How Flexible are INTPs?

[BigApplePi]

Did I assume something INTPish here? Let's get this straight. There are only 16 personality types among dozens and dozens of posters. Did I just make an INTJ statement? Sounds like it. Yet I would lay claim to BE an INTP. How dare a self-professed INTP make such a committed statement!

Here is how I take it: Each personality type has certain characteristics. Each of us is at the center of one of them with some unknown flexibility yet to be determined.

Here is another twist. Put 16 INTPs in a box. Let them go loose to interact. Then one will be more E than I; another more S than N; another more F than T; another more J than I. It's all relative.

I happened on this interesting message and assumed I could comment but apparently made the wrong assumption as the thread was closed:

Originally Posted by Adymus
Get over yourself.

No really, get the #### over yourself, because that is what stands in your way.

Because of the fact that you can't let go of this notion that you are some "evolved" being, you are stuck in this mindset that you are an INTP with abilities that INTPs do not have; When in reality, you're actually just a mediocre INFJ.
You are right about having abilities that we INTP don't have, but we have many that you don't as well. But of course I can't expect you to see that because at this point you are too high up on your pedestal to notice. You are lacking what an INTP values above all: Competence. That, bluesquid, is why you could never possibly lead us, regardless of your type.
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=140745#post140745


I ask this question: How flexible are you? In the quote in blue above , did someone go rong? Is the idea we have relative positions correct?

 

[Sparrow]

Why should they be flexible? The guy's being a jerk, asshat and making fun of everyone's ideals, principles. He went past the line and he deserves any rants of frustration. Not to mention...he thinks he's the "superior" INTP.

 

[BigApplePi]

Anamalech sorry. I only glanced at the thread and haven't meet him personally. I will retain the issue of general flexibility in the rest of us.

 

[Adymus]

You couldn't have just PMed me?


Every Interoverted function is going to be ridged to some extent, do to the fact that they are all subjective functions that appeal to the user only. Ti will not move until the point of view in question has strong logic. Fi will not move unless the point of view resonants with their values. As for Ni and Si, they will only agree if that is how they see things in their personal worldview, which is the hardest of all to move.

What I was using in the quoted paragraph was a combination of Ti and Si. Whenever any introverted personality type uses both of their introverted processes in concert they gain a far stronger sense of certainty that they otherwise would not have had.

As for my Si: What Bluesquid was doing is something I have seen done too many times by INFJs. The Ni-Fe game is one that I am all too familiar with, and I'm at a point where I can just sniff it out as soon as it comes up.

The thing is however, my Si will still flex at the whim of my Ti. No matter how strong my Si gets it will always serve Ti. That means if at any time my Ti is updated, and conflicts with my Si worldview, then my Si will be revised to be in synch with my Ti.

So to answer your question: Yes, you will seem more J if your lower functions start coming into play, but we will never be a full on directive (J) type. In that same way, an INTP would seem more S as well, because of the fact that our introverted perceiving function (Si) is a sensing one.

Ti-Ne-Si-Fe

That's our top four cognitive processes, as you can see like all types, we have a Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition function. Depending on how well you have developed these, naturally you would appear to be using more of certain functions than other INTPs. Along with this, it is possible to lack development in one or more of your functions which will accentuate another. For instance, many INTPs when growing up don't develop their Ne right off the bat. It kind of skips over to their Si, and while their Ne is still usable, they are not as confident with it, so it is just an untapped resource. Because of something like this, an INTP might come off as ISTJ.

Yeah, it's complicated... Seriously, just PM me next time.

 

[Ashenstar]

Hmmm... I really don't think Adymus was trying to be an asshat. Really, I have great respect for Adymus. Sometimes he comes across as rather assertive, but... he always has something cool/fun/meaningful basically worth my reading to post.

( I was going to post this before you beat me to it Adymus. Still found the need to.)

 

[Adymus]

Awwww Thanks Ashenstar.

There is a thin line between being assertive and being an Asshat. Admittedly, finding the golden mean between the two is not something I am particularly good at.

 

[BigApplePi]

You couldn't have just PMed me?


Every Interoverted function is going to be ridged to some extent, do to the fact that they are all subjective functions that appeal to the user only. Ti will not move until the point of view in question has strong logic. Fi will not move unless the point of view resonants with their values. As for Ni and Si, they will only agree if that is how they see things in their personal worldview, which is the hardest of all to move.

What I was using in the quoted paragraph was a combination of Ti and Si. Whenever any introverted personality type uses both of their introverted processes in concert they gain a far stronger sense of certainty that they otherwise would not have had.

As for my Si: What Bluesquid was doing is something I have seen done too many times by INFJs. The Ni-Fe game is one that I am all too familiar with, and I'm at a point where I can just sniff it out as soon as it comes up.

The thing is however, my Si will still flex at the whim of my Ti. No matter how strong my Si gets it will always serve Ti. That means if at any time my Ti is updated, and conflicts with my Si worldview, then my Si will be revised to be in synch with my Ti.

So to answer your question: Yes, you will seem more J if your lower functions start coming into play, but we will never be a full on directive (J) type. In that same way, an INTP would seem more S as well, because of the fact that our introverted perceiving function (Si) is a sensing one.

Ti-Ne-Si-Fe

That's our top four cognitive processes, as you can see like all types, we have a Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition function. Depending on how well you have developed these, naturally you would appear to be using more of certain functions than other INTPs. Along with this, it is possible to lack development in one or more of your functions which will accentuate another. For instance, many INTPs when growing up don't develop their Ne right off the bat. It kind of skips over to their Si, and while their Ne is still usable, they are not as confident with it, so it is just an untapped resource. Because of something like this, an INTP might come off as ISTJ.

Yeah, it's complicated... Seriously, just PM me next time.

Hi Adymus. I have to admire your skill with those acronyms. I am new here so forgive me if I'm slow. I think I get the jist of it.

What is "PM"? I thought I saw it somewhere but now it eludes me. Let me read on and I will try to respond to your thoughts when things congeal in my mind.

 

[Auburn]

Maybe some could make and sticky a guide to the 8 cognitive functions, hand-written by members in a way that is practical and immediately applicable, as opposed to the vague definitions out there online?

It could also be written to include specific things regarding INTPs such as the above mentioned combination of Ti+Si, and distinctions between INFJs, INFPs, and other types that are likely to type as INTPs?

Adymus, you crack me up man. xD
You have a well developed Si, but not quite as strong of an Fe - often coming across very ungracefully. But then again I sorta admire your fearless proclamation of truth; more concerned with clarity than "playing it safe". After all, isn't that typical of INTPs, valuing truth above the possibility of causing upset?

I'm curious as to what you'd type me as. I too seek for and value truth, but don't always speak up like you do about it.

 

[Jesin]

Eh, Auburn, I think you're just cautious.

 

[BigApplePi]

Maybe some could make and sticky a guide to the 8 cognitive functions, hand-written by members in a way that is practical and immediately applicable, as opposed to the vague definitions out there online?

It could also be written to include specific things regarding INTPs such as the above mentioned combination of Ti+Si, and distinctions between INFJs, INFPs, and other types that are likely to type as INTPs?

Extrovert - Behavior via outside world
Introvert - Behavior via inner world

Sensor - Views details
iNtuitive - Views wholes

Thinking - Behavior via external wholes
Feeling - Behavior via inner feelings

Judger - Action focus
Perceiver - Observation focus

Auburn. How's that? From my notes and boiled down to the simplest I can get it. Shows how to classify or distinguish. Go from there. You mentioned a "sticky guide." Is that doable? Good idea.

 

[Fukyo]

Extrovert - Behavior via outside world
Introvert - Behavior via inner world

Sensor - Views details
iNtuitive - Views wholes

Thinking - Behavior via external wholes
Feeling - Behavior via inner feelings

Judger - Action focus
Perceiver - Observation focus

Auburn. How's that? From my notes and boiled down to the simplest I can get it. Shows how to classify or distinguish. Go from there. You mentioned a "sticky guide." Is that doable? Good idea.

Nice attempt at concision, but first off, not only that those aren't functions, but single letters and their oversimplified descriptions are probably the worst way to go about it.

As for the sticky guide, we're in a dire need of it. Too many people still don't get it. *facepalm*

*not directly aimed at the quoted poster*

 

[flow]

I'd also like to see a sticky of each personality type's order of functions.

 

[Kokoro]

I'd also like to see a sticky of each personality type's order of functions.

Until/if one gets made, check out the chart at the bottom of the page in this link for each type's order of functions: http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/16types.html

I also agree that that sticky idea is great. If done properly, it will remove a lot of confusion that some people do not even know they have.

 

[flow]

thanks for the chart, but it doesn't seem right. I thought our weakest function was Fe (which they have placed at 4), not Fi (placed in 8th)?

 

[Kokoro]

thanks for the chart, but it doesn't seem right. I thought our weakest function was Fe (which they have placed at 4), not Fi (placed in 8th)?

By all means, you would be better off looking into this yourself or listening to some one more experienced like Adymus. However, my understanding of it is this:

Of the first four processes that are listed as "the primary processes" Fe is by far the weakest by default. The other four, listed as "the shadow processes," are used more in the subconscious sense.

Basically, everyone has all of the processes by being human. The deference is a matter of natural preference. For the archetype of an INTP, Ti Ne Si Fe are the processes that are naturally used with Fe being the most underdeveloped.

I hope that I worded this right.

 

[Words]

Stuff do clash. so, in my vocab, personality is a paradox.

 

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi
Extrovert - Behavior via outside world
Introvert - Behavior via inner world

Sensor - Views details
iNtuitive - Views wholes

Thinking - Behavior via external wholes
Feeling - Behavior via inner feelings

Judger - Action focus
Perceiver - Observation focus

Auburn. From my notes and boiled down to the simplest I can get it. Shows how to classify or distinguish.
_______________________________________________________

Fukyo you said, "their oversimplified descriptions are probably the worst way to go about it."
I agree there are no details, but what I absolutely love about the breakdown is they allow one to classify the 16 personalities from scratch. For the fun of it, let me attempt to show you what I mean. If I'm in error, I'm sure I will need to be brought up short:

Extrovert - Behavior via outside world
Introvert - Behavior via inner world
One decides where ones spends one's psychic time, privately or in public. Can't do both.

Sensor - Views details
iNtuitive - Views wholes
Either one focuses on particular things or general things. Can't do both.

Thinking - Behavior via external wholes
Feeling - Behavior via inner feelings
The feeler operates displaying from inner feelings; the thinker from outer ideas only. Can't do both.

Judger - Action focus
Perceiver - Observation focus
Either one is just looking or one is pushing in some selected direction. Can't do both.

By "can't do both" I mean at the same time. In practice one behaves somewhere in-between. It's just a matter of asking where one spends most of one's time. Now if you want to look into details, go for it. I would think the above would be enough to tell you what is primary, 2ndary, tertiary, or last.
_________________________________________________________

If you will allow me, I will illustrate my own self doing the above together with any contradictions. You tell me if I'm wrong.

Extrovert - Behavior via outside world
Introvert - Behavior via inner world
I'm introverted as I'm doing this myself, but extroverted because I'm doing it in semi-public asking for your possible reactions.

Sensor - Views details
iNtuitive - Views wholes
I'm intuitive because these are general concepts, but ultimately I'm responsible for sensory accuracy in specific cases especially when you tell me I'm wrong.

Thinking - Behavior via external wholes
Feeling - Behavior via inner feelings
I'm a thinker because these are outer impersonal concepts supposedly impartially about everyone but I keep my strong excited feelings totally to myself except for present visible leakage.

Judger - Action focus
Perceiver - Observation focus
These categorizations are all observations collected from lots of places. But ultimately I will have to judge right or wrong in the way I've gone about doing this possibly with misplaced focus.

 

[Fukyo]

Extrovert - Behavior via outside world
Introvert - Behavior via inner world
One decides where ones spends one's psychic time, privately or in public. Can't do both.

Close enough approximation.

Sensor - Views details
iNtuitive - Views wholes
Either one focuses on particular things or general things. Can't do both.

This is false. Sensing views wholes as well, albeit concrete ones. (Se)
A better distinction would be abstract vs. concrete.

Further more, using different combinations of functions we can focus on both.

Thinking - Behavior via external wholes
Feeling - Behavior via inner feelings
The feeler operates displaying from inner feelings; the thinker from outer ideas only. Can't do both.

Thinking and Feeling are both reasoning processes, the criteria differs however. Thus I would not really call them behaviors. Both posses the ability to consider externals and internals. What you call Feeling is a very basic representation of Fi, and Thinking Te. Also for the sake of clarity, the common definitions of "Thinking" and "Feeling", do not correspond with how these terms are defined in the typology, not completely at least. I find their use misguiding.

Judger - Action focus
Perceiver - Observation focus

This is one aspect, yes, although more comes into that. I don't like this axis much, it tends to lead to false conclusions about type, that probably goes for other letters as well. There's much more complexity and distinction between functions, rather than just letters.

 

[Adymus]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi
Extrovert - Behavior via outside world
Introvert - Behavior via inner world

Sensor - Views details
iNtuitive - Views wholes

Thinking - Behavior via external wholes
Feeling - Behavior via inner feelings

Judger - Action focus
Perceiver - Observation focus

Auburn. From my notes and boiled down to the simplest I can get it. Shows how to classify or distinguish.
_______________________________________________________

Fukyo you said, "their oversimplified descriptions are probably the worst way to go about it."
I agree there are no details, but what I absolutely love about the breakdown is they allow one to classify the 16 personalities from scratch. For the fun of it, let me attempt to show you what I mean. If I'm in error, I'm sure I will need to be brought up short:

Extrovert - Behavior via outside world
Introvert - Behavior via inner world
One decides where ones spends one's psychic time, privately or in public. Can't do both.

Sensor - Views details
iNtuitive - Views wholes
Either one focuses on particular things or general things. Can't do both.

Thinking - Behavior via external wholes
Feeling - Behavior via inner feelings
The feeler operates displaying from inner feelings; the thinker from outer ideas only. Can't do both.

Judger - Action focus
Perceiver - Observation focus
Either one is just looking or one is pushing in some selected direction. Can't do both.

By "can't do both" I mean at the same time. In practice one behaves somewhere in-between. It's just a matter of asking where one spends most of one's time. Now if you want to look into details, go for it. I would think the above would be enough to tell you what is primary, 2ndary, tertiary, or last.
_________________________________________________________

If you will allow me, I will illustrate my own self doing the above together with any contradictions. You tell me if I'm wrong.

Extrovert - Behavior via outside world
Introvert - Behavior via inner world
I'm introverted as I'm doing this myself, but extroverted because I'm doing it in semi-public asking for your possible reactions.

Sensor - Views details
iNtuitive - Views wholes
I'm intuitive because these are general concepts, but ultimately I'm responsible for sensory accuracy in specific cases especially when you tell me I'm wrong.

Thinking - Behavior via external wholes
Feeling - Behavior via inner feelings
I'm a thinker because these are outer impersonal concepts supposedly impartially about everyone but I keep my strong excited feelings totally to myself except for present visible leakage.

Judger - Action focus
Perceiver - Observation focus
These categorizations are all observations collected from lots of places. But ultimately I will have to judge right or wrong in the way I've gone about doing this possibly with misplaced focus.

Bigapplepie, everything you have written above, forget it. Cleanse your mind of all of the MBTI garbage, because you will never have a clear understanding of personality type if you are only using this simplified crap.

The MBTI dichotomies are good for one thing and one thing only: Making a test that can take a guess at what your top two functions are.

The purpose of understanding personality is not to turn yourself into a human MBTI test. It is to allow you the tools and ability to not just read a person's personality type, but understand what level it has been developed, and how they are using it. There are nuances that exist in personality that MBTI is completely blind to, and might simply explain them by slapping them with another personality type that is not actually their own.

An MBTI personality type description will give you an idea of how a person might act. But having a clear understanding of cognitive functions, and how the person in question is using their own functions will tell you exactly how a person will act.

 

[Auburn]

For those who may be new to MBTI, I hope this helps a little. ^^;
The key to understanding MBTI is in Carl Jung's Cognitive Functions - which is the foundation of MBTI theory.

How to convert from MBTI to Cognitive Functions:

To find out what cognitive functions any type has, use these steps. Let's take the INTP type as an example for this. First we'll need to find the top two functions that define that type.

J/P Axis
Look at the last letter of the four letter code. If that letter is P then that personality type's perceiving function (N/S) is extroverted. In an INTP, this would mean extroverted iNtuition. If the last letter is J, that means that type's perceiving function is introverted instead.

Next, we define the judging function (T/F). The orientation (e/i) of the judging function will be the opposite of their perceiving function. In an INTP, that means their T function would be introverted because their N is extroverted.

I/E Axis
Now that we've defined the top two functions, we need to determine which of the two is the Dominant (1st), and which is the Auxiliary (2nd). The dominant function will be the one with the same orientation as the first letter of that type. In an INTP, this means Ti is the dominant because the first letter of INTP is "I" and Ti is introverted.

Tetriary & Inferior
The tertiary (3rd) function of that type will be the opposite of the Auxiliary. In an INTP, this is Si because Ne is the Auxiliary. The inferior (4th) function will be the opposite of the Dominant. In an INTP this would be Fe because Ti is the dominant.

Unconscious Functions
The order of the unconscious functions is rather irrelevant because their levels of development are all close to the same; close to no development. However, the MBTI theory gives it a pattern which goes like this.

5th = opposite function as 4th but with same orientation [Te]
6th = opposite function as 3rd but with same orientation [Ni]
7th = opposite function as 2nd but with same orientation [Se]
8th = opposite function as 1st but with same orientation [Fi]

Below is a diagram that better illustrates all this:

The blue lines represent the relationship the first two functions have with the third and fourth. The red lines determine the relationship that the first four have to the unconscious functions. This model applies to all MBTI types.
​

 

[flow]

Okay here's my confusion. My T and F are very much split. Compared to most of the members on this forum I'm an INFP, and if I was an INFP my SECOND function would be Fi. However, I know I'm more of an INTP than an INFP... so yeah, I just don't think for me, that Fi is my deepest/darkest shadow. If I had to order my functions, they'd go something like: Ti, Ne, Ni, Fi, Fe, Si, Te, Se. Whatever. I may just give up pretending that these functions are even measurable after two.

 

[Adymus]

No Flow, first of all if you were an INFP your first function would be Fi, not second.

Secondly, it's not up to you to decide what your function order is, if you are an INTP, it is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe etc.

It is the fact that you Use Ti-Ne-Si-Fe that makes you an INTP. don't think of it like your personality is some amorphous soup that just happens to resemble the description of an INTP.

All of your Top four functions serve a purpose:

Ti/Fi Subjective Discernment (The logical and moral compass)
Se/Ne Objective Perception (External stimulus)
Si/Ni Subjective Perception (Worldview)
Fe/Te Objective Discernment (Translator for and reader of the external world)


If you did not have a type of Subjective Discernment, Objective Perception, Subjective Perception, Objective Discernment of the Thinking, Feeling, Intuition, and sensing variety in your top four, you would not be a functional human being.

 

[flow]

Agreed, I'm not very functional. I see your reasoning, and oops on the Fi as a secondary function. But be that all as it may, I feel/think that my Ti/Fi are equally developed.

revised functional order: Ti/Fi, Ne, Ni, Fe/Te, Si, Se

 

[Adymus]

Agreed, I'm not very functional. I see your reasoning, and oops on the Fi as a secondary function. But be that all as it may, I feel/think that my Ti/Fi are equally developed.

Yeah... they're not, but I guess you can think whatever you want.

You are either confusing Fe for Fi, or your are looking at your convictions for logic, and thinking of them as convictions for moral values.

 

[fullerene]

This is one time I think you're wrong, though, adymus. The function development of MBTI--of any of those 16 types--only describes the "normal" development paths the brain could take. Similarly to how MBTI is not applicable for people with mental diseases, I'm nearly positive I read in some book or another (by a Dr. Bebe, maybe? Just a guess at the author, though) that traumatic experiences early in life can cause abnormal function development. The two that they listed specifically as "recognized possibilities" where this happened were when "parents strongly discouraged or punished children for use of their 'ordinary' dominant function" and "parents strongly encouraged and rewarded children for use of their 'ordinary' inferior/unconscious functions". Ordinary, of course, meaning the development-path that would have occurred in the absence of such criticism or praise.

So it seems plenty possible, especially in the case of super-controlling parents, that Te/Fe from a child would be met with strong resistance. I'm not sure what would happen with the functions in that case (would Fe in a "natural" INTP just get "forced under the hood" so that they develop Fi instead?).

Either way, though... the theoretical function order that "must" develop, assuming mbti is accurate and the "ordinary" function order is in place before birth, is not necessarily the one that actually occurred, after someone's life happened. So I think you're mistaken to immediately write off every person who thinks their functions develop out of order.

...although, given how easy it is to confuse Ti/Fi (I don't really get the difference myself), it definitely is more likely that he's mistaking one function for the other.

 

[Adymus]

This is one time I think you're wrong, though, adymus. The function development of MBTI--of any of those 16 types--only describes the "normal" development paths the brain could take. Similarly to how MBTI is not applicable for people with mental diseases, I'm nearly positive I read in some book or another (by a Dr. Bebe, maybe? Just a guess at the author, though) that traumatic experiences early in life can cause abnormal function development. The two that they listed specifically as "recognized possibilities" where this happened were when "parents strongly discouraged or punished children for use of their 'ordinary' dominant function" and "parents strongly encouraged and rewarded children for use of their 'ordinary' inferior/unconscious functions". Ordinary, of course, meaning the development-path that would have occurred in the absence of such criticism or praise.

So it seems plenty possible, especially in the case of super-controlling parents, that Te/Fe from a child would be met with strong resistance. I'm not sure what would happen with the functions in that case (would Fe in a "natural" INTP just get "forced under the hood" so that they develop Fi instead?).

Either way, though... the theoretical function order that "must" develop, assuming mbti is accurate and the "ordinary" function order is in place before birth, is not necessarily the one that actually occurred, after someone's life happened. So I think you're mistaken to immediately write off every person who thinks their functions develop out of order.

...although, given how easy it is to confuse Ti/Fi (I don't really get the difference myself), it definitely is more likely that he's mistaking one function for the other.

You and I are not in disagreement with this at all. I actually take functional development caused by family upbringing and culture in to account. You'll have to tell me where I mis communicated that this factor cannot happen so I can fix it.

When a child is being raised, their family will usually give them validation or disapproval for using certain processes. This conditions them to use some functions more and some of them less.

For example, if an INTP is born into a really Fe or Fi heavy family, they will be validated when they use their Fe, and receive disapproval for using their Ti. This is going to develop the INTP's Fe pretty far out of the norm, and diminish their Ti, because they will lose confidence in it.
But there is one important thing that needs to be addressed, the INTP will not automagically be turned into an ESFJ because of their upbringing, they'll just have a "lopsided" cognitive functions hierarchy.

The hierarchy of your functions is always the same, and it is really this hierarchy that decides you type, not so much what processes are more developed.

The Ti-Ne-Si-Fe hierarchy Doesn't necessarily mean Ti is most developed, Ne is second most developed, Si is third most developed, and Fe is least developed. The hierarchy just means Ti and Ne will give you the most stimulation and energy (Ti being more stimulating than Ne), and Si and Fe will be the most draining for you (Fe being more of a drain than Si).

fullerene, I was actually one of these children, my Si kicked in before my Ne did, and from having an ENFJ mom, my Ti took a lot of hits and my Fe got the majority of her validation.
But the reason that Didn't make me a Ti Si Ne Fe is because that is not how I am wired. My Ne is above my Si, which means I am naturally going to be more stimulated by the abstract and not the concrete. I was more confident with my factual and historical knowledge of Si than my ability to See the patterns of Ne, so I showed more Si, but it was still always something draining for me, as opposed to Ne. Your cognitive function hierarchy is not necessarily decided by which of your functions are the strongest, but by where you get your energy. For an INTP, it will always be from Ti-Ne regardless of your culture and upbringing.

So when referring to functions that have developed outside of their intended order, I'd rather look at it like this:
Ti
Ne
Si
Fe

Instead of changing the order.


Edit:
There are few things I should probably make clear. Your dominant function will always be your strongest and most developed, because that is the function you can't really help but go back into (it being the most stimulating and all), so it will still get the most exercise. But what will change because of your upbringing is the amount of confidence you have in it. You can have a developed Ti, but if it is constantly being attacked when you use it, you won't show it to people.
Also, it was kind of misleading when I said "my Si kicked in before Ne", that is not completely true either; Because all of your functions are present at the same time. It's not that as you grow, different functions just grow out of nothing, they were already there, but they will begin growing bigger and more developed.

 

[BigApplePi]

Quoting Adymus -
"The Ti-Ne-Si-Fe hierarchy Doesn't necessarily mean Ti is most developed, Ne is second most developed, Si is third most developed, and Fe is least developed. The hierarchy just means Ti and Ne will give you the most stimulation and energy (Ti being more stimulating than Ne), and Si and Fe will be the most draining for you (Fe being more of a drain than Si)."




When I got up this morning and read your stuff I see you guys are way ahead of me using the lingo & charts. Makes me think the road to self-knowledge is a tough one and now I don't even know whether I'm clear about knowing myself or not, lol.

The concepts of primary/2ndary are new to me so I don't know whether I'm ready to buy them or not. You guys seem confident about it though. I'm going to retire for the nonce, go sit in a corner and see how comfortable I can feel with feeling stupid. Thank you.

Ti-Ne-Si-Fe hierarchy indeed!

 

[Words]

I was hoping for concise descriptions of each of Jung's cognitive processes... anyone?

 

[fullerene]

ahh ok. Well, it was just when you said to flow "Yeah... they're [Ti/Fi] not [equally developed], but I guess you can think whatever you want."

Since you weren't sure whether he was Ti or Fi dominant, but only said that he had to be confusing one for the other, I figured you didn't actually know him that well. So to say "they're not, but whatever," I figured you had to mean "that never happens." If the right family upbringing was involved, I don't see why that's so impossible?

 

[cheese]

I can't be the only one who reads innuendo into the thread title.

 

[BigApplePi]

I can't be the only one who reads innuendo into the thread title.

Hi cheese. I can read innuendo.

If one sees INTPs are rigid unable to escape their type in the narrowest of that sense, then this would be a put down.

But if one can conclude one is able to expand their lesser abilities, this would be a plus. That was what I was after.

Expanding would mean cultivating extroversion, sensory experience, expressing feelings, making judgments. That's what I was asking.

 

[EditorOne]

Jeez, folks, relax. INTP is not a steel statue, it's an approximation of our personalities. All of us are a little bit of everything and some things more than others, most of the time. I can be detail-oriented if it means sawing the board to the right length instead of the wrong one so the house gets built according to the grand design.

These Myers-Briggs personality things are perhaps better thought of as tools to understand yourself better, not ideals to live up to or a prison sentence we're condemned to live by. Knowing I'm INTP, for instance, leads me to conclude that I better measure three times before cutting once with that board thing. Doesn't mean I shouldn't mess with boards. Knowing I tend to be an observer rather than a decision-maker pushes me to think about whether I can indulge that in any given situation or whether making a decision, a judgement, is actually necessary for me and everyoen else. And knowing I'm an INTP and what that looks like compared to other personalities lets me interact with them more successfully, to couch things in terms they're more likely to grasp rather than in terms that make perfect sense to me but leave other people thinking I'm aloof or disconnected or whatever.

Some of you may be (big shock here) thinking too hard about all this.

 

[BigApplePi]

Jeez, folks, relax. INTP is not a steel statue, it's an approximation of our personalities. All of us are a little bit of everything and some things more than others, most of the time. I can be detail-oriented if it means sawing the board to the right length instead of the wrong one so the house gets built according to the grand design.

These Myers-Briggs personality things are perhaps better thought of as tools to understand yourself better, not ideals to live up to or a prison sentence we're condemned to live by. Knowing I'm INTP, for instance, leads me to conclude that I better measure three times before cutting once with that board thing. Doesn't mean I shouldn't mess with boards. Knowing I tend to be an observer rather than a decision-maker pushes me to think about whether I can indulge that in any given situation or whether making a decision, a judgement, is actually necessary for me and everyoen else. And knowing I'm an INTP and what that looks like compared to other personalities lets me interact with them more successfully, to couch things in terms they're more likely to grasp rather than in terms that make perfect sense to me but leave other people thinking I'm aloof or disconnected or whatever.

Some of you may be (big shock here) thinking too hard about all this.

EditorOne. Well articulated. Here is where I'm coming from:

I don't think of INTP or any other as a statue or any ideal to aspire to. Rather the claim is that it is a center representation of one's personality. A center from which one has variations. Having been in the presence so long of 15 other personalities, I find they don't recognize me at least to my satisfaction. I want an identity or a place I can feel at home with so I know I don't have to live up to other's standards. I'm pleased to be here because you guys help me find myself. Makes sense?

 

[EditorOne]

"Makes sense?"

Absolutely.

Other personality types may be far less concerned with understanding things, including both you and them. That's as much a part of who they are as your desire for more self-knowledge is of yours.

Telling you that is called "managing expectations," I think.

 

[BigApplePi]

Editorone. When you say that other personalities may not be interested in understanding, some are absolutely against understanding. They just want it done.

This brings me back to the 16 INTPs in a room. If one of them is standing on my foot, I may just want them off my foot and I don't care to understand why it is there, lol. That shows these things are more than just character traits. They apply in the micro sense as well as the macro.

 

[Adymus]

ahh ok. Well, it was just when you said to flow "Yeah... they're [Ti/Fi] not [equally developed], but I guess you can think whatever you want."

Since you weren't sure whether he was Ti or Fi dominant, but only said that he had to be confusing one for the other, I figured you didn't actually know him that well. So to say "they're not, but whatever," I figured you had to mean "that never happens." If the right family upbringing was involved, I don't see why that's so impossible?

Actually I am suggesting that Ti/Fi being equally developed doesn't happen, for many reasons but lets start with the upbringing.

Let's say you have an INTP growing up in a very Fi heavy household, would this environment validate the use of an INTP's Fi and thus help it grow?

No, an here is why:
a.) INTPs don't consciously use Fi in the first place, so how can you validate something that is not actually present?
b.) An Fi heavy environment would actually call out an INTP's Fe, because Fi want's to be recognized by Fe.
c.) Having two dominant functions would mean you are stimulated by two different functions, logically it should follow that you will be drained by their respective polar functions, in this case both Te and Fe. This is a contradiction, Ti is supposed to be stimulated by Te, and Fi is supposed to be stimulated by Fe
The only way this would work is if you had an INTP/INFP switch wired into your brain, because there is no way you could possibly use both at the same time.
d.) It is completely unnecessary to have both functions, they both serve the exact same purpose. They approach decision making in a different way but essentially their role in the psyche is the same, your body is not going to waste energy developing something it already has and doesn't need.

 

[GarmGarf]

The Ti-Ne-Si-Fe hierarchy Doesn't necessarily mean Ti is most developed, Ne is second most developed, Si is third most developed, and Fe is least developed. The hierarchy just means Ti and Ne will give you the most stimulation and energy (Ti being more stimulating than Ne), and Si and Fe will be the most draining for you (Fe being more of a drain than Si).

Adymus, is this your own theory, or is this a generally accepted MBTI theory? I've heard something like this before with regards to extraversion/introversion, but not to the whole shabang (although in my own personal theorizing, I presented the idea of this*. However, I didn't know that it was already accepted! Is it?).

Spoiler

[*=] Quote from my theorizing documents (referring to some alternative possibilities of cognitive function energy consumption/generation):

One gains energy when they use their dominate function and gain less and less energy when using functions down the line (auxiliary; tertiary; inferior; shadow functions). Where exactly the energy gaining value passes zero is the question, if this possibility is true.

One loses energy when using any function, but significantly little for their dominate function (maybe the value is so low that this energy can be regenerated with time while actually doing the activity), and functions down the line use up more and more.

I agree to the generally accepted combination and order of the (non-shadow) functions - in fact, a while ago, I was composing a post outlining some hypotheses justifying the combination/order (however, I procrastinated finishing it; I may post it soon after my current exams or something).

Here is a copy-paste from that (work in progress) post:

1) The attitude of the auxiliary function is the opposite of the dominant function.
2) The (ir)rationality of the auxiliary function is the opposite of the dominant function.
3) The attitude of the tertiary function is the same as the dominant function.
4) The (ir)rationality of the tertiary function is the opposite of the dominant function.
5) The attitude of the inferior function is the opposite of the dominant function.
6) The (ir)rationality of the inferior function is the same as the dominant function.

(This works presuming that Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuiting are all present/represented (i.e: if this wasn't presumed, then this system would allow for the order/combination: "Ti, Ne, Ni, Te" to develop).)


Anyways, all the hypotheses I presented referred to the order as some sort of measurement of development and preference, I suppose (I left it rather ambiguous). I was focusing more on the combination of (non-shadow) functions more than the reason why there is an order at all, and treated the order's formation as a spontaneous "bound to happen" mechanism (i.e: "chances are that every individual will develop each function in different magnitudes, and if A is well developed, B will tend to be less developed, because Z").


I am very attracted to the idea that the functions' order is not a measurement of competency, but I want to know why people will develop energy-favourableness in that order. I can rationalize the (tendency of the) order for development, preference or even competency, but why do the above 6 rules happen for an order of energy-favourableness?

Is it simply a case that X and Y (dominate and auxiliary) functions are going to be energetically-favourable, spontaneously, and in different amounts (and then the other functions' positions on the order is determined by polar-opposite mechanics (e.g: if someone is stimulated by intuition, naturally, sensation is bound to bore them))? Ok, that's all fine and good, but why will those two initial functions happen to be of opposite attitude and (ir)rationality?

 

[Adymus]

Garfgarm, what I presented is more my theory than it is MBTI. It seems Meyers & Briggs had some sort of inclination that Dominant functions are most simulating, and Inferior functions are most draining, but I'm not sure to what extent they understood this.

I disagree with something in your quote though. All functions are not draining, one must get their energy somewhere. The Dominant function is the one function that is actually stimulating and can provide energy for the rest. The Auxiliary takes energy to use, but it takes the least energy of all. Do to the fact that The dominant and auxiliary are almost always used together, one wouldn't notice any loss of energy from the auxiliary because the dominant functions is creating more stimulation than the Auxiliary is taking away. In the case of an INTP, the Ne auxiliary is providing the Ti more information to work with, and is thus giving it more stimulation to carry on.

The difference between your model and mine is I would never call your functional hierarchy a "preference". The functional order is not created just because it is bound to happen. The factors of stimulation and drain are already existent, and that is why your hierarchy takes the order that it does. An INTP will be stimulated by Ti not because they consciously chose to develop Ti, but because they were already wired to be stimulated by Ti. This is where I and MBTI really separate: I am suggesting your personality type is a biological phenomenon (Lenore Thomson agrees with this.)

As for shadow functions: Your inferior will always be the most draining for you because it is the function that takes you out of your Dominant. Se will call the Ni out to the here and now, Fe will call Ti out to the considerations of other's feelings. When you focus on one function your attention must be subtracted from it's opposite. Do to the Dominant function being the most stimulating, we will pay the least attention to our inferior. But the inferior actually serves another very important purpose. The reason it is present as well as most draining is because it is meant to anchor our Dominant function. Our dominant functions are stimulating, so why we ever leave them? If an INTP had no inferior function, we would be completely indifferent of other people, and we would have no way to relate to them, basically we would all have schizoid personality disorder (Which I do believe is related to inferior Fe not properly weighing down dominant Ti I might add.) It's like your dominant function is this big balloon and your inferior is there to counter balance it so it doesn't fly away.

There is a connection that your Dominant and Auxiliary functions share, which is why together they are the true creators of one's personality. You will always be drawn to using your dominant, but in such away that stimulates your Auxiliary as well. (Hence the reason INTPs are drawn to philosophy and not automotive mechanics) Your tertiary serves the same anchoring function to the auxiliary as the Inferior does for the dominant. but this is to a much lesser extent because of auxiliary is not as stimulating as your dominant function is, and not your main source of energy.


As for your last question: but why will those two initial functions happen to be of opposite attitude and (ir)rationality?

Because it cannot be any other way. In order to function at all as a working human mind, you must have at least four considerations: Perception (N/S), discernment (T/F), Outside world engagement (Extroversion), and inner world engagement (Introversion). your top two functions give you all of those, let's take INTP for example:

Top two functions: Ti and Ne.

Ti is your form of discernment as well as your inner world. Ne is your perception as well as your outer world.

If this configuration was not in your Dominant and Auxiliary, you would be an extremely dysfunctional human being, and evolution was not stupid enough to let that happen.


(Great job though, I'd still say you are miles ahead of MBTI)

 

[Fukyo]

I was hoping for concise descriptions of each of Jung's cognitive processes... anyone?

I'm going to try something, no promises though.

First off, some definitions.

Judging function - A reasoning process, attempting to use either ethical(subjective) or logical(objective) criteria for decision making and discernment, 'rational'. Focused externally or internally, depending on where it aims to leave an impact.

Perceiving function - An information collecting device, 'irrational'. Fuels the judging function, supplies raw material for discernment. Necessary for balance between the two. External or internal focus.

-----

Intraverted function - Internally focused, 'subjective' - focused on the subject, on self. Internally applied structure, modeling, network building based on specific criteria.

Extraverted function - Externally focused, 'objective' - focused on the object, on the outside world. Externally applied structure (judging), collecting external information (perceiving).

Function summaries, as brief as possible:

Ti - Intraverted Thinking:

A logically oriented internal judging process. Creating elaborate internal models that adhere to specific logical rules and principles. Integration of new information, expansion of models, revision, defining.

Fi - Intraverted Feeling:

An ethically oriented internal judging process. Creating networks of ethical values. Sometimes spiritual in nature. Adherence to personal, individual, subjectively created principles and values. Revision of values, striving toward embodying them.

Te - Extraverted Thinking:

A logically oriented external judging process. Organization and application of external structures. Considering external logical relationships. Efficiency focus. Management of resources.

Fe - Extraverted Feeling:

An ethically oriented external judging process. Organization, management of communities. Connecting, sharing communal values. Creating connections and establishing communication between groups that share the same value set.

Ne - Extraverted Intuition:

An abstract, external perceiving process. Pattern seeking and recognition in the external world. Exploration, consideration and generation of possibilities. Usually quick perception of connections and divergent paths. Enabling change.

Ni - Intraverted Intuition:

An abstract, internal perceiving process. Recognition of far reaching implications, patterns derived from subconscious. Shifting of perspectives. Grasping concepts and ideas in their condensed form - "aha! moments". Usually heavily symbolic and difficult for easy expression.

Se - Extraverted Sensing:

A concrete, external perceiving process. Observation of immediate, concrete factual reality. Gut feelings, acting in the moment, acting on impulse, living in the moment.

Si - Intraverted Sensing:

A concrete, internal perceiving process. Being rooted in the known factual reality. Focus on the passage of time from the past to present and vice-versa. Focus and preservation of the known and reliable, what has been empirically proven.​

Note: Differentiate between Extraversion (external focus of the psyche) and Extroversion (Social behavior, gregariousness).

This is my best attempt at shoving the general point of each function into a few sentences, currently. For anyone interested in reading about them in greater detail, I've found the descriptions provided by Lenore Thompson's wiki and Van Der Hoop's work to be the best (If interested I can edit this post to include links).

 

[Words]

Okay here's my confusion. My T and F are very much split. Compared to most of the members on this forum I'm an INFP, and if I was an INFP my SECOND function would be Fi. However, I know I'm more of an INTP than an INFP... so yeah, I just don't think for me, that Fi is my deepest/darkest shadow. If I had to order my functions, they'd go something like: Ti, Ne, Ni, Fi, Fe, Si, Te, Se. Whatever. I may just give up pretending that these functions are even measurable after two.

I have the same problem. My most to least *developed* functions are Ti, Fi(what?) Ni, Te, Ne, Ti, Si, Se and Fe is last--that explains my inability to group. Its not suppose to be this way but perhaps its all due to pressure.

 

[Adymus]

I have the same problem. My most to least *developed* functions are Ti, Fi(what?) Ni, Te, Ne, Ti, Si, Se and Fe is last--that explains my inability to group. Its not suppose to be this way but perhaps its all due to pressure.

*Facepalm*

Okay cauterize, I'll bite.

Explain to me how you are using Fi, Ni, and Te.

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm going to try something, no promises though.

First off, some definitions.

Judging function - A reasoning process, attempting to use either ethical(subjective) or logical(objective) criteria for decision making and discernment, 'rational'. Focused externally or internally, depending on where it aims to leave an impact.

Perceiving function - An information collecting device, 'irrational'. Fuels the judging function, supplies raw material for discernment. Necessary for balance between the two. External or internal focus.

Fukyo. Since I am new to all this, I will just focus on the two above. I have little background for judging your work, but off hand it looks good. Links would be good but I wouldn't want to put you through the trouble, lol.

I'm having trouble finding words that capture the Judging vs Perceiving function in simplest form although I'm sure what you have above is correct. To me, judging is highly focused and directional while perceiving is more relaxed and broad. One can immediately identify which of those two behaviors or personalities is operating can one not? Given one area of inquiry, judging is selective; perceiving non selective. Judging closes off; perceiving leaves open. My motive behind simplification is to find a way for certain distinguishment as opposed to mere descriptive brevity.

 

[Words]

@Adymus. Thanks.

From a testhttp://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm i took. or simply.. I knowingly use this most in situations

Ti - Intraverted Thinking:A logically oriented internal judging process. Creating elaborate internal models that adhere to specific logical rules and principles. Integration of new information, expansion of models, revision, defining.

and this second to most.

Fi - Intraverted Feeling:

An ethically oriented internal judging process. Creating networks of ethical values. Sometimes spiritual in nature. Adherence to personal, individual, subjectively created principles and values. Revision of values, striving toward embodying them.

 

[Adymus]

A test i took. or simply.. I knowingly use this most in situations
and this second to most.

The cognitive functions test is by far the most flawed personality test there is right now.

But please, tell me what you are experiencing when you "knowingly" use these functions.

 

[BigApplePi]

The cognitive functions test is by far the most flawed personality test there is right now.

But please, tell me what you are experiencing when you "knowingly" use these functions.

Adymus. Is there a public one you recommend? TIA.

 

[Adymus]

Adymus. Is there a public one you recommend? TIA.

Yeah, letting me read and analyze you from video footage


I don't recommend taking any cognitive functions test seriously at all. None of them have any way of reliably gathering quantifiable evidence of using certain functions.

 

[BigApplePi]

Yeah, letting me read and analyze you from video footage

I don't recommend taking any cognitive functions test seriously at all. None of them have any way of reliably gathering quantifiable evidence of using certain functions.

And how will that video footage be communicated?, lol. Are you some sort of nihilist? Something can be better than nothing or couldn't it? Besides video footage is likely to exclude all written expression.

 

[Words]

The cognitive functions test is by far the most flawed personality test there is right now.

Support please?

But please, tell me what you are experiencing when you "knowingly" use these functions.

Um....In situations, you react in a way that either decides what you'll do or what you'll say. My main basis for my judgment is usually through analyzing and thought. But when I'm pressured and/or in rarer occasions, I judge base on a sort of "impulsed" inner feelings.

I don't recommend taking any cognitive functions test seriously at all. None of them have any way of reliably gathering quantifiable evidence of using certain functions.

I imagine this came from a well thought out analysis and a strong conclusion? What are the reasons? Maybe not evidence but probability. Though my experience seems to show Fi instead of Fe

 

[Fukyo]

Fukyo. Since I am new to all this, I will just focus on the two above. I have little background for judging your work, but off hand it looks good. Links would be good but I wouldn't want to put you through the trouble, lol.

I'm having trouble finding words that capture the Judging vs Perceiving function in simplest form although I'm sure what you have above is correct. To me, judging is highly focused and directional while perceiving is more relaxed and broad. One can immediately identify which of those two behaviors or personalities is operating can one not? Given one area of inquiry, judging is selective; perceiving non selective. Judging closes off; perceiving leaves open. My motive behind simplification is to find a way for certain distinguishment as opposed to mere descriptive brevity.

Okay, let me try to explain it differently.

Functions are mechanisms, not behaviors.

Judging and Perceiving are attributes assigned to functions, not behaviors.

In its simplest form, a Judging function is a rational process that creates judgments, decisions.

In its simplest form, a Perceiving function is essentially an information collection mechanism that supplies the Judging function with material to process and make judgments off.

Frankly, I don't see it getting simpler than this. It's the base by which these two function: Information collection + Processing of the said information.

What you have here:

"To me, judging is highly focused and directional while perceiving is more relaxed and broad. Judging closes off; perceiving leaves open."

These are notions about the J/P axis that the traditional MBTI propagates.

They do not describe the base of the functional mechanism, simply certain traits that may emerge in the general personality of an individual.

It is true that some of these attributes apply to specific functions, but they are not universally applicable to all Judging or Perceiving functions.

 

[BigApplePi]

Okay, let me try to explain it differently.

Functions are mechanisms, not behaviors.

Judging and Perceiving are attributes assigned to functions, not behaviors.

That will take some explaining to this dull mind, lol.

Dictionary.com: function = 1. the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.

Dictionary.com: behavior = Psychology, Animal Behavior. a. observable activity in a human or animal.

Those are practically the same!

In its simplest form, a Judging function is a rational process that creates judgments, decisions.

In its simplest form, a Perceiving function is essentially an information collection mechanism that supplies the Judging function with material to process and make judgments off.

Frankly, I don't see it getting simpler than this. It's the base by which these two function: Information collection + Processing of the said information.

And those functions lead immediately to either behavior or the potential for behavior.

These are notions about the J/P axis that the traditional MBTI propagates.

They do not describe the base of the functional mechanism, simply certain traits that may emerge in the general personality of an individual.

It is true that some of these attributes apply to specific functions, but they are not universally applicable to all Judging or Perceiving functions.

I hope I didn't destroy your message in the copy and paste, but so far I'm concluding, who cares about any function/ behavior meanings? The essential difference between judging and perceiving is the judger is picky while the perceiver presents what to pick from. Now that only needs to be put in more elegant words.

The perceiver presents the field
The judger chooses from the field

If this doesn't capture all that happens, does it not capture exactly
how to tell the two apart and does so using a common language?

Perceiver: a b c d e f
Judger: a b c d e f