Intro: Jungian functions are four (F, T, S, N) not eight (Se, Si, etc… are all types), and about that refer to the theoretical part of Jung Typology. Jung concepts about the functions is actually short for each function and doesn’t go much beyond the obvious, what gives depth to his types is the broad and deep E/I definitions rather than the definitions of the functions. All the definitions are expanded through MBTI, and I also use the Big 5 to expand them as well.
1 – Jung definitions
2 – MBTI definitions & MBTI facets description
3 – Intuition on Big Five
4 – Controversies about N/S
1 – Jung definitions
Jung defines function as “perception through unconscious”, where contents express themselves whole and complete, without the person being able to explain where this content comes from (we know this as “insight”, this is some sort of insightful perception). Since intuition is related to the unconscious, it also speaks on a symbolic way (preference for symbol over signs). Intuition tries to see what is beyond the facts.
Notice that for Jung Abstract vs Concrete belongs to E/I (Concrete to E, Abstract to I), Objective vs Subjective also to E/I, while for MBTI Abstract vs Concrete belongs to N/S.
Jung description:
“INTUITION (L. intueri, ‘to look at or into’). I regard intuition as a basic psychological function (q.v.). It is the function that mediates perceptions in an unconscious way. Everything, whether outer or inner objects or their relationships, can be the focus of this perception. The peculiarity of intuition is that it is neither sense perception, nor feeling, nor intellectual inference, although it may also appear in these forms. In intuition a content presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence. Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, no matter of what contents. Like sensation (q.v.), it is an irrational (q.v.) function of perception. As with sensation, its contents have the character of being “given,” in contrast to the “derived” or “produced” character of thinking and feeling (qq.v.) contents. Intuitive knowledge possesses an intrinsic certainty and conviction, which enabled Spinoza (and Bergson) to uphold the scientia intuitiva as the highest form of knowledge. Intuition shares this quality with sensation (q.v.), whose certainty rests on its physical foundation. The certainty of intuition rests equally on a definite state of psychic “alertness” of whose origin the subject is unconscious.
Intuition may be subjective or objective: the first is a perception of unconscious psychic data originating in the subject, the second is a perception of data dependent on subliminal perceptions of the object and on the feelings and thoughts they evoke. We may also distinguish concrete and abstract forms of intuition, according to the degree of participation on the part of sensation. Concrete intuition mediates perceptions concerned with the actuality of things, abstract intuition mediates perceptions of ideational connections. Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it responds directly to the given facts; abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, needs a certain element of direction, an act of the will, or an aim.
Like sensation, intuition is a characteristic of infantile and primitive psychology. It counterbalances the powerful sense impressions of the child and the primitive by mediating perceptions of mythological images, the precursors of ideas (q.v.). It stands in a compensatory relationship to sensation and, like it, is the matrix out of which thinking and feeling develop as rational functions. Although intuition is an irrational function, many intuitions can afterwards be broken down into their component elements and their origin thus brought into harmony with the laws of reason.
Everyone whose general attitude (q.v.) is oriented by intuition belongs to the intuitive type. Introverted and extraverted intuitives may be distinguished according to whether intuition is directed inwards, to the inner vision, or outwards, to action and achievement. In abnormal cases intuition is in large measure fused together with the contents of the collective unconscious (q.v.) and determined by them, and this may make the intuitive type appear extremely irrational and beyond comprehension.” (Carl Jung on Psychological Types, chapter XI, which is the chapter of definitions)
2 – MBTI definitions
The MBTI did expanded a lot the N/S definitions and also had sent some definitions from Jung Introversion to Intuition: Abstract (from Jung I to MBTI N), Conceptual (from Jung I, described as ‘ideas’, to MBTI N – in some interpretations), Theoretical (from Jung I, described as ‘ideas’ as well, to MBTI N). As described better later, Traditional vs Original is not an actual N/S measure but rather a differentiated type vs undifferentiated type measure. Also notice that on Jung, Conceptual and Theoretical did belong to Thinking, Introversion and partially to intuition, and they were settled on Intuition only on MBTI.
I do recommend to, in order to integrate MBTI and Jung, to avoid using Abstract vs Concrete and Traditional vs Original, but I do recommend using Conceptual & Theoretical on the N side rather than for Introversion.
Here is the basic definitions from official MBTI website:
“Intuition – Paying the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get. I would rather learn by thinking a problem through than by hands-on experience. I’m interested in new things and what might be possible, so that I think more about the future than the past. I like to work with symbols or abstract theories, even if I don’t know how I will use them. I remember events more as an impression of what it was like than as actual facts or details of what happened.”(https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or-intuition.htm)
Here are the MBTI N/S facets description (taken from personality cafe https://www.personalitycafe.com/threads/descriptions-of-the-mbti-step-ii%EF%BF%BD-facets.222794/):
The Sensing-Intuition Facets
The five facets of the Sensing-Intuition dichotomy are Concrete-Abstract, Realistic-Imaginative, Practical-Conceptual, Experiential-Theoretical, and Traditional-Original.
Concrete-Abstract
This core facet of the S-N dichotomy has a broad focus on how we generally perceive the world and the kinds of things to which we direct our attention.
Concrete
People at this pole are grounded in the tangible aspects of their world. They like factual information and favor things that are tangible and concrete over those that are intangible and abstract. They use their concrete orientation for communicating with others, in their style of learning, and in forming their views of how the world works. Their Concrete approach also shows in their choice of daily activities as well as in their preferences for entertainment and leisure pursuits.
Concrete people are apt to use literal and specific words and to employ images that convey the fine details of sensory impressions. They understand best when others communicate with them in a similar style. Their most trusted referents are words and descriptions pointing to things that are tangible and real to the senses. For them, the world primarily consists of things that can be perceived by the senses and verified experientially. Such verification must be based on some physical, sensory process that is directly experienced by themselves or others. Verification is thus central to a Concrete view of the world. Concrete people tend to rank things according to how verifiable or real they are. They are likely to dismiss abstract concepts because they seem less believable, important, and relevant, not simply because they are intangible.
Concrete people tend to make little distinction between things that are abstract and those that are fanciful. Both have lower credibility, meaning, and value than sensate things. Abstractions are not physically verifiable and do not provide information about tangible things or their relationships. They therefore seem less valuable, useful, or true. Concrete people value specific instructions about how to fix a carburetor, wire a house, or bake a cake much more than the principles of combustion or the theories of electric currents or chemical bonding. Fanciful things are not appealing to Concrete people because they are unreal, or simply boring and a waste of time. A Concrete approach attaches a value hierarchy to intangible things. This does not involve a Thinking or Feeling judgment; rather, it is a function of how grounded something is in the tangible world. Once its “tangibility value” has been determined, Thinking or Feeling judgments can be brought to bear.
Abstract
For people at this pole, real and important meanings lie in ideas and abstractions. The tangible world merely provides the associations from which meaning is created. Physical reality does not have meaning in and of itself, and may be regarded at times as irrelevant, annoying, distracting, or misleading. Concrete reality is primarily a stimulus for directing attention to the more interesting realm of intangibles. Meanings arise from the relationships of “things” to one another, and from their power to generate additional ideas or associations. Abstract people find it appealing to consider the number and variety of possibilities that emerge when one abstracts the meaning of things.
For the Abstract person, ideas are brought to life and given reality by their meanings and associations. A “fact” may be just an isolated occurrence and therefore may have no inherent meaning; it is what the fact represents that is primary. Ideas that cannot be connected to other notions are not as real. They do not have the value, interest, or excitement of ideas with many interconnections. The reality of the person at this pole is made up of ideas, abstractions, symbols, and figurative images. Physical objects or events that appear to contradict an abstraction or idea are likely to be regarded as exceptions, flukes, or simply obstacles to be overcome and worked around. Tangible evidence mainly serves to redirect the pattern of associations the Abstract person tries to make among ideas. The Abstract person will not necessarily abandon his or her ideas because of contrary material facts. Such physical evidence will only later stimulate modifications of ideas, abstractions, and generalizations.
People at this pole tend to communicate using words, expressions, and descriptions that evoke associations. This is because the tangible world is less important than the world of symbols and ideas. Even when referring to specific objects or events, meaning is not limited to what is tangible. Instead, the gist of what is being communicated lies in the abstract associations that can be made to the word. Thus language is primarily a means of implying something rather than specifying it. Using language to describe the details of one’s environment is only a secondary consideration.
Realistic-Imaginative
This facet describes how we develop something new through dealing with the tasks and problems of daily living and working.
Realistic
People at this pole focus on things that are pragmatic, where one can make a useful difference. They therefore emphasize objects, activities, ways of doing things, and kinds of knowledge. Realistic tasks may involve everything from the routines of daily living to those required to build a boat or construct a space shuttle. A central goal is efficiency in use of time, energy, and money, especially in serving a useful and tangible purpose. Realistic people attach a value to practical tings that has nothing to do with Thinking or Feeling judgments. Valuing of things stems from the greater attention, credibility, and time that the Realistic person gives to them. Things having little or no tangible impact on the detailed steps involved in a task or activity are considered to be of little value.
Realistic people value “things” in and of themselves as well as the uses to which these things can be put. They therefore tend to get along better and enjoy being with others who also appreciate tangible objects and goals. Such relationships allow Realistic people to benefit from factual knowledge and experience in areas beyond their own expertise. A shared Realistic outlook also provides a means of verifying, sharing, and reaffirming who one is, what life is about, and what is important. The shared worldview of Realistic people leads to a shared sense of humor. The humor of Realistic people differs from that of Imaginative people.
Realistic people like to have a generalized sense of how things work in the tangible world. With repeated experience and practice, their hands-on knowledge of the material world becomes the “common sense” that is so highly valued by Realistic people. Such common sense adds a worthwhile stability and efficiency to daily life. It also helps them feel, quite literally, grounded in the world. It prevents having to deal with the inevitable complications that result when common sense is lacking. The Realistic person therefore attends more to sensible, matter-of-fact things, solutions to problems, and people than to those that might be considered fascinating or imaginative. For Realistic people, things that are merely fascinating or imaginative are apt to offer little utility because they refer to things that are removed from tangible reality.
Imaginative
For people at this pole, tangible things are not nearly as important as the possibilities they suggest. Matters of fact are valuable mainly for the associations and images they bring to mind. Images are real and important; the material things from which they derive are only secondary. In fact, once a chain of associations and images has been inspired by something tangible, the initial object or fact may be forgotten. The Imaginative person will then take great delight in stringing together a succession of creative images. This kind of creative process itself may be valued as much as any of the ideas that are generated by it. For example, Imaginative people may fill journals or sketchbooks with creative output that is never published or shown to another person. When the process has run its course, the Imaginative person may move on to something entirely different or focus on the reality of whatever ideas seems most “promising.” There is unlikely to be any practical, step-by-step procedure for getting something done.
Imaginative people value creativity for its own sake; the very newness of an idea is itself appealing. They can mentally play with an idea, exploring a new and previously unknown territory of possibilities. The originality of Imaginative people is frequently inspired by the need for a solution to a practical problem, to which they can respond by trying to transcend what they see as the limits imposed by specific details. The question “tried-and-true” procedures and implicit assumptions about things, operations, objectives, and people. Because they work on the problem at a level that is mentally removed from its tangible details, their solution may not be workable in its original form. However, with a refocus on concrete reality and a little refining, it may turn out to be an ingenious solution.
In business settings, people at this pole are attracted to strategic planning. They may envision new markets, services, and products and construct mental images of a company’s future and of how it should recreate itself in order to get there. In other settings, they may become aware of a problem or need and envision a new program to meet it. Their vision will consist primarily of mental images that develop into a tangible form.
Practical-Conceptual
This facet deals with the product or outcome of one’s perceptions, rather than with the process of perception itself.
Practical
People at this pole are attracted to others who display practicality and common sense. For Practical people, ideas are valued and useful only when they can be applied to practical, down-to-earth problems. Practical people prefer putting things together from known objects and materials, using familiar and practiced methods. Their creativity is derived from experience. It is grounded in a thorough understanding of the materials used and how these materials are formed and fit together. Any new developments they create will evolve from step-by-step changes, with each stage being fully tested before any modifications are made. People at the Practical pole tend to be builders rather than innovators. They prefer the solid over the nebulous, value certainty over vagueness, and would rather deal with substances than with the purely symbolic. They are more oriented to the details of daily living and their work than to trends and events that may occur in the future. New ideas are accepted if their immediate application can be seen or if they offer tangible improvement over current practices.
Conceptual
People at this pole look for meanings in what they see around them. Tangible things are primarily reflections of a reality greater than the world of the five senses. Their focus is therefore on inferences they can draw at a conceptual level rather than on what is immediately present. They are not content, however, just to make inferences. Inferences give birth to ideas, and ideas are what excite them. They may be interested in documenting or tracing the development of an idea of concept. They particularly enjoy making connections and finding relationships among a variety of ideas. They value abstract intellectual discourse and are attracted to the exception rather than the mundane. They enjoy the stimulation of people with quick and insightful minds with whom they can have a lively exchange of ideas. They value intellectual and scholarly pursuits over practical and active endeavors.
When people at this pole make or build something, it arises out of their mental images. These images include what they are trying to do as well as the meaning their creation has for them. The step-by-step process of putting something together is not nearly as satisfying as the symbolic meaning that they give something when it is finished. Conceptual people are oriented toward the future because insights and images lying beyond what is immediately tangible are foremost. Their interest is not in specific practical accomplishments, but in the ideas and meanings behind their efforts. They are more interested in the concept of a new thing than in the thing itself.
Experiential-Theoretical
This facet emphasizes the process by which one makes knowledge or meaning out of one’s perceptions.
Experiential
For people at this pole, something must be validated by experience to be worthy of more than their brief attention. Experiential people are wary of theory, preferring instead the certainty of their own active participation in the world. They want instructions to include specific action steps that are based on practical experience. Experience is the primary criterion for truth and relevance. An Experiential personfinds it difficult to talk about truth apart from the trial and error of experience. Truth and relevance are inseparable for these people. A primary pleasure comes from expertly applying their experience. This provides the opportunity to become immersed in an active, tangible expression of both truth and relevance. The resulting product yields a singular kind of personal fulfillment because it embodies both of these qualities. Experiential people have little incentive for changing methods that have been proven to work repeatedly. Trying to improve techniques that already work is a waste of time that could be spent more productively in accomplishing the task at hand. For the Experiential person, producing something is much more satisfying than attempting an unknown approach. However, if there are no established procedures for a new task, the Experiential person will adeptly use a trail-and-error approach to find out what does work. The trials will begin with what the person already knows from similar situations. Such knowledge tells him or her how well the old methods work and where they need to be adapted.
Theoretical
People at this pole generally operate a level or two removed from the immediately tangible. They search for patterns in what they see and discern meanings in those patterns. Their understanding and knowledge of the world are contained in an abstract series of principles, explanations, and theories. These are derived from understandings, sympathies, and values, depending on whether their judging function is Thinking or Feeling. Theoretical people like to explore things by looking for new connections among the concepts they use to understand the world. These new associations create fresh meanings that promote further explorations. The generation of ideas takes on a life of its own and becomes something sought for its own sake. Theoretical people are therefore ready to try new ideas or ways of doing things just to get this mental process started. A task or work that offers no new ideas or approaches to try becomes boring. Theoretical people like to weave concepts together to form a coherent set of principles or explanations that help us understand or predict something in the world.
Theoretical people learn better if they are given theories and concepts in addition to any relevant factual information. They primarily understand things at that level. Facts are apt to have little meaning by themselves and are likely to be forgotten unless they can be tied to a theory or put into some larger context. Immediate and tangible relationships between things are far less compelling to them. While Theoretical people can certainly recognize beauty in their physical environment, they find the beauty in concepts and theories to be even more awe-inspiring.
Traditional-Original
This facet emphasizes social context as the background that gives meaning to our perceptions.
Traditional
People at this pole prefer doing things in established ways that are shared by most other people. It is appealing to them to rely on the security that comes from fitting in with a community or group. They like the feeling of belonging to or being part of something larger than themselves. This preference involves one’s entire lifestyle, not merely specific tasks. It includes style of dress, choice of charities, type of housing, and recreational and leisure activities. Traditional people find the conventional appealing in many respects. Convention offers ways of doing things that are continually validated by the social environment. When they see others living in similar ways, Traditional people are assured that their manner of living is valued and correct. They receive immediate confirmation that their way of living is “on target” by checking it against their social surroundings. As a result they are uncomfortable going against the grain of custom, culture, and traditional norms. Tradition is associated with what is good.
For the Traditional person, fads are suspect because they don’t have the validating test of time and experience. Fads also lack the societal breadth and depth that occur when traditional styles and customs are followed. Following a fad is not a effective way of achieving the stable and comfortable relationship to one’s environment that comes from acting in accord with the traditional styles and customs of one’s group. Another avenue to such stability is to follow family traditions, which affirms one’s role and relationships among one’s kin. Such traditions provide self-definition and give meaning to one’s own and one’s family members’ lives. Traditional people greatly respect tradition and change their ways only reluctantly. For change to be acceptable, it must be grounded in what was done before and must proceed gradually. For Traditional people, deliberate changes made just for the sake of change are meaningless at best. At worst they may destroy cherished meanings that are the foundations of social, organizational, and family life. Traditions are ways of honoring or appreciating what is right and good. Traditional people admire those who can serve as solid role models for behavior and are interested in passing down their traditions to the next generation. They are often perplexed when the next generation is unappreciative of treasured traditions.
Original
For people at this pole, repetition and sameness in important areas of life are almost a trigger for innovation. Original people do not disrespect traditions; rather, they find that doing things exactly the same way time after time diminishes the meaning in an event. They may prefer to retain the basic theme of something but apply variations on the theme. For the Original person, it is the variations that convey meaning, rather than the theme itself. Exact repetition of a traditional way of doing something would make the activity as dull as a musical score that simply repeated the same theme over and over using the same notes.
Changes in established ways of doing things also give people at this pole opportunities for self-expression. Their originality may be displayed in their approach to tasks or activities, or in their choice of dress, leisure activities, or lifestyle. They can find inspiration to put their best effort into their work by inventing different ways of doing something. Having to do it the way someone else has done it may make their effort dead and meaningless. If the job simply does not allow for anything unique, the Original person will not be able to connect with the work and will become unmotivated. However, Original people do not need to be original in every part of their lives. In many instances, they tend to concentrate their originality in circumscribed areas that are especially meaningful to them. They admire people who stand out because of their willingness to be different. For Original people, eccentricity is a virtue.
3 – Intuition on Big Five
The MBTI can be read by Big Five, and on case of Intuition, Intuition and Openness to Experience have a correlation that is high enough in order to almost allowing an exchangeable use between each other (you can approximate Intuition as Openness to Experience with some great accuracy). Here is the Openness to Experience definition (from http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/5/j5j/IPIPNEOdescriptions.html)
“Openness to Experience describes a dimension of cognitive style that distinguishes imaginative, creative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. Open people are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, compared to closed people, more aware of their feelings. They tend to think and act in individualistic and nonconforming ways. Intellectuals typically score high on Openness to Experience; consequently, this factor has also been called Culture or Intellect. Nonetheless, Intellect is probably best regarded as one aspect of openness to experience. Scores on Openness to Experience are only modestly related to years of education and scores on standard intelligent tests.
Another characteristic of the open cognitive style is a facility for thinking in symbols and abstractions far removed from concrete experience. Depending on the individual’s specific intellectual abilities, this symbolic cognition may take the form of mathematical, logical, or geometric thinking, artistic and metaphorical use of language, music composition or performance, or one of the many visual or performing arts. People with low scores on openness to experience tend to have narrow, common interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavors as abstruse or of no practical use. Closed people prefer familiarity over novelty; they are conservative and resistant to change.
Openness is often presented as healthier or more mature by psychologists, who are often themselves open to experience. However, open and closed styles of thinking are useful in different environments. The intellectual style of the open person may serve a professor well, but research has shown that closed thinking is related to superior job performance in police work, sales, and a number of service occupations.
(…)
Your score on Openness to Experience is high, indicating you enjoy novelty, variety, and change. You are curious, imaginative, and creative.”
I did ordered the facets from Big 5 that are related to intuition in order of affinity: High is for high correlations that can be used in exchange, Medium is partially related and Weak as timidly related. The definitions comes from the same source as above, while the affinity is based on the correlations of this page (https://typologytriad.wordpress.com/2020/05/13/cognitive-functions-and-big-5-correlations/) and this page(https://typologytriad.wordpress.com/mbti-enneagram-big-5-correlations/). Inside [] are my comments.
High Affinity
Imagination. To imaginative individuals, the real world is often too plain and ordinary. High scorers on this scale use fantasy as a way of creating a richer, more interesting world. Low scorers are on this scale are more oriented to facts than fantasy.
Intellect. [combined with thinking] Intellect and artistic interests are the two most important, central aspects of openness to experience. High scorers on Intellect love to play with ideas. They are open-minded to new and unusual ideas, and like to debate intellectual issues. They enjoy riddles, puzzles, and brain teasers. Low scorers on Intellect prefer dealing with either people or things rather than ideas. They regard intellectual exercises as a waste of time. Intellect should not be equated with intelligence. Intellect is an intellectual style, not an intellectual ability, although high scorers on Intellect score slightly higher than low-Intellect individuals on standardized intelligence tests.
Artistic Interests. High scorers on this scale love beauty, both in art and in nature [picture INFP and sunset/sunrise]. They become easily involved and absorbed in artistic and natural events. They are not necessarily artistically trained nor talented, although many will be. The defining features of this scale are interest in, and appreciation of natural and artificial beauty. Low scorers lack aesthetic sensitivity and interest in the arts.
Medium
Adventurousness [more E biased than I, good resume for the Ne type]. High scorers on adventurousness are eager to try new activities, travel to foreign lands, and experience different things. They find familiarity and routine boring, and will take a new route home just because it is different. Low scorers tend to feel uncomfortable with change and prefer familiar routines.
Low
Liberalism. Psychological liberalism refers to a readiness to challenge authority, convention, and traditional values. In its most extreme form, psychological liberalism can even represent outright hostility toward rules, sympathy for law-breakers, and love of ambiguity, chaos, and disorder. Psychological conservatives prefer the security and stability brought by conformity to tradition. Psychological liberalism and conservatism are not identical to political affiliation, but certainly incline individuals toward certain political parties.
4 – The problems with N/S – Link to article.
Typology Triad 