# Inferior Te (according to Jung)



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> (see the MBTI as an almost "living example" of this - they try to bring human life to the "types" to objectionable extents, so that they become almost "fairy tale" characters - honestly for what they were aiming for with this stuff (workforce placement), this is rather superfluous, especially as a kind of "homage" to Jung's original concepts which would have better off been left alone at the archetypal level).


i can see this meaning a few different things. can you give an example of what you mean?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

celticstained said:


> i can see this meaning a few different things. can you give an example of what you mean?


Sure. It's kind of like the teacher we might have seen before who puts a ton of emphasis on various facts and reasons to the point that they look like they take on an almost religious (dogmatic in a negative way) significance - the kind of person who looks fanatical about various facts and points of logic - an intellectual monomania, where some points/facts are more equal than others to them (Te doms are the super objective versions of this, where all logic that works just works and nothing more, unless it gives them some personal disadvantage). Sometimes, these types might just suddenly look like parodies of T doms in that their evaluation is suddenly unrealistic when it comes to the conceptual. It's more like a quirk in them - not really a dominant characteristic of their world-view. They might make stuff they like out to be more important to the whole picture of something than it really is - they might even abuse logic just to win in favor of some evaluative standard they have (this would probably be a very egotistical Fi dom - not a good thing at this point, which Jung talked about coming near the point of their downfall).


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Sure. It's kind of like the teacher we might have seen before who puts a ton of emphasis on various facts and reasons to the point that they look like they take on an almost religious (dogmatic in a negative way) significance - the kind of person who looks fanatical about various facts and points of logic - an intellectual monomania, where some points/facts are more equal than others to them (Te doms are the super objective versions of this, where all logic that works just works and nothing more, unless it gives them some personal disadvantage). Sometimes, these types might just suddenly look like parodies of T doms in that their evaluation is suddenly unrealistic when it comes to the conceptual. It's more like a quirk in them - not really a dominant characteristic of their world-view. They might make stuff they like out to be more important to the whole picture of something than it really is - they might even abuse logic just to win in favor of some evaluative standard they have (this would probably be a very egotistical Fi dom - not a good thing at this point, which Jung talked about coming near the point of their downfall).


so maybe one example would be:

i took a speech class where the teacher had everyone take the mbti as a form of extra credit; she told us her type: infp. 

i came into class about 15 minutes late on the day when i was the first to give a speech. this caused another person to go about 8 minutes earlier than they scheduled for. to me, this didn't seem like a big deal as the person would have (or should have) been prepared to go that day, so the time at which they went... would just delay or speed up what was already inevitable (i would understand if this made someone go days earlier; that would be a situation that they hadn't had a chance to prepare for). 

but it really made my teacher angry (hurt really, but i'll get to that in a second). she argued that my being late would cause this person some kind of discomfort or trauma--which honestly, i _can_ see, but again... 8 minutes? it seemed to be getting blown out of proportion, as it was an unrealistic amount of anguish she thought i was causing my fellow students. 

i just let it go, since i could tell the real problem was that i wasn't taking the class seriously and it was _that_ that had upset her, and that no amount of me arguing would have helped out in any way. 

----------

to me, that seems like an F-dom. reaction (poorly handled though; i'm not saying that every single F-dom. is going to constantly fudge reality so that it aligns with their own orientation or self-made values, but i think that may be the tendency when their values are threatened and they're caught off guard, or not given the time/they don't take the time to re-ground themselves.... although, i could see an argument for this scenario being the cause of an inferior feeling function--so really, from here, all i can see is the relationship between F&T or T&F not being handled well). 

what do you think it would be?

p.s. teacher, if you're reading this, you really were an awesome, flexible teacher--i was just a poor student. i'm just taking a snapshot of an incident to see what can come of it.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

celticstained said:


> so maybe one example would be:
> 
> i took a speech class where the teacher had everyone take the mbti as a form of extra credit; she told us her type: infp.
> 
> ...


Hmm...that sounds like an inferior thinking issue to say the least - sounds like some bad Te - like the teacher just doesn't realistically orient herself to real world rules and logical outcomes (so it might be a bit of a parody of a Te dom making a big deal about efficiency being a method of being fair to others). If it was needlessly emotionally loaded, then it's likely the inferior had something to do with it. Sort of like she's almost distorting psychology a bit as well in an over negative way - an exaggeration of conceptual outcomes...then again, I wasn't there to know the full situation, but I can see a valid argument being made for this.


----------



## ih8thereptilesincharge (Jul 13, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Von Franz spelled it out pretty clearly in her inferior function lecture but basically Inferior Te tends to be authoritarian, overbearing, tyrannical, where a person is almost dogmatic in his thinking (though extreme dogmatism can be indicative of inferior Fi as well). She says that these types usually either don't read enough or read too much and though they have a tremendous accumulation of facts, often have a hard time drawing proper conclusions between them. There exists what she called the potential for intellectual monomania, or trying to tie everything to a very simple idea or reduce everything down to very simple platitudes (she cites Freud trying to reduce the whole of psychology down to sex and the doggedness to which he held to those positions as an example).
> 
> To me this is the normally affable Feeling type teacher who is genuine and warm most of the time until one of her 'rules' is broken and then flips a switch and turns into almost a dictator (probably lawyer-like in the case of a woman). Since Te is often all about 'rules' or 'sticking to the plan' (Jung spekas of dominant Te-types as being people who try to bring the whole of life into alignment with their intellectual formula or ideas about the way things ought to operate), inferior Te sort of becomes a very emotional, heavy, sometimes crude caricature of dominant Te. I would argue probably more noticeable as a character quirk of the Fi-dom than the predominante character of the Te-dom. This is why Von Franz decided that Freud was a Fi-dominant, even though most of us would only notice his Te, it was the quality of his Te that was so all over the place that gives him away as a feeling type. From this you might find a person becoming accusatorial (often with baseless accusations as Jung points out), being secretly jealous (again the factor here is that the jealousy is elicited by wacky logic). Quenk describes people who begin to think of all kinds of crazy excuses and ways to get out of problems that are equally illogical. (I would argue most feeling types at some point will have their intelligence questioned, even if they are themselves quite smart, there may be times when common sense or simple connecting of the dots seems lacking).
> 
> All inferior functions are heavy and loaded with emotion and there is a tendency for people to not even recognize it in themselves (choosing to see themselves through their more dominant and ego-centric personas or through the lens of their dominant functions).


Freud was Fi-dominant...? I would say he's Ni-dominant, an INTJ. The reason for his Te being all over the place would be it's auxilary placement.. it's his implementation. 
I wouldn't say dominant Fi-inferior Te is dogmatic, authoritarian, overbearing etc. at all. Sounds more like dominant Te to me, which can be very imposing, especially in today's society. Extroverted functions are much more subjective than introverted functions. Ji-doms tend to be unimposing to a fault as their judging is directed at themselves. 
Additionally, I don't really understand the stereotype of the INFP becoming very hostile once their values are threatened.. this sounds more like an Je trait to me. As a Fi-dom myself, I have spent most of my life keeping my feelings/values/opinions/thoughts to myself, except to those who I felt understood me on some level or was close to. Honestly, most people don't know much about me at all. I'm more concerned with the harmony and comfort level of the situation than I am about making a point (yes, even when the person does infuriate me or go against my "moral system"). I'd rather prefer to see where they are coming from vs. taking a dogmatic approach. I would say Ji seeks to create a cohesive structure internally, and all information received can be graciously accepted (especially with tertiary Si), whether or not the information makes sense to the already established internal landscape of the IXXP. I think this is where the inferior function comes in and needs to be developed, as all opinions aren't worth accepting and ruminating about. I recognize now that being extreme in maintaining harmony/comfort vs. stating an opinion or being confrontational leads to an underdevelopment of the inferior function and stunted psychological growth. I appear very unemotional most of the time, even when I go out of my comfort zone as an attempt to individuate myself. IXXPs can be very avoidant and tip toe around situations alot. Rarely have I ever seen an IXXP go on a moralistic tirade on others at the snap of a finger. lol.


----------

