# Explanations of the functions by Naomi Quenk



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

thor odinson said:


> I agree with this. I think function strength can be helped or hindered by nurture but I do believe there is an innate order and the innately most dominant function will always remain the most energy efficient.


That's been my question for a while with regard to Type Dynamics as a whole. Here's what Naomi Quenk says in her book "Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment," Second Edition, 2009, page 15:

"With regard to the attitude of the tertiary function, Myers and Briggs assumed it was opposite to that of the dominant function, as were the auxiliary and inferior functions. This convention was followed in all three MBTI manuals, although there are alternative views regarding the issue. Because there is relatively little theoretical or empirical evidence favoring one attitude or the other as habitual for the tertiary function, its attitude is not specified in this book."

I'm ENxP and manifest Fi and Ti to the point where I can't sort out my type, even after years of reading and watching my thought processes. My INTJ husband even more clearly manifests NiTeFeSe. I've wondered if there is an inherent order that would be easiest to follow and by going against the order, we're expending more energy than is necessary, or if the Type Dynamics theory as found on most websites, where the tertiary is the same attitude as the dominant, no matter how logical, is incorrect.

Also, I believe MBTI shouldn't try to combine Jung's functions with its own theories. From my understanding, Jung's Introversion and Extroversion are referring to thought processes, where MBTI is referring to whether the attention is focused toward ideas and concepts or people and things (from Gifts Differing). I think MBTI authors need to break away and create their own function definitions to go along with the type descriptions, rather than the hybrid they're now using.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

thor odinson said:


> Oh yeah. I was never in dispute of this.
> 
> Do you think type is innate? And let me clarify. Not as in your born 100% one category or 100% the other i.e. E or I, N or S etc.
> 
> ...


Define "strong" when you compare it with the ENTP example

Do you mean innate as far as the function stacking of MBTI, then no

(felt like answering as well)


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

myjazz said:


> Define "strong" when you compare it with the ENTP example
> 
> Do you mean innate as far as the function stacking of MBTI, then no
> 
> (felt like answering as well)


Third, work on neurotransmitters and neuropeptides in the cortex has revealed that people have differing levels of electrical resistance in different regions of their brain. The result is that someone uses a skill performed by a region in which that person has a lower level of electrical resistance, they think easily, metabolizing only moderate levels of energy. An architect visualizing a new building will show only moderate levels of metabolism in his Frontal Right Lobe which does the visualizing, while an accountant doing the same task shows a relatively higher level of metabolism. Moreover, the accountant thinks easily when analyzing a set of numbers, showing only moderate levels of metabolism in his Frontal Left, while the architect doing this task shows relatively higher levels of metabolism. Electrical efficiency in the brain is enhanced by competency development (i.e. practice and practice towards mastery), but the above differences seem to hold true even when the individuals involved both have the developed competency in the skill being monitored.

Benziger


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

thor odinson said:


> Third, work on neurotransmitters and neuropeptides in the cortex has revealed that people have differing levels of electrical resistance in different regions of their brain. The result is that someone uses a skill performed by a region in which that person has a lower level of electrical resistance, they think easily, metabolizing only moderate levels of energy. An architect visualizing a new building will show only moderate levels of metabolism in his Frontal Right Lobe which does the visualizing, while an accountant doing the same task shows a relatively higher level of metabolism. Moreover, the accountant thinks easily when analyzing a set of numbers, showing only moderate levels of metabolism in his Frontal Left, while the architect doing this task shows relatively higher levels of metabolism. Electrical efficiency in the brain is enhanced by competency development (i.e. practice and practice towards mastery), but the above differences seem to hold true even when the individuals involved both have the developed competency in the skill being monitored.
> 
> Benziger


You gave me a third without further implicating the first and second. I can supposedly assume that your third is in relation of 1-3 all together.
The research at Benziger I am unsure of how you thought of and perceived the information, especially since their is still no clarity in your first,second, and third question.
In that I can go on and discuss the similarities and such but clarity would be nice before hand though. So far , to me, especially the Benziger add-on info so far goes a long with what I already know and concluded and deducted, only real difference is the details from the physiological stand point in which so far as I know is not a complete assessment yet.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

@thor odinson, have you read "Thriving In Mind" by Benziger? I had to pay $70 to buy it used a couple years ago and at that point it was the best personality typing book I'd read. What about Ned Herrmann, "The Whole Brain Business Book"?

Herrmann International | better results through better thinking

I like to compare and contrast various methodologies and with brain quadrants, the closest I can come is frontal left T, basal right F, frontal right P, basal left J. It's frustrating when two or three categories of another methodology seem to fit either MBTI or Keirsey temperaments and the remaining don't. I've read the correlation is basal left S, frontal right N, but I've known Ni's who fit basal left and Se's who fit frontal right, while P and J seem to fit better, though neither make total sense. If MBTI or functions are valid within the brain, either they're measuring something different or brain quadrants are too much of a simplification at this point.

With regard to Ned Hermmann's book, he has charts throughout showing in which quadrants people have strengths and weakness. There didn't seem to be any particular pattern in that many people focused their attention on and strengthened a dominant and the opposite quadrant (MBTI inferior?) or had two quadrants equal, for a couple examples. I assume from this that frequently people use whatever part of the brain they're pushed to use and don't pay much attention to their strengths.

Benziger says as many as 50 percent of people in the U.S. are falsifying type, which, if true, might explain why people on PerC have so much trouble typing themselves. Since we can't get into others' minds as a comparison, it can be difficult to know for sure what is meant by function explanations and where our own thought processes fit.

To throw in something else about type falsification, Personality Junkie website says people frequently choose careers that satisfy their inferior:

Career Choice, Myers-Briggs Type, & the Inferior Function | Personality Junkie


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

What do you mean? This makes no sense.



myjazz said:


> You gave me a third without further implicating the first and second. I can supposedly assume that your third is in relation of 1-3 all together.


There is a link beneath it to a page that my paragraph belongs to. Read it, and you'll see where it fits in. I left the whole paragraph in tact so you can find it on the page.



myjazz said:


> The research at Benziger I am unsure of how you thought of and perceived the information, especially since their is still no clarity in your first,second, and third question.


Again, what is this supposed to mean? I didn't even ask any questions. There is no clarity in your post not mine. Your unsure of how I perceived the information? Read the info on the page.

It talks about the 4 quadrants of the brain which Benziger calls modes and connects back to Jung's work.

*1) Frontal Left/Thinking* responsible for:
- Financial, Structural & Mathematical Analysis
- Weighing all the Variables
- Logical Decision Making
- Negotiation & Debate
- Prioritizing

*2) Basal Left/Sensing *responsible for:
- Monitoring 
- Attention to Detail
- Routine Procedures
- Holding Firm to Schedules
- Procedural & Administrative Support

*3) Frontal Right/Intuition* responsible for:
- Imagination & Creativity
- Trouble-shooting
- Risk-taking
- Innovation
- Humor

*4) Basal Right/Feeling *responsible for:
- Nurturing
- Celebrating
- Encouraging
- Soothing & Harmonizing
- Establishing a Sense of Bonding & Belonging

It says there are natural preferences amongst these modes especially for the dominant mode.

They come from 5 areas of research.

Since I made a point about strength of a function earlier relating to energy efficiency I chose the the third area of research, which states that 

"work on neurotransmitters and neuropeptides in the cortex has revealed *that people have differing levels of electrical resistance in different regions of their brain.* *The result is that someone uses a skill performed by a region in which that person has a lower level of electrical resistance, they think easily, metabolizing only moderate levels of energy.**"*

It uses an example of how an accountant using the *Frontal Right/Thinking Mode* analyzes a set of numbers more easily than an architect but the reverse is true when an architect use the *Frontal Right/Intuition Mode *to visualize a building more easily than the accountant. The brains of each individual performed one task more efficiently than the other. For the accountant it was numerical analysis, for the architect it was visualization.

Before you pounce and say they are more efficient because those are their respective roles, it goes on further to say:

*"Electrical efficiency in the brain is enhanced by competency development (i.e. practice and practice towards mastery), but the above differences seem to hold true even when the individuals involved both have the developed competency in the skill being monitored. *"thus suggesting an innate preference.

It foes on further to say that:

*" the ratio of energy consumed can be as much as 1 to 100. That is, the naturally dominant mode is 100 times more efficient or effective."*

Your original question was define strong, and I did relating it to the ease of use of a particular quadrant due to the electrical efficiency of metabolizing less energy in order to perform a task using your dominant mode in comparison to using an inferior mode or even in comparison to another person using the same quadrant as you but less efficiently.



myjazz said:


> In that I can go on and discuss the similarities and such but clarity would be nice before hand though. So far , to me, especially the *Benziger add-on info so far goes a long with what I already know* and concluded and deducted, *only real difference is the details from the physiological stand point in which so far as I know is not a complete assessment yet.*


If you already know it, then there should be no need for clarification, my point simply reiterates hers.

The difference from a physiological standpoint is what's important here especially if they are to determine innate preferences. The research is perhaps still in progress but still remains indicative of natural preference.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

Meadow said:


> @_thor odinson_, have you read "Thriving In Mind" by Benziger? I had to pay $70 to buy it used a couple years ago and at that point it was the best personality typing book I'd read. What about Ned Herrmann, "The Whole Brain Business Book"?


No I haven't, thanks for the recommendations, I'll look into it. I think in the past and in some cases even now psychology is perceived as a pseudoscience because it hard to verify what goes on in a person's mind with mere conjecture. The graphical abilities of neuroscience can change this by providing the closest thing we've ever had to tangible evidence.




Meadow said:


> Benziger says as many as 50 percent of people in the U.S. are *falsifying type, which, if true, might explain why people on PerC have so much trouble typing themselves.* Since we can't get into others' minds as a comparison, it can be difficult to know for sure what is meant by function explanations and where our own thought processes fit.


I had already considered this myself, although not because I read Benziger's work. It's interesting to hear some others think the same.

That would explain a lot. Certainly if true, people may be forced to repress natural aspects of themselves in given environments. Especially if they are in such environments for long, this repression of natural characteristcs and promotion of more socially appropriate attributes may act as a defense mechanism.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@thor odinson
What I meant was that instead of clarifying upon those questions I had as far as what is "strong" being used as and innate as far as the cognitive function stacking of MBTI. Instead you added more stuff to it without clarifying what already needed to be clarified.
As far as how you perceive and think of the link you provided, well not everyone thinks alike and a lot of people well you know.
Sorry, I didn't intentionally not make my self clear.


A few things about the classification of certain things in the model above such a : Creativity, what and how is creativity being measured...I mean S and N both are creative in their own right. It's like I consider risk taking to be more of an Sensor type of thing. It seems that these people who is doing these studies is also slightly biased in their work like a lot of other studies. I do not know much of their studies to conclude the validity as an whole. I could tell after a line in that the work was pointing towards what Jung was saying, which apparently is what they also concluded later into it. 


Since you clarified that strength = the psychic energy or energy efficiency on the physiological level. I see your point of strength on this level and agree to a point. I still am not in the same boat as far as innate preferences stacking of functions and I don't really see anything yet that really does as well. But that may be due to an difference of "innate" and probably is just that, yeah if I take away innate and see it as it is and what is being said in relation to innate I can understand and also slightly agree, maybe more than slightly. Only thing so far I disagree on is how non dimensional it is and the bow on top isn't making the box look much different. Maybe later when this area is studied more those areas may become more so, so far so good though.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

myjazz said:


> @_thor odinson_
> What I meant was that instead of clarifying upon those questions I had as far as what is "strong" being used as and innate as far as the cognitive function stacking of MBTI. Instead you added more stuff to it without clarifying what already needed to be clarified.
> As far as how you perceive and think of the link you provided, well not everyone thinks alike and a lot of people well you know.
> Sorry, I didn't intentionally not make my self clear.
> ...


Sorry. I guess I should of been more specific too. Your right. Not everyone thinks like that, so I shouldn't have presumed you would make the same linkages I did.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

thor odinson said:


> Sorry. I guess I should of been more specific too. Your right. Not everyone thinks like that, so I shouldn't have presumed you would make the same linkages I did.


It's cool I just don't like to assume (to much that is) and talk out of my arse, actually I have found to relate to INFP's Fi --Te and way of thinking a lot but time to time clarity is always a good thing


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

myjazz said:


> It's cool I just don't like to assume (to much that is) and talk out of my arse, actually I have found to relate to INFP's Fi --Te and way of thinking a lot but time to time clarity is always a good thing


Yeah despite both being NF's and only one letter apart INFJ and INFP can sometimes be worlds away from each other.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but introverted intuition works better when it has more information.

It's still abstract, symbolic, metaphoric and all that blah blah jazz,

but unlike extraverted intution which *generate*s many *ideas* from a single idea, and then each subsequent idea spawning offpsring (1 or more) of their own,

introverted intuition likes to *"reveal" connection(s)* between existing data.

They way one girl described it on another forum is that when she studied literature in school:

"Through Ni, I study the book and *connect the dots* between characters, scenes, and common themes to come up with some sort of interpretation of the book. I *do not generate any new* outside information, but work with what is right in front of me to find some sort of pattern and link, which I'll turn into a conclusion. It's like solving a jigsaw puzzle -- I am confronted with all this information, and must connect them like I would pieces to a puzzle."

or as someone else described it:

Ni, what's the missing link here.

Ne, is it more likely to be this, or could it be that.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

thor odinson said:


> That would explain a lot. Certainly if true, *people may be forced to repress natural aspects of themselves in given environments. Especially if they are in such environments for long, this repression of natural characteristcs* and promotion of more socially appropriate attributes *may act as a defense mechanism*.


 Exactly. Per the bolded, after trying to figure out what type I am for many years, I recently went through an experience that had me rethinking the ENTP I'd finally settled on. Though I have been viewing the world through a Ti perspective now for many years, I realized it was probably a defense mechanism that had me using Ti rather than the more likely native Fi.

I remember reading somewhere on the Internet about a woman who had consistently tested INTJ, yet after intensive therapy realized that at a young age her native INTP felt too vulnerable, so she took on the J. Defense mechanisms can be tricky to spot since they can be embraced so strongly, the person starts believing it's who they are.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

thor odinson said:


> Yeah despite both being NF's and only one letter apart INFJ and INFP can sometimes be worlds away from each other.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but introverted intuition works better when it has more information.
> 
> ...


Well this can depend, like when I mentioned starting to read the info on the page you linked It didn't take long at all to see Jung all over it and in how it relates to Jung's work. After a few more line later I couldn't help but to wonder if Jung is what they are looking for and in that induced Jung's ideas into their words. As a reinforcement of their own ideas as if they both justified each other in some way by doing so. Afterwords though it seems they are also heavy influenced by MBTI culture. Which leads to the question are they being Objective in their studies? Or being to subjective?

Ni for me is very natural and honestly I have been tying it down and keeping it in the corner as much as I can. Ni a lot , most, of the time's doesn't need a lot of info doesn't take much to get Ni's engine warmed up and running. But sometimes more info is also good this can also keep the Ni going and if in a situation like before I decided to ask for clarity because initially I absorbed what you said , which was not all of your post just what I commented on, and realized that to me I was taking the idea a little further down the road. Which lead me to think on a split road decision cause my Ti was tackling this also in a way the clarity was for my Ti side and a slight doubt in Ni, due to Ti. 

Ni is in a way also what one abstracts from the unconscious view or perception of something. For instance in a "type" me thread earlier today me and an S type ( sorry saying type to keep this away from personal induction). She showed a good example of a Sensor (Se) observation by picking out things the person actually did. Where mine was from an Intuition (Ni) observation by picking out the opposite. Also if one looks deeper into it you can see how the other person came from an Judgment conclusion first backed up Perception. Where I started off with Perception then later after a follow up induced more Judgement into it.
( I will skip the rest of the analysis of it)
My point here is more to show how Ni can operate or implied instead of trying to define it only.
Just like before when "strength" was used strength by itself was only half the equation or answer or defining solution. With more implication as to how strength in comparison towards the subject at hand was applied an full understanding was to be made.


I have no clue if I answered you question or not, if you want clarification just ask


----------

