A Very Thorough Explanation of The Cognitive Functions.

A very thorough explanation of the cognitive functions.
Made by ‘Stoic Philomath’
Extroversion vs Introversion 4
Extroversion 4
Introversion 4
Thinking vs Feeling 6
Thinking 6
Feeling 7
Sensation vs Intuition 8
Sensation 8
Intuition 8
The Nature of Each Function 9
Thinking and Sensation 10
Feeling and Intuition 10
Extroverted Judging (Je) / Extroverted Rationality 11
Extroverted Thinking (Te) 12
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) 13
Introverted Judging (Ji) / Introverted Rationality 14
Introverted Thinking (Ti) 15
Ti vs Te 15
Introverted Feeling (Fi) 22
Fi vs Fe 22
Extroverted Perceiving (Pe) / Extroverted Irrationality 26
Extroverted Sensation (Se) 27
Se vs Te 27
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) 29
Ne vs Se 29
Ne vs Fe 30
Introverted Perceiving (Pi) / Introverted Irrationality 32
Introverted Sensation (Si) 33
Si vs Ti 37
Si vs Ne 37
Introverted Intuition (Ni) 38
1
Ni vs Si 38
Ni vs Ne 41
Ni vs Ti 43
The Function Axes 44
The Te/Fi Axis 44
The Fe/Ti Axis 45
The Se/Ni Axis 46
The Ne/Si Axis 46
The Perceiving Axes 48
Essential Quotes about Each Type from the Foundations 49
Summary 57
Cognitive Function Descriptions & Definitions 57
Function Axes Descriptions 58
Additional Notes 60
Better Terminology for Extroversion vs Introversion 60
Surface Level Traits From the Functions 60
Michael Pierce’s Descriptions of the Cognitive Functions 63
Jesse Gerrior’s Descriptions of the Cognitive Functions 65
A Vital Review of the Cognitive Functions 66
2
[This document is intended to answer ‘what,’ ‘how,’ and ‘why’ questions, which is part of the
reason why this is going to be thorough. For example, Extroverted Thinking is considered
goal-oriented, but why? In order to intricately understand the cognitive functions, we must first
understand its elements.]
Jung’s typology is based on a system of opposites:
● Extroversion vs Introversion
● Sensation vs Intuition
● Thinking vs Feeling
● Judgment vs Perception
3
Extroversion vs Introversion
Extroversion
Extroversion and Introversion are the attitudes, referring to what basic mode of preference one
inclines toward. Furthermore, they refer to what determinant source of information the mind
prefers. They are the basis of Jung’s typology, or of the cognitive functions.
Extroversion is defined as a preference for mind-independent data and facts in the external
world. The focus of extroversion is on its environment. It’s pretty straightforward. Introversion,
however, isn’t as straightforward.
Introversion
Introversion prefers ideals and ideal thoughts about the outer world, formed by the subject’s own
mind, isolated from its environment. The process of introversion is that of abstraction, which
means that it takes information and grasps its most salient aspects, and forms or cognizes a
general archetype, prototype, or model. Plato’s Forms come to mind here. For example, there are
a totality of different individual dogs in the outer world, but they all appeal to the perfect idea of
‘dog-ness.’ Each dog is an imperfect imitation of the ideal dog; the form of dog; the one true
quintessential dog. Maybe the philosophical Youtuber ‘exurb1a’ summarized it best:
This is a cat, this is a cat, this is a cat also. They’re all different cats but we still get that
they’re cats, so there must be a perfect cat living in some perfect realm above us that all
cats are made from.1
All that being said, introversion refers to its ideals. A simpler way to describe introversion is that
it prefers to look at things by a model to refer to. Introversion does need to observe objects as a
stimulus for it to even cognize it’s internal model. It needs something to compare to.
Throughout one’s life, extroversion will gather information about the variety of objects in its
environment. Introversion will put those things into an inner ‘archetype,’ which is an idea that is
regarded as the best representation of that thing—which again, refers back to Plato’s forms. A
very basic example of this would be seeing all the imperfect circles in the world, but being able
to conceive a perfect circle in your head. All of these imperfect circles appeal to the overarching
idea of ‘circle.’ That’s basically what an archetype is. Figuratively speaking, introversion
consults this perfect circle.
1
exurb1a, The Story of Western Philosophy
4
Regarding both extroversion and introversion, we can conclude that extroversion prefers breadth,
while introversion prefers depth. Analogously, extroversion thinks in terms of quantity, while
introversion thinks qualitatively. For example, later in this document I will say things like
“Extroverted Intuition prefers multiple possibilities, while Introverted Intuition prefers an ideal
possibility,” or “Extroverted Thinking prefers a multiplicity of cogent facts while Introverted
Thinking prefers a principle or idea that governs them.” And introversion’s focus is not just on
it’s own mind, but internal life in general, which is why it seeks more depth than extroversion. It
is concerned with the inner essence of an object isolated from that object's environment.
Additionally, extroversion accepts things on their own terms. Extroversion is focused on things,
ideas, or any kind of information as it stands or as it merely is, in and of itself. Extroversion is
therefore related more of a case-by-case observation. Introversion contrastingly doesn’t make
case-by-case observations, but overall abstractions. While extroversion gives more weight to the
individual instances pertaining to objects, introversion gives more weight to the absolute ideas
that govern its understanding of these objects.
As it was stated that extraversion vs introversion was a matter of breadth vs depth respectively, it
is coincidentally also a matter of “The Many vs The One.” ‘The Many’ and ‘The One’ are
essentially two opposing interpretations of reality or the nature of the world. When I say that
extroversion prefers ‘The Many,’ I mean that extroversion grants more weight to the wide variety
of individual observations of a wide variety of things. When I say that introversion prefers ‘The
One,’ I mean that introversion puts all these various things under a singular model of internal
understanding, much like an overall principle or idea, or even a set of ideas that all commonly
provide a basis for understanding objects.
So in summation, we can succinctly state that extroversion prefers mind-independent facts, while
introversion prefers mind-dependent ideals.
The other element of the cognitive functions is the four basic functions: Thinking, Feeling,
Sensation, and Intuition. They’re merely called ‘functions’ because they refer to basic faculties
of the mind.
5
Thinking vs Feeling
Thinking and feeling are the judging or rational functions. Judging functions are called judging
functions because they judge stuff. Quite straightforward, but the process of judgment or judging
things isn’t usually considered. Forming a judgment refers to coming to a decided conclusion on
something, or forming an opinion by evaluating something. Jung stated that “judgment always
presupposes a criterion,”2 which is true because there needs to be a standard by which to judge
something. Therefore, the underlying process of judgment refers to the formation of criteria and
standards by which to form a conclusion. In short, judgement can be defined as referring to a
frame of reference to make sense of things.
Since judgment refers to a set of standards and criteria by which to judge things, it seeks to
create measurements. That is, it compares information with the standard that it established, to see
if the information coincides with it. It does this passively and actively. By ‘passively,’ I mean the
mere comparison of data with the standards and criteria; here, I am referring to evaluation. By
‘actively,’ I mean the arrangement of data so as to make it coincide with the standards. The
active aspect of judgement coincides more with Jung’s term, which was ‘rationality.’
That is the very reason why people in Jungian Typology refer to judgment as the organization of
things. Again, Carl Jung’s term for judging was ‘rationality,’ which is a better term for it since it
doesn’t coincide with the conventional sense of the word “judgment,” and rationality implies a
certain orderliness. It was also called ‘rationality’ because rationality is to reason. The set of
criteria is the “reason” behind the judgment. So, judgement or rationality entails things like
reasoning, evaluation, making sense of things, and consequently, order. As stated by Jung,
“Rational judgment, … is a force that coerces the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a
definite pattern, or at least tries to do so.”3
Thinking
So, thinking refers to judging or evaluating things through logic. It's concerned with the
impersonal mechanics of something. Consequently, thinking’s focus is on the inanimate qualities
of things, or in Jungian typologist Michael Pierce’s words, “the cold attributes of things.”4
Thinking seeks to see how information coincides with standards of true or false, valid or invalid,
functional or nonfunctional. Additionally, thinking is systematic, because logic is concerned with
the inferential validity of systems.
2
Jung, Psychological Types, §577
3
4
Michael Pierce, Lessons in Jungian Typology
6
Jung referred to thinking as the use of the intellect. But he is not referring to intelligence.
Intellect just refers to the faculty of the mind that is able to reason out things in an objective
manner, and acquiring knowledge of the raw workings of things.
Feeling
Feeling judges or evaluates things through values and sentiments. Feeling is not just emotions.
However, I believe that emotions are an integral part of the feeling function. Rather, feeling can
be referred to as the process of making sense of emotions, or the evaluation of emotions; or the
establishment of values derived from emotional responses and feeling-tones. The feeling
function can be properly described as a process of reasoning. The type of rational justifications
from feeling are just different from that of thinking.
The focus of feeling is on the personal, sentient qualities of things. These qualities are standards
of harmony, good or bad, desirable or undesirable, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. And
while thinking is more systematic, feeling does indeed create value-systems. They are judging
functions so it’s expected for each function to be systematic on some level.
In summation, thinking judges things by impersonal, mechanical standards, while feeling judges
things by personal, sentimental standards.
7
Sensation vs Intuition
Sensation and intuition are the perception or irrational functions. They perceive stuff, and
perception is more straightforward than judgment. Perception refers to the mere reception and
identification of information. It gathers information, and merely experiences events, plain facts,
and observes phenomena. Jung stated that for perception, “Elementary facts come into this
category; the fact, for example, that the earth has a moon, that chlorine is an element … etc.”5
Sensation
Sensation is concerned with the concrete, realistic details. It is concerned with given information.
That is, information that is specified and explicit. So overall, sensation is a focus on the concrete
reality of things. In Michael Pierce’s words, sensation perceives the actual current nature of a
thing.6
Much like extroversion, sensation is quite straightforward, so all that can be said about it is quite
clear and simple.
Intuition
Intuition is a bit more complex; at least how I see it. When someone learns, discovers, or knows
something by intuition, they instinctively get the gist of that thing. They get a hunch of the
general but relatively vague idea or notion of the situation. Therefore, intuition is concerned with
general notions, concepts, and insights. Consequently, a lot of other fundamental elements are
ascribed to intuition.
In order for intuition to understand something, it needs to form a general concept of the situation,
as previously implied. A concept is not only a notion, but also a representation apprehended by
the mind; i.e., a mental representation. Accordingly, intuition is also concerned with what a thing
represents. When one asks what a thing represents, they are seeking to see what it is like.
Therefore, another element of intuition is the fact that it seeks out connections and relations
between things. Intuition can hence be described as a “network of insights,” so to speak.
Now, as said before, intuition is concerned with general notions. When something is notional, it
exists hypothetically, speculatively, and imaginatively. This connects to my earlier point about
intuition getting a hunch; it makes conjectures and hypotheses. Jung’s primary claims about
5
6
Michael Pierce, Attitudes and Functions: Se vs Si
8
intuition is that it deals with possibilities, and that it apprehends images from the unconscious.
What does he mean by this?
My primary claim about the intuitive function is that it is concerned with concepts because
concepts are concerned with everything that isn’t necessarily realistic; that is, possibilities,
notions, images, representations, hypotheses and speculations. Hence, the process of intuition is
to conceive things; the process of speculating and insightfully guessing on the possible nature or
essence of a situation; it’s seeking to grasp the possible nature or general idea of something
through guessing or hypothesizing. On its own, this process is quite immediate. People can
usually just “get” things, but that mostly comes out of guesswork; aka, intuition.
The intuitive function is also known to insightfully predict or anticipate future events; another
reason why Jung stated that it is concerned with possibilities. It vaguely envisions things, to put
it shortly. It can do this through pattern-recognition; when it sees the big-picture, a pattern can
start to emerge, and hence hypotheses, guesses, and insights on future possibilities are formed.
As Jung stated, “intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and wherever it is going in
a given situation.”7 And when Jung states that intuition is a perception via the unconscious, he
means that intuition apprehends what is hidden or implicit in a situation, which is why it’s
considered insightful.
So, given all of what was just stated, intuition can be defined as the perception of the possible big
picture of a situation, apprehending hypotheses. While sensation is the perception of the concrete
reality of a situation. Or all in all, sensation prefers concrete, specific information, while intuition
prefers abstract, notional information.
The Nature of Each Function
IDRLabs called the thinking and sensation functions “empirical” and “realistic” in the sense that
they rely on verifiable information. Feeling and intuition were termed “idealistic” and
“transgressive” in the sense that they rely on information that is a bit more personal and implied.8
Michael Pierce gave more comprehensive terms for these function pairs. According to Pierce,
thinking and sensation are denotative, while feeling and intuition are connotative.9 When it
comes to interpretations of information, denotative information is the literal information, while
connotative information refers to the suggested additions to the literal information. This is
7
8
Boye Akinwande and Ryan Smith, Determining Function Axes Part 4
9
Michael Pierce, Motes and Beams - A Neo-Jungian Theory of Personality, p. 10
9
essentially a distinction between explicit and implicit. Thinking and sensation rely on what is
explicit; feeling and intuition rely on what is implicit.
Thinking and Sensation
Both thinking and sensation seek out information containing what there actually is. Both rely on
what is given; both rely on the true facts about a situation; both seek to be in accordance with
actuality. Of course there are different standards here.
Jung stated that thinking is the formation of intellectual conclusions,10 which means that it uses
logical reasoning to arrive at what is true and what is false. Thinking prefers mechanical
information; functional information; operational information; i.e. information about how
something technically works. Thinking focuses on the technical aspects of something. In
essence, thinking is set out to construct a mechanical system in order to distinguish what there is
in actuality.
Sensation does not construct a system at all, though. It does not reason out what there actually is,
but merely perceives what there actually is. The facts that sensation is aware of are not
constructed into a logical system. Sensation is more about observing and experiencing facts
rather than systemizing them like thinking does.
Feeling and Intuition
Both the feeling and intuitive functions seek out information that is considered below the
surface. Both rely on what is implied, both rely on what is beyond the facts of the situation, and
both prefer to read into things, or read between the lines.
Feeling reads into the sentiments of the situation and forms judgements from there. It evaluates
the connotations of the situation and forms conclusions from there. While thinking prefers
mechanical data—how something operates—feeling prefers sentimental data—inclinations and
values ascribed to something. As previously stated, feeling seeks to create a value-system,
because it is a rational judging function.
Intuition, akin to sensation, does not create a system at all. It does not evaluate the connotations
of the situation, but it merely perceives the connotations of the situation. Intuition perceives the
subtext of the situation, that is, the hypotheses, notions, anticipations, and connections. Intuition
merely reads into all of these rather than forming these into criteria of values.
10
Jung, Psychological Types, §899, 903
10
Extroverted Judging (Je) / Extroverted Rationality
Perhaps the single most important premise regarding the nature of the cognitive functions is that
they are ways of psychological representations of the world around them. Keep this in mind
throughout the rest of this documentation.
As stated before, judging is about setting a frame of reference, evaluation, making sense of
things, and the arrangement of information in accordance with that frame of reference.
Extroverted Judging (Je) is about forming judgments based on information in the outer world.
You could say it’s about forming objective conclusions. It is concerned with judging things by
perceptible facts and/or objectively valid ideas. Furthermore, Je is concerned with arranging
objects in accordance with these standards. The Je functions psychologically represent the world
by cognizing its order.
11
Extroverted Thinking (Te)
Extroverted Thinking (Te) judges things based on objective, measurable facts from its
environment, and arranges facts and conclusions into a logical formula, method, or an empirical
law. It is concerned with the logical arrangement of objects in accordance with this method, or
even just in accordance with the facts themselves. One of Jung’s most essential claims on Te is
that it fulfills its total life activities with logical conclusions,11 which connects with Michael
Pierce’s notion that Te is focused on logical results. This premise is consistent with the idea that
Te is noticeably goal-oriented, or results-oriented, and that one of its main characteristics is the
preference for efficiency. More will be said about this function in the Introverted Thinking (Ti)
description, in the name of comparison.
In short, Te can be summarized as preferring the mechanical facts of a situation.
11
12
Extroverted Feeling (Fe)
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) judges things based on objective values; collective and universal
standards of ethics and value, and values derived from its environment. The priority here is on a
general consensus, since the focus is objective. This gives rise to the implication that Fe tends to
prize harmony with people, and amongst people. While Te will logically arrange objects, like a
marshal, Fe will coordinate objects, since the end goal of coordination is harmony. As
extroversion seeks to be in accordance with the facts of its environment, Fe seeks to be in
harmony with the perceived feeling-environment. Just as the main characteristic of Te is its
preference for efficiency, the previous statement is the reason why Fe’s main characteristics are
its preference for appropriateness and accomodation.
As it was earlier established that the feeling function is a personally oriented function, Fe’s
psychology is transpersonal, which means that it is inclined toward that which goes beyond the
individual and more into interpersonal contexts, such as a collective. Derived from its preference
for appropriateness and the harmony of interpersonal relations, it is also characterized by
effective communication with people, so as to bring about an agreeable atmosphere. As Jung
stated:
[Fe] may feel obligated to use the predicate ‘beautiful’ or ‘good’, not because [they] find
the object ‘beautiful’ or ‘good’ from [its] own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting
and tactful to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb
the general feeling situation.12
Given the previously established statements concerning the cognition of Fe, Fe preferring types
can be appropriately described as everyday sociologists.
In short, Fe can be summarized as evaluating the sentimental facts of a situation.
12
13
Introverted Judging (Ji) / Introverted Rationality
Introverted Judging (Ji) is about forming judgements based on one’s ideal thoughts about the
outer world, formed by the subject’s own mind, isolated from its environment. Put simply, the Ji
functions form principles to adhere to on an individual level. It is concerned with the
development of these principles into an organized belief system. Ji’s psychology and cognition is
not concerned with the arrangement and order of objects, but with the arrangement of one’s ideal
thoughts into a personal belief system. Ji is characterized by a certain individualism, since it
devalues external standards, and again forms principles isolated from its environment.
Compared to Ji, Je tends to be more goal-oriented, due to its concern for the arrangement of
objects. Michael Pierce stated of the judging functions that Je is focused on the result, while Ji is
focused on the process.13 For example, Te is focused on functional results (e.g. efficiency), while
Fe is focused on sentimental results (e.g. producing desired affects from others).
Je is more focused on the results of a situation, because the conclusions reached by its judgement
are directly presented to Je as an objective thing. Ji is focused on the actual development of
conclusions; i.e., principles. So essentially, while Je is focused on the actual conclusion itself, Ji
is focused on the development of the conclusion into an inner principle, because the focus is on
the ideal that the conclusion implies. While Je’s psychological representations cognize an
established order on the outer world, Ji’s psychological representations cognize the abstract
principles that underlie the external order.
13
Michael Pierce, Attitudes and Functions: Te vs Ti
14
Introverted Thinking (Ti)
Introverted Thinking (Ti) judges things based on logical principles. Jung’s most important
statements on Ti is that it prioritizes the development of the inner idea, that there is a clarity of
the inner structure of Ti’s thoughts, and that it has an “exacting scrupulosity,” which means that
it is precise.14 These statements imply that Ti is developing a precise and complete inner
understanding of something. In a nutshell, Ti can be described as evaluating things by
impersonal, mechanical ideals, which means that Ti evaluates things by means of the theories
formed in their mind.
Ti vs Te
The most basic differences between Ti and Te are their processes of reasoning, and where their
sources of logical reasoning originate from. Of course, since the main concern of the thinking
function is logic, Ti and Te both bring contrasting processes of logic and reasoning. There is
inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. These two forms of reasoning bring about different
types of knowledge: a posteriori and a priori respectively.
The basis of reasoning with inductive logic are empirical facts or collected samples. The
conclusion usually ends up being a general measurement or statistic of some kind. And this also
results in a posteriori knowledge—knowledge about empirical facts. The basis of reasoning in
deductive logic are universal principles and general theories rather than particular factual and
empirical samples. The conclusion here usually ends up being a particular premise. This results
in a priori knowledge—knowledge about things independent from empirical evidence. For
example the premise, “all triangles have three sides.” One doesn’t need empirical evidence to
prove this to be the case. A priori ideas are also considered ideas that are innate in the mind. The
term a priori is Latin for “from the former,” or “from the one before.” In essence, a priori just
means “before experience,” which makes it subject to forming presuppositional theories.
The fact that induction starts with facts and deduction starts with theories is the reason why it is
stated that induction goes from particular to general, while deduction goes from general to
particular. But that is an oversimplification of both forms of reasoning. Inductive reasoning can
still form specific conclusions. And deductive reasoning can form general principles. The
philosopher Rene Descartes arrived at a general principle (I think, therefore I am) using
deductive reasoning. Mathematics is chiefly a deductive discipline and still arrives at general
principles. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:
It is worth noting that some dictionaries and texts define ‘deduction’ as reasoning from
the general to specific and define ‘induction’ as reasoning from the specific to the
14
Jung, Psychological Types, §628, 634
15
general. However, there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form, for
example, ‘I saw her kiss him, really kiss him, so I’m sure she’s having an affair.’15
Another important (and perhaps the most vital) distinction between induction and deduction are
the ideas of strength, validity, cogency, and soundness. Inductive conclusions strive for
strength, which refers to the amount of empirical samples and evidence the argument has.
Inductive arguments furthermore strive for cogency, which refers to the condition of conclusion
being strong and the premises are actually true. Deductive conclusions strive for validity, which
refers to the condition of each premise being necessarily consistent with each other. Furthermore,
the conclusions strive for soundness, which refers to the condition of the conclusion being valid
and the premises are true.
So, inductive arguments can arrive at specific conclusions, but the most important distinction
here is that deduction is concerned more with necessary consistency between premises, while
induction is concerned more with the factual and empirical probability the premises provide. It’s
quite easy to see here which function-attitude coincides with what preferred method of
reasoning.
Ti is deductive because both Ti and deduction are quite rigorous; both seek to ensure if things
necessarily fit into a theory, principle, or set of principles. Each premise in a deductive system
must necessitate each other; all things that are necessary are fundamental. This entails that both
Ti and deduction seek to arrive at the fundamentals of something (again, mathematics comes to
mind here). They’re both also concerned with the basic, underlying structure of a thing or idea,
notably a system. Jung stated that Ti’s goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the
framework of the idea. Jung also stated that Ti has a dangerous capacity to either coerce facts
into the theory, or ignore the facts that don't fit,16 which points toward both Ti's and deduction’s
sense of necessity. This also means that both Ti and deduction coincide more with the idea of
analysis; breaking something down into its basic and fundamental parts and examining its
structure.
Deductive systems are primarily concerned with the underlying logical form or structure of a set
of statements. If you take a look at Formal Logic also known as Mathematical Logic which is
deductive, you’ll see that it is a Ti playground; formal logic is called “formal logic” for a
reason—it examines the underlying form of logical systems. This too, is what mathematics does;
it examines the underlying structure of phenomena.
15
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Deductive and Inductive Arguments
16
16
Te is inductive because both Te and induction seek a posteriori knowledge, depending on

empirically cogent conclusions that exist by virtue of their relationship with the outer world.
Both Te and inductive reasoning are less precise and rigorous because there is no need to ensure
necessity; the premises in an inductive argument are matter-of-fact and empirically evident rather
than an implication that needs to be clarified, like in a deductive system.
To drive my point home, Ti is deductive and Te is inductive because they are also proportionate
to internal consistency vs external consistency in terms of logic. A conclusion is internally
consistent if there are no basic contradictions within the reasoning behind that conclusion.
Internal consistency refers to the logical structure of the reasoning. This refers to the standard of
validity in deductive reasoning. A conclusion is externally consistent if the reasoning behind it is
in accordance with empirical fact. This refers to cogency in inductive reasoning.
So everything essentially corresponds here. Deduction is concerned with the internal consistency
of a system, and induction with the external consistency of a system. As deduction is concerned
with what is necessary, it seeks to deduce the bare fundamentals of a system, which, as said
before, corresponds with the idea of analysis. Furthermore, deduction seeks to see if these
fundamentals are consistent. Taking Rene Descartes as an example again, he essentially deduced
the elements of his thought and basically deduced from there the general principle, “I think
therefore I am.”
Prime examples of deductive systems include mathematical logic and a good amount of
philosophical discourse. Examples of inductive systems include statistics, the scientific method,
and strategy maps. So a good way to sum up Ti vs Te reasoning would be the epithets, ‘internal
logic’ vs ‘external logic,’ respectively.
So, to give an example of Ti reasoning vs Te reasoning, I will use the example of Ti and Te
studying a triangle. Of course, in order to examine a triangle at all, it must start with just a
singular instance of observation. This seemingly contradicts earlier statements said about Ti and
Te regarding deduction and induction, but you’ll later see why it doesn’t.
So, when Ti comes across a triangle, it first and foremost cognizes the vague archetypal idea of
‘triangularity,’ by basically getting a general impression of it, or forming a “presumptive”
abstraction of it; in other words, forming an a priori theory. From there, it determines the basic
constituents of the triangle by using definitions, postulates, and common notions as to what a
triangle is. It is examining the underlying structure of the triangle. So, if Ti wants to comprehend
what a triangle is, it must first define what a line is, or what a point is, and ect., and postulate
what this line can do, what the point can do, and etc. It is establishing the basic components of
the triangle’s operations.
17
Te’s process is much simpler. Te comes across a triangle, and from there makes further
observations of the triangle in certain cases; and therefore going by a more case-by-case
examination of a triangle. It may come to a very similar conclusion as to what a triangle is
compared to Ti, but Te will probably come to a much more streamlined conclusion, because Te is
more trusting of manifested observations; they are much more obvious by definition.
There are, however, potential problems with the overuse of these types of reasoning. Ti runs the
risk of making hasty generalizations, overly-presumptive theories that are empty or without
evidence, and confirmation bias. Te runs the risk of, in Jung’s words, “[engrossing] itself entirely
in the individual experience and accumulates a mass of undigested empirical material.”17 This
can refer to things like authority bias or fallacious appeals to authority, and potentially getting
fooled by the facts.
So the idea here is that Ti cognizes the idea or forms an a priori theory, and breaks that idea
down into constituent principles in order to understand it. He arrived at an overall principle
through analysis. Te, on the other hand, takes a set of case-by-case observation of facts, and
forms a conclusion accordingly. And believe it or not, both Ti and Te like to arrive at some sort
of simplicity. For Ti it’s intelligible, elegant principles, and for Te it’s obvious factual
conclusions.
For clarification, the online typologist that goes by the pseudonym ‘Berx’ gave the following
insight on the perspectives of Te and Ti:
In science, there is an important and necessary distinction between a scientific law and a
scientific theory. Both explain phenomena, and both are accepted as truth after having
been tested and verified. But ultimately, laws and theories are mutually exclusive; one
can never become the other. There are major differences between the two, and they serve
different functions:
A scientific law describes what will happen under a certain set of natural conditions. A
law is the most efficient description of a process indicated by a set of observed data; it is
observation condensed into self-evident truth. A law is entirely data-dependent. If the
data cannot be measured or interpreted properly, no law can be formulated. Laws are
necessarily wedded to reality; as a result, they are more definitive and are harder to
overturn than theories.
A scientific theory describes why or how something happens. A theory offers the most
logical explanation for the data’s existence; it is the truth beneath the facts. It is more
idea-dependent and cannot always explain all of the immediate data. The better a theory
17
18
explains the data, and the more data it explains, the more valid it becomes. Theories are
only as good as their own intrinsic explanatory power and are easier to overturn than
laws. They must be vetted over time.
Te is more predisposed toward interpreting objective reality on its own self-evident

terms. It has a tendency to begin with what is known in general, define the principles
governing it (what it must be, by necessity) and then either move back to the known
entity or move on to other known entities. Its cycle has a bias toward the object. Te is
more adaptable to the object and attempts to be more locally or specifically definitive.
Ti, on the other hand, is more oriented toward singular explanatory ideas. It has a
tendency to begin with a principle or idea that makes sense intrinsically (to the subject),
reference objective information that can be explained by that idea, and then move back to
the idea itself in order to refine it. Its cycle has a bias toward the subject. Ti is less
adaptable to the object and attempts to be more globally or generally definitive.
It should follow, in my opinion, that while both Thinking orientations have the ability to
formulate both laws and theories, Te will be more biased toward laws, and Ti will be
more biased toward theories. If this is true, we should see a greater statistical
preponderance of Te types among those scientists credited with discovering valid laws,
and a greater statistical preponderance of Ti types among those scientists credited with
discovering valid theories.18
But of course, there’s more to Ti and Te. They are rational judging functions, which means they
seek to arrange information in accordance with a standard. The goal of Ti is to arrange their
principles into an architectural system; or a framework. And as Te is a Je function, it likes to
arrange its environment, and Te has a bit more elements to it than Ti. Te arranges facts into an
empirical system, which usually falls amongst the lines of a method or formula. Te also arranges
objects in its environment, and does so in accordance with their empirical system, or just the
facts themselves, as established beforehand. It should go without saying that
arrangement—chiefly in the external sense—is the organization of things to achieve some sort of
goal. Te usually employs a method; a means to reach an end. The method or system must of
course be effective, but the system must also be efficient. As stated by Jung, Te seeks to fulfill
things in accordance with conclusions, so efficiency is an essential concern for Te. This implies
more differences between Te and Ti. While Te is focused on results and conclusions, Ti is
focused on “development.” in Jung’s words, which coincides with Michael Pierce’s statement
that Ti is focused on the logical process. Te cares a lot more about efficiency than Ti, and Ti
cares a lot more about precision than Te.
The other distinction is that Te sees knowledge and logic as inherently instrumental. A system
must have an external application, or else it is useless. Ti sees knowledge as an end-in-itself. For
18
Berx, Personality Database
19
it to have external use is merely a bonus. It has an admiration for pure knowledge or pure
understanding. Te’s focus is a lot more on implementation. It wants to see its system being
externally manifested in the world, which draws back to the notion of Te being oriented toward
the achievement of a goal. In essence, Te seeks to create a pragmatic system; a system capable of
implementation. In Michael Pierce’s words, “Extraverted Thinking judges a thing’s relative
effectiveness or impact on the world.”19
Ti is very independent-minded. I specifically say ‘independent-minded’ rather than

‘independent,’ because Te types can also be independent, and there are many Te types that are
actually independent. But more so than the Ti type, Te types prefer to have proper consultation;
credibility and merit is quite imperative for Te. Ti has a propensity to champion the idea of
critical thinking for oneself, and appealing to one’s principles isolated from their environment;
i.e., appealing to pure principles of the mind. And this point is a little redundant considering the
name of the function is ‘Introverted Thinking.’ The basis of its logical ideas is preferred to
originate from the contents of the Ti type’s own mind, hence ‘Introverted Thinking.’ However,
the actual ideas that Ti deciphers are universal. Per Jung, “the idea [that Ti deciphers] derives its
convincing power from its underlying archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and
everlasting truth.”20 It wants to arrive at an idea independent or regardless of empirical evidence;
it wants to arrive at an absolute. To clarify, an absolute is an idea that is regarded as universally
valid due to its abstraction away from external conditions. The idea does not depend on any
specific external circumstance. It can be validly applied to all cases.
Furthermore, both Te and Ti are seeking to be objective, because the thinking function as a whole
is concerned with the impersonal mechanics of things. It can be misconstrued that Ti is seeking a
sort of subjective truth, which actually isn’t the case. Introverted Thinking, by virtue of its name,
seeks for its own internal core to be wholly impersonal and impartial. Ti wants it’s own
understanding of things to be impartial, or else it wouldn’t be doing justice to logic at all. In
order to even be logical or intellectually-oriented whatsoever, impartiality is a prerequisite.
While Te’s objectivity seeks to be in accordance with empirical facts, case-by-case observed
samples, and external measurements, Ti’s objectivity seeks to be in accordance with absolute
principles that, in some way, transcends the object itself; think back to the statement, “all
triangles have three sides.” That is an absolute premise. In other words, Te’s objectivity is more
definite and specific, while Ti’s objectivity is universally-oriented. This is why better epithets for
Te vs Ti are ‘external logic’ and ‘internal logic’ respectively, rather than ‘objective logic’ vs
‘subjective logic.’ Ti is subjective insofar as it adheres to its understanding of the situation,
isolated from the objective environment, and has a hard time accepting new facts that come from
the objective situation.
19
20
20
To apply the ‘Many vs One’ principle here, we can say that Te is guided by a variety of factual
observations, and a variety of systems, while Ti is guided by a single principle, and a singular
framework of understanding. So, while Ti constructs a theoretical framework of principles (like
Descates), Te constructs factual systems and methodologies (like Aristotle).
My final point is that Te thinks economically, thinking in terms of
● Production
● Systems
● Efficiency
● Induction
● Effectiveness
● Implementation
● Planning
● Business
● Decisions
● Marshalling
● Means-to-ends
Ti thinks mathematically, thinking in terms of
● Deduction
● Principles
● Self-reference
● Underlying structure
● Universals
● Analysis
● Ends-in-themselves
We can then define Te as viewing things from the lens of pragmatism—arranging empirical data
into practical laws and systems for optimizing and implementing them accordingly.
And Ti views things from the lens of explication—Developing a precise, detached

understanding of an idea by deconstructing it into basic, abstract principles.
21
Introverted Feeling (Fi)
Introverted Feeling (Fi) judges things based on personally valued ideals. Jung stated that what
can be said of Ti is also true of Fi, except the prime difference is that everything with Ti is
logical and mechanical, everything with Fi is based on sentiment, harmony, and morals.21 So,
while Ti is seeking to develop a logical understanding of things by deciphering their underlying
mechanics, Fi is seeking to develop an emotional understanding of things. Jung called it a
sympathetic parallelism; more on that later. But of course, Fi is more than emotion.
Jung stated that Ti’s priority is developing an inner logical idea. Fi’s priority then is developing a
‘feeling-idea.’ The example of an artist or a poet clarifies this term. Theoretically speaking, a Ti
type could develop their logical ideas through mathematical proof, while an Fi type could
develop their feeling-ideas through poetic verses.
Fi is often associated with passion, and for good reason. Jung stated that Fi is striving for an
“inner intensity.”22 As feeling concerns value, Fi is looking for something to hold a personally
sentimental attachment to; a personal ideal; something to be passionate about; an “inner
intensity.” All things considered, Fi can be summarized as evaluating things by their personal,
sentimental ideals.
Fi vs Fe
As external feeling involves interpersonal values and ethics, internal feeling involves
intra-personal values and ethics. External feeling is concerned with values derived from its
environment instead of from the self. Objective feeling-values are of more importance. For Fe, it
is the collective that has more weight. External harmony is prioritized. Fi however is seeking to
foremost achieve an inner harmony, rather than seek an external order. It is furthermore drawn
toward the individual, because the focus is on one’s values isolated from the environment.
Other distinctions concerning Fe and Fi is that Fe is sympathetic, while Fi is empathetic.

Sympathy is defined across dictionaries as the sharing of feelings between people or as the
expression of compassion for someone else. Empathy is defined across dictionaries as the ability
to imagine oneself in someone else’s situation and subsequently have a sense of deep
understanding of where they’re coming from; this is the notion of entering their feelings. This, I
believe, is what Jung meant by “sympathetic parallelism” when illustrating Fi. Just don’t let the
word ‘sympathetic’ fool you here.
21
22
22
Fi is always asking, “How would I feel in this situation?” This is the very reason why Fi
coincides more with empathy. Fe is not concerned with entering its own personal feeling, by
definition. Fe does have feelings of course, but it wants to externalize that feeling onto others and
establish some sort of harmony with them and amongst them.
Another reason is that empathy actually seeks to thoroughly understand the inner feeling of
another being. This refers back to my comparison of Fi and Ti. Just as Ti is seeking a precise
understanding of the internal mechanics of something, Fi is seeking a thorough understanding of
another individual’s internal sentiments.
It can be said at this point that Fi is not selfish. As stated before, introversion is concerned with
internal life in general. It likes to see what is internal to an object rather than observing the object
itself. This statement about introversion coincides with my statements about Ti and Fi: they both
seek to understand what is going on internally amongst things; just different types of
understanding. Now let’s elaborate on “sympathetic parallelism.”
Jung stated that, “[Fi] reveals a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire
to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way.”23 By more or less using
the process of elimination, we can conclude that Jung is actually talking about empathy. Fi
doesn’t seek to actively affect people like Fe does with its sympathy; Fi seeks to understand
where the individual is coming from, as implied by the ‘parallelism’ in sympathetic parallelism.
Compared to Fe, Fi tends to empathize with the minority of the situation.
[Side note: It is worth noting, however, that while there are a number of
interpretations of Jung’s phrase “sympathetic parallelism,” all of those
interpretations, including mine, can be rendered redundant or pointless. I
say this because while in one famous translation he uses the term
“sympathetic parallelism,” in another famous translation he uses the term
“sympathetic response.”
Nevertheless, in both translations, Jung mentioned that Fi “has to find an

external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a
satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one’s fellowman
in such a way that a parallel process [of feeling] takes place in them.”24
This premise can be what is meant by sympathetic parallelism.]
Another distinction, however minor, is that Fe is concerned with ethics, while Fi is concerned
with morality. If you look up the difference, you’ll find that ethics is usually about social
standards of good and bad, while morality is about personal principles of right and wrong. If
you’ve heard the term, “ethics in the workplace,” this may clarify what I mean. Ethics is usually
23
24
23
about standards of proper conduct in an environment. Fe appeals to an external value-system,

which coincides with ethics, while Fi appeals to a personalized, inner value-system, coinciding
with morality.
(Remember this: I am not saying that Fe is ethics and sympathy and Fi is morality and empathy,
just as I am not saying that Te is induction and Ti is deduction. These functions merely coincide
more with these concepts, and these functions have a natural tendency to employ these methods.
These labels are mainly ways of better knowing the nature of each function, like a mnemonic.)
My final point about Fi is that it prioritizes authenticity; staying true to yourself, your own
identity, and your own values. Fi is a Ji function, and consequently devalues external standards
and external structure being enforced upon it. Adhering to one’s own understanding of the world
is what defines Ti and Fi. However, Fi is more concerned with authenticity, due to its sentimental
and passionate nature. Fi is quite reserved about its feelings and often conceals them, that is
unless you touch upon something it is deeply passionate about.
Earlier I stated that it can be misconstrued that Ti is seeking a sort of subjective truth. But this is
actually the case with Fi. As stated before, the feeling function is personal; it is therefore more
subject-oriented than thinking. Per Jung, “Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between
the ego and a given content.”25 Fe is interpersonal, concerned with the interrelations of others,
while Fi is intrapersonal, concerned with relations with the self. Or in Jungian terms, Fe is
primarily concerned with other subjects or egos, while Fi is concerned with its own subject. Fe’s
focus can be accurately summarized as “intersubjectivity.” Or even in simpler terms, Fe is
concerned with external harmony, while Fi is concerned with inner harmony (and this applies to
the ‘Many vs One’ principle—Fe is oriented toward the harmony and sentiments of the
collective, while Fi is oriented toward the harmony and sentiments of the individual).
While Ti wants its own inner core to be logical and therefore impersonal, Fi wants it’s inner core
to actually be personal; full of value and sentiment. This is derived from the fact that Jung used
the word ‘intellect’ to define thinking, as intellect is concerned with objectivity. It’s just that as
implied before, Ti is subjective insofar as it champions the consultation of one’s own intellect.
With Fi, it’s more so following the dictates of one’s own conscience.
25
24
[Side note: The “subjectivity” of introversion heavily depends on what

function it is paired with. When we talk about the truth and falsity of
logical propositions that are not dependent on any external conditions,
we are referring to the ‘a priori’ universal truths of Ti. But when we talk
about sentiments, values and harmony that are isolated from any external
condition, we are referring to the actual subjective truths of Fi.
This also applies to the objectivity of the extroverted functions. The truth
and falsity of logical propositions that are actually dependent on external
conditions, refer to the particular empirical observations of Te. But the
objective sentiments, values, and harmony inherent in the external
situation refers to the universal commonalities that Fe sees. More will be
said about this in the function axes section.]
After all that was stated about Fe and Fi, we can then define Fe as viewing things from the lens
of consensus—forming harmonious relationships with others based on their common, unifying
standards and sentiments.
And Fi views things from the lens of romanticism—cultivating an inner harmony from inner
ideals and passions, and seeing others as having innate selfhood.
25
Extroverted Perceiving (Pe) / Extroverted Irrationality
Extroverted Perceiving (Pe) is about experiencing information from the outer world. It takes in
information as though it were easily perceptible fact. It is keenly attentive to what is going on in
its environment and the general state of affairs, not just the immediate environment. It is also
receptive to external information, and is therefore usually open to new experiences. It wants to
gather all of the information in the world that is available to it, which is a reason why it has a
thirst for the new. For the above reasons, Pe is prone to quickly adapt to situations.
26
Extroverted Sensation (Se)
Extroverted Sensation (Se) perceives things as they clearly are in reality. It is perhaps the most
straightforward cognitive function. It is often mistaken that Se is the same as using one’s own 5
senses. The cognitive functions are psychological and philosophical attitudes and worldviews,
not biological or physiological faculties.
Se represents the philosophy of direct realism. It is concerned with what is directly given with
what it is presented. It is about the object as it clearly is, with no personal color or fluff added to
it. Things simply are what they are; nothing more, nothing less. I will however say that Se does
include the use of its 5 senses to get the best possible interpretation of reality, but it’s not limited
to that, as implied before.
For these reasons, Se is also characterized by the here-and-now, or with current-time events. To
get the most realistic perspective of an object, it needs to also be in real-time, of course.
Furthermore, in order to fulfill the state of pure simplicity and clarity, Se seeks to achieve a sort
of flow-state. However, to avoid misconception, Se is not trapped in the here-and-now, nor is it
just concerned with its immediate environment. As stated before, Pe is aware of the general state
of affairs. Se can indeed use realistic past experience to enhance their perception of the
here-and-now. Se is also able to quickly adapt to real-time events, and seize the opportunities
presented to them.
Although being a perception function, Se is quite action-oriented. As stated before, perception

likes to experience phenomena, so Se can be quite active in its environment, seeking to
realistically experience all that is available to it. Furthermore, as sensation is the focus on
realistic experience, it is the function that is concerned with practicality. Practicality is concerned
with the actual doing of things; putting an idea into practice, or into action.
Se vs Te
In this way, Se is quite similar to Te. Se and Te both have a “things are what they are”
worldview. Both seek out externally definite information; external things are easily
distinguishable from one another. Again, both Sensation and Thinking rely on verifiable
information, which is what makes them ‘empirical.’ For Se and Te, the external world is already
verifiable. Both are matter-of-fact, both like to see their ideas being manifested in the outer
world, and therefore both are direct.
Te however, is concerned with the implementation of an organized system. Furthermore, Te is

concerned with reasoning out what is in its environment, making sense of it. While Te is focused
on empirical rationality and reasoning, Se is focused merely on empirical experience. Se is
27
adapting, while Te is structuring. Se can be referred to as direct perception, while Te can be

referred to as direct judgment.
Since Se prioritizes the high-definition here-and-now, it tends to see the beauty in real-life
experience, as aesthetics is fundamentally concerned with the pleasant gratification of the senses.
Jung stated of this type:
Those objects which release the strongest sensation are decisive for the [Se’s]
psychology. ... The orientation of such a [type] corresponds with purely concrete reality
... Sensation for them is a concrete expression of life—it is simply real life lived to the
fullest. … [Se] is not sensual [nor] gross, for [it] may differentiate its sensation to the
finest pitch of aesthetic purity. … Everything essential has been said and done by what
[it] perceives. [Such types] frequently have a charming and lively capacity for enjoyment;
they are at times a jolly fellow, and often a refined aesthete.26
All in all, Se can be summarized as preferring the concrete facts, which mainly refers to the
current raw data.
26
28
Extroverted Intuition (Ne)
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) perceives things as generating various hypotheses. It seeks to grasp all
the possible hypotheses and possible notions inherent in the external situation. The world is full
of hypotheticals, possibilities, and big-picture notions waiting to be explored. Ne is therefore
quite experimental. It likes to put forth an idea to see what it has in store. Put simply, Ne is
excited by the speculative possibilities about an object. Ne likes to speculate about the
wide-ranging potential in things. Furthermore, Ne is able to see the implicit, abstract connections
between things. From these characteristics, we can see that Ne is able to insightfully draw upon
clever observations about how this notion relates to this other notion.
For the above reasons, Ne cares about seeing all conceivable aspects of an object or situation. If
someone proposes an argument or a statement, Ne asks, “Have you considered this other
possibility? Or this one?” Hence, there is a certain kind of skepticism with Ne. Not a doubtful
skepticism, but an inquisitive skepticism, although it can very much come off as doubt.
Ne vs Se
Jung stated the following, “Just as [Se] strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, so [Ne] tries
to apprehend the widest range of possibilities.”27 While Se is seeking to make most of the current
objective situation, representing a singular, straightforward, and intense focus on the moment,
and achieving a sort of flow state, Ne is seeking to conceive and intuitively grasp the greatest
amount of hypotheses in the objective situation, representing a broad, multifarious, springy, and
notional wandering from idea to idea.
Whereas Se thinks that life is all about real life adventure and experience, Ne thinks that life is
all about what it potentially holds in store. Furthermore, Se is very trusting of what is presented
to it, given its “things are what they are” attitude toward the world. Ne however, is not so trusting
of direct experience, which is another reason why Ne represents a kind of skepticism. For Se, life
represents a grand and clear simplicity; there is only one reality to choose from, which is the one
that we are presented with. Ne however, embraces a bit of complexity; it likes to explore various
possible elements in things; everything in life is a sort of interconnected network of ideas,
notions, insights and possibilities.
To avoid misconception, Se can indeed have ideas. There are a handful of innovative Se users in
history and today. But Se emphasizes the practical aspect of the idea, and putting it into practice
with relative ease. Ne emphasizes the abstract potential of the idea. The cognition of Ne is
27
29
analogous to someone opening a gift or present: the gift could possibly be anything, and it's
intuition's job to take a guess and speculate on what is inside before opening it.
So then, we can define Se as viewing things from the lens of realism—Actively making the most
of the immediate, sensuous, and pronounced facts to get pure clarity in the moment.
And Ne views things from the lens of cross-questioning—exploring and playing around with
loose ideas and all varying, potential sources of insight and inquiry.
Ne vs Fe
Ne can look a bit like Fe, especially the process of Ne-Fi, but that’s a bit of a digression. When it
comes to people, Ne is very interested in picking up on their conceptions, and the potential they
bring to a situation. Both Fe and Ne emphasize the connections between objects and people.
Michael Pierce stated:
Fe is essentially reacting to things that ‘aren't there,’ but in their own sense, most
certainly are there, such as a perceived discomfort or injustice or awkward silence or so
forth. But the ‘awkwardness’ is interpreted into the external data. It is the same thing for
Ne, except it is not a matter of judgement but merely of perception, and any action or
reaction is not towards changing the world, but rather unleashing the potential of what
they see so that they can, as it were, see it even more. Here, Ne is picking up on patterns,
connections, associations, and all kinds of things that aren't really there, but may still be
valid and extremely helpful and insightful.28
Unlike Fe, Ne seeks to investigate multiple perspectives rather than form judgments about them.
Fe’s evaluation of various perspectives is merely a means to establish a harmonious order
amongst these perspectives.
Due to the fact that Ne likes to draw upon the hypothetical connections between insights and
explore them, it has a tendency to ‘connect the dots,’ and look at the overall broad pattern of a
situation. By ‘connect the dots,’ I mean that Ne likes to see all the possible core ideas in a
situation, connect each idea, and spot the overall pattern that emerges from there. Boye
Akinwande and Ryan Smith from IDRLabs may have said it better: “Ne quickly feels out each of
the central nodes of an overall … pattern.”29 Since it is an intuitive function, it does this rather
instinctively (though not all the time).
In summation, we can describe Ne as preferring ‘notional’ facts, also known as hypotheses.
28
Michael Pierce, ESTP Revisited
29
See footnote 7
30
Introverted Perceiving (Pi) / Introverted Irrationality
Introverted Perceiving (Pi) is about perceiving things based on ideal thoughts about the outer
world. In other words, Pi merely receives inner ideas. It perceives things through an inner model.
It asks, “How does this information relate to how I perceive the world?” It is characterized by
archetypal experience; that is, it needs an ideal example to refer to in order to discern a situation.
Jung stated that Pi is characterized by significance and meaning,30 and this is unsurprising
considering Pi is about inner interpretation. While Pe is receptive to new experiences as they are
given from the outer world, Pi is a bit slow to accept the new information at hand, and can
therefore be seen as stubborn.
30
31
Introverted Sensation (Si)
Introverted Sensation (Si) perceives things through inner sense-impressions, or sensory ideas. It
has been established that Si is quite a peculiar function-attitude. In Jungian language, it is pretty
peculiar, but a further elaboration of Si shows that it isn’t that peculiar with the use of everyday
terminology. To summarize the points made in my earlier documentation about Si, it is a function
that sees the overall, underlying quality of an object. This is what I mean by ‘sensory idea.’ As
stated earlier, introversion is a focus on abstraction; it abstracts from the object. Abstraction is
defined as the consideration of something as a general quality or characteristic apart from
specific objects or instances.
In my earlier documentation about Si, I stated that it is related to the concept of ‘qualia,’ which is
essentially the subjective [qualitative] component of sense-impressions. The singular form of
qualia is quale, which is defined as “a property (such as redness) considered apart from things
having the property (or) a property as it is experienced as distinct from any source it might have
in a physical object.” This coincides with the definition of abstraction, considering the general
quality of something apart from the thing itself. To clarify, if Se and Si come across a red object,
Se will see the red object itself and see that that object is indeed red, while Si will emphasize the
experience of the characteristic of ‘redness.’ Or as a less abstract example, Se will see a dog or
multiple dogs, and Si will get the impression of ‘doghood,’ the essential characteristics to what
dog is. Or as another example, Se will perceive some particular triangle, or particular sets of
triangles, while Si will get the impression of the archetypal triangle; the triangle is ideal.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy clarifies it a bit better than I do.
Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. What it feels like,
experientially, to see a red rose is different from what it feels like to see a yellow rose.
Likewise for hearing a musical note played by a piano and hearing the same musical note
played by a tuba. The qualia of these experiences are what give each of them its
characteristic ‘feel’ and also what distinguish them from one another.31
I believe it is precisely the comparison between these qualities are what Si is focused on
here—how this particular sensation of a musical note in this instance contrasts with another.
In Michael Pierce’s ISFJ Revisited documentation, he gives a similar account for Se vs Si, in
which he received the notion from Jesse Gerroir from IDRLabs. He states:
For Gerroir, a function like Se is concerned with the individual instances of sensations;
that is, with individual, present moments of experience, taken on their own, represented
directly and fully to the subject. For them, perceived reality is what is simply given.
31
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Qualia
32
Conversely, Si is concerned with the transcendent ‘Form’ of various sensations; that is,
where what is given immediately to the subject from outside is mistrusted, in favor of
what the subject determines to be more universally ‘the case.’ This generally means that
the Si type's past experiences are used to shed light on present ones, because the present
data or appearance of things is not trusted until it has been processed and approved by the
subject.
In short, one could say that Se perceives a sensation passing them by, whereas Si
perceives the sensation that a passing sensation relates to; that is, the essential,
bottom-line kinds of experiences one encounters: species of experiences abstracted from
their individually varying instances.
When the Si type perceives something, they naturally relate it to and understand it in
terms of their overall composite Form of that thing. An Si type might see a cat, for
instance, and immediately their mind is aroused to a host of personally formed
experiences and related ideas which they associate with the notion of ‘cathood’ or
‘cat-ness.’32
So, if I may simplify all of what was just said on the peculiarities of Si, I would say that
essentially what is being talked about here is the cataloging of experience. That is what Si is
focused on, compared to Se. Se likes to directly undergo various experiences, while Si likes to
catalogue them. And of course the quotation just provided applies to the ‘Many vs One’ principle
regarding Se vs Si. To repeat and slightly paraphrase, Pierce states that Se is oriented toward the
many individual instances of various sensations, Si puts these various sensations into an overall
model of realistic experience.
So that was on the peculiar nature of Si, I will now describe the not-so-peculiar aspects of Si; at
least not that peculiar in comparison to what was just said about it. To do so, I must clarify and
appropriately simplify some of Jung’s words; converting them from overly-metaphysical
language into more everyday language.
So Jung’s most important statement on Si was the following (paraphrased):
[Si] apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive
thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the impressions they release, i.e. the
archaic archetypal images, which in their totality [create] an ideal mirror-world or an
alternate reality. It is a reality, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing things
not in their known form but in a certain sense, sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a
million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the birth
and passing of things existing in the present, and it would also see what was before their
birth and what will be after their passing. Si transmits an image which does not
32
Michael Pierce, ISFJ Revisited
33
necessarily reproduce the object, but rather spreads over it the impression of age-old
subjective experience as well as events that are still unborn.33
Essentially what Jung is saying here is that Si is timeless. ‘Sub specie aeternitatis’ is a latin term
that loosely means “from an eternal perspective.” So Jung is stating that Si seeks to see
something not in its known form like Se, but in its overall enduring form. This consequently
entails that Si seeks to see how things endure through time, and it therefore prefers information
that is endurable.
Si’s preference for the eternal implies that it seeks out information that is able to be preserved.
Consequently, Si prioritizes reliable knowledge and reliable experience. If the thing is endurable,
it is stable, able to be preserved through time, able to be maintained, constant, everlasting,
solidified, and therefore reliable. So then, Si’s impressions of reality are sought to be stored.
So basically, Si is developing a storage of archetypal but grounded impressions of reality, or a

mental storage of prototypes, which means, as Mary Arrington from IDRLabs puts it, “Si is
focused on retaining the information in the same context that it had when it was experienced.”34
They’re saying that Si will refer to when it first encountered that particular information, and so
this is why I stated that it mentally stores prototypes of things. This is part of the reason why Si
is erroneously simplified to “comparing the present with past experiences.” But, quite literally,
anyone has the capacity to do that. It’s called memory. However, the thing with Si is that it
creates an archetype out of an experience and uses it as a precedent. When the Si type
encounters something for the first time, they will create an archetype out of that experience and
in subsequent similar situations that archetype will be referred to—as such, this is what is
referred to as a precedent. It’s not the past experience itself but certain salient aspects of that
experience that is being used for future reference. As a result, rather than saying that Si is
referring to a ‘mental storage of prototypes,” we can more eloquently say that Si is referring to a
mental archive of precedents. Furthermore, Si types don’t have photographic memory; they
won’t always vividly remember every single detail about something. They only want to retain
information that is verifiable.
Si is a sensation function, so it does seek out concrete experience, like Se. But one would ask,
how would it seek out concrete experience if it creates abstractions? Well, at this point it can be
said that abstractions and archetypes are pretty much the same. And earlier I stated that Si creates
‘sensory ideas.’ Si creates particular archetypes out of particular experiences. This is part of what
refers to the concreteness of Si. Concrete information refers to given information; information
that is specific and definite. As Wikipedia stated in their article on abstraction:
33
34
Mary Arrington, Imagining Function Axes: Si/Ne
34
Perhaps confusingly, some philosophies refer to tropes (instances of properties) as

abstract particulars—e.g., the particular redness of a particular apple is an abstract
particular.35
So, Si is still concerned with the concrete details of the impressions that it forms, and it is
concerned with forming specific impressions. IDRLabs described the concreteness of Si as such:
Si [is] the cognitive function that focuses on getting to know each individual tree in order
that one may, from the aggregate, know the forest.36
Additionally, the fact that it is concerned with specific archetypal experiences, we can conclude
that it creates categories to refer to. So out of all of what was stated about Si, we can state that Si:
● Receives from the object, the general impression.

● Si then branches out into the impression's details, to make it definite and vivid.
● The impression is then preserved as a prototype and category to rely on.
∴ For these reasons, Si can be characterized by meticulousness and thoroughness.
To go into more detail as to why Si is meticulous, it is distrusting, doubtful, or wary of direct

experience. It consequently brings the same sort of doubt that Ne has toward direct experience.
Si therefore has a cautious nature, as caution inherently comes with warriness. Si, much like
every introverted function, needs an internal compass to guide themselves through the outer
world. Again, Si is guided by archetypal experience; they need these precedents to shed light on
seemingly messy present situations.
How are Si’s archetypes created? Well, when Si comes across something for the first time, they
study it intensely, because they want to surely know and store the relevant information for the
sake of the long-term. Again, since they don’t trust current given information and direct
experience, they need something to shed light over new direct experiences, or potential
experiences in the future. It needs something to fall back on and to be certain of. Certain
knowledge is a goal for Si.
So, Si encounters something, studies it intensely until it has a secure grounding of knowledge on
that thing, creates this certainty of knowledge into an archetype, and stores this archetype for
future reference. When similar things of this kind are encountered in the future, Si studies it
again, but in a different manner. It compares and contrasts that thing to the previously formed
archetype, and if there are any differences, Si assigns this thing to a different archetype; or in
simpler words, Si creates a different category for this thing. If there are any differences in the
concrete details compared to the last time this sort of thing was experienced, a new category is
35
Wikipedia, Abstraction
36
IDRLabs, Why George Custer is ISFJ
35
created in Si’s mind. And this is why Si cautiously or meticulously catalogues their ongoing
experience of things.
Si vs Ti
Si and Ti are quite similar. They’re both oriented toward precise, solid knowledge. Ti and Si
have the same underlying psychological goal in mind, which is to guarantee whether something
is the case or not. They both convey an aura of the maxim, ‘just in case.’ Both have a compulsion
to clarify things, because they don’t trust the givens that are right in front of them (unlike Te and
Se). Accepting reality on its own terms is messy to Si and Ti. They need an internal guideline
that is meticulously constructed.
Ti verifies knowledge through checking if something is deductively or ‘mathematically’

consistent; if each element in a thing's constitution has zero internal inconsistency. Si does this
through inspection, cross-checking, cross-examining, and finally solidifying their knowledge of
something after verifying its stability. Si’s concern for preservation, reliability, and
meticulousness equates in a conscientious nature.
Again, both Sensation and Thinking rely on verifiable information, which is what makes them
‘empirical’ or rather denotative. For Se and Te, the external world is already verifiable, which is
what makes them more direct and streamlined in their approach to things. For Si and Ti, both
have to rigorously construct a verifiable understanding of things, rather than accepting things on
their own terms. Therefore, Si can be described as meticulous perception, and Ti can be
described as meticulous judgment or evaluation.
Si vs Ne
As stated before, Si creates specific categories out of specific experiences. Ne seeks to see how
the knowledge of a category relates to its various conceptions. For example, Si comes across a
cat and receives from it, an impression of an ideal cat, via introversion. It then accumulates every
detail about the cat to accumulate vivid and reliable knowledge of it. Si examines and assigns a
specific category to the cat, differentiated from other examined categories, which characterizes
Si's detailed ‘recall,’ so to speak. After this process is complete, the content of Si consists of a
storage of knowledge on the very specific categories of cats. Ne seeks to see how this knowledge
of the cat applies to various conceptions of it. In other words, the basic category of the cat
remains the same as per Si, but Ne explores this basic category in every conceivable way: What
is this cat like in these various situations? How can this cat be applied or connected to these
various concepts?
36
Introverted Intuition (Ni)
Introverted Intuition (Ni) perceives things in accordance with an archetypal, hypothetical idea; or
just an archetypal hypothesis. What this means is that it intuits an overall, underlying theme; a
recurring pattern. Ni tends to consolidate and condense a set of hypotheses and ideas into a
central hypothesis, because it is concerned with abstracting them into an archetypal hypothesis.
Furthermore, as intuition is concerned with mental representations, Ni intuitively perceives the
ideal representation of a situation. In simpler words, it obtains a very telling symbolic image that
underlies a situation; and in even simpler words, Ni perceives a vision. To clarify, let’s compare
Ni to other functions.
Ni vs Si
Paraphrased, Jung stated about Ni in comparison to Si:
Whereas Si is mainly constricted to the perception of a particular impression, and does

not go beyond it, Ni perceives the image which has really caused the impression. Suppose
for instance, each [introverted] perceiving type is overtaken by an impression. Si is
arrested by the peculiar character of this impression, perceiving all its qualities, its
intensity, its course, the nature of its origin and disappearance in their every detail,
without raising any suspicion concerning the essence of the thing which caused the
impression. Ni on the other hand, receives from the impression the driving force behind
it; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the image or vision that gave rise to the
impression. This vision fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to
explore every detail of it. It adheres to the vision, observing with fascination, how the
image changes, unfolds, and finally fades.37
As the actual process of Ni cognition has yet to be entirely described, I believe it is best
elucidated when in comparison to Si. While Si perceives something and gets a general
impression of it, its goal is to concretize that impression; i.e., to make it definite. Ni perceives
something and it too gets an impression of it, but this inner impression is perceived as the
quintessence or source of that thing, which can be described as the vision, or rather, as I describe
it, the ideal. Ni's focus is on finding out everything it can about the very nature of this
ideal—what it means, what it could be, where it came from, where it's going, etc. An abundance
of conjectures are made about the nature of this inner image. Each subsequent insight, vision,
possibility, notion, or idea is, in some manner, connected and consequently synthesized with this
ideal, so that it becomes more and more complete.
As intuition’s concern is with conjecturing on the general nature of a situation, and introversion’s
concern is with an archetypal ideal, Ni’s concern is with an absolute, ideal essence. Furthermore,
in the example of the cat impression with Si vs Ne, Ni's focus isn't on the multitude of specific
37
37
categories of cat, but the singular overall essence of the cat as a whole. For Si, certain cats relate
to a specific, ideal category of the cat. For Ni, all cats relate to the ideal theme of the cat.
This leads to my next point which is that Si types are more analytical than Ni types. Compared to
Si, Ni is more intuitive, which is pretty self-evident. But people, when comparing Si types and Ni
types, see Ni types as more analytical than Si types, and it’s probably due to a bias against
sensation. Ni types are seen as more introspective, intellectual, and therefore analytical. But
analysis is the breaking down of something to differentiate its fundamental components, and
multiple dictionaries characterize this process as ‘detailed.’
Ni does not analyze information. Ni synthesizes information. I’ve already established this. It
integrates and merges elements into one whole. Si does not merge elements, but differentiates
them in order to get a concrete understanding for each of them. Ni instinctively grasps the big
picture of something, and synthesizes or centralizes information in accordance with that big
picture.
This is represented by two opposing schools of thought in philosophy and science, called
Reductionism and Holism. Reductionistic practices are characterized by breaking a complex
phenomenon down into more fundamental elements. Holistic practices are characterized by
studying a phenomenon in accordance with how it relates to the whole, rather than its
fundamental parts. Holism believes that the parts cannot exist without the whole, and that the
whole is greater than the sum of its parts. All in all, Si is reductionistic while Ni is holistic.
And as said before, Pi is concerned with meaning, which gives rise to implications of symbolism
concerning Si and Ni. Si's symbolism is extremely mundane and everyday, to put it bluntly. It
sees symbolism in the little things and shows appreciation for the little things. If you've ever seen
The Office, think of Pam's paintings of objects from her workplace. One of them is a stapler, and
another is of a vase with roses inside of it. Empirically speaking, Si doesn't really notice or
acknowledge that it's being symbolic, due to its focus on what is concretely given, and therefore
doesn't really enjoy symbolism. Michael Pierce puts it best:
A useful contrast might be between Freud (an Si type) and Jung (an Ni type). Freud’s
‘wisdom’ was both based on and revolved around things themselves, often the countless
dreams, experiences and emotions of his patients, which he stuck to in his development
of all his theories… Jung, however, always tended to enter speculative territory more
freely, making far grander associations between things, branching off into different
subjects in ways Freud never did.38
38
Michael Pierce, Jung’s Categories of Judgement and Perception
38
Ni's symbolism enters into the big-picture realm, to which Si sees this as pointless
philosophizing. So from this we could just say that Si does enter the realm of significance and
meaning, but Ni enters the realm of symbolism, as it is more speculative than meaning itself.
Ni’s search for an absolute ideal gives rise to the fact that Ni is searching for more of a grand
meaning compared to Si, and this search is a bit more unquenchable.
Furthermore, Si and Ni are perfectionistic. But Si’s perfectionism is that of meticulousness,

conscientiousness; an eye for every detail. Ni’s perfectionism is that of an idealism; an eye for
the big picture, which leads me to my next point.
While Si is timeless, Ni is a bit more future-oriented, but both have an eye or preference for the
long-term. As stated before, the intuitive function is known to speculate, conjecture, and guess
on the future possibilities of a situation. Ni however, intuits an ideal future possibility, due to its
introverted nature. It conjectures on where a situation is going to go; it observes a trend over
time. And this is one reason why the word ‘vision’ is used for Ni. It’s intuitive apprehension of
archetypal patterns is what allows it to prophetically predict future events, or envision a future
purpose. This is part of why Ni is concerned with symbolic meaning. Ni envisions some future
phenomenon that gives Ni’s life a certain kind of purpose.
So again, Ni is future-oriented in comparison to Si. But both are oriented toward the long-term.
Si seeks out experiences that are able to be endured throughout time, and for that reason, it is
oriented toward the long-term. Ni is oriented toward the long-term because its concern is on the
vision of the future. Let’s say Si and Ni are conceiving a five-year plan. Si will be more
concerned with what is going to happen within those five years. It is concerned with each detail.
Ni will be more concerned with the significance of the fifth year, skipping over the middle work
in favor of the big-picture ideal. In a nutshell, Ni can be summarized as preferring an abstract
ideal. As Michael Pierce stated:
In the spirit of intuition, the [Ni type] has a way of making uncanny leaps and bounds
with their ideas, sometimes appearing ahead of their time; however, what they gain in
foresight they lose in thoroughness. … For example, consider Isaac Newton and Nikola
Tesla [both Ni types]. Both made extraordinary leaps and bounds in their fields to the
point that both were hailed as magicians, but these were, once again, leaps and bounds,
which skip a lot of middle work in-between, giving an impression of mad determination
and inhuman focus on their work until organization and important details are of no
importance compared to the acquisition of their goal.39
39
Michael Pierce, The Sixteen Types: INTJ
39
Ni vs Ne
While Ne is seeking to intuit the widest range of possibilities in the objective situation, Ni seeks
to intuit an ideal archetypal possibility in a situation. Ne likes breadth of insight, while Ni likes
depth of insight. Furthermore, since the extroversion of Ne accepts the object on its own terms,
the connection of each concept that Ne intuits is more loose than that of Ni. As Boye Akinwande
and Ryan Smith from IDRLabs stated:
Ne remains in contact with the information that is objectively given to a greater extent
that Ni does and thus allows each “dot” in the overall pattern to retain its original identity
instead of subsuming it to a scheme that would fit a comprehensive synthesis better (such
as Ni tends to do).40
They furthermore describe Ne’s insights as “an inclusive mosaic of ‘dots,’ each of which are
accepted on their own terms.”41 Essentially, since Ne is extroverted, and since it seeks the widest
range of insight, it likes to disperse its insights. Ni on the other hand seeks to centralize each
insight by connecting them all to an ideal, archetypal insight. Ni also synthesizes insights, while
Ne merely connects them. In the Intuition section of this documentation, I stated that Intuition
can be summarized as a network of insights. But Ne represents a distributed network while Ni
represents a centralized network. Each insight that Ne apprehends is to be related to one
another, but distributed across a wide area, almost like each insight stands on its own, due to the
extraversion of Ne
This also says something about the types of patterns that Ne and Ni apprehend. Ne apprehends a
sort of overarching, extensive pattern, much like a big connect the dots puzzle. Their patterns are
mosaic and kaleidoscopic. Ni apprehends an underlying pattern; so basically a recurring theme; a
central idea. Their patterns are holistic and unified.
Ne detects a pattern of a situation by quickly envisioning its different permutations. A Wikipedia

article on permutations gives a good example of how Ne thinks on a regular basis: “There are six
permutations of the set {1,2,3}, namely: (1,2,3), (1,3,2), (2,1,3), (2,3,1), (3,1,2), and (3,2,1).”42
Ne emphasizes each possible variation from one given thing. It’s like looking at something from
different angles.
Earlier I stated that Ne connects the dots, to which I owe that epithet to IDRLabs.43 The same
people have also stated that Ni ‘fills in the blanks,’ which basically means it's seeking to unravel
40
See footnote 7
41
Again, see footnote 7
42
Wikipedia, Permutation
43
IDRLabs, Cognitive Functions at a Glance
40
an underlying answer, or the underlying answer. The more blanks that are filled, the more vivid
the vision or idea that Ni sees before it. It is trying to complete an incomplete image.
Since Ni is seeking an absolute ideal to experience, it is seeking out a ‘higher consciousness.’ It

is seeking to experience ‘the sublime.’ Ne sees this as overly mystical, because to Ne, we are
limited to insights and representations from the outer world. Ne believes that we do not have
direct access to some essential ideal, or absolute essence; we only have roundabout ways of
perceiving it. To Ne, we can only perceive the ideal’s various representations.
Jung stated of Ni, "The archetype would be ... the noumenon of the image which [Ni] perceives
and, in perceiving, creates."44 For those who don’t know what a noumenon is, it is basically a
thing per se; a thing in-itself; or a thing’s intrinsic essence. A noumenon is contrasted from a
phenomenon, but not a phenomenon in the everyday sense of the word, such as a fact or event. A
phenomenon in this case is a thing as it is perceived by a person. So this connects back to my
statements about Ni seeking an absolute ideal.
These terms ‘noumenon’ and ‘phenomenon’ were used by the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who
is an INTP, who has secondary Ne and tertiary Si. Kant's perception is explicitly roundabout. To
Kant, the noumenon is unattainable, because our sensations are subjective (Si), and our intuitions
are objective (Ne), meaning we color and endow the world with representations of our own
consciousness; i.e., we only perceive ‘phenomena.’ Take Ni types such as Jung, Hegel,
Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, who have insisted that the idea of a noumenon or something like it
actually is attainable and have attained it via reaching and achieving a higher, ideal
consciousness (Ni). All that being said, Ni does coincide with the idea of mysticism, which is
defined as the experience of being in accord with something called ‘the absolute,’ which is the
ultimate, transcendent reality, which encompasses the totality of all existence.
Another epithet that IDRLabs used for distinguishing Ne vs Ni is that Ne goes from the one to
the many, while Ni goes from the many to the one.45 This basically means that Ne perceives
various permutations of a situation. It has a multifaceted perception of a situation. Ni perceives
things in accordance with some ideal vision or overall essence, so each insight that Ni has is
synthesized or connected to this ideal. It has a more singular perception of a situation. While Ne
elaborates and expands its insights, Ni condenses and summarizes its insights.
To clear up a misconception, both Ni and Ne can actually have a plethora of ideas come to mind.
It is the basis of these ideas that are different; and what each function does with these ideas is
44
45
See footnote 43
41
different, as elaborated on before. It’s an erroneously oversimplified view that only an Ne type
can come up with all these ideas.
Ni vs Ti
Both Ni and Ti are looking for a complete understanding of a situation. But the difference is that
Ti is analytical while Ni is holistic. While Ti breaks things down into elementary principles and
creates an architectural system as a basis for a precise understanding, Ni intuitively takes hold of
a set of insights and synthesizes them into an absolute whole. Furthermore, Ni, looking for the
big picture, likes a more concise intuitive understanding of a situation. Both are concerned with
the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of things, but Ti is concerned more with the ‘how’ than the ‘why’ and
Ni is concerned more with the ‘why’ than the ‘how.’ Ni is not concerned with developing a
thorough understanding of the underlying mechanics of something. While Ti represents
something of a mathematical formula, Ni represents something of a keyword that represents a
central theme.
All of the cognitive functions but Si and Ni have been defined. So, after all of what was just
stated about Si and Ni, we can define Si as viewing things from the lens of stability—thoroughly
accumulating and archiving verified experience to gain a total and reliable grounding in a
situation.
And we can define Ni as viewing things from the lens of centralizing—forming and pursuing a
quintessential idea by merging symbolic visions and insights into a greater whole.
42
The Function Axes
As this is a thorough explanation of the cognitive functions, I will now proceed to the dynamics
of the cognitive functions. As stated before, Jungian typology is based on a system of opposites.
If someone prefers extroversion they will repress introversion. If someone prefers thinking they
will repress feeling. And so if someone prefers Te, they will repress Fi. However, one cannot
function or exist without the other. The Yin cannot exist without the Yang. I think that concept
speaks for itself, so a denial of the function axes is quite nonsensical, in my opinion.
The thing with the function axes is that they are unified in accordance with one overall basis, just
like the opposing concepts of ‘heat’ and ‘cold’ are unified through the concept of ‘temperature.’
● With the Te/Fi axis, Te’s plans and goals cannot exist without Fi’s motivations and ideals,
and Fi needs to know what they're being motivated by via Te.
● With Fe/Ti, both cognitive functions are seeking to be impartial. Fe needs Ti to recognize
universal validity, and Ti needs Fe to put a class or collection of objects under a uniting
abstract principle.
● With Se/Ni, Se needs to know what the object's nature is in order to interact with it, and
Ni needs to recognize the simplicity of them in order to essentialize its perceptions to said
simplicity.
● With Ne/Si, Ne needs Si to collect any information from its hypotheses and experiments,
and Si needs Ne in order to test out how reliable its perceptions are. Furthermore, Ne
needs Si as a starting point for connecting information with other information, and Si
needs to recognize Ne’s variability in order to form a fully secure impression.
The Te/Fi Axis
The Te/Fi axis operates on the basis of a ‘hypothetical imperative,’ which means that it makes
decisions based on its personal inclinations based on the particular situation. It asks what it
desires via Fi, and formulates how it can attain what it desires via Te. Furthermore, Te/Fi sees
things as their own thing. In relation to humans, you are you, and I am me. This is due to Te’s
basis for particularized facts, and Fi’s lens of individuality. Furthermore, Te has a tendency to put
things under some hierarchy based on how functional or effective they are. It arranges the nature
of things in accordance with ranks, referring to their relative importance, external credibility, or
impact on the outer world. For Te/Fi, truths are comparatively valid, based on circumstance or
context. Te focuses on how these truths can be pragmatically functional, and Fi focuses on how
these truths apply to the individual.
So then Te/Fi can be summarized as being characterized by the exclusive distinct properties of
objects. Te is characterized by the hierarchy of things based on their cogency. Fi is characterized
43
by the empathic individuality of objects. And overall, Te/Fi is guided by an ideal created by
oneself.
The Fe/Ti Axis
The Fe/Ti axis operates on the basis of a ‘categorical imperative,’ which means that it makes
decisions based on an impersonal, absolute, natural law. It asks how it can unite things in
accordance with a principle, so it sees things in accordance with a commonality. In relation to
humans, it sees others as an extension of itself. Ti creates an archetypal principle of ‘human’ and
Fe unites people in accordance with this archetype. For Fe/Ti, there are universal truths that
govern everything and everyone. Ti is focused on how these truths can be analyzed and
technically understood. Fe is focused on how these truths implicitly harmonize the world and
abstractly unify the things around them.
Before I move on, I must first describe what ontology is. It is the philosophical study of the
fundamental nature of things that exist. So then, I will now explain how these relate with the two
judging axes. They are concerned with ontology, because they deal with how we define the
nature of our existence; i.e. what the fundamental criteria for things are.
Fe/Ti types tend to stress ontological unity. Again, Fe/Ti focus more on the abstract, theoretical
commonalities of things. Te/Fi types on the other hand tend to stress ontological dichotomy.
Things fundamentally differ from one another.
While Te/Fi seeks to harmonize with a personal standard by either fulfilling plans or living by
personal ideals, Fe/Ti seeks to harmonize with an impersonal standard by either cultivating the
values that come from this standard and consequently accommodating to it, or by setting out
universal principles to understand the mechanics of this standard. Furthermore, Te/Fi types tend
to emphasize self-actualization; becoming more of yourself, becoming more of who you already
are, while Fe/Ti types emphasize self-transformation; becoming something different.
Te/Fi evaluates things on a case-by-case basis. Te does this through induction, while Fi does this
through individualizing. Fe/Ti evaluates things on an ‘all things being equal’ basis. Fe does this
through consensus, while Ti does this through deduction.
So then, Fe/Ti is characterized by basic commonalities of objects. Fe is characterized by

establishing harmony with and between objects. Ti is characterized by deciphering the abstract
principle that underlies a species of objects. And overall, Fe/Ti is guided by an ideal more
important than oneself.
44
Ti is also individualistic and independent-minded, yes. In relation to other people, it realizes that
each person has their own internal set of justifications, or their own personal code. It furthermore
highlights the autonomous rationality of others. Ti’s trust in other’s rationality implies its trust in
them coming to the same conclusion.
The Se/Ni Axis
The Se/Ni axis operates on the basis of ‘dogmatism,’ despite the negative sense of the word.
What I mean by dogmatism is that Se/Ni sees its perceptions as absolutely and undeniably the
case. The perception is quite obvious in its eyes. Se/Ni directly observes a situation in its totality,
in which the ideal nature or overall gist of the situation starts to emerge. In Michael Pierce’s
words, Se/Ni is about getting to the bottom line. Se/Ni represents Occam’s Razor; the simplest
possible hypothesis is most likely the correct one.
Se/Ni is singular. It focuses on a particular situation, most usually the situation at hand, or where
the situation is ultimately heading. Se/Ni is also described as ‘intense’ because of its singularity.
It is focused on some particular idea or situation. Ni’s singularity does not however remove its
completeness or comprehensiveness. Ni is only looking for the big picture of a particular
singular situation.
So then, Se/Ni is characterized by a singular, concentrated summary of information. Se is

characterized by the raw, obvious, and simplified facts in the present. Ni is characterized by a
transcendent, centralized, and concise ideal of the facts involved. Se/Ni is guided by confident
aphorisms.
The Ne/Si Axis
The Ne/Si axis operates on the basis of ‘fallibilism,’ which means that it sees direct or empirical
experience as uncertain. Knowledge is gathered through questioning, investigation or research
about a thing. Instead of directly observing the thing itself like Se/Ni, it indirectly examines the
thing. That explanation, of course, isn’t really clear so let me provide an example. Let’s say that
Ne/Si wants to learn about a book. Before reading the book itself, Ne/Si may investigate
summaries about the book from various sources. Ne is the investigation of each source, while Si
is the accumulation of all the reliable information from these sources. This is just an illustrative
example of the nature of Ne/Si, as it is not what Ne/Si would literally or necessarily do in this
situation. So Ne/Si is just a representation of exploring various summaries and accumulating the
important details.
45
To illustrate the nature of Ne/Si, Michael Pierce used the image of a multifaceted diamond.46 Ne
represents each facet, while Si represents the rendering of the diamond as a whole. So basically
when Ne/Si observes an object, Ne considers that object in multiple situations, while Si takes
note of what would happen in that situation. In the Si section of this documentation I mentioned
what would happen when Ne and Si examine a cat. To elaborate on that point again, Si gathers
knowledge about the cat, while Ne seeks to see how this knowledge of the cat applies to various
conceptions of it. The basic category of the cat remains the same via Si, but Ne explores this
basic category in every conceivable way. What is this cat like in these various situations? In
other words, it’s a bit more experimental than Se/Ni.
While Se/Ni is more singular and deep, Ne/Si is more multifaceted, generalized and broad. As
IDRLabs stated, Ne/Si will draw upon multiple perspectives at once via Ne.47 And these multiple
perspectives will generate an overall, solidified knowledge base via Si. In comparison, IDRLabs
stated that Se/Ni will stress one point of view.48 This refers to the overall perspective of the
current situation via Se, or the perspective of the singular overall idea via Ni. In Michael Pierce’s
words, Se/Ni types demonstrate a commitment to their perspective.
Again, to be as thorough as possible, so as to avoid misconception, both Ne/Si and Se/Ni types
can have lots of ideas in their mind. However, their interpretations and attitudes towards these
multiple ideas are what matter here. Ne/Si is inclined to highlight the potential of every idea it
sees, while for Se/Ni, it doesn’t matter how many ideas it generates, as long as it comes to an
overall, singular point of view. The quotation from a DC villain named Clifford Devoe, also
known as ‘The Thinker’ sums up my point pretty well. He stated, “There is not a decimal, a
fraction, an infinitesimal variable beyond my thought. Even now, of the 7,798 variations of this
argument, I have anticipated them all and know how it ends. [It ends] the only way it can end.
With my victory.”49 One would think at first that Ne/Si is the preferred function axis here but you
see that he is stressing one point of view here, rather than multiple perspectives at one. He
doesn’t think the possibility of his interlocutor winning the argument is an ideal possibility (Ni),
or a realistic capacity (Se).
Furthermore, while Michael Pierce gave the illustration of a multifaceted diamond for Ne/Si, he
alternatively gave the image of a line-of-best-fit on a scatter plot for representing Se/Ni.50 Se
represents the collected data; the set of points, while Ni represents the actual line-of-best-fit.
Again, Se/Ni is about getting to the bottom line; getting to the crux or essence of the situation.
But Ne/Si sees more than one ‘essence’ so to speak. It sees more than one ‘big picture.’ There is
46
Michael Pierce, The Perception Axes
47
Ryan Smith and Eva Gregersen, Determining Function Axes Part 1
48
See footnote 47
49
The Flash, Season 4 Episode 6
50
See footnote 46
46
more than one to account for. All in all, Ne/Si prefers to cross-examine and cross-check things.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary encapsulates the process of Ne/Si quite well with their definition of
‘cross-check,’ which is defined as “[checking] something from various angles or sources to
determine validity or accuracy.”
So then, the Ne/Si axis is characterized by a cautiously compiled encyclopedia of information.

Ne is characterized by experimenting between a wide range of concepts and their connections. Si
is characterized by the meticulous storage of categorized knowledge, and its reliability. Ne/Si is
guided by tentative elaboration.
The Perceiving Axes
A Perciean description of each perceiving axis was given by a YouTube commenter named
Angel Rodarte Jr:
Se/Ni Conjecturing Axis: Making the most of data in the vividness of the here and now to
reach the highest pitch of actuality and get immediate results (Se) and assimilating
previous insights with current ones to make comprehensive, condensed, and synthesized
insights (predictions/visions) from enough collected data. (Ni)
These types may have a certain immediacy to them where they're able to work out results
when they feel they've collected enough data to act on, making them seem confident and
focused. These types are able to run on (although not all the time) on as little and
simplified information as possible, accepting things as they are and professing
comprehensive solutions, not splitting hairs over ’correct’ data and multifaceted inquiries.
However, because of their narrow focus and intense commitment to this collected data
(whatever it may be) they may miss other important insights and information, preferring
to work on the information they think is important now.
Ne/Si Examining Axis: Viewing data from as many different creative perspectives as
possible, always trying to find new patterns and information from this multifaceted
search (Ne) and the thorough, meticulous composition of tried and true practical
information to render the ideal abstractions of physical reality and generally true
information. (Si)
These types tend to distrust the observations and insights of the here and now, seeing that
data must be tested and viewed from multiple angles before receiving any sort of
commitment (cautious nature). These types can build a clear and factual view of the
world because of their constant collection of data, insights, and information, not just
simply accepting things because of direct experience or intellectual conjectures.
However, because of this anti-dogmatic and uncommitted attitude towards information,
they may have trouble settling or working with information that they currently have,
always seeming to have the need to collect more.51
51
See footnote 46
47
Essential Quotes about Each Type from the Foundations
So now that I’ve established what I needed to about each cognitive function and their dynamics,
the following will be a set of essential and slightly paraphrased quotations of the cognitive
functions by the foundations of Jungian typology (Jung, J.H. Van der Hoop, Marie-Louise Von
Franz, and Isabelle Myers).
"[Te's] constant aim — as it is a pure type — is to fulfill its total life-activities into relation with
logical conclusions, which are always oriented by … objective facts or generally valid ideas. …
[Te] gives deciding weight to an objectively oriented logical formula for [itself] and [its]
environment. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the [outer] world, it
becomes a world-law which must be achieved or applied at all times and places, both
individually and collectively. … Just as the [Te] type subordinates themselves to their formula …
their entourage must also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong — he is resisting
the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience."
— C.G. Jung: Psychological Types, §585
"The [Te] type is guided by the structures and laws of thought, as these have been taught to him
by his educator. … Facts are only thinkable for Te as parts of an organized reality. … The system
according to which the extraverted thinker arranges their facts is also held to be objective... They
order their facts critically and with great care… In addition, they also make use of their
knowledge at an early age, so as themselves to be regarded as authorities"
— J.H. Van der Hoop: Conscious Orientation, pp. 61-62
"This type is to be found among organizers... [They] establish order... They put clarifying order
into the outer situation. … The emphasis will always be upon the object, not on the idea. … Such
a man might spend his whole life settling problems, re-organizing firms, and stating things
clearly"
— Marie-Louise Von Franz: Lectures on Jung’s Typology, pp. 47-48
"[Te] relies on facts outside of the thinker, which are more decisive than the thinking itself, for
soundness and value. [It] has as its goal the solution of practical problems, discovery and
classification of facts, criticism and modification of generally accepted ideas, planning of
programs, and developing of formulas. [They] organize the facts—and everything else within
reach. … [They] value truth in the form of fact, formula, and method."
48
— Isabelle Briggs Myers: Gifts Differing, pp. 78 & 85
"Facts are [seen] as examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. What is of paramount
importance is the development and presentation of the inner idea. … Its desire is to reach truth,
and to see how external facts fit into the framework of the idea. This thinking … creates an idea
which, though not present in the external facts, is the most abstract, theoretical expression of the
external facts. … The idea derives its convincing power from the underlying archetype, which
has universal validity and everlasting truth. … [Ti's] style is contained by all sorts of …
qualifications … which comes from its precision. It forms theories for the sake of theories."
— C.G. Jung: Psychological Types, §628-630
"While the strength of [Te] lies in [its] easy application of systematized knowledge, [Ti] is
particularly good at comparing systems and principles. [They] feel at home among abstractions,
and there are many fine shades of meaning in the world of their ideas. ... At times such people
will go to great pains to express themselves as clearly as possible, but sometimes they give up
the attempt and simply present their views in the form in which they arose. ... They aim at
having, at least inwardly, a foundation of pure and definite principles for the ordering of their
lives."
"The main activity of this type is not so much trying to establish order in outer objects; it is more
concerned with [establishing order in] ideas. Someone who would say that one should not start
with facts, but first clarify one's ideas, would belong to the [Ti] type. All philosophy is concerned
with the logical processes of the human mind, with the building up of ideas, which is the realm
where [Ti] is mostly at work. In science these are the people who are perpetually trying to … get
back to basic concepts and ask what we are really doing mentally."
— Marie-Louise Von Franz: Lectures on Jung’s Typology, p. 51
"[Ti] depends upon the abstract idea as the decisive factor, and values facts chiefly as illustrative
proofs of the idea. [It] seizes upon the [abstract] similarities of the concrete case, dismissing
irrelevancies. … [Ti types] are analytical and impersonal [and are] interested primarily in the
underlying principles."

49
"The extravert’s feeling is always in harmony with objective values. … There is a benevolent
intention in Fe to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as
agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. … Without
this feeling, a beautiful and harmonious sociability would be unthinkable. … It is of the highest
importance for [Fe] to establish an intense feeling of rapport with the environment."
"The [Fe type] lives entirely for contacts of feeling with other people. … All the actions,
thoughts, and observations of people of this type are governed by the effort to establish
relationships of feeling with other people. … In their experience, feeling attitudes are things of
objective value."
— J.H. Van der Hoop: Conscious Orientation, pp. 82
"The [Fe] type is characterized by the fact that their main adaptation is carried by an adequate
evaluation of outer objects and an appropriate relation to them. This type will therefore make
friends very easily; will have very few illusions about people... These are well adjusted, very
reasonable people who roll along amiably through society... They spread a kind of atmosphere of
acceptance, and it is agreeable."
"[Fe] depends wholly upon the ideals … of the environment… [It] finds value outside of the
individual in the collective ideals of the community… [It] has as its goal the formation and
maintenance of easy and harmonious emotional relationships with other people."
"It is, as it were, continually seeking an [ideal] which has no existence in reality. … It strives
after an inner intensity. [With sensitivity] … it shrinks from the brutality of the object, in order to
expand into the depths of the subject. … [Fi reveals] a delightful repose; a sympathetic
parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in
any way. Whereas an extensive feeling of sympathy [Fe] can express itself in both word and
deed at the right place … an intensive sympathy [Fi] … gains a passionate depth that embraces
the misery of a world."

50
"The [Fi type] finds support and guidance by shaping [their] own feeling-attitudes in accordance
with an inner ideal. Feeling aims more especially at an inner harmony. [Their inner security]
leads to deep feeling, and to a strange mixture of inner tenderness and passionate conviction.
[They will express themselves] when, in a state of high emotional excitement, they stand up for a
threatened ideal."
"They have a highly differentiated scale of values, but they do not express them outwardly; they
are affected by them within. … With a kind of silent loyalty, and without any explanation, they
turn up in places where important and valuable inner [standards] … are to be found.They also
generally exert a positive secret influence on their surroundings by setting [their own example].
… [Fi] types very often form the ethical backbone of a group."
"[Fi] depends upon abstract feeling ideals such as love, religion, and loyalty, and is deep and
passionate rather than extensive. … [Fi] has as its goal the fostering and protection of an intense
inner emotional life, and, so far as possible, the outer fulfillment and realization of the inner
ideal. [It] values, above all, harmony in the inner life of feeling. [Fi types] are best at individual
work involving personal values—in art, literature, science, psychology, or the perception of
needs. [They] maintain independence from the judgment of others, being bound by inner moral
law."
"[Se] is not sensual nor gross, for it may differentiate its sensation to the finest pitch of aesthetic
purity. … [Se's] sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. … Sensation for [Se] is a
concrete expression of life—it is simply real life lived to the fullest. … Everything essential has
been said and done by what it perceives. … [Se] strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality."
— C.G. Jung: Psychological Types, §606-607 & 612
"[The Se type] very quickly becomes at home in the world of facts and things. If an object
catches their attention, they at once seize hold of it... Facts perceived through the senses remain
for people of this type the only reality. They are, to an extreme degree, realists. … They are thus
strongly influenced by their environment, but are [nonetheless] not entirely passive within it..."
51
"Such people observe everything, smell everything, and on entering a room know almost at once
how many people are present. … The [Se] type has the best photographic apparatus, as it were;
he can quickly and objectively relate to outer facts. … Good taste is also generally present."
— Marie-Louise Von Franz: Lectures on Jung’s Typology, pp. 27-28
"[Se] sees things photographically, the impression being one of concrete reality and nothing
more. … [It] leads to concrete enjoyment, seizing very fully the momentary and manifest
existence of things… [Se] develops attention that is riveted by the strongest stimulus, which
invariably becomes the center of interest, so that life seems wholly under the influence of
accidental outer happenings. [Se types] are realistic, matter-of-fact and practical, adaptable,
usually easy-going, very much at home in the world, tolerant of others and of themselves,
endowed with a great capacity for enjoying life and a zest for experience of all kinds, fond of
concrete facts and good at [practical] details."
"[Si seeks to] create a definite inner impression. … The decisive thing [for Si] is not the reality
of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the [archetypal impressions]. [The reality
of Si's impressions] create an ideal mirror-world [or an inner reality]. This [reality] represents
things not in their known form [Se], but rather in an enduring and eternal form. … Si transmits
an image which does not necessarily reproduce the object, but rather spreads over it the
[impression] of age-old subjective experience as well as events that are still unborn."
"The attention of [Si] is not directed primarily to the source of sensation, but to its so-called
‘feeling-tone’ [:the overall quality of an experience]. [Si] loves an environment with which they
have become familiar. Anything strange or new has at first no attraction for them; but they offer
little active resistance to it and soon learn to accept the good in it. … This lends to their lives a
certain solid comfort, although it may lead to somewhat ponderous caution, if instinct becomes
too deeply attached to all kinds of minor details. The advantages and disadvantages of this type
are well brought out in the reserved and conservative farmer, with his care for his land and his
beasts, and his tendency to carry on everything, down to the smallest detail, in the same old way.
[Another example] of this type [is] the painter, who manages to express a deep [detailed]
experience in the presentation of ordinary things."
52
"[Mrs. Jung, who is an Si type herself,] said that [Si] was like a highly sensitized photographic
plate. When somebody comes into the room, such a type notices the way the person comes in,
the hair, the expression on the face, the clothes, and the way the person walks. All this makes a
very precise impression on the [Si] type; every detail is absorbed."
"[Si] leads to ideas, through the activation of archetyp[al experience]… [Si types] are systematic,
painstaking, and thorough. [They] are very hard working; they are the most practical of the
introverted types. [They] are conspicuous for patience and willing application to detail. [They]
make an excellent adaptation to routine."
"The primary function of intuition is to transmit images, or perceptions of connections between

things … [Ne] tries to apprehend the widest range of possibilities. … For a time, objects seem to
have an inflated value, if they should serve to bring about a solution, a deliverance, or lead to the
discovery of a new possibility. … Facts are acknowledged only if they open new possibilities. It
seizes hold of new objects and new facets, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to
abandon them as soon as their potential is fully known and no further developments can be
envisioned."
"The vision of the [Ne type] is directed chiefly on relationships in the external world… [They
are] also readily able to grasp the views of others. Intuition sees in the external world all manner
of connections in an original way, and is charged with a mission to realize certain possibilities."
— J.H. Van der Hoop: Conscious Orientation, p. 42
"A sensation type would call this object a bell, but [an Ne type] would envisage all sorts of
things you could do with it. … In everything there is a possibility of development. Intuition is …
the capacity for intuiting that which is not yet visible … [inherent] in the background of a
situation. The [Ne] type applies this to the outer world and therefore will score very high in
surmising the future outer developments around them."

53
"[Ne] regards the immediate situation as a prison from which escape is urgently necessary and
aims to escape by means of some sweeping change in the objective situation. … [Ne types] are
alert to all the possibilities. … [They] have lives that are likely to be a succession of projects.
[They] are tireless at what interests them, but find it hard to get other things done. [They] are
versatile, often startlingly clever, enthusiastic, easy with people, and full of ideas."
"[Ni] perceives the image that gave rise to the impression. … It adheres to [this] vision,
observing with fascination, how the image … unfolds. … [Ni] apprehends the images which
arise from the archetypes. The archetype in this case would be the [essence] of the image. … The
peculiar nature of [Ni], when given the priority, produces a peculiar type of man: the mystical …
seer on the one hand, or the zealot and artist on the other. [Ni] feels bound to transform its vision
into its own life. [The Ni type] tends to rely exclusively upon their vision … They make themself
and their life symbolic, adapted to the inner and eternal symbols of events, but unadapted to the
actual present-day reality."
"It is not primarily their own personal inner life that they grasp [intuitively], but rather inner life
in general; the inner nature of things. The aim of intuition here is to perceive the ideal essence of
all things—animate and inanimate, and in their inter-relations. These questions ... lead us to that
of metaphysics. … The highest form of this function would imply a capacity for perceiving the
deeper meaning of everything. … Their thought remains aphoristic, and is often expressed in
paradoxes."
"In psychological language we should say that [the Ni type] knows about the slow processes
which go on in the collective unconscious, the archetypal changes, and they communicate them
to society. ... They generally are artists who produce very archetypal and fantastic material, such
as you find in Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra"

54
"[Ni] finds its greatest value [lying] in the interpretation of life and the promotion of
understanding. [Ni types] are driven by their inner vision of the possibilities. [They] are
determined to the point of stubbornness. … [They] are willing to concede that the impossible
takes a little longer—but not much. … [They have] fine insight into the deeper meanings of
things and with a great deal of drive.”

55
Summary
So now that I’ve fully established what I needed to with each cognitive function and their
dynamics, the following will be a description of each cognitive function and a subsequent
definition, followed by a more summarized description of the function axes.
Cognitive Function Descriptions & Definitions
Te creates formulas and methods by means of empirical reasoning and marshaling. Te prefers
information such as measurable, observable facts. The goal for Te is to carry out its formulas in
an efficient and effective manner.
Te is about Pragmatism: Arranging empirical data into practical laws and systems for optimizing
and implementing them accordingly.
Ti creates theorems, theories, and principles by means of deciphering and deduction. Ti prefers
information such as fundamental definitions and axioms. The goal for Ti is a precise, logical
understanding of things.
Ti is about Explication: Developing a precise, detached understanding of an idea by

deconstructing it into basic, abstract principles.
Fe creates harmony by means of coordination and accommodation. Fe prefers information such

as interpersonal human behavior and external values. The goal for Fe is to be agreeable and to
bring about consensus.
Fe is about Consensus: Forming harmonious relationships with others based on their common,
unifying standards and sentiments.
Fi creates personal ideals by means of empathy and individuation. Fi prefers information such as
its conscience; its inner sense of right and wrong. The goal for Fi is self-expression and
self-harmony.
56
Fi is about Romanticism: Cultivating an inner harmony from inner ideals and passions, and
seeing others as having innate selfhood.
Se creates "photographs" by means of capturing the data at hand. Se prefers information such as
observations of the current data. The end goal for Se is stimulation and achieving a flow state.
Se is about Realism: Actively making the most of the immediate, sensuous, and pronounced facts
to get pure clarity in the moment.
Si creates a comprehensive inner archive by means of cataloging and accumulating relevant

details. Si prefers information such as precedents and previously stored impressions of things in
the same category. The end goal for Si is to establish firm reliability, stability, and preservation.
Si is about Stability: Thoroughly accumulating and archiving verified experience to gain a total
and reliable grounding in a situation.
Ne creates hypotheses and hypotheticals by means of experimentation. Ne prefers information

such as possibilities and their loose connections. The goal for Ne is to discover more hypotheses
and hypotheticals to play around with.
Ne is about Cross-questioning: Exploring and playing around with loose ideas and all varying,
potential sources of insight and inquiry.
Ni forms a concise, complete, ideal image by means of encapsulation and synthesis. Ni prefers
information such as motifs and revealing visions; i.e. recurring and symbolic central ideas. The
goal for Ni is to achieve a higher consciousness and to grasp the essence of a situation.
Ni is about Centralizing: Forming and pursuing a quintessential idea by merging symbolic

visions and insights into a greater whole.
Function Axes Descriptions
● Se/Ni: Characterized by a singular, concentrated summary of information.

57
- Se: Characterized by the raw, obvious, and simplified facts in the present.
- Ni: Characterized by a transcendent, centralized, and concise ideal of the facts
involved.
- Se/Ni is guided by dogmatic aphorisms.
● Ne/Si: Characterized by a cautiously compiled encyclopedia of information.

- Ne: Characterized by experimenting between a wide range of insights and their
connections.
- Si: Characterized by the meticulous storage and cataloging of knowledge, and its
reliability.
- Ne/Si is guided by tentative elaboration.
● Fe/Ti: Characterized by basic commonalities of objects.

- Fe: Characterized by establishing harmony with and between objects.
- Ti: Characterized by deciphering the abstract principle that underlies a group of
objects.
- Guided by an ideal more important than oneself.
● Te/Fi: Characterized by the exclusive distinct properties of objects.

- Te: Characterized by the hierarchy of things based on their cogency.
- Fi: Characterized by the empathic individuality of objects.
- Guided by an ideal created by oneself.
58
Additional Notes
Better Terminology for Extroversion vs Introversion
The objective/subjective terminology leads to misleading claims about certain cognitive

functions. A better set of terms would be ‘external’ vs ‘internal.’
Te is concerned with external structure, external logic, and external standards of functionality in
the outer world. This refers to standards of efficiency, effectiveness, empirical validity, and
cogency. Ti is concerned with internal structure, internal logic, and the internal mechanics of
something. This refers to theory, deduction, structural integrity, and ‘noetic’ standards of
reasoning.
Fe is concerned with external harmony, external sentiment, and external values, while Fi is
concerned with internal harmony, internal sentiment, and internal values.
Se is concerned with external sensations; discerning the totality of things themselves with clarity.
Si is concerned with internal sensations; putting sensory experiences into archetypal, categorized
experiences.
Ne is concerned with external sources of insight and inquiry, while Ni is concerned with internal
insight: personal revelations, visions, etc.
Surface Level Traits From the Functions
If you are not able to decipher the fundamental cognition of someone, you can spot the typical
traits that emerge from the functions. Of course, it is not recommended to do so, but it’s helpful
for beginners.
● Ti is analytical while Te is goal-oriented and efficient.

● Fe is agreeable while Fi is individualistic.
● Si is thorough while Se is opportunistic.
● Ne is wandering while Ni is concentrated.
We can also compare opposing functions in the same attitude.
● Te is hierarchical while Fe is egalitarian.

● Ti is mathematical while Fi is moralistic.
● Se is grounded while Ne is speculative.
● Si is conscientious while Ni is idealistic.
59
IDRLabs gave insight on what the cognitive functions look like at a glance.52
Te is:
● Marshaling
● Business-like
● Self-evident
● Data-oriented
● Inductive
● Expedient: Pursuing goals without reflecting.
Ti is:
● Analyzing
● Pensive
● Elaborate
● Principle-oriented
● Deductive
● Consistent: reflecting without goals.
Fe is:
● Soothing
● Appropriate
● Norms
● Courteous and
● Societal
Fi is:
● Championing
● Sincere
● Ideals
● Passionate
● Individualistic.
Se is:
● Promoting
● Active
● Photographic
52
See footnote 42
60
● Capricious
● Improvisational
● Thrill-seeking
● Expansive.
Si is:
● Retaining
● Temperate
● Impression-based
● Persistent
● Habitual
● Receptive
● Restrained.
Ne is:
● Springy
● Cognizant
● Including
● Ever-inquisitive
● Connects the dots
● Associative, going from one to the many.
Ni is:
● Dogged
● Visionary
● Excluding
● Inquisitive-then-satisfied
● Fills in the blanks
● Synthesizing: going from many to the one.
IDRLabs did also give a set of definitions pertaining to the cognition of each type rather than
their traits.
● Te: Orientates everything by objective data, making objective reality the ruling principle
not only for its own affairs, but for its whole environment.
● Ti: Analyzes occurrences according to free-flowing principles which are followed
dispassionately to come the closest to an overall impartial understanding.
● Fe: Directs own sensitivity outwards to social situations and other people, achieving
unmatched rapport with others and creating joint moods and values that unite.
61
● Fi: Holds its own likes and dislikes isolated from the external environment and
expectations of others in order to achieve unparalleled purity of opinions, aesthetics, and
ideals.
● Se: Sees surroundings with unparalleled realism and discernment, seizes opportunities as
they arise and makes the most of them with the sky as the limit.
● Si: Forms a comprehensive mental archive of the facts that are known with certainty in
order to achieve an impressive and masterful command of the intricacies of their world.
● Ne: Generates a flurry of clever and loose ideas when it comes into contact with
intellectual novelty; quickly exhausts every new idea that the novelty affords and moves
on.
● Ni: Submerges previously assimilated insights into the depths of one's mind only to
suddenly have them resurface as ingenious, creative new syntheses.
Michael Pierce’s Descriptions of the Cognitive Functions
● Extraverted Thinking bases its judgment criteria on objective facts and data. It is
inductive, using collections of objective facts to form logical conclusions with which it
governs its life. It adheres to them obstinately, and is notorious for destroying anything in
their way. It’s goal-oriented, preferring to have a logical, definite destination to strive for
as efficiently as possible.53
- Judgement based on what is objectively denoted; i.e. empirical science54
● Introverted Thinking bases its judgment criteria on logical, but subjective, ideas. It is
deductive, seeking out all the [necessary] ramifications or effects of a set of premises,
building a virtual system in their mind. It seeks the logical integrity of a system over its
actual accomplishment in reality.
- Judgement based on what is subjectively denoted; i.e. a priori analysis
● Extraverted Feeling bases its judgment criteria on objective values or standards of

goodness. This makes it very accommodating, as it seeks to do things that are in
alignment with generally accepted standards of excellence or beauty, doing things
because they please and comfort in general.
- Judgement based on what is objectively connoted; i.e. agreement, democracy
● Introverted Feeling bases its judgment criteria on subjective values and passions. It has
deep seated feelings and intense inner passions, but they are inwardly turned so they are
not naturally expressed on the outside. They are also isolated to the subject alone, making
53
Michael Pierce, Jungian Typology in 6 Minutes
54
62
it naturally idiosyncratic and individualistic, valuing and respecting the right to live
according to the dictates of your own conscience and no one else’s.
- Judgement based on what is subjectively connoted; i.e. conscience, personal
values
● Extraverted Sensation perceives reality. This function has the most accurate and
down-to-earth understanding of reality, sharp and matter-of-fact as a photograph. It’s
incredibly realist; actual experience always trumps any abstract concept or idea for the
obvious reason that it is actual experience. Its ultimate motivation is better apprehension
and experience of what’s really going on in reality.
- Perceiving what is objectively denoted; i.e. on-site news report
● Introverted Sensation perceives subjective reality. This means that rather than perceiving
the object itself, it paints the object in its mind and stores the painting away to reference
when a similar situation arises. The painting thus imbues the experience with the
subject’s [impression] of it, and that impression, whether good or bad, is recalled in
similar situations. This makes it cautious when approaching the unknown and a tendency
towards routine because the routine has proven itself effective before.
- Perceiving what is subjectively denoted; i.e. diary, recounting
● Extraverted Intuition perceives possibilities. It can sense which ideas or objects have the
most potential, and predict the general vector that objects or ideas will take in the future.
This gives it both a skill and thirst for innovation, always trying to bring a new possibility
to fruition, looking at things from every angle in order to feed its creative thirst, which
lends it a distinct cleverness in solving problems but a notoriously fleeting attention span.
- Perceiving what is objectively connoted; i.e. seeing all possibilities, brainstorming
● Introverted Intuition perceives subjective possibilities. The opposite of extraverted

sensation, it relies the least upon the object. It may be inspired to contemplation by an
object, but rather than perceive where the object itself is going, it searches after possible
ideas or concepts the object inspires in the subject. It is a contemplative function, seeking
for more and more compelling ideas. Over time it weaves many ideas into one
compelling theory or vague vision that they must do something about. So although its
visions arose almost completely isolated from reality, it is for this very reason that they
can help add fresh ideas and understanding to the world when it presents its vision.
- Perceiving what is subjectively connoted; i.e. envisioning, divining
63
Jesse Gerrior’s Descriptions of the Cognitive Functions55
With the extroverted functions the person is not looking inward to access stored inner
impressions. They are looking outward, and they are focused on the actual object.
With Te it wants to know how the object is organized, how discrete it is in its context,
how it can be quantified, what exactly it is, what common behavior it exhibits, and what
amount of force sustains it in the outer world.
With Fe it wants to know the general feeling tone of the object (the object in this case
generally being people), what context the object exists in, whether there is harmony
among the object and its environment, the needs of the people, and different standard
behavior and rituals among them.
With Ne it’s what the object could become, how it could be transformed, the innovative
possibilities surrounding the object, what patterns the object exists in and how they can
be manipulated, and how changes could be made.
With Se it’s direct physical awareness of the object. What it’s like, how it feels, how it
will behave when manipulated, what it’s doing in the here and now and how it will
behave in the here and now.
Introverts need time to access their inner bank of stored impressions. Introversion is
about recognizing similarities in impressions that have already been assimilated into
consciousness. Whenever an introverted function encounters an object its concern is not
really with examining the object but rather with accessing their storehouse of previously
digested impressions. While this is true of all the introverted functions, it is most clearly
seen in the irrational introverted functions (Si and Ni) which do not occupy themselves
with judging the object, but which primarily seek to just soak up all impressions the
object evokes.
With Ti, we are concerned with stored thoughts, definitions, abstracted ideas, logical
conclusions, and other such things that are ultimately abstracted from the impression of
an object.
With Fi, we focus on stored emotional ideals. How does the object in question compare
to its most ideal incarnation, to emotions felt by me in the past, and to concentrated ideals
of the emotion?
With Si, it’s stored facts, physical sensations, what is reliable, stable, and agreeable to
instinct. How the object compares to previously experienced objects of the same type.
55
Jesse Gerroir, The Difference Between the Extroverted and Introverted Functions
64
With Ni, we ask how does the impression compare to all the connections, associations,
and patterns observed about the object largely revolving around the question from
whence did it come and where is it going?
A Vital Review of the Cognitive Functions
So, as stated in the beginning of my description of the nature of the cognitive functions, the
single most important premise regarding the nature of the cognitive functions is that they are
ways of psychological representations of the world around them.
Regarding the Je functions, they psychologically represent objects around them by cognizing
their order.
Te’s inner representations cognize a functional and utilitarian order upon the objects around it,
such as its establishment of hierarchical structures based on a thing’s functionality and cogency
in the outer world, or its establishment of an empirically based law that governs and optimizes
the data around it, or the formation of a methodology.
Fe’s inner representations cognize a harmonious order amongst the objects around it. It is prone
to form representations of objects where it discerns others as extensions themselves, or rather, as
all individuals as acting under a common ideal. Fe’s harmony does not have to be a good kind; at
bottom, Fe’s intentions are to discern or create particular uniting sentiments from an objective
standard. These sentiments can be good or bad, depending on the situation or the person.
Regarding the Ji functions, they psychologically represent objects by cognizing the abstract
principles that underlie the external order cognized by the Je functions.
Ti’s inner representations cognize the impersonal, abstract principles of “noetic” understanding.
The principles are derived from the unifying commonalities of objects (Fe). For example,
developing a theoretical understanding of the archetypal human being, or creating a framework
where its elements are consistent with one another, or cognizing an idea that has universal
validity.
Fi’s inner representations cognize the personal ideals pertaining to the individual. These ideals
are derived from the functional structure of objects (Te). For example, empathizing with the
underdogs who suffer from hierarchical imbalance. On an ontological level, Fi does not only
cognize the ideals pertaining to the individual but rather the pure individuality itself pertaining to
the object; seeing things as innately having their own unique properties.
65
Regarding the Pe functions, they psychologically represent objects by cognizing ways in which
they can receive fresh experiences, and the vast awareness these experiences bring about.
Se’s inner representations cognize an apprehension of the totality of facts as they simply are at
hand. Examples include a propensity to seize opportunities, or achieving a state of flow with the
moment. Se represents objects as they are directly given; as they clearly are, and it’s penchant for
the sensory reception of these objects entail an aesthetic attitude toward them.
Ne’s psychological representations cognize the paralleled variety of hypotheses that go beyond a
particular context and diverge into an extensive range of sources of insight and inquiry.
And regarding the Pi functions, they psychologically represent objects by cognizing the
archetypal experiences that underlie their various observations cognized by the Pe functions.
Si’s psychological representations cognize a detailed, comprehensive catalog of facts, and their
verification and solidification. This verification is derived from the investigation into alternative
sources (Ne). For example, knowing the intricacies of each particular tree so one can have a solid
and stable grasp of the entire forest.
Ni’s psychological representations cognize a quintessential, central idea of the particular facts
involved (Se). This singular idea is at the center of intuitive speculation and is developed through
synthesis of previous insights as more facts are experienced and observed.

A Very Thorough Explanation of The Cognitive Functions.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Very Thorough Explanation of The Cognitive Functions.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A very thorough explanation of the cognitive functions.

Made by ‘Stoic Philomath’

Jung’s typology is based on a system of opposites:

The Nature of Each Function

Thinking and Sensation

Feeling and Intuition

Extroverted Judging (Je) / Extroverted Rationality

Extroverted Thinking (Te)

In short, Te can be summarized as preferring the mechanical facts of a situation.

Extroverted Feeling (Fe)

In short, Fe can be summarized as evaluating the sentimental facts of a situation.

Introverted Judging (Ji) / Introverted Rationality

Introverted Thinking (Ti)

Te is inductive because both Te and induction seek a posteriori knowledge, depending on

Te is more predisposed toward interpreting objective reality on its own self-evident

Ti is very independent-minded. I specifically say ‘independent-minded’ rather than

My final point is that Te thinks economically, thinking in terms of

Ti thinks mathematically, thinking in terms of

And Ti views things from the lens of explication—Developing a precise, detached

Introverted Feeling (Fi)

Other distinctions concerning Fe and Fi is that Fe is sympathetic, while Fi is empathetic.

Nevertheless, in both translations, Jung mentioned that Fi “has to find an

about standards of proper conduct in an environment. Fe appeals to an external value-system,

[Side note: The “subjectivity” of introversion heavily depends on what

Extroverted Perceiving (Pe) / Extroverted Irrationality

Extroverted Sensation (Se)

Although being a perception function, Se is quite action-oriented. As stated before, perception

Te however, is concerned with the implementation of an organized system. Furthermore, Te is

adapting, while Te is structuring. Se can be referred to as direct perception, while Te can be

Extroverted Intuition (Ne)

In summation, we can describe Ne as preferring ‘notional’ facts, also known as hypotheses.

Introverted Perceiving (Pi) / Introverted Irrationality

Introverted Sensation (Si)

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy clarifies it a bit better than I do.

So Jung’s most important statement on Si was the following (paraphrased):

So basically, Si is developing a storage of archetypal but grounded impressions of reality, or a

Perhaps confusingly, some philosophies refer to tropes (instances of properties) as

● Receives from the object, the general impression.

To go into more detail as to why Si is meticulous, it is distrusting, doubtful, or wary of direct

Ti verifies knowledge through checking if something is deductively or ‘mathematically’

Introverted Intuition (Ni)

Paraphrased, Jung stated about Ni in comparison to Si:

Whereas Si is mainly constricted to the perception of a particular impression, and does

Furthermore, Si and Ni are perfectionistic. But Si’s perfectionism is that of meticulousness,

Ne detects a pattern of a situation by quickly envisioning its different permutations. A Wikipedia

Since Ni is seeking an absolute ideal to experience, it is seeking out a ‘higher consciousness.’ It

The Function Axes

The Te/Fi Axis

The Fe/Ti Axis

So then, Fe/Ti is characterized by basic commonalities of objects. Fe is characterized by

The Se/Ni Axis

So then, Se/Ni is characterized by a singular, concentrated summary of information. Se is

The Ne/Si Axis

So then, the Ne/Si axis is characterized by a cautiously compiled encyclopedia of information.

The Perceiving Axes

Essential Quotes about Each Type from the Foundations

Extroverted Thinking (Te)

— C.G. Jung: Psychological Types, §585

— J.H. Van der Hoop: Conscious Orientation, pp. 61-62

— Marie-Louise Von Franz: Lectures on Jung’s Typology, pp. 47-48

— Isabelle Briggs Myers: Gifts Differing, pp. 78 & 85

Introverted Thinking (Ti)