# How many people do you think haven't developed auxiliary, tertiary or inferior?



## Anubis (Nov 30, 2011)

I read that many people never develop their auxiliary, tertiary or inferior functions throughout their entire lives. What percent of people do you think fall into that category? 

Would it make them "stupid" or just completely unaware of themselves? I can't really understand how one can only have a dom. function because then it would mean that they don't have a decision making function, right?


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

I can't see that being possible, your auxiliary function supposedly develops around the age of 10. And the inferior function is always there to balance the dominant, how well you're able to use it is a different matter.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

When people say that, they don't mean the auxiliary, tertitary, or especially the inferior functions are nonexistent, but that the person has not found a way to use them without their dominant function in control the entire time. Basically it's saying that some people are immaturely ruled over by the dominant function for their entire lives.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

How can one be ruled by a hypothetical intellectual construct? What ever happened to self- determination, personal values, individual responsibility? People, you are making too, too much of fad.


----------



## idntknw (Aug 8, 2012)

Do you think there are people that stay like that even when they get older?


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

By undeveloped, you mean undifferentiated which implies that the function is contaminated by others. It is unlikely that pure types exist through the exclusive use of one function as most problems of adaptations require orienting towards both perception and judgment. That is, there's normally a point of diminishing returns regarding the exclusive use of the dom function in adaptation and that the ego will pull out an aux as it's a less costly investment. How much the ego orients to the aux depends on what sort of adaptation is required. 

If you're stuck in a static environment (e.g. max security prison cell, london tower, place of exile) with no prospects of escape and where adaptation is minimal, then there's no need for further development and you waste away (a regression almost). If you're placed in a hostile environment (primitive life) where no single function can solve your problems, then none of the functions may differentiate.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

OldManRivers said:


> How can one be ruled by a hypothetical intellectual construct? What ever happened to self- determination, personal values, individual responsibility? People, you are making too, too much of fad.


These things are end-products from the assimilation of information located outside the sphere of cog functions not to mention are also intellectual constructs. Put it another way, the various stances/positions/claims taken up in history have strong priors disseminating from the cog functions as argued by the first 9 chapters of PT. Understanding other people's worldviews is in part an understanding of how they process information in addition to all the other priors that originate from the unconscious self. Grasping all 3 layers is necessary here.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> By undeveloped, you mean undifferentiated which implies that the function is contaminated by others. It is unlikely that pure types exist through the exclusive use of one function as most problems of adaptations require orienting towards both perception and judgment. That is, there's normally a point of diminishing returns regarding the exclusive use of the dom function in adaptation and that the ego will pull out an aux as it's a less costly investment. How much the ego orients to the aux depends on what sort of adaptation is required.


Sometimes this can be seen amongst people in the wrong careers. For example in nursing one may appear to become immobilised by indecision when sensory and intuition functions are too evenly matched, creating push-pull issues between immediacies versus 'reflective elements' of the job that make prioritising more difficult to manage (especially when most naturally strike a balance, although some don't due to the absence of cognitive planning hierarchies).


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

OldManRivers said:


> How can one be ruled by a hypothetical intellectual construct? What ever happened to self- determination, personal values, individual responsibility? People, you are making too, too much of fad.


All of these things still exist in a Jungian context. The functions deal largely with 'wants' and 'desires'. The functions don't rule people the ego (who I am) is what is in charge of our conscious lives and of course all of the things you state will be factors of a person's ego (and to a degree influenced by their shadow). When the ego wants something, the functions are what it turns to filter information in ways to help accomplish this. Not the other way around. 

What @Owfin is saying is that a person who habitually resorts to the dominant function is someone who is very 'egocentric' and has no awareness or self-perception of anything other than their most comfortable way of going about things. Such a person would be highly unconscious of his 'other half' so to speak. Very unaware of the true nature of his capabilities or faults and likely quite projective of his faults onto other people. This is a form of psychological immaturity when the person cannot differentiate self from object (introversion from extraversion) and so one predominates and the other influences unconsciously. 

Think of it like the person who chooses to drive the same way to work everyday without even recognizing that there might be other ways to get there. The dominant function is the go-to function but like all things must be balanced, so the more you adhere to one perspective, the more the opposite perspective will gnaw and pull at you to achieve balance, but the person may not necessarily recognize this is what is happening but rather just see other people or other things as causing him conflict (rather than recognizing the source of the conflict is within themselves).


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Well in the span of a life of 90 years give and take, it is a good chance that an individual gets in touch
with all the functions before death.

There are plenty of people who avoid the inferior like a plague their whole life.

Avoiding the tertiary completely I don't think is possible.
On what level someone develops it is very individual, some (myself included) dive deep into it and name it a "hobby".
If you dive too deep into your tertiary function, you run the risk of developing a dom-tert loop, 
making you unbalanced for putting the auxiliary in the shadow of the tertiary.

Pure dom focus would be very unhealthy and I guess that is what happens to some people who "snap" mentally,
but I can't see it lasting for very long as some things got to give eventually.

Anyway I liked how @_LiquidLight_ put it, with the ego using the functions for getting information.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> All of these things still exist in a Jungian context. The functions deal largely with 'wants' and 'desires'. The functions don't rule people the ego (who I am) is what is in charge of our conscious lives and of course all of the things you state will be factors of a person's ego (and to a degree influenced by their shadow). When the ego wants something, the functions are what it turns to filter information in ways to help accomplish this. Not the other way around.


@*OldManRivers*
It seems the real difference in the Jungian sense is how individuation is given more weighting than 'self reliance' alone as opposed to classic individualism (going it alone and discarding others with self preservation only) and the idea that knowing oneself helps to enable better introspective skills e.g. more awareness of projections, interior function behaviours, ownership of issues or conflicts and how shadow attitudes are influenced by knowing potential 'cognitive function inner workings'.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I have no idea what "function development" actually entails. Getting smarter? Increasing the scope of one's perspectives in different areas of thought? Getting better at self-defense of your ego?? The whole thing just sounds stupid to me, I'm sorry to say (where do you draw the line between common sense and function "science"?). After all, this is no different than saying that your internal organs develop...uhhh...not in any way that a person would be able to control or have any true awareness of. They're always there, but not always given conscious respect...well, mainly the inferior, although that totally depends on the individual. Also, one MUST ask the question, "What mechanism would be behind function development that's significant to the psyche as a whole?" By far, no answer exists so far as I know. Perhaps because "functions" aren't what they're made out to be. Perhaps they're akin to energy fields of managing information (as Nardi's brain study pretty much empirically establishes at face value). Gah, this crap is all so painfully self-contradictory to the point that I'm pretty much coming up with my own explanations for this stuff (been doing it for years). I can see how this works in terms of where a person focuses their attention when analyzing, etc., but otherwise, you'd think even mildly stressful situations would force people to face different perspectives anyhow from time to time. Who's to say what's right or wrong when it comes to this stuff? I think this stuff just gets blown way out of proportion to the point of underestimating people.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I have no idea what "function development" actually entails. Getting smarter? Increasing the scope of one's perspectives in different areas of thought? Getting better at self-defense of your ego?? The whole thing just sounds stupid to me, I'm sorry to say (where do you draw the line between common sense and function "science"?). After all, this is no different than saying that your internal organs develop...uhhh...not in any way that a person would be able to control or have any true awareness of. They're always there, but not always given conscious respect...well, mainly the inferior, although that totally depends on the individual. Also, one MUST ask the question, "What mechanism would be behind function development that's significant to the psyche as a whole?" By far, no answer exists so far as I know. Perhaps because "functions" aren't what they're made out to be. Perhaps they're akin to energy fields of managing information (as Nardi's brain study pretty much empirically establishes at face value). Gah, this crap is all so painfully self-contradictory to the point that I'm pretty much coming up with my own explanations for this stuff (been doing it for years).


I would say function development entails getting more experience with the different perspectives.
Accordingly as an ISFP I quickly get lots of practice with self-reflection and dealing with the world in a very direct sense.
That I learn how to do really well, later in life I start to look deeper at how the world connects.
After doing a lot of this I start to see how I'm not very goal oriented and that my life is a mess by any external standards.
So I get to confront myself on that level. We could put function names on this life story of mine in a nut-shell.
That is not the point, the functions are just labels for natural perspectives or directions of attention.
You have to point your attention somewhere, and as Jung found out there are 8 ways possible,
and the theory holds that some of them are mutually exclusive. 
Hence the 16 types of idealized mental balance points. All the 16 types are also socially accepted.
So it would benefit an individual to move focus toward the type balance that he is naturally inclined towards.
Maybe it is possible through meditation to change your type, so what? what a grand waste of time...

As for mechanism there exist none, the Jungian model is a meta commentary on how the psyche appears to be
from a human subjective perspective. 
What is actually going on is irrelevant, the model is so good that it manages to effect meaningful balancing effects
in a persons life, trough identifying type and "developing the functions" ie getting experience in balancing two 
axises of opposing polarities of inner and outer forces, *in life as it appears to the individual*.

Only a bottom up model of how the brain works on all levels can explain what is going on for real,
random studies of conflicting empirical knowledge will never bridge this gap.
Until then Jungs model seem to be the best solution to get to know yourself from a subjective perspective.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I have no idea what "function development" actually entails. Getting smarter? Increasing the scope of one's perspectives in different areas of thought? Getting better at self-defense of your ego?? The whole thing just sounds stupid to me, I'm sorry to say (where do you draw the line between common sense and function "science"?). After all, this is no different than saying that your internal organs develop...uhhh...not in any way that a person would be able to control or have any true awareness of. They're always there, but not always given conscious respect...well, mainly the inferior, although that totally depends on the individual. Also, one MUST ask the question, "What mechanism would be behind function development that's significant to the psyche as a whole?" By far, no answer exists so far as I know. Perhaps because "functions" aren't what they're made out to be. Perhaps they're akin to energy fields of managing information (as Nardi's brain study pretty much empirically establishes at face value). Gah, this crap is all so painfully self-contradictory to the point that I'm pretty much coming up with my own explanations for this stuff (been doing it for years). I can see how this works in terms of where a person focuses their attention when analyzing, etc., but otherwise, you'd think even mildly stressful situations would force people to face different perspectives anyhow from time to time. Who's to say what's right or wrong when it comes to this stuff? I think this stuff just gets blown way out of proportion to the point of underestimating people.


Basically the process of making trouble for oneself or putting the self in uncomfortable situations where orienting to the lesser function is the most effective path to victory in the normative sense. On the one hand, this would be a slap to evolutionary theory as primitive man has no reason to adapt himself to an idealization if survival is imperative. On the other hand, modern man is ruled by this very concept of "meaning" and so often pushes himself for the sake of the lolz.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

hornet said:


> I would say function development entails getting more experience with the different perspectives.
> Accordingly as an ISFP I quickly get lots of practice with self-reflection and dealing with the world in a very direct sense.
> That I learn how to do really well, later in life I start to look deeper at how the world connects.
> After doing a lot of this I start to see how I'm not very goal oriented and that my life is a mess by any external standards.
> ...


Very interesting explanation. I agree with all of you're points. It seems that early in life, I was largely Ni-Fi (and Te, but they way in which these were expressed differs from today in ways, so...). But when I think back on it, I can easily see where all of my functions were at play. After all, since they're all ego-syntonic, why shouldn't they be? I swear I've been aware of my inferior before I discovered this stuff. I mean, when you can't put the label to the experience, it doesn't by nature make it "less conscious" like MBTI presumes. There may be a lot of basic manifestations of inferior functions that people just don't know how to put a name to, but are obviously aware of nonetheless. MBTI puts way too many ridiculous presumptions toward characterizing what entails "consciousness" of something people aren't (and shouldn't be) aware of before reading about this stuff anyway. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@nonnaci


> modern man is ruled by this very concept of "meaning" and so often pushes himself for the sake of the lolz.


OMFG....XD =D
That was an epic statement!


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Very interesting explanation. I agree with all of you're points. It seems that early in life, I was largely Ni-Fi (and Te, but they way in which these were expressed differs from today in ways, so...). But when I think back on it, I can easily see where all of my functions were at play. After all, since they're all ego-syntonic, why shouldn't they be? I swear I've been aware of my inferior before I discovered this stuff. I mean, when you can't put the label to the experience, it doesn't by nature make it "less conscious" like MBTI presumes. There may be a lot of basic manifestations of inferior functions that people just don't know how to put a name to, but are obviously aware of nonetheless. MBTI puts way too many ridiculous presumptions toward characterizing what entails "consciousness" of something people aren't (and shouldn't be) aware of before reading about this stuff anyway. It's ridiculous.


Yeah MBTI is a bit weird in that sense.
However if not for MBTI Jungian concepts would not have been popular or accessible.
It is the dumbing down of Jung a one size fits all to get the task of sorting people into
positions based on natural perspective strengths. 

Remember the original purpose to sort women for jobs under the war.
The tool has outlived it's original purpose, and now we are much better of with stuff like the Beebe model.
Or just delving into Jung and coming to ones own conclusions.

I dunno why you are into Jungian concepts, for myself I was drawn in a very difficult mental period of my life.
The patterns of that "depression" fit the theory of the dom-tert loop. And using the balancing perspective of Se
solved the Fi/Ni loop. What really happened to me is irrelevant, but MBTI was the catalyst for the change to the better.

Right now I'm experimenting with my environment and so long the theory is holding and all my predictions
based on it (in what I like to call Se-mode) holds true. It gives me an unreal edge in my dealings with others.
The more I practice the more my edge grows.

As for the manifestations of the inferior function throughout your life I totally agree that it is there, and that the shadow functions
are constantly bleeding trough. It seems very consistent with the Beebe model for myself and others though.

I would say that you always have the inferior lurking in the shadows though. 
It is always an Achilles heel ready to betray you when you need it the most.
The dominant perspective is not so flighty though due to massive experience. 
I would say that in essence that is the big difference, experience.
However practice your inferior as much as you want, it will never be as solid as any of the other perspectives.
You will just end up tormenting yourself as you are forcing yourself to deal the polar opposite of what you
have unconsciously chosen to value. 
In trying to value the opposite perspective more you kinda feel you are making a deal with the devil for your soul.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

The inferior for me just tends to be literally physically draining on it's own if I'm overdoing it over a long period of time. This would come from too much extraverting (probably with the influence of shadow functions as well). But I truly do tend to value empiricism on a very strong level that I just have trouble rationalizing why I do (which is what they functions are truly about - not really "having" them, but how they are preferentially rationalized toward the ego, which is impossible to stereotype). I think I have a heavy inferior Se shadow that I can be very, VERY strict around for the sake of the dominant.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

@*hornet*

In the end tho, its the antithetical struggle between permanence/impermanence or reverse entropy that is common to all life. When physical survival is secured, we historically strive for greater immortality that lends itself to the _structuring_ of the universe that we're now familiar with. The whole process of differentiation for example could be seen in this light as both a struggle and means to escape its own demise. That is, the more consciousness differentiates, the more acutely it recognizes suffering and death and so attempts to reconcile the two via a synthesis of ideals or "meaning".


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

nonnaci said:


> @*hornet*
> 
> In the end tho, its the antithetical struggle between permanence/impermanence or reverse entropy that is common to all life. When physical survival is secured, we historically strive for greater immortality that lends itself to the _structuring_ of the universe that we're now familiar with. The whole process of differentiation for example could be seen in this light as both a struggle and means to escape its own demise. That is, the more consciousness differentiates, the more acutely it recognizes suffering and death and so attempts to reconcile the two via a synthesis of ideals or "meaning".


Put simply...
The more aware you become, the harder it is to ignore that in the end you are fucked... XD
So you try to find some way to distract yourself from this unpleasant discovery. :-/

Mmmm chocolate. =D

Go away death you don't exist!!!!


----------

