# My Theory: The Only Way Cognitive Functions Can Work



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@Fried Eggz 
The opposite functions don't help and support each other. Just like left doesn't support right, but a combination of the two will keep a person from going in circles. 
@Mikhail 
The functions are complimentary for the balance of the entire psyche. Not because they don't oppose each other.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

Neverontime said:


> The functions are complimentary for the balance of the entire psyche. Not because they don't oppose each other.


If you're saying that both functions are indispensable, than yes, I agree with that. But saying that one is inherently dependent on the other and needs the other to function properly, it is a completely different matter.

And I also agree with you left/right analogy. Just like one arm, one eye and one brain hemisphere has to be dominant, so is one function has to be dominant over the other.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Fried Eggz said:


> Get off your high horse. People agree with Jung's basic function stack because it make sense, it matches observable reality, and it was created by a psychology expert. Whereas the idea that stacks can be random or otherwise wholly inconsistent with Jung's ideas is not remotely logical, it wasn't invented by an expert and it doesn't match observable reality.


People don't even agree on what "Jung's basic function stack" _is_ (XXYY, XYYY and X??Y are three commonly advanced variants on the XYXY stack, for instance), let alone the rest of what you've written. "Matches observable reality", despite not even being framed in a manner capable of empirical observation? By that standard, anything can "match observable reality", and confirmation bias run rampant - the same for "makes sense", since any system coherently articulated can "make sense" without actually corresponding to reality in any way. Other proposed stacks can be just as coherently argued for, with arguments just as spurious as the "complement"-based argument you're presenting ("the functions must all share the same attitude, because without that, a person would be split between multiple approaches", say), and "match observable reality" in precisely the same non-rigorous and evasive fashion that you claim supports your preferred view. I don't see that the "expert" point has any merit whatsoever, firstly because "experts" frequently disagree, and secondly because the merit of an argument is not affected by the source it derives from.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> People agree with Jung's basic function stack


People agree with Jung's basic function stack? On what planet?

As further explained — at length! with devastatingly enlightening Jung quotes! — in this post, Jung's function stack for an Ni-dom with a reasonably differentiated T-aux was Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.

And among the many, many people who don't "agree" with that "basic function stack" is you, I believe.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

reckful said:


> People agree with Jung's basic function stack? On what planet?
> 
> As further explained — at length! with devastatingly enlightening Jung quotes! — in this post, Jung's function stack for an Ni-dom with a reasonably differentiated T-aux was Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.
> 
> And among the many, many people who don't "agree" with that "basic function stack" is you, I believe.


In the light of that, I'd like to know how Jung defined consciousness. Is it possible that Jung's Ni-dom T-aux (Ni-Ti-Fe-Se) was Myers' Ni-dom F-aux (Ni-Fe-Ti-Se), simply because they understood the nature of consciousness differently?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Mikhail said:


> In the light of that, I'd like to know how Jung defined consciousness. Is it possible that Jung's Ni-dom T-aux (Ni-Ti-Fe-Se) was Myers' Ni-dom F-aux (Ni-Fe-Ti-Se), simply because they understood the nature of consciousness differently?


Myers favoured an XYYY interpretation (e.g., Ni-Te-Fe-Se), though official MBTI materials don't (as far as I'm aware) explicitly endorse either tertiary attitude (preferring stacks like Ni-Te-F-Se); the XYXY stack is a more recent viewpoint. Setting that aside, I personally wouldn't think those two (XXYY and XYXY) could be said to be the same thing understood differently; both, as I understand, attach different things to the auxiliary than to the tertiary, so, for example, the idea of the auxiliary as performing a "balancing" role (an idea present, I think, in Myers conception; certainly in official MBTI materials) is hard to match with Jung's tertiary (it being undifferentiated, even suppressed). Though my understanding of these scholars is almost wholly second-hand, so I could be wrong...


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

StunnedFox said:


> Myers favoured an XYYY interpretation (e.g., Ni-Te-Fe-Se), though official MBTI materials don't (as far as I'm aware) explicitly endorse either tertiary attitude (preferring stacks like Ni-Te-F-Se); the XYXY stack is a more recent viewpoint. Setting that aside, I personally wouldn't think those two (XXYY and XYXY) could be said to be the same thing understood differently; both, as I understand, attach different things to the auxiliary than to the tertiary, so, for example, the idea of the auxiliary as performing a "balancing" role (an idea present, I think, in Myers conception; certainly in official MBTI materials) is hard to match with Jung's tertiary (it being undifferentiated, even suppressed). Though my understanding of these scholars is almost wholly second-hand, so I could be wrong...


What's the justification for XYXY stack? Is there any?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Mikhail said:


> What's the justification for XYXY stack? Is there any?


Given that it's not an "officially" endorsed position, it's harder to say exactly what the argument is supposed to be (and various people will have various differing opinions), but I imagine what's usually advanced by way of "justification" is a combination of similar ideas, of needing "balance" and of opposing functions "complementing" one another (as you can see from what some other posters have said here).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Mikhail said:


> In the light of that, I'd like to know how Jung defined consciousness. Is it possible that Jung's Ni-dom T-aux (Ni-Ti-Fe-Se) was Myers' Ni-dom F-aux (Ni-Fe-Ti-Se), simply because they understood the nature of consciousness differently?


As I noted in that previously linked post (on Jung's stack):



reckful said:


> As Jung saw it, the dynamics of the human psyche revolved first and foremost around a single great divide, and that divide involved _two_ all-important components — namely, introversion/extraversion _and_ conscious/unconscious.
> 
> And for Jung, to a much greater degree than Myers, a person's unconscious played a large role in motivating and influencing their ordinary thoughts, feelings and behavior. Jung thought that, for a typical person on a typical day, something like half of their speech and behavior might well be the product of their unconscious functions, and Jung said it was sometimes hard to tell the consciously-sourced stuff from the unconsciously-sourced stuff. He said one way to figure out which was which was to be on the lookout for the "archaic" (or "primitive") aspects that tended to be characteristic of unconscious-based stuff.
> ...
> One of the most fundamental ways the Myers-Briggs typology differs from Psychological Types is that, when it came to the thoughts and feelings and speech and behavior of a normal person on a typical day, Myers' perspective involved situating a much larger share of the relevant temperament-related causes in the _conscious_ part of the person's psyche. Accordingly, an interpretation of Jung that said that essentially _all_ of an introvert's extraversion was _unconscious_, and that something like half of that introvert's speech and behavior was the result of unconscious causes, was majorly inconsistent with Myers' perspective. So it's not hard to see how _convenient_ Myers' minority interpretation of Jung's auxiliary function was, since it effectively meant that the lion's share of someone's introverted _and_ extraverted attitudes and activity could be viewed as consciously-sourced.


So... on the one hand, there's no question that Jung's and Myers's perspectives on the unconscious differed in terms of the relative importance they assigned to unconsciously-sourced stuff. But on the other hand, there's really also no question that for Jung and Myers both, an Ni-dom with a T-aux (which is how Jung viewed Nietzsche, for example) was someone who _both_ significantly favored N over S _and_ significantly favored T over F. And here's a bit of Jung (also in that linked post) on the predominance that he assigned to the _two_ conscious functions:

*If we wish to define the psychological peculiarity of a man in terms that will satisfy not only our own subjective judgment but also the object judged, we must take as our criterion that state or attitude which is felt by the object to be the conscious, normal condition. Accordingly, we shall make his conscious motives our first concern, while eliminating as far as possible our own arbitrary interpretations.*

Proceeding thus we shall discover, after a time, that in spite of the great variety of conscious motives and tendencies, *certain groups of individuals can be distinguished who are characterized by a striking conformity of motivation*. For example, we shall come upon *individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force*, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."

[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." Or: "I see that the weather has turned out bad, but in spite of it I shall carry out my plan." This type does not travel for pleasure but to execute a preconceived idea. ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did _not_ compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.

This attitude characterizes a group of individuals whose motivations are derived chiefly from the subject, from inner necessity.​
Not only did Jung view those extraverts as extraverted in both their conscious _judgments_ and their conscious _perceptions_ (i.e., dom and aux both), but he also emphasized that, in defining the subject's type, "we must take as our criterion that state or attitude which is felt ... to be the conscious, normal condition ... [and] make his conscious motives our first concern."

So... since Myers' Ni-dom with an F-aux was someone who both favored F over T _and_ whose tendency to favor F was very much a _conscious_ thing (as Myers saw it), I'd say it doesn't make sense to try to match Myers' Ni-dom with an F-aux to Jung's Ni-dom with a T-aux.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

@reckful

I understand how Jung viewed the conscious-unconscious split, and I understand that Myers viewed it differently for whatever reason, but why? Did they ever try to clarify the nature of consciousness? Was there any difference between them on that?



reckful said:


> So... since Myers' Ni-dom with an F-aux was someone who both favored F over T _and_ whose tendency to favor F was very much a _conscious_ thing (as Myers saw it), I'd say it doesn't make sense to try to match Myers' Ni-dom with an F-aux to Jung's Ni-dom with a T-aux.


So you're saying that Jung's Ni-dom F-aux corresponds to Myers' Ni-dom F-aux, but for some reasons the auxiliary differs in the attitude between their models, right?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Mikhail said:


> @reckful
> 
> I understand how Jung viewed the conscious-unconscious split, and I understand that Myers viewed it differently for whatever reason, but why? Did they ever try to clarify the nature of consciousness? Was there any difference between them on that?
> 
> ...


I wouldn't say Myers really had much to say about the "nature of consciousness."

As explained in that long linked post on Jung's view of the auxiliary, Myers flipped the attitude of the auxiliary while acknowledging that the majority of Jung scholars (all but one, she said) agreed that Jung thought the auxiliary would have the same attitude as the dominant.

As far as Jung's Ni-dom F-aux "corresponding" to Myers' Ni-dom F-aux, Myers made many, many changes (large and small) to Jung's original concepts and categories in developing the MBTI. So... Jung's and Myers' takes on Ni-dom F-aux's corresponded in terms of both involving introverts who supposedly favored N over S and F over T and for whom N and F were predominantly conscious functions. But there were a lot of differences as well.

If you're interested, you can read more about the changes Myers made to Jung (and the dichotomies vs. the functions) in these posts and the posts they link to:

Myers vs. the Cognitive Functions Crew
J/P and function-flipping


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> I wouldn't say Myers really had much to say about the "nature of consciousness."
> 
> As explained in that long linked post on Jung's view of the auxiliary, Myers flipped the attitude of the auxiliary while acknowledging that the majority of Jung scholars (all but one, she said) agreed that Jung thought the auxiliary would have the same attitude as the dominant.
> 
> ...


To be clear, Myers thought she was more in line with Jung despite what the majority of Jungian scholars thought. Her stance was in part based on the following from 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)


Her reasoning can be found in the spoiler here.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Aer said:


> You're taking that out of context. He is referencing to how the introverted attitude is motivated by the subject. Obviously everyone thinks and feels. However the conflict occurs when two similar functions (Ti/Fi), try to act on the same thing. Subjective feeling needs objective thinking to do it's work objectively, because objective feeling would have to be suppressed so it doesn't overpower the subjective feeling.
> 
> The second quote refers to how feeling can become dependent on thinking, and then become a function that works only to help the thinking function. However, as previously noted, any extroverted function must be paired with an introverted function of the same kind. So Fe might latch onto Ti, or Fi latch onto Te.


Jung implies that feeling is not repressed from consciousness. This would mean the orientation of the used functions (e/i) would be the same. You're saying the conflict occurs when two similar functions (Ti/Fi) try to act on the same thing. It would be adequate to see that this is the issue Jung is talking about, and he's claiming they don't necessarily conflict each other all the time. Read again:



Jung said:


> Although feeling is an independent function in itself, it may lapse into a state of dependence upon another function, upon thinking, for instance; whereby a feeling is produced which is merely kept as an accompaniment to thinking, and is *not repressed from consciousness* only in so far as it fits in with the intellectual associations.


Also, on your post, you're saying as if Fe is "paired" with Ti. They don't "pair," they repress each other.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

goamare said:


> Jung implies that feeling is not repressed from consciousness. This would mean the orientation of the used functions (e/i) would be the same. You're saying the conflict occurs when two similar functions (Ti/Fi) try to act on the same thing. It would be adequate to see that this is the issue Jung is talking about, and he's claiming they don't necessarily conflict each other all the time. Read again:


It's not repressed as long as it fits in with intellectual associations.

It's like telling someone they can hold any opinion they want as long as their opinions match yours. 

The inferior function doesn't get to direct consciousness in its own right and according to its own aims.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> To be clear, Myers thought she was more in line with Jung despite what the majority of Jungian scholars thought. Her stance was in part based on the following from Jung:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your link didn't work for me.

Also, her stance was based on the thousands of studies she made which indicated that, for instance, istjs were more similar to estjs, when their aux judging manifested, than they were to istps. Infp's intuition manifested more like a Ne dom than a Ni dom, etc.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> Your link didn't work for me.
> 
> Also, her stance was based on the thousands of studies she made which indicated that, for instance, istjs were more similar to estjs, when their aux judging manifested, than they were to istps. Infp's intuition manifested more like a Ne dom than a Ni dom, etc.


Which source does that claim come from?

here is the link I tried to provide:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...iary-balancing-extraversion-introversion.html


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> It's not repressed as long as it fits in with intellectual associations.
> 
> It's like telling someone they can hold any opinion they want as long as their opinions match yours.
> 
> The inferior function doesn't get to direct consciousness in its own right and according to its own aims.



To your point:



> But one can feel "correctly" only when feeling is not disturbed by anything else. Nothin disturbs feeling so much as thinking. It is therefore understandable that in this type thinking will be kept in abeyance as much as possible. *This does not mean that the woman does not think at all; on the contrary, she may think a great deal and very cleverly, but her thinking is never sui generis [of its own principle]--it is an Epimethean appendage to her feeling.* What she cannot feel, she cannot consciously think. "But I can't think what I don't feel," such a type said to me once in indignant tones. So far as her feeling allows, she can think very well, but every conclusion, however logical, that might lead to a disturbance of feeling is rejected at the outset. It is simply not thought. Thus everything that fits in with objective values is good, and is loved, and everything else seems to her to exist in a world apart.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Which source does that claim come from?
> 
> here is the link I tried to provide:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...iary-balancing-extraversion-introversion.html


Thank you. Gifts Differing would be the source which brought me to that conclusion. The quotes you posted in your link and an additional paragraph that I don't think you included.

"For example, ISTJ people normally run their outer life with their second best process, thinking, so it is conducted with impersonal system and order. They do not leave it to their third best process, feeling, as they would have to do if both their sensing and thinking were introverted. Similarly, INFP people normally run their outer life with their second best process, their intuition, so their outer life is characterized by spurts and projects and enthusiasm. 

A more subtle kind of evidence lies in the "extraverted character" of the introvert's auxiliary process. For example, in a well balanced ISTJ the observable auxiliary process, thinking, can be seen to resemble the thinking of the extraverted thinker more than that of the introverted thinker. 

Good type development thus demands that the auxiliary supplement the dominant process in two respects. It must supply a useful degree of balance not only between perception and judgement but also between extraversion and introversion. When it fails to do so it leaves the individual literally "unbalanced" retreating into the preferred world and consciously or unconsciously afraid of the other world. Such cases do occur and may seem to support the widespread assumption among Jungian analysts that the dominant and auxiliary are naturally both extraverted or both introverted; but such cases are not the norm: They are instances of insufficient use and development of the auxiliary."


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

ENTPness said:


> So, as some of you may know, I'm an eensy bit critical of the whole cognitive functions theory that most of this site takes as gospel. BUT I think I've figured out a way it can work better (as a model at least, still nothing empirical about it of course) by integrating all eight functions into each type AND bridging the gap between dichotomies and functions AND explaining how, for instance, a "thinking dominant" type could score borderline feeling.
> 
> So let's examine the INTP as our case study so I can explain what I'm talking about.
> 
> ...


Basically,... you would suggest that INTP's do actually have a lot of Fi going on in their heads....... I just don't see it.

You´re ENTP,... so you should have a lot of Se going on,...... So you do a lot of being in the moment without seeing any posibilities into the future?

The inferior function is also called the aspirational function, which means it's something you are aware of and would like to do more of, but it's difficult to do because of your dominant function trying to be,.. well... dominant. But you are able use your inferior function sometimes. You are an ENTP so your inferior function is Si,.... which is,.. what you´re trying to do in this post. :happy:


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> Thank you. Gifts Differing would be the source which brought me to that conclusion. The quotes you posted in your link and an additional paragraph that I don't think you included.
> 
> "For example, ISTJ people normally run their outer life with their second best process, thinking, so it is conducted with impersonal system and order. They do not leave it to their third best process, feeling, as they would have to do if both their sensing and thinking were introverted. Similarly, INFP people normally run their outer life with their second best process, their intuition, so their outer life is characterized by spurts and projects and enthusiasm.
> 
> ...


To be fair, there is nothing here to suggest that the thousands of studies lead to this conclusion. It could be conjecture. I have a feeling that these are more likely to be rationalizations. And fwiw, though it doesn't necessarily mean anything, Myers and Briggs relied on people watching long before it became an assessment. Furthermore, as @_reckful_ likes to point out, there is data to support the dichotomies, but a lack thereof to support cognitive functions. So I'm skeptical that the cited paragraph is based on data vs assumptions being made.

To be clear on my stance, I am an MBTI certified practitioner, and I think MBTI is legit (especially in the dichotomy sense). However, I do have criticisms about this kind of stuff, especially type dynamics. EDIT: Which is also why I prefer to refer to Jung on matters regarding cognitive functions/type dynamicsy things.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> It's not repressed as long as it fits in with intellectual associations.
> 
> It's like telling someone they can hold any opinion they want as long as their opinions match yours.
> 
> The inferior function doesn't get to direct consciousness in its own right and according to its own aims.


The thing is, I'm assuming, there are many occasions which "intellectual association" isn't very necessary. Or occasions where we're allowed to present more than a single opinion. Or we're allowed to present a well-thought out synthesized opinion that encompasses both Ti-derived factor and Fi-derived factor. In these case, Ne may work pretty well with Fi as well. Why not?


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Peter said:


> Basically,... you would suggest that INTP's do actually have a lot of Fi going on in their heads....... I just don't see it.
> 
> You´re ENTP,... so you should have a lot of Se going on,...... So you do a lot of being in the moment without seeing any posibilities into the future?
> 
> The inferior function is also called the aspirational function, which means it's something you are aware of and would like to do more of, but it's difficult to do because of your dominant function trying to be,.. well... dominant. But you are able use your inferior function sometimes. You are an ENTP so your inferior function is Si,.... which is,.. what you´re trying to do in this post. :happy:


Let's not take it as black/white. The OP seems to suggest a possibility, not an absolute. And, as far as my understanding, he is claiming Fi is *relatively* closer to the natural preference *than Fe is* (not "preferred" in the general sense).

With the OP's assumption, not all INTP's would prefer Fi as much (actually to me many wouldn't). An INTP (or an ENTP) who has a clear and strong T over F, and a weak P (flips between P/J easily), would definitely prefer Te rather than Fi. This is easily assumable since Te is a function that is preferred by those who have T and J. In this case, this person is maybe an "NT" first and foremost, before being an "Introverted Perceiver (Introverted Rational Type)." 

Similarly, some ENTP would be pretty comfortable with Se to some degree, while not so much for others.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

goamare said:


> The thing is, I'm assuming, there are many occasions which "intellectual association" isn't very necessary. Or occasions where we're allowed to present more than a single opinion. Or we're allowed to present a well-thought out synthesized opinion that encompasses both Ti-derived factor and Fi-derived factor. In these case, Ne may work pretty well with Fi as well. Why not?


Put a Fi dom and a Ti dom into a debate against each other on a topic that they both know well. Fi dom thinks Ti dom is being an inconsiderate, selfish asshole and Ti dom thinks Fi dom won't be objective enough since they're taking it too personally. 

How long would it take for a Ti dom to drop his own logically considered conclusions, which sit perfectly in his internal framework and instead, completely agree with the Fi dom?

Then instead of having a debate over a specific topic, where they have both carefully considered their opinions, switch their opinions for their entire world view which all of their opinions have been built upon. 

One of them convincing the other to completely drop their standpoint is almost as difficult as trying to drop your dominant standpoint and agree with your inferior perspective. Since this perspective is one that you don't understand, believe is stupid and pisses you off no end, how would you ever see value and importance in it?


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> Put a Fi dom and a Ti dom into a debate against each other on a topic that they both know well. Fi dom thinks Ti dom is being an inconsiderate, selfish asshole and Ti dom thinks Fi dom won't be objective enough since they're taking it too personally.
> 
> How long would it take for a Ti dom to drop his own logically considered conclusions, which sit perfectly in his internal framework and instead, completely agree with the Fi dom?
> 
> ...


Your post seems to digress away from my points. Please read my last post again and discuss on it. Or was it unclear? (I was at work and didn't elaborate much..)


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

goamare said:


> Let's not take it as black/white. The OP seems to suggest a possibility, not an absolute. And, as far as my understanding, he is claiming Fi is *relatively* closer to the natural preference *than Fe is* (not "preferred" in the general sense).
> 
> With the OP's assumption, not all INTP's would prefer Fi as much (actually to me many wouldn't). An INTP (or an ENTP) who has a clear and strong T over F, and a weak P (flips between P/J easily), would definitely prefer Te rather than Fi. This is easily assumable since Te is a function that is preferred by those who have T and J. In this case, this person is maybe an "NT" first and foremost, before being an "Introverted Perceiver (Introverted Rational Type)."
> 
> Similarly, some ENTP would be pretty comfortable with Se to some degree, while not so much for others.


I think the cognitive functions aren't really a preference of the person, but just a preference of the brain. We don't have a whole lot of control over it. But we are able to think consciously. Conscious thought means we can engage in lines of thought and behavior that seem to contradict our personality type. If I'm not mistaken, Jung himself said that the functions are about what naturally goes on in their heads, not what they force them selves to think or feel.

INTP's are considered to be the most oblivious to feelings, social cues, ethics, morals, etc. If there was any Fi in there, this wouldn't be the case. I have had various discussions with INTP's in this forum and they always are NT's in everything. They just keep going at it with seemingly no emotion what soever attached to it. It's super anoying to disagree with an INTP, but hardly ever you'll see them getting upset in an F way. They just keep turning the subject around to show they´re right. It is impressive actually


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Peter said:


> I think the cognitive functions aren't really a preference of the person, but just a preference of the brain. We don't have a whole lot of control over it. But we are able to think consciously. Conscious thought means we can engage in lines of thought and behavior that seem to contradict our personality type. If I'm not mistaken, Jung himself said that the functions are about what naturally goes on in their heads, not what they force them selves to think or feel.
> 
> INTP's are considered to be the most oblivious to feelings, social cues, ethics, morals, etc. If there was any Fi in there, this wouldn't be the case. I have had various discussions with INTP's in this forum and they always are NT's in everything. They just keep going at it with seemingly no emotion what soever attached to it. It's super anoying to disagree with an INTP, but hardly ever you'll see them getting upset in an F way. They just keep turning the subject around to show they´re right. It is impressive actually


This starts to get at my feelings on this subject, so I will quote it. 

@ENTPness: I think it is theoretically entirely reasonable to say, as has been said, that inasmuch as Feeling is conscious in an introvert, it will be itself introverted. 

Unfortunately, this leads us (perhaps) inescapably to the idea that an Fi-dom type would be, when consciously purposed toward Thinking, a notably ABSTRACT Thinker, of whom it can be said that Thinking is an agent unto itself. 

These two things both seem observably quite false. Show me an Fi-dom that is also a strong Thinker, of the abstract variety. I am not interested in the abstract model you offer if you can't show me a compelling example. I think all such theories should base themselves off of a compelling dilemma in the observation of people. I want something like "Einstein's Fi was conscious and dominant when expressed" or whatever. Something observable that makes us have to revisit this and think on it. 

What seems most salient to me in all that Jung has said on this is that Feeling and Thinking disrupt one another. I've thought of that, and considered that one must be subjugated and neutered by the other. For a Feeler, when Feeling is a factor, Thinking is set to work to the ends of Feeling, and not allowed to stray or have dominance outside of those ends. Whatever logic, then, that leads the the most valued end, is preferred. Logic is a slave to value. Conversely, a dominant Thinker subjugates Feeling to requirements of logic. As I change my logical models, I rather unconsciously set about devaluing others. One might see this in many, say, radical political theorists. Convinced of some model, Feeling is whipped along and subjugated by logic to devalue those things no longer agreed with, and find or invent value for those things now determined to be true. Sentiment and value are disruptive to Thinking and thus must either be suppressed and/or brought in line so as not to disturb. Reason and logic are disruptive to Feeling, so must be suppressed and/or brought in line.

Perhaps it is better to say that the inferior cannot openly contradict the dominant without being suppressed. 

But, this is only when these two forces conflict. There are times when they don't. In those cases, what evidence or experience do we have that would compel us to believe that in those moments, a Ti like myself is more or less also an Fi? Give me an example.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I like how the OP presumes that this is the only way it can work.
I disagree with the premise that Fi and Ti are equal.
My latest convo in the INTP subforum is enough proof for me on that point.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

starting with only Ji Je Pe Pi or whatever doesn't allow room for the 16 types. So it doesn't make sense to me, if the theory is totally unrelated to MBTI or the Jungian functions discussed on this website.

Also it would not be able to effectively differentiate people based on certain preferences, as J or P are barely enough to capture the whole nature or reality of one's being. Also I think narrowing it down to dimensions of J and P, would allow for less differentiation between different types of people, and hence, less room for variation. Essentially, we have the Big Five for these general matters, with less dimensions. 

The reason why Fi Ti are repressed is because Jung exhibited that in practice, there were patterns where people became F-like, but couldn't be described as T-like when they were that way. Same with people becoming more S-like and not being described as N-like. (N S F T being related to values, reasoning, etc not just labels such as 'Thinking', etc) 

To be honest, I disagree with shadow functions. However, how would one experience that stuff other than to understand more about relationships with other types? Maybe with more reasons as to why they need to be identified 'in me' than i will be more accommodating of its knowledge. Anyway, most people barely have a grasp on all four functions.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Peter said:


> I think the cognitive functions aren't really a preference of the person, but just a preference of the brain. We don't have a whole lot of control over it. But we are able to think consciously. Conscious thought means we can engage in lines of thought and behavior that seem to contradict our personality type. If I'm not mistaken, Jung himself said that the functions are about what naturally goes on in their heads, not what they force them selves to think or feel.
> 
> INTP's are considered to be the most oblivious to feelings, social cues, ethics, morals, etc. If there was any Fi in there, this wouldn't be the case. I have had various discussions with INTP's in this forum and they always are NT's in everything. They just keep going at it with seemingly no emotion what soever attached to it. It's super anoying to disagree with an INTP, but hardly ever you'll see them getting upset in an F way. They just keep turning the subject around to show they´re right. It is impressive actually



I agree with you.Jung was very spiritual as a person, but he also believed some very interesting literally "mind-opening" things, such as that there are functions that we do not have full ability to control, and that unconsciously influence our perception of the world, and hence, everything we are (at least toward a society of reasonable men and women).

It's also very much related to clinical practice, so observing people and noting patterns between patients. To say what he wrote can be delineated in different ways, seems to be like saying one can jump into his body all those years ago, and write what he saw, down for us all.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

hornet said:


> I like how the OP presumes that this is the only way it can work.
> I disagree with the premise that Fi and Ti are equal.
> My latest convo in the INTP subforum is enough proof for me on that point.


Haha, yes but then he says: 


> Anyway, I know this is something of a disjointed rant that relies too heavily on coin metaphors and I could/probably should add more clarity to it, but it felt like the start of a thought/idea.


Im pretty sure he smoked some weed at the time lol.

To be fair, INTP 4w5 seem to have a balance in Fi and Ti but usually dont prefer Fe.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

goamare said:


> Your post seems to digress away from my points. Please read my last post again and discuss on it. Or was it unclear? (I was at work and didn't elaborate much..)


I was trying to explain the significant difference between Ti and Fi perspectives. Without understanding the significant difference between the perspectives and without understanding that the dominant attitude and function represents the main direction of consciousness, it's too difficult for anyone to understand why the idea you presented won't work. 




goamare said:


> The thing is, I'm assuming, there are many occasions which "intellectual association" isn't very necessary. Or occasions where we're allowed to present more than a single opinion. Or we're allowed to present a well-thought out synthesized opinion that encompasses both Ti-derived factor and Fi-derived factor. In these case, Ne may work pretty well with Fi as well. Why not?


Because the Thinking function becomes dominant by excluding Feeling. 

If it doesn't exclude Feeling then it isn't pure Thinking and therefore it isn't dominant. 


If a Ti dom is in a situation where intellectual associations aren't necessary, it won't prevent them from assessing the situation from an intellectual standpoint. Their Feeling function is mostly unconscious and therefore the process of evaluation through Feeling is something which is outside of their awareness. 
That's why Ti doms often view Fi doms as reacting in an emotional and irrational manner. They don't understand what other motive the Fi dom could possibly have in order to come to their conclusion. 

We can't place importance on a perspective which we can't see. So it won't be included in determining judgement.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Peter said:


> INTP's are considered to be the most oblivious to feelings, social cues, ethics, morals, etc. If there was any Fi in there, this wouldn't be the case. I have had various discussions with INTP's in this forum and they always are NT's in everything. They just keep going at it with seemingly no emotion what soever attached to it. It's super anoying to disagree with an INTP, but hardly ever you'll see them getting upset in an F way. They just keep turning the subject around to show they´re right. It is impressive actually


No Fi at all for virtually all INTPs.. Hmm ok.



Neverontime said:


> Because the Thinking function becomes dominant by excluding Feeling.
> 
> If it doesn't exclude Feeling then it isn't pure Thinking and therefore it isn't dominant.
> 
> ...


Theoretically yes, practically no. I think I can see the fundamental difference between our standpoints.


@Peter and @Neverontime,
Do you think everyone has a type?
Jung actually made it very clear that not everyone will have a type. His descriptions from his book, are in fact based on very typical, *almost extreme* types. Such extreme types really don't exist as much. Some quotes here:



Jung said:


> A type is a specimen, or example, which reproduces in a characteristic way the character of a species or general class. In the narrower meaning used in this particular work, *a type is a characteristic model of a general attitude occurring in many individual forms.* From a great number of existing or possible attitudes I have, in this particular research, brought four into especial relief; namely, those that are primarily orientated by the four basic psychological functions viz. thinking, feeling, intuition, and sensation. *In so far as such an attitude is habitual, thus lending a certain stamp to the character of the individual, I speak of a psychological type.*





Jung said:


> *When a function habitually predominates, a typical attitude is thereby produced.* In accordance with the nature of the differentiated function, constellations of contents take place which create a corresponding attitude. Thus there exist a typical thinking, a feeling, a sensational, and an intuitive attitude.





Jung said:


> Hence, there can *never occur a pure type* in the sense that he is entirely possessed of the one mechanism with a complete atrophy of the other. A typical attitude always signifies the *merely relative predominance of one mechanism.*





Jung said:


> In the foregoing descriptions *I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits,* which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced.


Whereas in MBTI, it seems they decided that they should rather assign a type for everyone, rather than telling "you don't have a type." By doing this, people get to learn where they are *closest* to. Even those who don't have clear preferences can at least get a picture of their preferred mechanism (brain process) - however slight their preferences are over the other. I’d say this can be rather effective and beneficial. Telling someone "you don't have a type, therefore I will not tell you any description of any type. Go now" - simply doesn't do anything.

The problem that happens from here, is the attitude which considers that everyone who's typed the same will follow the very typical characteristics of that type *only.* Like relating everyone with Jung’s descriptions literally.

Ti and Fi may be two very different things. But that doesn’t mean there’s nobody who is okay with (or at least likes to) interchange between the two and come up with synthesized results. (It’s sort of like those internal conflict – "I have two different things I want in my head, what is the solution that can embrace them all?")

Let’s try not to fall in black/white logic – the idea that everyone who’s "typed as INTP" will be a "typical INTP." My points are based on attempts to see the spectrum, the "greys" in between – since that’s where most people belong. If you don't think there is "grey" here at all, I better stop talking here, and can only direct you to the Jung’s quotes above.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

goamare said:


> Whereas in MBTI, it seems they decided that they should rather assign a type for everyone, rather than telling "you don't have a type." By doing this, people get to learn where they are *closest* to.


 *In the MyersBriggs system, there is no such thing as not having a type.* That's what makes it difference from the accepted cognitive functions system.

In terms of cognitive functions, the vast majority of people don't line up with the types that Harold Grant pulled out of his a hat as being "correct," but in terms of MyersBriggs:

Everybody is somewhere from 100% I to 50/50 to 100% E
Everybody is somewhere from 100% N to 50/50 to 100% S
Everybody is somewhere from 100% T to 50/50 to 100% F
Everybody is somewhere from 100% P to 50/50 to 100% J​
Forcing MyersBriggs types and Enneagrams to combine in some ways but not others doesn't work, forcing cognitive functions and OCEAN to combine in some ways but not others doesn't work, and forcing MyersBriggs and cognitive functions to combine in some ways but not others doesn't work.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

goamare said:


> No Fi at all for virtually all INTPs.. Hmm ok.
> 
> Theoretically yes, practically no. I think I can see the fundamental difference between our standpoints.
> 
> ...


If we are not describing what is _typical_, then what is _type _describing? :S

Can you please explain how these points support your assertion that these are extreme non-existent types?


From my perspective, the first two quotes define a type and how a function becomes a type. The 3rd quote is perhaps taken out of context. The main idea of the whole paragraph is to say that people have both extraversion and introversion. The quote itself is stating that no one is a pure type in that no one is, say, only extraverted with no ounce of introversion.



> These contrary attitudes are in themselves no more than correlative mechanisms: a diastolic going out and seizing of the ojbect, and a systolic concentration and detachment of energy from the object seized. Every human being possesses both mechanisms as an expression of his natural life-rhythm, a rhythm which Goethe, surely not by chance, described physiologically in terms of the heart's activity. A rhythmical alternation of both forms of psychic activity would perhaps correspond to the normal course of life. But the complicated outer conditions under which we live and the even more complicated conditions of our individual psychic makeup seldom permit a completely undisturbed flow of psychic energy. *Outer circumstances and inner disposition frequently favour one mechanism and restrict or hinder the other. One mechanism will naturally predominate, and if this condition becomes in any way chronic a type will be produced; that is an habitual attitude in which one mechanism predominates permanently, although the other can never be completely suppressed since it is an integral part of the psychic economy. *Hence there can never be a pure type in the sense that it possesses only one mechanism with the complete atrophy of the other. A typical attitude always means merely the relative predominance of one mechanism.


The fourth quote is the beginning of the introduction to the auxiliary. The point is to show that people aren't just Ne doms, for example, but Ne + T or F.



> *d. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions*
> 
> 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 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.*







> Whereas in MBTI, it seems they decided that they should rather assign a type for everyone, rather than telling "you don't have a type." By doing this, people get to learn where they are *closest* to. Even those who don't have clear preferences can at least get a picture of their preferred mechanism (brain process) - however slight their preferences are over the other. I’d say this can be rather effective and beneficial. Telling someone "you don't have a type, therefore I will not tell you any description of any type. Go now" - simply doesn't do anything.
> 
> The problem that happens from here, is the attitude which considers that everyone who's typed the same will follow the very typical characteristics of that type *only.* Like relating everyone with Jung’s descriptions literally.
> 
> ...


Saying that Ti and Fi share conscious influence is like saying someone has both an optimistic and pessimistic attitude. What do you mean by it?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

goamare said:


> No Fi at all for virtually all INTPs.. Hmm ok.
> 
> Theoretically yes, practically no. I think I can see the fundamental difference between our standpoints.
> 
> ...


Thanks for those quotes.

But I do actually agree with you. I don't see a type as a "one description fits all". An MBTI type is very generic. An individual's personality obviously is unique to that individual. There are no 2 people the same. Not even identical twins. That's because experience is a huge factor in one's personality. The cognitive functions, and with that, the MBTI as well, do not take into account experiences. The functions are purely processes. The only thing they describe is how information is processed and stored, they say absolutely nothing about the information itself.

The experiences have a huge effect on the development of the functions and how well (or not) they work together and how well they are defined. How well a function develops depends mostly on it being allowed to express itself. As a child growing up, this requires parents that allow the expression of the dominant function. If this is not allowed, it will develop poorly and the child may try to behave as is expected from him/her. But this is not healthy. (As far as I can tell, the cognitive functions are the result of wiring, not of experiences.) When someone is brought up in this (rather abusive) way, an MBTI test may give confusing results.

Now, I don't mean to say that everyone that scores somewhere in the middle for 1 or more of the 4 letters of the MBTI, has had a bad childhood. It is perfectly possible to grow up being surrounded by people of different types, a T growing up in a family of all F's for example, and have a perfectly normal childhood. But this person may score rather high on F even though he's a T. This is an example of a learned behaviour and it doesn't have to happen in an abusive way like the previous example. This person is wired a a T but has experienced lots of F. Someone like this, once out of this family situation, may find himself in new situations where his T preference can come out more naturally and be much more comfortable all the sudden.

Now it still looks like I think one can't be both, doesn't it? :happy:

But if you look at the MBTI, an INTP's function stack is Ti - Ne - Si - Fe. This suggests that when INTP's do engage F, it should be Fe. As Ti and Fe are opposing functions, meaning you can't do both at the same time, Fe in INTP's can only happen when they´re in situations where Ti isn't used much. When they do achieve this state, INTP's do actually engage in Fe like behavior, (usually in comfortable, often experienced situations, and much more when older (because the older you get the more often you find yourself in often experienced situations. One of the reasons why the 4th function develops only later in life.)) I have seen this in INTP's that I know. But Fi?..... nope,.. doesn't happen. If an INTP encounters a typical Fi situation his brain goes in over drive, trying to "solve the problem" in a typical Ti - Ne way. If they encounter a similar situation they'll prefer to apply what they did before, not aware at all of small differences.

But you'll probably say that only applies to typical INTP's and not to "borderline INTP's". 

One of the things that I have noticed is that when our brains have to engage in a function that's not natural, the first 2 functions work together to mimic this function. I'm an INTJ and I am perfectly capable of seeing people's emotions. It suggests Fe is strong in me,.. but it isn't. Recognizing people's emotions is always a conscious process for me. I've gotten good enough at it to do it quick and easy but it's always a concious process. But compared to 20 years ago, I'm much more aware of people's feelings.

Can Ti-Ne mimic Fi? Or better said, learn what to do when Fi would be needed? Quite easily I think, if the combination get's enough access to those experiences.


Ok, this post became a little bit messy I think in the second half. But I hope it's clear what I mean. It's not always easy to write things down in the same way it is clear and makes sense in my head.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> From my perspective, the first two quotes define a type and how a function becomes a type.


From the first two quotes we can see that Jung speaks of a "type" *in so far as* when a function habitually predominates. If a function does not predominate enough, thus not lending a centain stamp to the character of the individual, it'd be hard to speak of a psychological type. (Note that this is simply my interpretation of Jung's standpoint)



PaladinX said:


> The 3rd quote is perhaps taken out of context. The main idea of the whole paragraph is to say that people have both extraversion and introversion. The quote itself is stating that no one is a pure type in that no one is, say, only extraverted with no ounce of introversion.


Good point. I reused some of the quotes I collected and I see that too. This may not be directly related, since we're talking about functions here than E/I.

Still, I think this shows what Jung thought about "pure types" not only for E/I, but also for functions. And let's keep in mind that he was very much interested in Extraversion/Introversion, and talked a lot about it in general. Just like how the predominance of E/I is a sort of an "attitude," the predominance of a function is also an "attitude." In that regard, I think a lot of the stuff Jung states about E/I would be reasonably applicable to functions as well. It seems unlikely for Jung to state "for functions though, the pure types are numerous."



PaladinX said:


> The fourth quote is the beginning of the introduction to the auxiliary. The point is to show that people aren't just Ne doms, for example, but Ne + T or F.


Another good point. But the point here is that, he is giving us readers about how we should take his descriptions of the types. He spent about 100 pages for the description of types in the chapter X, then all of a sudden he says something like "these are just portraits of very typical characters, away from actual practice."

So is he eventually into explaining something rock-solid, with the description of Auxiliary function, which he only spent about 3 pages? Probably not.

Those quotes I put up, although they're taken from different places of his text, seem to tell us what his view was on his own typology - that his categorization should not be taken as something absolutely rigid nor universally applicable.

Another quote:


Jung said:


> Through a consideration of the problem of typical attitudes, and the presentation of it in a certain form and outline, I aspire to guide my readers to a contemplation of this picture of the manifold possibilities of viewing life, in the hope that in so doing I may contribute a small share to the knowledge of the almost infinite variations and gradations of individual psychology. *No one, I trust, will draw the conclusion from my description of the types that I believe the four or eight types which I describe to be the only ones that might ever occur. That would be a grave misconception*, for I have no sort of doubt that the various attitudes one meets with can also be considered and classified from other points of view.


My wording, "almost extreme types which don't exist as much" (calm down..I said almost and as much) is more directed toward who confine "a type" strictly into the respective description *only*. In that way "a type" would be extreme to certain extent.

If we understand the type description as a "relatively more predominating attitude," "a type" is not extreme at all. That's my point.



PaladinX said:


> Saying that Ti and Fi share conscious influence is like saying someone has both an optimistic and pessimistic attitude. What do you mean by it?


I mean one _may_ have both attitude (one would slightly prefer one over the other), though my assumption is those two attitudes don't happen at the very same time.

My view is that Ti and Fi do not necessarily exclude each other completely. T and F are one of the dichotomies here, we all know that. But not all dichotomies are total opposites. Do you think they are total opposites? If so, why and how?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Peter said:


> One of the things that I have noticed is that when our brains have to engage in a function that's not natural, the first 2 functions work together to mimic this function. I'm an INTJ and I am perfectly capable of seeing people's emotions. It suggests Fe is strong in me,.. but it isn't. Recognizing people's emotions is always a conscious process for me. I've gotten good enough at it to do it quick and easy but it's always a concious process. But compared to 20 years ago, I'm much more aware of people's feelings.


There are a few issues that I take with this.

1 - assuming Fe means "seeing people's emotions," I could chalk this up to an INTJ being NiTi-FeSe as per this diagram from psychiatrist and Jungian analyst, Anthony Stevens (as proof of Jungian scholars believing Jung to interpret the "stack" as such):










Or even Ni-TeFeSe as described by MBTI and Jung (assuming we take Jung literally without counting what he described in the auxiliary subsection of chapter 10):

_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)


2 - What does Fe have to do with seeing emotions in people? Can you please cite a source for that?

From Jung, I haven't seen him describe Fe as such. I'd be very interested in being shown otherwise!

From an MBTI perspective, F is concerned with harmony and impact to people. This is regardless of ExFJ or IxFP. For that matter, does an IxFP/Fi-dom never or rarely see emotions in people?


3 - Why is it necessarily true that the Dom-Aux mimic anything other than their own principles?



> Our concern is rather with the constitution of that thinking which cannot be subordinated to the dominance of another function, but remains true to its own principle.





> Thinking that is regulated by feeling, I do not regard as intuitive thinking, but as thought dependent upon feeling; it does not follow its own logical principle, but is subordinated to the principle of feeling. In such thinking the laws of logic are only ostensibly present; in reality they are suspended in favor of the aims of feeling.





> *Function*
> 
> 
> *By psychological function I understand a certain form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances.* From the energic standpoint a function is a phenomenal form of libido (q.v.) which theoretically remains constant, in much the same way as physical force can be considered as the form or momentary manifestation of physical energy. I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational—viz. thinking and feeling, sensation and intuition. I can give no a priori reason for selecting just these four as basic functions; I can only point to the fact that this conception has shaped itself out of many years' experience.
> ...


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

goamare said:


> From the first two quotes we can see that Jung speaks of a "type" *in so far as* when a function habitually predominates. If a function does not predominate enough, thus not lending a centain stamp to the character of the individual, it'd be hard to speak of a psychological type. (Note that this is simply my interpretation of Jung's standpoint)


I think there's a disconnect here. To me, it sounds like we're saying the same thing. Perhaps you can help me by connecting the dots in why this is relevant to your assertion about "almost extreme types" and "not existing as much" or even "not having a type?"





> Good point. I reused some of the quotes I collected and I see that too. This may not be directly related, since we're talking about functions here than E/I.
> 
> Still, I think this shows what Jung thought about "pure types" not only for E/I, but also for functions. And let's keep in mind that he was very much interested in Extraversion/Introversion, and talked a lot about it in general. Just like how the predominance of E/I is a sort of an "attitude," the predominance of a function is also an "attitude." In that regard, I think a lot of the stuff Jung states about E/I would be reasonably applicable to functions as well. It seems unlikely for Jung to state "for functions though, the pure types are numerous."


Perhaps I emphasized E/I too much. It is irrelevant to my point. My intention is that the same logic is applicable to functions. So instead of E/I let's say T/F. A pure type, in this context, is a thinking type with no ounce of feeling or feeling type that doesn't think. This, I believe, conflicts with whatever point you were trying to imply. I can't remember what that is now. Tired. Need sleep. 




> Another good point. But the point here is that, he is giving us readers about how we should take his descriptions of the types. He spent about 100 pages for the description of types in the chapter X, then all of a sudden he says something like "these are just portraits of very typical characters, away from actual practice."
> 
> So is he eventually into explaining something rock-solid, with the description of Auxiliary function, which he only spent about 3 pages? Probably not.


Why do you think he spent all that time describing something near non-existent? What was the point?

Otherwise, I disagree. My understanding is 'pure types (ie only conscious N attitude) don't appear in practice, because if you look closely, there is another conscious function that is "invariably present"' He's emphasizing the typical characteristics of an N type for comparison sake without muddying them by including auxiliary and other individual features. Essentially, he's abstracting for the sake of conceptual clarity. It would be like describing the common features of Nissan trucks vs Chevy trucks, without going into the secondary categories of Frontier/Titan or Colorado/Silverado. Or something like that.

My argument is that it would seem that you are treating the first part as if it were in a vacuum, and I'm saying that it is connected to the next part by building up to it.




> Those quotes I put up, although they're taken from different places of his text, seem to tell us what his view was on his own typology - that his categorization should not be taken as something absolutely rigid nor universally applicable.


I guess that's my beef. The quotes seem misrepresented. It seems like how in statistics you can make the data say anything you want depending on how you choose to mine it. I'm not implying that this is intentional, however, it makes me highly skeptical of the conclusions drawn, regardless if deliberate or accident. To be fair, I am equally open to the possibility that I've misunderstood your position or that you are pointing out something that is true.



> Another quote:


Why is this relevant? He's just saying that he's open to the idea of other types. For example, a power type.




> My wording, "almost extreme types which don't exist as much" (calm down..I said almost and as much) is more directed toward who confine "a type" strictly into the respective description *only*. In that way "a type" would be extreme to certain extent.
> 
> If we understand the type description as a "relatively more predominating attitude," "a type" is not extreme at all. That's my point.


To be clear, the distinction between absolute and near absolute is irrelevant to me. From my perspective, you seem to be implying that this is a rare occurrence. Perhaps I've misunderstood your intended meaning. FWIW, I've been calm the entire time. 

Otherwise, I guess I still don't get your point. 

What does an extreme type or a not-so extreme type have to do with not having a type at all?




> I mean one _may_ have both attitude (one would slightly prefer one over the other), though my assumption is those two attitudes don't happen at the very same time.
> 
> My view is that Ti and Fi do not necessarily exclude each other completely. T and F are one of the dichotomies here, we all know that. But not all dichotomies are total opposites. Do you think they are total opposites? If so, why and how?


What does attitude mean to you? Do you think someone has both a positive and a negative general attitude?

According to Jung, the principle of each excludes/represses the other. According to MBTI, they are not logical opposites.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

goamare said:


> No Fi at all for virtually all INTPs.. Hmm ok.
> 
> Theoretically yes, practically no. I think I can see the fundamental difference between our standpoints.
> 
> ...


I don't know how you overlooked this quote

" For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. 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. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. *This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. *Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality."


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> To be fair, there is nothing here to suggest that the thousands of studies lead to this conclusion. It could be conjecture. I have a feeling that these are more likely to be rationalizations. And fwiw, though it doesn't necessarily mean anything, Myers and Briggs relied on people watching long before it became an assessment. Furthermore, as @_reckful_ likes to point out, there is data to support the dichotomies, but a lack thereof to support cognitive functions. So I'm skeptical that the cited paragraph is based on data vs assumptions being made.
> 
> To be clear on my stance, I am an MBTI certified practitioner, and I think MBTI is legit (especially in the dichotomy sense). However, I do have criticisms about this kind of stuff, especially type dynamics. EDIT: Which is also why I prefer to refer to Jung on matters regarding cognitive functions/type dynamicsy things.


Oops, I missed this reply somehow.

She doesn't specifically say that the studies showed the aux is the opposite attitude of the dominant. 
I'm N, I make inferences. Since Myers conducted the studies, her conclusions would reflect the results from the studies which she had knowledge of.
She said that such types are not the norm. Surely her studies would have indicated what 'the norm' was, which she was referring to.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

PaladinX said:


> There are a few issues that I take with this.
> 
> 1 - assuming Fe means "seeing people's emotions," I could chalk this up to an INTJ being NiTi-FeSe as per this diagram from psychiatrist and Jungian analyst, Anthony Stevens (as proof of Jungian scholars believing Jung to interpret the "stack" as such):
> 
> ...


What we do consciously is not directly caused by the functions. That's behavior. People often make the mistake that behavior (conscious thought is behavior) is caused by the functions alone and that for example when you think about how to get everybody to get along it means F is doing this. This is just nonsense.

En ENFJ's behavior to try to achieve harmony among people may be motivated and executed based on F.

But an ENTJ Manager/CEO in a company who's able to achieve harmony among employees and department did not do that because he's concerned about the people in his company. This is pure Te organizing things so they work better and get things done faster.

2 different functions busy with what seems to be the same thing on the outside. But have completely different motivations.



And as to "_What does Fe have to do with seeing emotions in people?_" It has to do with Empathy, which is typical for Fe. (if not, show me the source that states that empathy is not typical of Fe.)


We´re not suppose to look at things too "black/white".... I agree with this. This also applies to the individual functions. Different functions can cause the same behavior but by completely different motivations. Don't be black/white about behavior-function relationships either.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Peter said:


> What we do consciously is not directly caused by the functions. That's behavior. People often make the mistake that behavior (conscious thought is behavior) is caused by the functions alone and that for example when you think about how to get everybody to get along it means F is doing this. This is just nonsense.


Are you talking to me or "people?" How does this relate to what I'm saying? :S



> En ENFJ's behavior to try to achieve harmony among people may be motivated and executed based on F.
> 
> But an ENTJ Manager/CEO in a company who's able to achieve harmony among employees and department did not do that because he's concerned about the people in his company. This is pure Te organizing things so they work better and get things done faster.
> 
> 2 different functions busy with what seems to be the same thing on the outside. But have completely different motivations.


I don't disagree here, so there's a disconnect between what we are both trying to say. My objection is that you seem to be implying that Fe is synonymous with reading people's emotions or that it is an example of Fe to say the least. I took issue with that because Jung never made such a claim.



> And as to "_What does Fe have to do with seeing emotions in people?_" It has to do with Empathy, which is typical for Fe. (if not, show me the source that states that empathy is not typical of Fe.)


Lol You first! Otherwise this is a BS argument. How do you prove something that hasn't been said? Or should I cite you the entirety of Psychological Types? 




> We´re not suppose to look at things too "black/white".... I agree with this. This also applies to the individual functions. Different functions can cause the same behavior but by completely different motivations. Don't be black/white about behavior-function relationships either.


Again, you appear to be reading into something.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

> Or even Ni-TeFeSe as described by MBTI and Jung (assuming we take Jung literally without counting what he described in the auxiliary subsection of chapter 10):
> 
> 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)





> This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.


So stack for an INxP that is indifferent would be TiFi-NeSe? And if the INxP would repress his Fi and allow Ti to dominate the stacks would become Ti-NeSeFe? So if we take the auxiliary of the introvert, could we also stack it Ne-TiSiFi?

Can someone interpret this? I see too much variation when thinking about combination. Why didnt Jung try to stack all 8 functions to a character? It seems to me that what the most popular understanding is that you have 2 functions that are creating the consciousness while the 2 suppressed polar ones are there to be developed and act with little conscious effectiveness. Therefore a dual should help bring the inferior functions to life by example.

This stacking the functions system isnt doing its part in modern typology. There has to be deep complex mathematics that works in the background and can be simplified by a proper model with dynamic stacking.


----------

