# Fi-Ni vs Ni-Fi Loop Is there a difference?



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> Fi-Ni vs Ni-Fi Loop Is there a difference?


*Ni-Fi:*

Ni-Fi loop dynamics: represses unresolved negative emotions and transforms them into problematic and uncompromising moral edicts about how to live life in the world -> but nevertheless ends up haunted by uncertainty when moral beliefs continually produce poor outcomes, resulting in confusion that stokes inferior Se fears about being insignificant and unable to actualize the true self in the world ->

Defensive loop tendencies: represses negative feelings and emotions and is quite unaware of being driven by them; uses faulty moral reasoning to justify problematic beliefs or harsh/extreme behavior; often confused/indecisive but can’t admit to it; perceives oneself as morally in the right or intellectually superior yet frequently fails to achieve goals and often feels thwarted, unwittingly behaving like a helpless victim; prone to casting very harsh moral judgments and derides people for moral failings; struggles with feelings of weakness but unable to identify the true cause one’s problems or mistakes; unable to acknowledge how subjective feelings are badly clouding objective judgment and leading to failure; gladly isolates from the world in order to maintain emotional comfort zone and avoid having to compromise one’s ideas/values (“selling out”); whenever necessary, treats subjective moral feelings/judgments as cold immutable universal facts about “how the world works” with the unconscious intent to distance oneself from feelings of helplessness or powerlessness.

*Fi-Ni:*

Fi-Ni loop dynamics: only sees the superficial aspects of a situation and uses that to justify problematic values or bad choices -> but can never find any meaningful direction in life because of having no way to verify the worthiness of one’s value system, resulting in self-defeating thinking patterns that stoke inferior Te fatalism about being a hopelessly lost cause who never contributes anything of value to the world ->

Defensive loop tendencies: irrationally distrustful mindset, cannot bring oneself to have faith in anything or anyone even when wanting to; unconsciously paranoid about being restricted/confined; prone to being passive, negative, pessimistic, cynical, self-defeating, fatalistic; unable to emotionally invest in new/interesting experiences even when wanting to; unwilling to take responsibility for consequences; unwilling to confront the poor state of one’s life, never does anything to improve upon the current situation; prone to shallow thinking and oversimplified judgments; feels like a lone wolf, unwilling to fit in, perceives oneself as destined to drift through life, feels as though nothing will really change no matter what one does; doesn’t answer to anyone, randomly disappears from social life; pursues “alternative” lifestyle choices, engages in antisocial or unproductive behaviors as an immature means to express “independence” or “individuality”; believes in random “mystical signs” that don’t really mean anything; ignores the plain facts and sticks with oversimplified judgments with the unconscious intent to repress the dire need for better life direction.


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

I understand what both of you are saying, (I think) -- However, it stands to reason why Ti, in particular can have Se > Ne > Fe as inferiors, (simply meaning beneath) because all goes on, only within the mind. I can see this in a Schizotypal person but not in the average human who interacts with objective reality.

However, I can't see the same applying to Te because Te is concrete / objective. You're more limited with Te & would only be able to go so far before it would become obvious one was deluding themselves. It reminds me of the example Jung gave of what I see as the crazy INTJ woman, whom he had to speak logic into in order to bring her out of overpowering Ni. 

" _People with an overdevelopment of intuition, (Ni) which leads them to scorn objective reality, (Se) and so finally to a conflict such as I have described above, have usually characteristic dreams. I once had as a patient a girl of the most extraordinary intuitive powers, and she had pushed the thing to such a point that her own body even was unreal to her. Once I asked her half jokingly if she had never noticed that she had a body, and she answered quite seriously that she had not–she bathed herself under a sheet! When she came to me she had ceased even to hear her steps when she walked–she was just floating through the world. Her first dream was that she was sitting on top of a balloon, not even in a balloon, if you please, but on top of one that was high up in the air, and she was leaning over peeping down at me. I had a gun and was shooting at the balloon which I finally brought down. Before she came to me she had been living in a house where she had been impressed with the charming girls. It was a brothel and she had been quite unaware of the fact. This shock brought her to analysis.

I cannot bring such a case down to a sense of reality through sensation directly, for to the intuitive, facts are mere air; so then, since thinking is her auxiliary function, I begin to reason with her in a very simple way till she becomes willing to strip from the fact the atmosphere she has projected upon it. Suppose I say to her, “Here is a green monkey.” Immediately she will say, “No, it is red.” Then I say, “A thousand people say this monkey is green, and if you make it red, it is only of your own imagination.” The next step is to get her to the point where her feeling and thinking conflict. (Te vs Fi) An intuitive does with her feelings very much the same thing she does with her thoughts; that is, if she gets a negative intuition about a person, then the person seems all evil, and what he really is matters not at all. But little by little such a patient begins to ask what the object is like after all, and to have the desire to experience the object directly. Then she is able to give sensation its proper value, and she stops looking at the object from around a corner; in a word, she is ready to sacrifice her overpowering desire to master by intuition.”_

I think our dominant dictates the rest of our functions and this is why we are more I/E. So, in the above, the Ni Dom's aux, tert and inferior are simply centered around the dom. (This is what partially drives me mad about INFJ descriptions who isolate Fe. Fe has to go in accordance to whatever the INFJ intuits, just as Ti.. So if an INFJ "intuits" that you are up to something, they might not be so "harmonious.")

Jung is using an obvious stack here, IN > T > F Se. 
In the above text, the way I see it is he had to get to her Te aux to make her come out of it. I assume it is Te because he used an objective standard / fact of what color the monkey was according to her peers vs her own standard to get her to conflict T vs F, (which of course, I'm assuming is Fi.) He had to turn the simple fact (It is green) into an objective argument, (but everyone thinks this is green) to make her question her convicted feeling about it. (Te vs Fi) so he could get her to open up to it in its raw form. (Se). This could never work on the INTJ woman if she had Ti after Ni. 


I don't think unconscious function balance conscious functions but rather poke, play & are used passively with the ego functions. I do acknowledge Ti > Every other function but IMO, this is a no brainer because the very nature of Ti is an analysis, which can be used on any & against, everything.

But as we learned in PT, all the functions have unique antagonists except Ti. (Which I see as analysis.) 

I'm not certain I'm getting the full scope of what either of you are saying OR if we just comprehend it uniquely... I just cannot fathom Ni > Ti -- seems like one would be a mute who is driven mad. There's an overlying theme in PT that introverts will need to test/see subjective ideals via an extraverted aux.

(This is loads of info) -- But I also gather in the normal type of Ti dominant, Fe is the main inferior. I gathered that because he explains how Ti is the inferior to Fe, here:. 

"*We have already seen that the extraverted feeling type, as a rule, represses his thinking, just because thinking is the function most liable to disturb feeling. Similarly, when thinking seeks to arrive at pure results of any kind, its first act is to exclude feeling, since nothing is calculated to harass and falsify thinking so much as feeling-values. Thinking, therefore, in so far as it is an independent function, is repressed in the extraverted feeling type. Its repression, as I observed before, is complete only in so far as its inexorable logic forces it to conclusions that are incompatible with feeling. It is suffered to exist as the servant of feeling, or more accurately its slave. Its backbone is broken; it may not operate on its own account, in accordance with its own laws, Now, since a logic exists producing inexorably right conclusions, this must happen somewhere, although beyond the bounds of consciousness, i.e. in the unconscious. Pre-eminently, therefore, the unconscious content of this type is a particular kind of thinking. It is an infantile, archaic, and negative thinking. 

So long as conscious feeling preserves the personal character, or, in other words, so long as the personality does not become swallowed up by successive states of feeling, this unconscious thinking remains compensatory. But as soon as the personality is dissociated, becoming dispersed in mutually contradictory states of feeling, the identity of the ego is lost, and the subject becomes unconscious. But, because of the subject's lapse into the unconscious, it becomes associated with the unconscious thinking -- function, therewith assisting the unconscious [p. 452] thought to occasional consciousness. The stronger the conscious feeling relation, and therefore, the more 'depersonalized,' it becomes, the stronger grows the unconscious opposition. This reveals itself in the fact that unconscious ideas centre round just the most valued objects, which are thus pitilessly stripped of their value. That thinking which always thinks in the 'nothing but' style is in its right place here, since it destroys the ascendancy of the feeling that is chained to the object. 

Unconscious thought reaches the surface in the form of irruptions, often of an obsessing nature, the general character of which is always negative and depreciatory. Women of this type have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten upon the very objects most valued by their feelings. This negative thinking avails itself of every infantile prejudice or parallel that is calculated to breed doubt in the feeling-value, and it tows every primitive instinct along with it, in the effort to make 'a nothing but' interpretation of the feeling. At this point, it is perhaps in the nature of a side-remark to observe that the collective unconscious, i.e. the totality of the primordial images, also becomes enlisted in the same manner, and from the elaboration and development of these images there dawns the possibility of a regeneration of the attitude upon another basis. 

Hysteria, with the characteristic infantile sexuality of its unconscious world of ideas, is the principal form of neurosis with this type."*

Yet, it's still true, by default that Ti, because it can't be explored via the objective (& has to be forced out to be tested), is capable of incriminating any function. I just would think normal people wouldn't be stuck in their ideas until they made all unrealistic.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@TornadicX I don't see you address the thing about healthy extraverted Thinking dominant types having subjective thinking balancing out their objective thinking (although objective thinking is preferred, the Thinking done by their dominant function is not exclusively objective). This is one of the reasons why I hate using the symbol "Te" - it implies that all the thinking is done in an objective/extraverted attitude with no subjective balance, which doesn't seem to have been part of Jung's vision at all. It seems more just seems like some idea that was developed and promoted by "function axis" true-believers, which they then try to impose on Jung, years after he is dead and buried.

As for having "Ni > Ti", I relate to that personally just in the sense that I prefer Intuition first, Thinking second, and the way I use both of them is more subjective than not but I also relate to a lot of Ne and Te things, as my Intuition and Thinking do extend outwards, just not as much as they focus inwards. And that outwardly pointing Intuition and Thinking does balance me out (hell, Nardi's test says Te and Ne are my top 2 functions).


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> @TornadicX I don't see you address the thing about healthy extraverted Thinking dominant types having subjective thinking balancing out their objective thinking (although objective thinking is preferred, the Thinking done by their dominant function is not exclusively objective). This is one of the reasons why I hate using the symbol "Te" - it implies that all the thinking is done in an objective/extraverted attitude with no subjective balance, which doesn't seem to have been part of Jung's vision at all. It seems more just seems like some idea that was developed and promoted by "function axis" true-believers, which they then try to impose on Jung, years after he is dead and buried.
> 
> As for having "Ni > Ti", I relate to that personally just in the sense that I prefer Intuition first, Thinking second, and the way I use both of them is more subjective than not but I also relate to a lot of Ne and Te things, as my Intuition and Thinking do extend outwards, just not as much as they focus inwards. And that outwardly pointing Intuition and Thinking does balance me out (hell, Nardi's test says Te and Ne are my top 2 functions).


Is it possible that MBTI better reflects Jung in that an INTP is I + N + T, while also being an INT and various other dichotomy combinations? If that were the case, a Te and Ti type could still share a lot of things in common based on T dominance.

It seems as though Jung was merely emphasising how one's preference for extraversion or introversion affects what their functions do, based on their level of consciousness.

Perhaps it might be more accurate to think of them as an x/y axis, with four functions on one, and extraversion/introversion on the other.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Is it possible that MBTI better reflects Jung in that an INTP is I + N + T, while also being an INT and various other dichotomy combinations? If that were the case, a Te and Ti type could still share a lot of things in common based on T dominance.


Better reflects Jung than what? Grant stacks which say INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe? The official MBTI stack which says INTP is T(I)-N(E)-S(E)-F(E)?

I'd say so. At least I don't think it gets things particularly wrong as the MBTI stacks and especially the Grant stack. Reckful's post here (link) convinces me that Jung would not give the main stacks for everyone including only one conscious function, and the Grant stack is just absurd with how a lower function is oriented in the conscious attitude while a higher function isn't.

I do believe that you can derive not 3, but 4 dichotomies from Jung's _Psychological Types_ which is where the MBTI-looking Socionics notation comes from (you can see the 4 dichotomies here). The MBTI letters loosely can be attached to Jung, but it'd be in the sense that Thinking/Feeling (rational) dominants are loosely analogous to J and Intuition/Sensation (irrational) dominants are loosely analogous to P. I strongly oppose looking at Jung's types and MBTI types as the same thing though.


> It seems as though Jung was merely emphasising how one's preference for extraversion or introversion affects what their fuctions do, based on their level of consciousness.
> 
> Perhaps it might be more accurate to think of them as an x/y axis, with four functions on one, and extraversion/introversion on the other.


I agree. The more conscious (the higher in your stack) the functions are, the more strongly you should expect them to be oriented in the conscious (preferred) direction, which directly opposes Grant stacks.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> Better reflects Jung than what? Grant stacks which say INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe? The official MBTI stack which says INTP is T(I)-N(E)-S(E)-F(E)?
> 
> I'd say so. At least I don't think it gets things particularly wrong as the MBTI stacks and especially the Grant stack. Reckful's post here (link) convinces me that Jung would not give the main stacks for everyone including only one conscious function, and the Grant stack is just absurd with how a lower function is oriented in the conscious attitude while a higher function isn't.
> 
> I do believe that you can derive not 3, but 4 dichotomies from Jung's _Psychological Types_ which is where the MBTI-looking Socionics notation comes from (you can see the 4 dichotomies here). The MBTI letters loosely can be attached to Jung, but it'd be in the sense that Thinking/Feeling (rational) dominants are loosely analogous to J and Intuition/Sensation (irrational) dominants are loosely analogous to P. I strongly oppose looking at Jung's types and MBTI types as the same thing though.


Yeah, I was just talking about the dichotomies themselves, not the silly frankenstacks inconsistent with both Jung and MBTI. I believe there is overlap between Jung's functions and MBTI dichotomies, in the sense that an Introverted Intuitive type would certainly be one of the four IN types.

Yet the comparison is not perfect when considering Myers and Briggs shifted the domain of abstraction from I to N, to the point where one could easily be an Introverted Sensing type while also being an IN. The J/P dichotomy also doesn't correlate that smoothly between MBTI dichotomies and cognitive functions. I consider myself an Introverted Intuitive according to Jung, but I think INP fits me better than INJ, despite of what many functionists would say.



> I agree. The more conscious (the higher in your stack) the functions are, the more strongly you should expect them to be oriented in the conscious (preferred) direction, which directly opposes Grant stacks.


As you said before, in a healthy extraverted thinking type, their thinking would not be 100% oriented towards extraversion (objectivity). When I've taken function tests, I often score highly in Ne as well as Ni, and I relate to a lot of the Extraverted Intuitive description. I agree that it would simply be a preference in that direction.

Socionics does get one thing (sort of right) in that it shows correspondence between the top four main functions and their counterparts. So according to Socionics, an ENTJ has a developed Ti function that compliments their Te. Unfortunately for Socionics, it still falls into the same trap as the Harold Grant and MBTI function stacks in having an auxiliary introverted function in extraverts, and vice versa. Socionics also loses sight of Jung by not having the opposite function be the inferior of the primary or conscious stack.


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

Ocean Helm said:


> @TornadicX I don't see you address the thing about healthy extraverted Thinking dominant types having subjective thinking balancing out their objective thinking (although objective thinking is preferred, the Thinking done by their dominant function is not exclusively objective). This is one of the reasons why I hate using the symbol "Te" - it implies that all the thinking is done in an objective/extraverted attitude with no subjective balance, which doesn't seem to have been part of Jung's vision at all. It seems more just seems like some idea that was developed and promoted by "function axis" true-believers, which they then try to impose on Jung, years after he is dead and buried.
> 
> As for having "Ni > Ti", I relate to that personally just in the sense that I prefer Intuition first, Thinking second, and the way I use both of them is more subjective than not but I also relate to a lot of Ne and Te things, as my Intuition and Thinking do extend outwards, just not as much as they focus inwards. And that outwardly pointing Intuition and Thinking does balance me out (hell, Nardi's test says Te and Ne are my top 2 functions).


Well...I've seen some MAJOR Te users on here that don't seem to use one drop of Ti in their stack....lol.. (Not either of you).. But otherwise, I agree with you. I think, to think we ONLY use Ti or Te would be unrealistic, anyways... I thought it obvious that a Ti user looked outside at the facts, too..which is what Jung eluded to.. but that, what seems to be Te would still remain Ti because it is being used to confirm one's own ideas or vice versa. When you take a look at court, lawyers, particularly prosecutors have to use Te/Ti together to put the nail in the coffin.. 

But that's just the argumentative part of those functions, which isn't all there is to it. The other side of Te is universal law, too.. Like universal idea... It could make sense to the Ti user but that doesn't make one a whole Te dom/user imo... Sometimes objective facts go against the analytics....So they're bound to clash at a point. 
It is still hard for me to think Ni could come after Ti. That baffles my head??... Unless you are an extreme introvert and don't care to test your theory or intuition, there will be an extraverted function after Ti or Ni.



I think all T, S, N, & F functions have specific things in common, which the 4 dichotomies could work with that if that's your style. However, I prefer to consider the functions to dive deeper into the psyche... & I now, specifically believe in doing it the Harold Grant way. It seems the most logical in my mind... and so, I still understand it differently than both of you. (Which is fine...whatever.).. Also, I have yet to see someone in my personal life who uses Te/Ti in balance as one always seems to lean more one way. I think perhaps ESTPs are the best at this because of Se...but Idk.. (That's all too subjective, anyways...which is a large part of this theory.."My observations..blah blah blah..)..

The one thing I like that Socionics tries to do, which I at one point, all I deemed valid, is they try to show us how we use all of the functions.. It gives a more realistic approach to how humanity works..and from my understanding, Socionics doesn't give different inferiors, it doesn't use the same terms as Grant or MBTI.

Maybe later on, I will reread some things and come to a newer conclusion but as of now, I'm just not comprehending things that way...and as far as wanting to attach Grant's stacks to Jung..at some point, I didn't believe in any function stack but simply a dominant/inferior type. I created a whole thread a year ago, trying to rip apart Grant's system...& I was asking folks here "Why can't I have Ti >Ni" & etc...So, I'm not biased. I just am simply not comprehending things the same.

I'm just trying to figure this all out, as it is interesting to me. ..and although I am (not entirely) in disagreement, this stuff does get into my subconscious and drives me to rethink this later. So maybe... I believe I have tertiary Ti so this helps me..


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@TornadicX I see that you prefer Grant stacks but I see it more as a result of bias on your part. Let's just talk about T-N introverts for now since you alluded to them. I'm not sure why you view one as satisfactory over the other when it comes to the topic of balance.

On one side (what I call the typical Jung model: 2 conscious functions, see the link in my signature) you have the idea of T-N being more introverted than not but with each of the functions having extraverted traits as well. On the other side (the Grant model) you have the idea of Ti-Ne being conscious (not sure if this interpretation is correct?).

In the conscious part of the Jung model, the introverted T and introverted N are balanced in orientation by a combination of exatraverted T and extraverted N. The conscious whole is made up of 2 functions, which both are pulling in the same direction overall, but each one of them has the potential to be operating with a healthy balance.

And when you say this:


> It is still hard for me to think Ni could come after Ti. That baffles my head??... Unless you are an extreme introvert and don't care to test your theory or intuition, there will be an extraverted function after Ti or Ni.


You are imagining a problem that doesn't exist, and making an extremely fallacious point. What part of being more Ti than Te, and more Ni than Ne has to do with not wanting to test your theory or intuition? This is complete nonsense. Just because a person prefers subjective Thinking and Intuition, doesn't mean they have some sort of distaste for objective Thinking and Intuition. In fact, if their Thinking is dominant and focused on the subject, why wouldn't they be bringing in Intuition also focused on the subject to help out their Thinking? What is "extreme" about this? They can even have a very strong drive to test stuff out while maintaining a slight subjective over objective focus in both functions.

Now imagine a hypothetical person. I assigned numbers to all 8 function-attitude pairs to show how it could work assuming it is additive. I'm not saying it is or that these functions even exist; it's just for illustrative purposes. But here you have it, a person who you could say is reasonably balanced overall (I functions total to 24, E functions total to 22), also with a distinct preference but not an overwhelming preference in their consciousness. I even made their Ti-Te gap bigger than the gap in their entire function stack (3 vs 2). In opposition to what you seem to believe, this is a model of a healthy, balanced person, who "leads with Ti-Ni" and also is perfectly fine with "testing their theory and intuition".









I've mainly focused on consciousness, but when you factor in the unconscious, assuming the Grant model considers the lower 2 functions as such, the fact that Si is above Fe in the Ti-Ne-Si-Fe stack means that the total unconscious almost has to be oriented in the same direction as the unconscious, as it consists of an introverted function followed by an extraverted one. Not so great for "balance", is it?

And you seem to be sensitive to the idea of people either having a Ti or Te preference, but can't you say that in Grant stacks to, that Ti-Ne-Si-Fe people have a preference of Ti over Ne in a similar sense?

Anyway overall on the topic of balance, all I think that has to be included in a model is the possibility for both balance and imbalance, which both the Jung and Grant models can accomplish. The purpose of my post is simply to show that the Jung model can be balanced, every bit as much as the Grant one. And the Grant one will continue to be anti-Jung which I don't think is inherently a good or bad thing: it just is a thing which appears pretty obvious to me, and a thing which also makes me wonder why people are so obsessed with trying to squeeze Jung type descriptions into the Grant model.


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

Ocean Helm said:


> @TornadicX I see that you prefer Grant stacks but I see it more as a result of bias on your part.


First of all, I've been studying this stuff for a long time and wasn't in favor of Grant's model until recently. As I've said before, I made a thread a year ago, trying to rip the "function stack" into shreds and I was even leaning towards adopting that Ti dominants could have Ni as auxes. Your assumption that I am being biased is respectfully, inaccurate. It is more a matter of my comprehension of all that I've read up to this point more than it is an "unfair" assessment. If you think my comprehending of Jung's theory is "wrong" that is fine... but I know I am not being "biased." 




Ocean Helm said:


> [MENTION=301994] Let's just talk about T-N introverts for now since you alluded to them. I'm not sure why you view one as satisfactory over the other when it comes to the topic of balance.


The aux function can't compete with the auxiliary and neither can any other functions beneath it. I thought Jung made that clear. 



Ocean Helm said:


> [MENTION=301994] On one side (what I call the typical Jung model: 2 conscious functions, see the link in my signature) you have the idea of T-N being more introverted than not but with each of the functions having extraverted traits as well.


See, I disagree here. I think this is more than often, not the case. If you are an introvert your aux function will not be introverted as well but will have a more subjective agenda due to trying to please the dominant. 




Ocean Helm said:


> [MENTION=301994] On the other side (the Grant model) you have the idea of Ti-Ne being conscious (not sure if this interpretation is correct?).


It is and it is consistent with what Jung said in the end of Psychological Types when he addressed the aux function and the "2nd aux" which is actually the tertiary. He said the "2nd aux" was "unconscious" and it was like the auxiliary of the inferior function. This was confirmed in the story he told about the INTJ woman, too. 




Ocean Helm said:


> [MENTION=301994] In the conscious part of the Jung model, the introverted T and introverted N are balanced in orientation by a combination of exatraverted T and extraverted N.


If I'm understanding you correctly, it's similar to this, right? 

*Ni = Ne = N
Ti = Te = T
Se = Si = S
Fe = Fi* = F




Ocean Helm said:


> [MENTION=301994] The conscious whole is made up of 2 functions, which both are pulling in the same direction overall, but each one of them has the potential to be operating with a healthy balance.


The issue I have with this is that I think the further you go down, the less conscious each function gets. When functions are unconscious they start poking at the dominant in troubling ways or at least ways one would have a hard time recognizing. 




Ocean Helm said:


> [MENTION=301994]And when you say this:
> 
> You are imagining a problem that doesn't exist, and making an *extremely* fallacious point. *What part of being more Ti than Te, and more Ni than Ne has to do with not wanting to test your theory or intuition? *


*

None of it because that's not what I meant. If you are Te dominant, you are using Ni to gather insight about your universal system. If you are Ti dominant, you need an outlet to test out those subjective ideas or you will be a crazy mute. 

For example:

>> Ti = Inner Ideas & theories = How will I know my ideas and theories are legit? 
>> Se/Ne = Sees if ideas and theories can be applied in reality. 
>>> Result = They can't.
>>Result 2 = Idea is trashed. 

How is that "extremely" fallacious and "nonsensical?" I honestly think your words are too strong. Since we are coming from two different places, it might baffle your mind just as what you are saying is baffling my mind. However, if I try to see your perspective, then I will understand your frame of mind and I think I do but I disagree and that is okay.



Ocean Helm said:



[MENTION=301994] This is complete nonsense. Just because a person prefers subjective Thinking and Intuition, doesn't mean they have some sort of distaste for objective Thinking and Intuition. 

Click to expand...

You're jumping the gun here or rather aren't comprehending what I'm saying, correctly.. which could be an error on my part. However, Jung did say the Ni dominant tends to scoff at objective reality. (Se.) Anyways, I'm not saying anyone has a distaste for objective thinking. I'm saying, if you have subjective thinking as a dominant, you must look out into the world to express those ideas or to see if they have any validity to be used in everyday, life. (Which is where Ne/Se comes in at.)



Ocean Helm said:



[MENTION=301994]  In fact, if their Thinking is dominant and focused on the subject, why wouldn't they be bringing in Intuition also focused on the subject to help out their Thinking? 

Click to expand...



Oh, I believe they do. We have all 8 functions so I'm certain Ni is being used with Ti.. I just don't think it could ever be the aux function. Instead Ni is the Introverted Thinker's 5th+ function and is being used, unconsciously with Ti, just like all of the others. It's extreme to me, to assume that an Introverted Thinker could have Introverted Intuition as their aux function unless they are Schizotypal or something. Introverted Thinkers are analytical and they need to see their ideas in the objective > Se/Ne. Having Ni as an aux to Ti dominant would make one's ideas entirely subjective and they'd never go anywhere or be healthily tested in reality. Since the Ti dom needs logical consistency and a sturdy framework, they need to test their ideas out to see if they are legit and that is what I understand the aux function for a dominant Ji to be used for. That's all I'm saying. 




Ocean Helm said:



[MENTION=301994]  What is "extreme" about this? They can even have a very strong drive to test stuff out while maintaining a slight subjective over objective focus in both functions.

Click to expand...

 

Of course. They are introverts, so all functions underneath are going to be huddled around Ti to serve it, even the extraverted functions. 

Ti = Gets an idea something may be the case
Ne = Tests the possibilities for the idea to be true, in objective reality
Ti = Sees that it works and adopts this into the logical framework

In the above example, Ne is working at the mercy of Ti, yet it is still extraverted. However, unlike in the ENTP, Ne is biased towards the Introverted Thinker's ideas. In introverts, all the extraverted functions will be working at the mercy of the dominant Xi. This is what I'm viewing your posts like:

Ti = Gets an idea something may be the case
Ni = Gets an insight that the idea is the case

The issue with the above is you get an incredibly stubborn introvert who never truly tests out ideas to even build legitimate/solid and logical frameworks. And if you say they have Se and Fe as tertiary/inferior, the person appears incredibly arrogant and unrealistic by the time they are ready to test them out or put them into practice. This person would be in for a rude awakening. I'm not being biased. It simply makes no sense to me and the only way it does, is if I think one is schizotypal or something. If it could make sense to me somehow, I could change my view.

Addressing the issue of "balance" --- 

Being an Introverted Thinker is what is deciding your introversion. I don't think as an INTP you will be equally using Te in its full form with Ti. Healthy or not. Either your thinking ends up in the objective or it doesn't. You can use Te as an INTP on your way back to your subjective idea or you can use Introverted Thinking on your way back to a universal idea.

For example: I can tell you the Bible makes no sense and I am starting out using Ti because my point is the logical inconsistencies in the bible. Then, I will go pull up a fact about the Bible, which would be Te but ultimately, Te is only working in favor of my Ti, to of course, back up my original argument, which is subjective in nature. Ti > Te > Ti. 

Ti = Ti > Te > Ti 
Te dominants can go = Te > Ti > Te
...but no matter what it will always end up either one way or the other and this is where me and you aren't getting each other at. 




Ocean Helm said:



[MENTION=301994] Now imagine a hypothetical person. I assigned numbers to all 8 function-attitude pairs to show how it could work assuming it is additive. I'm not saying it is or that these functions even exist; it's just for illustrative purposes. But here you have it, a person who you could say is reasonably balanced overall (I functions total to 24, E functions total to 22), also with a distinct preference but not an overwhelming preference in their consciousness. I even made their Ti-Te gap bigger than the gap in their entire function stack (3 vs 2). In opposition to what you seem to believe, this is a model of a healthy, balanced person, who "leads with Ti-Ni" and also is perfectly fine with "testing their theory and intuition".








Click to expand...

My views are the way they are because unconscious functions are going to screw with you in ways you don't even recognize. Secondly, I don't believe you can lead with two functions at the same time and if you are saying Ti-Ni as Dom/Aux, I already explained why I don't think that's realistic..



Ocean Helm said:



[MENTION=301994] I've mainly focused on consciousness, but when you factor in the unconscious, assuming the Grant model considers the lower 2 functions as such, the fact that Si is above Fe in the Ti-Ne-Si-Fe stack means that the total unconscious almost has to be oriented in the same direction as the unconscious, as it consists of an introverted function followed by an extraverted one. Not so great for "balance", is it?

Click to expand...

When I speak of balance, I speak of assigning the proper functions together such as Se/Ni, Te/Fi, Fe/Ti, and Ne/Si. Secondly, Grant isn't the only one who considered the tertiary and inferior unconscious. Jung did, too. Hmm..Let's see..




Ocean Helm said:



[MENTION=301994] And you seem to be sensitive to the idea of people either having a Ti or Te preference, but can't you say that in Grant stacks to, that Ti-Ne-Si-Fe people have a preference of Ti over Ne in a similar sense?

Click to expand...

I already explained this but I think what determines what type of thinking you are using is where it ends up. Does your thinking return to the subject or does it end objectively?This is why I think there is a preference for Te/Ti. Thinking cannot be both Ti and Te at once. Either it is objective or it's not. I am not saying individuals can't be balanced in thinking, meaning one moment they use Te and the next, Ti.. as there are billions of people in the world but in my own life, this doesn't seem to be the case. There are characters in this world who clearly lead with unique/specific dominant functions. (This part is highly subjective and always will be since this here is a theory that also depends on observation.) I think Grant's stack is consistent with Jung because Jung's theory states there are 4 types. Thinkers, Feelers, Intuitives, And Sensors. Someone who prefers Ti over Ne, is a Thinking type. However, to my knowledge, Jung alludes to the fact that Introverts need an outlet to keep their subjectivity from going overboard. This is why I agree with Harold Grant's aux being extraverted for the introvert. 



Ocean Helm said:



[MENTION=301994] Anyway overall on the topic of balance, all I think that has to be included in a model is the possibility for both balance and imbalance, which both the Jung and Grant models can accomplish. The purpose of my post is simply to show that the Jung model can be balanced, every bit as much as the Grant one. And the Grant one will continue to be anti-Jung which I don't think is inherently a good or bad thing: it just is a thing which appears pretty obvious to me, and a thing which also makes me wonder why people are so obsessed with trying to squeeze Jung type descriptions into the Grant model.

Click to expand...

There's no need to "squeeze" unless one is lying to themselves. In my case, it simply makes more sense... nothing more or less. If you showed me something that made more sense, I'd easily switch over to that system. We just have to agree to disagree..but.. I think the Grant model is in perfect harmony with Jung's. The post about the INTJ woman makes that evident, IMO. 

Here, Jung is making it obvious the tertiary, which he calls the 2nd auxiliary and the inferior are unconscious. This is parallel to Grant's stack. Here Jung is describing a TSNF. 


Jung: 

"Suppose you have sensation strongly developed but are not fanatical about it. Then you can admit about every situation a certain aura of possibilities; that is to say, you permit an intuitive element to come in. Sensation as an auxiliary function would allow intuition to exist. But in as much as sensation (in the example) is a partisan of the intellect, intuition sides with the feeling, here the inferior function.Therefore the intellect will not agree with intuition, in this case, and will vote for its exclusion. Intellect will not hold together sensation and intuition, rather it will separate them. Such a destructive attempt will be checked by feeling, which backs up intuition.."

He solidifies it by stating this:

Jung:

"Looking at it the other way around, if you are an intuitive type, you can't get to your sensations directly. They are full of monsters, and so you have to go by way of your intellect or feeling, whichever is the auxiliary in the conscious. It needs very cool reasoning for such a man to keep himself down to reality. To sum up then, the way is from the superior to the auxiliary, from the latter to the function opposite to the auxiliary. Usually this first conflict that is aroused between the auxiliary function in the conscious and its opposite function in the unconscious is the fight that takes place in analysis. This may be called the preliminary conflict. The knockdown battle between the superior and inferior functions only takes place in life. In the example of the intellectual sensation type, I suggested the preliminary conflict would be between sensation and intuition, and the final fight between intellect and feeling."

In the above text, Jung is stating the bottom 2 functions are unconscious and the top 2 are conscious, just as Grant's system. If the inferior function is an unconscious antagonist to the dom, which was explained in psychological types, then you are left with no other conclusion besides the tertiary, (the 2nd unconscious auxiliary) being the antagonist to the conscious auxiliary. Furthermore, he states that the tertiary, (or 2nd unconscious aux) is the opposite of the aux. This solidifies Grant's stack even further. When we think about what he explained in Psychological Types, Se/Ni - Ne/Si - Fe/Ti - Te/Fi, We can gather that the two auxiliaries will also follow suit.

If:

Te dominant = Fi inferior
Si dominaint = Ne inferior

Then Te > Si > Ne > Fi.

If 

Ti > Ni > Se > Fe or

Te > Ne > Si > Fi ,

You would get Thinkers who either have either erroneous subjective ideas or erroneous objective ideas. It would be very unhealthy. 


As I've mentioned before, the way Jung described the INTx woman, is parallel to Grant's system. Although I wrote, "INTx" I'm pretty sure the woman in Jung's story was an INTJ and used Te as an auxiliary because he used objective reasoning to get through to her intellect. 

Jung: 

"I cannot bring such a case down to a sense of reality through sensation directly, for to the intuitive, facts are mere air; so then, since thinking is her auxiliary function, I begin to reason with her in a very simple way till she becomes willing to strip from the fact the atmosphere she has projected upon it. Suppose I say to her, "Here is a green monkey." Immediately she will say, "No, it is red." Then I say, "A thousand people say this monkey is green, and if you make it red, it is only of your own imagination." 

^^^ In the above quoted text, it is clear to me this is extraverted thinking being used as an auxiliary function because he is using objective measures to convince the woman. "A thousand people say this monkey is green." <--- Such a statement would be irrelevant to a subjective thinker. 

Jung continued: 

"The next step is to get her to the point where her feeling and thinking conflict. An intuitive does with her feelings very much the same thing she does with her thoughts; that is, if she gets a negative intuition about a person, then the person seems all evil, and what he really is matters not at all. But little by little such a patient begins to ask what the object is like after all, and to have the desire to experience the object directly. Then she is able to give sensation its proper value, and she stops looking at the object from around a corner; in a word, she is ready to sacrifice her overpowering desire to master by intuition."

^^^ So, in the first line, it is clear that Te is the aux. So, if Te is the aux, then Fi must be the tertiary. In the second bold print, it is clear that the dominant function, in this case, Introverted Intuition bosses the rest of the functions around. All 7 of them. This is what keeps the introvert subjective. Even if an introvert is using Extraverted Functions, (which we all do), they are extraverted with an agenda, which is to serve the dominant. So they will not be as pure as they would in an Extravert, thisi s true. However, this still doesn't make them change attitude but rather the use of them changes. If I use my oven as storage, it is still an oven. I'm just using it as storage. That's similar to how I think the introvert uses the extraverted functions. 

When it comes down to it, we will just have to agree to disagree, which is fine with me.*


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

TornadicX said:


> First of all, I've been studying this stuff for a long time and wasn't in favor of Grant's model until recently. As I've said before, I made a thread a year ago, trying to rip the "function stack" into shreds and I was even leaning towards adopting that Ti dominants could have Ni as auxes. Your assumption that I am being biased is respectfully, inaccurate. It is more a matter of my comprehension of all that I've read up to this point more than it is an "unfair" assessment. If you think my comprehending of Jung's theory is "wrong" that is fine... but I know I am not being "biased."


I can't find this thread.


> The aux function can't compete with the auxiliary and neither can any other functions beneath it. I thought Jung made that clear.


I'm talking about the Jung vs Grant model.


> See, I disagree here. I think this is more than often, not the case. If you are an introvert your aux function will not be introverted as well but will have a more subjective agenda due to trying to please the dominant.


And why is this?


> It is and it is consistent with what Jung said in the end of Psychological Types when he addressed the aux function and the "2nd aux" which is actually the tertiary. He said the "2nd aux" was "unconscious" and it was like the auxiliary of the inferior function. This was confirmed in the story he told about the INTJ woman, too.


Like the Ti-Ne-Si-Fe model, the Ti-Ni-Se-Fe model is also consistent with this statement. You can't just pick and choose sections of _Psychological Types_ to pay attention to (which don't even support the Grant stack over what I'm calling the Jung stack), and others to ignore.

I have not read much of _Psychological Types_ but @reckful made a post which actually provides very convincing evidence of Jung being against the Grant stack (link) and nothing I see you post shows him supporting the Grant stack. Instead, you pick out pieces of Jung which don't conflict with the Grant stack, but they also don't conflict with the Ti-Ni-Se-Fe stack, so it isn't evidence of the Grant stack over the one I am calling Jung's typical stack.


> If I'm understanding you correctly, it's similar to this, right?
> 
> *Ni = Ne = N
> Ti = Te = T
> ...


Huh? Why the equal signs? It's more like N can be split into Ni and Ne and the stronger portion will reflect the overall "attitude". But there are only 4 functions: N, T, S, and F.


> The issue I have with this is that I think the further you go down, the less conscious each function gets. When functions are unconscious they start poking at the dominant in troubling ways or at least ways one would have a hard time recognizing.


How does this express an issue with what I wrote? I feel like you're reading something that isn't there, because this would be in line with my interpretation.


> None of it because that's not what I meant. If you are Te dominant, you are using Ni to gather insight about your universal system. If you are Ti dominant, you need an outlet to test out those subjective ideas or you will be a crazy mute.


So you just regurgitate the Grant stack, and then repeat the same dumb fallacious point after saying that isn't what you meant.


> For example:
> 
> >> Ti = Inner Ideas & theories = How will I know my ideas and theories are legit?
> >> Se/Ne = Sees if ideas and theories can be applied in reality.
> ...


Or...
>> Ti/Ni = Inner ideas, theories, image, and perception = How will I know they are legit?
>> Te/Ne = Checking to see if inner ideas match up with empirical facts and reality
>> Result = They can't.
>> Result 2 = Idea is trashed.

In both cases you have a conscious extraverted counterpart providing balance. Just in the stack I'm talking about, both T and N have a weaker introverted component and a stronger extraverted component, while in Grant stacks, it's a whole introverted function which is weaker than a whole extraverted function.


> How is that "extremely" fallacious and "nonsensical?" I honestly think your words are too strong. Since we are coming from two different places, it might baffle your mind just as what you are saying is baffling my mind. However, if I try to see your perspective, then I will understand your frame of mind and I think I do but I disagree and that is okay.


The extremely fallacious and nonsensical thing is "unless you are an extreme introvert and don't care to test your theory or intuition, there will be an extraverted function after Ti or Ni" which you repeated again by saying "if you are Ti dominant, you need an outlet to test out those subjective ideas or you will be a crazy mute", implying that the perceiving function after Thinking can't be of a primarily introverted attitude.

You seem to like repeating yourself enough, but if you look at my hypothetical with numbers, you'd see that this person described there has an ample amount of both extraverted thinking and extraverted intuition. The overall functions are introverted because there is more subject than object focus. But nowhere in the subject preference is some hidden implication that this person is stuck with "Ti" and "Ni". No, they are actually using an ample amount of "Te" and "Ne" as well.


> You're jumping the gun here or rather aren't comprehending what I'm saying, correctly.. which could be an error on my part.


Actually it's the other way around.


> However, Jung did say the Ni dominant tends to scoff at objective reality. (Se.) Anyways, I'm not saying anyone has a distaste for objective thinking. I'm saying, if you have subjective thinking as a dominant, you must look out into the world to express those ideas or to see if they have any validity to be used in everyday, life. (Which is where Ne/Se comes in at.)


And if you have subjective thinking as a dominant, it also is dangerous to get too subjective which is why you need to mix objective thinking in too, and since the thinking is subject-focused, perception that is subject focused also is very important.


> Oh, I believe they do. We have all 8 functions


No!! Jung clearly said there were 4 functions, so your view is incompatible with Jung by thinking about things as 8 functions.


> so I'm certain Ni is being used with Ti.. I just don't think it could ever be the aux function.


N is the aux function, which you can look at as being composed of Ni (stronger) and Ne (weaker), thus making it "Ni" overall but the "i" just would mean that it is more focused inwards than outwards, not that it is only focused inwards.


> Instead Ni is the Introverted Thinker's 5th+ function and is being used, unconsciously with Ti, just like all of the others. It's extreme to me, to assume that an Introverted Thinker could have Introverted Intuition as their aux function unless they are Schizotypal or something. Introverted Thinkers are analytical and they need to see their ideas in the objective > Se/Ne. Having Ni as an aux to Ti dominant would make one's ideas entirely subjective and they'd never go anywhere or be healthily tested in reality. Since the Ti dom needs logical consistency and a sturdy framework, they need to test their ideas out to see if they are legit and that is what I understand the aux function for a dominant Ji to be used for. That's all I'm saying.


Blah blah, 8 functions is not Jung.


> Of course. They are introverts, so all functions underneath are going to be huddled around Ti to serve it, even the extraverted functions.
> 
> Ti = Gets an idea something may be the case
> Ne = Tests the possibilities for the _idea _to be true, in objective reality
> Ti = Sees that it works and adopts this into the logical framework


Or...
Ti = Gets an idea something may be the case
Te = Checks to see that it matches with objective facts
Ti = Sees that it does and adopts this into the logical framework
Or...
Ti = Gets an idea something may be the case
Ni = Feeds relevant internal perception back to Ti to brew the idea into something better than before, with a vivid internal image
Ti = Tests components of image subjectively for logical significance
Te/Ne = Checks/tests refined image against objective reality/facts


> In the above example, Ne is working at the mercy of Ti, yet it is still extraverted. However, unlike in the ENTP, Ne is _biased_ towards the *Introvert*ed Thinker's ideas. In introverts, all the extraverted functions will be working at the mercy of the dominant Xi. This is what I'm viewing your posts like:
> 
> Ti = Gets an idea something may be the case
> Ni = Gets an insight that the idea is the case
> ...


Somehow you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that your Thinking and Intuition don't have to exclusively be introverted or extroverted.


> Addressing the issue of "balance" ---
> 
> Being an Introverted Thinker is what is deciding your introversion. I don't think as an INTP you will be equally using Te in its full form with Ti. Healthy or not.


I'm pretty sure I'd be better categorized as an introverted intuitive, but neither my intuition nor my thinking have an extraverted component "in full form" with their introverted component. 


> Either your thinking ends up in the objective or it doesn't.


Needless black-and-white thinking on your part here. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It ends up more in the subjective moreso than not and I value the subjective way more than the average person.


> You can use Te as an INTP _on your way back_ to your subjective idea or you can use _Introverted Thinking_ on your way _back_ to a _universal idea._


Or I could just use whatever the hell I want based on what I feel would work good at the moment.


> For example: I can tell you the Bible makes no sense and I am starting out using Ti because my point is the logical inconsistencies in the bible. Then, I will go pull up a fact about the Bible, which would be Te but ultimately, Te is only working in favor of my Ti, to of course, back up my original argument, which is subjective in nature. Ti > Te > Ti.
> 
> Ti = Ti > Te > Ti
> Te dominants can go = Te > Ti > Te
> ...but no matter what it will always end up either one way or the other and this is where me and you aren't getting each other at.


It seems like you're just putting theory before facts here. To use your logic, if you can't go Te first then you are "schizotypal" or whatever because you objective facts don't permeate you.


> My views are the way they are because unconscious functions are going to screw with you in ways you don't even recognize. Secondly, I don't believe you can lead with two functions at the same time and if you are saying Ti-Ni as Dom/Aux, I already explained why I don't think that's realistic..


Regardless of what you say, I just see someone accepting a theory almost verbatim, and then coming up with faulty logic to back it. Yeah, it's just the "unconscious functions" messing with me. Suure.


> When I speak of balance, I speak of assigning the proper functions together such as Se/Ni, Te/Fi, Fe/Ti, and Ne/Si.


You seem very concerned with what is proper. Basically, whatever Grant says.


> Secondly, Grant isn't the only one who considered the tertiary and inferior unconscious. Jung did, too. Hmm..Let's see..


You act as if this is some sort of newsflash to me when I have a link in my signature which links to a notation for which the typical subtype is exactly that. Maybe if you actually read my link and the reckful post linked to in my link as well as above, you wouldn't have to keep wasting my time.

Showing that various pieces are not incompatible with Grant is not support for Grant, especially when they are not incompatible with the Ti-Ni-Se-Fe stack either.


> I already explained this but I think what determines what type of thinking you are using is where it ends up. Does your thinking return to the subject or does it end objectively?This is why I think there is a preference for Te/Ti.


I think you should be able to see that there's a difference between a preference for Ti over Te, and a lack of Te that makes a preference of Pe over Pi necessary in order to avoid being a crazy mute. Maybe you don't though. Not my problem.


> Thinking cannot be both Ti and Te at once. Either it is objective or it's not. I am not saying individuals can't be balanced in thinking, meaning one moment they use Te and the next, Ti.. as there are billions of people in the world but in my own life, this doesn't seem to be the case. There are characters in this world who clearly lead with unique/specific dominant functions. (This part is highly subjective and always will be since this here is a theory that also depends on observation.)


Different situations necessitate different responses. The aim of a Jungian introvert is subjective but that doesn't mean they don't use objective thinking, and use it a lot.


> I think Grant's stack is consistent with Jung because Jung's theory states there are 4 types. Thinkers, Feelers, Intuitives, And Sensors. Someone who prefers Ti over Ne, is a Thinking type.


Okay, count me convinced!


> However, to my knowledge, Jung alludes to the fact that Introverts need an outlet to keep their subjectivity from going overboard. This is why I agree with Harold Grant's aux being extraverted for the introvert.


I don't think that was meant to be taken as permission to turn his function stack into something it's not.


> There's no need to "squeeze" unless one is lying to themselves. In my case, it simply makes more sense... nothing more or less. If you showed me something that made more sense, I'd easily switch over to that system. We just have to agree to disagree..but.. I think the Grant model is in perfect harmony with Jung's. The post about the INTJ woman makes that evident, IMO.


Can you then respond to reckful's post? That is full of Jung and where I am pulling most of my information from.


> Here, Jung is making it obvious the tertiary, which he calls the 2nd auxiliary and the inferior are unconscious. This is parallel to Grant's stack. Here Jung is describing a TSNF.
> 
> Jung:
> 
> ...


And of course the idea of the consciousness being oriented in one direction and the unconsciousness being oriented in the opposite direction is Jungian but anti-Grantian, but let's just focus on the few parts where Jung and Grant match, right?


> If:
> 
> Te dominant = Fi inferior
> Si dominaint = Ne inferior
> ...


No matter how personally unhealthy you see this as, you can't change what Jung wrote.


> As I've mentioned before, the way Jung described the INTx woman, is parallel to Grant's system. Although I wrote, "INTx" I'm pretty sure the woman in Jung's story was an INTJ and used Te as an auxiliary because he used objective reasoning to get through to her intellect.
> 
> Jung:
> 
> ...


_
Wow the extraverted thinking there is overwhelming. Someone who prefers subjective over objective thinking would totally consider that irrelevant. Not.

I really hope that your supposed preference of subjective over objective thinking wouldn't lead you down that weird pathway, because that would actually be schizotypal.



Jung continued: 

"The next step is to *get her to the point where her feeling and thinking conflict*. An *intuitive does* with her *feelings very much the same thing she does with her thoughts; that is, if she gets a negative intuition about a person, then the person seems all evil, and what he really is matters not at all*. But little by little such a patient begins to ask what the object is like after all, and to have the desire to experience the object directly. Then she is able to give sensation its proper value, and she stops looking at the object from around a corner; in a word, she is ready to sacrifice her overpowering desire to master by intuition."

^^^ So, in the first line, it is clear that Te is the aux. So, if Te is the aux, then Fi must be the tertiary. In the second bold print, it is clear that the dominant function, in this case, Introverted Intuition bosses the rest of the functions around. All 7 of them. This is what keeps the introvert subjective. Even if an introvert is using Extraverted Functions, (which we all do), they are extraverted with an agenda, which is to serve the dominant. So they will not be as pure as they would in an Extravert, thisi s true. However, this still doesn't make them change attitude but rather the use of them changes. If I use my oven as storage, it is still an oven. I'm just using it as storage. That's similar to how I think the introvert uses the extraverted functions.

Click to expand...

Lol, all 7 of Jung's functions. Go read a book, that one called Psychological Types.



When it comes down to it, we will just have to agree to disagree, which is fine with me.

Click to expand...

I can't do that, when you are ignoring evidence and treating non-evidence as evidence._


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

@TornadicX @Ocean Helm It's been interesting discussing function stacks, but things in this discussion are going nowhere now.

Happy holidays.


----------



## TornadicX (Jan 7, 2015)

Merry Christmas.


----------

