Gear-Shifting

What does Lenore mean by her terminology of Function Attitudes?

A gear-shifting exegesis

This is somewhat against the spirit, but here is an exegesis in terms of fairly simplistic cognitive processes, similar in style but not substance to what Linda Berens has proposed.

Ni: Viewing a system in terms of representations of its parts: viewing it in terms of the Cartesian product of all the representations, and its rules as one of many possible subsets of that Cartesian product. This makes all rules pretty much arbitrary. Taking the attitude that "until I can see this as an arbitrary bunch of rules imposed on representations that I can hold entirely in my head, I don't want to deal with it."
Si: Viewing things in terms of representations, with the attitude that there is no causality or rational order relating the representations. Taking the attitude that "I will only understand this thing when I've learned to see it in terms of a zillion different representations, since nothing that you learn from any one of them implies anything about the rest."

The "representations" described above are things like words, numbers, and diagrams: artificial ways of describing things.

Ti: Demanding that things be non-arbitrary. Insisting that every part fit into some whole according to some principle or scheme.
Fi: Viewing things solely in terms of how well a person or people like them. Taking the attitude that, "If I don't like it, why should I participate? If no one likes it, why should it be done at all?"
Ne: Viewing things as parts of greater wholes. Taking the attitude that, "until I've found a way to bring in elements from outside the game, why play?"
Se: Viewing things solely in terms of their ability to play to a crowd and make an impression. Taking the attitude that, "If no one sees it, why do it?"
Te: Submitting things to well-articulated evaluation criteria, such as requirements, numerical measurements, and fitness for a predefined purpose. Taking the attitude that, "until I know what criteria count as successful, I declare the entire activity irrational and pointless."
Fe: Viewing things in terms of moves aimed at establishing oneself in a certain social position. Taking the attitude that, "It's not what you know, it's who you know."

Some problems with this exegesis

It's a pure gear-shifting theory: just a collection of heuristics, suggesting nothing about internal conflicts, self-identity, why people would cling to one of these, or why a Secondary Function would be so helpful.
It offers no answer to the question of why the same words are used to describe different Function Attitudes: for example, what the different Introverted attitudes have in common, or what the different Sensation attitudes have in common.

And yet, it seems to map well to actual people who fit the type profiles.

For exegeses directly opposed to this one, see Not Cognitive Processes and Parliament of Attitudes.

PreviousForward-Direction NextSuperego

Last updated 24 days ago

A gear-shifting exegesis

This is somewhat against the spirit, but here is an exegesis in terms of fairly simplistic cognitive processes, similar in style but not substance to what Linda Berens has proposed.

Ni: Viewing a system in terms of representations of its parts: viewing it in terms of the Cartesian product of all the representations, and its rules as one of many possible subsets of that Cartesian product. This makes all rules pretty much arbitrary. Taking the attitude that "until I can see this as an arbitrary bunch of rules imposed on representations that I can hold entirely in my head, I don't want to deal with it."

Si: Viewing things in terms of representations, with the attitude that there is no causality or rational order relating the representations. Taking the attitude that "I will only understand this thing when I've learned to see it in terms of a zillion different representations, since nothing that you learn from any one of them implies anything about the rest."

The "representations" described above are things like words, numbers, and diagrams: artificial ways of describing things.

Ti: Demanding that things be non-arbitrary. Insisting that every part fit into some whole according to some principle or scheme.

Fi: Viewing things solely in terms of how well a person or people like them. Taking the attitude that, "If I don't like it, why should I participate? If no one likes it, why should it be done at all?"

Ne: Viewing things as parts of greater wholes. Taking the attitude that, "until I've found a way to bring in elements from outside the game, why play?"

Se: Viewing things solely in terms of their ability to play to a crowd and make an impression. Taking the attitude that, "If no one sees it, why do it?"

Te: Submitting things to well-articulated evaluation criteria, such as requirements, numerical measurements, and fitness for a predefined purpose. Taking the attitude that, "until I know what criteria count as successful, I declare the entire activity irrational and pointless."

Fe: Viewing things in terms of moves aimed at establishing oneself in a certain social position. Taking the attitude that, "It's not what you know, it's who you know."

Some problems with this exegesis

It's a pure gear-shifting theory: just a collection of heuristics, suggesting nothing about internal conflicts, self-identity, why people would cling to one of these, or why a Secondary Function would be so helpful.

It offers no answer to the question of why the same words are used to describe different Function Attitudes: for example, what the different Introverted attitudes have in common, or what the different Sensation attitudes have in common.

And yet, it seems to map well to actual people who fit the type profiles.

For exegeses directly opposed to this one, see Not Cognitive Processes and Parliament of Attitudes.