judgment. But it’s not differentiated Feeling. It’s not the ego’s starting point; it’s only a universally human reaction to a positive judgment.

    Fi has been deemed “Evaluating congruence”. Congruence is actually a mathematical term. Like we learn in trigonometry that “corresponding parts of congruent triangles are congruent”.
    All it means is consistency.

    Both Ti and Fi deal in terms of “consistency”. Logical (impersonal, technical matters) consistency is “correct” or proves something “true”; inconsistency is “incorrect” or proves something “false”.
    With person-related (“humane”) matters, consistency determines “good”, and inconsistency makes something “bad”.

    Te and Fe can be seen as looking for consistency, but this is more external; about assuming that conclusions allocated for a particular situation are carried out always and everywhere specified. It’s not the evaluating itself that deals with consistency.

    I was initially leery of associating F with “likes”, because I had seen this (and especially Fi) overgeneralized to the point that other types would not know what they like/want.

    So “liking” in that sense, while technically a “feeling” judgment, and one that in that case is internally based, is not quite the “Fi” that we use to determine a type preference. Everyone “likes” things. It’s a normal human reaction. There are no types who have no likes or dislikes because “Fi” is buried deep in their shadow.
    This “liking” judgment is an undifferentiated “feeling” that supports the ego’s dominant Thinking judgment.

    We think Ti and Fi are so “far apart” or “opposed” that they couldn’t possibly be bound together like that in the same situation; but again, Ti and Fi are just artificial ways of dividing the personal vs impersonal internal standpoints of whatever we are judging. (Another idea is that an Fi-like reaction to others’ emotion I might have could be a “right brain alternative”. The opposite functions in the same attitude are also united in brain hemisphere).
    The data is all there, mixed together, and rational judgment tells us “positive or “negative” (“right or wrong”).

    So if we see something like a symmetry, we can judge it right or wrong in different ways. We can simultaneously “like” it for some reason. (“Good” according to an internal sense), but the REASON it’s “good” might be because of its mathematical precision. Now, that’s no longer an “Fi” perspective; is it? Now, that’s more of an impersonal “true” or “correct”. Others can see the symmetry is inefficient for some practical reason: “incorrect” from an external, localized perspective. Another person can see it’s somehow “good” for a social purpose. They can all acknowledge the other perspectives as well.

    This might seem to “favor” Fi as more fundamental to judgment than the others, but the jumpstart for my current analysis is that all functions have some “fundamental” application like that. The most obvious example is current sensation; what we would call “Se”. But everyone is not an “SP”, of course. Also, creating a storehouse of sensory data: “Si”. Obviously, everyone has both current senses and memory.

    Hartzler and Hartzler Functions of Type, p40 (discussing Ti, “the Analyzer” and comparing it to Fi “what [a person] really believes in”) uses as an example “it is wrong to kill other people because if I can kill arbitrarily, I create an environment where it is okay for me to be killed arbitrarily—but that is arriving at a principle, not a value“.

    To break this down, “If I kill, I can be killed” is basically a symmetry. Thus, killing is judged “incorrect”, and is “bad” only by virtue of being logically incorrect. What’s being called “value” is the judgment of “bad” in and of itself. Therefore; it’s incorrect by virtue of being “bad”.

    That’s why they’re calling it the “Conscience”. You “just know” inside that it’s wrong, even if you never got caught, or could even barricade yourself so that no one could ever kill you likewise; and thus, might never have to worry about that symmetrical element of “justice” coming back to you.

    And “what you really believe in” as Fi (in addition to “what’s important”, etc.), is assuming “belief”, regarding what’s “good” (they really, really should clarify some of these terms more. I had one “expert” claim I was an Fi preferrer because I was expressing some deeply held “beliefs” about something. At best, this was Fgi).

    If you look at all the Fi “skills”, the common thread is what’s deemed “good” internally. You can develop the “skills”, but this is not really “developing” the actual function, which ties into the ego structure. You’re developing the generic elements.

    I myself “like” things and have strong “beliefs” about them, but still, it has to have some logical basis behind it, or I’ll feel stupid and ashamed for liking or believing them. And from that state, it enters the “inferior” space and then extraverts into a need to have my likes and beliefs validated by others.

    The Perception functions

    As for Ne vs Ni, both are said in different sources to deal with “possibilities”, or “alternatives” or “what could be”, and you usually think of Ne in those terms (being an “open” ‘P’ function, in contrast to the “closed” ‘J’ attitude of Ni), but then an Ni type will say that they are the ones who only want to make people aware of “unexplored possibilities” or “alternative perspectives”.

    The difference between the two attitudes is what they are inferring these possibilities or alternatives from. Ne is inferring the possibilities for one object from another object. (Even if it’s one stored in memory). Ni is inferring from the [likely unconscious] impressions within. Since these elements are no more tangible than Ne’s unrealized possibilities, then it too is simply an “alternative” that’s possible”, or what something “could be”.


    (Previous draft to outline the four generic perspectives):

    What the functions use (NOT what they ARE) [i.e. what I later dubbed “GDE’s”]:
    S physical sensation
    T impersonal aspects of objects
    N ideas and imaginations
    F emotions

    In terms of DOMAINS:
    (information gathering)
    S the tangible world
    N concepts, ideas and possibilities
    (rational assessments, decision-making)
    T the properties of objects and how they work
    F living souls and their emotions –properties of subjects


    The functions and looking at the properties of objects

    S seeing the grass for what it is
    T seeing it as a green object
    N Recognizing green’s significance (e. g. we can infer from this that the grass is alive)
    F seeing the color as pretty; good for us or others to get some enjoyment out of

    All types will go through that same four step process.
    I would say that that could be the basic “unconscious” or “undifferentiated” version of the functions.
    An ego will naturally go for what it “likes”, but that in itself is different from paying more attention to the properties of the subject [i.e. personal “values”, and hence “Feeling” as a function]. Like “this is really good for the soul” or “this will look nice to people”.

    So we are all social creatures with “Personas” (which is what much of the “shadow” forms against in the first place), so we naturally care about others’ values almost as much as we have our own values. This is basically a kind of “Fe”.

    Then, there’s recognizing [something] as a green object. Se, right? Well, yes, in “undifferentiated” GDE form for non-SP’s. But it’s really a form of categorizing (this is what Allen L. Hammer said at a presentation).

    Categories such as “green” are preexisting elements, so if you’re fitting something into it, it’s either “true” or “false”. (In this case, like an instant “true” bound with the immediate sense impression, just as Lenore described. I call look at it and determine that’s it’s closer to a neighboring color like yellow or cyan, and actually question someone else’s label, calling it “false”).

    An example we can use for Se is a baseball player looking for “possibilities” for stealing a base. This is Se in conjunction with generic intuition, envisioning himself making the successful steal (which hasn’t happened yet), as well as Ti (the example is used by Lenore in the chapter on Ti), which has to make the decision based on what can logically be done in the moment (rather than by the normal “rules”). This is looking at an external object, but not Ne, and not Ni working in tandem with Se either, for that matter.
    When I look at objects and envision “possibilities” for them, I’m comparing with other objects (stored in memory; generic internal sensation), and the difference is that the “possibilities” aren’t at hand or immediate; they must be “filled in”, and require objects to be changed. With Se, only the subject changes (by taking immediate action. With Ne, the subject may not take action at all; he’s just pointing something out, that others may –or may not, change)
    Si deals with what the subject knows to be observable
    Ni fills in (changes) according to what subject senses as possibilities

    I can also mention (as I did on the older article on my own domain) Ben Kovitz’s addressing of the problem of mistaking functions as “gears” on his old defunct “Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki”: “Which cognitive process do I use when stroking my cat? Fi because it’s empathic? Fe because it’s expressive? Se because it’s physical? A combination of those three?” “Which cognitive process is recognizing a face? Se because it’s visual? Ne because it involves a pattern? Te because it involves putting something into a category? Si because it’s recognizing something known from the past?”

    He then points out that in Lenore’s teaching the functions are essentially perspectives, rather than things we “shift” between, like gears. You can look at the physical act of stroking, the empathy, the expression of feeling, the pattern, the category and the memory of the past as functional products, or as generic elements that are interpreted by us cognitively, to form functions, and then become differentiated into the specific Xy functions when the ego or another complex brings them into full consciousness.

    So hence, I’ve been trying to really expound this concept of “generic” versus type specific function “use”.
    The GDE’s, in their raw form (what we all do, and are not “used” functions” in a typological sense) I would say are:

    S (“sensation”):
    (e) basic senses, see, hear, smell, taste, touch
    (i) memory, internal senses, even emotions!
    N: (“intuition”):
    (e) imagining possibilities regarding objects
    (i) the unconscious itself; e.g. “hunches”, “woman’s intuition”, etc.

    T (“thinking”):
    (e) “conventions” of logical order
    (i) knowledge of how things work
    F (“feeling”):
    (e) social harmony
    (i) conscience, personal identification with others


    What sparked this off was my thinking in light of this upon how much my wife’s ego is bound up in what others think about her or us on the surface, and making things look good for them. If I tell someone we’re tight on money, she has a fit. To, me, the difficulty of not being able to buy things is the bigger problem, not how “embarrassing” it may look. (“What’s the use” with that, when I’m the one who sees the struggle first hand).

    Now, she’s Fe dom. This is central to her whole ego.
    Yet I’m also bound up in what others think, but in a different way; to the point even she comments on it. (Like what others say about different groups in political rhetoric, that I feel will ultimately affect us in some way; like who’s really responsible for “draining the economy”; i.e. the rich making too much or, poor and struggling middle class who aren’t doing enough, allegedly, and in today’s news, how our reactions to things shapes the nation’s view of us).
    With me, it’s tied up in a sense of “inferiority”. (Which ties to another complex in the psyche). Even to her “mature” Fe, this is seen as ‘overkill’, and that at some point; I should have a more inner assurance. (We often overcompensate with the inferior and tertiary).

    Other people still have a sense of need of social acceptance. None of us go out naked, because it’s not socially appropriate. I don’t think TJ’s and FP’s, for whom Fe is “shadow” are sitting around thinking “man, I really wish I could go out naked, but I’ll get arrested, so I’ll force myself to conform to this stupid, senseless social convention” [at least not most of them].
    We all have that social sense, just that for others, ego will have more of a particular investment in it. For some like me, the investment will be in a more “shaky” vulnerable sense, where it’s something important in the background, but an opposite perspective takes precedence. (Which can also create the appearance of “weighing”, which is another thing that got tagged to “Fi”)

    I believe this stuff about “shadow” functions necessarily being “toxic” to us is also greatly overblown (at best). We already use all of them, it’s just that the unpreferred ones remain in the background of consciousness, while others focus on them more. What happens is that we will then tend to gloss over the elements of others’ interaction that focus on them.
    Now, if someone comes at us in a negative way with them (like saying or implying I’m a BAD person in some intrinsic way, or perhaps for an IFP, saying something they believe in is fundamentally illogical), THEN it might seem particularly “toxic” or “ruffle” us. I guess if someone bombards you with a lot of it, it will be annoying, but then that’s for the effort required in having to read a lot of something you’re not interested in, or can’t process well; not the actual functional products themselves.
    But not just any use of the function just for its own sake will hit us that way.

    • Generic thinking and feeling

      Part of the reason the terms “Thinking” and “Feeling” become so confusing is because they are derived from the more common generic terms. To “think” generally means to do any mental processing. To “feel” generally has more of an emotional component. What happens, is that “thinking” looks more “impersonal”, as you sit there quietly resting your chin on your index finger and thumb, while “feeling” is obviously more personal, often being expressed emotionally, ar at least the emotions being felt strongly inside.
      But the terms have even become interchangeable.

      I think of the Jetsons episode, where Elroy has gotten a good report card, and then begins jetting around the classroom with his little jet pack. The teacher says “You know how the principal feels about flying in class”.
      Thinking about this, it makes it sound like his own personal value, as if perhaps other principals might not mind. But the principal is responsible to maintain order and an atmosphere of education in the school. It may be a more “impersonal” principle. But the word “feel” is probably used to convey the image and the principal being angry (an emotion clearly expressed) when catching someone violating that or any rule, and they’ve probably already had a school assembly where this and other laws were laid down in a stern manner. And it’s possible a personal value would be violated, if a child openly defied his authority like that (and it is possible that some other principal might be more lenient on things like that, though he would be seen as not doing his job correctly, so you usually end up with them being strict).

      Then, there’s also the terms “head vs heart”, or “man of the head” vs “man of the heart”. “The heart” is where it seems we actually, physically “feel” the energy of emotion, while the “head” is where we feel the energy of more detached, “objective” analysis. So I at first shied away from these, because they seemed too stereotypical, but “man of the…” is actually more on the ball than one would think, if we remember it in terms of preferences.

      So again, generic “thinking/feeling” can be harmonized with the functional T/F if the generic forms’ products are understood as GDE’s

  2. dominant function and attitude perspective with unpreferred functions in background:

    i-Tf/Ns (INTP) perspective: what’s true (T) according to my internal blueprints (i) I like (feel is good: f); my dominant standpoint is informed by what’s inferred (N) from what exists (s).

    e-Ns/Tf (ENTP): what’s inferred (N) according to the external patterns/contexts (e) of what exists (s) determines what is true (T), which also makes it good (f).

    e-Ft/Sn (ESFJ): what’s good (F) according to external environment (e) is true/correct (t). My dominant standpoint is determined by what exists (S), which sets the stage for what meaning or possibility can be inferred (n).

    i-Sn/Tf (ISTJ): What I know inside (i) exists (S) sets the stage for what meaning /possibilities can be inferred (n). This informs what’s true (T), which determines what’s good (f).

    i-Ns/Ft (INFJ): what I infer (N) from inside (i) I use to fill in reality (s). This informs what is good (F) and therefore also true/correct (t).

    e-Sn/Ft (ESFP): engaging what exists (S) in the current outside world (e) sets the stage for what meaning or possibility can be inferred (n). This informs what is good (F), and therefore true (t).

    i-Ft/Ns (INFP): what’s good (F) according to what I have learned individually (i) is what I determine to be true (t), and is informed by what’s inferred (N) from what exists (s).

    e-Tf/Sn (ESTJ): what’s true/correct (T) from an objective standard (e) is good (f); and if it fits what exists (S), also sets the stage for what possibility or meaning can be inferred (n).

    Opposite dominant attitudes:
    e-Tf/Ns (ENTJ): what’s true/correct (T) according to an objective standard (e) I like (feel is good: f); my dominant standpoint is informed by what’s inferred (N) from what exists (s).

    i-Sn/Ft (ISFJ): What I know inside (i) exists (S) sets the stage for what meaning or possibility can be inferred (n). This informs what is good (F), and therefore true (t).

    e-Ns/Ft (ENFP): what I infer (N) from the external patterns/contexts (e) of what exists (s) determines what is good (F) and therefore also true/correct (t).

    i-Ft/Sn (ISFP): what’s good (F) according to what I have learned individually from nature (i) is true/correct (t). My dominant standpoint is determined by what exists (S), which sets the stage for what meaning or possibility can be inferred (n).

    [i-Ns/Tf] (INTJ): what’s inferred (N) according to internal unconscious impressions (i) of what exists (s) determines what is true (T), which also makes it good (f).

    e-Sn/Tf (ESTP): engaging what exists (S) in the current outside world (e) sets the stage for what meaning /possibilities can be inferred (n). This informs what’s true (T), which determines what’s good (f).

    e-Ft/Ns (ENFJ): what’s good (F) according to the external environment (e) is what I determine to be true (t), and is informed by what’s inferred (N) from what exists (s).

    i-Tf/Sn (ISTP): what’s true (T) according to my internal blueprints (i) is liked (f); and if it fits what exists (S), also sets the stage for what possibility or meaning can be inferred (n).

    [Edit: S/N statements redone. See image in comment below]

    Some more GDE definitions I had drafted for this project:

    S: “just experiencing” what’s tangibly apparent
    (e) external, current
    (i) internalized (memory, internal senses, etc)
    N: “filling in” what’s possible (tangibly unapparent)
    (e) From other external data (imagination, fantasy)
    (i) From within; (the unconscious itself; e.g. “hunches”)

    T: correct impersonal order
    (e) directed by external environment
    (i) directed by internal principles
    F: proper personal/interpersonal order
    (e) directed by external environment (social harmony)
    (i) directed by internal values (conscience, personal identification with others)

    Extravert introjects (merges subject with object)
    Introvert projects (Sees subjective content in object)

    subject engages the object; introjects or “merges” with it by “going with the flow”
    subject projects own storehouse of facts onto objects to filter them
    subject engages object and introjects (takes in) its implications as his own
    subject projects internal storehouse of unconscious data onto objects
    subject introjects impersonal course of actions suggested by immediate environment
    subject projects own logical sense of order onto objects
    subject merges with people-related object, introjecting (taking as one’s own) its values
    subject projects internal sense of people-related values onto object

    Older ones being reserved all this time:
    Sensing: observing what is
    Thinking: organizing what is
    iNtuition: observing what it means
    Feeling: organizing what it means (i. e. emotional affect)

  3. My own experience of internal “correct” judgments

    I also like three way symmetries.

    {Colors: a three way symmetry of primaries.}
    Expected three equally unrelated primaries. Learned subtractive mixing, then determined that regular “red” (which is heavily yellowish), as well as the green of additive mixing (the scheme based on our optic receptors) were “incorrect”. (Still question something about additive mixing, and can’t help continuing to see green as “yellowish-blue”, as green looks too much like blue, or at least not as different from it as it and blue are from red. This makes me wonder what the fundamental “cone” primary looks like. One site suggests it’s even more bluish (peak 497nm), and that registers as definitely incorrect!)

    My life’s theme was always technical knowledge. Knowing what and why, and then expecting things to conform to models of symmetry I had noticed. Like ratios. One of the earliest “models” of a matrix I remembered building was that orange is to red, as green is to blue. You had primary colors on one side, and then those colors plus yellow on the other. The other dimension had reddish colors on one side and bluish colors on the other. It may have started from liking “red” punch over “orange” colored tomato juice, back in nursery school, which I clearly remembered. Also, not liking other orange colored foods like carrots. Also, the van they used to bring us home in had the light inside the rear side reflector removed, and from the inside, the light filtered through the red lens looked like straight up orange. A kid told me there was a “red” one on the other side, but I couldn’t see it. So I then imagined a similar dynamic with blue and green, but those weren’t used on vehicles. Even though there aren’t many blue foods, the color still looks like it would be “sweeter” than green foods like peas, which I also didn’t like).
    So I had a four-way symmetry (similar to the classic four temperaments matrix).

    Seeing four color models used in various items, I always hated the way those games and toys (like “SORRY!”, “UNO”, etc. and other stuff) used a nice bright red, yellow, blue and green. The first three are primaries (another three-way model), but green was not.
    So (based on my own model), if they wanted to use a four color model, they should use orange instead of yellow. Or for primaries only; perhaps black or white (which I also considered [additional] primaries in my own model; along with silver. Three colorful primaries, and three non-colorful primaries!)

    But then, I had to learn why TV’s had red, green and blue (“incorrect!”) instead of red, yellow and blue, which gets into the whole “additive” vs “subtractive” color models.
    When I finally integrated “additive” mixing as an alternate three way “correct/true” model (thanks to the wonder of LED’s), then that simply flipped it; green was a primary, yellow was not.
    They shouldn’t both be used as primaries (again; “incorrect”).

    I didn’t know that these four colors were the most distinguishable to the eye. (Even a new TV pixel technology called “Quattron” adds yellow pixels to RGB! Another one called “WRGB” uses white instead).

    I was never impressed with those “color” temperament models out there, because there doesn’t seem to be any such rhyme or reason to the colors; at least not in relation to each other (I guess they are supposed to represent archetypally some characteristics of the personality).
    The colors I would “officially” assign to personalities are the “humor” colors:
    Sanguine: red (blood)
    Choleric: yellow (bile)
    Melancholy: black […bile]
    Phlegmatic: gray-green (phlegm)
    Supine: white (adding “white blood cells” as a fifth “humor”).

    This leads to a another symmetry: The extroverts are colorful, the introverts are “black and white”, people focused are “blood” colors, and task-focused are “bile” colors, and “moderate” Phlegmatic is in between them all.

    As a T dom. I actually focus on colors, because I like colors as a category (of the property of the object; i.e. “impersonal” = T), and as significant (universal property I learned on my own = i).
    I of course have to “see” the objects to begin this reasoning process (Sge), and I also in the process like bright colors and different combinations and find them “pretty” (Fgi; and will even make choices based on this), but this is really serving the notion of colors as properties of objects (Ti as ego worldview).

    I don’t look at the objects for what they are (the big proof of this is that I could not even do the little Se exercise in the Berens/Nardi books), or pay much attention to the inherent properties of the subject (i.e. myself). Like what my exact feelings are when I like something (as my wife always asks me, and I can never answer easily).

    {Carnivores: two or three families…}
    Likewise, seeing how cats and dogs were very similar, and thus biologically related; I wondered what a third “Carnivora” relative would be like. Felines are apart of a larger “suborder” Feloidea, or Feliformia, which include civets and mongooses, while Canines are part of the suborder Canoidea or Caniformia, including bears and the mustelids (weasels, skunks, etc).
    Then, I find in the 1966 Brittanicas we had, that the seal family was such a third branch, the Pinnipeds. Made perfect sense! The thing I like about these symmetries is comparing one to the other. Two members may have something in common not shared by the other, but then that other will have something else in common not shared with one or the other of the first two. So when you start out with these two familiar classes, and frequently compare the differences, then introduce a third member, it is different from both (its own identity), but then shares things in common with both. Pinnipeds whiskers look like dogs, and their sounds are similar to dogs, but they have smaller snouts than dogs; more like cats. So based on that, the model was “correct”. (Ti. And I “liked” it, Fgi).

    But then, in more recent classification, I find that they have busted them down to another branch of Caniformia. Bummer!
    The scientific perspective is largely Te. The models are based solely on the external criteria, which then forms a consensus in the community. So if they find evidence that the seals were connected more to dogs and not directly spawning from the miacids (the fox-like ancestors of all modern “carnivora” groups), then that is what will be deemed “correct”. And Te preferrers (as much as they may advocate “objective logic”) will defend this as “good”, as you can see in the often cutting adamance with which they confront people (whether advocates of other unrecognized models, or especially religion) who dispute their conclusions.

    Ti’s usefulness in science will be more about what Te will be forced to accept because it is universal. Like three is universal, in space consisting of three dimensions. Any Te formulas must take this into consideration (even if they mathematically surmise that their may be other space dimensions, either curled up tiny, or we are embedded in and have no access to).

    {The ultimate “threeness”: the Godhead}
    The universality of “threeness” figures prominently also in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, with all the dissent surrounding it (from within Christianity via the “cults”, and without, through “skepticism”. You can see my treatise on this here: http://www.erictb.info/triune.html).

    Te can see that reasoning the Church used to extract the doctrine from various scriptures, and that the sects’ various alternatives (like Arianism/ Jehovah’s witnesses belief the Son was just an angel, or unitarianism’s belief that he was just a regular man) had to stretch to bend scriptures to fit their interpretations. So in the early centuries, as various dissensions arose, what did the church do, but call “councils” where they arrive at a consensus on what the scriptures teach; often “going beyond explicit scriptural terms to highlight where the opponents views were wrong” as apologists will admit.
    On the Ti side, it was a nice three-way symmetry (sort of like three primaries on a color wheel), and it would figure that the nature of God would be different from our own experience as individual “persons”.

    But something still seemed “incorrect” about it, according to the actual data. As one person persecuted by the Church for different views, Michael Servetus had said “the scriptures taught “something about the Father, and something about the Son and Something about the Spirit. Never did they declare them to be ‘three in one'”.
    (And even the bishops at the time of the early councils were not completely sure of it. The “consensus of the majority” approach also at one point allowed Arianism to almost gain control, via politics, and become the “official” doctrine!)

    While I would say the scriptures do say a little more about each Person than simply “something”; the problem was that the symmetry was too perfect. Portrayals were of three identical entities sitting side by side from eternity to eternity (or often a diagram of circles with a fourth item representing “God”, or “the Godhead” itself), who only differ by name and “function”. One of them happened to be the one who came to earth to become man and died to save us.
    Yet scriptures do address God as “the Father”, and even the Son’s deity is in reference to this (Son OF God and Spirit OF God, but never any Father OF God), and “Sonship” is connected to his divine birth, not some abstract “filiation” in past eternity; and also seems to have some sort of “subordination” to the Father, and the Spirit is never shown as a figure sitting beside the Father and Son as was often drawn in history.

    So I found, in reading the pre-Nicene expression of the Godhead (which Servetus was trying to resurrect 1200 years later), before they codified it in terms of “persons” and “substances” that yielded those crude, confusing images and the questions of of how “‘three’ could be ‘one'”, that by eliminating those terms, you could have one God, the Father, who generates from the one nature, the Son, in the flesh, and the Spirit to bear witness to man’s spirit. So there you have the Three in the “one essence”, without all the confusion.

    Ti in this case judged that a particular symmetry was not appropriate for the data (“incorrect” according to personal research and reflection), even though such a symmetry was desirable when it did fit the data.

    (Ti vs Te in mathematics}:
    Ti also runs afoul of a more accepted Te in the area of science and math, as I mentioned earlier.
    When I was in grade school, I became interested in polygons, because it was interesting what you could do with them. I tried to learn the entire Greek numbering system, since it was used on the prefixes and suffixes polygon (and polygrams, or stellated “star” versions of them) are named by.
    I learned that to be consistent, a triangle is really a “trigon”, and a quadrangle is a “tetragon”. It took time to realize that for all numbers above 10, except for powers of 10 and multiples of 10 below 100, the names would be compound, like they are in English. (Even 12 is “dodeca”: do-2+deca-10, and 11 is “hendeca”: hen[o] is one version of 1).

    There was one common closed convex shape that was not considered a polygon: the circle. Even on Sesame Street, Ernie once asked Bert how many sides a circle had. I remember “one” was one of his inquiries. I knew even though it was technically a single line (bent around on itself), still it had no angles, and “-gon” really refers to angles. All polygons have the same number of angles and sides (though that is not the case necessarily for 3D polyhedra). In trying to draw polygons of increasing numbers of side, I noted that they begin to resemble circles, as the sides get smaller, and the angles get larger.

    So I surmised that the circle was the hypothetical case of a polygon with an infinite number of angles and sides. (See https://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/how-many-sides-does-a-circle-have) The “sides” have shrunk down to single points, and the definition of a circle is the full set of points equidistant from a given point. The angles have become 180° (the absolute limit for a non-concave figure), which is supposed to be a straight line, but since the sides are “points”, and points have no length at all, the fixed radius forces these infinitesimal sides into a curved line. There really is no “adjacent side” to a point, because it is totally zero in length, and any “next” point would occupy the same space!
    If you fix the length of sides instead of the radius, then at infinity, they will flatten out into an infinite line tiled with line segments all at 180°, and the radius will become infinite as well. The entire infinite line will be an infinitesimal magnification of any ONE of the points of the circle. That’s how 180° lines can generate a curved line.

    In joining a math discussion list, I find that the latter has indeed been dubbed an “apeirogon” (“apeiro-” meaning “without perimeter” being used as a Greek prefix for infinity). But they wouldn’t accept the circle as an ∞-gon (I chose another Greek word I found, “achane-” meaning “yawning”; conveying a sense of “very large”, to distinguish it from the other one. So the circle would be a “regular achanegon”, and an oval or blob, and irregular one). They then began talking about “countable” and “non-countable” infinities, and yeah, the first example is an uncountable infinity, and the second one a countable infinity (you can’t count the points making up a circle, but you can start counting the line segments in the infinite line), but their conventions would not allow them to accept.

    I myself don’t see why they can’t just say “n/0 = ∞”, but their agreed upon conventional technical rules say it’s not “correct”. If that were true, then it would also follow that 0 × ∞ = n, and neither 0 nor ∞ can ever go into any finite n. But the way I see it, ∞ is so big and 0 so small that they are able to bring each other into the finite/nonzero realm. In other words, 0 is so small that no finite number would be big enough to produce anything other than zero when multiplied with it. But ∞ is so big; bigger than any number, it’s thus “big” enough to do that. ∞’s large extreme and 0’s small extreme “cancel each other out”, landing you anywhere in between (the finite realm).
    I had described it as the way normal reality breaks down when you begin messing with both zeroes and infinities at the same time. Just like the way astrophysicists surmise reality must break down when finite matter is compressed by infinite gravity into the zero volume point of a singularity in a black hole.

    So from there, it also finally dawned on me what the inertial frame of reference of the speed of light must be like. (http://www.erictb.info/math&science.html#lightspeed) This I never saw discussed anywhere.
    They say as you approach the speed of light, coordinate (observers at rest) and proper (the travelers) length in the direction of travel both shrink toward zero. If the traveler is flattened to zero in the direction he’s traveling, then what is the “forward” direction he would still see? (Since he sees himself at rest, and thus no flattened dimensions, except the coordinate space he”s leaving behind). Why would light still be able to move past him at the same speed? What direction is it moving?

    I determined that would actually be a fourth space dimension rotated out of what was coordinate time! It makes sense, because space and time become “switched” in relativistic circumstances, including the inside of a black hole, supposedly (there, you’re dragged in the forward/downward space dimension as if it were time).

    But again, on another math group, they wouldn’t have it. Only accepted expressions of theories.

    Likewise, I determined that the “trio” of “space, matter and time” (even linked to the Trinity by one Christian leader) was “incorrect”, because I had already linked to space and time as both being actual dimensions, or continua of displacements of matter and events. Matter is the actual “Son-like” physical form of energy, that inhabits space; not it being the physical manifestation of space (as the “Father-like” element). Space seemed like the “visible” manifestation (like the Son) of something else, not known directly, but only through the visible manifestation (like the Father).
    So I surmised a third “continuum”, called “chance”, which is basically the entire “multiverse” of possibilities. (http://www.erictb.info/chance.html)
    This too just seemed to be slept on.

    Meanwhile, the other aspect of math, the more TeSi version, where you have to remember all the formulas and rules, and using that try to reduce (“factor”) complex equations down to the simplest expressions was always dreadful to me. When I see the pages or blackboards full of formulas scientists deal with, I figure I could never have gotten into that field, as you would have thought I would. So I stick with the more hypothetical TiNe version.

    (So this repulsion to a common aspect of math may lead to one questioning their NT or even just T preference. Someone like Einstein, widely believed to be INTP, of course had to deal with all the formulas to come up with his equations, like the perfectly simple “E=MC²”. But that was probably more of a “necessary evil” he forced himself to do, in order to achieve ego’s Ti desire of simplifying and expounding universal principles. I think he was said to have originally failed at math in school! Sure made me feel better!)

  4. Kiloby’s “Living Inquiries” (see https://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/a-quantum-explanation-of-the-soul) are an example we can use, of “concrete” functions “mixed together” in their undifferentiated form.

    It starts with painful emotions. You can physically feel them (S). They are part of a bad (F) “story” (N) as he puts it (i.e. the sequence of events that have triggered the emotion, or more importantly, how we interpret them, as self-help memes often remind us). And also, they are technically deemed “incorrect” (T), as this is not our optimal state, so we then aim to take some course of action to change what’s causing it.
    (Even though we are people: “personal” subjects; we are still ultimately impersonal “objects”; subject to the laws of nature. So we can do what’s necessary to improve the situation, even if it might be uncomfortable, or otherwise “bad”, in the short run).

    Initially, you’re not really “using” any of the specific “functions”. They’re all there “mixed together” in our limbic reaction. T/F especially are bound into one “negative” sense, though it seems more like “F” because it’s a “feeling”, which we’re accustomed to associating with its namesake, the F function. So it’s even hard to really differentiate T and F from each other in that instance. N is a bit easier to distinguish from the T/F mix because it’s not a negative/positive judgment. S then is the easiest to differentiate. (Hence, why Jung termed N as “unconscious”, which assumed that S is conscious).

    (Right now; I feel like I’m discussing theoretical physics, especially “string theory”, where they seek to find the “Grand Unified Theory”, and found that mathematically, if you add more space dimensions ⦅but curl them up to an infinitesimal 10-35m⦆, then the four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear, and finally gravity, begin to merge.
    But this gives you another good concept of what “differentiation/undifferentiation” is about. Another one is biological cells, which start out neutral, but then become specialized for certain functions when the prenatal body develops enough).

    The “Inquiries” whole method is to essentially differentiate the S, splitting the others off from it. By focusing inward deeply, you see that what you’re feeling as “negative emotion” is really just neutral energy (S), coupled to a “negative [T/F] story [N]”.

    You’ve basically “abstracted” (set out as distinct) the internal sensory impressions, which are basically Si. (Internal body sensations are also considered Si, along with remembered tangible experience).
    This makes me wonder if this is why ISTJ’s (Si dom’s); at least in my experience, are quick to glibly say we should just “swallow” or “get over” things. Abstraction of internal tangible impressions is their egos’ whole starting premise. “It’s just a feeling”, they sometimes reduce it to, and then “support” this by going to the impersonal Te task of “moving forward” with whatever course of logical action is possible to correct the situation, or then going further, to tertiary Fi and assessing what’s really “good” (internally), to counter the negative emotions if nothing can be done about it. (Hence, the Christian meme, “accept the things you can’t change; change what you can, and have the wisdom to know the difference”. ESFJ’s, such as my wife, are softer versions of this, since Fe replaces Te, and is dominant. So she will say some of that stuff, when first trying to comfort doesn’t work after awhile).

    All of this, which is the backbone of modern self-help (both secular and religious) always left me cold. I see now that the problem is that what I get hung up on, is what I tend to differentiate first, or “abstract”: the “correct/incorrect” (true/false) aspect of it. So when I tried the exercise, I saw that it worked, and I could in fact feel the neutral energy distinctly. But as soon as I stopped, it was clear the problem that caused the negative emotion was not solved. So the negative [T]/N/F “story” came right back.
    Then, the internal S just remembers always feeling this way, and the F, which is inferior and oriented externally for me, just demands (at the very least) affirmation from others.

    This is why I’ve always been against all self-help; both secular and religious. And when dealing with people who preached it to me in the past (whether [secular] parents or other Christians), they would take on the attitude that I was just being ignorant or obstinate or something, which causes even more distress on top of everything else. According to them, it’s a “daily struggle”, often with some daily ritual, like prayer or looking in the mirror and affirming yourself; and then, maybe this would make the feeling go away eventually. To me, this was just “psyching” yourself out. I could look at these other people, especially the ISTJ’s in my life, and being the classic “Melancholy” temperament (And SJ in general, part Melancholy, in the area of “Control”), they often do still hold on to a lot of resentment and other stuff, and so have not really gotten over it, but only stuffed it further into unconsciousness (the shadow).
    So the teachings just come off to me as a lot of idealism*, (that the people preaching it can’t really live up to themselves) and in the case of religion and politics, often becomes a pacification tool.

    *(and thus may be accepted more easily and promoted by the “Idealists”, the Supines in Control and especially the pure Supine and Sanguine/Supine, using the same functions as the ISTJ)

    Again, as I concluded https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/ordering-vs-aligning-the-tefi-vs-tife-difference-in-my-experience-and-self-help-teaching, the task is to try to find a way to integrate these other perspectives.

  5. Here is a simple self-sorter based on these definitions. I was trying to decide the actual order, but perhaps it would be better to just have the person start with the one that comes easiest (which may be an indicator of the dominant):

    j/p
    Are you geared more toward taking in information for its own sake, or coming to some sort of conclusions with it?
    (This does not yet necessarily indicate the actual J/P dichotomy preference. Which is why it’s lowercase here, while the dichotomy is in capitals)
    [if “p”, then go to S/N; if “j”, go to T/F]

    I/E
    Are you most energized by drawing upon what you have already learned on your own or what comes to you from within; or what you gather from the environment or culture?

    (J=E+j, I+p; P=E+p, I+j)

    S/N
    Do you, in gathering information, tend to focus on what’s “at hand” according to tangible experience [edit: is or isn’t], or do you tend to “fill in” things that are not at hand, such as meanings, “big pictures” and inferences [edit: what could or couldn’t be]?

    T/F
    Do you tend to think more in terms of good vs bad (what you or other people “like” or “dislike”) or true or false (what’s correct or incorrect regardless of whether people like it; i.e. “impersonal”)?

  6. Still been trying to come up with something elemental for S/N as clear and concise as “true/false” and “good/bad” for T/F.
    I think I’ll go with “perception of physical items” (with an alternate of “itemization” or “itemized data”) and “perception of mental constructs” (with an alternate of “larger contexts” or “[nonphysical] patterns”).

    That really seems to sum up what S and N are about. Like S’s “details” and what I was trying to cover with “at hand”; and N’s “big picture” or “stories” that “fill in” experience.

    “Items” would simply represent the sensory “details” S’s focus on. It’s another way of saying “detail”, without using that term, often used in cheap quiz questions.

    For N; “construct” means (Wikipedia):
    “an ideal object, where the existence of the thing may be said to depend upon a subject’s mind. This, as opposed to a real object, where existence does not seem to depend on the existence of a mind.
    In a scientific theory, particularly within psychology, a hypothetical construct is an explanatory variable which is not directly observable. For example, the concepts of intelligence and motivation are used to explain phenomena in psychology, but neither is directly observable.

    Concepts that are considered constructs by this definition include that which is designated by the symbol “3” or the word “liberty”. Scientific hypotheses and theories (e.g. evolutionary theory, gravitational theory), as well as classifications (e.g. in biological taxonomy) are also conceptual entities considered to be constructs.

    Simple examples of real objects (that are not constructs) include lawyers, silver fish and undershirts.

    Other examples of constructs:
    In Biology: Genes, evolution, illness, taxonomy, immunity
    In Physics/Astrophysics: Black holes, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, String Theory, molecular physics or atoms, gravity, center of mass. In Psychology: Intelligence or knowledge, emotions, personality, moods. Theories and Hypotheses.”

    Not going to bother changing all the above posts (other than adding the terms as edits to some of them), but here are some of the basic concepts redone:

    Se: physical items as they are encountered, externally
    Si: physical items compared with ones stored internally in memory
    Ne: mental constructs interconnected in some some larger [external] arrangement
    Ni: mental constructs filtered through internal impressions

    S: what’s physically itemized [from internal or external source] is used to make mental constructs (n)
    N: what’s mentally constructed (larger patterns) [filtered internally or connected externally] fills in the world of physical items (s) [i.e. are imaginary “items”]

  7. I figured now I would bring in scientific-like terms for more concise clarification: “general” vs “special” uses of the functions.

    Whenever we assign a function to a type, in the particular “orders”, such as dominant, aux, tertiary, inferior, or even the “shadow” roles, these are really special instances of the function, determined by the associated complexes involved.
    This distinguishes it from the “general” sensation, intuition, thinking and feeling (and internally or externally based) everyone does.

  8. Further decided, for the perception functions (to match the simple “true/false” and “good/bad” terms for T/F):
    S: is/isnt
    N: could/couldn’t

    Se: is/isn’t based on current external items
    Si: is/isn’t based on internal knowledge of items
    Ne: could/couldn’t based on external constructs
    Ni: could/couldn’t based on internal (and likely unconscious) sense of constructs

    (this last one is good for summarizing Ni!)

    Berens had also used:
    “what is” (Se)
    “What was” (Si)
    “what could be” (Ne)
    “what will be” (Ni)

    Notice, both of the extraverted functions match what I’m now assigning to the natural function in general.
    You could see the introverted perceptions as special versions of “what is” and “what could be”, since they have been internalized. what “was” is just an internal blue print “what is” is compared to, so Si ultimately pays more attention to “what is” after all.
    “What will be” is not really the best specific description for Ni. It seems that way, because it can be used to get a sense of the future, but it’s really in general filling in any observed pattern, regardless of the time frame (which is more of a rational element a judgment function is needed to deal with).
    You often see in others’ function descriptions “what could be” used for Ni, and this is in the sense that even with their less “up-in-the air” (like Ne) impressions, what Ni types come up with is still not 100% certain (hence, you can’t really say “will be”), so it, just as much as Ne, is ultimately about “could.

    Of the different N products, obviously, pondering on something that doesn’t exist, that you wonder about making exist, or if it will come about on it’s own or by someone else, or science “theory”, is dealing with “could” be.
    (Like in personality theory itself, there is never any absolute “is”, whether type preferences, temperament patterns, etc.; it’s all at best “could”).
    Then, you have a case like Schröedinger’s Cat, where we can only go on “could” (mental constructs of the possible outcomes), and don’t know what “is” or “isn’t” (the actual state of the item inside).

    A fantasy, such as an alternate reality, or “story” (fiction, etc.) deals in what “could have been“. Even with things naturally impossible, what you’re imagining then, is basically a different set of universal laws (or suspensions of/exceptions to them) that “could have been”.

    Concepts such as religious doctrine, and politics may not seem like “coulds” at first, largely because of the way they are often pontificated as absolute “fact”. But they are not tangible items that can be proven on the spot, like the law of gravity (or the other three forces, which govern things such as the nature of what we call “solid objects” that we can touch, see, etc.)
    They are at best, things that “could” be true, but different people will see them differently (proof they are not tangible realities), and then have to use more intangible constructs to try to dismiss the other person’s view. Religion even usually admits this, ultimately, when they start saying it is by “faith” (though many still treat this as absolute and tangible experience, which contradicts the notion of “faith”).

    Stuff like archetypes, symbols, etc. also may not seem like “coulds”, because they’re alternative ways of looking at reality, and seem like sort of “realities” of their own, but then that’s where their “could” lies: “could” be a way to see the situation!

    Stuff like “ingenious” witty puns is from seeing one use of terms, and realizing how they “could” be changed, into the new context. My desire to explore cities, was from getting a sense of the difference of the two cities I grew up familiar with (New York, Springfield), and wondering what other cities “could” be like in comparison.

    I also had to change the definition of perception in general (in terms of a “question” answer), from “is/isn’t” as I first had it, to “yes/no”. (that may sound a bit like judgment, at least partially, like asking someone for something; but the question it;s answering in this case is “is something there?” —just like judgment is answering “is is the evaluation of is favorable; i.e. right or wrong?”)

    Like an example of the interplay of functions, the quarterback seeing an opening to make a pass may be seeing what “could” be done, but what “could” (the hypothetical ‘construct’) is strictly based on what “is” (the ‘item’ at hand, which is the other player who can receive the pass; just like for a T, what’s “good” is based on what’s “correct”, or vice-versa for F).
    And of course, for an N, what “could” is treated like a kind of reality; like an item that “is”.

  9. Someone today asked what makes NT’s “Rational”, and particularly why the “N” is involved in that; so I put together this statement I had been planning for awhile:

    Let’s use our new function definitions:
    S: what is
    N: what could be
    T: what’s true (correct)
    F: what’s good

    ST’s look at “what IS true”, and that’s as far as their reasoning goes.
    NT’s look at what “COULD be true”, and this will need to be “rationalized” further than set-in-stone “concrete” truth. So then we take on the appearance of being more “rational[istic]”.

    So likewise, SF is “what IS good”, which will be some practical solution, while NF looks for “what COULD be good”, which again will need more rationalization, but this time it will be called “idealis[m]”.
    (Keep in mind, Keirsey rejected the Jungian concepts, where “rational” referred to any judgment function, so the term reverted back to its general meaning, of anyone “heady”).

  10. Further thinking now that Lenore’s definition of function attitude in terms of “culture” or environment and “individual” may be even better than “internal/external” (which like many other terms can be ambiguous at times, or even vague, since they are all processes internal to us, and involve external elements). I had started using the terms for judgment functions, but they can hold for perception as well.

    Se: what is, directly from the environment
    Si: what is, filtered through individual factual knowledge
    Ne: what could be, inferred from patterns in the environment
    Ni: what could be, inferred from individual impressions used to fill in patterns
    Te: what’s correct according to environmentally determined standards
    Ti: what’s correct according to individually determined standards
    Fe: what’s good according to environmentally determined standards
    Fi: what’s good according to individually determined standards

    Looking back over other stuff Lenore said (regarding the definition of Ni), what I now realize she meant by “patterns are in us” is in comparison to Ne, which takes them for granted; the key phrase is that Ni sees them as merely “arbitrary”. Hence, her description of freeing sense impressions from their larger contexts (i.e. the memorized external patterns everyone takes for granted. And again, we may associate “memory” with Si, but the pattern is taken in through the external world, and the only way to be able to reference it; to compare other patterns, is through memory.
    Since we’re dealing with mental constructs and not physical items, “location” works very differently, and it can still be “external”, though technically internal).

    The data is then filled in from an internal sense of other possibilities, “new perspectives”; or “what’s missing” from the pattern. This is what was then attributed to the “unconscious”, and what then will suddenly come up as the proverbial “aha moment” when it does enter consciousness.

  11. What I’ve been integrating into my “info” site descriptions:

    We divide reality into different pairs of conscious impressions:

    A-rational (taking in information) — Yes or no (There or not there):
    S: is/isn’t (exists or not)
    N: could/couldn’t (inferred or not)
    Rational (assessing information) — Right or wrong:
    T: true/false (correct/incorrect)
    F: good/bad (liked/disliked)
    Orientation (direction of processing) — inner or outer:
    i: individally filtered
    e: environmentally accepted

    Se: what is, experienced directly from the environment
    Si: what is, filtered through individual experience
    Ne: what’s inferred, through environmental interconnection
    Ni: what’s inferred through individual impressions
    Te: what’s correct, determined by environment
    Ti: what’s correct, determined individually
    Fe: what’s good, determined by environment
    Fi: what’s good, determined individually

    Realizing awareness: (“takes” things as they are)
    Se: takes what is (items/events) from environment as occurs
    Ni: takes existing constructs and infers individually what could be
    Inquiring awareness: (answers questions through comparison)
    Si: compares items/events with individual knowlege of what is
    Ne: compares constructs with environmental inferences of what could be.

    The relation of “memory” to the four perception attitudes: Se will use it to know what one has already mastered the exploitation of, which then becomes an enjoyed activity, while Si will do that and also use it to compare current experience with previously experienced fact.
    Ne references patterns stored in memory (like Si’s referencing facts stored in memory), while Ni fills in current patterns (like Se focuses on current experience) with stuff repressed from memory (not necessarily intentionally; likely just deeply forgotten stuff).

    Ordering assessments: (logic used for setting order):
    Te/Fi: true to the environment; good for the individual

    Aligning assessments: (logic deals more in variables):
    Fe/Ti: Truth discovered individually; good to the environment

    Here is how we distinguish particular “functions” to a given type, even though we all technically ‘use’ all the functions:

    The ego (our main sense of “I”, and itself a “complex”) is divided into numerous “states” representing discrete (though not totally conscious as such) lesser senses of “I” (which are also complexes), which determine how reality is divided by consciousness. (“Dissociation” is what becomes the familiar “multiple personality” disorders when it is too great, yet is quite normal in lesser degrees. This paper: http://www.ptintensive.com/images/Journal_3-2_Ego_Surrender.pdf explains this well).
    One ego state can be anger at someone, and another can be happiness, or sadness, amorous, etc. These all are kinds of “ruling patterns” (archetypes) connected to the limbic system of emotions. Through them, we can have different expressions of “I” that feel different things.

    Regarding type preferences, some of these ego states will determine how reality is divided by consciousness. These are what John Beebe has outlined as being associated with the eight functions for each type. Thus, they are what “use” [so to speak] various functions as well, and are what will set the order all eight have been placed in, based on the level of consciousness they [the complexes] represent. (This is still not necessarily a hard “order” of relative “strength”, though).

    The ego itself will determine the dominant function and attitude, through one state, which will be the main achiever, and will set apart in reality a predominant means of either taking in information (perception) or making decisions with it (judgment), and either an individual or environmental focus of that process.
    Another ego state will be about support (to the ego’s agenda, or to others), and this will generally see reality through an opposite mode of taking in or making decisions with the data, and the opposite individual or environmental orientation, from the dominant. (i.e. Supplying data for or “informing” one’s dominant judgment, or organizing one’s dominant perceptions with rational assessments, and keeping us in touch with both inner and outer realms).

    So to use the archetype/complex names, the dominant function will be connected with a “Heroic” complex (consisting of ego states of “heroically” solving problems, and advancing our ego’s agendas); and the strong “Good Parent” complex (ego states of being helpful to others) will associate with the auxiliary.
    The two resulting “function-attitudes” then make up (define) the “type”.

    Outside of these ego states, all of the other possible function-attitudes (i.e. judgment or perception functions and individual or environmental orientation combinations) remain either undifferentiated (just general processes everyone does, apart from any particular ego-state), or may become associated with certain other ego states which are basically reflections of the first two.
    So in Beebe’s theory, six other complexes will carry the remaining six function-attitudes, in an order mirroring and/or “shadowing” these first two.

    Tertiary: a more childlike ego-state which reflecting the “supporting” state will tend to look up to others and find relief, using the function and orientation opposite the supporting one.
    Next is an ego state conveying a sense of “inferiority”, which also realizes our place in the universe is very small (though ego usually fights this), and yet senses hypothetical “completeness” through it. This will see life through the function and orientation opposite the dominant.

    The remaining ego states and associated functions parallel the first four. They are negative versions of them, and the functions are the same, but bearing the opposite orientation from the first four, which had been suppressed from consciousness in preferring the other orientations.

    A sort of “negative hero” dealing with perceived obstruction
    A negative “parent” dealing with negation of ego’s agenda
    A negative “child” dealing with perceived double binds
    A state dealing with ego’s fear of its own destruction

    So we can think of lesser senses of “I” that constellate and tend to “use” these other functions, at certain times. Hence, as I had put it earlier: “The part of himself that would…”

  12. How either function attitude can do the same things
    (using descriptions attributed to one attitude. Function role names from Berens, Personality Hacker http://www.personalityhacker.com/nicknames-for-8-jungian-cognitive-functions and Hartzler Functions of Type)

    “Experiencing” (“Sensation”, “The Scout”)

    Se: taking on new options for activity as it arises
    Si: reliving trusted or “tried and true” activities

    “Recalling” (“Memory”, “Conservator”)

    Se: knowing those physical activities or facts you liked, and would like to relive or reference.
    Si: referencing learned fact to inform decisions

    “Inferring” (“Exploration”, “Brainstormer”)

    Ne: comparing patterns to get a sense of what something in one of them means
    Ni: using unconscious impressions to get a sense of what something in a pattern means

    “Foreseeing” (“Perspectives”, “The Seer”)

    Ne: comparing patterns to get a sense of where a new timelike pattern might lead to
    Ni: using unconscious impressions to gain a sense of where a timelike pattern is heading

    “Applying logic”/”Organizing” (“Effectiveness”, “Administrator”)

    Te: What the environment determines is the most logical solution becomes your main goal
    Ti: figure how it would be arranged by your own individual sense of logical order; e.g. “if it were up to me”

    “Analyzing” (“Accuracy”, “Analyzer”)

    Te: dissect something using conventional (i.e. from the environment) knowledge of what is most efficient or practical
    Ti: Dissect something using your own individually learned/derived “true/false” standard

    “Considering others”/”Connecting”; (“Harmony”, “The Guide”)

    Fe: hears a person’s judgment of “good/bad”, and takes it on as his own
    Fi: puts himself in the person’s shoes and makes the good/bad judgment for him, and responds to him accordingly.

    [personal] “valuing”/”evaluating importance” (“Authenticity”, “Conscience”)

    Fe: the environmental values they have adopted have become their personal values (and are seen as “important”)
    Fi: develops individual values on their own

  13. In deciphering the two different attitudes of each function, the question to ask is:

    WHO is really doing the actual Thinking? (the subject, or an object; i.e. Other person, group, computer; e.g statistics, etc.)

    In the latter case [e], the subject then “introjects” or takes these environmental judgments of what’s “true” or “correct,” as his own.
    In the former case [i], it’s, his own individual assessment of “true”, who then projects them. (“if it were left up to me, I would do it this way”)

    WHO is really doing the actual Feeling? (subject, or an object; i.e. other person, group, culture).

    In the latter case [e], the subject then “introjects” or takes these environmental values of “good” as his own.
    In the former case [i], it’s his own, individual assessment of what’s “good”, projected onto the other (“if that were me, I would feel this way”).

    With perception, it’s always the subject “doing” the process (taking in the information). What’s different, is where it’s processed from.

    Se: directly from the environment as occurs
    Si: directly from individual memory
    Ne: patterns in environment via memory
    Ni: individual impressions repressed from memory

    So instead of “who”, it’s simply “where”.

    WHERE are your sense impressions?
    (directly from the environment, as they occur, or filtered individually through memory)

    In the latter case [e], the subject introjects the current experience from the environment, in effect “merging” with it. (You sometimes even see the function directly described in this term).
    In the former case [i], he projects his own individually learned sense of experience onto the environment (often, if it doesn’t line up, feels stress)

    WHERE do meanings (inferred from sense impressions) TAKE PLACE?
    (other patterns that are in the environment, though stored in memory; or individual impressions which are outside the pattern, from stuff likely repressed from memory)

    In the latter case [e], the subject introjects the pattern, taking it into himself. In the former case [i], he projects into the situation subjective impressions, not necessarily bound to the contexts. (So it tends to come off to me as “pulling stuff from out of thin air”).

    Edit: I had above expressed the attitudes as “who is doing the thinking/feeling”, but that wouldn’t have made mense for S/N. Now, it’s occurred to me that instead of “who is doing…”, it could be expressed as “What is creating…” (rather than “where…”), to keep it more in continuity with T/F:

    S: WHAT is creating the sensation?
    e: the object in the environment, directly
    i: the subject’s individual storehouse of memory
    N: WHAT is creating the intuition? (i.e. pattern connection)
    e: the object in the environment (implies connection to something else)
    i: the subject’s individual unconscious impressions (which interpret the meaning of the object by some other means than the object itself)

    An example of the extravert “subject” merging with the object in decision making:

    When TJ’s (even when Te is auxiliary) enforce “group think“; even when they say stuff like “I don’t like it either; it’s hard on all of us, [etc.]…but that’s just the way it is”, their ego’s perspective (dominant or supportive) is still being gratified. It’s still the way they think things should be (especially with an STJ), compared to, [heaven help], an introverted Thinking perspective, where the subject subtracts [what he feels is irrelevant] from the object rather than just adopting it.

    Se vs Ne and “exploration”

    Se and Ne both explore. Se explores what can be exploited in the tangible environment, and Ne explores the environment for larger contexts things might fit in. (e.g my wanting to know what ‘might’ be behind a closed door, or the intriguement of Super Mario: “what’s it that pipe/block?”, or how a place I haven’t been to looks, especially in relation to other places, or how the scene of one old Five Points photo connects to another, and with the present, desiring to discover all the intermediate points in space and time, to be able to put together a “whole” picture of a place. This is what makes it an N product; an “idea” basically, even though it is using tangible S products).*

    I know with me, Ne’s seeking of new experience has the goal of the “story” of the accomplishment. Se would be the physical accomplishment directly, itself.
    For this reason, I often find physical activities I’ve longed to try to not be all they were cracked up to be. (Like riding the quadricycles being the most recent example I can think of right now). I feel the sense of “OK, conquered that now”, but the actual physical work put a damper on it.

    This is basically the mode of “seeking” the new information. There’s also the mode of using the information we already know, like Ne’s “brainstorming” as it looks at the patterns in the environment (often stored in memory) to compare with the one at hand. Like fitting together the different type systems based on parallel factors. Or, swapping parallel elements of various scenarios, whether experiential, visual, verbal, etc. Or, on a transit board, where there’s a thread for people to post various scenarios in the system, and people answer with how they would reroute service. [“Let’s look at all these objects that can fit the hypothetical pattern” {find the one that fits best}]
    Or just “extending” a situation with pure “imagination” (usually taking, often loosely, at least, from a pattern of something that happened before).

    Also, opposing a monotonous set of occurrences, rules, etc. with other ways I could see things being. Thinking this over, I realize I have to know of the alternatives for this to work.
    I remember growing up on a wide variety of music played at home: soul, jazz, rock, pop. A lot of different instruments, rhythms, harmonies, etc. But then in both the grade school auditorium and in church, it was just old vocal[melody]-oriented plain songs (in church, the hymns of course); beat out on an old piano. I envisioned how things could be different because of the exposure to it at home. But if I had only known the plain old style, I would have probably thought nothing of it (and it would then eventually actually enter the field of Si nostalgia). Se and Ni types would be the ones to imagine other “possibilities”; the SP perhaps “improvising” on the piano when he got a chance, and the NJ coming up with ideas from within.

    With Ne, all options are on the table. (With Ni, again, it’s about stuff not on the table, but rather buried deep within consciousness).
    I had named NJ and NP, as so-called “mirror temperaments”, Visionary and Dreamer. These may seem interchangeable: Ne will “envision” things using its external objects, while Ni can “dream” using its internal impressions. But when we think of “dreaming”, it’s usually images of external things reimagined or rearranged in some way, and bringing up impressions from within, is what we associate with what we have come to call “visions”.

    *Since every image of tangible reality is a kind of “idea” (or “story”), then every S type is using general N, just as every N has to use general S just to see things in the first place.
    They simply aren’t at that point in an ego state that differentiates the opposite perspective as what we call a “used” function.
    Also, introverted functions are using “ideas” (or even “conceptualizations”) which they filter (i.e. “abstract” as a verb) their respective data through, and also described as “inferring” things from within. (The introverted iNtuition then becomes “the idea of the idea”, or “inference of the inference” or what’s called the “meta-perspective”).
    Likewise, extraverted functions being associated with “sensation”. What Jung called “concretism” refers to general S in an underdifferentiated function.

    All of this can lead to confusion (ambiguity) regarding his use of the terms “concrete” and “abstract” (Which of course the type community has used specifically for S/N).

  14. More stuff I’ve integrated into the other page:

    People often look for types through the functions by asking “which ones do we use more?” or “most of the time”.
    But rather it should be “what (if any) ego state do you find yourself in when using them?”, or better yet, what is being used in a given ego state. The preferred ones will be connected with the states of seeing the world through your main “world view”, and supporting/balancing this through the opposite rationality of function in the opposite attitude. These will naturally tend to be “used more”, but that’s not really what you’re looking for. It can be misleading.
    For one thing, since we really do all of them all the time, the whole idea of “used more/most” actually loses all meaning! Hence, why it’s often hard to determine which is really “used more”, and people still end up going through several different types this way, having to try to remember every instance of using them, like “I think I use this one more; no, I see I really use this one more; no, I just realized it was this one…”, etc.
    Also, even the most “conscious” functions can ironically become “unconscious” in a way, as they become “second nature”, so you may not even be aware you’re “using” it (and this is especially true for introverted functions).
    So it may be easier to recognize emotional states, however.

    So the question to ask is:
    When doing a particular activity associated with a function, which ego state are you in?
    If, when “seeing” something just for what it is, you’re not in a particular state associated with ego development, then it doesn’t “count” as a function “use”. Or, we could say it’s a very “general” rather than “special” use.
    If it’s a state of heroically solving a problem or otherwise advancing a specific ego-agenda, then you could take that as an evidence of Se being dominant. So the same goes for the other seven archetypal positions.
    (Now it becomes a matter of sorting out which ego state you’re in)

    As an example of this, the “Ego Surrender” paper linked earlier, in the section on Ego States (p.17ff), discusses how a child develops, and thenlearns to build categories, such as dogs and cats, and then put together more complex categories such as “animals”. This is basically introverted Thinking; determining impersonal truth [T] (categories things fall into, as often described by type theorists, which takes no consideration of how anyone feels about them) that is learned individually [i], (though it can also come from being taught by someone in the environment [e]). Then, even more specific categories are created, such as “good doggies” and “bad doggies”. Now we have good/bad judgment in the mix. This is Feeling (a more “personal” assessment), which is also being learned individually [i], though in this case, can also be referencing environmental [e] considerations, such as the dogs disturbing the peace. Since it is still “categories”, which are essentially “impersonal” or “technical”, then it is still simultaneously Thinking!
    (From there, many other categories are created, and organized by selected similar behaviors and experiences with a defining common element into the groupings called “ego states”, such as “mad at mommy” or “eager to please” given as examples).

    So we see several different (and even “opposing”) functions being “used”, but they are all really “mixed together”, and tied in with sensations, including emotional response (which jung referred to as “concretistic”). No “dominant” preference has even developed yet! When it does, it will be pulled outof this mix and set apart (“abstracted”) by the ego, which will assign special value (also carrying emotional weight and energy) to it.
    This is why it is not totally accurate, and difficult to sort type by looking for function “use” by itself. They’re all “in there”, mixed together, and it is the ego and its various states that sets them apart.

  15. So, to run through all the functions:

    Receiving information through the senses [S] (from the environment [e]), simply as a sentient being
    versus
    Paying special attention to details of the information received through the senses, because:

    It’s ego’s favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
    It’s what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred judgment
    It’s what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
    It’s what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
    Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
    Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
    Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
    Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)

    Recalling a tangible fact from individual recollection (which all sentient beings are supplied with)
    versus
    Paying special attention to the details of learned/memorized fact because:

    It’s ego’s favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
    It’s what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred judgment
    It’s what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
    It’s what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
    Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
    Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
    Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
    Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)

    Comparing one pattern to another in the environment to infer interconnections
    versus
    Paying special attention to finding meanings through connections because:

    It’s ego’s favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
    It’s what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred judgment
    It’s what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
    It’s what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
    Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
    Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
    Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
    Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)

    Inferring from an individual impression of something (for example, “hunches”)
    versus
    Paying special attention to hunches and other “just know”ings because:

    It’s ego’s favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
    It’s what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred judgment
    It’s what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
    It’s what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
    Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
    Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
    Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
    Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)

    Judging true or false by an environmental necessity or demand (such as “efficiency”, and ordering things accordingly)
    versus
    Paying special attention to the need to [impersonally] order efficiently because:

    It’s ego’s favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
    It’s what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred perception
    It’s what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
    It’s what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
    Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
    Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
    Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
    Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)

    Judging true or false by one’s own individual experience (including what’s learned from nature)
    versus
    Paying special attention to universal impersonal principles because:

    It’s ego’s favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
    It’s what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred perception
    It’s what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
    It’s what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
    Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
    Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
    Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
    Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)

    Judging good or bad by an environmental necessity or demand (like group harmony, introjecting someone’s pain, etc)
    versus
    Paying special attention to interpersonal likes and needs because:

    It’s ego’s favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
    It’s what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred perception
    It’s what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
    It’s what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
    Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
    Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
    Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
    Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)

    Judging good or bad by one’s own individual experience (like putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes)
    versus
    Paying special attention to universal personal likes and needs because:

    It’s ego’s favorite way to approach life (“heroic” state)
    It’s what ego uses in its state of supporting its preferred perception
    It’s what the ego uses in its state of finding relief
    It’s what the ego feels a state of being particularly “inferior” in
    Ego feels obstructed or needs to broaden its dominant standpoint
    Ego feels negated (often from one-sidedness of the dominant standpoint)
    Ego feels double bound (and needs to turn the tables on the offender)
    Ego feels threatened with destruction (usually exaggerated)

  16. Another rundown of function definitions:

    Everyone needs to experience sensory data from the environment
    Everyone needs to reference sensory data individually recalled
    Everyone needs a sense of meaning behind things, inferred from the environment
    Everyone needs a sense of meaning behind things, inferred from individual impressions
    Everyone needs to determine true/false based on environmentally set criteria
    Everyone needs to determine true/false based on individually learned criteria
    Everyone needs to determine good/bad based on environmentally set criteria
    Everyone needs to determine good/bad based on individually learned criteria

    Also, Se takes tangible data from the environment directly, Ni takes conceptual data from the individual unconscious directly (hence, “Realizing”)
    Si compares tangible data from the environment with ones individually stored, while Ne compares patterns in the environment with ones individually stored (hence both “comparing” or “Inquiring”)

  17. In the latest website update, adding for S/N, what’s probably more precise than “is/isn’t” and “could/couldn’t” is S= “the substance of things” N=”the idea of things”. Particularly on the N side. “is/isn’t” fit well for S, but it was couldn/couldn’t, which by itself was a bit too vague. Had looked into “imagination”, but that could be misleading.
    So switching to “idea” for N, now S became harder to figure the best term for.

    At first, I thought of “reality vs idea of things”, but that seems lopsided in favor of S. “Actuality” or “practicality of things” didn’t seem right either. Looking up the opposite of “idea”, one of the words was “substance”, and that fit well. So I also say the “substance of reality”.

    I’ve been realizing the often disparity between the practicality of things and the idea of things, and how I tend to see life in terms of “storylines” that I want to see lived out (or try to oppose if negative). When I get to live some of them out, they often are not what they seemed, so it was like I “liked the ‘idea’ of it”.

    Se substance of things in the environment
    Si substance of things as referenced from individual knowledge
    Ne ideas of things inferred from the environment
    Ni ideas of things inferred from individual impressions

  18. Here I’ve added alternate terms for S/N (T/F already had alternates) and separate the pairs of terms accoring to a pattern I noticed of them being either “static” or “active”.

    static active
    S substance practice
    N idea story
    T true/false correct/incorrect
    F good/bad like/dislike

    I think these should be the root definitions of the functions.

  19. Now, still ending up searching for better terms for S/N; now I’m looking at “material” vs “imaginal” (and was looking at “what is” vs “how it’s related” or “interrelation”). The “ideas” of “substance vs ideas”, while reasonably fitting things like “stories” (like we may read a good or bad “Story” into events, which I use as an example of the N vs S perspectives), still does not clearly enough cover that aspect of N. But they are all kinds of “images”, and while I considered “reality vs imagination”, that as I may have mentioned, seems too lopsided in favor of S as a valid perspective. But “imaginal” is a closely related word. The form is not as common as I liked, as “material”/”is”, or “good/bad”, “true/false”, for the other functions, but it is at least based on a common word.
    As what we call the “universe” is basically the visible/tangible realm of space, it seems S/N is best conveyed by material things that are there (was I also tried to call “items”), versus how things relate to each other (which Jung termed as “where it’s heading”, which Bruzon termed a “motion” component). These “interrelations” are what make up “patterns”, “stories”, inferences, etc. that form the mental “images” that contrast to the material items of S. So for now, “imaginal” might have to do.

    Ben Kovitz, who ran the old “Lenore Thomson wiki” (and is very influenced by her as I am) was discussing the functions on a list, and made this great explanation of Ni and its difference from Ne:

    “Intuition is guessing—or rather, orienting by what seems to you to be a good guess even though the facts aren’t in. Why does it seem like such a good guess? Well, with Extraverted Intuition, you can point out the things [i.e. in the environment=”e”] that suggest your guess so that other people start to see the possibility, too; with Introverted Intuition, you can’t. With Extraverted Intuition, the guess keeps changing as new information is revealed [again, from the environment]: as parts of the big picture get filled in, your guess about the whole absorbs them and revises in unpredictable ways. You need a constant influx of new information to keep triggering you to revise your guesses. With Introverted Intuition, the guess might start ‘reply hazy, try later’ and gradually clarify, but it’s somewhat impervious to new information. You search within [individually="i"], ideas come, and you trust them. If information comes in that contradicts the guess, you just tune it out or call it an illusion.
    So the Introverted Intuitive attitude aims at getting ahead of all consciously accessible information—including, especially, direct experience.”

    This seems to be the best explanation I’ve seen, especially regarding what really makes it “internal” or introverted. (It’s often simply called “the unconscious”, which he had also just used, but as I pointed out, “unconscious” has several uses, and so Jung and others’ definitions with that term never “clicked” for me. I then figured it involved some sort of “impressions” that come up, like “hunches”, and I didn’t know whether these were just things that were “there” involuntarily, or not, but saying it’s a “guess” that you deliberately look within to see what ideas come up, really clarifies it for me). It’s the “trust” in these ideas that makes it an introverted attitude. With me, I keep looking on the outside (and this is actually stuff “stored in memory” as Lenore puts it, and this helps me, as “memory” is technically “inside”, so it begged the question of the real difference with Ni’s “internal” source and Ne’s “memory”. Ne is memory of externally based patterns (such as “contexts”) you can guess from, while Ni is just stuff from the unconscious that you basically seek to fill in the information. (Hence, “freeing sense impressions from their larger [external] contexts” as Lenore puts it).
    Me; I’ll get these internal images or sense of things, but I don’t trust them. They’re just “there”, and I almost always assume it’s “illusion” or irrelevent. (To the point that I did not even know these were what Ni was based off of, and what could also be used to fill in a situation).

    He also made this good explantion of T/F that has inspired me to try to firther clarify the functions.

    From a Feeling perspective, you can view a rock in terms of whether you like it or dislike it: how does it relate to your “soul” [or “vital force”] (or another person’s “soul”). The emotion the rock triggers in you tells you something about your “soul”, what it’s needing or urging right now. If you feel no emotion about it, that’s telling you that the rock just doesn’t relate to your “soul”. From a Thinking perspective, you can view the same rock in terms of relationships to other things [i.e. “objects”]: how its size compares to the sizes of other rocks, how its weight makes it cause a depression in the ground where it sits—to see the rock in the causal framework in which it exists.

    The same thing applies to emotions, sensations, and anything else. From a Feeling perspective, if you feel disgusted by some Amatriciana sauce with garlic, that tells you something about yourself: that maybe you don’t like garlic, or maybe you don’t like being told to follow someone else’s recipe, or maybe you don’t like people from wherever they traditionally use garlic in Amatriciana sauce; —or rather, that you like onion in that sauce, that you need independence and freedom, and that you like people from (wherever). From a Thinking perspective, if you get an unpleasant feeling from some sauce, that’s telling you something about the sauce. Your emotion, or sensation, is informing you that the ingredients of the sauce clash, and providing you a clue about what kinds of ingredients would combine to make a harmonious whole.

    This was great way of summing it up. It goes beyond the way I had been trying to reduce it (to the actual judgments themselves; of “true/false” vs “good/bad”) and shows why those judgments are distinguished as such.
    Notice, it’s not the function that tells you about your soul, it’s the emotion it produces, which is what the function (“Feeling perspective”) views the soul in terms of. For a Thinking perspective, the emotion tells you something about the object.

    So T/F is telling you how you interpret your emotions. This is what Lenore had once explained to me, when describing “undifferentiated functions”, which are “mixed up with the emotions”, that when differentiated, they become the “intepreters” of those [limbic] emotions. This way of breaking it down really clarified this more.
    Kovitz’s example of the Thinking types’ handling of the “soul” is what I meant by “treating them as [impersonal] objects”. You could easily switch “souls” for “footballs” (changing some of the properties being pondered) or something.
    Thus, any “judgments” made will be in terms of “true/false” (rather than “good/bad”), which is what I’ve been focusing on in defining T/F.

    I imagine this would be extended to S/N as follows:

    If with T, your emotions are telling you about something impersonal (you don’t like the soup because it’s having a negative affect), and with F, the emotions are telling you about your own soul (you just don’t like it because of personal taste), then I imagine (perhaps following Lenore and using “sense impressions” in place of “emotions”, which are basically also sense impressions):

    S: sense impressions tell you what can be realized with what’s “at hand”
    N: sense impressions indicate patterns that can be abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another.

  20. Going from “imaginal” to “ideational”. While both are not the most common forms, “ideational” does sound a little better for some reason, and while I said “image” was better for “stories” than “ideas” was, when you turn it into an adjective, it pertains to “the capacity for or the act of forming or entertaining ideas”, and what I’m calling “stories” would fit this.

    In putting together what differentiates the functions from each other (and why I now find it is good to free up the term “image”):

    How we divide reality into the functions:

    All self-conscious beings perceive data through imagery.

    When the images are based directly on physical material (superstrings vibrating an a way that produces fields that we cannot pass through, and thus stimulates our nerve sensors, and reflect photons which also stimulate sensors), then we are experiencing sensation (S), and we call these fields “material”, and can say that it is epirically “what IS”. The material reality forces everyone to agree with what image is seen (even if they try not to see it, or interpret it as something else).
    Our experience of this can be immediate, in the environment (e), or previously learned and retained, individually (i).

    If the imagery is not backed up by the material experience, then it is merely inferred (may or may not exist, but we haven’t verified it yet), or is imagined (put together in our minds, such as “stories”, “big pictures”, “meanings”, etc.) and is thus “ideational”, or described as “what COULD be”, and the function is iNtuition (N). These are more fluid and subject to individual interpretation. That’s why topics such as religion and politics can become so heated.
    These ideations can be from the environment (e), where they’re based on other objects of patterns, or they can be from individual (i) reflection, which usually brings up insights that come from less conscious knowledge.

    All self-conscious beings assess things as right or wrong. What’s right is what we strive for, and what’s wrong is what we seek to make “right”.

    If the sense of right or wrong is from reactions that are based on the effect of objects based on their own properties, we speak of things being “true” (versus “false”) or “correct” or not, and the function is called Thinking (T).
    This assessment can be based on the environment (e), where the objects themslves, or a group or culture’s demands or consensus on the best use of them, determines what is correct; or it can be based on individual (i) knowledge or logical preference.

    If the sense of right or wrong is from reactions that are based on the effect of objects on our own souls, we speak of things being “good” (versus “bad”) or “liked” or not, and the function is called Feeling (F).
    This assessment can be based on the environment (e), where a group or culture’s demands or consensus (of values) determines what is “liked” or good (which the assessing ego takes as its own and acts accordingly); or it can be based on individual (i) knowledge or ethical preference (which can be used to guage the needs of others).

    (To complete the introduction):
    Each ego prefers one function, and either the environmental (“extraverted”) or individual (“introverted”) focus. Since we have to both take in information (“perceive”), and determine right/wrong (“judge”), then each ego will have an “auxiliary” preference for the other mode of processing from its dominant. This will also take on the unpreferred orientation.

    From here, we are able to identify 16 “types”. The ego or various ego states (which will mirror the ego’s consciousness) will then reference the other functions (which will mirror the first two) as needed.

    • From this, a new intro:
      [Moved: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/what-is-this-thing-called-type-anyway-new-introduction-to-the-theory%5D

      Type is based on the way we cognitively divide reality. Just like we divide spacetime between back and forth, up and down, left and right, and past and future.
      So likewise, we also divide reality into what is “I” (the “subject”; individual) or “not I” (called “objects”, and in the “environment”). This forms the basis of what we can call “orientation” (also commonly called “attitude”).

      We also divide our cognition into taking in information that comes to us (which is basically involuntary), and then making rational (voluntary) decisions with it. These modes of processing are also split.

      So we divide the information we take in (perceive), into what is clearly observable by our physical senses (“tangible”, “visible” or “practical”), and what is not based on the senses, but rather inferred from other data in some way. (And thus, intangible, invisible, hypothetical).

      We also make a distinction between subject and object* in our decisions, which stems from a sense of right and wrong (and usually leading to courses of action to make what’s deemed “wrong” to “right”), as determined by our reactions. Emotions (leading to our reactions; whereby we are making rational decisions) can tell us that the affect on us is from something about the object (which is “impersonal”), or it can tell us that it is about our “soul” (the “subject”, and hence, “personal”). This will generally split the neutral “right/wrong” into the more impersonal “true/false” or the more personal “good/bad”.

      These are the bases of the three main variables in type; two preferred functions (one perception, and one judgment), and orientation. Orientation then becomes split into a third and fourth variable, based on which orientation is dominant, and then, which function is oriented environmentally or individually. The dominant function will take on the dominant orientation, so this also tells us which function is dominant.
      The other preferred function will be “auxiliary” (needed simply because we also must have a preference in other mode of process; both perception and judgment).

      *(Right here we see where two of the variables can be associated with the common terms “subjective” and “objective”, which may cause some confusion when these terms are encountered. One is dealing with an individual or environmental orientation, where only the individual is conscious of his own “soul”, and thus everything in the environment {including other people} become “objects”. The other is dividing all of reality directly between impersonal “objects” and personal “souls” {individual or environmental}, and making rational assessments based on which of these two categories we are reacting based on).

  21. A table to regroup all the terms associated with the functions:

    function common term passive products active products ETB terms what it does
    S “concrete” material (what “is”) practice tangible itemizes at hand sense impressions
    N “abstract” hypothetical (“could be”) story ideational relates mental constructs from one situation to another
    T “logical” true/false in-/correct technical assesses based on what our reactions tell us about an object
    F “ethics”, “values” good/bad dis-/liked humane assesses based on what our reactions tell us about our souls

    The function attitudes:

    Se: material environment as it arises.
    Exploiting what is at hand
    Si: material world filtered through individual recollection.
    Using stored “fact” to guage current experience
    Ne: ideational data interconnected environmentally.
    Comparing patterns to each other.
    Ni: ideational data connected by individual impressions from the unconscious.
    Interpreting patterns by internal images that come up.
    Te: true or false is determined by environmental properties of objects.
    Determines correct/incorrect from consensus or general efficiency
    Ti: true or false is determined by individual understanding of the properties of objects.
    Determines correct/incorrect from knowledge not necessarily shared or determined by others
    Fe: good or bad is determined by an environment of affected souls.
    Taking on others’ values (likes/dislikes) as one’s own
    Fi: good or bad is determined by individual sense of the affect of something on the soul.
    Infers others’ needs (likes/dislikes) from one’s own.

  22. Someone on a list asked about the difference between Introversion and iNtuition, which can be confused in type definitions.

    This parallels the ambiguity of subjective/objective, concrete/abstract and especially conscious/unconscious in Jung’s terminology. It seemed what is deemed “conscious” is whatever is sensory (tangible) and externally oriented (environmental). Internal (individual) is not really conscious, because you’re not perceiving it from the real world; it’s basically an image you’re bringing up yourself.

    “Concrete” means “all mixed together”, and refers to the undivided reality that comes to us, “as is”. When we then begin separating out what’s most important to the ego (individual) to pay attention to, we are “abstracting”, which means making distinctions among these concrete things in order to focus on what they share in common, which can thereafter be treated as an “idea”. Physical items are tangible objects; “what they share in common” is an intangible concept or “idea” that has meaning only to a “subject”.

    Of course, Intuition of either attitude does this. Deals in intangible “ideas” or “contexts” things share in common, rather than the physical “items” themselves. But then so does the individualized (introverted) version of all functions. And extraverted functions deal with reality as it “is”, “all mixed together”.

    Se deals in tangible items as they are in the environment, where we can immediately exploit them.
    Si deals in tangible items that we have stored in a mental canister, to individually reference in order to learn how to exploit in the future. Even though the products of Si are nominally “physical items”, since it’s something we are drawing upon individually, they technically are not. They’re basically “ideas” now, just as much as N’s ideas. We’re not actually “seeing” them in front of us. We can only “guess” that they are still the same as when we actually did see them. So it’s not something really “conscious”. No one else will necessarily see what we’re seeing.

    Te deals in a logical consensus (from the environment). Where Se may observe that “it is what it is” and realize what CAN be done, Te often decides “it is what it is”, inasmuch as it affects a necessary course of action: “what SHOULD be done”.
    Ti on the other hand is logic filtered through individually stored “ideas” of the way things work.

    Fe deals with an interpersonal consensus, from a “personal environment. So it’s like Te in deciding “it is what it is”, but it’s about the needs of living souls, rather than the best use of impersonal objects.
    Fi is need of living souls filtered through one’s own individual “ideas” of personal need, which he uses to guage others’ needs.

    So Ne deals in “ideas” as they are, in the environment, in the form of patterns or contexts, and then moves them to shape possibilities for new ideas; often comparing other ideas to find the larger pattern.
    Ni filters these ideas through individual impressions or “ideas” used to guage possibilities. So it’s like “the idea of the idea” or “the abstraction of the abstraction”, and hence, often described in terms of “META-perspective”.

    (Also, you can see
    Se=”consciousness of consciousness”,
    Si=”unconsciousness of consciousness”,
    Ne=”consciousness of unconsciousness”, and
    Ni=”unconsciousness of unconsciousness”, and hence the hardest to understand or explain.
    Notice both Ni and Se end up as “meta” forms; hence, a straight “realizing”, where the uneven Ne and Si end up resorting to “inquiring”).

    So there is a lot of “cross-talk”, so to speak between I/E and S/N (and with “subjective/objective”, between I/E and T/F to some extent). I think Keirsey even said that Myers “confused E with S” or something like that.

    The difference can be seen in all three factors dealing with the primary polarity in our existence, of “I” vs “not I”.

    I/E deals with this directly, looking at WHERE the data we are processing is coming from. Either the environment (“not I”) or our own individual (“I”) filtration of it.
    S/N is WHAT FORM the data is; either tangible items (and situations, etc) as is (“not I”), or our own individual (“I”) grouping of data into intangible concepts. Both I and N are creating “ideas” that are processed by an individual, but one is treating idea as the “location” (orientation), and the other as a type of data.
    T/F is dividing reality essentially into types of existence; WHO OR WHAT is being affected in a situation necessitating a course of action: Either impersonal objects (“not I”), or living souls; each one an individual “subject” (a more collective “I vs not I”; with “I” in this case as part of the larger “us”, who are the only things in the known physical universe that can even speak of “I/us”).

  23. That Fe is not “selfless” is reminded to me today, when my wife is preparing the house for a worship meeting (or any other social event), and everything has to be “PERFECT”. I always keep thinking to myself “This isn’t for the people…”. They didn’t request what she’s doing. Many would probably not care, or maybe even notice particular details she is fixing up. They go to others’ houses who are not so meticulously fixed up, and are apparently not “offended“. It’s purely for herself (and she will often admit this). You might think this is really Fi (from the way the functions have been portrayed, with Fi as “selfish”, or “doing it for self” is Fi), and you could see it that way, as possibly “backing up” or “shadowing“ dominant Fe.
    But the conscious ego perspective is still clearly environmental moreso than individual. The individual (subject) simply “merges” with the environment (object), taking its values or harmony as its own. And while not being directed by stated needs of individuals, the standard of the rational judgment is a sort of “traditional” model of “niceness” informed by an introverted Sensing well of practical knowledge and memory. (that of course, is the “individual” component here). It’s what people generally liked “historically”, and thus became a part of “culture”, which is the other aspect of the “environmental” extraverted standard.

    With an introverted Feeling perspective, (and where Perception is what draws on the environment), like with an ESFP (pure Sanguine), there will be a general sense of what looks “nice” that probably won’t focus on meticulous details of order. Feeling provides the general “atmosphere” of “fun” or harmony that the host can generalize to others from their own individual sense of “good”. This sounds similar to the Fe example above, but won’t be as much about a cultural standard, but instead, more from “nature” (like a general sense of “people need to recreate”). This will likely be focused on more than something like “neatness“ (Here showing us the typical J/P difference).
    Like if the goal is to party, then creating the atmosphere and whatever facilities/devices necessary for that will be more important than the details of neatness. (For SFP “artistry”, or their own personal appearance in social events, physical detail may be focused on more, but this is more apart of “self-expression” than the perspective of others, and likewise if the party host chooses to focus on some details of the house that might include things being “neat”. Then, culture will come into play, as what they draw from through Se as determining what’s currently in style, and the conformity there is more “being in the moment” than a rational judgment).

  24. Was writing a post on a list for someone weighing between T and F, and the term “mechanics” suddenly came to me, as what I’ve been looking for for T, (as what technical is “of or pertains to”, since “technics” is not really a word. It thus replaces “properties [of]”, as used in the comment above).
    So this could go with “soulish” for F. (I looked up what’s “of or pertains to the ‘soul'”, and I saw people suggest “soulean” and “soular” (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-82301.html). It would probably revert to the Greek “psych[ic]”, but that brings to mind other things, both in Jungian lingo and common speech. There’s also “pneuma[tic]” which is really “spirit”, but also used for the often blurred-with-it concept of “soul”; and its Latin counterpart “anima”, but these too bring to mind other things, in both fields.
    So my full term might be “soul affect”. May continue to look for a good single word for that. Really, “affect” by itself as a noun is really just that, but it might still not be clear enough without specifying “soul”).
    [Edit: perhaps the term “anthropinistic” (“A descriptive term for the consideration of things from a purely human viewpoint or only in their relationships to mankind and the needs of humans and their destinies.”)
    Not a common word, and bit long and clunky, but is the best analogue to “mechanistic” I can find so far. Though it still does not specify the human soul. “relationship to mankind” can still represent the “mechanics” of nature. (Here is a discussion of someone else looking for a term like this http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/111778/word-meaning-relating-to-or-involving-humans-or-people/277865#277865, and I suggest this one, after the root “andro-” comes up in a search, and I find the term here: http://wordinfo.info/unit/150/ip:10 ].

    So this will go along with “substance” and “idea” for S/N (while I’ve paired “material” and “hypothesis” together, to represent “is” and “could”, to go with T/F’s “true/false” and “good/bad”).

    So now you can speak of “the substance of it”, “the idea of it”, “the mechanics of it”, and “the soul affect [anthropinism?] of it”.

  25. Personality Hacker put up a new page for the INTP type (they’ve been doing a series of good podcasts on the type).

    http://www.personalityhacker.com/resources-intp/
    On this article: http://www.personalityhacker.com/intp-personality-type (The INTP “Architect” Personality Type) they point out “If you’re mistaken and an Accuracy [their term for introverted Thinking] person corrects you, it’s not personal. They honestly would want that information themselves and so they expect you want it, too.

    This helps complete for me the analogue to what I was once given for Fi: “If that were me, I would feel this way [i.e. that the experience is “good” or “bad”]”. So to rephrase it for Ti, “if that were me, I would want this ‘truth’ too”.

    Now, “immature” Fi (particularly the tertiary or inferior version, for TJ’s) might say “if that were me, I would feel this way, and so should he“. This sounds similar to the Ti description, and that’s because Fi in that case is really backing up the preferred Te, which is what tends to “rearrange other’s thinking” as Berens’ descriptions puts it. The projected soul-affect leads to an objective [environmentally “set”] “mechanistic” view of the situation, and thus a proscribed course of action, which is then offered the suffering person as “help”.

    Ti is mechanics-focused from the beginning, and so inclined to get “pushed” on the other person in terms of “correction” like that. (Where the corresponding more “mature” Fi projection of FP’s and really mature TJ’s gets “pushed” on the person in the form of offering help themselves [hence, the “Supine Service” in the case of the FP’s], which may or may not be what the person actually wanted).

    So immature Ti would be “if that were me, I would want this ‘truth’ too, but he didn’t ask for it, so I won’t force it on him”; often coming out in the form of not wanting to argue or debate. This is of course, backing up Fe. However, if the other person is already arguing logic, and it affects the person’s [emotionally backed] strong beliefs, then the lower Ti will come out trying to rip the other person’s logic down. (All the while protesting that they do not want to argue. Go through this all the time with the ESFJ. Negative immature Te of FP’s will also be similar, but rely more on external logical “authority”).

    Extraverted judgments “merge the subject with the object”, and in effect say “he [says/shows that he] feels that way, and thus, so do I”, or “the situation dictates this course of action, and thus, so think I”. Immature Fe is “He feels this way, and I’m being pulled to feel the same way, but I must resist if it is not logical”. Immature Te, again, would be “the situation dictates this course of action, but I must resist if it is too ‘inhuman’ [impersonal]”.

  26. An INFJ on a board give some examples of Ni:

    I have a lot of life experiences that I am in the process of healing from, and one of my most effective therapies occurs for me when I’m in a hot tub of water. Striking imagery comes to me and my body responds in an involuntary manner. I’ve had a long history of chronic muscle tension and pain, and I get these vivid images that thin, blue, iridescent strands are leaving my muscles. Sometimes they depart quickly in a swarm and my muscles jerk heavily in response as they are letting go. It is a disturbing experience and I haven’t gotten a good explanation medically, but I think it is a good thing that something is being released. I’ve also had striking imagery of an iridescent goo that is mostly pearly white with shimmers of all rainbow colors slowly melting through me, permeating every cell of my body, and that can also trigger the muscle releases. When I get overwhelmed, I end up in a small, white concrete or marble pond on a distant planet that has no other inhabitants except for me and one robot. The sky is an intense blue, the marble a bright white, and I am near a structure with strong geometric lines, but it is likely the only structure on the planet. I can feel the isolation, almost the fear of it, but also the safety of it.

    I also become an embryo with no memories, good or bad, but just the peaceful darkness of unknowing. There are also glimmers of anticipation at being able to experience the sun, the sound of water, the sensation of running, etc. all again for the first time. I see everything in my life drifting away into a tunnel of darkness and I just let go indiscriminately. It is scary to let go of what could be good also, but now it feels necessary to let go of it all with no judgement on any of it, and then I see it slide away into the blackness of infinity.

    Se takes in all the sensations of the moment. Si takes in every experience, however it was presented in life, Ne takes in the unseen connections of the moment, and Ni internalizes the unseen connections in a more personal manner. I tend to feel as though [B]Ni is a data dump[/B] that I wish to god I could reject at times. I wish I could reject parts of it, but life feels like an ongoing tidal wave of intangible, unverifiable information. I don’t think Pi (introverted perception) has the advantage that Ji (introverted Judging) experiences in its ability to filter before data is internalized. It can only filter afterwards, but for myself (and I can only speak for myself) it feels like life constantly throws millions of puzzle pieces at me, so many that I am surrounded by mountains of these. I obsessively try to piece them together. Each time I find one that doesn’t fit, I don’t dare throw it away because it might fit later on. In the same way Si doesn’t get to choose its life experiences, it doesn’t choose the sensations that build its sense of normalcy and nostalgia, neither does Ni. Ni doesn’t let you choose anything – it isn’t a judging function. One must rely on their other judging function to deal with it. When Ni is the dominant function, then you deal with this ongoing tidal wave and you only wish something would filter it first, but no such luck.

    So the point here is about these “images” that come up. (We assume, that in every thought processes, all functions are involved, including “undifferentiated” ones. In other words, there are judgments involved, determining whether the image or any inferences from it are “true or false [i.e. “an illusion”]” or “good or bad”, and I don’t mean necessarily always an INFJ’s “aux. Fe”, “tert. Ti” or even “shadow Fi or Te”; all of which are sorts of partial “differentiations” of the eight function-attitudes.

    The way I understand it now, backed up by these examples, is that these images are coming up all the time. I basically tune them out, unless they happen to fit some external pattern I may be thinking of. So I never even thought of them as the products of one of these “functions”, and hence why it took so long for me to really understand what Ni is.

    For her, they’ll come up like that, and naturally, they’ll also come up when deliberately called to inform some data (like an existing pattern you’re presented with), and hence, [actively] “search[ing] within”.

    This is what really needs clarification, for this is the point where it’s so easy to get thrown off (as to which function is which). I’ll “look within” to memory, for a fitting pattern, but that’s really Si internalizing an Ne external pattern. It's not the same as what she's describing that already comes up, directly from within (seeming out of nowhere, not pulled from somewhere else), and not conscious memory.

    This further verifies Berens/Montoya’s new terms “Realizing” and “Inquiring”. Both Si and Ne end up relying more on memory, and thus also end up “inquiring” (asking questions) in order to either match to what’s known, or look for other possibilities. Se on the other hand, simply takes whatever’s there in the material world. Ni takes whatever comes up from the unconscious. Neither try to compare it with anything else (so again, it will be the judgment function that does that). So they both directly “realize” things.

    Se=environmental material awareness (direct sensations)
    Si=individually referenced material awareness (though memorized sensations)
    Ne=environmentally referenced hypothetical awareness (external hypotheses, often memorized)
    Ni=individually conjured hypothetical awareness (images that come up from the unconscious).

    If they hadn’t come up with those terms, I may have just named Ne/Si in terms of “memory”, and Se/Ni in terms of “meta” (which often gets associated with Ni alone, but Se fits the term in its more tangible way. Again, I had tried “circumspective”, meaning “looks around”, instead of “memory”. I was on to the right idea, but had trouble naming the other tandems).

    I’m also thinking of another Ni/Ne blurring of the lines, when I’ll often get negative intuitions, and then begin analyzing them, and seeing how they fit other external patterns. I believe the initial intuition is sometimes (at least) genuinely introverted (and often fitting the “Senex” role, usually involving some issue where I feel my ego is being negated, which is what that complex is about), but then when I begin sorting out what’s what and how the patterns fit ones I’m familiar with (often writing it down in my own ponderings), I’m turning “without”, and making it extraverted, (going from the more “critical” ego state to my natural “supporting” (aux.) one, and with ego’s dom. Ti determining “true/false”, of course).
    This is another thing that can throw someone off.

    And I should also mention having to rethink my claim that the “images” some Christians I believe are SJ’s get, are Si, because of the “concreteness” of their imagery. They’re still intangible impressions coming up form the inside (unconscious). Granting them that these are special “gifts” from God, I asumed it was a new class of [internal] “sensation”, and perhaps that could be true. But for the most part, under these definitions, they would fall on the “intangible”, or “idea” rather than “substance”; “hypothesis” rather than “material”, or “potential” and not [yet] “actual” side of things.
    The way I would explain this, is again, everybody does all of these functions, and what determined type from them is the ego states they are associated with. Any “vision” from God is a special instance, and even if it’s not really divine, it still could be something the ego is using to back up the preferred Si sense of the way things work (like a prophecy of “judgment” against the nation, for its “immorality”). In that case, from a type specific viewpoint,it could even be the Crow’s Nest, “left brain alternate”, and in some instances, perhaps the archetypal ego-states of the Trickster or Demon.

    I still fear it may skew any type test these partcular people may take. They otherwise do seem like very typical “Guardians” (SJ; very “concrete” or “practical” in their normal focus). A couple of people I believe is INTJ are a bit different from the others in certain ways, and I believe would fit a Melancholy-Choleric rather than a Melancholy in Control like the others.

    • Never discredit your gut instinct. You are not paranoid. Your body can pick up on bad vibrations. If something deep inside of you says something is not right about a person or situation, trust it.

      Here is an example of the “unconscious” products of Ni. Again, everyone has this, but as we see necessitating this meme, not everyone trusts it. Of course, it can be wrong, and this is of course reflecting an Ni perspective, which sees it as most important. (Also, that “vibrations” concept, which I’ve discussed before can be taken too far, as causing events you can’t possibly have control over. I understand it simply as largely unconscious impressions, which are like “vibrations” because they are so subtle and difficult to really pinpoint).

      “Gut instinct” is also often associated with Fi, but Fi is a judgment of good/bad, that is deeply internal. This meme is discussing what is technically a judgment of “bad”, but the point is the awareness (perception), not the judgment itself.

      So:
      Se: special attention to current sensation; what’s before you in the environment
      Si: special attention to individual memorized/recalled sensory data
      Ne: special attention to inferred meanings based on the environmental object itself
      Ni: special attention to inferred meanings based on the subject’s individual “gut”.

  27. How both attitudes of the functions play out in “external” and “internal” “uses”. This needs to be cleared up, when we say one attitude is “external”, and the other, “internal”. It’s not really “where” they’re “used”, but rather than standard or source of the perspective (environmental or individual). So both standards/sources have both external and internal applications.

    External Internal
    Se Taking in new experience for its own sake Remembering what you enjoy and doing it again
    Si Filtering new experience through a storehouse of what’s familiar Referencing a storehouse of facts to inform regular decisions
    Ne Comparing one pattern to another Brainstorming for ideas for an object or situation
    Ni Interpreting an external pattern with “what’s missing”, that comes up from unconscious internal impressions Meditating to bring up internal images, and creating meanings with them.
    Te Ordering the environment according to impersonal principles Ordering one’s own life according to impersonal principles learned from the environment or culture
    Ti Implementing one’s own individually determined principles “Thinking for its own sake” (Jung); relishing individual impersonal principles for their “elegance”
    Fe Establishing interpersonal harmony Taking in environmental values as one’s own
    Fi Projecting an emotional state onto someone experiencing something, and responding accordingly Focusing on one’s own personal likes and values, and relishing emotional experiences

     
    The difference between the “general” uses of the functions (that “everybody does” all the time), and type-specific “uses” (that define an ego’s preference, or connection with one of the archetypal complexes that make up the “function stack”)

    General Specific
    Se Awareness of current sensation (environmental “actuality”) A type specific ego-state focuses on current sensation when activated
    Si Memory of sensation and factual details (individual “actuality”) A type specific ego-state focuses on memorized sensation and factual details when activated
    Ne Matching external patterns (environmental “potentiality”) A type specific ego-state focuses on matching external patterns when activated
    Ni Recognizing an internal image or “hunch” as a possible interpretation of a pattern (individual “potentiality”) A type specific ego-state focuses on internal images or “hunches” as possible interpretations of patterns when activated
    Te Deciding or ordering based on externally set knowledge of how things work (environmental “truth”) A type specific ego-state focuses on externally set knowledge of how things work when activated
    Ti Deciding or understanding according to an internally held understanding of how things work (individual “truth”) A type specific ego-state focuses on internally held understanding of how things work when activated
    Fe Adopting or establishing group harmony (environmental “good”) A type specific ego-state focuses on adopting or establishing group harmony when activated
    Fi Paying attention to one’s own emotional state and personally identifying with someone else’s situation (individually projected “good/bad”) A type specific ego-state focuses on one’s own emotional state and personally identifying with others’ situations when activated
  28. Expanding the concept of “imagery” I gave above, I think these may be the best simple descriptions of the perception functions yet:

    Se: individual’s images match current environment
    Si: individual’s images ONCE matched the environment, but currently can only be held among individuals sharing the experience
    Ne: individual’s images never matched environment, but are still based on the environment (and thus can possibly be perceived by others)
    Ni: individual’s images have never matched the environment, and can only be directly perceived by the individual.
    (and hence, why it’s so hard to explain).

    To extend it in this way to judgment:

    Te: individual’s assessment of true/false (mechanics of the situation) are determined by the environment.
    Ti: individual’s assessment of true/false (mechanics of the situation) are determined by individual reflection.
    Fe: individual’s assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by the environment.
    Fi: individual’s assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by individual reflection.

    • Someone asked what was really “environmental” about my Ne example. That actually was what was sort of tripping me up, until I just recently solved it with the “images” concept. So already, during the day, I had been thinking about the need to put together examples.

      OK, let’s use my clearest example of Ne; how the systems fit together.
      I compare and then begin finding several connections, and then begin sharing them. Other people can see the connections I’m making. They may not feel like trying to grasp it all, or may not agree with everything, or still have things that don’t make sense to them, but they can clearly see the parallels that I’m pointing out. Because the theories, and their elements (factors, functions, types, temperaments, etc.) are all external “objects”, already existing in the environment. They are not things anyone of us here conjured up from within. So the connections I make (which are abstract, and thus “unconscious” in a way, they have to be made, intangibly) are all there, waiting to be shown to others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: