Defining Functions

[Ucenna]

[BIMG][/BIMG]Morning!
Functions are confusing! So I decided to try and figure them out.
I ended up digging pretty deep, and I think that I might have deviated from the traditional view on functions.
At any rate, I'd appreciate a second opinion!

Here's what I've been working on:
(exclusively perceiving functions, I haven't touched on the judging functions. At least, not yet.)[bimgx=740]http://i.imgur.com/u6hSO9T.png[/bimgx]

 

[Auburn]

Mornin' Ucenna! Welcome to the forum

That's an interesting view of the functions.
I'm gonna see if I can comprehend your system properly here...
You seem to believe in an 8 function model? ...where all 4 perception functions "work together" to provide cohesive perception pipeline of the environment to a person?

a) Beginning with Se doing the initial registration of visual detail,
b) Followed by Ne distinguishing similarity(known) from dissimilarity(unknown)
c) Followed by it going to either Ni (for speculation about the unkown) or to Si (for recollection of the facts that are known)

I wonder if I'm on the right track?

 

[Hadoblado]

Wouldn't Si be used before Ne?

You need to compare incoming data to existent in order to make a judgement about whether it's a known or an unknown, before you can send it off for further processing.

There is strong evidence suggesting that sensory information is processed at a preliminary and shallow level for the purposes of threat detection, even before such rudimentary processes as object identification. For example, a snake-phobic can have a full sympathetic response before realising they've only trod on the garden hose. Thus, even before Se is 'complete', Si is in affect, otherwise there would be no directory of threats to compare incoming sensory information to.

 

[Auburn]

@Hado - yes, quite. And there are other things as well, such as color correction, and compensation tricks the brain plays. There are dozens of them, such as the infamous:

[bimgx=500]http://imgur.com/j5KQp9s.jpg[/bimgx]

So our perceptual information is pre-processed even before it registers in our conscious awareness or mental eyesight. This is not Si, though. This is something more ancient, and highly automatic. It's probably part of the autonomic nervous system, or the occipital lobe.

The cognitive functions lie in the newer brain; in the neocortex's activity which involves perception, deduction (Fp1/Fp2), abstract thinking, memory processing, language processing and logic processing. They don't come into the picture until after all the processing we've acquired in our multi-million year history.

I was inspired by Ucenna to chat my own diagram for this. Here's how I see the operation of the perception processes:

Spoiler

 

[Ucenna]

Mornin' Ucenna! Welcome to the forum

That's an interesting view of the functions.
I'm gonna see if I can comprehend your system properly here...
You seem to believe in an 8 function model? ...where all 4 perception functions "work together" to provide cohesive perception pipeline of the environment to a person?

a) Beginning with Se doing the initial registration of visual detail,
b) Followed by Ne distinguishing similarity(known) from dissimilarity(unknown)
c) Followed by it going to either Ni (for speculation about the unkown) or to Si (for recollection of the facts that are known)

I wonder if I'm on the right track?

Yup. I played around with the idea of Se-Ni and Ne-Si being separate systems, but it felt like it left too many unanswered questions.

As far as the whole 8 functions go, I'm uncertain. It seems to me that the 4 perceiving function are intrinsically linked. However the judging functions could be different. I'm leaning towards a separate between Te-Fi and Fe-Ti.

Wouldn't Si be used before Ne?

You need to compare incoming data to existent in order to make a judgement about whether it's a known or an unknown, before you can send it off for further processing.

There is strong evidence suggesting that sensory information is processed at a preliminary and shallow level for the purposes of threat detection, even before such rudimentary processes as object identification. For example, a snake-phobic can have a full sympathetic response before realising they've only trod on the garden hose. Thus, even before Se is 'complete', Si is in affect, otherwise there would be no directory of threats to compare incoming sensory information to.

Theoretically possible, I can't claim that my system is accurate or even close to being correct. I've been analyzing my own cognosis and the apparent cognosis of those around me. I haven't looked much at neuroscience. For my part; I can't claim an intimate understanding of neuroscience, and even if I had preliminary knowledge I'm uncertain if I'd be able to easily apply it to the functions or typology in general.

@Hado - yes, quite. And there are other things as well, such as color correction, and compensation tricks the brain plays. There are dozens of them, such as the infamous:

[bimgx=500]http://imgur.com/j5KQp9s.jpg[/bimgx]

So our perceptual information is pre-processed even before it registers in our conscious awareness or mental eyesight. This is not Si, though. This is something more ancient, and highly automatic. It's probably part of the autonomic nervous system (which handles the fight-or-flight response), or the occipital lobe.

The cognitive functions lie in the newer brain; in the neocortex's activity which involves perception, deduction (Fp1/Fp2), abstract thinking, memory processing, language processing and logic processing. They don't come into the picture until after all the processing we've acquired in our multi-million year history.

I was inspired by Ucenna to chat my own diagram for this. Here's how I see the operation of the perception processes:

Spoiler

Spoiler tags, I'll have to file that one away. Beats manually adjusting the image resolution. Thanks!
I like your model. In comparison my model is somewhat messy. I had explored a similar idea at one point. I mixed Se and "Automatic Preprocessing" together into one thing, which made my original idea unnecessarily messy.

I can't decide on my model, I'll have to further consider it and decide if I should flesh it out or abandon it.

How would you define the functions? Or at least, the core perceiving functions? It seems that the interwebs are littered with descriptions, but there are few actual definitions.

 

[Ucenna]

Upon further consideration, I've rejected my theory.

@Auburn:
I like your model. It helped me clarify my ideas and reorient them. Thanks!

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Hmm, the bit I would like to refer to is where you say that Ne sorts objects into known and unknown. I thought that looking at objects in such a manner would be a sensing function, whereas intuition functions would be looking at patterns, i.e. linking objects together. What were your thoughts regarding describing Ne in such a manner?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

To give my take on the functions:

The Sensing functions are based on the physical environment of the senses

Se: direct awareness of physical surroundings, including how strong sensations around are felt and a sense of push and pull from objects in the environment. The Se type has a tendency to immerse themselves in the situation, and wants not so much an escape from duller environments, but to increase the stimulation felt by bringing in other stimuli.

Si: has a more peripheral awareness of the environment; primary focus is on the person as being almost a central object in the environment. Will know where objects are through having previously taken note of them, and so can craftily make use of tools in the environment for achieving a particular end - probably an end that has been achieved in the past already, but concerns something which is best repeated, such as cooking.

The iNtuition functions are based on the harder-to-grasp world of interpretation/meaning, which is present all the time (to a person) just as the sensory world is

Ne: looks at "where to from here?" by looking at patterns that are emerging from the environment. The different aspects of the environment/situation will drift around the surface of the person's mind as they link in other non-present ideas that can be placed into the flow of events.

Ni: concerns the development of the individual themself; what the situation means for the person, and the way in which they can use their previously discovered understanding of how things work on a deeper level to make sense of what is going on.


I haven't done a whole lot of thinking regarding linking the functions together; my understanding is that they are used successively rather than simultaneously, however nonetheless all functions are going to be operating as parts of the one whole.

 

[Haim]

Hmm, the bit I would like to refer to is where you say that Ne sorts objects into known and unknown. I thought that looking at objects in such a manner would be a sensing function, whereas intuition functions would be looking at patterns, i.e. linking objects together. What were your thoughts regarding describing Ne in such a manner?

I think of N as the way the brain function by neural networks which can be trained to complete patterns, this is not linking which I think is 1)restructure of the brain 2)NN receiving input from other NN.3)receiving input from other NN

 

[Ucenna]

Hmm, the bit I would like to refer to is where you say that Ne sorts objects into known and unknown. I thought that looking at objects in such a manner would be a sensing function, whereas intuition functions would be looking at patterns, i.e. linking objects together. What were your thoughts regarding describing Ne in such a manner?

I've since abandon them, but at the time my understanding was that Ne represented a filtering process.
It all started when I came up with my first model, which is marked similar to Auburn's model. I had linked Se-NI and Ne-Si. My original(and now current) understanding was that Pe(Se/Ne) represented a sort of input/output mechanism that interacted with Pi(Se/Ne) which further analyzes what information Pe has provided it.
My problem with this was that I couldn't wrap my head around how Ne took in information from the outside world. Se was straight forward, Ne less so.
I found this unsatisfactory, so I reconstructed my system. One in which Se took in information and Ne filtered it, and then Ni analyzed it and Si remembered it.
In that system Ne broke information into two categories, one category that contains information that requires further analysis(unknown) and one category that contains information at which a satisfactory analysis has been completed(known).
Anyways, I've since rejected that system. I now better understand Ne as an independent perceiver from Se.

I think of N as the way the brain function by neural networks which can be trained to complete patterns, this is not linking which I think is 1)restructure of the brain 2)NN receiving input from other NN.3)receiving input from other NN

I can agree with that. I've noticed Ne and Ni both tend towards a more dynamic/changing understanding. But I could be confusing Ne's dynamitism in the moment and Ni's refinement over time.

To give my take on the functions:

The Sensing functions are based on the physical environment of the senses

Se: direct awareness of physical surroundings, including how strong sensations around are felt and a sense of push and pull from objects in the environment. The Se type has a tendency to immerse themselves in the situation, and wants not so much an escape from duller environments, but to increase the stimulation felt by bringing in other stimuli.

Si: has a more peripheral awareness of the environment; primary focus is on the person as being almost a central object in the environment. Will know where objects are through having previously taken note of them, and so can craftily make use of tools in the environment for achieving a particular end - probably an end that has been achieved in the past already, but concerns something which is best repeated, such as cooking.

The iNtuition functions are based on the harder-to-grasp world of interpretation/meaning, which is present all the time (to a person) just as the sensory world is

Ne: looks at "where to from here?" by looking at patterns that are emerging from the environment. The different aspects of the environment/situation will drift around the surface of the person's mind as they link in other non-present ideas that can be placed into the flow of events.

Ni: concerns the development of the individual themself; what the situation means for the person, and the way in which they can use their previously discovered understanding of how things work on a deeper level to make sense of what is going on.


I haven't done a whole lot of thinking regarding linking the functions together; my understanding is that they are used successively rather than simultaneously, however nonetheless all functions are going to be operating as parts of the one whole.

This seems accurate. Though my understanding of your understanding might not accurately reflect your actual understanding.
Assuming I understand you correctly, then I think you're on the right track.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I've since abandon them, but at the time my understanding was that Ne represented a filtering process.
It all started when I came up with my first model, which is marked similar to Auburn's model. I had linked Se-NI and Ne-Si. My original(and now current) understanding was that Pe(Se/Ne) represented a sort of input/output mechanism that interacted with Pi(Se/Ne) which further analyzes what information Pe has provided it.
My problem with this was that I couldn't wrap my head around how Ne took in information from the outside world. Se was straight forward, Ne less so.
I found this unsatisfactory, so I reconstructed my system. One in which Se took in information and Ne filtered it, and then Ni analyzed it and Si remembered it.
In that system Ne broke information into two categories, one category that contains information that requires further analysis(unknown) and one category that contains information at which a satisfactory analysis has been completed(known).
Anyways, I've since rejected that system. I now better understand Ne as an independent perceiver from Se.

I see a similarity to the memory systems. Se would be sensory memory and Si would be explicit long term memory. Perhaps Ni is working memory and Ne is long term implicit memory? So Se/Ni types are operating more based on the data at hand, and Ne/Si types are operating based on previous events.

I think Si types are generally conservative because they operate on long term memory - so they prefer that their environment stays the same so they can rely on what they have already learnt about it. Ne on the other hand is based on what has been learnt on an implicit level and retains the same ability as changes are made to the environment.

Se reacts very quickly - within a second - whereas Ni takes in some information, then analyses it as quickly as possible, i.e. within minutes. Se can handle a quickly changing environment, whereas Ni operates in a largely offline manner, in that it can occur with disengagement from the environment, or it can occur in carrying out some task.

This seems accurate. Though my understanding of your understanding might not accurately reflect your actual understanding.
Assuming I understand you correctly, then I think you're on the right track.

What I did to develop the descriptions there was to try and activate each function in myself by adopting a type behaviour either based on the function or using that function. I observed what it was like and posted description.

 

[Ucenna]

I see a similarity to the memory systems. Se would be sensory memory and Si would be explicit long term memory. Perhaps Ni is working memory and Ne is long term implicit memory? So Se/Ni types are operating more based on the data at hand, and Ne/Si types are operating based on previous events.

I think Si types are generally conservative because they operate on long term memory - so they prefer that their environment stays the same so they can rely on what they have already learnt about it. Ne on the other hand is based on what has been learnt on an implicit level and retains the same ability as changes are made to the environment.

I'd be somewhat wary of labelling the functions as memory systems, though you've definitely got the right idea. I used to subscribe to the idea of Ne being something similar to long term implicit memory, but now I'm starting to think that that is just a subconscious application of Si.

I consider Ni to be more metaphysically focused and Si to be more physically focused. To this end Se pulls in the physical reality so that Ni may collapse it into a metaphysical reality, and Ne pulls in the metaphysical so that Si can collapse it into a physical reality.

The way Ni collapses physical objects into metaphysical ideas is by trying to configure rules and characteristics and find a way to re construct the object mental. Almost like a computer program trying to regenerate a series of events. Once the computer finds a way to regenerate the series of events it can use that code to generate a view of those events unfolding into the future. Ni collapses reality into a vague understanding of how that reality came to be.

Si collapses the metaphysical into the physical by forming an impression. ne sees all the ideas and metaphysical characteristics around it, and when Si looks back it sees the impression those ideas offered. Impressions of correctness or goodness or success or truth or discomfort or etc.

Ni conversely, when it looks at past physical realities it sees what caused those events to be.

Se reacts very quickly - within a second - whereas Ni takes in some information, then analyses it as quickly as possible, i.e. within minutes. Se can handle a quickly changing environment, whereas Ni operates in a largely offline manner, in that it can occur with disengagement from the environment, or it can occur in carrying out some task.

I'd equate Ni with a more subconscious analysis. Ni has a vague sense of causality or relatedness. It can generate the most probable possibility really quickly if it already has the metaphysical ideas needed.

In general, I'd say Ni tends towards subconscious. Conscious analysis is more often Ti. For me this manifests with Ni feeling certain about something and Ti dissecting Ni's analysis to verify.

Also, the fact we're still having this conversation seems indicative of Ni. :P

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Yeah I just had noticed that it seemed similar to what you had written somewhat (apart from Ne), and also I've noticed some Ni dominants with good working memory.

For me anyway, when I am allowing information to arise from the subconscious in regards to a particular situation (is this a good way to describe Ni?), then what comes up will be sort of kept fresh in my mind briefly - long enough for me to try and piece everything together.

The bit about Si collapsing the metaphysical into the physical sounds interesting - I think if I can understand that better then I will understand some things I've noticed about Si, like how sometimes the language can be... common sensical, but a bit difficult to really tie down to the sensory world at times (e.g. through use of idioms).

 

[Ucenna]

Yeah I just had noticed that it seemed similar to what you had written somewhat (apart from Ne), and also I've noticed some Ni dominants with good working memory.

Yeah. I've been thinking about your memory example a lot. It certainly rings true, but something just felt a little off about it. 'Spose that's Ni in action. I dont know that there was anything wrong with your idea itself, there was just something off with my understanding of it. I think I've decided what it was that threw me off.

In general everyone uses all types of memory, we are human after all. I wouldn't say that each function directly maps to a certain type of memory, but I do think that certain functions provide an environment that is is more conducive for development of certain memory types. Ni users tend to develop a better working memory for example. Or Si users develop a better long term explicit memory.

For me anyway, when I am allowing information to arise from the subconscious in regards to a particular situation (is this a good way to describe Ni?), then what comes up will be sort of kept fresh in my mind briefly - long enough for me to try and piece everything together.

Seems fair. My Ni generates and shows me information concerning my topic of inquiry. My Ti dissects the information to ensure it's logical sound. If I find that it isn't, I attempt to recalibrate my Ni.

The bit about Si collapsing the metaphysical into the physical sounds interesting - I think if I can understand that better then I will understand some things I've noticed about Si, like how sometimes the language can be... common sensical, but a bit difficult to really tie down to the sensory world at times (e.g. through use of idioms).

Idioms.... I hate idioms.
:P
I've grown up with Si and Ne doms/auxs. I think it's affected my word choice.

My working definition for Ni is:
Ni is the function that decompiles physical reality into metaphysical ideas. It uses those metaphysical ideas to create and refine an archetypal/essential understanding of them. It can then derive an archetypal reality based on the archetypal/essential equivalents of the metaphysical ideas present in reality. Since the archetypal/essential understanding is more refined than it's visible manifestation in the real world, additional information can be derived.
In general this process is largely, but not necessarily exclusively, subconscious in nature.

My working definition/example for Si isnote: significantly lessss refined, I'm not a Si dom)
Si is the function that compresses the metaphysical properties of reality into a single impression. When looking at an object for the first time it creates an impression of that object based off of the metaphysical traits it associates with that object. Each subsequent time it perceives an object it creates another impression. It then compresses all impressions of that object into a single impression that it uses to offer additional metaphysical data for that object.

My Si definition and to a lesser extent my Ni definition are both still in there infancy, so please take them with a grain of salt.
However, feel free to contradict them openly. I'd like to further refine them.