# Do you really use your auxiliary more than your tertiary?



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Also in light of the fact that Jung did not view people to tend to purely defined introversion or extraversion at large, the whole "is the aux same attitude as dominant" thing is not something one can mass-apply in real examples with any specific rule -- I find in being intellectually honest, the answer there is not usually cut out when one attempts to observe people. I.e. an intuitive feeler extrovert when we consider someones' extraverted tendency of processing to be significant enough to render them truly extroverts, may indeed look like Ne+Fe, but whether this is strictly how you find "ENFP's" in real life, well that's a separate story. I'm going to say that I think Ne+Fi actually is something you can reasonably expect to encounter.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

> By subconscious I mean 50% conscious (and 50% unconscious). Only one function is entirely in the conscious, your dominant.




BTW I get what you're saying completely, and it's a reasonable interpretation (didn't read carefully though FWIW), but basically I do not think in real life examples, everyone's consciousness is defined strictly enough as introvert/extrovert necessarily that one can mass-apply any particular formula for determining the attitude of their top two functions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I think it's rare for someone to ever differentiate more than two functions in their lives if they differentiate a function at all. I know that I'm Ni-T as in I prefer Ni with Thinking. Also, Thinking isn't logic. Any person can be logical or not logical. It depends on many things outside the existence of functions, so you trying to clearly dismiss me in the OP despite not obviously mentioning me and attempting to discredit the fact that I'm a logical person and you are suffice to say, not so logical, because I lead with an irrational function is a false conclusion you've arrive at. That you do is actually utter proof of your inability to reason somewhat logically and no, logical reasoning has nothing to do with Thinking. Rather, it is the character of categorization and the systems that defines where Thinking is situated in the psyche. Those who possess Thinking of inferior or unconscious character will not be as apt doing this when they attempt to categorize, making it look banal, childish and maybe even stupid, as is always the case when we deal with the inferior. That's why Jung calls it primitive. It lacks the sophistication that one sees in someone who is a Thinking dominant or to a degree, auxiliary.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> Ok, I get what you're saying, but didn't Jung think of the secondary of having the same E/I attitude as the primary?


As Myers acknowledged, that's the view of the great majority of Jung scholars, and I think it's the only fair reading of Psychological Types as a whole. (More in this post and the posts it links to.)


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

"According to Jung, N and S are *irr*ational functions, T and F are *irr*ational functions."

*g* So what? N, S irrational, F,T rational, I guess you meant that.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

@ephemereality, all I see is the ramblings of Te. You still confuse Te with Thinking in general. Ti and Te are as different as Fi and Fe. Also, are you really being objective right now? Cus I sense a bit of an Fi shadow behind your rational wordings, like somehow you're overly Te-ing to protect vulnerable Fi.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

phoenixpinion said:


> @ephemereality, all I see is the ramblings of Te. You still confuse Te with Thinking in general. Ti and Te are as different as Fi and Fe


You whole post confuses me. And this, " still confuse Te with thinking, hum. Well isn't that exactly what it is ? Or am i missing something. Agreed that Ti-Te, are as different as Fi-Fe

And for what its worth, i do believe we reach more often, almost naturally to our Territory as we mature. Jung quoted over 30. Now common sense tells me we all think and feel, but i recognize my Ne-Fi realm active first. It becomes habit as we mature to reach for Te before making a subjective judgement using Fi. The process happens so fast, i can' process my Fi, weight it against my personal values and jump to Te before making the judgement. Not always, it depends on how strong that value is. Fi like all introverted functions are subjective, although Fi -Ti are rational. Anywho, i forget what we're talking about here, loL.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> You whole post confuses me. And this, " still confuse Te with thinking, hum. Well isn't that exactly what it is ? Or am i missing something. Agreed that Ti-Te, are as different as Fi-Fe


Yes, Te is Thinking, but that doesnt mean that Ti isnt Thinking. 

And yes, I confuse people. Thats what I do.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

phoenixpinion said:


> Yes, Te is not Thinking, but that doesnt mean that Ti isnt Thinking.
> 
> And yes, I confuse people. Thats what I do.












Seriously that quote makes no sense, and I see that you have a stupid bias against Te users, so I assume that you have some problem with them  if you aren't able to see how absurd is your comment, then I can't change your idea.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> @ephemereality, all I see is the ramblings of Te. You still confuse Te with Thinking in general. Ti and Te are as different as Fi and Fe. Also, are you really being objective right now? Cus I sense a bit of an Fi shadow behind your rational wordings, like somehow you're overly Te-ing to protect vulnerable Fi.


Notice how I don't differentiate between the two. I just call it that, Thinking. Obviously there is a difference in psychic energy but that was beyond the point. Also, objective? I never claimed such a thing. You keep pulling things out of your ass and project your own insecurities on people. I don't Te to protect Fi because I am very well aware that I am part expressing Fi sentiments right now. I Ni to protect from Se since I am Ni dom, not Te dom. If you want an example of a Te dom there's people such as Scelerat. If you can't see the difference in psychic energy it's not my problem. This is an example of Ni warding against Se because the problem here is your lack of intuition. 

Also, Fi cannot be my shadow if it's of inferior or unconscious character. Fi is a part of my natural function stacking if I favor Te, though I could also see an argument for that my psyche is introverted so Thinking is partially differentiated towards Ti.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

phoenixpinion said:


> Yes, Te is Thinking, but that doesnt mean that Ti isnt Thinking.
> 
> And yes, I confuse people. Thats what I do.


Obviously both are thinking. And you do seem to have some kind of vendetta against Te. Your subjective Ti seems to be annoyed at objective Te for some reason. And do you have something against INTJ ? I noticed in your intro how you tried to be subtle in semi-bashing this type. Sharing a theory is o.k, ideas are meant to be shared, but there is no reason to bash types trying to get a point across.


----------



## Ecoas (Jul 28, 2013)

Well which of the auxiliary and tertiary functions is Extraverted and which is Introverted matters.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Ecoas said:


> Well which of the auxiliary and tertiary functions is Extraverted and which is Introverted matters.


Why?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Why?


The process is completely different. We all feel and think, but how we go about processing our thoughts and feelings are very different if they are introverted, or extroverted.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Well, if you were to "use" your tertiary more than your auxiliary, wouldn't it make sense to call if your new auxiliary?


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I just don't think it's a rule...that's why it sounds so black and white


----------



## Wartime Consigliere (Feb 8, 2011)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Well, if you were to "use" your tertiary more than your auxiliary, wouldn't it make sense to call if your new auxiliary?


Not if (according to Jung) the tertiary is still predominantly unconscious. There's also Beren's/Beebe's function roles to take into account too, probably modified accordingly. Hypothetically, If you somehow use the tertiary more than the auxiliary while being unintentional etc about it, then it makes sense to call them both auxiliaries and group them as dom/aux to contrast inferior/aux (conscious vs unconscious) so as to be less misleading about their use. You'd still need to make the distinction between the two functions for introversion/extroversion, but maybe that can be noted by conscious/unconscious? For example it would then be fair/correct to assume that someone's conscious auxiliary was the opposite polarity of their dominant (as is the case currently anyway).

It's weird though, because I personally have a lot of moments where I attribute to attention to be focused on behaviour and reasoning manifested from predominantly Fi, but maybe that's just the sensation of picking up on that I'm using an auxiliary function and I can't know for sure how much of it is due to predominantly Fi since they're likely blended and working simultaneously.

It does beg the question though, *what about heavy introverts/extroverts?* Let's say INFP for example. Assume one scored 96% on F>T and 98% on I>E. The strength of their preferences should be obvious in the way they expression themselves and act, but that's beside the point. If this INFP didn't score so strongly on N>S, are they necessarily using Ne more?
If they're predominantly focused inwardly, with Si being an introverted function makes sense to at least start developing from an earlier stage due to the strength of preference. Especially given that Ne would then be predominantly conscious and Si being predominantly unconscious, would it be fair to say they're simply using unconscious judging function more often than not? The argument can be made that Ne isn't necessarily a social function and that it can still be used extensively while having inward focus, but I still wouldn't rule out the possibility that more often than not the reaching of their conclusions could be largely unconscious, then reinforced after the fact with Ne.

[/$0.02]


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> The process is completely different. We all feel and think, but how we go about processing our thoughts and feelings are very different if they are introverted, or extroverted.


I meant: why does it matter?

What I'm getting at is that the ego operates principally based on a predominate general attitude and function attitude. The auxiliary is bent to the will of this predominate attitude.



Jung said:


> 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. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. *Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.*


People place importance on the auxiliary and tertiary functions, but they are insignificant in comparison. For example, this thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/164927-am-i-fe-fi-user.html

The OP is trying to determine if they are an INFJ or INFP by comparing the aux of one, vs the dominant of the other (Fe vs Fi rather than Ni vs Fi). The function descriptions are meant to show what a predominate usage looks like. If you scroll down to the post I made about Fe vs Fi and then look at @_Aquarian_'s post, you'll see how Fe is somewhat different for her as an aux user. I have seen in other posts where an individual relates to both I/E versions of their aux to varying degrees. I think, perhaps, these individuals may have a lesser differentiated auxiliary than average; maybe not. Even the two ENFPs I know in real life often make decisions based on social expectations and personal morals and values. It depends. But Ne, is clear in both.

So again, what does it matter if you know that you use Fi or Fe or both as an auxiliary? Or perhaps I should re-pose the question to the person I originally asked-- @Ecoas what does it matter if you know that you use Te or Ti or both as an auxiliary?


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Obviously both are thinking. And you do seem to have some kind of vendetta against Te. Your subjective Ti seems to be annoyed at objective Te for some reason. And do you have something against INTJ ? I noticed in your intro how you tried to be subtle in semi-bashing this type. Sharing a theory is o.k, ideas are meant to be shared, but there is no reason to bash types trying to get a point across.


Yes, it looks like I am indeed somewhat annoyed by Te, just like Fi'ers are often annoyed be Fe too. I guess I'll have to work on this. Maybe this annoyance is because my Ti is tertiary instead of primary or secondary, cause IxTP's don't seem to have this 'problem'. I am wondering now, maybe your "shadow" isn't your inferior as I originally thought, but instead your 4 functions you do not use. 

INFJ:
Ni
Fe
Ti
Se

Ne
Fi
*Te
Si *

making my shadow type ISTJ, my father, which explains a whole lot  I originally thought this was ESTP, looks like I had it all wrong, since I obviously engage in Ti and Se more than Te and Si. Si the shadow of Ni, not Se, interesting.

I'll start by apologizing to ephemereality for my subtle bashing. It was childish. Guess it does make more sense to assume the tertiary is more unconscious than the auxiliary, otherwise I would be annoyed by Fi aswell. I better start reading Jung more in depth instead of engaging in Ni - Ti loops again and thereby coming up with pointless theories/wasting people's time and brain power .


----------

