# 2nd function



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Yes, I do know that one shouldn't even use functions with MBTI(because it's pure crap, approved by nobody) and in Socionics, it's such a mess where almost every person of note has his own "model" and it ends up as crap anyhow. But please do indulge me:

Jung does say that an auxilliary function should be different than primary in every way, yes. But! His whole concept of PT is organised as such as to progress from very important stuff to their less important consenquences. With this said, Jung spends a considerable amount of time dwelling on Prometheus < - > Epimetheus myth. He also postulates that a person is made of two layers: conscious and unconscious where the conscious layer is actually a function of unconscious layer(this is to say that unc actually directs a person if you don't get math jargon). He also notes that we can think of the functions in those layers as a planet and its moon. So, you have a lead conscious and a lead unconscious function with their respective satelites. Now, don't quote me which is the lead unconscious one, because it isn't important for this discussion anyhow. So let's focus on the conscious(I'll use ESFP as an example):

The leading conscious function of ESFP would be an Se and its satelite is a function from the F spectrum. The lead unconscious function would be a clean diagonal from Se(if I got it right) and that would make it Ni with its satelite from the T spectrum. Now, these two stated ones are obviously 1st and 4th-the most conscious and the most unconscious one. Both influence our behaviour a great deal, 4th perhaps even more so. Now, here's a question:

"WHICH ORIENTATION DO THOSE TWO FUNCTIONS HAVE?"

According to me, reckful and Jung's later thoughts(not to mention his WHOLE CONCEPT of PT!), it'd be SeFeTiNi.
According to Myers, it'd be SeFiTiNi
According to Grant, Berens et al it'd be SeFiTeNi.

I'll just try to show graphically why I think that it's SeFeTiNi(with a little explanation):

Keep in mind that one part of psyche is Prometheus and the other Epimetheus-which is to say that one is clearly oriented in one direction while the other is another. Like two planets with different spins(which'd say that their satelites NEED TO/MUST rotate around them which'd say in the same direction as them!). So here, this is, for example, Prometheus of ESFP:

*PROMETHEUS: SeFe
**EPIMETHEUS: TiNi*
(or in short):


*SeFe**TiNi*


It's actually fairly simple and logical, even to feelers and perceivers. But this would shift the whole spectrum of types. My only question is:

DOES THIS HAVE ANY SENSE? 
and
What is your take on 2nd function?

edit: To think that the correct order is SeFiTeNi is foolish because if one looks at the first part of psyche as Prometheus and the second part as Epimetheus...what are the odds of Prometheus randomly gaining a layer from Epimetheus' book and vice versa? IT'S CRAZY! AND WRONG! If you must, rather use pure dichotomies or if you simply have to use functions, use Jung model:

SeFeTiNi explains quite nicely why are ESFPs so popular. With both Se and Fe...how can't they be? This would also explain the common mistype of ESFP as an ESFJ because ESFJ would look like thus: FeSeNiTi. A minimal difference. NOT TO MENTION THAT:

Jung admitted in his later years that he had severe trouble with self type. He admitted to being an INT but he also said that "...it was a sweet pain to choose which". Now, if you think how Grant and his disciples would, answer this please:

WOULD YOU HAVE TROUBLE BETWEEN THESE TWO?

NiTe
TiNe

OR IS THIS PAIN(that is to say choice) MORE DELECTABLE(that is to say sweet)?

NiTi
TiNi

Keep in mind that this is all Jung's work and if he had trouble with self type...I know exactly which answer is the correct one. And I suspect that most of you do as well.
*
Thank you!*


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

I have no idea what you're going on about.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

emberfly said:


> I have no idea what you're going on about.


The core of Jung's types mon amie! Entropic, reckful et al will explain it better if you got lost in mine.

This was aimed at them not at the avg user, I admit. Because there is something fishy about these functions that doesn't quite align with PT imo.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Ixim said:


> The core of Jung's types mon amie! Entropic, reckful et al will explain it better if you got lost in mine.
> 
> This was aimed at them not at the avg user, I admit. Because there is something fishy about these functions that doesn't quite align with PT imo.


Yeah, that's the problem with vague descriptions, thought the SeFe part matches with base and demostrative in socionics. If I recall well, only the dom is conscious so that also matches with that part of model A, as the Fe won't be detected while it's being used. Anyway, this can explain the mess with quasi identical types.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Gonna tag the guys you directed this at, so they notice it quicker. :laughing: @_Entropic_ @_reckful_ 



Ixim said:


> This was aimed at them not at the avg user, I admit. Because there is something fishy about these functions that doesn't quite align with PT imo.


Why are you automatically assuming that Jung is _correct_? I'm not sure that he is infallible on the topic simply because he was the first to codify it.



Blue Flare said:


> Yeah, that's the problem with vague descriptions, thought the SeFe part matches with base and demostrative in socionics.


I have to admit, my first reaction was "_why not_ Fe as the demonstrative function?".


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Yes, I do know that one shouldn't even use functions with MBTI(because it's pure crap, approved by nobody) and in Socionics, it's such a mess where almost every person of note has his own "model" and it ends up as crap anyhow. But please do indulge me:
> 
> Jung does say that an auxilliary function should be different than primary in every way, yes. But! His whole concept of PT is organised as such as to progress from very important stuff to their less important consenquences. With this said, Jung spends a considerable amount of time dwelling on Prometheus < - > Epimetheus myth. He also postulates that a person is made of two layers: conscious and unconscious where the conscious layer is actually a function of unconscious layer(this is to say that unc actually directs a person if you don't get math jargon). He also notes that we can think of the functions in those layers as a planet and its moon. So, you have a lead conscious and a lead unconscious function with their respective satelites. Now, don't quote me which is the lead unconscious one, because it isn't important for this discussion anyhow. So let's focus on the conscious(I'll use ESFP as an example):
> 
> ...



1) This is waaaay too abstract. Who cares about Epi/Prometheus? 

2) This sort of discussion is going to quickly run afoul of terminology. ESFP, in our collective (un)consciousness, is a thing. There is a shared cognitive abstraction/archetype/stereotype associated with it. So, if you are going to call ESFP SeFeTiNi - then they aren't ESFP anymore and it is far better to scrap the whole thing and rebuild it from scratch to try to shake off those attachments. 

3) Typical, normal ESFPs will show Fi. Fi in and of itself. If you are going to go by this approach while still trying to maintain previous archetypal attachments, you'd want to transform ESTP, rather than ESFP, to SeFeTiNi. I do this regularly, in a vain hope of making this function stack model work in my observations.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> Gonna tag the guys you directed this at, so they notice it quicker. :laughing: @_Entropic_ @_reckful_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know. Jung _could_ _be_ _wrong_, but I kinda doubt it. It's like saying that Bernars-Lee was wrong when he concepted the www. Maybe there are points that could be improved and there most likely are, but who would know that shit better than him? I think nobody.

If we see it in relations, nobody can know this shit better than one who concepted it. This does not mean he is right, but he is surely more right than Myers family(them both hadnothing to do with psychology) or other offspring that generated from these half wrong teachings-Myers teachings that is.

And as for Aušra...she wasn't a psychologist as well. She was an economist and a sociologist iirc. She wasn't interested how people operate(like Jung) but how and why do they form social units with specific people. Of course that this eventually tapped into psychology, but it's clearly more of a sociological tool than a psychological. Surprise, surprise.

I am just interested what the most respected people around here(not only entropic and reckful lol, they only came to mind first) think about this burning issue.

Just fyi: I see myself as FiSi, not FiSe!


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

arkigos said:


> 1) This is waaaay too abstract. Who cares about Epi/Prometheus?
> 
> 2) This sort of discussion is going to quickly run afoul of terminology. ESFP, in our collective (un)consciousness, is a thing. There is a shared cognitive abstraction/archetype/stereotype associated with it. So, if you are going to call ESFP SeFeTiNi - then they aren't ESFP anymore and it is far better to scrap the whole thing and rebuild it from scratch to try to shake off those attachments.
> 
> 3) Typical, normal ESFPs will show Fi. Fi in and of itself. If you are going to go by this approach while still trying to maintain previous archetypal attachments, you'd want to transform ESTP, rather than ESFP, to SeFeTiNi. I do this regularly, in a vain hope of making this function stack model work in my observations.


1) Jung does. Consenquentially, we should because it quite clearly tells us how to use this.

2) In fact, they are ESFP and the primordial picture of it! It doesn't matter what we refined it to, it is what it is. A "colour"(bad term) black is what it is, no matter if you say "black", "schwarze", "*****", "kara / siyah", "černo / crno / etc" or whatever else. And I am aiming right at the nature of this, right at the cognition. It's just that the lenses have been quite...obstructed.

3) Perhaps. But Jung did state there is more very likely to be more than 16types anyhow(in one of his lectures iirc).


----------



## Metal Fish (Jan 3, 2014)

I have often felt like i would relate more strongly towards an Ti Ni Se Fe. Though at times i feel undeniable like Ne. I like to imagine functions being a dynamic scale between E/I instead of binary, one or the other.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Ixim said:


> The core of Jung's types mon amie! Entropic, reckful et al will explain it better if you got lost in mine.


As I'm forever pointing out, Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars (_all but one_, she said) believed that Jung thought the auxiliary would have the _same attitude_ as the dominant, not the opposite attitude. I think the contrary view is all but insupportable, and anyone who's interested can read a lot more about that in this post.

And virtually everyone respectable agrees that Jung believed that (in the typical case) the tertiary function would have the _opposite_ attitude to the dominant.

So Jung's function stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.

Buuut does that mean that if somebody thinks they're a Ti-dom with an N-aux, they should be comparing themselves to the descriptions of Ni and Se that you'll find in _modern_ cognitive function sources like Thomson, Berens and Nardi? No! And why not? Because modern function descriptions typically depart from Jung's original conceptions of those functions in multiple ways, and represent an alternative function set that has, in various ways, been adjusted to match up with (1) the Harold Grant function stack (where a Ti-dom with an N-aux is deemed to be Ti-Ne-Si-Fe), and (2) significant aspects of personality that have been found to be characteristic of the corresponding MBTI types (whether Jung described them or not).

So, for example, an MBTI INFP is likely to find that they relate pretty well to modern Fi and Ne descriptions, because modern "Fi" descriptions largely involve things that FPs (and/or IFPs) tend to have in common, and modern "Ne" descriptions largely involve things that NPs tend to have in common.

And there's a further layer of Jung-vs.-Grant complication when you get to the tertiary and inferior functions, because Jung believed that Ne (for example) in the tertiary or inferior position would typically tend to manifest itself as more like the _opposite_ of Ne in the dominant position, whereas the HaroldGrantians are more likely to expect INFPs and ISTJs to be typological cousins in part because they're both "Si/Ne types" — i.e., because both their personalities include "Si" in a way that makes it more like the _same_ function in both than like a pair of opposites. But I'd say that issue's beyond the scope of this "2nd function" thread.

As a final note, I'm not endorsing Jung's function stack any more than I endorse Harold Grant's goofy stack, because I agree with James Reynierse that the cognitive functions are essentially a "category mistake" — and that's also beyond the scope of this thread, but anyone interested in more from me on the Grant function stack (and its associated "tandems"), and about the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, will find a lot of discussion in this post and the posts it links to.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> As I'm forever pointing out, Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars (_all but one_, she said) believed that Jung thought the auxiliary would have the _same attitude_ as the dominant, not the opposite attitude. I think the contrary view is all but insupportable, and anyone who's interested can read a lot more about that in this post.
> 
> And virtually everyone respectable agrees that Jung believed that (in the typical case) the tertiary function would have the _opposite_ attitude to the dominant.
> 
> ...


Don't get me wrong. I'm way past functions as well(it's just that...you can't talk to the most without mentioning them). But if hard pressed against the wall, I'll use Jung stack ofc! All these modern things are...naive for the lack of better word.

But Grant stack is indeed goofy. Epi and Pro and suddenly Epi derps and becomes Pro for a moment(this is what metaphysically happens when you say FiSe).  

Ah, yes! The sad thing is that socionics has so much potential if they embraced dichotomies. They could morph those dichos of theirs in gauges similar to big 5 and further gauges which'd be current reinin dichotomies. They could explain so much instead of fiddling around with functions. Ah, what can you do?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Here is my 2 cents:

- The first image is essentially how the community views the functions. Blue represents the ego and Red, the shadow. Lighter blue is more conscious/developed/differentiated/used/etc to darker and lesser so.









- The second image is from psychiatrist and Jungian analyst Anthony Stevens. This is more in line with Jung, where there are consciousness and unconsciousness hemispheres governed by respective attitudes. So for example, extraversion above the dotted line and introversion below. And then we see how the four functions line up within these hemispheres.








- The third image is a diagram from Jung:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> - The third image is a diagram from Jung:
> 
> View attachment 350882


What's the source of that third image?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> What's the source of that third image?


Introduction to Jungian Psychology: Notes of the Seminar on Analytical Psychology Given in 1925
Amazon.com: Introduction to Jungian Psychology: Notes of the Seminar on Analytical Psychology Given in 1925 (Bollingen Series (General)) (9780691152059): C. G. Jung, William McGuire, R. F.C. Hull, Sonu Shamdasani: Books

Pg 190

EDIT:

FWIW here is the passage that goes with the diagram:

So far, these pictures have disregarded the unconscious. In Diagram 8, I have brought this factor into consideration. This diagram presupposes a fully developed thinking type in whom sensation and intuition are half conscious and half unconscious, and in whom a feeling is in the unconscious. This does not mean that such a type is devoid of feeling; it only means that, compared to his thinking, his feeling is not under his control but eruptive in character, so that normally it is not in the picture at all, and then all of a sudden it quite possesses him.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Introduction to Jungian Psychology: Notes of the Seminar on Analytical Psychology Given in 1925
> Amazon.com: Introduction to Jungian Psychology: Notes of the Seminar on Analytical Psychology Given in 1925 (Bollingen Series (General)) (9780691152059): C. G. Jung, William McGuire, R. F.C. Hull, Sonu Shamdasani: Books
> 
> Pg 190
> ...


Thanks for the supplemental info. I'll just note that, as I know you already know, that particular diagram is inconsistent with the way Jung described what he viewed as the typical function configuration _both_ in Psychological Types (in 1921) and in _Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy_ (in 1952).

In Psychological Types, Jung referred to the dominant and auxiliary functions as the "conscious functions" (noting that the auxiliary "is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence") and the tertiary and inferior functions as the "unconscious functions." And in _Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy_, he similarly characterized the dominant and auxiliary as the conscious functions and the tertiary and inferior as the unconscious functions, and also said that the tertiary function typically served as the "auxiliary" to the inferior.

Here's a little more of what he said in Psychological Types:



Jung said:


> Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.
> ...
> For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function. The resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, speculative thinking forging ahead with intuition, artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on.
> 
> *The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones.* Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be an unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition.


And here's a little bit of _Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy_:



Jung said:


> If we think of the psychological function [sic] as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The "inferior" function, on the other hand, is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function. ...
> 
> *In the psychology of the functions there are two conscious and therefore masculine functions, the differentiated function and its auxiliary*, which are represented in dreams by, say, father and son, whereas *the unconscious functions appear as mother and daughter*. Since the conflict between the two auxiliary functions is not nearly as great as that between the differentiated and the inferior function, it is possible for the third function — that is, the unconscious auxiliary one — to be raised to consciousness and thus made masculine. It will, however, bring with it traces of its contamination with the inferior function, thus acting as a kind of link with the darkness of the unconscious.


So... Jung allowed for the _possibility_ of the tertiary function being "raised to consciousness," but emphatically didn't view that as the typical case.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> Thanks for the supplemental info. I'll just note that, as I know you already know, that particular diagram is inconsistent with the way Jung described what he viewed as the typical function configuration _both_ in Psychological Types (in 1921) and in _Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy_ (in 1952).
> 
> In Psychological Types, Jung referred to the dominant and auxiliary functions as the "conscious functions" (noting that the auxiliary "is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence") and the tertiary and inferior functions as the "unconscious functions." And in _Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy_, he similarly characterized the dominant and auxiliary as the conscious functions and the tertiary and inferior as the unconscious functions, and also said that the tertiary function typically served as the "auxiliary" to the inferior.
> 
> ...


 I dunno, seems congruent with this:



> If we think of the psychological functions as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it.The "inferior" function, on the other hand is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function.


CW12 - Pg 106-7

^ This same book contains the quote you provided.

FWIW here is another excerpt (3rd spoiler) where he says that the tertiary can become differentiated into consciousness:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...rpts-functions-structure-dynamics-psyche.html

EDIT:

Also note that he seems to be talking about those pesky "pure types" because he says that he is describing a "fully developed thinking type." Since most people don't differentiate their functions and attitudes to such a degree, that is why I think Anthony Stevens' diagram more accurately reflects the typical individual (or typical 'type' for that matter).


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

So, we would have the following cases:

1) Someone with a strongly dominant function that rendered the remainder either semi or unconscious, with only the inverse of the dominant being distinctly inferior or deeply unconscious. For example: Te > Sx/Nx > Fi. This involves an assumption on my part that the, er, crepuscular functions would not be strongly one or another attitude. I don't know if that is correct. I'll get back to this. 

2) Someone with a differentiated and relatively conscious auxiliary function, with a mirrored situation with the respectively inverted functions. For example: Te > Se > Ni > Fi 

3) Someone with three conscious functions and one distinctly unconscious. For example: Te > Se/Ne > Fi. Again, assuming somewhat and happy to be nitpicked or corrected.

---

There seems to be something of a question here about the attitude of semi-conscious functions. Do they fit into a certain attitude. By my understanding of Jung's logic, they would not. And, if not... we find trouble in that Jung stated that while it was quite the ideal state to have a balanced function in terms of attitude (I think he said that perfect rationality in logic might only be achieved by a balance of Te and Ti), such a state was either highly unlikely or impossible to occur. 

This from his Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types in Chapter X of PT:



> For a judgment to be really reasonable it should have equal reference to both the objective and the subjective factors, and be able to do justice to both. This, however, would be an ideal case, and would presuppose a uniform development of both extraversion and introversion. But either movement excludes the other, and, so long as this dilemma persists, they cannot possibly exist side by, side, but at the most successively. Under ordinary circumstances, therefore, an ideal reason is impossible.


Perhaps I am reading that out of context? 
@PaladinX, can you sort me out on this?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

It seems to me that Jung was far more of the opinion that introversion and extraversion were, for the most part, mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed. Thus, to the extent that we can say a person "is an introvert" or "an extravert", that would categorically imply a preference for one attitude over the other, to the, at least partial if not complete, exclusion of one other the other as a rule.

And therefore I think it makes sense to interpret each function as having _whatever_ attitude is conscious or unconscious at any given moment, just whenever _consciousness_ (or unconsciousness) happens to be extraverted or introverted in general. This would support _both_ the Jungian SeFeTiNi "stack", as well as the Harold Grant SeFiTeNi stack.

Either interpretation would be possible; either interpretation should be appropriate. I don't think Jung was really specific enough for a person to argue one over the other, without reading really far into his writing.

However, making a lateral shift here in terms of _pragmatism_, I think @arkigos makes a good point. Since we are dealing with archetypes, and everyone has already grasped onto the model of the ESFP as being SeFiTeNi, ultimately it really _makes no difference_, and serves no real purpose to change the "stack" to something else. It would be more practical to simply invent another model, call it whatever in order to distinguish it, such as "Jungian MBTI Types" or something like that, and promote that model as a contender.

And on that point, someone already has. If you look into Socionics, you'll notice that, in Model A, every type has an "8th function" which is supposedly just as well developed and prefered as the 1st function. So, if that makes more sense to a given person, perhaps Socionics Model A is the way forward for them in their psychological self-understanding.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> - The third image is a diagram from Jung:
> 
> View attachment 350882


To what extent would you say Jung was influenced by the concept of pairs of opposites, such as the Taoist concept of yin-yang (i.e., diametrically opposed, yet complementary and thus, intermeshing pairs?). My understanding is that Joseph Campbell, who talked often of the monomyth as well as pairs of opposites, did have a correspondence with Jung:



> *Joseph Campbell:* It started with the sin, you see — in other words, moving out of the mythological dreamtime zone of the Garden of Paradise, where there is no time, and where men and women don’t even know that they are different from each other. The two are just creatures. God and man are practically the same. God walks in the cool of the evening in the garden where they are. And then they eat the apple, the knowledge of the opposites.
> 
> 
> And when they discover they are different, the man and woman cover their shame. You see, they had not thought of themselves as opposites. Male and female is one opposition. Another opposition is the human and God. Good and evil is a third opposition. The primary oppositions are the sexual and that between human beings and God. Then comes the idea of good and evil in the world. And so Adam and Eve have thrown themselves out of the Garden of Timeless Unity, you might say, just by that act of recognizing duality. *To move out into the world, you have to act in terms of pairs of opposites.*
> ...


I tend to see the perception axis N-S and judging axis F-T in a similar fashion as one would yin-yang. I've talked with @mushr00m at length about this, but I'm less certain if Jung actively endorsed that sort of interpretation of how the functions complemented one another (ignoring attitude, for the moment).

* It's easiest for me to see with the perception axis:*

If sensing is "that which exists" and intuition "where something is going and from whence it came" (i.e., potentials), well... our present circumstances slide into potential, and then potential, like molten glass, solidifies in a tangible reality.

I tend to see it easiest in the judging axis in terms of taste: Feeling is whether or not we like something, whether it is agreeable to our psychological palate, whereas Thinking (I think) I see more as operational definitions or modes of impersonal categorization... for instance, musical taste, what we like, is our feeling evaluation of an object (do we like it or not?) whereas our Thinking would be attempts to define that taste... "I like dubstep" for instance... dubstep being the impersonal categorization or "box" where we impose judgment upon the object, whereas feeling is more... squishy? Not a good way of describing it, probably.

Somewhat similar to Campbell's model of the monomyth (which he said wasn't really his, he mere acted as a teacher describing what he observed) ... casting aside the unfamiliar (home) in favor of adventure (i.e., the unknown, danger, etc.).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> There seems to be something of a question here about the attitude of semi-conscious functions. Do they fit into a certain attitude. By my understanding of Jung's logic, they would not. And, if not... we find trouble in that Jung stated that while it was quite the ideal state to have a balanced function in terms of attitude (I think he said that perfect rationality in logic might only be achieved by a balance of Te and Ti), such a state was either highly unlikely or impossible to occur.
> 
> This from his Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types in Chapter X of PT:
> 
> ...


Jung's eight types were four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert. So from Jung's perspective, in order to be one of his "psychological types," you had to have either extraversion or introversion as your "conscious attitude," and that would also be the attitude of your dominant function.

As I'm guessing you know, the "judgment" Jung is referring to in that passage you quoted is the _dominant_ function of a Ji-dom (i.e., a Ti-dom or Fi-dom).

The _ideal_ reason Jung is referring to is a reason that's ideally _unbiased_ in the sense of not favoring E over I or _vice versa_. And Jung says that's impossible because all of his "types" have either an E bias or an I bias.

But Jung also said that he thought more people were in the middle on E/I ("influenced as much from within as from without") than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and referred to those ambiverts as the "normal man."

And I'd say the way to reconcile all that stuff is that it's not that Jung thought it was "impossible" for a function to not have an E or I bias. Rather, Jung thought that that kind of balance was only found in (as he put it) relatively "primitive" mentalities in which the relevant function hadn't been "differentiated" — and therefore remained in the unconscious, "fused" with the other unconscious functions — and the person was neither an extravert nor an introvert, with the result that, like the person's conscious side, the person's unconscious didn't really have a marked attitude.

In Psychological Types, he noted:



Jung said:


> There are individuals whose thinking and feeling are on the same level, both being of equal motive power for consciousness. But in these cases there is also no question of a differentiated type but merely of relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. The uniformly conscious or uniformly unconscious state of the functions is, therefore, the mark of a primitive mentality.


To Jung, _differentiation_ and a non-ideal (in one sense) E or I _bias_ unavoidably went hand in hand, because the only way to differentiate a function to any really effective degree was to pull it up into consciousness _at the repressed expense of its opposite_, and Jung envisioned that such differentiation only happened in the context of a psyche that _also_ had either extraversion or introversion as its "conscious attitude" — which inevitably meant that the dominant function would reflect that E or I bias.

To my knowledge, Jung _never_ described a person with one or more conscious, differentiated functions and one or more unconscious, undifferentiated ("fused") functions where the conscious/unconscious divide wasn't _also_ characterized by the conscious side having one attitude (E or I) and the unconscious side having the opposite attitude.

So in summary, you could have a function that was "ideal" in the sense of being the perfect degree of differentiated (not too primitive, and not too one-sided), or you could have a function that was "ideal" in the sense of not having an E or I bias, but you couldn't have a function that was ideal in both ways. 

Again, that Jung passage you quoted is talking about someone's _dominant_ function, not their second or third function — since it's talking about the judgment of a J-dom — but I disagree with your suggestion that Jung thought that an auxiliary or tertiary function wouldn't typically have an extraverted or introverted attitude. As discussed in this long post that I've already linked to, (1) I think the vast majority of Jung scholars are correct to assert that Jung thought the auxiliary function — to the extent that it was differentiated and served as the auxiliary to the dominant — would to that extent be conscious and therefore have the same "conscious attitude" as the dominant, and (2) virtually everyone respectable agrees that Jung thought that all the unconscious, undifferentiated functions (including the tertiary function, in the typical case) would have the same "unconscious attitude" as the inferior function (i.e., the opposite attitude to the dominant).

Your post refers to the aux and tert as "semi-conscious functions," but as described in my last post, Jung referred to the dom and aux functions (in the typical case) as the "conscious functions" and the tert and inf functions (in the typical case) as the "unconscious functions." Yes, it's true that Jung characterized the aux as _less_ conscious than the dom (and the tert as less unconscious than the inf), but that doesn't mean that the aux wouldn't have the conscious attitude to the extent of its (predominant) consciousness and the tert wouldn't have the unconscious attitude to the extent of its (predominant) unconsciousness.

As a final note, I've put some recycled reckful from that long, previously-linked post on the auxiliary in the spoiler.


* *




In 1923 — two years after Psychological Types was published — Jung gave a lecture (separately published in 1925) that's included in the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types. After some opening remarks on the shortcomings of past approaches to typology, here's how he began his discussion of extraverts and introverts:

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

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

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

This attitude characterizes a group of individuals whose motivations are derived chiefly from the subject, from inner necessity._​_

The first thing to note here is that, in the second sentence of that second paragraph, he characterizes extraverts as people "who in all their *judgments, perceptions*, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force." Judgments and perceptions both. This is clearly inconsistent with the idea that a typical extravert would either be extraverted in their judgments and introverted in their perceptions or vice versa.

And in case you think, well, maybe Jung just slipped up in terms of how he worded that one sentence — although I'd say that would have been a pretty huge slip-up — the second thing to focus on here is the substance of the second and third paragraphs as a whole. They're pretty much all about judgments, right? The second paragraph describes a series of extraverted judgments and the third paragraph describes a series of introverted judgments. And Jung doesn't say those extraverted judgments are characteristic of Je-doms and Pi-doms; he says they're characteristic of all extraverts (Je-doms and Pe-doms alike). And likewise he says the introverted judgments in the third paragraph are characteristic of all introverts (Ji-doms and Pi-doms alike). And again, there is no way that is how he would have described things if his model said that half of extraverted judgers were introverts (the Pi-doms) and half of introverted judgers were extraverts (the Pe-doms)._


_
And the idea that the auxiliary function has no attitude is really just as inconsistent with those 1923 paragraphs (in the spoiler) as the idea that the auxiliary has the opposite attitude to the dominant._


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Why do there have to be four functions? Why not just three? Dominant, auxiliary and inferior.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> Why do there have to be four functions? Why not just three? Dominant, auxiliary and inferior.


Here's Jung from a 1928 lecture that was first published in 1931 and later included in the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types:



Jung said:


> I have often been asked, almost accusingly, why I speak of four functions and not of more or fewer. That there are exactly four was a result I arrived at on purely empirical grounds. But as the following consideration will show, these four together produce a kind of totality. Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation. In this way we can orient ourselves with respect to the immediate world as completely as when we locate a place geographically by latitude and longitude.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

So, all we have is a quote by Jung...


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

hal0hal0 said:


> To what extent would you say Jung was influenced by the concept of pairs of opposites, such as the Taoist concept of yin-yang (i.e., diametrically opposed, yet complementary and thus, intermeshing pairs?). My understanding is that Joseph Campbell, who talked often of the monomyth as well as pairs of opposites, did have a correspondence with Jung:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The polar opposites regarding dominant/inferior function dynamic makes sense from the point of reverting to the function we rebel against the most just because its conscious but not valued in comparision like the dominant but im only really getting this from observation, it's like what we call 'behaving out of character' e.g an Se dom perhaps suddenly doubting their own perception of reality, not trusting their own senses and reverting to less valued/trusted Ni(maybe as a coping mechanism?), perhaps this scenario was triggered by something or someone which caused them to doubt themselves strongly relating to the inferior, im curious about how we flip to inferior function mode, we have a relationship with it and I guess trying to would cause us to stray from our dominant perspective to a primitive expression of where our rebellion, distrust lies, in the inferior function including the opposing attitude going from say introverted(dom) to extraverted(inf), this is pretty interesting alone, im guessing we become exasperated at trying to communicate our doms motivations and when it fails, we switch to the inferior function because we doubted out dominant processes or had an insecure relationship with them. Afterall, even our dominant function isn't flawless or doesn't get us the results we want, I know I revert to inferior Te when Fi sentimentalities are not respected or are misunderstood. 

It's still a bit of a mystery.

But if we didn't have the polar opposite dynamic with dom and inferior, the functions would essentially be sitting around as independent entities, they would have nothing to rebel against, nothing to contrast with, an odd relationship, not sure how that would work, even in socionics, I don't know much about socionics(it always seemed like a psychological computer programme, with slots and access to all 8 functional attitudes), socionics though kinda seemed more independent of the dynamic of opposing functions, the functions almost seem like independent variables and has done away with this dom/inf relationship and substituting it with relationship dynamics, blocks and roles of each function attitude but not the same kind of interconnected relationship with each other. 

The Adam and Eve story, I wander how this story came to being, they may well have been the first to really signify this difference between people's psychologies even if it was supposed to be a moral lesson.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> So, all we have is a quote by Jung...


Well, I don't know what "all we have" is supposed to mean, but to maybe clarify, I was just offering you Jung's explanation in case it was of interest to you (or any other thread readers).

As I think you know, I don't really subscribe to a "four functions" framework.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

arkigos said:


> So, we would have the following cases:
> 
> 1) Someone with a strongly dominant function that rendered the remainder either semi or unconscious, with only the inverse of the dominant being distinctly inferior or deeply unconscious. For example: Te > Sx/Nx > Fi. This involves an assumption on my part that the, er, crepuscular functions would not be strongly one or another attitude. I don't know if that is correct. I'll get back to this.
> 
> ...


Overall, I'd argue that the attitude of the auxiliaries are largely irrelevant. My main point early was to simply show a different way of conceptualizing the functions such that Jung may not have ever intended to look at them in such a way as TeSeNiFi or TeSiNeFi. The focus is always on the function in this case. What about in terms of EtsInf or EtsnfI or some such. Essentially instead of AxByCxDy or AxBxCyDy, we look at XabYcd. Or simply, as Jung referred to himself as, an intuitive-intellectual introvert.


As for point 3, I'm willing to bet that having 3 differentiated functions is just as unlikely as the pure type.



> There seems to be something of a question here about the attitude of semi-conscious functions. Do they fit into a certain attitude. By my understanding of Jung's logic, they would not. And, if not... we find trouble in that Jung stated that while it was quite the ideal state to have a balanced function in terms of attitude (I think he said that perfect rationality in logic might only be achieved by a balance of Te and Ti), such a state was either highly unlikely or impossible to occur.
> 
> This from his Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types in Chapter X of PT:
> 
> ...


Maybe. In that context he's really talking about Ji-doms ("Introverted Rational Types"). Overall, he's talking about E/I and a given function as a general attitude (ie mindset, perspective, etc). I think that a lot of us when discussing this stuff tend to read it more as an order of operation, like BEDMAS. But because we are talking about what's typical (ie 'type') then I think it we need to look at it more in a statistical sense.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> Well, I don't know what "all we have" is supposed to mean, but to maybe clarify, I was just offering you Jung's explanation in case it was of interest to you (or any other thread readers).
> 
> As I think you know, I don't really subscribe to a "four functions" framework.


Well, here's a question. How do you experience feeling then? Or do you, as a thinking type, think you don't, or???


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Well, here's a question. How do you experience feeling then? Or do you, as a thinking type, think you don't, or???


LOL!

Let me handle this one reck! pweese!

And what exactly has T got to do with thinking and F with emotions...?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Ixim said:


> LOL!
> 
> Let me handle this one reck! pweese!
> 
> And what exactly has T got to do with thinking and F with emotions...?


Who said anything about emotions?


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Who said anything about emotions?


Just checking!


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> Well, here's a question. How do you experience feeling then? Or do you, as a thinking type, think you don't, or???


I don't really know what you mean by "experience feeling." In saying I don't subscribe to a "four functions" framework, what I mean is that I subscribe to a "four dichotomies" framework — and you and I have discussed that at some length in previous threads.

And if the question is, how do I "experience" a T preference — or more specifically, how does having a T preference cause me to "experience" stuff that's more on the F side of the T/F divide — then I'd note, first, that I think T/F is a complicated, multifaceted dimension, and second, that if you're interested in quite a lot of discussion from me about how T's tend to relate to what you might call "F stuff" (including, to some extent, "emotions") in a different way than F's, you'll find it in the spoiler in this post.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> I don't really know what you mean by "experience feeling." In saying I don't subscribe to a "four functions" framework, what I mean is that I subscribe to a "four dichotomies" framework — and you and I have discussed that at some length in previous threads.
> 
> And if the question is, how do I "experience" a T preference — or more specifically, how does having a T preference cause me to "experience" stuff that's more on the F side of the T/F divide — then I'd note, first, that I think T/F is a complicated, multifaceted dimension, and second, that if you're interested in quite a lot of discussion from me about how T's tend to relate to what you might call "F stuff" (including, to some extent, "emotions") in a different way than F's, you'll find it in the spoiler in this post.



No. No. No. You aren't getting my question. I am a feeler. This does not mean I don't think. It doesn't mean I don't logic. You are a thinker. This doesn't mean you don't feel. It doesn't mean that your values don't shape you. I'm curious how this effects you directly as a person--a human. How you think your feelings interject themselves in human interactions. My wife is an INTP. I have friends who are INTJs. I have friends who are ESTJs, and ISTJs, ISTPs. They all _feel_--and not emotions. They all make judgments based on values, based on non-logical bases. I'm curious what you will say about yourself. And I'm interested on purely intellectual grounds. 

I chose "experience" because I don't like the expression "use" as in "I use Fi when..." It's a rather dumb way to express things. However, we all experience feelings, and, I suppose, we experience thoughts. We experience sensations, and we experience insight. Hence, I choose the word "experience" to deal with these things. So far, it's the best I've come up with...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> No. No. No. You aren't getting my question. I am a feeler. This does not mean I don't think. It doesn't mean I don't logic. You are a thinker. This doesn't mean you don't feel. It doesn't mean that your values don't shape you.


I don't disagree with any of that, and don't see what it has to do with this thread, or the functions-vs.-dichotomies issue.

And again, if you're genuinely "curious how this effects you directly as a person--a human," then you can find quite a lot of my perspective on that issue — including how I think T's and F's tend to differ (and/or not differ) when it comes to "feelings" and "logic" and "values" — in that linked post.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> Jung's eight types were four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert. So from Jung's perspective, in order to be one of his "psychological types," you had to have either extraversion or introversion as your "conscious attitude," and that would also be the attitude of your dominant function.
> 
> As I'm guessing you know, the "judgment" Jung is referring to in that passage you quoted is the _dominant_ function of a Ji type (i.e., a Ti or Fi type).
> 
> ...


_

So, ambiverts can't be typed! lol! Jung himself proved my point about 40-60% hole present in MBTI(at least when speaking of those pesky functions-it completely RUINS them!)._


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Ixim said:


> So, ambiverts can't be typed! lol! Jung himself proved my point about 40-60% hole present in MBTI(at least when speaking of those pesky functions-it completely RUINS them!).


This'd further explain why I'm "hard to type". And why everyone sees what he wants in me. <3


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I chose "experience" because I don't like the expression "use" as in "I use Fi when..." It's a rather dumb way to express things. However, we all experience feelings, and, I suppose, we experience thoughts. We experience sensations, and we experience insight. Hence, I choose the word "experience" to deal with these things. So far, it's the best I've come up with...


One potential issue with this perspective is that it does not really differentiate between an occurrence and an act of will, whereas "use" implies a deliberate act.

For example:



> Thinking is that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection. It is an apperceptive activity and, as such, must be differentiated into active and passive thought-activity. *Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking an occurrence.*


or



> The nature of a feeling-valuation may be compared with intellectual apperception as an apperception of value. An active and a passive feeling-apperception can be distinguished. The passive feeling-act is characterized by the fact that a content excites or attracts the feeling; it compels a feeling-participation on the part of the subject *The active feeling-act*, on the contrary, confers value from the subject—it *is a deliberate evaluation* of contents in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with intellectual intention. *Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love.*


----------

