# Is looping bad or is it just natural for some people?



## TheQuixotic (Aug 28, 2020)

'Looping', or a relatively strong dominant and tertiary function interaction. There are many online posts and websites saying that the looping is very very unhealthy or something, that it is inherently akin to a sickness. However, Objective Personality Typing proposed that it is natural and these skippers' strongest two functions just happended to be the dominant and tertiary function. Note that here, the name 'tertiary' only comes from the structure of four/eight function stacks. There is this assumption of the first two functions having to have each of a perceiving and judging function with opposing orientation. Not saying that the function stack model is wrong, and it is indeed insightful and useful, but where does it state that the order of functions have to be strictly developed? Furthermore, if one uses or shows tertiary function more, how is it inherently unhealthy?

I saw that some people said that it makes them imbalanced, and I mean, everyone who is not perfectly balanced is imbalanced. Aside from the ambiguous definition of balance, there will not be a spectrum of all traits across all people if everyone is 'balanced'. If we accept that some people are inherently more introverted than others, why can't we (or those people critising 'skippers' or 'loopers' accept that the reason for such a difference is due to two introverted functions? If one ISTP can be different from another ISTP, why can't they use their functions differently?

Lastly, for me, saying that looping is bad is against a major reason (I believe) that MBTI has become as popular as it is (cognitive functions less so though because...idk), and a principle that MBTI trys to sell. That is, no one type, or one side of dichotomy, is inherently superior and inferior. By the same token dichotomies within types should be treated equally, and studied about. Not to mention that, the claim that half of OPT's samples are skippers.

These are some thoughts after learning about the model of Objective Personality Typing, and feeling that for people already familiarised with the functions, the model of OPT is useful for gaining more insights. Their methods seem to be quite good and they have a large sample base. I tried to search by other sources on this phenomenon and all I got is how bad looping is. Maybe not all the people think so and maybe I just didn't search enough. Like to hear your thoughts!


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

I think it's meant to be unhealthy because you are ignoring your secondary function which is there to keep you balanced. According to some Jungians, your 2nd slot is meant to be like a parent whereas your 3rd slot is meant to be like a child. And you shouldn't give a child more power than a parent on a consistent basis. Plus, I don't think you are supposed to rely on either extroverted or introverted functions alone.


----------



## Plusless (Aug 19, 2020)

It might not be that the end result is what is bad for you but the looping process itself. As an INTP I get easily stuck on a loop of Ti-Si analyzing my past for information to use. This might not sound so bad as it develops both of these functions but the process itself is unhealthy. Ti requires time and a distractionless environment so I self isolate when this loop begins and the thinking process itself reveals more information to analyze causing isolation and disconnect from society. I also do not feel the mental stress from the process because my Fi is abysmal causing me to experience a loop of selfdestruction with overthinking even the smallest of problems.

Stress from the environment causes the personal growth we get as we adapt to the environment. Stalling into a single environment will paralyze you and if the loop is too fast or you cannot control the stress enough you will burn out and hurt yourself.


----------



## TheQuixotic (Aug 28, 2020)

Dscross said:


> I think it's meant to be unhealthy because you are ignoring your secondary function which is there to keep you balanced. According to some Jungians, your 2nd slot is meant to be like a parent whereas your 3rd slot is meant to be like a child. And you shouldn't give a child more power than a parent on a consistent basis. Plus, I don't think you are supposed to rely on either extroverted or introverted functions alone.


True that the auxillary can balance the saviour, but we don't neccessarily have to reach a balance all the time. It depends on our needs and situations, and some survive just fine being particularly introverted or extroverted.

I do agree that ignoring a function sounds generally unideal, but that is when we somehow go against our inherent tendencies. If one is borned with the natural tendency to develop their tertiery function after the dominant, then pherhaps that is simply how they are. Or maybe a less extreme case, where the tertiary develop as similar rate as the auxillary, then this person might already feel quite different compared to a typical person of their type. Basically what I'm trying to say is that since people are on a spectrum, maybe there'll cases where there is this situation as looping describes and this person is indeed healthy.


----------



## TheQuixotic (Aug 28, 2020)

Plusless said:


> It might not be that the end result is what is bad for you but the looping process itself. As an INTP I get easily stuck on a loop of Ti-Si analyzing my past for information to use. This might not sound so bad as it develops both of these functions but the process itself is unhealthy. Ti requires time and a distractionless environment so I self isolate when this loop begins and the thinking process itself reveals more information to analyze causing isolation and disconnect from society. I also do not feel the mental stress from the process because my Fi is abysmal causing me to experience a loop of selfdestruction with overthinking even the smallest of problems.
> 
> Stress from the environment causes the personal growth we get as we adapt to the environment. Stalling into a single environment will paralyze you and if the loop is too fast or you cannot control the stress enough you will burn out and hurt yourself.


I see. I actually probably do have some Fi-Si experiences too, and there were some negative emotions surrounding some events. My Ne is never very weak so maybe it does count as looping for me. But then my question is whether there are people who just naturally develop the tertiary more than average, and that when the two interact, it's just life for those people and they won't be disturbed or not be themselves..


----------



## Plusless (Aug 19, 2020)

People react to things in their environment through a different lens, so yes it can happen if the person sees need a need to activate that function in the environment. I have more Fe than my brother and it is caused because I saw the pain caused to others that his lifestyle does. He doesnt see the need to change as our perception of the environment differs. This also causes differences in weaknesses. I overthink reactions of the people around me and he overthinks his own life and experiences.

Ask yourself if you can live life happily in all parts of it and what functions might be causing trouble to you or those near you. Before you start to make drastic moves you should remember that all growth is caused by environmental stress that you were either forced into or voluntarily got into. This needs you to be able to control stress in your life as overloading yourself can cause bad traits.

(I am not a professional so take it with caution)


----------



## februarystars (Aug 22, 2012)

I think it's possible to have a steong tertiary functuon AND to have a well developed 2nd function. That would be the ideal situation. It is said the tertiary tends to develops easier because it is the same dirrection as the dominant (e.g they are introverted or both extroverted)

I think it's perfectly normal and even more common to 'jump' to the 3d function for this reason. But the argument is if you work on developing the 2nd function more it's going to make you a much more well rounded and skilled person

So it's kinda normal to be a jumper, but better to work on the 2nd function, if you wanna be the best version of you

I dont actually know much about the system you mention, but i would say it is possible to have these different versions of types. Maybe the 'jumpers' would benefit most from developing their 2nd function and the 'non-jumpers' would benefit from developing their tertiary more

And both wanna develop/get control of the inferior


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

TheQuixotic said:


> I see. I actually probably do have some Fi-Si experiences too, and there were some negative emotions surrounding some events. My Ne is never very weak so maybe it does count as looping for me. But then my question is whether there are people who just naturally develop the tertiary more than average, and that when the two interact, it's just life for those people and they won't be disturbed or not be themselves..


I don't know how it is for other types, but when people of our type say, "I'm in a Fi-Si loop" I always am inclined to think it's more of an inferior Te problem. Yeah sure, maybe some INFP is refusing to take in new information and just doing the same thing that they like over and over again, but really, if their Fi was objectively looked at and they were using it heavily, wouldn't they make progress to what they want in life?

A common solution to many of the problems I see in INFPs (including myself) are:
Gather and consider new information: Ne
Meditate on the strength of your desire: Fi
Buck it up and do it: Te (Ti?)
Ask for help

I'd like to admit I don't quite understand what looping is.


----------



## APBReloaded (Mar 8, 2019)

I don't understand this thread at all but I wish I did! I do approach things with childlike simplicity a lot, with an eagerness to learn... but it's selective. Naive, perhaps?


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

APBReloaded said:


> I don't understand this thread at all but I wish I did! I do approach things with childlike simplicity a lot, with an eagerness to learn... but it's selective. Naive, perhaps?


I think it's when you avoid using your auxiliary function and you slowly turn into Bruce Willis.


----------



## APBReloaded (Mar 8, 2019)

Six said:


> I think it's when you avoid using your auxiliary function and you slowly turn into Bruce Willis.


I couldn't follow most of that, but it looks like he got married at the end, so... I'll take it, provided I get to choose who I get married to!


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

secondpassing said:


> I don't know how it is for other types, but when people of our type say, "I'm in a Fi-Si loop" I always am inclined to think it's more of an inferior Te problem. Yeah sure, maybe some INFP is refusing to take in new information and just doing the same thing that they like over and over again, but really, if their Fi was objectively looked at and they were using it heavily, wouldn't they make progress to what they want in life?
> 
> A common solution to many of the problems I see in INFPs (including myself) are:
> Gather and consider new information: Ne
> ...


Yea I have responded in some of those threads over at the INFP forum and usually what they attribute to Si is just their F at work, being overly attached to something, sentimental, nostalgia and whatnot. 

I think the loops are mostly due to people misunderstanding the functions or people being mistyped. The original theory doesn't even involve the alteration of the attitude between dom and aux, because they meant different things than what it's been reproduced today. And given that there's no research, in the end people just do whatever they want with the function stacks.


----------



## TheQuixotic (Aug 28, 2020)

secondpassing said:


> I don't know how it is for other types, but when people of our type say, "I'm in a Fi-Si loop" I always am inclined to think it's more of an inferior Te problem. Yeah sure, maybe some INFP is refusing to take in new information and just doing the same thing that they like over and over again, but really, if their Fi was objectively looked at and they were using it heavily, wouldn't they make progress to what they want in life?
> 
> A common solution to many of the problems I see in INFPs (including myself) are:
> Gather and consider new information: Ne
> ...


I guess that I can kinda differentiate between the Fi-Si effect and Te grip, for interpretating my past experiences at least. (Ne-Si ha!)

I have a problem with messy bedroom, and it's from all the stuff that shouldn't have anymore use. Mainly textbooks and papers, and yes I will even admit that they really aren't useful. Textbooks and exercises from way before, subjects that I have no interests in and likely will not have to deal with in the future, and even past papers and worksheets that I have done. Do they exactly have happy connotations? No. But they still feel somehow sentimental and I just don't want to throw them out. A momentum against changing for physical things that I'm attached to by being next to me, a introversion inaction.

For Te, it's more of a sensitive spot. Like doing chess, maths, or stuff that simply require strict logic to make work. It requires something that I know I'm not good/well practised at (Te), and suppressing that fluid and emotional Fi. The emotion that often comes with this are anger and irritation, and that flavour is different from that of Fi-Si ones.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

Hard to say. "Looping" is a very badly defined term and I'm suspecting that many people mean different things when they say it. 
I'm not sure if it's a single process or many different things that people have started calling the same thing. I don't know if it's real and how it should be defined. 

Once I see a clear definition that people can agree on, I'll start to think about it more, but for now it seems very difficult to really get a grip on what the word even means.


----------



## TheQuixotic (Aug 28, 2020)

Drecon said:


> Hard to say. "Looping" is a very badly defined term and I'm suspecting that many people mean different things when they say it.
> I'm not sure if it's a single process or many different things that people have started calling the same thing. I don't know if it's real and how it should be defined.
> 
> Once I see a clear definition that people can agree on, I'll start to think about it more, but for now it seems very difficult to really get a grip on what the word even means.


I rather agree with this and I actually want to define it as a natural thing, or at least not something akin to a disorder. While, many did not provide a concrete definition, people often talk about how to get out of these loops, and I just feel like that they have their uses and we should view it in a more positive light.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

TheQuixotic said:


> 'Looping', or a relatively strong dominant and tertiary function interaction. There are many online posts and websites saying that the looping is very very unhealthy or something, that it is inherently akin to a sickness. However, Objective Personality Typing proposed that it is natural and these skippers' strongest two functions just happended to be the dominant and tertiary function. Note that here, the name 'tertiary' only comes from the structure of four/eight function stacks. There is this assumption of the first two functions having to have each of a perceiving and judging function with opposing orientation. Not saying that the function stack model is wrong, and it is indeed insightful and useful, but where does it state that the order of functions have to be strictly developed? Furthermore, if one uses or shows tertiary function more, how is it inherently unhealthy?
> 
> I saw that some people said that it makes them imbalanced, and I mean, everyone who is not perfectly balanced is imbalanced. Aside from the ambiguous definition of balance, there will not be a spectrum of all traits across all people if everyone is 'balanced'. If we accept that some people are inherently more introverted than others, why can't we (or those people critising 'skippers' or 'loopers' accept that the reason for such a difference is due to two introverted functions? If one ISTP can be different from another ISTP, why can't they use their functions differently?
> 
> ...


I tend to think it is probably natural for some people.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

TheQuixotic said:


> I rather agree with this and I actually want to define it as a natural thing, or at least not something akin to a disorder. While, many did not provide a concrete definition, people often talk about how to get out of these loops, and I just feel like that they have their uses and we should view it in a more positive light.


I agree with that. There are things that can be described in these terms and it's possible to help people through things by placing their problems in a context like this. For example: an INFJ who thinks they're in an Ni-Ti loop might really be helped by 'excercising their Fe more', and just talking through stuff with people. 
It's not always the point if those things are actually the things that are happening in someone's brain at that time. If you can help someone by placing their problems in that kind of context it's often worth it to just accept that this is a possible framing an just go from there without thinking about the underlying concepts. 

In that light I think talking about loops can be very helpful in specific cases. It can be problematic in general though, since it can actually lead people to understand less about MBTI in some ways. 

So, as with everything... it's not a black and white thing. Talking about loops has definite uses, even if they are poorly defined.


----------



## APBReloaded (Mar 8, 2019)

Looping is amazing, it helps you evade the killer and it really pisses them off! Try dropping a pallet on their head or shining a flashlight in their eyes for extra effectiveness!


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

TheQuixotic said:


> Not saying that the function stack model is wrong


Why not? It _is _wrong. It has no credibility at all and the only function stack where these loops are possible is the Grantian stack - IEIE/EIEI - and this stack is inconsistent with the stack the MBTI themselves notes in their manual (they have it as IEEE/EIII) and it's inconsistent with a variety of things Jung wrote which all in all, looks to support an IIEE/EEII stack - if one were to just kinda.. force everything into "stacks".

I think "function stacks" make sense, in theory - except the only one I think really makes any _logical _sense is the IIEE/EEII one because I just don't believe that a person has to have an "extraverted" front as one of their preferred functions. Makes no sense to me. Same story for extraverted types. I think it makes the most sense that both a persons preferred rational and irrational functions would be in the same orientation as their preferred attitude. The attitude is arguably more important than the functions anyway (introversion and extroversion have much more credibility than the "functions" - infinitely more research and studies to support I/E).

So from my perspective, the function stack model _is _wrong. I think by now we should be able to move past the idea that IEIE/EIEI makes any sense at all. We should certainly have moved past it having even an ounce of credibility.

As for the "loops" - well, they don't exist, like I said earlier, they're just made up by a dude here on PerC. He attributed them to a variety of mental health disorders and disabilities. They're just a terrible idea and don't even make sense in theory yet alone in practice but here we are, in 2020, and everyone is still jumping on this made-up bandwagon.

I would argue that the "loops", insofar as we're talking about "Ne-Fe" etc, are the most realistic portrayal of a persons type - I think "Ne-Fe" is an ENFP, people might complain or try to counter this such as an ENFP that's all "but what about my Fi" to which I would say, what about it? The ENFPs F following the model I think makes the most sense, would still be "introverted", in comparison to the ENFPs N - makes sense right. *This also has absolutely no scientific credibility whatsoever* but the only thing that really does here is a pure dichotomy approach as far as T/F, S/N and J/P are concerned - and there's much more out there in the way of I/E.

I can't think of any way that "looping" could possibly be "bad", due to the way the attitudes work. A person that prefers Extraversion, Intuition and Feeling for example, will have a stronger tendency towards either Intuition or Feeling, at least if we're talking about "stacks" (theoretically - the reality is a person can score the exact same on N and F in the MBTI) - this would then create either an Extraverted Intuition type with Feeling supporting it (Ne-Fe) or an Extraverted Feeling type with Intuition supporting it (Fe-Ne).

I understand Objective Personality has their "jumper" types (a term I think is just silly as it implies things that don't make sense) - but Objective Personality also uses different definitions to the MBTI, the use different definitions of functions etc when compared to Jung as well - Objective Personality is its own model and it should be treated as such imo.

I guess one way of looking at it is, yes, "looping" _is _bad - the entire idea of looping here is bad because it makes no sense and has pretty much corrupted the type communities understandings and perspectives of all this stuff in what appears to be an irreparable way.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Turi said:


> Why not? It _is _wrong. It has no credibility at all and the only function stack where these loops are possible is the Grantian stack - IEIE/EIEI - and this stack is inconsistent with the stack the MBTI themselves notes in their manual (they have it as IEEE/EIII) and it's inconsistent with a variety of things Jung wrote which all in all, looks to support an IIEE/EEII stack - if one were to just kinda.. force everything into "stacks".
> 
> I think "function stacks" make sense, in theory - except the only one I think really makes any _logical _sense is the IIEE/EEII one because I just don't believe that a person has to have an "extraverted" front as one of their preferred functions. Makes no sense to me. Same story for extraverted types. I think it makes the most sense that both a persons preferred rational and irrational functions would be in the same orientation as their preferred attitude. The attitude is arguably more important than the functions anyway (introversion and extroversion have much more credibility than the "functions" - infinitely more research and studies to support I/E).
> 
> ...


Does any personality model have any scientific credibility though in the sense you seem to be implying? I don't really view it as a science - it's more a way of finding a language of something that can't be easily expressed. That doesn't mean some parts aren't more/less objective than others. But still. All of it is just based on Carl Jung's observations at the end of the day. That's all it has ever been really. Maybe it's not something that ever can be proved properly. That doesn't mean there is no merit to it though. In a sense, some of it is more philosophical than scientific. Therefore, it isn't a science, as such. That's why no-one can fully agree. But based on the relative accuracy a lot of people instinctually feel with the function stack model from Jung and the original MBTI model it shouldn't be dismissed. Sometimes intuitive thinking proceeds scientific evidence.


----------

