Crash Course on the Eight Functions

[Auburn]

There are resources all around on the 8 functions & MBTI, but for those who want a quick crash course, this thread is for you. It can't be simplified much more than this.

Premise: The idea is the psyche is divided into "Perception" and "Judgment" processes. Now perception is how your mind absorbs situations, and judgment is how your mind decides where it stands pertaining to what it perceives. We all use both to make sense of the world & they come in pairs, but I'll get to that later.

The Four Perception Functions Are:

Si: - This process is primarily obsessed with The Familiar. Introverted Sensing internalizes experiences in their concrete form and uses them as anchors for future reference. That which is not familiar is observed and absorbed and added to it's internal database. These stored sensations act as a type of map the Si user follows when in new situations. If the experiences stored into Si are pleasant, Si will also seek to recreate those experiences in the present. Hence, Si is deeply associated with Nostalgia.



Ni: - This process is primarily obsessed with The Unknown. When Ni perceives it is looking to identify "what is missing from this picture" by referencing the patterns-based-worldview it knows. Ni goes about reality trying to identify the underlying themes/patterns that define how it all ticks together. Unlike Si, who bases "how reality ticks" on it's own personal exposures, Ni bases "how reality ticks" on the themes of the experience it undergoes -- which are not specific to them as much as a universal thing.



Ne: - This process is primarily obsessed with Possibility. Ne perceives the environment wanting to find stimulation, energy, and most importantly: Innovation. It thrives on finding alternatives, and is a catalyst for Change. Note that the things Ne comes up with aren't necessarily logical - they're actually quite wacky. Essentially, Ne has little embarrassment, and no idea is a bad idea -- some ideas are just better than others. It enjoys being silly, expressive and playful without shame.



Se: - This process is primarily obsessed with The Sensual. Se vividly perceives it's surroundings and takes them in as they are. Unlike Ne who glances once at it's surroundings, then begins to hop around to different places in it's head - Se stays on the tangible moment and lingers in it. It is also motivated toward stimulation and enjoys thrills, excitement, aesthete, aroma, taste, sex, etc.

The Four Judging Functions:

Te: This process is primarily obsessed with Efficiency. It weighs things by their practical use in achieving whatever the present Goal might be. It is a logic based judgment that is keen to discern what would and wouldn't work most optimally given the variables. It enjoys coming up with systems that can organize the world effectively -- and is notoriously competitive, as it thrives on the satisfaction from accomplishment (winning).



Fe: - This process is primarily obsessed with Relationship Dynamics - typically of people but can also apply to plants/animals or other personified objects. It focuses on the morality of actions, what is and isn't "right" and what people ought and ought not to do. Often it reinforces the standard social protocol - such as courtesy, obedience to rules, elders - because it has a desire to move the environment in the direction it sees as correct. It is similar to Te in that it seeks to move situations toward the desired Goal, but it's goal is defined by the most optimal social arrangements.



Fi: - This process is primarily obsessed with Inner Harmony. This is a very inward-turned process which assesses character, both of others and of themselves. However, although it is a judge of character it is not motivated to move it's environment in any particular direction. In contrast to Fe, it does not base it's judgments on what is social protocol. The conclusions Fi arrives at are it's own and can sometimes be very different from and violate social norms.



Ti: - This process is primarily concerned with Accuracy. Ti doms feel an almost moral obligation to Truth, that is akin to Fi's obligation to Nobility. Ti seeks to analyze all present data and arrive at the most synchronized conclusion it can. It does this by discerning and dividing/splitting in a black-and-white manner. It is a linear and meticulous process of reasoning that works systematically to arrive at the more perfect understanding it can. Unlike Te, it seeks not to push it's system into the world, and is not an external-organizer. It is satisfied with simply arriving at the answer.

So yes, these are paired: 1 perception & 1 judging -- to make a Type.
But they are also paired as 1 introverted(i) & 1 extraverted(e) function.
This creates 16 possible ways to "perceive" + "judge" the world:

Si + Te = ISTJ
Si + Fe = ISFJ
Ni + Te = INTJ
Ni + Fe = INFJ

Se + Fi = ESFP
Se + Ti = ESTP
Ne + Fi = ENFP
Ne + Ti = ENTP

Te + Si = ESTJ
Te + Ni = ENTJ
Fe + Si = ESFJ
Fe + Ni = ENFJ

Fi + Se = ISFP
Fi + Ne = INFP
Ti + Se = ISTP
Ti + Ne = INTP

When we talk about a certain personality type, that ^ is what it means. So being INTP means beginning in a position of Ti judgement aided by Ne's perception. It's best not to obsess over the surface dichotomies of I/E, S/N, T/F, P/J - - they are little more than straw-manned assumptions about the personality type wiring they are trying to explain.



So yes..

If you're confused about your type, take a look at this list and ask yourself, "Which Perception function do I use?" and "Which Judging function do I use?". I tried to describe the eight as distinct from one another as possible to leave no shade of gray or confusion.

[thelithiumcat]

That is an excellent explanation. Thank you. Based on the 'which... function do I use' idea I can see how I relate most to Ti and Ne but also to Si and Fe more than the other four. I can attempt to connect with the other four (Te, Ni, Se and Fi) but it's difficult to imagine it. I think this is a very good way to further confirm one's suspicion of one's type.

[Auburn]

Thanks. I hope this helps others too.

Ah, excellent. If you relate to all four of those, then that's a good sign your type is not too far off. :3

[BigApplePi]

I think it excellent to pursue this, but personally I am always at war with myself when I try to understand these personality classifications. Why can't I be all of these, all eight? When I brought this up to Adymus I think he said that it was one of the other functions, not the one I was naming. I know one function is supposed to be energizing and the other draining, but why can't I be all eight where at different times energizing and draining exchange with each other?

Don't know if my dilemma is getting across. Let's say I'm INTP. That means Ti Ne Si Fe. Is Adymus (or anyone) saying I can't have Te Ni Se Fi and if I think I have, I'm wrong and it's really another function?

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Auburn

The Four Perception Functions Are:

Si: The Familiar.

Ni: The Unknown.

Ne: Possibility.

Se: The Sensual.

The Four Judging Functions:

Te: Efficiency.

Fe: Relationship Dynamics

Fi: Inner Harmony.

Ti: Accuracy.

Here is another try:

Everyone has T F N S. The functions differ in whether they are I or E.

So as an INTP, why can't I pick:

accuracy first, efficiency later?
possibility first, unknowns later?
the familiar first, the sensual sometimes?
relationships over inner harmony but not always?

[Auburn]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

I think it excellent to pursue this, but personally I am always at war with myself when I try to understand these personality classifications. Why can't I be all of these, all eight? When I brought this up to Adymus I think he said that it was one of the other functions, not the one I was naming. I know one function is supposed to be energizing and the other draining, but why can't I be all eight where at different times energizing and draining exchange with each other?

Don't know if my dilemma is getting across. Let's say I'm INTP. That means Ti Ne Si Fe. Is Adymus (or anyone) saying I can't have Te Ni Se Fi and if I think I have, I'm wrong and it's really another function?

I have two ways to answer this:


#1: Addressing this brain study - Dario Nardi's results showed that everyone with Ne (even in an inferior position), displayed a Christmas-Tree pattern when brainstorming. And everyone with an Ni preference (even in an inferior position) displayed a Ni holistic/zen state when brainstorming and not the Christmas-Tree pattern.

Christmas-Tree Pattern :: Very rapidly, all sections of the brain switch their frequency & amplitude up and down - seemingly randomly - for however long they are focused on the task of brainstorming.

Zen Pattern :: All sections of the brain have the same frequency & amplitude, meaning the whole brain is in unison, for the duration of the brainstorming.

The same was true for other patterns he found which appear only in certain types. This study suggests there is an exclusivity of the brain. Being Ne dom does not give you access to the Ni way of brainstorming, and vice versa. His book touches much more on all this than the video.


#2: I have seen for myself that people don't utilize all eight -- and with every person I've spent considerable time with I've identified their hierarchy and it functions in the way outlined above.

Once you manage to identify an individual function within a person, you will definitely notice they use it in conjunction with their inverse (Si with Ne, Ni with Se, Ti with Fe, Fi with Te). They come as a pair - but I understand that's difficult to prove. The best I can do is give you as much information about each as I can so that you know what you're looking for - but the moment of inspiration will come when you actually *see* it yourself.

Now, as for exactly why they have to be this way -- the functions are arranged in the order they are because the brain requires balance. It is not possible to use all eight because some of them occupy the same role in the psyche. For example, Te and Fe are both Goal oriented functions. They have an objective they work toward, but it's not the same objective. So if a person had both, they'd clash in what the goal is. You don't need both and having both just makes everything worse. I suppose at some stage in our natural-selection process this was chosen as the most efficient psychic arrangement..

[Auburn]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

So as an INTP, why can't I pick:

accuracy first, efficiency later?
possibility first, unknowns later?
the familiar first, the sensual sometimes?
relationships over inner harmony but not always?

Mm, well these theories were created by people who've observed reality. They are patterns which can be physically seen in people to hold true. But so long as your understanding remains entirely theoretical, what they're talking about won't make sense to you.

Jung developed these theories from decades of exposure to hundreds of psychiatric patients. Later, other psychoanalysts saw the same phenomenon for themselves, and have ever since attempted to expand and further explain what they see.

You won't understand why "this" is how it is and not "that" -- until you actually observe people yourself to find out what is the truth. The truth becomes self evident then.

But I realize the suspicion you might have about this and they are valid, however, even for someone who doesn't readily see it and doubts the validity altogether of the theory --- I would suggest that there is reason to suspect something might be there, arranged in the manner described - considering many people after Jung have stepped forward and written extensively about this phenomenon too.

One can either conclude this is all mass delusion because one personally doesn't see it, or conclude others are seeing something which is real but difficult to discern.

[BigApplePi]

Auburn. Your reply is much appreciated and actually I agree and think I roughly get most of it as per my replies below. It's just that as a person of theory myself I am compelled to puzzle about the limits of what is being said. I will further my thoughts below.

Originally Posted by Auburn

These theories were created by people who've observed reality. They are patterns which can be physically observed in others with your eyes. So long as your understanding remains entirely theoretical, what they're talking about won't make sense to you.

Although I'm very fond of theory, theory requires some sort of sensory data input. Theory as a generalization makes no sense ultimately without at least primitive data collection. Cf. Se function?

Carl Jung developed these theories from decades of exposure with psychiatric patients. Later, other psychoanalysts saw the same phenomenon for themselves, and have ever since attempted to expand and further explain what they see. It is something that is seen to be understood.

I buy that there are different personalities, that they can be described, that different personality theories tend to focus on different things. For example, if I have this right, Myers-Briggs goes to behavior; Pod'Lair to sensual observation. I buy both. And those aren't the only theories or structures for personality types.

You won't understand why "this" is how it is and not "that" -- until you actually observe people yourself to find out what is the truth. The truth becomes self evident when it's taken out of a theoretical understanding and into a practical one.

I will have to accept my limitations of experential observations of others. However there is one person I have excelled at observing and that is myself. I am quite introspective.

I realize the suspicion you might have about this and they're valid, however, even for someone who doesn't readily see it and doubts the validity altogether of the theory -- I would suggest that there is reason to suspect something "is" there and it is arranged in the manner described - considering many people after Carl Jung have stepped forward and written extensively about this phenomenon because they see it also.

One can either conclude this is all mass delusion because one personally doesn't see it, or conclude others are seeing something which is real but difficult to discern.

What I want to say is entirely different. I don't know if I can get it across. I tried to bring this up after long discussion with Adymus but in the end I failed.

I am not quarreling with personality theory. Differences exist and hopefully are or can be defined. I don't know what to call what I'm after. "Character traits" doesn't quite fit. I have no words. So I have to go to data, using myself to observe. Ready?

In my relationships in the outside world I may be an INTP. Others can judge. I test INTP (Adymus doesn't fully buy such tests). But look at this: On this board my behavior is more like ENTP. Don't know if that is right or not, but take my thread, Understanding Made Simple. (You don't have to read it.) There I am trying to explain both to myself and to others. It would seem priorities Ti and Ne are reversed. So are Fe and Si. Isn't that the behavior of an ENTP? Can I call myself an INTP with a temporary ENTP character?

[Puffy]

Thanks for posting this Auburn. (:

May I ask though, Adymus made a thread explaining MBTI yonks ago, which was stickied in this section I think. I was curious what your motivation for the thread was, whether you felt this was just a topic that needed reviving or because you differed with Adymus's explanation?

Perhaps you wish to assume the empty chair of MBTI zen master?

Though, I guess you just said that zen was an Ni thing, so maybe not..

I'm an INFJ by the way - to the best of mine and a few other's observations - I only say because we haven't spoken before and it's relevant to the topic for those observing.

Like... I don't think I could have possibly created this response without first thanking Auburn for his post. Asking someone why they create a thread can come off as a bit antagonistic where I'm just curious, but that I instantly think of how I will be received, what is appropriate, etc is quite Fe conscious as Auburn defined it. Perhaps a little arbitrary as social protocol are pretty universal communication wise, but I suppose it shows in other ways...

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Auburn

#1: Addressing this brain study - Dario Nardi's results showed that everyone with Ne (even in an inferior position), displayed a Christmas-Tree pattern when brainstorming. And everyone with an Ni preference (even in an inferior position) displayed a Ni holistic/zen state when brainstorming and not the Christmas-Tree pattern.

Christmas-Tree Pattern :: Very rapidly, all sections of the brain switch their frequency & amplitude up and down - seemingly randomly - for however long they are focused on the task of brainstorming.

Zen Pattern :: All sections of the brain have the same frequency & amplitude, meaning the whole brain is in unison, for the duration of the brainstorming.

The same was true for other patterns he found which appear only in certain types. This study suggests there is an exclusivity of the brain. Being Ne dom does not give you access to the Ni way of brainstorming, and vice versa. His book touches much more on all this than the video.

I'm ready to believe the results of that test. However one can argue the Ni and Ne results are natural given the test. But what if I created a test tailored to deliberately try to get the opposite pattern? Would I succeed or not? I am suspicious that experimenters may have made this error in their conclusions. I have yet to play that 1 1/2 utube so I may change my mind. But if I were to see just one Ne who normally tested Christmas Tree come up with a Zen, I would want to log what sort of test brought that about!

#2: I have seen for myself that people don't utilize all eight -- and with every person I've spent considerable time with I've identified their hierarchy and it functions in the way outlined above.

Once you manage to identify an individual function within a person, you will definitely notice they use it in conjunction with their inverse (Si with Ne, Ni with Se, Ti with Fe, Fi with Te). They come as a pair - but I understand that's difficult to prove. The best I can do is give you as much information about each as I can so that you know what you're looking for - but the moment of inspiration will come when you actually *see* it yourself.

Now, as for exactly why they have to be this way -- the functions are arranged in the order they are because the brain requires balance. It is not possible to use all eight because some of them occupy the same role in the psyche. For example, Te and Fe are both Goal oriented functions. They have an objective they work toward, but it's not the same objective. So if a person had both, they'd clash in what the goal is. You don't need both and having both just makes everything worse. I suppose at some stage in our natural-selection process this was chosen as the most efficient psychic arrangement..

Okay. So personalities can be identified in typical situations where they are behaving as they normally would. But what about special situations? Take an actress like Meryl Streep. Say she is INTx. I saw an interview where she said she reaches deep down into her psyche and becomes another person. I assume she, for the nonce, is comfortable with that. That is, she is energized, not drained ... until it's all over. Who is to say we can't all do that? I'm don't want to say she's no longer an INTx. I do want to propose she can temporarily take on a different personality. How about a brain scan during one of her role plays to test it?

Yes Fe and Te clash. So they can't occur at the same instant. But who is to say that can't alternate? The personality may incur inner conflict, but so what?

[Artsu Tharaz]

haha awesome

[Auburn]

I buy that there are different personalities, that they can be described, that different personality theories tend to focus on different things. For example, if I have this right, Myers-Briggs goes to behavior; Pod'Lair to sensual observation. I buy both. And those aren't the only theories or structures for personality types.

Mmm, well Pod'lair actually answers that (by this i mean, has a logic model to explain it - whether true or not) since it is both behavioral and sensory. The sensations are directly linked to cognition and thus behavior -- so in other words, if one visibly shows cues of being an INTP, they will also behave according to how an INTP's cognition would.

However, then we have to more finely define "how a real INTP behaves". To do that we need to get to the root of the behavior as opposed to the fruits. This will yield a different understanding of an INTP than previously available. At the roots, every INTP will be operating from the same patterns of mind -- in the same way water is fundamentally the same molecule but behaves differently given environment (i.e. temperature/pressure) which can give it a vaporous or crystalline form.

There is great variation in manifestation an INTP can show, and a lot will eclipse other type stereotypes, but if you zero-in on the root which gives life to the behavior you can see they're fundamentally unchanged.

[Auburn]

Thanks for posting this Auburn. (:

May I ask though, Adymus made a thread explaining MBTI yonks ago, which was stickied in this section I think. I was curious what your motivation for the thread was, whether you felt this was just a topic that needed reviving or because you differed with Adymus's explanation?

I actually agree entirely with Adymus' thread. I posted this because his thread is sadly too long for the average attention span.. and yes, in hopes of reigniting the flames of critical typological analysis.

Also, the brief summaries of the 8 Functions that do exist out there, such as on http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com , don't highlight the differences between one another accurately - causing them to blur together in the reader's mind. There is also only so much abstract data a mind can entertain at one time -- and with too much of it, the correlations and distinctions are not created. Perhaps this way, the similarities and differences become more visible - or so I hope.

Also, I must admit it's been bugging me lately to see a lot of wrong information being spread about. Even though Adymus' thread exists, without an active voice who understands what he's saying and can address questions it's hard for that to be revered. I'm obviously not Adymus but I still maintain occasional contact with him and am still learning.. and also want to share what I know.

[Auburn]

I'm ready to believe the results of that test. However one can argue the Ni and Ne results are natural given the test. But what if I created a test tailored to deliberately try to get the opposite pattern? Would I succeed or not? I am suspicious that experimenters may have made this error in their conclusions. I have yet to play that 1 1/2 utube so I may change my mind. But if I were to see just one Ne who normally tested Christmas Tree come up with a Zen, I would want to log what sort of test brought that about!

That would be an important next step, yea. The test conducted by Nardi wasn't specifically looking for anything -- as much as just observing the brains of students who are (to the best of his knowledge) of a certain Type, and see what emerges. What emerged was quite interesting. I think you'd enjoy the video.

I get excited thinking about where this could go..

For instance, if with more testing they can confirm that the patterns of Ne and Ni *never* show up in the same brain, and that the patterns of Ne always show up with the patterns of Si -- then a grounding principle can be created. Namely that Ne-Si are a pair, and exist in a person at the exclusion of Ni-Se - and the same is true for the other functions.

Yes Fe and Te clash. So they can't occur at the same instant. But who is to say that can't alternate? The personality may incur inner conflict, but so what?

Which would address this. He says this is what his preliminary study actually points to: Certain patterns just didn't show up together, while others would.

But more refined testing is needed to know exactly what is happening inside the brain. Meanwhile I'm still trying to improve my understanding of certain things from outside the brain.

Perhaps you wish to assume the empty chair of MBTI zen master?

Not really...
To me personally, thus far cognitive functions appear to have a basis both visibly (people reading), in neurology, and from my tangible experience. I firmly believe it is reality, and can only try my best to explain it to others as I see it, but it is up to others to form their own conclusions of course.

[Gather_Wanderer]

You know its been two years since I've joined here, a little longer since I've been looking into typology, and I still don't know for sure if my dominant function is Ti or Ni. Before I saw how advanced some of this has gotten philosophically (granted, mostly by people here) I thought I was certainly a Ti dom; In fact, anyone who knows me would probably say the same thing and actually has (without knowing what Ti is). After reading through much of Adymus's work, however, I had come to the conclusion that I was almost certainly an Ni dom. Problem is, the guys over at that other place make it so freaking hard for follow up information without making the whole ordeal a mind-numbing chore.

I think the most confusing part is that, in real time interactions/conversations (in-person, not on internet), everything I do seems so naturally Ti. I always take a step back and try to give reasoning for both Ni and Ti dominance, and can usually make a case in my mind (believe me, I sometimes spend all day at work or wherever I am consciously noting my behavior patterns along with those of random people around me) for either one. If I was forced to come to a conclusion today I would say Ni, but it seems the debate with myself is never really over.

Oh, and the fact that those guys have often mistyped and even backpedaled on a lot of their own shit doesn't really help either, especially since I can't get full breadth of knowledge without submitting myself to Thomas's will.

[Auburn]

I have the same issue with them... =x
..

..


How's about I propose something here. If you'd (or others) like to learn more about people reading, without going through Podlair's process I can try and relay what I know thus far. I am still learning, but the most practical way to do this would be to show you videos of celebrities and break down the cues bit by bit. We could go one celebrity at a time and discuss what we both see and whether or not there is a pattern.

Even though I am a Podlair member I don't agree with all their methods (heh, and they know that) nor do I believe anyone should hold a monopoly on truth. If you're interested you can send me a pm >.> I hope I don't get banned (again) for this, but people need to know - and I value transparency far too much not to..

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Auburn

That would be an important next step, yea. The test conducted by Nardi wasn't specifically looking for anything ...
I get excited thinking about where this could go..

For instance, if with more testing they can confirm that the patterns of Ne and Ni *never* show up in the same brain, and that the patterns of Ne always show up with the patterns of Si -- then a grounding principle can be created. Namely that Ne-Si are a pair, and exist in a person at the exclusion of Ni-Se - and the same is true for the other functions.

Which would address this. He says this is what his preliminary study actually points to: Certain patterns just didn't show up together, while others would.

But more refined testing is needed to know exactly what is happening inside the brain. Meanwhile I'm still trying to improve my understanding of certain things from outside the brain.

Auburn I played the entire hour of Dario Nardi

and will post times giving charts I thought of interest. Thank you for what I think you are saying is support for what I could call "flexibility in personality." We can temporarily step into another type. Although the basic personality type remains the same,
(32:50 Brain activity averaged over two hours)

my claim is we can temporarily display another personality. This is supported by where Dario Nardi quotes Jung @
105:45 Eight Cognitive Functions
("We have all eight but have different preferences")

More charts:
32:50 Brain Map
37:30 Engagement chart
41:00 Activities Producing Flow
51:29 Holistic Modes
58:45 Christmas Tree Brain Pattern
103:11 One Summary

The idea of temporarily displaying other cognitive functions becomes important when someone appears on this board and says, "I am xxxx" rather than "yyyy." A year or so ago someone came onto this board claiming he would be an INTP. Adymus nailed him as INTJ. Adymus may have been right I'm sure. Nevertheless the person was trying to step into INTP and my guess is he DID succeed for the period he was looking at himself ... at least a little.

[cheese]

BAP:

Spoiler:

RE having a 'temporary ENTP character' - there are ways to explain this that don't involve the brain switching its preferred sequencing. Your behaviour at the time could indicate greater use of Ne and Fe than usual, but behaviour alone can be misleading (different functions can carry out the same task - as in the Nardi study, students are able to complete task requirements using different parts of the brain). Also, you may be using *more* of a certain function at a time but that still doesn't mean it's the most efficient for your brain to use. Somewhere in Nardi's slides he mentions that the brain generally prefers to use the most efficient pathway, the one it's accustomed to using, even if task completion becomes hampered. And the routes of efficiency vary by type. This helps explain why Pod'lair pays more attention to *energy*, than simply to what function is currently being used. Just because you use more Ne than Ti during a given period of time doesn't mean you're ENTP. What determines your type is which function is most efficient/easiest/energising for your brain to use. An ISFJ could use lots of Ne at some point (which is their weakest function); that doesn't make them a Ne dom, because how their use of Ne affects them, and even how sophisticated that usage is, will be different to how a Ne dom uses and is affected by his Ne. (I don't know how true this all is, though it makes a lot of sense - I'm just arguing from the theory here.)

I think at the moment you are focusing on stereotypes and not how the brain is wired (assuming there *are* different optimal sequences for different personality types). If you wanted to say that you occasionally look and behave like the person described in MBTI's ENTP profiles, then yes, that could be accurate. But if you want to say that your neurological makeup is the same as someone whose function order is Ne-Ti-Fe-Si when yours is actually that of an INTP, then that isn't necessarily accurate - and there are ways to explain different behaviour other than changing the brain - because an ENTP still leads with Ne, *supports* Ne's wishes with Ti, and is heavily drained by Si (unlike an INTP who leads with Ti and is heavily drained by Fe). His whole mental experience and approach to life is shaped by that. That's different to simply enjoying some extra Ne for a little while.

Hmm, though if you divided up all your experience and looked at it as a series of brain scans, you might be able to say that some of the scans are indistinguishable from those of an ENTP. But type is is determined by patterns of energy, and that has to be observed over time. If your overall pattern doesn't support Ne leading, then you're not ENTP.

Also, Meryl Streep is an INFJ according to pod'lair. Stepping into someone else's shoes and being energised by it would make a lot of sense in that case - modeling and empathising with another person to the point that you can feel and think as they do? That's NiFe! (I think.) They're using their functions in a way that is rewarding to them, and *that's* why they're energised - not because they've actually become someone else, but because they think they have, and are continuously engaged in the process of modeling, empathising, recreating and *selling* another person, thereby continually feeding themselves. (Or maybe they actually have turned into someone else. Who knows.) Fe is heavily concerned with how it presents to other people, and how it relates and is related to.

Here is Nardi's cognitive processes test, if anyone is interested.
http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm

It's a pretty good test imo. Also worth reading the FAQ section (linked at the bottom) where they explain how the test is designed better than we tend to give them credit for (eg questions are written not for exact meaning but psychological appeal - 'sounding right' to the right type).

And here is a brief breakdown of how function use differs depending on level of skill.

Spoiler:

Basic and Developed Use
Each cognitive process can be engaged in a basic, unsophisticated way reflecting our natural human capabilities. Almost everyone can engage each process in some basic way. Beyond this, you will engage some cognitive processes in a more sophisticated, developed way. This is usually the result of innate preference plus lifelong growth and practice, which equals development.

Perceiving—how we focus our attention and gather information

extraverted Sensing (Se)
Basic (passive) use: Notice sensory data in the environment.
Developed (active) use: Trust your instincts and take action relevant to the moment and current context.

introverted Sensing (Si)
Basic (passive) use: Recall tangible data and experiences.
Developed (active) use: Stabilize a situation by comparing it to what is expected, known and reliable.

extraverted Intuiting (Ne)
Basic (passive) use: Notice abstract patterns as they emerge.
Developed (active) use: Shift a situation's dynamics and explore imaginative potential possibilities.

introverted Intuiting (Ni)
Basic (passive) use: Receive "ah-ha" insights and realizations.
Developed (active) use: Pursue a greater level of awareness to transform who you are and how you think.

Judging—how we organize our experiences and make decisions


extraverted Thinking (Te)
Basic (passive) use: Follow steps, points and time tables.
Developed (active) use: Create structure, reason by measures and evidence, and implement complex plans.

introverted Thinking (Ti)
Basic (passive) use: Adhere to definitions and impersonal principles.
Developed (active) use: Analyze a problem using a framework, and find an angle or leverage by which to solve it.

extraverted Feeling (Fe)
Basic (passive) use: Honor others' needs and preferences.
Developed (active) use: Connect with people by sharing values and taking on their needs as yours.

introverted Feeling (Fi)
Basic (passive) use: Adhere to personal beliefs about what's important.
Developed (active) use: Evalute situations and choose what you believe is congruent with your personal identity.

Development is more than basic or developed use of processes in isolation. Excellent use of a cognitive process involves both basic and advanced use as appropriate, and ability to deploy other processes in its service. Average to good use usually means we can use the process in limited situations or use it well but only with the aid of other processes. Poor use means basic use at most. Finally, we may get ourselves into trouble when we don't use a process at all.

This is so important to note, especially with the masses of people we get thinking they're Feelers because they have feelings and occasionally take values into account during decision-making, or thinking they're Te-doms cos they like making lists. *facepalm* I don't necessarily agree with all their definitions, but it should clear up a lot of confusion.

Here are Nardi's slides as well, which is basically a much faster way of watching the video Auburn posted (though it's still worth watching just cos it's fun), and getting to try out the exercises as well.

http://www.keys2cognition.com/papers...lCognition.pdf

[Auburn]

Brilliant! That was a great post Cheese. ^_^
You did a much better job of explaining what I was trynna say (regarding ENTP/INTP) c.c

Spoiler:

As Cheese said, usage of heavy Ne by an INTP doesn't translate to temporarily becoming ENTP. (Temporarily appearing like the ENTP stereotype, perhaps). An INTP might feel relaxed enough in the environment to be more spontaneous and show more Ne, but they won't have the same calibur of use with it as an Ne dom and it will drain their energy. That, and this allowance does not mean they've abandoned their Ti lead process. Their modus operandi will still retain it's principle/compass orientation - which is just not being expressed at the moment.

Thanks for the links too!

@ BAP: Pertaining to brain use, yea, I think it's true that we all use all parts of our brain (our brain tissue would probably die if we didn't! o.O) - but the patterns Nardi noticed were not visible in all types. The way we use our brain is what is different. For instance both the zen pattern and christmas tree pattern involve all regions but in a different way. Once again this is still in an experimental stage but the signs seem to point to that direction.

It may also be entirely possible that all 16 types have access to certain processes (which are independant of type) while other brain processes are type-specific. We all have sight, for instance, and we all use the occipital lobes for it. But I digress. I need to study more about neuroscience..

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Auburn

As Cheese said, usage of heavy Ne by an INTP doesn't translate to temporarily becoming ENTP. (Temporarily appearing like the ENTP stereotype, perhaps). An INTP might feel relaxed enough in the environment to be more spontaneous and show more Ne, but they won't have the same calibur of use with it as an Ne dom and it will drain their energy. That, and this allowance does not mean they've abandoned their Ti lead process. Their modus operandi will still retain it's principle/compass orientation - which is just not being expressed at the moment.

Here is a separate concept which is a way of explaining this. Ready?

Personality is a useful thing. It helps us understand ourselves. It helps us understand others. Defining what it is is another matter. A person doesn't have to be a scholar or have heard of Pod'Lair or Jung or MBTI to find it useful. Here is the separate concept:

(1) We can go after a precise definition, take brain scans, use Pod'Lair, take MBTI multiple question tests. This is personality from the inside.

(2) We can go at it from the outside. We can observe people. We can meet them at a party. We can get a first impression. We don't even have to observe them for hours under different conditions. We can still form an opinion, however erroneous as to their personality.

Ever see that video of Hitler in his mountain retreat? He is friendly, warm and loving. He loves his dog. His girlfriend, Eva Braun has affection for him ... maybe a father figure. We don't have to be a personality expert. This is a nice man. This is a personality from the outside.

You guys are right about me. When I take a snapshot looking at myself from the outside, jumping from one thread to another, replying to everything and everyone, being "INTP Forum sociable", I see myself as exhibiting ENTP traits. I can do this up to a point. But I find it exhausting if I try to keep it up. I start making mistakes. No way I can be an ENTP even if I can hold it for a moment. I want to go back to the INTP nature which I assume is me.

Notice, if I have this right, how Pod'Lair tries to bridge this gap. Viewing the outside immediately reveals the inside I take it. But I claim so far, this is for Pod'Lair experts. We still, as fallible people, judge others from the outside and do so with doubtful accuracy.

[Auburn]

Interesting way to look at it.
Mm, and if you could see the inside, you would also have awareness of the outside, because the inside begets the outside as an extension of it's causality.

I don't see much use in the external approach aside from navigating through a new situation when there is no time for deeper examination. Quick stereotypes might come in handy then. Or they might not!

You guys are right about me. When I take a snapshot looking at myself from the outside, jumping from one thread to another, replying to everything and everyone, being "INTP Forum sociable", I see myself as exhibiting ENTP traits. I can do this up to a point. But I find it exhausting if I try to keep it up.

Not to mention forum interaction is much less energy-expensive than real life interaction. You can reply to things at your own pace - you don't really have to flow adaptively in the physical environment.

Notice, if I have this right, how Pod'Lair tries to bridge this gap. Viewing the outside immediately reveals the inside I take it.

Yeps.

But I claim so far, this is for Pod'Lair experts. We still, as fallible people, judge others from the outside and do so with doubtful accuracy.

Mmm, yes and no?
I can't speak for everyone..
And as long as one is unable to see what the experts see, they've no way of knowing for certain the experts are correct. But then, by the point you can see it yourself -- well, you can see it yourself!

[pjoa09]

Nice, I got a better understanding of myself in MBTI. I am clearly not Ni but still stand little touchy with Se while maintaining Ne.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Auburn

I don't see much use in the external approach aside from navigating through a new situation when there is no time for deeper examination. Quick stereotypes might come in handy then. Or they might not!

Speed dating (mentioned by Dario Nardi) might be a good application of the external approach to personality. A decision has to be made quickly as to who we like best/least and all our best and worst prejudges are brought into it. Not a good way to judge ... but if we are in a hurry or we are forced to hurry and this is our last chance ...

[Da Blob]

I think some may be making a mistake by viewing personality as a cause of 'personhood', when perhaps it is more properly viewed as an effect (one of many) of personhood. That is to say that personality is a subset, a derivative of a more complex system. Perhaps personality does exhibit a good 2D image as representative of a '3D' personhood, but I have reason to doubt this is so. Personality theory deals with the superficial, IMO.

Personality is a composite of personas. A persona being, in this context, a temporary state of mind, a temporary role, a specific schemata etc. We each have a set of personas we assume as tools to aid us in the process of adaptation to change.

Each personality type can be seen as offering a unique set of adaptive skills, yet those same set of skills can be learned by those with other types, other skill sets.
I can learn to be E, N can learn to be S, T can learn to be F, J can learn to be P

Of course, most are too lazy to learn an additional skill set and in truth there is little motivation to do so if one is content with the personality one already possesses. A personality is a possession/position and is something that can be modified .

[BigApplePi]

I'm looking at those slides. I gotta get me one of them red caps to try it out on you cheese .

I do appreciate all your commentary on me and being ENTP. I know inside I am not ENTP. I was just looking at the ENTP feeling as a temporary. After watching that lecture I do go for those brain scans. Just note one of his slides shows an average over 2 hours and that's what it is: an average. It doesn't mean the person was continuously behaving as that average.

Originally Posted by cheese

Also, Meryl Streep is an INFJ according to pod'lair. Stepping into someone else's shoes and being energised by it would make a lot of sense in that case - modeling and empathising with another person to the point that you can feel and think as they do? That's NiFe! (I think.) They're using their functions in a way that is rewarding to them, and *that's* why they're energised - not because they've actually become someone else, but because they think they have, and are continuously engaged in the process of modeling, empathising, recreating and *selling* another person, thereby continually feeding themselves. (Or maybe they actually have turned into someone else. Who knows.) Fe is heavily concerned with how it presents to other people, and how it relates and is related to.

Good explanation of Streep.

Originally Posted by cheese

Here is Nardi's cognitive processes test, if anyone is interested.
http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm

Originally Posted by BAP

Here are my test results:
Cognitive ProcessLevel of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) *********************** (23.1)
limited useintroverted Sensing (Si) ************************* (25.7)
average useextraverted Intuiting (Ne) ***************************************** (41.8)
excellent useintroverted Intuiting (Ni) ***************** (17.6)
limited useextraverted Thinking (Te) ************************ (24.5)
average useintroverted Thinking (Ti) ******************************************* (43.9)
excellent useextraverted Feeling (Fe) ************************ (24.8)
average useintroverted Feeling (Fi) ************************************** (38)
excellent useSummary Analysis of Profile
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: INTP

Note that cognitive functions Si Ni Te Fi are not zero. Go figure.

INTP are not supposed to have these,but I have them. Here's proof :

•Ni: Project into future, draw upon entire mind to foresee or determine an answer, weight many factors at once.
I can look into the future anytime but don't want to if I'm up to my ears drowning in the present.

•Fi: What is of personal value to oneself, listening with the wholemind, tone of voice.
I can look at my personal values anytime, but don't want to if it interferes with trying to figure out what the rest of the world is about.

•Te: Decision-making, explanation, construct visual images,minimal / optimized use of brain (when dominant function), fabricate / lie.
I can decide anytime but don't want to if I have to deal with all of those other possible decisions too.

•Se:Recall details of recent data with high fidelity, identify objects, smooth body motion, calm in tense situations.
I can look at data I already have anytime but what's the point? I need to get hold of the data I don't have.

[Auburn]

You're welcome, BAP.
And well, as per a recent thread:

Originally Posted by Auburn

The current functions assessment test tries to do things by giving a bunch of questions for each function independently, then plotting the scores as bars. The issue with that is that there are many similarities in manifestation between, say -- Ne & Ni, Te & Ti, Fe & Fi, Se & Si -- so that testers will generally test high on both of them and not know exactly which one they're using.

But since the functions themselves are split in dualities, then the questions should be worded as such -- also pitted against one another. All the while making the wording not overly complicated and user friendly.

There are indeed similarities between functions (Ne and Ni share a lot in common, for instance) so it's only natural that you would expect to score some percentile in them on a test of this sort -- especially when the questions used to gauge these bars are themselves not describing behaviors exclusive to the one function in question.

I dunno how many ways I can say it: Online Tests Are Not An All Mighty Verdict Of Reality. It would be convenient if they were, but sadly Truth doesn't tailor to our conveniences.

Though at this point I dunno if you're just joking or not. lol
Maybe I'm not seeing the humor.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

I think some may be making a mistake by viewing personality as a cause of 'personhood', when perhaps it is more properly viewed as an effect (one of many) of personhood. That is to say that personality is a subset, a derivative of a more complex system. Perhaps personality does exhibit a good 2D image as representative of a '3D' personhood, but I have reason to doubt this is so. Personality theory deals with the superficial, IMO.

Personality is a composite of personas. A persona being, in this context, a temporary state of mind, a temporary role, a specific schemata etc. We each have a set of personas we assume as tools to aid us in the process of adaptation to change.

Each personality type can be seen as offering a unique set of adaptive skills, yet those same set of skills can be learned by those with other types, other skill sets.
I can learn to be E, N can learn to be S, T can learn to be F, J can learn to be P

Of course, most are too lazy to learn an additional skill set and in truth there is little motivation to do so if one is content with the personality one already possesses. A personality is a possession/position and is something that can be modified .

I'm glad you said this Da Blob. I think people can get a great deal of satisfaction by identifying with a type. It gives them an identity ... a place to stand and a place to belong. It also helps to recognize other types. That doesn't mean one can't be flexible in displaying broader characteristics.

In addition, think of this: Who are we? Are we the same to our boss as to our parents as to our significant other as to our pet as to our in-law as to our sports buddy as to an anonymous bulletin board as to the President of our country? Are we the same or are we different in each case but just want to be the same? Personally I want to be the same and it bothers me when I am not.

[Auburn]

*sigh* ...

[Melkor]

Bookmarked. I'll read it later when I'm drunk.

Promise.

[BigApplePi]

Auburn I would love to see well known people in the popular culture typed. That would help us learn type meaning. Adymus gave us a good start but that was some time ago.

Photos if well-known. Utube if not.

[Da Blob]

How would you like to learn how to be able to read people’s souls just by looking at their eyes, mouth, faces, gestures?

How would you like to train with the most elite Readers on this planet?

Put your metaphysical powers to the test

and see how much you have picked up of these ever present patterns
in a people reading challenge that will be part of a
new and exciting YouTube reality show, Pod'Lair Planet.

See More!
http://www.meetup.com/PodLair-of-Long-Beach/

The way humanity currently conducts itself is unsustainable.

Everything from social structure to business, relationships to self care, spirituality to politics, along with every other sphere of human activity, all need a massive overhaul.

What if there was a heroic and attainable game changer?

If a game changer were to emerge that could illuminate the path to enlightenment and scientific advancement, and this path is superior to all others, shouldn't we be pushing it forward?

This game changer exists.

* There is a math to the way the human psyche is designed.

* It has been discovered that humans are “wired” differently, and that their innate physiological cues communicates this wiring, which in turn is picked up consciously or unconsciously by others as humans are also “wired” to read these innate physiological cues that they and their fellow humans manifest.

* This means that all humans have evolved to visually read one another’s innate Cognitive Configuration Design.

* Awareness of how the human psyche is configured will improve life understanding and decision making on an individual and collective scale.

* This discovery is simply staggering in its implications. This discovery changes… everything.

http://www.podlair.com/

Pod'Lair - It is a game and a cult that reminds me of the cult that evolved around Berne's Transactional Analysis decades ago.

All successful cults mix fact with fantasy and IMHO Jung's theory of personality is more than a theory and can be assumed as fact. That being said, even Jung did not elevate personality to a prime position in the human psyche, but rather considered it as just a component in a greater system.

Nonverbal communication is the prime channel for sharing information between humans in face to face encounters, however, 'reading' types does not appear to offer any evolutionary advantage nor does it assist an individual in the process of adaptation.

It can be a useful tool, I suppose, for a social predator, but I see no scientific value in pursuing this line of inquiry suggested by the cult leader of Pod'Lair...

[Wish]

Thanks for posting this Auburn. It will be good to get people analyzing and discussing this theory again.

I don't have anything constructive to say currently but...

@BAP - I don't think you're giving your four functions enough credit for their flexibility. They aren't as rigid as you seem to think and just because a part of a description of some other function sounds like something you might do sometimes, doesn't mean that you have that function. I think Auburn alluded to the functions overlapping.

@Blob - As head-scratching and ominous as Pod'Lair is, I believe Auburn is trying to make a point of avoiding discussing them because he thinks (as do I and others) that the theory is worth looking at on its own merit, and doesn't want one group of maybe-cultists that present this theory (in their own mystical way) to scare everyone away.

[Da Blob]

Originally Posted by Wish

Thanks for posting this Auburn. It will be good to get people analyzing and discussing this theory again.

I don't have anything constructive to say currently but...

@BAP - I don't think you're giving your four functions enough credit for their flexibility. They aren't as rigid as you seem to think and just because a part of a description of some other function sounds like something you might do sometimes, doesn't mean that you have that function. I think Auburn alluded to the functions overlapping.

@Blob - As head-scratching and ominous as Pod'Lair is, I believe Auburn is trying to make a point of avoiding discussing them because he thinks (as do I and others) that the theory is worth looking at on its own merit, and doesn't want one group of maybe-cultists that present this theory (in their own mystical way) to scare everyone away.

Agreed! There is great merit in using the knowledge we have acquired to innovate the current obsolete status quo. However, IMO, it is sites like this one

http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/js...lsi/index.html

That makes no grand proclamations, which could provide documentation and validation for the various hypotheses connected with Jung's model.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Wish

@BAP - I don't think you're giving your four functions enough credit for their flexibility. They aren't as rigid as you seem to think and just because a part of a description of some other function sounds like something you might do sometimes, doesn't mean that you have that function. I think Auburn alluded to the functions overlapping.

Wish. I am reading & interpreting this thread loosely, not aiming at conclusiveness. At the moment I haven't thought of the four INTP functions in terms of covering all or not. I'm sure they can do a good job of that.

A "function" if rigidly defined may be a big deal. I don't wish to use defined words as weapons but rather as focusing points. They are modes of psychic behavior with central meanings and fuzzy peripheries. Just think of this: We all use T F S I. I see no theoretical reason why anyone need be confined to pairing them with I or E exclusively at a given moment. But perhaps a moment in time doesn't define a function. I don't know a word for this "moment."

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

http://www.podlair.com/

Pod'Lair - It is a game and a cult that reminds me of the cult that evolved around Berne's Transactional Analysis decades ago.

All successful cults mix fact with fantasy and IMHO Jung's theory of personality is more than a theory and can be assumed as fact. That being said, even Jung did not elevate personality to a prime position in the human psyche, but rather considered it as just a component in a greater system.

Nonverbal communication is the prime channel for sharing information between humans in face to face encounters, however, 'reading' types does not appear to offer any evolutionary advantage nor does it assist an individual in the process of adaptation.

It can be a useful tool, I suppose, for a social predator, but I see no scientific value in pursuing this line of inquiry suggested by the cult leader of Pod'Lair...

I would like to distinguish the social movement from the theoretical idea. I would accept anyone to feel free to discard the social movement if it is not to their taste. The task is to retrieve (abstract) the useful theory from those (politicians) who would promote it. Personally I know what you mean. I feel entrapped by social movements that carry extra baggage. That's an INTP fer ya.

[BigApplePi]

After letting a few weeks pass I have two thoughts:

(1) The Dario Nardi video shows brain patterns and seem to identify types. Let the testing continue. What the tests do not show is nature versus nurture. A type could be set up during one's first five years (the Freudian outlook) that becomes hardened after only mere inclinations to start with. A hardened type would be difficult to change but doesn't mean one doesn't have access to the other opposing trait. One is simple disinclined. (Disinclined = biased; untrained; unmotivated.)

(2) This is an example outside of Myers-Briggs which may show more clearly what I mean: Lefties versus Righties. There may be an initial inclination to go one or the other. Some lefties when caught have been trained to go the right way. (Try google for examples - I am lefty). Some have poor handwriting today; some would not go back to lefty. But I found no scientific documentation. I would want to know at what age they were caught. Six years old may have already hardened. There is a saying, "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree." Once set up, brain wiring may be hard to change.

I think there are some further specifics defining the eight cognitive functions (how 2 by 2 they are opposed to each other) that can be looked at. I'm sure they already have been looked at. I must have missed them due to lack of attentiveness.

[Auburn]

That's a fair conclusion to come to.. ^^
(heh, I'm a lefty also)

I will say this though. If the tree is an orange tree, no matter how you bend and shape it, it will never become an apple tree. Nurture influences the way nature develops, but nurture doesn't ever change nature. If the manifestation is the focus, then there may indeed be overlap -- but the fundamentals remain unchanged.

[Auburn]

Just think of this: We all use T F S I. I see no theoretical reason why anyone need be confined to pairing them with I or E exclusively at a given moment. But perhaps a moment in time doesn't define a function. I don't know a word for this "moment."

Except this isn't really an exclusively theoretical endeavor..

Although it may be true (theoretically) that there is no reason why not assume this or the other -- we're thrown into a possibility infinitum by that trail of reason.

Theoreticals are eliminated by tangibles. What determines which hypothesis are incorrect are those which don't align with observable reality. In other words, to determine the True underlying patterns to human behaviors, one has to analyze real humans, and from those observations extrapolate the governing laws.

The set "laws" painted by typology were deduced by observation people made. Thus to prove or disprove them likewise takes tangible observation in support of them or to the contrary. Anything else is just theoretical floundering that gets us no closer to truth.

If you can give me proof or tangible support that the laws that govern human psyches are not as outlined by typology, then I will respect that. But I can't play these theoretical circus games forever. <.<;; ..

[EyeSeeCold]

Originally Posted by Auburn

Theoreticals are eliminated by tangibles. What determines which hypothesis are incorrect are those which don't align with observable reality. In other words, to determine the True underlying patterns to human behaviors, one has to analyze real humans, and from those observations extrapolate the governing laws.

The set "laws" painted by typology were deduced by observation people made. Thus to prove or disprove them likewise takes tangible observation in support of them or to the contrary. Anything else is just theoretical floundering that gets us no closer to truth.

If you can give me proof or tangible support that the laws that govern human psyches are not as outlined by typology, then I will respect that. But I can't play these theoretical circus games forever. <.<;; ..

Agreed.