Ni and Ne

Kei Kei · Feb 27, 2012

Honestly, I didn't read all the post, but I think I had trouble to explain both Ne and Ni. I just know I use both of them.

BigApplePi · Feb 27, 2012

@yogurtexpress. Sorry. I hadn't read your post, but I concur.

Reluctantly said:
So far no one here has shown they understand what introversion means in relation to extroversion.

So far no one has shown how they understand the functions as a cognitive process.

So far no one has shown a deeper relationship between the conscious and unconscious, except to take it for granted that certain relationships exist and explain the function pairs as if they are.

What do these things mean? How do they affect and define a psychological type? What are the limits of these methods? i.e. how can type change and why?

Good Q's. Here's a try:

Introversion directs one inwardly toward how the self views things; extroversion is directed outwardly toward the real world outside. We can try to match introversion with subjectivity; extroversion with objectivity.

Cognitive processes are modestly conscious human activities. That is, we know that we are thinking, feeling, sensing, intuiting if we stop to ask.

Conscious activities are activities with highly focused awareness subject to modest control. Unconsciousness refers to activities automatic without awareness or control.

A psychological type exists if the brain is wired to dispose one toward the emphases portrayed. How much the brain is wired that way, I don't know. Run quadruple blind experiments to find out.

One - the tested doesn't know they are being tested
Two - the tester doesn't know the tested
Three - the tester doesn't know they are running a test
Four - the interpreter of the test doesn't know they are interpreting a test

Auburn · Feb 27, 2012

Reluctantly said:
So far no one here has shown they understand what introversion means in relation to extroversion.

So far no one has shown how they understand the functions as a cognitive process.

So far no one has shown a deeper relationship between the conscious and unconscious, except to take it for granted that certain relationships exist and explain the function pairs as if they are.

What do these things mean? How do they affect and define a psychological type? What are the limits of these methods? i.e. how can type change and why?

Does this help direct the discussion?

I think the functions are formulas the physical brain utilizes to activate all parts of itself in a useful sequence. If there was no ordering to how the brain is working, all the components of the brain wouldn't know how to cooperate efficiently to create consciousness. The brain needs a set pathway/rhythm of operation.

If we want to use a metaphor, the functions are used in the same way computers use algorithms/instructions to generate activity. In other words, functions are the software that tells the brain how to use it's actual hardware, which is the brain tissue and many properties each brain region has.

They affect and define psychological type in the sense that they are the main "operating system" your brain is using, so everything you see is fed into that system and every action you execute emerges from that system.

In light of this definition, it wouldn't make sense that type changes. It's not like we can uninstall our brain's main operating system. We have a modus-operandi that is native to us which manifests in millions of forms, but is still one of sixteen modes.

By some process of natural selection, I.. think our species evolved to use these brain functions in the most efficient orderings. However I really can't say I know.

What does seem clear to me though is that the processes of Logic/Ethic is a native duality in all humans. By that I mean we all have both modes of reasoning and they are definitely distinct. This theme of heart vs mind is prevalent in thousands of years of history, and is a native drama to our race. It is a theme that has it's origin in our genetics and continually manifests with each generation.

Other themes are also visible to me but less obvious. Jung's work seems to explain all those themes in a consistent sequence in humans. It may not be *the* way our minds definitely operate, but I do believe he is close -- closer than any other model -- to the truth of our collective psyche.

I hope that helps answer some of your questions..

BigApplePi · Feb 27, 2012

snafupants said:
So let me put these results out there and see what you guys come up with. I'm quite curious to hear your opinions. And please refrain from saucily calling me a narcissist/schizoid based on the results.

Te (Extroverted Thinking) (33%)
your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods

Ti (Introverted Thinking) (68%)
your valuation of / adherence to your own internally devised logic/rational

Ne (Extroverted Intuition) (54%)
your valuation of / tendency towards free association and creating with external stimuli

Ni (Introverted Intuition) (77%)
your valuation of / tendency towards internal/original free association and creativity

Se (Extroverted Sensing) (28%)
your valuation of / tendency to fully experience the world unfiltered, in the moment

Si (Introverted Sensing) (55%)
your valuation of / focus on internal sensations and reliving past moments

Fe (Extroverted Feeling) (31%)
your valuation of / adherence to external morals, ethics, traditions, customs, groups

Fi (Introverted Feeling) (75%)
your valuation of / adherence to the sanctity of your own feelings / ideals / sentiment

When I saw what was in your spoiler, I reacted, "Oh no. Not that (was it?) test again." After spending time with More than one Dom function? I suspect that test quarrels with/ is at odds with MBTI.

Hey. There is a pattern in both tests ... as if a sample of two would display a pattern, lol. Ha. Both tests show a slant. You, @snafupants, assuming the past shows you as INTJ are supposed to test Ni Te Fi Se. Instead you get Ni Ti Fi Si. Notice a pattern? This test may be slanted toward i/e. Same with More than one Dom function?. He tests i = introversion on all.

Now who else besides me hasn't taken the test? Too late. Now it's biased.

BigApplePi · Feb 27, 2012

Auburn said:
By some process of natural selection, I.. think our species evolved to use these brain functions in the most efficient orderings. However I really can't say I know.

What does seem clear to me though is that the processes of Logic/Ethic is a native duality in all humans. By that I mean we all have both modes of reasoning and they are definitely distinct. This theme of heart vs mind is prevalent in thousands of years of history, and is a native drama to our race. It is a theme that has it's origin in our genetics and continually manifests with each generation.

Good point Auburn. It may be that evolution has set us up to benefit from the diversity of heart versus mind, specifics versus generalities (concrete versus abstraction), inward versus outward. Those three dimensions yield 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 combinations. Allowing for an auxiliary gives 8 x 2 = 16 temperaments. On the other hand lefty versus righty didn't get this diversity.

snafupants · Feb 28, 2012

BigApplePi said:
When I saw what was in your spoiler, I reacted, "Oh no. Not that (was it?) test again." After spending time with More than one Dom function? I suspect that test quarrels with/ is at odds with MBTI.

Hey. There is a pattern in both tests ... as if a sample of two would display a pattern, lol. Ha. Both tests show a slant. You, @snafupants, assuming the past shows you as INTJ are supposed to test Ni Te Fi Se. Instead you get Ni Ti Fi Si. Notice a pattern? This test may be slanted toward i/e. Same with More than one Dom function?. He tests i = introversion on all.

Now who else besides me hasn't taken the test? Too late. Now it's biased.

You could still be right, but at the top of the page, which I omitted from posting, they had a breakdown of introversion and extraversion on a one hundred point percentage scale. This leads to me believe that, although the test could be biased as you posit, there's the pretense of fairness embedded in the system. My own conjecture is that I am slanted heavily towards introversion and the tests merely personify that because it's a reality and I represent it faithfully through answering the questions honestly. Okay, accepting for a moment your hypothesis, how do I narrow this down farther and indefinitely? Is there a second test I should take or some way to further differentiate among the functions? The issue is tricky because introverted intuition is a mainstay and I score quite high on both introverted thinking and feeling; in other words, both INTJ and INFJ are plausible because of three functions being elevated. Another issue is that I show basically an equal and mild proclivity for extraverted thinking and extraverted feeling, the secondary function in both types under scrutiny. :confused:

BigApplePi · Feb 28, 2012

snafupants said:
You could still be right, but at the top of the page, which I omitted from posting, they had a breakdown of introversion and extraversion on a one hundred point percentage scale. This leads to me believe that, although the test could be biased as you posit, there's the pretense of fairness embedded in the system. My own conjecture is that I am slanted heavily towards introversion and the tests merely personify that because it's a reality and I represent it faithfully through answering the questions honestly. Okay, accepting for a moment your hypothesis, how do I narrow this down farther and indefinitely? Is there a second test I should take or some way to further differentiate among the functions? The issue is tricky because introverted intuition is a mainstay and I score quite high on both introverted thinking and feeling; in other words, both INTJ and INFJ are plausible because of three functions being elevated. Another issue is that I show basically an equal and mild proclivity for extraverted thinking and extraverted feeling, the secondary function in both types under scrutiny.

I can only speculate on these issues. I think of how like this issue is with the thread ObliviousGenius began. Note that cognitive functions are not the same as introvertion/ extrovertion = "is one an introvert or extrovert?" Speaking as a fellow introvert just because some other test or theory rated me Ne and Fe doesn't mean I'm now a part-time extrovert. That Ne Fe are only cognitive functions. Aren't there other tests for temperament one can take?

What I would do is take more tests which rate temperament. Those will tell one the top four. Then we will have more input and can rethink what each test is testing or which are just poor tests.

This is very much a live topic.

snafupants · Feb 28, 2012

BigApplePi said:
I can only speculate on these issues. I think of how like this issue is with the thread ObliviousGenius began. Note that cognitive functions are not the same as introvertion/ extrovertion = "is one an introvert or extrovert?" Speaking as a fellow introvert just because some other test or theory rated me Ne and Fe doesn't mean I'm now a part-time extrovert. That Ne Fe are only cognitive functions. Aren't there other tests for temperament one can take?

What I would do is take more tests which rate temperament. Those will tell one the top four. Then we will have more input and can rethink what each test is testing or which are just poor tests.

This is very much a live topic.

Just post a decent and reliable test, I'll take it and then post my results. On a usual test, say from human metrics or similar minds, the results fail to give up much. The first, second and fourth slots are rather sturdy; the third slot seems to fluctuate due to mood and extraneous stuff. If you have something up your sleeve which goes beyond these basic tests, and cognitive functions tests, by all means include that test via a posted link.

katkeyron · Feb 28, 2012

rather than testing for "how much" Te/Ti/Fe/Fi you use percentage wise, in which ways do you identify with each function?

snafupants · Feb 28, 2012

katkeyron said:
rather than testing for "how much" Te/Ti/Fe/Fi you use percentage wise, in which ways do you identify with each function?

The thing is I identify at a high level with introverted thinking and introverted intuition while, at the same time, feeling a slight distance from both extraverted thinking and extraverted feeling, and a mild endorsement of introverted feeling. I suppose if I had to squeeze into either an INTJ suit or INFJ one, I would opt for the former; however, by selecting INTJ and extraverted thinking, as a secondary function, over extraverted feeling I screw the whole thing up because, as I previously stated, I can relate more to introverted thinking than extraverted thinking. Such is my distaste for extraverted feeling as a secondary function that I pick INTJ as more of a default. With the personality composites, because introverted intuition as a dominant function seems to dictate so highly in both types, differentiation tends to be more difficult. Well, long story short, I suppose I prefer introverted intuition and introverted thinking as a tag-team but, because of the high score and identification with introverted feeling and reluctance to accept extraverted feeling, I would provisionally accept INTJ over other types. Maybe I just have extremely over-developed introverted intuition and feeling, as primary and tertiary functions, and a relatively under-developed extraverted thinking function, in the second slot. This is just circuitous though: no closure.

Edit: Here's something I ripped off from another website. This was their encapsulation of the difference.

INTJs tend to display a scientific bent, while INFJs tend to display a humanistic bent. An important distinction between INFJs and INTJs is that the "intelligence" or "skill-set" INTJs excel at is Strategic, followed by Diplomatic; while for INFJs the order is reversed: Diplomatic, followed by Strategic. So INTJs typically consider Logic first, people second; while INFJs tend to consider people first, Logic second.

Here's the deal, I definitely subscribe to more of a humanistic bent, versus a scientific one. My bookshelf shows as much. This references the first part of their differentiation. With the second part, things get unhinged though. I prefer strategy to diplomacy, according to their verbiage. Then in the third part, I would argue I place people first in social situations but logic first when I'm by myself. That is, when making plans I just makes plans, without necessarily considering those involved. This is too convoluted.

Honestly, I'm like fucking Winston Churchill in that my personality, mood and receptivity to others makes inexplicable and hairpin turns throughout the day. I usually remain contented but I respond extraordinarily differently throughout the day. For instance, statements that would set me off in the morning make me laugh at existential absurdity later. Or, if someone knocked on my door, I couldn't say whether I would receive them warmly or just brusquely give them the boot. This definitely keeps friendships and relationships interesting.

axemblack · Feb 28, 2012

snafupants said:
The thing is I identify at a high level with introverted thinking and introverted intuition while, at the same time, feeling a slight distance from both extraverted thinking and extraverted feeling, and a mild endorsement of introverted feeling. I suppose if I had to squeeze into either an INTJ suit or INFJ one, I would opt for the former; however, by selecting INTJ and extraverted thinking, as a secondary function, over extraverted feeling I screw the whole thing up because, as I previously stated, I can relate more to introverted thinking than extraverted thinking. Such is my distaste for extraverted feeling as a secondary function that I pick INTJ as more of a default. With the personality composites, because introverted intuition as a dominant function seems to dictate so highly in both types, differentiation tends to be more difficult. Well, long story short, I suppose I prefer introverted intuition and introverted thinking as a tag-team but, because of the high score and identification with introverted feeling and reluctance to accept extraverted feeling, I would provisionally accept INTJ over other types. Maybe I just have extremely over-developed introverted intuition and feeling, as primary and tertiary functions, and a relatively under-developed extraverted thinking function, in the second slot. This is just circuitous though: no closure.

Edit: Here's something I ripped off from another website. This was their encapsulation of the difference.

INTJs tend to display a scientific bent, while INFJs tend to display a humanistic bent. An important distinction between INFJs and INTJs is that the "intelligence" or "skill-set" INTJs excel at is Strategic, followed by Diplomatic; while for INFJs the order is reversed: Diplomatic, followed by Strategic. So INTJs typically consider Logic first, people second; while INFJs tend to consider people first, Logic second.

Here's the deal, I definitely subscribe to more of a humanistic bent, versus a scientific one. My bookshelf shows as much. This references the first part of their differentiation. With the second part, things get unhinged though. I prefer strategy to diplomacy, according to their verbiage. Then in the third part, I would argue I place people first in social situations but logic first when I'm by myself. That is, when making plans I just makes plans, without necessarily considering those involved. This is too convoluted.

Honestly, I'm like fucking Winston Churchill in that my personality, mood and receptivity to others makes inexplicable and hairpin turns throughout the day. I usually remain contented but I respond extraordinarily differently throughout the day. For instance, statements that would set me off in the morning make me laugh at existential absurdity later. Or, if someone knocked on my door, I couldn't say whether I would receive them warmly or just brusquely give them the boot. This definitely keeps friendships and relationships interesting.

From what you've just described I'm about 80% certain that you are INFJ. It sounds like if you really analyzed the situation without such a strong bias against Fe that you would realize that you are very likely an INFJ (and the fact that you're doing all this in the first place only further convinces me). For a long time I thought I was an INTP because I identified so heavily with Ti and hated Fe, and because I mistook Ni brainstorming for Ne. Also your use of language; no INTJs that I have encountered would write like you're writing. The way in which you use overly formal and "scientific"-sounding words to describe a problem, and then use more literary and colorful statements and words when writing about yourself is another strong piece of evidence. And the use of that colon in the concluding sentence of the first paragraph... I can't really explain my reasoning on this but it feels like something I would have written a few years ago.

If you really care about what your type is you should honestly and seriously consider that you are an INFJ. I wouldn't say that this realization alone "made me a better person" or anything as trite, but in all honesty it probably helped me overcome a few delusions I had about myself.

Oh yeah one more thing, about the whole people first logic second thing, the use of "Logic" there is very ambiguous. Even as an INFJ I rarely give in to other people's emotions, in fact I sometimes actively resist them. INFJs don't put people first and logic second, they put their values and their reasoning behind those values first, and because people are often high in an INFJs value-list it's easier to just say that INFJs put people first. Compare this to say an ESFJ and it's easy to see that INFJs are not traditional "people-persons".

I could list more things and I'm not entirely happy with this post (I feel like I haven't made my point well enough) but I'm tired and mainly just wanted to something to occupy me before I went to bed.

P.H. · Feb 28, 2012

(I'm going to lurk here because I'm not sure anymore whether I'm INTP or INFJ.)

snafupants · Feb 28, 2012

From what you've just described I'm about 80% certain that you are INFJ. It sounds like if you really analyzed the situation without such a strong bias against Fe that you would realize that you are very likely an INFJ (and the fact that you're doing all this in the first place only further convinces me). For a long time I thought I was an INTP because I identified so heavily with Ti and hated Fe, and because I mistook Ni brainstorming for Ne. Also your use of language; no INTJs that I have encountered would write like you're writing. The way in which you use overly formal and "scientific"-sounding words to describe a problem, and then use more literary and colorful statements and words when writing about yourself is another strong piece of evidence. And the use of that colon in the concluding sentence of the first paragraph... I can't really explain my reasoning on this but it feels like something I would have written a few years ago.

That made sense. In terms of face validity and employing a larger field of focus as a prism for viewing personality, you can probably pick up useful information from how folks use words and endeavor to send their point home; you're right, I certainly haven't seen any INTJs writing such flowery and serpentine sentences. Depending on the quality of information, and the mood and sensitivities of the reader, I'd imagine my writing style comes off as entertaining or tedious, equally.

The writers whom I can think of offhand who employ a similar style are undoubtedly INFJ as well. David Foster Wallace, forgiving his erudition, and Terence McKenna, forgiving his battiness, are other practitioners of the whacky scholar meets Henry Miller street talk stuff. I've always liked the type of writing that contorts and co-opts and commingles words and domains that normally do not belong side-by-side. There's at first a grotesque reaction to this hybridization in our antiseptic world of shunted careers, but it's good the mind to think nimbly and globally and to push the limits of words.

If you really care about what your type is you should honestly and seriously consider that you are an INFJ. I wouldn't say that this realization alone "made me a better person" or anything as trite, but in all honesty it probably helped me overcome a few delusions I had about myself.

As regards the second sentence, why should that be a shameful occurrence? Isn't that the whole point behind typology, to learn where you fall in and how to better navigate your life?

Oh yeah one more thing, about the whole people first logic second thing, the use of "Logic" there is very ambiguous. Even as an INFJ I rarely give in to other people's emotions, in fact I sometimes actively resist them. INFJs don't put people first and logic second, they put their values and their reasoning behind those values first, and because people are often high in an INFJs value-list it's easier to just say that INFJs put people first. Compare this to say an ESFJ and it's easy to see that INFJs are not traditional "people-persons".

This has been a pretty didactic day. Some members, somewhat snarkily and myopically, have said that if you don't understand your type then either you don't understand yourself or you don't understand MBTI. That sounded ludicrous and simplified when I first heard it, and that feeling has lingered.

The typology is not this uniform system; everyone has a particular opinion. Unfortunately, this wealth of opinions seeps into the hands and brains of the disseminators of the cognitive functions and overarching personality composites' descriptions. So, there may be, say, ten different descriptions for introverted feeling; the hapless reader is left to sift this information as best s/he can. Another problem with MBTI is that it's derivative and bastardized from Jung's original text; some stuff has even been disturbingly added ex post facto.

Through enough synchronicity between these descriptions and subjective impressions, I actually feel more confident about type than I did yesterday. I still feel that MBTI descriptions, when they correspond at all, overemphasize averageness in the population and the first two cognitive functions.

axemblack · Feb 28, 2012

snafupants said:
That made sense. In terms of face validity and employing a larger field of focus as a prism for viewing personality, you can probably pick up useful information from how folks use words and endeavor to send their point home; you're right, I certainly haven't seen any INTJs writing such flowery and serpentine sentences. Depending on the quality of information, and the mood and sensitivities of the reader, I'd imagine my writing style comes off as entertaining or tedious, equally.

The writers whom I can think of offhand who employ a similar style are undoubtedly INFJ as well. David Foster Wallace, forgiving his erudition, and Terence McKenna, forgiving his battiness, are other practitioners of the whacky scholar meets Henry Miller street talk stuff. I've always liked the type of writing that contorts and co-opts and commingles words and domains that normally do not belong side-by-side. There's at first a grotesque reaction to this hybridization in our antiseptic world of shunted careers, but it's good the mind to think nimbly and globally and to push the limits of words.

Don't remember how, but either while I was writing my post or combing it for possible criticisms DFW's name popped into my head, but that probably has a lot to do with my love for Infinite Jest. Although your points about that hybrid style are certainly applicable in regards to your writing.

As regards the second sentence, why should that be a shameful occurrence? Isn't that the whole point behind typology, to learn where you fall in and how to better navigate your life?

Hmm... what I was trying to say is that the expression itself is usually trite, and especially when looked at in the context of placing yourself in one of 16 defined categories and expecting that it will make you a better person without anything more meaningful coming into play or resulting from it than, "I just figured out I'm INFJ!"

This has been a pretty didactic day. Some members, somewhat snarkily and myopically, have said that if you don't understand your type then either you don't understand yourself or you don't understand MBTI. That sounded ludicrous and simplified when I first heard it, and that feeling has lingered.

The typology is not this uniform system; everyone has a particular opinion. Unfortunately, this wealth of opinions seeps into the hands and brains of the disseminators of the cognitive functions and overarching personality composites' descriptions. So, there may be, say, ten different descriptions for introverted feeling; the hapless reader is left to sift this information as best s/he can. Another problem with MBTI is that it's derivative and bastardized from Jung's original text; some stuff has even been disturbingly added ex post facto.

Through enough synchronicity between these descriptions and subjective impressions, I actually feel more confident about type than I did yesterday. I still feel that MBTI descriptions, when they correspond at all, overemphasize averageness in the population and the first two cognitive functions.

I just walked outside to have a smoke and meandered my way to basically the same observation: because MBTI is so underdeveloped it becomes almost impossible to separate anecdote from evidence. MBTI is not a science and won't be for any time in the foreseeable future, but it's certainly fun to play around with and intuitively feels more "right" than any other personality measure I've seen, and it's certainly a hell of a lot more thought-provoking and potentially useful than the Big 5. And yes MBTI does overly emphasize the first two functions; the fact that the online test uses Introversion/Extraversion and Perceiving/Judging as their own categories when deciding the two primary functions (not to mention the questions themselves, which are easy to see through) is a bit ridiculous in that introversion is only meaningful when paired with a function, same goes for the P/J continuum, you're only a perceiver when you have a perceiving function.

snafupants · Feb 28, 2012

Don't remember how, but either while I was writing my post or combing it for possible criticisms DFW's name popped into my head, but that probably has a lot to do with my love for Infinite Jest. Although your points about that hybrid style are certainly applicable in regards to your writing.

That book's structure is far more interesting than its content; however, there are canny philosophical exchanges and cultural commentaries such that it would be difficult to turn your back on Wallace for too long. The book is composed as a mathematical parabola, such that another dimension of the character is placed on the book's opposite side. Here's what I mean: the book is around one thousand pages; information and characters from approximately page three hundred will correspond to information around page seven hundred, two hundred and eight hundred, one hundred and nine hundred and so on.

The center of the book is the broom-handle scene where the dull-witted shopkeeper brother speaks all the world's languages. Linguistics is also a big part of that book. Hal's transformation from wordsmith and intellectual to muteness is mysterious, but you can infer some details by applying the mirror-image scheme and the language intimations. Ultimately, do we really know if Hal's transformation was caused by drugs or withdrawal or from watching the entertainment or from sundry other causes? There are hints, to be sure.

There were other cool arrangements in that book, like the non-linear use of endnotes and the breaking of time by placing the end of the action at the beginning of the book, jig-saw style. However, I thought the book played with the reader too much. This is going to be controversial but I believe Stephen King is a better writer than David Foster Wallace; Stephen King hunkers down with the reader and commands more empathy than Wallace can muster in his most emotionally lucid moments. David Foster Wallace was trying too earnestly to prove his intelligence; Infinite Jest was too cute and exemplified many of the manufactured and dilettante parts of postmodernism.

Even when Wallace stuck with the Ennet House scenes, he was almost poking fun at the lesser intelligence of the members by highlighting the lacking in their lexicons. This was meant to be an in-joke, but I found it cruel and unfunny. Those characters were meant to be real people and he was using them as some prop or bargaining chip or cheap currency to inveigle his way into the reader's head. The only time Wallace made a good aesthetic-emotional move was when he portrayed the wraith-father's love for his son: James wanted to bring Hal out of himself. Apparently things backfired, but the effort was touching, and, I'd argue, well-executed by Wallace. He needed to take more chances like that.

Overall, the book was too calculated and posturing to the postmodernist notion of how fiction should function. Wallace never let loose. The research and structure behind the book, and the humor within the book, were highlights though. Okay, some of the ideas were neat too, but this book felt more like work than a bona fide and viscerally enjoyable story. Edit: Beginning in spoiler. I should also mention that the major ideas expressed therein are from Chris Hager. The last two paragraphs are mostly mine though.

Hmm... what I was trying to say is that the expression itself is usually trite, and especially when looked at in the context of placing yourself in one of 16 defined categories and expecting that it will make you a better person without anything more meaningful coming into play or resulting from it than, "I just figured out I'm INFJ!"

Looked at another way, there is only one type: human. I find it remarkable and fun that a framework like MBTI exists. So orderly, perhaps too orderly, lending false comfort. A better person? Your mileage will vary depending on how you use that knowledge, your intelligence, personal complexity and your ability to synthesize and mutate information.

I just walked outside to have a smoke and meandered my way to basically the same observation: because MBTI is so underdeveloped it becomes almost impossible to separate anecdote from evidence. MBTI is not a science and won't be for any time in the foreseeable future, but it's certainly fun to play around with and intuitively feels more "right" than any other personality measure I've seen, and it's certainly a hell of a lot more thought-provoking and potentially useful than the Big 5. And yes MBTI does overly emphasize the first two functions; the fact that the online test uses Introversion/Extraversion and Perceiving/Judging as their own categories when deciding the two primary functions (not to mention the questions themselves, which are easy to see through) is a bit ridiculous in that introversion is only meaningful when paired with a function, same goes for the P/J continuum, you're only a perceiver when you have a perceiving function.

The word pseudoscience is usually used arrogantly by people who wish to be taken more seriously, and would never deign to see your fledgling idea as legitimate. At the core, that's defensive, stodgy and scared. The framework is fun and engaging; only an ass would ask for more. The schema has a lot of potential; you'd have to be pretty dull not to mentally web connections between folks of the same type.

scorpiomover · Feb 28, 2012

Reluctantly said:
So far no one here has shown they understand what introversion means in relation to extroversion.

INTJs are masters at planning and strategy. This comes from Te. However, planning and strategy both describe when you work out a plan or a strategy in your head, BEFORE acting. So Te has to be able to be played out in your head, as well as in action. However, to do that, you have to play through the set of actions in your plan or strategy, to see which plans and strategies work, and which ones fail. So, to use Te, you need a virtual simuation, in your head, of the external world, the E-sim.

The E-sim shows your imagined vision of the real world, how you imagine others look, talk, express themselves emotionally, and how you look, talk, and express yourself, including how you express your emotions. Just like in the real world, you can't see in someone else's head. So in the E-sim, you judge if someone is angry, if they speak and behave how we would expect, if someone was genuinely angry, and was expressing that anger. Anything that simply cannot be expressed in a sim of the real world, like lengthy considerations of concepts in quantum physics, don't really belong, not unless the E-sim is playing out how the person imagines what might have been said in conversations between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr.

Thus, for any introverted functions, like Ti, there must also be a sim, in which you play our how T will work. However, the I-sim doesn't seem to show the real world. Humans have the E-sim for that. The I-sim shows another world, in which you are the main character. Just as with a main character in a book or a film, there are many asides, explanations of concepts. In the E-sim, there simply isn't time for these long explanations, before the action moves on. But in the I-sim, it's all about you, and only what you are interested in, matters. So if you think it's important to spend 2 hours discussing quantum physics, then in the I-sim, that's what happens. Ideas that you are interested in, matter. So do your feelings. So the importance of things in the I-sim, is based on how important they feel to you. If you stub your toe, and it really annoys you, but you aren't that bothered about all the massacres in Syria, then in your I-sim, stubbed toes feature as being very important, while killings in Syria are barely mentioned. So the I-sim is all about what personally happened to you, what happened to others that made you feel very happy or sad, might happen that you hopeful or anxious about, what ideas you are really into, your goals, your dreams, your ambitions, and similar things. In the I-sim, you are the star of your own show, and it reflects that. Of course, if you are happy, then it's generally a pleasant world. If you are like Rimmer from "Red Dwarf", then it's a very unpleasant world.

How much of an introvert or extrovert you are, is based on which world you choose to mentally inhabit more, which virtual sim you choose to think in the most.

So far no one has shown how they understand the functions as a cognitive process.

The functions are not a cognitive process in themselves, but are components of cognition. Each component adds a concept, one that is not normally expressed in everyday language, but can be expressed in abstract forms like mathematical language. However, each conceptual component, is too abstract by itself, to express a full idea. So you only really get something to saym, with at least 2 functions. With more functions, you get more of a fleshed-out idea, and often ideas that work on multiple levels, such as found in propaganda, where an idea can make sense, emotionally support a particular viewpoint, and be intended to take you along a path that will help someone else achieve a personal goal. The choice and order of the functions, determines the general type of cognitive approach one is using at the time.

The really interesting question, is why so many people seem to consistently use the SAME order of functions for cognitive processes, when they have so many options to choose from, when randomly, we'd expect that everyone is an XXXX, and when even if we try to optimise, each function serves a useful purpose, and so the most optimal configuration is also XXXX.

The answer is that the brain tries to achieve stability and equilibrium just like anything else, and that just like anything else, random factors pull it this way and that, and that any leaning in the brain, tends to pull it more in that direction. So XXXX, leaning nowhere, and keeping dead upright, is extremely hard to keep stable. A random experience in early childhood, pulls it one way, and then the system tries to stabilise against that, developing it's own new equilibrium, in a particular set of reasoning. Sometimes it works well, and other times, it doesn't. But overall the system achieves consistent behaviour, and that in turn means the mind is no longer chaotic, but ordered, and thus, stable, reliable, and useful. So we end up falling into patterns of thinking, that become more and more consistent with each use. These too evolve over time, according to how our random experiences work with our current consistent pattern of thinking.

So the relationship of functions to the cognitive process, is a way to express our normal mode of cognitive behaviour. MBTI is not conditional. Our minds are, because we can be thrown into an entirely different track, by an emotional trigger, or a choice to use a certain type of reasoning, because we are used to using that type of reasoning in that type of situation, and so represents a mental association. Likewise, certain ideas and sensory experiences, that are present at the moment, can also cause us to select a certain type of cognitive process, that have a mental association with those ideas and/or sensory experiences. Which process we choose, is usually by which process has the highest cumulative mental associations with specific or general N, S, T and F. On top, the more we use a mental association and follow it up with its relevant cognitive process, the stronger the mental association becomes. Feelings and Sensory experiences can also increase the level of reinforcement of a mental association as it is being used. But N & T do not seem to form the same strong levels of attachment, and only increase by usage, or by accompanying S & F. So the system, is more like an evolving system or inter-related animals, a living cognitive ecology, if you will.

N is normally too vague to understand, without T or F to describe it. S is exact, but lacks any deduction that could tell us anything new, without T and F. T and F are judgements of potential solutions. Without N or S, T and F are trying to decide if something that doesn't exist is a good choice or not.

So far no one has shown a deeper relationship between the conscious and unconscious, except to take it for granted that certain relationships exist and explain the function pairs as if they are.

When INTPs talk, they talk as if they are saying Ti-Ne. Hence, they are classified as Ti-Ne. However, talking only covers their conscious process. The human mind is autonomous. It keeps on working, even when we are not telling it to do something. Good thing too, because we need to keep breathing, and if we had to consciously breathe all the time, we would not have time for much else. Same for walking, eating, etc. These autonomic processes are all handled by the subsconscious, our multi-tasking OS, if you will. The conscious processes are for specific applications which we wish to run. The subconscious OS also handles the underlying framework of the conscious applications, just like in a computer. For instance, you might have an idea. You then need your subconscious to recall all the words, that could express the idea, then put it together in an order that expresses the idea in a way that others can understand, and then your subconscious has to plan and then move the muscles of your mouth, lungs, and larynx, to co-ordinate them in such a way as to produce the sounds that represent those words, in the intended order.

Our conscious acts as the conscious things we wish to work on. The subconscious is our management system, and the framework within which the conscious process can be run.

In INTPs, the conscious process is of course, Ti->Ne. The subconscious process is: Si->Fe. If you think about it, when you look at how INTPs talk, and extract out all the NT-based stuff, leaving just the form, the intent of how the conversation goes, and it's general design pattern, then they resemble ISFJs, the Nurturers. They effectively use their NT thinking, as R&D, to achieve the goals of the ISFP, their general day-to-day manager. Mentally attack someone that the INTP cares about, and they will turn their Ti-Ne on you, to rip apart everything you believe, until your basis for such a mental attack is in smoking ruins. They will criticise the ideas of others, just as over-protective mothers criticise the excitingly dangerous proposals of their children, not in order to hurt, but to help point out their weaknesses, so that their "children" might correct their plans and make them safer.

The subconscious manager of INTJs, is Fi->Se, the ISFP, the Artist. They effectively act as Rational Artistes, developing clever ideas, that in themselves sound very beautiful, and plausible. They desire the acclaim of others, but not so much for what they can get, but more just to be applauded for their great idea, as if it was a work of art, and they were the artist seeking public recognition.

What do these things mean?

They have meaning, in that they can more able describe how you think. Empirical evidence can only go far enough to build the basic rules and axioms that we can use to construct a potential model of how your brain thinks. But we currently cannot quite see inside in such detail, as to KNOW what each electron and neuron is doing. Even if we could, that's an incredibly huge amount of data. It could take us years to have a physical map of what happens when you think "Hi". However, this is where Rationalism comes in. We know that our empirically-based model has to make sense, and so it has to act rationally. We can use reason to work out what can and cannot happen. With more empirically-based rules and axioms, we can use rationalism to figure out more of what must happen, and what cannot happen, according to those rules, and much more of our thinking is described.

How do they affect and define a psychological type?

These are the components, the bricks and mortar, of our minds. How they fit together, what structures they make, depends on the jobs you put them to. IRL, if you start working at a job, and you don't like it, you change it. Eventually, you find something you do like, and you stick at it, usually, even though there are also things about that job you don't like. Why? Because working with a familiar job, makes you better at it, and that means you accomplish far more by sticking at one job, than doing lots of different jobs. The same happens with the mind. So minds tend towards developing a single method for accomplishing most tasks.

However, IRL, even if you are a builder, you still need to do paperwork. The same is true of the mind. Even if you are an INTP, you still sometimes need Te-Ni, and Ni-Te, and all the other combinations. But your default choice is usually Ti-Ne, because that's your main job.

Why you chose to be INTP, is like why you chose your job. Maybe it's because you are tall, and your job is one that is easier for tall people. Maybe it's because you met someone with that job, and they impressed you, that it would be worth doing. It's based on the earliest of our experiences, and some others, that kind of guided you towards that role. But you might have been able to do others. It's just how things turned out.

What are the limits of these methods?

Pre-conditioned triggers from T, E, N & S, mental associations, can change track for those things that are strongly associated with that type of thinking. So you might be INTP most of the time, but if you get scared, you are likely to change type into what you normally do when you are scared, and how you normally think. Even so, INTP might be operating consciously, but subconsciously, you are operating as something else, maybe the ISFJ, and that is what is driving the direction of the conversation.

i.e. how can type change and why?

Jung said that the type is not static. It changes through life. As our behaviour changes, then our old ways of thinking won't work as well. If our behaviour changes slowly, then our mind has time to adapt. Say you are an introvert, and you go out one night. You can't behave in company, the way you would by yourself. So you need a different approach in thinking. So you use a slightly different version of your normal thinking. Then you go out again, and this happens again. If you happen to be enjoying the company of the people you are hanging out with, then over time, you spent more and more time with others, and more and more time with your extroverted method of thinking. Eventually, if you are going out on a regular basis, and you do another MBTI test, then you might even test as an Extrovert, like me, and people might say you are talking like an extrovert. The same can happen for I/E, N/S, T/F, and J/P.

However, in my experience, you usually switch back to your original type, once you go back to the old behavioural patterns.

BigApplePi · Feb 28, 2012

scorpiomover said:
N is normally too vague to understand

@scorpiomover I read part of what you've said, but wanted to ask you about the above while I have the opportunity as there is much else in your post.

For me, when I say I understand, it is Ne operating. (Example: I understand the square root of two is an irrational number is a theorem.) When I say I understand, it's because I have a whole picture I can trust because I've checked out the details of how that whole picture was arrived at and I can recheck them at will. (That is, I have ready access to the logical proof of the above theorem.)

So I'm wondering, am I experiencing Ti Ne very clearly? Or am I wrong and am experiencing Ni Te because the N to others is vague and seen as Ni and should I spit out a very clear proof, that is Te? Or does it depend on what type I am? Is Si/Se involved here somewhere? I suppose the proof is Si Fe!

Perhaps I'm asking too many Q's, but how would an INTJ experience the above or should I try to answer that myself later?

Auburn · Feb 28, 2012

gaaahhhhh. :storks:

BigApplePi · Feb 28, 2012

Auburn said:
gaaahhhhh.

All who are ambiguous pleez raise yo hands.

Reluctantly · Feb 28, 2012

snafupants said:
Why not tackle my last post and show that prowess yourself?

I don't even necessarily think I know anything much more than anyone else, but do see that I have a better understanding of the problems of psychological theory than a lot of posters present awareness of. I'd rather critique then and see if those that consider all the deeper problems come to similar solutions.

yogurtexpress said:
Simple. Introversion = energy inward (yourself), Extroversion = energy outward (the world). So to use the thinking function as an example, Ti = what makes sense to me, Te = what makes sense to everyone.

That may be, but what you say doesn't actually explain the phenomena it claims itself; rather it only describes phenomena very broadly with no supporting reason.

Cognition is just the processing of information, and the functions explain specifically how we process it. What's not to understand?

This is circular reasoning though.

The unconscious isn't in the realm of MBTI. The functions are conscious by nature, unless you want to go into how they're used in dreams, in which case I don't believe they're being used so much as recharged.

The unconscious is part of the underlying model of the 16 types. There is no conscious without the unconscious, specifically.

In theory, it's apparent what the functions mean. Their order defines the type. In practice, God knows what the limits are. That's why the theory is constantly being learned and revised by so many people. Its practical application is still highly questionable.

If it's so apparent, why can't anyone agree on just about anything? I wouldn't necessarily say anyone is learning anything if all it ends up being used for is proselytism or refuting itself.

As for how can type change, it doesn't. Personality can change, but psychological type is something you're born with.

Stating absolutes without the associations used in the claim doesn't make them necessarily denominating of a truth.
Why do you think this?

BigApplePi said:
Introversion directs one inwardly toward how the self views things; extroversion is directed outwardly toward the real world outside. We can try to match introversion with subjectivity; extroversion with objectivity.

Perhaps. But one wonders what you mean by directed outwardly/inwardly; there are many competing ways to describe the notion. And subjectivity and objectivity is mostly a game of what the reference point is rather than anything all that meaningful.

Cognitive processes are modestly conscious human activities. That is, we know that we are thinking, feeling, sensing, intuiting if we stop to ask.

But again, consciousness is tied to the unconscious. Saying we know the conscious also means we must know about the unconscious. If we gauge the unconscious inadequately, wouldn't it stand to reason that we could also have the wrong idea about our consciousness? In other words, we could be more influenced by the unconscious than our consciousness believes, making notions of knowing somewhat ambiguous.

Conscious activities are activities with highly focused awareness subject to modest control. Unconsciousness refers to activities automatic without awareness or control.

This sounds like a good start to me.

A psychological type exists if the brain is wired to dispose one toward the emphases portrayed. How much the brain is wired that way, I don't know. Run quadruple blind experiments to find out.

One - the tested doesn't know they are being tested
Two - the tester doesn't know the tested
Three - the tester doesn't know they are running a test
Four - the interpreter of the test doesn't know they are interpreting a test

But let's not ignore the possibility of the brain to evolve as we thrive/perish. Type may just as well refer to the slowly changing, much more physical states of the mind that help us adapt to our surroundings, even if we resist the process of those changes.

Auburn said:
I think the functions are formulas the physical brain utilizes to activate all parts of itself in a useful sequence. If there was no ordering to how the brain is working, all the components of the brain wouldn't know how to cooperate efficiently to create consciousness. The brain needs a set pathway/rhythm of operation.

That's a really interesting way of putting it and one I'm come to personally see as well.

If we want to use a metaphor, the functions are used in the same way computers use algorithms/instructions to generate activity. In other words, functions are the software that tells the brain how to use it's actual hardware, which is the brain tissue and many properties each brain region has.

They affect and define psychological type in the sense that they are the main "operating system" your brain is using, so everything you see is fed into that system and every action you execute emerges from that system.

In light of this definition, it wouldn't make sense that type changes. It's not like we can uninstall our brain's main operating system. We have a modus-operandi that is native to us which manifests in millions of forms, but is still one of sixteen modes.

But why wouldn't it make sense? Even an operating system could rewrite parts or all of itself if it is set up to. Some people believe pain removes our associations, causing new associations, and possibly even mindsets of loose association or dissocation. Do you think these mindsets are type-related?

By some process of natural selection, I.. think our species evolved to use these brain functions in the most efficient orderings. However I really can't say I know.

I'm not really sure I would consider evolution to be related to the abstract notion of efficiency, but I think get what you are saying.

What does seem clear to me though is that the processes of Logic/Ethic is a native duality in all humans. By that I mean we all have both modes of reasoning and they are definitely distinct. This theme of heart vs mind is prevalent in thousands of years of history, and is a native drama to our race. It is a theme that has it's origin in our genetics and continually manifests with each generation.

Other themes are also visible to me but less obvious. Jung's work seems to explain all those themes in a consistent sequence in humans. It may not be *the* way our minds definitely operate, but I do believe he is close -- closer than any other model -- to the truth of our collective psyche.

I hope that helps answer some of your questions..

This actually says a lot about what the types imply in many respects that other people seem to be oblivious too; often people mistake correlating a thinking function with what it produces rather than seeing how closed off such people are from feeling and in what way they are closed off of feeling; it's interesting because as one type of processing becomes more aware, it slowly kills off its opposite unconscious aspect in doing so; and that aspect appears as concentration of the ego fades.
This seems the most reasonable conclusion of what the unconscious represents in a practical sense, left to be filled in by your own experiences and qualia, while still remaining structurally insightful. I'd love to hear any better interpretations though.

And where would you place pathos? Assuming logic is analogous to logos for you, it's interesting that ethics is considered the opposite of logic.

scorpiomover said:
INTJs are masters at planning and strategy. This comes from Te. However, planning and strategy both describe when you work out a plan or a strategy in your head, BEFORE acting. So Te has to be able to be played out in your head, as well as in action. However, to do that, you have to play through the set of actions in your plan or strategy, to see which plans and strategies work, and which ones fail. So, to use Te, you need a virtual simuation, in your head, of the external world, the E-sim.

The E-sim shows your imagined vision of the real world, how you imagine others look, talk, express themselves emotionally, and how you look, talk, and express yourself, including how you express your emotions. Just like in the real world, you can't see in someone else's head. So in the E-sim, you judge if someone is angry, if they speak and behave how we would expect, if someone was genuinely angry, and was expressing that anger. Anything that simply cannot be expressed in a sim of the real world, like lengthy considerations of concepts in quantum physics, don't really belong, not unless the E-sim is playing out how the person imagines what might have been said in conversations between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr.

The only problem I can see with this is that you're suggesting an INTJ is a planner and strategist; but then you mention E-sim and I-sim, suggesting that Ni is responsible for the planning and strategizing.
I'm not sure this makes sense given that Ni isn't supposed to be a function that does this. Its processing is not inherently rational; and Te, being rational, is more about the intent of successful execution. Te, in particular, doesn't need to necessarily know how best to do something or even have a plan, but have an idea how to attempt to reach an overall successful execution and adapt that execution as necessary to be successful. I think this is what introverts find narrow-minded about Te; because it can run blind in many respects and create a lot of problems in doing so.

Thus, for any introverted functions, like Ti, there must also be a sim, in which you play our how T will work. However, the I-sim doesn't seem to show the real world. Humans have the E-sim for that. The I-sim shows another world, in which you are the main character. Just as with a main character in a book or a film, there are many asides, explanations of concepts. In the E-sim, there simply isn't time for these long explanations, before the action moves on. But in the I-sim, it's all about you, and only what you are interested in, matters. So if you think it's important to spend 2 hours discussing quantum physics, then in the I-sim, that's what happens. Ideas that you are interested in, matter. So do your feelings. So the importance of things in the I-sim, is based on how important they feel to you. If you stub your toe, and it really annoys you, but you aren't that bothered about all the massacres in Syria, then in your I-sim, stubbed toes feature as being very important, while killings in Syria are barely mentioned. So the I-sim is all about what personally happened to you, what happened to others that made you feel very happy or sad, might happen that you hopeful or anxious about, what ideas you are really into, your goals, your dreams, your ambitions, and similar things. In the I-sim, you are the star of your own show, and it reflects that. Of course, if you are happy, then it's generally a pleasant world. If you are like Rimmer from "Red Dwarf", then it's a very unpleasant world.

How much of an introvert or extrovert you are, is based on which world you choose to mentally inhabit more, which virtual sim you choose to think in the most.

The functions are not a cognitive process in themselves, but are components of cognition. Each component adds a concept, one that is not normally expressed in everyday language, but can be expressed in abstract forms like mathematical language. However, each conceptual component, is too abstract by itself, to express a full idea. So you only really get something to saym, with at least 2 functions. With more functions, you get more of a fleshed-out idea, and often ideas that work on multiple levels, such as found in propaganda, where an idea can make sense, emotionally support a particular viewpoint, and be intended to take you along a path that will help someone else achieve a personal goal. The choice and order of the functions, determines the general type of cognitive approach one is using at the time.

I just want to say that I personally find what you've written here to be very Ni, although I don't know how to reason to you why unless you tell me how you believe that doesn't make sense.
Personally, if you don't think the functions represent cognitive processes, then your idea of types has nothing to do with the idea Jung intended because that's what he aimed at doing. And that's fine, of course, and you may have an interesting theory if you want to elaborate on it further, but then we have to be careful about the difference in what we each mean by Ti, Fi, Ni, etc.

The really interesting question, is why so many people seem to consistently use the SAME order of functions for cognitive processes, when they have so many options to choose from, when randomly, we'd expect that everyone is an XXXX, and when even if we try to optimise, each function serves a useful purpose, and so the most optimal configuration is also XXXX.

The answer is that the brain tries to achieve stability and equilibrium just like anything else, and that just like anything else, random factors pull it this way and that, and that any leaning in the brain, tends to pull it more in that direction. So XXXX, leaning nowhere, and keeping dead upright, is extremely hard to keep stable. A random experience in early childhood, pulls it one way, and then the system tries to stabilise against that, developing it's own new equilibrium, in a particular set of reasoning. Sometimes it works well, and other times, it doesn't. But overall the system achieves consistent behaviour, and that in turn means the mind is no longer chaotic, but ordered, and thus, stable, reliable, and useful. So we end up falling into patterns of thinking, that become more and more consistent with each use. These too evolve over time, according to how our random experiences work with our current consistent pattern of thinking.

Yeah, it seems this consistency is supposed to be the ego. We all seem to agree on the epistemology of their existing "16 kinds of egos", but not that they necessarily "explain everything".

So the relationship of functions to the cognitive process, is a way to express our normal mode of cognitive behaviour. MBTI is not conditional. Our minds are, because we can be thrown into an entirely different track, by an emotional trigger, or a choice to use a certain type of reasoning, because we are used to using that type of reasoning in that type of situation, and so represents a mental association. Likewise, certain ideas and sensory experiences, that are present at the moment, can also cause us to select a certain type of cognitive process, that have a mental association with those ideas and/or sensory experiences. Which process we choose, is usually by which process has the highest cumulative mental associations with specific or general N, S, T and F. On top, the more we use a mental association and follow it up with its relevant cognitive process, the stronger the mental association becomes. Feelings and Sensory experiences can also increase the level of reinforcement of a mental association as it is being used. But N & T do not seem to form the same strong levels of attachment, and only increase by usage, or by accompanying S & F. So the system, is more like an evolving system or inter-related animals, a living cognitive ecology, if you will.

/rant
This is what I believe the unconscious is laid out to partly explain.
I kind of think Jung intended for types to be utilized as "containers" for evaluating all the possibilities of what you're talking about. Because I know some people think this means the theory is flawed just because we can't explain people deterministically, and well no it's not that simple; we can still use logic to explain non-deterministic properties of reality and retain usefulness.

N is normally too vague to understand, without T or F to describe it. S is exact, but lacks any deduction that could tell us anything new, without T and F. T and F are judgements of potential solutions. Without N or S, T and F are trying to decide if something that doesn't exist is a good choice or not.

N isn't really that vague, imo, it's just that people are vague in explaining it without even really knowing what it is they are explaining. Some people are more convincing bull-shiters because they've already convinced themselves they are something or someone without having any idea why. This is a really annoying logical fallacy (Proof by Verbosity) that even extremely intelligent people fall prey too in their laziness.

When INTPs talk, they talk as if they are saying Ti-Ne. Hence, they are classified as Ti-Ne. However, talking only covers their conscious process. The human mind is autonomous. It keeps on working, even when we are not telling it to do something. Good thing too, because we need to keep breathing, and if we had to consciously breathe all the time, we would not have time for much else. Same for walking, eating, etc. These autonomic processes are all handled by the subsconscious, our multi-tasking OS, if you will. The conscious processes are for specific applications which we wish to run. The subconscious OS also handles the underlying framework of the conscious applications, just like in a computer. For instance, you might have an idea. You then need your subconscious to recall all the words, that could express the idea, then put it together in an order that expresses the idea in a way that others can understand, and then your subconscious has to plan and then move the muscles of your mouth, lungs, and larynx, to co-ordinate them in such a way as to produce the sounds that represent those words, in the intended order.

Right, but this doesn't really apply to the unconscious of psychological types. These things don't really affect how we process the world because we can take them for granted for the most part without any repercussions.

Our conscious acts as the conscious things we wish to work on. The subconscious is our management system, and the framework within which the conscious process can be run.

In INTPs, the conscious process is of course, Ti->Ne. The subconscious process is: Si->Fe. If you think about it, when you look at how INTPs talk, and extract out all the NT-based stuff, leaving just the form, the intent of how the conversation goes, and it's general design pattern, then they resemble ISFJs, the Nurturers. They effectively use their NT thinking, as R&D, to achieve the goals of the ISFP, their general day-to-day manager. Mentally attack someone that the INTP cares about, and they will turn their Ti-Ne on you, to rip apart everything you believe, until your basis for such a mental attack is in smoking ruins. They will criticise the ideas of others, just as over-protective mothers criticise the excitingly dangerous proposals of their children, not in order to hurt, but to help point out their weaknesses, so that their "children" might correct their plans and make them safer.

The subconscious manager of INTJs, is Fi->Se, the ISFP, the Artist. They effectively act as Rational Artistes, developing clever ideas, that in themselves sound very beautiful, and plausible. They desire the acclaim of others, but not so much for what they can get, but more just to be applauded for their great idea, as if it was a work of art, and they were the artist seeking public recognition.

They have meaning, in that they can more able describe how you think. Empirical evidence can only go far enough to build the basic rules and axioms that we can use to construct a potential model of how your brain thinks. But we currently cannot quite see inside in such detail, as to KNOW what each electron and neuron is doing. Even if we could, that's an incredibly huge amount of data. It could take us years to have a physical map of what happens when you think "Hi". However, this is where Rationalism comes in. We know that our empirically-based model has to make sense, and so it has to act rationally. We can use reason to work out what can and cannot happen. With more empirically-based rules and axioms, we can use rationalism to figure out more of what must happen, and what cannot happen, according to those rules, and much more of our thinking is described.

These are the components, the bricks and mortar, of our minds. How they fit together, what structures they make, depends on the jobs you put them to. IRL, if you start working at a job, and you don't like it, you change it. Eventually, you find something you do like, and you stick at it, usually, even though there are also things about that job you don't like. Why? Because working with a familiar job, makes you better at it, and that means you accomplish far more by sticking at one job, than doing lots of different jobs. The same happens with the mind. So minds tend towards developing a single method for accomplishing most tasks.

However, IRL, even if you are a builder, you still need to do paperwork. The same is true of the mind. Even if you are an INTP, you still sometimes need Te-Ni, and Ni-Te, and all the other combinations. But your default choice is usually Ti-Ne, because that's your main job.

Why you chose to be INTP, is like why you chose your job. Maybe it's because you are tall, and your job is one that is easier for tall people. Maybe it's because you met someone with that job, and they impressed you, that it would be worth doing. It's based on the earliest of our experiences, and some others, that kind of guided you towards that role. But you might have been able to do others. It's just how things turned out.

Pre-conditioned triggers from T, E, N & S, mental associations, can change track for those things that are strongly associated with that type of thinking. So you might be INTP most of the time, but if you get scared, you are likely to change type into what you normally do when you are scared, and how you normally think. Even so, INTP might be operating consciously, but subconsciously, you are operating as something else, maybe the ISFJ, and that is what is driving the direction of the conversation.

Jung said that the type is not static. It changes through life. As our behaviour changes, then our old ways of thinking won't work as well. If our behaviour changes slowly, then our mind has time to adapt. Say you are an introvert, and you go out one night. You can't behave in company, the way you would by yourself. So you need a different approach in thinking. So you use a slightly different version of your normal thinking. Then you go out again, and this happens again. If you happen to be enjoying the company of the people you are hanging out with, then over time, you spent more and more time with others, and more and more time with your extroverted method of thinking. Eventually, if you are going out on a regular basis, and you do another MBTI test, then you might even test as an Extrovert, like me, and people might say you are talking like an extrovert. The same can happen for I/E, N/S, T/F, and J/P.

However, in my experience, you usually switch back to your original type, once you go back to the old behavioural patterns.

Again, interesting theory, but if you're use of the functions isn't about cognitive processing, we need to be careful about the different meanings employed in the functions. I can't really say anything about your meanings unless you flesh a complete theory for critique and make it clear how they differ from cognitive processes. But interesting, thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts to my questions.

snafupants · Feb 29, 2012

BigApplePi said:
All who are ambiguous pleez raise yo hands.

Hollah!

Auburn · Feb 29, 2012

This thread's gotten too long for me to reply properly to but I'll address a few points.

But why wouldn't it make sense? Even an operating system could rewrite parts or all of itself if it is set up to. Some people believe pain removes our associations, causing new associations, and possibly even mindsets of loose association or dissocation. Do you think these mindsets are type-related?

I confess my ignorance regarding the brain's precise programming or the limits of it's ability to reprogram itself. However, you can't change a computer's operating system without completely cleaning free everything that was there before. You can't change a person's brain type midway through life -- you'd have to start again from zero.

And this is a living brain we're talking about. I suspect it isn't as flexible as a literal computer harddrive. A computer drive can be erased; cleaned out dozens of times. But the brain cannot. It builds it's connections in the form of living neuron cells. And, assuming the hypothesis of formulaic brain rhythms is correct - since day 1, the brain is forming those neural pathways in accordance to the rhythm of that formula.

It makes more sense to say that the brain learns how to adapt the assets it has, to manage the environment it is placed in -- than to say the brain switched operating systems suddenly when it realizes a different mode would better suit it's environment.

Um.. but on a less abstract and more down to earth note, I've seen people whose personality type is completely delirious for their situation. To the point where it would be soooo much better for their health if they had a different personality type - but instead of them changing to something more adept, they simply become stressed/gripped/distorted.

No matter how much stress a person is under, I've not yet met anyone whose been able to transcend their innate wiring. Even Lyra, who attempted such experimentation with us here before still was doing it from the same rhythm and remains the same type even now.

Auburn · Feb 29, 2012

And where would you place pathos? Assuming logic is analogous to logos for you, it's interesting that ethics is considered the opposite of logic.

Actually, I will have to correct myself on this one..
Aristotle defined Ethos, Logos, Pathos as forms of rhetoric -- which is to say, presentation and persuasion. Such terms apply best to Te & Fe exclusively. So if we had to use words..

Te: Logos
Fe: Ethos/Pathos
Ti: Logic
Fi: Ethic

That is as close as I could match up the words, but it's not a perfect fit. The meaning of the words would have to be updated to accomodate for the new understandings, if we were to maintain the same terms. I believe they are similar *enough* that essentially, the ancients were talking about the same thing as we are now, so it may be worth keeping.

Logos and Ethos/Pathos involve the presentation of reasoning and the impact on the audience. Logic and Ethic remain defined as philosophies of judgment making, not necessarily tied at all to presentation or outer movement.

I.. hope that answers that question. o.q

Artsu Tharaz · Feb 29, 2012

If Ethos and Pathos are both Fe then why did Aristotle distinguish them (and why not also have a counterpart to Logos)?

Ethos = persuading the audience based on how they feel towards things
Pathos = persuading the audience to feel as you feel
Logos = persuasion via logically reasoned argument

Is this due to the nature of Feeling being an interpersonal reasoning function and hence having a "yours, mine" aspect to it, whereas Thought is considered more absolute, having only a "this" aspect?

Auburn · Feb 29, 2012

Um, from this site: http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/webclass/web/project1/group4/

Rhetoric (n) - the art of speaking or writing effectively. (Webster's Definition) According to Aristotle, rhetoric is "the ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion." He described three main forms of rhetoric: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos.
In order to be a more effective writer, you must understand these three terms. This site will help you to better understand their meanings and show you how to make your writing more persuasive.

Ethos

Ethos is appeal based on the character of the speaker. An ethos-driven document relies on the reputation of the author.

Go to an example of an ethos-based site, and our explanation of what it is.

Logos

Logos is appeal based on logic or reason. Documents distributed by companies or corporations are logos-driven. Scholarly documents are also often logos-driven.

Go to an example of an logos-based site, and our explanation.

Pathos

Pathos is appeal based on emotion. Advertisements tend to be pathos-driven.

Different sites define them differently, but this and others define Ethos as appeal based on reputation. So for instance, the King is to be believed over a peasant simply because he is the king - even if his emotional appeal or logic isn't up to par.

This is still in the realm of Fe. It is an Fe dynamic to give more credence to things that are culturally established. A king is merely a memetic embodiment which is respected above others because the culture has mutually agreed on that decision. Not respecting the king is a taboo to Fe; against protocol.

Fe is intimately involved in the creation of social orders/heirachies - such as, for example, honorifics. If Ethos is the respecting of a person's reasoning due to their social relation to you, then that is Fe. And of course Pathos is undoubtedly Fe.

As to why Aristotle chose to divide them, I don't know.. but I don't really see it as being too relevant. The definitions still apply to what they do. Perhaps he isolated Pathos strictly to emotionally-charged speech, not realizing that adherence to Ethos is still caused by the emotional impact the presentor has on the audience by their mere relation to you.

Edit: In fact, Ethos seems to be an embodiment of the ad hominem fallacy. But nonetheless it is still used as a tactic of persuasion most everywhere.

GYX_Kid · Feb 29, 2012

Auburn said:
Different sites define them differently, but this and others define Ethos as appeal based on reputation. So for instance, the King is to be believed over a peasant simply because he is the king - even if his emotional appeal or logic isn't up to par.

This is still in the realm of Fe. It is an Fe dynamic to give more credence to things that are culturally established. A king is merely a memetic embodiment which is respected above others because the culture has mutually agreed on that decision. Not respecting the king is a taboo to Fe; against protocol.

Fe is intimately involved in the creation of social orders/heirachies - such as, for example, honorifics. If Ethos is the respecting of a person's reasoning due to their social relation to you, then that is Fe. And of course Pathos is undoubtedly Fe.

Edit: In fact, Ethos seems to be an embodiment of the ad hominem fallacy. But nonetheless it is still used as a tactic of persuasion most everywhere.

You sure that's more Fe than Si+Fi?

Artsu Tharaz · Mar 1, 2012

Edit: In fact, Ethos seems to be an embodiment of the Ad_hominem
fallacy. But nonetheless it is still used as a tactic of persuasion most everywhere. __________________

A fallacy is a -logical- fallacy yes? i.e. to imply that something follows logically when this is not the case. But if you are trying to appeal to one's morals, isn't logic beside the point?

I would imagine you could devise a list of "moral fallacies", wherein a logical argument is being used to invalidly suggest an answer to a moral problem (much of science may circum to this).

--

To add a counterpart to Logos, it may be that on the one hand there is the conveyance of your logical argument, to have the audience Think as you Think. On the other hand, there is an appeal based on the personal objectives of the audience - saying, rather than something going against social protocol, that it goes against -your- protocol.

maybe:

Ethos: Fe persuading Fe (this is in line with the social protocol)
Pathos: Fe persuading Fi (cannot you feel the disharmony?)
Logos a): Te persuading Ti (is this view not inaccurate?)
Logos b): Te persuading Te (this is certainly more efficient)

Auburn · Mar 1, 2012

A fallacy is a -logical- fallacy yes? i.e. to imply that something follows logically when this is not the case. But if you are trying to appeal to one's morals, isn't logic beside the point?

I would imagine you could devise a list of "moral fallacies", wherein a logical argument is being used to invalidly suggest an answer to a moral problem (much of science may circum to this).

That's a neat point, yeah. =P
I'm inclined to agree.

To add a counterpart to Logos, it may be that on the one hand there is the conveyance of your logical argument, to have the audience Think as you Think. On the other hand, there is an appeal based on the personal objectives of the audience - saying, rather than something going against social protocol, that it goes against -your- protocol.

maybe:

Ethos: Fe persuading Fe (this is in line with the social protocol)
Pathos: Fe persuading Fi (cannot you feel the disharmony?)
Logos a): Te persuading Ti (is this view not inaccurate?)
Logos b): Te persuading Te (this is certainly more efficient)

Hehehe.

Well, that's a neat way to put it. But what exactly are we getting at here?

So if we had to use words.. (..) That is as close as I could match up the words, but it's not a perfect fit.

I was using those terms um, as an example to try to explain a concept. However, as we see it isn't a perfect fit, and I see now it's even less of a fit that I imagined. =/

When Aristotle created those words he didn't know about cog.functions nor was thinking about being consistent with them in the formation of his concepts. So it's futile to get too caught up in the semantics of trying to cross-label two systems of classification that were created independently and don't necessarily refer to the same thing.

I think taking these sort of routes/tangents ultimately leads to more confusion than clarity. It leads no closer to authentic Understanding, even if one does manage to match up some labels or whathaveyou.

Maybe it's just fun to entertain in one's mind how two things compare, but I suppose I get tired of not making progress. Progress requires drawing closer to Reality, rather than swimming in hypotheticals forever.

Artsu Tharaz · Mar 1, 2012

Hehehe.

Well, that's a neat way to put it. But what exactly are we getting at here?

No idea

just saying what comes to mind. I don't expect it to come closer to what Aristotle meant, so much as being a springboard for a different notion. I was just picturing how you would use a different mode of persuasion based on who it is you're talking to, that you would communicate your message in a fundamentally different way if you were appealing to someone who sees things like you do or someone who is seeing things from the other side. You could then give ascribe symbols to these notions. (the names for the kinds of Rhetoric being presumed as only stand in terms, not literal correspondance)

scorpiomover · Mar 13, 2012

BigApplePi said:
@scorpiomover I read part of what you've said, but wanted to ask you about the above while I have the opportunity as there is much else in your post.

Tried to reply earlier. My Ti kept changing what I wrote. Needed time to process.

For me, when I say I understand, it is Ne operating. (Example: I understand the square root of two is an irrational number is a theorem.) When I say I understand, it's because I have a whole picture I can trust because I've checked out the details of how that whole picture was arrived at and I can recheck them at will. (That is, I have ready access to the logical proof of the above theorem.)

My Ti checks out all the reasons why something MIGHT go wrong, even before I've had an idea to check. Any new Ne idea, is then also checked against the Ti, and builds up more reasons why Ti will go, until it passes.

That's what mathematicians do when proving a theorem like irrational numbers. First, you develop the reasoning, that shows when a square root can't be a rational number, anything that has an odd power of a prime number. Then you notice that 2 is a really easy example of such a number.

So I think Ti finds all the reasons why something might not be right. Then Ne finds an example from the real world, that passes all the potential hazards, points of failure, found by Ti.

That way takes me a long time to get out all the Ti potential hazards. But once I find a single Ne example that does pass Ti, then I find another, and another, and another, in micro-seconds. I can then check almost anything against my Ti criteria.

Like writing out a checklist of things to check for. Takes a long time to put all the things on the list that matter, and to scratch out the things that everyone thinks should matter, but doesn't. Once the checklist is complete, then checking out if a certain idea passes the checklist, is nothing more than ticking boxes. If it all checks out, then it works. If not, I can see on my checklist what boxes weren't ticked. So I know what to fix. Easy and extremely quick.

So I'd be inclined to say, that my Ti provides all the reasoning, that shows why something wouldn't work. Without Ne, though, I don't have any real-world examples of things going right, just a lot of negatives with nothing to show for it. So I'd say that you understand using Ti. But to explain it to someone else, takes a concrete example, and for that, you need Ne.

Besides, Ne is the extroverted function. The extroverted function is what everyone else sees in our reasoning. According to INTJs, we look like we are jumping all over the place, throwing ideas out at random, like a kid on speed. "Is this a good idea?" "Is this a good idea?" "Is this a good idea?"

What usually happens in my life, is that when I say an idea, either most people immediately point out something really obvious, that I missed, that convinced them that it was all just a castle built on air, and about 50% of the time they are right, or they say it's spot on, and it's eerily accurate. It's been that way since I could remember. So I can see what they are talking about.

But inside, everything feels as if it is being carefully planned out. Even my unplanned comments look like they were part of some carefully controlled master plan. But it's not coming from insight. It feels like everything was well-thought-out, just not by me, by my subconscious.

So I'm wondering, am I experiencing Ti Ne very clearly? Or am I wrong and am experiencing Ni Te because the N to others is vague and seen as Ni and should I spit out a very clear proof, that is Te? Or does it depend on what type I am? Is Si/Se involved here somewhere? I suppose the proof is Si Fe!

Perhaps I'm asking too many Q's,

I think Perceptive functions propose ideas, that they find pros to believe in, and Judging functions veto them, that they find reasons to reject them, cons.

In the INTJ, it's straightforwards, Perceive, then Judge it one's perceptions are right.

In the INTP, it's the other way around. Our Juding function is before our Perceiving function. How can you judge an idea you haven't got yet?

That's why I think in the INTP, the Ti has to start as a general veto function, listing out all the possible reasons one MIGHT veto something to do with that topic. Once done, then the Ne simply asks the Ti if any of those reasons give it reason to veto the idea. If not, it's a go. If the Ti is SURE that no possible reason COULD give me reason to not do it, then it's a sure-fire winner. Least, that's how I tend to feel about the idea.

but how would an INTJ experience the above or should I try to answer that myself later?

INTJs describe their Ni as being like some kind of mystical orb that they can see, which they head towards. They see their Ni as telling them which direction to go in, and their Te takes them there. They have a VERY mystical attitude to their Ni. Claim to not even understand it, just are able to use it. Mind you, I realised just recently, that I have the same relationship to my Ti. I know that if something is wrong, it will probably tell me what is wrong, at some point. I also know from experience, that often, the Ti will tell me if something is RIGHT. But it won't do that when I want it to. I really don't have much of a clue when my Ti will say that an idea is right. It's like I have this computer in my head, that takes inputs, but only throws out answers when it wants. Mind of its own. Ghost in the machine.

Also, they said that their Ni is always on, throwing out ideas all of the time, just like our Ti is always on, keeping us always thinking.

Seem to be a lot of similarities with introverted dominant functions.

Philosophyking87 · Mar 13, 2012

snafupants said:
This was a pretty interesting and useful, if juvenilely didactic, way of viewing the eight dominant functions. The example relates to how each type would approach erecting a fence. You mileage may vary on what you take away from this little thought exercise.

Ne - I want to design the fence.

Ni - Why do they want to do this and what is the deal with fences anyway? Is this necessary?

Se - I want to decorate the fence and make sure that it looks stylish and appealing

Si - I’ll take care of looking at the instructions and making sure that we follow the established guidlines.

Te - Is doing this cost effective? Will it be useful?

Ti - I want to analyze the structure and placement of the fence.

Fe - How will it affect the neighborhood, and what will the neighbors think?

Fi - I want it to be my own special fence that I can share with others over time

Yeah, so when you put Ti and Ne together, you can an intelligent freak who wants to both analyze and design the world around them.

Mello · Mar 13, 2012

Ego masturbation contest in this thread.

I don't really see anyone asking questions other than to support their own biased views. ;p

xbox · Mar 22, 2012

Minuend said:
Without reading the thread at all; Ni people are crazy and obsessive. Ne people are weird.

Ni will try to influence your opinion. Ne will just run around in circles looking for wheat

I was able to understand this post and no other.

Reluctantly · Mar 22, 2012

^ Well that proves your reading comprehension is at least 1st grade level. I guess that's a start.

snafupants · Mar 22, 2012

Reluctantly said:
^ Well that proves your reading comprehension is at least 1st grade level. I guess that's a start.

Too true!

Reluctantly · Mar 22, 2012

Mello said:
Ego masturbation contest in this thread.

I don't really see anyone asking questions other than to support their own biased views. ;p

Perhaps. But that's the paradox, isn't it? The functional processes don't mean anything specific outside of their philosophical form, but are a representation of the relationship between opposing aspects of existence, while at the same time a metaphysical filter (or bias if you prefer that word) on that existence; we fill in the causation and details of its expression due to our experiences and intellectual capability.

But to understand a complete and accurate concept of the self, one also has to understand the self's paradoxical nature with the rest of existence, to understand that existence as both something you are fully integrated in and yet still separate. This requires a great awareness that logic can not give or create on its own; this transcends functional processes and yet is required to fully understand them.

A person that truly understands the functional processes, in effect, has no type, but an awareness of them-self that they can appreciate through the functional processes; they see that what has been, doesn't have to be what will be and acknowledge this inherent freedom they were given at birth; but so too do they well understand the forms of their metaphysical being.

Ego masturbation is, in the process of learning these concepts, to be expected to a degree. Whether a person is willing to investigate past that ego is not really something you're arguably in any higher position to condescend, however unfortunate it is that others might prefer to believe rather than investigate an understanding.

xbox · Mar 23, 2012

guess there's no such thing as a joke on this forum!
I've been trying to understand the functions myself in other threads lol

Reluctantly · Mar 23, 2012

xbox said:
guess there's no such thing as a joke on this forum!
I've been trying to understand the functions myself in other threads lol

That's what my reply was. You didn't find it funny?

scorpiomover · Mar 28, 2012

Reluctantly said:
The only problem I can see with this is that you're suggesting an INTJ is a planner and strategist; but then you mention E-sim and I-sim, suggesting that Ni is responsible for the planning and strategizing.
I'm not sure this makes sense given that Ni isn't supposed to be a function that does this. Its processing is not inherently rational; and Te, being rational, is more about the intent of successful execution. Te, in particular, doesn't need to necessarily know how best to do something or even have a plan, but have an idea how to attempt to reach an overall successful execution and adapt that execution as necessary to be successful. I think this is what introverts find narrow-minded about Te; because it can run blind in many respects and create a lot of problems in doing so.

Te is a judging function. If it develops a plan or a strategy, then it isn't JUDGING if a plan or a strategy is right or wrong. Plus, if it does develop a plan/strategy, then it will always consider its own plan/strategy to be right, and so its ideas would never get judged for their efficiency.

However, if Ni invents a vague plan, then Te can follow the plan through, in the INTJ's mind, and can judge at each stage, if there is a viable way forward or not. If not, then Ni can invent another possibility, that might take one to the next stage, and then Te can again check that one out, and see if it works. If Ni & Te work in this way, Ni basically feeding Te with the possible ways that one can go forward to the next step, and Te judging which ones are really viable, then by the end of the process, Te has gone from start to destination, and in the process, has an exact route of how to get there.

I just want to say that I personally find what you've written here to be very Ni, although I don't know how to reason to you why unless you tell me how you believe that doesn't make sense.

I've been thinking and mulling over this stuff for years. It's quite developed by this point. To an INTJ, it can look like Ni, because it's reached solid Ne.

However, where they differ, is how they explain their ideas.

INTJs often say stuff like "X is a good idea. Here is why." If the reasoning is rejected, the INTJ comes up with another, often entirely different reason, to do X. INTPs often say "On the topic under discussion, there is this problem, and this problem, and this problem, and this problem. But if we do Z, then all those problems are solved." Then if someone points out that there is another alternative, then the INTP either points out that this was another alternative that he'd considered, but is basically a variant of Z, and so covered under Z, or will explain that this was another alternative that he had considered, but he already found it was non-viable, because of the problems he already mentioned, and so didn't feel that he needed to specifically point out that it wouldn't work, as that would have been evident from the problems he'd already mentioned.

INTJs tend to speak like Ni-Te, giving their hypothesis first, and the reasons why others should accept their hypothesis, only after. INTPs tend to speak like Ti-Ne, beginning by giving all the problems of why a solution might not work, and then giving an unexpected solution, that will solve all those problems in one go.

Personally, if you don't think the functions represent cognitive processes, then your idea of types has nothing to do with the idea Jung intended because that's what he aimed at doing. And that's fine, of course, and you may have an interesting theory if you want to elaborate on it further, but then we have to be careful about the difference in what we each mean by Ti, Fi, Ni, etc.

It depends on what you think that "cognitive processes" mean. Personally, I believe that cognitive processes have to correspond to both the physical nature of the brain, and have to be completely consistent with the behaviour of every person with the same design of brain, basically everything every human has ever done, from the beginning of time right to today.

Jung seemed to think that each person could be defined by 1 function alone. Myers and Briggs seemed to classify people according to their distinctions. However, most people seem to define themselves by a combination of TWO types. Also, Ti, for instance, doesn't distinguish between INTPs and ISTPs. Yet, they are clearly very different in their cognitive processes. Thus, my conclusion is that what people call a "cognitive process", is much more like a real process, either physical or mental, like an assembly line, or IT development, where several components are combined in a specific order, because that particular sequence is very good at achieving the desired result.

Ti is a function. Ne is a function. Ti->Ne is a cognitive process.

/rant
This is what I believe the unconscious is laid out to partly explain.
I kind of think Jung intended for types to be utilized as "containers" for evaluating all the possibilities of what you're talking about. Because I know some people think this means the theory is flawed just because we can't explain people deterministically, and well no it's not that simple; we can still use logic to explain non-deterministic properties of reality and retain usefulness.

Read Jung's Psychological Types online. On every type, he describes the types of personality disorders they are prone to. Jung himself said in the interview on Youtube, that to understand something, one must understand its historical context.

He was a psychologist, trying to treat patients. The field of diagnosis and treatment of mental illness is known to be one of the most inaccurate and having incredibly low success rates. For instance, the most successful field in psychology is the last few years, is CBT. It has a 30% success rate, and that's considered the best they've ever had. Lobotomies also have a 30% success rate. Even in studies, it was discovered that mentally ill people have better diagnostic skills than mental health professionals with over 30 years of experience.

When you consider just how hard it is to diagnose psychological disorders correctly, and that for each type that he describes, he describes a psychological disorder, a pattern springs to mind, that the two are connected, and that Jung's intention was to find a classification system that would reflect what psychological disorders one would be most prone to.

He also discusses the subconscious for each of these "psychological types", and how the subconscious acts very specifically in relation to each type, with rather a high degree of rigidity.

N isn't really that vague, imo, it's just that people are vague in explaining it without even really knowing what it is they are explaining. Some people are more convincing bull-shiters because they've already convinced themselves they are something or someone without having any idea why. This is a really annoying logical fallacy (Proof by Verbosity) that even extremely intelligent people fall prey too in their laziness.

I'd LOVE to hear you describe some irrational Ni ideas, without any connection to rational Te explanation, and yet still make them clear. So far, all I have from INTJs and INFJs is descriptions of images of Ni, and even they said that was an explanation, as the actual intuition could only be experienced from within.

Right, but this doesn't really apply to the unconscious of psychological types. These things don't really affect how we process the world because we can take them for granted for the most part without any repercussions.

You might be able to ignore them. But I tend to find that when I do that, nearly everyone seems to be almost completely bat-shit irrational, and INTJs and INFJs the most of all. However, when I throw in the subconscious as a subconscious complement to the concious MBTI type, then suddenly INTJs make a lot of sense, and so do most people.

Again, interesting theory, but if you're use of the functions isn't about cognitive processing, we need to be careful about the different meanings employed in the functions. I can't really say anything about your meanings unless you flesh a complete theory for critique and make it clear how they differ from cognitive processes. But interesting, thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts to my questions.

I've only written a tiny bit of my overall theory. But it takes a lot to convince me that I actually have a theory that is worth putting out there in its entirely, for others to read and review. Also, thanks for the thanks. It is appreciated.

Ni and Ne

Redshirt

Banned

Luftschloss Schöpfer

Banned

Banned

Prolific Member

Banned

Prolific Member

Redshirt

Prolific Member

Member

Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

Prolific Member

Member

Prolific Member

The little professor

Banned

Luftschloss Schöpfer

Banned

Resident disMember

Prolific Member

Luftschloss Schöpfer

Luftschloss Schöpfer

The Lamb

Luftschloss Schöpfer

randomly floating abyss built of bricks

The Lamb

Luftschloss Schöpfer

The Lamb

The little professor

It Thinks For Itself

Gone.

Prolific Member

Resident disMember

Prolific Member

Resident disMember

Prolific Member

Resident disMember

The little professor