Possibilities. Perception. Harmony. Order.

[Rudolph Mondal]

After detracting from mbti and jungian typology in general, I've recently come back to it, realizing that actually within it plenty of gems are contained.

The issue I had previously with mbti and jungian typology is that I saw behaviour as largely contextual and yes, indeed, behaviour is contextual. However, there's another way to interpret Jung's work, the way probably Jung intended it to be interpreted, and that is by relating cognitive functions to actual modules of processing and generating information, means which were sculpted via the process of evolution.

The four words in the title represent what intuition, sensing, feeling, and thinking mean respectively and each word reflects a particular method of cognitively processing information.

But these are just functions. I have not mentioned attitudes yet.

I think it's important to separate the functions from the attitudes to see what the functions themselves constitute. Too often I see people treating the functions together with an attitude and expressing the same function expressed via two different attitudes as being vastly different from each other.

This is my new(?) idea for future "tests" or "questionnaires" to be developed. Allow the individual to distinguish between functions first and later throw the attitudes in. This in my opinion yields a clearer understanding of which function the individual prefers to use along with which attitude is dominant.

In Jung's work, if one employs a function in a particular attitude, one cannot employ the same function in the other attitude. For example, one can use Ne but if so, not Ni. I'm not sure if this holds up indefinitely. I'll have to read/think about it more.

The inferior function stuff makes good sense for me. If one prefers to use one function over the other function of the same type (rational/irrational) in a particular attitude then the other opposite function and attitude is repressed naturally and anything which is repressed always wants to fight back. (An analogue of newton's third law, which is necessary for the conservation of energy in the universe or any system we are concerned with)

But this is the thing. Most of us don't prefer one function over another. Most of us are still quite undifferentiated in the cognitive functional sense. (EDIT: Highly debatable)

Thoughts?

Thank you.

 

[Black Rose]

Possibilities. Perception.

Si is about details and Se is peripheral vision.

Ni concludes one possibility from Se because Se sees everything at the same time.
Ne comes up with multiple possibilities because details are all separate unlike in (Ni-Se).

Harmony. Order.

Internal and External

I need Internal order and external Harmony.

I am ESFJ and my feelings are hurt easy.
I spend less time on internal order but I do have a huge collection of facts.

My brother is ESTJ so my Si and Ti conflict with his Te and Si.
He must impose his Si through his Te and I refuse because of my Ti.
He is dumb as f*ck at logic. He is damn certain about everything.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

After detracting from mbti and jungian typology in general, I've recently come back to it, realizing that actually within it plenty of gems are contained.

The issue I had previously with mbti and jungian typology is that I saw behaviour as largely contextual and yes, indeed, behaviour is contextual. However, there's another way to interpret Jung's work, the way probably Jung intended it to be interpreted, and that is by relating cognitive functions to actual modules of processing and generating information, means which were sculpted via the process of evolution.

The four words in the title represent what intuition, sensing, feeling, and thinking mean respectively and each word reflects a particular method of cognitively processing information.

That bolded bit is very cool.

But these are just functions. I have not mentioned attitudes yet.

I think it's important to separate the functions from the attitudes to see what the functions themselves constitute. Too often I see people treating the functions together with an attitude and expressing the same function expressed via two different attitudes as being vastly different from each other.

This is my new(?) idea for future "tests" or "questionnaires" to be developed. Allow the individual to distinguish between functions first and later throw the attitudes in. This in my opinion yields a clearer understanding of which function the individual prefers to use along with which attitude is dominant.

I have always wanted to develop much more comprehensive functions tests as well. It seems like that could work. But I'm not sure how making testing categories would really be advantageous to be honest, versus just making separate function tests attitude-dependent.

In Jung's work, if one employs a function in a particular attitude, one cannot employ the same function in the other attitude. For example, one can use Ne but if so, not Ni. I'm not sure if this holds up indefinitely. I'll have to read/think about it more.

Psychological Types is pretty straight-forward in this regard in that Jung paints a pretty pure picture of what a function will do in a dominant role, without elaborating much in the variations and interrelationships of functions, probably because it was his premier work on the subject.

But I do believe the dominant, aux, tertiary, and inferior functions have the ability in descending order to be comfortable in the other attitude. Simply because the subject has had more time developing that function and becoming comfortable with it. I am a strong Ni intp, probably because I spent large amounts of time introverting (forced lifestyle situation).

Mainly my recollection is that he was passionate that if someone preferred feeling, then thinking was rejected outright, and that the two did not work together well. Which we now know is not really true because Ti/Fe does work together, etc. But overall, if we consider PREFERENCES, if one has a preference for thinking in general, one will tend to reject feeling.

The inferior function stuff makes good sense for me. If one prefers to use one function over the other function of the same type (rational/irrational) in a particular attitude then the other opposite function and attitude is repressed naturally and anything which is repressed always wants to fight back. (An analogue of newton's third law, which is necessary for the conservation of energy in the universe or any system we are concerned with)

For me this does not follow. The inferior comes into play as necessary and only as necessary. I believe the inferior is happy to be repressed, and its desired state IS to stay repressed, which is why utilizing the inferior can feel difficult or is avoided if at all possible.

But this is the thing. Most of us don't prefer one function over another. Most of us are still quite undifferentiated in the cognitive functional sense. (EDIT: Highly debatable)

Thoughts?

Thank you.

This really depends on your age and your emotional and psychological development. As humans age, I believe all the functions and all the attitudes become pretty well differentiated, making it almost difficult to 'type' a HEALTHY senior adult.

Thank you!