It is understandable why we associate the opposite function-attitudes as completely different in function and in attitude. Based on that assumption, it is clear that we would consider the opposite function-attitudes to be:
The problem with this theory is that Jung refers to the principle of compensation. Jung says,In her book, “Beside Ourselves”, Naomi Quenck (designer of the MBTI Step II) says, “Psychological opposites are essential for the whole of Jung’s personality theory, just as they are for his type theory. This opposition provides us a way for our psyches to correct one-sidedeness. Quenck says Jung borrowed Newton’s third law of motion in proposing compensation as a way to regulate and balance our functioning: Every action force has a reaction force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.Whenever life proceeds one-sidely in any given direction, the self-regulation of the organism produces in the unconscious an accumulation of all those factors which play too small a part in the individual’s conscious existence. For this reason I have put forward the compensation theory or the unconscious as a complement to the repression theory.
Differentiation Between Opposites in a Pair: In considering this theory, the opposites as referenced above are not true opposites. Jung never says that we cannot use thinking with feeling. He merely says that the more dominant function must suppress it’s opposite to work effectively. However later Jung developed his compensation theory based on Newton’s law.
So what would be true opposites pertaining to type? I think we may refer to the Wolfgang Pauli exclusion (who befriended Jung and worked with him on the theory of Synchronicity). To paraphrase his theory, two thoughts cannot occupy the same space and time. In her book “Was That Really Me?”, Naomi Quenck refers to differentiation in saying, “….. If a person has Se and Ne, or Si and Ni fused together, neither can be used in a conscious, directed manner as a way of gathering information. Instead, facts and possibilities seem to be one and the same, and past, present and future are indistinguishable. For a person operating in this fashion, something that might occur may be equivalent to something this actually occurring and an imagined conversation may be accepted as having actually occurred.”
Thus this should make the principle of type very clear that the true function-attitude opposites:
This theory coincides with the 8 function model proposed by John Beebe that I do use Fe, but have no use of Fi. I can’t, because not only does it disrupt my thinking, it must take over my dominant function for usage Ti. In an example, Quenck gives some examples of being adaptive vs. having a preference for one-sidedness in saying someone who prefers the extraverted attitude will be charming, enthusiastic and sociable when using introversion. However when using too much extraversion they become boastful, intrusive and loud. When someone preferring introversion is balanced they are deep, discreet and tranquil. However too much introversion makes them aloof, inhibited and withdrawn. The same should be considered with the use of functions. Too intuiting makes one eccentric, erratic and unrealistic, but Ne-Si or Ni-Se becomes imaginative, ingenious and insightful. A final example will be someone who uses too much thinking. They will be argumentative, intolerant and coarse, but when they allow their Fe and Fi inferior functions to work, they become lucid, objective and succinct.
This brings me to the final notion that some claim in the use of the same functions (Ni-Ne, Fi-Fe, etc.). Really? Marie-Louise von Franz provides and example of Fi function in saying that although Fi dominant types struggle to use Te, they have even a more arduous time attempting to use Fe. These are also differentiations that will result in a “one-sidedness”. In the book, “Gifts Differing” Myers-Briggs alluded to too much intuiting and no sensing results in “all sail and no rudder”. These in my opinion are mild explanations. Someone attempting to use these sort of combinations render a ridgidity in the personality leading to e a full blown personality disorder, at best. However in reality, Ni-Ne would make a person completely oblivious to reality. Ti-Te (OMG) I could not even imagine the havoc that would be reaped if someone was using this combination on a daily basis. They would have no consideration for humanity. For us to balance we must use all four functions since they compensate the over use of one another. So although two perceiving or two judging functions of opposite attitude and function may work in tandem, these below would wreak utter havoc: