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!

Advertisements
25 Comments
  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: http://typologycentral.com/wiki/index.php (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:
    https://www.capt.org/journal-psychological-type/whitepapers/s-n%20whitepaper_02.2016.pdf

  5. Someone posts this page: https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-tell-if-Im-an-INTP-or-ENTP 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:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/july/tim-lahaye-dies-left-behind-coauthor-stroke.html

  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
    http://www.personalityhacker.com/influence-feeling-emotions/

  10. Sharing my newfound knowledge of the Demonic Personality Complex from Beebe’s book (see https://erictb.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/book-review-beebe-energies-and-patterns-in-psychological-type) 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 https://erictb.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/pretzel-emotions-a-musical-journey-through-the-images-of-life) 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” (www.erictb.info/temperament2ss.html) 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:
    http://www.erictb.info/typeintro.html

    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: https://www.youtube.com/user/bgirlambam (“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:

    ISTJ

    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)

    ISFJ

    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)

    ISTP

    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)

    ISFP

    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)

    INFJ

    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)

    INFP

    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)

    INTJ

    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)

    INTP

    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)

    ESTJ

    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)

    ESFJ

    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)

    ESTP

    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)

    ESFP

    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)

    ENFJ

    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)

    ENFP

    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)

    ENTJ

    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)

    ENTP

    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 int he function. Like when having to deal with what Ti as “Trickster” is alike (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”

    Mature:

    “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”.

    So,

    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

    Mature

    “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”.

    Ti:

    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

    Mature:

    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

    Te:

    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

    Mature:

    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 https://erictb.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/sn-as-spacetime-awareness, 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 https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-start-to-understanding-complexes/#comment-4990) 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:

    INTP:
    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

    ENP:
    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

    INFP:
    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

    ISTP, ISFP
    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

    ESP:
    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

    ISJ:
    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).

    INJ:
    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

    ETJ:
    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

    EFJ:
    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 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 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 three more named streets replacing 39-42, until Flatbush Ave. 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. 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. 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, 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, where the main grid and the original 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 to 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 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 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 the other one, embodying the neighborhoods of Canarsie and Flatlands. 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 fixtures 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).
    “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).

    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 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.
    This was all busted up, when I began wondering 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 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 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).

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: