Functions: Xi vs. Xe

[evan]

It seems like it doesn't make sense to think of the eight functions as entirely separate. Fe and Fi have overlap, Ti/Te, Ni/Ne, Si/Se.

So I propose that there are only four functions (not that this is completely new or anything). Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition. There is a spectrum of Introversion to Extroversion for each function. It should not be thought of as binary.

In most cases, people significantly prefer one direction for each function, but there's no reason this should be true in all cases. It does make sense to me that Introversion in one P function leads to Extroversion in the other (same for J functions). But it's never going to be 100% Ni/0% Ne and 100% Se/0% Si. Thinking of Ne and Ni as separate ideas just seems misleading to me (true for all functions).

[Delphyne]

Fe and Fi are both concerned with the area of value judgements, but they can be rivals in determining what´s good and appropriate. Growing up with an ESFJ mother I can tell you that we often had different opinions regarding that area. Fe is concerned with the object, it has rules about social behavior, communication and tries to determine what´s good and appropriate for all people. Fi is concerned with the subject, it tries to feel the need of individuals and it´s judgements are more dependent on individual situations. Furthermore, Fe shows emotions to communicate. Fi does the same, but it´s much more discriminating. IFPs often perceive EFJs as too emotional and gushy whereas EFJs perceive IFPs as too cold and unfriendly.

There are huge differences between Fe and Fi, Ti/Te and so on.

[Jennifer]

In most cases, people significantly prefer one direction for each function, but there's no reason this should be true in all cases. It does make sense to me that Introversion in one P function leads to Extroversion in the other (same for J functions). But it's never going to be 100% Ni/0% Ne and 100% Se/0% Si. Thinking of Ne and Ni as separate ideas just seems misleading to me (true for all functions).

Aside from the issue that Xi/Xe determine direction and focus of function use (so they actually can be distinguished from each other even if not 100% exclusive, as Delphyne says), what about the practical issues involved in implementing a spectrum-based view?

Many issues have been reduced to opposing binaries simply because it's MUCH easier to discuss and apply things in terms of compare/contrast, then deal with inevitable deviations from the poles. Without the poles, there's little ways to distinguish anything out of the morass in conversation or application.

[Ilah]

I'm not really sure.

I see that both my Ni and Ne were very high so I can say that my N is good. Te is "excellent use" and Ti is "average" so overall I guess I am pretty decent at T.

But how would I descibe my F and S under your system, with such a huge discrepancy in scores? For example my Fi is listed as "excellent use" and my Fe is "unused." So am I good at F or bad at it or do you take the midpoint and say I am average at F? My Si is good, but my Se is a pathetically low 3.2. So do you say over all I am really bad at S?

Score difference summary:
Ni-Ne = 43.8-42.1 = 1.7
Te-Ti = 41-29.9 = 11.1
Si-Se = 32.7-3.2 = 29.5
Fi-Fe = 40.8-7.5 = 33.3

[prplchknz]

time for another installment of talking out my butt: I think Fi and Fe are different enough. My room mate (INFJ) and I can be presented with the same information and if we're both using our feeling function will often come to a different conclusion. She generally looks at past experiences and what society says to do, I'm sure she does do some comparison aswell. I look at past experience and compare and contrast them to the present situation, how close I am to the person, how many times has this person screwed me over in the past? then I go through different scenerios in my head and try to predict the outcome of each one. So yeah same amount information two different reactions, and I don't think their's a right way. It's just she sticks to rules she's made up, and thinks to be the ultimate truth. and I don't have any rules set in stone, mostly because I don't believe in an ultimate truth.

[evan]

I'm not trying to say that Fe and Fi don't manifest differently. I'm just saying that thinking of someone as a Fi user OR (exclusive or) a Fe user isn't really painting the full picture. I disagree with "Fi users" all the time, but that's irrelevant to my point (Plus, I disagree with Fe users, too, although slightly less often). My point is, when Fe and Fi make the exact same conclusion, why distinguish between the two so strongly? Why say "the Fe user made that decision because of tangible evidence and the Fi user made that decision because the tangible evidence was taken in through Ne or Se and filtered through the internal standard." It seems so convoluted. Sometimes, Feeling is just Feeling.

Jennifer: point taken, although I wasn't really talking about application of MBTI, I was talking about the bounds of the theory. My interpretation seems to account for more shades of grey.

[Delphyne]

Why distinguish between T and F? Why say “the T user made that decision because of impersonal basis and the F user made that decision because of personal basis?” It seems so convoluted. Sometimes, Judging is just Judging. :D

[evan]

The difference is, there is no overlap between thinking and feeling.

I agree, sometimes it's useful to talk about judging and not distinguish further.

[Delphyne]

The difference is, there is no overlap between thinking and feeling.

They´re both concerned with judging.

I agree, sometimes it's useful to talk about judging and not distinguish further.
Sometimes it´s useful to talk about feeling and not distinguish further. Not always, though. ;)

[evan]

You didn't understand. Fe and Fi can come to THE SAME CONCLUSION. Fe and Te by definition cannot.

[Lateralus]

You didn't understand. Fe and Fi can come to THE SAME CONCLUSION. Fe and Te by definition cannot.
Surely, you can't be serious.

[evan]

Surely, you can't be serious.

Um... yes I am quite serious.

Do you know the functions? Thinking can only output true/false, Feeling can only output good/bad.

No offense, but if you have another definition, you are wrong.

Listen, I'm not saying ETJs and EFJs can't come to the same conclusion. Just that the functions themselves have no overlap.

[Lateralus]

Um... yes I am quite serious.

Do you know the functions? Thinking can only output true/false, Feeling can only output good/bad.

No offense, but if you have another definition, you are wrong.

Listen, I'm not saying ETJs and EFJs can't come to the same conclusion. Just that the functions themselves have no overlap.
You just said they can't come to the same conclusion.

Fe and Fi can come to THE SAME CONCLUSION. Fe and Te by definition cannot.

[evan]

OMG dude read my words please.

There is a difference between functions and type. I'm talking about functions, you're talking about type.

[Lateralus]

OMG dude read my words please.

There is a difference between functions and type. I'm talking about functions, you're talking about type.
And I still don't agree. The path to reach that conclusion differs, but they can still reach the same conclusion.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

It seems like it doesn't make sense to think of the eight functions as entirely separate. Fe and Fi have overlap, Ti/Te, Ni/Ne, Si/Se.

So I propose that there are only four functions (not that this is completely new or anything). Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition. There is a spectrum of Introversion to Extroversion for each function. It should not be thought of as binary.

In most cases, people significantly prefer one direction for each function, but there's no reason this should be true in all cases. It does make sense to me that Introversion in one P function leads to Extroversion in the other (same for J functions). But it's never going to be 100% Ni/0% Ne and 100% Se/0% Si. Thinking of Ne and Ni as separate ideas just seems misleading to me (true for all functions).

This is similar to how I think of it. There are really four functions and two manifestations to each function. Fi, Ti, Ni, and Si all have a fair amount in common in that all have traits that you would associate with introversion (and it's similarly true for Fe, Te, Ne, and Se with extraversion).

All of this is how I think of things on a purely theoretical/cognitive level. When you are looking at how a person behaves the J/P dimension can have a significant effect on behavior.

[evan]

And I still don't agree. The path to reach that conclusion differs, but they can still reach the same conclusion.

Lol. You're still talking about type, dude.

The point of the functions is that they're distinct. Type is the interaction between functions.

If you think that Fi and Ti can reach the same conclusion, you don't understand the functions. Straight up.

Yes, a Ti user and an Fi user can reach the same conclusion, but that's because they both use all four functions, not because Ti and Fi do the same thing.

Anyways, I think the people that listened got my point. That's as much as I can do.

[cascademn]

time for another installment of talking out my butt: I think Fi and Fe are different enough. My room mate (INFJ) and I can be presented with the same information and if we're both using our feeling function will often come to a different conclusion. She generally looks at past experiences and what society says to do, I'm sure she does do some comparison aswell. I look at past experience and compare and contrast them to the present situation, how close I am to the person, how many times has this person screwed me over in the past? then I go through different scenerios in my head and try to predict the outcome of each one. So yeah same amount information two different reactions, and I don't think their's a right way. It's just she sticks to rules she's made up, and thinks to be the ultimate truth. and I don't have any rules set in stone, mostly because I don't believe in an ultimate truth.

Not to pick on just you, but your example is very funny to me, because I relate quite a lot to how you describe yourself, prplchknz. I relate little to how you describe your roommate. I've also tended to test with pretty high Fi, and often-times pretty low Fe.

But according to nearly everyone who knows me, I'm a bona fide INFJ. I'm pretty much the only one who questions that. :laugh: So...all of this is to say that I tend to lean towards what dissonance is talking about (that is, if I'm actually interpreting the initial post correctly)...the spectrum of cog. function usage. One INFJ may place more importance (or to use mbti lingo, may have higher preferences for) on Fe than another, so the end result is they may process/decide on things somewhat differently. And one INFJ may have very stunted Fi use whereas another may prefer it a lot more. Then it becomes more hazy, but since dominant is the same, they're just different flavors of INFJ, I suppose. In some ways I'm quite different from the INFJ's I know -- probably why I relate a bit more to your description. ;-)

[evan]

^Yeah. And not only do INFJs differ by how close to extroverted in the feeling spectrum they fall (ditto for other functions), they also differ by how much they use feeling compared to the other three functions.

[ygolo]

I am kind-of thinking about cognition as a shape (I'm thinking elipsoid right now) in a three dimensional space, where the cognitive functions become projections on to some vectors (I am thinking 45-degrees into their respective quatrants in the "judgement plane" or "perception plane"). The percpetions and judgement planes as joined along the E-I axis.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2423&stc=1&d=1221189430http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2422&stc=1&d=1221189418

Here is a potential elipsoid (and there are man potential ones for a given type) for an ESTP:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2424&stc=1&d=1221189439

Need to cogitate on this some more. I wonder is I can mathematically prove that a 3D-elipsoid can account for all possible scores on the congitive functions test. Seems plausible... need more cogitating. :coffee:

[evan]

^Interesting. I'd like to hear more.

[Modern Nomad]

I am kind-of thinking about cognition as a shape (I'm thinking elipsoid right now) in a three dimensional space, where the cognitive functions become projections on to some vectors (I am thinking 45-degrees into their respective quatrants in the "judgement plane" or "perception plane"). The percpetions and judgement planes as joined along the E-I axis.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2423&stc=1&d=1221189430http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2422&stc=1&d=1221189418

Here is a potential elipsoid (and there are man potential ones for a given type) for an ESTP:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2424&stc=1&d=1221189439

Need to cogitate on this some more. I wonder is I can mathematically prove that a 3D-elipsoid can account for all possible scores on the congitive functions test. Seems plausible... need more cogitating. :coffee:
it can't be elliptical or a circle

it would have to be some weird shaped blob to fill out the appropriate 3D space to represent % of a characteristic because the shape may have to pass through the center of the cube in a 2D plane, and expand 3D to take up the appropriate space for all the 8 possible sub cubes if they are 0/100% for one, and 50/50 for another measurement.

definitely not a smooth ellipse. think of like a cingular logo for extreme situations.

http://www.reversecellphonenumberlookup.org/cellphonelookup/cingular-logo1.jpg

[Delphyne]

It's just she sticks to rules she's made up, and thinks to be the ultimate truth. and I don't have any rules set in stone, mostly because I don't believe in an ultimate truth.

Are you sure you´re room mate isn´t an ENFJ? It doesn´t fit my experience with INFJs that they believe in an ultimate truth. After all, they´re primarily perceivers. What comes first? Context-reducing perceiving or defining social behavior and structure?

[Delphyne]

In some ways I'm quite different from the INFJ's I know -- probably why I relate a bit more to your description. ;-)

In what ways do you differ from other INFJs?

[sciski]

Are you sure you´re room mate isn´t an ENFJ? It doesn´t fit my experience with INFJs that they believe in an ultimate truth. After all, they´re primarily perceivers. What comes first? Context-reducing perceiving or defining social behavior and structure?

I was going to ask if her room mate wasn't ISFJ due to the focus on the past for comparisons. :D

She generally looks at past experiences and what society says to do,

[Delphyne]

I was going to ask if her room mate wasn't ISFJ due to the focus on the past for comparisons. :D

Maybe she´s ESFJ. ;)

[Ilah]

Feeling and Thinking can come to the same conclusion, they just get there different ways.

When deciding between two things you can do what "feels right" (feeling) or what is "logical" or "makes most sense" (thinking). Sometimes the most logical thing is also what feels right. For example, I eat healthy because it feels like the right thing to do and makes me feel better (feelings) and also because there are scientific studies saying I am decreasing my chance of having medical problems by eating healthy. I could have reached the same decision with either thinking or feeling.

Ilah

[mlittrell]

The fact that not every function is 100% is due to nature. All personalities are made of nature (your mbti) + nurture (how you were raised, your environment, etc). There are 8 functions and they vary in strength due to orientation and the nature nurture aspect.

[evan]

Feeling and Thinking can come to the same conclusion, they just get there different ways.

When deciding between two things you can do what "feels right" (feeling) or what is "logical" or "makes most sense" (thinking). Sometimes the most logical thing is also what feels right. For example, I eat healthy because it feels like the right thing to do and makes me feel better (feelings) and also because there are scientific studies saying I am decreasing my chance of having medical problems by eating healthy. I could have reached the same decision with either thinking or feeling.

Ilah

Perception does a lot of the work you're talking about. Feeling literally can either say "good" or "bad". Thinking can either say "true" or "false". If you guys have heard of Turing machines, Perception is like the tape, and Judgment is like the head. Perception is what you're thinking about -- it does every single step that is not deductive. (In MBTI, a Thinker focuses more on "true" or "false", a Feeler focuses more on "good" or "bad".) If you string together a bunch of Feelings (coupled with a bunch of Perceptions and Thinkings, Perceptions to put the thoughts in your consciousness, Thinkings to answer Perceptions' yes or no questions), that's when you get the sort of thoughts you're talking about -- "This makes me feel good". That thought, though, is completely impossible without Thinking to answer questions like "is it true that 'this makes me feel good'?" Or, "is there a causal relation between feeling good and eating well?".

You get the picture, I hope. Every complete thought is really an interaction of all four functions. Sensing takes in data, Intuition makes the connections (metaphor is the basis of all language), Thinking checks logical consistency, Feeling checks motivation level.

[ygolo]

it can't be elliptical or a circle

it would have to be some weird shaped blob to fill out the appropriate 3D space to represent % of a characteristic because the shape may have to pass through the center of the cube in a 2D plane, and expand 3D to take up the appropriate space for all the 8 possible sub cubes if they are 0/100% for one, and 50/50 for another measurement.

definitely not a smooth ellipse. think of like a cingular logo for extreme situations.

http://www.reversecellphonenumberlookup.org/cellphonelookup/cingular-logo1.jpg

Well, in theory a 3-D ellipsoid has 8 degrees of freedom (3 degrees for the origin, two degrees of freedom for the three axis, and 3 for the length, width, height along those axis). 8 degrees of freedom,8 functions--seems plausible.

I was actually trying to think through the equations of projections of the ellipsoid on the various "plane vectors" representing function scores.

Any 3-D ellipsoid can be specified by a 3x3 positive definite matrix, B, (defines axis and "lengths" along those axes), and a 3-D vector, r, (defines the origin).

The bounds of the ellipsoid are defined by the solutions to the equation:

[(x-r)^T][B^-1](x-r)=1


Each cognitive function vector would have a 3x3 projection matrix, P, of rank 1. These matrices are symmetric and have the property that P^2=P.

Now the projection of the solutions to the equation above using P becomes the solutions to:
[(y-Pr)^T]P[B^-1](y-Pr)=1

I was thinking that I could make the function score of the ellipsoid to be given by the maximum valued solution to (8 versions of) the above equation.

For convenience, lets denote the Projection Matrix by the actual function name.

Si score = max y such that, [(y-Sir)^T]Si[B^-1](y-Sir)=1
Ni score = max y such that, [(y-Nir)^T]Ni[B^-1](y-Nir)=1
Se score = max y such that, [(y-Ser)^T]Si[B^-1](y-Ser)=1
Ne score = max y such that, [(y-Ner)^T]Ni[B^-1](y-Ner)=1
Fi score = max y such that, [(y-Fir)^T]Si[B^-1](y-Fir)=1
Ti score = max y such that, [(y-Tir)^T]Ni[B^-1](y-Tir)=1
Fe score = max y such that, [(y-Fer)^T]Si[B^-1](y-Fer)=1
Te score = max y such that, [(y-Ter)^T]Ni[B^-1](y-Ter)=1

Note: in all the above equations the "y" is independently bound, that is, each y is a different y (I just didn't want to do y_Si, y_Ni, etc.).

Other things to note:
-The directions of the axes of the ellipsoid are given by the eigenvectors of B, and the "half-axis length" along those axes is given by the square-root of the corresponding eigenvalues.
-B must be positive definite, and because of that, it must be symmetric (we're dealing completely with real-numbers here).

With the things noted above, we've now created a framework of 9 scalar variables.


--b1 b2 b3
B=b2 b4 b5
--b3 b5 b6

--r1
r=r2
--r3


Given the eight constraints above and one more for positive definiteness, it seemed like it was doable.

The issue is that I haven't yet thought thought what vectors should represent the functions, and I need to make sure that equations given from the projections are independent (or at least not contradictory).

["?"]

It seems like it doesn't make sense to think of the eight functions as entirely separate. Fe and Fi have overlap, Ti/Te, Ni/Ne, Si/Se.

So I propose that there are only four functions (not that this is completely new or anything). Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition. There is a spectrum of Introversion to Extroversion for each function. It should not be thought of as binary.

In most cases, people significantly prefer one direction for each function, but there's no reason this should be true in all cases. It does make sense to me that Introversion in one P function leads to Extroversion in the other (same for J functions). But it's never going to be 100% Ni/0% Ne and 100% Se/0% Si. Thinking of Ne and Ni as separate ideas just seems misleading to me (true for all functions).No..., they do not overlap. Jung says that they are clearly different. In fact Te has more in common with Se and Fe than Ti, Ne and Se are common, but not Ne and Ni and so on. Although they share the same judging perceiving title, Jung states a distinct difference of the functions based on the attitudes (E/I).

[evan]

One Te and one Ti can both output "false". Therefore there is overlap. There is no overlap between N, S, T, and F.

["?"]

One Te and one Ti can both output "false". Therefore there is overlap. There is no overlap between N, S, T, and F.Te (like all extraverted functions) outputs or decides based on the objective whereas Ti (like all introverted functions) inputs or decides on the subjective. Here is an excerpt from Jung:There is also, however -- and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect -- an entirely different kind of thinking, to which the term I "thinking" can hardly be denied: it is a kind that is neither orientated by the immediate objective experience nor is it concerned with general and objectively derived ideas. I reach this other kind of thinking in the following way. When my thoughts are engaged with a concrete object or general idea in such a way that the course of my thinking eventually leads me back again to my object, this intellectual process is not the only psychic proceeding taking place in me at the moment. I will disregard all those possible sensations and feelings which become noticeable as a more or less disturbing accompaniment to my train of thought, merely emphasizing the fact that this very thinking process which proceeds from objective data and strives again towards the object stands also in a constant relation to the subject. This relation is a condition sine qua non, without which no think- [p. 431] ing process whatsoever could take place. Even though my thinking process is directed, as far as possible, towards objective data, nevertheless it is my subjective process, and it can neither escape the subjective admixture nor yet dispense with it. Although I try my utmost to give a completely objective direction to my train of thought, even then I cannot exclude the parallel subjective process with its all-embracing participation, without extinguishing the very spark of life from my thought. This parallel subjective process has a natural tendency, only relatively avoidable, to subjectify objective facts, i.e. to assimilate them to the subject.I am not saying there is an overlap between the extraverted functions, but merely that they can have as much if not more similarity with one another than their introverted counterparts.

[sciski]

Maybe she´s ESFJ. ;)

*high fives for compromise!* :D

[Modern Nomad]

Well, in theory a 3-D ellipsoid has 8 degrees of freedom (3 degrees for the origin, two degrees of freedom for the three axis, and 3 for the length, width, height along those axis). 8 degrees of freedom,8 functions--seems plausible.

I was actually trying to think through the equations of projections of the ellipsoid on the various "plane vectors" representing function scores.

Any 3-D ellipsoid can be specified by a 3x3 positive definite matrix, B, (defines axis and "lengths" along those axes), and a 3-D vector, r, (defines the origin).

The bounds of the ellipsoid are defined by the solutions to the equation:

[(x-r)^T][B^-1](x-r)=1


Each cognitive function vector would have a 3x3 projection matrix, P, of rank 1. These matrices are symmetric and have the property that P^2=P.

Now the projection of the solutions to the equation above using P becomes the solutions to:
[(y-Pr)^T]P[B^-1](y-Pr)=1

I was thinking that I could make the function score of the ellipsoid to be given by the maximum valued solution to (8 versions of) the above equation.

For convenience, lets denote the Projection Matrix by the actual function name.

Si score = max y such that, [(y-Sir)^T]Si[B^-1](y-Sir)=1
Ni score = max y such that, [(y-Nir)^T]Ni[B^-1](y-Nir)=1
Se score = max y such that, [(y-Ser)^T]Si[B^-1](y-Ser)=1
Ne score = max y such that, [(y-Ner)^T]Ni[B^-1](y-Ner)=1
Fi score = max y such that, [(y-Fir)^T]Si[B^-1](y-Fir)=1
Ti score = max y such that, [(y-Tir)^T]Ni[B^-1](y-Tir)=1
Fe score = max y such that, [(y-Fer)^T]Si[B^-1](y-Fer)=1
Te score = max y such that, [(y-Ter)^T]Ni[B^-1](y-Ter)=1

Note: in all the above equations the "y" is independently bound, that is, each y is a different y (I just didn't want to do y_Si, y_Ni, etc.).

Other things to note:
-The directions of the axes of the ellipsoid are given by the eigenvectors of B, and the "half-axis length" along those axes is given by the square-root of the corresponding eigenvalues.
-B must be positive definite, and because of that, it must be symmetric (we're dealing completely with real-numbers here).

With the things noted above, we've now created a framework of 9 scalar variables.


--b1 b2 b3
B=b2 b4 b5
--b3 b5 b6

--r1
r=r2
--r3


Given the eight constraints above and one more for positive definiteness, it seemed like it was doable.

The issue is that I haven't yet thought thought what vectors should represent the functions, and I need to make sure that equations given from the projections are independent (or at least not contradictory).



Your 8 functions should be bound by 4 pairs. they can't be independently bound...

for instance: Si score = Max Y so that Ysi = 1 - Yni and Ne score = max Y so that Yni = 1-Ysi.

crap im late for an appointment. will get back to you on the rest of this later...

[Nocapszy]

Reading through this thread...
So much needs fixed. So much...
And then I think to myself that I don't care. Or something like that.
Even though I do.

Ever just run out of energy?

Well anyway, then I saw this.
I am kind-of thinking about cognition as a shape (I'm thinking elipsoid right now) in a three dimensional space, where the cognitive functions become projections on to some vectors (I am thinking 45-degrees into their respective quatrants in the "judgement plane" or "perception plane"). The percpetions and judgement planes as joined along the E-I axis.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2423&stc=1&d=1221189430http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2422&stc=1&d=1221189418

Here is a potential elipsoid (and there are man potential ones for a given type) for an ESTP:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2424&stc=1&d=1221189439

Need to cogitate on this some more. I wonder is I can mathematically prove that a 3D-elipsoid can account for all possible scores on the congitive functions test. Seems plausible... need more cogitating. :coffee:

Ygolo deserves respect.
He's at least on the right track.
I'm telling you dudes... there's shit that each function has in common. Before you can really generalize I and E, you're gonna have to figure out...
Hmm you can't really do that.

Introversion is like having an internal standard of how shit needs to be, and extroversion is having no standard, but just employing what's available to you by "The world" I know that's what everyone likes to say "the external world" like there's two different worlds... Where do these fuckers get these ideas anyway?
Like they're separate or something. Where did that idea even come from?
Like Te prefers to measure things in inches. Ti doesn't care about that. Just as long as it fits. Ti will make Pe 'eyeball it' and make sure it fits. Excusing that, Ti doesn't even measure. In fact, measurement is only an external thing. After all, Pe is the thing measuring it for Ti. Ti just gives confirmation of whether or not it's appropriate. But it's still involving 'the world' right? What's there to decide on if not the world?
What's to measure in inches by Te, if not the accurate size for the chair in the ESTJ's den? Sensory ideal. The ideal says to Te "yes 15 is appropriate" and etc.

Just take that formula down the line.
If it doesn't work then get a book or something I can't figure out how to explain it anymore.

I don't even think the point of this site is to discuss MBTI.
That's a joke. It's far too complicated and not everyone agrees (even though, I'm actually the one who's right) so no real learning can go on. Plus no one really tries.
Yes, socializing. More about jokes and veiled trolling. Good work so far everyone :D.

I couldnt' stay away.


And if you're curious, don't bother asking. I'm not even sure if I'm being sarcastic.
But I am right.

[Jeffster]

I'm beginning to think I'm too stupid for this forum.

[ygolo]

Your 8 functions should be bound by 4 pairs.

You are right. That does seem to make things simpler than little nudges to the function
vectors or using “antiprojectors.”
Let introduce a proper coordinate system so that the words “max” and “min” make sense.
We take the S-N axis be the first dimension with S positive.
We take the F-T axis be the second dimension with F positive.
We take the E-I axis be the third dimension with E positive.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2433&stc=1&d=1221285360http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2434&stc=1&d=1221285380
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2435&stc=1&d=1221285397http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2436&stc=1&d=1221285412

[ygolo]

We can get the scores from the ellipsoid, like this I think:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2438&stc=1&d=1221285821
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2439&stc=1&d=1221285839
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2440&stc=1&d=1221285868
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2441&stc=1&d=1221285884
Now, I need to eat, but then I can work on getting the ellipsoid from the scores, prving a 1-1 mapping if I am correct. I'm gettting ahead of my self, but perhaps I can make a visualization program to see peoples ellipsoids based on functions....first to eat, and go out w/ friends...probably not till tomorrow with this stuff.

[ygolo]

At least on the purely mathematical mapping, I was wrong.
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2456&stc=1&d=1221373651
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2457&stc=1&d=1221373673

This is, of course, an over-constraint of the origin. I was thinking with playing with widths, axes, and origin, we’d have enough, but the origin itself is over-constrained.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2458&stc=1&d=1221373688

Unfortunately, it runs into the same problem that many other visualizations I’ve tried. There is a mismatch between extroverted/introverted perception and extroverted/introverted judgment. It seems like we really cannot join the two types of extroversion/introversion. I wonder if this is fundamental, or if there is some trick of visualization I haven’t considered.

So the choices, a “best fit” ellipsoid, using 4-dimension, or a more complex shape (like Modern Nomad suggested).