Genus Problem

The genus problem is the difficulty in telling what sorts of things the attitudes are (as well as types, functions, and pretty much all concepts in the Jungian/Myers-Briggs world). It's the main part of the Definition Problem.

Possible genera for the Function Attitudes

"The gear-shifting theory." Are they mental processes that a person can turn on and off at will, like doing arithmetic or tying your shoes? Linda Berens seems to take this as the genus of the function-attitudes. (See Not Cognitive Processes.)
Anything mental at all. Some folks who write about function attitudes, especially on the Internet, seem to take the view that any mental act whatsoever must fit one and only one function attitude. So, for example, recognizing a person's face would be extraverted sensation or extraverted intuition depending on which theory you believe. This also seems to be how Linda Berens approaches the topic. She says, for example, that recalling the past is introverted sensation, anticipating the future is intuition, and attending to the present is extraverted sensation.
Lenore has sometimes used the term "meaning filters". Each function attitude would be a certain way of finding some things meaningful and other things meaningless. To contrast this with the previous example, you could attend to the present in a Feeling way, relating things to matters of human concern as they manifest in your or other people's emotions, or you could attend to the present in a Thinking way, defining your concerns to fit causal distinctions in whatever you find, or you could attend to the present in terms of Sensation, viewing facts without regard to context, or you could attend to the present in terms of Intuition, noticing how the same facts would have different meaning in different contexts. Opposite function attitudes declare each other's interpretations of the same experiences meaningless.
Possibly a deeper analysis of the meaning-filters concept is that each function is a collection of archetypes. A function-attitude is an extraverted or introverted way of applying a collection of archetypes to the specifics of your own life. Archetypes are innate ways of structuring experience: for example, seeing the world in terms of numbers (number is an archetype) or in terms of heroes vs. villains.
An alternate deeper analysis of meaning-filters is that all the functions tap into the same collection of archetypes but according to different patterns. On this interpretation, irrational functions might bring archetypes to life without regard for connection or relation between them; while rational attitudes bring archetypes to life by following overlaps between applications of them (like syllogisms).
The page Semiotic Attitudes explores a specific genus, which might be what Lenore and Jung were talking about. Orienting explores the same genus, toward definitions of introversion and extraversion.

What is a genus?

A genus is the part of a definition that tells the underlying kind of thing, or "substance", of which the thing being defined is one variety. The other part of a definition is called the differentia: the way in which the thing being defined is being distinguished from others of its genus for purposes of the definition. (The plural of genus is genera.)

For example, a pen is a writing instrument that fits the hand and writes a line by dispensing ink when moved along the page. It's distinguished from pencils and other writing instruments, like brushes, by the way the material that forms the line comes out.

Usually, the genera of the concepts we use is obvious and goes without saying. Sometimes, though, you have a certain feeling of deep confusion or misunderstanding. It's hard to put your finger on what the problem is, because you have no concepts with which to frame a question. The trouble is that you don't know the genus. Imagine your confusion if you knew the differentia but not the genus of "pen". Is a pen a person who writes with ink? A publisher? An author? A movement of people who together are mightier than a sword?

That type of confusion is what many of us feel in regard to the functions and attitudes. The types of disagreements where people seem to be talking past each other, which are common in the Myers-Briggs world, suggest that they don't have the same implicit understanding of the genera of their concepts.

--Ben Kovitz

See Exegesis Basics.

PreviousDefinition Problem NextType Guesses and the Definition Problem

Last updated 25 days ago

Possible genera for the Function Attitudes

"The gear-shifting theory." Are they mental processes that a person can turn on and off at will, like doing arithmetic or tying your shoes? Linda Berens seems to take this as the genus of the function-attitudes. (See Not Cognitive Processes.)

Anything mental at all. Some folks who write about function attitudes, especially on the Internet, seem to take the view that any mental act whatsoever must fit one and only one function attitude. So, for example, recognizing a person's face would be extraverted sensation or extraverted intuition depending on which theory you believe. This also seems to be how Linda Berens approaches the topic. She says, for example, that recalling the past is introverted sensation, anticipating the future is intuition, and attending to the present is extraverted sensation.

Lenore has sometimes used the term "meaning filters". Each function attitude would be a certain way of finding some things meaningful and other things meaningless. To contrast this with the previous example, you could attend to the present in a Feeling way, relating things to matters of human concern as they manifest in your or other people's emotions, or you could attend to the present in a Thinking way, defining your concerns to fit causal distinctions in whatever you find, or you could attend to the present in terms of Sensation, viewing facts without regard to context, or you could attend to the present in terms of Intuition, noticing how the same facts would have different meaning in different contexts. Opposite function attitudes declare each other's interpretations of the same experiences meaningless.

Possibly a deeper analysis of the meaning-filters concept is that each function is a collection of archetypes. A function-attitude is an extraverted or introverted way of applying a collection of archetypes to the specifics of your own life. Archetypes are innate ways of structuring experience: for example, seeing the world in terms of numbers (number is an archetype) or in terms of heroes vs. villains.

An alternate deeper analysis of meaning-filters is that all the functions tap into the same collection of archetypes but according to different patterns. On this interpretation, irrational functions might bring archetypes to life without regard for connection or relation between them; while rational attitudes bring archetypes to life by following overlaps between applications of them (like syllogisms).

The page Semiotic Attitudes explores a specific genus, which might be what Lenore and Jung were talking about. Orienting explores the same genus, toward definitions of introversion and extraversion.

What is a genus?