Skip to content

What is this thing called “type” anyway? (New Introduction to the theory)

October 23, 2015

What is this thing called type? People liken it (and it’s predecessor, classic temperament theory) to “astrology”; where people are grouped, according to behavioral traits, into categories, which in that case are marked by the time of year you are born.

But type is really based on the way we cognitively divide reality.
It’s just like the way 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” (“subject” or the individual) or “not I” (“objects” 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”), leading to a focus on the “mechanics” of things, 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).

A Sensing type is one whose primary outlook is tangible, material or practical “at hand” data and/or experience, which they generally “itemize”, and thus think in terms of what simply “is” or “isn’t”, or the substance of reality (which is what sets the idea, or “could/couldn’t”).

An iNtuitive type is one whose primary outlook is the “filling in” of experience with [mental] “constructs” such as concepts, hypotheses, or theories, which all involve “larger contexts” or meanings behind things and [non-physical] “patterns”. Even physical or visible things, like in comparing one thing to something separate, but has some sort of inferred similarity. Focusing on a property to compare, like its shape; they have turned into an “idea”. This is what “could” or “couldn’t” be (which explains or improves what “is/isnt”, or “substance” of reality).

A Thinking type is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world “impersonally” or “technically”, in terms of objects and how they work, which we can call the “mechanics” of things. (including people), often with a focus on goals such as efficiency. They tend to think in terms of “true” or “false” (which is what will automatically determine “like/dislike”).

A Feeling type is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world in terms of people or humanity, and the elements that makes them “subjects”, which is basically what could be called “anthropic” (or “humane”), and ultimately deals with the “soul”, with its emotions and values; usually with a focus on goals such as individual or group harmony. (They will often mirror the other person’s inner state and adjust their behavior accordingly). They approach life in terms of being human first, and seeing others as humans to interact with, and objects are to be looked at and used from the perspective of how we relate to them. This leads them to “think” in terms of “good” or “bad” (which will assume what is “correct/incorrect”).

An introvert is a person whose ego focuses on its own individual perspective through the dominant function. The perspective is described as approaching the environment and eliminating what is irrelevant according to his own internally held standard.

An extravert is a person whose ego focuses on the environment through the dominant function. Carl Jung described the ego or “subject” as essentially “merging with the object”. The environment itself, or its judgments (consensus of other people, efficent courses of action, etc) the are taken as his own.

A Judging type is one whose preferred judgment (decision making) function is oriented environmentally. They will tend to take on the “judgments” of a group (consensus, harmony, etc), or courses of action determined by the environment (e.g. what’s most efficient, etc) as their own values. Then person then seem to desire more “closure”, since he expects decisions to be “set” according to external factors. (His preferred perception is then what will be oriented individually, according to a storehouse of impressions).

A Perceiving type is one whose preferred perception (information gathering) function is oriented environmentally. The person tends to remain “open” to new, emergent (often variable) information, before making a judgment (which is what will then be individually oriented, according to a strorehouse or rational principles).

So the four letter type code comes together as follows:

1 Dominant orientation: introvert (individual-focused) or extravert (environment focused): I/E

2 Preferred perception function: Sensation (tangible or material focus) or iNtuition (hypothetical focus): S/N

3 Preferred judgment function: Thinking (impersonal, mechanical focus) or Feeling (“soulish” focus): T/F

4 Function orientation and position:
a) function of indicated letter (J/P) is environmentally oriented (deemed important in personal interaction)
b1) If this matches with dominant orientation (#1=”E”), then this is the dominant function.
b2) If not, (#1=”I”) then this function is auxiliary, and the other function is dominant and introverted.

*(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).

Since the dominant orientation shapes the functions (coloring the dominant function, and the auxiliary is then presumed to be opposite), then we can speak of eight different function-attitudes (also sometimes called “processes”), denoted with the function dichotomy letter in capital, with the attitude in lowercase: Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi.

Again, these divisions are already implicit in all the data we run across in life.
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.

What I find are the best definitions of them:

Se: awareness of material reality in the environment
(turn outward for attention to immediate at hand objects, such as physical/practical items, as it occurs)
Si: awareness of material reality filtered by individual knowledge
(turn inward to compare at hand data such as physical/practical items with a storehouse of fact and experience)
Ne: awareness of hypothetical reality inferred from the environment
(turn outward to “fill in” experience of objects with mental/ideational constructs such as connections or patterns)
Ni: awareness of hypothetical reality inferred by individual impressions
(turn inward to subject’s unconscious to “fill in” mental/ideational constructs with connections like “hunches”)
Te: assessment of “correct/incorrect” (mechanical “truth”) by an environmental/cultural standard
(turn outward to objects to determine their proper relationship to each other)
Ti: assessment of “correct/incorrect” (mechanical “truth”) by an individual/natural standard
(turn inward to internal “blueprint” of proper relationship between objects)
Fe: assessment of “like/dislike” or [soulish] “good” by an environmental/cultural standard
(turn outward to evaluate proper relationship involving/between people)
Fi: assessment of “like/dislike” or [soulish] “good” by an individual/natural standard
(turn inward to internal “blueprint” of proper relationship involving people)

Another way to look at them is in terms of an individual’s “images” of reality, for perception, (in addition to his assessments of it, for judgment).

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 they can possibly be shown to others)
Ni: individual’s images have never matched the environment, and can only be directly perceived by the individual.
(and hence, why this one is so notably hard to explain).

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.

Another way of looking at it is that in deciphering the two different attitudes of each function, the question to ask is:
WHAT is really creating the actual sensation? What inteprets what “is”?
(the object in the environment, directly, or the subject’s individual storehouse of memory)
WHAT is really creating the actual intuition [i.e. inference, pattern connection]?
(the object in the environment [directly implies connection to something else] or the subject’s individual unconscious impressions [which infers connections by some other means than the object itself])
WHO is really doing the actual Thinking? Who is determining “true” or “false”?
(the subject, or an object; i.e. Other person, group, computer; e.g statistics, etc.)
WHO is really doing the actual Feeling? WHO is determining “good” or “bad”?
(subject, or an object; i.e. other person, group, culture).

From here, we are able to identify 16 “types”.

So the MBTI questions basically measure, first, introversion or extraversion. Then, the two preferred functions, one perception, and one judgment. Then, it measures general “judging” vs “perceiving” behaviors, and from there is able to put together the type code. If you score high on Judging, then it must be the judgment function you scored highest on that is “extraverted”. The perceiving function must therefore also be introverted. The reverse for scoring high on “Perception”. The one whose orientation matches the first letter (I/E) must then be your dominant, and the other, the auxiliary. Which ever one is extraverted will color the general “J” vs “P behavior. Hence, that can be treated as a standalone dichotomy.

So, to recap the entire process:
Our ego chooses the inner or outer world (environment or individual), and begins choosing a dominant function to use in its world. First, the class of function is chosen: either an information gathering or decision making function. Then the specific function is chosen (tangible/material awareness {substance of “what is”} or hypothetical awareness {idea of “what could be”} information gathering), or technical/mechanical {“true/false”} or “soul”-focused {“good/bad”} decision making). An auxiliary function will be the opposite class of function in the opposite orientation.
And there, the type is set, and the rest of the functions will eventually fall into place!

  1. (Next part):
    What sets the order of the “function stack”?

    When the two functions are preferred by the ego, their opposites become suppressed into a less conscious position. Generally, in the opposite order. So the opposite of the dominant becomes “inferior”, and the opposite of the auxiliary becomes “tertiary”.

    The total “Stack” order (including the positions of all eight possible function attitudes for each type) is set by what are known as “ego-states“, or more familiarly “complexes“. The ego, which is our main sense of “I” also has many lesser senses of “I”, which are different emotinal states we encounter through the day. Examples can be anything from 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.These are separated by a dynamic known as “dissociation”, which we all do, but becomes a “disorder” (leading to “multiple personalities”) when the dissociation is too great.

    So for the states regarding the function stack, the dominant takes on a “heroic” connotation, being ego’s “main achiever”. The auxiliary becomes associated with “support“, since it supports the ego with balance, by taking the opposite rationality of function, and the opposite attitude.
    This “supporting” ego state (labeled by analyst John Beebe after the classic archetype known as the “Good Parent“) will then be “compensated” (or “mirrored”, basically) by a “child” complex, while will orient the tertiary function in the attitude opposite the auxiliary, or the same as the dominant. This “child (or “Puer”) will childishly try to maintain the ego’s dominant attitude, through the associated function.
    The dominant will be mirrored by an “inferior” complex, combining both the function and attitude opposite the dominant. It will be our weakest standpoint, and yet carry a sense of completeness.

    Since this common stack only involves all four of these function-attitude-complex combinations are further compensated by having their attitudes reversed, in what’s known as the “Shadow“. The shadow was originally Jung’s archetype of an “enemy” we project negative ego-states onto, and it also becomes associated with the unconscious.
    So the four functions in the oppoite attitude to the first four are associated with four other complexes, called by Beebe, the “shadows”. These deal (respectively) with obstruction of the ego, feelings of negation of the ego’s dominant standpoint, feelings of being double bound in situations, and the fear of the ego’s destruction. These ego-states will generally be manifested and felt by the ego through the lens of the four associated function-attitudes (called “shadow functions”) when the ego feels placed into those situations (this can be real or imagined). We tend to project the ego-states onto others, and respond to them in kind. (Hence, shadows often become associated with conflict). They also have good sides to them, that manifest more when the ego becomes mature.

    • Adding this further clarification:
      Basically, since everyone engages in all of the behaviors associated with all of the functions (current senses, memorized senses, external logic, internal ethics, etc). then the functions are differentiated as such when activated by a particular ego-state. They are determined to be the “preferred” functions (making up the “type”) when aligned with the particular “hero” and “supporting” ego states. The remaining functions fall into place, becoming aligned with other ego states that “constellate” in relation to these first two. So when looking at function “use”, and trying to figure how it figures in a person’s type, we must ask which “ego-state” (if any in particular) is operating. (If no particular one is constellated in the instance, then it is just an “undifferentiated” functional product and not a type-specific “Xy” function “use”. Like any type being able to “see/hear/smell/touch/taste” what is before them [Se “products”], not just “Se”-preferrers, and not just other types in a particular ego-state or archetypal “mode” that they tend to associate with Se).

  2. Typology Central finally has its own wiki: (Been talking about it for a while, and it actually went up in Feb. but I’ve been busy, and not even on the forum much. Now, I’m adding to it. My opponent in the functions vs dichotomies debate already has some of his stuff up, there).

  3. Judgment attitudes’ applications for self and others. (It’s sometimes assumed that Ji is for “self” and Je is for “others” or external “application”, but the attitude is the standard of the judgment, not where it’s “applied”.

    Application for others Application for self
    Fi “if that were me; I would feel this way” What’s personally liked, important and congruent with personal values
    Fe “he feels that way, and thus so do I” Working to conform oneself to external values; being “accepted/able”
    Ti “If I were him, I would want the truth that I know” Applying one’s personal “principles”
    Te “This is efficient for the other person, so it is ‘truth'” Applying external principles for one’s own efficiency

    Framing them this way makes it easier to provide “lines” for the different ego states that make these judgments when they are activated.

    So for me, the main “heroic” state thinks others want the impersonal “truth” I know, and then I use these truths (i.e. “principles”, as put by others) to make my own personal decisions. The inferiority complex says “they feel this way, and so do I”, but then this usually pulls against the hero, so there is a stressful tug of war, with the ego resisting conforming to these external “values” if they don’t line up with the internally chosen “principles”.
    The Opposing Personality Complex says “this is what’s efficient for the other person, so it’s ‘truth'”, but this is generally used to somehow counter others sense of efficiency or agreed upon logic when their supposed need for application in my own life imposed on me.
    The Demonic Personality Complex” says “If that were me, gaining something at my expense, I would feel pretty contented”, and then I resent the person fror this as if they said they were. I then resist what’s supposedly ‘truly’ “important” or “good” for me, such as not feeling that way.

    Also, while Fi says “if that were me, I would feel this way”, in witessing others’ misfortune, Ti realizes: “That could have been me” (and then not even wanting to imagine the actual feelings).

  4. Ongoing discussion on Ni.
    Good statements by a couple of posters, on Lenore’s descriptions:

    “In general, her classification of the perceiving functions is that they’re ALL about sensing and the senses, but each one processes sensing in a different way. Si tends to organize and classify sensations, while Ni strives to “interpret” the sensations to learn what they ‘really mean’.

    Si, pure and simply, is to understand ‘sensation’ as being wholly subjective. ‘Physicality’ is not something you apprehend as something you “submit” yourself to, or how you establish a connection with the world around you – it has the opposite effect of severing that connection. To ‘sense’ the world, in this sense, is to ground yourself in your own experience. This differs greatly from Se, which understands sensation and physicality to be wholly objective, and fundamentally about ‘connecting’ with the world around you – there’s a force and reactivity present in Se that Si lacks. Those that prefer Si, because of this, comes across as very grounded, accommodating, and tough to lead by the nose.

    Si predicts the future mostly by assuming that the future will work pretty much like the past.
    Ni doesn’t do that. Instead, what Ni is adept at doing is taking in brand new information that no one has analyzed before, figure out what it means, and make predictions that would appear to have no basis in reality. Making “predictions” based on known data is boring to Ni types such as INTJs, though the fact that the link exists is fascinating. Figuring out a completely new problem is where Ni types are at home.

    The reason that Ni types are good at that is that they register patterns that can’t easily be put into words. It’s why the patterns seem vague and undefined. But really, it’s no more vague or undefined than a dance or the taste of a pear: it just can’t be put into words AND it isn’t as concrete as a dance or a pear. Ni thinking tends to be in terms of these patterns, the ability to ‘just look at a problem’ and ‘see’ what is ‘really’ going on underneath the hood. Just as you can taste a pear blindfolded and accurately guess that it is a pear, an Ni type can take in a new problem and accurately see possible solutions to it.”

    Someone questioned “organize and classify”, which one would think only judgment functions could do. It initially concerned me as well, but Lenore likely understands this in terms of “undifferentiated functions”. For every bit of data, all functional products are there, but the function we consider being “used” is simply the products that have been abstracted (set apart) in consciousness. And particularly for Pi (left brain “J” perspectives), the “organizing and classifying” then would be the associated Je function in the background working with Si or Ni.

    You can also see the tandems in that Ne deals with external patterns stored in memory (working with Si), while Ni “taking in brand new information” is then working with Se.

    Also, interesting “white paper” on S/N:

    Click to access s-n%20whitepaper_02.2016.pdf

  5. Someone posts this page: and it’s the first time I’ve seen someone fully explain the whole “ENP’s seem like introverts” claim:

    “Se- and Te-dominants are motivated by actions, and Fe-dominants are motivated by interactions, and Ne-dominants are motivated by ideas. You can see how that doesn’t necessitate as much active external stimulation compared to the others.”

    So, “There may be some ENTPs who do not fit the mold of being great talkers and debaters. But they will still like to talk about ideas. They will enjoy it, they may even go out of their way to seek out such communications or bring up their own thoughts unasked.”

    Also, on the difference between INTP and ENTP “INTPs are more personally invested in their ideas, whereas ENTPs are more flexible and willing to discard or jump around ideas: they may have difficulty prioritizing because they have a much larger quiver full of idea-arrows to shoot around, so it’s fine if some of them miss.”

    “Since an INTP’s Ne is their auxiliary function, it serves their Ti. It works within the bounds of where we tell it to go, and needs prompting and explicit direction to spread out beyond that.

    Since an ENTP’s Ne is their dominant function, they are going to cast their net far wider and range off in manifold directions and then their secondary Ti works to rein it in and sift out what will be most useful.”

    “ENTPs find it helpful to receive feedback earlier in the brainstorming stages, and conversing will help sharpen their ideas–external input is part of their process of refining those ideas, whereas a Ti-dominant requires solitude without external input to focus deeply enough on their ideas.”
    With me, when putting together my type correlation, I went and shared it as I went along, but then I was at the same time in the process of learning about type. Some people then thought I was Ne dominant. But the internal Ti work was pretty much already done, as far as framing personaity in terms of the “expressive” and “responsive” matrix, and it was just a matter of fiting type into it, with I/E fitting expressed Inclusion and T/F and J/P fitting responsiveness somehow. So I needed input as to what the type concepts were about, as well as introducing the temperament matrix which many were unfamiliar with.

    I think the Ti “solitude” is a bit over emphasized, though it may apply more to Phlegmatic INTP’s, not realizing there are also Supines, who will be more into people than a Phlegmatic. Solitude may help concentrate on the thinking, but what makes the function “internal” is that “true/false” is assessed by the individual, rather than being determined by an object in the environment (such as other people).

    “People with Feeling/Thinking as their dominant function will display far more polarized behavior because of this. Normally amicable INFPs become judgmental, cruel, and critical when their Te goes on a rampage. Normally calm/detached INTPs become self-pitying emotional wrecks when three-year-old Fe tries to get behind the wheel.”
    (They must be using the “Personality Hacker” concepts, in which the “3 year old” is the inferior).

    This would also correspond to the pure Supine’s fiery reactions when feeling unappreciated after awhile. (Te is what’s used, in its more positive form, to “serve” others, but then this must be acknowledged, or else “the Supine will feel used”, and react).
    An INTP Supine is both Supine and Choleric, and the Choleric in Control prevents him from relying on others’ appreciation for service [as much], but instead, has the tendency to step on others’ toes in pushing his own will on them, though the Supine still values their acceptance. This is what will lead to the inferior Fe reaction described. The Phlegmatic INTP will be the same, and the difference is that the Phlegmatic in Inclusion’s drive is keeping the peace, which is the path of least resistance. Still, the Choleric will go against this, and step on people’s toes (Keirsey even described both the NT along with the SJ as having an “annoying” trait, which would be connected with their common low wanted Control), and thus again, lead to an inferior Fe reaction when people react.

  6. Occurred to me, that the i/e attitude for each position in the “stack” should be associated with the ego state more than the function!

    I’ve said that the ego states “orient” the functions to the attitude, startng with the ego itself, with its dominant (via the “heroic” complex). Based on this, we consider the ego (the person) an “introvert” or “extravert”. This can be extended to the other seven ego states. (This is opposite of the direction Jung apparently went in, starting out associating the attitude with the ego, but then later associating it with the function).
    So (thinking in light of my recent article on how my Hero and Parent complexes worked in the old Trinity essay), I can say that my “parent” complex is extraverted. Like the Hero draws from the individual world and filters its Thinking perspective through this, the Parent draws from the environment, which becomes the source for its iNtutitive perspective.

    This will make it easier for people to recognize both introverted and extraverted “parts of themselves”, which the ego states are. Remember, the states are separated by “dissociation”, which is the same dynamic in multiple personality disorders, but only regulated better. So just as multiple personalities can have their own types or temperaments, the seven ego states in the full Beebe model have their own attitude and function. (And the “spine” complexes and functions are all reflections and shadows of the dominant, while the Parent is the ego’s best shot at attitudinal balance, and the remaining “arm” complexes and functions are reflections and shadows of it).

    It also makes it easier to understand the functions, by reducing them from eight (that are often confused as how to distinguish one attitude of the same function from the other), back to the original four. So the Parent prefers iNtuition. Taking in intangible data, of what “could” be rather than what “is”.
    But the primary Parent is an extravert, which means it introjects itself into the environment and essentially “merges” with (introjects into) “objects”, to perceive from them what could be in a situation. So the individual realm is suppressed from this. But it’s still there, creating a “negative” Parent that projects itself into objects, drawing from them only what is relevant to an individual wellspring of impressions to filter awareness of what could be. So the resulting “Senex” is an introvert, and lies underneath the “good” Parent.
    So we see how both the complex and the associated function splits (along more mature and primitive versions of the archetype, and the attitude), through suppression from consciousness.

  7. Wrote this from scratch on an old thread on a board, where a person claimed to have “developed all eight functions”. I had answered it three years ago according to the way I expounded this back then, and someone revived the thread (For some reason, “necroposting”, which is frowned upon on most boards, was always permitted on typology boards), but by now, of course, I’ve modified my views since this was started, and now I emphasize “ego states” as what carry the functions.

    You have a main ego centre (the main sense of “I”), which then takes upon the archetype of the “hero” as it pursues its own goals. There are also lesser senses of I, with a total of eight that specifically involve typological preference. These will all choose one function (S, N, T, F) and one orientation (i-individual, or e-environmental), thus pairing together a function and attitude. So the hero will embody what we call the “dominant function” (with the dominant attitude as well).
    For the sake of balance, you must also draw from the opposite orientation, and the opposite mode of processing from the dominant function (judgment or perception), so a lesser ego-state, that generally takes on a “supporting” role or “parental” archetype, will view things through this other function-attitude combo.
    This is what forms what we are calling “type”.

    The functions are basically divisions of reality (the tangible vs the intangible, the impersonal vs the personal, and the individual vs the environment), so the ones chosen will be “reflected” in the functions and attitudes they were chosen over, being lower down in consciousness. The two ego states are likewise mirrored, so that the parent will be reflected by a more “childish” ego state, that uses the tertiary function, and the hero will be mirrored by an “inferior” ego state using the inferior function.
    These are further reimaged by reversing the unchosen attitudes for each of the four functions, and these will be carried by even less conscious versions of the four ego states. (hegative her, negative parent, negative child of sorts, and a negative inferiority complex that becomes “destructive” in ways). These are what’s been called the “Shadows”. Really, it’s not so much the functions that are “Shadows”; it’s the ego states. The functions are less psychically conscious because of the ego states (but otherwise are conscious; else only an “SP” type would be able to recognize the current senses, for instance).

    What’s been called (perhaps misleadingly so) “developing the functions” would really be becoming more aware of the lower ego-states. So if you think you’ve “developed all the functions”, they you’re saying all of these ego-states are regularly coming into consciousness. I guess it’s hypothetically possible; bit the lower down you go, the more stressful situations it takes to make them become more regular like that. The ego states still bear their negative archetypal contexts, so it’s not like you now have all these “good”, positive uses of “all eight functions”. (and no one has “individuated” either, which would amount to being able to see undivided reality).

    More than likely, a person is taking instances of “undifferentiated” functions (like the “seeing, hearing, touch, taste, smell any type can do, apart from the typological ego-states), and mistaking this for “function-development”.

    Also, temperament related; just saw this:

  8. Since the functions and attitudes represent divisions of reality, here’s an analogy I’ve been trying to make, using the four compass directions (which are spatial divisions of reality). Not coming out how I wanted, but it gives an idea:

    There are four different quadrants; SE, SW, NE, NW, items being carried on wagons are being distributed to.

    The main “pilot” will advance in the primary direction, while a guide will steer in the secondary direction.
    The primary direction can be pushed or pulled toward, and the guiding can also be push or pull. Let’s say that whatever the primary direction pilot does, the secondary direction guide will do the opposite.

    As an example we’ll use one quadrant. To cover the SE quadrant, you can have carts go primarily east, and secondarily south. And others go primarily south and secondarily east. To illustrate the push-pull process, we can look at the dominant eastbound wagon.

    So with primary “pushing” (with steerable front wheels), the pilot pushes forward from behind, and [to counter inertia] pulls backward to stop (e.g. pushes east and pulls west).
    The guide will be walking next to the front, and pulls south to steer, and pushes north to stop steering.

    With primary “pulling” (and rear wheel steering), the pilot pulls east to go forward, and pushes west to stop. The guide (riding on the back) has a stick, with which he pushes south to steer and pulls north (grabbing on things on the ground) to stop from steering too far.

    The original thinking, was someone facing one of the directions. One is clearly prominent, right ahead of them. Its opposite is behind them, totally out of view. The other two are right and left, and in the corner of their eyes. (Recall, Jung spoke at times of “two auxiliaries”). So right there, it works pretty much like the ego functional perspectives.
    The problem was trying to extend it further, and determine how one of the other two could be “auxiliary”. I could use “right/left handed”, but hen this will fix it to one definite direction. Like if we’re facing east, then south, as “right”, would always be auxiliary. Also, what to make of the “orientation”. And whatever the primary direction is, the auxiliary would have to be the opposite.
    So I came up with “looking” one direction, and perhaps “thinking” the other direction. (We could tie that to e and i, respectively). So you can have someone who predominantly “looks” east, and then, he must “think” south. You could also have someone who predominantly thinks east and secondarily looks south. It’s making less and less sense. So I came up with the above, but that’s kind of getting away from the focal point of the “division of reality”. It does show how the tertiary and inferior directions are reflections of the dominant and auxiliary. I also wanted to show how the “shadows” result too. The actual “shadows” of these cart operators would be facing the same directions, but there is no way to change pushing into puling and vice versa.

  9. A Thinker’s Confession: The Influence of Feeling Emotions

  10. Sharing my newfound knowledge of the Demonic Personality Complex from Beebe’s book (see on the boards. I mentioned how the complex was obviously constellated and projected onto God by Donald Fagen, when his mother died and he wrote a song imagining teaming up with Satan and killing God. (see It’s clearly evidence of a demonic Fi projection. God doesn’t work the way dominant Ti (through which ego aims to achieve its goals) says He should, and so, not only is He rejected, but upon a very traumatic experience (tied with what we expect from [the idea of] Him; a world without pain and death), He is deemed internally “bad” and deserving of death. (Even the Devil himself now becomes the ally, in carrying this out; clearly identifying the archetype that has constellated!)
    Again, I can understand this, but for one thing, since I perceive through Ne and not Se, I realize the possibility that He might not operate the way we expect, and so could still be real (despite all the seeming ‘evidence’ otherwise), even if it doesn’t look like it at times.

    In the process, I end up finding another adamant “Chicago/SteelyDan hater”, like the court file room supervisor I mentioned in last year’s article. (She’s INTJ, and this person now is INFP; both “Ordering Assessment” types with “ego syntonic” Fi). Throw in Stevie Wonder now, as well. He did mention liking old blues, but disliking other forms of “jazz”, especially with strong horns, which are what have influenced these three groups and many others I like, and thus probably what he’s not liking.

    So I then articulated that I myself could never figure why some people feel so strongly against certain forms of music. I can understand feeling strongly for them, but I see little reason to not “like” anything. (And even then, I’ve always found it next to impossible to name a “favorite” Stevie Wonder song, when asked. It’s like they all go into different categories, where different things are liked about them). The only stuff I would come closest to saying I don’t like was heavy metal, especially the so-called “death metal”. Not only is the sound loud and blaring (unpleasant harmony, and neither very rhythmic or melodic), but was also what was championed by those wishing “death” to disco, and a big part of this on racial reasons (ironically, “old-line” Christian fundamentalists believe all “rock” beats are bad because of the racial origin, basically).

    When I was very young, Simon & Garfunkel’s “Sound of Silence” and “Scarborough Fair” triggered very negative “sadness” emotions, where I would want to run away screaming. But when I grew up, that subsided, and now, I don’t “dislike” them; and they fall into nostalgic memories of music in the past (We were just watching a 60’s music CD infomercial on the PBS fundraising program last night as if it were a documentary).
    Occasionally, there might be a song I actually like that then comes to give me the willies for some reason. On my article, I actually mention an unreleased Steely Dan song, as well as a very early Earth, Wind & Fire song. This usually is when the song gets tied up with some sort of negative images of something. I recently did a 9-11 15th anniversary article, where I mention again how the SD song I first discovered last year around the anniversary, conjures an image of being trapped up in the towers, for some reason. I’m sure this involves a shadowy “Senex” Ni).

    So I guess that might tie into Fi as ultimately being very “unconscious”, where for this person, as well as the “Melancholic” types I knew of (ISTJ’s), they had more of a sense of “like” and “dislike”.
    I now would define Fi as “good/bad assessment according to an internal standard learned individually or from nature”. Or as Beebe cites Jung, “the archetype of good/bad”, that’s removed from the “object”. That’s why I can’t understand any “dislike” (“bad” judgment) “removed from the object”. It never made sense. (It also conveyed a sense of evil judgment of something I liked. Hence, why I’ve gone after the old IFB fundamentalists on that point). But now, I’m seeing it’s just another “division of reality” (or “consciousness”) from what I’m used to. (Though people are still wrong if they try to project their “dislikes” onto God, making it “bad” for everyone else, and then refuse to admit that their perspective could be limited or skewed/biased, which was what I was fighting against).

    Right as I’m typing, my wife is asking me how I “feel” about yesterday’s headline of the fresh new revelation of Trump not paying taxes. It’s really hard for me to articulate, though I’ve been long fervently vocal about economic injustice (which affects us and makes life difficult), and how “tax” rhetoric focuses on the “non-working” poor getting it all, while the rich’s excesses are either ignored, or deemed as “deserved”. So by now, it’s like “figures”, and there’s nothing else to “feel” (at least in terms of “expressing” it). It seems nothing can be done about it, though at least, the public is becoming more aware of it.

    So for me, Fi usually comes up in “undifferentiated” form (basically “instinctual”, “limbic”, or at least tied to the other functions), when something is threatening or disfavorable somehow. Positive Fi (“liking”) is generally tied to the things of Ti (like the mathematical symmetries), Ne (discovering possibilities of what can be done with sound) or Si (like the musical nostalgia).
    When the negative things become major “issues”, then the Demonic Personality may constellate, which then will “differentiate” (make conscious, via a sense of “I”, which is the complex) Fi more, but usually in the negative form.

  11. Really seeing that two of Jung’s alternate functions description (mentioned in Hunziker’s new book) really make the most sense:

    S: “registers reality as real”
    F: “sorts out our feelings”

    The first tells us what the S function does with tangible reality. The key word being “register”. The second distinguishes the Feeling function from what we commonly call “feelings” (which is often a source of confusion).
    Of course, N is still “where it’s heading” (or specifically associated with time), while T is “defining” (basically telling us what it is).

    So the notion of “sorting out our feelings” really explains what the function is. “Ordering our feelings” is sometimes associated with the introverted version, specifically, but both types sort out their feelings. Fi simply sorts them directly, internally, and uses them to gauge others’ feelings. The extraverted variant simply merges them with others, which are taken as their own (including providing environments that others are known to like).
    We may think of T as more “orderly”, while F is less controlled, as we watch F types be more “emotional”. But really, their emotions are more controlled than we think. This illusion comes from T types projecting their own weaker experience of F onto others. Our idea of “ordering” emotions is to stuff them, but then that is when they’re more likely to erupt in the fashion we think we see F’s display them. I know how I hate to feel negative emotions, like toward a sad story, and sometimes even don’t want to feel happy emotions, fearing I’ll be “caught off guard” when something bad inevitably happens. This is an avoidance of sorting through them! F types are better able to embrace the feelings, and are less ashamed to display them. Again, this is from sorting them out. The determination of “good” and “bad” comes from this. For me, the Inferiority Complex sorts out feelings in comparison to others, and feels I’m coming up short, or should be responding to others in a way I’m not (because it contradicts the Hero’s agenda). The Demonic Personality Complex handles the sorting out of negative emotions, which make situations feel destructive to the ego. Others’ strong emotions are a threat, as I project “if I were reacting that way, I would have to be feeling SO bad”. I even may get annoyed at them, thinking they should react rather than feel. Stories that evoke strong emotions are uncomfortable, because I just don’t want to sort those emotions, so I stuff them and shut down.
    Feeling good emotions, associated with gratification or moral self-contentedness, are sought as representing “integrity”, and thus are the source of “narcissism”. This too is projected onto people who seem to be self-contented, or have gained their way, especially at what I perceive to be my expense.

    Trying to come up with comparable terms for N and T, I think “how things work” is best for T. Not even sure why I didn’t decide on this earlier, especially given the “tells you about the object” and “technical” definitions. Really, I wonder why Jung didn’t put it this way! “Defining” is done basically by determining “what it is” by how it works, or what it does (as opposed to how we feel about it). This then yields the judgment of “true” that things are measured true or false by.

    Since Jung defined N in terms of “time“ (i.e. “where it’s heading”), I think of some N products that don’t seem to have a time element.

    •Archetypes are ruling patterns that play out as sequential behaviors
    •Typology looks at sequences of people’s behaviors based on the idea of an archetypal category.
    •Many analogies are comparisons of sequences.

    I was thinking of STATIC objects, which I also make parallels to other objects with. But I think the time element there lies in the fact that the objects still had to have come from somewhere. It’s just noted how they seem to have developed into the same or similar form, and from that, a connection is inferred or at least looked for.

    Another possibility, is like when I compare a symmetrical building for instance (with four segments that are mirror images of each other) to the similar symmetry of the E/R temperament matrix; while it’s comparing a pattern, it’s really more introverted Thinking than iNtuition. It’s looking at a tangible (not conceptual) object, and then comparing a conceptual matrix to it. The commonality lies in the logical “framework” (the mirror symmetry, which is a logical “archetype”) determining what’s “true”, moreso than any timelike “implications”.

    In addition to Beebe and Hunziker’s books, I was also partly inspired to refine the function definitions (especially Ni/e) when a person on one of the boards posted this description of Ni:

    Look at the original roots of the words introverted and extroverted. The reason Ni is often so misunderstood is because it’s usually misapplied to the realm that Ne occurs in, but Ni is in the internal realm. It’s intuition introverted. Jung called it the subject. So people actually do know its definition. What they’re still wanting are the right examples, but examples won’t tell you the real definition or essence of it–they break away from the fundamental cognition of what it simply means.

    The definition of Ni is as follows: Ni is grasping the essence of things in thought. It focuses on the big picture while turning inward, while intro-verting. Ni types are not great at grasping the essence and nature of things going on around them, they don’t have insight about reading the external situation like Ne types do. Ne on the other hand, grasps the underlying essence of things happening in the outside situation, the nature and big picture of what’s occurring and being seen in the moment. This is why we ultimately use multiple functions, and this is where the confusion comes from. Similarly with Ti, we grasp the logic and rationale behind things in thought, in inward reflection and contemplation, while with Te, we grasp the logic and rationale of things as they happen in action and order, as we work with and utilize them. They’re the same function “Logic,” just applied to turning our mind either inwardly, or turning our mind outwardly towards things in their external form as they’re happening. This is especially how Jung and the Socionicists recognize the functions.

    Ni is intuition of greater thoughts and insights about the big picture, while Ne attunes to the big picture of what’s happening with external stimuli–it spots opportunities and potential, and intuitively grasps what’s really happening behind a situation or moment, just like Se has a literal take on what’s happening in a situation.

    One good example for consideration is the difference between the INxJ vs the INTP, because both these types introvert, they both go frequently into the internal realm of thought. One however, the Ni, is primarily submerged in thinking about the nature and main idea behind things, the generalities of life, while the other, the Ti, is primarily submerged in pondering the logic, rationale and workings behind things. It’s a big difference. Neither Ni or Ti can view the nature or rationale of things as they’re occurring outside, in real life.

    Even defining the attitudes in terms of “individual” vs “objects” or “environment”, with iNtuition, still leaves things a bit ambiguous. The problem is that in every process we’re both referencing both external objects and internal impressions. And the functions work in tandem; Ni with Se and Ne with Si. So it’s hard to tell which is really internal or external a lot of times. And both forms of iNtuition “fill in” data with inferences of “where it’s heading”.

    But perhaps those tandems, as named by Berens and Montoya, are the key. Ni reaches awareness as sudden “realizations”, while Ne has to “inquire” to make its inferences of other objects. (Even if this may appear as a sudden realization). On the S side, Se also naturally works through automatic “realizations” of whatever is before you, of course, while Si has to inquire its “storehouse” of tangible reality to filter current data through.
    So both will look at an object and fill in its “possibilities” or “patterns” of, where it appears to be “going”, or “could” go. Ne will be more “open” and reference other patterns, while Ni will simply perceive “yes” or “no” (that is what I considered the elemental product of perception, where judgment is “right” or “wrong”) from an inner impression (that is not as tangibly focused as the inner “sense” of Si).

    N=time orientation
    Ne: I can see it’s possible paths by comparing similar objects
    Ni: I can see it’s possible paths by going on a “gut” feeling (often omitted)
    Se: it doesn’t matter where it came from or is going; it’s just there
    Si: it doesn’t matter where it could go, I’ve seen where it is

    So to put together all eight (using the common terms the functions are based on):

    Se: registers [sensory] reality as real in the immediate environment
    Si: registers [sensory] reality as real in comparison to individual recollection
    Ne: infers the [intuitive] implications of objects from comparison to the environment
    Ni: infers the [intuitive] implications of objects from individual “gut” feeling or imagery
    Te: directs our thinking to how things work, according to environmental determination
    Ti: directs our thinking to how things work, according to individual determination
    Fe: sorts feelings according to environment (merges with others’ feelings)
    Fi: sorts feelings according to individual reflection (and figures others’ feelings from this)

  12. Edited the “short version” ( with these new definitions:

    S registers tangible reality as real and reacts accordingly
    N registers the implications of reality and puts it out as an idea
    T Assesses, understands, and responds to the way things work
    F Assesses, understands, and responds to emotional affect

    Se registers tangible reality as it emerges in the environment
    Si registers tangible reality filtered through individual recollection
    Ne registers implications of things from the ‘environment’ of consciousness
    Ni registers implications of things by the individual’s subconscious
    Te responds to how things work according to an environmental necessity
    Ti determines how things work according to individual understanding
    Fe sorts out emotional affect based on an environmental necessity
    Fi sorts out emotional affect based on individual understanding

    I would redo Jung’s definitions as follows:

    S: what it is
    N: what are it’s implications
    T: how it works
    F: how it affects us emotionally

    (So perception is “what” and judgment is about “how”)

  13. Added a new “Intro to type” to my domain, based on the “Eight Step Intro To Type:

    This now replaces the function of the “Super Short” entry of the “Part 2” series, which has now been made into simply the “Short” version (with a redirect from 2ss.html to 2s.html)

  14. In determining how introverted Feeling really figures in the pure and next-to pure Sanguines (EFP’s), this is brought to mind by seeing someone like this airy, jolly person: (“Professionally Silly”) who’s likely ENFP.
    What makes us think a person like this is a type that prefers Fi?

    Fi is an evaluation of humane affect (“good/bad”) based on internal stimuli. (I had forgotten that this was one of the ways I had begun expressing the attitude, and I now think this one is best). So these types are focused on what’s “good” for humanity, as determined by an internal idea, rather than necessarily what others say is good. This is what leads to their friendliness and light nature. Still, how exactly are they “parenting” others with this (as the auxiliary complex does)?

    In the description of auxiliary (“supporting”) Fi in Berens’ Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the Personality Type Code:
    “Like a supportive parent, they are helpful when they key in on their values and stay with what’s important to themselves and to other individuals. They…recognize what they want, what motivates them, or how they feel inside. They trust and stick with their personal belief system, staying focused on what they want for themselves or for others. They may evaluate how a belief applies to them personally and continually examine their choices to see if they match their inner value system and intentions.”

    This makes it sound like a conscious process (like they stop and think “now, hmmm… what do I like, that I can share with or do for these other people?”), but while the function is considered “conscious” from its high position in the stack (based on the associated complex), as an introverted function, the actual process itself of “keying in on their values” and “matching” to them is more likely [often if not generally] unconscious.

    So for EFP’s, it comes out as the desire to spread joy and laughter (among the subconscious [universal] “values” deemed “important” to themselves and others). That’s being “supporting” of others. It will be colored by the dominant function; where Se will be more about physical “fun”, such as partying and performing, and with Ne, it will be about more “abstract” nonphysical “fun” such as humor or general “silliness”.

    “Recognizing what they want” is really something everyone does, though “staying focused on” it is more the clue, but I think even this might be more an unconscious “focus”. They’ll find it easier to make a decision for something based on simply whether they like it or not, with no other criteria that makes them like it. If I choose something I “like”, there must be a reason for it; usually a logical one. If not, then the “liking” will have to be weighed by a system of “pros and cons”. It became a bit difficult to tell Ti from Fi because “weighing” was associated with Fi by the Berens circle. But the “pros and cons” I mentioned are basically how things work (T); usually matters of “convenience” (defined as Ti in one of the books), where “this will lead to that”; where Fi will be “weighing” one “like” by another. I find myself faced with this sometimes, and find it incredibly difficult. At times, I just have to “throw it to the wind” if I cannot find some logical benefit of one or the other.

    Fe in contrast seeks to spread joy and fun more through external organization based on what is openly known to please others, if not what they request directly.
    Ti, as an internal judgment like Fi, is described in Hunziker’s Building Blocks of Personality Type by one person’s example, as an internally organized “grid with labels at all the grid coordinates”. These grids consist of finer grids, which themselves consist of even finer ones, etc. with ever more precise category labels (p.88). This I believe is also most likely usually unconscious (and thus not recognizable so explicitly), and this particular person simply analyzed it, bringing this into consciousness.

    So to do the eight function attitudes again:

    Se registers tangible reality from external (environmental) stimuli
    Si registers tangible reality filtered through internal (individual) stimuli
    Ne registers implications of things from external (environmental) stimuli
    Ni registers implications of things by internal (individual) stimuli
    Te responds to how things work according to external (environmental) stimuli
    Ti determines how things work according to internal (individual) stimuli
    Fe sorts out emotional affect based on external (environmental) stimuli
    Fi sorts out emotional affect based on internal (individual) stimuli

    Edit (alt):
    Se engagement of tangible reality is stimulated by the environment
    Si engagement of tangible reality is stimulated by individual reflection reference
    Ne engagement of the implications of reality is stimulated by the environment
    Ni engagement of the implications of reality is stimulated by individual reference
    Te determination of what’s correct (true/false) is stimulated by the environment
    Ti determination of what’s correct (true/false) is stimulated by individual reference
    Fe determination of what’s desired (good/bad) is stimulated by the environment
    Fi determination of what’s desired (good/bad) is stimulated by individual reference

  15. The 16 types based on dominant function (eight original Jungian “types”), distinguished by the focus shifted to by the auxiliary function. (Also show the difference between the same two functions as dominant and auxiliary or vice versa):

    Se Person’s drive is engaging with the current tangible world (stimulated by the tangible environment)
    +Fi directs this towards people, and what is universally pleasing to them (“fun”)
    +Ti directs this toward how things work, and thus may be into adventure (hiking, etc), sports, etc. and self-promotion

    Ne Person’s drive is engaging the implications of objects; what can be imagined from them (inferring is stimulated by objects)
    +Fi directs this toward people, and what universally brings smiles to one’s face (silliness, puns, stories, etc)
    +Ti directs this toward how things work, and thus may be into philosophical discussions, politics, etc. but delivered in a more “open” way

    Ti Person’s drive is toward an individual sense of how things work (stimulated by an individual models of what’s technically “true”)
    +Se directs this toward the current tangible world, and may be into mechanics, sports and dance moves, music production, other fine arts.
    +Ne directs this toward the implications of things, such as science and political theory, why things work the way they do

    Fi Person’s drive is toward an individual sense of what is unversally “good” for people (stimulated by individual models of what’s good)
    +Se directs this toward the current tangible world, and so may be into artwork and other “aesthetics”
    +Ne directs this toward the implications of things, and may be into ideals of altruism, self-care, etc.

    Si Person’s drive is referencing an internalized sense of the tangible world (stimulated by internal remembrances of what’s real)
    +Te directs this toward how things work according to environmental standards (good at “inspecting” to make sure things are being done right)
    +Fe directs this toward what is good to people in the environment and according to their obvious needs (good at acts of service)

    Ni Person’s drive is referencing an internal sense of the implications of things (stimulated by internal model of unconscious inferences)
    +Te directs this toward how things work according to environmental standards (may be into math theory and other sciences employing this)
    +Fe directs this toward what is good to people in the environment and according to their obvious needs (may be into counseling, personality

    Te Person’s drive is toward “objective” employing of the way things work (stimulated by the environment as determining what’s correct)
    +Si directs this toward creating order based on an internal sense of the way the tangible world is (good at managing people and institutions)
    +Ni directs this toward creating order based on an internal sense of the implications of things (good at envisioning goals and plans)

    Fe person’s drive is toward the environment of people (stimulated by the environment as the desired source of good)
    +Si creates harmonious order based on an internal sense of the way the tangible world is (good at hosting and caretaking)
    +Ni creates harmonious order based on an internal sense of the implications of things (good at inspiring and counseling)

  16. Eight complexes for each type using root function definitions:


    Hero complex (main ego) engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Parent complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Child complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Trickster complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Demonic Personality complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)


    Hero complex (main ego) engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Parent complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Child complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Trickster complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Demonic Personality complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)


    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Parent complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Child complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Trickster complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)


    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Parent complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Child complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Trickster complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)


    Hero complex (main ego) engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Parent complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Child complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Trickster complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Demonic Personality complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)


    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Parent complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Child complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Trickster complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)


    Hero complex (main ego) engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Parent complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Child complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Trickster complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Demonic Personality complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)


    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Parent complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Child complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Trickster complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)


    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Parent complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Child complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Trickster complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)


    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Parent complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Child complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Trickster complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)


    Hero complex (main ego) engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Parent complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Child complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Trickster complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Demonic Personality complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)


    Hero complex (main ego) engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    Parent complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Child complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Trickster complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Demonic Personality complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)


    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Parent complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Child complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Trickster complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)


    Hero complex (main ego) engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Parent complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Child complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    Trickster complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Demonic Personality complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)


    Hero complex (main ego) determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Parent complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Child complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Trickster complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Demonic Personality complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)


    Hero complex (main ego) engages the implications of reality, stimulated by the environment (Ne)
    Parent complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by individual reference (Ti)
    Child complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by the environment (Fe)
    inferior (Anima/animus) complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by individual reference (Si)
    Warrior/Amazon (oppositional) complex engages the implications of reality, stimulated by individual reference (Ni)
    Witch (Crone)/Senex complex determines what’s correct (true/false) as stimulated by the environment (Te)
    Trickster complex determines what’s desired (good/bad) as stimulated by individual reference (Fi)
    Demonic Personality complex engages tangible reality, stimulated by the environment (Se)

  17. In thinking lately about Fi and what it’s like when associated with the “narcissistic” Demonic Personality Complex”, I realized that there should be a distinction between which aspects of the behavior are implicit in the function, and which are implicit in the archetype.
    Like when having to deal with what Ti as “Trickster” is like (to make sure that was not where it lied in my stack when once suggested), and I noticed how I do often argue by creating logical “double-binds” for the other side. “Double-binding” is supposed to be a key aspect of the Trickster archetype. But in this case, it is really also implicit in Ti itself. Ti is about logical consistency (analyzed individually, instead of just going with environmental convention), and so will often pick out a “point” and “counterpoint”, and play them against each other; like if you say this to me, and do this yourself, then if what you impose on me is true, you are incorrect, and yet if you’re correct, then what you’re imposing on me is incorrect.
    Trickster Ti will definitely do this to get the person out of a double bind, but that will be the function’s common tendency, and not used like that when judging the consistency of other things. Ti in a preferred position will do this when needed, but also use it in general judging of circumstances, including one’s own logic. (“Playfulness” then will also be something implicit in both Ti, and the Child and Trickster archetypes).

    So when thinking about Fi and “narcissism”, I realized there were different facets of the function it could be broken down into:

    The four facets of Fi

    “good/bad” “like/dislike”
    self I’m good/bạd (self-contentedness) my experience is good/bad (like/dislike)
    others others are good/bad (moralizing) others’ experience is good/bad (empathy)

    “immature” (primitive)

    “good/bad” “like/dislike”
    self I must be good if I get my way (which will be the “reward” of acceptance by others), and bad if I don’t. Unbalanced focus on getting their way or having “fun”.
    “If they were in my shoes, they would know how I feel”.
    Judges things better or worse than they really are.
    others Others are good or bad according to how they make me feel Lack of empathy, and instead be jealous of others possessions or projected internal emotions (e.g. “if that were me reacting that way, I would have to feel mighty smug”; “if that were me experiencing that, I would react this way, so they should as well”


    “good/bad” “like/dislike”
    self Recognizes own worth, regardless of the environment Experiences are put into perspective, and good ones are also sought to be shared with others.
    others Others are good or bad according to universal values, which takes all sides of the issue and tries to see the best in people Puts oneself in the other person’s place. “If that were me, I would feel this way, so let me respond as I would want to be responded to”.

    The other three judging attitudes can be broken down this way, but it seems the differences become less obvious (and it seems can be collapsed in one way or the other so that there are only two panes), as Fi is so “deeper” from being doubly “subjective” (both individual “subject” and dealing with that subject as a “person”), where Fe is objective subjectivism, Ti is subjective objectivism, and Te is totally “objective”.


    Fe (merges subjective “ego” with the objective environment:

    “good/bad” “like/dislike”
    self I’m good/bạd in relation to others my experience is good/bad in relation to others(like/dislike)
    others others are good/bad in relation to environmental values others’ experience is good/bad (sympathy; how can I respond to them)

    “Immature” (primitive)

    “good/bad” “like/dislike”
    self I’m [‘proven’] good if accepted by others (may be susceptible to peer pressure) Susceptible to following the crowd for “fun”
    others May be pulled to judging others by values around them, or may not judge at all May feel pulled to respond to others’ needs, or may avoid and completely lack sympathy


    “good/bad” “like/dislike”
    self I am good if I earn acceptance from others by adopting their values and meeting their needs. Will better selectively adopt environments to merge with.
    others Will better selectively adopt values to judge others by Sympathetic. “I see or they say they feel this way, so I feel that way too for them, and want to share or help them”.


    correct/incorrect true/false
    self I’m correct/incorrect (self-confidence) I demand truth (analyzing)
    others Others are correct/incorrect (critiquing) Others should have the truth for themselves (pontificating); “If that were me, I would want the truth I hold”

    Immature (primitive):

    correct/incorrect true/false
    self come across as arrogant or overly concerned with being seen as smart overly “technical” and meticulous in seeking info
    others pedantic and seen as looking down on others for their lack of knowledge May be overly blunt in stating truth [or mere “factoids”] and not consider others’ perspective


    correct/incorrect true/false
    self Consistent in logic Gets to the bottom of how things work
    others patient with others’ level of knowledge Know when the other person “needs” to know the whole truth


    correct/incorrect true/false
    self I need to order my life objectively I need to learn how to get myself correct
    others Others are judged by “conventional” principles Others need the truth whether they agree with it or not in order to create an efficient environment

    Immature (primitive):

    correct/incorrect true/false
    self Doesn’t think for one’s own self but insists they are “right” and denies the possibility of subjective coloration Overly formulaic and rigid in a “by the book” sense in accepting things
    others overly critical and blunt of others’ lack of “common sense” or order Forces logical order on others


    correct/incorrect true/false
    self Objectivity which may create a more solid “accuracy” Good at learning established principles
    others Patient with others’ level of learning Good at teaching others by the book
  18. With some new definitions of the functions, here’s another approach to establishing the theory:

    Extraversion was deemed “conscious” by Jung. What it’s conscious of is the “environment”.
    So, in defining the functions, we first must determine their environment:

    S: space
    N: time
    T: things
    F: people

    The individual (introverted) orientations all turn within, from the environment to an internal “model” of the environmental product, so it’s the extraverted variants that are tied to the actual “real world” functional products. (And hence, introversion considered “unconscious”, since it’s not paying direct attention to the environment).

    So this yields:

    Extraverted attitude: stimulated by the real world “environment”

    Se: attention to tangible reality in the environment of space
    Ne: attention to intangible implications playing out in the environment of time
    Te: rational standard is the environment of impersonal things
    Fe: rational standard is the environment of people

    Introverted attitude: stimulated by the individual “model” of reality

    Si: attention to tangible reality referencing individual images (aside from current space)
    Ni: attention to intangible implications via individual subconscious impressions (apart from time)
    Ti: rational assessment via individual models of things
    Fi: rational assessment via individual models of [affect on] people

    So then this explains one ambiguous use of terms by Jung, and that being conscious/unconscious.

    e/i represent consciousness or unconsciousness of the environment
    S/N represent consciousness or unconsciousness of space, since N deals in time (in which we can only exist in one instant, where N goes beyond that instant).

  19. Starting with the obvious association of “Se=immediate senses”, and “Si=memory” (and perhaps also “Ni=the unconscious”), I decided to extend this to all eight function-attitudes. That instead of coming up with new names for them, like Hartzler or PersonalityHacker, though inspired by them, as it’s simpler to present than “Xy” codes.

    Of course, there is a difference between basic senses and “Se”, for only certain human types are defined by Se, while all the other types, as well as animals, can also use the five senses. So we can’t say just seeing, smelling, hearing, touching and tasting is “using Se”; at least not in the sense that the SP types (and mature NJ’s) use it. Likewise, all can remember things, but are not “using Si” the way that defines an SJ (or mature NP). So this difference has to be specified.
    Immediate senses and memory can be seen as at best, “undifferentiated” forms of those functions. The function is differentiated when the ego or one of its complexes, via the cortex, interprets the data from the limbic system. Animals have the limbic system only, and so their immediate senses and memory is not INTERPRETED cognitively. With other types, they’re associated with lower complexes, and otherwise, are simply part of the data that their higher complexes sort out for their preferred perspectives. The data itself is all “mixed together”, and the functions are the aspects of it sorted out by the complexes. The “memory” and the other faculties are the means by which the data is sorted out.

    Source of awareness (“INPUT”):
    Se: “immediate senses” (via space)
    Si: “memory” (stores and filters spatial data)
    Ne: “imagination” (of potential changes through time)
    Ni: “the unconscious” (filters temporal patterns)

    source of rational determination (“PROCESSING”):
    Te: our “commonsense” (learning from outside authority how things work)
    Ti: our “reason” (learning or determining for yourself how things work)
    Fe: our “sociability” (connecting with people via the environment)
    Fi: our “conscience” (and affinities: our own human values used to relate to others)

    “Everybody has all of these faculties, but…”:
    (i.e. these are NOT “the functions” themselves. They are what the functions “sort out” of reality):

    What it means to “prefer” the “function”:
    The associated faculty is the ego structure’s primary means of gathering or processing information

    What it means when the function is not preferred:
    The associated faculty is a more “generic” means of handling information that supports the preferred functions; or is differentiated by one of the lower complexes.

    The final aspect of personality is:
    Behavior predisposition via “express”/”want”; i.e. “temperament” (“OUTPUT”)

    Getting ready to redo the intro to the short version temperament2 page. So adding this:

    To start to understand the function-attitudes, we can look at the common human “faculties” they are associated with. Extraverted Sensing (Se) involves the basic senses, of touch, taste, sight, hearing and smell. Introverted Sensing (Si) is involved with “memory”, where we store our sensory experiences to bring back up to consciousness to compare with current experience. Now, the natural mistake to make is to define simply “Se=current experiences” and “Si=memory”. This is not totally true. For one thing, only certain types have a normal preference for Se or Si, but every person has both current sensation and memory! So the function-attitudes are specialized attention to the data taken in through the faculties, as used by the ego-structure.

    For the input (data-gathering) processes, these will correspond with the “dimensional” divisions of space vs. time. Of the four coordinates “events” in the universe are plotted on, three of them are random-access, meaning you can go back and forth between different points. This is called “space”, and by interacting through it, we can therefore locate or come into contact with objects at different points using our senses. The remaining dimension is time, which is one way in progression, and thus we cannot return to previously visited coordinates, and also, cannot access ones we have not reached yet! (And we all travel together, through the same point every instance) While a special form of sensation we will introduce below can look back at the previous points of time (but still not actually return to them), we must use a different, non-sensory form of perception to access this dimension overall. This will follow the “patterns” of things and events through the time dimension, and by which we can get a sense of what may happen in the future, and even things that may have happened in the past that were not experienced via sensation, and also, perhaps why things are the way they are now.

    For the data-processing, these will correspond to the nature of objects in the universe: things vs. people. One function will pay attention to things, while the other will be more about considering the affect of things on people.

  20. “The divisions of reality that make up the cognitive perspectives that form type. We perceive through space or time (S/N), judge based on things or people (T/F), and engage these functions in either the environment or individual realms (i/e)”.

  21. Now using the “cathexis” concepts (see to discuss the functions.

    To recap, “Object cathected” data is said to be taken as “perceptions”, while “ego cathected” data is recognized as your own “thoughts”.

    So with introverted function, the ego cathects S, N, T or F data; (and I’m wondering if we always recognize the perspective as our own thought? Sometimes it seems as if we don’t; so I’m wondering if that might be part of what’s “unconscious” about introverted functions. Perhaps, what’s conscious is the object cathexis of the associated extraverted function [other preferred function, or tandem mate, or either/both?] where the ego object cathects the SNTF data and recognizes it as an “object”).

    Extraverted functions do seem to be taken as “perceptions” (even if a judging function!) Like Te types will often be the one to say “that’s just the way it is!” when you question the logic or purpose of their decisions, or decisions they are upholding. (They can never admit any subjective factor in the matter, and even though the functional perspective may be by definition “objective”, there’s still a “subject” present, that has to receive and process the data).
    Fe also takes its judgments as “givens”; like my wife saying why the house MUST be cleaned, especially when others are coming over. The data will likely be filled in by the associated perception function.

    So to apply the cathexis concept to the functions (starting with Feeling, which deals directly with the “human” aspect of the ego):

    Fi: Those are my feelings I see in the other person (“good” or “bad”). Let me respond as I would want to be responded to
    Fe: Those are not my feelings, but let me take them as my own (“good” or “bad”) and respond to what they are expressing
    Ti: Those are my thoughts, (“correct”; take as confirmation) or not my thoughts (“incorrect”; ignore or fix)
    Te: Those are not my thoughts, but let me take them as my own (“correct”, and whatever doesn’t carry the same weight is “incorrect”).

    (We can see there, for Feeling, the judgment is determined directly by the emotional state of self or others, while for Thinking, it’s about matching one thought with another).

    Si: That’s my experience (what “is”); let me instruct others accordingly. If it “isn’t” my experience, I’ll be slow to trust it
    Se: That’s not my experience; let me take it as my own, anew (even if I’ve taken it on before)
    Ni: That’s my image of potential outcomes or the big picture, let me find a way to inform others from it
    Ne: That’s not my image of potential outcomes or the big picture (it’s implied by the object itself), but let me take it as my own.

    Anima as dealing with Internal Object Relations:

    The concept of “Internal objects” is one reason it was good to turn away from a simple “external=extraverted=object”; “internal=introverted=subject” definition (in favor of “environmental/individual”). As has been acknowledged, all of our processes are “internal”, yet there are still “objects” (ultimately from the environment) inside the individual’s psyche. Xi/e then is about who is doing the perceiving or judging, the actual subject, or the internal or external object.

    Inferior Fe: object-cathects “personal” judgments of inner objects
    Inferior Fi: ego-cathects “personal” judgments of inner objects, but as thoughts of self-judgment

    ITP “perceives” interpersonal inferiority, where ETJ has nagging thoughts about being internally inferior (which he may call “lacking integrity”), which he sees as being under his [purely mental] control, yet is forced to admit it’s not easy.
    This is one place where the TJ will strongly follow and pitch “self-help” principles, and will chide the IP for being passive about the problems.

    Demonic Fi: ego-cathects negative “personal worth” judgments in the form of endless negative thoughts (which he may be conscious of thinking, but it’s still unconsciously controlled, as if it “just is”).
    Demonic Fe: object-cathects a sense of low interpersonal worth which then becomes a strong perception read into everything in the environment.

    Inferior Ti ego-cathects nagging thoughts about being illogical, and tries to compensate by being critical of others’ logic.
    Inferior Te perceives the internal object judging him as illogical, and tries to compensate through logical acts (e.g. “Supine ‘service’”)

    Some other new thoughts on the functions:

    Dominant perspectives (what your ego is most energized in saying):

    S: “Behold!” (“hark”, hands-on, etc.)
    N: “Imagine!“
    T: “True!” (“correct”)
    F: “Good!” (“Nice!”)

    I was trying to think, for instance, how we can tell from our two preferred functions, which one is dominant, and which is auxiliary. Especially if the auxiliary might be extraverted, and thus more visible. The dominant proclamation will be what your ego “lives for”, so to speak.

    So to add the attitudes:

    Se: Behold! what’s before us
    Si: Behold! how it has proven itself to be
    Ne: Imagine! from these patterns we can ponder on
    Ni: Imagine! from what your mind can come up with
    Te: Correct! according to what’s before us
    Ti: True! according to what I have determined
    Fe: Nice! to the people around us
    Fi: Good! according to what brings inner harmony

    The functions and getting data from other people

    Se: their words exist because they said them
    Si: their words exist because I remember them saying them
    Ne: it’s a possible idea because they said it
    Ni: it’s a possible idea (or not) because it matches what arises from within
    Te: it’s correct/true because they said it
    Ti: what they said is correct/true because it matches what I think
    Fe: it’s good because they felt that way
    Fi: what they feel is good because it matches what I feel

    Thought of this, because I do reference other people a lot, like Beebe, Berens or Lenore, and some people have thought this was Te, where Ti is stereotyped as making everything up yourself. But Te would be thinking it’s true merely because of what they said. I uphold their theories becuase they match a sense of order I have inside (namely stuff like symmetry, or the ideas making other things fit logically), and so something “clicks” [i.e. “inside”], and I then adopt the idea. Notice, it’s the IDEA that is being adopted from the external object, not the TRUTH of it! So what is really being extraverted there is iNtuition (which is then “parented” to others through sharing the idea).
    So the the truth of a theory is ego-cathected into my own thoughts of what is logical. The idea of it (timelike potential as a viable explanation of behavior) is then object-cathected as a perception of reality that I “try on” as if it were verified reality (which is then what runs afoul of S and/or J types who demand something more empirical). Though, again, I’m thinking the “unconscious” nature of introversion might make me not readily aware that it’s my thought, so what takes over consciousness is the object cathected perception.

    Now, this is where the “perception” involves an actual perception function from it being extraverted, and the ego cathected “thought” is the judgment function. With introverted perception, the perception is the ego cathected “thought” the person projects outward, (though again, maybe not consciously so), and the judgment ends up as the object cathected “perception” he introjects. This will come out in their “that’s the way it is” statements, where their environmentally standardized judgment is seen as inevitable and not their own. An introverted judger may try to make his judgment out to be that way [e.g. Jung, paraphrase: “the thinking introvert likes to think his subjective thinking is objective”], and can do this by appealing to “universals”, but it’s still his own interpretations, and the actual perception itself is what’s truly coming from an external object.

    Preferred function perspectives:
    ST practical mechanics
    SF practical humanities
    NT philosophized mechanics
    NF philosophized humanities

    A quick way I have found, to get a sense of type in watching vloggers and Facebook posters; likely F’s will be more about “living life” and “fun”, such as doing the “pranks” and “challenges” vlogs will tag each other to do next. Thinking types may do some of this, but will devote more videos to “how to”-type presentations, in whatever their field is. (Even girly stuff like cosmetics).
    Sensing types will remain on the practical side of life, whether fun, or day to day living, or the how to. Intuitives will do some of this, but also venture to more abstract topics like politics and religion. They will often engage their followers to join in a more intellectual discussion. Hence, their sense of the mechanics or human affects of things is more “philosophized”. That’s why, for instance, the NF is called an “Idealist”.

    Perception functions and the future:
    Se: make future happen by seizing immediate opportunities
    Si: forecast future based on actual past tangible experience
    Ne: hypothesize on possible futures based on external patterns
    Ni: predict future based on universal patterns that come up as unsubstantiated “hunches”

  22. Something that should also be addressed in understanding the attitudes, is what we mean to begin with, when we say “internal” and “external”. It can be hard to determine what’s really “internal”, because really, all of our processes are technically “internal”.

    External world (environment) source of all data
    Internal world (individual) where we receive and process all data

    [collective unconscious— Starts out also external, but internalized; both personal and collective]

    The process of data going from the environment to the individual is perception (“input”)
    The process of data being internally assessed as right or wrong is judgment (“processing”)
    The process of data going from the individual to the environment is behavior (“output”)

    The extraverted subject [or complex/ego-state] simply goes to the environment to get to the [objective] source of the incoming data.
    The introverted subject filters it within

    (Input is differentiated as a perception function and processing differentiated as a judgment function when connected to a typological complex. Extraverting is more than passive perception; it’s the ego state actively engaging the environment; seeking the input. With Se, tangible data is constantly coming in, but the ego state is already going out seeking it, and thus “paying more attention” [as we’ve often put it] to it.)

    Now, articulating a way to distinguish dominant from auxiliary perspectives. This stemmed from thinking of how to really make sure I was not Ne dominant (as it may seem sometime). The two preferred functions are still not on an equal footing. The dominant is the one the ego really invests in. The auxiliary is just there, supplied by a “supporting” complex or ego state, because of the need for balance (to balance the dominant’s judging or perception with the opposite mode of rationality, and the dominant’s introverted or extraverted attitude with the opposite).
    I realized that what I’ve always most “relished” is judgments, of true (T), by my own internal (i) assessment. Ne is just what I will tend to apply those truths to, as “ideas”.

    So to start with my type, and compare with all the others:

    Ti ego: lives for the proclamation of “true! true! correct! correct!” as determined by the individual. I’ve recognized that I’m what’s called an “Intellectual narcissist”; I look back over my writings, [type, politics, other interests, etc.], noting the key points, and subconsciously relishing “true!” via the emotions (which are based on an impersonal declaration of “truth”, not on the emotional state in its own right). Things that are “false” bring very negative emotions, especially when affecting the ego, but at other times, can be totally trivial, like simple lack of symmetry of something. A nice symmetry brings a warm feeling of an un-spoken “true”. Broken symmetry will feel dissonant. When it’s a symmetry involving interaction with other people (such as “respect me as you want me to respect you”), then it’s particularly bad (because that now gets into negative Feeling).
    Ne support: draws them to the philosophical side of things; shares truths as “ideas”, telling others to “imagine” them as possibilities, to see the truth in them, or how they work

    Ne ego: lives to “imagine! imagine!” Already geared to the environment (patterns extracted from real life), so it’s not as much about sharing with others. It’s for them to relish the world of ideas. (Will not be as grounded upon “truth” or “goodness” as the Ji dominant. This was brought to mind by someone on a transit forum, who always puts out wild ideas of how to rearrange subway lines, even though many have shown him they will never be seen as efficient by the Transit agency. I myself had begin coming up with all sorts of ideas years ago, but quickly learned [and then internalized] the agency’s principles of how to run things (and this even before working for the agency myself). Some may think someone ignoring “logic” like this might not be a Ti type; he might be an ENFP with an active tertiary Te. But the fact that his focus is so strongly on technical judgments of how to arrange things suggests a strong “mechanical” focus, and they are totally his judgments; ignoring the judgments of the external authority. An ENFP would not remain so focused on such impersonal elements. So it’s not lack of Ti; it’s Ne being perhaps a bit overdriven, and thus not grounded enough with the T judgment of whether the principles behind the ideas are “correct”, and, which when dominant and more mature, would also know when to back itself up with the opposite attitude. An ENFP with an overdriven dominant will still have more of a “personal” focus, but not realize the ideas are not really doing anything for the people).
    Ti support (ENTP): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares imaginations by showing others how the ideas work. (Would explain someone like rapper KRS. You don’t actually see the “living in the imagination” part; you just see the ideas put out there strongly as authoritative “truths”).
    Fi support (ENFP): draws them to the human side of things, sharing imaginations by showing others how the ideas affect people, like spreading happiness through “silliness”, or using theories like this to improve self and personal relationships

    Fi ego: lives for the proclamation of “good! good! nice! nice!”. I imagine they might look back over their things, noting the key points, and subconsciously relishing “good!” via the emotions, which are what are focused on.
    Ne support: shares niceties as “ideas”, telling others to “imagine” them as possibilities, to see the goodness in them

    Se support: draws them to the practical side of things; shares truths or niceties as practical experience such as the arts, mechanics, etc. showing others how tangible things work, or how to experience the joys of life

    Se ego: lives to take in “what is”. Already geared to the environment, where emergent data is taken in ‘as is’, so it’s not as much about sharing with others. It’s for them to relish the moment of tangible reality. (Will not be as grounded upon “truth” or “goodness” as the Ji dominant. If too overdriven above a Ti sense of how things work, a person may do all sorts of stunts figuring from Se alone that he’s mastered it, and yet make critical mistakes and get hurt. If too overdriven above an Fi sense of what affects people, may engage in offensive verbal or physical play).
    Ti support (ESTP): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares experiences by showing others their sense of how the dynamics of them work.
    Fi support (ESFP): draws them to the human side of things, sharing experiences by showing others their sense of how they affect people, like spreading happiness through “fun”, or using internet venues like this to interact with others

    Si ego: lives to draw on the experience of what “is”, as maintained and filtered by the individual. Relishes what’s “known”, used to navigate what currently “is“.
    Te support: (ISTJ): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares practical knowledge by showing others how they work to produce efficiency.
    Fe support (ISFJ): draws them to the human side of things, sharing practical knowledge by showing others how to meet needs, like spreading happiness through service (Fi dom. “pure” Supines, in contrast, serve ‘actively’ via inferior Te, through which they are seeking acceptance in return. They’re not adopting the environment’s values, but rather environmental efficiency, though in a subordinate way).

    Ni ego: like Ne, lives to “imagine! imagine!”, but now the patterns are extracted from the individual’s own reflection or sudden insight, which do not come directly, immediately from the environment. This is for them to relish an internal world of ideas. (Will not be as grounded upon “truth” or “goodness” as the Je dominant)
    Te support: (INTJ): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares their visions by showing others how they work to produce efficiency.
    Fe support (INFJ): draws them to the human side of things, sharing their visions by showing others how to meet needs, like spreading harmony through giving insights

    Te ego: lives for the “truth” of efficient order. Will point to “objectivity”, but the ego still is gratified, relishing the “correctness” of how things work in creating order and flets at “incorrect“.
    Si support (ESTJ): draws them to the tangible side of things, drawing upon their individual knowledge of “what is” in how to create efficiency.
    Ni support (ENTJ): draws them to the philosophical side of things, drawing upon their individual visions of how to create efficiency

    Fe ego: lives for the “goodness” of environmental personal harmony. Relishes “good!” “nice“, “liked” in the environment, and frets at “bad” or “disliked” as well.
    Si support (ESFJ): draws them to the tangible side of things, drawing upon their individual knowledge of “what is” in how to create interpersonal harmony.
    Ni support (ENFJ): draws them to the philosophical side of things, drawing upon their individual visions of how to create interpersonal harmony.

    While I have recognized how I totally don’t click with SFP’s (the cognitively furthest from my perspective), I’ve had to consider why I don’t seem to click any better with STP’s; including fellow-Ti dom. ISTP.
    From what I’m seeing, for Ti doms., the S/N clash by itself is enough to make them totally miss each other.

    Fe and Fi dominants will share a common focus on things human, regardless of S/N. Te dominants will focus on efficient logical order, regardless of S/N. In both cases, that will only shape the way they go about it.
    S dominants will focus on engaging the tangible world, and N dominants on their imagination, regardless of T/F.

    But Ti dominants seem to be interested in totally different things, and have little use for each other, because of the individual, impersonal nature of Ti. (It seems TiNe is more likely to engage the tangible things of TiSe than TiSe is to pay attention to the abstract world of Ne, which they find as irrelevant as much as any other S. Even tertiary Ni will not really get them interested but so much. Meanwhile even fellow TiNe types might “miss” each other, if their Ti conclusions are different, and the ego is invested in them enough for even Ne to consider the other idea. Still, from what I’ve seen, there will at least usually be a common respect and acknowledgement of it as valid as an idea).
    So the common Ti ego focus will only mean they both primarily process the mechanical side of things individually; but the type of data they are taking in for processing is completely different. Even when TiNe takes in current tangible data, they are usually just extracting Ne patterns out of it.

    Another thought:

    Resistance to logical data:

    When some “universal” logical “truth” is presented to me, but it for some reason doesn’t sit well with the ego, it may seem like Ti, but the question to ask is, from the viewpoint of the ego, where is it coming from? The individual (the ego itself), or the environment (everywhere else)?
    It’s clearly coming from the outside. I myself did not draw that conclusion from my own internal reasoning; it was, in many times essentially “forced” on me (especially when delivered in a pointed fashion by a Te type, for whom the perspective is ego-syntonic), and thus lands on the ego as Te, which is of course “oppositional” or obstructive to the ego. Once [or more accurately, if] the ego filters and then integrates it, it then enters and becomes apart of the Ti perspective.
    (Of course, the same will apply with the difference between Fi and Fe. On the reverse side, Je might resist data that comes from outside the ego when it appears to be someone’s own subjective judgment, but if it can be substantiated by an external authority or need, then it will be integrated into their Je perspective).

  23. In discussing the previous post on one of the boards, and the subject of “what cognitive function did you mostly use a child? (4-8/9)? And what did you start developing as a preteen/teenager?” came up (which I had planned to address above, but left out). I finally got around to penning an example I had long considered writing, that has always loomed in the back of my mind as one of the most colossal “incorrect” judgments, from when I was about that age.

    At that time, I was getting into maps of NYC, and had creating a mental map of the whole layout of the city. One time, toward the beginning of this period, someone with a car had taken us to the neighborhood of Sheepshead Bay, where the central Brooklyn grid of “East” number streets (which I grew up in, but further inland) all end at the waterfront. We were on Nostrand Ave., which acts as “East 30th St.” (basically, the n/s avenues in this section were ten blocks apart, on the multiple of 10), and yet; I wondered where E 31st St. was. There were named streets after that, and I wondered why. Eventually, when reading maps, and also passing down Kings Hwy, I see that there was a smaller grid, that sort of “attached” to Flatbush Ave., which runs about 30° or so SSE across the main grid. So after Kings Hwy (aligned roughly with this grid at that point, but running across), this whole sub grid runs parallel to it [Flatbush] on the west. (This is the “Marine Park” section).
    What happens, is that they decided to run E31-38th St. in this new grid, so that they turn slightly east, and run parallel to Flatbush Ave. (I think of it as being “dragged” or “drawn away” by Flatbush Ave.) Rather than running past Avenue Z and ending at the bay like the streets under 30, they then end before, at or a block or so after Ave. U, where the actual “Marine Park” (which is more of a desolate marsh, with some marinas and golf courses) begins, and only Flatbush Ave. goes all the way through, and to the beaches.

    So this was also like a sense of incompleteness, and being diverted and cut short before reaching the goal. (I take this as evidence of an auxiliary iNtuition being yet undeveloped, and thus the attitudes not fully differentiated. It was technically Ne, comparing one objective pattern [the streets] to another [the notion of reaching a goal] though it came off more as an unconscious “archetypal” Ni-like sense that I didn’t even fully realize as such until much later when I began thinking about functions).
    So after this new grid ends, and the main grid resumes after Avenue R (as a wedge between Nostrand Ave. and Gerritsen Ave.), new streets have to take their place, and they run to the bay. (What I also found was that addresses on the lettered cross avenues, are matched to the numbered streets [So the block after “E. ## St.” would have addresses in the ##00’s. There aren’t 100 addresses between streets, so it only generally runs up to ##21 or 23 on the north side, and ##22 or 24 on the south side, so that’s 11 or 12 lots on each side, and houses and buildings can of course take up more than one lot, and corner houses can be addressed to the side street as well. So there are plenty of numbers to spare]. So then they begin stretching out the 2900 range across Nostrand and beyond, and then eventually the 3000 range, until the avenue crosses over to the new grid, and eventually reaches the new E31st St., where it picks up with the 3100’s).

    So this always struck me as so “incorrect” (didn’t consciously think the word, but that’s what the emotions were conveying), and something I would have wanted to fix, if I could. It was a trivial thing no one else cared about, —except for those driving and looking for the missing streets, not knowing which way they’ve gone.

    I even figured that it might be more “correct” from the perspective of driving down one of the eight realigned streets, where there is a continuity where they connect; but even then, it still doesn’t work quite like that. For some reason, when they cross Kings Hwy (Or Flatlands Av., when Kings Hwy veers further north later on) they shift over a block west, so that the new E31st branches off of Nostrand, then the old 31st then turns into the new 32nd. 32nd and 33rd curve into the new 33rd and 34th, respectively, and by the time it gets to 36th, it’s shifted to where it falls between the new 37th and 38th. So to me, this all the more says the numbered streets should have just picked up their old alignment in the main grid, and the Marine Park streets take the new names.
    (There were eight numbered streets that could swap evenly with the first eight named streets. Then, there’s four more named streets replacing 39-42, until Flatbush Ave. E39th takes its new name, Ryder St. even before it enters the grid, and it reaches Flatlands Av. two blocks east of where the new alignment picks up. On the Gerritsen side, there are two more short streets where 39 and 40 would be, but they are named Plumb [Beach] 1st and 2nd St. East of that is the Gerritsen Beach section, which is comprised of narrow alphabetically ordered streets and cross avenues of small bungalows, aligned with Gerritsen and the Marine Park grid (and separated from the main grid by water), which by that time has ended for the park.
    The lettered avenues in the main grid enter the Marine Park section, taking its alignment, and then end at Flatbush (the avenues by then north of where they should be), where the main grid and the originally aligned letter avenues resume, until Ave. S, which then reenters straight across into the main grid, but in the place Quentin Rd [Ave. Q] should be, but then ends shortly, and the realigned Ave. T and U end the grid. Fillmore Ave. was an extra street between R and S in the Marine grid, that then replaces Ave. P in the eastern main grid).

    Even before this, when I was a 3, 4 or 5 year old riding in the back of a van across Brooklyn from nursery school, and usually the last one dropped off as I probably lived the furthest away, I one day notice we are in the East 90’s, and I expected to see an E100th St. but again, there didn’t seem to be one. Now, this was well before I read maps, so I didn’t know what was going on. Even though far away from Marine Park, it’s still connected, as the same grid overlay was involved.

    So continuing; the Marine Park grid, anchored by Flatbush Ave., moving east, then “overwrites” the rest of the main grid, so that nothing to the east (after E38th) ever makes it to the other side of Flatbush, and then the new grid moves east of Flatbush as Avenue T and U keep the alignment, and after the grid has swallowed up to 51st. St, the remaining streets run only one block in the new grid, as Kings Plaza and Mill Basin is beyond there, and some of the streets go into this little pocket named after the basin.
    The whole main grid ends at Ralph Ave. (E60th), and then is replaced by a whole grid aligned with T and U, embodying the neighborhoods of Bergen Beach, Canarsie and Flatlands. (By now, the avenues jump from N to T as everything inbetween has been swallowed up. Avenues V-Y do resume, for a short stretch, then crossing Paerdegat Basin into Canarsie, the bay shoreline has moved north to cut off everything after N, with Seaview Ave. taking T’s place).

    This runs up to E108th St., the last of the Brooklyn “East” streets, and then you enter the East New York grid, which has a slightly different alignment, and this then enters Queens as Ozone Park and Howard Beach, which use the extensive Queens numbering system.

    The ENY grid (including Brownsville) cuts into the Canarsie/Marine Park grid wiping out the last ten streets so that E98th is now the last. At Linden Blvd., two blocks north of Avenue A, (to give a sense of where this is), a small strip of the Canarsie grid from Remsen Ave. (E90th) to 98th, now begins cutting westward into the main grid, overwriting the entire 50’s range so that Remsen runs into Utica Ave. (E50) in a junction with Empire Blvd. which merges into East NY Avenue, which then takes the Canarsie grid alignment as the extreme north limit of it. This was apparently the street we were going down (I even remember the general way the area looked; with some moderate sized old apt. buildings like where I lived), and that’s why I only saw up to E98th. The grid for E99th and up begins after Ave. D.

    Could also point out (I know I have mentioned parts of this elsewhere), that in this same van, my fascination with the symmetry of colors began, as I would often ride in the back, and the right red side light had the little bulb socket fixture removed, so we could see the red lens light from inside, but as you know, white light shining through those things looks more “orange”, so we thought it was orange. One day, a kid said there was a “red” one on the opposite side, though I couldn’t see it. (Perhaps was covered. He probably saw it from the outside, and figured it was a different color than the one seen from the inside).
    “Pure red” had already taken on a positive connotation, as in this same nursery school, I remember liking red juice (which was punch, which was sweet) and not the more “orange”-red colored (and thicker) tomato juice they gave us (yuck! Even before this, orange and green baby food I hated, and this would likely shape my lifelong distaste for peas and carrots. I do eat raw or not fully cooked carrots, though).

    Enter the functions

    I had to ask, what was all of this, function-wise? Part of it was influenced by being an Aspie, as we realize now. Still, it can be categorized in terms of SNTF.
    Was it Ne? While it was technically “externally” derived, and the sort of trivial (not “practical”) data the largely S environment around me found useless, and thus likely an N way of thinking; it was still also data rationally filtered within, and was about “correctness”, and not taking in ideas or possibilities from the environment for their own sake.

    There is a lot of Si involved as well, but this didn’t really figure until pre-teens, when I began paying more attention to these memories, and becoming nostalgic about the past in general. That’s when I began putting together a “ratio” style symmetry of colors, where “orange is to red as green is to blue”. I would then imagine that in the front of the van, there would be a green on the right side, and a blue on the left side. So you would have a square matrix with the colors on the four corners. I had found little round red, orange, and even blue and green reflectors in a bike shop, and attached them to my bicycle wheels like that!

    Ironically, the front is where the orange side lights are supposed to be, but these are actually amber (yellowish-orange), and look more yellow when light shines through them. Yellow was one of the axes of this matrix (primary colors vs color + yellow; and the other axis was “bluish” colors vs “reddish” colors. The “opposite” of yellow would be simply white (and likewise, gold vs silver), and to complete it, the “opposite” of purple would be brown, which is purple + yellow. (Rubiks Cube is even arranged like this; with red opposite orange, blue opposite green, and white opposite yellow! I’m willing to bet Erno Rubik is a Ti dom; though most likely the “S” variant, ISTP!)
    (This also tied to direction, with the yellowed colors on the right being the “west” side, if the van was heading [mostly] south toward home, and the nonyellow colors on the left being east. The west was the “sunny” side in the afternoon, which fit being “yellowish”, and the east, representing the morning, the more “fresh” side).

    This was all busted up, when I began having to wonder why green was treated as a primary on the color TV set, and then, well into adulthood, learning about color mixing with LED’s, when red+green ones were spreading, and blue ones were announced in the 90’s making all colors possible, and thus having to learn the difference between “additive” and “subtractive” mixing, where those two “yellowish” colors in my old matrix are actually [closer to] the fundamental optical primaries, and “pure” yellow itself was actually the mixture of them!)

    Some say the tertiary develops around this time (pre-teens), though others say it is in adulthood. Even if that was true, it’s still possible for it to develop early. So it was a good bet Si was tertiary and not inferior, which was more evidence for Ti being the dominant.

    Clearly, what we see is that from the beginning, it was about judging “truth”, or the way things “should” be. Then, in pre-teens, it becomes a tandem of imagining parallel contexts in the outer world where these truths could be applied, and accessing the internal storehouse of tangible experience to reference to put together these ideas. (Recall, Jung sometimes treated the aux. and tert. as “two auxiliaries”. The fact that for me, both developed so strongly, is more evidence that it’s not a dom/inferior “spine”. It’s also likely why their shadows, Ni and Se, are the weakest for me on K2C, where other INTP’s who have not developed their tertiary as much, will generally have higher Ni and/or Se. [Again, relative “strengths” do not have to match the stacking order]. What was totally left out the whole time was the “human” factor; showing F was the inferior).

  24. Just figured that the way to complete the Perception attitude terms started by Berens is

    Se “what is” [taken in the moment]
    Si “what was” [used to filter what is]
    Ne what IF [the common question Ne poses; what can be “discovered”]
    Ni what YET [what remains to be “revealed”]

    This replacing “What could be” and “what will be” for the N attitudes. “Could be” fits either attitude of N, and “will be”, while fitting somewhat for Ni, gives a false generalization and impression of Ni being solely about the future. Both “could” and “will” are about the future, though “will” is more certain, and Ni isn’t always about predicting necessarily certain events.

    “What yet” brings to mind the Biblical story of the Rich Young Ruler, who asked “what yet do I lack?” in keeping the Law. This is actually useful in fitting Ni’s description of dealing with the “unconscious” and the “hunches” that spring from it. If he was so certain he was observing the whole Law “from my youth”, then why would he ask Jesus what he lacked? Not even “DO I lack?”, as if “just checking; just in case” (which is more of the Ne perspective; “what if“), but basically confessing SOMETHING was [definitely] missing somewhere. This was an unconscious intuition, and then Jesus “fills in” the missing element, that he was clinging onto his possessions, and this violated the intent of the Law, though not the actual letter. (This sort of filling in the hard STJ sort of data of the people with Ni-like products is what makes people think Jesus was an INFJ even though as the Son of God, He wouldn’t have a type).

    • Cooperative/Pragmatic (eC): follow or lead (sounds like wC, but):
      Structure/Motive (wC): the criteria for following or leading

      NT leads according to the dictates of a philosophical structure
      NF follows according to the dictates of a philosophical motive
      SP leads according to the dictates of a practical motive
      SJ follows according to the dictates of a practical structure

      (in a “philosophical” perspective, structure leads to leading, motive leads to following. In a “practical” perspective structure is what you follow, and motive leads you to initially take the lead, but you’ll also know when to stop; hence the “independent/dependent conflict”)

      Also; look what I can do: E/I + S + T/FE/I + N + J/P

      ‹span class=”nowrap”›‹span style=”display:inline-block;vertical-align:-.5em;font-size:85%;text-align:center;”›‹span style=”display:block;line-height:1em;padding:0 .1em;” title=”upper dentition: Incisors.Canines.Premolars.Molars”›E/I + S + T/F‹/span›‹span style=”display:block;line-height:1em;padding:0 .1em;border-top:1px solid;” title=”lower dentition: Incisors.Canines.Premolars.Molars”›E/I + N + J/P‹/span›‹/span›‹/span›

      Another way of expressing it:

      E/I + S + T/FN + J/P

      This ‹SPAN› element I found that can turn text into a “fraction” form. This simplifies the “formula” for Interaction Styles!

  25. I defined perception (S/N) as “Yes/No”: “there or not there” and judgment (T/F) as “right or wrong”. I’m considering replacing “there“ with “tenable”. I’m reluctant, because it sounds like it implies some judgment. The word means “able to be held” as “true” (which right there would be Thinking).

    Still, while the act of “holding” the “truth” may be “rational”, the fact that it’s a matter of the information’s “ability” to be held can be seen as making it less rational, and thus more about the perception of the information itself.
    The “truth” aspect may be more of an undifferentiated form of judgment. When you see something there before you, you assume its existence is “true”, but it’s not a full rational analysis. (Just like the act of seeing it is not necessarily a differentiated “Sensing” function).
    The “holding” part of it may simply indicate the perception then being picked up by the associated judgment function.
    Pi in particular is prone to say that things are “untenable” (“NO”), because they don’t match internal images (or pass with Je evaluation). With Pe, tenability is determined strictly by the environment (so even if the internal associated Ji says “wrong!”, Pe can still look for opportunities to open up).

    Edit: an even better term seems to be “viable”.

  26. With perception basically answering “yes/no” (where judgment tells us if it’s “right or wrong”)

    Se yes/no (what “is” or not) determined by whatever is physically before you
    Si yes/no (what “is” or not) determined by whatever you remember physically experiencing
    Ne yes/no (pattern of where it “could be” heading or not) determined by the objects involved themselves
    Ni yes/no (pattern of where it “could be” heading or not) determined by internal unconscious

    Both Ne and Ni “fill in” things from a “big picture”, but Ne lets the object or entire environment fill in its own big picture, where Ni looks within to access a wholly separate big picture, that others likely can’t even be made to see.

    Ne I find says “yes” to everything, because looking at an object, you can imagine anything for it. It’s basically the judgment function or tandem-mate Si that would have to indicate an outcome is not tenable or viable.

    Ni will say “yes” or “no” (and more often says “no”, especially to things Ne takes for granted) based on a hunch, gut instinct, or image that just comes up. Then, Je will be used to verify the “yes” as “right”, or “no” as” wrong”.
    This brings to mind an example I’ve used, in the debate on the type boards as to whether functions are valid to begin with, and one INTJ insisting they aren’t, often uses what’s basically Te authority (psychometrics and “empirical” science) to debunk them. Other INTJ’s accept functions, so what’s the difference? One person’s Ni is saying “no”, and the others’ are saying “yes”. Both then use Te to verify their perceptions. It looked to me like this “no” had no basis, as long as Ne said “yes”, and then Ti could verify it because it fits logically (and in other topics, such as religious debate, I would see parts of the opponent’s arguments as often just “pulling things out of the air”), but it’s Ni, behind the scenes just perceiving it as untenable; not able to be held), for reasons that might not even be conscious.

    I would say, any image or interpretive thought that comes up (that isn’t a past concrete experience), that locks on to a “yes” or especially “no” to a possibility, regardless of what the involved object itself would allow, is likely Ni.
    (It’s “automatic-ness” is similar to Se, hence both functions in tandem fitting “Realizing Awareness”).

  27. Going with new “super simple“ function definitions:

    Perception: object provides the perception; subject does the perceiving
    (Pe: subject adopts object; Pi: subject filters object)

    Se apparent reality
    Si self-referenced reality
    Ne apparent implications
    Ni self-referenced implications

    Je: object provides the judgment (“revealing”); subject adopts it; “they said it, that settles it
    Ji: subject does the judging, filtering the object through this “they said it, this is MY take on it“ (right, wrong or more complicated)

    Te revealed truth
    Ti self-determined truth
    Fe revealed goodness
    Fi self-determined goodness

    This started with the judgment functions, when I realized that “revealed truth” was a great description of the Te perspective, in contrast to my own method of “self-determination” of what’s true. This in conjunction with the example I gave above of the contrast with INTJ’s, and how once their Ni says “no” to something, they then turn to an external authority like “science” to confirm that what they’re rejecting is “false”. The term “revealed” then seemed to fit.

    So then, it was a matter of extending it to the perception functions, and “self-referenced” seemed fittingly less “rational” than self-determined, and it took awhile to find a unique term for Pe, but looking up a synonym for the overused “external”, “apparent“ then seemed to fit.


    I had been avoiding the more popular “T=logic”; “F=values” definitions, because those terms are so “common”, they don’t really tell you what T and F really are. They just raise the question “doesn’t everyone use logic and have values?”

    But I think adding the terms “revealed” and “self-determined” for the attitudes makes the use of the terms more understandable as type-specific perspectives:

    Te: revealed logic
    Ti: self-determined logic
    Fe: revealed values
    Fi: self-determined values

    We can also add the function combinations:

    ST: correct practice
    SF: nice practice
    NT: correct ideas
    NF: nice ideas

  28. Also redoing one part of the function tree:

    cognition: “yes/no”
    perception: is/isn’t* judgment: “right/wrong“
    S: known/unknown N: guessed/’nay’ed T: true/false F: good/bad

    *was reluctant to move “is” here (from “S”) since it’s usually associated with S (starting with Jung); and particularly Se (e.g. Berens/Nardi). But this is really assuming all that exists is the physical world only; all that “is” is what can be perceived through the senses. In reality, invisible elements, such as the intuitive trajectories Jung called “where it’s heading” (i.e. patterns, “big pictures”, etc.) are “things” that “exist” as well.
    You could distinguish it as S=”WHAT it is” [the existence of something is already given], and perception in general is “THAT it is”, to begin with).

    Also determined the opposite of “guessing” for N is basically “naysaying”. That’s the term I think of when Ni preferrers oppose Ne’s ideas, seemingly for no reason at all (other than trying to justify it with Je as mentioned). Technically, it means any “no” response, but when often, when a particular person is called a “naysayer”, it means they say “no” without any real rational or objective basis. (Again, Ne doesn’t really say “no” on its own).

    This is all part of a reframing of the whole thing,where “yes/no” is moved up from perception, to really all of our cognition. Judgment is basically “yes/no” as well. It’s more of a “rational” yes/no that basically amounts to declaring it “right or wrong” (which then breaks down into “true/false” or “good/bad”), while perception is an “a-rational” yes/no determining whether something is (as I had tried putting it before, but it was awkward as a “cognition/response” term), “there” or not. Since what we call “Sensing” is about a conscious ego’s sensory perception, and not about undivided reality, then rather than dealing with whether it “is” or not; its existence is known or not. (and its “reality” is either “apparent”, or “self-referenced”, to pick up the above attitude terms). If not known, then it is “guessed”, or “nayed” (and the implications are either apparent or self-referenced. Again, if the implications are apparent, then there is no “nay” with that attitude).

    To spell out the distinctions of the meanings of “consciousness” (i/e and S/N) better:

    It can be best shorthanded as the i/e attitude being the “access” of the data (conscious or unconscious), and S/N being the “experience” (conscious or unconscious).

    What “is” tangibly = “known” = “conscious experience”
    What “is” hypothetically = “guessed” = “not consciously experienced”

    “known” in the current environment = “consciously accessed conscious experience”
    “known” only in individual recollection = “unconsciously accessed conscious experience”
    “guessed” from the current environment = “consciously accessed unconscious experience”
    “guessed” from individual reflection = “unconsciously accessed unconscious experience”

  29. Taking the “yes/no” definition to the next step;

    Perception is when the data or life itself, says “yes” or “no”. Something is either there, or not there; you only can take it in, and agree or disagree.

    With S, tangible reality says “yes” (it’s there, perceptible via the senses), or “no” (it’s not there)
    Se, it’s emergent tangible reality being experienced currently in the environment
    Si, it’s recalled tangible reality, once experienced, and “stored” in the individual

    With N, a pattern (“Where it’s heading”) says “yes” or “no”.
    Ne, the pattern is the “external” object you are following. Ne by itself says “yes” to just about anything, and judgment will be needed to determine “no”.
    Ni, unconscious impressions are used to filter a pattern, and and determine “yes” or “no” from it.

    Judgment is when we ourselves; i.e. the “ego” (and it’s “will” or “emotions”), says “yes” or “no”.

    T, based on an impersonal criteria, such as how objects work, either by the environment, or the individual
    F, by personal criteria, such as how things affect people, again, by the environment or the individual

    These last two are what have been said many times already, but this new way of putting things is good for understanding the perception functions better.

  30. The NEUROLOGICAL connections; what’s actually going on in the brain:

    Se: Neural connections made by CURRENT, DIRECT input
    Si: Neural connections made by PREVIOUS, DIRECT input
    Ne: CURRENT neural connections from INDIRECT input
    Ni: PREVIOUS neural connections from INDIRECT input
    Te: Previous neural connections instruct current ones based on impersonal objects
    Ti: Current neural connections matched with previous ones based on impersonal objects
    Fe: Previous neural connections instruct current ones based on our emotional state
    Fi: Current neural connections matched with previous ones based on our emotional state

  31. Reimaging Bruzon’s illustration of “Feeling”:

    Bruzon ( draws a circle around the points of the matrix, which he calls “holistic”, where Thinking is the direct “linear” connections of the points. As we know, what Thinking deals with is the “impersonal”, while Feeling deals with things personal or interpersonal. The circle, and description of “holistic” don’t really capture this sense: “Any decisions taken by the Feeler must maintain the integrity of these wide, interdependent connections, and not just the immediate structure pertaining to the given situation.” This still sounds “impersonal” (though he goes on to state “Possibly due to the type of associations that are established, Feeling is concerned with people rather than things, bringing about a moral conscience, a sense of loyalty and responsibility. Feelers give priority to personal values and consider the broader perspective before making any decisions.”
    The reason for this “people” focus is not known for sure; only hypothesized to be connected to the “type of associations”).

    So to really capture this “personal” connection, it should be represented by a human shaped “holistic”.

    Ni helps Se creativity.

    Stevie Wonder, his contract 2 engineers Margouleff and Cecil, and Fagen & Becker and even Prince, are all likely ISTP. Ni works with Se in bringing up new sound pattern ideas from the unconscious. When I would try to imagine a new song, I would use Ne with Si, and basically “inquire” into tunes I already knew (Si), and try to work from there with ideas (Ne) of how to change them. What I would think up would always seem like just knockoffs or rehashes of other stuff. I couldn’t come up with anything “original”, and would wonder how anyone else ever could.
    But with SeNi, you “realize” what can be done with sound (Se), through unconscious ideas (Ni).

    I also think this tandem is helpful in the old street game of “ranking out”, and from there, freestyle rap battles (which were pretty much the same thing, set to rhyme and a beat). You have to be able to have responses come to you (Ni), and first, to see the opportunity for a response in what you hear (Se). So STPs and NTJs are likely the best at that. (The other two “Realizing” groups, NFJ and SFP, being Feeling types, will be more conflict-avoidant and less drawn to trading insults). STP’s will likely have the greatest edge, since Sensing is out front. They seem to be the group most prone to something like that. Like with sound artists, Ni will help out from the background. So this helps explain why some kids seemed so much better skilled at this.
    (This might make KRS seem like an STP, but as pointed out here, he’s clearly an iNtuitive, and I believe an example of an extraverted iNtuitive, which is an “Inquiring” type. With him, his skill is all Ne “ingenuity” from piecing together different lyrical elements. So it might be Ni as “backup” that helps him with the quick reaction. But sometimes, this can run into silliness, like the “deedle, deedle, deedle” chant he used as filler in a freestyle against Shan that Shan was able to mock, in return. There are a lot of holes in some of what he says, that he could really be called on, which is a vulnerability of Ne products. He also likely has a very activated “demonic personality” complex, which will be ready to spring into action with Se).

    Ni and theological debate

    Ni perspective would look at the phrase “I die daily” (1 Cor.15:31) and “though the outward man perish, the inward man is renewed day by day” (2Cor.4:16), and make the connection to what they believe is a “daily process” of “sanctification” (though scripture never identifies it as such) and piece it together with the concept of the “old man” (which must “die”) and be replaced by a “new man”. [But both of those verses are referring to literal physical death of the body, in martyrdom, not the old “sin nature” Paul elsewhere terms “the old man”].

    Likewise, a few passing references to “the first day of the week” is taken as proof of the existing Church tradition of Sunday worship, as (by apostolic authority) replacing the sabbath (and a single nondescript reference to something called “the Lord’s day” is added to this, and said to be an indicator of the day of the week).

    For the Godhead, the “Us” of Genesis and the “Word” of John, and the baptismal formula of Matthew, and a few other New Testament triadic references (2 Cor.13:14, etc. and various other “Old Testament hints”, as one of the books against Armstrongism put it) are put together as “clear scriptural support” for the explicit Trinitarian formula the Creeds began setting forth in the fourth century. Archbishop Wake, translating the second century epistle of 2 Clement, says that its statement of “Brethren, we ought to think of Jesus Christ as of God; as of the judge of the living and the dead” proves the writer’s “fullness of belief” on the Trinity, although it’s only comparing attributes of the Father and Son.
    But any scant “evidence” is taken as proving the whole, as being taught in its current form since the apostles (even though what really occurred was that the formula had been less developed the earlier back you went before the first Creed). Anyone deviating from this is completely anathematized as rejecting “historic Christianity”.

    Old line fundamentalists “just know” that the instruction for us to use “hymns, psalms and spiritual songs” in our worship rules out any contemporary style, which are then to be loudly denounced as totally “unscriptural”. No amount of reason will convince them of even the possibility of this being wrong.

    When you try to debate fundamentalism or “historic orthodoxy” on any of these points, they claim you are denying “clear scripture”. They “JUST KNOW” these interpretations are right, even if you don’t see them in the immediate contexts.
    It seems to be in retrospect that they find the other proof-texts, to support the position. And they don’t always fit, showing a presupposition that’s coming from somewhere else. They don’t even always seem aware that they’re just cobbling together sometimes disparate scriptures to support the premise. To them, the teaching is a given, and so of course, every scripture that can be cited on it will support it.

    Many will conclude the proper interpretation comes from “the Spirit”, who’s accessed via the “mind” and/or “heart”, through a “prayerful” and “meditative” reading of scripture. But then all religious movements say this, and yet come up with vastly different doctrines. So it would be safer to say, this is likely something other than the Spirit.

    People usually think the perennial “religious leader” is an NFJ. I would say those who are more “guru”-like and focusing on “love” and self-improvement might be. Those focused more on doctrinal debate (which would include the conservatives, such as “fundamentalists”), I believe, are more likely NTJ. (Which, on the negative side of type, also has more of a reputation for being obsessed with power, which of course fits).
    Both type groups have in common the Ni preference.
    (While someone with a lot of charisma and “feel good” messages but hardly any doctrine, like Osteen, seems to be NFP. A tough-talking, “coaching” style preacher, such as Joyce Myers, who’s accused of “health and wealth” teaching, but is really more about personal “motivation”, is likely ESTJ).

    With extraverted iNtuition, I can see how their readings of those scriptures are valid possibilities, but then I can also see or at least look for other possibilities (hence; Ne=”Inquiring”). Especially when I see a doctrine is surrounded by dispute and misunderstanding, like the Trinity, sabbath vs Sunday, or how this “dying daily” is so “difficult” and thus doesn’t seem like the “supernatural change” it’s promoted as. Introverting the judgment, then, is what will seek to verify, internally, whether the doctrine is right or wrong.

  32. I had long avoided trying to come up with single-term “names” for the eight function-attitudes, like Berens and Personality Hacker do, since these can be confusing. But when one of them came to me (see below), then I realized the key is to name perspectives (for that’s what the function-attitudes are, recall), instead of behaviors or actions, which the other people’s terms have been. (for it will usually turn out that either attitude can DO the same things).

    Se: immediacy (objects [instantly] form sense impressions)

    Si: familiarity (sense impressions emanate from subject)
    The first one that came to me. I would be thinking of the Si perspective, and “familiarity” kept coming to mind, and it fit, reminding me of the way Personality Hacker use “Memory” for Si.

    Ne: implications (objects form their own “big picture”)
    It’s really an object that implies another object

    Ni: forebodance (big picture emanates from the subject)
    The definition of “forebode” is basically “forsee” (as Berens uses for Ni; but I felt was not specific to it; technically, Ne, Si and even Se can “foresee” something happening, via their own faculties, such as memory or the immediate senses). “Foreboding” carries more of a specific sense of the impression coming from within, and not necessarily about the future, beyond the uncovering of the data
    Edit: perhaps “hunchery” is better. It doesn’t carry the negative connotation “forbode” does)

    Te: authority (correctness determined by an object)

    Ti: expediency (correctness determined by subject)
    Definition is “(of an action) convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral.” This has a strong “subjective” element to it, where “efficiency” can be either individual or environmental, but is usually assumed to be environmental

    Fe: Fellowship (Sense of “goodness” shared by a group; i.e. “object”)

    Fi: contentedness (Sense of “goodness” within the subject)

  33. Some people may think my (still tentative, really) term for Ni: “forebodance”, carries too much of a specifically negative connotation. One person I discussed this with, prefers Beren’s “foreseeing”. To me, that gives that impression that the function is about fortune telling. The term “forebode” conveys more of a sense of an internal hunch or gut feeling. I’m trying to point these things away from actions, and toward perspectives.

    So I found some other descriptions which better cover what the function is about

    Personality Junkie.

    It is often said that human beings rely more heavily on vision than any of the other senses. This seems especially true of INJs, who often report a strong visual element to their Introverted Intuition. They often think by way of images rather than words. Their intuitions often manifest in the form of symbols, images, dreams, or patterns. This is consistent with Jung’s characterization of the Ni type as a dreamer, artist, or seer. There is a distinct visual character to these notions, which is why vision-related terms—foresight, insight, seer, visionary, etc.—are invariably used in describing INJs.

    Of all types, INJs are those most concerned with the “big picture.” This can be understood in terms of their Ni, which is the most abstract and forward-looking of all functions. Ni is comprehensive and holistic. Its visions, answers, and insights manifest as comprehensive wholes.

    This I agree with. It’s about the inner vision; and “foresight” is only one term used to describe it, not the definition.

    Introverted Intuition (Ni) – Personality Growth

    Introverted Intuition (Ni) deals with understanding how the world works through internal intuitive analysis. Ni relies on gut feelings and intuition about a situation to help them understand. Introverted Intuition does not look at what is seen. Introverted Intuition forms an internal map and framework of how things work. The map is slowly adapted and adjusted over time to allow the user to get a better sense of the “big picture of things” and what steps to take to get the desired outcome.

    Introverted Intuition will take pieces of abstract information and make sense of it. It is not interested so much in concrete facts, as it is with the essence of ideas and theories, and how they all fit together. They are very good at recognizing patterns.

    Introverted Intuition may sense that something is off. They may notice a person’s tone of voice, a momentary pause, or body language that is incongruent to how they typically behave. These factors are observed in a more abstract way, making it difficult for the Ni user to explain their conclusion to others. They just get an overall feel or aura of the situation.

    Introverted Intuition can actually be compared very similarly with Introverted Sensing. Both take into account past events and how they unfolded. While Introverted Sensing will remember the facts and details of a past experience, Introverted Intuition will recall the essence of what happened and how events eventually played out. Ni users can take past experiences to assess a current situation, and then use this memory bank of experiences of what they sense will happen to envision whether a plan will be successful.

    This I also agree with. We see here Ni can even deal with the past, like Si.

    Career Planner Introverted Intuiting (Ni) Explained – One of Your Eight Cognitive Functions

    People whose dominant function is Introverted Intuiting (Ni) usually experience the world as such:

    You are used to having insights and hunches that frequently turn out to be correct. These “aha” moments are introverted intuiting at work.

    What happens is this. You feed your mind with information and data. You let your unconscious mind process the data. Then, perhaps when you are in the shower, or jogging, the answer just pops into your mind.

    It’s not magical nor mystical. It’s simply that, of the 4 ways to get information (the 4 perceiving functions), Ni is the only one that easily taps into the unconscious. In fact, Ni is the only perceiving function that is not under conscious control.

    Another good description. Again, the “future” element is just one part of it.

    Now, from Berens’ own site:
    Introverted iNtuiting – (Ni)

    “Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level.
    Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us.
    A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden ‘Aha!’ or ‘That’s it!'” (then goes into the whole “future” thing).

    That’s what I was trying to convey with “forebodance”, and again, notice the different form of the word. I deliberately changed it from “foreboding“, to show that it’s not to be understood with the common meaning of “something bad is going to happen”. I’m trying to get back to its original root, of being a gut feeling, like those other descriptions.

    Here are all eight of Berens’ “simple definitions”:

    Se experiencing and acting in the immediate context
    Si reviewing and recalling past experiences and seeking detailed data
    Ne Interpreting situations and relationships and picking up meanings and interconnections to other contexts
    Ni foreseeing implications, transformations, and likely effects
    Te segmenting, organizing for efficiency, and systematizing
    Ti Analyzing, categorizing and evaluating according to principles
    Fe Connecting and considering others and the group
    Fi valuing and considering importance, beliefs and worth

    Notice, these are all verb present participles, and make the functions look like actions, or “tools” that we “use”. What may happen a lot of the time with people using these, is that if someone does any of those behaviors, they might say “I used Xy function, so that must determine my type”.

    I remember about 10 years ago, trying to understand Ni on a discussion list, and discussing with someone whether “foreseeing” that a glass near the edge of counter will fall to the floor was Ni; based on these definitions! It has its element of truth, but is misleading after awhile. That word is too broad and overused, as is most of the others.

    Since I believe the functions are perspectives, I prefer nouns (mainly “verbal nouns”).
    (Berens likes everything to be verbs. When I asked her about sharing the new Intentional Styles names, she told me to keep them verbs; hence “Orchestrating” [NTJ/SFP] rather than “Orchestrators”. They feel nouns are what lead to “this is what you ARE”, which they are trying to avoid, and for regular concrete nouns, I can see where they have a point. But when it comes to the functions, it leads to the opposite extreme of “this is what you DO”, which is just as “black and white”-sounding).

    Have taken more to facebook now, with the nnew page “Personality Matrix”:

    Here are some recent posts, on the functions:

    7-16 Why Temperament Correlation might not always match

    7-21 Ambiguity of the tertiary function

    7-21 Is a Shadow complex always triggered by the Shadow function?

    7-21 On the standard “Grant Model” of the function “stack”.

    Here also are the “no” answers of the functional perspectives:

    Se: [no “immediacy”] (Se’s “no” is simply lack of immediate tangible data)
    Si: unfamiliarity. The SJ then wants to stop engagement with emergent data until he has something clear he can grab onto
    Ne: [no “implications”] (Like Se, it would be a lack of data. But since it’s not about tangible data, this is less of a clear “no”)
    Ni: lack of internal impression. The person will “nay-say” random ideas presented
    Te: logical decision incorrect as it runs against authority
    Ti: inexpedient; inconvenient
    Fe: lack of fellowship (external disharmony)
    Fi: discontentment (internal disharmony)

  34. Each of these complexes carries an agenda

    I’ve recently come to realize that my Trickster’s general agenda is to prove I’m being “screwed” in certain immediate negative circumstances.
    Si “wounded Child” (that’s a variation of the Child archetype) keeps a storehouse of past (familiar) instances of perceived wrongs, and then Se Trickster watches the emergent immediate data to confirm it, and seek blame, turning the tables on whoever is deemed responsible.

    Ni Senex’s agenda is to pick out the negative pattern from the Child’s storehouse and supply the blame to the Trickster’s data
    (Ne “Caretaker” envisions other possible outcomes that in these instances are “negated”, which constellates the Senex)

    Then of course, the “Warrior/Amazon” (aka “Opposing Personality”) agenda is to try to buck the “system” through Te (“authority” focus), to validate the Ti “Hero”s internal sense of logical truth and expediency; and Fi Demon’s agenda supplies the whole process with the “bad” judgment of discontentment. (Fe anima’s agenda is “fellowship” in a positive (“good“) environment , which is frustrated in negative situations (and feeling alone in them) in a world where the “rugged individualism“ of an “every man for himself” premise reigns (including in much of “self-help” counsel, that often takes a cold, trite approach, even as it claims to be offering “help”).

  35. Table of Type Logic’s intertype relations:

  36. Another great description of Ni:

    Many people and websites associate introverted intuition with visionary foresight, zen-like existence, and Jesus. Then they justify this statement by pointing out how rare INTJs and INFJs are. As much as I wish I could predict the future, these cognitive functions are really just descriptions of how the mind tends to work. Most people, with or without Ni, do not have magical psychic abilities.

    Instead, I would describe people with dominant introverted intuition as those constantly immersed in what does not exist.

    We slip into our own dimensions easily and remain comfortably there. Our minds swim endlessly in the depths of our unconscious.

    We daydream all the time, have many random déjà vu moments, and tend to be terrible drivers.

    We are enticed by what’s missing. If an idea catches our attention, we become obsessed with it. Then we dig deeper…

    and deeper…

    and deeper…

    and deeper until we wake up to take care of mundane responsibilities in real life and temporarily forget about all the insights we have gathered thus far.

    But these insights are not permanently lost. Instead, they resurface later whenever they want. Sometimes it takes them so long to come back that it almost seems like someone else came up with them in the first place.

    Sometimes we question our own existence. Tactile senses don’t always feel as real as our subjective impressions. There is almost certainly an alternative reality beyond the imagination of humans that can explain many mysteries.

    Unlike dominant Ne’s, we are much less imaginative and much more focused. We often have a difficult time formulating our thoughts into words, but when we do, we tend to express them concisely.

    Unlike dominant Ti’s, we are not as concerned with resolving logical inconsistencies. Ambiguity engages us.

    Unlike dominant Fi’s, we are not as concerned with maintaining internal harmony. We have less control over our wandering thoughts and sometimes subconsciously observe ourselves from a third-person angle.

    Here’s an explanation of mainstream psychology’s view of cognitive functions, and why they don’t consider Jung atd MBTI much.

  37. Excellent new book I just found (from a guy I saw give a good answer to a question on Quora). Focused on the eight functions, it begins breaking down what the attitudes (introversion/extraversion) are, then describes each function focusing on the tandems of opposites (Se-Ni, etc.) showing how each pole is inexorably linked to its opposite; then discusses the shadow, Socionics and Beebe, then concludes on profiles, (using all this info) of all 16 types, grouped by the common function tandems.
    Each of these section is titled “the psychology of the [four functions] types” (Si-Ne/Fe-Ti, etc. Wish he mentioned the Intentional Styles, which these groups comprise), and dealing with the four functions of the dominant attitude first, then the auxiliary attitude. (For the shadows, he doesn’t use the archetype or Socionics names there, but briefly shows how they tend to surface; like the 6th place function will tend to be what we use to criticize, etc.).
    It’s overall comparable to Personality Junkie and Personality Hacker, but recognizing all eight functions!

    The four “Shadow” positions are (generically) termed simply “anti-dominant”, “anti-auxiliary”, “anti tertiary” and “anti-inferior”. These are used as a handy way to readily identify the Socionics blocks names in terms of which functions they carry:

    Ego Dominant Auxiliary
    Super Ego anti-tertiary anti-inferior
    Super Id tertiary inferior
    Id anti-dominant anti-auxiliary

    Don’t know why I never thought of those. (He also discusses the connections of three of the block names to Freud’s concepts).

    The conclusion even addresses science’s disdain of the theory, which stems from not understanding it!

    A new must-read! Looks like it would be understandable to someone new to type, and just learning this stuff!

    Right as I was reading this, here’s a video conference with John Beebe himself; that as being part of the NYC typology Meetup group I’m in, I was able to participate in, and actually interact with him!

  38. On our NYC typology Meetup, hot on the heels of having John Beebe as a guest, we have another guest, Michael Pierce, author of Motes and Beams: A Neo-Jungian Theory of Personality (just released; ©2020, self-pubished. One of his acknowlwgements is Leon Tsao, a former leader of the Meetup group, who was the first tio interview him on his YouTube channel, and allowed him to address the Meetup group once before. Trying to remember this, but it could have been before I joined. Other influences he cites are IDR Labs, AJ Drenth of “Personality Junkie”, and Socionics). Just like our last entry, Timely Types, I looked at the table of contents on Amazon, and then knew I had to get it.
    Of course, “motes and beams”, if it rings a bell, is taken from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt.7:3) “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Religious themes (biblical along with others), run throughout the book. Understanding personality is good for helping us not judge each other when we only see things differently.

    Chapter 1 opens on “Subject vs Object”; which you could say is the foundation of the theory.

    p 3 He gives good definitions: “The ‘object’ is anything unidentified with the subject of experience and their total mental apparatus, both conscious and unconscious. For in psychology, there must be an experiencer (the subject), and the thing which they experience or think about (the object)”
    p4 “…extraversion seeks to align its will with the information received from objects, but introversion seeks to align the information received from objects with its own will…to repurpose or reinterpret the information in reference to themselves.” [emphasis added]

    He then discusses the concepts of “rationality” (judgment) and “irrationality” (perception), which he compares to an “ourobouros“; a mythological self-eating “hoop-snake”, basically, that simultaneously regenerates what he has eaten.

    P.10 he introduces his concepts of Denotative vs connotative. The functions of S and T “denote”, meaning tell you directly what is there, while iNtuition and Feeling “connote”, which is to add additional feelings or meanings to something.

    This particularly struck a chord, as I had noticed this same distinction years ago, and had not really promoted it:
    (see here)
    —didn’t have names for them; just “factual data” vs “the human element”;
    snft.png: also grouped them the other way: S,F “style, aesthetics”; N,T, “Reflective”, “In the head”)

    This was from studying Linda Berens’ Interaction Styles (derived from Keirsey’s “Intelligence Variants”), where ST and NJ are “directive” (“directing communication”), and SF and NP are “Informative” in communication. (These to me were the clearest tie to the classic temperaments, and became one of the centers of my focus in the theory). For the N’s, J and P indicate the attitude, and it was easy to see why the very “open” Ne would be “informative”, and the more settled Ni, “directive”. But on the S side, it’s not the attitude of Sensing, but rather the judgment function it’s paired with. It figures why T would be directive, and F informative, but for N’s this can be reversed, (NTP and NFJ), while for S’s, it always comes out that way.
    So I noticed elsewhere in her teaching (on the functions) that both S and T were associated with “facts”. So it figured that together, they would produce a very “fact”-based perspective that would be very “task” rather than “people” focused, and growing up in a very heavy ST environment, it fit what I experienced.

    So it’s interesting now that someone else has noticed this distinction between S/T and N/F, and has built a larger theory off of it.

    p12f “Subject/object” is expanded several ways, though the concepts of the I Ching (which you also seem mentioned frequently in Beebe’s literature). He employs a marix of “yes” (represented by an unbroken line —) and “no” (represented by a broken line – -), which are tied, respectively, to objective and subjective.
    Extraversion, perception and denotation are more “objective” and receptive and passive to the object (“Yin“; “No”), and introversion, judgment and connotation are “subjective”, “active” and and contributive to the object (“Yang“; “Yes”; i.e. they “add something of themselves to it”). Also, receptivity to the object is feminine, while; activity toward the object is masculine.

    (I had tried different “common factors” like these over the years as well.
    “Subjective/objective” I had matched respectively to I, F and to some extent N and maybe J [s]; and E, T, to some extent S, and maybe P [o] but as never totally sure of S/N and J/P.
    “Yes/No” I use as the bare products of the functions. [S=”known/unknown”; N=”guessed/unguessed or nayed”; T=”true/false”, and F=”good/bad”].
    Interesting to see someone who thinks similarly!)

    So from there, “Now, we can build the four functions” (using a matrix of “denotative/connotative” with perception and judgment). Pointed out is that Sensing is not biological senses, but cognitive theory; how information already gleaned from the senses. Raw apprehension of what is already there. The functions are then tied to the I Ching and the broken and unbroken lines, in a “natural cycle of the psyche”, of S-T-F-N-S. (And the binary figures of 1 and 0 are also tied to the “yes/no”).

    21ff Ch2 functions and axes

    Now the eight function-attitudes are described, linked to the ancient Chinese elements: Se: Earth; Si Mountain, Ni: Fire, Ne: Thunder; Te: Water, Ti: Lake, Fi: Heaven, Fe: Wind.
    Note the relation beween the two attitudes of each, that one attitude is basically a version of the other (a mountain is a formation of earth, thunder may include lightning, which is related to fire, a lake is a body of water, and the wind is in the sky, or “heaven”. And note, the “Orchestrating ” (Intentional Styles) or “Gamma quadra” (Socionics) functions of Se, Ni, Te and Fi end up as the primary version of the elements! This we shall see why, next!

    Now, the functions are paired together, by i/e attitude and denotative/connotative:

    p33 SeTe extraverted/denotative (both objective); NiFi introverted/connotative (both subjective). So these tandems are “natural”; “linear”; “contextual” (direct connection to reality)

    NeSFe and SiTi mix objective and subjective (extraverted/denotative, etc.)
    So these tandems are more “unnatural”; linear flow from subject to object is interrupted; “universal”
    The validity of one’s own context can no longer be taken for granted. Psychic energy spreads out from subject to multiple objects, instead of just one object.

    The tandems themselves are not directly named (like Intentional Styles did, at least initially); they only use the factor compounds:
    “contextual perception” (i.e. Realizing)
    “universal perception” (Inquiring)
    “contextual judgment” (Ordering)
    “universal judgment” (Aligning)

    35 Mentions Henri Bergson “dynamism” (contextuality); “mechanism” (universality)

    Ch3 goes more into Feminine vs Masculine
    p41-2 SeNi; TeFi = “goal oriented”. NeSi; FeTi = “fair minded”

    Goal orientation (archer firing toward target): impetus springs from subject; seeking to reunite with object; “masculine” character: assertive, projective, forward (Yang).
    Fair mindedness (judge hearing all sides of a case and weighing them): impetus springs from objects including other subjects; in response to them imposing on the subject; regards divorce from object as “freedom”; feminine process: receptive, accommodating, listening, pregnable, fertile, etc. (Yin)

    On p47 is a diagram showing the “learning path” of the two different classes of functions. “Contextual”, keeping “subject” and “object” united, moves straight from “naive certainty” to “earned certainty”. “Unversal” takes a curved path of “doubt”.
    Using the Intentional Styles names, we can see a faint parallel: “Orchestrating” (“Realizing Awareness” + “Ordering Assessments”) being more the “straight” path to “certainty”, and “Inquiring Awareness” (“Inquiring Awareness” + “Aligning Assessments”) being the non-straight path, where we would find more “doubt”.

    I had been really trying to promote the Intentional Styles ever since Linda Berens and Chris Montoya introduced them; as it is a useful divison of type (hence, the same groups being so popular in Socionics as the “quadras”, and the individual function tandems are represented in four of the “Reinin dichotomies”), and explains perspective differences between two otherwise similar type groups as NTJ’s and NTP’s.
    So now, we have an alternate theory, introduced into Western type!

    49ff contextuality/masculinity etc. were the beginning (forager, hunter); from which femininity emerges (settlement, agriculture and civilization)
    *ETB note: this is said to mark the “Fall”, and would match the female bringing the temptation!

    The “Intentional Styles” or quadras are now “The Four Temperaments”

    Democratic (universal perception and judgment)
    Monarchic (contextual perception, universal judgment)
    Monarchic (contextual perception and judgment)
    Anarchic (universal perception, contextual judgment)

    Here’s the full correlation:

    type group functions quadra Intentional Styles Pierce “four temperaments”
    SFJ/NTP Ne, Si, Fe, Ti alpha Enhancing “Democratic”
    STP/NFJ Se, Ni, Fe, Ti beta Customizing “Theocratic”
    SFP/NTJ Se, Ni, Te, Fi gamma Orchestrating “Monarchic”
    STJ/NFP Ne, Si, Te, Fi delta Authenticating “Anarchic”

    (Can point out, that “Democratic” in Keirsey’s theory, is the “skills set” of the NF temperament!)

    ch5 Unconscious versus Conscious
    Emplys function axes “crosses” (like Beebe’s “spine/arm” diagrams, and shows a human figure of it)

    His names for the positions:
    Dominant, auxiliary, inspiring, primitive.
    Their “shadows” are simply “sub-” versions of the same. The sub-inspiring (7th) is described as the worst (“treated with disgust and aversion and confrontation”; sort of like what we would think of Beebe’s last place “Demonic personality”) because the last place sub-primitive (8th) “completely disappears into the mists of the unconscious. It is the function which the type has the greatest trouble understanding properly, because it is so taken for granted”. (p113) The sub-inspiring, on the other hand, matches the corresponding Socionics “point of least resistance”, in being the function one understands the less and has the most difficulty developing.

    p110ff something else I had long determined; the exchange between attitudes of the function (“energy” or “libido” has often been describing as “flowing” either toward or from the corresponding “object” or “subject” denoted by e or i. I had figured there was a “loop”, and the orientation is the starting and ending point of these loops.
    Here, the first part of the loop is bypassed, and each function-attitude starts with the opposite attitude and moves toward the denoted attitude (“Xe=Xi—>Xe”; Xi=Xe—>Xi. I would say it’s implicit, that the ego moves from its chosen attitude first, to start the process). This is compared to Marx’s observation of the circulation of money; either “commodity—>money—> commodity (C-M-C “selling in order to buy”), or money—>commodity—>money (M-C-M “buying in order to sell”)

    p.111 goes into the Lakota mythology (from a tribe that’s part of the Sioux nation) to build what is essentially his own “eight archetype” model:

    Skan [sky; the almighty; judge] (dominant)
    Wi [sun] (auxiliary)
    Maka [earth] (inspiring)
    Inyan [uncreated primeval source] (primitive)
    Tate [wind] (sub-dominant)
    Wi-Win [moon] (sub-auxiliary)
    Unk [passion] (sub-inspiring)
    Wakinyan [thunderstorm] (sub-primitive)

    While the descriptions of the sub-inspiring sounded a bit like what we would associate with the “Demonic Personality” (fitting what he said about it being “the worst”), Wakinyan does after all, more match that archetype, as it’s described as “terrifying”, opposing everything natural, but also “gives growth to the good”, just like the “Daimon” aspect of the archetype in Beebe’s theory.

    ch6 Positions and Oppositions

    Compares pairs of dominant and sub-primitive (opposite function, same attitude or Hero-Demon; a tandem I would call the “super-spine” or “grand reflection” or perhaps “shadow reflection”). This shows us the “primary challenge” of each type!
    Wth all of this, we’re now ready for:

    Ch. 7 The Sixteen types profiles (each about 4½ pages) grouped by the cognitive temperaments, and the chapter prefaced with brief summaries of what they “love” and “hate” (via the functions) identified by a dominant-subinspiring tandem (think, “Hero”/”Trickster”), where he had pointed out that since type “unrolls” from the dominant and auxiliary, the the type can be identified by any two functions with one on the spine and the other on the arm. So (using the common stack numbers) they’re denoted “[1] (—[7])”! This is based them being the “healthiest” and “unhealthiest”, respectively

    Se (—Ti) “The Swashbuckler” [ESFP]
    Ni (—Fe) “The Alchemist” [INTJ]
    Fi (—Ne) “The Artist” [ISFP]
    Te (—Si) “The Mountain Mover” [ENTJ]

    Si (—Te) “The Conscience” [ISFJ]
    Ne (—Fi) “The Devil’s Advocate” [ENTP]
    Fe (—Ni) “The Shepherd” [ESFP]
    Ti (—Se) “The Thinker” [INTP]

    Se (—Fi) “The Maverick” [ESTP]
    Ni (—Te) “The Heirophant” [INFJ]
    Fe (—Si) “The Diplomat” [ENFJ]
    Ti (—Ne) “the Monk” [ISTP]

    Si (—Fe) “The Veteran” [ISTJ]
    Ne (—Ti) “The Explorer” [ENFP]
    Fi (—Se) “The Idealist” [INFP]
    Te (—Ni) “The Captain” [ESTJ]

    Each profile focuses on the interplay of the functions, and generally concludes with the role (or ultimate need) of the Wakinyan (8th).

    For the example of my type, “The Thinker” profile (p169) opens with their need to know “why”, and for the answer to “make sense across contexts”, and scorning “the despotism and nepotism behind ‘Because I said so’, or ‘Because that is how I feel'”.

    [p.170 “Expediency” is what refers to Te, where Ti is “law”: “The Thinker cannot in good conscience put down as law, what is mearly expedient; for expediency has no guarantee of lasting”. In my nomenclature, I’ve used “expediency” for Ti, and “authority” for Te. Ti is simply the subject’s own “law” based on what is personally “expedient”, where Te is a collectivized “expediency” that usually gets made into actual public “laws”. I figure expediency (“advantageous, fit, proper to a purpose,”; from expedite: “to remove impediments to the movement or progress of”; < ex “out” + pedis “fetter, chain for the feet”) is more subjective.]

    p.171 “The Devil’s Advocate uses laws (Ti) to ask better questions (Ne); the Thinker uses questions to develop better laws”

    “A solution for the Thinker is judged by the robustness of its interior structure, not by its present effectiveness in the field”.

    172 Ti must digest Te [i.e. “Te—>Ti”] “While Te judges something trustworthy precisely because it has nothing to do with their own mind, Ti only trusts the information after they have confirmed it for themselves in their mind; they must think upon it, ruminate it, and make it their own, i.e. properly integrate it into their rational model of the universe. For ‘mere common sense proves a treacherous guide in the field’. One must earn one’s reason; everything else must be thought through”. [Here, he agrees with my definition of the “general” (undifferentiated) Te and Ti products; “common sense” and “reason”.]
    By digesting the universe this way, the Thinker founds it on a sounder basis: their own mind. The external world…is a realm of chance. But the mind is capable of absolutes…”

    173 “For the Thinker, Fe represents the unconscious beginning and end of their Ti logic: namely harmony and peace. If everyone thought clearly for themselves, they would each tap into Reason itself, like cogs meshing with a central wheel. Disharmony is the failure to access reason, and this occurs when one is distracted by the passion, fear, lust, pettiness and ambition of their individual ego — i.e. of their Fi, and its activity through Te. It’s only by reconnecting with pure reason (Ti) that the ultimate heaven of Fe is reached”. [emphasis and annotation added].

    Al of this I can certainly attest to!

    When moving into ch7C, the Theocratic types, it’s mentioned that the following eight contextual/universal “hybrid” types can be seen as a ‘mixture’ of two “pure” types, combining the dominant of one, with the “enmity” of the sub-inspiring of the other.
    So we end up with:

    Theocratic [Monarchic perception; Democratic judgment]:
    Anarchic [Democratic perception; Monarchic judgment]:

    Appendix A compares the functions to the divine chariot and winged creatures with four faces in Ezekiel 1:4-9 (which I’ve never understood), the four elements, and the compass directions

    East: Feeling, air, man (reference point)
    North: sensation, earth ox
    West: thinking, water eagle
    South: (“right” when facing east) intuition, fire lion

    The temperaments (and associated attitudes) are in the corners.
    The introverted attitudes (drawn on an arc around the outside of the corner), representing “closed wings”) are what determine which corner the temperament lies in (e.g. the Democrat’s Ti + Si places it north[S]west[T]. The extraverted attitudes are then drawn as a ‘web’ (forming the “open wings”) between the temperament box and the directional ‘wall’)

    Appendix B goes more into Objective and Subjective

    So this is a great read. More of an “advanced” level than “Timely Types”, but both are really good at breaking down the theory new ways.

  39. Introverted Thinking, symmetries, and “categorizing”; judgment as “pairing”

    Judgment is PAIRING something to a standard of “rightness”
    (Si and Ni are also “matching”, but to an internal storehouse of information. The matching is automatic [involuntary], and Si will match current experience to what’s known, and Ni will match meanings to what’s already inferred, inside).

    When a match is made, it is “RIGHT”, which then translates to “true” or “good”

    Te: pairing objects to the environment for efficient use
    Ti: pairing objects to the subject’s sense of order
    Fe: pairing objects and situations to the desire of others
    Fi: pairing objects and situations to what the subject knows is good

    I would wonder what about introverted Thinking in particular was drawn to symmetry, or the common description of “categories”/”categorizing”. Like my grandmother moved into a 20’s tudor style garden apartment complex that was arranged with four quadrants; two on both sides adjoined and connected by a common entance; and the apartment on the corner of one of these quadrants, I would notice how when you looked out either way: to the opposite pair, or to the other side of the same pair, you’re seeing an exact mirror image of the apartment you’re in! The opposite quadrant of the opposite pair was opposite in both ways. Yet this ended up making it identical to my quadrant, though rotated 180° and clear on the other side of the court. I recognized the principle of “two opposites (a “double-negative“) cancel out and create a positive”! I just loved it for some reason.

    There were certain things that didn’t match. The street sides of both pairs had pretty much the same footprint, but had some big differences. My grandmother’s half was entered through a common lobby, where you would go left or right to the respective building, which had their own stairs and elevators. You had to go in and then back out through this to get to the central court yard (the focal point of the symmetry). On the other side, there was an [outdoor] arcade through the building connecting the street to the courtyard instead of a lobby, and both quadrants had doors to their own separate lobbies along the wall of this arcade. So my grandmother’s side had direct access from both streets. (You can see all of this in the photo). The other side also had a little brick gatehouse (Like the ones in front of my similar Tudor complex I was growing up in, then).
    In my early 20’s, when I lived near Nostrand Junction, I found another symmetrical building nearby (a 30’s art deco style) where the entrances to both halves were both on the ends of the halves, which were on the avenue, rather than between the adjoined quadrants. (The ends of my grandmother’s buildings abutted other buildings). The other ends were on the next street (the complex occupies a whole block, which was smaller than my grandmother’s block), but had no entrances; so there was the loss of symmetry in that complex). The central courtyard was more of a shared backyard, and not accessible, but is visible through a fence.

    Where the two halves of my grandmother’s complex are what’s called “H” buildings (and especially this complex, since the halves are aligned e/w; if it was n/s, it would look like an “I” on the map), created by having two court bays on the street and in the rear (in this case, the central “garden”, and with additional notches in the sides of the H, which are smaller side courts surrounding the hallway windows), this other one’s halves were overall “W” shaped, with the single court shared by the adjoined quadrants on the street side, but two smaller bays, containing the hallway/stairway windows for each quadrant, on the rear side. (Since these units are aligned n/s, they might look more like “E 3” There was also a complex closer to where I grew up, right by my school, where a friend of my father lived, and I went once or twice, which was a more plain postwar building; which like my grandmother’s, had the entrances from the street between the quadrants, which this time were only adjoined on the ground floor, and instead of a court was the roof of the central lobby, and a couple of pools on one end), but on this one, the two sides were a bit offset. Messed it up completely for me!

    Also, I’ve realized that symmetry is what makes a nice melody that sticks out to me, and is why I like Stevie Wonder so much in his pre-accident, more Ti-colored period. “Looking For Another Pure Love” (from Talking Book, which I grew up with) starts with and features a symmetrical ascending and descending set of chords that form an audible, timelike “mirror” symmetry that was really creative and unique; like a a cross of R&B with classical! (After the accident, these sort of intricacies became less prominent, and he was more into “people”, such as listening to his brothers and other “hangers-on”, using more of a band in the studio, rather than producing most sounds himself, and giving more songs to others and appearances [harmonica solos, etc.] on others’ songs).

    Then, there’s personality theory in itself! The temperament matrix is just like the buildings, with four corner “quadrants”, Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholy, Supine, and Phlegmatic in center court (or in the fourth quadrant instead of Supine, in original four temperament theory). Each pair have something in common; either high or low expressiveness or responsiveness. Even opposites share things in common (in the Control area, it’s the S/N preference).
    The archetypes of the type functions also have a mirror symmetry, with the “compensation” dynamic of levels of consciousness (the more a perspective or complex is differentiated by the ego structure, the more its opposite will be suppressed into the unconscious, and this creates the “stack” order, and it’s on two levels; the first being diametric opposites, generating functions 1-4, and then function opposites in the same attitude, with 5-8 being “grand reflections” of 1-4).
    I’ve also mentioned color symmetry. When I thought the “subtractive” model (where yellow is the medium primary rather than green) was the universal one; I had created a symmetry with yellow at the center, and orange was to red, what green was to blue. (Discuss this in a comment, above)

    So when I’m learning the functions, and trying to verify that I’m an INTP, this came to mind, and I was wondering whether it was really introverted Thinking. It’s something visual and tangible (except for the personality theory, but then I still do visualize and draw it out visually), so was it extraverted Sensing? I certainly “liked” this, and a lot; so was it introverted Feeling? Looking at the common descriptions, introverted Thinking is always assoaited with “categorizing” and “analyzing”. That’s not what this was, was it?

    This is what prompted me to really get to the bare essential of what the functions were. Ti is “truth” (T) that is subjectively (i) determined. “Truth” is a declaration of an impersonal “yes”, that something is “right”. (Where F expresses its “right” as “good”, and S and N’s “yes” is that something “is”, in one way or another). I wasn’t simply declaring what “is”; I was (in a way) declaring it “right!”. And while this felt “good”, what made it good was not some sort of “goodness” in itself (which is what F is really about). It as just a mathematical arrangement of impersonal objects! What was “right” was that there was a “match” of these objects. You had the window I was looking out of, and directly across, was another one that corresponded to it. This was a “truth” or impersonal “yes”. (And one more “trivial”, and not having some form of objective mandate, like the kind of Thinking others around me seemed to favor; not caring about things like this, at least not nearly as much, unless it served some more efficient purpose, or it was just more of an artistic Fi “nicety”). As I look across, I see every window on my side has one just like it directly across (including the different configurations, such as a smaller bathroom window, double windows, etc.) Am I seeing some sort of match? The answer, as I look at all the windows, and see they all match, is “yes”. I’m assessing information I’m seeing, and not just taking it in, so this “yes” is rational (and becomes “right”, with the few non-matches that are seen, such as the entrances, then become “wrong”, but are negligible), indicating judgment. And again, it is impersonal, so the “right” is “true” or “correct”, and the judgment is Thinking. And it’s me just on my own time and personal interest making this assessment, rather than just following someone else’s determination of truth. So it’s introverted. This would be an example of the “analyzing” the function is described with. Sometimes it doesn’t seem like it, because the whole process is often almost instant. This would fit Jung’s description of introverted functions having a natural “unconscious” property in a way (even if it holds a “conscious” place in the ego structure; i.e. high place on the function “stack” of a type).

    The other main description of Ti is about “categorizing”. This too was hard to really notice, except for this very and entire subject, typology. It’s placing people in categories, which are then used to get a sense of how they will respond in different situations. I had noticed that YouTubers who are “Ordering” types (Te/Fi) will often scoff at “categories” of things. Like when hearing LGBT stories, ENTJs and ESFPs would often brush off specific categories they fit into, such as “gay”/”bi”/”pan”, etc. or the “star” ranking indicating how well they stuck to their preference, or (especially for the more androgynous ones) even their gender identity altogether. They’ll mention these things when the subject comes up, and then dismiss it, saying “I’m whatever I am; I don’t need to be placed in some box”.
    This is perhaps the biggest reason the larger field of psychology rejects MBTI type as like “astrology”, in favor of the Big Five and other “traits” scoring instruments; for the “sciences” are generally run from a Te+S perspective, and rejects the [abstract] “boxes” people seem to be put into.
    Right in the above comment, I mention a new author, Michael Pierce, who is INFJ (Tertiary Ti), and has created all sort of symmetrical catrories just like I did (demotative/connotative, contextual/universal, “pure” and “mixed” types, etc.)

    Other categoriing I do, is whenever I see a religious teaching, I try to find out who wrote it, or any affiliations, etc. You can see this in some of my other writings. Like when discussing “spiritual power”, and I recount running across a video with some shockingly legalistic teachings, I went to the YT page and found a link to the associated ministry, and it was connected to the evangelist Paul Washer, who’s a known “lordship salvation” preacher (John MacArthur’s version of evangelicalism). So as I explain on the page “That explains it! Lordship salvation!” I now found the category the video fit into, and it explained what I was hearing; now I knew the “underlying framework” (another term frequently associated with Ti), or overall context the teaching fit into, and thus the whole basis of what was being taught, and everything else that goes along with it (such as it being a Calvinistic version of “perfectionism”, where if God truly “elects” you, you will be able to perform the extreme [behavioral] “holiness” they preach; and even though election is unconditional, God still calls the preachers to “call” the “sheep” by preaching in a way, that sounds like we could choose Christ by our own “free will”. Another person, I wasn’t able to find his affiliation, though he sounds Campbellist [Church of Christ], though some things he says didn’t match).
    Knowing this also lets me know what response would be best fitting for the teaching. A lot of people don’t know this. Like my father (a Te-preferring type), went by one broad category of “Christian” he lumped everything into, so that he kept putting down the Pope, as if that refuted my beliefs, like I followed him. If he paid more attention to subcategories of “Christians”, such as “Catholic”, “Protestant”, “evangelical Protestant”, and even “fundamentalist” and various sects, he would have known that argument did not apply when debating these other categories beside Catholic. A lot of secular “liberal” statements about Christianity make this kind of mistake!

    Categorizing, like the physical symmetry, is pairing objects into particular classes they fall into, based on certain properties. If it fits into the category, then it’s a “yes”; “correct”. Properties of the object might sound like Te, but the subjective factor is which of its properties you choose, to fit into categories that are usually chosen by you. With Te, the environment or the objects themselves dictate the categories, such as the person with the most education and experience can fit into higher levels of occupation in a company, and the directors will all decide together and agree on the criteria. The approach to religion, psychology or LGBT categories tends to be a more Fi-driven “individuality” perspective, where we are all individuals who don’t fit into any “box”, so there will be a very broad, general category people will fit into, but beyond that, no other categories are needed. Te will come into play when defending one of these general categories against another that is posing a threat, with appeals to external authority; like the back and forth condemning that goes on around all three of those issues, and people will appeal to scripture, science, or common experience (all ready made packages of logical “truth”) as a broad answer. The pairing will be between the teachings at hand, and what they see as the final authority. Their side will match (“true”), and the other side will fail (“false”).

    Once Ti has found the exact truth of a situation, it will want to “find the right word for it”, which is another description.

  40. Found this excellent way of describing the difference between Fe and Fi:

    “In terms of functions, –FJ types do what they do because their values are ad hoc. Fe’s true aim is to resolve a situation, and it temporarily contrives new values in order to do that. Fe essentially says “If I value this thing right now it will resolve this situation, therefore value this thing.” Odds are, your Fe is valuing the needs of others because it thinks that by doing so it can resolve your current situation (whatever that situation may be). At the end I’ll talk more about the relevance of the situation, but it’s worth noting now that you may not always be consciously aware that you’re trying to resolve a situation, and I suggest you practice that awareness.

    In terms of functions, what makes Fi more steadfast is that it has no interest in resolving problems. Fe is problem solving while Fi actually is not, at least not at heart. Instead it wants to merely apply its preconceived values for the sake of applying them. The values themselves matter more than the situation. Unfortunately this is just hard for an FJ to copy, but I think it’s useful to recognize that there are 2 things to try. Not just keeping a better focus on your own values, but also letting go of the need to resolve the situation.”

    There, you can clearly see how Fe “merges” with the environment/objects.
    So, by extension, Te contrives new principles from a situation to resolve a logical problem, where Ti wants to merely apply its preconceived principles for the sake of applying them.
    You could think of Se as contriving new “memories” from a situation, where Si, of course wants to merely apply its prior memories.
    Ne contrives new patterns from a situation, where Ni wants to merely apply its preconceived patterns for the sake of applying them.

    Other news, Nardi has been busy coming up with new ideas. Here’s one that expands type to 512!

  41. Decided, for Se; going with “obvious”/”obviosity”, instead of “immediacy”.
    “obvious” = “ob-” (“against”) + “via” (“the way”), meaning “standing in the way of”. The objects cannot be denied. (This is truer to what Se is about, rather than the timeike implication of “immediacy”. Recall, I have N as timelike, and S as spacelike, and “obvious” is more spacelike!)
    Think of trying to walk straight ahead, but a wall is “in the way”. You get a clue that it is there, as it reflects light waves, which your eyes receive, telling you something is there, and it looks solid. If you try to walk ahead anyway, it will obviously stop you.

    This came to me, in thinking of the problems of faith, which is quite technically “imaginary”. That sounds bad (And I used to get upset when people called the faith that), as we usually think of imaginary as meaning “nonexistent”, and thus the opposite of “real”: “real vs imaginary”. But “imagine” means simply to “form an image”. When people tell you to have “faith” (and not go by “sight”), you are essentially forming an image of God, or the afterlife, etc. That is by definition imagination. Someone can say they have a gift for you on the other side of the wall, and you will gain an image of it there, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t actually there. It’s just not obvious. (And neither is Si data, because even though it may have once been obvoious, it could have changed since you last saw it).
    Imagination is the domain of Ne, which is actually my preference (as the auxiliary), but I’ve been having trouble with my Trickster complex, which is the Shadow reflection of the auxiliary, and associated with Se; demands things to be obvious (undeniable).

  42. Personality Hacker, collaborating with Dario Nardi (in light of his new book), now finally begins to address the Shadow functions! (They had avoided them before, because they had not really heard a purpose of growth using them. They here focus a lot on the 6th function).

    I awhile ago thought of naturally extending to a “shadow car”. Perhaps these could be the riders:
    5. Backseat Driver
    6. Mother In Law (think Tex Avery’s “Car of Tomorrow”)
    7. Juvenile Delinquent
    8. Terrible two’s?

  43. New portrayal of “degradation” of each function, from its preferred position, to the unpreferred tandem-mate, and finally, the shadows. It started from recognizing the direct “shadow” (opposite attitude) as a negative aspect of the primary function in is often described as a negative version of. Like when an Fe persective is frustrated and feels unappreciated, and then objects “what about my needs?”, it has really degraded to its Fi shadow. The bypassed unpreferred function (Ti) is implicit, as well.

    preferred Fe: I adopt your experience or need of ‘good’ and respond
    Ti subconscious [denied]: ‘leverage’: if I give to others, I can expect in return (i.e. harmony)
    Fi shadow of frustrated Fe: What about MY needs? (feel unappreciated)
    Te “deep shadow”: will logically organize for oneself in a heated huff

    preferred Ti: impersonal symmetry
    Fe subconscious: symmetry would produce fairness (harmony) and gain acceptance
    Te shadow of frustrated Ti: seek to use objects to establish goals
    Fi “deep shadow”: focuses on wants; devalues self and world in retaliation

    preferred Te: orders world according to how objects are best used
    Fi subconscious: This will be good for all (whether they like it or not)
    Ti shadow of frustrated Te: appeals to universal truths anyone should be able to see
    Fe “deep shadow”: destroys harmony or the social standing of offenders

    preferred Fi: uses their feelings to gauge others’ needs
    Te subconscious: orders the environment logically to attain this
    Fe shadow of frustrated Fi: takes up the evident cause of the underdog
    Ti “deep shadow”: turns cold and calculating in reaction to offenders

    preferred Si: needs familiarity, even if not necessarily favorable
    Ne subconscious: if the object has been this way, it will probably always be
    Se shadow of frustrated Si: bitterly criticizes the appearance of things
    Ni “deep shadow”: forecasts the most negative outcomes unreasonably

    preferred Ne: looks at implications of objects
    Si subconscious: remembers “ruts” we were stuck in and wants freedom
    Ni shadow of frustrated Ne: locks in on negative outcome they tried to fight
    Se “deep shadow”: takes “rash” action at the first opportunity

    Preferred Se: exploits immediate opportunity in the tangible environment
    Ni subconscious: aids in realizing when opportunities may arise
    Si shadow of frustrated Se: uses memory to support what can be done
    Ne “deep shadow”: loses confidence, suddenly seeing negative possibilities

    preferred Ni: relies on data springing from the unconscious, to fill in patterns
    Se subconscious: mines immediate tangible environment for insights
    Ne shadow of frustrated Ni: tosses out random possibilities facetiously
    Si “deep shadow”: avoids record of the past yet uses it against others

    • I’ve also come to see that our primal desire is to be in sync with the universe, and this is felt through the dominant function. We have a sense of what “should be”, and the function says “yes” it is, or “no” it isn’t.

      Extraverts seek to sync with the outer world directly.
      Introverts filter outer reality through their universal sense of things.

      Where for introverts, cognitive dissonance results when it doesn’t match, for extraverts, it’s [likely] when they can no longer receive new data from the environment.

      So the ways each function will desire to sync with the universe, is through the basic “perspective” each represents:

      Se: what’s “obvious” (immediate external senses)
      Si: what’s “familiar” (filtering senses from ones stored in memory)
      Ne: exploring implications of objects
      Ni: following/interpreting “hunches” from within
      Te: ordering through logical “authority”.
      Ti: “expediency” (things “making sense”, especially as they command our action)
      Fe: “fellowship” (external interpersonal harmony)
      Fi: “contentment” (meaning in this case, an inner harmony).

      This comes from realizing how frustrated I get from the way things are often done, through Te “authority” (which seems to have the edge in the world, and especially the US), and feeling “out of sync” when things imposed on me don’t make sense. This is further highlighted by this blog post where he points out that Te favors “facts over logic”, while Ti favors “logic over facts”. Of course, “logic” refers to the products of T in general (either attitude), while “facts” can really be either S or T. But Te lets the ‘object’ (environment, etc.) determine its “truth” [“yes”], so “logic” is really not your own process; while for Ti, it’s the inner sense of truth, that each person can determine on his own, which is what we may usually think of as ‘logic’ proper. So he points out that Te will be “illogical”, but at least “factual”, and that’s precisely how it has always come off to me ☺; while Te types will toss out terms like “subjective” and “technical” at the other perspective, and say it’s not “factual”.

      Of course, the whole point of the theory is that both sides are needed.

  44. Just took note of another statement Lenore had made to me in our old correspondence (10-13 years ago now!)

    “[Beebe’s] model only tells us how an established ego is likely to experience other complexes in relationship to itself.

    I had just listened to Personality Hacker’s new two part series on “trigger warnings”, and they again mention Beebe’s model (but still don’t go into a description of the “the bottom four”, but instead remained focused on the inferior, as the “bridge to the Shadow”) . This made me think of the complexes carrying all the eight functions, and decided to look up where she had said that “WHEN a complex is activated, the behaviors will reflect the function associated with it.” and (for example) “WHEN the Shadow complex [Senex and OP] is constellated, the associated function will shape the way we feel negated and obstructed by someone who assumes authority over our behaviors.” (In common to the common assumption, they way the concepts are used, that the archetypes constrain the functions. It’s really more the other way around; the functions constrain the complexes). So I first found the other sentence, and it clicked for me. (When first reading through all of this, I was digesting so much that certain things didn’t click right away. That’s why I continue to read it and gain new insights!)

    So this I now see is an important point in understanding what these eight things that form “the type stack” are!

    It also explains why there are to complexes associated with the dominant function.
    The ego is the main sense of “I”. How does it see itself? Or the part of itself charged with advancing its agendas? Why, as a Hero! (Naturally!)

    So then, the complex (sense of “I”) charged with support and balance will feel like a “parent”. Just ike I pointed out I felt like I was being a “parent” when trying to support self and others with a difficult doctrine through an extraverted iNtuitive perspective, here:

    So the sense of “I” that looks up to others with the tertiary function will feel to the ego like a “child”. I recognized that was well.

    The sense of “I” that carries the inferior function will be seen by the ego as, well, inferior! (And this will be its apparent connection to “life”; hence, “anima/animus”)

    The sense of “I” that fights battles around the obstructive opposite attitude from the dominant will feel to the ego like our “warrior”.

    The sense of “I” fighting against negation of the ego will feel to it like a grumpy, “critical” part of ourselves (When we recognize and ponder on it).

    The sense of “I” reacting against double binds and trying to reverse them to fend off the enemy, will feel to the ego like our own “Trickster”

    And the sense of “I” that reacts against the feared destruction of the ego will feel to the ego like a “demon”; or at least the perspective it is bringing into consciousness will feel destructive and evil.

    So when projecting these things onto others, the ego is then seeing these projections onto the other person as these characters.

  45. Recently, I’ve been rethinking some of the terminology, and I think “responsiveness” is more accurately “RECEPTIVENESS”, for it’s about how “receptive” the person is to others.

    We all “respond” in one way or another. “Respond/responsive” basically refers to a POSITIVE response, while negative response is negated as “low” in that factor. But it is still “responding”. A person’s degree of “responding” to something is really a part of their expresiveness! A Sanguine and Choleric will respond to things about equally, in their respectively more or less receptive ways; but the Supine and Melancholy will be the less “responding” counterparts of these, as their expressing of their high or low receptivity is low.

    “Control” is more accurately “RESOLVE”
    “resolve” (n): “fixity of purpose”

    “Control” can be misleading because it’s not always about [directly] “controlling” others (or “wanting to be controlled”).
    I often look like a Supine in Control, because the Inclusion (and Affection) areas so influence my [whole] approach to others. So the act of “approaching others to control them” is really still part of our “social” (interaction or Inclusion) behavior. Where I’m both ‘expressive’ and critical is in my RESOLVE to gain what I want, with no interference. This has always been greatly hampered by the opposite social temperament needs.
    The Choleric resolve can actually make me passive, because precisely its desire to “win” causes me to choose my battles more carefully! (Where less vulnerable “surface” [Inclusion] pairings with this Control can be more confident in jumping into a conflict). The Choleric will then resist being pushed into a potentially dangerous or “no-win” situation (and thus actually serving to meet the Inclusion need). I’ll also resist taking action if I’m already engrossed in another task or subject. (So I’ve already expressed my resolve in something, and want no interference regarding something else).

    So, “leadership” (a descriptor of the Control area, and also the alternate term by WIDP) is also misleading, as that too is greatly shaped by our social temperament. I think I have very poor leadership skills (can’t even move up in my agency because I don’t think supervision, let alone management is for me); again, because the Inclusion need is what ultimately governs my ability to lead others, which of course, invoves “surface” social interaction! (I wouldn’t know how hard or easy to be with subordinates, and would fear wavering between a pushover and a tyrant, when I see people getting over on me, and then become a pushover again when I see or fear people don’t like me). The Choleric part, under such restraints would rather engineer the way things are from a non-leadership position, and when I do try to take charge, I often will just push my way, and not know how to actually move the people.
    Even “action” can be misleading (especially given APS associating it more with Inclusion, which goes along with what I’m realizing now. I’ve been focusing it on Control because of Berens’ term “conative” for the Keirsey temperaments.)

    This also better explains why ESTJ came out with high expressed Control in the FIRO-MBTI correlations done by officials (where I expected the type, as a “cooperative” SJ, to have lower eC). They will be quick to approach others to “control” them, but this is due to their expressed Inclusion, yet the actual “control” they are applying is coming from an accepted authority they themselves are yielding to (including what they call “life” itself), as its representatives, rather than their own autocracy, which is what true high eC is about. (The FIRO factors in themselves don’t take this into account).
    This understanding of high eI as our whole approach to the world in general further matches it to [Jungian] “extraversion”!

    I came up with this term from putting together this, attempting to clarify the difference between the SJ’s “cooperativeness” (low eC, but which might sound like high wC) and its actual low wC (or structure focus. SJ may be “cooperative”; but TO WHOM is the question? And how willing are they to be moved from that resolve; i.e. criteria?):

    eC [initial] challenging or yielding to authority or situations

    NT intuitive logic: “makes sense” (strict)
    SJ familiar experience (strict)
    SP immediate experience (lighter)
    NF intuitive goodness (lighter)

    wC boundary criteria:

    NT (Choleric) challenges authority and situations; resists interruption of resolve
    SJ (Melancholy) yields to authority/situations; resists interruption of resolve
    SP (Sanguine) challenges authority/situations; acquiesces according to situation
    NF (Supine) yields/acquiesces to authority and situations (for the better good)

    I had also thought of alternate terms for the S/N perspectives.

    N conveys a “narrative” experience, while S is simply “direct” experience. As I have said before, N is about the “story”. Like when people die, the S perspective says, well, they died, and that is it. the N perspective will speak of things such as “when it’s your turn to go”; implying a kind of script that is being played out.

  46. View at

    Shows how the hemispheres are connected to the J/P preference.

    The left hemisphere evolved expertise in narrow focus, to identify and grasp food. The right hemisphere took the opposite tack, and specialized in scanning the whole sensory world for problems, to avoid being eaten or other disasters.

    The right brain looks at the whole world, is attuned to context, and is concerned with what is possible, not just what is certain. It is immersed in the moment, engaged with what is living and animate, and attentive to relationships and connections. It holistically extracts implicit information about the world and what is important. The right brain also informs the left brain where to start looking.

    The left brain focuses on what is safe, edible, and procurable. It experiences just a piece of the world at a time, and constructs, piecemeal, a map of that world and how to identify and grasp (physically and mentally) what it needs to survive. Its understanding is detached and abstract focused on certainty and utility. The left brain developed language and math as ways to codify, articulate, construct, and convey its comprehension of the world back to the right brain, and to other brains.

    The right brain then accepts this processed information from the left brain and uses it to refine its own outlook on the world. While the left brain’s perception of the world is precise, useful, and clearly defined, it is less expansive, less inclusive, and less aware of relationships and contexts than the right brain. The right brain is able to accept contradictions as well as implicit information that the left just can’t even see.

    The right brain’s job is to experience the world, the left to manipulate it. The right brain employs metaphors to create its understanding. The left views metaphors as imprecise, artsy, and even deceitful. The left brain uses algorithms to construct its pathway to truth and will reject observable “data” that conflict with its rules.

    It mentions autism as a condition “in which the left brain inappropriately dominates”, based on “the emphasis on rules, the detachment from relationships, the emphasis on parts rather than the whole, and the inability to grasp context as a warning about the direction our left-brain dominated society is trending in”. This last one I don’t get; as since when are we that fixated on “the direction our society is trending in”? Wouldn’t it be the opposite?
    But in any case, autism, typologically speaking, is most common in both NTP and NTJ types (and particularly the introverted variants), and the for the NTJ’s, this would match, but the NTP’s are extraverted intuitives (Perceivers) who otherwise would fit the right brain outlook. The “rules” and “focus on parts” for us (at at least for me, as I have identified) basically stem from the introverted judgment that accompanies the extraverted perception. (Then, when it comes to the area of iNtuition, that’s where I will frame it as part of a “whole”; a “story”, so to speak, where the S’s will then want to focus on simply “what is”). So perhaps in autism for P types, the left brain will activate more than normal for others, and in certain instances (since the unpreferred hemisphere is still there, of course), but the overall outlook is still the right-brain focus on taking in information moreso than doing something with it.

  47. Reframing into a concept of “Undifferentiated Roots” of the functions:

    External sensations (Se)
    Internal sensations and memory (Si)
    Conscious imagination (Ne)
    subconsciously derived imagery (Ni)
    external logical recourse (Te)
    reason (Ti)
    desire for social harmony (Fe)
    enternal emotional harmony (Fi)

    Everyone has access to all eight of these roots at all times*, but the [ego structure] “stack” position is determined by the special focus paid them by the ego states making up the stack [i.e. by the ego structure itself], in the contexts in which those states activate. The trick is, discerning which ego state is activated in the given moment. (Like just an angry ‘dominant’ ego, or one of the shadows?)
    The “preferred” functions making up type are simply those aligned with the ego’s main state, and its “supporting” (auxiliary) state, that informs (p) or rationalizes (j) the dominant function, and using the opposite i/e orientation. (These are “constellated” or activated by default). The other functions, as reflections of the first two then fall into place with the ego states reflecting the first two.

    *so we have to be careful in looking at a person supposedly “using” a function, and readily determining it is preferred (indicating his “type”), or in any other particular “stack” position

    (Resolution of “conscious/unconscious” and “objective/subjective” dual meanings:
    S consciously experienced perception
    N unconsciously experienced perception
    T objectively framed judgment
    F subjectively framed judgment
    e: “conscious” experience, “objective” standard
    i: “unconscious” experience, subjective standard)

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: