Understanding Jung in relation to typology

[Kljoki]

Well, the way I understand it is that he was attempting to understand the way we deal with information. What he found was that there are basically three ways of dealing with information. Dealing with it before we get it, while we are getting it and after we got it.

Dealing with information before we get it just deciding how we will acquire information. Here he states two distinct ways, acquiring information primarily over our senses and not acquiring information primarily over our senses (To be clear, those who do not gather information primarily over their senses, does not mean that they in fact *do not* gather information over their senses, just that they do not rely on it). The first kind acquires information thought their senses. The second tends to perceive that which is not there, time, ideas and so on. He calls these two ways "sensing" and "intuiting". But these names are misleading as the "intuitive" way hasn't got much to do with intuition at all. Intuition is basically just another sense (The 6-th sense). People who use intuition are sensing. A better description and more true to their true meaning of these two ways would be "perception of the body" and "perception of the mind". He calls this process of dealing with information before we get it an irrational process. Basically it's just perception.

Dealing with information while we are getting it is being subjective or being objective. Being subjective here means that an individual distorts information while getting it while objective means that an individual does not distort information. Jung calls these two ways objective (Extroversion) and introversion (Subjective). Today's meanings of these two words has changed completely mostly by misinterpreting them (Extroversion is sociable, introversion is introspective) or mixing them up with other terms (Eysenck).
Every time we get information both of these things happens, some information gets distorted and some does not.

Dealing with information after we got it. That part is described as structuring information. Here we have emotion vs. non emotion, or will there be an additional layer of emotional installed into this information. The degree of the emotional factor installed varies.
Jung calls this process rationalization.

Ok, now to explain the way they interact. All the information we will acquire first must be, well, acquired. How is decided by the first way. You might picture this as extracting ore. During the extraction part some gets distorted and some does not. That was the second part, dealing with information while we are getting it. Now this acquired information is basically raw ore. It needs to be processed. We do this by engaging the third process. Here again some of it gets distorted and some does not.

This process ca be summarized as INFORMATION → PICKING & ACQUIRING → PROCESSING & ACQUIRING → USING

Also every part has varying strength. That varying strengths are assumed to be determined by the way our brain is wired. So it is assumed that these preferences change as our brain structure does.
These ways determine our natural behaviour as they determine the way we deal with information on which we create our vision of the world we live in.

Jung further describes picking & acquiring and processing & acquiring as two distinct processes.

He describes PICKING & ACQUIRING as:

Perception of the body where the information gets distorted by the body as "introvert sensing".

Perception through the body where the information does not get distorted by the body as "extrovert sensing".

Perception of the mind where the information gets distorted by the mind as introvert intuition.

Perception of the mind where the information does not get distorted by the mind as extrovert intuition.

And he describes PROCESSING & ACQUIRING as:

The act of structuring the information available with the act of installing an additional layer of emotional reference to the information where the information gets distorted by the very process of structuring and gets like double structured i.e. information being processed gets structured to form structures of information and now these bits themselves accidentally get structured into new structures of information as "introvert felling".

The act of structuring the information available with the act of installing an additional layer of emotional reference to the information where the information does not get distorted by the very process of structuring it as "extrovert felling".

The act of structuring the information available without the act of installing an additional layer of emotional reference to the information where the information gets distorted by the very process of structuring and gets like double structured i.e. information being processed gets structured to form structures of information and now these bits themselves accidentally get structured into bigger structures of information as "introvert thinking".

The act of structuring the information available without the act of installing an additional layer of emotional reference to the information where the information does not get distorted by the very process of structuring it as "extrovert thinking".

Jung also comes to the conclusion that in these two stages one process is more expressed then the others. He also notices that if information got distorted during perception there will be compensation for it during processing and vice versa.

[Zero Angel]

So, can Ti therefore be seen as building two different structures at once?

Ie: with small fragments going onto the undistorted structure and a seperate piece of processed (distorted) information going onto a different structure that sort of provides a 'map' to the raw data?

Whereas Te is undistorted information, but with meta-data which provides a map to the next block of information?

[Kljoki]

So, can Ti therefore be seen as building two different structures at once?

Ie: with small fragments going onto the undistorted structure and a seperate piece of processed (distorted) information going onto a different structure that sort of provides a 'map' to the raw data?

Whereas Te is undistorted information, but with meta-data which provides a map to the next block of information?

I don't know. I see Te as just facts, while Ti as facts forming a structure.

[Zero Angel]

Allow me to clarify:

Ti storage: Write to Data Structure -> process (distort) by stripping away 'redundant data' -> Write processed data to map structure.
Ti retrieval: Look at Map structure -> retrieve from data structure
Ti memory degrade: (the processed information is given high priority, either the meta data or the raw data will degrade first, or the raw data will otherwise become disconnected from the meta data)
Ti inter-processing (introspection): Begin at map structure, pull relevant meta data out of the blocks of data on the map itself, connecting it to other bits of the map (remember the map is all meta-data and compacted bits of data).

Te storage: Write to data structure, add meta data of all connecting concepts which connect this concept to other ones. (this new concept forms the base of the tree)
More information is added: Write to data structure, attach meta-data to previous blocks of information which reference the new information.
Te retreival: Begin at base structure -> traverse directory and pull relevant data.
Te memory degrade: (Embedded Meta data is given low priority so degrades first)
Te inter-processing (introspection): Begin at endpoint on tree (of which validates opening assumption), traverse tree like structure, using data gleaned from trail of meta-data to verify claim.

In a sense, we can see Te data storage as tree-like, wheras Ti data storage is like two multi-dimensional grids, the larger one being the raw data, and the smaller one being the map and meta-data.

[Kljoki]

Allow me to clarify:

Ti storage: Write to Data Structure -> process (distort) by stripping away 'redundant data' -> Write processed data to map structure.
Ti retrieval: Look at Map structure -> retrieve from data structure
Ti memory degrade: (the processed information is given high priority, either the meta data or the raw data will degrade first)
Ti inter-processing (introspection): Begin at map structure, pull relevant meta data out of the blocks of data on the map itself, connecting it to other bits of the map (remember the map is all meta-data and compacted bits of data).

Te storage: Write to data structure, add meta data of all connecting concepts which connect this concept to other ones. (this new concept forms the base of the tree)
More information is added: Write to data structure, attach meta-data to previous blocks of information which reference the new information.
Te retreival: Begin at base structure -> traverse directory and pull relevant data.
Te memory degrade: (Embedded Meta data is given low priority so degrades first)
Te inter-processing (introspection): Begin at endpoint on tree (of which validates opening assumption), traverse tree like structure, using data gleaned from trail of meta-data to verify claim.

In a sense, we can see Te data storage as tree-like, wheras Ti data storage is like two multi-dimensional grids, the larger one being the raw data, and the smaller one being the map and meta-data. Perhaps. I don't know. You should check your method against people who really are Ti and Te dominant.
And that tree thing reminds me of the way some Te types handle stuff. By finding facts and then more facts that relate to it. So it could be true.

Also, I'm not sure of any of this. I just wrote my understanding of it. I have no idea if it is right or not.

[Kljoki]

Do you think you have Ti Zero Angel?

(I ask because that Te description really reminds me of the way Te people I know like to operate)

[Zero Angel]

Absolutely. :)

Another thing I noticed is that that Ti types seem to be quicker to use analogies than Te types (for example, the FP's that I know have a hard time understanding analogy).

And yes, I will check my idea against people of different types. I've had verbal discussions with and about people which have been a lot more fruitful and practical than a lot of the stuff that I have read by Jung (which isn't a whole lot).

[Kljoki]

Another thing I noticed is that that Ti types seem to be quicker to use analogies than Te typesFunny, I found the exact opposite. Te types are far superior in any form of use or application of analogy. A quick witty sarcastic remark is a trademark of Te.

Also, Fe and Te would "store" the information in the same way. Would this make Fe like Te?


And yes, I will check my idea against people of different types. I've had verbal discussions with and about people which have been a lot more fruitful and practical than a lot of the stuff that I have read by Jung. I don't know. What people tell you is just that. What they told you. It doesn't have to be real. I find it better to actually observe them and draw my own conclusions.

[Zero Angel]

I will have to disagree, sarcasm and wit are not confined to Te at all, at least not given that ESTJ's that I've met (I still hold out on the chance that perhaps I have met the wrong ones), and given that ENTPs seem to enjoy using analogy. A projection of self-confidence makes sarcasm and wit easier though, so these can also be attributed to Te since TJ types are usually highly self-confident or at least appear so.

As to the use of analogies, I see Ti as building a seperate meta data structure, which the map structure smaller than the actual data structure and stores the 'gist' of whats in the data structure it is easier to draw parallels with other structures ... wait, perhaps it is Ne that I am thinking of... And given that SJ's also typically collect a series of canned phrases (which are often forms of analogy)....

Hmm, I will actually have to rethink the analogy thing. :mellow:


I don't know. What people tell you is just that. What they told you. It doesn't have to be real. I find it better to actually observe them and draw my own conclusions.
Yes, but its also helpful sometimes to say 'why did you do that'? or 'what do you think of this'? Heated argument/debate is also useful for bringing out what a person really thinks about something.

[Kljoki]

I will have to disagree, sarcasm and wit are not confined to Te at all, at least not given that ESTJ's that I've met (I still hold out on the chance that perhaps I have met the wrong ones), Are you kidding me? The funnies people alive are ESTj-s.


But perhaps te ones you meet are not.


Yes, but its also helpful sometimes to say 'why did you do that'? or 'what do you think of this'? Heated argument/debate is also useful for bringing out what a person really thinks about something. Wouldn't that be like a discusion then?

[Zero Angel]

Yes, but unlike plain discussion. Heated arguments/debates have little compromise between discussion partners, so it is more difficult to 'lead' a person (even as a mistake) and have them answer passively.

[Kljoki]

Yes, but unlike plain discussion. Heated arguments/debates have little compromise between discussion partners, so it is more difficult to 'lead' a person (even as a mistake) and have them answer passively.Then why would you lead a heated agument over a discussion?

[Zero Angel]

By lead, I mean lead in the courtroom context of 'leading the witness', which is an attempt at getting a opposition witness to validate a lawyers claims or bring his own credibility into contest through unscrupulous means. [ this link will explain it better (http://www.answers.com/topic/leading-question) ]

And yes, this can typically happen in discussion, in a heated debate it is harder to do because the other person sees you as an opponent so is less likely to compromise on his beliefs.

[Kljoki]

By lead, I mean lead in the courtroom context of 'leading the witness', which is an attempt at getting a opposition witness to validate a lawyers claims or bring his own credibility into contest through unscrupulous means. [ this link will explain it better (http://www.answers.com/topic/leading-question) ]

And yes, this can typically happen in discussion, in a heated debate it is harder to do because the other person sees you as an opponent so is less likely to compromise on his beliefs.You do realize this is pointless? This discussion? Or is it an argument? http://free-st.t-com.hr/snegledmaca/Smilies/misli.gif

EDIT: wanna continue?

[Zero Angel]

Not now, but maybe some other time in some other thread.

[Kljoki]

Your references to Ti and Te are still valuable. Be sure to post any more of your assumptions, if you have any.