Interpretation of Jungian Functions

[jason_m]

This is my interpretation of Jung's psychological functions:

Thinking: searches for true ideas.
Feeling: has feelings about people (or things).
Sensation: senses objects.
Intuition: perceives possibilities in the world.

Introversion = subjective, while extraversion = objective. What is subjective is what is inside the self, while what is objective is outside of ourselves.

If you look at my definitions of the functions, each contains an objective and a subjective component. Applying this to each function yields the following definitions:

Introverted thinking: searches for true ideas.

For the introverted thinker, the emphasis is on the ideas themselves as opposed to how true they are in the real world. However, as in all the functions, there is still emphasis on how they fit into the external world (their truth), but this is not the main emphasis. This is coherent with why Jung says that introverted thinkers try to fit the facts to fit the idea; the idea is of ultimate importance, while the facts are secondary. This makes the introverted thinker's thought process primarily theoretical.

Extraverted thinking: searches for true ideas.

Since extraverted thinking is primarily concerned with truth, facts are its main emphasis. Jung says that extraverted thinkers tend to rely heavily on facts in their thinking. It might also explain the socionics interpretation of extraverted thinking, for which extraverted thinkers are concerned with what works in practice, for what could be a greater testament to the external truth of an idea than how well it works in reality?

Introverted feeling: has strong feelings about people (or things).

Introverted feelers have strong ties to objects and people, but they notice their feelings towards these external things more than the things themselves, for the thing itself is objective, and introverted feelers are more aware of the subjective aspects of their attachments.

Extraverted feeling: has strong feelings about people (or things)

As extraverted feelers pay more attention to the objective factor, they tend to have strong ties to people. This is why they tend to be so social; people have great value in their world, so they do everything they can to engage them.

Introverted sensation: senses objects.

Introverted sensors are more aware of the sensations that objects produce than the objects themselves. I think that socionics captures my interpretation of introverted sensing the best. For example, types often seek comfort, and when you seek comfort, you are usually more interested in the sensation of comfort itself than the object that is causing it.

Extraverted sensation: senses objects.

Extraverted sensors are the most "objective" of all the types; not only are they interested in the real world, they are interested in the objects themselves that this world is comprised of. This leads extraverted sensors to be materialistic and aesthetic. Good food is not good only because it tastes good. It's good because it is considered a delicacy, as that gives the food its status as an object in the world.

Introverted intuition: perceives possibilities in the world.

Introverted intuition is essentially imagination. When you're imagining something, you usually aren't interested in the realization of the possibilities you're imagining as much as the possibilities themselves. For example, if you imagine yourself romantically embracing a woman, it's the possibility of this happening that makes it interesting, and yet it doesn't have to be realized in the real world. It happens entirely in your mind. Forecasting things is also like this, in the sense that when you forecast something, you are focusing on possibilities in the world, but you are not engaging the world in any way. All of it happens within the context of your mind and imagination.

Extraverted intuition: perceiving possibilities in the world.

For extraverted intuition it isn't the possibilities themselves that are interesting, but their realization in the real world; if it can't be made a reality it isn't interesting. For example, if an extraverted intuitive enthusiastically encounters the prospect of obtaining a new job, the job itself is what makes an impression on them. They might think of the money they'll make, the type of work they'll be doing, the new city they'll be living in, etc. Therefore, there is more of a tendency to try and make dreams a reality, as opposed to just dreaming without a purpose.

Now let's consider which system (either socionics or MBTT) best captures my interpretation of each function:

Ti: MBTT. INTPs, for example, are often interested in developing theories and seeing how the facts fit into the theory, whereas I_Tjs are more concerned with rules and strict logic, which is not far from my interpretation, but doesn't capture the essence of it.

Te: socionics. E_Tjs are very concerned with facts and procedures that work, whereas MBTT doesn't emphasize these aspects as much, and places emphasis on things that aren't as relevant, such as E_TJs having "strong" personalities.

Fi: MBTT. Both socionics and MBTT capture the essence of Fi, but often has a people and moral emphasis, which does not fit into my interpretation.

Fe: MBTT. As I said, Fe is the most people-oriented function, and MBTT makes note of the fact that E_FJs are very social, whereas this is not emphasized as much in socionics.

Si: socionics. I said that socionics captures this function well, and MBTT is far from the mark by associating Si with routine and monotonous activities.

Se: socionics. Neither system captures this function well, but socionics is closer, since can be materialistic and emphasize status.

Ni: socionics. Socionics focuses more on imagination, while MBTT Ni focuses on drive and vision.

Ne: socionics and MBTT equally. Both of these systems seem to note that Ne types are interested in the prospects of things.

Jason

[FDG]

I like this interpretation.

[jason_m]

I like this interpretation.

Thank you.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

This is my interpretation of Jung's psychological functions:

Thinking: searches for true ideas.

No, because there is a fundamental difference between Introverted Thinking and Extraverted Thinking that cuts across Thinking. Only Extraverted Thinking is searching for Truth as correspondence with reality. Introverted Thinking does not believe that ideas can correspond with objective reality. Ti is about developing and expressing subjective ideas, and the question whether they are true or not does not arise.

Feeling: has feelings about people (or things).

No. Feeling is a judging function, whereas having feelings is a state. Feeling is about using your feelings to evaluate what somethings is worth.

Sensation: senses objects.

That is not as bad as your first two suggestions.

Intuition: perceives possibilities in the world.

Maybe if you include the psychic domain in the concept world.

Introversion = subjective, while extraversion = objective.

No, definitely not. Introversion is a focus on the inner world, Extraversion is a focus on the outer world. It has very little to do with subjective and objective.

What is subjective is what is inside the self, while what is objective is outside of ourselves.

No, clearly not. Here you misuse the concepts subjective and objective. To get a better understanding of how those concepts should be used, I think you should start with taking a close look at how the difference between Subjectivists and Objectivists are described in the Reinin dichotomies. You can also compare that with how the words are explained in a philosophical dictionary.

Introverted thinking: searches for true ideas.

That is clearly false for the reasons I tried to explain above. Read what Jung said about Introverted Thinking in Psychological Types. If you do that you will realize that your interpretation is incorrect.

For the introverted thinker, the emphasis is on the ideas themselves as opposed to how true they are in the real world.

Yes, but now you contradict what you said yourself above. For an idea to be true it has to correspond with how the real world is; it has everything to do with how true the ideas are in the real world. You are confusing different concepts here. Introverted Thinking is not about truth, it is about meaning.

However, as in all the functions, there is still emphasis on how they fit into the external world (their truth), but this is not the main emphasis.

You are not making sense here, because your statements contradict each other. You have to learn how to understand and use concepts correctly.

This is coherent with why Jung says that introverted thinkers try to fit the facts to fit the idea; the idea is of ultimate importance, while the facts are secondary. This makes the introverted thinker's thought process primarily theoretical.

This is correct, but you don't seem to understand what it really means.

Extraverted thinking: searches for true ideas.

Yes, that's one (but not the only) aspect of Extraverted Thinking.

Since extraverted thinking is primarily concerned with truth, facts are its main emphasis.

Yes.

Jung says that extraverted thinkers tend to rely heavily on facts in their thinking. It might also explain the socionics interpretation of extraverted thinking, for which extraverted thinkers are concerned with what works in practice, for what could be a greater testament to the external truth of an idea than how well it works in reality?

So far so good.

Introverted feeling: has strong feelings about people (or things).

Once again: Having feelings is a state, using the feeling function is to evaluate according to criteria that are (to some extent) based on feelings.

Introverted feelers have strong ties to objects and people, but they notice their feelings towards these external things more than the things themselves, for the thing itself is objective, and introverted feelers are more aware of the subjective aspects of their attachments.

No, this is misleading. To be aware of something is not the same thing as evaluating it. Introverted Feeling is still an judging function, not a perceiving one. Dominant Introverted Feelers are usually not aware of why they are making the value judgments about things. Fi works like a filter that interprets the incoming information.

Extraverted feeling: has strong feelings about people (or things)

Very often yes, but Extraverted Feeling is not a state, it's a judging function. People are judged by Fe. The feelings themselves are rather irrelevant.

As extraverted feelers pay more attention to the objective factor, they tend to have strong ties to people. This is why they tend to be so social; people have great value in their world, so they do everything they can to engage them.

True if you don't use the word "objective" here.

Introverted sensation: senses objects.

Introverted sensors are more aware of the sensations that objects produce than the objects themselves. I think that socionics captures my interpretation of introverted sensing the best. For example, types often seek comfort, and when you seek comfort, you are usually more interested in the sensation of comfort itself than the object that is causing it.

This is your most correct interpretation so far.

Extraverted sensation: senses objects.

Extraverted sensors are the most "objective" of all the types; not only are they interested in the real world, they are interested in the objects themselves that this world is comprised of. This leads extraverted sensors to be materialistic and aesthetic. Good food is not good only because it tastes good. It's good because it is considered a delicacy, as that gives the food its status as an object in the world.

This is more or less true. But the word "objective" should not be used carelessly. It can easily lead to confusions and misinterpretations.

Introverted intuition: perceives possibilities in the world.

No, this is misleading and slightly incorrect.

Introverted intuition is essentially imagination.

No, it isn't.

When you're imagining something, you usually aren't interested in the realization of the possibilities you're imagining as much as the possibilities themselves.

It seems rather obvious that what you are describing here is Extraverted Intuition. You probably confuse the two different forms of Intuition.

For example, if you imagine yourself romantically embracing a woman, it's the possibility of this happening that makes it interesting, and yet it doesn't have to be realized in the real world. It happens entirely in your mind. Forecasting things is also like this, in the sense that when you forecast something, you are focusing on possibilities in the world, but you are not engaging the world in any way. All of it happens within the context of your mind and imagination.

What you seem to have done is to take one aspect of Introverted Intuition and combine it with another aspect of Extraverted Intuition, and the result is a confused concept.

Extraverted intuition: perceiving possibilities in the world.

In the outer world.

For extraverted intuition it isn't the possibilities themselves that are interesting, but their realization in the real world; if it can't be made a reality it isn't interesting.

What you describe here is almost the exact opposite to the truth. Introverted Intuition is about limiting the possibilities to get to the essence -- to get rid of the unlikely and unrealistic possibilities and be left with what will most likely happen. Extraverted Intuition is about exploring as many possibilities as possible, whether they can be realized in the real world or not.

For example, if an extraverted intuitive enthusiastically encounters the prospect of obtaining a new job, the job itself is what makes an impression on them. They might think of the money they'll make, the type of work they'll be doing, the new city they'll be living in, etc. Therefore, there is more of a tendency to try and make dreams a reality, as opposed to just dreaming without a purpose.

Partly true, partly false -- all due to your confusion about the differences between Extraverted and Introverted Intuition.

[Phaedrus]

Ti: MBTT. INTPs, for example, are often interested in developing theories and seeing how the facts fit into the theory, whereas I_Tjs are more concerned with rules and strict logic, which is not far from my interpretation, but doesn't capture the essence of it.

Almost totally false. You have clearly misunderstood the MBTT types.

Te: socionics. E_Tjs are very concerned with facts and procedures that work, whereas MBTT doesn't emphasize these aspects as much, and places emphasis on things that aren't as relevant, such as E_TJs having "strong" personalities.

Total crap. The E_Tjs and E_TJs are exactly the same in these respects in both theories.

Fi: MBTT. Both socionics and MBTT capture the essence of Fi, but often has a people and moral emphasis, which does not fit into my interpretation.

Bullshit. MBTT does not capture the essence of Fi.

Fe: MBTT. As I said, Fe is the most people-oriented function, and MBTT makes note of the fact that E_FJs are very social, whereas this is not emphasized as much in socionics.

You don't seem to have read much socionic literature, and you have got it wrong. The social aspect of the types are just as much emphasized in both models.

Si: socionics. I said that socionics captures this function well, and MBTT is far from the mark by associating Si with routine and monotonous activities.

At least you have got this right. Si in MBTT is extremely different from in Soiconics.

Se: socionics. Neither system captures this function well, but socionics is closer, since can be materialistic and emphasize status.

This is actually a good point, because the general understanding of ego types is very bad on this forum and maybe also among socionists in general.

Ni: socionics. Socionics focuses more on imagination, while MBTT Ni focuses on drive and vision.

The Ni function in MBTT is totally wrong, because it is incorrectly said to be the dominant function of INTjs and INFjs. The focus on drive and vision comes from the fact that especially Ti () leading types have exactly that kind of "drive and vision". It's the manifestation of the subjective character of and it's focus on implementing subjective ideas, on realizing subjective visions. This aspect of the INTj type is better described in MBTT than in Socionics, because the descriptions in Socionics are misleading even though the behaviour of the LII type is correctly described. But people who are focusing only on the functions and dismiss socionic type profiles, in which typical attitudes and behaviours of the types are described, tend to misinterpret the LII type for that reason.

Ne: socionics and MBTT equally. Both of these systems seem to note that Ne types are interested in the prospects of things.

Yes.

[jason_m]

No, because there is a fundamental difference between Introverted Thinking and Extraverted Thinking...

The mistake you make is that you seem to be interpreting my theory as a collection of empirical facts. The final word as to whether a theory is true rests not on arguments but on objective, empirical evidence (e.g., statistics). Without objective, empirical evidence, there is no way of saying who is really right.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

The mistake you make is that you seem to be interpreting my theory as a collection of empirical facts. The final word as to whether a theory is true rests not on arguments but on objective, empirical evidence (e.g., statistics). Without objective, empirical evidence, there is no way of saying who is really right.

You are just wrong here. I have all the empirical evidence on my side. And if your "theory" does not correspond with the empirical facts it is just bullshit. Your comment is rather idiotic actually.

[machintruc]

Extraverted thinking: searches for true ideas.

That's how I'm an extraverted thinking jungian type. (ENTJ)

[Phaedrus]

That's how I'm an extraverted thinking jungian type. (ENTJ)

And you are definitely not an LII. If you claim that you are an LII one more time, you have proven that you are an imbecile, and people must start to treat you accordingly.

[jason_m]

You are just wrong here. I have all the empirical evidence on my side. And if your "theory" does not correspond with the empirical facts it is just bullshit. Your comment is rather idiotic actually.

Sorry, I'm not playing your pathetic game of insulting people's intelligence. It doesn't make you look intelligent, it makes you look like you have an inferiority complex. It's also a pretty telling sign that you're losing the argument, because if you actually had a valid point, then what would the need be for it? The fact is, your claim that it is empirically false is entirely subjective. In other words, why should I trust your observations, when you have no data to back them up? Tell me of one theory that has been ruled out entirely based only on subjective impressions.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

Sorry, I'm not playing your pathetic game of insulting people's intelligence.

You are already playing the game. You are already insulting my intelligence as well as your own by your pathetic comments. Focus on the truth here instead.

It doesn't make you look intelligent, it makes you look inferior.

To you and others maybe. But that is rather irrelevant, don't you think? The main question is who is right and who is wrong. And the fact is that all my objections to your reasonings here have been objectively sound and strongly worth your attention. And yet you dismiss them by shifting focus to my person and your own feelings about how you are treated. That makes you immensely intellectually inferior.

It's also a pretty telling sign that you're losing the argument, because if you actually had a valid point, then what would the need be for it?

That's an incredibly lousy argument. My points are valid, and I am certainly not losing the argument, and these things need to be pointed out to you so that you can correct your mistakes.

The fact is, your claim that it is empirically false is entirely subjective.

Idiot. Don't you understand how incredibly stupid your comment is here?

In other words, why should I trust your observations, when you have no data to back them up?

Idiot of idiots. You should trust your own empiricial observations when you study the types in real life. But you haven't made any such observations. You just come up with a totall subjective "theory" that you happen to like. Whether it is true or false is a question that you don't seem to care about at all.

Tell me of one theory that has been ruled out entirely based only on subjective impressions.

My observations are correct, yours are non-existing. Your attitude here is despicable.

[jason_m]

You are already playing the game. You are already insulting my intelligence as well as your own by your pathetic comments. Focus on the truth here instead.


To you and others maybe. But that is rather irrelevant, don't you think? The main question is who is right and who is wrong. And the fact is that all my objections to your reasonings here have been objectively sound and strongly worth your attention. And yet you dismiss them by shifting focus to my person and your own feelings about how you are treated. That makes you immensely intellectually inferior.


That's an incredibly lousy argument. My points are valid, and I am certainly not losing the argument, and these things need to be pointed out to you so that you can correct your mistakes.


Idiot. Don't you understand how incredibly stupid your comment is here?


Idiot of idiots. You should trust your own empiricial observations when you study the types in real life. But you haven't made any such observations. You just come up with a totall subjective "theory" that you happen to like. Whether it is true or false is a question that you don't seem to care about at all.


My observations are correct, yours are non-existing. Your attitude here is despicable.

You're now being put on ignore.

Jason

EDIT: Can someone tell me why it is that when you put someone on ignore, you can still see that they have replied to your post? In this case, I don't want any evidence whatsoever that this individual is replying to my posts, because it tempts me to want to read what they have to say.

[Phaedrus]

You're now being put on ignore.

Which is the usual pathetic move made by people who can't handle the truth. You more interested in upholding your subjective "theoretical inventions" than in finding the objective truth, so you criticize the people who point out the flaws in your ideas and put them on ignore so that you won't be able to see the truth. Close your eyes and pretend that you are perfect -- that's you disgusting approach in a nutshell.

Can someone tell me why it is that when you put someone on ignore, you can still see that they have replied to your post? In this case, I don't want any evidence whatsoever that this individual is replying to my posts, because it tempts me to want to read what they have to say.

Convincingly proving my point ... Is this the real nature of ? A disgusting contempt for empirical facts and the objective truth? A pathetic hiding in the shadows, where the real world will not get to you? Living in a dream world where you can invent your own mumbo jumbo "theories" and pretend that the objective world does not exist ...

[crazedrat]

phaedrus is right. if you can't handle your stupid ideas being critiqued properly then don't post them. Or even better, give up on them, because you are wasting your time. Just admit your brain is jelly, and go find someone to mate with. Maybe go get a job as an accountant, or learn to play pool real well. There are plenty of useless things in the world for you to do which you'll be perfectly good at

[strrrng]

Jason, you are being silly and immature. Phaedrus took the time to point out all the flaws in your idea for the sole purpose of improving it, not merely to insult you. The insults were just derived out of frustration, plus it's just Phaedrus, lol. If you can't handle a little criticism, don't post a thread, pussy. And don't use someone's tone as a reason to discredit their argument. LokiVanguard did this to me recently, and it is incredibly aggravating, and only conveys you as stupid.

What you describe here is almost the exact opposite to the truth. Introverted Intuition is about limiting the possibilities to get to the essence -- to get rid of the unlikely and unrealistic possibilities and be left with what will most likely happen. Extraverted Intuition is about exploring as many possibilities as possible, whether they can be realized in the real world or not.

I like this. Ni distills, while Ne expands, generally speaking.

[Phaedrus]

To Jason's credit I have to admit that he sort of defined what he meant by the words "subjective" and "objective" in the beginning of his first post. And in light of that it is easier to understand what he was getting at when he tried to interpret the Jungian functions. I still think that it is a mistake to define those terms the way he did. It leads to confusion and muddled thinking and it is not in line with how those concepts are commonly used, but if we by "subjective" only mean that something belongs to the "inner" world and by "objective" only means that something belongs to the "outer" world, then we come closer to what Jung was referring to in Psychological Types.

[FDG]

Jason, don't listen to those sharks. You have simply proposed another type of classification without stating that "it must be true". So I don't see why you're being attacked - probably people having time to waste.

[strrrng]

Jason, don't listen to those sharks. You have simply proposed another type of classification without stating that "it must be true". So I don't see why you're being attacked - probably people having time to waste.

It's the fact that instead of logically arguing his position with Phaedrus, he opted to back out of the debate, claiming that Phaedrus was just being a dick. But Phaedrus made good points about jason's model which should have been addressed. The fact that Jason didn't do so, and then complained about Phaedrus's rudeness (which he exaggerated anyway), suggested that he could not logically defend his ideas in the face of objective criticism and wasn't actually interested in improving them or listening to anyone else's opinions. This pissed us off because if someone publicizes an idea of theirs, they have just put the burden of truth on themselves, and should listen to other peoples' opinions on the matter, instead of simply ignoring anyone who disagrees, using the excuse that the person is being mean as a justification to do so(i.e. hitta).

[jason_m]

phaedrus is right. if you can't handle your stupid ideas being critiqued properly then don't post them. Or even better, give up on them, because you are wasting your time. Just admit your brain is jelly, and go find someone to mate with. Maybe go get a job as an accountant, or learn to play pool real well. There are plenty of useless things in the world for you to do which you'll be perfectly good at

On ignore.

Jason

[krieger]

Some advice to Jason_M: - instead of proposing correlations with the MBTI and socionics as whole bodies of knowledge, try to relate your findings to specific materials within these, so that you can point out precisely which formulations lead you to believe what you do. For example, can you provide examples of materials that relate IxTj thought to strict logic and proof based reasoning? This would go a long way towards substantiating some of your claims.

[jason_m]

Jason, you are being silly and immature. Phaedrus took the time to point out all the flaws in your idea for the sole purpose of improving it, not merely to insult you.

He didn't really point out any flaws in my idea. He simply stated that his experience tells him that my ideas were flawed. My point was that, unless the theory is blatantly wrong (e.g., "this board is being run by aliens"), this doesn't hold up unless you have actual data or proof to back up your position. Subjective impressions do not count, for I could say that my impressions tell me the opposite. Who would be right?

If you want better evidence to determine whose conception of the functions is more accurate, then you would set up two tests. Phaedrus would create a test that relates to his functions, and I would create a test that relates to mine. You then administer the tests to a large group. The test that distinguishes between functions the best would be the more accurate conception. However, we cannot easily do this, so any disagreement is mainly conjecture, and doesn't have much weight to it.

The insults were just derived out of frustration, plus it's just Phaedrus, lol. If you can't handle a little criticism, don't post a thread, pussy. And don't use someone's tone as a reason to discredit their argument. LokiVanguard did this to me recently, and it is incredibly aggravating, and only conveys you as stupid.

I'm sorry, but personal attacks are, by definition, logical fallacies. If you read what I wrote, I did not say the attacks made his other arguments flawed, but that they are flawed in themselves.

Jason

[jason_m]

Some advice to Jason_M: - instead of proposing correlations with the MBTI and socionics as whole bodies of knowledge, try to relate your findings to specific materials within these, so that you can point out precisely which formulations lead you to believe what you do. For example, can you provide examples of materials that relate IxTj thought to strict logic and proof based reasoning? This would go a long way towards substantiating some of your claims.

This sounds like a good idea. I'll try and do this tonight.

Jason

[jason_m]

Here are some passages which support my interpretation of the functions:

Ti: I said that Ti depends more on the idea than its truth, and here is some support of this from "Gifts Differing":

- "Depends upon the abstract idea as the decisive factor, and values facts chiefly as illustrative proofs of the idea."

- "Has as its goal formulating questions, creating theories, opening up prospects, yielding insight, and finally, seeing how external facts fit into the framework of the idea or theory it has created."

- "Has a tendency to neglect facts or to coerce them into agreement with the idea, selecting only those that support the idea."

I haven't seen many socionics definitions that cohere as well with my definition. Here is an example of the state of mind associated with (from Wikisocion): "clarity and exactitude of thought, a sense of order and regularity in different levels of structure; a sense of building a complete system from simple and well-understood parts."

Although this is similar to what I have mentioned, it doesn't explicitly state that when, for example, building a system, certain facts are neglected so that everything fits together.

Te: I said that Te is concerned more with the truth of the idea than the idea itself, and so it emphasizes facts and the solution of practical problems.

Here are some quotations from Gifts Differing that support this notion:

- "has a tendency to multiply facts until their meaning is smothered and thinking paralyzed."

- "relies on facts outside of the thinker, which are more decisive than the thinking itself, for soundness and value."

Here are some quotations from Wikipedia about that are similar:

- "The individual evaluates external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency."

- "the individual has a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity."

On second thought, it looks like the passages from Gifts Differing are closer to what I was getting at.

Fi: I said that Fi is more about the feelings a person experiences, as opposed to the objects that these feelings are aimed at. Here are some relevant quotes from Gifts Differing:

- "Value, above all, harmony in the inner life of feeling."

- "Have feelings that are deep but seldom expressed, because their inner tenderness and passionate conviction are both masked by reserve and repose."

Note here that the emphasis is on the feelings themselves, as opposed to the objects that they are aimed at. (And I will have to say that it doesn't exactly cover what I have in mind.)

From Wikisocion, about : "good/bad, like/dislike, morals, attraction/repulsion, decency, the ability to avoid bad feelings, humanism, feelings"

Note that most of this does not cover what I'm talking about.

Fe: I said that Fe is related to being social, as it values things outside of the individual, primarily, people. Here is a quote from Gifts Differing that supports this notion:

- "Value, above all, harmonious human contacts."

- "Are best at jobs dealing with people and in situations where needed cooperation can be won by good will"

Wikisocion doesn't directly support the notion of being primarily people oriented. Apparently, socionists feel that it's more about passion and enthusiasm. Here is the supposed state of mind of types: "passions; the desire to express one's feelings and experiences through expressive gestures such as dance or song."

Si: I said that Si focuses on the sensations themselves as opposed to the objects of those sensations. Here is some support from Wikipedia:

- "A strong ability to recognise internal physical states in themselves and others, to understand how these states are reached, and to recreate and avoid these physical states."

- "Individuals who possess as a base function are drawn to situations that satisfy their inner physical experience. Whenever is a base function individuals are taking part in something that involves recognising, recreating, or analyzing physical states, they feel a great deal of personal power and enthusiasm. "

Gifts Differing interprets Si differently, basically saying that Si types are meticulous, and this is not what I have in mind:

- "Are systematic, painstaking, and thorough."

- "Are conspicuous for patient and willing application to detail."

Se: According to my interpretation, Se is about attachment to objects. Here is a quote about the state of mind of types on Wikisocion: "authority, influence, level of personal investment/political interest, visible traits, willpower, desire, weight, readiness, force, tactics, territory, form, color"

MBTT Se is more about realism and facts:

- "Are realistic"

- "Are matter of fact and practical"

- "Are fond of concrete facts and good at details"

Ni: I said that Ni is more about the imagination of possibilities than their realization. Some socionics passages support this to some extent: "a dreamy, mysterious, wistful, melancholic, or reflective state of inner discovery and searching; reflecting upon the future or the past" (from Wikisocion).

From Gifts Differing:

- "Are determined to the point of stubborness."

- "Are willing to concede that the impossible takes a little longer--but not much."

- "Are more interested in pioneering a new road than in anything to be found along the beaten path."

Clearly, this is more about vision and determination than imagination.

Ne: I said that Ne is not as concerned with the possibilities themselves as with their realization. Gifts Differing supports this: "Aside from any practical consideration, they feel charged with a mission to realize that possibility. The possibility has an irresistible pull, an undeniable claim upon them."

I was wrong. Socionics does not talk about this as much, as illustrated by Wikisocion's definition of the state of mind: "a state of trying to see novel connections between or combinations of previously disparate things; a continual searching for change and newness, including things unexpected and random."

(I really didn't want to do this because it's so tedious, but if this is what people need to understand where I'm coming from, then I guess I have to deliver.)

Jason

[Phaedrus]

Here are some passages which support my interpretation of the functions:

Ti: I said that Ti depends more on the idea than its truth, and here is some support of this from "Gifts Differing":

- "Depends upon the abstract idea as the decisive factor, and values facts chiefly as illustrative proofs of the idea."

- "Has as its goal formulating questions, creating theories, opening up prospects, yielding insight, and finally, seeing how external facts fit into the framework of the idea or theory it has created."

- "Has a tendency to neglect facts or to coerce them into agreement with the idea, selecting only those that support the idea."

This should be discussed seriously, because you are on to something very, very important here, something that I have been trying to focus people's attention to more times than I can count.

What you are quoting here is how Ti is sometimes described in MBTT literature when they talk about the Ti function in isolation from the type profiles and how the types actually think. All of this comes from Jung's description of Introverted Thinking of course, and as you can see its essence is a negligence of empirical facts and an adherence to a subjective idea -- exactly like how Jung describes Ti and exactly like how LIIs are described in Socionics in the type profiles.

I haven't seen many socionics definitions that cohere as well with my definition. Here is an example of the state of mind associated with (from Wikisocion): "clarity and exactitude of thought, a sense of order and regularity in different levels of structure; a sense of building a complete system from simple and well-understood parts."

If we focus on how the types are described in Socionics and MBTT, we see that "your" definition of Ti (which, as I said above, is in line with how Jung described Ti and also in line with how Ti is desribed in MBTT literature when they forget to compare their theory with the types as they are in reality) this coheres very well with how LIIs are described in the type profiles and it coheres very well with the actual life behaviour of LIIs -- on this forum as well as in real life.

Clarity of thought is a theme, so the Wikisocion description of is incorrect on that point and should be corrected. In fact, the Wikisocion description does not clearly accentuate the most relevant differences between and and is therefore misleading. A sense of order and regularity in different levels of structure fits pretty well the thinking of ILIs as well, so the description it does not help us to distinguish one type from the other.

Although this is similar to what I have mentioned, it doesn't explicitly state that when, for example, building a system, certain facts are neglected so that everything fits together.

Nor is that a typical behaviour of LIIs. (Keep in mind that all of the most common Ti descriptions are taken from Jung and that Jung's Ti description is based on his own way of thinking as an LII.)

Te: I said that Te is concerned more with the truth of the idea than the idea itself, and so it emphasizes facts and the solution of practical problems.

Here are some quotations from Gifts Differing that support this notion:

- "has a tendency to multiply facts until their meaning is smothered and thinking paralyzed."

- "relies on facts outside of the thinker, which are more decisive than the thinking itself, for soundness and value."

Here are some quotations from Wikipedia about that are similar:

- "The individual evaluates external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency."

- "the individual has a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity."

On second thought, it looks like the passages from Gifts Differing are closer to what I was getting at.

All of this is more or less in agreement with how Jung describes Te, with how Socionics describes , and with the actual thinking processes of ego types. The focus on empiricism and empirical facts captures very much of the essence of and Te in Jung's sense (and MBTT's sense). And exactly this difference between and should always be clearly emphasized and accentuated when we try to understand the fundamental differences between two of the most easily confused types in Socionics: the LII and the ILI. We must remember that LIIs are always anti-realist, anti-empiricist Subjectivists (in Reinin's sense and in Jung's sense), whereas ILIs are always empiricists and fact-oriented Objectivists (in Reinin's sense and in Jung's sense).

Fi: I said that Fi is more about the feelings a person experiences, as opposed to the objects that these feelings are aimed at. Here are some relevant quotes from Gifts Differing:

- "Value, above all, harmony in the inner life of feeling."

This description is probably based on the actual behaviour of ISFPs/SEIs and INFPs/IEIs, who are (incorrectly) supposed to be Fi leading types in MBTT. In Socionics comfort is attributed to and a sense of harmony in how everything fits together forming a coherent whole is a main theme.

- "Have feelings that are deep but seldom expressed, because their inner tenderness and passionate conviction are both masked by reserve and repose."

As I stated in my previous objections in an earlier post, this having feelings is a state, and here in the quote they are talking about the person's that are either ISFPs or INFPs, they are not talking about the Fi function in itself.

Note here that the emphasis is on the feelings themselves, as opposed to the objects that they are aimed at. (And I will have to say that it doesn't exactly cover what I have in mind.)

But it is a mistake to emphasize the feelings themselves when you are talking about a judging (rational) function. Fi is about evaluating objects in a feeling framework, it is not about the feelings themselves. This simple truth is recognized in Jung and it is recognized in MBTT and in Socionics. Somehow you seem to have missed that trivial fact.

From Wikisocion, about : "good/bad, like/dislike, morals, attraction/repulsion, decency, the ability to avoid bad feelings, humanism, feelings"

Note that most of this does not cover what I'm talking about.

Note that the Wikisocion description is very brief and vague and that Jason's description is misleading and essentially incorrect. This muddled thinking needs to be clarified.

Fe: I said that Fe is related to being social, as it values things outside of the individual, primarily, people. Here is a quote from Gifts Differing that supports this notion:

- "Value, above all, harmonious human contacts."

Note that the word "harmony" pops up again, and think of the fact that the types they are referring to in both the Fi and the Fe description here are INFPs (IEIs), ISFPs (SEIs), ENFJs (EIEs), and ESFJs (ESEs) -- which all have in their ego blocks.

- "Are best at jobs dealing with people and in situations where needed cooperation can be won by good will"

Wikisocion doesn't directly support the notion of being primarily people oriented. Apparently, socionists feel that it's more about passion and enthusiasm. Here is the supposed state of mind of types: "passions; the desire to express one's feelings and experiences through expressive gestures such as dance or song."

The focus on people is more important than the focus on passions and expressive gestures, and the socionic descriptions and relating type profiles are slightly misleading in this respect. In some cases we have seen that it has lead to mistypings. Here the socionic type descriptions can probably be improved to better conform to the MBTT type profiles, which are more based on the actual real life behaviour of ego types than on socionic prejudices.

[Phaedrus]

Si: I said that Si focuses on the sensations themselves as opposed to the objects of those sensations. Here is some support from Wikipedia:

- "A strong ability to recognise internal physical states in themselves and others, to understand how these states are reached, and to recreate and avoid these physical states."

- "Individuals who possess as a base function are drawn to situations that satisfy their inner physical experience. Whenever is a base function individuals are taking part in something that involves recognising, recreating, or analyzing physical states, they feel a great deal of personal power and enthusiasm."

All of this is pretty much in line with Jung, and it is also in line with the real life behaviours of leading types such as the ISFP and the ISTP. Note that it is perfectly okay here to focus on the experiences themselves, because (Si) is a perceiving (irrational) function. But it was not okay to do that in relation to the judging functions Fi and Fe.

Gifts Differing interprets Si differently, basically saying that Si types are meticulous, and this is not what I have in mind:

- "Are systematic, painstaking, and thorough."

- "Are conspicuous for patient and willing application to detail."

The most striking difference between the functions in MBTT and Socionics is seen when we compare Si with . Si in MBTT is almost totally based on the real life behaviour of ISTJs (LSIs) and ISFJs (ESIs). It is an example of the fact that they have had to change the original meaning of the functions to fit the real life behaviour of the types. Si in MBTT is of course not at all the same function as in Socionics, but everyone can see clearly that the ISTJ is the exact same type as the LSI and that the ISFJ is the exact same type as the ESI.

Se: According to my interpretation, Se is about attachment to objects. Here is a quote about the state of mind of types on Wikisocion: "authority, influence, level of personal investment/political interest, visible traits, willpower, desire, weight, readiness, force, tactics, territory, form, color"

MBTT Se is more about realism and facts:

- "Are realistic"

- "Are matter of fact and practical"

- "Are fond of concrete facts and good at details"

But they are of course talking about the same types. There's no real difference in understanding of the types here, only a slight difference in focus on different aspects of Se.

Ni: I said that Ni is more about the imagination of possibilities than their realization. Some socionics passages support this to some extent: "a dreamy, mysterious, wistful, melancholic, or reflective state of inner discovery and searching; reflecting upon the future or the past" (from Wikisocion).

No, what you are quoting here does not support your claim. Ni is different, but you don't understand that from your perspective. It seems to be a very common phenomenon that ego types simply don't understand what is and that they often have trouble seeing ILIs as intuitive types. Especially LIIs, like for example Sergei Ganin, demonstrate a clear tendency to describe intuition in general in only terms. And here Jason is making the exact same mistake.

From Gifts Differing:

- "Are determined to the point of stubborness."

- "Are willing to concede that the impossible takes a little longer--but not much."

- "Are more interested in pioneering a new road than in anything to be found along the beaten path."

Clearly, this is more about vision and determination than imagination.

Clearly this is very much based on the real life behaviours and attitudes of INTJs (LIIs), and the only reason for this is that INTJs and INFJs are (incorrectly) supposed to be Ni leading types. The description fits the nature of as it is described in the socionic type profiles, and it fits the nature of Ti as Jung describes it in Psychological Types.

Ne: I said that Ne is not as concerned with the possibilities themselves as with their realization. Gifts Differing supports this: "Aside from any practical consideration, they feel charged with a mission to realize that possibility. The possibility has an irresistible pull, an undeniable claim upon them."

I was wrong. Socionics does not talk about this as much, as illustrated by Wikisocion's definition of the state of mind: "a state of trying to see novel connections between or combinations of previously disparate things; a continual searching for change and newness, including things unexpected and random."

(I really didn't want to do this because it's so tedious, but if this is what people need to understand where I'm coming from, then I guess I have to deliver.)

There is no real and relevant difference between how and Ne are understood in Socionics and MBTT. It's the exact same function and the exact same types they have in mind when they talk about it. No problem there.