# Infused functions.



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I believe that a highly stressful period during my late teens and early twenties somewhat altered my cognitive functions. I believe that my dominant function now is a combination of Fi, Ni and Ti.
This seems to fit in, at least partly with a few theories including Jung's individuation and positive disintegration, which @LeaT made a thread about a short while ago. 

Does anyone know any more about these theories? I'm particularly interested in finding out more about what happens after this happens or any effects of it.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, Fi and Ti can never exist together in someone who leads with either - Jung never would've said such a thing was possible. I don't think he actually said fusions occur like this - it's just that since the psyche is inherently variable, then you might get J and P functions pairing up at random at times, just because there's nothing to prevent that.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, Fi and Ti can never exist together in someone who leads with either - Jung never would've said such a thing was possible. I don't think he actually said fusions occur like this - it's just that since the psyche is inherently variable, then you might get J and P functions pairing up at random at times, just because there's nothing to prevent that.


I didn't say that they existed together, I said one function seems like a combination of the three. Jung said something to the effect of, if opposite functions are held together in consciousness, then the tension will create a new function.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I'm not sure he meant one of those functions though...?


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I believe that a highly stressful period during my late teens and early twenties somewhat altered my cognitive functions. I believe that my dominant function now is a combination of Fi, Ni and Ti.
> This seems to fit in, at least partly with a few theories including Jung's individuation and positive disintegration, which @_LeaT_ made a thread about a short while ago.
> 
> Does anyone know any more about these theories? I'm particularly interested in finding out more about what happens after this happens or any effects of it.


"A highly stressful period"? Who haven't been through one of those? Doubt it would alter your functions however, especially since the functions are just categories.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> "A highly stressful period"? Who haven't been through one of those? Doubt it would alter your functions however, especially since the functions are just categories.


You just clearly haven't experienced it yourself and how a stressful period in your life can provide a sense of altered consciousness. It's not about the stressperiod itself, it's the result of the period. Read my thread about positive disintegration please.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

LeaT said:


> You just clearly haven't experienced it yourself and how a stressful period in your life can provide a sense of altered consciousness. It's not about the stressperiod itself, it's the result of the period. Read my thread about positive disintegration please.


You clearly don't know what I've been through or how I have changed. So stop acting like you do.
Yes, I am in a bad mood, why? Because I hate when people make assumptions about me.
I don't care about your "experience it yourself" argument, I want some more solid fact than that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your theory is wrong on 2 levels.
1. The functions are *CATEGORIES*, they are YES or NO, they don't have attributes per se.
2. Your theory is based on *PERSONALITY*, not *HOW YOU THINK*. Personality is affected by many different things such as *PERSONAL EXPERIENCES* which is what you are talking about.
*
*I asked what @Neverontime what she meant by "A highly stressful period", since some people define it as having a hard time at work and others define it as having a miscarriage.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, Fi and Ti can never exist together in someone who leads with either - Jung never would've said such a thing was possible. I don't think he actually said fusions occur like this - it's just that since the psyche is inherently variable, then you might get J and P functions pairing up at random at times, just because there's nothing to prevent that.


I think it's inaccurate to say "it doesn't exist," I think the main thing is that a person might prefer one function over another regularly and that you can really only look at life through one distinct lens at a time. (So if you are Ti'ing and prioritizing detached thinking, you can't really do attached thinking, can you?)

But that does not necessarily mean your Fi isn't strong. It's just less strong than Ti. If your Ti is very skilled, maybe over the course of one's life you were forced or able to develop your skill with an Fi life perspective as well and operate within it quite well, if the situation is appropriate for that. And your Ti might start incorporating values from Fi that it screens as "fair" by its own standards.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Acerbusvenator said:


> 2. Your theory is based on *PERSONALITY*, not *HOW YOU THINK*. Personality is affected by many different things such as *PERSONAL EXPERIENCES* which is what you are talking about.


Could you better explain the difference between the two of these things, from your perspective? Because for me, they kind of spill into each other and are not completely disconnected as per what you seem to be saying. 

I also think how we choose to prioritize particular ways of processing data and perceiving data IS impacted by personal experience, tremendously. For example, I was in a crappy marriage for years with an F, and my initial approach (which was just pushing back / carving out my own turf / pushing my view in a fight) did not work. I had no choice but to look for another way, and that incorporated getting to understand F-style values to the point where I could follow them rationally and even eventually learn to embrace some of them as important to me personally [and my ex had to do the same thing but in reverse]. This impacts both my natural viewing and processing of information, as well as my personality even when I'm just casually floating along. I am so much different in SOME ways than I was before my marriage.

That's why I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. Maybe I'm just misreading what you've said?
*
*


> I asked what @_Neverontime_ what she meant by





> "A highly stressful period", since some people define it as having a hard time at work and others define it as having a miscarriage.


Lol. Yeah. There can be quite a spread of difference there.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> Could you better explain the difference between the two of these things, from your perspective? Because for me, they kind of spill into each other and are not completely disconnected as per what you seem to be saying.
> 
> I also think how we choose to prioritize particular ways of processing data and perceiving data IS impacted by personal experience, tremendously. For example, I was in a crappy marriage for years with an F, and my initial approach (which was just pushing back / carving out my own turf / pushing my view in a fight) did not work. I had no choice but to look for another way, and that incorporated getting to understand F-style values to the point where I could follow them rationally and even eventually learn to embrace some of them as important to me personally [and my ex had to do the same thing but in reverse]. This impacts both my natural viewing and processing of information, as well as my personality even when I'm just casually floating along. I am so much different in SOME ways than I was before my marriage.
> 
> That's why I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. Maybe I'm just misreading what you've said?


The functions are all about objectivity vs subjectivity/extraversion vs introversion.
Just said himself many times that it is about the
Objective functions - Want to make the internal world represent the external
Subjective functions - Want to make the external world represent the internal

For example, Se is objective "a tree is a tree", whereas Si is subjective "it's the tree I played in as a child".

To put this in this situation, she talked about Fi Ni and Ti.
Jung's functions cover all the bases of the creation of an idea (how we observe it and how we judge it; seeing what is (s) and connecting it (N) - Valuating if it's good/bad/desirable etc. (F) and how we reason (T)).

To clarify then she said that she uses
An internal valuing function, an internal intuitive connecting function and an internal reasoning function as if it was 1 process. As you see, it is 3 different processes that are requires in a train of thought.

Sure you can use your opposite functions for a while even tho it is draining, but you never create a new "super function", it's simply silly out of a logical point of view.



> I believe that my dominant function now is a combination of Fi, Ni and Ti.


Again,
dominant function = singular = 1
"combination of Fi, Ni and Ti." = plural = 3

Meh, whatever. If people want to run around telling others how they developed a super power and that they are now a SUPER UNIQUE person then they can, I'd enjoy the laugh.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Acerbusvenator said:


> The functions are all about objectivity vs subjectivity/extraversion vs introversion.
> Just said himself many times that it is about the
> Objective functions - Want to make the internal world represent the external
> Subjective functions - Want to make the external world represent the internal
> ...


Yes, I'm with you on this. 
And flow of energy is inner->outer->inner for introverts and vice versa for extraverts.



> To put this in this situation, she talked about Fi Ni and Ti.
> Jung's functions cover all the bases of the creation of an idea (how we observe it and how we judge it; seeing what is (s) and connecting it (N) - Valuating if it's good/bad/desirable etc. (F) and how we reason (T)).
> 
> To clarify then she said that she uses
> ...


Oh. Duh. Yeah. I was keying off your last comment, more, but it's like mixing apples and igneous rocks in your fruit bowl. They aren't really the same thing. Note I was just focusing on the "like" fruit in my response (Fi and Ti), as they both are in the same category.




> Meh, whatever. If people want to run around telling others how they developed a super power and that they are now a SUPER UNIQUE person then they can, I'd enjoy the laugh.



Reminds me of SuperMunchkin for some reason.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> I think it's inaccurate to say "it doesn't exist," I think the main thing is that a person might prefer one function over another regularly and that you can really only look at life through one distinct lens at a time. (So if you are Ti'ing and prioritizing detached thinking, you can't really do attached thinking, can you?)
> 
> But that does not necessarily mean your Fi isn't strong. It's just less strong than Ti. If your Ti is very skilled, maybe over the course of one's life you were forced or able to develop your skill with an Fi life perspective as well and operate within it quite well, if the situation is appropriate for that. And your Ti might start incorporating values from Fi that it screens as "fair" by its own standards.



There's a theory that Fi would be the "crow's nest" alternative to Ti in a Ti dom, but still, from a Jungian standpoint, that would probably have to involve unconscious repression of the dominant (so basically, the person not reacting from the ego standpoint at all) - sort of like the person falling into a state of mental conflict that would probably blur the experience of the 8th to the point that you can never really know for sure that you've ever experienced it (it would probably give rise to a primitive defense mechanism rather than something the person can attribute to self-awareness). Jung talks about the contents of the unconscious masking any sources of rationality that might come from it so that you can never be sure what's what (unless you're lucky, maybe o>O). I doubt any person without the help of a psychological expert can actually tell you anything definitive about your unconscious - at best, it's all going to be wishful thinking.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> "A highly stressful period"? Who haven't been through one of those? Doubt it would alter your functions however, especially since the functions are just categories.




What is true though is life experience can alter the level to which each sort of introversion and extroversion plays into your processing.




> Again,
> dominant function = singular = 1
> "combination of Fi, Ni and Ti." = plural = 3




I think to clarify again for @Neverontime, we're not talking three separate functions being called the dominant, but that we're talking of fusing Fi, Ni, Ti in some way and giving it a name.




> The functions are *CATEGORIES**,
> 
> *




Well the functions have some giant, flowery descriptions, so I could imagine one wishing to combine these descriptions in various ways.




> If people want to run around telling others how they developed a super power and that they are now a SUPER UNIQUE person then they can, I'd enjoy the laugh.




Hmm, I don't see anyone doing this. I'd hope to correct their understanding if it needed correcting. Whether or not they do can take some work to figure out, generally.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Jung talks about the contents of the unconscious masking any sources of rationality that might come from it so that you can never be sure what's what




I've been thinking though, one speaks a lot of conscious and unconscious, but to be really safe, I like to use the words less conscious and more conscious when referring to awareness of functions. Perhaps your comments on another thread about not everyone having a precise Jungian type is the heart of the real issue here.

What I think is probably true is that a cookie-cutter fit to Jungian Ti introversion, like me perhaps, would barely be in conscious control over processing that occurs under an Fi perspective, but that by inference, I can detect various forms of processing that do not fit neatly within the so-called INTP model. 

Perhaps there really is a need to speak of a new, fused function. I think the more perfectly one fits the Jungian dominant types, the more likely there is to be little confusion. Like for me, it's literally such a perfect fit.

When people type each other though, to these various 4-letter models, they aren't necessarily saying they're truly the embodiment of the said Jungian type. I mean, when I read the description of an Si-dominant, that was _extreme_. I doubt every ISTJ or so relates perfectly to it, which is why we might run into trouble.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

What's up with the Fi wanna-be's among Ti doms? It's not really like Fi doms are typically any nicer than Ti doms (some might be some of the coldest people around, emotionally speaking).


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Hmm. I don't know if I can think of a way to "bind" multiple functions within the architecture of the system and think that it makes sense from experience. 

I think the problem here involves what I'll offhandedly call "sequence" - or, "when" the interplay of a given function becomes part of the person's experience. I've actually given a decent amount of thought to this - can functional experiences occur concurrently, or is it necessary that they be separate points in a person's consciousness at all times? If you try and trace "which function" is at play in your mind at a number of given points, you'll probably find, as I did, that picking them apart is very difficult. It's hard to tell if you "switch" from Ni to Te, for example, or whether the two overlap when they're experienced. 

The whole observation here is very oily, because it's trying to place a model onto reality. But I think there are a number of very important tangential questions something like this raises, including the following:


Even though we have sources as to "what a function is," how do we exactly define what one could experientially pinpoint as a "function," and what exactly is the process?
What is the "space" between the model and reality?
Is a function a measurable mental process, or something else?
Implications on how 3 functions would "infuse" based on how they are defined


If three functions can "infuse," are there other combinations possible? If not because of a Jungian rule with the psyche, etc, why does that rule have jurisdiction?



Just some comida for thought.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> What's up with the Fi wanna-be's among Ti doms? It's not really like Fi doms are typically any nicer than Ti doms (some might be some of the coldest people around, emotionally speaking).


Ti-Dom: "Hm, I seem to be having trouble matching my slightly naive and oversimplified understanding of cognitive functions to a brief examination of my own experience. Clearly this calls for an elaborate theory of why I'm special! Awesome, the perfect way to spend an afternoon."

EDIT: To clarify I'm talking specifically about my younger self. I'm sure there are lots of thoughtful Ti-Doms who have more sophisticated ideas on subjects like this -- it's just that I think Ti-Doms are in danger at first of falling into naive theories of specialness, and I know I did for awhile.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> There's a theory that Fi would be the "crow's nest" alternative to Ti in a Ti dom, but still, from a Jungian standpoint, that would probably have to involve unconscious repression of the dominant (so basically, the person not reacting from the ego standpoint at all) - sort of like the person falling into a state of mental conflict that would probably blur the experience of the 8th to the point that you can never really know for sure that you've ever experienced it (it would probably give rise to a primitive defense mechanism rather than something the person can attribute to self-awareness). Jung talks about the contents of the unconscious masking any sources of rationality that might come from it so that you can never be sure what's what (unless you're lucky, maybe o>O). I doubt any person without the help of a psychological expert can actually tell you anything definitive about your unconscious - at best, it's all going to be wishful thinking.


This is why I think a lot of the theory we discuss here is bunk. My practical experience doesn't really bear it out. You can read my profile page if you'd like, but after 15-20 years of reading about MBTI and Jung and Thomson and Beebe and whoever else, I think the functions just are not that clearly delineated; as general concepts, they are helpful for self-understanding and easing communication between people. But it's clear that theory was mostly designed to balance itself out and compartmentalize itself nicely; it might be internally consistent but isn't properly anchored to real-life data + changing cultural influences.

I keep running into people who are exceptions to the rule, so much that it leaves me questioning the rules.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Conclusion said:


> Ti-Dom: "Hm, I seem to be having trouble matching my slightly naive and oversimplified understanding of cognitive functions to a brief examination of my own experience. Clearly this calls for an elaborate theory of why I'm special! Awesome, the perfect way to spend an afternoon."
> 
> EDI I'm sure there are lots of thoughtful Ti-Doms who have more sophisticated ideas on subjects like this -- it's just that I thin


Yea, but you're probably just working off of bad definitions. I mean, Jung pretty much uses Newton's 3rd law to prove that two Ji functions would directly exclude each other. Just because someone's into individuality doesn't really make them an Fi type (contrary to internet idiocy on the topic). Jung said that Ti "thinks" everything Fi "feels," so perhaps Ti types are very interested in the topic of idividuality as well, just on different terms entirely than the Fi type would be. It's just that "individuality" is a more feeling-oriented term, but I can see it translating into thinking terms as well.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yea, but you're probably just working off of bad definitions. I mean, Jung pretty much uses Newton's 3rd law to prove that two Ji functions would directly exclude each other. Just because someone's into individuality doesn't really make them an Fi type (contrary to internet idiocy on the topic). Jung said that Ti "thinks" everything Fi "feels," so perhaps Ti types are very interested in the topic of idividuality as well, just on different terms entirely than the Fi type would be. It's just that "individuality" is a more feeling-oriented term, but I can see it translating into thinking terms as well.


Could you be misreading me? I responded to your question with an in-character parody of a young Ti-Dom -- basically a younger me. I wasn't trying to say that I'm having difficulty matching the model to my experience (not perfect but not bad) and responding by coming up with elaborate theories of why I'm special. 

(On reflection maybe posting like that is a weird thing to do outside the INTP subforum. Within its culture at least such posts are perfectly unremarkable. )


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> The functions are all about objectivity vs subjectivity/extraversion vs introversion.
> Just said himself many times that it is about the
> Objective functions - Want to make the internal world represent the external
> Subjective functions - Want to make the external world represent the internal
> ...


Do you know everything about personality theory, cognitive functions and the human psyche or are you just being arrogant and narrow-minded? I'm asking if anybody can help me understand something, was that attitude really necessary? I didn't think you were like that.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> What's up with the Fi wanna-be's among Ti doms? It's not really like Fi doms are typically any nicer than Ti doms (some might be some of the coldest people around, emotionally speaking).


What's up with your inconsistent understanding of the theory? How come you don't seem to know what you're saying from one post to the next? Let's be honest, your entire Jung knowledge could be written on the back of a postage stamp and there would still be enough space left over for me to wipe my ass on it. Digging up old posts and paraphrasing them in order to seem knowledgeable might fool people for a while, but it doesn't take a genius to soon figure out that you understand fuck all about Jung.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

I prefer to infuse my functions with hibiscus.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> What's up with your inconsistent understanding of the theory? How come you don't seem to know what you're saying from one post to the next? Let's be honest, your entire Jung knowledge could be written on the back of a postage stamp and there would still be enough space left over for me to wipe my ass on it. Digging up old posts and paraphrasing them in order to seem knowledgeable might fool people for a while, but it doesn't take a genius to soon figure out that you understand fuck all about Jung.


I'm sure that was probably necessary for some reason.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Do you know everything about personality theory, cognitive functions and the human psyche or are you just being arrogant and narrow-minded? I'm asking if anybody can help me understand something, was that attitude really necessary? I didn't think you were like that.





> Do you know everything about personality theory?


I know just about everything about MBTI and a lot about Jung.



> human psyche?


I know what defines a personality. I'd say that I could reason my way to understand everything about the human psyche, we aren't as complex as we make ourselves seem.



> or are you just being arrogant and narrow-minded?


Arrogant would assume that I boast around with what I know, I don't, I just tell you that either you didn't explain it enough or you are just wrong.
Narrow-minded would assume that I don't accept new world-views - the fact that I study personality theories contradict that statement.
Thus I am neither arrogant nor narrow-minded.
Being skeptical doesn't make you narrow-minded, it makes you skeptical.
Accepting things without question makes you gullible, not open-minded.



> I didn't think you were like that.


Like what? Realistic? Critical?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

bobdaduck said:


> I'm sure that was probably necessary for some reason.


It was overdue


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> You clearly don't know what I've been through or how I have changed. So stop acting like you do.


I can assume things if you clearly don't understand what the OP is getting at, which suggests you haven't experienced such a thing.



> Yes, I am in a bad mood, why? Because I hate when people make assumptions about me.
> I don't care about your "experience it yourself" argument, I want some more solid fact than that.


/careface


> Correct me if I am wrong, but your theory is wrong on 2 levels.
> 1. The functions are *CATEGORIES*, they are YES or NO, they don't have attributes per se.
> 2. Your theory is based on *PERSONALITY*, not *HOW YOU THINK*. Personality is affected by many different things such as *PERSONAL EXPERIENCES* which is what you are talking about.



Yes, you're wrong, because you can't delineate the two like you do. How you think part dicatates your personality. Most of all though, functions are about how you process information, in other words, how you think. There are behaviors that might be associated with that information process but it can vary between individuals as was pointed out in the thread @tanstaafl28 made. 

At the heart of it, functions are thus about how you think, not how you act, if that's how you try to separate them. Enneagram is more about how you act. *

*


> I asked what @_Neverontime_ what she meant by "A highly stressful period", since some people define it as having a hard time at work and others define it as having a miscarriage.


I think it's pointless to discuss the quantitative measurement of a stressful period. The point is that the period is experienced as stressful by the individual and that it leads to a sense of altered thinking. 
@Jennywocky also brought up a good example of personal maturity.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I know just about everything about MBTI and a lot about Jung.
> 
> 
> I know what defines a personality. I'd say that I could reason my way to understand everything about the human psyche, we aren't as complex as we make ourselves seem.
> ...


You don't know enough about Jung to realize that I'm not claiming to have developed a super power. I would dig out some quotes but it's clearly pointless because nobody reads them anyway.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I love how some Ti doms think they are like me and then clash with me on every level.
Somehow thinking having an opinion qualifies as Fi or something.
Then going ahead and magically attaching significance to feelings 
without any ability to separate them from each other in consciousness.
My ISTP father is a great example, having great difficulty to think rationally about me having a girlfriend and what that means.
Magically thinking it means that she should come to his birthday without them even having met yet.
Oh lets put each other in weird situations since my bond with her assumes a bond with him,
that is a very tribal way of approaching the world.
Fi can clearly feel and separate in the same instance.
Ti have to shut feeling off to separate and come to that same realization.
I hope you get what if implying here.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Meh, whatever. If people want to run around telling others how they developed a super power and that they are now a SUPER UNIQUE person then they can, I'd enjoy the laugh.


http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...-i-told-you-i-developed-shadow-functions.html


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

bobdaduck said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...-i-told-you-i-developed-shadow-functions.html


Oh my dark Lord and Master, what is thy bidding for thy faithful and lowly servant? Please do not look upon me with disfavor!


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

I want to ask questions and express thoughts, but this doesn't seem like a safe thread for honest introspection and dialog.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

@LeaT, your opinion means little to me. It is and has been for a long time obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, you are just a large ego yapping on about nothing. The only reason you are arguing with me is because you feel like I am offending your ego.
@Neverontime, you assumed that you had reach some level of awareness that allowed you to have 3 functions as dominant. I'd say that disqualifies you from being knowledgeable.


> I believe that a highly stressful period during my late teens and early twenties somewhat altered my cognitive functions. I believe that my dominant function now is a combination of Fi, Ni and Ti.


 @bobdaduck, yea I read that one before. He was just having too much of himself so whatever.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

bobdaduck said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...-i-told-you-i-developed-shadow-functions.html


Yes everybody want to be a special snowflake and transcend everyone else.
If you stop and think about what it actually entails it is kinda messed up.

Se and Ne is flipped.
Fi and Ti is flipped.
Te and Fe is flipped.
Si and Ni is flipped.

Who has time to even deal with one of those opposites reliably in their lifetime?
The conflict is insurmountable. 
The mental energy (libido) can somehow be forced into unused territory?
From my understanding, that "libido" is probably hard-wired neural pathways in your brain.
You are just gonna force your brain to suddenly process information differently?

People should stop kidding them self and deal with what they have got.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

hornet said:


> The mental energy (libido) can somehow be forced into unused territory?
> From my understanding, that "libido" is probably hard-wired neural pathways in your brain.
> You are just gonna force your brain to suddenly process information differently?


I posted that mostly as a joke. Obviously the thread creator has no idea what he's talking about and such, and acerbuserguy said something about waiting for someone to claim they were a "super type" and whatnot...

Also I'd be careful about the word "libido", as most people define that as sexual energy and you might confuse people.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

bobdaduck said:


> I posted that mostly as a joke. Obviously the thread creator has no idea what he's talking about and such, and acerbuserguy said something about waiting for someone to claim they were a "super type" and whatnot...
> 
> Also I'd be careful about the word "libido", as most people define that as sexual energy and you might confuse people.


I got that you did post it as a joke. 
Still the post creator didn't joke and neither do all the people running around believing that they use shadow functions.
It is a very Ne thing to do btw to believe that the idea of the possibility makes it a reality.
No surprise that INTPs are at the forefront of the we use Fi too movement... XD

Well if they misunderstand it after I just defined it then damn them to hell...


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> @LeaT, your opinion means little to me. It is and has been for a long time obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, you are just a large ego yapping on about nothing. The only reason you are arguing with me is because you feel like I am offending your ego.
> @Neverontime, you assumed that you had reach some level of awareness that allowed you to have 3 functions as dominant. I'd say that disqualifies you from being knowledgeable.


 I never said that I had 3 functions. 
So let's see what certain people here can completely ignore 

"When there is full parity of the opposites, attested by the ego’s absolute participation in both, this necessarily leads to a suspension of the will, for the will can no longer operate when every motive has an equally strong countermotive. Since life cannot tolerate a standstill, a damming up of vital energy results, and this would lead to an insupportable condition did not the tension of opposites* produce a new, uniting function that transcends them.* This function arises quite naturally from the regression of libido caused by the blockage."

"From the activity of the unconscious there now emerges a new content, constellated by thesis and antithesis in equal measure and standing in a compensatory relation to both. It thus forms the middle ground on which the opposites can be united. If, for instance, we conceive the opposition to be sensuality versus spirituality, then the mediatory content born out of the unconscious provides a welcome means of expression for the spiritual thesis, because of its rich spiritual associations, and also for the sensual antithesis, because of its sensuous imagery. The ego, however, torn between thesis and antithesis, finds in the middle ground its own counterpart, its sole and unique means of expression, and it eagerly seizes on this in order to be delivered from its division." 

Why don't the so-called Jung experts know this?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Neverontime said:


> I never said that I had 3 functions.
> So let's see what certain people here can completely ignore
> 
> "When there is full parity of the opposites, attested by the ego’s absolute participation in both, this necessarily leads to a suspension of the will, for the will can no longer operate when every motive has an equally strong countermotive. Since life cannot tolerate a standstill, a damming up of vital energy results, and this would lead to an insupportable condition did not the tension of opposites* produce a new, uniting function that transcends them.* This function arises quite naturally from the regression of libido caused by the blockage."
> ...


Then the symbol arises out of the unconscious to bridge the gap right?
Still you don't get to to become a new type just because your unconscious had to be creative to resolve a conflict of opposites.
Just because one issue has been resolved don't flip your valuation of separated thoughts over to separated feelings.
I don't care how big a crisis you go trough, you will remain true to your original point of view mostly even though,
you transcend issues that arise trough insurmountable conflicts trough symbols arising from the unconscious.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I never said that I had 3 functions.
> So let's see what certain people here can completely ignore
> 
> "When there is full parity of the opposites, attested by the ego’s absolute participation in both, this necessarily leads to a suspension of the will, for the will can no longer operate when every motive has an equally strong countermotive. Since life cannot tolerate a standstill, a damming up of vital energy results, and this would lead to an insupportable condition did not the tension of opposites* produce a new, uniting function that transcends them.* This function arises quite naturally from the regression of libido caused by the blockage."
> ...


At most he speaks of introversion and extraversion being merged, but really it seems like he's not even talking about psychological types. (actually, as far as I can see then he isn't)

I'm still gonna push on this:


> I believe that a highly stressful period during my late teens and early twenties* somewhat altered my cognitive functions.* *I believe that my dominant function now is a combination of Fi, Ni and Ti.*


I simply don't think that you even know what you are talking about. But it's alright, we accept you anyways. :happy:


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

hornet said:


> Then the symbol arises out of the unconscious to bridge the gap right?
> Still you don't get to to become a new type just because your unconscious had to be creative to resolve a conflict of opposites.
> Just because one issue has been resolved don't flip your valuation of separated thoughts over to separated feelings.
> I don't care how big a crisis you go trough, you will remain true to your original point of view mostly even though,
> you transcend issues that arise trough insurmountable conflicts trough symbols arising from the unconscious.


I didn't say that I'm a new type either.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> @_LeaT__, your opinion means little to me. It is and has been for a long time obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, you are just a large ego yapping on about nothing. The only reason you are arguing with me is because you feel like I am offending your ego.
> @Neverontime, you assumed that you had reach some level of awareness that allowed you to have 3 functions as dominant. I'd say that disqualifies you from being knowledgeable._


_


_I personally didn't question anything you wrote about introversion/extroversion, aka not saying you don't know MBTI, but as a friendly suggestion, you should be a bit slower to assume that someone is saying something wrong. 

Not everyone who proposes things that don't seem in the realm of MBTI is completely ignorant about the rules it upholds. I tend to be a bit careful and try to ensure I see why the theory is rigid where it is rigid, and make this a bit more apparent than some do, but really to get anywhere with most, you have to get at what someone actually means, rather than jump to correct them.




> I simply don't think that you even know what you are talking about. But it's alright, we accept you anyways.




How could someone who is clearly describing themselves not know? What is a certainty is you don't see what they mean, because the way they are interpreting their language, which is not in clear contradiction to established language either, is far from how you are, where you're attempting to fit it in with the theory you've read.

You are not trying to understand what the poster means, rather whether or not it fits in with your vocabulary. And that's just going to miss the point.

You can claim to be uninterested in this direction of thinking, but that's a different story.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Neverontime said:


> I never said that I had 3 functions.
> So let's see what certain people here can completely ignore
> 
> "When there is full parity of the opposites, attested by the ego’s absolute participation in both, this necessarily leads to a suspension of the will, for the will can no longer operate when every motive has an equally strong countermotive. Since life cannot tolerate a standstill, a damming up of vital energy results, and this would lead to an insupportable condition did not the tension of opposites* produce a new, uniting function that transcends them.* This function arises quite naturally from the regression of libido caused by the blockage."
> ...


that is interesting, i just wonder if it could be talking about differentiating an auxiliary function (second or third). his analogy isn't very clear, so it's hard to determine if he's pitting opposites against themselves and something from all new spectrum comes about (which would be an aux), or if the new item exists within and is founded on that same spectrum (spectrums being: perception and judging), which would support your idea. 

all of this is largely up to interpretation, so why not indulge on exploring the idea... which is what i got from the initial post... not 'hey motherfuckers i'm SPACIAL!'...


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> At most he speaks of introversion and extraversion being merged, but really it seems like he's not even talking about psychological types. (actually, as far as I can see then he isn't)
> 
> I'm still gonna push on this:
> 
> I simply don't think that you even know what you are talking about. But it's alright, we accept you anyways. :happy:


If consciousness is introverted then the unconscious is extraverted. The dominant function represents consciousness, the inferior functions are unconscious. Merging of consciousness and unconscious = merging of conscious and unconscious functions.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I never said that I had 3 functions.
> *you said outright: these three functions have merged to become my dominant. Acerbuserguy was joking about where the first posts thinking might lead, not taking your words out of context. *
> So let's see what certain people here can completely ignore
> *To facilitate discussion, INSULT EVERYBODY.*
> ...


Answers in bold


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

bearotter said:


> I personally didn't question anything you wrote about introversion/extroversion, aka not saying you don't know MBTI, but as a friendly suggestion, you should be a bit slower to assume that someone is saying something wrong.
> 
> Not everyone who proposes things that don't seem in the realm of MBTI is completely ignorant about the rules it upholds. I tend to be a bit careful and try to ensure I see why the theory is rigid where it is rigid, and make this a bit more apparent than some do, but really to get anywhere with most, you have to get at what someone actually means, rather than jump to correct them.



Telling someone that they are right gives you a "thank you" the majority of times.
Asking someone for clarification gives you a half-serious written reply most times.
Accusing someone of being wrong often yields you a long reply as of why they are right.

Accusing someone of being wrong is thus the best action.



> How could someone who is clearly describing themselves not know? What is a certainty is you don't see what they mean, because the way they are interpreting their language, which is not in clear contradiction to established language either, is far from how you are, where you're attempting to fit it in with the theory you've read.
> 
> You are not trying to understand what the poster means, rather whether or not it fits in with your vocabulary. And that's just going to miss the point.
> 
> You can claim to be uninterested in this direction of thinking, but that's a different story.[/FONT]


Well you don't understand my mind, that's for sure.
Fact is that I am trying to understand what the OP means, but she is dodging my question.


> I believe that a highly stressful period during my late teens and early twenties somewhat altered my cognitive functions. I believe that my dominant function now is a combination of Fi, Ni and Ti.


The point so far is that they don't get what they are saying.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

hornet said:


> Then the symbol arises out of the unconscious to bridge the gap right?
> Still you don't get to to become a new type just because your unconscious had to be creative to resolve a conflict of opposites.
> Just because one issue has been resolved don't flip your valuation of separated thoughts over to separated feelings.
> I don't care how big a crisis you go trough, you will remain true to your original point of view mostly even though,
> you transcend issues that arise trough insurmountable conflicts trough symbols arising from the unconscious.


it depends on how you mean "unconscious". if you mean that it's a word to represent our other halves that is under the sway of what we call a function, then no, because it was the tension that arose from the conflicting energies that produced something--synthesis. 

if you mean the unconscious as in way that puts our inferior as a mere fraction of its contents, then sure, but even then that new unconscious base that comes about would by its very existence create its own opposite--you'd be left even more than three functions. 

but if it's not the creation of an aux (my earlier post), then i think it would something almost subliminal. something is created that allows one to move past a problem (sort of what i think you were getting at)--this creation might have sprung from the functions that are already in your makeup, but what it created is something else entirely. now the question becomes: supposing you're not changing a type, are these other aspects that might or might not exist within your unconscious attributable to what we call other functions outside of your ordering? if they are... it opens up a whole lot of interesting speculation on how growth is actually achieved.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Asking someone for clarification gives you a half-serious written reply most times.
> *Accusing someone of being wrong often yields you a long reply as of why they are right.
> *
> Accusing someone of being wrong is thus the best action.




Really? 

Then why this:




> Fact is that I am trying to understand what the OP means, but she is dodging my question.




Where's your long reply? You're clearly dissatisfied with your own strategy -- "often" is not "often enough" perhaps. Try understanding and utilizing my strategy - be persistent in asking for clarification, and develop a map of what they are saying. You may find yourself enlightened, even if part of what they are saying didn't make sense, there might be a way to salvage it and make for a better understanding.



Your strategy would not work on me, because I see no reason someone accusing me to be wrong should be taken any more seriously than someone asking for clarification.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Acerbusvenator, nah, you don't offend my ego but I find it interesting that you think I do since I think it says quite a bit on how much you project on me in that sentence there. What offends me is shitty thinking however. Also, I don't need you to stroke my ego by the way. I can do it just fine.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

celticstained said:


> that is interesting, i just wonder if it could be talking about differentiating an auxiliary function (second or third). his analogy isn't very clear, so it's hard to determine if he's pitting opposites against themselves and something from all new spectrum comes about (which would be an aux), or if the new item exists within and is founded on that same spectrum (spectrums being: perception and judging), which would support your idea.
> 
> all of this is largely up to interpretation, so why not indulge on exploring the idea... which is what i got from the initial post... not 'hey motherfuckers i'm SPACIAL!'...


True, I didn't intend to imply that I think I'm special. I have spoken to other members who feel that they have had similar experiences, so I certainly don't believe I'm special, since it's not only me. 

I also don't know what exactly Jung believed occurred within the psyche, I've been trying to understand and figured I'd just ask straight out. All I can say is that I'm certain that I'm infp and what I said in the op basically.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Neverontime said:


> I didn't say that I'm a new type either.


Well...
This has gotten to be a cat and mouse conversation. :-/

***Rereading initial posts for clarity***

Hmm...

Well you could claim that my Fi isn't exactly like some other ISFPs Fi due to the different symbols and internal
re-negation of opposites. Then you could claim that some aspects of Ti valuation colour my behaviour.
So in that sense I guess I could agree. But to detect what those changes are and how far they go consciously
seem like a stretch to me. 
The symbol would hide the particulars from conscious attention.

Believe what you want to if it helps you move on to a better place in your life.
I think that we Te users can get a bit caught up in the facts from time to time...


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> If consciousness is introverted then the unconscious is extraverted. The dominant function represents consciousness, the inferior functions are unconscious. Merging of consciousness and unconscious = merging of conscious and unconscious functions.


Meh, your argument is invalid. At most he speaks about a bridging between introversion vs extraversion. His view of this was so ridiculously unstable.
Seems also like his opinion was at one point that it was something natural that happened and not something that required a tremendous stress. Thus your point is invalid as everyone would go through the same development.
Seems like what he called transcendent functions is what is usually called matured functions.

So sorry, but apparently it's nothing special.
The Transcendent Function: Jung's Model of Psychological Growth Through ... - Jeffrey C. Miller - Google Böcker


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

bearotter said:


> Really?
> 
> Then why this:
> 
> ...


You are wrong however, they talk a lot with me, so I'd say that it's working.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> You are wrong however, they talk a lot with me, so I'd say that it's working.




I'm not at all wrong. Reread my post. I showed you the precise line displaying your dissatisfaction, claiming all of the "lot of talk" you were getting was dodging. 

Now I do not see it as dodging, but you do. So really you're invalidating your point, not me.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

bearotter said:


> I'm not at all wrong. Reread my post. I showed you the precise line displaying your dissatisfaction, claiming all of the "lot of talk" you were getting was dodging.
> 
> Now I do not see it as dodging, but you do. So really you're invalidating your point, not me. [/COLOR]


I was talking about a single point, not the total accumulated data.

This is the only part being dodged:


> I believe that a highly stressful period during my late teens and early twenties somewhat altered my cognitive functions. I believe that my *dominant function* now is a combination of* Fi, Ni and Ti.*


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@Acerbusvenator, you were trying to clarify that point in several posts. If your goal is to accumulate data, go for it. If a goal is to understand the OP, which you stated yourself, you yourself are showing your approach failed by claiming she is dodging that very point.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

bearotter said:


> @_Acerbusvenator_, you were trying to clarify that point in several posts. If your goal is to accumulate data, go for it. If a goal is to understand the OP, which you stated yourself, you yourself are showing your approach failed by claiming she is dodging that very point.


I'll be the judge of that, thank you.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> view of this was so ridiculously unstable.
> Seems also like his opinion was at one point that it was something natural that happened and not something that required a tremendous stress. Thus your point is invalid as everyone would go through the same development.




You claim Jung's opinion of the phenomonon unstable, and then reference his once opinion to invalidate someone's point?

We need to be aware of your meaning. Interpreted strictly, what you just did is a fallacy, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt because you clarified for me the following: you like to claim to invalidate people's points for the purpose of potentially "gathering data," perhaps among other things.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

And @Acerbusvenator: regarding post 56, sure. You may be the judge. 

I just gave you a suggestion, as a friendly gesture, in a previous post. You can think about it over time. No need to decide now.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

bearotter said:


> You claim Jung's opinion of the phenomonon unstable, and then reference his once opinion to invalidate someone's point?
> 
> We need to be aware of your meaning. Interpreted strictly, what you just did is a fallacy, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt because you clarified for me the following: [/COLOR]you like to claim to invalidate people's points for the purpose of potentially "gathering data," perhaps among other things.


Check the link I gave... -.-'


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

bearotter said:


> And @_Acerbusvenator_: regarding post 56, sure. You may be the judge.
> 
> I just gave you a suggestion, as a friendly gesture, in a previous post. You can think about it over time. No need to decide now.


I don't really care about what a random person on the internet thinks of my way of writing.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Yes, and no. I'm kind of in the opposite situation than Neverontime in the sense that I relate more to Fi than I do Ti (with Lenore Thomson's descriptions, at least) but ultimately, the question is, do we think that functions truly exist in an actual unadultered state? Or are they the output of something even more complex? What if the same output can create both Ti and Fi?


What if you were to not think of the functions as having clear inputs and outputs, but as holistic perspectives that point to preferences on meaning, structure, and consciousness?


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> It's possible.
> But that could poke holes in my understanding of the theory and it was so neat and tidy.


Most theories aren't without 'holes,' I think. Though I'd really see as strength and weakness that is naturally the nature of the theory itself. There's a part of a theory that holds strong in its framework, and then there's the part where it breaks down. Each theory has this point, and understanding the nature of the theory itself is needed before its application. So, I apologize for any confusion, but to me, nothing is really actually so neat and tidy. :3 But that's me.



LeaT said:


> Yes, and no. I'm kind of in the opposite situation than Neverontime in the sense that I relate more to Fi than I do Ti (with Lenore Thomson's descriptions, at least) but ultimately, the question is, do we think that functions truly exist in an actual unadultered state? Or are they the output of something even more complex? What if the same output can create both Ti and Fi?


If this is ultimately the question, then it would seem to me that the answer is apparent (though I could be far off course). Cognitive Functions are one kind of framework through which cognition is examined. It's a construction designed to break apart reality, focus in on what's being examined, and gather information geared towards a specific goal. And in this sense, even though it deals with reality and breaking down its complexity, it is removed from reality itself. I believe that reality is much more complex than a person's cognition being broken down into eight functions and people being boxed up into a mere sixteen types. Having said that, I also believe that this system can at times shed light that might have otherwise been missed entirely.

Is a Ti and Fi combination possible? Perhaps. Could it be explained? Probably. For an INTP, this combination would make sense with Lenore Thomson's Crow's Nest explanation. Could it due to Positive Disintegration? Perhaps. I have yet to explore the idea enough to have a true sense of it's nature, where it is strong and where it breaks down, and how it would manifest in an individual. But even still, these various explanations are also, by nature, removed from reality. At least as far as my understanding goes. :3


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Teybo said:


> What if you were to not think of the functions as having clear inputs and outputs, but as holistic perspectives that point to preferences on meaning, structure, and consciousness?


What says I don't but I also think the theory is insufficient at explaining what it tries to explain?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

There's no reason to assume that a person will differentiate their dominant function to the extent that it takes on a clear distinction between thinking and feeling in their consciousness. Ideally this happens, according to the theory, along with the auxiliary - but there will be many cases where the individual never gets that far in their development.

However, there can also never be any mistake that in such a person neither function is ever being used in a fully conscious way. Which easily explains why such a person would not have the ability to clearly distinguish a conscious preference between the two in themselves.

The way Jung envisioned cognition was divided along two axis - rational/irrational, and introverted/extroverted. He further divides the rational and irrational dichotomy into a second pair - thinker/feeler, sensor/intuitive.

So that is exactly what cognition does in development.

First, an overall cognitive bias for introversion or extraversion. This will shape everything to come.

Second, rational type or irrational type. At this stage, once one of the two becomes differentiated in consciousness, there's no reason to assume that the child will _necessarily_ develop their judgment or perception to the extent that they form a clear bias for one kind of judgement or perception over the other. Instead, they might only develop a slight bias for one over the other that is highly subject to circumstance.

Again, there is never any mistake in such a case of a person who therefore _clearly_ is not conscious of the distinction between, for example, feeling and thinking, well enough to distinguish between the two _at all_. This person would likely argue that _such a distinction might not even exist._ They argue this _precisely because *their own judgment lacks enough differentiation to allow for the difference in the first place. *_Thus, they will _never_ understand how to recognize this difference because within their cognition there actually _is no difference_.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

> It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.
> 
> Modern cognitive science and neuroscience show that studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a person with no affective feelings, for example an individual with a massively damaged amygdala or severe psychopathy. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference.
> Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


10characters


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

These paragraphs explain it quite well. 


The secret of alchemy was in fact the transcendent function, the transformation of personality through the blending and fusion of the noble with the base components, of the differentiated with the inferior functions, of the conscious with the unconscious. (Jung 1953, p220)

JMiller (2004) writes that the axiom of Maria allows us to see that in the workings of the transcendent function there are actually four elements: the two opposites, the transcendent function process, and the transformed, new attitude, which has been called so far the third. The two opposites are mediated by the process or container of the transcendent function and this mirrors the Axiom of Maria whereby the transcendent function is the movement of the Two to the Three. This is the metaphorical third, the field or the relationship between the two opposites. It is the metaphoric, neither/nor space where the opposites sit in tension, vacillate, oscillate and allow a shift in consciousness. But, the new third “thing” that emerges from the operation of the third is actually a fourth, the alchemical fourth. When it emerges it is a totally new consciousness, not an amalgam of the disparate elements but some part of the Oneness that connects them.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I didn't say that they existed together, I said one function seems like a combination of the three. Jung said something to the effect of, if opposite functions are held together in consciousness, then the tension will create a new function.


When for example dom Fi is guided by inferior Te, it can seem like Ti. This functions working in combination with each other Jung called archaic. When there is something forcing the unconscious function to become really active, it manifests by unconsciously guiding the conscious functions through projections etc. and create an archaic condition. You can think it as the functions being on the opposite ends of a rope and if you pull hard on the inferior side, the dominant follows to that direction, but reacts with its own attitude, like with INTP something pulls to the directions of Fe, then Ti starts to introvert in the realm of Fe and this introverting Fe stuff looks bit like Fi, but the introverting is actually done with thinking, not feeling, feeling is just the starting point.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> There's no reason to assume that a person will differentiate their dominant function to the extent that it takes on a clear distinction between thinking and feeling in their consciousness. Ideally this happens, according to the theory, along with the auxiliary - but there will be many cases where the individual never gets that far in their development.
> 
> However, there can also never be any mistake that in such a person neither function is ever being used in a fully conscious way. Which easily explains why such a person would not have the ability to clearly distinguish a conscious preference between the two in themselves.
> 
> ...


Thank you for writing this because this is exactly how I see it as well, and it perfectly explains my situation where I think my dominant function is not fully differentiated on the T/F axis but is simply a preference for Ji. This also why I think I cannot fully identify my inferior function but I can see tendencies towards both inferior Fe and Te or simply put, I'm Ji - N - S - Je in that order, with a slight preference towards Ji - Ne - Si - Je but I also know my intuition is not quite fully developed as I can notice both Ni and Ne as somewhat conscious attitudes. I also feel that there is just a slight preference for J over P which is why I have troubles sometimes discerning if I'm a J or P dominant too.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Naama said:


> When for example dom Fi is guided by inferior Te, it can seem like Ti. This functions working in combination with each other Jung called archaic. When there is something forcing the unconscious function to become really active, it manifests by unconsciously guiding the conscious functions through projections etc. and create an archaic condition. You can think it as the functions being on the opposite ends of a rope and if you pull hard on the inferior side, the dominant follows to that direction, but reacts with its own attitude, like with INTP something pulls to the directions of Fe, then Ti starts to introvert in the realm of Fe and this introverting Fe stuff looks bit like Fi, but the introverting is actually done with thinking, not feeling, feeling is just the starting point.


I'm just adding quotes, because I'm that lazy today. 



> For his knowledge of 'primitive' peoples, C. G. Jung relied on the work of Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (1857-1939), a French philosopher who in mid-career became an armchair anthropologist. In a series of books from 1910 on, Lévy-Bruhl asserted that 'primitive' peoples had been misunderstood by modern Westerners. Rather than thinking like moderns, just less rigorously, 'primitives' harbour a mentality of their own. 'Primitive' thinking is both 'mystical' and 'prelogical'. By 'mystical', Lévy-Bruhl meant that 'primitive' peoples experience the world as identical with themselves. Their relationship to the world, including to fellow human beings, is that of participation mystique. By 'prelogical', Lévy-Bruhl meant that 'primitive' thinking is indifferent to contradictions. 'Primitive' peoples deem all things identical with one another yet somehow still distinct. A human is at once a tree and still a human being. Jung accepted unquestioningly Lévy-Bruhl's depiction of the 'primitive' mind, even when Jung, unlike Lévy-Bruhl, journeyed to the field to see 'primitive' peoples firsthand. But Jung altered Lévy-Bruhl's conception of 'primitive' mentality in three key ways. First, he psychologized it. Whereas for Lévy-Bruhl 'primitive' thinking is to be explained sociologically, for Jung it is to be explained psychologically: 'primitive' peoples think as they do because they live in a state of unconsciousness. Second, Jung universalized 'primitive' mentality. Whereas for Lévy-Bruhl 'primitive' thinking is ever more being replaced by modern thinking, for Jung 'primitive' thinking is the initial psychological state of all human beings.


However, I don't think that's what she meant.


----------



## QueenOfCats (Jan 28, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Do you mean it possibly has happened or possibly might happen?


I mean it might have possibly happened. I've been unhealthy for at least half my life. Really unhealthy, not just going through a stressful time.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Nevermind.

Didn't realize this had 12 pages already.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Thank you for writing this because this is exactly how I see it as well, and it perfectly explains my situation where I think my dominant function is not fully differentiated on the T/F axis but is simply a preference for Ji. This also why I think I cannot fully identify my inferior function but I can see tendencies towards both inferior Fe and Te or simply put, I'm Ji - N - S - Je in that order, with a slight preference towards Ji - Ne - Si - Je but I also know my intuition is not quite fully developed as I can notice both Ni and Ne as somewhat conscious attitudes. I also feel that there is just a slight preference for J over P which is why I have troubles sometimes discerning if I'm a J or P dominant too.


Fascinating. So do you feel like there is no strong distinction between Feeling and Thinking then? I mean, when you read a description of Ti and a description of Fi, do they seem to be describing something similar in your (un?)consciousness or is it more like you can tell the differences but feel like your own experience is some sort of blend of them? Or something else?


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

mimesis said:


> I'm just adding quotes, because I'm that lazy today.
> 
> 
> 
> However, I don't think that's what she meant.


this is what i meant:

"So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions-thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.-that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself. Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies.[Psychological types "Definitions," CW 6, par. 705.]"

"Fusion of the psychological functions, of thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, feeling with intuition, and so on, is archaic, as is also the fusion of part of a function with its counterpart.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 684.]"



http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/o#opposites said:


> Opposites
> Psychologically, the ego and the unconscious. (See also compensation, conflict, progression and transcendent function.)
> 
> 
> ...





> Conflict
> A state of indecision, accompanied by inner tension. (See also opposites and transcendent function.)
> 
> 
> ...





http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/c#compensation said:


> Compensation
> A natural process aimed at establishing or maintaining balance within the psyche. (See also active imagination, dreams, neurosis and self-regulation of the psyche.)
> 
> 
> ...





http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/s#selfRegulation said:


> Self-regulation of the psyche
> A concept based on the compensatory relationship between consciousness and the unconscious. (See also adaptation, compensation, neurosis, opposites and transcendent function.)
> 
> 
> ...





> Transcendent function
> A psychic function that arises from the tension between consciousness and the unconscious and supports their union. (See also opposites and tertium non datur.)
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

hornet said:


> I got that you did post it as a joke.
> Still the post creator didn't joke and neither do all the people running around believing that they use shadow functions.
> It is a very Ne thing to do btw to believe that the idea of the possibility makes it a reality.
> No surprise that INTPs are at the forefront of the we use Fi too movement... XD


Hey, I'm _right_ up there with you battling the idea of Ti dominants having a high preference for Fi (as an INTP). It's something I've seen before and I very readily dismiss the whole idea, because it does indeed to me seem that it's just about people being opinionated and thinking that "Fi is about values, and I have those in spades, so I'm _also_ Fi dominant!" The two functions have a lot of trouble getting along, and quite naturally step on each other's toes, because they both try to fill the same role but have very opposed methods of approach. This is something I've had to contend with very directly in my relationship with my ENFP, and I will not deny that it can be difficult.

As for the general idea of having some sort of amalgamation of Ti, Fi and Ni... accepting that as true essentially disregards the systematic understanding of type that the function models give, and essentially you are replacing it with another theory that simply incorporates various elements of the system. Not only are Ti and Fi naturally in opposition (and strong use of both would _produce_ great stress on the psyche), but Ti/Fi and Ni aren't even of the same nature in terms of their cognitive presence. Ti and Fi are introverted rational functions, while Ni is an introverted irrational function. To combine the two types of functions (let alone adding another) would be to throw out the insight Jungian theory gives us. The reason we delineate cognitive processes into distinct functions is so we can model them, so combining them brings us back to square one.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Naama said:


> this is what i meant:
> 
> "So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions-thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.-that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself. Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies.[Psychological types "Definitions," CW 6, par. 705.]"
> 
> "Fusion of the psychological functions, of thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, feeling with intuition, and so on, is archaic, as is also the fusion of part of a function with its counterpart.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 684.]"


Yes, I know all that stuff, but still, we are talking differentiation. I can tell you they are differentiated and not archaic in my case. 

I don't know about @_Neverontime_, but I personally can differentiate personal emotion, from Fi from Ti from Fe from Te. 

However I don't think I can go with Jung with his application of thermodynamics to the psyche. Let's face it the good man was synthesizing from different sources as @_Abraxas_ already mentioned. Thermodynamics is thermodynamics because Newton wasn't universally applicable. 



> The Laws of Thermodynamics take on a special importance because of their scope. It has been shown that Newton's laws of physics are only applicable in certain conditions. These conditions include pretty much every situation important to most engineers, chemists, and scientists. However, there are some known conditions where "Newtonian" physics are inaccurate. The Laws of Thermodynamics have no such exceptions. Energy is conserved, regardless of the amount or type of energy. Closed systems always tend towards greater entropy unless externally modified, whether those systems are atomic or galactic in size. - See more at: Three Laws of Thermodynamics


The difference with Jung's theory is that it cannot be tested in any way, as opposed to thermodynamics. And Jung said the psyche was not a 'completely closed' system (cause it could/would lead to psychic entropy). And this is quite important, because it's what you base your argument on. So I ask you, can you explain to me why you think thermodynamics is applicable?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

RoSoDude said:


> Hey, I'm _right_ up there with you battling the idea of Ti dominants having a high preference for Fi (as an INT. It's something I've seen before and I very readily dismiss the whole idea, because it does indeed to me seem that it's just about people being opinionated and thinking that "Fi is about values, and I have those in spades, so I'm _also_ Fi dominant!" The two functions have a lot of trouble getting along, and quite naturally step on each other's toes, because they both try to fill the same role but have very opposed methods of approach. This is something I've had to contend with very directly in my relationship with my ENFP, and I will not deny that it can be difficult.
> 
> As for the general idea of having some sort of amalgamation of Ti, Fi and Ni... accepting that as true essentially disregards the systematic understanding of type that the function models give, and essentially you are replacing it with another theory that simply incorporates various elements of the system. Not only are Ti and Fi naturally in opposition (and strong use of both would _produce_ great stress on the psyche), but Ti/Fi and Ni aren't even of the same nature in terms of their cognitive presence. Ti and Fi are introverted rational functions, while Ni is an introverted irrational function. To combine the two types of functions (let alone adding another) would be to throw out the insight Jungian theory gives us. The reason we delineate cognitive processes into distinct functions is so we can model them, so combining them brings us back to square one.


Damn, you almost make it sound logic, until you end with 'would be to throw out the insight Jungian theory gives us'. That's a lot of words you need to say "Because Dr. Jung says so". 

Besides, yes Ti and Fi can conflict (interpersonal), but it really depends on the person. And I wouldn't underestimate the role Si plays in this. Two Fi-doms can clash just as much. Ti and Fi are not inherently hostile to one another, however a person can be.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Ti and Fi simply constitute a personal approach to judgement in both cases. Fe and Te treat knowledge as something that already exists "out there" and is simply waiting to be "discovered" if you will. That is what makes them extroverted. But they don't make a person extraverted, the person already is either introverted or extroverted, and so their judgement takes in their bias for one or the other, either a subjective approach it an objective one. For an introvert, it doesn't really matter if they choose to side with their own feelings or their own ideas, what matters is that it comes to reflect them as a person. It's about integrity, either you side with your own feelings, or you listen to your own thoughts. An extravert would never let such things get in the way. They base their thinking or feelings on "matters of fact" - the consensus or opinions of others actually play the central role in their judgment.

These functions are exceptional easy to tell apart then, and it is not hard to spot people who have not developed a clear bias for any of these forms of judgement, suggesting a poorly differentiated type at best, or possibly some form of neurosis or pathology at worst.

@_mimesis_, your above post in which you mentioned me was really insightful and I only hope that everyone reads it and understands the depth of what you are trying to say. If Jung really intended for his psychology to be as empirical as thermodynamics I'm going to assume he would have taken a different approach.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

So, we've established that it's not a fusion of functions creating the transcendent function. The transcendent function directs energy from different functions along the same channel? Like constructing a new road to redirect congested traffic?


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

mimesis said:


> Yes, I know all that stuff, but still, we are talking differentiation. I can tell you they are differentiated and not archaic in my case.
> 
> I don't know about @_Neverontime_, but I personally can differentiate personal emotion, from Fi from Ti from Fe from Te.
> 
> ...


This isnt about thermodynamics. But when neurons doesent reach the threshold of activation, they keep that charge in, until the threshold is reached. Naturally it doesent last forever, but nevertheless that does happen. Also when it comes to unconscious, that what doesent get into consciousness, just doesent get to limbic system and prefrontal lobes, nevetheless they modify neurons on areas that they do activate, and do so in the same way as if it cale to consciousness. Also the actionpotentials that go to brains areas which are considered introverted, comes from areas that are "extraverted", these actionpotentials doesent appear out of nowhere, but come from somewhere and are out of the origin. This follows the Jungs idea of thermodynamics.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Naama said:


> This isnt about thermodynamics. But when neurons doesent reach the threshold of activation, they keep that charge in, until the threshold is reached. Naturally it doesent last forever, but nevertheless that does happen. Also when it comes to unconscious, that what doesent get into consciousness, just doesent get to limbic system and prefrontal lobes, nevetheless they modify neurons on areas that they do activate, and do so in the same way as if it cale to consciousness. Also the actionpotentials that go to brains areas which are considered introverted, comes from areas that are "extraverted", these actionpotentials doesent appear out of nowhere, but come from somewhere and are out of the origin. This follows the Jungs idea of thermodynamics.


I know how actionpotentials work, still don't understand what you are trying to say here. Actionpotential of a neuron doesn't prove his psychodynamic. (conscious vs unconscious). I'd say there is a lot of activity that is not conscious. For instance, regulating my body. I think his ideas on libido are more related to eastern traditions (e.g. Brahman) than to thermodynamics anyway.

The habitual attitude in the process of apperception however is a different thing, and I don't think this necessarily requires thermodynamics to be explained. This is where the transcendent function comes in, because it allows both (opposite) attitudes, without becoming 'confused'. This leads to developing a total different (or differently differentiated) 'personal construct' or frame of reference.


----------

