# A personal theory that addresses the aux & tert directions



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

NOTES: This theory may be a deviation from Jung's work, but I don't think that it contradicts what he said in _PT. _And I welcome feedback, so feel free to speak your mind (nicely, if possible :tongue. 

On the most fundamental level, you're either an introvert or an extravert. The direction of your energy is so essential that it matters more than your functional preference (T/F/N/S). So let's say that you have an innate preference for introversion. That means your conscious is oriented by introversion, and your unconscious is oriented by extraversion. Those preferences cannot be changed because it would destroy your psyche.

As a result, your dominant function must be expressed in the direction of your conscious. If you're an introvert and you develop a strong preference for Thinking, then you become a Ti-dom. And using Jung's concept of functional repression, your unconscious is dominated by Fe.

Once your dominant function has become differentiated, then the dominant and inferior functions become essential components of your psyche. Your introverted conscious becomes entwined with Ti, and the extraverted conscious is rooted in Fe. That means you can't change 'em. It also means that you can't use those functions (T and F) in the "wrong" direction. Your introverted conscious can't loosen its grip on Thinking to allow for it to be extraverted, and same goes for Feeling in the extraverted unconscious. Te and Fi are now off-limits.

But the auxiliary and tertiary functions are a different story because they don't bear the same responsibilities as the dominant and inferior. Nothing is really invested in them, so they're not married to a particular direction. Continuing our Ti-dom example, you could "use" Si, Se, Ni, and Ne. Early on, you probably use a mash-up of them all. But you're likely to develop a preference for Sensation or Intuition ... so let's say Intuition, and your type is now Introverted Thinking + Intuition. 

But I think it's insufficient to just say that we can use the auxiliary in either direction. I believe there's a lot more to it. So let's return to the issues of conscious vs. unconscious and introversion vs. extraversion.

We've established that our example conscious is introverted. Now, why would an introverted conscious be comfortable using an extraverted auxiliary? I don't think it is. I think that the conscious hoards the introverted functions and shuns the extraverted functions, and the opposite is true of the unconscious. Since we're limited by the dominant and inferior functions (so no Te or Fi), you have Ti, Ni, and Si available to the conscious, and Fe, Ne, and Se in the unconscious. 

That means the conscious and unconscious are kinda "sharing" N and S. The conscious can only use them in introverted ways, and the unconcious can use them in extraverted ways. So, we already said that the example conscious has selected Intuition as Ti's sidekick. That means the conscious will use up most of N's energy, and it wouldn't be incorrect to say that the N is mostly introverted. (A lot of Ni and a little bit of Ne.) The reverse is true for Sensation, which serves as the inferior's sidekick. It would be extraverted most of the time, because its primary loyalty is to the unconscious. (So a lot of Se and a little bit of Si.) 

In both cases, however, it's the introverted version that is the "positive" one. The conscious is characterized by Ti, and has a lot of Ni and a little bit of Si to help out. The unconscious is characterized by Fe, and has a lot of Se and a little Ne to help. 

But if you were to write the function stack in a simple way, it'd work to say: Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. That would capture the essence of the functions' importance and alignment. (You maybe could do Ti-Ni|Se-Fe or Ti>Ni|Se<Fe. It'd probably be too confusing to say, Ti>Ni>Si|Ne<Se<Fe.)

Of course, that's all assuming a healthy personality. On the other hand, if the person puts too much emphasis on the dominant function, then all of the other functions are driven into the unconscious. It'd be like some hotshot trying to do a one-man show, and the conscious isn't allowed to bring in any assistants. Since neither Ni nor Si would be allowed to play a role in the conscious, the function stack would end up looking like: Ti-Ne-Se-Fe (or perhaps Ti|Ne-Se<Fe).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

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.

I think the interpretation that's really most consistent with Psychological Types as a whole (as distinguished from Myers' very selective cherry-picking in that respect) is that Jung's function model for an Ni-dom with a T auxiliary was really, as you've said, Ni-Ti-Fe-Se — with Te being an Ni-dom's default, unconscious form of T and Ti being the form that T would take to the extent that an Ni-dom differentiated it and brought it into conscious, directed use as the auxiliary function. (Consistent with that, I think Jung, at the time he wrote Psychological Types, basically viewed himself as Ti-Ni-Se-Fe).

And it's also true, as you've said, that Jung envisioned that a person could also potentially differentiate and make conscious use of the tertiary function (in which case, as with the auxiliary, I think he would have viewed it as taking on the same attitude as the dominant function), but viewed the tertiary's more typical role as a kind of "sidekick" to the inferior function (with the same attitude as the inferior function).


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I do think that the infatuation with auxiliary functions is due to the fact that most people learn MBTI first (and many are introverts to boot) and because of the way MBTI interprets things (for instance by adding the J/P dimension and then tying that to extraversion and also because of the focus only on the conscious personality and not conscious vs. unconscious) created a dynamic where the influence of the inferior function as the counter to the dominant was sort of replaced by the influence of the auxiliary function. While Jung focused on the interplay between conscious/unconscious represented by dominant/inferior where say conscious introversion was always met by extraversion in the form of the inferior function and these would form, as Beebe called 'the spine,' MBTI tends to focus more on the relationship between dom/aux, which in introverts basically assumes ambiversion which was often assumed in the early (pre-Brownsword) days of the instrument. 

This somewhat small but critical difference is noteworthy because it is here where the MBTI takes a crucial right turn in intent from Jung. Where MBTI is focused on expression, the things that people present to the world (thus J/P being tied to extraversion) and their outer presentation, Analytical Psychology, as a psychology is more focused on things like repression. Who the person is and who they are trying not to be. So when you look at it this way it becomes clearer why in Chapter 10 why Jung did not see it that necessary to give more than a paragraph to the auxiliary functions because he devotes that entire chapter to the conscious/unconscious interplay (he explains each of his types with an exploration of how the person comes across and also how their inferior function influences them). The real story is between the interplay of say Introverted Intuition and Extraverted Sensation, the fact that either can pair with thinking or feeling is something of an oh-by-the-way. One might describe Nietzsche (as Von Franz does) as an Introverted Intuitive who preferred Thinking over Feeling, or Sigmund Freud as a very intuitive Introverted Feeling type. But understand this is very different than saying Nietzsche was an INTJ or that Freud was an INFP (the latter would not be a good MBTI best-type fit for Freud, despite Von Franz's reasonings for declaring him an intuitive Introverted Feeling type are very sound).

So it really just depends on what you are looking for. I personally am not convinced that you can really type someone's aux/tert functions anyway. I hear people jump up and down swearing their aux function is this or that, but how would you really know? Many of these people are swearing by a definition they read somewhere that perhaps they identify with but perhaps a trip to an analyst might reveal very different results and I'm not sure it matters all that much anyway. Again this is because are trying to nail down an MBTI type, but if you were really interested in true self-discovery all you'd really need to know is that you prefer thinking over feeling unless you are one of the people whose preferences are so distinct (and I sometimes am weary of these claims) that it is just apparent. Jung himself seemed to struggle with it from time to time, its often unclear as to whether his aux was sensation or intuition. He's another person who sort of defies being typed as INTP or ISTP because we have no idea whether or not his aux function was extraverted and its unclear whether or not he'd fit the P "non-closure seeking model." (Freud certainly would not, but again that would likely have been because of his inferior Te not his intuition). I'm not sure even if we knew definitively that Jung's intuition was extraverted it would make much difference in the overall character of the man (but in MBTI this would be huge because if his intuition was introverted it would force him to be an ISTP over iNTP which of course is described as a very different type of person).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yeah, I tend to find the aux/tert analysis ends up coming down to ridiculously obvious debates as to whether or not you "think or feel more," which is obviously inconclusive and basically irrelevant to type, because obviously, no one does one more than the other (they may or may not be conscious of this, but it's inevitable that everyone does all 4 processes at all times a lot, and there really wouldn't be any answer to such a question, let alone, it wouldn't mean anything about your personality - that's not what this stuff if looking for). I think this is a testament to how meaningless auxiliary functions really are to personality, since they don't have anything to do with a person's psychology other than perhaps people might occasionally develop complexes around them for whatever reason (e.g. if one has a fear of getting bad grades or feels like their thinking is being underestimated, then perhaps some complex might occur around their thinking, even though this shouldn't harm their thinking, etc.). I think the aux./tert. functions are more like the neutral zones of people that just deal with their issues, rather than raise the issues, so-to-speak (the dom./inferior do the latter).


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Again this is because are trying to nail down an MBTI type, but if you were really interested in true self-discovery all you'd really need to know is that you prefer thinking over feeling unless you are one of the people whose preferences are so distinct (and I sometimes am weary of these claims) that it is just apparent. Jung himself seemed to struggle with it from time to time, its often unclear as to whether his aux was sensation or intuition. He's another person who sort of defies being typed as INTP or ISTP because we have no idea whether or not his aux function was extraverted and its unclear whether or not he'd fit the P "non-closure seeking model." (Freud certainly would not, but again that would likely have been because of his inferior Te not his intuition). I'm not sure even if we knew definitively that Jung's intuition was extraverted it would make much difference in the overall character of the man (but in MBTI this would be huge because if his intuition was introverted it would force him to be an ISTP over iNTP which of course is described as a very different type of person).


I always love and appreciate your insights, but I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit. 

To be honest, I'm not too concerned with defining "types" and labeling particular combinations. I'm pretty active in the What's My Personality subforum, and I generally stick to Jung's definitions within the framework of MBTI's ordering and four-letter codes. I don't necessarily agree with those limitations, but I know that the point there is to assign one of the 16 MBTI types. 

But what I want to address here is the interplay of all four functions, and I think that's absolutely relevant to matters of self-discovery. It's not enough to say that you prefer Feeling over Thinking, Sensation over Intuition, etc. ... I mean, what does that _really_ tell you? That's part of the reason why I don't like MBTI, because there's very limited value in choosing N>S and such. (Not to mention the silly stereotypes that it seems to engender.)

Depth is especially important when we're talking about self-_improvement_, since that requires the ability to understand your personality and to ... interact with it? I guess that phrasing may sound odd, but it reflects my own mental distance. My personality is "me," but I don't really identify with it. It's more like a bunch of moving parts that affect my daily operations, and I need to be aware of how the entire machine is operating. (YMMV with that last part, since it's a personal perspective.)

However, I take issue with models that I feel are much too narrow, like Beebe's assignment of particular archetypes to each of the "8" functions. His forced structure reminds me of a personnel chart, where each employee is assigned a specific job to do. How could something as fluid as the human mind work like that? I prefer the dynamism of a model that analyzes how the conscious and unconscious interact, and how each expresses its will through the functions. That's what I'm trying to evaluate here.



> I hear people jump up and down swearing their aux function is this or that, but how would you really know?


In my opinion and limited experience, some of those people are actually identifying their dominant function and have just gotten confused by the I/E stereotypes. And some may be basing their opinions on faulty definitions.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> n my opinion and limited experience, some of those people are actually identifying their dominant function and have just gotten confused by the I/E stereotypes. And some may be basing their opinions on faulty definitions.


This is a very good point. A lot of people who are extraverts by function but introverted behaviorally get all tangled up, and I think its another reason why there is this fixation on auxiliary functions. Because people declare "I must be an introvert" for whatever reason, sort of putting the cart before the horse. 

I think that one of the issues is that no other real working theory has risen up to challenge the sovereignty of the MBTI interpretation of Jung and so we are basically stuck with Myers' and those who have come after her way of seeing things (Gray and Wheelright have tried and one might give lip service to Socionics but both are not nearly as universal). It forces people into something of an either Jung or MBTI framework and like I said the two really have different focuses (even if perhaps the intended outcome is the same). The thing is we really don't know if MBTI is right or wrong because we have nothing to measure it up against. And any research data assumes MBTI principles so there really isn't a lot of true objectivity we just have to take it for what it is. 

I guess knowing that Jung was not an absolutist on these things and that, especially with auxiliary functions he seems to think there is room for some fluidity, that the model is not one-dimensional, and thirdly that dominant function and its inferior counterpart were the defining variables, that people getting all riled up about aux/tert functions are sort of playing something of a parlour game. Would it make a difference if sensation was introverted or extraverted? Well absolutely as a dominant or inferior function, but I'm not convinced of this being the case in the auxiliary. Jung seemed to come from the perspective that really the dominant had sovereignty and the other functions were largely unconscious, meaning (other than the inferior) potentially not well differentiated at all. (This doesn't take into consideration the research that demonstrated that an unacceptably low number of people actually fit the type dynamics model empirically where the aux function was indeed the opposite attitude of the dominant. In fact the seemingly wacky results that you get from a CF test are often closer to how people might really utilize the functions and that its tough to impose rules because as you say the mind is very dynamic). 

Maybe you or someone else might find a passage, I can ask Yukawa over at PerN too to clarify but to me its very rare to hear any one of the prominent Jungians, not Jung, Hillman, Wheelright, Von Franz, Meier, Hannah and others spend a whole lot of time on auxiliary functions, which leads me to believe that, at least in the Jungian paradigm they didn't really think they were as important as they have become with the Myers-Briggs instrument. Or just perhaps they understood that Jung's typology was meant to be a heuristic, rules of thumb and not meant to really be taken to the level of empirical certainty where one might expect to be able to concretize, hypothesize and reproduce results with scientific accuracy. Its the difference between a psychological focus (how can we generally conceptualize a person's mindset) versus a scientific one. That's why I contend that in the auxes it often does not matter because EN(Te) would not really be too different than EN(Ti), in both cases you have an Extraverted Intuitive who gives an edge to his Thinking function and both cases would be exceptionally difficult to empirically prove.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> This is a very good point. A lot of people who are extraverts by function but introverted behaviorally get all tangled up, and I think its another reason why there is this fixation on auxiliary functions. Because people declare "I must be an introvert" for whatever reason, sort of putting the cart before the horse.


If they really are introverts, then I don't think that they're proceeding in the wrong order. If you're a Ti-dom, it's because you're an introvert who prefers Thinking. I find it more problematic when people treat each directed function as a discrete unit, which corrupts their understanding of broader theoretical issues. (For example, believing that Ni and Ne are entirely separate functions, rather than just the introverted and extraverted presentations of Intuition.)

I think that the major problem originates in the definitions of introversion and extraversion. There's bound to be confusion if people confound these terms with matters of sociability, even if they use the more advanced "energy source" determinant. The fact that there is such a thing as "behaviorial introversion" points to an issue in defining introversion and extraversion. 



> I think that one of the issues is that no other real working theory has risen up to challenge the sovereignty of the MBTI interpretation of Jung and so we are basically stuck with Myers' and those who have come after her way of seeing things (Gray and Wheelright have tried and one might give lip service to Socionics but both are not nearly as universal). It forces people into something of an either Jung or MBTI framework and like I said the two really have different focuses (even if perhaps the intended outcome is the same). The thing is we really don't know if MBTI is right or wrong because we have nothing to measure it up against. And any research data assumes MBTI principles so there really isn't a lot of true objectivity we just have to take it for what it is.
> 
> I guess knowing that Jung was not an absolutist on these things and that, especially with auxiliary functions he seems to think there is room for some fluidity, that the model is not one-dimensional, and thirdly that dominant function and its inferior counterpart were the defining variables, that people getting all riled up about aux/tert functions are sort of playing something of a parlour game. Would it make a difference if sensation was introverted or extraverted? Well absolutely as a dominant or inferior function, but I'm not convinced of this being the case in the auxiliary. Jung seemed to come from the perspective that really the dominant had sovereignty and the other functions were largely unconscious, meaning (other than the inferior) potentially not well differentiated at all. (This doesn't take into consideration the research that demonstrated that an unacceptably low number of people actually fit the type dynamics model empirically where the aux function was indeed the opposite attitude of the dominant. In fact the seemingly wacky results that you get from a CF test are often closer to how people might really utilize the functions and that its tough to impose rules because as you say the mind is very dynamic).
> 
> Maybe you or someone else might find a passage, I can ask Yukawa over at PerN too to clarify but to me its very rare to hear any one of the prominent Jungians, not Jung, Hillman, Wheelright, Von Franz, Meier, Hannah and others spend a whole lot of time on auxiliary functions, which leads me to believe that, at least in the Jungian paradigm they didn't really think they were as important as they have become with the Myers-Briggs instrument. Or just perhaps they understood that Jung's typology was meant to be a heuristic, rules of thumb and not meant to really be taken to the level of empirical certainty where one might expect to be able to concretize, hypothesize and reproduce results with scientific accuracy. Its the difference between a psychological focus (how can we generally conceptualize a person's mindset) versus a scientific one. That's why I contend that in the auxes it often does not matter because EN(Te) would not really be too different than EN(Ti), in both cases you have an Extraverted Intuitive who gives an edge to his Thinking function and both cases would be exceptionally difficult to empirically prove.


There was flexibility in Jung's work, so a few different interpretations have some validity. But as you said, we're not dealing with facts that can be proved in a lab. And although I usually stick to Jung's words in order to avoid confusing people, I'm far more interested in conceptual freedom on this particular thread.

The issue that I'm trying to address isn't so much whether a person is using Te or Ti, but whether the conscious can use Te or Ti. For instance, if the conscious is characterized by introversion, then why would it use an extraverted auxiliary? Wouldn't it make more sense that an introverted conscious could only use functions in an introverted way?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Coyote said:


> If they really are introverts, then I don't think that they're proceeding in the wrong order. If you're a Ti-dom, it's because you're an introvert who prefers Thinking. I find it more problematic when people treat each directed function as a discrete unit, which corrupts their understanding of broader theoretical issues. (For example, believing that Ni and Ne are entirely separate functions, rather than just the introverted and extraverted presentations of Intuition.)
> 
> I think that the major problem originates in the definitions of introversion and extraversion. There's bound to be confusion if people confound these terms with matters of sociability, even if they use the more advanced "energy source" determinant. The fact that there is such a thing as "behaviorial introversion" points to an issue in defining introversion and extraversion.
> 
> ...


Yes I think that does make more sense and I also think as someone else pointed out, that's what Jung had in mind too. It probably also helps explain some of the mistypes out there, or people who don't really seem to fit anything well, like Ne-Fe ENFPs.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Yes I think that does make more sense and I also think as someone else pointed out, that's what Jung had in mind too. It probably also helps explain some of the mistypes out there, or people who don't really seem to fit anything well, like Ne-Fe ENFPs.


I think that it might also account for the dom-tert "loops" that have become so popular online. If you use Ni-Ti, then you're supposedly an unhealthy INFJ and are encouraged to use more Fe. But if F belongs in the unconscious, I'd think it would be a bad idea to put too much weight on it.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yeah, I've often wondered about this myself. I mean, it seems like if you're an extravert, you're going to "live" your extraverted functions more than your introverted functions and vice-versa with introverts (regardless of ability and all the irrelevant stuff that gets thrown around concerning MBTI "function order" - after all, who would even adopt poor quality ego syntonic functions anyway to represent their ego, no matter how unconscious (even if the inferior is your weak spot, it can't be THAT bad)? That would defeat the point of being ego syntonic altogether). It often just seems like MBTI/MBTI interpretations created implications about this stuff out of thin air (e.g. "loops are dangerous" - well, what about having an outlet for the tert. function in say, an INFJ like @Coyote was explaining - is the problem in-and-of-itself not enough Fe (whatever constitutes "enough" anyhow) or maybe not having an outlet for Ti, which is what Fe essentially is anyway? Of course, there's no getting any farther from here with what implications exist for whatever reason about "loops." Perhaps there might even be misunderstandings about the extraverted functions' roles in personality vs. the introverted ones. Who _KNOWS_...


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

I'm trying to understand this because its an interesting theory, but I'm having trouble solidly relating it. 

So, you're saying the aux function is kind of like the "unconscious dominant" function? As an INFJ my dom is Ni, so my conscious gets Ni, Ti, and Fi to work with consciously, and my unconscious gets Fe, Se, and Te to work with? I guess it seems to work, but I might not be applying your theory correctly. In me, Fe does seem very fluid and natural but rarely does it feel conscious, whereas Ti is always a mode I switch to start using consciously. I dunno how the other functions relate to that though. My unconscious is a Fe-Se-Te personality.... So what does that entail? And Fi is something I rarely seem to use but it does seem to require the conscious decision to use it. 

I'm curious as to how this manifests, and I'm trying to make it fit into Beebe's model as I understand it too, with the functional roles sort of thing.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Is it just me, or does the "loop theory" smell like "Predestination" thinking (e.g. you're _*meant*_ to be more of what ever extraverted function you're repressing, whatever "more of it" really means, should look like, entail, etc.). Sure, repressing ego syntonic functions isn't a good thing, but if you're not repressing them, then what? Why do they need to be "fully conscious" either, at least from what's implied from the MBTI construct vs. Jung's views on this stuff?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Is it just me, or does the "loop theory" smell like "Predestination" thinking (e.g. you're _*meant*_ to be more of what ever extraverted function you're repressing, whatever "more of it" really means, should look like, entail, etc.). Sure, repressing ego syntonic functions isn't a good thing, but if you're not repressing them, then what? Why do they need to be "fully conscious" either, at least from what's implied from the MBTI construct vs. Jung's views on this stuff?


Loop poop, i'm not buying it. I don't know what it smells like but it is quite stinky.Lol


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yeah, I tend to find the aux/tert analysis ends up coming down to ridiculously obvious debates as to whether or not you "think or feel more," which is obviously inconclusive and basically irrelevant to type, because obviously, no one does one more than the other (they may or may not be conscious of this, but it's inevitable that everyone does all 4 processes at all times a lot, and there really wouldn't be any answer to such a question, let alone, it wouldn't mean anything about your personality - that's not what this stuff if looking for). I think this is a testament to how meaningless auxiliary functions really are to personality, since they don't have anything to do with a person's psychology other than perhaps people might occasionally develop complexes around them for whatever reason (e.g. if one has a fear of getting bad grades or feels like their thinking is being underestimated, then perhaps some complex might occur around their thinking, even though this shouldn't harm their thinking, etc.). I think the aux./tert. functions are more like the neutral zones of people that just deal with their issues, rather than raise the issues, so-to-speak (the dom./inferior do the latter).


Well, my aux/tert isn't quite a neutral zone. Well, often it is neutral, but then often it is source of issues. Usually me f*cking up Fe issues because I forgot to pay attention or just simply didn't care to pay attention. These are not irrelevant, it's all part of me. Nothing to do with worrying that my Feeling is being underestimated by whoever... this is just the way I am. And it is pretty conclusive that I f*ck up more with F than with T therefore T > F preference for me. All in all, auxiliaries for me are *not* meaningless.

Also... I do more than 4 processes, at least for myself I find Se, Ti, Te, Fe, and some Ni... that would be 5 

So anyway, I find it is not a good idea to make general claims about all 7 billion people on Earth because the principles you speak of are not proven by hard evidence at all.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Well, my aux/tert isn't quite a neutral zone. Well, often it is neutral, but then often it is source of issues. Usually me f*cking up Fe issues because I forgot to pay attention or just simply didn't care to pay attention. These are not irrelevant, it's all part of me. Nothing to do with worrying that my Feeling is being underestimated by whoever... this is just the way I am. And it is pretty conclusive that I f*ck up more with F than with T therefore T > F preference for me. All in all, auxiliaries for me are *not* meaningless.
> 
> Also... I do more than 4 processes, at least for myself I find Se, Ti, Te, Fe, and some Ni... that would be 5
> 
> So anyway, I find it is not a good idea to make general claims about all 7 billion people on Earth because the principles you speak of are not proven by hard evidence at all.


Well, it's either you're right or your just not understanding the theory, or both even. I don't know, but if you're associating manners and the like with Fe, then frankly, I doubt this is exactly relevant to the tert. concept (I have no idea what you consider Fe, so...). I mean, in all honesty, I don't know exactly how Myers and co. determined anything they did about tert. functions...or function dynamics in general for that matter, since they did behavioral studies on people, which is exactly what this stuff isn't - it's just a fact that you'll rarely get a person's true nature beyond their persona in behavior - they can be like Holden Caulfield in "The Catcher in the Rye" and be someone they're not, while still being mean and depressed under the facade rather regularly at most. I mean, it's possible for this to exist if this function is repressed (the aux. can be repressed as well - the only one that can never be repressed, although people don't necessarily have to be greatly conscious of at worst would be the dominant to Jung), although no matter what, it will never be like the inferior, because then, that would imply that a person has two shadows. I personally can't think of having ever particularly "screwed up" with Fi (um...what would that entail? I frankly have no idea, especially since it's introverted, so how can you exactly go wrong with it - that would be like some form of personal ethics violation, I think, especially since I'm an introvert - also, since it's not my go-to process, as I don't live guided by personal ethics and ideals as my main cognitive superpower (that would be Ni for me), it's just all around irrelevant to how I would prefer to align myself with the world to rationalize it - it's more like a supplement than anything that mainly supports my dominant's goals). In fact, the whole idea of exactly "screwing up" with introverted functions just seems fishy to me, since they're referencing the individual...I mean, they wouldn't involve screwing yourself up (that shouldn't be possible with ego syntonic functions). I mean, all I know is I definitely downplay Fi to Ni, for sure (it's not my habitual go-to process, but Te definitely isn't either), but otherwise, I really don't know how to draw any other conclusions about it. And then, you get the stuff about integrating functions and how this is only beneficial anyhow, so I suppose if you're only resisting the influences of certain functions, they would be problematic? And even with this, once you do, what's the point of this? Is unconsciousness always such a bad thing in type (beyond dominant)? Is flexibility always such a bad thing in type? Is it possible to have more than 16 types (Jung thought so)? Okay, I'll stop now. XD


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, it's either you're right or your just not understanding the theory, or both even. I don't know, but if you're associating manners and the like with Fe, then frankly, I doubt this is exactly relevant to the tert. concept (I have no idea what you consider Fe, so...).


Haha it is so easy to say that someone doesn't understand the theory. A theory that isn't exactly proven by scientific experiments and is very subjective. Thus, it could be also said that nobody really understands it. All I'm pointing out here is that the principles you mention are not applicable for everyone.

By Fe I mean the usual definition of adopting the values of the group. Adjusting to and caring about other people on terms of what would be "good" and "bad" to them. Manners, tact, diplomacy could be part of that, but I don't mean just that, I mean a certain kind of consideration of other people's values. 




> I mean, in all honesty, I don't know exactly how Myers and co. determined anything they did about tert. functions...or function dynamics in general for that matter, since they did behavioral studies on people, which is exactly what this stuff isn't


Jung relies a lot on behaviour traits in Chapter X so it's not like he was never confusing behaviour with functions 




> I personally can't think of having ever particularly "screwed up" with Fi (um...what would that entail? I frankly have no idea, especially since it's introverted, so how can you exactly go wrong with it - that would be like some form of personal ethics violation, I think, especially since I'm an introvert - also, since it's not my go-to process, as I don't live guided by personal ethics and ideals as my main cognitive superpower (that would be Ni for me), it's just all around irrelevant to how I would prefer to align myself with the world to rationalize it - it's more like a supplement than anything that mainly supports my dominant's goals).


Very simple answer, you can do it by lacking a consistent Fi ethics framework or you can do it by not following it often enough, e.g. when you prioritize something else over following it.




> In fact, the whole idea of exactly "screwing up" with introverted functions just seems fishy to me, since they're referencing the individual...I mean, they wouldn't involve screwing yourself up (that shouldn't be possible with ego syntonic functions).


No, that's just play with words without anchoring word meanings to reality. If someone prioritizes Fe over Ti where Ti would be more useful in handling the situation, then they've just f*cked up  regardless of the T being introverted or extraverted. Also, I think every function is related to yourself regardless of it having I or E attitude, a dominant extraverted function is doubly related even though it's extraverted, because it's deeply associated with Ego too.




> And then, you get the stuff about integrating functions and how this is only beneficial anyhow, so I suppose if you're only resisting the influences of certain functions, they would be problematic? And even with this, once you do, what's the point of this? Is unconsciousness always such a bad thing in type (beyond dominant)? Is flexibility always such a bad thing in type? Is it possible to have more than 16 types (Jung thought so)? Okay, I'll stop now. XD


No idea about those things, I'm just saying I see examples of how aux can raise issues instead of just solving them. Oh but yeah, definitely not just 16 types...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Very simple answer, you can do it by lacking a consistent Fi ethics framework or you can do it by not following it often enough, e.g. when you prioritize something else over following it.


Yeah, but this wouldn't even matter anyway if you're a perception dominant, since this is in the realm of judgment (why should a P dominant's judgments be a huge priority toward rationalizing one's ego toward the world is something I want to know, especially if this judgment function is subjective evaluation, which gives a person a ton of freedom in the evaluation department - I mean, if you're an extravert, I can see where this might be a bigger deal in helping to maintain extraversion, but as an introvert, uhh...it just meshes with any introverted agenda I have well enough, I dunno). My Fi isn't at all inconsistent (I can get experimental here, but so what?) - in fact, the feeling function pretty much defies measure in consistency (I follow it whenever I want to and whenever it's deemed appropriate - it's very helpful - that's all I have to say about it).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yeah, but this wouldn't even matter anyway if you're a perception dominant, since this is in the realm of judgment (why should a P dominant's judgments be a huge priority toward rationalizing one's ego toward the world is something I want to know, especially if this judgment function is subjective evaluation, which gives a person a ton of freedom in the evaluation department - I mean, if you're an extravert, I can see where this might be a bigger deal in helping to maintain extraversion, but as an introvert, uhh...it just meshes with any introverted agenda I have well enough, I dunno). My Fi isn't at all inconsistent (I can get experimental here, but so what?) - in fact, the feeling function pretty much defies measure in consistency (I follow it whenever I want to and whenever it's deemed appropriate - it's very helpful - that's all I have to say about it).


Even a Perceiving dominant needs to turn to Judging at times  Ok it may be subjective evaluation but there is still some requirement of it making sense to you, consistency, etc. Just because some judgment is subjective, it still has reason for it existing, even if it is the wrong reason... but not completely random/arbitrary. I can't say anything more about Fi specifically because it's one of my weakest functions and I don't understand it well, sorry :/


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

bobdaduck said:


> So, you're saying the aux function is kind of like the "unconscious dominant" function?


If I correctly understand your use of that phrase, then no, the inferior function is the leading function in your unconscious. Your aux would still be your aux, and would serve the conscious. The issue is whether an introverted conscious would accept an extraverted aux. (In more complex terms, I guess that I'm asking whether a differentiated auxiliary function should be aligned with the direction of the conscious.)



> As an INFJ my dom is Ni, so my conscious gets Ni, Ti, and Fi to work with consciously, and my unconscious gets Fe, Se, and Te to work with? I guess it seems to work, but I might not be applying your theory correctly. In me, Fe does seem very fluid and natural but rarely does it feel conscious, whereas Ti is always a mode I switch to start using consciously. I dunno how the other functions relate to that though. My unconscious is a Fe-Se-Te personality.... So what does that entail? And Fi is something I rarely seem to use but it does seem to require the conscious decision to use it.


I think that we may be using different definitions for "conscious." Are you familiar with the concept of the ego, as it pertains to identity? That's more like what I mean by "conscious", while you seem to mean it more like willful use of the function? Please correct me if I misunderstood you.

But anyway, assuming that you have Feeling as your auxiliary, it'd kinda be like: Ni > Fi > Ti | Fe < Te < Se. 

So Ni would be your dominant, and Se would be your inferior. Ne and Si would be inaccessible. Your T and F functions would be shared by the conscious and unconscious. The more that F is accepted by the conscious, the more introverted it becomes. But there's still some of it left in the extraverted unconscious, so it's not true Fi. More like a lot of Fi (conscious) with a little Fe (unconscious). 



> I'm curious as to how this manifests, and I'm trying to make it fit into Beebe's model as I understand it too, with the functional roles sort of thing.


I'm afraid that it may not fit into Beebe's model, since I'm not a fan of it.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

Nah, I haven't read any books on the subject or whatever. To me unconscious/conscious does seem to be much more of a willful/cognitive/aware thing than what your definition is. So no, you didn't misunderstand me and I'm in the wrong, semantics wise, for understanding your model.

So how does Ni > Fi > Ti | Fe < Te < Se work in a personality / real life / personal situation?


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

So I guess I'm being like Tyler Durden when I think Si feels good. A bit of the old "Self-Destruction".

Of course it feels like such Si-use is done in the service of Se, although it sometimes makes me really sentimental and turns me into a crybaby if it goes too far. Real Si users wouldn't be affected like that (I guess).


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

bobdaduck said:


> Nah, I haven't read any books on the subject or whatever. To me unconscious/conscious does seem to be much more of a willful/cognitive/aware thing than what your definition is. So no, you didn't misunderstand me and I'm in the wrong, semantics wise, for understanding your model.
> 
> So how does Ni > Fi > Ti | Fe < Te < Se work in a personality / real life / personal situation?


Since you haven't read books like _PT_, it might be helpful to first tackle one of the foundational issues: how to define introversion and extraversion. I apologize if you're already familiar with these terms, but they cause enough confusion that I feel obligated to clarify my use of them. 

Introversion is subjective because it focuses on the subject (the person) and devalues the object (the outside world). The introvert isn't truly in touch with "reality" because there's always a layer of subjectivity that creates a barrier. For example, an Si-dom literally may not see things as they really are. The conscious intercepts and filters the sensory data, so what the Si-dom ends up seeing is more like a reflection of himself than an accurate representation of reality. 

In contrast, an extravert is objective because his behavior, beliefs, etc., can be correlated to the outside world. So, to use the flip side of Sensation here, an Se-dom responds to sensuous reality and seeks external experiences. ... But you see the same outward focus whenever a function has been extraverted (e.g., Feeling, when extraverted, orients itself by objective values). 

... Anyway, time to get back to the topic at hand. I was trying to come up with some really detailed way to explain it all, but then I saw @_Carmine Ermine_'s signature. So, I decided to make a graphic example of Ti>Ni>Si | Ne<Se<Fe. (Please forgive my lack of artistic skills.)








​The idea is that the white area is the introverted conscious, which is characterized by Thinking (so, Ti-dom). And the black is the extraverted unconscious, which is characterized by Feeling (inferior Fe). Intuition and Sensation don't really belong exclusively to either, so they're the grey lines. But if N is the preferred auxiliary, then it'll mostly be in the conscious (as Ni), with some in the unconscious (as Ne). Sensation's influence is reversed, with most in the unconscious (Se) and a little in the conscious (Si).

I'm hoping that the graphic will also show the value of the auxiliary and tertiary functions. In our example, Ti and Fe have a hard line between them. They're black-and-white opposites, and they don't mix. But the aux and tert can be used as messengers, and allow for easier access to the unconscious. The effects on a personality _should_ involve fewer direct conflicts between the dominant and inferior functions. 

Additionally, you can see how it might be hard to tell if N or S is the auxiliary. Basically, you're trying to distinguish between Ti>Ni>Si and Ti>Si>Ni in the conscious. There won't be a huge difference, it's just a matter of how much relative influence N and S have in each realm.

Right now, I can't provide a detailed explanation for how Ni>Fi>Ti | Fe<Te<Se might work. But in a conversation with a friend, I gave an example of a Te>Ne>Se guy that I know. 



> But a Te-dom with auxiliary Ne ... I picture that as being more like a successful businessman who tries to identify and maximize every opportunity. An example might be a guy with whom I worked for a while. I'm pretty sure that he's a Te-dom, and I really don't get along with him.
> 
> I can't deny that he knows how to make money, but the problem is that he turns his back on projects as soon as he gets a new one. He'll hire sub-contractors to work on projects, but he's supposed to be the lead developer. That's his _responsibility_. And yet, if you wait a month, it's pretty much guaranteed that he'll bully you into taking over the project, just so he can go work on something new. (And since he's charging a 100% markup on your fees, he continues collecting a lot of money for not doing a damn thing.) If you refuse or stand up to him, then he just replaces you.


I also think that he displays some Se. For example, one of his favorite hobbies is snowboarding, which seems like a very physical and in-the-moment activity. ... So I'd say Te>Ne>Se for that particular personality. (It may be Te>Se>Ne, but like I said earlier, there's not a huge difference.)

... Okay, that's it for me right now. I hope that I clarified things rather than muddling them even more! :happy:


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

I've agreed with this "theory" for a while because it sounds more in line with Jung, and it makes more sense to me personally.

The main issue I have is with introversion/extroversion because I think it's the second-least clear-cut aspect of MBTI (after J/P). However, if we use this theory, then Ne + Te + inferior Si works a bit better for me than Ni + Ti + inferior Se.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Spades said:


> The main issue I have is with introversion/extroversion because I think it's the second-least clear-cut aspect of MBTI (after J/P). However, if we use this theory, then Ne + Te + inferior Si works a bit better for me than Ni + Ti + inferior Se.


Do you mean the issue of introversion/extraversion within the context of MBTI's efforts to make everybody ambiverts? Or simply how MBTI defines the terms? My biggest problem with MBTI's I/E definitions is the association between extraversion and getting energy from other people. That seems so slanted toward Fe that many extraverts probably can't relate. 

Are you an extravert?


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Coyote said:


> _*Do you mean the issue of introversion/extraversion within the context of MBTI's efforts to make everybody ambiverts?*_ Or simply how MBTI defines the terms? My biggest problem with MBTI's I/E definitions is the association between extraversion and getting energy from other people. That seems so slanted toward Fe that many extraverts probably can't relate.
> 
> Are you an extravert?


Could you explain what you meant by the bolded question? Are you implying that there is no such thing as ambiversion (or varying degrees of introversion and extroversion) and everyone is either a cognitive introvert or a cognitive extrovert? 

If so, wouldn't you just be redefining the I/E dichotomy?


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> Could you explain what you meant by the bolded question? Are you implying that there is no such thing as ambiversion (or varying degrees of introversion and extroversion) and everyone is either a cognitive introvert or a cognitive extrovert?
> 
> If so, wouldn't you just be redefining the I/E dichotomy?


I guess it depends on how we're defining ambiversion. If it's about a mix of introversion and extroversion in the _psyche_, then I'm all for it. If it's used to describe functional preferences in the _conscious_, then I don't really agree. 

That's basically what I'm trying to explore in this thread, because it doesn't make sense to me that the conscious (or unconscious) would be ambiverted. (I think that I'm pretty in line with Jung there, but I called the OP a "personal theory" to avoid conflicts of interpretation.)


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> Could you explain what you meant by the bolded question? Are you implying that there is no such thing as ambiversion (or varying degrees of introversion and extroversion) and everyone is either a cognitive introvert or a cognitive extrovert?
> 
> If so, wouldn't you just be redefining the I/E dichotomy?


To partly repeat Coyote's reply:

There are two separate issues. Jung said that more people are essentially in the middle on extraversion/introversion than are significantly extraverted or introverted. So he certainly believed in "ambiverts" in that sense.

At the same time, as I noted in my first post, I agree with Coyote in terms of thinking that the better reading of Jung is that Jung believed that, assuming you were an introvert, introversion would be your _conscious attitude_, and would not only be the attitude of your dominant function but would also be the attitude of your second function — to the extent that you pulled that second function up out of your unconscious and differentiated it and put it to conscious use in the auxiliary role.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Coyote said:


> Do you mean the issue of introversion/extraversion within the context of MBTI's efforts to make everybody ambiverts? Or simply how MBTI defines the terms? My biggest problem with MBTI's I/E definitions is the association between extraversion and getting energy from other people. That seems so slanted toward Fe that many extraverts probably can't relate.
> 
> Are you an extravert?


This is mostly it. By MBTI definitions, I'm very much an introvert. By pop psychology definitions (which sometimes make it sound like introverts are special snowflakes), I also relate. However, by other systems like Socionics or Big Five, I'm slightly more on the extroversion side. By Jung's definitions, I would have to read more to fully grasp what my orientation is.

Excuse my poor phrasing, I am not feeling well.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Spades said:


> This is mostly it. By MBTI definitions, I'm very much an introvert. By pop psychology definitions (which sometimes make it sound like introverts are special snowflakes), I also relate. However, by other systems like Socionics or Big Five, I'm slightly more on the extroversion side. By Jung's definitions, I would have to read more to fully grasp what my orientation is.
> 
> Excuse my poor phrasing, I am not feeling well.


I defined introversion and extraversion in an earlier post, but I don't know how well I explained them. Let me know if you want me to try harder to clarify Jung's definitions, and I'll see what I can do. 

You're trying to choose between Ni-Se and Ne-Si as your dom-inf pairs, right? This might help: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/111230-summary-jungs-type-descriptions.html. Also, here's a rough translation of _PT_'s Chapter 10: Psychological Types - Wikisocion 

I hope that you feel better soon!


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Coyote said:


> Do you mean the issue of introversion/extraversion within the context of MBTI's efforts to make everybody ambiverts? Or simply how MBTI defines the terms? My biggest problem with MBTI's I/E definitions is the association between extraversion and getting energy from other people. That seems so slanted toward Fe that many extraverts probably can't relate.


No, it doesn't have to be Fe. Se can be like that too, I relate a lot to that idea of getting energy from other people. People are part of the world so I'm just as interested in them as in other objects in the world... and then some more interest  because of basic human needs too 




Coyote said:


> That's basically what I'm trying to explore in this thread, because it doesn't make sense to me that the conscious (or unconscious) would be ambiverted. (I think that I'm pretty in line with Jung there, but I called the OP a "personal theory" to avoid conflicts of interpretation.)


Why doesn't it make sense? I default to extraversion as my orientation in a Jungian sense too but I can be consciously introverted too with Ti or some such function, it seems it's Ti though (I would also mention Ni but that'd be an idea too crazy for now wouldn't it ). It's true that that introverted attitude doesn't hold up as long as the extraverted one but it does work.




reckful said:


> To partly repeat Coyote's reply:
> 
> There are two separate issues. Jung said that more people are essentially in the middle on extraversion/introversion than are significantly extraverted or introverted. So he certainly believed in "ambiverts" in that sense.
> 
> At the same time, as I noted in my first post, I agree with Coyote in terms of thinking that the better reading of Jung is that Jung believed that, assuming you were an introvert, introversion would be your _conscious attitude_, and would not only be the attitude of your dominant function but would also be the attitude of your second function — to the extent that you pulled that second function up out of your unconscious and differentiated it and put it to conscious use in the auxiliary role.


So how come Jung believed in ambiverts if the idea is that both dominant and auxiliary are the same attitude? Or does this just mean a strong influence from the inferior functions with the opposite attitude? But then what about the people who are significantly extraverted or introverted, do they have a less influential inferior function or what?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> So how come Jung believed in ambiverts if the idea is that both dominant and auxiliary are the same attitude? Or does this just mean a strong influence from the inferior functions with the opposite attitude? But then what about the people who are significantly extraverted or introverted, do they have a less influential inferior function or what?


Yeah, I definitely recognize myself a bit on the cognitive ambiversion scale. Not entirely ambiverted, but ambiverted tendencies. I also think that the fact that both my Si and Fe are quite suppressed and Si just slightly less would indicate this. My Ne is very strong and well-developed and I hate running out of Ne ideas (boring!), and the way it plays with Ti is so naturally strong I can't sometimes really seem to see where Ti begins and Ne ends. 

Yet it's definitely not as strong as an Ne dom and while an Ne dom with strong Ti might experience themselves as ambiverted for the same reason, their Ti will not as strong as my Ti.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> No, it doesn't have to be Fe. Se can be like that too, I relate a lot to that idea of getting energy from other people. People are part of the world so I'm just as interested in them as in other objects in the world... and then some more interest  because of basic human needs too


I considered this perspective before saying that it was slanted toward Fe, so I see where you're coming from. But I stand by my original statement. If you look at the other functions, none of them really _require_ people. (You could debate the issue in regard to Te, but I'm not going to attempt it right now.)

The problem with the "energy source" explanation is that it focuses on tangential issues and disregards what _really_ charges the non-Fe types. Is it more accurate to say that Se-doms are charged by social interaction or by sensual experiences? Are Ne-doms charged more by people or by possibilities? I think that's why Ne-doms have the reputation for being the most "introverted" of the extraverts, since people aren't necessarily required for Ne's efforts. But they're still extraverts because they're focused on the external world. Asking whether they're energized by people doesn't really capture the essence of extraversion.



> Why doesn't it make sense? I default to extraversion as my orientation in a Jungian sense too but I can be consciously introverted too with Ti or some such function, it seems it's Ti though (I would also mention Ni but that'd be an idea too crazy for now wouldn't it ). It's true that that introverted attitude doesn't hold up as long as the extraverted one but it does work.


It was actually my interaction with ESTPs that committed me to the idea that the conscious functions have the same direction. Since ESTPs have auxiliary T and no Ne to muddle things up, it became pretty clear that we weren't talking about Ti in the same way. Their explanations for how Ti works seemed far too extraverted to me, and I started wondering if the auxiliary was getting pulled in the same direction as the dominant.



> I would also mention Ni but that'd be an idea too crazy for now wouldn't it


I would totally understand if you referenced Ni. The inferior function is far more important than the auxiliary, and commenting on it wouldn't be crazy at all.



> So how come Jung believed in ambiverts if the idea is that both dominant and auxiliary are the same attitude? Or does this just mean a strong influence from the inferior functions with the opposite attitude? But then what about the people who are significantly extraverted or introverted, do they have a less influential inferior function or what?


You can be ambiverted in terms of your overall psyche, which was important to Jung. If you're significantly extraverted or introverted, that probably means that you're putting too much emphasis on the dominant function. As a result, the unconscious goes into open opposition (e.g., an introvert might get torn up from the inside about external concerns that he's trying so hard to block out).



LeaT said:


> Yeah, I definitely recognize myself a bit on the cognitive ambiversion scale. Not entirely ambiverted, but ambiverted tendencies. I also think that the fact that both my Si and Fe are quite suppressed and Si just slightly less would indicate this. My Ne is very strong and well-developed and I hate running out of Ne ideas (boring!), and the way it plays with Ti is so naturally strong I can't sometimes really seem to see where Ti begins and Ne ends.
> 
> Yet it's definitely not as strong as an Ne dom and while an Ne dom with strong Ti might experience themselves as ambiverted for the same reason, their Ti will not as strong as my Ti.


I'm a bit afraid to tackle this issue, but I'm often quite confused by how you explain your functional stack. 

For example, you claim strong Fi (and I see it) and weak/non-existent Fe. But the inferior function isn't non-existent. Heck, my Fe is far too powerful and drives me crazy. I can't escape it, no matter how hard I try to shut it out. (And trying to do so just makes it stronger, which means that it causes even more problems. Vicious, vicious cycle.) 

And, if your unconscious is oriented by Feeling that has been extraverted, how could your psyche also allow Feeling to be introverted? 

I really don't mean to be rude, so I hope that you don't take it that way. I've just been very curious about your functions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Coyote said:


> I'm a bit afraid to tackle this issue, but I'm often quite confused by how you explain your functional stack.
> 
> For example, you claim strong Fi (and I see it) and weak/non-existent Fe. But the inferior function isn't non-existent. Heck, my Fe is far too powerful and drives me crazy. I can't escape it, no matter how hard I try to shut it out. (And trying to do so just makes it stronger, which means that it causes even more problems. Vicious, vicious cycle.)
> 
> ...


I wish I had a good answer to this question XD And it's fine, I don't mind discussing it. I honestly don't know how it works out, personally. I've gone through and over the functions and how it works in me, and the only theory I have that is capable of explaining this is my own. If I look at the Beebe model it makes no sense (I really don't dislike Fi that much as that model says I should, I swear), if I look at the MBTI well I suppose it does, but it doesn't explain shadows, if I look at Jung alone, then it's also contradictory I suppose. 

So what I end up with is that I don't think that Ti or Fi must be contradictory to each other when it comes to preferences. In the end, Ti and Fi deal with completely different systems. I also definitely see a lot of overlap here. There was a point where I definitely thought I was an INFP and if you had asked me when I was a teenager and forced me to take the test when I was the most depressed, I would probably have scored INFP (maybe INFJ because I idealized structure). 

I wouldn't say my Fe is non-existent in the sense that it doesn't exist, but I would say it's severely repressed and consciously under-developed. This really seems to be so much more re-inforced due to Ti and Fi not being particularly fond of Fe. I have no clue why this does not apply as strongly to Te, but I think being an academic student forced me to overcome much of my Te phobia. I simply had no choice if I wanted to get good grades. 

I try to understand what you mean with your Fe. I can kind of understand it, yet I can't. It's just not a problem for most of the part. I just... shut it off. I give it the Fi finger if it becomes too troublesome and move on XD It Fe starts nagging me a lot about certain things, then I just remind myself that I don't care that much about what others think and that I should adapt and such, and then it's fine again. What does it matter what others think of me at the end of the day? Zero. Or something alone those lines. I honestly wish I had a better idea and understanding of my Fe, but it seems to be so unconscious this is probably the best explanation I can give you about that. 

And to me, I don't see it as a problem of my ego being both Ti and Fi. I see them as dealing with different kinds of logic and none of them are wrong. I don't necessarily see Fi logic being invalidated more than if I think a person exhibits contradictory Fi logic where their values are not consistent with themselves. That bothers me like hell, I swear. If I can't understand something with Ti, then I see what Fi says and vice versa. I think. There was for example a certain someone who said that MBTI is good because people fit into boxes and the MBTI model is static, but enneagram does not and it makes sense because people are much too complex for the enneagram thery to truly capture the essence of people. Yes, I can understand the basic underlying logic here (and I don't know how or why I can do that), but the fact that the ideas are contradictory is so annoying. I don't care so much what this person thinks in actuality, but just be consistent please XD. 

There are just situations or contexts either function can't really deal with, and I really do think I tend to prefer to invoke either Ji function before Je in most situations. I know that I am very, very ego-centered. Trying to listen to and understand others and what they think is something I have been forced to practice as I have grown older, as I have realized that when I talk it always seems to be about me and I tend to try to make the conversation focus on me. I do think this ego-centrism definitely part stems from having two strong introverted judging functions. When I converse, it's all about how I see the world and how I can apply this understanding on the world rather than how I can fit into it and how I can adapt. 

Anyway, all this aside, if I would explain my preferences or development order from conscious to unconscious I would do it something like this: 
Ti - Ne - Fi - Te - Ni - Si - Se - Fe. 

I would like to add that I have been good friends with many Fi users so this could perhaps be part why. In retrospect, I think most of them fall in the NFP spectrum as typing them is hard based on memory alone. That, or it was just because I had this extremely strong Fi streak when I was a weensy teen and to be honest, Ti wasn't that needed when I was a teenager because anything I did I did so effortlessly :/ That period of time was much more important for me to develop a sense of who I was, what was important to me and why. It helped to make sense of the world in a way Ti simply couldn't, I guess since Ti just doesn't care about the self or the ego in that sense. 

So the best way I can explain it really in how it works in my own ego formation it's just that I can't see how they must be opposite. I rather find them to be complimentary and reflect a different kind of interesting but important function duality. I can't see how a person can be a person without Fi. I have a lot of respect of Fi users in this regard because they have this strong sense of who they are. To me this sense os very important to me. Otherwise I feel like I would get lost in myself. To me no Fi would mean no ego. Maybe it's not Fi but at least the function I dentify to be Fi is what anchors me and keeps me stable because I can always go back to Fi and recall who I am. 

Did I link the video where Neo meets the Oracle in the first The Matrix movie and she talks about fate versus free will, and how she says Neo doesn't believe in the "fate crap"? Similar affirmation.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> So how come Jung believed in ambiverts if the idea is that both dominant and auxiliary are the same attitude? Or does this just mean a strong influence from the inferior functions with the opposite attitude? But then what about the people who are significantly extraverted or introverted, do they have a less influential inferior function or what?


First, to maybe clarify, the idea that Jung believed that more people were essentially in the middle on extraversion/introversion than were significantly extraverted or introverted isn't _my interpretation_ of Jung. It's what he said. 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 describing the "extraverted type" and the "introverted type," Jung said this:



Jung said:


> There is, finally, a third group, and here it is hard to say whether the motivation comes chiefly from within or without. This group is the most numerous and includes the less differentiated normal man, who is considered normal either because he allows himself no excesses or because he has no need of them. The normal man is, by definition, influenced as much from within as from without. He constitutes the extensive middle group.


Note that Jung referred to the ambivert as the "*less differentiated* normal man." As I've said, I think the better reading of Jung (and Myers acknowledged it was the majority view) is that _if_ a person had a significant _conscious attitude_ (e.g., was significantly introverted), then that would be the attitude of _both_ their dominant and auxiliary (to the extent that they differentiated/developed their auxiliary) functions. Consistent with that view (and the "less differentiated" reference), I'm inclined to think that a "less differentiated" ambivert would be a person who didn't have a significant conscious attitude — whether with respect to their dominant or auxiliary functions — rather than a person who had differentiated dominant and auxiliary functions with opposite attitudes that effectively canceled each other out.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Personally, I think one of my biggest issues with the aux. and tert. constuct is in how it's used in MBTI to imply something like multiple personalities (that, if one's say, an MBTI ESTJ, then Te and Si are one personality and Ne and Fi are another), which is just absurd when you're talking about normal people who don't have dissociative disorders (I mean, it's just technically silly to look at it so simplistically - after all, this man WAS working with people who probably had problems THIS severe, and never noted such a phenomenon, let alone, anything that can be easily defined about these people's states of mind other than *maybe* in the realm of the inferior). Also, this doesn't *specifically* come from Jung either (it seems like a general oversimplification of what Jung was talking about - in fact, it's veering toward misinterpretation). Jung makes it quite clear in Ch. 10 of Psychological Types that the auxes. (either both judgment functions or both perception functions) are by nature relatively unconscious compared to the dominant *charter *(some form of perception or judging), so in Jung's context, I can't see where anything special about this MBTI way of looking at this can fit in nicely at all (it's probably not so black-and-white anyhow). Considering that it's also impossible to habituate the inferior and for it to ever take precedence over the dominant, no matter how manifest it becomes, this makes this whole divided personality spiel in MBTI seem unquantifiable and indeterminate on every possible level (whether or not the tert. is more repressed than the aux. is one thing...what that means and whether or not this really produces any particular phenomenon toward dom./inferior can easily go up in the air for debate, especially in the context of Jung's description of the aux's relationship to the inferior, which yes, it most certainly has a relationship to the inferior, unlike what MBTI implies by making it characterize a person in their opposite orientation so much while altogether neglecting the tert./inferior functions). It's like, say if you were "getting closer" to your shadow through the inferior - how can you really see the difference between auxes here (and does this have to be an imperative)? Also, I wonder, since introversion (subjectivity) is the defense against extraversion (objectivity) and vice-versa, wouldn't this imply that the dominant function is actually defending itself from the aux. (even if one is a P function and one is a J function) in some capacity? At this point, I don't really get it, especially since in MBTI, the aux. supposedly forms your connection to your inner/outer world, but to Jung, the inferior did. It starts to (for me) just fall into "so what" territorry when it comes to much of anything about these two, unless material on what this stuff would look like in a Jungian context would get more specific about it (the MBTI stuff on this doesn't "do it" for me for the most part). Through the shadow in Jung (so, in inferior territory), it seems to me that people would certainly have more than "one" so-called "opposite" personality (Jung certainly implies this in quotes I've seen from him) - in fact, I wonder if the extent to which "these" may be "opposite" would reflect more about people's unconscious ideas of their own personas countering their conscious ideas, since the unconscious represents what a person wouldn't want to see in themselves for any number of reasons - this brings me to conclude that through this realistic reasoning of taking peoples' persona complexes into account, it's not so easy to "type" type as one would presume through MBTI. Like for instance, would it really matter if an INTP's shadow is an ESFJ or ENFJ (if to Jung, it's possible for this type to have fairly undifferentiated S and N functions - keeping this idea in mind, if you took an INTJ, then interestingly enough, would it really matter if their shadow was an ESFP or even an ES*T*P, since ESTPs are Fe/Ti types, while ESFPs are Fi/Te types?) I especially don't think the tertiary says much toward type (I haven't given up on it yet, but it's one I have a tough time seeing with a constant "type" of manifestation). It's like I always say, a person can't have the potential for two split personalities (in say, an INFJ, a feeling of disconnection between Ni and Se AND Fe and Ti - I can't help but think such a person would be a mess psychologically if they tend to, say, from an inferior Se perspective, feel disconnected from the moment at times and feel disconnected from their thoughts at times - it sounds like such a person would be very insecure with their identity, since they'd have to focus on prioritizing not only toward their ego (dominant), but also, away from their ego, yet still in it's direction (aux.) - it sounds like the person would be veering toward a kind of schizophrenia). I'm not perfectly sure on this idea (maybe I'm missing something), but that's the idea I get when applying MBTI to Jung.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Coyote said:


> I considered this perspective before saying that it was slanted toward Fe, so I see where you're coming from. But I stand by my original statement. If you look at the other functions, none of them really _require_ people. (You could debate the issue in regard to Te, but I'm not going to attempt it right now.)
> 
> The problem with the "energy source" explanation is that it focuses on tangential issues and disregards what _really_ charges the non-Fe types. Is it more accurate to say that Se-doms are charged by social interaction or by sensual experiences? Are Ne-doms charged more by people or by possibilities? I think that's why Ne-doms have the reputation for being the most "introverted" of the extraverts, since people aren't necessarily required for Ne's efforts. But they're still extraverts because they're focused on the external world. Asking whether they're energized by people doesn't really capture the essence of extraversion.


Fair enough, it can indeed be said that people things is just one subset of extraversion (perhaps even for Fe too, especially in the way Jung defined Fe). Still, I think that for any extraverted function, if the people subset is excluded, something is definitely missing. They are simply a large part of our world  But yeah, of course, there are other things beyond.

As for whether the explanation focuses only on the tangential issues... I'm not sure if it has any point to remove the object (people if the situation includes people) from the interest of an extraverted function, after all, the interest being on the object is why it is extraverted. So I would say it's indeed people that charges the extraverted function user if around people. As an example, I do like social interaction as an experience, without people how would it be an experience in this specific situation?

So overall the people thing is just a common interest for all extraverted functions if the person has no other social issues. I think your issue is with that latter condition? IMO it's ok to ask such a question in a MBTI test as long as other questions are also asked and the general pattern evaluated, not deciding I/E just based on interest in people.




> It was actually my interaction with ESTPs that committed me to the idea that the conscious functions have the same direction. Since ESTPs have auxiliary T and no Ne to muddle things up, it became pretty clear that we weren't talking about Ti in the same way. Their explanations for how Ti works seemed far too extraverted to me, and I started wondering if the auxiliary was getting pulled in the same direction as the dominant.


So how did these ESTP's describe Ti? I'm curious what was so extraverted about it. Also why did you mention Ne could muddle things up here? Do you mean ENTP's Ne makes their T function _seem_ like more Ti than for ESTPs or what? What I identify as Ti for me is some attitude of mine that requires me looking at something in an analytical way that doesn't work without introverting. In general, I can't accept logic if I can't make sense of it on my own terms and for that I have to process it for myself and see how it is for me. There is one important thing here though that's objective and not subjective in this and it is that external data trumps any Ti conclusion if the data refutes it. Also I don't like to veer away from objective evidence and assume too much without it. That could be Se > Ti and could be Te. Something that I do see as real Te is that I often go by the idea that if something is shown in an experiment and it's been done with the _correct_ standards of how to do an experiment then it's something I can base conclusions on. I'm not sure if this isn't something that actually fits in a Ti worldview of an extravert, though. Another Te thing is that I also accept some facts as is and use them for my goals without questioning them if it's from a good source. Of course if then my experience indicated a contradiction in such applied information then I would go by my experience and my own interpretation of it. Also, I do prefer to be able to make sense of the facts in my own way in the first place but if I don't have time for that or just not so important then I don't necessarily do this.




> I would totally understand if you referenced Ni. The inferior function is far more important than the auxiliary, and commenting on it wouldn't be crazy at all.


Well another post (from JungyesMBTIno) below says that the inferior is something one can't ever get used to... Anyway, I do think I can consciously access some Ni things at times. But then at other times it just makes no sense, I do think I often have to go through my ego (S+T) functions to access it... if it makes sense to Se/Ti then ok, if not, I'll just flat-out ignore it, especially as Ni has such a negative quality to it in those cases. An exception from that is if I go through F or something like that. Then I again don't have a problem with Ni. I recall Jung called the tertiary function the transcendent function to access the inferior function through it. That almost makes sense in light of my own observations. (I say almost because I can't fully explain why it should be this way, not in a way satisfactory to me)




> You can be ambiverted in terms of your overall psyche, which was important to Jung. If you're significantly extraverted or introverted, that probably means that you're putting too much emphasis on the dominant function. As a result, the unconscious goes into open opposition (e.g., an introvert might get torn up from the inside about external concerns that he's trying so hard to block out).


Well but when the inferior goes into open opposition, doesn't it still keep the person as an ambivert overall?




> And, if your unconscious is oriented by Feeling that has been extraverted, how could your psyche also allow Feeling to be introverted?


We would first have to determine how this general quality of extraversion and introversion is implemented in such a way that it necessitates claims like Fe and Fi can't exist in the same psyche. It could be an implementation that actually allows for such things too.




LeaT said:


> So what I end up with is that I don't think that Ti or Fi must be contradictory to each other when it comes to preferences. In the end, Ti and Fi deal with completely different systems.


That's one good point  They wouldn't work together *at the same time* but nothing I know of prevents the mind to switch to another mode *at another moment*.




> And to me, I don't see it as a problem of my ego being both Ti and Fi. I see them as dealing with different kinds of logic and none of them are wrong. I don't necessarily see Fi logic being invalidated more than if I think a person exhibits contradictory Fi logic where their values are not consistent with themselves. That bothers me like hell, I swear. If I can't understand something with Ti, then I see what Fi says and vice versa.


Cool. If Ti can't get at it, I just shrug I guess... or have Fe to turn to, perhaps. Depending on the situation. I don't really have Fi much...




> I think. There was for example a certain someone who said that MBTI is good because people fit into boxes and the MBTI model is static, but enneagram does not and it makes sense because people are much too complex for the enneagram thery to truly capture the essence of people. Yes, I can understand the basic underlying logic here (and I don't know how or why I can do that), but the fact that the ideas are contradictory is so annoying. I don't care so much what this person thinks in actuality, but just be consistent please XD.


I can't even begin to understand perhaps due to the typo as to why MBTI is good for fitting much too complex people into simple boxes while enneagram fails at doing this? Can you rewrite that part?  Annoying right now... =)




> It helped to make sense of the world in a way Ti simply couldn't, I guess since Ti just doesn't care about the self or the ego in that sense.


True, that.




> So the best way I can explain it really in how it works in my own ego formation it's just that I can't see how they must be opposite. I rather find them to be complimentary and reflect a different kind of interesting but important function duality. I can't see how a person can be a person without Fi. I have a lot of respect of Fi users in this regard because they have this strong sense of who they are. To me this sense os very important to me. Otherwise I feel like I would get lost in myself. To me no Fi would mean no ego. Maybe it's not Fi but at least the function I dentify to be Fi is what anchors me and keeps me stable because I can always go back to Fi and recall who I am.


Well here's someone without much Fi  Or if I have Fi then it's unconscious. It's true I don't give much conscious focus to "who I am" and the question doesn't make very much sense either if trying to consider it in a Fi way. I mean I understand that this is some special sentence to Fi users but it is not really to me. I know a lot of things about myself and I even have a few special things inside that I think is linked to me in a significant way but I think even that's not Fi because it's not a value system... it's more to do with imagination and symbolism, so perhaps Ni. Otoh, I don't really need to recall much "who I am" either... Someone on these forums (some other ESTP or ISTP) once said that he has a substance when he gets moving and I feel the same way.




> Did I link the video where Neo meets the Oracle in the first The Matrix movie and she talks about fate versus free will, and how she says Neo doesn't believe in the "fate crap"? Similar affirmation.


Is that a Fi affirmation? I don't believe in fate because I see no proof that can support it. I'm also used to doing things when I want do to them and that can be an example of free will, though of course that concept doesn't make a lot of sense in my reductionist worldview, yet I don't just have a reductionist view, I'm not for black-white scientism. So... while I don't believe in these things per se, I also don't reject them, as these are really complex questions.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Personally, I think one of my biggest issues with the aux. and tert. constuct is in how it's used in MBTI to imply something like multiple personalities (that, if one's say, an MBTI ESTJ, then Te and Si are one personality and Ne and Fi are another)


I dunno, I never had a problem imagining myself as having more than just an overarching worldview, actually above view on the fate thing is a good example of that.  This has nothing to do with multiple personalities at all, that would be if a person is not comfortable with being some specific way and tries to ignore it out of consciousness to such an extent that the integration of the person is disrupted on a basic level, e.g. inducing amnesia etc... now that's a pathologic level of ignoring things. Just from the idea of having more than one side to you, it doesn't follow it has to be a pathologic thing. Honestly I never thought any of this MBTI stuff implied anything like this  It only implies that to you because you are making additional assumptions unrelated to MBTI and using those to arrive at your conclusions.




> Jung makes it quite clear in Ch. 10 of Psychological Types that the auxes. (either both judgment functions or both perception functions) are by nature relatively unconscious compared to the dominant *charter *(some form of perception or judging), so in Jung's context, I can't see where anything special about this MBTI way of looking at this can fit in nicely at all (it's probably not so black-and-white anyhow).


Yeah it's not black-and-white, Jung shows this already. He mentions in the description of the Se-dom personality that Se can come with a differentiated auxiliary and the manifestation of Se will be affected by that a lot and so it's quite a different case so we don't need to look at every Se-dom in the same way because they are simply not the same with a more conscious auxiliary function. This actually is a very important note IMO. And this would be an example of how Jung thought the aux can be important... I agree because my experience is the same.




> Considering that it's also impossible to habituate the inferior and for it to ever take precedence over the dominant, no matter how manifest it becomes


Not true. :/




> this makes this whole divided personality spiel in MBTI seem unquantifiable and indeterminate on every possible level (whether or not the tert. is more repressed than the aux. is one thing...what that means and whether or not this really produces any particular phenomenon toward dom./inferior can easily go up in the air for debate


Well it's all up for debate because there aren't exactly many objective tools at hand atm. I can try to quantify my own experiences but that's still just my own experiences and doesn't say much about someone else's stuff. It's good though as an example to show that things are indeed not as black-and-white 




> It's like, say if you were "getting closer" to your shadow through the inferior - how can you really see the difference between auxes here


Well, how do you determine which function is your dominant... similar process.




> Also, I wonder, since introversion (subjectivity) is the defense against extraversion (objectivity) and vice-versa, wouldn't this imply that the dominant function is actually defending itself from the aux. (even if one is a P function and one is a J function) in some capacity? At this point, I don't really get it, especially since in MBTI, the aux. supposedly forms your connection to your inner/outer world, but to Jung, the inferior did.


At this point I quit subjective speculation and wait for objective evidence and stay skeptical to any ideas of laws governing functions as actually existing entities. I first need to know how these function things are implemented in reality inside the mind/brain before I'd be willing to draw more specific conclusions here. So that's why I mention stuff here and there to show I disagree that the principles at work here must be X or Y.




> It starts to (for me) just fall into "so what" territorry when it comes to much of anything about these two


I have the "so what" stance even about the dominant and inferior too.  I've seen people who are so complex that it's hard to say what their dominant or inferior function is. Even for myself a bit hard to say but I can decide from observing myself and from introspection as far as that can be accurate.




> Through the shadow in Jung (so, in inferior territory), it seems to me that people would certainly have more than "one" so-called "opposite" personality (Jung certainly implies this in quotes I've seen from him) - in fact, I wonder if the extent to which "these" may be "opposite" would reflect more about people's unconscious ideas of their own personas countering their conscious ideas, since the unconscious represents what a person wouldn't want to see in themselves for any number of reasons


Ohh yes, I agree here, it's easily possible to have more than just one, easy to find examples for that. Btw Jung also says that the tertiary function is in the unconscious and auxiliary can be too, but not necessarily. Logic would dictate that it takes more work to get tertiary out of unconscious, to some degree. I could generalize this as taking more time to develop your undeveloped areas whatever the reason for them being underdeveloped is... (MBTI, Jung, functions or something else altogether, no matter)

Btw as for unconscious, totally unrelated question but I wanted to ask, if Intuition process is unconscious by nature, what is conscious about it when it's dominant function in the conscious ego? 




> It's like I always say, a person can't have the potential for two split personalities (in say, an INFJ, a feeling of disconnection between Ni and Se AND Fe and Ti - I can't help but think such a person would be a mess psychologically if they tend to, say, from an inferior Se perspective, feel disconnected from the moment at times and feel disconnected from their thoughts at times - it sounds like such a person would be very insecure with their identity, since they'd have to focus on prioritizing not only toward their ego (dominant), but also, away from their ego, yet still in it's direction (aux.) - it sounds like the person would be veering toward a kind of schizophrenia). I'm not perfectly sure on this idea (maybe I'm missing something), but that's the idea I get when applying MBTI to Jung.


Um... why can't an INFJ live in the future and live in their feelings at one given moment without being schizo? You are using unverified assumptions of functional laws here (that is, auxiliary meaning prioritizing function toward ego and away from it at the same time). For one we don't know if it really works like that, and more importantly, I don't think MBTI says that auxiliary is away from the ego in such a manner.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

reckful said:


> Note that Jung referred to the ambivert as the "*less differentiated* normal man." As I've said, I think the better reading of Jung (and Myers acknowledged it was the majority view) is that _if_ a person had a significant _conscious attitude_ (e.g., was significantly introverted), then that would be the attitude of _both_ their dominant and auxiliary (to the extent that they differentiated/developed their auxiliary) functions. Consistent with that view (and the "less differentiated" reference), I'm inclined to think that a "less differentiated" ambivert would be a person who didn't have a significant conscious attitude — whether with respect to their dominant or auxiliary functions — rather than a person who had differentiated dominant and auxiliary functions with opposite attitudes that effectively canceled each other out.


Ah thanks, well, I don't think I'm really that little differentiated, it's more like this for me, I default to extraversion and then I have some introverted functions too that I involve at times too. Often I do that if the environment is boring and I can't be doing anything temporarily but not necessarily just in such situations. I don't think it makes any sense to say that e.g. Se dom and Ti aux function cancel each other out. Consider how these two can actually work together very nicely; also consider how you being and doing something in one given moment does not have to be the same as in another moment, thus there are two moments of different active attitudes BUT not canceling each other out as they are not done in the same moment, not simultaneously. But again, they can work simultaneously too, depending (e.g. I indeed don't see Se and Ne working simultaneously but I can see Se and Ti that way).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> That's one good point  They wouldn't work together *at the same time* but nothing I know of prevents the mind to switch to another mode *at another moment*.


Yeah. I just see them as different modes of operation, really. I know I have a closet NFP in me. That's why I relate so well to them and understand them well and usually get along well with them too.


> Cool. If Ti can't get at it, I just shrug I guess... or have Fe to turn to, perhaps. Depending on the situation. I don't really have Fi much...


Yeah. I would still try to analyze it I think. I overanalyze everything :/


> I can't even begin to understand perhaps due to the typo as to why MBTI is good for fitting much too complex people into simple boxes while enneagram fails at doing this? Can you rewrite that part?  Annoying right now... =)


Well, he thought that the MBTI model is static and cannot change, so once people fit a type they are their type. They become the box. In the case of enneagram, this is not the case because enneagram is meant to identify weaknesses in a personality so they can be changed. Yet both deal with how a person's personality operates so I don't see how one model can be static but another one not. Environmental factors obviously play a large role no matter how you look at it.


> Well here's someone without much Fi  Or if I have Fi then it's unconscious. It's true I don't give much conscious focus to "who I am" and the question doesn't make very much sense either if trying to consider it in a Fi way. I mean I understand that this is some special sentence to Fi users but it is not really to me. I know a lot of things about myself and I even have a few special things inside that I think is linked to me in a significant way but I think even that's not Fi because it's not a value system... it's more to do with imagination and symbolism, so perhaps Ni. Otoh, I don't really need to recall much "who I am" either... Someone on these forums (some other ESTP or ISTP) once said that he has a substance when he gets moving and I feel the same way.


Yeah, the attitude that seems to come from Ti users in this regard is that they don't care or have a need to affirm who they are in this sense. I honestly can't wrap my head around it. How can you NOT have a desire to understand what things mean to you in order to create a sense of self?


> Is that a Fi affirmation? I don't believe in fate because I see no proof that can support it. I'm also used to doing things when I want do to them and that can be an example of free will, though of course that concept doesn't make a lot of sense in my reductionist worldview, yet I don't just have a reductionist view, I'm not for black-white scientism. So... while I don't believe in these things per se, I also don't reject them, as these are really complex questions.


Could be Fi affirmation but it was meant to be taken less literarily and merely illustrate as an example of how I would go on doing it when I experience Fe pulling and I give it the Fi finger. I simply remind myself that I don't care so much what Fe thinks and then it's all good again.


> I dunno, I never had a problem imagining myself as having more than just an overarching worldview, actually above view on the fate thing is a good example of that.  This has nothing to do with multiple personalities at all, that would be if a person is not comfortable with being some specific way and tries to ignore it out of consciousness to such an extent that the integration of the person is disrupted on a basic level, e.g. inducing amnesia etc... now that's a pathologic level of ignoring things. Just from the idea of having more than one side to you, it doesn't follow it has to be a pathologic thing. Honestly I never thought any of this MBTI stuff implied anything like this  It only implies that to you because you are making additional assumptions unrelated to MBTI and using those to arrive at your conclusions.


Yes, because I feel the current models we have are too simplistic to describe the reality as I see it, using myself as a starting point


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> snip


Well, I think it's only a problem if you try to judge the same situation with both functions and try to do this always. Preferences are still important here I think. I have had an experience I think could best be explained as an Si - Fi - Ti loop where Fi and Ti would respectively bounce off Si with Ne generating ideas in the background and try to judge it in a similar manner. Obviously, that didn't work out too well and the experience itself can best be explained as rather psychotic in nature. I really felt like I was going insane. It didn't last very long though. I was considering if it really was Ti and Fe bouncing off Si, but I don't really think it was Fe. It was very ego-focused, on what the situation meant for me and what was good, logical and rational from a feeler POV. And it wasn't Ti and Fe working together. If it had been, the experience itself would not have been so madness-inducing as I know I rationalize Fe quite a lot all the time with Ti. It's one of few ways I can accept Fe values. Or in retrospect, is that Fi sigh? 

I can't really explain my thought-process at the time better than this.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I really felt like I was going insane.


That's the best way to describe how I feel when Fe just won't shut up. It makes me wants to scream.

Can I ask what made you decide against Fi and Te as your judging functions?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well sure, anyone might experience any of the functions at the unconscious level, but if it doesn't have any semblance of rationality, then it's not really a function - just a complex-induced response.


That's the theory...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't think any of the functions can be used in a particularly rational manner. If the theory posits that a function is simply a cognitive expression of our psyche, then at the basic level one can assume that the psyche can express itself in many ways as a part of its ego formation and ego expression and I don't see how this much point explicitly towards any specific function patterning. 

I definitely see the functions overlapping more than what the theory gives credit for on both axes (Ji-Je to Ji-Ji for example). For the sake of theory I think it's convenient to keep the functions apart, but I don't think we can simplify to that degree, since we are after all, describing _extreme stereotype modes of thinking_. Stereotype because we assume the function would appear as or take a certain form in its unadultered state, but once we create an interplay between them, suddenly it's not that simple anymore.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I don't think any of the functions can be used in a particularly rational manner. If the theory posits that a function is simply a cognitive expression of our psyche, then at the basic level one can assume that the psyche can express itself in many ways as a part of its ego formation and ego expression and I don't see how this much point explicitly towards any specific function patterning.
> 
> I definitely see the functions overlapping more than what the theory gives credit for on both axes (Ji-Je to Ji-Ji for example). For the sake of theory I think it's convenient to keep the functions apart, but I don't think we can simplify to that degree, since we are after all, describing _extreme stereotype modes of thinking_. Stereotype because we assume the function would appear as or take a certain form in its unadultered state, but once we create an interplay between them, suddenly it's not that simple anymore.


Finally someone is seeing the functions for what they are. They over lap, yes we can simplify to a degree what each function is capable of but they are still I terconnected, to explain one you need another as an example. How I see it is this, our conscious psyche (the psyche in use by an individual) by cognitive functions is one big function (the four main functions of an individual). This one big function can be broken down into combinations of functions which can be explained by simplifying each function in the big function only by using the other functions to fully grasp another individual function.

Ex. Ne and Si are connected for they are polar opposites, and each person whom has Ne or Si in the function make up will have the other, Ti and Fe are the same way. In order to explain Ne concisely you must understand Si and vice versa. Even then you still wouldn't full understand either until you understand what they filter through or what filters through them. For an INTP Ti filters out through Ne but for an ENTP Ne filters through within Ti. Here we see two different facades of both Ne and Ti. In order to explain Ti though you need to understand Fe and vice versa, so now we need to know how Ne-Ti compares to Fe-Si to understand how both fractions work in comparison to the other and n which psychological makeup of the individual. Leading you back to all the functions as a whole, as one big function. All the functions over lap each other, and in order to understand each function you need to understand the overlapping of all functions.

I explained this in the MBTI since of cognitive functions. I would explain it different in the Socionics sense but too lazy. For a quick example since Socionics doesn't break down functions from most used to leased used but instead by what part of the psyche that each function holds in an individual, you could compare Ne and Se to have a firmer grasp on the complexities of each of them. Bottom line is each function is relevant to all the other functions, and the psyche by cognitive function standards is an overlapping of all functions in a very complex way.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> That's the theory...


Not really. It's the rationality that counts, not just experience (or whatever might seem like an experience).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I don't think any of the functions can be used in a particularly rational manner. If the theory posits that a function is simply a cognitive expression of our psyche, then at the basic level one can assume that the psyche can express itself in many ways as a part of its ego formation and ego expression and I don't see how this much point explicitly towards any specific function patterning.
> 
> I definitely see the functions overlapping more than what the theory gives credit for on both axes (Ji-Je to Ji-Ji for example). For the sake of theory I think it's convenient to keep the functions apart, but I don't think we can simplify to that degree, since we are after all, describing _extreme stereotype modes of thinking_. Stereotype because we assume the function would appear as or take a certain form in its unadultered state, but once we create an interplay between them, suddenly it's not that simple anymore.


Well, you're making general sense, but this is your own idea - not the original theory. If consciousness is so important in this stuff, then you pretty much have to play by the rules with the dichotomies. I mean, if you just have a personal feeling, this is not Fi, because everyone experiences this phenomenon in the same capacity. This would say nothing about you as an individual at all.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Not really. It's the rationality that counts, not just experience (or whatever might seem like an experience).


Prove that hers is not rational.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, you're making general sense, but this is your own idea - not the original theory. If consciousness is so important in this stuff, then you pretty much have to play by the rules with the dichotomies. I mean, if you just have a personal feeling, this is not Fi, because everyone experiences this phenomenon in the same capacity. This would say nothing about you as an individual at all.


Her Fi seems to go beyond just personal feelings (and definitely goes beyond what I have for Fi  ), see her older posts in this thread.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

All I've seen from @LeaT in the Fi department is confusion that Fi means having some emotional connection to something. Having a values system doesn't count either (@Bumblyjack had a great thread once that addressed this issue). I'll look again, but I'm not convinced by memory.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> All I've seen from @_LeaT_ in the Fi department is confusion that Fi means having some emotional connection to something. Having a values system doesn't count either (@Bumblyjack had a great thread once that addressed this issue). I'll look again, but I'm not convinced by memory.


then what is Fi in your opinion?




Coyote said:


> Before I address the other parts of that paragraph, can I ask what in there is specifically Ti? I'm not sure where to start.


I've answered you a while ago, any chance you could look at it? Thanks


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I've answered you a while ago, any chance you could look at it? Thanks


I'm sorry for the delay.



> So how did these ESTP's describe Ti? I'm curious what was so extraverted about it.


For example, this is an ESTP speculating about how Te vs. Ti would approach solving a problem: 


> Let's assume Joe wants to find a good political system for his country. So he starts looking into the world, both it's past and it's present, to find out the best system which could be applied to his country. He looks at sovietic Russia and sees that communism didn't work and lost ground to democracy. After that he looks at England and they too threw away absolute monarchy for a more democratic form of monarchy.
> So democracy seems like a good answer. Then he looks at how democratic states seems to be doing and sees that most of them are doing well and their citizens seem content. So democracy gives the BEST RESULTS. Better than any other political system out there. So he looks at how democracy works and what are the steps necessary to implement it. He basically takes the best democratic constitution out there and applies it to his country.
> 
> Now Martin also wants to find a good political system for his country. So he starts thinking which are the BASIC PRINCIPLES of a good political system. And because democarcy seems like a good political system, he identifies the BASIC PRINCIPLES of democracy. Those seems to be the "Separation of Powers", "Popular Vote",etc (I only listed a few; it's not crucial to list more). Also he could "steal" a few principles from communism.
> ...


To me, _both_ men are using Te. I understand that he's relying on MBTI's over-simplification of the Thinking functions, in which Te cares about efficiency and practical results, while Ti cares about logic and systems. But both men are examining the external world for data upon which to draw conclusions, and relying on "principles" doesn't mean that Thinking is introverted. In talking with him, I realized that his definition of Ti was semi-based on his own experiences with T.

... Part of the problem here is that both functions have been short-changed by their MBTI definitions.

To start with, Te can be highly creative. My favorite Te-dom example is Darwin. Look in the "Famous INTPs" thread and see how many times he's cited as the exemplary INTP, I assume because his theory is thought to be the potent combination of Ti and Ne. ... And yet, the man built a credible, objective, game-changing theory on the foundation of his own experiences and study. Te at its finest.

In contrast, a good example of a Ti-dom scientist may be Alexander Graham Bell. I don't claim to know too much about him, but he was part of a non-fiction book that I read about President Garfield's attempted assassination. The doctors couldn't figure out where the bullet was, and Bell worked feverishly to create a metal detector. The author used his journals, letters, etc., and I kept thinking, "Ti, Ti, Ti." 

Bell knew what he wanted to create, and he was damn sure going to find a way to bring it to life. It wasn't about "logic" or "systems" or "principles," but about the excitement of an idea and the dogged determination to figure it out. I think that's partly why he got annoyed with the attention from the telephone. Once it was created and accepted, what more was there to do with it? It had lost its appeal, and he wanted the freedom to play with new ideas. That's the lifeblood of Ti.



> Also why did you mention Ne could muddle things up here?


And continuing from what I just said about Ti, I think that's partly why Ne and Ti are confusing under MBTI. It seems like MBTI is saying that Ne is driving the chase and Ti is supplying the logic. But real Ti is thinking for thinking's sake, and it loves ideas. It _needs_ ideas. Ne is about possibilities in the external world, and isn't quite the same thing.



> Do you mean ENTP's Ne makes their T function seem like more Ti than for ESTPs or what? What I identify as Ti for me is some attitude of mine that requires me looking at something in an analytical way that doesn't work without introverting.


What do you mean by "introverting"?



> In general, I can't accept logic if I can't make sense of it on my own terms and for that I have to process it for myself and see how it is for me. There is one important thing here though that's objective and not subjective in this and it is that external data trumps any Ti conclusion if the data refutes it. Also I don't like to veer away from objective evidence and assume too much without it.


... So why isn't that just Te? How are your "own terms" bending the logic? Just needing to make sense of something doesn't make it introverted ... seems pretty normal, actually.



> That could be Se > Ti and could be Te. Something that I do see as real Te is that I often go by the idea that if something is shown in an experiment and it's been done with the correct standards of how to do an experiment then it's something I can base conclusions on. I'm not sure if this isn't something that actually fits in a Ti worldview of an extravert, though.


Here's a central issue. If the Thinking function is being bent into something that befits an extraverted conscious, then why aren't we saying that the conscious Thinking function is extraverted? Why would it be introverted in the first place? MBTI's E-I-E-I structure doesn't make sense to me. A differentiated aux gets pulled in the direction of the dominant function because that's the direction of the conscious. How can a function have any place in the conscious if it's working against the interests of that conscious? 

And the "tertiary defense" doesn't work either. The tertiary generally belongs to the unconscious, and it should mostly follow in that direction. It seems like the tertiary-defense idea was intended to explain why some people have two functions in the direction of their conscious. But why the tertiary, when that's contradicting Jung? Why not use the auxiliary and make sense?



> Another Te thing is that I also accept some facts as is and use them for my goals without questioning them if it's from a good source. Of course if then my experience indicated a contradiction in such applied information then I would go by my experience and my own interpretation of it.


Going by your own experience is Te as well.



> Also, I do prefer to be able to make sense of the facts in my own way in the first place but if I don't have time for that or just not so important then I don't necessarily do this.


I don't really know what to do with this information. ... I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "make sense of the facts in my own way."



> Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'll quote the Ti-specific parts: "What I identify as Ti for me is some attitude of mine that requires me looking at something in an analytical way that doesn't work without introverting. In general, I can't accept logic if I can't make sense of it on my own terms and for that I have to process it for myself and see how it is for me." + "Of course if then my experience indicated a contradiction in such applied information then I would go by my experience and my own interpretation of it. Also, I do prefer to be able to make sense of the facts in my own way in the first place"


Thanks for clarifying. Once I went back and read it again, I understood it better. ... But I don't think that you've really described Ti.



> The rest was just about how it ties into Se or what might be Te for me beyond Se and Ti. Oh btw the best way it ties into Se is when I think as I go, it's then mostly quick flashes of introverting here and there. But I can go on for longer with it than that, e.g. for things mentioned below.


What do you mean by "quick flashes of introverting"? The functions aren't describing skills or anything ... think of 'em more like labels for your most common mental patterns. 



> Let me mention some things that I forgot about and that I also attribute to Ti: I quite like certain theories from a Ti viewpoint, mostly I like to understand how things work just because I want to understand. Though I don't do this for very long without some practical goal (Se) but I can for a while.


Se is more about sensory experience, while Te likes practical goals. And there can be some overlap in the I/E "areas" of Thinking.



> Tbh, quite more than the average ESTP and so that's the reason you can see the "Ti rules" statement in my profile.  I also like intellectual challenges that require honing my analytical skills and that's a satisfactory goal for me to do such things though I certainly don't do this all day either.
> 
> Here's also a weird example of the few cases when I really prefer Ti over anything else: with learning foreign languages (two so far!), I start by making sense of the grammar in my own way, I create my own understanding based on a system I abstract away beyond what the language book says about grammar (these books tend to approach it a Te way, I think ). I very literally can't learn a language before doing this. But after I've done this, I can do anything I want with the language as if I'd been studying it for years (though of course I have to practice things to make it all quick&automatic).


Do you enjoy the process of abstracting grammatical rules? Do you end up with fun ideas related to what you can do with the grammar?



> A thing though that would be more Te than Ti, just to make the mix more complex... If science already discovered and explained something well that I have no interest in understanding deeper (because of not having a goal with it) then I will happily run with the already existing explanation and I actually don't understand people who speculate together a theory about the topic without even bothering to look up the well working objective explanation already sorted out by science, which would be easily accessible by googling. (This could actually be a N/S divide too, but also a good example of Te vs Ti, I think.)


Yeah, that sound Te-ish.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

ltldslwmn said:


> So, @Coyote, are you saying the auxiliary functions aren't really important?


No. The dominant and inferior functions are the strongest and the _most_ important, but I think that the auxiliary functions can influence a personality. It kinda seems like I value the aux/tert more than some of the PerC Jungians, since I'm not comfortable with focusing exclusively on the dom/inf. 

... To be honest, I think that part of the appeal is that there's some room to play here. :tongue: But I believe that there can be a great value in analyzing the aux/tert functions, especially since they're not confined to the boundaries of the conscious and unconscious. 



> I have a hard time seeing that. For example, I don't lack intelligence, it tests rather high, and cognitive functions and personality types fascinate me, but even in this thread I just don't get into the abstractions, the theory, that you INTs do. I think a picture is worth a thousand words and I prefer one every time. Give me an example and I get it and I can go from there. (Hence why I use so many examples and illustrations in general.) It seems apparent to me that it's an Ne-vs-Se thing.


I don't think that it's an N vs. S issue. MBTI gives Intuition far too much credit for abstraction, creativity, etc., and minimizes the value of the other functions. 

And I should point out that, under this model, my own type would be Ti-Si-Ne-Fe. Under MBTI, yes, I am an INTP. Ti got warped, so I need Ne to flesh it out and describe me more accurately. And MBTI's Si is more like an extraverted judging function with good memory, so I would never claim it as my aux.

But using Jung's definitions for the functions, I believe that I am in the process of differentiating an Si aux. And it's interesting that the stronger and more pleasurable my Si becomes, the stronger and more negative Ne gets. ... This is where it's important to understand the difference between the conscious and the unconscious. The growing negativity of my Ne function indicates that it's in my unconscious, since the unconscious has a negative air around it.



> So, are you saying that auxiliary functions don't really exist? Are more flexible or interchangable?


They exist, but they're more fluid than the dominant and inferior functions and they can play for both teams (the conscious and the unconscious). For example, if you're an introvert and your dominant function is Thinking, then your psyche would be like:
Conscious: Introverted Thinking + perceiving (Ti+Pi)
Unconscious: Extraverted Feeling + perceiving (Fe+Pe)

And there's a real value in recognizing the auxiliary because it allows you some access to the unconscious. ... I'll try to clarify by using myself as an example. If my functions are Ti > Si > Ni | Se < Ne < Fe, then I can use Si (+Ni?) to access my unconscious. (Trying to do it without a go-between can cause trouble.) 

Now, I generally have no idea what I'm feeling. I don't know that I'm angry until I start yelling, I don't realize that I'm depressed until I'm suicidal, etc. It's actually a big problem. But as I was contemplating the value of the auxiliary function, I had an idea about how to use my Si in a helpful way. 

I bought a Luman Deck a couple of years ago because I've been doing tarot since I was 12, had gotten tired of it, and wanted something different to play with. But if you look at the images here (scroll down), you can see just how vibrant and expressive the cards are. (I don't think it's any coincidence that I fell in love with this deck around the time that my Si was becoming more noticeable.)

So I've started using the deck to help me figure out my moods. I'll go card-by-card through the entire deck, and separate the cards according to my immediate reactions to them. If a card appeals to me, it goes in the "keep" pile. If it doesn't trigger anything in me, it goes in the "toss" pile. Then I sort through the "keep" pile until I'm left with 2-6 cards. I look at them, read their meanings, and analyze my reactions. And there's usually a pattern to the cards, whether they're all dark and ominous, or they're all calm pastels, etc. It's very helpful information that I wouldn't have gotten if I had just sat there and willed myself to figure out what I was feeling.

... I think that I got a bit off-track there, but I guess that I was trying to clarify my position on the value of the auxiliary. I'm also trying to explain why I think it's important to identify the _correct_ auxiliary if you're using this stuff for self-improvement. 

And, since you said that a picture is worth a thousand words, I'm standing by this one as a visualization of Ti > Ni > Si | Ne < Se < Fe:







​


> (By the way, hi! I was offline for a while and really sort of missed you guys.)


Welcome back! :happy: I wondered what had happened to you.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> All I've seen from @_LeaT_ in the Fi department is confusion that Fi means having some emotional connection to something. Having a values system doesn't count either (@Bumblyjack had a great thread once that addressed this issue). I'll look again, but I'm not convinced by memory.


I disagree. In my opinion, she seems to show a lot of Fi. 

The ideas of authenticity and identity are recurring topics in @_LeaT_'s posts, which seem to reflect subjective feeling-values. I believe there's a depth that isn't really visible, and it finds outlet through poetry and a devotion to authenticity. It even seems related to her interest in anthropology and recognizing the voices of minority groups. From what I can tell, those values are the driving force in her life. (That may be very presumptuous, LeaT, and I apologize. I'm just stating my opinion.)

For example:


LeaT said:


> My system is primarily based on my knowledge of anthropology and I'm particularly interested in understanding the mechanics behind the sense of authentic identities. I have developed this system to fit into a much larger macro-perspective where the identities we can adopt are limited by the social discourses that surround us, and our position between the various power relations.
> 
> I have particularly drawn inspiration from the works of French structuralists, semiotics and of course Judith Butler and her theory of performativity. Without getting too long-winded I believe I can offer an explanation to many global phenomena based the existential angst that occurs (of course inspired by Heidegger, Kirkegaard and to a degree, Nietzsche) when we fail to meet the expectations of what an authentic person is like.
> 
> I want to clarify if this was not clear enough that I do not cater to the usual definition of authenticity as necessarily something true. Instead I define authenticity based on acceptance of oneself which has nothing to do with a sense of unique-ness per se. The pursuit to achieve an authentic identity on the other hand is based on the notion of an identity that one does not currently possess but can achieve through various means. An authentic identity is often depicted as something highly unique and individual and is a sign of prowess and power over the self (especially the body). The concept of authentic identity and authenticity are thus separated phenomena.


But perhaps I've misunderstood Fi? 

My take is that Fi is very similar to Ti, and Jung said: "Everything, therefore, that we have said about introverted thinking is equally true of introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought." And while MBTI's Fi seems to focus on whether you have determined your own ethics (?), real Fi is about a depth of ideas that are related to feeling-values. It's really not very different from Ti, it just seems to have a different focus.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@_LeaT_ is showing all Ti in those examples. Fi is the anti-technical reasoning equivalent of Ti (everything Ti is speaking of is from a 100% technical standpoint - just look at the phraseology and how she connects her ideas - it sounds like something out of an encyclopedia on a topic that can certainly be made more relevant to univseral conditions of human experience/evaluation). Interests don't matter in type - I mean, duh, fundamentally, everyone is interested in values and identity, whether or not they realize it, since that's what makes you an individual (and people are obviously egotistical about their idividuality). Her interest in applying it to global phenomena sounds more Fe driven - making esoteric thoughts (Ti) applicable to real world application from an evaluational perspective (Fe). Her sociological/anthropological positions are very very Fe, not Fi (Fi would be viewing people/evaluation through a very subjective, maybe even more psychological lens of looking at the universals behind human motivation - it usually doesn't look very sociocultural in it's approaches). The way she clarifies her definitions sounds totally Ti also. Ji functions only relate as Ji functions - they would work in the realm of personal identity to a small extent, either focusing on the technical/interest-based aspects of it (Ti) or the evaluative/meaningful aspects of it (Fi).


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

@_Coyote_, this theory has been discussed prior on other Jungian forums (I think it is verboten for me to 'advertise' here, though) and similar-ish conclusions were come to, though -- I personally think the aux functions of the dom/inf remain unoriented (i.e. Se F T Ni). I prefer this & your theory to the original (which would make me (Se Fe Ti Ni, not a type you can 'get' in MBTI) and the whole thing makes much more sense than JCF or MBTI. I haven't read the whole thread so Im sorry I cant comment further.

IMV it makes completely no sense that if the conscious is oriented towards extraversion and the inferior towards introversion -- and we all know what Jung means by the 'inferior' -- that the aux function would be of the opposite orientation. Idk where any of the theorists got that from. "Oh, so the psyche is dominated by extraversion and against introversion, so the dominant function must be supported by a completely different, alien and hated worldview." ??? Really Myers??? _Really???_


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think a good example of Fi style reasoning would be the following: that kind of reasoning that often originates on premises of "Why would anyone want that for him/herself?" (addresses "anyone" as just a universal with no specific ideas of a person or personal biases of people in mind other than *your own rationalized baises about what you'd want for yourself under specific circumstances that you care about* acting as a reference point for the question, basically).


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I read several of the first pages in this thread and am now skipping to page 8. I read some pooping on loops, and want to explain why I am interested in the loops. 

Also, I am not at all a deep well of knowledge on the types and functions, so I don't feel like I can contribute to the ongoing conversation--sorry. But I do want to share my thoughts, and I do appreciate any consideration anyone gives to them because I'm sure that I am missing things. 

So, assuming I am ENFP, I thought I may have been using an Ne Te loop. I think that Fi has been affecting me unconsciously, but I want to bring it into the forefront of my consciousness more. And so these are my thoughts on that:

I decided to try to be more conscious with Fi. I think I stopped consciously choosing to listen to Fi as a teenager. It got in the way of my desire to experience things. So--it was way easier for me to stay out doing risky things which were entertaining if I ignored my feelings, and if they were just left as a sort of quiet, behind the scenes, muse, motivating me into certain interests or activities.

But when I am feeling "bad," instead of exploring that feeling, I will want to push myself into another experience by doing research that distracts me from my feelings, or by pushing myself into a different environment or another person's perspective. And, of course, I love to speculate about other people's problems and come up with solutions. Obviously, my feelings are motivating me to do this--but they are never really being allowed into the forefront of my consciousness. 

An example might be that I would be able to sense I am feeling bad, so i will go and get a glass of wine and force myself into a conversation with another person--in which I can try to analyze him, or I will coax that person to talk about something else that I can learn about. I am motivated by my feelings, but I am not really allowing my feelings to be heard or experienced.

And then I don't even think I use Te that much. I use it for pleasure--I like to read about categories of things and have collections of rocks and plants. I like to learn about all the species of plants, how they evolved, and identify them--then wonder about why they are different from each other and what the scientist was thinking when he named them. And what the plant has to do with what it was named after (because a lot of them are named in Latin). It's like the ultimate distraction from myself.

But I feel like this behavior makes me off. When I sit with Fi and listen to what it's saying--I may come up with way better solutions than to force myself into another distracting experience. Instead of picking up the glass of wine, I may do nothing. I may just sit there--and that's kind of scary, but it's a little bit healthier. I may just sit there and go "I'm sad. I have strong feelings" etc. Then, I may realize better solutions because I am letting Fi make judgements about myself and my feelings, instead of resisting the judgements of my feelings (like, that I dislike something), and choosing to move into an experience with less restrictions.

Stereotypically, it seems like the experiential types that have the problem of jumping recklessly into new experiences that are neither healthy or beneficial for them--and so I think maybe if I brought my Fi into the forefront of thought I would be making safer, healthier choices. The Fi is already active, but it's not being allowed to dictate my actions now, and I think I should be using it to judge my actions more.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @LeaT is showing all Ti in those examples. Fi is the anti-technical reasoning equivalent of Ti (everything Ti is speaking of is from a 100% technical standpoint - just look at the phraseology and how she connects her ideas - it sounds like something out of an encyclopedia on a topic that can certainly be made more relevant to univseral conditions of human experience/evaluation).


It _does_ sound like something out of an encyclopedia (or a thesis), and that's part of the point. Look at how she draws conclusions based on the work of others and says "of course" like it would be silly not to. But her idea focuses on the nature of authenticity and the effects of external pressure on that authentic identity. 



> Interests don't matter in type - I mean, duh, fundamentally, everyone is interested in values and identity, whether or not they realize it, since that's what makes you an individual (and people are obviously egotistical about their idividuality).


I struggle with it. I don't feel like I have a real identity, and I only know my values based on what makes me angry. (Which often seem to boil down to a desire for equality and respect for basic human rights.) I can't say that I spend much time thinking about my "identity," and my efforts at introspection seem more like I'm trying to figure out how my mind works so that I can: 1) Make it obey my wishes; and 2) Side-step the landmines. I'm not even sure that I understand what an authentic identity is, so it's definitely not too high on my list of priorities. 

I doubt that I'm totally alone in that. It seems strange to assume that everybody is interested in the same things as you are, "whether or not they realize it." 



> Her interest in applying it to global phenomena sounds more Fe driven - making esoteric thoughts (Ti) applicable to real world application from an evaluational perspective (Fe). Her sociological/anthropological positions are very very Fe, not Fi (Fi would be viewing people/evaluation through a very subjective, maybe even more psychological lens of looking at the universals behind human motivation - it usually doesn't look very sociocultural in it's approaches).


So, this sounds like Fe?


LeaT said:


> And my background is in anthropology which is based around the idea about giving those in minority of the dominant discourses a voice  It is thus not about agreement but understanding those who are different. It's not about achieving unity and conformity, but hailing differences.


It sounds pretty anti-Fe to me, but not with the feel of inferior Fe. 



> The way she clarifies her definitions sounds totally Ti also. Ji functions only relate as Ji functions - they would work in the realm of personal identity to a small extent, either focusing on the technical/interest-based aspects of it (Ti) or the evaluative/meaningful aspects of it (Fi).


Her clarification of the definitions sounded like she was rejecting the value of an Fe-ish form of identification, in which uniqueness _is_ the identity. Instead, authenticity seems to be a personal ideal that exists independently of the external world. 



JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think a good example of Fi style reasoning would be the following: that kind of reasoning that often originates on premises of "Why would anyone want that for him/herself?" (addresses "anyone" as just a universal with no specific ideas of a person or personal biases of people in mind other than *your own rationalized baises about what you'd want for yourself under specific circumstances that you care about* acting as a reference point for the question, basically).


So is it also Fi that makes someone wonder why anyone _wouldn't_ want that for him/herself?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Coyote said:


> It _does_ sound like something out of an encyclopedia (or a thesis), and that's part of the point. Look at how she draws conclusions based on the work of others and says "of course" like it would be silly not to. But her idea focuses on the nature of authenticity and the effects of external pressure on that authentic identity.
> 
> 
> I struggle with it. I don't feel like I have a real identity, and I only know my values based on what makes me angry. (Which often seem to boil down to a desire for equality and respect for basic human rights.) I can't say that I spend much time thinking about my "identity," and my efforts at introspection seem more like I'm trying to figure out how my mind works so that I can: 1) Make it obey my wishes; and 2) Side-step the landmines. I'm not even sure that I understand what an authentic identity is, so it's definitely not too high on my list of priorities.
> ...


Well, it sounds like Fi is probably very unconscious in you, generally speaking (and this might reflect inferior Fe in general). It's not about what conclusions she came to that matter (this has very little, often nothing to do with type, unless maybe a person is drawing a biased conclusion with reference to their inferior, perhaps), it's about how she approaches the topic - what "angle" she's tackling it from, so-to-speak. Functions get "appealed to" - they aren't the product of anything. An interest in identity may overlap with Fi to an extent, but once again, it would depend on what angle you are approaching it from (I tend to wonder if Fi types have more of a felt sense of identity (they might weigh or measure it this way) than Ti types, who might approach it from a more technical standpoint of "what exactly are we talking about in terms of identity").


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> @_Coyote_, this theory has been discussed prior on other Jungian forums (I think it is verboten for me to 'advertise' here, though) and similar-ish conclusions were come to, though -- I personally think the aux functions of the dom/inf remain unoriented (i.e. Se F T Ni). I prefer this & your theory to the original (which would make me (Se Fe Ti Ni, not a type you can 'get' in MBTI) and the whole thing makes much more sense than JCF or MBTI. I haven't read the whole thread so Im sorry I cant comment further.


No problem. I know what it's like.  

One thing that I'd like to say, though, is about the auxiliaries remaining unoriented. I believe that's possible when the aux hasn't been differentiated, and the middle functions are all mashed together. But I think that you can differentiate an auxiliary, and it would follow the direction of your conscious. And, although I'm not sure how I feel about the "pairs have to go together!" mantra, I do think that it would make sense for the tertiary function to strengthen in the unconscious as your auxiliary strengthens in your conscious. 



> IMV it makes completely no sense that if the conscious is oriented towards extraversion and the inferior towards introversion -- and we all know what Jung means by the 'inferior' -- that the aux function would be of the opposite orientation. Idk where any of the theorists got that from. "Oh, so the psyche is dominated by extraversion and against introversion, so the dominant function must be supported by a completely different, alien and hated worldview." ??? Really Myers??? _Really???_


Yup, I'm in _total_ agreement with you. 

I think they got it from the end of Chapter 10 (something about the aux being "different in every way") and from Jung saying things about how the S-N-F functions are extraverted for Ti-doms. But I think that the latter kind of examples were talking about extreme types. Like I addressed at the very end of the OP, if you're unhealthy, then all of the other functions are driven into the unconscious. In that context, it makes sense (imo).


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Coyote said:


> No problem. I know what it's like.
> 
> One thing that I'd like to say, though, is about the auxiliaries remaining unoriented. I believe that's possible when the aux hasn't been differentiated, and the middle functions are all mashed together. But I think that you can differentiate an auxiliary, and it would follow the direction of your conscious. And, although I'm not sure how I feel about the "pairs have to go together!" mantra, I do think that it would make sense for the tertiary function to strengthen in the unconscious as your auxiliary strengthens in your conscious.


 Some notes about differentiation of dom-aux and inf-aux.

1. At what age, roughly? Is there any expected measure of;a
a. When our dom/inf begins to orientate,
b. When/if our our aux begins to orientate?

Or is psyche development completely and utterly down to the individuals capacity?

2. Can one of the aux orientate and not the other? 
a. For example, Se Fe T Ni, or more radically (and likely in people with long term depression) Se F Ti Ni? (Am just using my funx because is easier.)
b. And if so, do you think that there can be something to be said about;
i) The time between differentiation of dom/inf,
ii) The time between differentiation of dom/inf and a given aux.
iii) The time between differentiation of two given auxs?

Sorry if you don't get that. Its badly written.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Some notes about differentiation of dom-aux and inf-aux.
> 
> 1. At what age, roughly? Is there any expected measure of;a
> a. When our dom/inf begins to orientate,
> ...


Umm ... I'd say that:
- I/E usually develops by early childhood.
- The dominant probably differentiates by mid-childhood (maybe 7-10?), and thus brings the inferior into play.
- The auxiliaries may never differentiate. It depends on the person (and is probably influenced by his/her life).

... Those are pretty subjective answers, so YMMV. 



> 2. Can one of the aux orientate and not the other?
> a. For example, Se Fe T Ni, or more radically (and likely in people with long term depression) Se F Ti Ni? (Am just using my funx because is easier.)


I'm inclined to think that differentiating the auxiliary will also tend to orient the tertiary. The unconscious seems to be pretty reactive to the conscious. If the conscious goes E, the unconscious goes I. If the dom goes S, the inf goes N. ... So it makes sense that if the aux were developed, there would be an equal and opposite reaction in the unconscious. If the dom gets a sidekick (aux), then the inf gets one too (tert).



> b. And if so, do you think that there can be something to be said about;
> i) The time between differentiation of dom/inf,
> ii) The time between differentiation of dom/inf and a given aux.
> iii) The time between differentiation of two given auxs?


i. I think that the inferior develops at the same time as the dominant. Developing a dom is what gives you an inf.
ii. I don't think that there's any real relationship, although the dominant would probably have to be pretty secure before an aux can develop. 
iii. They probably develop simultaneously, like with the dom/inf.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Thanks. I don't have any more comments for the time being. I think I wll be back to this thread, though. 

Btw its nice to see that in the time I left this forum and started learning about Jung, that parallel development was going on here, too.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

@meltedsorbet: I fear that my response will be woefully inadequate, but I'll give it a shot. 

It sounds like Ne is running the show, and I can't tell if you've differentiated an auxiliary. So what you might be experiencing is Ne-T/F-Si. The judging functions would kinda be like a combination of Te-Ti-Fe-Fi, with no real way to distinguish between them. Does that somewhat describe how you feel? Or do you really not recognize any Ti and Fe in yourself?

Can you tell me how well you relate to this description, and which parts of your personality aren't adequately explained by it?

Extraverted intuition attempts to envisage all the possibilities that are inherent in an objective situation. Ordinary events are seen as providing a cipher or set of clues from which underlying processes and hidden potentialities can be determined. Yet once these possibilities are apprehended, objects and events lose their meaning and import. There is therefore a constant need for new situations and experiences to provide a fresh stimulus for the intuitive process.

The extraverted intuition type is an excellent diagnostician and exploiter of situations. Such people see exciting possibilities in every new venture and are excellent at perceiving latent abilities in other people. They get carried away with the enthusiasm of their vision and often inspire others with the courage of their conviction. As such, they do well in occupations where these qualities are at a premium - for example in initiating new projects, in business, politics or the stock market. They are, however, easily bored and stifled by unchanging conditions. As a result they often waste their life and talents jumping from one activity to another in the search for fresh possibilities, failing to stick at any one project long enough to bring it to fruition. Furthermore, in their commitment to their own vision, they often show little regard for the needs, views or convictions of others. When neurotic, repressed sensation may cause this type to become compulsively tied to people, objects or activities that stir in them primitive sensations such as pleasure, pain or fear. The consequence of this can be phobias, hypochondriacal beliefs and a range of other compulsions.


----------



## 999GreenEyes (Sep 23, 2012)

*Functions?*

Hi was wondering how does the dynamic between functions work, for example an INFj has Ni, Te, Fi,Se. Would the information first pass through the Ni, before it goes to Te, then goes to Fi, then Se? 

Does anyone know, with an example, would appreciate it thanks?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Coyote said:


> I'm sorry for the delay.


No worries 




> For example, this is an ESTP speculating about how Te vs. Ti would approach solving a problem


I very definitely do the latter and I believe it's Ti, just not dominant Ti. It's definitely colored by some extraversion but I still feel it's Ti because it's such a personal kind of logic for me. I see inside a thing and see the principles for *myself*. I liked to say "this is my own kind of logic" even before I knew anything about MBTI. Also, if I talk to Te types (usually INTJ's), they easily note the differing Ti approach about me. We (two INTJ's and an INTP and me) like to joke about how Ti is so different from their Te  The INTJ's of course say Ti sucks 




> To me, _both_ men are using Te. I understand that he's relying on MBTI's over-simplification of the Thinking functions, in which Te cares about efficiency and practical results, while Ti cares about logic and systems. But both men are examining the external world for data upon which to draw conclusions, and relying on "principles" doesn't mean that Thinking is introverted. In talking with him, I realized that his definition of Ti was semi-based on his own experiences with T.


The Ti user in the example was an ESTP, so of course he'll turn to the external world first.

And yeah of course his (or my) definiton of Ti is based on own experiences. Btw Lenore Thompson also talks about how Ti is rooted in own experience. Just like the Bell example you talk about later.




> To start with, Te can be highly creative.


I know that. I sometimes envy Te types but not too much ;P.




> In contrast, a good example of a Ti-dom scientist may be Alexander Graham Bell. I don't claim to know too much about him, but he was part of a non-fiction book that I read about President Garfield's attempted assassination. The doctors couldn't figure out where the bullet was, and Bell worked feverishly to create a metal detector. The author used his journals, letters, etc., and I kept thinking, "Ti, Ti, Ti."
> 
> Bell knew what he wanted to create, and he was damn sure going to find a way to bring it to life. It wasn't about "logic" or "systems" or "principles," but about the excitement of an idea and the dogged determination to figure it out. I think that's partly why he got annoyed with the attention from the telephone. Once it was created and accepted, what more was there to do with it? It had lost its appeal, and he wanted the freedom to play with new ideas. That's the lifeblood of Ti.


That's basically me.




> And continuing from what I just said about Ti, I think that's partly why Ne and Ti are confusing under MBTI. It seems like MBTI is saying that Ne is driving the chase and Ti is supplying the logic. But real Ti is thinking for thinking's sake, and it loves ideas. It _needs_ ideas. Ne is about possibilities in the external world, and isn't quite the same thing.


See, I gave you examples of my own about thinking for thinking's sake. It's great pleasure, I just don't do it for very long at a time or all day because it drains me after a while, the introversion. Weird I know... I enjoy something so much but then it tires me out? Oh well.




> What do you mean by "introverting"?


Being inside my mind. I can't access this analytical mode without withdrawing to my mind. I sometimes make up a visual presentation inside my mind about the logic and that presentation somehow simplifies things so nicely for me  (It's not Ni, not that kind of imagery)




> ... So why isn't that just Te? How are your "own terms" bending the logic? Just needing to make sense of something doesn't make it introverted ... seems pretty normal, actually.


Well it bends the logic because I create my own system of looking at the thing. I don't care that much about how it was presented, I must build my own by processing in an analytical mode. I sometimes overdo this in an intentionally conscious mode because it can work faster than me just waiting for it all to click together on its own while playing around with shorter flashes of analysis... I mean that latter mode is *easier* but takes longer than doing it all in one go if time is limited.




> Here's a central issue. If the Thinking function is being bent into something that befits an extraverted conscious, then why aren't we saying that the conscious Thinking function is extraverted? Why would it be introverted in the first place? MBTI's E-I-E-I structure doesn't make sense to me. A differentiated aux gets pulled in the direction of the dominant function because that's the direction of the conscious. How can a function have any place in the conscious if it's working against the interests of that conscious?


I did say I do believe I have some Te. I don't see why I couldn't also have and like Ti. I don't go by unproven principles however so I don't have an argument about your issue with E-I-E-I structure. This is highly subjective, we can sit here all day building theories about it (and yeah that'd be Ti), e.g. I could easily figure out some law that would allow this to happen that an aux can be introverted... but my Ti is colored by the objective extraversion so I don't like to go too deep in subjectivity 

I mean, using just Ti logic your argument does make sense but then I'll ask myself if these rules are actually shown in an objective way as existing. Basically, your argument is too abstract without proof. For me anyway 

Btw one idea for you that just came up: Ti has to be subjective because it's about intangible ideas such as principles that you cannot experience in a sensory way directly. Te is objective as it somehow is connected with experience in some logical way, like, the functioning of things that is directly observable... eh I don't know Te so well so I'll stop here.




> And the "tertiary defense" doesn't work either. The tertiary generally belongs to the unconscious, and it should mostly follow in that direction. It seems like the tertiary-defense idea was intended to explain why some people have two functions in the direction of their conscious. But why the tertiary, when that's contradicting Jung? Why not use the auxiliary and make sense?


No idea, as I said I could invent laws that allow for this but what's the point if we don't check against reality?




> Going by your own experience is Te as well.


Lenore Thompson and Jung say it can be Ti too. Depends how you process that experience...




> I don't really know what to do with this information. ... I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "make sense of the facts in my own way."


Organize them under some principles I make up. This is complex though, as I said, I need objectivity too. So I only like doing this with things that are anchored to reality, e.g. the topic is something tangible or at least something that can be experienced in some way.




> Thanks for clarifying. Once I went back and read it again, I understood it better. ... But I don't think that you've really described Ti.


Not an INTP's dominant Ti, for sure.




> What do you mean by "quick flashes of introverting"? The functions aren't describing skills or anything ... think of 'em more like labels for your most common mental patterns.


Yup this is mental patterns, the quick flashes of introverting. When trying to observe myself, I noticed myself doing this. It helps with putting a structure into my actions but it's my own structure, nothing to do with Te. Though I can follow Te rules too if needed but eh... 

Anyway, when it's just quick flashes like this I feel it's well integrated with Se, as this is during physical action. This is different from the more theoretical aspect, that's the one that drains me after a while. I can use it with Se all day if it's part of action or of expertise and not theorising.




> Se is more about sensory experience, while Te likes practical goals. And there can be some overlap in the I/E "areas" of Thinking.


Well by practical goals I meant I want to achieve something that I can then have in reality, I don't think it has to be Te  though I'm sure some of it is Te but those are less enjoyable goals lol. I do agree there is coloring of Ti, so yes some overlap.




> Do you enjoy the process of abstracting grammatical rules? Do you end up with fun ideas related to what you can do with the grammar?


I very much enjoy the process. I don't often end up with fun ideas of "what could be", that's Ne, I don't have much need for Ne. I just use it and enjoy my expertise. Again, Lenore Thompson Ti 

With this MBTI thing, I sometimes do come up with ideas but I'm not satisfied if I don't know which one corresponds to reality so... yeah, limited Ne.




> Yeah, that sound Te-ish.


Yes Te+Se.




Diphenhydramine said:


> @_Coyote_, this theory has been discussed prior on other Jungian forums (I think it is verboten for me to 'advertise' here, though) and similar-ish conclusions were come to, though -- I personally think the aux functions of the dom/inf remain unoriented (i.e. Se F T Ni). I prefer this & your theory to the original (which would make me (Se Fe Ti Ni, not a type you can 'get' in MBTI) and the whole thing makes much more sense than JCF or MBTI. I haven't read the whole thread so Im sorry I cant comment further.
> 
> IMV it makes completely no sense that if the conscious is oriented towards extraversion and the inferior towards introversion -- and we all know what Jung means by the 'inferior' -- that the aux function would be of the opposite orientation. Idk where any of the theorists got that from. "Oh, so the psyche is dominated by extraversion and against introversion, so the dominant function must be supported by a completely different, alien and hated worldview." ??? Really Myers??? _Really???_


I don't hate Ti... or Se  (before you say I'm ISTP)




JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think a good example of Fi style reasoning would be the following: that kind of reasoning that often originates on premises of "Why would anyone want that for him/herself?" (addresses "anyone" as just a universal with no specific ideas of a person or personal biases of people in mind other than *your own rationalized baises about what you'd want for yourself under specific circumstances that you care about* acting as a reference point for the question, basically).


I have some Fi if this is Fi. But I don't really care when I ask something like that and I don't find this "why would..." "reasoning" a sound reasoning.
Anyone can do whatever they want, basically... I don't analyse this at all.




Coyote said:


> It _does_ sound like something out of an encyclopedia (or a thesis), and that's part of the point. Look at how she draws conclusions based on the work of others and says "of course" like it would be silly not to. But her idea focuses on the nature of authenticity and the effects of external pressure on that authentic identity.


Now what's Fi. Wow, nice confusion here. I don't mean you, I mean in general. Either the definition of Fi is what JungyesMBTIno said or yours. They don't necessarily correlate 100%.

Seriously, I can break down all functions into several sub-categories and I don't see the assumption that correlation is 100% between these as justified. And if it is not 100% then they are not the same thing. 




> I struggle with it. I don't feel like I have a real identity, and I only know my values based on what makes me angry. (Which often seem to boil down to a desire for equality and respect for basic human rights.) I can't say that I spend much time thinking about my "identity," and my efforts at introspection seem more like I'm trying to figure out how my mind works so that I can: 1) Make it obey my wishes; and 2) Side-step the landmines. I'm not even sure that I understand what an authentic identity is, so it's definitely not too high on my list of priorities.
> 
> I doubt that I'm totally alone in that. It seems strange to assume that everybody is interested in the same things as you are, "whether or not they realize it."


I'm just like you here in most things you listed. I have no idea what an "authentic identity" is LOL. Gotta define that first through some logical reasoning.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> (I tend to wonder if Fi types have more of a felt sense of identity (they might weigh or measure it this way) than Ti types, who might approach it from a more technical standpoint of "what exactly are we talking about in terms of identity").


Supposedly many Fi definitions include a connection to feeling of identity. I'm a Ti type based on what you say here.




Coyote said:


> No problem. I know what it's like.
> 
> One thing that I'd like to say, though, is about the auxiliaries remaining unoriented. I believe that's possible when the aux hasn't been differentiated, and the middle functions are all mashed together. But I think that you can differentiate an auxiliary, and it would follow the direction of your conscious.


Well, my example goes against that... I think it's Te that I didn't have to work on differentiating btw. Ti is what came later into consciousness but I like it more than Te.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Some notes about differentiation of dom-aux and inf-aux.
> 
> 1. At what age, roughly? Is there any expected measure of;a
> a. When our dom/inf begins to orientate,
> ...


Interesting questions  I would say these depend on various other internal and external factors. I don't trust the theory on this.

Btw, my experience: 

Ti: age 5?
Fe: age 13?
Ni: age 18?

The question marks are because this is just my own interpretation of my own memories...

Btw as for the Ni, it's complicated because I recall some Ni from age 5-ish too, but that was different than after 18. I'd say, more limited.

I wonder how @Coyote can interpret this. I might be some really outlier case *shrug*




Coyote said:


> Umm ... I'd say that:
> - I/E usually develops by early childhood.


Well... had both. But yeah more E than I.




> The dominant probably differentiates by mid-childhood (maybe 7-10?), and thus brings the inferior into play.


How does Se differentiation look like?




> I'm inclined to think that differentiating the auxiliary will also tend to orient the tertiary.


Not for me :O


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> I have some Fi if this is Fi. But I don't really care when I ask something like that and I don't find this "why would..." "reasoning" a sound reasoning.
> Anyone can do whatever they want, basically... I don't analyse this at all.


Well, you can't separate the parts of the whole of the bolded statement. But okay, fair enough.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Coyote said:


> @_meltedsorbet_: I fear that my response will be woefully inadequate, but I'll give it a shot.
> 
> *Thanks! I think your response is awesome.*
> 
> ...


I hope that isn't too long. I think Fi is pretty strong and Si, like I said. In my life, I've even gone through bizarre phases where I was righteous about something kind of crazy. Like, as a teenager I decided that makeup was immoral, as it was designed to "deceive" people--not to mention all of the body image disorders girls have by trying to conform to beauty ideals (not that those disorders are caused by the ideals). 
But then, eventually I realized that I just looked crazy, so I stopped being so obsessive about it. And finally, years later, I learned about the misogyny of the renaissance, and how that argument about makeup (and also about frilly clothing) was used to oppress women, so I decided not to entertain that anti-makeup argument-- plus my ex boyfriend was a jerk about makeup, so I wear it now to spite him.

I'm sorry this is so long and disorganized. I don't know the functions well, but I see Fi here--and I'm not even sure if I see Ne or Ni, or Te or Ti. But I think I use Si.

My problem with the loop is that I feel like I should be making better choices for myself--like I will be talking to a man and notice that he is creepy, and I will push past this feeling and change the subject, trying to find his un-creepy side-- instead of just listening to my feelings and judging him creepy, and walking away. Maybe if I listened to my feelings more I wouldn't end up in situations that are so unproductive or dangerous.

Edit: I clearly rely on spell check too much.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, you can't separate the parts of the whole of the bolded statement. But okay, fair enough.


I wasn't intending to do that. It's just that to justify this kind of statement (that you attribute to Fi) would take forever with Ti though not impossible but you'd want to go back all the way to big bang


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Coyote said:


> NOTES: This theory may be a deviation from Jung's work, but I don't think that it contradicts what he said in _PT. _And I welcome feedback, so feel free to speak your mind (nicely, if possible :tongue.
> 
> On the most fundamental level, you're either an introvert or an extravert. The direction of your energy is so essential that it matters more than your functional preference (T/F/N/S). So let's say that you have an innate preference for introversion. That means your conscious is oriented by introversion, and your unconscious is oriented by extraversion. Those preferences cannot be changed because it would destroy your psyche.
> 
> ...


I think, from my personal experience, that Ni wouldn't be very useful as an aux function serving my Fi. Since my judgements are subjectively orientated, I have more confidence in them when I can verify them with externally derived data. If I supported them with subjective perceptions then I'd expect relating to anything external would be difficult. They wouldn't carry much weight outside of my own mind. So I see Ne aux being more beneficial in supporting my Fi than Ni aux would be. Not relating to the objective environment would mostly hinder any progress my consciousness wants to make.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

@meltedsorbet
Your posts are actually quite timely, since we were just discussing how to define and identify Fi. ... And I don't know if I'll stand alone in this opinion, but I think that you're showing more Fe than Fi.

First of all, can we clarify whether you're defining Fi through MBTI or Jung? MBTI's explanation of the Feeling function seems to indicate that Fe is shallow and does what everybody else wants, while Fi is personalized ethics or something. 

But we're using Jungian definitions in this thread, so let's do a quick review of I/E. Basically: 
Extraversion = objective = focused on the object = focused on the external world
Introversion = subjective = focused on the subject = focused on the internal world

Your Feeling function seems directed toward the outside world, and I think that you offered Fe-ish arguments against the heartlessness of Te. For example:


meltedsorbet said:


> I see this as being very Fi because my whole problem with Social Darwanism comes from my strong feelings about how society should be *compassionate* and *humanitarian* (for lack of better words). That is why I build this argument against it, because I feel strongly about it, not because I have a problem with faulty reasoning.


More rejection of Te in favor of Fe (imo):


> I don't like business because it seems crude and meaningless, and I have worked to initiate things in politics but I prefer to just try to sway opinion through ideas via writing or art. I have found that I am good at sales, but I dislike it for ethical reasons. I was blown away when I became very successful at a sales job--I was almost certain I wouldn't be, but I was able to influence a lot of people to consider our product, by talking to them.


However, I found this sentence to be the most interesting:


> I don't identify with this all that much because I don't like interacting with the physical world or with reality.


First, what do you mean by "the physical world"? Maybe it's just a rejection of Sensation? I can't tell.

But it seems very odd that an extravert would reject reality. ... Unless you're using that term differently?

... Have you ever considered Ti instead? I think that it may fit you better than Ne. That would also give you inferior Fe and could explain the rather innocent(?) nature of your Feeling. (Sorry, I couldn't find the right word ... and "innocent" seemed more appropriate than "childish," which has a negative connotation.)

Anyway, here's the Ti description. How well do you relate to it?

Introverted thinking is contemplative, involving an inner play of ideas. It is thinking for its own sake and is always directed inward to subjective ideas and personal convictions rather than outward to practical outcomes. The main concern of such thinking is to elaborate as fully as possible all the ramifications and implications of a seminal idea. As a consequence, introverted thinking can be complex, turgid and overly scrupulous. To the extent that it withdraws from objective reality, it may also become totally abstract, symbolic or mystical.

The introverted thinking type tends to be impractical and indifferent to objective concerns. These persons usually avoid notice and may seem cold, arrogant and taciturn. Alternatively, the repressed feeling function may express itself in displays of childish naivety. Generally people of this type appear caught up in their own ideas which they aim to think through as fully and deeply as possible. If extreme or neurotic they can become rigid, withdrawn, surly or brusque. They may also confuse their subjectively apprehended truth with their own personality so that any criticism of their ideas is seen as a personal attack. This may lead to bitterness or to vicious counterattacks against their critics.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Coyote said:


> @_meltedsorbet_
> Your posts are actually quite timely, since we were just discussing how to define and identify Fi. ... And I don't know if I'll stand alone in this opinion, but I think that you're showing more Fe than Fi.
> 
> First of all, can we clarify whether you're defining Fi through MBTI or Jung? MBTI's explanation of the Feeling function seems to indicate that Fe is shallow and does what everybody else wants, while Fi is personalized ethics or something.


Thank you, I'm glad the post was timely. So, I am defining Fi through a synthesis of all the information I've read on it. A lot of that information might not be correct, and I am not clearly defining it by Jung or MBTI. I've only recently gotten into the types/functions. I don't feel like I have a strong understanding of the functions at all.

As for thinking I am using Fe, I have been suspicious about this too. I feel like I have a lot of the characteristics that are commonly associated with Fi, but I've also had to work on developing my own ethical system and differentiating my feelings from those of society and others. 




Coyote said:


> But we're using Jungian definitions in this thread, so let's do a quick review of I/E. Basically:
> Extraversion = objective = focused on the object = focused on the external world
> Introversion = subjective = focused on the subject = focused on the internal world
> 
> Your Feeling function seems directed toward the outside world, and I think that you offered Fe-ish arguments against the heartlessness of Te. For example:


So, this is the quote about Social Darwanism and compassion. So, I think that I react to Social Darwanism this way, firstly, because I see nature in a totally different light--I see it as subjective (OK--I'm going to regret that word)--I mean, I see nature as something we can only understand subjectively, and I think that evolution is interesting and I agree with the facts about it, but I don't agree we should apply the observations about nature to human society in this way. I disagree with the propogation of this idea, and I see my own ideas about nature as just as valid as social darwanism (though conflicting), and I want to propogate my own ideas.

Then, compassion and humanitarianism. Yes, I believe in being compassionate and humanitarian. I like it when people can get along. I dislike other people's suffering to the extreme. Sometimes I lay awake at night because I am thinking about how many people are suffering at that moment.


About the quote on business seeming meaningless: I don't want to be bothered with a view of the world that has nothing to do with my own personal purpose. I mean, I want to understand it--but I am tired of being bombarded with the emphasis on production and profits over individual human value--or maybe collective human value. I am not interested in learning to be more productive in this way, I am interested in learning to find meaning in life and improve life for people in general. I think that if people found more meaning in the physical world, they wouldn't be so voracious about consuming and manipulating it. I guess I believe in intrapersonal development over physical world development--which seems to be what business is about. 

About the quote about Reality: I think it's really interesting that you brought attention to this because I hadn't thought about it very much. I did use a word that could mean many different things.

I think this points to Fe or some kind of extraverted function, because after thinking about it, I realized that my definition of reality was 1)reality as defined by others and 2) reality as in physical, sensual world. 

I have heard over and over again in my life about reality--how it is about working on cars and making money and getting ahead in life. So, reality is really other people's perceptions of requirements--human requirements. It's other people's perceptions of what is important in life (values), and what one must spend time doing. I don't want to spend time fixing cars or learning accounting or nursing, but that is what a lot of the people in my life believe reality is about. It's about living in the physical world and doing things that prolong your life--and I guess, trying to move ahead or gain more status socially, via becoming more wealthy.

And i think the "physical world" is a reaction to sensation as well--like, I don't want to be expected to learn the parts of a car, get my hands dirty, and then try to move the parts around so that they do something different. I also don't want to sacrifice my time and mental energy to exact more physical resources for myself--I will do these things because they need to be done, but I don't enjoy it.

I do love the physical world in some ways--I love nature. I think it's amazing. I love how life evolves and how inricate different ecosystems are. I love how many secrets are hidden under the dirt--bones, fossils, artifacts. My spirituality is actually strongly rooted in the physical world (and the subjective meanings we assign to it). I guess I could suggest that the physical world that I do like is the physical world that is free of other people's values and meanings, or the physical world in which I can assign my own meanings and values to things. 

Also, do you notice how I am agreeing with you as much as I can? That sounds kind of Fe too--of course, I will decide for myself eventually, but I do tend to prefer to find a common ground between myself and another person. I don't want to make the other person feel uncomfortable, that sounds kind of like I am aware of the other person's feelings, and Fe by your (jung's) definition. 



Coyote said:


> ... Have you ever considered Ti instead? I think that it may fit you better than Ne. That would also give you inferior Fe and could explain the rather innocent(?) nature of your Feeling. (Sorry, I couldn't find the right word ... and "innocent" seemed more appropriate than "childish," which has a negative connotation.)
> 
> Anyway, here's the Ti description. How well do you relate to it?
> 
> ...


I feel like I identify with this in a lot of ways. I have been told I am naive before, and i also tend to get caught up in my own ideas. I also like the pure idea without regard to how it applies to reality--except with social perceptions and rules. Like, I really think it's important to consider how laws and social expectations effect society, instead of just believing in them in principle. Like--I am fine with the death penalty in principle, but that doesn't matter because the purpose of the death penalty is to make society safe, and if other methods like a reduction of poverty through social programs is more useful, then it should be applied. Of course, if the useful method includes a severe violation of individuality (like making everyone wear electric shock collars or something)--then that method shouldn't be applied because people would lose faith in their government, and for other reasons that I don't really want to consider right now, but am sure are there.

Also, I am more withdrawn than a lot of descriptions of ENFP and I do prefer to avoid notice. People have called me cold. 

I wonder if I am more likely to identify myself as a feeler because I am female. I wonder if women may tend to misidentify because of social upbringing and gender roles. I did grow up watching carebears, playing with my little ponies and barbies, and playing dramatic play games with other children (all of which seem like feeler activities). Plus, I'm not a super good thinker.

And then, with Fe, I do tend to get very anxious about how I'm viewed. Like--my spell check isn't working and I know I'm going to have some terrible spelling errors on here.

Thanks for the reply and the honesty!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@meltedsorbet, you sound a bit like an INFJ to me but that's just based on your latest post.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

LeaT said:


> @_meltedsorbet_, you sound a bit like an INFJ to me but that's just based on your latest post.


Thanks Coyote and LeaT. I am considering what you said. I did feel like I identified more with Ni than Ne, and Ti than Te, but I assumed I am a P person because of my lifestyle. Your comments have been immensely helpful to me!

And sorry for hijacking the thread.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

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.


Why did the majority of Jung scholars not agree? Didn't Jung say that a Ti dom was Ti Ne Se Fe, which would mean she changed the tertiary function rather than the aux? 



> I think the interpretation that's really most consistent with Psychological Types as a whole (as distinguished from Myers' very selective cherry-picking in that respect) is that Jung's function model for an Ni-dom with a T auxiliary was really, as you've said, Ni-Ti-Fe-Se — with Te being an Ni-dom's default, unconscious form of T and Ti being the form that T would take to the extent that an Ni-dom differentiated it and brought it into conscious, directed use as the auxiliary function. (Consistent with that, I think Jung, at the time he wrote Psychological Types, basically viewed himself as Ti-Ni-Se-Fe).
> 
> And it's also true, as you've said, that Jung envisioned that a person could also potentially differentiate and make conscious use of the tertiary function (in which case, as with the auxiliary, I think he would have viewed it as taking on the same attitude as the dominant function), but viewed the tertiary's more typical role as a kind of "sidekick" to the inferior function (with the same attitude as the inferior function).


Do you mean the aux N actually being introverted or just Ti essentially pulling out the positive aspects of the Ne function, therefore it doesn't manifest in the same way as a dominant Ne function?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Why did the majority of Jung scholars not agree? Didn't Jung say that a Ti dom was Ti Ne Se Fe, which would mean she changed the tertiary function rather than the aux?
> 
> Do you mean the aux N actually being introverted or just Ti essentially pulling out the positive aspects of the Ne function, therefore it doesn't manifest in the same way as a dominant Ne function?


No. Jung thought that the first auxiliary would pair with the dominant and that the I/E divide would manifest between dom/inferior. So the dom/aux would carry the same attitude say Ti-Ni and the tert/inferior would carry the opposing attitude (Se-Fe). The reason is because Jung saw the tension of opposites between dominant and inferior. The presentation of the conscious personality (dominant/aux) and the counterbalance of the unconscious personality (inferior/tert). The idea that the aux would be the opposite of the dominant is more Myers than anyone else, and the tertiary being the same as dominant was introduced in the mid-80s by Grant and Brownsword looking to bring a more archetypal model (similar to Beebe) into the equation. The initial MBTI basically took Jung perhaps too literally and stated that all other functions would be the opposite of the dominant so an ENFP would be Ne-Fi-Ti-Si.

Jung's model doesn't necessarily correlate to the MBTI model. Its a lot more fluid because he didn't place a lot of emphasis on the two auxiliary functions. They were conceived more like sidekick functions. That the person would say be oriented toward a dominant Thinking and that thinking would be backed up by a relatively unconscious Sensation or Intuition function. But I don't think he really gets too much into the MBTI territory where the auxiliary function because as important (or more important in the case of introverts) as the dominant. To him a Sensation type is a sensation type, who happens to prefer feeling over thinking or vice versa. But I'm not sure for example he would use an auxiliary (say the Ne of an INTP) in a type code were he to come up with such a thing, because to him this was a Thinking type first a foremost and the auxiliary function would always be less significant than the sovereignty of the dominant. MBTI because of its emphasis less on the psychological Jekyll/Hyde conscious/unconscious personality and more on what one might call 'real-world' implications of type places much more emphasis on the auxiliaries than I think Jung would have. Part of the confusion about all this is because Jung spends relatively so little time dealing with the two middle functions (and neither do many of his proteges) because of his larger emphasis on the ego-syntonic vs. ego-dystonic and greater psychological picture, thus there's a lot of interpretation. 

Anna-Marie Garden writes (and I apologize in advance this was copied from a pdf so all of the words and letterforms didn't quite translate - there might be some misspelled words).



> At the theoreticaì îével, the differences between Myers’ theory and Jungìan theory have been acknowledged; specifìcalìy, that Jungians tend to assert that the auxiìiary is of the same attitude as the dominant. In the discussions of Gray and Wheeìwright {1946} and Whitmont H969), the auxiliary is seen as having the same attitude as the dominant function.
> 
> However, as Quenk (1984, p. 7) states, references to the auxiliary function can be found in the Jungian typology literature. The argument has been made by Myers that it is implicit in Jung's writings that the auxiliary is of al different attitude than the dominant (Myers, 1980). The specific quotation she asserts this from is as follows: "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" (jung, 1971, pp, 495406). Myers argues from this, in particular from the phrase "is in every respect different," that Jung is saying that the attitude of the auxiliary complements the attitude of the dominant and, therefore, is in the oppositie attitude (Myers 8: McCaulley, 1985). Quenk deduces a similar view. However, to Jungians it is clear that the body of Jung's writing does not suggest such an interpretation.
> 
> ...


She continues


> It Should be noted that Myers originally included indeterminacy as a type, with x used in the MBTI profile to indicate this. However, this appeared to result in a too-complex formula, and too many types (Myers 8: McCaulley, 1985), Operationaliy, we could measure this third group on midrange scores. On the theoretical assumption that there are only two types, one interprets mid*range scores as meaning about their preference.” Instead, on the theoretical assumption that there are three groups, a mid~range group could be very clear about its preference, which is to choose both. A person need not be considered an indeterminate type at all but, rather, a quite distinct type. Alternatively, and closer to jung’s writing, is the notion that the group consists of two subgroups, one consisting of people who choose and use both attitudes (or functions), and the other of people who choose and use neither in a differentiated way.
> 
> ********
> 
> ...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Why did the majority of Jung scholars not agree? Didn't Jung say that a Ti dom was Ti Ne Se Fe, which would mean she changed the tertiary function rather than the aux?


I have no idea why the majority of Jung scholars had reached their conclusions, but Myers noted that "almost all of his followers except van der Hoop" disagreed with her. As for why _I_ agree with the majority: I believe Jung's view was that, although the _default_ attitude of the second function was in the opposite direction from the dominant function, that corresponded with the default place for the second function being the unconscious — in an "archaic" state, fused with the other unconscious functions and all that. As you noted, in his Ti-dom description, Jung said, "The counterbalancing functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation are comparatively unconscious and inferior, and therefore have a primitive extraverted character that accounts for all the troublesome influences from outside to which the introverted thinker is prone." _If and to the extent_ that the second function was brought up into consciousness and developed ("differentiated") as an auxiliary function, serving the dominant function, I think Jung envisioned that it would also, to that extent, take on the same conscious _attitude_ (e.g., introversion for an introvert) as the dominant function.

It sounds like the majority of Jung scholars believed (correctly, I think, and contrary to Myers' interpretation) that Jung viewed the auxiliary function as providing balance between judging and perceiving, but _not_ between introversion and extraversion. Myers largely rested her case on the sentence where Jung says the auxiliary function is "in every respect different" from the dominant function. And I'd agree that her interpretation would appear to be the best one if all you do is look at that one sentence in isolation. But the trouble is, that interpretation seems inconsistent with way too much else in Psychological Types. When Jung wrote about how an introvert's introversion gets balanced (or "compensated," as he more often put it) by extraversion (and vice versa) — and he actually devoted a great deal of Psychological Types to that issue — he consistently envisioned the I/E balance happening by way of the unconscious, and never by way of a differentiated conscious function oriented in the opposite direction.



Neverontime said:


> Do you mean the aux N actually being introverted or just Ti essentially pulling out the positive aspects of the Ne function, therefore it doesn't manifest in the same way as a dominant Ne function?


As explained above, I think Jung's view was that a Ti-dom's auxiliary N, to the extent that it was actually serving as a differentiated auxiliary function, would share the same conscious _attitude_ as the dominant function (so introversion in this case), and so I'm inclined to assume Jung would have expected it to be more akin to Ni than Ne. However, Jung also said that an auxiliary function, because it "served" the dominant function, wasn't "autonomous" or true "to its own principle" to the same extent as when it was the dominant function. So, as you put it, a Ti-dom's auxiliary Ni wouldn't _entirely_ "manifest in the same way" as Ni in an Ni-dom. Some theorists take the position that the functions of a Ti-dom with auxiliary N are better viewed as Ti-N-S-Fe, and that sounds more consistent with Jung to me than Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (or Ti-Ne-Se-Fe), but I think it's more likely Jung would have said (if he'd ever spelled it out clearly) Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Coyote said:


> I'm sorry for the delay.


Well, well, another delay?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@reckful @LiquidLight 

I see what you mean, there's a few references but nothing clear. There's also the Si dom description that mentions 'reasoning objectively' as opposed to relying on only perception, but again that could be interpreted differently. I would expect Myers must have had good reason to change it, if she was aware of the opinions of other scholars when she made that decision. Interesting. 

Ok, so now I'm confused. XD 
Here he's saying that in normal circumstances the inferior function is conscious anyway? 



> For experience shows that it is hardly possible—owing to the inclemency of general conditions—for anyone to bring all his psychological functions to simultaneous development. The very conditions of society enforce a man to apply himself first and foremost to the differentiation of that function with which he is either most gifted by Nature, or which provides his most effective means for social success. Very frequently, indeed as a general rule, a man identifies himself more or less completely with the most favoured, hence the most developed, function. It is this circumstance which gives rise to psychological types. But, as a consequence of such a one-sided process of development, one or more functions necessarily remain backward in development. Such functions, therefore, may be fittingly termed 'inferior' in the psychological, though not in the psycho-pathological, sense, since these retarded functions are in no way morbid but merely backward as compared with the more favoured function. As a rule, therefore, the inferior function normally remains conscious, although in neurosis it lapses either partially or principally into the unconscious.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Honestly, I don't sense the major interplay in my psyche as being between introversion and extroversion, but between thinking and feeling. They just happen to be introverted and extroverted, respectively (probably for the sake of psychological "balance"). I say this because I relate very much to Ne, but not to Ni.

That's my strong opinion at least, based on what I've observed about myself. Obviously a lot of people disagree. And on their part, they may be right. (Just personally I've never related to the "oh we INTP's are so introverted" line I've heard from a lot of my brethren, though it may well be true for them.) 

I think Jung actually implies that I/E isn't the most important "dimension", because he talks about the four preferences first and then mentions they manifest in two ways, introverted and extroverted. (But then my memory could be foggy; if I'm totally wrong I'm happy to be corrected). Not that the E/I is merely incidental, but I do think it "follows" from T/F/S/N, like it's an alteration of the basic preference. 

Whatever the case, I do think it's a mistake to treat anything Jung said as gospel; he was the one who made us aware of psychological type, but perhaps _because_ he "got there first" he may have missed a lot of the details. That's not to say Myers-Briggs was necessarily an improvement (though I do actually think they got the orientation of the functions right). I'm just saying Jung may not have been right about everything. Heresy maybe, but hey, he was human too. :wink:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Ok, so now I'm confused. XD
> Here he's saying that in normal circumstances the inferior function is conscious anyway?


That last sentence you quoted is certainly a (potentially) confusing sentence. Potentially confusing sentences are actually very common in Jung. :tongue:

Baynes' original translation of Psychological Types (which you quoted) was substantially revised by R.F.C. Hull for the _Collected Works_ edition. The revised version of the confusing sentence reads: "Thus in normal cases the inferior function remains conscious, *at least in its effects*; but in a neurosis it sinks wholly or in part into the unconscious."

"At least in its effects" is a critical thing to understand. Jung didn't believe that the unconsciousness of the inferior function meant that it was essentially buried and invisible. On the contrary, his view was more along the lines that, for a typical person on a typical day, something in the neighborhood of half of their speech/behavior might well be rooted in their unconscious function(s). And he said it wasn't always easy to tell which half was which. As he explained in a 1923 article added to the _Collected Works_ edition of PT:



Jung said:


> A differential diagnosis can be based only on a careful study of the qualities of the observed material. We must try to discover which phenomena result from consciously chosen motives and which are spontaneous; and it must also be established which of them are adapted, and which of them have an unadapted, archaic character.


In Chapter 10 of PT, Jung said:



Jung said:


> We must observe which function is completely under conscious control, and which functions have a haphazard and spontaneous character. The former is always more highly differentiated than the latter, which also possess infantile and primitive traits. Occasionally the superior function gives the impression of normality, while the others have something abnormal or pathological about them.


Also in Chapter 10, Jung explained:



Jung said:


> [T]he superior function is the most conscious one and completely under conscious control, whereas the less differentiated functions are in part unconscious and far less under the control of consciousness. The superior function is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply 'happen' to one. These things need not be mere slips of the tongue or pen and other such oversights, they can equally well be half or three-quarters intended, for the less differentiated functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness.


And here's a final quote from that 1923 article:



Jung said:


> The thinking type, for instance, must necessarily repress and exclude feeling as far as possible, since nothing disturbs thinking so much as feeling. ... Repressed functions lapse into the unconscious. ... [A]s a rule only one of the four basic functions is fully conscious and differentiated enough to be freely manipulable by the will, the others remaining partially or wholly unconscious. This 'unconsciousness' does not mean that a thinking type, for instance, is not conscious of his feelings. He knows his feelings very well, in so far as he is capable of introspection, but he denies them any validity and declares they have no influence over him. They therefore come upon him against his will, and being spontaneous and autonomous, they finally appropriate to themselves the validity which his consciousness denies them.


----------

