Beliefs on Type Theory

[Sir Eus Lee]

Quite obviously, there has been quite a lot of dilemmas concerning forumers and their type. Also, it seems everybody is knowledgeable about MBTI and cognitive functions to a degree much above the typical investigator.

Except that it's very confusing to navigate everybody's definitions of type theory when they likely have their own opinions of the entirety, yet may seem like they dont, or are remaining ambivalent or unspecified for the particular instance in a thread.

For example, Animekitty has posted at least 5 or 6 different theories about his typology and beliefs of type theory, so his overarching opinion remains somewhat ambiguous, at least to me. Inquisitor and other members also know a great deal of type theory, Jungian typology, statistics, and other data. Yet through some threads their overall conclusion might remain rather unspecified at times.

In order to clear up confusion, I thought it was much needed to create this thread in order to clear up this confusion.

This thread is for forumers to post about their own beliefs and take on type theory, disputations, meanings, validity, personal preferences, experiences that support deny or explain their perspective, or to clarify what they understand of another's understanding. This could range anywhere from MBTI to cognitive functions, to Jungian typology to Freudian psychoanalysis and whatnot.

Other topics such as enneagram and big 5 are welcome, but try to aim more towards the a MBTI and Jungian Cognitive Functions perspective of typology, whatever it may be to you.

This is not a place to critique other's beliefs or perspectives on typology. Clearly, each member has well thought out, in depth reasons for what they believe, and a debate will likely not change their mind because of the amount of datapoints they have sifted through to create their theory or understanding. Or, perhaps they have no clear stances on type theory, in which case they can hopefully solidify their own perspective a little more from this thread. If it needs be, we can create a separate thread about debating type theory, but sweet mercy be to those poor souls if it so ensues. Try to steer clear of that and simply post your own beliefs as in depth as you would like, and focus on trying to fully understand others perspectives rather than nitpick. However, do feel free to point out places of other's posts you don't understand in order to help them best communicate their point.

Just by the nature of this thread, posting will likely be volatile. Just try to be as inclusive, specific, yet clear and concise as you can be. This is basically just a thread for declaring your perspective so that other forumers have a reference point when or if you discuss typology elsewhere.

As for me, I will be posting in here after I have sufficiently pondered my own view, and decided what i have to say, how I'll say it, and what specifically I want to touch on.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Jungian typology is a set of 4 basic value conflicts, along with the humble premise that these sometimes tend to manifest as self-reinforcing extremes in a single person, group, institution, society or civilization.

The conflicts are:

Old vs. new
Abstract vs. concrete
Goal vs. implementation
Truth vs. belief

I trust you to figure out which value refers to which function.

The standard terms are somewhat unfortunate in that they carry a lot of baggage. Most of my journey through typology has been an exercise in shunning the connotations of Jung's wording and approximating a direct appreciation of the essences he conveys, as filtered through my own logic and experience. When i discuss typology, the nomenclature is simply short-hand for the above 4 value conflicts and their dynamic interplay. All the function names are largely wrong and meaningless red herrings.

I try to be completely agnostic as to how common "type" (pervasive and characteristically extreme manifestation of any value in a person) is. If a type description serves to model a person, i'll apply it. If not, i won't. When someone asks "what is the type of X", i will gladly take a challenge in the art of speculation but unless i get an immediate and readily expressible hunch, it will be from a baseline of suspended disbelief.

As for the function stack, i'm very undecided. There is one immutable axiom, namely that assigning one function/value high priority automatically renders its opposite low priority. Beyond that, stack configuration becomes messy and multi-threaded. I do tend to stick with the idea that an auxiliary is opposite of the dominant in terms of P/J as well as I/E, but i can't motivate that since i currently don't support the notions of P/J or I/E in typology. But it's mostly the terms i disagree with. The pattern might make sense without them, though i struggle to see how. I/E might just need some modification but P/J? That whole idea is frankly useless. So what is the real similarity between the old/new axis and the abstract/concrete axis? What is the real similarity between the goal/implementation axis and the truth/belief axis? And what is the real difference between those two pairs of axes?

What, if any, further value conflicts belong at the same fundamental level as those Jung discovered?

 

[Inquisitor]

Jungian typology is a set of 4 basic value conflicts, along with the humble premise that these sometimes tend to manifest as self-reinforcing extremes in a single person, group, institution, society or civilization

It's overwhelmingly about individuals. I have seen Jung and his followers refer to certain countries as being of one type or another. For example, Von Franz speaks of feeling as being more differentiated in the French but not in the Germans, where thinking is more prevalent.

The conflicts are:

Old vs. new
Abstract vs. concrete
Goal vs. implementation
Truth vs. belief

I trust you to figure out which value refers to which function.

Actually, I don't know. Would you mind clarifying?

The standard terms are somewhat unfortunate in that they carry a lot of baggage. Most of my journey through typology has been an exercise in shunning the connotations of Jung's wording and approximating a direct appreciation of the essences he conveys, as filtered through my own logic and experience. When i discuss typology, the nomenclature is simply short-hand for the above 4 value conflicts and their dynamic interplay. All the function names are largely wrong and meaningless red herrings.

Why would you believe this? What kind of baggage do they carry?

I try to be completely agnostic as to how common "type" (pervasive and characteristically extreme manifestation of any value in a person) is. If a type description serves to model a person, i'll apply it. If not, i won't. When someone asks "what is the type of X", i will gladly take a challenge in the art of speculation but unless i get an immediate and readily expressible hunch, it will be from a baseline of suspended disbelief.

Agreed.

As for the function stack, i'm very undecided. There is one immutable axiom, namely that assigning one function/value high priority automatically renders its opposite low priority. Beyond that, stack configuration becomes messy and multi-threaded.

Agreed.

I do tend to stick with the idea that an auxiliary is opposite of the dominant in terms of P/J as well as I/E, but i can't motivate that since i currently don't support the notions of P/J or I/E in typology. But it's mostly the terms i disagree with. The pattern might make sense without them, though i struggle to see how. I/E might just need some modification but P/J? That whole idea is frankly useless.

I don't understand. What are you saying?

So what is the real similarity between the old/new axis and the abstract/concrete axis? What is the real similarity between the goal/implementation axis and the truth/belief axis? And what is the real difference between those two pairs of axes?

I don't understand your definitions of the functions to begin with so can't answer that.

What, if any, further value conflicts belong at the same fundamental level as those Jung discovered?

You're saying you would like to add more value conflicts than the 4 Jung already outlined? The closest thing I can think of is the neuroticism dimension on the Big 5. Beyond that, there are thousands of other psych tests out there that have their own dimensions.

 

[Black Rose]

Jungian typology is a set of 4 basic value conflicts, along with the humble premise that these sometimes tend to manifest as self-reinforcing extremes in a single person, group, institution, society or civilization.

The conflicts are:

1. Old vs. new
2. Abstract vs. concrete
3. Goal vs. implementation
4. Truth vs. belief

I trust you to figure out which value refers to which function.

Si focuses on stability thus wants to keep experiencing the same things over and over.
Se wants to have new exciting experiences thus seek new things against boredom.

Number two seems to be N vs S but if it was Ni vs Ne I would have to say Ni is abstract possibilities i.e. symbology / metaphorical and Ne would be analogy, concrete possibilities.

3 and 4 seem like they are both thinking but they could set as 3 is feeling and 4 is thinking.

Fi would be thinking about what is really wanted rather than Fe which would be the plan to get them. I would replace implementation with Te rather than Fe.

Ti is concerned with the Truth and Te would be belief but I would replace belief with Fe.

Jung said Fe would lie to get their way and that Te would say that only one way is the right way, which is their way.

These are cognitive expressions since Jung was an introverted thinker and that emotional people would frame them differently.

This is my frame:

Spoiler

Ni - Convergence
Ne - Association

Si - Immersion
Se - Sensuality

Fi - Will Power
Fe - Selflessness

Ti - Delineation
Te - Construction

edit to add:

Implementation seems to be both Fe and Te - Extraverted Judgment
Truth and Belief seem to be Ti and Fi - Introverted Judgment

 

[Brontosaurie]

Animekitty: I was referring to (in order):

Si vs. Ne
Ni vs. Se
Fi vs. Te
Ti vs. Fe

Why would Xi and Xe be in conflict?

Inquisitor: I'll be back later

 

[Black Rose]

Animekitty: I was referring to (in order):

Si vs. Ne
Ni vs. Se
Fi vs. Te
Ti vs. Fe

1. Old vs. new
2. Abstract vs. concrete

I would say Ne is abstract also not just new, this is why I was confused.

3. Goal vs. implementation
4. Truth vs. belief

Why would Xi and Xe be in conflict?

They do not seem to as you said?

 

[Brontosaurie]

1. Old vs. new
2. Abstract vs. concrete

I would say Ne is abstract also not just new, this is why I was confused.

3. Goal vs. implementation
4. Truth vs. belief



They do not seem to as you said?

The new may stereotypically present as abstract because the old has had a lot of time to materialize while the new is often hypothetical and intangible. But it could also be concrete. It could be pointing out a blatant fact long concealed by some ideological doctrine. It could be a novel size of cactus spines that produce pleasant tones. It could be a monk deciding there's nothing wrong about playing some football instead of reading and writing about the mystery of god all day.

 

[Grayman]

Animekitty: I was referring to (in order):

Si vs. Ne
Ni vs. Se
Fi vs. Te
Ti vs. Fe

Why would Xi and Xe be in conflict?

Inquisitor: I'll be back later

That types me as TiFiNeNi

 

[Black Rose]

@Grayman

(Ni-Ti-Si-Te) for me.

This is an odd combination.

I think these classifications are leading Bronto into a form of socionics with 8 functions stack?

 

[Grayman]

@OP

There is a common issue that I see in others and have ran into myself many times.

"It is not possible to directly translate functional stacks into personality types"

Functions determine how you get to a conclusion or reason out your answers. It is possible for a person to come to the same conclusion using many different methods.

A personality is like that 'conclusion' it includes beliefs in certain ideas and preferences in certain things. There are a lot of variables that go into personalities beyond the process or procedure in which a person uses to get there...aka functions.

There is the idea that having a certain way of reasoning/functioning increases the chance that a person might come to certain conclusions about things or view the world in certain ways.
I agree with this, to a point, but I don't think that the 'chances' out way the opposition of other variables and the effects of these other factors make the whole idea of MBTI personality types and their functions unstable.

That being said:

I determine personality types mainly based on intuitive observation through experience of meeting and observing various types that I have ran into. I find this process to be more practical in that it helps establish generalizations so that educated guesses might be made about a person and who they are and what they want. But these generalizations are only for when individual understanding is not achievable. I recognize stereotyping has its dangers.

I determine functions based on a persons explanations of their thought processes. I find this to mostly be theoretical and interesting but not entirely practical in use.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Old vs. new
Abstract vs. concrete
Goal vs. implementation
Truth vs. belief

Why is Fe belief?

 

[Brontosaurie]

1. Actually, I don't know. Would you mind clarifying?



2. Why would you believe this? What kind of baggage do they carry?

3. I don't understand. What are you saying?

4. You're saying you would like to add more value conflicts than the 4 Jung already outlined? The closest thing I can think of is the neuroticism dimension on the Big 5. Beyond that, there are thousands of other psych tests out there that have their own dimensions.

1. See previous reply to Animekitty

2. I don't think the functions/values necessarily have to do with the colloquial interpretations of their names. Simply, my names are better. With them it takes less time to understand typology and its scope.

Here are some examples:

Te is very much about feelings. Pride, accomplishment, progress.

Ne is also about feelings. Restlessness, impatience, ambivalent trust.

Fi can be very much about processes that would be hard pressed not to slide into the extensions of the concepts "thinking" and "intuition".

Ni is "perception" but very judgmental. Saying that to abstract is not to judge is nonsense. Also, Ni-doms are outwardly judgmental people who, for better and worse, bring along a strong sense of absolute knowledge. They don't hestitate to judge things. It's confusing to call Ni "perception" and the opposite of a "judgment".

Fe is "judging" but clearly infests perception. We all know people too nice to fully witness any unappealing truth.

In short, typology is not really concerned with the neural faculties of decision-making or perception. At its esoteric philosophical rationalist level, it makes no sense to distinguish the two because all perception arises from judgment enforced by survival. To perceive is to choose, and to choose is to judge. Ignoring the basic truth of the mind when speaking specifically about the mind is insane.

The choice stands between making up new words or choosing the simplest and most succinct existing words which is what i did above.

3. Oops, answered that in (2).

4. Not necessarily that i'd like to, but it's an important possibility.

How conceptualize the neuroticism dimension as a value conflict? Unless i'm mistaken, the Big 5 isn't really about value conflicts at all, since all the 5 traits have one unambiguously favorable extreme. E, O, C and A are all good and their opposites are all bad, while N is the other way around. So Big 5 is about conflicts between values and non-values. It's unfair - not to mention trivial, predictable and boring.

Actually i have no suggestions at all myself, but it'd be delightful to see some.

 

[Grayman]

Why is Fe belief and not Fi?

Both are tied to belief but one is subjective and the other objective/collective.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Why is Fe belief?

Belief as in what is commonly agreed for convenience. It's the opposite of truth in terms of value; it's about what propositions are socially viable. Ti says things because they are true and thus should provide environmental leverage. Fe says things because it helps people get along. It's just belief, but belief can be functional. For example, religions consist of illogical, baseless propositions. To Ti, they are intolerable. Yet religion can be advantageous as a social cohesive. Fe understands what to say to increase good relations and make people collaborate better. It just so happens that these things are not seldom lies and very often informationally redundant in a strict sense. Goes to testament the imperfection of our species.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

I ascribe to the traditional cognitive function stacks, in which the first and last function are the same preference type but differing preferences, and second and third are of a different preference type than the first and fourth function, but differing.

So basically, JPPJ, PJJP, and alternating attitudes.

I think that's how it is. I don't know what functions are in reality, but I believe that there is evidence and proof somewhere. But besides that, the way the whole theory fits together seems right, and proper. Simply natural and like that's how it should be, and so it is.

For example, each person has all four preferences, meaning everybody has the ability to measure things logically, assign value to things, understand what exists, and formulate what might, coule, or will come to exist.

I also find that the INTP function stack describes my thought processes better than any other method, so for me personally I validate that I believe I function according to the stack Ti, Ne, Si, Fe.

My understanding of functions and function pairs.

Spoiler

I have come to believe that extroverted functions are situational, broad, and deal with the examples and instances of an overarching system, and that introverted functions deal with the system itself, making them more methodical, careful, and systematic, and specific. Although broad and specific are flexible terms so I'll go on to explain this.

Ti - Fe and Fi - Te

For the judging functions, the introverted function develops an overarching system, and the extroverted function attempts to work with individual cases and circumstances.

In Ti and Fe, the internal ruleset is developed principalically. In other words, Ti works with how ideas and concepts fit together, this creating an entirely conceptual ruleset. Because of this, it can be inflexible when dealing with the external world, as the external world doesn't always conform to natural, principalic, axiomatic rules. Fe works to assign value to external objects, and to determine what is important in the moment. Fe's method of circumstancial value is rather opposed to Ti's understanding of universal truth. However, when united properly, they come together to create an overarching ruleset by which individual circumstances can assign value back to the internal principles, and external interactions can be grounded to truths.

Individuals with higher Fe place emphasis on circumstances, and often do so by no internal code of coherence. Individuals with higher Ti place emphasis on being consistant, usually at the expense of applying themselves anywhere they haven't measured out to understand all the parameters of.

Fi - Te
Fi helps the individual discern about the value between certain actions. While Ti looks at what is coherent in how ideas fit together, Fi looks at what is coherent moralistically, or in other words tries to make a consistant order in motives. Te on the other hand, looks at individual circumstances, and attempts to manipulate them to closer fit the goal. In this way, the individual has an internal code by which they manipulate the internal world to demonstrate and express.

Individuals with higher Fi want to respect each person's individual nature, and so can be reserved when using Te, as they may feel they are infringing on others. On the other hand, higher Te users understand that the best outcome is one in which the object is most important, and individual's moral codes are irrelevant when taking into account what is most efficient, effective, and produces results.

Perceiving functions, and pairs.

First, I will compare the sensing and intuitive functions, and then explain them in pairs.

The sensing functions:

Se vs Si

Se

Se takes in each individual instances. It compiles objective data and experiences alone, with no relation whatsoever to any other moment. Se looks at the state of the external world, and does so to map out a library of individual instances for Ni to pick through, which will be explained in a bit. Se takes in the entirety of the moment. Because of this, it focuses only on the entire moment's relation to itself. In other words, it takes in the entire environment at every moment, but does not compare them to any other moment in time.

Si

Si focuses on more specific factors than Se. Si focuses on a specific piece of data is looking for. While Se is good at being broad and attentive to senses, Si has a different agenda. Si is always subconsciously taking in data, but it does it with a different intention. It looks at each instance of a given subject, and compiles each instance into a coherent, singular understanding of the subject it is dealing with.

Perceiving pairs.

The intuitive functions rely on the sensing functions, but the sensing functions also gain data from the intuitive functions, in a hand in hand manner. So I won't explain the intuitive functions alone, I'll explain them alongside their sensing partner.

Ne - Si.

Si compiles an understanding of a subject based on given instances of it. Ne is the instance finder. Ne takes in data, and finds what other data it relates to. So, each and every connection Ne makes is filed under a specific Si concept. As Si develops these structures, Ne can also predict what other information would fit within Si's subject parameters, which are in turn fed back to Si to continue to develop the concept. In this way, Ne and Si are analogous, or function with analogies. They are adept at finding systems with similar form and applying and reapplying the same structure. Simply said, Ne finds the instances that create the Si concept or subject, and Si provides Ne with information it can use to find more information.

People who have high Ne, everything can be related because there is no particular subject to tie down what things can or cannot relate to. It is unconventional because it does not focus on parameters, and so believes that nearly any solution is viable to a problem.

People who have high Si take more to the existing reality of how things are done, or what their existing nature is, and so worries more about parameters than alternative solutions.

I should note that I believe Si has to use Ne to abstract data to form an ideal, or true , existing, real, coherent, singular understanding of some subject. So in a way, Si relies on abstraction.

[But if Si and Ne rely on abstraction, what about Se and Ni? If is was a given that only one of the pairs could abstract, then Se and Ni would have an ability falling under a different term. Ignore this because I am just making a suggestion, I don't believe this.]

Se - Ni

Se takes in individual moments by themselves. It is only concerned with the entirety of everything in the given data point, it does not merge with any other data points. Ni then steps in. Ni looks at one existing data point, and then looks at every other data point that seems similar or related. Ni then shifts patterns and archetypes around to generate an understanding of rulesets that would create such an instance. It accommodates multiple Se data points to find the connections, and creates a new area of thought to accommodate those instances. In this way, Se and Ni is metaphorical and symbolic because multiple, seemingly unrelated instances may just play the exact same role, or all play the same role as a manifestation of something that understanding created. This is particularly difficult to exemplify so I can't really back this up. It just is what I've intuitively deduced while pondering how functions interact.

Se - Ni has the capacity to observe an instance using Se that looks similar to another instance Ni has used in a previously created pattern or archetype. In this case, Ni has the ability to weave the new Se instance into the existing Ni pattern, allowing the user to instantly gain understanding in an area they have barely touched on before.

I don't think type can change. I think you can certainly develop functions over others, but I don't think your stack is able to change.

I also an uncertain as to what I believe functions are anatomically. I can know such things about how Ti deduces things, and what data it can work with, but as to which neurons and connections allow these patterns of thought to be fulfilled, I don't know. I really am curious, but as for now, i have no idea.

I think perceiving functions naturally rely on different faculties than judging, but as to what those would be, who knows?

I definitely have a lot more on top of this, but I don't remember all of it right now. I'll come back if I remember.

Feel free to ask questions.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Sir Eus Lee: Your function descriptions are lucid overall, but i fail to see the critical difference between Ti-Fe and Fi-Te in them. What is the difference between universal system of understanding and universal morals? You say Fe is about external values - isn't Te too, according to what you wrote?

I think you make more sense when you speak of Te as acting circumstancially to approach a goal. Coincidentally this ties in with my own model to which i'd like to convert you Fi is about choosing goals, and Te is about getting closer to goals. The better you choose, the harder it is to reach of course. Hence, conflict. Ti-Fe is different from that entirely: It's the conflict between epistemologically true statements and prosocial statements. This way, all the distinctions are fully satisfied.

Hmm, as i read again, i want to ask also: What makes Ne-Si and Se-Ni different in your model, really? I think what you have actually done here is describe bottom-up processing with the P functions (information from E to I) and top-down processing with the J functions (information from I to E). This roughly corresponds to perception and judgment (or rather action/command) at some conceptual level, but in MBTI i'd rather relate top-down to Pi-Je and bottom-up to Pe-Ji.

I retract my "lucid" comment but i really want to give you some credit because your text is well-written and engaging.

 

[QuickTwist]

Well,

I think bronto has some really superb thoughts on this subject. His description overlaying the motivation of some CF are really very intriguing and make me want to see what would happen if more was devoted to such a perspective.

For my own personal perspective on MBTI/jungian, I am one who does not fully agree or disagree with the dichotomies but am more of a sceptic when it comes to the theories. I am of the impression that almost every theory on psychology is not at all all inclusive and only gives a perspective that can be scrutinized in and of itself. None of the theories are a be all end all IMO and I would argue they are all more like tools to be used to fit the situation rather that a system which will tell all about a person.

One theory that I would like to see used in combination with MBTI/Jungian is cognitive behavioral therapy and/or restructuring. Part of my reason for wanting to see the two combined is because I am such a believer in cognitive behavioral theories and want to see what can happen when you take a static outlook on psychology and mix it with a dynamic one.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

Thank you, and thank you for the reply. [(Edit) Bronto.

QuickTwist replied while I was posting this.]



I wrote all the functions in pairs to exemplify that introverted functions build consistant systems, and extroverted functions deal with specific circumstances while ignoring an internal system, by itself.

The judging functions don't fit into this explanation quite as nicely as the perceiving functions. Not that they don't. It's just that it's harder to fully explain.

I don't know if I can be converted to that thinking. I don't think it's that simple. Here's why.

Spoiler

I don't think Fi necessarily creates goals. I think the nature of Fi, and what it does is more important than what it might produce. From my understanding, the same way Ti might look at the essence of an idea and quantitatively work with it and other data (which is, ironically, hard to quantify) Fi looks at a moral dilemma by the motives behind an action. By these deductions, the Fi user formulates an internal system by which they judge what is moral and immoral and stick to it. Te has a desire to look at a situation, and add what is necessary to complete it. Te is linked to either Ne or Se, so it is either going to be trying to realize a physical circumstance (Se) or pick a future outcome it might want to get closer to (Ne).

As I explained, function pairs are meant to be used together, not to be in opposition, although they often are.

So here Fi and Te can either work together by Te systematically keeping the outer world in check with the code the individual holds themselves to, or Fi works with the paired introverted function to provide Te with a direction, but Fi in itself doesn't always provide a goal. More often it provides a code that can't be broken in order to satisfy the users need for happiness through fulfilling that function.

Or they can oppose and Fi will find manipulation if the outer world unnecessary to fulfil it's code, or Te will be too loose Cannon with accomplishing things that Fi has no way to step in and prioritize or direct.

This isn't as clear as I wanted it to be. But Fi isn't always goal. The introverted judging functions are there to build order into concepts, not into existing data, like Je functions.

While Fi applies value to motivations behind actions, Ti applies order to concepts, using Si or Ni as a guideline for the shape of what it compiles. Fe on the other hand is for assigning value to external things. If anything, the feeling function is for assigning goals, not exclusively Fi.

But the difference here is that Ti sees no concept as inherently more important than any other. It judges it based on its context in terms of quantity, not how it effects the individual. Fe looks at the external world and decides how it effects the user.

Ya know, just disregard all of that. It didn't come out nearly as coherently as I wished. I do have a clear understanding in my head, but its kind of delineated. If that's a word. Let me try and do better with the perception pairs. I have a better stance on that.

For perception pairs, imagine the Pi as the concept as a whole, and the Pe function as the instances that illustrate that concept.

Se Ni puts the external data as incorrigeable. In this way, Ni rotates around set points of data, allowing it to see various different concepts or patterns in which the Se data point could be part of. When lots of Se data points are observed in a similar context, Ni weaves them together to create a pattern of a pattern that can generate the Se circumstances. So they might see somebody wear a shirt, and Ni goes to simultaneously conjure up each and every sequence of that person going through their daily routine that would produce them wearing that specific shirt. Not this explantion particularly, but the concept behind it.

In Ne and Si, Si takes the set position. But it's important to understand how Si works. While Se is focusing on one set variable (which Ni is working with in clusters,) Si is taking in all these different data points in order to form an understanding of a subject. In this context, Si's understanding is only composed of data relating to the subject. So Si might form an understanding of the entirety of mathematics out of each and every math class, math fact, and so on. Ne has the ability to create new data based on previous data collected because Si is giving Ne a specific set of data to work with.

I think I am just repeating myself....

They differ because the understanding itself is literally generated by Ni, whereas Si steals the understanding from objective data. This means the Ni pattern is an understanding that can reapplied to new sections of understanding, while Si cant directly be transferred. Si - Ne excels by being able to generate new understandings within the same framework, which Ni Se cannot do. Si Ne can take something like every Park it has seen, and conceive of any new Park because of Si's ability to create a unified understanding out of all the different parks it has seen. Ne can then pull out from that understanding any permutation necessary to fit whatever parameters are necessary in the context, like maybe the park needs a lake. In that case, Si just goes to all the lakes it has seen, and implements a permutation of its understanding of a lake that way.

Ni Se has the advantage in a different way. Ni Se might see 3 different clouds, and then realize something about wind currents. Why? Because the concept itself is morphable. In Si Ne, the concept is limited, but the data itself could be anything within the parameters of the context. With Ni Se, the concept old be anything that generates the given result. The Ni Se user might have seen a place before where 3 given instances had a certain relation to each other that Ni picked up on, and when a new instance is seen with Se that matches a pattern Ni has already created, the pattern is instantly reapplied to the new area of thought.

I don't think I've done any better in clarifying, I think this is basically just the same thing over again. I hope not, I hope this helped expound and clarify.

I don't think function pairs inherently work top down or bottom up- But are decided by the function stack. The ESFP is going to look at all the instances, or in other words bottom up, and the INTJ is going to look at things top down.

 

[JimJambones]

I prefer to correlate the Big 5 with MBTI dichotomies to determine personality traits, as opposed to trying to identify some mystical Self that exists deep within our consciousness. I think that our concepts of self are highly illusionary, being mostly narratives that we construct based on a combination of our genetics, environment, and culture. Typology is just a system that offers preconceived notions of self for those seeking to find some concrete identity in this world of impermanence. Trying to "find yourself" seems incredible stupid, naive, and a waste of time. I prefer to study more physicalist approaches to the philosophy of mind and try to steer clear of Jungian dualism , which is something cogntivism and computationalism are prone to as well.

 

[A Son of Two]

Hi I am new to this forum I am not an INTP but there is a little INTP within all people, and so I have decided to visit and have a read and contribute via good action and at times a little tongue in cheek humour for my own entertainment and needs as a expression.

I have been interested in the MBTI for about twenty five years I read two books and took the test and did all this after having explored Don Riso's two main books at the time, Personality types 1 edition and understanding the enneagram.

I could see virtually instantly a one two one correlation between basically 16 of the 18 subtypes. I also could see the actions of the two remaining to be acknowledged. I referenced a knowledgeable educated phycologist who agreed.

I found that I did not wish continue with the pack because I could see instantly that it was not visible others so i chose to follow my own path of enquiry. This has had its positives and its limitations but it has protected me from adopting false truths proclaimed by those who have walked the average path of seeking insight into the MBTI system. I acknowledge the precise and profound accuracies and elements of authentic correctness the current dynamic modes attain and seek to gain more understanding from the vast body of knowledge compiled.

But walking my own path has allowed me the time and space to seek the understandings needed to understand what is fundamentally missing within the current model and models commonly espoused (if that is the correct term) by the average seeker of insight.

Anyway hi there and I look forward to this coming weekend then I can take some time to read other people's thoughts and think about what I may like to contribute to this topic forum.

You are correct if you picked infp as being my primary MBTI type set of four functions.

 

[A Son of Two]

Can you see the structures within this diagram if so you will see the three couplings between:

Sx/So -- So/Sx
So/Sp -- Sp/So
Sx/Sp -- Sp/Sx

And the mirror like weave between Points one and four and two and severn and the two part two parts four parts unique coupling at both points five and six.

If you interpret each of the six components that make this diagram one component at each of the six point you may sense the emotional frame works through witch the cognitive is functioning though each of the six instinctual variants expressions each variant freely express its own unique signature.

Kinaesthetic Auditory and Visual I am confident to say will not be separate from the fundamental actions within this dynamic diagram.

I have my thought as bereaved understandings but I will with hold them and allow the reader to formulate the Selfs own identifications and interpretation.

I present this as simply a small component of how the six primary types influence the underlying dynamic of the living enneagram not separate from the MBTI Function.

I would define this as being more toward the level of CJ Jung's "Self" slightly separate from C Jung's Ego And The Complexes.

I view the Ego in C Jung's model as being the first function and The Complexes as being the Second Third and Fourth functions and feather believe that the three complexes have a direct connection with the operational dynamics of The Three Triangles pertaining to the workings of The Six Instinctual Variants.

Let your own inner Individuation free and have fun exploring the above.

 

[Black Rose]

@A Son of Two

?

ST-NF <- I
ST-NF -> E
NT-SF <- I
NT-SF -> E

?

 

[A Son of Two]

Please let my brain relax
I have been working hard over the last four hours doing mental Gymnastics. I will look at your post and think about it later.

I would suggest thinking more towards a math fractal weave /fold /movement. That's not to say that you are correct or incorrect my mind it looking for a fractal movement in both basic structure and part movements.

Less I say the better if you perspicaciously look in to the diagram I have provided you will sense the operation of the six instincts so I don't really want to foment on your I -- E ,thing.

Cheers

 

[Black Rose]

@A Son of Two

Now that you added text below the picture to show that this has to do with the enneagram I am less confused. But I do not understand the enneagram. don't mind me, you can let your brain rest and explain later.

 

[A Son of Two]

It's more at the level of C Jung's (Self -- Non Dual Conciseness) the primary triangles role in it's conjunction with the Seven Pointed Fig.

It's more mind space ( Don Riso's / Russ Hudson's ) Law of three Ideas and concepts rather than Law sevens now time narrative people and things witch is more towards the involvement of I and E.

It's more towards the bifurcation between the Points
7 & 5 and Point:6
8 & 1 and Point:9
2 & 4 and Point:3

It's like a organic algorithm in a sense, my own investigation into intuiting Don Riso's 18 Subtypes and understanding why he only mentioned one of The Two Auxiliary Wings. ( kinda understand why he limited his model to Conches and Agenda and left out the other wing Mood. I think it is because the structure is to complex and He was unable like me to crack the puzzle, it is one thing I am working on but I am finding that the pattern on the other side terns into separate parts were as the Agenda Wing flow move seamlessly as a single unbroken simple loop.

INFP 9w1

ESTJ 1w2

ISFJ 2w3

ISTP 3w4

ENTP 4w5

INFTP 5w6

ISFP 6w7

ENTJ 7w8

ESFJ 8w9

INFJ 9w8

ESTP 8w7

ESFP 7w8

INTJ 6w5

INTP 5w4

ENFP 4w3

ISTJ 3w2

ENFJ 2w1

ESNTJ 1w9

Via the symmetry an algorithm is posable but try to accomplish a symmetry from the other side and it is not posable. I suspect the other side consists more than one part as the side (18 Subtypes) I have sheared.

It seems to me a beginning of a complex multiplicity that will most likely involve dynamics of multiple MBTI structures for each of the 18 and 9 primary types and it will most likely in valve the eight cognitive functions. The weave is rocking my brain because I can not as of yet tease out the scaffold structure.

The picture diagram in my second post in this thread of posts is the easy part but the other shapes to the (let's say organic geometrical fractal is very hard to tease out.)

The other side has like vortexes or loops (progress flowers several steps and then two subtypes will Loop as like they are circling a Space/ or something not understood or visible or a dynamic unknown. Hence the frustration. Take into account a concept of a second option for a treat of flow and progress is made only a few steps and another Loop manifests of a different size.

But I am quite lazy to be honest I have not invested sincerely my full attention of tenacity towards solving the puzzle I mostly tinker and leave it till I feel to work it some more. Mostly because I think that there will be variant values in the fractals sum that will involve dynamics that relate to things like the science of brain acids the harts electric field and how knows what else and I don't want to become obsessed with something that I am naturally unable to work to a completion due to complexities I have no logical understanding of.

Why live life obsessed over solving a seemingly Imposable puzzle so I work on it for fun when I feel the challenge to Have A Go.

But what I have sheared is fairly easy if you look at it in sections at point six, and think of a So/Sx having a one to one hart to Hart conversation with a Sx/So the eight letters mirror energy exchanging like a hidden simple action of mirror opacity identifications that acer within as part of emotional identification.

The FS or SF and the FS or SF and so for the NT or TN and TN or NT. But don't limit your self to just being receptive to the 8-16 combinations there also is the action of N-T-F-S for the Sx/So and F-S-N-T for the So/Sx.

But don't for get that the six points are mirrors because the six four letter settings are really two sets of four letter settings at each of the Tree Primary Points there we find the six primary subtypes.

So what we are talking about, ( the six instinctual variants are not even on the peace of paper. They are within the seven pointed Fix.

So it's a for of a mirror.

I you are familiar with my work you will know of my tree Apex's for the six instinctual variants: (relate-think at point nine, sense-feel at point three, feel-think at point six).

But we being asked to talk predominately in the C Jung MBTI context so I apologise for reaching so deeply into the enneagram but when it comes to thinking about the MBTI this is what I like to think predominately about.

It's my work my job as a Soul this is what I endeavour to advance and contribute.

Maybe it's a INFP big picture thing and a INFP NF& N & F or perhaps it is a:
T-S-N-F thing? Because I am a Sx/Sp I think sense what I intuitively feel. (There that made it easy) content in context but there is also S&N and T&F (I know..one of six..) but it demonstrates the interconnectedness. S&N and T&F is also at points one and five related to the principle of feminine and masculine

If my memory serves me well testosterone and oestrogen are virtually mirror like in there respective structures at the compound level. I like this image I found on the net. I don't understand it but I like its symmetry. And if I understand correctly testosterone is needed to make oestrogen, both females and males need both oestrogen and testosterone.

Cheers.

 

[scorpiomover]

E = "straight-forward", quick solutions, that don't require a lot of thinking time, and can be used to address urgent problems.

I = "complicated", solutions that require a lot of thinking time, and are best used for situations that are not urgent, but if acted on improperly, would cost a LOT.