# A Jungian Analyst's take on Jung's functions



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Here is an excerpt from "On Jung" written by longtime Jungian analyst and psychiatrist, Anthony Stevens:



> Introducing the terms *introversion* and * extraversion*, Jung said it would be easy for him to give uncomplicated descriptions of both these fundamental attitude types, 'but everyone possesses both mechanisms, extraversion as well as introversion, and only the relative predominance of one or the other determines the type.'
> 
> He describes the extravert as 'an outgoing, candid and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments and, setting aside misgivings, will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations'. The introvert, on the other hand, is 'a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny'.
> 
> ...


(emphasis his)

Thoughts?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

It's worth noting that, consistent with my discussion of the issue in this long post, Stevens says Jung envisioned that the auxiliary function would have the same attitude as the dominant, and the tertiary function (like the inferior function) would have the opposite attitude. So Jung thought the function stack of a Te-dom with an N-aux (as shown in the illustration) would be Te-Ne-Si-Fi.


----------



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

Its hilarious to me that the majority of people on this forum see F and S as the irrational functions and N and T as the rational, but I think that has to more to do with the interpretation and inherent symbolism of terms than anything else.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Smallesque said:


> Its hilarious to me that the majority of people on this forum see F and S as the irrational functions and N and T as the rational, but *I think that has to more to do with the interpretation and inherent symbolism of terms than anything else.*


Hmm how so? 


I will make sure not to offend this time, not that I'm planning on saying anything offensive. Shit. This sounds bad. Well, you get what I mean.


----------



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> Hmm how so?
> 
> 
> I will make sure not to offend this time, not that I'm planning on saying anything offensive. Shit. This sounds bad. Well, you get what I mean.


Most people think of "smart" whenever they hear or read intuitive. In American society specifically if you are told you are unintuitive it usually means you are narrow minded and not intellectual enough to be able to do simple tasks.


----------



## Ermenegildo (Feb 25, 2014)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> It's really starting to look like an entirely faith-based system


Faith-based systems are extremely persistent, just think of Islam focusing on religious studies at the expense of independent inquiry since the 11th century. 



Jeff Madrick said:


> A beautiful idea can be described as one that explains a lot with a little.


While empiricism explains with the utmost effort just a little. Or less.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Ermenegildo said:


> Faith-based systems are extremely persistent, just think of Islam focusing on religious studies at the expense of independent inquiry since the 11th century.
> 
> 
> 
> While empiricism explains with the utmost effort just a little. Or less.


wrong thread?


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

It would be interesting to make descriptions and tests strongly based on a interpretation that claims a Xe-Xe-Xi-Xi instead of Xe-Xi-Xe-Xi order, and see how people react. 

But I guess Socionics vs. MBTI already shows that one can 'sell' any model as long as it somehow leads to somewhat realistic descriptions.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Dastan said:


> It would be interesting to make descriptions and tests strongly based on a interpretation that claims a Xe-Xe-Xi-Xi instead of Xe-Xi-Xe-Xi order, and see how people react.
> 
> But I guess Socionics vs. MBTI already shows that one can 'sell' any model as long as it somehow leads to somewhat realistic descriptions.


I never agreed with the Xe-Xe-Xi-Xi, nor have I ever found anything from Jung that supported such a notion, instead I've always come across this which was always directly telling of the functions and their order:



> We call a mode of behaviour extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. *In these cases the most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted*; in other words, the superior function is the most conscious one and completely under conscious control, *whereas the less differentiated functions are in part unconscious and far less under the control of consciousness.* The superior function is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply “happen”to one.





> In this section we are concerned simply with the compensation of the extraverted attitude in general, so I shall confine myself to describing the attitude of the unconscious in equally general terms. [570] *The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character.* It concentrates the libido on the subjective factor, that is, on all those needs and demands that are stifled or repressed by the conscious attitude.


According to, and directly from Jung, he thought the function order was more akin Xe-Xi-Xi-Xi even though I could make an argument for Xe-Xi-Xe-Xi. For the first paragraph its quite obvious that he is talking about a singular function when discussing the most differentiated function, but when he talks about the inferior functions, he refers to them in the plural sense. So one most differentiated function with one attitude, while the plural inferior functions are less differentiated and contained in the unconscious with an attitude that compensates the singular most differentiated function.


----------



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

Ermenegildo said:


> Faith-based systems are extremely persistent, just think of Islam focusing on religious studies at the expense of independent inquiry since the 11th century.





PaladinX said:


> wrong thread?


Yeah, why have I been summoned here? What is this infernal suffering brought upon TheOminousMuffin?


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> According to, and directly from Jung, he thought the function order was more akin Xe-Xi-Xi-Xi even though I could make an argument for Xe-Xi-Xe-Xi.


Which is still similar to Xe-Xe-Xi-Xi, or Xe-greyzone-Xi... or in general that attitude is proportional to being conscious. What is your main argument for Xe-Xi-Xe-Xi? 



Shadow Logic said:


> For the first paragraph its quite obvious that he is talking about a singular function when discussing the most differentiated function, but when he talks about the inferior functions, he refers to them in the plural sense. So one most differentiated function with one attitude, while the plural inferior functions are less differentiated and contained in the unconscious with an attitude that compensates the singular most differentiated function.


I really know little of Jungs work and always forget everything after I read it, but the impression remains that he himself lets many things open or makes slightly inconsistent claims at different places. I thought the Xe-Xi-Xi-Xi was for clarification, like when he talks about the 8 types all the time and at the end suddenly concludes such pure types are unfrequent, before he introduces the auxiliary functions. But I don't know.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Dastan said:


> It would be interesting to make descriptions and tests strongly based on a interpretation that claims a Xe-Xe-Xi-Xi instead of Xe-Xi-Xe-Xi order, and see how people react.
> 
> But I guess Socionics vs. MBTI already shows that one can 'sell' any model as long as it somehow leads to somewhat realistic descriptions.


It would be interesting to see! I would really like to see how Socionics determined the "function stack" that they did. Heck I'd like to see how Harold Grant/Berens/Nardi determined the "function stack" that they did. At least Myers explained her reasoning.

Myers (MBTI) uses the Xe-Xi-Xi-Xi model which comes from the following statements by Jung:



> The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character. (1923, p. 489)





> When the mechanism of extraversion predominates... the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion. (1923, p. 426)


You can see all of Myers' reasoning for the attitude of the auxiliary in the spoiler here.

The Xe-Xi-Xe-Xi model was supposedly started by Harold Grant. Maybe @reckful can shed light on the source of that. From what I can find, it seems to come from Grant's book, 'From Image to Likeness - A Jungian Path in the Gospel Journey.'


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Dastan said:


> Which is still similar to Xe-Xe-Xi-Xi, or Xe-greyzone-Xi... or in general that attitude is proportional to being conscious. What is your main argument for Xe-Xi-Xe-Xi?


If you were to see the most inferior function, the function that opposes the dominant function, as a dominant function of the unconscious then you could argue that the auxiliary for the inferior would be an attitude compensatory to the inferior. Si inferior would have Je auxiliary in this sense, making a Xe-Xi-Xe-Xi cognitive order. 




> I really know little of Jungs work and always forget everything after I read it, but the impression remains that he himself lets many things open or makes slightly inconsistent claims at different places. I thought the Xe-Xi-Xi-Xi was for clarification, like when he talks about the 8 types all the time and at the end suddenly concludes such pure types are unfrequent, before he introduces the auxiliary functions. But I don't know.


He doesn't leave them open, people just have a hard time understanding Jung without interpreting it. Jung makes it clear many of times that what he talks about is suppose to be taken as a direct statement, and not a metaphor or impression. So people who tend to "interpret" also tend to "misconstrue" things that were stated. For instance Jung did say that such pure types don't exist but this was in context of explaining that the typical and most common characteristics of those types do exists, which are the characteristics he was referring to when explaining the types:



> *In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced.* Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.


Now this is the difference between the one who focuses on interpretation vs the one who focuses on understanding. The interpretor focuses on specific terms that fit their idealized version of the theory, for instance they take the "pure form" statement and immediately jump too thinking that Jung meant those types don't exist in real life but were just mentioned to give an idea. The one who just wants to understand, focuses on the fact that Jung said those portraits disproportionately stressed the *typical*, and *most common* characteristics of those types, while the characteristics that separate individuals in the same type are disproportionately effaced. This means that those types he talked about are the typical and most common characteristics that they all show, as in that they do exist wholeheartedly in every day life for those types, but what was neglected was the characteristics that separate individuals in the same type. This is what he meant by "I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life". As in these types discussed are pure in the sense that they refer to all the characteristics typical and common for that type, but they don't exist at all frequently in such pure form in actual life as in those same types contain different characteristics that separate an individual from another in the same type but weren't discussed to paint a clearer picture.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

FWIW this is a point of contention that I have with @_Shadow Logic_. We normally agree on many things, except this point. 
@_Shadow Logic_, in the way that you describe Jung's meaning, what is the point of it as a lead-in for the concept of the auxiliary?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> FWIW this is a point of contention that I have with @_Shadow Logic_. We normally agree on many things, except this point.
> @_Shadow Logic_, in the way that you describe Jung's meaning, what is the point of it as a lead-in for the concept of the auxiliary?


You have to point to what it is you have contention with. If you were referring to the pure types comment then that was more in response to the claim that the types as Jung described them doesn't exist in reality, when in fact he was referring more to that the types don't exist in actuality with only their typical and most common features, but instead contain characteristics that separate individuals within the same type. It had nothing to do with the auxiliary, which is why I think you may be referring to something else.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> You have to point to what it is you have contention with. If you were referring to the pure types comment then that was more in response to the claim that the types as Jung described them doesn't exist in reality, when in fact he was referring more to that the types don't exist in actuality with only their typical and most common features, but instead contain characteristics that separate individuals within the same type. It had nothing to do with the auxiliary, which is why I think you may be referring to something else.


The contention is with EIII vs EEII. 

Now I know I have reading comprehension problems, but I'm pretty sure that the main idea of the paragraph is to introduce the concept of the auxiliary. The way that you are breaking down the sentences that you've highlighted are as if it were in a paragraph of its own (ie vacuum). I'm asking what does it have to do with the auxiliary? What would be the point of saying what he said if all he meant was what you explained?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> The contention is with EIII vs EEII.
> 
> Now I know I have reading comprehension problems, but I'm pretty sure that the main idea of the paragraph is to introduce the concept of the auxiliary. The way that you are breaking down the sentences that you've highlighted are as if it were in a paragraph of its own (ie vacuum). I'm asking what does it have to do with the auxiliary? What would be the point of saying what he said if all he meant was what you explained?


Its in the order that he said it. He started it off with the first paragraph stating that the types aren't as pure in form in reality, but this was before he mentioned anything about the auxiliary. Its not untill the end of that paragraph that he mentions a less differentiated function of secondary importance which was the lead in, and is the transotionary sentence for the next paragraph and the rest of the section. The fact that he started the first paragraph off with this though: 



> *In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced*. Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.


It shows that he wasn't referring to the auxiliary functions that he was preparing to discuss but instead the types he has already discussed prior to that moment. The biggest identifier of that is the word "foregoing" which means "preceded" or "just mentioned" which means talked about prior:



> fore·go·ing
> ˈfôrɡōiNG/
> formal
> adjective
> ...


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@PaladinX

The EIII statement comes from this:



> We call a mode of behaviour extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. *In these cases the most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted; in other words, the superior function is the most conscious one and completely under conscious control, whereas the less differentiated functions are in part unconscious and far less under the control of consciousness.* The superior function is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply “happen”to one.





> In this section we are concerned simply with the compensation of the extraverted attitude in general, so I shall confine myself to describing the attitude of the unconscious in equally general terms. [570] _*The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character.*_ It concentrates the libido on the subjective factor, that is, on all those needs and demands that are stifled or repressed by the conscious attitude.


There's other quotes, but these are the two main ones I tend to use to exemplify the fact.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Its in the order that he said it. He started it off with the first paragraph stating that the types aren't as pure in form in reality, but this was before he mentioned anything about the auxiliary. Its not untill the end of that paragraph that he mentions a less differentiated function of secondary importance which was the lead in, and is the transotionary sentence for the next paragraph and the rest of the section. The fact that he started the first paragraph off with this though:
> 
> 
> 
> It shows that he wasn't referring to the auxiliary functions that he was preparing to discuss but instead the types he has already discussed prior to that moment. The biggest identifier of that is the word "foregoing" which means "preceded" or "just mentioned" which means talked about prior:


I may have reading comprehension problems, but I know what words mean. It's putting them all together that's hard. 

I disagree with your assessment though. To me it looks like 'In the foregoing descriptions blah blah blah because upon closer investigation blah blah blah.'




Shadow Logic said:


> @_PaladinX_
> 
> The EIII statement comes from this:
> 
> ...


That's fine. We've already argued this stuff before. I'm not really interested in going in circles. I see where you are coming from and I don't disagree with it, but I also think there is plausibility in EEII. I can see the possibility in EIEI, EIII, EEII, E-e/i-e/i-I, and another one that I can't recall now.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> @_Shadow Logic_, in the way that you describe Jung's meaning, what is the point of it as a lead-in for the concept of the auxiliary?


It seems like a natural lead-in to introducing the auxiliary to me.

Jung says that his eight portraits are pretty much limited to the "common and therefore typical features" of the types. So his Fi-dom description is limited to the characteristics that _all Fi-doms_ have a tendency to exhibit — which means that it excludes, among other things, the characteristics that tend to distinguish an Fi-dom with an N-aux from an Fi-dom with an S-aux.

In other words, the reason his Fi-dom portrait is artificially "pure" is that it's _typical_ (as Jung sees it) for someone's "type" to include the "co-determining influence" of an auxiliary function, and those characteristics aren't included in his eight portraits. (He would have needed to do 16 portraits to properly take those into account.)


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> I may have reading comprehension problems, but I know what words mean. It's putting them all together that's hard.
> 
> I disagree with your assessment though. To me it looks like 'In the foregoing descriptions blah blah blah because upon closer investigation blah blah blah.'


The closer investigation part doesn't happen until after what I bolded. The bolded itself is in reference to the "foregoing" descriptions, while the closer investigation statement moves from the foregoing descriptions to the upcoming ones (description of auxiliary).





> That's fine. We've already argued this stuff before. I'm not really interested in going in circles. I see where you are coming from and I don't disagree with it, but I also think there is plausibility in EEII. I can see the possibility in EIEI, EIII, EEII, E-e/i-e/i-I, and another one that I can't recall now.


It becomes a little hard to argue when he states that a singular differentiated function has one attitude, while the plural undifferentiated (inferior) functions have the opposite attitude. If he was state that the most differentiated functions had one attitude while the undifferentiated functions have the opposite attitude, then I would agree that such a statement could be taken many other ways, but when someone states that a singular thing is differentiated from the plural things, it becomes quite obvious that he is referring to a singular differentiated function, instead of more than one, while its just as obvious that he refers to the inferior functions as plural instead of just one function.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> It becomes a little hard to argue when he states that a singular differentiated function has one attitude, while the plural undifferentiated (inferior) functions have the opposite attitude. If he was state that the most differentiated functions had one attitude while the undifferentiated functions have the opposite attitude, then I would agree that such a statement could be taken many other ways, but when someone states that a singular thing is differentiated from the plural things, it becomes quite obvious that he is referring to a singular differentiated function, instead of more than one, while its just as obvious that he refers to the inferior functions as plural instead of just one function.


That argument is bogus, and I've corrected you on this before, and it's covered in the long post I already linked to (and you and I had a long back-and-forth on this topic in that thread).

He says the other three functions have the opposite attitude, true, but he says that hand in hand with saying the other three functions are _unconscious_. And the former _follows from_ the latter. His Ti-dom portrait, for example, includes this:



Jung said:


> The counterbalancing functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation are comparatively unconscious and inferior, and *therefore* have a primitive extraverted character that accounts for all the troublesome influences from outside to which the introverted thinker is prone.


But Jung also clearly refers to the dominant _and auxiliary_ functions as the "conscious functions," both in his introduction to the auxiliary function and in other places.

So you have to reconcile that inconsistency, Shadow Logic, not duck it. And the only reasonable interpretation that reconciles it (IMHO) is the one subscribed to by the _great majority of Jung scholars_ (as Myers acknowedged) — and that is that Jung's view was that, although the default attitude of the second function was in the opposite direction from the dominant function, that corresponded with the default place for the second function being the unconscious — in an "archaic" state and fused with the other unconscious functions. If and to the extent that the second function was brought up into consciousness and developed ("differentiated") as the auxiliary function (serving the dominant), Jung envisioned that it would also, to that extent, take on the same conscious _attitude_ (e.g., introversion for an introvert) as the dominant function.

And that's just one of several reasons — as described at length in that linked post — why the notion that Jung believed that the auxiliary function would have the opposite attitude to the dominant is all but insupportable.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

reckful said:


> That argument is bogus, and I've corrected you on this before, and it's covered in the long post I already linked to (and you and I had a long back-and-forth on this topic in that thread).
> 
> He says the other three functions have the opposite attitude, true, but he says that hand in hand with saying the other three functions are _unconscious_. And the former _follows from_ the latter. His Ti-dom portrait, for example, includes this:
> 
> ...


I have never ducked it, and I have reconciled it by saying that the two most differentiated functions are the most conscious functions. This is in fact a true statement, that doesn't take away from the fact that, as you also admitted, the other three functions have the opposite attitude. This may be something you disagree with, but nevertheless this is me confronting the issue and reconciling it. This isn't even up for debate, Jung has stated countless times, in the two statements I presented along with the statement that you presented, that the functions less differentiated than the dominant function is indeed an attitude opposed to the dominant. If you would like to think that when the auxiliary is given more consciousness that it would change attitude, then I would need to see *direct* evidence of this, for me to even consider it.

Just as you like to think you corrected me on the issue, I also like to think that I have corrected you on it.

Edit: what I mean by direct evidence is a statement from Jung himself stating that the auxiliary can indeed change attitude based on how conscious it is, and that it is not antagonistic to the dominant function.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

Smallesque said:


> Its hilarious to me that the majority of people on this forum see F and S as the irrational functions and N and T as the rational, but I think that has to more to do with the interpretation and inherent symbolism of terms than anything else.


Who on earth thinks intuition is rational?


----------



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

owlboy said:


> Who on earth thinks intuition is rational? [in either the Jungian sense or the common sense of the word?]


General view of intuition from what I have seen is "intuitive = smart and unintuitive = not smart" and smart usually means "rational" on most people's minds.


----------

