In reflecting on Jung’s brilliant conception of the types, it’s tempting to imagine that everything came to him in a perfect storm of profound insight. However, the reality is that Jung’s framework was far from being an instantaneous revelation, but was revealed more gradually and honed over time.
Initially, Jung’s conception was limited to only two primary types—the introvert and the extravert. He would ultimately expand his framework to include eight personality types (which would later increase to 16 at the hands of Myers-Briggs). Each of Jung’s types was characterized by the predominant use of one of eight functions (e.g., Ni, Ne, Ti, Te, etc.) oriented to either inner (I) or outer (E) affairs.
In light of what we know about the evolution of Jung’s understanding, one could argue that his conception of the functions was developed in a sort of piecemeal fashion, with his original notion of introversion and extraversion being repurposed as a sort of modifier for the intuition (Ni / Ne), sensation (Si / Se), thinking (Ti / Te), and feeling (Fi / Fe) functions.
In making this point, I am in no way intending to criticize Jung’s methods nor his final conception of the types. After all, there is no reason to assume that a theory developed gradually will be any less valid or valuable than one revealed in a single flash of insight. Rather, my intention is to get us thinking about how a two-part analytical descriptor like “Introverted Feeling” might produce a very different first impression than that generated by a more holistic concept like “Empathizing.” Attempting to make sense of Introverted Feeling seems to require an analytic faculty that is less necessary for us to understand the notion of Empathizing. The latter also seems more conducive to mental imagery, evoking an impression that is both immediate and robust.
To summarize, if one aims to understand a function analytically, using concepts like Introverted Feeling may be of great utility. However, if one seeks a more holistic or immediate impression, the use of shorthand labels like Empathizing may be preferable.
“Function Roles”
To date, we at Personality Junkie® have primarily utilized Jung’s terminology in referencing the eight functions. And although we currently have no plans to change this practice, I (A.J.) have long recognized the potential benefits of conceiving the functions as personified roles, or what I will refer to here as “Function Roles.”
Before exploring the various Function Roles, however, I’d like to mention that this exercise, at least on its surface, overlaps with naming practices used for the archetypes and Enneagram types, as well as David Keirsey’s types. I have always admired the Enneagram’s use of type monikers (e.g., Achiever, Investigator, etc.), which have the advantage of conveying a wealth of information in a single concept, including a quick sense of a type’s overarching role.
A serious disadvantage, which I have also remained mindful of, is that if a particular nickname fails to resonate with a reader, she may immediately lose interest and, in turn, fail to identify her true type. In this respect, sticking with Jung’s original terminology may be a safer practice than assigning shorthand labels to the functions. Holistic concepts also have the potential to overshadow worthwhile details and nuances contained in lengthier expositions. In short, it seems we are dealing with a trade-off between accuracy (Jung’s terminology) and the immediate sense of power and resonance engendered by a more holistic concept.
Lastly, before we finally dive into our discussion of the various Function Roles, I felt it appropriate to explicate the criteria I used in selecting descriptors for each of the functions:
- The descriptor must be a readily recognized human role / activity.
- For the sake of theoretical parsimony and elegance, only one role will be assigned per function.
- The descriptor will aim to capture what is most essential, significant, or distinguishing about each function.
Introverted Intuition (Ni): “Knowing”
All NJ types employ Introverted Intuition (Ni) as either their dominant or auxiliary function. Unlike its extraverted cousin (Ne), Ni works convergently rather than divergently. Instead of creating an ever-expanding web of connections, it sees / extracts deep patterns in hopes of discerning the core essence of a given phenomenon.
Due to Ni’s convergent workings, NJs commonly report a strong sense of intuitive “knowing” and conviction. Whereas NPs are inclined to see Ne’s ideas / intuitions as potentially or provisionally valid, Ni conveys the sense that its insights are categorically and objectively true. In short, what I’m highlighting here is the convergent nature of Ni intuition and the sense of knowingness it inspires.
Extraverted Intuition (Ne): “Creating”
All NP types use Extraverted Intuition (Ne) as either their dominant or auxiliary function. Since Ne is a divergent form of intuition, it is closely linked with creativity. According to Wikipedia, divergent thinking is “a thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions.” Due to Ne’s ability to prodigiously make new and unprecedented connections, NPs typically outperform other types on several measures of creativity (e.g., brainstorming).
Ne is also strongly associated with ideational openness and exploration, making descriptors like Exploring or Seeking seem apropos as well. I ultimately opted for “Creating,” however, because it has a slightly more constructive connotation. Namely, instead of merely exploring ideas or possibilities, Ne is envisioned as creating or building something with those ideas. With that said, exploration and creativity are always working symbiotically in the Ne mind, as exploration begets creative connections and new connections inspire continued exploration.
Introverted Feeling (Fi): “Empathizing”
All FP types utilize Introverted Feeling (Fi) as either their dominant or auxiliary function. As discussed in my book, My True Type, Fi is closely associated with empathy, exhibiting strong concern for the unique feelings, values, and circumstances of the individual. NFPs, in particular, can readily imagine ways in which negative circumstances might have contributed to personal misfortune or dysfunction. Thus, if we could only see things in their full context, even the worst sins could be forgiven, or at least better understood.
We should also recognize that Fi empathy is not restricted to human beings, but can come to embrace all sentient beings. This expansion of empathy has prompted many FPs to take up causes such as environmentalism, vegetarianism, animal rights, and the like.
Extraverted Feeling (Fe): “Persuading”
All FJ types use Extraverted Feeling (Fe) as either their dominant or auxiliary function. Fe aims to emotionally connect and live well with others, facilitating morale and consensus (e.g., “Let’s get everybody on the same page.”).
Excelling at reading, mirroring, and influencing others’ emotions, Fe is an effective tool for procuring the emotional consensus it seeks. Martin Luther King, Barack Obama, Tony Robbins, and countless others have capitalized on its persuasive power.
To be clear, it’s not that other personality types can’t be persuasive. But because FJs are natural surveyors and communicators of feeling, they have a leg up when it comes to accessing and influencing others’ emotions.
Introverted Thinking (Ti): “Contemplating”
All TP types employ Introverted Thinking (Ti) as either their dominant or auxiliary function. Whereas Te relies on standardized measures and methods, as well as on established knowledge, Ti devises and utilizes its own methods, strategies, and standards. In order to work their way through whatever problem or challenge has entered their purview, TPs (especially ITPs) spend a great deal of time in contemplation.
Ti feels less responsible to, and exhibits less loyalty toward, established facts, methods, and rules than Te. Indeed, much of what TJs consider “factual” TPs may see as provisional. Their reluctance to admit anything as certain is one reason TPs spend so much time in contemplation, questioning the merits of things other types accept as a given.
Although Ti is equally useful for practical (S) and abstract (N) problems, STPs tend to focus more on the former and NTPs on the latter. STP athletes, such as Tom Brady, often enjoy analyzing films and formulating strategies to improve their performance. Similar sorts of analyses are regularly conducted by STP business persons and politicians hoping to outwit the competition. NTPs, by contrast, are more inclined to use Ti in the service of abstract problems. Many enjoy contemplating, creating, and synthesizing concepts or theories, which is why they (especially INTPs) are commonly described as philosophers.
Extraverted Thinking (Te): “Systemizing”
All TJ types utilize Extraverted Thinking (Te) as either their dominant or auxiliary function. Te is concerned with ascertaining objective knowledge (i.e., empirical facts) as well as the development and implementation of standardized methods and procedures.
Conceiving the world as a collection of hierarchical systems and subsystems, each with clearly defined boundaries, provides the sense of structure Te needs to sustain its belief in objective knowledge and the potential for continued optimization of systems and processes.
At a smaller-scale, Te may inspire the optimization of household operations, such as appropriately labeling and organizing one’s files / drawers or implementing the most up-to-date parenting methods. In the workplace, Te may be used to streamline and optimize processes, or even to restructure an entire organization.
Introverted Sensing (Si): “Preserving”
All SJ types use Introverted Sensing (Si) as either their dominant or auxiliary function. Si is a loyal preserver and defender of the past—of cherished memories, traditions, beliefs, routines, etc. As I observed in My True Type:
Growing attached to the routine, familiar, and expected, repetition plays a prominent role in Si. The more times SJs repeat something—eat a certain meal, listen to a certain song, etc.—the more likeable (or tolerable) it becomes… SJs also take a conservative approach to their beliefs and worldview. As adults, they often persist in the beliefs, percepts, and traditions of their childhood.
Trusting the “tried and true,” Si constantly references the past to guide and inform its decisions. Rather than trying something new it prefers to “play it safe” and “stick with what works.”
Extraverted Sensing (Se): “Doing”
All SP types employ Extraverted Sensing (Se) as either their dominant or auxiliary function. Commonly associated with the “five senses,” it mediates our relationship to our physical surroundings. Se is a keen observer of environmental details, which would have been a skill of indisputable value in our hunter-gatherer days. It also seems related to kinesthetic intelligence, with the majority of top athletes in nearly every sport being SP types.
To be fully stimulated, most Se users seek frequent changes in their external surroundings. This is why so many SPs enjoy athletics, which provide a steady stream of new and unpredictable challenges to perceive and respond to. SPs can also engage their Se through hands-on tasks and projects, as well as by experimenting with new things (e.g., recipes, furniture arrangements, fashions, etc.) and experiences (e.g., traveling). I opted to characterize Se as “Doing” because it is largely through doing / action that SPs experience the sense of Se flow and engagement they desire.
Learn More:
For an in-depth look at each of the 8 functions and preferences, be sure to explore our latest book, My True Type: Clarifying Your Personality Type, Preferences & Functions:
Joanna says
This all makes sense to me except for calling Fi “empathizing.” That’s completely different from how I’ve read Fi described. I have always heard to be making decisions based on your own core values, not something that relates to other people.
Corinne says
I do appreciate the endeavor, however, whenever anyone tries to pinpoint each function with a word, or even a phrase, the result usually is very limiting. Even to describe each function in a paragraph never does it justice. I think it is because, though each function can be generally described, each one looks different in different people. Even those of the same personality type can look very different, due to social and cultural influences growing up, one’s level of maturity, one’s worldview (that’s a big one), or other factors that contribute to making a person unique in who they are.
I agree with the above comment. I am an INFP, and while I may have a strong ability to “empathize” with some as it were, I do have the tendency to shut myself off completely to others, largely to those with different core values, as mentioned above. That’s likely due to the Fi nature being strong, but limiting. So, in my opinion, to describe it as “empathizing” isn’t totally accurate. My ISFJ husband many times (with auxiliary Fe) , is far more empathizing than I am, in that regard. However, I tend to stick with an opinion or argument longer, not give up on an idea so quickly, and not get over my emotions as quickly as he does. So, Fi has more to do with an intense, passionate, and tenacious grip on one’s point of view, whatever that may be. I’ve heard it described elsewhere with the single word, “authenticity”, which would convey more of the truth of one’s feelings or holding fast to one’s convictions, which sounds more accurate to me.
As an aside, I did have to roll my eyes at the “environmentalism, vegetarianism, animal rights” tag (mostly because that’s exactly who I was in my 20s, and exactly what I am not right now in my 30s). I know that is the stereotype, but just a word of caution not to ascribe a particular social or political stance or cause to any one of these. Not that you did so here, but I’ve frequently heard INFP’s described as hippies, and I’ve heard ISxJ’s described as staunch conservatives. That has more to do with worldview and culture, which I believe the functions may influence, but definitely not completely determine. I think it’s safe to remember that the functions describe how the mind works (ie. process information, make decisions) , but not necessarily which social/cultural/political stances the mind will adopt.
On the whole, though. It was an interesting read. Thanks for this.
Eric Karema says
As always thank you very much for the great content, AJ. I really like how you sorted the roles for each cognitive functions. One word from me though. As an INFP with a very strong Extraverted iNtuition, I’m more inclined for Ne to be specified as exploring than creating. Because although I have very wild imaginations, I was criticized as not creative by one of my mentor due to lack of productivity and practical wits to get through basic tasks. Synthesizing is also another word that I’m very fond of as we’re capable of connecting invisible dots and pieces to get the picture. But exploring seem more suited than creating due to the fact that Ne doesn’t literally create things.
This is out of topic, but although I learned so much and understood the functions and types of the personalities through your writing; I actually am much more capable of Contemplating rather than Systemizing. In many of your posts, you wrote that INTP is the one that like philosopy and religious stuffs more, but actually I really like philosopy and spirituality despite being an INFP. Sometimes when I read your articles I doubt my INFP-ness due to characteristics in INTP and INFJ being very apparent on me.
A.J. Drenth says
Thank you all for your great comments. I agree that Empathizing fails to capture the full essence of Fi. This is a great example of how some measure of accuracy or comprehensiveness is bound to be compromised in this sort of exercise.
@Joanna: I like your point about core values which points toward Fi’s concern for authenticity.
@Corinne: I thought this was a good observation of when empathy might falter in IFPs: “I do have the tendency to shut myself off completely to others, largely to those with different core values.” Regarding the Fi vs. Fe issue, I would characterize Fi as more empathetic and Fe as more sympathetic.
@Eric: Your point about creation vs. exploring is well taken. I would simply say that creation is occurring every time an Ne connection is made, regardless of whether it is expressed or translated into something tangible. It sounds to me like you’re definitely creative person, regardless of whether others readily recognize it.
A potential to alternative to Empathizing might be something like Self-Reflecting. But this will certainly incite objections from other IN types who feel they are doing the same. A word connoting a feeling-oriented form of self-reflection would seem to be ideal. Notions pertaining to authenticity, individualism, and even autonomy also seem relevant to Fi. I’m curious what others would select as their best choice.
Ashley says
This is one of the most helpful ways I’ve seen this topic addressed! Thank you for your insights!
Michael says
I like the way you named each function, it makes it a lot easier to refrence the meaning of the function right away.
Michele Italy says
I am an INFP who is also close to INTPs (my F-T balance is 50-50%)
“Regarding the Fi vs. Fe issue, I would characterize Fi as more empathetic and Fe as more sympathetic.”
It is the very reverse, since empathy is a socially-adaptive feeling/emotion (extroverted) and sympathy a soul-stemming socially-unuseful feeling/emotion (introverted).
Also, seriously introverted types’ Fi and Ti minds are going to be a sort of white flies.
Like everyone else, we project, and expect the others to be as we are — offended by what would offend us, not offended by what doesn’t offend us…
This leads to endless clashes with society (i.e. everybody else in the environment), because not having a mask on, as Jung said, leads to endless clashes for soul-level sincerity “awakens unopposable forces”.
So, we don’t really have much of a grasp on how out neighbour’s mind works, therefore low empathy.
Conversely, sympathy (that is how we call ruth and mercy in our age, where it’s scary to use such names for their are too outfashioned) cannot originate in anything but the soul.
And has to do with our private emotion for the other person — an emotion that reflects our being, and has nothing to do with their needs (actually, if expressed, will offend their pride greatly).
A.J. Drenth says
I’ve tended to see sympathy as more extraverted / Fe, i.e., interpersonal and expressive (e.g., sympathy cards), and empathy as more introverted / Fi, i.e., oriented to inwardly understanding another person’s struggles / experience. Perhaps part of the confusion stems from the fact that sympathy has two different meanings: 1) feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else’s misfortune and 2) understanding between people; common feeling. The latter is certainly more Fe.
Michele Italy says
” would simply say that creation is occurring every time an Ne connection is made, regardless of whether it is expressed or translated into something tangible. It sounds to me like you’re definitely creative person, regardless of whether others readily recognize it.”
Yes, as Jung writes, the creative types who lack skills to create cultural artifacts that will have a place in the external world (or lack the skills to make others appreciate the skills they have) do still create. They create their self, over their whole life.
Jessica says
I disagree with your definitions of things. You’ve got the basic understanding right…But the words you’re using to describe each function just aren’t quite right.
The Fi/Fe is not on the mark, in my opinion.
A.J. Drenth says
Thanks Jessica for your response. As I mentioned in the article, there are definite shortcomings to nicknaming the functions, as none of them can be fully captured with a single word or image. I’m certainly open to entertaining alternative monikers, but few have been proposed thus far.
Fil says
A.J., thanks for this post. I would agree with others regarding Fi and empathy — it seems to me there is strong empathy (I would say “identification”), however as others point out, perhaps a bit self-referential (in terms of one’s core values, or “adopted” core values at one point or another). This seems to apply especially to INFP and ENFP, and, as I see it, is often expressed as “identity politics”, for example.
As an INTP, I think I’m not alone in struggling at times with understanding INTP’s place and value given Ni “knowing” (more so than given Te “systemizing”). Would love to hear your thoughts on this. By the way, great to know “contemplating” is what we do, because, well, we do — I don’t know however that we always understand its value and contribution.
Mark says
I have a couple of things to add regarding these function roles:
– Fi, I think Empathy is a good word for this, as an _aspect_ of Fi. Authenticity is also a good one. If only there was a word that encompassed both! Both are introspective/self-centered as opposed to Fe’s Sympathy which is more about emotional resonance in groups.
– Ne, I’m not sure about Creativity. I find when I use Ne, Creativity is an end-product of trying lots of things out; an idea coalesces seemingly by itself after looking at a problem (for example) from many different angles. As opposed to ‘having a creative idea’ then sorting out the implementation. So I think ‘Exploration’ is a better word for Ne.
I also liked Te ‘Systemizing’ which might explain why someone with ‘inferior’ companion Te is inexorably drawn to MBTI…
Idahosa says
“I ultimately opted for “Creating,” however, because it has a slightly more constructive connotation. Namely, instead of merely exploring ideas or possibilities, Ne is envisioned as creating or building something with those ideas.”
I wonder if that is your bias as an INTP, since for you Extroverted Intuition sits in the “Creative” seat as your auxiliary function. So I presume you “Contemplate” with Ti first, then “Create” with Ne after.
I on the other hand am an an ENTP, so I personally use the word “Creation” to describe the role of my auxiliary Ti, and I call Ne “Exploration”.
Also, I’ve been noticing recently that the creative impulse for NPs seemingly varies a great deal. I need to create, otherwise I die on the inside.
But I have quite a few NP friends who are high in trait openness who seemingly do NOT feel the same impulse to create. They say they’re cool just exploring stuff.
So there’s either another creativity dimension here that I diverge from them on, OR they’re in denial. I suspect it’s more the latter than the former, but again – my perception is obviously colored by my own experience as a creative.
Idahosa says
I also think “persuading” has a strong TP bias. As ENTP, “persuasion” is precisely the way I’d describe my general use of Fe, but I doubt many FJ’s would identify with that word. And since FJ’s use Fe more than us TPs, I feel their conception of the role should take precedent when giving a universal name to it.
I conceive Fe more as “harmonizing”, i.e. directing the emotional energy of others into a state of balance.
Valakiii says
I find neither Ti nor Te fits me here as described. Let me explain below – I’d like to know how you can make sense out of it.
As for Ti, I don’t like to spend much time in deep contemplation, let alone question everything for the sake of questioning. I really dislike both of those things. As for Te, I’m not particularly interested in developing methods for a common standard and I’m not able to follow standardized procedures “as is” without first analyzing the details. Afterwards I may look like I follow them “as is” but this to my mind couldn’t be further from the truth.
What I do like doing is going by analysis of the concrete facts and thus not question things all the time needlessly. I’m naturally oriented towards certainty instead, as soon as I made my conclusions on a topic. I do want to ensure the facts were not established in some arbitrary way but I am certain about my judgments regarding this. I do believe I make my own judgments and decisions about this and about what methods I find sensible and usable by me personally based on my preferences. I do not care about standards regarding this, e.g. scientific method has had to make sense to me personally and I ignore the apparently common view about blindly following the steps of “the” scientific method. At the same time, I do like to see schemes in the world, including hierarchical ones, to adjust to and go by them for my goals. Note, my goals determine the need for this, not the other way around. Though I do like to have at least some organization in the world and in methods for doing things because it makes actions clearer. “Clearly defined boundaries” are really really important to me for that reason too. I like optimizing processes too for the same reason and because it’s just neater that way and because I just simply like it. Goals are paramount overall though, determining what I will truly focus on and analyze and understand. Normally all the analysis and understanding is to achieve the goals. I’m not interested in contemplating things just for the sake of analysis.
Example, with this MBTI topic, my goal is: systematic understanding of myself and systematic categorizing of people in a useful way.
So. How I’d sum this up… I look at the hierarchical systems and methods in the world and I adjust by them for my goals after I analysed them according to my own judgment and preferences and so I prefer to be task-oriented for my goals. Is that Ti or Te to you?…
Paul says
Great article, AJ! Regarding this Fi-Fe debate going on, I think you did quite a good job, actually.
Both the Fi-dominant and Fe-dominant types could be said to be empathetic, but perhaps in very different ways.
Fe feels what others are feeling, simple as that – as an INFJ, I can INSTANTLY know what someone is feeling. People around me often get shocked when I ask them “What’s wrong?”, immediately following their reciprocated “Hello” – this allows the Fe user to solve another’s problems.
Fi REFLECTS what others are feeling, and are better at relating to others.
I’m an Fe-auxiliary user, and most of my family (with the exception of the ENTJ father) does not understand my self-perception as “empathic”, because they misunderstand the process of empathy. I can always feel what you’re feeling… but I can still think your feelings are invalid and inappropriate.
An Fi-dom/aux user will see your experience as valid, your perspective as legitimate, even if they disagree with you. They are much more appreciative of each individual’s unique value.
Comparing the FJ and FP… the FJ will first UNDERSTAND you, the FP will first APPRECIATE you.
I think the confusion that many are having here, AJ, is no fault of your own – while we’re used to attributing the cognitive functions to internal processes, you made clear that you’re focusing on observable action. The FJ may empathize, but the Fi-user makes it clear that they are empathizing with you.
There is an unfortunate stereotype of Fi-users as selfish, and perhaps that’s because it takes that form when destructive: Fi turns to selfishness, Fe turns to harsh criticism.
Paul says
Sorry, more to add on the Fi-Fe debacle. AJ, you were still right!
I had studied empathy in my psychology undergraduate education, and the term itself has undergone misinterpretations over the course of its use.
But tracing back the etymology, “empathy” translates to “feeling IN”, while “sympathy” translates to “feeling WITH”. Thus, to get technical, empathy occurs because of what the perceiver feels, not what the initial experient feels. An Fi user EMPATHIZES because they find IN themselves that which relates to the experient, thus allowing the perceiver to become an experient themself. This is very much an Fi user.
Sympathy occurs because of what the initial experient feels. An Fe user SYMPATHIZES because they immediately SHARE the feelings of others, taking them on without effort.
This explains why Fi users can shut it off, yet are powerfully compassionate when they use it.
Fi: empathizing/reflecting
Fe: sympathizing/persuading
Again, AJ, thank you for the thought-provoking content.
A.J. Drenth says
Great explanations Paul. Thanks so much for further clarifying / summarizing this issue.