hourlymbti - Tumblr blog

hourlymbti · 2 years ago

Text

Inferior Se

There are quite a lot of strange tips when it comes to developing Se (e.g. many merely say going outside and playing sports). Physical inability is a very narrow view of inferior Se. While it’s not entirely wrong for Se to be associated with this (Ni doms are more comfortable with their Ni. Why take in and deal with all this incoming information when you can just rely on your "patterns of life" to do the work for you. But perhaps they feel afraid or overwhelmed by the flux of the environment. Maybe with a touch of performance anxiety. Se is about an objective reality, it's largely based on what others see as well. There's often hidden, or not hidden, insecurity with the inferior function. A symptom could be a fear of the environment, a fear of "perceiving/experiencing" incoming data,giving a "poor experience" of reality which could come from a bad portrayal/display, underwhelming results, etc.), people are mistaking/overemphasizing a correlation to be the thing itself. This common conception reflects how oversimplified Se descriptions are. Physical inability is only one possible symptom of having difficulty working with or adapting to realities that don’t fit your assumptions. Function placements are less about what you use the most and more about the "attitude" of your conscious mind (feedback from the unconscious occurs daily like a boomerang). In reality, everything is nuanced, but when we speak of type, we speak of a concept that can be treated as a simplification. A certain function has a louder voice, that doesn't mean the rest are ignored or always valued less.

Things such as danger can be identified naturally, without prior experience. Pi takes these innate knowledge into consideration. Using Ni as an example, when two primitive men spot a tiger near their camp, who is more likely to survive if it turns out to be violent? One who sees an attack as a mere possibility? Or the other that feels it as an inevitable reality? Ni allows you to reduce reaction time because you are already aware of what’s to come (even if what you believe is wrong, it still reduces time used for the decision; Ni is not questioned, it is merely seen).

Ni falls under assumptions. Well, other functions are capable of this but it is strictly assumptions. The brain is supposed to make assumptions. Primitive men don't try to make 100% conclusions before making decisions. When they don't know where to look for food, they need to make a decision, otherwise there would be stasis so even with the little to no info to work with, they set in one direction and go for it. Generalizations and simplifications are made because they are efficient, and these cause us to form assumptions. Inherently, they can't be 100% correct, but these are often necessary for things to function in both the primitive and modern world. Judging by appearance is an assumption, whether to people or products. Grades are simplification. To quantitatively measure something that is qualitative by essence, would always be simplification (e.g. intelligence, stress, pain). People will have faith in particular, products, services, academic institutions. But it's not like they have experienced what it's like to be taught in each school. How we use grades to determine if someone is a bad student, or if they are ready to proceed to the next academic level would take us of generalizations for the criteria. Similarly, to use age or amount of work experience as a measurement of maturity, competence, and wisdom would be a way to simplify the process of making conclusions. The generalization would be more years = more wisdom and the such. Another generalization would be 5 years of work experience = good enough for the job (these associations are more about Te & Si). It’s not perfect, but it can be effective in screening out a list of options. Depending on how much the generalization is seen as reality, they serve as either a reference point, or a clearcut border between yes or no. This has become a tangent but it may be of use. To be clear, this is not exclusive to Ni, but the main functions capable of doing any of the following are the introverted functions and Je (expect generalizations and simplifications in anything subjective as well as any form of judgement. this does not apply much to Ne and Se themselves as those functions are non-subjectively empirical).

Assumptions (not just Ni's) are mentally efficient, but it naturally comes with a higher risk of error. Keep in mind that less information = more assumptions is mainly going to apply to Ni. It still applies for assumptions in general, however, this can be seen more in Ni as it cares less about context (it'll come in different flavors. Ni focuses on "trendlines" rather than the overall datapoints. Each trendline can have many possible combinations of data points which means Ni will be more likely to see the same thing even though the context plus many details differ greatly). It only extracts the skeleton, the rest of the meat doesn't matter in terms of being able to identify that skeleton or making assumptions that would work with the skeleton (try to figure out what a human looks like based on their skeleton, you don't. Ni sees the skeleton, and fills up the rest based on that structure. However, since its focus is on the skeleton, it'll simply end up as a vague image of what to expect. After all, x-rays dont say much about the rest of the tissues. Once Ni "sees" the structure of the situation, it is up to the user how they'll handle the rest. The higher the Ni, the more likely the user will lean towards whatever direction it may be pointing to). Si assumptions would be more about "what they already know". It looks at the strength of the total connections to the existing puzzle pieces (connections to inner content). When looking at existing puzzle pieces (stimuli), Si uses their database to identify then associate. If the data is identified as x, y, and z, Si will scan for perception related to each of them as well as their combinations (sometimes xy triggers more content that x or y separately). The more related perception (based on experiences) and the stronger its connections are (as in mentally significant), then the higher chance of assumptions or information that come along with the stimuli. You identify this guy as Bob. You think "Bob? I love that guy" or "Bob? That's the guy who ate my sandwich". You may also look at Bob and identify some of his characteristics as "suspicious". You then associate him with danger, deceit, evil. Maybe you identify the weather as sunny then associate it with heated emotions (e.g. excitement, anger). If you identify the weather as rainy maybe thoughts come up that "this'll be relaxing", "this'll be inconvenient", or "this'll be a low-energy day". Basically, when it comes to filling up information, Si doesn't "thrive" in uncertainty/gaps in information. Si thrives in things they "know well" or are familiar with. It's more above looking at data then -bringing up supplementary pieces of data- based on their previous observations. Ni looks at data, then -sees- a line that must be followed by the world (in this case, the word "must" isn't a matter of value, but mere perception: it's simply how the world is. Fi wouldn't make assumptions). It's a bit similar but that nuance is what separates the two.

First look at some basics of Ni and Se.

Si is more likely to result in actively looking for more information to use as points of reference to understand something. They focus on information that brings up information from their head. It's more about bouncing back information through by using what's available as points of reference rather than absorbing available information as they are. But Se would seek to find more information they can grab through their circumstances (judging based on what they know in the present) rather than obtaining information with reference points (information that brings up internal information). A dominant Ni user would be satisfied as long as they have one clear idea of what's going on or what'll occur (one clear idea, means images which do not contradict, but compliment each other. They can have multiple ideas as long as they align and blend well together: all eggs in one basket). It doesn't matter how much raw information they can get or have already absorbed from the situation, if Ni "realizes" or "sees" something, they shall follow. Ni going overboard means that it is less questioned and easier to accept.

How you develop Se should be based on the unhealthy behaviors you notice on yourself (you need to notice individual issues with inferior Se and find ways to work on each of them. Ways that seem best for you and your circumstances). The dominant is of primary importance. If the wishes of the inferior function were against those of the dominant (which is a typical scenario), it will be repressed. The other functions ultimately serve the main gatekeeper, the dominant. The more one-sided you are towards the dominant, the less attention there is to your inferior. Too much weight on Ni is what causes the unhealthy behaviors of inferior Se. Ni itself (i.e. pure Ni, ignoring other functions) treats its conjectures as plain indisputable facts, perhaps even more factual than actual facts (Se). You will observe this the most in dominants where Ni has a voice over reasoning and evidence.

This is due to the nature of introversion and the nature of N vs S when in dominant positions. When you're trying to convince a pure introvert of something, you have to pander to their worldviews 100% of the time. If you can't convince them of something purely by using evidence and arguments that fit their worldview, they won't change it. A pure extrovert, on the other hand, would be convinced too easily. Any information, arguments that can be vaguely used to support the claim will do well enough to convince them. The issue is that you can't cause them to permanently believe in that. Depending on the circumstances, they can be a giraffe denier today but a giraffe acknowledger tomorrow. A pure introvert (someone with an introverted dominant function so strong that it completely gatekeeps any extroverted function) is just trapped in their own head, incapable of changing their worldviews. Because the dominant function is introverted, they only evaluate information, values, conclusions, etc. internally. You cannot change their system because they'll judge all of your arguments and evidence based on that system [a pure extrovert would be completely void of any gravity towards the inside that they would completely adapt their mindset and worldview to the situation/circumstances, without assessing whether those external conditions are valid/invalid, trends/anomalies, etc.. Say someone is a murderer a week ago, they would simply see the person as a person, not a murderer, because that's all they see in the present conditions]. Perhaps Ni (faith that their assumptions are facts) and Ti (faith that what makes sense to them is a fact) would fit a conclusive tunnel vision better since those functions formulate an conclusions of the world (Si doesn't really make a conclusion whereas Fi's doesn't try to conclude about how the world is but about how it should be. But as introverted functions, those two will of course still be stuck in their ways, just in different aspects). Between Ni and Ti, however, Se being the inferior function may give Ni dominants the most tunnel vision. Aside from the inferior being the most gatekept function, rather than absorb all stimuli in a raw form (Pure Se), someone with dominant reliance on Ni would have a weaker perception of all those incoming waves of information, and would often even use their Ni to make up for it (fill in the blanks/ make things up based on their internal perception. note: to a certain extent, Si is also used to make things up to fill the gaps in one's perception, but you'll more often see those distortions of reality from lower Si users simply because higher Si users have less gaps as they actively seek more reference points to give more information)

For the mind of a Se dominant, it is by nature that Ni shall be "inspected" in the gates of basingSe. Contradicting evidence is immediately observed. The strength of these observations (in terms of psychological intensity) greatly out match that of Ni given that Se is in the center of the spotlight. This can make Se dominants quick (or even too quick) to deny Ni unless what they have observed generally supports it. This lack of trust in their gut may even make Se slower to act (but this is compensated with Se’s nature to seek actual information, while Ni compensates their lack of info by using their gut feelings). You could argue that it's partially about anti-Ne more than anti-Se. Dominant Ni can shape Se information however they want. Ni can produce several ideas based on the data, so long as they all follow the same narrative. Ne, on the other hand, encourages contradicting ideas. It doesn't matter if they have no clear vision, they're more willing to accept uncertainty. Ne doesn't like putting all eggs in one basket. Ni doesn't like the lack of direction. Intuition has an introverted and extroverted side. The more you lean on one side, the more you leave from the other. The inferior Se allows Ni to continue having this disconnect from the world as inferior functions can easily be filtered, further supporting its tunnel vision. The brain can find patterns/narratives in just about anything. It's a matter of if one is able to notice which are random/accidental or how significant/representative a pattern is. Normally, people can notice if something looks like a face, but what if you can't distinguish paradeloia from actual faces. In a chaotic cloud of noise, how would you know if someone called your name, or if it's just your brain interpreting messy sounds as your name? You always think you're onto something or suddenly receive this great revelation (mainly Ni, Si is more "robotic" not in the sense that it's emotionless but more about like a flowchart or a program receiving an input then puking an output in a straightforward, data/detail-oriented manner.). It's not a matter of absorbing stimuli, it's more so about how the stimuli is transformed/identified/pieced-together by the brain (Ni/Si).

While a pure extrovert is a direct mirror to their surroundings, constantly reflecting and going with the flow of external feedback (e.g. observation, judgment of others, every opportunity that arrives) without the ability to filter, question, evaluate, or make sense of them in any depth; a pure introvert would be so deep in their own pit that it becomes a perpetual cave of ignorance unexposed to any sort of light from the world beyond their own. Of course, these are mere exaggerations as everyone has introverted and extroverted sides. A disconnect from the inner world, causing inability for anything deep or long-term. A disconnect from the outer world, leaving an unchanging force. I have previously described introversion vs extroversion in terms of penetration of external stimuli. Extroversion can absorb & handle plenty of stimuli because it only needs to exist or land on the "surface of the mind". Introversion, on the other hand, requires more processing. Only the stimuli that are able to penetrate deep into the mind will have interacted with inner content. In this case, it's not that the stimuli which contradicts their worldview isn't capable of penetration, it did interact with the inner world but the inner world threw it into the dump which consists of things that are "rejects" or "wrong". When that same stimulus does come back, the inner world already understands it to be "wrong" and immediately throws it with the rest of the dimp. Extreme introversion's worldview is similar to someone in a tunnel that faces toward one particular direction. Anything outside of it doesn't deserve to be even acknowledged as possible or slightly correct. All they see is whatever goes in the tunnel, in other words: what fits their worldview and what validates their worldview, causing them to go by it more and more.

The goal is to reduce this one-sidedness, but not to completely remove it (additional note: developing the non-inferior can be a stepping stone for developing the inferior as it opposes the dominant’s i/e orientation). Introverted perceiving functions perceive a subjective reaction that arises from the acknowledgement of an object, but not the object in its own right.

First look at some basics of Ni and Se.

This is not a "signs your a Ni dom" post, just possible effects of Ni dominance or bursts which are more likely to occur regularly to those who trust their Ni. In the dominant position, it is common knowledge that the user is fulfilled by finding (what they perceive as) the one true meaning or the most fitting possibility/perspective to the situation. To the dominant user, this no longer is a possibility, but a fact. People naturally trust/listen to their dominant function the most, often ignoring resistances against it. For Ni, a common weakness is a tendency to tunnel vision. To alleviate the issue, you need to notice related tendencies and behavior within this scope (this doesn’t tell you what exactly to do. It merely acts as a framework to spot and identify). They're essentially the same thing at core but here are a few ways inferior Se can manifest as (keep in mind that some of these descriptions are very extreme. Unhealthy Se may commonly be a bit more mild):

Have difficulty adapting yourself and your thoughts to changes in the actual present situation.

Perhaps while you look at the sky, you lose sight of the ground, making it difficult to work with what you have and build it all up from the base, one floor at a time, piling it up until it becomes a skyscraper. You see in your head, a continual movement of one floor to another, building up from bottom to top, yet you are unable to take the first step to build the foundation as you have difficulty fully grasping the situation at hand and what could be done about it.

Overanalyze details; search for unexisting deeper truths/meanings (perhaps due to discontentment with direct and meaningless situations/objects or existence). These dominants often overcompensate a desire for their life to have some sort of greater meaning

Fall apart and have difficulty reacting/adjusting properly when one important detail in your plan of action (which may have too much and/or too detailed assumptions) turned out to be false (i.e. if things dont go according to your vision)

In paranoia, focus on a single prediction — an impending doom., and because of this feeling of inevitable disaster that will occur no matter what you do, do nearly nothing about it or at least struggle to get the will or energy to do so because any resistance seems futile

Upon all the things you have observed, you see a trendline within the sea of data points. But once the trendline is made, that is all you see. Anything that diverges from this trendline, any path, any new information, is quickly marked as wrong and irrelevant. Your main type of rigidity lies here. Inflexibility towards what you don’t see as the one true path.

Ni doms are the most trusting of Ni. An "I intuitively know, and that's enough" mindset allows you to take advantage of your Ni, but this almost-absolute faith causes you to tunnel so hard on one conclusion that you strongly resist other possibilities. For example, they simply believe that this equals this or this will lead to this, other functions are needed for reasoning and groundedness but Ni dominants care less about that, they don't need confirmation to believe Ni. As a perceiving function, what Ni serves to them comes across as empirical, the calling is a matter of is or isn't. They don't need explanation or proof to believe it, given that it is the highest function. Reasoning and evidence are valued secondarily. No matter how questionable the calling seems, they have faith in it. They mentally go "all-in" to one conjecture. You constantly go back into this conclusion, with conscious hierarchy forcing yourself to believe and have hope in it even when overall reason and evidence leans against it. You completely deny and ignore the periphery, the possibilities disparate from your own. You prefer not to believe that you drew a false conclusion so you feel unsatisfied, maybe even scared or threatened by realities that do not match this conclusion/vision of yours regarding how things are (it may even become a desire to bring this into reality. While Fi creates an image based on desire. Ni creates an image that the user ends up desiring due their trust/preference on Ni. It's natural for the introverted perceiving functions to get attached). You then overlook/brush aside details that don't fit into your Ni's narrative and what you perceive as the patterns of life/people/the world. Concrete data that come as a blunt "this is simply what is" is important to get out of your tunnel vision but you overemphasize only the details that fit this conclusion (a highly polarized dominant will filter your inferior so that you only see what validates the dominant’s agenda). You may also have resistance or fear in direct methods of acquiring data (primary data, actually witnessing/experiencing/observing/experimenting things yourself). This conceivably applies to the indirect methods as well (secondary data, records from others).

#Se #Ni #cognitive functions #mbti

1 note · View note

hourlymbti · 2 years ago

Note

Does enneagram correlate with mbti? Is it useful?

While there are correlations (as expected when both theories are not random), do not narrow your view on one theory based on another.

When it comes to self-discovery, enneagram can be a helpful framework in certain aspects. For this, you need to know that enneagram is largely oriented to your fears/insecurities (though it's more directly about childhood factors and experiences, and is also partially influenced by genetics). Enneagram provides fairly extensive descriptions for each type which depict how fear and insecurities influence how someone is, how they think, feel, act, and their overall attitude towards the world.

Even so, understand that the focus isn't about personality. Again, it is meant to dive into the roots of behavior. The behaviors attached to each type merely demonstrate the possible symptoms/manifestations of your desires. That's what enneagram divides you by: core desires. With every main desire, comes a fear (two sides of a coin, like introversion vs extroversion). The more you desire certainty and predictability, the more you'll "fear" uncertainty. Think of it as a subconscious insecurity.... something you want to avoid (in this case, it's the main thing). Naturally, your strongest fear and strongest desire will greatly guide how you navigate your life, leading to certain behaviors. If the goal is self-understanding, do not focus on the external (behavior), focus on why you are more inclined to make certain decisions. What kind of life do you wish for? What kind of individual do you want to be? What kind of life would you find undesirable? What kind of individual would you hate to be?

Insecurities are highly significant parts of the self that guide your actions and behavior, often subconsciously. This is a major blindspot for most people. enneagram can be a framework with the purpose of raising your awareness of your insecurities about yourself and the world (it may be easier to achieve this goal in enneagram as compared to cognitive functions). It is beneficial to do a self-assessment rather than to rely on tests since comparing yourself with the insecurities of -every- type will allow you to become more aware of your own insecurities. With this in mind, the goal is not about identifying with a type, but rather, using each enneagram as a reference point to understand the potential impacts of insecurities. An awareness of insecurities is not simply to possess knowledge of their existence, but the development of an ability to notice as to how much these insecurities influence your desires, actions, behavior, social mask, approach to life, etc.. In other words, you also need to be discovering how these insecurities are integrated into your life.

Let's say that someone’s social anxiety can be partially attributed to the insecurities of a 3. They may be very concerned of their image in accordance with an overcompensating ambition/desire to -seem- admirable and successful due to a (typically unconscious or underestimated) fear of being pitied or -perceived- as weak, inferior, naive, foolish, pathetic, incompetent, useless, worthless, a mere leftover/last-pick (this may include those who don't want to be alone because they fear -appearing- like a loner incapable of making friends. It's a form of social anxiety in which they may fear -appearing- lonely more than they fear actually being lonely. 3's fears and desires are about image/appearance of who they are). While Te can motivate people to -become- society's image/standards of a successful person as Te tends to use external metrics such as comparison or merits, the reasoning behind it is different. (Again, enneagram is largely oriented by insecurities. Functions can affect what you focus on but you don't need to be a certain type to have a certain insecurity)

As you learn more about each enneatype and familiarize yourself with typical ways insecurities and fears influence people’s behavior and desires, it may become more natural for you to analyze details about yourself and whether or not that has to do with particular fear/s. enneagraminstitute can be a good starting source.

#mbti #enneagram

0 notes

hourlymbti · 2 years ago

Note

can cognitive functions become scientific? is mbti?

If anything, Scientific research is primarily about statistics, and thus trends (i.e. general rules). I’ll start by saying while there is some subjectivity on how much is enough evidence to call something scientifically true, this is largely a matter of data. Science doesn’t care about subjective/qualitative aspects of the world. To make something scientific, it needs to have a lot of data to back it up across multiple rigorous studies. Without data, it would merely be a theoretical paper at most. Qualitative data, on the other hand, is mainly viable as a supplement to explain the quantitative results. Science needs to quantify everything, which would make it difficult to do studies on cognitive functions and a big portion of psychology (since it's hard to quantify all of it), but something like the dichotomies or big 5 will be simpler for empirical research. Overall, science is statistical discrimination. There will most often be cases in which the general trend doesn’t apply, because anomalies will exist.

Mbti was looking for what traits -correlated- the most with the dichotomies they came up with (which, while having the same terms as how Jung titled or described the functions, went far from the actual concept because they associated them with certain traits). Just to be clear, MBTI does actually use cognitive functions (they have their own simplified descriptions you can find in some of their resources), just that they are left in the background. They diluted them down into letters based on what they believe to be common behavior/traits. Mbti is founded on Jung's theory, it would've gone something like "oh based on my interpretation of Jung's descriptions, as well as my surface behaviors and mannerisms of the people around me, I think this guy is this type and that guy is that.", Then later on "based on those anecdotes, I think this trait is correlated with this letter". Based on what they have read and associated with the types, they'll use the letters to make questions that give you scores (one large goal of theirs is to make the theory quantifiable in order to have potential for scientific backing). MBTI designed a self-input type indicator so that people can be typed quickly and on large scales. To make a concept catch the interest of the general public, it often needs to be made simple. Not just the test, but often the theory as well.

A more noteworthy reason for correlation-seeking is that for a personality theory to seem reliable, it needs to seem “scientific”, which in psychology (and general research) tends to mean statistically true. Reasoning alone does not matter without any quantitative data to back it up. Statistics seek to quantify (though not necessarily with full certainty, especially in research). Psychology is naturally subjective, many categories will be qualitatively distinct and it is difficult to extract abstract experiences without simplifying them. Only focusing on general truths (e.g. majority, average) and quantitative data would be a limited view of the human mind (then again, typology is meant to simplify), but that’s necessary. And to be fair, as a categorization system for personality, most applications and discussions will utilize generalizations. We're speaking about a type, not every individual within that type. Of course, many will take generalizations to an absolute, but always keep in mind that whenever the theory is used or talked about, people are referring to a concept based on what they perceive to be the general rule — they're following a probabilistic mindset. You can argue if they're taking the generalization too far or if the generalization can be improved, but you shouldn't expect it to represent all individuals (sometimes the majority may even be just 30% in cases where there are more than 2 options)

While published scientific studies naturally do not encompass the whole being of truth (as they need to form rules rather than absorb the data as it is), it is arguably (one of) the most acceptable form of evidence or validation (besides your -own- direct observation and personal experience) in a sense that the word “scientific” holds weight great enough to make concepts seem -completely- good or bad. After all, proper procedures and peer review for the data and methods will be more likely to bring us to the right conclusions (in theory, it is a delicate process) as compared to the blabbering of anyone with an opinion. Common & specialized knowledge today is built on layers of scientific research from the past (not to say that scientific research alone is what constitutes these). It has gradually supported the development of society in fields such as medicine, infrastructure, and technology. Misinformation is a large issue, and the title of being "a study" is extremely valued. While there are sometimes other motives/interests involved (from the researchers/writers, reviewers, and/or the publisher), for quality and integrity, scientific journals have the responsibility to be strict with what they publish and ensure that the paper provides substantial details about their methods (for reproducibility and also critique/ to assess limitations). Mentioning the scope, limitations, or potential conflicts of interest of the study is also common procedure. But rather than look at science before forming conclusions, a similarly common occurrence is when people form conclusions (that are not grounded scientifically; internal reasoning or personal experience/assumption/belief) and in the event that it happens to be somewhat backed by any research, they are quick to portray that as absolute evidence… that their claim is indisputably true, then use the value of science to easily claim that the other side is preposterous…rarely acknowledging limitations unless the study contradicts their personal conclusions (“science” has become a word people use to say “my claim is true and indisputable, anything else is completely false”).

In other words, people are often nitpicky about data, and concepts that are not backed up by science are rarely convincing to those whose initial conclusions/perspectives are opposing or undecided. If something is commonly considered as scientific, it will be seen as common sense to believe it is true. If it is commonly considered as unscientific, it will be seen as basic intelligence to deem it false (you are not allowed to question whatever people claim as science, even though science is fluid and the development of which relies on exploring other/new ideas). The importance of scientific validity is one reason correlations are often sought by typologies (there’s also theory development). Although MBTI acknowledges that there is more to people than their type, many tests have been conducted by Myers to show what types are best for certain careers, this is to help institutions assess who to hire with the use of her type indicator. Is research worth considering when assessing the typology framework? Yes. Is it the only thing worth considering? No. Is it a simple matter when it comes to whether it is scientific or not? As a general rule, confidence should scale with the quantity and quality of existing studies. Scientific right or wrong is not always black-and-white. Statistics do not seek to claim absolutes. Also, the process of validating typology is not as straightforward as you'd imagine. This problem requires some form of correlation with type, so the question becomes what can/should you use as the variable to compare the typology's personality types with? If you test enough variables, you'd at least have a few unless your classifications are random. So what variables would be considered relevant?

Now: Could cognitive functions be well-supported by research? Do note that for something to be well-supported, there needs to be a decent amount of publications on it (as a general rule, a single or few studies is not sufficient for science), especially ones with rigour.

It's not simple for something to become scientific. Scientific communities are supposed to be skeptical, even to things they agree with or things that do not trigger their internal alarm. Aside from the many physical limitations (e.g. resources, nuisance/extraneous variables, sample vs population, quantitative measurements to act as simplifications for subjective or qualitative entities), research is conducted and reported by mere humans. It can often be problematic. A few issues with the study can be detrimental. These include: Methodology: limits of sample collection method (e.g. how are people found, selected, and asked to participate), sample size & demographics, data collection method (e.g. experimental design, research instruments, variables, leading questions) Analysis/Interpretation: biased or narrow attention to details (overlooking or overemphasizing), overinterpretations which lead to conclusions not necessarily implied by the data Documentation/Report: lack of fullness/transparency/ poor or biased writing/methods (e.g. p-hacking, limited statement of: details of method, contradictory data, and study limitations). It's not exactly simple for peer reviewers to hold people accountable, to monitor the researchers' every move in the process to fix minor errors (e.g. miscalculation or mistabulation, misleading or vague wording), and to ensure that the report is complete and accurate to what actually occurred and was found. Dont expect it to be easy to detect and prove bias and any sort of misconduct. Even when it comes to fabrication, falsification, and modification. Seemingly minor issues with the study can have significant influence in the reported findings and conclusions. For obvious reasons, individual studies will also have to be compared to other studies. The findings need to be consistently reproducible and applicable to various contexts. Meta analyses and systematic reviews are valuable for a reason.

It seems unrealistic as of the moment for there to be published studies on cognitive functions theory with scientific rigour. Aside from the fact that proper research literature won't necessarily be published in journals, it is not simple to type people using cognitive functions. Self-input tests (e.g. big five, the perceived stress scale) are the easiest for research since they lead to faster sample collection plus require no interpretation for the test result to be final (If we're purely relying on the questionnaire, then the results, assuming they present the entire population, will reflect the reliability of the questionnaire. If we're relying on a person, there's the matter of potential bias, limited view, or the unknown extent of how much of the results are due to the person and how much due to the theory itself). The other option is for there to be some sort of ‘expert’. How do we choose the expert/s? Especially in a way that is convincing on paper. Those who subscribe to the theory have various contradicting interpretations of it. People like to say that they're ways are completely aligned with MBTI or Jung, but the reality is that each person's system differs and is a mix of various things they've read alongside their own thoughts. The lack of consensus is one of the reasons it’s a bit less simple to assess the theory…because how the theory works is not solid but fluid (this is mainly referring to cognitive functions). We need to know what exactly we are proving in order to test its validity. We probably can't get something fully consistent, but perhaps it would be enough to avoid the theory's developments (since it has branched out a lot) and for the supposed basis to be Jung's works (not that they're perfect). If we were to use an expert, we need some sort of status that is "universally" valid (at least good enough for those without much knowledge of the theory). The most probable solution seems to be to gather a certain number of certified Jungian Analysts (for additional credibility, hopefully with a degree on psychology, neuroscience, etc.), who will type people based on the 8 psychological types in Jung’s book (even Jung acknowledges the importance of the auxiliary but we likely cannot go for 16types unless you want to test MBTI. Unless, of course, you prefer the other option: a self-input cognitive functions questionnaire which is probably a simpler option that acts as the first step in validating the theory scientifically). This way, they are following the same version of the theory and are also credible in this aspect (though they may not necessarily know how to type people since theory differs from application, plus the psychological types is only one of many ideas/theories of Jung. Not to say that they don't go through any sort of training or application, just that it may be unlikely for psychological types in particular since it is not as meaningful as other teachings).

Now, assuming the typing method is reliable and credible, how do you prove that the categories hold meaning and that these types are quantitatively distinct (also qualitatively but this is more difficult to prove and not as important in terms of scientific validation)? This can be done in many ways. The best would likely be to compare the brain scans of each type (e.g. consistent brain patterns in function groups). Other things you could compare the typings to are well-supported questionnaires that measure traits. If the researchers only care about proving its validity, it may be compared to the big 5 (which is considered somewhat scientific). Something you may or may not consider an issue is that these parts will overlook the unique qualities within each type, and is likely to lead to more generalizations based on type (e.g. ascribing behavior to function). If enough research is published regarding the original theory, it may become a stepping stone for cognitive functions to be a more acceptable topic, thereby letting people be able to test the validity of also 16-type cognitive functions. Now…do I believe all of this will occur? No. Chances are, it'll never be scientific, but does it actually matter outside of using it as proof? Can this be beneficial when it comes to the self-discovery aspect of the theory? No, at least not during the validity testing phase, beyond that, it is still likely to encourage generalizations. But it may also provide new insights to develop the theory and better understand type differences (especially when neurology is involved).

#mbti #cognitive functions

0 notes

hourlymbti · 3 years ago

Text

Judging and Perceiving Axes Short Descriptions

This post is inspired by a Reddit user that described perceiving and judging functions as movement vs control types. Movement as in involving your mind in the progress and the flow of the world (witnessing the world), while control wants to set goals and get outcomes (shaping the world).

"Truths", no matter how contingent, is the scope of the perceiving functions. They are empirical (Ne/Se) or experiential (Ni/Si). To discover what exists and what doesn’t/could exist. They do not seek to make any judgement, just to collect all the “information” they can find, even if the information is integrated with contents within. They seek knowledge (book knowledge, hands-on experience, knowledge of what is possible, the feelings the mind gives you all count) and are guided by the images that arise form their mind. Things are not subjected to right or wrong, logical or not. Things simply are the way they are (of course, they can still be wrong about their information, but that's what they care about). Perceiving dominants are a bit more likely to focus on collecting and anticipating information to resemble a continuous walk between two legs. A perceiving-axis would care for flows.

The judging functions have their beliefs about the world. They can't just accept everything that occurs. They want to understand the structure of the world, or assess how things should be. They would desire the environment to be under "control" in the sense that they have a mission (F) to pursue and come up with the objectives (T) to be fulfilled to achieve the mission. Planning (T) is also about controlling the situation, rather than living out the process. Judging dominants are a bit more likely to re-assess each step in relation to the mission and objectives (this includes reassessing the mission and objectives). A judging-axis would care for outcomes. Should we achieve something different? Should we achieve this differently?

The process from the previous paragraph is essentially the same for T-F in general. The main difference between Ti-Fe and Te-Fi is where they focus and derive their systems from.

What is the most sound approach given the values of others or the value I have formed as a result of their values? Are these values sound? Is there a compromise to satisfy the two? Should I strive for these ideals despite being unsound? Should I make changes in their values based on what seems sound?

What are the most reliable approaches given the desired result of my values? Do my values not fit well with the most reliable approaches? Is there a compromise to satisfy the two? Should I strive for these ideals despite being unrealistic? Should I make changes in my values based on what seems realistic?

—-----

A Si user would look at things and use their mind's Google to think of ways to use it, new ways to use it would rely mostly on Ne (though Si would compare the structure/function of the item with another item which has different uses; depending on how they see its relations. Two objects that are remembered in high intensity in the same experience may be considered related). Every event is seen with the things they’ve learned in mind.

A Se user wouldn't rely as much on what they already know (they would care less about actively finding details they can use as reference points for more information). They look at the object as it is and relate it to the current context. It could be utilized in a novel way or a way they're already aware of. They're more adaptable as they see the world with a relatively fresh outlook. That’s what makes Se raw, objective, and unbiased. But of course, raw material has its limitations.

Si-Ne. The user does not see the world as it is, but bounces off of them and checks all related information on the things they can find from the present in order to provide guidance to their objective views on potential. They basically search for secondary information through their database (you can also bounce off the secondary information). Objective projections (Ne) do not judge, so in order to navigate it rather than stay still, they will utilize all the bounceable information (Si) and see how the info fits with every idea. Their thoughts have more structure when it comes to their ideas or how things relate to other contexts.

Note: If you picture "pieces" of information (which is a vague concept as its hard to numerically measure mental information as compared to digital information) as a block, then Si's secondary information isn't limited to adding more blocks. It could provide more depth and detail to a block, it could group blocks together (categorization) or strengthen their connections (how each block relates to other blocks)

Se-Ni. The user observes and navigates the world impersonally, but is guided by a subjective & straight line extracted from that impersonal perception. As an image recognition software, they have one clear idea that is deemed to fit well with the present situation. When with impersonal data and a strong projection they have faith in, they have a solid understanding on how their environment is, how it moves, and how to deal with it. How they approach / their relationship with their environment has more structure (in-context).

Si-Ne = Clear understanding of the connections/network of info and ideas (how information relates to each other, how information relates to each idea/possibility, and how each idea relates to each other.). Ends up as a general understanding that applies to multiple contexts (like textbook)

Se-Ni = Clear understanding of the current context (not only do you see the entire structure of the present world, but you picture a bunch of arrows all pointing to one particular direction)

#mbti #cognitive functions #fe #ti #Te #fi #se #ni #ne #si

0 notes

hourlymbti · 3 years ago

Note

Can extroverted functions be stubborn? you mentioned a lot about introverted stubbornness while describing extroverts as lacking that stubborn ground

Technically you can stubbornly follow your extroverted nature. Depends on what you mean by stubborn (when I do talk about stubbornness, I'm taking the functions to an extreme to show how function biases could play out). I view all functions as potentially stubborn, especially when they are overused (to the extent of ignoring other functions). In theory, their pure forms will stubbornly be open to the wind (oxymoronic, I know). They are so open-minded that their brain falls out (inability to assess anything)

As much as some would like to pigeonhole those they dislike as pure-function users, we will not see pure forms of any dominant in real life because there is always some influence from the other functions, even if it's unconscious.

Te looks at the world and based on what they have seen, they try to structure the world, to understand how it works. Once a conclusion has been set in stone, they use what they believe to be their superior evidence against any opposing argument. Reasoning without evidence does not work, and any evidence that does go against their highly established worldview can be seen as mere anomalies or even problems (unconscious Fi). Think of it as constructing a building using certain facts. Replacing the facts utilized for the building is difficult, instead, they need to demolish the building and work from scratch. To be clear, anyone who's far up their own ass will view themselves as objectively correct with both soundness (based on logic) and connection to reality (based on facts). In addition, there's room for interpretation for what facts are. Fe may misunderstand someone's values or stance. Te may mix up principles with observation. Raw stimuli aren't limited to "true facts". The things you've read and heard do require subjective standards to be determined as facts or not. Fe can mimic or blend external values, but Te can mimic or blend rules and principles that describe the universe. Everyone has Te, and depending on the external sources you use as reference points, your Te could give good or bad conclusions. People have limited control over their external sources, and may borrow flawed ideas or absorb observations that don't fully represent the phenomena. Many generations ago, most people thought that the Earth was flat. Can we call others dumb for believing the same today when most people have a limited understanding of why the Earth is round rather than flat? In both cases, the difference lies on what was provided in education (i.e. external sources they were exposed to). If people only believe something because that's what they're told or taught, can we truly say that they "know" the answer? Mentally speaking, its the same process and level of intellect whether or not you're right or wrong. If one spent all of their savings to gamble, and fortunately won, could we say that they "knew" they would win? If someone were to accuse you of lying based solely on your facial expressions, can we say that they "knew" you were lying in the case that you actually were? If you made a guess (i.e. a decision based on limited information), can we ever say that you "knew" the correct answer? Knowledge is about true and justified beliefs (but the extent and method of justification can differ greatly). Regardless, Thinking doesn't require the perfect amount of information to determine what is sound or reliable. If it did, its use would be too limited.

In many countries, Fe can be the silencer; this includes self-silencing (somewhat like social anxiety and peer pressure). They may place a very high importance on the community's form of respect, traditions, and courtesy. Bonus points if any conflict or going against the others is seen as disrespectful. Everyone fears disrupting the peace that they hesitate to publicly voice out any concerns or calls for changes (which may mean most of the repressed niche aspects are concentrated somewhere, maybe online or in informal media, so sometimes a culture can end up with an extremely normal and an extremely quirky side). An extreme Fe society based on these principles can easily have 30% who are actual followers while 60% simply feel more comfortable fitting in, accommodating/matching others, and not grabbing attention that as a result, what we observe is that 90% of public demand leans toward sticking by that convention (to the mind, there is no difference between reality and one’s perception of reality. Fe can follow a false understanding of others’ values). They can make innovations if needed, but the society's lack of potential for changing their values can make it more difficult to accept all innovation.

Pe functions are purely empirical so it's difficult to call them stubborn besides the fact that they're incapable of organizing or filtering information. They accept everything that comes into their mental spotlight. Se often loves to share the objective experiences of reality whether it is due to a playful or serious in nature. But there is also a desire for others to acknowledge it (after all, how can 2 individuals have an agreement or a sound discussion when they can't even agree on the facts). Everything that Se observes is seen to be indisputable, it doesn't question facts and it can't distinguish outliers; how can we be sure that facts don't get mixed up with opinions and delusions? Many pieces are less significant, many contradict another. So while Se is more accepting of deviations, treating them as equal as all other facts can cause problems (of course, the same goes for ignoring deviations). Additionally, facts are facts, but as humans, the perception, interpretation, and communication of facts can affect what we absorb as "facts" in practice. In theory, facts are concrete and 100% true to the full objects that exist outside our minds. But in reality, facts are often psychological. Like Te, it can treat its views as common sense. It would be absurd for you not to see this. If you truly observed/experienced what I have, you'll believe the same as me. Ne, on the other hand, wants to embrace every possibility. It does not want to leave any behind no matter what evidence or logic is available. It deeply desires to entertain possibilities no matter how little evidence there is, how unrealistic it is, or even if it isn’t possible (it may be willing to ignore the concept of impossibility). It doesn't matter what things suggest, each possibility feels just as real as the other.

When one function has too much hierarchy over the others, we will have biases which cause us to focus too hard on certain aspects that we ignore others.

#Te #Fe #Ne #Se #mbti #cognitive functions

0 notes

hourlymbti · 3 years ago

Text

MBTI for Self-Development and how Typology may worsen Psychological Understanding

Self-understanding is an active and lifelong series of hypotheses. The learning process is often more insightful than the validity of the initial conclusion. Sometimes being uncertain is something to be proud of — it's a form of cautiousness.

Firstly, this post is obviously meaningless if you only wish to use mbti for fun (though you could argue you could use it for fun without entirely generalizing on others. You can skip to the 10th paragraph if you want to consider if you're too invested in typology or if it has become an unhealthy framework/obsession). That is, of course, a valid use of it. At least you're probably not one of those that pretend they are using it for some greater benefit without flaw.

Personality categories merely serve as general directions. The effectiveness of the tool depends on your understanding of it and how you apply your knowledge. While it can allow you to be more understanding of a higher variety of psychic constitutions as you will try to understand their reasoning or different things people take into consideration, the categories may make you more narrow-minded rather than help you in self-awareness and understanding others. How you look at the categories matters. Some enthusiasts hinder their own development by forcing themselves (or their perception of themself) into a strict box, or use personality theory for a desire to belong (a basic desire for an in-group, which will lead to sides rather than individuals). Stereotypes from classifications are a form of cognitive bias (the brain does this to simplify processing or to conserve energy. People naturally rely on generalizations subconsciously to a certain extent). It's easier to "understand" or digest who someone is when all you need is to put them in categories. The effort and mental process is simplified if you decide you can make a conclusion with what you have, regardless of how limited it is, so you don't need to dig deeper. The human brain is wired to feel certain things based on matters like shapes, sizes, arrangements, smells, colors (these feelings become drivers for motivation, thought, and action. It allows for a sense of urgency, danger, warmth, need. It's just so subtle, ordinary, and quick that people don't recognize how stimuli are processed and results in emotions which give direction to the mind. There's a natural bias based on visuals. This applies to weather, people, food. It's crucial for the mind to react to what is seen. The issue is that it will always play a role, to a certain extent. Clothes, how nice the day looks, store design, branding, profile pictures. The point is that stimuli, not just visuals, play too big of a role or play a role in matters that it shouldn't. Information does not need to be sufficient, it just needs to enter the brain for there to be a level of reaction. Perhaps you just want to make a judgement call, but when you don;t even know the essential facts of the situation, you don’t surely know what’s right or wrong. So you pretend to know the facts to assure yourself that this is the conclusion and it is right). You follow one conclusion, not bothering to see the rest. The human mind likes to make conclusions, but don't get trapped by the conclusions you make. Always be skeptical of them. Everyone is influenced by cognitive bias, but the step to improve on this is to look more into it and pay attention to details and possibilities that go against your assumptions (being inconclusive helps. The human mind is always subject to bias as it sets directions in conclusions even with the lack of information, so in order to minimize bias, we should take it slowly and make deliberate assessments, rather than rush to a conclusion. We should not accept what seems true/sound, we should not dismiss what seems false. We are giving more power to our biases in doing so. But of course, people do this daily, even those we may consider professional. We're talking about conclusions rather than credibility of data but it may be helpful to note that: ways to judge a source can be applied as ways to judge information. “The sheer existence of evidence is not enough to verify a claim. The absence of evidence, on the other hand, is reason to be skeptical”. We have “evidence”, but we need to question how narrow and limited our scope is. People focus on the spotlight, but ignore how much is covered in darkness. Sources want you to believe they are an authority on the topic. They’re not just meant to be informative, but often to be persuasive as well. So it is sometimes best to look away and shift the spotlight elsewhere in order to be able to criticize the source. Methods can be cross-checking with what other sources have to say about both the source and the data, looking into the details of your source’s background, checking their reasoning and evidence rather than treat the claim itself as sufficient as if it is a plain fact, checking how the evidence was collected, searching for the context of the evidence. We need to make habits in doing so rather than only check information that does not match our initial understanding or personal reasoning. Fact check and criticize everything, even the ones that do not trigger your internal alarm. While no one is perfect in realizing the truth, to accept this would make one more open to consider if their own knowledge is flawed, limited, or completely wrong. These may seem obvious or common sense, but the simplest of things need often to be reminded). Easier said than done since cognitive biases naturally cause stubbornness (the point is to conserve energy, so why take extra effort?). Then again, it is self-growth on its own to be able to notice how and why you have certain biases or misuses. Try to understand your insecurities. Some things you can look at are what motivations do you have when it comes to engaging in typology, what makes it interesting to you, are certain stereotypes entertaining/annoying (why?)? Do you care too much when someone makes a claim on what your group is like? Do you use typology for identity purposes (e.g. self-affirmation, validation, belongingness)? Do you take your type too seriously (e.g. get frustrated or feel bad when given the possibility of being a certain type or when a generalization of your type does not match you)? Do you feel uncomfortable with the thought that someone you really dislike would be the same type as you, perhaps causing you to claim that there's no way someone that immature or someone that awful could be an [your type]? Try to look at any negative uses of typology, or more specifically: self-perception getting too tied up to it. See how much these may relate to you or what you think of them.

When you rely on labels or categories to understand people, your perception of them pays more attention to aspects of them that fit this image, and less attention to the features beyond its scope. It’s easy to rely on type to tell you what someone can or cannot do (there is a reason that heuristics are a thing) or who they are. But rigid boxes merely encourage personal biases and doesnt enable the individual to be fully themself. Dont let personal motivations or others' beliefs create barriers for growth. Universal standards or generalizations erase the individual for what is supposed to be "the average" person. Stereotypes influence type assessments of the self and others, which means that the influence of stereotypes continues to reinforce itself in people’s beliefs. This includes vibe checks which is a form of stereotyping. If your mind associates being over-commanding, “karen-like”, and inconsiderate of others as ESTJ, then many of those you type as ESTJ will simply be people that you dislike. These personal experiences/anecdotes will verify those beliefs, causing a distorted view on what an ESTJ is. The community's view on each type is colored and it is not uncommon for people to be dictating how a type should be (e.g. ISFPs can’t be x, INFPs should be y). A vibe check can and often does quickly narrow down the perceived options. In type assessment, you type people based on your image of the type and create an echo chamber for yourself as the brain will say that these people you typed as XXXX confirm that your images are correct. This also applies to accusing people of being mistyped despite not knowing them well for reasons including flawed views on typing (their solution is wrong, but that neither confirms or denies their answer. Do not type someone or eliminate certain types as possibilities based on what you see from posts or comments).

Regardless of how scientific a certain typology is, it should be common sense that these are mere types....they are concepts that try to represent the group. To make psychology scientific means that we have to dilute subjective experiences into quantifiable variables so that we can find trends from the data (with this in mind, statistical anomalies exist. Don’t generalize). Besides this, the community’s type assessments or approaches to typing is most likely different from how the studies have been conducted to achieve the title of “scientific”. Psychology has plenty room for interpretation.

There are many things that are attributed to particular types such as hard work, focus on a goal, selfishness, emotional level, and a pleasant attitude. Many things are within the scope of functions, yes, but not so much dictative of type. Extreme stereotypes exist for all types since most are attracted to pop psychology for the simple classifications. This is partially influenced by memes with exaggerations and generalizations (or just those seeking validation or people to relate to. It is often that mbti and other pop psychology frameworks are used to validate certain beliefs or to feel less alone/receive a sense of finding alike individuals or being a part of a group by identifying with them. The ego latches on to anything about their "type", to an extent that it becomes a pillar to their identity or even self-esteem. These are not to be condemned, it's natural.. though it's worth considering the existence of these and how it may influence your views/stance). Those are typically what gets the most attention and numbers, thus is somewhat encouraged. Many times, those posts are serious, many times they are not. Regardless, people get exposed to these stereotypes enough for it to have an effect; seeing as they are accepted ideas, a part of them gradually overestimates how much truth they have (or perhaps they have an initial desire for it to be true). Then stereotypes reinforce themselves since one’s opinions and understanding of type will be influenced by what their mind associates with the categories (this is why anecdotal evidence is not very reliable). Memes create a form of groupthink in mbti communities. Sure typings dont actually exist for the most part. "Type" is pretty fluid rather than a rigid box. The brain desires simplicity (for efficient processing in exchange for cognitive bias) but the lines aren't clear-cut, things aren't black and white, it's full of nuances ("type" is more about cardinal points rather than boundaries). Type assessment will rely on the use of generalizations (habits, external manifestations, basic thought processes commonly associated with a type or function) which are used to infer on core processes (few issues are that multiple core processes can be tied to it rather than a simple one-to-one relationship, things are case-to-case, people can use any function, factors such as context and experiences are not completely known). It's a larger issue when it's about characters or celebrities since these cases most often leave no choice but to rely on stereotypes or speculation given insufficient information (though the same goes for most people you know irl, trying to unveil their type will require generalization). But regardless of information, typology enthusiasts are guided by a common desire to form a conclusion or a desire to say something with certainty, rather than an unsatisfactory "i dont know" or "we can't tell". PDB is full of questionable reasoning in type assessment because the environment encourages you to have a conclusion (To be fair, most type assessments are largely based on vibe checks so when someone has to explain their reasoning, it will not be the most sound. If every community's reasoning is equally bad, this will be most noticeable in PDB simply because PDB is the best place to find type assessments, which is its sole purpose. PDB represents how people actually type. It does also reveal certain biases against people who disagree as aside from "she's so XXXX" or "very Xx", you may find people saying "XXXX typers are just biased, they only typed that way because of this". There's an in-group vs out-group effect. Typically, most of the comments are claims, and even accusations, without arguments). This desire for conclusions can also be said about typing yourself. You may rush the process due to a feeling of missing out on something, falling behind, thinking it means not being "good" enough in theory or self-knowledge, whereas the rest of the community has their type badge

Many go to typology for some sort of “proof” for themself or their identity. They resort to identifying with a group, and anything said about that group is treated as something said about them. They get too invested and too personally attached to this. If you want to use it for practical purposes, you do not want to be someone who uses classifications to complain about others, or to feel better about yourself, to compare how “good” you are to a certain trait you care about as compared to others (e.g. when you see a ranking post, you feel some desire for your type to have a more desirable ranking even though your category is not representative of you, and neither are people’s perceptions on your category). The community has a habit of overinterpreting things—to attribute very minor details to type (this has to do with a desire to generalize or focus on superficial aspects for simplicity in application). It is easy to say that no type is inherently better or worse, but you cannot erase your mind of any stereotypes/generalizations you have associated with a type. Making assumptions is expected due to a natural desire to have a conclusion or to make absolute rules. Association of categories can make you develop an oversimplified, superficial, or black-and-white view on the human mind, but it is good to notice any of your negative uses of personality theory or attitude towards the mind and classifications. To notice any negative behaviors you have, and especially to discover how they are rooted in a personal insecurity is very beneficial for self-awareness. As with negative behavior in general, try to understand why you have certain biases/habits when it comes to personality classifications. Incrementally What personal incentives may you have in using personality classifications? What insecurities may have influenced your attitudes to personality type? What do these behaviors/insecurities of yours have to do with self-identity or your relationship with/view of the world? Dont expect self-awareness to just come quickly, expect this to take time.

The individual is unique in their mind and circumstances; this is something obvious but forgotten. If asked, most would agree. But that doesn't mean this is always applied to their though….the mind is inconsistent. Type is merely one tool/framework to understand your conscious attitude (+ the resulting unconscious compensation) and to search for areas of improvement. You can't do this effectively if the tool is misunderstood (not that understanding alone grants results). The theory can direct you to certain areas/paths of development. What Jung values is the integration of your whole. To do this, you need all of your functions to be “conscious” (perhaps there's some blur in even how you view your dominant since aspects of yourself that stand out to you will often be less normal for you. Ordinary moments and things you do all the time, things that feel natural or basic often won't be of as much interest, somewhat like breathing, blinking, or the delicate process of swallowing. They're very natural and you don't need to put much conscious thought in order to perform those actions). The dominant by default is the most conscious, while the inferior is the most unconscious and “untamed”. According to Jung, what makes a function conscious is that you are able to consistently control it with conscious intent as if it is tamed. It should additionally play a decisive role in the orientation of your conscious attitude rather than neglected or just come out to you as symptoms or afterthoughts/rumination. Self-awareness is generally important for maturity (not just in type). The more conscious you are of how your negative behaviors arise, the more you can deal with them and control yourself. For integration, viewing the other functions negatively will hinder this. You have to see their value and listen to them, but you also have to see the negatives/shortcomings of your dominant (its limits and how a predominance in that function causes a certain one-sidedness) and how the other functions can make up for this and provide some balance. You might also be able to understand how you (over)compensate for the shortcomings and insecurities of the dominant function (e.g. using the inferior but often in miniscule or ineffective ways to give you merely a sense/feeling of wholeness. You may even overestimate your ability and willingness to use it). Generally speaking, the other functions ultimately serve the goals of the dominant. It has the loudest and clearest voice. If another function contradicts the dominant’s wishes, it is very often rejected. The goal is to increase your willingness to use other functions in times when your dominant is telling you to do otherwise, but not to erase the dominant's role since it is your most natural and usually most developed (and easiest to develop) function.

How exactly you use type for growth is up to you. Advice meant for your type category does not necessarily fit you. There are general guidelines (e.g. “first develop the dominant, then aux”, or “observe unhealthy behaviors, especially in the inferior and how it relates to dominant one-sidedness) but that's just the skeleton of the blueprint. The rest must be decided by you, because your category is what is perceived to be the average person of your type. Advice for a category does not account for particular circumstances, personal needs & capabilities (priority of areas to develop at the current state), unique qualities (deviations). Though of course, your understanding of yourself isn’t perfect, especially on your shortcomings (and therefore areas of improvement). When it comes to help from others, they would need to know you well (under the surface). This can be beneficial for some sort of support or to provide details you may have overlooked or certain perspectives that may balance out a somewhat unrealistic or one-sided view of yourself. On the other hand, people dont necessarily know you well so it may at most be informative about how you act/behave (but you may be able to interpret data on your appearance to notice something about yourself, mainly on how your thoughts influence your behavior). Additionally, if anyone says something about you that you dislike, it may be informative about your insecurities (regardless of how true it is; your reaction matters).

(if it is of little practical use to you) Perhaps what's more important is: should you actually give a shit about typology? Do you get much enjoyment from it? Do you take it too seriously? Has it or the community brought you stress? Is it worth it? Does it matter?

Why should you engage in another heated argument about a character's type? Should we even be typing characters? Should we avoid placing labels on others so that we can focus on the individual rather than their supposed group? Should we act like there should be a strong conclusion as if we can claim the type absolutely? Must you always point out that a description, a meme, a tierlist or whatever, doesn't fit -you- (a fairly neutral description that claims generally rather than absolutely, as opposed to insulting a type), despite the fact that we're using categories and it will therefore be accurate to some but not others (This is different from saying that it's not much of a type thing or saying it doesn't make sense. The issue is when you desire everything about a type to represent YOU in particular)? Why must you be asking or arguing about which perceiver is the most fun, kind, quirky, or basic? It is a personal issue if you feel judged by a category or feel the need to judge others and use type as an excuse to do so. If someone is insulting or complimenting your type, they're not complimenting you, they're complimenting a concept. Unfortunately that means, your worth is tied to a separate entity (which is normal since self worth will always look at external objects as a reference, but just be aware of it). If someone compliments your friend for being mature, it is not you that should be flattered just because you perceive yourself to be mature as well and that you have a very similar character/type to your friend. Don't get too invested with typology. Whether that is caring a lot about what people think of each type, using type to pigeon-hole people you like and dislike, or using type to describe too many aspects in your life that your worldview becomes centered around a shakey and limited theory. Do not use it as a source of validation or self-satisfaction when these are mere categories that have nothing to do with you: an individual with your own life, actions, and character. Type doesn't matter, type isn't you. It is who YOU are, and what YOU choose to do that matters. Don't let these categories take that away from you.

My wording throughout the text is intentionally depicting a negative stance towards typology for you to try to consider how you may use it negatively. I don't see a point to this post if you're purely using it positively, but humans have biases so I doubt that’s mentally true. I believe there's a decent amount who do use it positively (though having net positive uses does not necessarily mean there are no negatives. There will always be some negatives. Well, it may be wrong to use the term net positive since that is usually about a single variable while in this case, there are multiple aspects for positive and negative uses, but it's fine since we aren't referring to something that we can effectively capture with quantitative measurements). Regardless, you should always consider if something is wrong, no matter how minor, with how you approach these personality categories. Everyone with have at least a bit of flaws. Don't be ashamed, be proud to be capable of acknowledging what others would find shameful. Insecurities are a crucial aspect of maturity. Being too insecure to acknowledge your insecurities and flaws is the main challenge of self-understanding and -growth.

Side note: Perhaps I have sounded harsh myself but you are not doing good by condemning people for being mistyped (it would also be a bit ironic if you’re the type to accuse others of being mistyped despite not knowing them well). Condemnation is not productive unless your goal is to make people less willing to admit their issues to themselves and others. In most cases, people are merely throwing a tantrum in such an act, not communicating something of any use. In this, they feel frustration, anger, or a similar emotion, and primarily wish to release these emotions. Lashing out is often thinly veiled as “helping” as it's a better image for them to be practically pursuing a result rather than being immature. Emotions are neither good nor bad. Emotions are the mind’s reaction to stimuli. Whether or not you agree with them, you have the responsibility to decide what you do with that reaction. Do not blindly follow emotions, but use them as leads by asking why those emotions came up. The ones you least understand can be the most dangerous. The reactions have a source, trace that source and figure out why and if it is justified, figure out what to do with this information. You can be mad at people’s fuck-ups, but what will your madness do to solve problems? There’s a fire raging inside you, wanting you to hand over the reins and let it unleash, but as valid as it may be, do not allow it to take over.

#mbti in application #mbti

0 notes

hourlymbti · 3 years ago

Text

How Si (and Ni) Transform Reality

Someone asked "is Si about internal body sensations” as well as other questions regarding Si/Ni. Even though I assume it is just this one anonymous user who’s asking all these questions for Si/Ni, I’ve decided to use this question to further describe Si as well as its similarities with Ni. Skip to the 3rd paragraph after this if you're more interested in that. Skip deeper below if you’re more interested in how they shape reality in relation to Se/Ne.

To first answer the question, this is not a Si thing. I assume in an attempt to differentiate Si from Se, people thought that introversion would mean sensing something inside. However, we are talking about a psychological concept. What constitutes "you" is not your body, but your mind. The subject is the self. When it's about the mind, it's about the brain. What is internal are the contents inside your brain. In introversion, stimuli travel deeper into the mind, reacting to other contents within (that can be getting mixed with those content, triggering those content, etc.). Bodily sensations are raw stimuli. Your body exists separately from your mind, making it psychologically external until the information becomes a stored experience or is transformed by the inner world.

On a related note, calling Si as past is an incomplete truth but still has value to it, just that people forget that we need to interpret "past" in terms of the mind since we're talking about psychological processes. When it comes to traditions, Si sets baselines (by baseline, think of game rules or trend lines. They're not strict rules that are always exactly followed, but they do serve as a reference point for what to expect) based on available information (e.g. what they have done, what they have seen been done, what seems to be supported by what they know). It is when we spend less time & effort to think where you’ll most gravitate towards these baselines. A big example is a habit. When done a lot, an act/thought becomes the default option; requiring little thought to be chosen. Since social traditions are norms, there will be many people who have those as their own traditions. That does not make Si about other people's past. Its baselines can be the norm or not the norm. If the stored information of Si mainly skews towards a non-normal baseline, then that's what it will likely be set to. This causes Si to be a big player in how your circumstances (e.g. social environment, financial situation, any interactions with people or objects) influence you, since those circumstances will influence your experiences and therefore your data. Your understanding of what romantic love (something everyone seems to understand well, yet isn’t something with clear & concrete lines to distinguish from other sorts of feelings & relationships) is will depend a lot on what you observe from your parents and the media you consume. If your observation consists of plenty of gifts. Then you'll largely associate with and think of romance as full of gifts. If your observation consists of plenty of disrespect, quarreling, oppositions, and instability, then your baseline understanding of love would be a bit negative, because what comes to mind is a toxic relationship. Let's say all humans see the same variety of colours, however, each color is different to each individual. Your "orange" can be someone's "purple". Person 1 and 2 are both looking at the same apple, but they see different colors. The color person 1 sees blue, while the color person 2 sees is green. But they both learn to identify & label the color as red, because that’s how they learned to call it. In simpler terms, if the color red was always taught to you as if it's the color blue, then you will probably refer to red as blue, not knowing that what you see as blue is actually red to others. If you've always observed that prison is an unsanitary, violent, depressing environment with poorly maintained appliances, then that's what comes to mind when you think of prison. Basically, Si's traditions and knowledge could fit the norm or not fit the norm, and that's because personal traditions are largely based on the user's personal experiences.

When we are talking about a psychological past (i.e. how the past influences the mine) we are not looking at the world's past but at -their- world's past. A web of interconnected individual information becomes a database with a search bar. Information that strikes an impression to the user becomes the input for the search bar to seek related information on the input (and the results of the search are basically "what comes to mind" no matter how irrelevant they may seem to the input. This is because what information is related/mentally tied to each other is subjective.). Layers of data culminate into your personal understanding of a word/concept/symbol. It could also be a simple recollection of an experience/data point. In summary, when it comes to Si, stimuli is not absorbed raw, but through an inward lens with content shaped by previous experiences (primal knowledge is also involved with Pi, but that's a topic you should learn from Jung's writings where he discusses a lot about archetypes or the primitive mind). Si uses the database to identify & associate.

—------------------------------------------------------------

Now lets use all this to see how Si can be biased or subjective in application. When it comes to stimuli, introverts tend to have a stronger focus on particular details. Since introversion means oriented internally, this means things that strike/resonate with them (e.g. those that attack/fit with their view, those, those that spark the formation of a view). Functions oriented externally do not inherently pick one over the other, they are oriented to external conditions overall. Due to how much introverted functions rely on the inner world, they're more likely to be 'niche' rather than well-rounded (e.g. Ti is prone to be creatively stupid or very insightful when compared to Te's typical conclusions).

In many situations, we merely see the exterior of a household. Only when we open the door and enter the place can we truly know its contents. However, Ni and Si allow us to see beyond what are actually the closed doors. Or to put it more accurately, to assume what else there is. Ni does this through thematic pattern recognition while Si does this through a network of information relations/associations. Si is an online browser that analyzes the search input to bring up stored information. The top results of the algorithm may end up being integrated into their perception of the situation rather than treated as separate. Regardless, all these connections make up Si’s understanding of an object/topic. Ni is more similar to an image recognition software. The precise stimuli do not matter as much as long as the overall structure resembles the object. Different faces are still recognized as faces. They don't remember the exact image, just that it's a face.

In a way, Si transforms the actual stimuli based on their subjective experience of it (lens that are colored by inner content such as archetypes and memory). At the most basic level, stimuli means more than itself. All those pixels on the screen are meaningless until it is processed by the brain through all sorts of associations/connections from existing data. It is "identified" into something meaningful to the user (something they understand). With this, there is a lot of potential for interpreting these otherwise meaningless sights and sounds. It is as if everything is a symbol (e.g. letters individually or combined inherently mean nothing, but we learned to identify them then attribute them to particular sounds and meaning). Once stimuli are identified, Si uses associations to bring up supplementary data (what comes to mind). They identify what they see as x,y,z, then suddenly a,b, and c come out.

Like Ni, it can start filling up the gaps in information, or even replace information with things that aren't fully confirmed. An example that will help you visualize it is trying to identify structures/objects despite having blurry peripheral vision (now imagine this with flatout blindspots). This applies to many other things such as 'what comes to mind' when a certain 'keyword' or key stimuli pops up. It is likely that Si has something to do with when an experience is improved simply because the environment is improved (e.g. eating food in a non-crowded, peaceful, aesthetically-pleasing, and comfortable setting can influence how much you enjoyed the food). You can summarize Si as psychological 'experiences' that arise as a result of the stimuli (these experiences can be treated as supplementary data: data outside of what is actually being observed at the moment). You could argue the intuitive functions to be experiences as well, and I would agree. But to differentiate the two: sensation seeks to experience the world (but not necessarily the actual world since one's absorption of stimuli can be significantly faulty, especially with introverted perceiving functions and a strong lean against sensation. Si does this through the inner world, I am referring to content stored in the mind rather than thoughts in general. Consequently, this also involves dreams. Dreams are an amalgamation or "blob" of synthesized content in the mind. Those contents are within the scope of Si and Ni. All the made up information is also from Si/Ni. Not only are dreams rooted in Si/Ni content, but since processing is about abstracting meaning from things, Si/Ni are the main functions in experiencing dreams.) while intuition does not seek the world itself, but rather, its potential (Ni specifically pursues one of the potentials). This is why Ni leans more toward foreseeing (this word is more accurate than 'predicting' which can be more deliberate than what Ni actually does) the future (the future isnt something you 'experience').

So when Si fills gaps, it's almost like 'predicting' the present. Look at it as datapoints vs trendlines, Si sees the datapoints while Ni sees the trendline. Si can use the datapoints to make assumptions about more data, while Ni uses the trendline to see the data (the made up data of these functions can be accurate or not accurate, what matters is the process). Seems a bit similar? That's because they are. The content itself is different, but the brain tends to use them in similar ways. These are personal functions in the sense that they extract meaning that isn't a part of the stimuli, to the extent that it leads to a conclusion (a conclusion that is empirical in nature. To the mind, it is not deliberate. It is more of a sorting/matching activity, than a problem-solving activity). The objective functions, on the other hand, are objective and impartial. They're fairly disconnected since they care not for what the stimuli has to do with the self, they look externally. When compared to Si & Ni, Se & Pe are more like "observations" than "experiences". Nothing is personally meaningful (they don't extract meaning/extra info from what they see), they're just spectators. Se sees the world for itself, Ne sees all of its potential. Si tries to identify the world, and Ni resonates with a particular path; which then integrates or colors their experience of the world (almost in an illusory form….not to say that Si/Ni are always incorrect, but they are like illusions)

Now about how their reality-transformation affects their relationship with the Ne & Se functions:

Pe functions explore and discover. Pi functions filter and organize.

Inferior Ne dislikes uncertainty while Inferior Se dislikes change/chaos. Si and Ni deal with these dislikes effectively:

Ne has difficulty filtering their possibilities to what's most realistic or fitting given what they know. This is done by connecting information to related information collected from other contexts. Ne extends to possibilities, then Si connects each possibility to data of past and present. Both data and possibilities come out upon seeing a situation. Si brings up data to assess each possibility. Every suspect is investigated not directly, but with existing records. The world is full of uncertainty, but information can make things a bit more certain.

Se has difficulty filtering their waves of stimuli into the one's most useful for predictive/confirmatory purposes. Can't distinguish outliers, nor can it recognize any to be particularly significant. Ni-Se cares for the context but not for the entirety of it as Ni dilutes the situation into broth. It doesn't try to look at info from other contexts, there's an in-context focus, but it is very reductionist. Ni seeks to understand the context (Se) by recognizing particular broths (broths apply to various contexts). It forms a narrative over what is inherently a chaotic world.

#cognitive functions #Si #Ni #mbti #Se #Ne

5 notes · View notes

hourlymbti · 3 years ago

Note

in among us, do you think its just Ni or would Si be able to help in detecting the impostor

I don't think I'm able to provide an explanation if you’re trying to do type assessment.

When it comes to this, they seem too similar in practice. You won't be able to differentiate it. If they’re trying to communicate their reasoning into words, it could go either way. I often mention that one sees datapoints, the other sees trendlines. Generally, people will use a bit of both.

Ni blends everything into an experiential broth which they basically use to vibe check the world. This broth gives them a certain sense/feeling which they may somehow understand or are personally familiar with, at least to the extent that it guides them to a direction of thought:

-Something doesn't seem right about this situation.

-I dont know why, but the way they said that is a concern

-I look at him and can tell there’s some odd nature as if succumbed to the instincts of an impostor

Si doesn't try to dilute the details, but it adds supplementary details. They almost have this image of "what an x is like?" based on previous observations. Any characteristics of that image are used for association.

Stimuli are identified then associated with information (associated information turn into more "pieces of the puzzle" despite not being actual stimuli):

-The way this guy speaks seems panicky.

-They way this guy gives information seems like they're making it on the spot.

-The way this guy moves doesn't fit how someone doing tasks or investigating would move.

Associations (the new pieces of the puzzle), not just the stimuli, can also be used for more associations: How they talk, think, and behave....all these characteristics are very sussy/impostor-like.

#cognitive functions #Ni #Si

1 note · View note

hourlymbti · 3 years ago

Note

Are shadow functions accurate? should i think that if intjs have trickster fe then all socially adjusted people are not intj?

Nope, the same goes for dominant and inferior function. Dont make behavioral generalizations based on function placements. Function placements are about where the conscious side leans towards and the opposite leaning of the unconscious side. There aren’t specific roles, just strengths of each voice. Some voices have it easy, you’ll agree with them and fulfill their desires.

Some voices are more ignored (especially the ones that most contradict the voices you listen to), which means they’ll have to do things secretly or without your permission. It can be more difficult for them to achieve what they want, so they’ll end up hungrier and desperate, resulting in more drastic measures.

When Jung noted that, for example, sensation has both an extroverted and introverted form, he explained that since introversion and extroversion is an axis, a predominance of introverted sensation suppresses its extroverted side. The more that subjective disposition plays as a decisive influence, the further it is from being object oriented.

The primary stack model is about order of natural preference (dom-mid functions-inf) and consequently the general attitude of the conscious mind (and the unconscious compensation that comes from this attitude). When Jung speaks of the “shadow” in overall personality type, he refers to the inferior since given the existence of the dominant, that is naturally the most repressed, the most unconscious, the most untamed. The part of you that is most “lacking“, the side of you that is least integrated and least conscious is the one “opposite” to your main preference. It is common that bursts of unnatural behavior come out from your relatively unconscious inferior. The inferior was also mentioned to have its own auxiliary (thus the tertiary), though of course, its conflict with the other auxiliary is much less one-sided.

You can use the other functions. They exist and can be occasionally used for various reasons, however, the primary stack functions (including the auxiliary and tertiary) are more relevant than their "shadow" counterparts (this isnt to say that they're irrelevant), especially when you include axes. Keep in mind that not believing the shadow model differs from not believing in a capability to use all functions. When it comes to Beebe's model, treat these as a few ways your “shadow functions'' can manifest but don't necessarily have to apply (To you, what the model describes to be the supposed role of your “6th function” may be more applicable to another function. Or it may not apply to you in a general sense). Type is about which functions the conscious attitude leans toward and has the most control of, it’s not even which you use more (lower functions are strong unconsciously). Let's not be too rigid about the -roles- of every function placement. Your shadow functions are, of course, not bounded by the model's descriptions (though there could be trends). Most or all models of how the mind works are not necessarily rules. Psychology is full of general, personal, and partial truths. Most things should not be treated as absoluths. The more detailed/specific something is, the more opportunities for error, but the more potential it has to be meaningful. Avoid fully subscribing or fully trashing on a model. Look at what they have to offer. Treat it like another model (the function theory has a lot of extensions and interpretations) you can borrow ideas from

Decide for yourself how reliable it is. But do not attempt to learn about shadow theory when you are not familiarized with the core theory. Many are not ready to assess and interpret it by the time they are introduced to it due to their attitude on typology (they end up using shadow theory to make more stereotypes because stereotypes are all they know of the core theory). Most are probably aware of issues with applying the theory, it’s just that your application or your habitual/instinctive behavior do not always go how you want to. The community has this desire to attribute minor details to type, overlooking how the theory is limited and does not encompass the entirety of the mind. To satisfy this desire, they underestimate how limited the classifications are. Exposing these types of people to shadow theory can lead to amplified misuse. It can make peoples’ conceptions of each type far more rigid by further encouraging them to make more assumptions about the capabilities of each type, as well as more preconceptions on people based on their type. But perhaps it only makes it 5% worse on average.

As with theories in general, do not simply accept an entire model and trust its system (same goes for the rest of the theory). Once you are familiar with the basics of the primary model and understand the core processes rather than the symptoms, evaluate it yourself (e.g. evaluate people's interpretations, how reliable certain aspects of the theory are, if/how the shadow functions play the roles consistently). Otherwise, you may interpret shadow theory in a way that contaminates your learning of the core theory (to be fair, the online community already does a lot of contamination without it. Just question if you’re currently going in the right direction when it comes to using typology. If not, and you rely a lot on stereotypes, then you’ll simply be digging a deeper whole). Beginners should be informed that the shadow model is not inherent to the primary model, that may slightly prevent misuse. Take things one at a time and give yourself opportunities to question everything that seems right, rather than blindly take the next step.

#cognitive functions #shadow functions

1 note · View note

hourlymbti · 3 years ago

Note

would you say that se isn't attuned to reality at its flux since intuition is focused on the dynamic qualities of reality rather than static

In the sense that sensation is about the individual existing data points rather than coming up with the trendline. S focused externally will seem like it is attuned to the trendline but it would be more accurate to say that it is surfing alongside the waves of more and more incoming datapoints. Understanding the flow of it will be the job of what T and N can make do with the data provided. Good sensation really helps to identify patterns because it visualizes comparisons of data and may give the right related perception for the job, but the process of pattern identification itself is more T and N.

The issue you might be observing is that when forming function descriptions, we often stray from the core processes like how many describe Te to be productive, but at core, thinking merely seeks to understand the world by forming principles and laws (not laws of what is good or bad, that is more F. The science kind of laws). Just that Te can be telling you that doing x is effective or that you need to do x in order to receive this effect. Te relies on external verification which often does make it productive. But being productive is not what Te is about.

Similarly, the rational function of feeling is not about emotions in particular. They are about value judgements at core. However, since emotion is what sets direction for thought and action, feeling functions do need to consider emotions to form value judgements. Value judgements can contradict/disagree with emotions (e.g. "im socially anxious, but i -shouldnt- be", "im angry, but i -shouldnt- be"). But again, they do have to look at emotions.

Emotions are perceived using the irrational functions (mainly internal perception. To be clear, internal perception is not limited to memory, it is about what external stimuli spark inside the mind. Perhaps it can be considered also as a projection of the inner world to the external, though this would be introverted functions in general....and will also be affected by the concept of unconscious compensation. This is a reason by Ne is extroverted. It is focused more externally. It doesn't exactly seek to explore how the inner world reacts and projects images, it seeks to limitlessly imagine any areas of potential in external stimuli. I say limitlessly because while facts are necessary to inspire this type of thought, knowing more facts can limit what is possible. They dont want to explore deeply into a single line, they want to suck every door dry of any potential/possibility they have yet to perceive. The more unexplored doors, the better. Ne isn't inherently seek change for the sake of it. That's not its core. It seeks change because if they stay in a static environment, they will run out of potential they can think about it. Se may seek change to get more data points while Ne may seek change to perceive more possible trendlines/extrapolations).

Emotions are archetypes within the scope of the irrational functions. Fear is an emotion with the assumption of danger (more N than F. The awareness of the fear itself might be Si, but this fear comes from Ni's image of how something blossoms into this danger. S sees a something and identifies it as an animal, Ni sees (envisions) it biting you, resulting in the feeling of danger. S sees people looking at you, Ni sees people secretly judging you. Though an exception could be Si referring to related perception as this could cause the same image)

#cognitive functions #Se #Ni #Fi #Fe

1 note · View note

hourlymbti · 4 years ago

Text

Function Descriptions

These are not type descriptions. These are basic function descriptions meant to describe the functions. For the purpose of highlighting their characteristics, much of the descriptions focus on isolated functions or portray them relative to their i/e counterparts or in such pure form and may consequently be generalized or extreme. It's to give you a general idea of how they work rather than a list of requirements. It is not meant to describe what's normal for certain personality types or for it to be relatable. The descriptions just contain possible symptoms to help understand what a function does. Many traits & actions can be motivated by a particular function or combination of functions, but in most cases, they are not inherent or exclusive to the function. Don't take tendencies at face value. Type is a mere framework or reference for understanding mental operations (They are just categories, hence "personality TYPE". It does not claim function exclusivity as every type is capable of using any function easily. Type is about the [conscious & compensatory unconscious] attitudes that arise when a function is dominant. It is just a system for comparison and orientation, similar to cardinal points). At best, humans can only hope to simplify the mind. I do hope that the function theory will be treated as a framework to understand human programming first, and classifications merely second.

Each function pays attention to a certain aspect of the world (outer or inner), and hence specialized awareness. Each function uses certain things as their reference points (but there's no rule as to what they do with what their functions present to them, just generalizations). Being a primary reference point simply means that you are more likely to take things within its scope into consideration, thereby the more likely they are to influence your thoughts (you are less likely to neglect them, but more likely to tunnel on them. Fi doms will constantly be aware if something sits well with them or if something no longer feels right, but this may result in being too idealistic or perfectionistic. You will often be guided by your dominant function, though other factors may hinder its use or expression such as confidence, self-esteem, environments and situations that discourage it). The dominant function is the determining factor of the structure/attitude of the conscious mind (functions do not determine the mind's content, but merely what -type- of content they focus on. What’s important is how it processes and what type of things it produces). Generally speaking, the other functions are to be subjected to its agenda (the dominant will often have the highest influence). They are still operating but they are less independent, less free to act on their own will (though you can certainly “be good” at the lower functions). Do note that bursts of one-sidedness can actually occur with the inferior, e.g., One may overindulge a function in an attempt to compensate for their weakness (oftentimes, this only ends up in feeling that you're compensating well for your shortcomings), there are also cases where expressions of repressed functions just pop out arbitrarily (Unconscious and repressed contents of the mind will want some form of expression. Jung mentioned that the Fe dom will have occasional instances of sudden tactlessness from their inferior Ti). Unhealthy types can also consistently use their lower functions (not just the dominant) in negative ways (more than just bursts. Perhaps the inferior's overuse happens to overlap with the goals of their dominant. Or maybe their circumstances conditioned/forced them to rely on their inferior. People will act to get rewards or to fulfill the demands of external conditions). Relating to a description does not necessarily mean you have the function in your stack, especially since these are not type descriptions. Each function has its own scope (which do overlap), but to state the obvious, people will take different things into consideration (even in the same scope), and can have a multitude of resulting actions/conclusions from the things being considered.

When reading the descriptions, keep in mind that users don't necessarily follow what their functions look at, functions merely REFER to certain things (just that the more you consider something, the more likely you are to take them into account. Developing a function, therefore, generally means to take something into consideration/account more). Well, the content itself is separate from the functions, and doesn’t matter as much as what exactly they do with the content. And again, much of the descriptions contain how a function can manifest when it is pure and extreme (rather than what's normal) in order to showcase it, so keep track of whether or not the description is about the process itself (as a general rule, try to look at if the description is about using something as a reference point or about the reference point itself vs something outside this scope).

Jung’s extroversion and introversion are described by Objective and Subjective.

Extroverted functions are objective in the sense that they are primarily oriented by the object (externally). With higher extroversion, the less subjective disposition plays a role. An extraverted attitude allows one to be relatively “adaptive” to the external world.

Introverted functions are subjective in the sense that they are primarily oriented by the subject (internally). With higher introversion, the more subjective disposition plays a role. Being relatively detached from the world and stuck in your own head is a characteristic of this attitude.

For example: Language is mainly an objective process when it comes to learning as you form their meanings based primarily on observation or the ideas of others. However, one's understanding and therefore utilization of every word and phrase in language is subjective as it will largely depend on personal experiences and interpretations. In other words, language is subjective but learned through objective processes. Let's say that an extrovert and an introvert have the exact same experiences on how a word was used. In practice, this will have negligible differences, but an extrovert's understanding of the word would generally be very close and direct to what they have observed and what they see from the definitions of external sources, while an introvert will have a more skewed view (e.g. if a word can easily be used as an insult, this will cause bias to the word usage). Dictionary definitions are objective, but not because they're absolute. They're objective in the same way that the definitions of others are objective (external). They're still opinion, just that dictionary definitions are how people in an organization describe how the word is used (yes, official definitions are preferably absolute and are certainly reliable, but the consistency and coherence of language relies on the people. It's especially more prone to fluidity when the word is commonly used that it reaches millions or billions. Language is a medium we have created to make our thoughts more comprehensible. It's highly effective, but by no means have humans as a collective developed it perfectly and with completely consistent interpretations & applications of it). Also keep in mind that I’m using the word object to mean something that exists outside of the self, as opposed to inner stimuli.

In an introverted attitude, objective presence is feared over subjective influence. Objects do not have meaning on their own, rather, the meaning lies on the subject. It extracts the qualities that are of subjective value/meaning. In extroversion, meaning is inherent in the (external) world. It doesn't reduce things, objects are seen in their own right. What is meaningful is basically what matters to the function. Things that are "meaningful" attract the most attention, and consequently are what the user orients themselves to.

Since introversion penetrates deeper into the self (for inner stimuli), the introverted attitude is much more archetypal (archetypes are aspects of the mind that are inherited/innate. Biological instincts, fundamental cognitive patterns or ancestral memories from the collective unconscious). Since introversion digs deeper into the self, it's less oriented towards the stimuli or data coming from outside their mind, and more to the self, including these archetypes (I’m trying to say that inner stimuli include those in the depths of the mind, and a large portion of this is from nature, not just nurture. This paragraph is more of an attempt to describe how introversion's subjectivity works). The stimuli travels into the depths of the mind, becoming transformed or fused with internal content, the product being a new psychic fact (what matters is how inner content reacts with the stimuli). Absolute extroversion or introversion do not exist. Extroversion isn't completely detached from archetypes (just as introversion isn't completely detached from the stimuli), they just don't reach into the self and fuse with its content as much as introversion does (it’s just less influenced by them). It's focused more outwards, it points its attention to all these stimuli and their objective qualities that there's less room and less time for the stimuli to travel deeper in the mind and react with its contents. Without needing them to travel into the mind, extroversion can scan for much more stimuli. It's essentially lower fire rate but more penetration vs higher fire rate but less penetration, except it's about content getting in the mental spotlight rather than bullets (by consequence, introversion will cover a lower area/amount). By mental spotlight, view the entirety of reality as an infinite dark room. Everything exists objectively and/or subjectively (within the brain, in the outer world, in potential, etc.). Just because you don't see or have never seen something does not mean it ceases to exist. These things exist regardless of what you see. It's not about the content, but the one that holds control over the spotlight.

In order to function and to learn, the human mind is not something that starts off with no structure or content at all. To understand something, we do refer to knowledge and concepts we already know of. It can be something we have learned through our experiences, but how do we gain experiences if our mind is void of content? It starts from our innate knowledge. Innate knowledge is primitive, and the more we experience (and the more society is developed in knowledge and research), we become less reliant on the collective unconscious. A modern man would still largely rely on innate knowledge (e.g. sense of danger which often leads to a fight or flight response. This can be applied to more modern situations such as if someone is yelling at you or if you are the center of attention. During stress, primitive instincts gain power, causing more irrationality as well as higher sensitivity in being disturbed by stimuli. By that, I mean that stimuli would have “higher volume”. That could cause difficulty sleeping, or overthinking minor details). A primitive man’s knowledge would rely more on what is understood innately, as compared to a modern man.

You might say that to interpret what we perceive or view 2 things as intrinsically distinct or to even view something as a thing, it requires some form of prior "knowledge" and programming (a self-learning unit needs to have a process of identifying or classifying something as a certain type of information, as well as reference points/concepts to use as a basis. It is our biologically inherited knowledge that would allow us to "scale" things: this is larger than this, this is dangerous and this is not, this is brighter than this, this emotion is more intense than this. Our natural programming allows us to recognize, for example, wildlife, to identify humans and animals as distinct from the environment. To repeat, there are things we are naturally able to identify. The mind takes in stimuli, and a mix of certain details take shape as symbols. We are essentially utilizing what we intrinsically know (are able to identify) to understand incoming objects. You might treat the mind as a calculator. We “know” what all these symbols are, and the rest is to understand the world through working with these symbols. Even some archetypes can be considered an amalgamation of other archetypes. They are the lowest building blocks of thought. They act as foundation, and we build up from there to go farther and farther from them, similar to understanding water without needing to understand hydrogen). Archetypes themselves are continually recurring symbolic formulas that “reawaken” psychic experiences (“reawaken”, since these experiences are inherited, not personal), but the archetypes themselves don’t exist in reality, they are "shapeless" entities. These are universally understood themes (relies on qualities based on the -innate understanding/expectations- of things) which help organize and identify experiences and objects (archetypes are about nature rather than nurture which also influences conceptualizations of themes). Given that they're universally understood (they are inherent in our species), they're usually going to seem simple, obvious, and non-unique. These archetypes become clear through tendencies, or our instincts, and can be seen with the symbolism of an event. Only their products come into consciousness. Some examples: fear of blood, fear of animals, or fear of the dark can be genetic, as in, not caused by experience. So is an understanding of warmth, vision (not the sense, but the identification/understanding of it, like shifting your eyes because it influences what you see, or understanding when you can't see something or if something can't see you, this includes the direction one is facing or the direction of eyes), hunger and eating, thirst and drinking, air and breathing. There are archetypes for power and mother (perhaps caretaker would be a better label). A baby can attach itself to someone or even something it views as motherlike, and cry when that figure isn't there. The mother figure, presents as the mother archetype (keep in mind that archetypes are not limited to what we can put into words or how much we can classify/label). It may cry from anxiety when a stranger appears due to the mind acknowledging that the stranger has power over them (again, -innate expectations- cause it to associate certain qualities with certain themes, in this case, power). “Villain” and "Hero" are also considered archetypes (as in an understanding of good and bad in humans), fictional embodiments/symbols of evil exist and come along with universally understood ideas of the dark aspects of humans and the mind (people, of course, create different kinds of imagery based on the same theme). Jung claimed that mythologies and religion point towards archetypes as they are full of representations/manifestations of them, and that two cultures that never interacted before will have similar themes in stories and their symbolism in deities because something in our inherited unconscious gave rise to similar ideas. Archetypes themselves are not perceived, but they do give shape to psychic energy (therefore creating actual ideas and behaviors that can be found in basic aspects of life). Keep in mind that these archetypes are merely content that are used more on introversion than extroversion. They don’t necessarily take a large role in the process (they may, or may not, as of now, I see little significance in them. My understanding of them is limited, but Jung seems to think they play a large role in introversion, with a more direct impact in the introverted perceiving functions. For Ti, it may play a role in the ideas which arise from the mind upon observing data. It may take part in Fi as it helps organize perceived "needs" through, for example, the recognition of concepts of good and evil, life and death, "humanness"), but it may help in understanding the effects of introversion. Feel free to forget about this part, except for how introversion enters deeper into the mind, causing it to be more likely to react with inner content and mechanisms which results in stimuli being transformed or abstracted. The process of introversion is largely why two people looking at the same thing may see it differently. Same eyes, different brain. The differences are typically subliminal, but nuances can hold great meaning to the subject (something minor/insignificant can have large psychic value).

Pure extroversion adjusts/orients themselves to everything that they come across without reflecting on themselves. Every stimuli from the outer world is accepted. With zero introversion, it is even unable to stick with what are universally valid conditions. It will always adjust itself to its objective conditions, no matter how temporary or abnormal. It constantly destroys and reconstructs itself with the changes of the environment. The human mind is naturally reactive to external conditions, but at extremes, the self is lost, and one leans too far on the instinct to act that it leads to impulsivity in forming conclusions and decisions. The existence of the self allows for direction and reflection but what use does it have when knowledge is based little on the objective world. Pure introversion creates images too detached from the world. It has lost sight of all periphery, an infinite tunnel vision. It cares not for anything but itself, it ignores the reality of the world as it continues to sit inside a cave, unwilling to even peek outside of it. Stuck in the self, trapped inside the mind regardless of the light that exists outside of it. Only the self exists, and with nothing else, it is incapable of changing, incapable of reacting, incapable of development. What is the point of a chatbot that ignores the users input/messages, that its output will follow the same conversation flow no matter what the user days? What is the point of gathering data when it won't change anyone's conclusions?

Everyone possesses extroverted and introverted attitudes, but the conscious attitude skews towards one side. What determines extroversion vs introversion as a personality -type- is what comes more naturally. Usually how habitual one is over the other. We are not very aware of the full process or what every content from inside and outside were taken into consideration. We are mainly aware of the products of our mind’s operations (we often use manifestations to infer processes; this isn’t necessarily reliable). Both extroversion and introversion occurs in the mind. They both occur in our mind, it’s just that one process is more focused outwards, and the other inwards.

They go in opposite directions, the more introverted means the less extroverted. With greater introversion in the conscious attitude comes an opposite effect of greater extroversion building up in the unconscious. If you're an introverted thinker, your introverted attitude would be most concentrated towards your dominant introverted thinking. Your thinking being heavily introverted would consequently stray from the extroverted side of thinking. This may make it difficult to understand Te dominants or Te as a process (you may even be more "similar" to someone with your inferior as their dominant, just in differing scales). It may even be likely that people are more prone to using the opposite i/e of their auxiliary than the opposite i/e of their dominant.

J/P are different but they are not opposites the way i/e , s/n, and t/f are

Conscious attitude: i/e

Cognitive elements: T/F/S/N are absolutely distinct. They are not a part of another, they cannot overlap (however: they can work together, a conclusion that can also be formed from thinking may be formed through feeling, something that is taken into consideration by thinking can also be taken into consideration by feeling. Feeling decisions can be based on what is gathered by thinking). You may view the cognitive elements as ways to be introverted or extroverted, forms the attitudes can take shape in. Many psychological elements do exist outside of these such as the levels of: will, attention span, and emotion.

These cognitive elements present different ways the mind can be introverted or extroverted.

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

The judging functions are not satisfied with mere occurrence. They are referred to as the “rational” functions as things need to be subjected to or bound by some sort of judgement, reason, standards, logic, law, etc. rather than irrational, empirical, or arbitrary factors such as to simply exist, be/mean that way, etc.. It constructs a system of standards on how things work, how things should be, and passes on some form of judgement. Any form of deliberate reasoning is done by these functions (though they're not necessarily deliberate). An extroverted attitude looks externally, which will inherently make it more focused on working with the outer world according to its standards, while an introverted attitude will inherently be more focused in working with the inner world, tinkering, and building up its principles.

Extroverted judging functions look externally as the central reference point for reasoning. It is a mental process with a focus on gathering and referencing external facts, conditions, and existing ideas (External thinking content or external feeling content. Things relevant to these can overlap). They orient themselves to forming mental constructs based on existing stimuli such as objective data, and to existing mental constructs as well. It is much more often that the the functions borrow and synthesize ideas from the outside rather than establishing something primarily internally (system of judgement, of course, will for the most part, give an impression of being internal even if it is borrowed from universally accepted standards. Objective ideas/facts will still be subjectively sanctioned, interpreted, and used). They are more likely to take social facts (e.g. ideas of what makes a successful/happy life, or partially imitate/copy the techniques or behavior of someone they perceive as a competent leader or someone competent at any certain task) into consideration, and due to their orientation to external conditions, are also more motivated to interact with the external world. This could (but not necessarily) be organization or emotional pleasance, and they often form universal standards as to how to achieve these qualities in the environment. Their system of judgement is more adaptive to external facts, results, conditions, or people (in different ways and for different reasons). This is because Te and Fe continuously cross check their judgement with the outside world (how it fits with labels/merits/certificates that hold meaning to society, common sense/etiquette, cooperation and harmony, reasonings and conclusions of others, things with good reputation or are considered effective, scores, sources that are deemed reliable like studies published in well-known journals), as well as their external relevance (how can this be brought to reality, how does this relate/compare to existing data and systems, what external results will this bring). These descriptions are focused more on showcasing what an external orientation may be like in judgement. It merely lists down what may be looked at and how it may influence the user.

Their focus can also be described as much broader but less deep than their introverted counterparts. Generally speaking, they are more quick to approve of something due to their focus on external verification. Rather than check in to themselves, they actually check out with the world. But of course, their system of judgement will develop overtime through what they have gathered externally. But as humans, enough reinforcement can make stubborn standards (basically, what is borrowed externally, whether from inductive reasoning or existing ideas, may eventually become "internal", as in shaped or be put into a system that is their own). By developing judgement overtime, an example would be Fe developing principles and rules based on value judgements from their previous communities and also Fe incentivizes Ti to make rules about what they have found to lead to social harmony or disharmony based on observation. While they are quicker to adapt in their judgement, this adaptability and quickness can sometimes be reckless since they check in less with personal principles. Due to inferior Fi/Ti, Te/Fe dominants will be less attuned to internal facts and their internal model may consequently be less consistent.

Each extroverted function is adaptive (or reactionary) in their own right. Te and Fe seek some sort of external verification. An oversimplified description is that Te is adaptive to external facts/ideas/observations just for the sake of being directly about the facts or for practical aspects of the situation such as progress. They will adapt based on what they think will work out and give satisfactory results. Whereas Fe is more adaptive to the interpersonal or "people" aspects. When they synthesize from objective ideas/facts, Te creates universal formulas for itself and the rest of reality. It uses this to judge external conditions and people. Violate this and you are a threat to what is supposedly “objectively better” in the end (extreme Te can do this to Fi. The inferiority of a function can do this as well. Aside from bursts of unusual behavior from relatively unconscious functions, the inferior is typically more filtered, sometimes only being noticed when directly incentivized by the dominant. Despite being an extrovert, a Fi inferior too can be more stubborn in their goals because they are less aware of personal values. There is a slower updating time and also a lack of awareness if one value contradicts another so they may be more likely to focus on fulfilling one desire that they lose sight of others). Fe accumulates ideas of the feeling content of the environment. It then puts these in a blender (and may absorb it). This makes people seem more similar than different (Fi). It also looks for universal rules for harmony. Just like Te, it is concerned when these rules are violated. In extremes, both of these functions care not for individual differences (mainly in the opposing T/F orientation), sometimes even their own, and will be quick to see any deviation from their standards as a flaw or threat. Then again, an extroverted attitude would be unlikely to have these behaviors without their unconscious introversion contaminating their other functions. Extroversion is focused on externally which will allow them to be more adaptive.

Everyone uses these reference points, and they allow humans to acquire yields (positive, neutral, negative) from collective intelligence (e.g. passed-on knowledge such as those within sciences, discussion, tradition, shared ideas on ideal/satisfaction images/standards, valuing others' input). This is because these functions seek to refer to them (sometimes it means to be too quick to accept them). Their system of judgement is primarily oriented by this (though of course, what they sanction is subjective). The creative aspect in judgement will mainly be synthetic — based on what they have found in the outer world but going little beyond it.

Introverted judging functions look internally as the central reference point for reasoning. They look at how the object measures up to their personal standards/principles. Due to a high reliance on internal “facts” (e.g. what that makes sense/seems right to them), they will be highly attuned to internal consistency based on their particular type of content. It is consistent in two ways. One is that their system of judgement is less influenced by the outer world (this is different from not taking consideration of others). Another is that they are highly aware if their principles contradict each other and will feel the need to get rid of this issue (& that they create new principles particularly based on the principles they already have. It builds on top of each other. The Je functions don’t do this as much since they focus more on the outer world). This allows for strong interconnectedness in their internal system of personal standards, beliefs, principles. New information will be judged primarily according to this internal system. The external is only of secondary importance. Ti/Fi will desire to act in harmony with this — and are consequently more isolated and less adaptive to external judgement (e.g. if reality or other people do not follow their principles or values). Their ultimate priority is their internal system of judgement (they are often private about it unless they are forced to go against it). The dominants may have a strong desire for their own judgement to not be influenced by the factors that Fe (for Ti doms) and Te (for Fi doms) are oriented by. Just as Te/Fe reflects back on external verifiability, Ti/Fi constantly reflects back on their own principles and desires to feel free to act in harmony with this (rather than reflect back, another phrasing is to constantly refer to). These are more quick to reject external facts & judgement when it does not abide by the internal (this is not to say that they will be very open about their beliefs. They often learn to be satisfied when standards are not entirely fulfilled, or learn that it is best to negotiate or stay quiet in certain situations). They can occasionally motivate the user to take a contrarian stance solely for the purpose of feeling independent — to give them a sense of being an individual that is separate from and uninfluenced by collective thoughts, standards, systems (e.g. to view something as disgusting just because others find it pleasing or beautiful). They often form opinions which stray away from the crowd whether it’s smart or stupid to do so (an inferior Je is more likely to make one distrust the collective, though this could also occur with a Je doms mind trying to compensate itself from time to time. You might call it an anti-sheeple, which is ironically just another form of sheeple).

Unlike Te/Fe, these functions are not broad. Rather, they are intensely focused on the self, making them narrow but deep (breadth vs depth). Some refer to these as “identity” functions. These functions are highly attuned to what is approvable to the user. They motivate the user to spend a lot of time questioning if something "works out" within their head (this process can also be described as what -fits- to their framework, similar to a jigsaw puzzle). This can make them "fluid" (this may apply more to Fi). They can be fluid not because they’re adapting to something but because they are reassessing their models (to adapt means to orient oneself to external stimuli, to be fluid does not necessarily mean it is revolving around something). In a dominant position, Fi constantly seeks to understand the self in order to formulate what is right or wrong, better or worse. The self being fluid results in Fi being fluid as well. If something (especially about the self) cannot be understood by introverted judgment, they will scream at the user (mainly dominant), causing them to mull over it. There are certain cases where they dwell on trivial details such as their interests (e.g. simply liking/enjoying something isn't necessarily a satisfactory explanation, especially for Ti).

The extroverted judging functions can provide effective communication or bring their goals to reality (e.g. even with the same core intent/meaning, messy Fe can make a neutral/positive Ti message come across as awfully tactless that Ti’s ideas end up wasted, messy Te can make a Fi message come across as too idealistic since the situation and plan is lacking in conceptualization. This is potentially more common than the other way around, but integrating both thinking and feeling or knowing the right mix of them will be more effective for communication, persuasion, and problem solving in most situations). When Ti's ideas are completely sound in their eyes, then it must be perfectly true as well in practice, and that anyone else -should- accept it. When the conscious attitude is opposed to Fe, it takes little effort in winning the appreciation of others, perhaps being repulsed from the idea of needing to convince others of what, to them, is sound. In pursuit of tinkering with their ideas, to adjust oneself to or to receive any effect from outside influence is seen as contamination to the mind. Ti itself cares only about personal soundness. Too little of the mental spotlight looks at how to win the favor of others outside the area of what they alone think is sound. Fe/Te can also influence Ti/Fi. A Te dom may view good and evil based on a universal formula developed through objective facts and standards. Vice versa also applies (integrating both thinking and feeling).

As an extroverted function, Te takes use of stimuli with minimal abstraction. It orients itself to perception. When it comes to observation and conclusions, Ti is somewhat less prone to inductive reasoning than Te. Ti does not begin with a fact, the facts aren’t its target either. Ti starts with an idea they want to test the validity of (they desire the formation of principles and succeed when they form an idea accurate to reality. Well, of course they want to form principles since they rely on internal reasoning). An idea that is not directly implied by data. They work the idea in their head (more than externally verifying it) to see what’s consistent with their framework since what’s consistent to it will be deemed true (due to the reliance on working internally, you can expect their framework to be consistent with itself; this will also apply to Fi in deeming what’s right). They want their principles to perfectly fit with each other. Facts only matter as something to test the theory. Te is often viewed as practical thinking given that it evaluates and forms ideas based on external objects (but this is not limited to results and facts) as compared to how Ti relates ideas to inner objects (what is sound to their own rules). For Te, the theories should revolve around the facts. Te cares about facts and their direct implications. Te wants ideas to work in the real world in terms of corresponding to facts and effects (perhaps evidence is a better word for Te than facts. It orients itself to what it views as the available evidence. Evidence for what? That's what thinking tries to find out. Keep in mind that extrapolations and conjectures they receive from intuition may also be treated as empirical fact/evidence or observation. Intuition can feel just as real as sensation, just that sensation will have more "material" to offer for the facts), or to be externally verified by other means such as existing sources of information. Ti revolves around the ideas, observation is only useful insofar as it runs their ideas, whereas for Te, the formulation of ideas should revolve around the facts. The facts can more often be stripped of their objective qualities because Ti is singling out the features that have to do with the idea they're trying to pursue. Boiling it down into the parts that can test their ideas. Te finds observation meaningful on its own, Ti finds meaning in the ideas in their mind.

Te looks for general rules for results/rewards (they succeed when their principles, for the most part, lead to effectiveness or efficiency). It is often that they use outcomes/results, scores, productivity, or progress to determine how well something is going. As an extroverted function, Te wants to interact with the situation so they desire to make use of their thinking in the real world (Ti can desire this as well but generally speaking, Te feels a larger necessity for it to be used rather than to simply make sense). Te is commonly quicker (but therefore more reckless) to form conclusions because they feel a need to use thinking to respond to the situation. Another reason that Te is quicker is because they are more satisfied if the conclusion is well-supported by results (as in oriented by observation; the results speak for themselves), well-established facts, or "reliable" sources. Whereas Ti (while it does use objective facts), will more often desire to understand things more fully (well, it's more about the other side. It doesn't care about what. It cares about how) because it needs to know if it fits with internal principles, otherwise they wouldn't know whether or not it “makes sense”, thus it is not satisfied with “gets the job done” or "simply works that way". It cannot accept anything for the results because it's not about the results, it needs to have soundness to the user. It needs to see whether or not it fits their personal framework. Ti’s focus internally can often motivate the user to tweak or fine-tune this model (based more on consistency than external facts). It forms its own facts based on their framework of logic which they have been developing throughout their lives. When their internal system is fine-tuned, it can be difficult when a core piece of it (a pillar which determines the validity of a major portion of the system) turns out to be unreliable (not to say that this doesn't apply to Te, just that it applies less since it is, again, oriented by and quicker to accept observation/results in their own right, unlike Ti which needs them to make sense. The phrase "this does not make sense" is subjective, essentially being "this does not fit my way of thinking". Te, of course, as a thinking function would also "make sense". It simply views observation on its own as something to be accepted and used to form a conclusion or argument, rather than something that first needs to be made sense of (as thinking functions, both will try to make sense of the world. Te is more objective because it cares less about what is personally sound, and more for observation). This can make them quickly trust all data from a source just because it's credible. They can both be reckless in their own ways. Te is more at risk of being too trusting of inductive reasoning (observation & results with little analysis as Te only needs the former) and external sources while Ti is more at risk of not adapting their mental models to reality or factual evidence (Ti only cares about whether or not something fits neatly in their mind puzzle, they refer to this over external verification). When perception does not match Ti's conclusion, the first instinct is less likely to be "the conclusion is probably wrong", but rather "why does it not fit? what is strange about this particular data?". Ti is prone to questioning the facts as they prioritize internal reasoning (i.e. what is sound to them), while Te is prone is question personal conclusions as they prioritize sticking directly to the facts. Te conclusions/logic may have a normalized distribution if the tail ends were great insight vs creative stupidity, while Ti would be less normalized (note that a normalized distribution still contains samples that belong in the ends). They can both make a conclusion that is unimaginably stupid or one that is insightful, just that these "extremes" of the spectrum may occur less in Te since it is oriented by existing ideas, it cross checks externally, while Ti is more isolated from this, it verifies internally. Ti's judgement can have a more creative power because of this, and also due to Ti's resulting skepticism of external content. Te will usually limit creativity to their facts, since it restricts itself more to: the fact speaks for itself. Te keeps itself as close to the perception as possible, it's chained to it, while Ti extracts a truth that strikes the subject, usually being somewhat implied.

To be clear: Thinking does not care about data for the sake of data. It utilizes data to form conclusions. It's just that, relatively speaking, extroverted thinking keeps minimal distance from the explicit indications of the data

The following (+some other Je descriptions) applies much more to Fe vs Fi since Fe is directly people-based whereas Te, in comparison, oftentimes is more focused on certain people/sources (e.g. whatever they trust or view as credible. Though it’s also often for Fe to pay more attention to certain people. Perceived credibility is also largely the result of a value judgement of sources that are good vs bad so this is something that applies to Je in general. They both look externally, the difference is what they make of it. Fe is directly about value judgements while Te is directly about trying to further understand or describe the world. Perhaps the word formulate gives a better idea of what thinking does) or is only indirectly about people (e.g. existing rules, the laws of the country). [To calrify, Fe does value judgements based on the feeling content of others. Naturally, they may value things like merits, certificates, titles, and rankings. Te is data to conclusion but not based on value judgements. It will often use inductive reasoning on external conditions which includes results but also the logic of others. It might say “Given that they have these awards, they have capabilities in this field”. A Fe user who values awards will likely make the same conclusions. “Awards are valuable, that means they’re good. Having an award reflects on your value”. If Feeling says “XYZ news is bad”, then they’re likely to view it as not credible. It is Fe that lets us have univseral currencies: the value of particular paper and coins. But Te’s preference for external verification will use it to judge based on results, unlike Ti. They may look at people who earn a lot of money and make general rules as to how one should be to earn as much. When it comes to the credibility of sources, Fe itself will rely on the value judgements of others, while Te, due to external verification, is more focused on the source needing to “prove itself”. An example would be a friend that has shown themselves to be reliable. They’re reliable, so what they have to say has worth and should be considered or even followed. If that friend finds a certain thing to be a good option, despite it not being sound to you, Te tells you “maybe they have a point”. When it comes to role models, feeling functions would say “I want to be that guy” while Te, as a thinking function, would think is cause-and-effect: “In order to achieve this result, I must be like that guy”. The Je orientation can make people follow similar paths. The obvious example would be “In order to be liked, I must do this”. Functions lead to certain thoughts or messages, whether or not the user actually does so is another matter. They’re your “advisors”]. It is also exaggerated (again, relative descriptions) and not necessarily realistic: Fi is much more capable of existing in extremes. This is because they are more free from the collective (their judgement can take consideration of others, but their system is developed more in isolation from it rather than oriented to it). Fe and Te are much more dependent on some form of a collective (Te is often oriented towards commonly accepted ideas and facts from credible sources. This makes Te’s accuracy rely a lot on what information we have and what ideas are generally valid in the present society). It’s hard for Fe to understand their own feelings (unless they’re isolated in a literal sense) because it's as if they get dissolved into the blended environment. It is often that rather than deliberately adapting (social chameleons, though common, is not an inherent aspect of Fe, just a common symptom), they are genuinely absorbing their environment (more like mirrors or sponges rather than chameleons). This is why Fe normally cares about emotional harmony and pleasance (aside from constantly looking at interpersonal aspects and other's feeling content as a reference point), they are naturally influenced by it so they will seek to manipulate the variable. Also, since they will focus on factors that have to do with external feelings, they will naturally observe a lot about people (e.g. word choices, tone, physical expressions) and form general rules about how someone feels, what results in certain feelings (e.g. agreement, satisfaction, anger), etc.. You can't develop a certain skill through experience if you weren't absorbing the right information (don't expect to learn how to perform a certain recipe from someone if you're focusing on their facial expressions).

This is merely saying how Fe can lead to this desire. Fi can desire this as well. Fe can value something more than emotional harmony, and if they had to choose, it can sacrifice/disrupt emotional harmony for a certain value. It's not that Fe is all about emotional harmony. Emotional harmony is merely one of many possible symptoms. Anything Fi can value, Fe can value too just as much. It's just that Fe focuses outwards and derives their values more from external energy sources. Do not misinterpret descriptions about how a function can lead to certain behaviors, and claim that it is exclusive to that function. Keep track of when the descriptions are describing a mental process/operation vs describing common/potential external manifestations of the process. Desire can also be considered outside of the process as the process doesn't contain that desire, but may merely lead to it. Fe is influenced by the emotions and value judgements of others. It doesn't necessarily lead to a desire for emotional harmony but it often does, It would prefer to absorb something positive and harmonious rather than negative and chaotic. Fe is likely to receive tough decisions, internal dissonance, or confusion if the situation is full of contradicting feelings. This is partially why it often views external feelings as it ig to put in a blender. It looks at the average, common, or only the shared values rather than looking at each individual (while Fi highlights differences and individuals)

A general difference between Ji and Je is that Je has a contextual focus, while Ji, looking inwards, does not build up from the context, but merely compares their own principles to the context. Let's ignore every single factor (including experience, external pressure, needs) besides functions and say that humans are by default, neutral, and that it's completely 50/50 for where they lean in morals (as in we don't assume that the average will be good or develop well. A symmetrical distribution I mean). If there were, hypothetically, a perfect measurement of value systems (let's say in terms of "good & evil"), and that there were (again, hypothetically) a population that ONLY uses Fe vs another that ONLY uses Fi. The Fe population would have a normalized distribution (a nice bell curve) since the Je functions are magneted by what is external (external sources, of course, can vary greatly. What they absorb can obviously vary as well). While the Fi graph would be much more equally scattered (including in both ends. Though alternatively, introverted judgement often causes one to be contrarian just to feel isolated, which means they may have more people going to the ends. Though this could occur with Ji inferiors as well). A common exception of course, is if Fe has an extreme environment (extreme can be positive or negative). However, the normal Fe type wouldn't be as extreme of an "absorber" as what is described. It's more accurate to say that they are oriented towards stimuli that inform them of the situation's feeling constructs (e.g. emotions, values). To portray what is more realistic: Let’s say a Fe dom is feeling very frustrated. All of a sudden, someone politely says hi while they’re passing by. The Fe dom’s mood will genuinely change by nature, and respond back positively or neutrally. Seconds later, after they’re alone again, they quickly come back to their frustration. And it's not because they're fond of the person, they might even do this to people they dislike. Humans, especially Fe dominants, are essentially hard-wired to "react" to stimuli relevant to feeling content. This includes accommodation, consideration, and absorption. This can make the normal Fe user more of an emotional roller coaster than the normal Fi user. Don’t expect this adaptiveness to occur when the Fe user is in an extreme situation/mood. Also don’t expect the Fe user to suddenly change their morals, personal beliefs aren’t as easy to changy, especially if it’s about something they find as a serious matter or if it’s a belief they have developed overtime.

Fi looks at internal feeling content, while Fe looks at external feeling content (Fe, by instinct, accommodates and mirrors the feelings of the situation. This includes potential feelings. At core, Fe is concerned with tribe values. This will, as a consequence, cause them to put attention in inferring the emotions of others. Symptoms include accommodations, sponge values, and sympathetic reactions). Fe does this merely by nature, not from some personal desire (Fe is not the desire to adapt. Fe IS judgement oriented towards external feelings. This could be accommodation, but others’ value judgements may become their own). The core difference is that Fe typically prioritizes or feels more obliged to obey what is objectively/commonly valued over obeying personal feelings (personal feelings get sent into the background, sometimes they lose sight of it). Fi does not find meaning from the outside. Fi finds meaning in the perfect world that exists in their head. It finds meaning based on how reality matches this. For introverted functions, it's the subjective value that gives the world "life and soul". It's somewhat like bringing meaning to the world. Pure Fi’s vision of how things should be is isolated from others (it exists regardless of what seems realistic to themself or others. It exists even regardless of ethics. This is different from being unsatisfied with everything. They can carry out plans and set goals that bring them closer to this image, they can be satisfied even if they don't fully achieve it. It’s just that this image of perfection will not change just because it’s unrealistic, whereas a Te dom's Fi awareness is more likely to be filtered through their Te). Fi’s image can (it often does) take consideration of others (e.g. respecting individual differences, fulfilling the dreams of certain people, ensuring the happiness of a person). What you should keep in mind is that it is not bounded by them. What Fi wants is what Fi wants, this is absolute freedom and will not be persuaded by soundness, practicality, acceptability. Fi in the dominant position means that they will be hyper aware of their personal standards, conscience, and ideal image (by Fi images, this isn't necessarily a clear vision. It can often present to the user as just a gut feeling like moral intuition). This does make them much more likely to act upon those standards, however, (again, they are mere reference points) there is no rule as to what they do with this awareness (everyone is affected by experience and circumstances, lack of confidence or self-esteem, anxiety, or external pressures which can prevent the user from doing as Fi wishes).

Addition: Fi's "fluidity" is most observed when something is reacted to differently. Fi will often develop value judgements based on how they feel about a happening (this can cause it to be more empathetic, while Fe would be more sympathetic as it is more likely to absorb). It's like a self-learning A.I.. sort of...It's more accurate to say that the human mind is fluid and arbitrary when it comes to feelings, just that a Fi dom's higher awareness of this allows them to constantly update their values. Others are likely to be slower in grasping this and won't put as much attention to it, making them "less fluid". Think of it as not updating your phone's software (and potentially having poor internet as well), while the dominants have it set to auto-update. On the other hand, Fe is more of an input-output program. The inputted values determine the results as Fe takes it all in and accepts them as valid (valid as in it is at least something to take into consideration). The more dominant Fe is, the quicker it is to accept input.

Unhealthily extreme descriptions are not exclusive to dominants and can be occasional in inferior users. And again, introverted functions constantly check in, whereas extroverted functions constantly -cross check- with the world (this applies to introversion and extroversion in general. Internal vs external source and focus), which is different from following. They are not necessarily aware of how unisolated they are since even though their reasoning is derived largely from external sources, it is still -their- reasoning. One which exists inside their head (+anything similar to collective intelligence is often viewed as sheeple or hive mind, which is true at extremes, but overrepresented. Rather than mere following, it should be viewed as taking them as a reference point). People generally resonate more with external descriptions as compared to internal processes (mental processes are internal so the word internal is useless, just for clarity). Also, introverted functions may be more individualistic by nature, but they don't have to be public about it, they may also try out different principles and perspectives (they want to see what seems right to them and that their principles and ideas will fit in or work out in as much situations as possible to bring them closer to being absolute/uncircumstantial).

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

For perceiving dominants, perception comes before judgement. Oftentimes, their judgement cant keep up with perception. There will be many actions motivated by the desires/messages/images of their dominant function, but not understood or guided by any judgement. These functions are merely fulfilled by the perception of events, and take in those that are contingent (random events; things beyond reason/laws). Mere happenings, possibilities, and existences are irrational truths. Jung describes the dominants to be, in the highest degree, empirical. It observes, it experiences, it does not conform things to reason. Perception itself does not interfere, it only perceives (perception does influence desire, but it is judgement that evaluates things or forms principles). They are not bounded by "rational" direction. Things simply are the way they are. Perceiving functions are "lower order". Perception comes first, then comes judgement. Without perception, judgment has no material to make constructs with. A large chunk of their descriptions will be on their axes descriptions in later paragraphs: Se-Ni and Si-Ne since how they feed onto each other play a major role in how each of them work

Extroverted perception is a relatively raw form of perception. They look at the entirety of reality in the sense that they pick everything up, everything they encounter/come in contact with. Their central reference points are perceptions that exist outside of them (they are not seen through inner images). These functions simply want to perceive and explore without much judgement and interpretation. Their actions may often be based on the "intensity" of a particular type of perception potential/sensation). As extroverted functions, psychic energy is attracted towards the object. Objects are valued in so far as they themselves are full of sensation/intuition (the content in focus exists in the object itself rather than stimulating perception stored within). They want to explore the object in certain ways. Naturally, these functions desire some form of "interaction" with the world, to make the most out of opportunities that come by. For Ne, intensity comes with larger amounts of possibilities. It is concerned about the possibilities surrounding them. It wants to be in situations that seem full of (disparate or unknown) potential, to find objects that allow them to discover new possibilities. Being in a highly stable environment would often feel suffocating, since what fulfills this function is least found in stability (not to say that they rarely overlap). It is not concerned with “what is”. There is always a trajectory in their target. Both Se and Ne easily adapt to new situations, but Se itself doesn’t care about how new it is as much as Ne. Ne’s desire for the new is because the new correlates with the unfamiliar/unknown, a lack of detail which arouses one to speculate. Without data available, Ne has more free area to work around. The more the situation allows for them to generate thoughts regarding what is possible, the more intense it is. When potential is sucked dry from an object, their interest will be reduced. Similar to the relationship between potential and kinetic energy (assuming mechanical energy stays constant). The more something is brought into reality, the less potential remains. It is not particularly energized by reality itself, but rather the possible implications/paths it could have. This means that they may often find it more of a fascinating experience if the details are kept unknown. The restrictions of reality can seem quite dull as they prefer having a wider range of possibilities. They look externally into the world of endless possibilities, without feeling a need to skip any. Pure Ne does not filter them subjectively or with other functions by placing faith on what resonates with them the most (Ni), or judging the possibilities based on how practical, sound, desirable, or realistic they are. It even encourages not to be limited by what is possible, to ignore reality’s limits (possibilities and taking inspiration from things to branch off of occurs when Ne works with or utilizes Si. Ne without Si will be free, not founded or inspired by any parts of reality). When they seek changes and chaos, it is not to experience those things, but because change means new/more inspiration for possibilities and chaos means more doorways for possibilities (Ne encourages to be in circumstances that consistently give all sorts of S-material to start with while still having a lot of uncertainty. The same S-material would quickly become dull as Ne would have already drained it of content). They dont seek to grab possibilities and witness them come true, they seek the mental generation of possibilities. Every possibility may feel just as real/possible as the other. The details are taken as something that inspires, prompting ideas to pop out and branch out from. Each can be broken down into fragments, then broken down further. Ne-Si is more about splitting than connecting (Ni-Se). It's a moving target as it only seeks to see more and more and what could be.

On the other hand, Se's target -is- the trajectory of the world. Art is not that of which that stays, art is how things move, art is about the events that resulted in the final product, art is what blossoms momentarily and soon withers away, art is an explosion. Both S functions are "what is", but what Se sees, it believes everyone else sees (or perhaps it's more accurate to say that its perception is something that everyone else can easily see as it isn't personal at all). It believes them to be apparent, self-evident (it’s common sense in terms of an indisputable how things are in an irrational/empirical truth sense, rather than common logic which is more Te). Truth is determined through an objective presence (they want them to have objective presence, it makes it more "real"), so it may sometimes not be enough for just them to acknowledge the fact, causing them to assert, prove, or showcase them to the world (show, don't tell). It wants to raise the perception of facts to others as well, or to enhance the understanding of it. Se is more about scanning present reality for what can be perceived/done given the momentary existence such as how something can be utilized. It aims for raw perception in search of intense "sensations" (To be clear, the word sensation doesn't really fit the functions, but sensation functions are a mere perception of what is. It's a standpoint about the acknowledgement and recognition of facts). Intensity is based on objective qualities (existing outside the self). This comes from what can generate the greatest (greatest could be either best or highest) output from the immediate situation. Output, of course, can be many different things. The criteria can be aesthetic, tangible/concrete progress/effect, “observation”, “what best fits this situation?”, "how can this result be so clear that it'll be acknowledged by all?". Their situational focus tends to make them quick to respond and easily set things aside as this function focuses on what can be done right now. In a sense, Se orients itself to the trajectory/flux of the world that surrounds them. My wordings are messy enough to be inconsistent but this is what I mean when I describe Se as unfiltered. I do not say that Si focuses on a specific portion of reality, Se does that as well since the conscious mind requires an extent of focus. It's hard to get anywhere if you look at everything equally and don't concentrate attention somewhere. Unfiltered means that Se sees the situation as it is, rather than see it through inner content. Like Ne vs Ni, it is also quicker in shifting its focus.

These functions are highly adaptive to new opportunities or changing realities/situations, they are disconnected from their perception. Ne isn't very selective, all possibilities are of equal value. Se cares about what can be inferred about the immediate context/situation, it if changes, then so be it (Pure functions don’t exist but pure Se judges each situation individually. With zero introversion, sensation will judge people by their present self and hold zero grudges. It is unable to pile up an image/understanding of the person throughout time. It is as if everything you come across is completely new and never seen before. If you think about a person, food, a brand, any object, you won’t be able to describe them based on what you had observed and experienced. But of course, all humans have a bit of introversion and extroversion on each of their cognitive elements). They are much less stubborn; they want to navigate external reality as a whole as much as they can. As extroverted functions, they have a more positive relationship with the object (the outside world) — rather than reducing the object of its power. They see more value in the outer world as it is. These functions are quick to show you possible courses of action in the situation. Extroverted perceiving dominants are the most flexible to changing situations/circumstances. This does not necessarily mean that they will be flexible in a good way; they are simply less likely to stick to or attach to one perception.

Introverted perception is internalized (Pi is like subjectively filtered Pe). Their central reference points are inner images (aside from simply perception, "content" is likely a better word choice). Their attention is much less scattered than the extroverted perceiving functions, which makes them somewhat more "picky" in perception. They look internally in the sense that the outside is compared to or seen through their subjective disposition. This internalization process is automatic and not conscious (the same can apply to other functions, e.g. EJs may not necessarily be aware of how much they look externally for judgement); the introverting process of perception is not controlled, but in the end, it usually forms something that is personally meaningful/understood. We can somewhat divide the process as what their data(base) is like, and how they subjectively form their type of perception.

The inner worlds of these functions are not made by choices or deliberation, but mere perception (they simply happen). Inner content refers to what is already there. These functions can internalize perception through the inner world (e.g. unconscious content, comparing/relating to stored perceptions, experience). They observe the images that emerge from this internalization process, from reacting with contents within. In many cases, it is somewhat like involuntary memory. Si may cause you to suddenly recall the wording of a paper you're writing, making you work on a paper that is not in front of you (this isn’t internalization. Fusing stimuli with inner content, differs from looking at inner content). But internalization for Si is more about objects reflecting a “psychic mirror world”, in the words of Jung (To him, however, this psychic mirror world is more about archetypes, seeing reality by representing conscious contents as if through the lens of a million-year old consciousness).

Perceiving functions simply appreciate the acknowledgement of “information” (Ne appreciates all possibilities impartially, the more the better. Any assessment comes from other functions. For introverted perceiving functions, it’s not about disparate information, but the deeper pursuit on a particular line. These functions sometimes keep you mentally stuck on one thing or the exploration thereof), whether this information is a product of the internal or external world. Se takes note of external stimuli for the sake of perceiving that objective experience, but Si is not about the stimuli, but about what it strikes within the user (e.g. innate knowledge, memory). Introverted perception is impressionistic. Si does not appreciate the external stimuli for the sake of it, just as Ni does not appreciate possibilities. They follow images in their internal world, which makes these functions picky in their categories of Sensation and Intuition respectively.

Sensation is about the perception of facts. But in a psychological basis, there are no “facts”, just perception. For the mind, there only exists a psychic reality. This leaves room for interpreting said facts/reality. If Se were to be completely extroverted, reality only exists in the moment (the word actuality may give a better idea than reality). Normal Se would be focused in momentary reality, but they are still aware that it isn't all there is to it, and still have knowledge from realities not from the moment. While Se prioritizes the objective factor (oriented by the stimuli in the situation), Si prioritizes the subjective factor (e.g. archetypes, memory). Si is not about the experience of objective stimuli itself, but how it is overlayed by the experience of subjective sensations that arise from within yourself that spark in reaction to that stimuli (people often feel a sensation that is not the stimuli itself. perhaps a common occurrence in which this is more noticeable is when it rains, or when you sip warm soup/tea). What arises from the mind can be related perception (memory), but it can also be archetypes: feelings of danger (danger is more Ni than Si as it typically comes with a vision), comfort, warmth, satiation, freshness, urgency, etc. (it can be argued that since emotions themselves are empirical experiences of archetypes, they are within the domain of what Pi sees: Si’s data points and Ni’s visions. Emotions are information, the scope of perception. Fi is directly influenced by emotion [well so is every thought and decision] but Fi is a rational function, it is not about empirical truths. Something like Se-Fi can look exactly like it since its about an internal value judgement that sparks from an observation of external stimuli, but the key difference is that perception is not so much of a choice and that Pi is a type of perception that is concerned with things that exist and come up internally. We’re being technical. Irrational functions don’t decide what they perceive [you see what you see, the sun exists], while rational functions are more about a deliberate process of making conclusions/decisions. Fi is about what your “will” is based on factors such as emotion. Fi and Fe will, of course, be emotional given that emotions heavily influence the decision making of what is deemed as should or should not be done, or what is good and bad. It puts a bias to what the mind would lean to or focus at, this applies to every function. For feeling to work and make decisions, emotions will need to be referred to very often, we will expect more emotional awareness and reliance from those who use feeling functions more than other functions. But note that feeling is not particularly about the emotions themselves, it is more about what you do with those emotions, alongside other info. Feeling is the value judgement: “Eating junk food makes me feel good. But should I?”. If other functions make the right conclusions and see/know the right things, it will increase the likelihood of forming proper value judgements. Two people can have them same knowledge and understanding of the situation and its risks, they can have the same confidence as to the likely consequences of each course of actions, yet choose different paths. People can easily eliminate lives if they did not care about their own. If the only thing someone cares about is eliminating a particular life, then facts and logic wont stop them from doing all they can). Se observes "what is" for all, an impact/effect tangible enough to be undisputable. But Si isn't about what everyone can see, what matters is how it is seen by the individual. Oftentimes, what Si presents to the user is not about the momentary existence of things, but rather something merely related. Si may use these comparisons to see details from the formation and passing of things along with (or rather than) their momentary existence (relational; layered library). The history of the object matters (e.g. its changes throughout time and what caused those changes, the things it has done, previous impressions on the object, things associated with that object). Si is about a reality that persists, rather than one that exists in the present. One is lasting, the other is fleeting. Se views new realities in their own right. Si can be slower to act because it tries to look at new realities in or with the context of all of their records on it. Reality is not represented by the moment. The moment is seen as either something that fits their inner reality, or something that deviates from it (which may intrigue or irritate them). The realities of 2 Si users is overlayed by the subjective factor, making them more likely to be different than the realities of 2 Se users that experience the same event. The differences are usually minor, but subtlety can hold great psychic value. The world is no "improv" to Si, it follows a model, a script (the script itself is oriented on stored data such as how this happened that one time or the schedule they were given. In summary, the stored perception that is attached/linked to the stimuli). They can often have very strong expectations based on this script. They may find deviations intriguing, but this script is essentially the default.

Si has a library of subjective records. Si paints a picture (note: I use this to describe how something may become more noticeable when it's more layered and how experience/data get imprinted in their head which make them notice it when something is different or consistent. I also used painting as it is a subjective impression, as opposed to a photograph). With new perception, it adds translucent “imprints'' to the canvas which eventually forms a layered and composite image. It notices a series of overlaps. Contradicting/unusual imprints will usually stand out. The overlapped areas allow the user to notice qualities that are consistent and long-lasting. The more overlapped something is, the more confident they are in it which can provide comfort and also be deemed as reliable (the actual reliability will obviously depend a lot on their sample size). However, areas with a low amount of overlap may still be used in decisions. Overlaps are merely one factor in the equation. And each layer, of course, does not necessarily have equal opacities. This all relies on the user. These paintings are the inner images that Si uses as a reference point. The world is understood layer by layer. They may use it to see what they know about an object/event or what knowledge is related to it. Now, when it comes to how introversion influences how the world is perceived through sensation, reality or an object isn't seen in its own power. A thing no longer is the thing itself, but also compared to something previous or personal or become a mere reminder (but let’s not forget that they still see the actual situation. It’s just that it causes people to take time getting immersed into their perceptions or comparing the situation to what they know). Things on the outside have subjective presence. Rather than the object, what they perceive is focused on related (not necessarily relevant) perception: similar things, a quality/feeling they have associated with it, the things they did or those that occurred to have led to the moment, a reminder of an action/event, etc.. When compared, pure Se is more “raw” observation while Si is filtered and overlaid. Due to the subjective nature, it is "transformative" (for Si, it's not about not having a perfect memory, but more about what is paid attention to and the impression they received). A particular aspect of something may be emphasized, causing other details to get blurred out. Perhaps some details in what they remember ends up getting mixed up with something else they remember or the same object but in a different time/context. Things get filled up based on a script (a basic example would be assuming the back of someone's uniform is plain white despite not seeing it because the front is plain white as well. Perhaps the leaves may look less rough. Maybe it’s as if they are using a blend tool. A clearer example would be thinking 6pm means dinner time, anything about december 25 will have a christmas setting, or that a man has a cane because he’s “simply that type of person”. Minor deviations from a pattern or inner content may be emphasized or erased. What's essentially happening is that missing details are to be filled in based on what’s available because certain details or groups of details are attached/linked by the brain to other details. This filling in will often have a lot to do with inner content, this includes archetypes and not just memory. Keep in mind that Si will do this using details while Ni will do this with “templates” which means Ni focuses on matching and working with the general “flow” rather than the specifics. Based on what data has been accumulated throughout the user’s life, the mind has enough material to work with in order to automatically, not deliberately, fill the gaps. Due to the relative lack of sensation, however, Ne dominants will have more blanks to fill which will likely cause a slightly more distorted reality). When looking at the outer world, the resulting perception is based on how the stimuli reacts to internal content (archetypes also count as inner content and will influence associations). The stored data play a large role in what catches the eye of the user and the impression they receive. It’s not about some sort of flashiness, but what strikes the impression will be personally meaningful or something that they feel some sort of a subjective connection with. However, these aren't necessarily what's unusual or what's newly discovered to be consistent (but it has a lot to do with it). How things are emphasized will often seem quite arbitrary (especially from an outside perspective). While Ni gets magneted in one conjecture/N-impression, putting away attention from other conjectures (Se-Ni users get more sucked in by N-impressions, and are more free with S. While Si-Ne users get more sucked in by S-impressions, and are more free with N). Strange things may strike Si's attention, needlessly acting as a mental magnet, to the extent that it puts away attention from things that are actually relevant to the situation or moment (it doesn't need a reason, it simply does. Si will often seem neutral in doing this like "hmm" or "that's interesting". Something about a particular detail catches their attention. Focusing on a detail because it reminds you of a quality or another object/event is obviously Si. Also, someone using Si might just focus on a detail, and end up liking it. Se users can obviously do this as well, just about the stimuli itself rather than its relation to subjective content, and that they're less likely to get magneted, and less likely to lose attention to what's actually relevant in the moment. Se sees things more as "plenty of fish in the sea" or public domain. The same goes for Ne vs Ni. Pe doesn't get stuck in one hole)

Ni is also guided by images from the inner world. To a certain extent, this can be considered a database, though they don't give the impression of "data". Aside from unconscious content, the Ni form of memory which plays a role in their conclusions, is more vague (picture chicken broth rather than the chicken itself or its individual parts). As intuition, it cares less about the details, it even sparks in the absence of them. Intuition as a perceiving function -projects- into the "metaphysical": Content that transcends what information is known or observed (things that can serve as evidence). Details (from the raw reality) merely serve for Ni to extract something from it — to strike directly for the heart/core/essence of the matter, typically a general image of a whole, or something to fill in the blanks. Their form of memory focuses on what they have extracted to be the broth of the scene of the skeleton of a concept. Even if the context or many details vary greatly, a scene may immediately be understood. It is because of this that Ni often forms conclusions with -seemingly- little info. As an introverted function, it is stimulated by inner objects (again, it focuses not on the stimuli, but on archetypes within). They are guided by an image projected from content/images within (based on how those unconscious elements react to the stimuli). It apprehends the images that arise from them. You may think of it somewhat as a machine that takes note of a large list of general recipes ("general" means that it doesnt need to fit specific details, rather, only the blurred scene must be of resemblance). It uses these to consume the ingredients (the scene), and transforms them into a final dish to present to the user. All the customer is aware of is the dish. They are usually vaguely or not aware of the recipe (Ni memory does store recipes, the vagueness is comparable to an invisible object which they may dump Se paint on to make it more comprehensible to themselves, and especially others). Keep in mind, the user doesn't prompt these thoughts. As soon as stimuli is received, the machine sucks it in, and the stimuli fades into the background. Intuition comes across as something being served or handed out to you. It is as if to receive a calling that must be followed. As introversion, Ni acquires its conclusive image based on the reactions of contents within the self (archetypes, memory, etc.) to data/stimuli. It prioritizes objects that exist internally, similar to Si and other introverted functions. After raw observation (Se), Ni scans its database for "templates" and the one that seems most fitting (it's a matching system, somewhat like the kid's toy where you place the rectangular prism in the square hole and the cylinder in the circle hole) is the one deemed most probable (though to Ni users, including the lower Ni users, this will often come across as actuality more than possibility, especially for the dominant). Note that Ni is about the conclusive image, not the things in consideration (it collects and works with data unconsciously, but some collected data can be conscious). Humans unconsciously take into consideration a large range of factors, including those that are subliminal or of no interest (you are not aware of all factors that contributed to that action, thought, preference, interest, conclusion, or how something in particular grabbed your attention. There are many things we do not think much of. Psychologically, content constitutes the dark abyss, and our conscious spotlight could only reveal a few things at a time. People have the tendency to focus on one or a few reasons that stood out the most to them since the conscious mind needs to be efficient in time and energy. It can't occupy everything at once so it needs direction and "bias" to concentrate enough attention to particular aspects of the world). Ni's process takes on an automatically holistic approach (which they are usually vaguely or not aware of) to form the image to be served. It connects the dots (the connections are not necessarily correct, reliable, or going to direct you to the right conclusion. Intuition just has a desire to fill in the blanks, especially with a lack of information, and ignoring speculation that comes from biases such as fear or hatred which applies to everyone, Ni doms are the ones who trust their hunches the most. This desire is common for people in general. Accuracy scales with factors such as experience and maturity. Dominants will just generally be more accurate since higher use often leads to higher refinement). While Ne broadens the scope of conjectures, Ni condenses it all into one conjecture that strikes them the most, which is led to/supported by these connections (note that, again, what they see is the final image. The process is done unconsciously). Alternative wording: unlike pure Ne which seeks to branch out or generate more (disparate/contrasting) connections & conjectures, Ni converges connections into one intense conjecture. Also, Ni prioritizes the projection of an image based on content originating within the subject (again, the matching system), while Ne prioritizes qualities in the object and the thoughts they evoke. When looking at the "trajectory" of an object: One explores internally — their inner vision of how the story will go, the other explores externally — the stimuli, the world, the endless possibilities of how it'll turn out. Ne pays a lot of attention to the possible trajectories of the world. It motivates action based on a desire to acknowledge more disparate possibilities. Ni motivates action when it sees ‘promise’ that a certain event will occur. It acts because it has faith that what they envision will come true. The user’s actions lead up to that end, sometimes whether or not it’s good or bad (While action immediately stops when Ni no longer sees promise, Ni, especially in the conscious attitude, would not want to be wrong about this. That would be akin to having dysfunctional eyes as pure Ni views itself as undisputedly true, otherwise, that would mean seeing illusions)

To be clear, Ni is not at all a deliberate assessment of the most probable outcome, rather, it is an instinct of what is to come or what has yet to be revealed. The sense of danger comes from a primitive instinct that manifests as a possibility which feels just as real as what you see with your eyes. This faith is especially the case for dominants users as they have the most confidence in this function.

Perhaps using the word "connections" was a bad idea as many may start to think that any form of connections are intuitive. The following is an allegory rather than an example or an anecdote: When coming across a new jigsaw puzzle (and they can't see the box), the intuitive functions see the final image. It pictures an image and works on the puzzle with this in mind. While sensation looks at the actual pieces ("this is this, and it fits this and that fits that"). Pretty much a focus on the facts (what is) vs ideas inspired from it (conjectures). Stuff that is actually happening vs a conceptual representation of something & what could be. "Reality", as in every data point, is the scope of sensation, every “perception” outside of it is Intuition.

For both functions, reality is seen through inner images (a compilation of stored data). Their perception is subjected to and permeated by this. The users are not necessarily aware of this "internalization" process as again, it's not very deliberate (this is referring to the process, not how they use/interpret the products), they are merely aware of the products of these functions and what these mean to them personally. While it isn't entirely nurture (the collective unconscious plays a role), the more the users of these functions develop/refine the contents of this internal database and/or ability to use it, the more reliable the contents of their inner world become in navigating the world (+more use means the more reliable the user will become in applying, grasping, and working with those content). Ni utilizes inner images in a way similar to an image recognition software. Different faces or things that resemble faces can all be unquestionably recognized as faces despite all their differences. Si utilizes inner image as supplementary data. Upon placing an input on a search bar, you can lots of related information. Ni and Si both influence one’s perception of reality. Sometimes they are poorly evaluated, and the workings of inner content may prove to be difficult to distinguish from external stimuli. Perhaps you’re in an environment with a chaotic mess of noise and you think you’ve heard your name. You look around, seeing no validation that the noise wasn’t simply random, that within all that sound, there was no additional meaning that someone is referring to you. What if you are not able to distinguish actuality from made-up content?

Relatively speaking, extroverted perceiving functions more often collect data to -scan- the entirety and to spot opportunities, whereas introverted perceiving functions collect data primarily because the user needs it to -confidently- engage with the world and tackle situations. Internal perceptions see the world through images stored within. They are often more hesitant to act since they need data to be "internalized", to penetrate into the mind and be further processed by inner content. If a new perception were to contradict their inner image/s of reality or an object (if it were to go against their script or vision), they may find it strange in the sense that “something doesn’t seem right”/”something feels wrong about this”, or they may get flustered (they are prone to having very strong expectations due to these inner realities, strong as in being less likely to have optimal reactions when things go differently). Just as Ni won't just let go of their conjecture (while Ne quickly jumps to others), Si will mentally stick with the things that give them a strong impression (details that strike their subjective disposition). These can often have negative effects. Just like judging functions, the difference between extroverted perceiving functions can be somewhat described as breadth vs depth. The introverted perceiving functions can be so focused or even attached to their inner image of reality that they have difficulty with contradicting perception or any perception that isn't within the scope of these images, they fail to see the "periphery". The existence of Si means that one may mentally be in “waiting mode” for a meeting/appointment scheduled in a few hours that is then cancelled but because it didn't go through as what the script says, they are still in waiting mode despite knowing that it’s over (similar things could apply for Ni conjectures like omen. Again, both have strong expectations). To dominants with underdeveloped judging and inferior functions, their dominant often causes stubbornness or inability to improvise when something doesnt match their perception (unlike Ne and Se which are less filtered and are constantly updating to the situation). This causes difficulty in adjusting to the outside world (e.g. if things aren't as expected/planned).

Again, introversion is focused on looking internally or a preferred influence towards subjective disposition. Introverted perceiving functions, for example, acquire perception derived from the object, but it may just be somewhat related to its objective qualities or a large focus on qualities that are personally meaningful to the subject rather than viewing the object in its own right (the "object" is something that "exists" outside of the subject). Extroversion is focused on looking externally, to be oriented primarily by the object, as in having less influence from the subject. Objects are seen as they are (viewed as raw and complete as possible). As humans, of course, our judgement and perception will have subjectivity involved. Aesthetic is subjective (by classical definition of subjective), but ignoring other functions (i.e. if Se is isolated), Se's assessment of what is aesthetic is purely based (externally) on how good something looks. It doesnt care about how meaningful it is to the self, it doesnt care about self-expression, just mere looks (whereas Si may be reminded of other objects they find, it may cause you to -associate- it with certain qualities or themes. Perhaps with some form of comfort. Since introversion looks at stimuli based on inner content, Si's way of doing things from organizing their belongings, to how they do certain tasks, or what they wear might reflect something about their character, possibly without realizing it). Extroverted intuition is less catered to subjective disposition in the sense that this function cares about ALL of the possibilities, and chooses options based on what satisfies this desire. So when they have milked something to the point that there's little potential left, Ne can cause them to go elsewhere. Ne does not subjectively filter. Note that the process of Ni is different from using Ne then narrowing possibilities with other functions. Ne itself seeks to "generate", not to conclude.

Descriptions as pairings:

Sensation fuels intuition. Si acts as seeds for Ne to sprout and branch out of. Se acts as the body for Ni to make broth out of. I use Si-Ne and Ne-Si interchangeably (as the same thing), same goes with the other axes.

Pe is a chaotic mess, seeking to discover every landscape. Pi tries to set narratives/understandings, seeking to map out the chaos.

Web visualization. The core piece is special in terms of psychic value. The rest are abundant, replaceable, and of almost equal value.

Se-Ni Web going inwards: Se observations connect and converge towards the middle (Ni). Films and genres. Compiles incoming material in their own right and reduces them into skeletons. Applies a database of skeletons as a matching system to understand new incoming information. Each skeleton can apply to many different situations with contrasting details.

Si-Ne Web going outwards: Starts at a Si seed (a detail that gives an impression to the user), then spreads towards multiple directions to search for related perception and possibilities. Islands and bridges. Incoming information is perceived through relations with stored perception. Meanings of each data point are scanned for connections to be explored. Utilizing stored perception gives rise to subjectivity of meaning. Associations and relations lead to reaching data points that may seem arbitrary to others but not to the self due to personal understanding of data points.

In terms of S to S where related perception are the ones on the spotlight (as opposed to the possibilities being given the spotlight), Ne is assisting in the background. Si is the driver with the goal of finding related perception, and Ne is an enabler with the goal to find what is possible (though the validation process of each possibility may be so quick, so subtle, requiring little conscious effort that it is as if it wasn’t there). You don't necessarily need Ne to search for related perception, but it does help by using a trial and error process through creating possible facts/outcomes/explanations, of which Si will navigate the database for any related perception (S-N-S). The perception could support, extend, or contradict the possibility. Si provides the founding material, Ne provides options (sometimes indirectly) on what to do with it.

Se-Ni. The momentary situation is perceived as it is. What is taken into consideration revolves around this. The details, possible courses of action, immediate suggestions, etc.. Ni seeks to apprehend an image that best fits the situation (a single conjecture). They use this information to decide what must be done (this process is in-context to the situation; mainly immediate). An extremely basic example: a man spots a large beast. Their intuition serves them a theme of danger (classical intuition had a lot to do with the collective unconscious which is inherent/genetic, not based on personal experience). They may see an image of being injured or eaten (the user doesn't necessarily see an actual image, it is more likely to be a feeling). They decide it is best to stay away. This is a highly focused process given that Se is oriented by the moments that come forth and that Ni tunnels into one intense image. The process only sees Ni as personally meaningful. It doesn't feel a connection with the sensory data, but it does for the resulting image. It absorbs/rides the waves of passing information then visualizes (it would feel more like noticing) its continual flow through instinctual pattern recognition. To the user, this process may seem more passive than deliberate.

Si-Ne. The momentary situation is perceived through its relation to other details/perception. Relations bring impressions. From the details with the most impressions, these interconnected roots branch out to many directions due to Ne (inconclusive; producive). Based on relations to other data (e.g. experience), the user may deem one branch to be reliable/realistic. They evaluate ideas not for the immediate situation, but those of lasting relevance. The process cares a bit less about the momentary situation and its implications — less need for in-context relevance (Si may get lost in previous events or other existing objects that are related, and then another related event/object and so on. It may end up as more about lasting relevance. Ne may get lost as it seeks to speculate without filter/restriction. The process is more prone to entirely leaving the starting point. Higher Si is less likely to do this since it tends to latch onto a particular object, then all those related perceptions are related to that object in particular. As compared to lower Si, It is more likely to take an approach of "b is related to a, c is also related, d related to a as well". All things are related to the S impression, think of it as a mental anchor, rather than go from a to b to c to d, it goes from a to b, a to c, a to d)

In this process, Si is what's personally meaningful. It doesn't feel as much connection to the intuition aspect (it's unfiltered) as it does to sensation. Ne is viewed somewhat like public domain. In Se-Ni, Se is the public domain. Basically, those that catch the attention of the introverted functions (like mind magnets) which have more orientation towards subjective disposition will feel more connected to the subject. There's this "personal" attachment to them that they hold great meaning to the psyche. They have more difficulty letting go of them. They don’t care about all of those datapoints, they may focus on the perceived trendline so much that all statistical anomalies are ignored. As mentioned previously, Pi is filtered Pe. A Si filter looks at the details that strike the user, A Ni filter fills the blanks with an image/conjecture that strikes the user (Si/Ni doesn’t flow very easily from impression to impression, while Se/Ne would have an abundance, passing everything by so easily, as they are disconnected from them. A Si-Ne user may get caught up in a detail/experience or an example that gives an impression, and extend from there with Ne rather than throw examples around without giving them much attention (focus on a single detail/event, and from this comes multidirectional explorations such as explanations, conjectures, etc.). Si-Ne works similar to keywords. One fixated object brings up an interconnected web of perception. This consists of variations of the central object, possible trajectories, and related perception. A Ni-Se user doesn’t get caught up in the examples they come up with. Their Se treats it like spare change. They get caught up in a particular conjecture). They will narrow down on these which is why the difference between them (as with the other extroverted functions and their introverted counterparts) can partially be described as breadth vs depth. Ne and Se users will have an easier time shifting their N and S focus respectively.

Si/Ni is personal to the user. It doesn't feel otherly at all (this applies more to Si vs Se since a sense of identity is largely grounded in forms of actuality. Se's actuality is of external objects. These feel separated from their identity. They are more likely to look at experiences/perception with little relation to the self, unless relevant to understanding what occurred, coming from its extroverted nature. Let's say they were a mere bystander, the pure Se user merely sees what happened. The subject is of little interest. Si puts a bit or a lot more emphasis on their role in the event, and consequently what it meant in relation to themselves, regardless of its relevance. In terms of how the identity is formed, pure Se views qualities and words/labels as mere -descriptors-, rather than something to be used for self-understanding. The descriptors exist completely outside of it. They're not involved with it. It uses direct actuality in a sense of "I have done this/been like this a lot, therefore reality simply says that I am this". Due to momentary focus, the build up of their understanding of the self just comes to them. Dirt falls from the sky from time to time, building up the foundation. Identity is gathered passively. They are more likely to be satisfied with whatever the situations and data they encounter indicate. What their identity is grounded on is directly from what they have perceived. Something happens and that is that. They're less likely to care about something that is neither directly proved or disproved by what they have found. Not much need for any sort of further proof. Pure Si may use qualities and labels as frameworks to explore/sift through related data about the self. In this sense, they can be a magnet to Si. They use the quality/concept/label/word as a framework, it becomes the center of the mind and they are searching for all related perceptions to this centerpiece, and with this, actively build up their identity. They are more likely to search for any sort of evidence for them to prove to themselves whether or not they match the label, Ne's inconclusivity likely plays a role to this as well. At extremes, it becomes a pillar to their identity. A part of Si's subjectivity is that it will be prone to rely on related perception, rather than just technicality. It digs deep in the sense that identity is not just based on the bare definition. It's not about what is briefly defined as a fan, a connoisseur, a thief. It is so much more than a descriptor. [The descriptor is connected to everything related to it. It’s not about the descriptor. It's about relations and also associations: their personal image of what it is like to be a fan, how a fan behaves, how a fan views things, what a fan is like, this is the mind of a fan, etc.. To understand an identity, they’ll immerse themselves into this character and the world is their stage. Si is the script, but the user isn’t a writer as much as it is the actor. You don't have control over empirical matters. The user does not control the related perception and the associations. They don’t make the script, it is simply given to them by what they have gathered and experienced. Of course, the things you do will influence the script such as gaining more data and experience. Perhaps you are very attentive to a bunch of films that events in real life often remind of something in a film which causes your mind to make movie references about the plot, quotes, characters. You can also develop associations by, for example, always going to the gym every Saturday at 5pm, or at least have planned to do so, to the point that “Oh its 5pm and its saturday, that’s gym time” or whenever its 7pm, your mind says “oh that’s dinner time”. If you trap yourself in a room for 24 hours with plain white walls, floor and ceilings, and the only two objects are a sandwich and a dead cockroach on top of it or something else you find repulsive/gross, there is a chance that you’ll temporarily develop a slight hesitancy on eating sandwiches, or at least that type of sandwich after only looking at those two objects for such a long time as your mind gives you an image of a dead cockroach whenever you look at one]. They may think that based on certain observations and things they have done, they would, by definition, be an x, but it is possible that they don't see themselves as one as they feel different from the image of an x inside their head. Their identity is at risk of latching onto these labels, ideology, or whatever the centerpiece is, and also the things they -associate- with it rather than just the thing itself. Ignoring age and experience, the risk of an identity latching onto a label may be more common for inferior Si users as they will have more difficulty developing solid ground/foundation for their identity. Higher Si's identity will likely be more concrete. This effect is similar to high Fe users being more likely to develop an ability to read the environment. They naturally have more focus on those type of information). Si-Ne does not necessarily begin with common ground due to the subjective nature of Si, while Se's actualities can more easily be seen by all. For Se-Ni, it is Ni that is personal. It is also the extroverted perceiving functions that can get them out of their internal reality of the world, out of their script (Si) or assumed trajectory (Ni).

When using Se-Ni to watch a movie, you will mainly be using raw observation and filling in the blanks + making a prediction, etc.. Se looks at all the details and context, not getting stuck on details as it absorbs what is observable in the moment as it passes, processing at the same pace as the movie. Ni looks at (what it perceives to be) the skeleton (somewhat like a mental x-ray). We'll treat bones as "concept" (can't really think of a better word but template and theme also work, the idea is something that does not exist in itself, but requires to be expressed or manifested through context and details, the meat. For example, the trolley problem in which you must pull a lever to sacrifice one man for five others, in comparison to a variant problem which is to push a man for five others. While being different in context/details, both follow an identical concept of killing one to save five vs doing nothing. This isn't a good example as, to be clear, it's not intuition to perceive that there is a 1 v 5 situation. To view two things as similar because one detail is the same isn't necessarily intuition and can easily be sensation. When humans get hunches or make speculation/assumptions, it does not come from nowhere. Think of a storage unit of invisible entities, and the amalgamation of data from Se is the paint that splashes onto a particular entity, allowing you to form conclusions. In this analogy, Ni is the shape, Se is the color. The database of shapes allows for an input-output system of cause-and-effect. Do not mistake this for background logic. It's just another form of learning from experience. Rather than reasoning, it is more of a matching system. The shape that -fits- the most to the details and context is the one that is deemed true. Or perhaps rather than the shape, you may even think of it as the essence of the shape's structure. The shape sorter toy. A rectangular prism best fits into the square hole, the same goes for the cube. A cylinder best fits the circular hole [well a rectangle works too], the same goes for the sphere. If you chip away the middle sections of the cylinder like an hourglass or a dumbbell, it still best fits the circular hole. They don’t form rules, standards, or reasoning, it is just conjecture based on something that matches the data. While Si would match based on the details, Ni is matching the situation based on the aforementioned shape holes. It reduces Se, mainly the incoming information, into these shape holes. In practice, this can seem more like the "patterns" of the world). Situations remind them of skeletons (somewhat of a conceptual representation of the happening, these exist separately from the details and the context). They don’t necessarily see the entire skeleton, but seeing a portion of one may vaguely remind them of other skeletons to fill the image (think of a human spine, which has multiple vertebrae. Ni may recognize the coccyx, lowest vertebrae, to be a certain way. It remembers another spine which has a similar coccyx, so using that other spine, it fills in the blanks up to the cervical. These individual parts are the constituent parts of the conceptual representation of the entire event). The meat doesn't have to be the same for them to recognize the same skeleton. Since they focus on skeletons, they may have difficulty thinking of examples to concretize the idea until their Se comes across flesh and skin that matches this skeleton. Overall, it is based on applying their database of skeletons to the context of what is right there in front of them.

When using Si-Ne, information is seen through stored data. It is overlayed and you may recall other stored details, causing you to think about things that are related to the movie or related to what's happening in the movie. Si may latch onto something and Ne will then try to expand or branch out to possible connections of these related perceptions to each other or the movie or speculate something about these related perceptions. But Ne can, of course, go in-context by speculating about the movie (though those speculations may lead to recalling more data). This process will be less likely to be in the same pace as the movie itself as Si may receive an impression on something which will trigger recollection of data + Ne exploration. Higher Ne is more likely to go farther from or change the starting seed (by farther from, that's in terms of relatedness). In any placement, Si has a gravitational pull, just that the "stronger" the Si focus, the stronger its gravitational pull. On the other hand, a Si-Ne user with an extraverted attitude will be more prone to placing their attention to objective conditions (what is possible about the movie). In this case, Si’s related perception are left in the background as Si is only meant to support Ne. Pure extraversion is not selective at all, so it will utilize Si by waiting for some stimuli that catches Si’s attention to then explore from there.

About associations: People have all sorts of associations. These are mostly formed unconsciously. Whether or not they agree with or are aware of them is another matter. Dominants Si users are more aware of related perception, but associations are more of a side effect of the existence of stored data. Being more aware of related perception would result in a slightly higher chance to understand where the associations come from rather than merely having them.

Naturally, there is always an extent of focus in actuality, but there are some distinctions with Si and Se. Se focuses on the objects and explores its objective qualities, uses, and the direct implications that follow. On the other hand, Si explores it through prior knowledge (e.g. previous experiences, knowledge about: the constituents of the objects, the people in the event, the actions being done). Pure Se is unlikely to hold a grudge or judge a person for their previous self, whereas pure Si doesn't see the person for who they are today. The image of each person exists through the culmination of stored knowledge and experiences.

Se itself also doesn't mind shifting its focus at all. Again, Si feels a stronger pull towards particular details. The impressions Pi receives hold great psychic gravity. Introverted functions generally have more difficulty changing their mind. While Ni has tunnel vision on intuition, Si has tunnel vision on sensation. Perhaps this can make Si users more likely to get stuck in an example (Si and Si-Ne) or focus on one task (or a particular way of achieving the task) that they lose sight of others. As a secondary effect, tunneling can increase "dedication/commitment" just for the sake of it (for better or for worse). This is different from Ni's commitment in following their conjectures or visions of reality (this is seen as a matter of "what is", which shall be distinguished from Fi visions which are about what should be). Se somewhat prefers the opposite of Si as it appreciates the S information in a more distributed and equal manner, similar to how Ne appreciates each possibility.

To remember something means to utilize what one had observed. Without being founded in what is real, it is no longer considered as something remembered. Classical memory lies on the perception of actuality. The exterior focus of Se makes Se-Ni users more likely to view the past from a completely third perspective. A large part of Si's perception comes from within, which will make the self (mainly contents from the self) more likely to hold psychic value in the events that occur. Of course, if the self has a relevant role in the event, both cases would have it holding psychic value.

In introversion, Sensation looks internally for stored perception. It is compulsively relational and associative. Of course, Se users can do this as well, just that when sensation follows the extraverted attitude, there's a higher filter based on its relevance to the occasion since they feel a stronger gravitational pull towards the reality that currently exists and the incoming information with it (based on this one context). A Se user is more likely to accumulate and recall data based on their relevance to the moment/situation itself while Si itself accumulates data based on what they already know or have observed (Se is focused externally, so it mainly looks at the situation itself as it is and things that directly have to do with the situation. They want to make use of things and info for the particular moment. Si is focused inwards. The thing about Si is that it looks at any data that is related to the situation, but being related doesn't necessarily mean it's directly relevant, though scanning through relations does help find relevant information. The object is the same, but the subjects are different. This is partially why what comes to mind and strikes an impression is often arbitrary to the outside. This can become more arbitrary when Si's search for any related perception enables Ne to make its own explorations which is often the case. They are essentially feeding each other. Si are the dots, and Ne are the lines, somewhat. Si holds the subjective meanings of each dot. Ne scans these subjective meanings from Si which act as foundation/material, Ne helps explore the connections of the dots and acts as the bridge builder). Si is summarized as what the subject sees, rather than just what everyone sees (of course, what the subject sees can overlap with the objective viewer). It constantly searches for relations and associations. Their database, which plays a major but not the entire role, causes them to look at details in relation to their stored data rather than the level of relevance or objective qualities. What makes something related, however, is very subjective, as compared to what information is relevant to the moment. This can make Si-Ne users recall and absorb seemingly arbitrary details because the connections they make are subjective. Which can give the impression of good memory simply because no one else remembers it or understands why they'd remember it.

By "subjective" meaning, I mean associations and relations when it comes to Si. Si’s stored information comes across as “supplementary data” as if you typed something in google (stimuli) and results come out from your mind’s database (these results can get integrated into your understanding of the stimuli). Whether or not you view Christmas as a special time to spend with others alongside specific details and rituals or just an arbitrary point in each revolution around the sun that is collectively given meaning, you will still make those associations (mainly stuff like winter, santa claus, gifts, whatever people usually do). It's about what comes to mind when you think of Christmas, whether you agree with / relate to it or not. The same goes for rings, IDs, feathers, anything. Subjective meaning is founded in related perception which collectively form one’s image/understanding of the object. Si works like an inside joke. Perhaps an object brings up a memory. You might remember using or seeing a certain phrase somewhere else. Perhaps there's a similar quality. Perhaps one is a constituent of another. Associations can be observed in symbols, clothing, branding, language. A word can lead to many related perceptions through its structure, previous uses, implications, etc.. Language is a medium constructed by man and developed through collective intelligence that is meant to organize thoughts and ideas into something more comprehensible. We give particular sounds meaning, and as a side dish, match them with symbols which we also give meaning. The system has its limits in capturing an image of reality and definitions are subjective. Two people can be thinking the same thing but differences in what they associate with words and phrases, or how they organize thoughts into words, can cause miscommunication and unnecessary disagreement. Definitions are based mainly on popular uses and also formality (slang is often excluded). Even so, different dictionaries exist. People learn through observing how others have used it, by looking up definitions, by working with how it sounds and what utilization would make sense. We learn language by gathering more and more perception. Everyone has their own personal variants of how they perceive the word and what they associate with it. One wouldn't identify as a workaholic just because they work a lot. If they enjoyed their job despite working a lot to a point of not being able to attend to other important tasks/matters, it doesn't give the vibe of a workaholic to them. There are many who don’t consider themselves religous despite having a religion due to being different from their image of an average person of their religion (e.g. they stick to the core of their religion and that their belief does not rely on arbitrary traditions). The words overrated and underrated get misinterpreted sometimes, mainly as it gets associated with good and bad. The "depth" of Si's data points (it goes more than the raw observation) allows it to provide a lot of content for Ne to make connections with. This does apply to archetypes as well (well about everything can arguably be reduced to a mixture of archetypes since they’re somewhat elementary constituents like quarks but for mental identification). Ne can explore an object through Si’s associations of comfort, violence, urgency, nurture, authority, etc..

There may be numerous occasions in which Se users remember more about the situation itself since their full in-context focus allows their mind to be truly present in the situation, whereas Si makes the user recall other perceptions over fully focusing on the situation itself (and may get stuck in either stored perception or the particular impressions from the environment). On the other hand, Si may lead to a better memory given that it receives impressions which make particular details more "intense" (while Se itself does not have an inherent focus, no one is a pure extrovert. Se users will have introversion in their sensation, they are just less oriented to related perception and more to what is external. The director does not want Si data be the center of the stage. Se users will have fewer and less magnetic impressions when it comes to sensation), and it can also lead to a desire for data solely for the sake of having data (somewhat for comfort or confidence, especially in dominants). This is because the function operates by using these data for reference which can make them slower to act for more time to gather info, as compared to Se which may lead to a tendency to react immediately/subconsciously (react can mean action or conclusion) after a quick scan of the situation. How a typical Si user gathers data may seem more deliberate than the typical Se user.

Additional Notes (for type): To reiterate, keep in mind that the functions themselves are like points of reference to the user (it doesn’t determine the content of their mind, just the structure. How this manifests in the user can only be generalized). Everyone can use every function. Every person has a basic level of each function. Because of this, symptoms of a function and its attitude can apply to anyone from time to time. Please do not treat these as type descriptions. Ne descriptions should ideally be Ne descriptions rather than ENP or NP descriptions. Expect Si processes to be commonly done by a Ne dominant in order to fulfill Si-Ne. The attitude, however, is a different matter. It’s not that Ne dominants don’t use Si. They use Si a lot, just with a weaker gravitational pull towards it, giving Ne the main spotlight with Si assisting in the background. Type is about biases for each function. Type will mainly matter when it comes to a function receiving a calling and functions having disparate desires/conclusions. The mental spotlight's priority is the dominant. As a general rule, extreme displays are most common with the dominant and the inferior (Their conflict is polarized. One places a boulder in one side of the seesaw. Seeking balance, more and more rock are placed into the other side of the seesaw until it is a pile of rocks heavy enough to cause significant impact). Aside from division of brain labor (e.g. as always, this isn’t exclusive but a Ni dom may be known to lack concretization in their messages or be physically clumsy from their lack of observation, but this isn’t due to ability, rather, more concentration is distributed to Ni and less to Se in normal/natural circumstances when compared to an average Se dom. But when the situation calls for a focus in the environment and all that is momentarily real and relevant, this will likely change for more concentration on Se). Type may also influence ‘trust’ in your functions. Ni dominants are the most likely to trust the products of their Ni, as in with less need to reason it out or search for concrete evidence (though of course, it will be normal for them to do so. The focus of the sentence was trust. What the dominant says comes first. The functions have a hierarchy). About the middle functions, they will likely be a bigger source of constant inner conflict, more so than dom-inf since those are much more polarized, which may have a less frequent but more dramatic bursts of conflict. The dom-inf is conscious-unconscious while the middle function conflict is more conscious-conscious (the extent of consciousness/unconsciousness is less extreme). This can make cognitive dissonance more perceptible in the mid functions. The middle functions are much more nuanced and fluid since they do not have a natural opposition to the dominant. But keep in mind that functions don't oppose each other, the problem is the attitude that arises when a function is dominant. The inferior attitude is opposed to the dominant attitude but they have overlaps. The inferior's direction can often be used to support the dominant, just that it's the most filtered. The functions themselves often work together. Unless your only focus is the attitude of a function, avoid viewing a function merely for the dominant position. To be clear, the inferior function is not an ignored function, that would imply that it is left alone. That’s not the case. The conscious attitude (realm of the dominant) represses the inferior (as they have opposing attitudes. The attitudes, not the use), telling you that it is a villain almost religiously, and locking it away. The inferior screams from the unconscious side but it keeps getting pushed down. Eventually, of course, it will leak and escape. But the longer it takes for it to escape, the more unsettled energy has it piled up against the dam. The more you let it out from time to time, the calmer the impacts, rather than the occasional bursts of waves that drown you. This applies to repressed content in general, you deal with and get over certain things in your mind by letting out the unsettled thoughts, emotions, and energy. You need to tire out the beast, and to do so, you need to unlock its cage before it starts getting more impatient and rabid.

When it comes to functions not in the primary stack, they exist, but are less natural than their primary stack counterparts as a general rule, especially the dominant's i/e counterpart (everyone uses S/N/T/F. But a Ti dom’s Thinking is extremely introverted that its extroverted side is weak). For the middle functions, what we call the auxiliary isn't necessarily higher than the tertiary. You can expect an introvert to prioritize the introverted processes more than the extroverted processes. Not just in the dominant (i-i-e-e, e-e-i-i). Treat them as if they are the same level. Don't assume (leave it inconclusive) that there's a typing issue just because you believe your type to be, for example, Ni-Ti. Also, hypotheses shouldn’t directly end up as a particular type. That would be a cause for suspicion. It should follow certain steps. By this I mean: discover what functions you have in the stack (e.g. Fi-Te or Te-Fi), then assess if any of these fit the dominant-inferior conflict (then which is dom and which is inf).

#Mbti #cognitive functions #Te #Fe #Ti #Fi #Se #Ne #Si #Ni

7 notes · View notes