# The Tertiary Function



## DomNapoleon (Jan 21, 2012)

All I can say about the tertiary function is that:

-It's not a function that we naturally use (unlike the dominant function, which is where you feel like '_a fish inside water'_). However, the tertiary function can ally itself with the Dominant one, creating the so called 'dominant-tertiary' loop. 

-In Beebe's model, the tertiary function is seen as the 'Puer/Puella' - and it's described as a function used with a certain innocence, playfulness and not in a so professional way (unlike the auxiliary function which takes a more authoritarian role).

Here: 



> *PUER/PUELLA ("eternal child", tertiary)*
> 
> Since this would be the function our egos run to to maintain the dominant attitude, we probably don't project this associated complex onto others. The ego naturally owns it quickly. (Projection would be seeing others as "children" in some way).
> 
> ...




Source: http://www.erictb.info/archetypes.html


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Scelerat said:


> You have purists everywhere when things lack concreteness. I've tried to get a term defined as "Source-whoring" which is based around the fact that with google at your fingertips, it's always possible to find some source or some translation of a source which lends credence to whatever you're arguing. I've had debates where both sides were quoting the same source, yet had completely different versions of the source.
> 
> 
> In the case of MBTI, it's a poorly developed system that is overly reductionist, lacks clear thought and serves limited purpose and where the tests are of sub-par quality due to having the wrong focus. I remember the first test I took where the two most important parts of type, namely Introvert/Extrovert and Judging/Perceiving were decided based on:
> ...


Oh yes, MBTI was one of the many reasons I mistyped way back when I first found the whole system. It's too simplistic and exaggerated to properly represent a personality in anything but caricatures. I personally like the idea of any function being able to be developed to any level - so, you'll have your dominant function, let's say Ni, but you have developed your Se a whole lot and now it seems like you're an amalgamation of the two when dealing with the collection of data, so you look at type descriptions, but none of them fit you, because they only describe the 'ideal' type, with dominant as strongest and inferior as weakest.

Also, I wouldn't call it looping, seeing as it never moves, but the introverted functions becoming developed could be a sign of nurturing influence, with bullying or something causing the person to withdraw and fail to interact with the external world. While with extraverted functions, they cause the person to engage too much with the external world and abandon the internal, causing potentially long-term bad decisions.

The whole theory gets a lot more interesting when you look at all the potential combinations available.



Octavarium said:


> I agree that it's worth developing the theory rather than treating Jung as Gospel truth, but I don't see the MBTI as much of an improvement, which is why I personally prefer to stick to Jung. I see what you mean though, I just hope someone comes up with something a bit better.


Yes, I'm waiting for the day someone with more knowledge in the topic will come along and make something new with it - not like Keirsey or MBTI, but something that actually seems to work across the board. Of course, it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be an improvement.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

superdooper said:


> LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Good day <3
> You are mixing in the cognitive function with jung's original work, they are not one and the same...


I'd appreciate if you'd come up with substantial arguments why I'm wrong (and calling extroverted thinking Te means exactly the same last time I checked...) and why my understanding of Jung is poor. It would make for a stronger case than just saying that you think I'm stupid. It doesn't improve your personal credibility anyway. 

@_Phoenix_Rebirth_ I'm not a nostalgic person at all and I'm not sentimental. This is why I think the Beebe model sucks.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

tine said:


> How would you describe the role and importance of the tertiary function?
> I'm not sure I completely understand the idea, as it's never referred to when typing a person and it seems almost like an added aspect of the personality, without much of a role.
> I thought it might be the comfort function or one gone to under some levels of stress.



I think the tertiary function is an important one. Every person has two 'personalities'. Ego and alterego. Carl Jung described himself has having two distinct personalities that he called Number 1 and Number 2. Number one was the logical and practical TiSe and Number 2 was the mystical and imaginative NiFe. I think that the tertiary is actually the dominant function of the alterego.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I'd appreciate if you'd come up with substantial arguments why I'm wrong (and calling extroverted thinking Te means exactly the same last time I checked...) and why my understanding of Jung is poor. It would make for a stronger case than just saying that you think I'm stupid. It doesn't improve your personal credibility anyway.
> 
> @_Phoenix_Rebirth_ I'm not a nostalgic person at all and I'm not sentimental. This is why I think the Beebe model sucks.


I can't even.
Who called you stupid? :/ I just said your answer was lol because I didn't say anything about intelligence levels then you brought it in like it had anything to do with cognitive functions.
I would like to engage in conversation with most people but people who put words in my mouth, meh not so much.

Thank you and good night.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

superdooper said:


> I can't even.
> Who called you stupid? :/ I just said your answer was lol because I didn't say anything about intelligence levels then you brought it in like it had anything to do with cognitive functions.
> I would like to engage in conversation with most people but people who put words in my mouth, meh not so much.
> 
> Thank you and good night.


It's all written over your response. Telling that someone's response is "lol" is a form of mockery because it's a sign you're not taking what they write seriously which thus also leads to the simple conclusion that you think they are stupid, because what other reason would there be for you not taking the content of the post seriously otherwise?

And you were the one making claims about abilities to reason: 


> a mature INFJ is able to discuss and debate ideas with logic and without getting caught up on the emotional/moral aspects of their debates. They can also easily process their thoughts and do everything Ti is for.


I simply countered this claim that I think ability to reason is linked to levels of intelligence, not cognitive function preference or MBTI type. 

Maybe the problem isn't that people put words in your mouth but that you have a complete lack of how to maintain a civil debate and keeping to the point.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Jung's ideas about shadows, along with comments in his own writings with reference to pure types, tell us he knew he was starting something, not finishing a discussion with a definitive end all be all of personality studies. Beyond Dominant and axillary you have a variety of opinions though. MBTI testing (on-line and in books) is typically less than scientific, doesn't mean the four function model is useless. I think better testing could be invented. 

Younger people with less life experience, would have less appreciation for patterns of behavior including their own. That could be part of not seeing how functions play a part of balancing and managing us. I'm convinced I've seen Fi, Ti, Te, and Fe tertiary, developing in people and see it as differentiating some ENxP's from each other (content and tone of posts) as well as observing Ti, in INFJ, or how Te shows up in my ESFP dad.

I can't prove any of this scientifically (yet) but when you read threads dominated by a particular type you can see different flavors and commonalities that are very interesting. To me this looks like more than two functions plus the individual and different life experience or IQ.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

This is what Socionics sais about the tertiary, which in their model, called "Model A", most closely corresponds to activating (aka mobilizing) function:

Functions - Wikisocion


> *Mobilizing function*
> 
> 
> The mobilizing function is also called the activating function and the hidden agenda function. Help in this element is appreciated, but past a certain point is seen as excessive. The subject is more comfortable using this function than the suggestive function but still can only use it sporadically. If he isn't careful and directs it at an individual who does not value it, he will likely meet a harsh response, since they are almost sure to see it as a puerile gesture (more so than when he uses the suggestive function, usage of which comes off as more mature and well-considered, since he takes it more seriously in the first place). The subject's innate lack of balance in the mobilizing function can easily cause him to indulge in it recklessly or to sorely neglect it. It is best used in support of the suggestive function.
> If too much of this element is ambient, the person will get bored or even become repelled. He sees it as a necessary part of good living, but not a primary life goal.


Descriptions of activating functions across the types:

full profiles - Information Aspect in the Valued Functions


> *Fi as mobilizing function*
> It is important for him to relate to others around him, to feel good about them, to value and love someone. If they don't like someone, it also lowers their self-esteem. "I'm bad if I don't love anybody." They have two ways out of the situation, either way of a Buddhist - to admit that the world is not perfect and love it for what it is, or to imagine a perfect world and perfect people and love this, but in real life go on without strong feelings. All other options imply self-esteem problems, as in the case of idealization of people close to him, sooner or later he will have to deal with their shortcomings. De-idealization means very negative feelings and a drop of his self-esteem. They need to have opportunities to express their personal attitudes and judgements, talk about what they love, what they are doing. Idealization of the surrounding world is their main problem. It is important for them to have permission to express their attitude frankly. Therefore, they often choose living environment where they are received well, having contact only with it, because here with certainty they can disclose their thoughts. He likes to tell the truth and hopes that it will be perceived adequately, even if it is hurtful. He will say "but I have been honest". Tries to protect himself from any interference in his internal feelings. Often you can hear from him, "do look into my soul." Generally like to keep a distance from objects of adoration, since this way it is much easier to not be disappointed. Ideally, he should have an opportunity to periodically spend time away to himself. Can also invest his love into animals or even some kind of mystical entity; this way it is easier to maintain his self-esteem. In a long-term relationship with someone, sooner or later he becomes a moralist, since this is a good way to force someone to conform to his ideals. In passive self-defense will say that all people around him are bastards.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Jung's ideas about shadows, along with comments in his own writings with reference to pure types, tell us he knew he was starting something, not finishing a discussion with a definitive end all be all of personality studies. Beyond Dominant and axillary you have a variety of opinions though. MBTI testing (on-line and in books) is typically less than scientific, doesn't mean the four function model is useless. I think better testing could be invented.
> 
> Younger people with less life experience, would have less appreciation for patterns of behavior including their own. That could be part of not seeing how functions play a part of balancing and managing us. I'm convinced I've seen Fi, Ti, Te, and Fe tertiary, developing in people and see it as differentiating some ENxP's from each other (content and tone of posts) as well as observing Ti, in INFJ, or how Te shows up in my ESFP dad.
> 
> I can't prove any of this scientifically (yet) but when you read threads dominated by a particular type you can see different flavors and commonalities that are very interesting. To me this looks like more than two functions plus the individual and different life experience or IQ.


No, the real question becomes - is a person who is an ENP but favors Fe as their conscious judging function an ENTP or an ENFP since their cognitive makeup would be Ne Fe Ti Si in that order?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> I think the tertiary function is an important one. Every person has two 'personalities'. Ego and alterego. Carl Jung described himself has having two distinct personalities that he called Number 1 and Number 2. Number one was the logical and practical TiSe and Number 2 was the mystical and imaginative NiFe. I think that the tertiary is actually the dominant function of the alterego.


No the inferior function would predominate the 'unconscious personality.' The third function would generally also take on inferior characteristics or act as an auxiliary to the inferior. Jung's theory revolves around the relationship between dom/inferior (conscious personality vs. unconscious personality). Myers' focuses on dom-aux and largely ignores tert/inferior. It's not really until people like Beebe and Grant come along that any real lip service or idea of a 'tertiary' function really come into play.

There is a ton of misinformation flying around this thread most of it, either just something people have made up, or is uncorroborated in any respectable literature on the subject (and there is plenty of disagreement in the MBTI type community here, it is not a given that everyone believes the third function will, for example, be the same attitude as dominant, even if that is the prevailing view for many). I hear all these things about 'my tertiary does this' and so forth, and I question where a lot of this stuff is coming from? A lot of times its a bastardized idea from someone like Beebe or Lenore Thomson, whose theories are not necessarily 100% copacetic with Myers-Briggs or Jung and, in many cases, serve different purposes altogether (Beebe's 8-function model is intended for therapeutic use not as a quantifiable system).

I hate jumping into threads like this sometimes because everyone is arguing from different perspectives. One person from Socionics, one from Jung, one from MBTI, one from his own imagination, etc, its nearly impossible to come to any sort of consensus like this.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

LiquidLight said:


> No the inferior function would predominate the 'unconscious personality.' The third function would generally also take on inferior characteristics or act as an auxiliary to the inferior. Jung's theory revolves around the relationship between dom/inferior (conscious personality vs. unconscious personality). Myers' focuses on dom-aux and largely ignores tert/inferior. It's not really until people like Beebe and Grant come along that any real lip service or idea of a 'tertiary' function really come into play.


Jung defined 'inferior function' essentially as an unconscious function. You have more than one. So if you're Ni, then your unconscious functions are Fe, Te, Se. He describes the second function as an auxiliary function that essentially supports the primary and thus it's use remains unconscious to the will. So the next function to be differentiated is T, which becomes Ti when used consciously by the will. The reason for this is that in an Introverted Type, conscious use of a function will exist in the Introverted attitude and all inferior functions will exist in the Extraverted attitude.

This is my understanding of how the functions work in a nutshell. This is based entirely upon reading Psychological Types and not basing anything on Isabel Briggs-Myers' theory or John Beebe's.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Jung defined 'inferior function' essentially as an unconscious function. You have more than one. So if you're Ni, then your unconscious functions are Fe, Te, Se. He describes the second function as an auxiliary function that essentially supports the primary and thus it's use remains unconscious to the will. So the next function to be differentiated is T, which becomes Ti when used consciously by the will. The reason for this is that in an Introverted Type, conscious use of a function will exist in the Introverted attitude and all inferior functions will exist in the Extraverted attitude.
> 
> This is my understanding of how the functions work in a nutshell. This is based entirely upon reading Psychological Types and not basing anything on Isabel Briggs-Myers' theory or John Beebe's.


You are correct. But Jung is specific that the unconscious personality will be manifested through the inferior function. In fact in each description of the types he gives a treatise of the conscious personality as expressed through the dominant function and the unconscious personality (the counter-reaction if you will) expressed via the inferior. Von Franz spends an entire book on just this interplay and goes as far as to say you would do much better to type people accurately by looking at their inferior function and working backward (because of its relative lack of adaptability) than the other way around. 

Its important to distinguish though that Jung did consider that the superior function would be sovereign in consciousness and the other three functions would be largely unconscious, which as you point out means they might likely take the opposite or rejected attitude. This is also Myers' original thinking on the subject, and as I have routinely pointed out in the past, depending on when you were typed, INFJ would have been Ni-Fe-Te-Se. Jung also gives the consideration that any of the other functions can be in varying states of consciousness, so all three functions might be relatively inferior in their quality or manifestation or perhaps only one of them (and a well individuated person may not even have that). But the energy centers if you will surround dominant and its counter reaction, the inferior. THis is why its inappropriate for someone to say "I'm 100% extravert" because this person is just deluding himself of his own largely unconscious introversion. He is essentially really un-self-aware. I suspect though that the more conscious a function was (or more accurately the more ego-adapted a function was) the more it would take on the preferred attitude of consciousness, so that same INFJ could just as easily be Ni-Fi as his two top functions. It makes sense that two conscious functions would not so overtly conflict with one another as to have one introverted and one extraverted (this is not however the MBTI perspective, and one of the places where Myers differs from Jung, because MBTI the issue of 'consciousness' of a function is really left out of the picture, often replaced by some, if erroneously by ideas like 'strength of the function.' Those of us who study Jung know that you can have a strong, influential function that is still very unconscious, exerting a force without even the person's awareness of it which is an idea that seems somewhat ignored in MBTI). 

The point of the inferior is that it is the gateway to the shadow, or all of the things about ourselves that exist but that we are unaware of and as such it acts as a balancing agent to the ego or the conscious parts of us. Jungian psyche revolves around the idea of self-regulation, that if one aspect of the psyche became unbalanced, say someone who was egocentric, another aspect would rise up to pull things back into equilibrium, even if this was an uncomfortable psychological process for the person (most people might experience this as stress or depression, when to Jung it was a sign of imbalance and the need for re-establishing equilibrium). Thus, as Von Franz points out, the inferior carries the potential to sink the whole ship since it carries with it, the weight of the entirety of all things repressed. Your ego cannot withstand a full-fledged invasion of all that content, you'd probably have a meltdown, so the inferior function can act like a doorway that pulls a person toward their psychological center without flooding them in most cases (a grip episode, as Quenk defines it might be the closest thing to an inundation of unconscious content where the normal ego defenses have broken down). This process could be referred to in part as enantiodromia, or the process of things becoming their opposite. Jung was fixated on the idea of the tension of opposites and so his type ideas revolve around this idea, almost a ying/yang kind of thing going on. 

Jung himself seems to not say much about a third mental function (or the first aux for that matter), other than a few passing statements. And for most psychoanalytic work, its really more of an academic exercise than anything really useful. Von Franz occasionally dips into what happens when we assimilate a function and how it can delude us into thinking we've been that thing the whole time, and how the more unconscious a function is the harder it is to get to (that's sort of a no brainer), but herself doesn't spend much time on it either. Nor do Hillman or Meier or any of the other prominent Jungians who worked with or around him directly (in part because Psychological Types is meant largely to be more a way of looking at things and not necessarily taken as hard and fast rules to be used in the sort of operable way that MBTi and Grey-Wheelright attempt). It's really Harold Grant whose book Image To Likeness brought the idea that the third function would be the same attitude as the dominant into the picture about 30 years ago, but as I have pointed out on some other threads, this was and still remains a highly controversial theory, even if it is the prevailing one these days. I think a lot of people would argue it being unnecessarily rigid and forces people into boxes in which they may not fit (not all ENTP's for example may experience their Feeling to be extraverted).


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

LeaT said:


> No, the real question becomes - is a person who is an ENP but favors Fe as their conscious judging function an ENTP or an ENFP since their cognitive makeup would be Ne Fe Ti Si in that order?


ENTP and ENFP, Ne-Ti-Fe-Si, Ne-Fi-Te-Si respectively.

*Where I see Fe influence in an ENTP is how it demonstrates itself with efforts at peacemaking by explaining another's viewpoint or acting as defender or explainer of someone else.* The Ne-Ti combination is inseparable for ENTP because Ne is only perception, Ti wants to build or learn or discover something with those perceptions. Nobody can simply perceive and nothing more, I mean we don't live that way for any length of time. Being relatively *low Fe* myself, I tend to want to push my own idea more, and get impatient if I think something has been derailed or diverted by someone *else's* subjective issues, particularly if off topic, or not being dealt with in a direct way. Other types demonstrate more skill, or patience, or understanding?

*ENFP is tied strongly to Fi, which many ENFP's describe or experience as their values.* When ENFP's have strongly developed Te they have more skill to walk someone through a solution or possibility and motivate someone to act in line with the ENFP's values. When The ENFP's *Fi convictions* include being a peacemaker, you know this is different; it will be a different tact from the ENTP's desire to smooth things over. When Fe is higher (as opposed to very low) in proportion to Ti, even though Ti is still ultimately in control, an ENTP will be bothered by social tension and will divert from Ti, to Fe mode and back. The ENFP will be evaluating on conviction of right behavior, in regard to perceived social tension. From outside observance it could be difficult to determine if an ENP is concerned with values or concepts but I don't think it takes long into a discussion to see it.

*So in regard to the Op, I guess I'm saying I see the tertiary as a support function or balancing factor to the dominant judging function, of any particular type*.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Just felt like saying that I finally "get" the tert. not being the same orientation as the dom. argument (on the basis of "complexes" and "dealing with the outside world") - at least it's starting to sink in from that perspective. It's a frustrating topic, because your own experiences can be quite ambiguous, due to the nature of complexes and their "autonomy" from the ego, even when interacting with the ego.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Jung himself seems to not say much about a third mental function (or the first aux for that matter), other than a few passing statements. And for most psychoanalytic work, its really more of an academic exercise than anything really useful.


This I think deserves special emphasis and shows where MBTI fails - assuming people don't move beyond the apparent rigidity of MBTI.

Add to that that many may not even be differentiated enough to truly have a dominant function (and thus a type in the sense of how Jung defined their habitual behaviours) - although in terms of temperament they'd still most certainly wind up in some bracket.

While I not necessarily believe that all supporting functions of the dominant are of the opposite in terms of attitude when compared to the dominant I do think that only the dominant and thus the resulting inferior truly matters. Aux / Tert are likely to be swapped and/or drawn upon as needed - especially, since as their names imply, they aren't differentiated enough to have any reign - as such they shouldn't make a conscious impression/appearance. So basically the Aux/Tert are pretty moot in terms of personal growth on a deeper mental level - at least on the more theoretical level.

I am however unsure what to make of the state Jung referred to as self - thinking I've been there once and got only a glimpse I know that it combines all paradoxes to harmony - but as far as explanations go I wouldn't know how to put it. Granted, not being able to explain it makes only sense, as bringing together paradoxes to create harmony is everything but explainable or comprehensible by most. Still, looking at how Jung puts Shadow and Anima/Animus into contrast to the more conscious parts of the psyche while advocating acceptance and merging the contrasts it only makes sense, inevitably.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> ENTP and ENFP, Ne-Ti-Fe-Si, Ne-Fi-Te-Si respectively.
> 
> *Where I see Fe influence in an ENTP is how it demonstrates itself with efforts at peacemaking by explaining another's viewpoint or acting as defender or explainer of someone else.* The Ne-Ti combination is inseparable for ENTP because Ne is only perception, Ti wants to build or learn or discover something with those perceptions. Nobody can simply perceive and nothing more, I mean we don't live that way for any length of time. Being relatively *low Fe* myself, I tend to want to push my own idea more, and get impatient if I think something has been derailed or diverted by someone *else's* subjective issues, particularly if off topic, or not being dealt with in a direct way. Other types demonstrate more skill, or patience, or understanding?
> 
> ...


You clearly didn't understand my question. What I was saying is, is an ENP whose two *ego conscious *functions being Ne and Fe an ENTP or an ENFP? Why the focus on ego conscious? It matters because an auxiliary wouldn't be an auxiliary if it's not somewhat differentiated i.e. _the ego is consciousness of the auxiliary function_. Let me break this down to you: an ENFP is essentially an Ne dominant type with an auxiliary F function. Fe even though it's extroverted, would still be auxiliary if it's differentiated and being ego conscious. This means the function make-up of this ENP's psyche would be Ne - Fe - Ti - Si. 

Now however, the MBTI claims that if a type utilizes the functions Ne Fe Ti and Si it must be an ENTP *regardless* if the Ti is actually in the true auxiliary position in the psyche. This does not make a whole lot of sense. Also, no need for you to regurgitate MBTI logic to me again. That's not what I'm asking at all. Understand the above and what I just wrote, then we can have a real discussion.

@_Abraxas_ say something intelligent for me in relation to the above.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*Enfp* does not use Fe *it uses Fi*, whole different animal. Just because Ti is my preferred and typical judging function doesn't mean that I can't choose to slip into Fe mode if I need to be nice. I wont be doing Ti and Fe at the same time but my whole personality doesn't change. Maybe you are thinking of this as a sequential process instead of a framework that a person is comfortable with? Ne-fe as a personality would be like . . . . psychological prostitution? Telling people what they want to hear? Fe paired with another extroverted function for any length of time sounds like burn out, is all I'm saying. (imagine Fe-Se)

*I'm not suggesting Fe as an axillary to Ne,* *only that an ENTP can choose to use Fe, situationally,* particularly as they get older, although sometimes Ne-Ti can also do a stand-in for what looks like Fe too. Not sure if we clarified anything here but I would like to, if I haven't understood you so far.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

If you're mapping from one arbitrary, invented system onto another arbitrary, invented system, at some level, there's no "right" answer, at least not beyond the sense that you can point to an authority and say, "S/He says it, thus it is so".

If I consider that my functions, in order of psychological "preference" or "consciousness", are Ni-Ti-Fe-Se, does that make me an INFJ because I'm primarily an introverted Intuition type but my highest *extraverted *judgment function is Feeling? OR does it make me an INTJ because I'm primarily an introverted Intuition with Thinking being my next highest preference?

Or to go the other way around, if I identify as INFJ, what does it mean that my "tertiary" is Thinking when I clearly have more conscious access to Ti than I do to Fe? To what extent does the ordinal sequence actual mean anything?

Tertiary is a label we can give to something, but it seems like in this thread and elsewhere, people invest the label with different meanings and degrees of authority.

Also, I just want to pop this here, from @_reckful_:



reckful said:


> When Myers declared that the auxiliary function's attitude would be the opposite of the attitude of the dominant function (e.g., Ni-Te for INTJs), she acknowledged that that interpretation put her in the minority of Jung scholars.
> 
> I think this was a mistake, although it wasn't really a very significant "mistake" from Myers' perspective since, although she gave the functions quite a lot of lip service in the first half of Gifts Differing, she then essentially left them behind in favor of the dichotomies.
> 
> ...


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Okay.

So, say someone is intuitive.

Just so, whenever they are conscious of _anything at all_ - it comes across to them as intuitive, or not.

If it is not, then it gets repressed and forms the contents of the unconscious.

Those contents, _just are_, going to be made up of the other three functions all "mixed" together, because when something is unconscious to a person it is "undifferentiated."

... And, so those three unconscious functions will "appear" to _just be_ intuitive to that person, or not.

They don't _experience_ reality the same way that any other type does.

To an intuitive type, _everything is intuitive._

Everything just exists in _degrees of intuitiveness_.

Now, you can throw either introversion of extraversion as an overall conscious attitude onto this, and you get two _*types*_ of intuitive people.

Introversion and extraversion are best thought of as being _experienced_ in the same terms that we just described the functions with.

That is, to an introvert, reality _just is_ something subjective, and they are aware of it in that sense even without knowledge of philosophy or what have you. They will explain themselves that way. "I think this. I feel this. I believe this. It comes across that way to me. This is my opinion." They are so _fundamentally conscious of reality as something subjective_ that they are _almost completely unconscious of the possibility that it could be fundamentally objective instead - something they experience that they are not themselves in control of, but rather, in a way, a slave to._

And the _complete opposite_ is thus the case with an extravert, who _just is_ aware of reality as something they are participating in, as part of it, existing only within the boundaries of it, defined by it, and conceptualized through it.


Let's go back to what it's like to be an intuitive type for a second.

So, if everything is just intuitive, where is choice? Where is _judgment?_

That's precisely the thing. When everything is intuitive, _everything just flows._

Choice is devalued, not something that is seen as _desirable_ - at least, insofar as it would threaten the _flow_ of everything being or becoming more _intuitive_.

But, choices must be made - for as consciousness grows, one becomes forced to repress more and more aspects of a subjectively expanding personal universe.

As _making everything intuitive, be intuitive, come across intuitively, express itself intuitively_ is the theme of this type of person, this is the "agenda" to which all the other functions are unconsciously put to work.

Try to understand, the intuitive type is mostly _unconscious_ of the fact that _he must be making choices about *what he decides is intuitive, or what he learns is intuitive*_. Just so, _that which he perceives as intuitive, only comes across to him as intuitive, *because he is unconscious of it being a matter of choice, or a sensation.*_ Instead, _all the possible choices, and all the possible sensations, all express themselves to him through what is called *"intuition"*_. And, _just because they appear, all mixed together to him like this whenever he is conscious of them in this way, *then he is unconscious of them as being anything else.*_

Now, this begins to change, as via the natural process of psychic adaptation the lead intuitive type begins to get the _intuition_ that he ought to be making more choices about things, and that he ought to therefore _involve himself in the external world willfully._

To do this, he must develop one or the other form of judgment so that he has some basis for making choices and forming opinions.

Either he will find his empathy and emotions more familiar to him, easier to understand, and "more true" as a means to interpret the world - or, he will find that kind of solace only after having deeply contemplated matters and found logical conclusions to them.

Now again, insofar as he must make choices that reflect both his own personal biases, and the biases of those around him - which is taken to include, just whatever the world itself dictates is possible, versus just whatever he would wish _were_ possible, or might personally believe _really is_ possible - on a daily basis the intuitive type is going to have to choose one of these two "modes" if you will - introverted or extraverted - and make a primary identification with this as being their _egocentric_ attitude towards their own judgment biases - which then take on the conscious appearance to him as being either _matters of fact_, or _matters of opinion._

If, let's say an introverted intuitive type has his intuition suddenly up and tell him that he must _make a choice about something_ - and then let us say that his intuition shows him that this decision _must be made from the heart_ - then now where does he go? He is only barely conscious of the world as being a place neighborly to freedom itself - and now suddenly he becomes aware of the reality of choice, and that he must now make choices. So how does he do this? With his heart, certainly - for that is what his intuition has told him must be done, but upon what is he conscious of as the basis of his decision?

Well, being intuitive it would thus seem to be a matter of fact, to him, that he "ought to act" in just a certain fashion, and that this seems to him to be a totally intuitive thing, not something really requiring any deliberation or contemplation Just so, then he is almost completely unconscious of judgment - as it exists _only partially differentiated to him_ - in a semi-conscious way that is very primitive by contrast to someone who is _always_ conscious of it.

That kind of attitude comes across as being _extraverted_ - however, we can be certain that _they are themselves unconscious of it being extraverted_ - precisely so, because _they are themselves consciously *introverted.*_ Someone who is consciously introverted is never aware of something as _being_ extraverted, even if they express themselves in that way.

But, it would be absurd to then presume to label the introverted intuitive's auxiliary function _from the outside in_, looking at it from the way I just described, as someone observing the unconscious externalized aspect of it. Rather - that is like missing the forest for the trees.

Instead, one has to look at it from _within_, the way Jung himself conceptualized his own work.

To the introverted intuitive, just whenever _they_ are conscious of their own functions outside of intuition, they will seem _to them_ to be subjective to the core, reflecting their general introverted intuition that _everything is subjective to begin with_.

And so, you get these "breaks" in self-expression with certain introverted biases "mixed in" with their extraverted ones, demonstrating once again the way that the auxiliary functions lacks the kind of _strong differentiation_ that the dominant one has. They will see some things in an extraverted way, and talk about those things like an extravert would, but then they will sound very introverted when it comes to certain matters. Because you are facing a function that they themselves do not wield very well in consciousness, so too - these types of people are _extremely difficult to type correctly, remaining mostly an enigma throughout their lives, even to themselves._

Such is the case as well, with lead sensation types - only, one can at least make a stronger differentiation between someone being a sensor versus an intuitive type for other reasons.

But anyway, I hope I've quite clearly laid out the experience of "being" a Jungian type, from the _inside and outside_ - as I conceptualize it myself.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@*Abraxas* I appreciate you taking the time to lay out for us what has been going on in you own experience and type theory.

*I've said something that overlaps with this about Ti in a previous thread and just want to throw it out there for whatever it is worth.*

People living on a Ti-Fe axis (I know I'm making an assumption but there is something else here I'm trying to say)
My observation, in life but especially from PerC, has been that if someone has Ti, (any of their four functions) there is the sense that everything is made up, or negotiable in the sense that everything is somebody's perception, and so if you are going to survive, you learn how to get along, or create value for persons, or a group of persons, and beyond that . . . you get to do whatever you want, sort of.

Whereas with an Fi -Te, or Te-Fi axis, there is much more of a sense of absolutes. My values are my own inherent worth, and my standards are me(Fi) that I must adapt with, or compromise on, in order to face the facts of life defined by authority or proof (Te)

The above could be self serving I suppose, but sometimes I envy people who do more of what I call bulldozer mode that I think comes from that more absolute perspective.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> @*Abraxas* I appreciate you taking the time to lay out for us what has been going on in you own experience and type theory.
> 
> *I've said something that overlaps with this about Ti in a previous thread and just want to throw it out there for whatever it is worth.*
> 
> ...


Sure, that all makes sense.

But, the point remains that it's not necessarily the case that the subject, when asked to elaborate upon their own judgment themselves, will demonstrate a conscious disposition that reflects the attitude of their judgment.

So, basically what I mean is you have the case of the introvert who isn't aware of the way they sound, giving their opinion like it's a matter of fact (extraverted) - and even as you continue to press them, they give more and more matters of fact to back up their judgment. But, this is deceptive and one needs to always remain carefully aware of the difference between a person who is doing this _consciously_ - that is, they are first _aware_ of the _different_ perspectives available on the issue itself at hand - for instance, that there _is_ a subjective _and_ an objective point of view about it.

Often, the introverted irrational type or the extraverted irrational type is unaware of this distinction in many issues, precisely because their own judgment lacks enough differentiation to serve them well in some respect related to those issues. Whenever this is the case, either they are aware of their own opinion _as being_ a matter of opinion, _or being a matter of fact._ And they are _unconscious_ of it being the other way around, regardless of which way they end up seeing it.

Only a lead perceptive type who has actually _differentiated_ their judgment enough to be fully conscious of it would be able to tell the difference between a matter of opinion and a matter of fact with regard to whatever it was that they were relying on their judgment to evaluate. And, once they become aware of that difference, their overall conscious attitude of either introversion or extraversion, along with their dominant function - which is _always in control at all times_ - is going to _still somewhat bias_ their judgment, because the whole idea is that _they can never be just as conscious of their judgment as they can of their dominant perceiving function._ That will show up in the way that his patience for explaining himself is limited, reflecting - truly - the unconscious limit of his own rationalizations. After a while, he runs out of consciousness to offer, and being faced with what he doesn't know about, he will retreat into the place he is most familiar with - his dominant function attitude - becoming more and more introverted and subjective, arguing that "you just don't get it."

This manifests in the _disintegration_ of their persona - however, they won't recognize this happening in themselves, and so they are not in control of it. Rapidly, if you continue to push them, they will become defensive and hostile, even aggressive or violent if you keep going and accidentally stumble upon an unconscious complex that has formed a neurosis.

This same process happens with extraverts, only, rather than disintegrate into subjectivity, they disintegrate further into objectivity - trying to obscure any but the slightest _hint_ of their own biases "violating" the objective purity of whatever is being evaluated. Push them far enough and you become made a laughing stock, or even worse - you could be labeled a threat to society, or perhaps even a threat to yourself.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@_Old Intern_ 

I always find your perspective on the judging functions to be quite stimulating. You've given me a lot to think about, and your ideas have helped me contextualize some of my vague thoughts. I see the truth in your description here of the difference between Ti/Fe and Fi/Te.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Basically, the way I envision it is like this.

If you take your "average", "normal" type, who you just met and he's feeling totally normal and responsive.

Let's say they are an introvert.

As you begin to press them on more extraverted issues, just whatever extraversion their differentiated auxiliary judgment shows _begins to rapidly disintegrate_.

This, because _they are really introverts, *not extraverts*_.

Therefore, they are not as conscious of their own judgment as _being_ a matter of fact outside of just whatever reflects their limited range of introverted interests. Stick to the small range of things that they know about and take interest in, and the depth of their consciousness of those issues is absolutely astonishing, _far_ out-stripping any degree of extraversion even conceptually possible.

This is because it is _actually introverted, *not extraverted.*_

However - _whenever you two meet each other face-to-face or over the internet or whatever, like you and me are doing right now in fact, as writer-to-reader_ - this _necessarily implies an extraverted *attitude* is involved on both ends._

Thus, just whatever function I _prefer_ to "extravert" will _be_ the one about which _I am the most introverted_.

I hope that makes sense?


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

To me not really. Well look: Jung liked to be vague and speak generally and went in very long theories and stories and whatever..... And nowadays you put 100 smart people in the same room to talk about his work and you get 100 diferrent perspectives, everyone of them understanding something else. 

I think you are going on the same road. Simply put you are right in all you say, but you assume a whole lot of stuff that you don't explicitly tell the reader ( like: ok here I assume that there is such a thing as a function as an enitity, and not a function as a name given to a certain perspective ) which is quite important, because it makes your text hard to read ( yeah Jung had the exact same problem ). And you don't really seem to have a thesis, a start or a conclusion...

This all leaves me with this feeling of : " Ok all this makes sense. But what is the point ? "


----------



## The Madman (Feb 20, 2013)

As a science major, I like to look at the dominant-auxiliary-tertiary-inferior relationship through an analogy involving acids and bases. 

The relationship between the dominant-inferior can be viewed as a strong acid/base and conjugate base/acid relationship. The dominant is the strongest and most conscious function (thus, in my metaphor, being the strong acid/base). When a strong acid/base is converted to its conjugate base/acid, the conjugate base/acid is almost neutral in comparison. The inferior function, therefore, works mainly in the subconscious, only barely being noticed by the conscious and only being revealed when the other conscious function(s) fail.

The relationship between the auxiliary-tertiary can be viewed as a weak acid/base and conjugate base/acid relationship. A weak acid/base has a higher/lower pH than a strong acid/base, just as the auxiliary function is not as conscious as the dominant function, and merely serves as an assistant to it. However, the conjugate base/acid of a weak acid/base is not neutral in comparison, and it is still considered a base/acid. In the same way, the tertiary function, while being weaker than the auxiliary function, is still partially in the individual's conscious, and can serve a similar function as assistant to the dominant, though it is less effective.

The perceiving functions filter and organize information gained from the senses. The judging functions take this organized information, and use it to make judgements about the external/internal world. A healthy individual needs both. Therefore, he/she needs a perceiving function and a judging function. One is dominant, one is auxiliary to the dominant and only serves as an aid to the dominant.

I recall reading that functions have a dominant/inferior complex. Therefore, both the dominant and auxiliary functions will bring along two more functions (inferior and tertiary).

I threw this last part in as organizing the information I have read about the dominant/inferior complexes. I do not completely understand the judging complexes - what if someone believes that the methods to gaining efficiency and harmony are both objective and subjective?

Te/Fi = the method to gaining efficiency is objective, the method to gaining harmony is subjective
Ti/Fe = the method to gaining efficiency is subjective, the method to gaining harmony is objective
Ni/Se = the object itself is more important to perceive
Ne/Si = the connections between objects are more important to perceive 

Here is my theory. I think I am at least partially right; I may be completely wrong.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

The Madman said:


> As a science major, I like to look at the dominant-auxiliary-tertiary-inferior relationship through an analogy involving acids and bases.
> 
> The relationship between the dominant-inferior can be viewed as a strong acid/base and conjugate base/acid relationship. The dominant is the strongest and most conscious function (thus, in my metaphor, being the strong acid/base). When a strong acid/base is converted to its conjugate base/acid, the conjugate base/acid is almost neutral in comparison. The inferior function, therefore, works mainly in the subconscious, only barely being noticed by the conscious and only being revealed when the other conscious function(s) fail.
> 
> ...


Your Ni/Se isn't wrong its just backwards. What you wrote more accurately describes Se-->Ni. 

Efficiency and harmony are not necessarily components of the functions. Efficiency and harmony could, at best, be byproducts of Thinking and Feeling (specifically Te and Fe) but that isn't necessarily what the functions explicitly do. Feeling, again, should not be confused for harmony seeking, but rather is a form of evaluation. One of the translations of the word value in German to English is feeling, thus all the misunderstandings. Thinking is not efficiency seeking explicitly, but the nature of trying to deduce the most logical point between two things can express itself as efficiency, especially in the form of Te (but efficiency and harmony are loaded words that can take on a variety of different meanings, that most often lean more toward the extraverted side of the equation in common vernacular). 

People make the mistake of thinking that Feeling is harmonious, or that feeling types are harmonious, and while they can be, should that be what their ego desires so can any other type. The function itself simply deals with evaluation. You have to be able to discern to value of something, it's worth, its importance, its significance and these are all methods of judgment that thinking on its own cannot deduce. Thinking cannot tell you whether or not something is nice, or pretty, or distasteful because there is no way to reduce those things down to logic components, so the idea of the Feeling function is that it handles these other less conceptual ways of rationale. Whether or not that results in someone being pleasant or harmonious, however is a completely different story.

Sensation, in its purest form tells us that something is. That it exists and as such becomes a perspective that really focuses on the here and now. On the factual, the practical, the information or evidence at hand. The sensation type may trust only that which is evident dismissing (or having an inconsistency) about those things that are metaphysical, or otherwise non-apparent. I always say the mantra of the Sensation type is 'i'll believe it when I see it,' or 'show me the proof.' If sensation tells us that something is via our five senses, then intuition is that sixth sense that, in Jung's words, basically tells us where it came from and where its going. The key here is that it does this WITHOUT evidence. That is why it stands in contrast to Sensation, because the intuitive never takes anything at face value, always sees something beneath the surface and probably becomes miffed at someone who is too caught up in the here and now, missing 'the bigger picture.' 

Whether or not the person's Sensation or Intuition function (or Thinking or Feeling for that matter) is introverted or extraverted is a secondary matter (one in which people get entirely too caught up in, especially when dealing with auxiliary functions). It really only makes a difference in the dominant position. Even if he's a Si-dom the person is still oriented to sensation, the physical, the here and now, the matter of fact. Its just that sensation is represented in a purely subjective way (relates back to the personal experience) with Si (the problem with Si is that too often people over-focus on Ne, sort of an internet phenomenon, because people I think view Ne as some sort of 'magical' function and they miss that the quirkiness or novelty of perspective actually comes from Si being the introverted function).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think it's common for Si and Ni doms to generally come from the same general perspective on their inferior function projections, namely, thinking the Pe dom is kind of shallow or always having pointless accidents/making pointless mistakes of reasoning (I mean, these aren't even necessarily untrue at times - Jung speaks of the Pe doms as almost basing their existence around an apparent series of accidentals - but of course, these types are the masters of the accidentals as well - they usually know what they're going for with them, I would think). I mean, I know some Si doms who get annoyed at those people who "try to predict the latest trends" or "try to predict which team will win" or "who are the intellectuals ruining the economy" what have you, and with Ni doms, there's the common tendency for them to view Se doms as kind of focused on pointless nonsense or sort of mentally pigeonhole them all as super duper shortsighted and incapable of seeing the bigger picture (or maybe see them as kind of unoriginal, since they are "conditioned by the object"). Now, these projections might be half-truths sometimes (at best - they could potentially be pure nonsense as well, hence the all-or-nothing tendencies around the inferior), but would also reflect projections of the Pi dom's own tendencies around their shadier (or at least what might get conceptualized by the shadow as "shady," even if it isn't objectively bad at all) motives. I'd argue the more a person owns their shadow, the more these projections will actually have a basis in reality and not in their nonsensical projections (I mean, I know Pi doms of both stripes who can generally evaluate the negative qualities of the shadow type based on more reasonable evidence (like, they might come to respect the ego of the Pe dom, but realize that it's the shadow of that person that's what really bugs them, maybe, if anything - at least that would make sense when it's more-or-less the case), while some others are completely deluded about their own issues there, let alone, might even mistake themselves for the other type, because they totally deny into oblivion that they have shadow influences, even though other people practically know everything about the person's shadow because it hangs out so much - Jung talks about some people who everyone knows all of their issues behind their backs without them having to say anything about them, which is kind of the person's downfall at a certain point (we've all seen this, often in the person who can't take any criticism or who might show control freak tendencies). Often, with introverts, this would be more noticeable, since their shadow is extraverted in manifestation as the basic rule (doesn't mean other functions can't manifest in an inferior state though). In this regard, every type is equal for sure (I mean, bad intuition at worst to Jung in my estimation seemed to be the person who bars all metaphysical considerations (they try to) - the person who bars people from hoping or any such coping mechanism with reality - they might make really weird/archaic assumptions about you and your weaknesses) - bad sensation is kind of the person who...I dunno, just kind of shows zero consideration for anything other than their own mental nonsense (you kind of know these when you see these - might be the person who just kind of has a way of revolting everyone (not as a rule, but might just be one characteristic manifestation of those who have an all-around inferior personality), namely because they show their own revolt for the object/subject as they kind of become one with it), inferior thinking might be the person who is basically a dictator full of absolutely nonsensical thoughts about the outside world/themselves that are rooted in half-baked assumptions about a person's morality, and inferior feeling might be the person who is pretty much a secret slave driver who hates on anything that doesn't fit their ideas/ideals of their own identity (inferior Fe might be manipulative/outright wounding to feeling/person wants to see you have a negative reaction, while inferior Fi might be bigotted, loaded with resentment at the outside world for not living up to their ideals, prone to insults if something doesn't line up with them, etc.).


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*This has been an awesome thread so far! (in my opinion)* :happy:

*Some stuff to chew on, definitely.*
*@Abraxas* I think I get what you are saying, though I don't quite have it in a neat theoretical package (yet) for how to apply everything. I didn't exactly think of myself as extroverted, or found it debatable, before coming on this site. 
I believe there is some value to how Ne-Ti has gray edges for me as one slides into the other. Some ENTP's would not be able to be our best selves if we are not occasionally willing to drink our own kool-aid?

*Definitely, a few people in my extended family have let me know they see me as someone who can't be told anything. *I've seen this more as a gap between how much I actually hear, and my ability to make someone else feel that they have been heard? I do take time with making an effort on these things, with ongoing relationships, when a bump in the road shows up. But have also had times when I find it hard to believe someone else doesn't see what I see? I can see this tying in with your explanation of introversion, only in reverse. It would explain why I like business, because it is understood that both sides are full out prepared to negotiate or make their point. I like it, or expect it, for someone to push back, and will turn on a dime if something makes sense to me. I have a few introverted people in my life that I show more restraint with, knowing it is necessary if I want to hear what is going on with them. That lines up with what you are saying too?

*@TheRevaN *I find myself referring to functions as entities. It takes too long to say it another way? There are a few management authors who talk about how we all have a team inside our heads, in that case referring to roles not functions but the idea is similar?

*@LiquidLight* my understanding of efficiency or harmony, would be that from an "adaptive", survival of species kind of way, things boil down to those elements, even though that's not the way we think about it in daily life? So in that context harmony for Fi is an inner harmony or sense of order, and Fe is about cooperation. Your comments? I've seen this theme in old movies? A choice of relationship sacrifice, or loss of integrity?

@*The Madman*, Your definitions resonate with what I have been thinking. I would like to hear if other Ni or Ne users see this as on target about their own experience. 

@*JungyesMBTIno* Could it be that you are sometimes more tentative than you appear (Te aux) And I am sometimes more reflective than I appear (Ti aux)?

*@Teybo*, we have had some good back and forth! Thank you again.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

The Madman said:


> Te/Fi = the method to gaining efficiency is objective, the method to gaining harmony is subjective
> Ti/Fe = the method to gaining efficiency is subjective, the method to gaining harmony is objective
> Ni/Se = the object itself is more important to perceive
> Ne/Si = the connections between objects are more important to perceive


Your description of Ni/Se is really more a description of Se.

For Se types, the meaning of a sensory experience lies in the object. Unlike Si, there's no need to connect a line from the current sensory experience with previous ones in order to derive meaning. The meaning is just there, in the object. Sometimes Se types are described as being instinctual, like they "just know" how to react to sensory experiences. It's not that they have some connection with instinct, it's just that they treat their sensory experiences as full carriers of meaning, so when something dynamic happens, all the information they need to react to the change is contained in the experience itself. This may be why ESP's sometimes seem un-phased by crisis situations, and why they may seem like "non-planners": All the information you need is right in front of you, and if something is missing, you'll deal with it when it pops up. Why panic?

For Ni types, the meaning of a sensory experience lies in the individual context that an object elicits within us. Jung described intuition as perception by way of the unconscious, so in a certain sense, for Ni the meaning of a sensory experience is disconnected from the actual sensory experience itself. The connection is there, to be clear, it's just unconscious. Ni dominants are not walking around hallucinating all the time, after all. But this is partly why Ni is seen as "mystical" (barf), because perceived meaning is subjective. To this effect, Jung even said that Ni-dominants will likely sound crazy if they say what they really perceive, as it seems wholly disconnected from objective reality.


----------



## The Madman (Feb 20, 2013)

@Teybo 
So, basically, Se analyzes what the object objectively means, and Ni analyzes what the object subjectively means?
Both functions are still analyzing the object itself, rather than connections between objects, as Si and Ne do. That was what I was trying to explain with my definition in my other post.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I hope that makes sense?


You always make *too* much sense. It always puts me back in my place. :tongue:


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

I'm not going to reference any theory here, just my own experience with my tertiary function. 

For me, though I would say Te is my inferior function, I use it far more than I would Ni. My Fi and Te get more usage than any other functions that I am supposed to have. 


Now, it could be that I notice its existence more because its extraverted but then again I don't really notice my usage of my perceiving functions. Se is just something I do. It's not something I really care about or think about.


If I were to pick up in my Ni, it's usually the thing that drives me insane. It can have it's good days, where I feel I have reached an epiphany but most of the time it's that nagging feeling that tells me something that has an "underlying" meaning to it. Whether its good or bad, it sometimes can send me to the point of anxiety; if I don't stop myself.


I have a love hate with Ni. It's great for finding connections for me, and offering me insight but it also gives me information I rather not hear. Most of the time, the latter happens.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

The Madman said:


> @_Teybo_
> So, basically, Se analyzes what the object objectively means, and Ni analyzes what the object subjectively means?
> Both functions are still analyzing the object itself, rather than connections between objects, as Si and Ne do. That was what I was trying to explain with my definition in my other post.


Technically, Si also analyzes what the object subjectively means, and Ne also analyzes what the object objectively means. That's why I felt the need to clarify. But yes, as far as I see it, Se/Ni finds meaning while liberating the object from conscious "connections", while Ne/Si finds meaning while unifying the object with conscious "connections".


----------



## CuratorOfWeird (Jun 13, 2012)

According to the cognitive function models that are used to track functional behaviors, is it possible that the applicability of a model depends on the individual? For example, my cognitive function preferences may follow a pattern which resembles those which Jung described and as an INFP, Si remains relatively irrelevant throughout my lifetime, while another INFP's cognitive function preferences may develop in accordance with the more "linear" MBTI model making Si more pronounced and developed. Considering the fact that these cognitive function models are themselves products of varying cognitive preferences, it seems plausible.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

On Dario Nardi's Reddit Q&A he mentions that he's seen people show strong use of their tertiary patterns as they age.



Seems to me that you have loops, functions 1 + 3 and a minor loop, functions 2 + 4, your introversion/extroversion loops.

You also have 1 + 4 and 2 + 3, the perception/judgement axes. 

Your loops conspire and your axes spin. No function is negligible, each has an equal effect on your life, regardless of your prowess with it. Each has a unique way of setting you up to succeed and fail.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*It’s an interesting thought, that to an introvert, the introverted functions are more real or trustworthy and to the extrovert, the extroverted functions are more real.* It would explain some things but I’m not sure quite how this would work across the board. We have* three factors that overlap* and that is what makes this complicated? *Introversion and extroversion*, we know from life and demonstrations on PerC, that these attitudes are not black and white but more like shades of gray. We also have discussed how thinking and feeling may work in terms of a* judgement axis* with an accompanying "philosophy", and how this may be a layer of its own. And then the idea of *differentiation* plays a part. Differentiation becomes complicated at the point of discussion where the person truly doesn’t know what they don’t know, so we don't need to go too deep into that for examples.

ENTP as an example, will have difficulty knowing the difference between Ne-Ti when applied to people vs actual use of Fe (a matter of differentiation, tertiary). My own example would be (this seems common on PerC and includes my own experience), that most ENTP's will be quite accurate at predicting likely behavior of individuals in a given set of circumstances, but far less likely to comprehend how persons might feel in the given situation. However, If I am watching tone of voice and body language on a customer, I may genuinely notice a “flag” that says I need to ask a question or do something to smooth things and re-engage a prospect. In this scenario I have the level of concern from my judgement axis perspective, plus the fact that Fe is extroverted but not my preferred function. Chances are, yes, I will believe I understand what is going on with the prospect and will feel the need to act with some offer of harmony. Ti, will however not let me jeopardize my larger purpose, and will moderate what I say carefully. Ne will allow me to walk away with either the sense that follow up is worthwhile or not, rather than accept a problematic deal. Experience and confidence in use of Ti plays a big factor too. 

But let’s use another example (just to make a point, please don’t holler typism anyone) ENFP, using strong Fi. If Fi is strong, would this mean it is undifferentiated from Ne, or that the person’s life experience has caused them to rely heavily on Fi for whatever reasons, or would it mean that this person may be only slightly extroverted? Do they believe their own Fi is objective, or just worth pushing on until they get a response they are satisfied with? Could be any or all of the above? I've used an extroverted example because that comes to mind, maybe it can be looked at inversely too?

*@Abraxas* I woke up with this question earlier today and wondered if I am following implications of what you said or not. There may or may not be an answerable question here, yet, but interesting . . . .


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> If Fi is strong, would this mean it is undifferentiated from Ne, or that the person’s life experience has caused them to rely heavily on Fi for whatever reasons, or would it mean that this person may be only slightly extroverted?


No this is a big problem with trying to mix and match MBTI with Jung. A highly differentiated function to Jung, that is, a very conscious function would probably take the conscious attitude, so an ENFP's Feeling would become extraverted. Because extraversion dominates the conscious sphere where the functions operate. (this is all assuming a person whose predilection toward introversion or extraversion were fairly apparent -- Jung also suggests that in many cases even this may not be true). 

It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a person would have very strong conscious introversion if their dominant function was extraverted. That's absolutely not how Jung's theory worked. Jung suggested these other three functions would take the opposite attitude of the dominant (Myers' interpretation) because they were relatively unconscious and the unconscious represents the rejected attitude. If a person's developed a secondary function into consciousness it seems problematic that it would take the rejected attitude. That conflicts heavily with Jung's idea of the axis being between dom/inferior and conscious/unconscious. It completely destroys the notion of the need for an inferior function for that matter. 

Myers' seems uninterested in the two lower functions, by a number of accounts, figuring that to simply be 'the dark side,' (not sure if she really meant shadow in the Jungian way though). Her focus in developing a tool to indicate functions was on dominant and auxiliary (more true of introverts) and so MBTI basically ignores the whole concept of conscious function vs. unconscious counter-reaction and instead just focuses largely on balance between dom-aux. That is a whole theory of its own, and one that's hard to match with Jung. Jung himself seemed to think that he was largely Ti-Ni (clearly that's evident in the nature of his writing style, he'd be sort of the classic case of both of those functions given the way he described them). 

So you are making the _assumption_ that an Extraverted Intuitive's second function will be introverted (Myers makes the same assumption, but a number of studies don't seem to bear it to be true in real people -- and how would you test for an aux function anyway its hard enough to find the dominant? We just _assume_ INFP's second function is Ne you couldn't really test for this outright). It could be, but this may also just represent a lack of development or differentiation. There are a number of people that I've observed who appear to be Sensation + Thinking or vice-versa and yet even if their Te or Se is noticeable the second function might vary wildly in actual cases. Again trying to apply Harold Grant's type rules to real people in this way is suicide. Reynierse and Harker's studies clearly disproved any notion that you could make the assumption of an identifiable second or third function in this way. It's often quite evident what a person's top two functions are. Joe Biden seems pretty clearly to favor Sensation and Feeling, for example. And is pretty clearly extraverted. But is his feeling Extraverted or Introverted? Beats the hell out of me. Von Franz claimed Sigmund Freud for being an Introverted Feeling type with a healthy amount of intuition. From most accounts of Freud's personality that seems reasonable, and yet Freud would not be an INFP. We'd have no way to prove he definitively used Ne, or that Einstein used Ne and was an INTP. But we can clearly spot Thinking and Intuition in Einstein. That's about as far as one can reasonably hope to go with typing, attempting to place all these hard and fast rules, on something that was never meant to be work that way (and Jung himself pleaded for people to not do that) completely misses the point and is just an exercise in futility. 

You can't say "ENTP's will do x in most cases," because you are working backwards drawing conclusions from behaviors, which are a higher-order way of looking at things, and possibly misattributing the root cause. An ENTP who isn't empathetic to the people around him might be more because of socialization than anything else. We certainly couldn't say that of all Extraverted Intuitives who also favor Thinking.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> I woke up with this question earlier today and wondered if I am following implications of what you said or not. There may or may not be an answerable question here, yet, but interesting . . . .


Essentially, in Jungian psychology, you can't be fully conscious of more than one function at the same time.

Rather, you prioritize your consciousness as if it were a resource - and in that sense, we can define it as "psychic libido" the way Jung does. This is what Jung actually means by it when he talks about a "flow of libido" either to and from the object, or to and from the subject.

So, understand that Jung means to define consciousness as several things - on the one hand, it is a resource like this which I "invest" into different aspects of reality. Just wherever I invest it the most becomes the basis of my _ego_, and so it is where I am the most confident and least defensive during a discussion or in practice. Also, it means that I can tell the difference between whatever it is I am aware of and everything else; that is, I am aware of the existence of things in a certain way. Also, it means that I can distinguish the parts of things from their wholes - as, for instance, the skin, core, stem, and meat of an apple - or, apples as parts of trees, which belong to forests, and so on - all constituting _systems within systems._

That kind of _awareness_ is always directed into one of four _types_ of conscious functions, and also possesses either an introverted or an extraverted psychic libido orientation, or _"attitude."_

Earlier I described what it would be like to actually experience consciousness as if one were an introverted intuitive type.

Allow me to extend this illustrative in order to complete the picture by contrasting it against a rational type, in this case, a thinking type.


So, to first briefly recapitulate the key points in what I said before about the irrational type,

With perception dominating judgement, my ego is most satisfied when I do not have to engage in anything other than pure perception. This means that I try to eliminate choices by living my life efficiently - just how I achieve this "efficiency" depends on factors beyond the scope of Jungian psychology to determine, it only predicts the motive for _minimizing choices in order to maximize perceptions_. The reasoning behind this is simple, when I am left alone to perceive things I am most happy, so my judgment is put to use simply to live a "smooth" life, effective and practical at producing just whatever it is that I enjoy experiencing.

If I am an extravert, then I am most confident when my perception is grounded in everything that seems to be _happening to me and is beyond my control_, because the more I perceive all of that, the more information I have, _and so the less effort I have to put into making choices and exercising judgment._ This is just true as a general rule, because I always want to be in the mode that is most familiar to me, as that is where I instinctively believe I am the most confident and capable.

Truly, what comes to be the case is that, being an extraverted _perceiving type_ most importantly, _I could really care less what the orientation of my auxiliary judgment is - as my attitude will ultimately just be, towards both, *"whatever gets it done."*_

This is because _what comes first *is always perception, always*_.

And then, just because I'm an extravert, _*everything extraverted.*_

After that, _*everything else gets in line*_ and you get layers of a person's ego, reflecting levels of unconsciousness they have about both themselves and the reality around them. The deeper you go, the less that person has invested their conscious libido, which a given person just has only so much of, due to the constraints of time and space. As you do this, they will just have no information to give you if you ask for any regarding just whatever they are unconscious of, as they are _truly unconscious of it.
_
The rational type is the complete contrary to all of this.

With this type, nothing matters more than _choice_ - for choice is _freedom_ and without some degree of real freedom of at least some limited sort, a thing does not truly _exist_ at all, does it?

So imagine a person with that kind of ego-complex as the foundation of their reality, you see?

To them, perception is the slave, and it's job is to maximize choice by bringing in just all that information which the perceiver has such an over-abundance of. But, the rational type is the great organizer and creator of systems - in essence, _perception divides information up, and judgment brings it back together again in a never-ending cycle called "consciousness."_

And just because of this, we have two existentially distinct kinds of entities - _*and bare with me, because we can get very archetypical about this and start talking about all of this in mythological terms if we really wanted to, because that is what we are actually talking about, as I keep repeating over and over. Jung was a mystic and practiced alchemy in his later years - he even wrote a whole book about alchemy which you can buy on Amazon.com, and I suggest you do.*_

We can start talking about yin and yang, or _Aesir-Vanir_, or the Olympians and the Titans, or the Asuras and the Devas.

This _is what Jung means_ when he is talking about the way the archetypes manifest from within us.

Just whatever that _process is inside of us that generates these re-occuring universal motifs_ - that process is something _built in_, which actually constructs our consciousness and our entire experience of "external" reality itself, and it just so happens that we all _seem_ to share the same process, and therefore we have this shared agreement in the existence of a so-called "objective" natural world.

_That_ is what it is like to look introversion itself in the face. To see that very process itself _at work_ in extraverted society, the *invisible hand of Adam Smith*, pulling the strings, *the American Gods of Neil Gaiman* who don't just reflect the ambitions and truth of our natures - *they are actually real aspects of each person's subjective reality itself, which each person must decide to confront or to ignore.*

Introversion is going so far into the realm of the subjective that you begin to understand solipsism not as something trivial that philosophers thought up just to be laughed at and then ignored, but as a very _serious_, very _real_ problem - along with the subject-object problem, and indeed, the very _hard problem of consciousness_ itself. These are _real_ problems because they threaten the very _context for *anything to be legitimately and logically considered "real" at all.*_

Thus, these are _very true, very *fundamental*_ threats to the way of life that all human beings seek to uphold in a sane and rational manner, and in a sense that makes them no less of a challenge or a threat than achieving world nuclear disarmament, or some kind of planetary missile-defense against a possible asteroid collision that would wipe us all out. These issues are conceptual, but still just as real and just as dangerous, and require the careful time and thought and effort of many individuals in order to preserve and maintain the way of life that we, as a species, are compelled to follow.

Now, just for practice in order to see all of this at work and ground it in something real, try, sometime, prying into the subjective side of an extraverted type's opinions.

You will notice how, once you begin to go a little bit deeper and a little bit deeper into the introspective, reflective, and introvreted side of a topic, the extravert begins to have less and less to offer, as they are naturally less conscious of that aspect of reality. But the reverse is the case in practice with introverts. You find that they are, themselves, more than willing (and often you have to tell them to stop) to provide a seemingly endless wealth of personal thoughts, feelings, sensations, intuitions, etc, about just whatever you are discussing - but when you stop them for just one moment to get some _cold hard facts and evidence_, they come up with nothing or start to run out very quickly. After that, push them for more extraversion, and they will become extremely defensive, or even just start making up information out of desperation.

But, these are all extreme examples, and Jung also disclaims these kinds of conceptually extreme versions of real people, because in reality _nobody is this one-sided and two-dimensional._


However, it is still useful to think about it this way in order to begin to understand the psyche, in my opinion.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

The tertiary function is present and active during all stages of development, but begins to develop into its own after the first two functions have already begun. It conflicts with the second function - introducing a presence at odds with what is familiar despite it being an integral part of your make up. It introduces a role one adopts, although less prominent and obvious during interactions than the first two functions preference. Through the third function the fourth function can be experienced... once being comfortable overcomes insecurity, given sufficient development and time has passed.

Or so I currently understand.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

superdooper said:


> I think it's just how each type naturally matures. For example, the more I spend time engaging in debate with other people, the more I develop my Ti.
> 
> I don't think you can pinpoint specific times you use the functions because you use them all the time, it's just you may not use them very well or as effectively as people older/more mature than you.
> 
> ...


He doesn't use the terminology "dominant inferior" but Jung does talk about that interplay. Read Jung's Ni description. He says the Ni-dom's chief repression is Se. Jung knew Ni needed data from the environment (Se) to function properly.

Anyway, what you mentioned before is correct - the auxiliary is the "growth function" that differentiates immature from mature, say, ENTP and INTJ. They have an emotional balance with proper tertiary development - i.e., the ENTP isn't constantly trolling and the INTJ isn't a total asshole 24/7. But yeah, I conceive of dom-aux as Batman and Robin. :crazy:


----------

