Intuition & Feeling the Same?

[StevenM]

It seems to me that the intuition and feeling (cognitive functions) could be almost the exact same except that one is a judging function, and the other a perceiving. And maybe the same for the sensing and thinking function.

The S + T : They have more cognizance. More aware and clear of the details. Slower processing when getting from point A - Z, from consciously working in analysis. Building proofs and understanding with each step when working to point Z.

The N + F : Much less aware of the processing, which seems to happen unconsciously gathering a more whole perspective. Much more reliance on the background processes that we can't tap into, but are very quick at getting from point A - Z. Because the process is subconscious, can't recall the steps made when reaching to Z.

Spoiler

Example : Upon meeting someone, in the first moment, you get a bad impression of the them. The background processes went from point A-Z without you even understanding why. (Intuition and Feeling). Perhaps the whole background calculations gathered a huge amount of information of everything and made it's most best snap-judgement.

With more cognizance, you'd look into the details to try and come to the same conclusion, but with better proof, and clearer step by step reasoning. This way, you'd understand and be able to recall the whole journey from A-Z

So somewhat similar to the 'fast thinking' vs 'slow thinking', or creative right vs analytical left brain.

This would define the cognitive functions in 3 binary dimensions:

Introverted vs Extroverted.
Cognizance vs Intuition.
Judging vs Percieving.

All combinations equating to 8 cognitive functions. To tell apart the analytical functions, they would be defined either by percieving or judging.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think you're on to something.

Intuition and Feeling seem similar to me as well, it was Socionics that introduced the idea to me that S/T are related as are N/F, but I think it's a convincing idea in any model.

Indeed N/F would seem to have a stronger connection to the subconscious nonverbal processes, intuition grabs images and episodes from one's experiences and lets them ferment in the mysterious vessel of the mind irregularly producing meaningful and innovative ideas, feeling on the other hand through learned and ingrained interpretation is able to notice data such as facial and body gestures, vocabulary use, and tone with more subtlety to infer intangible information like social contexts, appropriateness, interpersonal attitudes, and inner emotional content.

I would consider Feeling to be a posteriori comprehension, but still on the nonverbal wavelength as Intuition where the processes are data heavy but the details are not so easy to be consciously verbalized, they're something one must experience for themselves and even then it's not necessarily understood.

On the other hand, if I consider Sensing I get the impression that it's a function which seeks to wholly appreciate its experiences to the fullest extent which includes exploratory immersion without protest and attentive absorption of the subject. Thinking also laboring itself in the details which are explicitly available to anyone else, to reach algorithmic conclusions and to examine willfully examine lines of reasoning. Both functions start with external and immediate data and their processes are also able to be verbalized.


To bring it back to what you were saying, I don't know if N/F or S/T are by themselves slow or fast in processing, I think the Introvert-Extravert dimensions would be significant factors. However I suggest the terms instinctive for N/F and deliberate for S/T, Intuition or Feeling may be fast or slow in processing but they are instinctive in that a person practically "just knows" and doesn't have much control over the processes, and Sensing or Thinking may be fast or slow in processing but they are deliberate in that a person has control and awareness of the processes each step of the way.

To borrow from Socionics terminology, we could also call N/F internal and S/T external.

 

[QuickTwist]

This seems like a conscious vs. unconscious thought and tying them into some MBTI category for a base to the architecture and with this architecture it brings a platform for understanding. IDK personally. I think some people have more of an aptitude for making conscious decisions while others rely on the subconscious to make judgments. Like some people observe and then act/change according to that observation and others do not think things through with the same consciousness...

 

[Brontosaurie]

yup onto something.

but there is a similarity the other way too

F&S are strongly related to habit and trust. T&N are more detached and prone to conclusions which may challenge status quo.

 

[8151147]

No.
T/F: judging function. F people doesn't mean that they are less judging or perceiving than us. F is similar to T, they just focus on people, relationships and bad/good, beauty/ugly...

N/S: perceiving function. S doesn't mean they are more judging than N. They just stick to the tradition, old but work(in some situations). N seek and adapt to new trend, new things and have better chance to work in a restless change environment.

that's their difference. If you truly understand the concept, the relate-flash back from your Ne is unnecessary.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

yup onto something.

but there is a similarity the other way too

F&S are strongly related to habit and trust. T&N are more detached and prone to conclusions which may challenge status quo.

These pairs are more interesting imo. In the classic meaning of 'feeling', I would say Sensing and Feeling are both related to the same phenomenon in that they are the part of cognition that actively connects to the world in a stimulus-response fashion. Feeling ultimately results in preferences for certain stimuli (habits, relationships, interests, art favorites), while Sensing urges to satiate impulses, seek passionate experiences, and partake in ever exquisite forms of enjoyment/sensory arousal. SF types then would be the most 'lively' or 'expressive', the most affected by emotions.

How T and N relate should be pretty obvious if you've been on type forums for awhile, detached existence indeed and more observant of environment than being affected by it / involved in it.

No.
T/F: judging function. F people doesn't mean that they are less judging or perceiving than us. F is similar to T, they just focus on people, relationships and bad/good, beauty/ugly...

N/S: perceiving function. S doesn't mean they are more judging than N. They just stick to the tradition, old but work(in some situations). N seek and adapt to new trend, new things and have better chance to work in a restless change environment.

that's their difference. If you truly understand the concept, the relate-flash back from your Ne is unnecessary.

A man and woman are alike in that they're both humans or adults, but then also a man and boy / woman and girl are alike in that each pair are male or female.

Can't we say the same for functions?

 

[8151147]

A man and woman are alike in that they're both humans or adults, but then also a man and boy / woman and girl are alike in that each pair are male or female.

Can't we say the same for functions?

But what's for? I can read your mind and the others who have the same as yours. Because it happened to me in my past.

You really don't need to change the way of your thinking or viewing unless it serve for a certain purpose. In this case, the OP means are just another way of expressing how his shallow understanding. But if we truly understand it, deeply understand it please, the rest is unnecessary. Just skip and ignore what doesn't direct help you understanding.

And in this case again, N or S is more likely a complex combination of T and F to me, rather than N/F vs T/S

 

[Brontosaurie]

8151147: i think you're the one being shallow. that frenzied reassertion of basic typology distinctions which others are questioning...

but i don't mind. now tell me about "relate-flash back from Ne" please.

 

[computerhxr]

What if all functions are the same? They just react to different inputs, and output to different protocols for interpretation.

Dream analysis for example can be interpreted abstractly as your body's way of sending you a message. You just have to know how to translate and have a history (or narrative) to be able to make a reasonable interpretation.

The archetypes are like major categories of cognition. They also have sub categories, and sub-sub categories as well as other nervous systems and chemicals interacting with them.

 

[8151147]

8151147: i think you're the one being shallow. that frenzied reassertion of basic typology distinctions which others are questioning...

just stick to MBTI document. Many people (and most INTPs) won't understand deeply MBTI cognitive functions at first because of Ti. Put your heart on understanding, not exploitation from Ti.

but i don't mind. now tell me about "relate-flash back from Ne" please.

Maybe I'm not good at using correctly words to express my mean, but what I was talking about is the difference between Ne and Ni.

They are both perceiving cognitive functions. They collects information, absorb knowledge and hidden meaning, generate ideas, and so on... The difference is the way they focus on, Ne focus to external world while Ni focus to inner world.

Ne use "flash-back" memories to group information into idea, it's similar to the way Se focus on. They create small ideas from a big idea. They quickly react to environment and that's why Ne people generally have good sense of humor, witty, smart... But they can't know what will be true, because of N-Extrovert, too many possibility cases to know what is true. Ne is "maybe".

Meanwhile Ni is far better at deeply understanding. They recognize inner pattern of situations or objects. They build big idea from smaller ideas. They don't react to environment like Ne, but inner world. And while Ne struggled to find the answer of a complex concept, Ni already know it at the first glance. They don't use flash back but enlightenment. Ni is "sure be".

INTPs are very smart because of Ti. Ti is like a dangerous hacker, they find the bug quickly and exploit it, it's like "fake understanding". But you can only obtain small and short things from Ti, not big dreams and big goals if you don't put your heart and passion on it.

Back to the thread, I don't critique the OP but point out it's just his "another way" to understand cognitive functions concept. Oh god why, it's just waste of time... Just spend time on reading MBTI original document, they already built it for us, what we need to do is absorb it.

 

[StevenM]

I was having a hard time explaining what I mean (more than usual). I've been under the gun lately, (and still am).

No.
T/F: judging function. F people doesn't mean that they are less judging or perceiving. F is similar to T

S doesn't mean they are more judging than N.

I wasn't trying to convey that.

For sure, both the 'thinking', and 'feeling' functions are judging functions.

And 'sensing' and 'intuition', perceiving.

So, so far, we have them categorized like that:

I was suggesting another dimension, that separates them further:

Then you can seperate them further into a third dimension (Introverted/Subjective vs Extroverted/Objective)

I believe both thinking + sensing are alike, in that they are both concerned with analysis.

"Analysis - the division of a physical or abstract whole into its constituent parts to examine or determine their relationship or value."

Which in comparison, would make feeling and intuition a part of it's opposite - 'synthesis'

Synthesis - the combining of the constituent elements of separate material or abstract entities into a single or unified entity

Even though that seems to describe just the perceiving functions, I believe it also happens similarly with the judging functions as well. Just instead of gathering information in that manner, it's organizing information.

I don't know if N/F or S/T are by themselves slow or fast in processing, I think the Introvert-Extravert dimensions would be significant factors. However I suggest the terms instinctive for N/F and deliberate for S/T,

To borrow from Socionics terminology, we could also call N/F internal and S/T external.

You're right, and I shouldn't be quick to say that one is a slower process than the other. Also about it being conscious/unconscious, I think I'd prefer to leave that out of it for now.

About the one being faster than the other, I meant intuition/feeling coming up with a 'perception' or 'judgement' really quick. While the thinking/sensing generally taking more time to actually run through the process with more scrutiny.

About 'feeling' being compassionate and caring - > I'm not sure why there's a correlation between those. Not every 'F' type is empathic, and every 'T' type is cruel?

Ignoring that, I'll tend to refer feeling not as

"I feel you", but more

"I have a feeling that....." or "I feel that...". Which kind of infers that a person has made a perception or judgement, but hasn't fully comprehended how. When asked "Why do you have that feeling?" this would call upon 'sensing' and 'thinking' to recall the whole process of what was perceived, and how and why they judged it so. Or otherwise, taking the synthesized product, and breaking it down into analysis.

yup onto something.

but there is a similarity the other way too

F&S are strongly related to habit and trust. T&N are more detached and prone to conclusions which may challenge status quo.

When talking about 'detached', what are we considering? Detached from... people? From the self?

I believe the extroverted attitude itself is more detached from the self. And introverts, detached from others.

When it comes to challenging status quo, I also think that comes from subjective interpretations. Being objective might be more aligned with status quo, or at least creating it.

Also, I'm not sure if I'll consider all sensors 'trusting', and all feelers 'habitual'.

************************

Adding on to this:

I'm just going to define things a bit better:

Objective -> Impersonal, a stance from outside of the individual. Seeks consensus yet ignores confliction.

Subjective -> Personal and involved with individual experience. A stance within the self. Ignoring consensus.

Perceiving -> The gathering and collecting of unorganized, raw information. Unstructured, and irrational (unjudged information).

Judging -> The organizing, evaluating, structuring, interpreting, rationalizing (making sense of) information. Non - perceiving.

Analysis -> Formal. Deliberate, and aware. Sanctioned, thorough and careful. Breaking things down into more complex elements. More concern of the actual process, not the end result.

Synthesis -> Casual. Allowing the process without intention or control. Abstracts (summarizes) large amounts of detail quickly, and more concern is put on the end result, rather than the process of getting there.

---------------------------

So the above just describes the functions themselves, not the behavior of an individual (which we'll get to later). So defining the 8 functions:

Ti - Analytic, subjective judging.

Ne - Synthetic, objective perceiving.

Si - Analytic, subjective perceiving.

Fe - Synthetic, objective judging.

Te - Analytic, objective judging.

Ni - Synthetic, subjective perceiving.

Se - Analytic, objective perceiving.

Fi - Synthetic, subjective judging.

 

[8151147]

I wasn't trying to convey that.

For sure, both the 'thinking', and 'feeling' functions are judging functions.

And 'sensing' and 'intuition', perceiving.

I was suggesting another dimension, that separates them further:

Then you can seperate them further into a third dimension (Introverted/Subjective vs Extroverted/Objective)

I believe both thinking + sensing are alike, in that they are both concerned with analysis.

can you refer some references to that third dimension, or are they just your raw ideas?

 

[StevenM]

can you refer some references to that third dimension, or are they just your raw ideas?

The third dimension just breaks those 4 above into Introverted and extroverted, making 8 all together.

Like a cube made of 8 smaller cubes.

The 4 on the left, percieving. On the right, judging.

On the top, analysis. On the bottom, synthesis.

At the front, extroverted. The four on the back, introverted.

 

[8151147]

So basically it's just your rough ideas, and as I mention in previous post it is Ne. I actually like new ideas but with small ideas and no aiming for building from small ideas to a big system concept, it's just waste of time, aimlessness.

Keep develop your idea to further, don't mind me. I know what is in your mind anyway.

 

[AbstractCanvas]

What if all functions are the same? They just react to different inputs, and output to different protocols for interpretation.

The archetypes are like major categories of cognition. They also have sub categories, and sub-sub categories as well as other nervous systems and chemicals interacting with them.

beginning to think the same thing. we take in so much information all the time from everything deriving our understanding from things which are all linked (within the same line of perception) and thus lead to similar conclusions. i'm very fund of the idea of a ripple effect. subtle changes affect things on levels we can barely comprehend.

fellow user "nanook" made a post a month back about the psychological concepts of stages of development and vision logic within which he summed things up pretty nicely as i also see them, stating that "every single interpersonal conflict, every culture, every political or philosophical argument is the expression of a particular level of integration, of organized complexity." the functions are just an expression of this organised complexity (which some refer to as "the matrix" although it's loosely used to define many more things aswell). the more you understand the complexity, the less it is defined (not put into a constricting conceptual box. understanding is more of an embodiment of information. you experience it you live it and it's something that becomes real for you.) and the less distinction is derived between the functions. based on this theory it would be very possible to switch from high conscious use of one function to another (i.e. switching your dominant function or any others). this organised complexity also (based on personal experiences) seems to be partially socially defined which i believe to be largely an "ego" construct. if the organized complexity itself is socially defined then the functions (our expression of that abstraction) act as valuable interpretations. even though some types appear less useful than others (e.g. i'd say in western societies, NT types prove more useful and authoritative than NF types regarding growth and the direction of movements in society largely via science and systems of communication and rationalization since we have a general preference for the objective thinking with regard to aiding universal understanding), since functions exist as a result of something socially defined, all types exist because they are uniquely useful puzzle pieces which we feel are necessary to exist and useful. hierarchies of functions or types are therefore a reflection of a rejection of our understandings in favor of conceptualizations formed on some level of ignorance. Finding a stable society that exists by fulfilling the needs of all types is a weird way of proving ourselves right about our needs. just a theory based on lot of opinions.

that theory aside it'd be useful to know more about how functional combinations differ. i'd say my biggest intuitions (conforming to a specific and general view of intuition here) mostly come when i flick the empathy switch on and go into a state of high empathy so they're often Fi activated. these intuitions are usually"psychic" (much like the famous NF moments) and are not based around feelings, emotions or assumptions i'm aware of and they become the overwhelmingly dominant sense. i'm not consciously aware if they are not linked to anything i've previously known or experienced (absolutely not linked to things experience within the same time period) and seem entirely based on themselves. this is not typical of how Ne is seen to work. i think there is a correlation but the cause of "psychic intuitions", "aha moments" and "big picture understandings" etc has less to do with the intuition functions defined by keirsey and more to do with the general unconscious interpretations of one's boundaries (which is not the same thing). in other words, Si could be just as much the source of intuition as Ni so perhaps our interpretations of these correlations don't reflect the truth. every type has their own form of intuition and N functions are a misrepresentation of the totality of intuition. another theory.

 

[Architect]

What if all functions are the same? They just react to different inputs, and output to different protocols for interpretation.

Then they're not the same, right? Unless you mean its one process reacting differently to different information streams, but I'm not sure if thats more than a semantic distinction.

Functions are the brains way of filtering data. Our whole neural net does this actually, for example the optic nerve behind the eye processes visual data down to 12 streams, such as edge detection, color (probably several channels here), brightness and so forth. The brain can deal with this compression and perform higher order processing.

Likewise the functions perform the same process at a higher level, organizing data so the brain can process it. There's a neurological condition where the brain can't do much sensory filtering, and people who lack this ability are usually schizophrenic or autistic.

At any rate decision making depends on picking out relevant information from irrelevant, and so apparently evolution decided to experiment. Guess what types won?

 

[scorpiomover]

It seems to me that the intuition and feeling (cognitive functions) could be almost the exact same except that one is a judging function, and the other a perceiving. And maybe the same for the sensing and thinking function.

Yes, there is a strong connection between N & F. I like to listen to my friends giving me sage advice on the methods that they have successfully used to solve problems in their lives, that I could benefit from in my own, and many people like to offer such wisdom to others.

Feelers tend to make decisions based on rules of probability, like that most people will be happy to do what you want if you make them feel good about themselves, such as smiling at them and complimenting them. Thinkers tend to think what is proved to be clearly true or not.

Intuitives generally report that they also think in terms of what is possible (NPs)( and what is probable (NJs), while Sensors seem to focus on what they are concretely sure of, and have little time for possibilities and probabilities.

It certainly seems as if the N & F circuits, which are mostly unconscious, are about what is possible and probable, and the S & T cirucits are mainly focussed on "what is" and "what is not".

So somewhat similar to the 'fast thinking' vs 'slow thinking', or creative right vs analytical left brain.

Sort of. "Fast thinking" is usually quick and very reactive, while "slow thinking" takes more time.

In this case, the difference is that in N/F, the subconscious is doing the thinking for the conscious and returning the results, so the conscious has to do very little, while in S/T, the conscious is doing most of the reasoning for itself, and so is doing most of the hard slog.

On topics that neither has had a chance to consider, where one has to work out one's answers from scratch, Extroverts, Intuitives, Feelers and Judgers provide much quicker answers than their respective Introverts, Sensors, Thinkers, and Perceivers, who take a lot of time to work out an answer from scratch.

When Introverts, Sensors, Thinkers and Perceivers have arrived at an answer, they tend to be a lot more sure of themselves than their respective counterparts, and they tend to rely on such answers in future situations, which often means they can be a lot quicker to come to an answer when it comes to situations that both have investigated fully. So, when it comes to subjects they know about, Introverts, Sensors, Thinkers and Perceivers tend to be very difficult to persuade.

Introverted vs Extroverted.
Cognizance vs Intuition.
Judging vs Percieving.

All combinations equating to 8 cognitive functions. To tell apart the analytical functions, they would be defined either by percieving or judging.

It's an idea that I've played around with myself.

 

[scorpiomover]

but there is a similarity the other way too

F&S are strongly related to habit and trust. T&N are more detached and prone to conclusions which may challenge status quo.

Yes, because they are more primal. T & N behave as if F & S are usually right, but where occasionally, T & N have a better answer.

Most real life situations are cases where you don't have all the info, so you are usually having to bet on the odds, and where you only have a few seconds to react. Feeling is based on probabilities, and so is actually much better for that than Thinking, which would too exacting for the circumstances, and much slower. However, sometimes, cause-and-effect come into play, and there, T is better.

Sensation generally deals with working with the known status quo as we understand it so far, while intuition generally deals with the possibilities and probabilities of a change from the status quo into the unknown. Most of the time, things are pretty much stable. So Sensation is better at dealing with most common situations. However, some situations do veer from the norm, and in those, we need intuition.

All in all, F & S behave as if they are the functions that generally determine the way our bodies act, and T & N behave as if they are occasional overrides that are occasional significant improvements to the status quo.

 

[scorpiomover]

Analysis -> Formal. Deliberate, and aware. Sanctioned, thorough and careful. Breaking things down into more complex elements. More concern of the actual process, not the end result.

Synthesis -> Casual. Allowing the process without intention or control. Abstracts (summarizes) large amounts of detail quickly, and more concern is put on the end result, rather than the process of getting there.

More like Discrete (ST) vs Continuous (NF), Linearly deductive (ST) vs multiple probability risk analysis (NF), or Reductionist (analysis) (ST) vs Holistic (synthesis) (NF). Actually, to be honest, I think that Deductive vs Statistical fits best of all, as statistical rules pretty much sums up what F is all about.

Perceiving -> The gathering and collecting of unorganized, raw information. Unstructured, and irrational (unjudged information).

Judging -> The organizing, evaluating, structuring, interpreting, rationalizing (making sense of) information. Non - perceiving.

Judging functions tend to calculate consequences of situations and plans, that are either highly desirable or highly undesirable. Perceiving functions tend to construct and add to simulations of real-world situations (S) or of imagined situations (N), using the consequences of judging functions as their components. I would say that Consequential vs Constructive would suit best.

Objective -> Impersonal, a stance from outside of the individual. Seeks consensus yet ignores confliction.

Subjective -> Personal and involved with individual experience. A stance within the self. Ignoring consensus.

Jung described the difference between Extroverts and Introverts as the difference between the prolific (E) and the devouring (I). Perhaps terms more in keeping with modern language would be prolific (E) versus focussed (I), a wide beam vs a concentrated beam.

You can see this difference if you go to a party where everyone is friends. Invariably, half the group behave like social butterflies, swanning around in the middle of the room, talking to lots of people, for a few minutes each time, and usually on superficial topics. The other half behave like wallflowers, usually standing by the walls of the room, talking to 1 or 2 people for an hour or longer, about something deep and meaningful, and rarely talk to more than a handful of people in the entire night. They seem to separate naturally into such groups. When given the choice, over time, most find that they prefer the sphere of experience that they had initially unconsciously adopted.

Thus, the functions would be:

Ti - focussed on developing complete deductive consequences of a situation (Focussed, Consequential, Deductive).

Te - prolific generator of quick deductive consequences of a situation (Prolific, Consequential, Deductive).

Fi - focussed on developing full statistical consequences of a situation (Focussed, Consequential, Statistical).

Fe - prolific generator of quick statistical consequences of a situation (Prolific, Consequential, Statistical).

Si - focussed on developing a single complete simulation of a common real life situation (Focussed, Constructive, Deductive).

Se - prolific generator of quick simulations of common real life situations (Prolific, Constructive, Deductive).

Ni - focussed on developing a full simulation of imagined changes to a particular real life situation (Focussed, Constructive, Statistical).

Ne - prolific generator of quick simulations of imagined changes to real life situations (Prolific, Constructive, Statistical).

 

[AbstractCanvas]

Then they're not the same, right? Unless you mean its one process reacting differently to different information streams, but I'm not sure if that's more than a semantic distinction.

Functions are the brains way of filtering data. Our whole neural net does this actually, for example the optic nerve behind the eye processes visual data down to 12 streams, such as edge detection, color (probably several channels here), brightness and so forth. The brain can deal with this compression and perform higher order processing.

have you heard about the fractal theory of the brain? I guess if you believe that we're all automatons neuroscience can provide all the answers but it doesn't allow for a fully developed concept of the mind. it's a philosophical paradox to suggest that the "whole mind" is the body as well as our identity. the functions may also be more indicative of behavior and motives rather than actual tasks and processes (maybe a little to do with cognitivism vs behaviorism) i.e. a higher behavioral motive to think leads us to think more (also nature vs nurture). the problem with considering such discrete links between cognitive functions and it's corresponding mental process e.g. emotion only and the feeling functions or thinking and the thinking function is that it suggests that either the functional stacking for each type is completely wrong or that doesn't reflect reality. for example, High IQ have the largest correlation with strong T and N function use, but in the case of a High IQ ESFJ, based on the subject's functional stack you'd expect the ESFJ to be far more perceptive of sensual data (savant like) and be so emotional, you'd expect the subject to exhibit symptoms similar to bipolar or to be somewhat of a psychological mess which scarcely follows reality. considering this it's plausible that the functions could be labels of the complex variants of the same thing.

I think that Deductive vs Statistical fits best of all

isn't deduction a product of probability analysis and statistics?

Most real life situations are cases where you don't have all the info, so you are usually having to bet on the odds, and where you only have a few seconds to react.

i wouldn't say "feeling" (the product of the feeling function) is the same as instinct or wit, nor is it necessarily about caring like Tmills said.

About 'feeling' being compassionate and caring - > I'm not sure why there's a correlation between those. Not every 'F' type is empathic, and every 'T' type is cruel?

there's certainly a correlation but maybe you're right that F is less to do with empathy as a whole and more to do with how we understand people (or a subject). feeling what others feel is a byproduct of understanding others. sometimes i choose not to feel what others feel if i understand where it's directly coming from. i think being able to understand others is a direct result of how F users process information. the way we generally think about empathy has an association with time however that's not how it's defined. T users are probably capable of just as much empathy they're just slower at getting towards a complete understanding with regards to people.

The S + T : They have more cognizance. More aware and clear of the details. Slower processing when getting from point A - Z

i'd say F would be slower at breaking things down and forming an understanding of the pieces where as T is slower at grasping the whole. maybe it just depends on what is being judged.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

About 'feeling' being compassionate and caring - > I'm not sure why there's a correlation between those. Not every 'F' type is empathic, and every 'T' type is cruel?

Just a quick response here - I wholeheartedly agree. IMO it's why characters and people like Cartman from South Park and Adolf Hitler get passed over for ENFJ.

 

[Architect]

have you heard about the fractal theory of the brain? I guess if you believe that we're all automatons neuroscience can provide all the answers but it doesn't allow for a fully developed concept of the mind.

My theories begin with an observation and then a theory to explain it. The theory is tested against more observations and is built up from there. The reason I do this is because it works, and I know how to do it due to some training when I was younger. Before I had that training I tended to take some fanciful complex idea and try to fit it to the evidence, an approach which rarely if never works.

So yes, humans are automatons at a basic level. We are riddled with autonomous systems. In the mind we don't have to consciously control vision, pulmonary, sexual or digestion processes. On a psyche level I see evidence for autonomous function and non autonomous function.

tl:dr

Spoiler

Autonomously we all have motivations that we don't have control over. My ESFP nephew is a sensory addict. He will "ramp it up" to get a sensory hit, coming over here and turning on a loud movie, walking off check his social network (leaving the movie playing), going to the kitchen to taste everything that's out (even though he just ate), going outside to dribble a basketball, then running the gamut again. Clearly from this and many other examples he cannot control his need for sensory input. We all can find examples like this from our lives and others.

Non autonomously, taking this example, he clearly has a choice as to what he does and how he does it. How far does it go? Certainly he can choose to live like a monk (i.e. the way he views us), but he won't do it. If forced, like when he does homework, he will painfully struggle through trying to concentrate on the assignment. This indicates he can go against his autonomous urges, but it's difficult and if given a choice he won't do it. Clearly this depends on the individual, other ENFP's are more able to engage in non sensory activities.

OK so going further to the fractal theory of the brain, no I see no evidence for that. Take my nephew, is he getting his sensory experience in a fractal manner (see spoiler for detail)? I don't see how. Is he experiencing, thinking or being these activities as a fractal? Take me, I like thinking about Type. Is my psyche infinitely branching and regressing as I explore these ideas? Hardly.

This is getting long but to the contrary we know that the brain works oppositely, psyche and intelligence is build up as a 'model' which generalizes lower level complexity. It's not the other way around, complexity doesn't stay the same or go up as you go to higher levels of the mind.

So ultimately it's a nice sounding idea that makes no sense, and has no evidence to back it up.

 

[AbstractCanvas]

My theories begin with an observation and then a theory to explain it. The theory is tested against more observations and is built up from there. The reason I do this is because it works

works for you

So yes, humans are automatons at a basic level. We are riddled with autonomous systems. In the mind we don't have to consciously control vision, pulmonary, sexual or digestion processes. On a psyche level I see evidence for autonomous function and non autonomous function.

this only has partial truth depending on whether you're only referencing the body and your perception. we are completely automatons if those automatic processes were not formed as a result of consciousness. however it's approved that we are able to manipulate sensual information check out the rubber hand experiment. we are also able to manipulate whether something is processed consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously. based on experiments like this it's been theorized that our senses are an illusion of our neurology. the paradox of neuroscience is that we're trying to understand the process of our brain based on our perceptions which are a product of it. if our perceptions are illusory then so may be our understanding of the brain. we deduce that there is similarity between our brains because our experiences of reality appear to be similar based on consensus. consciousness to interact with the system cannot be the system itself, that's a logical contradiction and our reality therefore must be concluded to be it's own self contained universe stemming from our brains. the mind is an element that gives explanation to why we choose to perceive what we do and where awareness arises for us to evolve within our environment (in otherwords, the mind acts as a driver which the brain manifests from) and allows us distinguish ourselves.

OK so going further to the fractal theory of the brain, no I see no evidence for that. Take my nephew, is he getting his sensory experience in a fractal manner (see spoiler for detail)? I don't see how. Is he experiencing, thinking or being these activities as a fractal? Take me, I like thinking about Type. Is my psyche infinitely branching and regressing as I explore these ideas? Hardly.

yes your psyche would branch whilst exploring the ideas and when maybe when disengaged from thinking may explore the absence of that idea. the status of your ideas may effect your perception of your environment. according to the theory he is getting his sensory experience based on fractal-like mechanisms and processes. the structure of how information is conveyed via synapses is similar to the physical structure of the neurons. perhaps it's the different information being processed that determines the event. it will process data as long as you're still reacting to that stimulus. this theory is an explanation of how networks are formed and how process complexity emerges (where necessary). in other words, things will continue to fractalise until sufficient complexity is obtained to solve the problem. it goes beyond the brain pointing to implications about the processes of the mind.

This is getting long but to the contrary we know that the brain works oppositely, psyche and intelligence is build up as a 'model' which generalizes lower level complexity. It's not the other way around, complexity doesn't stay the same or go up as you go to higher levels of the mind.

don't want to misunderstand you so can you elaborate on my profile? any publications? i don't want to totally derail Tmills' thread so i'll comment elsewhere after this.

 

[Cherry Cola]

more like tertiary and inferior are like intuition because less conscious processing? the conclusion that feeling is like intuition being reached because the reacher is a thinker?

 

[StevenM]

You're right, and I shouldn't be quick to say that one is a slower process than the other. Also about it being conscious/unconscious, I think I'd prefer to leave that out of it for now.

I made it really confusing a bit, because I changed my mind halfway through the thread.

For now, analytic and synthetic fit much better. I decided to scrap the conscious/unconscious aspect, as well as 'speed of process'. I was using those to try to describe what I had in mind, before I found better terms.

I think in the intuition/sensing part, the terms analytic and synthetic are already agreed. Sensing being focused on details, and intuition being the bigger picture.

The way I have analytic described, is taking apart the whole to examine individual parts and how they work together. Synthesis being combining individual parts to create a whole.

So in taking those terms in the judging dichotomies, I'm assuming 'thinkers' analytically take whole judgments apart, and examine it's constituent parts that make up that judgement. I think the goal is to make sense of the judgement in itself.

With feelers, I believe they synthesize judgements (or rationalizations). Like an alchemist, they combine the elements and principals, and organize (categorize) taking into a account a much broader perspective. The goal here is to just arrive to a judgement (interpretation, attitude, evaluation), leaving the detail work to the 'thinking function' to analyze.

Which is why it is very important to have all 4 types of functions working. The tertiary and inferior would play a part in keeping those perceptions and judgements from being too synthetic or analytical.

 

[StevenM]

Yes, because they are more primal. (S & F)

I can go with that. I haven't read anything about it being more primal, but I'll agree with it. Although it is interesting.

T & N behave as if F & S are usually right, but where occasionally, T & N have a better answer.

I wouldn't go very far in saying one function is better than the other. They actually compliment each other very well.

More like Discrete (ST) vs Continuous (NF), Linearly deductive (ST) vs multiple probability risk analysis (NF), or Reductionist (analysis) (ST) vs Holistic (synthesis) (NF). Actually, to be honest, I think that Deductive vs Statistical fits best of all, as statistical rules pretty much sums up what F is all about.

I think all those terms are very well suited.

Judging functions tend to calculate consequences of situations and plans, that are either highly desirable or highly undesirable. Perceiving functions tend to construct and add to simulations of real-world situations (S) or of imagined situations (N), using the consequences of judging functions as their components. I would say that Consequential vs Constructive would suit best.

I'm going to abstract away from that thought, and share something that I've observed.

One of the big differences between INxP's and INxJ's has something to do with their perceiving functions and how they are stacked.

I've noticed that INxJ's can often get really bored with an unchanging environment. It gets suffocating and banal, and sometimes they feel forced to 'shake things up', and throw in a flurry of something exciting and unpredictable. (I think I've observed something like this with ENxJ's too)

While INxP's are more preferable to predictable environments. INxP's are not a fan of surprises, and if conditions are right, are less likely to get bored in unchanging circumstances.

(also for side note, INTJ's seem to favor harmony between themselves and specific individuals. While INTP's seem to favor overall harmony <- A little about lesser feeling functions)

I think in this specific case, it has something to do with the different directions of Si vs Se, but not entirely. It also has something to do with the over-heading intuition, and also the placements of the functions.

Using the term 'subjective sensing' might give some answers to the dilemma. And also, the impersonal, objective intuition, which instead of sensing things in detail, takes everything in the environment as a continuous whole.

Jung described the difference between Extroverts and Introverts as the difference between the prolific (E) and the devouring (I). Perhaps terms more in keeping with modern language would be prolific (E) versus focussed (I), a wide beam vs a concentrated beam.

You can see this difference if you go to a party where everyone is friends. Invariably, half the group behave like social butterflies, swanning around in the middle of the room, talking to lots of people, for a few minutes each time, and usually on superficial topics. The other half behave like wallflowers, usually standing by the walls of the room, talking to 1 or 2 people for an hour or longer, about something deep and meaningful, and rarely talk to more than a handful of people in the entire night. They seem to separate naturally into such groups. When given the choice, over time, most find that they prefer the sphere of experience that they had initially unconsciously adopted.

I read that. I would have to reread it again, but I'm pretty sure he was describing the behaviour of Introverted and Extroverted individuals.

As for just the functions by themselves, I kind of like sticking with 'personal' and and 'impersonal'.

Impersonal, which is void of the persons own opinion or interpretation. And personal being the opposite. I guess when being impersonal, it is kind of more concerned with others, the focus being on some basis of excluding the self. And personal being a bit more self-focused and intrinsic, the focus of attitude excluding others.

For instance, Ti's won't analytically judge something unless there's personal, intrinsic interest, and often it can be conflictory with others judgements. While Te is being as objective as they can without personal tainting; in some way a little more extrinsic, and more concerned with the rationalization being agreeable.

Which kind of falls in neatly with the wide beam outwards, and the fixated point inwards.

Overall, I like what you added. I'm still not entirely sure of everything, for instance , I could probably work on a better understanding of judging and percieving.

 

[Architect]

works for you

No actually it works for 100% of the scientific community. That's the process how it's done. In practice there maybe a flash of intuition, accident or something which starts a line of inquiry, but those steps are gone through every time (by reputable scientists at least)

Otherwise I have a hard time following your writing, proper English usage would help such as capitalization, paragraph and idea structure, so we might as well drop it there.

 

[AbstractCanvas]

No actually it works for 100% of the scientific community. That's the process how it's done. In practice there maybe a flash of intuition, accident or something which starts a line of inquiry, but those steps are gone through every time (by reputable scientists at least)

Otherwise I have a hard time following your writing, proper English usage would help such as capitalization, paragraph and idea structure, so we might as well drop it there.

hmm, you make good points....

 

[Cherry Cola]

No actually it works for 100% of the scientific community. That's the process how it's done. In practice there maybe a flash of intuition, accident or something which starts a line of inquiry, but those steps are gone through every time (by reputable scientists at least)

Otherwise I have a hard time following your writing, proper English usage would help such as capitalization, paragraph and idea structure, so we might as well drop it there.

what about all the time spent discussing stuff with colleagues in between? all the pondering leading up to said flash? all the subconscious stuff and life events which push your thoughts in a certain direction? you're simplifying this

you're being psychologically naive

 

[AbstractCanvas]

more like tertiary and inferior are like intuition because less conscious processing? the conclusion that feeling is like intuition being reached because the reacher is a thinker?

Dominant intuition is largely unconscious and in the same light you'd expect tertiary intuition to be more unconscious since you have a lesser awareness of it. i think Tmills is trying to say that a larger portion of F or N processes are unconscious compared to the other two functions since their mechanisms require less conscious dissection of and knowledge of the parts that make up the object being judged or perceived. both functions make big jumps based on small amounts of data. with dom intuition you have more awareness of how leaps in perception can arise. with dom feeling you have more awareness of how leaps in judgment can arise.

it is interesting that feeling has an appearance similar to sensing though. i'm not sure what that eludes to in terms of how the functions work. for feeling and sensing, it's probably because the two functions are seen to be related strongly with the observer (despite the fact that they don't necessarily have to be) . emotion based judgement is part of feeling which (due to it's extremely subjective nature) is associate more with people and humanity. for a similar reason, sensing is considered to be more closely related to the observer due to the associated we make with the 5 senses. we observe how we interact directly with our observable environment which creates associations that sensing is more closely related to humanity. this differs from the other two which have associations relating to the world beyond the human experience. we cannot directly see the whole universe so an intuitive perception of it is associated as being detach from us etc. although it's only a small factor but i also think the words feeling and sensing creates a connection for some people since the word feeling has associations with touch.

 

[Aetherius Rimor]

Don't fully understand introverted vs extroverted functions, but I do like the 2-dimensional model in the table by TMills.

Sensing/Thinking are an attempt to consciously identify the data/rational behind a belief.
Feeling/Intuition are an attempt to subconsciously and agnostically come to a belief.

Assuming Feeling/Intuition are simply subconscious Sensing/Thinking, I'd hazard to say it's the disconnect between the conscious/subconscious mind allowing for non-linear thinking and creativity.

If you come to a conclusion by thinking it, it's much harder to think outside the box. If you intuit a belief, you have to come up with wild ideas to figure out how you came to that belief.

Yep... I like this model. Makes implementing creativity in software simpler! Two identical cognition processes sharing "conclusions" with each other to spur new ideas through attempts to discover the other's reasons for it.

Like a brainstorming session in one mind *ponders*.

Disclaimer: I'm still not sure if I understand "feeling" and "intuition" processes fully. Please correct me if I'm wrong.