# Misconceptions of the Tertiary Function



## Functianalyst

The tertiary placement seems to be quite ambiguous and hard to understand. The word itself literally means in 3rd place, which can create an inference that based on typology principles, any function-attitude in the 3rd placement must be weaker than the two preceding placements (dominant-auxiliary). This theory is usually followed by MBTI enthusiasts. The MBTI system also implies that the auxiliary placement will always be developed. Based on “Gifts Differing” one may easily infer that the auxiliary can be equal to or in the case of introverting types, at least give an appearance of being greater than the dominant function. This ambivalence is generally the result of discussions surrounding the J/P process. 


*MBTI System*

The *Myers-Briggs Foundation* describes the hierarchy of placements this way:


> One preference has the most influence on you. This is called the dominant function.
> 
> The next strongest preference is called the auxiliary function. It is important because it serves to support and balance the dominant.
> 
> The 3rd strongest is the tertiary function.
> 
> One preference is the least strong. This is the fourth function, often called the inferior function.


The foundation describes the tertiary this way:


> The 3rd-preferred, or tertiary, function tends to be less interesting to individuals, and they tend to have fewer skills associated with it. The letter of this function does not appear in your type. It is the opposite function from the auxiliary function. If, for example, your auxiliary function is Thinking, then your tertiary will be Feeling.
> 
> Development of this function tends to come later in life (about midlife) after you have grown and feel comfortable with the dominant and auxiliary. As you grow and develop, you learn that there is a time and place to use your 3rd and fourth functions.
> 
> About this time, the question arises in life, is this all there is? The tertiary function can guide you toward areas of your life you have avoided, areas that require skills you do not feel comfortable using. For example, a Thinking type with tertiaryIntuition may begin taking literature courses. A Thinking type with tertiary Sensing may begin doing carpentry or weaving.


This theory again implies that we will have less use of the tertiary placed function than the auxiliary. MBTI enthusiasts who have written about this placement provide little information. In their books “Beside Ourselves” and “Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual”, Naomi Quenck and Lenore Thomson writes about the tertiary, explaining how the placement works in the MBTI system. However in a rewrite of her book titled “Was That Really Me?”,Dr. Quenck seems to defer her thoughts on this placement to how Jungian theorists see its usage. Dr. Quenck concludes that the role of the tertiary is ambivalent in varied systems. This is a reference to some theorists interpreting Jung to indicate a person using an introverting function to dominate will use all extraverting functions afterwards, and vice-versa for the extraverting type. 

Because MBTI associates the 3rd placed function with the inferior function. Many infer that any use of the 3rd function is a result of the inferior function and the use of the tertiary is negative and immature at best. This thought also implies that for the tertiary function to work, the auxiliary function must relinquish its power. That is vaguely true since theoretically the auxiliary and tertiary functions will be compensatory opposites. Therefore the more we use one function, the less we will use the other (on a sliding scale). When reading MBTI theory, one may infer that the dominant and auxiliary placements are conscious and differentiated. 


*Jungian Typology*

Jungian enthusiasts such as John Beebe, refers to the tertiary placement as well. Like the four-letter codes we generally reference to allude to a particular type (ISTP, ENFP, etc.), the tertiary theory has become a staple in how we view the application of type. However unlike MBTI enthusiasts, Jungian Analysts indicate in their diagrams that the 2nd and 3rd functions are equal (or an axis), the auxiliary and tertiary functions are shown at the side as arms with equal usage, whereas the inferior function is at the bottom. This should give some indication that Jungian enthusiasts may believe the 2nd and 3rd functions are equal. Dr. Beebe refers to the 3rd function as the Puer Aeternus/Puella Aeterna function (aka Eternal Child). In his 8-model function study, Dr. Beebe describes the role in himself this way:


> My introverted thinking was symbolised by a Father in one dream that found him in conflict with an upset feeling-type son, whom I eventually recognised as an image of my 3rd function. The particular son figure in the dream was a persistently im-mature man in analysis at the time, whose oscillation of woundedness and creativity fit well the description Marie Louise von Franz had given in her classic study of the ‘problem of the Puer Aeternus’ (1970), the Latin term referring to an eternal boyhood befitting an immortal. I decided that this dream was referring to an aspect of my own feeling that was inflated, vulnerable and chronically immature.


Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi also refer to the 3rd placement as tertiary, but has dubbed this placement as the “Relief Role” and describes it as:


> The relief role gives us a way to energize and recharge ourselves. It serves as a backup to the supporting role and often works in tandem with it. When we are younger, we might not engage in the process that plays this role very much unless our life circumstances require it or make it hard to use the supporting role process. Usually, in young adulthood we are attracted to activities that draw upon this process. The relief role often is how we express our creativity. It is how we are playful and childlike. In its most negative expression, this is how we become childish. Then it has an unsettling quality, and we can use this process to distract ourselves and others, getting us off target.


There are other analysts who have written about this placement as well. In her book “Jung’s Typology, Dr. von Franz never uses the word tertiary. Instead in Chapter IV called “The Role of the Inferior Function”, Dr. von Franz says, “As long as one has not developed the two auxiliary functions, they too will be open doors. In a person who has only developed one superior function, the two auxiliary functions will operate in the same way as the inferior function.” The analysis by Beebe, Berens/Nardi and von Franz come from Carl Jung’s “Psychological Type Theory”. In his theory, Dr. Jung also never refers to a tertiary function. Dr. Jung implies that we have auxiliary or a complimentary functions that are never antagonistic to the dominant function-attitude. Dr. Jung provides an example that sensing and intuiting can be auxiliaries for a thinking type, but never feeling. Dr. Jung also gives an example of how an ISTP or ESTJ will use the functions in saying:


> A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude (N-F) may correspond with a conscious practical intellect (T-S), *whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition*.


Many Jungian Analysts such as Dr. von Franz assert that the dominant and two auxiliary functions can be developed to a point of being differentiated or being able to stand alone, unlike the inferior function which will always need a more dominant function to work properly. These type functions are what Dr. Jung refers to as un-differentiated, because they cannot work on their own. 


*Practical Application*

For the past couple of months, I have been reading bits and pieces of information to determine if there truly exists a viable understanding of how the 3rd placement works in relation to the second. Again there are those who believe the 3rd placement works for the inferior. This seems to contradict Dr. Jung’s theory since the inferior is not something we consciously uses, but something that just happens to us. I have no doubt that there may be information available to conclude how the 3rd placement works. Yet for now when discussing type, it seems apparent that any discussion of the 3rd function as a “tertiary”, is a discussion of MBTI, not Jungian. When discussing type using the Jungian method there is no evidence that a tertiary placement exists, but two equally applied functions. What does this mean in how we apply the theories? Going back to the dom-tert loop, this theory is most likely correct when applying the Myers & Briggs theory since the tertiary seems to be suppressed because of the auxiliary function. 

Another conclusion may be made that when Jung referred to himself as being capitalized by thinking and using a great deal of intuition, it would infer he would be INTP as we know it. However when applying the Jungian theory, a dominant-tertiary loop cannot exists since as I have repeatedly indicated in the past that this would imply the dominant and tertiary functions will have to be close or equal to one another for the tertiary placement to consciously take over causing a recurring loop. This is in direct defiance of Jung’s principle of the auxiliary when saying:


> This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.


This also gives us some insight as to what Jung may have been alluding to in describing himself. There has been debate that Jung was possibly ISTP because of how he described himself as a young person. Those who indicate he was ISTP, but changed to INTP later are seeing this transformation from the MBTI standard where Dr. Jung initially used Ti-Se then began using Ti-Ne. This implies he changed types. I propose a different explanation that remains consistent with Dr. Jung’s principles, in that, from the start to finish Dr. Jung dominated with Ti, developed his Se in younger years and then his Ni in midlife. Instead of limiting this process within the confines of there being only 16 types, it appears that based on his own principles Dr. Jung initially Ti-Se, then began using Ti-Ni. Dr. Jung prescribes to there being at least three distinct types in what we see as ISTP.


----------



## madhatter

Thank you, Functianalyst. Very succinctly put, as always. 

I was thinking the same thing about Jung's type when the topic came up earlier, that he used Ti-Ni, since I am an ISTP also characterized by "a great deal of Intuition". I would say that Ni is just as strong as Se for me.


----------



## Functianalyst

madhatter said:


> Thank you, Functianalyst. Very succinctly put, as always.
> 
> I was thinking the same thing about Jung's type when the topic came up earlier, that he used Ti-Ni, since I am an ISTP also characterized by "a great deal of Intuition". I would say that Ni is just as strong as Se for me.


Mad, you and I have discussed this quite a bit over the past year and I think we have a similar make-up in our function development being Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.


----------



## madhatter

Functianalyst said:


> Mad, you and I have discussed this quite a bit over the past year and I think we have a similar make-up in our function development being Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.


I would agree. I think that also explains my extreme introversion compared to the ISTPs whose function development is Ti-Se-Ni-Fe.


----------



## Donovan

@Functianalyst 

thank you so much for writing this. these are some things that i've been thinking about for a while (though i doubt i could have to delivered it so clearly). 

for a while now i've been thinking that a four-cognitive-combination would be best described by saying that you have a "ruling function"--T/F/N/S (pick one)--the opposite will aid the ruling letter/function, just not as clearly or as evident--one will not be aware of it. the middle functions will will be opposite of the ruling function in terms of J/P, and they are there to augment the ruling function in more concious terms than the underlying inferior. so you almost have a very clear "larger" function that with two "visible helpers" and one "large invisible helper". 

(if this isn't clear just say so, how and why, and i'll try to make it ledgeable because what you wrote and what i just typed seem to be very similar... to me at least ). 

so this would all take into account the variety you get, not only between types, but within types as well. 

anyhow, _cool_ thread man.


----------



## LiquidLight

Have you read Personality Type - Third Mental Function | Roger Pearman


----------



## Donovan

that's an interesting article. 

it calls into question how everyones been interpreting jung. 

one of the things i got from that that pertains to this thread is that no one is sure what he meant about the inferior being "opposite" to the dominant. 

with how MBTI looks at: Px-Jy-Jx-Py
or it could be: Px-Jy-Py-Jx

if it is the first, then it would still fit with one of the meanings of this thread and with what jung said, that the dominant couldn't be paired with a function that would be "antagonistic", such as P+P or J+J. this still leaves room for interpreting a possibility of a person having T-S-N-F to also be able so shift to T-N-S-F... all that would matter is how we interpret jung's words and it still made frustrating to some, or interesting to others to also hear him say that more than the 16 could exist... which would also be a possible answer to conflicting studies and evidence.

i guess it all comes down to the correct way to initially view it, if there is just one way.


----------



## LiquidLight

celticstained said:


> that's an interesting article.
> 
> it calls into question how everyones been interpreting jung.
> 
> one of the things i got from that that pertains to this thread is that no one is sure what he meant about the inferior being "opposite" to the dominant.
> 
> with how MBTI looks at: Px-Jy-Jx-Py
> or it could be: Px-Jy-Py-Jx
> 
> if it is the first, then it would still fit with one of the meanings of this thread and with what jung said, that the dominant couldn't be paired with a function that would be "antagonistic", such as P+P or J+J. this still leaves room for interpreting a possibility of a person having T-S-N-F to also be able so shift to T-N-S-F... all that would matter is how we interpret jung's words and it still made frustrating to some, or interesting to others to also hear him say that more than the 16 could exist... which would also be a possible answer to conflicting studies and evidence.
> 
> i guess it all comes down to the correct way to initially view it, if there is just one way.


Yea because as I pointed out on another thread, to Jung the interplay of the dominant/inferior was the most important factor in typology not the behavior of the auxes. He just sort of says "oh yea and there are auxes" in PT but doesn't really take it more than that. I do think he does spell out though that the Inferior function will be the opposite of the dominant fairly well though, personally. I mean in every one of the types he does an exposition of the type from the standpoint of the dominant, but then says "and such and such a type will have a very primitive, archaic, XX opposite function." For instance he clearly says the Extraverted Sensation types will have a primitive and archaic Introverted Intuition. 

But as you point out as to the two middle functions, (and I think this seems far more likely in real life) that same Se-dom could be Se-T-F-Ni or Se-F-T-Ni and potentially even (and this really blows the MBTI stuff into mid air) Se-Te-Fi-Ni or Se-Fe-Ti-Ni. Then all of a sudden you realize why he didn't spend much time focusing on the auxiliary functions (because in the grand scheme of things they're not that important). Jung's theory of types is far more 3-dimensional and open-ended than MBTI type dynamics (and the research here https://www.capt.org/JPT/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf seems to suggest that Jung was right all along anyway). I think you'd have to start with a minimum of 32 or 64 types. But like I said unless you are prescribing a strict regiment to how the types MUST manifest with the regard to the two middle functions in order to establish rigid type categories, a la MBTI, it really doesn't matter. The only functions that really matter are the dominant and inferior. The others just sort of 'color' the person. If your dom is Se, the inferior will be Ni, and where T and F fit in don't really mean a whole lot because they are auxiliaries. Minority spheres of influence.


----------



## Functianalyst

Thanks Liquid. I will have to read it in its entirety, but I instantly read something that I completely disagree with. The author said:


> The importance of these principles for the third and fourth functions is multilayered. Jung specifically notes that a judging function is paired with a perceiving function and that this similar pairing is repeated in unconsciousness. He notes that the auxiliary serves the dominant and by parallel *it would make sense that the third serves the fourth function, as the fourth is the most unconscious of functions and therefore the dominant energy force in the unconscious*.


I completely disagree with that assertion since as pointed out in my initial post, Jung says, "whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition." when referring to the ISTP type. The inferior function can never be conscious and definitely not differentiated because the dominant function must suppress it at all times. So for the author to say the tertiary function serves the inferior is a serious conflict with Jung's theory. 

But I don't want to lose sight of my reasons for writing this thread which is to put forth there is no tertiary function since the word literally means in third place. Jung's work does not indicate what we know as the tertiary to be in third place since that would make it weaker than the auxiliary. Again as von Franz indicates, we do not have an auxiliary-tertiary, but two auxiliaries that are capable of being equal to one another, but weaker than the dominant and greater than the inferior functions.


----------



## Functianalyst

celticstained said:


> @Functianalyst
> 
> thank you so much for writing this. these are some things that i've been thinking about for a while (though i doubt i could have to delivered it so clearly).
> 
> for a while now i've been thinking that a four-cognitive-combination would be best described by saying that you have a "ruling function"--T/F/N/S (pick one)--the opposite will aid the ruling letter/function, just not as clearly or as evident--one will not be aware of it. the middle functions will will be opposite of the ruling function in terms of J/P, and they are there to augment the ruling function in more concious terms than the underlying inferior. so you almost have a very clear "larger" function that with two "visible helpers" and one "large invisible helper".
> 
> (if this isn't clear just say so, how and why, and i'll try to make it ledgeable because what you wrote and what i just typed seem to be very similar... to me at least ).
> 
> so this would all take into account the variety you get, not only between types, but within types as well.
> 
> anyhow, _cool_ thread man.


Thanks Celtic and you hit the nail on the head since Jung says the auxiliary(s):


> Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

Question for anyone to answer. How do we know what " mid life " is ? what is that number, what is mid life, 30, 40 , 50 ? I notice the article said we will develop our Tertiary mid life. I feel like i'm developing my Te much strong since i turned 30. It was something i primary leaned towards before then. Does this make sense ?


----------



## LiquidLight

Mid-life as Jung describes it is basically the point in which we realize that we are going to die. To him most of the first half of life is spent, basically trying to figure life out. To get a job, married, learn how to interact with people, become educated, etc. But then there is a point where you realize that, at some point all this has to amount to something. That your days are finite and in fact running out. Often this is what brings about the so-called mid-life crisis, the feeling of "shit I only have 20 or 30 more years." This is generally not something that younger people think of (death and old age are often something that seem years away). So the reason he says people begin to deal with their lesser preferred functions in mid-life is, a, because many of the issues during the first half of life that keep us from our lesser functions stop mattering the older we get (i.e. we're less interested in trying to live up to our parents' ideals, or find a mate or whatever) and secondly because you realize you only have so much time left, you start trying to do everything you wish you had done when you were younger, which often means touching the inferior function/s in ways that you might not have. 

Von Franz says that in order to develop a function, you pretty much have to live that function for a while. At least a few years, including its associated issues (like Feeling devaluing Thinking). This is why so few people really get to integrate their inferior because you've built a whole life around say Ne, to all of sudden become an earthy Si-type represents a very profound change (you'd literally have to take time out of life to do this) most people really only touch on it, but rarely get to 'live' their inferior function (and even if they could often doing so is so painful and weird many would just say "screw it.").

So in short, the point you realize "my life is finite" and not "i might die" (like in an accident or something) but "i'm going to die..." that's when people begin to take the steps to really begin to deal with their inferior functions.


----------



## Functianalyst

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Question for anyone to answer. How do we know what " mid life " is ? what is that number, what is mid life, 30, 40 , 50 ? I notice the article said we will develop our Tertiary mid life. I feel like i'm developing my Te much strong since i turned 30. It was something i primary leaned towards before then. Does this make sense ?


I have always subscribed to the fact that a chronological age is not something to gauge by since there are wise young people and old fools. I think there are some who may never develop their lesser functions and will remain one-sided by using their dominant function only. We encounter these type of people all the time and instantly realize there is something wrong with them because the one-dimension of their personality is so apparent.


----------



## madhatter

Functianalyst said:


> I have always subscribed to the fact that a chronological age is not something to gauge by since there are wise young people and old fools. I think there are some who may never develop their lesser functions and will remain one-sided by using their dominant function only. We encounter these type of people all the time and instantly realize there is something wrong with them because the one-dimension of their personality is so apparent.


I swear I have an ExFJ aunt who fits that description to a T. I love her, but it is very hard to be around her sometimes. Her extreme Fe is almost painful to me.


----------



## Eric B

Functianalyst said:


> I have no doubt that there may be information available to conclude how the 3rd placement works. Yet for now when discussing type, it seems apparent that any discussion of the 3rd function as a “tertiary”, is a discussion of MBTI, not Jungian. When discussing type using the Jungian method there is no evidence that a tertiary placement exists, but two equally applied functions. What does this mean in how we apply the theories? Going back to the dom-tert loop, this theory is most likely correct when applying the Myers & Briggs theory since the tertiary seems to be suppressed because of the auxiliary function.
> However when applying the Jungian theory, a dominant-tertiary loop cannot exists since as I have repeatedly indicated in the past that this would imply the dominant and tertiary functions will have to be close or equal to one another for the tertiary placement to consciously take over causing a recurring loop. This is in direct defiance of Jung’s principle of the auxiliary when saying:


The loop would be from the Puer complex that encompasses the tertiary function. This leads to the so called "tertiary temptation", where it forms that "loop" with the dominant, maintaining the dominant attitude (which the complex itself orients the tertiary into, else it would default to the opposite attitude as was previously believed).



Functianalyst said:


> I completely disagree with that assertion since as pointed out in my initial post, Jung says, "whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition." when referring to the ISTP type. The inferior function can never be conscious and definitely not differentiated because the dominant function must suppress it at all times. So for the author to say the tertiary function serves the inferior is a serious conflict with Jung's theory.
> 
> Jung's work does not indicate what we know as the tertiary to be in third place since that would make it weaker than the auxiliary. Again as von Franz indicates, we do not have an auxiliary-tertiary, but two auxiliaries that are capable of being equal to one another, but weaker than the dominant and greater than the inferior functions.


Again, the function order of the ego identity is structured by the complexes. The hero and parent are the most "mature", and thus the associated functions will tend to be "stronger". They are reflected in a compensatory fashion by the child (Puer) and inferior (anima). So they will tend to be "weaker", as the complexes convey a sense of "vulnerability". Yet the Puer does "inflate" itself, making its functional perspective seem "stronger" and possibly match the auxiliary (or even dominant) at times.


----------



## Donovan

Eric B said:


> The loop would be from the Puer complex that encompasses the tertiary function. This leads to the so called "tertiary temptation", where it forms that "loop" with the dominant, maintaining the dominant attitude (which the complex itself orients the tertiary into, else it would default to the opposite attitude as was previously believed).
> 
> Again, the function order of the ego identity is structured by the complexes. The hero and parent are the most "mature", and thus the associated functions will tend to be "stronger". They are reflected in a compensatory fashion by the child (Puer) and inferior (anima). So they will tend to be "weaker", as the complexes convey a sense of "vulnerability". Yet the Puer does "inflate" itself, making its functional perspective seem "stronger" and possibly match the auxiliary (or even dominant) at times.


that's interesting and it could still explain cases without undermining anything that's been said. these complexes are reliant upon a base mold, such as functions 1&4 and 2&3 being different as far as J/P and having the aux/tert falling into the middle, not so much on the aux. always being "this" and the ter always being "that", right? won't these complexes... in a sense, take what's given and "mold" according to plan?


----------



## Eric B

Yes, the complexes shape the way the functions play out.


----------



## Functianalyst

Eric B said:


> The loop would be from the Puer complex that encompasses the tertiary function. This leads to the so called "tertiary temptation", where it forms that "loop" with the dominant, maintaining the dominant attitude (which the complex itself orients the tertiary into, else it would default to the opposite attitude as was previously believed).


A loop theory implies that a function-attitude other than the dominant can consciously take over. Otherwise there can be no loop since that implies something that is outside of the users ability to control. If any placement is in use it's because the Ti is allowing the lower placement to come to the forefront the same way Ti allows Ne to be present in the INTP. Ne can't just arbitrarily take control of the Ti. 


Eric B said:


> Again, the function order of the ego identity is structured by the complexes. The hero and parent are the most "mature", and thus the associated functions will tend to be "stronger". They are reflected in a compensatory fashion by the child (Puer) and inferior (anima). So they will tend to be "weaker", as the complexes convey a sense of "vulnerability". Yet the Puer does "inflate" itself, making its functional perspective seem "stronger" and possibly match the auxiliary (or even dominant) at times.


And what evidence do you have that the 3rd placement only seems to be stronger. But any appearance that anything is as strong as the dominant function merely means the user has yet to develop enough to indicate a type. Nothwithstanding as stated, any discussion of a tertiary function can only be done in the system of MBTI and not in Jungian.


----------



## Donovan

they shape the way the functions play out but aren't reliant upon the aux/tert being a particular Judging of Percieving function, just that the aux/tert will be one while the dom will be the other? if that's the case, then this is still likely, while also supporting the "J-P-P-J & P-J-J-P" model over the "J-P-J-P/etc."...? (just speculation, i don't know a whole lot about the complexes)


----------



## Eric B

Functianalyst said:


> A loop theory implies that a function-attitude other than the dominant can consciously take over. Otherwise there can be no loop since that implies something that is outside of the users ability to control. If any placement is in use it's because the Ti is allowing the lower placement to come to the forefront the same way Ti allows Ne to be present in the INTP. Ne can't just arbitrarily take control of the Ti.


 The ego is a complex, which is the center of our conscious life. IT of course chooses its dominant function and attitude. The hero and persona are also complexes, which also become associated with the ego's dominant. The parent and child are complexes which associate with the auxiliary and tertiary. As it was once put to me, "the products of undifferentiated functions are perfectly capable of reaching consciousness, but only in so far as they're linked to the 'operating charter' of the network our differentiated function has set up". 
So it's the _*complexes*_ (which structure the ego's network) that bring the functional products into consciousness, not the functions becoming conscious on their own, or "taking over" anything.


> And what evidence do you have that the 3rd placement only seems to be stronger. But any appearance that anything is as strong as the dominant function merely means the user has yet to develop enough to indicate a type. Nothwithstanding as stated, any discussion of a tertiary function can only be done in the system of MBTI and not in Jungian.


 All I'm going by on that is that people _claim_ it seems "stronger". But as I've been saying the whole time, it's really not about "strengths" anyway, because what we're really measuring strength by is behavior or "skills", which is not the same as the functions.

Even LL's linked site says:
In addition, users of type often forget that inferior or unconscious functions are inferior to consciousness *not inferior in strength* in the psyche (Jung, 1971 p.450).

(BTW, just ordered the Nardi book on brain research!)

Also, wanted to point out, the site says (in a table lower down):


> Myers descriptions of this type consistently suggest that ENFPs demonstrate an eagerness for possibilities, improvisation, energy in novelty and innovation and no mention of Extraverted Thinking *behavior*. If the Third is in the same Extraverted attitude, it is reasonable to expect some aspects of *the function* to be evident.


This ignores that Te, in that lower, "vulnerable", less mature position (Associated with the "child" archetype) is not going to be the same as in a preferred position (another reason you can't always go by behavioral "strength", and why I believe the tertiary and inferior often come out #7 and 8 in Nardi's test, supporting Lenore's old order). Of course, this quote is looking for what else, but _behaviors_, but Te in a child or inferior position may be more about looking up to the logical, orderly, etc. decisions of others, or being more playful with it (where Te in a preferred position will be more "serious").


----------



## Functianalyst

celticstained said:


> they shape the way the functions play out but aren't reliant upon the aux/tert being a particular Judging of Percieving function, just that the aux/tert will be one while the dom will be the other? if that's the case, then this is still likely, while also supporting the "J-P-P-J & P-J-J-P" model over the "J-P-J-P/etc."...? (just speculation, i don't know a whole lot about the complexes)


Not sure I am actually following you Celtic, but the the last example you gave is pretty much forbidden since two judging or perceiving functions that close will negate one another. The same goes for both intutiting or sensing functions cannot be that close in proximity, since they would negate one another.




Eric B said:


> The ego is a complex, which is the center of our conscious life. IT of course chooses its dominant function and attitude. The hero and persona are also complexes, which also become associated with the ego's dominant. The parent and child are complexes which associate with the auxiliary and tertiary. As it was once put to me, "the products of undifferentiated functions are perfectly capable of reaching consciousness, but only in so far as they're linked to the 'operating charter' of the network our differentiated function has set up".
> So it's the _*complexes*_ (which structure the ego's network) that bring the functional products into consciousness, not the functions becoming conscious on their own, or "taking over" anything. All I'm going by on that is that people _claim_ it seems "stronger". But as I've been saying the whole time, it's really not about "strengths" anyway, because what we're really measuring strength by is behavior or "skills", which is not the same as the functions.


Here you go and I am not going there with you Eric. If you want to start a thread on Jung’s theory of the ego complex, how it is affected by the collective unconscious and so on, then go start one. If you want to contribute to this subject, then write something noteworthy. If you are proposing that the 3rd function is unconscious then say that. The ego complex encompasses far more than cognitive functions since emotions are included as well. So again, go start a thread on that subject since this one is about placement of the 3rd function-attitude.


Eric B said:


> Even LL's linked site says:
> In addition, users of type often forget that inferior or unconscious functions are inferior to consciousness *not inferior in strength* in the psyche (Jung, 1971 p.450).


An inferior function cannot be strong enough to ever be differentiated. Otherwise it consumes the dominant function and makes for another personality type all together. But again, stay on subject please.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Can it work both ways, with the inferior being weakest in strength and consciousness?


----------



## Eric B

Functianalyst said:


> Here you go and I am not going there with you Eric. If you want to start a thread on Jung’s theory of the ego complex, how it is affected by the collective unconscious and so on, then go start one. If you want to contribute to this subject, then write something noteworthy. If you are proposing that the 3rd function is unconscious then say that. The ego complex encompasses far more than cognitive functions since emotions are included as well. So again, go start a thread on that subject since this one is about placement of the 3rd function-attitude.


 No, not here I go, here you go, as I wasn't trying to start any dispute like before. My point wasn't the ego complex, I only mentioned that to build my point on how the tertiary enters consciousness, and that's through _another_ complex (the "puer", which does relate directly to your subject ). 
You make a big deal about a notion of the undifferentiated functions "taking over" something, but the functions don't _*do*_ anything like that (they're perspectives; not separate consciousnesses in themselves!); it's the complexes. Again, the orders we discuss are set by the complexes.


> An inferior function cannot be strong enough to ever be differentiated. Otherwise it consumes the dominant function and makes for another personality type all together. But again, stay on subject please.


Again, the point is it is not about strength. No one said the inferior becomes differentiated. So "strength" is moot. It's the complexes that become differentiated within the psyche, and they bring the functions into consciousness. When you talk about functions not becoming differentiated; that's within *one* complex only, the ego, but the others are separate (and the ego-syntonic ones fit into a structure created by the ego, but they're still separate complexes).


----------



## Eric B

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Can it work both ways, with the inferior being weakest in strength and consciousness?


It will tend to be (especially for the inferior, and that's often even "weaker" than the so-called "shadows" or Beebe's #5-8). But the conflict regarding both that, and the tertiary appearing to become "stronger" is resolved by understanding them as being held by complexes (Which can bear "strength" or "weakness", thus setting the stacking order), and that the functions are not really behaviors anyway.


----------



## Donovan

> Not sure I am actually following you Celtic, but the the last example you gave is pretty much forbidden since two judging or perceiving functions that close will negate one another. The same goes for both intutiting or sensing functions cannot be that close in proximity, since they would negate one another.


what i was saying is that--as far as i know it (and if there's something i don't know, everyone feel free to inform me)--is that even taking complexes into account, it in no way disproves the possibility that one person may have a dominant psychic energy that is then channeled or directed through auxiliaries, and that these aux.'s have no reason to always supercede one in dominance or even result in some preferred model like A-B-C-D, but maybe A(with unseen and unknown "d"), that relies on A&B interchangably, such as A(d)-B&C or A(d)-C&B. the complexes could still exist since they are still relying on a dominant function that is being "paired" with an aux that isn't antagonistic to it. the complexes may say "no, the only complex that exists is always Ni(dom)+Fe(aux), and only then Ni(dom)+Ti(tert) in an unhealthy fashion, instead of resulting in Ni(dom)+Fe(secondary)/Ni(dom)+(Ti secondary) for the exact same "type". 

as far as the second one being forbidden, i meant for that to be correct in my statement. i wasn't trying to say that it would work the other way, just that from the article that Liquid gave it spoke about that ordering being potentially correct, but wouldn't that disagree with the complexes?

(again, point me in the right direction if i'm wrong, just please don't begrudge me the right to ask why someone else is "right"  [not directed at anyone specifically, just throwing that out there for the future of this thread]).


----------



## Donovan

something just occurred to me:

if at this very moment i'm playing into a complex, ingaging my dom/tert (if that's what i'm doing), then maybe these complexes can begin as a child-like thing, but what's to say that they don't eventually completely change the person by merging different aspects of the pysche, at which point the aux and tert reach the same level, same conscious value to the individual--would they not begin to move out of an adolescent complex and into a complex that occurs later through development--almost as if we move through a series of simple complexes into more refined ones in order to experience growth? (not saying i'm doing this, but it does seem to make some amount of sense, and would also tie into an aspect of this thread).


----------



## Functianalyst

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Can it work both ways, with the inferior being weakest in strength and consciousness?


If you have always been dominant right handed, would you be able to just one day use your left hand equally with no exercise? The functions are unconscious and undifferentiated for a reason:


> I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference' which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation robs the patient of a standpoint -- his physician becomes his standpoint. But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of itself, and with more adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development is via the secondary function-thus in the case of a rational type by way of the irrational function. For this lends the conscious standpoint such a range and prospect over what is possible and imminent that consciousness gains an adequate protection against the destructive effect of the unconscious.





celticstained said:


> what i was saying is that--as far as i know it (and if there's something i don't know, everyone feel free to inform me)--is that even taking complexes into account, it in no way disproves the possibility that one person may have a dominant psychic energy that is then channeled or directed through auxiliaries, and that these aux.'s have no reason to always supercede one in dominance or even result in some preferred model like A-B-C-D, but maybe A(with unseen and unknown "d"), that relies on A&B interchangably, such as A(d)-B&C or A(d)-C&B. the complexes could still exist since they are still relying on a dominant function that is being "paired" with an aux that isn't antagonistic to it. the complexes may say "no, the only complex that exists is always Ni(dom)+Fe(aux), and only then Ni(dom)+Ti(tert) in an unhealthy fashion, instead of resulting in Ni(dom)+Fe(secondary)/Ni(dom)+(Ti secondary) for the exact same "type".


This is exactly how the function-attitudes work. MBTI says there is a pecking order of A-B-C-D, where each preceding function has strength over the subsequent (except for the notion that the 3rd function caters to the inferior which is completely asinine). B-C-D can never be equal to “A”:


> This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden.


 “D” must always be at the lowest because it is the same as “A” (judging or perceiving). In order for “A” to work properly, “D” must remain suppressed to a certain point:


> Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought.


“B and C” can be equal to one another but must always be weaker than A. Otherwise as Jung says:


> As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking.


So yes, one may have A-B, A-C, and even A-D. But A will always lead, even if we develop the B and C to the point they can stand alone or become differentiated.


Eric B said:


> No, not here I go, here you go, as I wasn't trying to start any dispute like before.


It’s not a dispute since generally your contribution creates an apple/orange discussion when you get involved. It's almost like you are writing with Ne and Ni. Dropping into the middle of a discussion as to whether the third function is a tertiary placement in the literal sense of the word with a discussion of ego complex is exactly how you posts. Your contribution on a discussion of ego complex is general and makes no sense, really…


----------



## Eric B

It always seems like apples/oranges to you, because you for whatever reason don't understand simple things explained to you. 
The point is, people are having difficulty placing functions in stacking orders because they look at functions in terms of "strengths", and also as some sort of actions that "do" things. You go along with this arguing against them "taking over" when they should be less conscious. I'm simply pointing to the complexes that bring these functions into consciousness, and you get hung up on the side point or a particular word, which is what you always do (as if it were all I said, even).


----------



## Functianalyst

Eric B said:


> It always seems like apples/oranges to you, because you for whatever reason don't understand simple things explained to you.


Simple? You come into the middle of a discussion, espousing crap that is not related to the discussion. That's not simple, it's completely unrelated to the topic.


Eric B said:


> The point is, people are having difficulty placing functions in stacking orders because they look at functions in terms of "strengths", and also as some sort of actions that "do" things. You go along with this arguing against them "taking over" when they should be less conscious. I'm simply pointing to the complexes that bring these functions into consciousness, and you get hung up on the side point or a particular word, which is what you always do (as if it were all I said, even).


You start by saying:


Eric B said:


> The loop would be from the Puer complex that encompasses the tertiary function. This leads to the so called "tertiary temptation", where it forms that "loop" with the dominant, maintaining the dominant attitude (which the complex itself orients the tertiary into, else it would default to the opposite attitude as was previously believed).


How can the tertiary take over to make the dominant function do anything. That’s bullshit…. Any assertion that a function-attitude can create a loop with the dominant implies there is no most differentiated function. It defies the principles of type because you make it sound as though the 3rd function has gained sovereignty in some way. 


Eric B said:


> Again, the function order of the ego identity is structured by the complexes. The hero and parent are the most "mature", and thus the associated functions will tend to be "stronger". They are reflected in a compensatory fashion by the child (Puer) and inferior (anima). So they will tend to be "weaker", as the complexes convey a sense of "vulnerability". Yet the Puer does "inflate" itself, making its functional perspective seem "stronger" and possibly match the auxiliary (or even dominant) at times.


There is no compensatory between the 3rd and 4th functions because they’re completely different. To be compensatory both functions must be the same (either judging or perceiving) with different attitudes. Your Fe is not compensatory to your Si. Your Ne is compensatory to your Si and your Ti is compensatory to your Fe. Do you know when you are doubling up on your intuition and how it sounds? You just wrote crap that is completely in defiance of type. I could go into your subsequent threads to show other asinine statements made that just as irrelevant and completely in error.


----------



## Eric B

Functianalyst said:


> Simple? You come into the middle of a discussion, espousing crap that is not related to the discussion. That's not simple, it's completely unrelated to the topic.


 Again, you're just getting hung up on what you choose to get hung up on, and not even paying attention to what you're lashing out at.


> You start by saying:How can the tertiary take over to make the dominant function do anything. That’s bullshit…. Any assertion that a function-attitude can create a loop with the dominant implies there is no most differentiated function. It defies the principles of type because you make it sound as though the 3rd function has gained sovereignty in some way.


 And what did I say, and KEEP saying? That it's not the FUNCTIONS doing anything, it's the COMPLEXES. The tertiary is not gaining "sovereignty" from anything, nor making the dominant do anything (and where did you get that from?) But you get hung up on ONE thing I mention, and now you see nothing else. (including the stuff that answers your misunderstandings).


> There is no compensatory between the 3rd and 4th functions because they’re completely different. To be compensatory both functions must be the same (either judging or perceiving) with different attitudes. Your Fe is not compensatory to your Si. Your Ne is compensatory to your Si and your Ti is compensatory to your Fe. Do you know when you are doubling up on your intuition and how it sounds? You just wrote crap that is completely in defiance of type. I could go into your subsequent threads to show other asinine statements made that just as irrelevant and completely in error.


Again, you didn't even read what was there. I wasn't saying the 3rd and 4th were compensatory of EACH OTHER; I said the child (3rd) was compensatory of the parent (2nd), and the inferior (4th) was compensatory of the dominant. _Just as you said_ there. (I said it collectively. "They [the hero/dom and parent/aux] are reflected in a compensatory fashion by the child (Puer) and inferior (anima)." But now you've gone off half-cocked with stuff like "defiance of type", and it has nothing to do what what's actually written there.

Look, I'm sorry to have responded, then. I figured it was not something we disagreed on like the function attitudes vs dichotomies, so I didn't think it would be a problem this time, yet you manage once again to screw it all up and not read properly, and now you're calling my statements asinine and "crap"?
All this anger; I don't know what your problem is. If you can't read what's there, then don't or criticize or challenge it!
And don't attack my iNtuition either, because I'm not attacking your misperception and misjudgment in light of your type preferences.


----------



## Donovan

both sides make sense. the middle functions may be brought out due to certain complexes, and (from what's been said) these complexes are the single reason for the manisfestation. while these complexes may bring out or divert/channel the psychic energy in one way, it doesn't in any way (that i know of) predetermine a hierarchy between the functions--i think the only thing that can be said is that if a complex engages your tertiary, then it engages your tertiary, whatever that may be. 

so, for someone who has Ti(Fe)+Se+Ni, they may actually have developed as Ti(Fe)+Ni+Se, in which case their "child complex" would now be a combination of the Ti+Se... or that would be a comination of the two thoughts. my knowledge on this isn't so great, but if that's impossible, why? have only Ti+Ni "child complexes" been aparent in ISTP's? have Ti+Se "child complexes" never been observed? how are they determining what is and isn't possible?


----------



## saffron

It's a really interesting thread. I'm wondering along the same lines as @celticstained (and also not as knowledgable as some of you guys). 

Why couldn't the child and parent complexes alternately be associated with both the auxiliary and tertiary functions? Just thinking about it a bit, it seems like I can see manifestations of that in myself and others. 

I like the analogy of the aux and tert being the two hands. They constantly work together in a way that you don't notice with one usually being the lead. But you need them both to get things done.


----------



## Functianalyst

celticstained said:


> both sides make sense. the middle functions may be brought out due to certain complexes, and (from what's been said) these complexes are the single reason for the manisfestation. while these complexes may bring out or divert/channel the psychic energy in one way, it doesn't in any way (that i know of) predetermine a hierarchy between the functions--i think the only thing that can be said is that if a complex engages your tertiary, then it engages your tertiary, whatever that may be.
> 
> so, for someone who has Ti(Fe)+Se+Ni, they may actually have developed as Ti(Fe)+Ni+Se, in which case their "child complex" would now be a combination of the Ti+Se... or that would be a comination of the two thoughts. my knowledge on this isn't so great, but if that's impossible, why? have only Ti+Ni "child complexes" been aparent in ISTP's? have Ti+Se "child complexes" never been observed? how are they determining what is and isn't possible?





saffron said:


> It's a really interesting thread. I'm wondering along the same lines as @celticstained (and also not as knowledgable as some of you guys).
> 
> Why couldn't the child and parent complexes alternately be associated with both the auxiliary and tertiary functions? Just thinking about it a bit, it seems like I can see manifestations of that in myself and others.
> 
> I like the analogy of the aux and tert being the two hands. They constantly work together in a way that you don't notice with one usually being the lead. But you need them both to get things done.


For years I became increasingly frustrated because type just made no sense to me. The more I studied, the more confused I became. I read Keirsey, I read Myers & Briggs, socionics. It wasn’t until I became so pissed at not being able to understand the basic principles of type that I decided to go to the original source, Dr. Carl G. Jung. It took years for me to understand his work and become acclimated to his way of thinking. After understanding Jung (and it did take years) it was like the scene where Neo came back to life in the original Matrix to where now I could see type for what it is. After that any discussion of type for me is gauged by Jung’s original work.

Celtic and Saffron, I think the first question should be in any forced dilemma is to get a full understanding of the basic principles. You will then be able to see the inconsistencies in stuff that is just thrown out on the internet and discern whether it’s congruent with Dr. Jung or someone else work. Everyone can deliver an opinion and Eric has given his based on his own theory that can be read *here* in it’s entirety. But it is his theory that is muddled with Lenore Thomson’s work as well. Eric’s work is no different than *P-Types*. I followed Dave Kelly’s work until I noticed the pattern that made me ask Mr. Kelly if his work was based on Socionics. The more questions I asked, the more I realized it was merely his opinion, but it was in defiance of the basic principles that Jung indicated. The same is occurring here with Eric. No matter how much he espouses his self-made theory as facts, you will see the inconsistencies when you compare his work to Jung’s. Eric has become the next Dave Kelly. 

So when you ask, can both be right. Sure they can, unless you hit a snag where they contradict one another. Then you have to ask, then which is correct. I admit as well that I don’t know enough about type to discern which is correct, except the more I read and understand and apply Jung’s work to myself it becomes quite apparent for at least me that Dr. Jung’s theory is correct. I have not applied Eric’s work because it is so convoluted. He has created a hybrid theory the same as others. I just know that when I read his material, there is enough contradictions and inconsistencies to know that I personally cannot accept it. It’s no different than the “dom-tert” loop theory. The theory is sound for someone following MBTI, but becomes grossly inconsistent when applying it to Jung. 

You both will have to decide which you prefer to follow. I for one can easily see the inconsistency in Eric's work and know that Jung's theory is far more simpler than Eric would like for everyone to think. Don't feel intimidated by the world usage and know when he has used words out of context.


----------



## Eric B

celticstained said:


> both sides make sense. the middle functions may be brought out due to certain complexes, and (from what's been said) these complexes are the single reason for the manisfestation. while these complexes may bring out or divert/channel the psychic energy in one way, it doesn't in any way (that i know of) predetermine a hierarchy between the functions--i think the only thing that can be said is that if a complex engages your tertiary, then it engages your tertiary, whatever that may be.
> 
> so, for someone who has Ti(Fe)+Se+Ni, they may actually have developed as Ti(Fe)+Ni+Se, in which case their "child complex" would now be a combination of the Ti+Se... or that would be a comination of the two thoughts. my knowledge on this isn't so great, but if that's impossible, why? have only Ti+Ni "child complexes" been aparent in ISTP's? have Ti+Se "child complexes" never been observed? how are they determining what is and isn't possible?





saffron said:


> It's a really interesting thread. I'm wondering along the same lines as @celticstained (and also not as knowledgable as some of you guys).
> 
> Why couldn't the child and parent complexes alternately be associated with both the auxiliary and tertiary functions? Just thinking about it a bit, it seems like I can see manifestations of that in myself and others.
> 
> I like the analogy of the aux and tert being the two hands. They constantly work together in a way that you don't notice with one usually being the lead. But you need them both to get things done.


Parent and child are archetypes, which are almost universal images of life from our collective unconscious. When these archetypes become personalized in an individual psyche, they become complexes. One is more mature and confident, and the other lese mature and vulnerable.

Our type preference is based on preferring a dominant function, followed by an auxiliary. Both will tend to be more mature and confident compared to their opposites, which are at least initially, repressed into the unconscious. The dominant will also associate with "heroic" and "persona" (our outer image we put forth) complexes (in which case, the opposite function will be relegated to an "inferiority" complex). The auxiliary will become about helping and caretaking; both supporting the dominant, and also, supporting others. This is what a parent does. So it's opposite will default to a "child" complex.

So to answer your question, that's what sets the parent and child. The auxiliary preference. If Ti is the dominant, and Se is the aux. than that will represent the parent, and Ni will represent the child. If Ne is the aux. then it will represent the parent, and Si will represent the child.

In mark Mark Hunziker and Leona Haas' _Building Blocks of Personality Type_, they quote Beebe in the Glossary,


> Beebe cautions us *not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering*, which in many ways is simply for *convenience in identifying the various positions*. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to reflect the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four.


Now this is talking about all eight functions in his model. But it's a similar dynamic for 1-4. 3 and 4 are reflections of 1 and 2. The point here was the 3 may appear to become stronger and fall out of place at times, or come up "strong" or "weak" on tests, but its place is set by he complex, and the numbering is really just an abstract convenience for the sake of showing how these things fit together.

This dispute is similar to the one I have had here and on TypoC with Naama, who also got tired of the MBTI-based theories, and decided to go back to Jung. But his conclusions are different from Functianalyst. One seems to still accept the eight-function model, while the other fiercely rejects it as "defiance of the principles" (to put it in the first person's words) in favor of functions "simulating" each other (i.e. An INTP's Ti + Fe "looks like" Fi, instead of Fi _ever_ showing up as a "shadow" function). On the flipside, one rejects the unoriented S, N, T, F functions (They MUST always have an i/e attitude), while the other, IIRC accepts it.
BOTH claiming to be pure Jungians, and rejecting my or anyone else's "innovations", or whatever, including Myers. And let's not forget people like "Technical", and "Solitary Walker" and not to mention the entire field of Socionics, who had the same aims but came up with vastly different conclusions! 
Which one is really the "true Jung" theory, then?

This should show once and for all that everyone's treatment of Jung is at best their own interpretation, and really no better than what they criticize in others. So I will acknowledge that I'm a lot like Kelley. (I didn't draw anything from him, but did always acknowledge him as being in agreement on the NT being Choleric rather than Phlegmatic as Keirsey said (But Kelley assigns the other temperament groups differently, however). My biggest influence was this guy you're probably never heard of (unless you stumbled upon a link posted by me): Achilles Tendencies Another "layman" with a bunch of "ideas".

As for "putting my stuff out there like facts", or whatever, a lot of this is simply a difference in perception perspective. I've had correspondence with Lenore, and she explained to me among many other things the difference between the Ne/Si and Ni/Se perspectives in theorizing. Ne likes to put a lot of different things together, while Ni looks for "what's not there"; what each theory is leaving out that challenges it's framework. Hence, it is more skeptical about random ideas of how things can fit together. This now makes some people's objections make a little more sense.
Even though I learned and drew a lot from her, we are still not in agreement about everything, for the reason she gave. (She for example doesn't believe in temperament as we know it, and has reservations of parts of Beebe's model, though she acknowledges it now; while I've been putting all those things and more, together). 
We could still disagree with slamming each other's views as "asinine crap" and such and getting all cocky. (And how can one call another's views "contorted", when their own reading of what's there before them is what's contorted? Yes, for someone to say 3 and 4 compensated each other would be a contortion of the theory, but WHERE did this "contortion" come from in this discussion? Not from what I said, but from what someone MISread!)
Ne is apart of the "parent" complex for me, so I do promote my ideas almost authoritatively, though with the understanding that these are _*ideas*_, basically possible positions that seem to fit, tentatively at least. I realize it may not look like that to others. But anyone is free to question it. (Which is quite different from _misconstruing_ it, and then knocking down a straw man of one's own imagination).

One perspective is not better than the other, both should be able to look outside the ego preference and consider the other (that's ultimately the purpose of all this stuff in the first place). We can disagree but raise stupid disputes over misreadings and misunderstandings!


----------



## Functianalyst

Once and for all Eric, you are muddling varied systems. In post 28, you wrote:


Eric B said:


> The point is, people are having difficulty placing functions in stacking orders because they look at functions in terms of "strengths", and also as some sort of actions that "do" things. You go along with this arguing against them "taking over" when they should be less conscious. I'm simply pointing to the complexes that bring these functions into consciousness, and you get hung up on the side point or a particular word, which is what you always do (as if it were all I said, even).


No the point is that they read theories that you and others throw out and become completely confused. What you are doing is no different than anyone else who dominates with an intuiting function. Instead of appreciating the basic principles of type and working from that, you make a futile attempt to correlate varied systems that result in an inconsistent theory. But more important in typical fashion you also buy into your own theory so much that you fail to realize that is your opinion and not facts that you are giving. In post 34, you muddled at least three and maybe four different systems together. Do you not see that? 

Have you actually questioned why you relate to Lenore Thomson’s work the same way I relate to Carl Jung’s? It’s not because you’re both NT types, it’s because you see things exactly how she does, from a Ni perspective. Ti dominant types do not write like this. Take for example the INTP *Paul James*, who authored one of the best MBTI descriptions ever. This is how someone using Ti to dominate writes. It's simplistic and to the point, making the subtle distinctions. It's not convoluted.

As von Franz says, Ti dominant types first see the “muddle headedness of people”. You write muddleheaded. That’s not a slam, it’s simply an observation that you truly do not realize how convoluted your writing is. It’s not because of the complexity of the subject, it’s your own inability to articulate your impressions. I refer back to Dr. Berens and Dr. Nardi’s mistype description of Ti and Ni:


> Ti and Ni are often accompanied by a sense of detachment and disconnection. With both there tends to be comfort with complexity. The difference is that when we are engaging in Ti, we usually have a clear sense of the principles or models something is judged against, whereas with Ni, an impressionistic image forms in the mind.


Have you never stopped to think that is exactly how you write and articulate? It should be quite apparent that you use Ni, not Ti. That is why when I challenge you, it's to make you hopefully see that you are confusing your opinion as facts, which is why I ask you repeatedly to show what you are saying as facts. 

Nevertheless again you seem to have an arduous time understanding that you have no clear sense of the principles of type. Again this is not a slam toward you, just an observation that I have recognized time and time again. I am just as notorious in becoming one-sided by focusing too much on the basic principles and model. You do the opposite when becoming one-sided by going completely out into left field and confuse what is merely your perception as facts. KNOW WHEN IT IS YOUR OPINION YOU ARE GIVING AND NOT INFORMATION BASED ON ACTUAL FACTS PLEASE.


----------



## Functianalyst

Look folks, this thread was started to indicate the difference between how MBTI enthusiasts and Jungian enthusiasts view the 3rd placement. MBTI sees it as a rigid forced choice where it must appear negative in usage and succumb to the auxiliary placement. Dr. Jung and his followers do not see it that way. It is not a tertiary function that must be behind the auxiliary placement, but an auxiliary itself that can be equal to the the 2nd placement. 

For this reason, Dr. von Franz surmises that we have a dominant, two auxiliaries and an inferior function, not a dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior as MBTI suggests. Based on that assumption, someone using Ni-Te in MBTI can also use Ni-Fi (if the 3rd function has become developed enough to be differentiated) based on Jung's theory. But they are both INTJs as we know the four-letter codes. The debate so far has shown merely that most remain incapable of appreciating that Jung's work is completely different than MBTI. Such discussions become completely muddled as this one has when the distinctions cannot be made. This simply defies the basic principles of typology. 

I had told Khys a week ago that I wanted to write this thread, but thought it may be something that would be more appropriate in a venue such as Personality Nation. I did not want to join that forum just to make this point, but it appears to be one of those times when I should have trusted my Ni.


----------



## Eric B

So now, you're changing my type too? Based on generalized assumtions of what a Ti dominance does, and broad ambiguous definition of Ni. You're being just like Vicky Jo in so many ways. Like her, you forget that the Ne/Se difference by itself is significant enough to change the perspective dynamic. You "SEE" things differently. (She tried to run that "Ti picks up the principles quickly" game on me when I was on the slow process of coming to understand this stuff, even using her ISTP father as an example of "real Ti", and it was obvious that if he's so "quick" with things, it's because of Se, while Ne will be slower because of its abstract "up-in-the-air" nature). 
Ti on the other hand, is subjective, so you can come to vastly different conclusions, because you have your own subjective principles you choose to make judgments with. Mine is 2D factoral symmetry, and using it, have found that the systems can fit together. 

Meanwhile, some of Berens/Nardi's definitions (which are what VJ picks up and runs off into space with) have a problem of being ambiguous. For *any* introverted function, "_an impressionistic image forms in the mind_." That's what _defines_ an introverted function! The difference is whether it is a concrete or abstract perception of data, or a logical or personal/impersonal model of judgment. So for me, it's Ti and Si. You're questioning my understanding of the theory now, so why don't you understand these basic concepts?

So I don't have to question your type, the matter is simply a Se/Ne dispute (and you're the one whose primary iNtuition is introverted). You don't like a person spreading ideas with no concrete fact. Fine, but you don't have to derail every discussion with this nonsense when someone else does it. Just disagree and move on.

You cannot call my views muddleheaded or convoluted when I've shown time and time again that *you are not even reading what I'm saying right*. It's _your reading_ that is convoluted! 
You thought I said the aux. and tert. compensated each other. Yeah, I would say that's muddleheaded alright. But it's not what I said. Now, you act like it never happened. And that's not even the first time that happened. Just about every conflict, it's the same thing. 
You also kept attributing action to the functions, and based on that accusing me of making one "take over" others, or something like that. I keep saying it's not the functions that do anything, it's the complexes, and the numbering scheme, which is usually what people are confused by is an artificial construct for the purpose of convenience. (Which would figure in with what Von Franz said!) It goes right over your head, and you keep repeating the same answered objections.

These theories are very abstract, and lack in empirical "fact" —which is the reason they're not that respected in the larger psychological field. Hopefully, Nardi's brain work might help change that. But in the meantime, it's all THEORY and "ideas" and opinions. Again, you and every other "Jung purist" comes up with completely different views. (Another point you just skip over). So you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, and that's confusing _your_ "opinion" as some sort of "fact".

So just STOP







, already, please!


----------



## Functianalyst

Eric B said:


> So now, you're changing my type too? Based on generalized assumtions of what a Ti dominance does, and broad ambiguous definition of Ni. You're being just like Vicky Jo in so many ways. Like her, you forget that the Ne/Se difference by itself is significant enough to change the perspective dynamic. You "SEE" things differently. (She tried to run that "Ti picks up the principles quickly" game on me when I was on the slow process of coming to understand this stuff, even using her ISTP father as an example of "real Ti", and it was obvious that if he's so "quick" with things, it's because of Se, while Ne will be slower because of its abstract "up-in-the-air" nature).


Well if Vick Jo noticed it as well, then I feel even more confident that you are not a Ti dominant type. You can spin it however you want to Eric but if it walks like a duck…..


Eric B said:


> Ti on the other hand, is subjective, so you can come to vastly different conclusions, because you have your own subjective principles you choose to make judgments with. Mine is 2D factoral symmetry, and using it, have found that the systems can fit together.
> Meanwhile, some of Berens/Nardi's definitions (which are what VJ picks up and runs off into space with) have a problem of being ambiguous. For *any* introverted function, "_an impressionistic image forms in the mind_." That's what _defines_ an introverted function! The difference is whether it is a concrete or abstract perception of data, or a logical or personal/impersonal model of judgment. So for me, it's Ti and Si. You're questioning my understanding of the theory now, so why don't you understand these basic concepts?
> 
> So I don't have to question your type, the matter is simply a Se/Ne dispute (and you're the one whose primary iNtuition is introverted). You don't like a person spreading ideas with no concrete fact. Fine, but you don't have to derail every discussion with this nonsense when someone else does it. Just disagree and move on.
> 
> You cannot call my views muddleheaded or convoluted when I've shown time and time again that *you are not even reading what I'm saying right*. It's _your reading_ that is convoluted!
> You thought I said the aux. and tert. compensated each other. Yeah, I would say that's muddleheaded alright. But it's not what I said. Now, you act like it never happened. And that's not even the first time that happened. Just about every conflict, it's the same thing.
> You also kept attributing action to the functions, and based on that accusing me of making one "take over" others, or something like that. I keep saying it's not the functions that do anything, it's the complexes, and the numbering scheme, which is usually what people are confused by is an artificial construct for the purpose of convenience. It goes right over your head, and you keep repeating the same answered objections.
> 
> These theories are very abstract, and lack in empirical "fact" —which is the reason they're not that respected int he larger psychological field. Hopefully, Nardi's brain work might help change that. But in the meantime, it's all THEORY and "ideas" and opinions. Again, you and every other "Jung purist" comes up with completely different views. (Another point you just skip over). So you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, and that's confusing _your_ "opinion" as some sort of "fact".


I did not read through all of your gobbledygook since I am using my Se defensively in not having to separate the wheat from the chafe. What I do know as well is, regardless of whether you have a diluted thought that you are using Te to make your point…. You’re not. It’s pure unadulterated Ni. So again, I am in great company if Vicky Jo Varner also recognized you do not use Ti. Only an IJ type would react this way since an IP type would at least consider the possibility. That should be apparent in MBTI.


----------



## Eric B

Well, she insisted ENFP, and said I was "using Te" to make all my points; so again, two totally different views from those who pose as "purists", Now, more ridiculous generalizations: 
"*Only an IJ* type would react this way since an IP type would at least consider the possibility." She also likewise claimed Fe "users" don't know what they want from Santa Claus. You two are apparently birds of a feather. 
(And I DID consider the possibility for months, but then saw how it was based on twisted function-attitude definitions and generalizations like what you're doing. Under that sort of reckoning, if you're "using" Se defensively, it must be a shadow, or at least inferior).

"Only" statements are never true. That's the worst of bad typology!

"Gobbledygook"? Now, you're trolling, and I'm going to start reporting  (after tangling with her, I can't be bothered with nonsense like this anymore from people who have nothing better to do than dis something they simply don't like).


----------



## Functianalyst

Eric B said:


> Well, she insisted ENFP, and said I was "using Te" to make all my points; so again, two totally different views from those who pose as "purists", Now, more ridiculous generalizations:
> "*Only an IJ* type would react this way since an IP type would at least consider the possibility." She also likely claimed Fe "users" don't know what they want from Santa Claus. You two are apparently birds of a feather.
> (And I DID consider the possibility for months, but then saw how it was based on twisted function-attitude definitions and generalizations like what you're doing. Under that sort of reckoning, if you're "using" Se defensively, it must be a shadow, or at least inferior).
> 
> "Only" statements are never true. That's the worst of bad typology!
> 
> "Gobbledygook"? Now, you're trolling, and I'm going to start reporting  (after tangling with her, I can't be bothered with nonsense like this anymore from people who have nothing better to do than trash something they simply don't like).


Well I will defer to Vicky Jo since she does this for a living, and any reference to me thinking like her is a compliment. It was clear that you did not use Ti. As usual you use terms such as “likely claimed”. Either she did say it or you’re making it up Eric. Which is it? Also when referring to “twisted function-attitudes”, twisted on whose part, yours or hers? Vicky Jo is usually very careful in her terminology, so was it twisted because it did not compute with you? As for trolling,


> Noun1.gobbledygook - incomprehensible or pompous jargon of specialists
> jargon - specialized technical terminology characteristic of a particular subject


Will you fill better if I use the word gibberish? Again I am just as bad when dealing with a complex matter, by deferring to my Ti. It’s quite natural for everyone to go into the mode of using their dominant function in a one-sided manner in such discussions. It’s just apparent that you use intuition, not Ti. If Vicky Jo thinks it’s Ne then so be it. Either way, in typical fashion and contrary to INTJs and ENTPs, you do not have a good use of a judging function which is indicative of your assertions.


----------



## TaylorS

Functianalyst said:


> Look folks, this thread was started to indicate the difference between how MBTI enthusiasts and Jungian enthusiasts view the 3rd placement. MBTI sees it as a rigid forced choice where it must appear negative in usage and succumb to the auxiliary placement. Dr. Jung and his followers do not see it that way. It is not a tertiary function that must be behind the auxiliary placement, but an auxiliary itself that can be equal to the the 2nd placement.
> 
> For this reason, Dr. von Franz surmises that we have a dominant, two auxiliaries and an inferior function, not a dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior as MBTI suggests. Based on that assumption, someone using Ni-Te in MBTI can also use Ni-Fi (if the 3rd function has become developed enough to be differentiated) based on Jung's theory. But they are both INTJs as we know the four-letter codes. The debate so far has shown merely that most remain incapable of appreciating that Jung's work is completely different than MBTI. Such discussions become completely muddled as this one has when the distinctions cannot be made. This simply defies the basic principles of typology.
> 
> I had told Khys a week ago that I wanted to write this thread, but thought it may be something that would be more appropriate in a venue such as Personality Nation. I did not want to join that forum just to make this point, but it appears to be one of those times when I should have trusted my Ni.


I also reject the rigidity. IMO, though, integrated auxiliaries always match the Dominant in attitude.

So if you are an Introverted Sensation with Feeling type and you start integrating T it will flip from Te to Ti to match the dominant and 1st auxiliary functions.


----------



## Eric B

> As usual you use terms such as “likely claimed”. Either shed did say it or you’re making it up Eric. Which is it?


That should have been "like*wise*". (i.e. comparing it to your "IJ" statement) [fixed]

I don't know how she got to be such a "professional" with some of the stuff she says, and how her "friends" Beebe, Berens, etc. don't see it. I gave the example of the type of ridiculous generalizations she makes regarding Fe/Fi. And Ti being "quick", yet ignoring the Ne/Se difference. And then, functions as things ("skills sets") that are "_used_" And if you don't "_use_" it "good" enough, or you "use" another one "too much", your type must be wrong. (What you're asserting now). 
That type of stuff is what confuses people regarding type more than anything else. I can show you threads right here by people bewildered by her with those methods. 
I guess, when you first see her pages or list posts, they look informative and deeply knowledgeable (I have to credit her for getting me interested in the full Beebe model in the first place). It's when she starts _applying_ it to people, with generalizations like that, that you begin running into problems.

Do you really think ONLY IJ's can do one thing, and IP's NEVER do that, or ALWAYS do something else? ENTP's and INTJ's _always_ "use" a judging function in a certain way? (ignoring the contexts in which they might "use" other functions). Are you going to talk about "understanding the principles" and really push something like that? (And both ENTP and INTJ are irrational types, but still, an INTP "uses" (prefers) both Thinking and iNtuition, so what are you talking about?)

Also, I have never heard a definition of "gobbledygook" like that ("specialist" jargon). It's usually a total dismissal of what someone says as worse than nothing, not as "specialist". (So people who don't understand what specialists say might _call_ it "goobledygook", but that's from _their own lack of understanding_; not from the inferiority of what they're not understanding, which is what they are projecting onto it. And that's seems to be the way you are reading, not what I'm actually writing —Again, aux. and tert. compensating each other, etc). 
"Gibberish" is the same thing. The unintelligible syllables of "tongue-speaking" is often called gibberish. People think it's stupid or crazy or whatever. 

It should be obvious that that would fall under "..offensive, objectionable..." General Forum Usage (Can't find the full set of rules right now). It is totally unnecessary. If you disagree, then disagree. That kind of statement is obviously an ad-hominem and inflammatory. And you don't see me doing it to you or anyone else.


----------



## Functianalyst

TaylorS said:


> I also reject the rigidity. IMO, though, integrated auxiliaries always match the Dominant in attitude.
> 
> So if you are an Introverted Sensation with Feeling type and you start integrating T it will flip from Te to Ti to match the dominant and 1st auxiliary functions.


If I understand you Taylor, you propose that as an ISFJ, you use Si-Fi-Ti?


----------



## Functianalyst

Eric B said:


> That should have been "like*wise*". (i.e. comparing it to your "IJ" statement) [fixed]
> 
> *I don't know how she got to be such a "professional" with some of the stuff she says, and how her "friends" Beebe, Berens, etc. don't see it. I gave the example of the type of ridiculous generalizations she makes regarding Fe/Fi. And Ti being "quick", yet ignoring the Ne/Se difference. And then, functions as things ("skills sets") that are "used" And if you don't "use" it "good" enough, or you "use" another one "too much", your type must be wrong. (What you're asserting now). *
> *That type of stuff is what confuses people regarding type more than anything else. I can show you threads right here by people bewildered by her with those methods.
> I guess, when you first see her pages or list posts, they look informative and deeply knowledgeable (I have to credit her for getting me interested in the full Beebe model in the first place). It's when she starts applying it to people, with generalizations like that, that you begin running into problems.*
> 
> Do you really think ONLY IJ's can do one thing, and IP's NEVER do that, or ALWAYS do something else? ENTP's and INTJ's _always_ "use" a judging function in a certain way? (ignoring the contexts in which they might "use" other functions). Are you going to talk about "understanding the principles" and really push something like that? (And both ENTP and INTJ are irrational types, but still, an INTP "uses" (prefers) both Thinking and iNtuition, so what are you talking about?)
> 
> Also, I have never heard a definition of "gobbledygook" like that ("specialist" jargon). It's usually a total dismissal of what someone says as worse than nothing, not as "specialist". (So people who don't understand what specialists say might _call_ it "goobledygook", but that's from _their own lack of understanding_; not from the inferiority of what they're not understanding, which is what they are projecting onto it. And that's seems to be the way you are reading, not what I'm actually writing —Again, aux. and tert. compensating each other, etc).
> "Gibberish" is the same thing. The unintelligible syllables of "tongue-speaking" is often called gibberish. People think it's stupid or crazy or whatever.
> 
> It should be obvious that that would fall under "..offensive, objectionable..." General Forum Usage (Can't find the full set of rules right now). It is totally unnecessary. If you disagree, then disagree. That kind of statement is obviously an ad-hominem and inflammatory. And you don't see me doing it to you or anyone else.


As for the bold part, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? You take offense and whine that I use a word that offends you, but make ill attempts to troll Vicky Jo? I would like to see where Berens and Beebe spoke of Ms. Varner in the way you say. Dr. Berens seems to have a good rapport with her. So again, do you know the difference between what is factual and what you imagine from impressions? As for the underlined, this should confirm you have little use of Ti since someone using it well would have googled the word instead of confusing their connotation with the actual denotation of the word. Ti dominant types make it a point to use the correct terminology. 

Also I am suspect that Vicky Jo Varner would have actually claimed you were any type since she is very careful not to influence one in determining their type. Since I have experienced discussions with you both, and you have already claimed I typed you as well when all I did is ask if you knew the difference in when you are using Ni and Ti, I will take anything you claim Vicky Jo said with a grain of salt. I maintain you write using Ni, but that is not indicating you are a type, far from it.


----------



## Eric B

Again, you don't read well. I did not claim Beebe or Berens "SPOKE" of her any way. _Knowing that she has a good rapport with them_, I said I don't know how they "*don't see*" [the haphazard way she uses the concepts]. 
Who say's she's "careful" with the theories, or not to influence anyone? SHE does, but I and others have seen how she skews things and then _pushes_ it. 
Do you ever "know what you want for yourself" or are "enthusiastic" about anything? (What about the emotion from some "offended value" you're showing now?) Then you can't be a Ti type, you have to be an Fi type! 
Just because she, or now you put it in the form of a question at times or SAY you're not indicating our type does not change what you're really insinuating. She may not have done it with you. But you can't speak for anyone else. 

And, BTW, "write using Ni" is another total botchery of the concepts, but it makes no sense to try to explain these things to you. 
As for Ti; you're the one who used the term; not me. So a tertiary defense (Si) came up, and I referenced the way I've always heard it. It doesn't change the Ti preference. Again, total haphazard misuse of the concepts, by confusing momentary BEHAVIORS for function PREFERENCE. 

And while I dispute her teachings, I have never called anything she said a derogatory term like that. But neither of you can see the difference. So you're calling the kettle black when you accuse me of "whining". You're the one trading some sort of offense for something you're apparently offended by.

You ARE trolling (regardless of what you say your words mean), because *you MIS-read what you respond to*, yet keep charging. I have to explain EVERYTHING like the above to you, and you just keep on. 

QUIT already!


----------



## Donovan

so, back on topic. :tongue:

if there are instances where one theory seems to "work" and where another doesn't, and vice versa, then maybe we can all conclude that what everyone is attaching to like some life-raft is a fraction of the whole. (everyone in general that is, not anyone specifically in this thread)

a complex may be responsible for a manifestation of a function in the sense that "something" has to bring that function out into the "waking mind". if we have two aux.'s, and one is less developed/less differenciated, then that function may be reliant upon a "child complex" in order to be used, or it may be birthed by the complex itself. the fact that complexes may exist--if anyone doesn't like the term then just think of them as being the needed catalyst--their existence doesn't bring about any need for a heirarchy that is static in the terms of MBTI (your dom/tert is always this if you're a X-dom with a F/T/N/S preference). their existence still doesn't even speak of a heirarchy that is static in the long-term sense... why can't a complex "evolve" over time so that what was once your child-complex has grown in itself to become a complex that matches your aux/a healthier, more well-rounded catalyst that allows one to function at a higher level? 

so, it stands to reason that maybe a psyche's main flow can be channeled into two different categories depending on the individual's subjective idea of what's needed, and from there, they may rise out from certain complexes that are associated with earlier (less-developed) life and into higher complexes.


----------



## madhatter

It's a Ti-throwdown. Such things never end well.


----------



## Erbse

madhatter said:


> It's a Ti-throwdown. Such things never end well.


Indeed. I can pretty much follow them both in their argumentation, but that Eric's stuff for most part in fact is "gobbledygook" for me, but as he's stated, that as well goes back to me not being too well versed with whole complex / ego stuff.

Oh well. Back to reading wall-o-texts in intellectual excitement!


----------



## Eric B

celticstained said:


> so, back on topic. :tongue:
> 
> if there are instances where one theory seems to "work" and where another doesn't, and vice versa, then maybe we can all conclude that what everyone is attaching to like some life-raft is a fraction of the whole. (everyone in general that is, not anyone specifically in this thread)
> 
> a complex may be responsible for a manifestation of a function in the sense that "something" has to bring that function out into the "waking mind". if we have two aux.'s, and one is less developed/less differenciated, then that function may be reliant upon a "child complex" in order to be used, or it may be birthed by the complex itself. the fact that complexes may exist--if anyone doesn't like the term then just think of them as being the needed catalyst--their existence doesn't bring about any need for a heirarchy that is static in the terms of MBTI (your dom/tert is always this if you're a X-dom with a F/T/N/S preference). their existence still doesn't even speak of a heirarchy that is static in the long-term sense... why can't a complex "evolve" over time so that what was once your child-complex has grown in itself to become a complex that matches your aux/a healthier, more well-rounded catalyst that allows one to function at a higher level?
> 
> so, it stands to reason that maybe a psyche's main flow can be channeled into two different categories depending on the individual's subjective idea of what's needed, and from there, they may rise out from certain complexes that are associated with earlier (less-developed) life and into higher complexes.


The way archetypes work, one doesn't grow into another like that; but the ego can grow to where it recognizes and channels them better. 
Again the stacking order is just a convenient construct.


----------



## madhatter

Erbse said:


> Indeed. I can pretty much follow them both in their argumentation, but that Eric's stuff for most part in fact is "gobbledygook" for me, but as he's stated, that as well goes back to me not being too well versed with whole complex / ego stuff.
> 
> Oh well. Back to reading wall-o-texts in intellectual excitement!


I'm interested in learning more about the complexes, because I really don't know that much about it either. It's fascinating stuff. But I honestly don't have a formulated opinion on the subject as of this moment. I've only "skread" this "discussion", and I haven't read any of the primary sources. (Psychological Types is calling to me from my bookshelf, but it's so thick...maybe I'll get to it after this semester lol.)


----------



## Donovan

Eric B said:


> The way archetypes work, one doesn't grow into another like that; but the ego can grow to where it recognizes and channels them better.
> Again the stacking order is just a convenient construct.


well, in that case then instead of one growing into a another, how about the "equilvalent" of doing so. basically where the result of each would be the same even if the mechanics that led to each differed. so one may not be operating under the "child complex" their entire life as in the negative associations/fears would no longer be apparent within/out the individual.--or whatever attributes term it the "child complex" no longer exist. if this occurs, i don't think anyone can readily call it the "child complex"--however that occurs, and whatever one would like to call it, the result would be an individual that is now functioning at a much higher level that they were previously.


----------



## Functianalyst

celticstained said:


> so, back on topic. :tongue:
> 
> a complex may be responsible for a manifestation of a function in the sense that "something" has to bring that function out into the "waking mind". if we have two aux.'s, and one is less developed/less differenciated, then that function may be reliant upon a "child complex" in order to be used, or it may be birthed by the complex itself. the fact that complexes may exist--if anyone doesn't like the term then just think of them as being the needed catalyst--their existence doesn't bring about any need for a heirarchy that is static in the terms of MBTI (your dom/tert is always this if you're a X-dom with a F/T/N/S preference). their existence still doesn't even speak of a heirarchy that is static in the long-term sense... why can't a complex "evolve" over time so that what was once your child-complex has grown in itself to become a complex that matches your aux/a healthier, more well-rounded catalyst that allows one to function at a higher level? So far *this* is the only thing I can find and it sounds close to what Jung referred to describing the conscious and unconscious attitudes.
> 
> so, it stands to reason that maybe a psyche's main flow can be channeled into two different categories depending on the individual's subjective idea of what's needed, and from there, they may rise out from certain complexes that are associated with earlier (less-developed) life and into higher complexes.


Okay Celtic, can you refer us to Jung’s ego complex theory in its entirety? You seem to be understanding this concept as well, so I assume you have studied it. I know that Jung worked with Freud originally on developing such a complex, but I am not sure if this was one of those things that he dismissed after their break-up. What seems close to what you appear to be referring to is what I understand as Jung’s theory on the conscious and unconscious that can be located *here* and *here*.


----------



## Donovan

Functianalyst said:


> Okay Celtic, can you refer us to Jung’s ego complex theory in its entirety? You seem to be understanding this concept as well, so I assume you have studied it. I know that Jung worked with Freud originally on developing such a complex, but I am not sure if this was one of those things that he dismissed after their break-up. What seems close to what you appear to be referring to is what I understand as Jung’s theory on the conscious and unconscious that can be located *here* and *here*.


oh, i don't know jack about any of this. from reading the posts and thinking about it, it seems to make sense conceptually (to me that is). 

what i would say is that if there is contention about the complexes, or whether there are any or not, then why not focus on the fact that their needs to be some sort of catalyst on which to use the functions, whether it's a complex or that individual's own momentary life-perspective--in any case, something needs to be inacted/engaged to begin with. from there, depending on what theory one follows as to the "stacking" of the functions or the overall "make-up" of the psyche, it only makes sense that an individual could become better, moving out of "childish" tendencies, adopting a widening view of the world that leads one to becoming a fully-fleshed out human being--how ever that comes about. 

i was just trying to reconcile the ordering that i've been following, the one i encountered on this thread (that runs parallel to my own thoughts), and the idea of complexes. 

anywho, i'll go back and read the links you posted sometime (right now i'm going to cruise PerC before going to work--free-time ).


----------



## Functianalyst

celticstained said:


> oh, i don't know jack about any of this. from reading the posts and thinking about it, it seems to make sense conceptually (to me that is).
> 
> what i would say is that if there is contention about the complexes, or whether there are any or not, then why not focus on the fact that their needs to be some sort of catalyst on which to use the functions, whether it's a complex or that individual's own momentary life-perspective--in any case, something needs to be inacted/engaged to begin with. from there, depending on what theory one follows as to the "stacking" of the functions or the overall "make-up" of the psyche, it only makes sense that an individual could become better, moving out of "childish" tendencies, adopting a widening view of the world that leads one to becoming a fully-fleshed out human being--how ever that comes about.
> 
> i was just trying to reconcile the ordering that i've been following, the one i encountered on this thread (that runs parallel to my own thoughts), and the idea of complexes.
> 
> anywho, i'll go back and read the links you posted sometime (right now i'm going to cruise PerC before going to work--free-time ).


I think that is the problem that we usually have. As I said, for years I was frustrated by my understanding of type because I continued to be confused. I learned then not to just take someone's word for it, but to read and understand the information for myself. So what about it Eric, where can we find Jung's theory on the ego complex since again the only material I could find was *this* which sounds a like Jung's theory on the conscious/unconscious. 

As for you Celtic, appeasing everyone to keep the peace prevents you from learning the truth. I say this for everyone, do as Mad and Erbse has done by asking questions. It's the only way you get to know the information from first-hand knowledge. Madhatter and others have always kept me honest in being able to provide information by asking questions.


----------



## Donovan

Functianalyst said:


> I think that is the problem that we usually have. As I said, for years I was frustrated by my understanding of type because I continued to be confused. I learned then not to just take someone's word for it, but to read and understand the information for myself. So what about it Eric, where can we find Jung's theory on the ego complex since again the only material I could find was *this* which sounds a like Jung's theory on the conscious/unconscious.
> 
> As for you Celtic, appeasing everyone to keep the peace prevents you from learning the truth. I say this for everyone, do as Mad and Erbse has done by asking questions. It's the only way you get to know the information from first-hand knowledge. Madhatter and others have always kept me honest in being able to provide information by asking questions.


oh, i agree with the gist of what you're saying. i am trying to construct a mental thought/"image"/diagram of what is being talked about without having the need to have questions answered that may be unanswerable. 

so if there is contention, even between two who appear to be knowledgable, then most likely the subject is open to speculation--if there was a clear consensus on the issue, or ways to actually prove it, i don't imagine that most would vehemantly argue from a perspective that is wrong. 

since the "key aspects" are most likely unanswerable, i'm doing my best to avoid specifying what those aspects actually are since if you get those key-things wrong, it will just lead to a conclusion that seems logical, yet is incorrect. instead, if those can be worked around in order to establish a "construct" without leading off into oblivion, well, that's what i'd rather do. from there, having a "mode-of-thought", some sort of mental-something that will mirror reality (regardless of its subjectivity), that has formed a base-skeleton of the issue at hand by finding a way around tying oneself down to a specific answer when one cannot be had at the time, is my goal at the moment. 

(and i know that reading/absorbing the info. first hand may be a better avenue since even a really smart individual can infer something as it wasn't never meant to be inferred, but that will come in time--i'll use that later to flesh out the "mental-skeleton").

(oh, plus, appeasing everyone for the sake of appeasment wasn't my goal--i really just wanted to keep an interesting conversation going, for the sake of interest and in the building-aspect.)


----------



## Functianalyst

celticstained said:


> oh, i agree with the gist of what you're saying. i am trying to construct a mental thought/"image"/diagram of what is being talked about without having the need to have questions answered that may be unanswerable.


I would love for you to ask me where I derived my thoughts from on this thread. I will gladly point to Jung’s Psychological Type theory. So you are not offending me by asking. Don’t be a sheeple.


celticstained said:


> so if there is contention, even between two who appear to be knowledgable, then most likely the subject is open to speculation--if there was a clear consensus on the issue, or ways to actually prove it, i don't imagine that most would vehemantly argue from a perspective that is wrong.


I take offense to you, Erbse and especially Madhatter when saying you are not knowledgeable about this subject. You are just as knowledgeable as I am (and I mean that sincerely). I have just been at it longer. 


celticstained said:


> since the "key aspects" are most likely unanswerable, i'm doing my best to avoid specifying what those aspects actually are since if you get those key-things wrong, it will just lead to a conclusion that seems logical, yet is incorrect. instead, if those can be worked around in order to establish a "construct" without leading off into oblivion, well, that's what i'd rather do. from there, having a "mode-of-thought", some sort of mental-something that will mirror reality (regardless of its subjectivity), that has formed a base-skeleton of the issue at hand by finding a way around tying oneself down to a specific answer when one cannot be had at the time, is my goal at the moment.


NO, NO, NO, if you have questions, ask. Do not take anyone, especially me, at face value that we know what the hell we’re talking about. We could be giving you a load of crap. You see this IRL everyday that people just buy into whatever is being sold with no suspicion that they could be wrong. Again don’t be a Sheeple.


celticstained said:


> (and i know that reading/absorbing the info. first hand may be a better avenue since even a really smart individual can infer something as it wasn't never meant to be inferred, but that will come in time--i'll use that later to flesh out the "mental-skeleton").
> 
> (oh, plus, appeasing everyone for the sake of appeasment wasn't my goal--i really just wanted to keep an interesting conversation going, for the sake of interest and in the building-aspect.)


I have seen more than enough (more recently Taylor S and Jungyes) people go through the same thing that I did many years ago when they finally realize just how flawed MBTI is. Don’t be like us, learn and understand. If it makes sense, fine. I have no problem if you believe that, even if you have no information, the complex makes sense. There are a lot of people that still believe there is a dom-tert loop when all they need to do is actually read the descriptions to realize, they do that with their dominant function alone. Others who are more versed in understanding Jung realizes the theory itself defies Jung’s principle that:


> This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first.


Your Ti can never overtake your Ni to create a continued loop anymore than my Ni can overtake my Ti. Know for yourself Celtic.


----------



## Eric B

celticstained said:


> well, in that case then instead of one growing into a another, how about the "equilvalent" of doing so. basically where the result of each would be the same even if the mechanics that led to each differed. so one may not be operating under the "child complex" their entire life as in the negative associations/fears would no longer be apparent within/out the individual.--or whatever attributes term it the "child complex" no longer exist. if this occurs, i don't think anyone can readily call it the "child complex"--however that occurs, and whatever one would like to call it, the result would be an individual that is now functioning at a much higher level that they were previously.


Again, the complexes don't change their "character" roles, but our engagement of them can improve. In the Beebe model, all eight associated with the ego function structure has a positive and negative version, and the more conscious the complex becomes, the more you access its positive side. So the tertiary might be "unsettling", but in teens, we usually gain enough conscious control over it where it becomes about "relief". It doesn't need to become another "parent" or anything like that. Adults have to be serious, but they also need "childlike relief" sometimes, so the "result" would be more positive, like with the ego-advancing dominant and auxiliary, and thus they would still be functioning at that higher level.



celticstained said:


> what i would say is that if there is contention about the complexes, or whether there are any or not, then why not focus on the fact that their needs to be some sort of catalyst on which to use the functions, whether it's a complex or that individual's own momentary life-perspective--in any case, something needs to be inacted/engaged to begin with. from there, depending on what theory one follows as to the "stacking" of the functions or the overall "make-up" of the psyche, it only makes sense that an individual could become better, moving out of "childish" tendencies, adopting a widening view of the world that leads one to becoming a fully-fleshed out human being--how ever that comes about.
> 
> i was just trying to reconcile the ordering that i've been following, the one i encountered on this thread (that runs parallel to my own thoughts), and the idea of complexes.


 This is something I struggled with, as Beebe has no books (and of course, Jung never developed his theory to this extent), and I had to piece together the information from various sources.
One of the questions I always had was what "triggers" these things. (Another term is what "constellates" them)
I especially needed to know this, when the person was claiming I was "using" Fi too much to be an INTP, and that Te was "puer" and Fe "Senex". I was coming to realize that these functions fit different "roles" (As Berens called them) for all the different types, and it did make more sense that Fe was a vulnerable inferior, Te was "oppositional" and Fi was "demonic". Si also clearly fit the Puer, and Ne the "parent". But before I began tossing these things around like others were, I wanted to know the *contexts* in which they would surface or be "triggered", in order to make sure they were really fitting those roles.

To answer your question, according to the theory, the parent generally will be constellated when you see a way you can help others, or yourself. Your auxiliary function will tend to come in handy fr this. So then, the "child" will be when we want to find relief. The inferior, when we feel inferior about something. She four "shadows" are basically even more negative versions of these (the archetypal _characters_ themselves, even though they too have positive sides).

Since you said "catalyst to use the _functions_", it should be pointed out that these complexes are only one set of catalyst. As Beebe himself told me once, "the function is not fated to be equal to its archetypal carrier. This leaves room for the functions to step away from their carriers and operate independently of what brought them into the ego, and for the carriers to go on being their archetypal selves in the background."
So as I put it now, all the different functional perspectives are always implicit in any given situation, that in complete form consists of both tangible (S) and conceptual (N), and technical (T) and humane (F) aspects (And in internal or external orientations), and when we look at it through a function and orientation, we are in essence _dividing_ the situation along those lines. 
(This is why we cannot look at someone and readily say "you're _using_ this function, so you must be another type").
What the complexes do is pay more attention to one of those perspectives, but they are always all there in the background.



Functianalyst said:


> So what about it Eric, where can we find Jung's theory on the ego complex since again the only material I could find was *this* which sounds a like Jung's theory on the conscious/unconscious.


The articles says:
Jung included the ego in a broadly comprehensive theory of complexes, often referring to it as the *ego-complex* as illustrated when he said "by ego I understand a complex of ideas which constitutes the center of my field of consciousness and appears to possess a high degree of continuity and identity. Hence I also speak of an ego-complex" (Jung, [1921] 1971: par 706).

Hence, it is directly connected with conscious/[unconscious].


> Your Ti can never overtake your Ni to create a continued loop anymore than my Ni can overtake my Ti. Know for yourself Celtic.


 While I may have adopted the term "loop" (I was actually never big on it, but use it because it is so familiar to everyone else), I have never described it as something _continuous_. The perfect example is the one I gave above. When it came to that term you used, I readily used a tertiary Si defense, rather than Ti (and also Ne, to see the possibilities of what else it could mean). And what did you do but perceive that something else was being "used" in place of Ti (to the point that I must not prefer it). Something else seemed "stronger" for the moment. (But you didn't say I was an Si preferrer, so still, Si somehow was up where it did not "belong").
Hence, you could say the tertiary _did_ "overtake" my Ti. But only _momentarily_. Not continuously. (And again, it's really the complex doing the "overtaking", not the function).

So people may being misled by the term "loop". I did not understand it to originally mean necessarily "continuous", but to simply be an alternate term for "*tandem*", which is the more proper term for any two functions that work together. That's what I always preferred to use. I have seen discussions where people spoke of being being caught in this "loop" in a "continuous" fashion, but it was usually understood, or at least mentioned by someone in the discussion that this was very unusual, or imbalanced.


----------



## saffron

Functianalyst said:


> Look folks, this thread was started to indicate the difference between how MBTI enthusiasts and Jungian enthusiasts view the 3rd placement. MBTI sees it as a rigid forced choice where it must appear negative in usage and succumb to the auxiliary placement. Dr. Jung and his followers do not see it that way. It is not a tertiary function that must be behind the auxiliary placement, but an auxiliary itself that can be equal to the the 2nd placement.
> 
> For this reason, Dr. von Franz surmises that we have a dominant, two auxiliaries and an inferior function, not a dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior as MBTI suggests. Based on that assumption, someone using Ni-Te in MBTI can also use Ni-Fi (if the 3rd function has become developed enough to be differentiated) based on Jung's theory. But they are both INTJs as we know the four-letter codes. The debate so far has shown merely that most remain incapable of appreciating that Jung's work is completely different than MBTI. Such discussions become completely muddled as this one has when the distinctions cannot be made. This simply defies the basic principles of typology.
> 
> I had told Khys a week ago that I wanted to write this thread, but thought it may be something that would be more appropriate in a venue such as Personality Nation. I did not want to join that forum just to make this point, but it appears to be one of those times when I should have trusted my Ni.


I realized after the fact that I used MBTI terminology (auxiliary/tertiary) rather than "auxiliaries." It was force of habit. I've always been skeptical of a rigid hierarchy of functions and I've read many comments that suggest others are as well. I think this forum is up for this information and conversation. 

I've never really thought that @Eric Bs POV contradicted yours in the way that you seem to, nor do I think it's his intention. It must be a Ne thing. I think he's adding to the conversation in a way that's expansive when maybe you want it to contract. In my experience, that's a fundemental difference between ISTPs and INTPs style wise. But I appreciate both of your perspectives and the differences are food for thought.

ETA: And I do go to the original source and flesh it out to make up my own mind, though I'm probably more o.k. with an essential agreement with some reservations than a Ti-dom.


----------



## Functianalyst

Eric B said:


> The articles says:
> Jung included the ego in a broadly comprehensive theory of complexes, often referring to it as the *ego-complex* as illustrated when he said "by ego I understand a complex of ideas which constitutes the center of my field of consciousness and appears to possess a high degree of continuity and identity. Hence I also speak of an ego-complex" (Jung, [1921] 1971: par 706).
> 
> Hence, it is directly connected with conscious/[unconscious].


Okay, but where can the ego complex theory be located. I said in our last debate that the extraversion/introversion attitudes are what drives the function-attitudes, not the function itself. The conscioius/unconscious is directed toward those attitudes. So are you calling the ego-complex the conscious/unconscious that I referred to in an earlier post? 


saffron said:


> I've never really thought that @Eric Bs POV contradicted yours in the way that you seem to, nor do I think it's his intention. It must be a Ne thing. I think he's adding to the conversation in a way that's expansive when maybe you want it to contract. In my experience, that's a fundemental difference between ISTPs and INTPs style wise. But I appreciate both of your perspectives and the differences are food for thought.
> 
> ETA: And I do go to the original source and flesh it out to make up my own mind, though I'm probably more o.k. with an essential agreement with some reservations than a Ti-dom.


I was wondering when you would chime in Saffron (not a bad thing, just predictable). To the contrary, INTPs and ISTPs are fundamentally the same since they both dominate with introverted thinking. Ne and Se are not a given and even when developed, the auxiliaries will work for the Ti not the other way around. So even an INTP type will build a mental framework and work based on principles of a model, not expand then build a framework. That's the cart pulling the horse. Nevertheless, you see the Ne, Vicky Jo sees the Ne. I for one give Eric credit that he at least knows what attitude he dominates with so said Ni. Eric is the only one that doesn't realize he uses intuition and not introverted thinking.


----------



## Eric B

Functianalyst said:


> Okay, but where can the ego complex theory be located. I said in our last debate that the extraversion/introversion attitudes are what drives the function-attitudes, not the function itself. The conscioius/unconscious is directed toward those attitudes. So are you calling the ego-complex the conscious/unconscious that I referred to in an earlier post?


 The ego-complex is the seat of consciousness. So then everything outside that complex is unconscious. The other complexes would be apart of the "network" the ego sets up based on neurology. (The connections between the limbic system and the frontal cortex, via "emotionally freighted images", which are the archetypes). Lenore really broke this all down to me, and she should really publish it (some of it might be in her book, and the Personality Pathways articles).


> I was wondering when you would chime in Saffron (not a bad thing, just predictable). To the contrary, INTPs and ISTPs are fundamentally the same since they both dominate with introverted thinking. Ne and Se are not a given and even when developed, the auxiliaries will work for the Ti not the other way around. So even an INTP type will build a mental framework and work based on principles of a model, not expand then build a framework. That's the cart pulling the horse. Nevertheless, you see the Ne, Vicky Jo sees the Ne. I for one give Eric credit that he at least knows what attitude he dominates with so said Ni. Eric is the only one that doesn't realize he uses intuition and not introverted thinking.


First of all, an INTP "uses" (prefers) BOTH. Else, they would just be an "ITP". I know Jung put more focus on the dominant, but you can't now just eliminate the auxiliary. It might not be the main "operating charter" (as Lenore put it), but it's still there.

But more importantly, Ti, even as dom. is an introverted process, and particularly an introverted judgment. These are said to be very "deep", so *you don't always see it* like that. A lot of people, Fi doms. as well, testified that they were never aware of thei dominance. I remember one said, they realized it wasn't just the driver of the car, it WAS the car itself! That was what made deciphering Ti vs Fi so difficult when she was making m ENFP, and then on these boards, a bunch of other people were struggling with it. 

And then, you're "parenting" (approaching the others authoritatively) with an _extraverted_ auxiliary, so it might look like that's your dominant. That's what the outside world is likely to "_see_" first. (And what she apparently doesn't realize, except for Fi, in which she played upon the whole "Fi is hard to recognize and put in words" thing). This forms the basis of what Beebe calls the "arm" and the "spine". The dominant is about the ego (so forms the "spine of consciousness"), and the auxiliary is about the ego's relationship to the world (hence, the "arm of consciousness").
So I did use to get strongest Ne on the K2C test, and felt that it figured, though since my next strongest functions were introverted (TiSiFi), it still suggested INTP. (BTW, Ni was always my _weakest_).

This was when I began realizing that you can't judge another's type on *behavior* all the time. You have to look at the context of the behavior (including the archetypal complexes). 
As I've been saying the whole time, it's not about relative "strength", nor about any temporal order either (which one is used "first" or anything like that). For that stuff is based on behavior, and the functions aren't really behavior. Behavior is at best a faint clue as to preference, but it doesn't always show the context, or even the introverted functions.

So you don't see my mental framework based on principles. It's _subjective_, and does not have to be agreed upon by anyone else, (for that would be Te). You just see me parenting the topic with my iNtuition ("expanding" as you call it, on how the different models can fit together). As I said a few posts ago, the mental model is a 2D symmetrical matrix (expressiveness and responsiveness). This is what I used to match all the systems I have fit together. Eventually, I found a similar reflective symmetry in Beebe's archetypal model, which helped me realize what each archetype was about. It basically starts with the hero (dom) and parent (aux). The other six are basically reflections and/or "shadows" of those two. This I have illustrated in these two images:
http://www.erictb.info/mirror.png
http://www.erictb.info/shadowreflections.png

You see in all this the common theme of reflective symmetry. That is the internal "technical" ("impersonal", "linear", "if-then", etc) principle I judge the models by. So you might not see this when I jump in with an idea. You're just seeing the intuition. But the Ti is there, in the background, at least from the perspective of the outer world.


----------



## Donovan

"sheeple", lol, you harm me sir. (just kidding, i know what you're getting at). 

... i just think we are approaching this from a different perspective. at the moment, i'm more interested in just looking at the base of the idea, not its specifics. for the complexes, whether or not they do cause the manifestation of certain functions, _something_ deffinitely does bring them about and i see no harm in playing with an idea for the sake of building a frame on which to approach the subject. same goes for an aspect that your thread brought up, one that coincided with something i have been thinking about: the overall belief on how the functions are ordered within the psyche, and doing away with a hierarchy for the middle functions. even if what we're thinking and saying isn't true, it does no harm taking that idea that comes from outside of yourself and trying to integrate within in a way that makes sense to yourself (while doing away with the parts that don't). 

as far as reading up and being knowledgable--deffinitely--in time. for now, since i'm slowly moving away from the idea of MBTI=god, playing with others' ideas on my own is enough. 

anyhow, great thread... this is the sort that i scan for.


----------



## Donovan

> This was when I began realizing that you can't judge another's type on
> *behavior* all the time. You have to look at the context of the behavior
> (including the archetypal complexes).
> As I've been saying the whole time,
> it's not about relative "strength", nor about any temporal order either (which
> one is used "first" or anything like that). For that stuff is based on behavior,
> and the functions aren't really behavior. Behavior is at best a faint clue as to
> preference, but it doesn't always show the context, or even the introverted
> functions.


this, i completely agree with. once someone actually begins to "know" what a function is (hard enough to do), they begin to try and see it in others. these behaviors can intermingle and easily become confusing or misleading from an outside perspective--function A can portray itself in aspects that B, C, & D will mimic--how does one know with confidence what that their conclusion is correct when at best, and if they're honest, all they've done is narrowed it down to a few, instead of one? (i guess the only way that that would be close to a "good method of typing" is when you compile multiple behaviors into one category that fits one type--but even then...)

it seems that the only person that can type themselves is that person, and only once they have the knowledge to do so--only that individual has acess to the core, the birth, the origin of that behavior that others can only observe in a faint half-light.


----------



## Functianalyst

Eric B said:


> The ego-complex is the seat of consciousness. So then everything outside that complex is unconscious. The other complexes would be apart of the "network" the ego sets up based on neurology. (The connections between the limbic system and the frontal cortex, via "emotionally freighted images", which are the archetypes). Lenore really broke this all down to me, and she should really publish it (some of it might be in her book, and the Personality Pathways articles).
> First of all, an INTP "uses" (prefers) BOTH. Else, they would just be an "ITP". I know Jung put more focus on the dominant, but you can't now just eliminate the auxiliary. It might not be the main "operating charter" (as Lenore put it), but it's still there.
> 
> But more importantly, Ti, even as dom. is an introverted process, and particularly an introverted judgment. These are said to be very "deep", so *you don't always see it* like that. A lot of people, Fi doms. as well, testified that they were never aware of thei dominance. I remember one said, they realized it wasn't just the driver of the car, it WAS the car itself! That was what made deciphering Ti vs Fi so difficult when she was making m ENFP, and then on these boards, a bunch of other people were struggling with it.
> 
> And then, you're "parenting" (approaching the others authoritatively) with an _extraverted_ auxiliary, so it might look like that's your dominant. That's what the outside world is likely to "_see_" first. (And what she apparently doesn't realize, except for Fi, in which she played upon the whole "Fi is hard to recognize and put in words" thing). This forms the basis of what Beebe calls the "arm" and the "spine". The dominant is about the ego (so forms the "spine of consciousness"), and the auxiliary is about the ego's relationship to the world (hence, the "arm of consciousness").
> So I did use to get strongest Ne on the K2C test, and felt that it figured, though since my next strongest functions were introverted (TiSiFi), it still suggested INTP. (BTW, Ni was always my _weakest_).
> 
> This was when I began realizing that you can't judge another's type on *behavior* all the time. You have to look at the context of the behavior (including the archetypal complexes).
> As I've been saying the whole time, it's not about relative "strength", nor about any temporal order either (which one is used "first" or anything like that). For that stuff is based on behavior, and the functions aren't really behavior. Behavior is at best a faint clue as to preference, but it doesn't always show the context, or even the introverted functions.
> 
> So you don't see my mental framework based on principles. It's _subjective_, and does not have to be agreed upon by anyone else, (for that would be Te). You just see me parenting the topic with my iNtuition ("expanding" as you call it, on how the different models can fit together). As I said a few posts ago, the mental model is a 2D symmetrical matrix (expressiveness and responsiveness). This is what I used to match all the systems I have fit together. Eventually, I found a similar reflective symmetry in Beebe's archetypal model, which helped me realize what each archetype was about. It basically starts with the hero (dom) and parent (aux). The other six are basically reflections and/or "shadows" of those two. This I have illustrated in these two images:
> http://www.erictb.info/mirror.png
> http://www.erictb.info/shadowreflections.png
> 
> You see in all this the common theme of reflective symmetry. That is the internal "technical" ("impersonal", "linear", "if-then", etc) principle I judge the models by. So you might not see this when I jump in with an idea. You're just seeing the intuition. But the Ti is there, in the background, at least from the perspective of the outer world.


Again here is just my thoughts. Everyone has a theory on how type works. Myers & Briggs created one, as did Beebe and von Franz. There have been others create theories as well based on these systems; Naomi Quenck, Lenore Thomson, etc. have followed MBTI standards. But each of these systems indicate they have based their theories in part or whole from Jung’s work. So I decided to cut to the chase and go straight to the source and understand Jung. 

Now are you saying that your understanding is based on Lenore Thomson who we all know is a MBTI enthusiasts. I know when you says that “INTP "uses" (prefers) BOTH”, you’re referring to MBTI, so any discussion should remain at that level. I have repeatedly quoted Jung when saying of the dominant function:


> This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function.


If you are following the lines of conscious/unconscious, then you should also know that the Ne for INTP at best will be infantile in comparison to the Ti. In fact Jung describes the use of the auxiliary function in introverts as:


> To the extent that the introvert's consciousness is subjectified, thus bestowing undue importance upon the ego, the object is placed in a position which in time becomes quite untenable. The object is a factor of undeniable power, while the ego is something very restricted [p. 478] and transitory. It would be a very different matter if the Self opposed the object. Self and world are commensurable factors; hence a normal introverted attitude is just as valid, and has as good a right to existence, as a normal extraverted attitude. But, if the ego has usurped the claims of the subject, a compensation naturally develops under the guise of an unconscious reinforcement of the influence of the object. Such a change eventually commands attention, for often, in spite of a positively convulsive attempt to ensure the superiority of the ego, the object and objective data develop an overwhelming influence, which is all the more invincible because it seizes upon the individual unawares, thus effecting an irresistible invasion of consciousness. As a result of the ego's defective relation to the object -- for a will to command is not adaptation -- a compensatory relation to the object develops in the unconscious, which makes itself felt in consciousness as an unconditional and irrepressible tie to the object. The more the ego seeks to secure every possible liberty, independence, superiority, and freedom from obligations, the deeper does it fall into the slavery of objective facts.


When trying to use the auxiliary, this is what occurs:


> The subject's freedom of mind is chained to an ignominious financial dependence, his unconcernedness of action suffers now and again, a distressing collapse in the face of public opinion, his moral superiority gets swamped in inferior relationships, and his desire to dominate ends in a pitiful craving to be loved. The chief concern of the unconscious in such a case is the relation to the object, and it affects this in a way that is calculated to bring both the power illusion and the superiority phantasy to utter ruin. The object assumes terrifying dimensions, in spite of conscious depreciation. Detachment from, and command of, the object are, in consequence, pursued by the ego still more violently. Finally, the ego surrounds itself by a regular system of safeguards (Adler has ably [p. 479] depicted these) which shall at least preserve the illusion of superiority. But, therewith, the introvert severs himself completely from the object, and either squanders his energy in defensive measures or makes fruitless attempts to impose his power upon the object and successfully assert himself. But these efforts are constantly being frustrated by the overwhelming impressions he receives from the object. It continually imposes itself upon him against his will; it provokes in him the most disagreeable and obstinate affects, persecuting him at every step. An immense, inner struggle is constantly required of him, in order to 'keep going.' Hence Psychoasthenia is his typical form of neurosis, a malady which is characterized on the one hand by an extreme sensitiveness, and on the other by a great liability to exhaustion and chronic fatigue.


 So of course you’re basing your response on MBTI, which is fine Eric. But don’t pretend that your ego-complex is based on Jung and although you may consider yourself INTP under MBTI, you have shown consistently that you do not dominate with that function-attitude under Jung.


----------



## Eric B

The dominant may have "soveriegnty", but there is still a second function which determines a type. I don't think anyone is denying that is MBTI. We all know Jung had only eight types. Still, he did differentiate an auxiliary, so it must be "used" fairly well, at least compared to the others. Else, it wouldn't be "auxiliary". (Unless you really believe in this "two aux." notion, but then those are not really auxiliaries).

I never thought of Lenore as a Myers-Briggs _enthusiast_. She is Jungian, and while (by her own admission) deviating from him in building an eight process model, she still tries to bring out more of the essence of Jung, in contrast to the temperament theorists. (I see it all as fitting, while she doesn't). Again, she interprets things differently from you (like four functions independent of attitude vs eight function-attitudes only, as you argued. Still don't know how that changes the ego-complex concept into something other than what Jung taught)

The problem, as those quotes illustrate, is that Jung is so dense, and thus prone to misunderstanding. (I guess that would be what you call "gobbledygook" under that definition. I still think the term is disrespectful. But still, I'm like "get to the point, Jung" regarding the auxiliary. It seems like he's simply taking about the opposite attitude, (subjective vs objective) regardless of the function. I'll have to read those again tomorrow).

From what I understood, his theory was developing and reshaping itself anyway (and eventually he turned away from it). So from all of this, it appears hard to pin down what exactly "the source" means. Hence, as I mentioned, all the Jungian purists" who teach different things.

As for being INTP in MBTI, and something else to Jung, it sounds like you're going with Socionics, which aimed to be "true to Jung" by making j/p refer to _dominant_ function. In that case, I'd be an "INTj", who uses a "TiNe" that functions like "Te" + "Ni", from what I have heard. Now that to me sounds contorted. (They should have skipped the MBTI codes then and stuck with the block symbols and I/S + L/E + I/E codes).


----------



## Functianalyst

Eric B said:


> The dominant may have "soveriegnty", but there is still a second function which determines a type. I don't think anyone is denying that is MBTI. We all know Jung had only eight types. Still, he did differentiate an auxiliary, so it must be "used" fairly well, at least compared to the others. Else, it wouldn't be "auxiliary". (Unless you really believe in this "two aux." notion, but then those are not really auxiliaries).
> 
> I never thought of Lenore as a Myers-Briggs _enthusiast_. She is Jungian, and while (by her own admission) deviating from him in building an eight process model, she still tries to bring out more of the essence of Jung, in contrast to the temperament theorists. (I see it all as fitting, while she doesn't). Again, she interprets things differently from you (like four functions independent of attitude vs eight function-attitudes only, as you argued. Still don't know how that changes the ego-complex concept into something other than what Jung taught)
> 
> The problem, as those quotes illustrate, is that Jung is so dense, and thus prone to misunderstanding. (I guess that would be what you call "gobbledygook" under that definition. I still think the term is disrespectful. But still, I'm like "get to the point, Jung" regarding the auxiliary. It seems like he's simply taking about the opposite attitude, (subjective vs objective) regardless of the function. I'll have to read those again tomorrow).
> 
> From what I understood, his theory was developing and reshaping itself anyway (and eventually he turned away from it). So from all of this, it appears hard to pin down what exactly "the source" means. Hence, as I mentioned, all the Jungian purists" who teach different things.
> 
> As for being INTP in MBTI, and something else to Jung, it sounds like you're going with Socionics, which aimed to be "true to Jung" by making j/p refer to _dominant_ function. In that case, I'd be an "INTj", who uses a "TiNe" that functions like "Te" + "Ni", from what I have heard. Now that to me sounds contorted. (They should have skipped the MBTI codes then and stuck with the block symbols and I/S + L/E + I/E codes).


This will be my last post to you. It's wasted time, posts and energy. From bottom up, of course I subscribe to Socionics getting the "title' correct although it is the only thing they did get correct. Jung does subscribe to the dominant function being noticeable unlike MBTI claiming it's not. But the key is it's a "title", nothing more. Thinking INTP means anything more than any other title such as Architect is absurd. So stating that notion as though I-N-T-P meant something really shows just how clueless you are about the basic frameworks of type. For you to claim you use Ti reminds me of von Franz' description of the type, when she starts off by saying:


> The main activity of this type is not so much trying to establish order in outer objects; it is more concerned with ideas. Someone who would say that one should not start with facts, but first clarify one’s ideas would belong to the introverted thinking type. His wish to bring order into life starts of with the idea that if one is muddle-headed from the very start one will never get anywhere. It is first necessary to know what ideas to follow and where they come from; one must clean up muddle-headedness by digging into the background of one’s thoughts.


This excerpt is exactly what I don't see in your post. As I said, this will be my last post directed toward you since as with all Ne dominant types you want to (as Saffron put it) expand. What's so annoying is you expand before understanding the basics (wanting to run before you can walk). And based on that metaphor, your contributions don't help get the race going, it creates a bottleneck because you have not learned to walk yet. 


Lenore Thomson and Naomi Quenck are appearing to be moving toward Jung, but when she wrote her book Lenore Thomson was a MBTI purists (to use a word you like), just ask David Keirsey and his followers. But whether Lenore is moving toward Jung, you are clearly stuck as others are in wanting to use Jung's work with MBTI principles. It does not work that way because they're two different systems which has been stated more than once. 


Jung has no limit on how many types there are and stated in his last interview, the number of types are infinite. Just reading his theory one appreciates there can be no limit, which is the same reason I wrote what you now have derailed, as this thread to discuss that. There is no tertiary function because it puts a limit on what the 3rd placement can do. 

Unlike Celtic and others who are so happy to allow their heads to be filled with such non-sense, some of us are way beyond that and realized immediately just how completely off base this whole notion is. Again it's what Ne does, the same as everyone following the dom-ter loop and now using the word as though it actually exists. 

Until you show or at least acknowledge what has now been asked of you over 7 times of where is the theory, at least put some energy into reading the damn theory that you continue to do a hatchet job on. Yes it's dense, but for the time you took in haphazardly writing your theory (which again you should have the information being requested at your fingertips if it actually does exists) you could have actually read Jung's theory or at least get an understanding of how it works. 

Okay, I have not been able to learn anything on the forum for quite some time, and I have grown weary of having to take two steps back before taking a step forward. Like INTPC, PerC and other forums, I see where there has been some growth in people at least wanting to move beyond MBTI, but remain in MBTI mode regardless of your attempts at "expanding" because you still think in MBTI terms. Someone who understands Jungian will at some point see this thread and appreciate there can be no tertiary function since it limits the use of that placement and automatically places it as a function that can never take its true place as an auxiliary as well. That is Jung and von Franz' thoughts, not mine. As long as people are not able to move beyond the stronghold MBTI has on your conceptual ability, you will always be limited in your understanding of how type truly works. You are using the antiquated tools of MBTI.


----------



## Donovan

> Unlike Celtic and others who are so happy to allow their heads to be filled with such non-sense, some of us are way beyond that and realized immediately just how completely off base this whole notion is.


lol, i'm beginning to think you may just scan what i type instead of actually reading it.


----------



## Eric B

Jung is one theorist, and he laid the basis for the theory of type we use. It's good to know what he taught, but he was still an imperfect man, who could not only be mistaken on things (particularly his presentation), but also changes his views, and most importantly, can also easily be interpreted different ways. Hence, you and several others saying the same things about getting back to Jung, and putting down MBTI, trying to "get people out of it/beyond it", etc. yet teaching different things.
If you think there's no tertiary, or infinite number of types, then fine, that's your theory; your interpretation of his theory. It's no better than MBTI or any other theory, because these are all manmade abstractions anyway. So people are free to build upon or even rework his theory. He is not God.

I also should have specified days ago, that this "you're doing this wrong, so you can't be a Ti type, you must be some other type; as Ti gets this stuff right", is typism! You're attributing something negative, that you're apparently irritated by (for being so "wrong" or the various other pejoratives that have been thrown out there), to some other functional perspective, as if it was wrong in itself, and something positive to your perspective, as if it's better". Again, they're only different human perspectives. 
(And I explained time and time again the bad typology of using strictly _behavior_ to indicate necessary functional _preference_. That is surely twisting Jung, more than anything else. There are many different factors to consider).


----------



## TaylorS

Functianalyst said:


> If I understand you Taylor, you propose that as an ISFJ, you use Si-Fi-Ti?


Si-Fi, I have not integrated T, yet, at least I don't think I have, I'm only 26. I still tend to project Te.


----------



## Erbse

To stir the pot;

If we do presume the premise of owning two auxiliaries is correct, wouldn't this thus mean that judging dominant persons (Ti/Te/Fi/Fe) are usually capable of looking at things in either a sensory way *and* intuitive way while they're limited to a set-in-stone way of judging data income? Of course you can't take that look simultaneously but at best in sequence - or 'choose' on the go which is the better option.

The opposite would be, for perceiving dominant people (Si/Se/Ni/Ne), that they're more versatile in judging a situation by being able to rely on logic and feeling alike, but their downfall being limited to a single interpretation / perception of reality?

That is of course under the function line-up provided by MBTI, for what that is worth.

This would leave judging doms with incredible capability of backing their perception of reality up (in their own limited way), while perceiving doms would be somewhat 'less refined' due to judging taking the backseat behind the perceiving function but provide a much more detailed information intake.

Furthermore, that'd underline my idea of perceiving doms being more 'impulsive' than judging doms. If for instance an ESTP's Se tells him to do something, that impulse may not just simply 'go through' in its raw nature but can be verified/double checked with Ti / Fe alike - one could logically argue against the impulse (but also support it) while the other relies on a realm completely foreign to me as far as judging is concerned - but could consider the ESTP's 'emotional' needs at that moment and thus give green light when Ti wouldn't (or vice versa).

Ironically this implies certain one dimensionally pattern within types respectively. Then again, chances are that is what lets type resonate within in each other to begin with.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

I think Von Franz's idea of the aux. and tert. functions being both aux. functions makes sense in that why should the dominant function get less support from the introverted realm if it's an introverted function than from the extraverted realm, and vice-versa with extraverts. For instance, using my type, why should it make more sense that dominant Ni should have more support from aux. Te, which is opposite in attitude, than tert. Fi, which is the same in attitude...


----------



## Erbse

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think Von Franz's idea of the aux. and tert. functions being both aux. functions makes sense in that why should the dominant function get less support from the introverted realm if it's an introverted function than from the extraverted realm, and vice-versa with extraverts. For instance, using my type, why should it make more sense that dominant Ni should have more support from aux. Te, which is opposite in attitude, than tert. Fi, which is the same in attitude...


Tandem is a plausible theory as well, as somehow people have to deal with the opposite attitude somehow. One cannot just purely introvert or extrovert without becoming a psychological wreck. To what effect such a tandem has to be in place in order to be 'healthy' I do not know.


----------



## OrangeAppled

Not sure if this has been brought up (thread is tl;dr), but just as Jung didn't refer to a "tertiary", he also didn't give it an attitude. As mentioned, he did imply that _all the other functions_ would have the opposite attitude as the dominant. This implies the tertiary would be introverted in an extrovert & extroverted in an introvert, whereas MBTI assumes the tertiary has the same attitude as the dominant (likely because it's seen as sort of "paired with" the inferior). 

Many authors don't even assign an attitude to the tertiary. You'll see these people refer to, say, an ISTP as simply being Ti-Se-N-Fe. The tertiary NOT having an attitude is something to think about also....maybe it's undifferentiated enough to not even have a fixed attitude, so that it's a bit of both, or flexible. Maybe there is NO "tertiary", just a dominant, auxiliary, inferior, and then everything else is undifferentiated along with the inferior (sort of similar to MBTI then, where the tertiary is basically attached to the inferior, only without an attitude).

The auxiliary function is the only one besides the dominant that Jung implies has some differentiation as "pure" cognition, whereas he refers to the other functions & the inferior as have other stuff mixed in with them, stuff that "doesn't belong", such as emotion in inferior feeling, or even being "contaminated" with other functions, such as physical reactions in inferior feeling (partly why T-dom see their inferior feeling as silly sentimentality & physiological reactions). This to me implies the tertiary is not equal at all to the aux, and that it would be inferior in a sense because it's so undifferentiated (as opposed to "undeveloped" or "unused", but still appearing "immature" as a result).

So if Jung was Ti-Se in his youth, then you could argue that he became Ti-Ne with age, because he may have been Ti-Se-Ne-Fe, not Ti-Se-Ni-Fe. If there are two auxiliaries, with one possibly a tad stronger at best (similar to our literal arms), then it makes more sense for them to have the same attitude to me.

But I just don't see anything here supporting that _from Jung_, nor do I recall anything in my knowledge of Jung which shows he saw there as being _two auxiliaries_, & definitely not that there is a third function equal to the auxiliary, but that they have _opposite attitudes_ (if there are two aux, then why not the same attitude for them?). That just seems another interpretation of his vagueness on the "tertiary".


----------



## Eric B

The best way to understand it is through the complexes, (based on Beebe and Thomson's building upon Jung). The Puer will orient the tertiary in the dominant attitude, and the Trickster will orient it in the opposite attitude.


----------



## OrangeAppled

^ My point is, the OP's ideas & Beebe's & Thompson's & Franz's & whoever's theories on the tertiary/function order _are not_ Jung's. They build on Jung's theory because he was vague or even said nothing on some points. The OP seems to be claiming his preferred interpretation of the theory is entirely Jung's idea, when it's just another "build" on it, another interpretation of the vague areas, another way to fill in the blanks.


----------



## Functianalyst

OrangeAppled said:


> Not sure if this has been brought up (thread is tl;dr), but just as Jung didn't refer to a "tertiary", he also didn't give it an attitude. As mentioned, he did imply that _all the other functions_ would have the opposite attitude as the dominant. This implies the tertiary would be introverted in an extrovert & extroverted in an introvert, whereas MBTI assumes the tertiary has the same attitude as the dominant (likely because it's seen as sort of "paired with" the inferior).


Actually he does seem to imply in describing himself that the intuition was introverted.


> To sum up then, the way is from the superior to the auxiliary, from the latter to the function opposite to the auxiliary. Usually this first conflict that is aroused between the auxiliary function in the conscious and its opposite function in the unconscious is the fight that takes place in analysis. This may be called the preliminary conflict. The knock-down battle between the superior and inferior functions only takes place in life. In the example of the intellectual sensation type, I suggested the preliminary conflict would be between sensation and intuition, and the final fight between intellect and feeling.





OrangeAppled said:


> So if Jung was Ti-Se in his youth, then you could argue that he became Ti-Ne with age, because he may have been Ti-Se-Ne-Fe, not Ti-Se-Ni-Fe. If there are two auxiliaries, with one possibly a tad stronger at best (similar to our literal arms), then it makes more sense for them to have the same attitude to me.
> But I just don't see anything here supporting that _from Jung_, nor do I recall anything in my knowledge of Jung which shows he saw there as being _two auxiliaries_, & definitely not that there is a third function equal to the auxiliary, but that they have _opposite attitudes_ (if there are two aux, then why not the same attitude for them?). That just seems another interpretation of his vagueness on the "tertiary".


Then this implies there are not 16 types, but only 8 since the INTP-ISTP, INTJ-INFJ,etc. are essentially the same types. But Jung does not make that assertion, in fact indicates that if sensing is the conscious auxiliary, then intuition must be the unconscious auxiliary. He also said he would not put a limit to the number of types there are. But Jung never said there were two auxiliary functions, von Franz did. Jung said there is the dominant, auxiliary and inferior functions. von Franz said there is the dominant, two auxiliary functions and the inferior. Jung also said:


> For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through [p. 516] with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.
> 
> A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.


I agree Orange that many of the theories out there are conflicting with Jung’s work. I have no problem with the theories, but when they are in direct conflict then I have to defer to Jung or ask, if the theorists received their blessings from Jung when providing conflicting work. Many argue that Katherine Myers discussed her work with him, but there is no record they ever met. 

What I do know is that von Franz was Carl Jung’s prize pupil and she founded the first Jungian Institute in Zurich. Since she was published while he still lived, I have no doubt that Jung would have been aware of her work and would have contested anything she contradicted. It was von Franz who indicated we use two auxiliary functions and an inferior. She also stated that only the dominant and auxiliary functions can be developed to a point of differentiation. Hence I see no problem with Jung being a Ti-Se type that later developed the Ni to become Ti-Se-Ni, then Ti-Ni. I don’t see where he would have ever been Ti-Ne.


----------



## TaylorS

Erbse said:


> To stir the pot;
> 
> If we do presume the premise of owning two auxiliaries is correct, wouldn't this thus mean that judging dominant persons (Ti/Te/Fi/Fe) are usually capable of looking at things in either a sensory way *and* intuitive way while they're limited to a set-in-stone way of judging data income? Of course you can't take that look simultaneously but at best in sequence - or 'choose' on the go which is the better option.
> 
> The opposite would be, for perceiving dominant people (Si/Se/Ni/Ne), that they're more versatile in judging a situation by being able to rely on logic and feeling alike, but their downfall being limited to a single interpretation / perception of reality?
> 
> That is of course under the function line-up provided by MBTI, for what that is worth.
> 
> This would leave judging doms with incredible capability of backing their perception of reality up (in their own limited way), while perceiving doms would be somewhat 'less refined' due to judging taking the backseat behind the perceiving function but provide a much more detailed information intake.
> 
> Furthermore, that'd underline my idea of perceiving doms being more 'impulsive' than judging doms. If for instance an ESTP's Se tells him to do something, that impulse may not just simply 'go through' in its raw nature but can be verified/double checked with Ti / Fe alike - one could logically argue against the impulse (but also support it) while the other relies on a realm completely foreign to me as far as judging is concerned - but could consider the ESTP's 'emotional' needs at that moment and thus give green light when Ti wouldn't (or vice versa).
> 
> Ironically this implies certain one dimensionally pattern within types respectively. Then again, chances are that is what lets type resonate within in each other to begin with.


Jung, a Ti-Dom, actually implies this in his autobiography when he talks about integrating his Intuition during his mid-life crisis.


----------



## The Great One

Interesting thread.


----------



## Jit

I think all of the four functions work together. However, the response time increases from the dominant function to the inferior function. Hence, the inferior function turns out to be the slowest to complete its response for a particular event.

In a thread here I once read that an INTJ takes longer to feel but can think pretty fast. This makes sense to me. I think it takes conscious effort to exercise the tertiary function since it’s opposite (i.e. the auxiliary) function acts faster and plays more vital a role to determine the reaction (i.e. outcome of the interactions of all functions) of an individual for a particular event.

For example, since Fe is the inferior function, an INTP can take much longer to comprehend the subjective side of an event, while in the mean time his other functions shape his reaction. So by the time he finally comprehends the effect of his inferior Fe, the next event takes place and either shifts his focus from the previous event or makes it irrelevant to express the effect of Fe for the previous event. Hence, to an observer as well as the INTP himself, the inferior function (Fe) seems nonexistent.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Hey wait a moment...I JUST realized that Jung said "sovereignty belongs *empirically* to one function..." Hmm...I guess you can't outwardly type a person's auxiliaries then unless they are fully differentiated, which might mean you wouldn't be able to notice a dominant function???


----------



## LiquidLight

Here is a quote:


> Jung elaborated on his typology as part of various seminars and presentations throughout the 1920s and 1930s, predominantly given in English, in which he was ﬂuent.
> In approaching the dynamic nature of the types, he stated: that the dominant or superior function was conscious and the others unconscious that the direction of the unconscious functions was the opposite of the superior function, and that these functions were either – all inferior, one inferior and the other two auxiliaries, or that there was one auxiliary and two inferior functions.


The traditional Myers-Briggs approach is basically Jung's (though Myers is clearly only interested in dom/aux since her purpose is to indicate a leading preference, so her dynamic is slightly different overall) in that all the other functions would take on the rejected attitude. So INFP is Fi-Ne-Se-Te. In some circles this is actually still held, though in modern practice the model proposed by Harold Grant (which is a whole another discussion) adds a hierarchy to the functions (sorted in terms of 'strength') and also changes the tertiary to the same attitude as the dominant. A move that was, and still is somewhat controversial because it establishes a rigidity that real people may not actually fit. 

It seems reasonable that the two middle functions can be expressed in a number of different ways to me. That for example, if the aux was more conscious that it could take on the same attitude as the dominant, thus Jung's Ti-Ni. In my experience I seem to notice a number of Te-Ne Extraverted Thinking type entrepreneurs for example. This speaks to Von Franz's notion that people can develop what appears to be two highly differentiated processes (I think this presumes the other two would remain relatively inferior), and it seems perfectly logical that these auxiliaries would take on the prevailing attitude they were attached to. So the more conscious the functions the more they would take on the extraverted attitude (in the case of an extravert). 

The notion of the direction of the third function becomes slightly inconsequential. If it is largely unconscious it will be the opposite attitude (not to mention the fact that it is largely unconscious). It may also be quite undifferentiated and inferior as well. Both Jung and Von Franz make it pretty clear that THE inferior function will be the counter-reaction to the dominant and express the unconscious personality, but that third function presumably could also exist in a rather inferior state of its own taking on all the same archaic qualities. 

I'm hesitant to bring Beebe into this despite the fact that he is probably the most influential player in the game with regards to shifting the paradigm to the modern way of looking at things. Beebe's model, however was not devised as a theoretical model of type (and really in a lot of ways nor was Harold Grant's who was applying a Biblical perspective to type) but rather a clinical or therapeutic model. Beebe was looking to figure out what was happening underneath with complexes and archetypal influences not necessarily trying to prove a function order (and he says as much). 






https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...ibrary/Developing-type-history-Jung-today.pdf


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Functions aren't related to comprehension. That's taking this stuff way out of context. Anything inferior would just be where the person might show struggles to adapt - nothing about their function being hard to access or whatever. This happens in terms of the function-attitude though, not the function itself, which is another huge misconception people have. So, it might showcase issues a person has with going-against the grain to assert themselves in terms of a function (usually the inferior - maladapted auxes are kind of an issue that Jung recommended being worked on in practice to protect the inferior). So, with a tertiary, I don't know what Jung would say about that, other than a person can't adapt it with the versatility they could the dominant. Someone who represses feeling (as an inferior) would probably just have an "all-or-nothing" attitude about evaluating their responses in terms of the real world - for them, they have to find that right moment, or otherwise, they won't want to do it. They might just refrain entirely or be apathetic about it. It's the area where people tend to demand attention, or otherwise, they're just wasting their time.


----------



## PaladinX

Functianalyst said:


> Thanks Liquid. I will have to read it in its entirety, but I instantly read something that I completely disagree with. The author said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The importance of these principles for the third and fourth functions is multilayered. Jung specifically notes that a judging function is paired with a perceiving function and that this similar pairing is repeated in unconsciousness. He notes that the auxiliary serves the dominant and by parallel _*it would make sense that the third serves the fourth function, as the fourth is the most unconscious of functions and therefore the dominant energy force in the unconscious.*
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with that assertion since as pointed out in my initial post, Jung says, "whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition." when referring to the ISTP type. The inferior function can never be conscious and definitely not differentiated because the dominant function must suppress it at all times. So for the author to say the tertiary function serves the inferior is a serious conflict with Jung's theory.
Click to expand...

Here is a post I made in another thread that shows that the "tertiary" is the auxiliary tied to the inferior:

* *







> The confusion about the tertiary is because Jung referred to it as an auxiliary function. There is the dominant, two auxiliaries, and the inferior functions.
> 
> He mentions a "tertiary function" near the end of PT in the "Principal and Auxiliary Functions" section of chapter X:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function. The resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, speculative thinking forging ahead with intuition, artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on.
> 
> *The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition.*
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CW6 - Pg 406-407, Par669-670
> 
> 
> He mentions it more clearly here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _If we think of the psychological functions as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it._*The "inferior" function, on the other hand is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function.**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CW12 - Pg 106-7
Click to expand...




And here is Jung treating an INTJ by going through auxiliary thinking to conflict with feeling to get to reality:


* *






> People with an overdevelopment of intuition which leads them to scorn objective reality, and so finally to a conflict such as I have described above, have usually characteristic dreams. I once had as a patient a girl of the most extraordinary intuitive powers, and she had pushed the thing to such a point that her own body even was unreal to her. Once I asked her half jokingly if she had never noticed that she had a body, and she answered quite seriously that she had not--she bathed herself under a sheet! When she came to me she had ceased even to hear her steps when she walked--she was just floating through the world. Her first dream was that she was sitting on top of a balloon, not even in a balloon, if you please, but on top of one that was high up in the air, and she was leaning over peeping down at me. I had a gun and was shooting at the balloon which I finally brought down. Before she came to me she had been living in a house where she had been impressed with the charming girls. It was a brothel and she had been quite unaware of the fact. This shock brought her to analysis.
> 
> 
> *I cannot bring such a case down to a sense of reality through sensation directly, for to the intuitive, facts are mere air; so then, since thinking is her auxiliary function, I begin to reason with her* in a very simple way till she becomes willing to strip from the fact the atmosphere she has projected upon it. Suppose I say to her, "Here is a green monkey." Immediately she will say, "No, it is red." Then I say, "A thousand people say this monkey is green, and if you make it red, it is only of your own imagination." *The next step is to get her to the point where her feeling and thinking conflict.* An intuitive does with her feelings very much the same thing she does with her thoughts; that is, if she gets a negative intuition about a person, then the person seems all evil, and what he really is matters not at all. *But little by little such a patient begins to ask what the object is like after all, and to have the desire to experience the object directly. Then she is able to give sensation its proper value, and she stops looking at the object from around a corner; in a word, she is ready to sacrifice her overpowering desire to master by intuition.*



Introduction to Jungian Psychology, Notes of the Seminar on Analytical Psychology Given in 1925 -- C.G. Jung -- Pg 134-135




Here is Jung explaining the process of going from the Dominant to the Inferior:


* *






> You cannot get directly to the inferior function from the superior, it must always be via the auxiliary function. It is as though the unconscious were in such antagonism to the superior function that it allowed no direct attack. The process of working through the auxiliary functions goes on somewhat as follows: *Suppose you have sensation strongly developed but are not fanatical about it. Then you can admit about every situation a certain aura of possibilities; that is to say, you permit an intuitive element to come in. Sensation as an auxiliary function would allow intuition to exist. But inasmuch as sensation (in the example) is a partisan of the intellect, intuition sides with the feeling, here the inferior function.Therefore the intellect will not agree with intuition*, in this case, and will vote for its exclusion. Intellect will not hold together sensation and intuition, rather it will separate them. Such a destructive attempt will be checked by feeling, which backs up intuition.
> 
> Looking at it the other way around, *if you are an intuitive type, you can't get to your sensations directly.* They are full of monsters, and so *you have to go by way of your intellect or feeling, whichever is the auxiliary in the conscious.* It needs very cool reasoning for such a man to keep himself down to reality. To sum up then, *the way is from the superior to the auxiliary, from the latter to the function opposite to the auxiliary*. *Usually this first conflict that is aroused between the auxiliary function in the conscious and its opposite function in the unconscious* is the fight that takes place in analysis. This may be called the preliminary conflict. The knockdown battle between the superior and inferior functions only takes place in life. In the example of the intellectual sensation type, I suggested the preliminary conflict would be between sensation and intuition, and the final fight between intellect and feeling.


Introduction to Jungian Psychology, Notes of the Seminar on Analytical Psychology Given in 1925 -- C.G. Jung -- Pg 75-76


----------



## Abraxas

@_PaladinX_,

Spectacular source material references. I hadn't ever seen those before now, and after reading them I really think I understand Jung's model better than ever.

So, as shown in the second citation you gave (Introduction to Jungian Psychology, Notes of the Seminar on Analytical Psychology Given in 1925 -- C.G. Jung -- Pg 75-76), if you know a person's dominant and inferior functions, then the way you can try to get the person to recognize that they are ignoring their inferior is by showing the weakness in their analysis of a given subject (introversion) or object (extraversion)? I'm referring to where Jung says, _"__Usually this first conflict that is aroused between the auxiliary function in the conscious and its opposite function in the unconscious is the fight that takes place in analysis."_

For example, if the person were a dominant feeler/inferior thinker, with an auxiliary intuition, you might show how their intuition is ignoring certain facts, and because neither sensation nor intuition is their inferior function, they are more apt to hear what you have to say about either of these functions, because they are not as unconscious about them. And then, assuming you get them to see the facts, you can begin to reason with them through the facts. Am I understanding this correctly?


----------

