# Se - Te loop vs Te - Se loop



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

I believe the authors of dom-teritairy loop are 
"Joel Mark Witt and Antonia Dodge are podcasters, entrepreneurs, personal development coaches, and personality typology experts who have consulted with companies like Zappos, Oracle, American Express, CNN, and many others."

In their book "personality Hacker' they write that 


> "To discover which cognitive functions are your tertiary and inferior, we use the principle of polarities by reversing the dominant and auxiliary. The inferior cognitive function is the polarity opposite of the dominant, whereas the tertiary function is the polarity opposite of the auxiliary.Each of the cognitive functions has an opposite function it pairs with to create a polarity, or pairing of opposites. You don’t have to look far—the polarities are all there in the eight functions."
> 
> Since 2009, we’ve been using a simple tool to teach cognitive functions; we named it the Car Model. It’s been a powerful tool in our coaching, programs, and content. We feel it is the best way to grasp the full extent of your personality.




That's it. They invented this model of opposite attitudes and spread it.




> "If you recall, your Driver process, depending on your type, is either introverted or extraverted. Your Copilot process is the opposite attitude by design; it allows you access to the other “world” as a form of balance. Being 100 percent introverted or extraverted would be a form of pathology, and we don’t know if any healthy person actually occupies that space. But that doesn’t mean you don’t have a strong preference for one of those worlds, and the process that encourages you to explore the other world may be seen as threatening.
> 
> If you are deeply introverted, you may avoid your extraverted Copilot to evade a scary outer world that gives you sensory overload or negative feedback that makes you feel like your thoughts and feelings are wrong and that you aren’t enough. On the other hand, if you are highly extraverted, your introverted Copilot may force you to face uncomfortable introspection, including painful memories, trauma you haven’t worked through, or unfamiliar and unexplored parts of yourself.


Then it was matter of pure logic I guess. If they assumed that Dom and tert functions have the same attitude then when you omit you auxillary fucntion you stay with your dom-tert.

Therefore, loop. 

it's not some evidence-proved theory, it's some abstract logical model.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Allana

No. Harold Grant came up with the Grant stack: IE/IE and EI/EI. Not Personality Hacker.

Personality Hacker did talk about the loops, but that was way after it was introduced to the public, as Dissymetry said earlier. 

I would still like to know what your point is exactly. You're saying that Dissy and I and (supposedly) reckful are all terribly mistaken and are sharing a joint hallucination or something yet the only evidence you provide shows that there is no such thing as a dom-tertiary loop because the functions are IEEE or EIII.

Is your point to be that we're wrong and actually Jung used the Grant stack decades before Grant came up with it? I'm just confused at what your agenda is. It seems like you're trying very hard to prove something, but I'm not sure what that something is and I'm curious.


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

> If you don't mind, could you clarify your point without quoting anything? What exactly are you trying to say?


I'm saying that I don't have any hard evidence to argue and I don't particularly want to argue about the validity of theory. I chose this MBTi "standard" model and I use it as it is in order to avoid inconsistancies. 

For me MBTi is a bit like astrology or some D&D alignment, I consider this whole theory a bit of a psychological fun game of some model. 


You don't try to prove that Good neutral alighment is evidence-based, you admit it and use it where it is applicable. 

My point: if the whole MBTi theory is to some extent a pile of bullshit and a mind game "for fun" then why should we argue which part of it more bullshit and which part is less bullshit?


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

By the way, Naomi L,Quenk in her book of In the Grip" suggests another vision: "A person's tertiary function may be used in *either direction*, depending on circumstances and individual habits"

So it may be Ni-Te-Fi-Se or Ni-Te-Fe-Se


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Allana said:


> For me MBTi is a bit like astrology or some D&D alignment, I consider this whole theory a bit of a psychological fun game of some model.


Ah I see. For me, I consider Jungian Psychology (and, therefore, his typology) a _Science_. 

I consider MBTI a personality theory separate from Jung.

Edit to add: Yeah, I personally believe that (what was said of the tertiary function) of the aux function, but I don't have anything in Jungian theory to back that up with. I have just noticed that I use Ni the most and then T, in either direction, and so on. Same with my partner who uses Ti first and then N, in either direction. As you can see, I have not done extensive research on this and I have so few personal friends that I'd probably never be able to test the theory even to my own liking.


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

> Ah I see. For me, I consider Jungian Psychology (and, therefore, his typology) a Science.


Science requires proof and facts. I read Jung's theory but was it really fact-based? Polls, reviews, comparison, careful choosing of people being tested? I doubt it.
Not by modern standards anyway.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Allana said:


> Science require proof and facts. I read Jung's theory but was it really fact-based? Not by modern standards anyway.


It is empirical and evidence based. By modern standards. Clearly you have not read his collected works. I advise you not to try to school me in Jung unless you know what you're talking about. I thought you didn't want to argue, right?


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

No, I don't want to. 
But it seems to me you and some other members here are stubbonly trying to teach people about "wrongness' of "function stack" theory. 


I don't understand why. This forum is not a scientific one. Why not to find real MBTi-pracitioners, psychologists and discuss it, to contact with mbti- organization. Finally find anwers WHY did they promote their "Grant" theory? 

If it's wrong then what's the point?
This huge organisation continues to teach this.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Allana said:


> No, I don't want to.
> But it seems to me you and some other members here are stubbonly trying to teach people about "wrongness' of "function stack" theory.
> 
> 
> ...


lol. No, I'm not trying to say that function stack "theory" is wrong. I was only speaking to loops. 

And believe me, I do talk to professionals about it. And my loving boyfriend who probably knows more about Jung than I do somehow. I practice Depth Psychology as my job so, it's sorta my life, k?

I don't feel that I was particularly stubborn. I was only stating what I knew was the truth. When others presented alternate realities, I questioned where they got that from because I'm constantly wanting to learn new things. It's not my fault they can't back up their statements. : )


----------



## hornpipe2 (Nov 3, 2015)

Allana said:


> Science requires proof and facts. I read Jung's theory but was it really fact-based? Polls, reviews, comparison, careful choosing of people being tested? I doubt it.
> Not by modern standards anyway.


I haven't really read a lot of Jung but the bits I have seen appear to be empirically based, and he does make attempts to test his theories and documents that. I mean, it's not double-blind laboratory testing, but case studies and so on are valid methods of inquiry under the umbrella of "science".

There is a bit of mystical aspect to (some of) what he has written but it's not all like that, there appears to be some solid parts underlying it.


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

> lol. No, I'm not trying to say that function stack "theory" is wrong.


Well, ok, not you, it was @reckful, I think.

I don't know which of models is true Ti-Ni-Fe-SE, Ti-Ne-Fi-Se (for INTJ) like Myesrs suggested or Ti-Fe-Se-Ne like Jung
but don't you see these three models are completely different! 

And does anyone try to prove which one is true? 
Are there any researchers about it? 
That's the most interesting part but it seems NBTI-company is developing in another direction and most modern researchers disregard this model altogether.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Allana said:


> Well, ok, not you, it was @reckful, I think.
> 
> I don't know which of models is true Ti-Ni-Fe-SE, Ti-Ne-Fi-Se (for INTJ) like Myesrs suggested or Ti-Fe-Se-Ne like Jung
> but don't you see these three models are completely different!
> ...


We're here in the cognitive functions subforum talking about MBTI. I like this forum because we get to talk about the cognitive functions here. I don't really care which is "true" or not. I'm more about what works and what doesn't, what makes sense and what doesn't and how humanity responds to conscious and unconscious material. I know looping isn't a thing because Jung's function stack is II/EE & EE/II. He based this on thousands of case studies and refined typology throughout the rest of his life.

The warnings he gives to practitioners of using certain therapeutic methods such as activating the transcendent function and using Active Imagination are almost laughable they're so over-the-top. If there was anything "dangerous" about looping, he would not have said that a healthy person exhibits two functions in the same attitude on the conscious level. That's it. 

It's not about proving anything. It's just saying that, to my knowledge, "loops" are completely made up by people post Grant-stack and I have yet to see any published scientific articles about that.

For clarity:

Jung: II/EE or EE/II
Myers: IE/EE or EI/II
Grant: IE/IE or EI/EI

with "/" representing what is conscious and unconscious.


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

Who is this Grant?


----------



## hornpipe2 (Nov 3, 2015)

Allana said:


> And does anyone try to prove which one is true?
> Are there any researchers about it?


Yes, yes they do...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Allana said:


> For me MBTi is a bit like astrology or some D&D alignment, I consider this whole theory a bit of a psychological fun game of some model.
> 
> You don't try to prove that Good neutral alighment is evidence-based, you admit it and use it where it is applicable.
> 
> My point: if the whole MBTi theory is to some extent a pile of bullshit and a mind game "for fun" then why should we argue which part of it more bullshit and which part is less bullshit?


If you've been led to believe that personality typologies pretty much just exist in some _theoretical ether_ where everybody's entitled to their own perspective, and nobody can claim that their perspective is any more valid (or, heaven forbid, "scientific") than any other, then you've been _misled_.

There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the MBTI and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category. And the MBTI can actually point to years of studies that basically put it on a par (psychometrically speaking) with the Big Five.

If you're interested, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post.

That said, tho... it must be noted that the respectable districts of the MBTI are the dichotomy-centric districts, rather than the "cognitive functions" (_aka_ "type dynamics") districts, and I've put some recycled reckful on that subject in the spoiler.


* *




Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took _Psychological Types_ and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the _science_ of personality.

And it's reasonably clear that Myers, despite quite a bit of lip service to Jung and the functions, came to understand (based on her many years of data-gathering) that the dichotomies were the essential components of Jungian/MBTI type. I agree with James Reynierse, an MBTI practitioner who has rightly (IMO) concluded — in a 2009 article ("The Case Against Type Dynamics") in the journal published by the official MBTI folks — that the eight faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" that people like Linda Berens love to talk about are best viewed as nothing more than a "category mistake."

And contrary to the notion that a function-centric perspective offers more richness and depth than a (properly framed) dichotomy-centric perspective, and as Reynierse explains in that linked article, it's actually the dichotomy-centric perspective that's richer and more flexible.

On a more specific, stack-related note, the forum-famous model that says that INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, (and ZOMG, INTJs and INTPs have _no functions in common_) is the Harold Grant function stack — and it's a model that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. More importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, that function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but _disproven_ at this point, given that the correlational patterns associated with it have stubbornly failed to show up in over 50 years of MBTI data pools.

The notion that, if you're a "Ti type," you're also an "Fe type" — and ditto for the Te/Fi, Ni/Se and Ne/Si pairs (the so-called "function axes," or "tandems") — is also a by-product of the Grant model, and it's nonsense.

If you're ever in the mood for a hefty helping of input on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, and the unbearable bogosity of the Grant function stack, you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this Typology Central post and the posts it links to.

[NOTE: The final link at the end of that linked post is no longer functional (since the owner has taken INTJforum private), but you can find a long replacement excerpt from the INTJforum post — describing the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI — in the spoiler in this post.]



You're free to treat the MBTI like "astrology or some D&D alignment" if you like, Allana, but if you do, (1) you're very much underestimating the scientific status of its respectable districts, and (2) you shouldn't expect anyone who knows better to take you seriously.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Allana said:


> Who is this Grant?


:shocked:

- - - - - - - - - - 
@reckful

You had me at bogosity ... You had me at bogosity.

PS, @Kynx has asked that I kindly point out, if it is ever possible to misunderstand, that she has "dibs" on reckful. I have what is known as "second dibs" but only if my loving boyfriend isn't around. It's all very complicated, but I feel the need to explain.


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

Dissymetry said:


> I am not trying to convince myself of anything I am asking you to prove what you are saying. You have been provided strong arguments that dispute the idea that the tertiary function is in the same orientation as the dominant function. This inconsistency with Jung and Myers means that the "loops" do not exist they are not a part of the theory. Following both Jungs and Myers theories the stack for an ESFP would be Se dominant and Ti tertiary. My understanding is Jungs theory would suggest Se-Fe-Ti-Ni and Myers theory would suggest Se-Fi-Ti-Ni. There is no dom-tert loop following Jungs or Myers theories. This is what you have been told. I am not trying to convince myself of anything.
> 
> I do not care about this at all. It is something to fill in some time. You are welcome to believe whatever you would like to believe but you can not choose your own facts. There is no "dom-tert" loop in Jungs or Myers theories. It was created in the thread I linked by someone that is probably not a psychologist and probably has no relevant qualifications to attribute each non-existent "loop" to the mental disorders they did. Are you able to rebut any of my points?


If you're not going to answer the original question of this thread could you please stop posting. I'm getting bored of this. If you don't think it's real that's fine. Stop trying to convince me.


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

Hicks said:


> If you're not going to answer the original question of this thread could you please stop posting. I'm getting bored of this. If you don't think it's real that's fine. Stop trying to convince me.


I think you are missing the point the question is what is the difference between Se-Te "loop" and Te-Se "loop" but the answer is loops are not real. They are inconsistent with Jung and Myers and have no validity. This is like asking what color are unicorns, white or pink? The answer is unicorns are not real.


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

Dissymetry said:


> I think you are missing the point the question is what is the difference between Se-Te "loop" and Te-Se "loop" but the answer is loops are not real. They are inconsistent with Jung and Myers and have no validity. This is like asking what color are unicorns, white or pink? The answer is unicorns are not real.



Like I already said. They are real but unhealthy INTJs don't like the idea of the loops because the implication would be that ESFPs have the potential to achieve big and that fact goes against how INTJs see the world. Be honest with yourself will you. You don't want it to be real. Your in denial. You don't want it to be real so you're rationalising why it's not. Why else would you bother to keep posting ?? If someone asked me a question and I gave them my opinion then they told me I was wrong I would just leave it their. I wouldn't care so much to keep arguing unless I was trying to convince others in order to convince my self. Stop confusing reality with what you want reality to be. Unless you're going to contribute to the original question stop wasting my time.


----------



## Dissymetry (Apr 15, 2019)

Hicks said:


> Like I already said. They are real but unhealthy INTJs don't like the idea of the loops because the implication would be that ESFPs have the potential to achieve big and that fact goes against how INTJs see the world. Be honest with yourself will you. You don't want it to be real. Your in denial. You don't want it to be real so you're rationalising why it's not. Why else would you bother to keep posting ?? If someone asked me a question and I gave them my opinion then they told me I was wrong I would just leave it their. I wouldn't care so much to keep arguing unless I was trying to convince others in order to convince my self. Stop confusing reality with what you want reality to be. Unless you're going to contribute to the original question stop wasting my time.


Please stop this attack on "unhealthy INTJs". You saying function loops are real does not make them real. It is not that "unhealthy INTJs" try to make them not real. What makes them not real is a lack of evidence to support their existence and the inconsistency with both Jungs and Myers theory. They are not even real theoretically yet proven to be real in reality with any kind of evidence.

Nobody that I am aware of has suggested INTJs view ESFPs in a way that wants them to not have potential to achieve big things only you are saying this. I am not in denial of anything the only person that is in denial of anything is you and how you are in denial of the fact that the loop theory is inconsistent with Jung and Myers theories. It is not a part of any of this. It was created in the link I posted by a member of this forum that I doubt has any qualifications relevant to attribute the loops (that do not exist following Jungs theories or Myers "stacks") with mental disorders.

I do not care if it is real or not. If it was real that would be something fun to think about and theorise on but unfortunately it is inconsistent with the Jungian II/EE stack and the Myers IE/EE stack. It only exists if you accept the function stack that Harold Grant and others speculated on (and did not stand by too strongly). 

You are projecting some form of self-hate or something on to me and others. There is no "unhealthy INTJs" out to get you and make ESFPs something that can not achieve anything. There is not any vendetta here. I am not confusing reality with anything. I have contributed to this thread with precisely the response it requires which is to question the existence of the "loop theory" in the first place because there is multiple issues with it that I and other posters have addressed. What is the point in speculating on something that does not exist even in theory? It exists solely if you follow the Grantian stack. The Grantian stack has no evidence to support it. It is applied after a person is typed using dichotomy as well. The actual function stack itself is not tested for at all. There is too many problems with the "loop theory". My responses have not been a waste of your time. You are deciding it is a waste of your time because you have fictionalised a war between INTJs and ESFPs for no reason.


----------

