the "two is still one" problem
A long unspoken concern of mine with the cognitive functions lies in their redefining singular concepts (functions as they would be referred to in Jung's world: thinking, feeling, intuiting, and sensing), through splitting them apart with efforts to differentiate an "extraverted" and "introverted" style of acting them out (or for magicians, "mental processing" may do the trick), in turn creating holes in which the nature of an extraverted or introverted attitude is snubbed away and replaced with two arbitrary styles which capture the essence of two separate concepts falling under the original umbrella idea irrespective of or not directly relating to "extraversion" or "introversion." Instead of correcting these two branches of the original functions by either referring directly to introversion or extraversion when describing these concepts or renaming them to a more accurate descriptor of the two different attitudes they take on, the problem is instead left unsolved and generally becomes justified through self-referential evidence--a "this part of the theory is this way because this other part of the theory says it is supposed to be this way" attitude protruding from a typologist's tendency to speak in essential terms without elaborating on what makes up said terms' essentiality--or through referring to positions and specific manifestations in particular archetypes which drive away from the centrality required to define a concept universally, otherwise drawing out problems with our dear essences behind the functions; instead of being able to define "extraverted feeling" as a standalone concept, the type in which "extraverted feeling" is a part of will take on a different form of "extraverted feeling" depending on the archetype given--yes, not even with shared aspects between archetypes like introverted intuition would be in INFJ or ENFJ. Any cognitive function is often unique enough within any of its sixteen archetypes that their meaning as a cognitive function is obscured and the archetype itself overshadows the parts that make it up without any true reason for it.
If you doubt my questioning of the lack of consistency between these functions' definitions in the types and would like to refer to how each function plays a different role in each archetype leading up to the seemingly altered function itself, then I would like to request:
~ A clear definition of each of the eight cognitive functions
~ A profile for each of the sixteen types in which a type is made up of only its four functions in which the altered manifestation of any single one of its functions is justified by the behavior of (an)other function(s) in a way that remains consistent throughout each of the sixteen profiles if it is altered at all from the aforementioned set of "clear definitions of each of the eight cognitive functions"
~ And a bonus: a general agreement from the function-aware side of the typology community on the definitions for these functions and these archetypes
Common definitions of introverted sensing often include a habituality for choosing the familiar over the novel based on previous experience, a more traditional outlook on life, a strong regard for details, a strong grasp on duty, and even having a "good memory." Sensing is described as a perceiving function, which often refers to intaking or receiving information without any extra additional processing upon which judgment acts in order to make decisions based around this newly synthesised information in functional terms. So why is introverted sensing described in such a way that sounds far more like "judgment" than "perception"? Holding true to traditional values, having a "duty net," and judging in order to move toward familiarity over novelty is not "perceiving" in any sense, while conversely paying close attention to detail arguably may be a means of perceiving information. Introverted sensing also doesn't sound singularly "introverted" with ties to externality in looking outside to form (introverted) judgments--is this what introversion refers to?
"Extraverted feeling" is often described to be harmonious and willing to go along with a group to maintain unity while ignoring personal morals and convictions but "introverted feeling" is however described to be true to oneself and willing to stand up for their values; so in conflict, why would extraverted feeling take on an inhibited attitude while introverted feeling isn't afraid to cross a social barrier? In MBTI step II, one of the five facets of extraversion includes a contained/expressive scale, where extraverts are defined to be more outwardly expressive of their own thoughts while introverts keep it to themselves; does this mean extraverted feeling is more introverted than introverted feeling in this example?
And within all of this--where is "feeling"? How does introverted feeling, a function defined by having a personal moral system detached from whatever external standards call for, relate to Myers-Briggs' feeling, where there is no separation between "you" and "others" in showing tact, morality, care, and compassion? While people who relate to introverted feeling may certainly score feeling for valuing feeling over logic, the idea of listening to only your own sense of morality while disregarding others' feelings and sensitivity allows for enough flexibility to not relate to "feeling" over "thinking."
lily ives gossamer